- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
House renews ban on guns not detectable by metal detectors
Posted on 12/3/13 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 12/3/13 at 2:47 pm
6
Posted on 12/3/13 at 2:49 pm to dpark
quote:Yes. Next question.
Does this bother y'all?
Posted on 12/3/13 at 2:52 pm to dpark
quote:
Does this bother y'all?
No
Posted on 12/3/13 at 2:53 pm to dpark
bringing a gun on a plane is already illegal and building a receiver for a gun that is not registered with the ATF is also already illegal. Government creates problems then creates solutions to those problems. To my knowledge nobody has ever even tried to bring a gun on a plane that is not detectable by a metal detector. The fact that they are renewing a law that is twenty five years old is insane and only goes further to prove my point. For example, the 9/11 hijackers didn't use one single gun.
Posted on 12/3/13 at 2:58 pm to LSUnowhas2
quote:
LSUnowhas2
Boom.
Posted on 12/3/13 at 3:00 pm to LSUnowhas2
Posted on 12/3/13 at 3:01 pm to LSUnowhas2
I'm torn on the issue. The people who have the means to produce these obviously want to avoid the current regulations. I personally don't see the need for some to be able to create a undetectable gun in there basement. But don't think it's any different than someone being able to build a bomb with common house hold chemicals. I guess if someone wants to do evil they will find a way.
Posted on 12/3/13 at 3:09 pm to dpark
Yes, it bothers me.
Why? Because I can either create a 3D gun OR create a bomb out of household items if I REALLY wanted to kill people.
Good luck stopping it.
Why? Because I can either create a 3D gun OR create a bomb out of household items if I REALLY wanted to kill people.
Good luck stopping it.
Posted on 12/3/13 at 3:12 pm to LSUnowhas2
quote:
building a receiver for a gun that is not registered with the ATF is also already illegal.
That's not true.
Posted on 12/3/13 at 3:25 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
That's not true.
It is my understanding that if/when you build a receiver you are required to register it with the ATF. You have to have a federal license to legally manufacture a firearm. It isn't a firearm without a receiver. This is why you can buy parts kits without an FFL that contain everything but the receiver.
from the ATF FAQ:
Must a person who engages in the business of manufacturing and importing firearms have a separate license to cover each type of business?
Yes. A separate license is required to cover each of these types of businesses.
[27 CFR 478.41]
LINK
Unless of course you are talking about for your own personal use and not to be sold and a firearm outside the definition of the National Firearms Act.
Please explain where I am wrong. I am happy to be educated.
Posted on 12/3/13 at 3:50 pm to LSUnowhas2
quote:
Unless of course you are talking about for your own personal use and not to be sold and a firearm outside the definition of the National Firearms Act.
(ETA: And that's what is driving the 3D printing market - to make guns off the ATF's radar.)
This post was edited on 12/3/13 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 12/3/13 at 4:03 pm to dpark
The logic behind the law is flawed like most gun law in this country.
It's pretty clear the object of the law is to prevent people from bringing guns into places that guns are not allowed for obvious safety reasons. However, if someone plans on bringing a gun onto a plane to hijack the plane, or bring a gun into a courthouse to shoot up the place, do you really think making it against the law to possess the gun is going to stop them from committing another illegal act?
It's pretty clear the object of the law is to prevent people from bringing guns into places that guns are not allowed for obvious safety reasons. However, if someone plans on bringing a gun onto a plane to hijack the plane, or bring a gun into a courthouse to shoot up the place, do you really think making it against the law to possess the gun is going to stop them from committing another illegal act?
Posted on 12/3/13 at 4:10 pm to dpark
No, not one bit.
Posted on 12/3/13 at 4:17 pm to UpToPar
quote:
if someone plans on bringing a gun onto a plane to hijack the plane, or bring a gun into a courthouse to shoot up the place, do you really think making it against the law to possess the gun is going to stop them from committing another illegal act?
How does it hurt to make it illegal as well?
Posted on 12/3/13 at 4:36 pm to boom roasted
quote:
How does it hurt to make it illegal as well?
It's a waste of tax payer money and congress' time to debate something so redundant. Murder is already illegal, would it really hurt to make murder with a knife illegal too? No, but it's stupid.
Posted on 12/3/13 at 4:49 pm to 4X4DEMON
quote:
It's a waste of tax payer money and congress' time to debate something so redundant. Murder is already illegal, would it really hurt to make murder with a knife illegal too? No, but it's stupid.
I can see the purpose. It allows the federal government to monitor and prevent the creation of these weapons on the front end, instead of trying prevent damage on the back end.
Idk, I might be an idiot though.
Posted on 12/3/13 at 4:56 pm to boom roasted
quote:
It allows the federal government to monitor and prevent the creation of these weapons on the front end, instead of trying prevent damage on the back end.
Posted on 12/3/13 at 5:23 pm to boom roasted
quote:
How does it hurt to make it illegal as well?
Define "not detectable"
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News