It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stupid Gunphobes!

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



If the goal is to catch only the most stupid people, this idea may work.


I do not know what their goal is. I assume safety and accountability.

Seems ridiculous to me, but it is Cali.



At an enormous cost to me when I make more firearms purchases that include this technology.


You have a right to bear arms. You do not have a right to bear arms that fit your personal budget.

If you are in the market for a well-made firearm that is worth the price you are going to pay, the extra cost this would include is not going to make much of a difference.

It's just a special pin and a micro-stamp on the breech.



If the goal is to solve murders, however....its a system easily hacked by bending down to pick up your brass. In light of that, i find it ridiculous that I should be asked to pay an increased retail price without there being a reasonable offset in public safety.


I agree, but you do have the choice to buy what you want to buy.

The 2nd amendment guarantees you the right to bear arms. It does not grant you the right to cheap goods.




posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Bet you wouldn’t be saying the same thing if this was about abortion.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: generik



and just imagine he fun people would have if they had a firing pin mechanism to print that info they want on shell casings. as soon as it would start, people would start producing counterfeit mechanisms that gave out fake information. likely even using the forgeries to frame people. "you are convicted Mr Jones. we have all the evidence we need that your gun, which was in your possession, was used to kill Ms peacock. your fake alibi did not work".


Without the micro-stamping information being publicly-available, I do not see how they could frame people with it.

They could try to taint a crime scene by planting casings from a previously-fired firearm, but I do not think they could do what you describe.



how would the police get that information? if police can access it, anyone can. be it cracking into the database. or even just paying off someone with access to that information. remember a secret is only a secret if known only by one or less people.

and if you can make one microstamping pin with specific information, then you can make others with different information.


also bringing up planting other's expended brass. what about reloads? not just using someone else's expended brass, with a blank imprinter so as not to damage the info on it. but wouldn't multiple firing of that brass then have the information obliterated by the constant over stamping?



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarPig1939

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: WarPig1939

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: WarPig1939
a reply to: introvert

States rights - nation wide constitution. It was guaranteed every citizen of the United States of America would be able to have their rights to bear arms without limits like this. No one should be made to comply to this because California nor any other state in the USA is to create laws that would infringe on the premise of the 2nd Amendment which these new requirements do exactly.

www.ucdavis.edu...


States have the right to regulate firearms up to a certain point.


These requirements go way beyond reasonable regulation and into infringement of said rights.


I can agree with that, but that does not negate the rights the states have.


I would love to hear what the Supreme Court has to say on this particular subject.


There is plenty of info out there for you to find.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: generik




how would the police get that information?


Registration that invasion of privacy.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: introvert




The micro-stamp on the firearm, or the engraving on the casing?


Microstamping is usually done thru the firing pin on to most likely the primer, therefore the stamping. Firing pins gets worn as you shoot your guns. My most used pistol a Glock 19 which gets multiple 1000s of rounds a year had its firing pin changed twice already over 5 years. Engraving the actual casing will do little and is difficult. Many avid shooter reload their own ammo and will buy used brass anyways


That is an important aspect to consider and one of the reasons I think this is quite silly.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: introvert

Bet you wouldn’t be saying the same thing if this was about abortion.


That's a false equivalence, but you are welcome to your opinion.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: generik


The problem is these gun laws are proposed and implemented by those who are ignorant about the subject. It sounds good to them and perhaps their immediate constituents, but are not practical or even workable in real life.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

It just hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet. I know why these requirements are being done and it has nothing to do with safety or protection measures or a better solution to stopping crime. It wont be long until California becomes another Chicago.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: generik



how would the police get that information? if police can access it, anyone can. be it cracking into the database. or even just paying off someone with access to that information. remember a secret is only a secret if known only by one or less people.


That is a slippery slope fallacy.



and if you can make one microstamping pin with specific information, then you can make others with different information.


True.



also bringing up planting other's expended brass. what about reloads? not just using someone else's expended brass, with a blank imprinter so as not to damage the info on it. but wouldn't multiple firing of that brass then have the information obliterated by the constant over stamping?


It does present multiple problems.

I don't think the folks in Cali over a decade ago thought about this issue very well.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: WarPig1939



It just hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet.


It has, but it is rare.

The Heller decision stated that is was constitutional to place conditions on the sales of firearms. Perhaps this is considered a "condition".

I don't know, but it remains that states have the right to regulate firearms.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional,


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   

The 2nd amendment guarantees you the right to bear arms. It does not grant you the right to cheap goods.


Is not requiring items to be arbitrarily or unnecessarily expensive an infringement on a right? Only people who can afford them can keep and bear arms?

Can states institute a poll tax?

Can states require that you own a certain kind of printer to have free speech?

Do you only have privacy if you can afford the best locks and alarm systems?

Arbitrarily raising the price of anything with the intent of making that thing more difficult for the average person to get is tyranny, and anti-freedom.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen



Is not requiring items to be arbitrarily or unnecessarily expensive an infringement on a right? Only people who can afford them can keep and bear arms?


No. If that were true, expensive healthcare would be a violation of your rights. But that is not so.



Can states institute a poll tax? Can states require that you own a certain kind of printer to have free speech? Do you only have privacy if you can afford the best locks and alarm systems? Arbitrarily raising the price of anything with the intent of making that thing more difficult for the average person to get is tyranny, and anti-freedom.


The things you listed are false equivalencies, but I think your sentiment is worth consideration.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
So did they grandfather in all the previous guns that don't have these new "safety features"? Or did they just outright ban guns, which is a violation of our 2nd amendment?



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Indeed.
It's almost the exact reason leftists say needing an id to vote is detrimental to the lower classes.
They can't afford an I'd. Or can't afford transportation to go get one.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
The other argument to support things like this is the classic, "isn't it worth it if it saves even just one life?"

I saw that argument used in this very thread in fact.

By that argument, wouldn't building an impenetrable wall at the border be more than justified? If it saved even 1 life?
If saving lives is the main issue, far greater numbers could be be achieved looking into medical malpractice, prescription drugs, cars, motorcycles, ladders, slippery shower floors, smoking, the list is endless.

edit on 8 16 2018 by caterpillage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

artificially inflating the cost of something is an infringement on rights (and violates the concept of free markets).



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Look like practical safety regulations to me. Do you not like gun safety neo?



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

artificially inflating the cost of something is an infringement on rights (and violates the concept of free markets).


That opens a lot of issues we have to address, such as the definition of "artificial".




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join