Federal lawmakers seek to deregulate gun silencers

So if someone had the same training and skills the Hughes Amendment shouldn't apply? I know plenty of veterans with much more experience with machine guns than the cops have.

 

that's a good point, but rahl's disingenuous argument ignores the history, the actual usage, the training, and the reality of the situation and adopts a theoretical and impossible to prove standard of "inherent danger" that is belied by 80 years of history. and he cannot handle Miller nor Heller-both of which IF PROPERLY interpreted, wipe away the Hughes amendment-for sure-and most likely the NFA.

no one who has legally obtained a machine gun in over 70 years has used it in a way to endanger other private civilians. So this theoretically CRAP about danger is a bogus argument designed to cover an unwholesome view that honest private citizens cannot be trusted after a certain rate of fire

 

I am neither a vet nor a cop and I guarantee you I can shoot a M4 or Uzi far more accurately than 99% of the cops and almost that number of soldiers

 

The government doesn't seem to think so. They feel they have demonstrated a compelling state interest in restricting full autos. The courts haven't disagreed with them.

irrelevant

 

there is nothing disingenuous about my argument.

 

The government makes no statement about inherent danger of any rate fire. By, the way, binary triggers, triggers that fire one on the pull and fire again on the release, such as the Franklin, Fostech's Echo are not considered illegal.
At what point is rapid fire inherently dangerous to the public and if that is the criteria for the application of restrictions why are bumpfire mechanism's not illegal?

 

They also felt that they had a compelling interest in restricting short barreled shotguns and short barreled rifles with exactly the same restrictions as they did for full autos. It certainly wasn't because full autos presented a unique danger to society, as they had never been used in a mass shooting against the populace prior to 1934. Remember, handguns were on the same bill as full auto machine guns for restrictions.

Why do cops have machine guns, anyway?

 

bump fire mechanisms still fall under the definition of semi auto, which is one round fired with each pull of the trigger.

 

handguns aren't restricted, because they don't pose the same danger.

the vast majority do not.

 

Or... a Sten or MP 40, both of which are amazingly controllable.

 

The effective rate of a bump-fire equipped AR is the same as that of a full auto M16 with the same "inherent danger" from "inherent inaccuracy".

 

Yet, they can be used to achieve well over 600rds per minute with an AR.... So, again, using your criteria of full auto, why aren't they illegal?

 

No, handguns aren't restricted because the Democrats knew they couldn't get the law passed. By your logic, a single 14" barrel .410 shotgun poses the same danger, as Congress passed exactly the same restrictions on their purchase and ownership.

Granted. Why do any of them? Why increase the risk of collateral damage from full auto fire as compared to a semi-auto rifle? Do the police not care about the citizenry?

 

Your position is based on rate of fire. Bump fire equipped ARs have the same ROF as many banned full auto weapons.

 

By virtue that it was claimed by yourself?

It cannot be demonstrated by yourself that the scenario is factually correct. However it can indeed be demonstrated that every mass shooting in recent history has occurred in locations where the victims were tightly packed together, in a confined area, in close proximity to the killer.

There are no regulations that prevent convicted felons or suspected terrorists from having access to motor vehicles. Nor are there regulations capable of preventing terrorist attacks that utilize motor vehicles as weapons of mass destruction. Unlike firearms, motor vehicles are far less conspicuous, and easily ignored by everyone due to how common they are.

Cocaine and heroin cannot be affixed with a serial number that allows for registration and tracking. Machine guns, however, most certainly do. Every last one is registered and easily located. If they present such a risk to the public, there is no reason for government to refrain from demanding they be surrendered for destruction, or forcibly confiscating them.

However it is yourself making the argument that machine guns pose a unique danger to society, and justifying it with the flawed notion of someone trying to kill a specific target in a crowd full of people by fully-automatic fire. You are defending the nonsense, therefore you will be questioned on it.

 

What possible training could one possess, that allows them to overcome what is being presented as being basic physics? What type of training allows them to negate muzzle rise, and maintain accuracy to a degree that apparently no one else is capable of achieving?

 

Oh, that incompetent, thieving bunch. My bad

This "greatest risk" is low risk

 

"physiques". LOL

 

And still a low risk

 

The government thought slavery was ok too.
Big ****ing deal

 

They are not full auto

 

Why do you keep asking questions, as if the answer will somehow change the fact machine guns are inherently more dangerous, and restricted?

 

No they don't. Full auto has a faster rate.

 

No, greater risk because of their inherent danger.

 

Oh look, a giant red herring.