Will the Second Amendment survive?

[slang]

Originally Posted by Radar

I'd be willing to bet there are more machine guns in the hands of American civilians than in the hands of the U.S. military.

Ok, I'll put 10 pesos on Radar for this one.

The gangs, the collectors, and the ex-military guys have more.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

I'd be willing to bet there are more machine guns in the hands of American civilians than in the hands of the U.S. military.

I would doubt that. The majority of all rifles in the inventory can fire on full auto. Plus the military has much more ammo than any civilian could hope to own.

I will now exercise my right not to read the last 9 pages of this circular argument.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

How much is plenty? I know there are a good amount but enough to stop the need of importing those types of guns? I honestly don't know this so I am just making assumptions on the number.

Are you wondering, if civil unrest broke out it could be defeated by cutting off imports? No.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I would doubt that. The majority of all rifles in the inventory can fire on full auto.

Which they rarely use, because more than 3 rounds is inaccurate and wasteful.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Which they rarely use, because more than 3 rounds is inaccurate and wasteful.

Correct.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hey, I'm not just a pretty face ya know.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Are you wondering, if civil unrest broke out it could be defeated by cutting off imports? No.

I don't think so. If civil rest breaks out in America, there would be no way to stop the import of heavy guns and bombs.

What I am wondering is if civil rest does break out, are there enough to heavy guns in the US right now so the importation of more heavy guns is not needed? If there are 300 million machine guns in civilian hands in the US right now, the importation of more machine guns will not be needed. Anyone who does fight the revolution will have three or four. But if there are only 300,000 machine guns, importation will be needed.

[deadbeater]

I'm not talking about just rifles. I'm talking about the miltary with tanks and airplanes as well. Can't shoot them all down. After all, this is American production we are talking about. And corporations will side with the government. The government and the corporation combined will successfully suppress even a gun-toting nation.

[piercehawkeye45]

But corporations are worked by the people.

Well, they will just move somewhere else then wouldn't they?

[deadbeater]

Not if they are part of the military industrial complex. And who knows if foreign military industries won't help the government from these home grown 'terrorists'?

[ZenGum]

I'm surprised that none of the gun-totin' types around these parts have yet pointed out the difference between "automatic rifles" and "machine guns".

AKs, M-16s, Uzis, etc are automatic rifles (or pistols as the case may be) although it is common for folks to refer to them as "machine guns" in the sense of "hold the trigger in and bangbangbangbangbangbangbang".

Machine guns, strictly speaking, are things like M-60s or larger; usually belt fed, much larger caliber, heavier weapons.

I wonder if the disagreement above was due to mixing these two senses of "machine gun".
That US civilians hold more automatic rifles than the military is quite plausible. More (strictly) machine guns ... seems less plausible to this outsider.

And so, imagine 10,000 civilians with automatic rifles*, against 500 trained military with tanks, artillery, air support, full command and control networks .... if it came to a pitched battle, I'd rather be inside one of the tanks.

EDIT: * and a few heavier weapons...

[deadbeater]

Also, more importantly, America is not like Israel, where each citizen undergo mandatory military training and service. Israeli citizens can in this case take on the Israeli government.

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by Urruke

(though I perfur the bow, even though it's more expensive it requires actual skill to kill something.. which a gun needs little)

So, I leave for a couple days, come back and..wow....I have of this reading to catch up on. I say to myself, "Self, all this circular arguing is going on...why not just skim and read like, every third post." I glance at this thing which says that shooting a gun takes relatively little skill.

The only thing I can ask is: have you tried, a 5.56mm round at 600 yards with a 7.5 mph to 10 mph full value cross wind?

I'm still amazed at how such a simple question as the first post asks, can generate so much talk. I"m amazed I've participated as much as I have. I'm amazed at how much more has been talked about in the few days of my absence.

Reminds me of a movie line: "98% of the people in the world are asleep..the other 2% are amazed."

I figured I'd interject a little more off topic drivel for the reading audiences perusal.

Everyone who likes coke should switch to pepsi, now!

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, no, no, everyone who likes coke should switch to crack, now.

[regular.joe]

Yea, well, the Govt. has been trouncing all over my right to hit the pipe when ever I want. The tyranny!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

The only thing I can ask is: have you tried, a 5.56mm round at 600 yards with a 7.5 mph to 10 mph full value cross wind?

I'm still amazed at how such a simple question as the first post asks, can generate so much talk. I"m amazed I've participated as much as I have. I'm amazed at how much more has been talked about in the few days of my absence.

Reminds me of a movie line: "98% of the people in the world are asleep..the other 2% are amazed."

Welcome to my world...