A question for the gun owners in the states.

As someone from the uk, i'm fascinated by the whole gun culture in the states, since we just don't have that here... I can totally understand why there's such a strong attachment to the right to have a gun. Right to protect your family etc, fair enough... But anyways, here's the question...

There's always lots of press about resistance to any kind of legislation that restricts gun ownership but...

If every gun that was sold had its rifling on file (you know the mark it makes on a bullet) and when anyone sold the gun they had to let the authorities know who it was sold too, would that really be such a bad thing? Surely that would go a long long way towards stopping illegal sales, make solving murders easier, etc. Why would anyone resist this?

This isn't a loaded question, (although I do think that would be a very good idea) just want to get some opinions from people in the states who do come from that culture and would probably know more about the whole subject.

If you are trying to buy guns, please send me a pm. Thanks.

nyc long gun registration requires a permit application, fingerprint and spent casing. pistol permits require a sit down interview at the local precinct as well.

fair nuff. As I said, I know sod all about this subject. Just started thinking about it cause i always see cop shows from the states where people are goin on about some suspect who owns a similar calibre gun. Always think, if they had the rifling on file they could just go nick the fucker.

also, is spent casing as good as rifling? If not, then what the fuck? How did someone argue that?

an once again, why is rifling not on file... Any clever killer can just pick up a spent cartridge, but it's a lot harder to go dig a bullet out of someone...

I really don't know anything about ballistic forensics

thankfully for us brits we don't need to worry about this while we all stab each other in anonymity

No right to bear arms = freedom hating country

gawd bless murca

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr aize

an once again, why is rifling not on file... Any clever killer can just pick up a spent cartridge, but it's a lot harder to go dig a bullet out of someone...

---

From what I've read, the Ballistics database is useless.

I don't think the rifling woud a whole lot of good. Mind you I'm not an expert on the subject or such so I could be well wrong. It just seems from what experience I've had is that the projectile gets so distorted with impact or even destroyed that it would not help much. Now I'm sure with super expensive equipment they could look at it and put it all right but most places don't have access to stuff like that.

You can rebore a rifle easily.. and the rifling very gradually changes over time as the gun is fired (friction between projectile and barrel)

The world is lead to believe that it's "easy" to get a gun stateside and it really isn't. There are a few cracks in the system but the fact remains that all the proposedgun legislation does is turn legal, gun owning citizens into criminals.

The system is also setup to discourage or impede your right to gun ownership. As a very close friend, who happens to be an officer, told me: "They'd take our guns away if they could." That really shocked me as he's not a gun nut or even conservative. Scary stuff if you think about it.

There isn't a gun problem in america as much as there is a mental health problem and an insurance problem. Guns are an easy target instead of tackling the fact that mental health issues are stigmatized and for those seeking treatment... insurance doesn't want to pay and they wash out.

Spree shootings, homelessness, many addictions, etc... almost always have a root in undiagnosed or mistreated mental health conditions.

I'll attempt to give an honest answer without any bullshit prejudiced by the fact that you are in the UK and I think this is a very large cultural divide on the issue.

As a note, I do not actually own any firearms. I am extremely supportive of a very strict reading of the second amendment (to the point that I even disagree with the need to enumerate the right to own firearms, but that's a separate thread).

To start with, the presumption that the right to bear arms is important to "protect my family" is incorrect. The idea behind an armed population is to act as a check on government power. The men (no girls allowed) that were the major federalist players in the drafting of the Constitution had just been a part of a lengthy, costly war to achieve independence from what they deemed to be a tyrannical government. Without an armed population, what good does the Declaration of Independence do?

So, protecting oneself, or one's family, or even providing food via hunting was (in my opinion) not at the forefront of the reasons that the second amendment exists. It exists to protect the people from its government.

To go further, this is the reason I oppose any so called 'reasonable' restrictions on gun owners. A gun to me is no different than a fork. It is a piece of property and a tool which, as long as I don't commit crimes with it, should not subject me just by mere ownership to government intrusion such as regulations, registrations, and permanent logs of my ownership.

I would admit that my perception of the second amendment may not make my country safer, but it would make it more free (free-er?). Ultimately, that is the only metric by which I measure our laws. The government does not exist to protect me.

[insert Shroom 'murca post here with a picture of a crying bald eagle]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr aize

an once again, why is rifling not on file... Any clever killer can just pick up a spent cartridge, but it's a lot harder to go dig a bullet out of someone...

---

Because this isn't CSI. They aren't going to be able to match a bullet to a particular gun in most cases. Especially with hollow points or frangible ammunition.

It's also easy to change the barrel on many firearms and in the USA barrels are not the controlled/regulated part of the firearm.

And what of smoothbore long guns and shotguns?

Any politician who attempted to create a national firearm registry of any time would simply find themselves unelected.

Also; throwaway guns. Buy cheap gun illegally, use hollowpoints, commit some murders, throw gun in the trash or just leave it there. You already defaced the serial number beyond recognition and didn't leave fingerprints, so what now? Let's say the figure out who originally bought the gun - it's changed hands so many times that it's impossible to find out who the last person was to use it.

Criminals will always find a way.

The 3-part piece about Australia The Daily Show did a month or so ago pretty much says it all. "Criminals will always find a way" is an excuse. It treats America like another planet. Maybe it is impossible to restrict guns to the extent they are restricted in most first world nations right now, but we have to start somewhere. The second Ammendment was about forming a "militia" and has been grossly misapplied.

Most people who have lived overseas have had a hard time justifying America's stance on this subject. Healthcare is the other big one.

God, Guns, an Merica - the real holy trinity

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...ps655684f1.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...ps3f15045b.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2...ps8bc268ca.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo Alec

The second Ammendment was about forming a "militia" and has been grossly misapplied.

---

There are educated arguments for some certain types of checks on gun ownership, this is not one of them. I suggest you go and read the text of the amendment.

On a side note, I was kind of sad at how easy it was to find lots and lots of pictures of Jesus with a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo Alec

The second Ammendment was about forming a "militia" and has been grossly misapplied.

---

False. Militia is merely the example used in the preamble for the clause, but not the limitation for applying the amendment. The line of thinking in your argument has only held water for a brief moment in California, before the Supreme Court overturned it as horse shit.

I wish the Supreme Court could overturn the state of California.

Edit: I have always like how the ruling for US v. Kruikshank reads from Wikipedia:

Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

The Constitution does not grant any rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr aize

an once again, why is rifling not on file... Any clever killer can just pick up a spent cartridge, but it's a lot harder to go dig a bullet out of someone...

---

that's simply not an exact science. It would make more sense to make bullets that actually carry DNA. For example, if we only had guns that shot out bees, then you could at least get a dna sample from the bees and trace that back to the purchaser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr aize

As someone from the uk, i'm fascinated by the whole gun culture in the states...

---

some of us in the US are just as fascinated by the gun people...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lithy

I wish the Supreme Court could overturn the state of California.

---

We have cases on the 2A waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting to get up the judicial chain to eventually get to SCOTUS where only the most intellectually dishonest justice would vote in favor of California's absurd interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.

But it's only been five years since SCOTUS laid the smack down on the absurd "collective rights" interpretation of the second amendment that some sought to push for in their not-so-veiled attempts to ban firearms.

The idea that any right is one held by the collective, rather than the individual, is absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo Alec

The 3-part piece about Australia The Daily Show did a month or so ago pretty much says it all. "Criminals will always find a way" is an excuse. It treats America like another planet. Maybe it is impossible to restrict guns to the extent they are restricted in most first world nations right now, but we have to start somewhere. The second Ammendment was about forming a "militia" and has been grossly misapplied.

Most people who have lived overseas have had a hard time justifying America's stance on this subject. Healthcare is the other big one.

---

This is the part that the gun people ignore. 2nd amendment was written in a different time and for a different purpose. It's gets distorted like christians do with the bible.


but this is leading into a debate, which i really dont know how to address.

so you would address the "gun people" how exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSneth

This is the part that the gun people ignore. 2nd amendment was written in a different time and for a different purpose. It's gets distorted like christians do with the bible.


but this is leading into a debate, which i really dont know how to address.

---

Do you really think the second amendment was written so that individuals had no right to bear arms (of any kind whatsoever) outside of service in the militia?

You can just answer yes or no. I won't delve further. Promise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xander Crews

False. Militia is merely the example used in the preamble for the clause, but not the limitation for applying the amendment. The line of thinking in your argument has only held water for a brief moment in California, before the Supreme Court overturned it as horse shit.

---

False. If sanity ever makes a comeback on this issue, that line of thinking will return. It's a poorly-written amendment, so it has unfortunately been misinterpreted by rednecks to mean all sorts of things that aren't even sort of implied in the text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo Alec

False. If sanity ever makes a comeback on this issue, that line of thinking will return. It's a poorly-written amendment, so it has unfortunately been misinterpreted by rednecks to mean all sorts of things that aren't even sort of implied in the text.

---

have you ever fired a weapon?

slingshot? quieter. no rifling. if too weak compound bow. hey if thats too hard just hire someone, use a knife or find an illegal gun. if its just for a murder why would you bother getting a gun legitimately its a bit of a hassle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo Alec

False. If sanity ever makes a comeback on this issue, that line of thinking will return. It's a poorly-written amendment, so it has unfortunately been misinterpreted by rednecks to mean all sorts of things that aren't even sort of implied in the text.

---

Has a toothless, hayseed hick from Motherfuck, Nowhere ever threatened you (or anybody?) with a gun before?

The fudds go out hunting in the woods, the gun-fags take their shit to the range to show off, and the mall ninjas pose with them online wearing tac suits & flak jackets even though they'd shit their pants in situations that require any of that shit.


So all that leaves you with (threat wise) are crazy white dudes who murder 5+ people and get nationwide coverage, and unhinged ghetto black dudes who murder and get murdered every minute in america with no coverage at all, and sometimes even cops get in on it and murder a few black dudes for target practice or whatever....

But you wouldn't have anything to say about cops killing people, because you're a status quo, pro establishment, bitchass tool...and god knows you wouldn't say shit about the rampant crime in black neighborhoods, because you're a pussy assed liberal fag with pre programmed cookie cutter "opinions" that aren't worth a fuck because you left the country first chance you got for some easy yellow snapper.

And for that I commend you...because if I was a sissy dork, 10 times outta 10 I would take a nice asian lady over a dumpy white pig as well....

But at the same time, ->SHUT THE FUCK UP<- about the stoopid "rednecks" and their guns. Fucking Koreaboo.

hahahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karou

slingshot? quieter. no rifling. if too weak compound bow. hey if thats too hard just hire someone, use a knife or find an illegal gun. if its just for a murder why would you bother getting a gun legitimately its a bit of a hassle.

---

A sling shot can be pretty brutal. Some of the big hunting ones are amazing. I had one I used for paintball for a good while. Seeing how you mentioned a compound bow, I'll throw out crossbow. Lots of fun there. I picked up one of these a while back. It's kind of a find a good spot and wait item though as it is huge and a bit heavy but still pretty fun.

http://kodabow.com/store/cw3/assets/...20expanded.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FAT$TACKS

A sling shot can be pretty brutal. Some of the big hunting ones are amazing. I had one I used for paintball for a good while. Seeing how you mentioned a compound bow, I'll throw out crossbow. Lots of fun there. I picked up one of these a while back. It's kind of a find a good spot and wait item though as it is huge and a bit heavy but still pretty fun.

http://kodabow.com/store/cw3/assets/...20expanded.jpg

---

guns are pretty loud so how are you going to get your victim to go out of hearshot of witnesses. yeah I had a slingshot as a kid and it tore up popcans way worse than a .22 or pellet rifle. as far as the bow being big remember we are talking about doing the killing they are not that hard to get around. Put it inside a suit holder or something?

Spoon makes me :kekeke:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lagduf

Do you really think the second amendment was written so that individuals had no right to bear arms (of any kind whatsoever) outside of service in the militia?

You can just answer yes or no. I won't delve further. Promise.

---

I believe it was intended to allow people to have guns in their home for other reasons than militia. Different time and place though. There was a frontier. There wasn't a telepgrah. I'm not advocating the removal of guns from households, but they do not serve the same purpose as 1789.

It's also why our presidential election system is a joke. Electoral College made sense when votes were tallied by hand, and transferred by horse. It's now one of the biggest jokes in the modern democratic world.


I don't know the answers, but people should be open to discussion on the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSneth

I believe it was intended to allow people to have guns in their home for other reasons than militia. Different time and place though. There was a frontier. There wasn't a telepgrah. I'm not abdicating the removal of guns from households, but they do not serve the same purpose as 1789.

It's also why our presidential election system is a joke. Electoral College made sense when votes were tallied by hand, and transferred by horse. It's now one of the biggest jokes in the modern democratic world.

---

Obviously, police arrive at the locations of crimes before they happen, and people shouldn't ever need to have a gun to protect themselves.

On the topic of identifying cartridges left at crime scenes there is the "microstamping" technology which is, currently, theoretical - though all new handguns for sale in California must have this feature. Older firearms still on California's "Roster of not unsafe" handguns are still grandfathered in.

The idea is similar, of course, - where the firing pin or the chamber wall imprints an identifying serial number on a cartridge case as it is fired. Realistically this would only be effective on semi-automatic handguns, as they'll eject their spent casings.

The technology as it stands is flawed for numerous reasons. And then add in to the fact that there would simply be non-compliance with the law. If the mark came from a firing pin, a new (non micro-stamped pin) would be bought. If the mark came from the barrel, new barrels would be bought. Or the marking instruments could simply be filed off.

Did I mention that no commercial firearm manufacturer actually produces a gun with this technology? Given that no manufacturer produces such a gun and no manufacturer is, frankly, likely to do so I ask then, what is California's true intent in passing such a law?

Again, we see similar things on other fronts:

A couple weeks ago a madman shot up some people in San Diego using an AR-15 that was not in a configuration that was compliant with state law and he had thirty round magazines that he did not legally own prior to the year 2000 when CA instituted its 10 round magazine limit. These laws do not hamper criminals - they only adversely effect law abiding gun owners.

The accessibility of these weapons and accessories is so great that only a draconian ban enacted by congress that virtually eliminated gun ownership would get guns off the streets. You'd need everyone to turn in their guns. And it would take decades and decades and several generation who grew up without firearms before guns would go away. Did I mention such a law would be uncostitutional? Even repealing the 2nd amendment doesn't remove the right to keep and bear arms. You'd have to have an amendment stating there is no right to bear arms. Some how, I don't think that would fly.

Plus if they banned all firearms (somehow) we'd just do like they do in Australia: make quite elegant open bolt submachine guns using only hand tools (no lathe or welding required!) with parts purchased from Home Depot or Lowes.

And then there is the whole thing where Mexican cartels would start running guns in to the USA in absurd numbers in lieu of drugs. That'd be a cool black market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo Alec

False. If sanity ever makes a comeback on this issue, that line of thinking will return. It's a poorly-written amendment, so it has unfortunately been misinterpreted by rednecks to mean all sorts of things that aren't even sort of implied in the text.

---

See FIRST AMENDMENT.

I feel like there is some thought crime in this thread.

Here is some thought crime for you.

It's not just for shooting, but also for some good ol' pistol whipping.

I just want to add that Spoon is an excellent member

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiel

I just want to add that Spoon is an excellent member

---

Seconded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lagduf

Do you really think the second amendment was written so that individuals had no right to bear arms (of any kind whatsoever) outside of service in the militia?

You can just answer yes or no. I won't delve further. Promise.

---

The second amendment does have roots in a preference for Militias over Standing Armies (Particularly in a time of peace).
The idea that an armed citizenry is necessary to to the rise to the occasion.

How that information affects current policy is a matter of debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lagduf

We have cases on the 2A waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting to get up the judicial chain to eventually get to SCOTUS where only the most intellectually dishonest justice would vote in favor of California's absurd interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms..

---

We already know how Scalia Will Vote on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lagduf

Again, we see similar things on other fronts:

A couple weeks ago a madman shot up some people in San Diego using an AR-15 that was not in a configuration that was compliant with state law and he had thirty round magazines that he did not legally own prior to the year 2000 when CA instituted its 10 round magazine limit. These laws do not hamper criminals - they only adversely effect law abiding gun owners.

---

Where did they get it from? Another state?

A national law WOULD hamper criminals. It might take 10 years but we know this much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lagduf

Here is some thought crime for you.

---

if you're ever my secret santa, you know what to buy me.

I just want to point out that Spoon is not only being a racist troll in his last post, but he is assuming for some reason that I like cops, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Apparently this is the kind of place where this kind of behavior is commended. Let's take a step back and think about that. Or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by norton9478

Where did they get it from? Another state?

---

I think he actually built the receiver up from an 80% "blank" meaning he bought an almost completed receiver that he just had to mill out the fire control pocket in order for it to meet the legal definition of a firearm. So it probably had no serial number either, since no serial number is required when you build your own gun.

The rest of the parts to make the gun aren't regulated. Honestly that's why ARs are so popular. You can buy the "firearm" part for $100 and then order the rest of the shit on the internet.

In CA magazines can be gotten anywhere - probably bought them disassembled on the internet or at a CA gun store. It is not illegal to possess all the parts to manufacture a magazine with a capacity > 10 rounds in CA.

Quote:

---

A national law WOULD hamper criminals. It might take 10 years but we know this much.

---

I don't disagree. It would take a STRONG law, however, in order to do this. Do we want to resort to that - and would it even be constitutional?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by norton9478

The second amendment does have roots in a preference for Militias over Standing Armies (Particularly in a time of peace).
The idea that an armed citizenry is necessary to to the rise to the occasion.

How that information affects current policy is a matter of debate.

---

Oh standing armies, how much fun they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo Alec

I just want to point out that Spoon is not only being a racist troll in his last post, but he is assuming for some reason that I like cops, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Apparently this is the kind of place where this kind of behavior is commended. Let's take a step back and think about that. Or not.

---

Sit down, Have a stummy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo Alec

I just want to point out that Spoon is not only being a racist troll in his last post, but he is assuming for some reason that I like cops, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Apparently this is the kind of place where this kind of behavior is commended. Let's take a step back and think about that. Or not.

---

Yeah lets not, fag.


God bless Murka.