• Yes

  • No

74% 14 votes
26% 5 votes
  • Currently it is almost impossible to get one. First you need a tier 3 gun license including approval from local law enforcement. Second you cannot even get a license to manufacture them, completely illegal; so they are SUPER rare. Even if you find a fully automatic rifle (which I personally don't refer to as a machine gun) it would cost $18,000. A proper machine gun like shown would be incredibly rare and very, very expensive.

    Posted by: xhammy
  • The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives the right to American citizens to own military grade weaponry. This means that you should not only be able to own machine guns, but also things as dangerous as unmanned drones and tanks and the such. This is a right btw.

  • Forget the licenses and fees, just come to Arizona, the state of true freedom. I can walk down to the gun dealer and pick out a machine gun, pocket pistol, Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle....ANYTHING. If you got the cash, we got the guns. Just make sure you can pass the background check.

  • As a Constitutionalist, I always lean on the side of the constitution. The Second Amendment protects gun rights and therefore your gun rights shall not be infringed upon.

  • Are you licensed and well trained and screened?

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Krampus says2015-06-30T06:23:58.8619284-05:00
Fun new fact for the libs....According to the gay marriage SCOTUS ruling, whenever the federal government enumerates a right to the people (such as gay marriage), the states cannot pass any laws that ban or infringe that right. This will now apply to guns. Before, the states were allowed to set up their own gun laws and could choose to be gun friendly or not. Now, to be in compliance with the ruling, states should no longer be able to have any sort of gun ban, since the federal govt grants the right to bear arms. It is the same logic to say that if someone has a gay marriage license, all states must recognize a gay marriage license as it is to say if I have a concealed carry permit in one state, all states must recognize that permit and allow concealed carry. I believe this supreme court case is coming up soon.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-02T15:03:58.6579266-05:00
But liberal agenda rulings are the ones making it through ... What makes you think this one will?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-02T15:04:30.2827350-05:00
If anything its doomed to fail ... Since the marriage one passed.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-02T15:06:16.4588354-05:00
Oh I shouldnt say they are related ... Slippery slope and all ... You know the drill ... They will be approved or denied by the same 7 individuals though ... So I think there is some common ground there as far as which way they lean.
Krampus says2015-07-07T10:33:26.7182422-05:00
Your right, but by the letter of the law, they would have a hard case to interpret in order to get a different result from gay marriage/obamacare than they can for guns. All states must recognize your driver's license and your marriage license, even though you only got it in one state, so why wouldn't all states have to recognize your conceal carry license even though you only got it in one state? Unlike marriage (straight or gay) and healthcare, firearms are a right that is actually enumerated in the constitution. It is unconstitutional for a state to not recognize someone's valid carry permit.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-07T12:15:26.2800848-05:00
Because that permit was state issued. If we've learned anything from this past trial its that the federal government does not respect a states sovereignty to govern its people with its own laws. Instead they will dictate what the states are allowed to do, narrowing the boundaries in which they are allowed to make law. By making it a national thing it'll be pretty easy for them to vote us down. As states we can rule our lands locally, on the national level we now have to contend against these large cities a thousand miles away with populations many multitudes larger than ours voting on how we get to do things locally. I dont see it ending well, since those are the places with the worst bans.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-07T12:33:26.6563336-05:00
You dont think that a ruling will enable the federal government to adjust the terms of what that carry permit constitutes? What requirements there are? Sure your permit will have to be recognized everywhere ... Doesnt mean it won't be a sham of a permit after they butcher your states idea of one.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-07T12:34:24.4391040-05:00
And anything outside of that national permit will obviously be illegal everywhere. Not like it is now.
Krampus says2015-07-07T12:54:46.4096506-05:00
Yea, that's a good/scary point. While I'm indifferent on the ruling of gay marriage as applied by the 14th amendment, I strongly disagree with the precedent it set. From here it seems that in the future, if there is a conflict of interest between state law and federal law, then essentially whatever the federal government says goes, which I don't understand why this isn't a violation of the 10th amendment. It also allows the federal government to declare anything a right and act accordingly as long as enough people want that thing. For instance, (not to be too much of a hypothetical slippery slope arguer but...) gasoline. Tons of people use gas, enough so where we protest for it to become a right. Now we have a right to gasoline. Then the government's next step is, "Well everyone has a right to gasoline, but there are people that can't afford it, therefore we must now tax everyone to redistribute the wealth to the poor and create a govt bureaucracy to give poor people better access to gasoline". Just because people want gasoline, doesn't mean it's a right. That example might be a slippery slope, but it's not far from what we are currently doing in regards to healthcare. Sure healthcare is great and everyone should have access to it, but that doesn't make it a right. As soon as something is a right, we have the ability to demand that thing from others (for some reason this rule doesn't apply to guns, we have the right, but certain entities are allowed to deprived them from us). That is a scary precedent that this ruling set. I'm not saying this is going to happen, but it certainly paved the way for the government to essentially declare anything a right that they want the tax revenue from and face no opposition from the states.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-07T13:38:59.8005612-05:00
Yeah it's getting pretty sketchy. Theyre really testing the bounds of what a right is. Im starting to think the best way to beat these ideas is to go liberal and destroy it from within. Watch the world burn for a bit. Take my retirement to another country ... Never buy anything american if i'm able. All that mess.
CannedBread says2015-07-09T09:08:10.6154813-05:00
If I didn't live in the city I would be authorized to have a machine gun. But alas I live in the city and I all I can have is a concealed carry weapon.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-09T09:38:14.3377215-05:00
It would be unique to your particular city. Class 3 weapons are allowed everywhere ... Its just a matter of paying the transfer fee for the stamp from the ATF and getting your local sheriff to sign off on the form. The weapons are pretty pricey though ... The ban has made them fairly unaffordable to most.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-09T09:41:34.1113215-05:00
I mean, its probably allowed, its just up to your sheriff if he thinks thats something he'll want to have to deal with in his jurisdiction. Some city cops probably feel they have enough to worry about without having to keep tabs on the fact that a guy has a belt fed MG in his home. Youre gonna have to leave the city to be able to shoot it anyways. Most city ranges arent going to be big enough to even allow you to shoot a class 3 weapon there.
blackwhite says2015-08-13T19:19:55.1599575Z
Why does anyone need machine gun in their home?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-14T15:56:57.9501486Z
So that we dont get steamrolled by those that do? Plus theyre pretty neat and having one expands your mechanical understanding of a whole new host of machinery and physics concepts. Do people really need a super computer in their home? Probably not. Is anyone vilifying those people who build one or possess one in their home as people who mean to make a hostile AI or use them for large scale cyber attacks or any other nefarious purpose? No.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-14T16:11:30.9317446Z
I think theyre a pretty neat hobby actually. They are a modern machinists hobby, as much as computers are a modern electrical engineers hobby. What do you need a smart phone for? Youre not a business executive with thousands of contacts and work to do on the go ... Youre just using it to watch you tube videos. And yet everyone has one, even though they dont make use of the full capability the thing has to offer. You need to afford people the ability to be able to do those productive things with it, its a tool. If some people misuse them ... Its a small price to pay for the ones that do use them for constructive purposes to have them at their disposal. Misusers are just collateral.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.