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: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What's practical or safe about those provisions?

MY firearms haven't shot anyone without them.




posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Hell people.

Lets treat speech and voting the same effing way since it's so practical.


edit on 16-8-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Hell people.

Lets treat speech and voting the same effing way since it's so practical.



There ya go! Need to apply for a permit and get a licence, and pay a hefty fee of course, to exercise free speech.

And of course an ID as well as a training course to be able to vote! With a fee of course. Gotta get that money into the gov hands that know best

Hell if it saves one life it'll be worth it
edit on 8 16 2018 by caterpillage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So now you're crying cause they're going to have features you don't like and might be more expensive?

You can still have your gunz dude.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   
From an engineering standpoint:

The only realistic way this could be accomplished is by having each firing chamber contain a raised or lowered stamp, so the expanding shell casing would receive an imprint upon firing. The issue with this is that any raised surface, on firing chamber or casing, would also act as an impediment to smooth ejection of the casing. This would lead to misfirings as the casings would not always remove themselves from the weapon properly.

The stamp would also wear quite rapidly as expanded casings are ejected. I would estimate maybe 10,000 rounds before a stamp is rendered undecipherable, and that estimates takes into account special hardening techniques to prevent excessive wear.

Once worn, a firearm could not be easily re-fitted with a stamp. The firing chamber is the most integral part of any firearm and thus cannot be simply replaced any more than one can replace the unibody on a vehicle. The firing chamber, for all practical purposes, is the weapon.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Now, from a practical standpoint:

Ignoring the fact that any raised surface can be easily removed with a $25 Dremel tool, just simple wear will also render any stamp unreadable. It will also lead to safety issues with re-used brass, since even a microscopic indentation creates a stress point. I have reloaded brass upwards of 20 times over, and that means 20+ stress points.

Reloaded brass would not be identifiable. It would contain multiple stamps, possibly from different weapons. Some people actually help clean up firing ranges for the brass so they can reload.

Picking up one's shell casings only takes a few minutes.

Since weapons can be easily carried across state borders, having a law in California just means gun manufacturers would simply need to move to Arizona or Nevada to manufacture guns legally. A new industry of illegally importing guns into California would grow up overnight. The only way to combat this would be to have check stations along every route into and out of California, along with border patrol along the entire border. In essence, California would need their own wall.

Any weapons manufacturer in California would pretty much be forced to move out of state anyway. Once word got out about their micro-stamping, their product would be shunned across the other states and their sales would only happen inside California. Moving across a state border would open up an entire new market for them.

Since a large percentage of guns used in crime are obtained illegally, having an identification mark would not indicate who the crime perpetrator really was, only who legally owned the gun at the time. This would likely lead to legal owners who had been the victim of crime being prosecuted for being the victim of a theft.

It would be simple enough, with the proper technology, to use this law to frame a law-abiding gun owner. If the technology exists to create this stamp, that technology will become available to the public as all technologies eventually do. All one would need do in order to obtain the stamp of a legal weapon is to find a single brass casing from it, an easy proposition if the owner fires the weapon regularly. A firing chamber with identical markings could then be manufactured and used in a crime and the owner of the original gun would be charged with "damning evidence." Expensive, yes, but no more expensive than other attempts to get revenge on someone one does not like... and at present, gun owners are not popular in some areas of California.

Even easier, use a stolen brass casing reloaded and fired from a gun without a stamp... the identifying mark will still be readable.

----------------------------------------------------------------

In conclusion:

The micro-stamping idea is absolute lunacy, from both a technological and practical standpoint. I propose that instead of having a law to require useless and expensive alterations to legal weapons, we instead need a law to make useful alterations to politicians who propose such idiocy... lobotomies come to mind.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Of course I can.

I don't live in the Peoples Republic of California.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: TinySickTears

Of course I can.

I don't live in the Peoples Republic of California.



Well you're crying like you do so I wasn't sure



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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".



It does, and it would shine a light on a lot of what ails this nation. Because in the end, regulation that doesn't really achieve anything is worse than useless action. It becomes an impediment to innovation, as well as a constant wear and drain on the society yoked up with said regulation.

If we evaluated regulation for effectiveness rather than simply for the emotional lift it gives, we'd likely find that not only do we grossly over regulate stupid things...we'd probably also have to begin admitting that you cant legislate every nook and cranny of life. At some point we must admit that life will carry risks with it, that human involvement will lead to the unforeseen, and that in the end we might be better served returning to a world where we expected each other to make reasonable decisions, rather than asking our government to punish people who just cannot be bothered.
edit on 8/16/2018 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

As opposed to crying about what I said?



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


The firing chamber for a modern pistol would be built onto the barrel. Again a user replaceable part. I do it all the time, when I shoot lead cast bullets out of my glocks. In a revolver it would be the cylinders, which still can be replace abet more difficult.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Not to mention simply using a revolver to comit said crimes. They're more powerful anyway, the venerable 357 and .44 magnum would simply become the murder weapon of choice.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears


Idiotic laws that solves nothing created by people who do not understand the workings of a firearms.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: lordcomac
a reply to: neo96

Those requirements would produce some rather interesting engineering problems.

Also, they wouldn't do anything but make guns more expensive.


This is precisely why they want them. They can't outright ban guns but they can price most people out of owning them if they pass enough absurd regulations. They already do this in some cities, making them unaffordable to the people who need them most, poor minorities that live in high-crime areas.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: TinySickTears

Of course I can.

I don't live in the Peoples Republic of California.



Well you're crying like you do so I wasn't sure


And you are adding nothing of value.

If you were smart enough you would cry about our rights getting chipped away too.

Once the 2nd is gone they will go after the 1st.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: joemoe

Realistically, unless one is proposing to build some sort of laser-engraving mechanism into a weapon, any stamping would need to be done by the expansion of the casing as it is fired. That cannot happen in the barrel. There are a few weapons, like the Thompson Contender, that have exchangeable single-shot barrels that include the firing chamber, but a Contender is an unusual weapon and is quite heavy and bulky (I know; I own one with the 16" 30-30 barrel and a 10" .45/.357 additional barrel). A classic semi-auto pistol with a replaceable barrel could not use casing expansion in the barrel to accomplish what this law requires; the casing does not move through the barrel.

Since revolvers do use the cylinders as an integral part of the firing chamber, yes, the cylinders could contain any stamp... but that means one can simply buy a revolver in California and swap out a cylinder made in Tennessee.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: TinySickTears

Of course I can.

I don't live in the Peoples Republic of California.



Well you're crying like you do so I wasn't sure


And you are adding nothing of value.

If you were smart enough you would cry about our rights getting chipped away too.

Once the 2nd is gone they will go after the 1st.


Just putting my opinion out there.
I'm not paranoid about it like some of you.

Gun rights are not my main issue. That's fine if it is for you.
Just like neo can think this is bull#. I can think he is being a baby.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Yup that's why these laws are stupid. The only reason they made them is to circumvent the fact that the 2nd Amendment exists. They will do anything to slow or prevent the private ownership of firearms.


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



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I wonder what the arguments would be if a state proposed a 300-day waiting period before protests can occur, and a minimum $1 million bond to be posted in cash when the protest was applied for?

Hey, you still have the right to protest! You don't have the right to protest cheaply. States rights, maaaaaan!

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage

That's exactly what it is.

"See? We're doing something!!"

At least they didn't say "clip".



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: face23785

I wonder what the arguments would be if a state proposed a 300-day waiting period before protests can occur, and a minimum $1 million bond to be posted in cash when the protest was applied for?

Hey, you still have the right to protest! You don't have the right to protest cheaply. States rights, maaaaaan!

TheRedneck


This is a great idea.

Edit to clarify: I'm joking. I don't really think it's a good idea to place such burdens upon our right to protest. Nor our right to bear arms.
edit on 16 8 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join