It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Important 2nd Amendment Court Case

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Answer


Full-auto fire is fairly pointless but people always want what they can't have


that there is only a half truth, granted spraying and praying is pointless except to maybe make the enemy keep their heads down. controlled bursts are a very effective.
plus if that was the case they military's of the world wouldn't continue to develop machine guns, sub machine guns, and select fire rifles with burst control fire mechanisms.



I should have stated "fairly pointless for the average Joe."

Is it fun? Sure. Is it effective in anything but pistol-caliber sub guns? Not really.

The military primarily uses full-auto in belt-fed weapons for suppressing fire and little else. Controlled semi-auto fire is what's taught and for good reason.




posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: skunkape23
Anybody who would pay $20,000 for an M-16 would have to have a hole in their head.
It is not hard to get full auto fire from an AR for a fraction of that.
There are legal modifications that will enable emptying a 30 round clip in under 2 seconds, if that's your thing.


Many people who buy machineguns do so for the investment value.

Full-auto fire is fairly pointless but people always want what they can't have.


That's because in warfare, full auto is used for suppression and not so much for killing people. You can do FAR more damage with semi-auto than you can with full auto.


Oh believe me, I know.

I happen to have an M-16 laying on the couch next to me.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Exactly.
Hollywood made full auto sexy but if you actually have to CARRY a combat load ,out hosing what ever target down will leave a person unarmed rather quickly.
They are toys not tools,at this point.
I suppose if a gang comes at you burst fife would be nice but so far I haven't seen them in a whole lot of swarm attacks.
And a Fed team would just drop back and use more heanier fire on a fixed position anyway.
Mobility ,tactics and semi auto with acuracy is the way to go.
edit on 23-4-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Yea but...happiness is a belt-fed weapon.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Yea but...happiness is a belt-fed weapon.


I took this pic years ago...




posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

At rhe cost of AMMO you'd better have a NICE income...
On a more plaesant note for me I got a bag of M60 links so maybe one day...



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Oh I would never do it if I had to actually pay for it.

But with somebody else's ammo?

Yes please.

@ Answer - lol! Tied maybe. In my book anyway

edit on 23-4-2015 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
One bullet, well placed.
More my style.
If you need to sweep the street, a pump 12 gauge would be my weapon of choice.
edit on 23-4-2015 by skunkape23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
The best news from today is that the case was not dismissed.

There's no word yet on the next court date but the fact that the judge didn't immediately side with the DOJ and refuse to move forward is a small victory.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Exactly.
Hollywood made full auto sexy but if you actually have to CARRY a combat load ,out hosing what ever target down will leave a person unarmed rather quickly.
They are toys not tools,at this point.
I suppose if a gang comes at you burst fife would be nice but so far I haven't seen them in a whole lot of swarm attacks.
And a Fed team would just drop back and use more heanier fire on a fixed position anyway.
Mobility ,tactics and semi auto with acuracy is the way to go.


Especially considering how accurate semi-auto rifles have gotten. This is why movies drive me crazy when it shows henchmen just shooting wildly at the good guy. I'm like "YOU HAVE ONE OF THE MOST ACCURATE GUNS IN THE WORLD! STOP AND AIM!"



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Movies have 20 foot firefights that would be solved WAY more quicker with any trained shooter much less a military fight .
I WISH they could handle that a little better.

AND SHOULDER the rifles!



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

And stop firing two pistols at once. That is physically impossible to aim with any level of accuracy while firing two guns simultaneously.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The folks in Hollywood probably figure shootouts would be way too boring if people actually aimed and hit their target.
edit on 4/24/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Answer


Full-auto fire is fairly pointless but people always want what they can't have


that there is only a half truth, granted spraying and praying is pointless except to maybe make the enemy keep their heads down. controlled bursts are a very effective.
plus if that was the case they military's of the world wouldn't continue to develop machine guns, sub machine guns, and select fire rifles with burst control fire mechanisms.



I should have stated "fairly pointless for the average Joe."

Is it fun? Sure. Is it effective in anything but pistol-caliber sub guns? Not really.

The military primarily uses full-auto in belt-fed weapons for suppressing fire and little else. Controlled semi-auto fire is what's taught and for good reason.


also indirect fire into terrain dead zones. talking mainly crew served weapons though. an infantry man does not need a fully auto personal weapon.

edit on 24-4-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
If one looks at the responses from England about our guns THEY sure believe it's real.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
movie villains and the A team.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I would love to have a thompson machine gun though. not to fire and hit stuff. but just so i could have one.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Of course that one shot that hit the shoulder is a flesh wound and did no serious damage to the tendons, musculature structure or severed any arteries.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Answer

Of course that one shot that hit the shoulder is a flesh wound and did no serious damage to the tendons, musculature structure or severed any arteries.


Of course, he just wraps a piece of shirt around it and keeps fighting.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

eh from that time period a lot of law enforcement took the weapons of the gangsters they took out as trophy's ,hoover was alleged to have quite the collection and they often end up in possesion of law enforcement for historical reasons if they dont end up in a musem


www.myalcaponemuseum.com... this site claims to know where the bulk of the weapons from the st v day massacre are ,which appears to be a police department in chicago so that is perhaps where the member saw the weapons


www.neatorama.com... being used in important or memorable crimes tends to increase the value of the firearm like booths derringer for example or jack rubys
edit on 24-4-2015 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join