MG Owners Weigh In

[mopar92]

Hopefully so, again do they give pilots the key after they know the pointy from the blunt end? Did you get your DL without a practice period? Will the military give someone a tug license WITHOUT at least taking a idiot class first? Ummmm no to all the above so why should a MG be given to someone that might know as much as the bullet comes out "here"?

All I'm SUGGESTING is a standard set curriculum so said idiots don't rain bullets on a community unless they're way offshore somewhere. Who's "rights" is this infringing on?

It DOESN'T matter. As an American citizen you have rights. These rights are not dependent on training. You don't need training to vote, worship your God, or own a gun. Simple.

 

[GodOfVice]

It DOESN'T matter. As an American citizen you have rights. These rights are not dependent on training. You don't need training to vote, worship your God, or own a gun. Simple.

And none of what you cited could directly kill someone. Taking a simple idiot 8 hour course does NOT infringe on the 2A. Did you take a drivers test by chance? If so.... WHY is it law, just to get a few extra bucks from you?

I pretty much left it alone but someone started a thread on stupid mistakes. It probably has 200 oh shits in it. Compound that by 600 rounds per minute and see what you have. >hint muzzle rise<

 

[GodOfVice]

So what you are saying is... a right is limited to the amount of training you have. Actions have consequences. Education bears on the user. I'm not dismissing the safety aspect of handling and using these tools. Stop mixing privileges and rights.

Did you not have to take a specific motorcycle test in addition to a regular DL?

 

[GHETTO BLASTER]

Did you not have to take a specific motorcycle test in addition to a regular DL?

Not a right. Have you actually read the Bill of Rights? I missed the motorcycle section.

 

[GHETTO BLASTER]

Do you think there should be a training class for semi autos (muzzle rise),or bump fire stocks (muzzle rise).

 

[mopar92]

Not a right. Have you actually read the Bill of Rights? I missed the motorcycle section.

It's right after the section on constitutional rights in regards to hang gliding IIRC.

 

[GodOfVice]

Done with this thread, kids win.

 

[GHETTO BLASTER]

Must be a yuge fan of the HQL because he just described it to a tee. At least the other guys are just selfish...

 

[mopar92]

And none of what you cited could directly kill someone. Taking a simple idiot 8 hour course does NOT infringe on the 2A. Did you take a drivers test by chance? If so.... WHY is it law, just to get a few extra bucks from you?

I pretty much left it alone but someone started a thread on stupid mistakes. It probably has 200 oh shits in it. Compound that by 600 rounds per minute and see what you have. >hint muzzle rise<

Because driving is a PRIVILEGE. Not an enumerated Constitutional right granted by our creator (God, Allah, Yahweh, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Horrendous Space Kablooie take your pick) and protected against infringement from the government.

Also if you want to play the 4 rules safety violations card, I've worked in the firearms industry for 6 years and have seen literally thousands of violations and everyone that buys a gun from me gets a crash course in safety if they're new. That doesn't in any way mean I support or endorse ANY government mandated safety training for firearms ownership.

 

[Applehd]

...Stop mixing privileges and rights.

Bowing before the .gov is what got us here in the first place. Take your ball and go home... that's fine... I will still vigorously defend your RIGHT to keep and bear a MACHINE GUN... Failure to operate it in a safe manner is on you.

 

[GHETTO BLASTER]

It makes no sense anyway. I can go to countless ranges all over the country and rent a FA firearm in 15 mins. without a license, so why to own one? As a matter of fact so can an illegal alien.

 

[Doco Overboard]

It's right after the section on constitutional rights in regards to hang gliding IIRC.

Best smile all day

 

[Biggfoot44]

Religon has killed hundreds of millions of people. Lots of potential upsides to having a Worship Qualification License . Better keep renewals to 2yrs instead of 5yrs to keep closer tabs in case someone becomes more strident.

( Yes, sarcasm to make point by substituting a Noun.)

 

[Bboarder]

Just having bought my first MG in December, I'm patiently waiting to play with it. I bought it for 3 reasons; I've always wanted to pewpewpew, 2 I figured soon I would really never be able to afford one, and finally I figured with the consistent increase in values it might not be a bad "investment".

So looking at it from 2 perspectives
1. If they allow more, prices plummet and I can buy a 2nd or 3rd which I never believed I would be able to do and in that retrospect, if I bought one expensive and two cheap then does the math balance out? And hopefully my Mac11 doesn't loose too much value.
2. If I were deep into the MG game like some collectors are and my values were looking at taking a dive, I would be concerned for what I invested, but "investing" is a gamble, whether it be firearms, cars, houses, stocks, gold, etc....

If the act is repealed, more MG's for me, and I've got one really expensive Mac.

 

[Alphabrew]

You won't be able to give away a 30 year old MAC. But, a new versions that takes Glock mags will cost $600.

Guys who "invested" in MGs had to know this was a possibility. I can't wait and I think it will happen.

But, I'm not an MG owner currently, so this thread really isn't for me.

 

[fabsroman]

So in your opinion am I supposed to give up what I've gained so those that haven't put in the effort can share? F that!

Don't like my opinion, get over it. If I don't want to sign the petition I don't have too. If others do, so be it.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Pretty sure you know the saying.

The way I look at it is that not allowing anything new into inventory means that over time, the inventory will naturally deplete itself. That is exactly what FSA2013 is designed to do with "assault weapons". Over a century, with lowers breaking, people moving out of state, guns being stolen, etc., an "assault weapon" will be very rare in this state in a century.

For me, this comes down to a freedom issue. A 2nd Amendment issue. If somebody "invested" in machine guns for retirement, holy smokes.

Just my opinion and we all have one. Some of us have two. lol

Let's go to the other spectrum. What happens if they ban the transfer of machine guns? Yikes!!!!!

 

[HordesOfKailas]

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Pretty sure you know the saying.

The way I look at it is that not allowing anything new into inventory means that over time, the inventory will naturally deplete itself. That is exactly what FSA2013 is designed to do with "assault weapons". Over a century, with lowers breaking, people moving out of state, guns being stolen, etc., an "assault weapon" will be very rare in this state in a century.

For me, this comes down to a freedom issue. A 2nd Amendment issue. If somebody "invested" in machine guns for retirement, holy smokes.

Just my opinion and we all have one. Some of us have two. lol

Let's go to the other spectrum. What happens if they ban the transfer of machine guns? Yikes!!!!!

Right there. The name of the game is attrition. It's not necessarily about what is available today, but what will be available down the line. The crop of legal MGs has been dropping since 1986. That's (almost) 31 years ago, which is not actually that far in the past. Look forward another 50 years or so and think about a world where 81 years have passed since the Hughes Amendment. MGs will be even more scarce than they are today and prices will almost certainly be horrendous even when compared to the insanity of today. If this portion of the NFA doesn't get repealed or fixed, MG ownership in the US will be nothing more than a footnote in a generation or two.

 

[sleev-les]

In my opinion. An 18 year old should be able to buy a FA gun and so should a 67 year old retired dentist. Constitutional rights are for everyone. Not just those that have disposable income. Any investment entails risk. ThIs would also mean that the FSA 2013 would largely be null and void sans the HQL, but I'm not explaining that on an open forum.

Agree 100%. It's like investing 50k in stocks and by the EOY you lose 50% of what you invested. You get into something like MG you operate at risk to lose on the investment.

I'd love to have a MG, but I cannot put that kind of money into one. Rights are rights and a MG is an arm therefore shouldn't be restricted as it is, much like any firearm restricting purchase of a type of weapon or a license needed to purchase etc etc. Anyone that has a MG is at risk of one day having the value drop. IMO, disagreeing with a repeal because someone invested so much means that individual is okay with restricting others rights in order to preserve their own self interest. It would suck if someone lost out on what they paid, but isn't the fight to restore and preserve the 2nd in its full definition? With that fight, doesn't it impose some level of risk?

 

[Alphabrew]

I do feel bad for the guys who paid $30K for a lightning link, but when you essentially invest in legislation, you have to know getting burnt is a real possibility when the political winds shift.

 

[Pinecone]

THIS.

I was 21 In November of 2013. Meant that I had literally no way around an HQL if I wanted to legally own a modern handgun. Not to mention the other now-banned guns that I couldn't afford.

All of these laws are banking on attrition killing off the culture. It's mostly old guys who have MGs, and you know damn well that was the intent with handguns and the HQL.

If we want guns to be around in 100 years, action needs to be taken now.

It has always mostly been older guys with toys like machine guns.

In general, they have more income, and lower expenses (kids grown, low or no mortgage payments on house, etc), so they have the money for toys.