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

I'm not a gun expert. One story says machine gun, but in the same story it'll say assault weapon...you say potato and I say potatoe.....the point it are the guns that spray bullets.

Sgt Kelli Mays - I'm not surprised that you are confused about gun terminology because it is the goal of the the gun control crowd and the liberal media to blow smoke up your ass and get you to believe that assault weapons are machine guns. Let me try to clear this up for you:

When you squeeze the trigger on a fully-automatic firearm such as a machine gun, assault rifle, or select-fire firearm, the firearm will keep firing until you let off the trigger or run out of ammo if the firearm's selector switch is set on full-auto.

A "assault weapon" looks just like a machine gun, assault rifle, or select-fire firearm but it is not. A assault weapon is semi-automatic, meaning that when you squeeze the trigger, it fires a single bullet and you have to squeeze the trigger again to fire an additional single bullet, and so on. To summarize, a assault weapon is a ordinary, everyday firearm that only looks like a machine gun.

The term "assault weapon" was coined by the gun control crowd in the 1990's because it sounds just like "assault rifle". The gun control crowd, despite what they are saying nowadays, want to ban all guns. In collusion with the liberal media, the gun control crowd came up with the scheme to repeatedly use the term "assault weapon" to deceive the public into believing that ordinary semi-automatic firearms were fully-automatic assault rifles in order to create a public outcry to ban them. The scheme worked and Bill Clinton enacted a 10-year-long assault weapon ban. After the ban expired, Congress did not vote to extend it because the statistics showed it had absolutely no impact on gun violence or violent crime. But to this day, millions of Americans such as yourself believe assault weapons are machine guns. How do you like being deceived by the gun control crowd and liberal media?

Under 1986 federal law, and subject to state law and federal regulation, a civilian may own a fully-automatic firearm that was manufactured prior to May 19, 1986. Prior to enactment of the 1986 law, a civilian could own any fully-automatic firearm they desired, subject to state law and federal regulation, and fully-automatic firearms were no more expensive than regular firearms. The 1986 law drove values for pre-1986 fully-automatic firearms through the roof to where a regular M16 now sells for upwards of $10-20K, if you can find one for sale, and some machine guns are in the six figures.

In order to own one of these firearms in a state that allows it, a Title 2 federal firearms licensee must handle the transfer of the firearm to you. First, you pay for the firearm. Then you and the Title 2 FFL fill out a request-for-transfer form and send it to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives along with your check in the amount of $200 to pay the transfer tax. The Title 2 FFL holds on to the firearm pending approval by BATFE. After many weeks, more likely months, BATFE either approves or denies the transfer. If approved, the Title 2 FFL hands the firearm over to you. If denied, you don't get the firearm, you don't get the $200 back that you paid for the transfer tax, and you may not get the money back that you paid for the firearm because it's not the Title 2 FFL's fault that you were denied.

no...AF is not issued weapons...or at least not all folks...I was handed an M16 in basic and told to shoot in 3 or 4 positions...can't remember now...and that is the extent of my gun/weapons training.

To me, not being issued a weapon is foreign and even unreasonable; but that's the bias I've picked up from living a specific perspective.
My original point was: Machine gun ownership is legal because:
1) Legal machine guns are not the cause of crime, nor are they the means or a method.

We should leave our gun laws the way they are because I think our nation is actually a very safe place to live because:
1) US gun ownership is like 88/100 per capita, but our gun related homicide is 3.5/100,000 per capita.

and at last....that is not the question...the question is why is it necessary to own a machine gun...in the body of my post I ask why do people feel the need to own a machine gun when there are a gazillion other types of weapons. I'm all for gun ownership...and like my brother you can own 50 of them or more...but sensible ones...why machine guns? what is the purpose? unless you are going to war, or you are a police officer etc...I'm just asking a simple question. I think everyone reads the headline and not what I wrote under it.

I was issued M16s, M16A1s, A2s, GUU-5Ps, M-15 revolvers, M-92s in the USAF. Engineers.

I have always believed the supply, support and other rear det troops should get more weapons qual than they do.

CPT Ahmed Faried, as I said earlier, I agree that the right to bear arms shouldn't include nuclear bombs and so on. But I'll have to disagree with you about the NRA's, "callous reactions to mass shootings." First, where's the outrage over the average weekend shooting toll in Chicago, which generally outnumbers all the mass murders in the US put together? Isn't the media just as callous? Perhaps even more callous, since they are clearly using events like Sandy Hook to advance an agenda, but have nothing to say about shootings in President Obama's home district.

And let's not forget that this is about blame. Should automakers apologize for the number of people killed by drunk drivers? And if they don't, are they being callous? Should spoon makers apologize for making people fat? Should McDonalds accept blame for serving people what they order?

The key is RESPONSIBILITY. Some people want to fix the responsibility for violence in our society on guns, but I think it's not only short-sighted and dishonest to do so, but it fails to address the issue of VIOLENCE in our society. And what causes violence? Is it the gun, or is it something else? And if it is something else, wouldn't banning a tool used in reaction to the issue fail to produce any reduction in the issue? And if 99% of criminals get their weapons from illegal sources (University of Chicago study) then how is taking away guns from the law abiding going to reduce the problem?

And that's also my answer to the people who think the 2nd Amendment means they can own a nuclear bomb. It's responsibility again, and they aren't accepting it. When you squeeze the trigger, EVERY SINGLE ROUND you fire is YOUR responsibility. So great, you fired 30 rounds from your MAC-10 and killed a burglar. One of the rounds went through a wall and killed a child. Now you are a murderer.

Granted, if a mob of 100 crazed lunatics shows up at my door, they will kill me. But with my AR-15 and 30 round magazine, I'll take 30 aimed shots and still take close to 30 of them with me, and none of those I kill will be innocent bystanders. Self-defense is a right, not a guarantee of success. I'll have to accept that in my death, I'll still do a service by taking an enemy platoon with me.

It's easy to pick a scapegoat. It's a lot harder to solve the underlying problem.

CPT Ahmed Faried - Capt. If i had my way, and you could afford it, you could have one. There's no bar in the constitution to you owning your own Apache...simply put we have allowed laws to be created that are contrary to the constitution.

So you don't feel like the NRA is looking out for our best interests? Is that what your saying?

no

We should be allowed to have as many and any type guns we want, to hunt, to defend our home, and to defend our constitution and bill of rights from the the crazy government if they get out of hand.

SPC Luis Mendez - Let me burst your bubble. The militia is not under the authority of any president. In Federalist Paper #46 Publius specifically states that the militia is for protection against a federal government that goes awry. He states that despite the army's superior arms the 500,000 armed citizens will outnumber the army. Expand on that today with 100,000,000 armed citizens against a 1.8 million man army minus any mutineers.
The Federalist Papers are an apologetic in defense of ratification of the constitution. The states refused to do so without guarantees and demanded a Bill Of Rights to safeguard them.
Why would the militia be under the president or as some think be the National Guard when the president can federalize the Guard?
The militias arises as it is needed just as it did in the rebellion against Britain.

One of the many signs of Fanaticism, is the inability to consider any opinion other than their own. This isn't a discussion. This is a demand, by the original poster that everyone agree with him. Discussion over, since he's correct (in his own mind.)

Another sign is Pretended Knowledge. The OP is an EXPERT (in his own mind) on firearms and hunting, and what kind of weapons and what amounts of ammo are sufficient for that.

A third sign is the Fanatic's ability to determine for everyone else what they "need." "Anyone, with more guns/weapons than reasonably needed for Hunting, protection or Sports/competitions, IMHO has a loose screw and is a Fanatic." Anyone who makes snap judgements of others based on his pathetic need to control those around him is a bigger fanatic.

A fourth sign is pre-emptively denigrating anyone who might disagree with him. "The assault/MG craze is due to Fanaticism, hysteria, neurosis and Panic of many mentally unstable and immature men, with a teenager mind set."

Remember, arguing with a Fanatic is like wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.

Troll....hardly worth these key strokes!