Should people be able to own machine guns as they can own a semi-auto?

[Bono]

I mean, machine guns that were made after 1982, adn with no federal licensing requirement.

[Platypus]

nup. What's the point-you don't need it for hunting or sports shooting.

[Silent Hunter]

I agree with Hughento. You can't go hunting with a Tommy Gun.

[2952-0-0]

Yes, nut with all firearms they should be locked up when not in use.

[Wakie]

Well, depends on the specs of the weapon.  There are specific things which I'm against (like flash suppressors and collapsable stocks) because they serve no civilian purpose and only serve to aid criminals.

But if your intent is to ask whether people should be able to own fully automatic weapons, I'm going to lean towards no.  Or, if they do own them they should be required to register for a license.

[angus]

I always say so jokingly, but as a serious matter, I'd also say yes.  My own feeling is that they're not for hunting anyway.  Many gun owners have never hunted.  It's for protection against an oppressive government, which means you have to keep up with, or stay ahead of, government weapons technology.  Licensing sort of defeats the purpose doesn't it?  If the government stays ahead of you in its information technology, then they win.  This is what I call the "Dale Gribble approach to firearm ownership."  None of us are singly wealthy or expansive enough to match any government, but collectively, a well-armed populace guarantees that the government doesn't get too out-of-control.

[Wakie]

Does anyone really think that a group of private citizens could really overthrow and break away from the government?  I mean seriously .... about 150 years the South tried it and they had an organized military led by probably the greatest military genius of his time (Robert E Lee).

[angus]

that is exactly how your country was born.  and the USSR, and france, and Red china.  apparently the schools aren't doing their jobs.  further evidence that they should be less concerned with porn in lockers than the teaching of history.

[Wakie]

All of those revolutions also enjoyed the overwhelming popular support of the public.  I guess I just don't see 10 guys with assault rifles standing up against a F-16.

[J. J.]

Does anyone really think that a group of private citizens could really overthrow and break away from the government?  I mean seriously .... about 150 years the South tried it and they had an organized military led by probably the greatest military genius of his time (Robert E Lee).

Ah, try using a F-16 in a back alley.

There is a deterrence factor in private ownership on many levels.  An oppressive government would have to think twice about oppressing an armed population.  They might win, but at a terrible cost to themselves.

There is also a deterrence factor, and not just against a foreign invader.  A group of terrorists attempting to attack a small town, in rural Iowa or central Pennsylvania will realize that the citizenry will very like fire back.  There was a suggestion that al Qaeda was looking at such an attack in Virginia a few years ago.

[angus]

neither do I.  I think it was misinterpreted.  and the examples I chose were misleading.  and I was being a smart-ass.  I apologise.  What I was trying to say was that this argument about certain guns not being for hunting doesn't really hold sway with some folks.  I know there are hunters and sportsmen.  My folks are from Northern Minnesota, and as you might imagine they're all into fishing and hunting and all those types of activities.  Guess it skips a generation.  But my two favorite examples of gun control are Germany 1938 and Russia 1917.  The first thing any intelligent dictator does is secure his place.  That is most easily achieved by ensuring that no one can easily knock you off.  Benjamin Franklin said something like, "People who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."  I agree.

[Richard]

Absolutely.

[AuH2O]

All of those revolutions also enjoyed the overwhelming popular support of the public.  I guess I just don't see 10 guys with assault rifles standing up against a F-16.

Actually not. The Bolshevik Revolution had virtually no national support, and a lot of its support in St. Petersburg was really just anti-Czar sentiment (with the Guards units and such). In an election, the Bolsheviks would have been around 3%, the Menshaviks maybe 5%, the rest non-communist.

The Red Chinese perhaps had 50% support, but probably not-- keep in mind Mao was on his best behavior until he consolidated power.



At any rate, the situation in Iraq proves small arms can hamper a modern army.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually not. The Bolshevik Revolution had virtually no national support, and a lot of its support in St. Petersburg was really just anti-Czar sentiment (with the Guards units and such). In an election, the Bolsheviks would have been around 3%, the Menshaviks maybe 5%, the rest non-communist.

IIRC the Bolshevik coup had a lot of support in Petrograd (nee St Petersburg)... there was a reasonably free election a few months later (which was an SR landslide... so Lenin had the elected body (what was it called? National Assembly?) shut down on it's first day. Typical of him...)

[Wakie]

There is also a deterrence factor, and not just against a foreign invader.  A group of terrorists attempting to attack a small town, in rural Iowa or central Pennsylvania will realize that the citizenry will very like fire back.  There was a suggestion that al Qaeda was looking at such an attack in Virginia a few years ago.

Ummm .... Red Dawn was a highly unrealistic movie.

[AuH2O]

Actually not. The Bolshevik Revolution had virtually no national support, and a lot of its support in St. Petersburg was really just anti-Czar sentiment (with the Guards units and such). In an election, the Bolsheviks would have been around 3%, the Menshaviks maybe 5%, the rest non-communist.

IIRC the Bolshevik coup had a lot of support in Petrograd (nee St Petersburg)... there was a reasonably free election a few months later (which was an SR landslide... so Lenin had the elected body (what was it called? National Assembly?) shut down on it's first day. Typical of him...)

What is now St. Petersburg, then, no need to go through all the name shenanigans.

Like I said, there was support in the capital-- particularly because of the combination of disgruntled Guards units and the Putilov Works-- but what portion of Russia does that make up?

The SRs had a wider base but still lacked any real ability or plan to govern... the Bolshevik leadership was obviously a million times better.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It was called the "Constituent Assembly"... I've got some statistics somewhere...

[David S]

Well, depends on the specs of the weapon.  There are specific things which I'm against (like flash suppressors and collapsable stocks) because they serve no civilian purpose and only serve to aid criminals.

But if your intent is to ask whether people should be able to own fully automatic weapons, I'm going to lean towards no.  Or, if they do own them they should be required to register for a license.

No one has ever been killed by a flash suppressor or a folding stock. I suspect there have been very few drive by bayonetings either.

That said I'd probably go for licensing full autos and that's the case now in many states.

There are bigger things to worry about in the battle to save the right to keep and bear arms. The anti-gun people want to ban;
Semi-autos
Handguns
Small guns (saturday night specials)
Big guns (.50 calibers)
Guns with large magazine capacity over 10 rounds
Guns that look sinister
Laser sights
Folding stocks
Any other gun that happens to be an opportune target.

[Wakie]

A flash suppressor is completely worthless in either (A) recreational shooting/target practice, (B) hunting, and (C) self defense.  But it is really good for concealing your position from the cops you are shooting at.

A folding stock is the same story.  Worthless for hunting, target practice, and self defense but excellent for allowing you to conceal a weapon.

[David S]

A flash suppressor is completely worthless in either (A) recreational shooting/target practice, (B) hunting, and (C) self defense.  But it is really good for concealing your position from the cops you are shooting at.

A folding stock is the same story.  Worthless for hunting, target practice, and self defense but excellent for allowing you to conceal a weapon.

How often do cops get into nighttime gun battles with someone they can't see except for the muzzle blast? This has to be a very rare event.
Rifles with folding stocks are not as concealable as pistols and they are already legal.  Also most crooks could figure out how to cut off the stock and just use the pistol grip if they wanted to. Banning that stuff is useless legislation. Its just another attempt by the anti's to ban anything that has to do with a gun.

[BobOMac2k2]

This is almost as stupid as kids bringing guns to school.

[Bono]

This is almost as stupid as kids bringing guns to school.

You do know you can own a machine gun, altough with some bureocratic hassle, don't you?

[J. J.]

There is also a deterrence factor, and not just against a foreign invader.  A group of terrorists attempting to attack a small town, in rural Iowa or central Pennsylvania will realize that the citizenry will very like fire back.  There was a suggestion that al Qaeda was looking at such an attack in Virginia a few years ago.

Ummm .... Red Dawn was a highly unrealistic movie.

Agreed, so was Clancy's novel Debt of Honor, which included a hijacked passenger jet being flown into a major governmental building at least until someone freaking did it on 9/11/01!  

Were there considerations to do this, by al Qaeda?  A small town in VA was targeted.  I like the deterrent effect.

[BobOMac2k2]

Yeah, and my post remains the same.

[Wakie]

A flash suppressor is completely worthless in either (A) recreational shooting/target practice, (B) hunting, and (C) self defense.  But it is really good for concealing your position from the cops you are shooting at.

A folding stock is the same story.  Worthless for hunting, target practice, and self defense but excellent for allowing you to conceal a weapon.

How often do cops get into nighttime gun battles with someone they can't see except for the muzzle blast? This has to be a very rare event.
Rifles with folding stocks are not as concealable as pistols and they are already legal.  Also most crooks could figure out how to cut off the stock and just use the pistol grip if they wanted to. Banning that stuff is useless legislation. Its just another attempt by the anti's to ban anything that has to do with a gun.

You've gotta be joking.  I've been pretty open about my stand on the firearms issue.  I'm ok with most things but I want to limit certain features.  So NO, this isn't "just another attempt blah blah blah".  This is 1 private citizen's opinion.

As I pointed out, flash suppressor's serve absolutely no civilian purpose.  If you can come up with one I'd love to hear it.  Just because a nighttime gun fight between police and crooks is an uncommon occurrence doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps any way.

Same sort of deal regarding collapsable stock.  No civilian purpose.  Sure, a handgun is more easily concealed.  A knife even more so.  But those weapons don't have the same destructive capabilities that a weapon that would have a collapsable stock has.

Oh wait, this is the part where you whine about the 2nd amendment.  You know there are limitations on the first amendment.  You cannot yell "fire" in a packed theater.  This is a reasonable limitation on your rights to protect the general safety of society.