Ownership of Full Auto weapons for civilians: My objective quandary.

Freedom1Man · Jun 10, 2012

Jack House said:
I don't need no justification for exercising my right to arms.

Best response so far. +3

DrakeZ07 · Jun 11, 2012

I have a friend in Ohio who owns an NFA M16. He often invites me up there to play with it on his personal range. Amusingly enough, he always re-counts how he got his NFA application approved; mentioning his reason for applying, when asked by his town's Sheriff, a person my friend claims to never have spoke to before, he told the LEO "because I can". The Sheriff thought it funny enough, that he signed off on the form.

Jack's response is the best response regarding NFA items, and because I can, if it works for a buck-eye, has to work for us

Miss Black Rifle Disease said:
For anyone that has not actually fired an F/A weapon these are valuable words and something to consider.

I once read on someone's T-shirt, a few years back, that "Happiness is a belt-fed weapon". It wasn't until last April, when I had the pleasure, and patience to wait in line at the lower range in knob creek, and paying the price, to fire the F/A M60 for two 100rnd belts, then the PKM for a 100rnd belt; that I realized... Happiness isn't just a belt-fed weapon, but a full auto one at that. Though off topic, despite always loving the M60 in various First-person-shooters on the PC, I have to say, the PKM pwns the M60...

paramedic70002 said:
*snip snip*I'm torn on unrestricted FA. The Libertarian in me says Heck Yeah, and let the free market determine the price. My prudence says gangbangers and terrorists should have a couple walls between themselves and FA. My primary reason for thinking this is that criminals could deploy FA weapons against even a heavily populated CCW crowd with police presence and still hold a strategic advantage, and the police would have that much more incentive to militarize.*snip-a-lou~*

I feel much the same way as you, on that note, but a thought provoking idea, would be to try to compare free and open ownership of F/A items, with the 1st Amendment. As you state, the Libertarian in you agree's on unrestricted F/A, but your other part wants to keep walls up for 'terrorists' and 'gang-bangers'. Well, We can't exactly have both things, in our world, no matter how we wish and try, human rights are clear and black and white, either you have something fully free, or nothing at all. Like, either you have the right to free speech, or not speech at all. The KKK often abuses free speech, and the NAACP, and other radical groups, but because of them, should Free speech be restricted to us?

I think I made that sound okay, I dunno, it all sounded better in my flu-infected mind xD

PistolPackingMomma · Jun 11, 2012

Tess said:
I don't really see it as an issue of need, and I certainly don't want the government determining I can only have what I need.

Jack House said:
I don't need no justification for exercising my right to arms.

+2!!!

Miss Black Rifle Disease · Jun 13, 2012

When talking about this subject we often speak of rights. We of course always fall back on the Constitution to defend our position. But just for the sake of discussion, I have to ask myself if when these wise men that founded this nation and wrote that magnificent document had lived during a time where the range of weaponry that is available today with all of it's destructive firepower been available, would they have envisioned an unrestricted "right to bear arms"? Say what you want, but I'm not so sure. Remember, when the Constitution was drafted firearms were more or less only of one variety, that being single shot flint lock weapons. They didn't even have cartridge firing rifles yet let alone semi-automatic handguns or select fire weapons. If all that existed in 1791 would it have changed the language of the 2nd Amendment? Personally I suspect it would have, though how I can only speculate on. I just don't except that the founding fathers of this nation ever would have envisioned just how good we would get at killing each other.

Also the Constitution is amendable. That is the genius of this document. It can be adjusted for the times as it was meant to do just that. So always falling back on the 2A argument for the singular justification to own weapons that have no real use outside of military and law enforcement application isn't enough in my mind. I want one yes, for the "just in case the world goes all Mad Max on us." reason. But part of me will always wonder if "just because I can" is really a valid position.

That being said - I AM NOT SAYING CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS TO THE 2A SHOULD BE MADE!!
I am not condoning the alteration of the 2a to restrict select fire weapons.
I DO NOT believe that should be done..

I emphasized that three times for the haters so they didn't dissect my post out of context and bombard me with "in the bubble posts". I am only mentioning what I have stated for the sake of the philosophical debate/discussion.

Xulld · Jun 13, 2012

Remember, when the Constitution was drafted firearms were more or less only of one variety, that being single shot flint lock weapons.

I disagree. A lot of conversation was had as to the verbiage of the second amendment, and why the word arms was used vs other words which could have been used. Multi-barrel firearms were a technology of the time, as where cannons, as were many other implements of war, and yet they did not frame the amendment with any of these distinctions. I feel it was for a very good reason.

I feel that they would have had a keen understanding of how technology advances, and setting up any distinction that allows a government to control its population by restricting legal access to armament on the basis of technological advancement was not something they felt was good for rational governance.

Over the course of the war of independence alone many technological advancements where made, and no such distinction was laid out despite these facts.

Jack House · Jun 13, 2012

So realize one of the primary motivators for the 2A was the ability to defend the nation from hostile militaries, be they foreign or domestic. I very seriously doubt that the 2A would have been phrased any differently today than it was then.

Do note that I said hostile and not enemy. I did so for a reason which should be self-evident.

Sig229 · Jun 13, 2012

if you have the money and the patience for all of the BATF red tape, full auto firearms is really on the low end of what one can buy.

Ever hear of a "Destructive Device" ?

Miss Black Rifle Disease · Jun 13, 2012

Jack House said:
So realize one of the primary motivators for the 2A was the ability to defend the nation from hostile militaries, be they foreign or domestic. I very seriously doubt that the 2A would have been phrased any differently today than it was then.

Do note that I said hostile and not enemy. I did so for a reason which should be self-evident.

I certainly respect and appreciate that aspect of the 2A. In fact I'll go as far as to state that I personally believe that is it every American's responsibility to own a firearm and be trained in it's proficient use. But, for example, a semi-auto AR-15 in the hands of someone that can use it well is a far more potent and flexible weapon than a select fire rifle. Area denial isn't exactly taught in a firearms safety class. Or did I miss something in High School, LOL?

10 amateurs with 10 select fire rifles vs 10 professionals with semi-automatic rifles...who wins? My money won't be on the nOObs. High rate of fire is useless without training. Single shot or semi-auto weapons can become effective in a novice's hands with very little instruction. An F/A rifle in the hands of you average John Q. Public is just an ammo waster and likely as big a threat as a friendly fire source as enemy ordinance.

Jack House · Jun 13, 2012

That's your opinion and you're absolutely entitled to it. However, that's hardly adequate justification for restricting a right.

Sig229 · Jun 13, 2012

Miss Black Rifle Disease said:
10 amateurs with 10 select fire rifles vs 10 professionals with semi-automatic rifles...who wins? My money won't be on the nOObs. High rate of fire is useless without training. Single shot or semi-auto weapons can become effective in a novice's hands with very little instruction. An F/A rifle in the hands of you average John Q. Public is just an ammo waster and likely as big a threat as a friendly fire source as enemy ordinance.

Actually FA fire is more useful at close range.

So, I would take the 10 noobs with FA if the enemy was closing in but would take 10 well trained folks with semi-auto if the enemy is further away.

Miss Black Rifle Disease · Jun 14, 2012

Jack House said:
That's your opinion and you're absolutely entitled to it. However, that's hardly adequate justification for restricting a right.

I agree with you..Did I ever suggest restricting this right? This is a philosophical debate only. I'm trying to avoid 2A aspects here and am looking for rational argument beyond the "just because I can" approach. I have some thoughts in my own mind but am open to new ways of thinking. Just falling back on the 2A doesn't meet my criteria for the purposes of this discussion. We can cite constitutional law all day and get nowhere or we can really dig into this topic introspectively.

Miss Black Rifle Disease · Jun 14, 2012

Sig229 said:
Actually FA fire is more useful at close range.

So, I would take the 10 noobs with FA if the enemy was closing in but would take 10 well trained folks with semi-auto if the enemy is further away.

Except for the fact that 10 experts wouldn't let 10 novices get close enough to them for that F/A fire to be effective...

paramedic70002 · Jun 14, 2012

Miss Black Rifle Disease said:
When talking about this subject we often speak of rights. We of course always fall back on the Constitution to defend our position. But just for the sake of discussion, I have to ask myself if when these wise men that founded this nation and wrote that magnificent document had lived during a time where the range of weaponry that is available today with all of it's destructive firepower been available, would they have envisioned an unrestricted "right to bear arms"? Say what you want, but I'm not so sure. Remember, when the Constitution was drafted firearms were more or less only of one variety, that being single shot flint lock weapons. They didn't even have cartridge firing rifles yet let alone semi-automatic handguns or select fire weapons. If all that existed in 1791 would it have changed the language of the 2nd Amendment? Personally I suspect it would have, though how I can only speculate on. I just don't except that the founding fathers of this nation ever would have envisioned just how good we would get at killing each other.

Also the Constitution is amendable. That is the genius of this document. It can be adjusted for the times as it was meant to do just that. So always falling back on the 2A argument for the singular justification to own weapons that have no real use outside of military and law enforcement application isn't enough in my mind. I want one yes, for the "just in case the world goes all Mad Max on us." reason. But part of me will always wonder if "just because I can" is really a valid position.

That being said - I AM NOT SAYING CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS TO THE 2A SHOULD BE MADE!!
I am not condoning the alteration of the 2a to restrict select fire weapons.
I DO NOT believe that should be done..

I emphasized that three times for the haters so they didn't dissect my post out of context and bombard me with "in the bubble posts". I am only mentioning what I have stated for the sake of the philosophical debate/discussion.

Another to disagree. When the Constitution was written, getting shot meant most likely dying if not losing a limb. Armies lined up against one another and fired in ranks to destroy their opponent. Further fighting meant vicious hand-to-hand combat. Modern trauma medicine didn't exist. The Founders knew full well the destructive power of arms in war. Advances in weaponry have only refined the carnage that has always existed.

Freedom1Man · Jun 14, 2012

paramedic70002 said:
Another to disagree. When the Constitution was written, getting shot meant most likely dying if not losing a limb. Armies lined up against one another and fired in ranks to destroy their opponent. Further fighting meant vicious hand-to-hand combat. Modern trauma medicine didn't exist. The Founders knew full well the destructive power of arms in war. Advances in weaponry have only refined the carnage that has always existed.

That was explained very well.

Miss Black Rifle Disease · Jun 14, 2012

paramedic70002 said:
Another to disagree. When the Constitution was written, getting shot meant most likely dying if not losing a limb. Armies lined up against one another and fired in ranks to destroy their opponent. Further fighting meant vicious hand-to-hand combat. Modern trauma medicine didn't exist. The Founders knew full well the destructive power of arms in war. Advances in weaponry have only refined the carnage that has always existed.

Fair enough, but then where is the limit? Because if one wants to completely disregard any limitation to the 2A then according to such a stance a civilian should be able to own a 300 kiloton tactical nuclear warhead. Do you now see where I'm going with this discussion? I of course don't think my example above is what you had in mind. But what it demonstrates is that from a scale starting with a single shot small caliber handgun moving all the way up through the spectrum of "arms" in existence today to nuclear weapons at some point "right to bear arms" should no longer apply.

So where is it on that scale? A Phalanx point defense system? A Tomahawk cruise missile? Crew served machine guns? Full Auto rifles? I don't know..do you? Because if the 2A makes all arms a right then I want to be able to buy a B2 stealth bomber if I was rich enough to own one...

I'm trying to get people to think critically here and not just stay glued to the basic "it's my right" stance. In one regard rights need no justification, but in others..maybe they do. Just because the founding fathers did the groundwork and laid out the justification behind the original Bill of Rights does not alleviate our responsibility as a nation to continuously re-examine that document to make additions and deletions according to the times. Once again, I'm not in favor of or suggesting that gun toting law abiding America should tell legislators "Hey! F/A weapons are too dangerous for the public!". I'm just seeking some form of reasoning behind the right as it is today.

lrsmithwhaley · Jun 14, 2012

They already have them. When I lived on the west side of Chicago doing volunteer work, gangbangers were riding around with FA AK-47's on a daily basis. In fact there was a shooting just blocks from my house where a former gang leader was set up, and assassinated by a couple of guys with FA firearms. His only reason for being in the neighborhood was because he set up a meeting with the new leadership to negotiate them not messing with his family anymore.

paramedic70002 said:
The "political candidate" is a moron.

1. Your question was not about the military.
2. Most military arms are NOT full auto. Three round burst but not FA. (or so I've been led to believe)
3. Does he think the military GIVES you a FA weapon as a parting gift?
4. Many Colonial Americans had a weapon identical to the military. Heck many brought their own to the fight.

I'm torn on unrestricted FA. The Libertarian in me says Heck Yeah, and let the free market determine the price. My prudence says gangbangers and terrorists should have a couple walls between themselves and FA. My primary reason for thinking this is that criminals could deploy FA weapons against even a heavily populated CCW crowd with police presence and still hold a strategic advantage, and the police would have that much more incentive to militarize.

I think a proper solution would be to alter the existing registration procedure for FA weapons to make it more user friendly, while maintaining accountability. Further restoration of FA freedom could be implemented in stages as long as there are no systemic problems.

zack991 · Jun 14, 2012

Sig229 said:
if you have the money and the patience for all of the BATF red tape, full auto firearms is really on the low end of what one can buy.

Ever hear of a "Destructive Device" ?

Did you a potato gun can be considered a Destructive device and may have to registered as such as a device? It requires registration as a destructive device if the gun works by the force of an explosion (ie, propane, natural gas, etc.). Compressed air guns fall outside the purview of the NFA. In addition, if it loads through the muzzle, it is an "antique firearm" that falls outside of the NFA (in the same way that a cannon would).
They've removed it now, but they used to have the following guidelines for spud guns in their FAQ:

ATF has previously examined "potato guns" or "spud guns" as described above and has generally determined that such devices using potatoes as projectiles and used solely for recreational purposes are not weapons and do not meet the definition of "firearm" or "destructive device" in either the NFA or GCA. However, ATF has classified such devices as "firearms" and "destructive devices" if their design, construction, ammunition, actual use, or intended use indicate that they are weapons. For example, ATF has classified such devices as "firearms" and "destructive devices" if they are designed and used to expel flaming tennis balls.

Possession and use of "potato guns" or "spud guns" may be restricted under State laws and local ordinances. Further, any person intending to make, use, or transfer any such device must be aware that they have a potential for causing serious injury or damage.

Xulld · Jun 14, 2012

Miss Black Rifle Disease said:
I certainly respect and appreciate that aspect of the 2A. In fact I'll go as far as to state that I personally believe that is it every American's responsibility to own a firearm and be trained in it's proficient use. But, for example, a semi-auto AR-15 in the hands of someone that can use it well is a far more potent and flexible weapon than a select fire rifle.

This statement makes no sense. Given more options you get more flexibility. It is an added capability. Select fire includes semi automatic fire.

Miss Black Rifle Disease · Jun 14, 2012

Xulld said:
This statement makes no sense. Given more options you get more flexibility. It is an added capability. Select fire includes semi automatic fire.

Meant to say Full Auto, not select fire.

Xulld · Jun 14, 2012

Miss Black Rifle Disease said:
Meant to say Full Auto, not select fire.

Ahh, than I agree.

I still want a FA weapon and dont want to have to get placed on any lists. Id love to enjoy practicing quick bursts. However I am sure my back account wouldn't like it lol.

Ownership of Full Auto weapons for civilians: My objective quandary.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member