02-02-2013, 10:40 PM
Sorry, even though I have a gun safe full of ARs, I cannot find a justification for belt- fed weapons in the hands of the civilian populous (yeah, they’re fun to fire, but require more technical and tactical training to be effective) other than with the current restrictions. The SAW (M-249) is technically a Light Machine Gun (LMG), even though the U.S. military used it for years as an automatic weapon/individual weapon. The M240G/M60 is NORMALY assigned (at least in the infantry) to MOS designated machine gunners. (others may be cross-trained and man the system, but it is a CREW SERVED WEAPON).
My impression of the intent of the 2d amendment is the Founding Fathers wanted the citizenry to have infantry weapons. In modern times, this would be the M4/M16/AR15 family. I don’t think they ever intended the citizens to have cannon’s at home (the crew served weapon of the day), as from limited research years ago for a paper in collage, I seem to remember these were held at local communities (modern equivalent would probably be the NG armory).
As to the military capability to fire selective (3 rd burst and full auto) - and I can only speak for myself- I only used that capability on one occasion in combat. Put a hell of a lot of well-aimed rounds down range in semi though.
Having tested some of the extreme hi-cap magazines (to include Beta-Mag and Surfire 60s/100s) they are by and large not worth the weight/cost due to unreliability (IME, only exception is the Surfire 60s, and I was still not ready to trust my life on them). I would rather stick with the tried and true 30rd magazines. Last time I checked (and this info is dated) the Marine Corps had tested the Surfires with the M-27 IAR and decided the reliability issues were not worth it.
As to the young man in the article, I would be willing to bet there are very few soldiers or Marines that don't have magazines either at home or in their car. Part of the individual issue and considered a consumable item in a lot of cases.
My impression of the intent of the 2d amendment is the Founding Fathers wanted the citizenry to have infantry weapons. In modern times, this would be the M4/M16/AR15 family. I don’t think they ever intended the citizens to have cannon’s at home (the crew served weapon of the day), as from limited research years ago for a paper in collage, I seem to remember these were held at local communities (modern equivalent would probably be the NG armory).
As to the military capability to fire selective (3 rd burst and full auto) - and I can only speak for myself- I only used that capability on one occasion in combat. Put a hell of a lot of well-aimed rounds down range in semi though.
Having tested some of the extreme hi-cap magazines (to include Beta-Mag and Surfire 60s/100s) they are by and large not worth the weight/cost due to unreliability (IME, only exception is the Surfire 60s, and I was still not ready to trust my life on them). I would rather stick with the tried and true 30rd magazines. Last time I checked (and this info is dated) the Marine Corps had tested the Surfires with the M-27 IAR and decided the reliability issues were not worth it.
As to the young man in the article, I would be willing to bet there are very few soldiers or Marines that don't have magazines either at home or in their car. Part of the individual issue and considered a consumable item in a lot of cases.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
- Voltaire
- Voltaire