Quote:
I have never backed away from my insistence on banning fully-automatic weapons. I don't truly see any reason for the use of fully-automatic weapons for civilian use. Not even for self-defense.


So something should be banned just because there isn't a forseeable use for it in the civilian circle?

Quote:
3) There are marksmanship tournaments that use the semi-automatic feature and for basic marksmanship practice and MOUT (military operations in urban terrain) training semi-automatic fire allows shooter to practice these, unlike bolt action which does not.


Ever hear of the Knob Creek Machinegun Shoot? Biggest gun sporting event I've ever seen, draws in people from all over the states, has some of the fanciest and most unique automatic weapons you could ever see; some dating back to WWI.

Major event, everything legal, and its for charity from what I've heard.

Quote:
If fully-automatic fire weapons are allowed to civilians, it also means that civilian can have M249's and B240 machineguns. The M249 has a 200 round drum and the B240 uses an open cased ammunition. The B240 is the replacement for the M60 an is a two person manned machinegun.


Machineguns are allowed to civilians, they're just heavily restricted.

Quote:
Currently right now machineguns are illegal and if that rule was set back we would see a rash of people acquiring "heavy weapons". Would it mean criminals would get them ? Probably. Does it have any use among civilian hands, NO. The only reason I can see it in civilian hands is maybe a gun store renting time on such weapons for people to shoot at a range to give people experience on shooting "heavy weapons" but other than that there is no reason.


Like I said, Knob Creek.

How often in this day and age do criminals actually have automatic weapons? Even the ones illegally and extensively converted to machineguns?

Quote:
This is where me and pro-gunners differ, and I invite any pro-gunner to give me a reason, any reason for the allowance of machine-guns.


Because if we're willing to say "alright, you can ban machineguns" then we're going to lose ground and lose credibility. That's when you get onto the slippery slope and show that you're willing to compromise, starting with anything that you don't think has a sporting purpose in the civilian circle.

Quote:
I think you didn't understand my thread. I never mentioned registration. Your talking about gun registration, what I am talking about is a gun license similar to a driver's license.

Currently right now if you have a conceal carry permit you need to understand what states you can carry in and if you travel that is a pain in the butt. In fact we recently had a person arrested at the sears tower who had a CCW license but didn't know about Illinois, where CCW is illegal.

My option would allow licensed people to carry concealed in every state and the license card would circumvent local laws like Chicago and DC for those who decide to get CCW on their national firearms card.

Similar to background checks those with records would of course be denied, while those with clean records and able to pass the safety program, (which was a concern of OMDP), are able to attain CCW privileges.

Now I also said the license could also be expanded for people to have class 3 licenses, but like CCW they would have to go through the necessary training to have such weapons. But that section can be debated, because I have yet to hear a valid reason for anyone to have fully-automatic rifles.


So you're alright with having to register yourself as a gun owner, with the Federal government who will know where you live and everything else? You're willing to give up that part of your freedom when so much has already been stolen from you?
"the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." Warren vs. The District of Columbia.