The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 17, 2009, 03:16 AM   #26
freakintoguns
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Posts: 496
Quote:
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.
freakintoguns is offline  
Old February 17, 2009, 03:42 AM   #27
Firepower!
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2008
Posts: 2,109
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.
Firepower! is offline  
Old February 17, 2009, 08:52 AM   #28
GeorgeF
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2004
Posts: 572
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.
GeorgeF is offline  
Old February 17, 2009, 05:10 PM   #29
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
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.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old February 27, 2009, 09:43 PM   #30
highrolls
Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Location: already given
Posts: 61
Quote:
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/archi...p/t-88840.html)

Quote:
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.
highrolls is offline  
Old February 27, 2009, 10:32 PM   #31
SDC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2001
Location: People's Republic of Kanada
Posts: 1,624
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?
__________________
Gun control in Canada: making the streets safer for rapists, muggers, and other violent criminals since 1936.
SDC is offline  
Old March 5, 2009, 11:54 PM   #32
wl79
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 4, 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 4
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
wl79 is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 08:39 PM   #33
Ricklin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: North Orygun Coast
Posts: 599
Thanks

Thanks Dr. J. This is a darned lively thread. Great question.
__________________
ricklin
Freedom is not free
Ricklin is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 08:49 PM   #34
TexasRedneck
Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2009
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Posts: 25
Quote:
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.
TexasRedneck is offline  
Old March 13, 2009, 10:38 AM   #35
Willie Lowman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
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.
Willie Lowman is offline  
Old March 15, 2009, 08:02 AM   #36
ottosear
Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2005
Posts: 20
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.
ottosear is offline  
Old March 30, 2009, 11:33 AM   #37
dlb435
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
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!
dlb435 is offline  
Old March 30, 2009, 03:47 PM   #38
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
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).
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 08:31 AM   #39
dlb435
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
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?
dlb435 is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 09:08 AM   #40
DanRHeller
Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2009
Posts: 20
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.
DanRHeller is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 12:28 PM   #41
IMightBeWrong
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2009
Posts: 603
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?
IMightBeWrong is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 04:22 PM   #42
mskdgunman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2008
Posts: 127
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.
mskdgunman is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 12:15 AM   #43
Dr. Strangelove
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 1,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. J
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.
Dr. Strangelove is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 01:50 AM   #44
Tucker 1371
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 1,958
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:
Quote:
all new gun bans amount to nothing more than gun hating.
and current gun bans
__________________
NCO of Marines, 3rd Award Expert Rifle, 236 KD Range
D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! OEF 21JUN-20SEP2011
REV. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Tucker 1371 is offline  
Old April 12, 2009, 10:55 PM   #45
M4Sherman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 408
Quote:
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
M4Sherman is offline  
Old April 13, 2009, 09:06 AM   #46
Flapjack23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2009
Location: Yale MI
Posts: 138
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.

Last edited by Flapjack23; April 13, 2009 at 09:06 AM. Reason: Cant spell
Flapjack23 is offline  
Old April 13, 2009, 10:11 AM   #47
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,759
Quote:
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.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is online now  
Old May 14, 2009, 10:03 AM   #48
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Here is a good thread that is talking about this issue that you might want to read: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=357146
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old May 30, 2009, 10:44 AM   #49
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,657
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.
Skans is offline  
Old May 30, 2009, 12:07 PM   #50
Tucker 1371
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 1,958
Quote:
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.


GSUdasherofhopesanddreamseagle1089
__________________
NCO of Marines, 3rd Award Expert Rifle, 236 KD Range
D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! OEF 21JUN-20SEP2011
REV. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Tucker 1371 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14959 seconds with 7 queries