PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Should Citizens have fewer gun options than Law Enforcement?


Ground Loop
10-02-2009, 11:37 AM
This came up in a conversation with pro-2A folks, and I was surprised at the even split. I thought it might make a good poll.

Here's the simple question:

Should on-duty Law Enforcement officers have access to firearms that are forbidden to ordinary citizens?
Law Enforcement is Police, FBI, DEA, F&G, animal control -- all domestic law enforcement.
Military (Armed Forces) are not included in this category.

If you believe citizens and Law Enforcement should be able to shop from the exact same catalog, vote No.

If you believe there exists one or more firearm that only LEOs should be able to use, vote Yes.

(For the purpose of this poll, leave out any non-firearm weapon: grenades, batons, sound cannons, tanks, ICBMs, whatever.)

Clarification: Identical means Identical. "Nice M16 sir, I have one just like it." If a gun is banned/restricted/limited, it is blocked from both LEO inventory and my own.

Additional paperwork/background check/taxes/training/certs are acceptable for this poll. The point is you could own it, if you really wanted to and were willing to jump through red tape.

Aleksei Vasiliev
10-02-2009, 11:42 AM
Sort of

I like an NFA style restriction where certain types of guns take more work to get but as long as you can own a gun you can own them too (in an ideal situation, not in California)

Silencers should be unrestricted.

I'm not sure if the MG registry should be opened or not.

Theseus
10-02-2009, 11:49 AM
The government should not have access to weapons that we as citizens don't. That is a quick road to oppression and tyranny.

kf6tac
10-02-2009, 11:57 AM
I'm not sure if this affects which way I'm going to vote on the poll, but we're considering full auto-capable versions of an otherwise identical firearm to be a different firearm than its semi-auto-only counterpart, right?

VHK
10-02-2009, 12:02 PM
The government should not have access to weapons that we as citizens don't. That is a quick road to oppression and tyranny.

+ 1

B.D.Dubloon
10-02-2009, 12:04 PM
The government should not have access to weapons that we as citizens don't. That is a quick road to oppression and tyranny.

+1, this seems to be the obvious spirit of the 2nd amendment.

The Director
10-02-2009, 12:16 PM
I would further clarify that the POLICE shouldn't have access to different weapons than the citizenry has access to.

The MILITARY, on the other hand, will have access to cannon, rockets, nukes, carriers, tanks, etc. I think for us to have access to the same small arms as the military is asking a bit much even.

In any case there will still be far more armed citizens than the military will ever have in it's ranks so I guess it balances it out.

wash
10-02-2009, 12:23 PM
I voted no, but really I vote that we should have more choices than local law enforcement.

Cops shouldn't be running around with Saturday night specials or home built duty weapons. They need a higher level of scrutiny to make sure they don't have a bunch of drop pieces or wind up with a gun that can't be traced or doesn't work when they need it to enforce the law.

I have a bit of a hard time saying federal law enforcement shouldn't have gunships and stuff to stop drug runners if citizens can't get the same stuff. There probably should be some limits but a FA Ma Deuce should be obtainable to your average law abiding citizen.

dustoff31
10-02-2009, 12:42 PM
I voted no because it's a silly law, a gun is a gun. A Colt is no more deadly or dangerous than a Ruger.

gd-bh
10-02-2009, 12:48 PM
The government should not have access to weapons that we as citizens don't. That is a quick road to oppression and tyranny.

winner winner, chicken dinner!!

curtisfong
10-02-2009, 12:52 PM
First, I agree there is a distinction between military and local law enforcement. The former is not chartered for domestic policing.

Second, it is clear to me that if there were a law that forced cops to obey all the laws JUST like the rest of us (no exceptions allowed in ANY legislation) we'd have much saner laws in general.

Third, here in CA, add that the Movie Industry is also not allowed any exemptions.

Rob Roy
10-02-2009, 1:00 PM
No. I never understood why cops have high cap mags and backup and citizens have to be stuck with low caps and no backup :(

kf6tac
10-02-2009, 1:01 PM
No. I never understood why cops have high cap mags and backup and citizens have to be stuck with low caps and no backup :(

Because only criminals want to buy guns, duh.

Scratch705
10-02-2009, 1:07 PM
i feel that if i wanted to and can afford a tactical armored vehicle with a gau2 mounted up top, i should be able to, the same for law enforcement.

although it would make uprisings harder since i doubt many here can get RPG's that easily to take them out when the time comes

Ground Loop
10-02-2009, 1:20 PM
I would hold this poll up as an interesting and informative distinction between CalGuns membership, and gun owner groups at large. We here hold the 2A as absolute, even if it means arming people we don't like.

Heck, even NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson:

"I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but as far as assault weapons to a civilian, if you… if you… it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five rounds."


This same question at the watercooler was closer to a 50/50 split among casual gun owners.

I would also expect a LEO forum to differ substantially. :)

yellowfin
10-02-2009, 1:25 PM
Since cops are only the response, not the first line of defense, you bet your keister we should have access to anything and everything they can get. If they think it's useful to come in AFTER they know it's a threat I couldn't stop, then why in the heck should I not have in the first place to keep myself alive at the very beginning? Am I supposed to be disposable fodder? I am the first line of defense for myself, my wife, and our family.

And I too agree that there should be absolutely no distinction whatsoever between LE and non LE for gun laws. Period. It's totally inexcusable. I spent more time with a gun in my hands by the time I was 12 than most of them do in their whole career so some idea that they're trained and I'm not is complete garbage.

tube_ee
10-02-2009, 1:28 PM
Because your job does not make you special.

Being a cop is a job. It's no different in principle from being a greeter at Wal-Mart. You are trading your time for your employer's money. And that money (plus whatever additional benefits individual you or collective you have been able to negotiate) is all you're entitled to.

You get a paycheck.

And that's it.

You are not special.

--Shannon

The Director
10-02-2009, 1:29 PM
Third, here in CA, add that the Movie Industry is also not allowed any exemptions.

Hey man, I am in the industry. As the director of action movies, do you really want to pay 8 bucks to see mr action hero use a bullet button for a mag change, or be empty after ten rounds?

Come on, man.

Eckolaker
10-02-2009, 1:33 PM
The government should not have access to weapons that we as citizens don't. That is a quick road to oppression and tyranny.

Exactly +1

curtisfong
10-02-2009, 1:33 PM
Hey man, I am in the industry. As the director of action movies, do you really want to pay 8 bucks to see mr action hero use a bullet button for a mag change, or be empty after ten rounds?


Ask yourself how long CA's gun control laws would last if they HAD to apply to the movie industry?

POLICESTATE
10-02-2009, 1:36 PM
The government should not have access to weapons that we as citizens don't. That is a quick road to oppression and tyranny.

:thumbsup:

When our country was formed (and for quite awhile after as well) the best anyone could get was a muzzle-loading rifle. Govt, army, police, citizens.

I see no reason why it should be any different now except that you want govt to have the ability to enslave the citizenry and turn them all into subjects.

The Director
10-02-2009, 2:24 PM
Ask yourself how long CA's gun control laws would last if they HAD to apply to the movie industry?

The question is absolutely irrelevant. The movie industry has access to a wide range of weaponry including items you could never get as a civilian. Because of this, you get movies like Blackhawk Down, Top Gun, etc. How do you tell those stories without the hardware?

And it's not even that big of a deal. The amount of NFA small arms a prop house might possess is very small, say a few thousand pieces at most, they are recycled from film to film, and they never use live ammunition....so what's the beef here? Have you been to a movie prop house? There's nary a live round in the whole place.

Meanwhile, your friendly neighborhood police force has full auto weapons, armored personnel carriers, crew served weapons, tear gas, body armor, armor piercing ammunition, riot gear (including billy clubs), .50BMG rifles, concussion and flash bang grenades and high capacity magazines - all of which may be used against the general public in a second if the need arises.

Who cares about the industry. It's the militarization of the police that should worry you.

taloft
10-02-2009, 2:45 PM
I think citizens should have access to any and all small arms that the Government currently has in inventory. This includes the military. If the Government decided to get tyrannical do you think they'd only use the police, or would they bring in the military?

Sounds to me like some people don't understand the underlying concept behind the 2nd Amendment. Either that or they are projecting their personal short comings onto the rest of us. I personally wouldn't go around lobbing grenades into classrooms but, that's just me.;)

Roadrunner
10-02-2009, 2:58 PM
The government should not have access to weapons that we as citizens don't. That is a quick road to oppression and tyranny.

Exactly right. FA firearms in the hands of the law abiding are no worse than semis, but give free people a better ability to make sure we stay free.

woodsman
10-02-2009, 3:07 PM
Unfortunately many LE officers seem to associate guns with bad guys so us law abiding folk often get put into that group.
It is much more difficult to obey laws than disregard them, particularly when it comes to guns.

As said many times on these forums, police are citizens that are paid to enforce our laws and are not above us.

I would be more than willing to protect them, even though I'm not paid to do so, should it be required.

Now, if I could only buy that off roster gun I shoot best with.

curtisfong
10-02-2009, 3:11 PM
Because of this, you get movies like Blackhawk Down, Top Gun, etc. How do you tell those stories without the hardware?

Somehow, this doesn't worry me in the least. It isn't high on my priority list. The fact that you think it is important enough that the movie industry and the movie industry alone (aside from LEO) get exemptions only underscores why exemptions are ridiculous. If the movie industry wants to film in CA, they should obey CA laws. If they do not like those laws, I find it offensive that on one hand, they are for gun-control in public, but on the other hand, constantly seek exemptions for themselves. Just like DiFi. Disgusting.

And it's not even that big of a deal. The amount of NFA small arms a prop house might possess is very small, say a few thousand pieces at most, they are recycled from film to film, and they never use live ammunition....so what's the beef here? Have you been to a movie prop house? There's nary a live round in the whole place.

I think you are under the misapprehension that I do not trust you (or the film industry) with NFA weapons.

Meanwhile, your friendly neighborhood police force has full auto weapons, armored personnel carriers, crew served weapons, tear gas, body armor, armor piercing ammunition, riot gear (including billy clubs), .50BMG rifles, concussion and flash bang grenades and high capacity magazines - all of which may be used against the general public in a second if the need arises.

As I've said, if the cops can have it, so should I.

Who cares about the industry.

I do. The industry is driving anti-gun propoganda, but at the same time, demanding exemptions. I find that offensive.

It's the militarization of the police that should worry you.

That always worries me.

The Director
10-02-2009, 3:19 PM
I don't think the industry is "driving anti gun propaganda". Don't confuse the film industry with the media, which is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Also, the kind of people who own these prop houses are generally very pro gun, and very much gun guys just as we are.

You don't have to beat them - you can join them. If you like, you can get all the licenses they have, and also possess full auto, NFA, and DD weapons for use in film production. No one is saying you can't - it doesn't even cost very much - you just need to demonstrate you have a legitimate business.

curtisfong
10-02-2009, 3:32 PM
No one is saying you can't - it doesn't even cost very much - you just need to demonstrate you have a legitimate business.

This sounds too much like the "I got mine, and so can you... but only if you have good cause" attitude of the TBJ CCW camp. I don't mean to offend, but this isn't really convincing me that the movie industry should be getting exemptions.

The only thing that would convince me that they were legitimate exemptions was if the law said "you can own NFA weapons if you use them as a form of expression". i.e. 1st amendment. Why should it matter if expressing myself is a "business"?

lioneaglegriffin
10-02-2009, 3:33 PM
i don't think we should have the less lethal shotguns like the taser shotgun or the beanbag shotgun, breaching shotgun (of course any shot gun can be a breaching shotgun but i mean those specifically made to breach), aside from these specialty shotguns everything else is cool.

madhatter
10-02-2009, 3:36 PM
If I can't buy it thay can't buy it.

The Director
10-02-2009, 3:46 PM
This sounds too much like the "I got mine, and so can you... but only if you have good cause" attitude of the TBJ CCW camp. I don't mean to offend, but this isn't really convincing me that the movie industry should be getting exemptions.

The only thing that would convince me that they were legitimate exemptions was if the law said "you can own NFA weapons if you use them as a form of expression". i.e. 1st amendment. Why should it matter if expressing myself is a "business"?

Totally different. The film industry didn't invent the NFA, but they must abide by it. It's isn't even like a "may issue" CCW or having to show good cause. A guy like Mike Gibbons, who owned one of the biggest movie gun houses in Hollywood is just a normal guy with a business. He's not a studio (although studios rent from him) nor is he particularly wealthy. He's obtained th necessary licenses and built a decent business. He has to report to the CLEO every time he needs to buy new guns. Totally regulated. And yes, if you had the need for NFA weapons for a legitimate film production, no matter what the size, you could get them fairly easily. No joke. The licensing for it is totally unlike a CCW in any respect.

curtisfong
10-02-2009, 3:48 PM
The licensing requirements *all* say you have to have a "legitimate business".

Why? What does that have anything to do with anything? Why can't I have NFA weapons to shoot a home movie?

The Director
10-02-2009, 3:56 PM
The licensing requirements *all* say you have to have a "legitimate business".

Why? What does that have anything to do with anything? Why can't I have NFA weapons to shoot a home movie?

Even if you had them you couldn't discharge them without permits. It's the world we live in, man. The movie biz didn't invent that.

I, for one, am not sure I WANT just anyone having access to NFA weapons. My dream for California is to have the same laws as Arizona where it pertains to gear, carry, and what weapons you can buy. Everyone that wants an NFA weapon needs to get the NFA stamp and then you're good to go.

And honestly, if you want to make a "home movie" and fire off NFA weapons in your backyard - I'm not cool with it - especially if I'm your neighbor :p

curtisfong
10-02-2009, 3:57 PM
Heh believe me, I have no intention of firing any live rounds for filming a home movie. Just sayin, if it's a loophole for *ownership* i have no problem with it *if* it applies to all people on 1st amendment grounds.

The Director
10-02-2009, 4:06 PM
Well that's the thing - I personally believe in RKBA as a purely 2nd amendment right for the use it was intended - personal protection, and to guard against government tyranny.

I think a 1st amendment claim to firearms ownerships as purely "freedom of expression" is taking it too far, and I think it isn't what the founding fathers had in mind.

Cause if you want to express your views by carrying a bandolier of grenades or an RPG around just to make a point, that ain't cool, bro, fo shizzle.

curtisfong
10-02-2009, 4:08 PM
Cause if you want to express your views by carrying a bandolier of grenades or an RPG around just to make a point, that ain't cool, bro, fo shizzle.

I agree. But the context here is that movie producers need access to "illegal weapons" to.. make movies. The only possible rationale for that is artistic expression.

Legasat
10-02-2009, 4:59 PM
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Seems pretty clear to me. And knowing why they put it in the BoR seems pretty clear to me also.

We should have access to everything the cops do.

chief003
10-02-2009, 4:59 PM
I voted no because it's a silly law, a gun is a gun. A Colt is no more deadly or dangerous than a Ruger.

I agree, a gun is a gun...and the projectile that leaves the barrel is as deadly from a rifle that is ‘evil and black’ as it is from one that is made of wood.

Chief

M. Sage
10-02-2009, 5:10 PM
Sort of

I like an NFA style restriction where certain types of guns take more work to get but as long as you can own a gun you can own them too (in an ideal situation, not in California)

Silencers should be unrestricted.

I'm not sure if the MG registry should be opened or not.

Why? What makes a 17" barrel on a shotgun "bad" that it needs to be registered, but an 18" barrel is a-OK?

I agree on the suppressors. No reason to require registration of those, it's ridiculous.

But why not open the MG registry up? WTF is the point of closing it down? A full-auto is no more dangerous than a semi-auto when it comes down to it. Tactically there are only three uses for full-auto: initiating contact in an ambush, breaking contact when you're ambushed, and suppressive fire. So how does a civvie with a full-auto become more dangerous.

The real question is, if these are the only three uses, why do cops have them?

Solidmch
10-02-2009, 5:24 PM
whatever the police have as far as guns are concearned law abiding citizens should be able to own!

Liberty1
10-02-2009, 5:58 PM
Sort of

I like an NFA style restriction where certain types of guns take more work to get...

Why? NFA doesn't prohibit criminals from aquiring or using those items. NFA only prohibits/restricts us.

There is no logical reason for NFA to exist (other then as 18th Amend. blowback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States)) Now, how to open it up/get rid of it is a whole'nuther discussion.

Rob Roy
10-02-2009, 5:58 PM
Ask yourself how long CA's gun control laws would last if they HAD to apply to the movie industry?
Oh yeah, a good one :thumbsup:

M. Sage
10-02-2009, 7:23 PM
whatever the police have as far as guns are concearned law abiding citizens should be able to own!

I'd actually go farther. There are (many, now that I think about it) firearms that have no legitimate law-enforcement use that citizens have the right to own (but most of them require NFA registration at this time).

CalNRA
10-02-2009, 7:28 PM
Why? What makes a 17" barrel on a shotgun "bad" that it needs to be registered, but an 18" barrel is a-OK?


I would like to see the response as well.

curtisfong
10-02-2009, 7:35 PM
I would like to see the response as well.

Similar question answered here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3143269#post3143269

No clue how accurate it is though.

The Director
10-02-2009, 7:49 PM
While we're on Q&A time, M.Sage kinda answered a nagging question I had for years...

Now we know the 3 uses of automatic gunfire, I'd like to know what active duty, deployed military in a combat zone usually have their rifles set to...automatic, burst, or semi???

I'd love to know the policy on that or if it's up to the individual soldier. I know most are issued with burst guns and usually only special forces have full auto. And I'm talking about their own rifles, not crew served which are obviously auto.

bondmid003
10-02-2009, 7:56 PM
The government should not have access to weapons that we as citizens don't. That is a quick road to oppression and tyranny.

I understand the poll is not including the military but i'm not sure who you're referring to in this quote Theseus.

My friend there is no reason that civilians should have a Mk19 Grenade launcher yet I can think of a dozen reasons why my Marines should have them.

bondmid003
10-02-2009, 8:02 PM
While we're on Q&A time, M.Sage kinda answered a nagging question I had for years...

Now we know the 3 uses of automatic gunfire, I'd like to know what active duty, deployed military in a combat zone usually have their rifles set to...automatic, burst, or semi???

I'd love to know the policy on that or if it's up to the individual soldier. I know most are issued with burst guns and usually only special forces have full auto. And I'm talking about their own rifles, not crew served which are obviously auto.

I can't speak for the Army but in our beloved Corps this kind of thing is up to the individual unit commander (most likely company level) or higher, NOT the individual Marine

The Director
10-02-2009, 8:36 PM
I can't speak for the Army but in our beloved Corps this kind of thing is up to the individual unit commander (most likely company level) or higher, NOT the individual Marine

So what's the policy then - generally?

dwa
10-02-2009, 8:48 PM
While we're on Q&A time, M.Sage kinda answered a nagging question I had for years...

Now we know the 3 uses of automatic gunfire, I'd like to know what active duty, deployed military in a combat zone usually have their rifles set to...automatic, burst, or semi???

I'd love to know the policy on that or if it's up to the individual soldier. I know most are issued with burst guns and usually only special forces have full auto. And I'm talking about their own rifles, not crew served which are obviously auto.

i dont know of any professional military in the world that use full auto of burst as the primary mode of fire save for some of the conscript armies.

the army standard and from conversations i have had with marines is also theirs is the m4/m16 will be utilized in aimed fire. the only time ive used my m4 on burst was when i was dicking around at the range once. a shoulder fired weapon is generally not effective in auto fire. larry vickers has a good video illustrating that you cant miss fast enough to win.

most service rifles around the world retain the select fire ability but it is not utilized in army doctrine.

common consensus is there is no purpose for firing in any other mode than semi, it would probably be up to the individual but im sure his team leader would yell at him for being a dumb ***, and ambushes are to be initiated with an m4 or claymore not crew served, that's out of the -8

The Director
10-02-2009, 8:52 PM
DWA,

Great answer. I've always wondered that. This also proves another point - we ought to have full auto weapons available as well, since they are barely used even in military usage (again, crew served weapons excepted). We already have 9/10ths of the gun available to us as a semi, why not have the rest. Ain't that useful anyways.

Quemtimebo
10-02-2009, 8:57 PM
I recall reading about some little trifle of a skirmish in Middlesex County, MA, fought because of this very issue. April 19, 1775...

CalNRA
10-02-2009, 9:12 PM
Similar question answered here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3143269#post3143269

No clue how accurate it is though.

We were wondering why Mr. Vasilev thought 17 inch barrels need more work to get than 18 inch barrels.

5968
10-02-2009, 9:16 PM
The poll doesn't look like an even split here.

bondmid003
10-02-2009, 9:54 PM
So what's the policy then - generally?

Semi

Like an above poster stated, the policy and standard is aimed fire. I can think of few reasons to fire an M16/M4 on anything other when each fire team has a designated automatic weapon the M249

ship12
10-02-2009, 11:27 PM
I voted no because it's a silly law, a gun is a gun. A Colt is no more deadly or dangerous than a Ruger.

Um, an M-2 .50bmg quite a bit more deadly and dangerous than a Ruger .22.
Theres a reason why ownership of a fully automatic weapon that sends large rounds that penetrate multiple buildings, cars, and people, is banned with few exceptions. I'm sure it's a ton of fun to shoot, but the fact is an AP 50bmg round will go through your target, and keep going a ways.

The only thing I could think that LE typically needs that civilians typically doesn't is high cap magazines. It's incovient having to reload more often at the range. It's deadly to run out of ammo when your getting shot at. Of course, most LE and civilains don't get shot at...

I personally feel that since they have to respond to arrest armed men and I don't, yeah, they should have access to more firepower, only while they're on the job. But there are a lot of weapons that just don't belong out side of militaries, because they cause too much collateral damage.

Of course if your worried about the governement, its not the police you should worry about. I could think of a number of more reasons as to why using an army would be more effective...

Alan Block
10-02-2009, 11:33 PM
My flintlock rifles for example.
1873 Winchester rifle
Colt SAA

Bigbear
10-02-2009, 11:49 PM
The government should not have access to weapons that we as citizens don't. That is a quick road to oppression and tyranny.

+1 This exactly.

CalNRA
10-02-2009, 11:56 PM
The only thing I could think that LE typically needs that civilians typically doesn't is high cap magazines. It's incovient having to reload more often at the range. It's deadly to run out of ammo when your getting shot at. Of course, most LE and civilains don't get shot at...


Most people buy guns for self-protection first, range practice comes as a necessity not a hobby. (Well, for some calgunners guns is jsut a hobby like collecting stamps)

berto
10-03-2009, 12:04 AM
Nope. They work for me.

ENTHUSIAST
10-03-2009, 12:11 AM
+1,000,000

The government should not have access to weapons that we as citizens don't. That is a quick road to oppression and tyranny.

The Wingnut
10-03-2009, 1:37 AM
The Bill of Rights - and hence the second amendment - was written in 1789, six years after the end of the American revolution.

Many of the most decisive battles of the war involved large numbers of militia supporting the Continental Army. These militia units were self-equipped with the same level of weaponry in many cases as their Continental contemporaries and their British opponents. This included muskets, rifles, mortars, cannon and cavalry. They certainly didn't possess these in numbers as large as their counterparts, but they had them.

Anyone making the argument that the 'right to keep and bear arms' never took into account the repeating rifle or fully automatic weapons is turning a blind eye to the possession and use of military grade weaponry in combat by the common citizen, and the recognition and protection of that right six years after the American revolution.

forgiven
10-03-2009, 1:47 AM
No!

The Wingnut
10-03-2009, 1:54 AM
I'd like to know who voted 'yes'. :nuts:

dantodd
10-03-2009, 8:23 AM
The only thing I could think that LE typically needs that civilians typically doesn't is high cap magazines. It's incovient having to reload more often at the range. It's deadly to run out of ammo when your getting shot at. Of course, most LE and civilains don't get shot at...


By this thinking it would be easy to assume that cops should be the ones with restricted capacity magazines as I am quite confident that there are more civilians being shot at than there are cops.

I don't know where to find the numbers but I would guess that there are at least twice as many shootings in the U.S. that are over before police arrive than there are shootings involving police.

GuyW
10-03-2009, 8:43 AM
I voted no, but really I vote that we should have more choices than local law enforcement.


....because the feds have such a good record with Ruby Ridge and Waco...
.

GuyW
10-03-2009, 8:50 AM
Who cares about the industry.

Maybe the Hollywierd commies would rethink their love of government kontrols if they didn't have the toys to meke their movies.

#$%^ 'em.

Let all the "special people" live under the same laws as the average citizen.
.

GuyW
10-03-2009, 8:56 AM
My friend there is no reason that civilians should have a Mk19 Grenade launcher yet I can think of a dozen reasons why my Marines should have them.

Marines have grenade launchers = militiamen have grenade launchers.

By this I mean in the peacetime context.

During the next War of Federal Oppression, militiamen will have grenade launchers, albeit via the harder, extra-legal route....


.

Blackhawk556
10-03-2009, 9:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus View Post
The government should not have access to weapons that we as citizens don't. That is a quick road to oppression and tyranny

true
.................................................. ............................................

they only reason why a person is not able to purchase a firearm is if they can't afford it.

lioneaglegriffin
10-03-2009, 9:35 AM
I'd like to know who voted 'yes'. :nuts:

me.

bomb_on_bus
10-03-2009, 9:43 AM
Well at least this is one thread that makes a whole lotta sense!

To me fair is fair so I feel that if we can't use something to protect ourselves neither can LEO.

They should be able to get the job done with the tools provided under the laws they enforce by the people who voted for those laws.

Maestro Pistolero
10-03-2009, 10:14 AM
The inherent purpose of a weapon is to equalize and gain an advantage in self defense, or offense. To artificially impose a disparity in the small arms available to citizens verses police, would be to gut the Second Amendment for the purpose for which it was intended. Criminals will always have free access to any illegal type of gun, just as they have access to any illegal type of drug, or any other contraband.

dustoff31
10-03-2009, 10:30 AM
Um, an M-2 .50bmg quite a bit more deadly and dangerous than a Ruger .22.
Theres a reason why ownership of a fully automatic weapon that sends large rounds that penetrate multiple buildings, cars, and people, is banned with few exceptions. I'm sure it's a ton of fun to shoot, but the fact is an AP 50bmg round will go through your target, and keep going a ways.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but the ownership of a fully automatic weapon is not banned with few exceptions, yes, even M2s. They are not at all unusual in free America. Anyone allowed to own a firearm can buy, own, and shoot them to whatever extent their wallet permits.

Even in CA, they are not banned per se. You can own them if you can somehow manage to get the permit that they won't issue.

The only thing I could think that LE typically needs that civilians typically doesn't is high cap magazines. It's incovient having to reload more often at the range. It's deadly to run out of ammo when your getting shot at. Of course, most LE and civilains don't get shot at...


Magazine capacity is another non-issue as I see it. Does a civilian become more or less of a dangerous bloodthirsty killer depending on how many bullets are contained in his magazine?

The last statistics I saw which granted are rather old, showed that the average police gunfight involved firing three rounds. So do they need a 15 round magazine? Who cares? Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

nicki
10-03-2009, 11:21 AM
If you believe gun ownership is about sporting purposes, collecting or only personal protection, then you probably would vote yes.

Most of the people in this country would vote Yes, but then again, the people here at Calguns are not like the rest of the country.

Our problem is most of us understand the real reason behind the second amendment which not only gives us the individual right to keep and bear arms, but the collective duty to own suitable militia arms to protect our country from enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.

We understand the real reason for the second amendment, most people, including most gun owners don't. The real issue is freedom and that is why this board probably has the most diverse base of people.

The practice of allowing the government to "infringe on what arms we can have" guts the protections the second amendment was designed for to keep us a "free country".

Without the ability to enforce our rights, we don't have rights, only government revocable privileges.

Unfortunately most people don't understand this concept because NO ONE has taken the time to sit down and explain it to them.

If we are the Masters, then we should not only have access to arms that our servants have, we should have access to even better arms.

The reality is the Heavy Arms like tanks, anti aircraft missiles and such are out of the price range of most people so to even bring them up in discussions is an exercise of grabbing straws.

Yeah I would like to have a full auto, suppressed M4 with a 40mm grenade launcher, but I probably would pass on keeping large if any quantities of live 40 mm explosive grenade rounds in my house.

The price to the American people for being negligent on their "Militia duties" is the current economic mess we are in and the pending crash that is coming.

Nicki

ship12
10-03-2009, 2:02 PM
Well, I hate to break it to you, but the ownership of a fully automatic weapon is not banned with few exceptions, yes, even M2s. They are not at all unusual in free America. Anyone allowed to own a firearm can buy, own, and shoot them to whatever extent their wallet permits.

Even in CA, they are not banned per se. You can own them if you can somehow manage to get the permit that they won't issue.


The M2 isn't really designed to be fired in a city your trying to protect. Are they around, yes. Is it a practical weapon to use for anything besides war and recreational shooting? nope. It's too heavy to carry, and the rounds will overpenetrate your target. Most gun owners only fire it on a range.

Full auto nice with sub machine guns. It allows police to conduct raids using enough firepower to kill a suspect before he can harm them, but still use a round that won't go through a lot of cover and hurt civilains. I'm sure most people would agree this benefits the public in minimizing collateral damage. The last thing you'd want is rounds from LE or suspects going through walls and killing civilians.

I believe most shotguns police use are legal for sale to civilians, so theres not much to talk about here.

5 extra shots in police hand guns ussually won't matter. But honestly, I'd feel bad if an LE officer died protecting civilians because he had to reload and the suspect didn't becuase, because the suspect bought the magazines out of state. 10 round magazines however, do not limit crime. After all, the Virginina Tech shooting involved the use of multiple 10 round magazines.

That pretty much just leaves rifles. Personally, I like rifles, I own a few. But I'd rather have a hand gun or shot gun for self defense. I think the AR bans written poorly and is ineffective, and I don't think LE (or civilians) should suffer becuase of poor legislation. Ofcourse if the suspect has armor, and the additional penetration of the rifle is nessicary, then police should have ARs. Generally, semi auto with a 10 round magazine is fine. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have a 20 or 30 round magazine if they need them. I don't think having the police under armed benefits anyone, except criminals.

Of course even with the free ownership of whatver you want for a militia, you'd need a ton of money to buy a weapon to penetrate military vehicle armor. From what I've seen, the M242 25mm cannon costs $200,000. Without ammo or a vehicle to mount it on, which would also be expensive.

dustoff31
10-03-2009, 2:13 PM
The M2 isn't really designed to be fired in a city your trying to protect. Are they around, yes. Is it a practical weapon to use for anything besides war and recreational shooting? nope. It's too heavy to carry, and the rounds will overpenetrate your target. Most gun owners only fire it on a range.

Full auto nice with sub machine guns. It allows police to conduct raids using enough firepower to kill a suspect before he can harm them, but still use a round that won't go through a lot of cover and hurt civilains. I'm sure most people would agree this benefits the public in minimizing collateral damage. The last thing you'd want is rounds from LE or suspects going through walls and killing civilians.

I believe most shotguns police use are legal for sale to civilians, so theres not much to talk about here.

5 extra shots in police hand guns ussually won't matter. But honestly, I'd feel bad if an LE officer died protecting civilians because he had to reload and the suspect didn't becuase, because the suspect bought the magazines out of state. 10 round magazines however, do not limit crime. After all, the Virginina Tech shooting involved the use of multiple 10 round magazines.

That pretty much just leaves rifles. Personally, I like rifles, I own a few. But I'd rather have a hand gun or shot gun for self defense. I think the AR bans written poorly and is ineffective, and I don't think LE (or civilians) should suffer becuase of poor legislation. Ofcourse if the suspect has armor, and the additional penetration of the rifle is nessicary, then police should have ARs. Generally, semi auto with a 10 round magazine is fine. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have a 20 or 30 round magazine if they need them. I don't think having the police under armed benefits anyone, except criminals.

Of course even with the free ownership of whatver you want for a militia, you'd need a ton of money to buy a weapon to penetrate military vehicle armor. From what I've seen, the M242 25mm cannon costs $200,000. Without ammo or a vehicle to mount it on, which would also be expensive.


I don't believe anyone here is saying that the police should be underarmed. Just that we shouldn't be either.

Everything you say is true. But what has cost and practicality have to do with one's right to have them? Assuming that they are eligible, want to, and can afford it.

McMansions aren't all that practical for one or two people. Outlaw them?

Most people can't afford a Rolls Royce or a Gulfstream jet. Should we ban them?

11Z50
10-03-2009, 2:32 PM
The way I see it, LE is recruited from the populace, paid by the populace and given a mandate by the populace to enforce the laws that were enacted by the populace. That really doesn't give them a special status, merely the right to enforce the laws of the state using that force necessary. Interestingly enough, the powers of arrest between the average citizen and an LEO differ only in that a peace officer may arrest for a felony not committed in his presence without an arrest warrant. (see PC 836/837)

Having said that, as a former LEO I think that the strength of LE is the strength of numbers. A good example is the Northridge Bank Robbery shoot-out. While the bad guys were in possession of guns that were clearly illegal, and exacted a heavy toll, the cops eventually won because there were 2 bad guys and hundreds of cops. The fact that they "borrowed" some then-legal AW's from a local gun shop provides an interesting tangent.

By contrast, the military has a different mandate. This includes the National Guard, who is armed and equipped by the Feds, but belongs to the Governor when not deployed. If a situation gets out of control, ie the LA Riots, the cops can call in the Guard, which does possess superior firepower. Once the Guard arrives, they are in charge, not the cops, which helps quell the situation.

I think LE has a tendency to throw a lot of FUD out there about how they are out-gunned when they could be just as well-armed as any suspect had they not hamstringed themselves with their own policies and procedures. They should be allowed to have SWAT teams and such, but they should only use those weapons that are available to the general public. The focus should be on tactics, not weaponry. I do not think that LE should be allowed to field para-military organizations as well-armed as an infantry platoon.

Mikeb
10-03-2009, 3:12 PM
My issue is simply with the "LIST". If a handgun is unsafe, why isn't it unsafe for everyone, particularly the folk that would carry it in public? If a gun is cheap why shouldn't it be available to folks with limited means? If it will blow up the first time the trigger is pulled, wouldn't that get sorted out in civil court?
Oh I remember now, they couldn't get the "LIST" passed with out the support of LE. So now the folk that can carry guns in the street can carry anything made. While the folk hiding behind their doors should pick from a roster created by people that don't know what they are talking about.
Yeah that makes sense... at least as much as ...
take care
Mike

Hunt
10-03-2009, 5:08 PM
The government should not have access to weapons that we as citizens don't. That is a quick road to oppression and tyranny.

+ 100 if people could only know the definition of Liberty and Tryanny.

yellowfin
10-03-2009, 8:35 PM
Would I want a .50 in my car? No. On my boat? If I were fishing off south Florida or San Diego I very well might.

ghuff
10-03-2009, 10:22 PM
The government should not have access to weapons that we as citizens don't. That is a quick road to oppression and tyranny.

Couldn't have said it better.

M. Sage
10-04-2009, 10:55 AM
While we're on Q&A time, M.Sage kinda answered a nagging question I had for years...

Now we know the 3 uses of automatic gunfire, I'd like to know what active duty, deployed military in a combat zone usually have their rifles set to...automatic, burst, or semi???

I'd love to know the policy on that or if it's up to the individual soldier. I know most are issued with burst guns and usually only special forces have full auto. And I'm talking about their own rifles, not crew served which are obviously auto.

I'm pretty sure they carry their rifles on safe. :p But I did forget one other, less-common use for full-auto: Load a mag full of tracers and a team leader can use it like a laser pointer to direct fire. He just has to move immediately after using it. :chris:

I understand the poll is not including the military but i'm not sure who you're referring to in this quote Theseus.

My friend there is no reason that civilians should have a Mk19 Grenade launcher yet I can think of a dozen reasons why my Marines should have them.

You're asking the wrong question ("is there a good reason for civilians to have this?"). The right question is "is there a good reason for civilians not to have this?"

The inherent purpose of a weapon is to equalize and gain an advantage in self defense, or offense. To artificially impose a disparity in the small arms available to citizens verses police, would be to gut the Second Amendment for the purpose for which it was intended. Criminals will always have free access to any illegal type of gun, just as they have access to any illegal type of drug, or any other contraband.

Nicely put!


The only thing I could think that LE typically needs that civilians typically doesn't is high cap magazines. It's incovient having to reload more often at the range. It's deadly to run out of ammo when your getting shot at. Of course, most LE and civilains don't get shot at...

WRONG! If I get into trouble where I need a gun, I haven't checked in with dispatch so they know my location at all times. I don't have a direct and instant line to said folks who know exactly where I am so they can come help quickly (911 sucks - it's next to useless). I'm not so lucky as to be protected by a "brotherhood" that will nearly kill themselves to come to my aid (they'll get there... in five minutes if I'm lucky). I don't wear body armor on a daily basis, and it would take too long for me to put mine on if someone breaks in. It's very rare that I have an armed (let alone armored) partner watching my back.

I don't... Ok, so I do sometimes keep a loaded carbine in the car. But you can bet your *** that carbine is loaded with one "high capacity" magazine with another on standby.

You and I have more need for "high-capacity" magazines than the police do. Then again, I bet from a practical standpoint I actually do have less need for more magazine - I'm a lot less likely to miss than the average cop. :43:

Full auto nice with sub machine guns. It allows police to conduct raids using enough firepower to kill a suspect before he can harm them, but still use a round that won't go through a lot of cover and hurt civilains. I'm sure most people would agree this benefits the public in minimizing collateral damage. The last thing you'd want is rounds from LE or suspects going through walls and killing civilians.

Actually, you're incorrect. The three main tactical uses of full auto apply to SMGs the same as any other select-fire weapon. You're also incorrect because many (most?) police agencies have become paranoid about facing the possibility of body armor after those bank robbers in LA, so many tactical teams are armed with M4s. SFPD's SWAT team uses HK-53 rifles (imagine an MP-5 in .223).

I believe most shotguns police use are legal for sale to civilians, so theres not much to talk about here.

Most.. in most states. However, some agencies use or have used 16" barrels on their shotguns, mainly to make sure that the shotguns can't be resold to the public after they're "retired". IIRC, LAPD did just that.

That pretty much just leaves rifles. Personally, I like rifles, I own a few. But I'd rather have a hand gun or shot gun for self defense.

Why? Carbines are superior to either handguns or shotguns. Handguns are only better in situations where it's impractical to carry a long gun.

A carbine has lighter recoil, higher capacity, superior accuracy (even at short ranges) and comparable stopping power to a shotgun. It's superior in all of these to a handgun.

Of course even with the free ownership of whatver you want for a militia, you'd need a ton of money to buy a weapon to penetrate military vehicle armor. From what I've seen, the M242 25mm cannon costs $200,000. Without ammo or a vehicle to mount it on, which would also be expensive.

Group buy!

jakemccoy
10-04-2009, 10:17 PM
The following is effectively the same question:

Should law abiding citizens have fewer gun options than criminals and law enforcement?

I'm not sure how any law abiding citizen, in their right mind, could answer yes to that question.

locosway
10-05-2009, 12:44 AM
I don't see a need for FA firearms for the general public, but at the same time I don't think they should be restricted.

As for Cops, they should use whatever they need to use, there should be no restriction. However, there should also be no restriction on citizens.

Dr. Peter Venkman
10-05-2009, 12:55 AM
Because your job does not make you special.

Being a cop is a job. It's no different in principle from being a greeter at Wal-Mart. You are trading your time for your employer's money. And that money (plus whatever additional benefits individual you or collective you have been able to negotiate) is all you're entitled to.

You get a paycheck.

And that's it.

You are not special.

--Shannon

lol @ cops = Wal*Mart greeters. You must not pitch from the windup often. Last time I checked Wal*Mart employees don't have to meet POST standards. :rolleyes:

For the thread topic, citizens should have the same access.

artherd
10-05-2009, 1:28 AM
Hey man, I am in the industry. As the director of action movies, do you really want to pay 8 bucks to see mr action hero use a bullet button for a mag change, or be empty after ten rounds?

Come on, man.

No I want to see myself and my lawyer buddy down the street with an M-134 if they want it.

loather
10-05-2009, 10:52 AM
No I want to see myself and my lawyer buddy down the street with an M-134 if they want it.

Better hit the gym. They weigh about 130 lbs unloaded! :)

bomb_on_bus
10-05-2009, 5:29 PM
No I want to see myself and my lawyer buddy down the street with an M-134 if they want it.

didn't AHHHHHHHNALD lug that around in a couple different flicks?

Mitch
10-05-2009, 5:52 PM
I don't see a need for FA firearms for the general public, but at the same time I don't think they should be restricted.

As for Cops, they should use whatever they need to use, there should be no restriction. However, there should also be no restriction on citizens.

Full auto firearms are very useful for the general public, for recreation and sport.

On the other hand, since the tactical mission of full auto small arms is to lay down suppressive fire to cover flanking or direct assaults, I can't think of why any LE agency would need them. That's not exactly the way LEs are supposed to serve felony warrants.

M. Sage
10-05-2009, 5:55 PM
No I want to see myself and my lawyer buddy down the street with an M-134 if they want it.

Down the street, eh? Overlapping fields of fire for the win!!

M-134 on a pedestal in the bedroom = the ultimate home defense plan. "Home invasion? Warm it up!!!!" :43:

ship12
10-05-2009, 7:54 PM
Full auto firearms are very useful for the general public, for recreation and sport.

On the other hand, since the tactical mission of full auto small arms is to lay down suppressive fire to cover flanking or direct assaults, I can't think of why any LE agency would need them. That's not exactly the way LEs are supposed to serve felony warrants.

I asked a SGT what he thought about the M-4. He told me a story on how an insurgent ran infront of him and 2 other soldiers. They shot him, but he ran out of sight like they missed him. Theres no question an M-4 can kill, they found the guy dead, hiding under a car.

The point is simple, if your using smaller calibers like a 9mm or .223, full auto lets the user put up more lead in a shorter time so you don't have to worry if your first shot drops the target, the next few will. In close combat, like inside buildings, you have less of a concern about accuracy and more on stopping power, so full auto is useful. If your using semi auto, your probbaly shooting as fast as possible...

It has nothing to do with how a warrants supposed to be served, it about what happen when things don't go according to plan.

ship12
10-05-2009, 8:29 PM
Why? Carbines are superior to either handguns or shotguns. Handguns are only better in situations where it's impractical to carry a long gun.

A carbine has lighter recoil, higher capacity, superior accuracy (even at short ranges) and comparable stopping power to a shotgun. It's superior in all of these to a handgun.

A hand gun because a long gun is not always practical. I can keep it in a (locked) case under the seat of my car and few people would see the case is even there. My rifles take up the back seat. I wouldn't take a shot gun with me either, just because of where I live, I'd get a lot of funny looks for having a massive black case in my car. Theres almost no violent crime here. In fact, the city I work in has an agreement with another city to share police.

I'd still prefer a shot gun to a carbine for home defense. More shots per shell, a wider area of impact, larger wound, larger mass of projectiles, etc. The other big thing is just because someones in my house I don't want to risk shooting through them and ruining my stuff... even if it's a small hole.

That not to say carbines are bad. I just happen to not care for them, but they're deadly and fairly accurate to a few hundred meters.

I know the military and LE like shotguns for versatility. It lets them use less than lethal slugs, bean bag rounds, etc, for when they don't want to kill the suspect.

guncrazy17
10-05-2009, 9:20 PM
Remember most if not all of the stupid restrictions we have here in Cali were all endorsed heavily by LE agencies from this state. LE agencies in CA are not friends of law-abiding gun-owner citizens in this state.

7x57
10-05-2009, 9:26 PM
Hey man, I am in the industry. As the director of action movies, do you really want to pay 8 bucks to see mr action hero use a bullet button for a mag change, or be empty after ten rounds?

Come on, man.

No, you come on down to where the "little people" live. If you have a problem with that, you'd better start lobbying Sacramento against gun control with company money, the same as other businesses do.

If you can't do that, then I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever.

7x57

7x57
10-05-2009, 9:29 PM
The only thing that would convince me that they were legitimate exemptions was if the law said "you can own NFA weapons if you use them as a form of expression". i.e. 1st amendment. Why should it matter if expressing myself is a "business"?

I'm going to award the brass ring for getting to a core issue. If I can't own an M4 as a means of expression, neither can the industry.

But it's pointless to argue with someone in the industry on this point--they believe they are special in a hundred ways and simply cannot see that they are not a special aristocratic class.

No aristocratic classes.

7x57

jakemccoy
10-05-2009, 9:51 PM
I never really thought about the exemptions for movies and television. Come to think about it though, the fundamental basis for the exemptions is rather elitist. It goes to show that entertainment is, de facto, above everything else in this country. Screw them.

7x57
10-05-2009, 10:33 PM
Well that's the thing - I personally believe in RKBA as a purely 2nd amendment right for the use it was intended - personal protection, and to guard against government tyranny.


Then if you believe the government (NOT limited to LE) can have any personal arms ordinary citizens can, you are inconsistent. The guns they most intended the 2A to protect were the period-equivalent of an M4.

Or how *did* you think guns were going to defend against tyranny except by ensuring parity of force? (Aside from training, which the founders admitted based on experience would always favor a regular force.)


I think a 1st amendment claim to firearms ownerships as purely "freedom of expression" is taking it too far, and I think it isn't what the founding fathers had in mind.


Then you don't understand the context. They said quite specifically that the only way for you to not fear your government was for your government to fear you. Do you think they imagined the government fearing printing presses or juries? Or even handguns? That would be inane. They meant that the government would fear the people because, if pushed hard enough, the people would turn out to oppose them with modern infantry kit.


Cause if you want to express your views by carrying a bandolier of grenades or an RPG around just to make a point, that ain't cool, bro, fo shizzle.

I'm going to leave aside those, because we'd be distracted by discussing what precisely is an "arm." But we should agree that an M4 is a personal arm, and that if the militia were used that is what I'd have to turn out with because part of "regulating" the militia is ensuring that they have standard gear so the militia can fit into the normal supply chain (in fact, they discussed standardized calibers).

So the fact is that if we were honest about the full meaning of the 2A, the most protected weapon in America would be the M4. The real, select-fire one.

My rights on that as a citizen and militiamen are currently being quite openly Infringed. Even if we had a better government inclined to call on me when needed, I am forbidden from doing my plain duty. If you think your silly little industry matters a hill of beans compared to that, you're part of the problem.

As a side note, you can't hide behind "that's the world we live in." You said, essentially, that it *should* be that way earlier in the thread, if I understood you at all.

7x57

7x57
10-05-2009, 10:39 PM
My friend there is no reason that civilians should have a Mk19 Grenade launcher yet I can think of a dozen reasons why my Marines should have them.

Nonsense. We know the reason, it's just a bit impolite and uncomfortable to say it. The reason is precisely that it's useful against regular troops. Whether or not such weapons are protected, it is ridiculous to suggest there is no reason when they told us at such length why citizens should have battlefield weapons.

Why else do you think Madison spent time writing about the relative numbers of troops the government could possibly field vs. the numbers of militiamen? Precisely because he assumed rough parity of equipment, and not-too-much-worse militia training.

7x57

dwa
10-05-2009, 10:52 PM
I asked a SGT what he thought about the M-4. He told me a story on how an insurgent ran infront of him and 2 other soldiers. They shot him, but he ran out of sight like they missed him. Theres no question an M-4 can kill, they found the guy dead, hiding under a car.

The point is simple, if your using smaller calibers like a 9mm or .223, full auto lets the user put up more lead in a shorter time so you don't have to worry if your first shot drops the target, the next few will. In close combat, like inside buildings, you have less of a concern about accuracy and more on stopping power, so full auto is useful. If your using semi auto, your probbaly shooting as fast as possible...

It has nothing to do with how a warrants supposed to be served, it about what happen when things don't go according to plan.

the m-4 has a burst function not auto, the general consensus is semi auto aimed fire. the military does not train for full auto from an m4 in mout. you use something called controlled pairs and failure drills. in close combat inside buildings accuracy is the greatest concern like how you can shoot through walls where friendlies may or may not be. liberal use if automatic fire from a rifle is a sign of lack of training. im not sure what you mean by stopping power, and when you are firing in semi auto as is sop you are not shooting as fast as possible your firing in controlled pairs.

ship12
10-06-2009, 12:30 AM
To keep my answer short DWA, my point on FA was to justify why an LE officer who used FA would be justified. I only mentioned the army as a way to suggest sometimes 1 shot doesn't stop a person from performing other actions, including running away or firing a weapon at police. aLooking at it now, I wasn't all that clear.

I personally, think an MP5 is more suited for police work, since it has less recoil, and 9mm bullets won't go through a person. 5.56m FMJ/AP bullets, obviously can. Someone was however quick to point out that LE use M-4s because they'll shoot straight through armor. I'm guessing the Mp-5 is fell out of favor with SWAT teams.

Hunt
10-06-2009, 1:04 AM
the more I think about it, I think the police and atf etc should be disarmed at all times except when deployed for a special warrant or border security. Go high tech on traffic control get rid of all this highway banditry use high tech-- put the police to work investigating the banksters. The Citizens should be allowed to be armed at all times this would set the proper balance of force between Citizens and state

artherd
10-06-2009, 1:29 AM
Warm it up!!!!" :43:

I'm about to :)

Mitch
10-06-2009, 7:36 AM
The point is simple, if your using smaller calibers like a 9mm or .223, full auto lets the user put up more lead in a shorter time so you don't have to worry if your first shot drops the target, the next few will. In close combat, like inside buildings, you have less of a concern about accuracy and more on stopping power, so full auto is useful. If your using semi auto, your probbaly shooting as fast as possible...

Police are equipped with shotguns for those scenarios. The shotgun is hands-down the best weapon for CQB. Military guys aren't trained to understand and use the shotgun, but police special units sure are.

But I am biased . . .

locosway
10-06-2009, 8:33 AM
9mm can and will go through a person.

The Director
10-06-2009, 8:46 AM
No, you come on down to where the "little people" live. If you have a problem with that, you'd better start lobbying Sacramento against gun control with company money, the same as other businesses do.

If you can't do that, then I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever.

7x57



Uhhhmmm.....wow. Just wow. I'm not sitting here as the chairman of Universal or something. I'm a working director, not the representative of a studio system...I'm not a big fat production company, I'm an individual.

Your statements really show your complete lack of knowledge on the topic, and as far as sympathy goes, I don't think anyone needs it anyways - definitely not the film industry, which injects billions and billions of dollars into the local and US economy.

As I mentioned before, you must realize there are only a dozen...maybe TWO DOZEN people at most who are licensed to OWN the weapons you are speaking of. Just because you see them in every film, remember that they are the same guns over and over.

I'd say that's a pretty small exemption. Much smaller than the amount of US citizens who legally own their own NFA weapons.

And once again, these are private individuals. The studios rent from them. The studios neither own nor control these types of weapons.

The Director
10-06-2009, 8:59 AM
Here is the bio "about us" page of the largest gun and prop rental house in the country. These guys rent something like 95% off all the movie guns used.

Does any of this sound like some massive faceless studio system to any of you?


"Independent Studio Services (ISS) is the most flexible full service prop house in the world and we will continue to change as the industry does. Since 1977, we have met the prop needs of films, television, theater, commercials, video, corporate clients and more.

ISS began when founder Gregg Bilson, Sr., started renting props, first from his house, then from an old Lockheed hangar. The company soon thrived and Bilson moved into the Sun Valley, CA, prophouse that was home to ISS for 26 years. In 2003, all ISS operations were combined and moved to our current, expanded facility on Wentworth Street in Sunland.

ISS is proud to be part of an ever-growing worldwide entertainment industry. Our vast inventory, range of services and in-house expertise set us apart. But the quality of people here at ISS have made us truly a family business serving many longtime customers.

If you have any questions or comments, please call or e-mail Gregg Bilson, Jr.

Independent Studio Services
9545 Wentworth Street
Sunland, CA 91040 USA
Main Phone: 818-951-5600

Hours of Operation
8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. Pacific, Monday-Friday

CELEBRATING 30 YEARS!

http://www.issprops.com/

The Director
10-06-2009, 9:01 AM
And last (I promise) but not least....how YOU, the average joe, can go about renting full auto guns for your production:

http://www.issprops.com/Weapons/DOJRequirements.aspx

E Pluribus Unum
10-06-2009, 9:04 AM
Why do people try to give police officers elevated status? Police officers are not in the military. They are civilians.

I realize what dictionary.com says, but again, I believe that police and firefighters are civilians. They should have no more equipment than the rest of us.

The second amendment protects us from our government; this is ALL government, federal, state, and local. We cannot really protect ourselves from tyranny if the government (police) have all the good weapons and we are stuck with rocks and a sling.

11Z50
10-06-2009, 2:17 PM
Back when I was growing up, the cops packed around .38's, and maybe rarely a .357. That was considered plenty of gun, and citizens usually owned as good or better weapons. The plan in those days was to have plenty of cops around, so when a situation came up, they could overwhelm a violent subject by waiting him out.

Although the little town I lived in had a Thompson SMG in the Police arsenal, I don't think anybody ever fired it.

There was a big riot one year, and some local thugs barricaded themselves in the Western Auto (a sort of hardware store) that stocked guns and ammo. They started shooting at the cops when they surrounded the place, so several cops ran home and got their hunting rifles out. A few other citizens volunteered to help with their guns as well. After some serious exchanges of gunfire, somebody shot in a tear gas round and burned the place to the ground. Oh well. Crispy critter bad guys.

My point with story is that cops (who are civilians) quelled a very dangerous situation armed with weapons they and other citizens could have. No SWAT teams, no armored vehicles, just a few brave cops with commonly available weapons.

MolonLabe2008
10-06-2009, 3:38 PM
Who in the hell is voting "YES?" :confused:

locosway
10-06-2009, 3:40 PM
Who in the hell is voting "YES?" :confused:

I'd answer, but I don't want to be banned.

7x57
10-06-2009, 3:45 PM
Your statements really show your complete lack of knowledge on the topic,


You speak as though detailed knowledge of the precise nature of the special privileges given the movie industry are necessary to judge them. Sorry, that's not the way enumerated rights work. We've already faced this problem with the media monopoly which believes that the Free Press is a special monopoly privilege designed to protect their monopolistic business model, not an individual right possessed by all and exercisable by all those with a printing press (which these days amounts to a computer and a net connection).

Again, I have already learned that the self-importance and provincialism of the industry more or less precludes it understanding such issues, but there is no Constitutional justification whatsoever for any industry to have special privileges. What you want is the corporate equivalent of all the movie stars who like gun control but pack heat due to their "special relationship" with Lee Baca.


and as far as sympathy goes, I don't think anyone needs it anyways - definitely not the film industry, which injects billions and billions of dollars into the local and US economy.


So I should not oppose setting up special classes of people who can exercise enumerated rights denied to "The People" because you pay a lot of taxes and wages? On the contrary--that makes me more motivated to make sure that you have no special privileges. Again, if you want access to guns for your movies, then you need to play by our rules. If they cramp your business model feel free to ask Sacramento to treat all of us better.


As I mentioned before, you must realize there are only a dozen...maybe TWO DOZEN people at most who are licensed to OWN the weapons you are speaking of. Just because you see them in every film, remember that they are the same guns over and over.


Let me get this straight. You suggested that if the citizens whose militia weapons the 2A was designed to protect wanted to own something that makes Diane Feinstein wet her pants, they should start a business renting guns to the industry. That was pretty novel, suggesting that one should change careers in order to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. But now you tell me that the number of people doing this successfully is so few that it is impossible for nearly everyone anyway?

And why do you feel that emphasizing the small, closed nature of this special club of people who are allowed the exercise of this particular enumerated right would make me *less* unhappy at it's denial to everyone else? On the contrary, it makes it all the more obnoxious.


I'd say that's a pretty small exemption. Much smaller than the amount of US citizens who legally own their own NFA weapons.


We're talking about California, not the rest of the country. How many legally owned "machine guns" are there in CA in private hands without a connection to the movie industry, law enforcement, or the military? And pray tell what will DoJ say if I attempt to join this exclusive club?

Do they get an exception to the non-transferability of post-86 firearms as well? Because if so the numbers are irrelevant. The fact that there are so many people in this country that the tiny fraction able and willing to afford a transferable "machine gun" is still larger than the exclusive club you speak of does no more than to emphasize the widespread desire to exercise this right in the teeth of official despite.


And once again, these are private individuals. The studios rent from them. The studios neither own nor control these types of weapons.

So the exercise of a fundamental, enumerated right is dependent on a profitable relationship with your industry. Nice.

Let's be clear: I want you to make bucketloads of money making movies by the rules the rest of us have to live buy, and would march to defend your right to do this with CA-legal weapons (though my personal willingness might depend on whether you had a track record of using and propagating the anti-gunner's memes in your movies--if you did, I'd have to make a decision about whether I needed to support the principle even in your case). I would also march to protest your ability to do what, clearly, private citizens (except for two dozen privileged individuals) cannot do.

Very simple position, really.

7x57

curtisfong
10-06-2009, 3:49 PM
Very simple position, really.


As usual, 7x57, thank you for expressing my opinion almost perfectly. I was in the process of writing an almost identical response. You just saved me the trouble :P

curtisfong
10-06-2009, 3:53 PM
And why do you feel that emphasizing the small, closed nature of this special club of people....

Incidentally, having lived my entire life in Los Angeles (and vicinity), this is a common refrain amongst those in "The Industry". They really do think what they do is special, and that the rest of us "civilians" would and could never understand, let alone do, what they do.

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.

We love our royalty, despite our supposed revulsion against monarchy as a form of government.

tonelar
10-06-2009, 3:59 PM
The government should not have access to weapons that we as citizens don't. That is a quick road to oppression and tyranny.

+1,000,000

The Director
10-06-2009, 4:11 PM
7x57 and Curtis---

You know what? I come to this forum to talk about GUNS because I like them. I own and shoot them. I'm not here to talk about politics, or why you can't own NFA weapons. I'm certainly not here to take your effing reprimand, dude, that I promise you.

I own all CA legal weapons, including AK/AR variants, and I have to play by all the same rules as you do. I've got 10/30 mags and total BS bullet buttons too! And just because I work in the industry, I'm not going to sit here and be the whipping boy for it. Oh sure, like any mega corporation, the film industry is a big 'ol soft target for anyone to take potshots at.....oh well.

After all, this is America, and you are entitled to your wrong opinion, which I respect.

curtisfong
10-06-2009, 4:20 PM
After all, this is America, and you are entitled to your wrong opinion, which I respect.

IMO, you are confusing several different reprimands.

One is against your industry's hypocrisy, not you.

The other is against any defense of that industry's hypocritical actions, or support of (unconstitutional) special privilege for a disproportionately powerful/influential elite, be it with regards to the 1st, 2nd or any other of the bill of rights.

As a person who supports gun rights, you should be categorically opposed to any exceptions for the film industry (as well as LE). In particular, ones based on "well, its ok if it is for business". In addition, if you, like the rest of us, are unhappy about the disproportionate influence mega-corporations have, you shouldn't be defending public policy that explicitly grants even more privileges to said abusive mega-corporations.

Again, more to the point, why should film makers get an exception solely if they are making movies for a profit? What is the rationale? Please, don't take this as an attack. I really do wish to understand your position. We've established its not "I got mine". We've established that it can't be for 1st amendment reasons. What remains?

5hundo
10-06-2009, 4:42 PM
Personally, I think it should be the opposite. Cops should have fewer options than civilians. Some weapons are better suited for Law Enforcement than others. For a civilian who doesn't have to carry one every day, it's a little more subjective, depending on your POU...

The Director
10-06-2009, 4:43 PM
Again, more to the point, why should film makers get an exception solely if they are making movies for a profit? What is the rationale? Please, don't take this as an attack. I really do wish to understand your position. We've established its not "I got mine". We've established that it can't be for 1st amendment reasons. What remains?

The problem is one of terminology, I suppose. The key word is exception.

The government has declared that certain "exceptions" exist for firearms, and that these exceptions can be obtained through licenses.

In the end, one can obtain a license to own destructive devices, NFA weapons, concealed weapons permits, military hardware, and all kinds of things generally not allowed to the general public.

In one extreme, I could say that ensuring that everyone has the identical opportunity to pursue or obtain something is pure communism.

For example, about ten years ago I came up with some insignificant inventions that required me to possess a Class 7 FFL (manufacturer's license). I filled out the forms. I obtained a Certificate of Eligibility from the CA DOJ. I was visited by the ATF. I had to submit to an FBI background check and pay numerous fees.

Upon completion of the above, I was granted the "permission" to make firearms for commercial sale. This is something that your average citizen cannot do. It's not freely given out.

What you are suggesting is that this "privilege" is somehow elitist, exclusive, or just plain wrong because not everyone can get it. The problem is, this is just the way it is.

Destructive devices and NFA items are available to anyone who can get the permit / license to obtain them.

Now we circle back around to the crux of this thread....why can't everyone just have whatever weaponry they want.

And I'm quite simply unsure of how to answer that.

Is there a disparity between what I can obtain and what LE can? Yes.

Is there a disparity between what a movie prop guy can obtain and I can? Yes, but I could get it if I wanted it and for the purpose of film since anything else would be breaking the law.

ship12
10-06-2009, 7:39 PM
Police are equipped with shotguns for those scenarios. The shotgun is hands-down the best weapon for CQB. Military guys aren't trained to understand and use the shotgun, but police special units sure are.

But I am biased . . .

Military uses shotguns. On raids? probably just to blow of the locks off a door, if they don't want to use an explosive charge or kick the thing down. It's more of a guard weapon. Regardless, each branch fields shotguns and trains some, if not all members on it. I know the USN does not have rifle training in boot camp, it has shotgun and pistol training. The shotguns just to versatile to not field, theres even a few shotguns that can be slung under an M4-carbine, I don't remember the type or know how often they are used, just saying theres 2 or 3 that I've seen.

hnoppenberger
10-06-2009, 8:39 PM
i believe citizens should be able to shop at the same place the military does.

if a man wants a automatic 40mm, he should be able to have it, seeing
as if he has the funds to do it.
the fact machine guns are illegal is a complete outrage in my book and i
hold it very personally against the law makers.