May 16, 1986 Machine Gun Owner's Protection Act

[GeneralHaNor]

just go to war torn somalia or any place like that and get one for just $100 from a terrorist

I can see no potential customs issues arising from this.

seems legit

[Chernoslavia]

Like ive said before, politicians like Hillary Clinton are afraid of their own people carrying weapons, take a look at Israel they have some schools guarded by military soldiers armed to the teeth, and you dont hear anything about a school shootout in Israel, now take a look at us, Columbine Massacre in 1999, two good for nothing pricks who got themselves a shotgun, a Tec-9, and some pipe bombs, that school had no security guards, the result? A shit storm caused by just TWO teenagers who just want to be hitmen...., In Kosovo there's some armed militia that are armed from 9mm pistols to Anti-Tank rocket launchers. Civilians can be taught to defend themselves and others, this will never happen unless if our politicians grow some balls.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Civilians don't train to murder. If someone were taking that much time to sight in a weapon at a rifle range on a human target, I'd be more than slightly worried.

Not usually a lot of time no. And it's my opinion in firearm defense, that if someone was in the need to defend themselves they would be more concerned about limiting the scope of damage, something done much better with semi-automatic or lesser weapons, than with fully-automatic weapons. I'm less concerned with people training to murder, there's no excuse for such a crime.

Still, how many crimes have been committed with legally transferred automatic weapons?

Not many criminals can afford to put down $200 for the transfer tax.

[Spreewerke]

Not usually a lot of time no. And it's my opinion in firearm defense, that if someone was in the need to defend themselves they would be more concerned about limiting the scope of damage, something done much better with semi-automatic or lesser weapons, than with fully-automatic weapons. I'm less concerned with people training to murder, there's no excuse for such a crime.

Still, how many crimes have been committed with legally transferred automatic weapons?

Not many criminals can afford to put down $200 for the transfer tax.

Or the background check, finger prints, and palm prints required for said item... If they did, they would kind of be like, "Oh, hey! This guy's a criminal! Instead of giving him this nice, 1940-made MG42 with fifteen thousand rounds of ammunition, maybe we should arrest him. I thought his suitcase of $20 bills smelled suspiciously of cocaine..."

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Still, how many crimes have been committed with legally transferred automatic weapons?

Not many criminals can afford to put down $200 for the transfer tax.

Or the background check, finger prints, and palm prints required for said item... If they did, they would kind of be like, "Oh, hey! This guy's a criminal! Instead of giving him this nice, 1940-made MG42 with fifteen thousand rounds of ammunition, maybe we should arrest him. I thought his suitcase of $20 bills smelled suspiciously of cocaine..."

Transfer tax in the context of the 1934 NFA.

I find the background checks, fingerprints, FFL, etc. imposed by the 1968 GCA and later legislation to be overzealous and ineffective, tbh. The best way to keep firearms out of criminals hands is to make them pay money.

[Spreewerke]

I think machinegun ownership should be perfectly legal regardless of the date it was produced. What makes an AK made in 1965 any less deadly than an AK made in 1995?

If people want to shoot full-auto, let them. People are complaining that "if you fire in full auto, you'll just miss your target." That's fine with me. If Mr. Criminal is wanting to shoot me with a full automatic, chances are he's not too trained in firing the weapon. He'll probably shoot the magazine in one burst, so his rounds would probably be far less accurate. Give him a semi-auto and, for some reason, people just automatically take aim before their next shot since they can't just spray and pray.

As for hipfiring, semi-automatics can be fired quite quickly (even without bumpfiring), so there would really be no difference.

I think if we were allowed to own full automatics, everyone would kind of get used to it. "It's a waste of ammunition!" Well? Someone's got to keep Lake City, Hornady, and Winchester in business, now don't they? Companies wouldn't have to set up different machines to make "military" and "civilian" receivers, either. It would streamline the process. Besides, if you don't like full-automatic, why not choose the burst fire mode or, heck, maybe even the "semi" fire mode on your newly-purchased-at-Wal-Mart-M4A1 Carbine.

"People need training for full automatic!" People need training for everything. I'm sure if you can learn how to shoot a semi-automatic, you can easily learn to shoot a fully-automatic rifle. Besides, my two National Guard (now reassigned to Army Reserves) friends said they never went full-retardautomatic during their weapons training. Aside from suppressing or covering fire, it's more or less a novelty in a non-SMG.

Besides, I'm sure the government would be a lot nicer to us if their citizens were capable of fighting back with adequate firearms that rival their own.

[New Conglomerate]

I find the background checks, fingerprints, FFL, etc. imposed by the 1968 GCA and later legislation to be overzealous and ineffective, tbh. The best way to keep firearms out of criminals hands is to make them pay money.

Illegally imported automatic firearms aren't cheap.

[Mosasauria]

I think machinegun ownership should be perfectly legal regardless of the date it was produced. What makes an AK made in 1965 any less deadly than an AK made in 1995?

If people want to shoot full-auto, let them. People are complaining that "if you fire in full auto, you'll just miss your target." That's fine with me. If Mr. Criminal is wanting to shoot me with a full automatic, chances are he's not too trained in firing the weapon. He'll probably shoot the magazine in one burst, so his rounds would probably be far less accurate. Give him a semi-auto and, for some reason, people just automatically take aim before their next shot since they can't just spray and pray.

As for hipfiring, semi-automatics can be fired quite quickly (even without bumpfiring), so there would really be no difference.

I think if we were allowed to own full automatics, everyone would kind of get used to it. "It's a waste of ammunition!" Well? Someone's got to keep Lake City, Hornady, and Winchester in business, now don't they? Companies wouldn't have to set up different machines to make "military" and "civilian" receivers, either. It would streamline the process. Besides, if you don't like full-automatic, why not choose the burst fire mode or, heck, maybe even the "semi" fire mode on your newly-purchased-at-Wal-Mart-M4A1 Carbine.

"People need training for full automatic!" People need training for everything. I'm sure if you can learn how to shoot a semi-automatic, you can easily learn to shoot a fully-automatic rifle. Besides, my two National Guard (now reassigned to Army Reserves) friends said they never went full-retardautomatic during their weapons training. Aside from suppressing or covering fire, it's more or less a novelty in a non-SMG.

Besides, I'm sure the government would be a lot nicer to us if their citizens were capable of fighting back with adequate firearms that rival their own.

The thing is that there's no need for it. Full auto weapons are basically useless in home-defence scenarios, and you're probably not going to use the full auto capabilities while hunting.
So what's the point then? To show off?

[Spreewerke]

I find the background checks, fingerprints, FFL, etc. imposed by the 1968 GCA and later legislation to be overzealous and ineffective, tbh. The best way to keep firearms out of criminals hands is to make them pay money.

Illegally imported automatic firearms aren't cheap.

Illegally imported machine guns are also illegal, and therefore don't care whatsoever if there's a ban in place or not, so lifting the ban would make no difference.

The thing is that there's no need for it. Full auto weapons are basically useless in home-defence scenarios, and you're probably not going to use the full auto capabilities while hunting.
So what's the point then? To show off?

Have fun and defend your country on the home field if necessary.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

I find the background checks, fingerprints, FFL, etc. imposed by the 1968 GCA and later legislation to be overzealous and ineffective, tbh. The best way to keep firearms out of criminals hands is to make them pay money.

Illegally imported automatic firearms aren't cheap.

Explain how this would affect legal automatic weapons. Having the transfer stamp is just as sufficient to prove that your firearm is, in fact, legally owned.

Background checks and the FFL system hurt legitimate gun owners and do very little to curb criminal activity, if at all.

I think machinegun ownership should be perfectly legal regardless of the date it was produced. What makes an AK made in 1965 any less deadly than an AK made in 1995?

If people want to shoot full-auto, let them. People are complaining that "if you fire in full auto, you'll just miss your target." That's fine with me. If Mr. Criminal is wanting to shoot me with a full automatic, chances are he's not too trained in firing the weapon. He'll probably shoot the magazine in one burst, so his rounds would probably be far less accurate. Give him a semi-auto and, for some reason, people just automatically take aim before their next shot since they can't just spray and pray.

As for hipfiring, semi-automatics can be fired quite quickly (even without bumpfiring), so there would really be no difference.

I think if we were allowed to own full automatics, everyone would kind of get used to it. "It's a waste of ammunition!" Well? Someone's got to keep Lake City, Hornady, and Winchester in business, now don't they? Companies wouldn't have to set up different machines to make "military" and "civilian" receivers, either. It would streamline the process. Besides, if you don't like full-automatic, why not choose the burst fire mode or, heck, maybe even the "semi" fire mode on your newly-purchased-at-Wal-Mart-M4A1 Carbine.

"People need training for full automatic!" People need training for everything. I'm sure if you can learn how to shoot a semi-automatic, you can easily learn to shoot a fully-automatic rifle. Besides, my two National Guard (now reassigned to Army Reserves) friends said they never went full-retardautomatic during their weapons training. Aside from suppressing or covering fire, it's more or less a novelty in a non-SMG.

Besides, I'm sure the government would be a lot nicer to us if their citizens were capable of fighting back with adequate firearms that rival their own.

The thing is that there's no need for it. Full auto weapons are basically useless in home-defence scenarios, and you're probably not going to use the full auto capabilities while hunting.
So what's the point then? To show off?

Pretty much?

How is that any less legitimate? Should people not own sports cars now, or airplanes, or mansions, or surround sound televisions?

[Keronians]

I think that the provision in the second amendement giving the population the right to bear arms needs to be abolished...

[The Soviet Technocracy]

I think that the provision in the second amendement giving the population the right to bear arms needs to be abolished...

Great idea.

That way, maybe a decent government will spring from the revolution? One that values human rights like same sex marriage with no laws like DOMA, or maybe it'll be sane and not try to take away Americans' right to bear arms, like the Hughes Amendment and GCA 1968 did.

I'm not being sarcastic, I actually agree with this statement, but for entirely different reasons.

[Spreewerke]

I think that the provision in the second amendement giving the population the right to bear arms needs to be abolished...

Then we can put all of those unarmed folk that still disagree into their own neighborhoods so they aren't trying to talk their ideas into the regular, every day folk... Just to be sure, we can even put some armed guards in those neighborhoods and keep them in order.

[Wewtlandem]

The only reason you need a weapon is to hunt or defend yourself. I do not think that a civilian should have more firepower than our police forces. I mean honestly, if any old joe schmoe could obtain and automatic weapon, what would happen? Someone would go rob a bank, and when the police responded, they would be gunned down mercilessly by an automatic weapon while they shot back with their 9 mm. It would be another North Hollywood shootout all over again.

[Spreewerke]

The only reason you need a weapon is to hunt or defend yourself. I do not think that a civilian should have more firepower than our police forces. I mean honestly, if any old joe schmoe could obtain and automatic weapon, what would happen? Someone would go rob a bank, and when the police responded, they would be gunned down mercilessly by an automatic weapon while they shot back with their 9 mm. It would be another North Hollywood shootout all over again.

If the civilians had the right to own a full-automatic, wouldn't you kind of expect the police departments to respond by using something that wasn't a semi-automatic pistol? M4s, MP5s, GLOCK 18s..? Besides, the police are just regular everyday "Joe Schmoes" that are given the job of protecting other Joe Schmoes. Some of the smaller departments even have to supply their own weapons. If I was in a small department that required I purchase my own weapon, you can bet I'd go with a select-fire "assault" rifle any day of the week, please and thank you. It would actually make it so much easier as the only way to bypass the ATF paperwork at the moment is to say the department is buying it, and not the individual. Now, since the individual -- a police officer -- must have paperwork to purchase it, that would more or less make him a civilian as mentioned.

As for what it's worth, the local PD here uses the GLOCK 22 in .40S&W. Not sure what their long-arm is, but I know the conservation agent here has a GLOCK 22 and a Colt AR-15 (6940, maybe?) with a quad-rail, vertical foregrip, and an EOTech. That's for dealing with people that have hunting rifles, so I have a feeling the police are a little more armed considering they deal with people that have a large variety of firearms.

[New Conglomerate]

I think that the provision in the second amendement giving the population the right to bear arms needs to be abolished...

For what reason?

[Biop]

I think machinegun ownership should be perfectly legal regardless of the date it was produced. What makes an AK made in 1965 any less deadly than an AK made in 1995?

If people want to shoot full-auto, let them. People are complaining that "if you fire in full auto, you'll just miss your target." That's fine with me. If Mr. Criminal is wanting to shoot me with a full automatic, chances are he's not too trained in firing the weapon. He'll probably shoot the magazine in one burst, so his rounds would probably be far less accurate. Give him a semi-auto and, for some reason, people just automatically take aim before their next shot since they can't just spray and pray.

As for hipfiring, semi-automatics can be fired quite quickly (even without bumpfiring), so there would really be no difference.

I think if we were allowed to own full automatics, everyone would kind of get used to it. "It's a waste of ammunition!" Well? Someone's got to keep Lake City, Hornady, and Winchester in business, now don't they? Companies wouldn't have to set up different machines to make "military" and "civilian" receivers, either. It would streamline the process. Besides, if you don't like full-automatic, why not choose the burst fire mode or, heck, maybe even the "semi" fire mode on your newly-purchased-at-Wal-Mart-M4A1 Carbine.

"People need training for full automatic!" People need training for everything. I'm sure if you can learn how to shoot a semi-automatic, you can easily learn to shoot a fully-automatic rifle. Besides, my two National Guard (now reassigned to Army Reserves) friends said they never went full-retardautomatic during their weapons training. Aside from suppressing or covering fire, it's more or less a novelty in a non-SMG.

Besides, I'm sure the government would be a lot nicer to us if their citizens were capable of fighting back with adequate firearms that rival their own.

I full heartedly agree, This is probably the best argument ive seen so far

[The Soviet Technocracy]

The only reason you need a weapon is to hunt or defend yourself. I do not think that a civilian should have more firepower than our police forces. I mean honestly, if any old joe schmoe could obtain and automatic weapon, what would happen? Someone would go rob a bank, and when the police responded, they would be gunned down mercilessly by an automatic weapon while they shot back with their 9 mm. It would be another North Hollywood shootout all over again.

PROTIP: No crime has been committed by legally transferred automatic weapons.

Criminals don't pay tax stamps. Again, they're poor. If they were rich, they probably wouldn't rob banks or mug people.

Derp.

[Wewtlandem]

The only reason you need a weapon is to hunt or defend yourself. I do not think that a civilian should have more firepower than our police forces. I mean honestly, if any old joe schmoe could obtain and automatic weapon, what would happen? Someone would go rob a bank, and when the police responded, they would be gunned down mercilessly by an automatic weapon while they shot back with their 9 mm. It would be another North Hollywood shootout all over again.

PROTIP: No crime has been committed by legally transferred automatic weapons.

Criminals don't pay tax stamps. Again, they're poor. If they were rich, they probably wouldn't rob banks or mug people.

Derp.

I never said that a legally transferred automatic weapon had been used to commit crime. Most criminals do not have the money to legally transfer automatic weapons.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

PROTIP: No crime has been committed by legally transferred automatic weapons.

Criminals don't pay tax stamps. Again, they're poor. If they were rich, they probably wouldn't rob banks or mug people.

Derp.

I never said that a legally transferred automatic weapon had been used to commit crime. Most criminals do not have the money to legally transfer automatic weapons.

Thus, why ban new automatic weapons from civilian ownership? Most firearms used in most crimes are cheap ass <$100 .25 ACPs and .32 ACPs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Arms_MP-25

The weapon of choice for your gangbanger with big money.

Most poors use knives or shivs, I've never seen one with anything bigger than a 1911. Again, most criminals do not use long arms, most criminals don't even use handguns. Hell the three most common firearms used in crimes are in two calibers: .25 ACP and .380 ACP. They are tiny, cheap and concealable. If you want to stop crime, start there. If you want to control people and maintain power, start at long arms and work your way down.

[Gun Manufacturers]

No, it would make it easier for Everyone to get guns, not just criminals

But it's giving criminals access to more reliable and possibly cheaper weapons. Semi-auto is the max you need in any scenario.

Unless you're competing in a sub-gun (short for sub-machine gun) match.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I see no point in automatic weapons, if you need an automatic weapon, you likely shouldn't even have a gun.

and why the hell is that? Do you think im going to run around shooting people? I have a .223 semi-auto rock river ar-15, and I never had any thouts of using it to take someone's life away, keep in mind that the 2nd amendment is what kept you safe from street hoodlums.

Pics, please.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Ten years for owning aweapon you should be able to get? Abolish all gun laws, if someone wants a MK40 and has the money? Well i say ther are lucky bastards and should be able to

I can understand why you might want an auto for the collectability, but really, automatic weapons only have one purpose, attacking and killing people. You have no need of an assault rifle for personal defence, since a pistol or shotgun does quite well, and you don't need an M16 for a deer. Still the appeal of perhaps shooting them in ranges and their collectability is understandable. Perhaps a way to get around this is to limit the sale and production of ammunition for automatic weapons.

A lot of full auto/select fire weapons use the same ammo as semi auto weapons. For example, my AR15 uses .223/5.56mm, as does the M16 and other full auto/select fire weapons. My Glock 17C uses 9mm, as does the MP5 and other full auto/select fire weapons. My brother in law's bolt action 30.06 uses the same caliber that an M1919 and BAR uses. My 10/22 and Ruger Mark 2 22/45 uses the same ammo as a 10/22 with a Norrell full auto/select fire trigger pack.

Your suggestion won't work without infringing on regular peoples ability to buy ammo.

[Azakhia]

I think that the provision in the second amendement giving the population the right to bear arms needs to be abolished...

For what reason?

Because he/she will rely on the fantasy that the police in this country (US) have a duty to respond and to protect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts
http://www.mcrkba.org/w19.html

[The Soviet Technocracy]

For what reason?

Because he/she will rely on the fantasy that the police in this country (US) have a duty to respond and to protect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts
http://www.mcrkba.org/w19.html

This. I'd imagine the 2nd Amendment is great for police.

It gives them the excuse to not be able to go out on calls because everyone is "expected" to be responsible for their own safety.