Michigan goes full auto again!! Woohoo!!

[jmonarch]

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10259.htm


An opinion by a former AG ( I think it was Frank Kelly) halted any private transfers about 20 years ago. AG Cox has issued a new opinion which opens it back up. Not that I can afford one, anyway.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I am not sure of my stance on full autos for the general public (myself included) but I do know I would probable like to own one...maybe take it to an outdoor range occasionally.

 

[jmonarch]

Why should they be any different than any other gun? If you read Miller the way I do, full auto should be more protected than shotguns.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Why should they be any different than any other gun? If you read Miller the way I do, full auto should be more protected than shotguns.

I have to wrestle with that notion that autos are only used for killing people...alot of people...with little effort. Having been on the receiving end a few times this is a hard notion to overcome. Like I said I would have to give it more thought. I guess a few well place .20 gauge shells could inflict almost as much damage as a full clip from most autos. So I am betting there are good arguements both ways.

 

[bogie]

I thought they were used for shooting the heck out of old cars, appliances, and reactive steel targets?

www.machinegunshoot.com

 

[Maxwell]

Every new years it quickly dawns on me that everyone has a full auto EXCEPT the law abiding public.
Most of who:
1) dont care to own one.
2) wouldnt bother spend the money.
3) would be happy with the option but never keep one.

Their usualy larger than normal weapons, hella loud and messy for self defense uses, and not much good in hunting. As things are their also hella-expensive to the point that few would bother.
I dont see a problem with letting normal people own military weapons, especially with all the restrictions in place that make it such a pain anyway.

 

[Kodiaz]

There is nothing to think about. The goal of the 2a is for we the people to have a militia. So when the govt. decides to finish the shafting that we started getting 40 years ago we have a chance of retaining a constitutional govt. You should wrestle with the notion of the ATF showing up at your house with an illegal blank warrant and a bunch of evidence ready to plant. Then you should wrestle with the notion of an army of Jack booted thugs raiding your home. And if by some divine providence you manage to withstand the first assault you should wrestle with the notion of them burning you out of your house. The 2A exists for the people to have a militia not shotguns for skeet not hunting rifles militia weapons things you can use to kill the representatives of a tyrannical govt. I'm not saying that the current govt. is unbearable but after this recent power grab it is only going to get worse. We should be able to have whatever a soldier currently carries.

An M16 an M249 a disposal anti armor weapon and a stinking stinger missile. And grenades lots of grenades.

 

[progunner1957]

The 2A is really not complicated...

oops - double post.

 

[progunner1957]

The 2A is really not complicated...

I have to wrestle with that notion that autos are only used for killing people...alot of people...with little effort.

One more example of HCI/Brady/Million Mom/UN conditioning.

The fact is, the Second Amendment says "Shall not be infringed."
Infringed = hindered, interfered with, manipulated, limited, banned, blocked, or screwed with - in any manner.

Therefore, the citizen's right to own and use ALL hand or shoulder-fired, non-crew served, small arms weapons is protected under the Second amendment. That includes full auto rifles and short barreled shotguns.

Bazookas, LAWs, shoulder-fired missles, etc? Nope - not small arms.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

HCI/Brady/Million Mom conditioning.

The fact is, the Second Amendment says "Shall not be infringed."
Infringed = hindered, interfered with, manipulated, limited, banned, blocked, or screwed with - in any manner.

Therefore, the citizen's right to own and use ALL hand or sholder-fired, non-crew served, small arms weapons is protected under the Second amendment. That includes full auto rifles and short barreled shotguns.

Bazookas, LAWs, sholder-fired missles, etc? Nope - not small arms.

Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos. I also see where it says a well regulated militia...and there are many texts from the time period that state what they consider a "well regulated militia" and they never mention the right of an individual to casually carry a weapon. It says "militia"... when I was not on duty with the ARMY I did not get to wear my uniform or carry my weapon. I am guessing a well regulated militia would be much the same.

 

[Kramer Krazy]

Congrats to Michigan........I wish I could afford one....and it was easier to get one. The way I view a full-auto is that it shouldn't be restricted any more than any other gun. As far as I see it, if you are a "law abiding" citizen, you aren't going to do anything illegal with it, anyway.

 

[Kodiaz]

The Army, Marines, National Guard, Air Force and Navy are not the militia. They are all branches of the govt.'s military. They all go where they are told when they are told. The purpose of the militia is to fight the govt. not to do what it says.

Progunner you're right they aren't small arms. I will concede your point.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Bazookas, LAWs, sholder-fired missles, etc? Nope - not small arms.

So what?

Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

A letter of marque is issued by a nation to a privateer or mercenary to act on the behalf of that nation. This clearly shows the Framers intended that private citizens would own fully armed warships. Nice, huh?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

The Army, Marines, National Guard, Air Force and Navy are not the militia. They are all branches of the govt.'s military. They all go where they are told when they are told. The purpose of the militia is to fight the govt. not to do what it says.

Hmmm...a new definition to me. But to each his own opinion. Like I said...I am undecided. Just for reference here is the dictionary definition of militia.

mi·li·tia P Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

I believe that we should have full-autos, shoulder fired surface to air missles, and anything the military has.


When the civilian population has parity with the government in terms of the ability to project force - that is when liberty is strongest.


A common argument is that we'd live in a war zone or that people cannot be trusted. This is because people compare our modern violent society to the peaceful armed society that existed in the past. Government, its programs and its will over the people for the last 150+ years has molded our society into a violent, heartless one filled with people who would use such arms irresponsibly. A society with less government would be a society that is tough on crime. A society without socialist programs would be a more respectful, grateful, independent minded society. Had we maintained our armed status, had we not increased the police-power of the state in the 1800's, we'd live in a completely different world today shaped by individualism, free markets, and liberty.


We wouldn't be a nation where 2% of the people would actually be crazy enough to shoot down an airliner with a stinger missle because he's a drunk lowlife thug. People like this wouldn't exist for a number of reasons.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I am not sure of my stance on full autos for the general public (myself included) but I do know I would probable like to own one...maybe take it to an outdoor range occasionally.

Why not? We either trust the people, or we don't. If we don't trust them -- well, that leads to total disarmament.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I believe that we should have full-autos, shoulder fired surface to air missles, and anything the military has.


When the civilian population has parity with the government in terms of the ability to project force - that is when liberty is strongest.


A common argument is that we'd live in a war zone or that people cannot be trusted. This is because people compare our modern violent society to the peaceful armed society that existed in the past. Government, its programs and its will over the people for the last 150+ years has molded our society into a violent, heartless one filled with people who would use such arms irresponsibly. A society with less government would be a society that is tough on crime. A society without socialist programs would be a more respectful, grateful, independent minded society. Had we maintained our armed status, had we not increased the police-power of the state in the 1800's, we'd live in a completely different world today shaped by individualism, free markets, and liberty.


We wouldn't be a nation where 2% of the people would actually be crazy enough to shoot down an airliner with a stinger missle because he's a drunk lowlife thug. People like this wouldn't exist for a number of reasons.

Yikes.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos.

Hmmm...I read the FIRST Amendment and I do not see any mention of typewriters, high speed printing presses, keyboards or the internet.

Maybe the next time you want to post here, you'll get out your foolscap, quill and jar of ink. Then hand it off to the pony express rider and wait for Oleg to compile it with all the others, bind it and send it back to you in book form.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos. I also see where it says a well regulated militia...and there are many texts from the time period that state what they consider a "well regulated militia" and they never mention the right of an individual to casually carry a weapon. It says "militia"... when I was not on duty with the ARMY I did not get to wear my uniform or carry my weapon. I am guessing a well regulated militia would be much the same.

You've obviously been reading anti-gun propaganda. Read the Federalist Papers and the Debates.

In the Federalist Papers, the framers of the Constitution discuss what the new, proposed constitution means. They clearly state that all citizens are allowed to be armed -- "The people are confirmed in their right to be armed."

In the Debates, the various state legislatures debate the Constitution while voting on ratification.

"All the terrible implements of the soldier." -- Tehch Cox

"Liberty's teeth" -- George Washington.

 

[MrTwigg]

There is this little box on my aplication

I'm applying for a CCW here in Masaschusetts, and next to this little box are the words "License to possess a machine gun." Soooo tempting ! Soooo expensive !

They can be fun ! Back in the '70's I was in the Navy (Seabees). My company got the crew served weapons. I received some cross training on an M-60, and there's nothing like a little full auto therapy to make your day !

'Nuthin wrong with private citizens owning one !

My squad got to lug a 106 recoiless around, lucky me.

 

[jtward01]

I am not sure of my stance on full autos for the general public (myself included) but I do know I would probable like to own one...maybe take it to an outdoor range occasionally.

I understand where you're coming from, there are lots of weapons available today that I can't think of any logical reason to own, other than just fun shooting. Is that enough of a reason to balance the potential harm one bad person can do with one of these weapons? Yeah, I guess it is. I mean, where do you draw the line? I just bought an M1 carbine. Not powerful enough for deer hunting, not accurate enough for varmit hunting, too big for concealed carry. What's it good for besides shooting people? Not much, except for blasting neat stuff at the range, and that's why I bought it. If I can have that (30 rounds fast as I can pull the trigger) why not let someone else have an M16 if they want one? It's all a matter of degrees.

If it makes you feel any better, there's only been one homocide with a legally owned machine gun since they first started regulating them in the 1930s. In that case a police officer killed his wife with his department issued Thompson submachine gun. Your understandable concern of full auto weapons being used for mass killings just hasn't been born out by history.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I understand where you're coming from, there are lots of weapons available today that I can't think of any logical reason to own, other than just fun shooting. Is that enough of a reason to balance the potential harm one bad person can do with one of these weapons? Yeah, I guess it is. I mean, where do you draw the line? I just bought an M1 carbine. Not powerful enough for deer hunting, not accurate enough for varmit hunting, too big for concealed carry. What's it good for besides shooting people? Not much, except for blasting neat stuff at the range, and that's why I bought it. If I can have that (30 rounds fast as I can pull the trigger) why not let someone else have an M16 if they want one? It's all a matter of degrees.

If it makes you feel any better, there's only been one homocide with a legally owned machine gun since they first started regulating them in the 1930s. In that case a police officer killed his wife with his department issued Thompson submachine gun. Your understandable concern of full auto weapons being used for mass killings just hasn't been born out by history.

All good point. The one key thing you said is "since regulation" so if the regulations where taken away what would happen. Anyone's guess... All my experience with autos were in places like Panama, Iraq, etc...and lots of people were killed by them every day. That is where I base my "for killing people" opinion.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

You've obviously been reading anti-gun propaganda. Read the Federalist Papers and the Debates.

In the Federalist Papers, the framers of the Constitution discuss what the new, proposed constitution means. They clearly state that all citizens are allowed to be armed -- "The people are confirmed in their right to be armed."

In the Debates, the various state legislatures debate the Constitution while voting on ratification.

"All the terrible implements of the soldier." -- Tehch Cox

"Liberty's teeth" -- George Washington.

Thanks for the advice but I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making.
...

 

[silliman89]

I've never fired a fully automatic, or had any training regarding their use. I've read other people here on THR though who talked about the evils of spray and pray, and the virtues of aimed single shots. This makes sense to me, but I don't really know.

Although I think people should be able to own fully automatic weapons just for fun if they want to, I question whether they're really any more valuable in a SHTF situation. I'd like to hear from people with experience as to whether they'd rather have an auto or a semi-auto if there ever were a need to gather the militia and fight someone.

Just to be clear, I consider it a fantasy - and a dangerous fantasy at that - to think about fighting off the ATF if they come to your home to arrest you. So I'm not asking about crouching behind your wood stove and spraying a mob of feds in your front yard. I'm imagining a field engagement between two forces, such as might have occurred in 1776, 1812, or 1861.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

All good point. The one key thing you said is "since regulation" so if the regulations where taken away what would happen. Anyone's guess... All my experience with autos were in places like Panama, Iraq, etc...and lots of people were killed by them every day. That is where I base my "for killing people" opinion.

If guns cause murders, then spoons cause fat.