View Full Version : Head lines , ghost guns
aintright
11-16-2017, 06:58
Well now they have coined another name for B.S. gun fears . Didn't read the article but caption read , the California shooter used ghost guns , built them in his own home .
Figure there will soon be restrictions on available parts , at least in liberal states .
I'm not a conspiracy type , but seems there has been an outbreak of nut case shootings at a time when the media and liberals are trying very hard to justify themselves .
Kenneth
just another attempt by the liberal media to make something scary. sounds like he started with 80% frames. only problem is it was already illegal for him to be in possession so no current or future laws would have stopped him.
Major Tom
11-18-2017, 04:59
Every day people 'build' firearms. From AK47's, M1 garands, AR style rifles and handguns of all types. There are hundreds of web sites and You Tube videos to show how it's done. As for the AK style rifle, a person can make the receiver them selves from sheet metal. I don't know the laws about that, but what about a serial number on such a gun?
Vern Humphrey
11-18-2017, 10:23
Every day people 'build' firearms. From AK47's, M1 garands, AR style rifles and handguns of all types. There are hundreds of web sites and You Tube videos to show how it's done. As for the AK style rifle, a person can make the receiver them selves from sheet metal. I don't know the laws about that, but what about a serial number on such a gun?
You have to stamp a serial number and file with ATFE.
building 80% guns you do not have to put a ser# on them, nor file/register it with anybody. commiefornia apparently has additional requirements, but most of the country you can build as many as you want for personal use.
blackhawknj
11-19-2017, 02:13
"Ghost Guns in the Sky". Sounds like the title of a song.
USMilitaryGuy
11-19-2017, 03:41
I have always said it will be extremely difficult to ban (and therefore eliminate) an item that you can build at home.
Just because I can't go to the store and buy one does not mean I won't have one. :icon_wink:
They don't have to get rid of every last one to accomplish a significant goal.
What is considered to be a "significant goal"? I'd expect, if some onerous tax was imposed folks would reconsider the importance of owning fire arms.
USMilitaryGuy
11-21-2017, 04:01
They don't have to get rid of every last one to accomplish a significant goal.
Agreed.
Many people will give up their freedom for a little bit of security. I think somebody said something about this once, but many people don't think he knew what he was talking about. :icon_wink:
Clark Howard
11-21-2017, 06:02
The dems simply wish to make the possession of a firearm a federal felony. The enforcement and prosecution would be at the discretion of the Party. Absolute power is the goal. Regards, Clark
The dems simply wish to make the possession of a firearm a federal felony. The enforcement and prosecution would be at the discretion of the Party. Absolute power is the goal. Regards, Clark
That doesn't make sense.
barretcreek
11-21-2017, 07:56
The dems simply wish to make the possession of a firearm a federal felony. The enforcement and prosecution would be at the discretion of the Party. Absolute power is the goal. Regards, Clark
True. But they will settle for forcing every gun owner, a la Obamacare, to have liability insurance which will be very broad in coverage so that every drug dealer shot by a business associate will be able to file a claim, most of which will go to the lawyers who as a group are a significant donor class to the CPUSA, I mean the DNC.
Fred Pillot
11-21-2017, 01:28
Didn't "Ghost Gun" used to refer to "plastic guns" like Glocks because they couldn't detect them with metal detectors at airports?
I think Liberals like to use scary words.
aintright
11-21-2017, 03:33
That doesn't make sense.
Can't see why it wouldn't . anyone with any common sense can understand laws don't matter to the outlaw . There are some of the general population that is too dumb to grasp that , but there are a lot of them who do know that and realize that disarmament is a key step , especially if they can do it through legislation .
togor , I just don't believe you are that naive , you just like to disagree ? Or pick brains and hear opinions ?
Or stir doodoo ?
Kenneth
Can't see why it wouldn't . anyone with any common sense can understand laws don't matter to the outlaw . There are some of the general population that is too dumb to grasp that , but there are a lot of them who do know that and realize that disarmament is a key step , especially if they can do it through legislation .
togor , I just don't believe you are that naive , you just like to disagree ? Or pick brains and hear opinions ?
Or stir doodoo ?
Kenneth
Well let me amend my comment. Clark's comment frames things in terms of absolute power. I however subscribe to the more practical view that one can only push their power so far on the enemy before issues of logistics (being too far from your own base) and terrain (fighting on the enemy's turf) limit further advance. Think of it this way--the public in general supports some access to abortion, with some restrictions. Anyone who pushes for an absolute ban on abortions or unrestricted access to them runs into considerable difficulty conquering that last 15% of the opposition. So it would be with guns. The public generally supports the second amendment, but they also support greater restrictions than what are in effect today. At some point the needle is likely to move, possibly a great deal (considering where it is now), but will it swing all the way to where Clark predicts? I doubt it. Plus, if you read his comment literally, that law enforcement will take its cues directly from the political party, there is a burden of proof there that he cannot possibly meet.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.