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; Readily available, with no restrictions Law abiding citizens will treat full auto with in the confines of the current laws. Its the criminals that need ...

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 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 65

Thread: Poll re: Full Auto

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    Readily available, with no restrictions
    Law abiding citizens will treat full auto with in the confines of the current laws. Its the criminals that need to be reviewed with checks and balances. I say if an individual can go full auto and be able to afford shooting it, go for it. Its none of my business and none of the governments either.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    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.

    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.
    Not only have I heard about requests for paperwork from the ATF for private owners there are cases they come to the home to make sure they still own it and have it in their possession. Since the NFA is registered they can make up any excuse to come to your home and check up on you.

    NFA Owners Association :: View topic - FBI and ATF came to my home last week, and . . .
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  4. #33
    Sponsor
    Array luvmy40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Youngstown, OH
    Posts
    1,646
    Shall Not Be Infringed!

    Yeah, I know. Broken record.
    T*A*N*S*T*A*A*F*L
    The best things in life are not free.
    They are paid for with the blood of brave men and women!
    M&P Forum
    Ohioans For Concealed Carry
    Holsters

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by luvmy40 View Post
    Shall Not Be Infringed!...
    Infringed is a definable word, and does not have the defination you are applying. Reasonable regulation would not transgress or exceed the limits imposed on government by 2A; and not violate 2A as to make it obsolete.

    Just like 1A has reasonnable regulations, so can 2A. I would agree, current laws more often then not pass the line into infringed.

    For example, most carry laws (even in shall issue or open carry states) that require recurring fees for permits could be considered an infringement. However something like "no fee" registration would not violate or infringe on 2A, it is just a worrisome trend considering historic precedent.
    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

  6. #35
    Senior Member Array ep1953's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kodak TN
    Posts
    1,116
    I look at full auto guns as an interesting hobby but wouldn't consider one for self defense. I feel much better with the Mossberg and the .45 ACP.

  7. #36
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    Infringed is a definable word, and does not have the defination you are applying. Reasonable regulation would not transgress or exceed the limits imposed on government by 2A; and not violate 2A as to make it obsolete.

    Just like 1A has reasonnable regulations, so can 2A. I would agree, current laws more often then not pass the line into infringed.

    For example, most carry laws (even in shall issue or open carry states) that require recurring fees for permits could be considered an infringement. However something like "no fee" registration would not violate or infringe on 2A, it is just a worrisome trend considering historic precedent.
    This whole reasonable regulation idea is interesting to me. On what do you base your idea that regulating (aka a law forbidding the excercize of a right in a specific way) does not constitute infringement? It practically defines infringement; that is, the trespass upon something without destroying it entirely.

    Any positive law, requiring pre-requisite action to excersize a right, is also, practically by definition, infringement. Mandatory registration fits this bill quite nicely, and I would argue that even apart from the historical evidence of gun registration leading inevitably to confiscation, the registration in and of itself is an infringement on the right to keep arms.

    If you concede that the excercise of a right (let me know if you need me to define what a right is) is subject to the permission of somebody else, it ceases to be a right, and you have given up the entire battle to those who wish that right did not exist. All that's left is haggling over how much of your privilege you will be allowed to excercise, and under what circumstances. And you must be willing to give up that privilege when asked to do so for any reason or no reason.
    "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?

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    It has always been understood that no right is unlimited. There are reasonable limitations, and "shall not be infringed" is not the conversation ender many of you think it is. Just like freedom of speech (yelling fire in a theater, trade secrets, top secrets, etc) the right is not an absolute in any country and the right is subject to limitations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    ...On what do you base your idea that regulating (aka a law forbidding the excercize of a right in a specific way) does not constitute infringement? It practically defines infringement; that is, the trespass upon something without destroying it entirely...
    These words have meanings contrary to how you are using them. Even a trespass on a right must advance beyond the usual or proper limits, and that is a higher standard then what is relevant. Only a reasonable standard must be applied to infringement (exceed the limits imposed on the state by the contract / does not violate).

    By your defination, everyone in prison, while in prison, should be allowed to carry a firearm, because what part of "shall infringe" don't they understand.

    The most common infringements on 2A are the various carry laws (even some of the shall issue laws the pro-gun agenda champions, are really infringements we live with because it is better than total encroachment). A public safety consideration might be valid on full-auto carry (but not ownership or transport) or caliber limitation (something like a limit of .65 to .70 if defined by late 1700's understanding) might not infringe. Registration is not a 2A issue (just like hunting is not a 2A issue). Unfortunately, the government has the right to go so far as to require a registered deed for every firearm you own, or for that matter almost all private property. There are stronger arguments against registration (costly, does not serve intended purpose, etc), but 2A does not address registration, unless that registration infringes unreasonably on ownership.
    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

  9. #38
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    It has always been understood that no right is unlimited. There are reasonable limitations, and "shall not be infringed" is not the conversation ender many of you think it is. Just like freedom of speech (yelling fire in a theater, trade secrets, top secrets, etc) the right is not an absolute in any country and the right is subject to limitations.
    Every example you've given of "reasonable limitations" against free speech constitutes a breach of contract. Those are not "free speech" issues anymore than armed robbery is an RKBA issue.

    Can you give me a simple definition of "right"? A definition that allows for arbitrary limitations on the right, yet is clearly distinct in kind from the definition of privilege?

    The truth of the matter is that rights, by their nature, are unlimited. The catch is that everybody's rights are unlimited, and if you excercize your own rights in such a way as to diminish those of someone else, you have over-stepped the bounds of your rights. In this sense, and this sense alone, do rights have limits. There must be some actual harm to property or breach of contract.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    These words have meanings contrary to how you are using them. Even a trespass on a right must advance beyond the usual or proper limits, and that is a higher standard then what is relevant. Only a reasonable standard must be applied to infringement (exceed the limits imposed on the state by the contract / does not violate).

    By your defination, everyone in prison, while in prison, should be allowed to carry a firearm, because what part of "shall infringe" don't they understand.
    How does one decide what is the usual or proper limit? It has been usual and proper for many centuries for women in certain middle eastern societies to be considered the property of men. Does that mean that these women have had fewer rights than a woman born in America in the last few decades? Be careful how you answer, because to say that it does is to completely misunderstand the origin and nature of rights.

    I agree that one of us is mis-defining "infringement", but I'm not the one doing so. Infringement is not synonymous with "large violation". It is much closer to simple trespass. If I trespass on someone's land, but only by a couple of feet past their property line, I can't claim that it wasn't really trespassing because it wasn't an "unreasonable" amount of trespass. That doesn't make sense.

    Neither can I break into a mansion and steal a couple of forks, then claim that it wasn't really theft because I didn't steal an "unreasonable" amount of goods, relative to what remained. Of course it's still theft.

    The prisoner example is almost as common as the fire-in-a-crowded-theater one. The concise answer is that that is a red herring. Prisoners have already given up their right to freedom of association and travel by virtue of committing their crimes against others. The duration of time spent deprived of their own rights is part of the payment for depriving their victims of theirs.

    It's not that disarming prisoners is a reasonable restriction of their rights. It's that their rights become partially or completely forfeit as justice for their actions against the rights of others. This has the corollary that only crimes which infringe (there's that word again) on the rights of others can be punished by infringement on your own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    The most common infringements on 2A are the various carry laws (even some of the shall issue laws the pro-gun agenda champions, are really infringements we live with because it is better than total encroachment). A public safety consideration might be valid on full-auto carry (but not ownership or transport) or caliber limitation (something like a limit of .65 to .70 if defined by late 1700's understanding) might not infringe. Registration is not a 2A issue (just like hunting is not a 2A issue). Unfortunately, the government has the right to go so far as to require a registered deed for every firearm you own, or for that matter almost all private property. There are stronger arguments against registration (costly, does not serve intended purpose, etc), but 2A does not address registration, unless that registration infringes unreasonably on ownership.
    Agreed, requiring a CCW permit is an infringement, or more precisely, the practice of disallowing carry without a permit is the infringement.

    However, I completely disagree with the idea that FA restrictions or caliber restrictions on carry guns is "valid," while the same restrictions on a gun that is merely owned would not be. What makes such restrictions valid when applied to "bearing arms," but invalid when applied to "keeping arms?" Do we not have the right to do both? Why the distinction?

    Requiring registration is every bit as much an infringement as requiring a carry permit. One applies to bearing, one applies to keeping, but they are perfectly analogous, even with "free" registration. The infringement is not that it costs money, it's that excercizing your right to keep arms is denied unless you register them. This is exactly the same as denying your right to bear arms unless you first get a permit.
    "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?

  10. #39
    Member Array celticredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Amelia Virginia
    Posts
    383
    I have no need for one, and I couldn't afford to feed it if I did own one. One thing I'd like to see is making it impossible to prosecute people who might have an accidental multiple discharge, unless it can be proven that the firearm was deliberately modified for full auto or burst fire

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    ... it's that excercizing your right to keep arms is denied unless you register them. This is exactly the same as denying your right to bear arms unless you first get a permit.
    To reply to the rest of your post woulld just be a rehash, we don't agree. I would only like to note that use the word exactly, it is an example of where the logic derails given the meaning of the word. Requiring a deed to transfer title has never been considered an infrinement for many forms of property. It is fine that you are the arbiter of your beliefs, but it is a self made illusion to believe the words used share the meaning you are applying to them.

    2A, and the phrase "shall not be infringed" is not the shield to hide behind vs registration. It may be a piece to that defense, depending on the form fees, taxes, and bureaucracy take in registration. A simple deed or title can be required for almost all personal property. Don't get me wrong, I would not trust such a sysyem, however it is not the right defined / protected by 2A. It is a right to privacy.
    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

  12. #41
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    To reply to the rest of your post woulld just be a rehash, we don't agree. I would only like to note that use the word exactly, it is an example of where the logic derails given the meaning of the word. Requiring a deed to transfer title has never been considered an infrinement for many forms of property. It is fine that you are the arbiter of your beliefs, but it is a self made illusion to believe the words used share the meaning you are applying to them.

    2A, and the phrase "shall not be infringed" is not the shield to hide behind vs registration. It may be a piece to that defense, depending on the form fees, taxes, and bureaucracy take in registration. A simple deed or title can be required for almost all personal property. Don't get me wrong, I would not trust such a sysyem, however it is not the right defined / protected by 2A. It is a right to privacy.
    I just have to point out that government registration of property is not the same as deeding property between two parties. I can create a deed myself (more likely with my lawyer), with my own witnesses, with a recipient, and in the presence of a notary. No government office or permission slip required.

    There is certainly a privacy argument against registration laws as well. I do not mean to discount that. But I think that argument is perfectly consistent with an argument based on the right to keep and bear arms.

    I'm still curious to hear your definition of rights, btw. Regardless of what you think of my logic or my conclusions, I can back them up from first principles, and both are coherant and consistent.
    "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?

  13. #42
    Member Array reinhold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Catamount Tavern, Vermont
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by nutz4utwo View Post
    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!
    I know what you're thinking: "Did he fire six shots or only five?" "Is that a Smith & Wesson 686+ 7 shot or 627 8 shot?" "Does he have a concealed Sig P226 SCT and two spare mags?" You've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

  14. #43
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,337
    Could there be a repeal in our future??????
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  15. #44
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    I just have to point out that government registration of property is not the same as deeding property between two parties. I can create a deed myself (more likely with my lawyer), with my own witnesses, with a recipient, and in the presence of a notary. No government office or permission slip required.

    There is certainly a privacy argument against registration laws as well. I do not mean to discount that. But I think that argument is perfectly consistent with an argument based on the right to keep and bear arms.

    I'm still curious to hear your definition of rights, btw. Regardless of what you think of my logic or my conclusions, I can back them up from first principles, and both are coherant and consistent.
    Generally I would define rights as a freedom to act in certain way, but the right is not absolute, especially if it were to encroach (in varying degrees, depending on the issues involved) on the public good and the rights of others.

    Your correct about deeds. My assumption is that deeds would be involved if a government were to require something greater than even registration. A government can require a title of ownership for a firearm or any tangible or intangible property simply by the passage of a law. In the case of firearms, it could not significantly impede, as to infringe, on ownership (otherwise it would be unconstitutional per 2A).

    Quote Originally Posted by tangoseal View Post
    Could there be a repeal in our future??????
    Depends on 2010 elections, but I doubt even if the elections favor 2A, many Ds (and even Rs) who are considered pro-gun now would not make it an issue because:

    1) It would not have enough support to overcome a veto.
    2) They have other issues to address that political capital will be used on (aka they are going to get the pro-gun vote either way, because what are you going to do, vote for the anti-gun option). I don't want to make this a political post beyond 2A per forum rules, so I will not address what I think those other issues will be.
    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

  16. #45
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    Generally I would define rights as a freedom to act in certain way, but the right is not absolute, especially if it were to encroach (in varying degrees, depending on the issues involved) on the public good and the rights of others.
    That definition doesn't draw any distinction between rights and privileges. If they are synonymous, all of your arguments are right. But they are not.

    Privileges are freedoms, the exercise of which is contingent on the permission of a third party.

    Rights are also freedoms, the exercise of which is not contingent on the permission of any third party, but only of the actor himself.

    The right to life (and the defense of it) is a perfect example. I need no-one's permission to preserve my life. That is a right, unquestionably.



    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    Your correct about deeds. My assumption is that deeds would be involved if a government were to require something greater than even registration. A government can require a title of ownership for a firearm or any tangible or intangible property simply by the passage of a law. In the case of firearms, it could not significantly impede, as to infringe, on ownership (otherwise it would be unconstitutional per 2A).
    What exactly gives the government the authority to demand a title document for possession of anything? Can it demand that you show a title proving your ownership of your labor? If you fail to produce such a document, can the government legitimately take your labor by force? What about title to your heart or your kidneys? Those are examples of both tangible and intangible property, after all.

    As I said before, the infringement in the case of gun registration laws is against the owners of unregistered guns. Their ability to exercise their right of self-defense by owning particular weapons is denied, and is "significantly impeded" to use your terms, for as long as the guns remain unregistered. This seems to me to clearly fit the definition of infringement.
    "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 3 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.