Your views on fully automatic weapons.

[67gtonut 847]

Should it be Legal.... Yes

 

Needed ..... No

 

Fun to own( for the properly trained ) ......... Yes

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I think we need to get rid of the manufacturing ban but keep the tax stamps. Not going to bother commenting on nj's position.

[johnp 45]

You should be able to own whatever the fugg you want. Shall not be infringed.

[scatterbrains 0]

def should be legal, My reasoning?

The cops and military have access to them why shouldent I?

 

2nd reason, when was the last time in our countries history was a new FA firearm designed built and protoyped by an individual?

What advancements in firearms tech are we as a country by not letting people build and create new firearms? Almost every long standing "platform" was designed and built by an individual in there home shopor small business. By eliminating the "ban" on FA in this country we may let loose the next browning, gatlin, or thompson.

 

I know some shops can experiment but the costs involved are huge and if you just design a new system thats revolutionary you arent going to sell to winchester, browning or ruger to design the next FA, and you sure as hell wont be building it in your garage.

 

So what are we suppressing by haveing MILLIONS of possiblities yet no outlet. I think THAT is the worst part.

 

Lost my train of thought had to work and come back : (

[Shane45 807]

Forgive me if Im wrong but Albanian, your comments wreak of someone fishing for the perfect quote to put in an anti gun article.

 

 

Guys be wary of feeding the anti 2A propaganda machine..........

[Metalflames 0]

Forgive me if Im wrong but Albanian, your comments wreak of someone fishing for the perfect quote to put in an anti gun article.

 

 

Guys be wary of feeding the anti 2A propaganda machine..........

Be wary...

[Albanian 121]

*shrugs* sorry if I come off that way.

 

I posted because quite often pro-gun people in my personal circle still support the insane restrictions we have on FA weapons (they are also generally against concealed carry but it is obvious you guys are not). In fact, they think like I thought in the beginning of this thread, that they were just blanket banned and could no longer be sold or traded at all. I was wondering how the members of this forum felt. If they felt like me, or my friends.

 

Anyway, I am Albanian, we love guns. haha

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Honestly, the whole "people are untrained and stupid thing" doesn't really phase me. You trust the average idiot with a 12 ga, or a 9mm handgun, but you draw the line at full auto? One bullet is enough to kill...

 

Honestly, the solution is simple: have ranges restrict membership and require training classes. Give ROs the power to boot people out and force the to get additional training if they're still grossly incompetent.

[TK421 2]

I will say, I'm happy that FA weapons aren't easily accessible in this country. In most places it is easy to get a rifle or shotgun, and it shouldn't be easy to get an M16. That being said, I don't know the happy medium of accessibility of those weapons and restriction. I definitely think extra care needs to be taken, I wouldn't want my neighbor keeping an M16 in his closet.

 

I think it's great that people can own them, and an anonymous forum member was even kind enough to let me spray ammo using his legal registered M16 and M11 (could be mistaken on the second) out of state.

 

I guess what I'm saying is I support the right to own FA weapons, and I like that they are in a class of their own. I don't know how restricted that class should be. It shouldn't be more restricted that what it is already.

 

I'd really like a FA 22, anything center fire is too expensive for my blood.

 

Well take comfort in knowing that the law abiding folks can't easily obtain them but criminals are not as such inhibited. The uncomfortable truth is that it is not that hard with technology today for a properly funded and motivated person to be able to find the blueprints, jigs, parts and tools needed to illegally convert an AR or AK if they are so inclined to do so in violation of the law. If one has the technical means to finish an 80% receiver into a functioning AR lower they can easily produce an M16 lower from one or from an existing AR lower. Like everything else, the laws only keep honest people honest and I could never in good faith suggest anyone try it but people should have proper kowledge of the truth.

 

Not explicit instructions for obvious reasons but to get an idea watch from 15:51 on.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6fuvzofsgw

[DevsAdvocate 112]

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

 

As a libertarian, I have a solution: since the 2nd Amendment forbids the Government from interfering with your Rights (or any other person), then the easiest way to go about this is by using market pressures via the assignment of liability.

 

Place weapons like machine guns, SBSs, SBRs, suppressors, in a "liability" category where an FFL can be sued if they are misused. The caveat is: the FFL would also be allowed to require training or other certifications prior to releasing a firearm.

 

So, Nick, let's say you know me, you've shot with me, you know who I am. You trust that I won't go crazy and use a machine gun to go Rambo. You could reasonably transfer me a full-auto FNP-90 and not worry. However, if I'm some slacker looking kid with a hoodie holding guns 'gangsta' style, you would probably not be to thrilled to sell me an MP-5K... so in order to shield yourself from liability you could require training.

 

It's a double edged sword, I know. It puts a lot of weight on the FFLs. But I feel it's the best compromise to ensure safety without totally infringing on our Rights. Obviously this is also a simplistic explanation, I plan on going into more detail in my blog.

[PeteF 1,044]

 

 

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

 

How do you feel about training and instruction being required to vote?

Face it any 18 yo can vote without even having a clue who is running nor any position said votee stands for.

> 50% of this country are borderline morons when it comes to politics.

Elected governments have killed more people than any individual ever could.

[Turbotezza 1]

With the kind of litigious society we live in, this will never happen. Even if they charged you $100k for the 'transfer' fee, it'll never be worth it.

 

 

It's a double edged sword, I know. It puts a lot of weight on the FFLs. But I feel it's the best compromise to ensure safety without totally infringing on our Rights. Obviously this is also a simplistic explanation, I plan on going into more detail in my blog.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

With the kind of litigious society we live in, this will never happen. Even if they charged you $100k for the 'transfer' fee, it'll never be worth it.

 

I disagree. Doctors and other professions carry a great deal of liability, yet they manage. Granted, the easiest thing you can do is cap liability. For Assault Rifles, it would be $200,000k max, for Rocket Launchers, it would be $1,000,000. For Stinger Anti-Air missiles, it would be $10,000,000 etc.

[Shane45 807]

On the topic of manufacturing an ar...it can be done with a cutting board!

 

As I have posted previously:

 

[Turbotezza 1]

Yeah, but there aren't as many 'anti doctor' people as there are 'anti gun' people.

 

I disagree. Doctors and other professions carry a great deal of liability, yet they manage. Granted, the easiest thing you can do is cap liability. For Assault Rifles, it would be $200,000k max, for Rocket Launchers, it would be $1,000,000. For Stinger Anti-Air missiles, it would be $10,000,000 etc.

[TK421 2]

I disagree. Doctors and other professions carry a great deal of liability, yet they manage. Granted, the easiest thing you can do is cap liability. For Assault Rifles, it would be $200,000k max, for Rocket Launchers, it would be $1,000,000. For Stinger Anti-Air missiles, it would be $10,000,000 etc.

 

And everyone thinks I'm nuts. LOL

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Yeah, but there aren't as many 'anti doctor' people as there are 'anti gun' people.

 

Your point is? You can't have it both ways: you either will never have machine guns, or you will have to accept that it will be difficult to have them.

 

Are you telling me that doctors don't face lawsuits? Even if they do their jobs to a 'T' they still face liability that is inherent in their profession. Mistakes happen, things get missed, and it's ultimately on them. That's why they get malpractice insurance.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

And everyone thinks I'm nuts. LOL

 

I don't see what's nuts about it. Want to get into the business of dealing missiles and bombs, then you have to assume the liability of people misusing it. You think mining companies who buy explosives would get off scott free if someone stole those explosives and killed a lot of people with them? No. Securing that stuff in a reasonable manner is part of their responsibility in handling/buying it.

 

The same would be true of FFLs.

 

IMO, this is probably our best bet at allowing "fun" stuff to be sold. Few FFLs would even bother given the added costs, and those that do would require some decently strong restrictions and training requirements to do it in order to reduce their liability.

 

Essentially, it would create the Firearms Liability Insurance market... something the NRA could enter into.

[NicePants 58]

And everyone thinks I'm nuts. LOL

 

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.

[Turbotezza 1]

I think TK421 was referring to the FFL part, not about prohibiting full auto firearms.

 

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.

[TK421 2]

I don't see what's nuts about it. Want to get into the business of dealing missiles and bombs, then you have to assume the liability of people misusing it. You think mining companies who buy explosives would get off scott free if someone stole those explosives and killed a lot of people with them? No. Securing that stuff in a reasonable manner is part of their responsibility in handling/buying it.

 

The same would be true of FFLs.

 

IMO, this is probably our best bet at allowing "fun" stuff to be sold. Few FFLs would even bother given the added costs, and those that do would require some decently strong restrictions and training requirements to do it in order to reduce their liability.

 

Essentially, it would create the Firearms Liability Insurance market... something the NRA could enter into.

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.

 

My point is the seller of a legal item cannot be expected to be held accountable for the possible illegal use of a legal product. Imagine if Ford or GM were held accountable for every asstard that killed someone with their car. Imagine every brewery/distillery and liqueur store being held liable for every asstard that had a few drinks and killed someone on the highway. You are playing by libtard rules trying to hold honest people accountable for the actions of others, something that is out of their control. Kind of like taking guns away from people that did nothing wrong because some loser chose to perform and evil act with a similar type of gun.

[Turbotezza 1]

In doctor's liability, only the patient and the immediate famly might sue the doctor, since the only person 'wronged' would be the patient.

 

But in your case of the FFL, anybody who feels they have been 'wronged' will have the ability to sue and the insurance companies will never take the risk of insuring the ffl. If aplied to a case like Sandy Hook, the amount would be in the hundreds of millions or even billions since it affected so many people. The families of the dead would sue, those who survived but now suffer from PTSB would sue and probably even the State.

 

You see the difference?

 

Your point is? You can't have it both ways: you either will never have machine guns, or you will have to accept that it will be difficult to have them.

 

Are you telling me that doctors don't face lawsuits? Even if they do their jobs to a 'T' they still face liability that is inherent in their profession. Mistakes happen, things get missed, and it's ultimately on them. That's why they get malpractice insurance.

[va_bank 0]

Just require people to obtain a special license, like having a motorcycle endorsement on your DL. Mental exam, 20 hrs of safety training. Make the person an automatic accomplice if the automatic weapon is used in a crime.

 

Do I think there's a need for them? No. But I would love to own some of the WWII era "machine-pistols"

[Metalflames 0]

On the topic of manufacturing an ar...it can be done with a cutting board!

 

As I have posted previously:

 

Good ol' Yankee ingenuity right there.

[Metalflames 0]

I don't see what's nuts about it. Want to get into the business of dealing missiles and bombs, then you have to assume the liability of people misusing it. You think mining companies who buy explosives would get off scott free if someone stole those explosives and killed a lot of people with them? No. Securing that stuff in a reasonable manner is part of their responsibility in handling/buying it.

 

The same would be true of FFLs.

 

IMO, this is probably our best bet at allowing "fun" stuff to be sold. Few FFLs would even bother given the added costs, and those that do would require some decently strong restrictions and training requirements to do it in order to reduce their liability.

 

Essentially, it would create the Firearms Liability Insurance market... something the NRA could enter into.

 

Be careful what you wish for. Some of the proposed legislation is to put the decision of who can purchase and own a firearm in the hands of private insurance companys. Essentially "pricing your right" out of reach of the average person.

 

I can hear it now "we can insure your right to own a Mosseberg 500 with a 6 month premium of ONLY $7200"

[DevsAdvocate 112]

In doctor's liability, only the patient and the immediate famly might sue the doctor, since the only person 'wronged' would be the patient. But in your case of the FFL, anybody who feels they have been 'wronged' will have the ability to sue and the insurance companies will never take the risk of insuring the ffl. If aplied to a case like Sandy Hook, the amount would be in the hundreds of millions or even billions since it affected so many people. The families of the dead would sue, those who survived but now suffer from PTSB would sue and probably even the State. You see the difference?

 

They could sue, and maybe rightfully should. But will they win? Doubtful. The worse that will happen is the FFL(s) are investigated and subpoenaed by those pursuing a lawsuit, and they would provide evidence that they had no knowledge of any evidence that this lady had a kid that would do this.

 

Throw in liability caps and insurance, and the issue isn't that bad.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

My point is the seller of a legal item cannot be expected to be held accountable for the possible illegal use of a legal product. Imagine if Ford or GM were held accountable for every asstard that killed someone with their car. Imagine every brewery/distillery and liqueur store being held liable for every asstard that had a few drinks and killed someone on the highway. You are playing by libtard rules trying to hold honest people accountable for the actions of others, something that is out of their control. Kind of like taking guns away from people that did nothing wrong because some loser chose to perform and evil act with a similar type of gun.

 

That's a terrible comparison. Ford and GM can't be easily sued for such a thing because the State has taken the liability on itself. If someone crashes a car out of gross incompetence, then the State's motor vehicle agency is responsible, not Ford/GM.

 

However, let's look at alcohol: for one thing, it's never sold directly from the brewery, but to distributors or local stores. Those stores are legally prohibited from selling to someone under 21. But let's say one salesman lets an 18 year old buy a bunch of booze without checking his ID and that kid drives his car into someone and kills them. While the 18 year old is ultimately responsible, the salesman is also partially liable. He didn't due any diligence in checking the ID. If he did, the kid might not have gotten alcohol.

 

See?

 

Same with guns. The NRA and industry would be responsible for ensuring that the people who buy their firearms are trained, in addition to them showing that they do not live with a prohibited person.

 

A perfect example of this at work is the "We Card" program, something set up by the tobacco companies and their partnerships to reduce their liability regarding underage smoking. They have a similar program for Alcohol sales as well.

 

It's not perfect, but it's Constitutional, and offers a pathway to exercising our 2nd Amendment Rights in a way we will never achieve as long as the Government is assuming liability in firearms transfers.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Just require people to obtain a special license, like having a motorcycle endorsement on your DL. Mental exam, 20 hrs of safety training. Make the person an automatic accomplice if the automatic weapon is used in a crime.

 

Do I think there's a need for them? No. But I would love to own some of the WWII era "machine-pistols"

 

Can't. Firearms ownership and use is protected as a Right. Motorcycling isn't.

[unclenunzie 3]

The problem isn't the FA weapons. The problem is US: People are guaranteed the right to arms, but there is no guarantee of responsible behavior. I know everyone here on this forum, if presented with their first full-auto weapon, would seek knowledge before handling or loading it. What about the newly 21, who has no previous firearms safety training or self-taught knowledge? I don't have a solution, but whatever the solution, it will involve training.

 

We could extend the thinking to include crew-served destructive devices. You can own it, but would you want to try it before understanding it?

[SgtToadette 59]

I actually differ from a lot of you guys on this perspective, but I don't think the NFA is a conceptually bad idea. With some caveats, of course.

 

I think that there should be an infrastructure by which civilians can own, I'll use the phrase: 'more deadly' weapons, while allowing the more 'standard' options to remain readily available. For example, I wouldn't oppose and would actually support the concept of scrapping the NFA entirely and implementing a new, permit-based system in which individuals can get the equivalent of a federal level FID which would allow them to purchase suppressors and magazines exceeding 30 rounds freely. You would then have a system similar to the permit to purchase a handgun system here in NJ for fully automatic weapons and SBRs.

 

The sale of automatic weapons would no longer be prohibited under these conditions and newly manufactured automatic weapons would be available given the standards I mention above. The background checks would be more thorough than a simple NICS check for the federal FIDs.

 

Otherwise, all other firearms would remain legal and unregulated, however all private sales would be required to go through an FFL so as to allow for a NICS check.

 

That's what I'd do.