How Can One Get a New Machine Gun?

[RhinoDefense]

They don't give them out, you have to earn the privilege.

 

[chaplain tom]

Fine. You don't like machine guns, don't buy one. But don't you dare tell me it isn't my right to own one. I don't care what law enforcement thinks and I certainly don't need their permission to own or carry a firearm.

With the proliferation of carry permits and handguns in the last 20 years, theft of handguns has NOT increased. In the last 10 years firearms ownership has grown exponentially yet crime has gone down and the theft of firearms has gone down despite the ownership numbers increasing. Why would you think the case would be with machine guns? Criminals don't follow laws. They will make their own. Theft of firearms isn't as frequent as some make it out to be.

Rhino, I would NEVER infringe on your right to own a LEGAL firearm. I'm sorry you got that impression. If you like machine guns gor for it. I wouldn't stand in your way. I'm just giving MY opinion on the usefulness of a machine gun. Other than the fact that they ARE a blast to shoot, can't personally see much use for them in the private sector. That doesn't mean however that YOU don't see a use for them. Like MANY others who post here, I fought a war to defend YOUR and MY right to buy and own ANY LEGAL firearm. We should at least be able to disagree on ANY topic EXCEPT our inalienable rights. And I don't need a piece of paper to tell me what those are except the paper the Word of God is written on which tells me all I need to know about my God given rights. One of those rights is our right of opinion. SO DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME WHAT THAT RIGHT IS. As far as what the police THINK...I couldn't care less. What I was referring to is their concern about MAYBE having to face one when responding to a call. I wouldn't want to face one either. I've used them in battle and they are nasty. Will they have to face them when responding? Absolutely! It WILL happen some time or other. Will it happen often? I doubt it. Will allowing the private sector to own them increase the number of machine guns out there? How could it not? Will those numbers be significant? Only time will tell. Neither you nor I can see the future. BUT I AM ALLOWED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT, just as you are allowed not to be.

 

[RhinoDefense]

I'm not debating your right to opinion, I'm debating your opinion itself. It seemed like you were questioning the right to own a machine gun, which I took offense to. My apologies.

There are a lot of gun owners that don't hunt and simply like shooting. Some like machine guns so they buy them and shoot them. I dig it. My company is a Class 2 SOT and can make whatever we want. For many new hires, the novelty wears off quickly. Torture testing our silencers with 10,000 rounds of full auto fire will do that to a guy.

There are more machine guns in the country than you can imagine. The citizens that have them take great care to not let them be stolen (wish all gun owners were like that). Every decade where firearm ownership increased, firearm theft didn't rise proportionally. I just don't see it happening with machine guns or any other NFA weapon.

 

[mrnkc130]

Rhino, I would NEVER infringe on your right to own a LEGAL firearm. I'm sorry you got that impression. If you like machine guns gor for it. I wouldn't stand in your way. I'm just giving MY opinion on the usefulness of a machine gun. Other than the fact that they ARE a blast to shoot, can't personally see much use for them in the private sector. That doesn't mean however that YOU don't see a use for them. Like MANY others who post here, I fought a war to defend YOUR and MY right to buy and own ANY LEGAL firearm. We should at least be able to disagree on ANY topic EXCEPT our inalienable rights. And I don't need a piece of paper to tell me what those are except the paper the Word of God is written on which tells me all I need to know about my God given rights. One of those rights is our right of opinion. SO DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME WHAT THAT RIGHT IS. As far as what the police THINK...I couldn't care less. What I was referring to is their concern about MAYBE having to face one when responding to a call. I wouldn't want to face one either. I've used them in battle and they are nasty. Will they have to face them when responding? Absolutely! It WILL happen some time or other. Will it happen often? I doubt it. Will allowing the private sector to own them increase the number of machine guns out there? How could it not? Will those numbers be significant? Only time will tell. Neither you nor I can see the future. BUT I AM ALLOWED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT, just as you are allowed not to be.

Really? wow man...I don't even know how to respond...not sure if you are serious or just trying to play the devils advocate...better stay in the fudd section of the forum...or whatever it is you are into...

 

[chaplain tom]

Really? wow man...I don't even know how to respond...not sure if you are serious or just trying to play the devils advocate...better stay in the fudd section of the forum...or whatever it is you are into...

I thought this forum was open to anyone and their opinion, not just a place for single mindedness?

 

[mrnkc130]

But I fail to buy the "recreational shooting" argument for a private citizen owning a fully automatic weapon. I personally would not want to see a large market of machine guns for sale to the generaly public. I believe that would be like throwing gasoline on a fire in many ways.

It's not about "recreational shooting". Owning a machine is our right as a citizens of the United states, if you dont support it you are no better than the anti's.

As I said they are the idiots, not us, but claiming a right to own a machine gun (right or wrong) only strengthens their argument in the press and to congress about why we shouldn't have any guns.

Pandering to them is not a solution, we already have the right to own machine guns.

The way I see it, the more legal machine guns there are in the private sector, the more illigal machine guns there would then be on the streets because of the theft of those guns.

replace machine gun with handgun and you could have cut and pasted that from the brady website

I just don't share the oppinion that we have a need for something so volitile as a machine gun for recreational use. The collecting of rare old guns is one thing, even machine guns, but I just think that legalizing machine guns is a can of worms we shouldn't open.

Sure... you dont like machine guns so why should anyone have them right? Machine guns are already legal, the 2a is not just about hunting or being able to own a handgun for self defense.

I just think that a little give and take would get us a lot further with our argument for our right to own and carry a practical self defense weapon.

If you know anything about the fight for 2a rights you would know it doesnt work that way, they will take ,take, take until everything is gone. You may only be concerned with "personal self defense weapons" but there are many people who are concerned with more than that, please stop advocating giving away others rights because they of no interest to you.

I thought this forum was open to anyone and their opinion, not just a place for single mindedness?

You are free to post what ever you want, but you posted "I just don't share the oppinion that we have a need for something so volitile as a machine gun for recreational use" here in the NFA section of gun forum. Thats like posting you hate lance armstrong because you think he is gay on bike racing forum.

 

[chaplain tom]

You are free to post what ever you want, but you posted "I just don't share the oppinion that we have a need for something so volitile as a machine gun for recreational use" here in the NFA section of gun forum. Thats like posting you hate lance armstrong because you think he is gay on bike racing forum.

As I have stated, I'm not against your right to own a machine gun. I only have opinions on it's use. Stop twisting my words just because you don't agree. I'm all for recreational gun use in any way that doesn't endanger someone else. And no I'm not accusing you or anyone else who owns a machine gun of being unsafe. There are many people who have strong dissagreements with me about my choice of a derringer for a CCW because they strongly believe it's of no use as such. Fine, but it's my choice. Just like it's your's to own and fire a machine gun for fun. I wouldn't choose that weapon myself, but like I have said, it's your choice just don't try to force that thought on me. I'm only voicing opinion, you seem to be accusing me of being anit gun because I don't see it your way. Don't be so forceful about your beliefs while denying me of mine. You seem to be a little thin skinned when someone disagrees with you on anyting. It seems I read somewhere on this forum that it was intended for discussion and we should be able to agree to disagree.

 

[Sam1911]

We absolutely have the right to express our opinions here, to be right, to be wrong, and to disagree -- as long as we do it in a civil, gentlemanly fashion.

Calling another member an anti-gunner (or a "Fudd!") is getting close to insulting and isn't o.k.

On the other hand, pointing out how close a member's rhetoric is to that of our enemies is certainly appropriate.

Tom holds what is likely to be a pretty unpopular opinion, but it isn't a terribly uncommon one out in the world. We must be able to argue against that opinion forcefully -- decisively, even -- without stooping to personal attack and negative emotional appeal.

The facts and logic are on "our" side. Use them persuasively. Don't create enemies through needlessly accusatory language.

 

[Ingsoc75]

Here is the exact text of section 922(o) of US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—

(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or​

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.​

Would it require only a re-wording of paragraph (2)(B) to repeal this?


I saw some references to section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in other sections of 922 but have no idea if that matters.

 

[45bthompson]

Hey Tom,
I think it is great that members here have differences of opinion. It gives people a chance for dialog rather that everybody just chirping along with the same ideas. It is true that people get a little out of their lane on the internet sometimes. When people are not looking into the face of another man it is easy for them to express rude behavior. That is what makes THR so great. Its not tolerated here.
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems from reading your posts that you are not so much against machine guns but that you personally don't see a need for them. It also seems that your opinion that we should not pursue the legal availability of post 86 NFA items stems from the idea of keeping the anti gunners from having leverage on us.
I see your point, but I don't agree with it. I don't foresee a problem with allowing the American people the rights that they have already been given. Plus the anti's are not going to stop fighting. They are losing ground and I think this would be a great time to take on new ground.
By the way I do agree with your decision to carry a derringer. I carried an American Derringer model 1 for years.

 

[RhinoDefense]

Would it require only a re-wording of paragraph (2)(B) to repeal this?

No, just a sentence attached to any bill stating "18 USC Chapter 44 922 (o) is hereby struck and repealed" would suffice.

A is the "cops and government only" provision. This statement would be eliminated.

B is the "civilians" provision. This statement would be eliminated.

Doing A and B would turn the NFA back to it's original form (except the changes of the definition of a silencer [to include parts of such] prior to 1986 and would allow civilians to own any machine gun, new or older, except with respect to imported machine guns after 1968 (as banned by the GCA of 1968).

 

[rscalzo]

theft of firearms has gone down despite the ownership numbers increasing.

Data does not support that.? UCR stats:

Year Value/Stolen Value/Recovered Percent Recovered

2008 Firearms 142,215,920 12,207,052 8.6
2007 Firearms 116,746,215 10,151,048 8.7
2006 Firearms 103,559,485 9,475,233 9.1
2005 Firearms 93,487,243 8,107,822 8.7
2004 Firearms 95,487,885 9,068,485 9.5

 

[RhinoDefense]

142 million guns stolen in 2008? Riiiight.

 

[rscalzo]

STOLEN VALUE..... not number of stolen.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

What are the number of stolen guns? Value just shows guns are getting more expensive, it may not be more guns stolen.

Either way, restricting the number of MGs to the law abiding doesn't affect criminals, and if full auto so effective and devistating someone should tell the US Military to stop shooting semi auto.

 

[KBintheSLC]

What are the number of stolen guns? Value just shows guns are getting more expensive, it may not be more guns stolen.

Ditto. Comparing gun prices from 2004 and 2008 is misleading. At the end of 2008 people were asking 600+ for a lousy used Romanian WASR. Back in 2004, you could get brand new one for less than half that.

 

[rscalzo]

Ditto. Comparing gun prices from 2004 and 2008 is misleading

Not necessarily. Many of today's firearms are much cheaper than in past years. The popularity of the Keltec's and others can have a big influence on the total cost. The firearm's industry Representative such as the NSSF might be a better indicator of what is being sold in what quantity. UCR values are far from accurate and simply an estimate of the item's value in most cases.

Yet the OP has not stated where his data came from determining that the number has dropped. The UCR reports only value, not the number removed from the location. I'm not aware of any national data on that type of theft.

 

[rondog]

I always thought I'd love to have an MG of some kind, until I rented a few at an MG shoot and realized just how quickly they burn through ammo (and cash). Lots of fun for sure, but those things sure like to eat! I thought feeding my Beagles was expensive.....

 

[rscalzo]

Feeding is a bit pricey. But they are are fun when someone else is picking up the tab for the ammo.

My concern is that many ranges have little margin for error in their construction. In own case FA is not permitted as even a slight rise would possibly have rounds passing over the tops of the berms.

 

[JTW Jr.]

paraphrase something I personally witnessed years ago at SHOT Show.

One of the groups , might have been one of the 50 cal groups , was asking passerby's to sign a document to shoot down an assault rifle bill ( or some time of selective anti-assault weapon legislation ).

One old boy walking by stopped and said " Nobody needs assault rifles , they just end up in the wrong hands ".

When the person attending the booth asked the gent what he hunts with he replied " Remington 700 ".

" Well sir , you might want to know , that model Remington 700 is on the list , its considered a Sniper Rifle , as are many other hunting rifles , so you might want to start looking for something different ".

Old buy read the verbage , and quickly signed the doc....

So while some may not have the urge to own and shoot full auto , remember , we are all in this together , rifle , handgun , shotgun , smg and belt fed shooters.

Make no line in the sand , we stand as one , or we fall as one.... ain't no middle ground for the anti's.

me , I love SMG's and belt feds , suppressors and SRB's

Respect everyone's right to choose what they want to own & shoot , and save the disrespect for those who feel we shouldn't own any of them.

 

[JTW Jr.]

I'm NOT necessarily against machine guns. Nor am I afraid that there will be blood in the streets because of them. I just think that a little give and take would get us a lot further with our argument for our right to own and carry a practical self defense weapon.

And I've always been in favor of silencers for public use. We are not a nation of "Hit Men" or silent stalkers as some would have us believe.

So in your opinion , sir , what reason can you be for suppressors but not for full auto ?

Many choose a full auto for the simple reason to master the trigger control , attend a subgun match , and see for yourself. If you are ever in Vegas , the 2nd Sunday of each month , stop by and check out the longest monthly SMG match in the US of any club.

Anywhere from 20 to 60 shooters will gather to have a friendly safe competition , feel free to read and view more on our local site ( mods I hope this is ok ) at:
http://www.vegasshooters.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?14-Monthly-Subgun-Match&s=&pp=20&daysprune=-1&sort=lastpost&prefixid=&order=desc

 

[chaplain tom]

Hey Tom,
I think it is great that members here have differences of opinion. It gives people a chance for dialog rather that everybody just chirping along with the same ideas. It is true that people get a little out of their lane on the internet sometimes. When people are not looking into the face of another man it is easy for them to express rude behavior. That is what makes THR so great. Its not tolerated here.
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems from reading your posts that you are not so much against machine guns but that you personally don't see a need for them. It also seems that your opinion that we should not pursue the legal availability of post 86 NFA items stems from the idea of keeping the anti gunners from having leverage on us.
I see your point, but I don't agree with it. I don't foresee a problem with allowing the American people the rights that they have already been given. Plus the anti's are not going to stop fighting. They are losing ground and I think this would be a great time to take on new ground.
By the way I do agree with your decision to carry a derringer. I carried an American Derringer model 1 for years.

You have hit the nail exactly on the head. I DON'T want any right we have taken away. I just personally (just me mind you) don't see a NEED for a machine gun. Like I said, If you like 'em shoot 'em. I was just expressing not only MY concerns, but the concerns of thousands of Americans, most of whom ARE gun owners themselves. Education is the key to this subject, not name calling or personal attacks.

As for silencers, some of us live in areas where noise restrictions prohibit us from having any ranges to shoot ANY gun at. The silencer would help a lot in that situation. That's all I was saying there.

 

[Alecbh]

I don't know all of the specifics, but don't ammo sales contribute a pretty good chunk of tax money to the parks services, and related departments? Can we not imagine the increase in ammo sales, if FAs were legal? And, would that not "stimulate" the economy, like everyone seems to want? AND, it would create jobs.... What about those angles, to convince our reps to pursue this?

 

[RhinoDefense]

The amount of ammunition sold would not have a large or measurable impact on the economy.

 

[thorazine]

There is actually a government program that gives out Machine Guns and all sorts of NFA stuff. You can sign up here.

Will the army give me a MG that I can take home and play with whenever I want?