PDA

View Full Version : Full Auto Weapons?


dr.j
February 15, 2009, 04:05 AM
I was talking about the subject of full auto guns and their legality and got to thinking about something. Should these guns be legal and if so why? They are legalish in most parts of the country, but not all, and last I checked the Bill of Rights wasn't regionally biased.

There are two main points that dominate each side. While there are many great reasons to support either side, most of what I encountered was people quoting the second amendment. Since we can all recite it in our sleep, it isn't an effective tool to convince anybody of anything.

Those in favor of full auto supply typically cite the insurrection theory. This theory is that we are given the right to bear arms to resist government tyranny. We should be allowed access to the same types of weapons used by the government to level the playing field. The biggest problem I have with this is that it is pretty grim and fatalistic. This type of thinking really scares liberals and their fear is the reason for their concern. Not to mention revolutions are highly illegal and it will be next to impossible to get the government to think this is a good idea.

Those against it usually claim that the collateral damage that can be caused by the full auto rate of fire is not appropriate for a civilian zone, but rather for a free fire war zone where area suppression is needed.

There are plenty of good arguments for both sides, but unfortunately I must admit that the collateral damage theory makes a good deal of sense to most everybody, myself included.

I have personally never seen a need to own a full auto weapon because I was taught to make every shot hit the target. I do not feel confident enough in my shooting to control a full auto gun. I shot one once. As an experiment I gave myself 30 seconds to shoot at a target with a full auto AR. I then gave myself the same amount of time to shoot the same rifle on single shot mode. Needless to say I was far more successful with single shot. I would have killed whatever it was on the first shot anyway, so who needs the next 29?

What I would like to do on this thread is come up with some practical situations in the civilian arena that would be best suited to a FA weapon. Please let's try and keep it realistic (no zombies attacks please). I also welcome statistics that show that very few gun crimes are committed with NFA weapons. Or, if you have some really good reasons why they don't need to be around that is fine too.

I want to clarify that I'm not trying to show that FA weapons have no practical use, I just think that we need to come up with some better reasons for their legality. I think that we could all benefit from coming up with some really new and unique ideas for why FA weapons should be more legal than they are. This would help us escape the gridlocked debate dominated by these three arguments. I want to get some new and fresh ideas that we can all bring to the table when engaging in political discussion.

Please do not bring up the second amendment, we all know it trust me!!!!

jmorris
February 15, 2009, 09:47 AM
It’s kind of an old school concept but, how about freedom for starters. Why full auto? The simple answer is its fun, no real application, other than entertainment value and it’s (currently) legal and relatively safe.

Next time you are talking to a pot head, drunk driving, liberal, remind them of that.

Anyone can own a car (and many do without a license to operate it on public roads) that is capable of breaking every driving law in the state I live in, while endangering hundreds if not thousands of lives in the process. Here is the best part, driving is a privilege not a right.

You say “Why full auto?”

I say “Why autos?”

But that’s just crazy right? Right?

MrClean
February 15, 2009, 09:50 AM
Let me be the first to vote................ "YES"

I'm quite taken aback that it's even been asked, but I'm not one to flame anyone. Only because I don't own a flamethrower. :D It's a joke.... nobody get upset.

I have personally never seen a need to own a full auto weapon because I was taught to make every shot hit the target.
A NEED? I personally don't see a NEED for a sports car or crotch rocket that will do over 200mph. If we had to justify a true 'need' for things, we would not own half the stuff we do. It's a choice and a right. period.

Those against it usually claim that the collateral damage that can be caused by the full auto rate of fire is not appropriate for a civilian zone, but rather for a free fire war zone where area suppression is needed.
I don't recall seeing any reportings of someone using a class III select fire in defense lately. Not to say they haven't, but I believe most everyone that has these probably has sense enough not to CC with it.
I don't see any real life scenarios where I would even want a full auto for actual usage. Only think close that I can think of would be civil disorder and a mob heading down my street. Perhaps a spray would help that matter? But I would still rather make the shots count and am in agreement with you on that one point. Once they see brethren dropping.... it usually deters them.

we need to come up with some better reasons for their legality
Are you kiddin me? You want us to come up with a better 'need' for other items as well? I'm not meaning to sound like I'm just slamming you but I see this as just another thing I would expect to see from 'the other side'. ... why do you "need" this item. I would venture to say that Hayabusas , GSXR's, R1's, Vipers, Corvettes, Crossfires, Mustangs... have been involved in way more deaths and collateral damage that Class III weapons in this country.

Not trying to start an 'argument' and I promise I'm not one to go back and forth. Just don't see why you would ask to justify this. My answer though...
I don't really see a situation like you are wanting me to come up with. I personally, would rather have a semi and feel I would work better with that. As far as defending against the gov't... I don't see me having a MG helping. I think the battle would be much more likely to be fought more 'covert' since they DO have and will ALWAYS have more firepower. But personally.... if I were sent in, I would be much more worried about "Bubba" with his 30-06 than someone with a MG. :)

mskdgunman
February 15, 2009, 12:32 PM
Two words...Fun and investments. As the fun aspect has already been covered, I'll say that while my Deferred comp at work took a beating in the whole stock market crisis, my Reising, M-11 and Stemple all continue to increase in value.

Truthfully, I don't shoot them that often as I really can't afford to feed them. I can't imagine having to feed a full auto in a rifle caliber, but like with fast cars, generally, if you can afford them, you can afford the cost of gas and upkeep that goes along with them

The true fun NFA stuff (belt fed MG's and assault rifles) are the toys of folks with more money then I've got. I've got to be happy with the few NFA firearms that I have and plan to keep them as they are a better investment then anything the banks have come up with.

There are enough hoops already in place for NFA ownership and if the original poster has done his research, they should know this. People that are willing to pay the money and jump through the hoops and be background checked to a fare thee well, are PROBABLY not going to be involved in criminal activity. Don't add more red tape to an already over burdened system.

As far as their use in concealed carry, I don't think I've ever run accross anyone with an NFA firearm who carries it for personal defense. Handguns rule the CC world as they are much more practical and easier to carry. The NFA stuff stays home in the safe

Hkmp5sd
February 15, 2009, 12:35 PM
Two words...Fun and investments.

I would never buy machineguns as an investment. Although my MGs are currently worth a total of $36,000 more than I orginally paid for them, all it takes is a bunch of politicians to send that into a negative value. In fact, I really wish they would do so by repealing 922(o).

As far as their use in concealed carry,

In the State of Florida, it is illegal to carry a machinegun as a concealed weapon, even with a CCW.

RJay
February 15, 2009, 02:24 PM
OK, you askied for opinions, heres another one. I can see no valid sporting use for fully automatic weapons. I also believe the " Tax " on AOW should be raised. No flames gentle, just my opinion and like belly buttons every one has one.

Hkmp5sd
February 15, 2009, 02:26 PM
I can see no valid sporting use for fully automatic weapons.

And I can't find the word "sporting" anywhere in the Second Amendment.


BTW, please document each sporting event you have participated in with each firearm you own in the past 5 years. No competition, no reason to own that firearm. FYI, ATF had deemed that "target shooting" aka plinking is NOT a valid sporting event.

dr.j
February 15, 2009, 02:46 PM
Mr Clean:
Are you kiddin me? You want us to come up with a better 'need' for other items as well? I'm not meaning to sound like I'm just slamming you but I see this as just another thing I would expect to see from 'the other side'. ... why do you "need" this item.

You are exactly right, this is the type of argument that comes from the other side, that's the point! I can't remember the last time I argued with somebody who agreed with me. The need for a gun unfortunately does need to be shown in current times. I'll explain:

I never really thought that anybody need to justify owning any gun, but for quite some time liberals have said just that, and last time I checked democrats were in charge now. Obviously we all have the right to own guns because of the bill of rights. However, many amendments have been diluted by the government over the years. The 4th and 8th come to mind!!

My point being, it unfortunately has come time to have to justify gun rights to the liberals who are in charge, and the current argument of it's fun and Thomas Jefferson said it was alright 200 years ago isn't going to fly. Unless there are some better reasons for why we need them (I'm not saying there aren't any, they are just harder to come up with) then we can expect to see the second amendment become more bastardized than it has been already.

I really like the car analogy. That makes a great deal of sense, and is rational, but you do know that not all cars are legal in the U.S. right? Some require modification to limit their power before they can be sold in this country (sounding familiar yet?) because the government has decided that we don't need to go that fast. "It's fun" isn't going to convince anybody who really disagrees with gun rights because if they don't think it's fun they don't care if it's legal. Most of us don't passionately defend things that we don't do, don't understand, or can't afford.

MeekAndMild
February 15, 2009, 04:02 PM
Should these guns be legal and if so why? I wonder if you ever really looked at violence problems associated with firearms prohibitions in Africa, the UK, the former Eastern Bloc and Latin America? In your studies to remediate this portion of your education I'd invite you to pay particular attention to historical information about the ease in which criminals and partisans have built machine guns, the historical patterns of illegal international arms trade, historical suppression of the disarmed classes in such nations and the rise of criminal cartels in such societies.

For a more general study, you should find sufficient historical lessons from medieval and ancient history as pertains to the sword, the bow, the horse and body armor. Of if you've a literary taste, I'm particularly touched by Shakespeare's version of the victory of British yeomanry over the elite French cavalry in the Battle of Agincourt: Henry V.

When you finish your research I think you'll find that societies where weapons, even automatic weapons, are easily available to the common citizens have a lower ratio of armed criminals versus arms available to the non-criminal population. They will have weaker organized crime and stronger working and middle classes. On the other hand, societies which have civilian arms prohibitions demonstrate a Darwinian selection process where arms are obtained in a preferential manner by violent persons. Such societies will demonstrate weaker middle and working classes relative to poor and elite classes. This is causal rather than coincidental.

Please share any good references you find on this project. ;)

dr.j
February 15, 2009, 05:37 PM
Meek and Mild, why don't you go start your own thread since none of this has anything to do with what I'm talking about. Did you finish reading my post, or did you stop after the second sentence?

I wonder if you ever really looked at violence problems associated with firearms prohibitions in Africa, the UK, the former Eastern Bloc and Latin America?

Not this time, because this debate really only concerns the United States and our laws. It has nothing to do with other nations their situations are very different.

In your studies to remediate this portion of your education

Education is a lifelong pursuit. I don't need to remediate anything. Remediate means to correct a flaw or deficiency. I'm actually a teacher, and take great offense to the notion that something about my education if flawed because I'm trying to encourage discussion and keep learning, you should choose your words wisely my friend. Anybody who thinks they are done learning is just showing how little they know in the first place, perhaps you need to remediate your education.

For a more general study, you should find sufficient historical lessons from medieval and ancient history as pertains to the sword, the bow, the horse and body armor. Of if you've a literary taste, I'm particularly touched by Shakespeare's version of the victory of British yeomanry over the elite French cavalry in the Battle of Agincourt: Henry V.

If I thought you had any idea what you were talking about I might look into this, but I doubt I'll find it helpful, thanks though?

When you finish your research I think you'll find that societies where weapons, even automatic weapons, are easily available to the common citizens have a lower ratio of armed criminals versus arms available to the non-criminal population. They will have weaker organized crime and stronger working and middle classes. On the other hand, societies which have civilian arms prohibitions demonstrate a Darwinian selection process where arms are obtained in a preferential manner by violent persons. Such societies will demonstrate weaker middle and working classes relative to poor and elite classes. This is causal rather than coincidental.

I have never said anything about disarming a population, and couldn't agree more with you on this. My goal here is to figure out some better justification for NFA weapons than just "they are fun" or "shall not be infringed" because these points have proven ineffective at defending gun rights in the past.

Tennessee Gentleman
February 15, 2009, 06:48 PM
dr.j

While I applaud your courage in coming on the NFA forum and asking the question I am not sure you will get quite the same discussion you did on the Law and Civil Rights forum.

I posed this one on the old L&P forum about oh a year or so ago. I think most on this forum LOVE all types of NFA weapons and therefore would not support any real restrictions on them unless they wanted to keep their currently owned FA weapon values up. :D

Good luck though but whatever the position one takes on this issue I doubt any of us in our lifetime will see regular civilians having unrestricted access to military weapons, in the USA of course. IMO that's a good thing.

dr.j
February 15, 2009, 07:20 PM
I think you might be right. I was hoping to get some feedback from people who do own them and know a lot more about their applications and uses than I do. I'd hoped that I would find a civilian who owned one for a reason that went beyond, "because I have the right too, and they are fun."

Tennessee Gentleman
February 15, 2009, 08:12 PM
I'd hoped that I would find a civilian who owned one for a reason that went beyond, "because I have the right too, and they are fun."

This is purely anecdotal but the ones I have met who own them do so mostly for fun. And they are fun (albeit expensive) to shoot. However, I am sure they are owned for other reasons too.

dr.j
February 15, 2009, 09:14 PM
yeah they are pretty cool

jmorris
February 15, 2009, 10:54 PM
I'd hoped that I would find a civilian who owned one for a reason that went beyond, "because I have the right too, and they are fun."

I would like to hear reasons why cigarettes, alcohol, cosmetic surgery, jewelry, make up, clothing (other than to resist the elements), any recreation or sport, should be legal. None of the above are necessary, all have caused someone harm that could have been avoided if outlawed, yet they still exist.

Once you compile your list, supporting any of the above, post it so I can use your reasoning and logic you enlighten you on the subject.

T. O'Heir
February 15, 2009, 11:32 PM
"...see no valid sporting use for fully automatic weapons..." There doesn't have to be a 'sporting use'. However, shooting is a sport. What you shoot when engaged in that sport doesn't matter. In any case, 'no sporting use' is a Brady Bunch, et al argument for outlawing all kinds of firearms. .50 BMG rifles for example. Or 'sniper' rifles. Their definition is any rifle with a telescopic sight.
"...a civilian who owned one for..." 'I want one' is reason enough.

MeekAndMild
February 15, 2009, 11:42 PM
I'd hoped that I would find a civilian who owned one for a reason that went beyond, "because I have the right too, and they are fun." Well you did but I suspect you're out of your field here and don't know the allusions. I should have realized that before posting anything so abstract. Remedial reading assignments are listed below.:p

A simple answer is that free societies are not stable unless the majority of common citizens have the ability to maintain a number of perquisites which in the past were thought to be generally inclusive of the rights of the natural man. One of these natural rights is the ability to maintain privately owned armament which is equal to that of the local bullies.

The American experiment in government was based on principles of natural law as defined by Aquinas, Hobbes and Locke as a replacement for the principle of the divine right of kings. However our collective twenty first century social philosophy is moving solidly in the direction of Marx's materialistic interpretation of Hegel's idealistic dialectics. Unfortunately it is also moving in the direction of theory rather than practicality, much as Bacon described in his "Horse's Teeth Parable".

This change shows the problem with your quest in that modern social scholars (using the term loosely) dismiss arguments based on natural right, tradition and understanding of human nature, goodness and evil. Instead they have embraced utilitarianism, which we all know requires empiric evidence to proceed. No matter what paradigm you use in argument the 'antis' will counter with a deconstructionist ploy so argument is useless, only illustrations from life will work.

Giving a specific example of typical 'anti' rhetoric, the Second Amendment discussion in In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights In Action by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy should adequately demonstrate the effect of a style of thought uncluttered both by any real belief in the principles of our founding fathers and real world observation of the practical effects of gun control. Better thinkers (and you'll also notice them to be a generation older) such as Carroll Quigley in The Evolution of Civilizations: An Introduction to Historical Analysis and Weapons Systems and Political Stability: A History describe both Darwinian principles of social evolution but minimize the positive effects of large numbers of armed citizens in the process of societal stabilization.

Very few modernists except for John Lott understand RKBA issues, especially as typified by NFA weapons. Which is why review of raw case studies of effects of the gun laws of such pestholes as Sudan, Zimbabwe and Somalia as well as Mexico and Los Angeles, USA, is more important to understanding a modern view of the principle than what particular brand of rhetoric happens to catch your attention. The Anatomy of Revolutionby Crane Brinton should adequately explain my 'simple answer' ...free societies are not stable unless...

Too much time wasted. Good night.

dr.j
February 16, 2009, 02:17 AM
You are absolutely correct. I am not an expert on any of this, nor did I ever claim to be. I am just a person asking a question that nobody has really been able to give a straight answer to.

At least the rest of the people who have posted on this thread are not making unsubtle jabs at my level of qualifications and education. (I'm not stupid and don't appreciate remarks like this one).

Well you did but I suspect you're out of your field here and don't know the allusions. I should have realized that before posting anything so abstract. Remedial reading assignments are listed below.

Too much time wasted. Good night.

I'm so sorry to have wasted your valuable time professor M&M. (I'll bet somebody held a machine gun to your head and forced you to enlighten me right?)

dr.j
February 16, 2009, 02:48 AM
I'm abandoning this question/experiment because this topic seems to attract an extraordinary amount of raw feelings towards me. Rather than simply answering the question I've asked, some of you (really only one of you) feel the need to be condescending. If there was something wrong with my question, then just don't answer it, very simple. Feel free to talk s*&t to me about how my ideas suck if you have nothing better to do, I won't be checking back in.

Thank you all who didn't just answer my question with another question

Peace be with all of you.

teeroux
February 16, 2009, 02:52 AM
Those against it usually claim that the collateral damage that can be caused by the full auto rate of fire is not appropriate for a civilian zone, but rather for a free fire war zone where area suppression is needed.

There are plenty of good arguments for both sides, but unfortunately I must admit that the collateral damage theory makes a good deal of sense to most everybody, myself included.

Well since police and federal agencies already field FA weapons in the civillan zones it sort of makes collateral damage in civillan zones a double standard now doesn't it.;)

jmorris
February 16, 2009, 09:38 AM
What I would like to do on this thread is come up with some practical situations in the civilian arena that would be best suited to a FA weapon.


No one ever reads the stickys, it's the 2nd from the top as you enter this forum.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195028

Skans
February 16, 2009, 10:28 AM
Reasons for Civilian ownership of Full Auto Weapons:

1. Because the 2nd Amendment guaranties us that right, in the even that our government is overrun by facist tyrants and civilians need firepower to fight back.

2. Hunting - Why not be able to use a "two-round burst" feature?

3. Home protection.

4. Protection of Business

5. Self Defense in the case of anarchy and riots - see LA riots and Katrina.

Alleykat
February 16, 2009, 02:37 PM
When one agrees that f.a. firearms "aren't needed," then one is probably equally prepared to agree that semi-auto firearms also "aren't needed." The act of '86 should be unconstitutional. I don't know whether it is or not, but it's tantamount to the poll tax that was so prevalent several decades ago, in that only idiots or wealthy people own f.a. firearms now.

MeekAndMild
February 16, 2009, 07:54 PM
Funny, I thought I was answering the question by elaborating an uncommon but true reason, apologies for any offense taken. No condescension intended either. I don't take offense when a ballistics expert explains things in a challenging way because that is not my field.

The subject is too deep to just answer with sound bytes. The private ownership of machine guns by a large number of common citizens satisfies a collective survival need of society and not just an individual need of the individuals and I was trying to explain my take on it. Good day.

p99guy
February 17, 2009, 12:02 AM
NFA owners are the least troublesome group of all gun owners, as they have had to jump through so many hoops to even own thier toy....you are far more likely to find a weapon with a "sporting purpose" being used to shoot stop signs and mail boxes and make it bad on the rest of us...not a machine gun owners and thier guns.....but its the "sporting gun" owners that would be the first to throw the NFA owners out to the wolves to save thier nice O/U shotguns , heavy game rifles, etc. (because nobody needs a gun like that...and it has no sporting purpose)
Sporting purpose...now that is a term that should be abolished from any gun legislation past or future...The second amendment had nothing to do with sporting purpose, and it had everything to do with the populas having enough
equil footing in a battle that no standing army including our own would want to do battle. Our founding fathers came from a world that historically most gov'ts eventually turned on its own people, and treated them rather badly.
Even in the 21st century, shock of shocks they are still doing this...as power mongers never change(they just change from horse drawn coaches to BMW's)
Full auto weapons are part of this countries history, and many a brave man
stepped forth to wear the uniform of this counties armed forces and carried them into battle...our dads carried them, our grandads carried them and they were honorable men. No one should have to be ashamed to own the very objects they won battles with, and consequintly the continueing right of weak minded whiners to whine about everything . The present level of wussification instilled into the western male these days shall be thier and our downfall. I'm quite frankly ashamed when I hear fellow gun owners singling out others to chuck into the fire...because they "feel" its just the right thing to do. A M16 is just as legitimate as a M1903 Springfield in all ways.

freakintoguns
February 17, 2009, 03:16 AM
I'm abandoning this question/experiment because this topic seems to attract an extraordinary amount of raw feelings towards me. Rather than simply answering the question I've asked, some of you (really only one of you) feel the need to be condescending. If there was something wrong with my question, then just don't answer it, very simple. Feel free to talk s*&t to me about how my ideas suck if you have nothing better to do, I won't be checking back in.

Thank you all who didn't just answer my question with another question

Peace be with all of you.



seems to me meek was answerign your question with valid points.


first thing dictators do is disarm the populace, then "reducate" children about the evils of guns etc. then blame all social ills on one group of citizenry and kills them off. our forefathers saw this and realized that in order to keep the government in check the populace of america needed to be well armed. we are here to check the government and keep them in balance. kind of the same concept as the 3 branches of government to keep each other in check and balance.

Firepower!
February 17, 2009, 03:42 AM
Yes they should be legal with special permit (training course etc required) and two per person limit, with option to get more for after paying increasing tax on each additional.

But yes they should be legal.

GeorgeF
February 17, 2009, 08:52 AM
Wow, I am amazed at the people who want you to jump through MORE hoops to get an automatic weapon. Please stop already - its legal to own (in most civilized states) so its done. Look at the track record on civilian ownership of automatic weapons - despite the very sad incident of the 8 year old shooting himself, that could not be prevented by any legislation or 'training'. It was the adults there that should have exercised more common sense.

Taxes of any kind to own seems to be unconstitutional to me to begin with. You start down this path and next thing you know we are back at limitations because certain firearms LOOK scary. You guys are just enabling the gun grabbers. You already have to file paperwork and do some legwork to get automatic weapons - enough already.

Hkmp5sd
February 17, 2009, 05:10 PM
Yes they should be legal with special permit (training course etc required) and two per person limit, with option to get more for after paying increasing tax on each additional.

But yes they should be legal.

A 99.999999% near perfect record since 1934 and you want more restrictions? :barf:

Of course, some people think Barney Fife had too many bullets. To each his own.

highrolls
February 27, 2009, 09:43 PM
I'd hoped that I would find a civilian who owned one for a reason that went beyond, "because I have the right too, and they are fun.

OK, lets try this.

I have had a long fascination with the history of the M16. Eugene Stoner combined many design details and ideas into one design which led to the M16. That was the good part. About the only criticism (hindsight) was that Stoner did not feel the need to chrome plate the barrel and chamber even though post WW II Army research had shown the benefits of this for full auto fire. Perhaps this was because ArmaLite lacked the capability to plate the barrel. Be that as it may, Stoner developed the prototypes with cartridges loaded with IMR powder. The prototypes were very reliable with this powder. Leaving out most of the story, by the time the M16 was adopted and placed in the field (Vietnam) the Army had converted to a ball powder and the 5.56mm M193 Ball cartridge powder formulation contained a shelf life extender (Calcium Carbonate - CaCO3) at levels far above those necessary to clog the rifle's gas tube. The early combat history of the M16 in Vietnam was marred by this problem. The gas system Stoner employed, while very simple and direct, allowed for contaminates from the powder to be blown back into the reciever/bolt area.

From external source: (http://forums.beyondunreal.com/archive/index.php/t-88840.html)

The use of ball gunpowder left a very sticky residue in the barrel and the gas tube of the M16. Since the barrel wasn't chrome-plated and no cleaning equipment and/or lubricants were available, it hardened quickly and soon made the rifle inoperable. The residue also caused spent casings to become stuck in the chamber and the rifle suffered a rim shear extraction failure, where the bolt's extractor tore off a portion of the end of the spent casing, leaving the rest of the case stuck in the chamber.

In retrospect, the "forward assist" of the M16 may have been less than necessary.

If you made it this far, I had a desire to personally examine the historical M16 problem but not necessarily reproduce it. Thus, I went through the hoops to acquire an M16A1 (But I wanted the chrome bore version because of the first paragraph above.) After going to all that trouble, I am certainly not going to abuse the "test item". Instead, noting that IMR powders were the design basis for the M16, I made various tests to verify the reliability claims versus the IMR powder claim. My test results were very satisfying and may one day make a good "historical editorial piece" somewhere. The most notable result is that loading for semi-auto function and full-auto function in this gas gun is not the same thing at all.

SDC
February 27, 2009, 10:32 PM
How about because the United States was set up to allow people "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? I know that I'm certainly happy when I fire a machine gun, and if I'm not hurting anyone while doing so, why should it be anyone else's business?

wl79
March 5, 2009, 11:54 PM
The answer is actually quite simple; No reason is required.

People do or take similar or different actions for similar or different reasons. We do what we will, because who we are, while we are allowed. Period.

DMV allows us to drive our cars - we are not then asked where we're driving to or why.

mh

Ricklin
March 12, 2009, 08:39 PM
Thanks Dr. J. This is a darned lively thread. Great question.

TexasRedneck
March 12, 2009, 08:49 PM
Please do not bring up the second amendment, we all know it trust me!!!!

No, sir - it's obvious that some - including you - do NOT.

There is no place for your question - period. The RTKBA is one written in the blood of our founding fathers, and replenished by those who came after them - and dammit I am sick and tired of trying to "justify" those rights to ANYone. This isn't a flame aimed at you specifically - but since you asked, yeah - enjoy the singed feathers. Tell you what - next time you want to ask such a self-serving question, be prepared to FIRST answer what gives you the right to ask it - then you'll have the answer to both, and won't need to.

I AM AN AMERICAN. I HAVE RIGHTS. LEAVE THEM - AND ME - ALONE.

Willie Lowman
March 13, 2009, 10:38 AM
I think that we could all benefit from coming up with some really new and unique ideas for why FA weapons should be more legal than they are. This would help us escape the gridlocked debate dominated by these three arguments. I want to get some new and fresh ideas that we can all bring to the table when engaging in political discussion.

Can you people read? He didn't say "How can we restrict them more?" Didn't ask "How does some mall ninja think we should strengthen our NFA regulatory system?"

Why should they be MORE legal? I dunno. Overturn the '86 Hughes amendment. If we don't, in another generation they will be to expensive for anyone to own.

Now I will bring up the fact that only ONE murder has been committed with a NFA registered firearm in my lifetime. An Ohio cop (Cinci, I think.) murdered an informant with a registered Mac 10. He didn't catch his wife in bed with someone else as people like to say.

People that go through the fingerprints, signature, waiting waiting waiting and pay so much for a toy aren't likely to misuse it. but what do I know about anything.

ottosear
March 15, 2009, 08:02 AM
O.K. you eggheads, enough :barf: ! The supreme reason to own an N.F.A. firearms is this... It is the canary in the coalmine that protects our other RIGHTS. If that one falls, they all will follow. And to quote Ted Nugent...Guns are COOL.

dlb435
March 30, 2009, 11:33 AM
I've used both full auto and semi auto weapons and I find full auto is of very limited use. Even military studies show it has limited value.
The point? I don't find full auto guns to be any more of a threat to the public than semi auto guns. I think the restictions on full auto weapons are useless. These laws are in place just to make people feel better.
The original NFA of 1932 was not aimed at shutting down the use of full auto weapons. It was intended to make posession of any number of weapons a federal offense if you were already a criminal or had criminal intent.
This gave the federal government tools it wanted to attack orginized crime across the country.
While the current laws on the books are clearly unconstitutional, they will remain in force as long as the general puplic supports them. Unfortunatly, there are either crazzies or crooks that go on shooting binges all to frequently. This scares the hell out of the general puplic and only increases their support of these types of gun laws.
What I find funny is that cars kill 10 times more people than guns do and no one is ready to outlaw cars!

Hkmp5sd
March 30, 2009, 03:47 PM
What I find funny is that cars kill 10 times more people than guns do and no one is ready to outlaw cars!

What I find more amusing is that while cars do serve a useful function, there is absolutely no reason for cigarettes and they kill a few hundred thousand people each year. The only reason they are not illegal is because the federal and state governments make too much money from them to let them go away.

On the other hand, we have the NFA, where the government could be making a fortune from newly registered machineguns, yet they prohibit accepting our money because of 922(o).

dlb435
March 31, 2009, 08:31 AM
Hey! Take it easy with the cigarette tax. I smoke. Yes, I know it's not good for me. How about a sugar tax? Being fat isn't good either. How about a risk tax for bungy jumping, sky diving, mountain climbing or even motorcycle rideing? Just because you don't like something does not mean you should outlaw it for everyone else.
This is the whole point of this thread. When does the majority have the right to restrain the minority from some activity? Where do your rights end and mine start? When is it in the puplic interest to justifiably curtail the constitution?

DanRHeller
March 31, 2009, 09:08 AM
I personally see no need for an automatic weapon, but...there sure isn't a need to have them be illegal. Many more things need to be fixed before the idea of full auto weapons being illegal should have came into play.

IMightBeWrong
March 31, 2009, 12:28 PM
The only reason I'm not out trying to get a class III right now to get hooked up with an automatic weapon right now is because there's so much darn work involved that I don't feel like dealing with to get a weapon that I don't need. I've met class III guys with full autos that have allowed me to fire their weapons before. Hell, you can go to Scottsdale Gun Club here in Arizona and pay about 30 Dollars to rent a full auto HK MP5. Is it the end all be all? Nah. In my experience, full auto is fun, but it isn't always practical. If I were going to buy one, it'd probably be the MP5 I mentioned. I like it, and I would only need an auto for room clearing. It just doesn't land enough rounds on target in full auto mode at longer distances for me, nor does any AR-15 or AK I've fired. I'd rather just fire a controlled pair semi auto. For me, choosing between a full auto weapon of any kind or a nice new bolt action or 1911 will always land me with one of the latter. Would I buy a select fire weapon if it were easier? I'm sure I would. But probably just one, since that's all I'd really need to get the occasional full auto hunger out of my system.

As for their legality, they should be 100% legal for citizens with no mental deficiency and a good knowledge of gun safety. After all, how many gun crimes have you seen commited with a long arm of any kind compared to handgun crimes?

mskdgunman
March 31, 2009, 04:22 PM
I own three full autos (sub machine guns) and have them primarily because I can and because I ran accross three decent deals which are hard to find in the NFA world. I don't believe the whole collateral damage argument has much truth to it. Unless you've had some training, full auto is pretty useless in most peoples hands. I would be more concerned about someone who can shoot armed with a scoped bolt action or a good pump/semiauto shotgun then I would some gang banger with a Mac-10.

The imagined proliferation of "machine guns" and the damage they cause is due in large part to ignorance on the part of the press, the non-gun members of society and politicians. Everything evil looking is labled an "Assault rifle" or "machine gun" and the public just buys it. I'm not trying to minimize the impact of some nutcase with a semi-auto AR/AK or any other semi-auto rifle (from a 10/22 to a BAR) I'm simply saying that the weapon is not a machine gun nor an assault rifle. Call it what it is. It appears that the latest rampage in NC involved a bolt action hunting rifle if the photo in the paper was accurate. If thats the case, he killed 8 (?) people meaning he had to reload at least once depending on the mag capacity. I imagine that it's not hard to do when shooting sheep in an enviorment where no one can defend themselves and you have nothing to worry about until the cops show up. He could have walked in with a double barrel shotgun and a pocket full of buckshot and done the same thing (or worse).

The point is, he killed a bunch of people with a rifle that most people wouldn't bat an eye at and one that is commonly available

Most (if not all) persons who own NFA weapons have been checked up/down/backwards and forwards by the feds. If you're not squeeky clean, it's a no-go. I don't know the national stats but I'm pretty sure that not many LEGAL automatic weapons are used in crimes. There are enough hoops to jump through for NFA weapons without adding more. I'm not sure if the fellow that sugested a limit on purchases and increasing fees is a firearms owner or not but if so, he should realize the ignorance of that statement. He may be a shooter and when the Feds begin targeting HIS favorite firearms (be they BP, Western style guns, air rifles or whatever) maybe he'll realize that we're all in this together.

If the truth be told, I don't shoot my NFA guns that often as ammo is expensive when you go through it at 800 - 1000 rounds a minute.

Dr. Strangelove
April 1, 2009, 12:15 AM
I was talking about the subject of full auto guns and their legality and got to thinking about something. Should these guns be legal and if so why? They are legalish in most parts of the country, but not all, and last I checked the Bill of Rights wasn't regionally biased.

Answering the original question, full auto guns are legal, as they should be, just not in all areas of the country. Many good reasons have been given already in this thread, as well as the thought that no "reason" should have to be given, also a very valid argument.

Disclaimer - I own no full auto or NFA weapons of any kind, though I fully support anyone's right to own these type weapons. It's not what floats my boat, but if someone else is interested, have at it and more power to ya. I do find this discussion interesting, so here's my thoughts:

The simple reason NFA items are restricted the way they are is because there never have been enough people interested in owning them to force the necessary changes in the law. It's about votes and numbers: a relatively small federal agency (and some state governments) have made rules that the vast majority of the population, even active shooters, care nothing about.

It's interesting to me to read the vast number of "the government is doing xxxx" or "the government is taking away our xxxxx" threads on TFL and other sites. The next time you read a "the government is taking away our guns" post, take a quick look in a mirror. That is who the statement refers to, not some evil, black helicopter flying bunch of Nazis. Mangling a quote from Honest Abe, it's government of the people, for the people, by the people. We are the people responsible for the laws being passed in this country, not some faceless entity called "government". Some laws are passed for the public good, others to benefit those who have learned how to work the system to their own benefit. We don't need full auto weapons to "level the playing field" with "the government" simply because we are the government, and it's time the American public remembered that fact. Don't like a local/state/federal law? No need for armed insurrection, our constitution provides ways for you to make a difference. Become active in politics, instead of buying thousands of rounds of ammunition because you are scared of a law being passed, spend that money drumming up local support for the laws you would rather see, or better yet, run for office yourself.

It's also a plain and simple fact that we need government. Our government and the good people who have come before us are the reason we are able to have these types of discussions. Like it our not, our society needs regulation of some kind, but it is up to us as citizens to determine what regulation we need and want.

Tucker 1371
April 1, 2009, 01:50 AM
When the government bans cars that do over 75mph or alcohol (again, God forbid!!!!) then the "NEED" argument will make sense to me.

Until then there's a list of things a mile long that kill more people than automatic weapons will (ie cigarrettes) and all new gun bans amount to nothing more than gun hating.

EDIT: all new gun bans amount to nothing more than gun hating. and current gun bans

M4Sherman
April 12, 2009, 10:55 PM
I but you do know that not all cars are legal in the U.S. right? Some require modification to limit their power before they can be sold in this country (sounding familiar yet?) because the government has decided that we don't need to go that fast. "

You right certain cars are not allowed on PUBLIC built roads But I have seen a 2000 HP drag car on a Private built track. So Maybe we should just make Full auto's illegal on public built Ranges :)

Flapjack23
April 13, 2009, 09:06 AM
I don't see the need for a $600 titanium golf driver. I don't see the need for a 200mph race bike to ride to work on. I don't see the need to ride a bicycle on the roadway. I don't see the need to drive a 1 ton PU as a daily commuter (just kidding on that one:)) As long as I live in a free country and my choices do not harm or cause excess risk to the public at large, I should be allowed to make that choice. Full auto arms involved in a minuscule number of gun murders and an even smaller percentage murders overall. The tax stamp? I don't agree, but I can live with it. Pre '86? BS should be repealed. It's a matter of personal choice and personal responsibility. If someone causes harm with their golf drivers, 200mph bike, or 1 ton PU, they should punished and loose their privilege.

johnwilliamson062
April 13, 2009, 10:11 AM
last I checked the Bill of Rights wasn't regionally biased.
It also is not incorporated. Search here or on google for more on that. Hopefully it will be soon.

I really wish we could at least get an exception for full auto 22lr. This is really all I could possibly afford to shoot anyways and I think it would be a good starting point to push back the rest.

Lets face it, a full auto MG42 clone in 22lr would be a hell of a lot of fun.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 14, 2009, 10:03 AM
Here is a good thread that is talking about this issue that you might want to read: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=357146

Skans
May 30, 2009, 10:44 AM
The biggest problem with Full Auto weapons is that they use too many bullets and we are presently in a bullet supply crisis. So, no one should own full auto weapons except for me.:D:D:D:D:D

Tucker 1371
May 30, 2009, 12:07 PM
I really wish we could at least get an exception for full auto 22lr

That would be great!! Only problem is how to word it in a bill. If you say "fully automatic weapons firing projectiles of .220 inch in diameter or less are hereby legal for manufacture and importation to the United States" then what about guns like the HK MP7A1? It's not exactly a pop gun. Don't get me wrong, I'd absolutely LOVE to own an MP7A1 and I think I legally have the right to be able to own one but I think a bill like this would run into a laundry load of problems.


GSUdasherofhopesanddreams:(eagle1089

Tucker 1371
May 30, 2009, 12:31 PM
Before I became acquainted with all of the full auto firearms laws that are on the books I was under the impression that a diufficult and somewhat expensive to obtain permit was required to own full auto weapons, but it was a one time deal and you were covered for life for every full auto weapon you bought.

Now looking back, this seems much better than the crap we have on the books currently.

My suggestion would be to introduce a bill that would revise the current laws and processes to this:

1.) In place of the tax stamp per weapon system now in place require a federal lifetime permit for anyone wishing to buy fully automatic weapons. This process (to get moderates and some libs to go with it) should include a thorough background check (more thorough than ones for regular guns) and the requirements for obtaining such a permit should be strict (i.e. no DUIs, MIPs, underage drinking, no misdemeanor assault, no animal abuse/cruelty, possibly more). Other possibilities to get more people on board with the bill is to have to have non friend or relative references such as a manager, psychologist, or teacher/professor.
2.) Repeal the Hughes ammendment to the '86 bill. Again, to get people on board there may have to be slight restrictions put on this, such as limited quantities imported or maybe a tarriff (not to exceed a certain amount of course).

Keep in mind that part 1 is a one time affair, after that (if you've got a clean record) you're set for life (barring commision of future felonies). Part 2 is intended to dramatically plummet the price of FA weapons so people who make less than six figures per year can actually have a chance at owning them. This process could also be applied to SBRs and SBSs and suppressors.