Should Full Auto's Be Legal? - Page 3

Should Full Auto's Be Legal?

This is a discussion on Should Full Auto's Be Legal? within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by dudester I just got off the phone with a friend and we were having a discussion about whether or not regular folks ...

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 155

Thread: Should Full Auto's Be Legal?

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array CR2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by dudester View Post
    I just got off the phone with a friend and we were having a discussion about whether or not regular folks should be able to legally purchase and own full auto's (AK's, M16's, etc). His argument is that regular folks don't "need" full autos and that only military and law enforcement should own these. When I asked him why he couldn't really explain it to me (surprise). So what do you all think?
    These same people also claim that you don't need semi autos, or even handguns, or conceal carry etc... if you fear a good citizen with a MG, most likely they will be fear with just about any firearm... I think it's illogical thinking and mostly emotion fueled by Hollywood.
    http://www.bloombergfightbackfund.com/
    Sig P220R/Sig P239 (9mm)/ S&W 640/ Ruger Single Six Hunter (.22LR/Mag)/ CZ 452 Varmint .22LR/ Lee Enfield No4 MK2 sporterized dated 1959/ Mosin Nagant M90-30 dated 1942/


  2. #32
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,129
    There should be NO restrictions on any citizen owning one. The Bill of Rights intended us to be armed well enough to defend our country against foreign invaders equipped with the latest small arms, and to be able to prevent our own government from becoming tyrannical, or to replace a tyrannical government with a legitimate one.
    That pretty well sums it up.



    The Citizen Militias that fought the Brits during the Revolutionary war used guns that were as good and in many cases better than the Brits did.

    At that time the hunting rifles were considered to be state of the art because of the rifling which could shoot much more accurately than the muskets that were common. This accurate and well aimed fire accounted for many Brit casualties, which infuriated them and they considered it cowardly and barbaric. It also gave us the edge agaist their often superior numbers. Enough of an edge to win the war.

    Technically, the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed, seems to include state of the art weapons, meaning the latest and best weapons of war that are made.

    Many people will argue that citizens don't "need" full auto weapons because they are military in origin while failing to realize that the weapons that secured our freedom were weapons that were at least equal to, or in some cases superior to that standard issue weapons that were common to the invading troops.

    If you think about it, that argument that "no one needs one"doesn't really make any sense.
    It would seem to me that allowing the military one sort of weapon, while disallowing citizens that same weapons IS an infringement on the bearing of arms...of the amendment that says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Since the intent was to allow citizens to overthrow an oppressive government that became hostile to its citizens (sound familiar?) it would be natural to assume that ownership of weapons that were at least equal to what the military used should be owned by the citizens too.

    As already noted, full auto weapons are legal to own in 33 states. The people that live in the states where it isn't legal are under the common misconception that they are illegal everywhere and they are not. My own state is heavy in full autos and suppressed weapons. Owning them is not as big a deal as it seems to be, other than the high prices of full auto weapons.

    A lot of gun owners fall into the trap of repeating the same mantras used by the anti-gunners. They don't realize that the issue is no more than a divide and conquer strategy. Since Full Auto guns owners are in the minority, lets alienate them from the rest of the gun owners, and eliminate that option. After that, its the semi autos. After that, its any manual repeater such as a pump shotgun or a lever action rifle. Then its the single shots.

    Proof of this action can be found in England. Look it up. Its history. They weren't smart enough to figure it out until it was too late. I would like to think that we could learn from their mistakes, but reading some of the responses to this thread have me thinking that maybe we wont.

    This issue of gun control, like any other issue of gun control, is not about the guns, its about control.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  3. #33
    Senior Member Array Landric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kansas City Metro
    Posts
    807
    I'm all for lifting at least some (if not all) of the restrictions on fully automatic small arms. I'm not sure I buy into the idea that weapons such as the Mk. 19 automatic grenade launcher should be available, but at a minimum I think that standard select-fire infantry rifles should be, as well as sub-machine guns, machine guns, and machine pistols.

    Of course, I don't see any NEED for such weapons in civilian hands, but that doesn't mean such items should be restricted either. I don't need ice cream, but that is not a reason to ban it.

    I also don't think that any government agency acting within the boarders of the United States should be allowed to use any weapons not allowed for regular citizens. There is no need for automatic weapons in law enforcement. Supressive fire is not something that a LEO should engage in, and supressive fire is the main function of automatic weapons. Sure, some entry teams use them, but that isn't because they are necessary.

    I've been a LEO for going on 13 years, we are not the military and shouldn't be armed as if we are. I'm all for patrol rifles, shotguns, backup handguns, tasers, etc., but not military weapons. If a regular citizen can't own one, we shouldn't use them either. We are supposed to be leading by example after all.
    -Landric

    "The Engine could still smile...it seemed to scare them" -Felix

  4. #34
    kpw
    kpw is offline
    VIP Member Array kpw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,160
    Of course we should be able to and in most states we can. I just can't afford the hobby.
    "In a republic this rule ought to be observed: that the majority should not have the predominant power." -
    -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

  5. #35
    Distinguished Member Array Squawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas NV
    Posts
    1,614
    I don't mind the extra fees, they're nothing compared to the cost of a full auto weapon. The law prohibiting citizens from purchasing an auto made after 1987 (I believe it's '87. could be '84), that jacks up the price. The available supply is such that the average full auto runs about $15,000. Yes, there are a few that may go for $7500, but not many, and usually not what most people want. I really think that the restriction should be removed.

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array Pikachu711's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    2,461
    IMHO I don't really see a need for a fully automatic firearm in my collection. It's just something that isn't practical. I don't know about all of you but while I was in the USAF we were required to qualify with the M-16 yearly. This included semi & full auto fire. Been there, done it.

    The one thing I recall was that when on full auto you tend to waste a great deal of ammo. They recommended that ideally you should fire in short "bursts" at most. You can empty a 20 round magazine very quickly. That wasted ALOT of ammo.

    Again, I would not be interested in acquiring a full auto firearm anytime in the future.
    "Gun control is being able to hit your target."
    Glock 26

  7. #37
    Member Array i10casual's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    296
    no, that is just absurd.

  8. #38
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,387
    Quote Originally Posted by i10casual View Post
    no, that is just absurd.
    Explain. Absurd?
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #39
    Member Array jughead2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    tenn.
    Posts
    79

    full auto

    would someone show this old man where the bill of rights says ANYTHING about needs

  10. #40
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087
    I'm a bit surprised by the self identified LEOs who think it would be OK for legal ownership of full autos. Don't you think that would raise the level of violence and the personal danger you face each day dramatically?

    You can be sure they would fall into the hands of BGs. There would be an active black market, there would be theft, there would be the usual practices of straw purchases.

    Remember that bank robbery out in CA where the BGs were armed with full auto and wearing vests? It was a nightmare for the responding LEs.

    We have lived with the restrictions on full auto and short shotguns for 70 years now, and I don't see a compelling reason to change this.

  11. #41
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,129
    I'm a bit surprised by the self identified LEOs who think it would be OK for legal ownership of full autos. Don't you think that would raise the level of violence and the personal danger you face each day dramatically?
    Not really. No different than the citizen that carries a concealed weapon. The ones that do it legally, arent the problem

    Same argument and used for concealed carry before it became popular.

    You can be sure they would fall into the hands of BGs. There would be an active black market, there would be theft, there would be the usual practices of straw purchases.
    Its already there and has been for 70 years. Criminals don't follow the law. Only good people do.

    Remember that bank robbery out in CA where the BGs were armed with full auto and wearing vests? It was a nightmare for the responding LEs.
    Thats because the LE's brought pistols to a gun fight in which the bad guys were using rifles. They lost from the start. Only when the SWAT started engaging them with equal weapons did the fight stop.

    Lets not forget that the weapons used by the BG's were illegally converted.

    We have lived with the restrictions on full auto and short shotguns for 70 years now, and I don't see a compelling reason to change this.
    I do. Its a tax that needs to be repealed. Getting rid of the usless restrictions and that tax will bring the price of the weapons way, way down. It costs no more to produce a full auto weapon than it does a semi-auto.

    I remember when buying a full auto UZI was actually cheaper than buying a semi auto one, because they were produced FA and they had to be modified to fire semi, so the factory had more time in them.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  12. #42
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    I think the system currently in place is ok.(maybe?) Becuase, in most free states, you can get full auto stuff if you want it and are willing to pay the price. The heavy regualtion does indeed seem to limit availability to criminals somewhat. Even though some still get them.

    I think it should be done in a way that is more affordable to the average blue collar guy though. Realistically, who can afford a full auto and ammo to pracice with it?

    I think they should be legal, but there is no doubt that if they were more prolific, the black market availability for bad guys would increase. That could be a bad thing for cops and innocent buystanders in some localitites. I wish thing were different, but that seems to be the case.

    I have read that one negatvie effect of British gun control is that once the handguns became hard to get, the cops found themselves facing full auto AKs smuggled in from Eastern Europe. When the black market supply of revolvers and semi-auto hanguns dried up, something had to fill the void.

    I think the same would occur here as well, if regualr guns were banned. I guess what I'm trying to say is that making full autos real hard to get is the one gun control scheme that seems to have had its desired effect for the most part, as much as I hate to admit it. Few criminals use full auto weapons these days.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  13. #43
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,129
    I think the same would occur here as well, if regualr guns were banned.
    If regular guns were banned, then we might be in a full blown civil war where anything goes and type of gun wouldnt matter, FA would be the preffered choice.

    Well, maybe in the south anyway.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  14. #44
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGP250 View Post
    Most Gunsmiths, including myself, can easily change a semi-auto to an auto without too much work, but we don't because it is illegal without a type III ATF License.
    You need to be a Class 2 SOT to manufacture NFA weapons, not Class 3 SOT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I'm a bit surprised by the self identified LEOs who think it would be OK for legal ownership of full autos. Don't you think that would raise the level of violence and the personal danger you face each day dramatically?
    There have been exactly two documented cases where a legally owned automatic weapon was ever used in a crime. One was in 1934 and it was a cop that cut down his wife and her lover with a Thompson SMG. The other was in the early 1990's by a guy who waved around a AK47 and threatened his neighbor. He never fired a shot. Two cases in over 70 years.

    You can be sure they would fall into the hands of BGs. There would be an active black market, there would be theft, there would be the usual practices of straw purchases.
    BGs already make them, convert them, and deal in them. That will never change. The straw man purchase issue is moot. The actual cases of straw man purchases for firearms is very small compared to what the media puts out.

    Remember that bank robbery out in CA where the BGs were armed with full auto and wearing vests? It was a nightmare for the responding LEs.
    Yes, the criminals were using illegally modified and illegally possessed and illegally used automatic rifles. Big deal. Criminals break laws all the time. If they were using semi automatic rifles, would that change a thing? Double barreled shotguns? Also recall the brass of the North Hollywood PD had refused to allow officers who weren't SWAT members to carry a patrol rifle on duty at all. This event finally got them to take their heads out of their butts and look at the realities faced by beat cops.

    We have lived with the restrictions on full auto and short shotguns for 70 years now, and I don't see a compelling reason to change this.
    So if Title I of 18 USC 922 was changed to affect all fireams and apply to them like Title II? Semi automatic firearms would require a $200 transfer tax, fingerprints, mugshots, CLEO signoff. Shotguns of all types are now destructive devices and carry the same $200 transfer tax and restrictions of other NFA weapons. Handguns are now AOWs, just like the original NFA bill, and carry a $5 transfer tax.

    Cutoff date will be May 1, 2009. Any firearm made and registered before that date are fully transferable between civilians. States may further restrict their possession and owership.

    Oh, that's right, while we are at it we should impose the proper ratio of price to tax that was implemented in the NFA of 1934. A Thompson SMG in 1934 was sold for $49.95 at Sears and Roebuck. I know this for a fact because that's how much my grandfather paid for his in 1934 and I have the receipt in a safe deposit box. The tax was, and still is, $200, a 400% increase over the price of the weapon.

    That $1,000 AR 15 will now hold a $4,000 transfer tax. But now since supply and demand is crippled, such with 922(o) type restrictions like automatic rifles are, that same semiautomatic AR 15 is now $15,000 for one in good condition. Now that will run a full sum of $75,000 for the gun and transfer tax.

    Now don't forget those bolt action sniper rifles. Those are now under the same restrictions. Even single shots.

    Still like those restrictions? Because, hell, that seems to thwart crime with automatic weapons right? Seems to be effective gun control, so if it works for one class of weapons, why not apply it to all firearms?
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  15. #45
    Senior Member Array CR2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    660

    Some people forget that criminals break laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post

    Remember that bank robbery out in CA where the BGs were armed with full auto and wearing vests? It was a nightmare for the responding LEs.
    More illogical thinking... did those guys not ILLEGALLY CONVERT those AK47s to go full auto? How hard do you really think it is for a scum bag to do those modifications? The fact is, it's been done right now so restrictions DON'T REDUCE the chances of another CA like shooting involving fully automatic weapons.

    The argument you just made is the same as those gun grabbers that claim that being able to buy handguns and carry "increase" crime rates... I guess some people here keep forgetting that CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW... it's not important to them that MGs are illegal, because they get them any ways!
    http://www.bloombergfightbackfund.com/
    Sig P220R/Sig P239 (9mm)/ S&W 640/ Ruger Single Six Hunter (.22LR/Mag)/ CZ 452 Varmint .22LR/ Lee Enfield No4 MK2 sporterized dated 1959/ Mosin Nagant M90-30 dated 1942/

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Legal Full Auto AK47 need help
    By dukalmighty in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2009, 02:26 PM
  2. Full Auto Fun
    By Captain Crunch in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: February 20th, 2009, 07:38 PM
  3. Full auto fun
    By dbracin in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: April 11th, 2007, 03:15 PM
  4. Full auto MP
    By bh153dc in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 9th, 2006, 10:11 PM
  5. Some full auto fun.
    By P95Carry in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: October 4th, 2005, 12:45 AM

Search tags for this page

americans should be allowed full auto
,

auto's.be

,
autobe.11
,
benelli m5 full auto
,
full auto should be legal
,
full-auto weapons should be legalized
,

repelling 1986 full auto ban

,
should full auto be legal
Click on a term to search for related topics.