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.
Technically, full auto is legal in most states now if you have the money and fill out all the required forms. But for normal mortals they're too expensive.
Anyway, banning one type of weapon will do nothing. The next madman will just use a different type, which will get that type banned. And so on. It's what happened in England.
I do think people who own and carry guns should all be licensed individuals, trained in gun safety, responsible ownership, mentally competent and with a basic understanding of the legal ramifications of shooting someone.
I really don't need the hackneyed argument that laws are no good because criminals don't follow them. Murderers still murder when it's a crime but that doesn't mean we, as a society should make murder legal because criminals still do it.
Best I can tell, there is no constitutional mandate that prevents society from demanding proficiency and responsibility in firearm ownership rights in the form of an individual license.
I do think people who own and carry guns should all be licensed individuals,
Meaning, if they haven't filled out the right papers and jumped thru the hoops government sets for them, gun ownership is banned for them.
It's strange how many people don't see the contradiction inherent in their position.
The founders made a decision a few hundred years ago, that society would be better off with government having NO POWER WHATSOEVER over who can own and carry a gun, than it would is government did have that power, however limited. Even the risk of a bad guy getting a gun, was not as dangerous as the risk of government being able to forbid the people it wants, from having guns.
And just maybe, they anticipated that government bans on owning and carrying, would simply result in the disarming of law-abiding people, while criminals went right on carrying, finding it even easier to prey on the disarmed. How many muggers and gangbangers apply for government permits and go to govt-sanctioned gun safety classes?
Criminals getting guns, is bad. But making laws can't prevent it. Laws only disarm their victims.
And that includes the laws you say you want, requiring licenses and safety training.
Training is a good thing. But laws requiring it, do far more harm than good.
And worst of all, they give the government a little bit of power, to deny law-abiding citizens their right to keep and bear arms.
There is a lot of good to be had, from gun safety training.
But there is more harm than good, from requiring it by law - and banning guns from those who haven't.
I answered keep every legal as it is now, but I think that the full automatic firearms laws should be changed. The process should not require months of waiting, signoff from Federal state and local law enforcement before someone can own a full automatic firearm, if they are allowed to at all. The current process for owning a semi-auto firearm, going to a licensed dealer, fill out a 4473 form, a NICS background check performed, and verification of the person, by at least two forms of identification, and if the background check comes back without any problems the person is allowed to buy the firearm.
To me the process should be changed for fully automatic weapons based on the same criteria.
Fully automatic = Federal Tax stamp (We all know the Feds have to get there piece of the puzzle)
Background check = NICS
3 forms of identification, which is the same for the so called Assault weapons.
Finger print check sent to State and Federal levels of Law enforcement
Ballistics check performed on the weapon.
And FYI notification sent to law enforcement that said person has purchased a fully automatic weapon.
The current method a person is asking permission from the various level of government to be able to own a fully automatic weapon, and you need to justify your reason.
The way I propose, you are notifying them of the purchase for information purposes NOT ASKING FOR PERMISSION.
I was fingerprinted when I was hired by my company (A Well know large Bank) years ago, one copy was kept by the company the other went to the Federal government.
I was fingerprinted again when I got my carry conceal permit.
Aside from the rate of fire, there is little difference between a semi automatic weapon, and a fully automatic version of the same weapon. Anyone willing to have their name, address, SSN, there fingerprints, and Ballistics of the weapon on file with law enforcement has to be wacked out of their mind to commit a crime with that fully automatic weapon.
No point in banning them.... you just create black markets when you ban commodities people desire
Exactly!
When any moderately competent machinist, with a lathe and milling machine from a well-known retail supplier of Chinese made tools and other goods, can turn out a fully automatic weapon in a matter of a day or so, and sell it for a lot of money on the black market, how you gonna stop it? The money would be tax free, as well!
But then, I guess the "War On Drugs" has worked so well at all levels of government, that some folks think a similar "War On Guns" will also work.
Actually, come to think on it, the results would more than likely be EXACTLY the same!
Which is to say; TOTAL FAILURE!
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.