Reply #86: Yes I do and in my OP I acknowledged how difficult that is

[intaglio]

What I am trying to do is to get over the idea that perhaps it is intellectually dishonest to claim that the media and the proponents of gun control know nothing when they talk about "automatic weapons" and to further claim how complex it is to convert semi-auto to fully auto.

What I know, and have had a couple of folks admit is that conversion can be done and that it is not particularly complex. It may not be easy (as the law understands it) but it is feasible and there is plenty of info out there to tell you how to do it.

In this thread I have seen all sorts of excuses made, from the obviously foolish idea that it's not done because it's breaking the law, to the equally stupid concept well no-one who knows how to use guns would use full auto because single shot is more effective. I have an idea that this person suggesting this might be from the same family as those thought guns with magazines would let soldiers waste ammunition, back in the 19th century. Additionally I wonder how such a moneysaving idea would be received by the armed services - but somehow I think they might want to keep the fully automatic option. On a more serious note full auto is considerably more accurate than bump firing, a practise that is very well documented.

There are rights and wrongs on both sides of the case but as I have said I am in favour of control but I will not have people accused of ignorance by a clique that displays it's own ignorance.