[crimdelacrim]

I am currently on a study break at 3AM (so forgive any excessive stupidity and be as respectful as you can) and decided to share/get an opinion on what I have been mulling over for a while. *edit* I am talking about modern FAs and not pre1986 ban stuff.

For those who have never heard the story; on the morning of February 28, 1997, two men armed with 6 weapons (three of which were fully automatic), body armor, and over 3000 rounds of ammunition robbed a Bank of America in North Hollywood. Most of the ammunition was spent and the only lives lost ended up being the criminals. The full auto guns used were one AR-15 and two AK-47s. All were purchased by one of the criminals (who was already a felon) and converted from semi-automatic to fully automatic. Where were the California gun laws on February 28?

Before I go any further, I would like to just go ahead and say that full auto weapons being legal would not have necessarily stopped this from happening....wait nevermind...A Glock 18 or something with armor piercing rounds would have neutralized the crazies pretty quickly. The reason I bring up this story is to show how easily criminals can obtain or create fully automatic weapons. What I really want to address is why I can't buy a modern, fully automatic weapon legally.

Let's go back to the 2nd amendment and this "shall not be infringed" business. What gives? At the signing of the Bill of Rights, an American citizen had every right to own cannon. If I could own a cannon and be in good standing with the federal government in 1800 then, by God, why can't I own an RPG? Don't tell me it is more dangerous. Both of these damn things can take out the better part of a house in just a few tries. The whole point of the second amendment was to allow the citizen to POTENTIALLY be as armed as the military. Why was this so acceptable then and taboo now? As with many things, I believe Charlton Heston said it best that this violation of rights comes from "anti-gun organizations that wouldn't know a semi-automatic from a sharp stick."

The truth is that a hord of Americans own semi-automatic versions of these great firearms ("Assault Rifle" is the racial epithet of gun terminology and I am not a racist!) that can do just as much damage per round. It would appear that the automatic weapon ban functions more as a downgrade from military capabilities available to civilians rather than a criminal deterrent just by the details alone. I thought I had a CIVIL right to bear whatever type of arm I wanted? and I'm pretty sure this right was NOT to be infringed. How could a law saying otherwise be just? The Bill of Rights says nothing about the right to eat food, smoke cigarrettes, drink alcohol, but the 2nd most important thing that needed to be addressed was the freedom to have whatever kind of sick and twisted instrument of death I wanted. While I am on the subject, our right to bear arms shall not be infringed...so why do we pay sales tax on guns? Guns are the only product guaranteed for ownership withOUT infringement. ANYthing that comes in between a law-abiding citizen and an AR-15 is unconstitutional...or were Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson all smoking crack that day?? Every state ratified this. HOW can their be any gray area? How much clearer can "shall not be infringed" be?

I can think of many reasons why I should have the right to own fully automatic weapons and silencers with normal protocol but none of these reasons matter. The only thing that matters is that I have a right to own a minigun if I please. What am I going to do? Break into Cyberdyne? People may not like it or agree, but its true. The founding fathers were very smart men that witnessed advances in weaponry in their own time. They surely knew that modern warfare would continue to evolve in the future. The framers meant what they wrote, they all agreed to it, and all of the states agreed to it. It is for these reasons that I will feel that my government is wronging me until the day I could have a fully automatic weapon if I wanted. Not that I can't have one...I don't even have the choice. Gripe Over. Who is with me??

PS does anybody have an old house we can shoot with a cannon?

[Chuche2]

You can own a fully automatic weapon depending on which state you live in. Kind of pricey, transferable MG's are easy to find.

[crimdelacrim]

Originally Posted by Chuche2

You can own a fully automatic weapon depending on which state you live in. Kind of pricey, transferable MG's are easy to find.

you mean F.A.'s made before 1986? Because I made sure I mentioned modern full autos in my post but ill edit it

[Bren]

Originally Posted by crimdelacrim

you mean F.A.'s made before 1986? Because I made sure I mentioned modern full autos in my post but ill edit it

The answer is: same reason you have to have a tax stamp for a silencer/suppressor or a short barrelled shotgun and the same reason switchbaldes are illegal or regulated in most states - the people who make laws learn all they know about crime and reality from television/movies and those are the things that look scary in movies.

[kenpoprofessor]

Originally Posted by Chuche2

You can own a fully automatic weapon depending on which state you live in. Kind of pricey, transferable MG's are easy to find.

You obviously didn't get the point of his post. "Shall not be infringed" should mean what it says, and they arbitrary and capricious laws that say otherwise should be null and void. The Hughes amendment in the '86 FOPA is what he's talking about, and all the FOPAs should be ruled unconstitutional on 2A and 14A arguments.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[1gewehr]

IF Congress and the Supreme Court actually cared about the Constitutional limits on the Federal Government, you could own any cannon, MG, RPG, etc you wanted without the $200 tax.

Strictly speaking, the 2nd Amendment does not forbid the Feds from prohibiting non-military weapons! US v Miller specifically addressed that question and the result was a determination that only militarily-useful weapons were protected.

In DC v Heller, the Justices absolutely refused to address the issue of machine guns and other military weapons. Instead, they used convoluted language to say that the 2nd amendment means an individual right, but that existing laws against MGs, etc are OK.

The Supreme Court ruled many years ago that a sales tax on newspapers was an infringement on the 1st amendment. But, they somehow feel that a $200 tax on old guns, and outright prohibition on new military-grade firearms is not an infringement. Explain the logic in that?

[crimdelacrim]

1gewehr I am definitely using your school of thought. I think the logic is clear though.. There are rightist and leftist judges.

This really bothers me because I live in Mississippi and was hit hard by Katrina. As many of you know that's when, in my opinion, the largest loss of gun rights in American history occurred. It just further demonstrates that guns have a very mixed image in America even though it should be clear as crystal! The founders made it clear. Pardon my French but now we must suffer for justices and politicians pissing all over what the framers believed was integral to this FREE country.

[DAIadvisor]

Even military realized that full auto rifles are useless in combat. So everyone got 3 round burst and it pretty much always stays on single shot. Now mounted machine guns are a different story and are very effective.

[crimdelacrim]

Originally Posted by DAIadvisor

Even military realized that full auto rifles are useless in combat. So everyone got 3 round burst and it pretty much always stays on single shot. Now mounted machine guns are a different story and are very effective.

Nope...nope..nope. I don't care how useless it is haha. It could be the most ridiculous instrument of destruction. Also, anything with a 3 round burst, unless I am mistaken, is still treated as auto even if that is the weapons only setting past semi auto. I never ever mentioned practicality of any weapon in my OP. In fact, I tried to make it sound ridiculous with comparisons with cannons and RPGs. I guess what I am trying to say is that even though we can't have "3 round burst" anyway, that is not the point here. My rights being taken away is the point.

[DAIadvisor]

Originally Posted by crimdelacrim

My rights being taken away is the point.

you have a point. I concur.

[fx77]

Check out the National Firearms Act on Wikipedia.

[crimdelacrim]

Originally Posted by fx77

Check out the National Firearms Act on Wikipedia.

haha I have. Outdated legislation that came right after prohibition...it was to try and curb the violence from organized crime that the government created when it violated the bill of rights yet again (I consider the prohibition of alcohol to violate ones right to pursuit of happiness...It is sad but true and that is another debate). So old, yet we are still feeling the ramifications. And I am aware of the Hughes amendment. It should all be repealed. Like criminals care about the NFA or the Hughes amendment anyway. If a felon has such disregard for human rights, I severely doubt he will care how short the barrel is on the shotgun. If the government could just enforce all of the other laws on the books...there would be no need for categorical firearm limitations.

I, however, do not believe the the government, as a whole, is trying to grab out guns. Yes, there are some sick, powerful people who want that, but not the majority. I believe most people that believe in gun control genuinely believe that these limitations will be for the greater good. What they fail to realize is that this thinking tears down what our forefathers worked so hard for as well as the unseen benefits like deterrents that different categories of guns provide. Guns are not a right of the people for sport. It is to keep the government honest. The founding fathers wanted us to be capable of being just as equipped as our military in case our government needs to be retaken or in case our government tries to take over us. Yes, it is improbable and ridiculous...but nowhere near as ridiculous as these stupid firearm laws.

I always say this quote that I found one night. I might make it my sig. I know it by heart and I always recite it to anyone that does not approve of guns.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[Jerry]

Originally Posted by DAIadvisor

Even military realized that full auto rifles are useless in combat. So everyone got 3 round burst and it pretty much always stays on single shot. Now mounted machine guns are a different story and are very effective.

So I'm guessing "you" don't think it's necessary so no one "needs" it so it's OK to "restrict" it? We don't need cars and motorcycles that go 200 MPH. We don't "NEED" to hunt for food anymore. I could go on all day with a list of the things we don't "NEED". However! In a FREE country people can have what they want whether they need it or not.

[thetoastmaster]

I've been making this argument for years. If pro-2A groups are so "pro", whether formal groups like the NRA, or informal groups like GT, why is there not a bigger push to repeal FOPA '86, then GCA '64, then NFA '34?

When the opposition pushes for nothing less than the complete abolition of private firearms ownership, you don't compromise with them. You push back just as hard, and take what you can. That's what they do. When they "compromise", they win. That's how we should be. We should win when we compromise.

I would like to order a 1928 Thompson and a couple of cases of .45 from the Sears catalog and have it shipped COD. That is the spirit of the Second Amendment.

[Beware Owner]

Originally Posted by thetoastmaster

I've been making this argument for years. If pro-2A groups are so "pro", whether formal groups like the NRA, or informal groups like GT, why is there not a bigger push to repeal FOPA '86, then GCA '64, then NFA '34?

When the opposition pushes for nothing less than the complete abolition of private firearms ownership, you don't compromise with them. You push back just as hard, and take what you can. That's what they do. When they "compromise", they win. That's how we should be. We should win when we compromise.

I would like to order a 1928 Thompson and a couple of cases of .45 from the Sears catalog and have it shipped COD. That is the spirit of the Second Amendment.

I guess the questions would be where to start and who would take the lead?

[crimdelacrim]

Originally Posted by Beware Owner

I guess the questions would be where to start and who would take the lead?

That is the major problem. Even if we did have someone to lead the movement...how would the movement gain enough momentum? I hate to say it, but realistically, there just aren't enough people that care enough to spearhead something like this.

[Beware Owner]

Originally Posted by crimdelacrim

That is the major problem. Even if we did have someone to lead the movement...how would the movement gain enough momentum? I hate to say it, but realistically, there just aren't enough people that care enough to spearhead something like this.

I'd be all for it myself.

[thetoastmaster]

Originally Posted by Beware Owner

I guess the questions would be where to start and who would take the lead?

GOA doesn't compromise. I think they are mostly on the defensive, though. That is, they mostly fight to keep the antis from getting momentum.

We had a lot of political capital regarding gun control during the Bush II administration with a GOP-controlled legislature and executive branch. What did they do? Well, we all know what they dad, a fat lot of nothing.

[OctoberRust]

Originally Posted by Jerry

So I'm guessing "you" don't think it's necessary so no one "needs" it so it's OK to "restrict" it? We don't need cars and motorcycles that go 200 MPH. We don't "NEED" to hunt for food anymore. I could go on all day with a list of the things we don't "NEED". However! In a FREE country people can have what they want whether they need it or not.

Exactly it.

I don't need/even want a full auto firearm, but I'd respect every individual's 2nd amendment right to own one if they wished. I don't get the hype over full autos, and why everyone acts as if it'd be the end of the world if they were not regulated like they are today.

Probably a short answer is, those who own FA right now, would see their investment go down the toilet if it were made legal/unrestricted.

[Jerry]

Originally Posted by OctoberRust

Probably a short answer is, those who own FA right now, would see their investment go down the toilet if it were made legal/unrestricted.

There are many things I have that aren't worth now what they were when I bought them. During the AWB I wanted two "normal" capacity magazines. I paid $70.00 a piece for them. They are now worth about $10.00 or $15.00 used. I paid $500.00 for a used (ex police issue) G20 because it came with two used "normal" capacity mags. I look at it as I paid to play. I believe most FA owners would look at it the same way if they were now able to buy M16s, Tomson's, etc. etc. for fair market value. But we'll probably never have to worry about that.

[OctoberRust]

Originally Posted by Jerry

There are many things I have that aren't worth now what they were when I bought them. During the AWB I wanted two "normal" capacity magazines. I paid $70.00 a piece for them. They are now worth about $10.00 or $15.00 used. I paid $500.00 for a used (ex police issue) G20 because it came with two used "normal" capacity mags. I look at it as I paid to play. I believe most FA owners would look at it the same way if they were now able to buy M16s, Tomson's, etc. etc. for fair market value. But we'll probably never have to worry about that.

If the federal gov't becomes unable to support itself, who will enforce the federal laws?

Who knows though. It seems more and more are picking up on firearms, firearms use, and what firearms really do, instead of what they watched on TV. I hope that many of them will see what fully automatics, and everything else class 3 really is - hype that both big gov't RINOs and liberals love to fear monger off and scare people with.

[1gewehr]

Originally Posted by OctoberRust

Probably a short answer is, those who own FA right now, would see their investment go down the toilet if it were made legal/unrestricted.

I don't know a single MG owner, including the several dealers I know well, who would hesitate a second about choosing to see that stupid, unconstitutional Hughes Amendment go away. Dealers would see a much higher rate of sales that would more than compensate for the devaluing of some of their inventory. As for me, I still want that MG-42!

Those old 1921 and 1928 Thompsons (and most other C&Rs) won't lose a penny of value, though.

[OctoberRust]

Originally Posted by 1gewehr

I don't know a single MG owner, including the several dealers I know well, who would hesitate a second about choosing to see that stupid, unconstitutional Hughes Amendment go away. Dealers would see a much higher rate of sales that would more than compensate for the devaluing of some of their inventory. As for me, I still want that MG-42!

Those old 1921 and 1928 Thompsons (and most other C&Rs) won't lose a penny of value, though.

If I'm not mistaken, I've seen some supposed owners post on various gun boards saying it's not "fair" for them.

I don't agree with them, and who knows if they really even own or don't own a FA. It's speculation as far as that goes. What's not fair is the 2nd amendment being desecrated.

You're probably right on the older FAs not losing value. The newers m4s or ak-47s would though. Again, I don't agree with this logic, just saying how it is.