Why a F.A.W?

[oldbear]

I spent 27 years in L/E and 50 + years as a firearms hobbyist; I still look forward to my bi-monthly range adventures. During this time I have had limited opportunities to shoot F.A.W. of several designs, and I enjoyed the experience, but not to the point that I would spend the time, effort, and money to own a F.A.W. So my question is other than I can or it’s cool to own a F.A.W. would one of you PLEASE explain why the average armed citizen needs an F.A.W. considering the cost and the potential government intrusion.

Sincerely,

Oldbear

 

[medalguy]

NEEDS??? Has nothing to do with NEED. Why does anyone NEED an automobile capable of going 120 mph? It can't be legally driven on the roads anywhere that I'm aware of at that speed, yet a lot of people own them.

It's more about WANTS. I WANT one and enjoy shooting it. Besides, it's a constitutional right should I decide to exercise it. Not to mention the historical pleasure I get out of seeing this weapon firing, similar to the enjoyment I get out of seeing a B-29 or a P-51 flying again. No one NEEDS a bomber or a fighter plane, do they? After all, they were only designed for one purpose-- killing people. Oh, uh.......er, well.......

 

[dirtymike1]

I agree with you medalguy. It's not about needs, it's all about wants. For myself, I really want to start purchasing NFA items, I think it's going to start with a .22lr can. I've been looking at MAC 11/9s and other such SGM's as well. And it honestly has nothing to do with the needs of having one, but good god do I want one

ANd you make a good point medalguy, most sporty/sports cars today are coming out with 300hp, can do 0-60mph in the 5.5 second range and have a top speed near 150ish. You'll never legally be aloud to make use of any of those performance factors on the street, but it's nice to you that you can.

 

[ForumSurfer]

would one of you PLEASE explain why the average armed citizen needs an F.A.W.

Questioned.

it's a constitutional right should I decide to exercise it

Answered.







You said it yourself...you're a hobbyist. You enjoy shooting certain things more than others, just like me. If someone else comes along (gov't) and dictates what we "need" and starts banning certain stuff, I'm sure you'd be just as upset as I. Next thing you know...we all end up with California's silly rules dictating that we don't "need" more than 10 rounds in a pistol, or we don't "need" evil thumbhole stocks, or etc...

 

[Sam1911]

The average armed citizen probably doesn't need one to do the kind of shooting they enjoy -- if we're limiting the conversation to the practical, everyday uses, rather than to that of the citizen's rights under the Constitution.

The average armed citizen probably doesn't shoot the kind of matches where those guns are used/welcome, and doesn't have the historic and/or mechanical interest to collect them. Doesn't train to use them effectively in "practical" situations. Thanks to the Hughes amendment, the costs are pretty high, and put these somewhat out of reach for many shooters -- and make the weapon itself too valuable to risk damage or loss.

So, don't feel bad if you don't perceive a personal NEED to go buy one. It's not like you can't be a "real" gun guy if you haven't checked off that particular box on your list.


(Now, as a matter of rights, the 2nd Amendment is all about the citizen being armed in an equivalent way to a military force, so one might say that it protects a citizen's rights to own a machine gun MORE directly than it does their right to, say a hunting or target rifle. But that seems beside the point of this thread...)

 

[Bullnettles]

Oldbear,

To abstain from sounding like a nut job, I will simply say go check out why the men who penned the Constitution wrote in the second amendment.

 

[jmorris]

To me they are just toys. It's no more ridiculous to me than someone who spends thousands on golf stuff.

We do some rather informal machine gun shoots every now and then. My mother in law was present once the day after the 4th of july and asked "What are those good for?" I responded "What were the thousands of dollars of fire works we lit off good for? Entertainment, and at the end of the day I can take the gun home. The fireworks are gone forever.

Need, I don't need the majority of the firearms I own, many of them I have yet to shoot. Need is just a word people use as an excuse to talk themselves into or out of something

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Why would an average airplane buff need a P51 Mustang? They don't obviously. But one airshow I went to not only had a privately owned P51 but a Mig15--the smell of kerosene after it landed will stay in my memory forever. No one would need a Brit Mosquito bomber either but it would be cooler than heck just to see one. There's no need for suits of armor either, or first editions of Poe's Tamerlane 1827 when you can download a ebook facsimile, or lots of other things people have. The average person has no need of such things, including full auto weapons.

If you don't have a fixed address, move frequently and must pack your belongings in a duffle bag that you can carry, limiting yourself to needs might make sense, but once you settle down, you start collecting curios and ornaments of little practical value. It's human nature.

I don't think people collect FA as weapons. I have semi-auto versions of full auto military firearms that I don't think of as weapons. I have a revolver and a shotgun that are my designated defensive weapons, and do not keep the military arms handy as weapons and would not keep a full-auto Thompson or Reising for use as a weapon, but as a collectable.

Besides, a world limited to needs would be pretty bare.

 

[Prince Yamato]

To abstain from sounding like a nut job, I will simply say go check out why the men who penned the Constitution wrote in the second amendment.

Exactly.

 

[oldbear]

To all of you who took the time to respond to my question thank you! I’m pleased with the civil tone of your responses. JMORRIS and Carl N. Brown I think you tagged it. Being a huge believer in man toys, we work hard so we can play hard, your answers were ones that make perfectly good sense to me.

As for the gentlemen who suggested I again read the second amendment there is still some question about militias, and I don’t believe the framers of the bill of rights ever imagined F.A.W.’S but that is discussion for another thread.

Again thanks all

 

[Sam1911]

and I don’t believe the framers of the bill of rights ever imagined F.A.W.’S but that is discussion for another thread.

After that comment it is probably going to be pretty hard to keep this thread "on topic." Do you want it to be closed, or are you o.k. with it moving to the next, obvious level?

 

[jmorris]

The bill of rights also doesn't say anything about the rights we (don't) have on airplanes. How do you think they would have read if they existed back then?

Remember almost everything they wrote was to protect the individual from the government not the other way around. What part of "shall not" is unclear?

 

[Bubbles]

Technologically there is a much greater difference between the printing press and the internet than there is between a muzzle loader and a full-auto firearm, yet no one states that the First Amendment shouldn't protect it.

 

[CoRoMo]

...explain why the average armed citizen needs...

Same reason any un-average armed citizen needs one. Same reason military personnel need them. Same reason law enforcement need them.

...there is still some question about militias...

Not true. It is a settled and defined principle.

 

[Bullnettles]

Oldbear,

I asked that you read why they wrote it. Everyone has different interpretations, but the reason behind the amendment is the point I wanted to show.

 

[medalguy]

Our Constitution is a document that, in my opinion, is simply a framework for our laws. It sets specific limits on what our government cannot do to us, not what we can do. It states that no laws shall be made which abridge our freedom of speech. Very few people have any argument with that statement and it seems pretty clear in its intent. Whether the Smithsonian can display "art" that most Christians find objectionable is an argument for another day. But there have been few limits placed on what we can say up to this point.

The Second Amendment is similar to me-- it says that no laws shall be made which abridge our freedom to bear arms (my verbiage). I don't think the founders meant for there to be limits on the ability of citizens to own and possess weapons, for it was those very weapons which bought our freedom from the Brits. Certainly they didn't envision fully automatic weapons any more than they might have imagined the internet, but both need to be free in order to keep our rights and freedoms. In this same vein, if citizens are only allowed to possess, say, single shot .22 caliber hunting rifles, how could we possibly expect to be able to hang on to our freedoms? If the citizenry is not armed nearly as well as the government, the power shifts to the government, and we become subjects rather than citizens.

It may be argued about the intent of the founders' descriptive words "a well-regulated militia" but however the courts end up deciding this point, an unarmed populace will gradually lose its rights and freedoms. I pray this has not already begun.

 

[Exposure]

oldbear said-

I spent 27 years in L/E and 50 + years as a firearms hobbyist; I still look forward to my bi-monthly range adventures. During this time I have had limited opportunities to shoot F.A.W. of several designs, and I enjoyed the experience, but not to the point that I would spend the time, effort, and money to own a F.A.W. So my question is other than I can or it’s cool to own a F.A.W. would one of you PLEASE explain why the average armed citizen needs an F.A.W. considering the cost and the potential government intrusion.

The following post is not intended to be disrespectful in any way to you oldbear. These types of threads pop up quite a bit on the full auto forums I frequent. The text below is my take on the situation.

Generally when I see these types of questions it becomes obvious fairly quickly that the person posting them really wants a full auto, like they have the full auto bug so bad they can taste it. Yet somehow they have bought into all the hype about how expensive and difficult and what a generally stupid idea it is to own a full auto. So these types of threads get started to help the person who is sitting on the fence about full autos convince themselves that they really are a waste of money and nothing more than a glorified noisemaker wildly spraying bullets everywhere. After all, precision shooting is REALLY where it's at, right? But in all honesty, if you didn't have at least a passing interest in owning your own full auto you would never have bothered to come to a forum dedicated to NFA firearms and ask your question. You would simply have sat on the sidelines and scoffed at all of the crazies and their machine guns.

Read on for my view on things.




MYTH- Owning a fully automatic weapon opens my home up to unannounced "surprise" inspections from the BATF whenever they want.

FACT- Owning a full auto is no different than owning any other type of firearm. The BATF absolutely can NOT show up and inspect you whenever they please unless they have themselves a warrant. And in all honesty, why would they want to? What would make your full auto so special that the BATF would send agents miles away from their office to inspect your firearm? And what exactly would they be inspecting?



MYTH- Owning a full auto is really complicated and difficult.

FACT- It is a very straightforward process to buy a full auto. As long as your local chief law enforcement officer is willing to sign your Form 4 then the whole application/fingerprinting process can be taken care of in under an hour. Then you just mail off the paperwork with your check for $200 to the BATF and 3 to 4 months later you have your machine gun. Hardly a huge investment of time other than the waiting for the paperwork to clear.



MYTH- It takes a lot of effort to own a machine gun.

FACT- See my response above about the complexity and difficulty of owning a full auto. It applies to effort as well.



MYTH- Owning a machine gun is really expensive!

FACT- This one is open to debate and it really depends on the finances of the individual. In the current market however there are at least 3 different machine guns that can be had in the $3000 range. Is that expensive? Yes. But it is little more than what some people spend on a tricked out AR, or on a pistol collection, or a single 50 BMG rifle, etc. Several years ago MG prices were REALLY astronomical but some of the entry level guns have come back down a bit and some careful shopping can put you into a Sten, MAC, or Reising for a fairly reasonable price. A little scrimping and saving, selling off some of your guns that are collecting dust, and just putting aside a few dollars here and there adds up quickly. Start yourself an "MG fund" and before you know it you will have the cash. It's how I got my first one!



MYTH- Machine guns aren't good for anything other than making noise.

FACT- While it is true that you can turn a surprising amount of ammo into noise in a short amount of time you can also have a TON of fun shooting in organized machine gun competitions where you don't shoot a lot of rounds but learn to make them all count. Short bursts rule in competition! In addition you will meet the neatest group of gun enthusiasts you could imagine. All of them willing, and even insistent, that you shoot their full autos with their ammo. And yes, there will be times when you just want to dump a mag and make noise, and it ROCKS when you do!



MYTH- No one NEEDS a machine gun.

FACT- Not even worth justifying that particular myth.


Thanks for reading my little rant. I may not change anyones mind but at least I got that off my chest!

 

[MP-5 Hillbilly]

Why not...

I waited until after May 19, 1986 to get on the train. I never really cared about them until I saw the train leaving the station. A good friend of mine knew I was a dealer and picked up an Uzi w can for 1400.00 or so back in late 85.

We played with it, fun for a while but I asked him "what can you do with it".

May 1986 rolled around and the price doubled. I got my first one in 89, MP-5 for $2000.00 (and that was a LOT of money back then).

Sold it about 2 years ago for $18,500.00 VERY nice return on a 401k I can play with...upgraded to M16A2 Auto marked...

The ten thousand dollar question is what will it be worth in 20 more years?

Money won't be worth much, the more they print..the less it's worth.

Anytime I can trade paper for metal...that is a GOOD trade

JP in 10-E-C

 

[Davek1977]

As has been said numeorus times, NEED has absolutely nothing to do with anything. the average driver doesn't NEED a Dodge Viper than can do 200 MPH, so does that mean we outlaw anything that has the potential to violate the speed limit? If my right to own a full-auto demonstratably violates another's rights in some tangible, documentable manner, then there is some basis for an argument or debate on the issue. However, I don't believe its your place, nor the government's, to tell me what I "need" as opposed to what I "want". If theres not an obvious reason why I should NOT be able to legally possess a machine gun, what is the issue? It comes down to whether you believe the government should be a nanny state full of "feel good" laws and legislation that does little to actually combat crime, or whether you believe Americans are a free people who are allowed to lawfully own such things regardless of a demonstrably "need" to do so. We've already lost the fight if we allow the government to regulate use based on what we NEED with no thoughts as to what we WANT, or are legally able to possess.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

The average human has very few needs but a lot of wants

Full autos are unique, collectable, fun, and totally politically uncorrect. Most people (including a lot of gun owners) don't even think it's legal to own them so there's that taboo factor as well.

If you are asking whether they are practical for the average joe gunowner: not really. There isn't a lot they can do that you couldn't accomplish with semi-auto. But they are still "cool" enough that people will pay 10x what the semi-auto version costs to get a buzzgun.

 

[Justin]

As for the gentlemen who suggested I again read the second amendment there is still some question about militias, and I don’t believe the framers of the bill of rights ever imagined F.A.W.’S but that is discussion for another thread.

Again thanks all

There were plenty of precursors to manually-repeating, semi-auto and full-auto guns contemporary to the founders.

For instance, the multi-shot air rifle taken by Lewis and Clarke, the Puckle Gun, and various large-cylinder revolvers, harmonica guns and other primitive multishot firearms most certainly existed at the time the founders drafted the 2nd Amendment.

It's well worth exploring the history of arms development and to seek out some of those primitive arms.



If you don't find that convincing, consider the following question:

If the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to modern firearms, does the 1st Amendment apply to personal computers, digital cameras, blogs, forums, and smart phones?



Sent from my Android smart phone using Tapatalk.

 

[medalguy]

"If the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to modern firearms, does the 1st Amendment apply to personal computers, digital cameras, blogs, forums, and smart phones?"




Justin, would you mind if I sent that off to CNN for their take on the First and Second Amendments?

 

[Prince Yamato]

There were plenty of precursors to manually-repeating, semi-auto and full-auto guns contemporary to the founders.

For instance, the multi-shot air rifle taken by Lewis and Clarke, the Puckle Gun, and various large-cylinder revolvers, harmonica guns and other primitive multishot firearms most certainly existed at the time the founders drafted the 2nd Amendment.

I agree.

As a teacher of classical music (in the broad sense), one of the fundamental things I try to teach my students- to get them to relate to the 17th-19th centuries- is that the people who lived in that time period were not a bunch of primitives. For example,basic principles of electricity were known in Mozart's time (same as Founding Fathers) to the extent that electro-therapy was lampooned in his opera Cosi Fan Tutte.

We like to think today that we are so advanced, but I too find it hard to believe that the Founding Fathers couldn't conceive of an automatic weapon. I mean honestly, how can anyone think that somebody back in the late 18th century wouldn't think, "wouldn't it be great if I could fire multiple rounds out of my gun without having to reload?" I would personally be shocked if nobody tried to make an early version of a machinegun.

So I guess, in summation, I think it's a load of bull when people say, "the Founding Fathers would never have conceived people owning machineguns!"

 

[kimbershot]

i shoot at a club that has many members who own and shoot full auto. my observation is that most guys who are involved in this area of shooting sports are guys that have a net worth that will enable them to participate. it's a passion. these fellows are honest, hardworking and involved. they are not harming anyone, not screwing around on their wives, not doing anything wrong. if they can afford it--let them enjoy it.

 

[pezo]

I dont need however I want an M2 carbine to go along with my M1. I am not a full auto type guy I just like the lil carbines and am a history, milsurp arms buff. I cannot drop 7k down on any hobby item. So, unless I win the lotto and buy a transferable one or just wait until when the hughs amendement gets challanged and removed for being unconstitional, thus lowering prices on transferable M2"S. I am gonna have to sit it out.