[Cockergeek99]

If yes or no, why?

[MurderDeathKill]

As a blanket rule? Yes, but the government should allow states to be more restrictive. This will ease federal enforcement costs (what's left to enforce?) while allowing citizens to vicariously, through their local and state governments, decide which weapons they want to be surrounded by, if any.

I'd vote for tighter controls, but I see no reason why the good folks of Texas should have to live the way I see fit.

[Sunshine86]

I see no reason that they shouldn't be primarily because, in a limited capacity, they already are. The National Firearms Act already regulates the transfer of automatic weapons, however, transferable weapons are limited to those manufactured/imported before 1986. What is the difference between an automatic weapon manufactured in 1982 and an automatic weapon manufactured in 2010?

[kjjm4]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The answer is absolutely yes. "Well regulated" simply meant well trained, and the militia was made up of all the able bodied men in a community. "Arms" refers to small arms, as used by the military. That includes automatic weapons.

The states have no more right to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms than the federal government does.

[bnctaj]

All weapons should be legal within the United States of America.

[hereiskyle]

yes.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Cockergeek99

If yes or no, why?

Depends on what you mean by "all automatic firearms".

I can't actually think of a legitimate reason they should be illegal, but I doubt you'd be able to convince more than 5% of the population that a Mk 19 grenade launcher should be legal.

As for assault rifles, smgs, and even belt fed mgs, sure, they should be legal, and by "legal" I mean you should be able to go to a gun store and buy a brand new one any time you want, provided you pass a background check.

[Rapier7]

I think all weapons should be legal, but such sales should be monitored.

I mean, most people with automatic rifles and heavier duty firearms are just gun nuts with too much money. These guys are perfectly harmless.

Now when you get to gang-level firepower and money, it could pose a problem for society. But stuff like that would probably cause a lot of community blowback so I think we're in the clear.

[Volucris]

I do not consider explosives and beyond to be in the same league as other arms but I think you should be able to own and use them so long as you can demonstrate to society that your intentions are good. Like very very few people want everyone to be able to go to 7/11 and get a nuclear weapon.

However I don't see a reason why machine guns should be outlawed. For the most part they are cumbersome, eat expensive ammo really fast, don't give much precision in shooting, excessively wear and tear at the firearm, and often cost more than semi-auto firearms due to increased strengthening and machining of important components.

I bet if they were allowed I don't think people would be spending much time shooting in F/A. You want one shot per trigger pull for hunting and hitting just about anything else accurately.

If it were a $200 tax stamp for a comprehensive BATF background check then you could buy any F/A gun but just had to keep records of it I would be perfectly fine with that. In MO we just have to purchase and qualify for a C&R license ($30 and a comprehensive background check) then we can purchase fully automatic firearms and suppressors with just $200 per item tax stamps. Although machine guns are quite expensive due to exclusivity and the limited amount of them on the market. I'm waiting for my C&R license in the mail right now.

I'd like to buy one of these later on:
http://www.summitgunbroker.com/IMI_Uzi.html

And yes I just have to do the ATF forms and pay the $6.5k and it's mine.


I'd love to be able to have a select-fire AK-74 for general use since I live on some acreage and can safely have fun with it.

[Swerve22]

It's not my business to be telling other people what they can and can't do with their money, so long as it doesn't become a threat to me.

[p8ntkid876]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

It's not my business to be telling other people what they can and can't do with their money, so long as it doesn't become a threat to me.

Yea, that's why we should just legalize drugs. More legalization supporters the better

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by p8ntkid876

Yea, that's why we should just legalize drugs. More legalization supporters the better

No, we shouldn't legalize drugs. Drugs are more dangerous than fully automatic firearms. Drugs cause more crime than any kind of guns. We can get into it deeper if you like but this isn't the thread for it, PM me or start a new thread or something.

[p8ntkid876]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

It's not my business to be telling other people what they can and can't do with their money, so long as it doesn't become a threat to me.

bu..... you just said......

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by p8ntkid876

bu..... you just said......

Yeah, read closely.

[Kenny_McCormick]

Yes they should, and they should not be registered. Its easier to buy a MG illegally than it is to get one legally, so why waste cash enforcing laws that do nothing?

[ladd_17]

Everyone else has pretty much hit it on the head.

I'll just chip in a general +1 to the sentiment in here.

[Volucris]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

It's not my business to be telling other people what they can and can't do with their money, so long as it doesn't become a threat to me.

Originally Posted by Swerve22

No, we shouldn't legalize drugs. Drugs are more dangerous than fully automatic firearms. Drugs cause more crime than any kind of guns. We can get into it deeper if you like but this isn't the thread for it, PM me or start a new thread or something.

[ladd_17]

Yeah... you pretty much just did a 180 on yourself there Swerve.

[AlphaNeo36]

Should be up to state legislators to make the decisions.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by ladd_17

Yeah... you pretty much just did a 180 on yourself there Swerve.

I already told the other guy to read carefully:

Originally Posted by Swerve22

It's not my business to be telling other people what they can and can't do with their money, so long as it doesn't become a threat to me.

Drugs create chemical dependency and breed crime. High crime directly becomes a threat to me, you, and every other person. Guns ownership on the other hand lowers crime. This isn't that hard to grasp, but it's not related to the OP in any way so I'm going to resist the urge to derail the thread.

[saint]

Yes. Reason is that all lawfull citizens should have the right to protect themselves and their property.

What should be asked is... Do you agree with citizens having open cary and concealed cary firearms?