• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we overturn the 1986 automatic weapons ban?

Should we overturn the 1986 automatic weapons ban?

  • Yes, the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own an automatic weapon.

    Votes: 33 66.0%

  • No, the founding fathers could not have known about automatic weapons.

    Votes: 17 34.0%
  • Total voters
    50
No reason to ban newer full auto weapons, they would be regulated through Class-III. Now the NEED for a full auto weapon is moot. Who needs a 400 hp car or a bottle of booze with gold flakes in it? I have no need for one but that doesn't mean they can't release more to the general public. (I imagine some owners of the current full auto weapons would be pissed, their weapons would lose half their 'value' if more weapons came on the market.)

Anywho, every so often I fire an LE full auto, reminds me of the day. Now most full autos have a selector switch, you don't have to rock and roll, infact even the old M60 could be fired single shot with a little practice.
 
Not to bump an old thread, but this seems pretty relevant again.

I voted Yes. It's not like full autos are even better than semi autos for mass shootings anyways. See the North Hollywood Shootout. They had full autos and didn't even kill anyone. There's no point in restricting them.
 
Luna Tick said:
I researched this a little and was surprised to learn it wasn't President Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban (expired in '04) that banned automatic weapons. It was a law from 1986 that's still in effect. In short, you can own a so-called assault rifle like an AR-15 or an AK-47, but it has to be semi-automatic. You can still own an automatic one if you can find a grandfathered pre 1986 one, but it will be extremely expensive. In other words, if you're rich, there's no problem in owning a fully automatic assault rifle. If you're poor, you can either settle for semi-automatic or get a conversion kit to convert it to automatic (illegally in almost all cases) and risk getting in big trouble.

I'm wondering if it would just make more sense to allow law-abiding citizens to own fully automatic rifles like the AR-15. Seems like the same people who own a semi auto one without committing murder will be just as responsible with a fully automatic one. Then again, I'm not a gun owner myself and have just started to research this. In any event, vote your opinion. Should the 2nd Amendment give you the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle? Are you for overturning the 1986 ban?
Click to expand...
Repeal the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners' Protection Act so responsible citizens can own modern assault rifles and machine guns.

 
joko104 said:
You think someone with a DUI or public intox conviction should be banned from gun ownership?
Click to expand...
The DUI conviction itself should be a felony, which would bar gun ownership by default, no special law required.
 
Discussing this subject will undermine the lies of the Liberal gun control freaks who want you to believe that you can buy a fully automatic machine gun down at your local 7-11.
 
Porchev said:
I don't agree with the restrictions on automatic weapons that came with the 1986 law, but it did have some good things in it: Opens up interstate sales of long guns, within some limitations. In-person sales can only be to residents of an adjacent state. Other sales must go through an FFL transfer.
Click to expand...
In my CHP class we were told that you have to transfer the gun though an FFL if the buyer and seller are residents of different states, even adjacent states. The instructor used WO and SD for his example.

Porchev said:
Allows interstate transport of firearms, provided no local laws are broken in the process.
Click to expand...
You actually can be in violation of local laws while transporting the firearm, provided you are following the Federal standards for transporting. An example would be traveling through CA with a hand gun which accepted 19rnd mags. Mere possession of the gun is a felony in CA, but the Safe Passage provision protects you.
 
Of course the ban should be lifted, but then so should background checks and the Class III license requirement nonsense.
 
No thanks we don't want to have daily repeats of the north Hollywood shootout, once was too much.

And I don't think that ordinary people should be able to get their hands on m2 machine guns
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And I don't think that ordinary people should be able to get their hands on m2 machine guns
Click to expand...
Why should you care?

A $40,000-$60,000 M2 +$7 per round....not very many people can afford that....put the same money into a car and you kill the same number of people, or, 10x as many people with a fraction of the money invested into a bomb.
 
joko104 said:
Why would you want a full auto AR? Even the Marines gave up full autos in their combat rifles. A full auto just means throwing rounds all over and up in the air. Besides, you can just buy a bump stock.
Click to expand...

To clarify, squads do have 1 machine gunner.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Because machine guns are not somthing the average civilian needs. Machine guns are meant to kill on a industrial scale.
Click to expand...

that is just plain moronic a comment. why do civilian police officers use them then?
 
before the idiotic asswipe Hughes tried to derail a mainly pro gun bill, there had been maybe ONE case of a privately owned (albeit by a Dayton Ohio police officer) legal machine gun being used in a crime of violence in almost 50 years.

so what does this prove-Gun haters are not motivated by crime control at all. Why would they ban stuff that had almost ZERO cases of criminal misuse?
 
The Poll is incorrect The SECOND AMENDMENT GIVES US NOTHING-it RECOGNIZES A RIGHT we never gave away to the federal government
 
TurtleDude said:
The Poll is incorrect The SECOND AMENDMENT GIVES US NOTHING-it RECOGNIZES A RIGHT we never gave away to the federal government
Click to expand...

A right to what? I'm not sure they would see quite as you do. Very early on some regulation was allowed.
 
Boo Radley said:
A right to what? I'm not sure they would see quite as you do. Very early on some regulation was allowed.
Click to expand...

there was no federal regulation until FDR created a power out of the commerce clause.
 
TurtleDude said:
there was no federal regulation until FDR created a power out of the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

That would be at the federal level. In 1822 and 1842 you'll find two contradictory rulings. These were in response to regulations that started before those dates.
 
Boo Radley said:
That would be at the federal level. In 1822 and 1842 you'll find two contradictory rulings. These were in response to regulations that started before those dates.
Click to expand...

the first real federal restriction was in 1934. it involved the disregard of the Tenth amendment.
 
TurtleDude said:
the first real federal restriction was in 1934. it involved the disregard of the Tenth amendment.
Click to expand...

That's your reading of it to be sure. Now, read and respond to what I said.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's your reading of it to be sure. Now, read and respond to what I said.
Click to expand...

Why should I respond to your assertion when you ignored the point of mine? I don't follow rules set down by people who don't obey what they try to impose on others. and again this appears to be another case of your passive-aggressive attacks on arguments that are in favor of restoring our constitutional rights

the fact is, gun control as a federal power was not truly conjured up until 1934
 
TurtleDude said:
Why should I respond to your assertion when you ignored the point of mine? I don't follow rules set down by people who don't obey what they try to impose on others. and again this appears to be another case of your passive-aggressive attacks on arguments that are in favor of restoring our constitutional rights

the fact is, gun control as a federal power was not truly conjured up until 1934
Click to expand...

Did you read what I wrote? Read the first sentence. I said limitations and regulations were here since almost the beginning. I made no mention or limitations to just the federal government. When you did, I acknowledged the federal law but point to what I was speaking to. I acknowledged; you ignored. See the difference?
U
 
Boo Radley said:
Did you read what I wrote? Read the first sentence. I said limitations and regulations were here since almost the beginning. I made no mention or limitations to just the federal government. When you did, I acknowledged the federal law but point to what I was speaking to. I acknowledged; you ignored. See the difference?
U
Click to expand...


I wasn't talking about the states-in 1837 I believe Ga banned handguns and it was thrown out as unconstitutional
 
TurtleDude said:
I wasn't talking about the states-in 1837 I believe Ga banned handguns and it was thrown out as unconstitutional
Click to expand...

That's one. These things have gone back and forth. See 1842 and 1875. Those went the other way. He point is, regulations have nearly always been here.

Btw, I didn't limit it to federal, and you responded to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom