Gun control

[insanemonkey]

Something I find very hard to swallow about the current way some gun laws are handled, well really how a lot of laws are handled. Is that they affect people before they commit a crime. Take the ban on new machine guns. It is supposed to stop people who may commit a crime. Really may commit a crime. They are trying to punish people because they may use something to do something bad.

That is like writing a pre-speeding ticket. Sorry you were about to speed because the speed limit is 50 and you were going 49. Or arresting someone for caring around a candy bar in a store. You almost stole that candy bar.

How about we punish the actual crime only. Murder is murder, it does not matter if it is done with a gun or a rock. The possession of an item does not make you a killer or a criminal.

I realize that it is all about control, but i just can not see how anyone can think that punishment for a crime someone may commit is not crazy. I also don't see how people can think that crazy laws are confined to things that don't affect them.

"They law they want only affects black riffles, not hunting rifles, so i will just ignore it. They will never come after my hunting riffles, since they are for sporting purposes."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It is supposed to stop people who may commit a crime.

No, not an all. Representative Hughes wanted to disarm citizens. He did not believe that U.S. citizens should have machine guns. Hughes just hated guns, well, he hated you with a gun.

 

[ryang]

You can own/carry a handgun at the age of 18. You can buy a new handgun at the age of 21. You can buy handgun ammo (with the exception of 22lr) at the age of 21. While this probaby doesn't affect 98% of gun owners, it does me. That is a great example of how I think the gun laws are illogical.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You can own/carry a handgun at the age of 18. You can buy a new handgun at the age of 21. You can buy handgun ammo (with the exception of 22lr) at the age of 21. While this probaby doesn't affect 98% of gun owners, it does me. That is a great example of how I think the gun laws are illogical.

I'm not sure who told you this or is selling or refusing to sell to you, but:

Under 21, you cannot lawfully be sold handgun ammo (that is, ammo for your handgun) in any caliber.
Over 18, you may be sold long gun ammo (that is, ammo for your long gun) in any caliber.

If you have a long gun that fires .22LR, you may buy ammo for it under federal law, even though the same ammo may be fired in a .22LR pistol. The same is true for a 9mm, .40, or even .45 carbine. (I'm not aware of any .45 ACP carbines, but if there is one and you have it, and you are over 18, you may legally buy ammo to feed it.) Conversely, if you have only a pistol that fires .223, you may not lawfully buy ammo for it until you are 21.

And yes, the law is illogical, but it is still the law. I am not aware of any laws that forbid the purchase of ammo by one person to be sold or given to another, even underage. There may be such laws, but I don't know about them.

I am not a lawyer. Please check with someone who is to verify the above information to be factual.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rich8483]

If it is not Constitutionally correct (that is, permissible), then it is not "reasonable".
Let's see:
Nothing larger than .50 cal.
Nothing that fires too fast, too quietly, or from too short a barrel without special permission.
Nothing new that fires too fast is allowed for citizens.
A system of federally licensed dealers, without whom no one can purchase new.
Purchasing from one of those dealers requires permission from the government.
A now-expired law saying that nothing that looked scary could be bought or sold.
A piece of shoestring was determined to be a machine gun.
No spare parts for the repair of a suppressor may be kept by a citizen without paying an exorbitant fee.

I'm sure there are other ludicrous points to this "somewhat reasonable" level of regulation that I can't think of off the top of my head.

Of note, since gov't knows who and where "their" dealers are, and when they're there, they're easily shut down, totally eliminating the ability to buy new firearms.

What are the personal feelings around here? I can only speak of my own, but I think they are unConstitutional and should be declared null and void.

All of them.

Blessings,
Bill

that means i have two machine guns for EVERY pair of shoes i own. since im a guy. niether of my machine guns are registered.

seriously that ruling was moronic. a parallel would be that bump fireing would be an unregistered full auto conversion.

 

[Bill of Rights]

that means i have two machine guns for EVERY pair of shoes i own. since im a guy. niether of my machine guns are registered.

seriously that ruling was moronic. a parallel would be that bump fireing would be an unregistered full auto conversion.

Rich, you know I'm not going to disagree here except to say that the ruling is not what's moronic. By the standard set in the law, that being that a single function of the trigger fired multiple rounds, the ruling was accurate and correct. The problem is not with the shoestring or the ruling, it's with the law used to make that ruling. The phrase that is used so often here applies: what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? (just to be clear, I'm not directing that question to you, Rich, but to those who enforce that bad law.)

In many sci-fi stories I've read, the "judge" is a computer programmed to give a logical outcome based on a set of defined criteria. I can see issues, of course, but as long as one outcome could be, "the law is wrong", I could see benefits to such a system. Our judges betimes consider such things as their personal opinions and the effect on other cases and laws as being of greater importance than justice, it would seem.

Fix the law (and by fix I mean repeal) and the rulings will take care of themselves.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rich8483]

WARNING: THIS POST APPEARS TO HAVE RAMBLING

i know that you are saying that the laws in place that were the base of that ruling are the root problem, and they are, but... it could have been said that weapon was not firing multiple bullets per trigger pull but rather that the trigger was being acted upon rapidly. which in the end accomplishes the same thing but in a different way. i do think there is a distinction however small it may be. under our current laws, i think the distinction is important.

either way, its moot. like you say, the laws that are in place that make the shoestring questionable in the first place are unreasonable. the best way to fix these laws are of course repealing them like you said, not at all by passing more laws.

what i hoped the ruling proved (and i know its wishful) is that if a one dollar house hold product can convert a fire control group to "automatic" then all the laws are futile.
if an empty water bottle can be made into a crude small caliber suppressor, than those sections of the law are futile. a cheap hack saw can make a short barreled rifle or shotgun.

i think misconduct are the only laws we need. no murder, no theft, no rape. doesnt matter what weapon you choose if you even choose a weapon.

 

[insanemonkey]

^^ What rich8483 said.

I think part of the danger with pointing out how stupid the laws really are. Is that we may end up with worse laws. I think it has to be done carefully. Making sure that the laws we have now are repealed and at the same time reenforcing the 2nd amendment. There needs to be real punishments, that are enforced, for going outside the Constitution.

 

[traderdan]

It is interesting to me that we are supposedly monitored by "Alphabet agencies" who have the power to make web sites vanish,and no one questions their authority.