Machine gun or not to machine gun?

I sincerely admire ya'll's gung-ho attitude towards defending America and you bring up very valid examples from history of successful insurgencies.

Yet you're failing to understand how technology has forever and unalterably changed the Battlefield. You're like the WWI Cavalry guys charging head-long into machine-guns, failing to grasp technology has left you behind. Or the Naval theorists who laughed at Billy Mitchell before he sunk their ships with his airplanes.

Nowadays you can immediately locate the origin of a single gun-shot and get eyes-on very quickly from a variety of assets. Biometric data (finger-prints, iris scans, etc) is easily gathered and used to build databases of people which computers will ceaselessly sort through mining for patterns and data. Phones can be automatically monitored for key words or voice patterns. Cameras use facial recognition software to ID people & track without any active involvement by humans.

You'd be shocked what can be done with one little clue. From a marginal fingerprint off the fragment of an IED, the data dumping of a few cell phones to see who calls who, gathering biometric data at a checkpoint and so much more.

Fighting a bunch of stone-aged barbarian insurgents in Afghanistan is very different than a modern society such as the US, which is heavily dependent on technology. Sure some people will go "off the grid" but they're inherently marginalized and "the grid" will soon find them.

You seem to think we're in The Longest Day where you're the French Resistance forcibly resisting tyranny, blowing up Nazi trains, shooting enemy soldiers and such.

But really we're in The Wild Bunch. You're the rest of the gang thinking you can keep doing what's always worked, ignoring the automobile, the machine-gun, the airplane and other ways the world's changed to make your type (the armed resistance fighter) obsolete. But like Pike Bishop said "We've got to start thinking beyond our guns. Those days are closing fast".

And indeed the era that your dinky small-arms are going to defeat a modern government are dwindling away, just as the formerly so decisive & impressive Cavalry charge did.
 
I have a buddy who raises homing pigeons with a 300 mile range. He uses them for weddings and racing, but it isn't like they have a union contract excluding messaging. The US military currently has no trained falconer program. I am unsubscribing and if you would like to continue this conversation I will locate another venue as I think this is against rules and I am always in trouble here.

Maybe one that is encrypted. Not unbreakable encryption, but sure takes up a lot of resources to break it.
 
I personally don't need a machine gun.

That said, I view any reduction of my machine gun ownership rights to be a vile attack on my basic human rights, civil rights and in violation of the actual wording of the 2nd amendment.

There is no question in my mind that the NFA and GOPA are both vile documents which were written by communists. This is why we need to get the power of our lawmakers back in our hands.
 
While it may seem like a futile pipe dream in the face of oh so awesome technology, there are a couple of other points that must be considered. Yes, we are a technological nation. But all the geeks and uber geeks don't (and won't) work for the evil guv'mint. AND, we will have friends on the inside.

You seem to think we want our guns for open battle. If it comes to that, I suppose they'd be nice to have, if they are going to take us out anyway, why not try to take a side party?

Which is why they try so hard to ensure we are disarmed. Cheaper in the long run, you know.

Again I ask, if personal arms (and machine guns are the most effective arms for combat, when used correctly) are so irrelevant, why are they trying so hard to make them so unobtainable?

Irrevelant? Seems like a lot of folks don't share that opinion. Certainly, if those in government don't think they are irrelvant (could never win?) we should do the same.

The truly irritating thing is that for 52 YEARS people willing to go through the process and pay the fees were allowed to own new machineguns, and older guns that had not previously been registered were allowed to be added also. Without criminal penalty, without extra cost, just fill out the forms, get the approvals, and pay the taxes.

And in all that time the number of crimes commited with all those guns, by their owners (stolen doesn't get to count) is what, 2? And one of those was done by a serving police officer!

So, what is our "reward" but a complete denial of any new guns allowed to be added to the registery. No new made guns. No heirloom pieces discovered as inheritance. NO historical artifacts discovered or recovered from their resting places...simply nothing not already on the registery as of May 19th 1986 allowed for civilian ownership. Period.

No, I don't think that everyone should have a machine gun. Nor should everyone have a gun. Nor should everyone drive a car, be unsupervised with matches, or sharp objects. We have a huge number of irresponsible people, and a fair amount of outright mental defectives among us. I think a record of virtual ZERO for over half a century prooves the existing vetting process is adequate, if not actually more than needed. SO WHY cut us off? And the cutting us off from new guns ensures that eventually if shot, the existing guns will wear out. Thus ending the "problem" of legal civilian ownership. And until then, the simple market economics of fixed supply and any demand ensures the price rapidly goes beyond the reach of all but affluent citizens.

And, as a group, the wealthy don't commit many violent crimes, anyway....

Meanwhile, machineguns play a HUGE part in our entertainment industry, and hardcore criminals who want them get them anyway....

Just doesn't seem very fair to me.
 
Good questions here and lots of good answers, mostly true.

Tanks can be privately owned in Great Britain, too, though not machine guns. There are lots of things I'd like to have, even to include a few firearms, that I cannot afford. Some things are illegal and some are simply unavailable (except on eBay). But as far as firearms go, I could do without any. I own only two now and mostly I "do" without them. I'm much too old to fulfill the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. So mostly there's no point.

The argument that criminals get whatever they want, therefore commodity X should not be illegal doesn't hold much water. I agree that there are too many things illegal (prisons are a growth industry) but having nothing illegal is not going to happen. You may not like the "guv-mint" but I'm sure I will like yours even less.
 
It's the Bill of Rights not Bill of Neccesities

What does it mean to live in a free country?
Is there real meaning behind the cliché "It's a free country isn't it"?

Lots of people engage in activities that have no apparent necessity; Sky diving, stamp collecting, auto racing, bird watching etc.

In a free country we don't have to prove "Necessity" in order to pursue our own particular brand of happiness.

I have always believed that in a "Free Country" one person's rights end only where they begin to infringe upon another's.

The burden of proof (IMHO) is on the person that thinks private ownership of machine guns is unnecessary and should be abolished. That person needs to make the case that private ownership of class three weapons somehow infringes on the rights of others (IMHO there is no case). Necessity is an irrelevant argument.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment is to ensure that the people have the means and ability to defend their selves when their government is un-willing or unable.

You take from me my life, when you do take from me the means by which I live
Click to expand...
- W. S. The quote is metaphorical. Does a right exist with out the means to ensure that right?

The "Necessity" of the 2nd amendment is as a protector of all other rights. It should be limited only where it becomes an infringement upon the rights of others. The necessity was accepted as natural law by our founding fathers. Necessity is not the argument. If you wanted it limited, the burden is on you to show where it's boundaries are and where it infringes on the rights of others.

What right, what freedom is denied to you by the lawful private ownership of class 3 weapons? Speak Up. What has been taken from you by the lawful ownership of machine guns?
 
Last edited:
Funny. I always thought the purpose of the militia was, among other things, to put down insurrections. That's what it used to be used for. You know, tax resisters and union strikers.

Maybe we ought to make people take an oath to support the United States. We could call it, oh, a pledge of something or other.
 
Machine Guns are largely a moot point....

Funny. I always thought the purpose of the militia was, among other things, to put down insurrections. That's what it used to be used for. You know, tax resisters and union strikers.
Click to expand...

We have a hundred+ Federal Acronym Agencies for that now, Blue......

Militias were always a local thing ..... until the National Guard was formed, and the Feds took control of that, at least financially.....

Private citizens really don't, as a rule, have the money to feed an automatic weapon to the point of being proficient with it, IMO ..... not when 50% of them are on the dole, and the rest are forking over 1/3 to 1/2 of their income to pay for that Welfare State and all those Federal Agencies.

I am having a difficult enough time remaining proficient with the guns I have and none of them will burn a box of ammo in 3-5 seconds ..... maybe we need a Federal Ammunition Subsidy Program..... NOT.
 
I don't pay anywhere near 50% in taxes and I doubt anyone you know does. Now, the national guard is really the equivalent of the organized and well regulated militia of today. It may not be properly used, meaning the federal government is relying too much on it, taking it out of the control of the state. I realize the intent was, when it was decided to rely more on the national guard and the reserve, to make sure the citizens actually approved of whatever war it was going to be used in. Not sure if it worked out that way or not. But in the meantime, the governor doesn't have a military body to call upon for whenever they're needed.

I assume you've all served in the national guard.
 
Do you believe that machine guns are necessary? Do you believe that they should be allowed to be purchased and owned privately?
Click to expand...

First I'll start by saying I have no desire to own a Machine Gun. I have enough problems keeping up with my other guns in the reloading department.

Now, having said that, in a sense I think they are necessary. There are machine guns matches through out the county, hard to shoot a match without one. They are fun to shoot. I think they are more fun to shoot against, meaning competing against machine guns using a rifle, like who can get the most hits on a distance target in a given time. (I beat more then one machine gunner with a M14 semi, even did it once with a 1917 Enfield at 450 yards).

Machine guns used by civilians are sporting implements like my target rifles and pistols or some one else's golf clubs. I don't play golf but I don't want to deprive or regulate gulf clubs.

So yes I believe private machine guns should be allowed without limits.

There are thousands of machine guns in private hands of individuals now, yet you never hear of crimes where machine guns were used. Different during the Roaring 20s or Mob war days, but it wasn't machine guns that cause the problems just like it wasn't the machine gun laws that stopped the problems.

It's like states banning 50 cal rifles,................who ever heard of a Connivance Store being robbed with a 50 cal rifle. Most robberies are drug related. If some one needed drugs they wouldn't buy a $5000 dollar rifle to rob a liquor store, if they stole one, they'd get more by selling the gun then they'd get in the robbery.

I just can't fantom the ideal of using a $20K firearm to rob a liquor store where you'd be lucky to get $100. A belt of ammo will cost that much.

Gun control, machine guns, assault rifles, pistols, ALL types of gun control has never been about Guns.............its about CONTROL.
 
:DA rhetorical question . Should Corvettes, Vipers and other muscle cars be allowed on the highways just because they are capable of exceeding the speed limit ? In actuality most vehicles can with the exception of some of the upcoming breeds such as the Chevy Volt etc.

Maybe those who drive wimp wagons should be restricted from the highways as they could be an impediment .
 
Funny you would put it that way. Where I drive, on the way to work, anyone who drives no faster than the speed limit is seen is an impediment and are probably even considered to be unsafe. If that isn't turning logic on its head, I don't know what is, unless it's calling a machine gun a sporting firearm.
 
The question still stands

What right, what freedom is denied to you by the lawful private ownership of class 3 weapons? Speak Up. What has been taken from you by the lawful ownership of machine guns?
Click to expand...

It's a machine gun, not a sporting arm and so what?
 
With machine gun matches throughout the country, how is it not a sporting implement?
Click to expand...

Your right, absolutely.

My point was, what difference does it make what we call them. The 2nd Amendment places no requirement on an Arm to be a Sporting Arm in order for the people to have the right to bear it.

My broader point is that, some say that machine gun possession by private citizens is unnecessary. My response is; What does necessity have to do with it?
If I want to posses a class three weapon, how does that impact anyone else's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of their own happiness in any way?

Kraigwy's observation that gun control is not about guns but about controlling people is right on the money.
 
Last edited:
Its not only the sporting use, that I feel they should be allowed, but also for historical purposes, and collection too.

I would love to have more private museums, or private displays out there to better educate our communities on our own history, as well as the technological advances in firearms. With the current cost, and a limited number of firearms eligible for transfer, this is not possible either.

We are losing history that our children and grandchildren may not see in real life.
 
Its not only the sporting use, that I feel they should be allowed,
Click to expand...

We are in agreement.

I don't what to digress into a libertarian rant but think of the meaning of the word allowed.

I think everything should be allowed and only disallowed where and when it begins to infringe on the rights of others.

There is not much that makes my blood boil faster than someone saying "Why do you need to do/own that? That's unnecessary". and then using the logic of "unnecessary" to make it "illegal".

Don't tell me what to do, and I will not tell you what to do. As long as we both act responsibly then everything should be fine, right?

After all it's a free country isn't it?

OK, I'm done now.
 
Had the great fortune of shooting the M60 and M2 in my Navy days. It was so fun it was almost ridiculous.....

However, even if I were made of money, won the lottery, etc. I don't know that I'd justify the cost of the firearm or the ammo to feed it.

I have achieved much more personal satisfaction from learning marksmanship with semi auto long guns and hand guns. However.... if any of you get a chance to run a full auto, don't pass up the opportunity... just to say you did, just to experience it for yourself.
 
When you say you aren't paying 50% you are thinking about federal income tax. Consider that about 20% of the price of gas, depending on state is an Excise tax. 11% of your firearms/fishing goods price is an excise tax. That car you bought has a hefty excise tax attached. Drink beer? They hit you hard there.

If you are Warren Buffet and you have all the money you could spend already so you reinvest every dime of new income in your businesses, then you won't pay 50%. If you are in the top tax bracket, which you hit at right around $100,000, and you don't already have all the money you could ever spend in the bank sitting you more than likely pay 50% of your income in tax.

The really funny thing is when people hear about ancient civilizations that required people to work for a period each year and people talk about how crazy that is. In the US you very likely work for the government 3-6 months a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top