Bill to revise Hughes amendment and other NFA laws

[bobbo]

There's going to be four groups of people against this:
1) Anti-gunners. They have lots and lots of money (but then again, so does the NRA, and the Brady Bunch doesn't run the House anymore). You won't persuade them.

2) Regular people who don't like the idea of machine guns in private hands, but who might be in favor of hunting or SD firearms. Why would they be afraid? Think of it this way: More machine guns in private hands means there's more for criminals to steal. You probably won't persuade them.

3) Casual gun owners who don't want machine guns or don't really care. You MIGHT be able to persuade them. I'm in this group. I really don't care one way or the other, but a bunch of idiots hunting with full-auto during deer season doesn't sound like a fun day in the woods to me. More bullets means the higher the probability of injury or death (check Army reports on bullets fired to casualty ratios from WWII)

4) People who've invested in machine guns and don't want to lose their money. You won't persuade them. Money has that effect.

The first two and the last will derail this effort.

However my machine guns have become my 401k.

Unlike some here, I won't bash you for that comment. You invested in something you care about. It's just economics, and if something came along and wiped out your savings, you wouldn't support such a measure, would you? Everyone saying this person should give up his money just so they can get a full-auto gun cheaper is, well, slightly on the socialist side... don't you think?

 

[taliv]

speaking as an owner of multiple machine guns, including belt-fed, i would gladly lose a bit of value on the current ones i own, if it meant i could buy a new dillon minigun. (not that i could afford to shoot it more than 6 seconds / year or so) most of the folks i hang out with feel the same.

 

[Rail Driver]

Everyone saying this person should give up his money just so they can get a full-auto gun cheaper is, well, slightly on the socialist side... don't you think?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't contain a proviso stating "But only if you're rich."

It's not an issue of "redistribution of wealth", it's an issue of unfairly regulated and INFRINGED rights.

 

[tbd1966]

In my opinion, the law forbidding ownership of any machinegun made past 86 is unconstitutional. Over the course of time, as these weapons become more and more rare, their cost continues to rise making it almost impossible for anyone to own them. Soon these "legally transferable weapons" will be no more and citizens will no longer be able to own them at all.

The 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution for one reason; to resist and remove a tyranical government. Civilian ownership of Machineguns is an important aspect of having the ability to do this should this day ever come.

 

[bobbo]

It's not an issue of "redistribution of wealth", it's an issue of unfairly regulated and INFRINGED rights.

Yes, it is socialism. You want one group to give up their investments in expensive arms just so you can have a range toy (let's face it, that's all full-auto guns really are. Why do you think the army doesn't even have M16s on full auto? You can't control it, even in a real war zone. If there is a time to rise up against the government, you better have surface-to-air missiles and nuclear warheads stockpiled, because a machine gun will do you no good against an A-10).

Besides, if you can't afford one now, how do you expect to be able to pay for the ammo necessary to fire it? A 500-round case of ammo is less than a minute's worth in most full-auto firearms.

Civilian ownership of Machineguns is an important aspect of having the ability to do this should this day ever come.

By that logic, I should be able to purchase a nuclear bomb and keep it in my apartment, because nuclear weapons will be a far more "important aspect."

 

[PTK]

Ad hominem, strawman, ad nauseaum. You won't last long on this forum.

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

Bobbo, I think you mean communism as there has never been a "true" socialist gov't. Socialism, is actually pre karl marx and so far all proclaiming to be socialist are actually communist. And no, Democrats are not socialist.

Sorry Thread hijack.

Going back to the topic at hand, I'm in the interested group a you said Bobbo. I feel I should have the right as this country is dreadfully close to insurrection and I feel I will need to defend myself. The point is 2A says two things:

we can possess guns (up to interpretation as to how this extends, in the day of the document there were few is any repeaters much less MGs)

States can operate militias (Arbitrary nowadays)

I do support however reasonable firearm restrictions, such as register MGs, no MGs under 21, no hunting with full auto arms, no shooting of full autos in a dangerous manner.

What I see is many people that seem to think that laws altogether are useless. We need order, we need to stop crazy people from getting guns yes and gangbangers yes and laws can aid in that.

 

[atblis]

Yes, it is socialism.

Nope. Interesting ploy though.

 

[Davek1977]

but a bunch of idiots hunting with full-auto during deer season doesn't sound like a fun day in the woods to me. More bullets means the higher the probability of injury or death

I am not aware of a single state that allows full-auto weapons to be used for big game hunting, so your fears are exaggerated and unfounded, and based primarily on hyperbole. Like many 'on the fence" you show little understanding of why most people interested in full-autos have such an interest. You blame 3 of the four groups you listed as being to blame for the continuing illegality of full autos, but conveniently leave out the group you personally belong to. yet, if everyone "on the fence" thinks that the woods will be full of"idiots" (nice way to classify mg owners, btw :banghead: :banghead: ) hunting Bambi with Uzis, they are EVERY BIT THE PROBLEM as any of the other groups you mentioned. Largely, simple ignorance is behind the continuation of the MG ban.....a lack of understanding by just about everyone aside from those interested in owning, shooting, or collecting machine guns.....

 

[BeerSleeper]

Yes, it is socialism. You want one group to give up their investments in expensive arms just so you can have a range toy (let's face it, that's all full-auto guns really are.

There's nothing socialist about it. Repealing the MG ban isn't going to tax someone to buy MGs for someone else.
Presently, MG's have an artificially inflated cost due to governement action. If the MG ban went way, so would that. Then, Americans would be free to purchase MGs for whatever price the market will bear, (capitalism, not socialism).
Yes, you have a point, that those with large "investments" in MGs will lose value. "Investments" can and do lose value all the time, again, a perfect example of capitalism.

Why should all the rest of us Americans have to sacrifice one of our constitutional freedoms for the benefit of your bottom line?

 

[Ingsoc75]

How about getting on board behind some of these lawmakers who have introduced bills to "open the books" for WW1, WW2 and Korean War war trophies?

Sure it's a long shot as all these bills have died but this may be the best approach to hacking away at 922(o).

 

[tbd1966]

Bobbo, you comment is so wrong on so many levels. I realize its fun to throw emotional rants at a serious topic just to try and make your mark but it serves no purpose and frankly detracts from the real issues at hand.

With all issues their is common sense applied to real solutions. Common sense tells us that nuclear bombs should not be owned by civilians. Whats more, if combat comes to the US waged by our own military I can gaurantee you it won't include the nuclear option because at the end of the day, what will be left to have once you've won? They will use bombs but look at what that got us in Iraq. We never had full control of that city and most of that population was forbidden to have arms before our moving in to try and restore order. What do you think that will be like here in the States with over 300,000,000 privately owned firearms.

The Military, both Army and Marine Corp issue a variety of semi auto and select fire small arms. The role of the MG is not one of precision fire but tactically its value is suppressive fire. If a unit needs to move and is under fire, the MG applies appropriate pressure to allow the good guys to win the fight. I see a MG as a reasonable firearm to be owned by responsible, law abiding citizens. I have no problem with a legal process to ensure the individual is law abiding and sane. I have a problem with a process that was designed at its creation to rob us of our ability to resist should our Government ever take us there. This was the origional intent of the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

As far as the ammo goes. it will be available when its needed. Frankly when you think about it, so will machine guns. In times of military conflict arms and supplies end up flowing freely in both directions. The reasons for this are obvious. The goal is to preserve Freedom and Liberty in such a way that it never comes to this.

Ben Franklin said it best; Those who wish to surrender liberty for temporary security deserve niether.

 

[Zombie_Flesh]

I would like to see one of the Pauls insert this into a HUGE bill burried on page 295,573 where the registry is just simply re-opened.

Leave the rest alone, allowing MG purchases OTC (like pistols are today) would scare people too much, allow bangers to steal them easier and I feel end up hurting us in the long run. Maybe come back later and allow them OTC after people start getting used to them again.

 

[tbd1966]

Agreed, by opening the registry you keep all other rules in place. It's a great way to start.

 

[Ingsoc75]

Zombie_Flesh pretty much summed it for me.

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

I never said allow OTC purchase of MGs, basically just reopen the registry and cancel parts of the GCA of '68.

 

[macadore]

Bobbo, I think you mean communism as there has never been a "true" socialist gov't. Socialism, is actually pre karl marx and so far all proclaiming to be socialist are actually communist. And no, Democrats are not socialist.

This is what I like about this forum. A lot of people know what they are are talking about and have thought deeply about the issues. Thanks to you and others who have expressed the same sentiment. It will take much more than poorly thought though through emotional statements to defend the RKBA.

 

[NMGonzo]

What license?

Please ...

 

[jerkface11]

I would like to see one of the Pauls insert this into a HUGE bill burried on page 295,573 where the registry is just simply re-opened.

Not like congressmen read the bills anyway. Rand Paul should insert this into the next stimulus plan then tell the anti-gunners they can find out what's in it after they pass it.

 

[happygeek]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7148932&postcount=55

Why do you think the army doesn't even have M16s on full auto? You can't control it, even in a real war zone. If there is a time to rise up against the government, you better have surface-to-air missiles and nuclear warheads stockpiled, because a machine gun will do you no good against an A-10).

You do realize the number of choppers that have been brought down by small arms and RPG fire, right? Shooting at vehicles and low flying aircraft are a few of the scenarios when auto in an assault rifle would be useful.

Auto isn't just for assault rifles either. There's light machine guns like the M249 (unit price $4,087 according to Wikipedia) which most definitely have their uses. Not being an infantry officer or NCO, I won't attempt to pontificate on what exactly the tactics are.

Also, I'm not sure how getting rid of a government imposed artificial scarcity is socialism.

 

[AlexanderA]

I think you'll find that most current owners of machineguns, in spite of having a lot of money tied up in them (much of which, to be honest, is unrealized paper gain), would be in favor of opening up the registry. They probably didn't originally buy their guns for "investment" purposes (in spite of what they might have told their wives), and they would rather have an opportunity to add to their collections than to sit on wildly inflated, and therefore frozen, assets. What good does it do to go to your grave with a gun that you can't afford to shoot (both because of the cost of ammunition and the fear that wear would diminish the value) and can't afford to sell (because of the huge capital gains tax on the appreciation)? At least if you die owning the gun, your heirs will get a stepped-up basis and can sell without paying income tax on it.

 

[Sgt.Saputo]

I am not interested in more M16's, 1919's, UZI's ect being added to the registry.

You're being quite selfish aren't you?

My father had to work and save for several years before he had the money for his title II Sten MkII. Even Though he had to save for years to get it I doubt he would care if everyone else could suddenly go out and get get Stens for $400 instead of $4,000. I'd be quite pleased because by the time I have enough money saved up to buy a nice MG it will probably cost twice as much as when I started saving. I'll be lucky if I can afford a M10 in several years when I have money saved.

MGs shouldn't just be for the rich...

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

^ post is very true

 

[mboylan]

Small steps at a time. I would love to see an amnesty for World War II bring backs. The old vets are almost gone. Their families are faced with turning in these historic weapons for destruction or a felony and 10 years in prison for hiding them.

 

[Eukatae]

Make it part of a "manufacturing revitalization" bill. "We are doing this to make manufacturing in this country profitable again". "We are not making machine guns legal or easier to obtain by anyone". All could be "true" if all we did was open the registry. "It's for the jobs, to strengthen unions!"