Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Albanian

Your views on fully automatic weapons.

Recommended Posts

I'm sure this will sound nuts too, but back when the second amendment was written, people owned artillery and warships. Do I completely agree with what he says about owning stingers and rockets? Not really. That's a completely different league from full auto weaponry. But he does have a point. If we were to allow every sort of weapon to be bought, that would probably be the best way to go about it.

 

Not really, NFA is NFA, is NFA...there is no procedural difference between a Form 4 for an M-16, an M-2HB, a 37mm PAK-38, a 155MM Pack Howitzer, or an RPG-7. if you want Big Boy's Toys you have to be prepared to PAY Big Boy prices. The difference is that while you could get the Form -4 for your Stinger, the REALITY is, no supplier would ever actually SELL you one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that suppressors are an NFA item is a joke. What better way to help reduce noise that is both harmful to your own hearing and can be annoying to neighbors? The fact they cannot be used for hunting in many states is equally ridiculous. If I am not mistaken, there are European nations that REQUIRE the use of a suppressor for certain hunting. I could be mistaken.

 

SBR's and SBS's being NFA items is pretty dumb as well. Why is it okay to have a AR pistol and an AR (yes yes, NJ is retarded when it comes to these too), yet an AR with a 14" barrel is now a restricted NFA item? Why a 18" barrel coach gun okay but a utility pump gun with a 17.5'' barrel is restricted? What practical purpose does this serve?

 

Machine Guns being an NFA item makes some sense. What is a joke is that you can't sell newly manufactured Machine Guns to private citizens. I suppose the design was to artificially inflate the cost that it would require a ridiculous amount of cash to own one, by limiting the number of legally transferable ones. While that I disagree with, at least this makes sense. The other NFA items, not so much.

 

AOW is an interesting class. This I can also understand. It is a catch all. The fact it only requires a $5 tax stamp is acceptable IMO. I mean, I still don't agree, but it is practical enough I suppose. I guess it is better to have an AOW class rather than leaving firearms that otherwise would fall into this (if it didn't exist) up to the discretion of authorities and courts to decide what it is, which could easily land people in trouble.

 

What is most frustrating about the NFA system is that it varies from state to state. This isn't surprising, or even strange. I mean, regular gun laws vary from state to state. It is frustrating nonetheless, because even transporting (sans suppressors) an NFA item between states, when legal in both, can be a hassle.

 

So in short, yes I think machine guns should be legal, non restricted/non NFA item firearms, just like the rest of NFA items should be as well.

 

Nope Hughes Screwed the Pooch..it was MEANT to outlaw ALL transferrable MG's, but was badly written and actually grandfathered those already registered. If Hughes hadnt been so sneaky, and rushed his POS bill in at 11pm on a friday, there wouldnt BE any Legal MG's in this country...of course it also wouldnt have been Passed either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many feel the Hughes amendment was never passed. I watched the video and it sure looks like it wasnt to me from what I recall! But it was some time ago! :)

I've seen the video and I agree.....sadly Nobody on the hill wanted to gore that particular ox when the footage finally became available a couple of years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then they wouldn't need insurance, they would need a lawyer. Selling a firearm to someone when you know they are going to use it illegally is a crime...

 

Liability insurance exists to cover your potential legal fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I've seen Macs and Tube Stens for around $3500.00 just to toss it out there.

 

Good reason they are so cheap. MACs are the best example of an inaccurate FA weapon in their original form. STENs don't have a good rep for reliability. That's with guns from the factory those thrown together from parts kits have to be worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming they did some thing neglegent like sell someone a gun if their NICS was denied or someone rents a gun and offs themself in the range, they already have insurance for stuff like that. You propose they somehow need to be insured for the possibility that they could be held accountable for someone's actions after a legal transfer in which they were not negligent.

 

 

 

 

 

So if Shore Shot runs a NICS check and gets an approval they are supposed to then second guess if someone should be competent to own a gun? I have known almost everyone at Shore Shot for almost 20 years, I don't think any of them are licensed psychologist competent enough to perform a psychological assessment to determine if someone is mentally competent enough to own a firearm. Yet you feel they should somehow be held financially liable if a third party commits a crime with the firearm even if the government approves the transfer? Wow, can't argue with that logic!

 

Libtarded thinking like that is the reason Congress thankfully passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, to stop asstards with agendas from twisting tort law and using the courts to harass and intimidate lawful businesses through frivolous law suits.

 

Again, it is up to the Courts to decide if Shore Shot can be held liable or not.

 

The point here is, the more dangerous the weapon, the more responsibility someone has to take. Is a NICS check the only due diligence Shore Shot would need to perform to sell someone an RPG-7? I sure hope not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, NFA is NFA, is NFA...there is no procedural difference between a Form 4 for an M-16, an M-2HB, a 37mm PAK-38, a 155MM Pack Howitzer, or an RPG-7. if you want Big Boy's Toys you have to be prepared to PAY Big Boy prices. The difference is that while you could get the Form -4 for your Stinger, the REALITY is, no supplier would ever actually SELL you one.

 

I agree. This is why I find the whole "ZOMG, if the 2nd Amendment means all arms, then it means nukes too!!!!1111!" argument. Yet I point out that no one who manufacturers nukes would ever sell one to anyone. Also, while the knowledge to build a nuke is common, it's far from easy. Iran and North Korea have the resources of a nation, and still can't quite figure it out.

 

My issue is: when the Government handles it, then it's an infringement. If the private sector / litigation handles it, it's a.ok.

 

I think Americans should be allowed to own Stinger missiles. I also think Americans have a Right to sue everyone in the process up to the manufacturer if the company sells a Stinger to someone who does something boneheaded with it, like shooting down a 747. If a manufacturer realizes this risk, you can be damn well sure they won't be letting their Stingers fall into the wrong hands.

 

You see, the Private Sector should be running and paying for NICS, and doing it's best to keep the guns they make out of the wrong hands. Shielding them from liability means that our Rights will always be infringed for the "greater good".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, it is up to the Courts to decide if Shore Shot can be held liable or not.

 

The point here is, the more dangerous the weapon, the more responsibility someone has to take. Is a NICS check the only due diligence Shore Shot would need to perform to sell someone an RPG-7? I sure hope not.

 

I can see this is going to be a lot harder than I planned. What do you do for a living?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yet I point out that no one who manufacturers nukes would ever sell one to anyone"

 

You can't seriously believe this. I do get that liability blowback is a form market-based restraint on unacceptable action by an unscrupulous dealer. But I'm not willing to allow market forces alone to decide what is OK in such a case, because the consequence of failure are too great. You may take my statement as a endorsing a form of control over weapons, which for common and well-understood 2A purposes I oppose. But if we were to decide to go full-bore with 2A, as a full protection against tyranny through actual military parity, we'd still have to control the weapons of the People's anti-tyranny forces. And that means knowing where they are, who can have them, and under what conditions they would be secured. Personal or corporate liability risk is not enough after some increasing level of lethality is reached. I don't personally know where that level is, but I know it exists. Any People who by natural right of self-determination establish a government of, by, and for the People, have the aggregate responsibility to determine and enforce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm firmly in the "we do and should draw a line" category, and that line is military weapons. As the Court in Heller put it, weapons in common use for lawful purposes in particular self-defense are protected by the 2A. Seems to me that semi-autos of all varieties and styles clearly fall under the 2A. Fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, stingers, etc. do not. There is a good reason for this. While the "militia" refers to the body of law abiding citizens available to defend the state and themselves against tyranny (ranging from would-be dictators to garden variety criminals), giving any individual access to offensive military weapons -- machine guns designed for supression of troops, artillery, etc. -- would give that one individual far too much power.

 

Do you really want joe the terrorist to be able to walk into a gun shop, plunk down a few thousand bucks and walk out with an M60? And yes, an M60 is potentially far more lethal in terms of killy large numbers of people than a semi-auto, just as a semi-auto is more lethal than a bolt action rifle for that purpose. Do you want that person to be able to buy a stnger and bring down a plane? The power of the milita comes from its collective nature -- no one person or small group could bring down the state, but protectors of liberty could band together to stand up to tyrrany. The notion that any and all weapons should be available on the open market is insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. This is why I find the whole "ZOMG, if the 2nd Amendment means all arms, then it means nukes too!!!!1111!" argument. Yet I point out that no one who manufacturers nukes would ever sell one to anyone. Also, while the knowledge to build a nuke is common, it's far from easy. Iran and North Korea have the resources of a nation, and still can't quite figure it out.

 

My issue is: when the Government handles it, then it's an infringement. If the private sector / litigation handles it, it's a.ok.

 

I think Americans should be allowed to own Stinger missiles. I also think Americans have a Right to sue everyone in the process up to the manufacturer if the company sells a Stinger to someone who does something boneheaded with it, like shooting down a 747. If a manufacturer realizes this risk, you can be damn well sure they won't be letting their Stingers fall into the wrong hands.

 

You see, the Private Sector should be running and paying for NICS, and doing it's best to keep the guns they make out of the wrong hands. Shielding them from liability means that our Rights will always be infringed for the "greater good".

 

no, what would happen is that regular Consumer firearms would be prices out of the reach of the average person....the SAME thing happened to the General Aviation Industry in the 1980's Due to some REALLY ridiculous Liability Judgements, the cost of General Aviation Aircraft virtually Tripled overnight. You would see the Same thing here, Gun companies would be sued out of Business altogether....been there, DONE that and I saw what the outcome would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

OK, I agree with you.......I personally think training should be mandatory for any firearms ownership........but that is just my opinion....

 

Firearms safety and use training should be required to be taught in school. Like drivers Ed, sex Ed, txting Ed lol stfu gtfo lmfao, and whatever else is taught starting with telling kids to find an adult when young to function and safety checks when old enough.

 

There shouldn't be a question as to if a person had training (if they follow or remember is a different discussion) by the time they are old enough to buy their own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just wondering what you guys think of the sale of fully automatic weapons to civilians and whether it should be legal.

 

Personally, I think it should be legal.

 

I got that out of my system in Vietnam but a lot of guys I know are still fascinated with full auto weapons. I see no use for them other than fun at the range. It is my experience that you end up spraying and praying that you hit something. Having seen them used in combat they miss a lot more than they hit unless you are highly trained. Then there is the issue of where do you draw the line on weapons? Lots of crazy people out there that can legally buy firearms in many States. When I moved from NJ to Florida I thought it would be gun heaven but instead I am concerned about being around so many people who carry guns that they know nothing about or never even shot because the price of range time and ammo is so expensive. Most do not even use holsters and just last year we had 3 guns discharged in our local Wal-Mart and one in a restaurant. I do not know if I want these kind of people owning full automatic weapons. I have learned to be careful about what you wish for because you may get it and it might not be as you imagined. :) In short, while it would be fun to shoot them, I have to always remember that not everyone is like me, or you, and would use them responsibly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harder than what? Engineering.

 

OK so obviously there is an inherent risk in your industry that something you do could be considered negligent and at that point you could be held liable for damages, as you are I'm sure insured accordingly.

 

So say you design a building which is over engineered by 25% of the industry standards in 2013.

 

Some asstard drives a truck bomb into a similarly constructed building ten years later and levels it in seconds killing hundreds of people.

 

In the aftermath of this horrible event, antiquated engineering standards for that type of building are deemed inadequate and new standards are adopted that would improve the structural integrity of that type of building by 110%.

 

The following year another asstard blows up your building killing hundreds.

 

Should you then be held liable because your design didn't meet the standard adopted after you built that building? You built it; you should have known that "could have happened"? Right?

 

The answer is of course not, the fact is you followed and even exceeded the laws and standards at the time the building was constructed to the best of your ability in good faith and should not be held accountable for the despicable acts of another person.

 

There is no difference, as an FFL, if you legally sell a lawful firearm to a person proven to not be prohibited from owning it there should be no circumstance under which you should be considered liable for their illegal actions with that firearm. Period, end of story!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm firmly in the "we do and should draw a line" category, and that line is military weapons. As the Court in Heller put it, weapons in common use for lawful purposes in particular self-defense are protected by the 2A. Seems to me that semi-autos of all varieties and styles clearly fall under the 2A. Fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, stingers, etc. do not. There is a good reason for this. While the "militia" refers to the body of law abiding citizens available to defend the state and themselves against tyranny (ranging from would-be dictators to garden variety criminals), giving any individual access to offensive military weapons -- machine guns designed for supression of troops, artillery, etc. -- would give that one individual far too much power.

 

Do you really want joe the terrorist to be able to walk into a gun shop, plunk down a few thousand bucks and walk out with an M60? And yes, an M60 is potentially far more lethal in terms of killy large numbers of people than a semi-auto, just as a semi-auto is more lethal than a bolt action rifle for that purpose. Do you want that person to be able to buy a stnger and bring down a plane? The power of the milita comes from its collective nature -- no one person or small group could bring down the state, but protectors of liberty could band together to stand up to tyrrany. The notion that any and all weapons should be available on the open market is insane.

 

Common use should include whatever is common for the military. You also talk about terrorists walking around plunking down money and walking out with a full auto but fail to realize that they can already do that if they have enough money and live in a state like PA (assuming no criminal history) or they can buy it illegally. You also fail to take into account countries like Switzerland. (I've been there, didn't just read about it) with a high number of homes with full auto and they are relatively easy to get and they also don't have these issues. You irrational fear of an object based on pure speculation is the same exact argument used by gun grabbers based on banning all semi autos. Once you allow a line to exist, where that line sits can be moved based on whoever has the power.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to their relative scarcity, they are all prohibitively expensive.

 

I don't think the prices are prohibitive. They are certainly cheaper than many "hobby" implements (boats, extra cars, fancy motorcycles) that people drive all the time. I'd have a couple if the laws allowed in NJ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liability insurance exists to cover your potential legal fees.

 

Correct, if you get sued. It won't do you much good in a criminal prosecution, unless your insurance can be used in place of jail time. I wasn't aware people held liability insurance for instances where they knowingly commit crimes.

 

I'm firmly in the "we do and should draw a line" category, and that line is military weapons. As the Court in Heller put it, weapons in common use for lawful purposes in particular self-defense are protected by the 2A. Seems to me that semi-autos of all varieties and styles clearly fall under the 2A. Fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, stingers, etc. do not. There is a good reason for this. While the "militia" refers to the body of law abiding citizens available to defend the state and themselves against tyranny (ranging from would-be dictators to garden variety criminals), giving any individual access to offensive military weapons -- machine guns designed for supression of troops, artillery, etc. -- would give that one individual far too much power.

 

Do you really want joe the terrorist to be able to walk into a gun shop, plunk down a few thousand bucks and walk out with an M60? And yes, an M60 is potentially far more lethal in terms of killy large numbers of people than a semi-auto, just as a semi-auto is more lethal than a bolt action rifle for that purpose. Do you want that person to be able to buy a stnger and bring down a plane? The power of the milita comes from its collective nature -- no one person or small group could bring down the state, but protectors of liberty could band together to stand up to tyrrany. The notion that any and all weapons should be available on the open market is insane.

 

So you are in favor of more restrictions on firearms than we currently have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the prices are prohibitive. They are certainly cheaper than many "hobby" implements (boats, extra cars, fancy motorcycles) that people drive all the time. I'd have a couple if the laws allowed in NJ...

 

Not really..you have your "Hobby FA" Like Sten, Mac 10, 11, and SW &6 wich is the equivalent of say, a Dirt Bike or Dune Buggy (Yeah, i know, i'm dating myself)..and you have your SERIOUS FA...Like M-16, Thompson, and up which go on the LOW end for 20+K. Considering the SAME M-16A1 that you are paying upwards of $22,000 for Today cost a Whopping $900 or so in 1985...i would definitly say the costs have become prohibitive because of Hughes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

** I **, would go so far to say that I would have ZERO problem with a national license, issued by state for firearms ownership, specifically pistols, with training and qualification/insurance, BUT if you do that you should allow FULL Nation wide CCW....

 

IMHO, the problem with requiring training for firearms ownership is that the state can start piling on all sorts of restrictions. This could effectively become a "literacy test" for firearms. "Literacy tests" where what some Southern states did during Jim Crow to suppress the black vote.

 

If NJ suddenly passed a training requirement, how long before it was state run, and only on the 3rd Thursday on odd months with a 25 seat class limit?

 

The constitution is not a buffet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any weapon police are "allowed" to have should be available to the general public. Period. End of sentence.

 

 

"The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence." Sir Robert Peel

 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common use should include whatever is common for the military

 

This.

 

The Second Amendment was written in a time when the arms kept by private citizens were exactly the same as the arms kept by the military. There is no other way to interpret the Second Amendment, so any opposition must either suck it up or try to repeal (good luck with that)

 

You also fail to take into account countries like Switzerland. (I've been there, didn't just read about it) with a high number of homes with full auto and they are relatively easy to get and they also don't have these issues. Once you allow a line to exist, where that line sits can be moved based on whoever has the power.

 

NY just moved the line from 10 to 7. WTF?

 

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear: no lines allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's almost funny that so many are repeating the whole "semi auto is more dangerous than auto anyway" bs on here. No, it's not. You don't need pinpoint accuracy to let off a mag on full auto at a crowd of targets. Automatic fire is not that erratic in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing with it. Most modern calibers like 556 are a balance between size, capacity and recoil during full auto and burst fire. Otherwise we'd still be using the m14 for mil/LEO application.

 

I am not using this info to justify restrictions, it's just that facts are facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a bit of ignorance on NFA laws here due to the fact we cannot own them in NJ (well we could but theyd never approve the permit).

 

Heres a link to the ATF's NFA page, educate yourselves, you may be suprised what ya learn.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/ and heres the NFA book http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/nfa-handbook/

 

Now as to the mak and sten guns being unreliable and junk simply not true, the few i have fired ran fantastic. Throw some lage parts on a MAC and you get a gold starred FA.

 

Now also to the accuracy of FA weapons and being "spraying and praying". With a few moments of proper instruction of how to hold and trigger minipulation, even the dumbest army recruit is proficient after maybe 3 hours to keep 20rounds on a silloutte at 25yds. (Been there done that have the form to prove it)

 

Its all about education guys, the more we educate people INCLUDING ourselves, the more we can promote the safe legal ownership and use of ALL firearms. FA/SA, DD, SBR, SBS, suppressors.

 

We all "remember" how horrible something from our past was or exactly what the "law" is or was. If we dont check the facts we are most often passing along falacies as fact, that does no good for anyone involved in anything.

 

So take a minute guys read the handbook its actually quite interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...