Should Machine guns (fully automatic weapons) be legal for average citizens to own?

[Delta4Embassy]

Fair enough. Kinda moot though, anyhing legal eventually ends up in a criminal's hands. The North Hollywood shooting used converted legal semi-autos modified to fire full-auto.

Which is, of course, illegal...
Good bet that that the machine guns used ion the drug-related crimes you mention came from outside the country, not weapons stolen from legal American owners.

Once you've robbed a bank and started shooting at police the legal status of your weapons is moot.

Point is that legal machine guns pose no demonstrable threat to anyone.

Counterpoint being there's no legitimate application for such weapons except in a war.

Even if true, that goes back to citing a "need" to exercise a right.
Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front of the bus exactly as much as civilians need machine guns.

If you wanna come out and say "I want a full-auto capable weapon for use against the government if they go too far." I'd respect that. Dance around that and you get none.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which is, of course, illegal...
Good bet that that the machine guns used ion the drug-related crimes you mention came from outside the country, not weapons stolen from legal American owners.

Once you've robbed a bank and started shooting at police the legal status of your weapons is moot.

Point is that legal machine guns pose no demonstrable threat to anyone.

Counterpoint being there's no legitimate application for such weapons except in a war.

Even if true, that goes back to citing a "need" to exercise a right.
Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front of the bus exactly as much as civilians need machine guns.

If you wanna come out and say "I want a full-auto capable weapon for use against the government if they go too far." I'd respect that. Dance around that and you get none.

I see you get my point about "need".
There are several "legitimate applications" for machine guns, ranging from fun to self-defense.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Once you've robbed a bank and started shooting at police the legal status of your weapons is moot.

Point is that legal machine guns pose no demonstrable threat to anyone.

Counterpoint being there's no legitimate application for such weapons except in a war.

Even if true, that goes back to citing a "need" to exercise a right.
Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front of the bus exactly as much as civilians need machine guns.

If you wanna come out and say "I want a full-auto capable weapon for use against the government if they go too far." I'd respect that. Dance around that and you get none.

I see you get my point about "need".
There are several "legitimate applications" for machine guns, ranging from fun to self-defense.

No there isn't. There's just war and armed rebellion (whether justified or not.)

 

[M14 Shooter]

Point is that legal machine guns pose no demonstrable threat to anyone.

Counterpoint being there's no legitimate application for such weapons except in a war.

Even if true, that goes back to citing a "need" to exercise a right.
Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front of the bus exactly as much as civilians need machine guns.

If you wanna come out and say "I want a full-auto capable weapon for use against the government if they go too far." I'd respect that. Dance around that and you get none.

I see you get my point about "need".
There are several "legitimate applications" for machine guns, ranging from fun to self-defense.

No there isn't. There's just war and armed rebellion (whether justified or not.)

You cannot legitimately use a machine gun for fun?
You cannot legitimately use a machine gun as a collector's item / investment?
You cannot legitimately use a machine gun for self-defense?
You cannot legitimately use a machine gun for competition?
(etc)

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Counterpoint being there's no legitimate application for such weapons except in a war.

Even if true, that goes back to citing a "need" to exercise a right.
Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front of the bus exactly as much as civilians need machine guns.

If you wanna come out and say "I want a full-auto capable weapon for use against the government if they go too far." I'd respect that. Dance around that and you get none.

I see you get my point about "need".
There are several "legitimate applications" for machine guns, ranging from fun to self-defense.

No there isn't. There's just war and armed rebellion (whether justified or not.)

You cannot legitimately use a machine gun for fun?
You cannot legitimately use a machine gun as a collector's item / investment?
You cannot legitimately use a machine gun for self-defense?
You cannot legitimately use a machine gun for competition?
(etc)

If your regard firing a weapon on full-auto as fun, you're one of the people who shouldn't have such things.

If it's a collector's item and investment it doesn't have to be functional. Fill the barrel with concrete and you can have your curios.

No self-defense application for fully automatic weapons. First round might hit, but the only 19, 29, or more are going into your neighbor's home.

Shooting sports world will get along just fine sans the full auto events.

 

[The VOR]

Should Machine guns (fully automatic weapons) be legal for average citizens to own?

Absolutely. At this point, I think anyone and everyone --- including convicted felons --- should be allowed to own any weapon they can get their hands on.

Fuck it I say. Let's have a free for all!!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even if true, that goes back to citing a "need" to exercise a right.
Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front of the bus exactly as much as civilians need machine guns.

If you wanna come out and say "I want a full-auto capable weapon for use against the government if they go too far." I'd respect that. Dance around that and you get none.

I see you get my point about "need".
There are several "legitimate applications" for machine guns, ranging from fun to self-defense.

No there isn't. There's just war and armed rebellion (whether justified or not.)

You cannot legitimately use a machine gun for fun?
You cannot legitimately use a machine gun as a collector's item / investment?
You cannot legitimately use a machine gun for self-defense?
You cannot legitimately use a machine gun for competition?
(etc)

If your regard firing a weapon on full-auto as fun, you're one of the people who shouldn't have such things.

Nonsense. Utterly basesless assertion.

If it's a collector's item and investment it doesn't have to be functional

Functional weapons are worth more, and appreciate faster, than non=functional weapons.

No self-defense application for fully automatic weapons

Nonsense - the military uses small SMGs and carbines for that very purpose, so there's no argument I cannot.

Shooting sports world will get along just fine sans the full auto events.

Irrelevant - shooting sports are a "legitimate" application.

Your argument, debunked.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Best news: I read somewhere that the number of registered hunters in just 3 US States (out of 57) far exceeds the standing army of any nation in the world

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Point is that legal machine guns pose no demonstrable threat to anyone.

Counterpoint being there's no legitimate application for such weapons except in a war.

As flawed as it was, the 1939 U.S. vs. Miller ruling got it right, that what the Second Amendment most intended to protect were weapons suitable for use in connection with participation in a militia. In other worse, weapons suitable for use in war. They upheld Miller's conviction for transporting a short-barrelled shotgun across state lines, on the basis that that weapon had no military application. (Had someone been there to argue for Miller's side, then it would almost certainly have been pointed out to the court that short-barrelled shotguns were, in fact, a common issued weapon in our Army at that time (colloquially known as “trench sweepers”), and on the basis, otherwise going by the logic used in this ruling, they would have had no choice but to rule the other way.)

In any event, if you concede M14 Shooter's point that “legal machine guns pose no demonstrable threat to anyone”, then there is no justification for any law restricting the right of the American people to possess them. It doesn't matter whether or not you think an item has a legitimate application.

 

[The Rabbi]

Doesn't change anything. There's no legal civilian application requiring full automatic fire. Full-auto capable weapons are tools of warfare. Don't even see a legitimate need for them in police hands.

There's no legal civilian application for pet rocks either. So what? It's the "what do you need this for" argument, which has been debunked many times.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which is, of course, illegal...
Good bet that that the machine guns used ion the drug-related crimes you mention came from outside the country, not weapons stolen from legal American owners.

Once you've robbed a bank and started shooting at police the legal status of your weapons is moot.

Point is that legal machine guns pose no demonstrable threat to anyone.

Counterpoint being there's no legitimate application for such weapons except in a war.

Even if true, that goes back to citing a "need" to exercise a right.
Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front of the bus exactly as much as civilians need machine guns.

If you wanna come out and say "I want a full-auto capable weapon for use against the government if they go too far." I'd respect that. Dance around that and you get none.

You dont set the rules here.
Govt doesnt get to say who needs what and who can have what. Not how this country works. Yet, anyway.

 

[jon_berzerk]

What say you?

Machine guns are legal under federal law and in most states.
Of all the legal machine guns in civilians hands, only one has ever been used in a crime, and that was by a police officer.
There's no sound reason to ban machine guns from civilian ownership.

Seem to recall south Florida drug wars in the 80s involving rather a lot of full auto weapons fire.

bs

 

[jon_berzerk]

Point is that legal machine guns pose no demonstrable threat to anyone.

Counterpoint being there's no legitimate application for such weapons except in a war.

Even if true, that goes back to citing a "need" to exercise a right.
Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front of the bus exactly as much as civilians need machine guns.

If you wanna come out and say "I want a full-auto capable weapon for use against the government if they go too far." I'd respect that. Dance around that and you get none.

I see you get my point about "need".
There are several "legitimate applications" for machine guns, ranging from fun to self-defense.

No there isn't. There's just war and armed rebellion (whether justified or not.)

bs they are fun to shoot

 

[The Rabbi]

Even if true, that goes back to citing a "need" to exercise a right.
Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front of the bus exactly as much as civilians need machine guns.

If you wanna come out and say "I want a full-auto capable weapon for use against the government if they go too far." I'd respect that. Dance around that and you get none.

I see you get my point about "need".
There are several "legitimate applications" for machine guns, ranging from fun to self-defense.

No there isn't. There's just war and armed rebellion (whether justified or not.)

You cannot legitimately use a machine gun for fun?
You cannot legitimately use a machine gun as a collector's item / investment?
You cannot legitimately use a machine gun for self-defense?
You cannot legitimately use a machine gun for competition?
(etc)

If your regard firing a weapon on full-auto as fun, you're one of the people who shouldn't have such things.

If it's a collector's item and investment it doesn't have to be functional. Fill the barrel with concrete and you can have your curios.

No self-defense application for fully automatic weapons. First round might hit, but the only 19, 29, or more are going into your neighbor's home.

Shooting sports world will get along just fine sans the full auto events.

You're an idiot.

 

[Mustang]

People talk about the 2nd Amendment as if it's somehow sacrosanct. But as anyone can tell you, not all weapons are legal for average Americans to own. I would say that's for good reason. Or as George H. W. Bush (or Dana Carvey) might have said, it wouldn't be prudent.

Just in case you need a reminder, think back to those days of Prohibition when criminals routinely used machine guns in the furtherance of their crimes.

What it proves, of course, is the 2nd Amendment can coexist with limited gun restrictions in the interest of public safety. However, maybe some 2nd Amendment absolutists have a different view and believe that average Americans should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons without the sever restrictions placed on them today.

What say you?

American citizens need to be able to own all small arms of the American military and police.....so if you don't want the civilians to own fully auto weapons...take them from the small arms inventory of the military......they have actual machine guns so their rifles can simply be semi auto...it is more accurate anyway.....

We are the bosses of the military and the police...they are not our masters.....so if they have a weapon it is only because we paid for it...and if they get it, so do we. That is how you make sure the govenrment has less of an advantage over us....

Where did you get the preposterous idea that you (or we, as you stated) are the bosses of the military and police? Especially, the military. The military is a hierarchy command structure, and if you are not in the chain of command, you certainly are not a 'boss.'

I don't know about you, but I served in the Army, and it's clear that your orders come from your superiors within the chain of command. As a civilian, you are not a part of that chain.

 

[westwall]

What say you?

Machine guns are legal under federal law and in most states.
Of all the legal machine guns in civilians hands, only one has ever been used in a crime, and that was by a police officer.
There's no sound reason to ban machine guns from civilian ownership.

Seem to recall south Florida drug wars in the 80s involving rather a lot of full auto weapons fire.

Yeah, those were illegal weapons. And funnily enough most of that started happening AFTER the TV show Miami Vice popularized their use.

 

[westwall]

Doesn't change anything. There's no legal civilian application requiring full automatic fire. Full-auto capable weapons are tools of warfare. Don't even see a legitimate need for them in police hands.

The legitimate need is I like mine and I want to keep them. There's no "legitimate" need for a car to travel 200 mph either. I have one of those too. There's no "legitimate" need for a 56" TV. I can come up with a whole bunch of things for which there is no "legitimate" need. The laws of this country aren't based on "legitimate" need though.

Are they....

 

[westwall]

Fair enough. Kinda moot though, anyhing legal eventually ends up in a criminal's hands. The North Hollywood shooting used converted legal semi-autos modified to fire full-auto.

Which is, of course, illegal...
Good bet that that the machine guns used ion the drug-related crimes you mention came from outside the country, not weapons stolen from legal American owners.

Once you've robbed a bank and started shooting at police the legal status of your weapons is moot.

Point is that legal machine guns pose no demonstrable threat to anyone.

Counterpoint being there's no legitimate application for such weapons except in a war.

Mass shooters would love them.

Except they couldn't hit anything with them. There were thousands of rounds fired by the assholes in North Hollywood. They hit around nine people. Fortunately none of them fatally.

 

[westwall]

People talk about the 2nd Amendment as if it's somehow sacrosanct. But as anyone can tell you, not all weapons are legal for average Americans to own. I would say that's for good reason. Or as George H. W. Bush (or Dana Carvey) might have said, it wouldn't be prudent.

Just in case you need a reminder, think back to those days of Prohibition when criminals routinely used machine guns in the furtherance of their crimes.

What it proves, of course, is the 2nd Amendment can coexist with limited gun restrictions in the interest of public safety. However, maybe some 2nd Amendment absolutists have a different view and believe that average Americans should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons without the sever restrictions placed on them today.

What say you?

American citizens need to be able to own all small arms of the American military and police.....so if you don't want the civilians to own fully auto weapons...take them from the small arms inventory of the military......they have actual machine guns so their rifles can simply be semi auto...it is more accurate anyway.....

We are the bosses of the military and the police...they are not our masters.....so if they have a weapon it is only because we paid for it...and if they get it, so do we. That is how you make sure the govenrment has less of an advantage over us....

Where did you get the preposterous idea that you (or we, as you stated) are the bosses of the military and police? Especially, the military. The military is a hierarchy command structure, and if you are not in the chain of command, you certainly are not a 'boss.'

I don't know about you, but I served in the Army, and it's clear that your orders come from your superiors within the chain of command. As a civilian, you are not a part of that chain.

Bullshit. The Military is there to protect the people of this country. The PEOPLE are there to make sure the military doesn't take too much power for itself and decide it runs this country.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Fair enough. Kinda moot though, anyhing legal eventually ends up in a criminal's hands. The North Hollywood shooting used converted legal semi-autos modified to fire full-auto.

Which is, of course, illegal...
Good bet that that the machine guns used ion the drug-related crimes you mention came from outside the country, not weapons stolen from legal American owners.

Once you've robbed a bank and started shooting at police the legal status of your weapons is moot.

Point is that legal machine guns pose no demonstrable threat to anyone.

Counterpoint being there's no legitimate application for such weapons except in a war.

Mass shooters would love them.

Actually they would find them useless since they are very inaccurate and waste ammo when one is single shot killing their victims. Further it is not that hard to make an illegal automatic rifle. That would be why mass shooters go for semi auto weapons as they are legal and more accurate.