Poll: Should the NFA be Repealed?

[Buzzgun]

Have you ever owned or extensively used a machine gun??

 

[vvvvvvv]

Ok i voted yes, but i feel that i should qualify my "yes" and my opinion may rub a few people the wrong way. First i agree with the idea that if a criminal type wants something restricted they will aquire it, the laws mainly only affect the law abiding. I do feel that regulating SBR is unnecessary. I feel that SBS regulations could afford to be significantly softened or removed as well.

However, I do NOT have an issue with regulation of silenced and full auto weapons. I know this is what most people would like to be able to get without restriction, but i feel that these are the only 2 (besides the destructive weapons) that actually pose a significant danger even in the possession of a normally law abiding citizen.

My reasoning is this, if a law abiding citizen runs into a traumatic period, develops a mental issue or their firearm is aquired by someone close to them for nefarious purposes (i.e. troubled child with plans to shoot up a school, mentally ill family member, close friend or relative with fanatic views, etc) these are the 2 that pose extremely more significant dangers. Also, by regulating them, it restricts lawful users from selling to another individual that may not be quite as law abiding. While SBS and SBR are more concealable, it has been proven time and again that using a full length for committing criminal activities is not that terribly much harder to do.

On the other hand a full auto will allow easier and faster expendature of rounds allowing for a higher kill count even with less accuracy and especially in tight quarters. Also, a silencer makes it significantly more difficult to tell the distance and direction of the shooter which prohibits victims from quickly deciding best route and timing for escape and evasion and also extends the amount of time it takes for law enforcement officials to locate and neutralize the threat.

I understand everyones desire to own FA and silenced weaponry, but i am glad that there is some form of registration that keeps people accountable for such weapons. At the very least it keeps people accountable for who they end up reselling their weaponry to. Even if the regulation are a bit stricter than necessary IMHO.

Much of that same logic can be applied to subsonic semiautomatic weapons...

I'm glad to see that you believe that our Right to keep and bear arms should be subject to infringement by the government.

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

Ok i voted yes, but i feel that i should qualify my "yes" and my opinion may rub a few people the wrong way. First i agree with the idea that if a criminal type wants something restricted they will aquire it, the laws mainly only affect the law abiding. I do feel that regulating SBR is unnecessary. I feel that SBS regulations could afford to be significantly softened or removed as well.

However, I do NOT have an issue with regulation of silenced and full auto weapons. I know this is what most people would like to be able to get without restriction, but i feel that these are the only 2 (besides the destructive weapons) that actually pose a significant danger even in the possession of a normally law abiding citizen.

My reasoning is this, if a law abiding citizen runs into a traumatic period, develops a mental issue or their firearm is aquired by someone close to them for nefarious purposes (i.e. troubled child with plans to shoot up a school, mentally ill family member, close friend or relative with fanatic views, etc) these are the 2 that pose extremely more significant dangers. Also, by regulating them, it restricts lawful users from selling to another individual that may not be quite as law abiding. While SBS and SBR are more concealable, it has been proven time and again that using a full length for committing criminal activities is not that terribly much harder to do.

On the other hand a full auto will allow easier and faster expendature of rounds allowing for a higher kill count even with less accuracy and especially in tight quarters. Also, a silencer makes it significantly more difficult to tell the distance and direction of the shooter which prohibits victims from quickly deciding best route and timing for escape and evasion and also extends the amount of time it takes for law enforcement officials to locate and neutralize the threat.

I understand everyones desire to own FA and silenced weaponry, but i am glad that there is some form of registration that keeps people accountable for such weapons. At the very least it keeps people accountable for who they end up reselling their weaponry to. Even if the regulation are a bit stricter than necessary IMHO.

Your logic could apply to any semi-auto, pump-action, revolver or lever gun. At what point is the rate of fire acceptable to you?

Do you object to shotguns which fire multiple projectiles at once?

What are you basing this supposed massive superiority of full-auto weapons on? Most of the folks who have fired mine have been amazed at how fast they actually run out of ammo. They are used to seeing the MG's in the hollywood movies that fire 200rds out of a 30rd magazine.

You never did explain why you object to suppressors. Do you object to mufflers on cars?

 

[Werewolf]

Ok i voted yes, but i feel that i should qualify my "yes" and my opinion may rub a few people the wrong way. First i agree with the idea that if a criminal type wants something restricted they will aquire it, the laws mainly only affect the law abiding. I do feel that regulating SBR is unnecessary. I feel that SBS regulations could afford to be significantly softened or removed as well.

However, I do NOT have an issue with regulation of silenced and full auto weapons. I know this is what most people would like to be able to get without restriction, but i feel that these are the only 2 (besides the destructive weapons) that actually pose a significant danger even in the possession of a normally law abiding citizen.

My reasoning is this, if a law abiding citizen runs into a traumatic period, develops a mental issue or their firearm is aquired by someone close to them for nefarious purposes (i.e. troubled child with plans to shoot up a school, mentally ill family member, close friend or relative with fanatic views, etc) these are the 2 that pose extremely more significant dangers. Also, by regulating them, it restricts lawful users from selling to another individual that may not be quite as law abiding. While SBS and SBR are more concealable, it has been proven time and again that using a full length for committing criminal activities is not that terribly much harder to do.

On the other hand a full auto will allow easier and faster expendature of rounds allowing for a higher kill count even with less accuracy and especially in tight quarters. Also, a silencer makes it significantly more difficult to tell the distance and direction of the shooter which prohibits victims from quickly deciding best route and timing for escape and evasion and also extends the amount of time it takes for law enforcement officials to locate and neutralize the threat.

I understand everyones desire to own FA and silenced weaponry, but i am glad that there is some form of registration that keeps people accountable for such weapons. At the very least it keeps people accountable for who they end up reselling their weaponry to. Even if the regulation are a bit stricter than necessary IMHO.

Well HELL! I'm convinced. Sounds reasonable to me; so reasonable in fact that we shouldn't even be restricting just full auto. Any gun can kill in the hands of a bad guy.

Restrict 'em. Restrict 'em ALL!

Silly founders - guns are for the government.

 

[onearmedman]

Ditto on this. I don't have a problem with a more extensive background check, or whatever it is that takes so long for class III items, or even the $200. It is the price due to supply and demand that makes it cost so damned much.

86 the post '86, and tell me where to stand in line. I have a long list.



.

The $200 tax has nothing to do with the product pricing or supply/demand. It's just another confiscatory tax levied by the feds. Consider the $200 amount vs the price of NFA items at the time it was passed. Economically, the NFA artificially manipulates the class III market and inflates prices.

 

[de-evoproject]

Wow guys. I thought I might be making a marginally unpopular viewpoint but apparently it was much worse than I thought. Ok, at buzz, yes I have. I was army infantry for 4 years and served in 2 combat deployments. I have held the positions of rifleman, autorifleman (m249), grenadier (m203), breachman (mossberg shotgun), machine gun team AR (m240b) and infantry sniper. I have had extensive training with FA AK47's, RPK's and AK74's so that I could operate enemy weapons in a pinch and train Iraqi national guard. In addition I have earned my german weapons qualification award (since I was stationed in germany) and cross trained with various other militaries on their weapons and tactics.

Not saying I'm more qualified than you to form an opinion, just saying I believe I am qualified.

As far as everyone else that is beating me down for my opinion, I never said that semi auto weapons can't be used to kill, that I believe fa and suppressed weapons should be disallowed or even that I believe the current restrictions aren't overkill. I simply stated that I can see where FA and suppressed weapons pose a greater threat in even less experience hands than regular semi autos and don't have a problem with their being SOME regulation (even if its less strict than what we have now) that keeps individuals, businesses and suppliers accountable for these types of weapons.

Don't stress guys, I'm very pro 2nd amendment and don't want to take anything away from anybody. But we do currently live in a country where many people aren't responsible enough to hold themselves accountable and if not faced with consquences for not being accountable, they just wouldn't give a damn.

On a side note, I DO feel current restrictions are a bit much and wish I didn't have spend as much time or money as its going to take to get approved and buy a suppressor but I am glad there is SOME form of accountability system in place.

 

[vvvvvvv]

...don't have a problem with their being SOME regulation (even if its less strict than what we have now) that keeps individuals, businesses and suppliers accountable for these types of weapons.

Don't stress guys, I'm very pro 2nd amendment and don't want to take anything away from anybody. But we do currently live in a country where many people aren't responsible enough to hold themselves accountable and if not faced with consquences for not being accountable, they just wouldn't give a damn.

So Americans are not responsible enough to hold themselves accountable, therefore they should submit to a government regulation in order to do so?

What differentiates the accountability of a person owning a full-auto or suppressor from a person owning a so-called "regular" firearm (or any other weapon, for that matter)?

Should the government restrict freedom in instances where a group of people has arbitrarily decided that another group lacks the responsibility to hold themselves accountable for the sake of perceived security?

After all, that is taking away Second Amendment protected Rights away from people based only on personal perceptions.

 

[Werewolf]

...Don't stress guys, I'm very pro 2nd amendment and don't want to take anything away from anybody. But we do currently live in a country where many people aren't responsible enough to hold themselves accountable and if not faced with consquences for not being accountable, they just wouldn't give a damn....

Slippery slope...

Who gets to decide who isn't and who is responsible? What criteria are used to decide what responsible is?

We started down that slope beginning with the 1934 NFA and that resulted in 20,000+ gun control laws. How successful have those been in preventing crimes commited with a firearm?

See where that's gotten us? And we don't just do it with guns we do it with everything the most egregious of which were prohibition and now the war on drugs.

The dad burned goobermint don't belong in the morality business nor the decidin' who's responsible business. And that's all laws that prohibit the posession of things do; legislate morality and/or assume we'd all harm society if allowed to posess certain items. I'm not a criminal because I posess a certain item; are you?

The goobermint should punish action not posession. The posession of something with the potential to do harm isn't a crime if it causes no harm to society. Using an item posessed to cause harm to society is a crime against society.

And all making it harder to get certain items does is generate black markets and produce folks willing to take the risk (usually in the form of a crime by action) to acquire prohibited items because of the high rewards that black markets represent.

In short prohibiting items or making them harder to get generates more harm to society than the prohibiting prevents. Gun control doesn't work. Drug control doesn't work. Government control of anything DOESN'T WORK!

In addition any law abiding citizen who believes in personal responsibility and freedom should not only resent the government for its insistence on taking those away but absolutely abhor it for doing so.

 

[de-evoproject]

Werewolf, dude, i fully appreciate your response, it was very intelligently put together and not just some keyboard warrior put down on my opinion. Thank you. Seriously. Maybe you will be one of the guys that can look at what i'm about to say and not immediately trash me for having an opinion.

I never said that i SUPPORT the current regulations and restrictions. What i was trying to say is i have no problem with having to register silencers and full autos and have a background check to buy them. Sure it won't keep the real bad people from getting them if they want them but it won't make it easier either. And a small $20 dollar processing fee to pay the ATF person on the phone running your check is not unreasonable. Definitely better than a $200 dollar stamp.

I mean really how intrusive would a simple background check (like you already have to do to buy most firearms) and registration with a nominal processing fee be? You already do the registration and fee with your vehicles right? And we all do a background check to buy guns right?

I don't support the fact that i have to get a signature from my local CLEO. Its too arbitrary. They could say no simply bc of how you look. At least with the ATF its based off of facts they pull on your background not, "Hmmm.. Looks like a troublemaker." And $200 tax stamp is pretty outrageous.

And i have to respectfully disagree about the morality and responsibility issue. If they weren't in place to govern that, we wouldn't have any laws at all. That's what laws do, put in a system to keep people moral and hold them responsible for their actions.

And at the car muffler comment, I'm sorry but that is just a horrible analogy. I've never seen the purpose of a car muffler being to point your car exhaust at a person to kill them without being easily detected. Its like comparing a cigarette lighter to a flamethrower or incendiary bomb. Just because they do roughly the same job does not mean they are even close to being in the same category or should be governed by the same rules.

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

And at the car muffler comment, I'm sorry but that is just a horrible analogy. I've never seen the purpose of a car muffler being to point your car exhaust at a person to kill them without being easily detected. Its like comparing a cigarette lighter to a flamethrower or incendiary bomb. Just because they do roughly the same job does not mean they are even close to being in the same category or should be governed by the same rules.

It is a "horrible analogy" in your opinion.

If I point my gun at someone to kill them, what difference does it make if it has a suppressor or not. They would be just as dead. You act like having a suppressor is just for someone who wants to be some kind of "silent assassin". If you think a gun should be loud so that you can hear it being shot at you than we should take mufflers off of cars so I can hear someone coming to run me over. Both ideas are just as stupid.
I am sure you would agree that the vast majority of cars are not out there to run me over, but neither are the vast majority of suppressors being used so someone can kill someone silently.