Some excellent posts here. With your forgiveness, because there are so many in both threads to respond to, I'm going to focus on the gun magazine thread for the time being- that will keep me busy enough. I will try to return to this thread later on.
Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?
- Thread starter timmy4
- Start date
- Status
Well unfortunately, that other thread remains closed. So let me return to some of the issues raised here.
I'm going to reiterate that I reject all arguments regarding either the "slippery slope" or the threat of a tyrannical government. I am receptive to arguments about effectiveness of various gun control measures.
Furthermore, it is my very strong judgment that if those on "your side" promote the "slippery slope" or "tyrannical govt." arguments too strongly, you are going to lose. The public at large not only does not see eye to eye with you on this, they will characterize you as extremist and isolate you politically, as they are already doing. Although many of you don't believe this, I am not what you would normally call an "anti" or "gun grabber." (In fact, I resent the use of the latter term because I have no desire to grab anyone's guns.) I am, I believe, a middle of the road person on these issues. I CAN be convinced, with good argument, to accept some of your POVs, but that argument needs to be based on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the proposals, and not on this other stuff.
I'm going to reiterate that I reject all arguments regarding either the "slippery slope" or the threat of a tyrannical government. I am receptive to arguments about effectiveness of various gun control measures.
Furthermore, it is my very strong judgment that if those on "your side" promote the "slippery slope" or "tyrannical govt." arguments too strongly, you are going to lose. The public at large not only does not see eye to eye with you on this, they will characterize you as extremist and isolate you politically, as they are already doing. Although many of you don't believe this, I am not what you would normally call an "anti" or "gun grabber." (In fact, I resent the use of the latter term because I have no desire to grab anyone's guns.) I am, I believe, a middle of the road person on these issues. I CAN be convinced, with good argument, to accept some of your POVs, but that argument needs to be based on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the proposals, and not on this other stuff.
Using the "effectiveness" reasoning, I cannot in good conscience go along with Senator Feinstein's proposal to ban certain semi-automatic weapons. Although unlike most of you I am no expert on these weapons, one thing is very clear to me: in terms of their possible threat to public safety, there is no way for me to distinguish between one semi-automatic weapon vs. another. So far as I can tell, the ones being made illegal are the "scariest looking" ones. To me, what a gun looks like is an illogical reason to make it illegal.
You can reject the argument all you want, but the FACT is that that is the reason, intent, and purpose behind the Second Amendment.
If you want to reject that fact I suggest you get enough people together to amend the Constitution.
If you want to reject that fact I suggest you get enough people together to amend the Constitution.
buckhorn_cortez
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 532
How "modern" is modern history? Does history start the day you were born, or can we go back further than that?
.
"Modest"? Everything starts as being a "reasonable gun law." It soon metasticizes into -
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.
“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
- Benito Mussolini, address to the Italian Senate, 1931
"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6 1938
“I did not join the resistance movement to kill people, to kill the nation. Look at me now. Am I a savage person? My conscience is clear.”
- Pol Pot
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Between 1975 and 1973, 2,035,000 “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
During the short four years of its rule in Cambodia, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge government murdered over 31 percent of the entire Cambodian population.
“Armas para que? (“Guns, for what?”)”
A response to Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba.
- Fidel Castro
Then how do you explain the rebels overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi?
Franciso Franco used people armed with privately owned weapons as part of the Nationalists war against the Popular Front prior to receiving aid from Italy and Germany.
Soviet 40th Army against the mujahideens in Afghanistan. Soviets use every conceivable modern weapon - excluding nuclear weapons - and lost to a multi-national insurgent group armed mainly with WWI and WWII rifles supplemented later in the conflict with some surface-to-air missiles, and shoulder-launched grenades provided by sympathetic democratic governments.
And you still want to say that gun ownership should be limited? Here's proof that even military level weapons have a place with civilians. How would you propose the Afghanis liberate themselves otherwise? Vote the Russians out of Afghanistan?
Okay - I just did exactly that - now what?
You're going to claim that this type of thing could never happen in the "civilized United States"? It already has - 1776. Are you going to claim the English weren't "civilized"?
As for your earlier "suitcase nuclear weapon" canard - very poor argument. At the time the Framers of the Constitution wrote the document - including the 2nd Amendment - the rebel army and navy (soon to be the Army and Navy of the United States) possessed many weapons of war that were far outside of the ownership of individual citizens. The people who wrote the 2nd Amendment knew EXACTLY what they were doing and, more importantly, WHY.
If you are a student of history, you will know that soon after the US Constitution was written, the new President commissioned a naval vessel that no citizen could own. You may have heard of it - it's called the "USS Constitution" and it is still a commissioned vessel in the United States Navy.
So please, put the ideas about the Framers of the Constitution had no idea about the level of sophisitication of modern weapons type arguments away. The people who wrote the Constitution knew exactly what they were writing and why - they wanted the government to be restrained by the people - including the use of force if required, and they wanted to make sure the citizens had the tools to do that.
You seem to be nice - but, extremely naive about guns, gun control, and especially politics.
Last edited:
Good. That's what they are doing.
Look up what a "barrel shroud" is sometime, if you are interested. All a barrel shroud is, is something that covers the barrel so that, while you are shooting a number of rounds, which is common on the range, you are less likely to burn yourself on the hot barrel.
Simply running one qualification target at an Appleseed shoot can have a barrel burn-you-hot.
I have no desire to change the 2nd Amendment. I believe in the 2nd Amendment.
Really? I've been reading most of the comments in your threads here, and it seems to me you don't.timmy4 said:
What do you think the 2nd Amendment is for, and do you think it's still valid in the original sense?
My guess is your understanding is off from most people's here.
Your own post proves you wrong. You note that the Soviet Union made gun control effective in 1929. But the mass collectivization efforts you discuss, which caused the death of millions (mostly in the Ukraine) started around 1924, long before these areas were disarmed. And the bulk of the Soviet population was never disarmed, especially in central Russia and around Moscow- yet this didn't prevent the purges from 1936-1939.
The rest of your post is just as incorrect, sorry.
Gun control advocates, by and large, seem to believe that the government seeks gun control for the safety of the citizens.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The government cares not one whit about your safety. To them you're just a vote, and one that could go either way anyway.
Gun control is just a grab for power, nothing more. And this current administration is especially power hungry.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The government cares not one whit about your safety. To them you're just a vote, and one that could go either way anyway.
Gun control is just a grab for power, nothing more. And this current administration is especially power hungry.
It doesn't matter what I think it's for. That's the point that many of you keep missing. The only thing that matters is whether or not I believe in what's written. I do. I do not desire to infringe on your right to bear arms.
As I have stated, I am in favor of two specific gun control measures: banning high capacity gun magazines, and forcing all sales or transfers of firearms to go through background checks for the proposed buyer so as to enforce existing laws that make it illegal for convicted felons to purchase them. I do not believe that either of these measures infringe upon your right to bear arms.
"This other stuff" is the basis for our rights. The 2nd Amendment was written by people who understood the works of John Locke. Arguments about the effectiveness of various gun control measures have no basis in rights. Natural Rights.
If we are to only talk about what is effective, who gets to decide what is effective? The people who want to control other people, or the people who want to live free? The 2nd Amendment does not grant us a right to keep and bear arms, but merely declares that a Natural Right we already possess will not be infringed. It's a restriction on government, not on the people.
But to the matter of effectiveness, consider that in 2011, there were 12,664 people slain in the United States. The top weapons of choice were: handguns (6,620), knives (1,694) and fists or feet (728). Although the many politicians want to ban rifles with certain “military-style” features, rifles of every type were used in just 323 homicides.
Now so-called "assault weapons" are a subset of the rifle category. And note that these are all homicides, some of which may be in self-defense. Yes, an AR-15 may be used to commit a lawful (albeit, tragic) self-defense homicide, and the FBI records it as a rifle homicide. Are we going to staple cushions to everyone's fists and feet to prevent 728 homicides? Or do we just ban ARs because they look evil?
Last edited:
TIMMY4 Please answer this question.
I would like to know, if you truly believe this what would be the point of limiting us? After all you freely admit you do not believe we are the problem.
As for your experience. This criminal broke the law when he used a firearm to carjack you correct? What makes you believe he will obey a law stating he can only have 10 shot magazines while doing so?
I would like to know, if you truly believe this what would be the point of limiting us? After all you freely admit you do not believe we are the problem.
As for your experience. This criminal broke the law when he used a firearm to carjack you correct? What makes you believe he will obey a law stating he can only have 10 shot magazines while doing so?
Timney
Thirty minutes of range time will greatly increase your understanding of the topic more than reading the internet.
It amazes me that people who have no experience in firearms are willing to dictate to me what I need and don't need. Or in your position try to come up with solutions without the fundamental knowledge of shooting.
Why don't you focus on the person instead of the object. What's driving these people to murder? What help can these people receive?
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
Thirty minutes of range time will greatly increase your understanding of the topic more than reading the internet.
It amazes me that people who have no experience in firearms are willing to dictate to me what I need and don't need. Or in your position try to come up with solutions without the fundamental knowledge of shooting.
Why don't you focus on the person instead of the object. What's driving these people to murder? What help can these people receive?
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
JN01
Member
There have been no scientific (i.e. not junk science propaganda cobbled together by gun-control proponents) studies that prove a causal link between gun ownership and crime rates.
The features that are used to define "assault weapons" are either cosmetic or ergonomic in nature and have NOTHING to do with the lethality of the weapon. The wound caused by a .223 bullet fired from an AR15 will be the same as one fired from a bolt action rifle.
Restrictions on magazine capacity are also highly unlikely to make a difference. One of the worst mass shootings, Virginia Tech, involved handguns with 10 and 15 round capacities. You mentioned that with low capacity magazines, victims would have the opportunity to disarm the shooter as he reloads. I can only think of two instances of all the mass shootings where this was attempted. One of those (the nut who shot Congresswoman Giffords) was thwarted BECAUSE the shooter had a high capacity magazine (33 round Glock mag) that stuck way out and provided the leverage needed to take it away.
If you want to murder a room full of passive victims who have no means of escape, magazine capacity is irrelevant. You could accomplish the same thing with a 6 shot revolver and a pocket full of cartridges, especially given that you would most likely have 15-20 minutes before any armed response arrived.
On the other hand, if you are lawfully defending yourself against several assailants (think home invasion or civil break downs such as the LA riots or Katrina) who are charging you in a deadly attack, a 30 round magazine which negates the necessity to reload might be critical.
I'd be willing to concede that there are a lot of people who are completely ignorant of the issue who are well intentioned. However, there are a VAST number of others who have very different ideas. Gun control hero Sen Feinstein (as well as many other politicians recently) has voiced her preference to confiscate firearms. Years ago, Josh Sugarmann years ago outlined a plan to systematically disarm Americans, beginning with semi-automatic rifles that look like military assault weapons as the public could be easily misled that both were the same. If you look over the last few decades, every time gun control legislation has passed it has been touted as a "reasonable, common sense measure", that afterward is called "an important FIRST step". Incrementalism is not gun owners paranoia, it is many gun control fanatics modus operandi.
Read some of the liberal blogs or reader responses to news stories about guns or gun crimes. Gun owners are frequently depicted as racist, ignorant red-necks. Gun control advocates often refer to anyone who owns "assault weapons" as a criminal. Many of them are guilty of that which they claim to abhor- hate filled bigotry.
The only limit that I personally propose is on gun magazines. As I explained in the other thread, I am in favor of this because I believe it MIGHT save lives in some mass shooting incidents. The other measure I am in favor of, removing the private sales loophole, places no limitation on you so long as you are not a convicted felon.
I do not believe felons, like the guy who carjacked me, are going to obey the law. But having laws in place can make it more difficult for him, and that's what I want to do.
I do not believe felons, like the guy who carjacked me, are going to obey the law. But having laws in place can make it more difficult for him, and that's what I want to do.
JRH6856
Member
In the vernacular of the day, infringe = limit. Banning magazines based on capacity is imposing a limitation. Thus, a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
As for enforcing existing laws: Currently when buying a firearm from an FFL dealer, one must complete a Form 4473 in which the buyer states he is qualified to legally make the purchase. If he subsequently fails the background check, then he has falsified the 4473. This is a federal offense. VP Joe Biden told the NRA that the government does not have the time or the manpower to investigate or prosecution these violations. Hello? Someone is illegally trying to buy a gun. Might it not be a good idea to at least inquire as to why? Or is it best to wait until they have acquired one by other means and see what they do with it? Why create more violations that will be ignored?
As for enforcing existing laws: Currently when buying a firearm from an FFL dealer, one must complete a Form 4473 in which the buyer states he is qualified to legally make the purchase. If he subsequently fails the background check, then he has falsified the 4473. This is a federal offense. VP Joe Biden told the NRA that the government does not have the time or the manpower to investigate or prosecution these violations. Hello? Someone is illegally trying to buy a gun. Might it not be a good idea to at least inquire as to why? Or is it best to wait until they have acquired one by other means and see what they do with it? Why create more violations that will be ignored?
knifestuff
Member
Let me suggest a broader perspective. Timmy4, we bring up the 2nd amendment because it is one of the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. Its not the Bills of Rights--its one Bill of Rights. When we let one right become unduly infringed upon, we really let the entire Bill of Rights be threatened. Firearms ownership spans much more than the 2nd amendment; we make a statement when we support the 2nd amendment and that incorporates elements of the 1st. We own and possess (or can possess) firearms, thus the 4th and 5th amendment comes into play, with protections for property rights and due process. All powers not ennumerated to the Federal gov't are reserved to the individual State under the 10th amendment (that one really get overlooks today), so an intervention by the Federal gov't into areas typically reserved to the State (mental incompetency determinations comes to mind) may actually be an infringement upon that amendment. Guns are not just about the 2nd amendment, but support and are supported throughout the Bill of Rights. There's a larger issue at play here, IMHO, and it revolves around true liberty and placing controls on the gov't so individual liberties are not unduly threatened. That's why the Bill of Rights was so important to the framers of our form of gov't--to specify protections and balance for the individual against a federal governmental structure. It was important back then, and I think its still important today. I applaud you for your conduct in opening this discussion and appreciate your sincerity in the dialogue.
meanmrmustard
Member
First, unless you are a member of Congress or King Oby himself, I don't fear you. You haven't the right any more so than the above fore mentioned to infringe my rights. Good luck in trying though.
Secondly, and as has been stated about a hundred or more times since you've began these threads; You are apparently quite set on these two proposed changes, sadly, either of which can only be effective if criminals obey the law. Both of these infringe on our rights in that they give the government, decided by us on whether or not its tyrannical, an idea of what we have.
We don't tell terrorist what we are bringing to the party.
We don't call countries we try to help liberate from genocidal leadership and let them know that we have several thousand troops in transit and Sidewinders pointed at their Capitol.
Seriously, think past the obviously absurd.
"As I have stated, I am in favor of two specific gun control measures: banning high capacity gun magazines,..."
It wouldn't just end with the ban on the mags & "assault" rifles.
Can you understand that the govt. will Not be satisfied with that and will keep trying to whittle away more & more? They are selling the people this fallacy that it's "for the safety of the citizens" when what they're really trying to do is further their own agenda. They want us disarmed. But not totally...they don't want our hunting rifles and shotguns.
I want you to understand the difference between what "You" want...and what "They" want.
To put it more plainly, a ban on high cap mags and the background checks might be the only thing that you propose...but it's Not the only thing that They propose. And it's what THEY propose that counts.
It wouldn't just end with the ban on the mags & "assault" rifles.
Can you understand that the govt. will Not be satisfied with that and will keep trying to whittle away more & more? They are selling the people this fallacy that it's "for the safety of the citizens" when what they're really trying to do is further their own agenda. They want us disarmed. But not totally...they don't want our hunting rifles and shotguns.
I want you to understand the difference between what "You" want...and what "They" want.
To put it more plainly, a ban on high cap mags and the background checks might be the only thing that you propose...but it's Not the only thing that They propose. And it's what THEY propose that counts.
Last edited:
buckhorn_cortez
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 532
No Timmy, it's not. You're just refusing to accept the arguments - that's the normal response when you've been proven wrong.
But, in any event - here's two questions for you.
1. None of the controls proposed by Diane Feinstein would have prevented either Columbine or Sandy Hook. Why is she proposing those controls?
2. If these gun controls are so important - why is the bill written so that government officials would be exempt from the laws?
mljdeckard
Member
Your apparent willingness to be open-minded is belied by your flagrant unwillingness to believe anything that challenges lines you will not cross. OF COURSE they want to ban all guns. What they are doing right now is hammering at people's sensibilities to prepare them to accept smaller restrictions FOR NOW. They can't take them all at once.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them ... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
Dianne Feinstein
60 Minutes
U.S. Senator (D-CA)
1995-02-05
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
Joseph Biden
quoted by AP
U.S. Senator
1993-11-18
"We must get rid of all the guns."
Sarah Brady
Phil Donahue Show
1994
"The NRA is bound and determined not to allow the Brady Bill to be enacted. And they're a fearsome opponent. They see this as `threshold' legislation. Because they realize if we get the Brady Bill to President Clinton and he signs it into law, then the door will be wide open for further gun control legislation. Of course, we hope that's true because, as you know, our campaign to enact a National Gun Policy to combat gun violence doesn't end with the Brady Bill - it just begins."
Sarah Brady
HCI newsletter
1993-03
"The national guard fulfills the the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves."
Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senator (D-CA)
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe."
Dianne Feinstein
quoted by the Associated Press
U.S. Senator (D-CA)
1993-11-18
"I just want you to know that we are working on it," [Sarah] Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."
Barrack Obama
meeting between Jay Carney, Jim Brady, Sarah Brady, and President Obama, quoted in the Washington Post, 2011-04-12
U.S. President
2011-03-30
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
Janet Reno
U.S. Attorney General
1993-12-10
"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the detauls, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."
Bobby Rush
Evan Osnos, Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, p. C3
Representative, D-IL
1999-12-05
"...the only people who use them [so-called assault weapons] are mass murderers..."
Charles Schumer
PBS debate with Bill McCollum
U.S. Senator (D-NY)
1996
"Whatever right the Second Amendment protects is not as important as it was 200 years ago ... [The government should] deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrasing Amendment."
George Will
1991
I have restricted this to quotes from people who are currently influencing this argument. Of course there are countless others. To state that those trying to pass 'common sense' legislation NOW don't ultimately want to ban and confiscate all guns is either willfully naive or flagrantly dishonest. Period.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them ... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
Dianne Feinstein
60 Minutes
U.S. Senator (D-CA)
1995-02-05
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
Joseph Biden
quoted by AP
U.S. Senator
1993-11-18
"We must get rid of all the guns."
Sarah Brady
Phil Donahue Show
1994
"The NRA is bound and determined not to allow the Brady Bill to be enacted. And they're a fearsome opponent. They see this as `threshold' legislation. Because they realize if we get the Brady Bill to President Clinton and he signs it into law, then the door will be wide open for further gun control legislation. Of course, we hope that's true because, as you know, our campaign to enact a National Gun Policy to combat gun violence doesn't end with the Brady Bill - it just begins."
Sarah Brady
HCI newsletter
1993-03
"The national guard fulfills the the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves."
Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senator (D-CA)
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe."
Dianne Feinstein
quoted by the Associated Press
U.S. Senator (D-CA)
1993-11-18
"I just want you to know that we are working on it," [Sarah] Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."
Barrack Obama
meeting between Jay Carney, Jim Brady, Sarah Brady, and President Obama, quoted in the Washington Post, 2011-04-12
U.S. President
2011-03-30
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
Janet Reno
U.S. Attorney General
1993-12-10
"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the detauls, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."
Bobby Rush
Evan Osnos, Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, p. C3
Representative, D-IL
1999-12-05
"...the only people who use them [so-called assault weapons] are mass murderers..."
Charles Schumer
PBS debate with Bill McCollum
U.S. Senator (D-NY)
1996
"Whatever right the Second Amendment protects is not as important as it was 200 years ago ... [The government should] deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrasing Amendment."
George Will
1991
I have restricted this to quotes from people who are currently influencing this argument. Of course there are countless others. To state that those trying to pass 'common sense' legislation NOW don't ultimately want to ban and confiscate all guns is either willfully naive or flagrantly dishonest. Period.
1. I don't believe there is any relationship between legal gun ownership and high crime rates. That is irrelevant, however, to any of my arguments.
2. Your example of Virginia Tech is the one most often brought up (along with Columbine.) But I can also bring up plenty of examples, starting with Jared Loughner and Aurora, where I believe lives would have been saved with the gun magazine limitation.
3. I was in the middle of the Los Angeles riots. I know all about the Korean store owners. Despite this, I reject the necessity of high cap magazines for this defense. I also want to note that there is a major contradiction in your argument. You can't at the same time argue that these magazines are NOT necessary for bad guys to do damage and that they are necessary for good guys to defend themselves. That is a logical fallacy.
4. I recognize that gun owners are often depicted in negative ways. I don't believe that myself. It is an unfair label. I have great respect for most gun-owners.
At some point you stated that by banning the sale of standard capacity magazines it "might make it more difficult" to commit a mass murder. In Newtown, Adam Lanza tried to buy a gun through a dealer and the laws worked as they were intended. He was denied. This deterrent only gave him the resolve to murder his own mother in cold blood to get the tool he desired to commit the abhorrent acts that occurred. So convince me that buying a gun or magazine through the black market will be a greater deterrent than that.
Furthermore, if the source of domestically obtained black market weapons begins to dry up the world network of organized crime will simply fill the void with foreign-sourced military weapons. These won't be the neutered semi-automatic versions but they will be the full-auto versions. The risk of smuggling these weapons is currently greater than the potential reward since illegally obtained domestic guns are inexpensive enough but the Law of Unintended Consequences says that if that demand is filled by the same sources that fill the demand for such weapons in Mexico and other parts of the world then they will be the fully-featured military versions.
Furthermore, if the source of domestically obtained black market weapons begins to dry up the world network of organized crime will simply fill the void with foreign-sourced military weapons. These won't be the neutered semi-automatic versions but they will be the full-auto versions. The risk of smuggling these weapons is currently greater than the potential reward since illegally obtained domestic guns are inexpensive enough but the Law of Unintended Consequences says that if that demand is filled by the same sources that fill the demand for such weapons in Mexico and other parts of the world then they will be the fully-featured military versions.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked