Posted on Oct 4, 2015
Why are Machine Guns legal? What does anyone need with one?
51.9K
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
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays
drive by shooting with an assault semi automatic weapon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/us/california-drive-by-shooting.html?_r=0
Drive by shooting with assault high magazine capability weapon.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein
It doesn't specifically state it in this article...and other article I've found, but when you watch the local news channels...they say automatic machine guns...and use the word "sprayed" often.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820148/San-Antonio-mayor-s-car-riddled-bullets-daylight-drive-shooting-left-two-men-injured.html
This is the article that I saw on facebook....someone had posted it...a reporter of an online news magazine or paper and wrote a story about it talking about contacting different Gang Unit across the country and confirming that weapons used in drive by and or mass shootings many times are "machine guns" or automatic/semi automatic weapons.
I've looked for this post again...but I can't seem to find it.
Not sure why you think I'm getting my information from Movies...and why you don't think it happens in real life.
I got started on this post because of an article I read about it. NOT MOVIES I HAVE WATCHED>
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-09-21/news/ct-met-multiple-victims-weapon-20130921_1_shootings-homicide-victims-gun-violence
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/us/california-drive-by-shooting.html?_r=0
Drive by shooting with assault high magazine capability weapon.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein
It doesn't specifically state it in this article...and other article I've found, but when you watch the local news channels...they say automatic machine guns...and use the word "sprayed" often.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820148/San-Antonio-mayor-s-car-riddled-bullets-daylight-drive-shooting-left-two-men-injured.html
This is the article that I saw on facebook....someone had posted it...a reporter of an online news magazine or paper and wrote a story about it talking about contacting different Gang Unit across the country and confirming that weapons used in drive by and or mass shootings many times are "machine guns" or automatic/semi automatic weapons.
I've looked for this post again...but I can't seem to find it.
Not sure why you think I'm getting my information from Movies...and why you don't think it happens in real life.
I got started on this post because of an article I read about it. NOT MOVIES I HAVE WATCHED>
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-09-21/news/ct-met-multiple-victims-weapon-20130921_1_shootings-homicide-victims-gun-violence
To save articles or get newsletters, alerts or recommendations – all free.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Ken Prescott
1. "drive by shooting with an assault semi automatic weapon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/us/california-drive-by-shooting.html?_r=0"
No. It was a semi-automatic handgun--not an "assault weapon," even by the most open interpretation of that semantically worthless phrase by the ban-the-ugly-guns crowd. He carried 41 ten-round magazines in his vehicle. If you outlaw semi-automatic handguns, then that POS carries 60 or so speedloaders for a revolver. If you outlaw revolvers, he buys some fertilizer and fuel oil and sets off a bomb. If you outlaw fertilizer, that might achieve your goal--if every human being has starved to death, then they're not going to murder anybody, are they?
"It doesn't specifically state it in this article...and other article I've found, but when you watch the local news channels...they say automatic machine guns...and use the word "sprayed" often.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820148/San-Antonio-mayor-s-car-riddled-bullets-daylight-drive-shooting-left-two-men-injured.html"
In other words, semantically worthless language intended by the news station to add excitement to a story--usually done in order to boost ratings--becomes evidence of "machine guns" being used in the absence of actual facts to back the claim up.
"This is the article that I saw on facebook....someone had posted it...a reporter of an online news magazine or paper and wrote a story about it talking about contacting different Gang Unit across the country and confirming that weapons used in drive by and or mass shootings many times are "machine guns" or automatic/semi automatic weapons."
OK, a Facebook post that you saw once and can't find becomes "proof" that "machine guns" are used in all drive-bys.
Which brings us to...
"Not sure why you think I'm getting my information from Movies...and why you don't think it happens in real life."
Why do I think this? Because movies are the only place where criminals use fully automatic weapons on a regular basis. In the real world, criminals are chronically broke, ammunition is expensive as f*** in the quantities needed to service an automatic weapon, and fully automatic weapons start at about $3,000--hell, my first car cost far less than that. Also, fully automatic weapons are too big to conceal effectively.
FBI statistics indicate that longarms (rifles, carbines, shotguns, etc--i.e., all non-handgun firearms--note that this includes weapons that are not fully automatic or burst firing) are used in less than 2% of all crimes; and there have been exactly two cases of legally owned automatic weapons being used in a criminal act since the passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act (that made it extremely difficult to legally possess an automatic weapon).
One of these murders was committed by a cop. He claims it was an accident; the circumstances are such that I find that claim less than believable.
Based on demonstrated history, we need to outlaw the possession of the weapons by law enforcement officers.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/us/california-drive-by-shooting.html?_r=0"
No. It was a semi-automatic handgun--not an "assault weapon," even by the most open interpretation of that semantically worthless phrase by the ban-the-ugly-guns crowd. He carried 41 ten-round magazines in his vehicle. If you outlaw semi-automatic handguns, then that POS carries 60 or so speedloaders for a revolver. If you outlaw revolvers, he buys some fertilizer and fuel oil and sets off a bomb. If you outlaw fertilizer, that might achieve your goal--if every human being has starved to death, then they're not going to murder anybody, are they?
"It doesn't specifically state it in this article...and other article I've found, but when you watch the local news channels...they say automatic machine guns...and use the word "sprayed" often.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820148/San-Antonio-mayor-s-car-riddled-bullets-daylight-drive-shooting-left-two-men-injured.html"
In other words, semantically worthless language intended by the news station to add excitement to a story--usually done in order to boost ratings--becomes evidence of "machine guns" being used in the absence of actual facts to back the claim up.
"This is the article that I saw on facebook....someone had posted it...a reporter of an online news magazine or paper and wrote a story about it talking about contacting different Gang Unit across the country and confirming that weapons used in drive by and or mass shootings many times are "machine guns" or automatic/semi automatic weapons."
OK, a Facebook post that you saw once and can't find becomes "proof" that "machine guns" are used in all drive-bys.
Which brings us to...
"Not sure why you think I'm getting my information from Movies...and why you don't think it happens in real life."
Why do I think this? Because movies are the only place where criminals use fully automatic weapons on a regular basis. In the real world, criminals are chronically broke, ammunition is expensive as f*** in the quantities needed to service an automatic weapon, and fully automatic weapons start at about $3,000--hell, my first car cost far less than that. Also, fully automatic weapons are too big to conceal effectively.
FBI statistics indicate that longarms (rifles, carbines, shotguns, etc--i.e., all non-handgun firearms--note that this includes weapons that are not fully automatic or burst firing) are used in less than 2% of all crimes; and there have been exactly two cases of legally owned automatic weapons being used in a criminal act since the passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act (that made it extremely difficult to legally possess an automatic weapon).
One of these murders was committed by a cop. He claims it was an accident; the circumstances are such that I find that claim less than believable.
Based on demonstrated history, we need to outlaw the possession of the weapons by law enforcement officers.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html
(1)
(0)
SSG Eric Eck
The news media, DOES NOT define machine gun or any other word in the English language. The point is, the weapons you are citing are NOT machine guns. And to "spray" is to shoot rapidly and blindly. Oh yeah, machine guns are fully automatic, not semi-automatic. Articles you read on Facebook are no more reliable than your local church knitting group when it comes to facts.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Michael Williamson
I'm happy to answer any questions about pretty much any weapon if emailed. I've consulted to a lot of clients including DoD agencies, and advised legislators on revisions to firearm law. You might not agree with my conclusions, but I can give you honest definitions and references.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
1LT Aaron Barr - I agree with most of what you are saying. I would really like there to be some additional requirement that in order to buy and possess and carry a firearm, the owner should have to take a training course that certifies them in the use of that weapon. I would be more than happy to have it subsidized by a governmental entity.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Ken Prescott
MAJ Bryan Zeski - I am opposed, because this has been used by many jurisdictions to prevent people from legally exercising their rights.
Then again, my proposed remedy is to make the death penalty the one and only sentence for violation of civil rights under color of law--preferably by impalement or having the violator of rights contemplate his misdeeds on the tree of woe. And make sure it's done right outside his place of work pour encourager l'autres.
Then again, my proposed remedy is to make the death penalty the one and only sentence for violation of civil rights under color of law--preferably by impalement or having the violator of rights contemplate his misdeeds on the tree of woe. And make sure it's done right outside his place of work pour encourager l'autres.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays
1LT Aaron Barr - First I did not say anything about Rifles and gun crimes...I said automatic rifles or machine guns...but that's not the point. My point is why does one need one? Why are those who want the "Machine gun" not satisfied with one of 1000 other type of weapons available?
In polls, most people say they own a gun to either hunt or protect their family....So I'm wondering why one would need a machine gun to hunt or protect their family when they could have a more sensible less evasive weapon....and that news articles I've read show that most drive by or mass shootings that occur, the shooter often used machine guns of some type.
In polls, most people say they own a gun to either hunt or protect their family....So I'm wondering why one would need a machine gun to hunt or protect their family when they could have a more sensible less evasive weapon....and that news articles I've read show that most drive by or mass shootings that occur, the shooter often used machine guns of some type.
(0)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
Sgt Kelli Mays - I think I already answered your question; need is not an issue in this case. Moreover, again, you are grossly misinformed as to the frequency of the use of automatic weapons; they're very rarely used in shootings.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Sgt Kelli Mays
Lucas Hoffman is this the "ONLY" thing you got out of what I wrote? I said machine guns...and mentioned AK's this or that...which just because they are not labeled as "machine" guns....anything rifle/gun that rapidly repeats bullets, in my book does not need to be legal.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Its my right and that's all their is to it. If I want one that's whats going to happen.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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”.
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”.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
"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".
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".
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google