Scummy, at least read these wiki articles before you cite them…
Cocaine, exstacy, marijuana, crystal meth…
Really, if people wanted less gun deaths, they’d worry less about gun restrictions and more about city restrictions. Get rid of cities and watch the crime rate go down, down, down.
It’s already illegal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell more than a certain number of guns per year. It’s already illegal for a dealer to sell to anyone without doing a background check. It’s already illegal for anyone to sell a gun to someone who they know is not allowed to possess them. all of this is equally illegal no matter where it happens. It makes no difference whether they are at a gun show or not, the laws are the same.
There is no “gun show loophole”. Anyone who uses that term is either ignorant of the law, or is using it as a euphemism for wanting to ban all private sales. Which are you?
Two rifles are alike because they both have a wooden stock and a metal receiver? The majority of rifles have a wooden stock and they all have a metal receiver!
This is quite a remarkable fact. You no doubt have something to substantiate your claim, no? Care to share what that might be?
I know you’re trying to defend a position here, and generally speaking, I’m as pro-gun as they come, but you’re missing the point(s).
First, The Gun Control Act of 1968 (and the subsequent Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986) says nothing of the kind. Because the laws vary from state to state, you’ll have to provide a cite to your blanket statement. Further, there are only three states, that limit how many guns you’re able to purchase in a year. California, Maryland and Virginia, if memory serves. The GCA/FOPA don’t address this at all.
I’m not talking about FFL’s violating the ATF regulations, I’m talking about one guy going from place to place peddling weapons that he’s claiming are in his ‘collection’ and not background checking the buyer because it’s not a requirement because it falls under the private sale restriction.
It’s not illegal if I as somone who claims to be a collector goes to a gun show to sell my collection to random people with nothing more than a handshake and hand written receipt, if that. If I do that as a side business to make a little extra cash, and I sell 10 guns a week for 52 weeks, everything I’ve done is on the up and up and the guns I’ve sold, all 520 of them are in the wind, with no chance of finding the seller OR buyer, the only person I’ll be able to find is the victim. See, even if 519 guns go to reputable, decent people, one ends up in the hands of the nutbar from PA or the guy from NY or the mutt from CA or the next spree killer. Out of those, we may have only been able to prevent 1 of them, but the lives of the officers in Oakland are damn well worth a little paperwork.
Look, this is why the other side is so tired of the pro-gun people. They don’t care the way we do about the accuracy of the information, all they care about is that the gun looks like the gun the bad guy in the movies used. The pro-gun crowd needs to get their pedantic heads out of their asses and address the real world concerns of the people with the loudest voices. You are NOT going to beat emotion with logic, if you could, there would be a lot more hetero marriages that lasted a hell of a lot longer. As pro-gun people, education and honest discourse are the only things that will help the other side understand our position. The picking of nits is highly discouraged, it gets us nowhere.
Common sense substantiates the claim.
Ban it, hell, threaten to ban it, and people will want it, no matter what it is.
Nothing in either article says one rifle is a replica of the other. The cartridge is an intermediate cartridge. She was right, you were wrong. Your quoted section changes none of that, “Butty.”
I don’t know about that. Racism is so much worse today than it was back in the days of the Founding Fathers. I’m sure that once they see just how bad it has become they would rethink their stance.
I didn’t say it wasn’t an intermediate cartridge, I said saying it wasn’t powerful “at all” is false. People use it to deer hunt, the NIJ says threat level II, IIA, and IIIA body armor, most common to LE, won’t stop it. So say it’s intermediate, but don’t say it’s not powerful. It is.
Infer what you like from that statement, but it sounds to me like they’re saying the SKS is a variant or clone of the AK, but truly, if we’ve descended into this level of nitpickery, the debate has been clintonized and talking further makes no sense.
Maybe so. But one reason why we can’t fulfill all of our wants, i.e., translate our desires into consumption, is costs of course. And criminalizing a good tends to impose pretty steep transaction costs. So even if prohibition increases demand (a point I’m not ready to concede), this does not mean consumption will increase, given the increase in the real price of contraband.
People piss away the money they need to eat and feed, clothe and educate their children on internet gambling. This is just another in the long line of goods that certian people will obsess to the point of madness about if they’re told they can’t have it. Not the same as coke or weed or meth, perhaps, but it will happen on some level.
SKS’s are not AK replicas. SKS’s are an entirely different firearm, and in their stock-state, they do not accept external magazines – at all. They, in fact, have 5 (10?) round internal magazines, which are reloaded from stripper clips.
There are, however, AK-clone Civilian Legal guns, which are AK in design.
Define “Gun-show Loophole,” please.
It probably doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Nearly all rifle calibers are capable of penetrating those vests.
Then you’re wrong. The AK isn’t a variant or clone of the SKS, and the SKS isn’t a variant or clone of the AK.
The AK is a Kalashnikov design, selective fire (in its original form), Assault Rifle (not assault Weapon, this term is arbitrary and made up) designed in 1947.
The SKS is a Samozaryadniy Karabin sistemi Simonova self loading Carbine, which was designed in 1944(-1946), and is not selective fire – in any form.
Heroine has gone up in purity, and down in cost, respectively, since the late 1800’s (early 1900’s?), when it was first illegalized. I remember this from a course in school about economics.
It’s also worth noting that the SKS lacks most of the features the previous AWB used to define an assualt weapon. No pistol grip, no full-auto version ever made, no removable magazine, ( indeed it only 10 rds in the fixed mag)no flash suppresor, and not even very black! But they were really cheap (in some cases under $100 in the early 90’s) and worst of all, had one of those knifey things that were used in all the drive-by bayonettings, so therefore very bad, so they were explicitly named in the ban.
If there is one thing worse than a scary gun, it is a cheap scary gun.
That was dumb and an incorrect interpretation. But then attacking critics on a personal level is what you guys do .
Just provide the cites or admit you’re a liar. Do either one and I promise to never mention it again.
I disagree.
The primary thing ‘pro’ gun people have on their side are facts. How would you suggest that the ‘pro’ gun people beat the emotional responses of the anti gun folks?
Oh, I could throw some emotion in there. Most all of the guns I own have some sort of history and ‘emotional’ attachment to my family. Try that argument and see how far you get. It’s all OK until they find out it’s a semi-auto shotgun or a pistol.
Well, average US consumption of illegal drugs from 1910-1918 was about 215 metric tons. Current US consumption of cocaine alone is estimated at 300 metric tons. Heck, 26 tons of marijuana was siezed crossing the boarder from Canada.