R.A.Danny: forgotmydamnusername: Remington doesn't make "bad" guns, but mostly traditional hunting and target rifles, and shotguns.

About that... http://www.1911r1.com/

Is that a "Bad" gun?

Since gun control fans shiat their pants extra full about handguns for some reason, from that perspective, it's a "'bad' gun". As for quality, I know nothing. I've got a 1911 clone that's good enough, so I've done no homework on Remington's version.

TheShavingofOccam123: forgotmydamnusername: dittybopper: vygramul: TheShavingofOccam123: "Such a mandate could force Remington to reconsider its commitment to the New York market altogether," said Teddy Novin, a company spokesman.

It's not about apprehending murderers. It's not about protecting rights. It's all about the cheese.

Thanks Mr. Novin for showing your company's true priorities.

It's also an outright lie. Supply and Demand, biatch, someone in New York wants a gun with microstamping and is willing to pay for it. Remington WILL sell them a gun because SOMEONE will decide to make a profit. Basic Market Economics.

What Remington is talking about is taking it's main manufacturing plant and moving it from Ilion, NY to a more "gun friendly" state, which would probably have lower taxes and lower manpower costs.

That would cost NYS about 1,000 jobs (probably twice that when you consider the loss of tax revenue and "ripple effect" among local businesses that cater to Remington employees), and it would be a very public black eye for Andrew Cuomo who is trying to be seen as business friendly, especially when you consider that Remington doesn't make "bad" guns, but mostly traditional hunting and target rifles, and shotguns.

About that... http://www.1911r1.com/

Uh oh. You've opened up the flood gates

Oops Sorry. I thought you were referencing the Remington Model 700 controversy.

forgotmydamnusername: About that... http://www.1911r1.com/



/No... really, WTF is being implied here?!

Magorn: sinschild: I guess the pants wetting pussies are still terrified that someone, somewhere might posses a firearm?

Nice to see that some things just don't change.

Like your knee-jerk reaction to even the most simple and unintrusive ways to help investigate gun crimes is "WAHHH PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TAKE MY GUNS AWAY!"

The ATF has a very hard time helping law enforcement agenies track guns that have been used in crimes figure out where they came from because idiots like you and the Congressman that love you (or the NRA's sweet, sweet cash) have made it illegal for the ATF to digitize this information or make it in any way machine searchable. So every request from law enforcement that comes in requires a hand-search of a file of index cards. WHy? because moronic congressmen, who apparently fell asleep watching "red Dawn" on too many times ( and who probably also believe in "the Amero" and th NAU) think that allowing the ATF to make an electronic database of where guns are purchased will somehow give them a master list to help them take everyone's guns away

It certainly could be used that way. I personally don't want to make the job of the police easier. It always comes at great cost to my own civil liberties when they take such measures.

Magorn: ATF has a very hard time helping law enforcement agenies track guns

The ATF has a very hard time finding their ass with a 1:1 scale map, a flashlight and both hands. They prefer manufacturing evidence to actually "investigating" anything.

farking thugs and liars, disband them and turn their duties over to the SS or the FBI and watch how much easier it gets to actually catch criminals instead of creating them from whole cloth fabrications.

forgotmydamnusername: Since gun control fans shiat their pants extra full about handguns for some reason, from that perspective, it's a "'bad' gun".



You could have gotten more points by going with one of their assault rifle variants like the R-15 or ACR.

Splinshints: What's your justification for not wanting guns used in crimes to be more identifiable? What possible detriment could this have on a legitimate gun owner short of the possibility of a very small increase in the cost of a firearm?

It's like having everyone put their fingerprints and DNA on file, just for the sake of making it easier on law enforcement.

Magorn: Explain to me how you think "gun confiscation" would work in this country?

Ask the folks down in Louisiana. They know how it goes down.

Mikey1969: That's why the micro stamping wouldn't work, you could just replace the pin, but I don't see it as an "anti gun" measure in any way.

This has already been covered again and again in this thread. Lots of very easy things "can" be done to hide a criminal's identity. They often aren't done. People still get caught because of fingerprints. When you have idiots out there who can't even be bothered to wear gloves, worrying about dis-assembly and replacement of parts of a firearm doesn't really hold water. Clearly some number of criminals don't take even basic steps to hide themselves, why should we think they'll actively replace parts of their weapons before using them?

That it's not perfect does not make it not a legitimate improvement.

Jim_Callahan: I dunno, why do people make a big fuss over a national ID, or RFID tagging of IDs, or subdermal ID chips implanted in children, or putting everyone in the country into a national DNA database?

Being born and choosing to buy a gun are not like things. Again, dangerous items, not just guns, are regulated. This is longstanding policy and is normal. When you choose to buy a dangerous item, you also accept some measure of responsibility and basic regulation.

I understand that the argument you're pushing is a matter of principle, but that's really beyond what I'm arguing about. I'm talking the practical, level-headed and down-to-earth facts of basic regulation that are inherent in most things that seems to trigger an apoplectic meltdown in so many people when it comes to firearms. Simple regulations aimed at providing a very basic level of oversight to ensure a basic level of responsibility and accountability is met is all well and good when it comes to machinery, food, poisons, chemicals, and explosives, but the instant you start talking about guns some people lose their damn heads like black helicopters just started landing in their front yard. It's bizarre.

DORMAMU: very fine and delicate engravings wear out I have to call as bull ... how durable are the markings

If you feel you have to ask how durable they are, why did you call them "very fine and delicate"? That might lead a casual observer to believe you may already have made up your mind and your objections and questions may be less than an honest concern about viability and more about obstruction...

Magorn: Following that logic, it seems clear that the 2nd may well give you the right to keep and bear arms but ONLY arms that were in existence in 1776 and known to the founding fathers. In other words unless you believe in judicial activism, that amendment only gaurantess your right to keep and bear single shot, muzzle-loading flintlocks

Following that nonsense, you're only entitled to free speech using mediums in existence in at the time the bill of rights was ratified (actually 1791, not 1776). Feel free to write whatever you want in that letter to the editor, but you'll have to do it by hand.

If they have nothing to hide what are they arfaid off!!

Splinshints: That it's not perfect does not make it not a legitimate improvement.

And I didn't say that I had a problem with the concept, just that it isn't a magic bullet, so to speak.

Splinshints: DORMAMU: very fine and delicate engravings wear out I have to call as bull ... how durable are the markings

If you feel you have to ask how durable they are, why did you call them "very fine and delicate"? That might lead a casual observer to believe you may already have made up your mind and your objections and questions may be less than an honest concern about viability and more about obstruction...

These seem to be two separate statements to me:

Statement 1: "Very fine and delicate engravings wear out.

Statement 2(Actually a question): "How durable are these markings?"

he called them "very fine and delicate" because they are freaking TINY. It isn't called "microstanping" because it makes an engraving all down the side of the cartridge. Jesus, it stamps it on the primer, something that is usually about 1/8" in diameter, and it stamps it with a very thin device called a firing pin that is probably 1/64" in diameter. I would say that is the VERY definition of "fine and delicate".

Magorn: href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7162637/77479216#c77479216" target="_blank">forgotmydamnusername: Magorn: sinschild: I guess the pants wetting pussies are still terrified that someone, somewhere might posses a firearm?

Nice to see that some things just don't change.

Like your knee-jerk reaction to even the most simple and unintrusive ways to help investigate gun crimes is "WAHHH PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TAKE MY GUNS AWAY!"

The ATF has a very hard time helping law enforcement agenies track guns that have been used in crimes figure out where they came from because idiots like you and the Congressman that love you (or the NRA's sweet, sweet cash) have made it illegal for the ATF to digitize this information or make it in any way machine searchable. So every request from law enforcement that comes in requires a hand-search of a file of index cards. WHy? because moronic congressmen, who apparently fell asleep watching "red Dawn" on too many times ( and who probably also believe in "the Amero" and th NAU) think that allowing the ATF to make an electronic database of where guns are purchased will somehow give them a master list to help them take everyone's guns away

It certainly could be used that way. I personally don't want to make the job of the police easier. It always comes at great cost to my own civil liberties when they take such measures.

Holy Jesus you are stupid. Please stop voting immediately. Explain to me how you think "gun confiscation" would work in this country? Would it be an executive order by the president? Or would congress pass a law?

From where would either find the political will to do so knowing it would be career suicide for any politician?

WHY would they do such a thing (just because you really in your heart believe the Shibboleth that "liberals hate guns"?)

HOW would such a law or order survive a legal challenge given the clear prcedent of Heller?

WHO would enforce this order? who even has the manpower to do so given the number ...

You know, we tortured people as official policy. I didn't think we'd ever be doing that, either.

way south: forgotmydamnusername: Since gun control fans shiat their pants extra full about handguns for some reason, from that perspective, it's a "'bad' gun".

[dl.dropbox.com image 570x135]

You could have gotten more points by going with one of their assault rifle variants like the R-15 or ACR.

That's not an assault rifle.

While it does have a pistol grip, I don't see a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, or bayonette lug. It also has a five round magazine.

madgonad: way south: forgotmydamnusername: Since gun control fans shiat their pants extra full about handguns for some reason, from that perspective, it's a "'bad' gun".

[dl.dropbox.com image 570x135]

You could have gotten more points by going with one of their assault rifle variants like the R-15 or ACR.

That's not an assault rifle.

While it does have a pistol grip, I don't see a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, or bayonette lug. It also has a five round magazine.

Or capability of firing full auto. All the rest is window dressing.

madgonad: way south: forgotmydamnusername: Since gun control fans shiat their pants extra full about handguns for some reason, from that perspective, it's a "'bad' gun".

[dl.dropbox.com image 570x135]

You could have gotten more points by going with one of their assault rifle variants like the R-15 or ACR.

That's not an assault rifle.

While it does have a pistol grip, I don't see a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, or bayonette lug. It also has a five round magazine.

No. You are thinking about the assault gun, which was invented in WWII to support infantry.

BarkingUnicorn: kidgenius: Antimatter:
It doesn't infringe on your ability to own a gun or use one..

I agree, it doesn't infringe your rights.

It's just pointless. As you pointed out, it's quite easy to work around this "problem". So why have a law in the first place that will do nothing but drive costs up for a perceived benefit that likely isn't there?

TFA says about half of the microstamps are illegible. I can envision something like this:

"OK, that third digit looks like a 9 to me."

"IDK, could an 8."

"Let's call it a 9."

And they nail the wrong gun owner.

nyseattitude: Nobody would figure a way around that now would they?

[i713.photobucket.com image 500x400]

[www.tacticalgearco.com image 300x300]

wow how incredibly common! i mean, you always see people with those right? right?!

sinschild: madgonad: way south: forgotmydamnusername: Since gun control fans shiat their pants extra full about handguns for some reason, from that perspective, it's a "'bad' gun".

[dl.dropbox.com image 570x135]

You could have gotten more points by going with one of their assault rifle variants like the R-15 or ACR.

That's not an assault rifle.

While it does have a pistol grip, I don't see a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, or bayonette lug. It also has a five round magazine.

Or capability of firing full auto. All the rest is window dressing.

Assault rifles, as imagined by the government in the 90s, were defined as Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though strangely, this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

Because that AR only has the pistol grip it would not be considered an assault rifle. That stupid law was passed by Congress in 94. It expired ten years later and is a fine example of the lame-brain thinking in Washington. This was a liberal brainfart while deregulating the banks was a conservative one.

I still wonder what they expect from the reloaders that sell bulk ammo from spent casings...

BarkingUnicorn: And they nail the wrong gun owner.

If that wrong gun owner is in the same general area as the crime and has no alibi but does have a motive and the markings left on the casing by the barrel and mouth of the gun happen to somehow match the real gun and the incorrect gun was even fired recently.....

The odds are long. Plus, any semi-competent defense attorney would immediately seize on the unclear number and hammer on it throughout the trial.

Mikey1969: he called them "very fine and delicate" because they are freaking TINY. It isn't called "microstanping" because it makes an engraving all down the side of the cartridge. Jesus, it stamps it on the primer, something that is usually about 1/8" in diameter, and it stamps it with a very thin device called a firing pin that is probably 1/64" in diameter. I would say that is the VERY definition of "fine and delicate".

The point is that "fine and delicate" creates an impression of frailty and frailty is not an inherent trait of small things just because they are small.

dittybopper: snip snip response

Again, that entire argument boils down to "it's not perfect". As guns are replaced, they get the marking mechanism. Should we not have replaced diesel trucks with clean diesel just because there was a time before clean diesel when no trucks were clean diesel?

It's circular logic. Of course none of the guns circulating now have those markings, but as new guns enter the market, they will and more and more will have them. If "it's not like that now" was a valid argument against changing something we'd never change anything.

The rest of it is just the same old argument about it being imperfect. Again, criminals now don't take very basic steps to conceal identifying characteristics. People commit crimes without a mask on, they rob houses without gloves. I have no reason to believe that some huge number of people are going to go to the trouble of blanking firing pins in their guns when there are people committing robberies on camera without even covering their faces.

dittybopper: Criminals will simply prefer revolvers over semiautomatics

Criminals are going to replace small, easy-to-conceal, higher capacity, faster weapons with a bulky, slower, hard-to-load revolver? I don't believe that for a second.

The big advantage I see with this is quick capture in cases of "passion" crimes. Somebody grabs a gun and blows someone else away in a sudden fit of rage and ditches the gun somehwere. In cases where you're talking some a gangster or someone with a stolen gun, it may not lead you directly to the attacker, but at least it helps tie two investigations together which can help you solve one in tandem with the other.

No, it probably will not do much in the face of devoted, organized and career criminals, but that doesn't mean it's not useful.

Magorn: Would this be the same Louisana where "Cajun Pawn Stars" is set and I just watched the pawn shop buy a fully operational Browning Automatic Rifle?

sure does look like nobody's got any gun at all down there

Which has pretty much nothing to do with you question regarding the methodology of a gun confication action. The fact that it was not permanent is another matter entirely.

Splinshints: BarkingUnicorn: And they nail the wrong gun owner.

If that wrong gun owner is in the same general area as the crime and has no alibi but does have a motive and the markings left on the casing by the barrel and mouth of the gun happen to somehow match the real gun and the incorrect gun was even fired recently.....

The odds are long. Plus, any semi-competent defense attorney would immediately seize on the unclear number and hammer on it throughout the trial.

Mikey1969: he called them "very fine and delicate" because they are freaking TINY. It isn't called "microstanping" because it makes an engraving all down the side of the cartridge. Jesus, it stamps it on the primer, something that is usually about 1/8" in diameter, and it stamps it with a very thin device called a firing pin that is probably 1/64" in diameter. I would say that is the VERY definition of "fine and delicate".

The point is that "fine and delicate" creates an impression of frailty and frailty is not an inherent trait of small things just because they are small.

dittybopper: snip snip response

Again, that entire argument boils down to "it's not perfect". As guns are replaced, they get the marking mechanism. Should we not have replaced diesel trucks with clean diesel just because there was a time before clean diesel when no trucks were clean diesel?

It's circular logic. Of course none of the guns circulating now have those markings, but as new guns enter the market, they will and more and more will have them. If "it's not like that now" was a valid argument against changing something we'd never change anything.

The rest of it is just the same old argument about it being imperfect. Again, criminals now don't take very basic steps to conceal identifying characteristics. People commit crimes without a mask on, they rob houses without gloves. I have no reason to believe that some huge number of people are going to go to the trouble of blanking firing pins in their guns when there are people committin ...

So you'd be perfectly fine with what was mentioned earlier in the thread - a new law requiring all newly manufactured gloves to be fingerless. As gloves are replaced, they are replaced with fingerless models so criminals can't hide their fingerprints anymore.

Splinshints: Not the point of the analogy. You're presenting a different argument than what I was responding to (and your argument I've now responded to above) when I made the analogy. The argument presented was that this shouldn't be done because it can be circumvented. That is not a valid argument. If it were, then police wouldn't bother taking fingerprints because criminals can wear gloves.

I keep seeing this thrown around and I'm sure someone else has probably addressed it by now, but I'm going to again anyway. That doesn't seem like a reasonable analogy to me. I think it is more like requiring stamps on every pair of gloves sold because a criminal might use them in a crime, except that the stamp is attached by a tag that is easily removable. The stamp is on an easily removable firing pin, just like it would be on an easily removable part of the glove. So, the glove would be identifiable as long as someone didn't take the tiny amount of time to remove it. You can't remove your fingerprints to make the police having them useless in the same way. Even if you wear gloves that requires forethought at the time of a crime taking place. Changing the firing pin is a one time change that you wouldn't ever have to think about again.

This law adds to the cost but provides no real additional benefits above the protections that are already in place.

Splinshints: Criminals are going to replace small, easy-to-conceal, higher capacity, faster weapons with a bulky, slower, hard-to-load revolver? I don't believe that for a second.

Well, thanks for demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge in firearms. "Bulky" revolvers are still very much preferred by many people for concealed carry, and are extremely prevalent amongst law enforcement as back up guns.


And if you think a revolver is slower or hard to load, you've clearly never seen Jerry Miculek at work. We'll wait while you go youtube it.

Why go to the bother of fingerprinting criminals? Its ridiculously easy to wear gloves, or wipe off prints. Only the least competent criminals would be caught. And fingerprinting when you take a job with the federal government, or get a concealed carry, or work in on Wall Street (all three for me), why would we bother with the cost?

Fingerprints will never manage to catch more than a handful of criminals.

dittybopper: Why? At least a third of the criminals caught with a handgun in NYC carry revolvers in preference to semiautomatics. That number would only go up if microstamping were required.

I would doubt that it would go up significantly in the first few years, since grandfathered weapons would still be farking everywhere.

R.A.Danny: forgotmydamnusername: Remington doesn't make "bad" guns, but mostly traditional hunting and target rifles, and shotguns.

About that... http://www.1911r1.com/

Is that a "Bad" gun?

I thought he was going to go with the 700 rifle that could fire when you simply took it off safe. That would be a "Bad" gun.

Magorn: (we do it for farking SUDAFED these days)

Not to mention VOTING!

dittybopper: Even worse, they are proposing to microstamp muzzleloaders....

A little dremel work on the ramrod, and you're good to go.

/This whole thread and no one has brought up taglets in the propellent yet?

MisterRonbo: Why go to the bother of fingerprinting criminals? Its ridiculously easy to wear gloves, or wipe off prints. Only the least competent criminals would be caught. And fingerprinting when you take a job with the federal government, or get a concealed carry, or work in on Wall Street (all three for me), why would we bother with the cost?

Fingerprints will never manage to catch more than a handful of criminals.

Well, this is like that except if, instead of using a something to wipe off prints they leave, they could just use something to wipe their fingerprints off of their fingers permanently, quickly, and easily.

If that were the case then fingerprinting WOULD be as totally useless and ineffective as this stupid idea will be.