Do you think machine guns should be legal?
- Thread starter MarkoPo
- Start date
tony pasley
New member
Punish every one for the long ago misdeeds of a few.
I can agree with some of the sentiments and arguments expressed previously.
I voted that they should be legal.
I also think that the $200 tax stamp requirement by the NFA-'34 is blatently unconstitutional as a tax on our right to keep and bear arms.
Dangerous? Let's take a recent example - the Hollywood Bank Robbery where 2 men wore body armor and carried illegal fully auto assault rifles. After a 13 minute shootout the total number of fatalities was exactly two ... both the "machine gun" users. I don't intend to minimize the seventeen people injured, however this shows that FA weapons are not "more lethal" or "more deadly" than semi-auto rifles.
Self-Limiting arms? Another factor that I think is self-limiting is the cost of use. If you have a select-fire weapon like an M-16 you can practice in semi-auto mode for around $20-$40 in ammo. But when you hit that "fun switch" you can burn through $80 to $120 worth of ammo in something under 90 seconds. For weapons like belt-fed guns that are always FA, you can burn up $70 worth of ammo in less time than it took you to setup the tripod!
For a FA weapon to be useful, you really need large quantities of ammo (easily 200 or more rounds ). That ammo supply runs out quickly in full-auto mode. That's $90 in ammo to $130 in ammo just to have a minimum supply on hand. After that, it gets very expensive, very fast.
Criminal Access.
Back in the 1920's and 30's, the $200 tax-stamp was a lot of money. For example, a bus driver earned $1,373 annually so that $200 was almost two months salary. If you were a lawyer earning about $4,200, that was 2/3rds of a month's salary. A .38 Revolver cost $20, a .45 Auto was a whopping $25 (about a week's salary for a bus driver)*. If that tax was adjusted to today's wage/price levels, it would be more like a $6,400 tax!
But criminals (a)don't register their guns because they don't want records and (b)in organized groups have the necessary money to buy them illegally. Consider this - drugs are a plague and we're fighting it. But drug cartels will lose an expensive "cigarette boat" or a $250,000 airplane in an aborted smuggling operation and chalk it up as a cost of doing buisness. Do you think they'll balk at paying $5,000 to $9,000 for SMG's if they deem them necessary? Hell, customs discovered that the drug cartels designed and built submarines to smuggle drugs here. Think of the cost of doing that (true, they're not very large or extremely good subs, but they can avoid some detection). If it's merely about money, theives can steal a few high priced Mercedes and BMWs to trade for a $6,500 SMG if they really want one. The major point being that if a criminal enterprise wants SMG's or MG's, cost is not a factor.
Lawful Purposes - someone will ask what would you use it for?. While generally it's none of anyone's business why you want to buy an object, it's one deserving of an answer. Some folks think ownership of a firearm should have some "lawful purpose" as a "test" -- such a test makes some sense when you inquire about owning a thermonuclear device
or perhaps an 8-inch naval gun. Fully automatic weapons are the type of firearm protected as a militia weapon under the 2nd Amendment. In order to form a check on government power, it's of little use to use falling-block Sharps rifles against M16's, M240's and vulcan guns. But sidestepping that whole argument, the FA firearm has lawful uses;
-For Recreational shooting (i.e. shooting for the fun of it)
-In Military training & preparedness
-To Suppress riots or insurrections
-As being effective against criminal street gangs invading property.
-For ranchers shooting predators of their livestock.
-For protection of persons and property after a disaster.
So there are lawful uses that support the ownership of these firearms, lacking or despite government restrictions.
I voted that they should be legal.
I also think that the $200 tax stamp requirement by the NFA-'34 is blatently unconstitutional as a tax on our right to keep and bear arms.
Dangerous? Let's take a recent example - the Hollywood Bank Robbery where 2 men wore body armor and carried illegal fully auto assault rifles. After a 13 minute shootout the total number of fatalities was exactly two ... both the "machine gun" users. I don't intend to minimize the seventeen people injured, however this shows that FA weapons are not "more lethal" or "more deadly" than semi-auto rifles.
Self-Limiting arms? Another factor that I think is self-limiting is the cost of use. If you have a select-fire weapon like an M-16 you can practice in semi-auto mode for around $20-$40 in ammo. But when you hit that "fun switch" you can burn through $80 to $120 worth of ammo in something under 90 seconds. For weapons like belt-fed guns that are always FA, you can burn up $70 worth of ammo in less time than it took you to setup the tripod!
For a FA weapon to be useful, you really need large quantities of ammo (easily 200 or more rounds ). That ammo supply runs out quickly in full-auto mode. That's $90 in ammo to $130 in ammo just to have a minimum supply on hand. After that, it gets very expensive, very fast. Criminal Access.
Back in the 1920's and 30's, the $200 tax-stamp was a lot of money. For example, a bus driver earned $1,373 annually so that $200 was almost two months salary. If you were a lawyer earning about $4,200, that was 2/3rds of a month's salary. A .38 Revolver cost $20, a .45 Auto was a whopping $25 (about a week's salary for a bus driver)*. If that tax was adjusted to today's wage/price levels, it would be more like a $6,400 tax!
But criminals (a)don't register their guns because they don't want records and (b)in organized groups have the necessary money to buy them illegally. Consider this - drugs are a plague and we're fighting it. But drug cartels will lose an expensive "cigarette boat" or a $250,000 airplane in an aborted smuggling operation and chalk it up as a cost of doing buisness. Do you think they'll balk at paying $5,000 to $9,000 for SMG's if they deem them necessary? Hell, customs discovered that the drug cartels designed and built submarines to smuggle drugs here. Think of the cost of doing that (true, they're not very large or extremely good subs, but they can avoid some detection). If it's merely about money, theives can steal a few high priced Mercedes and BMWs to trade for a $6,500 SMG if they really want one. The major point being that if a criminal enterprise wants SMG's or MG's, cost is not a factor.
Lawful Purposes - someone will ask what would you use it for?. While generally it's none of anyone's business why you want to buy an object, it's one deserving of an answer. Some folks think ownership of a firearm should have some "lawful purpose" as a "test" -- such a test makes some sense when you inquire about owning a thermonuclear device
or perhaps an 8-inch naval gun. Fully automatic weapons are the type of firearm protected as a militia weapon under the 2nd Amendment. In order to form a check on government power, it's of little use to use falling-block Sharps rifles against M16's, M240's and vulcan guns. But sidestepping that whole argument, the FA firearm has lawful uses; -For Recreational shooting (i.e. shooting for the fun of it)
-In Military training & preparedness
-To Suppress riots or insurrections
-As being effective against criminal street gangs invading property.
-For ranchers shooting predators of their livestock.
-For protection of persons and property after a disaster.
So there are lawful uses that support the ownership of these firearms, lacking or despite government restrictions.
Automatic weapons of all types should be available at the corner hardware store. No, I'm not kidding.
The $200.00 tax that is no longer collected on new automatic weapons is unconstitutional, as proved by the SCOTUS case over taxing newsprint in 1983. SCOTUS ruled that a separate, special tax could not be levied against newsprint, even if it were exactly the same percentage as the regular sales tax, because newsprint was a necessary supply for exercising the Constitutionally protected freedom of the press.
Ref: MINNEAPOLIS STAR v. MINNESOTA COMM'R OF REV., 460 U.S. 575 (1983)
The $200.00 tax that is no longer collected on new automatic weapons is unconstitutional, as proved by the SCOTUS case over taxing newsprint in 1983. SCOTUS ruled that a separate, special tax could not be levied against newsprint, even if it were exactly the same percentage as the regular sales tax, because newsprint was a necessary supply for exercising the Constitutionally protected freedom of the press.
Ref: MINNEAPOLIS STAR v. MINNESOTA COMM'R OF REV., 460 U.S. 575 (1983)
Really? How exactly is an inanimate object dangerous? Ever been to a machine gun shoot? I've shot hundreds of different machine guns, how exactly is that dangerous? By everyday gun owner do we assume you mean law abiding gun owner, because we all know that a full auto can be picked up on the street for less money and a lot less hassle than doing it legally. If someone is a legal gun owner as I am and you probably are, why do you fear that?
Last edited:
Well it is just one of those thing I wouldn't someone who is irresponsible getting ahold of. I could just see a neighbor's house geting peppered by an accidential burst of bullets. I would let my son shoot my SKS any day he wanted to, but I wouldn't let him touch a machine gun. Maybe you call me paranoid, but it is just a safety issue. I would hop on a Harley and go to town, but I would not hop on a Ninja 1000cc for anything. I know some people are perfectly safe on them, but not something I would do.
Inanimate objects cannot be "dangerous"....
Without people being involved. A ten ton boulder hanging off a cliff, ready to fall is only dangerous if a (stupid) person goes and stands underneath.
They are things, they do nothing on their own. If you infuse the idea of full auto weapons with some dark unholy ability to send good men mad to commit foul deeds, perhaps you should seek some kind of mental counciling, as you have clearly lost touch with reality. Either that or you should find a job writing for the anti gun faction or for Hollywood, as they, being already way out of touch with reality, find this idea appealling.
There should be NO restrictions on owning any inanimate object, gun, car, motorcycle, or even drug. Now, if you harm someone else with your inanimate object, then you should be punished, harshly, immediately, and permanently. No excuses (like insanity), no exceptions. If you did it (and are proven guilty), you pay for it. Up to and including your life. Exactly an eye for an eye is not practical, but the punishment sould reflect the severity of the crime. Years in jail for owning a few ounces of a proscribed plant, or a piece of metal or wood too long or too short, or shaped a certain way, these things should never happen in a free society. Yet they do, every day. As Americans, we are constantly told by politicians and pressmen and supposedly great thinkers how much Liberty and Freedom we have and enjoy. And we do have it, but only in those things the political masters deem of no real importance to them.
Kind of like telling the frogs that they are free because they can fly if they want to.
Without people being involved. A ten ton boulder hanging off a cliff, ready to fall is only dangerous if a (stupid) person goes and stands underneath.
They are things, they do nothing on their own. If you infuse the idea of full auto weapons with some dark unholy ability to send good men mad to commit foul deeds, perhaps you should seek some kind of mental counciling, as you have clearly lost touch with reality. Either that or you should find a job writing for the anti gun faction or for Hollywood, as they, being already way out of touch with reality, find this idea appealling.
There should be NO restrictions on owning any inanimate object, gun, car, motorcycle, or even drug. Now, if you harm someone else with your inanimate object, then you should be punished, harshly, immediately, and permanently. No excuses (like insanity), no exceptions. If you did it (and are proven guilty), you pay for it. Up to and including your life. Exactly an eye for an eye is not practical, but the punishment sould reflect the severity of the crime. Years in jail for owning a few ounces of a proscribed plant, or a piece of metal or wood too long or too short, or shaped a certain way, these things should never happen in a free society. Yet they do, every day. As Americans, we are constantly told by politicians and pressmen and supposedly great thinkers how much Liberty and Freedom we have and enjoy. And we do have it, but only in those things the political masters deem of no real importance to them.
Kind of like telling the frogs that they are free because they can fly if they want to.
OK let's see how your arguement works out here.
Ok I have seem drugs ruin the lives of many good men. You obvoiusly do not understand addiction, or are ignorant to the fact that people can not control their actions while under the influence. If you think increased crime, higher health care costs, family seperation, and death are all good benifits of doing drugs, then by all means have at it. But remember I have to deal with the aftermath of the messes these people's lives become.
Irrelivent, a boulder is a naturally occuring thing. You can't point a boulder and shoot people with it. You can however predict it's path and get out of it's way.
I am a psychriatric/ mental health nurse and a drug and alcohol rehab specialist. I don't think you have the credentials to recommend counseling to anyone. Espically someone with a degree in mental health.
Ok I have seem drugs ruin the lives of many good men. You obvoiusly do not understand addiction, or are ignorant to the fact that people can not control their actions while under the influence. If you think increased crime, higher health care costs, family seperation, and death are all good benifits of doing drugs, then by all means have at it. But remember I have to deal with the aftermath of the messes these people's lives become.
Not sure what you are getting at here, but freedom comes with a price and responsibilty isn't something that is given away, it is earned. How does this pertain to machine guns? I don't think 99% of people are responsible enough to own a machine gun. How much training do you think you get in the military before they cut you loose with a M-16? If you legally own machine gun good for you. I hope you have lots and lots of training. But if some idiot gets ahold of one, I don't want him or her in my neighborhood. Espically if they are on drugs.
I guess I need to make my point a little more clear here. I would not feel safe owning a machine gun. I don't think they are something everyone should have the right to own. If we set some standards, like extensive training or a special class on safety then maybe. I don't think they should be on the shelf at Walmart for anyone to buy. They are appropriate for military operations and police use. But do we really want our police out gunned? I think they may give gangsters a false sence of immortality. I know this is a slippery slope fallacy, but they should be at best highly regulated.
Marko,
Your logic fails to persuade me.
As said before, a machine gun is simply a device, a tool, a piece of metal that has no "intent" - good or evil - of its own. It requires a user to operate it and the user will determine how it is used.
How is a shooter wielding a machine gun significantly more dangerous that one wielding a "tacticaL' 12-gauge? Before you answer, consider that most weapons you're discussing are magazine fed from 20-30 round mags. That's up to 30 projectiles they spew out. While a shotgun with 8 rounds of 3" 00 buck at 15 pellets each tosses out 120 projectiles in a similar time period. 30 vs. 120. What's the significant difference then, that makes you fear a full auto AK-47 or M16 but not a shotgun?
I don't jump out of perfectly good airplanes to test parachutes, rock climb or build fireworks mortars for the 4th of July. These risky hobbies have killed innocents in the past, but because I think the participants are crazy to do them, doesn't mean I'll lobby to mandate gov't restrictions on them.
Don't even start that. I have my own bone to pick with so-called "mental health professionals".
Your logic fails to persuade me.
As said before, a machine gun is simply a device, a tool, a piece of metal that has no "intent" - good or evil - of its own. It requires a user to operate it and the user will determine how it is used.
How is a shooter wielding a machine gun significantly more dangerous that one wielding a "tacticaL' 12-gauge? Before you answer, consider that most weapons you're discussing are magazine fed from 20-30 round mags. That's up to 30 projectiles they spew out. While a shotgun with 8 rounds of 3" 00 buck at 15 pellets each tosses out 120 projectiles in a similar time period. 30 vs. 120. What's the significant difference then, that makes you fear a full auto AK-47 or M16 but not a shotgun?
I don't jump out of perfectly good airplanes to test parachutes, rock climb or build fireworks mortars for the 4th of July. These risky hobbies have killed innocents in the past, but because I think the participants are crazy to do them, doesn't mean I'll lobby to mandate gov't restrictions on them.
Don't even start that. I have my own bone to pick with so-called "mental health professionals".
The purposes of the military and the police are entirely different, and police have no need for full-auto weapons. People who are paid to protect the public have no business "spraying and praying," especially in urban areas, and especially when semi-auto weapons like the Colt LE6920 can put out more than enough lead already while keeping it on target.MarkoPo said:
However, I do believe that police should be allowed to own full-auto weapons privately, just like any other civilian who isn't a known violent criminal or psycho.
Not by violent criminals, but we absolutely want them outgunned by the general population. That's the reason why we have a Second Amendment!
Nevertheless, as has already been pointed out, full-auto does not trump semi-auto, except perhaps at very close ranges (where a shotgun would likely be better than either one). How often do you see US soldiers in Iraq using full-auto with their M4s? I've only seen them use semi-auto in any of the clips I've watched. And someone here on another thread (I don't recall who) said that when he was in Iraq, he never saw a soldier use the burst setting on an M4.
The key word there is "false."
I suggest you reread and think about the points people have made on this thread. Frankly, it really doesn't sound like you've paid much attention to counterarguments against your position.
Precisely. A shotgun, especially of the semi-auto variety, puts out more lead more quickly than ANY subgun. And it's easier to hit with, too. (It seems ironic that the reason I haven't bought one yet is because there's less chance of them being banned than other weapons.)BillCA said:
If I could only take one of an MP5 and a semi-auto shotgun into combat, I'd choose the MP5 because it can do single-shots of longer range. But if I were a nutcase who wanted to massacre a crowd of people in a shopping mall, I'd choose the shotgun.
So again, that's great that you wouldn't do it. A man's got to know his limitations. I've been a motorcycle safety instructor for years and have owned more 1000 cc plus high horsepower streetbikes than I can remember. Some with nitrous injection and wheelie bars. Some with double the horsepower of my truck.
These are my playthings, regardless of how fast or in your case how dangerous things may seem, the throttle on bikes and the trigger on guns
are both in control of the operator. If you point a Suzuki Hayabusa at a downtown street on a busy Saturday and pull that trigger, then you're in for it.
Throttles and triggers do nothing without direct commands from responsible or irresponsible operators.
Last edited:
theinvisibleheart
New member
BillCA, re: post #26
Bill,
1. you can actually simulate SA fire mode in FA belt-fed guns by loading every other links(useful when sighting it in and target shooting).
2. FA makes most sense in pistol caliber and rim-fire SMG due to reduced ballistics of those calibers. AM180 (drum fed 22LR) was at one time marketed as a lighter version of traditional door buster 12G. However, there is value of SBR/SBS(short barreled rifle, shotgun, and pistol with stock option) in that in confined spaces, short barrel makes it more maneuverable.
Regarding the value of FA fire, it depends on the caliber, ROF(Rate of Fire), and the gun. For something like tripod/bi-pod mounted gun such as MG3(MG42 in .308), extremely high rate of fire in .308 is devastatingly effective. In general, extremely high ROF (ROF>1000RPM), SMG and should mounted guns are very difficult to control. It's a different story when the ROF is lower, like say 800RPM.
Thompson SMG was at one time, actually marketed as a home defense tool and suppressor was much more common (like parts of Europe today where it's available for something like $30). Off course, at some point, technology will make FA gun
obsolete.
3. $200 NFA tax is significant even today and has pretty much killed innovation in FA/suppressor market. Considering semiauto version of Uzi is $700-$800 and M11/9 is $200-$300, even w/ out the 86 ban on manufacture of new MG for commercial market, $200 NFA tax is the cause of relative lack of innovation in FA/suppressor market.
Best.
--J
BillCA said:
Bill,
1. you can actually simulate SA fire mode in FA belt-fed guns by loading every other links(useful when sighting it in and target shooting).
2. FA makes most sense in pistol caliber and rim-fire SMG due to reduced ballistics of those calibers. AM180 (drum fed 22LR) was at one time marketed as a lighter version of traditional door buster 12G. However, there is value of SBR/SBS(short barreled rifle, shotgun, and pistol with stock option) in that in confined spaces, short barrel makes it more maneuverable.
Regarding the value of FA fire, it depends on the caliber, ROF(Rate of Fire), and the gun. For something like tripod/bi-pod mounted gun such as MG3(MG42 in .308), extremely high rate of fire in .308 is devastatingly effective. In general, extremely high ROF (ROF>1000RPM), SMG and should mounted guns are very difficult to control. It's a different story when the ROF is lower, like say 800RPM.
Thompson SMG was at one time, actually marketed as a home defense tool and suppressor was much more common (like parts of Europe today where it's available for something like $30). Off course, at some point, technology will make FA gun
obsolete.
3. $200 NFA tax is significant even today and has pretty much killed innovation in FA/suppressor market. Considering semiauto version of Uzi is $700-$800 and M11/9 is $200-$300, even w/ out the 86 ban on manufacture of new MG for commercial market, $200 NFA tax is the cause of relative lack of innovation in FA/suppressor market.
Best.
--J
armoredman
New member
markpo, you're a mental health professional, right? OK, looks at these statements YOU made.
...and...
Now go look up "projection." Stop projecting YOUR baseless fears on us. If YOU are not capable of handling a select fire firearms, fine, you are not required to buy one. But don't actively work out your fears on us by attempting to limit our access to the same legal product, simply because of your fears that you cannot use one safely. I have fired many select fire firearms safely, in and out of the military. I cannot afford one, but wouldn't mind have a few, mostly in the classic collectable catagory.
copenhagen
New member
See my signature.
As long as the government arms 18 year olds armed with machine guns, they should be as legal as a double barrel shotgun. When the government is scared of the people we have liberty. When the people are scared of the government... well, that is tyranny.
As long as the government arms 18 year olds armed with machine guns, they should be as legal as a double barrel shotgun. When the government is scared of the people we have liberty. When the people are scared of the government... well, that is tyranny.
Everyone already has the right to own automatic weapons, that right is currently being largely denied. That denial is unlawful. We intend to correct that.
By we I take it that you mean through an armed surrogate usually referred to as government. Sorry, that's an unacceptable intervention of my right to be armed.
Those, in fact, are the last entities you want to have access to high performance weapons. At the very least, government should have NO weapons available to it that the citizen cannot buy. Your thinking appears to be based on government somehow acquiring higher moral and ethical standards than the average citizen, that's not only wrong, it's never been true.
Yes, we want the government to be outgunned at all times by the citizenry. If facing a heavily armed criminal, the police should have to come to the citizenry to borrow what they need.