Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand that, but it doesn't address effectiveness.
I have sold (legally) a large quantity of firearms over the years. If the the Police contact me, my response is simply that I sold the gun some time in the past. The trail ends there.
Do you think that something else would happen? perhaps that would make these traces effective?
Hell, when I was a kid we had the same problem. A felon stole the license plate off my Dad's car, put it on his, and committed a robbery and double murder.
My Dad thought the plate just fell off. Rusty bolts. Guess what would have happened if he didn't have an airtight alibi?
I think the issue is that some people are making an either/or case for certain types of firearms. There is no either/or, though. A firearm is a tool, nothing more and nothing less. You may not agree with what some people choose to use that tool for, but that doesn't change the fact that it is, in fact, a tool.
Like any other tool, different versions need to be used for different things. For example, I own 5 different hammers. That seems like a lot of hammers, but each one is used for something specific. One is used for general carpentry and is extremely heavy. Seriously, it's a beast - but it drives in framing nails in 2 hits. However, I wouldn't use that hammer to do finish work like putting up baseboards because it is too heavy and unwieldy for that work. Instead, I have a very small hammer that is used for finish work. In between, there are three other types of hammers that are used for different stages of carpentry and construction.
Firearms are also tools, and different versions are used for different things.
Handguns are for personal protection in most cases, because typically you will be fairly close to an assailant when you use a handgun and a handgun is something that can be easily concealed and carried. Shotguns are great for home defense, but not so great for carrying around. Rifles, in general, are designed for distance work beyond what a handgun or a shotgun is good for. All have a different place in the arsenal because all have different uses.
Those scary black rifles like the AR15 that have anti-gunners freaking out, what you consider a WMD - which, by the way, is a complete misnomer - serve a purpose in the arsenal too, and in fact are much closer to the intentions of the Founding Fathers than any other type of firearm. The intent of the 2nd Amendment (which can be learned by reading the writings of the people who wrote it, ratified it, and gave it a place directly behind freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights) was to ensure that the citizenry was at least as well armed as the soldiers of any aggressive force - whether that force was an invading army or our own government if the situation demanded that the government be reminded that it works for the people.
When you say that the founders didn't want the citizenry to own such "dangerous" weapons you are either being deceptive or you don't understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Since the AR15 is the closest equivalent to a full military rifle that a civilian can own, the AR15 is not exactly what the founders would want us to have, but it is a decent compromise. In reality, according to the Founding Fathers' own writings, American citizens should have access to any small arm that a military would have - which means that the AR15 is actually a weak substitute for the M16 but due to currently existing laws the M16 is prohibited for the average civilian.
Indeed, through our history, the rifles and handguns used by the military were the ones most heavily used by the citizens as well. That didn't really change until 1938 and the laws that went into effect were mostly because of criminal use of the 1928 Thompson submachine gun. As time passed the primary battle rifle of the military became selective fir starting with the M14 and the citizenry can only own, without a tangle of red tape and tax fees, semi auto versions of these weapons. Which has been a reasonable compromise until fairly recently. Since Patrick Purdy and his actions with an AK 47 in Stockton CA in the late 80s. Since then there has been a constant push to restrict semi auto to the citizenry as well as full auto/select fire. It's been enacted in certain states and municipalities. Hawaii and California most notably at the state level. Hawaii is worse than California. That's saying a LOT.
And yes, restricting or outright banning of semi auto only versions of current service rifles IS a violation of the 2A. It also fly's in the face of the history of the nation. Since we first became a nation the citizens owned and used what the military has as service firearms. Rightly so in light of the possibility of actual militia use. The anti argument includes that the latter is no longer a possibility and is thus outmoded and obsolete. I beg to differ, as do millions of other Americans. I'm willing to compromise at semi auto only as I personally don't like nor would I use full auto/select fire. But a great many feel differently and they are correct that restricting it the way it is does violate the intent of the 2A.
Criminals have no problem getting these types of weapons and are heavily armed with them. Gangs and the drug runners they are allied with being the most notable. If I was forced to live in an area in proximity to gang turf I would feel a need for stitch (3 round burst) capability and maybe even full auto capability. I will ad that if the decent people in these areas, who do far outnumber the criminals, were allowed their rights , unhindered, under the 2A to organize a citizen militia in defense of their communities the gangs and other criminal elements would be a lot less of a problem.
Organizing a militia is not limited to foreign or government aggression against the citizenry. These organized criminals qualify as a threat that organizing a militia to counter is well within scope of the 2A. Even if said militia was still forced to compromise at semi auto, they would still be quite effective, if not more so as I firmly believe in aimed fire vs area fire. Shesh if citizen militias in these problem areas were armed with semi auto M1A versions of the M14 and M1 Garands they could blow a hole through these gangs and their affiliates big enough to put them more in fear of the citizen militia than the police or even the military. Give every decent, honest citizen in these areas such service rifles, and a good ols 1911 as a back up and some proper training in their use (which I see as a responsibility of the government in point of fact , not denying them arms) add in the shotgun as well and lets see how "bad azz" these gang bangers really are. When their spinner rim SUVs start taking well aimed 30 06,308, 45 and 12 ga fire when they try getting frisky with drive bys and any other attempts at random gunfire form every window on the block that will make them rethink their lives.
But alas government sees taking away honest folks means of defending their homes and families as the solution. Uh huh. How's that working out hmmm.
Hell, when I was a kid we had the same problem. A felon stole the license plate off my Dad's car, put it on his, and committed a robbery and double murder.
My Dad thought the plate just fell off. Rusty bolts. Guess what would have happened if he didn't have an airtight alibi?
Umm. . . the prosecution wold be required to prove their case in a murder trial?
And... How could my Dad have proven he wasn't there when the crime was committed? His "say so?"
That isn't how our justice system works. Guilt must be proven by the Prosecution. Innocence doesn't need to be proven by the defense.
But that is a bit off topic. The issue is 4473's (not universally required, despite your claim), serial numbers (not universally required, despite your claim), and the general ineffectiveness of gun traces.
That isn't how our justice system works. Guilt must be proven by the Prosecution. Innocence doesn't need to be proven by the defense.
.
That is the way it is supposed to work but does not always. Civil forfeiture for instance, you are guilty until you can prove you are innocent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
