The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 8, 2013, 04:58 PM   #1
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 882
Opinion on Full auto firearms

I was wondering what is ya'll' take on full auto firearms.

Many of us oppose new gun legislation, many of us would like some of the legislation already in affect to be repealed.

However, when it comes to certain firearms, do you think there is a reasonable limit to their accessability?

Am I wrong to think that the current regulations against NFA firearms is okay? While I do not support an outright ban, I do feel that some regulation is good, as it keeps honest people honest for the most part. This is not a thread about the merits of legislation and how they prevent the criminals from getting their hands on fully automatic firearms, I am not naive enough to believe that criminals will ever obey the law.

However, for the law abiding, I believe something as potent as an automatic firearm does need to be regulated a little differently than semi automatic firearms.

I'm kind of on the fence here, please tell me what you think about this. Am I being hypocritical supporting the current laws in place that make it prohibitively expensive for the average person from owning a full auto weapon yet supporting the idea of less restrictions on semi auto firearms? Some laws I believe are perfectly fine and have a reason to be there, it's when they get out of hand that they become a burdon IMO. (When they become a burdon is up to speculation at best though)
Kimio is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 05:07 PM   #2
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,467
I believe if the person is responsible, has the financial means to feed one, has a safe place to do so and follows all related laws....why not.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 05:08 PM   #3
Dwight55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2004
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 2,559
Quote:
I believe if the person is responsible, has the financial means to feed one, has a safe place to do so and follows all related laws....why not.
+100

May God bless,
Dwight
__________________
www.dwightsgunleather.com
If you can breathe, . . . thank God!
If you can read, . . . thank a teacher!
If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!
Dwight55 is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 05:29 PM   #4
Tinner666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2012
Location: Richmond, Va.
Posts: 344
Automatic weapons are heavily regulated. And tracked. Registered, and taxed. Believe me, there are hoops to jump through to get and keep one legally.
__________________
Frank--
Member, GoA, NRA-ILA, SAF, NRA Life Member
Tinner666 is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 05:31 PM   #5
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 882
True enough, the ultimate safety is you and whats sitting upon your shoulders. A responsible firearms owner would give no reason for the public to be concerned.

I guess I can see both sides of the argument here, those that want legislation and those that don't. I'm honestly torn between the two, I just feel like a hypocrite support greater freedom of one type of firearm as opposed to another. That doesn't seem to make me any better than the antis when they argue over the lethality of a bolt action and a semi auto "assault weapon"
Kimio is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 05:32 PM   #6
Joe_Pike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 30, 2010
Posts: 1,010
I wish they were legal to own without jumping through all of the hoops. They used to be. They would then be less expensive and you could buy a new one. I would love to have a .22lr auto to plink with. Way too many laws on the books the way it is.

It's kind of like the "poop in the brownies" analogy. How much poop do you put into a batch of brownies before you will not eat them? I'm guessing any poop in the brownies at all will be a bad thing.

So, how many gun laws need to be introduced before the next one is too much? I think we passed that mark long ago.
__________________
Stay Groovy
Joe_Pike is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 05:33 PM   #7
Atbat82
Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2012
Location: North Haven, CT
Posts: 31
Philosophically, I'm opposed to it. Practically speaking, I they'd open up the registry again, I'd have less of a problem with the registry. Unfortunately, the step after creating a registry is to close the registry.


Sent from my iPhone
Atbat82 is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 05:37 PM   #8
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,337
Joe Pike analogy

That's a really bad image. I've never heard that one before, wish it wasn't so close to dinner.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 05:44 PM   #9
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
However, when it comes to certain firearms, do you think there is a reasonable limit to their accessability?
Nope - none - nada - zip - zilch...
Hal is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 05:46 PM   #10
markj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,967
They sure are fun to shoot. Just cause some cant do so in a sane legal fashion keeps the rest of us out of that loop.
markj is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 05:47 PM   #11
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Do you really believe
Quote:
regulation is good, as it keeps honest people honest
?

Behind that statement is the idea that otherwise the firearm itself can somehow change someone from law abiding to not law abiding, and that laws/regulation staves off the evil inherent in firearms.

Dishonest people/criminals will do as they please regardless of the law, as you acknowledge, the law only burdens those who follow it. The law abiding do not need a law saying they can't own this or that in the hope that it would prevent them from killing people...because they already follow the law that says...Don't Kill People...
sigcurious is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 06:03 PM   #12
testuser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2010
Posts: 495
If it were a perfect world, then the registry would still be open, but I don't think that's realistic. Even the NRA wouldn't back that legislation and it has zero support among lawmakers or the public.

The NFA is just confusing and restrictive enough that most anti-gun voters and politicians leave it alone and that's how I like it. Those that want to own them, even in a lot of unfriendly gun states, can pay their money, jump through some hoops and buy a machine gun. If you're a little light on cash, then it's not much trouble to find a range that rents them. Either one is better than a complete ban.
testuser is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 06:05 PM   #13
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,186
Quote:
regulation is good, as it keeps honest people honest
I have yet to see an example of that in practice. Regulation exists to restrict and limit things to the law abiding. It is by its very nature punitive, and we need to be very wary of how much of it we let creep into our lives.

As for full auto...anyone's welcome to tell me what was so wrong with the world in 1933 that it had to be "fixed" by something as expensive and disastrous as the NFA.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 06:22 PM   #14
coachteet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 122
Quote:
Quote:
However, when it comes to certain firearms, do you think there is a reasonable limit to their accessability?

Nope - none - nada - zip - zilch...
Hmmm... so violent felons and minors should be able to own them?

Personally, I'm kinda glad full-auto firearms are restricted (not suppressors, though--I don't get that at all). I don't think they should be outlawed, but I do think they should be regulated. I know that I can legally acquire one, if I wanted. It's a more involved process, sure, but I can pass the background checks, etc.

I understand, from a RKBA standpoint, why some folks might feel that any regulation or restriction defies the 2nd amendment. Honestly though? No line at all? Any weapon conceived by man should be available with no regulation whatsoever?

I don't think felons should be allowed to own firearms. Maybe it's taboo to agree with some firearm regulations. Maybe I need to turn in my NRA membership card. But it is my opinion.
coachteet is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 06:27 PM   #15
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
I find full auto guns to be of very limited usefulness. Select fire weapons on the other hand would be excellent for home defense.

Quote:
However, when it comes to certain firearms, do you think there is a reasonable limit to their accessibility?
Possibly. But we have in place now is more like a ban. Kind of like driving an American car in Cuba.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 07:03 PM   #16
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
I have 0 issue with fully auto weapons.

Quote:
I find full auto guns to be of very limited usefulness. Select fire weapons on the other hand would be excellent for home defense.
I wasn't aware that there were many full auto weapons that weren't select fire
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 07:34 PM   #17
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,545
What's the difference between an index finger moving rapidly back & forth at a grand total of 1/2" compared to keeping it pulled back? To me, the end result isn't much after weighing the consequences.

Poorer muzzle control is a valid argument. Disastrous results are aplenty. But let's look at the big picture. There are already full auto owners. The only major difference between Joe Schmoe like me and a full auto owner is 3-4 months of patience and a few hundred less in their bank account. Laws of probability come in play, you say? The more owners there are the greater the chance of something negative happening due to a full auto weapon? Ok, sure. You can argue that point.

Here are some items to consider on that law of probability. If there's an actual incident involving a full auto that ends up being bad news, I'm betting on it being few and far between. Look at the number of former military personnel with experience handling a full auto. Look at the possible demographics of individuals that will be serious enough to actually want a full auto. How many that might be irresponsible with a full auto will actually want one?

There's so many variables involved it's hard to put it on paper to prove or disprove if full auto weapons are warranted.

That's why I rely on some really smart men with sound forethought when the 2nd Amendment was written. My personal belief is there should be absolutely NO restrictions on a law abiding person to own a weapon they can keep and bear. Period.
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 07:45 PM   #18
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
I wasn't aware that there were many full auto weapons that weren't select fire
Nearly all of the ones in the US in civilian hands are not select fire.

Quote:
The only major difference between Joe Schmoe like me and a full auto owner is 3-4 months of patience and a few hundred less in their bank account.
I would argue that difference is more significant than you imagine. When I explain to people all the hoops you have to go through to get a suppressor it causes a lot of the less responsible to stop pursuing it right away.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 08:02 PM   #19
arch308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
+1 Shane. "shall not be infringed" means just that!
arch308 is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 08:11 PM   #20
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,384
I wouldn't have nearly the problem with the NFA and associated registry I do except for a couple of problems:

1) The registry is closed and pocession of an unregistered NFA is a felony. What happens to Grandma when she tries to turn in recently dead grandpa's full auto M-2 carbine he brought back from Korea in his duffel bag?

2) The BATFE isn't the most honest, competent, etc. arm of the Justice Department.

3) I dislike the government taxing something that isn't directly affecting commerce between the states. I should be able to buy a machine gun from a dealer in GA without paying a tax to Washington, D.C

4) The NFA was more of a measure to keep about a jillion Revenue Agents in work after they couldn't head up the holler after John Lee Pettymore anymore with the repealing of Prohibition

5) The fact that the NFA was the ultimate foot in the door Federal gun control law

6) The fact that FDR wanted to included pistols as NFA weapons.

Do I have a real interest in owning a full auto weapon? Not really other than wanting to own an M-4A1 like what I carried in the Sandbox. And hell, I just want to hang that up over that mantel so I can tell cool stories to my grandkids one day.

However, I have an intense dislike of the government telling me that I can't own said M-4A1 because it was made after 1986.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 08:49 PM   #21
Justice06RR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,259
IMO, full-auto firearms have their place. They are expensive and have regulations to follow for a reason. If not, everyone will have automatic weapons, which may or may not be a good thing.

Those who want to obtain them legally just need to have the patience (and funds) to go through the lengthy process. What I wish is that the process was easier and a lot shorter. They should also be legal in all states.
Justice06RR is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 09:05 PM   #22
45_auto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 577
Quote:
If not, everyone will have automatic weapons, which may or may not be a good thing.
Up until 1986 they were about $200 more than a semi-auto. Why didn't everyone have one in 1985?
45_auto is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 10:30 PM   #23
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 758
If I am wealthy enough to buy a M1A1 tank, along with the HEAT and Depleted Uranium penetrator rounds, should I be able to do so? What about an F-15 with a load of 20mm shells, JDAMs, and AIM-120 missiles? What about a 50 gallon drum of binary chemical weapon? Or how about I set up my own bio-warfare lab - that would be cool. [sarcasm ends here]

No sane person will believe that the 2nd amendment protects our right to equip our own personal army. In the early days of the republic, Congress closely regulated the privateers (privately owned warships), their operations and movements were highly infringed. Congress did away with them completely after a short time... within the lifespan of many of the founding fathers. Did Jefferson, Adams, or Madison speak out against disarming the privateers, denying them the RKBA? Uh... No.

There is a line between an "arm" which is protected by the 2nd, and a weapon of war which is not. A 38 revolver is clearly an arm. A 105 mm gun is clearly weapon of war. Where is that line? For all practical purposes it is full auto, and/or 50 caliber.

Now for me, that line seems pretty reasonable. If we get through this whole mess with the right to own 30 round mags for our 5.56 and 7.62 semi-auto rifles (even though they look evil), I will be pretty happy. We don't need to be making fantasy arguments in favor of full auto weapons. If the line is not drawn on full auto, where is the line separating Arms from Weapons of War? It sounds like some of you are saying there is no line... Is that what you are saying?
btmj is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 10:34 PM   #24
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,384
Well, if it requires an F-15 and an Abrams to stand toe-to-toe with a tyrannical government, I feel like I ought to have the ability to own them.

Hell, after WWII you could buy surplus P-51s.

The rifle and smooth bore musket, and some cannon, were the equivalent weapons to what the British had. Those weapons are what we fought for our independence with.

Heck, the greatest naval victories of the Revolution were won by privateers for the most part.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 10:43 PM   #25
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 758
Quote:
WWII you could buy surplus P-51s
without the 50 cal machine guns and bombs, it was just an airplane, not a weapon. Further, owning an airplane comes with a huge book of restrictions (even in 1946). There is nothing about owning and flying an airplane that remotely resembles "shall not be infringed".

My point is that the founders did not consider privately owned warships to be protected by the 2nd. So obviously they envisioned a line of separation... musket yes, warship no.
btmj 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 03:52 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 0.14260 seconds with 7 queries