• Yes I agree they should be legal.

    I think they should be legal even though I'm not American I agree fully with self defense. The Liberals will only understand the importance of being armed if they are attacked. Maybe even then they might not be very bright and cry, "Oh government protect us." And that help probably will not get there in time. I consider the anti gun type liberals as much a threat as terrorists are.

  • They are, in fact, less effective than a semi automatic weapon

    Many people want to blame fully automatic weapons for mass killings. This however is not logical because if one looks at the crimes committed with fully automatic weapons in the past 25 years, there have only been two. Secondly, operating a fully automatic weapon requires much more training than a semi automatic weapon. Lastly, a semi automatic weapon has greater accuracy. You want to keep people safe? Ban semi auto weapons (and that ain't gonna happen)

  • There are many reasons for fully automatic weapons to be legal

    "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." -Second Amendment, United States Constitution. Lets be honest, the interpretation of the above sentence has been widely disputed by both those for and opposed to gun control. What comes into question is how the first part of the Amendment ties into the second part. Many people will say that the National Guard(Definition: The primary reserve military force, partly maintained by the states but also available for federal use.) is/replaced the militia, but when you look at the definition of "militia," (A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency./A military force that engages in rebel activities.) it is incredibly clear that the National Guard is not a militia. It is a government employed branch of the military. In order for the civilians to create a well regulated militia that will be able to oppose the threat of foreign invasion, we need to not only have access to fully automatic weapons, but be trained in their proper use.

  • Prevention of tyranny

    People ought to be armed adequately. Government has fully automatic weapons, body armor, armed personnel carrier, drones and what not so we should be allowed to be able to defend against such weapons in the case that they are used against us. Not only is gun ownership a means of self defense but it is also one of the main reasons why many nations fret at the thought of invading the United States. Also, gun ownership is a check and balance in the democratic system. Government should not necessarily fear us unless they are conspiring against us, however having that check (weapons) in place prevents this from ever happening or it least not going off successfully.

  • Common sense, we defend our selves from government.

    It infringes our second amendment right. It is a type of arm and it states clear as day in our constitution that we have the right to bear arms. All because this holds more rounds, it doesn't make it any different than a semi or handgun. They both can kill people, and it's not about killing people. It's about defending our nation from a tyrannical government.

  • They should most certainly be re-legalized.

    1.) Automatic guns are only in the hands of military, law enforcement, people in 2nd/3rd world countries, crooks, and gang-bangers. Only citizens lucky enough to afford a class-III license + gun or have inherited one have one. Basically, not most of the American middle class.

    2.) Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Even if every citizen was forced to give up their guns, knives, blunt objects, sticks, and stones, people would still be killing people, but now they're completely reliant on the government for reliable protection.

    3.) Some guns are more deadly semi-automatic anyway. Now watch pro-gun-control want to ban semi-auto carbines. Hup! Too late.

    4.) Very rarely has a mass murder been committed with a full-auto.

  • Yes

    Automatic weapons should be legal but their should be restrictions on who is specifically allowed to possess them. For example, one restriction could allow only people of a certain age with a clear criminal and mental background to possess them. This could also further be restricted to people who are members of a well regulated militia. On top of that, individuals could be required to have check ups every few years to make sure they are still mentally fit.

  • Legally owned gun crime is negligible.

    I am a proponent of stricter background checks and more proactive mental health interventions. I personally would not want to use a fully automatic weapon (waste of money on ammunition), but the bottom line is legally owned guns are and have always been a negligible contributing factor to crime. The only statistical correlation I have found between gun bans and crime rate have shown crime rates increase due to enforcement of bans.

  • Yes they should be legal!

    Fully automatic weapons used to be able to be owned by everyone. And the way today's gangs are, they have more fully auto guns then our law enforcement. If it got to the point where the gangs take over towns, then whose gonna be able to protect themselves? Sure a semi auto can kill just as easily as a fully auto but the fully auto can shoot more shots. And the people are gonna have to hold off the gangs until the military, that states national guard, arrives.

  • Yes

    Fully automatic weapons have been legal in the USA for many years. In 1934 Congress passed laws which made the tax and registration of automatic (machine guns) mandatory. Since that time, only two cases of crime with registered weapons has occurred, and one of those was an Ohioan police officer.Given that the current legal reasoning behind owning a firearm is personal protection (and possibly protection of personal property such as the home), the over-riding principles are proportionality and control.

  • Whats the Point?

    When you really think about what is the point in having a full automatic gun. If you go over the pros and cons you will find the only true pro is using it for fun, then the list goes on and on. For example a few fully automatic guns can shoot over 100,000 bullets a minute, the capability of killing thousands of people in a very short amount of time. Is mass deaths due to just one irresponsible person really worth the fun...

  • No.

    Since automatic weapons were effectively banned in the 1930's, crime with them has dropped to near zero. While the argument that banning certain guns only leads to criminals having them, not law abiding citizens, that seems to have not been the case with this action. It's easy enough to fire a semi-auto quickly. Many guns should be legal, but there's a point at which a line is crossed. Automatic weapons are clearly on the right side of that line. The basis for the ban was mafia crime, where someone could mow down a row of people quickly. That's more difficult for gangs today, thankfully, because these weapons are extremely difficult to get, legal or illegal.

  • What use are they?

    There is really no reason that average people need to possess fully automatic weapons. They are excessive for hunting and even more excessive for self defense-- except if you need to defend yourself from someone who also has an automatic weapon, I guess, but I assume this question is about America and not Somalia.

  • Automatic weapons have incredibly stopping power that is excessive from self defense.

    The main defensive argument for owning fire arms is for protection of ones self. An automatic weapon is capable of firing a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time. This is essential in war, as you need to increase your chances of hitting a target at a long range. More basic semi-automatic weapons are quite suitable in the self defense category.

  • No, fully automatic weapons should not be legal

    No, I believe fully automatic weapons should not be legal. In many states in the US, gun laws are very lax, which is a good thing because our second amendment rights support the idea that we have the right to defend ourselves. However, nowhere does it state in the Constitution that we have the right to a massive arsenal of fully automatic weapons just because we want to. They are dangerous, and many mass murderers have been successful because of the fact that they have such powerful weapons. A simple handgun or semi-automatic rifle should be more than sufficient to defend yourself.

  • Why would you need one?

    I honestly do understand why anyone would need a gun. I KNOW its your constitutional right but guess what! The constitution was written in 1787 and things have changed since then. The only thing you would need to protect yourself against now is other people with guns, and if guns were banned then we wouldn't have that problem.

  • Self Defense? Not likely

    That's simply overkill, who would ever need a fully automatic weapon, capable of firing off over 300 rounds a minute, to defend themselves against a robber? Fortunately, we don't hear about robbers in full body armor and having tons of firepower either. It's not necessary, and will end up just causing more deaths then preventing any.

  • Killing capacity and overkill

    If you have an automatic weapon what could you possibly be defending against that warrants its use? Are thousands of burglars going to descend on your house in the middle of the night? If you abolished these weapons then anyone who would use them against you would also be unable to get a hold of them, so whats the problem exactly?

  • There is no need for them

    Everyone of the people arguing for the legalisation of firearms is either stations that the banning of fully auto weapons is unconstitutional, or they argue it would be useful for national defence during an invasion. I cannot disagree with these two points more, they are based on outdated views and media bred paranoia.
    I'm English myself but I have no complaints with saying that the USA is possibly the greatest nation in the modern world, with well entrenched rights, strong international peace keeping roles and a progressive feeling towards other countries (of course with a few understandable exceptions), so I cannot understand why people are complaining about the current strict laws and permits in place. The USA is not at risk of an invasion by any countries in the world, it's size, national guard units, well trained army and strong allies will all be a strong enough deterrent to any prospective invaders, and in my opinion the only war America should feel worried about would be a nuclear one. America of course has a formidable armoury of nuclear weapons at its disposal and this should hopefully be enough to dissuade other superpowers from launching nuclear attacks, but if they did it would be far more useful for each American to have the right to have a government funded fallout shelter or emergency supplies, as a gun would be less than useless in the event of a nuclear war.
    Also the point about it breaching their rights is, in my humble opinion, not strong enough in today's society to be a reason to allow extremely lethal weapons be in citizens hands. The us constitution was written centuries ago while there was a real threat of Britain invading the US to recapture it, this situation has entirely changed, and so the constitution should change to keep up! The constitution is entrenched enough to protect the key rights that US citizens have, and despite its age it is still regarded as one of the greatest codified constitutions ever written, but some things written inside it must be changed, as you all say the forefathers couldn't have possibly known how deadly weapons would have become. The heartbreak enforced on families with the seemingly endless public shootings would be infinitely greater if the weapons being used were even deadlier, not only would it mean that civilians would be killed in their droves but also police would not be able to subdue them quickly as they would have no advantage over the gunmen in terms of arms (and often determination of a psychopathic gunman will make up for his lack of training).
    Finally I do not believe it would help to deal with the gang situations that plague the rough areas of American cities. If automatic fire arms were easier to get hold of they would be cheaper, as they are currently only so expensive as they are so uncommon, which would not just allow law abiding citizens to purchase them but more gangs as well.

  • It would cut down on the school and mass shooting carnage.

    Would it stop the killings=no, but it could cut down the fatalities in mass shootings. Why on earth would any common citizen need to get off 600 rounds per minute which the AT 15 can do? And why make things easy for those planning a slaughter. I have weapons but no need for rapid fire military style. Trump moving the age from 18 to 21 show he is not serious about doing all he can. Some steps he wants to do are fine, but we owe it to the next generation to do everything we can. Right now they do not even feel safe attending class. Hiding behind the Second Amendment is for the spineless NRA who are afraid of declining sales for manufacturers like Colt and Remington. If you have any reason at all for the common man to shoot 600 rounds a minute please clue me in. Right now the NRA controls the GOP and I am Republican. But come November, if the NRA gets its hold on assault weapons then Katy bar the door, we will no longer control the House or the Senate. Please get these weapons off the street. Thank you.

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

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