Miss Black Rifle Disease
Regular Member
I wanted to get some input from gun owners as I have always debated in my mind the issue of civilian ownership of F/A weapons.
Firstly my current stance: I don't see that a fully automatic weapon in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is any more of a threat than a semi-automatic one. But I do see that should someone get a hold of that weapon through coercion or theft they could pose a threat to the public, but then again, so could a semi-auto weapon. This seems to be more of a take down issue for law enforcement than anything else. Obviously a villain armed with a F/A weapon would pose a larger threat to LEO lives than with a semi auto weapon. Insofar as a threat to civilians, i.e. a restaurant full of people is just as easily dispatched with an S/A rifle than a F/A one. But, at the end of the day what I ask myself is what practical reason other than just to have one for the sake of having one does a civilian have? Semi-weapons in trained hands are every bit as effective for self-defense as an F/A one so the self-defense issue really doesn't justify the need right? Or does it?
I want one to be prepared for the unthinkable. If a total breakdown of law and order were to occur for whatever reason, especially if it was very long term or permanent an F/A weapon has some very potent use insofar as tactical value, i.e. suppression fire, intimidation, deterrence. But is that enough justification? Would it be responsible of a government to allow fluid F/A ownership beyond the tight NFA and ATF form 4/Tax stamp restrictions for a weapon that only has value if we got invaded or the world went Mad Max? That is where it gets blurry for me. Ultimately I have to make up my own mind how I feel about it, but fresh perspectives are always good.
I'm not suggesting restricting F/A ownership and I still plan to get myself a transferable M16A2 lower for myself eventually. But it would be nice if we could buy new ones for 2 or 3 grand vs. the 10K and up price on the current ones out there. I'm just not sure that looser restrictions have any merit or justification...But then again neither does owning a hundred thousand dollar 220 mph sports car...
Thoughts?
Firstly my current stance: I don't see that a fully automatic weapon in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is any more of a threat than a semi-automatic one. But I do see that should someone get a hold of that weapon through coercion or theft they could pose a threat to the public, but then again, so could a semi-auto weapon. This seems to be more of a take down issue for law enforcement than anything else. Obviously a villain armed with a F/A weapon would pose a larger threat to LEO lives than with a semi auto weapon. Insofar as a threat to civilians, i.e. a restaurant full of people is just as easily dispatched with an S/A rifle than a F/A one. But, at the end of the day what I ask myself is what practical reason other than just to have one for the sake of having one does a civilian have? Semi-weapons in trained hands are every bit as effective for self-defense as an F/A one so the self-defense issue really doesn't justify the need right? Or does it?
I want one to be prepared for the unthinkable. If a total breakdown of law and order were to occur for whatever reason, especially if it was very long term or permanent an F/A weapon has some very potent use insofar as tactical value, i.e. suppression fire, intimidation, deterrence. But is that enough justification? Would it be responsible of a government to allow fluid F/A ownership beyond the tight NFA and ATF form 4/Tax stamp restrictions for a weapon that only has value if we got invaded or the world went Mad Max? That is where it gets blurry for me. Ultimately I have to make up my own mind how I feel about it, but fresh perspectives are always good.
I'm not suggesting restricting F/A ownership and I still plan to get myself a transferable M16A2 lower for myself eventually. But it would be nice if we could buy new ones for 2 or 3 grand vs. the 10K and up price on the current ones out there. I'm just not sure that looser restrictions have any merit or justification...But then again neither does owning a hundred thousand dollar 220 mph sports car...
Thoughts?