[shaggy]

can one of u guys tell me, why anyone should get a fully automatic gun? these typ of guns aren't for any pursose then killing (people).
u can't shoot precisely in FA (so no need for sports)
u just might harm your buddies while going hunting with a FA gun, a good hunter needs just one or two shots. period.
defense with FA sucks, cause u probably kill many inocent people near you with bullets missing their target.
plinging/fun shooting - ok but that's already it.
i don't think the authors of the constitution wantet anyone to have the right to bring many others in danger (eg. by shooting around you while hoping to hit a direct thread). as most of u probably know, in the constitution the text says arms not guns, therefore do u think anyone should get a nuclear bomb for homedefense, since its some kind of arm, as well?

Whats that cliche about engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man?

Sig-Fan, as the owner of quite a few machineguns, let me address your points one by one.

why anyone should get a fully automatic gun? these typ of guns aren't for any pursose then killing (people).

This is bull****, plain and simple. There are over 100,000 transferable machineguns registered to civilian owners in the US and since the enactment of the National Firearms Act under which MGs are regulated in 1934, there have only been one or two incidents in which a legally owned machinegun has been used in a crime. If their only purpose is killing, they are either poorly designed as they're doing a very poor job at it, or machinegun owners are far more law abiding than most people.

Conversely, pistols, shotguns, and rifles not regulated under the NFA are responsible for most of the 30,000 deaths each year. Perhaps you would prefer all rifles, pistols, and shotguns to be reclassified and regulated under the NFA?

And while we're on the subject of intended purpose, did you know there are many competitive events throughout the US in which machineguns are used every year? NOt for killing, but for fun. Just like your beloved Sig pistol when you go to the range. Of course they can also be used for defense, but I'm not going to use a $14,000 HK machinegun to stop an intruded unless I have absolutely no other alternative. The cops are certainly not going to treat my prized $14,000 gun as nicely as I would.

BTW - how much did you pay for your pistol? The cheapest machinegun I own is about $3000; the most expensive about $40,000. Do I sound like the kind of guy who is going to buy a $40,000 gun to knock over the local Quickie mart for the chump change in the register?

Are you even aware of the process for obtaining an NFA weapon? I've submitted more copies of my fingerprints to the FBI than I can count...as well as pictures and all of my pertinant personal info.

u just might harm your buddies while going hunting with a FA gun, a good hunter needs just one or two shots. period.

Most states prohibit the use of full auto for hunting. Of course, like any gun, you should be sure of your backstop and surroundings before firing. How many hunting accidents are committed with machineguns every year? Compare that to those with just your average shotgun and hunting rifle.

defense with FA sucks, cause u probably kill many inocent people near you with bullets missing their target.

Practice my friend, practice. Just like using any handgun; you have to know the capabilities of the weapon and your own capabilities first. Of course, full auto is a bad choice for defense against a home intruder - would you like the cops seizing your $14,000 weapon until the investigation is complete? I'd much rather use a handgun or shotty I can afford to lose.

plinging/fun shooting - ok but that's already it.

Now you're getting it. Some people like yachts, some people like fancy cars. Some like fast guns.

i don't think the authors of the constitution wantet anyone to have the right to bring many others in danger (eg. by shooting around you while hoping to hit a direct thread)

The mere possession of a machinegun brings danger to no one. If I use it in a criminally reckless or negligent manner, than it may, but there are laws regarding use. You have no more right to use your Sig pistol in a criminal, reckless, or negligent manner than I have to use my M16. Of course, I'd just love to hear you present some facts to support your assertion the Founding Father felt differently.

as most of u probably know, in the constitution the text says arms not guns, therefore do u think anyone should get a nuclear bomb for homedefense, since its some kind of arm, as well?

Actually, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue in US v. Miller. According to Miller, any weapon of military utility is protected by the 2nd Amendment. However, its important to note that Miller is an old case and probably of dubious significance today.