The last generation to own machine guns

[Machineguntony]

I was at the store cradling my MP5 (still in waiting period), when it dawned on me that the gun I was fawning over is a 30 year old gun.

I then realized that I will never own a UMP, Glock 18, MP7, m240, or a SAW. One day, the M60s, MP5s, and M16s of the world will be as antiquated as the Gatling guns, M1s, BARs, etc. Civilian legal machine guns will never advance in technology.

Eventually, one day, all the guns that are so cool to us now, will be antiques, nothing more than collectible items. I look at a Tommy Gun, and while I don't deny that they're good guns, they're just before my generation, so I have no desire to buy one, no personal attachment to their history or image. The same will happen one day to the M16s, when the military phases out the M16, and the last of the our generation, who used the M16 in the military passes away.

Some day, even if two or three hundred years from now, there will be a last generation to own these wonderful machines. The Hughes Amendment really screwed us over.

BTW, that's why anyone who is true friend of the Second Amendment, will be happy to give up the value of their NFA machine gun collection, if it meant reversal of the Hughes Amendment.

Any thoughts?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Some day, even if two or three hundred years from now, there will be a last generation to own these wonderful machines. The Hughes Amendment really screwed us over.

It would be rather stunning if our nation lasted that long, say nothing of the Hughes Amendment. It's hard to say what the politics will be like in 3 or 4 years, impossible at 15 or 20... 8 or 10 generations?...

[Tom Servo]

BTW, that's why anyone who is true friend of the Second Amendment, will be happy to give up the value of their NFA machine gun collection, if it meant reversal of the Hughes Amendment.

The problem is, there are a lot of machine gun collectors who do so out of pure financial speculation. While I doubt they'd stick their neck out to publicly oppose a repeal, they'd grouse about it in private. Heaven knows they were walking on eggshells in the leadup to the Heller case.

[Machineguntony]

The problem is that those who are in a position to mount a judicial and legislative fight have compromised motivations.

I am talking about higher ups at the NRA, ILA, lawmakers, etc, ie. the people who I suspect were walking on egg shells leading up to the Heller case.

By compromised motivations, I mean that these individuals have so much money invested in NFA machine guns that they may be compromised in their loyalty to the general population of gun owners versus their multi-million dollar collection.

Just as a figment of my imagination, I can imagine Wayne Lapierre sitting in his mansion, amidst his 100 gun NFA collection, then coming in next day to work, and saying, 'It's best we protect the right to carry first, let's not talk about the NFA registry for now. As a matter of fact, let's never talk about the NFA ever. Ever.' Just my imagination.

Granted, many collectors, myself, included, collect for both fun and investment. The two can go side-by-side. But it is a conflict of interest because the moment the Highes Amendment, if ever replealed, the multi million dollar collection becomes KAPUT and worth nearly zero.

I was speaking to a well known dealer, who I wont name, who says he has a very known base of clients. This dealer had several brand spanking new rifles, NIB transferable full autos that were only meant to be displayed, as shooting them would cause a loss of about $5,000-$10,000. I thought the price was rediculous. He said that he has many clients who have literally hundreds of machine guns, and would want the guns as show pieces, and be content with never shooting them. Sure enough, a week later, all the NIB guns are gone.

Tell me that those guys, who bought the NIB M16s, dont care if Hughes is repealed. I've heard guys say that they'd gladly give up their machine guns for future generations, if they could. I just don't believe what they say. There isn't even a public discussion of Hughes, much less an attempt to reverse Hughes.

And for those who don't care because 'machine guns are overrated and just a way to waste ammo', just remember that if they can make a registry and ban full autos, they can one day come for your semi auto AR. I can see it now...in the year 2100, a NFA semi auto Bushmaster with a 16.5 inch barrel will be $65,000.

[cohoskip]

I had, and used, my Tommy Gun in Korea. But, I couldn't bring it home, so I sold it for $20. (It was fun to shoot)
I also had an M2 Carbine selective fire - also a "machine gun"...

[Willie Lowman]

Originally Posted by Machineguntony

BTW, that's why anyone who is true friend of the Second Amendment, will be happy to give up the value of their NFA machine gun collection, if it meant reversal of the Hughes Amendment.

Any thoughts?

Just this.

Originally Posted by Machineguntony

I decided to buy machine guns as investments because of several reasons:

1. The supply can only go down because of the 86 ban. So even if demand stays constant, the supply every year dwindles. This means higher values. This is only true of NFA machine guns.

2. Entry point to is relatively low for high end 'best of class' products. Compare a m16a2 or a tommy gun to a Picasso. An m16a2 complete and all original is $30,000, compared to millions for a Picasso.

3. The only risk of loss of principal is if the NFA is repealed or declared unconstitutional. I'm betting this will never happen.

4. It's fun and it makes you money. Anytime I buy a new sig or HK or a new rifle, it's purely a expenditure with no expectation of a financial return. With machine guns, you enjoy the investment and you also get to have lots of fun with it. Even with investments like classic cars, you can't drive them around all that much. I can not think of a single investment where you get to play with your investment (staring at a Picasso, while enjoyable, doesn't qualify as fun).

I'm currently awaiting transfer of about $85,000 worth of guns, and if the transfer is smooth, I'm going to buy some more, $100,000 at a time, until I've spent enough on machine guns. I am only going to buy original m16a (not AR conversions), mp5s, and tommy guns.

According to my projection, machine guns will return about 8-10% per year, at the very least.

So, are you a true friend of the second amendment?


--------------------------

I'm not trying to bust MGT's balls too much. His question just struck me as odd considering what he had posted back when he was sending his forms in.
I have never looked at any of my guns as investments, NFA or not. I plan to shoot them, enjoy them, and if possible wear them out. If I have to pay top dollar for my toys, so be it.

[Tom Servo]

So, are you a true friend of the second amendment?

Treating NFA items as an NFA investment doesn't necessarily conflict with support for the 2nd Amendment. By that logic, the integrity of everyone who sold a few magazines or some ammunition at a markup last year would be in question.

There are those who would try to short-circuit meaningful reform for the sole sake of protecting an investment. I've spoken to a couple, but I can also tell you they're not going to be posting in gun forums.

[Willie Lowman]

A few years back I had a F/A IMI Uzi. I paid more for it than any open bolt gun should cost. I had no regrets about the price. I sold it in '09 because I had bills to pay and there was no work to be had.


If the '86 registry ban would have been overturned when I had that gun and it was suddenly worth 1/6 of what I had paid, I wouldn't have been mad. I would be happy because I would have been able to afford another or perhaps an M16.

I am now saving my pennies for a HK sear. I don't expect the Hughes amendment to be overturned anytime so I have a lot of pennies to save. If somehow the registry is reopened, I won't complain about what I paid when I paid it.

[Machineguntony]

Like Tom said, you can have it both ways.

I acknowledge my conflict. After all, who wants to see several hundred thousand go out the window. I think I would trade in my 30 year old guns for some new ones.

But I'm not in a position to do something about Hughes. The guys who are in a position are suspiciously silent.

Btw, back when I was in college, I paid $1800 for a preban Colt (meaning they were used). At the time, I didn't know that the ban was temporary, and most dealers and collectors thought the ban would renew. I bought 4 of those suckers. A few years later, when the ban expired, and wasn't renewed, all of a sudden my Colts were all worth about $500 because a brand knew one was about $800-$1000. So I've lost money on gun speculation before.

I just thought of something...I wonder how many machine guns Wayne Lapiere and senior/board members of the NRA own? Anyone have any insight? Talk about a potential conflict of interest.

If 41P becomes actual regulation, watch the NFA toys take a steep nose dive.

[Tom Servo]

But I'm not in a position to do something about Hughes. The guys who are in a position are suspiciously silent.

It's not a conspiracy. SCOTUS just acknowledged that the 2nd Amendment protects something besides National Guard service a few years back. 2nd Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, and we have to walk before we run.

Any repeal or change to the NFA (or the Hughes amendment) is a long way down the road. In the current climate, machine guns are still the political and rhetorical third rail. Bringing legislation or litigation on that front right now would be a waste of time.

If 41P becomes actual regulation, watch the NFA toys take a steep nose dive.

Actually, it might be the opposite. If 41P becomes regulation, the paperwork burden for examiners is going to skyrocket, and wait times will stretch into years.

[Machineguntony]

Agree with you on the third rail part.

People are just simply scared of full auto weapons. Too many myths about full auto weapons, which many seasoned gun owners actually believe. Check out the part on machine guns in the following article.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18576...to-movies.html

And then there is this sad story. Boy shoots himself in the head with a FA micro uzi.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6121915

[Skans]

Granted, many collectors, myself, included, collect for both fun and investment. The two can go side-by-side. But it is a conflict of interest because the moment the Highes Amendment, if ever replealed, the multi million dollar collection becomes KAPUT and worth nearly zero.

I only have one, and even though it's gone up by 375%, I'd GLADLY do anything to get the Hughes amendment repealed

[Machineguntony]

Skans,

Would you say the same if you had, say, 100 machine guns?

Be honest with yourself. You wouldn't sweat just a little bit if a case challenging Hughes went before the SCOTUS?

[JT-AR-MG42]

I'm with Willie and Skans.
Maybe Tom is right about some of the owners, I've just never met one.

All the folks (some with many more than me) I know with NFA guns, not counting dealers, bought them to enjoy. Period.

These are just toys (dangerous if mishandled, I know) and have NEVER been looked at as an investment by me.

I own a dozen, and could care less if the market tanks or skyrockets. And I am not wealthy by means.
We all have a different take on firearms values. To me it's always been what I paid for it, not what it MIGHT be worth IF you sell to someone else.
And I don't buy what I cannot afford to lose.
From your posts concerning spending limits, sounds like that is not an issue for you.

I would not compare expensive MGs to expensive cars though. Coupla rounds of cheap crap ammo, receiver blows, you are out the money spent.
Crash the Porsche, just a call away to your agent for a new one.

Kinda surprising that someone with investment income (and looking for a guaranteed return as you seem to be) would bother to get wrapped up in a heavily regulated item that could be banned tomorrow
when he could use that same money to buy in on a preferred stock deal (talk to your Senator for more info) instead.

To each his own.

JT

[Skans]

Skans,

Would you say the same if you had, say, 100 machine guns?

Be honest with yourself. You wouldn't sweat just a little bit if a case challenging Hughes went before the SCOTUS?

Do you know how wealthy I'd have to be to own 100 machine guns. Even if I paid what I paid for my AC556 13 years ago, that means I had to have spent $240,000 on just machine guns. If I had that kind of money, I'd be donating some to the cause of reversing Hughes. That's because I care far more about preserving and perpetuating our fundamental rights than I do about how much my guns are worth.

And, at this point - almost 30 years later, I don't think it's folks who spent $400 a piece on Mac 10's who have hoards of 100+ machine guns. No, I think its people who have amassed significant fortunes beyond what they have tied up in guns.

But, part of me knows you are right. Even the very wealthy still prize those things that they know no one else can have or get.