I would like to know your general opinion about machine guns being legal. In my opinion, I think they are too dangerous for the everyday gun owner to own, and definately way too dangerous to fall into criminal hands. I think they are appropriate for military and some police use, but I just don't see any practical application for the average joe to own one. I think some of the arguements will be that have any gun deemed illegal is gun control, and gun control is bad. Or people should not own them, we do not want police out gunned. Do you think if criminals knew if someone owned a machine gun they would target that individual to steal it? Please state your position and why you feel that way.
Do you think machine guns should be legal?
- Thread starter MarkoPo
- Start date
First of all, machine guns are not illegal, just very expensive because there are a limited number of them registered. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there has never been a crime committed with a legally owned and registered machine gun. Secondly, if a criminal wants a machine gun they'll just buy it off the black market, there is no need for them to steal one from a legal owner. If criminals know someone has anything valuable (money, jewelry, guns, etc.) they might try to steal it, the trick is to not tell anyone you have valuables. If they don't know it exists, they won't try to steal it.
My personal feeling is that we should be free to do just about anything as long as it harms no one else's person or property (with very few exceptions). And if a person exercises that freedom and does harm someone else or their property, then we should trounce that person with legal punishment (everything from a fine to prison to execution, depending on severity).
So that would mean legal machine guns, and if you were to misuse one criminally, you get executed. Simple as that. (As a matter of fact, that's how I feel about any violent- or gun-crime.) There will never be any better control over hostile, anti-social behavior than that -- swift execution for offenders who break the social contract.
Now, Gunshow, I read what you had to say about CCW being "illegal" in general and then "excepted" by permit. I agree. But when you think about it, guns are not the only thing like that. For example, it's generally "illegal" (in the sense that you described) to practice medicine! Only a very small portion of the population gets an exception granted so that they may practice medicine, and they have to go through an exhaustive process to do so.
I guess your standard is talking about, "Can any member of the public, without doing anything specific to get granted permission, do Thing X?" Based on that criterion, yes, gun carry is "illegal," machine guns are "illegal," practice of medicine is "illegal," flying an airplane is "illegal," even inventing a new gun is "illegal." Driving a car, too, is "illegal" under this standard (at least when done in public).
Is it necessarily bad? I have not made up my mind. Arguments can be made that the greatest good for society is served when there is some degree of control exercised over who can do certain things. (We wouldn't want any schmoe going down to the airport and trying to fly a jumbo jet, right?) And yet, we recognize that if the government has the power to grant the right to do a given thing, it has the power to deny that right, too.
So that would mean legal machine guns, and if you were to misuse one criminally, you get executed. Simple as that. (As a matter of fact, that's how I feel about any violent- or gun-crime.) There will never be any better control over hostile, anti-social behavior than that -- swift execution for offenders who break the social contract.
Now, Gunshow, I read what you had to say about CCW being "illegal" in general and then "excepted" by permit. I agree. But when you think about it, guns are not the only thing like that. For example, it's generally "illegal" (in the sense that you described) to practice medicine! Only a very small portion of the population gets an exception granted so that they may practice medicine, and they have to go through an exhaustive process to do so.
I guess your standard is talking about, "Can any member of the public, without doing anything specific to get granted permission, do Thing X?" Based on that criterion, yes, gun carry is "illegal," machine guns are "illegal," practice of medicine is "illegal," flying an airplane is "illegal," even inventing a new gun is "illegal." Driving a car, too, is "illegal" under this standard (at least when done in public).
Is it necessarily bad? I have not made up my mind. Arguments can be made that the greatest good for society is served when there is some degree of control exercised over who can do certain things. (We wouldn't want any schmoe going down to the airport and trying to fly a jumbo jet, right?) And yet, we recognize that if the government has the power to grant the right to do a given thing, it has the power to deny that right, too.
what's too dangerous?
In my opinion, muscle cars, speed boats, lawn darts, table saws, aeroplanes, and parachutes are dangerous. But are also fun. I would prefer to take a risk on occasion and not have the world covered in Nerf for my safety.
Yes some practice is necessary to use all the above safely.
"I would rather be shot at by a man with a machine gun than a man with a bolt action". I Believe Jeff Cooper said that.
In my opinion, muscle cars, speed boats, lawn darts, table saws, aeroplanes, and parachutes are dangerous. But are also fun. I would prefer to take a risk on occasion and not have the world covered in Nerf for my safety.
Yes some practice is necessary to use all the above safely.
"I would rather be shot at by a man with a machine gun than a man with a bolt action". I Believe Jeff Cooper said that.
They absolutely should be legal on the simple principle that this country was not founded on "safety above all other considerations," but freedom and ultimate power in the hands of the general population. Voting is NOT power; weapons are.
Having said that, I've always said it's a myth that full-auto weapons are more dangerous than semi-auto weapons -- at least when it comes to rifles. This is one of the few statements of the VPC that I agree with. There's a reason why every video clip I see of US soldiers fighting in Iraq shows them using semi-auto fire rather than bursts (except from belt-fed weapons, of course).
Does anyone REALLY think that emptying a magazine in the general direction of a crowd is going to kill (not merely injure) more people than rapid but controlled semi-auto fire? If I were a mass murderer, I know which technique I could kill more people with.
At long range, does anyone think Charles Whitman would have killed more people with a machine gun than with his scoped bolt action?
Similarly, at close range does anyone think that you could kill more people with a subgun than with a 12 gauge -- especially a semi-auto 12 gauge? Especially in a concealed-carry state, where the moment your mag ran empty you'd be shot by someone's handgun. And a 12 gauge actually puts out more lead more quickly. Show me ANY subgun that can do this in ANYONE's hands:
http://www.zippyvideos.com/5619067953307196/c-m_smovie---anunusualgun1-6-061/
If I had to compromise, I would say that perhaps belt-fed machine guns and large drums for use in mag-fed weapons should be regulated, but those fed by mere 20- or 30-round magazines should not be.
While I suppose the 1934 NFA is tolerable, the 1986 ban is BLATANTLY unconstitutional, and anyone involved in its enforcement (BATFE, are you reading this?) is just as much a traitor as Aldrich Ames.
Having said that, I've always said it's a myth that full-auto weapons are more dangerous than semi-auto weapons -- at least when it comes to rifles. This is one of the few statements of the VPC that I agree with. There's a reason why every video clip I see of US soldiers fighting in Iraq shows them using semi-auto fire rather than bursts (except from belt-fed weapons, of course).
Does anyone REALLY think that emptying a magazine in the general direction of a crowd is going to kill (not merely injure) more people than rapid but controlled semi-auto fire? If I were a mass murderer, I know which technique I could kill more people with.
At long range, does anyone think Charles Whitman would have killed more people with a machine gun than with his scoped bolt action?
Similarly, at close range does anyone think that you could kill more people with a subgun than with a 12 gauge -- especially a semi-auto 12 gauge? Especially in a concealed-carry state, where the moment your mag ran empty you'd be shot by someone's handgun. And a 12 gauge actually puts out more lead more quickly. Show me ANY subgun that can do this in ANYONE's hands:
http://www.zippyvideos.com/5619067953307196/c-m_smovie---anunusualgun1-6-061/
If I had to compromise, I would say that perhaps belt-fed machine guns and large drums for use in mag-fed weapons should be regulated, but those fed by mere 20- or 30-round magazines should not be.
While I suppose the 1934 NFA is tolerable, the 1986 ban is BLATANTLY unconstitutional, and anyone involved in its enforcement (BATFE, are you reading this?) is just as much a traitor as Aldrich Ames.
imthegrumpyone
New member
There legal, you just pay for tax stamp.
armoredman
New member
I think there was one crime committed with a registered lawfully owned NFA firearm, and that was a MAC-10, used by a sherrif's deputy, IIRC, lovers' triangle or somesuch.
NFA '34 and GCA '68 should go bye bye.
NFA '34 and GCA '68 should go bye bye.
Your are absolutely correct...
I think any weapon that can penetrate a bullet proof vest should be banned....
I think any weapon with optics (a sniper rifle) is too dangerous for a subject to own....
"No individual has any legal need for more than 10 rounds" lets re-ban all high capacity magazines.
Sarcasm off
Fully automatic weapons are legal, and there should be even fewer restrictions on them than they are now. Weapons don't commit crimes. Restrictions on weapons don't prevent crimes.
Yes, I do think they should be legal. But let's face it there is lots of bozos among this nations 300 million citizens. A permit such as a CCW would be in order.
But consider this: Who owns "legal" machine guns now, and what are they worth? $$$$$$$ To legalize them would cause their value to plummet. I would thus say the persons currently owning legal machine guns might be the biggest opposition.
But consider this: Who owns "legal" machine guns now, and what are they worth? $$$$$$$ To legalize them would cause their value to plummet. I would thus say the persons currently owning legal machine guns might be the biggest opposition.
BerettaCougar
New member
I know 4 people personally who own LEGAL full auto firearms.
One of them has a silenced mp5 full auto and it's amazing...ly expensive.
One of them has a silenced mp5 full auto and it's amazing...ly expensive.
JuanCarlos
New member
I'll largely agree with gunshow, except that I don't place CCW permits (at least in shall-issue states) on the same plane as machine guns because they really are both relatively inexpensive and easily obtainable for the average citizen. Machine guns, on the other hand, have been made expensive enough through the restrictions on them that it honestly does amount to a de facto ban.
So while I'm not entirely sure that machine-gun ownership needs to be absolutely unregulated, I do think that the current restrictions need to be relaxed such that the price of them is no longer artificially inflated.
So while I'm not entirely sure that machine-gun ownership needs to be absolutely unregulated, I do think that the current restrictions need to be relaxed such that the price of them is no longer artificially inflated.
The Tourist
Moderator
Granted, under The Constitution they should be legal. As for being dangerous, you must realize that weapons belonging to the military were always available to the public. We beat the British, didn't we? Displaced CSA went west with firearms, right? WWII veterans owned 1911 .45 ACP pistols, correct?
Just like any other device, we instruct the young.
Currently, you can buy a Hayabusa motorcycle that does 189 MPH right off the showroom floor. And I think that figure is massaged for the public. With a careful tune and a handful of commomly acquired parts, the thing with break 200 MPH.
Should your no-brother-good-inlaw's pimple faced 14 year old inbred son own one? Of course not. When our local bike shop first received eight 500 CC Kawasaki triples back in 1970, seven of them came back smashed.
The first Hayabusa I ever saw had been dumped at speed.
We carefully start our kids out with Chimpmuck rifles, perhaps a Ruger .22 pistol, and with hunters' safety programs we get them a .243 or a 7mm08. I don't see anything wrong with this.
After all, would you like your eight year old to carry one of my knives as a Cub Scout?
Just like any other device, we instruct the young.
Currently, you can buy a Hayabusa motorcycle that does 189 MPH right off the showroom floor. And I think that figure is massaged for the public. With a careful tune and a handful of commomly acquired parts, the thing with break 200 MPH.
Should your no-brother-good-inlaw's pimple faced 14 year old inbred son own one? Of course not. When our local bike shop first received eight 500 CC Kawasaki triples back in 1970, seven of them came back smashed.
The first Hayabusa I ever saw had been dumped at speed.
We carefully start our kids out with Chimpmuck rifles, perhaps a Ruger .22 pistol, and with hunters' safety programs we get them a .243 or a 7mm08. I don't see anything wrong with this.
After all, would you like your eight year old to carry one of my knives as a Cub Scout?
grey sky said:
Parachutes are not dangerous. Skydiving is dangerous. It's also a helluva lot of fun, and life without it would not be nearly as good. But let's be accurate, it's the parachutes that save you, not harm you.
Now, as far as those who say that "fully automatic weapons are legal," consider the fact that NO MORE can be MANUFACTURED OR IMPORTED for civilian consumption in the U.S. How can you call them "legal"? That's like saying that MILK is legal, but you can't produce any more of it, and what we have on the shelves right at this moment is all we can ever legally have.
Actually, the way the law is worded, select fire guns ARE illegal in the US, they just happened to grandfather in the existing ones.
For someone like me, who makes between $20-25K per year, I am able to afford some NFA stuff like two suppressors and I am looking at building a SBS. However machinguns of any type are far beyond my reach. The current situation is very much like a poll tax on the 2nd amendment. Only the wealthy and/or well connected can own them.
I mean no offense to those who do own them, just pointing out that MG are out of reach for most "commoners" because of the government.
For someone like me, who makes between $20-25K per year, I am able to afford some NFA stuff like two suppressors and I am looking at building a SBS. However machinguns of any type are far beyond my reach. The current situation is very much like a poll tax on the 2nd amendment. Only the wealthy and/or well connected can own them.
I mean no offense to those who do own them, just pointing out that MG are out of reach for most "commoners" because of the government.
armoredman
New member
Close, Ornithoid, but an MP5 won't go sour.
Keep in mind that before 1934, you could mail order a Maxim machinegun or a Thompson subgun. And there were NO school shootings. After WWII, before the additions to NFA '34 by GCA 68, there were clubs who had mortar meets, shooting captured German and surplus Russian mortars. Never committed a single crime.
Outlawing firearms by either banning thier use or regulating them out of existance, does nothing but harm those who obey the law. While I would love to own a select fire rifle, I would more than likely shoot it semi auto most of the time simply due to ammo costs.
Keep in mind that before 1934, you could mail order a Maxim machinegun or a Thompson subgun. And there were NO school shootings. After WWII, before the additions to NFA '34 by GCA 68, there were clubs who had mortar meets, shooting captured German and surplus Russian mortars. Never committed a single crime.
Outlawing firearms by either banning thier use or regulating them out of existance, does nothing but harm those who obey the law. While I would love to own a select fire rifle, I would more than likely shoot it semi auto most of the time simply due to ammo costs.
CGSteve8718
New member
Posted by CPhilip:
Well, part of the reason they came out with the tax was after the Prohibition era where numerous crimes were committed using machine guns. I am talking about the glory days of 20th Century America of Al Capone, Dutch Schultz, the Irish Mob, Bumpy Johnson, etc. etc. etc.
And for those who speak of govt. being the govt. before 1933...there were no such thing as the "good ol days". You think govt. is corrupt today, back in the aforementioned times, govt. on all levels were corrupt and openly in bed with the underworld. You think cops, mayors, and politicians didn't violate the Volstead Act, they didn't drink? You think cops, police chiefs, mayors, and other public officials didn't turn a blind eye to illegal distilling, and smuggling as long as they got a cut? You think they didn't turn a blind eye when the Irish and the Italians were shooting each other up in the streets with Tommy Guns? And before that, there were newspaper wars, and the same.
Today, just like then, there are only a few do gooders.
There are direct parallels with the 1934 registration and the 1986 registration. Both came after total retriction or wars on certain consumables, alcohol and drugs. No one was unable to buy, sell, or consume alcohol during Prohibition, and the gangsters and the underworld were using these weapons to fight out their turf wars.
Fast forward to the declaration of the "war on drugs" as coined by Nixon. No one is unable to buy, sell, and consume any kind of drug to this very day, after decades and billions of dollars later, there are more drugs coming into this country than ever before. Drugs can't even be kept of out PRISONS. And concurrently, during the 80s and I'm guessing earlier, you had your modern street gangs fighting out their turf battles with the weapons in question.
So, naturally, all this "insanity" going on, almost entirely within the criminal element against another criminal element, the powers that be sought the need for registration for machine guns.
So yes, I voted machine guns should be legal again because I don't think having select fire weapons poses that much more of a danger to our society. Because if you believe that it is, then it wouldn't be a far cry to assume that you will just believe EVERY gun is that dangerous. Of the 280 million guns owned by Americans, it's still a tiny occurrence you see on TV about mass shootings etc. And, now, just like then, most of the actual "gun violence" is between the criminal elements.
Well, part of the reason they came out with the tax was after the Prohibition era where numerous crimes were committed using machine guns. I am talking about the glory days of 20th Century America of Al Capone, Dutch Schultz, the Irish Mob, Bumpy Johnson, etc. etc. etc.
And for those who speak of govt. being the govt. before 1933...there were no such thing as the "good ol days". You think govt. is corrupt today, back in the aforementioned times, govt. on all levels were corrupt and openly in bed with the underworld. You think cops, mayors, and politicians didn't violate the Volstead Act, they didn't drink? You think cops, police chiefs, mayors, and other public officials didn't turn a blind eye to illegal distilling, and smuggling as long as they got a cut? You think they didn't turn a blind eye when the Irish and the Italians were shooting each other up in the streets with Tommy Guns? And before that, there were newspaper wars, and the same.
Today, just like then, there are only a few do gooders.
There are direct parallels with the 1934 registration and the 1986 registration. Both came after total retriction or wars on certain consumables, alcohol and drugs. No one was unable to buy, sell, or consume alcohol during Prohibition, and the gangsters and the underworld were using these weapons to fight out their turf wars.
Fast forward to the declaration of the "war on drugs" as coined by Nixon. No one is unable to buy, sell, and consume any kind of drug to this very day, after decades and billions of dollars later, there are more drugs coming into this country than ever before. Drugs can't even be kept of out PRISONS. And concurrently, during the 80s and I'm guessing earlier, you had your modern street gangs fighting out their turf battles with the weapons in question.
So, naturally, all this "insanity" going on, almost entirely within the criminal element against another criminal element, the powers that be sought the need for registration for machine guns.
So yes, I voted machine guns should be legal again because I don't think having select fire weapons poses that much more of a danger to our society. Because if you believe that it is, then it wouldn't be a far cry to assume that you will just believe EVERY gun is that dangerous. Of the 280 million guns owned by Americans, it's still a tiny occurrence you see on TV about mass shootings etc. And, now, just like then, most of the actual "gun violence" is between the criminal elements.