Full Auto ban tyranny?

[shockwave]

So just how much firepower would you like these gentlemen to have?

 

[AK103K]

How much should we allow YOU to have?

 

[TexasRifleman]

So just how much firepower would you like these gentlemen to have?

Problem is, they are criminals. They are going to get as much firepower as they want anyway. That's sort of the definition of criminal, someone who doesn't pay attention to laws.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

I think that the persons above that attack this thread need to open their eyes a bit. Open discussion of the topic is GOOD; it gets people thinking, and makes them aware of important things if they keep their minds open. Regarding bans, if they take power away from the people, then they make "government" something other THAN the people. We are supposed to BE the government, not have a bureaucracy as some separate entitiy ABOVE us. If the government is "entitled" to have something, then, by definition, WE should be able to have it. Regarding RPG's, mortars, etc, in general, we DO have provisions under current law to own them. BUT, grenades and shells for them are considered "destructive devices" themselves, and require a $200 tax EACH, so if you are made of money, have all the mortar shells or rockets you want! On the practical question, suppliers of such DD's in most cases won't sell them to you. If you find grenades and mortar shells for sale, good luck. My brother has a an M79 grenade launcher, but only has flares, practices grenades, etc, but still has a ton of fun with it.

 

[wishin]

In theory, there should be no restrictions. In reality, to live in a civilized society of law and order there must be controls. Many RKBAers see the issue through rose colored glasses, thinking that all of our citizenry are of good judgement and as law abiding and responsible as they are.

Moreover, 9/11 being foremost in the minds of Homeland Security and law enforcement agencies these days, I don't see a change in the law for some time to come. There's no question that the '86 law has made MG's pretty scarce and difficult for illegal obtainment, which is really what we all want. I also know that if you're wealthy enough, and up to no good, any and all weapons are at your disposal. A cork big enough to plug this hole doesn't exist.

I'm not smart enough though to know the ultimate answer of how to keep everybody safe and happy without infringing on the rights of American citizens. How do we go about saving us from ourselves?

 

[ATBackPackin]

When laws are created for gun control, the only people they control are those whom abide by the law.

If guns are outlawed, then the only people who will have guns are the outlaws. That is making me to make a choice; be an outlaw or a victim.

Ultamitely there has to be a line drawn. Where? I'm not sure. I guess it would depend what one considers arms to be.

Just one man's opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

Shawn

 

[TexasRifleman]

In theory, there should be no restrictions. In reality, to live in a civilized society of law and order there must be controls. Many RKBAers see the issue through rose colored glasses, thinking that all of our citizenry are of good judgement and as law abiding and responsible as they are.

Problem here is that it's not "theory".

Before 1968 there were basically no gun laws other than NFA. Before 1968 there were no background checks and no licensed dealers.

And, the gun crime rate in 1968 is the same as it is today.

Except for a spike during the late 1980's drug craze it's clear that all of these "controls" you speak of have had no impact on actual crime.

That seems to be the hardest thing to get people to understand; Criminals don't obey these controls anyway, they buy guns from illegal sources and use them in crime.

Explosives, machine guns, and all other manner of firearms are used in crimes all the time. So, how do you explain that these "controls" would do any good anyway?

It just doesn't make sense.

This is not and has never been a "gun" issue, it's a crime and punishment issue.

Diverting it to guns is just the easy political way out, since the actual solution is to deal with the crime problem and that is hard work.

There's no question that the '86 law has made MG's pretty scarce and difficult for illegal obtainment, which is really what we all want.

One of the dumbest things ever posted on THR, that one. And it's completely dishonest. Why do you have to lie to argue your point?

Hughes didn't stop crime either since there WAS no machine gun crime. Since 1934 there have been only 2 murders committed with legally owned machine guns, and one of the people who committed them was a cop. So seriously, what exactly do you think is the problem here? Be honest.... Dishonesty won't sell here.

 

[Shung]

the '86 law has made MG's pretty scarce and difficult for illegal obtainment, which is really what we all want

have you any idea of what you are talking about ? do you know how EASY is to turn any semi-auto AR-15 into a FA ???? damn, FA triggers groups you can buy them... With a drill and a dremel you can do it, in a hour or so...

You just don't do it cause it's illegal and you are a law abiding citizen.. Do you think criminals and terrorists have such limitations ?

 

[Steve in KC]

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.

Tyrannasaurus' were around long before machine guns.

 

[markdaniel]

If the government doesn't trust its subjects with a weapon should the subjects trust the government with the same weapon?

 

[hso]

Wow! There's so much mis/disinformation being tossed around that we'll never get anywhere.

Full auto weapons are available to the "common man". They're restricted to those made before May, 1986, but anyone with a clean record and the money to purchase a small car can own one if they live in a state that permits them. Same for Destructive Devices. In each case you have to pay the Fed a $200 tax for the transfer of said hardware. That means that you also have to pay $200 for each round for RPG or mortar or cannon.

You can purchase Full Auto, DD and other NFA items if you can pass the background check and have cooperative CLEO and state laws.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Wow! There's so much mis/disinformation being tossed around that we'll never get anywhere.

As usual, that's their only tactic. Spread lies and confusion to keep the argument going in circles.

They know that the facts don't back up one single thing they say, so they have to resort to making it up as they go.

This is what we talked about in a thread a couple of weeks ago, about how a real debate can never happen since the anti side will not participate in any honest discussions.

 

[HoosierQ]

I am going to say that current full auto laws in the USA are neither the result of, nor a step toward, tyranny. That was the OPs question.

Maybe they don't make sense, maybe they aren't doing any good in terms of stopping criminals, maybe we could trust law-abiding people who can responsibly own firearms would take just as much care with FA as SA. We here at THR believe so.

But tyranny? Come on. This tyranny stuff gets the 2ndA community nowhere. Now I am not saying the 2ndA community should be against FA here...FA should be support by the 2ndA community. But running around crying "TRYANNY" is counter-productive in the short and long run.

The law books of the USA and each state in the Union are full of stupid laws that do nobody any good, and I will argue that none are the result of "tyranny"...just a bunch of 3-Martini Lunch swilling, C- students that by and large run the legislative branch of the government, making laws that they think will get them re-elected first and foremost, get them in good with their congressional superiors secondly, make them look good (they think) to their constituents, and lastly, what is good for America. Obviously there are exceptions to my little scenario...but not very many.

It is not tyranny I am afraid but just politics.

 

[wishin]

TexasRifleman

What I said was no more dishonest than your asinine misrepresentation of it!

 

[danprkr]

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?

Yes, and yes. That we have a tyranny of a complacent majority does not make it any less tyrannical. The whole idea of the checks and balances in the Constitution is to make this not possible, but since we've quit teaching the constitution it's become less and less effective. The answer is to teach your kids their rights as humans and as Americans. And, to demand that your schools do the same!

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.

Allowed? For crying out loud since when did we decide we needed permission to be men, and do the moral thing? When the time comes we'll not have permission, but our conscious will demand that we act anyway.

There's no question that the '86 law has made MG's pretty scarce and difficult for illegal obtainment, which is really what we all want.

Already debunked. I just wanted to ally myself with those that realize that criminals can/will get anything they want. If you don't believe it ask yourself how well prohibition has worked on other items - booze and drugs fling themselves to the front of my mind.

If guns are outlawed, then the only people who will have guns are the outlaws. That is making me to make a choice; be an outlaw or a victim.

Brings us back to the conscious issue. Someday we will all have to decide between legal and moral. I hope to have the courage to decide moral.

Tyrannasaurus' were around long before machine guns.

And people actually, but even if not I don't get your point. Feel free to PM if I'm being dense here, but I just don't get what you were getting at with that comment, and since it was in direct response to my original post on this thread I'd really like to at least understand your point. No sarcasm intended I'm just truly confused.

If the government doesn't trust its subjects with a weapon should the subjects trust the government with the same weapon?

NOW THAT IS A GOOD IDEA! Just like a loser pays civil court system. I LIKE IT!

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

That's right folks, plenty of bread and circuses here. Pay no attention to the Cesar's actions.

 

[TexasRifleman]

What I said was no more dishonest than your asinine misrepresentation of it!

I will quote you directly, you are welcome to correct anything I say here:

the '86 law has made MG's pretty scarce and difficult for illegal obtainment, which is really what we all want

1) the 86 law has had zero impact on illegal machine guns used in crime. That is easily shown by looking at any of the crime statistics. Legally owned and manufactured machine guns have not been used in crimes. TWO since 1934 in fact. The use if ILLEGAL machine guns in crimes is the same now as it was before Hughes in 1986, so there has been NO NET CHANGE in the rate of automatic weapons used in crime.

2) Legally owned machine guns, stolen then used in crimes later, are not in there either. There is no real record of legally owned machine guns being stolen and then later used in crimes. People who legally own machine guns have in fact been VERY careful with their weapons, both in using them and in keeping them out of the hands of criminals. Hughes didn't change anything there either.

3) Hughes made it illegal to add more MG's to the NFA database, but it had no impact on HOW you convert a semi to FA. That is a relatively simple procedure, takes only a minimum amount of skill and time. Illegally converted machine guns continue to be used in crimes all the time, at about the same rate as before Hughes. So no, it didn't make anything "scarce" except for law abiding citizens who are provably not committing crimes anyway.

So please, rebut any of the above with actual facts that show otherwise.

If you cannot, please be honest and admit that you were mistaken.

And this is very important:

If you will not admit you are mistaken then you have to be taken as someone who is intentionally lying to further some agenda, how else can we possibly take it?

By the way, I will save you some time. You will find NO reputable evidence to counter what I have put above. Those come from FBI, ATF, and DOJ in various crime reports over the years and have not really ever been contradicted.

Please, I welcome your response. I hope you will be honest in your reply.

 

[Blakenzy]

So just how much firepower would you like these gentlemen to have?

Absolutely none. Full auto or non full auto is a non factor there. A sharp stick in their hands is too much, based on the use they intend to give the weapon.

Full auto is more scary than effective. Automatic weapons don't automatically make more dead people (pun, pun!). Case in point: the North Hollywood shootout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

On the other hand, unarmed(or under armed) victims automatically set the stage for mass executions, regardless of the weapon the victimizer carries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia

Final point: if you say someone shouldn't have a full auto, they shouldn't have anything at all. You won't be any more or less dead by a bullet from a semi auto vs full auto.

 

[LibShooter]

The ban on fully automatics is one of those things where my idea of common sense differs from the Constitution. It just seems like a bad idea to allow anyone a machine gun. Recruits don't get an FA on day one.

However, the Second Amencment doesn't say some arms are more free than others. So the ban on machine guns or RPGs or even Nuclear Weopons seems unconstitutional.

Having said that, I really hope none of you has a nuke.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The ban on fully automatics is one of those things where my idea of common sense differs from the Constitution. It just seems like a bad idea to allow anyone a machine gun. Recruits don't get an FA on day one.

Again, I refer you back to the fact that legally owned machineguns have only been used in 2 crimes since 1934. So exactly what is the problem?

I am glad to see you admit what I think a lot of people won't; that it's a "gut feeling" rather than anything based in fact. The facts simply don't hold up the notion that legally owned machine guns cause any problems whatsoever. Their owners are some of the most law abiding citizens in the country, borne out by the crime statistics on MGs.

So may I ask you this question please?

Since all of the evidence is contrary to your gut feelings on this, what makes those gut feelings remain in place?

 

[danprkr]

The ban on fully automatics is one of those things where my idea of common sense differs from the Constitution. It just seems like a bad idea to allow anyone a machine gun. Recruits don't get an FA on day one.

However, the Second Amencment doesn't say some arms are more free than others. So the ban on machine guns or RPGs or even Nuclear Weopons seems unconstitutional.

Having said that, I really hope none of you has a nuke.

Congratulations on being intellectually honest, and funny. I like it that you can recognize a right that you may not agree with. Good job.

 

[sarduy]

ok so no full auto after 86'.... but why not 3 round burst?...

 

[AK103K]

Allowed? For crying out loud since when did we decide we needed permission to be men, and do the moral thing? When the time comes we'll not have permission, but our conscious will demand that we act anyway.

I meant "allowed" in another way. In other words, it would be squashed before it happened.

By all means, act, just dont count on a lot of help from fellow gun owners if its not something they deem appropriate or necessary, or is a threat to them losing "their" favorite type gun. They will hang on as long as possible and will quickly throw you to the wolves without any other thought, if they think it will prolong them being left alone.

The old... "they came for the Jew's..." thing, is very applicable here as well, and by the time it sinks in, it wont matter.

 

[AK103K]

It just seems like a bad idea to allow anyone a machine gun.

Why? Whats the difference?

Having said that, I really hope none of you has a nuke.

I havent got one yet, but I'm still trying. I'm just not that good at MW2 yet. Those 10 year olds have much better reflexes than a 55 year old old fart with short arms, and I havet got a 25/0 kill streak yet. I do curse them out better though. Still, being called a wanker by someone whos voice hasnt yet changed just adds to it all.

 

[wishin]

TexasRifleman

One of the dumbest things ever posted on THR, that one. And it's completely dishonest. Why do you have to lie to argue your point?

If you feel I'm wrong in what I say, feel free to point it out, debate it and prove me wrong, but to start making accusations and characterizations right out of the blocks is immature. It probably would have made you happy for me to say "IMHO". Guess what, my aim is not to make you happy. Should you feel abusive, go kick your dog or beat your wife...................

 

[TexasRifleman]

If you feel I'm wrong in what I say, feel free to point it out, debate it and prove me wrong, but to start making accusations and characterizations right out of the blocks is immature.

I did that. I'm still waiting for your response. You were dishonest, and it's been proven. I await your evidence to the contrary, or I await your admission that you were dishonest and/or mistaken. You can retreat to the "oh it's a personal attack" stuff, but you posted something that was an absolute fabrication so you can't really expect to not be called on it can you?