Your opinion on full auto firearms
- Thread starter desert_fox
- Start date
- Status
I think the mandatory prison sentences for committing a crime with a suppressor or mg should be removed as well. Why does using an mg or suppressor make the crime worthy of more time?
I would like to get a full auto pistol for carry if 922(o) is removed, but I'd still be worried about the mandatory prison sentence. I mean, what if some yahoo jury convicts you of manslaughter or something in a self-defense situation. You get 2 years or so in your state but WHOOPS another 40 (or whatever... I forgot the number but it's alot) in federal....
I would like to get a full auto pistol for carry if 922(o) is removed, but I'd still be worried about the mandatory prison sentence. I mean, what if some yahoo jury convicts you of manslaughter or something in a self-defense situation. You get 2 years or so in your state but WHOOPS another 40 (or whatever... I forgot the number but it's alot) in federal....
MudPuppy
Member
First, that same argument goes for your AR--too much possiblity of misuse. How about this, no more ARs can be sold into private hands, the only ones available are the ones in the system.
Second, it's not the restrictions on getting one, its the fact that the limited supply drives the prices through the roof.
Third, you simply can't get "modern" FA firearms, like FN2000s or P90s.
There is NO reason not to allow current mfg FA's to be sold (within the current system). Look up how many times a legal FA has been used in a crime.
wjustinen
Member
No.
Regulating or restricting access to things can only be justified if a specific problem is identified and the regs are directed specifically at that problem. The regs must also be demonstrably effective in dealing with the problem.
Firearms regulation meets none of these criteria.
Of course, the above totally ignores the fact that the second ammendment forbids such infringement.
Regulating or restricting access to things can only be justified if a specific problem is identified and the regs are directed specifically at that problem. The regs must also be demonstrably effective in dealing with the problem.
Firearms regulation meets none of these criteria.
Of course, the above totally ignores the fact that the second ammendment forbids such infringement.
Why should a select fire weapon be so expensive most of us working people can't afford one? Am I not among the anointed?
Possibility of misuse? Fudgesicles! What the hay kind of argument is that?
I don't think anyone should be able to buy a car without paying ten times what it actually costs, too much possibility of misuse.
I mean... seriously, I hope you are being sarcastic, because your second to last statement is self contradicting.
Tom Servo
Member
Correia wrote:
I'm against any regulation of the 2A. The NFA and 1986 bans bamboozled the public into buying a mythical categorization of some guns as "bad," and others as "not so bad." The Federal gov't (who have NO place deciding such things) told us we could own the "not so bad" guns if we're willing to jump through a few hoops, but the "bad" ones are artificially reserved for the rich (how many of us can really AFFORD an auto if we wanted to?), and for the gov't itself.
Jeez, I just want a *$%# suppressor (NOT "silencer") so I don't go deaf shooting 11k rounds/year, but no way am I getting printed and photographed so my name can end up in a red-flagged file somewhere.
I don't care for machineguns myself, but we're supposed to have access to them. Madison wrote (Federalist Papers, #36 or 46--I forget) that the citizenry are supposed to have equivalent arms to the army. That means full-auto and .50 cal, as well as sound baffles and short-barreled shotguns.
The problem is that the American public is willing to blindly accept the categorization of weapons into "bad" and "not so bad" columns.
How many police officers have died from machinegun fire in the last fifty years? [Insert crickets chirping]
Five days?!? But I'm angry NOW!
I'm against any regulation of the 2A. The NFA and 1986 bans bamboozled the public into buying a mythical categorization of some guns as "bad," and others as "not so bad." The Federal gov't (who have NO place deciding such things) told us we could own the "not so bad" guns if we're willing to jump through a few hoops, but the "bad" ones are artificially reserved for the rich (how many of us can really AFFORD an auto if we wanted to?), and for the gov't itself.
Jeez, I just want a *$%# suppressor (NOT "silencer") so I don't go deaf shooting 11k rounds/year, but no way am I getting printed and photographed so my name can end up in a red-flagged file somewhere.
I don't care for machineguns myself, but we're supposed to have access to them. Madison wrote (Federalist Papers, #36 or 46--I forget) that the citizenry are supposed to have equivalent arms to the army. That means full-auto and .50 cal, as well as sound baffles and short-barreled shotguns.
The problem is that the American public is willing to blindly accept the categorization of weapons into "bad" and "not so bad" columns.
How many police officers have died from machinegun fire in the last fifty years? [Insert crickets chirping]
Feanaro
Member
They aren't as much fun as the really good stuff, yer 155mms and 16 pounders, but that's relative. Some of the best fun that can be had with yer clothes on. Obviously they should be sold through vending machines at every Wal-Mart.
Geronimo45
Member
If FA suddenly became as easy to get as the typical handgun or rifle, I think we'd see some very interesting NDs. While twirling a gun around the finger, you might touch off an entire magazine. And the people holstering a machine pistol with a finger on the trigger... ouch.
Heh. Well I wouldn't carry a machine pistol on full auto, it would be set to semi (or maybe 3rnd burst)... It would just be nice to have the option of full auto...
My opinion is if FA was unregulated, that companies would charge more for full auto, even though it costs nothing more to make, just because it's 'special', so you wouldn't have as many people buying full auto as you'd think.
My opinion is if FA was unregulated, that companies would charge more for full auto, even though it costs nothing more to make, just because it's 'special', so you wouldn't have as many people buying full auto as you'd think.
i got into this argument with my buddy tonight. i made the argument that we should have whatever the military should have. he told me the military didnt have any standard issue auto's or selective fire so we shouldnt either. i told him i highly doubt the military has no standard issue autos, but that it was irrelevant anyway whether they are "standard issue" or not, the point is that they have them.
so my question is: what, if any, auto or selective fire weapons are standard issue for any branch of the military?
so my question is: what, if any, auto or selective fire weapons are standard issue for any branch of the military?
yesit'sloaded
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,662
I am relatively ignorant on this topic and I have a question. If prices are up so high because of the pre 86 rule, is there any way you can legally make a machine gun, assuming you can own in it the first place. I ask this because I know there isn't much of a hassle with making you own kit gun as long as you don't start selling them to others.
ConfuseUs
Member
I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be available to anyone legally able to purchase firearms. The myriad gun laws in place either fail to prevent criminals from acquiring firearms or do nothing to prevent someone bent on breaking the law with a firearm from doing so.
Eliminating the NFA and '86 ban restrictions will affect the criminal gun markets by adding a new type of weapon. Overall I doubt that the number of crimes committed with guns will change that much though.
Eliminating the NFA and '86 ban restrictions will affect the criminal gun markets by adding a new type of weapon. Overall I doubt that the number of crimes committed with guns will change that much though.
cpttango30
Member
This is just another one of them feel good laws that we have had for so long that everyone just acecepts it as it is. The price of a full auto firearm will keep it out of many peoples hands. I have seen Thompsons going for $10,000 just the gun and one 30rd mag. Some of them full autos go for $30,000+ them to top that off if you get something in say 308 (7.62NATO) at around $200 for 500 rounds and an M60 at 550 rmp that is over $1200 an hour to feed that bad boy. plus all that ammo is not linked and you have to either pay more money for linked ammo or buy a maching to do it for you or do it all by hand.
I think cost alone offers enough control over full autos.
I think cost alone offers enough control over full autos.
joab
Member
But that cost is the result of the restrictions
In my day full auto was not that much more expensive than nuetered
In my day full auto was not that much more expensive than nuetered
1911 guy
Member
No extra restriction
I think that if you're legal to own a single shot .22, you should be legal to own anything up to and including crew served weapons. And no, I'm not really kidding.
The demand for FA has kept values a bit above semi-autos since GCA1934. They only got outrageous since 1986. In all that time, only one crime has been commited with a legal (non-basement converted) automatic weapon. That was by a police officer, incidentally. So tell me again, Mrs Brady, how we can't be trusted?
I think that if you're legal to own a single shot .22, you should be legal to own anything up to and including crew served weapons. And no, I'm not really kidding.
The demand for FA has kept values a bit above semi-autos since GCA1934. They only got outrageous since 1986. In all that time, only one crime has been commited with a legal (non-basement converted) automatic weapon. That was by a police officer, incidentally. So tell me again, Mrs Brady, how we can't be trusted?
My opinion? I don't like them. That's not from a rights perspective, but the one time I had an opportuniy to fire full auto I discovered I preferred the feeling on control with semi auto. Seems a lot more expensive on ammo too.
wait... your talking about rights. I see no reason why people should not legally be able to have full auto firearms given that criminals can and will aquire such devices ILLEGALLY.
In addition, if you take the militia viewpoint of the 2nd, and recognize (as it is written in most places) that anyone armed and willing to defend the country is a member of the militia, then full auto should be ENOCURAGED for private citizens.
wait... your talking about rights. I see no reason why people should not legally be able to have full auto firearms given that criminals can and will aquire such devices ILLEGALLY.
In addition, if you take the militia viewpoint of the 2nd, and recognize (as it is written in most places) that anyone armed and willing to defend the country is a member of the militia, then full auto should be ENOCURAGED for private citizens.
Docgmt
Member
The second fire arm I ever shot was a Thompson MG FA at age 8 and I would love to have one. If I qualify for a CCP ( I'll give them that much ) there should be no reason to restrict my 2A rights. The problem with compromising any personal rights with the today's government is that tomorrows gov. with not abide by the same rules.
JLelli
Member
I am not in the military, but it is my understanding that the standard-issue infantry rifle for the Army, the M16A4, does not have a true full-auto setting, but has instead a setting for a three-round burst. This still qualifies it as a machine gun under federal law, though, because it can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger. It is also my understanding, however, that the M4A1 carbine is becoming increasing popular as a replacement for the M16A4, and that does have a true full-auto setting. Also, most squads have at least one guy carrying an M249 SAW, which is a true belt-fed machine gun and is obviously full-auto.
If anybody notices any inaccuracies in the above, feel free to correct me.
MisterPX
Member
M16's and M4's are both standard issue, and both are select fire.
Select fire=Full auto (in 49 states anyhow)
Burst IS select fire, AKA machine gun. It's just a mechanical limiter to replace training and discipline.
Select fire=Full auto (in 49 states anyhow
)Burst IS select fire, AKA machine gun. It's just a mechanical limiter to replace training and discipline.
Dr. Peter Venkman
Member
Correia said:
There is actually a mandatory 1,000 year cool down period at your initial target before your Range Master can call a ceasfire and let you see your grouping.
Fosbery
Member
Do they really make those?
Cacique500
Member
I have a F/A full size Uzi. The "red tape" was minimal - took maybe an hour to get all the paperwork assembled (my FFL did most of it for me), another 30 minutes for the fingerprints, and 10 minutes for a couple of passport photos. My transfer went through in 27 days mailbox to mailbox.
The biggest hurdle is the cost...expensive to buy due to the limited amount of transferables (only around 275,000 in the U.S.) and with rising ammo prices very expensive to shoot. Fortunately I got a .22 conversion for it and that's a lot more economical.
To the OP's question: If you can legally buy a regular firearm you should be able to purchase any modern FA.
If it came down to a SHTF scenerio, the Uzi would not be my go to gun.
I'd much rather have the ability to take out bad guys from a distance than to have to rely on a 100-150 yard SMG.
SoCalShooter
Member
If it were up to me we would all be able to by a 155mm howitzer without a waiting period.
Didn't vote, I'm in between the first two though.
I think every law-abiding citizen should own arms and be trained in their use as part of their duty to the community and society in general.
I think every able bodied person should be allowed to keep a machine gun at home, no strings attached, no taxes, to registry, etc. And bear it should the need arise.
Home invasions would cease. Would you break into a home knowing there's a guy with a machine gun inside?
I think every woman should carry a handgun. Everywhere. On a plane, on a train, on a bus, in a car, in a bar, on the street, at church, in school, at work, at home, at play.
I would own a MG (if not more than one) if it weren't for the ban (i.e. price) and the "list." And if it weren't for the ban, I would probably put up with being on the "list."
I think every law-abiding citizen should own arms and be trained in their use as part of their duty to the community and society in general.
I think every able bodied person should be allowed to keep a machine gun at home, no strings attached, no taxes, to registry, etc. And bear it should the need arise.
Home invasions would cease. Would you break into a home knowing there's a guy with a machine gun inside?
I think every woman should carry a handgun. Everywhere. On a plane, on a train, on a bus, in a car, in a bar, on the street, at church, in school, at work, at home, at play.
I would own a MG (if not more than one) if it weren't for the ban (i.e. price) and the "list." And if it weren't for the ban, I would probably put up with being on the "list."
- Status
