NFA Weapons Requirment, Why? - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: NFA Weapons Requirment, Why?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    286
    In kansas we are allowed to own both silencers and.full auto. Tax stamps are expensive but we can own them. Problem with full autos is cost. You could give me.one.and.it.would nevee get shot... Ammo is too expensive.

  2.   
  3. I basically agree but with a little different view. When the founders wrote the 2nd amendment they were looking at weapons they had available. Notice there is no provision that says except cannons or explosives (black powder). I am ok with a reasonable background check but it should never take longer than one week and weapons should be judged on result of misuse not type. You wouldnít want a neighbor storing cases of dynamite one hundred feet from your kidís window. But switch that to a ranch or farm where they have an explosives shack half a mile away and the situation changes. Silencers canít harm anyone accidentally but yet are NFA listed. You couldnít have a nuke simply because the average person would kill himself and others just from the radioactive core. Remove the core and you can have all the nukes you want with once again the only restriction is safely storing the explosives used. All NFA items are a judgment call and that could be handled with a local review board of some type.

  4. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Turkules77 View Post
    Exactly, but at some point a line has to be drawn. The military uses Grenade Launchers, Uranium Tank Piercing Rounds, Nuclear bombs etc.. I just don't think the public needs to have these types of weapons. Now don't get me wrong, I have fired Autos before and loved it, when I have the chance to purchase one, I plan on it. But I can see being somewhat restrictive in who gets them. I am not for more government, but I do understand the need for the government to draw the line somewhere when it comes to weapons that can cause some serious destruction.
    Agreed. Some things were made for the sole purpose of destruction and were made to destroy things at a magnitude that no ordinary person needs access to. Machine guns fed with a belt do not belong in just any average Joe's hands, neither do bombs or grenades. I would love to own a machine gun, but I cant say I would like any other person out there to be owning one too.

    Look at how hard it was for the Hollywood police to stop the bank robbers in the 90's with full auto Ak-47s. The police were outgunned, and unless you want your taxes to go up so we can provide our police with equal or stronger weaponry than belt fed machine guns, then you might not want the public to have access to them.

    In regards to silencers, I dont see any legitimate need for them. The only people that would want to hide the fact that they are discharging a gun are people who are breaking the law. If any of us shoot our guns, we should have no reason to hide it because we should be acting in accordance with the law.

    Im all for gun rights dont get me wrong, but machine guns, bombs, and silencers should have tougher restrictions. They are all meant for destroying things quickly and effectively, and we dont need those for self defense or for hunting. They would be fun, but not necessary.

  5. RE: Silencers

    Some of us already have hearing loss due to reasons other than firearms. We don't want to lose the rest.
    As another added benefit to helping protect hearing for the shooters, silencers make gun ranges better neighbors.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    Agreed. Some things were made for the sole purpose of destruction and were made to destroy things at a magnitude that no ordinary person needs access to. Machine guns fed with a belt do not belong in just any average Joe's hands, neither do bombs or grenades. I would love to own a machine gun, but I cant say I would like any other person out there to be owning one too.

    Look at how hard it was for the Hollywood police to stop the bank robbers in the 90's with full auto Ak-47s. The police were outgunned, and unless you want your taxes to go up so we can provide our police with equal or stronger weaponry than belt fed machine guns, then you might not want the public to have access to them.

    In regards to silencers, I dont see any legitimate need for them. The only people that would want to hide the fact that they are discharging a gun are people who are breaking the law. If any of us shoot our guns, we should have no reason to hide it because we should be acting in accordance with the law.

    Im all for gun rights dont get me wrong, but machine guns, bombs, and silencers should have tougher restrictions. They are all meant for destroying things quickly and effectively, and we dont need those for self defense or for hunting. They would be fun, but not necessary.
    Is this a serious post? Do you actually consider yourself a gun rights supporter? Or are you one of those guys who wants to sip cognac and look at his Silver Pigeon shotgun and those dead animal wall trophies?

    I own a machine gun. In fact, I'll have two (!) soon. I know people with 30 of them. I've never killed anyone. I've had one speeding ticket in my life - my worst offense. I own four suppressors too. I haven't assassinated or killed anyone with them either. Have you ever heard a gun with a suppressor fired? You do realize it does NOT sound like an air gun, a la the movies? On average, they'll still be around 130dBs.

    Machine guns are meant for suppression, not destroying things "quickly and effectively." Suppressors are designed to reduce noise, not eliminate it. My girlfriend will only shoot suppressed because it reduces the concussion and makes it far more comfortable for her.

    Those guys in Hollywood? They modified those rifles illegally - not purchased at your local Uncle Clyde's gun shop. You know how many people they killed? NONE. You know how many people were murdered since 1934 with a legally owned machine gun? 1.

    Then again, I guess I should come at it from that "self defense" point of view; you know, that rational, sane view where we don't have those "high capacity magazines" because you really only need 7 or 8 shots for self defense - if even that. Hell, you should only have a revolver I think. Six shots is plenty. Your shotguns should be maximum double barrel because when you hunt, you only NEED two shots.

    It's not like the 2nd Amendment and a lot of other constitutional protections were designed to protect you from your government.


  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Abacab View Post
    Is this a serious post? Do you actually consider yourself a gun rights supporter? Or are you one of those guys who wants to sip cognac and look at his Silver Pigeon shotgun and those dead animal wall trophies?

    I own a machine gun. In fact, I'll have two (!) soon. I know people with 30 of them. I've never killed anyone. I've had one speeding ticket in my life - my worst offense. I own four suppressors too. I haven't assassinated or killed anyone with them either. Have you ever heard a gun with a suppressor fired? You do realize it does NOT sound like an air gun, a la the movies? On average, they'll still be around 130dBs.

    Machine guns are meant for suppression, not destroying things "quickly and effectively." Suppressors are designed to reduce noise, not eliminate it. My girlfriend will only shoot suppressed because it reduces the concussion and makes it far more comfortable for her.

    Those guys in Hollywood? They modified those rifles illegally - not purchased at your local Uncle Clyde's gun shop. You know how many people they killed? NONE. You know how many people were murdered since 1934 with a legally owned machine gun? 1.

    Then again, I guess I should come at it from that "self defense" point of view; you know, that rational, sane view where we don't have those "high capacity magazines" because you really only need 7 or 8 shots for self defense - if even that. Hell, you should only have a revolver I think. Six shots is plenty. Your shotguns should be maximum double barrel because when you hunt, you only NEED two shots.

    It's not like the 2nd Amendment and a lot of other constitutional protections were designed to protect you from your government.

    There is indeed a certain irony in his statement because essentially he is stating what the anti gun people say about the "normal" guns we all own just for NFA items. Personally I don't feel I need any right now but I am not concerned about anybody else gettings some legally.

  8. #27
    It really irks me when people say that they are for "gun rights" But they don't see why people need Suppressors or SBS/SBR, high capacity mags or that others should have the right to carry concealed. Get off the dang fence!
    just my humble opinion

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Doc Mustang View Post
    I agree with you in principle. However, any attempt to open the books on full auto will meet opposition from several fronts. First would be all of the anti-gun folk. You think they have issues with "assault rifles" wait until the term REALLY encompasses fully automatic weapons.
    Second we would face opposition from owners of Class III weapons. The moment a law is passed to re-open the books on machine guns the value of their weopons will drop. If I owned an M-2 or an M-60, and saw its value plummet to 1/10 of its previous value, I would be very upset.

    Some Class III dealers would likely oppose the law as well. Currently the market for Full Auto is relatively unknown. It is obvious from the current prices that there is some significant pent up demand, but how much? Would sales volume increase sufficiently to make up for the loss of revenue? Some would be willing to gamble yes, others likely not so much. Class III dealers with significant stocks of pre-'86 machine guns would stand to lose a good deal of capital as well.

    Additionally, you would face significant legislative hurtles. No lawmaker wants to take the risk of opening the books on machine guns. Restricting them is easy. The victims of restriction are largely invisible. The moment some dumb bastard shoots up a school, church, convent, or shopping mall with a belt fed weapon, any lawmaker who signed off on a bill easing restrictions would face a difficult re-election cycle. We want lawmakers in office who would be likely to vote for this type of bill, but actually passing it could be a disaster that has the potential set back firearms rights. 2A fundamentalists may not like this line of reasoning but it is a political necessity.

    Finally, without some significant back up from the courts prohibiting the legistature from passing further restrictions as a result of some potential future incident with automatic weapons, a repeal on restrictions would make no sense and could be very counter productive. The most gun freindly members of the supreme court, Scalia and Thomas are both on record as stating that restrictions on machine guns are a type of "reasonable" gun law that they would support. Until the environment in the courts change, easing these restrictions could be a disaster for gun rights.

    Again I would like to emphasize that I do not like the pollitical reality that surronds this issue. I strongly support 2A rights and believe that it truly is the God given right of every person to be able to defend themselves by the best means available including automatic weapons. I believe the responsibility for criminal acts lies with the criminal and not the tool. I also believe that the govenment over steps its authority when it does such things. The firearms laws in this country are, for the most part , an infringement on the plain reading of the Constitution and those who passed them violated their oaths to support the same. However, I also understand that my views are likely to be in the minority and I must act as such.
    So far I have seen some good sensible replyís to my question. Then I have seen many that make no sense. Bottom line is simple, either you want your gun rights fully and are willing to work for that goal or you go at it like Doc, already defeated. We have basically won the first round for CCW access. There is no reason that the same could not be done with NFA items. As I stated here in Washington we already won a battle for NFA rights because we were willing to fight it. First steps have been accomplished in DC and many other places against draconian gun laws because gun owners in those locations took on the fight. Get the NRA and GOA to lead and changes can happen. It won't be overnight but it can be done. That has already been proven.

  10. NFA Requirments

    Revenue generation...need to make a bloated payroll

  11. There is another point to keep in mind. Both sides of the isle are going for immigration reform. When that happens and it will, the so called Right will forever be neutered and will lose all power. Think what will happen to your gun rights when 80 percent of the Supreme Court is extreme left wing liberals. The rules that now are NFA will be mild compared what that single shot 22 will need for you to own it. When that time comes you will only have two choices, act like an original class American or be disarmed. Time grows short.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast