Do you think machine guns should be legal?

[Willie D]

I would not feel safe owning a machine gun.

I would feel safe owning a machine gun. I would NOT feel safe if the rest of my city could own them. I don't feel safe with half the people I share ranges with and they're only shooting .22s or black powder rifles.


Since people actually do get murdered down the street from me in Philly this is not something I deal with in the abstract. I don't think a higher quantity of lead on the streets is a good thing and I know the police don't want it either.

The current system is burdensome but keeps some of the riff-raff from endangering others. I support an end to the 86' ban and the importation ban(which would lower prices on NFA items considerably) but I think there should be SOME hoops to jump through for NFA.

 

[Alleykat]

The OP's lack of logic doesn't really surprise me, but I'll bet he can drive a lot better in the snow than I! There is no logic to his arguments. Sound like DemocRATic arguments, to me. As I said before, a f.a. is no more dangerous in my hands than is a single-shot .22.

Since an overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed by DemocRATs, it seems to me that just keeping firearms out of the hands of DemocRATs would be a step in the right direction.

 

[JuanCarlos]

The OP's lack of logic doesn't really surprise me, but I'll bet he can drive a lot better in the snow than I! There is no logic to his arguments. Sound like DemocRATic arguments, to me. As I said before, a f.a. is no more dangerous in my hands than is a single-shot .22.

Since an overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed by DemocRATs, it seems to me that just keeping firearms out of the hands of DemocRATs would be a step in the right direction.

Oh, wow! The word "Democrat" contains the lettser r-a-t in it! Wow, you are the wittiest person evar for pointing that out!!1!1!

Also, while I'd not be surprised to find out it's true, do you have a cite of any kind on that state ("overwhelming" majority of gun crimes committed by Democrats)? Are we talking registered Democrats? People who may have voted Democratic once? People who never voted in their lives, but we go ahead and label them Democrats because it suits us? Yeah, I'd be interesting to see both the numbers and criteria on that one.

 

[STAGE 2]

Wow, you are the wittiest person evar for pointing that out!!1!1!

Ahem... the proper vernacular for this retort is EVAH. Thank you.

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.

No, you've made your point blatantly clear. However you completely sidestepped my question.

Your logic is that "because I don't feel safe owning a machine gun, nobody owns a machine gun." Where your statement fails is it assumes no one else feels safe owning a machine gun. If people feel safe then your logic is destroyed.

So once again I ask you, why are you placing your fears upon other people. My mother is deathly afraid of semi trucks. Semi truck have killed far more people than privately owned machineguns in the US. Should semi's be banned? Your argument is no more valid.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Your logic is that "because I don't feel safe owning a machine gun, nobody owns a machine gun." Where your statement fails is it assumes no one else feels safe owning a machine gun. If people feel safe then your logic is destroyed.

Personally I don't even understand why somebody wouldn't feel safe owning one in the first place. It's not like it'll sneak out of your safe in the dead of night and strangle you. I know my wallet wouldn't feel too safe keeping it fed, but I see no reason why I should be afraid to own one.

Now, if he said he wouldn't feel safe knowing that others could easily obtain them, that would make a little more sense. I'd be more than a little insulted, and he'd get jumped on twice as hard as he already is, but at least it would be a sensible statement.

 

[armoredman]

Ummm,

I don't think a higher quantity of lead on the streets is a good thing and I know the police don't want it either.

Most rank and file LE are pretty pro lawful civilian ownership of firearms.

The current system is burdensome but keeps some of the riff-raff from endangering others.

That's the problem - it doesn't. 99% of criminals do not want or need a machine gun. They want or need a small concealable firearm, usually still half loaded with whatever ammo was in it when it was stolen. Some sophisticated thugs have access to high priced hardware, and not one bit of it is legal. They do not care about the National Registry, and as long as we have a porous border and unguarded waterways, they will be able to get whatever hardware they want.
I have done interviews with inmates doing life for murder, who have no reason to lie except for the sheer fun of it,and most of them had pretty much the same answers - to get a firearm outside the walls is so simple as to blow your mind. Most of them said they would have a gun in thier belt before being out of sight of Traffic Control, if it's a family pickup. Some inside for firearms crimes, (yes, Virginia, not all firearm criminals are in the Fed system), know 100 differant ways to get illegal weapons, and one them said he could have another full auto in hand less than a day after getting out. Looking at his record, I believe him.
Pass whatever laws you want, make yourself and your neighbors "feel good", BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK.

 

[applesanity]

hey, let's be nice to the closet anti. If we're all so secure in our belief in the legal ownership of machine guns, we shouldn't get so defensive. Let's not be anti-gunner-phobic. We should working hard to bring others to our side, instead of patronizing and ridiculing them

I would not feel safe owning a machine gun.

Actually, I personally would not feel safe if YOU owned a machine gun. Your irrational fear of them probably means you would never take the time to understand the use, maintenence and safe operation of your weapon.

Now, if you don't mind, please let the rest of us consume our trans-fats, smoke our... tobacco, drive muscle cars that get 8.7 miles to the gallon, and waste surplus 7.62 on M60s. It's people like you who've forced me to drive to Pennsylvania everytime I want to have decent fireworks for the 4th.

 

[Ohio_Shemanese]

Marko,
I wouldn't feel safe with you owning one either, your must have a irrational fear of inanimate objects( specifically weapons), I think the diagnosis that Col. Copper used was hoplophobia, but I would deny your owning one either. Your argument that the majority of the population are not responsible enough to own a machine gun flawed, for that matter a good portion shouldn't have kids, be allowed to consume alcohol; drive a car, or for that matter vote if you follow that line of thinking. Personally I would rather whoever was to shot at me to use full auto, Haji has tried and he, like most people can'hit anything with full auto. The people should be armed the same as the military, I believe that was the intent behind the Second Amendment. History teaches us that the Military is in a lot of instances the tool of tyrants--watch the news from any of the many third world dung holes - the original intent of the Second is still relevant today. After 22 years in the military I can attest to the fact the "machine guns" are fun and safe and I think anyone who wants one should be permitted to own whatever he wants, I would love to have a Glock 18 myself.

 

[MarkoPo]

Ok, for one I do not fear the weapons I fear SOME ofthe people who might end up with one. Yes the military gives them out to 18 year olds, but they also go through extensive arms training am I correct? They also have supervision most all of the time, either by a peer or sargeant. In the civilian world if you sold machine guns to ANYONE who wanted one, I could just see a large ammount of problems. Maybe I am wrong, but I am also a rational person. Like pointed out earlier there are not that many people who can own them, so of course the the occurance of mishaps is going to be low. The people who own them now have to have special licenses and shell out a whole lot of cash. Do you also have to have training? As far as me not feeling safe with one it is because I don't have any training. If I could take a class dedicated to the safe operation and handling of a machine, then I would be fine. I wouldn't want to fly a plane either without training. There are mandatory things you have to do to get to do alot of things. You have to take drivers training to drive, avaition class to fly a plane, I am taking a class to carry a conceled weapon next month. I have to take years of college classes to practice nursing. I don't think a machine gun should be any different. They should not be legal to just anyone. If someone can prove they have the knowledge and understanding to safely operate one then I see no problem with owning one. But to sell them in the corner store, to whom ever walks through the door is ludacris. So can we meet here and put this arguement to a rest?

 

[Yellowfin]

^ Provided such course is available openly, to everyone who can purchase a firearm, at low cost, and available regularly and without impediment, perhaps.

 

[STAGE 2]

I don't think a machine gun should be any different. They should not be legal to just anyone. If someone can prove they have the knowledge and understanding to safely operate one then I see no problem with owning one.

Since you keep ignoring my last question, here's a new one for you.

Just so I know, which other fundamental rights do you think people should have a license to exercise?

 

[zxcvbob]

Ok, for one I do not fear the weapons I fear SOME ofthe people who might end up with one. Yes the military gives them out to 18 year olds, but they also go through extensive arms training am I correct? <snip>
They should not be legal to just anyone. If someone can prove they have the knowledge and understanding to safely operate one then I see no problem with owning one. <snip> So can we meet here and put this arguement to a rest?

Just imagine how much damage some people could do with the vote! We should make them take a literacy test first, and maybe enact a poll tax... What, we tried that already?

 

[MarkoPo]

So then why are you trying to legislate your standards on those of us who are responsible enough to own one.

This is my point, I don't think eveyone is responsible enough to own one. Those may include, people with severe mental illness, people who are not thinking clearly, those with PPO's or restraining orders against them, those with violent criminal backgrounds. These are just my suggestions.

So once again I ask you, why are you placing your fears upon other people. My mother is deathly afraid of semi trucks. Semi truck have killed far more people than privately owned machineguns in the US. Should semi's be banned? Your argument is no more valid.

I am not placing my fears upon anyone, I am expressing my feelings. In order to drive a semi, you have to go through a screening process to be deemed safe, and have a special license.Which I think is a good idea.

Just so I know, which other fundamental rights do you think people should have a license to exercise?

Wy is it a fundamental right? Because the second ammendment exists? So it is of your opinion that there should be absloutely no restrictions of any kind imposed on anyone to own a weapon that was designed for military use to kill people? I am not an extremeist. And I don't believe in absloute anythings. Always and never are not correct for a situation 99.9% of the time. This happens to be one of them. So I do stand by my origional statement not everyone should own a machine gun. If someone can demonstrate within reason they can safely handle and use one in a legal manner, then by all mean have at it. Since we are talking extremes here, do you believe convicted criminals should lose their bill of rights? Do you think prisioners should be allowed guns? These may sound ridiculous, but it is an absloute view.

 

[armoredman]

Since you also ignored my entire post, I'll try once more.

Maybe I am wrong, but I am also a rational person.

No, you are not, having conclusively demonstrated projection as a defense mechanism. You also have advocated the removal of a lawful product on the basis of feelings, not a shred of logical solid proof. This is not demonstrated rational, logical thought.
BTW, you do not need a drivers' license to drive on private property.

...people who are not thinking clearly,...

Oh. My. Word. Who defines THAT? Who judges? Who determines this nebulous standard?
Enough indeed.

 

[STAGE 2]

This is my point, I don't think eveyone is responsible enough to own one. Those may include, people with severe mental illness, people who are not thinking clearly, those with PPO's or restraining orders against them, those with violent criminal backgrounds. These are just my suggestions.

Then you have obfuscated the argument. If someone is not responsible enough to own/use a gun then they aren't responsible for ANY gun. How many bullets it shoots per second is irrelevant.

Since the categories of people you described are already generally prohibited from owning guns, it seems your fears should be satisfied.

I am not placing my fears upon anyone, I am expressing my feelings. In order to drive a semi, you have to go through a screening process to be deemed safe, and have a special license.Which I think is a good idea

Sure you are. You said that automatic weapons should be illegal because YOU don't feel comfortable owning one.

As far as the semi analogy, you don't need ANY sort of permit or qualification to purchase one. If you want to operate it on public roads you need a license, just as if you want to carry a concealed weapon you need a license.

So by that logic we should be able to own whatever we want.

Wy is it a fundamental right? Because the second ammendment exists?

Yup.

So it is of your opinion that there should be absloutely no restrictions of any kind imposed on anyone to own a weapon that was designed for military use to kill people?

All guns were presumably designed to kill people. That really doesn't have anything to do with it.

It is not my opinion that there should be no restrictions on gun ownership. People of tender years, felons and the mentally ill should be prohibited from owning guns for obvious reasons.

However, if someone is a responsible competent gun owner (as 99% of us are) then why should they be prohibited from owning an automatic weapon. If we were going to go on some manical killing spree it would have already happened since many of us have enough hardware to outfit a company.

I am not an extremeist. And I don't believe in absloute anythings.

You believe in a ban on automatic weapons. Sounds pretty absolute to me.

Always and never are not correct for a situation 99.9% of the time.

I agree. So then why are you saying responsible people should never own an automatic weapon.

This happens to be one of them. So I do stand by my origional statement not everyone should own a machine gun. If someone can demonstrate within reason they can safely handle and use one in a legal manner, then by all mean have at it.

But once again, with everything you listed (planes trains and automobiles) no one has to "qualify" for anything to purchase one. I don't have a pilots license but I can buy a de Havilland if I want to. If I want to fly it, thats a different story.

Add to that the fact that ownership of firearms is a fundamental right, and it seems prohibiting ownership of automatic weapons is utterly wrong.

Since we are talking extremes here, do you believe convicted criminals should lose their bill of rights? Do you think prisioners should be allowed guns? These may sound ridiculous, but it is an absloute view.

This doesn't have anything to do with the discussion so lets work on the previous stuff first.

 

[MarkoPo]

Oh. My. Word. Who defines THAT? Who judges? Who determines this nebulous standard?
Enough indeed.

Umm let me see, people who commit violent crimes, people who are under the influence of drugs and alcohol, people who put others safety at risk are not clear thinkers IMO.

 

[shaggy]

This is my point, I don't think eveyone is responsible enough to own one. Those may include, people with severe mental illness, people who are not thinking clearly, those with PPO's or restraining orders against them, those with violent criminal backgrounds.

The same thing could be (and often is) said with regard to the civilian possession of ANY firearm. You've got a problem with machine guns, sara brady and carolyn mccarthy have a problem with any guns, someone else probably has a problem with knives, and so on. So do we legislate for the lowest common denominator or the least responsible in society? Just a couple months ago, here in NYC we had some doofus in city council push through a bill to ban aluminum baseball bats because they thought aluminum bats were so much more dangerous than wooden ones. Where does it all end...when we're all wearing bubble wrap for clothing and defending ourselves from physical attacks with Nerf mallets?

 

[MarkoPo]

Sure you are. You said that automatic weapons should be illegal because YOU don't feel comfortable owning one.

I did say this, but I also said if I had proper training on use and safety that I would be fine owning one.

As far as the semi analogy, you don't need ANY sort of permit or qualification to purchase one. If you want to operate it on public roads you need a licence, just as if you want to carry a concealed weapon you need a license.

So by that logic we should be able to own whatever we want.

Ok, but doesn't make much sence owning a semi you can't drive, owning a plane you can't fly or owning a gun you can't shoot.

It is not my opinion that there should be no restrictions on gun ownership. People of tender years, felons and the mentally ill should be prohibited from owning guns for obvious reasons.

However, if someone is a responsible competent gun owner (as 99% of us are) then why should be be prohibited from owning an automatic weapon. If we were going to go on some manical killing spree it would have already happened since many of us have enough hardware to outfit a company.

I agree with eveything you say here. It is the one percent I am concerned with as mentioned earlier. The arguement I was reading earlier was everyone should be able to own one. I don't think if you can buy bubble gum, you should necessiarly be able to buy a gun.

You believe in a ban on automatic weapons. Sounds pretty absolute to me.

Ok I did say something similiar. I retort my statement. I think there should be reasonable (I know everyone hates that word) restrictions on who does own them, and safety training a pre-req of owning one.

I agree. So then why are you saying responsible people should never own an automatic weapon.

Again, I have nothing against responsible people from owning them.

 

[MarkoPo]

The same thing could be (and often is) said with regard to the civilian possession of ANY firearm. You've got a problem with machine guns, sara brady and carolyn mccarthy have a problem with any guns, someone else probably has a problem with knives, and so on. So do we legislate for the lowest common denominator or the least responsible in society? Just a couple months ago, here in NYC we had some doofus in city council push through a bill to ban aluminum baseball bats because they thought aluminum bats were so much more dangerous than wooden ones. Where does it all end...when we're all wearing bubble wrap for clothing and defending ourselves from physical attacks with Nerf mallets?

It sounds like the ole' "slippery slope" arguement. It is a fallacy and I don't believe it. Please review the following:

Slippery slope debate.

and also http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

 

[STAGE 2]

Ok, but doesn't make much sence owning a semi you can't drive, owning a plane you can't fly or owning a gun you can't shoot.

And again you miss the point. On private property, I can drive a car without a license. Only when I do it in public do I need a license.

The same with a gun. If I shoot it on private property, I shouldn't need anything.

Ok I did say something similiar. I retort my statement. I think there should be reasonable (I know everyone hates that word) restrictions on who does own them, and safety training a pre-req of owning one.

And again I ask you which other rights do you believe require a safety test before exercising?