Tell me gun control advocates: how can a dictator be stopped without arms?

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Originally posted by Abe:

*Svinlesha, like a ray of sunshine in a debate darkened by bias and hostility… *

Thanks, Abe! Yeah, I am such a little sunbeam, aren’t I?

…has helped illuminate the position of the observer for anyone who didn’t previously understand it…

Alas, would that it were so!

Also regarding your point concerning the use of excessive force in American, I don’t think it exists as a legal concept. Check out the discussion concerning Bernard Goetz, above, for more details. Note that he was not charged with excessive use of force in the case.
Fenris:

*If you do not need a background check to sell a gun as a private citizen ANYWHERE else in the state, why should you magically need one at a gun-show? If the anti-Second Ammendment types were being honest, they’d admit that the thing they object to isn’t the gun show, it’s the private sale, but there’s much more resistance to prohibiting private sales. *

Yeah, okay, I’ll bite – I don’t know if I’m an “anti-Second amendment type,” but I think there should be stricter controls on private weapons sales. Please explain why I’m wrong.
Freedom:

First off, allow me to commend you on your selective reading skills. I notice that you have now deftly avoided mentioning your original comparison between the US and the USSR, and your implication that Abe’s argument is essentially totalitarian, in two consecutive posts --despite the fact that I’ve clearly pointed out that that was what I reacted to. Way to avoid the issue.

---

*Abe: I think we need to ban cars from the public, because some people drive too fast and endanger others. They don’t slow down in front of schools, for example, and might run over a child.

Freedom: No we don’t! I believe in the individual’s right to have freedom of movement! No cars?? What next, Abe? How do you draw the line between that and the right to vote?*

---

I don’t think this is a fair representation of Abe’s position, and it certainly doesn’t reflect my take on the question. Perhaps Abe would be willing to respond to this point, if you asked him politely enough.

• It is pretty clear from my original post, that I am not discussing the USSR and gun control. If it wasn’ clear in the original post, then you should have caught on the second time when I explained the post to you. *

Oh, excuse me. I thought this was a thread about gun control. Everyone else here seems to be discussing gun control. You posted a response in a gun control thread in which you implied that one of the posters couldn’t differentiate between gun control and voting rights, explicitly comparing the US and the USSR. Sorry I missed your point. Stupid, stupid me.

But best of all, I love this next bit.

*Abe’s position in summary:

[1] The majority of all people are irresponsible.*

Okay, a bit over the top, but for the sake of the argument, I’ll follow along.

*2] If we can’t guaruntee that 100% of the people are: *

Slight overstatement I think, but I won’t quibble.

*[3] Responsible 100% of the time then: *

Now, shame on you. YOU FORGOT TO SAY “HI, OPAL!” My God, man – where are your manners! That’s the second time this thread! Besides, I still think you’re overstating a bit here.

Anyway (and this is the part I love), it’s time for the GRAND FINALE:

*[4] We can remove any right we want to in the name of public safety. *

WTF?!!? That was quite a jump there, dontcha think? Tell you what: please cite the passage wherein Abe states clearly and unequivocally that “we can remove any right we want to in the name of public safety.” Strange, I’ve been following this thread for days, I just don’t seem to be able to find that quote.

You continue:

• As long as Abe and I disagree about basing your rights on the actions of others, then discussing the finer points of gun control is pointless for us. *

Well, that’s a bit better, anyway. But one reasonable statement in this morass of straw assumptions and exaggeration hardly redeems your position. Followed by:

• insert lines and lines of crap here**

Well thanks for nothing. I’ll have you know I spent a lot of time crafting those last couple of paragraphs for your benefit. Pearls before swine, I tell you – pearls before swine.

conclude by agreeing with Freedom’s original premise here**

Wrong. I have neither agreed nor disagreed with your “premise.” I simply tried to clarify Abe’s point, because I suspect that many Americans, your good self included, might not be aware of the excessive force laws extant in Europe and Australia. Please note that several other posters missunderstood your intent regarding the knife vs. gun arguement.

Then, along comes this charming observation:

*So, some guy tries to kill you with a knife, you happen to save you own life by shooting him, and you see the survivor as getting away with something? I see the guy as a hero. I see him exercising a natural right.

You see him barely acting within accepted norms. *

Please, Freedom, give me a break, will you? It’s a turn of phrase, not a policy statement.

The truth of the matter is, you can’t possibly derive how I really feel about that question on the basis of one simple clause. You don’t know, because you haven’t asked me, and we haven’t discussed it. It’s amazing that you can complain about me reading to much into your posts and the follow up with an observation like that. (Please note: I have not used the p or k word. You’re welcome.)

Finally, I’m still waiting for Uncle Beer to respond to:

• originally posted by me:

Do you think that a society with fewer guns in circulation is potentially safer, or more dangerous, than a society with more guns in circulation? *

and especially:

• also originally posted by me:

You see, you even contradict yourself in your own arguments. First you say that despite massive regulation, the US still suffers from “a whole bunch of gun crime,” and then as you go along, you state that gun crime is declining, and that “ Less than 1% of all firearms in the U.S. are ever used in the commission of any crime, much less a violent crime, ” and now from your post I can’t tell if you think there’s a lot of gun crime in the US, or just a little. Which is it?*

Are you still out there, Uncle? Or did you decide to finally say “uncle,” and go home?

[pkbites]

*Originally posted by RubberEntropy *
**.

I believe there are already restrictions placed on firearm ownership in the USA, even in the most liberal States, e.g.

• No fully automatic weapons,

• No Incendiary rounds

• No Armor-piercing rounds
  **

The ignorance of U.S. Gun Laws is blinding. Here are some facts:

*It is legal for a civillian to purchase/own/posses a fully automatic weapon in the United States. It is legal under federal law and it is legal in all but a very small handfull of states.

*You can legally purchase incendiary rounds in most areas of the United States. They are available for pistols, but the better ones are made for shot guns.

*“Armor piercing” bullets are available…they’re called rifle bullets. Most police soft body armor won’t stop rifle bullets.

The facts are automatic weapons, incendiary rounds, and armor piercing bullets are legal, yet very rarely, if ever, used in crimes. So why are so many of you jumping to have them banned?

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by Svinlesha *
**Fenris:

*If you do not need a background check to sell a gun as a private citizen ANYWHERE else in the state, why should you magically need one at a gun-show? If the anti-Second Ammendment types were being honest, they’d admit that the thing they object to isn’t the gun show, it’s the private sale, but there’s much more resistance to prohibiting private sales. *

Yeah, okay, I’ll bite – I don’t know if I’m an “anti-Second amendment type,” but I think there should be stricter controls on private weapons sales. Please explain why I’m wrong.**

If you think that there should be stricter controls on ALL private gun sales, then I disagree with you, but you’re being intellectually honest. If, however, you try to put stricter controls on ALL private gun sales by pretending that there’s a problem that exists only at gun-shows because it’s a good way to decieve the voters, you’re being as disingenuous as an anti-abortion rights type who uses the “partial birth abortion” thing to try to limit ALL abortions. This particular bit of rabble-rousing disingenuousness irritates the hell out of me.

In Colorado, depending on who you talk to, the law that closed the “gun-show loophole” may interfere with the right to free assembly: per pro-second ammendment sources, the law states that a “gun show” is defined as at least three gun owners being engaged in the transfer or exchange of even a single gun. I don’t know if this is true and I haven’t found the text of the law on line to check for myself.

Fenris

[minty_green]

Svinlesha: Although “excessive force” is not, AFAIK, a crime in and of itself in any of the various U.S. jurisdictions, the use of excessive force (sometimes described as a disproportional response) is certainly grounds for other criminal charges, such as murder, attempted murder, mansalaughter, or assault. Manslaughter is the typical charge when a person ends up dead due to the use of excessive force, which makes sense when you think of the common law definition of manslaughter: “Unlawful killing upon adequate provocation.”

[minty_green]

pkbites: Among the states in which it is illegal to possess a fully automatic weapon is California. See page 10 of the California Depratment of Justice’s guide to firearms laws. California a major exception to your claim that such possession is only illegal in “a small handful of states.” I do not know what other states it’s illegal in, but even under federal law, automatic weapons are strictly regulated, even though it is not technically illegal to own one.

Originally posted by pkbites
The facts are automatic weapons, incendiary rounds, and armor piercing bullets are legal, yet very rarely, if ever, used in crimes. So why are so many of you jumping to have them banned?

Chemical and biological weapons are very rarely, if ever, used in crimes. So why is nerve gas banned?

A: Ain’t no legitimate reason in the world for it to be legal, even if it’s rarely ever used.

[Kimstu]

pkb: *The facts are automatic weapons, incendiary rounds, and armor piercing bullets are legal, yet very rarely, if ever, used in crimes. So why are so many of you jumping to have them banned? *

They may not play much of a role in violence in the US, but they’re very big in the international weapons trade. One reason many people are looking to ban them is because of their importance in armed conflict and violent banditry especially in developing nations around the world. As this report points out,

Another defining characteristic of such conflict is the fact that widespread death and suffering result not from the major conventional weapons traditionally associated with war—tanks, aircraft and warships, for example—but from small arms and light weapons. The global proliferation of assault rifles, machine guns, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and other “man-portable” weapons has increased both the frequency and intensity of modern conflict and greatly complicated the task of restoring peace. Such weapons are readily obtainable on international markets, both legal and illicit, and are easily mastered by untrained and unprofessional soldiers, even children.

Powerful firearms and extra-destructive ammunition really escalate the bloodshed and instability in these situations, which is why there’s a lot of pressure to decrease their availability. Making it illegal to manufacture or own them chokes off one of the sources of supply, and (like banning weapons with bayonet lugs, which are also useless for the average civilian but very desirable for the international war trade) makes it easier for law enforcement officials to distinguish between legal and illegal goods. I’m not in favor of banning all guns, but I do worry about the increase in bloodshed facilitated by the international small-arms-and-light-weapons commerce. And since civilians hardly ever use such things in fighting crime—as you point out, even criminals hardly ever use them in committing crimes—we don’t really sacrifice anything by banning them.

[Liberal]

Perhaps a thirty-year War on Guns is in order.

[pkbites]

*Originally posted by minty green *
pkbites: to firearms laws. California a major exception to your claim that such possession is only illegal in “a small handful of states.” I do not know what other states it’s illegal in, but even under federal law, automatic weapons are strictly regulated, even though it is not technically illegal to own one.

Not “technically” illegal? It’s not illegal period! If you can legally own a gun (i.e. you’re not a felon) you can own a machine gun under federal law and in all states except
California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New York, Rhode Island, S. Carolina, Washington. And if you get a class 3 license, you can posses one in those states too.
My point was to combat the ignorance that machine guns are illegal or getting one legally is almost impossible, both falsehoods. Getting a machine gun is as easy as filling out a few forms and paying a fee. Sure, there’s a background check, and so on. But the regulations aren’t as stringent as you make them to be. The fact is, it’s 100% legal to own a machine gun in 40 states, and legal in all 50 if you get a class 3. There are lots of machine guns out there, yet very few crimes commited with them. Yet you want them banned. If it’s because of their “potential” for violent use, then lets ban cars, knives, sticks & stones, and let’s all hide under a rock until we die, because it’s better to be “safe” than free, right?
Oh, and for you word “technically” illegal. “Technically” is a word libbys use when something is perfect legally yet they want to ban it, like gun ownership, free speech, religion, freedom, etc. Right?

[RubberEntropy]

I prefaced my assumptions on weapon restrictions with " I believe", clearly indicating that what followed was not claimed as definitive. It appears automatic weapons ARE prohibited, at least in California, which even us dumb Aussies know is part of the USA.

Unless California is subject to a different Constitution my original premise stands. i.e.

---

"These things are not legal because the people through their representatives, have decided that the civilian owner has no LEGITIMATE NEED for them. Government is already saying that there is a line between what is reasonable for civilians to keep and what is not.

Surely then, the Constitutional right to bear arms is already reduced to a qualified privilege, and from there it is simply a matter of to what degree such privilege is granted. "

---

As to armor piercing rounds, I can only assume that describing “rifle bullets” as armor piercing rounds indicates that you have not served in the military, or otherwise encountered ‘Motile Core’ or similar ammunition which is specifically designed to penetrate plate of the type found on light armored vehicles. The problem with this stuff is not criminal use but the fact that it can penetrate a brick wall and then some, which might just conceivably pose a public danger.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by pkbites *
If you can legally own a gun (i.e. you’re not a felon) you can own a machine gun under federal law and in all states except California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New York, Rhode Island, S. Carolina, Washington. And if you get a class 3 license, you can posses one in those states too. . . . The fact is, it’s 100% legal to own a machine gun in 40 states, and legal in all 50 if you get a class 3.

Cite, please. If you have the federal permit, you can’t be charged with a federal crime for violating the California ban on machine guns. That’s cold comfort as you serve your sentence in state prison.

There are lots of machine guns out there, yet very few crimes commited with them. Yet you want them banned.

For private ownership, you betcha. Now, do you want to address my point about nerve gas, or do you want to continue to polish that object in your lap? The firearm, I mean.

If it’s because of their “potential” for violent use, then lets ban cars, knives, sticks & stones, and let’s all hide under a rock until we die, because it’s better to be “safe” than free, right?

You say the word “safe” like it’s a bad thing. Considering the rhetoric of many of the seriously wacko gun nuts out there, you have company in that belief. But I’ll tell ya, “safe” + “free in all relevent respects except you can’t own an assault rifle” > “liable to be wiped out by a gun nut at the post office” + “unable to own a weapon of such firepower that one has never been used as a means of self defense.”

In what weird world is a machine gun even remotely similar to a form of transportation, a kitchen tool, a piece of firewood, or a chunk of granite? Do you slice tomatoes with an M-16? Do you get to work by harnessing the recoil of a 20-shot burst from an AK-47? And how in the world does even the most paranoid gun owner get from “ban guns” to “ban kitchen tools,” “ban transportation,” “ban twigs,” and “ban the whole freakin’ planet”?

Oh, and for you word “technically” illegal. “Technically” is a word libbys use when something is perfect legally yet they want to ban it, like gun ownership, free speech, religion, freedom, etc. Right?

Uh, yeah. Right next to “technically” in my dictionary is a picture of . . . Well, hell, I don’t know. Somebody help me out. Who’s a “libby” who wants to ban gun ownership, free speech, religion, and freedom?

[Kimstu]

Libertarian: Perhaps a thirty-year War on Guns is in order.

? I think you have an analogy failure here, Lib. Or are you predicting that a ban on the extra-powerful types of weapon and ammunition mentioned here (which even pkbites concedes even criminals hardly ever use) will induce Americans to spend billions of dollars per year on such items and maintain a huge illicit commerce in them to support their addiction to them? I didn’t know automatic weapons and incendiary rounds were so habit-forming! Gee, as minty pointed out, nerve gas and bioweapons are illegal for private ownership too—omigod, have we got a huge nerve-gas and anthrax trade destroying our inner cities too? Why haven’t we been told about this?! I demand a full federal investigation!!

Okay, okay. No, I don’t think allusive scaremongering about implausible perils of a ban on certain megaweapons (remember, nobody’s seriously suggesting anything like a total gun ban) constitutes a very convincing argument against it.

(And I have to add, all you rational gun advocates out there may want to put a bucket or something over pkbites—he’s not making your cause look good. ;))

[pkbites]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green *
Cite, please.

Certainly:
http://www.classthreesupply.com/page26.html

[minty_green]

Nice try, you lose. The article says “Machine-gun ownership has never been outlawed by the federal government as many people believe.” Have a good time in that state prison cell.

[minty_green]

Even better, the article says, plain as day:

Procedure to Acquire a Machine-gun, Suppressor or Short-barreled Shotgun or Rifle- First, you need to know if your state allows them.

Retraction, please.

[pkbites]

Minty Greenare you stoned, sleepy, or are you just trying to bug me? These are questions, not acusations. Did you read the entire *%#ing article? Or, like most gun grabbers, did you only read the part you wanted? Yes, it said you first have to find out if your state allows machine guns, then it gave a list of all the states that allow them! All 40 of them! There was also a section in the article that said that if you posses a federal class 3 license you may own a machine gun in the 10 states that otherwise ban them. States that ban machine guns usually have a clause in their law exempting holders of federal class 3 licenses. Did you read that? Now, re-read the article, and come on back and admit your last post was in error, thereby retracting it!

[Abe]

Posted by Freedom
Cite please? I can’t find or remember ever attacking your intelligence, unless you consider the mere act of daring to disagree with you an insult.

With that last sentence you once again you provide evidence of inadequate debating skills that are intended to humble the opposition rather than address an argument.

Posted by Freedom, as are all the following quotes:
No, they {guns in Holliwood} just influence wacked out posts on the SD that claim the most ridiculous things you could ever imagine.

That would be an insulting post.

You are omnicient and consider .00something% of guns used in a crime to be evidence that the majority of people are irresponsible.

Not just disrespectful and sarcastic, but misrepresenting my argument as well–which seems to be a habit and is a discourteous practice.

You don’t belong in a gun debate, you belong in a debate about what decisions should be left to the masses. Can they be trusted to pick the right job? Eat the right foods? Raise their own children? Vote?

More reducto ad absurdum, not to mention your very visible contempt of my arguments. Then:

Are you serious?

pulls hair out in frustration

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read or seen in any gun debate, any gun thread, at anytime or place.

The quote above speaks for itself

Are you really flat out saying that if someone comes at you with a knife then you should be limited to responding with a knife?

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Are you implying that this concept, which you clearly believe I am making up, is “dumb”? And that my reasoning is also “dumb”?

It is very easy not to worry about excessive force.

Don’t attack anyone. Don’t come at them with a knife. Don’t mug them. Stay out of their house unless you are invited in, especially in the middle of the night.

Thank you for the simplified version that even morons can understand. Not that this is a valid argument either, since it is a ridiculously simplified opinion with no application to real life.

Then follows a rather condescending post directed to Svinlesha, which is similar in vein to your other highly subjective and poorly supported arguments. I will not quote that here, except for this one example, by far one of the more moderate ones:

Let me help you a little bit here. When reading my posts, you need to look for clues about my true intentions. I suggest by starting with the actual words in my post.

I suggest you start by making sense instead of nonsense. How many times have we had to point out the various flaws in your arguments? Your position is appreciated; your arguments, however, are repeatedly unsound.

Abe’s position in summary:

[1] The majority of all people are irresponsible.
[2] If we can’t guaruntee that 100% of the people are:
[3] Responsible 100% of the time then:
[4] We can remove any right we want to in the name of public safety.

This is not my position at all; it is simply a colossal straw man set up by you and that you haven’t managed to knock down! By the way, there is a clear difference between a position and an argument. Arguments do not always have to be made in support of one’s position; they can be useful in helping to establish one’s position, or simply to learn more about a debate.

here is the final gem:

It is exactly because of your highly subjective definitions that I support a decentralized decision making process.

You are calling my position highly subjective! Freedom, the clear majority of your arguments are wholly subjective and with little rational basis. You are accusing me of your problem, and denying all charges against you. How do you expect anyone to be able to address that kind of reasoning? That is not legitimate debate–yet you tell me I do not belong in a gun debate!

So far we have flat denial of existing and well-established concepts, contempt, sarcasm, sundry insults, instances of deliberate reducto ad absurdum, straw men, misrepresentations of my arguments, and stubborn reliance on thoroughly flawed arguments that others have already tried to clarify for you. I trust these citations are sufficient.

[UncleBeer]

Are you still out there, Uncle? Or did you decide to finally say “uncle,” and go home?

I’m here. Finally. Give me a chance to catch up and I’ll be back.

[minty_green]

Originally posted by pkbites
States that ban machine guns usually have a clause in their law exempting holders of federal class 3 licenses.

So states only ban machine guns to the exact same extent as the federal government bans machine guns, you claim? Sounds silly to me, and as a matter of fact, that’s not the law, at least in California. California bans all machine guns except (a) those used by law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their duties and (b) those possessed by persons with a peermit or license issued by the California Department of Justice. And you can imagine how often the California DOJ issues those permits, I’m sure.

In other words, at least one, rather major state has no exception whatsoever for federal Class 3 license holders. And unless you can show me actual law that says the federal machine-gun licensing system trumps state regulations on machine guns, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the California statutes do not mean exactly what they say.

[Freedom]

Mattk

Yes I clicked on all the links. I found myself wondering if you had. I found it highly ironic that the one case you decided to excerpt here on the SD was one where the government had used their firearms incorrectly. If anything, that is just one more arguement for private ownership of firearms.

The first link is mostly about domestic violence, and seems to be making the arguement that abused women and children should be allowed to kill their husband/father at night while he is sleeping.

Many of these factors will remove the possibility of self-defence as an excuse for the woman or child that strikes back after perhaps years of abuse, inadequate support from the community or police, an inability to leave the situation and psychologically a belief in the absolute necessity to defend oneself. But the woman who waits until the husband is asleep, goes to the kitchen to fetch the carving knife or answers fists with a shotgun clearly is beyond these triggering conditions of necessity and proportionality.

The Second one doesn’t work for me. The third one has this quote:

“If there has been an attack so that the defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action. If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.”

The fourth one is about a case that I know nothing about. Reading through the links, my impression is that this guy would never have been convicted in America. From your own link, doubt is thrown on the relevance of that case because of accusations of jury intimidation in an effort to get them to convict.

I’m not quite sure what everybody is so bent out of shape about. I never claimed that you should be able to shoot someone who had bumped into your car.

Originally posted by Abe
Are you implying that this concept, which you clearly believe I am making up, is “dumb”? And that my reasoning is also “dumb”?

What concept are you talking about? Are you talking about the concept of excessive force? I can find no definition of excessive force that treats a knife attack the way you do. Unless you can show me something, somewhere where excessive force is defined the way you are using it, then yes, I do believe your version has been pulled from thin air.

Abe made the SPECIFIC claim that shooting someone who was coming after you with a knife was excessive force. He then went on to draw the conclusion that lapses in judegement like this were a reason to remove guns from the general public.
He said that here:

Excessive force is another problem. Someone posted the example of being attacked with a knife and shooting the attacker in defence. This could be considered exercising over another human being a force disproportionate to the attack. I don’t know exactly what US law has to say about this, but in aq broader context it would seem to be a point against guns in the hands of the public.

He also said:

originally posted by AbeThe problem here is that the majority of people, including gun owners, must be classified as potentially irresponsible. As I said earlier, if there is a way to make certain that every gun owner is a responsible person at all times and will never risk using a gun irresponsibly, then I don’t imagine there would be much objection to your argument.

Compared to:

Originally posted by Freedom
[1] The majority of all people are irresponsible.
[2] If we can’t guaruntee that 100% of the people are:
[3] Responsible 100% of the time then:
[4] We can remove any right we want to in the name of public safety.

With the exception of changing the right to self-defense to any right, I don’t see how I have twisted anything.

[minty_green]

Further information on state machine gun bans

This pro-gun site says “Machineguns are ILLEGAL for individuals in DE, DC, HI, NY, WA, SC. Class 3 dealers are allowed possession in CA, IL, IO, KS, MI, NJ, RI, SC.” I can find no evidence that California law allows Class 3 dealers to possess machine guns, so I question the site’s conlusion on this matter. Nevertheless, the site says machine guns are 100% illegal in Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, New York, Washington, and South Carolina, regardless of anyone’s status as a Class 3 dealer.

The Appendix to the “FAQ on National Firearms Act Weapons” also makes the point that law enforcement personnel in many places often refuse to sign the paperwork necessary to . In other words, it doesn’t matter if the state of East Virginia “technically” permits private ownership of machine guns–as long as local law enforcement refuses to sign off on the transfer, the wannabe Rambo is s.o.l. Thus, the FAQ author chalks up as “No” those states where “the class of folks able to own NFA weapons is narrow by practice (California), or because no law enforcement officers will sign the certification needed for a transfer to an individual.” By his count, there is no private ownership of machine guns in DE, HI, IA, IL, KS, NY, RI, SC, and WA.

He also notes that California “requires discretionary and rarely issued permit for mg [machine guns].” Louisiana also has a de facto ban: “mg’s require a permit to purchase - war relics only.” In New Jersey, “mg requires discretionary and rarely issued permit from state court.” That puts us up to 12 states that do not permit private ownership of machine guns even if you have a federal Class 3 license. Those 12 states account for almost 97 million people, over one-third of the current U.S. population. Not what I would call “a very small handfull of states.”

Originally posted by pkbites
If you can legally own a gun (i.e. you’re not a felon) you can own a machine gun under federal law and in all states except California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New York, Rhode Island, S. Carolina, Washington. And if you get a class 3 license, you can posses one in those states too. . . . The fact is, it’s 100% legal to own a machine gun in 40 states, and legal in all 50 if you get a class 3.

Retraction, please.