I've got news for you. The people that you should fear having them either A. already have them or B. Can get them or make them full auto illegaly anyway. I hear the same remarks about me not "needing" my 50 BMG. Who decides who needs what anyway? Schumer, Pelosi, Boxer? One day they decide you don't need any guns, then what?
Civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons
- Thread starter Springfield XD40 Man
- Start date
I've got news for you. The people that you should fear having them either A. already have them or B. Can get them or make them full auto illegaly anyway. I hear the same remarks about me not "needing" my 50 BMG. Who decides who needs what anyway? Schumer, Pelosi, Boxer? One day they decide you don't need any guns, then what?
I have to jump in here, since 1934 only one murder has been committed with a legally owned full auto gun. Secondly a law abiding citizen should be able to own a full auto firearm within a reasonable price range, it should not be priced so that only the extremely wealthy can afford one. The second amendment was written with the intent of being armed to the same level as the US government. It was not written so we could hunt and shoot for fun but as a means of revolution of the common man if and when he/she felt the government was over stepping its bounds.
Now in all reality in today’s time if a person or group of persons acts upon this and revolts against the government they will lose and only a fool would do this. We have some good examples of this over the past 10 to 20 years but the point it that we have that right and if we fail we will pay the price. Our current government did not fail against the British and we are still living under the freedom of that revolution.
Should a person who is deemed able to own a gun under the current laws have the option of owning a full auto / machine gun? Most definitely
Just my .02.
Jim
Now in all reality in today’s time if a person or group of persons acts upon this and revolts against the government they will lose and only a fool would do this. We have some good examples of this over the past 10 to 20 years but the point it that we have that right and if we fail we will pay the price. Our current government did not fail against the British and we are still living under the freedom of that revolution.
Should a person who is deemed able to own a gun under the current laws have the option of owning a full auto / machine gun? Most definitely
Just my .02.
Jim
TexasSIGMan
New member
The fundamental problem with gun owners like you is a lack of understanding of the Second Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not get?
So you're against full auto weapons, you say thay have no use so civilians should not own them. What about the next guy that says the same thing about semi-automatic handguns. Your screen name is XD-40. Why would you own one of those? Their only purpose is to kill as many people as possible with a concealable weapon. I think you should only be allowed to own a single shot handgun, one bullet is plenty for self defense.
Then the next guy decides that handguns at all are only meant to kill people, as well as rifles. I mean, you could hunt with a shotgun using slugs if you needed, so there really isn't any reason to own anything other than a double barrelled shotgun unless you want to kill lots of people, so we'll outlaw all guns except double barrelled shotguns.
Then the next guy realizes that, really, you don't need TWO barrels, a single shot would be fine. No one would want more than one shot unless they want to kill lots of people.......
That is why, if you are a gun owner, you should be firmly behind the Second Amendment. Once you allow the exceptions, you're doomed.
It's called Creeping Incrementalism.
You need to turn in your man killing XD-40 before you hurt someone. Please report to the nearest reeducation center immediately.
Springfield XD40 Man
I suppose its my turn to chime in...
While I can appreciate your opinion, I think your logic is flawed. Let me hit a few points.
Not really. Could full auto weapons be used to cause great damage and carnage? Maybe, but have you ever fired one? Just because they fire faster than a semi, doesn't mean all the rounds go where you want them to, or that they are any more dangerous than a single well placed round from a semi or a bolt action. You may be able to dump an entire 30rd mag into one guy, but he's not going to be any more dead than if he took one shot from a pistol in the head. In full auto you also waste a lot more ammo than in semi. Its not as you see in the movies where you can walk into a room firing from the hip, dump a 30rd mag and have 30 guys drop. With training and trigger control you can get much more accurate, but doing 2rd bursts on an M16 isn't significantly faster than tapping twice on a semi trigger.
Again, your logic is flawwed. If a MG is going to fall into the wrong hands, those hands must have been trying to get one to begin with. And if they're prepared to acquire a full auto illegally (without the NFA paperwork) then they could just as easily buy a semi and illegally convert it.
The same logic you used here is often used by anti-gunners who oppose concealed carry laws. They often assert that if people can get permits to carry concealed weapons, there will be all sorts of mass chaos and carnage as the streets turn into shooting galleries. But we all know thats a false claim and a fearmongering tactic. The law abiding people who go through the trouble to get a carry permit aren't going to lose their minds and go on shooting rampages the minute they get their CCW, and the bad guys who would illegally use a concealed weapon aren't going to get the license to carry to begin with. Similarly, those of us who go through the hassles of getting an NFA weapon aren't going to do anything wrong (especially after supplying BATFE and the FBI with all your personal info, pictures and fingerprints), and those who would use them for illegal purposes aren't going to go through the registration process anyway - they'll do an illegal conversion if they want one.
I suppose its my turn to chime in...
While I can appreciate your opinion, I think your logic is flawed. Let me hit a few points.
Not really. Could full auto weapons be used to cause great damage and carnage? Maybe, but have you ever fired one? Just because they fire faster than a semi, doesn't mean all the rounds go where you want them to, or that they are any more dangerous than a single well placed round from a semi or a bolt action. You may be able to dump an entire 30rd mag into one guy, but he's not going to be any more dead than if he took one shot from a pistol in the head. In full auto you also waste a lot more ammo than in semi. Its not as you see in the movies where you can walk into a room firing from the hip, dump a 30rd mag and have 30 guys drop. With training and trigger control you can get much more accurate, but doing 2rd bursts on an M16 isn't significantly faster than tapping twice on a semi trigger.
Again, your logic is flawwed. If a MG is going to fall into the wrong hands, those hands must have been trying to get one to begin with. And if they're prepared to acquire a full auto illegally (without the NFA paperwork) then they could just as easily buy a semi and illegally convert it.
The same logic you used here is often used by anti-gunners who oppose concealed carry laws. They often assert that if people can get permits to carry concealed weapons, there will be all sorts of mass chaos and carnage as the streets turn into shooting galleries. But we all know thats a false claim and a fearmongering tactic. The law abiding people who go through the trouble to get a carry permit aren't going to lose their minds and go on shooting rampages the minute they get their CCW, and the bad guys who would illegally use a concealed weapon aren't going to get the license to carry to begin with. Similarly, those of us who go through the hassles of getting an NFA weapon aren't going to do anything wrong (especially after supplying BATFE and the FBI with all your personal info, pictures and fingerprints), and those who would use them for illegal purposes aren't going to go through the registration process anyway - they'll do an illegal conversion if they want one.
Springfield XD40 Man
New member
Guess I really opened a can of worms here. However, you guy's make some very valid points, after reading them, you're right, the logic is flawed. Just for the record, I'll soon be a CCW permit holder, I'm not an "anti-gunner", I'm just stating a feeling, you guy's did an excellent job of raising very valid points. Once again, I just learned a lot, that I hadn't previously thought of.
Big of you to admit. I also take back my statement about you coming to this forum and 'baiting' the members here. I see that it originally started in the General Handgun Forum and was then moved here.
I hope you get a chance to get out and do some shooting of automatic firearms. They are a blast and I have yet to run into an owner of one who wasnt happy to share their experience with others. Great bunch of folks.
I hope you get a chance to get out and do some shooting of automatic firearms. They are a blast and I have yet to run into an owner of one who wasnt happy to share their experience with others. Great bunch of folks.
Springfield XD40 wrote:
Man Guess I really opened a can of worms here. However, you guy's make some very valid points, after reading them, you're right, the logic is flawed. Just for the record, I'll soon be a CCW permit holder, I'm not an "anti-gunner", I'm just stating a feeling, you guy's did an excellent job of raising very valid points. Once again, I just learned a lot, that I hadn't previously thought of.
--------------
I guess that you did.
Having said that, you inquired as to the "need" for ownership of automatic weapons by civilians. Personally, I believe that is a very poorly put question, however you might consider the following, a question that another might put to you. Do you "need", however "Need" might be spelled, to carry a handgun concealed on or about your person?
Personally speaking, if you characterized that as another "poorly put question", I would NOT argue the point, however someone might still ask it. What would be your answer, other than the obvious, which someone who was desirous of owning a machinegun, could have applied to your question.
By the way, respecting a much used old saw, The Power To Tax Is The Power To Destroy, consider the following. Prior to 1934, at least according to federal law, given the purchase price of whatever type of machinegun you desired, you counted out the cash, or wrote a check, and took your machinegun home. The 1934 Act created that $200 Transfer Tax, not to mention the requirement for all manner of paper work, sometimes described as Welfare For Treasury Agents.
Anyhow, getting on with it, question has been raised as to the basis of the 1934 Act itself, for The Constitution nowhere gave The Congress the power to in any way at all, regulate or control guns, ergo the Revenue Raising Basis for the 1934 Act. The Congress had been given the power to levy and collect taxes. At this point, we come back to The Power to Tax and The Power to Destroy. While $200 might not be all that much today, in 1934, with the country economically speaking, falling on it's face, remember The Great Depression, $200 was a hell of a lot of money.
Was the intent of this law, and the level of taxation included therein a legitimate attempt to "raise revenue" or was the intent behind this level of taxation, the destruction of part of the right of Americans to Keep and Bear Arms? Answer that qoestion for yourself. By the way, from what I've here and there read,m the 1934 Act never raised all that much "revenue", and some have speculated that a more reasonable level of taxation, say $5.00collected on a drive thru basis, could really have been a money maker for government.
Alas, the thing was not so set up, and then we have seen, in the years since, all manner of legislative garbage foisted off on law abiding Americans, the 1986 legislation being just one example thereof. I rest my case.
Man Guess I really opened a can of worms here. However, you guy's make some very valid points, after reading them, you're right, the logic is flawed. Just for the record, I'll soon be a CCW permit holder, I'm not an "anti-gunner", I'm just stating a feeling, you guy's did an excellent job of raising very valid points. Once again, I just learned a lot, that I hadn't previously thought of.
--------------
I guess that you did.
Having said that, you inquired as to the "need" for ownership of automatic weapons by civilians. Personally, I believe that is a very poorly put question, however you might consider the following, a question that another might put to you. Do you "need", however "Need" might be spelled, to carry a handgun concealed on or about your person?
Personally speaking, if you characterized that as another "poorly put question", I would NOT argue the point, however someone might still ask it. What would be your answer, other than the obvious, which someone who was desirous of owning a machinegun, could have applied to your question.
By the way, respecting a much used old saw, The Power To Tax Is The Power To Destroy, consider the following. Prior to 1934, at least according to federal law, given the purchase price of whatever type of machinegun you desired, you counted out the cash, or wrote a check, and took your machinegun home. The 1934 Act created that $200 Transfer Tax, not to mention the requirement for all manner of paper work, sometimes described as Welfare For Treasury Agents.
Anyhow, getting on with it, question has been raised as to the basis of the 1934 Act itself, for The Constitution nowhere gave The Congress the power to in any way at all, regulate or control guns, ergo the Revenue Raising Basis for the 1934 Act. The Congress had been given the power to levy and collect taxes. At this point, we come back to The Power to Tax and The Power to Destroy. While $200 might not be all that much today, in 1934, with the country economically speaking, falling on it's face, remember The Great Depression, $200 was a hell of a lot of money.
Was the intent of this law, and the level of taxation included therein a legitimate attempt to "raise revenue" or was the intent behind this level of taxation, the destruction of part of the right of Americans to Keep and Bear Arms? Answer that qoestion for yourself. By the way, from what I've here and there read,m the 1934 Act never raised all that much "revenue", and some have speculated that a more reasonable level of taxation, say $5.00collected on a drive thru basis, could really have been a money maker for government.
Alas, the thing was not so set up, and then we have seen, in the years since, all manner of legislative garbage foisted off on law abiding Americans, the 1986 legislation being just one example thereof. I rest my case.
I agree there is no "need" for a full auto weapon. I won't be buying one because they cost too much. I don't see why if you go through all of the hoops you can't own one though. It would be a blast to shoot for fun, but I don't need it. An AR-15 is just as lethal and was proven a few years ago that a bolt gun in the hands of criminal can pick people off out of the trunk of a car. If a criminal wants a full auto they will find one illegally. Same with any gun used in crimes.
Balance of power...
What I love about firearms is they provide equality between a well armed government and its citizens. Genocide happens when the government or armed group attacks a group with no power to defend itself. Genocide is currently occurring in Africa by Muslims on Christians. This is because the Christians have no way to defend themselves.
In order for there to be a balance of power, there needs to a balance of technology. In other words, the power of the people must be proportional to the government's power. This cannot happen if the citizens have no access to proportional weaponary. What if the US government would not have let its citizens purchase weapons that used smokeless powder and instead required them to keep their old smokepoles 120 years ago? Obviously, that would be a gross imbalance of power.
When this country was fighting for its independence from Britian, the elitist monarchies did not believe the common man was capable of being trusted and ruling themselves. This is the same attitude of superiority that does not trust the common man to own automatic weaponary. If I wanted to kill a large group of people (which of course I never would do, nor want to), I would not need an automatic weapon, thus, the argument that people would not have the power to kill the masses easily without an automatic weapon is irrelevant.
What I love about firearms is they provide equality between a well armed government and its citizens. Genocide happens when the government or armed group attacks a group with no power to defend itself. Genocide is currently occurring in Africa by Muslims on Christians. This is because the Christians have no way to defend themselves.
In order for there to be a balance of power, there needs to a balance of technology. In other words, the power of the people must be proportional to the government's power. This cannot happen if the citizens have no access to proportional weaponary. What if the US government would not have let its citizens purchase weapons that used smokeless powder and instead required them to keep their old smokepoles 120 years ago? Obviously, that would be a gross imbalance of power.
When this country was fighting for its independence from Britian, the elitist monarchies did not believe the common man was capable of being trusted and ruling themselves. This is the same attitude of superiority that does not trust the common man to own automatic weaponary. If I wanted to kill a large group of people (which of course I never would do, nor want to), I would not need an automatic weapon, thus, the argument that people would not have the power to kill the masses easily without an automatic weapon is irrelevant.
Last edited:
When stating your opinions(xd40)keep them your personal preference and refrain from implying they should apply to everyone else or asking everyone to justify their personal preferences, so you wont be thought of as a gun control freak:barf: unless you are pro gun control. I cant figure you out sometimes.
Actually, a 12 gauge with 00 buck is very very lethal. Unless one trains and practices, the rounds from a FA do not go where intended after the first one. Also, I suggest that any military gun's purpose is to kill people and destroy things -- guns in my hands do not have that purpose.
There have been some good responses here, but why would anyone WANT to own a full auto weapon ?
Well, simply because they are fun. It is a high performance piece of equipment. A lot of gun owners like high performance gear.
As was mentioned, you make the mistake of believing that because the rifle cycles faster that you will automatically hit and kill more people. This is almost certainly not the case. Someone mentioned sports cars: driving a Farrari at 200 MPH takes some skill. So does hitting things while firing full auto. Owning a piano won't make you a musician. Allow me to prove this to you. If full auto automatically meant that more people would die, you would think the military would be all over it. Every guy would be firing full auto and the enemy would be falling before them like wheat before a combine. But, the reality of the situation is that full auto just means you are firing more ammo. The number of rounds of ammo per enemy soldier killed is over 100,000 to 1. This number has gone up and up and up over the years. Back when we were using bolt action military rifles, the number of rounds fired per enemy soldier killed was far less than it is today. The military even tried to curtail full auto fire by making the M16 into a 3- round burst weapon with no option for full auto. Obviously, if full auto was more effective, they wouldn't have done this. The military has other uses for full auto fire that doen't nessessarily require hitting the enemy.
So what does your average Joe do with a full auto weapon ?
He does the same kind of sport shooting that you probably do. Here locally we have matches where we shoot steel and cardboard silhouettes. You shoot matches just like IDPA or IPSC only you use a submachine gun. You can shoot drills like the El Presidente only instead of double tapping each target, you fire a two shot burst into each target. The list of what you can do is infinite. And, we arn't hurting a soul.
As far as falling into the wrong hands: I bought an M16 yesterday. I paid $14,000 for it. Do you think I am going to leave that lying around to "fall into the wrong hands"? do you think I stick that under my bed when I am not using it ? Do you think I have a "gun safe" from Wal-Mart or Harbor Freight ? Hell no.
Well, simply because they are fun. It is a high performance piece of equipment. A lot of gun owners like high performance gear.
As was mentioned, you make the mistake of believing that because the rifle cycles faster that you will automatically hit and kill more people. This is almost certainly not the case. Someone mentioned sports cars: driving a Farrari at 200 MPH takes some skill. So does hitting things while firing full auto. Owning a piano won't make you a musician. Allow me to prove this to you. If full auto automatically meant that more people would die, you would think the military would be all over it. Every guy would be firing full auto and the enemy would be falling before them like wheat before a combine. But, the reality of the situation is that full auto just means you are firing more ammo. The number of rounds of ammo per enemy soldier killed is over 100,000 to 1. This number has gone up and up and up over the years. Back when we were using bolt action military rifles, the number of rounds fired per enemy soldier killed was far less than it is today. The military even tried to curtail full auto fire by making the M16 into a 3- round burst weapon with no option for full auto. Obviously, if full auto was more effective, they wouldn't have done this. The military has other uses for full auto fire that doen't nessessarily require hitting the enemy.
So what does your average Joe do with a full auto weapon ?
He does the same kind of sport shooting that you probably do. Here locally we have matches where we shoot steel and cardboard silhouettes. You shoot matches just like IDPA or IPSC only you use a submachine gun. You can shoot drills like the El Presidente only instead of double tapping each target, you fire a two shot burst into each target. The list of what you can do is infinite. And, we arn't hurting a soul.
As far as falling into the wrong hands: I bought an M16 yesterday. I paid $14,000 for it. Do you think I am going to leave that lying around to "fall into the wrong hands"? do you think I stick that under my bed when I am not using it ? Do you think I have a "gun safe" from Wal-Mart or Harbor Freight ? Hell no.
Half-Price Assassin
New member
whats the point of this thread you ask a question XD40, about civilians owning full-auto firearms, then you say something like, "i dont see the need for anyone owning one, they are WMDs". are you a troll? i dont think you should have a CCW permit, cause you might shoot and kill a human being (even if that human being is a bad person trying to seriously harm you, or your loved ones). do you just like to start arguments online or something?
are you a gun forum paTrollman?
are you a gun forum paTrollman?
My own belief is that, if you follow the true spirit of the 2nd Ammendment, every American should be required to possess whatever the current battle rifle of our Armed Forces is. After all, we ARE the Militia, correct? Citizen Soldiers? The Right of the PEOPLE...
And if we had some input, maybe we would have something better than the M16/M4?
And if we had some input, maybe we would have something better than the M16/M4?
I agree with smince, in the sense that they are causing a great deal of harm to our military by not allowing civilian purchase of post-86 MG's..
I know i paid more for my MG than anything else i own..
(Less my house, the bank still owns it.. at least 98% of it..)
and that the R&D that would be funded by the civilian sector would greatly benefit both LE and Mil, and it wouldnt hurt the private MG enthusiest
I know i paid more for my MG than anything else i own..
(Less my house, the bank still owns it.. at least 98% of it..)
and that the R&D that would be funded by the civilian sector would greatly benefit both LE and Mil, and it wouldnt hurt the private MG enthusiest
OneInTheChamber
New member
Thats all and great for small arms; but who has the $$$ for an F-16 is the real question!!
My problem with full auto is this:
An Ak-47 shooting at 650 rounds per minute will go through an entire 30 round mag in 2.76 seconds.
One 7.62 will cost you around 50 cents from what I could find; so your fully loaded magazine will cost you $15 to shoot. That magazine will be gone in 2.76 seconds, thus you are paying $5.40 cents per second that your booger picker is on the bang switch.
That's some expensive fun. If I ever was able to get a full auto (i live in komifornia), I'd get one in .22lr; that way I wouldn't get so sad at all that money going down range to fast.
OneInTheChamber:
I do not know for sure what the AK-47's rate of fire might be, though it seems that 650 rpm might be a bit high.
You next mention "One 7.62 will cost you around 50 cents ...". If you refer to 7.62 x 39mm rounds, last time I looked, 1000 rounds went for $100, +- a little, though I haven't the proverbial clue as to the cost of ammunition in California. If you were talking about 7.62 x 51 mm/7.62 NATO/308 Winchester, while it is more expensive, it didn't come anywhere close to $0.50/round, at least not for mil surplus.
By the way, once upon a time, I did see and fire a machinegun in 22 lr caliber. It looked like a scaled down Lewis Light Machinegun(Lewis gun), and seemed to work quite well.
As to ownership of automatic weapons in California, for members of The Great Unwashed, I thought that that was a no-no, but I could be wrong on that point.
I do not know for sure what the AK-47's rate of fire might be, though it seems that 650 rpm might be a bit high.
You next mention "One 7.62 will cost you around 50 cents ...". If you refer to 7.62 x 39mm rounds, last time I looked, 1000 rounds went for $100, +- a little, though I haven't the proverbial clue as to the cost of ammunition in California. If you were talking about 7.62 x 51 mm/7.62 NATO/308 Winchester, while it is more expensive, it didn't come anywhere close to $0.50/round, at least not for mil surplus.
By the way, once upon a time, I did see and fire a machinegun in 22 lr caliber. It looked like a scaled down Lewis Light Machinegun(Lewis gun), and seemed to work quite well.
As to ownership of automatic weapons in California, for members of The Great Unwashed, I thought that that was a no-no, but I could be wrong on that point.
Ditto
In other words, the power of the people must be proportional to the government's power. This cannot happen if the citizens have no access to proportional weaponary. /// If I cant have one at an equal price as the LEO community, they shouldnt have them either!!!! The day LEO and govt agencies dont fear the people, is the day they enforce thier Desired powers!!
In other words, the power of the people must be proportional to the government's power. This cannot happen if the citizens have no access to proportional weaponary. /// If I cant have one at an equal price as the LEO community, they shouldnt have them either!!!! The day LEO and govt agencies dont fear the people, is the day they enforce thier Desired powers!!