[ptsmith24]

If a firearm carries one bullet or 30, semi-auto or full-auto - what's the difference?

The inherent danger is only derived from that of the user. I wouldn't have a problem at all if I saw Ramm coming down the street with an MP-5 slung across his back.

The argument to ban some but not all just doesn't make sense to me. If a person can be trusted with one, then they should be trusted with all. Seung Hui Cho could have had an MP-5 and used 2 clips, or as he did with a Glock and reloaded several times. Limiting Class III weapons doesn't mitigate human loss.

Just my $.02

You wouldn't??? :shock:

j/k :lol:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I think he meant to say at the mall.

 

[budder]

Am I wrong on this? . . .
Am I off-base on this?

Yes.

Wow! I don't know where I got it in my head, but I always thought that class III ownership entitled the government to make unannounced compliance checks on your storage and continued ownership of any class III weapons that are registered to you.

Learn something new every day.

I may be wrong, but I think a C&R license is what you're thinking of. The ATF can come by and check your books whenever they want. However, I think they may have to have a specific reason, first.

 

[Thorsen]

Malum, I have attempted to find some statute or such that covers class III weaponry beyond having to pay the $200 fee and I can not. I even phoned up the BATF and asked them for information and was told to call another office in the BATF, which ended up being a disconnected phone line.

Can you point me in the right direction? There has to be something online I can read up on and I would like to educate myself on class III ownership.

www.subguns.com

Thanks. Good information. I guess I was always confusing the compliance checks associated with a SOT or FFL with ownership of a class III firearm.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Malum, I have no doubt you are a responsible gun owner and keep your fully automatic weapons safe according to prescribed regulations, but if you carry it you should go to jail! :jail:

I am not trying to fool anybody into actually thinking you typed that last part, which I inserted merely to illustrate that you are saying the same thing. Even though I harm nobody, you want me in prison. I think that is morally wrong.

Let us not talk in niceties, like whether something should be "allowed," but let us use precise language to convey a precise meaning.

When you state whether something should or should not be "allowed," you are talking about prisons and killing.

I just wanted to put things in perspective.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming!

 

[Adam5]

I make the same recommendation to everybody here viewing this site. Your education on this issue is sorely lacking without having read it!

:righton:

Does reading half of it count?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

So long as you are continuing . . . however slowly, it counts!

 

[Adam5]

The inherent danger is only derived from that of the user. I wouldn't have a problem at all if I saw Ramm coming down the street with an MP-5 slung across his back.

Obviously you have never been to the range with him.

 

[Adam5]

So long as you are continuing . . . however slowly, it counts!

I haven't been able to find much time lately to finish. Hopefully I will finish it this weekend when my wife is in NY. My only plans are to drop her off at the airport, sight in the scope on my AR, then spend the rest of the weekend on the couch with my five furry monsters.

 

[wsweeks2]

If a firearm carries one bullet or 30, semi-auto or full-auto - what's the difference?

The inherent danger is only derived from that of the user. I wouldn't have a problem at all if I saw Ramm coming down the street walking through the mall with an MP-5 slung across his back.

The argument to ban some but not all just doesn't make sense to me. If a person can be trusted with one, then they should be trusted with all. Seung Hui Cho could have had an MP-5 and used 2 clips, or as he did with a Glock and reloaded several times. Limiting Class III weapons doesn't mitigate human loss.

Just my $.02

Fixed it for you MP.

:wink:

 

[ptsmith24]

:lol: :righton:

 

[Thorsen]

Malum, I have no doubt you are a responsible gun owner and keep your fully automatic weapons safe according to prescribed regulations, but if you carry it you should go to jail! :jail:

I am not trying to fool anybody into actually thinking you typed that last part, which I inserted merely to illustrate that you are saying the same thing. Even though I harm nobody, you want me in prison. I think that is morally wrong.

Let us not talk in niceties, like whether something should be "allowed," but let us use precise language to convey a precise meaning.

When you state whether something should or should not be "allowed," you are talking about prisons and killing.

I just wanted to put things in perspective.

Absolutely Malum. If we are speaking bluntly, then I have to say there is no reasonable reason for you to carry a fully automatic firearm. Your only example given of a mob situation is statistically insignificant. If you can not give a reasonable example of why you should be legally allowed to carry such a firearm and I can point out the obvious; that an automatic firearm fired in that mode is less accurate than in semi-automatic mode and that it is more likely to cause collateral damage than a semi-automatic weapon, even in the hands of an expert, then you should not be legally allowed to carry it.

Would you be comfortable with someone you met on the street carting around a power source and M61 Vulcan? Probably not I would think.

Its a silly example, but it makes my point. At what caliber/cyclic rate do you draw the line and say "everything less than this is ok to carry, but this is just overkill and/or too dangerous to be allowed for normal use"?

 

[wsweeks2]

there is no reasonable reason for you to carry a fully automatic firearm.

The bottom line though is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect a right to reasonable arms. It's either a right or it isn't.

Do I feel that anyone on here who has a GFL would be a threat if carrying an MP-5K concealed?

No.

 

[Thorsen]

[

No right is absolute. Even with the expanded interpretations concerning the right to free speech, it has its limits and there are instances where you can be charged with a crime for freely expressing yourself. As a society we have placed limits on religion, even disallowing the active practice of some forms that we have determined are marginal, or even illegal. The freedom to assembly has been regulated by requiring permits and even establishing so-called free speech zones sometimes miles away from the audience that the assemblers are attempting to reach. Additional restrictions apply to other enumerated rights.

So, as a society we have decided that accept limitations on the natural rights written into the constitution. Why should the second amendment be any different?

Personally, I don't like some of the current restrictions ... for example, I find the establishment of "free speech zones" to be unconstitutional, but unfortunately I am not one of the nine black robed judges. I also think I have clearly stated my case as to why I think limitations on the carrying of certain types of weapons (fully automatic) are reasonable.

If you don't agree with me, that's great. That's the beauty of this great land of ours. Know that I will work hand in hand with you to change Georgia's gun restrictions on carrying semi-automatic firearms, and that I don't see a reasonable restriction being applied to those weapons under any circumstance ... just realize that if the battle ever comes down allowing fully automatic weapons to be carried just as freely that I wouldn't be standing with you on that subject.

 

[fallison]

Thorsen,
Your argument is voided by the fact the the RTKABA is only secondarily to protect us from criminals. The primary reason for the second ammendment throuhgout the writings of the founders is to protect us from the government. To protect ourselves from government overstepping the consent of the governed, logically the governed would be required to be able to field the exact kinds of weapons as the government.

 

[fallison]

The only reasonable reason I need to carry an automatic weapon is it is my right. My carrying such a weapon has no effect on anyone else's rights and is thus absolute. All examples you give are instances where there is a conflict between rights of different individuals.

 

[Thorsen]

The only reasonable reason I need to carry an automatic weapon is it is my right. My carrying such a weapon has no effect on anyone else's rights and is thus absolute. All examples you give are instances where there is a conflict between rights of different individuals.

I think you are incorrect. If you exercised your god-given right for self-preservation and protection in the case of an attack on your person, and used a class III weapon in auto mode to do so, you have unnecessarily put innocent lives at risk. A weapon in full auto mode is not a discriminatory firearm. In that mode its sole purpose is to hold back an advancing enemy, or in the case of crew served weapons, to suppress enemy fire.

Anyway, this thread is going in circles now. If a direct question is posed to me, I will answer it, otherwise I think I have clearly stated my beliefs on this subject.

I respect your opinion if you differ with me, but I have thought through my stance on this pretty carefully over the years and I doubt I will change my mind on it.

 

[budder]

Even fully automatic pistols? Your statement seems to only cover long/big guns.

 

[Thorsen]

Even fully automatic pistols? Your statement seems to only cover long/big guns.

I do not think there is a need to carry any fully automatic weaponry as a self-defense firearm.