State trooper pleads guilty to possessing machine gun

Belleville News-Democrat ^ | Jul. 26, 2006 | ASHLEY TUSAN JOYNER

[driftdiver]

"They come with manuals :-)"

Doesn't the army use comic books? :) I could probably figure it out but don't really want to store high explosives coupled with a solid rocket booster in my bedroom closet.

They are cool tho

[from occupied ga]

I could probably figure it out but don't really want to store high explosives coupled with a solid rocket booster in my bedroom closet.

I wouldn't want one in my closet either, plus they cost $180,000 each. Actually grenades are a lot cheaper, but I still wouldn't want a case of them in the house. I think that you ought to be able to buy them if you want, I just wouldn't want to. After all if you have an AD with a firearm (provided you keep the rules about pointing it downrange) no harm done. If you have an AD with a grenade, it could ruin your whole day.

[Peisistratus]

"We are not talking about privately owned warships, or even cannon, but the arm a soldier carries into battle. "

On the contrary. Those were legal too. In fact, that legality is implied by the power Congress possesses to issue letters of marque and reprisal.

You wanted a ship of the line? You built or bought it. You wanted cannon? You bought it.

[stopsign]

If we have laws, they are enforced equally across the board;

No, Anyone in an arthurian spot as in a Judge or lawenforcment officer should be held to a much, much harsher penalty... : ) <<< me

[Smokin' Joe]

You are correct, of course. In colonial days many ships masters were owners, too.

My point was perhaps poorly made, but I was comparing the humble flintlock rifle (although muskets may have been more common) of colonial times to the standard issue battle rifle of today's military, and lamenting the infringement of the RKBA which makes it difficult at best to own the standard battle rifle of today.

At current prices, an M-16 would really stretch my toy budget, I'd have to save my pennies for a long time to afford an Aegis Cruiser.

Of course, were the M-16 as available as a pump shotgun, the price would come down for those and the AK, etc. I think warships would still be a bit spendy...

[MarkL]

After all if you have an AD with a firearm (provided you keep the rules about pointing it downrange) no harm done. If you have an AD with a grenade, it could ruin your whole day.

Reminds me of a friend who told me a quote from his drill instructor: "Once you've pulled the pin, Mr. Grenade is NOT your friend!"

Mark

[from occupied ga]

"Once you've pulled the pin, Mr. Grenade is NOT your friend!"

Yep definitely true!

I think that people should be allowed to buy any of the standard infantry weapons LMGs, HMGs, grenades that they can afford. It's just that I personally wouldn't feel comfortable about having a couple of cases of things with HE sitting around my house (I would be willing to make an exception for an RPG since it will give you some significant anti-armor capability and has been pretty much perfected over the many decades it's been in combat use :-)

[Atlas Sneezed]

Who was talking about WMDs?

I was talking about the best weaponry carried by footsoldiers.

And the second amendment is not about "defense" (and a machine gun is quite good at that, incidentally) it is about doing battle with an oppressive government.

Note that the colonials had the right to keep and bear warships, poison, cannon, and bombs.

Also note that government has no powers that were not granted by (and therefor held by) the people. That means that the only reason that our military has tanks, nukes, and WMDs is because we had that right, and granted it to them.

But the fact is, the very closest analog to the colonial rifles that were foremost in the minds of the framers is today's Colt 223 M4. Which is EXACTLY the banned weapon that this story is about.

[Atlas Sneezed]

ALL automatic rifles made in the past 20 years are banned fro the hands of the people.

[proud_yank]

I can understand allowing pistols, rifles and shotguns. However, would you prefer some gang-bangers opening fire in your neighborhood with a 12 round 9mm Glock, or a fully automatic weapon?

One could argue that a 'need' for a fully automatic weapon isn't valid. However, I see no problem with the semi-automatics. The present system (Class 3 Federal Firearms Permit) for fully automatic weapons has worked very well since the 1940's.

'Assault weapons', particularly select-fire arms, are not a criminals first choice of weapon. They are generally too large to conceal, and much too expensive to fire.

Check out the statistics under 'assault weapons', I believe something like .002% of crimes involving firearms involved an 'assault weapon'. (Assault weapon, by the way, is not even a defined term in the US)


(Click the image)

As for the 'need' of owning something, I would find a full auto rifle a necessity should someone come to take my deer rifle!

In Canada, where I live now, up to 15-20 years ago you could legally purchase a machine gun. Crime rates started to increase here about the same time they passed numerous gun-control laws (in addition to increasing the welfare state, and not taking a hard-line stance on criminals).

[Atlas Sneezed]

Why should the people be denied access to high explosives, missiles, or chemical or nuclear weapons, all of which the standing army has?

---

If such would be useful for defending liberty and opposing tyranny, then they should not be banned.

Nukes aren't very useful for defending your home county, for instance, but bombs surely are, as are RPGs and helicopter gunships. Anthrax isn't much useful, but some battlefield chemical weapons might be.

[TC Rider]

Ruby Ridge happened because of a NFA Act of 1933 violation...possession of a shotgun only 3/8 of an inch below the stupid federal law.....

And even then, Weaver was coerced to cut the barrel that short by an undercover federal agent. My understanding was that they hoped to use potential charges to bully him into informing on a local militia group.

[dljordan]

"The rest of us would in chains."

After they broke into your house, beat your family up, shot your dog, stomped your kitten, siezed your assets and burned your house down.

[jrp]

I love the posters that come on these threads proclaiming to be gun enthusiasts, NRA Life Members and big Second Amendment supporters. Then they spout off nonsense like, "I own N guns of type A, B and C. If I was King, Americans would only be allowed to own at most N guns of type A, B or C. Why would anyone need N+1 guns of type D, E or F?"

PS. In Great Britian, they are now down to about x guns of type "A", where x is a really small number.

[driftdiver]

If I were King I wouldn't be too worried about gun laws. I'd be more interested in important things like harems and lots of good food.

/sarc

[looscnnn]

"Fast cars kill ALOT more people...."

Wait a second there, it is not fast cars or the speed that kills people, it is the poor driving that does it. Case in point, the Autobahn has a lower number of deaths than any US highway at much higher rates of speed. They have had cars travelling over 100 MHP that have lost control & crashed and the people inside walked away.

[looscnnn]

Oh really, so if you have a misdomeaner for say trespassing or some other minor offense you should have your rights removed? Who decides/defines sane? What level of sanity is ok?

[sit-rep]

lol... I caught that also...

[Tokra]

Are you seeing the problem in your arguement? Fast cars kill ALOT more people IN ONE DAMN DAY than all illegal machine guns have since 1933.

30,000 deaths a year from automobiles. 11,000 deaths a year from firearms.

How many cars are driven every day? How many guns are fired every day?

The ratio of gun deaths to guns fired is hundreds(if not thousands) of times higher than the ratio of car miles driven to car deaths.

Not a good comparison.

[looscnnn]

Stop with the lines that the anti-gunners use. Bad guys can get them right now, the NFA '68 can't/won't stop them from getting them. I used to know a bunch of dealers (drug not gun) that I could get full autos from for $100. I have since moved to another state and do not keep in contact with them.

The reason that most gangbangers don't carry them is that they are hard to conceal (even the ones with folding/collapsible stocks and short barrels) even in the fashion of de dium (baggy clothes) and if they manage to conceal them the guns are hard to pull out in a pinch. That is why the true gun of choice is the handgun... easy to conceal and to pull out.