Would you trade easy purchase of "assault weapons" for new machineguns?

[Beren]

Suppose, next session, that Congress was poised to pass legislation which would open the NFA registry to new machineguns. Prices would drop through the floor - you could, after leaping through the proper paperwork and assuming your state allows it, own your own M-16 for $1,000 or convert your existing AR.

But an amendment was attached to the bill. "Assault weapons" as defined in the Clinton AWB would also become NFA items, and if you want a threaded barrel on your semiauto AR, you would need to go through the same hoops you would today to manufacture a Short Barrel Rifle.

Post-ban "Large Capacity Magazines" would only be legal to use with registered firearms. You wouldn't pay a $200 tax for each magazine; if the firearm was NFA registered you could have as many LCM's with it as you wanted.

Naturally, since machineguns are already NFA items, you wouldn't need to do anything extra to attach a flash suppressor to them, or other 'restricted' features.

Would you consider it a fair trade? Would you write your Congressional delegation and tell them you want them to pass the bill despite the amendment?

 

[Mulliga]

Far more people have "pre-bans" than MGs. I would never, as a gun owner, ask those people to register their guns.

Blech. I'd rather just scrap the entire NFA - and the GCA, and the '89 ban, and the Brady Act...

Us absolutists have it tough.

 

[madcowburger]

No. I can get by pretty well without full-auto fire most of the time. I never was too crazy about it. *Semiautomatic* fire would be hard to live without, though. I personally would rather have a semiautomatic Springfield Armory MIA or a .308 Galil, or even an AR-15 than a fully automatic MP5.

I'm tired of "deals" and "compromises." I want my free country back, period. I'm not as patient as I used to be either. I don't have as much time left. I mean life is too short, and I'm too old, to go on waiting for some far-off Day of Jubilee.

MCB

 

[Pilgrim]

Judging from all the "What does the AWB expiration mean?" questions that are flying about on this forum, can you imagine what would happen if all the semi-autos became NFA items?

Agent Smuckatelli would have a ball rounding us up.

Pilgrim

 

[Monkeyleg]

Absolutely not. The whole process of getting Form 4's signed has become a nightmare in some parts of the country. And that's just for 400,000 to 500,000 legal full-autos.

Imagine if any sheriff in the country could just say "no" on semiautos, and force you to take him to court.

 

[Foreign Devil]

You might be a gun nut if you've ever asked yourself this question.

And no, because they would eventually ban registered weapons.

 

[Geech]

No, I don't think full-auto is really important enough for the extra waiting, hassle and cost associated with NFA firearms.

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

No. That would be worse.

It would be nice if a law is passed that removes 2/3/5 round burst mechanisms from the definition of fully automatic and from the NFA, as well as sound suppressors. (just dreaming....)

 

[nhhillbilly]

Never give up anything!!!!!!!! Would like to see New Full Auto's available.

 

[artherd]

I should be able to buy an M-16 at K-mart, thanks.

"shal not be infringed" dosen't sound like 30,000 laws concerning their prohabition, does it?

 

[Marko Kloos]

That's like asking whether you'd trade free speech for freedom of religion.

No legislator has the right to propose such a trade, because no legislator has the moral authority to deny anyone a constitutional right...no matter how many black-robed super-lawyers say otherwise.

 

[Delmar]

why do we have to choose?

 

[Justin]

Beren, the following comment is not aimed at you, but at society as a whole.

Absolutely not.

I find it despicable that so often we're forced into making a choice in what should be an obvious false dichotomy. This 'greatest good' social utilitarianism crap has got to go. I find it offensive that as a society we are often cajoled and coerced into making decisions like this when it should be blatantly obvious to anyone with more than two synapses to rub together that both choices are destructive to the ends of freedom, and that choosing the lesser of two evils doesn't equal good.


</rant off>

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I might consider it if......

1. The CLEO requirement is removed.

and

2. The Federal law would supersede ALL STATE AND LOCAL LAWS regarding the ownership and use of NFA weapons.

But I am currently against any compromise with the antis.

 

[Art Eatman]

Only unrelenting pressure and the fear of not being re-elected got the sunset provision to hold.

Always remember that creeping incrementalism made our lives miserable. Only our own unending efforts via creeping incrementalism will get our rights back.

The next steps include getting rid of the weird rules about imports and suchlike. Get rid of the "sporting firearms" BS.

After that, we fight our way back to nothing more in anti-gun laws than what was enacted in 1968.

And then...

Art

 

[Kamicosmos]

Then why not just make handguns and shotguns NFA too? Make it a lot easier on the gov't to keep track of all the guns that way. Revenue Generating for them also.


Big. Fat. Nope.