Have these guns been used in crimes in any significant way? AR's are almost never used in gun crimes, and when they are I bet they're always or very nearly always serialized (or the serial manually removed... a file isn't a hard tool to get). This is why pro-2A'ers get so annoyed, you anti-2A'ers want to push so hard against anything gun you forget to look if these pushes do anything to help the situation or if they just harm the rights of those of us whom cherish ALL of the constitution.
Gawd. You quoted my question, didn't address it at all & then obfuscate furiously. Both 1911 & Glock 80% lowers are readily available as well as is the simple tooling to finish them. Mere possession of a firearm having the serial # filed off makes a person subject to arrest. Not so with ghost guns. They're a big plus for any gun thief, bet on that.
What's the appeal of an untraceable firearm for a lawful gun owner? What makes that a desirable feature?
And like I said, simply require the gun owner to put a serial number on the weapon and problem solved. The ATF strongly advise gun owners to do that anyway.I have a buddy that built his AR from mail order parts. It is not a gun from any particular manufacturer. There are a lot of enthusiasts that do just that. The AR platform is highly customizable and personalizable. Is there a benefit to them not having a serial? Probably not. Is there any real crime caused by these guns that isn't traceable because a lower doesn't have a serial number? Probably not.
And like I said, simply require the gun owner to put a serial number on the weapon and problem solved. The ATF strongly advise gun owners to do that anyway.
Yeah it is just something anti-gun to moan and bitch about. I propose a simple test, put all of the anti-gun folks in areas where police service is unreliable or even nonexistent and see how fast these people go out and buy guns.I guess the difference is if this is looked at as a problem or not. I don't see it as a big deal, certainly not a problem.
Yeah it is just something anti-gun to moan and bitch about. I propose a simple test, put all of the anti-gun folks in areas where police service is unreliable or even nonexistent and see how fast these people go out and buy guns.
Watch out! They're going to come tell you that statistically owning a gun makes you less safe.
And you can lie and be misleading with statistics as well.Math is a bitch isn't it?
I have a buddy that built his AR from mail order parts. It is not a gun from any particular manufacturer. There are a lot of enthusiasts that do just that. The AR platform is highly customizable and personalizable. Is there a benefit to them not having a serial? Probably not. Is there any real crime caused by these guns that isn't traceable because a lower doesn't have a serial number? Probably not.
And like I said, simply require the gun owner to put a serial number on the weapon and problem solved. The ATF strongly advise gun owners to do that anyway.
Who would buy this? Especially when you can get completed lowers pretty cheap. Also should we serialize blocks of aluminum too?I already said what I wanted, that 80% lowers should be serialized & that buyers must pass a background check. That shouldn't detract from the satisfaction of finishing it yourself unless that's not really the point of the exercise in the first place.
I know you didn't ask me but I will give an answer. The prevailing reason I hear is that people don't want to be in a database which will make it easy for the government to come take the guns when it decides to do so.Still refusing to answer the question. Why does anybody want an untraceable firearm? Why should we make it possible for people who wouldn't pass a background check to have one with a little work?
Probably less than GTA, COD, BF, etc. You get to kill people in those games. Most kids that grew up in rural areas learned how to hunt and fish at an early age.
Who would buy this? Especially when you can get completed lowers pretty cheap. Also should we serialize blocks of aluminum too?
I know you didn't ask me but I will give an answer. The prevailing reason I hear is that people don't want to be in a database which will make it easy for the government to come take the guns when it decides to do so.
Still refusing to answer the question. Why does anybody want an untraceable firearm? Why should we make it possible for people who wouldn't pass a background check to have one with a little work?
Still refusing to answer the question. Why does anybody want an untraceable firearm? Why should we make it possible for people who wouldn't pass a background check the power to have one with a little work?
And besides, some people use them as paperweights and props.We can only speculate on their motivations for buying them, we aren’t your personal army of market researchers. As for the “making possible “ for people who won’t pass background checks I’ll admit this is a possibility as any system or control can be gamed. But at some point you need to lay out a proposal; do we ban 80% receivers? If not 80% then how about 70%, or 50%, or what number would you feel comfortable with? Ultimately that question needs to be answered as we need a bright line legal standard to work under, which is what the 80% standard is an effort to put in place.
Their impracticality is evidenced by the fear that police have with their itchy, less than accountable, trigger fingers. Accountability sucks!People like to stick it to the man. Or feel like they are, anyway. Otherwise, if something is made by your hands, customized, etc., it has different value. It's not about practical purpose, but virtually all gun ownership is impractical anyway.
We can only speculate on their motivations for buying them, we aren’t your personal army of market researchers. As for the “making possible “ for people who won’t pass background checks I’ll admit this is a possibility as any system or control can be gamed. But at some point you need to lay out a proposal; do we ban 80% receivers? If not 80% then how about 70%, or 50%, or what number would you feel comfortable with? Ultimately that question needs to be answered as we need a bright line legal standard to work under, which is what the 80% standard is an effort to put in place.
I already laid out the proposal that 80% receivers should be serialized & sold as firearms. The proliferation of ghost guns isn't an asset to society.The whole idea flies in the face of universal background checks & responsible sellers performing due diligence wrt their buyers. For the cops, it means there's no way to prove it's stolen if it is. Scumbags get busted over stolen guns all the time precisely because they're serialized.
What's the appeal of a non-serialized firearm? What are the advantages?
I think you’re missing my point. If we codified exactly what an 80% receiver was, would you then be unhappy when someone started selling a lower with one less finishing step performed so it no longer qualified as a “firearm” and thus require serialization? At some point far enough back in the process even you’d admit that something wasn’t yet a firearm, even it was a plain undrilled ingot of steel or aluminum. At some point you need to decide when it becomes a firearm and thus requiring serialization. And thus by extension when it’s not and doesn’t. If an 80% lower is a firearm, what’s the lower limit for when it’s not?
I think you’re missing my point. If we codified exactly what an 80% receiver was, would you then be unhappy when someone started selling a lower with one less finishing step performed so it no longer qualified as a “firearm” and thus require serialization? At some point far enough back in the process even you’d admit that something wasn’t yet a firearm, even it was a plain undrilled ingot of steel or aluminum. At some point you need to decide when it becomes a firearm and thus requiring serialization. And thus by extension when it’s not and doesn’t. If an 80% lower is a firearm, what’s the lower limit for when it’s not?