[axxe55]

on another forum, there was a thread started about fully automatic firearms. one member stated basicly, that because he saw no need for them and in his opinion they were useless and that it seemed only thugs had them, they needed to be banned. now with the position i hold for the 2nd admendment, even though i personally have no need or want of a fully automatic firearm, i could not ever support the banning or restriction of any type on any type of firearm. even though i don't agree with your choice of firearms, i will defend your right to your choice through the upholding of our 2nd admendment rights.

the banning of any type of firearm for whatever reason, is just another small step in the complete erosion of our 2nd admendment rights and needs to be stopped at every instance before it becomes rule rather than the exception to the rule.

the liberals have tried for many years now to have us believe that gun control laws, restrictions and bans were in our best interests in curbing crime. we as responsible gun owners know this to be untrue and just plain hogwash. the only sensible way to curb crime is to make it just plain hard and difficult on the criminals. concealed and open carry, more states with Castle Laws, and harsher penalties for criminals. give the rights back to the law abiding citizen and let the criminals pay for their crimes instead of liberal slaps on the hand and easy jail time. put them on prison farms and factories, and have them do hard labor everyday of their sentence instead. make prison a place where they have a dread of going back and an incentive to do right instead of wrong.

banning any type of firearm, only restricts the law abiding citizen, as the criminals never obtain firearms the legal way in the first place. when a person legally purchases a firearm, they go through a background check, so why should we have fear of a person that is upstanding and law abiding, from having whatever choice of firearm he chooses? IMO, there isn't any reason to because it's firmly established he chooses to abide by the law and doesn't present a danger of commtting criminal acts.

my views on this are mine and mine alone. even my wife when asked about banning fully automatic firearms had this to say, " if a person wants to buy one and can afford it, then they should be allowed to own one if they can buy it like any other gun"

 

[greyhawk50]

Well stated and I agree totally. What is there about "shall not be infringed" that needs to be debated???

 

[28Shooter]

Well said gentlemen - an infringement is an infringement period! Here in the People's Republic of Maryland, they have banned the sale of magazines that hold more than 20 rounds, we have a Handgun Roster Board that must bless a new handgun before it can be sold here, trigger locks on handguns (which our former governor could not operate and that are not required of our law enforcement community), and my favorite, a 7-day waiting period on handguns and regulated rifles - read ARs unless they are Colt HBARS. Tight gun controls have proven very successful here in Maryland just look at the shooting/murder rate in Baltimore City.

 

[axxe55]

my point exactly guys. gun laws, bans and restrictions only restrict the law abiding gun owner, never the criminals that they were suppose to in the first place.

who in their right mind could believe that restrictions and bans will curb or deter crime is beyond me. criminals have never abided by the same laws we do, so what idiot thinks that a restriction or ban would have any better results is something that i find hard to believe.

 

[duster066]

I agree as well axxe. Only thugs own automatic weapons?When was the last time a legally owned automatic weapon was used in a crime, by the legal owner or the crook who stole it? I'm sure it must happen, but I can't remember a story. The only guy I've ever known who owned them, he had three, was an Air Force SSgt I served with. He was a bit bent but he was no thug. The left tells us they have no intention of taking away our sporting arms. Well a machine gun is good for no other purpose in the hands of a legal owner during times of civil harmony except sport shooting. If the SHTF a Marlin 60 becomes a weapon of war, and I personally see no difference except the cost of buying and shooting the two types of guns.

 

[axxe55]

I agree as well axxe. Only thugs own automatic weapons?When was the last time a legally owned automatic weapon was used in a crime, by the legal owner or the crook who stole it? I'm sure it must happen, but I can't remember a story. The only guy I've ever known who owned them, he had three, was an Air Force SSgt I served with. He was a bit bent but he was no thug. The left tells us they have no intention of taking away our sporting arms. Well a machine gun is good for no other purpose in the hands of a legal owner during times of civil harmony except sport shooting. If the SHTF a Marlin 60 becomes a weapon of war, and I personally see no difference except the cost of buying and shooting the two types of guns.

Duster, well said! the firearm should not be punished for the actions of it's owner. a firearm is an inanimate object that only performs as it user directs it to. it can't think, reason or have any emotions. the firearm is niether good or evil. if a person drives a car drunk and runs over someone and kills them, are cars evil because of the actions of the drunk? have they ever at any point tried to ban cars because of drunk drivers? no! then why ban or restrict a type of firearm because some liberal deems it evil and dangerous.

my personal viewpoint is that i have not one desire to own a fully automatic firearm, but would never condone a a ban or restriction on someone for that choice, if that is their desire. i also would support that right to the fullest and respect their choice.

 

[bmarg]

axxe55 your post #4 is well put. I recently did a high school capstone project on guns and their correlation to violence and that was essentially my point of my 12 page paper and 7 minute speech. I don't think my liberal teachers much cared for my position on my topic, but had nothing to say as I shut their questions down with reasonable responses. I don't think they know what hit them. I love proving anti gun people wrong. I would love to have a fully automatic gun, but it is impractical for most citizens because of the lead you would have to feed through it, too expensive. I didn't touch on this subject in my paper though because they aren't legal or very accessible making them irrelevant. If anyone would like to read my paper just let me know and I can get it too you. It is full of great information and would be a good read for any gun lover!

 

[axxe55]

Bmarg, fully automatic firearms are accessable if you have the type of disposable income to afford them and live in a state where they aren't restricted. here in Texas, if i had $10,000-20,000 i could own one. the opinion i have been making is, whether i want one or not is irrelevent, but that i support others rights to their choice of firearms. personally i find any restrictions, bans or gun control laws bad for all gun owners, period. look at some other countries where they allowed some restrictions and bans, and they never stopped, just took them a little at a time, until they were just all gone. if we don't stem the flow and fight back and rally our cause, it could happen here as well. support and join a pro 2nd admendment rights group of some sort. vote for people who support the 2nd admendment and vote out those who don't. i have said this before, and will say it again, if we ever lose the 2nd admendment, what is there to for us to defend our other Constitutional rights? nothing!

 

[bmarg]

axxe55 some fully automatic weapons are illegal though in places. Like here in MN you have to get your class 3 license to purchase anything automatic and then even with the class 3 I believe it has to be a relic or curio. So this case I consider them illegal. The accessible part would cover that 10k to 20k to purchase one anywhere. I was also just stating I wouldn't mine having one, just my two cents. I also agree with you though that people should have the option to own these types of guns, no criminals of course.

 

[axxe55]

Bmarg, different states have different restrictions than others when it comes to fully automatic firearms, silencers, SBR, SBS, ect., ect., personally i don't agree with this at all. if you can legally own it in one state, then it should be legal in every state. because the 2nd admendment covers every state. but that would be too simple and practical.

 

[bmarg]

axxe55 I realize different states have different rules on things and I couldn't agree more with you about the rules being the same for every state, but for your sake, being from Texas, you better be quiet because you have some of the looses rules around. Odds are the restrictions would get worse for you! I also think conceal carry should be universal to all states with reciprocity for the whole US.

 

[wjjones]

I have to say the same I dont really have any use for a full auto gun of any kind but each to his own. How many of you have the rd limit restriction you are allowed to have in your home in your state?

 

[sandlynx]

Personally, I think there should be no restrictions of any kind; there is the 2nd amendment--"shall not be abridged". Laws have been made to restrict this freedom and that has happened because the criminals are now in charge of our government, on the Federal, State and local levels. Since the criminals are in charge, they are creating laws that are convenient for them so as to make the people helpless and easy to control and eliminate as has been done previously in history, over and over again in numerous countries. That's why the 2nd amendment was written--so that it won't happen here.
As to anyone wanting to own an automatice weapon, they may have a little more foresight into what's coming in the future and are trying to prepare. Going up against anyone (no specifics here, use your head) who has a high-powered automatic weapon with a pea-shooting shootgun or rifle is suicide. The criminals in charge are aware of the effects of this imbalance of weapon power. Read a little more history and you'll become radical-minded like me!

 

[moparman1911]

remember the past

all i have to say after hitler made himself godlike in the eyes of the german people and himself dictator in 1938 he banned any and all civilians to own firearms and look what happened there.the devils best trick was to make us believe he did not exist..

 

[axxe55]

if you compare the gun restriction laws Hitler implemented in the 1930's and those that were imposed in our country in 1968, i think a person could determine our gun control laws were modeled after his. scary thought!

personally i think what's needed is stricter penalties and punishment for crimes commited with firearms and not penalize the law abiding citizen his right to own and use whatever firearm he so chooses.

for some strange reason the anti gun liberals cannot seem to grasp the fact that gun control laws only keep those firearms out of the hands of LAC, not the criminals they are trying to prohibit possession of firearms.

 

[Spoon]

And ain't it odd when numbskulls like NYC's Mayor pull every dirty trick/tactic in the anti-gunners' book and have armed security 24/7. If guns are so dangerous, why would he employ them around him at all times? How could he sleep wondering which gun is going to take his life?

As for punishments...on-site terminations of those shooting at LEOs or holding citizens hostage. I feel the same way about the extended pursuits with reckless abandon to flee & elude officers. Public hangings and firing squads aired nightly on the 6 & 10 News. I'm an intolerant, radical sob whenever someone brings up "tougher laws/punishments" in cases that warrant a rabid dog be put down. And a "hero's welcome" to citizens that are forced to assist in the worthwhile efforts to rid their streets, neighborhoods and towns of such animals whenever called for as described by State Statutes. Today, if you or I murder someone, their life has ended, yet we get 3 hots & a cot plus health club benes, computer access, a library card and are granted the ability to file lawsuit after lawsuit all at John Q's expense. And we'll be sucking air for another 20 years before the gubermint gets around to carry out our sentence of execution.

Yes I know...there will be abuses from time to time, but growing concerns and desperate times call for drastic measures before Beanfield MO to Hill Country TX becomes just like Tijuana or Juarez where Americans are met with the same violence that Mexico, Central and South American citizens face...but on a broader scale by people of many differing nationalities...especially the muzlems and their "brotherhood".

Bone up on the gang mess, the violence and shootings taking place in just Jefferson City and Columbia, MO. Things just keep escalating. Unheard of a couple years ago, but now...another reason to reinforce why I carry! Getting to be like the "wrong place at the wrong time" ghetto-style crime that was formerly seen mostly in major metro areas. The propensity for a law-abiding citizen to encounter situations in just these 2 smallish cities is a significantly higher percentage based on simple demographics.

WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING SOON besides uproot Obama and as many of his minions as possible. Due process is one thing, but the ACLU and the Criminal's Rights outweigh citizen/victim rights...and that my friends AIN'T RIGHT!

 

[eldarbeast]

39 States currently allow Private ownership of Fully Automatic Weapons : AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WV, WI and WY. You must be 21 and registered with the ATF&E.
Several states require more restrictions than most.

33 States allow Private ownership of Suppressed Weapons (Silencers).

eldar

 

[Spoon]

Thanks for the listing eldar. I've witnessed several select fire weapons and lots of suppressed rifles being fired ranges in MO. If responsible citizens want them and are willing to pay the $200 tax stamp for each...why shouldn't they enjoy the privilege? There isn't any difference in basic design than an old break-barrel single shot scattergun. I haven't shot full auto in a long, long while and darn sure couldn't afford it now with prices as they are. Did poke a few holes with an acquaintances suppressed rifles, but only for the fact that he is willing to spend his dollars on his toys. One of those "sharing is caring" episodes that we've all experienced among gun owners. I did have to install FCG locking pins in a Bushy M4 that sent a 3 or 4 shot burst downrange while my youngest was firing it. Pin backed out and the darn carbine did it's own thing for a split second. Had an old A-5 in the early 70s that developed that habit. It took the smithy a while to tear into it and replace worn parts. A 12ga, fired from the shoulder in 2 round bursts...is more punishment than fun and wastes ammo while hunting!

 

[eldarbeast]

I ran the DIA R&G Club Indoor Marksmanship Program during the 1982 to 1986 time frame.

Our stable employed a S&W Mod 41; Two Hi Standards ~ Supermatic with Fluted Barrel and a Trophy; and an H&R top break revolver ~ all in .22 caliber.
The Mod 41 started to act like a machine pistol ~ a couple of normal shots then 7-8 full auto rounds. The Chief Gunners Mate at the range stripped it down for us and rebuilt her 'for practise'.
We sold Winchester T-22 target ammo ~ .50/box of 50 ~ to the members. We handed out standard NRA targets to any that asked for them.

It was a pretty good time for me. Anybody bringing in a new firearm generally asked me to to 'test fire it' for them.

eldar

 

[moparman1911]

totally correct

if you compare the gun restriction laws Hitler implemented in the 1930's and those that were imposed in our country in 1968, i think a person could determine our gun control laws were modeled after his. scary thought!

personally i think what's needed is stricter penalties and punishment for crimes commited with firearms and not penalize the law abiding citizen his right to own and use whatever firearm he so chooses.

for some strange reason the anti gun liberals cannot seem to grasp the fact that gun control laws only keep those firearms out of the hands of LAC, not the criminals they are trying to prohibit possession of firearms.

axxe that`s why i compared it to hitler i am a history buff and after hitler did that people just started dissapearing and i don`t have to go any further on that but harsher penalties,our hard earned money is going to pay for these animals,child molesters,rapists, murders,drug sellers i am sorry but they style in jail and cry about their rights and their hbo is not on today.makes me sick and i am going to as far as to say the repeat offenders using our money not caring about human life.i think the statistic is around 75k or so for one inmate for 1 year this might sound cold but if you don`t care about human life and keep doing evil th
ings a bullet is only 25 cents.these are evil people we are talking about ready to snatch the life out of you for whatever you have in your pockets like the roman games in the arena man against man, thumbs down