In Defense of Open-Bolt Firearms for Civilian Use: new on AllOutdoor

Why submachine guns should have a legitimate place in the arsenal of free people.

This entry was posted in rkba, self-defense, weapon and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to In Defense of Open-Bolt Firearms for Civilian Use: new on AllOutdoor

  1. Ray says:

    Not gonna happen. At least not while a single member of the “ruling class” is still sucking O2 in DC, and. Do we really want the wide spread availability of SMG’s to inner-city gangs? Because the best way to garner wide spread support for universal firearms confiscation would be to arm the black and Hispanic street gangs with cheep full auto weapons ;and that would be who would use them.

    • John Shirley says:

      I don’t know that Oleg is calling for submachine guns to be reclassified as rifles or handguns, but changing the ’86 law to allow new FA weapons to be registered would drop the price dramatically.

      FA Uzis would be available again for around $1000, instead of the $7K+ they currently go for. I’m sorry if you are afraid of “cheep” FA weapons, but there is no reason to believe the best behaved class of firearms in the US will suddenly be used to arm “black and Hispanic street games” if new submachine guns are available again.

    • Paul Koning says:

      Ah, the usual “but criminals will use them” bogeyman. The same one used to inflict the GCA on us in the first place. The correct answer is that the Constitution requires these weapons to be available to the citizens. And they need to be because they are the best tools for the purpose for which the 2nd Amendment exists.

    • 937 says:

      Also, Ray, the street gangs already have MGs, albeit not as many as you’d think. Just do a search for “New Year’s gunfire” on youtube and listen to a few, or if you live somewhere like me, just open up the door and wait. You’ll hear ’em eventually.

    • Lyle says:

      Ray; No, Young Grasshopper; criminals, by definition, can have all manner of illegal weapons. Government operatives have them also, therefore all we’re talking about here is whether the law-abiding can have them.

      There’s no use in bringing up race; it misses the point. Liberty knows not one race from another, nor does our constitution which supports it.

      Keep in mind also that with Operation Fast & Furious as the known example, our government will see to it that criminals are well armed. It works to intimidate the inattentive, thus making them more amenable to further infringements against their rights.

      Never forget it. Restrictions on firearms for the law-abiding has never been and never will be about crime, except for the fact this it is a crime to restrict a constitutionally enumerated right (see 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242). All the talk about crime and safety is just distraction. A con. Never fall for it for a second.

  2. redleg says:

    The ganga already have access to those weapons, illegally since criminals don’t follow the law– they use handguns that can be concealed easily most often

  3. Jeff says:

    John, Paul and redleg have it right.

  4. Ray says:

    For years we have defended the AR-15 and AK from critics who cry that they are “military machine guns” or “military weapons” by saying “NO they are just sporting rifles”. How do you plan to defend a Machine Gun (an actual combat weapon)? —“Home defense” with an MG is an “A” felony and a guaranteed murder 1 charge if you kill someone with one in my state, and I bet it is the same in most of yours and has been since the 1930’s. So is hunting with any automatic weapon(“A” felony) or doing ANYTHING with one other turning money into noise. So that lets the air out of that argument. Even IF the 1986 FOPA gets repealed (and that’s a BIG if) , you will still have the 1932 NFA and about 40000 state regulations to contend with. That means that your SMG , MG or assault rifle, sets in the safe, subject to BATFE inspection AT WILL AND WITHOUT WARRENT, till you go to the range (with .Gov approval ) or sell it. Do anything else with it and you’ll be lucky to only lose your gun rights forever, go to prison for a year or two and/or pay out 500000 USD or so. You can flame me to hell and back without changing any of that. The fact is that the Government has controlled this for almost 90 years with thousands of laws and court rulings. Trashing me for telling you that, and for telling you WHY “Mom and Pop” America will NEVER support “MG” ownership won’t change it ether.

    • Lyle says:

      I’ve always opposed the argument that says “No; they’re just sporting arms”. What nonsense. The “sporting purposes” argument came out of the European Progressives on the form of the Nazis.

      The second amendment isn’t about sports. It’s about the right to self defense and defense of liberty, community and country. Those who play along with the distraction arguments of the enemies of liberty (such as “sporting purposes”) are helping the enemies of liberty.

      The rest of your argument is all “this is complicated and difficult so give up – there is no hope”. One step at a time. Patience, and never lose sight of the goals and the principles that drive them.

      Oleg has laid out the proper perspective. Everything he said is correct. No one said it would be easy to put things right, but he’s trying. Laying the groundwork.

      Don’t knock it.

      Silencers, another NFA item, are gaining wide acceptance where 20 years ago you’d be saying we were beating a dead horse if we called for de-regulating them. Now we’re making real progress.

      Nay-saying doesn’t help anyone. That is unless you’re on the other side, but in that case I’ll be right here setting the conversation back on course anyway. I’m not falling for that trash talk anymore, so don’t waste your time with it here.

    • 1. No, it is not illegal to use a machine gun in self defense. It has happened several times in the past. One of which comes to mind was Kansas City, Missouri with a 1928 Thompson. Not sure what state he is in but as far as I know, no state has any automatic “murder 1” charge for use of a particular weapon as it would never stand in court.

      2. In some states, hunting with a machine gun is a felony, in others, no. In Texas, it is legal to hunt vermin species such as feral pigs with a machine gun.

      3. It’s the 1934 NFA. The 1932 Machine Gun Act has been struck down in every state that passed it except one, that being Virginia.

      4. the NFA is Unconstitutional as it is a tax law. In over 2 dozen cases SCOTUS has stated you cannot apply a fee or a tax to the exercise of a Civil Right. (see Poll Tax) This is why it will be struck down after the MG ban is.

      5. There is no Federal restriction on intrastate travel with a machine gun. There is restriction in only one NFA state that does.

      6. No, you do not surrender your 4th Amendment Rights because you own a machine gun or any other NFA. The ATF CANNOT perform an inspection at will. The only thing they are legally able to do is ask to verify the paperwork and status of the gun. But, they cannot mandate it. I wish that stupid crap would stop being spread around that they can inspect your stuff at will… it’s simply not true.

  5. One issue of using such weapons in self-defense situations: stray rounds.

    • Oleg Volk says:

      Same as with semi-automatic and manual actions. And the same remedy: more controllable designs and more training, both of which are currently restricted.

    • Lyle says:

      Tell that to the Secret Service and other protection details that use them, even around large crowds. You could make that argument about shotguns too, or about people with single shot pistols and poor skills.

      Automobiles, however, remain one of the most deadly consumer products regularly used, of that’s where you want to take the conversation (making sure Daddy Government keeps his silly little children from getting boo boos). Stay off the roads if you’re terrified at the prospect of accidental injury. And don’t farm, because feeding us is one of the most dangerous jobs you can have.

      Strangely, the Declaration of Independence, the constitution, and the Bill of Rights say nothing about government being used to make laws combatting accidental injury. They do mention the safety of our rights though. You can have one or the other; laws that prevent you doing or having anything that might result in your getting hurt, or laws that protect your rights.

      Which one are we talking about here? How about we decide, and then think about staying on point?

      All that aside; stray rounds are an issue no matter where you are shooting, for what purpose, and with what weapon. We deal with it by instructing one another in proper methods. Cops and other recipients of government pay checks have a rather less respectable record in that department than regular armed citizens, and they carry automatics freely while we are restricted almost totally out of having them.

      If your concern is all about stray rounds, then we should reverse the situation, restricting cops and other government operatives from having SMGs while letting them proliferate freely among the general public.

      • Secret Service has a lot more training than I or anybody I know who carries for their own protection, *and* when protecting top people society and the law (both) are willing to grant them a little more margin of error.

        Yes, you can injure somebody with a stray round with a single-shot .22.

        No, it’s absurd to claim it’s *equally likely* with a single-shot .22 vs an SMG.

        • Oleg Volk says:

          They also tend to operate in crowds, while personal self-defense seldom happens around witnesses. And not everyone lives int he suburbs. Consider, for example, rural areas where the closest neighbors are hundreds of meters away or further.

  6. Chris says:

    Groups such as MS-13 and the Cartels have been smuggling in people and drugs for decades, what makes you think they don’t already have smgs ?
    They need their businesses to survive, and escalation is bad for business and they know it.
    Also, these types of weapons don’t conceal very well.

    • Lyle says:

      Again and again and again (because apparently it still hasn’t sunk in);

      Criminals can do, or have, whatever they want, and as I pointed out above the government will sometimes assist them. Government needs criminals as a pretense for continued rights violations.

      Criminals are therefore not the focus here. Criminals are not a threat to government. Those who desire liberty and equal protection of rights; THOSE people are a threat, by their very existence. If you’re a patriot, YOU are the problem, not criminals.

      Legal restrictions affect only the law-abiding then, and are designed to attenuate the natural threat to government power posed by honest people with principles.

  7. 937 says:

    No arguments here that they should be legal, but until then, AR pistols with binary triggers or AR rifles in pistol caliber carbines with bump fire stocks can work as functional substitutes.

  8. Ray says:

    Again Saying “If you don’t agree you are EVIL” is just a circle jerk tactic used by freedom haters and small minds to end speech they don’t like. The FACT is that there are 20000 anti gun laws in America. HALF of then ban or limit civilian ownership of automatic weapons. The “suppresser” strawman argument is another false lead, as they are nowhere as regulated or restricted as full autos–and they NEVER WERE. With far fewer restrictions for ownership and use. They also pose little danger to the public. The same cannot be said for MG’s. There has always been widespread fear of full autos in America and rightly so. They remain the single most civilian restricted weapon on earth after explosive blast/ fragmentation weapons and I don’t see that set to change. Public support for repeal of the NFA is somewhere under 10% of gun owners. FAR fewer of the general population would support it. I’m a military trained Machine Gunner. I know EXACTLY what an MG can and cannot do. I’m old enough to have trained with both the M-3 and the M-60, and I can think of nothing more fear inducing than giving a belt fed or SMG to the average Wal-Mart Bubba. Right now MG’s are expensive, difficult to purchase, and restricted in where and how ,you can shoot them. Considering how often I see suicidal and stupid acts by AR-15 /Glock owners . I have a hard time seeing that as a bad thing. Instead of flaming me. Maybe you might consider telling me WHY I should support arming people who are too stupid to carry a pistol, with a weapon that can cut my house in half? In the last five years idiots with .50 BMG single shot rifles have managed to kill a horse and a cow within 500 yards of my house because they were using a HAY BALE as a back stop, INSIDE a subdivision. Tell me WHY I want to give those idiots a Ma- Duce? (two different morons with .50’s shooting at night, because BIG FLASH IN BACK YARD LOOK COOL.)

    • Paul Koning says:

      I don’t get it. Your argument basically amounts to “full auto weapons are dangerous so it’s ok to ban them”.
      Where in the Constitution do you find support for that argument? That’s easy. Nowhere. But you will find words that specifically forbid such bans: the Second Amendment.
      “It’s too dangerous for you” is never a valid excuse for government infringement on our liberties. The exact same argument can be used to ban cars, or motorcycles, or skiing, or skydiving, or soft drinks, or politically incorrect fats, or tobacco, or marihuana. None of such bans are Constitutional.

    • Ray, sorry but you really have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re spouting insane and blatant crap that isn’t reality. Seriously, go educate yourself on machine guns and the NFA. You obviously have not done so yet.


  9. Flint says:

    So, as usual, Ray is on with his anti-gun nonsense. No, “we” haven’t said that AR’s and AK’s are “just sporting rifles.” Individuals practicing appeasement have done so. “We” have said, “yup, that’s the exact sort of military weapon that the Second Amendment protects – sporting rifles actually do not receive protection, if you want to be technical about it.”

    Using a MG for self-defense is no different from using any other firearm for self-defense. You’ve repeated the false claim about it automatically being first degree murder several times, now, and steadfastly refused to back it up with any actual statute. Because, of course, it’s entirely false.

    Hunting with a machinegun may or may not be illegal. NH allows machineguns that are .22 rimfire or smaller. Violation is a fine, not a crime, let alone a felony. And there are not thousands of other laws related to machineguns, here… that’s the only one that exists.

    You’re spouting nonsense, either due to ignorance or malice. Given how many times you’ve been called out on it, and that you keep doing it, malice is seeming more and more likely.

Comments are closed.