Guns designed for a war zone missing from Ohio home.

[LiberalHeart]

Somebody please explain to me why in the world a private citizen would want to own an M-60, AND why the authorities would say he could. I understand why some people think it's swell to own a gun, but does the second amendment extend to owning a weapon that can shoot through vehicles and buildings while sprewing up to 850 bullets a minute?

The guy says he kept it in mint condition. What's that supposed to mean? He didn't drag it along when he went to work or the corner bar?

http://newsgrinder.blogspot.com/2007/03/guns-designed-for-war-zone-stolen-from.html

[Kagemusha]

1. It says a well-regulated militia. M-60's are, emphatically, well regulated.

Not good to have one go missing/stolen though, not at all, but well, you asked so I figured you were owed an answer. It's not as if people can own machineguns without jumping through major hoops.

[LiberalHeart]

2. My question is sincere: WHY would anyone want to own something like that?

He kept it in a gun safe. What's to enjoy? Are these things considered something akin to art? Sculptural? Or do people admire the killing ability? I don't get it, obviously.

[Big Pappa]

3. This

firearm is very expensive, 30,000 dollars or better. It is not something just "anybody" can own. Also you must apply for a class 3 license from the ATF to have this type of weapon. And yes to some of us it is a work of art. Expensive art.

[LiberalHeart]

4. Thanks. I was thinking it might be something like that.

For 30 grand, I'd want a house to go with it.

[Big Pappa]

8. I may have

even given a low ball price for this weapon. It may be even more. Linked ammunition for this thing would get pricey too.

[Richard Steele]

15. Yes. The "sculptural art" aspect is part of it for many people.

I wouldn't ever buy an M60, but that's just personal
taste. Many of my favorite firearms that I HAVE bought
are real "sculptural art", IMO. More so because they were
not INTENDED to be more than tools, but show how
brilliant mechanical engineering often ends up
somehow following the same principles as any
well-balanced "art" composition.

However, the fact that shooting them is just plain FUN is
quite often a bigger part. If you have that kind of
cash (a mint, transferrable M60 could easily cost 30-35 grand)
to spend on TOYS, it's natural to spend it on toys
that are bigger and louder than the next guy's.

And there's a certain intangible "I like that" factor.
Just like people who are "into" old cars, or antique
furniture, or ANY hobby collectible, the real attraction
to the objects can never be fully explained.

You either "get it" or you don't. So don't waste time
trying to understand something which isn't really understandable.

[Trehuggr]

18. He may have bought it as an investment

this weapon may have been purchased as an investment. I own 2 machine guns and had to go through a thorough background check and pay a $200 tax stamp for each one. When I bought them in 1983 it cost me about $2000 for the m1919a4 Browning and $3500 for the 1908 Maxim. Now the Browning is worth $15.000 and the Maxim is worth considerably more. So they are very good investments because no new machine guns could be purchased by individuals after 1986(fed law 922-o)

[Big Pappa]

19. Good point.

n/t.

[krispos42]

20. It's history, it's a collectable, and it's a good investment

The National Firearms Registry has been closed since 1986, which means that no new full-auto guns can be bought by US civilians. Which means that people that have the necessary permits to buy full-auto guns are buying the same guns from the same pool of legal, registered weapons.

His M60 will only grow in value as the years go on.

And he can occasionally go out and do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdzePA3uf5k

[walldude]

5. When the second amendment was written M-60's didn't exist.

As a matter of fact, when the second amendment was written it took forever to load your one stinking shot into your weapon. Load powder, stuff powder, load shot, aim, fire, rinse repeat. I'm pretty sure the authors of the Constitution weren't thinking we would be dealing with weapons that could fire 850 rounds a minute. I see no reason to keep people from owning guns for protection or hunting or sport, but assault weapons? A reasonable person could not come up with a valid excuse for "needing" such a weapon.

on edit: I see people collect things like this. Fine thats reasonable. I'm sure there is a way to make sure it doesn't fire which should also be reasonable.

[scrinmaster]

6. Neither did telephones, the internet, or radio.

So I guess you don't mind if W taps your phone or reads your email?

[walldude]

9. Huh? What does one thing have to do with another?

The Constitution was built for flexibility, hence amendments. Would I approve an amendment to allow W to tap my phone or read my mail? No it's unreasonable. Would I allow an amendment to ban assault weapons? Yes to me that's perfectly reasonable. Please enlighten me with your reason for the necessity of owning an assault weapon.

[Big Pappa]

10. That is

why you have to have a special permit (class 3) from the ATF to own something like this.

[walldude]

13. I don't understand the necessity though,

probably never will. Understand, I don't support a ban on assault weapons either. If one came up I would accept it as reasonable but I don't advocate one. The fact that this guy managed to get his stolen doesn't help the "you have to have a permit" argument. Beyond it's value as a collectors piece and in combat, I just can't see any legitimate use for a weapon this big so legislating it wouldn't bother me. On the other hand, as long as you ain't shooting me with it I'm cool. I just wonder what would happen if Cheney took one on a hunting trip...

edit for speeling

[Big Pappa]

14. You

are right. No one really has a "need" for an M-60. As I said, it is more of a collectable. It is also legal to purchase if you have the bucks, can get through a background check, and hope the ATF will issue you a permit.

[TX-RAT]

32. I just can't see any legitimate use for a weapon this big

As far as the cartridge it's chambered for, there are a multitude of commercial hunting rounds that far exceedes it's power.

[michreject]

28. Unreasonable to me.

Would I allow an amendment to ban assault weapons?

[walldude]

37. I understand that it's unreasonable to some people

which is why I stated that I don't advocate a ban. I could care less either way.. I'll go with the flow, but I do think this idiot who managed to get his stolen ought to have his liscense revoked.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

31. Flexibility doesn't require amendments

The first amendment recognized the right to freedom of speech and the press. Without amendments, its meaning has been extended to radio, television, the internet. Freedom of assembly even applies to chat rooms. None of those things existed when the Bill of Rights was attached to the constitution.

The fourth amendment recognized the right to not be subject to unwarranted searches. Also without amendment, it's extended to searching email, automobiles, wiretaps.

So why would the second amendment be limited to flintlock rifles? Wouldn't it also naturally extend as the technology advances?

Reason for necessity of owning a so-called "assault weapon"? None. I don't need flash-suppressors, or bayonet lugs. On the other hand, I do want the right to own one, just like I have the right to own a car with a sub-woofer, whether I need it or not. Not by necessity, but because the right to own firearms should not be "abridged".

[jmg257]

46. If you can get an amendment passed, go for it, but otherwise

the Right is protected. Since it (self-defense) is an unalienable right however, it can not be given up in any case, even if we wanted to - being natural, it is of such a right that it can not be denied our posterity. While there is NO doubt a tryannical govt would disable that right if allowed to, the 2nd amendment is not required for that right to exist.

True assault weapons, and even the semi-autos that "assault weapon" bans want to make illegal, are (supposed to be) constitutionally protected because otherwise the people would be barred against keeping and bearing such common military arms, hence rendering the people and the Miltias useless to serve the roles required of them by the Constitution...any "compelling interest" to remove these guns from the people is voided by the requirement, and the absolute right.

Besides all that, they are a non-issue with regards to crime etc. so there is no reason to limit their possession, other then by power-hungry tryant(s) trying to concentrate all the power in the hands of the govt and its agencies. Hence the term gun "CONTROL" .

[LSK]

40. telephones, internet and radio kills people???

:shrug:

[NickB79]

45. Hey, Mein Kampf was only a book

Yet it led to the extermination of millions.

[LSK]

50. books were around during the founders times

:D

[benEzra]

53. So were handguns, shotguns, and rifles...

email, the Internet, satellite TV, DVD's, and high-speed webb presses weren't, though...

[krispos42]

21. Regardless, the militia was as well armed as the regular army

on a man-to-man basis. Yeah, the American militia had muzzle-loading smoothbore wheellock muskets with no sights, topped with an 18-inch bayonet, but so were the British and French.

The firearms we have available now put us roughly on par with modern military small arms. True, automatic fire is not commonly available, but that is less useful than is commonly portrayed. And many Americans own shotguns, a powerful substitute for automatic fire in close quarters.

Regardless, these full-auto guns are rare and valuable. They are not used in crimes.

[Kagemusha]

26. Though I sympathize, your historical argument is just not solid.

You're seriously asking people to believe that the Founding Fathers wrote that law with the idea in mind that weapons technology would never advance, ever. That would have made the Founding Fathers very stupid, ignorant people. What they wrote, at any rate, is that people have the inalienable right to BEAR arms, but that this is subject to reasonable regulation. Machine guns have been held to be subject to reasonable regulation by the Supreme Court.

Machine guns aren't artillery (crew-serviced weapons) but they are greatly more powerful (in a battlefield sense) than rifles so, they can be owned, just with very stiff regulations. Seems fair to me.

I wouldn't know about the "make sure it doesn't fire" stuff because I don't know the details of those regulations as well as some.

[jmg257]

42. Doesn't matter, the 2nd intended that we the people would have

the ability to purchase, keep and bear "military equipment in common use". The Militias of the several States were THE primary security against invasions, insurrections, to execute the laws of the Union, and were necessary to the security of a free State - i.e the Republican form of govt guaranteed by the Constitution. If the people were not properly armed and trained, they could not serve this most vital role.

Makes sense - who better to protect the security and liberty of the people, then the people themselves? It also reduced the need for a large standing army - the bane of liberty throughout history.

[scrinmaster]

7. If I could afford a full-auto M-60, and could buy enough ammo to feed it,

I'd get one too. They cost tens of thousands of dollars, and require a very thorough background check by the ATF, as well as a $200 tax stamp you have to buy.

Nearly all guns can shoot through vehicles and buildings, by the way. Thin sheet metal or drywall doesn't make very good bullet-proofing.

[LiberalHeart]

11. Don't you mean "can shoot into" not "through"? Big difference.

[Big Pappa]

12. No. "through"

An M-60 uses a .308 caliber round. Many hunting rifles are available at your local gun store in this caliber....and even higher calibers. The .308 is considered a medium size caliber. Not for large animals like elk or bears.

[Richard Steele]

16. No, he correctly said "through".

Contrary to what we're shown in TV and movies,
the average car or house doesn't do much to stop
bullets. Brick houses do much more, of course,
but any average rifle can put a hole in a standard
brick wall with the right type of bullet.

Cars? Pfft. The engine itself might stop a bullet,
but that's it. There are -NO- firearms so low-powered
that they can't go through an average modern car door.

[Big Pappa]

17. More

like through both doors.

[Richard Steele]

35. I almost said that, but....

Shooting at junk cars, I've seen .22s fail to exit.
So I modified the statement slightly to keep it as
literally truthful as possible.

[krispos42]

22. At point-blank range, my .22 rimfire rifle...

can shoot through both sides of a steel oil drum, which is made of thicker sheet metal than cars. And a .22 is about a low-powered as you can get.

Car and houses are mostly empty space, after all. Interior walls are just two layers of sheetrock. Exterior walls are siding, plywood, insulation, and a layer of drywall.

Of course multiple layers of sheetrock and furniture will eventually stop bullets, especially the hollowpoint kind.

That's why people looking for a self-defense gun often tend towards pistols and shotguns. Pistol bullets and shotgun pellets don't penetrate as deeply.

[benEzra]

25. No. A deer rifle will shoot through 1/2 to 3/4 inch of mild steel plate...

the M60 is the same caliber (7.62x51mm, aka .308 Winchester) as many mid-level hunting rifles. It's the rate of fire that makes the M60 special, not its power.

[jody]

23. Article says the owner obtained government permission to purchase the guns and they were

properly stored in a safe.

The owner is probably a collector and in that sense no different than people who pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to collect automobiles, painting, etc.

[benEzra]

24. You have to have special government permission (BATFE Form 4)

to own one of those, and a civilian-transferable model costs as much as a house. Possession without Federal authorization is a 10-year felony, so they are about as tightly controlled as you can get.

If it's any comfort, long guns (rifles and shotguns) are almost never used in crimes, because they are too bulky to conceal. The M60 makes rifles and shotguns look small, and can't be operated effectively by a person in a standing position, as it's designed to be fired from the bipod. It's not large-caliber, either (7.62x51mm is dimensionally the same as .308 Winchester, a mid-range deer hunting cartridge), it's just the fact that it's a belt-fed machinegun that makes it special, because it can shoot at such a high sustained rate.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

27. Can't equate the cost of a gun to the cost of a house

I'd guess that most folks who own a $35,000 gun probably don't live in a $35,000 house. Most people who can afford a $35,000 gun live in a different world than the rest of us.

[benEzra]

29. I was under the impression that M60's went for closer to five figures...

due to their rarity. (We paid 88K for our house.)

I did a quick google of gunbroker and gunsamerica, but couldn't find any Title 2 M60's for sale. I've seen an M16A2 (mint) for 75K, though...

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

34. Your numbers are higher than I expected

But my comparison is the same. How many folks buy a gun for $85,000 and live in a $85,000 house? That's ball-parkish to my house, and I'm not sure I can justify the price of one of CMP's $500 M1 Carbines.

There's not a lot of practical use for the M60. Maybe if I was planning to sail my yacht in waters close to Somalia (when I get a yacht :) )

[benEzra]

36. I think the people who own M60's and miniguns are much wealthier

than the rest of us.

An 85K gun might cost as much as my house, but you're right that the owner's house probably cost as much as half my neighborhood put together...

[jody]

38. Agree but I've seen highly engraved skeet shotguns with exhibition grade walnut worth over $75K. n/t

[michreject]

30. It's only a .30 cal -7.62 NATO

Uses the same ammo as a M-14 or most bolt action deer rifles. This is no special round.

[Little Wing]

33. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is one of the biggest Fuckups in US History

[jody]

39. Disagree, IMO the "biggest Fuckups in US History" are those who would prevent law-abiding citizens

from keeping and bearing arms to exercise their natural, inherent, inalienable right to defend self and property.

The most effective, efficient tool for law-abiding citizens to use for self-defense is a handgun, the first arm of choice for law enforcement officers and criminals.

[LSK]

41. actually the most effective tool is a lock

[jody]

44. A lock! I've had crooks beat my door in which had dead bolts, ignore the burglar alarm, steal

a handful of change, and run away before the police could arrive in about 12 minutes.

Why don't you carry a lock in your pocket and show it to the first criminal who threatens you. :rofl:

[LSK]

49. but guns keep doors shut soundly???

Ok, the 1ST TIME a criminal threatens me, I will try the lock.

Geezz, you make it sound like theres a criminal on every street corner and breaking into every house in the neighborhood every night.

Why?

[jmg257]

47. Though they are easy to conceal, I don't think a lock will be quite as effective

against a murderer, rapist or robber trying to impose his will on you outside the home. Would you hit him with it??

[LSK]

48. a gun keeps a criminal from getting into your home how???

:shrug:

[jmg257]

51. Doesn't unless I catch him in the act; of course a lock will help, as will

my dog, but neither are approriate for carry outside the home. A handgun however allows you the ability to deal with both situations quite well.

[benEzra]

52. Who says it's a dichotomy between locks and guns? We have both...

there's no law that says that if you own a gun, you have to leave your doors unlocked, and aren't allowed to have a dog and/or security system.

The gun is for the unlikely scenario that someone defeats your locks and doesn't care about the alarm. It's a last resort, while locks are a first resort, but they are NOT mutually exclusive.

[jmg257]

43. Not really. When taken in the scope of the rest of the Constitution,

it makes great sense. It clearly articulates and protects an individual natural/unalienable right, at the same time declaring one of the primary reasons why protecting that right is NECESSARY. Since the Congress was enpowered to provide for arming the Miltias, one of the 1st steps they took to accomplish this duty was to make sure the ability - the Right, of the people to keep and bear arms would not be infringed. Since this amendment: modifed and overrides any previous clauses in the Constitution (such as the commerce clause), reinforces the right to arms secured in the the Miltia Clauses of Article 1 section 8, and is part of the supreme Law of the Land, it ensures that neither Congress nor any State law or constitution could be used to disarm the citizen Militias, which were required for the federal govt to fulfill its duty of protecting life, liberty and freedom of the people. (repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and execute the laws, & also to fight unlawful combinations usurping the power and rights of the people).