Court Ruling on Machinegun Possession

Ranb said:
Walmart sells guns now. What is wrong with Walmart adding an SOT to their FFL and selling NFA firearms?

There is nothing wrong with the average Joe who can own any other gun and wants to own a machine gun. The average Joe gun owner can just do that now if they live in a state that allows them and willing to pay the higher price.
Click to expand...

Or land mine or ManPAD make the second amendment mean something again
 
The Great Zaganza said:
A question for gun enthusiasts: I understand that it's not hard to learn how to service a handgun or rifle to make sure it works when you need it.
What about an actual machine gun?
How easy is it to mess that up, and what are the consequences of trying to use a badly maintained one?
Click to expand...
A machine gun is easier to overheat and ruin certain parts, especially the barrel. An overheated barrel that is worn smooth on the interior will just be inaccurate. If the bolt is compromised, then it could fire out of battery, burst the receiver and injure the shooter.
 
Hercules56 said:
There is no civil right to specifically own a machine gun.
Click to expand...
The 1st Amendment was eventually accepted as protecting other forms of speech and the press; such as films and sound recordings. It should be no shock that firearms other than muzzle loaded and breech loaded rifles, shotguns and handguns around in 1789 would also be included in the protections provided by the 2nd Amendment.
 
gabeygoat said:
I imagine cost and access is a reason. I mean, that's also why I think militaries use machine guns. it would seem there's some sort of killing efficiency. otherwise, why do we spend so much money on these arms, when we could just get some 22 rifles.
Click to expand...

If machine guns were available at pre-1986 prices and a person did not have to obtain ATF approval to buy one, then they might be used as often in mass shootings as semi-auto rifles are used now. But unless the NFA of 1934 is amended, machine guns will always be more expensive and require ATF approval to possess.
 
Andy_Ross said:
As I also mentioned, the main difference between full automatic and semi is the trigger interrupt can be switched out of the way on a full automatic. It only needs to be one part extra.
Click to expand...

Well, even that's really only for select fire. If you go ONLY full auto, i.e., without a semi-auto setting, it's actually one part less.

I mean, the simplest SMG only needs a bolt and a spring, as the only moving parts. Not even a trigger mechanism. Just pull the bolt back and release, it then keeps firing until it emptied the mag. See for example the Sputter Gun.
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
As far as I know, only one person has used their registered machine gun to commit murder in the USA.
Click to expand...

This might be true*. If it is, it is an argument in favor of continuing a ban on automatic weapons.


* it’s hard to tell, as gun nuts lie almost as often as they talk, but I suspect you of not being a gun nut.
 
Ranb said:
As far as I know, only one person has used their registered machine gun to commit murder in the USA.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's for the same reason that muggers don't use 16th century samurai swords. It's unnecessarily cost prohibitive.
 
Ranb said:
The 1st Amendment was eventually accepted as protecting other forms of speech and the press; such as films and sound recordings. It should be no shock that firearms other than muzzle loaded and breech loaded rifles, shotguns and handguns around in 1789 would also be included in the protections provided by the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Techincally Arms means military weapons not firearms. Hence why we need to get rid of all those bs limitation on buying land mines and anti air systems.
 
Stacyhs said:
Some people have very strange priorities. Owning a machine gun is one of the strangest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but some people want to own a steam train, or any of a thousand other weird things they have no use for. Some would spend the same money on an artwork like a statue, and that doesn't even do anything.

I think I get what you're saying, which is there's a different type of worry about why a person wants that particular thing, and that's the worry that wanting to possess it might mean they fantasize about using it for its intended purpose.

But their wanting to own weird stuff that I can't imagine wanting doesn't in itself provide much of an argument for banning people from spending their money as they please.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Yeah, but some people want to own a steam train, or any of a thousand other weird things they have no use for. Some would spend the same money on an artwork like a statue, and that doesn't even do anything.
Click to expand...

Only one of those is specifically designed for killing as many people as possible in the shortest period of time.
 
HansMustermann said:
You're thinking too small. I want a Tsar Bomba nuke : p
Click to expand...

Tsar Bomba was impractical. Too big for ICBMs. Too big to be dropped from a safe distance by a bomber. At a time when the US was mastering the art of smaller, more efficient nukes, and more accurate vehicles for them, Moscow had to settle for just building bigger nukes. Nukes so big they weren't actually effective as weapons anymore.

What you really want is a B61 dial-a-yield nuke.
 
I just want a GAU-8 Avenger to handle some pesky squirrels. I don't even need the DU shells.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Only one of those is specifically designed for killing as many people as possible in the shortest period of time.
Click to expand...

Sure. I'm not saying that isn't a major consideration, only that "I can't imagine anyone wanting to own one of those" isn't really much of an argument on its own.

If I appear in any way flippantly unconcerned about the weapons America lets its citizens buy that could be because I'm outside their effective range.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Sure. I'm not saying that isn't a major consideration, only that "I can't imagine anyone wanting to own one of those" isn't really much of an argument on its own.

If I appear in any way flippantly unconcerned about the weapons America lets its citizens buy that could be because I'm outside their effective range.
Click to expand...

I can see a good reason for owning particular historic weapons
 
Disbelief said:
I just want a GAU-8 Avenger to handle some pesky squirrels. I don't even need the DU shells.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, drop that to something more like .50, and you actually CAN legally own a Gatling gun. At least as long as it's crank operated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom