Shut Down Ghost Gun Sites

[whm1974]

You're dancing away from the central issue. It seems clear that the 80% ruling & the 1968 law intended to limit the proliferation of ghost guns. It's not working as intended. I'm all in favor of finding the point where only licensed FFL gunsmiths would be interested in partially finished lower receivers, not just any swinging dick who can show up at a build party.

Nobody's coming to take your stupid fucking guns. Get over the foolish notion that they even might. It's ridiculous, OK?

Actually you are dead wrong, their are people in the government that will take our guns if they could.

 

[soundforbjt]

Actually you are dead wrong, their are people in the government that will take our guns if they could.

But they can’t so why the paranoia?

 

[glenn1]

You're dancing away from the central issue. It seems clear that the 80% ruling & the 1968 law intended to limit the proliferation of ghost guns. It's not working as intended. I'm all in favor of finding the point where only licensed FFL gunsmiths would be interested in partially finished lower receivers, not just any swinging dick who can show up at a build party.

Nobody's coming to take your stupid fucking guns. Get over the foolish notion that they even might. It's ridiculous, OK?

Ahh well good luck with changing the 1968 GCA then. I see you’re not interested in seeking common ground or even understanding with the other side. It will no doubt be amusing to watch the veins pop out the side of your head should you ever get your way and the new law is immediately evaded because you didn’t bother thinking beyond first order effects and your actions wind up inevitably counterproductive.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ahh well good luck with changing the 1968 GCA then. I see you’re not interested in seeking common ground or even understanding with the other side. It will no doubt be amusing to watch the veins pop out the side of your head should you ever get your way and the new law is immediately evaded because you didn’t bother thinking beyond first order effects and your actions wind up inevitably counterproductive.

I understand the other side of the argument entirely. It's all about the imaginary gun grabbers & stigginit to the Man. The coolness factor with range buddies & militia meetings is probably awesome. Other than that it makes no sense at all.

 

[pcgeek11]

In the field we would shoulder our rifles barrel down to prevent this.

Works fine until you stumble and fall.

 

[glenn1]

I understand the other side of the argument entirely. It's all about the imaginary gun grabbers & stigginit to the Man. The coolness factor with range buddies & militia meetings is probably awesome. Other than that it makes no sense at all.

I don't think you do understand it otherwise you'd answer my question from earlier. If we were to regulate 80% lowers as you wish, what's going to be your next step once someone evades that new restriction with some other workaround? Happened in CA with featureless rifles and bullet buttons, and is already happening again now that bullet buttons have been restricted. Without cooperation and compromise from the pro-firearm community any restriction you pass will likely be moot before it's even effective. If all you care about is virtue signalling that's fine, if you want something to be actually effective then I guess you can can take what you get by employing your approach.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I don't think you do understand it otherwise you'd answer my question from earlier. If we were to regulate 80% lowers as you wish, what's going to be your next step once someone evades that new restriction with some other workaround? Happened in CA with featureless rifles and bullet buttons, and is already happening again now that bullet buttons have been restricted. Without cooperation and compromise from the pro-firearm community any restriction you pass will likely be moot before it's even effective. If all you care about is virtue signalling that's fine, if you want something to be actually effective then I guess you can can take what you get by employing your approach.

And to me that's kind of the issue, the restrictions are never enough. There have been lots of firearms regulations passed over the years, and there are always more. There is an assault weapon ban, again, being pushed in congress. No matter how much the pro-2A side gives, there will always be something more that the anti-2A side will want to take away.

 

[NAC4EV]

I been following another thread in which a study done by Baylor University in Texas of which groups feel empowered by owning a firearm and which don’t.
Baylor University suggests that Guns tend to empower white, financially unstable men—who oppose gun control.

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ble-tend-to-cling-to-guns-for-power-identity/

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/ars-guns-tend-to-empower-white-financially-unstable-men—who-oppose-gun-control.2529010/

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think you do understand it otherwise you'd answer my question from earlier. If we were to regulate 80% lowers as you wish, what's going to be your next step once someone evades that new restriction with some other workaround? Happened in CA with featureless rifles and bullet buttons, and is already happening again now that bullet buttons have been restricted. Without cooperation and compromise from the pro-firearm community any restriction you pass will likely be moot before it's even effective. If all you care about is virtue signalling that's fine, if you want something to be actually effective then I guess you can can take what you get by employing your approach.

So I do understand, correct?

Just because gun nuts find ways to skirt the law doesn't mean we should make it easy. You have yet to claim any advantages to ghost guns other than those I mention.

Here- try it- Ghost guns are good for America because....

 

[glenn1]

So I do understand, correct?

Just because gun nuts find ways to skirt the law doesn't mean we should make it easy. You have yet to claim any advantages to ghost guns other than those I mention.

Here- try it- Ghost guns are good for America because....

Again I’m not your market researcher. I couldn’t tell you the reasons people buy anything from pit bulls to truck nutz much less “ghost guns.” There are likely others where I can guess the reason and would probably be apalled, yet wouldn’t seek to ban it, such as selective sex abortions or Grindr. The difference between me and you however is that I’m not a control freak nanny stater who would ban anything that you couldn’t find a use for from large sodas to “ghost guns.” While I’m open-minded to hearing reasons to restrict things (and any needed exceptions) I don’t agree that “because Jhhnn is scared of them” is a compelling state interest. That it “could be” used for nefarious purposes isn’t a good reason, especially if you’re not going to offer a reasonable alternative.

 

[Jhhnn]

Again I’m not your market researcher. I couldn’t tell you the reasons people buy anything from pit bulls to truck nutz much less “ghost guns.” There are likely others where I can guess the reason and would probably be apalled, yet wouldn’t seek to ban it, such as selective sex abortions or Grindr. The difference between me and you however is that I’m not a control freak nanny stater who would ban anything that you couldn’t find a use for from large sodas to “ghost guns.” While I’m open-minded to hearing reasons to restrict things (and any needed exceptions) I don’t agree that “because Jhhnn is scared of them” is a compelling state interest. That it “could be” used for nefarious purposes isn’t a good reason, especially if you’re not going to offer a reasonable alternative.

So, you can't give me any reason that ghost guns are good for America. You're obviously getting desperate with the control freak nanny stater thing, however. I haven't suggested banning anything in this thread.

 

[glenn1]

So, you can't give me any reason that ghost guns are good for America. You're obviously getting desperate with the control freak nanny stater thing, however. I haven't suggested banning anything in this thread.

Why would I bother to defend something already legal and will continue to be for the foreseeable future? You’re the one advocating fur change so the burden is on you, not me, to convince others to change the law. Since GCA 1968 is a relatively stable law and there has been little to no appetite to further change the rules about 80% lowers or other parts of the law I’d dare say you’re going away empty handed.