Opinion on Full auto firearms

IMO, full-auto firearms have their place. They are expensive and have regulations to follow for a reason. If not, everyone will have automatic weapons, which may or may not be a good thing.

Those who want to obtain them legally just need to have the patience (and funds) to go through the lengthy process. What I wish is that the process was easier and a lot shorter. They should also be legal in all states.
 
If not, everyone will have automatic weapons, which may or may not be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Up until 1986 they were about $200 more than a semi-auto. Why didn't everyone have one in 1985?
 
If I am wealthy enough to buy a M1A1 tank, along with the HEAT and Depleted Uranium penetrator rounds, should I be able to do so? What about an F-15 with a load of 20mm shells, JDAMs, and AIM-120 missiles? What about a 50 gallon drum of binary chemical weapon? Or how about I set up my own bio-warfare lab - that would be cool. [sarcasm ends here]

No sane person will believe that the 2nd amendment protects our right to equip our own personal army. In the early days of the republic, Congress closely regulated the privateers (privately owned warships), their operations and movements were highly infringed. Congress did away with them completely after a short time... within the lifespan of many of the founding fathers. Did Jefferson, Adams, or Madison speak out against disarming the privateers, denying them the RKBA? Uh... No.

There is a line between an "arm" which is protected by the 2nd, and a weapon of war which is not. A 38 revolver is clearly an arm. A 105 mm gun is clearly weapon of war. Where is that line? For all practical purposes it is full auto, and/or 50 caliber.

Now for me, that line seems pretty reasonable. If we get through this whole mess with the right to own 30 round mags for our 5.56 and 7.62 semi-auto rifles (even though they look evil), I will be pretty happy. We don't need to be making fantasy arguments in favor of full auto weapons. If the line is not drawn on full auto, where is the line separating Arms from Weapons of War? It sounds like some of you are saying there is no line... Is that what you are saying?
 
Well, if it requires an F-15 and an Abrams to stand toe-to-toe with a tyrannical government, I feel like I ought to have the ability to own them.

Hell, after WWII you could buy surplus P-51s.

The rifle and smooth bore musket, and some cannon, were the equivalent weapons to what the British had. Those weapons are what we fought for our independence with.

Heck, the greatest naval victories of the Revolution were won by privateers for the most part.
 
WWII you could buy surplus P-51s
Click to expand...
without the 50 cal machine guns and bombs, it was just an airplane, not a weapon. Further, owning an airplane comes with a huge book of restrictions (even in 1946). There is nothing about owning and flying an airplane that remotely resembles "shall not be infringed".

My point is that the founders did not consider privately owned warships to be protected by the 2nd. So obviously they envisioned a line of separation... musket yes, warship no.
 
In the early days of the republic, Congress closely regulated the privateers (privately owned warships), their operations and movements were highly infringed. Congress did away with them completely after a short time... within the lifespan of many of the founding fathers. Did Jefferson, Adams, or Madison speak out against disarming the privateers, denying them the RKBA? Uh... No.
Click to expand...

This is a flawed interpretation...yes privateers were regulated...however privateers were regulated by virtue of being government agents, not because they owned boats with cannons. There is a huge difference.
 
Georgia had a naval militia. They even have a nice little plaque on the side of the road down on Saint Simon's Island.

You could get .50 cals post WWII as well. I'm sure someone, especially with the amount of USAAF armores mustered out of the war could have made that work.
 
Do I want the right to have a brand new full auto??? in a word yes.... M240 machine gun (7.62).... What would I do with it.... Make pumpkins and watermelons around the world fear my name...

As a practical matter too expensive to shoot very often, still I should be able to have one...
 
Last edited:
And if we ever again found ourselves in a war on American soil, Congress could certainly authorize private ownership of tanks and missiles.

But tanks and missiles as a protected 2nd amendment right? No court would agree to that, and the vast vast majority of American voters would disagree with it as well.

If (by fantasy), the Supreme Court found that the 2nd DID protect the right to own powerful war weapons, a new constitutional amendment could / would be passed in record time. The thought of private legal ownership of war weapons would tend to energize people.
 
Hmmm, I haven't looked at it that way. Perhaps it is my upbringing coming back at me here being surrounded by anti'. I really don't know about this matter, part of me believes that FA firearms does need to be regulated to some degree, but the other half of me thinks to keep in line with what I believe the 2A stands for, it should allow you to own them as easily as a semi auto rifle.

I don't know, I'm very conflicted on the entire subject there.
 
No, but I am saying there must be a line, the founding fathers believed there was a line, and no possible court in a hundred years would say that there is no line.

So where do you think the line is? Or do you think there is no line?

I have no idea where the line "should be" from a legal constitutional perspective. I am no lawyer. But for all intents and purposes, in my lifetime the line ends at full auto, and it ends at 50 caliber. That is the line that has been in effect for a long time. For me, that works fine. I have lived with it my whole life, I am able to enjoy my AR-15 and all my other firearms.

So I ask again, do you think there is a line? and if so, where is it?
 
Too much never happens

Right now the anti-gun folks are assaulting our rights. It is vile, un-American and needs to be stopped immediately. With the recent incidents by people with deranged thoughts, we are then being told categorically we are deranged for having these firearms. To be honest, they want us de-ranged, de-gun show, and de-gun ownership.

Because the battle is strong right now, as these vicious, heartless people pray on the slaying of children by a maniac and point that at each of us that own an ar or m type modern sporting rifle are just a finger pull from doing the same thing, we need to unit.

All of this talk is good. All of the debate is fine. But the fact is, we are the strongest and most determined members in our country. We are prepared to defend each and every one of ourselves, our families, and if need be, I would defend the people trying to pry the gun from my hands, because that is truly what an American does ( and did ).

I heard the most recent argument that they would like us to register every firearm (knowing it would be for some day when they want to confiscate) and that parents have the right to know if their children are coming into our homes whether there is a gun in there. That's ridiculous. I don't know any gun owner that just leaves their weapons laying around loaded and ready for a kid to pick up. Besides, whatever happened to asking, whatever happened to also asking if there are video games available and booze available (not that these two inanimate objects make people use them inappropriately, I'm just trying to be as ridiculous as our opponents). Somehow, we're the criminal element, when we are obviously better people because we passed a background check to get our guns.

Nuff said.
 
the founding fathers believed there was a line,
Click to expand...

Really where was that line? Your understanding of privateers is completely flawed...so please tell us where that line was.

Odd that you lump full auto/select fire(federally regulated to near prohibition) and .50 cal into the same category. Heck If I had the money I could have walked out of the LGS with the .50cal on the wall today. Also while generally speaking calibers above .50 get classified as destructive devices, there are are examples (such as .600 nitro express) which are not strictly DDs. Furthermore the lesser(compared to full auto) regulation of DDs means that it would be relatively easy to get a stamp for a DD, versus purchasing one of the limited and dwindling number of full autos/select fires due to the registry being closed.

Where do I see the line? Somewhere around nuclear weapons. Practically speaking the destructive ability of someone who can afford a 747, or a fully equipped tank or warplane is pretty similar. The number of people who could afford these things are relatively few. With their resources if their intention were to cause destruction on a large scale, they would not need a tank or a warplane or any other weapons of war as you would put it. They could do so with legitimately purchased materials and/or materials purchased legally under false pretenses.
 
If the line is not drawn on full auto, where is the line separating Arms from Weapons of War? It sounds like some of you are saying there is no line... Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...

The "line" as I see it should not be drawn at full auto and >50 caliber, but at explosives and weapons of mass destruction. The test for how far a right can be reasonably regulated is how much public interest does said regulation serve vs. how much liberty does it take away. In my opinion, the current level of regulation on full auto and large-caliber weapons does not represent a large enough increase in public safety to justify the degree of liberty that it strips away.

For example, since the passage of the NFA there have been numerous violent crimes committed with full auto firearms, but of all those crimes only one murder was committed with a legally registered machine gun. The fact of the matter is that most classes of weapons regulated by the NFA are easy enough to either obtain on the black market or fabricate that it does not act as an impediment to an even mildly resourceful criminal. No more graphic example can be found than the North Hollywood Shootout as the two bank robbers in that incident used not purpose-built machine guns, but illegally modified semi-automatic rifles. Criminals can illegally obtain or manufacture machine guns easily enough that only people who abide by the law are affected by the NFA.

The reason that explosives and weapons of mass destruction belong in a different class is because their destructive power is so great that they're extremely difficult, if not impossible, to use without causing extraordinary amounts of collateral damage. There is almost no way that a person could use a hand grenade or canister of VX nerve gas in self-defense without posing a significant risk to the safety of innocent bystanders. With a moderate amount of training, however, a machine gun can be used without representing a significantly greater risk to bystanders than most other common firearms.

Honestly, I think that the difference between a machine gun and a weapon of mass destruction is pretty obvious to most people. In fact, I view the mention of such extreme examples of "arms" in such a discussion to be something of a straw man.
 
Where do I see the line? Somewhere around nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

While I find your faith in your fellow man commendable I can not share it. My view of risk/ reward does not extend to the easy threat of annihilating cities.
 
I meant in the sense that weapons of that magnitude shouldn't be in the general publics hands, not in the sense of up to and including.
 
What about private corporations and citizens owning nuclear power plants? Should they be allowed to?
Click to expand...

No. If it were up to me there would not be any nuclear power plants.

I meant in the sense that weapons of that magnitude shouldn't be in the general publics hands, not in the sense of up to and including.
Click to expand...

So an MLRS is ok then? That could wipe out a city in no time.
 
I'm glad there are other strongly pro gunners out there that understand the necessity of the line. We can have different opinions of where the line should be, but there does need to be one. I've seen a little side-stepping of the issue in this very thread-- Most pro gunners would not argue that felons or minors should own firearms. Others disagree, and say "shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed".

My personal belief is there should be absolutely NO restrictions on a law abiding person to own a weapon they can keep and bear. Period.
Click to expand...

There are restrictions built directly into this statement. "Law abiding". The 2nd amendment says nothing about law abiding, doesn't specify misdemeanors or felonies, nor does it have age requirements. So you actually do draw a line. Not to pick on you, but I think the point needs to be made. Most pro 2A people do agree with some regulations even though none are enumerated specifically in the Constitution.

There are a few people who feel that any restriction of any kind cannot be conceded, because it creates precedence for the erosion of the 2nd amendment. I think that while we should be vigilant in this regard, the right of an individual to bear arms is not unlimited, just like the freedom of speech is not unlimited.

The right to swing your fist ends where the next man's nose begins. There has to be a line. Otherwise, a 7 year old could own a landmine and a billionaire could have an arsenal of ICBMs and a fleet of stealth bombers.

Both of those scenarios are unacceptable, and should be completely illegal for any reason (although if you ask enough people at the gun show, some buffoon will tell you why you're wrong). As you move down the spectrum (and I'm not sure if that spectrum should be classified as "comfort of the American public", or something else), you move into the realm of "legal, but heavily regulated" (currently full auto, silencers, transferring firearms across state lines), then to virtually unregulated (private sales, possession of typical firearms, ammunition purchases).

We are never going to agree completely on where the line should be. We just need to come to a consensus. The Fed is trying to move the line. For starters, let's do everything we can to keep it where it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top