Full Auto ban tyranny?

[shephard19]

If we as civilians are supposed to be the true militia of our states shoudn't we have access to full auto? The ban on anything new after 86' is obviously intended to phase it out completely out of private hands except for the extremly rich.

 

[jcwit]

With this logic should we also not have RPG's and Mortars at our disposal?

Lets return to the real world.

 

[BlayGlock]

I think it is a fair question to ask. Just where should we draw the line and why?

 

[jcwit]

The line has already been drawn!

 

[Bobarino]

the line may be redrawn after a series of long and drawn out court battles that find their way to the Supreme Court and maybe, just maybe, strict scrutiny will be applied and the Miller case will be applied to mean what it says about weapons in common use at the time. if it does happen that way, it will be many years in the making.

Bobby

 

[Shung]

With this logic should we also not have RPG's and Mortars at our disposal?

yeah, I like this logic.. and this logic certainly match the meaning of the 2nd amendment..

 

[N003k]

With this logic should we also not have RPG's and Mortars at our disposal?

Lets return to the real world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, can't we ALREADY, by jumping through similar hoops to getting a MG? Just with the added effort of jumping through identical hoops for each explosive round too. I could be wrong, don't know THAT much about the NFA...but was fairly sure that was the case...

Also, why not?

If you're not gonna shoot a semi auto AR-15 illegally, you're not gonna shoot a FA AR-15 illegally, you're not gonna shoot an RPG illegally, you're not gonna fire a mortar illegally, you're not gonna drive a tank/fire a tanks weapons illegally, etc, etc. Why limit what those that already obey the law can own? Especially since I'm fairly sure it's all still legal, just with annoying hurdles to jump though...

 

[General Geoff]

With this logic should we also not have RPG's and Mortars at our disposal?

Absolutely we do (or at least should).

 

[danprkr]

If we as civilians are supposed to be the true militia of our states shoudn't we have access to full auto?

Yes. A full auto ban is a step into tyranny. Granted a small one, but maybe the most dangerous one in that it opens the gate to strip us of our ability to fight the next steps taken into tyranny. Until eventually there is no freedom.

 

[EddieNFL]

With this logic should we also not have RPG's and Mortars at our disposal?

Lets return to the real world.

There is a vast difference in safety/storage requirements of smalls arms ammunition versus HE warheads.

The antis love this attitude. If they can gradually educate (brainwash) folks into believing certain firearms are bad, they will eventually win.

Little bites go down easier than large chucks.

 

[MisterMike]

Tyranny? Do you really feel that we're ruled by tyrants? Or is it that collectively, through democratic process, we've gotten what we asked for?

That's a serious question . . . so often the claims of tyranny and oppression I read hear ignore the fact that we elect our legislators. Ultimately, it seems that we've gotten what we've asked for, or acquiesced to.

 

[Mp7]

i find it far fetched.

While guns dont kill people
unless people pull triggers ...

with fullautos everywhere you don´t
have to be a genius to assume it will
not make the country safer or more democratic
if everyone could use full auto.

02$.

 

[Gouranga]

We have gotten here by complacency. The silent majority will always be ignored because it is silent.

As for full auto ban. I understand where you are coming from but IMO, i have always been fine with the full auto "ban". My concern with these weapons is that they are a lot different to use properly than semis they really require the handler to have training. If I screw up with my 40 I will fire 1 single shot which is worse enough. And AD with a FA could be much worse.

Keep in mind I live in a subdivision with lots just under 1 acre. For those who live more rural you would very likely not see the same danger in that AD as I do here. It is definitely a slippery slope. With the current FA permits you are more likely to get owners who have training in proper use. I really have not problem with FA in the hands of trained and responsible people, it is just how do you ensure that?

To me (and I know there are folks on here who will vehemently disagree with me), there has to be a line drawn where ownership of these weapons is balanced against public safety. It is not very lightly I consider that. You can easily slide to many extremes with that mentality where everything is legal or nothing is.

 

[jcwit]

In reading the posts so far I see this thread is accompolishing just what it was ment to do .

1. open a can of worms
2. stir the pot
3. reach no meaniful conclusion

 

[mbt2001]

 

[Walkalong]

So far........ that's certainly accurate jcwit.

The difference between being ruled and being served is a fine one that we must guard with vigilance, else the politicians will rule us.

Nothing different here than other times in history, except we actually started with a country where all were free. Most started out being ruled and had to take their freedom first.

 

[AK103K]

You forgot #4, annoy jcwit because he doesnt agree.


I agree with shephard19, as we "are" the militia, or at least we are supposed to be, although I seriously doubt we would ever be allowed to act in that capacity these days.

Since at the time the original document was written (not that it seems to mean much these days), the Brown Bess was basically the military arm of the time, then today, there should be an M4 (as well as anything else they feel they need) in the hands of, or at least available to, every able bodied person in this country, and without any restriction.

Technically, the '34 act was lawful, but at the same time, an end run around the Constitution. They simply taxed the guns out of the average person of the times hands with a $200 tax. The '68 and '86 bans took things into the realm of being unconstitutional by restricting and prohibiting the weapons, basically outright.

Whats the difference in a gun thats already in the registry and one that is not, that you simply want to pay the tax on? Why cant you pay your tax and possess the gun? You'd think with the state of things, the government could use all the money it can collect.

The whole purpose of this is control, and nothing more.

I have to wonder why "opening a can of worms" or "stirring the pot" in respect to this is a bad thing. Seems they are valid questions that need addressed.

Then again, I think they have a ball game on TV and beer's on sale again.

 

[Impureclient]

How is a full auto any more dangerous than a semi of the same variant? Is it because it can kill faster/better?
At that reasoning anything above a .22 revolver should be banned also. Maybe we should only be allowed airguns instead.
Actually airguns can kill also. Human beings shouldn't be trusted with any guns....even staple guns or caulk guns.

I think it's just baby steps to take it all away.
Step one: Take away "big, fast & mean looking" guns or charge a fortune to own them.....Check
Step two: Limit amount of guns that are legal to purchase/own at a time.....Check
Step three: Remove the rights to own certain guns in certain States/cities..... Check
Step three: Limit where you can carry your gun.....Check
Step four: Make laws that make you carry a license to carry guns.....Check
Step five: Keep a record of gun purchases and/or make gun owners register their guns.....Almost there.
Step six: Guns are bad, take them away.....?
Step seven: "Eat your soylent green, sit in your cubicle and shut up Citizen number M8542Z15FL. Do you want the go back in the "calm" box again?"

There's no such thing as making laws that give us more rights, there's only new ones that take away more of our rights slowly.
It also is a plus for our Government to make money in the process of stripping our rights by charging a ridiculous price to access full auto as the OP said.

 

[Victor1Echo]

We should even have access to nukes. I think if the commom man everywhere had access to small arms in every country--there would have been no need to have developed much of the weapons we have now. The most powerful weapon is your mouth armed with the deadly bullets of truth.

 

[TexasRifleman]

With this logic should we also not have RPG's and Mortars at our disposal?

That's why Hughes is so silly. I can still go buy all the grenades I want, mortars,etc. Hughes didn't touch any DD's. It was political only.

It allowed some scumbag politicians to claim they were "doing something" about guns without actually doing anything.

 

[EddieNFL]

We have gotten here by complacency. The silent majority will always be ignored because it is silent.

As for full auto ban. I understand where you are coming from but IMO, i have always been fine with the full auto "ban". My concern with these weapons is that they are a lot different to use properly than semis they really require the handler to have training. If I screw up with my 40 I will fire 1 single shot which is worse enough. And AD with a FA could be much worse.

Keep in mind I live in a subdivision with lots just under 1 acre. For those who live more rural you would very likely not see the same danger in that AD as I do here. It is definitely a slippery slope. With the current FA permits you are more likely to get owners who have training in proper use. I really have not problem with FA in the hands of trained and responsible people, it is just how do you ensure that?

To me (and I know there are folks on here who will vehemently disagree with me), there has to be a line drawn where ownership of these weapons is balanced against public safety. It is not very lightly I consider that. You can easily slide to many extremes with that mentality where everything is legal or nothing is.

Even a single round ND is too dangerous in populated areas. Firearm ownership should be limited to rural areas.

 

[TexasRifleman]

With the current FA permits you are more likely to get owners who have training in proper use.

Evidence here that you have NO idea what you are talking about.

There are no "FA permits", there is no additional training required to own a machine gun, the background check is not more strict. It's just a money game.

Maybe you should go get a clue before entering the debate? It's best to have at least some minimum idea of what you are talking about before taking an anti gun position on a pro gun forum.

Seriously, not making fun of you. You are repeating a commonly held idea but it has absolutely no base in truth. You've been told somewhere along the line that access to machine guns takes a "class 3 permit" or some other such silliness. It's just not true.

 

[jcwit]

Even a single round ND is too dangerous in populated areas. Firearm ownership should be limited to rural areas.

OMG!

 

[ATBackPackin]

Even a single round ND is too dangerous in populated areas. Firearm ownership should be limited to rural areas.

OMG!

I think (hope) he was being sarcastic.

 

[AK103K]

Oh, I dont know. I think many times, were our own worse enemies. I've owned full autos for 25+ years now, and I've heard some pretty stupid things from other gun owners.

It seems that many think that by appeasing the monster by giving up my guns, they will be left alone to continue with their favorite pastime, like shooting benchrest, or trap. Why in the world would you need a machine gun?

Anyone who believes that one is worse than another, has their head someplace dark and stinky. Then again, maybe not.