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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Their not

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.

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.

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.