CDZ What is the difference between a Machine Gun and an AR-15?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by MarathonMike, Aug 10, 2019.

  1. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    89,673
    Thanks Received:
    16,585
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN...Born in Missoula MT
    Ratings:
    +55,432
    Not all fully automatic guns are classified as machine guns.
    The M-4 fires a 3 round burst...as did the M16A2. You couldn't just hold the trigger down and expend the entire mag.

    [​IMG]
    "A machine gun is a fully automatic mounted or portable firearm designed to fire rifle cartridges in rapid succession from an ammunition belt or magazine. Not all fully automatic firearms are machine guns. Submachine guns, rifles, assault rifles, battle rifles, shotguns, pistols or cannons may be capable of fully automatic fire, but are not designed for sustained fire. As a class of military rapid-fire guns, machine guns are fully automatic weapons designed to be used as support weapons and generally used when attached to a mount or fired from the ground on a bipod or tripod. Many machine guns also use belt feeding and open bolt operation, features not normally found on rifles." Machine gun - Wikipedia
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. MarathonMike
    Offline

    MarathonMike Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Messages:
    14,513
    Thanks Received:
    4,411
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    The Southwestern Desert
    Ratings:
    +26,126
    You know way more than I do, but how I read the NFA is that the Feds could not take your machine gun (rifle or whatever) away. The worst that would happen is they could levy a big tax on you. Certainly not great but that is much different than gun confiscation. Correct me if I'm wrong.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    52,669
    Thanks Received:
    10,984
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +37,649
    Wrong.

    The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating AR platform rifles, it has never held that such weapons are in common use.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    52,669
    Thanks Received:
    10,984
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +37,649
    There are no laws - Federal, state, or local - that authorize confiscation.
     
  5. WinterBorn
    Offline

    WinterBorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    29,904
    Thanks Received:
    4,391
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +16,620
    That was the way the NFA worked, as far as I know. The $200 tax has been the same since the NFA was passed. People complain about the high tax stamp now, but in 1934 it was a fortune.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    74,993
    Thanks Received:
    13,662
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +56,116

    And you know that isn't true....

    Scalia wrote this in Friedman v Highland Park....


    Keep in mind there are now over 18 million of these rifles in private hands...

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


    That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

    Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

    The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

    Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
     
  7. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    24,819
    Thanks Received:
    2,308
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Where I can see you, but you can't see me
    Ratings:
    +7,444
    See below.
    The AR15 doesn't have the option at the 3:00 position.
    Thus, its not a machine-gun and the NFA1934 does not apply.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    24,819
    Thanks Received:
    2,308
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Where I can see you, but you can't see me
    Ratings:
    +7,444
    This is a lie.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Not2BSubjugated
    Offline

    Not2BSubjugated Callous Individualist

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,528
    Thanks Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    In a mysanthropic malaise
    Ratings:
    +1,235
    Considering that the fully auto/3 round burst rifles in question can all be switched to semi auto, no, the AR15 is not MORE deadly than an M16 or an M4. Arguably equally deadly given the proper scenario. That said, even 3 round and fully auto have their lethal uses. Full auto against a single target is going to be less effective than semi, generally speaking, because semi auto allows relatively easy repetitive hits on that target. The full auto fires faster, but is hard to control, so will largely waste ammo. However, you get up close to a crowd of civilians and let loose 700 rpm out of an M4, a shooter can do a lot of damage before those people have time to scatter. Once they do, said shooter can simply hit the toggle to semi auto and aim carefully at the single targets. Full auto and 3 shot burst also offer a number of tactical options if a mass shooter decides to fight it out with the first police on the scene.

    Ultimately, if the M16 and the M4 can do everything an AR15 can do, then no, the AR15 isn't MORE deadly. The added options of 3 shot and full auto, situationally specific though they may be, still makes actual assault rifles significantly more dangerous than rifles that are semi auto only.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
  10. Not2BSubjugated
    Offline

    Not2BSubjugated Callous Individualist

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,528
    Thanks Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    In a mysanthropic malaise
    Ratings:
    +1,235
    Top result on a google search, took me roughly as long as it takes to type, "machine gun firing rate" into the search bar.

    Typical cyclic rates of fire are 600–900 RPM for assault rifles, 1,000-1,100 RPM in some cases, 900-1,200 RPM for submachine guns and machine pistols, and 600-1,500 RPM for machine guns.

    2 rounds per second? No. If your average shooter, at the low end, can get 10 rounds per second out of that AR, then we might be talking.

    If 2 rounds per second qualifies as serving the same intent as a machine gun, then all semi automatic weapons are machine guns.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1

Share This Page