Full Auto Should Be Legal...?

Status
Not open for further replies.
alloy,

Maybe I am not reading this well but I see nothing in either of those links that say mere membership in any gang makes it illegal for those members to purchase firearms or lose any other civil rights. Maybe you could quote where it says that. I know that LE Agencies target gangs but until they break the law they are not felons and can legally buy firearms if they are old enough.

So, back to Ken's original question:
Wildalaska said:
so you would have no problems with a law abiding (ie never been arrested) member of MS13 walking into Joes Guns and walking out with Ma Deuce and 1000 rounds on links?
Click to expand...
since we have not shown that mere membership in MS13 is a disqualifier to legally purchasing firearms.
 
are you asking if gang membership makes it illegal to purchase a gun? i wouldn't know. will it stop a purchase on a background check? i wouldnt know that either. would the atf know that a person is a member, simply because they keep files on members, and yet allow the sale to go thru is something i couldnt answer, i have never had a seat behind the mans computer, or seen how info is collated or used internally by a government agency like the atf. maybe they will let the sale of ma duece go right on thru even someone is on file as a member. are you suspecting that they will?
 
Stop spinning and answer the question:

Would you have any problems with a law abiding (ie never been arrested) member of MS13 walking into Joes Guns and walking out with Ma Deuce and 1000 rounds on links?

WildsimplequestionAlaska ™
 
The cost of freedom. So what? If they want machine guns, they are going to get them from somewhere.
Are you saying that by merely being a member of MS13 puts you in the same category as a convicted felon? No trial or conviction needed just association? Does the FBI enter MS13 members who have not been convicted of a crime into NICS and therefore prohibit them from legally buying firearms? Doesn't seem constitutional to my laymen's mind.
Click to expand...
This is a typical strawman that is used by the Brady Bunch, and their ilk, to limit our freedoms. This is how we start down the slope...

And, since I'm not likely to be one of their targets, I want to be able to walk in, buy a Barett and a Ma Duece, and, have it set up ready if they do come a calling.

During the Rodney King riots, the LAPD and Fire pulled out, and left people to their own devices. The rich folks setup blockades around their neighborhoods and used armed guards to limit access to the areas. In such situations, I'd love to be able to bring out a Ma Duece to stop a caravan of cars from entering a blockaded area.
 
Last edited:
there you go again calling law abiding, and never been arrested the same thing. where i live, law abiding means you dont break the law. never been arrested means you either havent been caught or you dont break the law. i really dont think being arrested is even a consideration, i thought it was the actual CONVICTION that was the criteria. misdemeaner convictions with applicable sentences(that have or havent been applied) or...a felonious conviction. you seem to think folks that havent been caught, equal folks that abide by the law and to top it off, members of known criminal organizations somehow belong to both groups or either or neither, depending on which way the wind blows.

if it would be best, we can all go around picking and choosing who does, and doesnt get a gun based on what ifs and hunches and personal preference if you think we should.

learn the difference, and ill stop spinning. but the answer is: law abiding, means LAW ABIDING. so its fine with me, sell it to him. he is law abiding, right? so whats the worry? he has broke no laws in the past and has no intention to break any in the future*. but its your hypothetical person, his hypothetical moral status, and hypothetical machine gun, not mine, and its all based on his hypothetical intentions(based on association), right? and like every other customer that buys a firearm from Joe tomorrow...his paperwork is all in order.
*law abiding.

you see...this is your moral dilemma as a purveyor of fine instruments of precision, not mine to worry about. if not selling to someone in particular makes you feel better, go for it. if you dont want to sell him a barrett, ok. my worry is that you might eventually want to carry the safety net over to others that dont fit a mold, or the gun just isnt right, once the FA option is off the table. who, or what...will be next position on the totem pole of the unsafe? there is always a next.
 
Last edited:
alloy,
I think what Ken is saying is that lacking a conviction on their record a member of MS13 or any other gang can legally buy a gun. So, if all FA weapons are unrestricted (requiring only a NICS check) then such a person might walk into Walmart and buy one.

Right now it would be a bit more difficult for that to happen.

alloy said:
maybe they will let the sale of ma duece go right on thru even someone is on file as a member. are you suspecting that they will?
Click to expand...

Under current law I think the answer is yes. I don't think NICS lists members of gangs and it is not to my knowledge a prohibited class.

Don't know for sure but I don't think many gangs have .50 M2 Machine guns. They are difficult to get even legally but would not be if the NFA were repealed. That is the issue.
 
i consider it irrelevant. the pointing of the weapon is the crime to avoid and/or punish. i dont care if its a derringer in my gut, a mossberg pump from across the room, or a barrett from 1/2 mile away. and that includes a brand new post ban 2009 civilian FA squad automatic weapon. they are all the same to me, and the reduction of the right of ownership of any of them or continued prohibition, is a loss. personally i dont want one, or i would have bought one already, but i still cant make those distinctions for others who might want to own one.
 
guilty until proven innocent

Sure, we all don't want to see obvious criminal types buying guns, but as the "law abiding" citizens we pride ourselves on being, we must follow the law.

And the law says, not prohibited unless convicted. So, as to the question about the MS13 member (with no conviction), and ther M2, you might prefer to refuse the sale because of personal reasons (where legal), or because he isn't wearing a shirt, or because he doesn't have valid ID, or any number of valid legal reasons. But if they haven't been convicted, the law doesn't deny them, or us.

So, while selling to an apparent "shady" character doesn't give me a warm fuzzy, if they meet the legal requirements, who are we to judge them guilty when the law does not?

My personal feelings on the matter are that anyone who has not been convicted should be able to buy anything, without other restrictions. If/when they commit a crime (with the weapon), then they should, upon conviction, be speedily put to death. For aggravated circumstances, a painful, slow death.

But that is not the law of our land. So, until I am King, I am going to follow what is the law, even if I disagree or are uncomfortable with parts of it.

Doesn't mean I'm not going to try and get the existing law changed, if I can. But until changed, we are stuck with what we have.
 
Well, if the NFA went away I think it might become relevant. Nevertheless, I repeat Ken's & Glenn's question: Where would you draw the line? At what point would you say certain types of arms should be regulated or banned?
 
respectfully, i already answered that many posts ago. the toothpaste is out of the tube and regulations should allow legit civilians to possess a weaponry to adequately put down the threat, be it MS13 or an invading XYZ. whatever the writers saw as the intended scope of protected civilian weaponry...having been thru a revolution...i am confident that they meant weapons at least equal to the threat. otherwise they meant toothpicks and lead pipes. FA is in the hands of whomever you choose to example, and that was not my doing...it was a step by step, forseeable, logical progression of their intent. but my right to protect or bear(if its truely a right...as opposed to priviledge)...has to equal the aggression its designed to counteract or it is nothing. i believe this was particularily fresh in the founders thoughts.
now the courts can, and have, and will, decide something differently and tell me that i am wrong and i have no problem with the law of the land....it will change frequently to and fro, but to me thats just legal wrangling down the slippery slope away from the intent, and i dont have to vote for it, or approve. only compliance is mandatory.
 
Last edited:
frankly...the fact that a rancher in laredo cant get a new operable weapon and some training for a reasonable cost, seems slightly less than adequate, unless we are to assume los zetas is becoming pacifistic or the government has it all firmly under control. yes, i would give him a SAW if my vote had that power.
in all seriousness tho...enjoy the day deciding his hypothetical fate, the ice has melted and so its back to chucky cheese for some more greasy fries!:)
 
Is the brightline something like when the offensive, mass casuality utility of the weapon exceeds the reasonable scenario defensive capability of the weapon? Is this a view you accept or are all weapons acceptable.

So, I see myself as a reasonable person being well served by up to and including my semi-auto AR. I don't see a reasonable probability of needing the M2 for defensive use - although it would be fun to have (couldn't afford to run it). So if I have such - then its ease of purchase would be restricted under the NFA rules with an altered provision for new manufacture or post '86 (is that the right year) guns.

I do, as I said above and some like Ken have argued, see a higher probability that easy access to fully auto weapons will lead to a short time to crime period before they show up in gang killings and rampages.

Thus, the semiauto AR-ish bright line. Note this is accepting that 'rights' are subject to limitations. We accept such on other rights. The right to publish kiddie porn made with real kids is not accepted, etc. If you are absolutist on the word 'arms' - then Colt should sell anthrax sprayers at the gun show?

You have limits or you don't.
 
You have limits or you don't.
Click to expand...

Glenn, this doesn't seem an apt summary of the issue.

If the limit placed on a right is not articulated, reasoned and plausible, it is fair to question whether the limitation is principled.
 
If the limit placed on a right is not articulated, reasoned and plausible, it is fair to question whether the limitation is principled.
Click to expand...

Are you contending that the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation that is reasoned, plausible and articulated?

WildgoodcommentglennAlaska ™
 
Are you contending that the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms ...
Click to expand...

That is an interesting construction. Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?

Are you contending that the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation that is reasoned, plausible and articulated?
Click to expand...

I am observing that not every proposed curtailment, infringement, abrogation or abridgement is based on an articulated, reasoned and plausible principle.

Military weapons are full auto, and I don't trust civilians to have military weapons is not a principled objection to civilian possession of FA rifles. We know that the services also use semi-automatic weapons.

Civilians shouldn't have FA arms because in a civilian circumstance one is responsible for where each round lands can't be reconciled with civilian possession of shotguns, or with the fact that a fully automatic firing mechanism doesn't rob an arm of it ability to be aimed.

But someone I don't like might try to buy one is not a basis for principled restriction of FA arms, since we aren't happy when someone we dislike obtains any kind of weapon.


If the limitation you propose reduces to I would prefer the right not be extended to someone because I have no confidence they would exercise it prudently, then you have not described a principled limitation on a right, and have treated it not as a right, but a privilege to be extended politically to those who can muster the votes. In that respect, the analysis does not differ from Brady's, even where the conclusion does.
 
zukiphile said:
If the limitation you propose reduces to I would prefer the right not be extended to someone because I have no confidence they would exercise it prudently, then you have not described a principled limitation on a right, and have treated it not as a right, but a privilege to be extended politically to those who can muster the votes.
Click to expand...

I can't wait to see what bit of logic and reason is used to try and refute this brilliant statement.
 
Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?
Click to expand...

Fair question, but you are not considering the context of the discussion. If you do so, the question need not be asked and is irrelevant anyway to the issue at hand.

I am observing that not every proposed curtailment, infringement, abrogation or abridgement is based on an articulated, reasoned and plausible principle.
Click to expand...

Thats begs the issue of what we are discussing.

Focus in terms of the NFA.

But to address your points:

Military weapons are full auto, and I don't trust civilians to have military weapons is not a principled objection to civilian possession of FA rifles. .
Click to expand...

really? Military members receive training and a background check. Thier use of such arms is strictly controlled. They are not entitled to possess said arms except in course of their official duties. Therefore, unless civilians have the same restraints, that objection is principled

Civilians shouldn't have FA arms because in a civilian circumstance one is responsible for where each round lands can't be reconciled with civilian possession of shotguns, or with the fact that a fully automatic firing mechanism doesn't rob an arm of it ability to be aimed.
Click to expand...

LOL. Surely you are not contending that a belt fed is less lethal than a shotgun are you? Somehow I don't recall massed remington 870s on the Somme instead of Maxim 08s.

In point of fact, the increased lethality of the FA weapon makes an objection to same reasonable.

But someone I don't like might try to buy one is not a basis for principled restriction of FA arms, since we aren't happy when someone we dislike obtains any kind of weapon.
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum

n that respect, the analysis does not differ from Brady's, even where the conclusion does.
Click to expand...

I hereby set forth the new construct of Godwins Law, to be herein called WAs Rule of Gun Board Debate:

"As a gunboard politics discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Brady approaches one"

Reductio ad Brady. You lose.

WildsoemoneneedstogetmeintowikpediasoihavesomelegacyAlaska ™
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top