Justice Department proposes new regulation on firearm definitions that targets 'ghost guns'

jamil

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jul 17, 2011
45,261
113
Gtown-ish
The number includes both.
The number includes both.
Probably the most important number is the 325 murders or attempted murders. The 23K collected from crime scenes could easily be crimes where the firearm collected had nothing to do with the crime. But of the 325, not that it should be sufficient to justify a law, how many were SN’s scraped off. Their wording throughout all the press tries to impugn hobby guns. Okay, so how many of those guns made by enthusiasts are actually involved in that 325?

Also, how many of that 23K collected from crime scenes were guns made by enthusiasts? And how many of those were directly involved in the crime? Sounds more like if there’s a problem, it’s a problem with criminals scraping off SN’s. I dunno. Maybe make a law against scraping off SN’s of serialized guns? :):
 

jamil

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jul 17, 2011
45,261
113
Gtown-ish
It’s hard to argue 1st and 4th violations when people freely enter into agreements allowing such “violations.” Providers aren’t, or shouldn’t be obligated to respect such rights, as long as the consumer has the ability not to use their service.
Doesn’t that kinda blow away the whole principle of “public accommodation”? Is it time to strike down the CRA?
 

IndyDave1776

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Jan 12, 2012
26,848
113
It’s hard to argue 1st and 4th violations when people freely enter into agreements allowing such “violations.” Providers aren’t, or shouldn’t be obligated to respect such rights, as long as the consumer has the ability not to use their service.
You really think going Amish is a viable alternative?
 

rooster

Expert
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Mar 4, 2010
1,682
113
Indianapolis
It’s hard to argue 1st and 4th violations when people freely enter into agreements allowing such “violations.” Providers aren’t, or shouldn’t be obligated to respect such rights, as long as the consumer has the ability not to use their service.
Well FB Twitter and other internet places are the modern equivalent of the town square and now with cell phone video everyone has the possibility of being a journalist in the way out founders would have viewed one. The right to make speech and press reports in said town square was one of the original intentions of that 1st amendment.

what do you think our founding fathers would have done if British business men had come back in 1790 and bought every newspaper and literal town square in the country and banned all that pro freedom stuff from being said. Only “God save the king” type speech allowed. I mean the 1st amendment doesn’t protect you from private interests right????? Americans could make new newspapers or new town squares right?, they don’t have to use the ones the British bought....
:hijack:
 

Kutnupe14

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 13, 2011
40,286
149
You really think going Amish is a viable alternative?
Now you point IS fair. I’ll give you that. But tell me how you argument is any different than anti-2A folks speaking about how the founders never knowing how far technology would take firearms, when drafting the 2nd Amendment. The BoRs say what they say; don’t like it, change it.
 

Kutnupe14

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 13, 2011
40,286
149
Well FB Twitter and other internet places are the modern equivalent of the town square and now with cell phone video everyone has the possibility of being a journalist in the way out founders would have viewed one. The right to make speech and press reports in said town square was one of the original intentions of that 1st amendment.

what do you think our founding fathers would have done if British business men had come back in 1790 and bought every newspaper and literal town square in the country and banned all that pro freedom stuff from being said. Only “God save the king” type speech allowed. I mean the 1st amendment doesn’t protect you from private interests right????? Americans could make new newspapers or new town squares right?, they don’t have to use the ones the British bought....
:hijack:
See my previous post.
Further, if an individual creates something, and releases it to the public, that is the CREATOR’S speech. The idea that government should be able to dictate how that creation is consumed by the public is a 1st Amendment violation..... of the person who created the widget in the first place.
 

IndyDave1776

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Jan 12, 2012
26,848
113
Now you point IS fair. I’ll give you that. But tell me how you argument is any different than anti-2A folks speaking about how the founders never knowing how far technology would take firearms, when drafting the 2nd Amendment. The BoRs say what they say; don’t like it, change it.
I'm not following. Since going Amish is not a viable alternative, explain how using a proxy makes it acceptable for the .gov to access information prohibited to it without a proper warrant.
 

Ingomike

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
May 26, 2018
8,054
113
North Central
It’s hard to argue 1st and 4th violations when people freely enter into agreements allowing such “violations.” Providers aren’t, or shouldn’t be obligated to respect such rights, as long as the consumer has the ability not to use their service.

We must take the providers special treatment under the law away and break up illegal monopoly activities...

They can only do this with special treatment from the government...
 

KLB

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Sep 12, 2011
14,895
77
Porter County
Now you point IS fair. I’ll give you that. But tell me how you argument is any different than anti-2A folks speaking about how the founders never knowing how far technology would take firearms, when drafting the 2nd Amendment. The BoRs say what they say; don’t like it, change it.
There is no need for a Constitutional Amendment, just a law. They have protections right now that have been granted by the misinterpretation of a law that need to be removed. Another law can be passed forbidding them from discriminating against anyone for their politics.
 

Kutnupe14

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 13, 2011
40,286
149
There is no need for a Constitutional Amendment, just a law. They have protections right now that have been granted by the misinterpretation of a law that need to be removed. Another law can be passed forbidding them from discriminating against anyone for their politics.
Simple question. Absent a situation where life or death may be concern, should a business be able to discriminate for whatever reason they like?
 

Leadeye

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Jan 19, 2009
29,268
113
.
I think they really need to break those numbers down a little more, "ghost guns" is getting to be a big media term like "cop killer bullets" was in the past.
 

IndyDave1776

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Jan 12, 2012
26,848
113
Simple question. Absent a situation where life or death may be concern, should a business be able to discriminate for whatever reason they like?
It depends on whether or not there is in fact a free market. What .gov protections do they enjoy? What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Do the businesses have free reign to selectively shut out some political factions but be legally barred from doing it to others? What .gov assistance do they receive (i.e., if they are taking MY money they damn well better not try discriminating against me)?
 

RevolverGuy75

Patriot
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Apr 20, 2021
60
18
Central IN
How are they going to regulate my “ghost” guns.....they don’t really exist..or do they? I’ll melt them down for paperweights before I play the registration game. Lol
 

jamil

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jul 17, 2011
45,261
113
Gtown-ish
There is no need for a Constitutional Amendment, just a law. They have protections right now that have been granted by the misinterpretation of a law that need to be removed. Another law can be passed forbidding them from discriminating against anyone for their politics.
If the fed has the power to determine special classes of citizens to protect, there’s no reason political ideology can’t be one of them. SCOTUS has established that not only immutable characteristics can be protected classes, but also, recently, behavior.

Congress could write a law baring public accommodations from discriminating against political views and that would be completely consistent with current interpretation.
 

jamil

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jul 17, 2011
45,261
113
Gtown-ish
Simple question. Absent a situation where life or death may be concern, should a business be able to discriminate for whatever reason they like?

If they have a monopoly such that they can effectively silence dissenting views, no. If the fed broke up big tech’s monopoly on the public square infrastructure such that they no longer have power over which viewpoints are allowed, that would be a better solution. I’m not a free market absolutist is a position I’ve long since given up. I don’t think a monopolized market is a free market. Such a market cannot be corrected by the market on its own.
 

rooster

Expert
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Mar 4, 2010
1,682
113
Indianapolis
Back on the topic of ghost guns. If one really wanted to make a reliable homemade AR from scratch then wouldn’t casting be the way to go? I remember messing with some casting in shop classes and I don’t remember it being very hard. 3D print your mold, form sand on each side, melt metal pour. Wait a few minutes and finish your machining.

surely even a not pure or great metal casting is gonna hold up better than some plastic that melts at a couple hundred degrees.

Guess .gov is gonna have to regulate sand and fire now
 

jamil

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jul 17, 2011
45,261
113
Gtown-ish
Back on the topic of ghost guns. If one really wanted to make a reliable homemade AR from scratch then wouldn’t casting be the way to go? I remember messing with some casting in shop classes and I don’t remember it being very hard. 3D print your mold, form sand on each side, melt metal pour. Wait a few minutes and finish your machining.

surely even a not pure or great metal casting is gonna hold up better than some plastic that melts at a couple hundred degrees.

Guess .gov is gonna have to regulate sand and fire now
Probably Youtube will be censoring metal casting how-to’s.

Years ago I think you’d be wrong, that there is quite a learning curve to getting the process right to make the parts that get hot reliable. But with the internet the information you’d need is out there. It may take a lot of trial and error to get there but if you still have all your fingers after working with metal for years it probably won’t take a lifetime to get a working prototype.
 

KLB

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Sep 12, 2011
14,895
77
Porter County
Simple question. Absent a situation where life or death may be concern, should a business be able to discriminate for whatever reason they like?
That ship sailed long ago.

Simple answer is of course yes.

When you have protections granted by the government to a business, and that business uses said protections to discriminate against people, something needs to change. Either remove the protections or change them so that the discrimination is no longer allowed.
 

Site Supporter

INGO Supporter

Forum statistics

Threads
485,534
Messages
8,703,836
Members
47,544
Latest member
KandyR
Top Bottom