appalacious 0 Posted August 22, 2007 Report Share Posted August 22, 2007 (edited) No, I'm not a BATF mole. This question was on "Power of 10" tonight. If you're not familiar with the gameshow. The host asks the contestant to try to guess the right percentage of yes's to a poll question. The question: "What percent of Americans think that Americans should be able to own Fully Automatic Weapons?" Contestants guess: 26- with a "cheat" range of 15-35% Actual Answer: 41% I was encouraged to see that the actual percentage (from a hopefully good poll) was about 30 points higher than my guess. I know that Americans CAN own full auto weapons (if they can afford it) but my experience is that most people don't know this is true. J Edited August 23, 2007 by appalacious Link to post Share on other sites
nycGUNguy 61 Posted August 23, 2007 Report Share Posted August 23, 2007 We must have thought about posting this at the same time... I'm just surprised that this is shot here in New York! I would be one of the 41% nyclu3 Link to post Share on other sites
buckandaquarterquarterstaff 5 Posted August 23, 2007 Report Share Posted August 23, 2007 The invisible hand of economics suggests that if you can afford the ammo, full auto is OK. Then enters the world of regulation where free markets and full auto is no longer a good thing, sigh... Link to post Share on other sites
KySoldier 2 Posted August 23, 2007 Report Share Posted August 23, 2007 Yeah I turned to that show for the first time tonight and that was the question that was on. I was surprised they asked that question, that they didn't mention while I was watching that full autos ARE legal, and that 41% were in favor. Not surprised though that the NY audience guessed too low Link to post Share on other sites
mccumber1916 1 Posted August 23, 2007 Report Share Posted August 23, 2007 who'd care if you are BATF anyhow... you're just asking an opinion Link to post Share on other sites
MD_Willington 11 Posted August 23, 2007 Report Share Posted August 23, 2007 I could pass on full auto, I just think the short barrel laws are a steaming load.. even with a short barrel it is still a firearm... it just has a shorter barrel.. big duh! Link to post Share on other sites
BobAsh 582 Posted August 23, 2007 Report Share Posted August 23, 2007 Link to post Share on other sites
fossten 1 Posted August 23, 2007 Report Share Posted August 23, 2007 I could pass on full auto, I just think the short barrel laws are a steaming load.. even with a short barrel it is still a firearm... it just has a shorter barrel.. big duh! I feel the same way, but be careful how you phrase that. The question isn't whether or not you prefer full auto, but whether or not Americans should be PERMITTED to own full auto. There are 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws on the books and I believe if all Americans knew the facts about automatic rifles the percentage would be much higher than 41%. Link to post Share on other sites
MD_Willington 11 Posted August 23, 2007 Report Share Posted August 23, 2007 I could pass on full auto, I just think the short barrel laws are a steaming load.. even with a short barrel it is still a firearm... it just has a shorter barrel.. big duh! I feel the same way, but be careful how you phrase that. The question isn't whether or not you prefer full auto, but whether or not Americans should be PERMITTED to own full auto. There are 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws on the books and I believe if all Americans knew the facts about automatic rifles the percentage would be much higher than 41%. Yeah I realized that after I posted, and I fully understand what you mean. So with that said! I have no problem with anyone else having a fully automatic weapon and I think anyone should be able to buy them in any State of the USA... Yes they are fun No I could not afford to feed one, so you guys better invite me over to play with them .. lol ... I'll help carry the cases of ammo. Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted August 23, 2007 Report Share Posted August 23, 2007 Only felons, lunatics, non citizens should be prohibited from owning whatever they damn well please. And it ain't nobody's business but their own! Link to post Share on other sites
Over DaHill 0 Posted August 23, 2007 Report Share Posted August 23, 2007 Only felons, lunatics, non citizens should be prohibited from owning whatever they damn well please. And it ain't nobody's business but their own! A BIG +1 to that. Joe Link to post Share on other sites
fossten 1 Posted August 23, 2007 Report Share Posted August 23, 2007 Only felons, lunatics, non citizens should be prohibited from owning whatever they damn well please. And it ain't nobody's business but their own! I agree with non citizens and felons, but I'm not sure that the lunatics part will wash with me. Who gets to decide if somebody's a lunatic? Will we all have to undergo psych evals whenever we buy a gun or apply for a permit to carry? Will these be government pshrinks being told behind closed doors to "lean toward" the side of not allowing permits? Anytime you have government involved in permitting you to do anything, you open the door to lose your freedoms. I say start actually harshly punishing violent crime instead of letting criminals go, and leave it at that. Let society work out its own balance through vigilantes and self-protection. Link to post Share on other sites
mccumber1916 1 Posted August 23, 2007 Report Share Posted August 23, 2007 Only felons, lunatics, non citizens should be prohibited from owning whatever they damn well please. And it ain't nobody's business but their own! I agree with non citizens and felons, but I'm not sure that the lunatics part will wash with me. Who gets to decide if somebody's a lunatic? Will we all have to undergo psych evals whenever we buy a gun or apply for a permit to carry? Will these be government pshrinks being told behind closed doors to "lean toward" the side of not allowing permits? Anytime you have government involved in permitting you to do anything, you open the door to lose your freedoms. I say start actually harshly punishing violent crime instead of letting criminals go, and leave it at that. Let society work out its own balance through vigilantes and self-protection. i believe by lunatic he means nuttier than squirrel shit Link to post Share on other sites
acercanto 6 Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 I believe by lunatic he means nuttier than squirrel shit. Yeah, but where do you draw the line? Is it nice dry beechnut shit, or nasty runny Walnut shit, or somewhere between? And who gets to decide what percentage of nuts is required for the shit to be labeled "nutty"? Acer Link to post Share on other sites
mccumber1916 1 Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 I believe by lunatic he means nuttier than squirrel shit. Yeah, but where do you draw the line? Is it nice dry beechnut shit, or nasty runny Walnut shit, or somewhere between? And who gets to decide what percentage of nuts is required for the shit to be labeled "nutty"? Acer actually i'd go somewhere in between... cuz i'm somewhere in between Link to post Share on other sites
fossten 1 Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 I believe by lunatic he means nuttier than squirrel shit. Yeah, but where do you draw the line? Is it nice dry beechnut shit, or nasty runny Walnut shit, or somewhere between? And who gets to decide what percentage of nuts is required for the shit to be labeled "nutty"? Acer It's amazing how quickly a thread can devolve. Seriously, the way the psych standard is defined is the key. The gummint is already making noises about having psych evals part of the background check system after the VA Tech massacre. SOMEBODY has to decide what the standard is. Who can really know if somebody has mental problems? How do you distinguish between mental and emotional problems? Even pshrinks don't do that well, and even then only after months or years of evaluation. And they are often wrong. So the critters will compromise and come up with some bullcrap legislation full of ambiguities and loopholes and we'll have court cases to hash it all out, and good people will go to jail, and dealers will go out of business for selling a Glock to some poor schmuck who went to see his EAP counselor one time because he was getting a divorce from his wife and she slapped him and he didn't know what to do. Link to post Share on other sites
mccumber1916 1 Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 you have a good point... if one is denied on account of mental grounds... they will hit the streets if they want one that bad... and they may even be more pissed due to the rejection Link to post Share on other sites
Koliadko 207 Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 I agree with not allowing felons or non citizens. But banning on mental grounds is a very slippery slope. Maybe just people who lack the ability to understand the law maybe? Link to post Share on other sites
Juggernaut 11,054 Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 As an old Jarhead, I only need one bullet at a time. Semper Fi! LOL!!!! Full auto does get a +1 for fun factor alone though..... I say anyone should be able to own one, BUT ALLOT of people are stupid. Perhaps a safety class like you had to take when you were a kid, before you got your first hunting permit. Link to post Share on other sites
mccumber1916 1 Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 that is exactly how i feel i don't want full auto... but i would realy like a factory ruger rancher they make for france... comes in 3round burst and semi Link to post Share on other sites
jrance@iacwds.com 716 Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 I agree with not allowing felons or non citizens. But banning on mental grounds is a very slippery slope. Maybe just people who lack the ability to understand the law maybe? Would the following work for the "lunatic" definition? During a visit to the psychiatric facility, a visitor asked the Director what the criterion was which defined whether or not a patient should be institutionalized. "Well," said the Director, "we fill up a bathtub, then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the patient and ask him or her to empty the bathtub." "Oh, I understand," said the visitor. "A normal person would use the bucket because it's bigger than the spoon or the teacup." "No." said the Director, "A normal person would pull the plug. Do you want a bed near the window or the door?" Link to post Share on other sites
fossten 1 Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 I agree with not allowing felons or non citizens. But banning on mental grounds is a very slippery slope. Maybe just people who lack the ability to understand the law maybe? Let's see... That would exclude most of Congress, the executive branch, the BATFE, the FAA, half the judges in this country, and almost all trial lawyers. Sounds good to me. If ya wanna have fun with full auto, drop $800 and get ya one a these: No NFA paperwork, not considered a machine gun by the BATFE: Link to post Share on other sites
Koliadko 207 Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 I agree with not allowing felons or non citizens. But banning on mental grounds is a very slippery slope. Maybe just people who lack the ability to understand the law maybe? Let's see... That would exclude most of Congress, the executive branch, the BATFE, the FAA, half the judges in this country, and almost all trial lawyers. Sounds good to me. If ya wanna have fun with full auto, drop $800 and get ya one a these: No NFA paperwork, not considered a machine gun by the BATFE: Hadn't thought about it that way but yeah, they should be excluded. Smart man. Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 As with any other issue of restricting an individuals freedom for "the common good" lunacy is an issue best decided by a jury of 12 of your peers. If left to the "experts" only the sane will be found mentally incompetent. The "experts" let Hinkly go visit his parents UNSUPERVISED. Link to post Share on other sites
netpackrat 566 Posted August 25, 2007 Report Share Posted August 25, 2007 If ya wanna have fun with full auto, drop $800 and get ya one a these: I'm sure that thing is fun, but it ain't a Gatling. Link to post Share on other sites
mccumber1916 1 Posted August 25, 2007 Report Share Posted August 25, 2007 could i take the wheel off and put my cordless drill on it? Link to post Share on other sites
fossten 1 Posted August 25, 2007 Report Share Posted August 25, 2007 could i take the wheel off and put my cordless drill on it? Hmm. If you're kidding, then haha. If you're not kidding, then no, the BATFE would consider that an automatic weapon because it wouldn't require you to crank the handle. Netpackrat, everybody's a critic. Link to post Share on other sites
mccumber1916 1 Posted August 25, 2007 Report Share Posted August 25, 2007 could i take the wheel off and put my cordless drill on it? Hmm. If you're kidding, then haha. If you're not kidding, then no, the BATFE would consider that an automatic weapon because it wouldn't require you to crank the handle. Netpackrat, everybody's a critic. but i can't buy a phalanx off of a us navy cruiser Link to post Share on other sites
fossten 1 Posted August 25, 2007 Report Share Posted August 25, 2007 but i can't buy a phalanx off of a us navy cruiser Link to post Share on other sites
mccumber1916 1 Posted August 25, 2007 Report Share Posted August 25, 2007 (edited) that is so beautiful it almost makes me tear up it'd go good on my mini-van Edited August 25, 2007 by mccumber1916 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts