Opinion on Full auto firearms

[Kimio]

"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."

This right here, this has helped me a lot actually, thank you Webley. I was honestly having a hard time justifying a full auto in my head, I never thought of trying to compare it to how we defend semi auto firearms as well.

It makes sense really.

 

[sigcurious]

So an MLRS is ok then?

Had to look that up, but yes. That's essentially explosives with a fancy delivery system.

I'll explain my rational. When you talk about things like an MLRS(or fully armed tanks warplanes from the previous example) you're talking about something that even if it were available to those who could afford it it would be a limited number of people due to sheer cost(historic comparison, a wealthy person(s) could have bombarded <insert coastal city> with a frigate or man of war, when that was the pinnacle of massed mobile artillery), because of this cost these same people could achieve similar results via other currently unregulated means or regulated but achievable under false pretenses if they were determined to cause harm.

The average person or persons determined to cause harm may not be able to achieve the same level of destruction as the wealthy,but take the OKC bombing for example. Granted some of the materials(blasting caps and the small amount of prefab explosives) used in that instance would be difficult to acquire legally(under false pretenses) or illegally, but even then it still happened. The information contained in a high school chemistry book and/or sources from the internet is more than enough for a person of average means to cause widespread harm.

Do I think that people should just be given explosives etc or that they should be completely unregulated? no... However, I do believe that if someone is intent on causing harm on a large scale lacking access to pre-fabricated implements of destruction will not stop them, and the tools(knowledge) needed to do so simply cannot(and should not) be controlled at this stage of civilization. I also believe that even if explosives and the such were less regulated, not everyone would run out and buy them making them pervasive. Tannerite is a good example of this, being freely available in many locations, people have done some dumb things with it but nothing maliciously criminal AFAIK.

TL;DR
Simply put, there are clearly some things(nukes & other true WMDs(what constitutes this is debatable)) that shouldn't be in the hands of the public. However most things that people perceive to be too dangerous would either be too costly to pose a real threat or similar levels of harm could be caused by alternate but readily available means.

I don't expect the line to be moved greatly and there definitely is one, but in the context of full auto that barely registers to me as something that's worthy of high regulation because of its danger to the general public.

 

[Hal]

Hmmm... so violent felons and minors should be able to own them?

Yes...
Any law that assumes guilt, just by mere posession of an inanimate obeject is immoral.

 

[Ghost1958]

Somehow this moved from full auto weapons to tanks and jets and bombers.
One in the United States what individual would you think rich enough to amass a force of tanks or jets or bombers, keep it running, buy munitions and fuel for it for any length of time? What would one do with it? Rob a bank? Mug the locals? Not much chance of getting away with it in a tank. Not a lot of drive bys and bad drug deals being settled on the street with tanks and F22 Raptors.
Nobody really but the government can afford to have modern war machines like that anyway in any numbers that count for any use they would be good for. Not like some radical farmer can hide a submarine in his stock pond either. That sort of thing pretty much regulates itself just on practicalities.



Back to the OPs question or closer to it. Regulation of full auto is like regulation of any other reasonably portable firearm. If the BGs want them they get them. Its the whole downfall of the regulation. Only folks that will follow the regulation are affected by it. So the BGs outgun the good guys. By law.
If a citizen wants full auto weapons he should be able to get one at the hardware store. If said citizen commits a crime with it then jail him execute him depending on what he did and by the commission of that crime he pretty much did away with his own rights to much of anything anyway as far as weapons go.
However turn that same person loose depending on the blessed regulations to keep him from getting another weapon of choice? If he wants he will get it and do it again and no reg is gonna stop him.

 

[Hal]

Took me a bit to dig this up - but - regarding guns & kids:

Date: 1999-05-20 12:44 Pacific Daylight Time
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.lp.org/
> =======================================
> For release: May 21, 1999
> =======================================
> For additional information:
> George Getz, Press Secretary
> Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
> E-Mail: 76214.3676@Compuserve.com
> =======================================
>
Do guns turn children into criminals?
Myth-shattering federal study says: No

WASHINGTON, DC -- Want to dramatically reduce the chance that your child
will commit a gun-related crime or -- heaven forbid -- go on a shooting
spree? Here's a surprising suggestion from the Libertarian Party: Buy your
youngster a gun.

"The evidence is in: The simplest way to reduce firearm-related
violence among children is to buy them a gun and teach them how to use it
responsibly," said Steve Dasbach, national director of the Libertarian
Party.

"When it comes to preventing youthful violence, the Second
Amendment apparently works better than the so-called solutions being
proposed by politicians, such as a ban on assault weapons or mandated
'child-proof' safety locks on guns."

Says who?
Says a detailed study by the federal government entitled "Urban
Delinquency and Substance Abuse."

The study was conducted from 1993-1995 by the U.S. Department
of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. In an
attempt to determine the relationship between "problem behaviors" like
drug use, teen pregnancy, and crime, child psychologists tracked 4,000
boys and girls aged 6 to 15 in Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester, NY.

The findings were a slap in the face to "conventional wisdom"
about children and guns, said Dasbach -- and a sharp rebuke to the
recent vote by the U.S. Senate to enact new gun-control laws that
impact on teenagers.

According to the study:

* Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun
crimes (0%), while children who get illegal guns are very likely to do
so (21%).

* Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit
any kind of street crime (14%) than children who have no gun in the
house (24%) -- and are dramatically less likely to do so than children
who acquire an illegal gun (74%).

* Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use
drugs (13%) than children who get illegal guns (41%).

"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of
delinquency and drug use [than boys who own illegal guns] and are even
slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns," the study reported.

If the federal government knows that children and guns are not -- in and
of themselves -- a dangerous combination, why are so many politicians
demanding that new laws be passed to "protect" children?

"Politicians are apparently more interested in demonizing guns -- and
repealing the Second Amendment on the installment plan --than they are in
facts," suggested Dasbach. "But as this study shows, if gun ownership by
kids is not the problem, banning gun ownership by kids can't be the
solution." > So are Libertarians saying that every parent should buy
their child a gun?

"Of course not," said Dasbach. "Deciding whether to give your son or
daughter a gun is a serious decision that every parent will have
to make. Many parents may decide that their children are not mature
enough to responsibly and safely learn how to use a gun, and you have to
respect that decision.

"But the point is: Parents are better able to make that decision than a
bunch of poll-driven politicians in Washington, DC. Parents seem to
understand that the best way to reduce gun crimes by juveniles is to
promote more responsible gun ownership -- not more irresponsible gun
bans."

And also regarding the felons...

Until 1968 that wasn't an issue....

 

[dlb435]

I find that full auto is not all that usefull. There are only a few times that it is needed by anyone. Even the military uses three round bust now and issue full auto weapons only to a few squad members.
I think that semi-auto fire is more deadly in about 99% of situations.
So as far as full auto goes; I realy don't care.

 

[btmj]

That is a great article, Kraig. And it matches my own experience seeing kids exposed to and trained in firearms at an early age.

If someone were to argue before the court that the NFA was unconstitutional, the court would ask if any limitation on firearm ownership was permissable.

This could be answered in one of two ways. The petitioner could answer "No", there is no permissible limit allowed under the 2nd. The court would then ask the same questions that have been raised here... "what about flame throwers, what about bombers, what about nukes... what about restrictions on felons, children"... I don's see this line of argument being very effective, even among the most conservative of judges.

The other way the question could be answered is "yes, there is a limit, but the limit on full auto weapons is too restrictive under the 2nd. The court would then ask... well, what is the limit? What is the basis, the rationale, for establishing a limit? How does the language of the constitution permit an M240 but not permit a weapon of mass destruction? Again, this is the same question I am asking in this thread. What I have heard so far is various opinions on what the limit should be, but I have not heard anything that resembles a legal basis. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I can recognize legal-reasoning when I see it... And I have not seen it yet.

The great threat we face is a new AWB, one with more teeth than the old one. Politically, an AWB will be a challenge for the anti's to enact, but it is within the realm of possibility. A more likely threat to us is a ban on high capacity magazines. The anti's have a better shot at this, and if they restrict themselves to just this, they have a reasonable chance of success. I would guess that a ban on high capacity magazines has maybe a 50-50 shot at success.

Given the threats, why would we want to squander our political capital trying to make full auto weapons more accessable? Why would we want to risk alienating more of the public?

 

[jimbob86]

How does the language of the constitution permit an M240 but not permit a weapon of mass destruction?

It sez "Keep and Bear ..... that means "carry"..... that would be a sensible, defensible limit.

 

[carguychris]

Up until 1986 they were about $200 more than a semi-auto. Why didn't everyone have one in 1985?

Pick up an old issue of Gun Digest and you'll figure it out quickly. Most guns that were offered in a select-fire version in 1985 were already expensive, and you have to take inflation into account.

If you ignore the effects of the current buying frenzy, the inflation-adjusted price of your average run-of-the-mill AR has gone down by about 30-40% between 1985 and today, and a $200 premium plus a $200 tax stamp also cost more in terms of real buying power. In today's dollars, imagine a $1,200 AR plus a $400 premium and a $400 tax stamp and you're in the general ballpark, and that's for the cheapest one. Relatively few shooters were willing to pay the price of admission, particularly given the government strings that were attached. Also remember that the Cold War was in full swing, so there were no cheapie "parts kit" AKs on the market to push prices down.

IIRC there were a few abortive attempts in the early 80s to market Sten-like inexpensive compact FA rifles for the home-defense market, but they fizzled.

I find that full auto is not all that usefull. There are only a few times that it is needed by anyone... I think that semi-auto fire is more deadly in about 99% of situations... So as far as full auto goes; I realy don't care.

I believe that this attitude was equally prevalent in 1985 and it goes a long way towards explaining why they weren't very popular.

To use an automotive analogy, it's like asking why more people didn't buy more of the really powerful top-end late 60s and early 70s muscle car variants- the ones with sales figures in the double digits, and collector values well into six digits today. The reasons were quite simple in concrete, practical terms: the more basic versions were already expensive, their power was already ample, and most buyers didn't see the need to shell out an additional 50% premium for one that was even more powerful but also came with much higher operating and maintenance costs.

 

[btmj]

It sez "Keep and Bear ..... that means "carry"..... that would be a sensible, defensible limit.

That definition would mean that limits could be placed on the ownership of a Cival War era canon, since it is too heavy to be carried by a man... But that ownership of an advanced MANPADS could not be limited, or infringed, by the government.... MANPADS = man portable air defense systems, i.e. shoulder launched surface to air missiles. At least 7 commercial jet airliners have been attacked with MANPADS by terrorists in the last 40 years.

 

[btmj]

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.

WebleyMkV: That is closer to a workable definition, and it might convice the court. It sure leaves a lot of discretion with the court, which may not be a good thing. What if they ruled that banning semi-automatic firearms is a good balance between public interest and liberty? We can't assume that they would think the way we think.

 

[coachteet]

Quote:

"Hmmm... so violent felons and minors should be able to own them? "

Yes...
Any law that assumes guilt, just by mere posession of an inanimate obeject is immoral.

This type of thinking is part of the problem. All or nothing idealism.There are, in fact, common sense regulations.

You make it illegal for violent felons to own guns for the same reason you make it illegal for child molesters to come too close to a school. Will it prevent these criminals from repeating their crimes? Not necessarily, but it provides additional layers of protection for the general public. Pull over the felon on a traffic stop, find him in possession of a firearm, that is a crime in itself. Catch a child predator on a playground talking to children--they are going back to prison. Why? Because freedom is not, nor can it be, unlimited in any society. Law abiding citizens should have additional rights protecting them from convicted criminals. It is inherent in our social contract.

You know how every so often you hear on the news that a murderer got out of prison, and within a short period of time he goes out and commits another murder? You know how it makes you feel disgusted, because duh, obviously. But as the man said, "Common sense...isn't".

Then somebody posts defending the right for Bill Gates to own a stealth bomber under 2A... because it's expensive? And instead of agreeing that, yes, of course it should be prohibited that a 7 year old possess a landmine, someone posts stats on how teaching our youth about responsible gun ownership reduces the likelihood they will grow up to commit gun crimes. These are rhetorical examples, guys. Get it together. And you wonder why we get characterized as nutjobs and extremists. Because people say some extreme things, because "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?"

I used extreme examples trying to illustrate a point that has still been missed by some. Even if you draw the line at "anything short of nuclear weapons", EVERY SANE PERSON AGREES WITH SOME RESTRICTIONS TO THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Some restrictions do, in fact, promote the the safety of the general public.

At this moment in history, there is a battle for the hearts and minds of all Americans regarding the 2nd amendment. Some of you guys could do more harm than good for RKBA. The argument must be "the further restriction of firearm ownership will not reduce crime, and it is certainly not justifiable to further infringe upon the rights of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS." Arguing that the 2nd amendment is absolute and felons should be able to own Stealth Bombers because restricting a person from owning an "inanimate object is immoral" only serves to marginalize gun ownership, and makes you personally lose credibility, especially to an on the fence or gun control advocate.

 

[Jack_Bauer24]

I really enjoy them, and wish that they were still going into the civilian registry.

 

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
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.

WebleyMkV: That is closer to a workable definition, and it might convice the court. It sure leaves a lot of discretion with the court, which may not be a good thing. What if they ruled that banning semi-automatic firearms is a good balance between public interest and liberty? We can't assume that they would think the way we think.

Well, the OP asked for my opinion and my previous post was meant to be presented as such rather than a hypothetical argument before the courts. That being said, I simply do not see SCOTUS accepting a ban on semi-automatic firearms because semi-auto passes the "common use" tests of both Miller and Heller with flying colors.

Now, as to whether the courts would agree with me on full auto is another matter. SCOTUS already upheld the NFA in United States v. Miller though that was a very, very unusual case and the court used a rather novel line of reasoning to get where it did. If I were to speculate, I would probably guess that neither SCOTUS nor the American people in general are to the point that they would support the repeal of the NFA, at least not yet. Turning the tide and taking back the rights that have been stripped away from us over the years is a fairly recent turn of events. There are much more pressing and easily accomplished changes that we should make before tackling the NFA and none of it is something that can be done overnight. Honestly, I'm not even sure that the NFA is something which should be addressed judicially. Perhaps attacking the NFA legislatively would be the better approach. Regardless, my comments were not meant to be a suggested plan of attack for repealing the NFA, but rather my own personal views on the matter which is what I was under the impression that the OP was asking for.

 

[sigcurious]

Some restrictions do, in fact, promote the the safety of the general public.

Which restrictions are those? What evidence do you have to support that "fact"?

Will it prevent these criminals from repeating their crimes? Not necessarily, but it provides additional layers of protection for the general public.

If you admit that it doesn't inherently prevent the commission of future crimes, what additional layers of protection are we receiving?

That same logic is used to promote other bans...it may not stop it but it will make it marginally more difficult or levy extra punishments once the crime has been committed.

Arguing that the 2nd amendment is absolute and felons should be able to own Stealth Bombers because restricting a person from owning an "inanimate object is immoral" only serves to marginalize gun ownership, and makes you personally lose credibility, especially to an on the fence or gun control advocate.

Now you're combining multiple people's arguments into one. For the record a stealth bomber(which I did not mention, however part of the premise you're attacking is mine) is about as dangerous as a 747 without munitions for a law abiding owner(or even non-law abiding). One could make the specific argument however that the technology used to make it difficult to detect is critical to national security and needs to be restricted though.

That being said, can you directly refute the reasoning I presented towards limited restrictions? Or refute that someone with the financial means to purchase a large military vehicle or device, could not use those same financial means to create equal harm without said vehicle or device if they were determined to?

The argument must be "the further restriction of firearm ownership will not reduce crime, and it is certainly not justifiable to further infringe upon the rights of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS."

If this is what the argument must be in your eyes, and it's about law abiding citizens, that what is the specific harm in a law abiding citizen owning anything? Is it the potential that it could be stolen? the potential for an accident and the magnitude of that accident? or some undefined inherent trait of the <insert whatever device>?

 

[coachteet]

sig, I'm not really sure why you are even arguing with me, since you have stated that you think there is a line, some things should be regulated or restricted entirely. We agree. As far as where the line is, it's a matter of opinion. I think we can both agree that no further restrictions are necessary.

If you admit that it doesn't inherently prevent the commission of future crimes, what additional layers of protection are we receiving?

Already fully explained. Read again.

Which restrictions are those? What evidence do you have to support that "fact"?

7 year olds shouldn't be allowed to own landmines. The evidence for this? Common sense. How could such a draconian restriction possibly promote the safety of the general public?

Now you're combining multiple people's arguments into one. For the record a stealth bomber(which I did not mention, however part of the premise you're attacking is mine) is about as dangerous as a 747 without munitions for a law abiding owner(or even non-law abiding). One could make the specific argument however that the technology used to make it difficult to detect is critical to national security and needs to be restricted though.

Yep, I did combine the statements of different people's posts, but it doesn't change the position the different arguments are trying to make. It is inherent in the example that the bomber would not be without munitions. I'm making an extreme example. There have been comments in this thread The 2nd amendment is absolute, bombs are arms. Someone actually said "anything short of nuclear weapons". No doubt, there are many people out there who have even more extreme views.

 

[jasmith85]

The way I see it is if you can pass the background check to own a firearm you should be able to own any firearm you can afford no matter what type it is. A gun is still just a gun no matter how fast it can fire.

 

[Strafer Gott]

I'd rather be a trained rifleman with a semi-auto, than a nug with an M-60.
Full auto has it's place, and should be available in some manner.
Being limited to shoulder fired weapons seems implicit in the phrase "in common use".

 

[Alabama Shooter]

Simply put, there are clearly some things(nukes & other true WMDs(what constitutes this is debatable)) that shouldn't be in the hands of the public. However most things that people perceive to be too dangerous would either be too costly to pose a real threat or similar levels of harm could be caused by alternate but readily available means.

"Too expensive to be a threat" is a really bad argument. Suppose the government says it is ok to have them and then the military sells their old ones at auction for a fraction of the cost like they do with everything else?

Anyone could then drive a couple of trucks outside of Washington DC, launch a volley of missiles and kills tens of thousands of people and cause tens of billions in damage.

The "too expensive" argument also fails when you start encountering all the rich homicidal crazies too.

 

[Hal]

This type of thinking is part of the problem. All or nothing idealism.There are, in fact, common sense regulations.

I used to think that not too many years ago...I was wrong...