Our Constitution`s Second Amendment: OUR FOUNDERS MEANING!

[bullmikey]

That was a joke, Mikey.

Uhhhhhhhhhh....

[pickles]

One guy in each fire team was specifically designated as an automatic rifleman when I was in (ancient history, I know). That was back before we “requisitioned” additional hardware in the field and added one or two M-60s per squad, instead of the usual two per platoon, like the Big Green Weenie thought was good enough for government work.

There’s no such thing as too much suppressing fire. I guess on the theory that if Charlie was busy ducking he couldn’t be busy aiming at our hairy arse where they were bobbing in the elephant grass.

As to what happens in a firefight…?

I was in a few dozen or so back in the day and I couldn’t tell you the first thing about what happened in any one of them. The best I can do is tell you **** was flying all over the places and if there was anybody firing neat little three to six rounds bursts I didn’t notice it because of all the rocking and rolling going on at the time. To this day I can't make much sense of any of it. Just a lot of noise and a lot of being scared and a lot of your heart being stuck in your throat is all.

There are some things you can’t train for I’m guessing.

I was never in a firefight. Not a real one. Thank the Lord above.

The weapons I trained on, were not even "fully" auto. You had 3 choices: Safe, Single, and Burst.

My DS said the modifications on the M-16 had been made after Vietnam specifically because of the waste in ammunition and general ineffectiveness of the weapon at full auto.

My point still stands: The AR and M-16 are virtually identical as killing machines.

[pickles]

We can start with the American and French Revolutions. Then there was this recent thing in Egypt as well as the break aways from the old Soviet Union.

With the exception of the American revolution you haven't named a citizenry that was armed.

So what I can learn from your examples is that political will and not bullets is what overthrows government, and we don't need to have an armed citizenry to have that possibility.

Is that what you wanted me to take away for it?

Or do you want to try again?

[bullmikey]

Why?

I wouldn't. An M-16 being fired automatically is far less accurate than an AR-15.

Accuracy isn't all that important when it come to r&r. Believe me, if you'd ever been on the receiving end of both kinds of fire, you'd appreciate the difference. Try zigzagging your way out of a fifteen round burst. The time factor just ain't on your side.

[Smokey 1]

With the exception of the American revolution you haven't named a citizenry that was armed.

So what I can learn from your examples is that political will and not bullets is what overthrows government, and we don't need to have an armed citizenry to have that possibility.

Is that what you wanted me to take away for it?

Or do you want to try again?

I could find more but what is the point? You have your mind closed.

[pickles]

I could find more but what is the point? You have your mind closed.

Ok, find them.

They don't exist.

Political will is what overthrows governments. W or w/o arms.

[pickles]

Accuracy isn't all that important when it come to r&r. Believe me, if you'd ever been on the receiving end of both kinds of fire, you'd appreciate the difference. Try zigzagging your way out of a fifteen round burst. The time factor just ain't on your side.

At 10 yards? Sure.

At 100? I don't think there's a difference.

Again, unless something's changed, the M-16 isn't even a "full" automatic weapon anymore.

[bullmikey]

Mikey, I don't know what was going on back in your day (I've heard stories), but nobody (with rare exceptions) fires on full auto on this type of platform because it's silly. Certainly if I'm 10 yards away from the person on full auto that's going to suck, but most of the rifle-toting public would probably walk the rifle straight up by the end of the magazine. Then they have to reload.

What was going on was that the more supression fire we laid down the less opportunity the boogyman had to shoot back at us. There was always one designated automatic rifleman on every fire team, two per squad. Later we go those guys better fire power than M-16s (the M-60 was a real weed cutter). But the principle was the same. Lots of suppression fire, especially if you meant to close. Charlie was 1st class infantry; he wasn't giving up squat when it comes to putting down good fields of fire. You didn't do the same and he ate you for lunch.

[pickles]

What was going on was that the more supression fire we laid down the less opportunity the boogyman had to shoot back at us. There was always one designated automatic rifleman on every fire team, two per squad. Later we go those guys better fire power than M-16s (the M-60 was a real weed cutter). But the principle was the same. Lots of suppression fire, especially if you meant to close. Charlie was 1st class infantry; he wasn't giving up squat when it comes to putting down good fields of fire. You didn't do the same and he ate you for lunch.

I'm not trying to go against the solid military principle of more firepower. That's unassailable imo. That's why the Army uses SAWs.

But imo that doesn't have a lot do w civilian life.

[soultrain]

And the biggest problem w this isn't whether the citizenry can carry AR-15s or M-16s or has to register or undergo a background check in or to do so, but the massive, bloated "defense" spending.

Something most of the right fully endorses, and if their vote for President is any indication, wanted to see increased.

Funny how that works.

They could slash the DoD budget by 50% (or more) tomorrow and that would be fine with me. Nothing but imperialist murderers. They deserve nothing but the bare minimum to provide for the common defense.

[soultrain]

An armed confrontation between average Joe's and the mighty US military is pretty far fetched. Somewhat more realistic would be civil disturbance, ala Katrina, Sandy, collapse of the dollar.....pick your scenario. I want to be armed and ready. Others are content to cower and await "help" from government thugs

That said, the presence of guns in sufficient number and lethality should give government goons pause, as they kick in our doors, shoot our pets, seize our assets, and generally steamroll our rights

[bullmikey]

My point still stands: The AR and M-16 are virtually identical as killing machines.

I don't argue with that, just that I'd rather come up against the one in the bush than the other. You know I spend a year in the bush back in 70-71, getting shot at all the time, and I never once saw a live Charlie long enough to aim at.

The only AR I ever fired belonged to a friend and that was sometime in the early 90s. It was like the 16 except a lot better made. It had wood instead of plastic and seemed to have a lot more heft to it than I remembered the 16 having.

[ms maggie]

An armed confrontation between average Joe's and the mighty US military is pretty far fetched. Somewhat more realistic would be civil disturbance, ala Katrina, Sandy, collapse of the dollar.....pick your scenario. I want to be armed and ready. Others are content to cower and await "help" from government thugs

That said, the presence of guns in sufficient number and lethality should give government goons pause, as they kick in our doors, shoot our pets, seize our assets, and generally steamroll our rights

Shoot our pets???? The bastards.

[johnpolitics]

Registering guns and limiting purchases is not a limit on the 2nd Amendment.

[Daan]

But that's one of the reasons that are used to gun "rights."

The need to be able to overthrow the government.

"overthrow"?

You make it up as you go along.

Defense against a tyrannical government that has burned the Constitution is more accurate.

.

[Smokey 1]

Ok, find them.

They don't exist.

Political will is what overthrows governments. W or w/o arms.

Of course they exist but its a moot point anyway. It doesn't matter if no overthrows ever happened because the point is the 2nd amendment was included in the Constitution to allow for it here if necessary. You say it can't happen but that doesn't negate the fact that it is the reason the 2nd amendment exists.

[flyboy56]

You were in the Air Force, right?

So what did you hold your weapon for like 2 or was it 3 days?

And you fired it on full-auto?

I can tell that was not my experience. In fact, I never even fired it on burst in the whole six months of training.

Army. 1974-1978.

[pickles]

I don't argue with that, just that I'd rather come up against the one in the bush than the other. You know I spend a year in the bush back in 70-71, getting shot at all the time, and I never once saw a live Charlie long enough to aim at.

The only AR I ever fired belonged to a friend and that was sometime in the early 90s. It was like the 16 except a lot better made. It had wood instead of plastic and seemed to have a lot more heft to it than I remembered the 16 having.

Fair enough, and I agree w that.

Just when. it comes to walking into movie theaters and schools and the like, and killing as many people as possible, it doesn't make much of a difference if you have an AR-15 or an M-16.

[pickles]

Army. 1974-1978.

For some reason I always thought you were Air Force.

When did the M16 come into service?

I thought ya'll carried the M15, which was fully auto?

[Daan]

I was never in a firefight. Not a real one. Thank the Lord above.

The weapons I trained on, were not even "fully" auto. You had 3 choices: Safe, Single, and Burst.

My DS said the modifications on the M-16 had been made after Vietnam specifically because of the waste in ammunition and general ineffectiveness of the weapon at full auto.

My point still stands: The AR and M-16 are virtually identical as killing machines.

You mean because they shoot bullets?

.