'Ghost Gun' Loophole Leads US Justice Dept to Propose New Definition of 'Firearm' (upi.com) 301
America's Justice Department proposed a new rule Friday to update the definition of "firearm" for the first time since 1968, in an effort to close the so-called "ghost gun" loophole.
UPI reports: Attorney General Merrick Garland said the modernized definition would require retailers to perform background checks on customers before selling some ready-made kits that allow people to build their own guns. Such guns are known as "ghost guns" because they don't have serial numbers and can't be traced. "Criminals and others barred from owning a gun should not be able to exploit a loophole to evade background checks and to escape detection by law enforcement," Garland said...
Under the proposed rule, manufacturers must include a serial number on the firearm frame or receiver in a kit. Firearm dealers also must add serial numbers to 3D-printed guns or other un-serialized firearms they take into their inventory.
UPI reports: Attorney General Merrick Garland said the modernized definition would require retailers to perform background checks on customers before selling some ready-made kits that allow people to build their own guns. Such guns are known as "ghost guns" because they don't have serial numbers and can't be traced. "Criminals and others barred from owning a gun should not be able to exploit a loophole to evade background checks and to escape detection by law enforcement," Garland said...
Under the proposed rule, manufacturers must include a serial number on the firearm frame or receiver in a kit. Firearm dealers also must add serial numbers to 3D-printed guns or other un-serialized firearms they take into their inventory.
SUPER illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
It's already illegal for a criminal to own a gun. This rule is designed to put 80% lower manufacturers out of business and restrict people's ability to build their own AR-15s, timed before the Democrat's AR-15 ban. The vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated with stolen handguns, a fact that seems to be purposefully ignored time and again.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Gun violence is the excuse. A well-regulated militia is the reason.
Don't them drag you down to their level.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Calling the American people "A well-regulated militia" is like calling Chef Boyardee "a good cook".
Re:SUPER illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that's sort of the point. In order for the militia to function properly (be well regulated) they have to have proper equipment as a fundamental first step. That's exactly what the 2nd is saying. That, and that the existence of such a properly functioning group of armed citizens is essential to the survival of a free state.
It's fair to disagree with that, but that's what it says.
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't it make more sense to organise the militia and train them before handing them the weapons?
Like how in the military they don't just give you a howitzer on day one, they figure out if you can be trusted with it and then give you instruction first.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Wouldn't it make more sense to organise the militia and train them before handing them the weapons?"
Yes it would, save that if you require training before permitting firearm ownership, you'll soon find out that training will cease when the government no longer can tolerate your ownership of firearms.
'shall not be infringed' is the precise wording. We've allowed common-sense and not-so-common sense restrictions. Many ought to be rescinded. Not all. But many.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't separate the "shall not be infringed" part from the "well regulated" part though. Also it's already been established that "arms" has limits too, e.g. no nukes in private ownership. Background checks and prohibitions on criminals owning guns have also been found to be constitutionally valid.
Clearly it's not an absolute licence.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's also fair to say that the second amendment is an impenetrable grammatical travesty where honest people can have vastly different interpretations of a single sentence. It sucks when committees craft language.
I read it as a well-regulated militia (meaning conforming to the laws and restrictions in place) is critical, and THE PEOPLE (not a PERSON) have the right to keep and bear arms as part of that militia.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's instructive to consider British history. They have a markedly different historical perspective, and very, very different society. I would not trade their problems for ours, though, and certainly nor their government. Is it the Official Secrets Act, I forget the precise title, that pretty much ensures nothing more controversial than adultery by government officials will be reported? With the occasional espionage scandal to denigrate the current opposition...
Re: (Score:2)
The military has taken over all functions but one - the one which it CANNOT do, and which motivated the founders to NOT establish a military, preferring a militia instead: Defending the populace against the government.
The military is an arm of the government, and thus will always defend and perpetuate the crimes of the government. Remember these people just finished fighting an armed rebellion against the military of the legal government. They understood very well the dangers of a standing army. It's a
well regulated and Chef Boyardee (Score:3)
Calling the American people "A well-regulated militia" is like calling Chef Boyardee "a good cook".
When it wasn't being used as part of a term of political art to distinguish the general population, with their own guns and skills but no permanent government employment or rank, from the "select militia" - part-timers with ongoing enlistment, rank, officers, organization, etc., the "well-regulated" part referred to being in good tune/adjustment and able to function well.
A well-regulated clock kept accurate ti
Re: SUPER illegal (Score:2)
Your comment is ironic given that chef Hector Boiardi was a good chef.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If the federal government gets to decide who is a member of the "well regulated militia" then the states cannot build a militia without the permission of the federal government, a situation the 2nd Amendment was enacted to avoid. The right to keep and bear arms is protected for all people so that the states are able to pick from the people those suited for a militia.
Let us assume that the US Constitution protects only the states' authority to build a militia. Further assume that this isn't some oversight
Re:SUPER illegal (Score:5, Informative)
In 2019, there were 39,773 gun deaths in America. Most were suicides. Of the 14,861 classified as homicides, this many are reliably known to have been committed with ghost guns: 0.
Perhaps the politicians and bureaucrats should instead focus on things that actually matter.
Chicago has one of the highest gun homicide rates in America. 80% of poor kids in Chicago get their water from lead pipes, and they have blood lead levels twice the national norm. Lead is a neurotoxin that causes reduced intelligence and violent anti-social behavior.
But it costs money to stop poisoning kids while banning stuff is free, so whatever.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:SUPER illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of banning ghost guns isn't to reduce crime, or even to solve it after the fact. It's to disarm the people who might stand up for the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, it literally says a "well regulated militia". Unregulated weapons with no background checks seem to be the opposite of that.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the problem when you take things out of context. Thankfully, SCOTUS wasn't so shortsighted.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Re: (Score:2)
That just raises the obvious question: is a well regulated necessary for the security of a free state?
Many other states seem to get buy without one, and I can't see how it would have helped at e.g. the Capitol back in January.
Re: (Score:2)
It can easily be argued one way or the other, but it is what it is right now. And, if people don't like what the founding fathers wrote, they gave us the opportunity to amend it. That won't be so easy (nor should it be) because according to WaPo, only 1 in 5 Americans want it repealed.
Re: SUPER illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
A well stocked refrigerator, being necessary to feed a family, the right of the People to store food shall not be infringed.
The shall not be infringed part is rather clear, no matter what mental gymnastics you fools wish to perform.
Re: (Score:2)
So what happens when a well stocked refrigerator is no longer necessary to feed a family? Does that not render the rest of your statement moot as well?
You may not know what that word means/meant... (Score:3)
When our founders wrote the Constitution, the word "regulated" did NOT mean "tightly constrained by laws and rules enforced by armies of anonymous unelected government bureaucrats". The word "regulated" generally was used as in "to make regular". Mechanical clocks back then that were accurate were said to be "regular" and were sometimes sold as "regulators". When the founders wrote the interstate commerce clause, it was obvious to everybody that the Constitution was requiring the federal government to assur
Re: (Score:2)
>>> A classic politician act is to pretend to do something, while actually doing sweet blue all.
Otherwise known as the "Politicians Syllogism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
80% of poor kids in Chicago get their water from lead pipes
Eh, maybe that's a contributing factor, but I think it's much more about "No dad, no chance."
Re: SUPER illegal (Score:2)
What if that contributes to no dad?
Re: (Score:2)
What if that contributes to no dad?
Bingo. Selfish anti-social behavior like abandoning your kids is exactly what heavy-metal neurotoxins cause.
Impact of blood lead levels on maternal quality of life [sciencedirect.com]
To be fair, the link correlates family dysfunction with maternal lead levels, but the dads come from the same communities and had similar exposure.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of statistics and Chicago, you may like this collection. [heyjackass.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agree, If we could pass that infrastructure bill there's some $110B for the replacement of lead pipes. School improvements and public transport improvement too. Will do far more than this change will.
You do understand that Merrick Garland has fuck al (Score:2, Insightful)
Also that Biden has a plan to fix those pipes currently held up by Republicans and two right wing Senators who are basically Republicans?
Re: SUPER illegal (Score:2)
BINGO! Politicians always go after the easy meaningless stuff because their vote base doesn't know any better. Politicians stay away from hard problems because they can get their votes with empty virtue signaling gestures, "tougher sentences for child molesters", "rewrite all laws and replace the pronouns to gender neutral", "rename this or that" - ignorant people eat it up and consider these things actual accomplishments. "Raise people out of poverty", "provide affordable education", "decrease unemployment
Re: (Score:2)
I agree the proposed actions are going to be ineffective [reason.com] and most likely unConstitutional. But your argument uses the weasel words "reliably know" to attempt to exaggerate your position. It doesn't, it makes you appear to be a zealot and your arguments will be lost on anyone who isn't already in agreement.
"Forty-one percent, so almost half our cases we're coming across are these 'ghost guns'," said Carlos A. Canino, the Special Agent in charge of the ATF Los Angeles Field Division
https://abc7.com/5893043/ [abc7.com]
41% isn't 0. This isn't a complete political misdirection, as this is an issue law enforcement has actually complained about. That doesn't change the fact that the only impact thi
Re: SUPER illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: SUPER illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've only heard of one mass shooting taking place at a gun store or convention, and that was in February.
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Re: SUPER illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Mass casualties almost never happen in Texas because *someone* is going to shoot you in quick order.
I guess even the definition of "almost never" is bigger in Texas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It reminds me of the "You'll never see someone try shit at a shooting range" argument (also in Texas). https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u... [nbcnews.com]
I'm not saying every proposed gun control measure is a good idea. But like the conservative arguments against addressing smoking, air pollution, health care costs, global warming, and covid, there is no acknowledgment of a problem--only a deep resentment of the proposed solution.
It's also worth noting (contra GP) that the DOJ does have some say in what constitutes a firearm under 18 USC 44 section 921(a)(4)(B)
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter;
(Though I haven't looked into the full scope of the AG's discretion or whether the DOJ's 'ghost gun' would properly fall within it.)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that's part of the definition of a weapon of mass destruction, not a firearm. Interestingly, both 4th of July fireworks and the mortars that loft them into the air fit the definition of a weapon of mass destruction.
Re: (Score:2)
These statutes demand a closer reading than I am willing to give at this point, but I believe there was a recently a case about whether bump-stocks count as destructive devices (if you're looking for a nuanced discussion). Having said that, I don't think my lazy Saturday interpretation is useful or incorrect:
(3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive . . . or (D) any destructive device.
(4) The term “destructive device” means— . . . .
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes). .
For the determined: Always look for the exception to the exception!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that a lot of conservatives say they believe that the Second Amendment was to allow an insurrection by citizens, but I believe Vinson, Burger, and Bork (to name three conservative jurists) believed that it was exclusively to safeguard the state militias--I suppose potentially against Federal tyranny, but possibly just to avoid the power inherent to a standing army. The Second Amendment originally applied only to the Federal government--so the states could do as they wished in this regard (stil
Re: (Score:2)
They only could regulate commerce and building your own gun is not interstate commerce.
I'm pretty sure there's lots of things that aren't interstate commerce that the federal government regulates. Controlled substances, for example. Or what exactly did you mean by that?
Re: SUPER illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
In 2005 controlled substances became defined as interstate commerce. More specifically, if you grow marijuana for personal use and it never leaves your land, it's still interstate commerce. Granted, it wasn't interstate commerce back in the 1790s, but it retroactively became so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: SUPER illegal (Score:2)
Re: SUPER illegal (Score:2)
The only thing they'll be missing at that point is a Supermajority in the Legislative Branch.
Re: (Score:3)
That makes a lot of sense, but hasn't SCOTUS strongly disagreed since Wickard v. Filburn (1942), and re-asserted throughout the years, e.g. Gonzales v. Raich (2005)?
AFAIK there is no possible human activity which isn't interstate commerce. Did you just fart? Then you just impacted the interstate market for canned farts.
Re: SUPER illegal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, it looked to me (IANAL) like the major change WRT making guns (which is not the same as manufacturing them in GCA -speak) is the definition of 80% kits as "readily convertible" and thus subject to serialization etc, and the inclusion of AR upper halves as "frames" instead of just the lower half.
Lots of other fiddly changes but those seemed the big one, along with some record keeping changes.
Re: SUPER illegal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They only could regulate commerce and building your own gun is not interstate commerce.
Selling an 80% lower is, unless the seller and recipient both live in the same state, interstate commerce. It's going to be interesting to see how this rules revision impinges on those "2A sanctuary" laws that are springing up around the country. This whole thing, like almost anything that circles through the ATF, is packed with edge cases and fuzzy situations. Despite the fact that the press release claims they are clarifying what can "readily" be made into a gun, I don't really get any clearer sense of de
Re: SUPER illegal (Score:2)
Re:SUPER illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SUPER illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a metal lathe and CNC mill in my garage. I have never made a gun.
You should. It's a fun project. Just don't commit crimes with it, preferably.
Re: (Score:2)
You should. It's a fun project.
Maybe someday. I already have a (store-bought) AR-15 and plenty of other CNC projects to work on.
I haven't worked with steel in a long time. 99% of my projects use aluminum or plastic.
Re: (Score:2)
So a drug dealer decides to make a gun, buys a metal lathe and a CNC mill, and teaches himself G-code and metallurgy.
Then he realizes he can get a job as a machinist making way more than the average drug dealer without any risk of jail time.
Or sell them to other drug dealers for even more, to be fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Or sell them to other drug dealers for even more, to be fair.
Selling them is already a crime.
If you are willing to commit a crime to get a gun, there are already plenty of ways to do that.
There is very little evidence that criminals are buying blanks and machining them into guns to use in crimes. Not a single homicide has involved a ghost gun.
Re: (Score:2)
Or sell them to other drug dealers for even more, to be fair.
Selling them is already a crime.
If you are willing to commit a crime to get a gun, there are already plenty of ways to do that.
There is very little evidence that criminals are buying blanks and machining them into guns to use in crimes. Not a single homicide has involved a ghost gun.
Sure. I'm not saying it's a realistic concern, given how easy it is to get stolen guns. But if we fix that second problem, then the ghost gun issue starts to matter slightly more, if only because it gives you the ability to lock up the machinist without having to prove that he/she knowingly sold them to a drug dealer who would use them to commit crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
... given how easy it is to get stolen guns. But if we fix that second problem ...
Attempts to ban the metal blanks make it HARDER to deal with stolen guns.
Do you remember Obama's attempt to close the gun show loophole after Sandy Hook? It failed. Obama couldn't even get many in his own party to support the law.
The reason is a lack of trust. Nobody believed that closing the loophole was the real objective or would satisfy anyone. Attempts to ban blanks, which have very little to do with gun violence, perpetuate the belief that the real objective is social control. So paranoia, resis
It's literally just going to require (Score:3)
That said, the left and the Dems in general should drop gun control. It's a losing issue. It's impossible to even have a discussion on the topic. There are better ways to save lives in America.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering where you live and what you really know about the NRA other than what the Media and Democrats usually say about the NRA.
The main purpose of the NRA has always been and still is about educating the public about guns. Lobbying is a minor part of the NRA's activities and is accomplished through the NRA-ILA group within the NRA. Most instructors of firearms knowlege, education, safety, u
Re: SUPER illegal (Score:2)
Actually, yes, the whole point of laws is to tell you how to act responsibly. Otherwise we have anarchy.
Freedom isnâ(TM)t a loophole. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do they think they can just slap the word loophole on something and everyone with just go along with making it illegal.
Re:Freedom isn't a loophole. (Score:2)
It worked with "gun show loophole".
There is no gun show loophole, but the words are scary enough that gun shows are now banned in my region. The last few years before the total ban was sad. There were no guns except for some rare collectibles. You could get accessories like scopes and cases, but no guns. It was my choice for buying ammo in bulk. I'd always stock up on a few thousand rounds of each caliber I used whenever the gun show came around. Now I can't even do that.
Just give up on gun control (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll never work, there are far too many guns in the US already and it's a unique cultural issue for us. The culture I would say is part of the real issue but you cannot legislate that away. It's also very true that a good majority on the farther left, socialists, anarchists and many progressives are actually pro to ok with guns.
If Democrats were smarter about this they would lowkey drop the issue and continually focus on the socioeconomic issues at the root of most crime. Drop the drug war, fix some of the perverse incentives in the education system, pass a universal healthcare reform, all these things will reduce crime long term, shootings included. Even the infrastructure bill will likely lead to a reduction in crime.
Gun control is not winning them any new voters, anyone in favor of the issue is still going to vote for them without these measures on the platform and it would probably end up netting them a lot of "moderate" conservatives and independents.
Yang Gang (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why? REALLY? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because other countries take nosedives into various forms or Marxism and totalitarianism, we're not obliged to.
We have gun ownership, in part, because we value the individual, as an individual. Societies that disarm their people clearly do not trust their people, and are explicitly placing the value of the individual and his/her right to self defense below other values. Not a single nation on Earth has been able to eliminate criminals and criminality - so by disarming their people, they are actually only disarming their best and most-civilized people (who were unlikely to use those arms for ill purposes anyway) while leaving them vulnerable to the violent criminal elements they have failed to disarm, and THAT is a rather bold statement-by-actions about who the priorities are on, whether the dumbed-down populations (usually educated by those very same governments) notice it or not.
Incidentally: I'm rather proud that we're exceptional enough that no actual goose-stepping fascist/totalitarian regime has ever arisen here, precisely because we're an armed population - a statement many nations with gun control cannot make. In fact, we've had to come and clean-out the goose-steppers from some of those nations whose people love to pretend to be superior. Oh, and our friends in the UK should remember that at the start of the last world war, their disarmed population was so ill-equipped to stand against the Germans that they had to turn to America for guns - and all across the USA average Americans were implored to donate/sell hunting rifles and other firearms to the Brits and many were shipped to the UK in a program coordinated by FDR and Churchill. Had our population been as disarmed, the UK could not have turned to us for the needed firearms at that early time in the war and the UK might have fallen. As long as we, the individuals of America are armed, our nation will be sufficiently free that we can come and save your butts from your superior systems again when needed...
Re:Why? REALLY? (Score:4, Insightful)
I actually think America can do hard things. And I think it's unpatriotic to say they can't.
There was never a "Ghost Gun Loophole" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Adding to this, if you're building a gun from parts: the receiver counts as a firearm. If you want to build a gun from parts, and buy a receiver: it's got a SN, you have to obey whatever rules there are for buying a gun (BG checks, licensing, waiting period, whatever your locality requires) to buy that part. Without a receiver, you don't have a gun: because the most harm it could cause is if you threw it at someone.
I'd never even heard of this "ghost gun" scary phrase before very recently. As is often th
Re: (Score:2)
It's the flagrant violation of this rule that's the problem.
Wrong.
It's the flagrant violation of the Constution by our own fucking leaders that's the problem.
What do you do with people who perform "flagrant violations" of the law?
You go after THEM and put them in fucking prison. You do NOT punish 100+ innocent responsible citizens to fix that.
This is nothing more than a bullshit gun grab to disarm a nation, done by Democrats. I just hope there are enough Democrats who are also responsible gun owners that they can also work to put a stop to this.
Dear government ... (Score:5, Insightful)
After a 47 year 'war on drugs'
you can't keep drugs off the streets,
you can't keep drugs out of the schools,
you can't keep drugs out of prisons.
Yet, you want me to disarm myself and trust
you can keep guns away from criminals?
Gun Control Is Useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If a 6th grade girl can easily get access to a gun and shoot 3 people, you have a mental health, violence and gun problem.
Re: (Score:2)
As Expected... (Score:5, Interesting)
...everyone is missing the point.
The entire "Ghost Gun" issue is a complete fabrication, pun intended.
The ORIGINAL POINT of making guns out of plastic, and using home fabricators to make gun parts, was to force the world to confront the disparity in copyright law.
Yes, you heard that right.
When virtually any item (including weapons) can be manufactured by a 10-year old with a home-made milling machine and a Raspberry Pi, but copyright law can put that child in federal prison for violating copyright or patents (it's no longer a civil crime, remember?) then the system is fundamentally broken, and needs to be reworked.
The people behind Defense Distributed wanted to force the government's hand on the matter.
But as with ideologues throughout history, they consistently and continuously fail to overlook history, and underestimate the durability of established profit generation systems. [medium.com]
Open Borders and Gun Control (Score:2)
What constitutes ... (Score:4, Insightful)
A rusty shovel [thechive.com]?
Under the proposed rule, manufacturers must include a serial number on the firearm frame or receiver in a kit. Firearm dealers also must add serial numbers to 3D-printed guns or other un-serialized firearms they take into their inventory.
This isn't any different than the current law now. You can make a gun for your own use. But if you sell it (manufacturers, dealers) it must be serialized and reported.
US Justice Dept to Propose (Score:2)
And what about zipguns? (Score:2)
This will sound strange to some folks but (Score:3)
Since when does an individual who plans to use a gun to commit a crime give two shits about the weapon having a serial number on it ? :| )
( OMG I can't commit mass murder today, my gun isn't legal !!
That's akin to thinking the sign on the front of the Bank that says " No Guns Allowed " is going to stop an armed robbery . . . . . .
Re:You know... (Score:4, Informative)
The biggest problem with that is the idea they will hand over the guns peacefully. They wont.
Re: You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with that is the idea they will hand over the guns peacefully. They wont.
Go fucking figure.
- History
Re: (Score:3)
If you are not familiar with 80% lower receivers, you may wonder if it is even legal to build a firearm in your garage. The answer is yes, though not without some restrictions you should be aware of to avoid legal issues with 80% lower receivers. By definition 80% lower receivers are blank components that can be used as the frame of a gun after some tooling and milling occurs. That modification usually focuses on the main fire control group pocket, hammer/trigger pin holes, trigger pass-through hole, and s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
80% receivers have been around en masse since the fall of the Soviet Union when a bunch of AK parts hit the market and people built their own. Specifically as a term of art it refers to AR reciever blanks since the late 90s. It has jack fucki g all to do.with 3d printing. The "Ghost Gun machine is just miniature CNC machine. Of course, since you can make a AR lower out of frigging wood if you're bored enough, the entire "controversy" is completely farcical. This has Jack fucking all to do with stopping criminals and everything to do.with weaponizing gun regulations to be used against normal people.
Re: You know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you really so stupid to think that making guns illegal will stop criminals to own guns or make crimes disappear? I have some bad news for you... criminals don't give a fuck about the law.
All what you will obtain with a ban on guns is to literally make your government impossible to overthrown in case some real nazi (ie not Trump you crybabies) ever goes to power. At that point you will be powerless. Besides are you so eager to live in a nanny state where someone else decides what you should or should not
Re: You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This goes to the heart of the issue. USA citizens have always had the right to manufacture their own firearms. It is illegal to see these homemade firearms but there is nothing to prohibit a USA citizen manufacturing their own firearms -- just as it is legal to brew your own beer, ferment your own wine, and distill your own liquor.
Of course, many people do not know that the purchase of a receiver, a lower receiver in the
Re: You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
What? No. It's perfectly legal to make your own guns in most of the US. You can't legally make guns that you can't legally own, so you can't make a machinegun or make anything but a black powder muzzleloader if you've got a felony conviction. If you make your own short barrel shotgun you've still got to pay the tax on it. If you make a gun that doesn't look like a gun, you've got to pay the tax on it.
You can't be in the business of making guns without a license. But you are absolutely allowed under federal law and the laws of most states to make your own guns.
It's even legal to sell a gun you've made so long as you originally made it without the intention of selling it.
But there's nothing particularly illegal about "pipe guns" - and it's not even particularly dangerous if what you're making is a shotgun.
Re: You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm always baffled by the media and more recently Democrats framing inner-city gang warfare as "gun violence" as if there are disembodied guns running around randomly shooting people. I always hear "Why is no one doing anything about these guns" rather than "why isn't anyone stopping these young black men from killing each other."
Re: (Score:3)
Death and murder are a certainty but that doesn't mean you have to make it easy. I've not yet heard of a drive by knifing, and yet to see someone beat someone to death from 10m away. The reality is there are both underlying social issues that cause this violence, *as well* as enablers (access to guns) to make that violence easy to commit.
I've heard of thieves using bolt cutters to steal bicycles, applying your gun logic means that we shouldn't bother locking up bicycles because the only thing we can focus o
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course your Straw Man argument doesn't work in the real world. I guess that you didn't check it out before you submitted your post.
Of course you realize that the 6 year old carried the firearm into the school AGAINST local, state, and federal laws. She didn't follow the law (on the face of the situation).
Of course you realize that criminals do not obey the "laws". Laws do not effect criminals. In my locality, the schools are demanding that the LEOs stop providing a Resource Officer (LEO) at their schools. The absence of security personnel will make it easier for criminals/outlaws, etc. to enter schools and kill students, teachers, administrators and other employees of the schools.
Of course you have an excuse for not realizing that insulting and demonizing people never helps because of your own preconceived ideas. Which don't have a basis in reality for the vast majority of the USA and its citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Compare this to Colombia where the protestors brought the government to its knees when it tried to impo
Re: (Score:2)