NFA Weapons Requirment, Why?


RE: Silencers

Some of us already have hearing loss due to reasons other than firearms. We don't want to lose the rest.
As another added benefit to helping protect hearing for the shooters, silencers make gun ranges better neighbors.
 

Agreed. Some things were made for the sole purpose of destruction and were made to destroy things at a magnitude that no ordinary person needs access to. Machine guns fed with a belt do not belong in just any average Joe's hands, neither do bombs or grenades. I would love to own a machine gun, but I cant say I would like any other person out there to be owning one too.

Look at how hard it was for the Hollywood police to stop the bank robbers in the 90's with full auto Ak-47s. The police were outgunned, and unless you want your taxes to go up so we can provide our police with equal or stronger weaponry than belt fed machine guns, then you might not want the public to have access to them.

In regards to silencers, I dont see any legitimate need for them. The only people that would want to hide the fact that they are discharging a gun are people who are breaking the law. If any of us shoot our guns, we should have no reason to hide it because we should be acting in accordance with the law.

Im all for gun rights dont get me wrong, but machine guns, bombs, and silencers should have tougher restrictions. They are all meant for destroying things quickly and effectively, and we dont need those for self defense or for hunting. They would be fun, but not necessary.

Is this a serious post? Do you actually consider yourself a gun rights supporter? Or are you one of those guys who wants to sip cognac and look at his Silver Pigeon shotgun and those dead animal wall trophies?

I own a machine gun. In fact, I'll have two (!) soon. I know people with 30 of them. I've never killed anyone. I've had one speeding ticket in my life - my worst offense. I own four suppressors too. I haven't assassinated or killed anyone with them either. Have you ever heard a gun with a suppressor fired? You do realize it does NOT sound like an air gun, a la the movies? On average, they'll still be around 130dBs.

Machine guns are meant for suppression, not destroying things "quickly and effectively." Suppressors are designed to reduce noise, not eliminate it. My girlfriend will only shoot suppressed because it reduces the concussion and makes it far more comfortable for her.

Those guys in Hollywood? They modified those rifles illegally - not purchased at your local Uncle Clyde's gun shop. You know how many people they killed? NONE. You know how many people were murdered since 1934 with a legally owned machine gun? 1.

Then again, I guess I should come at it from that "self defense" point of view; you know, that rational, sane view where we don't have those "high capacity magazines" because you really only need 7 or 8 shots for self defense - if even that. Hell, you should only have a revolver I think. Six shots is plenty. Your shotguns should be maximum double barrel because when you hunt, you only NEED two shots.

It's not like the 2nd Amendment and a lot of other constitutional protections were designed to protect you from your government.

:unsure:
 
Is this a serious post? Do you actually consider yourself a gun rights supporter? Or are you one of those guys who wants to sip cognac and look at his Silver Pigeon shotgun and those dead animal wall trophies?

I own a machine gun. In fact, I'll have two (!) soon. I know people with 30 of them. I've never killed anyone. I've had one speeding ticket in my life - my worst offense. I own four suppressors too. I haven't assassinated or killed anyone with them either. Have you ever heard a gun with a suppressor fired? You do realize it does NOT sound like an air gun, a la the movies? On average, they'll still be around 130dBs.

Machine guns are meant for suppression, not destroying things "quickly and effectively." Suppressors are designed to reduce noise, not eliminate it. My girlfriend will only shoot suppressed because it reduces the concussion and makes it far more comfortable for her.

Those guys in Hollywood? They modified those rifles illegally - not purchased at your local Uncle Clyde's gun shop. You know how many people they killed? NONE. You know how many people were murdered since 1934 with a legally owned machine gun? 1.

Then again, I guess I should come at it from that "self defense" point of view; you know, that rational, sane view where we don't have those "high capacity magazines" because you really only need 7 or 8 shots for self defense - if even that. Hell, you should only have a revolver I think. Six shots is plenty. Your shotguns should be maximum double barrel because when you hunt, you only NEED two shots.

It's not like the 2nd Amendment and a lot of other constitutional protections were designed to protect you from your government.

:unsure:

There is indeed a certain irony in his statement because essentially he is stating what the anti gun people say about the "normal" guns we all own just for NFA items. Personally I don't feel I need any right now but I am not concerned about anybody else gettings some legally.
 
It really irks me when people say that they are for "gun rights" But they don't see why people need Suppressors or SBS/SBR, high capacity mags or that others should have the right to carry concealed. Get off the dang fence!
just my humble opinion
 
I agree with you in principle. However, any attempt to open the books on full auto will meet opposition from several fronts. First would be all of the anti-gun folk. You think they have issues with "assault rifles" wait until the term REALLY encompasses fully automatic weapons.
Second we would face opposition from owners of Class III weapons. The moment a law is passed to re-open the books on machine guns the value of their weopons will drop. If I owned an M-2 or an M-60, and saw its value plummet to 1/10 of its previous value, I would be very upset.

Some Class III dealers would likely oppose the law as well. Currently the market for Full Auto is relatively unknown. It is obvious from the current prices that there is some significant pent up demand, but how much? Would sales volume increase sufficiently to make up for the loss of revenue? Some would be willing to gamble yes, others likely not so much. Class III dealers with significant stocks of pre-'86 machine guns would stand to lose a good deal of capital as well.

Additionally, you would face significant legislative hurtles. No lawmaker wants to take the risk of opening the books on machine guns. Restricting them is easy. The victims of restriction are largely invisible. The moment some dumb bastard shoots up a school, church, convent, or shopping mall with a belt fed weapon, any lawmaker who signed off on a bill easing restrictions would face a difficult re-election cycle. We want lawmakers in office who would be likely to vote for this type of bill, but actually passing it could be a disaster that has the potential set back firearms rights. 2A fundamentalists may not like this line of reasoning but it is a political necessity.

Finally, without some significant back up from the courts prohibiting the legistature from passing further restrictions as a result of some potential future incident with automatic weapons, a repeal on restrictions would make no sense and could be very counter productive. The most gun freindly members of the supreme court, Scalia and Thomas are both on record as stating that restrictions on machine guns are a type of "reasonable" gun law that they would support. Until the environment in the courts change, easing these restrictions could be a disaster for gun rights.

Again I would like to emphasize that I do not like the pollitical reality that surronds this issue. I strongly support 2A rights and believe that it truly is the God given right of every person to be able to defend themselves by the best means available including automatic weapons. I believe the responsibility for criminal acts lies with the criminal and not the tool. I also believe that the govenment over steps its authority when it does such things. The firearms laws in this country are, for the most part , an infringement on the plain reading of the Constitution and those who passed them violated their oaths to support the same. However, I also understand that my views are likely to be in the minority and I must act as such.

So far I have seen some good sensible reply’s to my question. Then I have seen many that make no sense. Bottom line is simple, either you want your gun rights fully and are willing to work for that goal or you go at it like Doc, already defeated. We have basically won the first round for CCW access. There is no reason that the same could not be done with NFA items. As I stated here in Washington we already won a battle for NFA rights because we were willing to fight it. First steps have been accomplished in DC and many other places against draconian gun laws because gun owners in those locations took on the fight. Get the NRA and GOA to lead and changes can happen. It won't be overnight but it can be done. That has already been proven.
 
There is another point to keep in mind. Both sides of the isle are going for immigration reform. When that happens and it will, the so called Right will forever be neutered and will lose all power. Think what will happen to your gun rights when 80 percent of the Supreme Court is extreme left wing liberals. The rules that now are NFA will be mild compared what that single shot 22 will need for you to own it. When that time comes you will only have two choices, act like an original class American or be disarmed. Time grows short.
 
Just curious, what is your rationale for wanting to own full autos? Just because or anything specific? Not meaning to flame you here but they are not very practical for most applications.

Why should the corrupt out of control govt of the people, by the people, for the people want to be better armed than it's citizens?
 
1) Most of the tax protestors are sitting in prison, broke, after not filing. Started with Al Capone. It's over, so...get over it.
2) Full auto? OK. I have better things to spend my money on than at the rate of a 30 round clip at $15/minute. With all the costs going on, it is just insane.
Maybe if someone owns 20 acres in the middle of West Texas, but here in Dallas, I have to drive round-trip an hour plus. Pay for the range at $15 bucks
and even cheap .45 ammo is near forty cents/round in bulk. That's $100 for an hour of "fun". I love my guns, but do you all understand the political agenda
that is in play that is driving the cost structure up for no reason but to end the 2nd Amendment through taxation?
 
Just curious, what is your rationale for wanting to own full autos? Just because or anything specific? Not meaning to flame you here but they are not very practical for most applications.
The reason for wanting one is not relevant! The fact is in America we have the right to keep and bear arms. There is no place in the bill of rights that says EXCEPT FOR _______.. Also the MG's are expensive not because of the NFA act but from REGAN signing the 86 ban. It was supposed to outlaw all civilian ownership of mg's however due to the wording it ended up changing the law to no civilian may buy a mg made AFTER 1986. Thus all transferable mg's are pre 86 thus supply and de3mand and many mg's are in safes and are purely investments. Yes I own a few myself...
 
I would guess that the full auto market would remain relatively small. Even if the restriction is removed for new manufacture; these will always be relatively expensive to build, maintain, and feed with ammo. Probably less than 5% of the gun owner market would seriously consider owning; though probably 95% would love the oppertunity to squeze off a few bursts on a range at least once in their lifetime.
 
Mostly I would be interested in removing some of the restrictions on AOW; like smooth bore handguns, front grip on pistols, and caliber > .50. These could be fun to shoot with unique characteristics, and much more practical to own than full auto.
 
Once again if you accept any restrictions you open the door for total confiscation. Why don't people see the simplest of rules, give a little and lose a lot. They have already taken your money by force, can follow you online, watch you in any big city, track everything you do electronically and force you to register your right. What more will it take before people see what direction these laws are leading.
 
"There is none so blind as he who will not see."

It's simply this: If you admit that there is a problem then you have to feel somewhat responsible for fixing it. That of course is an action that is fraught with known and unknown dangers. It is much easier to remain in denial and hope someone else fixes it, or it goes away by itself, or delays for the duration of your lifetime. This is the same approach taken by Congress on a number of issues. It would seem as individuals we are prone to the same folly.
 
Just curious, what is your rationale for wanting to own full autos? Just because or anything specific? Not meaning to flame you here but they are not very practical for most applications.

Fun to shoot, collect and they are not making anymore pre 86s anymore
 
I would guess that the full auto market would remain relatively small. Even if the restriction is removed for new manufacture; these will always be relatively expensive to build, maintain, and feed with ammo. Probably less than 5% of the gun owner market would seriously consider owning; though probably 95% would love the oppertunity to squeze off a few bursts on a range at least once in their lifetime.

If there was NO NFA and you could buy a mg as easy as you could buy any other firearm lots more folks would buy mg's. They cost the same or only slightly more then a semi of the same ilk does. You can buy a brand NEW M16 for under a grand IF you have a SOT. They require no more maintenance then any other firearm. Feeding depends on caliber I have a 22lr for my m16 I shoot the hell out of. 19 bucks for 550 round at wally world. VS 400 for a 1000 round case of 5.56..


Maine M-16 CMMG Black dog Remingtom subs FA - YouTube 22 upper on my m16 fun and cheap..
 
The NFA has been challenged - and some laws were changed as a result of Miller vs US 1939. But we are still stuck with a majority of the original "stuff."

Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Justice Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Justice Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.[2]

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
TRUE "Constitutional Carry"...and I submit that ALL laws pertaining to the 2nd Amendment...is NOT just another law, which gives you "permission" to carry without a license. Same would be true of a Law that "Allowed" automatic weapons. Such a law can be repealed at any time should the winds of politics change! TRUE Constitutional Carry is the repeal and/or abolition of any and all existing laws which infringe upon...or even address...the Right recognized under the Second Amendment. Nothing less would suffice! And, P.S., the ATF...an unelected and random collection of control agents...falls nowhere under the Constitution in being able to use that control to infringe on Constitutionally guarantee Rights. One man's opinion.
 
The NFA has been challenged - and some laws were changed as a result of Miller vs US 1939. But we are still stuck with a majority of the original "stuff."

Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Justice Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Justice Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.[2]

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also, per 1857's Dred Scott v. Sandford: Young cites Dred Scott while observing that the early Supreme Court rarely exercised its power of judicial review of federal statutes. Yet Young neglects to mention that one of Chief Justice Taney's reasons for holding that free blacks were not citizens was that if they were, they would have the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went."
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,258
Members
74,964
Latest member
BFerguson
Back
Top