Skip

People line up to legally make untraceable guns
November 22, 2012 7:37 PM   Subscribe

SAN DIEGO - A long line of people snaked out of a North County machine shop on a recent Sunday. The customers were there to build a gun. (embedded video)

Ares Armor supplies a BATF-exempt receiver that is 80% complete, you have to complete the last 20% of the machining on your own. Then comes the assembly process.
posted by 445supermag (49 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
I'm trying to decide if that'd be fun or a lot of finicky work, but I've got no problem with it.
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:50 PM on November 22, 2012 [3 favorites]


Not really a new thing. You can buy "95%" receivers that can be finished, in theory with a drill press but more properly with a milling machine. They have BATF letters as well, certifying that they are not legally firearms.

Personally I've never seen the attraction: they cost about as much (or more) as a bare lower, even figuring in the FFL transfer fee, you run the risk of ruining the whole thing during the construction process, and in the end you get a gun that can't ever be resold. You'd better hope you like it.

But I'm not one to judge others' hobbies.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:53 PM on November 22, 2012


Plus the whole possibility of blowing up next to your face if you fuck up the machining.
posted by Decimask at 7:55 PM on November 22, 2012 [5 favorites]


I don't really have a problem with people building their own guns as a fun technical hobby, but when you're just drilling the last hole, you're not really building it yourself, you're just avoiding having it registered anywhere. It seems a bit like buying a "mostly complete" car, putting air in the tires yourself, and using that as an excuse to drive it without a license. "I don't need a license to drive this, it's not technically a car!"
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 7:59 PM on November 22, 2012 [5 favorites]


Not a huge fan of guns but I am a fan of precision machining. I started coming across photo sets like this a while back and have been sort of fascinated with these custom AR-15 builds. I don't really want a gun but I keep wondering if there is something I can build that would give the same satisfaction these folks seem to get.
posted by Ad hominem at 8:00 PM on November 22, 2012 [2 favorites]


posted by 445supermag

Eponysterical.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:02 PM on November 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


> blowing up next to your face if you fuck up the machining.

Well, not too much risk of that. One of the benefits of the AR platform is that the lower receiver isn't subjected to much stress. The actual firing pressures are all contained in the barrel and bolt, and the action moves back and forth in the upper receiver. Provided you bought those parts off the shelf, you'd probably be pretty safe.

There are people who have built (carved, really) AR lowers out of wood and HDPE — basically plastic cutting board material. Those are both made with fairly traditional machine tools (no CNC). I think you could probably make one pretty easily by water-jet cutting a bunch of parts from sheet or thin plate, then bolting or riveting them together.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:06 PM on November 22, 2012


I've got no problem with this either. The guy who says it's easier for criminals to buy a gun out of somebody's trunk is right. But there's an interesting legal question that may need to be answered if this really takes off: what does it really mean to "make" one's own gun? Pressing a button on a computer-controlled machine seems sort of like cheating, and buying a 95% finished receiver also seems like cheating. But then, I don't think the gun-maker should have to mine the aluminum himself... so there's a line to be drawn somewhere.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 8:29 PM on November 22, 2012


Among gun folks, making your own gun is serious. Among folks who make their own guns, making your own receiver is serious. I know folks who "make their own guns," but what they really mean is that they start with an existing receiver and build everything else around it.
posted by waldo at 8:29 PM on November 22, 2012


Does "BATF-exempt" mean you could make an AR-15 that is full auto? If it's not a firearm, then how could it be subject to the NFA?
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 8:51 PM on November 22, 2012


I don't think the gun-maker should have to mine the aluminum himself

Why not? Hunters and farmers need guns, but pistols designed for killing people should be hard to obtain. If you really want a handgun, boyo, start punching trees and work your way up from there.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:09 PM on November 22, 2012 [9 favorites]


...pistols designed for killing people...

What about pistols designed for shooting paper targets? I have one of those...was I cheating by skipping the "tree-punching" part?
posted by spacewrench at 9:43 PM on November 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


It is a minecraft reference.
posted by boo_radley at 9:49 PM on November 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


This reminds me of what Aum Shinrikyo tried to do. Japan has strict gun laws, it is almost impossible to get guns legally, so they worked with Russian contacts to get designs of the AK-47. They set up a machine shop to make a thousand of them and they only managed to produce one gun. From what I read, they never got ammunition to test it. It was largely due to this failure to build enough assault weapons to equip a small army, that they changed their plans to use chemical weapons.
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:10 PM on November 22, 2012 [3 favorites]


The lower receiver (that contains the fire control mechanism) is the only part the BATF cares about. As noted in the article, you can make your own out of a hunk of metal, wood, HDPE, whatever.

As far as the rest of the gun (upper receiver, chamber, barrel, gas tube, etc) as far as anyone else is concerned it's a metal pipe and some bits of plastic. I bought my lower receiver from a local gun store, then over the next few months bought the rest of the parts to build it up. When I ordered the upper receiver (and barrel), the UPS guy just dropped the box on my porch.

Want to build your own AR-15 lower receiver? Here are the blueprint drawings.
posted by mrbill at 10:18 PM on November 22, 2012


Stupid question: According to the article it's explicitly legal for people to make unlicensed weapons as long as it's just for personal use. But... why? What's the rationale behind that?

I'm not even objecting, I'm just surprised. To use the example from upthread, it's, yeah, sort of like if a state were to say "you can drive without a license as long as you built your own car." Or "you can have amphetamine without a prescription as long as you synthesized it yourself and you promise you're not gonna sell it."

Basically it seems like on other heavily-regulated items there isn't this sort of built-in loophole for DIYers, so I'm wondering (sincerely wondering, I promise — from a "tell me about US legal history" point of view and not a "let's have a fight about gun control" point of view) why the loophole exists here. Anyone know?
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:41 PM on November 22, 2012 [4 favorites]


> Personally I've never seen the attraction: they cost about as much (or more) as a bare lower, even figuring in the FFL transfer fee, you run the risk of ruining the whole thing during the construction process, and in the end you get a gun that can't ever be resold.

It should be obvious that the attraction is you end up with an unlicensed gun, and when Obama's ZOG comes to take away your weapons, they won't know you have it.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:44 PM on November 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


InsertNiftyNameHere: "Does "BATF-exempt" mean you could make an AR-15 that is full auto? If it's not a firearm, then how could it be subject to the NFA?"

No, it's only "not a firearm" as long as it stays 80% finished.
posted by the_artificer at 10:45 PM on November 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


i wanted to post those homemade guns used in the Kosovo wars but this is the best i could do
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 10:47 PM on November 22, 2012


This is all just viral advertising for Red Dawn, right?
posted by ckape at 11:07 PM on November 22, 2012 [2 favorites]


I'm not even objecting, I'm just surprised. To use the example from upthread, it's, yeah, sort of like if a state were to say "you can drive without a license as long as you built your own car." Or "you can have amphetamine without a prescription as long as you synthesized it yourself and you promise you're not gonna sell it."

I think it's more like it being legal to build a vehicle in your garage and drive it all you want on private property. Which is, in fact, totally legit (with a few caveats in a few places), and people do it all the time. You can buy and sell homemade vehicles, too; you just usually can't register them to drive on the street, nor can you set up a factory and sell homemade vehicles without getting legal.

in the end you get a gun that can't ever be resold.

I don't think that's correct. You can't legally build for resale -- meaning you can't set up a factory in your garage and use the hobby clause to have a business selling homemade guns. But there's no control of the secondary market anyway -- I can buy and sell whatever I like as a private person; there are no registration requirements at all. I can't see any practical barrier to buying or selling a gun that someone happened to do some of the machining themselves.
posted by Forktine at 11:30 PM on November 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


they cost about as much (or more) as a bare lower,

Glancing at the Ares website and at gunbroker.com, it looks like you barely save any money going this route, maybe $100 to $200 at most, so the attraction must be the pleasure of doing some of the assembly yourself and having an off the books gun (which might be a much bigger deal in California than it is here; I know nothing about California gun laws other than they are said to be strict).

I've flirted with getting a tacticool gun like an AR15 at some point, and one of the attractions is definitely the lego-ish aspect of how they can be built up out of mix and match parts. If this place was local to me, I'd be a potential customer just for the hands on aspect.
posted by Forktine at 11:38 PM on November 22, 2012


justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow writes "
Why not? Hunters and farmers need guns, but pistols designed for killing people should be hard to obtain. If you really want a handgun, boyo, start punching trees and work your way up from there.
"

Well if nothing else you probably don't want your neighbour setting up an aluminum smelter in their garage.
posted by Mitheral at 12:16 AM on November 23, 2012


nebulawindphone: "Stupid question: According to the article it's explicitly legal for people to make unlicensed weapons as long as it's just for personal use. But... why? What's the rationale behind that? "

At a guess I would say probably because there's never been a compelling reason to make it illegal. As far as I know people committing crimes with home built firearms hasn't really been a problem.
Building your own gun isn't a loophole that exempts you from gun regulations. If you're not allowed to own a gun due to felony conviction or some other restriction it would be illegal to make one. If your state requires a license or permit to own a gun you would legally still need to obtain that before you built your own gun. You still need to abide by all the local and federal laws.

Most people I know that have made their own guns are amateur gunsmiths that enjoy building mechanical things, or collectors that rebuild older de-milled military firearms as semi-automatic.
posted by the_artificer at 12:24 AM on November 23, 2012


Most people I know that have made their own guns are amateur gunsmiths that enjoy building mechanical things, or collectors that rebuild older de-milled military firearms as semi-automatic.

And then there are the criminals.

I used to know a guy in Louisiana - a journeyman machinist - who could make anything out of metal on his Bridgeport CNC mill. I used to order precision parts for microwave filters from him.

So one day, I drop by his "shop" - his garage - to pick up some parts he was having heat-treated for me and we're sitting there chatting and I notice a dismantled AR-15 on the counter. I asked about it, he changed the subject, and I didn't think more about it - until I got back to my shop and unpacked the box I picked up and found a not entirely unfamiliar, but definitely not belonging to me, steel part mixed in along with mine. I recognized it was part of a firing mechanism. And it had just been hardened according to a very rigid military spec - along with my parts.

So I says to Jimmy the next time I stopped by, "Did you run something along with my parts?" and handed it over to him. He looked a bit ashen and said something like hope you don't mind, his part was too small batch to do himself, etc. "No problem, Jimmy, I just wouldn't want to be caught with anything illegal that isn't mine. Just so we're clear."

I didn't ask him what it was. It was obvious. What he was doing was making those perfectly legal, sold by Walmart, AR-15 hunting rifles into fully automatic versions. It is apparently not very difficult.
posted by three blind mice at 1:28 AM on November 23, 2012 [5 favorites]


It's all fun and games until one of these guns makes a 3D printer.
posted by panaceanot at 1:45 AM on November 23, 2012 [2 favorites]


See also: Sten gun.
posted by mikelieman at 4:04 AM on November 23, 2012 [1 favorite]


Memail me for details on my new "locally sourced, artisanal zip gun" workshop.
posted by orme at 4:24 AM on November 23, 2012 [4 favorites]


three blind mice: "It is apparently not very difficult."

Well if you're "a journeyman machinist - who could make anything out of metal on his Bridgeport CNC mill." it is. It's also very illegal. Lucky for him you just looked the other way.
posted by the_artificer at 6:06 AM on November 23, 2012 [2 favorites]


Sheesh, someone needs to introduce these people to trebuchet construction instead.
posted by Theta States at 6:39 AM on November 23, 2012 [3 favorites]


It's also very illegal. Lucky for him you just looked the other way.

It's also going to be extremely common in the next few years. Cheap 3d-printing and CNC milling is going to mean this sort of thing is everywhere.

Fortunately, you can't 3D-print a bullet.
posted by mhoye at 7:02 AM on November 23, 2012


I get the "love of technical work" part of this, but I also wonder how many of these people are also acting out of the belief that "Obama is coming for our guns" that seems to be gospel among certain corners of the gun world?
posted by Thorzdad at 7:31 AM on November 23, 2012


Fortunately, you can't 3D-print a bullet.
That problem's been solved for quite a while.
posted by Orb2069 at 7:36 AM on November 23, 2012 [1 favorite]


And if you want something other than cast bullets. How to Swage Bullets

Thorzdad: "I also wonder how many of these people are also acting out of the belief that "Obama is coming for our guns" that seems to be gospel among certain corners of the gun world?"

Quite a few I imagine, conservative talk radio and Fox news rots the brain and companies like Ares Armor are exploiting that (and some weirdness in the CA assault weapon law.)
posted by the_artificer at 8:26 AM on November 23, 2012


This is all just viral advertising for Red Dawn, right?

Not in Oceanside, dude.

I also wonder how many of these people are also acting out of the belief that "Obama is coming for our guns" that seems to be gospel among certain corners of the gun world?

I'd see this shop fitting in a little better in Santee or Lakeside, if the goal is to attract clients who are anti-Obama. Certainly O'side has folks who are conservative but East County (as opposed to North County) is much more a hotbed for that. I'm sure there are folks who are driving up from all over to check this out, but this is being described by 10 News as more of a 'cool thing to do' than a 'this is how we'll save the world from the Muslim Socialists, man' thing. Gun enthusiasts, in other words.

I'd guess it's in Oceanside primarily because it's run by a bunch of ex-marines and of course, because most of North County's machine shops are in the Oceanside/Carlsbad/Vista industrial parks.
posted by librarylis at 8:51 AM on November 23, 2012


Criminals wouldn't bother with these, eh? Are people born criminals? Only criminals shoot family members by accident? And surely "ex-military" can be 100% trusted to never lose their shit and murder anyone. They're "ex-military". Like that's some kind of gold seal of psychological reliability! I'm sorry, I can't think of any good reason to not register this. "It's a hobby!" is a bullshit answer.
posted by Brocktoon at 9:42 AM on November 23, 2012


I'm sorry, I can't think of any good reason to not register this.

I'm not sure what "this" is. The guns? California doesn't have registration for regularly made commercial long arms.
posted by 445supermag at 10:02 AM on November 23, 2012


It should be obvious that the attraction is you end up with an unlicensed gun, and when Obama's ZOG comes to take away your weapons, they won't know you have it.

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest there are millionS of unregistered (to their current owners) guns out there.

In the 50's,and 60's I was a competitive shooter. "2700" for those knowledgeable about the sport.

I received new gun awards at least 20 times. At no time was there ever a signed document involved. I imagine all those weapons are still out there and serviceable.
Who has them? Who knows. I never questioned the buyers. Admittedly I did know many of the people who bought them as they were members of the same shooting fraternity and they were all high level competitive hand guns. Extremely desirable to this set of shooters. S&W 41's, semi accurized 1911A Colts etc.

I mention this personal experience because it was the legal and de rigueur way of 'trading' firearms. Today nothing has changed. If I place an ad to sell a handgun, in Fl., to a private individual I am under no legal obligation to do more.

What I am getting at is that "Obama's ZOG" is going to have a difficult time tracking down those millions of practically speaking unregistered guns. Once they leave the hands of the registered firearms dealer they can migrate to any one and anywhwere with little to no accountability.
posted by notreally at 10:12 AM on November 23, 2012 [2 favorites]


> What about pistols designed for shooting paper targets? I have one of those...was I cheating by skipping the "tree-punching" part?

c02 pistols aren't subject to the same restrictions and shoot paper targets just fine... Only reason to go bigger is for more range, or a bigger hole and the "bang" factor.

Given that there all firearms that would require registration are lethal, I think requiring a bit more to get one, even if you just plan to use it for shooting paper, is PERFECTLY reasonable.

I say this as someone who uses a lethal firearm to punch holes in paper... The restrictions in place are incredibly lenient. I was surprised when I bought mine - It couldn't be much easier. It's a single registration form, they make a 2 minute phone call, and it's done. Out of anything that has ever involved any government paperwork, buying a firearm is incredibly simple... It's easier than doing anything drivers license related, and certainly easier than anyone's annual taxes. Hell, it's easier than registering to vote - and some would argue the voting process itself.

The only reason to bypass it via technicalities that I can think of is that you:

1. Fall in to a category of person that cannot legally purchase
2. Believe that there is a vast conspiracy to take away your guns
3. Just want the "cool" factor of an unregistered / manufactured gun.

In my opinion, if you fall into any of those categories, then sorry, suck it up - you still have to follow the rules. There's no reason that any place selling the "95%" receivers or allowing people to "build" these guns shouldn't be subject to the same restrictions that those going through standard channels have to. If you can put up with the fact that your lethal projectile weapon can be traced to your name, you don't need one.

What argument is there for not having some sort of registration process with a firearm outside of not wanting to be traced? And what LEGITIMATE argument is there for not wanting a lethal firearm ultimately traced back to its purchaser? Serious questions here... If there's an answer, I'd like to know.

I realize that attempts to enforce this would result in parts being sold as "definitely not firearm parts" that just happen to be easily modifiable to fit, or "replica gun manufacturing" and that it would become an arms race of increasing the specificity of the law, and corresponding dodges of it until it reached a point that was specifically outlawing manufacturing your own firearm without following a registration process. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, just not very enforceable - which, for the class of person going to that much effort, isn't really a problem either.

I've really seen a good argument for less gun control - There's plenty of room for the second amendment to co-exist with accountability.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:18 AM on November 23, 2012


> I've really seen

add a "not" in there
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:37 AM on November 23, 2012


MysticMCJ, I think you're a bit confused about registration and gun purchases.

The only people who have to register a firearm are the actual manufacturers (as a business, not like the people seen here completing a receiver). The form you fill out at a gun store is not a registration form - the 4473 is simply a record of a transaction, required under the Brady bill starting in 1998, including the results of the background check. The call made to the FBI by the dealer isn't supposed to result in a permanent record. The ATF isn't supposed to capture transaction records in bulk to create any type of 'registration' scheme. Outside of a few states that require actual per-gun registration by the owner, people can generally buy a gun without having 'the government' know exactly who they are and what gun they bought.

As for the first question you ask - the argument I would make concerns the difficulty in obtaining (and the cost of holding) a FFL that would permit a person to actually transfer a gun and 'register' it. If the Feds want to make it easier to obtain those things for anyone eligible to own a gun, then I could be persuaded that it's not so bad that people have to have one to buy/sell guns and also, of course, be required to keep their transfer book up-to-date. Of course, feel free to say that creating a virtual monopoly on transfers is ok, but if we really want to funnel all transfers through them then maybe some regulation on transfer fees is in order.

And your second question - it is obviously both loaded and not serious.
posted by timfinnie at 11:05 AM on November 23, 2012 [1 favorite]


What I am getting at is that "Obama's ZOG" is going to have a difficult time tracking down those millions of practically speaking unregistered guns. Once they leave the hands of the registered firearms dealer they can migrate to any one and anywhwere with little to no accountability.

In that case, the question stands: why are all of these people lining up to get/make these guns?
posted by ShutterBun at 12:17 PM on November 23, 2012


I'll be the first to admit that I am not as well versed as others... Thank you for some of the clarification on how this works, as there are a lot of misconceptions.... Given that there isn't so much "registration" and linkage to an individual owner, then it seems like there's even less reason for an individual to bypass it.

I'll admit that it's a bit loaded, but I'm trying to wrap my head around the reasons that an individual would be able to justify bypassing any of the paperwork or "hassle" that surrounds this. I can get why someone on the selling side would, as they can make a nice profit selling "almost guns" and "not quite gun parts" without having to go through the FFL process or pay any fees.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:26 PM on November 23, 2012


In that case, the question stands: why are all of these people lining up to get/make these guns?

Because they are easily influenced by the NRA, armament dealers and the paranoid faction of the Republican party?
posted by notreally at 2:16 PM on November 23, 2012



I'll admit that it's a bit loaded, but I'm trying to wrap my head around the reasons that an individual would be able to justify bypassing any of the paperwork or "hassle" that surrounds this.


For one, I think this is an unanticipated loophole. The homemade gun exception was a way to allow hobbyists to do their thing, not a way to allow a cross between a U-Pick strawberry patch and a gun factory. If this actually turns into a Thing and catches on, I suspect you'll see things get tightened up one way or another.

For another, you can already avoid paperwork totally by buying from a private person who is selling a gun they own. There's no registration, no transfer process, nothing. It's like buying a used bicycle -- hand over some cash, the end.

The call made to the FBI by the dealer isn't supposed to result in a permanent record. The ATF isn't supposed to capture transaction records in bulk to create any type of 'registration' scheme.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I'd be shocked if there wasn't a database somewhere with the records of every time I've filled out that stupid form. It doesn't particularly bother me (because database or no database, there's no chance of any kind of centralized registration requirement anytime soon), but I really have trouble imagining that all that information is actually discarded in a world where the government routinely sniffs around at email and international phone traffic.
posted by Forktine at 3:58 PM on November 23, 2012


I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I'd be shocked [...]

Well sure, currently the ATF is entitled to receive all held forms when a dealer goes out of the business. Certain sites, that I won't link to here, are more than happy to theorize about what happens to those forms (hint: all sorts of bad things). Otherwise, there's some limit on how long the forms need to be held by the dealer...20 or 25 years, something like that. Whether the ATF actually captures the information as a part of some investigation (supposedly the only time such a capture is legit) or not is something that certain 'gun enthusiasts' enjoy tossing about in forums and blogs.

As for the bother, well, I freely gave my info up to the Feds and I have no expectation that they're going to get rid of it during my lifetime. I'm also pretty sure that the institutions involved routinely record and hold the information I submit (and I'd tend to think that the manufacturers might be worse about it based only on the increasing amount of catalog spam I get vs the number of visits I get from armed agents*).

* this ratio is X/0, currently, and my mailbox will soon be a singularity
posted by timfinnie at 5:18 PM on November 23, 2012


Other interesting DIY firearms projects: guy makes a AK receiver from a shovel (warning insensitive language).

None of this should be particularly surprising, given what people get up to in the Khyber Pass. The average automotive machine shop in the US would be like Santa's Workshop compared to what the gunsmiths there have to work with, and they manage to turn out not only functional firearms, but passable counterfeits of a variety of military arms.

Khyber pass guns do, however, occasionally blow up. That's the problem with DIYing not just un-stressed receiver parts, but doing the whole thing. And so the BATF rules concerning homebuilt firearms here in the US strike a pretty good balance by not restricting barrels and bolts: you really don't want to encourage people to start machining those out of old driveshafts and other crap. Although there's a lot of dislike for the BATF in some firearms circles, this is one area where I think they strike the balance correctly.
posted by Kadin2048 at 5:57 PM on November 23, 2012 [3 favorites]


When did we get to the point where the only way we can be safe as a society is to completely ban guns? I mean they just banned unloaded open carry because it scared a few soccer moms who didn't understand the law. I've never owned a pistol or a rifle, although I'm planning to buy one of each soon. I am historically a registered Democrat, Democrat ticket voter (by virtue of agreement, not out of party loyalty) and a Californian. Unlike people who pay lip service to the bill of rights, I believe in and stand by all 10 of them. Apparently it isn't normal to be a Democrat, a believer in civil rights, and to have those rights include the individual right to own guns and the right to be free of monolithic federal authority which is supposed to be explicitly limited with remaining authority assigned to the states and the people. Hypocrisy at its finest to champion all of the first 10 amendments, except the ones you don't like such as the 2nd and 10th.

I don't understand why rational thinking is so rare. I can criticize the political "right" for their reinterpretations of the 1st amendment to regulate speech and expression they don't like, and their willingness to shed the protections of the 4th and 5th amendments and create a police state. I can criticize the political "left" for their willingness to discard the 2nd amendment by pushing a false and misleading reinterpretation that simply isn't supported by the English language or historical writings associated with that era that demonstrate what that language meant at the time, and the other false interpretation they support which is that the 10th amendment essentially has no legal value and changes nothing about the articles. As if that makes sense, an amendment that doesn't amend anything. So instead we create a giant monolithic federal government with unlimited legislative authority.

In regards to the guns topic, I'm afraid any media attention especially in my home state of California, will only lead to further and futher tightening of reasonable and rational peoples' gun rights. I watched the open carry movement get completely shut down in California by a wholesale banning of unloaded open carry, and it was sad. There was no safety concern addressed. No one was shot by an registered, openly displayed, unloaded pistol. A few too many soccer moms called the police to report the issue, and a few too many police officers were embarrassed by their ignorance of the laws regarding open carry, and the California legislature responded to their request by attempting to disarm the public of UNLOADED weapons. It's sad, and news stories like this will only cause further bans and restrictions. With the newly minted Supreme Court decision finally representing the truth that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, we'll just have to wait until they go too far in the attempts to ban firearms. And then we'll start to realize that fatty foods, alcohol, and driving are far more deadly than firearms and that we don't need to try to regulate the world into a safe place, we just need to show some metaphorical testicular fortitude, realize the world is always going to be a little dangerous because that's life.

Until we figure out that we're acting like cowards and violating our principles, and at the risk of sounding like a paranoid government-is-gonna-steal-your-guns-and-money fruitcake, I'm going to hurry up and buy a few rifles and handguns before the California legislature takes away the few remaining options we have. Just need to find a nice gun safe so that I don't have to worry about my son getting into them. A reasonable and manageable concern that I can handle as an intelligent adult without any regulation.
posted by milesteg at 9:01 AM on November 24, 2012 [3 favorites]


As if that makes sense, an amendment that doesn't amend anything.

That's the most brilliantly succinct way to put it I've seen yet.
posted by BrotherCaine at 4:26 PM on November 24, 2012


« Older The Confused Notes of a Twilight Newbie Forced to...   |   Streets Ahead Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post