Ghost Guns

[TriStar Hunt]

Definitely take this with a grain of salt - I remember there was a guy who originally gained fame for posting plans on how to 3D print guns who (after being shut down) went on to design and sell a setup that allows you to mill specific components that would not have serial numbers. I’m not at all up to date on this topic, yet I want to say that the story used the term “ghost gun” to describe these types of guns. However there absolutely must be more to what people are calling “ghost guns” these days. Sorry that’s not super helpful...but I’ve already typed too much not to hit post reply Great thread though @Brian in Montana

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

I grew up playing games like contra and doom, and turned out just fine.

I think the difference was how today’s games are realistic, as in scary realistic.

There’s no way you can take a young kid and put them in a situation where they’re actively killing people over and over again, and not say that it is desensitizing the value of human life.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the effects it has on a person. Especially people more prone to mental health issues.

Are you contending that most millenials who grew up playing more realistic violent video games have a lower regard for human life? There's just no way that is the case. Where is the cutoff for realism in violent video games? Super Nintendo? Playstation?

Seems to me the increase in more deadly mass shootings, realism of video games, and accessibility to AR style rifles all occurred about the same time as well...

As well, what would you have done about realistic violent video games? Seems like legislation there may be an abridgement of free speech.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

My health insurance sucks too, but back to guns. I remember this opinion piece from a few years back, A Gun Nut's Guide to Gun Control That Works, and thought it sounded pretty sensible. If you're legally able to own a gun you can have as many of pretty much any semi-auto weapon you'd want (even the ghastly ones). Meanwhile, the bolt-gun and over-under "Fudds" wouldn't be punished by the restrictive gun laws of many major urban areas.

I'd particularly love to hear opinions on this from anyone who considers themselves to be one of the "big 2A folks" cause I admittedly run with a bunch of Fudds.

So we are repealing the 2A...

Seems like right now one team is pro 14th amendment the other is pro 1st and 2nd and each team wants to pretend the other amendments just don’t exist.

We either have laws or we don’t.

 

[mxracer317]

Are you contending that most millenials who grew up playing more realistic violent video games have a lower regard for human life? There's just no way that is the case. Where is the cutoff for realism in violent video games? Super Nintendo? Playstation?

Seems to me the increase in more deadly mass shootings, realism of video games, and accessibility to AR style rifles all occurred about the same time as well...

As well, what would you have done about realistic violent video games? Seems like legislation there may be an abridgement of free speech.

I clearly have my belief regarding the matter, and it’s apparent you do as well.

Doesn’t mean that we have to agree on everything to be able to respect different stances.

Like I said, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

I clearly have my belief regarding the matter, and it’s apparent you do as well.

Doesn’t mean that we have to agree on everything to be able to respect different stances.

Like I said, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

There's a considerable amount of research on the subject, and only about half of it claims that there is a correlation, and that correlation is generally weak.

It's also been discussed by SCOTUS, and Alito holds a similarly sceptical view.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I mostly agree, but have two questions.

1) What other constitutional amendments within the Bill of Rights besides the second, have as many laws RESTRICTING them, or even about them? I’m genuinely curious because you seem to be asserting that there are very clear boundaries and limitations on things like “freedom of speech”, “freedom of the press”, “freedom of religion”, “unreasonable search and seizure” etc. While I am aware that all of those have some sort of boundaries, I would say that A) the boundaries are not that clear(each one of them ends up in court every year) and B) their protections seem to be much broader than 2A protections(from a non-lawyer perspective, the above mentioned constitutional rights, more often than not, seem to be an automatic win whenever someone claims that whatever seemingly unrelated thing they were doing deserves protection based on one of those rights) Again, I’m not asserting much. You’re the lawyer, and I’d like to know your take on those things. Also, I realize that I may be taking your statement differently from you meant it. I suppose you could mean that all of the restrictions and laws etc. are a sign of considerable contention, and the cause of the lack of clarity about the 2nd amendment.

2) What do you mean when you say that the two sides are “all or nothing”? From my perspective, there are quite a few on the left that would like to see all guns go away period, even if they don’t admit it, and that’s their end game, BUT I’m not convinced that most of them want that. I think that MOST of them want something closer to European gun laws(which would be terrible). I don’t think that’s all or nothing. Then on the right, I don’t think more than a handful of people on the planet want absolutely zero gun laws. I almost everyone on the right, especially elected folks, are all for background checks by dealers. It’s similar for fully automatic weapons, tanks, bazookas, missiles etc. If there is one single elected politician who is pushing “the right to keep and bear arms” as a right for anyone to own any weapon, then I have somehow missed them.

1) I was proactively responding to the "what about thou shall not infringe don't you understand". As said many times before, there is permitted government regulation over all of the constitutional rights and always has been. As for volume - the are more laws that touch on speech, religion and search and seizure and they are far more commonly litigated than gun rights. I would say the real parallel in the debate is abortion and guns - all or nothing vitriolic discussions with each thinking the other's view of the constitution is daft.

2) I was more referring to the messaging of the most prominent voices, but when talking about real people I agree that end goals vary across a broad spectrum. As for "almost everyone on the right" supports background checks and NFA limits, just look to the HT survey results - the absolutists are more common than you may think.

 

[noharleyyet]

1) I was proactively responding to the "what about thou shall not infringe don't you understand". As said many times before, there is permitted government regulation over all of the constitutional rights and always has been. As for volume - the are more laws that touch on speech, religion and search and seizure and they are far more commonly litigated than gun rights. I would say the real parallel in the debate is abortion and guns - all or nothing vitriolic discussions with each thinking the other's view of the constitution is daft.

2) I was more referring to the messaging of the most prominent voices, but when talking about real people I agree that end goals vary across a broad spectrum. As for "almost everyone on the right" supports background checks and NFA limits, just look to the HT survey results - the absolutists are more common than you may think.

I believe 'many on the right (absolutists)' would support 'common sense' were they not convinced, with good reason IMO, that it would not stop at 'common sense'.

 

[ImBillT]

I believe 'many on the right (absolutists)' would support 'common sense' were they not convinced, with good reason IMO, that it would not stop at 'common sense'.

I do agree.

Also, “common sense” means something different to everyone. They say “common sense” and you are supposed to hear “things I think are reasonable”.

I totally support common sense immigration reform, border enforcement, drug policy, gun laws, and national defense. If I was to hammer out specifics on any of those issues, suddenly what I thought was common sense, and what some other person though was common sense would be very different, and NEITHER would resemble what some politician was trying to pass off as “common sense”.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I believe 'many on the right (absolutists)' would support 'common sense' were they not convinced, with good reason IMO, that it would not stop at 'common sense'.

We agree.

One of the most egregious elements that sneak into many drafts of "common sense" bills is that even letting your 14 yo son/daughter shoot your 12 gauge while pheasant hunting together is an unlawful transfer. Simply ridiculous - but the drivers of these bills too often are so afraid of guns, so unconcerned about the lawful owners and lawful uses, and so clueless as to nature of common and lawful uses that they draft crazy overbroad language.

 

[longbow51]

As a last resort...

 

[David58]

As a last resort...
View attachment 180273

Might not work - a book on capitalist economics might among the first to get tossed in the flames!!

 

[longbow51]

Might not work - a book on capitalist economics might among the first to get tossed in the flames!!

Too true.