if M-16's were legal again...

. Now as for videos, I don't have any -- when I was shooting, the targets shot back and there was no time for fiddle-futzing around with a camera.

Click to expand...

Well, there is no going back now, if it never occurred to you to snap a pic when enemy fire was not incoming. That's a shame.

Sadly, I'll never have the time available in my life to acheive a 17,000 post count on a gun forum, since my real life draws away so much time from the pretend identity. I'll probably never even make it to a thousand.

Time is fleeting. I try to record as many memories as I can.

i do NOT own any full autos nor three rnd. bursts, but i have fired several the the U.S. Gvmt. owned.

does that answer any questions ?

i also do NOT like gun people who go along with the <deleted> agenda to keep them banned !

too harsh on the guy who has a different stand on one topic of gun ownership...

Click to expand...

More to the point, we try to stay away from "liberal-vs.-conservative" or "rep-vs.-dem" ways of looking at things, here. Those rigid ideological lines are falling away (fortunately) as society changes, and we absolutely welcome "liberal" thinking friends who love guns and want to fight for gun rights along with those who label themselves "conservatives."

So the right way to say that would be, "WoW ! if that does not come straight from the anti-gun movement talking points/agenda, i do not know what does."

Or something along those lines.

It is important to help each other see where we've slipped into the intellectual laziness or shallowness of that way of thinking, but is it also important to be as specific and well-targeted about it as possible so we can root out the actual problem, not simply be distracted by amorphous and broad political labels, thrown around as epithets.

I don't think *new* FA transferrable firearms are going to be allowed, ever. The absurd prices the grandfathered ones fetch is pretty good evidence I'm not alone in that belief, because transferrable ones would lose value overnight if people believed new ones would be available.

The pricing isn't immoral.

Is paying $50k for a classic muscle car that originally sold for $3k immoral?
How about $2000 for an Anaconda or Python?
How about $1000 for a decent grade Garand?

I want a Garand, and have for 20 years. I've always been unwilling to pay the premuim for one. I don't call Garand owners and sellers immoral.

How about in 2003 when you couldn't touch a full cap Glock mag for less than $100? People were buying and selling inflated price "pre-ban" hardware like a mad game of hot potato, speculating whether or not the 1994 ban would really end.

What about the pristine Mosin M44 I bought over ten years ago for $65?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/73437721@N07/20030130186/
Am I immoral for selling it at current market rate?

Is Auto Ordinance immoral for selling a long barreled Thompson for $1400 and the same firearm as a SBR for $2100?


It's supply and demand. If you want a FA, then find a way to get it. If FA is that important to YOU... Pay for it, or work in a capacity where you're allowed one. Some people decide to break the law to obtain a FA firearm. I don't condone them, but that's their dumb choice to make and they may get imprisoned.


Me personally, I have a value I assign to the toys I want and a budget to work within. I choose my toys accordingly. During the AWB, I wanted an "assault weapon". I discovered FAL mags were $6 each and milsurp 7.62 NATO was cheap. So I built an FAL. I legally scrounged up my own battle rifle.

I personally don't value an M16 at $15,000. I have an issued one, so I can make an honest appraisal for myself. A higher rate of fire isn't worth the extra $14,000 over a standard AR, especially given ammo costs. My decision to make for myself.

My truck gets 12 mpg. That figure may make someone here sick. Tough beans, it's my decision, not anyone else's.

People can make their own choice and have their own opinion. They aren't a "liberfool" for it, in fact, the one pressing their belief system onto someone else is more of a "liberfool".

So my opinion is that (1) yes the prices of transferrable firearms are inflated for what you get, and (2) no it's not immoral. My opinion to have. God has a right to judge me, everyone else, not so much.

My opinion is informed, and congruent with the free market & current legislation.

I'd hate to be the guy that dropped the price of a classy engagement ring on a machine gun the day before they become dirt cheap.

"Well, there is no going back now, if it never occurred to you to snap a pic when enemy fire was not incoming. That's a shame."
Cameras were a bit more difficult to snap selfies with in the era of fielded M3's and BAR's . It took (I assume) a special kind of nut job to dedicate himself to running a film camera during a firefight instead of, well, fighting (which is why war reporters are so lauded)

"I'd hate to be the guy that dropped the price of a classy engagement ring on a machine gun the day before they become dirt cheap."
And that's precisely why anyone who drops the coin on a MG should be prepared to take the hit. Too many don't, and find themselves relying on the injustice that is the NFA/Registry Closure to prop up their finances from then on. People who knowingly go into to the whole thing intending to make money on the ban...I just don't understand that . Which is why I said an investment is immoral; not a sale (which at this time is prudent), not a purchase (which is never prudent, but neither are lots of things). Hopefully when Hollis v. Lynch finally gets the Registry opened (probably just to Trusts, to start), only immoral NFA investors will be the ones holding the clapped-out, worn-out, bag.

An investment is an endorsement of economic activity; if you endorse the wildly-distorted economy of machineguns which is entirely meant to prohibit their commerce to practically all Americans...well? Would an inflation-adjusted prohibitory tax of 3500$ or so and an open Registry be any less preferable?

TCB

Sam1911 & DaisyCutter, thank you for expressing the realist libertarian view which I also hold. As far as pricing, $15K may get you a Ruger AC556, but Colt or HK G3 will set you back another $5K more. I've got a machine gun dealer buddy back in Alabama who currently has an AC556 in stock (not fore sale yet), even loaned him my 20rd Mini-14 mags so he could rock n' roll. Do he and the other members of his trust have "Batman's budget" or burn through "pallets of ammo" like Knob Creek Shootout? Heck naw, man! In gun trading DNA there is a strong frugal chromosome that prevents them from burning up more than a can at a time. Not to mention most FA machine gun collectors understand the hassle involved in getting a FA gun and don't want to burn up the barrel on an investment grade firearm.

Lastly, to the folks who find no purpose in FA or burst, I submit my gun apologetics question: Do we outlaw Lamborghini, Maserati cars or Ducati bikes because they go over 70? What is the "sporting purpose" of those track day cars? Why do we allow folks to buy mega-yachts which are grossly inefficient, or single engine planes which are FAR more dangerous than an HK G3... hmm? Correct answer: Because all these things are FUN FUN FUN! No other reason should justify it, IMHO. YMMV.

So the right way to say that would be, "WoW ! if that does not come straight from the anti-gun movement talking points/agenda, i do not know what does."

Click to expand...

saying "the anti-gun movement", in my opinion completely sidesteps the real point of libs desire to disarm us who are of the patriotic conservative bend.

personally i absolutely despise anyone who wants to restrict what firearm i so choose to own...., at a reasonable price. MY OPINION >>>>------> banning the manufacture of full auto firearms was Reagans biggest blunder.

MY OPINION >>>>------> banning the manufacture of full auto firearms was Reagans biggest blunder.

Click to expand...

You're refering to the amendment to the 1987 FOPA which closed the NFA registry to newly made FA guns.
This was a late night, underhanded, rotten, scheming act that was done --NOT by Reagan --- but by the liberal congress he had to contend with. There is some question whether or not Reagan even knew about it when he signed it ... but anyway, he did.
So let's blame it on the kongress, or atleast include them in the indictment, OK?

Hell, I'd settle for blaming Charlie Rangel (who to this day is doing his best to uphold all sorts of injustice and illegal government behavior)

TCB

Truthfully even if they were legal Id doubt I would buy one. A full auto rifle is just about useless to me. Now a belt fed with a bipod is another story. Id love to have a SAW set up like the one I had in Iraq.

Some people just want a particular firearm. If it happens to be FA then they need to assess just how bad they want it.

Will the Hughes amendment be repealed? I personally hope so as there are many guns that I would love to have. Not necessarily so I can blow thousands of rounds down range, but just because I want them.

I have a '28 Thompson, I don't want to think about what it cost me and I really don't care. I wanted one since I was a kid and when I was in a position to get one I jumped on the opportunity.

No matter what you invest in, there is as much chance of the value going down as there is of it going up. Several years ago muscle cars were hot on the market. Now they have dropped 20-40% in some instances as the interest has waned. I have never bought guns as an investment, the fact that nearly all of mine have appreciated in value is a nice thing, but I know that prices can drop just as fast.

As for an M16, why wouldn't you want one if the price was basically the same as a AR15? You know, the switch on the side does have a semi position so you don't have to rock and roll.

Sometimes you may just want to waltz.

Some people just want a particular firearm. If it happens to be FA then they need to assess just how bad they want it.

Will the Hughes amendment be repealed? I personally hope so as there are many guns that I would love to have. Not necessarily so I can blow thousands of rounds down range, but just because I want them.

I have a '28 Thompson, I don't want to think about what it cost me and I really don't care. I wanted one since I was a kid and when I was in a position to get one I jumped on the opportunity.

No matter what you invest in, there is as much chance of the value going down as there is of it going up. Several years ago muscle cars were hot on the market. Now they have dropped 20-40% in some instances as the interest has waned. I have never bought guns as an investment, the fact that nearly all of mine have appreciated in value is a nice thing, but I know that prices can drop just as fast.

As for an M16, why wouldn't you want one if the price was basically the same as a AR15? You know, the switch on the side does have a semi position so you don't have to rock and roll.


Sometimes you may just want to waltz.

Click to expand...

i agree with everything you said here, especially everything i highlighted in BLUE

Yep, plenty (probably most...) of automatic rifles have a semi-auto option. If we peons could buy automatics at or near semi-automatic prices I'd get a select-fire AR-15 and an MP5. I'd probably never shoot the MP5 semi-automatic though after I sighted it in.

I'd also make friends with someone who could afford to feed a belt-fed weapon.

I'm glad there is regulation of automatic firearms, if they were legal, people would use them illegally much more often, and then dems would surely ban all "assault rifles" and semi autos would be banned under that label... No thanks.

I'm glad there is regulation of automatic firearms, if they were legal, people would use them illegally much more often, and then dems would surely ban all "assault rifles" and semi autos would be banned under that label... No thanks.

Click to expand...

With that line of thinking, you should support a total gun ban.

After all, if people are allowed to have guns, some people would use them illegally much more often, and then Dems would surely ban all guns.

I haven't been on this board for a while so am late getting into this thread.
I hope that there will be, in the near future, a drastic change in the Full Auto weapons laws. Maby, like east Germany collapsing, it will happen.
In the meantime I am stuck with the approximately (haven't done a head count in a while) 15 full autos I have. These run the full gamut of types - rifles, SMGs & MGs. I also have several mortars just for S & Gs.
I got my first, an MP 40, in about 1957. It has been an ongoing struggle since then, just never seem to get every one that I want.
Here are a few photos.
Well for some reason this dam site won't let me load but 2 photos????????
Sarge

I'm fully in favor of EVERY private citizens having the ability to own FA fire arms. The reason is in the constitution. The right to bear arms in it's intended sense was for the citizenry to have the ability to protect itself from it's government, if that government became tyrannical. The primary arm used by our government at the time of ratification was a smooth bore musket. Today it's a FA M4 variant. As citizens, and as the constitution intended, we should have access to the same weapon with its functionally fully intact. That's my belief.

Now, personally, I have no need or desire for one for entertainment purposes. My time in Uncle Sam's Army allowed me to get my fill firing all type and manner of FA weapon systems (after you've exercised the full fury of an M1A1 Abrams, everything else kinda pales in comparison ). I'll stick to trying to put 3 rounds through the same hole,........for now.

Sarge

To say that's an awesome collection would be a massive understatement!

Re the ban on "newly-manufactured" full-auto as part of the FOPA: When there are minor differences between the House and Senate bills on a subject, they can be resolved in what's called "Conference Committee".

It is my understanding that this ban was a late-night add-on after observers and lobbyists (such as the NRA) had gone home--thinking all was settled. "Mr. Republican", Kansas senator Bob Dole, allowed this ban to be inserted at the last minute.

I'm fully in favor of EVERY private citizens having the ability to own FA fire arms. The reason is in the constitution. The right to bear arms in it's intended sense was for the citizenry to have the ability to protect itself from it's government, if that government became tyrannical. The primary arm used by our government at the time of ratification was a smooth bore musket. Today it's a FA M4 variant. As citizens, and as the constitution intended, we should have access to the same weapon with its functionally fully intact. That's my belief.

Now, personally, I have no need or desire for one for entertainment purposes. My time in Uncle Sam's Army allowed me to get my fill firing all type and manner of FA weapon systems (after you've exercised the full fury of an M1A1 Abrams, everything else kinda pales in comparison ). I'll stick to trying to put 3 rounds through the same hole,........for now.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much my take on it, except I only got to drive an M-60 and I never shot a 155mm or 8" gun.

Small arms are, well, small. Fullly auto changes very little of that.

Truthfully even if they were legal Id doubt I would buy one. A full auto rifle is just about useless to me. Now a belt fed with a bipod is another story. Id love to have a SAW set up like the one I had in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Bingo. Full auto without belt feed is only seconds away from "out of ammo".

""Mr. Republican", Kansas senator Bob Dole, allowed this ban to be inserted at the last minute."
...by Charlie Rangel. With an uncounted voice vote that seemingly was in favor of 'Nay.' Always never forget that.

JDMorris said:

I'm glad there is regulation of automatic firearms, if they were legal, people would use them illegally much more often, and then dems would surely ban all "assault rifles" and semi autos would be banned under that label... No thanks.

Click to expand...

Were there any registered NFA weapons used illegally prior to being banned in 86? Could you point to specific facts to back up your opinion as something more substantial than speculation or conjecture about what may happen, and why it would happen, when it did not happen while the NFA registry was open and they were (reasonably) readily available and inexpensive?