Taking this all seriously, however, if the anti-gun people succeed in banning 80 percenters, will they then work to ban the inevitable 60 percenters that follow? And when they’ve worked their way down the percentiles, having banned the 10 percenters will they demand all tools capable of manufacturing a firearm be seized?
Maybe that sounds ridiculous, and too far off to be any threat. But the real goal is zero guns in the hands of citizens, whether they’re purchased or fabricated.
Anyone with a little machining knowldge can make a crude firearm. While that could range from simple single use “zip” guns to a finely made custom…the range, accuracy, rounds held and rate of fire would vary widely as well.
All that does get easier with more knowledge and equipment.
How many polymer guns exist today with a metal barrel?
The target is not “ghost guns” it’s all guns in the hands of honest people that may be used against them. Just look at Mexico. Virtually no private ownership. Only one gunstore in all of Mexico - in Mexico City - run by the military, but the cartels have no problem getting and using guns. That’s what will happen if people keep voting Democrat (hijacked by Communist Party). I have a lot of Democrat friends, but they are all brainwashed into believing that Republicans and conservatives will throw them all off a cliff. Sad.
Fun fact: while Native Americans were given “trade guns” by European nations (and later the United States), they were always of inferior quality. Various nations asked for gunsmiths to visit, perform work, or even teach their craft, but this was routinely forbidden, because all the different governments feared what the Native Nations could do if they could make, improve, and repair their own firearms.
It’s one of the first forms of “gun control” in North America, and another example of “gun control” being more about “control” than about guns.
Honest conversation topic, hopefully can keep it constructive. Is anybody else on the fence about the 80% lowers and parts like that? On one hand it’s against the 2nd Amendment. On the other hand I don’t want some sex predator that’s been convicted and can’t buy a serialized firearm to be able to buy an unserialized 80% lower because there’s no background check. Part of me thinks they either need to require a background check be filed on them or get rid of them. Thoughts?
Sincere answer here, how many of your rights are you willing to bargain away? And once you do, what do you even have left?
It also strikes me that you’re using charged language like “sex predator” in an attempt to evoke disgust and antipathy that you can link to guns to make gun control seem less offensive. But that doesn’t change the fact that you’re putting yourself in the position of “I’m pro-2A, but…”
On the fence? No. If you’re on the fence about principle, you’re not principled.
It was just an example. Insert the title of any type of criminal you don’t want to have a gun that could not get one through any other legal means. There is nothing else that I agree with from a gun control perspective other than possibly forcing a background check on 80% lowers.
For the moment at least. Consider the “pyramid of choice” wherein choices (compromises) are made only from the perspective of where one is currently situated, rather than the big picture, the origin and final destination.
When you keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to strip you of all of your rights to self defense, then you might not be so amenable to each step that moves you closer to that place.
I don’t disagree. These shooting that keep happening I can’t stand it but I know, as does everyone here, that banning guns won’t solve anything. The issue lies within our society itself from the poisonous media, politics, social media, and even our education system growing more liberal. Add in the pandemic and it’s a recipie for meltdown. I think subjecting 80% lowers to the same rules of regular firearms isn’t a bad thing.
Great point. But let’s not stop there. Let’s also subject certain forms of speech to the same rules. You know, just in case someone might say something that could lead someone to do something bad. And to be consistent, let’s allow some wiggle room in the 4th; after all, people might have some dangerous thing in their basement that they shouldn’t have, and government really ought to do something to control those items, and should be able to remove them without a warrant. Don’t you think? I mean it’s for everyone’s own good.
The 1A does have limitations when it comes to threats and immediate calls of violence. You can’t threaten the life of a Democratic POTUS, though Republican seems fair game. Even though the 1A is fairly absolute, there are a couple restrictions in there. I think we should have basic steps to try and prevent criminals from having guns. Basic background checks (not the new ■■■■, what is already on the books) are one. Secondly, let the ATF stop worrying about law-abiding citizens and shutdown black market dealers which is the main source of criminal supply.
Correction: Not to be manufactured for commercial sale. One can legally sell a firearm that was manufactured for personal use. I had posted on a thread titled Untraceable Ghost Guns links to the ATF explaining their regulations on manufacturing firearms for personal use and selling said firearms.