Why should the Machine gun ban be repealled?? - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why should the Machine gun ban be repealled?? (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 1/29/2006 8:04:33 PM EDT

[#1]

There are a million reasons why it should be repealed, but the main one in my opinion is the second amendment. The ban on new manufacture machine guns is unconstitutional, as well as any other gun ban, AWB, etc.

The NFA taxes are also stupid, but I'd gladly pay a 200 tax to be able to legally convert, buy, or make a new FA weapon.

Posted: 1/29/2006 8:04:40 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
It should be repealed because ARFCOM members alone would eliminate the Federal debt inside 5 years with all the new MGs registered. In 10 years they would make Social Security solvent.

+1

I love that logic! The funny part is that it is probably not that far off!

Posted: 1/30/2006 2:27:53 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted: Thanks for the replies. Keep them coming. FREE

It will lead to the creation of an aftermarket industry so that people can upgrade/customize their machine-guns, kinda like the auto aftermarket. There will be contests to see who can have the biggest silencer on their machine-gun.

Posted: 1/30/2006 5:11:09 PM EDT

[#4]

Is it not true that in 1934 the Attorney General (Homah Cummings) wanted machineguns outright banned yet Congress refused to do it because of Second Amendment reasons?

Posted: 1/30/2006 6:33:21 PM EDT

[#5]

btt

Posted: 1/30/2006 6:43:59 PM EDT

[#6]

This about sums it up for me:

Posted: 1/30/2006 6:52:39 PM EDT

[#7]

Oh Sure NOW you want to repeal it after I have my retirement in pre 86 guns

I guess then I could buy 50 M16 for $50,000 then huh?

I guess it is worth it!

Take one for the good of the USA

Posted: 1/30/2006 6:56:21 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Oh Sure NOW you want to repeal it after I have my retirement in pre 86 guns

I guess then I could buy 50 M16 for $50,000 the huh?

It is worth it!

Take one for the good of the USA

Imported machineguns would still be banned and expensive.

Posted: 1/30/2006 7:02:33 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh Sure NOW you want to repeal it after I have my retirement in pre 86 guns

I guess then I could buy 50 M16 for $50,000 the huh?

It is worth it!

Take one for the good of the USA

Imported machineguns would still be banned and expensive.

Even more so if the ban is repealled/overturned

Posted: 1/30/2006 7:20:29 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Any MD/NOVA/DC members willing to take this to a congress person?

Thanks

CRC

I'm in NOVA, I'd happily take this in person to a congress person, in person if it would help. Can we make this a group? Any chance we can get one member from every state, or something similar?

Posted: 1/30/2006 7:21:10 PM EDT

[#11]

Psychological reasons.....

....if the machine gun ban goes away and people can get one at will

......no one will feel the urgent need to get one ASAP and will find reasons to delay the purchase.

Posted: 1/30/2006 9:08:51 PM EDT

[#12]

~~So that I can out fit my drug runners with more affordable Uzis with heat seeking, cop killing, bullets with maximum thrust per squeeze.~~

Er - Target practice.

Posted: 1/30/2006 9:17:31 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Because E-7s can't afford full auto.
can't think of a better one, can you?

I can....

....because E-4's can't afford full auto

Posted: 1/30/2006 9:33:08 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Because the ban was the .govs way of saying "I don't trust the American people"

and I want to say " I don't trust the American government"

+1.

Too bad Rep. Hupp isn't running for re-election.........

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual...as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." - Rep. Suzanna Hupp of Texas

Posted: 1/30/2006 9:37:23 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
1. violates 2A
2. criminals don't give a shit about the law
3. NFA '34 should go too because not only does it violate 2A, but it is specifically a tax on a right (there is a precedent about a specific tax on periodicals and the courts said that only a general tax, and not a specific tax on a right is okay)
4. it will create jobs and boost the economy (more guns, a shitload more bullets)

In a republic, a firearms tax *should* go over about as well as a poll tax.

And firearms proficiency laws/reqmts *should* go over about as well as voter education requirements............

Posted: 1/30/2006 9:42:44 PM EDT

[#16]

First reason before all, the machine gun legislation is ILLEGAL.

Posted: 1/30/2006 9:48:52 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Seriously.
No crimes have been committed by legally owned full auto for many, many years.
They are still legal to purchase, but just prohibitively expensive for all but the richest owners.
Criminals have access to full auto through the same means they have access to drugs.

And the most important reason of all.

The lack of civilian market has stiffled domestic research and engineering into weapons for our soldiers. The genius of browning and stoner has no marketability today so our most brilliant mechanical engineers avoid the field of gun design. If we want to maintain a domestic firearms manufactoring and research and design, we must allow civilian purchase of all types of weapons. Especially those with a military function.
Look at our current inventory.
M249 Belgium
M240 Belgium
M9 italion
M16 50 year old american design.
M2, 90 year old american design.

The two firearms that we looked at to replace our M16 were the German G36 and Belgium FN SCAR.

Throughout history, its been American designers that supplied great guns to our soldiers.
Garand
thompson
1911
M2
M16
BAR
M1 Carbine
Grease Gun.
With the lack of domestic market, good engineers are going elsewhere.
The winchester plant in New Hampshire, open for over a 100 years, where the gun that won the west was made, is closing down.
domestic laws are killing innovation in the field that keeps our soldiers alive. We owe it to our armed forces to ensure they have the best, most modern weapons possible.

BRAVO! Best reasons EVER!

Some truth to that, but the whole invention deal has changed since John Browning..

Sure, we all learn who invented the light bulb, record player, telephone, etc.... But who invented modern stuff like the CD player, florescent light bulb, VCR, cell phone, etc? Large corperations.

Look at the major designers since 1934- Garand and Stoner both worked for a organization or company. They probably would not have been able to design their weapons in the garage.

Posted: 1/30/2006 9:52:20 PM EDT

[#18]

I agree with those who said this won't happen through the legislative process. There's no congresscritter that will really touch it. This is going to have to be changed in the courts. If Alito hears a 2A court case he will rule that the 86ban and the GCA are all unconstitutional accroding to the commerce clause, he wrote a dissent that said specifically that. That is why I am excited about his confirmation.

Posted: 1/31/2006 10:08:34 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Any MD/NOVA/DC members willing to take this to a congress person?

Thanks

CRC

I'm in NOVA, I'd happily take this in person to a congress person, in person if it would help. Can we make this a group? Any chance we can get one member from every state, or something similar?

Check your IM box

Posted: 1/31/2006 10:45:35 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Because E-7s can't afford full auto.
can't think of a better one, can you?

Engineers can't either.

Posted: 1/31/2006 11:46:39 AM EDT

[#21]

There is a very specific order to the Amendments. The 1st is there to allow peaceful ways to pass laws and get rid of politicians.

The 2nd is there as a reset button. It ISN'T about hunting AT ALL. It is there to give us the ability to fix our government should the 1st Amendment fail.

On these grounds the 1986 ban is unconstitutional.

Posted: 1/31/2006 11:48:11 AM EDT

[#22]

The law wasn't broken prior to 1986. It didn't need to be fixed.

Posted: 1/31/2006 12:03:39 PM EDT

[#23]

It should not have existed in the first place. If the SCOTUS makes an honest decision it will solve it all. I don't think repeals of all the individual statutes will accomplish much. They simply need to be overturned on Constitutional grounds. One finding or, at most two does that.

Posted: 1/31/2006 4:24:29 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
It should not have existed in the first place. If the SCOTUS makes an honest decision it will solve it all. I don't think repeals of all the individual statutes will accomplish much. They simply need to be overturned on Constitutional grounds. One finding or, at most two does that.

OK so it sounds like someone will have to risk time in jail for this to go to the Supreme Court.

I was thinking about this and thought that maybe someone that is dying of cancer/old age/whatever could volunteer since jail time wouldn't be that threatening.

The volunteer would (I guess) have to get caught with a machine gun or just walk in and confess they have it (peacefully).

Posted: 1/31/2006 6:21:59 PM EDT

[#25]

Nothing?

Posted: 2/1/2006 6:19:18 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
The law wasn't broken prior to 1986. It didn't need to be fixed.

The same could be said about 1968, and 1934, to boot.

Posted: 2/1/2006 6:22:40 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It should not have existed in the first place. If the SCOTUS makes an honest decision it will solve it all. I don't think repeals of all the individual statutes will accomplish much. They simply need to be overturned on Constitutional grounds. One finding or, at most two does that.

OK so it sounds like someone will have to risk time in jail for this to go to the Supreme Court.

I was thinking about this and thought that maybe someone that is dying of cancer/old age/whatever could volunteer since jail time wouldn't be that threatening.

The volunteer would (I guess) have to get caught with a machine gun or just walk in and confess they have it (peacefully).

SCOTUS granting cert hasn't historically been done in what could be considered a "timely" manner for the old or infirm. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking Tesla/Marconi (i.e. "who invented radio") and that old geezer who got Eminently evicted by the TVA (due to floodplan, which later ended up being waterfront property).

The wheels of justice can oulast most mortals.

Posted: 2/1/2006 6:25:57 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Because MG ownership was unconstitutionally made illegal.

+1

and since 1934 only one legally registered MG has ever been used in a crime and that person was
a law enforcement officer...

LB

Actually that is incorrect, a Doctor in Ohio used a registered mac with a registered can to kill another doctor. So there were two, somme folks say three. But the third one is a strech because it was a PD weapon that was used by an officer.

Just for clarification is all.

Posted: 2/1/2006 6:35:22 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
I agree with those who said this won't happen through the legislative process. There's no congresscritter that will really touch it. This is going to have to be changed in the courts. If Alito hears a 2A court case he will rule that the 86ban and the GCA are all unconstitutional accroding to the commerce clause, he wrote a dissent that said specifically that. That is why I am excited about his confirmation.

I disagree. I think that is the perfect way to get it to pass. Sneek it in under some other bill as the dems tried with the AWB reauth. Like I said I bet Larry Craig would love to return the favor.

I do agree its about money. The money that the fed can make off it. The only way I see this working is if the left gets somthing out of the deal.....like money. Otherwise there is no reason for them to let it pass.

Now, if a case was to make it in front of Alito then yes it could be a good thing...who is going ot step up?
Exactly.

As far as reasons, I think most have been covered here; Crime stats, $$, unjustly passed etc...
so +1 to everyones efforts.

Keep it up.
CH

Posted: 2/1/2006 8:10:16 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
It's all about the money....... All of the owners of the pre 86 registered mg's would loose about $15,000 average each if it was repealed. I'm supprised there is not more response from us owners when this topic is brought up..........

Cry me a river and who put them in charge of the machine gun market?

Posted: 2/1/2006 8:13:27 AM EDT

[#31]

Big reason is pre 86 guns are considered dated. Sure you can mimick a M4 carbine with a M16A1 lower and a M4 upper, but it'd be cool to have the latest and greatest. Why get a HK sear gun when you can get a real HK?

Posted: 2/1/2006 8:26:40 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Seriously.
No crimes have been committed by legally owned full auto for many, many years.
They are still legal to purchase, but just prohibitively expensive for all but the richest owners.
Criminals have access to full auto through the same means they have access to drugs.

And the most important reason of all.

The lack of civilian market has stiffled domestic research and engineering into weapons for our soldiers. The genius of browning and stoner has no marketability today so our most brilliant mechanical engineers avoid the field of gun design. If we want to maintain a domestic firearms manufactoring and research and design, we must allow civilian purchase of all types of weapons. Especially those with a military function.
Look at our current inventory.
M249 Belgium
M240 Belgium
M9 italion
M16 50 year old american design.
M2, 90 year old american design.

The two firearms that we looked at to replace our M16 were the German G36 and Belgium FN SCAR.

Throughout history, its been American designers that supplied great guns to our soldiers.
Garand
thompson
1911
M2
M16
BAR
M1 Carbine
Grease Gun.
With the lack of domestic market, good engineers are going elsewhere.
The winchester plant in New Hampshire, open for over a 100 years, where the gun that won the west was made, is closing down.
domestic laws are killing innovation in the field that keeps our soldiers alive. We owe it to our armed forces to ensure they have the best, most modern weapons possible.

Posted: 2/1/2006 8:27:44 AM EDT

[#33]

That's easy....

MG's are the PRECISE firearms the Second Amendment intended - the ones necessary to secure the existence of a free state, - MUST be in the hands of the citizen militia.

Posted: 2/1/2006 8:28:21 AM EDT

[#34]

Because its one tax I would love to pay.

Kharn

Posted: 2/1/2006 8:38:34 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
And the most important reason of all.

The lack of civilian market has stiffled domestic research and engineering into weapons for our soldiers. The genius of browning and stoner has no marketability today so our most brilliant mechanical engineers avoid the field of gun design. If we want to maintain a domestic firearms manufactoring and research and design, we must allow civilian purchase of all types of weapons. Especially those with a military function.
Look at our current inventory.
M249 Belgium
M240 Belgium
M9 Italian
M16 50 year old American design.
M2, 90 year old American design.

The two firearms that we looked at to replace our M16 were the German G36 and Belgium FN SCAR.

Throughout history, its been American designers that supplied great guns to our soldiers.
Garand
thompson
1911
M2
M16
BAR
M1 Carbine
Grease Gun.
With the lack of domestic market, good engineers are going elsewhere.
The winchester plant in New Hampshire, open for over a 100 years, where the gun that won the west was made, is closing down.
domestic laws are killing innovation in the field that keeps our soldiers alive. We owe it to our armed forces to ensure they have the best, most modern weapons possible.

Big +1 on this. If we allowed private citizens to own new FA firearms the market would increase and the we could save taxpayer dollars as some of the R&D would be done in the normal course of market-share improvements to products. It would be much better to use an off-the-shelf (or slight modification) product for the military's next small arm because it would save money in the long run.

ETA I don't really see it happening but it is a decent argument

Posted: 2/1/2006 1:43:30 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
And the most important reason of all.

The lack of civilian market has stiffled domestic research and engineering into weapons for our soldiers. The genius of browning and stoner has no marketability today so our most brilliant mechanical engineers avoid the field of gun design. If we want to maintain a domestic firearms manufactoring and research and design, we must allow civilian purchase of all types of weapons. Especially those with a military function.
Look at our current inventory.
M249 Belgium
M240 Belgium
M9 Italian
M16 50 year old American design.
M2, 90 year old American design.

The two firearms that we looked at to replace our M16 were the German G36 and Belgium FN SCAR.

Throughout history, its been American designers that supplied great guns to our soldiers.
Garand
thompson
1911
M2
M16
BAR
M1 Carbine
Grease Gun.
With the lack of domestic market, good engineers are going elsewhere.
The winchester plant in New Hampshire, open for over a 100 years, where the gun that won the west was made, is closing down.
domestic laws are killing innovation in the field that keeps our soldiers alive. We owe it to our armed forces to ensure they have the best, most modern weapons possible.

Big +1 on this. If we allowed private citizens to own new FA firearms the market would increase and the we could save taxpayer dollars as some of the R&D would be done in the normal course of market-share improvements to products. It would be much better to use an off-the-shelf (or slight modification) product for the military's next small arm because it would save money in the long run.

ETA I don't really see it happening but it is a decent argument

+2 (+1 on Sylvan's comments, and another +1 to yours).

What about "time to market" for problems? With the lack of a civilian market, who does the actual field performance testing? Troops with [usually] lives/objectives on the line. Bad time and place to figure out something is "wrong" or even "could be better". When/if a problem or area for improvement is identified, how many individual units of said model are already "on the market" (i.e. in the hands of troops), so to speak? And how long will it take for the updated model to make it through the supply chain (let alone the shit and headaches that come with retrofitting the existing units)?

Posted: 2/1/2006 1:53:54 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The law wasn't broken prior to 1986. It didn't need to be fixed.

The same could be said about 1968, and 1934, to boot.

Actually, the 1934 was a reaction to the bootleggers and organized crime and 1968 was a reaction to the mail order purchase by Oswald.

Posted: 2/1/2006 2:00:36 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The law wasn't broken prior to 1986. It didn't need to be fixed.

The same could be said about 1968, and 1934, to boot.

Actually, the 1934 was a reaction to the bootleggers and organized crime and 1968 was a reaction to the mail order purchase by Oswald.

+1

Actually we should count ourselves lucky that it did. Had it not come along as a means ot regulate, I have little doubt that they would have been banned all together. However, since there is a tax program in place we should use that to our advantage.

Posted: 2/1/2006 2:40:50 PM EDT

[#39]

I feel it is more of an equality issue than anything else. I hate that the current situation favors those with wealth. It reminds me of the civil war draft where those with money could buy their way out of the draft.

Posted: 2/1/2006 2:48:12 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
I am thinking really hard about purchasing an M16 with my Christmas bonus next year ... however, I really worry about the ban being repealled and me losing on a $15,000 investment. We had the Assualt Rifle ban for ten years and look at all the folks that lost big bucks betting that it was indefinite and buying up pre-ban rifles to sell for a profit. If a nice registered M16 was setting me back $3K ... no big deal ... but $15K is a big deal!

so, basically, you're a greedy ass that doesn't care about others?

Posted: 2/1/2006 3:34:48 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I am thinking really hard about purchasing an M16 with my Christmas bonus next year ... however, I really worry about the ban being repealled and me losing on a $15,000 investment. We had the Assualt Rifle ban for ten years and look at all the folks that lost big bucks betting that it was indefinite and buying up pre-ban rifles to sell for a profit. If a nice registered M16 was setting me back $3K ... no big deal ... but $15K is a big deal!
so, basically, you're a greedy ass that doesn't care about others?

I don't think he's a greedy ass. However the scenario is wrong. If post machine guns were legal again as they were before pre 1986, they wouldn't be $3,000. Those who paid $10K or more for a legal machine gun would see their investment drop, that's the nature of investments. Google lost 20% in the last 48 hours, if it's an invesment realize that investments can lose value. Hell, I lost $15,000 by not selling all my pre 1994 and pre 1989 guns and magazines before 9/13/2004. I didn't dwell on it but instead bought a bunch of new guns and magazines at post 9/13/2004 prices.

At this stage in the game as I posted previously, a 20 y/o machine gun doesn't do that much for me.
One kaboom and not being able to replace a registered receiver just aint worth it. Yeah full autos are cool, but I'd rather have a C6 Corvette that loses value than 3 transferable M16A1's.

Posted: 2/1/2006 5:05:55 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It should not have existed in the first place. If the SCOTUS makes an honest decision it will solve it all. I don't think repeals of all the individual statutes will accomplish much. They simply need to be overturned on Constitutional grounds. One finding or, at most two does that.

OK so it sounds like someone will have to risk time in jail for this to go to the Supreme Court.I was thinking about this and thought that maybe someone that is dying of cancer/old age/whatever could volunteer since jail time wouldn't be that threatening.

The volunteer would (I guess) have to get caught with a machine gun or just walk in and confess they have it (peacefully).

Flawed logic, not worth the risk. The Supreme Court can simply refuse to hear the case.

Posted: 2/1/2006 5:40:51 PM EDT

[#43]

The legislator who pushed the machinegun ban watched way too much Miami Vice.

Posted: 2/1/2006 6:27:45 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It should not have existed in the first place. If the SCOTUS makes an honest decision it will solve it all. I don't think repeals of all the individual statutes will accomplish much. They simply need to be overturned on Constitutional grounds. One finding or, at most two does that.

OK so it sounds like someone will have to risk time in jail for this to go to the Supreme Court.I was thinking about this and thought that maybe someone that is dying of cancer/old age/whatever could volunteer since jail time wouldn't be that threatening.

The volunteer would (I guess) have to get caught with a machine gun or just walk in and confess they have it (peacefully).

Flawed logic, not worth the risk. The Supreme Court can simply refuse to hear the case.

I don't see how my logic is flawed. It IS worth the risk and there is definitely a risk if they decide not to hear it. Remember, I am not talking about throwing some 18-year-old to the wolves. I am talking about someone who hasn't got much time left to live but wants to help our cause(our=USA).

Posted: 2/1/2006 6:35:58 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's all about the money....... All of the owners of the pre 86 registered mg's would loose about $15,000 average each if it was repealed. I'm supprised there is not more response from us owners when this topic is brought up..........

Not true for me.....
Id volunteer to lose my 11K if I could have a new M16 instead of a 20 year old one.

How many NEW MGs could YOU buy if a Mac was 400.00 like it should be, or an M16 was 750.00 like it should be..

i can remember when M16's were selling for $600, mac's $218 (i bought one),

then they all doubled overnite, and went up from there

Posted: 2/1/2006 6:41:13 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
From what I gather, most MG owners do want the 86 ban to go away. They may be out several grand, but they will be able to buy more machineguns anyway. Something not possible currently.

a big damn +1,
My 16 may not be worth 11k , but i can finally afford the M2, 1919, 1917,1918 and the thompson i always wanted

Posted: 2/1/2006 6:47:53 PM EDT

[#47]

So does anyone remember the outrage over machineguns be re-legalized in September of 2004?

Posted: 2/1/2006 7:36:26 PM EDT

[#48]

Well.............anybody..........the legalization of semi automatic machine guns.........

Didn't think so and if the 86 ban were lifted nobody would care either.

Posted: 2/2/2006 5:38:41 AM EDT

[#49]

<raises_hand />

I was outraged back in September '04. I distinctly remember that my local ice cream truck stopped carrying ice cream for my kids and switched inventory to automatic revolvers and the like, which they practically gave away to all the neighborhood thugs and felons.

Posted: 2/2/2006 5:51:04 AM EDT

[#50]

it's discriminatory towards everyone below the top 1% income bracket.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why should the Machine gun ban be repealled?? (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us