20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Just to clarify, I meant rifling and firing pin marks the gun makes on the bullet and cartridges. Obviously its not going to destroy serial numbers.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Grey Templar wrote:Just to clarify, I meant rifling and firing pin marks the gun makes on the bullet and cartridges. Obviously its not going to destroy serial numbers.
Oh, okay. In that case, see my previous answer still.
34390
Post by: whembly
 BaronIveagh wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:While the tech is in it's infancy, let me ask, in ten years, when it has become more common and less expensive, do you think that people who print a gun to commit a crime are going to be worried about breaking one more law?
Not the argument that I was making. I've been pretty consistent in saying that criminals don't often care to follow laws. Its a career hazard 
What I was trying to do though was share information with you that you may not have been aware of for you own, and your friend's sake, as you claimed your friend had made a firearm this way and you were counselling on replacing the metal with ceramic to frustrate efforts at detection.
Yeah, I had him melt it. Another nice thing about these: if you do use one for a crime, they're very easily disposed of.
If that's the concern... I really don't see it as a big deal.
I remember several years ago that a manufacturer testing a metallic material that would withstand the normal day-to-day rigors of shooting, but would dissolve in water (or maybe salt water?).
The same fears were brought up...
I need to find the info... brb.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I'm not concerned with the disposable nature of them, but with the fact that they're much, much easier to sneak past security at the moment.
Of course, thankfully that doesn't have to have a new law because it's already illegal to make a firearm that can't be detected by a metal detector.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Melissia wrote:I'm not concerned with the disposable nature of them, but with the fact that they're much, much easier to sneak past security at the moment.
Of course, thankfully that doesn't have to have a new law because it's already illegal to make a firearm that can't be detected by a metal detector.
Because someone who prints a gun for the purposes of sneaking past a metal detector is concerned about it being an existing law, right?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Well, if an existing law isn't going to stop them, what makes you think any other law would?
Nothing needs to be done in reaction to this. Laws are already in place.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
 Grey Templar wrote:Well, if an existing law isn't going to stop them, what makes you think any other law would?
Nothing needs to be done in reaction to this. Laws are already in place.
This. Criminals, by nature, don't obey laws.
The detectability issue is truly overblown. FIrst of all, current scanning technology in airports would detect a plastic firearm just as easily as a metal firearm. Second, crimes aren't typically committed in areas where security screening would prevent them.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Well, if the gun is in the bags going through the scanner it will get caught. But the full body metal detectors won't if its in the guys pocket.
Bullets are of course going to be difficult to bring along. They'll set off the metal detector and get seen on the scanner.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Grey Templar wrote:Well, if the gun is in the bags going through the scanner it will get caught. But the full body metal detectors won't if its in the guys pocket.
Bullets are of course going to be difficult to bring along. They'll set off the metal detector and get seen on the scanner.
These days TSA defaults to millimeter wave scanners. At least in every single major airport I've traveled through in the past year.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Grey Templar wrote:Well, if an existing law isn't going to stop them, what makes you think any other law would?
Nothing needs to be done in reaction to this. Laws are already in place.
Why would you assume I'm suggesting outlawing the possession? I had earlier suggested restricting access to the physical materials used for printing. It's not a perfect solution, it may not even be a good solution, but it is one that would be mostly effective.
@Nuggz: I'm curious about the use of body scanners. Those seem to be the most "highly-advanced" I've seen at airports in the last year, and my understanding is that those are pretty crappy.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
 azazel the cat wrote:Grey Templar wrote:Well, if an existing law isn't going to stop them, what makes you think any other law would?
Nothing needs to be done in reaction to this. Laws are already in place.
Why would you assume I'm suggesting outlawing the possession? I had earlier suggested restricting access to the physical materials used for printing. It's not a perfect solution, it may not even be a good solution, but it is one that would be mostly effective.
@Nuggz: I'm curious about the use of body scanners. Those seem to be the most "highly-advanced" I've seen at airports in the last year, and my understanding is that those are pretty crappy.
They routinely detect discarded mint wrappers in my pocket, so I'd argue that they're pretty sensitive.
The majority of the studies indicating poor performance are from 2010 or before. For example, one of the earlier test showed a female agent who was able to pass without detection with a tiny handgun hidden "between the cheeks" so to speak. In this test, however, detection was attempted manually by agents reading the scans. Nowadays this is automated to increase privacy and probability of detection.
Judging by the size of the handgun (there are some VERY tiny handguns out there), and the size of the TSA agent's ass, it's entirely possible that traditional pat-downs would have missed it anyway.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
NuggzTheNinja wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Grey Templar wrote:Well, if an existing law isn't going to stop them, what makes you think any other law would?
Nothing needs to be done in reaction to this. Laws are already in place.
Why would you assume I'm suggesting outlawing the possession? I had earlier suggested restricting access to the physical materials used for printing. It's not a perfect solution, it may not even be a good solution, but it is one that would be mostly effective.
@Nuggz: I'm curious about the use of body scanners. Those seem to be the most "highly-advanced" I've seen at airports in the last year, and my understanding is that those are pretty crappy.
They routinely detect discarded mint wrappers in my pocket, so I'd argue that they're pretty sensitive.
The majority of the studies indicating poor performance are from 2010 or before. For example, one of the earlier test showed a female agent who was able to pass without detection with a tiny handgun hidden "between the cheeks" so to speak. In this test, however, detection was attempted manually by agents reading the scans. Nowadays this is automated to increase privacy and probability of detection.
it's less about the sensitivity, and more about the ability to read them. I recall reading about the glaring error that it is very difficult to read anything that is tucked beside the torso, such as a shoulder holster, just due to the nature of the scan readouts.
I personally do not know, as I never try to smuggle things onto airplanes, nor have I ever gone through a scanner (I'll take the pat-down, thank you)
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
azazel the cat wrote:NuggzTheNinja wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Grey Templar wrote:Well, if an existing law isn't going to stop them, what makes you think any other law would?
Nothing needs to be done in reaction to this. Laws are already in place.
Why would you assume I'm suggesting outlawing the possession? I had earlier suggested restricting access to the physical materials used for printing. It's not a perfect solution, it may not even be a good solution, but it is one that would be mostly effective.
@Nuggz: I'm curious about the use of body scanners. Those seem to be the most "highly-advanced" I've seen at airports in the last year, and my understanding is that those are pretty crappy.
They routinely detect discarded mint wrappers in my pocket, so I'd argue that they're pretty sensitive.
The majority of the studies indicating poor performance are from 2010 or before. For example, one of the earlier test showed a female agent who was able to pass without detection with a tiny handgun hidden "between the cheeks" so to speak. In this test, however, detection was attempted manually by agents reading the scans. Nowadays this is automated to increase privacy and probability of detection.
it's less about the sensitivity, and more about the ability to read them. I recall reading about the glaring error that it is very difficult to read anything that is tucked beside the torso, such as a shoulder holster, just due to the nature of the scan readouts.
I personally do not know, as I never try to smuggle things onto airplanes, nor have I ever gone through a scanner (I'll take the pat-down, thank you)
Nowadays the agent doesn't read anything directly from the scan. That part of the process is automated. It looks like this:
The scanners' resolution has significantly improved in past years. You can now see something as small as a 25mm knife blade in-line facing (inside of right shin).
Putting a firearm in a shoulder holster definitely will not prevent it from being seen using a modern millimeter wave scanner.
11029
Post by: Ketara
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323158/How-Mail-On-Sunday-printed-plastic-gun-UK--took-board-Eurostar-stopped-security-scandal.html
How Mail On Sunday 'printed' first plastic gun in UK using a 3D printer- and then took it on board Eurostar without being stopped in security scandal
The Mail On Sunday today exposes the massive international security risk posed by a gun that can be easily made with new 3D printers.
We built the weapon, which is capable of firing a live round, from blueprints available on the internet – then smuggled it on to a packed Eurostar train.
Two reporters passed completely unchallenged through strict airport-style security to carry the gun on to a London to Paris service in the weekend rush-hour, alongside hundreds of unsuspecting travellers.
Reporter Simon Murphy carried the plastic gun on to a London to Paris service in the weekend rush-hour
Once on board the packed 5.31pm Eurostar train on Friday, the reporters were able to assemble the pieces to create a fully functional firearm, and pose for pictures close to unsuspecting passengers
The pistol, capable of firing a deadly 0.38-calibre bullet, was produced in under 36 hours using a revolutionary £1,700 machine to ‘print’ its components. And because all the parts are plastic, they did not trigger the metal detectors all Euro-star passengers must pass through.
Last night, the train operator began an urgent investigation into the security breach as experts called for airports and public buildings to review their procedures in light of our revelations.
The Mail on Sunday pieced together the 16-part pistol – called The Liberator by its creators – after downloading the designs. They were originally published by an American university student, who proved the design works by successfully firing a bullet on a shooting range.
More...
Blueprints for 3D-plastic gun remain freely available online despite State Department forcing the company behind the weapon to remove it from their site
Blueprints for 3D-plastic gun downloaded 100,000 times in 2 days before the State Department orders the site to take down the weapon designs
The blueprints have since been downloaded more than 100,000 times and are now widely available, despite attempts to remove them.
Made entirely of plastic except for a small firing pin and ammunition, the gun presents a huge problem for security services around the world, as it can be broken down into parts that do not set off metal detectors and may not show up on conventional body and bag scanning devices.
To test the procedures at St Pancras International Station, the gun produced by the MoS was split into three pieces and concealed in the clothing of two reporters who bought standard class tickets to Paris.
We then walked through the usual security procedures, manned by UK Border officials. We placed our luggage and metal objects, including loose change and watches, in plastic trays which were then passed through airport scanners. But although we were carrying parts of a potentially deadly weapon, we were able to walk through a metal detector without triggering the alarm.
While some passengers were patted down by security guards, we proceeded unchallenged to passport control, manned by French police.
Once on board the packed 5.31pm Eurostar train on Friday, we were able to assemble the pieces to create a fully functional firearm in just 30 seconds, and pose for pictures close to unsuspecting passengers.
We did not attempt to smuggle the firing pin or bullet for safety and legal reasons, but small metal items could be easily concealed.
Last night, security experts and politicians said they were horrified at the implications of our investigation. Lord West, the former Labour security Minister, called for a review to see how the ‘extremely dangerous’ weapons could be better detected.
But he said he was ‘not surprised’ that Eurostar checks had failed to spot the weapon because they were so hard to detect. He said: ‘What we need is a review of how we can look at these things and how we can discover them more easily. That will take work and it will cost money.
‘These weapons are extremely dangerous because they are very difficult to detect with the methods we normally use. This is going to be a real problem, no doubt about it. People are going to have to rethink whether we need more checks.’
A Eurostar spokeswoman said last night: ‘Eurostar has a high level of security, with a number of checks as specified by the authorities in order to protect the integrity of the Channel Tunnel. We take any issue relating to security very seriously. We will be investigating immediately to fully understand the nature of this issue with our security partner which carries out checks on our behalf at St Pancras. We will also investigate the matter with the Department for Transport, who oversee our security operation, and specify the checks that need to be undertaken.’
The Transport Department said the UK had ‘one of the strictest transport security regimes in the world’ and added: ‘This is kept under constant review in response to new or emerging threats, but we do not comment on specifics for obvious reasons.’
Cody Wilson, a 25-year-old law student at the University of Texas spent the last year designing the weapon. A self-styled libertarian, he argues that everyone should have access to guns, and said last week: ‘I recognise the tool might be used to harm other people . . . it’s a gun. But I don’t think that’s a reason not to do it.’
The US State Department last week rushed to ban the plastic firearm, but security sources fear the worst after the document was uploaded to file-sharing websites.
One user, DakotaSmith, wrote: ‘This is the first in what will be an avalanche of undetectable, untraceable, easy-to-manufacture weapons that will turn the tables on evil-doers the world over. Share and enjoy.’
Reporter Simon Murphy puts the 3D gun together in the Eurostar toilet
Firearms experts advised The Mail on Sunday not to test whether the weapon would fire due to safety and legal concerns. But the lapse in security will shock travellers.
Chris Yates, an aviation security analyst, said: ‘If Eurostar security can be breached in this way, then so can airport security processes.
‘Authorities should be extremely worried. The obvious danger is that if you have the ability to print out a gun on a 3D printer from a blueprint downloaded online, then the probability is that a terrorist has that capability as well . . . which could have devastating consequences. They could potentially cause a problem at 38,000ft that would cause the aircraft to crash or be hijacked.’
Lord West added: ‘If you actually have to search people’s baggage and go through it all, travel becomes a misery and the terrorists, in a sense, have won. There has to be a balance.’ However, he said that more sophisticated scanners might be able to detect the 3D weapons.
All of the major parts of the model were made using a program which reads files that tell the printer how to create each component from layer upon layer of plastic.
The only other part of the gun is a 25mm metal piece, which acts as the firing pin, and can be purchased from any hardware store.
The pistol can only be fired once using a .38 calibre round before the plastic barrel has to be replaced.
The body of the gun was made in just a day with smaller parts taking only a matter of hours.
In order to comply with gun manufacturing regulations in the US, Mr Wilson purposely designed his weapon with a steel component in the handle to make it detectable.
But it is not essential, and the gun can still be fired without it.
The Home Office said: ‘The UK has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. Anyone wanting to manufacture or own a firearm, including one produced through 3D printing, would need a licence. Anyone manufacturing guns without a licence is liable to prosecution.’
The MoS, which carried out its investigations in the public interest, has now dismantled the gun.
29408
Post by: Melissia
That's not a valid excuse for not having a law. It never has been, and it never will be.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
No, but it is a valid excuse for not having a pointless law. One which does nothing except restrict law abiding citizens needlessly with no benefit for the public.
29408
Post by: Melissia
You have yet to prove that the ban on undetectable weapons is pointless.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I didn't say it was.
I meant a ban on printable gun blueprints is pointless.
1) undetectable guns are already illegal
2) The information is going to get into the wrong hands no matter what you do
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
 Melissia wrote:That's not a valid excuse for not having a law.
It never has been, and it never will be.
It's a valid reason for not enacting additional legislation.
When considering a law, a reasonable human being will ask, "Does this make me more or less free?" Then he will ask, "Does this make my neighbor more free, or less free?" Finally he should ask, "Will this law actually have any tangible effect?"
Based on the answers to these questions, the reasonable human being will conduct a cost / benefits analysis to see whether the reward is worth the cost. When the reward is insignificant, and the cost significant, the reasonable human being will not endorse the law.
So basically, what you have said in every thread regarding gun control, is that you want laws without considering A) whether or not those laws will have any effect, and B) whether or not those laws infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. This is not reasonable.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
So with what Nuggz has told us about the airport grade scanners here in the U.S. and given that the gentlemen at the Mail just informed us the barrel requires replacement every shot, I suppose I'm less and less thinking this is a threat. I'd be more worried if the lads at the Mail had smuggled it through complete with a small amount of metal to represent the firing pin and ammunition.
29408
Post by: Melissia
People murder other people, despite the fact that murder is illegal. Should we get rid of laws that ban murder, as well? Obviously, since people are breaking the law, the law must be pointless and should be gotten rid of and ignored. Oh wait, no, that's just your argument that is pointless and should be ignored.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Melissia wrote:People murder other people, despite the fact that murder is illegal. Should we get rid of laws that ban murder, as well? Obviously, since people are breaking the law, the law must be pointless and should be gotten rid of and ignored.
Oh wait, no, that's just your argument that is pointless and should be ignored.
That's a ridiculous straw man. Admit that your position is illogical and based purely in emotion.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 NuggzTheNinja wrote: Melissia wrote:People murder other people, despite the fact that murder is illegal. Should we get rid of laws that ban murder, as well? Obviously, since people are breaking the law, the law must be pointless and should be gotten rid of and ignored. Oh wait, no, that's just your argument that is pointless and should be ignored.
That's a ridiculous straw man.
It is a logical application of your argument. If you don't like it, blame your argument, because it sucks ass. Hell, if you want to start talking about "emotions", you are the one that shouldn't let your emotions get in the way of your logic-- you don't even notice how hideously flawed and myopic your argument is. If you wish to claim a deadly weapon, a tool designed to efficiently kill a number of people, shouldn't have laws regulating it because people will break the law, then you should be prepared to explain exactly why other laws which are regularly broken should exist when your own pathetic reasoning says otherwise. If you're not happy with your own argument being applied to other situation, then you had better be damned willing to explain why it shouldn't be applied elsewhere. If you can't even manage that, maybe you should rethink your argument. So tell me, Mr. Genius Gun Rights Activist, why shouldn't we get rid of the law against murder? According to your argument-- as disgustingly stupid and utterly insane (and inane) as it is-- if a law is going to be broken, we shouldn't have it in the first place. Following that argument, a law against killing other people is going to be broken, therefor it hsouldn't exist in the first place. This is your argument, explain yourself.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Because making Murder illegal does reduce the people committing it.
If it was legal we'd have like it was in the Wild West. People'd shoot each other for cheating at poker games so to speak, and it would be perfectly legal. "That slimy mechanic overcharged me for rotating my tires" "This jerk was lookin at my women" and so on.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Melissia wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote: Melissia wrote:People murder other people, despite the fact that murder is illegal. Should we get rid of laws that ban murder, as well? Obviously, since people are breaking the law, the law must be pointless and should be gotten rid of and ignored.
Oh wait, no, that's just your argument that is pointless and should be ignored.
That's a ridiculous straw man.
It is a logical application of your argument. If you don't like it, blame your argument, because it sucks ass.
Hell, if you want to start talking about "emotions", you are the one that shouldn't let your emotions get in the way of your logic-- you don't even notice how hideously flawed and myopic your argument is. If you wish to claim a deadly weapon, a tool designed to efficiently kill a number of people, shouldn't have laws regulating it because people will break the law, then you should be prepared to explain exactly why other laws which are regularly broken should exist when your own pathetic reasoning says otherwise.
If you're not happy with your own argument being applied to other situation, then you had better be damned willing to explain why it shouldn't be applied elsewhere. If you can't even manage that, maybe you should rethink your argument.
So tell me, Mr. Genius Gun Rights Activist, why shouldn't we get rid of the law against murder? According to your argument-- as disgustingly stupid and utterly insane (and inane) as it is-- if a law is going to be broken, we shouldn't have it in the first place. Following that argument, a law against killing other people is going to be broken, therefor it hsouldn't exist in the first place. This is your argument, explain yourself.
Have you really edited your post 10 times? Re-read what I wrote about the perils of emotional response.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Grey Templar wrote:Because making Murder illegal does reduce the people committing it.
If it was legal we'd have like it was in the Wild West. People'd shoot each other for cheating at poker games so to speak, and it would be perfectly legal. "That slimy mechanic overcharged me for rotating my tires" "This jerk was lookin at my women" and so on.
It actually wasn't like that, at least not much more than it is now. By and large that is just an oft-romanticized myth designed to sell dime store novels and (self-)promote the then-equivalent of rock stars. EDIT: but that doesn't mean more people wouldn't commit murder if it were legal. Hell, I'd likely do it every time I see someone change lanes without signalling on the highway, or stand still at the bottom/top of an escalator.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
azazel the cat wrote:Grey Templar wrote:Because making Murder illegal does reduce the people committing it.
If it was legal we'd have like it was in the Wild West. People'd shoot each other for cheating at poker games so to speak, and it would be perfectly legal. "That slimy mechanic overcharged me for rotating my tires" "This jerk was lookin at my women" and so on.
It actually wasn't like that, at least not much more than it is now. By and large that is just an oft-romanticized myth designed to sell dime store novels and (self-)promote the then-equivalent of rock stars.
EDIT: but that doesn't mean more people wouldn't commit murder if it were legal. Hell, I'd likely do it every time I see someone change lanes without signalling on the highway, or stand still at the bottom/top of an escalator.
I know I'd probably take advantage of it
29408
Post by: Melissia
The anarchist (his own words) who released the design in the original post was discouraged from making a plastic-only gun by the current existing laws-- an example of gun laws making people change their minds on how they act, preventing people from doing the proscribed act. In Texas, you are not permitted to openly carry a handgun on your person, and you can only carry handguns if you have a concealed carry license-- and, as the license name suggests, the gun must be concealed. This law, shockingly enough (if you're an anarchist gun crazy like the nut in the original post), prevents people from openly carrying handguns in the state of Texas-- another example of gun control laws making people change their minds on how they act and limits the number of unlicensed handguns on the street. Automatically Appended Next Post: NuggzTheNinja wrote:Have you really edited your post 10 times? Re-read what I wrote about the perils of emotional response.
So instead of a rational, intelligently thought out response, you troll by suggesting an emotional response. I wish I was surprised. Guns are deadly, dangerous killing machines. That's all they are. Nothing more than that. I believe, firmly, that anyone who shows as much disrespect for guns as many people in this thread have doesn't deserve the right to have have a gun in the first place. People stupidly not treating guns with due respect causes people-- and not always themselves-- to be maimed or killed. If this argument sounds "emotional" to you, I would suggest that you are not mentally mature enough to handle a gun-- or to participate in this debate.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
"unlicensed handguns" make it seem like you are referring to illegally owned weapons, which you would not be.
If someone owns a gun illegally, they're not going to give a damn about needing a license to carry a concealed weapon. So they'll carry it anyway.
That law only prohibits law abiding citizens from openly carrying a weapon and forces them to get a CCW permit if they wish to carry a pistol in public at all. While a criminal is going to conceal his gun anyway because he wishes to not be detected.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Grey Templar wrote:If someone owns a gun illegally, they're not going to give a damn about needing a license to carry a concealed weapon. So they'll carry it anyway.
An assertion which is completely unsupported by evidence. So, aside from your opinion, do you have anything else to offer?
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Melissia wrote:The anarchist (his own words) who released the design in the original post was discouraged from making a plastic-only gun by the current existing laws-- an example of gun laws making people change their minds on how they act, preventing people from doing the proscribed act.
In Texas, you are not permitted to openly carry a handgun on your person, and you can only carry handguns if you have a concealed carry license-- and, as the license name suggests, the gun must be concealed. This law, shockingly enough (if you're an anarchist gun crazy like the nut in the original post), prevents people from openly carrying handguns in the state of Texas-- another example of gun control laws making people change their minds on how they act and limits the number of unlicensed handguns on the street.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:Have you really edited your post 10 times? Re-read what I wrote about the perils of emotional response.
So instead of a rational, intelligently thought out response, you troll by suggesting an emotional response. I wish I was surprised.
Guns are deadly, dangerous killing machines. That's all they are. Nothing more than that. I believe, firmly, that anyone who shows as much disrespect for guns as many people in this thread have doesn't deserve the right to have have a gun in the first place. People stupidly not treating guns with due respect causes people-- and not always themselves-- to be maimed or killed. If this argument sounds "emotional" to you, I would suggest that you are not mentally mature enough to handle a gun-- or to participate in this debate.
So an emotional little girl presumes to tell a trained combat veteran that he isn't qualified to handle firearms? This is grand.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Hey, keep it civil you two.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Indeed.
More on topic: Do you have any evidence at all to back up your assertion?
Yes, criminals disregard the law by their very nature (it is the definition of criminal, after all). But criminals stupid enough to openly carry an illegal weapon in a place where such things are NOT permitted is not going to last very long anyway, and soon will be taken away from society-- as they should be. You don't see armed gangs of thugs wandering around Fort Worth's streets openly displaying their firearms, like your argument suggests we should be seeing.
73070
Post by: Valion
Melissia wrote:
In Texas, you are not permitted to openly carry a handgun on your person, and you can only carry handguns if you have a concealed carry license-- and, as the license name suggests, the gun must be concealed. This law, shockingly enough (if you're an anarchist gun crazy like the nut in the original post), prevents people from openly carrying handguns in the state of Texas-- another example of gun control laws making people change their minds on how they act and limits the number of unlicensed handguns on the street.
Handguns are not required to be licensed in Texas, so an "unlicensed handgun" is...well, not an extant thing. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:Yes, criminals disregard the law by their very nature (it is the definition of criminal, after all). But criminals stupid enough to openly carry an illegal weapon in a place where such things are NOT permitted is not going to last very long anyway, and soon will be taken away from society-- as they should be. You don't see armed gangs of thugs wandering around Fort Worth's streets openly displaying their firearms, like your argument suggests we should be seeing.
No, his argument suggests you would be seeing criminals illegally carrying concealed.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Melissia wrote:Indeed.
More on topic: Do you have any evidence at all to back up your assertion?
Yes, criminals disregard the law by their very nature (it is the definition of criminal, after all). But criminals stupid enough to openly carry an illegal weapon in a place where such things are NOT permitted is not going to last very long anyway, and soon will be taken away from society-- as they should be. You don't see armed gangs of thugs wandering around Fort Worth's streets openly displaying their firearms, like your argument suggests we should be seeing.
I was saying they would illegally carry their weapons concealed. Not carry them openly.
And even if it was legal for anyone to open carry, criminals would still conceal their weapons.
So saying no open carry is a pointless law as it only restricts law abiding citizens.
29408
Post by: Melissia
In which case they're breaking the law, and therefor are punished even more harshly than if they were not carrying them-- so again, there's no problem.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Yeah, so why needlessly limit law abiding citizens for no gain?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Because to some....we're all guilty 
1. I get the feeling sometimes that if I own weapons I'm a bad man by the vibe of some of the posts 
2. I still see no reason why I should not own a weapon.....Assualt Weapons.....high capacity mags...tacticool gear that I can attach to the rail system
3. Do know weapons prices has gone up on quite a few weapons....my M4/AR15....my M1 is an Assualt Wweapon...due to the bayonet stud
4. Not detered so far to purchase another weapon....thinking a .40 for the wife...
5. Thinking another M4/AR15. SO one side of the weapons safe is mine and the other side is hers.
6. Need to slowly grind my way on round purchases. Literally have to plan going once a month to ping some targets......wonder how bad reloading 5.56mm rounds....KM...link me a website lol. I trust you
29408
Post by: Melissia
On the contrary. They ensure that the person is knowledgeable about their guns and the laws regarding them, because the CCL requires that you take courses as such. This is both necessary and proper, as guns are an inherent danger to society. Their very existence and presence endangers everyone around them, since they are tools of deadly violence and not petty toys to be brandied about, or some kind of a fashion statement. Or, to quote Chief Justice Scalia's response re: open carry: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Automatically Appended Next Post:  Jihadin wrote:1. I get the feeling sometimes that if I own weapons I'm a bad man by the vibe of some of the posts
Be more specific aboutwhich posts. Certainly you should not get such a vibe from me. I own guns myself-- anyone who claims that I am saying gun owners are bad for owning guns is fighting a strawman argument. My own argument about gun control is based off of the fact that guns are designed for the exclusive purpose of killing things as efficiently as possible, and thus they are inherently dangerous weapons which need to be respected for exactly what they are. Not some pathetic, phallic, petty toy like gun manufacturers depict them, or a fashion statement like the NRA depicts them. They're inherently dangerous and should never be treated as anything other than such. That they often are treated as toys or fashion is what pisses me off so much about gun culture. I have no problem with people wanting to use guns to defend themselves, or shoot at a target range, or go hunting. I have a problem with people not taking guns seriously enough.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
I think the main issue with making the plastic gun illegal is that it's unenforceable. I mean, look at how much stuff gets through China's vastly more draconian internet laws and how they struggle to enforce them.
Passing a law against it cannot stop it now that it exists, all it ends up doing is wasting additional taxpayer dollars trying.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Its punishment is enforceable enough, and functions as a deterrant. You won't be able to stop everyone, but laws don't exist to stop EVERYONE from doing every bad thing. If that were the case, no laws would exist.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Melissia wrote:Its punishment is enforceable enough, and functions as a deterrant. You won't be able to stop everyone, but laws don't exist to stop EVERYONE from doing every bad thing. If that were the case, no laws would exist.
....
If punishment were the deterrent you think it is, then why are America's prisons full to bursting and many criminals go right back to crime when released? Or are you suggesting that we make the punishment death, like China?
Further, we're talking about something who's difficulty to detect is what makes it dangerous. Enforcement, and hence, punishment, are dependent on detection. Given the ease of which it can be disposed of, how do you propose that police divine that it was used at all? You can't very well tell a jury 'we found melted plastic in a burn barrel therefor he used a plastic gun' when most people would ask the simple question 'How do you know it wasn't a mountain dew bottle'?
Passing laws to solve every single problem is one of the reasons the US is such a mess anymore and the government is barely working.
68355
Post by: easysauce
because if you cant outright ban gun ownership, any step in that direction is a good one.
having talked with many people intimately involved with the canadian anti/pro gun lobbies.
my favorite discussion was with of of trudeaus minions, went like this (keep in mind, he thought I was an anti gun rights advocate)
me"so how are you going to ban handguns?"
him"well they are only used to kill people, they have no other use, so its really a no brainer"
me"well, your average hunting rifle has much longer range, accuracy, and power then even the most powerfull hangun on the market."
him"those are very good points, Ill keep that in mind when we go after those guns, but one step at a time."
when they banned normal capacity magazines in canada, it did nothing to criminals, they are still routinely caught with illegally obtained weapons, and they do not pin their glock mags at 10 either.
what it DID do was neuter IDPA and IPSC competitions, as well as incurre a large cost on legitimate users (a normal mag is about 20$, an pinned one is 40-50$ since extra work is required) and generally contributed to the endless list of new gun laws designed to disencourage gun ownership through making it as hard and as complicated a process as possible.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
An example of how laws can be made to make something illegal, without actually making it illegal:
Before it was challenged and thrown out on the grounds of the 5th Amendment, Federal law was that it was legal to own weed. All you had to do was have a permit stamp. Otherwise possession of weed was a crime. However, to get the stamp,you already had to have the weed in order to get the stamp, so anyone who actually tried to get the paper to make themselves legal had to confess to already having committed a crime.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Melissia wrote:Certainly you should not get such a vibe from me. I own guns myself-- anyone who claims that I am saying gun owners are bad for owning guns is fighting a strawman argument.
My own argument about gun control is based off of the fact that guns are designed for the exclusive purpose of killing things as efficiently as possible, and thus they are inherently dangerous weapons which need to be respected for exactly what they are. Not some pathetic, phallic, petty toy like gun manufacturers depict them, or a fashion statement like the NRA depicts them. They're inherently dangerous and should never be treated as anything other than such.
That they often are treated as toys or fashion is what pisses me off so much about gun culture. I have no problem with people wanting to use guns to defend themselves, or shoot at a target range, or go hunting. I have a problem with people not taking guns seriously enough.
I'm actually quite alarmed that Melissia and I agree on something here. That is... unusual.
68355
Post by: easysauce
Melissia wrote:Apparently according to the ignorant minds of many gun rights advocates, including easysauce, the only people who are arguing for gun control want to eventually ban all guns.
Because how DARE someone desire a reasonable middle ground!
because I was told the "we dont want to ban guns" lie over and over, by people who very much want to do just that.
EVERY single step in our absurd "gun control" law has been "reasonable", yet its never enough, and there is alwas that next "reasonable" step they want to force upon us the next time there is a tragedy for them to capitalize upon.
you can only lie to me so many times before I stop believing you.
you can repeat the mantra "reasonable gun control" as much as you want, but that doesnt make YOUR OPINION that these are "reasonable middle ground" a fact.
current canadian laws all sold as "REASONABLE"
-capping mags at 5rnds was "reasonable"
-constant background checks, even after decades of proven lawful ownership is "reasonable"
-getting an authorization from the government EVERY time you want to go to the range with a pistol is "reasonable"
-being put on a list, just like pedophiles, and registered, is "reasonable"
-banning every single handgun under 4.5" is "reasonable"
-thowing people in prison for not knowing the law changed and their family heirlooms are now illegal is "reasonable" (applies to you melissa, had your fathers guns come to you before you got your license, they would have been confiscated, or you would be a criminal for illegal possesion)
-registering guns, then CONFISCATING many guns using that registry, is "reasonable"
-having overfilled, farbetween, mandatory courses that cost 300$ for a "shotgun/rifle" license, and additional 300$ for pistol licence is "reasonable" because why should getting a gun license take less then 3 months or cost any less then some guns (costs are actually much higher, assuming you even get a spot in the course, in areas that have less access to instructors. I have seen prices as high as 500$ for one licence course)
-no hunting with handguns, even handguns designed for hunting, because no "reasonable" person hunts with a handgun
-forcing you to get your current OR EX SPOUSES permission to own a hand gun is "reasonable
-by owning a gun, you give up the right to be free from search and seizure, any representitive of the CFO (ie the police) can enter your home, at any time, with no warrent, and you HAVE to assist the search by opening containers/locks ect (ie incriminate yourself) all because this is a "reasonable" way to treat gun owners
but thanks for personally calling me ignorant, and yet again being emotional/insulting to me directly by name, simply because my opinion is that the "reasonable" gun control you propose, is in fact ludicrous, tyrannical, ineffective and not-reasonable 
not like decades of shooting, and living the "reasonable" gun law utopia life that is canada would shine a light on my ignorance of guns and gun law.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
What? You didn't know? All lawful gun owners on here are evil....wait wait.....its the weapon thats evil not the operator themselves....those that defend the 2nd amendment are evil..ignorant..whatever..tis all good. Just sit back and watch the thread and get som laughs.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
Pro-gunners are the devil apparently 
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
easysauce:
-capping mags at 5rnds was "reasonable"
5 for semi-auto centerfire rifles, but yeah, this is kinda arbitrary
-constant background checks, even after decades of proven lawful ownership is "reasonable"
How are the checks "constant"?
-getting an authorization from the government EVERY time you want to go to the range with a pistol is "reasonable"
This is recommended by not necessary. You only need to explain the route once. The reason behind this is sound, but the execution is very, very poor.
-being put on a list, just like pedophiles, and registered, is "reasonable"
Actually, I don't think sex offenders are required to notify police of address changes. However, firearms owners with possession & acquisition licenses are. In any case, this is so the police know if there is a firearm present when/if they have to respond to a call at that address, and I do not have a problem with it. Anyway, you're already on a voter's list, and you include your address when filing taxes. So unless you alos want to use an inflammatory comparison between being a registered sex offender and being a registered voter, this comparison is pointless.
-banning every single handgun under 4.5" is "reasonable"
This is entirely to prevent easily-concealed firearms from being freely available. While the 4.5" sizing may be arbitrary (I'm not sure) I do know the purpose was to ensure that people didn't walk around with Deringers. Perhaps another case of a good intention with a poor execution; but I'm not sure. Why is this point such a sore spot for you?
-thowing people in prison for not knowing the law changed and their family heirlooms are now illegal is "reasonable" (applies to you melissa, had your fathers guns come to you before you got your license, they would have been confiscated, or you would be a criminal for illegal possesion)
Has anyone been jailed for not knowing the law changed? I was under the impression that the federal registry allowed for police to notify owners of changes to possession laws in order to prevent that situation.
-registering guns, then CONFISCATING many guns using that registry, is "reasonable"
The guns weren't confiscated because there was a registry; they were confiscated because those firearms became illegal when we banned full-auto (however, as you've demonstrated, there are some select models that were also banned for stupid reasons. But that is not the fault of the registry)
-having overfilled, farbetween, mandatory courses that cost 300$ for a "shotgun/rifle" license, and additional 300$ for pistol licence is "reasonable" because why should getting a gun license take less then 3 months or cost any less then some guns (costs are actually much higher, assuming you even get a spot in the course, in areas that have less access to instructors. I have seen prices as high as 500$ for one licence course)
I only paid $250 in total for both licenses (including the safety courses); I can't say about where you are, but over here that's the going rate. And it only takes a 2-day safety class, and then 30 days wait time following the receipt of your application. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here.
-no hunting with handguns, even handguns designed for hunting, because no "reasonable" person hunts with a handgun
Yeah, okay, this is stupid beyond measure. Anyone who walks into bear territory without at least a .357 magnum handgun is not what I consider "reasonable".
-forcing you to get your current OR EX SPOUSES permission to own a hand gun is "reasonable
Yeah, because nobody has ever gone through a divorce and tried to kill their ex... although, you don't need their permission explicitly; they're simply contacted as part of a background check, and with good reason.
-by owning a gun, you give up the right to be free from search and seizure, any representitive of the CFO (ie the police) can enter your home, at any time, with no warrent, and you HAVE to assist the search by opening containers/locks ect (ie incriminate yourself) all because this is a "reasonable" way to treat gun owners
You are not required to open all containers and locks. You are required to show the officers your firearms, which may entail opening a gun safe. If you are storing your firearms elsewhere, then you are already breaking a perfectly reasonable law (lock up your guns). Upon showing the officers each firearm that is registered to you, there is no more searching permitted. They cannot enter your home at any time; you must be present. They cannot search without a warrant, however they can arrest you for failing to comply with their request to search. The search is limited to the firearms you possess, and the storage container (eg, gun safe) in which you keep them. Now, is this reasonable? This one is a grey area to me. I have difficulty in seeing how it's a violation of a right when it is a known result of a privilige that you choose to engage in.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Stop King.....
I'm on meds
Laughing hurts
Also looking at the top ten firearms for a viking funeral.....
68355
Post by: easysauce
az, nothing personal, but you dont live the laws every day, you are off on your inferences.
azazel the cat wrote:easysauce:
-capping mags at 5rnds was "reasonable"
5 for semi-auto centerfire rifles, but yeah, this is kinda arbitrary
-constant background checks, even after decades of proven lawful ownership is "reasonable"
How are the checks "constant"? checks are done periodically on you while you hold the license
-getting an authorization from the government EVERY time you want to go to the range with a pistol is "reasonable"
This is recommended by not necessary. You only need to explain the route once. The reason behind this is sound, but the execution is very, very poor. umm try telling the CFO that it is a "recommendation" its not, it is ILLEGAL to transport a restricted firearm to a range/gunsmith with out an authorization to transport in writing. It is illegal to take any restricted anywhere without this prior authorization
-being put on a list, just like pedophiles, and registered, is "reasonable"
Actually, I don't think sex offenders are required to notify police of address changes. However, firearms owners with possession & acquisition licenses are. In any case, this is so the police know if there is a firearm present when/if they have to respond to a call at that address, and I do not have a problem with it. Anyway, you're already on a voter's list, and you include your address when filing taxes. So unless you alos want to use an inflammatory comparison between being a registered sex offender and being a registered voter, this comparison is pointless. police officers have to always assume a gun is present, the gun registry only works for the legally aquired and registered guns, in fact at least two cops are dead because the gun registry said "no guns" on a house that had guns. All the cops I know say only an idiot trusts the registry, and that their standard operating procedure is to assume EVERY home has a gun
-banning every single handgun under 4.5" is "reasonable"
This is entirely to prevent easily-concealed firearms from being freely available. While the 4.5" sizing may be arbitrary (I'm not sure) I do know the purpose was to ensure that people didn't walk around with Deringers. Perhaps another case of a good intention with a poor execution; but I'm not sure. Why is this point such a sore spot for you? well, aside from me supporting concealed carry, again, crooks still have sawed offs, and short concealable guns. this law only affected the already law abiding. its not a personal pet peeve, but many women I know are very upset they cannot carry, nor can they buy firearms that fit their stature.
-having overfilled, farbetween, mandatory courses that cost 300$ for a "shotgun/rifle" license, and additional 300$ for pistol licence is "reasonable" because why should getting a gun license take less then 3 months or cost any less then some guns (costs are actually much higher, assuming you even get a spot in the course, in areas that have less access to instructors. I have seen prices as high as 500$ for one licence course)
I only paid $250 in total for both licenses (including the safety courses); I can't say about where you are, but over here that's the going rate. And it only takes a 2-day safety class, and then 30 days wait time following the receipt of your application. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. this varies by location, as I have already stated, here the going rate is 300$ per licence, and it was a few months waiting list to get in when I went. this will vary from location to location
-no hunting with handguns, even handguns designed for hunting, because no "reasonable" person hunts with a handgun
Yeah, okay, this is stupid beyond measure. Anyone who walks into bear territory without at least a .357 magnum handgun is not what I consider "reasonable".
-forcing you to get your current OR EX SPOUSES permission to own a hand gun is "reasonable
Yeah, because nobody has ever gone through a divorce and tried to kill their ex... although, you don't need their permission explicitly; they're simply contacted as part of a background check, and with good reason. actually you do need the ex spouse to sign off the paper work, I had never been married so I only needed two references to sign the papers, and be called by the rcmp/cfo to verify my "lawful abidingness"
-by owning a gun, you give up the right to be free from search and seizure, any representitive of the CFO (ie the police) can enter your home, at any time, with no warrent, and you HAVE to assist the search by opening containers/locks ect (ie incriminate yourself) all because this is a "reasonable" way to treat gun owners
You are not required to open all containers and locks. You are required to show the officers your firearms, which may entail opening a gun safe. If you are storing your firearms elsewhere, then you are already breaking a perfectly reasonable law (lock up your guns). Upon showing the officers each firearm that is registered to you, there is no more searching permitted. They cannot enter your home at any time; you must be present. They cannot search without a warrant, however they can arrest you for failing to comply with their request to search. The search is limited to the firearms you possess, and the storage container (eg, gun safe) in which you keep them. Now, is this reasonable? This one is a grey area to me. I have difficulty in seeing how it's a violation of a right when it is a known result of a privilige that you choose to engage in. they sure can, and have, I personally have had this happen, and no its not a violation of my gun rights (i have none as a canadian) its a violation of my other rights. When police tell you you are under arrest if you dont let them search your house, thats searching without a warrent, the choice between a warrentless search and jail is not a free choice. aside from that, yes, you DO have to open anything they ask, because otherwise they do not know there are no guns in there.
none of those laws actually did anything to make anyone safer, only the 2 million lawful gun owners actually followed the new regulations. gang bangers are 100% un affected, and can still get illegal guns from some back alley dealer.
2billion dollars spend on the registry program, we could have sent some people to mars for that kind of $, instead we got NOTHING, a registry that saved NO ONE, and was implicit in the deaths of at least two officers who were shot on calls to houses that the registry said were "gun free"
at best, all the above I have listed are inconvenient/costly to lawful gun owners, and ineffective on the crooks,
at worst, all the above make crooks of lawful gun owners, and make crooks laugh and become even more confident no one will oppose them with any real methods.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
I'm kind of baffled why they think a 4 inch gun is too easy to hide, but a 4.5 inch is hard enough to be ok.
I really don' see how that extra half inch is going to make a big difference...
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
BaronIveagh wrote:I'm kind of baffled why they think a 4 inch gun is too easy to hide, but a 4.5 inch is hard enough to be ok.
I really don' see how that extra half inch is going to make a big difference...
half an inch makes a world of difference, just ask KC's wife  (take that you Michigan bearded giant! Insinuate I stare at men's junk will ya!)*
* - KC and his wife are pretty awesome, he made a joke about me elsewhere on dakka insinuating I stare at men's junk, good light hearted fun.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Dang....now I'm waiting for KC to respond
27391
Post by: purplefood
This problem would a be a lot simpler if America had laws that were uniform across the country...
40024
Post by: SOFDC
How, exactly?
34390
Post by: whembly
 purplefood wrote:This problem would a be a lot simpler if America had laws that were uniform across the country...
What are you ever talking about?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Purple kind of tracking but not tracking.....Seperation of State and Federal Government.
73070
Post by: Valion
purplefood wrote:This problem would a be a lot simpler if America had laws that were uniform across the country...
I actually agree with that. We wouldn't have disgusting examples like this one that just came in:
Huffington Post wrote:A man was arrested for violating New York's new gun restrictions after state troopers discovered a gun loaded with two more bullets than are allowed by law.
Gregory Dean Jr. was pulled over on Sunday in New Lebanon when authorities noticed his car's license-plate lamp wasn't working properly.
Troopers then noticed a .40 caliber handgun, legally registered to Dean, on the passenger seat of the car. The weapon was loaded with nine bullets rather than the seven bullets allowed under the state's recently passed SAFE Act.
Dean, who was also allegedly driving on a suspended license at the time, has been charged with unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices.
If he had a Big Gulp in the car's cupholder, I believe he'd be classified as a "career criminal" under New York law.
29625
Post by: Newabortion
 Valion wrote: purplefood wrote:This problem would a be a lot simpler if America had laws that were uniform across the country...
I actually agree with that. We wouldn't have disgusting examples like this one that just came in:
Thats why we have states though, they were meant to give the American people options about what laws they wanted governing them. There is a reason the founding fathers created states instead of just a country and we (The people) forget that every time the federal government pass overarching laws to govern all people. If you think about it, its a great system. Don't like abortion? Move to a pro-life state.
Want 1/3 of your paycheck to be given to people to lazy to work? Move to a state that has that. Want to have unrestricted firearms? There's a state that has that.
I'll state right now that I am bias as I am a tea-party member but our founding fathers knew what they were doing. Our second amentment doesn't say "You have the right to bear arms...only if it has a seven round magazine."
Thats what the Civil war was about, slavery had little to no part of it until the very end. The federal government passed laws to force states to do things they didn't want to do and so when the states said "No" the federal government threw in the abolishment of slavery (to wreck their economy they didn't care one bit about the slaves) it backed the south into a corner and was forced to fight, and the north then used "slavery" to turn it into a holy war.
By the way, The freggn DOD told Defense Distributed to remove the file, does anyone on here have it that can pm me?
73070
Post by: Valion
 Newabortion wrote:By the way, The freggn DOD told Defense Distributed to remove the file, does anyone on here have it that can pm me?
It's not at all difficult to find.
29625
Post by: Newabortion
well I don't dabble in torrent sites since I've been busted downloading stuff I shouldn't of already. (Damn you San Andreas!!!)
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Newabortion wrote:Thats what the Civil war was about, slavery had little to no part of it until the very end. The federal government passed laws to force states to do things they didn't want to do
Okay, so this I will not abide by. The American Civil War was about slavery. Sometimes people try to cover up the South's abominable past and try to say that it was about "states' rights", which is technically true: it was about the states' right to keep slaves. And those things the states didn't want to do? It was "stop having slaves".
You've said a lot of things that I would expect to be characteristic of a Tea Partier, and we'll likely agree to disagree on some of them. But do not even think about suggesting the American Civil War was not about slavery at its core.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
azazel the cat wrote:
Okay, so this I will not abide by. The American Civil War was about slavery. Sometimes people try to cover up the South's abominable past and try to say that it was about "states' rights", which is technically true: it was about the states' right to keep slaves. And those things the states didn't want to do? It was "stop having slaves".
You've said a lot of things that I would expect to be characteristic of a Tea Partier, and we'll likely agree to disagree on some of them. But do not even think about suggesting the American Civil War was not about slavery at its core.
Um, az.... the Lincoln Administration didn't make it about slavery till about half way through, when they became concerned that England and/or France might intervene on behalf of the South, and were no longer worried that more states would secede if he did so, as he had them occupied with armed troops. (Lincoln's election was, after all, due to the fact that the opposing party could not unite behind a single candidate. His opposition had both more popular votes and more electoral college votes. He did not win re-election until the army voted, who had resented his challenger, McClellan, using them as a political stepping stone and getting men killed for his own political gain.)
The idea that he entire war was about slavery comes from South Carolina's 'Declaration of the Causes of Secession' which stated that they felt that Lincoln had 'bucked the system' as it were and was anti-slave and was going to show the north economic favoritism. Seven states seceded before he even took office.
At it's core, it wasn't about slavery, which is a common misconception, it was about money, and, by extension, power, and who would be the ruling class of the United States, the wealthy industrialists or the landed gentry. Previous to this, it was felt hte states had the right to ignore Federal laws that conflicted with their own Constitutions, the premise being it was the state, not Federal, Constitution which held supremacy.
I will say that Lincoln's re-election was a lucky thing for Canada. If it had been McClellan rather than Johnson, the Fenians would have been allowed to invade Canada unimpeded.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Stop feeding into the Civil War Debate.....anyway....
As passed by the Congress:
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.[16
]
Just pointing out. Also back to the Tonka Toy Cinderblock pistol. A black powder pistol more reliable then this PoS.......probaly able to reload faster to. We talking news article that DoD ask them to take the site down?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Valion wrote:Huffington Post wrote:A man was arrested for violating New York's new gun restrictions after state troopers discovered a gun loaded with two more bullets than are allowed by law.
Gregory Dean Jr. was pulled over on Sunday in New Lebanon when authorities noticed his car's license-plate lamp wasn't working properly.
Troopers then noticed a .40 caliber handgun, legally registered to Dean, on the passenger seat of the car. The weapon was loaded with nine bullets rather than the seven bullets allowed under the state's recently passed SAFE Act.
Dean, who was also allegedly driving on a suspended license at the time, has been charged with unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices.
If he had a Big Gulp in the car's cupholder, I believe he'd be classified as a "career criminal" under New York law.
And yet the DA declined to prosecute David Gregory for possession of an illegal high capacity magazine, even after police had previously warned him.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
On would think that existing magazines would be grandfathered in, much as pre-existing machine guns and sawed off shotguns were. That just makes no sense,
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of not enforcing existing gun laws, and picking and choosing which ones to enforce.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Just like immagration laws eh? .... wait.......thats in court now
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Jihadin wrote:Just like immagration laws eh? .... wait.......thats in court now
Yeah, thanks for the reminder  As a legal immigrant watching people who don't think that the law applies to them demand special treatment is always fun........
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Dreadclaw69 wrote:As a legal immigrant watching people who don't think that the law applies to them demand special treatment is always fun........
That's a central fact of the United States. It's run by people who don't think the law applies to them and that they deserve special treatment. You'll find them wandering the halls of Congress and in corporate board rooms the country over.
|
|
