The Dixie Flatline is a character in William Gibson’s Neuromancer
Sorry 'bout the late reply - I’ve been PC-less for a while
First off - there is a difference between home defence and civil defence. What I said, or meant to say, seeing as you’ve obviously misread my intentions, was that I have heard and read Americans state that they should be allowed any form of weapon, including automatic, for home defence, ie shooting or threatening burglars etc, as a civil right - and that that was not the intention of the 2nd ammendment.
An armed populace carries a variety of benefits - probably the primary one concerning the second amednment was the distribution of force in a society rather than the government having a monopoly on force. But that doesn’t mean any secondary reasons - personal defense, civil defense, recreation, hunting, etc. are invalid or contradictory. Reading the writings and discussions of the people who wrote the constitution back this up.
If it’s clear that militarily useful weapons are the most suited for the role of civil defense (what you seem to be saying the second amendment is about), then what would it matter whether or not they were particularly useful for home defense as a secondary benefit? They’d be protected for the other reasons.
I don’t see your point. Is it proper to bear militarily useful arms for civil defense, but be sure to put them away and grab other guns when it comes to home defense?
Holed up in a bunker in Montana? 
I’m sorry I started this …
All I meant was that I’ve seen folks say they need automatic weapons for home defense, when that isn’t what the ammendment meant.
Whether, in these days of standing professional armies, a militarily (if that’s a word) armed civil militia is needed or not wasn’t what I was addressing. Anyone that thinks they need a weapon capable of cutting down small trees for defense against burglars has, in my opinion, some serious issues, but that wasn’t the point.
Sounds mostly like a straw man for me. I’ve been in many of these debates and been around lots of gun rights advocates and I can’t recall anyone ever telling me they needed a (fully) automatic weapon for home defense.
Which isn’t to say people don’t advocate further legalization of fully automatic weapons - I do myself - but I don’t claim, nor have I seen anyone else claim, that it’s because it’s a necesity for home defense.
Could be my faulty memory … I can’t cite any actual instances. Or it could be skewed due to British reporting of internal American affairs (possibly the occasional total nutter element gets blown out of proportion - we likely only hear of the highest profile cases over here, which sadly tends to be the more sensational).
My apologies for quite possibly wasting your time
I’m late to the party as usual, but as a general observation, if you can’t hand the guy his lunch, perhaps you should consider that his point might just be valid?
I suspect you don’t get a very good picture of how the US actually works in regards to gun violence. Your issue here - legal “machine guns”* - is completely a non-issue. Since 1934 weapons capable of automatic fire have been subject to a tax stamp, background check, and various other processes - and since then, with hundreds of thousands of legal “machine gun” owners over 75 years, no civilian has ever used one to commit a crime. Not once.
And yet people (especially europeans) are constantly telling us how it’s insane that we can own machine guns. It’s hysteria over nothing. Legal machine gun ownership in the US is pretty much 100% safe.
Incidentally - despite this perfect record - the production and importation of new machine guns for the US market was banned in 1986. That’s how gun control works - it’s not a response to actual problems, but an attempt to chip away at gun rights in whatever way it can.
Do you think the US is like what you see in action movies?
I put “machine gun” in quotes because there’s a very specific military definition of machine gun that many fully automatic or select-fire weapons don’t fit, but it’s the phrase people commonly use when referring to any weapon of that type.
Possibly action movies had something to do with my (obvioulsy wrong - I bow to you obvious superior knowledge) perceptions, but I don’t think so. I Honestly beleive I have seen/heard/read of folks wanting automatric weapons for home defense. Like I said though, we quite possibly see only the sensational and overblown tabloid stories over here.
Out of curiosity though regarding the lack of civilian crime involving machine guns… What of the infamous '20s gangsters with their thompson sub-machine guns? More hype, Just Hollywood? (Not arguing, just curious)
I don’t know how much was real, honestly. The national firearms act of 1934 was when fully automatic weapons started to become heavily regulated - possibly in part due to gang crime of the era. I only know the stats on what happened after that.
Of course, one could argue that the lack of automatic-weapon violence in the era after heavy regulations were imposed on them is a sign that gun regulations actually do work.
Assault weapons are in the constitution?
Did you ever get those cites for handguns not existing during the ratification of the Constitution?
If the 1986 ban on further manufacture and importation of automatic weapons was repealed, and their price therefore came down to market dictated levels, would you own one? I mean, once you got past the idea of owning it for the fun of owning it, would you want one badly enough to pay- I dunno, $1500-$5000 for one? Would it personally be worth it? I’m as pro-gun as anyone on this board but unless money was no object, I doubt I would ever own one, based on a cost/utility consideration.
Would I own one? Yes
Would it be worth it? Yes
I would expect that prices would fall to be far closer to their non-full auto peers. In most cases we are only talking about a few small parts that make up the difference.
Machine guns (new ones) should be available to buy, even though I really don’t even need one. Theres a shooting technique that can be used on most semi-auto rifles called bump firing. It takes a bit of practice, but once you get proficient at it you can shoot very accurately at about the same rate as full auto.
AFAIK there is nothing illegal about doing it as there is no modification to the weapon and the trigger is still reset and cycled once for every round fired.
Have you seen the rubber band wrapped around the magwell and the trigger of an AR trick?
Fully legal and almost full auto. 
Yeah. Except that’s a modification and I wouldn’t put it past the BATF to outlaw something as lethal and high tech as a freaking rubber band!:rolleyes:
Let’s assume this is true for a moment. What that means then is that, as a shining example of successful gun control, this accomplished exactly what it set out to do - there were no crimes committed with this class of weaponry. AND YET THEY WERE BANNED ANYWAY, for no good reason at all.
If this is a prime example of gun control in action, it’s an example that most gun control advocates aren’t interested in actually reducing crime, or reaching a happy medium of responsible gun ownership - they will ban anything they can, even when, from their perspective, the current controls are working perfectly.
So yes, you could argue that this is a good example of gun control in action… and it doesn’t work in your favor.