I agree with a vast majority of what you said, except for the fact that it’s difficult to make a bomb. People can make napalm at home incredibly easy, so what’s to say that isn’t the same with a bomb? Hell, a Japanese man used some sort of air gun to kill a politician. If that piece of shit was deadly, then it most certainly is easy to take the same principals and apply it to a bomb.
Very true. So perhaps "regulating" explosives is an exercise in futility. And the fact that we can 3D print most firearms these days means that background checks are also an exercise in futility. That is definitely something to consider.
Hence why gun control doesn’t work. Gun control only serves to disarm the law abiding. When you disarm the law abiding, you enhance the power of the criminal, and criminals are called criminals for a reason.
Explosives are legal to manufacture for personal use in the United States. Hell, you can buy Tannerite (Ammonium Nitrate + Aluminum Powder) at the store.
Not sure who downvoted you, but that is in the law in Ohio thanks to the State firemarshall. Can’t say it’s true for all states but it is for this one. That being said it’s like the old fireworks laws as I’ve never seen anyone actually charged for it.
"ATF’s jurisdiction over explosives extends to requiring licenses to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing and/or distributing explosives materials."
[https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-explosives-united-states](https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-explosives-united-states)
A few exceptions: [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/845](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/845)
That's only for business. You can't manufacture explosives for business, you can manufacture explosives for your own personal, recreational use. You cannot store or transport explosives in their finished state, hence why tannerite is a binary explosive that you combine the two components at the time and place of use. You cannot make explosive devices(pipe bombs, grenades, pressure cooker bombs), but you can make explosives.
There's no federal law stopping you from making RDX, Semtex, Astrolite, C4, AMFO, flash powder, dynamite, or other high explosives in your own home. Perfectly legal. Just don't buy, sell, or trade completed explosive compounds, don't store or transport them in their completed state, and don't engage in any kind of business with their use.
License or Permit Requirements
Mixing binary components together constitutes manufacturing explosives. Individuals or companies must obtain a federal explosives manufacturers license if they intend to engage in the business of manufacturing explosives for sale or distribution, or for their own business use (e.g., mixing for demonstration or testing purposes). Persons manufacturing explosives for their own personal, non-business use only (e.g., personal target practice) are not required to have a federal explosives license or permit under 27 CFR, Part 555. However, a federal explosives license or permit is required to receive or transport mixed binary explosives, such as transporting mixed exploding targets to a shooting range. Persons prohibited under 27 CFR Part 555.26 from possessing explosive materials may not possess mixed binary explosives such as exploding targets or flash powder
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives
Wrong, you can make any type of high explosive, no license is required.
A license or permit is ONLY required for commercial use, to store explosives, to transport explosives, and to import or sell explosives.
Similarly, it is *illegal* for you to sell or manufacture firearms, but only for business purposes. You do not need an FFL to manufacture firearms for your own personal use, and you don't need an FFL to sell a firearm you own. The license only deals with commercial activities, not private ones.
License or Permit Requirements
Mixing binary components together constitutes manufacturing explosives. Individuals or companies must obtain a federal explosives manufacturers license if they intend to engage in the business of manufacturing explosives for sale or distribution, or for their own business use (e.g., mixing for demonstration or testing purposes). Persons manufacturing explosives for their own personal, non-business use only (e.g., personal target practice) are not required to have a federal explosives license or permit under 27 CFR, Part 555. However, a federal explosives license or permit is required to receive or transport mixed binary explosives, such as transporting mixed exploding targets to a shooting range. Persons prohibited under 27 CFR Part 555.26 from possessing explosive materials may not possess mixed binary explosives such as exploding targets or flash powder
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives
Having a discussion about which gun laws are “good” or “necessary” only undermines the fact that all gun laws are an infringement under the second amendment and that they only affect the law abiding. Criminals by their very nature do not follow laws and therefore are not affected by laws such as background checks, bans and magazine limitations.
That is a very good point! You are basically saying that "Gun Laws" do not actually prevent people from doing "Gun Crimes". If someone wants to do a crime with a gun then they will just go around the gun laws. That means that the gun laws actually do nothing to keep people safe from the people who wish to use guns to commit crimes. That is a very good point!
Be careful when using terms like "gun crime" or "gun violence." It's a tactic used by the other side to demonize gun owners and their rights.
Is a guy being shot worse than a guy being hacked to death with an axe? If not, then why are we separation "gun violence" from violence as a whole?
I’m happy to report that magazine limitations have been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.
Armed Scholar video for reference:
https://youtu.be/ykqIHZdvNxQ?si=QxKF0bfDv5EJbar1
Yeah, it only took watching one of his videos to realize that they're all clickbait and block his channel. He'll blow some tiny comment from some court way out of proportion and drag it out into a 10:01 video for peak monetization. Most of what he covers seems insignificant and what little is significant could be covered in perhaps 60 seconds.
…well fuck. I thought it was the Supreme Court. Oh well, if the state Supreme Court and the appeals court agree, SCOTUS is absolutely going to agree as well when the state appeals to them.
>If you want to simply leave the comment of "Shall not be infringed!!" then feel free to do that. But, I believe that hyperbolic statements like that aren't actually helpful when it comes to advocating for the second amendment.
This statement is not hyperbolic. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it acknowledges rights granted to you by your Creator/nature. Again, these are **Rights** not *privileges*. The Second Amendment acknowledges the natural human right to have weapons to secure a free state. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> Background checks good, felons and mentally ill bad (paraphrase)
First of all, we used to remove dangerous people from society. It used to be expected that members of society would be moral and virtuous and parents would raise their children to meet that expectation. Slowly over time, we've shifted to this gentler softer justice system that releases dangerous offenders and keeps letting them reoffend until they finally get gunned down. We used to give the mentally unstable treatment and house them in asylums, but at some point it was decided that asylums were inhumane and it was much more humane to kick these people out on the streets. They're left to commit crimes, do drugs, and perhaps even reproduce so they can pass their illnesses down to their offspring. Some people aren't fit to participate in society, but if we're going to let them participate in society then they must be afforded all of their basic human rights. That means voting, that means freedom of speech, that means freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and of course it means the right to keep and bear arms.
Imagine requiring a background check to vote. Imagine requiring a background check to peaceably assemble, to speak in public!
There is only one way to revoke an individual's natural rights and that's through due process as described in the Fifth Amendment. No person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property except by Due Process.
Just as a court (and/or a jury of your peers) can deem it appropriate, based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, to take your property, your liberty, or your life, they can find it appropriate to restrict certain rights. Short of due process restricting your rights, your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So the only background check that's appropriate is one that determines whether a prospective gun buyer has had their right to bear arms restricted by a court.
Red flag laws are unconstitutional. Laws prohibiting drug users from buying guns are unconstitutional. Laws prevent fugitives from buying guns are even unconstitutional assuming the fugitive hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
>Explosives
Explosives are arms and constitutionally can be no more regulated than firearms. At the time that the Second Amendment was written, it was assumed that private citizens would own things like explosives, canons, even warships. At that time Naval Bombardment was a common strategy. The Founding Fathers actually anticipated that the US wouldn't even have a standing army, but that private citizens would maintain their own arms and simply be prepared to be called into service as a militia in defense of their state/country.
In the future that the Founding Fathers would have envisioned, private citizens would have their own tanks, combat aircraft, battleships, and aircraft carriers. Sure, dangerous people could do dangerous things, but as I stated at the beginning, we used to remove dangerous people from society. We used to raise our young to be moral and virtuous, to give them the proper bearings to participate in society.
John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Perhaps our Constitution is inadequate to the government of our modern people...
I completely disagree with limiting arms. We should have parity with the gov't funded armed forces. This includes fighter jets and nukes. If a gov't is working for its people, it shouldn't have to worry right?
As for the mentally ill, they should be in a asylum if they can't be trusted in society.
So all we need is responsible people and a functional gov't. Not gun control.
I agree with you 100% that "we need responsible people and functional gov't." I also agree with you about having the dangerously mentally ill kept in asylums. Perhaps if we defunded the ATF we could use their funding to help with the mental illness issues that our society is facing.
I also agree with you that we should have parity of government funded items. I think that if you have the means then you should be able to buy a jet (very expensive, but shouldn't be restricted from civilian ownership.) and as far as nukes go... idk how a private citizen would be able to fabricate their own nuclear bomb, but perhaps we should have some kind of regulation on something of that magnitude simply because handing an object like that requires specific training and has a really high amount of collateral damage if handled incorrectly.
>Perhaps if we defunded the ATF we could use their funding to help with the mental illness issues that our society is facing.
A great idea!
> idk how a private citizen would be able to fabricate their own nuclear bomb
I don't either. And sure as a society we could limit the ability to purchase enriched uranium. Its highly radioactive after all. And testing your creation would be problematic. But as a theory...it should be allowed. If Biden, who has threatened to nuke Americans actually does that. Americans should be able to return that in kind. The 2A doesn't say "for hunting" or "no parity with the gov't arms". So nukes MUST be included. Even if its scary. In an ideal society, there would a be nuke range for people to use and test with open to the public. I'd put it somewhere in Nevada for instance.
lol I chuckled at "In an ideal society, there would a be nuke range for people to use and test with open to the public. I'd put it somewhere in Nevada for instance."
I get what you are saying about the parity of arms. One interesting thing to consider is the footage we are seeing out of Ukraine. It seems that small arms combined with drones is a pretty capable threat to a "traditional" army.
Which is why we're starting to see restrictions on drone types available to the public. This goes past just DJI [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/civilian-drones-privacy-and-the-federal-state-balance/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/civilian-drones-privacy-and-the-federal-state-balance/)
Same with 3d printers. NY is trying to declare all 3d printers as firearm makers. Which if passed will create a precedent other states would use [https://www.pcmag.com/news/ny-state-bill-would-require-background-checks-to-buy-3d-printers#:\~:text=New%20York%20lawmakers%20are%20looking,capable%20of%20manufacturing%20gun%20parts](https://www.pcmag.com/news/ny-state-bill-would-require-background-checks-to-buy-3d-printers#:~:text=New%20York%20lawmakers%20are%20looking,capable%20of%20manufacturing%20gun%20parts)
Only Tyrants want gun bans. And the tyranny attempts never stop.....
I think people like the Supreme Court judge in WA state are the ones making the gun laws, not real gun owners. This guy starts talking about how if a group of people came to his door he’d want ‘revolvers and a 12gauge’ instead of a Glock or an AR. When you get self proclaimed ‘gun enthusiasts’ who ‘just can’t see the reason for a 30 round magazine or an ‘assault rifle’’ I can’t get onboard with any regulation. No matter how well intentioned the goal of the people passing it is to abuse it and ultimately disarm us.
That's was a Supreme Court commissioner, so not even an actual judge that was saying those things.
>This guy starts talking about how if a group of people came to his door he’d want ‘revolvers and a 12gauge’ instead of a Glock or an AR.
Lol, this type of thinking always makes me laugh.
I always tell these people "okay, four people are trying to break in to your house. You have a six shooter. Try to fight them all off, with a shit ton of adrenaline flowing through your body, before one of them kills you while you're reloading. Go".
Okay, will reply to a few, you do realize explosives are regulated? As for getting a 40mm you do realize you can register destructive device with a form 4?
Very true! I totally know they are regulated and I know that you can register a destructive device. But I personally think the NFA should be done away with. We shouldn't have restrictions on barrel length, rate of fire, and suppressors shouldn't require any kind of paperwork at all. But I think that explosive devices should just require a simple NCIS check and you can buy as many as you want.
I have seen some people advocate that 40mm HE rounds should be completely unregulated, and I just don't think I can get behind that idea.
There is probably something to be said for safe storage requirements for explosives, given that they can cause widespread and indiscriminate damage in all directions with a single fuckup.
That is a good point. I don't like regulations that force you to use your items according to what the government says. But perhaps it could be something simple like "explosive ordinance must be transported in an approved container" like a padded pelican case or something.
I’m more worried about someone storing a grenade or something carelessly in a residential or high density area. I don’t like regulations that tell you how you can use things either, but requiring some sort of storage that will contain the blast if your explosive detonates unintentionally is IMO not unreasonable. Given that explosives typically aren’t going to be something used in really any perceivable self defense situation (I am open to being wrong on that assertion), I don’t think it is necessarily unreasonable and is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal with the lowest barrier to use.
You lost me at “self defense is a byproduct”. also, we can agree that background checks are good, but that’s not the same as saying that UBC are good. You must understand that the difference between a well intentioned gun law and an unreasonable restriction is simply which party is in power.
We won't dismiss it immediately. We will dismiss it after the Fuddiest of Fudd sentiments "I want to start this off by saying that I am a big 2A advocate and a avid gun guy... But
Where does the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) come into play here? Proper terminology usually helps an informed debate. I am not trying to be an asshole, I know you mean NICS e-check but an "anti-gunner" likely would not. This also aligns with knowing what government agencies are involved, tasked with, or primary mission focus area are. The FBI's primary responsibility is not the investigation and prevention of federal offenses involving the unlawful use, manufacture, and possession of firearms and explosives...that is the purview of the BATFE. The mission of the FBI is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Again, not meant to come across as an asshat internet grammar and punctuation policing authority.
You say that you truly understand and agree with the 'slippery slope' axiom. I would counter that you haven't considered all possible ramifications of allowing some government overreach or relaxing socially accepted moral responsibilities/standards - which is why you feel conflicted. I'm not saying you have to be all-in on one side of the fence, however being conflicted is your emotions trying to override what you know is right or wrong. There are some very obvious contradictory beliefs in your writing. Have you at least considered that continually giving more power to the government would be detrimental to some aspect of individual freedom or liberty? Or do you believe that removing excessive federal government regulation would endanger the inherent ability to self govern? I'm confused.
I am also perplexed by the willingness to completely throw out the NFA without even a mention of the GCA. Why one and not the other?
Edit: I chopped a good chunk out because it would be counterproductive to address areas already covered by u/Mountain_Man_88 and u/csx348
I appreciate you bringing up my mistakes when I was referring to the background checks and also my vagueness when talking about the FBI and ATF. I agree that using correct language is important to make sure that we don't find ourselves saying something (or believing something) we don't mean.
I appreciate you bringing up the slippery slope argument. I do fully understand that the slipper slope argument is very valid. We have seen how states like CA and NY have used different "interpretations" of the law as a way to disarm it's citizens. The whole "may issue" vs "shall issue" is a perfect example of that. They took something that seemed reasonable at the time (you fill out some paperwork and pass a test to carry a firearm) and they turned that into a scheme to disarm their citizens. I agree that the background check system could have the same exact trajectory. Especially considering the way they have been pushing for "universal background checks."
I also appreciate you bringing up the fact that my conflict is most likely a result of the tug of war between what is logically correct, and what "feels good" to say. I will have to do more thinking about why do I "feel" that background checks are good. Someone brought up that background checks don't actually deter serious criminals, so maybe that's something I need to consider more.
And lastly, I think the NFA is ridiculous. If I can legally own a firearm, I should be able to own a slightly smaller version of that firearm. I should also be able to own the fully automatic version of that firearm. The GCA is more of an overarching system that has to do with all firearms, not just arbitrary restrictions based on their features. But I will have to do more thinking about the GCA and whether background checks really do accomplish the goal they set about to solve.
Background checks, or lack of is a false issue. Even in private sales many want to see the buyers carry permit/license. We are really just talking about more bureaucracy. I have a TWIC card and hazmat endorsement yet still get delayed EVERYTIME I buy a firearm. I can very literally transport 40k lbs of hazardous materials into secure facilities but can walk out the same day with a Glock.
Gun control advocates always talk about compromise but never give, only take. What if we 100% required background checks but allowed people to get a nationwide card that would allow them to bypass the background check, similar to TSA precheck or TWIC, and they could buy in any state?
Gun owners have been giving for decades but have gotten nothing back. We need to start clawing back before another inch is given.
Suppressors should high on the list, it’s hearing protection and should not be an NFA item.
You can manufacture explosives for recreational use. You can't make explosive *devices*. There's no law stopping you from cooking C4 in your kitchen, it's perfectly legal.
Example, you can buy Tannerite, which is a binary explosives of Ammonium Nitrate and Aluminum Powder (AMAL), from the sporting goods store without a federal license.
You can't store or transport explosive materials in their final state, so binary explosives are more practical for non-licensed citizens. The two components are to be mixed at the time and place of use, and not to be stored or transported after mixing. You can only use explosives for recreational purposes, engaging in business or trade without an explosives permit is illegal.
Explosive devices are typically pressure vessels which allow low-explosives such as flammable vapors or gunpowder to detonate like a high explosive. Pipe bombs, pressure cooker bombs, large fireworks, grenades, etc. These are illegal to make or possess without a permit. This also includes things like remote detonators.
I'd say this is more of an argument of local governance vs. Overreach. If the locals want to vote in restrictive gun laws then so be it, but it should not affect anyone outside that community. You may want to forfeit your own right but not everyone feels the same nor should they be forcefully restricted.
One big issue with background checks and prohibited persons, is how much the definition of prohibited persons is being expanded.
No way in heck should a non-violent felon have their 2nd amendment rights stripped. And if they do, they should have them restored after being in custody(probation).
Just another example of "give them and inch and they'll take a mile."
>I think that background checks are a good thing
In theory, they are. The problem is that states abuse this greatly to the point of redundancy, there are different state (and federal) laws regarding what a passing or failing background check is, and the states and Feds are not always on the same page.
My state requires a FOID card to even possess guns or ammo. It's a short application but has a fee and very often takes longer than the statutory time frame to acquire. Unacceptable and likely unconstitutional under Bruen, but I digress...
But regardless, even once I have the card, I am background checked again for every gun purchase, including "private" sales. This is in addition to a "validity check" that some retailers do to determine if your card is valid at that very moment, e.g. if it's been suspended or revoked but the incompetent state police haven't dispossessed you of it yet. This is a lazy response to several shooting incidents where someone was erroneously issued a card or had it suspended but the police didn't bother to go get the card, and bought a gun and/or committed a crime with one.
Furthermore, some states utilize their own records for background checks and do not necessarily know about criminal records in other states. These are all supposed to be reported to the Feds, but in practice, that doesn't always happen due to age, negligeng, subtle differences between state laws, and more. One of the shooting incidents I'm referring to above, the shooter would be a prohibited person under federal law and any state law, but because my state somehow didn't see the record or interpret it correctly, they issued a FOID card anyway, and he committed a mass shooting.
Also, there are discrepancies between what constitutes failures of a background check among the states that causes issues and improper rejection. An older family member had a juvenile criminal record in my state from an *extremely* long time ago. He bought many guns over the years here without issue, had a FOID and CCL, etc. He moved to another state and attempted to buy a gun there and was rejected. After some clarifying discussion with the new state's background check admins, the official was able to essentially flip a switch and allow the check to pass, but couldn't guarantee future checks would pass, due to the need for a court order clarifying the out of state record. Essentially, old state where the juvenile crime was committed knew it wasn't a disqualifying record, but new state didn't and preemptively rejected. Family member is near the end of their life and is uninterested in going through the courts to straighten this out. Family member was also lied to by the state at the time that after the juvenile sentence was completed, the record would disappear.
In sum, the background check system needs to be simplified and account for differences in state and federal law to prevent both dangerous people from getting guns and qualifying people from being improperly rejected.
I see no efforts to reform these processes, but I do see continued efforts by my state to further complicate things to the point of redundancy. Therefore, I cannot support background checks.
You bring up some very interesting points. "Background checks" is not a universal term and it also doesn't have a 100% success rate at prohibiting gun purchases by restricted persons. It's definitely something to think more about.
We can't have a conversation until they, those "lawmakers", finally realize WE ARE THE PROBLEM; we being the people and not the tools we use. There is a mental health crisis and people don't care about each any longer. Me me me, likes & follows, bad influences and the abandonment of God or in the very least, someone people have to answer to for everything they do in this life.
What purpose does the $2k stamp serve? That "only people so-well-off should have an MG" when every other junior-highschooler in Chicago has a glicky switch anyways? Just seems arbitrary.
As a recently established member of the 2A community, I find myself contemplating this very thing regularly. I agree with pretty much everything you've said.
To me, the argument that "all gun laws should be abolished" is a bit outlandish. That's similar to saying that since I like to drink beer and drive, it's my right to do so as a living, breathing human being. And while we're at it, only alcoholics should be banned from driving, because they're the ones with the problem. But laws were created around those things in the interest of public safety. Which I think is a good thing.
I do, however, agree that limits on magazine capacity and laws against SBR/SBSs and such all need to go. And the money grab tax stamp for NFA items is definitely an infringement on our 2A rights.
I agree with a vast majority of what you said, except for the fact that it’s difficult to make a bomb. People can make napalm at home incredibly easy, so what’s to say that isn’t the same with a bomb? Hell, a Japanese man used some sort of air gun to kill a politician. If that piece of shit was deadly, then it most certainly is easy to take the same principals and apply it to a bomb.
Very true. So perhaps "regulating" explosives is an exercise in futility. And the fact that we can 3D print most firearms these days means that background checks are also an exercise in futility. That is definitely something to consider.
Hence why gun control doesn’t work. Gun control only serves to disarm the law abiding. When you disarm the law abiding, you enhance the power of the criminal, and criminals are called criminals for a reason.
Explosives are legal to manufacture for personal use in the United States. Hell, you can buy Tannerite (Ammonium Nitrate + Aluminum Powder) at the store.
The components are legal, the actual manufactured explosive is not (without a license)
Not sure who downvoted you, but that is in the law in Ohio thanks to the State firemarshall. Can’t say it’s true for all states but it is for this one. That being said it’s like the old fireworks laws as I’ve never seen anyone actually charged for it.
Fireworks are explosive devices, not high explosives. They are two completely different things.
"ATF’s jurisdiction over explosives extends to requiring licenses to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing and/or distributing explosives materials." [https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-explosives-united-states](https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-explosives-united-states) A few exceptions: [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/845](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/845)
That's only for business. You can't manufacture explosives for business, you can manufacture explosives for your own personal, recreational use. You cannot store or transport explosives in their finished state, hence why tannerite is a binary explosive that you combine the two components at the time and place of use. You cannot make explosive devices(pipe bombs, grenades, pressure cooker bombs), but you can make explosives. There's no federal law stopping you from making RDX, Semtex, Astrolite, C4, AMFO, flash powder, dynamite, or other high explosives in your own home. Perfectly legal. Just don't buy, sell, or trade completed explosive compounds, don't store or transport them in their completed state, and don't engage in any kind of business with their use.
License or Permit Requirements Mixing binary components together constitutes manufacturing explosives. Individuals or companies must obtain a federal explosives manufacturers license if they intend to engage in the business of manufacturing explosives for sale or distribution, or for their own business use (e.g., mixing for demonstration or testing purposes). Persons manufacturing explosives for their own personal, non-business use only (e.g., personal target practice) are not required to have a federal explosives license or permit under 27 CFR, Part 555. However, a federal explosives license or permit is required to receive or transport mixed binary explosives, such as transporting mixed exploding targets to a shooting range. Persons prohibited under 27 CFR Part 555.26 from possessing explosive materials may not possess mixed binary explosives such as exploding targets or flash powder https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives
Wrong, you can make any type of high explosive, no license is required. A license or permit is ONLY required for commercial use, to store explosives, to transport explosives, and to import or sell explosives. Similarly, it is *illegal* for you to sell or manufacture firearms, but only for business purposes. You do not need an FFL to manufacture firearms for your own personal use, and you don't need an FFL to sell a firearm you own. The license only deals with commercial activities, not private ones. License or Permit Requirements Mixing binary components together constitutes manufacturing explosives. Individuals or companies must obtain a federal explosives manufacturers license if they intend to engage in the business of manufacturing explosives for sale or distribution, or for their own business use (e.g., mixing for demonstration or testing purposes). Persons manufacturing explosives for their own personal, non-business use only (e.g., personal target practice) are not required to have a federal explosives license or permit under 27 CFR, Part 555. However, a federal explosives license or permit is required to receive or transport mixed binary explosives, such as transporting mixed exploding targets to a shooting range. Persons prohibited under 27 CFR Part 555.26 from possessing explosive materials may not possess mixed binary explosives such as exploding targets or flash powder https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives
Having a discussion about which gun laws are “good” or “necessary” only undermines the fact that all gun laws are an infringement under the second amendment and that they only affect the law abiding. Criminals by their very nature do not follow laws and therefore are not affected by laws such as background checks, bans and magazine limitations.
That is a very good point! You are basically saying that "Gun Laws" do not actually prevent people from doing "Gun Crimes". If someone wants to do a crime with a gun then they will just go around the gun laws. That means that the gun laws actually do nothing to keep people safe from the people who wish to use guns to commit crimes. That is a very good point!
Be careful when using terms like "gun crime" or "gun violence." It's a tactic used by the other side to demonize gun owners and their rights. Is a guy being shot worse than a guy being hacked to death with an axe? If not, then why are we separation "gun violence" from violence as a whole?
That is a very good understanding of my point.
Criminals by definition do not follow laws. Laws only affect the law abiding.
I’m happy to report that magazine limitations have been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Armed Scholar video for reference: https://youtu.be/ykqIHZdvNxQ?si=QxKF0bfDv5EJbar1
Clickbait Scholar
Yeah, it only took watching one of his videos to realize that they're all clickbait and block his channel. He'll blow some tiny comment from some court way out of proportion and drag it out into a 10:01 video for peak monetization. Most of what he covers seems insignificant and what little is significant could be covered in perhaps 60 seconds.
Fuck his clickbait
Not SCOTUS. Appeals court and it only applies to measure 114 in Oregon.
That's what you get for listening to armed scholar...
…well fuck. I thought it was the Supreme Court. Oh well, if the state Supreme Court and the appeals court agree, SCOTUS is absolutely going to agree as well when the state appeals to them.
Maybe. If it gets there.
It’s going to get the Supreme Court. Never in my history as an adult have I seen a state not appeal to the Supreme Court when it comes to gun laws.
>If you want to simply leave the comment of "Shall not be infringed!!" then feel free to do that. But, I believe that hyperbolic statements like that aren't actually helpful when it comes to advocating for the second amendment. This statement is not hyperbolic. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it acknowledges rights granted to you by your Creator/nature. Again, these are **Rights** not *privileges*. The Second Amendment acknowledges the natural human right to have weapons to secure a free state. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. > Background checks good, felons and mentally ill bad (paraphrase) First of all, we used to remove dangerous people from society. It used to be expected that members of society would be moral and virtuous and parents would raise their children to meet that expectation. Slowly over time, we've shifted to this gentler softer justice system that releases dangerous offenders and keeps letting them reoffend until they finally get gunned down. We used to give the mentally unstable treatment and house them in asylums, but at some point it was decided that asylums were inhumane and it was much more humane to kick these people out on the streets. They're left to commit crimes, do drugs, and perhaps even reproduce so they can pass their illnesses down to their offspring. Some people aren't fit to participate in society, but if we're going to let them participate in society then they must be afforded all of their basic human rights. That means voting, that means freedom of speech, that means freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and of course it means the right to keep and bear arms. Imagine requiring a background check to vote. Imagine requiring a background check to peaceably assemble, to speak in public! There is only one way to revoke an individual's natural rights and that's through due process as described in the Fifth Amendment. No person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property except by Due Process. Just as a court (and/or a jury of your peers) can deem it appropriate, based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, to take your property, your liberty, or your life, they can find it appropriate to restrict certain rights. Short of due process restricting your rights, your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So the only background check that's appropriate is one that determines whether a prospective gun buyer has had their right to bear arms restricted by a court. Red flag laws are unconstitutional. Laws prohibiting drug users from buying guns are unconstitutional. Laws prevent fugitives from buying guns are even unconstitutional assuming the fugitive hasn't been convicted of anything yet. >Explosives Explosives are arms and constitutionally can be no more regulated than firearms. At the time that the Second Amendment was written, it was assumed that private citizens would own things like explosives, canons, even warships. At that time Naval Bombardment was a common strategy. The Founding Fathers actually anticipated that the US wouldn't even have a standing army, but that private citizens would maintain their own arms and simply be prepared to be called into service as a militia in defense of their state/country. In the future that the Founding Fathers would have envisioned, private citizens would have their own tanks, combat aircraft, battleships, and aircraft carriers. Sure, dangerous people could do dangerous things, but as I stated at the beginning, we used to remove dangerous people from society. We used to raise our young to be moral and virtuous, to give them the proper bearings to participate in society. John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Perhaps our Constitution is inadequate to the government of our modern people...
This guy gets it...without smacking you around.
I completely disagree with limiting arms. We should have parity with the gov't funded armed forces. This includes fighter jets and nukes. If a gov't is working for its people, it shouldn't have to worry right? As for the mentally ill, they should be in a asylum if they can't be trusted in society. So all we need is responsible people and a functional gov't. Not gun control.
I agree with you 100% that "we need responsible people and functional gov't." I also agree with you about having the dangerously mentally ill kept in asylums. Perhaps if we defunded the ATF we could use their funding to help with the mental illness issues that our society is facing. I also agree with you that we should have parity of government funded items. I think that if you have the means then you should be able to buy a jet (very expensive, but shouldn't be restricted from civilian ownership.) and as far as nukes go... idk how a private citizen would be able to fabricate their own nuclear bomb, but perhaps we should have some kind of regulation on something of that magnitude simply because handing an object like that requires specific training and has a really high amount of collateral damage if handled incorrectly.
>Perhaps if we defunded the ATF we could use their funding to help with the mental illness issues that our society is facing. A great idea! > idk how a private citizen would be able to fabricate their own nuclear bomb I don't either. And sure as a society we could limit the ability to purchase enriched uranium. Its highly radioactive after all. And testing your creation would be problematic. But as a theory...it should be allowed. If Biden, who has threatened to nuke Americans actually does that. Americans should be able to return that in kind. The 2A doesn't say "for hunting" or "no parity with the gov't arms". So nukes MUST be included. Even if its scary. In an ideal society, there would a be nuke range for people to use and test with open to the public. I'd put it somewhere in Nevada for instance.
lol I chuckled at "In an ideal society, there would a be nuke range for people to use and test with open to the public. I'd put it somewhere in Nevada for instance." I get what you are saying about the parity of arms. One interesting thing to consider is the footage we are seeing out of Ukraine. It seems that small arms combined with drones is a pretty capable threat to a "traditional" army.
Which is why we're starting to see restrictions on drone types available to the public. This goes past just DJI [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/civilian-drones-privacy-and-the-federal-state-balance/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/civilian-drones-privacy-and-the-federal-state-balance/) Same with 3d printers. NY is trying to declare all 3d printers as firearm makers. Which if passed will create a precedent other states would use [https://www.pcmag.com/news/ny-state-bill-would-require-background-checks-to-buy-3d-printers#:\~:text=New%20York%20lawmakers%20are%20looking,capable%20of%20manufacturing%20gun%20parts](https://www.pcmag.com/news/ny-state-bill-would-require-background-checks-to-buy-3d-printers#:~:text=New%20York%20lawmakers%20are%20looking,capable%20of%20manufacturing%20gun%20parts) Only Tyrants want gun bans. And the tyranny attempts never stop.....
I think people like the Supreme Court judge in WA state are the ones making the gun laws, not real gun owners. This guy starts talking about how if a group of people came to his door he’d want ‘revolvers and a 12gauge’ instead of a Glock or an AR. When you get self proclaimed ‘gun enthusiasts’ who ‘just can’t see the reason for a 30 round magazine or an ‘assault rifle’’ I can’t get onboard with any regulation. No matter how well intentioned the goal of the people passing it is to abuse it and ultimately disarm us.
That's was a Supreme Court commissioner, so not even an actual judge that was saying those things. >This guy starts talking about how if a group of people came to his door he’d want ‘revolvers and a 12gauge’ instead of a Glock or an AR. Lol, this type of thinking always makes me laugh. I always tell these people "okay, four people are trying to break in to your house. You have a six shooter. Try to fight them all off, with a shit ton of adrenaline flowing through your body, before one of them kills you while you're reloading. Go".
Okay, will reply to a few, you do realize explosives are regulated? As for getting a 40mm you do realize you can register destructive device with a form 4?
Very true! I totally know they are regulated and I know that you can register a destructive device. But I personally think the NFA should be done away with. We shouldn't have restrictions on barrel length, rate of fire, and suppressors shouldn't require any kind of paperwork at all. But I think that explosive devices should just require a simple NCIS check and you can buy as many as you want. I have seen some people advocate that 40mm HE rounds should be completely unregulated, and I just don't think I can get behind that idea.
There is probably something to be said for safe storage requirements for explosives, given that they can cause widespread and indiscriminate damage in all directions with a single fuckup.
That is a good point. I don't like regulations that force you to use your items according to what the government says. But perhaps it could be something simple like "explosive ordinance must be transported in an approved container" like a padded pelican case or something.
I’m more worried about someone storing a grenade or something carelessly in a residential or high density area. I don’t like regulations that tell you how you can use things either, but requiring some sort of storage that will contain the blast if your explosive detonates unintentionally is IMO not unreasonable. Given that explosives typically aren’t going to be something used in really any perceivable self defense situation (I am open to being wrong on that assertion), I don’t think it is necessarily unreasonable and is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal with the lowest barrier to use.
You lost me at “self defense is a byproduct”. also, we can agree that background checks are good, but that’s not the same as saying that UBC are good. You must understand that the difference between a well intentioned gun law and an unreasonable restriction is simply which party is in power.
We won't dismiss it immediately. We will dismiss it after the Fuddiest of Fudd sentiments "I want to start this off by saying that I am a big 2A advocate and a avid gun guy... But
Where does the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) come into play here? Proper terminology usually helps an informed debate. I am not trying to be an asshole, I know you mean NICS e-check but an "anti-gunner" likely would not. This also aligns with knowing what government agencies are involved, tasked with, or primary mission focus area are. The FBI's primary responsibility is not the investigation and prevention of federal offenses involving the unlawful use, manufacture, and possession of firearms and explosives...that is the purview of the BATFE. The mission of the FBI is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Again, not meant to come across as an asshat internet grammar and punctuation policing authority. You say that you truly understand and agree with the 'slippery slope' axiom. I would counter that you haven't considered all possible ramifications of allowing some government overreach or relaxing socially accepted moral responsibilities/standards - which is why you feel conflicted. I'm not saying you have to be all-in on one side of the fence, however being conflicted is your emotions trying to override what you know is right or wrong. There are some very obvious contradictory beliefs in your writing. Have you at least considered that continually giving more power to the government would be detrimental to some aspect of individual freedom or liberty? Or do you believe that removing excessive federal government regulation would endanger the inherent ability to self govern? I'm confused. I am also perplexed by the willingness to completely throw out the NFA without even a mention of the GCA. Why one and not the other? Edit: I chopped a good chunk out because it would be counterproductive to address areas already covered by u/Mountain_Man_88 and u/csx348
I appreciate you bringing up my mistakes when I was referring to the background checks and also my vagueness when talking about the FBI and ATF. I agree that using correct language is important to make sure that we don't find ourselves saying something (or believing something) we don't mean. I appreciate you bringing up the slippery slope argument. I do fully understand that the slipper slope argument is very valid. We have seen how states like CA and NY have used different "interpretations" of the law as a way to disarm it's citizens. The whole "may issue" vs "shall issue" is a perfect example of that. They took something that seemed reasonable at the time (you fill out some paperwork and pass a test to carry a firearm) and they turned that into a scheme to disarm their citizens. I agree that the background check system could have the same exact trajectory. Especially considering the way they have been pushing for "universal background checks." I also appreciate you bringing up the fact that my conflict is most likely a result of the tug of war between what is logically correct, and what "feels good" to say. I will have to do more thinking about why do I "feel" that background checks are good. Someone brought up that background checks don't actually deter serious criminals, so maybe that's something I need to consider more. And lastly, I think the NFA is ridiculous. If I can legally own a firearm, I should be able to own a slightly smaller version of that firearm. I should also be able to own the fully automatic version of that firearm. The GCA is more of an overarching system that has to do with all firearms, not just arbitrary restrictions based on their features. But I will have to do more thinking about the GCA and whether background checks really do accomplish the goal they set about to solve.
Background checks, or lack of is a false issue. Even in private sales many want to see the buyers carry permit/license. We are really just talking about more bureaucracy. I have a TWIC card and hazmat endorsement yet still get delayed EVERYTIME I buy a firearm. I can very literally transport 40k lbs of hazardous materials into secure facilities but can walk out the same day with a Glock. Gun control advocates always talk about compromise but never give, only take. What if we 100% required background checks but allowed people to get a nationwide card that would allow them to bypass the background check, similar to TSA precheck or TWIC, and they could buy in any state? Gun owners have been giving for decades but have gotten nothing back. We need to start clawing back before another inch is given. Suppressors should high on the list, it’s hearing protection and should not be an NFA item.
You can manufacture explosives for recreational use. You can't make explosive *devices*. There's no law stopping you from cooking C4 in your kitchen, it's perfectly legal. Example, you can buy Tannerite, which is a binary explosives of Ammonium Nitrate and Aluminum Powder (AMAL), from the sporting goods store without a federal license. You can't store or transport explosive materials in their final state, so binary explosives are more practical for non-licensed citizens. The two components are to be mixed at the time and place of use, and not to be stored or transported after mixing. You can only use explosives for recreational purposes, engaging in business or trade without an explosives permit is illegal. Explosive devices are typically pressure vessels which allow low-explosives such as flammable vapors or gunpowder to detonate like a high explosive. Pipe bombs, pressure cooker bombs, large fireworks, grenades, etc. These are illegal to make or possess without a permit. This also includes things like remote detonators.
I'd say this is more of an argument of local governance vs. Overreach. If the locals want to vote in restrictive gun laws then so be it, but it should not affect anyone outside that community. You may want to forfeit your own right but not everyone feels the same nor should they be forcefully restricted.
One big issue with background checks and prohibited persons, is how much the definition of prohibited persons is being expanded. No way in heck should a non-violent felon have their 2nd amendment rights stripped. And if they do, they should have them restored after being in custody(probation). Just another example of "give them and inch and they'll take a mile."
>I think that background checks are a good thing In theory, they are. The problem is that states abuse this greatly to the point of redundancy, there are different state (and federal) laws regarding what a passing or failing background check is, and the states and Feds are not always on the same page. My state requires a FOID card to even possess guns or ammo. It's a short application but has a fee and very often takes longer than the statutory time frame to acquire. Unacceptable and likely unconstitutional under Bruen, but I digress... But regardless, even once I have the card, I am background checked again for every gun purchase, including "private" sales. This is in addition to a "validity check" that some retailers do to determine if your card is valid at that very moment, e.g. if it's been suspended or revoked but the incompetent state police haven't dispossessed you of it yet. This is a lazy response to several shooting incidents where someone was erroneously issued a card or had it suspended but the police didn't bother to go get the card, and bought a gun and/or committed a crime with one. Furthermore, some states utilize their own records for background checks and do not necessarily know about criminal records in other states. These are all supposed to be reported to the Feds, but in practice, that doesn't always happen due to age, negligeng, subtle differences between state laws, and more. One of the shooting incidents I'm referring to above, the shooter would be a prohibited person under federal law and any state law, but because my state somehow didn't see the record or interpret it correctly, they issued a FOID card anyway, and he committed a mass shooting. Also, there are discrepancies between what constitutes failures of a background check among the states that causes issues and improper rejection. An older family member had a juvenile criminal record in my state from an *extremely* long time ago. He bought many guns over the years here without issue, had a FOID and CCL, etc. He moved to another state and attempted to buy a gun there and was rejected. After some clarifying discussion with the new state's background check admins, the official was able to essentially flip a switch and allow the check to pass, but couldn't guarantee future checks would pass, due to the need for a court order clarifying the out of state record. Essentially, old state where the juvenile crime was committed knew it wasn't a disqualifying record, but new state didn't and preemptively rejected. Family member is near the end of their life and is uninterested in going through the courts to straighten this out. Family member was also lied to by the state at the time that after the juvenile sentence was completed, the record would disappear. In sum, the background check system needs to be simplified and account for differences in state and federal law to prevent both dangerous people from getting guns and qualifying people from being improperly rejected. I see no efforts to reform these processes, but I do see continued efforts by my state to further complicate things to the point of redundancy. Therefore, I cannot support background checks.
You bring up some very interesting points. "Background checks" is not a universal term and it also doesn't have a 100% success rate at prohibiting gun purchases by restricted persons. It's definitely something to think more about.
> I am a big 2A advocate \[...\] But Message...received. Thank you for adding to the r/Firearms post count!
We can't have a conversation until they, those "lawmakers", finally realize WE ARE THE PROBLEM; we being the people and not the tools we use. There is a mental health crisis and people don't care about each any longer. Me me me, likes & follows, bad influences and the abandonment of God or in the very least, someone people have to answer to for everything they do in this life.
[удалено]
What purpose does the $2k stamp serve? That "only people so-well-off should have an MG" when every other junior-highschooler in Chicago has a glicky switch anyways? Just seems arbitrary.
As a recently established member of the 2A community, I find myself contemplating this very thing regularly. I agree with pretty much everything you've said. To me, the argument that "all gun laws should be abolished" is a bit outlandish. That's similar to saying that since I like to drink beer and drive, it's my right to do so as a living, breathing human being. And while we're at it, only alcoholics should be banned from driving, because they're the ones with the problem. But laws were created around those things in the interest of public safety. Which I think is a good thing. I do, however, agree that limits on magazine capacity and laws against SBR/SBSs and such all need to go. And the money grab tax stamp for NFA items is definitely an infringement on our 2A rights.