How Can One Get a New Machine Gun?

[desidius]

I've been trying to find the answer to this question, I hope someone can explain.

What would be a legitimate use for a FA rifle for civilians to own?

Are there any uses for self defense?

 

[JTW Jr.]

As with other firearms , it is pride in ownership , mastery in control.

It does take skill and practice to master control and hits with a FA firearm , unlike TV you don't hammer the trigger and hit everything in sight , in reality that isn't how it works.

One reason , competition. Other reason , because in some states you can

 

[devildog32713]

the 2nd amendment is my legitimate reason. Exactly JTW, exactly, haha. The reason the Japanese didn't invade our homeland in WW2, is because they knew civvies we're armed to the gills, not with bb guns and .22 crickets, but many of us had high powered rifles, shotguns, and some FA's.

 

[Sam1911]

I've been trying to find the answer to this question, I hope someone can explain.

What would be a legitimate use for a FA rifle for civilians to own?

Are there any uses for self defense?

Not sure exactly what you are asking.

Are you filling out a Form 4 and you're looking for the best answer for the "reasonable necessity" question in box 15?

Most folks seem to like, "Sport shooting," "Collecting," or some variation, but the most comprehensive answer I've seen is, "All Lawful Purposes."

...

Or are you just asking in general -- sort of a "why would you ...?" kind of question?

In that case, the answers are things like adding valuable pieces to a collection, sport/competition shooting, the belief that "civilians/citizens" should have something approaching parity with the powers that be, practice for mastery of the skills involved in using those kinds of weapons, etc.

The best answer is the simplest: I don't need a reason. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say, "If they've got a good enough reason..."


[ETA: There have been one or two self-defense cases with legally-owned full-auto weapons. Not many though, as their value makes it awfully hard to face sending one off to the police evidense locker for a lengthy (perhaps permanent) stay. Further, there are many types of full-auto weapons. Only some of them are useful/effective for home or personal defense.]

 

[desidius]

Hi Sam, thanks for answering.

Basically it was more of a general question. I mean if the government wants you to go jump through hoops and pay extra fee's to purchase a full auto pre-ban rifle. Aside from sport shooting or gun collecting. I'm assuming there are real self-defense applications for owning a full auto firearm.

I guess I'm speaking for most people my age (30 and below) who never had the chance to own a fully automatic rifle, or who has never served. So most of the reference material we have are either from movies or TV. And we all know how accurate that is.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm assuming there are real self-defense applications for owning a full auto firearm.

From a "Strategy and Tactics" point of view ... maybe.

Certain full-auto firearms are very effective and appropriate for personal or home-defense. Small, compact submachine guns, and maybe even true assault rifles -- if the user is familiar with the best practices for their use -- could serve that purpose very well. It would be VERY arguable to maintain that they would be BETTER for self-defensive purposes than a repeating shotgun or a semi-auto carbine -- or even a more maneuverable handgun. All that would depend greatly on the situation, setting, and user.

But those are just a small sub-set of what the National Firearms Act recognizes as "machine guns." When you consider select-fire main battle rifles (FALs, G3s, M14s, etc., etc.) you're probably pretty far past the point of diminishing returns. Even the militaries that fielded those guns found little use for the average soldier running them on "full auto." They are difficult to control for almost all shooters. And, your home is not a war zone where suppressive fire is acceptable and "collateral damage" comes with the territory. And a large number of transferable machine guns are crew-served, belt-fed weapons (M-60s, M-2s, M-1919s, PKMs, Lewis guns, Maxims, etc., etc.). No place for those in home defense for 99.99% of us.

And, it all comes back to the question of value. If you can defend your home perfectly well with a $200 shotgun, why would you use a gun that cost five or ten times that -- knowing that if you ever have to shoot it at an attacker, it will probably spend years in a police locker, and you might never get it back at all?

 

[mboylan]

From a "Strategy and Tactics" point of view ... maybe.

Certain full-auto firearms are very effective and appropriate for personal or home-defense. Small, compact submachine guns, and maybe even true assault rifles -- if the user is familiar with the best practices for their use -- could serve that purpose very well. It would be VERY arguable to maintain that they would be BETTER for self-defensive purposes than a repeating shotgun or a semi-auto carbine -- or even a more maneuverable handgun. All that would depend greatly on the situation, setting, and user.

But those are just a small sub-set of what the National Firearms Act recognizes as "machine guns." When you consider select-fire main battle rifles (FALs, G3s, M14s, etc., etc.) you're probably pretty far past the point of diminishing returns. Even the militaries that fielded those guns found little use for the average soldier running them on "full auto." They are difficult to control for almost all shooters. And, your home is not a war zone where suppressive fire is acceptable and "collateral damage" comes with the territory. And a large number of transferable machine guns are crew-served, belt-fed weapons (M-60s, M-2s, M-1919s, PKMs, Lewis guns, Maxims, etc., etc.). No place for those in home defense for 99.99% of us.

And, it all comes back to the question of value. If you can defend your home perfectly well with a $200 shotgun, why would you use a gun that cost five or ten times that -- knowing that if you ever have to shoot it at an attacker, it will probably spend years in a police locker, and you might never get it back at all?

Who in their right mind would want a $12,000 M16 or a $16,000 MP5 sitting in a police locker.