Professional soldier forbidden full auto.

[CZguy]

Remember that only a few generations ago, Lincoln invaded the states of the south to maintain tax revenue. Were a state to peacefully secede, I feel confident that the current president (Republican or Democrat), would react the same.

I'm no fan of President Lincoln, but you might enjoy reading about Fort Sumptner.

And as to our "current president (Republican or Democrat), would react the same. To keep a state in the Union". Well that is in their job description to do just that.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Heck, it's even prohibited from wearing a personal firearm when in uniform because it is against the uniform regulations! So that means, when I do a re-enlistment or some other function in town (off base), in uniform, I can't wear my own gun for my own self-protection in uniform! As soon as I take the uniform off, though, I am good to go.

 

[nwilliams]

Should a professional race car driver allowed to drive 160mph to work every day just because he drives fast professionally for a living?

I have great respect for people who serve but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

Anyone who goes through the proper procedure and gets approved by the ATF can own a machine gun, just because you may have used one in the military doesn't mean you're more qualified to own one.

 

[Big Bad Bob]

I shouldn't even post on this, but oh well im bored.

I do agree with a lot of what you are saying, i defend the Constitution and the laws of this nation. I do NOT believe that entitles me to be above them.

However, i do feel that my extensive firearms training and use in combat should be taken into consideration when bypassing CCW classes and such. This is the case in SC. Have sidearm training, don't have to have the class for CCW.

As a combat veteran of our great nation I really do not want special privileges, You know what I really want? I want Americans to care about what me and others are doing. I want Americans to care more about the 19 year old who got triple amputed by an IED and NOT if Lindsay Lohan checked out of rehab or how much blow Charlie Sheen does on daily basis.

I would take that any day over the right to own a Class III firearm.

Thanks to all of you who posted about your support for our military service members. Its greatly appreciated.

 

[NMGonzo]

I am too old to be drafted now.

But any citizen of this nation who happens to be sound of mind and law abiding should have issued 3,000 round of ammo and a m16 .

Good luck with any invading army.

 

[BleysAhrens]

Big Bad Bob:
+1 Well said!

I really don't think average Joe could defend the land of our wonderful country any better with a full auto than with a semi auto. Shot placement...

 

[Bubba613]

The military should be subject to the exact same laws civilians are.

Why? Do you think soldiers who kill people on the battlefield should be held until they can justify the shooting?

When the state creates itself as the supreme controller of force, bad things happen.

Like law and order?

However, i do feel that my extensive firearms training and use in combat should be taken into consideration when bypassing CCW classes and such

You were trained for particular jobs and particular scenarios, not all of which are applicable to civilian life. Personally I think military and police who want the same permit as private citizens need to go through even more extensive training on the differences.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

When the state creates itself as the supreme controller of force, bad things happen.

Like law and order?

I was thinking more along the lines of Fascism.

 

[Nushif]

Why? Do you think soldiers who kill people on the battlefield should be held until they can justify the shooting?

Well. They *are* investigated.

 

[SaxonPig]

My former boss was an AF officer who spent the 1970s sitting in a missile silo with the launch key to an ICBM around his neck waiting for the phone to ring.

They didn't let him bring anything home with him, either.

Just saying...

 

[Wes B]

As citizens we all follow the same rules, not accounting for variations in rules from state to state. If you don't like the rules the options are, as I see them:

First: if you want to change the laws; vote.

Second: if you can't find anyone that is supportive of the laws you want enacted; run for political office, then you can start the process of changing the laws yourself.

Third: Move to a state where the laws are more to your liking.

 

[Bubba613]

I was thinking more along the lines of Fascism.

I was thinking more along the lines of anarchy.

Well. They *are* investigated.

Only if they violate ROEs.

 

[Gordon_Freeman]

Law abiding citizens should be able to own full auto guns. I can understand restricting violent criminals and the mentally handicapped.

 

[AlexanderA]

The same people who are allowed to own semi auto guns should be allowed to go to a gun store and buy new full auto machine guns without having to jump through hoops.

If the truth be told, in most tactical situations, a semiautomatic is just as effective as the equivalent full automatic -- maybe more so, since inexperienced or jittery shooters would be less likely to waste ammunition. Militarily, you use a full auto mostly for suppressive fire. What would be the civilian scenarios in which this would apply?

If semiautomatic military rifles had been prevalent in 1934, it's likely that the NFA would have covered them. (Remember that the NFA of 1934 was pre-M1 Garand.) Really, the NFA was aimed against one gun -- the Thompson. The Thompson got a bad press because of its use by gangsters and strikebreakers. What I'm saying is that we're lucky that semiautomatics are not regulated by the NFA.

As things stand now (considering the legal and practical restrictions), the ownership and use of full automatics by civilians is mainly (or exclusively) for "fun." "Fun" is almost synonymous with "sporting purposes" -- and as we all know, the Second Amendment is not about "sporting purposes." It's about protecting the right to serious personal and societal defense. In other words, you can't make a Second Amendment argument for recreational use.

 

[Gordon_Freeman]

Yea right. I'm sure the founding fathers of this country never used their guns for fun. The founding fathers never intended for government agencies to be more well armed than the citizens of this country.

 

[DammitBoy]

Any regular law abiding citizen of these United States ought to be able to own any firearm our military uses.

Any "sporting uses" laws should be struck down as unconstitutional. All NFA laws are unconstitutional.

Unless you think the 2nd amendment is about hunting.

 

[nwilliams]

It sounds like most of you are against the idea of law abiding citizens owning full auto guns.

No it sounds like most people here are against the idea that just because you used a machine gun in the military doesn't give you special right to own one as a civilian.

If someone wants a FA gun then they should be required to go through the same procedure as everyone else regardless of whether they served or not.

The military should be subject to the exact same laws civilians are.

Why? Do you think soldiers who kill people on the battlefield should be held until they can justify the shooting?

There's a big difference between a soldier who is required to kill on the battlefield and civilian who has to kill in self defense.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I made the original post NOT to infer that people who worked for the government should have special rights and privileges beyond those of commoners, but to illustrate the double standard and hypocrisy of gun laws. Someone pointed out that it would also be illegal to buy a returning veteran a beer if he is under 21. You could make the same correlation about him buying a hand gun just like the one he has carried on his side for the last couple of years in the line of duty. It seems that restrictions on weapons are based on what is in the best interest of the state and now days it is not in the best interest of the federal government for you to have access to our nations service rifle, no matter how competent you might be with it.

 

[dirtykid]

+2 Big Bad Bob,, if 60% of america quit giving a <Ideleted> about Lohan or Sheen or Tiger or whoever else's train-wreck the media decides to highlight this week,they would be forced to acknowledge that WE are still in a war,and OUR citizens are getting injured or killed,, not as often as it was at first but it's still happening !! whenever somebody here at work brings up crap like Lohan or Sheen,I always say "Huh, wonder how the Taliban feel about that"... needless to say im not winning any popularity contest's,, but,,,,,,,,,,, <deleted> if they cant see the world as it REALLY is,, and not according to Hollywood,,, thank you for your service,, pray for our troops safety,,

 

[xcgates]

Why is it that so many jumped on the bandwagon of saying that the OP meant that members of the military should be in a special class, exempt from the laws of normal people?

Personally I thought it was clear he thought it was crazy that we can't own automatic guns. ("We" being everyday citizens here)

And as far as the laws military members are subject to, when we are in the states, we are subject to the UCMJ in addition to all the normal laws.

*Still thinks the difference of 18 and 21 is a stupid differential to decide when someone can legally do something.

 

[dmancornell]

I was thinking more along the lines of anarchy.

I'll take a bit of anarchy over the police state we have going right now.

 

[Owen Sparks]

xcgates said:

*Still thinks the difference of 18 and 21 is a stupid differential to decide when someone can legally do something.

An 18 year old kid just a few months out of highschool who never handeled a firearm before is deemed compitent to be issued a machine gun if it serves the purposes of the government. 30 years after his enlistment ends, that same individual could have become an IPSC state 3 gun champ or master gunsmith yet be forbidden a non registered M-16because it no longer serves the purposes of the government for him to have a modern military firearm.

 

[RimfireChris]

Just my $0.02, but I've been of the opinion for awhile if the POTUS protection detail can have it, a citizen should be able to have it for their defense. No, president, senator or other member of gov't is entitled to more protection than the rest of us. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the level of protection they do, but it shouldn't be harder for one of us to have the same.

 

[Big_Dogg]

I find it funny that for some reason there's this notion that soldier's are somehow above the law.

Its understandable that people think that, being as how our government and court systems have time and time again shown us that local police as well as DEA, etc. ARE INDEED above the law. (just like extremely rich/famous people are above the law, and get the pleasure of a different justice system than we all have to face)

Until the courts start handing out the same sentences to officers as it does to the average citizen, then of course everyone is going to think that.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.

Forget full auto -- look at US military policies for personally owned weapons on posts here in the US and you'll get a feel for how little the US military trusts its personnel with firearms at all.

Only if they violate ROEs.

Not exactly. There are investigations to determine if the ROE/RUF was violated in the first place as well.