Do you think machine guns should be legal?

Should owning a machine gun be legal?

  • Yes, they should be legal

    Votes: 165 89.2%

  • No, they should be illegal

    Votes: 20 10.8%
  • Total voters
    185
Not that this is relivant to my arguement, but were machine guns invented when the bill of rights were written? Do you think the right to bear arms includes everything under the sun including explosive devices, granades, rocket launchers, and how about military tanks? Are those considered arms?
Click to expand...

I am always amazed at this type of logic. Especially when it is used by the liberals (not calling you a liberal).

TV, radio and the internet were not invented when the bill of rights was written. But we have somehow adopted them all under the 1st amendment.

Yet if we evolve past the musket, suddenly every gun is an aberration that the Founding Fathers had no intention of ever letting people own. That thinking is completely flawed. The Founding Fathers were about PERSONAL accountability, not trying to find the greater good for the state. The idea of limiting 95% of the public because of the deviant behavior of the 5% would have been abhorrent to them.

Do not be trapped in this kind of thinking. If you institute ONE compromise it will be used to incorporate more and more. No taxes, no registrations - these are all tools that have been proven time and time again to LIMIT and eventually ELIMINATE gun ownership.

Dont be duped.
 
My opinion is that they change it back to the way it was that allowed people to buy newly manufactured machine guns and pay only $200 dollar tax. I would like to do something about the mechanical safety issues of some lower quality weapons, but I am not sure how to handle that. Many submachine guns were made of substandard materials and the safety consists of a notch in a thin stamped receiver (sten gun for example).
Open bolt firing is not well known to many people. Also I know of accidents where people trained say in the use of an AK or AR tried to chamber a round in a thompson in one case and a czech MP25 in another firing accidental bursts.

I would require that people pass some sort of training course in order fire one at a public range. A lot of people will not like that suggestion.

Would I like to own one yes. At close range they are better in my opinion than a 12 ga shotgun. A machine pistol is smaller and at point blank range is faster to use. I have on several occassions fired Mac 9 mm submachines. Unmodified they are only good for close range and at 7 ft (common combat range) are extremely deadly. With an AR15 butt stock and buffer attached they slow way down and you literally can cut someone in half at 50 yards.
I would love to own a DP28, BAR, or Bren gun also.
 
If you can trust somebody with even a pointy stick, you can trust them with even a GE minigun. If you can't trust somebody with a full auto M16, you can't trust them with even a sharp pencil.

Anything else is just making arbitrary distinctions. Sure, a full auto isn't the sort of thing you'd use for certain situations, but for other things it is perfectly fine or just plain fun.

I can cause plenty of trouble with the semiauto, revolver, or bolt actions guns I have. I fail to see how putting a belt fed machine gun in my gun room would make me any more of a danger to society, since I am a law abiding responsible person.

If someone is irresponsible or not law abiding, then just because their gun only fires once for every time they pull the trigger does not mean society is safe.
 
MarkoPo,

Any person in the US that wants a machinegun can buy one right now. Just the same as any person that wants Crack Cocaine can buy some right now. Anyone that wants a car can steal one right now. Anyone that wants sex with a minor can find someone willing to supply them. There is an illegal market for just about anything anyone desires. Criminals do not do 3 months of paperwork to buy a machinegun. They get one off the street.

How can my owning a machinegun legally cause you any worry? I went through a background check for each machinegun I possess. The government keeps my fingerprints and photo on file. I must inform the government of where I live so they know where I store my machineguns. I have to request the governments permission to take my machinegun on a trip outside my home state. My machineguns have to be locked away from everyone, including my family. My machineguns are currently worth in excess of $40,000.

Do you honestly think that someone that goes through all of this just to legally own a machinegun is going to knock off the local 7/11 and spray bullets everywhere?

BTW, if the police are outgunned, it is because of their politcal leaders. The police can purchase any weapon known to man with the possible exception of nukes. The reason most cops are limited to a handgun and shotgun is because the politicians are more worried about lawsuits and bad publicity than they worry about the cop's life.
 
I personally don't have any interest in owning full auto. But, think that folks who would go through the drill to be legal should be able to buy new ones.

Criminals smuggle cocaine and heroin into the country by the metric ton. The assumption that taking new legal full autos off the market will make it harder for criminals to get them is beyond absurd.
 
See, I think full auto restrictions make no sense anyway. I have been thinking about this quite a bit today.

I do not presently own a fully automatic weapon, and this is largely due to their unavailability and high price in my home state of SC.

Okay, so here is the thing. Full auto restrictions don't make sense to me, because I think their purpose is to keep mass destruction from happening right? Well I'll tell you right now that more casualties could be produced with well aimed shots and double taps than could ever be produced with an MP5 or AK in full auto. I'm sorry to break it to the anti-full-auto owner Marko who says he owns an SKS, but I guarantee you that even a well trained Marine is more deadly with a well aimed semi-auto rifle than with fully automatic fire. Even on machine guns we are taught to use controlled short bursts. The only real advantage of having full auto in my mind is for suppression. For example:

The guys behind the building are shooting, so unleash a clip into nowhere to keep them at bay so your buddy can get into a position to take well aimed shots at them. Then again, suppressive fire can also be accomplished by bunting. Marko, I can put a 30 round clip out of your semi SKS in less time than it takes you to say "fully-auto-matic," and probably be more accurate than your average goon armed with a fully automatic weapon.

Why should they be more legal and less regulated? BECAUSE I WANT ONE! And it's my right! It's your right too! The novelty is fascinating, and the added danger is really non-existent.
 
MarkoPo:

In post # 65, you make mention of "safety standards", which I must admit, has a nice, sort of comforting ring to it, that is until one remembers that "the devil is in the details". Your proposal, or is it merely a passing mention of "safety standards" is noticeably short of details, which I find troubling.

I have also found requirements for "training" in connection with obtaining a concealed carry license or permit troubling too, as it always struck me that the imposition of a training requirement amounted to a license to steal, awarded to the trainers.

Pennsylvania never had a training requirement, something which looking at the quality of the state legislature has never ceased to amaze me. I note in passing that in-so-far as one notices, the streets are not littered with spent cartridge cases, and there is virtually no record of untrained licensees having abused their rights to keep and bear arms. By the way, so far as I know and underestand, the ownership of automatic weapons in Pennsylvania is O.K. with the state, not always the case in other jurisdictions.
 
they will not be legal, the gun movement is not taking back ground right now.....its just trying to prevent more new laws(and good luck with that)
 
they will not be legal, the gun movement is not taking back ground right now.....its just trying to prevent more new laws(and good luck with that)
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that bleak. We seem to be gaining a lot more ground than we are losing lately. But machine guns are way down on the priority list.
 
See, I think full auto restrictions make no sense anyway. I have been thinking about this quite a bit today.

I do not presently own a fully automatic weapon, and this is largely due to their unavailability and high price in my home state of SC.

Okay, so here is the thing. Full auto restrictions don't make sense to me, because I think their purpose is to keep mass destruction from happening right? Well I'll tell you right now that more casualties could be produced with well aimed shots and double taps than could ever be produced with an MP5 or AK in full auto. I'm sorry to break it to the anti-full-auto owner Marko who says he owns an SKS, but I guarantee you that even a well trained Marine is more deadly with a well aimed semi-auto rifle than with fully automatic fire. Even on machine guns we are taught to use controlled short bursts. The only real advantage of having full auto in my mind is for suppression. For example:

The guys behind the building are shooting, so unleash a clip into nowhere to keep them at bay so your buddy can get into a position to take well aimed shots at them. Then again, suppressive fire can also be accomplished by bunting. Marko, I can put a 30 round clip out of your semi SKS in less time than it takes you to say "fully-auto-matic," and probably be more accurate than your average goon armed with a fully automatic weapon.

Why should they be more legal and less regulated? BECAUSE I WANT ONE! And it's my right! It's your right too! The novelty is fascinating, and the added danger is really non-existent.
Click to expand...
I know I said I was done posting here by I have one final thing to say. You are absloutlely correct in what you say here. I just watched Shooting USA and of all things they had a machine gun shoot and meet in Kentucky. I have to admit it looked pretty neat. They interviewed a few of these guys and were telling about the licenses and fees it cost anually just to have one. And yea, no one got accidentially shot or wounded there. I couldn't believe when the one gentleman said he blew through over $2700 worth of ammo in about 15 minutes time. WOW! And you are right the more I think of it. I could hit more targets accurately with my SKS then some of those guys with their machine guns. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end, but they can't hold a three inch pattern at 100 yards either. So I admit I was ignorant and didn't think things through fully. As far as the training, all I ask if someone is going to pick one up make sure you fully understand how to use it, just like any tool. ALWAYS read the owners manual before use. You mentioned the CCW license needing a class for. I happen to be taking that class in March. To be honest even if it were optional I would pay to take it, just to better understand the laws and maybe pick up a few tips on safe handling of the gun and situations. I think when people get into trouble is when they think they know everything, and can go at it with no training. I know people will still argue it's a fundamental right to own a gun, but I believe it is YOUR fundamental responsibility to know how to use it safely and effectively, in all situations you may encounter.
 
Not that this is relivant to my arguement, but were machine guns invented when the bill of rights were written? Do you think the right to bear arms includes everything under the sun including explosive devices, granades, rocket launchers, and how about military tanks? Are those considered arms?
Click to expand...
This sounds like a rhetorical question designed to stir an impassioned answer but I'll give you some concrete facts:

1) Yes, there were flintlock machine guns at the time of the American revolution. You should be able to find photos and discussion by looking through the archives of this forum.

2) When the Bill of Rights were being written explosive devices, grenades (with 2 'e's) and artillery were owned by a significant number of civilians.

You've probably never heard of George Morris, the first American millionaire. He is said to have derived much of his wealth as a privateer. You've probably never heard that George Washington was part owner of a privateer vessel and the US Constitution specifically authorized Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal (sorry, you'll have to look this one up this post is too verbose as it is). Privateers (specifically private citizens who owned heavy artillery and explosives) captured over 300 British ships during the American revolution.

Carrying it down a little in history the outcome of the War of 1812 hinged nearly entirely upon a general who accepted the temporary loan of heavy artillery from civilians. I'm sure that (even given the deplorable state of present day public education) you've heard of the Lafitte Brothers of Barrataria Bay, Louisiana. Around Christmas time 1814 these gentlemen, privateers by trade, loaned artillery, powder and shot to General Andrew Jackson, manned the artillery line and defeated the British expeditionary force which was intent upon retaking the US for England.

3) Concerning rockets, the rockets of the 18th century were primitive and hardly worth mentioning but Americans have a long and colorful history of private rocketry starting with the exploits of Robert Goddard who launched the first liquid fueled rocket in 1926 and coming right up to the present with the Rutan brothers who launched the first manned civilian spacecraft this decade.

Regards.
 
The fact is that we are nearing an important fork in the road. How DC vs Heller is ruled will affect what actions should be taken and what we can expect.
 
I think full auto guns should not be treated any differently than any other guns.Making them illegal, or banning them, will do nothing to stop criminals from having and using full auto guns if they want.Drugs are illegal, and have been for MANY years, but anyone can find them anytime they want, in whatever place they live easily, so banning obviously doesnt do anything to restict somethings use by those willing to break the law.Only those who would obey the law banning them will not have them, and they wouldnt be using them to commit crimes anyway, so what good has been accomplished?a five minute search on the internet will bring you very detailed information on how to convert most semi-auto guns to full auto with little to now gunsmithing knowledge required, so criminals will still easily have full auto by converting (or finding someone with the skill nessecarry who is willing to do it for the right price) a semi auto.No need to even deal with the risky proposition of smuggling like with drugs.
 
You mentioned the CCW license needing a class for. I happen to be taking that class in March. To be honest even if it were optional I would pay to take it, just to better understand the laws and maybe pick up a few tips on safe handling of the gun and situations. I think when people get into trouble is when they think they know everything, and can go at it with no training. I know people will still argue it's a fundamental right to own a gun, but I believe it is YOUR fundamental responsibility to know how to use it safely and effectively, in all situations you may encounter.
Click to expand...
While I've not read every single message in this thread, I don't recall anyone stating that training on weapons use is bad, a waste of time, or otherwise denigrate anyone partaking of available training.

What I, and many others, object to is the notion that the state should be granted authority to interfere with an intrinsic right to be armed. Allowing the state to set a training standard is a risk of the state interfering with access to the right to be armed and should be eliminated. Most of us in the Self Defense Rights movement are working on this reduction and elimination of state power.

Further, yes, that means armed with any weapon. Machine gun, cannon, rocket, pistols, revolvers, and any rifle or shotgun; anything at all should be available to anyone with the money to meet the purchase price in his pocket.

The federal, state, and local governments should be in fear of the population at all times. It's not safe otherwise.
 
I don't think it's that bleak. We seem to be gaining a lot more ground than we are losing lately. But machine guns are way down on the priority list.
Click to expand...

I dont see any movement removing existing laws like the 68 and 86 laws...which are major laws...
 
That always confused me. I never really wanted to own a machine gun, but with registering just to own it never made any sense that people objected.

The only thing that makes sense is that some folks want all guns banned and are willing to take it one step at at time.

Will Amendments to current legislation fix any of these laws?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top