Should Machine guns (fully automatic weapons) be legal for average citizens to own?

[TemplarKormac]

Freedom of speech also does not give a person the right to slander or libel someone. So, there ARE limits.

You're a jackass.

See? I used my free speech to slander you, and nobody can punish me for that. So there ARE NOT limits. When you take your speech and turn it into action, that's when there are limits. Such as is the case with gun control. While there are certain reasonable limits, yes, reasonable, the overall limit on owning a firearm for self defense is well, unlimited.

Deal with it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sometimes it's when one person's rights come into conflict with another person's rights. But often, it's simply a matter of common sense.

Wow.

So what you're telling me is that it is "common sense" to limit the rights of others because they somehow conflict with someone else's rights?

...

No words.

 

[BluesLegend]

People talk about the 2nd Amendment as if it's somehow sacrosanct. But as anyone can tell you, not all weapons are legal for average Americans to own. I would say that's for good reason. Or as George H. W. Bush (or Dana Carvey) might have said, it wouldn't be prudent.

Just in case you need a reminder, think back to those days of Prohibition when criminals routinely used machine guns in the furtherance of their crimes.

What it proves, of course, is the 2nd Amendment can coexist with limited gun restrictions in the interest of public safety. However, maybe some 2nd Amendment absolutists have a different view and believe that average Americans should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons without the sever restrictions placed on them today.

What say you?

Pay the tax and it is legal to own a fully automatic firearm. I see no need for one, personally, but far be it from me to decide what others need... or want.

Who needs a machine gun?

Why is it YOUR BUSINESS deciding who needs or does not need something that is completely legal?

That's how gun control freaks roll, busy bodies who think its their job to decide what someone else needs or not.

 

[BluesLegend]

Should Machine guns (fully automatic weapons) be legal for average citizens to own?

OP its already perfectly legal to own fully automatic weapons talk about your thread FAIL.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

People talk about the 2nd Amendment as if it's somehow sacrosanct. But as anyone can tell you, not all weapons are legal for average Americans to own. I would say that's for good reason. Or as George H. W. Bush (or Dana Carvey) might have said, it wouldn't be prudent.

Just in case you need a reminder, think back to those days of Prohibition when criminals routinely used machine guns in the furtherance of their crimes.

What it proves, of course, is the 2nd Amendment can coexist with limited gun restrictions in the interest of public safety. However, maybe some 2nd Amendment absolutists have a different view and believe that average Americans should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons without the sever [sic] restrictions placed on them today.

What say you?

As flawed as it was, due to the fact that only one side was present to present its arguments before the Supreme Court, and due also to manipulations and threats exerted against the court by the corrupt President at the time, one thing that the Supreme Court did get right in the 1939 U.S. vs. Miller ruling is that the weapons most essentially protected under the Second Amendment would be those suitable for use in connection with participation in a militia.

In modern context, this would, at the very least, mean weapons comparable to those that we issue to our soldiers, such as an M-16 or an M-4, capable of both semiautomatic and fully-automatic operation.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

According to the SCOTUS, your version of gun restrictions does not, cannot and will not coexist with the Second Amendment. You can cry all you want about it, but the 2nd is sacrosanct because the courts have said so. Consistently.

No, it is not sacrosanct because of anything the courts rule or do not rule. The entire Constitution is sacrosanct, being the highest law of this nation, and the foundation on which our entire system of government and laws is built. As part of this Constitution, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct along with the whole of the Constitution.

 

[westwall]

People talk about the 2nd Amendment as if it's somehow sacrosanct. But as anyone can tell you, not all weapons are legal for average Americans to own. I would say that's for good reason. Or as George H. W. Bush (or Dana Carvey) might have said, it wouldn't be prudent.

Just in case you need a reminder, think back to those days of Prohibition when criminals routinely used machine guns in the furtherance of their crimes.

What it proves, of course, is the 2nd Amendment can coexist with limited gun restrictions in the interest of public safety. However, maybe some 2nd Amendment absolutists have a different view and believe that average Americans should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons without the sever restrictions placed on them today.

What say you?

Absolutely. As a class of weapon they are the safest BY FAR, of anything else out there. Since they were regulated in 1934, the hundreds of thousands of legal machine guns have been used to commit a crime.........ONCE. And it was a cop that did it.

 

[Sallow]

Freedom of speech also does not give a person the right to slander or libel someone. So, there ARE limits.

You're a jackass.

See? I used my free speech to slander you, and nobody can punish me for that. So there ARE NOT limits. When you take your speech and turn it into action, that's when there are limits. Such as is the case with gun control. While there are certain reasonable limits, yes, reasonable, the overall limit on owning a firearm for self defense is well, unlimited.

Deal with it.

 

[ninja007]

lib logic- law abiding citizens, mostly conservatives cannot own any gun they want to protect family and home out of necessity.

but any woman, mostly liberals, can choose to kill her baby before its born- almost all the time because of convienance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The US is a nuclear power. To carry the crackpot theory that individual citizens should have the right to be as well armed as the military,

then the individual possession of nuclear weapons should be legal and protected by the 2nd amendment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lib logic- law abiding citizens, mostly conservatives cannot own any gun they want to protect family and home out of necessity.

but any woman, mostly liberals, can choose to kill her baby before its born- almost all the time because of convienance.

Ronald Reagan took away your right to have a machine gun made after 1986, not liberals.

 

[IsaacNewton]

People talk about the 2nd Amendment as if it's somehow sacrosanct. But as anyone can tell you, not all weapons are legal for average Americans to own. I would say that's for good reason. Or as George H. W. Bush (or Dana Carvey) might have said, it wouldn't be prudent.

Just in case you need a reminder, think back to those days of Prohibition when criminals routinely used machine guns in the furtherance of their crimes.

What it proves, of course, is the 2nd Amendment can coexist with limited gun restrictions in the interest of public safety. However, maybe some 2nd Amendment absolutists have a different view and believe that average Americans should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons without the sever restrictions placed on them today.

What say you?

American citizens need to be able to own all small arms of the American military and police.....so if you don't want the civilians to own fully auto weapons...take them from the small arms inventory of the military......they have actual machine guns so their rifles can simply be semi auto...it is more accurate anyway.....

We are the bosses of the military and the police...they are not our masters.....so if they have a weapon it is only because we paid for it...and if they get it, so do we. That is how you make sure the govenrment has less of an advantage over us....

Yes we should have fully auto machine guns, but they can keep their tanks, attack helicopters, jets, battleships, aircraft carriers, and nukes.

No its the machine guns that will put us on an even footing.

I mean batshit is batshit. How do people actually convince themselves of what you said. That is some David Copperfield feat of magic.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

People talk about the 2nd Amendment as if it's somehow sacrosanct. But as anyone can tell you, not all weapons are legal for average Americans to own. I would say that's for good reason. Or as George H. W. Bush (or Dana Carvey) might have said, it wouldn't be prudent.

Just in case you need a reminder, think back to those days of Prohibition when criminals routinely used machine guns in the furtherance of their crimes.

What it proves, of course, is the 2nd Amendment can coexist with limited gun restrictions in the interest of public safety. However, maybe some 2nd Amendment absolutists have a different view and believe that average Americans should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons without the sever restrictions placed on them today.

What say you?

American citizens need to be able to own all small arms of the American military and police.....so if you don't want the civilians to own fully auto weapons...take them from the small arms inventory of the military......they have actual machine guns so their rifles can simply be semi auto...it is more accurate anyway.....

We are the bosses of the military and the police...they are not our masters.....so if they have a weapon it is only because we paid for it...and if they get it, so do we. That is how you make sure the govenrment has less of an advantage over us....

Yes we should have fully auto machine guns, but they can keep their tanks, attack helicopters, jets, battleships, aircraft carriers, and nukes.

No its the machine guns that will put us on an even footing.

I mean batshit is batshit. How do people actually convince themselves of what you said. That is some David Copperfield feat of magic.

Meanwhile in the REAL world across the globe groups armed only with rifles pistols and in some cases less routinely defeat the US Military.

 

[The Rabbi]

lib logic- law abiding citizens, mostly conservatives cannot own any gun they want to protect family and home out of necessity.

but any woman, mostly liberals, can choose to kill her baby before its born- almost all the time because of convienance.

Ronald Reagan took away your right to have a machine gun made after 1986, not liberals.

Quit lying, asshole.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What say you?

Machine guns are legal under federal law and in most states.
Of all the legal machine guns in civilians hands, only one has ever been used in a crime, and that was by a police officer.
There's no sound reason to ban machine guns from civilian ownership.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who needs a machine gun?

What black woman needs to sit in the front of the bus?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Given a choice, a god fearing Christian theocrat would have a missile silo in the back yard.
And use it.

More mindless nonsense form the village useful idiot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We should legalize rocket launchers and grenades too. Hell, there's no reason why I can't have a few ICBM's in,my backyard. For my protection of course. And if you disagree you're a gun grabbing socialist.

I see you too seek the title of village useful Idiot.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

People talk about the 2nd Amendment as if it's somehow sacrosanct. But as anyone can tell you, not all weapons are legal for average Americans to own. I would say that's for good reason. Or as George H. W. Bush (or Dana Carvey) might have said, it wouldn't be prudent.

Just in case you need a reminder, think back to those days of Prohibition when criminals routinely used machine guns in the furtherance of their crimes.

What it proves, of course, is the 2nd Amendment can coexist with limited gun restrictions in the interest of public safety. However, maybe some 2nd Amendment absolutists have a different view and believe that average Americans should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons without the sever restrictions placed on them today.

What say you?

No. Full-auto weapons are designed for war when hosing down a battlefield isn't as objectionable as a city street with innocent bystanders everywhere. Can justify a semi-auto assault weapon pretty easily, but there's no justification for a civilian fully automatic anything.

 

[TheOldSchool]

We should legalize rocket launchers and grenades too. Hell, there's no reason why I can't have a few ICBM's in,my backyard. For my protection of course. And if you disagree you're a gun grabbing socialist.

I see you too seek the title of village useful Idiot.

Rocket launchers don't kill people. People kill people.