Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Destroying it in pieces is the most realistic way to go unfortunately. Start with SBS/SBR and silencers. Then if a repeal on the MG portions can't be done, at least reverse the 1986 ban on new registrations of them.
What is the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a fully automatic rifle, besides the rate of fire; not much. I know that there are fully automatic weapons that can fire above 600 rounds per minute And I know the legal definition of a Select fire weapon, meaning more than one round goes off for one pull of the trigger. But for sake of basic math, a weapon that is capable of firing 600 rounds per minute = 10 rounds per second or 1 round every tenth of a second. That is impressive but a good shooter with a fast trigger can do almost the same thing with a semi-automatic weapon. I am by no means a fast shooter, but I can do 3 - 4 rounds per second. Now you take someone like Jerry Miculek and OMG he is almost as fast as a machinegun with a semi-automatic weapon. I have seen video's of him with a .45 ACP and a 10 round magazine, Jerry Miculek can put all 10 rounds on the same 6" target in just over 1 second. and he can shoot almost as fast with a revolver or shotgun as well.
There was an episode of American Guns for a young cowboy shooter had a lever action rifle custom built, this was one of the best shooters in the world at the time, this young many did a head to head competition with one of the gunsmiths, 9 targets side by side, the gunsmith used a 9 millimeter machinegun, and the kid used his new lever action rifle, the kid won, out shout the machinegun. That just goes to show you practice, practice, practice.
As far as owning a fully automatic machine gun it would be nice, but my biggest problem is, if I can walk in to a gun store, have a background check performed, in this case show 3 forms of identification and leave with a so call "Assault Rifle"; being a semi-automatic version of the military rifle, without paying a $200 tax stamp, and local law enforcement does not need to be contacted, what is the difference with a fully automatic rifle? With the only difference being I can go through a magazine in 7 seconds for the semi-automatic rifle, instead of 3 - 4 seconds with the fully automatic rifle.
I would truly love to own a fully automatic weapon. I just don't understand NFA's reasoning, on why one type of weapon can be purchased with relative easy, and the other one takes months, a whole list of approvals to get, most likely a lawyer to help push through, 3 levels of law enforcement to say yes I can own it (the Federal Level, the State level, and finally the Local Level). It is not like a select fire rifle has more power because it can fire faster. It is not like a 223; 308; or a 7.62 * 39 round is more destructive per round because it is fired out of a select fire rifle instead of a semi-automatic counterpart.
If we were to open up the registry to more fully automatic/select fire rifles, at least the prices would come down to those type of rifles.
I've already had my fill of automatic shooting; sure it's fun but I didn't have to pay for the bullets.
In all honesty, a crazy with a full auto is gonna do more damage spraying bullets into a crowd than one with a semiauto. It's just a fact. I don't want SAWs and Ma Duces floating around everywhere like Ruger 1022s; they are in fact dangerous and require real training to safely handle.
I personally have no problem with the NFA and think it SHOULD be difficult (but not impossible) to get a privately owned automatic. The only thing I think is stupid is the ban on post '86 autos; that should go away so common folks who don't have $20-50K to spend on a gun can actually have a chance in hell to get one.
As has been pointed out before, there are about 240,000 "full auto" firearms legally possessed by citizens in the US, and supposedly only 3 or 4 have been used to commit crimes since 1937 (two of those were by police officers).
What's the problem?
I thought it was a hoot to go shoot jackrabbits with a WWII era legally registered Thompson out on a friend's ranch decades ago. Wouldn't shoot them these days if I had one, but the idea of using a full auto at a machinegun shoot is kind of appealing.
Keep such firearms out of the hands of criminals & crazies, not mine.
yes I would dismantle the atf, as what you just listed is the job of the FBI not f-troop.
Not related to firearms, alcohol and explosives. The FBI already has enough on their plate with fraud, general investigations and domestic terrorism. The only federal agency I can think of that should have duties removed from them is the Secret Service. I think counterfeit currency and similar economic crimes should be moved over to the FBI, and the Secret Service should focus solely on protection.
Not related to firearms, alcohol and explosives. The FBI already has enough on their plate with fraud, general investigations and domestic terrorism. The only federal agency I can think of that should have duties removed from them is the Secret Service. I think counterfeit currency and similar economic crimes should be moved over to the FBI, and the Secret Service should focus solely on protection.
the atf (f-troop) should be removed from using any kind of firearms at all and if not disbanded then made into only a tax agency with no law enforcement duties at all. after all, just following orders is not a suitable defense if they are ever found to be in violation of the Constitution.
the atf (f-troop) should be removed from using any kind of firearms at all and if not disbanded then made into only a tax agency with no law enforcement duties at all. after all, just following orders is not a suitable defense if they are ever found to be in violation of the Constitution.
It's hard to take you seriously when you keep calling them f-troop and don't capitalize your sentences, but I digress. I'm not sure what you're talking about in your last sentence about "just following orders". Are you referring to a specific time when something happened? If there were orders that violated the Constitution, the supervisor that made them would likely be held accountable. Then you said, "if they are ever found to be in violation", so I guess it hasn't happened. So confusing.
It's hard to take you seriously when you keep calling them f-troop and don't capitalize your sentences, but I digress. I'm not sure what you're talking about in your last sentence about "just following orders". Are you referring to a specific time when something happened? If there were orders that violated the Constitution, the supervisor that made them would likely be held accountable. Then you said, "if they are ever found to be in violation", so I guess it hasn't happened. So confusing.
Guess you forgot about Ruby Ridge & Waco. The ****-ups who ran those FUBARed operations were promoted.
Guess you forgot about Ruby Ridge & Waco. The ****-ups who ran those FUBARed operations were promoted.
Guess I can't read your mind. This is the first time you've mentioned those two instances. They still aren't a good justification to eliminate the ATF.
Guess I can't read your mind. This is the first time you've mentioned those two instances. They still aren't a good justification to eliminate the ATF.
Those two particular cases have been a major subject on every gun board since the Internet got cranked up. Not to mention numerous other cases of abuse that have occurred over the years. Of course the majority of Americans, including gun owners, don't read many firearms & sporting publications that actually report on relevant news.
Of course the Fast & Furious scandal is the most recent, but the DOJ & White House obstructed any in depth investigation with their abuse of "executive privilege". The duties of the BATFE should be transferred to the FBI instead of being in the hands of a politicized bunch of incompetents who run that organization.
I've already had my fill of automatic shooting; sure it's fun but I didn't have to pay for the bullets.
In all honesty, a crazy with a full auto is gonna do more damage spraying bullets into a crowd than one with a semiauto. It's just a fact. I don't want SAWs and Ma Duces floating around everywhere like Ruger 1022s; they are in fact dangerous and require real training to safely handle.
I personally have no problem with the NFA and think it SHOULD be difficult (but not impossible) to get a privately owned automatic. The only thing I think is stupid is the ban on post '86 autos; that should go away so common folks who don't have $20-50K to spend on a gun can actually have a chance in hell to get one.
I feel the same way. Automatic weapons should be harder to get, but should only be harder because you have to pass intense background checks, basically you should have to be a upstanding, totally law abiding citizens to own one. I don't agree at all on the post 86 ban, that essentially outlawed them by driving up the prices to ridiculous levels. Unconstitutional for sure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then you said, "if they are ever found to be in violation", so I guess it hasn't happened. So confusing.
