[Liberty4Ever]

I just uploaded a YouTube video, just in time for the holidaze.

[ame]http://youtu.be/XPq1NHX_Ahc[/ame]
(29 seconds of your life you'll never get back)

Feeling festive, yet?

 

[mr_1911]

In the words of Clint Smith, full auto is a great way to turn money into noise. I cannot imagine a scenario where I would use full auto in a fight.

However, I strongly support our right to own full auto and turn money into noise as we see fit, without government interference.

 

[lklawson]

If the government is truly serious about gaining additional "revenue" then they should roll back the ban and re-institute the Stamp. I know a great many firearms enthusiasts who would gladly pay an extra $200-$300 for their favorite model firearm to have a full auto (or burst) function.

They could put billions into the treasury.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[CJP32]

Hey, quit taking videos of my yard!

Kirk is right, could you imagine how many money orders and checks they would get the first day the ban was lifted.

I would use my select fire under a few conditions but not many. Mainly at very close ranges like inside a building or something similar.

 

[Electroshot]

If you look at the discussions that went on at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, you will see that there was a lot of effort put into keeping the military and the federal government in check. From several sources was the concept that the general population needed to be able to best any efforts of tyrannical control. The general idea was that any military leader or political figure would never have it even enter their head, lest they be crushed by the population, to try to take control.

In order to do that, one needs to have the general citizenry armed, just as well as the military. I currently see a serious imbalance.

 

[PF9Newbie]

Full auto weapons are not "banned" from civilian possession. In fact, until 1934, there were no controls on such firearms, when the National Firearms Act was passed, which regulated the sale of such arms, requiring registration and payment of special fees. This was still "bearable" until 1968, when the manufacture or importation and registration of any new full auto firearms for civilian sale/ownership was banned, limiting the availability of full auto weapons to those in existence and registered at that time. The result was, of course, that the cost of full auto firearms simply skyrocketed due to the limited numbers available for civilian purchase. But if you have the financial means (average cost of a full auto today can run $20K-$30K or more) and are willing to apply for a license (really just a $200 stamp, plus all the background investigation, etc) you can still buy any of these registered full autos.

Jim R

 

[buzzsaw]

Full auto weapons are not "banned" from civilian possession. In fact, until 1934, there were no controls on such firearms, when the National Firearms Act was passed, which regulated the sale of such arms, requiring registration and payment of special fees. This was still "bearable" until 1968, when the manufacture or importation and registration of any new full auto firearms for civilian sale/ownership was banned, limiting the availability of full auto weapons to those in existence and registered at that time. The result was, of course, that the cost of full auto firearms simply skyrocketed due to the limited numbers available for civilian purchase. But if you have the financial means (average cost of a full auto today can run $20K-$30K or more) and are willing to apply for a license (really just a $200 stamp, plus all the background investigation, etc) you can still buy any of these registered full autos.

Jim R

May of 1986 was the last date of manufacture for full autos legally transferable to civilians. (Thanks a lot, Ronald Reagan.) And, of course the price of these has skyrocketed. Those who have paid $17,000+ for a nearly 30 year old M-16 (that you ought to be able to buy new for about a grand) aren't going to be very happy if this law were to change. Indeed, they would like for the price to continue to skyrocket, and, they have the means to know their congresspersons on a first name basis.

buzzsaw

 

[Electroshot]

All of the cost and difficulty in meeting the regulations and tax stamps makes for it being fun for people who have enough money to be able to by one (and enough money to move to a location within the US where the ownership isn't banned by the state), but not a routine defensive weapon.

 

[mr_1911]

Full auto weapons are not "banned" from civilian possession. ... But if you have the financial means (average cost of a full auto today can run $20K-$30K or more) and are willing to apply for a license (really just a $200 stamp, plus all the background investigation, etc) you can still buy any of these registered full autos.

What exactly do you think a ban is? "New" automatic firearms have not been permitted for 44 years, meaning a great portion of the supply otherwise meets the requirements to be antiques. The existing supply is so artificially constrained that the majority of folks cannot afford one. That is absolutely a ban. Calling it anything else is drinking the anti's kook-aid.

 

[tomdickandharry]

"machine guns" have been "banned" since 1934. Imagine having to pay a $200 tax stamp when a 1911 pistol cost $25. If that $200 kept pace with inflation, it would be a $3400 tax.

 

[Liberty4Ever]

If that $200 kept pace with inflation, it would be a $3400 tax.

Shhhh! Don't give them any ideas. They hate guns and they love taxes!