Your opinion on full auto firearms


PDA






desert_fox
September 6, 2007, 05:20 PM
Do you think that fully automatic firearms should be regulated?
In my opinion, I dont think that guns should really be regulated at all, it doesn't solve any of the problems that are associated with guns. People who intend to use weapons for criminal use are going to get their hands on whatever weapons they want, why restrict the law abiding citizen from matching their firepower? The people who have no need or want for full auto would still not get it or use it.
Besides, a bomb is much easier for killing people and mass destruction/terrorism anyway...

If you enjoyed reading about "Your opinion on full auto firearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
30 cal slob
September 6, 2007, 05:21 PM
i don't expect them to be showing up in the sears mail order catalog any time soon. :scrutiny:

desert_fox
September 6, 2007, 05:24 PM
im asking your opinion, not what you think is going to happen

Doggy Daddy
September 6, 2007, 05:26 PM
Hmmmm... touchy.

Vern Humphrey
September 6, 2007, 05:27 PM
No. I don't really see any harm from allowing full auto weapons in private hands, any more than I see a great danger from a shotgun with a 17" barrel, as opposed to one with an 18" barrel, or a pistol with a shoulder stock, and so on.

Officers'Wife
September 6, 2007, 05:28 PM
Quite frankly the idea of "regulating" any tool is the wisdom of a fool. There are people that I would trust having heavy artillery in their back yard. There are others I get nervous when they pick up a fork.

To reduce evil acts concentrate on those with evil intent.

Selena

Vern Humphrey
September 6, 2007, 05:30 PM
To reduce evil acts concentrate on those with evil intent.
Violent crimes are committed by a tiny percentage of the population. To attempt to regulate everyone for the acts of this tiny percentage is not only constitutionally unreasonable, it's expensive and counter-productive.

MisterPX
September 6, 2007, 05:40 PM
I think if you'r eligible to buy a firearm, you're eligible to buy a MG.

fletcher
September 6, 2007, 05:42 PM
Anyone who can buy a firearm should be able to purchase an automatic firearm.

jerkface11
September 6, 2007, 05:44 PM
All I want for Christmas is a .17HMR minigun with a shoulder stock.

Sniper X
September 6, 2007, 05:51 PM
I agree, but then again, I am not a liberal law maker. They seem to never use logic like you did in your question, and statement. They use knee jerk legislation and make decisions based on feel good politics, and vote, and decide on what they think their constituents want them to vote or decide on. Not things like logic and reality. I actually heard my Girlfriend's mom, who is very liberal say this weekend at a family camping trip she actually believes that the current administration actually did engineer 9-11! I had to ask if she was kidding! I also couldn't believe that the GFs 34 year old brother agreed with her! they were discussing how they knew that the US killed everybody on 9-11 to "get to the Oil" as they put it. I literally had to bite my tongue to keep from calling them total idiots to their faces!

Sniper X
September 6, 2007, 05:52 PM
BTW I can purchase an auto firearm here in NM, or a supressor or a gun with both attributes.....SWEET!

kurtmax
September 6, 2007, 05:52 PM
Firearms should not be regulated in any manner, therefore there should be no regulations on machine-guns.

30 cal slob
September 6, 2007, 05:54 PM
too bad you have to jump through so many hoops in NJ to get 'em.

my jefe will sign off on a short-barreled suppressed minigun with a grenade launcher if i want one.

Silvanus
September 6, 2007, 05:54 PM
I don't think they should be regulated. At the prices they go for in the US, no criminal could/would buy one anyway. They can get them much cheaper illegally.

desert_fox
September 6, 2007, 05:55 PM
BTW I can purchase an auto firearm here in NM, or a supressor or a gun with both attributes.....SWEET!

Yes but it needs to be fully NFA compliant and transferable

Im talking no NFA here, just available

Officers'Wife
September 6, 2007, 05:58 PM
Violent crimes are committed by a tiny percentage of the population.


I couldn't tell if you misunderstood my post or was adding to it. Regulation of the entire population is as foolish as regulating the tools that population may use. The majority have no evil intent and need only the regulation of common law.

igpoobah
September 6, 2007, 05:59 PM
Hey, this sounds familiar.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=290214

I believe that they should lift the 86 ban and let them flood the market again so prices will come down, but you still have to jump through all the hoops.

As much as I don't like regulation, I also recognize that currently criminals rarely use NFA class weapons because they are just too hard to come by or are too expensive to just throw in the river when done with.

Law of supply and demand works applies to crooks too.

30 cal slob
September 6, 2007, 06:01 PM
remember when you could buy a double-push-pin-lower registered receiver MP-5 for just a little over a grand (excluding tax)? and people laughed at you for owning an M-11? :banghead:

VirgilCaine
September 6, 2007, 06:04 PM
The poll is inaccurate. NFA items (machine guns, suppressors, short-barreled guns) already require a tax stamp, background check and paperwork filed with the ATF.
They aren't available at the same speed as normal firearms.

Correia
September 6, 2007, 06:04 PM
I think there should be a 5 day "cooling off" period before you can buy a 155mm Atomic Howitzer...

But other than that, no regulations. :)

sacp81170a
September 6, 2007, 06:05 PM
As long as they don't have barrel shrouds or those thingies that go up on your shoulder. :neener:

dogrunner
September 6, 2007, 06:05 PM
They are one hulluva lot of fun to shoot, they really pose no more "threat" to public safety than any other firearm and by right, ought to be available to any law abiding citizen.

Frankly, I could do an awful lot more damage more quickly with my old Browning A/5 with buck than with most submachine guns....

The bias reflected in the poll is really a reaction to 70 plus years of negative stereotyping of the guns and their looks, more than anything.

Kurt_D
September 6, 2007, 06:08 PM
The manufacturing ban needs to GO! After that I can live with the current NFA system ($200 tax plus a background check). If it weren't for the `86 ban, prices on FA guns would only be $200 more than their semi-auto version.

ilcylic
September 6, 2007, 06:13 PM
My opinion on full auto firearms is, "They are way cool".

Mr White
September 6, 2007, 06:18 PM
I don't see them as any more of a danger than semiautos or bolts, or single shots, or muzzleloaders. I do agree with b/g checks. I know it doesn't solve the problem of criminals obtaining guns, but I don't think we as a society should make getting guns too easy for them. If b/g checks can make it a little more difficult for many and stop only some, I'm not opposed to that.

Bartkowski
September 6, 2007, 06:26 PM
Like most of us said, I believe that if you are able to buy a firearm that you should be just as able to buy a MG, or any firearm for that matter.

Neo-Luddite
September 6, 2007, 06:32 PM
A fairly silly an arbitrary thing to regulate with horrible penalties--unless you live in Iraq, and then our gov allows you one up to .30 cal. But not for US citizens.

Here, 10 years in jail?? Probably the source of all zero tollerance. I would want one for fun, really I'd like an auto 10/22--I could AFORD to shoot that!

I have fond memories of shooting the M-60 and SAW (on a range) in the army--the best part was the "free" ammo.

yesit'sloaded
September 6, 2007, 06:44 PM
I really think that the cost of ammo alone would be a limiting factor in the number of owners. I know personally that I could never afford to shoot anything other than a .22 full auto on a regular basis. Maybe 300 rounds of .223 twice a year, but nothing like Knob Creek.

zoom6zoom
September 6, 2007, 06:44 PM
It would be really nice if newly manufactured items could be transferrable to the general public.

I'm currently looking at a F/A tube gun. Price is around $10K. Here's the part that really bites: An identical gun, built as a "dealer sample", costs all of $800 bucks. The only difference, one was registered prior to 1986.

glockman19
September 6, 2007, 06:49 PM
Anyone who can buy a firearm should be able to purchase an automatic firearm.

FYI, They are fun to shoot but a 30 round mag goes very quickly. I actually enjoy more the semi-auto versions or 3 round burst capability Auto's.

joab
September 6, 2007, 06:50 PM
I am for strict regulation of the use of firearms of all kinds

Anyone who through intentional or negligent misuse of a firearm causes harm they should be charged with the crime suitable to the damage caused by the misuse

Come to think of it I am for the strict regulation of the use of all tools,,sporting equipment, motor vehicles, swimming pools. neckties and so on

mpmarty
September 6, 2007, 06:56 PM
Ideally, all and I mean ALL firearms and related purchases should be openly sold to anyone who has a drivers license showing his / her age as legal to buy and that has an endorsement on said license from the LOCAL law enforcement boss in his home area stating he is not a felon or crazy. Get a law on the books that says that every chief law enforcement officer in every city and county or state MUST issue such a permit stamp on request of any adult who is neither a felon nor insane. Take the feds completely out of it, close that stupid tent flap and kick the damn camel in the snout.

Vern Humphrey
September 6, 2007, 07:24 PM
and that has an endorsement on said license from the LOCAL law enforcement boss in his home area stating he is not a felon or crazy
Why on earth would you make the exercise of one of the most basic civil rights contigent on the whim of some local politician?

Would you apply the same rule to, say voting, and let your local Sheriff or Police Chief decide if you could or could not cast a ballot?

Would you let him decide if you could or could not have a lawyer if you were arrested? Or a trial before being sent to prison?

TallPine
September 6, 2007, 07:26 PM
should be able to buy MG's through the mail ;)

mp510
September 6, 2007, 08:08 PM
As it stands, virtually anyone who can purchase a Title I firearms (regular rifle, pistol, or shotgun) can buy a Title II Firearm (MG, SBR, SBS, AOW, DD); unless state or local law precludes such. And, in 2007, the $200 tax stamp is no where near the intrusion it was in 1934 bacuse of inflation and increased salaries. The biggest hurdle is the village idiot (CLEO) signoff (not a cop bashing comment:)). , however that can easily be avoided in most states with either LLC, Corporation, or even an intervivos trust (those all file under the corporation or business entity option).

Your last two options are virtually the same.

As a general rule, I believe that anyone should be able to acquire and enjoy all the Title II firearms they desire. My only issue is that the idiots you see on youtube with semi's mihgt think that f/a could make some Darwinistic videos. Hopefully dealers and collectors would have enough sense to not sell to those who are imature.

What would need to be rolled back is 922(o), which has casued the superinflation of machine gun values.

Geno
September 6, 2007, 08:11 PM
People who follow the law, follow the law, with single-shot or machineguns. Conversely, those who do not, never do, and so laws do not effect them.

Nolo
September 6, 2007, 08:15 PM
We should ban dangerous fully-automatic assault weapons like these!:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TBQrtzSdVDo



















Hahaha! We can already bump-fire, what's the point in banning full-autos? :evil:
And it's from the hip, too, which is much less effective, but infinitely more evil-looking, so it must be banned!

Pigspitter
September 6, 2007, 08:16 PM
my jefe will sign off on a short-barreled suppressed minigun with a grenade launcher if i want one.
that sounds awesome, but I'm not really sure I want to know what you plan on doing witht that. wink, wink, extreme tactical squirrel hunting.

Pigspitter
September 6, 2007, 08:18 PM
I don't think they should be regulated.
And who wouldn't want to go armadillo hunting with a rpk?

Wheeler44
September 6, 2007, 08:31 PM
Yeah, remove all restrictions on automatic weapons. The ammo companies would love you. In many ways.

thorn726
September 6, 2007, 08:35 PM
nice- looks like i vote with the majority, i find that a sensible answer

ultimately if they can come and get us with it, we should have it too

one of my buddies also is big on the point that your door can be "kicked" in with a tiny shotgun,
but we can't have one, so i'd add all banned weapons to my vote, if you can have a gun, you can have any gun

ndolson
September 6, 2007, 08:35 PM
I can buy a full auto in the state I live in now. I have to jump through some hoops, buy a tax stamp, etc...yeah so what, it's only $200 and a wait. My problem is with the artificial inflation of fully automatic guns, since none can be imported or produced that didn't already exist here prior to 1986 (I think). $16,000.00 for an M16, that really doesn't have any reason to cost more than every other AR15 out there?

Tommygunn
September 6, 2007, 08:36 PM
Heee heee everyone gets one guess what full-auto weapon I'd like to own!;):D:D
And of course they should be as easy to obtain as a semi-auto!

DoubleTapDrew
September 6, 2007, 08:55 PM
Hits are what count. Aimed fire is a lot scarier than sideways gangsta spray and pray. I'd love to be able to get FA stuff, cans, shorties, without the hoops and .gov artificially high prices. They'll hand a full auto M16 to an 18 year old kid who's never shot a gun in his life but won't trust a squeaky clean middle aged citizen who's been shooting his whole life with one unless he gets a fat bank account and will subject himself to the BOHICA gov red tape.

The Lone Haranguer
September 6, 2007, 10:56 PM
In keeping with the intent of the Second Amendment, if the military and police can have full-auto firearms, the rest of us should be able to.

desert_fox
September 6, 2007, 11:12 PM
In keeping with the intent of the Second Amendment, if the military and police can have full-auto firearms, the rest of us should be able to.
right on the money

JLelli
September 6, 2007, 11:13 PM
I have yet to see any evidende that fully-automatic firearms pose a greater threat to society than, say, .38 spl. revolvers. In fact, the revolver is probably more threatening, because it is smaller (read: easier to conceal), easier to use, and it leaves behind less evidence (no spent cases thrown out).

ctdonath
September 6, 2007, 11:19 PM
What part of "...shall not be infringed" is not understood?

Mark8252
September 6, 2007, 11:25 PM
The regulations now are just fine. I do not think they should be easy to get. And yes i think you should have to jump thru hoops to get one.
To much possiblity of misuse.
We all know that its the person not the gun that does the wrong doing but in reality a full auto firearm is pushing it.
My 30 round mag AR-15 is one of my favorite firearms too.

:):):):)

2RCO
September 6, 2007, 11:40 PM
Post 86 guns now! That's all I have to say.

kurtmax
September 6, 2007, 11:45 PM
I think the mandatory prison sentences for committing a crime with a suppressor or mg should be removed as well. Why does using an mg or suppressor make the crime worthy of more time?

I would like to get a full auto pistol for carry if 922(o) is removed, but I'd still be worried about the mandatory prison sentence. I mean, what if some yahoo jury convicts you of manslaughter or something in a self-defense situation. You get 2 years or so in your state but WHOOPS another 40 (or whatever... I forgot the number but it's alot) in federal....

MudPuppy
September 6, 2007, 11:47 PM
The regulations now are just fine. I do not think they should be easy to get. And yes i think you should have to jump thru hoops to get one.
To much possiblity of misuse.
We all know that its the person not the gun that does the wrong doing but in reality a full auto firearm is pushing it.
My 30 round mag AR-15 is one of my favorite firearms too.

First, that same argument goes for your AR--too much possiblity of misuse. How about this, no more ARs can be sold into private hands, the only ones available are the ones in the system.

Second, it's not the restrictions on getting one, its the fact that the limited supply drives the prices through the roof.

Third, you simply can't get "modern" FA firearms, like FN2000s or P90s.

There is NO reason not to allow current mfg FA's to be sold (within the current system). Look up how many times a legal FA has been used in a crime.

wjustinen
September 6, 2007, 11:48 PM
No.

Regulating or restricting access to things can only be justified if a specific problem is identified and the regs are directed specifically at that problem. The regs must also be demonstrably effective in dealing with the problem.

Firearms regulation meets none of these criteria.

Of course, the above totally ignores the fact that the second ammendment forbids such infringement.

Euclidean
September 7, 2007, 12:03 AM
The regulations now are just fine. I do not think they should be easy to get. And yes i think you should have to jump thru hoops to get one.
To much possiblity of misuse.
We all know that its the person not the gun that does the wrong doing but in reality a full auto firearm is pushing it.
My 30 round mag AR-15 is one of my favorite firearms too.

Why should a select fire weapon be so expensive most of us working people can't afford one? Am I not among the anointed?

Possibility of misuse? Fudgesicles! What the hay kind of argument is that?

I don't think anyone should be able to buy a car without paying ten times what it actually costs, too much possibility of misuse.

I mean... seriously, I hope you are being sarcastic, because your second to last statement is self contradicting.

amprecon
September 7, 2007, 12:29 AM
Well, if the British had outlawed rifled barrels they might have won the Revolution :rolleyes:

Tom Servo
September 7, 2007, 12:40 AM
Correia wrote:
I think there should be a 5 day "cooling off" period before you can buy a 155mm Atomic Howitzer...
Five days?!? But I'm angry NOW! :)

I'm against any regulation of the 2A. The NFA and 1986 bans bamboozled the public into buying a mythical categorization of some guns as "bad," and others as "not so bad." The Federal gov't (who have NO place deciding such things) told us we could own the "not so bad" guns if we're willing to jump through a few hoops, but the "bad" ones are artificially reserved for the rich (how many of us can really AFFORD an auto if we wanted to?), and for the gov't itself.

Jeez, I just want a *$%# suppressor (NOT "silencer") so I don't go deaf shooting 11k rounds/year, but no way am I getting printed and photographed so my name can end up in a red-flagged file somewhere.

I don't care for machineguns myself, but we're supposed to have access to them. Madison wrote (Federalist Papers, #36 or 46--I forget) that the citizenry are supposed to have equivalent arms to the army. That means full-auto and .50 cal, as well as sound baffles and short-barreled shotguns.

The problem is that the American public is willing to blindly accept the categorization of weapons into "bad" and "not so bad" columns.

How many police officers have died from machinegun fire in the last fifty years? [Insert crickets chirping]

Feanaro
September 7, 2007, 12:59 AM
Your opinion on full auto firearms

They aren't as much fun as the really good stuff, yer 155mms and 16 pounders, but that's relative. Some of the best fun that can be had with yer clothes on. Obviously they should be sold through vending machines at every Wal-Mart.

Geronimo45
September 7, 2007, 01:15 AM
If FA suddenly became as easy to get as the typical handgun or rifle, I think we'd see some very interesting NDs. While twirling a gun around the finger, you might touch off an entire magazine. And the people holstering a machine pistol with a finger on the trigger... ouch.

kurtmax
September 7, 2007, 01:33 AM
Heh. Well I wouldn't carry a machine pistol on full auto, it would be set to semi (or maybe 3rnd burst)... It would just be nice to have the option of full auto...

My opinion is if FA was unregulated, that companies would charge more for full auto, even though it costs nothing more to make, just because it's 'special', so you wouldn't have as many people buying full auto as you'd think.

M_Olson
September 7, 2007, 02:44 AM
i got into this argument with my buddy tonight. i made the argument that we should have whatever the military should have. he told me the military didnt have any standard issue auto's or selective fire so we shouldnt either. i told him i highly doubt the military has no standard issue autos, but that it was irrelevant anyway whether they are "standard issue" or not, the point is that they have them.

so my question is: what, if any, auto or selective fire weapons are standard issue for any branch of the military?

yesit'sloaded
September 7, 2007, 03:03 AM
I am relatively ignorant on this topic and I have a question. If prices are up so high because of the pre 86 rule, is there any way you can legally make a machine gun, assuming you can own in it the first place. I ask this because I know there isn't much of a hassle with making you own kit gun as long as you don't start selling them to others.

ConfuseUs
September 7, 2007, 07:38 AM
I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be available to anyone legally able to purchase firearms. The myriad gun laws in place either fail to prevent criminals from acquiring firearms or do nothing to prevent someone bent on breaking the law with a firearm from doing so.

Eliminating the NFA and '86 ban restrictions will affect the criminal gun markets by adding a new type of weapon. Overall I doubt that the number of crimes committed with guns will change that much though.

cpttango30
September 7, 2007, 08:34 AM
This is just another one of them feel good laws that we have had for so long that everyone just acecepts it as it is. The price of a full auto firearm will keep it out of many peoples hands. I have seen Thompsons going for $10,000 just the gun and one 30rd mag. Some of them full autos go for $30,000+ them to top that off if you get something in say 308 (7.62NATO) at around $200 for 500 rounds and an M60 at 550 rmp that is over $1200 an hour to feed that bad boy. plus all that ammo is not linked and you have to either pay more money for linked ammo or buy a maching to do it for you or do it all by hand.

I think cost alone offers enough control over full autos.

joab
September 7, 2007, 09:28 AM
But that cost is the result of the restrictions

In my day full auto was not that much more expensive than nuetered

1911 guy
September 7, 2007, 09:40 AM
I think that if you're legal to own a single shot .22, you should be legal to own anything up to and including crew served weapons. And no, I'm not really kidding.

The demand for FA has kept values a bit above semi-autos since GCA1934. They only got outrageous since 1986. In all that time, only one crime has been commited with a legal (non-basement converted) automatic weapon. That was by a police officer, incidentally. So tell me again, Mrs Brady, how we can't be trusted?

ozwyn
September 7, 2007, 09:59 AM
My opinion? I don't like them. That's not from a rights perspective, but the one time I had an opportuniy to fire full auto I discovered I preferred the feeling on control with semi auto. Seems a lot more expensive on ammo too.

wait... your talking about rights. I see no reason why people should not legally be able to have full auto firearms given that criminals can and will aquire such devices ILLEGALLY.

In addition, if you take the militia viewpoint of the 2nd, and recognize (as it is written in most places) that anyone armed and willing to defend the country is a member of the militia, then full auto should be ENOCURAGED for private citizens.

Docgmt
September 7, 2007, 10:37 AM
The second fire arm I ever shot was a Thompson MG FA at age 8 and I would love to have one. If I qualify for a CCP ( I'll give them that much ) there should be no reason to restrict my 2A rights. The problem with compromising any personal rights with the today's government is that tomorrows gov. with not abide by the same rules.

JLelli
September 7, 2007, 03:02 PM
i got into this argument with my buddy tonight. i made the argument that we should have whatever the military should have. he told me the military didnt have any standard issue auto's or selective fire so we shouldnt either. i told him i highly doubt the military has no standard issue autos, but that it was irrelevant anyway whether they are "standard issue" or not, the point is that they have them.

so my question is: what, if any, auto or selective fire weapons are standard issue for any branch of the military?

I am not in the military, but it is my understanding that the standard-issue infantry rifle for the Army, the M16A4, does not have a true full-auto setting, but has instead a setting for a three-round burst. This still qualifies it as a machine gun under federal law, though, because it can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger. It is also my understanding, however, that the M4A1 carbine is becoming increasing popular as a replacement for the M16A4, and that does have a true full-auto setting. Also, most squads have at least one guy carrying an M249 SAW, which is a true belt-fed machine gun and is obviously full-auto.

If anybody notices any inaccuracies in the above, feel free to correct me.

MisterPX
September 7, 2007, 04:21 PM
M16's and M4's are both standard issue, and both are select fire.
Select fire=Full auto (in 49 states anyhow;))

Burst IS select fire, AKA machine gun. It's just a mechanical limiter to replace training and discipline.

Dr. Peter Venkman
September 7, 2007, 05:04 PM
I think there should be a 5 day "cooling off" period before you can buy a 155mm Atomic Howitzer...

There is actually a mandatory 1,000 year cool down period at your initial target before your Range Master can call a ceasfire and let you see your grouping.

Fosbery
September 7, 2007, 05:09 PM
my jefe will sign off on a short-barreled suppressed minigun with a grenade launcher if i want one.

Do they really make those? :neener:

Cacique500
September 7, 2007, 06:45 PM
The regulations now are just fine. I do not think they should be easy to get. And yes i think you should have to jump thru hoops to get one.
To much possiblity of misuse.
We all know that its the person not the gun that does the wrong doing but in reality a full auto firearm is pushing it.:rolleyes:

I have a F/A full size Uzi. The "red tape" was minimal - took maybe an hour to get all the paperwork assembled (my FFL did most of it for me), another 30 minutes for the fingerprints, and 10 minutes for a couple of passport photos. My transfer went through in 27 days mailbox to mailbox.

The biggest hurdle is the cost...expensive to buy due to the limited amount of transferables (only around 275,000 in the U.S.) and with rising ammo prices very expensive to shoot. Fortunately I got a .22 conversion for it and that's a lot more economical.

To the OP's question: If you can legally buy a regular firearm you should be able to purchase any modern FA.

If it came down to a SHTF scenerio, the Uzi would not be my go to gun.

I'd much rather have the ability to take out bad guys from a distance than to have to rely on a 100-150 yard SMG.

SoCalShooter
September 7, 2007, 06:50 PM
If it were up to me we would all be able to by a 155mm howitzer without a waiting period.

kludge
September 7, 2007, 07:10 PM
Didn't vote, I'm in between the first two though.

I think every law-abiding citizen should own arms and be trained in their use as part of their duty to the community and society in general.

I think every able bodied person should be allowed to keep a machine gun at home, no strings attached, no taxes, to registry, etc. And bear it should the need arise.

Home invasions would cease. Would you break into a home knowing there's a guy with a machine gun inside?

I think every woman should carry a handgun. Everywhere. On a plane, on a train, on a bus, in a car, in a bar, on the street, at church, in school, at work, at home, at play.

I would own a MG (if not more than one) if it weren't for the ban (i.e. price) and the "list." And if it weren't for the ban, I would probably put up with being on the "list."

CheyennePilot
September 7, 2007, 07:31 PM
I believe we should not have any restrictions on full auto small arms. I personally would have no use for a .308 or larger caliber full auto firearm for hunting or self defense. I'll take a semiauto for accuracy any day.

Happy landings.
CheyennePilot

amprecon
September 7, 2007, 08:09 PM
According to our Constitution the militia is our national defensive mechanism which is composed of every able bodied male above the age of 17.
Those that meet this requirement are essentially the military of our United States and are therefore eligible to possess whatever weapons available to be used in the defense of our great nation.
What we have today is an aberration from what was intended.

ctdonath
September 7, 2007, 11:55 PM
is there any way you can legally make a machine gun, assuming you can own in it the first place. No. No way no how. The ban in question, aka "922(o)", prohibits civilians from owning ANY machineguns made after 1986 - even if you make it yourself.

The only way (and that's straining to find an answer to your implied question) is to be a Title II (aka Class III) dealer with police/military clients and BATFE permission - at which point it's not YOU owning it, it's your authorized business.

Stevie-Ray
September 7, 2007, 11:57 PM
Same as any gun. If you're able to purchase a gun you should be able to purchase a machine gun. And for not much more money!:D Maybe make every semi-auto select-fire.;)

I'd dearly love to have a .22 rimfire MG.

The Unknown User
September 8, 2007, 12:00 AM
I see no harm with a law-abiding citizen owning one after, say, passing a class, getting a license, etc.

Obviously a fully-automatic firearm has the potential to be more deadly than, say, a CCW pistol carried in a pocket, so I think the classes required for licensing should be more...strict.

2RCO
September 9, 2007, 09:41 PM
If it weren't for regulations full auto would be as cheap as other guns. Think about it all those ROMAKs used to be full auto as well as all the Century jobs. They would be cheaper if someone didn't have to tear em down and then make a new receiver.

Crunker1337
September 9, 2007, 10:04 PM
ctdonath, true except for two points.

You need to be a Class I importer/exporter, Class II mfg. (I think this is the best option as you don't need a L.E. demo letter to get machineguns) or as you said a Class III dealer.

The text of the FOPA's machinegun clause is that the BATFE will cease to accept tax stamps for post 86 machineguns (they arbitrarily chose to make L.E. letters necessary for post 86 machinegun transfers to Class I/III entities). Now, Form I is construction of a NFA device and requires a tax stamp so today you can't make a machinegun legally. Form IV is transfer of an NFA device to you and also requires a tax stamp. However, Form V is transfer of a machinegun that does not require a tax stamp. A reason for tax exemption that the BATFE seems to accept is transfer to your heir, but there is no legislation about Form V that prevents the BATFE from arbitrarily allowing whoever they want to legally own a post 86 machinegun.

Since all machineguns on the civilian market were made before 86, supply has remained constant (or slightly decreased due to loss, maybe theft, deactivation etc) but demand has increased. Simply put, the price of a machinegun is 10 times what it should be at least.

cosine
September 9, 2007, 10:22 PM
"Do you think fully automatic weapons should be regulated?"

No.

absolut_beethoven
September 9, 2007, 11:50 PM
I voted 'B'.

Anyone who can be trusted to own a regular firearm i.e. rifle, handgun etc, should be trusted to own one that is capable of full auto firing. Which is more than I can say about most politicians.

fletcher
September 9, 2007, 11:51 PM
Which is more than I can say about most politicians.
Should politicians be required to have background checks, fingerprinting, a tax stamp, and a one year wait when running for office? :neener:

kludge
September 9, 2007, 11:55 PM
Obviously a fully-automatic firearm has the potential to be more deadly than, say, a CCW pistol

How?

Are you "more dead" if you are killed by someone shooting a machine gun? :D

PTK
September 9, 2007, 11:57 PM
Yes! Movies, the news, and so on said so.

Soybomb
September 10, 2007, 03:56 AM
I see no harm with a law-abiding citizen owning one after, say, passing a class, getting a license, etc.

Obviously a fully-automatic firearm has the potential to be more deadly than, say, a CCW pistol carried in a pocket, so I think the classes required for licensing should be more...strict.
There are no classes needed to own a fully automatic firearm now. Can you give me some examples of the problems that has caused? You're not only wanting classes, but harder classes without even seeing a problem. The anti's are the ones that like to day dream about what might happen. We have no reason to rely on our imagination, lets look to the real world data to see if a problem exists before we support more gun control.

PPGMD
September 10, 2007, 12:08 PM
Since NFA became law, I believe there is only one case on record where a legally registered full auto in a crime.

I don't mind NFA law, I believe it should be streamlined a bit (remove the CLEO requirement because very many won't sign them), repeal 922(o), and sections of GCA. If you are willing to go through the NFA process you should be able to purchase any NFA weapon.

yesit'sloaded
September 10, 2007, 12:15 PM
Honestly I see no reason for having one, although nobody needs a corvette either. I see no problem with ownership and I feel that a full auto is actually worse than a semi for just about everything but suppressing fire. When are you ever going to need to lay down cover fire that could not be done with a semi? The first few shots are the only ones on target unless you are firing from a bipod or fixed position. I can see the need for a vehicle mounted .50 or a smg, but for just about anything in between the auto switch is just for fun, and I see nothing wrong with fun.

Gunnerpalace
September 10, 2007, 12:19 PM
You are correct there has been 2 crimes committed with NFA weapons (one was committed by a cop so I don't count that) the other one was a doctor or lawyer who used a suppressed MAC-10 to kill his assistant he then turned himself in. as for the ban I say we just start stirring up the pudding and get it know out there all the facts, like how it was ILLEGALY included in the bill via the infamous "night vote", and then we can overthrow it.

Amish_Bill
September 10, 2007, 03:46 PM
I now own two. Two used guns that cost an average of 10x their 'real' value just because they are in the NFA database as transferable. Anyone who says this is the way things should be has a serious kink in their think.

J_Dillinger
September 10, 2007, 03:57 PM
Let's just say, I wish my new Thompson 1927 was a 1928 and available to me with the auto selector switch. (see photo in rifle section)

;)

Hokkmike
September 10, 2007, 04:15 PM
Frankly, the glitch to owning full auto is, I could never afford the ammo.

Vern Humphrey
September 10, 2007, 04:19 PM
Frankly, the glitch to owning full auto is, I could never afford the ammo
We don't need socialized medicine, we need socialized ammunition!!:D

If you enjoyed reading about "Your opinion on full auto firearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!