Full Auto Should Be Legal...?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by nate45

The only point I'm trying to make, is that your calls for support of the NFA, no matter how well intentioned are based on the same logic used by those who want no private ownership of firearms whatsoever. Remember that the antis also believe that their ideas will make society safer, by severely limiting personal weapons ownership.

Nate, good points and this illuminates something I adhere to when reading posts on TFL or talking about guns rights to others.

I don't look at the Brady types in black and white focus. One thing I learned in school years ago is that political or military opponents tend to project mirror images of themselves on each other. The other side is always, stupid, corrupt and malevolent and if you don't agree then you are a traitor. Such mental orthodoxy seldom produces anything useful and just tends to polarize the debate.

I like to look at the ideas and judge and discuss them objectively rather than just saying "well that's a communist idea!". We have debate on this forum about things like background checks, private sales, and the NFA and I think considering all sides of those debates make us better informed.

Logic is not the sole province if any side and the Brady people have some logic IMO on some issues. This may make me sound like a sell-out but I am not. I do want to explore the reasoning and logic of all sides and by doing so it gives me a sanity check that I always need

PS I hope when you used the term erudite, you weren't talking about me. This would ruin my reputation

[nate45]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

First, I do not think the Second Amendment was ever intended to protect us from a tyrannical internal government. Note the bolding, I think the purpose of the militia and the Second Amendment was to protect us from foreign governments really invaders like Great Britain

Thats what you think and thats fine, it is your right and prerogative to think what you will, but here is what I think.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, notice that comma Tenn? I believe that the founders recognized the very thing that you do, that a standing army was necessary to the security of a free state, to defend against those foreign enemies you speak of. At the time this was written though the founders had just finished fighting the large standing army that was there to protect them from foreign enemies, that army was fought by the citizen army of the colonies. They also recognized that their current large standing army, that was necessary to defend against foreign invaders, such as the War of 1812 you referenced, might some day have to be defended against again by private citizens, hence the second half of the sentence... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... not the army, not the members of the militia, but every private citizen, the same private citizens that had just defeated the last standing army.

So my view of the 2nd is that the founders recognized that to defend the country they needed a military force, but they also recognized the potential for unscrupulous leaders to abuse the power of that military force. So to counter it they made sure that private citizens would retain the arms needed to oppose such a threat.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If used responsibly, I've seen no evidence that they represent any greater threat to public safety than other firearms, and those who wish to use them irresponsibly or illegally can still obtain or fabricate them relatively easily. Because of this, I believe that the current restriction of fully-automatic weapons, for the most part, only effects responsible gun owners who are already law-abiding citizens.

It is the irresponsible use that is the decision point. To play Devil's advocate - is it really the case that the rampage shooter can easily make or obtain them? We have had a few dozen rampages without FA weapons. Would not Cho or the NIU shooter, for instance, who were fascinated by weapons and got them through normal and easy channels, not have bought fully auto guns if available with the same ease. You could just as easily argue that you don't seem them used but those to whom they would be attractive because of the restrictions.

That we don't see them used much in crime speaks to the difficulty of getting them by the irresponsible.

Sorry, to sound like a negative here - but if you want to make a case - you need to be able to deal with such propositions.

And to Ken - not reading the Daily Kos - watching my pension plan crash. As my grandmother said: "After the revolution, we will all eat strawberries!"

Nice old Russian lady - I have a jewelry box from her, covered with a piece of the Czar's carpet. Guess what happened to him.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by nate45

I believe that the founders recognized the very thing that you do, that a standing army was necessary to the security of a free state,

Nate, actually I think the Founding Fathers feared a standing army and preferred the militia as a way of keeping military power decentralized from the feds. Also, a militia was much cheaper than a standing army which required tax dollars and beaurecracy to stay maintained. The standing army really did a lot of housekeeping things back then. In fact West Point was originally a place to train engineers to be used for territorial expansion. Since threats to the republic were slow to develop they reasoned that a militia could be raised, equipped and controlled by the government and then used to defend the country. Saying the militia would be used for overthrowing the government contradicts Article One Section Eight of the COTUS.

Originally Posted by nate45

hence the second half of the sentence... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... not the army, not the members of the militia, but every private citizen,

I agree with this above but not this below:

Originally Posted by nate45

but they also recognized the potential for unscrupulous leaders to abuse the power of that military force. So to counter it they made sure that private citizens would retain the arms needed to oppose such a threat.

I think the reason for allowing citizens the right to keep and bear arms was for personal defense as Justice Kennedy questioned Mr. Dellinger in the Heller case just decided and to provide armed manpower to the militia to fight insurrections and foreign enemies.

[nate45]

Well, Tennessee Gentleman, you and I, will have to agree to disagree.

First I want to emphatically state that I do not at the present time feel that our government is a mortal enemy to freedom and our republican form of government. I do however believe it is now and has always been a potential enemy of freedom and our republican form of democracy. Or to be more specific the wealth and power of our government and the potential, however unlikely, for the abuse of that wealth and power.

I myself fully support constitutional solutions to all of our political and legal quandaries, I even support those solutions and court decisions that are not to my liking. I also believe that it is highly unlikely that a revolution will ever occur in this country, unless there were extraordinary circumstances, such as the wholesale abandonment of the COTUS in an attempt to institute some completely different, possibly authoritarian form of government. Then a revolution is not only possible, but in my view would be justified and necessary.

I understand the fear and reluctance to even contemplate armed revolution, I fear it myself, I don't want it. Nothing that has transpired politically in this country in my lifetime has ever made me think one was needed, or even need be contemplated. However to suggest, given the history of world governments, that it is beyond the realm of possibility is over optimistic and somewhat naive.

It is right and correct for sane men to loath and fear revolution, for instance only 1/3 of the colonists supported the revolt against the Crown. Extraordinary circumstances however require extraordinary measures.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Nate,

Actually we agree quite a bit. I actually support just about everything you said in your post #55.

As to a wholesale abandonment of the COTUS? It is not (nor is anything really) beyond the realm of possibility I concede. However, I look at that sort of thing like I look at the Russian saying about Nuclear War and the End of the World. The living will envy the dead. I will be long dead before a true authoritarian rule is in place so worrying about it is a waste of time for me.

I do worry a little about my home being invaded by a thug or being carjacked robbed and murdered and so arm myself accordingly. But the U.S. government going south on freedom and liberty? Naw.

[Konrad]

To all who have posted:

Thank you!

At the risk of tooting our own horns, I cannot help but think that the conversations we have had and the positions we have taken are somewhat similar to those that occurred more than two hundred years ago.

For all our complaints and or grumbling about the system, it is a beautiful sight to see US citizens being allowed to discuss these matters in a sincere and learned manner.

This has got to be one of the best forum conversations that I have seen in a while.

To me, I see smart minds on both sides of this argument. It seems to me that as one member said so rightly "reasonable minds" can differ on this subject of full auto firearms ownership.

I support it.

Thanks to all of you who have put so much time and thought into this thread.

If any of you are in the Central Fla. area drop me a line if you could use some company at the range!

Regards,

Konrad

[Wildalaska]

And to Ken - not reading the Daily Kos - watching my pension plan crash.

Fannie Mae, my friend, and the cult of affordable housing for all...

WildcallmebarneyfrankAlaska TM

[dr.j]

I would comment that it is a mistake to necessarily think that conservatives support more lenient firearms ownership. It depends on your species of conservatives. The economic elitists are not ok with power residing in the hands of the common folk. Using the power of the state against workers is not unknown. Seizing property for the betterment of the rich and powerful is not unknown.

You are absolutely right. We are all different and special like snowflakes.

What I should have clarified is that I was using the distinctions liberal and conservative as it applied to ones belief on just this issue, gun rights (liberal-more regulation and conservative-less regulation). What I'm writing about has nothing to do with the economy so economic elitism really isn't a factor, but I do see what your saying, point taken. I have found that gun rights especially in my area of the country are much more universally respected. Most all of the democrats I know are also gun owners and take some issue with what their party often tries to do, but guns aren't the only political issue out there and their passions must lie elsewhere.

[Webleymkv]

It is the irresponsible use that is the decision point. To play Devil's advocate - is it really the case that the rampage shooter can easily make or obtain them? We have had a few dozen rampages without FA weapons. Would not Cho or the NIU shooter, for instance, who were fascinated by weapons and got them through normal and easy channels, not have bought fully auto guns if available with the same ease. You could just as easily argue that you don't seem them used but those to whom they would be attractive because of the restrictions.

Glenn, what you fail to take into account is that both shooter could have obtained arguably more effective weapons such as a semi-automatic AR-15 or Saiga 12 shotgun (both weapons are, to my knowledge, perfectly legal in Illinois and Virginia and subject to no further regulation than any other firearm) just as easily as the weapons that they chose (handguns and in the case of the NIU shooter a pump-action shotgun). Likewise it could be argued that had the victims of these shootings had access to fully-automatic weapons (or any weapons at all for that matter) the results may have been much different. My point is that hypothetical situations, while often interesting, don't really prove or disprove a point. I do, however, think that it's safe to say that these two individuals did not choose their weapons on the basis of "it's the best they could get" as that was clearly not the case. Finally, I think that we start down a slippery slope when we discuss firearms restriction based on hypothetical situations as one can justify almost any restriction based on "what ifs." As I said before, I debated many of these concerns with Tennessee Gentleman at great length in another thread not too long ago, and it was closed by Antipitas because it wound up going nowhere. Rather than go into another 15-page debate, I'll simply post the link to that thread and let that be the end of it.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=299021

[sundog]

Hey, you're a smart guy. Read history. Prohibition (18th Amd), black market booze, organized crime, NFA34. Used to be full autos weren't a problem. ATF came into being during this period. Then, repeal prohibition (21st Amd), but NFA34 stayed, ATF stayed,....

[44 AMP]

When the number of NFA weapons was frozen to what was already in the inventory. Once the supply became fixed (and done by voice vote only, at the "last minute" an amendment tacked on to an otherwise good bill), the prices started jumping hugely, above and beyond the $200 transfer fee and inflation.

I personally would be ok with the current NFA system, IF new guns were allowed to be added, AND all states allowed ownership under Federal approval. Since the Federal system requires approval from the head of your local law enforcement agency, I really don't understand how a state could object, except for the fact that some of them have had a total ban on the books for some years.

Yes, we, the law abiding citizens, should be able to just buy a full auto the same as any other gun. But reality is that we haven't been able to do so for generations. I think that repeal of the freeze on the registry is where we should concentrate our efforts. The general 0public has been brainwashed for generations, repeal of the entire 34 NFA is just not possible. But opening the registry back up, so approved citizens can enjoy the privilege of legally owning an FA firearm, this might be possible.

[chrisknox]

Being a Second Amendment fundamentalist, I detest the restrictions on full-auto, and frankly, thnk the NFA would be constitutionally questionable if the Courts interpreted the Second Amendment as half as broadly as they interpret the First Amendment. A Revolutionary War infantryman who went to sleep in 1777 and awoke today would marvel at our technology but it would be far easier to explain firearms technology, including full-auto, than it would be to explain communications technology. So does that mean that the First Amendment shouldn't apply to the Internet?

Realistically, I know the NFA isn't going anywhere. But if you accept it, you also have to accept what comes with it, which is to-the-letter enforcement. A malfunctioning semi-auto can land you in jail. Don't believe me? I suggest a web search on "Olofson accidental felon" (we carry extensive coverage on our web site). The Olofson case is an example of the "collateral damage" one accepts if one aceepts the NFA.

As a practical matter, if I'm in a gunfight, I'll take my trusty dusty ol' .45 and I'd much rather the other guy be armed with a full-auto weapon. I've seen a head-to-head match of sub-guns vs. pistols which merely demonstrated the fact that you can't miss fast enough to win.

[Re4mer]

Well I can't say that I am a lawyer, however as of right now with an extensive background check private citizens CAN own full-auto's that were manufactured before a certain date which I believe was 1986. Here is a website that gives some specific information on the legal issues involved.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Hypotheticals are thrown about on both sides. We don't know why Cho chose what he did. His weapons were easy and quick to get and easily portable to campus. That makes as much sense as saying he should have walked across campus with an AR - hard to do.

The claim was that we know that increasing easy access to NFA weapons would have little impact on rampagers. We don't know that and my speculation that it would aid rampagers is just as rational.

Also, if you try to make the case to have easy access to NFA weapons, my analysis would surface and sorry to say be hard to refute by saying why didn't someone buy XYZ.

I agree that is pie in the sky to expect easy access and the best that might be hoped for is access with the current system to new manufacture.

[44 AMP]

But if you accept it, you also have to accept what comes with it, which is to-the-letter enforcement

I would say, NO, we don't have to accept that. For the first few decades after the passage of the NFA, minor paperwork violations didn't automatically send owners to jail. Unregistered guns, when discovered, could be registered, and the taxes paid. Federal agents generally did not go out of their way to persecute the legal owners, and malfunctioning weapons were clearly not considered intentional machine guns.

That started changing back in the 1960s and has continued ever since. Legal machine gun owners who have a mistake in their paperwork are faced with swat team tactics. Over what should be, at worst, a $200 tax matter. The ATF registry of FA firearms was for many years one of the worst kept of federal records. Many instances of the feds losing their copies of registration have occurred. In the old days, when this happened, the owner simply showed the feds his copy, and problem solved. Today, the owner is likely to be charged with a crime, anyway. The enthusiastic enforcement and tactics in use today are not something mandated by the law. They are the result of the people in the administration, those setting policy, and their desire to look good to their bosses, and justify expanding their kingdom and budgets.

The 1986 freeze not only prohibits new made machine guns from being added to the civilian registry, it prevents ALL additions to the registry. So, if you find that grandpa or great grandpa had an unregistered Tommygun, or BAR stuffed in a trunk in the attic for the last 50 years, you CANNOT legally own that gun, no matter what. You cannot register it with the Govt and pay the tax, the govt will not (by law) let you. You cannot keep it, and keep your mouth shut about it, that is a crime. You can't even legally have it deactivated and keep it, as the feds rules only allow that under certain conditions. You MUST turn it in to the feds, and pray that some overzealous type doesn't try to prosecute you. The usually don't in a situation like that, but stranger things have happened.

The website link provided by Re4mer has some interesting info, but there are important things missing as well. In particular, the words "at the rate of" in this sentence.

A machine gun can normally fire between 400 and 1,000 rounds (bullets) per minute, or between 7 and 17 rounds per second

only a belt fed medium or heavy machine gun is capable of actually firing over400 rounds in a minute (and only if you have that much ammo linked together). No matter how high the cyclic rate, submachine guns and assault rifles (the real ones, the select fire ones) cannot do this. The need to change magazines, and the skill of the shooter doing so (meaning the amount of time it takes to change the mag) means that they cannot actually fire as many rounds as their cyclic rate numbers imply.

The numbers of actual illegal machine guns used in crimes, or seized during crimes (without actually being fired) has been repeatedly shown to be significantly less than 1% of crime guns, even when using the broadest definitions.

Contrast this with decades of Hollywood "entertainment/propaganda/training films" showing illegal machine guns being used well over 50% (and often much higher percentage) of the time, in crimes.

Machine guns are impressive, they are dramatic, they look good on the big screen, but they are not magic death rays that will wipe out entire city blocks just by pointing and pulling a trigger.

[dr.j]

Have there been any major technological advancements in FA weapons since 1986, or are they pretty much the same.

I know there has to be something, but I don't really know enough about them to know when certain things were invented.

If there have been some big advancements, don't people have a right to have the safest and best FA weapons if they are going to have them at all? Any gun over 20 years old is almost an antique right? Eventually (might take a long time) none of these old guns are going to work and then what? It won't matter if they are legal if they don't shoot.

Is there any way that new guns can legally sneak there way through the registry?

[Wildalaska]

Machine guns are impressive, they are dramatic, they look good on the big screen, but they are not magic death rays that will wipe out entire city blocks just by pointing and pulling a trigger.

really...so you would have no problems with a law abiding (ie never been arrested) member of MS13 walking into Joes Guns and walking out with Ma Deuce and 1000 rounds on links?



WildillpassAlaska TM

[Socrates]

Same logic keeps full auto weapons out of former military armours hands...

[alloy]

using criminal behavior to rationalize the reduction of presently held, or previous freedoms, will have calibers over 22lr and shotguns that hold more than two taken away. kooks on a plane with box cutters, and a-holes like timothy mcveigh, or even loons like chai vang and dahlmer gone totally insane prove time and time that its just in the makeup, it isnt the weaponry. stopping belt feds wont stop liquor store hold ups and dope dealing, and some old fool driving a chevy thru a crowd on a sidewalk is no reason to outlaw station wagons. human behavior is unpredictable, but one thing you can predict is the resourcefulness of the black market to provide whatever is outlawed to whoever wants to pay. make it illegal, it will be available because you cant put the toothpaste back in the tube.
*see war on drugs and prohibition.

as to the right to bear or whatever...having gone thru a revolution, i think they meant whatever it takes to equalize the situation between victim and threat. otherwise toothpicks and lead pipes would be the only protected armament. no...they meant whatever is needed to deal with XYZ situation adequately. outlaw short barreled shotguns, but make sure all hacksaws disappear too, or you havent done much.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Alloy,

Actually I do not worry that much about criminals having the weapons as much as I worry about regular civilians owning very lethal and destructive military weapons that they have no training with, and no accountability for until after the fact. FA and other military weapons are more lethal and indiscriminate than weapons in common use by civilians. They were designed for military combat and not the situations faced by civilians in SD events. They are unsuitable I believe for the SD purpose that I think the 2A addresses in the operative clause "keep and bear".

I think the decision in Heller shows that lines may be drawn about what type of arms civilians may have, who may have them and where they may take them. The line has been drawn with the NFA and 1986 FOPA and has withstood constitutional challenge. Webleymkv posted a thread that we (and many others) engaged in last summer. I don't want to rehash it either (I felt like a Spartan at Thermopolye!) but there is no judicial or public support (other than a few in the gun culture)for allowing civilians unrestricted access to military weapons. I think lines have to be drawn concerning weapons and arms and this is one of them that is unlikely to change. The 2A like all the BORs has limits and this is one of them.

[Socrates]

I live in the PRK, the logical extension of TG's position. No ruger .380's no cheap guns, no AR-15's with removeable mags, no .50's, etc.

ONLY LEO's or former LEO's are to be trusted with such weapons....

I guess, with a Juris Doctrate degree in Law, a year in the D.A.'s office, I'm not trustworthy with full auto.:barf:

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is part of the great continuum debate of what weapons are allowed the civilian or do basic rights give you access to all. We've done this before.

So if you think there is some line - where should it be? Full auto seems to be a reasonable bright line for some. No way - or - should it be a bright line that has some allowed - like Socrates.

I think, repeating, that the current NFA system with new guns allowed is a good solution. A closer look and a touch of a price barrier to the causal purchaser.

Or do we remember my suggestion that we sell anthrax at the gun show - why should that be banned? Is there a continuum or no.

We are back at the same point. No restrictions or some and then where. CA shows you a system that is too, too rigid. Most states get along without such a line.

[Wildalaska]

Nobody has adressed my rhetorical question above

WildimbummedAlaska ™

[alloy]

i didnt, because:

law abiding (ie never been arrested) member of MS13

A:law abiding is one type of person
B:never been arrested(in your context) is something totally different
C:a member of MS13 is most likely viewed similar to an OMG member by the feds where simple membership gives that person a different legal status than either A or B above, as they try to apply rico...rendering the actions of a Cali member, to a criminal organization, which renders a member in Conn guilty by association.

basically it looks like a trap to promote a circular logic post-a-thon where the answer is run up and down the court all day, and i was off to chucky cheese's.

ooops i forgot, you have most likely sold firearms, knowingly(A) or unknowingly(B,C)...to type A, B, and, C.
so really...whats the question?