Full Auto?

[TexasRifleman]

Again, dismissing the very real issue at the core of this debate. Full autos cost too much simply because of some rediculous law.

Well the first real issue is convincing other gun owners that the things are already legal. And from reading this thread there is lots of work to do there.

If you are going to ever get to a place where you go after a repeal of Hughes you have to at least make sure people understand what it is.

The misconception that full auto is illegal doesn't help with Hughes. The average citizen hears that there is talk to repeal Hughes they will believe it will "legalize full auto" which it most certainly would not do.

As long as so many people walk around thinking full auto is illegal, there's no chance of getting rid of Hughes.

So, we try to make sure gun owners know the truth about full auto; that it's legal but made artificially expensive by a silly law.

THEN you can go after that law, but not before.

 

[Justin]

Justin it looks really ignorant when you make such an assessment and are totally wrong. But just for the sake of showing you how certain mods are anti full auto...

"More like waiting FOREVER, hoping the paper work doesn't get denied or conveniently "lost" and having a spare 25,000 dollars... or so... so totally realistic for the average citizen... right? gimme a break " (quoted by THR memeber)

(Mods response)The wait is under 90 days now for a $10,000 fully transferable registered receiver AR. No, not everyone can afford to purchase a machine gun, but anyone that can purchase more vehicle than they need can.

Let's be sure that everyone understands that machine guns are perfectly legal to own under federal law. It is a myth that they are not. A couple of states may prohibit it, personal finances may deter you, your local LEO may not approve it, but there are people selling and buying legal machine guns every year with no little more effort, or expense, than purchasing a used car from your local Ford dealer.

None of your quotes show the mods as being "anti full auto." It seems quite obvious to me that they were simply setting the record straight with regard to the legalities of owning a full-auto weapon, the waits and costs involved. I see a list of facts without commentary.

This thread is obviously addressing the 1986 full auto weapons ban that makes the cost of legal full autos almost exclusively available for the very affluent. Those who object to this form of eletism obviously do so because it denies the common man access to this weapon. Your mod indicated that he didn't see a problem with it since it no different "than purchasing a used car from your local Ford dealer."

Again, they were statements of fact, disabusing those who still labor under the notion that full auto weapons are illegal. Also, do note that the mods aren't "mine." The staff here are all individuals, acting together to create a forum that suits the mission of THR. No one orders the staff around, and they certainly don't belong to anyone else.

Just because the staff comments don't possess the minimum level of vitriol and internet tough-guy chest beating you require doesn't mean that they believe the current law is fair, or that the average person should be prohibited from owning a fully-automatic weapon.

Its very clear to me that the staff were dealing with the reality of the legal and market situation as it exists in the real world.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Anyone eligible for military service should be able to own and train with a military service rifle.

Anyone interested in military history should be able to own and collect anything from a broadsword to a battleship (if they can afford it).

Anyone who does wrong with a weapon should be punished for the wrong. Anything that can be done wrong with a weapon is already against the law; laws against weapons divert resources away from dealing with the actual wrongdoers.

 

[qwert65]

Indiana boy- the NFA went into effect in 1934, thus no rampages in the 50's

Hso, I was using the SAW as an example, just as TX rifleman chose to use the ma deuce in his example. If new manufacture belt fed FA were legal to buy then manufacturers will meet that demand.
Further, I never said he would conceal it. what would keep him from just walking in to the auditorium? If you want to nitpick certain instances you can just as i can bring up more instances(ex that shooting in AR by those jr. high kids who laid in wait in the woods with grandpas rifle)
Tx rifleman, how many semi auto belt feds are sold "all the time"
for someone who wants realism- you know when explosives were unregulated military surplus? the 1920s. You know when the biggest school massacre was?- 1927, know what he used?- surplus explosives.

I am not saying blood will run in the streets if ppl are allowed light machine guns w/o a bgrd check. I'm saying more nuts(or incompentents) will cause more ppl to be killed.

Further, since the purpose of 2A is to organize a militia the standard rifleman dosent have a belt fed so i see no infringement. Also I am not banning belt feds, In fact I'm allowing more(since they can be manufactured at anytime)

 

[Justin]

Tx rifleman, how many semi auto belt feds are sold "all the time"

I know at least a half-dozen guys who've got a semi-auto belt fed of one design or another.

Further, since the purpose of 2A is to organize a militia the standard rifleman dosent (sic) have a belt fed so i see no infringement.

As I understand it, the standard rifleman doesn't have a handgun, either. Does this mean you have no problem with onerous restrictions on handguns?

 

[IndianaBoy]

Indiana boy- the NFA went into effect in 1934, thus no rampages in the 50's

Machine guns in 1934 were subject to a 200 tax and registration. There was no manufacturing ban.

Hundreds if not thousands of WWII weapon 'bringbacks' came into the US when WWII ended. Many of these were registered, many of them were not.

In 1986, the Firearm Owners Protection Act made illegal the manufacture of new machine guns for the civilian market. Although existing machine guns can continue to be transferred, the supply is now limited and prices have gone predictably skyward.


I don't have anything else to say because I don't have anything nice to say to you.

 

[rfurtkamp]

I am not saying blood will run in the streets if ppl are allowed light machine guns w/o a bgrd check. I'm saying more nuts(or incompentents) will cause more ppl to be killed.

Those intent on killing and havoc will find tools to suit them.

Why restrict the rest of us based on their stupidity?

 

[qwert65]

Justin, I know they exist, my point was they are not very common which his remark was aimed at.

 

[qwert65]

Why restrict the rest of us based on their stupidity?

bc sometimes restrictions need to be made for the greater good. How many of you are doctors? do you think the gov should no longer liscence them?
Not the best analogy I know. I just hate being called an anti/gun grabber when I am far from it. I've seen many idiots do stupid things with guns, and they would of wanted FA if they could(kinda hard in NJ) I fully believe they are more of a danger with sustained fire.
And I'm obvisouly in the minority here but I don't believe a bgrdcheck and 200 bucks is much of a restriction(remember this is just for machineguns, not standard magazine fed rifles)

 

[Gunnerpalace]

for someone who wants realism- you know when explosives were unregulated military surplus? the 1920s. You know when the biggest school massacre was?- 1927, know what he used?- surplus explosives

Reading is fundamental, I noted in my post that in that time period he could (anyone could have) have purchased a machine gun (Maxim, Thompson, BAR) and done the same thing,


Justin, I read you comment and I did not see anything anti-gun about it,

 

[Gunnerpalace]

bc sometimes restrictions need to be made for the greater good

What?

I'm not even gonna get started on that one,

 

[rfurtkamp]

bc sometimes restrictions need to be made for the greater good. How many of you are doctors? do you think the gov should no longer liscence them?

The practice of medicine is not covered by an enumerated right.

That said...

You're afraid of some nebulous thing happening, without any evidence it would, and would restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to own, possess, and acquire property without government interference.

That is the very definition of an anti.

 

[qwert65]

Reading is fundamental, I noted in my post that in that time period he could (anyone could have) have purchased a machine gun (Maxim, Thompson, BAR) and done the same thing,

Read about the Bath school massacre guns would not have helped him

 

[qwert65]

there are restrictions on free speech, just bc there is a right it does not mean that it is all encompassing.
taking it that far if I bought up land around you i could land lock you, most public roads were private lands aquired by the goverment for the public good as are military bases. Ft. Dix for example.

 

[qwert65]

Gunnerplace,

Owning sarin gas is restricted

fissionable material is restricted

having O2 tanks is restricted

concentrated B. abortus is restricted

Smallpox is banned

do you think these should be sold to whomever?

 

[Gunnerpalace]

There is a difference, I'm sorry you cannot see that.

 

[rfurtkamp]

Owning sarin gas is restricted

Not a weapon of war in common use, matter of factly, one that is forbidden by treaties and agreements between the civilized nations of the world.

Second Amendment covers arms, those pesky weapons of war.

fissionable material is restricted

Not a weapon of war. Weaponized, in a bomb, that's a debatable one. I'd be the first to suggest that if it's a viable issue, then the answer is not banning the bomb but changing the Second Amendment (or depending on the interpretation of weapons of war in practice and the unconventional nature of the device, might be moot altogether) to reflect that.

Yes, I expect even the Constitution to be changed if it's gone too far. It's miraculous, but it does have provisions for it.

having O2 tanks is restricted

I can go buy one now. So can you. Zero restrictions..

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000JT7IJI?smid=A367RFIQRDER75&tag=nextag-hpc-mp-delta-20&linkCode=asn

concentrated B. abortus is restricted

Smallpox is banned

Not a weapon of war.

do you think these should be sold to whomever

The Second Amendment gives citizens the fundamental right to own weapons of war.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Tx rifleman, how many semi auto belt feds are sold "all the time"

I had one, sold it because it was boring.

I know lots of guys with them.

Just because YOU don't doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

One for sale at the local fun store just down the road from me. Little Browning, nice looking little thing.

They are fairly common, and there are a few more coming to market soon too. And the point is they are widely available, unregulated as much as other firearms, have extremely high rates of fire even in semi auto, and no one carries them to school in their backpacks to go on a rampage.

And their use in crime is, amazingly enough, almost zero; same as legally owned full auto weapons.

Further, since the purpose of 2A is to organize a militia the standard rifleman dosent (sic) have a belt fed so i see no infringement.

And, if you want to go down that road, you need to do more research. If the intent of a militia is to have a fighting force organized roughly along the same organizational structure that the standing army has, then you would indeed need to include machinegunners as a standard squad member.

The whole argument is ridiculous.

 

[yokel]

An American icon: some things just say "America," like baseball, apple pie and…machine guns.

 

[gmalfavon1]

Hell No! Imagine all the killing of innocent peaple if they were a easy as picking them up as amu other gun here in Az u can literally walk in and out in 10 minutes honestly it took me a longer to pick out my 2 guns theres no reason in owning a fullyauto u can't hunt with them and its terrible for self defence

 

[deadin]

After reading most of the “pro-FA” posts here, it seems to be that the main gripe is that they’re just too expensive and therefore are only for elitists. I guess we have a large number of “elitists” here on the board if you consider all the members that like to brag that they have at least one. (Many with more than one.)
Well Boo-Hoo! There are any number of things I would like to have that are just too expensive for my budget, but I don’t expect anyone to give me one.
Just because my idea of a “fair price” doesn’t coincide with reality is meaningless. (I think I should be able to buy 1st generation Colt SAA’s for $12.95. After all that’s all they originally cost.)

I guess I had better sell all my guns as I have been branded as “Anti-Gun” because I don’t support FA’s being handed out as easily as welfare checks.
Anybody want to buy around 35 or 40 guns (sorry, no FA’s) and got a list of anti-gun websites I can join?

 

[archigos]

As a general rule, anything the US military is permitted to own that isn't massively destructive (as in, destroying an entire village) should be perfectly legal for any US citizen to own.
the only reason I add that "massively destructive" clause is because citizens have no use for atomic weapons - they're not useful for throwing off a government in your own country.

 

[IndianaBoy]

I feel like a fellow has lost a debate when he can only result to a response that insults the person he is debating.

But when you debate someone with a muddy view of history and a willingness to ignore statistics, it's like wrestling in the mud with a pig. No matter what you do, there isn't going to be a good resolution.

Could you folks who oppose legal and affordable machine guns take a step back and compare your comments to those antis who think semi-auto handguns should be illegal, or that mags over 10 rounds are bad.

You think if all the black guns disappeared tomorrow they wouldn't be after your hunting rifle? Most of them are copies of the Mauser that was a 'sniper rifle' in WWII.

Some people just don't get it.

Wrap the world in foam rubber, someone might get hurt.

 

[sturmgewehr667]

i think the people should be able to have anything the government can have, except nukes. if you can afford an abrams tank, you should be able to own it. with our rights being infringed as they are, if a tyrant would ever come to power in the government, the people could do nothing

 

[Shung]

200 bucks is much of a restriction

in 1934 is surely was a hell of a restriction for the normal citizen.. On the other hand, criminals with various traffics and subsequent money surely were not too much worried.