Full Auto?
- Thread starter Clint C
- Start date
- Status
pkoch62, thank you for answering my question, and not a made up/fragment of what I posted. You gave your position and why.
We disagree, however I see your pt. and have to admit some of it is valid.
I dont believe I will be attacked by an armored velhicle, but if that happened I see where a rpg could come in handy. I fully support your right to an rpg but I believe you should have a backgrd check first.
We disagree, however I see your pt. and have to admit some of it is valid.
I dont believe I will be attacked by an armored velhicle, but if that happened I see where a rpg could come in handy. I fully support your right to an rpg but I believe you should have a backgrd check first.
ChromeLibrarian
Member
If I want an M1 tank, and can afford it, I should be able to park it in my driveway.
I am in favor of law abiding citizens being allowed to own FA firearms as a right, not as a privilege to the well off that we have now.
I am not offended by a screening process that reduces the chances of someone who is not law abiding getting possession of any firearm.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Might come as a surprise to you but I know of at least one privately owned F14, a couple of F4 phantoms, several F5's and a boatload of Mig's in this country. There are several hundred actively flying military jets in the US, many of them still in service with air forces around the world.
These require MUCH less background checking than even a Title 1 firearm but could be used for MUCH more devastating purposes.
Do you want ownership of those banned?
As with machineguns, none of these privately owned military aircraft have been used to commit any crimes, other than flying under the occasional bridge for kicks.
The point of all of this is that most of the anti machine gun arguments come down to "what if" scenarios, but these what if's simply don't happen in real life.
How far are you all willing to take these 'what ifs' and 'maybes'?
MAYBE someone will fill a Hertz rent truck with fertilizer and blow up a building. Oh wait that happened already. Do you call for the banning of Hertz rental trucks or 30 day waiting periods to buy fertilizer?
Why not? There are 2 items that created more havoc than all machineguns in this country put together, yet no one calls for a ban.
Any logical reason for this? What makes these 'what if' things so easy to apply to guns but yet you could never make the argument for anything else?
It's irrational. Is it because guns are the easiest to obtain weapons? No, that would be cars.
Ban cars! NFA tax stamp needed for Chevrolets over 1/2 ton!
It's not right I tell you, that's clearly not what the founding fathers intended! The Constitution is a "living document" and they would never have wanted citizens to have access to such weapons of mass destruction as Hertz rent trucks, fertilizer, and handheld GPS units! Stop the madness before someone is hurt!
Doesn't that sound just silly?
ChromeLibrarian
Member
Nope, just me. The rest of you can't be trusted.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Maybe in your state, though I seriously doubt it. Not here in Georgia, you are required by law in that situation to allow the 'land locked' owner access to his land. There is a law in Texas that 'once a road, always a road.' My informant on this says that even if a road hasn't been used in fifty years and goes across your property, it can't legally be blocked off from access.
Now, on to weapons of war and the 2nd Amendment.
My take on sarin and other WMD's. If a responsible citizen cannot be trusted with some weapon then neither can the government. There is always an individual who has control of those weapons. Think about Richard Nixon. Don't know about you but the majority of my fellow citizens are more responsible than he was...
After reading this thread, I can see why I and my fellow full auto owners were thrown beneath the bus by the NRA in 1986. And I still belong to and support the NRA.
The idea that most beltfeds would be used in crime is ridiculous.
Most of them are extremely heavy and are crew served weapons.
Maybe the SAW could be so used but even without the 86 FOPA ban on new machineguns, the price of a SAW to the government is about $4K.
Elitist because I own a machinegun? Nope. I was lucky enough to get mine before the 86 ban. Including the cost of the UZI, the cost of conversion, and the $200 tax stamp. I've got about $975 1986 dollars in it. That inflates to $1820.87 in 2007 dollars. They are going for up to $5000 now. Why? It's not the greedy owners or dealers. It's because the 86 ban restricted the supply while the demand remained steady. Ask any economist what the result will be.
Give you another example. BAR's are going for up to $20K. A couple of years ago, a company sent someone to Europe on a search. This guy found some arsenal stored BAR's and bought them. Then he hired someone to torch cut the receivers to ATF requirements. While he was doing this, the company was going through the process with ATF and customs to import the cut BAR's into the country. The BAR's were then placed in a container and shipped to the US where they were transported to the company. The company then packaged the BAR's and advertised them for sale for $700 each. Now if the company was allowed to import them whole and uncut, the company would not be out of the expense of having them torch cut and you would be able to purchase that BAR for less than $700. Instead of $20,000. That's what our government and our elected leaders have done to us. How do you know a politician is lying? Simple. The politician's lips are moving. Heads- Republicans and tails- Democrats. Flip it all you want, it is still the same coin.
And there is a difference between sales of military technology to a citizen and sales to a foreign, hostile country. A big difference. I own military technology that is restricted from import without specific licensing. That should be banned? Hate to tell you this, but your computer is restricted technology for import. Should it be banned?
Last edited:
Maybe not an M1, but a local businessman bought a Chieftan and had it delivered to his downtown warehouse and then trucked on a HET to his farm. It made quite a site since the truck it was on couldn't make the turn down the narrow street to his warehouse and it had to be dismounted and driven down. He got permission from the city, but had to pay for any street damage.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
The M1 entered service in the US in 1979. That's not really "state of the art", more like "the best we've got".
Add to that the fact that we've sold them to Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and (probably soon, they asked for 140) Iraq.
You're OK with those foreign interests being able to own this 30 year old "state of the art" weapon but not a law abiding US citizen?
Wow, that's...... what's the word I used before....... irrational.
What is it that makes people afraid of their fellow citizens yet completely trusting of foreign governments?
ChromeLibrarian
Member
The point is that those sort of "weapons" can do far more damage than any full auto, or belt fed weapon, and they are legal.
But then banning anything is very rarely logical. It's emotional. And logic will never overcome emotion, because the emotional sort of person who is for banning things based on "might happens" that have never happened before are very rarely capable of thinking logically.
But then banning anything is very rarely logical. It's emotional. And logic will never overcome emotion, because the emotional sort of person who is for banning things based on "might happens" that have never happened before are very rarely capable of thinking logically.
Wow. When did Bill Clinton join THR? Seriously, I doubt the founding fathers had any such intentions.
Pretty much. I don't know if you knew that Mike Dillon owns a bunch of machine guns, including a Quad 50 anti-aircraft gun, and a collection of fighter aircraft (and a ranch that he can strafe). As far as I know, he hasn't committed any crimes with any of them yet.
All it takes is cubic money.
Are you kidding me?? Do you know how many people professional drug dealers kill? Can you see the insanity of you logic? You don't care about a drug dealer/pro criminal getting their hands on any weapon but you do take issue with Duddly Do Right and Susie Homemaker owning a certain type of weapon????
That's the whole argument and logic behind the libs and their efforts to take away semi-autos and large caliber "sniper rifles". They target ONLY the law abiding citizens while completely ignoring the factions of society that would be more likely to use their weapons in the commission of a crime. Are there people that fly off the handle and go nuts and go on a killing rampage?? Sure. People go crazy all the time. Should we outlaw all firearms, cars, knives, and baseball bats because these crazies might use them to kill somebody? Gosh man, how much of a nanny state do you want??? I personally have no problem with NICS. As long as you have a clean record, you should be able to buy whatever you want. If you break the law with these weapons, you will go to jail for a long time or be executed. Just like anybody who is qualified and demonstrates ability to drive an automobile can be licensed to drive one. (yet automobiles kill more people than all of the gun shootings in the US) If you break the law with a car (i.e. running somebody or mulitple people over), you go to jail. Same concept. In fact, Arms are protected by the constitution while the privilige of driving isn't. As for autos being for the elite..... I have nothing against anybody who owns a full auto. God bless, I envy that they have such a nice gun and I don't hold them responcible for the price of full autos. What I mean to say is that because of this ridiculous law, only the very affluent can CURRENTLY purchase a full auto. Many fellas in here bought their full auto before this stupid law came into play. I say, congratulations. But the rest of your brothers in arms would like to be able to purchase one as well without having to mortgage there home to do so, were it not for this law. I think many of us could scrounge up $4K for a full auto, but $16K or $20k!!!!!
For no other reason that we are restricted, by law, to only buying the pre 1986 supply, nothing currently manufactured. If they passed this law on 1911's, the prices for them would also skyrocket in 10 to 20 years, just because of the dwindling supply and steady demand for them. That's not free market, that's government intervention to controll the price so that only the very affluent/elite can purchase them and NOT the common man. That's my beef with this ridiculous unconstitutional law.TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
So then you are OK with me buying a stripped down M1, as a law abiding citizen?
Then why not an M249 SAW, maybe without the night vision?
Where is the line, you see the problem with drawing lines?
Who said anything about EVERYBODY? I think the concensus here has been any law abiding citizen with a clean record. Do a background check, there's your "reasonable regulation" that I'm sure nobody in here would object to. Just don't outright prohibit to EVERYBODY no matter what.
Shung
Member
hey, I am a big aviation fan.. I really thought that the Tomcat was out of the skies maybe except some caniblzed/repaired Iranian "Turkeys"..
WHO is flying a F-14 in the USA ? or is it just a static plane ?
I'd love to see one to fly again !
sorry for OT..
NickEllis
Member
Why does reality dictate otherwise? Current legislation dictates otherwise. The point is we're trying to change that.
And I personally don't know too many law abiding citizens out there that are committing violent felonies and just "not getting caught".
And I personally don't know too many law abiding citizens out there that are committing violent felonies and just "not getting caught".
ChromeLibrarian
Member
Right. So your "emotions" tell you that everyone out there is a criminal, and therefore no one should have the weapons your emotions tell you are dangerous for anyone to have. Emotions rule the day, and logic/common sense goes right out the window.
- Status
