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
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
Lucas Hoffman
The second amendment states that you can own a gun to defend yourself. This amendment was made when we were a militia meaning it was volunteering to fight if someone say the British from 1776 tried to attack you could defend. This is why our current army is a volunteer army. The second amendment doesn't say we can fight to destroy the government if it became tyrannic
(0)
(0)
SGT Apollo Sharpe
The fact that the second amendment is in a group called the “Bill of Rights” makes it pretty clear that the purpose of the amendment was to protect people from the federal government, itself. The Bill of Rights absolutely is the only reason that the Constitution was ratified in the first place. I suggest that you actually revisit U.S. History in academia, in order to get a more clear understanding of exactly happened & why it all happened during the creation and signing of the Constitution.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Because unless the Constitution prohibits it, we are free to own it. For the record, I dont own a machine gun.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
"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
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
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Sgt Kelli Mays
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Capt Walter Miller
Just what do you think George Washington did? Your major confusion is you seem to think militias were formed and organized by the Government. They were formed by the people to protect themselves. The militia act gives the president authority to call up the militia, the act in and of itself demonstrates Militias were not controlled or regulated by the Federal Government or they would not have needed to pass the militia act. In today's words this is a draft, it is not a mobilization of the Guard or Reserve component. Militias were not supported by the federal government unless under federal service (which was very, very rare)
The confederacy fought because they were sure they lost the political representation battle and Slavery would have become unconstitutional. (they lost the political process) The revolution was fought because they had NO REPRESENTATION. Fighting against your own Government is only morally acceptable when representation has been destroyed, IE Ancient Rome after Caesar's death, or to simply it once the congress has been disbanded or ceases to be a true check and balance to the executive branch.
Loopy as all get out is exactly what the British aristocracy thought of our founding fathers.
Just what do you think George Washington did? Your major confusion is you seem to think militias were formed and organized by the Government. They were formed by the people to protect themselves. The militia act gives the president authority to call up the militia, the act in and of itself demonstrates Militias were not controlled or regulated by the Federal Government or they would not have needed to pass the militia act. In today's words this is a draft, it is not a mobilization of the Guard or Reserve component. Militias were not supported by the federal government unless under federal service (which was very, very rare)
The confederacy fought because they were sure they lost the political representation battle and Slavery would have become unconstitutional. (they lost the political process) The revolution was fought because they had NO REPRESENTATION. Fighting against your own Government is only morally acceptable when representation has been destroyed, IE Ancient Rome after Caesar's death, or to simply it once the congress has been disbanded or ceases to be a true check and balance to the executive branch.
Loopy as all get out is exactly what the British aristocracy thought of our founding fathers.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
MAJ (Join to see) - "Just what do you think George Washington did? Your major confusion is you seem to think militias were formed and organized by the Government. They were formed by the people to protect themselves."
You are talking about the nut job militias of the 21st century.
How dumb does it sound to suggest that "militias were formed by the people," when their authority is codified in the laws of the United States?
Ever hear of the Dick Act?
"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."[17][18][19][20] -wiki
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The Oregon shooter, the Newtown shooter, the Batman shooter and on and on, have been members of the Militia of the United States. If the Militia cannot be regulated or will not regulate itself it should be disbanded.
In -that- sense, all the law abiding members of the Militia (waving) should take a strong interest in ensuring that we stop the nut jobs lest we lose the right that accrue to a -well-regulated- Militia.
And boys and girls, the Supreme Court can use the first words of the Second Amendment to shut down the militia.
They could do that by simply saying that a well regulated militia was no longer necessary.
Walt
You are talking about the nut job militias of the 21st century.
How dumb does it sound to suggest that "militias were formed by the people," when their authority is codified in the laws of the United States?
Ever hear of the Dick Act?
"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."[17][18][19][20] -wiki
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The Oregon shooter, the Newtown shooter, the Batman shooter and on and on, have been members of the Militia of the United States. If the Militia cannot be regulated or will not regulate itself it should be disbanded.
In -that- sense, all the law abiding members of the Militia (waving) should take a strong interest in ensuring that we stop the nut jobs lest we lose the right that accrue to a -well-regulated- Militia.
And boys and girls, the Supreme Court can use the first words of the Second Amendment to shut down the militia.
They could do that by simply saying that a well regulated militia was no longer necessary.
Walt
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Militia's existed prior to the laws of the United States being codified. The founding fathers felt so strongly about this point (right after committing treason and declaring war on their sovereign) that they took the complete radical position to have the military swear allegiance to a piece of parchment rather than a person, position, or the Government. Thankfully the last 200+ years of judicial interpretation are contradictory of your autocratic mentality. And there would be no simplicity in a constructive alteration of the 2nd amendment, The supreme court does not have the authority to alter the constitution.
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
MAJ (Join to see) Capt Walter Miller SCOTUS has actually held to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment despite the constant challenge on the plain meeting.
I am certain the CAPT Miller will one day sponsor a constitutional amendment that will clarify the 2nd Amendment to his interpretation. Oh, wait that's too hard...nevermind let's just get 60 votes and shove it down everyone's throat, it worked so well for the ACA (Obamacare).
I am certain the CAPT Miller will one day sponsor a constitutional amendment that will clarify the 2nd Amendment to his interpretation. Oh, wait that's too hard...nevermind let's just get 60 votes and shove it down everyone's throat, it worked so well for the ACA (Obamacare).
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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".
(4)
(0)
SPC Brian Aranda
Maj Walter Kilar With respect sir, Americans do have the freedom of speech to call unfamiliar weapons whatever they want. However, this is something that is perpetuated with the intention of generating fear and loathing. Educating those that are purposely misled serves a much better purpose and also disrupts those that spread such deceit for personal or professional gain.
(1)
(0)
Maj Walter Kilar
I somewhat agree, SPC Brian Aranda, which is why I bring the topic up. Most of us, but not all of us in these threads have a similar definition of "machine gun". However, many of us military folks forget that the civilian world does not know, and some do not care, for our definitions. Even the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms uses a different definition of "machine gun" than we do. That being said, even if Title 26 of the US Code uses a particular definition, the media are going to use whatever definition they want to perpetuate fear and drive an agenda. There is only so much we can do to educate people if "official" definition in the US Code is rather loose, and definitely not the same as the military definition.
(1)
(0)
SPC Brian Aranda
I understand, it's a daunting prospect since the MSM has a much larger reach and influence, but you will definitely lose the battle if you don't fight back.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google