trapper7 how do you propose to stop people from owning them? the only reason everyday outlaws don't have them is price. you really think the guy flying in 20 tons of heroin cant get his hands on a m60 to resell? can easy buy a semi 50 cal but again price keeps the gangsters from using them. cant be that hard to modify a semi 50, or ar10, to full auto, I wouldn't think. it is time to repeal the nfa and subsequent attempts to stop gun violence by prohibition. its not any more effective than drug prohibition.

Sure can't disagree with that.

Danny,

Obviously, you can't stop the guy who is rich from selling heroin from obtaining one. But, allowing anyone who wants one can have one without any background check of any kind is ridiculous. If the crazy man who did the shooting in Vegas with the bump stock had an M60, a lot more people would have died that night. Based on your way of thinking, it would have been OK for him to own an M60 if he could afford it.

I'm not familiar with an AR10, but if it got its roots from the AR16, it would never compare with the M60 due to heat alone. The AR16 was replaced many times by new and improved weaponry. The M60 still stands on it's own. It's an amazing weapon. Ask anyone who's ever fired it.

Trapper7, if you denied the las vegas shooter whatever gun he wanted before the shooting, you'd be denying a man with no criminal history a gun. We shouldn't punish people ( by denying firearms sales, for example) for something they might do in the future, only what they have actually done. (And yes, I'm aware that the las vegas thing would have been way worse with an m-60, but we all know that those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither.)

Also, the AR-10 came before the AR-15. Ar-10 was introduced in 1956, it was scaled down to .223 in 1957-ish. The AR16 was a prototype only rifle made by armalite, it later became the AR18.

Again...

How do you know that MS 13, the Mafia, or any other nefarious organization doesn't already have these fearsome weapons?

Mike

Im willing to bet they do have them.

All the more reason to deny anyone from owning an M60. You've made my point. Accordingly, you feel it's better to allow someone to own one otherwise you're compromising their freedoms. Their freedom is more important than potentially risking the lives of human beings. That kind of reasoning is why there will probably never be a viable third party in the US.

I'm only familiar with the M16 rifle. That's what we had back then. That's what I meant in my prior posts. We also trained with the M14 in AIT which was a much more dependable rifle than the M16.

Lean into freedom. Don't let the fear of what might happen keep you and everyone else from the enjoyment of belt fed automatic weapons.

I would prefer an M134 myself... Crowd pleaser.

Mike

what from there-rocket launchers-hey its my right.

pcr2, the 2nd amendment says "arms". That's generally understood to mean something an individual soldier might carry around. (Think of what you might store in your home to carry on your own if you participated in a militia). So firearms, flamethrowers, RPGs, grenades, etc all fit that description.

Couldn't find anything about rocket launchers...

But grenade launchers and miniguns are legal if you are willing to jump through the NFA hoops.

And there is no federal prohibition against flamethrowers.

Mike

2nd amendment "arms"

This gives a good definition of "arms" along with a good explanation of one of the founder's arguments against a standing army. (The gist is that allowing a standing army to have exclusive access to certain arms ensures that standing army the ability to control the population.)