Machine gun or not to machine gun?

I don't pay anywhere near 50% in taxes and I doubt anyone you know does.
Click to expand...

John beat me to it.

Between Federal, State and Local Income, Sales, Excise, Property, Social Security taxes, various permits and fees, I am quite sure near half our gross houshold income is eaten up by various tentacles of the gubmint......

I am sure some of it is quite necessary. Most of it is not.
 
My crystal ball says this thread will be closed very soon.

Recently, there was a post in the forums regarding the Hughes act on the second amendment. My general question for all who care to put in there two cents...

Do you believe that machine guns are neccesary? Do you believe that they should be allowed to be purchased and owned privately?
Click to expand...

However...

I don't believe that machine guns are any more necessary than a 96" 3D wide screen TV or a Ferrari Testarossa or a 30' motor home. The point here is not "necessity" but desire.

And, as far as I'm concerned, taking a machine gun out and shooting up an old target is just plain FUN. If that doesn't fill the definition of "sporting," I don't know what does.

Since "fun" (in my opinion) is part of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," I would say that whether machine guns are necessary is a moot point. It all boils down to what you want out of life.

If some of you elitist duck hunters or silhouette shooters out there don't want a machine gun, don't buy one, but don't tell me what I can or cannot have just because you don't "approve."
 
Last edited:
+1 for me "Most shooters would LOVE to be able to shoot full auto 22LR"

Its the only full auto I could afford to shoot, but as to the OP's question necessary has nothing to do with anything. If everything was based on necessay then we would all still be living in one room houses and walking to work because a car is not necessary, if you need faster transportation you can get a horse. I also want my right to shoot quietly and not loose my hearing and should be able to walk into a gun store and buy a suppersor with out all the BS paperwork and taxes on an item already being taxed.
 
Should we be able to fortify our houses, the better to enable the castle doctrine? Oh, I know, we already do, but you know, from a theoritical standpoint?
 
The crux of the matter, for so many things....

Should we be able to ...
Click to expand...

Right there. Stop. And think about it for just a moment. SHOULD we be able to? What stops us? Only government laws and our own choices.

There are a couple of ways of looking at individual liberty. The most common today is that we are free, to do whatever we wish, as long as the government allows us to. AND current social views play a huge part in what the govt allows us. They always have, but in earlier times, they were less restrictive and condemming of arms than they are today.

Another way of looking at it is, "And ye harm no one, do as ye will". And even this simple philosophy is confounded by the bluenoses who are determined to see to it that we live the "right" way, for our own good, of course.

Just simply asking "should we be able to.." which is also "Should we be allowed to..." implies that we must seek permission before doing it, and failing that permission, are forbidden to do it.

When it comes to arms, (and machine guns are the baddest, most evil arms out there, in some people's view) we are constrained by laws passed because of what some people MIGHT do. We might hurt someone, and with machineguns, we might hurt more people than with a single shot. Or so some think. Of course some of these same people think no one should have any arms at all. We would be safe, then.

Reality shows us that the post 1934 and pre 1986 laws prevented virtually all crime with legally owned machineguns, by their legal owners. What more could be needed?

But we got more. How are we better off? I just don't see it. But then, I'm one of those people who don't think we ought to have any gun laws at all. We have laws that say we cannot shoot people for fun and profit. Really, what more does any law do? What can any law do, if people are willing to break it?

sorry for the rant...
 
good point 44 AMP.

I will respectfully play devils advocate to one of your statements though. I hope you do not mind.

Reality shows us that the post 1934 and pre 1986 laws prevented virtually all crime with legally owned machineguns, by their legal owners.
Click to expand...

Speaking from this reality, if the laws have had their desired effect, perhaps all/any firearms should be treated as a "machinegun" to reduce crime.

This is how some view this as. No disrespect, just a discussion point that can be used against firearm owners in general.
 
I brought up the subject of castles (and castle doctrine) because when castles were being built, a license was required (in some places). People have never been entirely free. Everyone is always responsible to someone.

I realize that machine guns are virtually unknown in the world of crime but weren't the bad guys in the North Hollywood shootout armed with something that was almost, nearly, virtually, machine guns?
 
So BlueTrain what you are saying is that since bank robbery is illegal, murder is illegal, and their illegally converted machineguns were illegal, that none of these laws being on the books had any effect on the crime happening and that any weapons ban has no effect on crime other than making the once lawful possessors of those banned weapons criminals now.

I agree with you that society should focus on moral values rather than on ineffective laws.
 
How do you propose to both establish exactly what those moral values are and how they would be enforced?

It reminds me of the description of some young man who stole a car, led the sheriff on a wild chase through the countryside before finally wrecking the car, but "he didn't do nothing immoral."

It should not be said that laws are ineffective but rather, enforcement of the laws are ineffective. There is also the problem, if that's what it is, of laws being selectively enforced. In other words, it may sometimes seem that some laws do not apply to some people. Rich people appear to fall into that category, although I'm sure the rich people reading this forum will say it isn't so.
 
Last edited:
how they would be enforced?
Click to expand...

For one thing, we should stop subsidizing failure.

Moral failure has always had an economic price, until the .gov started cutting checks to people that reaped what they had sown in that department. Thus, the basic family unit- Dad, Mom, and children, has been made irrelevant, from an economic standpoint ..... (and to a lesser extent the extended family has been undermined by Social Security). There is little downside to being irresponsible now- and fo a long time, there was financil incentive to do so........

The problem is, the .gov has promised to write more checks than it can ever cash..... this can not continue, and what can not, will not. When it stops, it will not be pretty, and people who were not guilty of the failures that caused it will pay for it, too.
 
It should not be said that laws are ineffective but rather, enforcement of the laws are ineffective. There is also the problem, if that's what it is, of laws being selectively enforced. In other words, it may sometimes seem that some laws do not apply to some people. Rich people appear to fall into that category, although I'm sure the rich people reading this forum will say it isn't so.
Click to expand...

There are so many laws and regulations, if they were to be fairly and evenly enforced, a strong police state would be required.

It seems to me that the plethora of laws is not designed to prevent laws being broken, but to empower those that enforce the laws..... they can fairly easily make felons out of just about anybody....... and make a pretty decent carreer doing so.....

It would be better, I think, to stop subsidizing failure, so that people would police themselves out of self interest-crime does not pay, nor should it give you three hots and a cot, cable TV, and weight room.

Having children out of wedlock should not secure you a debit card to use at Wallyworld.....

The Gods of the Copybook Headings have been ignored for too long .... they will not be denied!
 
Let's get the conversation back to machine guns

Are machine guns necessary?
Is their necessity relevant?
Do you favor greater restrictions on the private ownership of machine guns?

If yes, please state why. Be specific, how have you been harmed, what right of yours has been infringed, in what manner have you been violated by the private ownership of machine guns?

If you have read any of my post you know my answers to these questions, what are yours? Tangential metaphorical pontifications can go around in circles for ever. What is the down and dirty of what you think. Private ownership; yes or no and why, with evidence.
 
I would say that machine guns are necessary for the militia, but the whole militia thing never really worked out as intended, which complicates things.

Do you favor greater restrictions on the private ownership of machine guns?
Click to expand...
No. If I get law enforcement signatures, fingerprinted, background checks, etc to buy a gun that costs as much as a car, why shouldn't I have one?

How many crimes have been committed with lawfully owned MG's? 2 murders and less than ten crimes, overall.

Of all the potentially dangerous things in the world, why single them out?
 
I would say that machine guns are necessary for the militia, but the whole militia thing never really worked out as intended, which complicates things.
Click to expand...

By that mistaken piece of logic, it would follow that AR-15s, M1As, M1 Garands, M1 carbines, etc., are also necessary for the militia, but, in fact, are another "...thing that never really worked out as intended..."
 
Ah, but crime does pay and it pays very well. There is considerable risk involved to be sure but to believe otherwise is foolish.

But if the basis of the right to own a machine gun is the second amendment, we're back to square one. Not everyone agrees what a militia is and too many people the militia has nothing to do with government.
 
So BlueTrain what do you think?

Are machine guns necessary?
Is their necessity relevant?
Do you favor greater restrictions on the private ownership of machine guns?

If yes, please state why. Be specific, how have you been harmed, what right of yours has been infringed, in what manner have you been violated by the private ownership of machine guns?
Click to expand...
??

The supreme court has ruled that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right.

Interesting reading.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Click to expand...

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
 
Last edited:
Not everyone agrees what a militia is and too many people the militia has nothing to do with government.
Click to expand...

The Law sez what it is:

Look up Title 10, section 311, United States Code.

Either we are a Nation Governed by Laws, or a Nation Governed by Men .... and I don't think we have men who up to the task at hand....... they seem to be content with piling on more laws, raterh than enforcing the ones we have.....

Ah, but crime does pay and it pays very well.
Click to expand...

I think we agree on this, Blue .... I just think we disagree on who gets paid well, over time....

There is considerable risk involved to be sure but to believe otherwise is foolish.
Click to expand...

To take the risk out of the risk/reward (or cost out of cost/benefit) ratio is to be disingenuous, I think.

Back OT ..... I think if you want a MG, go ahead and get one .... I just can't say as I think that would be a wise use of my limited resources. YMMV.
 
I suspect my resources may even be more limited than yours.

But dispite all I have written, I wouldn't mind having a machine gun. A nice Madsen 6.5mm would probably be something no one else on the block would be likely to have but I doubt they are to be had in any condition, let alone in good condition. I do admit to having suggested that I liked Lewis guns in another thread but they are reputed to be a lot of trouble. If I had any sense, which I don't, a Browning in either 6.5mm or 7.92mm would be much more sensible and still be a little different.

As long as we're dreaming.

We disagree on another point, however. I have much more confidence in elected officials both Democrat and Republican than maybe most people here do. And you all really should spend some time in the militia, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top