Should Full Auto's Be Legal?

[yzcrasher]

I much prefer a world where noone can tell me what I can and cannot buy, or use. Hwever I have no use for a FA. 5 yrs of using one was more than enough. Also there's a reason they say "spray and pray". It's the most unaccurate way to fire....is basically for intimidation.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[JOHNSMITH]

I do not believe the NFA has reduced the availability of full auto for anyone who really wants it (as far as criminals are concerned). So that point is completely moot, and I don't know why people are pushing that point because its irrelevant.

So the only thing left to discuss is regular citizens.

To me, I guess ultimately its a dead issue - its been, for most intents and purposes, "banned," for many decades. We have bigger fish to fry right now as far as the 2A is concerned. I understand this thread is just a thought exercise, but I prefer to focus my energies on things like getting shall-issue CCLs going in more states and holding on to the firearms we've got!

[bandit383]

To me, I guess ultimately its a dead issue - its been, for most intents and purposes, "banned," for many decades. We have bigger fish to fry right now as far as the 2A is concerned. I understand this thread is just a thought exercise, but I prefer to focus my energies on things like getting shall-issue CCLs going in more states and holding on to the firearms we've got!

Well stated...I think in this political climate, getting full auto is wasting one's breath.

[HotGuns]

Well stated...I think in this political climate, getting full auto is wasting one's breath

How so?

The process for legally owning a full auto has not changed one bit.

[stanislaskasava]

The last time I was at the range, TWO separate people (ordinary citizens) brought in pistol caliber machine guns. One guy brought in a suppressed Uzi in 9mm and the other guy appeared to have an H&K .45 or similar. Both of them consistently hit center of mass at about 30 feet, time and again. That is not 'spray and pray'. I call it 'taking care of business'.

It is always best to have the option of increased firepower. What is the downside? We don't know when it may be advantageous or necessary.

And no, it's not a waste of breath to discuss an issue if it gets people thinking.

[bandit383]

How so?

The process for legally owning a full auto has not changed one bit.

Let me refrase (uh, I mean rephrase:))...legal, with a lot of hoops. Untieing the hoops will require Houdini and is a waste of breath.

[Tubby45]

And no, it's not a waste of breath to discuss an issue if it gets people thinking.

That's right. Only 10% of the colonies were in favor of revolting and we got our independence from it.

[United93]

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.

You have not thought this through enough. Making it easier to legally obtain a fully automatic firearm will not affect those criminals who get them on the black market. That is the basic (and compelling) argument for civilian gun ownership as a whole. But then again, you don't like compelling arguments, do you now...

[Hopyard]

You have not thought this through enough. Making it easier to legally obtain a fully automatic firearm will not affect those criminals who get them on the black market. That is the basic (and compelling) argument for civilian gun ownership as a whole. But then again, you don't like compelling arguments, do you now...

There has been very little crime done with FAs; that CA bank robbery is the only one that comes to my mind, though perhaps there have been other events.

Apparently this ban is one of the few gun bans which seems to work and reduces what would otherwise be horrific crime.

You don't like compelling arguments either.

[United93]

Civilians can legally own FA firearms, hence there is no 'gun ban'. Check the facts, Hopyard. They're good things to know.

BTW, your compelling argument that I don't like is....what again?

[Thanis]

...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?

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.

"...shall not be infringed." This is not some trump word that ends the conversation. A reasonable regulation to would not encroach upon in a way that violates 2A or the rights of another. For example, the right to free speech does not provide immunity to slander or libel.

It is clearly not proper to define 2A as purely a state militia right. What then is the difference between a "militia" and "the people." 2A framers never envisioned a firearm like a modern full-auto or burst-fire battle rifle (in contrast to their semi-auto conterparts).

I think this is the best start to an argument to support your friend's view.

I've become split on this topic.

For now, I think it would be reasonable to require registration of the firearm (upon purchase and report when sold) and perhaps some type of permit prior to purchase that required a back-ground check. The ban on new autos should be done away with.

For example, I think my state, MI, has clearly regulated to the point of prohibition (when it comes to auto / burst-fire), and I think that is wrong (but not yet an infringement of 2A). Honestly, I think MI is a good example of a state that has regulated to the point that any further and you would infringe on 2A.

I think it would be interesting to see very pro-gun states start a state sponsored milita where common joe and jane could join, train, and purchase full and burst fire battle rifles. In effect, being able to purchase and take home (all but own) even new auto and burst firearms.

[JerryM]

No, the current system is fine.
While I agree that "need" is not the criterion for whether we should be allowed something there is a balance or trade off in some cases and this is one.

Sure, there are those who buy full auto guns on the black market. But the average gang banger cannot get them either because of the cost or availability.

We might enjoy playing with a full auto gun, but in this case I believe that the enjoyment is more than offset by greater use by local gangs if they were legal, and easier to obtain.

Regards,
Jerry

[HotGuns]

For example, I think my state, MI, has clearly regulated to the point of prohibition (when it comes to auto / burst-fire), and I think that is wrong (but not yet an infringement of 2A).

That makes no sense at all.
How can something that has legislated to the point of prohibition NOT be an infringement?

Honestly, I think MI is a good example of a state that has regulated to the point that any further and you would infringe on 2A.

Dang Thanis...you already can't have it and yet going further you would call it an infringement. Gee thanks. With friends like that who needs enemies?

Thats like saying someone hasn't had a breath for two days, but in another day he'll be "officially" dead.

Politicians love that sort of indecision and play on words. That why that have got as far as they have in MI and its easy for them.

[Supertac45]

Sure, why not since for most with money, you can.

[TerriLi]

I think the major issue here is, where do we draw the line on 2A? Is there even a line? This is the slippery slope that I dont like, it makes a person able to argue against all guns, not just RPGs. I dont like licenses, I detest them actually, but they serve as a check and balance. I see the whole American system as a balancing act, right now we're falling to one side, and that side is one where the system collapses.