using machine guns as a point of leverage against antis in disguise.

[General Geoff]

Let me first state plainly: I am 100% in favour of completely deregulating all small arms, including machine guns, so that if you have the money, you could buy an M2HB at the local gun shop, cash & carry, no background checks, no paperwork. Many recent threads have highlighted the fact that there are many here who don't agree with this sentiment, despite it being the logical conclusion to a successful fight for a truly uninfringed right to keep and bear arms.


So anyway, my thinking is thus: we often talk about antis in disguise, those who argue that hunting rifles and shotguns are not at risk, and who are either in favour of or don't mind the concept of an assault weapons ban. We also talk about folks who don't like standard/high capacity magazines for whatever reason. I think just about everyone here will agree that anyone who advocates an AWB or a magazine capacity limit, is anti-gun. But how is that any different from those who would oppose those restrictions, but favour a machine gun ban? What makes machine guns so much more dangerous, that the average citizen cannot be trusted with them?

In summation, I think that during a civil discourse with someone who you may think is pro-gun, it would be prudent to touch on their opinion of machine guns. We always talk about how we must be proactive instead of reactive in the quest for gun rights, and right now, assault weapons seem to be the popular battleground. We are defending so-called assault weapons. I think we should be attacking the current mindset on machine guns instead. If the enemies of the 2nd amendment are too busy arguing with us over machine guns, at the very least, they won't have the luxury of squabbling over "just" semiautomatic assault weapons.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I don't think that's a good idea. Right now people see the NRA and the brady campaign fighting over "assault weapons". A lot of them are convinced you don't "need one" and they should be banned. Still, we say, "those aren't real assault rifles, real assault rifles are select-fire". Now, imagine the pro-gun crowd not only wants assault weapons, they want actual assault rifles and machine guns. How do you think most people will react?

But how is that any different from those who would oppose those restrictions, but favour a machine gun ban?

Because machine guns are already banned. They don't want any new restrictions and will fight any new restrictions.

 

[General Geoff]

They don't want any new restrictions and will fight any new restrictions.

So you're arguing that the status quo is good? I think it's bad, and we have a long battle uphill from where we are. We should convince others of this as well.


And for the record, while I do often distinguish between true assault rifles (select-fire) and so-called assault weapons during arguments, I also point out that crime with full auto weapons (legal or illegal) is practically nonexistent in this country, and has been since before the NFA.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I'm not arguing that, I'm saying why they aren't anti-gun.

Is the status quo bad? That depends on which state you live in.

 

[General Geoff]

I'm not arguing that, I'm saying why they aren't anti-gun.

I think they are, just less-so than the usual suspects.

Is the status quo bad?

Yes.

 

[Dragoneye9]

Dregulation

I would like to be able to buy fully automatic firearms, but have no real problem with them being "illegal" But I think if they become legal you should still have a background check. I'm not anti but the background checks do keep firearms out of the hands of some criminals becasue if the enter the gun shop and try to buy one there checked and rejected if that was taken away I could see how there would be more guns in the hands of criminals. Put simply...

Guns for law abiding citizens = good.

Guns for criminals = bad.

Just my .02

 

[General Geoff]

Remember that criminals are defined by (oft-ill-conceived) law.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I think they are, just less-so than the usual suspects.

I don't think so, because they oppose any new restrictions, and probably some that are already there.

Many recent threads have highlighted the fact that there are many here who don't agree with this sentiment, despite it being the logical conclusion to a successful fight for a truly uninfringed right to keep and bear arms.

Of course, if we want to take it a step further: Do you support giving free guns to prisoners? If not, you are anti-gun. How can we convince Ron Paul to stop being so anti-gun?

 

[General Geoff]

Do you support giving free guns to prisoners?

off-topic, but I actually would support that, so long as the prisons were abandoned, isolated islands, surrounded by icy waters and patrolled by PT boats.

Back on-topic, the fundamental rights of property and contract would be inhibited by giving free guns away to people, where others (involuntarily) pick up the cost. That is the definition of socialism.

 

[Walkalong]

The day we actually punish criminals will be the day. You know, actually take someone who misuses a gun to kill someone, drag em out back, shoot em, and bury em.......

Then we can completely deregulate things. Punishment of criminals has to go hand in hand with it of course, and the anti's are the same folks who won't punish criminals.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Well, if it's abandoned, it wouldn't be so bad. The supreme court would throw a fit though.

However, do you support letting prisoners in populated prisons have guns? If not, you are anti-gun, just not as anti-gun as some.

 

[General Geoff]

Prisoners have forfeitted their rights as a result of due process of law. Thus they have no right to keep and bear arms so long as they are imprisoned. If, however, they have served their time, and are deemed fit to be released back into society, they should have ALL their rights restored. If they can't be trusted with a gun, then they can't be trusted period.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Prisoners have forfeitted their rights as a result of due process of law.

I agree, however, you are supporting restrictions for gun ownership. That would make you according to the logic in the first post, anti-gun, just not as anti-gun as some others.

I'm just saying that declaring anyone who doesn't want felons running around with guns as anti-gun isn't good.

 

[General Geoff]

I agree, however, you are supporting restrictions for gun ownership.

It's not a restriction. The prisoner, in essence, entered a contract, voluntarily relinquishing his rights, as soon as he committed a crime against another person serious enough to be considered a felony.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Only becasue the laws and/or prison system make it that way. It is a restriction. A good one, although a restriction nonetheless.

So tell me, am I anti-gun because I don't think even released felons should be allowed to have guns? After all, they entered that contract.

 

[mljdeckard]

I agree, we have made some ground recently on the understanding that we are NOT trying to remove restrictions on 'machine guns'. It was a sticking point in Heller, that we acknowledged that there is a difference and we weren't trying to undo the regulation. I DO NOT want to toss recent gains under the bus for machine guns.

I will also differentiate a bit, because I have used this on antis more than once. I don't necessarily support the deregulation of all 'small arms'. I support the deregulation of all arms designed for use by individuals against individuals. In the context of the time The Constitution was written, weapons that were manned by a team were considered 'ordnance', not 'arms'. I would not necessarily therefore include crew-served weapons in the de-regulation.

 

[General Geoff]

It is a restriction.

Clauses in a contract are not restrictions of rights; they are voluntary (i.e. at said person's option).

So tell me, am I anti-gun because I don't think even released felons should be allowed to have guns? After all, they entered that contract.

Depends on why you think released felons shouldn't be afforded all their rights back. If it's because you know that the penal system does not rehabilitate them, then I'd say "no." If it's because you think felons should carry additional burdens of punishment beyond that of the judicial system proper, I'd say "perhaps."

I would not necessarily therefore include crew-served weapons in the de-regulation.

Most (non-automatic) crew-served weapons are already legal to own. That's irrelevant to this discussion anyway.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

And I'm assuming you'd also be for restricting nukes? Those are more likely to cause tyranny than fight them, because a relatively small group could use them to overthrow a government of, for, and by the people.

What I'm trying to say is that's it's bad to lable anyone who supposts any restrictions as antigun.

 

[General Geoff]

And I'm assuming you'd also be for restricting nukes?

I'm fairly confident that anyone capable of and motivated enough to purchase or construct a nuclear weapon, would not be deterred by laws anyway.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

To purchase wouldn't be that difficult if they are legalised and can be sold.

To actually construct them is quite difficult however, you pretty much need a government.

 

[General Geoff]

True enough, the laws of supply and demand would overcome the current prohibitive cost of such a device.

Nuclear weapons are actually pretty dangerous, though, to the point where someone not familiar with their required maintenence could pose a risk to others. So in that sense, some regulation and acknowledgment of at least competence would be prudent for ownership of such a thing. Same would probably go for other large explosive or incendiary devices, as they can pose a significant danger to others if not maintained properly. But I digress. This discussion is not about crew served weapons. It is about machine guns and other small arms.

 

[yokel]

What makes machine guns so much more dangerous, that the average citizen cannot be trusted with them?

If one can be trusted with a semi-auto AR or AK then of course a selective fire version ought not be verboten.

To suggest otherwise is just downright silly, baseless and wrongheaded in my estimation.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Well, then you support some restrictions. Are you anti-gun (although I guess those aren't really guns)? Of course not.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

I skimmed this thread, in summary,

We are screwed, if we cant agree on a single point what chance have we got?

Find something anything (machine guns) and lets all work on it, then go to the next objective.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

if we cant agree on a single point what chance have we got?

We can agree on fighting the AWB. And probably on reforming the really bad states.