Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PJ Media)   Why gun microstamping won't work. But who cares about expensive regulations that lose jobs, jail innocent people, and can be thwarted with a $12 part, if we can look like we DID something   ( pjmedia.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, semiautomatic firearms, PJM, shell casings, Remington Arms  
•       •       •

1985 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Oct 2012 at 11:35 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



322 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-10-09 01:35:18 PM  

paygun: CPennypacker: a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence

Maybe we need to form a militia for the culture war.

So this organized militia, was that to be an army with a different name, or did that mean plain old private ownership of guns?


You know theres more to a militia than just "people that have guns" right?
 
2012-10-09 01:35:32 PM  

Ricardo Klement: The people who don't like proffered solutions should come up with some themselves.


What, you mean like some sort of final solution?
 
2012-10-09 01:35:46 PM  

paygun: Ricardo Klement: But I would propose that it would be illegal for any FFL holder (except C&R) to sell a firearm without a background check.

I support that too. We're in luck, that's been in place since 1968.


Even at gun shows?
 
2012-10-09 01:37:04 PM  

CPennypacker: paygun: CPennypacker: a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence

Maybe we need to form a militia for the culture war.

So this organized militia, was that to be an army with a different name, or did that mean plain old private ownership of guns?

You know theres more to a militia than just "people that have guns" right?


Yes I believe it is technically men between the ages of 17 and 45.
 
2012-10-09 01:37:31 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Even at gun shows?


Yep. If I'm an FFL, there's no special show or building that I can enter that just makes federal laws go away.
 
2012-10-09 01:37:41 PM  

CPennypacker: The context is an organized militia taking the place of a standing army


Organized by whom? And what happens to the guns after the need for the militia expires?
 
2012-10-09 01:38:06 PM  

CPennypacker: You know theres more to a militia than just "people that have guns" right?


No I don't. Explain that for me.
 
2012-10-09 01:38:39 PM  

Ricardo Klement: paygun: Ricardo Klement: But I would propose that it would be illegal for any FFL holder (except C&R) to sell a firearm without a background check.

I support that too. We're in luck, that's been in place since 1968.

Even at gun shows?


Only private citizens can sell guns from their personal collection without a background check. I don't know where the dividing line on a dealer selling his personal stock would fall, but I would imagine the ATF would like to have a chat with him if he's selling sans background checks at a gun show.
 
2012-10-09 01:38:40 PM  

CPennypacker: paygun: CPennypacker: I would say context is important

The context is private ownership of firearms. I don't know how you can spin that into meaning the 2nd protects the right of the government to have guns but give it a shot.

The context is an organized militia taking the place of a standing army to defend a fledgling nation and not a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence.


No, an organized militia was called a "select militia" back then, and that's something the founding fathers were guarding against.

It was indeed a bunch of rednecks shooting stuff on their back fence (cans not having been invented yet), who would be called or even spontaneously assemble when required.
 
2012-10-09 01:39:35 PM  

dittybopper: Melee weapon = club, knife, sword, spear, hammer, fists, etc.


Have any stats for developed, western nations?

manimal2878: Why? That's absurd. Should car manufacturers have to make it easier to identify cars?


You mean other than stamping each car with a VIN, putting visible identification on them in the form of a license place and tagging the paint with trace elements that identify the make and model via spectroscopy?
 
2012-10-09 01:39:45 PM  

redmid17: CPennypacker: paygun: CPennypacker: a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence

Maybe we need to form a militia for the culture war.

So this organized militia, was that to be an army with a different name, or did that mean plain old private ownership of guns?

You know theres more to a militia than just "people that have guns" right?

Yes I believe it is technically men between the ages of 17 and 45.


And a purpose for existing

The "militia" no longer has a purpose because we have a standing army.

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The context is an organized militia taking the place of a standing army

Organized by whom? And what happens to the guns after the need for the militia expires?


The point isn't who is organizing it. The point is that it is organized.
 
2012-10-09 01:40:29 PM  

paygun: Ricardo Klement: Even at gun shows?

Yep. If I'm an FFL, there's no special show or building that I can enter that just makes federal laws go away.


Huh. Well, pardon my ignorance. I guess I misunderstood "gun show loophole". I used to have a C&R that required record-keeping, but didn't realize you still had to do the background checks.
 
2012-10-09 01:40:39 PM  

CPennypacker: paygun: CPennypacker: I would say context is important

The context is private ownership of firearms. I don't know how you can spin that into meaning the 2nd protects the right of the government to have guns but give it a shot.

The context is an organized militia taking the place of a standing army to defend a fledgling nation and not a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence.


the purpose of the first amendment was to allow people to express their grievances with their govt. Not have a bunch of liberals trashtalk America.

See how that works?
 
2012-10-09 01:41:29 PM  

redmid17: Only private citizens can sell guns from their personal collection without a background check. I don't know where the dividing line on a dealer selling his personal stock would fall, but I would imagine the ATF would like to have a chat with him if he's selling sans background checks at a gun show.


The problem you run into with doing that is that they'll get you for acting as a dealer without a license, and the penalty is a huge fine and an extended stay in federal prison. And they get to make the usual arbitrary call themselves as to what constitutes you acting as a dealer.
 
2012-10-09 01:42:01 PM  

MorePeasPlease: Coolfusis: He's right. Every range I've ever been to has a "police your brass" rule. Yes, many rifles discharge the casing quite a ways, but they'll generally all end up in the same area. Keep count and pick them up after you're done. I mean, this idea is really dumb, but not cleaning up after yourself is a dick move.

/no one really follows it
//we pick up what we fired +10, but the ground is still covered
///annoys the hell out of me


You don't sound like a reloader.


and here, almost, is the answer to the cleanup argument.

Every range I have been to has a claeanup rule, as does range-culture. But cleaning up does not mean taking back home. The ranges I go to keep sparate buckets for brass. They sell it to recyclers as they accumulate enough. Reloaders will keep brass for reuse, for most of us though, it is disposable
 
2012-10-09 01:43:21 PM  

CPennypacker: The point isn't who is organizing it. The point is that it is organized.


If you're arguing that the guns and the people who posses them need to be "well-regulated", then the "who" is most certainly relevant.

And what happens to the guns after the militia is no longer needed? You didn't answer that one at all.
 
2012-10-09 01:43:21 PM  

dittybopper: Then too, any federal system might actually violate federal law, which forbids a centralized gun registry.


Well, obviously to do this at the Federal level, a new law would need to be passed by Congress, which would override the older law. There isn't a constitutional prohibition preventing the Feds from doing this.

This strikes me as a mildly useful idea (at the Federal level). It would not solve ever crime since it would be easily defeated by intelligent criminals (or by using certain types of gun), but most crimes are commited by stupid criminals, so it help would solve some. The most worrysome problem with the concept is the whole "picking up used brass at a gun range and reloading it into an older gun" problem.
 
2012-10-09 01:44:09 PM  

Mrbogey: CPennypacker: paygun: CPennypacker: I would say context is important

The context is private ownership of firearms. I don't know how you can spin that into meaning the 2nd protects the right of the government to have guns but give it a shot.

The context is an organized militia taking the place of a standing army to defend a fledgling nation and not a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence.

the purpose of the first amendment was to allow people to express their grievances with their govt. Not have a bunch of liberals trashtalk America.

See how that works?


What making stuff up? Yeah I see it work here a lot. The first amendment was drafted because a lot of the opposition to the initial ratification of the constitution was from people who didn't like how the constitution lacked express guarantees of civil liberties.
 
2012-10-09 01:44:40 PM  

Ricardo Klement: paygun: Ricardo Klement: But I would propose that it would be illegal for any FFL holder (except C&R) to sell a firearm without a background check.

I support that too. We're in luck, that's been in place since 1968.

Even at gun shows?


absolutely. Its one of the things the ATF makes clear. You also have to keep records of every gun you buy and sell for years after. Theres no such thing as off the record with an FFL.
 
2012-10-09 01:45:05 PM  

manimal2878: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Exactly, have law enforcement lay out a number of features that would assist them in identifying criminals

Why? That's absurd. Should car manufacturers have to make it easier to identify cars? The can be used to commit crimes or be the getaway vehicle after a crime. Should ski masks have to have an identifier system built in so that they can be identified if they are used in a stick up?

The whole concept is stupid.


VIN numbers (and a place to hang a license plate) are required for all cars sold in the United States. That is, yeah, car manfacturers do have to make it easier to identify cars.
 
2012-10-09 01:45:34 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: dittybopper: Melee weapon = club, knife, sword, spear, hammer, fists, etc.

Have any stats for developed, western nations?

manimal2878: Why? That's absurd. Should car manufacturers have to make it easier to identify cars?

You mean other than stamping each car with a VIN, putting visible identification on them in the form of a license place and tagging the paint with trace elements that identify the make and model via spectroscopy?


Each gun already has a unique serial number assigned to it. It's what goes on the 4473 when you buy it. IDK how far back you have to look, but I know my dad's 1907 Winchester has a unique serial # on it too. The visible identification (aka license plate) is only required for transit on public roads. Nothing is required of them if they are just sitting in your garage or being towed around the city. The bullets fire from guns can generally help determine the caliber of the gun, if not the exact make and model. However if I know a red honda civic ran over a person, it does me limited good if I have nothing to match it to -- same concept with a gun and bullet.
 
2012-10-09 01:46:18 PM  

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Holy shiat did I really just spell century with an S

That's the least of your argument's flaws.

And Eric the Red and Pythagoras agree with you too! I wonder what Pliny the Elder has to say?


mwbeercollective.files.wordpress.com 

/hot
 
2012-10-09 01:46:44 PM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The point isn't who is organizing it. The point is that it is organized.

If you're arguing that the guns and the people who posses them need to be "well-regulated", then the "who" is most certainly relevant.

And what happens to the guns after the militia is no longer needed? You didn't answer that one at all.


No, I'm arguing about the original intent and context of the second amendment and why I disagree with the Heller decision. As for the second part, guns need to be legal and regulated in a way that doesn't twist a constitutional amendment to shoehorn in individual rights. All it does is make regulating them a pain in the ass and give derpers argument fuel that they shouldn't have. Guns should be legal, but they shouldn't be a right.
 
2012-10-09 01:46:50 PM  

CPennypacker: The first amendment was drafted because a lot of the opposition to the initial ratification of the constitution was from people who didn't like how the constitution lacked express guarantees of civil liberties.


Yet here you arguing against one such expressly guaranteed civil liberty.
 
2012-10-09 01:46:54 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: You mean other than stamping each car with a VIN, putting visible identification on them in the form of a license place and tagging the paint with trace elements that identify the make and model via spectroscopy?


Good point, but it actually proves my point. Guns already have serial numbers.
 
2012-10-09 01:48:28 PM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The first amendment was drafted because a lot of the opposition to the initial ratification of the constitution was from people who didn't like how the constitution lacked express guarantees of civil liberties.

Yet here you arguing against one such expressly guaranteed civil liberty.


No, my point is that it isn't expressly guaranteed and the justification for calling it a civil liberty is something I disagree with.
 
2012-10-09 01:48:53 PM  

CPennypacker: Guns should be legal, but they shouldn't be a right.


That's a valid point of view, I suppose. Good luck with the constitutional amendment it would take to get your way.
 
2012-10-09 01:50:03 PM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Guns should be legal, but they shouldn't be a right.

That's a valid point of view, I suppose. Good luck with the constitutional amendment it would take to get your way.


I wouldn't need one. They would just have to overturn Heller.
 
2012-10-09 01:52:14 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Huh. Well, pardon my ignorance. I guess I misunderstood "gun show loophole". I used to have a C&R that required record-keeping, but didn't realize you still had to do the background checks.


A C&R is a special case, almost like a dealer's license for non-dealers. The ATF says:

A dealer's license must be obtained to engage in the business of dealing in any firearms, including curios or relics.

I think it's ambiguous for a reason, they don't want to spell it out so they can call it like they see it, case by case. In a strict sense, that means to me you can't sell at all.
 
2012-10-09 01:53:24 PM  

CPennypacker: I wouldn't need one. They would just have to overturn Heller.


Once upon a time, it took a constitutional amendment to ban private sale/possession of alcohol, and "the right to bear alcohol" wasn't even in the Bill of Rights.

Just a little historical context for your crusade. You might want to expend your considerable passion on a more realistic cause.
 
2012-10-09 01:53:35 PM  

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The first amendment was drafted because a lot of the opposition to the initial ratification of the constitution was from people who didn't like how the constitution lacked express guarantees of civil liberties.

Yet here you arguing against one such expressly guaranteed civil liberty.

No, my point is that it isn't expressly guaranteed and the justification for calling it a civil liberty is something I disagree with.


You're wrong. The authors of the document disagree with you, the people in the present day who's job it is to interpret the constitution disagree with you, and a majority of the citizens bound by the governing document in question disagree with you.
 
2012-10-09 01:54:49 PM  

Mrbogey: Ricardo Klement: paygun: Ricardo Klement: But I would propose that it would be illegal for any FFL holder (except C&R) to sell a firearm without a background check.

I support that too. We're in luck, that's been in place since 1968.

Even at gun shows?

absolutely. Its one of the things the ATF makes clear. You also have to keep records of every gun you buy and sell for years after. Theres no such thing as off the record with an FFL.


Record-keeping and background checks are not the same thing.
 
2012-10-09 01:55:12 PM  

CPennypacker: They would just have to overturn Heller.


Have fun storming the castle!
 
2012-10-09 01:55:25 PM  
While I applaud the intent of this idea, i think the method isn't feasible. No method of the kind is unless you force a trade in all existing guns for the new one with the tracking method.

would make more sense for it to be incorporated into the ammo rather than the gun, likely easier to do and will become widely in use much sooner than it would in a gun based marking set up.

At any rate it is easy for anyone with the know how to reload spent cartridges or fill their own and to stock said supplies.

In the end this is doomed to fail as too many guns are already out there so no matter what you implement to try to mark rounds at a crime scene criminals will use older weapons to avoid being ided.
 
2012-10-09 01:55:50 PM  

paygun: Have fun storming the castle!


Think it'll work?
 
2012-10-09 01:56:00 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Record-keeping and background checks are not the same thing.


Yep. "Record keeping" to a C&R means logging transfers in your bound book.
 
2012-10-09 01:56:36 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The first amendment was drafted because a lot of the opposition to the initial ratification of the constitution was from people who didn't like how the constitution lacked express guarantees of civil liberties.

Yet here you arguing against one such expressly guaranteed civil liberty.

No, my point is that it isn't expressly guaranteed and the justification for calling it a civil liberty is something I disagree with.

You're wrong. The authors of the document disagree with you, the people in the present day who's job it is to interpret the constitution disagree with you, and a majority of the citizens bound by the governing document in question disagree with you.


Actually its just "the people in the present day who's job it is to interpret the constitution" who disagree with me. Which is what I've been saying the whole time. Citizens may as well, but what the citizens think is of little consequence to me.
 
2012-10-09 01:56:55 PM  

manimal2878: mrshowrules: My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.

I'm not a conservative, but this seems pretty simple.

Problem: don't want to get killed by a gun or a victim of gun violence

1. Don't commit crime
Also, don't be near crime, criminals or in your home during a home invasion

2. Don't join a gang.
Unless the gang is threatening to shoot you if you don't join

3. Don't go to the bad neighborhood
If you are poor and in a bad neighbourhood, stop being poor and move

4. Don't be in relationships with crazy gun owners
Also avoid movie theaters, schools, parks etc... etc...

That probably accounts for 99% of all gun crime.

 
2012-10-09 01:57:23 PM  

GoldSpider: Think it'll work?


If by work, you mean "vote for me and we'll get X overturned" then yes. If the goal is votes.

This works for multiple values of X, like DC vs. Heller or Roe vs. Wade.
 
2012-10-09 01:57:32 PM  

paygun: CPennypacker: They would just have to overturn Heller.

Have fun storming the castle!


Nah I'll just wait for people to die/retire maybe we can undo some of the damage that Roberts/Scalia/Thomas and crew have done.
 
2012-10-09 01:57:50 PM  

paygun: Ricardo Klement: Record-keeping and background checks are not the same thing.

Yep. "Record keeping" to a C&R means logging transfers in your bound book.


Yes. I just wanted to be clear I was talking about background checks at gun shows, not record-keeping.
 
2012-10-09 01:58:21 PM  

mrshowrules: stop being poor


To be fair, that has a multitude of benefits beyond any discussion of gun crime.
 
2012-10-09 01:59:18 PM  

manimal2878: Monkeyhouse Zendo: You mean other than stamping each car with a VIN, putting visible identification on them in the form of a license place and tagging the paint with trace elements that identify the make and model via spectroscopy?

Good point, but it actually proves my point. Guns already have serial numbers.


Your point was that it was absurd to expect firearm manufacturers to work with law enforcement to identify ways in which they might assist law enforcement in investigating criminal use of their products and then chose a very poorly considered counterexample.

If you want good legislation, ensure that experts have feedback into the process. Government is going to attempt to make it easier for law enforcement to identify criminals meaning that legislation like that discussed here is going to come up. Wouldn't you rather have an open discussion in which all interests, including your own, are represented rather than government attempting policy in a vacuum?
 
2012-10-09 01:59:33 PM  

paygun: If by work, you mean "vote for me and we'll get X overturned" then yes. If the goal is votes.

This works for multiple values of X, like DC vs. Heller or Roe vs. Wade.
It would take a miracle.


FTFY.
 
2012-10-09 02:01:04 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: manimal2878: Monkeyhouse Zendo: You mean other than stamping each car with a VIN, putting visible identification on them in the form of a license place and tagging the paint with trace elements that identify the make and model via spectroscopy?

Good point, but it actually proves my point. Guns already have serial numbers.

Your point was that it was absurd to expect firearm manufacturers to work with law enforcement to identify ways in which they might assist law enforcement in investigating criminal use of their products and then chose a very poorly considered counterexample.

If you want good legislation, ensure that experts have feedback into the process. Government is going to attempt to make it easier for law enforcement to identify criminals meaning that legislation like that discussed here is going to come up. Wouldn't you rather have an open discussion in which all interests, including your own, are represented rather than government attempting policy in a vacuum?


If you fall on the slippery slope the gun might misfire and put a hole in your forehead.
 
2012-10-09 02:03:49 PM  

mrshowrules: manimal2878: mrshowrules: My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.

I'm not a conservative, but this seems pretty simple.

Problem: don't want to get killed by a gun or a victim of gun violence

1. Don't commit crime
Also, don't be near crime, criminals or in your home during a home invasion

2. Don't join a gang.
Unless the gang is threatening to shoot you if you don't join

3. Don't go to the bad neighborhood
If you are poor and in a bad neighbourhood, stop being poor and move

4. Don't be in relationships with crazy gun owners
Also avoid movie theaters, schools, parks etc... etc...

That probably accounts for 99% of all gun crime.


What is your point? I said those factors probably account for 99% of gun crime, good for you, you pointed out the 1% that aren't addressed by those solutions.
 
2012-10-09 02:04:28 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Your point was that it was absurd to expect firearm manufacturers to work with law enforcement to identify ways in which they might assist law enforcement in investigating criminal use of their products and then chose a very poorly considered counterexample.


Fine, address the ski mask then.
 
2012-10-09 02:04:55 PM  

redmid17: Nothing is required of them if they are just sitting in your garage or being towed around the city.


Manufacturers are required to include visible license plate mount points in their design.

We're discussing a dialog between manufacturers, interest groups and government to solve a perceived problem in as close to an ideal way as possible for all parties. This is how rational adults do things. If you insist that nobody should have to do anything and so everyone should do nothing you will simply be left out of the decision.
 
2012-10-09 02:06:44 PM  

GoldSpider: yet_another_wumpus: Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be better to be in a gunfight with someone limited to revolvers and single or double barrel shotguns, or someone with everything from automatic handguns, semi-auto .30-06s, pump-action shotguns (or better yet, semi-auto)?

In what fictional world does gun control accomplish this?


Dittybopper made what I thought was a reasonable point that there were plenty of weapons this wouldn't affect (with the assumption that criminals would flock to them). I pointed out this wouldn't be a problem.

I'm much less sure about the means of increasing the amount of firearms on the black market.
 
2012-10-09 02:07:05 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: Nothing is required of them if they are just sitting in your garage or being towed around the city.

Manufacturers are required to include visible license plate mount points in their design.

We're discussing a dialog between manufacturers, interest groups and government to solve a perceived problem in as close to an ideal way as possible for all parties. This is how rational adults do things. If you insist that nobody should have to do anything and so everyone should do nothing you will simply be left out of the decision.


Okay assuming that particular option is valid for guns, how are you going to get around the federal law prohibiting any kind of centralized database for gun ownership
 
Displayed 50 of 322 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report