i am gonna start lobbying to get our right to own machineguns back!!!

[Dale00]

I support restoring our gun rights but keep in mind that "perception is reality." Can you imagine the field day that the left would have with a politician who supported legalizing MACHINE GUNS???


How exactly are you going to make this something people would understand and accept?

 

[WhiteyMacD]

I would love to see it, but it wont happen. PERIOD.

The group of people who value C3 and post 86 items is far to few to put enough pressure on federal law makers. Couple that with there are many people out there who favor gun ownership but are against SF firearms.

But whatever, good luck. If you need a sig on a petition, send it my way.

 

[ZombieHunter]

It will not happen unless states do what Montana has done, Circumvent the Federal Laws (See 10th Amendment) and Make your own Law that works for YOUR people, That is the only thing that will work as it has its own aura of safety and honesty to it.

All Guns made in The State of Montana that stay in the State of Montana once purchased by a legal resident of the State of Montana are exempt from all Federal Firearms Regulations, Stamp It, Sell It, and Shoot it.

 

[jbarnett]

It will not happen unless states do what Montana has done, Circumvent the Federal Laws (See 10th Amendment) and Make your own Law that works for YOUR people, That is the only thing that will work as it has its own aura of safety and honesty to it.

All Guns made in The State of Montana that stay in the State of Montana once purchased by a legal resident of the State of Montana are exempt from all Federal Firearms Regulations, Stamp It, Sell It, and Shoot it.

I wouldn't want to be the first few that try it.

 

[Dale00]

I hate to have been a wet blanket on this worthwhile idea, so let me try to redeem myself by throwing out some arguments in favor of making full auto weapons as easily available as semi-auto weapons. These are not all exactly on target for full auto, but not too far off either.

Anti - Expensive, $1,200 - $1,500 "assault weapons" are the weapon of choice for criminals.
Pro - A criminal's weapon of choice is whatever kind of gun he can buy. Statistics show that "assault weapons" are used in less than 2% of any gun related crime.

Anti - Assault weapons are too powerful for civilians to own.
Pro - Most hunting rifles have more power and better range than an "assault rifle". But the latter are better for home defense and combating multiple attackers common in urban crime.

Anti - Only the police need high capacity "clips" for their guns. There's no reason a civilian needs to shoot that many bullets.
Pro - Police operate in groups, with backup, radios and helicopters armed with infrared/night-vision systems, while civilians face their attackers alone, without backup and often in the dark.

http://hematite.com/dragon/gcviewpoint.html

Myth: Nobody needs an assault weapon

Fact: Recall the Rodney King riots in that anti-gun city of Los Angeles. Every major news network carried footage of Korean storeowners sitting on the roofs of their stores, armed with “assault weapons.” Those were the stores that did not get burned to the ground, and those were the people that were not dragged into the street and beaten by rioters. “You can’t get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working.

Fact: Ours is a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.

Gun Facts, Guy Smith http://www.gunfacts.info/


Like everyone else here, I wish I could afford to buy and feed a full auto weapon.

 

[101ABN327]

That was Ronald Regan and the NRA. The FOPA of 1986 was a good piece of legislation for the gun owner except for the Hughes amendment that got tacked on at the 12th hour.

I stand corrected... That was in Reagan's term and one of a couple of things that soil his legacy. However I still stand by my previous assessment of George H.W. Bush...

 

[jdgabbard]

I wouldn't want to be the first few that try it.

Get the law pass, I will. Federal Law has no restrictions for persons building firearms for themselfs, as long as they meet regulatory restrictions and are not transfered to others with exception of inherited by family members.

If the state passes the law, then it would technically be built in Oklahoma, by a citizen, for his personal possession. I'm good to go, and won't take long to tool up for production once my legal battle is won. Which wouldn't cost much, as I've got two of the finest lawyers this side of the mississippi working pro-bono for me. One of which is VERY major in this state....

 

[Werewolf]

Get the law pass, I will. Federal Law has no restrictions for persons building firearms for themselfs, as long as they meet regulatory restrictions and are not transfered to others with exception of inherited by family members.

If the state passes the law, then it would technically be built in Oklahoma, by a citizen, for his personal possession. I'm good to go, and won't take long to tool up for production once my legal battle is won. Which wouldn't cost much, as I've got two of the finest lawyers this side of the mississippi working pro-bono for me. One of which is VERY major in this state....

What you refer to does not include Class III weapons.

You cannot make even for your own use fully auto weapons. There's a California guy who tried that 10 or 15 years ago and used your argument. He lost. Don't remember the case or whether it went to the SCOTUS or not but the guy spent time in a federal lockup for his efforts. The case did make it to the 9th circuit where the disenting opinion was surprisingly pro 2nd amendment re: the way most gun guys interpret it.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

Heck yeah...$350-500 mac's, $2500 M16's and HK's. who would have thought an M-16 would bring $12K...jeezus, they are cool, but that is crazy.

I remember those days. I turned down an HK MP-5 for $900.00 in 1985 because I thought it was just too much to pay for a gun.

 

[mfranco]

I would love to have the FA option, but i don't think i could afford to feed my weapons if i did.