Amazon.com Widgets

Should Americans be able to own fully automatic firearms with less paperwork?

  • A full background check.

    From what I understand, Guns capable of full auto nor only require more paperwork but only certain people like collectors can get them. What I think is funny is the questions on the paperwork you fill out when you buy a gun at all. Things like "Are you a convicted felon. " As long as a background check isn't done, You could lie your butt off just to get the gun. A better idea would be to have a more thorough background check done via computer before any purchase can be made. Some things may be red flags for some guns but not for others so the check would be able to tell the seller which guns you are able to buy.
    The reason why anyone able to pass the background check should be able to buy guns capable of full auto is because of one section of the original text that people in congress tend to forget about. "being necessary to the security of a free State" Clearly it is about protecting this country from threats. In the revolutionary war, The people owned guns similar to what they would be facing against the Red Coats. It was only because of this similarity that we even stood a chance. If the people are restricted to single action or even semi-auto, They would have no chance to hold off an invading army until our military arrives.
    Many people claim that defending the country is the job of the military but odds are, An enemy will look to make landfall quickly so they can unload tanks and other armaments. Clearly hitting one of our coastal military bases would no work. About the only thing they would do to the bases is bomb them and knock out routs away from them to slow them down. The main troop deployment would be on soft targets such as small coastal towns where they can use various buildings and homes for shelter using our citizens as human shields. From this point, What would/could our military do if the enemy is dug in that deep? On the other hand, If the people have suitable guns to hold off an invasion, Or at least slow it's advance to the point were our military can actually turn them back and take back the smaller area they took.
    What I think is funny is how the democrats are so opposed to it when their coastal starts would be the first targets.
    Some believe that if a Red Dawn scenario were to happen, It already would have but it seems like we are getting closer every year. Tho Russia doesn't have the budget, China does. China hasn't really been hiding how it plans to replace the U. S. As the worlds foremost superpower. Tho Russia has done some hacking, China has tried to hack into every part of our infrastructure from military communications to utilities. They are looking for any weakness and would likely use it.

  • Yes, Because the 2nd Amendment

    Before you say I pulled the 2nd Amendment card out, Please listen, A common reason our rights are commonly infringed is due to misinformation or uneducated beliefs. Our 2nd Amendment states "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" that means any weapon. The reason we have this is in case America is invaded/overruled and is now being run by a more totalitarian government and also for self defense. How would we be able to fight off an invasion if say a country is able to cripple our defense and is able to get to our main land, An Ar-15 or other semi-auto firearms may be slightly effective but will not be able to fight off guns like a actual AK (one able to have full and semi auto) or other firearms that are able to do that. I believe that yes, A background check and drug test should be mandatory to own a full auto firearm. But, If you DARE say that the 2nd Amendment was made only for muzzle loaders, I pity you, If you believe the amazing free country we have was founded on people who didn't understand firearms would have advancements and would be what we have now, You are WRONG. The founding fathers knew about multiple barrel guns or machine guns because at the time the Puckle Gun, Made in 1718, Was capable of shooting quickly (63 rounds per minute) and if i'm honest i'm sure that they would probably encourage people to own them because knowing what the totalitarian government they were under was terrible to live under, They would want to prevent that from ever happening again. If you think the Puckle gun was the only example of attempts to make guns shoot faster or be able to be more effective in combat by making an attempt at semi auto then I present with you examples of such attempts and facts. Examples: include 1. Ferguson Rifle, Oh no wait this isn't a gun sorry, Its an attempt at the worlds first AUTO CANNON which could shoot 7 rounds per minute! 2. Girandoni Air Rifle, While not necessarily semi auto, More of a fast reload weapon, 3. Nock Gun a volley gun that looks awesome, 4. Forms of a repeating cross bow 5. Firearms in the organ gun genre, A volley gun meant to kill groups of people with a single pull of the trigger 6. There were many gunsmiths who made double, Triple, Or even more barreled guns that were capable of being fired quickly and i'm sure the founding fathers knew this.

  • Being able to own any kind of firearm is guaranteed by 2nd amendment.

    I am pro gun liberal. Second amendment says that right to carry arms shall not be infringed. Limiting few but not all guns is like limiting few but not all forms of speech. Both would be violations. You shouldn't need to fill out paperwork to exercise you right to full potential.

  • The Second Amendment was meant for the protection and the ability to fight off a tyrannical government, Not just for hunting.

    The reason the 2nd amendment is to have the ability to bear arms to help create militias in case the government ever turns on the people. It has been seen throughout all of modern history that a dictatorships first goal is to censor the media and then take away their right to bear arms. In America we have already seen the conservative speech become censored and attempts at the second amendment. If we allow the second amendment to fall then we will be well on our way to supporting a dictatorship with nothing to do to stop it.

  • The second amendment does not say what kind of gun you may or may not own.

    I know this is an interpretation, And those can be stretched, But hear me out. When it says "a well regulated militia" it means a civilian militia. Yes, There should be regulations, Thus the 'well regulated' part. The problem with the current system is that you have to pay the NFA tax, Your home has to be searched by ATF without a warrant, If I remember correctly. The NFA tax is $200 (last time I checked on ATF's website), Which isn't bad, Until you consider the price of an automatic weapon. They're expensive, Ten, Twenty, Sometimes one hundred thousand dollars depending on the gun. If you want to buy a gun that's as expensive as a house or a luxury car, You should be allowed to like you can buy a shotgun, Handgun, Rifle, Etc. Any more stringent procedures and it wouldn't even be worth it, Which it already isn't unless you REALLY want that gun and you KNOW you'll absolutely love it like a puppy. I guess it comes down to the danger argument. The truth is, The great majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens who want to do no harm unless someone is breaking into their home or endangering them or someone else in public (armed robbery, Etc. ). I reckon if more people, Including cops, Open carried AKs, M16s, Browning M2 machine guns, M60s and MG-42s, Crime rate may even drop a little, As the bad people are mopped up off the floor while civilians and cops clean and examine their killing machines before leaving for the courthouse to testify that that, Indeed, Was an attempted bank robbery. In fact, The M60 is a good machine gun that is actually legal to own, Being produced far before 1986 and costing only $6, 000. Not quite a collectible like a Maxim Machine Gun, Gatling Gun (not technically a machine gun, But still pretty freaking collectible if you have the equipment to move the thing) MG-42, Bren Gun, Etc. But still a good legal firearm.

  • I want everyone to have them NOT

    Let me bring some Muslims to your neighborhood. I will personally see that they are all armed and some black panthers as well. They will play along just fine. Since there is no background checks or requirements I can speed up the process.
    Better yet how about some former inmates. I will see to it that they own their little piece of protection. Now everyone can own one. Lets see who would win.
    I bet they will win and you will lose.
    The government will police your guns because you cannot even police your own. Look at that old man in the photo I am not scared of him when I have my own weapon and a gang of my buddies watching him. Pop pop pop pop.

  • SHOOTINGS, Do you really want more of them?

    Of course you don't. There is already a large number of shootings in the U. S, Along with a big history of gang warfare, Making automated weapons easier to access would greatly increase the number of annual shootings, If anything there should be more paperwork involved, As after all guns don't kill people, People kill people.

  • Fully automatic guns are already illegal

    Why do we need civilians to have weapons of war in their hands? Many police departments don't even use fully automatic rifles, So why should we let civilians use them? Additionally, There should never be such a thing as less paperwork for acquiring a gun. We have 40 thousand gun deaths a year and for someone to think we need less regulation to control who's hands guns are getting into is a prime example of a person that should not be eligible to buy/own a gun.

  • They should be banned

    There is no good reason for a person not involved in military endevors to have a fully automatic weapon, What sort of personality wants this sort of demonic device, I think it might be a good idea to start discussing the prohibition of semi automaic weapons, Perhaps as a compromise if semi automatic weapons were treated the same as fully automatic weapons we could talk, Now its the semi automatic weapons that are the problems in society, If they were better regualted we could discuss keeping automatic weapons legal, But for god sakes why make it easy for maniacs to get machine guns, Let them sculk around the black market, Which is dangerous and they might get ripped off or dead

  • Nope not at all

    The right has been abused. If a right is given and time after time that right is abused should it not be regulated or revoked? We all know the kid who did that annoying thing in class too many times and got the privilege revoked. Guns are the same: Too many people had easily procured them to commit crimes. So? They added more paperwork and while tedious it does not infringe the right to bear arms.

    Auto weapons are extremely dangerous and the paperwork prevents the wrong person from procuring the weapon. Is it a perfect system? No, But it is better than less paperwork making it easy to get guns. While the courthouse can decide that what's the point? The criminal bought the gun and shot up the bank and now people are dead because precautions were ignored.

    So no paperwork is not a violation of the second amendment. Nothing's been infringed.

  • No they should have to have paperwork

    There should always be paperwork PERIOD. If someone was not the legal age or was not a citizen of the country they must have verification. There should not have to be pages and pages but there should definitely be more than less. Obviously there has to be signatures and safety precaution before you use the firearm. Common sense.

  • Nope not at all

    I am definitely pro second amendment, But I believe there should still be regulations and laws put in place before you can own a full auto weapon. Keep it locked in a gun safe, And make sure that you are trained to use the firearm correctly. If those regulations are met then yes, You should own a firearm. Thank you.

  • I think most of the population shouldn't.

    This is just asking for a shooter to gun down a crowd of people. I think only people with 5 or more years in the Marines, Army, Navy, And/or Special forces also having to go through extreme screening checking for things like mental illness and/or extremist connections. I also could stand by a member of a state recognized militia going through similar screening. These weapons could not be given or sold unless the buyer has gone through the screening. Every 3 years all owners must go to a inspection station and have their weapon checked for illegal modifications, Illegal sale, Etc. In conclusion I think the fair majority of people should not have any access to these weapons besides some veterans and possible a small minority of militia men who have to follow all the rules to the letter or have the weapons confiscated.

  • No citizen usage

    Only Illuminati members should be able to have any firearm. Putting firearms in the hands of normal people just increases rates of violent crimes. The Illuminati one everything practically do to scientists within Illuminati this we should be the only people able to decide whom uses instruments based upon our scientists designs.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.