Shung
Member
*let's hope foreigners still believe it for long enough*
Full Auto?
- Thread starter Clint C
- Start date
- Status
*let's hope foreigners still believe it for long enough*
woodybrighton
member
ha your secrets out we will be round for choccys swiss army knives and the contents of your bank vaults as we are broke.
well the average swiss bloke has been shouted at by NCO's and some firearm safety has gone in and hopefully stuck
as we are broke.well the average swiss bloke has been shouted at by NCO's and some firearm safety has gone in and hopefully stuck
expvideo
Member
I think that the 2a is pretty clearly in support of the people being able to obtain modern military weapons.
IndianaBoy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,551
You guys talking about mall and school shootings are using the exact same argument that antis use against semi-auto weapons.
It disappoints me to hear such things from our own side. No wonder we are constantly fighting just to stay right where we are. Our own side won't even push for the true spirit if the 2nd Amendment. Sad.
It disappoints me to hear such things from our own side. No wonder we are constantly fighting just to stay right where we are. Our own side won't even push for the true spirit if the 2nd Amendment. Sad.
It is possible for you to own machine guns in 41 states.
Only 8 (yes, 1 is too many) states do not allow machine gun ownership by citizens.
California does allow private ownership of machine guns, but makes it essentially impossible to get approval.
Here's the list (some of which is surprising).
Allowed
AK, AZ, CO, CT , FL, ID, KY, MA, MD, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, ND, NH, NM, OH, OR, PA, SD, VT, WI, WV
Not allowed
DE, HI, IA, IL, KS, NY, RI, WA
Allowed but essentially impossible
CA,
Arguments against private machine gun ownership are as empty as those against so-called assault weapons. There are no statistics supporting the hysterical claims that "assault weapons" are frequently used in homicides and there's nothing to indicate machine guns would be either. It's a myth (or lie). Anyone that can legally purchase a handgun should should not be restricted from owning a machine gun.
Only 8 (yes, 1 is too many) states do not allow machine gun ownership by citizens.
California does allow private ownership of machine guns, but makes it essentially impossible to get approval.
Here's the list (some of which is surprising).
Allowed
AK, AZ, CO, CT , FL, ID, KY, MA, MD, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, ND, NH, NM, OH, OR, PA, SD, VT, WI, WV
Not allowed
DE, HI, IA, IL, KS, NY, RI, WA
Allowed but essentially impossible
CA,
Arguments against private machine gun ownership are as empty as those against so-called assault weapons. There are no statistics supporting the hysterical claims that "assault weapons" are frequently used in homicides and there's nothing to indicate machine guns would be either. It's a myth (or lie). Anyone that can legally purchase a handgun should should not be restricted from owning a machine gun.
Last edited:
Davionmaximus
Member
Gonna ruffle feathers here.. but I don't see any reason to own an full auto.
Full auto weapons are designed for suppressive fire, not accuracy.
Besides, at current ammo prices who could afford to shoot one ??
This being said, I am not against private ownership. Just can't think of a good use for them.
Full auto weapons are designed for suppressive fire, not accuracy.
Besides, at current ammo prices who could afford to shoot one ??
This being said, I am not against private ownership. Just can't think of a good use for them.
Here's the difference in the military world (where you draw your choices from) and the civilian: I have no commanding officer.
I pick the level of force that is deemed appropriate within the rules of engagement, the law. If I'm willing to pay for it, carry it, possess it, feed it, etc., I can have it.
The militaries wouldn't have full auto weapons available if they weren't effective for something, and that something is absolutely denied US citizens in anything manufactured or papered after 1986.
The American citizen is now over a generation behind on firearms technology available to them.
Most of the dreaded FA guns won't regularly find their way into civilian hands - don't know if you've looked up the eligible agency cost for, say, a M240B. It's not cheap, let alone feeding it.
But cost should have no impact on the fundamental impact of rights - the government needs to get out of messing with the free market economy where guns are concerned, particularly NFA stuff.
Go look at the forms yourself, Form 1 and Form 4 are the common ones used for NFA items (including MGs, silencers, and other restricted items).
http://www.titleii.com/Forms.htm
All my NFA items have been approved without being lost, without being denied, without real hassle outside the turnaround time and the expense. Thousands of generally law-abiding Americans have the same experience.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
If you don't see any reason to own one, then you haven't shot one.
Some are quite accurate, guess you haven't been shooting the right ones. Oh wait, you don't shoot them since you don't see why anyone should own one.
Just because you don't want to spend the money on it doesn't mean someone else doesn't, or can't. Reloading is an option, and I don't know if you have noticed but lots of surplus ammo is still shockingly cheap; .30-06 in particular. News flash: Not all machineguns come in 5.56 and .308.
It's interesting that you put "good use" in there. I see that a lot.
But I never see that about the thousands of bolt action, lever action, and semi autos in the marketplace.
There is no "good use" in North America for anything except a bolt action .30-06, why do people buy all that other stuff?
So you are suggesting that a "reasonable purpose" be defined for owning a gun. You sure you want to go down that road?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Just to repeat what's already been said:
That one is total BS.
I ask everyone who would think this way, or post this way, to critically analyze their own words for once.
You say you have nothing against ownership, but your statements are anything but expressing that.
Because *you* can't (or won't) buy the ammo, nobody has a 'reason' to own one.
The minute you go to 'reason to own', you've handed your RKBA on a platter to those who would take it. Think of the people who can't get carry permits (another atrocity of the law) because they can't exhibit a 'reason' - or who can't own guns of a particular type because of this same rubric.
And on the suppressive fire angle and can't hit squat, go to a match sometime with the guys who actually know how to hit things. The short, controlled burst from pistol-caliber subguns is a thing to behold.
Again, because *you* can't shoot them accurately (and the irony here is I'd bet the vast majority of people who hold the 'can't hit squat' philosophy have never actually trained to overcome this skill deficiency) - doesn't mean that people can't.
But we go back to 'reason'.
When you say that no one has any 'reason' to own these things, I think of Feinstein and her ilk. No one 'needs' or has any 'reason' to own anything
Has nothing to do with need. Has everything in the world to do with I want and I can. Why does this always come back to what we need? Do you really need your hunting rifle or can you buy meat at the store? Has nothing to do with need.
See Above
My brother was a 240B team leader in the Army. He and his crew, and the rest of the mg teams for that matter, qualified with less rounds then they were given in an effort to be as accurate as possible. Yes the mg is an area suppression but in the hands of the right person it is not spray and pray. And I would imagine that serious mg owners know this. Spraying and praying is a great way to burn down your $10,000 + firearm.
Yeah that makes about as much sense as a tactical wheelbarrow. What with all the uber rich folks running around the crime infested inner cities of America. If I want to buy a M1 and I have the money and a clean record why should I not? I am not saying that we should be able to own atomic weapons. But if one can afford a tank, even an M1, why not? And as a former LEO I can tell you this, my job had less to do with crime prevention than taking down accounts of what happened. That's just the cold truth of it. Only you are responsible for your safety and for me or anyone else to say that you can not have what ever you want, not need, to defend yourself is just flat out wrong.
There's no "good use" to have a Remchester at home, after all -hunting season is, what, 3-6 weeks a year at most? No "reason" to possess something outside of the intended purpose of the gun.
And that's the irony in all this - 'reason' and 'no use' can be applied to the same broad canvas of owning anything somebody doesn't like.
And it's this culture of dislike and lack of eloquence on the part of the average American these days that make 'reasonable restrictions' feasible at all.
The world is not a binary place, where either you personally want it or it's worthless. Expressing sentiment in this manner just feeds the ability of those who would exploit you.
It's a sad commentary on American culture - just a generation after FOPA '86 we've lost the RKBA war.
We've proven to those who would take all our guns that incrementalism works and that the average gun owner will sign on lock, stock and barrel.
And so will most of its pro-shooting organizations
CoRoMo
Member
This should be the conclusion of this thread.
The OP isn't asking about practicality of everyone owning one, rather, he's asking about the ability. Everyone currently has the ability. That's a fact. If you live in a state that prohibits ownership in that state, you have the ability to own the hardware elsewhere. Not practical, but able.
Exposure
Member
I can't believe the amount of misinformation in this thread. Information that has already been covered ad infinitum on this site, and yet the same wrong answers keep floating to the top.
I also can't believe how members many here believe it is just fine for the government to regulate certain types of firearms just because you can't see any reason to own one. This is the exact mentality that the gun grabbers have.
I have seen the enemy, and it is us.
I also can't believe how members many here believe it is just fine for the government to regulate certain types of firearms just because you can't see any reason to own one. This is the exact mentality that the gun grabbers have.
I have seen the enemy, and it is us.
Woody: I agree with you. The idea of some young buck showing up at the range with 5K rounds and a FA AK47, and not a clue as to safe handling and operation, is a very scary thought indeed. That unfortunate incident in MA involving a FA weapon which cost a youngster his life gets brought up by the antis at every chance. If that young buck with the AK were to take out the entire firing line we would be down to single shot 22s forever.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
I've owned a select fire submachinegun since 1986. I signed no agreement allowing warrantless searches. The ATF or any other agency has never contacted me about my NFA weapon.
I've been contacted one time by the ATF. Due to having a C&R license. They were calling everyone in this area who had one after a shooting using a SKS in North Augusta, SC.
I've even lost possession of an NFA suppressor during a rollover wreck. It was ten days before I was able to get out of the hospital. My guns were recovered. My suppressor and some other valuable items were gone. I reported it to the ATF. The agent questioned me several times on the phone. Seemed to be somewhat suspicious of the cop who worked the accident scene but never got around to actually coming to talk to me or visiting the scene. He wrote a report on it and that was it.
I've been contacted one time by the ATF. Due to having a C&R license. They were calling everyone in this area who had one after a shooting using a SKS in North Augusta, SC.
I've even lost possession of an NFA suppressor during a rollover wreck. It was ten days before I was able to get out of the hospital. My guns were recovered. My suppressor and some other valuable items were gone. I reported it to the ATF. The agent questioned me several times on the phone. Seemed to be somewhat suspicious of the cop who worked the accident scene but never got around to actually coming to talk to me or visiting the scene. He wrote a report on it and that was it.
Thing is children have in fact been firing weapons under adult supervision since weapons were invented.
It's a shame that the child died - but this is another variation on the 'it's for the children' safety measure.
One child out of the millions who shoot every year is an aberration, not a crisis.
Accidents happen. Yet, with all the evil high capacity semi-autos and autos out there....firing lines aren't being gunned down now. Why would it magically change?
In the event it actually did... many of the shooters who hate anything that wasn't owned by Grandpa would silently and secretly cheer.
That's the sad part of all this.
And this is why I've been laughed at and called a child and petulent and dozens of other things over the years now for daring to question how any pro-RKBA group can support gun restrictions at all.
The road to hell is still paved with good, incremental intentions
woodybrighton
member
I think making it difficult to get full auto weapons is probably a good thing inexperainced shooters plus short barreled automatic weapons not a good thing.
If I was an anti I'd be all for gun owners owning them as one accident would give me all the ammo I'd need
If I was an anti I'd be all for gun owners owning them as one accident would give me all the ammo I'd need
woodybrighton,
Even if an accident happened at the range with a machingun the number of dead and injured wouldn't make 1/100,000th of a percent of the 300,000,000 population of the United States. While personally tragic for the individuals and families involved it would not represent a public health problem and therefore wouldn't warrant regulation by the government. Even 10 such tragic events wouldn't.
Isolated and exceptionally rare incidents should never result in the regulation of the rest of the population.
Even if an accident happened at the range with a machingun the number of dead and injured wouldn't make 1/100,000th of a percent of the 300,000,000 population of the United States. While personally tragic for the individuals and families involved it would not represent a public health problem and therefore wouldn't warrant regulation by the government. Even 10 such tragic events wouldn't.
Isolated and exceptionally rare incidents should never result in the regulation of the rest of the population.
Last edited:
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Even back before '86, when these things were available everywhere and dirt cheap, this kind of stuff didn't happen any more with NFA weapons than any other firearm.
The whole "blood will flow in the streets" nonsense has been proven false time and time again. Sad that it's still people's default argument against some types of weapons, concealed carry, castle doctrine laws, etc.
Always the same fear mongering, with no basis in fact.
deadin
Member
I don’t really have a dog in this fight as my State doesn’t allow FA.
(And, yes, I have fired FA’s. They just don’t do anything for me, but that’s just me.)
I do have a couple of observations for those of you that are advocating civilian ownership of any or all weapons of the military. My experience with the military was US Navy (retired on 20 in 1978) so I don’t know about the current Army/Navy regs. I do seem to remember that when on active duty a soldier did not have “control” of his weapon other then when “on duty”. In other words, they were not allowed to keep their weapons when “in quarters” or “off duty”. Weapons were checked into the armory and then checked out when needed for official reasons. Some bases allow personal weapons in housing, but none in barracks. Others require all weapons be kept in the armory and checked out to go to the range, etc. Way back, weapons were locked in a rack in the barracks and the keys were controlled by the barracks sergeant.
My point here is to be careful of what ask for. You might get more lax ownership laws, but gain “armory” type check in. (Guns must be kept “off-site” in an approved storage facility. Isn’t this something like the Brits have?)
I can see it only being a small step to go from something like this, (FA storage) to ALL firearms storage “off-site”)
(And, yes, I have fired FA’s. They just don’t do anything for me, but that’s just me.)
I do have a couple of observations for those of you that are advocating civilian ownership of any or all weapons of the military. My experience with the military was US Navy (retired on 20 in 1978) so I don’t know about the current Army/Navy regs. I do seem to remember that when on active duty a soldier did not have “control” of his weapon other then when “on duty”. In other words, they were not allowed to keep their weapons when “in quarters” or “off duty”. Weapons were checked into the armory and then checked out when needed for official reasons. Some bases allow personal weapons in housing, but none in barracks. Others require all weapons be kept in the armory and checked out to go to the range, etc. Way back, weapons were locked in a rack in the barracks and the keys were controlled by the barracks sergeant.
My point here is to be careful of what ask for. You might get more lax ownership laws, but gain “armory” type check in. (Guns must be kept “off-site” in an approved storage facility. Isn’t this something like the Brits have?)
I can see it only being a small step to go from something like this, (FA storage) to ALL firearms storage “off-site”)
- Status
