Poll re: Full Auto

This is a discussion on Poll re: Full Auto within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by razor02097 owning one entitles the ATF by law to anal probe you any time they want... To those that can afford one ...

View Poll Results: What is your opinion of the private ownership of fully automatic weapons?

Voters
225. You may not vote on this poll
  • Readily available, with no restrictions

    103 45.78%
  • Readily available, with lighter restrictions than now exist

    88 39.11%
  • Keep the current system

    30 13.33%
  • Decrease availability and increase restrictions

    1 0.44%
  • Other

    3 1.33%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 65

Thread: Poll re: Full Auto

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,047
    Quote Originally Posted by razor02097 View Post
    owning one entitles the ATF by law to anal probe you any time they want... To those that can afford one is typically denied the license to own it or harassed by the ATF once they get one
    These statements are entirely false. The ATF cannot inspect unless they suspect you or the weapon of being in a crime, warrant needed. You give up no rights to own one.

    There is no license to own one. If you can buy a handgun, you can own an NFA weapon provide your state law allows it.

    I have only 3+ years dealing with the ATF including the TTB and NFA branches, but the ATF truly does not care what you own as long as you have the paperwork to make it legal. Every single agent I've spoken with doesn't understand why NFA weapons are so highly restricted. The ATF is also 80% accountants and 20% field agents. The ones that come and inspect an FFL are not allowed, nor trained to carry a firearm. Only the field agents have arrest powers, not all agents.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I have no But if full-autos are made more available, the reality is, through time and thief, they'll find their way into the criminal element of our populace in greater numbers than they are already.

    I have enough worries about facing a BG holding an 18-shot semi-auto pistol. I don't need to add more full-autos to the mix.
    This is more story telling. Criminals will have machine guns if they want to. They will not buy them legally, because they can't. They will make them on their own like they have been for a hundred years. Laws only effect citizens, not criminals. Criminals do what they want. That's their job. Even with the tight restrictions on legal ownership, you still could face a criminal with a (illegally converted) machine gun but the chances of such are entirely slim. Reducing the restrictions will not increase the rate of such, much like the more people with carry permits didn't make more criminals carry guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I see no reason to expose our police to the potential of having to deal with heavy suppressing fire from BGs. Their job is tough enough as it is.
    They already are facing that threat. Problem with your argument is that the chance of them facing such a threat is nearly non-existent.

    Right now there are few crimes done with these weapons because they are rarely available to the general public, and so very expensive that folks make sure they stay locked up in safes.
    Or perhaps their owners are responsible and lock up their weapons. I have several guns worth about $50 each that are locked up. Why? Because I'm a responsible gun owner.

    I do think there is something wrong with the way we limit availability through a very high tax, making them available to the wealthy only, when perhaps other criteria should be used and the tax done away with.
    $200 is not a high tax. They are not available only to the wealthy. In fact, most NFA owners make less than $50,000 per year from the collector polls in various clubs.

    If we let FA get into the general circulation of the existing illegal gun traffic we will have the dickens to pay for our own stupidity.
    Well, guess what. FA already is in the general circulation.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    10,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    I really don't see what the big phobia is about full auto guns.
    That's exactly what it is, and you can tell from many of the comments, there are a lot of folks that don't know the facts on the matter.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Diligentia Vis Celeritas"

    "There is very little new, and the forgotten is constantly being rediscovered."
    ~ Tiger McKee

  4. #18
    Member Array 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Afghanistan
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by Tally XD View Post
    And in the wrong hands they can be just as destructive.
    Nice play off my words. I saw what you done there!

  5. #19
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post

    This is more story telling. Criminals will have machine guns if they want to. They will not buy them legally, because they can't. They will make them on their own like they have been for a hundred years. Laws only effect citizens, not criminals. Criminals do what they want. That's their job. Even with the tight restrictions on legal ownership, you still could face a criminal with a (illegally converted) machine gun but the chances of such are entirely slim. Reducing the restrictions will not increase the rate of such, much like the more people with carry permits didn't make more criminals carry guns.
    I disagree. Since many (perhaps most) guns carried by BGs are stolen, having a ready supply of legally owned Autos in many households would only make them more readily available to the BGs.

    Yes, many firearms can be converted, assuming the possessor has the mechanical inclination and equipment to do so. But most BGs by nature are pretty lazy and wouldn't go to that much effort when thay can pick one up from the local homeowner (if ownership was easy). I seriously doubt that many BGs sit around trying to convert firearms. Yes, there are a few out there, but should we make it easier for them to obtain them?
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  6. #20
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    No restrictions.

    I believe the NFA and 1986 firearms acts violate the constitution. Machine guns are linear descendants of "arms" and as such are protected from Federal regulation by 2A.

    There is very little difference between full auto and a semi auto... 30 rounds in 2 seconds vrs. 30 rounds in 10 seconds is not going to suddenly make criminals ultra-deadly killing machines.

    Suppressors should be legal too. All they do is help prevent hearing loss (and get dirty). I almost think they should be mandatory!
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  7. #21
    Senior Member Array canav844's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    589
    Allow them, just make using one in the commission of a crime come with exponentially tougher sentencing. And I'd even be ok with a 24-48hour waiting period, so long as it was so your background check could be rerun and verified current. (As I know some states a CCW will allow that bypass for "regular" firearms) No restrictions would be nice, but taking fewer restrictions is a step closer.

    .22LR on full auto wouldn't necessarily break the bank, and could be great fun. Being able to send a 3 round burst of .223 down your hallway when a bad guy is charging you with a knife or firearm, could just be what it takes the guy following him to want to turn around and flee instead (drug runners coming across the boarder is becoming an increasing issue in the SW US and it's safe to say they are typically well armed when moving large amounts, the more a citizen can defend themselves with the better). Suppressors would be easier on people's ears and not make ranges or backyard plinking less noticeable to the neighborhood (Girlfriend's parents live about 3/4 a mile from the local PD outdoor range and you can most certainly hear when it's time to qualify). And suppressors would still be rather impractical for concealment or everyday carry.

    If bad guys really want them they'll get them, the LA Bank of America robbery and shooting is evidence of that, not to mention the full auto AK47s that DEA is saying on their Spike TV show they're finding to be the common drug dealer house gun in Detroit.

    Glock Certified Armorer

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array Cuda66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    minnesota
    Posts
    2,277
    If you can own a firearm, you should be able to own a full-auto firearm. No restrictions.

    And add supressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and AOW's in there, as well.
    There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.--RAH

    ...man fights with his mind; the weapons are incidental.--Jeff Cooper


    There is a reason they try and make small bullets act like big bullets--Glockmann10mm

  9. #23
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,529
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I disagree. Since many (perhaps most) guns carried by BGs are stolen, having a ready supply of legally owned Autos in many households would only make them more readily available to the BGs.

    Yes, many firearms can be converted, assuming the possessor has the mechanical inclination and equipment to do so. But most BGs by nature are pretty lazy and wouldn't go to that much effort when thay can pick one up from the local homeowner (if ownership was easy). I seriously doubt that many BGs sit around trying to convert firearms. Yes, there are a few out there, but should we make it easier for them to obtain them?
    Just because someone MAY steal my weapons...don't limit what I can have...put the thief (who steals them) in jail for twenty years, but leave me alone. Why should the honest citizen be punished?
    I'm just sayin'...
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  10. #24
    VIP Member
    Array SIGP250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    MO - Rock Ranch
    Posts
    2,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post

    For example, if someone owns a commercial gun range appropriately outfitted, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to keep some around for the "amusement" of their clients.

    There are a coupe ranges around here that rent full auto Uzi $20.00/hour.
    If you understand, things are just as they are... If you do not understand, things are just as they are....
    - Zen Saying

  11. #25
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    These statements are entirely false. The ATF cannot inspect unless they suspect you or the weapon of being in a crime, warrant needed. You give up no rights to own one.

    There is no license to own one. If you can buy a handgun, you can own an NFA weapon provide your state law allows it.

    I have only 3+ years dealing with the ATF including the TTB and NFA branches, but the ATF truly does not care what you own as long as you have the paperwork to make it legal. Every single agent I've spoken with doesn't understand why NFA weapons are so highly restricted. The ATF is also 80% accountants and 20% field agents. The ones that come and inspect an FFL are not allowed, nor trained to carry a firearm. Only the field agents have arrest powers, not all agents.
    No there isn't an "official" license to own an NFA does that make my statement entirely false? Not by a long shot.

    All NFA items must be registered with the ATF. Individuals wanting an NFA item must get permission from the ATF, obtain a signature from the county sheriff or city or town chief of police, pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a huge tax.

    You have to get a lot of permissions and complete a bunch of paperwork to get one right now...plus
    Anytime the ATF feel like they can "check in" to make sure you still have it and that it is locked up.
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    I'm not sure I'm pro-full auto pistols. I'm definately pro-full auto rifles with registration. I would be anti-full auto carry, and as a hunter, anti the use of full auto for hunting.

    Quote Originally Posted by nutz4utwo View Post
    No restrictions. I believe the NFA and 1986 firearms acts violate the constitution....
    I agree what is on the books (NFA / 1986) violate 2A. However, registration of full autos might fit into some definition of restrictions, and I would support registration of full-autos.

    Quote Originally Posted by nutz4utwo View Post
    ...Machine guns are linear descendants of "arms" and as such are protected from Federal regulation by 2A....
    RPGs are linear descendants of bottle rockets.

    Quote Originally Posted by nutz4utwo View Post
    ...Suppressors should be legal too. All they do is help prevent hearing loss (and get dirty). I almost think they should be mandatory!
    Interesting. I agree, but again, I would not mind if they required registration.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  13. #27
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    I've got a couple full auto water pistols. They are awesome and loads of fun.

    Now give me one that shoots bullets and there will really be lots of fun.

    Okay, in all seriousness, I'm pretty much in favor of no restrictions. The founding fathers pretty much wrote the second amendment for the express purpose of suppressing a tyrannical government. They pretty much believed the average citizen should be able to possess and bear the same type of weapons as the government possessed.

    Do I have a current use for a machine gun? Not at this point. I've shot them, both in the military and in civilian life. Like others have noted, the novelty wears off rather quickly.

    No need for government restrictions, IF the punishment adequately fits the crime. In other words, criminals who use full auto weapons to shoot up the neighborhood, terrorize the citizens and indiscriminately kill innocent people caught in the cross fire of their gang wars needs to be found guilty of mayhem, and be executed, forthwith. Btw... that should be done if they are using semi-auto weapons as well. If someone steals a legally owned full auto weapon from a law abiding citizen, and are arrested with it, they should be in prison for 25 - 30 years.

    Just because there is a "potential" for inappropriate use, does not mean something should be restricted from responsible law abiding citizens. What you do is punish harshly those who abuse the laws of society.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  14. #28
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    Readily available, with no restrictions.

    I agree completely. I also think one should be able to build their own "with no restrictions" just the same.......or to modify their existing semi-auto with the proper parts to make it as one desires. Again...the second amendment is rather plain and simple. I'd also like to have a 14" Remington 870 without restrictions and as available as everything else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    Just because there is a "potential" for inappropriate use, does not mean something should be restricted from responsible law abiding citizens. What you do is punish harshly those who abuse the laws of society.
    If "society" took care of things alone, then there wouldn't be a need to be overly regulated and riddled with laws created by lawyers who think we need protection from ourselves and them to feel less threatened in their position when they choose to subjugate us. Mob mentality? Remember the posse? What would someone who goes against society (as a whole based upon our collective basic morals of right and wrong)...fear the most between what exists now and what was in the past? Prison (with free meals, free drugs, free schooling to educate them in the ways of the law and how to better circumvent it or defend themselves with it the next time they get out on the street)? Or....the posse? I'll guarantee the posse took care of business with few questions asked and with all the evidence needed to do the job. What is your criteria for "punishment", and when would it be allowed or condoned? Today's legal system actually protects those whom are against the mainstream of society and undermining the basic morals it had long ago. Back to the days of the "old west"? Maybe. Maybe it was far better back then than it is now. Some where down the line, somebody paid off somebody with money or land, a business venture, or a promise of immortality....and our overburdening legal system was born and lawyers started to come out of the woodwork like British soldiers in order to subjugate us all. Truth be known....we won a lot of battles, but we never truly knew our enemy nor how to suppress them for good. Long live America. It's right here, and it's all in English!

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,047
    Quote Originally Posted by razor02097 View Post
    All NFA items must be registered with the ATF. Individuals wanting an NFA item must get permission from the ATF, obtain a signature from the county sheriff or city or town chief of police, pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a huge tax.
    Or they can form a trust or corporation and bypass the CLEO signature, prints, and mugs.

    Also the $200 tax isn't huge, it's a nuisance.
    Anytime the ATF feel like they can "check in" to make sure you still have it and that it is locked up.
    See, that is where you are incorrect again and continue to spread mythical BS. No the ATF cannot inspect you at any time. That is completely false. I suggest you read the NFA Branch's NFA Handbook available on the ATF website and get your facts straight. Please educate yourself.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  16. #30
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    Also the $200 tax isn't huge, it's a nuisance.
    It's not huge now, but when it was enacted, it sure was. Inflation adjusted, that would be somewhere around $3000 today.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

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. Full Auto Fun
    By Captain Crunch in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: February 20th, 2009, 06:38 PM
  2. Full auto fun
    By dbracin in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: April 11th, 2007, 02:15 PM
  3. Full auto MP
    By bh153dc in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 9th, 2006, 09:11 PM
  4. Full Auto
    By 45ACP4ever in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: August 16th, 2006, 06:18 PM
  5. Some full auto fun.
    By P95Carry in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2005, 11:45 PM

Search tags for this page

nfa polls full auto suppressors ordinance

Click on a term to search for related topics.