May 16, 1986 Machine Gun Owner's Protection Act

[Vetok]

Or if you get it muddy, dusty, dirty on accident, leave it out of a case. stuff like that.

yeah I know how that is. I leave my guns lying around and unsecured by accident all the time, especially on the ground

Does the US have the same requirements for secure storage for firearms as the UK does? I think we require something along the lines of a steel cabinet with a huge padlock at the least. (Could be wrong though)

Okay. Just because 5.56 sounds smaller than a .45 or a 9mm, it's not going to do less damage. If you sprayed a mall, assuming you kept full control on the weapon because you've been working out and you're aiming down to compensate for lift, you could kill what is known in the arts scientific as a metric shitload of people. And no, you don't lift your head out of cover to fire your own little Saturday Night Special at the guy spraying a mag. There's a reason full-auto is used to suppress the enemy.

Its a High Velocity round, meaning yes, its smaller, its Made to be AP and precise at 500 yards. Yes, Now, tell me is some random psycho will know this? Normal Civilians with No training, and probably only have played COD For all they know abouyt guns, are gonna think they can waste an airport. ANd not get wasted. thankfully, they will be ether taken out by someone behind them or shot by someone with a concealed weapons permit.

So...you completely backed my point up?

[Senestrum]

The amusing thing about people who are against the private ownership of fully automatic firearms is that they are incapable of providing a rational reason why they should be banned. There's really no real reason to ban automatic firearms for civilians; rapid-fire capability is actually a bad thing for criminals because it wastes an unnecessary amount of ammo. Semi-automatics are infinitely preferable for nearly every possible use (including practically all criminal uses) since they force the user to think about each shot, vastly increasing the effectiveness of a magazine's worth of ammo.

Clearly, any firearm which is not fully automatic should be banned for civilian use.

automatic weapons are scarier. if you hold up a place with a .38 then someone might try to be heroic and grab it from you or the guy might just not give you the money if it's privately owned. with a machine gun the game is changed. an automatic weapon sends the message that you are very very very prepared to kill someone. that you probably have killed someone before. that you're enough of a career criminal that you know the people who can get you those things. that your dangerous occupation has made you enough money to afford one.

A fully automatic weapon is externally indistinguishable from a semiautomatic. The only difference is a couple of very small changes to the trigger mechanism.

and machine guns are the perfect drive by weapon.

Congratulations, you found one of the two possible criminal uses I can think of. And the only one that involves directly killing people.

if you want to kill a lot of people up close real fast then a machine gun is the way to go. no one is going to run away from you if you have a machine gun trained on them

If you want to kill a lot of people, a fully automatic gun blows because it vastly increases ammunition waste. Quickly aimed semiautomatic fire is going to allow you to kill a lot more people. And again, fully and semi-automatic firearms are externally indistinguishable.

"People have dangerous, illegal machine guns, therefore we need less gun regulation" is what you're trying to say?

Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad idea? Meh. I'm very pro-gun restriction. "People kill people, but people with guns kill more people, more quickly, and more efficiently" is how I roll.

From that perspective, fully automatic firearms should be preferable to semiautomatics since they make it harder to kill a ton of people.

[Gun Manufacturers]

"People have dangerous, illegal machine guns, therefore we need less gun regulation" is what you're trying to say?

Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad idea? Meh. I'm very pro-gun restriction. "People kill people, but people with guns kill more people, more quickly, and more efficiently" is how I roll.

While I would do cartwheels if the Hughes amendment to FOPA went away (I wouldn't mind getting an M-16 lower to go with my AR upper), at this point I'm only arguing that things don't get MORE restrictive.

[Unsolicited Hypocrites]

automatic weapons are scarier. if you hold up a place with a .38 then someone might try to be heroic and grab it from you or the guy might just not give you the money if it's privately owned. with a machine gun the game is changed. an automatic weapon sends the message that you are very very very prepared to kill someone. that you probably have killed someone before. that you're enough of a career criminal that you know the people who can get you those things. that your dangerous occupation has made you enough money to afford one.

A fully automatic weapon is externally indistinguishable from a semiautomatic. The only difference is a couple of very small changes to the trigger mechanism.

and machine guns are the perfect drive by weapon.

Congratulations, you found one of the two possible criminal uses I can think of. And the only one that involves directly killing people.

if you want to kill a lot of people up close real fast then a machine gun is the way to go. no one is going to run away from you if you have a machine gun trained on them

If you want to kill a lot of people, a fully automatic gun blows because it vastly increases ammunition waste. Quickly aimed semiautomatic fire is going to allow you to kill a lot more people. And again, fully and semi-automatic firearms are externally indistinguishable.

"People have dangerous, illegal machine guns, therefore we need less gun regulation" is what you're trying to say?

Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad idea? Meh. I'm very pro-gun restriction. "People kill people, but people with guns kill more people, more quickly, and more efficiently" is how I roll.

From that perspective, fully automatic firearms should be preferable to semiautomatics since they make it harder to kill a ton of people.

when it comes down to it the fire mechanism is most indistinguishable. but certain guns are known to the public as automatic weapons and certain guns are known as semi automatic. no one is going to think a .38 is fully automatic. for one thing the capacity makes that downright pointless. and most people are going to assume an AK-47 or an Uzi is full auto.

there are lots of times in crime where you can't even bother to aim or if you do it's from the hip. a fully automatic weapon, despite the recoil, is superior to a handgun if you don't have time to aim except in a general direction. a machine gun is THE gun to use if you're up close and you can't use sights....well that and a shotgun, but up close they work along the same premise sometimes, but a machine gun loads a lot faster and can switch to different firing rates. you're thinking that what works most efficiently and accurately at a firing range is what works best in a surprise buttsex gunfight or as crowd control.

[Shadowlandistan]

I don't think people should own automatic weapons. Not at all. One of the only good laws from the 80s.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I don't think people should own automatic weapons. Not at all. One of the only good laws from the 80s.

That's not what the Hughes amendment does. People CAN own full auto/select fire weapons, but they have to be manufactured and registered (with ATF) before May 19, 1986.

[Licana]

Go spray a mall with a M4 or the like, by the time you have all 30 Max rounds you will be on teh floor from some brave, insane person and teh kill count will be low.

What the hell are you talking about.

Pretty much this.

A 5.56 round will do nasty things to you once it's in your body. If you want proof of this, go onto google and look up 5.56 wounds. Also, spraying ammo without propererly aiming would result in a low hit, and therefore, kill count regardless of the weapon's caliber. Just about every modern military rifle that I know of has semi-automatic fire selectors, and for a reason.

I don't think people should own automatic weapons. Not at all. One of the only good laws from the 80s.

I assume we should follow this great and logical law by banning civilian ownership of armoured vehicles as well?

[Biop]

Or if you get it muddy, dusty, dirty on accident, leave it out of a case. stuff like that.

yeah I know how that is. I leave my guns lying around and unsecured by accident all the time, especially on the ground

Eh i know that you dont, I take good care of mine as well, Keep en nice and clean, But who's to say that that random jackass dose the same? and hell what if ya accidently drop it (I have no idea why) and it gets all dusty. it may jam more than usualy till you clean it right?

[Biop]

What the hell are you talking about.

Pretty much this.

A 5.56 round will do nasty things to you once it's in your body. If you want proof of this, go onto google and look up 5.56 wounds. Also, spraying ammo without propererly aiming would result in a low hit, and therefore, kill count regardless of the weapon's caliber. Just about every modern military rifle that I know of has semi-automatic fire selectors, and for a reason.

I don't think people should own automatic weapons. Not at all. One of the only good laws from the 80s.

I assume we should follow this great and logical law by banning civilian ownership of armoured vehicles as well?

Im not sure if your agreeing with me or not... anyway Yes People think its simple logic More Bullets = More hits. Nope. its opposite

[Licana]

Im not sure if your agreeing with me or not...

I'm disagreeing with you, very much so, and I'm not sure how you became confused about this.

Yes People think its simple logic More Bullets = More hits. Nope. its opposite

This makes no sense at all.

[Chernoslavia]

i love people who go " You don't need that!"

What kind of excuse is that? We don't NEED a lot of things yet we still buy them.

What possible reason would your average person need for a device designed with the intent of putting a large amount of metal through a large number of people. You can defend your home with a pistol or a shotgun. The only possible reason for owning an automatic weapon is to shoot it at a range. Sorry you don't get to go shoot off whatever you want down at the range but there is a larger population out there who also need their intrest looked out for.

On that same note: I love people who go "when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns"
Yes they will still get guns, but you know what?

They will most likely get guns that are:
1)less reliable(no quality control)

Less reliable? Hah! I got my legally owned AK47 and these things are EVERYWHERE! Criminals like The Russian mafia can have any weapon smuggled in, and so can the Cartel near the Mexican border. And these weapons are more likely to be of Russian origin as they are quite common and are very reliable and are relatively cheap and easy to use. And why shouldn't a trust worthy civie get to own a newly manufactured my or any dated mg? Maybe it's just a hobby, just because you like guns doesn't make you a bad person. The ATF and the pollies are just afraid of their own countrymen.
2)more expensive(organizations will have monopolies on illegal guns in specific areas)
3)Able to serve as evidence that they are up to something illegal.

So why is it in anyone's best interest to allow people, who we already know are determined to aquire a weapon for their illicit purposes, to more easily aquire a gun that would be of a higher quality?

[Chernoslavia]

And note that your only looking up on gun crimes in general,

You didn't look at the second link.

Yes I did so far no specific proof.

[Vetok]

What possible reason would your average person need for a device designed with the intent of putting a large amount of metal through a large number of people. You can defend your home with a pistol or a shotgun. The only possible reason for owning an automatic weapon is to shoot it at a range. Sorry you don't get to go shoot off whatever you want down at the range but there is a larger population out there who also need their intrest looked out for.

On that same note: I love people who go "when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns"
Yes they will still get guns, but you know what?

They will most likely get guns that are:
1)less reliable(no quality control)

Less reliable? Hah! I got my legally owned AK47 and these things are EVERYWHERE! Criminals like The Russian mafia can have any weapon smuggled in, and so can the Cartel near the Mexican border. And these weapons are more likely to be of Russian origin as they are quite common and are very reliable and are relatively cheap and easy to use. And why shouldn't a trust worthy civie get to own a newly manufactured my or any dated mg? Maybe it's just a hobby, just because you like guns doesn't make you a bad person. The ATF and the pollies are just afraid of their own countrymen.
2)more expensive(organizations will have monopolies on illegal guns in specific areas)
3)Able to serve as evidence that they are up to something illegal.

So why is it in anyone's best interest to allow people, who we already know are determined to aquire a weapon for their illicit purposes, to more easily aquire a gun that would be of a higher quality?

I think it's fair to say you ballsed that quote up.

[Chernoslavia]

Machine gun owner's protection?

Isn't that what the gun's for?

Yeah I made a little mistake it's FOPA ( Firearm Owner's Protection Act) of May 16, 1986. And in 1981 The ATF ( Alcohol Tobaccos and Firearms..... and sometimes Explosives) declared that open-bolt firearms regardless of being semi- autos were machine guns because they can easily be modified to fire fully automatic . This didn't ban weapons like the Tec-9 to be owned by civilians but required a class 3 license, because this was before the term "pre-ban" existed.

[Chernoslavia]

Vetok, yeah srry Im using an iTouch.

[United Dependencies]

Less reliable? Hah! I got my legally owned AK47 and these things are EVERYWHERE! Criminals like The Russian mafia can have any weapon smuggled in, and so can the Cartel near the Mexican border. And these weapons are more likely to be of Russian origin as they are quite common and are very reliable and are relatively cheap and easy to use. And why shouldn't a trust worthy civie get to own a newly manufactured my or any dated mg? Maybe it's just a hobby, just because you like guns doesn't make you a bad person. The ATF and the pollies are just afraid of their own countrymen.

Except that I didn't say that every gun brought in illegally was going to be an unreliable piece of garbage. Just that there is a chance for lower quality when you have no quality control watching you.

edit:Furthermore the AK isn't the only gun out there.

As for you second point, we don't bar guns because we're afraid of our trustworthy civilians, nor do we do it out of any particular dislike for gun enthsiast(I certainly am not opposed to the nra). The government has to act in the best interest of the aggregate population. It would appear, to me, that the choice here is between getting an edge on criminals or allowing a small section of the population to pursue a hobby.

[Chernoslavia]

The only possible reason for owning an automatic weapon is to shoot it at a range

That isn't true. Full auto/select fire weapons are great investments as well, since there are a finite amount of such transferable weapons.

Sorry you don't get to go shoot off whatever you want down at the range but there is a larger population out there who also need their intrest looked out for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee1RjQGBHoc

Apparently, you can shoot off whatever you want to at the range, from machine pistols to mini-guns.

If it's manufactured before the ban, it can be legally owned and fired, as for post bans, you can have one but you can only have it either as a demo meaning you can have ppl pay to try it out, on your gun range, or you can get it as a dealer sample meaning you can fire it and keep it until a law enforcement guy comes in and shows interest in buying it to be used when on duty, but you can't sell it to civvies and if you don't sell it soon, youll have to either sell it to a licensed gun shop owner (class 3 dealers only) or if no dealer shows interest in buying it off you, you have to turn it in to the authorities where the ATF will destroy the weapon.

[Chernoslavia]

one ak47 can cost you $20,000

If you're paying $20,000 for an AK47, you don't deserve guns nor money.

And did I say I paid that much for something you can easily find at any warzone? And a seeing as you wrote ak47 I assume you mean AKM which is an assault rifle that's almost no difference to a 47 except the dust cover the spring, the rod underneath the barrel and the "gas bleeder" and an original ak47 is NOT stamped out.

[Vetok]

If you're paying $20,000 for an AK47, you don't deserve guns nor money.

And did I say I paid that much for something you can easily find at any warzone? And a seeing as you wrote ak47 I assume you mean AKM which is an assault rifle that's almost no difference to a 47 except the dust cover the spring, the rod underneath the barrel and the "gas bleeder" and an original ak47 is NOT stamped out.

No. He said AK-47, because that is what you said.

[Aelosia]

What is funny about the gun fans is that they can't provide a more rational reason for a machine gun to be legal than "they are fun and I wanna own/fire one in my backyard. Not only that, but I want them cheap".

And that, lads, it is not a valid reason, meanwhile the other side provides with several quite rational reasons, (that are not at all ludic and fun related to a handful of people like gun toting fans).

1.- Automatic fire has quite a larger probability of causing collateral damage than any other kind of firearm. You are firing a lot of ordnance into the air, in a short span of time, even before people have the time to duck or go flat for cover. That increases the probability of getting innocent bystanders in any kind of gunfight.

2.- Automatic fire also lacks control unless in the hands of a seasoned professional. (Guess what, seasoned professionals already have access to them. If you aren't one, and don't need an automatic weapon for any reason but your own "amusument", then why you need one). This reinforces point one.

3.- Most machine guns are a rather large caliber guns with the ability of spew said large caliber ammo quickly. We are not talking of machine pistols here, even, we are talking about machine guns, who are chambered in 5.56 or 7.62 at the very smaller versions.

4.- This is personal and a bit bloggy. I came under fire once from an automatic wielding maniac once (well, twice, but frankly the first time I have no idea which kind of weapon it was, because noone saw the shooters for one, and they never got cuaght). And I am talking about a machine pistol here, not a machine gun. So, smaller capacity and smaller caliber than most things you are talking about. He killed 4 and wounded 25 in seconds, when firing to a crowd, without giving people the chance to react. Automatic guns are fearsome weapons that only belong in battlefields, and noone's backyard needs one.

[Chernoslavia]

What is funny about the gun fans is that they can't provide a more rational reason for a machine gun to be legal than "they are fun and I wanna own/fire one in my backyard. Not only that, but I want them cheap".

And that, lads, it is not a valid reason, meanwhile the other side provides with several quite rational reasons, (that are not at all ludic and fun related to a handful of people like gun toting fans).

1.- Automatic fire has quite a larger probability of causing collateral damage than any other kind of firearm. You are firing a lot of ordnance into the air, in a short span of time, even before people have the time to duck or go flat for cover. That increases the probability of getting innocent bystanders in any kind of gunfight. Thats probrably because that person is obviously untrained, and obviously prohibited from owning a gun period. I have my old AK47 from the 50s and from the practices I got at the shooting range, I am very accurate even at full-auto, but I prefer to fire in short bursts, which is why I want an AN-94 (it can fire two shots per trigger pull, and to see another reason why take a look at a russian demonstration video on Ytube.
2.- Automatic fire also lacks control unless in the hands of a seasoned professional. (Guess what, seasoned professionals already have access to them. If you aren't one, and don't need an automatic weapon for any reason but your own "amusument", then why you need one). This reinforces point one. I am trained to fire in full-auto, and whats wrong with having your tastes? If you have an certain interest for something wouldnt you mind if the government took it away?
3.- Most machine guns are a rather large caliber guns with the ability of spew said large caliber ammo quickly. We are not talking of machine pistols here, even, we are talking about machine guns, who are chambered in 5.56 or 7.62 at the very smaller versions.

4.- This is personal and a bit bloggy. I came under fire once from an automatic wielding maniac once (well, twice, but frankly the first time I have no idea which kind of weapon it was, because noone saw the shooters for one, and they never got cuaght). And I am talking about a machine pistol here, not a machine gun. So, smaller capacity and smaller caliber than most things you are talking about. He killed 4 and wounded 25 in seconds, when firing to a crowd, without giving people the chance to react. Automatic guns are fearsome weapons that only belong in battlefields, and noone's backyard needs one.

you said ''backyard'' and added the word ''people'' in this case ofcourse im going to kill people invading MY property, and if theyre carrying guns Id go for my AK47, but you probrably meant it in general, and I fire my AK47 at the shooting range not the backyard, unless if I were to live in a farm in the countryside. And if theres people walking in the way and get mauled down its the're dumb-self that decided to take a stroll in front of a shooting range.

How do you know if this person legally obtained one, maybe he didnt and just found someone that can smuggle it in. But, I like how you used the word ''Machine gun'' in its true meaning, unlike pollies ( politicians) who think a small full auto pistol is considered an MG when technically its still a HAND-GUN regardless for its action, ill give you that.

[Vetalia]

Hell, just get Eric Holder to get you one. He's good at smuggling illegal weapons.

[North Calaveras]

Hell, just get Eric Holder to get you one. He's good at smuggling illegal weapons.

OH SNAP!

[Chernoslavia]

Hell, just get Eric Holder to get you one. He's good at smuggling illegal weapons.

lol

[Aelosia]

What is funny about the gun fans is that they can't provide a more rational reason for a machine gun to be legal than "they are fun and I wanna own/fire one in my backyard. Not only that, but I want them cheap".

And that, lads, it is not a valid reason, meanwhile the other side provides with several quite rational reasons, (that are not at all ludic and fun related to a handful of people like gun toting fans).

1.- Automatic fire has quite a larger probability of causing collateral damage than any other kind of firearm. You are firing a lot of ordnance into the air, in a short span of time, even before people have the time to duck or go flat for cover. That increases the probability of getting innocent bystanders in any kind of gunfight. Thats probrably because that person is obviously untrained, and obviously prohibited from owning a gun period. I have my old AK47 from the 50s and from the practices I got at the shooting range, I am very accurate even at full-auto, but I prefer to fire in short bursts, which is why I want an AN-94 (it can fire two shots per trigger pull, and to see another reason why take a look at a russian demonstration video on Ytube.
2.- Automatic fire also lacks control unless in the hands of a seasoned professional. (Guess what, seasoned professionals already have access to them. If you aren't one, and don't need an automatic weapon for any reason but your own "amusument", then why you need one). This reinforces point one. I am trained to fire in full-auto, and whats wrong with having your tastes? If you have an certain interest for something wouldnt you mind if the government took it away?
3.- Most machine guns are a rather large caliber guns with the ability of spew said large caliber ammo quickly. We are not talking of machine pistols here, even, we are talking about machine guns, who are chambered in 5.56 or 7.62 at the very smaller versions.

4.- This is personal and a bit bloggy. I came under fire once from an automatic wielding maniac once (well, twice, but frankly the first time I have no idea which kind of weapon it was, because noone saw the shooters for one, and they never got caught). And I am talking about a machine pistol here, not a machine gun. So, smaller capacity and smaller caliber than most things you are talking about. He killed 4 and wounded 25 in seconds, when firing to a crowd, without giving people the chance to react. Automatic guns are fearsome weapons that only belong in battlefields, and noone's backyard needs one.

you said ''backyard'' and added the word ''people'' in this case ofcourse im going to kill people invading MY property, and if theyre carrying guns Id go for my AK47, but you probrably meant it in general, and I fire my AK47 at the shooting range not the backyard, unless if I were to live in a farm in the countryside. And if theres people walking in the way and get mauled down its the're dumb-self that decided to take a stroll in front of a shooting range.

How do you know if this person legally obtained one, maybe he didnt and just found someone that can smuggle it in. But, I like how you used the word ''Machine gun'' in its true meaning, unlike pollies ( politicians) who think a small full auto pistol is considered an MG when technically its still a HAND-GUN regardless for its action, ill give you that.

1.- People invading your property unarmed. OK, first thing, if said people are not armed and/or not engaging in any kind of criminal activity, take an advice, don't shoot them. Better that way. I'd go as far as to say that if they aren't doing anything not life threatening to anyone, don't shoot them. But let's say that don't shoot them if they are just "invading your property".

2.- Let's say said people, however are engaging in criminal activity, or are armed and also a life threat to you or the other inhabitants of your house. I think you can hold your own with a shotgun, given you are inside your house. Or with a regular pistol or handgun. After all, you are inside a house, you are in familiar ground, and actually you would only have to wait until the police arrive. Frankly, even in really bad criminal hellholes, (I have lived there), a shot or two easily scares off most criminals, even when armed. You see, they aren't usually out just to kill people at their homes; they look for unarmed and easily subdued targets. (Actually, they look for empty houses and unopposed and easy hits, but let's say it is not always that way). So you can defend yourself with a pistol.

3.- Do you know why individual auto fire was invented? Two reasons. First, to force a large number of "enemies" to look for cover, or to reap them if they remain in open ground. No matter what, you won't face a large number of enemies in open ground at your house. At least not large as in military criteria of large. So you won't need autofire in house defense. Second, it was supposed to offer an individual soldier some suppression capability so he could displace through a battlefield. You don't need to get into offense while DEFENDING your house.

4.- What you need as the proper weapon for defense in urban or suburban areas is something called DIRECT DEFENSIVE SHOT. It's the proper maneuver to be used by a civilian in self defense. When I got my gun, I got an extensive course covering it, showing us why we would never ever go into offensive mode against a criminal. And full auto individual weapons are indeed for exactly doing that. So, your own tool would be misleading into a situation where you can put your own life and the life of others at risk. Why should a government let you own that kind of thing for cheap? By the way, I moved to a country where I am not allowed to own a gun, and I am fucking happy about it, because there are not armed honchos around neither.

5.- Wanna fire an AK 47 at your local range? Get a pair of gun-ho guys like you, put some money from each pocket, buy an old AK 47 for all of you, keep it inside the range, and go once a week to fire it inside the safe boundaries of said range. Spend money in ammo if you like, I guess 7.62 is not cheap. I guess it won't be that expensive if you buy it by several people.