Why are Machine Guns legal? What does anyone need with one?

2015-10-04T00:20:24-04:00

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/04/robert-farago/question-of-the-day-should-americans-be-able-to-own-machine-guns/

I am all for the 2nd amendment. I myself do not own a gun....I have a brother that owns so many I lost count and couldn't possibly tell you what they are.
I'm all for owing a rifle or a shot gun or many numerous types of hand guns....Guns to go hunting, guns to protect one self and their family/loved one.
BUT! Why is it necessary to own a Machine gun? Machine guns are great for the Military. The military has a real purpose/need for machine guns....BUT! why does an average American citizen need to own a machine gun? What is the purpose or reason to have one?
Do we really need machine guns? I for one would like to see Machine guns stopped from being sold in the US....
Nearly every drive by shooting I have read about involved a machine gun...AK this or that...semi automatic this or that.
Seriously...I know a lot of you out there know a hell of a lot about guns...I don't....I know just enough....But I do know that nothing good seems to come from those who have possession of Machines guns...except for the military or maybe except for gun collectors who buy them for the collection.....otherwise what do you use one for? To go hunting? Naw....really not a way to go hunting....to defend onself....nope...not really efficient and or safe way to defend yourself of your family...
So....why exactly is it legal to own a machine gun? ....and who feels machine guns should be available and who feels they should not be?
Just curious.

Question of the Day: Should Americans Be Able to Own Machine Guns? - The Truth About Guns

[HTML1] Of course, Americans can own fully-automatic (multiple shots with a single trigger squeeze) rifles. It’s just incredibly difficult; buying a machine gun involves more red tape than you’ll find in Santa’s workshop. Oh, and you can only buy aRead More

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 4 at 2015 12:21 AM

2015-10-04T00:21:56-04:00

Prepare to have your feelings hurt. This is a rough group. If I could get away with owning my own OH-58D and a Bradley, I would have the most AWESOME firing range.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Oct 4 at 2015 12:55 AM

2015-10-04T00:55:00-04:00

This article is misleading, semi-auto is legal, not automatic weapons manufactured post 1986.
Most automatic weapons are not allowed to be legally sold in the US. If they were manufactured prior to 1986 and registered with ATF, then they are 'legal' to be sold.
I get your question, my answer is propose an amendment to the constitution that puts restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. No one seems to want to do that because they know it won't pass. So the left keep hoping that they can pass it via legislation. Much easier to get the votes.
Not everyone lives close to the Police or can count on the paid first responder to show up in time.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 12:55 AM

2015-10-04T00:55:38-04:00

Perhaps like many hobbies or other pursuits, because they are fun to shoot. The browning M2 is one of my all time favorite weapons. Granted it has no use in polite society, but it is fun to shoot.

Response by SSgt David Tedrow made Oct 4 at 2015 1:10 AM

2015-10-04T01:10:29-04:00

For most it is a hobby, and expensive one. They just like to shoot them for sport, most do not use them for self defense, yet.

Response by SFC Wade W. made Oct 4 at 2015 1:12 AM

2015-10-04T01:12:42-04:00

Unless you have an FFL (Federal Firearms License) you cannot purchase nor own a machine gun. Every time I hear a reporter refer to automatic weapon I cringe. To get an FFL you go through strenuous background checks. All people who sell guns as a business must have an FFL. Please, do yourself a favor and read the ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Guide and educate yourself about these types of concerns. No regular person can own an automatic weapon legally.

Response by MSgt Niclas Svensson made Oct 4 at 2015 1:13 AM

2015-10-04T01:13:56-04:00

My first question would be: "What is your definition of a 'machine gun'?"

I ask that because people that don't know guns are often confused by terminology.

I often use the attached picture to illustrate my point... Which of the two rifles shown is ok, and which one should be banned?

The answer is they are both the same...Both are magazine fed, semi-automatic (meaning that when you pull the trigger, only 1 bullet is fired) rifles that are chambered in 5.56 caliber. One looks like a hunting rifle so most people say that one is ok... The other is black and military looking so it automatically becomes an evil "assault weapon".

In reality, there is no difference between the two,and neither one is a "machine gun".

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 4 at 2015 2:04 AM

2015-10-04T02:04:11-04:00

Sgt Kelli Mays, because they are about 16 kinds of fun to shoot. You have to be fairly well off to afford the hobby though - from 25¢/ round for bulk 5.56mm NATO to $3.00.round for linked .50 cal. BMG ammunition. Just listen to the cash going downrange.

Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D4V4pSQbN8

Big Sandy Machine Gun Shoot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIfrSmZLQX8

BIGGEST GUNS of Big Sandy Machine Gun Shoot

We continue the series of our trip to Arizona to see and film the Big Sandy Machine Gun Shoot. This is the biggest machine gun shoot in the world and people ...

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 2:40 AM

2015-10-04T02:40:39-04:00

Because there are many collectors and they want them for their collection. And because there are many recreational shooters who get a kick out of shooting them. Especially military folks.

Response by SPC Carl K. made Oct 4 at 2015 2:47 AM

2015-10-04T02:47:39-04:00

I have my serious doubts that your brother owns machine guns. I say this as a former FFL dealer. In order to own a "machine gun", or for those of us more familiar, a fully automatic weapon, one must possess a federal Class III license. This is a very expensive license issued by the ATF to allow civilians (Or former military members to own, outside the military) weapons capable of firing several rounds per squeeze of the trigger, to make it simple. A semi auto (the primary weapon platform allowed for civilian use) only allows one round to be fired per trigger squeeze. I have my doubts your brother is paying the extra money per year to own true machine guns. Hell to own a suppressor for a pistol is over $200 a year. With all of this said, please get facts straight before throwing arbitrary terms out there.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Oct 4 at 2015 7:16 AM

2015-10-04T07:16:18-04:00

Need doesn't really factor into the equation; a right is a right and the burden is not only the citizen who wishes to exercise that right to justify it but on the government to prove why it shouldn't be permitted. Further, you're misinformed; rifles make up less than 2% of the annual gun crimes in this nation. Beyond this, fully-automatic weapons are virtually NEVER used in crimes as they're so strictly regulated that very, very few people, probably less than a tenth of all gun owners, have one.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 4 at 2015 9:30 AM

2015-10-04T09:30:11-04:00

We're law abiding citizens. We shouldn't we be allowed to own anything. Why should we be restricted?

That's counter to how the Constitution was written. That's counter to how the concept of Due Process works.

It's not about Arms (Guns). It's about the underlying philosophy of Freedom. We get to choose. That's what this is really about.

Why should something be "banned?" Because someone thinks it's scary? Cars are statistically more dangerous than guns. Bad diets are WAY more than both of those combined.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Oct 4 at 2015 9:35 AM

2015-10-04T09:35:45-04:00

Bang, Bang, Bang is fun. Bbbbbbbang, bbbbbang, bbbbbang....is better.

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Oct 4 at 2015 9:36 AM

2015-10-04T09:36:52-04:00

Sgt Kelli Mays I can add no response to this discussion that hasn't been explained already,except i own a number of firearms,none are automatic,a few are semi-automatic,including a large game hunting rifle,a .22 i use for small game,a shotgun i use for bird hunting and a couple of the handguns used for home protection.I only know a couple of people who own legal automatic weapons, they are licensed dealers,and to my knowledge only fire them in exhibitions.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 10:01 AM

2015-10-04T10:01:03-04:00

A machine gun is a fully automatic mounted or portable firearm, designed to fire bullets in quick succession from an ammunition belt or magazine, typically at a rate of three hundred to eighteen hundred rounds per minute.

Response by SGT Patrick Reno made Oct 4 at 2015 10:10 AM

2015-10-04T10:10:01-04:00

I think it is little mans syndrome. How many military or exmillitary own a machine gun? I think it is just the wannabes that have more money than brains, who could buy that much ammo anyways.

Response by SSG Stan Morrison Jr made Oct 4 at 2015 10:28 AM

2015-10-04T10:28:06-04:00

If I could afford a SAW I would love to have one. But I'm not sure asking a bunch of military people about this gets you a good answer. I loved being on the range. One of the best parts of my military experience was firing weapons and blowing stuff up. I was an engineer. I miss that now 20 years later. I believe as an echo to other comments it comes down to choice. People in general see the military gear, think it looks cool and want it. Camo, personal armor, LBE, you name it. It just falls into place that they want the weapons too. I'm sure they love to shoot them, but probably don't know how to properly clean them. As we all know, sucks at times. Just like the choice of car, truck, clothes, etc. Jmho!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 10:41 AM

2015-10-04T10:41:54-04:00

The second amendment was made to protect the citizens from the government. They were oppressed by the government in Britian. They had no army it was all militia. It is for us the people to protect ourselves from being oppressed.

Response by SSG Eric Eck made Oct 4 at 2015 11:51 AM

2015-10-04T11:51:45-04:00

This statement, "Nearly every drive by shooting I have read about involved a machine gun...AK this or that...semi automatic this or that", makes this statement, "I know just enough", not true, because those weapons are not machine guns.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Oct 4 at 2015 12:09 PM

2015-10-04T12:09:53-04:00

"Why are Machine Guns legal? What does anyone need with one"

"In my defense, I have to mention that at NAVSTA Puget Sound in WA, and NAVSTA Belle Chase in LA the raccoons were fierce. In Washington an officer ordered the night watch to go chase off the raccoons as they were fighting outside his window so he couldn't sleep. Said Petty Officer headed out and was greeted by a large group of raccoons standing up on hind legs daring him to get involved in their tussle. He turned around went back inside." PO3 Sherry Thornburg..

Wouldn't you like to have a Machine gun to scare off a bunch of noisy Raccoons who have been invading a few Navy Bases and keeping an officer from getting his/her(?) beauty sleep??.. These noisy Raccoons scared off a Navy Sentry who ran back into his guard shack ..so I suggested calling in the Marines who could bring along a 50 Cal Machine Gun and fire it above the heads of these pesty Raccoons ...that might help the Navy get a good night's sleep at WA...

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Oct 4 at 2015 12:48 PM

2015-10-04T12:48:15-04:00

Sgt Kelli Mays, I think the others have well handled the points regarding legal definitions and ownership requirements for automatic weapons, and the mass population and media confusion regarding them. I will throw out that in the military a Machinegun is a technical term, it has to fire a rifle caliber, be fed with a large capacity magazine or belt and be employed/served by a crew. This makes things like the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon borderline (though it is technically a light machinegun, its crew consisting of a gunner and a-gunner and fires a carbine (borderline rifle) caliber on a belt.

Far more important is the question about "supporting the second amendment" because it sounds like you may be more conflicted on it than you might think. The second amendment is carefully worded and constructed. Its intent is to allow for a massive armed citizenry (at the time called a militia-which meant men ages 16-45 who owned their own arms and practiced regularly in their use) always capable of standing against a tyrannical government's military, just as the founders did. They make this clear in the first clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" This required armament parity. Therefore they established that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Many modern readers assume since modern military technology did not exist, the founders words cannot be taken literally. This is a mistake. In 1775 when the British marched on Concord they intended to seize stocks of powder, ball, muskets, food and /CANNON/. Cannons being the Crew Served Weapons most deadly in war at the time. Had the founders intended the Citizens of the United States to keep and bear only "Small Arms" they would have said so, the term was in use for several decades before the writing of the Constitution or the bill of rights.

Thus, people who want to limit "military style weapons" from citizen ownership 1. Oppose the second amendment as written and as intended and 2. Should advocate for another amendment to change the constitution, because no other way is truly lawful.

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS Thoughts?
CPT L S I know we differ on this topic, here's a good explanation of my views.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 1:03 PM

2015-10-04T13:03:25-04:00

The direct answer to your question Sgt Kelli Mays is that a machine gun is flat out fun to shoot.
There are three reasons why most people own a legal firearm:
1. Hunting. A hunting rifle or carbine is generally low-caliber, high velocity for range and accuracy. It will be a single shot weapon, most of the time. People do hunt with AKs and AR-15 type weapons, but they are viewed by many sportsmen as "unsporting". Shotguns are useful for hunting fowl.
2. Self-defense. A personal protection weapon will usually be a handgun; a shotgun maybe. As you point out, a machine gun is pretty much useless without large fields of fire.
3. Target shooting. While just about anything from a BB gun to a .50 caliber long rifle can and is used for sport shooting, it goes by taste. A machine gun would be an expensive hobby; rounds are hard to get and expensive. So is the license to have one, as is pointed out elsewhere. Having said that, as a former machine gunner I would absolutely LOVE to have one.

Machine gun ownership is regulated heavily, as it should be.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 1:14 PM

2015-10-04T13:14:44-04:00

As someone who possessed an FFL for thirty years (and I realize the federal laws MAY HAVE changed since 2002, though I seriously doubt this specific issue has not), no one outside members of law enforcement agencies and the military may LEGALLY own/possess/use automatic weapons, AKA machine guns. And I can assure you that the issuance of such weapons to civilian law enforcement agency personnel includes considerable federal paperwork and constant checks and balances over the control and possession of those weapons, even though the people who possess and use are highly trained police individuals. I controlled the weapons lockers at my Sheriff's Department. The oversight of those automatic weapons was a major bitch!!! That said, illegally possessed automatic weapons abound in this country (not to epidemic levels), but those weapons are ILLEGALLY possessed.

I hasten to add that gun collectors can obtain special permits to buy automatic weapons, but they are extremely expensive. Once again, the laws may have changed since I was last actively involved in the "civilian possession" of automatic weapons (1996), so parts my above statement may be incorrect.

Response by Sgt Ken Prescott made Oct 4 at 2015 1:18 PM

2015-10-04T13:18:32-04:00

Banning things has absolutely nothing to do with controlling crime. It has everything to do with controlling people.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 1:41 PM

2015-10-04T13:41:38-04:00

why not? lol

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 1:54 PM

2015-10-04T13:54:35-04:00

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or [federal] constitution hath given away that important right .... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe writing as Philanthropos about adding a bill of rights to the US Constitution, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

Madison and Hamilton had read and disseminated Coxe publications before composing their own, and there is some similarity among them in treatment of subject matter. For instance, after having read "An American Citizen IV," Hamilton argued in The Federalist No. 29 that an "army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=wmborj

Response by Cpl Isaac Park made Oct 4 at 2015 1:57 PM

2015-10-04T13:57:23-04:00

How redundant. I think people shouldn't own machine guns and I think the laws are fine the way they are since machine guns are already heavily regulated and legal machine guns aren't the weapon of choice for criminals because of, for simplicity's sake, their high price tag and the fact that an individual can probably inflict significant damage with a rifle or shotgun. Additionally, illegal machine guns aren't affected by further legislation and implementing further restrictions at this point in time will have little effect on legal sales (since very little people buy them to begin with) and will only further benefit black market arms dealers and their friends like Leland Yee.

I bet you were issued a machine gun in the Air Force. Was it an M4 machine gun or an M16A2 machine gun? Perhaps you had the M9 machine gun instead?

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Oct 4 at 2015 4:06 PM

2015-10-04T16:06:08-04:00

Seriously? WHy does there always have to be someone who gives me DOWN VOTE! Stop hiding..show yourself and say something. Coward!

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 4 at 2015 4:19 PM

2015-10-04T16:19:10-04:00

Fully automatic rifles are not actually considered to be machine guns.
In fact there are rifles which can be fired as semi-automatic or automatic [e.g. M16] and sub-machine guns such as the Thompson or MP-42. These are generally not fired from a bipod or tripod.
Machine guns tend to fired from a bipod [e.g. Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) or M-60 machine gun] or tripod or mounted in a vehicle.
Legally weapons manufactured before 1989 are considered antique.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845
(a) Firearm [from 26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions]
The term “firearm” means
(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e);
(6) a machinegun;
(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and
(8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.
(b) Machinegun [from 26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions]
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Oct 4 at 2015 4:38 PM

2015-10-04T16:38:28-04:00

To my knowledge machine guns or automatic guns are not legal in the US without super extreme licence. Semi automatic weapons are weapons that fire each time that you pull the trigger as long as you have bullets are useful for hunting, self defense, and if the crazy government decides to be like Hitlers or Castro. we would be armed to resist. If a group of thugs comes into your church and starts shooting you will pray that someone has a semiautomatic weapon to defend you so that they do not kill your whole congregation. The only thing that stops a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. A cop is minutes away, a 357 is about 1500 feet per second.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 4 at 2015 4:57 PM

2015-10-04T16:57:14-04:00

Keep in mind that the musket was the bleeding edge of weapon technology when the Constitution was written and ratified, and that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right to protect ourselves, but rather that is a Natural Right and the government may not interfere with it. If we are to continue protecting ourselves in this day and age, we too need to have access to weaponry that is the most advanced. If a despot should ascend to power and attempt to tyrannize US (I love the coincidence that "us" and "US" are merely different ways of typesetting the same thing) they won't subjugate us with muskets, and we will need the same kinds of weapons that they have. And, to be fair, a machine gun would scare the hell out of a burglar even more than a shotgun...

Response by SP5 Joel O'Brien made Oct 4 at 2015 5:39 PM

2015-10-04T17:39:34-04:00

Never could I justify owning a firearm/weapon that could kill someone many times over with one squeeze of the trigger. For that matter, I haven't fired a gun/rifle since getting out of the Army in 1976. As I have no felony charges or any other background problems, methinks there would be no problem in my buying a rifle/gun. There should be, IMHO, proof that one has passed some form of basic firearms safety course before being allowed to purchase a weapon, but that will never happen. IF, and that's a -->BIG<-- 'if'...I ever purchased a firearm, it would be along the line of a Colt single-action 45. Currently, there are no weapons/guns/rifles in my home. That probably will not change. Stepping down from the soapbox now...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 7:08 PM

2015-10-04T19:08:17-04:00

Strictly speaking, *machine guns* aren't legal. Or, rather, there are a lot more rules that have to be complied with to own one legally than say a rifle, shotgun, or pistol. The owner must have a federal license, either as a collector or as a dealer. There are additional taxes that have to be paid. And such a weapon must be registered with the ATF.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 7:32 PM

2015-10-04T19:32:34-04:00

Then you don't understand the meaning of the Second Amendment. Let me see if I can help. At it's writing, America did not have a standing army and all able-bodied men from 17 to 45 were considered the militia and when called up, they were expected to show with "arms and sufficient powder and shot" to face the threat. In other words, their personal arms were their military arms. The only arms supplied by the state were the crew served weapons (cannon).

And the purpose of the Second Amendment is not about shooting sports, hunting or even self-defense. It is about keeping the government in check. Every dictator in history has known that in order to enslave the people, one must first dis-arm them. King George tried that in the 1770's, Lennin did it in the 1920's, Hitler in the 1930/40's. And we have individuals in and out of government in our country today that desire to do the same to us.

It is said, during WWII, when Admiral Yamamoto was asked why the Japanese Imperial forces did not invade the US Mainland after Peral Harbor, he stated that doing so would be at great peril as those forces would face a rifle behind every blade of grass.

I believe that America will never be defeated by an armed foe, but by those that would take our Constitutionally protected rights away from us. And in order to succeed, they know they must eliminate or subvert the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Oct 4 at 2015 7:39 PM

2015-10-04T19:39:21-04:00

I hope this is an educational discussion for you. There have been two recorded homicides with legally owned automatic weapons since they were strictly regulated over 80 years ago (see attached reference article). You are actually 6 times more likely to be elected President than to be killed by a "machine gun" in the US. If you were born in the 20th century, you were also more likely to land on the moon than to be killed by a legally owned private machine gun in the US. Now that you have been exposed to better information, I hope you will work with the rest of us not to perpetuate falsehoods.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years#

Fully automatic guns in the US are highly regulated, and regulation works

When most of us think of an "assault rifle" we think of the fully automatic Tommy guns used by Al Capone's henchmen during prohibition. Did you know those guns have been restricted since FDR?...

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Oct 4 at 2015 8:48 PM

2015-10-04T20:48:33-04:00

"Nearly every drive by shooting I have read about involved a machine gun...AK this or that...semi automatic this or that. "

Well, you are off to a bad start. Your header is misleading. Those are not machine guns. Those are automatic or semi-automatic rifles.

No one needs their own .50 caliber or .30 caliber machine gun. I think you can get them licensed but there is a lot of expense and hassle.

No one needs a personal AK-47 or M-16 type weapon either.

Walt

Response by SGT Dana Williams made Oct 4 at 2015 9:15 PM

2015-10-04T21:15:07-04:00

Most Class 3 owner's have them because it's fun busting caps. But, I would be concerned if only the government had the ability to "protect" us. Who would protect us frome a government that shows contempt for the Constitution or the Rule Of Law? Maybe we do need some.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Oct 4 at 2015 10:44 PM

2015-10-04T22:44:37-04:00

Machine guns are a lightning rod for people who don't know much about guns. Fifty caliber rifles are another one. The OP states that "every drive by shooting I have read about involved a machine gun..." Since the term "machine gun" virtually always refers to a fully automatic weapon, the OP's statement is patently false. There might have been a crime committed in this country at some point with a privately owned fully automatic weapon, but I don't know of any.

The transfer of fully automatic weapons is highly regulated. It IS possible for a person to buy one, but it involves a background check, a Class III federal firearms license, and paying a significant fee to BATF for the privilege.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Oct 5 at 2015 5:29 AM

2015-10-05T05:29:40-04:00

Machines guns have been "controlled" i.e. outlawed since 1934. Further restricted in 1968. Very few but police, and licensed collectors/dealers can own them.

The penalties for an unlicensed machine gun are severe as not having the proper license is "tax evasion".

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 5 at 2015 6:46 AM

2015-10-05T06:46:54-04:00

Animal uprising?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 7:13 AM

2015-10-05T07:13:40-04:00

In another story about the so called "leftest agenda" to "disarm the American people" I defended the idea of making people be licensed in order to own a firearm . . . sounds pretty liberal of me. But when it comes to machine guns . . . apply the same standards - liscensing and training then HELLZ YEA. I figure make the standards to be allowed to own and operate firearms higher and once they're met (an easy task for anyone on this fourum, no doubt) open the trottle on what they can buy! I mean, you can kill someone just as dead with an ar15 that is fully auto as with an ar15 that is semi auto. How come range day has to be less splody because of some misguided belief that limiting the amount of rounds you put down range in a minute somehow magically limits the effectiveness of said rounds.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 7:27 AM

2015-10-05T07:27:29-04:00

Because unless the Constitution prohibits it, we are free to own it. For the record, I dont own a machine gun.

Response by CPT William Gordon made Oct 5 at 2015 8:57 AM

2015-10-05T08:57:31-04:00

I would just like to say that you at least asked the right questions the right way and I thank you for that. And please take the responses you received to heart because they are the experts and they use the right terminology and are 100% correct! I truly hope this discussions gives you a better perspective on why and how people buy and use their particular choice of firearms.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Oct 5 at 2015 9:08 AM

2015-10-05T09:08:54-04:00

Regardless whether Sgt Kelli Mays had fully automatic machine guns in mind, or semi automatic rifles, the basic question remains the same. Should Americans be able to own machine guns. The Answer should be YES, and should not require extra, or expensive licenses (permission slips) from the Federal government.

The Second Amendment was put in place so the American people could protect themselves from threats. Those that originate from outside our borders, and also those that come from within. The clear purpose, if one reads the arguments of the Framers of our Constitution is to protect our liberties FROM our own government, should it become intrusive or tyrannical. During our Revolt from England, our Citizens DID possess the same level of firepower (on an individual basis) as did the British troops. Our weapons, often were even better, when one considers the accuracy of our rifled Kentucky long guns.

Few argue that our right to freedom of the press should be limited to the analog printing presses that existed when the Constitution and bill of rights were written. Trying to make the argument that we don't "need" assault rifles, or, in this case, machine guns, is a great argument ONLY if one comes from the position that the people should NOT be able to defend themselves from tyranny, either foreign, or domestic.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Oct 5 at 2015 10:32 AM

2015-10-05T10:32:50-04:00

The question is not should we be able to own machine guns, the question is what amount of government restrictions are we willing to put up with? I am a law abiding citizen. If I want to fire machine guns just because it is fun, then there is no reason the government should restrict me from doing so.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 10:48 AM

2015-10-05T10:48:53-04:00

A buddy of mine has one that has been illegally modified to make it full auto. He works out on a junk yard and has fun using it to blow holes in junked crap. Just a play toy when he gets bored. A mighty fun one I might add.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 11:00 AM

2015-10-05T11:00:34-04:00

As a gun collector, I would love to get my hands a WWII BAR!! It would be bad ass to own! Until then, I will stick with full auto replicas, lol... Just my two cents...

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Oct 5 at 2015 11:46 AM

2015-10-05T11:46:20-04:00

From the way you wrote your question, I believe you have a misconception of what is defined as a "machine gun". An automatic rifle requires one to pay a tax and register the weapon. In most cases, it involves a lot more steps then people are willing to go through. What you need to understand is, none of the recent shootings which start these arguments had anything to do with an automatic weapon. Recent shootings were all carried out with semi-auto weapons, most of which are legal to have (and should be).

Now that we established the difference between auto and semi-auto the argument goes on to demonize "assault rifle" (which is not clearly defined but can include both auto and semi-auto categories). The real difference though is the look and design of the weapon, which, in many cases there are rifles which do not meet the "assault" criteria and still have the exact same capabilities. So, what would you suggest we ban and why?

Next, the argument speaks of the magazine capacities. Arguments suggest "you don't need to be able to shoot more than 10 bullets." Who are they to tell me how to protect myself and those around me? The recent shootings in TN demonstrate a perfect answer to this issue. Two individuals on the Navy Reserve station ignored the existing regs on carrying a weapon on a military installation and managed to return fire against the assailant. The thing is, they were unable to take him down. Could it be they didn't have enough bullets for a firefight? What if there were multiple assailants? What if this is the first time you've ever used a gun and realized that shooting under pressure might cause you to miss? The fact is, limiting the number of bullets by law will not prevent bad guys from complying with that law. All we do is limit our means to defend ourselves. It's bad enough that just about every one of the recent shootings since Columbine were carried out in gun free zones were the bad guy has a good chance of not getting shot by a CCL holder.

So how do we fix the problem you might ask... How about we lift the laws which create "gun free" zones and encourage law abiding citizens to train, earn their CCL, and carry their weapons into these places? Those who care for people who have mental health issues/challenges should also be held accountable for their actions if they choose to own weapons. Those who are diagnosed with a severe enough mental health issue or challenge should be placed on a registry as well which should bar them from purchasing a firearm. This will not solve the problem as it cannot be fully solved, but banning guns will only make things worse.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 12:09 PM

2015-10-05T12:09:54-04:00

Last I checked, machine guns weren't legal to own... what do you think a machine gun is?
Did you perhaps mix them up with assault rifles?

I personally would love to have a M-240B, because it's fun and I'd use it on remote ranges in Nevada, so not sure why that would be an issue.

Response by SrA Jonathan Carbonaro made Oct 5 at 2015 12:21 PM

2015-10-05T12:21:12-04:00

You're wrong, and your not pro second admendment.
Gun Control in this country has been happening since 1934 and President Roosevelt and President Regan both SUCK when it comes to their Gun policies.
In 1934 the National Firearms act was created, charging the average civilian $200 for the Right to possess a Silencer, a Short Barreled Rifle/shotgun, and a Machine gun. It made possession of these tools a 10 year felony per offense and a $10,000 fine. Now $200 back in 1934 was a ton of money, and even today it isn't cheap cost to be able to exercise a right that we are already have.
In 1986 President Roosevelt signed the Hughes admendment, which made new machine guns that weren't registered prior to 1986 illegal. Personally I'd like to see the Hughes admendment done away with.
Why does the Average American need a Car? Why do they need AC or Running Water? Why does the Average Civilian need the Internet? Why do they need Airplanes? Its not about Need, its about a right that was forceably taken and should be returned.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 2:39 PM

2015-10-05T14:39:49-04:00

In case our govt. tries to go George the III on us.

Response by CPT Bruce Rodgers made Oct 5 at 2015 2:50 PM

2015-10-05T14:50:17-04:00

Their not

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Oct 5 at 2015 4:59 PM

2015-10-05T16:59:31-04:00

I have an AK-47 that I modified to full auto. I don't need it, I'm like your brother. It's not registered, many of mine are not. But it's great for chopping down trees! You have to be careful or you will damage the barrel.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Oct 5 at 2015 6:00 PM

2015-10-05T18:00:48-04:00

Most people that refer to a MACHINE GUN really don't understand what they are. An actual machine gun is anything that is belt feed, Air/water cooled and fires more than one round when the trigger is held back or down depending on the mechanism and continues to fire until the trigger is released or runs out.( Automatic Fire) LMAO or the barrel/barrels MELT.

What MOST people are calling a machine gun is a rifle or compact rifle or pistol, that when the trigger is held it fires, till it is let go or runs out of ammo and is usually magazine fed.. That is an AUTOMATIC. Glock has an AUTOMATIC pistol. MP-5 Can be obtained as an automatic also. M-16A1, UZI, MAC-11 tek-9. Then you have the Burst firing rifle that fires 3 rds when the trigger is pulled and STOPS firing even if the trigger is held. Release the trigger resets and is ready to fire another 3 rounds. I wouldn't call it an automatic but why get technical.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Oct 5 at 2015 8:00 PM

2015-10-05T20:00:30-04:00

"Why is it necessary to own a machine gun?" The question is fundamentally wrongheaded in a free America. No one should have to explain their "need" for anything.

Machine guns already have a frozen supply in the United States, for private citizens. You cannot personally legally buy a machine gun in the United States that was made after May of 1986. This forces the prices ever higher. Furthermore there is a $200 tax per machine gun, as well as ridiculous amounts of paperwork and months of waiting, assuming that your local law enforcement choose to allow you the privilege of engaging in this economic activity.
Las time I checked, no legally owned machine gun has been used in any crime in several decades. Most AKs in the United States are semiautomatic (not machine guns: they fire one round per pull of them trigger, just like a double action revolver).

There are people who use machine guns (silenced, no less) to hunt pigs.

A machine gun has been used in lawful self defense. The citizen was charged with murder just because the perpetrator turned as he fell and caught a round in them back. He citizen was acquitted of any wrongdoing.
Some of the Korean shopkeepers in LA may have wished that they had machine guns as they defended themselves, their families, and their livelihoods from mobs.

Yes, machine guns should be legal. In fact, we need to immediately repeal NFA '34, GCA '68, and the Hughes Amendment to FOPA '86.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Oct 5 at 2015 8:29 PM

2015-10-05T20:29:40-04:00

When it comes to media reporting on firearm related violence one should never fully trust the bs they are filling you with. As many others have pointed out there is a huge difference between a machine gun and a semi-auto rifle. The media exploits that difference and people's lack of knowledge in the matter to make things seem far worse than they are. I read a dailymail article a couple of days ago talking about some guys who privately patrol the US/Mexico border. They were carrying semi auto rifles which was obvious from the pictures but the British idiots who have no idea what they are talking about were saying that the group was guarding the border with heavy machine guns. I didn't see any HMMWV mounted .50s in any of the pictures so I think it's safe to assume the website is full of shit.

There is nothing wrong with owning firearms regardless of the type. The problem is parents failing to teach proper firearms safety and failing to properly store the firearms in a locked safe accessible only under their supervision. That and of course allowing people with mental illnesses to purchase them with little accountability, unfortunately that's an issue that likely won't be solved for a long time.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Oct 5 at 2015 11:23 PM

2015-10-05T23:23:29-04:00

Assault Rifles, and Machine Guns, are not one in the same. I would agree, no one really needs a belt feed fully automatic machine gun. But for self defense, home defense, my weapon of choice would always be a 12 gauge and an assault rife, with several pistols for back up. Firing an assault rifle on full auto or even burst is not really a good idea.

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made Oct 6 at 2015 9:54 AM

2015-10-06T09:54:43-04:00

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 12:17 PM

2015-10-06T12:17:36-04:00

There are definitely several responses to this discussion! I'm thankful we live in a country where we all can debate freely! God bless America!

Response by SGT John Rauch made Oct 6 at 2015 12:44 PM

2015-10-06T12:44:20-04:00

shall not be infringed rings a bell here

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Oct 6 at 2015 1:56 PM

2015-10-06T13:56:47-04:00

Sgt Kelli Mays ... You have obviously never been in an environment where the mosquito's are as big as Blackhawks!!!! Seriously though... I think its neat to have a Full Auto weapon just because I was serving at the time they went extinct. They have no real value for combat anymore as the missions have changed and the COC has decided to make operations more surgical than just throwing wildly lead down range and hoping to hit someone.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 3:13 PM

2015-10-06T15:13:49-04:00

Let's start with why it's legal to own one with the "well regulated militia"(regulated was a term applied to equipage not organization), the militia is not the National Guard. American men are supposed to be able to take up arms in defense of the country and provide their own weapons and ammunition that are comparable to military arms. As far as reasons to own one, they are a lot of fun to shoot, much like owning a car that can go faster than 70mph. You don't really need it but it's something you want to have. You also might want to look into how many crimes have been committed using a legally owned machine gun. The Bureau of Justice Statistics provides an excellent PDF. Anyone with any real experience with automatic weapons, knows that full auto fire is notoriously inaccurate. A question in regard to drivebys, what would the death toll be if the shooter were taking aimed shots? Machine guns are exceedingly expensive, and difficult to obtain, thanks to legislation supported by the NRA like the National Firearms Act, Gun Control Act, and Gun Owners Protection Act. In addition to the cost, you must also pay a tax stamp fee, and wait three to six months for an ATF background check, and obtain your local chief law enforcement officer signature(or writ of mandamus). It's not like you can just go to Cabelas and walk out with an M249.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 3:29 PM

2015-10-06T15:29:30-04:00

Page 2 has a pretty good definition of terms.

Although most crime is not committed with guns, most gun crime is committed with handguns. pages 1 & 2
Although most available guns are not used in crime, information about the 223 million guns available to the general public provides a context for evaluating criminal preferences for guns. page 2
By definition, stolen guns are available to criminals. The FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) stolen gun file contains over 2 million reports; 60% are reports of stolen handguns. page 3
In 1994, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) received over 85,132 requests from
law enforcement agencies for traces of guns used in crime. Over three quarters of the guns traced by the ATF in 1994 were handguns (mostly pistols), and almost a third were less than 3 years old. page 4
Surveys of inmates show that they prefer concealable, large caliber guns. Juvenile offenders appear to
be more likely to possess guns than adults. page 5
Studies of the guns used in homicides show that large caliber revolvers are the most frequent type of gun used in homicides, but the number of large caliber semiautomatic guns used in murders is increasing. page 5
Little information exists about the use of assault weapons in crime. The information that does exist uses varying definitions of assault weapons that were developed before the Federal assault weapons ban was enacted.
page 6

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

4óTpjÀAòaT9Õ=ÜãîMl]§à.Ô éé=-#ô2vÎú2GYàÏIÑAfá&4á)^Aà:eäTùªÂËs 5ÀO&LÑU ÐÎYÑ#>ÍÒ%pÈenVÁÉbed§§04Øµ$QÑÖ@Hê9#(ë|Í;PËà¡ß)Nò%ôÀóm9Í{uúrN``úÑ#øHäóbÈOe7çìÿ¶Fleô.ÌWÒGD&@æBQr Díe;8Û-b-1yÕòÂZ@K%.7TÅg[Mn5»aåðÎj )@Ì4 ÉzPÅ ZaääG_5dKùÏ_ -ôôÍÛnÃJt[-dí|9sêÌZí}6.H29o§äô"ÿH:ÿmçù>ÍûéÝðÁwÃÒ p UÂ[·\hEåÊ$ÀàQkA.Óº·]Ý ÐUÝ5Ãe'*åjP««Å§5C*erúf](ÒÍæä¶SÍÊB#CbÌlF;>DvrBÌ5@äÅøÜØs4ngaAsëZ}/ÀB ÎùÀõ:õäwxì2Ði|ÔsRûV:=ìWÀØ...

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 3:32 PM

2015-10-06T15:32:17-04:00

Sgt Kelli Mays And lastly....
It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 4:34 PM

2015-10-06T16:34:33-04:00

Where are you at that machine guns are legal? My curiosity is piqued! Even sub-machine guns (SMGs) are typically banned (i.e., handheld automatic weapons such as the M-16A1 or Uzi). I don't recall being anywhere in the U.S. that anything more than semi-automatic (i.e., have to pull the trigger to fire each round) is legal for the average person. That's what's such a joke about most of the so-called assault weapon arguments in the media. With perhaps a few exceptions an AR-15 with laser sight and optical scope with a 30-round mag is no different than a .22 rifle with a 10-round magazine, or if someone's familiar with their weapon even a bolt-action rifle.
Some like the tactical-style semi-autos because it makes them feel big & bad, but many do just because they are now typically highly customizable so they can be made more comfortable, more accurate for hunting, whatever. Most civilians/non-gun folks just associate them as military-related because of how they look. But they're no more military than a civilian Hummer H1 rolling down the street painted black. The fundamental platform might be there, but overall it's not the same thing.
The main factor that could come into play is caliber of the round, but there are civilian rounds that are about the same level of effectiveness (or more in some cases).
But as mentioned in the article's blurb to actually own any kind of automatic weapon typically requires tons of red tape and proof of reason. Usually this is limited to proven law enforcement personnel (if that), and collectors who can prove their collectors and sometimes even have to prove the weapon is a collector-level item.
The FBI recently released their crime numbers for 2014. Once again shootings are down overall. The vast majority are criminals on criminals. Also, the very large majority of shootings involve handguns, not rifles. There were more people killed by hands and feet than all long guns combined (to include so-called assault weapons). So the large majority of the assault weapon issue is manufactured by the media and gun control advocates. The reason you primarily hear about 'assault weapon victims' is because that's what they want to report and what causes a stir, and more often than should be actually the case isn't even an assault weapon as they classify it.
There are also a large number of stories and instances where someone who is carrying a private firearm stops a situation that could be deadly, or greatly reduces the casualties (especially if the offender has a firearm). But these are rarely reported above the local level in the media, and sometimes only see the light of day through orgs that monitor police reports. Once both bad and good instances of firearm use are properly reported, and without sensationalizing a particular type that's far from the main issue, then I'll be able to take gun control advocates seriously.

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Oct 6 at 2015 4:36 PM

2015-10-06T16:36:54-04:00

That's a good question! And it isn't needed! For what? I don't think you can hunt with it! So what purpose does it serve?

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 4:55 PM

2015-10-06T16:55:32-04:00

First of all, the only machine guns in civilian circulation were made and registered before 1986. Any machine guns, or any fully automatic guns for that matter, manufactured after 1986 are for government use only. That said, just a registered receiver will bring $10,000 or more. It's not something just anybody is able to get. Then there's the ATF Form 1 and subsequent background check that's nearly top-secret-clearance in depth. Semi-auto on the other hand is a whole different story. Until the price gauging started, an AK or SKS was a great option for an inexpensive short-range heavy-timber deer rifle. AR's have been used for prairie dogs and coyotes for years, and deer in some states. Compared to Browning, Weatherby, or Sako, an AR in 6.5grendal or 6.8spcII is comparable in price, but with the push of two pins can be converted to a .223 for practice, or coyote hunting, then converted again with a bcg swap for 22lr for plinking cans or rabbits. All on a platform that can be quickly adjusted for a full grown adult down to a youth size in seconds. There is definitely a reason to look at an AR as an all around, multipurpose rifle. The AK is nearly as versatile with an abundance of aftermarket parts for them.

Response by PO2 Robert Cuminale made Oct 6 at 2015 5:47 PM

2015-10-06T17:47:07-04:00

I can't believe that a military person is asking such a question and embarrassing herself in front of other military personnel. If you are in the military and don't know the difference between an AR15 semiautomatic and an M16 Automatic then you've confirmed what I've heard about the Air Force. It's not a military force. Surely somewhere there are manuals you can refer to in the base education office or where you can access the internet for information?
By the way civilians have not been allowed to own "machine guns" since 1932.

Response by SSG John Erny made Oct 6 at 2015 6:10 PM

2015-10-06T18:10:47-04:00

Sgt Kelli Mays Yes, you can own a machine gun after a pile of paper work and a very complete background check by the ATF. You need a class III fire arms lic. in order to buy one. Here is the catch, the guns have to have been made before they were banned, so they are old. Most of them will cost a small fortune, A gangster style tommy gun is only about $30,000. If a criminal wanted full auto they are not going to fork over the cash for a weapon that they likely do not have the money for. They will take a semi-auto and illegally modify it; being a criminal to begin with this should not be a problem for them, breaking the law that is.
Those of us who have fired light weapons on full auto know that it does not work like the movies. The recoil causes them to ride up rapidly and off target, thus the military now gives us 3 round burst.

All you have to have is no felony record, class III Lic., and ca$h, lots of it!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Response by Sgt William Barr made Oct 6 at 2015 6:34 PM

2015-10-06T18:34:04-04:00

They do not use machine guns in drive bys. a AK47 is not a machine gun. We hunt with them and use them for protection and the 2nd amendment means we have the right.

Response by SPC Eric Cunningham made Oct 6 at 2015 7:31 PM

2015-10-06T19:31:23-04:00

I'm going to be nice. For starters, there have been two murders with legally owned machine guns (full auto - the requirement for something to be a machine gun) since 1986 - both were by cops with department issued weapons. Since most of the responses here have covered this and the law, I'm going to leave that at that.

As for your question "why exactly is it legal to own a machine gun?" the answer is because this is America. We are a nation where the default is that things are legal. We are not a nation where everything is illegal unless and until we can show a need to be able to have it or do it. Even the really stupid laws like it being illegal to tie your giraff to a lamppost in Georgia starts from the opposite end of the spectrum - the requirement that the government show a compelling reason for that action to be illegal.

Response by SSG Wayne Wood made Oct 6 at 2015 10:28 PM

2015-10-06T22:28:42-04:00

Only collectors with special licenses are allowed to legally own a real machine gun. But your question, though well intentioned, IMO is off-based because in a FREE society of FREE citizens, no one should have to ever explain why they NEED a weapon, just the fact they WANT one should be enough reason. And if one should have to ask permission to own a weapon then we are no longer truly free. And THAT is why we have a 2nd Amendment.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Oct 6 at 2015 10:41 PM

2015-10-06T22:41:53-04:00

I'm just waiting for the NRA to cower politicians into making the MK 19 legal to own outside the military...

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Oct 7 at 2015 12:01 AM

2015-10-07T00:01:47-04:00

Sgt Kelli Mays Because "America". I see that you have been educated and you have started another discussion elsewhere, no doubt inspired by what you have learned here. Americans have the freedom to own "machine guns", and the freedom of speech to call every unfamiliar weapon a "machine gun" or "assault rifle" or "pew pew".

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 12:03 AM

2015-10-07T00:03:52-04:00

I'm saying anything bad against you because you are allowed to have your own opinions, but a machine gun is not a semi automatic gun. You have to have a special class 3 license to own a fully automatic weapon. Also myself do not use my weapons to go hunting. I take my AK and AR out to the range. It helps me relieve stress and I find nothing wrong with this. Both my weapons are semi automatic weapons. Thanks for reading.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 7 at 2015 3:19 AM

2015-10-07T03:19:12-04:00

I think you've been pretty well educated on your misconceptions so I'll leave that one alone.

But to answer your question on why would I want to own a full auto rifle, because they're fun to shoot, plain and simple.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Oct 7 at 2015 3:30 AM

2015-10-07T03:30:26-04:00

Well at least you asked the question. But from a state of ignorance hard for me to believe, from any Sgt., anywhere. Mind numbing actually. I'm not even gonna go where I'm sure many others here will to correct your errors, confusion, fallacies etc when it comes to NFA weapons. Pay attention, and pass it on. There are way too many dumb asses out there that believe the BS taught to them by a dumb assed media. I just didn't realize that there where any in the military.

Response by SrA Scott Harris made Oct 7 at 2015 5:44 AM

2015-10-07T05:44:39-04:00

Good question, but a little off. Legal machine guns are extremely controlled in the US, and very, very expensive. Machine guns that you see used in street crimes are illegal. They are either illegally converted to full auto, or purchased on the black market from countries like Mexico. Since they are illegal to begin with, drafting additional laws banning various firearms is pointless. Criminals don't care, and so they ignore the fact that it is illegal.

Now, what about those legally owned machine guns? You know, the ones that us responsible American's can own for as little as $10,000. Plus a BAFTE background check. Plus an ATF Form 4. Plus a $200 SOT. Plus you can't live in certain states....you get the idea. Well, those people aren't out committing crimes, so who cares? There's not one single case where a legally owned machine gun was used in a murder.

Also, since you support the Second Amendment, you must know what it's for. The 2A protects all of our other rights enumerated in the Constitution. It says that civilians must maintain the ability to fight a tyrannical government should the worst come to pass. Machine guns are a part of that.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 8:06 AM

2015-10-07T08:06:27-04:00

It's the same logic that:

Why don't we all drive the same car? Why have cars that go above the speed limit? Let all have the same car and this will stop DUIs...

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 8:06 AM

2015-10-07T08:06:34-04:00

The term 'machine gun' is a misnomer; all firearms are "machines"...however, I think you mean "fully automatic"; meaning that the weapon will continue to feed rounds into the breech, without interruption, so long as the trigger is depressed-this would apply to many weapons, from the MP-5 (SEF) to the M2.

To the best of my knowledge, sine 1986, owning a "fully automatic" weapon requires several things: First, paying upwards of $10,000-$20,000 per weapon (market value) for a "pre-ban", i.e. manufactured before 1986, weapon. Second, paying a $200 per weapon tax. Third, if manufacturing a "Post Ban" fully automatic weapon, one must possess a Class 3 dealer's license.

In short-very few Americans, and even fewer people with potentially dangerous metal illnesses or counter-culture ideologies are going to "legally" get their hands on a true "machine gun". Even the standard issue (at least in my time) M4 carbine had only "safe", "semi-automatic", and "three round burst". The M4A1 does have "fully automatic"...but again...to the best of my knowledge, this is not standard issue to all personnel (does anyone know if this has changed since 2009?). My understanding is that the military elected to limit the use of fully-automatic to specific designated personnel to improve rile marksmanship and round consumption.

I've always been told that the only true purpose for a fully automatic weapon is to suppress multiple contacts so as to allow for counter maneuver or to hold a position with as few personnel as possible (perhaps some of our more experienced RP folks can correct me if I'm wrong). Applied to a civilian owning such a weapon, it logically stands that the only reasons for owning one would be "sport", or possessing the ability to, as intended, hold a defensive position against multiple assailants.

Either way, the "hoops" one has to jump through to own one seems to preclude the likelihood someone with ill intent will get one...and at the end of the day, a weapon in the hands of an evil person is a weapon-regardless of rate of fire.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Oct 7 at 2015 8:36 AM

2015-10-07T08:36:33-04:00

These so called machine guns that the MSM keeps talking about are almost always semi-automatic rifles. Almost everyone that sees a weapon that looks like an AR-15 or AK thinks it is a machine gun. An actual fully automatic weapon is very expensive and hard to get legally. You can buy a rifle that shoots a 7.62 round, but isn't black and made of plastic which almost everyone thinks is more deadly, as easy as an AR-15 or AK-74 type of weapon. It seems that Congress and MSM thinks just because it is black and plastic it is more deadly. This is not true. I would much rather be shot by a 5.56mm than a 7.62mm bullet.

Response by SGT Ronald Audas made Oct 7 at 2015 3:27 PM

2015-10-07T15:27:15-04:00

Sgt.Kelli Mays;I`m sure you have had your question answered and a whole lot more than you expected.Summed up,there are very few " machine guns" on the street.There is a big misunderstanding of Gun types.The anti gun folks think that the A in AR-16 means automatic,instead of it`s real meaning...ArmaLite.One topic that has been neglected is the money value in gun collections.So yes, some people have more than they can shoot.Being from Texas,I can`t say that I know anyone that doesn`t own a gun.I guess it never entered my mind to ask why anyone would need a certain type of gun.Anyway;A great and fun question.Thanks for asking!P.S. If Nancy Pelosi had had her way,I would have had my .22 taken away from me. The gun has a 17 round cylinder feed.

Response by MSG Don Burt made Oct 7 at 2015 6:18 PM

2015-10-07T18:18:57-04:00

Why is the Constitution/Bill of Rights a legal document? Do we really need it??
You left out an important word in your statement...i.e., "want"...Anytime a person/s goes to
a store shopping typically should say, Do I want this, or do I need this? You need water to
live...but I would like to have the money that is required to purchase a Machine Gun that I "want", if that is, in fact, what you are talking about...e.g., An M16 can be considered a Machine Gun if it's in full auto mode OR, are you talking about an M2 .50 cal Machine Gun? In either case if you can buy it and feed it, then that is all the NEED and WANT you can handle. Whatever the type of Machine Gun you're really talking about is typically used in plinking in a safe area. So Why Not? When the going gets tough, the tough get going and I NEED a Big Boy when we just might be needing it within the next few years when ISIS, etc. comes here. I grew up in the era of the 40's, 50's where there was NO "NEED" to have a gun, but living in today's era, I want and need a friend that
will protect me from anyone who tries to do me or my family harm. My friend's name is Thunder.

Response by SGT Apollo Sharpe made Oct 7 at 2015 6:40 PM

2015-10-07T18:40:59-04:00

I'm going to keep this simple, but clear. The 2nd amendment is part of the group of amendments collectively called "the Bill of Rights." The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect citizens from the government. With that being said, the 2nd amendment's purpose is to allow citizens to fight & destroy the government if it ever became tyrannical. So, the average citizen needs guns (including machine guns) as a precautionary line of defense against the government. The government should not be allowed to own guns that the average citizen isn't allowed to own. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with stopping robbers or saving neighbors from crooks. It's 100% all about killing politicians & their minions. Hopefully, that clears things up.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Oct 7 at 2015 7:01 PM

2015-10-07T19:01:13-04:00

Sgt Kelli Mays - It's neither necessary *OR* legal to sell a machine gun to an "ordinary" person. In certain instances, you can obtain the ability to own a fully automatic weapon for certain purposes (collectors, etc.) from the ATF, but it's a very intensive, lengthy, and expensive process. These are not the guns being used in the drive-by shootings that you're reading about, in spite of what the misinformed media tries to tell us. The weapons you are hearing about on the news are generally some crappy hack-job done with a hit off the 'ol crack pipe and a $2 file on the firing sear that keeps firing once the trigger is pulled even if you let go of it. Definitely NOT the same thing and most definitely NOT legal.

Response by PO1 Kerry French made Oct 7 at 2015 7:40 PM

2015-10-07T19:40:10-04:00

Anyone who says, "I'm all for the 2nd Amendment... BUT..." really isn't. Do you own more than one car? Cars kill more people than "machine guns" and there are plenty of regulations on driving. You can only drive one car at a time so you really don't NEED to own more than one car. Why do You feel the compulsion to control people? Why should anyone be “allowed” to own… _______ Because FREEDOM! That’s why. How about you mind your own business about what people own. By the way… you can regulate anything you want – criminals will not comply anyway because, well, they are criminals! I have an idea, let’s outlaw murder and drugs… that has worked out so well hasn’t it?

Response by SPC Luis Mendez made Oct 7 at 2015 8:21 PM

2015-10-07T20:21:56-04:00

Fanaticism has many, many forms. Constitutionalism may be one of them, 'cause if it ends in an "ism" chances are it's a Fanaticism. Anyone, with more guns/weapons than reasonably needed for Hunting, protection or Sports/competitions, IMHO has a loose screw and is a Fanatic.

A good hunter/shooter only needs one good shot for a major prize hunt. That's why the hunting rifles they use usually have 8 rounds and is hand operated bolt. I have friends and family that are good hunters/shooters. And they've got a big deer with just one shot. Ducks and migrants birds hunting is another story as is skeet shooting. And those who practice these don't need assault rifles.

The assault/MG craze is due to Fanaticism, hysteria, neurosis and Panic of many mentally unstable and immature men, with a teenager mind set.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 8:42 PM

2015-10-07T20:42:12-04:00

Like most things with high emotional content, the arguments are low on facts and high on hysteria. Let's start with some definitions:
Machine gun: A weapon which fires more than one bullet per trigger squeeze. Also known as "Full Automatic." These weapons are already illegal, with some very limited loopholes, like having a Class III Federal Firearms License (that is the license required to run a gun store.)
Semi-Automatic: A weapon which fires ONLY ONE bullet per trigger squeeze. Nearly all legal guns (except bolt actions and really old guns) are in this category.
Bolt Action. After firing a single bullet, you have to work a bolt, or pull down a lever or otherwise take some action to get the weapon ready to fire the next round.
Need: Used politically, it means that I have the right to determine what you are allowed to have, and I can disparage your desire to have something that I don't think you "need." Do you need to have a car? Do you need a dryer? (Isn't hanging clothes on the line outside, and saving all that energy good enough or you?)

Ownership of a machine gun is something I will not defend. Pulling the trigger on a weapon means you have accepted the complete responsibility for where the bullets go. if you kill a burglar, but the bullet passes through his body and kills some innocent 1/2 a mile away, you are guilty of murder. Even professionals can't be that accurate with multiple bullets coming out of the barrel.

Some survivalist types will say that when the mob comes for them, they will mow them down. Unlikely, as well as slightly hysterical. With a machine gun, even in the best situation, only about 1 bullet in 3 kills the target, The rest miss, or do additional damage to a corpse that hasn't hit the ground yet. I have a .45 automatic (That's a pistol that only fires one round per trigger squeeze.) If a mob of 20 comes to kill me, they can do it, but I'll kill 7 of them first, and that's enough, in my opinion. Besides, if I kill a few, the rest may decide to look for someone who isn't armed.

Me personally, I'd gladly surrender the right to machine guns, weapons over .50 calibre (1/2 inch in diameter, but excepting black powder weapons which can be much larger and have no record I can find of being used in crimes in this century), explosives, poison weapons, and similar things, if we could once and for all quit having to defend my right to self-defense, sport, and hunting, year after year. But certain people like Obama and Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife have stated that they will keep coming until they disarm our society. I take them at their word, and I'm not giving an inch without some recognition that I have rights too.

So what's bad about that? Australia recently used their registration database to force their citizens to turn in 604,000 personally owned weapons which were then destroyed. A police chief from one of their cities recently reported that EVERY category of violent crime has increased since then, including a 300% increase in assaults on the elderly in their homes.

Do we have a numerically high homicide rate in America? Yes. Are the the third most populous nation on the planet? Yes. Could that be the reason for the high number? (Queue Jeopardy music.)

In fact, our per capita homicide rate is lower than many European nations with high gun control laws.

What is my solution? First, we need to ask if guns are the problem or if something in our society is the problem. Are people frustrated and desperate because they cannot find work? Yes. Are the mentally ill undercared for? Probably. Are people frustrated because their government doesn't listen to them? Sure. Are people worried about having to eat dog food when they retire? Damn straight! Are people concerned about the every increasing tax bite? Yes. Are people concerned about the way the government overspends the budget, putting the nation into unpayable debt? Yes. What is the number 2 illegal import into the US (behind illegal drugs)? Guns, often fully automatics and sawed off weapons, both of which are already illegal. Just how many mass murders in the last 3 years would be prevented if we had complete background checks? Only ONE, the Virginia Tech shooting, and it wouldn't have happened if Obama hadn't blocked a bipartisan bill restricting gun ownership to the mentally ill. What two cities have very restrictive gun control laws, yet constantly are number 1 and 2 as the Murder Capitol of the United States? Washington D.C. and Chicago. And if gun control is such a good idea, why is the record so poor in Washington D.C. and Chicago? ........ No matter how much thinking you do, my answer is that it obviously shows that it isn't a good idea.

We have a lot of problems to solve in this country and we need reasoned discussion about them, rather than playing politics for political gain.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 11:14 PM

2015-10-07T23:14:01-04:00

The only correct statement you made was that you didn't know much about guns. Automatic weapons are very strictly regulated by the ATF and have been for 80 years. Autoloading rifles are the most efficient way to protect yourself (that's why the military uses them), and depending on the caliber and size of game are perfectly suited for hunting. I hate to break it to you (no I don't), but no situation the requires the use of a firearm is completely safe. If you were safe from a person trying to kill you, you wouldn't need a gun. That being said, you are never completely safe. Wear a seatbelt, wear a gun, keep fire extinguishers ready, and be prepared for whatever emergency may rear its head.

Response by SGT Tim Henson made Oct 8 at 2015 2:19 AM

2015-10-08T02:19:16-04:00

You and your ignorance are a prime example of just where to start with the hundreds of thousands of people that are ignorant about firearms and that is wrong in the US in regards to firearms and firearm ownership

Response by SGT William Howell made Oct 8 at 2015 6:55 AM

2015-10-08T06:55:14-04:00

Sgt Kelli Mays The laws on the books keep any legally owned machine gun for the most part out of the hands of any criminals. They are super expensive (Cheap ones are around $10,000) there are tax stamps and background checks that are much more in depth that buying a handgun. Since 1986 there are not allowed to be any more machine guns manufactured for sale to the civilian population. The ones that are out there now are used and being traded. They will eventually go the way of the dodo bird and you will only hear stories of them.

I do love when people that don't understand the Second Amendment claim that they support it. The 2nd does not give you the right to hunt or to even protect yourself with a firearm. There is no guarantee for any of those things in the Bill of Rights. You have been given the right to own a firearm for one reason only. To be able to stand up to the government as a group and overthrow it if need be.

When this was written there were no planes and tanks. It was men with guns facing each other and firing single shots. Most of the guns were civilian manufactured. It was fair for both sides and if enough people did not like the way it was going they could of marched to the Capital with guns in their hands and ended the reign of the person in power. That is why you are allowed to own a gun.

Now modern times there are force multipliers. Machine guns being the least of them. Planes, missiles, and bombs have made it nearly impossible to defeat a government with just guns, but we still have that option. Would everybody being able to own a machine gun make a difference in the power of the people? I don't believe so. For that reason alone I have no problem saying that not everybody should have a machine gun.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Oct 8 at 2015 9:29 AM

2015-10-08T09:29:53-04:00

Sgt Kelli Mays "I am all for the 2nd amendment" Actually your not.
It appears you are a person that wishes to pick and choose what part you want to support, and then throw out the rest.
Do you support the 1st amendment, except when people say something you disagree with? Use words you wish they did not?
Do you agree with the 14th amendment? Unless it's just to inconvenient to get a warrant and in that case unreasonable search is ok?

Perhaps you might do some research into what a "Machine Gun is... I don't think based on what you wrote, you understand the term. If by chance you are referring to the made up Media / political hack term "Assault weapon" its still incorrect, as that weapon would be the same as a Machine gun, a fully auto or select fire weapon.. The likes of which I guess you have never seen used in a "Drive by"

Can you cite the crimes committed in the US that took place with a "Machine Gun" ?
Are you aware of the federal regulations and restrictions of a "Machine Gun"

I thank you for your post and question, an open mind is a great thing... Likely we will not change each other opinion, but being aware of that opposing opinion makes us both wiser.

Response by Sgt James Colligan made Oct 8 at 2015 9:45 AM

2015-10-08T09:45:11-04:00

Why shouldn't a law abiding citizen be able to own one? It shouldn't matter if you don't know why somebody would want one. That is akin to justifying driving a Corvette to someone that thinks you shouldn't have more than a Corolla.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Oct 8 at 2015 12:48 PM

2015-10-08T12:48:28-04:00

If you say that you are "all for the second amendment" and still think that some guns shouldn't be owned, then you really aren't for the second amendment. Guns are not scary, they are just metal and plastic parts assembled together to form a tool. That tool can be a good tool or a bad tool depending who has it in their hands.
To answer you question about why someone should be able to own one...because they can. It really should be that simple. Why should we allow manufacturers to produce alcoholic beverages? Thousands and thousands die annually from drinking and driving. What about cell phones? Thousands die while playing with that and not paying attention to driving. You see, where would we stop?

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2015 1:45 PM

2015-10-08T13:45:35-04:00

To properly answer your question, you need to ask yourself "what do I think is the definition of a machine gun?". I'll tell you mine: It's a fairly expensive, high capacity weapon capable of automatic or burst fire. Whether it be belt fed or fed by high capacity drum or magazine. There is a very strenuous process of investigation just to own one. The knee-jerk reaction of uninformed people is to assume that the average AR-15 is a machine gun. Wrong. I own two such AR-15s and neither of them are fully automatic. I use them for target practice to hone my marksmanship skills and for protection. Besides, anyone who has served a measurable amount of time in the military would probably have an affinity for such a weapon. Years of experience and muscle memory with the weapon. If we want to get "nit-noid", all my pistols, like my 2 ARs are semi-automatic as well. I think you need to ask yourself, if you still serve, is "do I want to let my own personal opinions interfere with a fellow American's rights in any way? Do I stand by the oath of enlistment I took?" If your question pertains to the ownership of semi-automatic weapons that look like "machine guns", you need to better educate yourself. Remember, guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Additional thought: if you've read that a lot of shootings are done with "machine guns" you need to remember the following:
1. Perpetrators of these crimes don't care about the laws. They either illegally purchase or modify the weapons in a way that allows them to go fully automatic.
2. The media will spin the truth. To the mainstream media, any weapon that "looks like a machine gun" is one.

The rest of us law-abiding gun owners will not give up our rights to appease the few.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Oct 8 at 2015 1:51 PM

2015-10-08T13:51:26-04:00

I think that honestly I would love to own an old style "machine gun" say from WWI or WWII just for the oddity of owning it.
I think though that most of the drive by shootings or criminal activity involving assault rifles that can shoot full automatic are not legally obtained and that more effort needs to go into getting those weapons off the street. I would say that almost every legal gun owner is very responsible with their guns and keeps them as secure as possible.
Yes you do see the occasional dumb ass who leaves a loaded gun without a trigger lock on the nightstand and some 2 year old kid plays with it, or the parents who fail to secure their weapons and their teenage kids gets pissed off and decides to settle a score.
Until our elected leaders decide to go after the criminals and punish them according to the law then your never going to see automatic weapons off the street.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2015 2:01 PM

2015-10-08T14:01:32-04:00

Let's go with the Obvious first: Because I can. It's a Constitutionally protected right. And Yes, while they are legal, they are HIGHLY regulated and incredibly expensive.
Second, I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "Machine Gun". It is typically used to describe a weapon that can fire multiple rounds with the single pull of the trigger, however, this is also covered by the term "automatic weapon", which refers to the same thing. So "Machine Guns" is used to describe a larger weapon than a standard rifle that is often belt fed and sometimes called a 'crew served weapon". I can honestly tell you that there has not been a murder in the United States with a Crew served weapon, EVER. Despite what Hollywood wants you to believe.
So let's boil it down to what I think you're getting at and that is select-fire NFA (National Firearms Act) controlled weapons. This is your typical rifle that can be made to fire more than one round with the single pull of the trigger. Now we're getting into the dangerous stuff, those things carried by all the gangs and used in all those drive-by shootings you mentioned. Except, not. Last year there were 0 (that's zero) murders with a select fire weapon.
As a matter of fact, there were more murders with hands and feet than with ALL rifles combined (to include the evil ones)! Knifes killed more people than rifles, pools killed more people than rifles, texting killed more people than rifles, etc...
So to answer your question, I can have one because the Constitution protects the rights of Americans to lawfully possess firearms for the express purpose of defending oneself from anything up to and including (especially) a tyrannical government. Now some say that the people are outgunned and can't match the might of the Military if it were ever turned on us, but just look at what bunch of guys in the Middle East were able to do.

Response by SSgt James Howerton made Oct 8 at 2015 3:48 PM

2015-10-08T15:48:43-04:00

Machine guns (fully automatic weapons which are weapons that keep firing rounds as long as the trigger is depressed) are not legal. Many uninformed people make this mistake. A rifle that is semi-automatic (will fire one round every time you depress the trigger) is legal; in the military that same rifle has another option on the selector switch (at least when I served) which takes it from semi-automatic to fully automatic. Civilian weapons have no such ability unless someone has done some alteration to that weapon to make it fully automatic. This is the type of misinformation many anti-gunners spread falsely (not referring to you, Ma'am), just as the misnomer "assault rifle" is used by people who know no better or do know but spread it anyway. There is no such thing as an "assault rifle." Any weapon can be used to "assault" someone. If you take a shotgun and attack someone with it, then it could be called an "assault rifle." But the anti-gun group use the term to describe AR-15s (the civilian equivalent of the M-16, without the fully automatic capability), an SKS, AK-47 or any number of weapons that were originally made for combat action. Most people who own AR-15 (the most popular of the semi-automatic carbines or rifles on the market today) use it for recreational shooting, hunting and home defense. Why would you need a semi-automatic rifle for home defense? For the same reason our Forefathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution. Americans should always be able to keep their Country from becoming a police state or a dictatorship. And no, I don't own one. Hope this helps.

Response by CW3 Jim Norris made Oct 8 at 2015 3:55 PM

2015-10-08T15:55:59-04:00

Licensed, very well background checked people may choose to own a automatic weapon. Why?, well for one thing they are great fun to fire at targets. I personally couldn't justify the expense of the license, massive ammunition cost or cost of the weapon itself (usually 10k or more) but, that is just me.....I also do not own a .50 cal rifle? Nor do I own a gull wing Mercedes sports coupe....same reason - massive cost. But, I do go and pay the cost to fire a MG at various ranges who offer such service....and it is still a blast. As a retired soldier and Vietnam infantry vet, it took me years to enjoy shooting again. Never the less, I now enjoy knocking down target, take a couple of deer a year and love to shoot doves and quail.......to each his own

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2015 4:39 PM

2015-10-08T16:39:50-04:00

Machine guns are illegal to own unless you live in a state that allows to have one with a class 3 firearms license. The ATF just doesn't hand those out. They are mainly used for collectors. And you are confusing machine guns with semi-automatic rifles.

Response by SGT William Howell made Oct 9 at 2015 7:06 AM

2015-10-09T07:06:51-04:00

Machine guns are good for 2 things. Wasting ammo and suppressing fire. You can kill more things out in the open with controlled pairs than with a hail of bullets shot into the air.

Response by SPC Robby Robinson made Oct 9 at 2015 8:55 AM

2015-10-09T08:55:33-04:00

Hi there, great question. First things first. Understand there is a difference between a fully automatic firearm (M4 platform) and a machine gun (M240/M249/M60/etc...) One is a select fire weapon capable of semiautomatic / Fully automatic / 3 round burst whereas the other is belt fed.
The driveby's you refer too are almost exclusively semiautomatic weapons. Frankly because the average gangbanger could not afford the cost of a select fire platform or a machine gun. Even the most rudimentary eastern bloc AK47 AK74 would run over 5 grand and other platforms command prices north of 100K.
Although legal to own thereare heavy licensing restrictions on such weapons.
At the end of the day firearms in the hands of civilians whether a Saturday night special all the way to a mini-gun is NOT about need. At the core of civilians owning firearms is for the day (god forbid) that our government (the same government I served to protect and continue to serve as a civilian contractor) turns on its own people.

Response by SPC William Biles made Oct 9 at 2015 12:06 PM

2015-10-09T12:06:42-04:00

Because there might come a day when you will need it to defend yourself from the government.

Response by 1SG Jason Fitzpatrick made Oct 9 at 2015 1:58 PM

2015-10-09T13:58:57-04:00

My response is why shouldn't I be able to? This great nation and the Constitution which I pledged my very life to defend was founded on freedom and liberty. No limits except what I put on myself. So the simple answer is this: I have done nothing to prohibit or limit my freedoms that are unalienable, so if I want one, who are you, or anybody else to tell me that I can't have one?

Response by SFC Brandon Pechette made Oct 10 at 2015 6:35 PM

2015-10-10T18:35:03-04:00

Machine guns and semi-automatic rifles are different.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2015 11:09 AM

2015-10-17T11:09:38-04:00

I will start with, A machine gun is defined as an automatic gun that fires bullets in rapid succession for as long as the trigger is pressed. So if the news mentions a semi-automatic it is not a machine gun. it falls under the category of rifle. To have a machine gun (A class 3 weapon) legally you have to pay a tax/fine and register the weapon, cant take it across state lines without asking permission. There more rules then most people want to deal with. Personally I have only heard of one case where someone used an automatic weapon in a shootout. It was the 1997 north Hollywood shoot out and they illegally modified their weapons in to an automatic.

Now I know some ranchers on the border that use AR and AK style rifles (Semi automatic versions) to protect their land from drug traffickers. there have been cases where a trained group of drug traffickers either tries to scare a farmer or kill them. The farms are used to stop and get water ass they cross. They intimidate or kill so that they will not be reported to the border patrol. there are a few cases where they were driven off BECAUSE they ran in to a sufficient amount of firepower.

Response by MSG Alfred Aguilar made Oct 18 at 2015 3:23 AM

2015-10-18T03:23:57-04:00

Citizens don't need machine guns, they want them. They think the 2nd amendment means all arms. Some people would cruise around in tanks if they could.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 18 at 2015 2:08 PM

2015-10-18T14:08:30-04:00

Its easier to shoot dear with 4 machine guns.

Response by SP5 Mark Kuzinski made Oct 18 at 2015 7:50 PM

2015-10-18T19:50:52-04:00

The answer is simple:

Response by SP5 Mark Kuzinski made Oct 18 at 2015 7:52 PM

2015-10-18T19:52:29-04:00

The answer is simple:

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Oct 18 at 2015 10:11 PM

2015-10-18T22:11:36-04:00

OK. There is a lot of misinformation from posters here. First, legally owned machine guns are rarely used in crimes. When the news reports that a AK-47 or AR was used, it is almost always the semi-automatic version. Second, civilians are only allowed to own machine guns manufactured prior to 1986; because of this, the supply of machine guns for sale to civilians is limited and you will pay in the tens of thousands of dollars to purchase a civilian legal machine gun. The actual part of the machine gun that is registered with BATFE is the receiver, so if you have a machine gun receiver, you are considered to be in possession of a machine gun. Because of this, a new machine gun can be manufactured by adding new parts to a old receiver registered with BATFE prior to 1986 and sold to civilians. Third, once you find a machine gun you want to purchase, you have to fill out a lot of BATFE paperwork --- Gun dealers usually charge upwards of $100 just to fill out the paperwork for you -- and send BATFE a check for $200 to cover the cost of the transfer tax stamp should they approve your purchase; there is no guarantee that they will approve. Then you wait a few weeks for BATFE to approve or reject your purchase and you are not allowed to possess the machine gun until approved. If you are approved, you are now the proud owner of a machine gun. Now you have to jump through more hoops regarding storage, transfer of the firearm from place to place if you ever move, etc., and God help you BATFE thinks you screwed any of that up. You do not need any special permit to own a machine gun; just the $200 one-time transfer tax stamp from BATFE.

Response by SSG Paul Setterholm made Oct 20 at 2015 9:20 PM

2015-10-20T21:20:32-04:00

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Oct 21 at 2015 1:35 PM

2015-10-21T13:35:54-04:00

For the same reason that some people collect Hummels, cow statues, antique cars, zippo lighters, coke bottles, and my favorite, old oil cans. It's their hobby, they have more money than they know what to do with and no one is hurt by it.

Response by LTC Stephen B. made Oct 22 at 2015 8:53 AM

2015-10-22T08:53:15-04:00

Who gets to decide what another citizen needs? What does 'need' have to do with freedom?

Response by SMSgt Dan Lucero made Oct 22 at 2015 2:14 PM

2015-10-22T14:14:02-04:00

First and foremost it is our right as Americans to keep and bare arms granted by the constitution which you have sworn to uphold and protect, period. Any attempt by the government to impose gun laws is a slippery slope. It opens up government to impose all types of regulations against citizens without regard to the constitution. I live in the desert southwest and own a machete, a device terrorists have used to decapitate people in the middle east. Honestly, I don't have a need for the machete, but it could be considered a weapon. Should I surrender it to the government because it "might" be used as a weapon? What's most frustrating is that, if imposed, only law abiding citizens will comply, leaving those who give up their gun (no matter what type) without protection against those who wish to do harm. I don't know why soooo many people in the US are incapable of understanding that.

Response by Sgt Joshua Seavey made Oct 22 at 2015 2:20 PM

2015-10-22T14:20:34-04:00

Because this is the United States of America and i have that RIGHT.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2015 7:59 AM

2015-10-23T07:59:50-04:00

Dear CPT L S,

Great, sir, something we might be able to agree on, and let me say how pleased I am that you've finally articulated at least a portion of your position. I do have my long guns in a 14 gauge metal cabinet with barrel locks. I have one pistol, with loaded magazine, in a small box under my bed. The kind you can open by placing a hand on it and working the combination blind. The rest of my pistols are in a locked case. The keys to everything are locked away, and the keys to that are hidden (in plain sight) but only I know where they are.

But lest we go too far, how can this be made into law? If I want a gun, what do I do? Do I have to schedule an inspection by a government official to see if I have a locked cabinet? What if he doesn't like my cabinet? I note your "suggestion" of police department storage for someone who cannot afford a safe. Is this truly a suggestion, or do you want it to be law? And what are you saying to someone too poor to own a safe, "Sorry, you are too poor to have the right to self defense?"

I am not aware of a single country which has had registration and not later used it to take away guns. So I am opposed to registration. I would be less opposed if the registration law were written to include a paragraph, "ANY use of this registration law to pick up ANY gun not used in the commission of a crime is illegal and carries with it a mandatory 30 year sentence in a federal penitentiary, along with immediate mandatory destruction of the entire registration database." If that wording is included, I'll register mine, because I don't think any gun hater will accept spending 30 years getting sodomized as the price of stealing my right to self defense..

Immigrant bashing? I'm afraid you will have to quote that to me. I do not bash people for looking to improve their lives. But since you brought up the subject of condemning all for the actions of a few, how come all breweries and distilleries or automakers are not at fault for drunk driving? How come all minorities are not at fault for the crimes of a few? How come all guns and all gun owners ARE considered at fault for a few criminals? Pot calling the kettle black, are we? Fair is fair.

I see you have blocked me. No problem. I know you hate having someone expect you to explain your views.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Oct 23 at 2015 9:54 AM

2015-10-23T09:54:15-04:00

It's no surprise the number of pro automatic weapons comments. I hear ya. Semi-automatic hand guns and rifles are good. 2nd amendment rights to bear arms for defense and preservation of life is great. Hunting and gun collection I support. Automatic weapons should have limitations like magazine size and caliber. I'd be surprised if a collector has a .50cal MG or M240/249 series in their home. If they do, why? No "Red Dawn" scenario is gonna happen but hey I'm confident in defending myself, my family and my country with the pistol and rifle I own.

Response by PO2 Wesley Wilson made Oct 24 at 2015 1:50 AM

2015-10-24T01:50:40-04:00

I doubt you know anyone who owns a Machine Gun. They are extremely expensive and difficult to get. Be prepared to wait at least 6 months, pay for a tax stamp plus the cost of the weapon. Plus you have to get the signature of the local authorities before to can buy it. The cheapest I have ever seen one obtained was in the 15 k range. Next the movement of them is very regulated. They also are expensive to feed, it is after all a machine gun.

What I think you are talking about is the Evil black Gun scare tactics. Congratulations you have been assimilated, Resistance is futile.

You said you were "All for 2a" Have you asked yourself what 2a is there for? Its not to give us guns to hunt, or collect, its to give the people the power should it become necessary. By that line of thought yes we as Americans should have the right to the same arms (see I used the word from the constitution) as the government. 2a Says a well regulated Militia, Dont let that make you think National Guard, what the intent there is basically everyone is Militia and 2a gives us the regulation or government authority.

We dont need better gun laws, dont get caught up in the politics. We need to enforce the laws already passed and abolish the one made as knee jerk reactions to the acts of a few criminals. Had the laws in place been enforced these people would not have had access to the guns they used.

Response by SSgt James Howerton made Nov 19 at 2015 2:48 PM

2015-11-19T14:48:18-05:00

This is a great post, at least for me. I really learned a lot from other members on here about the ability of private ownership of fully automatic weapons. I was told when I was young, and always believed, that an American couldn't own a machine gun legally. Just goes to show that you're never too old to learn something. I realize now that you can own them, even though with the expense and red tape I'll never be able to own one. I fired an M60 while still on AD and it was a blast! If I was rich one of the first guns I'd buy would be a WWII-era Tommy Gun. They still sell brand new ones that are semi-auto but it is way too cost prohibitive for me. But I really don't think they need to put all the restrictions on fully automatic weapons. As someone else stated on this post an armorer, or anyone with mechanical ability can turn a semi-auto weapon that also comes in fully auto form in a fully auto weapon. But the nuts, terrorists and criminals that use fully auto weapons don't buy them legally, anyway. That's why all the restrictions and high government fees don't make sense to me. In my heart and head I believe the reason our Forefathers made the 2nd Amendment number two overall was so any citizen who desired could have access to the same weapons our government has, so we'd never have to fear a dictatorship. Of course they never could have foreseen the way weaponry has evolved. Hence, at least to me, is why we all take the Oath to protect the Constitution. It tells us to defend the nation and obey our superiors. Of course no one is the President's superior, so he has the responsibility to obey it, protect it and to protect our nation through leadership. If one ever tries to become a dictator through his rank as Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, then it lies with the JCS to disobey any illegal orders such a President may issue, to prevent the use of our own military against us. But we all know power can corrupt so I just pray to God that the Generals and Admiral are men whose obedience to the Oath will always come first.

Response by PO1 Tharin Young made Nov 19 at 2015 9:11 PM

2015-11-19T21:11:05-05:00

the 2nd amendment was not written so that we could defend our homes intruders, it was written so that citizens would be able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. because of this it is absolutely vital that we be allowed to arm ourselves with weapons that can match those being pointed at us by the government. Of course those in the positions of power also know this and some of them are working tirelessly to render us defenseless against the tyranny they would like to impose on us.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Nov 26 at 2015 12:01 PM

2015-11-26T12:01:12-05:00

Do you see the news? Guns have three primary purposes in my house. 1. Hunting for food, I do very little. 2. Defending my home from bad guys weather it be the local thug or the terrorist my president wants to bring in as refugees. 3. Banding together with other patriots to defend our nation when our Government attempts to become dictators, or civil war breaks out. A secondary purpose is I just like to make things go bang and I can.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Dec 5 at 2015 4:06 AM

2015-12-05T04:06:49-05:00

"This is Murica, If I can Afford it, I should be able to buy it no questions asked". *SARCASM MUCH*

Response by MSG Jay Jackson made Dec 5 at 2015 9:15 PM

2015-12-05T21:15:29-05:00

Captain, I hope you are also concerned about drunk drivers also. Your concern for your children’s safety does not override my right to defend myself or my family. Since you wanted some suggestions I have a few. Do away with gun free zones at schools. Make every door in the place and the entire glass bullet proof. You can reduce the pay of most of the local politicians to pay for it. Arm and train willing teachers to help defend the place when trouble starts. I do agree that all guns sold must have a corresponding back ground check. If not the seller should suffer some consequence. Some will disagree on this last point but it makes sense to me. The other side is that some law enforcement organizations are so small that they might not enter a person into the system to mark him as ineligible to buy a gun. If so then that is not the sellers fault.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Dec 7 at 2015 6:36 AM

2015-12-07T06:36:19-05:00

I like this Marine! http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/5/1457116/-I-had-to-put-my-bullshit-waders-on-this-morning

I had to put my bullshit waders on this morning!

I had to put on my new bullshit waders before opening Facebook this morning, and good thing! The crap that came spewi...

Response by SGT James Hammons made Dec 13 at 2015 2:47 AM

2015-12-13T02:47:02-05:00

A Automatic Weapon is not legal. I am guessing when you say machine gun then you mean a weapon capable of firing in Automatic. However if an enemy would say start walking into your building with an illegal machine gun, I would prefer having someone there with a legal weapon and the training to use it. But no worries Crap don't happen here in the states, I suggest you start watching the news and check your local laws. More gun control does not stop those intent on our demise.

Response by MSG Don Burt made Dec 14 at 2015 1:26 PM

2015-12-14T13:26:03-05:00

Your first sentence sums up and should already be your answer....the "NEED" is not the question...it has to do with OUR RIGHT and not our NEED....how many pairs of shoes do you own? How many do you "NEED"?

Response by TSgt Michael Williamson made Jan 21 at 2016 11:27 AM

2016-01-21T11:27:31-05:00

We don't have needs in this country, we have rights.

No one needs cars that do 3X the speed limit. No one needs booze. No one needs a lot of things. So really, I have no need to answer your question, because it's a snoopy, intrusive question. I want them, so I have them, and it's none of your business. However:

A semi-automatic is not a "machine gun," which is by definition full auto. So you actually don't know enough about what you're asking to phrase a clear question.

Full autos have been all but eliminated. There are less than 200K in existence, no new ones are allowed since 1986, and they cost $5000 and up, some in the hundreds of thousands. Nor has a legal full auto EVER been used for murder since the National Firearms Act taxed and restricted them. (There are two exceptions. Both were POLICE engaged in the drug trade.)

Illegal ones get smuggled in or made in labs, just as drugs do. Banning cocaine hasn't stopped anyone from acquiring it, it's only created turf wars and circumstances where addicts are afraid to ask for help.

The 2nd Amendment is not to protect hunting. It is to protect the right to make war against invaders or despots. In fact, you'll find in the Constitution a reference to "Letters of Marque and Reprisal." This acknowledged that private warships with cannon were common enough to provide laws for. Private artillery was common through the Civil War.

Finally for now, at 600 rounds per minute or more, machine guns are insanely expensive to shoot. I spend about $100 per shooting minute on ammo for mine.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Oct 6 at 2016 4:25 PM

2016-10-06T16:25:14-04:00

Why are Cheetos, or Mercedes legal, who needs these? We have rights to own things. We have obligations to behave ourselves with whatever we own.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2016 12:33 PM

2016-10-14T12:33:33-04:00

I'm not downvoting, but, "What does anyone need ...", grates on my nerves like fingernails on a chalkboard. It's the pat phrase of those who are not interested in a discussion, but are pretending to be reasonable while telling someone else what to do.

What do we need alcohol for? What do you need a gas-guzzling monster truck for? What do we need cigarettes for? What do you need a car for? (We have public transportation, bicycles and feet, don't we?) What do we need washers and dryers for? (Couldn't we do what great grandma did, wash in a tub and hang our close on the line?) What do we need golf clubs for? (Not only the club itself, but look at all that land that could be used to house Syrian refugees!) What do we need boxing, football games, soccer games, rugby, any athletic contest for? (Just look at all those opportunities to discriminate, when we all know that everyone is a winner and everyone gets a trophy.) What do we need gated communities, airplanes, butcher knives, baseball bats, nitrogen-based fertilizer ...

I hope it's obvious by now that FREE people are able to make choices, and sometimes make bad choices. We don't need drunks to get behind the wheel and kill someone, but that still happens, and I don't hear a lot of people asking what we need alcohol for. People have to right to risk their lives as they choose, for example rock climbing, which has one of the highest fatality rates of any sport. People have the right to KILL themselves with cigarettes.

And people have the right to hunt. People have the right to shoot targets. People have the right to defend their family, their property and their lives, and a responsible person practices with the tools he intends to use to defend himself.

Instead we should be reminding people that the shooter is responsible for the complete trajectory of each bullet from muzzle to final resting place. If a rapist breaks in your front door, you hose him with your uzi, but kill an innocent bystander, you are a MURDERER.

On the other hand, if I am a responsible adult, acknowledge and accept responsibility for every bullet I fire, then I shouldn't have to answer meddling, nosy, stupid questions from people unwilling to accept the same responsibility.

I will personally never chose to own a machine gun. I do not expect to be attacked by 100 rabid zombies requiring a street sweeper to stay alive. If a mob attacks, I'm sure I can kill the first dozen using my semi-automatic weapons. There's no 100% guarantee of safety and fearful people need to quit expecting it. But I like my odds.

Response by MSG John Harris made Oct 20 at 2016 12:59 PM

2016-10-20T12:59:43-04:00

Like SPC Cunningham, I'm going to be nice but I've got to ask. As a nn NCO do you not know the difference between 1) A machine gun and 2) a semi-automatic rifle ?

Response by SGT Ronald Audas made Oct 20 at 2016 1:52 PM

2016-10-20T13:52:59-04:00

I guess the first thing that pops into my head is;How does someone go through Basic and AIT and not know the difference of a single shot,semi-automatic,automatic or selector switch to convert one to the other.Maybe being trained to go to Vietnam by returning Vietnam veterans better prepared us for combat.Hope the authorities don`t find out I have a 17 shot,semi-automatic .22 I bought in 1957.

Response by SPC Jerry Crain made Oct 21 at 2016 7:42 AM

2016-10-21T07:42:30-04:00

I don't care about some people having fun like some stated. You should have a right to protect you self and your property. If there are riots going on, you are not facing 1 or 2 people. There will be many more of these not less.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Oct 28 at 2016 9:07 AM

2016-10-28T09:07:13-04:00

When somebody asks this question I know they do not even know what a machine gun or "assault weapon" is , nor the actual laws governing them. Machine guns are legal like cocaine is legal. Very few people are legally allowed to have either one.

Response by CW3 Harvey K. made Oct 30 at 2016 9:20 PM

2016-10-30T21:20:56-04:00

"BUT! Why is it necessary to own a Machine gun?"

Is it the Bill of 'Necessities' or the Bill of Rights? Does anyone have to justify to anyone, fellow citizen or government agent, why he wishes to exercise his rights?
Actually, "machine guns" are not a problem. The deadliest short-range gun is not a "machine gun", but a shotgun. While the Federal Gov't put an (unconstitutional, IMHO) tax , equal to ~ $3,800 in today's dollars, on possession of a "machine gun", the fact exists that anybody with a shotgun and hacksaw can produce a weapon far more deadly than a "machine gun".

Response by CW3 Harvey K. made Oct 31 at 2016 8:44 PM

2016-10-31T20:44:25-04:00

From your comments here, it would seem that you have been duped by Josh Sugarman and his Violence Policy Center.
WHAT THEY SAY
From the Violence Policy Center website:
"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons [sic] —anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun— can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”

WHAT THEY MEAN
The American public is generally ignorant about guns, so we can lie to them very effectively by equating “ugly” rifles like the semi-auto AR-15 as “the same thing as the 'machine gun' Army M-16”, after all they look alike, don't they?

That is enough “proof” for these stupid people.

The “confusion” of the public about guns is not to be eliminated by teaching them the difference between an AR-15 (semi-auto ONLY) and M-16 (selective – semi or FULL-auto).

We gain nothing by telling the truth. That would ruin our plans to advance our goals for more useless “gun control”. We must cultivate this public ignorance about guns, and exploit this ignorance as much as we can, to fool the public into thinking the way we want them to think.

We can stress the point that many states do not allow these guns for hunting deer (they are considered to lack the power to kill big game humanely), which is what most urban citizens think of as the only “good purpose” for guns. We will ignore the fact that the Armalite Rifle 15 (AR-15) and the Army M-16 both fire a "varmint" type cartridge, civilian developed for hunting woodchucks, prairie dogs, crows and various other small “pests” before it was adapted by the Military.
Of course we will not mention any other “lawful uses” other than hunting deer, such as "varmint hunting", or target shooting . We will just keep repeating, over and over ----
“NOBODY NEEDS A MACHINE GUN TO HUNT DEER”.

Response by LCpl Ben Spalding made Nov 16 at 2016 11:10 PM

2016-11-16T23:10:27-05:00

Its my right and that's all their is to it. If I want one that's whats going to happen.

Response by Scarlett Locke made Feb 26 at 2018 9:50 PM

2018-02-26T21:50:39-05:00

I am currently writing a letter for banning semi automatic firearms in the United States. I believe that no ordinary citizens should have a gun at all, unless they are hunters (though I don't quite approve of that either). My brother in law has guns for hunting in Alabama, but he, of course, does not own a machine gun. No one should. They are killing machines invented and used for war alone. Our country alone has the largest number of civilian guns in the world, and, coincidentally, the most mass shootings. Nearly every other country who has had a single mass shooting has tightened their restrictions on gun control, except us, and we have had many, and done very little. Why?

Response by Lucas Hoffman made Mar 27 at 2018 5:29 PM

2018-03-27T17:29:29-04:00

AK-47's are not I repeat not MACHINE GUNS!!! they are assault rifles