The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 11, 2012, 10:44 AM   #51
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Do you believe that machine guns are necessary? Do you believe that they should be allowed to be purchased and owned privately?
First I'll start by saying I have no desire to own a Machine Gun. I have enough problems keeping up with my other guns in the reloading department.

Now, having said that, in a sense I think they are necessary. There are machine guns matches through out the county, hard to shoot a match without one. They are fun to shoot. I think they are more fun to shoot against, meaning competing against machine guns using a rifle, like who can get the most hits on a distance target in a given time. (I beat more then one machine gunner with a M14 semi, even did it once with a 1917 Enfield at 450 yards).

Machine guns used by civilians are sporting implements like my target rifles and pistols or some one else's golf clubs. I don't play golf but I don't want to deprive or regulate gulf clubs.

So yes I believe private machine guns should be allowed without limits.

There are thousands of machine guns in private hands of individuals now, yet you never hear of crimes where machine guns were used. Different during the Roaring 20s or Mob war days, but it wasn't machine guns that cause the problems just like it wasn't the machine gun laws that stopped the problems.

It's like states banning 50 cal rifles,................who ever heard of a Connivance Store being robbed with a 50 cal rifle. Most robberies are drug related. If some one needed drugs they wouldn't buy a $5000 dollar rifle to rob a liquor store, if they stole one, they'd get more by selling the gun then they'd get in the robbery.

I just can't fantom the ideal of using a $20K firearm to rob a liquor store where you'd be lucky to get $100. A belt of ammo will cost that much.

Gun control, machine guns, assault rifles, pistols, ALL types of gun control has never been about Guns.............its about CONTROL.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 04:50 AM   #52
phagar
Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2009
Location: Northern Arizona
Posts: 15
A rhetorical question . Should Corvettes, Vipers and other muscle cars be allowed on the highways just because they are capable of exceeding the speed limit ? In actuality most vehicles can with the exception of some of the upcoming breeds such as the Chevy Volt etc.

Maybe those who drive wimp wagons should be restricted from the highways as they could be an impediment .
phagar is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 07:23 AM   #53
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Funny you would put it that way. Where I drive, on the way to work, anyone who drives no faster than the speed limit is seen is an impediment and are probably even considered to be unsafe. If that isn't turning logic on its head, I don't know what is, unless it's calling a machine gun a sporting firearm.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 07:52 AM   #54
Archer 9505
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 213
The question still stands

Quote:
What right, what freedom is denied to you by the lawful private ownership of class 3 weapons? Speak Up. What has been taken from you by the lawful ownership of machine guns?
It's a machine gun, not a sporting arm and so what?
__________________
NRA Life Member
"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
It's a free country; in a free country, freedom is for more than just those that conform to the accepted.
Archer 9505 is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 09:25 AM   #55
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,548
With machine gun matches throughout the country, how is it not a sporting implement?
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 09:44 AM   #56
Archer 9505
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 213
Quote:
With machine gun matches throughout the country, how is it not a sporting implement?
Your right, absolutely.

My point was, what difference does it make what we call them. The 2nd Amendment places no requirement on an Arm to be a Sporting Arm in order for the people to have the right to bear it.

My broader point is that, some say that machine gun possession by private citizens is unnecessary. My response is; What does necessity have to do with it?
If I want to posses a class three weapon, how does that impact anyone else's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of their own happiness in any way?

Kraigwy's observation that gun control is not about guns but about controlling people is right on the money.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
It's a free country; in a free country, freedom is for more than just those that conform to the accepted.

Last edited by Archer 9505; April 12, 2012 at 11:37 AM.
Archer 9505 is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 11:51 AM   #57
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 717
Its not only the sporting use, that I feel they should be allowed, but also for historical purposes, and collection too.

I would love to have more private museums, or private displays out there to better educate our communities on our own history, as well as the technological advances in firearms. With the current cost, and a limited number of firearms eligible for transfer, this is not possible either.

We are losing history that our children and grandchildren may not see in real life.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 12:14 PM   #58
Archer 9505
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 213
Quote:
Its not only the sporting use, that I feel they should be allowed,
We are in agreement.

I don't what to digress into a libertarian rant but think of the meaning of the word allowed.

I think everything should be allowed and only disallowed where and when it begins to infringe on the rights of others.

There is not much that makes my blood boil faster than someone saying "Why do you need to do/own that? That's unnecessary". and then using the logic of "unnecessary" to make it "illegal".

Don't tell me what to do, and I will not tell you what to do. As long as we both act responsibly then everything should be fine, right?

After all it's a free country isn't it?

OK, I'm done now.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
It's a free country; in a free country, freedom is for more than just those that conform to the accepted.
Archer 9505 is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 01:52 PM   #59
chadio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2011
Posts: 664
Had the great fortune of shooting the M60 and M2 in my Navy days. It was so fun it was almost ridiculous.....

However, even if I were made of money, won the lottery, etc. I don't know that I'd justify the cost of the firearm or the ammo to feed it.

I have achieved much more personal satisfaction from learning marksmanship with semi auto long guns and hand guns. However.... if any of you get a chance to run a full auto, don't pass up the opportunity... just to say you did, just to experience it for yourself.
__________________
Ex - Navy, Persian Gulf Veteran. Loved shooting the M14, 1911, M60, M2
chadio is offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 05:21 PM   #60
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,845
When you say you aren't paying 50% you are thinking about federal income tax. Consider that about 20% of the price of gas, depending on state is an Excise tax. 11% of your firearms/fishing goods price is an excise tax. That car you bought has a hefty excise tax attached. Drink beer? They hit you hard there.

If you are Warren Buffet and you have all the money you could spend already so you reinvest every dime of new income in your businesses, then you won't pay 50%. If you are in the top tax bracket, which you hit at right around $100,000, and you don't already have all the money you could ever spend in the bank sitting you more than likely pay 50% of your income in tax.

The really funny thing is when people hear about ancient civilizations that required people to work for a period each year and people talk about how crazy that is. In the US you very likely work for the government 3-6 months a year.
__________________
$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 offline  
Old April 12, 2012, 06:45 PM   #61
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
I don't pay anywhere near 50% in taxes and I doubt anyone you know does.
John beat me to it.

Between Federal, State and Local Income, Sales, Excise, Property, Social Security taxes, various permits and fees, I am quite sure near half our gross houshold income is eaten up by various tentacles of the gubmint......

I am sure some of it is quite necessary. Most of it is not.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 01:10 AM   #62
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
My crystal ball says this thread will be closed very soon.

Quote:
Recently, there was a post in the forums regarding the Hughes act on the second amendment. My general question for all who care to put in there two cents...

Do you believe that machine guns are neccesary? Do you believe that they should be allowed to be purchased and owned privately?
However...

I don't believe that machine guns are any more necessary than a 96" 3D wide screen TV or a Ferrari Testarossa or a 30' motor home. The point here is not "necessity" but desire.

And, as far as I'm concerned, taking a machine gun out and shooting up an old target is just plain FUN. If that doesn't fill the definition of "sporting," I don't know what does.

Since "fun" (in my opinion) is part of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," I would say that whether machine guns are necessary is a moot point. It all boils down to what you want out of life.

If some of you elitist duck hunters or silhouette shooters out there don't want a machine gun, don't buy one, but don't tell me what I can or cannot have just because you don't "approve."

Last edited by gyvel; April 13, 2012 at 01:22 AM.
gyvel is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 08:59 AM   #63
smee78
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2008
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,062
+1 for me "Most shooters would LOVE to be able to shoot full auto 22LR"

Its the only full auto I could afford to shoot, but as to the OP's question necessary has nothing to do with anything. If everything was based on necessay then we would all still be living in one room houses and walking to work because a car is not necessary, if you need faster transportation you can get a horse. I also want my right to shoot quietly and not loose my hearing and should be able to walk into a gun store and buy a suppersor with out all the BS paperwork and taxes on an item already being taxed.
__________________
We know exactly where one cow with Mad-cow-disease is located, among the millions and millions of cows in America, but we haven't got a clue where thousands of illegal immigrants and terrorists are
smee78 is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 12:05 PM   #64
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Should we be able to fortify our houses, the better to enable the castle doctrine? Oh, I know, we already do, but you know, from a theoritical standpoint?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old April 14, 2012, 12:36 PM   #65
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,824
The crux of the matter, for so many things....

Quote:
Should we be able to ...
Right there. Stop. And think about it for just a moment. SHOULD we be able to? What stops us? Only government laws and our own choices.

There are a couple of ways of looking at individual liberty. The most common today is that we are free, to do whatever we wish, as long as the government allows us to. AND current social views play a huge part in what the govt allows us. They always have, but in earlier times, they were less restrictive and condemming of arms than they are today.

Another way of looking at it is, "And ye harm no one, do as ye will". And even this simple philosophy is confounded by the bluenoses who are determined to see to it that we live the "right" way, for our own good, of course.

Just simply asking "should we be able to.." which is also "Should we be allowed to..." implies that we must seek permission before doing it, and failing that permission, are forbidden to do it.

When it comes to arms, (and machine guns are the baddest, most evil arms out there, in some people's view) we are constrained by laws passed because of what some people MIGHT do. We might hurt someone, and with machineguns, we might hurt more people than with a single shot. Or so some think. Of course some of these same people think no one should have any arms at all. We would be safe, then.

Reality shows us that the post 1934 and pre 1986 laws prevented virtually all crime with legally owned machineguns, by their legal owners. What more could be needed?

But we got more. How are we better off? I just don't see it. But then, I'm one of those people who don't think we ought to have any gun laws at all. We have laws that say we cannot shoot people for fun and profit. Really, what more does any law do? What can any law do, if people are willing to break it?

sorry for the rant...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 14, 2012, 12:45 PM   #66
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 717
good point 44 AMP.

I will respectfully play devils advocate to one of your statements though. I hope you do not mind.

Quote:
Reality shows us that the post 1934 and pre 1986 laws prevented virtually all crime with legally owned machineguns, by their legal owners.
Speaking from this reality, if the laws have had their desired effect, perhaps all/any firearms should be treated as a "machinegun" to reduce crime.

This is how some view this as. No disrespect, just a discussion point that can be used against firearm owners in general.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old April 15, 2012, 05:47 AM   #67
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I brought up the subject of castles (and castle doctrine) because when castles were being built, a license was required (in some places). People have never been entirely free. Everyone is always responsible to someone.

I realize that machine guns are virtually unknown in the world of crime but weren't the bad guys in the North Hollywood shootout armed with something that was almost, nearly, virtually, machine guns?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old April 15, 2012, 12:39 PM   #68
David Hineline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 1999
Location: South Sioux City, Nebraska
Posts: 704
So BlueTrain what you are saying is that since bank robbery is illegal, murder is illegal, and their illegally converted machineguns were illegal, that none of these laws being on the books had any effect on the crime happening and that any weapons ban has no effect on crime other than making the once lawful possessors of those banned weapons criminals now.

I agree with you that society should focus on moral values rather than on ineffective laws.
David Hineline is offline  
Old April 15, 2012, 03:48 PM   #69
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
How do you propose to both establish exactly what those moral values are and how they would be enforced?

It reminds me of the description of some young man who stole a car, led the sheriff on a wild chase through the countryside before finally wrecking the car, but "he didn't do nothing immoral."

It should not be said that laws are ineffective but rather, enforcement of the laws are ineffective. There is also the problem, if that's what it is, of laws being selectively enforced. In other words, it may sometimes seem that some laws do not apply to some people. Rich people appear to fall into that category, although I'm sure the rich people reading this forum will say it isn't so.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.

Last edited by BlueTrain; April 15, 2012 at 03:56 PM.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old April 15, 2012, 04:07 PM   #70
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
how they would be enforced?
For one thing, we should stop subsidizing failure.

Moral failure has always had an economic price, until the .gov started cutting checks to people that reaped what they had sown in that department. Thus, the basic family unit- Dad, Mom, and children, has been made irrelevant, from an economic standpoint ..... (and to a lesser extent the extended family has been undermined by Social Security). There is little downside to being irresponsible now- and fo a long time, there was financil incentive to do so........

The problem is, the .gov has promised to write more checks than it can ever cash..... this can not continue, and what can not, will not. When it stops, it will not be pretty, and people who were not guilty of the failures that caused it will pay for it, too.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old April 15, 2012, 04:13 PM   #71
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
It should not be said that laws are ineffective but rather, enforcement of the laws are ineffective. There is also the problem, if that's what it is, of laws being selectively enforced. In other words, it may sometimes seem that some laws do not apply to some people. Rich people appear to fall into that category, although I'm sure the rich people reading this forum will say it isn't so.
There are so many laws and regulations, if they were to be fairly and evenly enforced, a strong police state would be required.

It seems to me that the plethora of laws is not designed to prevent laws being broken, but to empower those that enforce the laws..... they can fairly easily make felons out of just about anybody....... and make a pretty decent carreer doing so.....

It would be better, I think, to stop subsidizing failure, so that people would police themselves out of self interest-crime does not pay, nor should it give you three hots and a cot, cable TV, and weight room.

Having children out of wedlock should not secure you a debit card to use at Wallyworld.....

The Gods of the Copybook Headings have been ignored for too long .... they will not be denied!
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old April 15, 2012, 05:12 PM   #72
Archer 9505
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 213
Let's get the conversation back to machine guns

Are machine guns necessary?
Is their necessity relevant?
Do you favor greater restrictions on the private ownership of machine guns?

If yes, please state why. Be specific, how have you been harmed, what right of yours has been infringed, in what manner have you been violated by the private ownership of machine guns?

If you have read any of my post you know my answers to these questions, what are yours? Tangential metaphorical pontifications can go around in circles for ever. What is the down and dirty of what you think. Private ownership; yes or no and why, with evidence.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
It's a free country; in a free country, freedom is for more than just those that conform to the accepted.
Archer 9505 is offline  
Old April 15, 2012, 06:56 PM   #73
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
Are machine guns necessary?
For me? No.

For Liberty? Maybe ..... err on the side of Liberty, so "Yes".

Quote:
Do you favor greater restrictions on the private ownership of machine guns?
No. "Do as you will....."
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old April 16, 2012, 12:20 AM   #74
kozak6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 2,322
I would say that machine guns are necessary for the militia, but the whole militia thing never really worked out as intended, which complicates things.

Quote:
Do you favor greater restrictions on the private ownership of machine guns?
No. If I get law enforcement signatures, fingerprinted, background checks, etc to buy a gun that costs as much as a car, why shouldn't I have one?

How many crimes have been committed with lawfully owned MG's? 2 murders and less than ten crimes, overall.

Of all the potentially dangerous things in the world, why single them out?
kozak6 is offline  
Old April 16, 2012, 04:24 AM   #75
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
Quote:
How do you propose to both establish exactly what those moral values are and how they would be enforced?
It's a very old truism that you can't legislate "morality."
gyvel 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 07:02 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 0.16975 seconds with 7 queries