Sure, and the fact that people were being slaughtered had nothing to do with the Thompsons and BARs being removed from the public. The Al Capone days didn't exist and neither did the Bonnie and Clyde days. I've spent at least a hundred meals with an official in the NRA and it's hard to get an answer where to draw the line. It doesn't have to be national, it can be state or regional.
No those guys have to be in close contact with Naval gunships, aircraft, and artillery batteries to accurately place that fire. If its not spotted correctly, innocents can be killed. No job for a monkey.
What you call the "Al Capone" days were actually the prohibition days. Prohibition led to the expansion of the mob, and with it mob violence.
It looks as though there is a general consensus on both sides of the fence that AR's are not weapons of war...
Can't speak for the Army but most Marine Artillery FO's attended FO school at either Pendleton or Lejeune but sometimes they attended the Army artillery FO school at Fort Sills. Naval gunfire spotters attended the Naval Gunfire School at the naval amphibious base at Coronado in San Diego. Live naval gunfire was conducted on San Clemente Island. Calling in a naval gunfire support mission is a little more complex than a artillery fire support mission. The ship providing NSF is moving and back during the Vietnam War there were so many different guns and projectiles to use from 16", 8", 6", 5"/34, 5"/54 and 3" with AP, HE. HC, WP and illumination rounds and FQ, FD, FT, VT fuses to choose from. Just the fragmentation pattern from a naval gun projectile is different from a ground howitzer round. So knowing the Gun Target Line of the ship is really important. Ground artillery is more accurate and faster to bring onto target than NGF but naval guns are nothing more than huge rifles with the projectile flying at over 2,500 feet per second and have a lot of kinetic energy when they hit something. Unfortunately today's U.S. Navy only has one pop gun that can be used for NSF, the 5"/54. And an Arleigh Burke destroyer only has one pop gun while the Ticonderoga cruiser only has two pop guns. No nine gun broadsides or six or 12 gun salvos.
In truth there were very few crimes committed with fully-automatic firearms, and even fewer that involved fully-automatic firearms that were legally purchased. The majority of those that were used for criminal purposes were stolen from national guard armories, thus making them government property at the time they were used for criminal purposes. The national firearm act did nothing to address this matter. Had it not been for the enactment of the eighteenth amendment, which prohibited alcoholic beverages, the criminal element would have never become empowered by the public demand for said alcoholic beverages. Without that empowerment, the era of crime that was observed simply would not have happened. Thus it was proven that prohibiting something the public wants only fuels the demand for such even more, and drives the public to support crime if it means they get what they want. There is nothing to be found within the national firearms act to stop anyone from using a legally owned fully-automatic firearm to engage in a mass killing. Therefore the entire process in place for acquiring one serves no legitimate purpose for existing, as it cannot prevent criminal misuse, nor can it prevent so much as even a single killing from taking place.
Says the poser who thinks you can run 7.62x39 thru an M14 BWAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHA Still waiting for you to cite that page in the field manuals.
I'm aware of the mob history, but more was going on in those days. Lawlessness tends to wax and wane.
So? If some area of the country doesn't want to have them, why should I care? Why shouldn't an area have the rights to make laws to protect their citizens? Did anyone give the Sheriff a hard time when he confiscated guns in the old west to keep people alive?
Well then you know that the Thompson was a rare and expensive item, even in those days and certainly an ATYPICAL weapon to be used in crimes. And yet you cite this era as representative of gun violence.
That is completely false. Who told you this, nonsense? Or did you just make it up trying to look like you served in the military and knew something about guns?
Irrelevant. First and foremost, rights are held by private individuals. Not by cities, not by states, not by governmental employees, only by private individuals. Second, firearm-related restrictions do absolutely nothing to protect anyone, and do not in any way contribute to the notion of public safety. Even if, through some unknown means, such actually did work out, the united state supreme court has already stated in absolute terms that such is not a good enough reason for restricting the scope of the second amendment. Did the sheriff in such a situation confiscate all legally owned firearms, even from those who resided within a given town, to ensure that only his firearms and his firearms alone were the only ones to be had? Were random searches carried out of the various houses to ensure there were no privately owned firearms to be had anywhere?
I didn't cite the era as being representative of gun violence, I responded to a claim that the only reason for a ban on automatic weapons was for the government to get a $200 fee. Do you think the ban is about getting a fee?
Its about discouraging ownership. At the time the atf tax stamp was introduced, 200 dollars was a lot of money. They never updated the fee.
Tell it to the judge, they're always making statements about governments having rights, because they've read the 10th Amendment, which also mentions individuals and was part of the Bill of Rights. Now, how can that be? I don't need to hear a bunch of NRA nonsense about how firearm restrictions do nothing, the issue is whether the people have the rights to make the gun laws they want to have. I'll tune in next week to see if the sheriff starts going door to door.
I'm sure the intention was to discourage ownership and get the weapons registered. It doubled the price of a Thompson.
When you make the demonstrably false claims that you keep making regarding munitions, it co firms the fact you have never been in any branch of the military, and have never so much as even held a firearm.
Why did you state something that was so obviously not true? Who told you this, nonsense? Or did you just make it up trying to look like you served in the military and knew something about guns? Don't know. Were those guys trying to run 7.62x39 thru an M14, too? lol
How can you know that? Do you make it a habit in life to make up things and treat them as facts? This nonsense of someone thinking they are something by being in the service must be something a newer generation does. What do you figure the odds are of someone spending any amount of time on this Earth and never holding a firearm?
How can he know that? We all saw through this false statement: Looks like you make it a habit in life to make up things and treat them as facts.
