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.
Make the case against new machine guns being added the machine gun registry.
For those of you who do not know much about this subject I will explain.
Before May 19th 1986 you could buy a new machine gun for very little money because private citizens and companies could add more machine guns into the registry so the supply could be increased to match demand.
Now during the 1980`s during the "cocaine cowboy" days alot of people thought that machine guns were being used during crimes. This is not the case and to date only 5 legally owned machine guns have ever been used in crime in this nation since 1934.
This did not stop the Democratic(like any other major party would do something this illegal) Representative William J. Hughes of New Jersey add an amendment that banned the adding of new machine guns into the registry. This amendment failed both a vote and electric vote and yet still added to the bill.
This video is proof.
An amendment that failed not one but two votes some how made it into the final bill that was signed by President Reagan.
After the cut off date of May 19th 1986 no new machine gun can be added into the registry...
Now for a while the prices stayed very very low. After 1994 the internet went public and more and more people found out via the web that you can legally own machine guns. Now the law of supply and demand kicks in a finate supply but a every increasing demand has caused prices to sky rocket.
Before and after prices.
Before the registry was closed you could buy a newly made MAC-10 or MAC-11 for around $500 plus the $200 tax stamp. Now it would cost you $2500 to $3000 plus the $200 tax stamp.
You could buy a converted MP5 for close to $1000 plus a $200 tax stamp. Now it would cost you at least $15,000 to $18,000 plus the $200 tax stamp..
You could buy a Drop In Auto Sear for your AR15 for under $300 or build it yourself for about $5.00 a plus a $200 tax stamp. That same $300 Drop In Auto Sear now goes for $18,000 to $27,000 plus the $200 tax stamp.
You could buy a War Trophy like a STG-44, MG-42 for a reasonable price, plus a $200 tax stamp. That same STG-44 now cost at least $90,000 mostly to the fact they are really old and not longer made, well a MG-42 now cost at least $70,000 plus the $200 tax stamp.
You could buy a M60 E1, E2 or a E3 model for maybe $2,000 plus a $200 tax stamp. Now that same M60 will cost you at least $50,000 plus the $200 tax stamp.
You could buy M2 Browning .50 cal for $3,000 plus a $200 tax stamp. Now that same M2 Browning will cost you at least $60,000 plus the $200 tax stamp.
You could even buy a M134 Minigun for a cheap $12,000 to $15,000 plus a $200 tax stamp.. That same M134 Minigun now cost at least $500,000 plus the $200 tax stamp.
So this illegally added amendment has priced a whole class of arms out of the reach of the common man.
Now my questions are the following.
Why the hell do we not just reopen the registry?
Why turn down over $200,000,000 in tax revenue it would take in over the next 10 years?
Why limit the Civil and Constitutional rights of Americans to an arbitrary amount of devices at a arbitrary point in time for a arbitrary reasons via a illegally added amendment?
Why should we allow the registry to remain close when it has been found to be unconstitutional after US v. Rock Island Armory, Inc?
And please don`t give me some cop out such as "You don`t need one" or "the founding fathers did not for see repeating firearms" even though they had seen, and used them Google puckle gun.
Why would I do that? That seems a silly thing to do.
But OK you asked.
"Machine guns are far more then what is required for hunting or self defense, while the 2nd amendment allows firearms, machine guns were not specified, nor could our forefathers have imagined them"
A stupid argument of course as even back then they saw some of the first early experimental versions show up, but thats a argument I have seen used. Just as you have...soooo lets try the fallback
Why would I do that? That seems a silly thing to do.
But OK you asked.
"Machine guns are far more then what is required for hunting or self defense, while the 2nd amendment allows firearms, machine guns were not specified, nor could our forefathers have imagined them"
A stupid argument of course as even back then they saw some of the first early experimental versions show up, but thats a argument I have seen used.
If the constitution had been invention specific, could we have television, radio or the internet? The second amendment is clear and is supported by the federalist papers. The second amendment allows for private citizens to own and maintain any weapon available. There is no mention of machine guns being denied under the second amendment either.
If the constitution had been invention specific, could we have television, radio or the internet? The second amendment is clear and is supported by the federalist papers. The second amendment allows for private citizens to own and maintain any weapon available. There is no mention of machine guns being denied under the second amendment either.
Please note I agree completely. I made this reply for the sake of argument.
So lets take the responses I have seen and go with it......
By your definition private citizens should therefore by allowed to own nuclear weapons, and biological weapons. The second amendment is not a guarantee that we should allow the destruction of our society, it needs to be tempered with common sense.
(On a side note, *I* think RPG's should be legal....but even I draw the line at biological and nuclear wepons.)
I don't think firearms should be regulated by the government, as to type, appearance or rate of fire. I believe that all people who own firearms should be regulated with reasonable restrictions that society feels are in everybody's best interests rather than just the 2nd amendment advocate's interest.
Please note I agree completely. I made this reply for the sake of argument.
So lets take the responses I have seen and go with it......
By your definition private citizens should therefore by allowed to own nuclear weapons, and biological weapons. The second amendment is not a guarantee that we should allow the destruction of our society, it needs to be tempered with common sense.
(On a side note, *I* think RPG's should be legal....but even I draw the line at biological and nuclear wepons.)
It's not the place of the Supreme Court to legislate. It is their job to decide what is and what is not constitutional. Nowhere in the constitution do any limits apply to the people on what they may or may not have. While I don't want Billie Joe Jim Bob to have his own ICBM, constitutionally you cannot prevent it.
When was the last time a civilian used a machine gun to commit mass murder? Seriously. Even Sandy Hook didn't have anything aside from two high capacity pistols. Yeah, there was a civilian assault rifle in the trunk but it didn't get much use.
Gun violence is an issue, but focusing of assault rifles and machine guns, which collectively account for less that 4% of gun related homicides, seems like an enormous waste of time.
When was the last time a civilian used a machine gun to commit mass murder? Seriously. Even Sandy Hook didn't have anything aside from two high capacity pistols. Yeah, there was a civilian assault rifle in the trunk but it didn't get much use.
Gun violence is an issue, but focusing of assault rifles and machine guns, which collectively account for less that 4% of gun related homicides, seems like an enormous waste of time.
Imagine if you will a football game.
Now imagine someone with a 50 caliber macinegun mounted to their truck driving out on the field, and opening up.
Thats why we need machineguns to be regulated like this, a truly wealthy person who can afford the license is FAR less likely to do this sort of thing.
*I feel dirty just trying to make these arguments. Forgive me but im going to bail out and root for the team I agree with....
Now imagine someone with a 50 caliber macinegun mounted to their truck driving out on the field, and opening up.
Thats why we need machineguns to be regulated like this, a truly wealthy person who can afford the license is FAR less likely to do this sort of thing.
*I feel dirty just trying to make these arguments. Forgive me but im going to bail out and root for the team I agree with....
Now imagine someone with a 50 caliber macinegun mounted to their truck driving out on the field, and opening up.
Thats why we need machineguns to be regulated like this, a truly wealthy person who can afford the license is FAR less likely to do this sort of thing.
*I feel dirty just trying to make these arguments. Forgive me but im going to bail out and root for the team I agree with....
Fiction and reality, which one do you want to deal with? Even the ammo for something like thats expensive. And regulating rights via wealth is the beginning of a plutocracy, Americas about us being equal, not about the rich having more rights. Yes it has its issues, but no you shouldn't be making it worse.
whew. I feel better already.
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.
