NationStates Jolt Archive

What are opinions on the NFA gun control regime and Reagan's 1986 Assault Weapons Ban?

Roughly, the NFA requires payment of a $200 tax, an OK from a head of law enforcement, registration and a background check in order to own a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, gun suppressor or a few other things.

The 1986 ban made it so that only machine guns produced or imported before 1986 could be owned by civilians.

As a result, it is costly and time consuming - though by no means impossible or illegal - to purchase a machine gun as a civilian.

Because the supply of machine guns is fixed (declining, actually), prices are quite high.

This accomplishes a sensible aim for gun control - increasing the expense, value and hassle of getting a machine gun or silencer though not making it impossible for law-abiding citizens.

Make your own from stuff at Home Depot?

Well, the machine gun would be a bit difficult, but the silencer...

Make your own from stuff at Home Depot?

Well, the machine gun would be a bit difficult, but the silencer...


The silencer is certainly do-able, though its illegal unless you register it and pay the nfa tax.

The machine gun not do-able.

I'm still perplexed as to why anyone would want a machine gun. They're a bitch to carry around, ammunition surely must be expensive (and is quickly consumed), it's not like they're good for hunting or carefully aiming at a paper target, and they'd have even more bits to take apart and clean (I think, guns ain't my specialty).

So what are machine guns good for? War, and that's pretty much it. Or perhaps a massacre in the local mall, and for that you don't need a modern machine gun. An MG42 will do the trick quite nicely (maybe more nicely than a modern SAW might, since its rate of fire is so much greater).

I'm still perplexed as to why anyone would want a machine gun. They're a bitch to carry around, ammunition surely must be expensive (and is quickly consumed), it's not like they're good for hunting or carefully aiming at a paper target, and they'd have even more bits to take apart and clean (I think, guns ain't my specialty).

So what are machine guns good for? War, and that's pretty much it. Or perhaps a massacre in the local mall, and for that you don't need a modern machine gun. An MG42 will do the trick quite nicely (maybe more nicely than a modern SAW might, since its rate of fire is so much greater).


Well, the 86 ban limits the modernity of machine guns which can be owned.

One site which sells machine guns asked this same question, and then listed as its answer "why not?"

A real machine gun would indeed be a little bulky, but I could certainly see myself with a nice vector uzi.

I'm still perplexed as to why anyone would want a machine gun. They're a bitch to carry around, ammunition surely must be expensive (and is quickly consumed), it's not like they're good for hunting or carefully aiming at a paper target, and they'd have even more bits to take apart and clean (I think, guns ain't my specialty).

So what are machine guns good for? War, and that's pretty much it. Or perhaps a massacre in the local mall, and for that you don't need a modern machine gun. An MG42 will do the trick quite nicely (maybe more nicely than a modern SAW might, since its rate of fire is so much greater).
Does anyone need to own an original Piccaso?
An original 1953 Pez dispenser?

Does need really have anything to do with it?

A real machine gun would indeed be a little bulky, but I could certainly see myself with a nice vector uzi.
Isn't the Uzi a submachine gun? I was thinking with "machine gun" they meant the actual thing.

Does need really have anything to do with it?
I suppose not. Oh, well.

If I had spare money, I'd actually be quite interested in learning how to shoot. Although probably more with a sports rifle or something than with a machine gun. I don't need anything more than my dog and my phone for home defense.

Call me a silly fascist, but I think no civilian should get their hands on a weapon capable of gunning down so many people.

Isn't the Uzi a submachine gun? I was thinking with "machine gun" they meant the actual thing.


I suppose not. Oh, well.

If I had spare money, I'd actually be quite interested in learning how to shoot. Although probably more with a sports rifle or something than with a machine gun. I don't need anything more than my dog and my phone for home defense.


Both machine guns and submachineguns are covered by the NFA.

The distinction isnt especially meaningful in this discussion, the full-auto aspect of each is what puts it under NFA's jurisdiction.

Call me a silly fascist, but I think no civilian should get their hands on a weapon capable of gunning down so many people.


Not even people with $10,000-20,000 to blow who endure long hassles and waits and don't have criminal records?

Call me a silly fascist, but I think no civilian should get their hands on a weapon capable of gunning down so many people.

You silly fascist. I could kill way more people with a car.

Not even people with $10,000-20,000 to blow who endure long hassles and waits and don't have criminal records?

You don't have to have committed prior offenses to plan a crime. There are no entrance requirements for the criminal fraternity.

Call me a silly fascist, but I think no civilian should get their hands on a weapon capable of gunning down so many people.

How many times can a knife kill?

Imagine how many people could be killed with a large rock before the rock was worn out!

Ban rocks I say. And ban all vehicles able to carry (and therefore kill) more than two people.

Dogs might attack so all dogs should be immediately sterilised and all their teeth ground smooth.

I think that pavement gets icy in winter and could kill or cripple countless hordes. It would of course be silly to ban pavement as we need it. So we should ban shoes and socks in order to persuede people to act responsibly and refuse to walk on icy pavements.

A rock is not built with the express purpose of propelling small pieces of metal through flesh and armour. A knife is a useful tool. The rest of what you said is, without a doubt, stupid fucking bullshit.

A rock is not built with the express purpose of propelling small pieces of metal through flesh and armour. A knife is a useful tool. The rest of what you said is, without a doubt, stupid fucking bullshit.
You don't have to have committed prior offenses to plan a crime. There are no entrance requirements for the criminal fraternity.
But then so is advocating prohibition of thought crime.

Well I'm of the opinion that a reasonable person should be allowed to own reasonable weaponry, and that the government has a right and duty to ensure both the person and weapon are reasonable.

That being said, I err on the side of allowing more weaponry than less. So if Joe Blow wants a machine gun, why the heck not. I'd still expect a proper background check and small waiting period, but I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed one. It's not like the bans ever truly keep anything out of the hands of those who are very determined and could give two hoots about the law.

A rock is not built with the express purpose of propelling small pieces of metal through flesh and armour. A knife is a useful tool. The rest of what you said is, without a doubt, stupid fucking bullshit.


Saying things like that is against the rules on this forum.

But then so is advocating prohibition of thought crime.

So, not wanting people to have military grade weapons= superfascism?

Is it, NG? In that case I completely motherfucking apologise.

Well I'm of the opinion that a reasonable person should be allowed to own reasonable weaponry, and that the government has a right and duty to ensure both the person and weapon are reasonable.

That being said, I err on the side of allowing more weaponry than less. So if Joe Blow wants a machine gun, why the heck not. I'd still expect a proper background check and small waiting period, but I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed one. It's not like the bans ever truly keep anything out of the hands of those who are very determined and could give two hoots about the law.


Well, society does have a compelling interest in limiting the number of extremely-dangerous weapons like machine guns.

The more machineguns available, the higher the probability that they will be used in crime.

The NFA/ban strikes a reasonable balance in my opinion.

So, not wanting people to have military grade weapons= superfascism?
I didn't say that.....
I merely pointed out that you, with your quote
You don't have to have committed prior offenses to plan a crime. There are no entrance requirements for the criminal fraternity.
are advocating the prohibition of thought crime.

I don't believe I have ever in my life typed the word superfascism.

I couldn't think of any word for advocating thoughtcrime as cool as superfascism.

I believe in removing opportunities for stuff like spree shootings. Keep your cars and rocks, just not your military grade weaponry. That stuff is designed to kill, not hunt or shoot paper targets.

So, not wanting people to have military grade weapons= superfascism?

Is it, NG? In that case I completely motherfucking apologise.

I think you just made up superfascism.

I think you just made up superfascism.

Read the post I made before you, sherlock.

Well, society does have a compelling interest in limiting the number of extremely-dangerous weapons like machine guns.

The more machineguns available, the higher the probability that they will be used in crime.

The NFA/ban strikes a reasonable balance in my opinion.

I'm not so sure. I'd say society has an interest in limiting not the number of machineguns, but the recipients. I'd say it strikes a better balance between safety and freedom to ensure that the recipients of machineguns aren't criminals or cult members or whathaveyou, rather than just limiting numbers and hiking prices.

How about you just ban guns and improve your customs controls? That's be novel.

Read the post I made before you, sherlock.

So I was thinking correctly then?

How about you just ban guns and improve your customs controls? That's be novel.

Or better yet, find a genie and magic away all the weapons, and bring world peace, and make it rain gumdrops.

So I was thinking correctly then?

Yes. Although, if you have an common sense nature in your bbody, you may come to the (correct) conclusion that I was talking about some kind of even more restrictive fascism.

I'm not so sure. I'd say society has an interest in limiting not the number of machineguns, but the recipients. I'd say it strikes a better balance between safety and freedom to ensure that the recipients of machineguns aren't criminals or cult members or whathaveyou, rather than just limiting numbers and hiking prices.


Limiting the number and hiking prices is just about the only effective way to limit the recipients.

The more that are out there and the cheaper they are, the more likely they are to fall into the hands of miscreants. If a city has 20,000 machine guns, the criminal element will have a much easier time stealing or buying them than if it only has 500.

Or better yet, find a genie and magic away all the weapons, and bring world peace, and make it rain gumdrops.

You're so smart, and your cynicism is really fucking helpful!

How many times can a knife kill?

Imagine how many people could be killed with a large rock before the rock was worn out!

Ban rocks I say. And ban all vehicles able to carry (and therefore kill) more than two people.

Dogs might attack so all dogs should be immediately sterilised and all their teeth ground smooth.

I think that pavement gets icy in winter and could kill or cripple countless hordes. It would of course be silly to ban pavement as we need it. So we should ban shoes and socks in order to persuede people to act responsibly and refuse to walk on icy pavements.
Yeah, because a knife, a rock, and a dog are really comparable to a machine gun... :rolleyes: Second Amendment freaks...

You're so smart, and your cynicism is really fucking helpful!

Yes, I think so too.

Hey, if the person who wants a machine gun is using it for his well-regulated militia, fine. If some big sweaty texan wants it for his boomstick collection, then hell no. That's what your constitution says.

If it was up to me, that amendment would get sent all the way to hell.

Yes.

All I needed, thank you.

All I needed, thank you.

Nitpicking: saving gun nuts since the second amendment!

Yeah, because a knife, a rock, and a dog are really comparable to a machine gun... :rolleyes: Second Amendment freaks...

Well, in terms of people they could kill...Maybe not a dog. And car definitly is.

Nitpicking: saving gun nuts since the second amendment!

Nitpicking would've involed me correcting mechanics or something like that. I just snipped the part of your post I didn't care about.

Hey, if the person who wants a machine gun is using it for his well-regulated militia, fine. If some big sweaty texan wants it for his boomstick collection, then hell no. That's what your constitution says.

If it was up to me, that amendment would get sent all the way to hell.

What about a small non-persperiant Ohian?

Hey, if the person who wants a machine gun is using it for his well-regulated militia, fine. If some big sweaty texan wants it for his boomstick collection, then hell no. That's what your constitution says.

If it was up to me, that amendment would get sent all the way to hell.
Yeah, but just because he wants the machine gun for his militia doesn't mean that he has the right to. There's a reason it's called a "well-regulated" militia. Machine guns are not constitutionally protected by any means.

What about a small non-persperiant Ohian?

Regardless of size and stinkyness, if you want a gun (and at that anything more than a Brown bess) for use other than your militia, you don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. want guns? Move to Afghanistan.

Regardless of size and stinkyness, if you want a gun (and at that anything more than a Brown bess) for use other than your militia, you don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. want guns? Move to Afghanistan.

Or Switzerland...

Or Switzerland...

No. Switzerland is nice. You can't ruin Switzerland.

No. Switzerland is nice. You can't ruin Switzerland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

I know the Swiss all have guns, but I don't want such a nice country swarming with USians. I wasn't referring to attitudes to gun control, I was talking about culture and lack thereof. :)

This accomplishes a sensible aim for gun control - increasing the expense, value and hassle of getting a machine gun or silencer though not making it impossible for law-abiding citizens.
Because SOOOOO many crimes were being commited with legally bought machine guns and every criminal bought their silencers from the store. In actuality the amount of crimes commited before or after with legal full auto weapons was negligible. Not to mention that good silencers are expensive and if all you want is a one-two use silencer you can make one with a water bottle. It's purely a bullshit law. All of the full auto crimes in the 80's were commited by drug dealers who brought in their guns from outside the country.

I know the Swiss all have guns, but I don't want such a nice country swarming with USians. I wasn't referring to attitudes to gun control, I was talking about culture and lack thereof. :)
Boy you sure won the argument there.
Someone who wishes to own guns, or opposes gun control is an uncultured person.

Damn, I just got pwned. :rolleyes:

Well I'm of the opinion that a reasonable person should be allowed to own reasonable weaponry, and that the government has a right and duty to ensure both the person and weapon are reasonable.

That being said, I err on the side of allowing more weaponry than less. So if Joe Blow wants a machine gun, why the heck not. I'd still expect a proper background check and small waiting period, but I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed one. It's not like the bans ever truly keep anything out of the hands of those who are very determined and could give two hoots about the law.

what he said!

What are opinions on the NFA gun control regime and Reagan's 1986 Assault Weapons Ban?

Roughly, the NFA requires payment of a $200 tax, an OK from a head of law enforcement, registration and a background check in order to own a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, gun suppressor or a few other things.

The 1986 ban made it so that only machine guns produced or imported before 1986 could be owned by civilians.

As a result, it is costly and time consuming - though by no means impossible or illegal - to purchase a machine gun as a civilian.

Because the supply of machine guns is fixed (declining, actually), prices are quite high.

This accomplishes a sensible aim for gun control - increasing the expense, value and hassle of getting a machine gun or silencer though not making it impossible for law-abiding citizens.


i see nothing wrong with it ..except a colector who met the criteria should be able to own any machine gun or other light weapon made ..reguardless when it was produced...otherwise it makes no sense...a German MG42 is more...or just as.. lethal than anything similar made today .

And what, pray tell, would someone do with a machine gun? Target practice? Hunting? ...... Self-defense is a ludicrous reasoning; one hardly needs the power of a machine gun for self-defense.

...a German MG42 is more...or just as.. lethal than anything similar made today .
Exactly my point from before. I mean, they're still making the MG42 (with some small modifications, mainly in calibre) and using it in many armies around the world.

If you want it as a collector's item, that's cool...but does it have to still be able to fire bullets?

"Self-defense is a ludicrous reasoning; one hardly needs the power of a machine gun for self-defense."---Verve Pipe

and what education system allowed you to graduate without ever having taught you anything about the history of the planet you live on?

"Self-defense is a ludicrous reasoning; one hardly needs the power of a machine gun for self-defense."---Verve Pipe

and what education system allowed you to graduate without ever having taught you anything about the history of the planet you live on?
Please educate me, then, if I'm so in the dark; apparently I missed vital information detailing the undeniable fact that the only way to defend yourself from a burglar is by shooting them with a machine gun, and a machine gun only.

"Regardless of size and stinkyness, if you want a gun (and at that anything more than a Brown bess) for use other than your militia, you don't have a constitutional leg to stand on."---United Time Lords

exactly---the constitution only protects our right to own military-grade firearms.

"Please educate me, then, if I'm so in the dark; apparently I missed vital information detailing the undeniable fact that the only way to defend yourself from a burglar is by shooting them with a machine gun, and a machine gun only."---Verve Pipe

well, so far, many many more innocent people have been murdered by governments than by individual criminals. i just sort of assumed that most people would be familiar with the second world war, the japanese invasion of china, the soviet unioin, rwanda, DROC, cambodia, etc.

Well, society does have a compelling interest in limiting the number of extremely-dangerous weapons like machine guns.

The more machineguns available, the higher the probability that they will be used in crime.

The NFA/ban strikes a reasonable balance in my opinion.

not to sound un reasonable,but mg's account for a miniscule amount of firearm crimes,before and after the ban(or quasi ban)
what the ban really aimed at(no pun intended)was so called assault rifles,which are not automatic weapons.
it was feel good legislation,to ban evil looking rifles that are no different then a semi auto .22,and even then,you could still get bushmasters,colts,and american made "assault rifles"
it was aimed at slowing/stopping the import of SEMI automatic ak's,galils,uzi's..etc.
all of which are no deadlier then an ar-15 or my lowly ruger 10/22.
as usual,it was more nonsense legislation to placate the hand wringing lefties that are afraid of guns,and are afraid of scary looking guns.
my ak had to have the bayo lug ground off and the pistol grip to make it compliant.
heard about many driveby bayonetings?
i cant shoot as accurately without a pistol grip?

please...do nothing laws that effected crime,not a wit!

sad fact is,the shotgun or pistol is the choice of crimminals,disregarding the fact that crimminals ignore laws.
all the law did was generate a tax on honest citizens,that obey laws,and make it so i cant have a bayonet on my ak..lol..

betcha the crimminals didn't even know a law was passed.

pathetic laws that dont address crime,crimminalise and tax honest people...our glorious gov at work.

the crimminals must laugh their collective asses off at the politicians,and i hate to say it..the liberals especially.

if i was a crook,i wouldnt be dragging around a friggen mg,i would have a sawed off shotty or a pistol..or..get a legal semi auto and convert it,as i dont obey laws or follow the rules and submit to background checks.

news flash..people that obey the laws,dont generally break them..like me.

they said to make my gun compliant,and to have the pistol grip stock on it(which i like,because it looks original,no functional advantage)i had to add 5 compliant parts..ie..5 parts made in the u.s. to replace 5 identical parts made in bulgaria...wow..that should stop crime!

firearm laws are stupid,and do nothing to effect crime with guns.

now when you talk about strict background checks and waiting periods,along with severe penalties for commiting crimes with a gun or possesing one illegally..i am in complete agreement.

crimminals get guns..laws or not...it only affects legal owners(the silly laws and taxes)

rant off.

"Regardless of size and stinkyness, if you want a gun (and at that anything more than a Brown bess) for use other than your militia, you don't have a constitutional leg to stand on."---United Time Lords

exactly---the constitution only protects our right to own military-grade firearms.

Learn to use quotes.

"Please educate me, then, if I'm so in the dark; apparently I missed vital information detailing the undeniable fact that the only way to defend yourself from a burglar is by shooting them with a machine gun, and a machine gun only."---Verve Pipe

well, so far, many many more innocent people have been murdered by governments than by individual criminals. i just sort of assumed that most people would be familiar with the second world war, the japanese invasion of china, the soviet unioin, rwanda, DROC, cambodia, etc.
And so that means that gun use should be limitless? Let me break it to you, pal: a machine gun wouldn't really assist citizens in a battle against the government anyway. You're forgetting that the government is in possesion of, among other things, nuclear weapons and state of the art military technology. Having access to a machine gun when the U.S. Gov goes fascist will hardly get you anywhere...

"Learn to use quotes."---United Time Lords

i find that this looks a lot better in a post than the way the site does it. especially for nested quotes.

YOU should learn to pay attention and you wouldn't need a special box for you to figure out that it is a quote.

"Let me break it to you, pal: a machine gun wouldn't really assist citizens in a battle against the government anyway. You're forgetting that the government is in possesion of, among other things, nuclear weapons and state of the art military technology. Having access to a machine gun when the U.S. Gov goes fascist will hardly get you anywhere..."---Verve Pipe


wars are won and lost on the will of the combatants. proven time and again through history that superior technology can do nothing without the will to keep fighting. on the other hand, once the cause is lost.....it would still be a pitiful excuse for a human being that wouldn't give their life to protect their family.

"Let me break it to you, pal: a machine gun wouldn't really assist citizens in a battle against the government anyway. You're forgetting that the government is in possesion of, among other things, nuclear weapons and state of the art military technology. Having access to a machine gun when the U.S. Gov goes fascist will hardly get you anywhere..."---Verve Pipe


wars are won and lost on the will of the combatants. proven time and again through history that superior technology can do nothing without the will to keep fighting. on the other hand, once the cause is lost.....it would still be a pitiful excuse for a human being that wouldn't give their life to protect their family.
Exactly my point! So you do agree with me, that superior technology, such as machine guns, is unecessary to have! Good thing we settled that!

"Exactly my point! So you do agree with me, that superior technology, such as machine guns, is unecessary to have! Good thing we settled that!"---Verve Pipe

i agree that they would be completely useless to you. for those of us that value our freedom and our families, it is a different matter.

"Exactly my point! So you do agree with me, that superior technology, such as machine guns, is unecessary to have! Good thing we settled that!"---Verve Pipe

i agree that they would be completely useless to you. for those of us that value our freedom and our families, it is a different matter.
How do they assist you in defending your families from criminals any better than other types of weapons would? You've clearly conceded to the fact that no type of weapon you could possess could ever match the might of the military, so now we're clearly dealing with criminals, a subject you have yet to touch on what with all of your idiotic rhetoric.

I do value my freedom and my family. That's why I believe that the sale of machine guns must be banned.

"How do they assist you in defending your families from criminals any better than other types of weapons would? You've clearly conceded to the fact that no type of weapon you could possess could ever match the might of the military, so now we're clearly dealing with criminals, a subject you have yet to touch on what with all of your idiotic rhetoric."---Verve Pipe

i'm not talking about defending those i care about from criminals....for that i use a shotgun and a pistol. i haven't clearly conceded any such thing----you just had your head shoved too far up yourself to pay attention to anything i said before you replied. family, freedom, and a basic knowledge of world history='idiotic rhetoric' to Verve.....kinda sad in a way

I know the Swiss all have guns, but I don't want such a nice country swarming with USians. I wasn't referring to attitudes to gun control, I was talking about culture and lack thereof. :)

nice insult to millions of nice people..uncultured...?

if the shoe fits...you seem pretty uncultured to insult millions of honest nice people that have done alot to help the world(due to our good fortune)thru charity and self sacrifice...shit i look at my taxes and see all the money that pours out,and then hear comments like yours and wonder..why?
and i am not talking about governments,but low to midle class peole that give money to help africa,tsunami victims..etc...thanks for your cultured wisdom.

nothing like impugning a nation over your bitter attitude...then rant how we do it..lol

i'm not talking about defending those i care about from criminals....for that i use a shotgun and a pistol. i haven't clearly conceded any such thing----you just had your head shoved too far up yourself to pay attention to anything i said before you replied. family, freedom, and a basic knowledge of world history='idiotic rhetoric' to Verve.....kinda sad in a way
wars are won and lost on the will of the combatants. proven time and again through history that superior technology can do nothing without the will to keep fighting.
I would call that conceding to the fact that superior technology isn't going to help you or them, anyway...

"I would call that conceding to the fact that superior technology isn't going to help you or them, anyway..."---Verve Pipe

that is because you are making a stupid assumtion about people that you don't know.

"I would call that conceding to the fact that superior technology isn't going to help you or them, anyway..."---Verve Pipe

that is because you are making a stupid assumtion about people that you don't know.
No, I'm quoting what your exact words were... You said that the military has superior technology (conceding to the fact that your machine gun isn't going to be able to do shit to them anyway) and that the will to keep fighting is all that matters (which is you basically saying that the weaponry involved doesn't matter anyway). So, let's look at the thread... You've not yet posted one clear argument in favor of machine gun ownership.

sorry verve, buy your apparent inability to read, understand, or qoute a whole statement does not make my argument any less valid. all it does is point out your own faults. why don't you go and read my entire statement, and THEN post. this selective attention of yours just isn't working very well

No, I'm quoting what your exact words were... You said that the military has superior technology (conceding to the fact that your machine gun isn't going to be able to do shit to them anyway) and that the will to keep fighting is all that matters (which is you basically saying that the weaponry involved doesn't matter anyway). So, let's look at the thread... You've not yet posted one clear argument in favor of machine gun ownership.
You are arguing semantics about who conceded what, and it's pretty pointless.

The point that Forever Duck is making is that regardless of what weaponry that the US Military has, it would be probably be unwilling to unleash it's full potential. I seriously doubt any country would use nukes on it's own soil.

However, for a resistance, while never going to the extreme of using nukes on it's homeland either, greater military technology would increase it's ability to resist the government it's fighting.

and what education system allowed you to graduate without ever having taught you anything about the history of the planet you live on?
...followed by...
well, so far, many many more innocent people have been murdered by governments than by individual criminals. i just sort of assumed that most people would be familiar with the second world war, the japanese invasion of china, the soviet unioin, rwanda, DROC, cambodia, etc.
I brought up the point that the military is stronger than anything you can own, anyway. You said:
wars are won and lost on the will of the combatants. proven time and again through history that superior technology can do nothing without the will to keep fighting. on the other hand, once the cause is lost.....it would still be a pitiful excuse for a human being that wouldn't give their life to protect their family.
In other words, a machine gun wouldn't do anything against the might of the military anyway, because they are, as you say, superior. But, on top of this, the type of weaponry doesn't matter anyway, because what matters is the will to keep fighting.
i agree that they would be completely useless to you. for those of us that value our freedom and our families, it is a different matter.
i'm not talking about defending those i care about from criminals....for that i use a shotgun and a pistol. i haven't clearly conceded any such thing----you just had your head shoved too far up yourself to pay attention to anything i said before you replied. family, freedom, and a basic knowledge of world history='idiotic rhetoric' to Verve.....kinda sad in a way
Yeah, look above...You did concede that superior technology is not what counts...it's the will to fight that counts.
that is because you are making a stupid assumtion about people that you don't know.
......:rolleyes:

What did I miss?

You are arguing semantics about who conceded what, and it's pretty pointless.

The point that Forever Duck is making is that regardless of what weaponry that the US Military has, it would be probably be unwilling to unleash it's full potential. I seriously doubt any country would use nukes on it's own soil.

However, for a resistance, while never going to the extreme of using nukes on it's homeland either, greater military technology would increase it's ability to resist the government it's fighting.
No, Forever Duck never made that point. I posted a history of the points Forever Duck made above. Please point it out to me where that is said.

So what if they probably wouldn't use nukes on their own country? They still have far superior military technology, even without using nukes, that machine guns would do very little to defend against.

(conceding to the fact that your machine gun isn't going to be able to do shit to them anyway) and that the will to keep fighting is all that matters (which is you basically saying that the weaponry involved doesn't matter anyway)"---Verve Pipe

i have never been stupid enough to 'concede' that a machine gun isn't going to be able to do anything---that is something you made up and attributed to me. i have never said that the will to keep fighting is all that matters----i said that it was the most important----YOU are the one that said it was the only thing, and then attributed it to me.

frankly, i don't much like it when people lie about me (or in your case, lie and attribute it to me), and i find your complete disregard for honesty a little disgusting

(conceding to the fact that your machine gun isn't going to be able to do shit to them anyway) and that the will to keep fighting is all that matters (which is you basically saying that the weaponry involved doesn't matter anyway)"---Verve Pipe

i have never been stupid enough to 'concede' that a machine gun isn't going to be able to do anything---that is something you made up and attributed to me. i have never said that the will to keep fighting is all that matters----i said that it was the most important----YOU are the one that said it was the only thing, and then attributed it to me.

frankly, i don't much like it when people lie about me (or in your case, lie and attribute it to me), and i find your complete disregard for honesty a little disgusting
proven time and again through history that superior technology can do nothing without the will to keep fighting.
Please review your post, and then proceed to make a point defending yourself about how using machine guns could assist people in fighting the military...

Auto weapons can be used to defend people in their homes and in the streets. Their main benefet is that they reduce the advatage of numbers which would lie with criminals. they have a secondary value of increasing your chance at hitting your target.

Please review your post, and then proceed to make a point defending yourself about how using machine guns could assist people in fighting the military...
What is a favorite saying on this board? Oh yea, reading comprehension is your friend.
proven time and again through history that superior technology can do nothing without the will to keep fighting.
You keep refering to this quote as "proof" that TFD things that superior technology means nothing.

What this quote actually means is that without a will to keep fighting, superior technology means nothing. Or, if you would prefer as long as you have the will to keep fighting, superior technology can help you win a fight.

There is a huge difference.

What is a favorite saying on this board? Oh yea, reading comprehension is your friend.

You keep refering to this quote as "proof" that TFD things that superior technology means nothing.

What this quote actually means is that without a will to keep fighting, superior technology means nothing. Or, if you would prefer as long as you have the will to keep fighting, superior technology can help you win a fight.

There is a huge difference.
Don't tell me about reading comprehension, assfuck.

No, I refer to that quote as him saying what he said: the military is stronger, my point exactly, and further, that superior technology won't help you anyway -- in other words, the machine gun technology is lower than the military technology, but this doesn't matter, because all that matters is the will to fight...so why not allow it to be even lower in deadliness?

Auto weapons can be used to defend people in their homes and in the streets. Their main benefet is that they reduce the advatage of numbers which would lie with criminals. they have a secondary value of increasing your chance at hitting your target.


They're almost as valuable as aiming.

Don't tell me about reading comprehension, assfuck.

No, I refer to that quote as him saying what he said: the military is stronger, my point exactly, and further, that superior technology won't help you anyway, my point exactly as well.


Why is this thread attracting you people?

First we get some nincompoop saying 'fucking dumb bastard' or something and now this clown with "assfuck."

Why is this thread attracting you people?

First we get some nincompoop saying 'fucking dumb bastard' or something and now this clown with "assfuck."
And "nincompoop" is so evolved...Congratulations, you are superior to all of us folk who use mean words.

"Don't tell me about reading comprehension, assfuck."---Verve Pipe

and why shouldn't he/she tell you about it? they obviously understand the importance as much as you obviously do not.


"No, I refer to that quote as him saying what he said: the military is stronger, my point exactly, and further, that superior technology won't help you anyway, my point exactly as well."---Verve Pipe

the problem is, that further you keep trying to attribute to me is something that i never said and that isn't true. if it were merely a matter of you being wrong, i could be patient and try to help. it is clear from your attitude that you don't get it and are angry about it, or that you do get it.....and you are so upset about things not matching your little view of the world that you prefer to lie. either is very little credit towards you as a person

Don't tell me about reading comprehension, assfuck.

No, I refer to that quote as him saying what he said: the military is stronger, my point exactly, and further, that superior technology won't help you anyway, my point exactly as well.
You're taking things way way too personally.

Either that or you are letting your emotions control you, which does nothing to help your side of the "discussion" along.

That being said, the whole point is that the will to fight is all. That is what TFD said.
Let's say there were two identical resistances. One equipped with small arms and munitions that include fully automatic assault rifles and submachine guns. The other is armed with pitch forks and torches.

I think that making the assumption that they both would be equally effective is pretty ignorant.

You're taking things way way too personally.

Either that or you are letting your emotions control you, which does nothing to help your side of the "discussion" along.

That being said, the whole point is that the will to fight is all. That is what TFD said.
Let's say there were two identical resistances. One equipped with small arms and munitions that include fully automatic assault rifles and submachine guns. The other is armed with pitch forks and torches.

I think that making the assumption that they both would be equally effective is pretty ignorant.
First, please read my edited post. Secondly, I never made that argument.

First, please read my edited post. Secondly, I never made that argument.
/sigh
the machine gun technology is lower than the military technology, but this doesn't matter, because all that matters is the will to fight...so why not allow it to be even lower in deadliness?

I would call that conceding to the fact that superior technology isn't going to help you or them, anyway...

I brought up the point that the military is stronger than anything you can own, anyway

In other words, a machine gun wouldn't do anything against the might of the military anyway, because they are, as you say, superior. But, on top of this, the type of weaponry doesn't matter anyway, because what matters is the will to keep fighting.

What are opinions on the NFA gun control regime and Reagan's 1986 Assault Weapons Ban?

Roughly, the NFA requires payment of a $200 tax, an OK from a head of law enforcement, registration and a background check in order to own a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, gun suppressor or a few other things.

The 1986 ban made it so that only machine guns produced or imported before 1986 could be owned by civilians.

As a result, it is costly and time consuming - though by no means impossible or illegal - to purchase a machine gun as a civilian.

Because the supply of machine guns is fixed (declining, actually), prices are quite high.

This accomplishes a sensible aim for gun control - increasing the expense, value and hassle of getting a machine gun or silencer though not making it impossible for law-abiding citizens.

Rock on New Granada

As for me, I long for the day I can drop M16 parts in my Ar15 and drill 'auto' on the receiver.

Why?

Because, my friend, Full auto is fun, and full auto at close range is a great way to deal with goblins.

:fluffle:

Rock on New Granada

As for me, I long for the day I can drop M16 parts in my Ar15 and drill 'auto' on the receiver.

Why?

Because, my friend, Full auto is fun, and full auto at close range is a great way to deal with goblins.

:fluffle:


Im getting pulled in, i've started saving to get a mac-10 and a big fat can for it.

Im getting pulled in, i've started saving to get a mac-10 and a big fat can for it.

Arizone is VERY gun friendly.

Check out www.ar15.com and look in the Arizona Hometown forum. Lots of helpful people there, just DON'T Mention nightsticks and/or maglites. Or Rodney king.

FYI, the mac is a toy. That's it, if you're looking for a serious weapon look at an Ar15 from a good maker-Bushmaster, colt, Stag, RRA, or an AKM custom made, or one from Arsenal, Vepr, or Vector arms.

Arizone is VERY gun friendly.

Check out www.ar15.com and look in the Arizona Hometown forum. Lots of helpful people there, just DON'T Mention nightsticks and/or maglites. Or Rodney king.

FYI, the mac is a toy. That's it, if you're looking for a serious weapon look at an Ar15 from a good maker-Bushmaster, colt, Stag, RRA, or an AKM custom made, or one from Arsenal, Vepr, or Vector arms.

I dont really want an assault rifle, and I'd rather have a vector uzi or an mp5k but they cost way more than i'm willing to spend.

AZ is a wonderful state for weapons, arizonashooting.com is a good local forum on the subject.

We have lots of nice CLEOs who are more than willing to sign NFA paperwork in no time flat.

Don't tell me about reading comprehension, assfuck.

Knock it off.

I dont really want an assault rifle, and I'd rather have a vector uzi or an mp5k but they cost way more than i'm willing to spend.

AZ is a wonderful state for weapons, arizonashooting.com is a good local forum on the subject.

We have lots of nice CLEOs who are more than willing to sign NFA paperwork in no time flat.

It's not a true assault rifle, although it's a huge step up from a pistol caliber weapon.

Rifle calibers>Pistol calibers www.boxotruth.com

One will peferate body armor, one won't. One will also go out hundreds of yards, one won't. One will also penetrate cars readily, one wont. You guess.

:p

If you're gonna get a pistol caliber weapon, get something nice like an Mp5 or Uzi, or even an M16 lower/RDIAS and run a 9mm upper on it.

A rock is not built with the express purpose of propelling small pieces of metal through flesh and armour. A knife is a useful tool. The rest of what you said is, without a doubt, stupid fucking bullshit.

Make your point without profanity.

It's not a true assault rifle, although it's a huge step up from a pistol caliber weapon.

Rifle calibers>Pistol calibers www.boxotruth.com

One will peferate body armor, one won't. One will also go out hundreds of yards, one won't. One will also penetrate cars readily, one wont. You guess.

:p

If you're gonna get a pistol caliber weapon, get something nice like an Mp5 or Uzi, or even an M16 lower/RDIAS and run a 9mm upper on it.


Yeah, I know all the advantages of rifles, but I'm happy with normal rifles.

To be honest, the biggest pull factor for an NFA gun is:


*click*

TATATATATATATTATATATATATATATATATATATATATTATATATATATTTATATATATATATATTATATATATATATATATATATATATATA


*GRIN*

Much less expensive when all those bangs are pistol rounds.

Isn't it generally accepted in the gun community and beyond that the best (gun-based) way of protecting your home against people breaking in, trying to hurt you, is a basic sort of shot gun?

You don't need to aim that well (and most people in that sort of panic situation couldn't anyways), the bullets won't go through walls and kill your neighbour's neighbour and as far as physical stopping power is concerned, it'll probably have one up on a machine pistol.

Automatic weapons were not designed to protect people's homes, or even people outside their homes. They weren't designed for sports, and they weren't designed for hunting.

Their purpose is to kill or hurt as many people as possible in as short a time frame as possible. They were designed for use in war.
Now, you can build an argument about the need for such weapons in case you need to fight the government. I don't see how a Mac-10 is going to stop an Abrams any more than a Pistol would, but fine.

You can also build an argument saying that the government shouldn't have the right to limit what sort of things you own. Also fine - but be consequent. Privately owned thermonuclear warheads or stashes of heroine should be allowed as well, in that case.

But don't try to pretend that automatic weapons will protect you from getting hurt. There are much better things for that. Even "Personal Defense Weapons" like the MP7 are designed for use in warfare. Unless you expect your burglar to come in with various Kevlar Vests, Combat Helmet and the like, a pistol will do the trick just fine, and the aforementioned shotgun even better.

As for me, I don't feel the need to own a gun for self-protection at all.

Isn't it generally accepted in the gun community and beyond that the best (gun-based) way of protecting your home against people breaking in, trying to hurt you, is a basic sort of shot gun?

You don't need to aim that well (and most people in that sort of panic situation couldn't anyways), the bullets won't go through walls and kill your neighbour's neighbour and as far as physical stopping power is concerned, it'll probably have one up on a machine pistol.

Automatic weapons were not designed to protect people's homes, or even people outside their homes. They weren't designed for sports, and they weren't designed for hunting.

Their purpose is to kill or hurt as many people as possible in as short a time frame as possible. They were designed for use in war.
Now, you can build an argument about the need for such weapons in case you need to fight the government. I don't see how a Mac-10 is going to stop an Abrams any more than a Pistol would, but fine.

You can also build an argument saying that the government shouldn't have the right to limit what sort of things you own. Also fine - but be consequent. Privately owned thermonuclear warheads or stashes of heroine should be allowed as well, in that case.

But don't try to pretend that automatic weapons will protect you from getting hurt. There are much better things for that. Even "Personal Defense Weapons" like the MP7 are designed for use in warfare. Unless you expect your burglar to come in with various Kevlar Vests, Combat Helmet and the like, a pistol will do the trick just fine, and the aforementioned shotgun even better.

As for me, I don't feel the need to own a gun for self-protection at all.


I dont know what kind of war you could fight with mp5ks and mac 10s and mp7s.

They are relatively short range weapons. They are expressly for "personal defense," either the self or someone you're protecting. They are small enough to be concealed.

A shotgun is good, but it's far too loud. I dont want to wake the neighbors up when I shoot *my* burglers.

At any rate, I dont foresee or intend to shoot my house to bits, with a shotgun or a machine pistol. I do foresee going to the range and blasting things to pieces. It's called *fun.*

I dont know what kind of war you could fight with mp5ks and mac 10s and mp7s.

They are relatively short range weapons. They are expressly for "personal defense," either the self or someone you're protecting. They are small enough to be concealed.

A shotgun is good, but it's far too loud. I dont want to wake the neighbors up when I shoot *my* burglers.

At any rate, I dont foresee or intend to shoot my house to bits, with a shotgun or a machine pistol. I do foresee going to the range and blasting things to pieces. It's called *fun.*

Everyone knows the sound of a shotgun cocking. You usually wouldn't even need to shoot it.

They are relatively short range weapons. They are expressly for "personal defense," either the self or someone you're protecting. They are small enough to be concealed.
Now, I can't talk about the Mac-10, but the MP7 was developed specifically because normal calibres don't easily go through the sort of protection a soldier would wear. So your ability to defend yourself against soldiers coming at you would be rather limited.

I repeat: Unless you expect your burglars to march into your house in full combat gear, a pistol is plenty enough for personal defense, and a shotgun is even better.

Now, I can't talk about the Mac-10, but the MP7 was developed specifically because normal calibres don't easily go through the sort of protection a soldier would wear. So your ability to defend yourself against soldiers coming at you would be rather limited.

I repeat: Unless you expect your burglars to march into your house in full combat gear, a pistol is plenty enough for personal defense, and a shotgun is even better.


Yeah, but everyone has a shotgun, and I can already go out and shoot things with a shotgun. What fun is that? Machine pistol + suppressor!

It is illegal for an american civilian to own an mp7 under the NFA and the 86 ban. Why are you bringing it up?

I'm talking about pistol-ammo firing uzis, mac10s, &c. purchased to shoot for fun.

It is illegal for an american civilian to own an mp7 under the NFA and the 86 ban. Why are you bringing it up?
I'm just generally talking about the sense or nonsense of having automatic weapons.

I'm just generally talking about the sense or nonsense of having automatic weapons.

I dont deny that the best answer to "why buy a machine gun?" is "why not?" and am in favor of keeping the current nfa/ban regime.

I dont deny that the best answer to "why buy a machine gun?" is "why not?" and am in favor of keeping the current nfa/ban regime.

While I agree that the NFA regulations were mostly bandaid feel-good fluff, I find them an acceptable line as much as I dream of owning one for my collection. I would suggest you go back to your OP and change it to "assault rifle" instead of "assault weapon" as the gun banners have coopted that phrase to refer to firearms previously known as "sporters", ie semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.

As for our lovely batch of anti-gunners on the board, The best phrase that explains them is from an opinion piece I read "All they have left are the insults".

What are opinions on the NFA gun control regime and Reagan's 1986 Assault Weapons Ban?

Roughly, the NFA requires payment of a $200 tax, an OK from a head of law enforcement, registration and a background check in order to own a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, gun suppressor or a few other things.

The 1986 ban made it so that only machine guns produced or imported before 1986 could be owned by civilians.

As a result, it is costly and time consuming - though by no means impossible or illegal - to purchase a machine gun as a civilian.

Because the supply of machine guns is fixed (declining, actually), prices are quite high.

This accomplishes a sensible aim for gun control - increasing the expense, value and hassle of getting a machine gun or silencer though not making it impossible for law-abiding citizens.


It was already difficult before. The NFA has been around since 1934.

Since that time, there have only been around 100,000 registered fully automatic weapons or silencers.

This includes small parts, which are classified as taxable items by the ATF.

Since its inception in 1934, no fully automatic firearm OR suppressor registered with the ATF has ever been used in the commission of a crime.

Makes you wonder where all those illegal fully automatic weapons and silencers come from, doesn't it?

It was already difficult before. The NFA has been around since 1934.

Since that time, there have only been around 100,000 registered fully automatic weapons or silencers.

This includes small parts, which are classified as taxable items by the ATF.

Since its inception in 1934, no fully automatic firearm OR suppressor registered with the ATF has ever been used in the commission of a crime.

Makes you wonder where all those illegal fully automatic weapons and silencers come from, doesn't it?

Actually, there have been two or three. One I know for a fact was by a police officer.

Go figure.

It was already difficult before. The NFA has been around since 1934.

Since that time, there have only been around 100,000 registered fully automatic weapons or silencers.

This includes small parts, which are classified as taxable items by the ATF.

Since its inception in 1934, no fully automatic firearm OR suppressor registered with the ATF has ever been used in the commission of a crime.

Makes you wonder where all those illegal fully automatic weapons and silencers come from, doesn't it?


It should seem then that the NFA is working very well!

Machine-gun crime is very rare, and almost unheard of among people who take the time, effort and expense to get an automatic weapon legally.

I dont know any statistics on unregistered silencer crime, but it does not strike me that miscreant hoodlums take the time or have the inclination to get threaded barrels and have silencers made on the black market.

It should seem then that the NFA is working very well!

Machine-gun crime is very rare, and almost unheard of among people who take the time, effort and expense to get an automatic weapon legally.

I dont know any statistics on unregistered silencer crime, but it does not strike me that miscreant hoodlums take the time or have the inclination to get threaded barrels and have silencers made on the black market.

Or it could mean that legally owned fully-auto weapons are rarely used in crime in the first place. There are crimes using illegal ones.

It should seem then that the NFA is working very well!

Machine-gun crime is very rare, and almost unheard of among people who take the time, effort and expense to get an automatic weapon legally.


You've never heard of the Mafia.

The ATF seizes hundreds of illegally used fully automatic weapons and homemade silencers every year.

Like most laws, the NFA is only adhered to by already law abiding citizens.

You've never heard of the Mafia.

The ATF seizes hundreds of illegally used fully automatic weapons and homemade silencers every year.

Like most laws, the NFA is only adhered to by already law abiding citizens.


Any real numbers on how many people in the US are shot each year with unregistered full auto weapons?

At any rate- I think you, I and the rest of the country should be more worried about convenience-store robbers than the mafia.

Any real numbers on how many people in the US are shot each year with unregistered full auto weapons?

At any rate- I think you, I and the rest of the country should be more worried about convenience-store robbers than the mafia.

According to Kleck, the US doesn't keep regular statistics on crimes committed w/ illegal full auto weapons. Some unofficial statistics have it as a little under 1% of homicides so figure a dozen or so a year.

Any real numbers on how many people in the US are shot each year with unregistered full auto weapons?

At any rate- I think you, I and the rest of the country should be more worried about convenience-store robbers than the mafia.

Any word on how often firearms are used in violent crime?
Very seldom...
Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS)indicate that between 1993 and 2001 approximately
26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations
were committed by offenders armed with a weapon. About 10%,
or 846,950 victimizations each year, involved a firearm.

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon
violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%.

Males, blacks and Hispanics, the young, and those with the
lowest annual household income were more vulnerable to
weapon violence in general and firearm violence in
particular than their respective counterparts.

For the 9-year period beginning with 1993, 23% of white
victims of violence and 36% of black victims were victims
of violence involving an offender armed with a weapon.
About 7% of white victims and 17% of black victims were
involved in incidents in which an offender was armed with
a gun.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

1% is certainly an acceptable minimum.

+1 NFA!

1% is certainly an acceptable minimum.

+1 NFA!

Now what percentage of firearms are there in comparison to fully auto weapons available? What percentage of crimes were committed w/ legally owned fully autos before the NFA?

Lots of questions before causality can be claimed.

Machine-guns do have an advantage in war and war-like situations. You can argue about the likelihood, but don't argue usefulness. Otherwise, infantry guns wouldn't be fully automatic. If I was turning a corner, I'd much rather my gun by fully automatic, then have to keep pressing after I miss the first shot. Supressing fire is another one. There are many reasons where it could come in handy.

I'm fine with strict restrictions on automatic weapons, such as heavy background searches(a wait period not extending over a week), not allowing the sale with any violent crime or firearm crime history at all, etc. But restrictions on age of the gun, and having to let the police decide whether or not to allow you, without having to give a set reason? Having to shell out lots of cash to get it, other than just the gun's price?

Now what percentage of firearms are there in comparison to fully auto weapons available? What percentage of crimes were committed w/ legally owned fully autos before the NFA?

Lots of questions before causality can be claimed.


The NFA has been in effect since almost the dawn of the submachine gun and assault rifle, so it is hard to gague what the numbers would be had these weapons not been regulated.

There is a clear logical causality at play between restricting the number of automatic weapons available and reducing the number of people killed by them.

Don't tell me about reading comprehension, assfuck.
A rock is not built with the express purpose of propelling small pieces of metal through flesh and armour. A knife is a useful tool. The rest of what you said is, without a doubt, stupid fucking bullshit.
Learn to express yourselves without excessive swearing.

The NFA has been in effect since almost the dawn of the submachine gun and assault rifle, so it is hard to gague what the numbers would be had these weapons not been regulated.

Actually, the SMG had been around for nearly 20 years by then and machine guns even longer. Assualt Rifles hadn't been invented yet. The NFA also included sawed-off shotguns. It was basically an attempt to strengthen laws against the mafia who were regularly using such weapons in crime.

There is a clear logical causality at play between restricting the number of automatic weapons available and reducing the number of people killed by them.[/QUOTE]

The NFA only made it restrictive to legally own such weapons. It did not reduce the numbers of weapons available.
What reduced the actual numbers was better policing and border controls.

Like I said. I find the 1934 NFA to be an acceptable line but do not consider it a solid defense of registration programs

Actually, the SMG had been around for nearly 20 years by then and machine guns even longer. Assualt Rifles hadn't been invented yet. The NFA also included sawed-off shotguns. It was basically an attempt to strengthen laws against the mafia who were regularly using such weapons in crime.

There is a clear logical causality at play between restricting the number of automatic weapons available and reducing the number of people killed by them.

The NFA only made it restrictive to legally own such weapons. It did not reduce the numbers of weapons available.
What reduced the actual numbers was better policing and border controls.

Like I said. I find the 1934 NFA to be an acceptable line but do not consider it a solid defense of registration programs[/QUOTE]


I agree with your final point, it shouldnt be applied as a model to all weapons but it strikes a reasonable balance for the things that it already registers.

Not that I want to get involved in the obvious "no gun control is sensible gun control" debate I can only assume is going on with the pro-gun folks, but has Deep Kimchi related how no gun control makes states safer? If so, please refer to link in my signature.

Not that I want to get involved in the obvious "no gun control is sensible gun control" debate I can only assume is going on with the pro-gun folks, but has Deep Kimchi related how no gun control makes states safer? If so, please refer to link in my signature.

That's nice. Now can you show me where anyone said "no gun control is sensible gun control" or are you just making the usual trollish red-herrings and strawmen attacks as is your want here?

That's nice. Now can you show me where anyone said "no gun control is sensible gun control" or are you just making the usual trollish red-herrings and strawmen attacks as is your want here?
I've seen it in other gun control threads threads and I said I assumed, I never made any assertion that it is what is actually going on.

You don't need to aim that well (and most people in that sort of panic situation couldn't anyways), the bullets won't go through walls and kill your neighbour's neighbour and as far as physical stopping power is concerned, it'll probably have one up on a machine pistol.



Check out that Box 'o' Truth website that DesignatedMarksman posted above. You do need to aim a shotgun at 'inside' distances (unless you live in a cavernous mansion) and any shot that is likely to do you much good will also easily traverse interior walls and retain lethal momentum.

Not trying to bully you here, but I thought it important to clear that up.

One other thing: one of the main benefits to automatic fire in a light, personal weapon (capable of being carried and fired in the hand or on the shoulder) has little to do with increased lethality.

When you fire an automatic weapon, it is very difficult to remain on-target after more than just a few rounds. The first few rounds will go where you were originally aiming, everything after that will go high; the longer you fire, the more you are spraying all over the place.

The benefit is that it can make the enemy duck, and stop shooting at you/your team for a few seconds, allowing for movement, etc. on the part of your team.

Contrary to what's shown in movies, full-auto fire is just a very quick way to burn up the ammo you're carrying. If you don't know about firearms, ammunition weighs alot more than you would probably think - you can't carry thousands of rounds with you and still be able to walk, much less crouch, run, and jump. This is why assault rifles (not 'assualt weapons') usually have a selector switch, where the shooter can change between semi-auto, burst, and full-auto. Hence the more appropriate term, select-fire weapons.

It's still alot of fun on an outdoor range, though.

You don't have to have committed prior offenses to plan a crime. There are no entrance requirements for the criminal fraternity.

Pre-crime is wrong. Why should I, a law abiding citizen, be punished for something a criminal does with an inanimate object?


Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my AR-15.

What are opinions on the NFA gun control regime and Reagan's 1986 Assault Weapons Ban?

Roughly, the NFA requires payment of a $200 tax, an OK from a head of law enforcement, registration and a background check in order to own a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, gun suppressor or a few other things.

The 1986 ban made it so that only machine guns produced or imported before 1986 could be owned by civilians.

As a result, it is costly and time consuming - though by no means impossible or illegal - to purchase a machine gun as a civilian.

Because the supply of machine guns is fixed (declining, actually), prices are quite high.

This accomplishes a sensible aim for gun control - increasing the expense, value and hassle of getting a machine gun or silencer though not making it impossible for law-abiding citizens.


Personally, I disagree with the 1986 laws. I feel that, if select fire weapons need to be limited in quantity, it could be better done by limiting their manufacture instead of having a cut-off date for the NFA firearms I can purchase.

Of course, if I really wanted to cheat the system, I could get a manufacturing FFL license with SOT, so I could own post '86 dealers samples. It'd cost me $1,000 a year in license renewal fees, though.

You do need to aim a shotgun at 'inside' distances (unless you live in a cavernous mansion)...
Answer: Saw it off! :D

It's not a true assault rifle, although it's a huge step up from a pistol caliber weapon.

Rifle calibers>Pistol calibers www.boxotruth.com

One will peferate body armor, one won't. One will also go out hundreds of yards, one won't. One will also penetrate cars readily, one wont. You guess.

:p

If you're gonna get a pistol caliber weapon, get something nice like an Mp5 or Uzi, or even an M16 lower/RDIAS and run a 9mm upper on it.
Unless said pistol caliber weapon is something like the American 180. Unless you're wearing a vest with strike plates, at 25 or 30 rounds per second with negligible recoil it'll penetrate any vest like a hot knife through butter. That doesn't even begin to count the dual-mount version. Not to mention the neglible recoil makes for great accuracy at short to medium ranges.

Answer: Saw it off! :D

That might help. But then there's that NFA weapons thing again - D'oh! Gotta keep that barrel at least 18" or it's EVIL!!!

You want to really get some spread quick? Try sending your buckshot down a rifled slug barrel. :D

Of course, the less lead you have hitting the bad guy threatening you, the less damage, but it might make him think twice... one would hope.

Unless said pistol caliber weapon is something like the American 180. Unless you're wearing a vest with strike plates, at 25 or 30 rounds per second with negligible recoil it'll penetrate any vest like a hot knife through butter. That doesn't even begin to count the dual-mount version. Not to mention the neglible recoil makes for great accuracy at short to medium ranges.

Won't go through anything with a strike plate in it.

IBA, for example.

Won't go through anything with a strike plate in it.

IBA, for example.

Welcome back.

Welcome back.
Never a dull moment!

Won't go through anything with a strike plate in it.

IBA, for example.
I said that. In which case you just cut your opponents legs out from under them.