yes automatic loaders have been standard for a long time, I may be wrong but I doubt the firing of the main gun is anything like a machinegun on auto. Now i do know some advanced artillery pieces can be programmed to fire several shells in rapid succession for simultaneous impact. They do this by rapidly changing the angle of elevation so that 4 or 5 shells can land a the same time. devastating
tell you what you are on here saying outrageous things so I'll match you in absurdity for absurdity. No biggie you can always have more kids and if not I'm sure there's some minority crackhead babies available for adoption to satisfy the overwhelming demand produced by this type of incident . Besides isn't there an insurance payout on that sorta thing.
All guns are designed to kill. Destroy life. Since you advocate banning "military weapons", please define for us exactly what they are?
Lucrum knows what I know, the M1A isn't classified as an assault weapon. Its the civilian variant of a main battle rifle. There is no such thing as a 30-round clip for the M-14 or the M1A. Even the military thought that a 20-round magazine was more than adequate for combat. By the time you have to fire 20 .308 rounds the world has pretty much ended anyways.
I just finished reading Scalia's opinion in the D.C. v. Heller case. He jumped through all manner of hoops to get the stated reason for Madison's second amendment separated from the right to bear arms. Breyer and Stevens of course dissented. They wanted to tie the two clauses together. I read just the briefs on Breyer and Stevens' dissenting positions. This ruling leaves the door wide open to legislating precisely what type of guns you can own as an individual, and Scalia so much as said that in his opinion. The ruling does preserve, with exceptions, the right to own firearms. There is no question at all there. One could not ask for a better example of how the court can by interpreting freely our eighteenth century constitution, move it along with the times, and keep it alive. A literal reading of the second amendment would suggest it is obsolete, as there is no longer a need to raise a militia; we have a permanent one in the National Guard. Yet through some rather strained arguments, the court was able to dismember the amendment, which Scalia presumes was there because the States were fearful the federal government might try to consolidate its power by seizing the arms of state militias. Through skilful surgery, the Court separated the individual right to keep and bear arms from any consideration of a militia. Curiously, Scalia was not impeded in his interpretation of the "real reason" for the amendment by the definition of "militia" embodied in the constitution itself. There it is made very clear that the militia is for protecting the federal government from rebellion or foreign invasion. There is no mention in the constitution of the states using their militias to protect the states from the federal government. Scalia has always insisted he is a "strict constructionist" yet the calisthenics he went through in handing down the majority opinion that separated the reason --the overt one, not the imagined one-- for Madison's second amendment from the rights it endows would have done Houdini proud. The single most amazing statement in the entire 64 page opinion was that the 18th century definition of arms is exactly the same as today's definition. The support Scalia's bevy of young clerks turned up for that unbelievable pronouncement was rather unconvincing. So Lucrum, after reading the majority opinion in D.C v. Heller I am' inclined to think it will be somewhat easier to legislate what arms you are allowed to own now that we have Heller. If you read the opinion, I think you will agree the door was left wide open. When I asked if the allowed arms could be legislated outside the Constitution you had it exactly right! When you said, "I don't think so, but the Supreme Court does."
Here's a philosophical exercise. Suppose it's the 25th century and we have phasers, ala Star Trek. They don't have the downside of nukes in that they can in fact be used discriminately to defend oneself. However, anyone shot with one is entirely destroyed, no body, no evidence left behind. Would it be ok, in the name of freedom, for anyone not deemed mentally ill to have such a weapon?
Why do gun control advocates always invoke the specter of nuclear bombs, chemical and biological weapons, and futuristic weapons, like phasers, that haven't even been invented yet, when arguing against the 2nd Amendment? The 2nd Amendment is about guns. It's real simple. Guns. If you really wanna piss your pants, Switzerland cantons are armed to the teeth. Grenade launchers, full auto machine guns, open carry. It's great. Lowest crime rate in Europe. US citizens should own grenades too. And full auto. Why not?
Why do gun control advocates always defer to the judicial opinions of lawyers when interpreting the Constitution, instead of reading the writings of the Founding Fathers, who wrote the fucking document? Seems to me that exercise is a thinly-masked attempt at conjuring academic justification for the disarmament of American citizens. The Founders were damn fucking clear about the right to keep and bear arms. It's for every citizen. It's about guns. It's the final safeguard against tyrannical Government. Instead of quoting Scalia or that whore Sotomayor, you might want to read the writings of the men who authored the Bill of Rights. Just a thought.
Here's a philosophical exercise: The Supreme Court ruled that Blacks were only 2/3rds human, which provided the legal justification for slavery. If the Supreme Court rules Blacks are only 2/3rds human again, should we put them back in chains? Why? Or why not?