Funny that you would choose "80 years" as an arbitrary number. The National Firearms Act of 1934, which turned 80 a couple of years ago, severely limited civilian access to "machine guns". Hence the drop in their use, which was the entire point of the law.
tell me then-if this law, that was designed to be a de facto ban (the ATF literature admits that)-was so successful, what was the reason for banning things that the prior law had been successful in preventing any illegal use of? Tell me how the 1934 NFA concerning Machine guns can be constitutional based on the Miller Decision. I assume, since you are arguing this issue with me, that you fully understand the Miller decision.
To be honest, I was willing to overlook the silly hyperbole as long as I was convinced that their goal was to protect the 2nd. However, they've shown that this is no longer their primary function. Now they are just unabashed partisan hacks. I mean, hell, they gave an award to the FCC chairman after he nixed net neutrality. Regardless of one's opinion on that issue or gun rights, it should be obvious to every person with an ounce of critical thinking skills that it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. They were simply giving a shout-out to the their boy in the White House. The only thing they'll ever receive from me is a pair of knee pads to ward of the inevitable arthritis that they're getting from sucking off the President who has managed to do more harm to the 2nd in two years than the last president was able to pull off in eight.
yeah I am sure you are a hard core second amendment supporter. Remind me which party is responsible for 1) the 1934 NFA 2) the GCA of 68 3) the Hughes Amendment 4) the Clinton Gun ban 5) the Brady Bill 6) the Lautenberg Amendment 7) Magazine confiscation laws in NJ and California (struck down by the court) "assault weapon bans" in California, NJ, NY, Maryland, CT which party? how did every democrat appointed Justice on the USSC vote in Heller? In McDonald?
I'm not arguing with you. I am simply pointing out the reason that fully automatic firearms haven't been used as murder weapons in the last 80 years.
1) there were almost none in private hands prior to the de facto ban-which means the law is completely different than it would be for handguns or semi auto rifles-there are more AR 15s sold in a year now than there are Legal machine guns in private hands. 2) Most machine guns that were made in America (foreign made machine guns could only be legally owned if they were 68 "amnesty guns" or guns that were converted by a Title II maker and registered afterwards-in other words, an importer could not import a select fire Uzi or Swedish K and then sell it to a private citizen rather the importer would have to bring in a semi auto uzi, then convert it and register the conversion as if they made it) were not ones that Criminals had much use for. Every try packing a Tommy gun around? Most machine guns are not easily concealed which is the main thing criminals are looking for 3) before the crack wars of the 1980s, the main use of weapons by criminals was to force compliance-and a pistol is far easier to use than a machine gun 4) semi auto rifles-the closest thing to machine guns-are used in less murders than baseball bats and other clubs. so even if Real M4s or Galils were able to be still purchased, the numbers used in homicides would still be slight
I don't recall knowing that but according to a firearms instructor with the FBI that I used to train with (he was an attorney too and later was an agency counsel), he doubted there were more than a few, if any
what relevance does a de facto ban have of weapons that had yet to be owned by more than a few people with attempts to do the same thing to weapons that have 40 million in circulation? and those weapons were never very popular for most criminals anyway
Yes. Plenty. Which is the reason it was outlawed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine's_Day_Massacre#Murder_weapons
Were those legally owned machine guns? Could those 4 shooters armed with 12 gauge shotguns or .38 caliber revolvers have accomplished the same thing?
Read the article cited. One of the Thompson's was actually purchased by a cop with mob ties, and thus, was legally owned at the time of purchase.
