Civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons

Springfield XD40 Man · February 22, 2006, 10:35 PM

What say you?

For fear of getting my head ripped off, I will not reveal my opinion...yet. LOL

Majic · February 22, 2006, 10:41 PM

Just fill out the required forms, go thru the required checks, pay the fee, and go purchase the firearm you want (if your state allows it).. What else is there to say?

mxwelch · February 22, 2006, 10:44 PM

I'd love to be a Class III owner. It's not that difficult from a paperwork standpoint. The real problem is that most nice Class III weapons cost as much as a vehicle.

Springfield XD40 Man · February 22, 2006, 10:50 PM

I'm guessing that most of you fully support the right of a civilian to own a full auto weapon? AK-47's are mighty cheap and available.

yorec · February 22, 2006, 10:54 PM

No, they are not.

The legal purchase of an AK requires federal paperwork and hoop jumping, extra fees and taxes, and the location of an AK which was entered correctly in the machinegun registry before 1986. Those are a rarity and so command prices in the five digit range at least.

"Mighty cheap and available" does not ever describe legal NFA weaponry.

Sorry.

deadin · February 22, 2006, 10:57 PM

Define "cheap" (and legal to transfer)

Springfield XD40 Man · February 22, 2006, 10:59 PM

Sorry, I stand corrected. I'm not up to speed on class 3 reg's. I learn something new every day.

yorec · February 22, 2006, 11:11 PM

'sall right - ya gotta learn somewhere and somehow, right?

For the second part of the question...

Why shouldn't Citizens of the United States have the right to own Class 3 weaponry? The legal morass surrounding it doesn't totally stop that right - ya want it badly enough, you can go out and get it, right? Pony up the money and jump through the hoops... So that right has not fully been taken from us - at least not yet. Right?

Wrong. My income is not enough that I can purchase a $12,000.00 gun. No matter the mystique, no matter the need. I can not have one.

The price is artificially inflated by the legal requirements and (especially) the limited number of these guns in existance, since the registry was closed in 1986. There are no more being made.

Therefore, the whole system, in my opinion is unconstituational. It "infringes" upon my right to have one in every sense of the word, even though there is no law or regulation that specifically keeps me from exercising that right. I still cannot do it because of the current legal reality and its subsequent market.

And I firmly believe that AK47s should be mighty cheap and available to evey law abiding citizen of the United States who might want one. And that's that...

The_Browncoat · February 22, 2006, 11:39 PM

dont you lose your right to legal search and seazure when owning class III?

boofus · February 22, 2006, 11:47 PM

Umm I don't know where you've been looking but legal AK-47s are MORE expensive than just about any other kind of rifle out there. Very few were imported before the 1968 cut-off date and very few were converted before 1986.

For every 10 or 15 ads for M16s you will see 1 AK for sale. About the lowest you can get a legal AK for is around $15,000 now.

Which is more expensive than most M16s, MP5s and Steyr AUGs.

Springfield XD40 Man · February 22, 2006, 11:49 PM

I'll interject my personal feeling on this, please dont rip my head off. I dont see any legitimate need for a civilian to own a full auto weapon. The sole purpose of these things is to kill many people at once, they are military anti-personnel weapons. Before people respond with, "why do you need a handgun" argument, the difference in lethality of a full auto weapon compared to a handgun, is night and day. Both weapons are lethal, but full auto, much more so. Semi-auto weapons like the springfield socom .308 dont bother me, but the full auto thing scares me. If one of these guns gets into the wrong hands, there will be some serious damage done in short order. I'm entitled to this viewpoint, so please dont mock me, or try to tear me down. I'm just simply stating my position on a complicated issue.

boofus · February 22, 2006, 11:49 PM

You break more laws in 20 minutes on the road in your automobile than my select-fire FNC has in 20 years of sitting in safes.

Springfield XD40 Man · February 22, 2006, 11:53 PM

Hey boofus, a question? Is there any legitimate need to own a full auto weapon? I realize they would be a blast at the range, but outside of that, what's the need to own one?

boofus · February 22, 2006, 11:57 PM

I need one because I want one. The same reason people buy Winnebagos and Enzo Ferraris and 55" televisions, and Gibson Les Paul guitars and Rolex watches.

If this country was founded on 'need' then you'd end up with communism where everyone gets what the government decides you 'need'.

The_Browncoat · February 22, 2006, 11:59 PM

agreeing with boofus

Springfield XD40 Man · February 23, 2006, 12:00 AM

Ok, we can leave it that. I respectfully disagree with you, that's the beauty of America.

boofus · February 23, 2006, 12:07 AM

Maybe you should go and get educated on the ramifications of legal NFA weapon collecting. Between the $10,000+ pricetag, registration, tax paid to the treasury department, local police chief/sheriff signature, finger prints, passport photo, background check by the FBI and ATF, 2-24 month waiting period, Brady Bill check and other federal hassles you can bet no two bit criminals are willing to go through the full legal process.

I might remind you that the greatest mass murder in this country involved a total of 0 firearms, much less NFA firearms. Remember 9-11?

ws6_keith · February 23, 2006, 12:08 AM

I don't own one, but get to borrow one on a regular basis for some local sub machinegun matches here in Vegas (ahhh, the wild, wild west). If I could afford it, I'd own a few of them as well...just like I'd own a few more cars, boats, motorcycles, etc.

In the hands of a responsible person, they are no more deadly than your car or motorcycle or golf club. Just because it's a gun doesn't make it a killing machine.

GeorgeF · February 23, 2006, 12:31 AM

Its also non-sensical to state that "If one of these guns gets into the wrong hands, there will be some serious damage done in short order."

Seriously - what is difference between pulling trigger as fast as you can vs firing full auto? Damn little. The semi .308 SOCOM is every bit as deadly as any full auto rifle. Its the person behind it, not the weapon itself.

Remember too, that 'amazing' shootout in California with two bad guys in body armor and ILLEGALLY MODIFIED full auto AK47's? They fired 100's of rounds.

They didnt kill anyone.

DC sniper? Semi-auto rifle and 10 people dead.

You dont need to own a sportscar either. All the places around me have the speed limit set at 65 max. Why do you need a car capable of soing 200mph? If I crash that thing in middle of traffic, a lot of people will be injured and die. But yet we decide to trust that people wont do that.

You're entitled to your opinion, but know this. Since 1968 the total number of people killed by legally registered full auto weapons is ONE. ONE person. And that was done by a crooked cop.

How many children died from bicycle accidents last year? I suggest you exert your energies banning those 'death traps' before coming around an obvious pro-full auto board and trolling for answers. Your stance pretty much shows that your mind was made up and you arent open to having your mind changed - so why bother?

Again, you are allowed your questions and opinions, but doing so here makes as much sense as going to an NAACP meeting and asking if "slavery was such a bad thing?" It insults the audience with no real good purpose.

180 · February 23, 2006, 05:29 AM

Well id like to add a few things here..

1- While there is no real "need" to own NFA equipment, i feel that life consisting of only whats required wouldnt be much fun at all.. i mean realistically, do any of us need even 1/2 of what we have?
I know i probably dont need any of my guns, but they enrich my life and thats what its all about..

2- this "i cant afford one" crap gets old.. im 21 years old.. as of feb. 15'th
I live on my own, i have a vehicle payment, and i barely make 29k a year..
but due to the fact its IMPORTANT to me.. i managed to scrape up the funds to buy me an american 180 on my birthday, it cost me 11k.. i paid in cash..only paid 8 for my truck.. but if its high enough on your priority list, you can find a way to afford it..
you can get a mac for about 3k.. ive seen em go for 2.5..

3- while i agree that they are overcontrolled, how does this "Infringe" on your right to own one..
Do the FAA reg's "Infringe" on my right to own an aircraft?

mxwelch · February 23, 2006, 06:52 AM

Quote:

I'll interject my personal feeling on this, please dont rip my head off. I dont see any legitimate need for a civilian to own a full auto weapon. The sole purpose of these things is to kill many people at once, they are military anti-personnel weapons. Before people respond with, "why do you need a handgun" argument, the difference in lethality of a full auto weapon compared to a handgun, is night and day. Both weapons are lethal, but full auto, much more so. Semi-auto weapons like the springfield socom .308 dont bother me, but the full auto thing scares me. If one of these guns gets into the wrong hands, there will be some serious damage done in short order. I'm entitled to this viewpoint, so please dont mock me, or try to tear me down. I'm just simply stating my position on a complicated issue.

I've got news for you. The people that you should fear having them either A. already have them or B. Can get them or make them full auto illegaly anyway. I hear the same remarks about me not "needing" my 50 BMG. Who decides who needs what anyway? Schumer, Pelosi, Boxer? One day they decide you don't need any guns, then what?

jcmios · February 23, 2006, 07:53 AM

I have to jump in here, since 1934 only one murder has been committed with a legally owned full auto gun. Secondly a law abiding citizen should be able to own a full auto firearm within a reasonable price range, it should not be priced so that only the extremely wealthy can afford one. The second amendment was written with the intent of being armed to the same level as the US government. It was not written so we could hunt and shoot for fun but as a means of revolution of the common man if and when he/she felt the government was over stepping its bounds.

Now in all reality in today’s time if a person or group of persons acts upon this and revolts against the government they will lose and only a fool would do this. We have some good examples of this over the past 10 to 20 years but the point it that we have that right and if we fail we will pay the price. Our current government did not fail against the British and we are still living under the freedom of that revolution.

Should a person who is deemed able to own a gun under the current laws have the option of owning a full auto / machine gun? Most definitely

Just my .02.

Jim

TexasSIGMan · February 23, 2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Ok, we can leave it that. I respectfully disagree with you, that's the beauty of America.

The fundamental problem with gun owners like you is a lack of understanding of the Second Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not get?

So you're against full auto weapons, you say thay have no use so civilians should not own them. What about the next guy that says the same thing about semi-automatic handguns. Your screen name is XD-40. Why would you own one of those? Their only purpose is to kill as many people as possible with a concealable weapon. I think you should only be allowed to own a single shot handgun, one bullet is plenty for self defense.

Then the next guy decides that handguns at all are only meant to kill people, as well as rifles. I mean, you could hunt with a shotgun using slugs if you needed, so there really isn't any reason to own anything other than a double barrelled shotgun unless you want to kill lots of people, so we'll outlaw all guns except double barrelled shotguns.

Then the next guy realizes that, really, you don't need TWO barrels, a single shot would be fine. No one would want more than one shot unless they want to kill lots of people.......

That is why, if you are a gun owner, you should be firmly behind the Second Amendment. Once you allow the exceptions, you're doomed.

It's called Creeping Incrementalism.

You need to turn in your man killing XD-40 before you hurt someone. Please report to the nearest reeducation center immediately.

shaggy · February 23, 2006, 10:23 AM

I suppose its my turn to chime in...

While I can appreciate your opinion, I think your logic is flawed. Let me hit a few points.

Quote:

the difference in lethality of a full auto weapon compared to a handgun, is night and day.

Not really. Could full auto weapons be used to cause great damage and carnage? Maybe, but have you ever fired one? Just because they fire faster than a semi, doesn't mean all the rounds go where you want them to, or that they are any more dangerous than a single well placed round from a semi or a bolt action. You may be able to dump an entire 30rd mag into one guy, but he's not going to be any more dead than if he took one shot from a pistol in the head. In full auto you also waste a lot more ammo than in semi. Its not as you see in the movies where you can walk into a room firing from the hip, dump a 30rd mag and have 30 guys drop. With training and trigger control you can get much more accurate, but doing 2rd bursts on an M16 isn't significantly faster than tapping twice on a semi trigger.

Quote:

If one of these guns gets into the wrong hands, there will be some serious damage done in short order.

Again, your logic is flawwed. If a MG is going to fall into the wrong hands, those hands must have been trying to get one to begin with. And if they're prepared to acquire a full auto illegally (without the NFA paperwork) then they could just as easily buy a semi and illegally convert it.

The same logic you used here is often used by anti-gunners who oppose concealed carry laws. They often assert that if people can get permits to carry concealed weapons, there will be all sorts of mass chaos and carnage as the streets turn into shooting galleries. But we all know thats a false claim and a fearmongering tactic. The law abiding people who go through the trouble to get a carry permit aren't going to lose their minds and go on shooting rampages the minute they get their CCW, and the bad guys who would illegally use a concealed weapon aren't going to get the license to carry to begin with. Similarly, those of us who go through the hassles of getting an NFA weapon aren't going to do anything wrong (especially after supplying BATFE and the FBI with all your personal info, pictures and fingerprints), and those who would use them for illegal purposes aren't going to go through the registration process anyway - they'll do an illegal conversion if they want one.

Springfield XD40 Man · February 23, 2006, 11:43 AM

Guess I really opened a can of worms here. However, you guy's make some very valid points, after reading them, you're right, the logic is flawed. Just for the record, I'll soon be a CCW permit holder, I'm not an "anti-gunner", I'm just stating a feeling, you guy's did an excellent job of raising very valid points. Once again, I just learned a lot, that I hadn't previously thought of.

February 22, 2006, 10:35 PM	#1
Springfield XD40 Man Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2006 Location: Florissant Colorado Posts: 431	Civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons What say you? For fear of getting my head ripped off, I will not reveal my opinion...yet. LOL

February 22, 2006, 10:54 PM	#5
yorec Senior Member Join Date: February 2, 2000 Location: Wyoming Posts: 2,328	No, they are not. The legal purchase of an AK requires federal paperwork and hoop jumping, extra fees and taxes, and the location of an AK which was entered correctly in the machinegun registry before 1986. Those are a rarity and so command prices in the five digit range at least. "Mighty cheap and available" does not ever describe legal NFA weaponry. Sorry. __________________ What part of "... shall not be infringed..." don't you understand?

February 22, 2006, 11:11 PM	#8
yorec Senior Member Join Date: February 2, 2000 Location: Wyoming Posts: 2,328	'sall right - ya gotta learn somewhere and somehow, right? For the second part of the question... Why shouldn't Citizens of the United States have the right to own Class 3 weaponry? The legal morass surrounding it doesn't totally stop that right - ya want it badly enough, you can go out and get it, right? Pony up the money and jump through the hoops... So that right has not fully been taken from us - at least not yet. Right? Wrong. My income is not enough that I can purchase a $12,000.00 gun. No matter the mystique, no matter the need. I can not have one. The price is artificially inflated by the legal requirements and (especially) the limited number of these guns in existance, since the registry was closed in 1986. There are no more being made. Therefore, the whole system, in my opinion is unconstituational. It "infringes" upon my right to have one in every sense of the word, even though there is no law or regulation that specifically keeps me from exercising that right. I still cannot do it because of the current legal reality and its subsequent market. And I firmly believe that AK47s should be mighty cheap and available to evey law abiding citizen of the United States who might want one. And that's that... __________________ What part of "... shall not be infringed..." don't you understand?

February 23, 2006, 12:08 AM	#18
ws6_keith Senior Member Join Date: September 25, 1999 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 147	I don't own one, but get to borrow one on a regular basis for some local sub machinegun matches here in Vegas (ahhh, the wild, wild west). If I could afford it, I'd own a few of them as well...just like I'd own a few more cars, boats, motorcycles, etc. In the hands of a responsible person, they are no more deadly than your car or motorcycle or golf club. Just because it's a gun doesn't make it a killing machine. __________________ Keith http://www.ws6.com

February 23, 2006, 07:53 AM	#22
jcmios Junior Member Join Date: May 24, 2004 Location: Monticello, IA Posts: 13	I have to jump in here, since 1934 only one murder has been committed with a legally owned full auto gun. Secondly a law abiding citizen should be able to own a full auto firearm within a reasonable price range, it should not be priced so that only the extremely wealthy can afford one. The second amendment was written with the intent of being armed to the same level as the US government. It was not written so we could hunt and shoot for fun but as a means of revolution of the common man if and when he/she felt the government was over stepping its bounds. Now in all reality in today’s time if a person or group of persons acts upon this and revolts against the government they will lose and only a fool would do this. We have some good examples of this over the past 10 to 20 years but the point it that we have that right and if we fail we will pay the price. Our current government did not fail against the British and we are still living under the freedom of that revolution. Should a person who is deemed able to own a gun under the current laws have the option of owning a full auto / machine gun? Most definitely Just my .02. Jim __________________ Glock, SIG Arms, S&W & Beretta Armorer ARMED MEN ARE CITIZENS UNARMED MEN ARE SUBJECTS

February 22, 2006, 10:41 PM	#2
Majic Senior Member Join Date: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3,888	Just fill out the required forms, go thru the required checks, pay the fee, and go purchase the firearm you want (if your state allows it).. What else is there to say?

February 22, 2006, 10:44 PM	#3
mxwelch Senior Member Join Date: January 17, 2006 Posts: 379	I'd love to be a Class III owner. It's not that difficult from a paperwork standpoint. The real problem is that most nice Class III weapons cost as much as a vehicle.

February 22, 2006, 10:50 PM	#4
Springfield XD40 Man Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2006 Location: Florissant Colorado Posts: 431	I'm guessing that most of you fully support the right of a civilian to own a full auto weapon? AK-47's are mighty cheap and available.

February 22, 2006, 10:57 PM	#6
deadin Junior member Join Date: September 6, 2005 Location: Ocean Shores, WA Posts: 1,052	Define "cheap" (and legal to transfer)

February 22, 2006, 10:59 PM	#7
Springfield XD40 Man Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2006 Location: Florissant Colorado Posts: 431	Sorry, I stand corrected. I'm not up to speed on class 3 reg's. I learn something new every day.

February 22, 2006, 11:39 PM	#9
The_Browncoat Member Join Date: February 22, 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 61	dont you lose your right to legal search and seazure when owning class III?

February 22, 2006, 11:47 PM	#10
boofus Junior member Join Date: May 18, 2004 Location: JesusLand,TX Posts: 371	Umm I don't know where you've been looking but legal AK-47s are MORE expensive than just about any other kind of rifle out there. Very few were imported before the 1968 cut-off date and very few were converted before 1986. For every 10 or 15 ads for M16s you will see 1 AK for sale. About the lowest you can get a legal AK for is around $15,000 now. Which is more expensive than most M16s, MP5s and Steyr AUGs.

February 22, 2006, 11:49 PM	#11
Springfield XD40 Man Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2006 Location: Florissant Colorado Posts: 431	I'll interject my personal feeling on this, please dont rip my head off. I dont see any legitimate need for a civilian to own a full auto weapon. The sole purpose of these things is to kill many people at once, they are military anti-personnel weapons. Before people respond with, "why do you need a handgun" argument, the difference in lethality of a full auto weapon compared to a handgun, is night and day. Both weapons are lethal, but full auto, much more so. Semi-auto weapons like the springfield socom .308 dont bother me, but the full auto thing scares me. If one of these guns gets into the wrong hands, there will be some serious damage done in short order. I'm entitled to this viewpoint, so please dont mock me, or try to tear me down. I'm just simply stating my position on a complicated issue.

February 22, 2006, 11:53 PM	#13
Springfield XD40 Man Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2006 Location: Florissant Colorado Posts: 431	Hey boofus, a question? Is there any legitimate need to own a full auto weapon? I realize they would be a blast at the range, but outside of that, what's the need to own one?

February 22, 2006, 11:57 PM	#14
boofus Junior member Join Date: May 18, 2004 Location: JesusLand,TX Posts: 371	I need one because I want one. The same reason people buy Winnebagos and Enzo Ferraris and 55" televisions, and Gibson Les Paul guitars and Rolex watches. If this country was founded on 'need' then you'd end up with communism where everyone gets what the government decides you 'need'.

February 22, 2006, 11:59 PM	#15
The_Browncoat Member Join Date: February 22, 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 61	agreeing with boofus

February 23, 2006, 12:00 AM	#16
Springfield XD40 Man Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2006 Location: Florissant Colorado Posts: 431	Ok, we can leave it that. I respectfully disagree with you, that's the beauty of America.

February 23, 2006, 12:07 AM	#17
boofus Junior member Join Date: May 18, 2004 Location: JesusLand,TX Posts: 371	Maybe you should go and get educated on the ramifications of legal NFA weapon collecting. Between the $10,000+ pricetag, registration, tax paid to the treasury department, local police chief/sheriff signature, finger prints, passport photo, background check by the FBI and ATF, 2-24 month waiting period, Brady Bill check and other federal hassles you can bet no two bit criminals are willing to go through the full legal process. I might remind you that the greatest mass murder in this country involved a total of 0 firearms, much less NFA firearms. Remember 9-11?

February 23, 2006, 12:31 AM	#19
GeorgeF Senior Member Join Date: August 23, 2004 Posts: 572	Its also non-sensical to state that "If one of these guns gets into the wrong hands, there will be some serious damage done in short order." Seriously - what is difference between pulling trigger as fast as you can vs firing full auto? Damn little. The semi .308 SOCOM is every bit as deadly as any full auto rifle. Its the person behind it, not the weapon itself. Remember too, that 'amazing' shootout in California with two bad guys in body armor and ILLEGALLY MODIFIED full auto AK47's? They fired 100's of rounds. They didnt kill anyone. DC sniper? Semi-auto rifle and 10 people dead. You dont need to own a sportscar either. All the places around me have the speed limit set at 65 max. Why do you need a car capable of soing 200mph? If I crash that thing in middle of traffic, a lot of people will be injured and die. But yet we decide to trust that people wont do that. You're entitled to your opinion, but know this. Since 1968 the total number of people killed by legally registered full auto weapons is ONE. ONE person. And that was done by a crooked cop. How many children died from bicycle accidents last year? I suggest you exert your energies banning those 'death traps' before coming around an obvious pro-full auto board and trolling for answers. Your stance pretty much shows that your mind was made up and you arent open to having your mind changed - so why bother? Again, you are allowed your questions and opinions, but doing so here makes as much sense as going to an NAACP meeting and asking if "slavery was such a bad thing?" It insults the audience with no real good purpose.

February 23, 2006, 05:29 AM	#20
180 Member Join Date: February 6, 2006 Location: Ogden, Utah, USA Posts: 19	Well id like to add a few things here.. 1- While there is no real "need" to own NFA equipment, i feel that life consisting of only whats required wouldnt be much fun at all.. i mean realistically, do any of us need even 1/2 of what we have? I know i probably dont need any of my guns, but they enrich my life and thats what its all about.. 2- this "i cant afford one" crap gets old.. im 21 years old.. as of feb. 15'th I live on my own, i have a vehicle payment, and i barely make 29k a year.. but due to the fact its IMPORTANT to me.. i managed to scrape up the funds to buy me an american 180 on my birthday, it cost me 11k.. i paid in cash..only paid 8 for my truck.. but if its high enough on your priority list, you can find a way to afford it.. you can get a mac for about 3k.. ive seen em go for 2.5.. 3- while i agree that they are overcontrolled, how does this "Infringe" on your right to own one.. Do the FAA reg's "Infringe" on my right to own an aircraft?

February 23, 2006, 11:43 AM	#25
Springfield XD40 Man Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2006 Location: Florissant Colorado Posts: 431	Guess I really opened a can of worms here. However, you guy's make some very valid points, after reading them, you're right, the logic is flawed. Just for the record, I'll soon be a CCW permit holder, I'm not an "anti-gunner", I'm just stating a feeling, you guy's did an excellent job of raising very valid points. Once again, I just learned a lot, that I hadn't previously thought of.