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.
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.
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...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.
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.
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.
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."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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?