Posted on Oct 4, 2015
Why are Machine Guns legal? What does anyone need with one?
51.8K
877
483
18
15
3
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.
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.
Gun Control
Collecting Guns
2nd Amendment
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 137
66
66
0
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".
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".
(66)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
@CPT (Servicemember) "Gun free zones? Again I am all for guns, as long as the good guys have the guns and not crazy people." You consider the NRA to be a domestic terrorist organization. So do you consider NRA members to be good guys or crazy people?
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Sgt Kelli Mays - You're talking about the infamous AR-15; this poor rifle is as misjudged as is the pitbull breed among dogs. The truth is that this rifle is the exact same thing as a Mini 14 with a few differences; however, the rifle is not a machine gun by any means and it ONLY fires in semi-automatic (one round is fired with each trigger pull). I know plenty of people that have used this rifle to hunt deer, hogs and coyote very effective and humanely. One last thing, the "AR" in AR-15 actually stands for ArmaLite rifle, which is the company that first developed it in the 1950s, and the 15 is just a model number such as the AR-"10" or Mossberg "500" you get the point.
Hopefully that answered your question, the AR-15 is the rifle the news talk about and the liberals obsess over. Bottom line is, the AR-15 is simply a hopped up .22, and it's not the flame throwing, bullet spraying, child killing, baby destroying ghost gun the media plays it out to be.
As for your "machine gun" discussion, a machine gun is primarily a Class 3 weapon which requires a tax stamp and number from the BATFE and isn't easily acquired, which means that only law abiding citizens with a clean record and enough money to purchase a weapon that will usually cost well over $3k can own one of these said machine guns.
Hopefully that answered your question, the AR-15 is the rifle the news talk about and the liberals obsess over. Bottom line is, the AR-15 is simply a hopped up .22, and it's not the flame throwing, bullet spraying, child killing, baby destroying ghost gun the media plays it out to be.
As for your "machine gun" discussion, a machine gun is primarily a Class 3 weapon which requires a tax stamp and number from the BATFE and isn't easily acquired, which means that only law abiding citizens with a clean record and enough money to purchase a weapon that will usually cost well over $3k can own one of these said machine guns.
(2)
(0)
MSgt James Bowers
Under federal law a special license is required along with a FFL ( Federal Firearms License, or dealers license) to own a machine gun.
You state "I have a brother that owns so many I lost count and couldn't possibly tell you what they are" it's a collection, and many of the weapons I own are antiques or relics. Do I "need" them, no but I collect, repair and shoot them. The best correlation I can think of is How many pairs of shoes do you own? Why do you need so many (i'm guessing you have more than 4 pairs).
You state "I have a brother that owns so many I lost count and couldn't possibly tell you what they are" it's a collection, and many of the weapons I own are antiques or relics. Do I "need" them, no but I collect, repair and shoot them. The best correlation I can think of is How many pairs of shoes do you own? Why do you need so many (i'm guessing you have more than 4 pairs).
(1)
(0)
SSgt James Howerton
MSgt James Bowers - I agree with you. There is nothing wrong with owning guns or collecting them. I wish I still had every gun that I purchased during my life but many were lost to reasons I won't go into here. I now have a smaller collection. Due to a bad back, shooting is the only sport I can still do and even that is at a limited amount of time. I believe owning guns is an American's birthright (or not owning them, since we have freedom of choice).
(1)
(0)
42
42
0
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.
(42)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SFC James Sczymanski want me to keep an eye out for one for you? DOes it have to be a M1... would you be interested in a M60?
(0)
(0)
SSgt James Howerton
SFC James Sczymanski - LOLOLOL. Love that comment about your neighbor losing his parking spot in front of your house!
(0)
(0)
SPC Dave St.Andrew
Sgt Kelli Mays - They aren't for sale to everyone, like others have said, they are either imported illegally or converted to automatic weapons illegally, in fact, the process for owning an automatic weapon is lengthy and expensive for those of us that do it legally.
(0)
(0)
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#
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?...
(38)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
CPT L S - There is only one correct English definition for a machine gun, and that is of an automatic firearm. If a civilian is using the term incorrectly then you shouldn't compromise your own knowledge of the English language, and should correct them so that they don't continue to spread misinformation to others. It's just like if a civilian wants to call an up armored HMMWV a "tank" -- the right thing to do is to correct them. It doesn't matter how many people are wrong... you still do the right thing.
(5)
(0)
MSgt Alex Taylor
Excellent post Major Yinon Weiss. The article does fail to additionally mention that most fully automatic weapons produced are forbidden from even being resold to those purchasing the license. Suffice to say, the actual numbers of privately held full auto weapons is not increasing.
(4)
(0)
SSgt Phil Sigman
I would love to get my hands on an old M-60 and an endless supply of ammo (and a couple spare barrels). Throw in a few wrecked cars for target practice.
(0)
(0)
SCPO Joshua I
MSgt Alex Taylor - To amplify on your point a bit, Not one single civilian legal machine gun has been manufactured in the US since 1986. The pool of transferable machine guns continues to shrink, and the price continues to go up. The few M16 variants are 20k and up. The only legal SAW sold for over 100k a few years back if I recall correctly.
(1)
(0)
24
24
0
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.
(24)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
SPC Carl K. I did read that it is perfectly legal to own a mini gun. Of course now I cannot find the exact article. The reasoning behind it is that the minigun is prohibitively expensive as is the ammunition so it is less likely to be something that the general public is going to obtain.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Phil Sigman
Sgt Kelli Mays - A shady gunsmith can convert an AR-15 to full auto in less than five minutes. I'm sure there's do it yourselfers out there that can also.
(1)
(0)
19
19
0
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.
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.
(19)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
Spot on. Every time we the people agree to lose an ounce of liberty, it is gone forever. The idea that the government will protect our children by "restricting" our access to guns, should seem silly to everyone who has ever called the police when seconds counted. They arrive in minutes and make decisions in hours.
(4)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT L S The News media perpetuates far more Fear, in the attempt to change Politics than the NRA. By definition that makes American Press Agencies Terrorists as well. Should we get rid of them also? It's not like they are protected by the 1a...
Oh wait, the 1a Protects both our Right to the Press, and our Right to Assembly, which is what makes organizations like the NRA, and Media possible.
Oh wait, the 1a Protects both our Right to the Press, and our Right to Assembly, which is what makes organizations like the NRA, and Media possible.
(6)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT L S It's funny that you bring up MADD. They show how a concept that WAS Anti-Drunk Driving has becoming Anti-Alcohol.
http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html#NeoProhibitionist
A good concept taken too far. That's what I see when folks start talking about registration, extra hoops to jump through, etc. I see the "good idea fairy."
http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html#NeoProhibitionist
A good concept taken too far. That's what I see when folks start talking about registration, extra hoops to jump through, etc. I see the "good idea fairy."
(1)
(0)
11
11
0
Bang, Bang, Bang is fun. Bbbbbbbang, bbbbbang, bbbbbang....is better.
(11)
(0)
Joseph Bonin
here are pictures for ya these 4 pistols are for protection !!!
and this is a semi automatic hunting rifle !!!
and this is a tank !!!
the ? is would you use 4 pistols a hunting rifle or a tank to shoot squirrels
and this is a semi automatic hunting rifle !!!
and this is a tank !!!
the ? is would you use 4 pistols a hunting rifle or a tank to shoot squirrels
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
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.
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.
(10)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
No but I have heard about the insane amount of crime that has gone through the roof! And BTW, we have a republic, not a democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner. Article 4, Section 4 of our constitution.
And I was speaking to the fact that in history, genocide does follow gun confiscation.
And I was speaking to the fact that in history, genocide does follow gun confiscation.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
The following are “civilized” countries that confiscated guns from the populace and the resulting murders that followed: Turkey 1915-1917 1.5 million dead; Soviet Union 1929-1953 20 million dead; Nazi Germany 1933-1945 13 million dead; China 1949-1976 20 million dead; Guatemala 1960-1981 100,000 dead; Uganda 1971-1979 300,000 dead; Cambodia 1975-1979 one million dead.
Who can forget all those infamous names: Uncle Joe Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Castro, and let’s not forget the colorful Idi Amin. Just a few butchers from days gone by that needed to disarm their citizens before they could carry out their despicable atrocities.
Who can forget all those infamous names: Uncle Joe Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Castro, and let’s not forget the colorful Idi Amin. Just a few butchers from days gone by that needed to disarm their citizens before they could carry out their despicable atrocities.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
CPT (Verify To See) - The FBI reports that they have identified over 50 different militia groups with in the military.
French and Russian troops shot their officers when ordered to fire on the citizens so there is historical precedent.
I'm not from Texas. Comparing Canadians and Australian to Americans? Those people have been subjects for too long no matter how much they think they've separated from Britain. Mentally they are still subjects and lack the general dislike of government that most Americans possess.
French and Russian troops shot their officers when ordered to fire on the citizens so there is historical precedent.
I'm not from Texas. Comparing Canadians and Australian to Americans? Those people have been subjects for too long no matter how much they think they've separated from Britain. Mentally they are still subjects and lack the general dislike of government that most Americans possess.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
CPT (Verify To See) - First off, THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY! It is a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is mob rule and the founders rejected it out of hand. Mobs are easily swayed with rhetoric. Rhetoricians appeal to emotion. Emotion produces poor decisions. Legislation was designed to be difficult to pass bypassing emotion in favor of logic and deliberation. Emotion says "To Hell" with the minority opinion. Representative government considers both sides and decides in favor of the republic not individuals. If this was a Democracy every citizen would directly vote for every law. One political faction would win every time. The majority would pass laws that favor only their opinion. There would be no need of a Congress, just administrators of the majority's will.
Successful? Perhaps at one time. But involvement in the affairs of other nations now makes us one of the most hated nations. We are surrounded by enemies and make new ones daily. The expression of power is the reason we have "friends". Nations do not have friends they have interests. Europe brags of its great social programs and denigrates the US because our people aren't as well taken care while we spend our revenues protecting them. The Middle East desires only our power hoping we'll help them against their enemies of which they all have many. Philosophically and politically we have nothing in common with them. We have exhausted any moral and political reserves propping up regimes that are falling and the people hare us for it. One group because we made oppression possible and the other because we didn't.
Our loss of moral capital is exceeded only by our financial capital. We have mortgaged the future citizens with good money thrown after bad. You like Jefferson and Paine? read what they had to say about a national bank. In spite of Jackson's elimination of it we again started a new one one with an income tax to finance it. It induces the Treasury to sell it phony bonds and then approves the printing of phony money based on thin air A facade of wealth because those bonds will be refinanced in perpetuity.
We are no longer the desire of the best and brightest but of the lowest and most needy. Those that would do us the most good are turned away while we allow the semiliterate and illiterate to enter and become a drain on our capital and moral structure. Our own citizens already demoralized and in want have been pushed away, unable to find jobs and when they do unable to live on what they earn. No wonder so many have given up. They see no future and exist only for the present and have become dependent on government to sustain them which it does poorly.
The corporations control every action by government. Favorable laws allow them to keep $2 Trillion from being taxed. When they spend themselves into bankruptcy we bail them out with more fiat dollars. A local issue where the government kept claiming it couldn't build sidewalks on a dangerous road but could give $100 Million to a football team owner is an example of how little the people matter. Eminent domain laws have been perverted to serve the corporations converting public needs to public use.
Successful? perhaps at one time but now we are watching as the US goes the way of Rome, Athens, Persia and all the other empires that have come and gone. The signs are here of our collapse into irrelevancy. A legislature that exists only for its own benefit, destruction of the nuclear family, the high tolerance for immorality. The ever widening gap between the elites and the common people. Rome had 10 slaves for every citizen. We have elites with the net worth of 150,000 common citizens. Rome had to resort to mercenaries in its constant wars because its people no longer supported the empire.
History marches on and people never learn from it.
Successful? Perhaps at one time. But involvement in the affairs of other nations now makes us one of the most hated nations. We are surrounded by enemies and make new ones daily. The expression of power is the reason we have "friends". Nations do not have friends they have interests. Europe brags of its great social programs and denigrates the US because our people aren't as well taken care while we spend our revenues protecting them. The Middle East desires only our power hoping we'll help them against their enemies of which they all have many. Philosophically and politically we have nothing in common with them. We have exhausted any moral and political reserves propping up regimes that are falling and the people hare us for it. One group because we made oppression possible and the other because we didn't.
Our loss of moral capital is exceeded only by our financial capital. We have mortgaged the future citizens with good money thrown after bad. You like Jefferson and Paine? read what they had to say about a national bank. In spite of Jackson's elimination of it we again started a new one one with an income tax to finance it. It induces the Treasury to sell it phony bonds and then approves the printing of phony money based on thin air A facade of wealth because those bonds will be refinanced in perpetuity.
We are no longer the desire of the best and brightest but of the lowest and most needy. Those that would do us the most good are turned away while we allow the semiliterate and illiterate to enter and become a drain on our capital and moral structure. Our own citizens already demoralized and in want have been pushed away, unable to find jobs and when they do unable to live on what they earn. No wonder so many have given up. They see no future and exist only for the present and have become dependent on government to sustain them which it does poorly.
The corporations control every action by government. Favorable laws allow them to keep $2 Trillion from being taxed. When they spend themselves into bankruptcy we bail them out with more fiat dollars. A local issue where the government kept claiming it couldn't build sidewalks on a dangerous road but could give $100 Million to a football team owner is an example of how little the people matter. Eminent domain laws have been perverted to serve the corporations converting public needs to public use.
Successful? perhaps at one time but now we are watching as the US goes the way of Rome, Athens, Persia and all the other empires that have come and gone. The signs are here of our collapse into irrelevancy. A legislature that exists only for its own benefit, destruction of the nuclear family, the high tolerance for immorality. The ever widening gap between the elites and the common people. Rome had 10 slaves for every citizen. We have elites with the net worth of 150,000 common citizens. Rome had to resort to mercenaries in its constant wars because its people no longer supported the empire.
History marches on and people never learn from it.
(1)
(0)
10
10
0
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.
(10)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO1 Kerry French (British) Stamp Act of 1765 is the one I believe you are referring to, however we also had the Whiskey Rebellion, where American Citizens fought the Whiskey (Corn Liquor) tax levied by Congress.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
Yep Sgt Aaron Kennedy... you are correct! Nice to see others who know their American history!
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO1 Kerry French History is important. It's a record of how bad we screwed up. It's like a list of our Nation's NJPs that anyone can see.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
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?
(9)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Well put, but consider this, While I can't operate more than one car at a time, I can carry more than one firearm at a time. Whether two handguns or a long gun and a handgun. However, can I effectively employ more than one firearm at a time?
(0)
(0)
MCPO (Join to see)
Ooh, can you spell, "Hyperbole"?? You set up a straw-man for us to discuss. We're not talking cars, we're talking firearms.
(0)
(1)
PO1 Kerry French
Oooh can you spell Alinsky tactics? Minimizing isolating and ridiculing because you don't agree. You made no substantial argument master chief and therefore I am unable to engage in any rational grown up debate. Sorry ... FAIL.
(0)
(0)
MCPO (Join to see)
Gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the Constitution - and clearly states that it si for the "Well regulated militia." How do you get regulations if you don't regulate? Mandated training? Registration - you know - kinda what we do in the military.
Car ownership is a privilege, and is regulated significantly more than firearm ownership. We do have more than one car - the same way we can have more than one firearm. This is where you jumped the shark and went into full hyperbole-mode.
We do not have "freedom" in this country - we have LIBERTY - and there is a significant difference. I realize the Conservatives have tried to co-opt that "F" word, but it just isn't true.
When firearm deaths occur, by the Attorney General's own numbers, the vast majority of the weapons used were purchased legally and were legally owned by the people using them - while your speculation about "criminals and their guns" is widely touted, but is not supported by data.
I do support the Second Amendment, and I realize that there is more to it than, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." The moment you agree that John Doe does not need free access to an M2 machine gun, you have added your own, "but," to the conversation, and have also made your own point moot (at least by your standard).
Feel free to try again.
Car ownership is a privilege, and is regulated significantly more than firearm ownership. We do have more than one car - the same way we can have more than one firearm. This is where you jumped the shark and went into full hyperbole-mode.
We do not have "freedom" in this country - we have LIBERTY - and there is a significant difference. I realize the Conservatives have tried to co-opt that "F" word, but it just isn't true.
When firearm deaths occur, by the Attorney General's own numbers, the vast majority of the weapons used were purchased legally and were legally owned by the people using them - while your speculation about "criminals and their guns" is widely touted, but is not supported by data.
I do support the Second Amendment, and I realize that there is more to it than, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." The moment you agree that John Doe does not need free access to an M2 machine gun, you have added your own, "but," to the conversation, and have also made your own point moot (at least by your standard).
Feel free to try again.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
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.
(9)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google