flip out=NRA say,“OMG, they’re coming for our guns!”
modify=Make a semi fully auto
That is already illegal.
Since forever. Illegal as in “20 years in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.”
It is legal to bump fire. Usually with no or minor modifications. The key is that it involves you hitting the trigger multiple times, instead of the action doing the work. Still seems pointless/stupid/dangerous.
Thanks Sage. Do we all agree that already automatics don’t belong in civilian hands?
That would be a question for Great Debates.
I can’t vouch for the accuracy, but (bolding and omissions mine):
So not many murders in many decades, although noting that this does not include illegally obtained or modified firearms. The link has some on that, but they’re not that common either. Usually, if it’s reported in the news that an automatic weapon was used, it is the media not getting the facts right, or a witness misinterpreting multiple shots as automatic.
In civilian hands, FA firearms are mostly a waste of money. If you’re shooting a M-16, that’s (very rough math) $250 per minute, not factoring in reload time.
[QUOTE=Loach]
The term “military grade” simply means stuff the military uses. It does not equal more powerful. For example if someone said “military grade explosive” it would sound scary. However military grade explosives are generally less powerful than civilian grade explosives. The military is willing to give up some power in order to have increased stability. That’s because it is assumed they will be used in less than ideal and dangerous conditions.
[/QUOTE]
Good point. The modern military wants to be able if possible to destroy only what it wants destroyed, right when it wants it destroyed and not before or after. Stable explosives, small arms with a long mean time between failures, ammo that goes off and does not misfeed.
And while at it and back to firearms, from what I read it seems like a few of the AK-series knockoffs, FAL kits and other such items in the market would not be quite “military grade” in the sense that quality and reliability are commented on as being under par.
I fear I’m being pendantic, but don’t you mean .308?
If you really want to be pedantic, s/he means 7.62x51mm. 
Which actually brings up the valid point about the difference between 5.56 and .223
If you’re interested in facts about gun control, this site maintains a very thoroughly cited and documented PDF. If you find anything on it that is incorrect, the authors want to know, and they will correct it.
Not all; I was referring to the very popular concealable sniper rifles. :dubious:
:smack: Yes, sorry for the typo.
Perhaps you were referring to the .338 Lapua round?
No, we don’t all all accede to your position just because you stated it.
Which is why I finished that sentence with a ? :rolleyes: . Please don’t be so dense/baiting!
Whats the gen on owning artillery pieces, tanks, mines etc. ?
I’m not being satirical, I’m genuinlly interested because where I can see governments introducing legislation for smallarms, I can also see them saying, no !noones going to buy themselves a fieldgun so lets not waste time and money making laws about owning them .
Nigh impossible if they fire. Shells would be hard, too. A demilitarized tank is probably not regulated, but local authorities likely won’t deem it street legal, so private property may be okay. You can get non-working mortars, etc., and dummy grenades in most places.
You can own stuff like that in the UK. Richard D. James has a tank.
In the US, as long as it’s a muzzle-loader you’re good to go. I know several people who own cannon.
FAL kits tended to be ok, mine was a kit and it was as reliable as one could ask, it’s the CETME kits that one should really be wary of but that rifle had issues with the Spanish as a battle rifle anyway.
But oddly enough there are stories of kits imported that still had the full auto fire control groups with them, meaning an unscrupulous builder could have just reassembled them into machine/sub guns.