Is the right to bear arms outdated.

[Larry L.]

...and limits to capacity (magazines). But, irrational banning of specific or general types of weapons is simply that – irrational..

How is limiting the mag capacities on your guns and mine going to do anything but limit the number of rounds we can have vs. the number of rounds available to loons/criminals? How will doing that accomplish an end to/drop in gun crimes where "gun-free zones" and "weapons bans" have not? Just as crooks and loons have paid no attention whatsoever to either of the afore mentioned laws (or any OTHER gun laws for that matter), so shall they ignore any laws that place limits on ammo capacity. THEY will have mags with whatever capacity they want...just like they always have.

I would submit that limiting mag capacities is just another in long line of 'knee jerk' 'feel good' laws that will only serve to further infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. Such limits will only result in further restricting a law abiding citizen's ability to defend himself just so anti-gun politicians can claim they DID something about "gun violence"...when, in fact, they will have done nothing of the sort...as usual.



(Edit) It would be faaaaaar more effective to pass federal laws that:

(1) add an automatic 10 years onto whatever the maximum sentence might be for committing crime "X" if one does so while possessing a deadly weapon...ANY deadly weapon...gun or otherwise.
(2) add an automatic 20 years onto whatever the max sentence is for committing crime "X" if you injure someone with a gun or other deadly weapon while in commission of said crime, and,
(3) bestow an automatic - no exceptions - death penalty onto anyone who kills someone with a gun or other deadly weapon while in the commission of crime "X".

At least laws like those would be aimed directly at CRIMINALS AND LOONS...not at law abiding people.

 

[Danimal W]

Larry, come on now....

Criminals don't follow the current laws, because they don't agree with them. But you and I know that they WILL follow new laws because they will believe in those. ..... Either that or someone sprayed all of the criminals with unicorn jizz, making them onto upstanding role models in our society.

In fact, it seems like certain people want nothing to do with prosecuting criminals, so why don't we just close our prison system too. That will make our society safer, for sure.

 

[Larry L.]

How is limiting the mag capacities on your guns and mine going to do anything but limit the number of rounds we can have vs. the number of rounds available to loons/criminals...they (will) ignore any laws that place limits on ammo capacity. THEY will have mags with whatever capacity they want...just like they always have.

I forgot to include this:

They can/will get high capacity mags the way they always have: via the black market - or by just stealing them themselves. OR they can now simply buy/STEAL a 3D printer and make their OWN. Cody Wilson has already demonstrated how a 3D printer can/will create a working mag - or any other gun part:

Wiki Weapon - 3D Printable Gun - Defense Distributed

So, "Ban away", D.C. Ban all the guns/magazines you want. Doing that didn't work before 3D printers. You can bet your boots it darn sure won't work now.

 

[Jack]

Seems to me that all the threatening, knee jerk reactions regarding an AWB and limited capacity magazines is just a ruse to pass legislation for background checks which will lead to national registration (the goal in any case).

 

[Danimal W]

Seems to me that all the threatening, knee jerk reactions regarding an AWB and limited capacity magazines is just a ruse to pass legislation for background checks which will lead to national registration (the goal in any case).

Bingo!!!!! Then if they get their way, they'll send out the Waffen SS to enforce it.

 

[Jim Craik]

Jack,

If we are really serious about tracking weapons used in crimes and finding out where the bad guys get their guns, wouldn't a National Data base with a fired bullet on file be the best way to to find who is responsible for this weapon?

It could allow us with just a bullet to find not only what gun it came from, but who purchased the gun, who should have been responsible for it and how it came to be used in a crime.

Surly responsible gun owners would welcome this way to track weapons used in crimes.

 

[Jack]

the "bad guy's" are not totally dumb either. They would sell, trade or otherwise dispose of any gun used in a violent crime. Not trackable...

Any form of national registration would only effect the "good guy's".

 

[Danimal W]

Well.... Fired bullet database sounds fine on the surface....

But, the ballistic fingerprint on a case and the bullet CAN be altered and altered easily.

 

[Jim Craik]

Jack,

So a murder takes place, they have a body and a bullet, wouldn't having the data on file that could tell the "good guys" in law enforcement who purchased the gun give them a much, much better start in finding how this bullet ended up killing this person?

You do want to find out who is doing the killing don't you?

It gives them a place to start the investigation, I think that would be incredable important to law inforcement.

Jack, how would a database and a "bullet fingerprint" effect the "good guys", responsible gun owners?

 

[tom pritchett]

I think that Jack is right on with the registration process. With the sale of any gun to anyone will require a registration of that gun. The rest is just a ruse.

 

[Larry L.]

I think that Jack is right on with the registration process. With the sale of any gun to anyone will require a registration of that gun. The rest is just a ruse.

History has proven time and again that registration is the 1st step toward confiscation.

 

[Jack]

Because it would allow the authorities to track ownership. The "bad guy's"
would not be effected in any way. The firearm they used would have been purchased illegally or stolen anyway. So the information stops with the "good guy's.
A ruse for national registration IMO.

 

[Jim Craik]

Jack,

OK, so we have a body and a bullet, you say that knowing who owned that gun would not help the police "in any way".

So you are saying the detective searching for the killer would not be helped "in any way" by knowing who owned the gun used in the crime?

Really?

 

[Jack]

the criminal owned the gun! He doesn't give a rats ass about the law!
As I said, the bad guy procured the gun illegally or it was stolen and then purchased from the thief. You would never know, or be able to trace how many hands it went through.

All you would determine is that it was stolen or sold to someone privately without any record of the transaction, hence the national background checks would do nothing regarding chasing the criminal. It would only form a basis for national gun registration.

 

[Danimal W]

To anyone who thinks a violent criminal is going to follow new laws...

How many of you have broken the speed limit and then driven to the police station and asked for a speeding ticket?

 

[Jim Craik]

Jack here are just a few ways that knowing who owned a gun used in a murder would help:

(1) The owner was the murderer
(2) Someone in the owners family was the murderer
(3) The gun was stolen from the owner in a burglery, now we know the area the muderer operated in. Have their been other burgleries in this area, what is now a murder investigation will delve much deeper than a burglery investigation. DNA, partial prints.............
(4) The gun was sold, traded or given to the murderer. We now can ask the owner.....

You say criminals are smart, they could modify the gun, but we know that the vast majority of of them are not smart.

There is a fingerprint database, the criminals could wear gloves or modify their fingerprints, yet every day folks are convicted by fingerprint evidence!

Just as there is a fingerprint database, there should be a gun database with a bullet fingerprint.

To say that having that gun database would not help law enforcment "in any way" is just not true and you know it!

 

[Danimal W]

Mr Craik..

I don't know if your use of "partial print" is from watching tv crime shows or not, but I have bad news for you. My best friend's wife is a latent print expert for state police. Her entire career is working with fingerprints to solve crimes ...and I think she is qualified to make this statement, "there is no such thing as a partial print that can be used to ID someone. CSI is great TV, but it's just entertainment."

 

[Jack]

Jim,
As I have previously mentioned, I simply do not agree that any background check or registration scheme would effect criminals to any large degree.

 

[Jim Craik]

Jack,

Per the FBI over 700,000 folks who were barred tried to buy firearms and were denied.

700,000!

• 

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns and explosives fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.
Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

 

[Jack]

Yep, it amounts to an inquiry. No official record is provided to local law enforcement.