The strongest drinks tend to be mixed or straight up liquors. Bourbon, Scotch and the like are not exactly likely to be tipped up when consumed. People drink those through straws. How about those drunks? Can't they be protected?
Do you have a reference for this, or have you just watched too many Tarintino movies?
Yeah, because the people who commit federal crimes by illegally modifying firearms to full auto and manufacturing silencers advertise on craigslist.
Because I am actually from the City of Detroit, and I have actually met criminals, who actually tried to steal from me (occasionally they were even successful), and I have never heard of anyone making a business of converting firearms to fire on full auto, or building silencers.
Yeah, because if you've never heard of something, that's proof positive that it doesn't exist.
How about a media report of an arrest of someone in possession of illegally converted machine guns and suppressors?
Heck, off the top of my head I can't think of a time when a criminal did a full-auto conversion on his own, or used a silencer. I;m sure somebody's done it, probably a Mexican cartel, but it just is not common.
More often than not, they take their money to someone who knows what he's doing and get him to do the conversion and build the suppressors.
Is there any country in the world that actually has underground gunsmiths?
Yes. The USA.
Who do you think makes the illegal silencers and illegally converts guns to fully automatic?
Colt's latest bid was $1,221. This is a significant increase on it's '99 bid of $521, and indicates either a) Colt understands supply/demand really well, b) M-4 cost more to make then Colt thought, or c) a and b. I suspect Colt's accountants have really really good evidence for b), but I don't believe them.
The M4 isn't the standard infantry weapon. The M16-A2
And do you know why the average person doesn't need to worry about being railroaded by the police?
Because the average person forms the basis of society. If they were routinely setting up average citizens, it would be harder to get done. People would know that it happens routinely and would be less likely to convict.
Re-read what I wrote. I'm saying the opposite of what you think.
I misinterpreted your meaning. I too intend to be among the last holding onto my firearms and as of right now, I'm not a criminal.
If they can't convert an AR-15 to fire full-auto, how are they gonna make an entire M-16?
They won't be making them, they'll be buying them from underground gunsmiths.
That's like saying "Bill can't upgrade his Hard Drive, but she's about to build his own PC from the motherboard up."
More like, Bill can't upgrade his hard drive but he can buy a new computer.
They wanna restrict weapons like the AR-15 because they have been used in a lot of very bad shootings recently. But AFAIK nobody's even proposed an Australia-style buy-back.
Three to five is not a lot. Several have been proposed, but I do not believe that any have gotten out of legislative committees yet.
Not as easy as a Soviet weapon.
In any industrialized nation, like ours, the difference is negligible. Khyber pass manufacturing technology favors the AK, that's not much of an issue here.
The USSR designed everything to be easy to produce because their doctrine required large numbers of troops, and their economy couldn't support spending $1,000 on a rifle.
The US isn't spending $1,000 per rifle. At least not for the main battle rifle. Spec-ops types and sniper rifles notwithstanding.
As you've pointed out ammo is trivial if you can make firearms, so if criminals had any desire to set up their own illegal gun factories they already would have done so.
Why would they need to? Today, they just steal them. If it were suddenly impossible to steal them, they'd make them.
They could completely re-arm themselves in a matter of weeks if the cops started wearing some armor their old weapons couldn't penetrate.
If the goal is simply to take out cops in body armor, they'd just use hunting rifles.
No, Rifles are devices that launch projectiles. Arguably, they're devices that use projectiles to transfer kinetic energy. Damage isn't a given or a guaranteed result.
Funny how all those pro-gun people who trot out the "we need to defend ourselves agaisnt the government" revile Mcveigh rather than actually look up to him for doing exactly what they claim they need their guns for!
No, we revile him for parking his truck-bomb outside of a daycare. I understand his anger, it was righteous anger, he should have been more selective in his targeting. If he had killed only BATF agents or FBI HRT, I would have stood up and cheered.
I've seen guns develop holster wear after just a couple of months of use.
Assume that you put it in the holster when you conceal the gun and remove it from the holster before you put it in a safe. That's maybe 60-90 in/out cycles. It doesn't take much.
I'm not a murderer, but I have the equipment and skills necessary to produce bullets in my garage. Even being out of practice, as I am, I could crank out about 10 bullets per minute. 600 per hour from someone who hasn't operated a press in years. Someone who does this regularly could produce at twice the rate that I can.
Criminals will actually be the last people to hold on to these weapons.
Only if you engage in circular logic. Because anyone who refuses to give up their firearm would then be a criminal. There are millions of people who are otherwise law abiding who will never willingly disarm.
That's why none of the criminals involved in any massacre using an AR-15 bothered pushing out the one pin that stops it from firing full auto.
You have just outed yourself. There is no such pin. The AR-15 bolt carrier is different than the M-16 bolt carrier so that if one were to alter or remove the sear, it will still not fire full-auto. A more likely reason is because these gunmen haven't possessed the skills to convert their rifles to full auto.
If there was a buyback program, and the Feds got a warrant for the records of companies that sell these things; a lot of refuseniks would be tracked down.
And that^ is the real reason why they want to "close the gunshow loophole" because as of now, it's possible to legally purchase a firearm that the feds can't track down.
What you're talking about is government applied gun violence in search of an end to gun violence.
Why would they bother doing it with AR-15s or high-capacity clips?
Because AR-15s are easy for machinists to make. And standard capacity magazines are cheap and plentiful enough that no one needs to make them underground.
The coin is a splendid idea, as long as the Fed covers it with bonds in a timely manner.
But he'll never use it. If he uses the trillion dollar coin, he won't be able to blame Republicans. They will be able to claim clean hands in the last trillion dollars of debt. Obama and the Democrats can never allow that. So, the President will use his lapdogs and attack dogs in the media to demonize the Republicans into agreeing to raise the debt ceiling so that they have to accept their share of the blame for the increase in the national debt.
The USA wants you to succeed: it's not "punishing" you for making more money, it's taking some money to keep society running and ideally investing in the next generation.
When you pay a higher rate because you earned more money, it certainly is punishing you.
Have you ever worked on commission or gotten overtime? There are times when my gross was several hundred dollars higher but my net was $50 higher. That's what we're talking about.
Its Congresses job to work with the President at this point, not the other way around.
My congressman's job is to represent ME, MY district, MY interests. It's not his job to care about what the people of New York voted for. I don't live in New York. If I sent a Republican to Washington to oppose Obama, that's what he's supposed to do.
Slashdot Mirror
The strongest drinks tend to be mixed or straight up liquors. Bourbon, Scotch and the like are not exactly likely to be tipped up when consumed. People drink those through straws. How about those drunks? Can't they be protected?
LK
Why not put these electronics into the base of the glass? Same results and no chance of a sloppy drunk swallowing it.
LK
Do you have a reference for this, or have you just watched too many Tarintino movies?
Yeah, because the people who commit federal crimes by illegally modifying firearms to full auto and manufacturing silencers advertise on craigslist.
Because I am actually from the City of Detroit, and I have actually met criminals, who actually tried to steal from me (occasionally they were even successful), and I have never heard of anyone making a business of converting firearms to fire on full auto, or building silencers.
Yeah, because if you've never heard of something, that's proof positive that it doesn't exist.
How about a media report of an arrest of someone in possession of illegally converted machine guns and suppressors?
Like this...
Heck, off the top of my head I can't think of a time when a criminal did a full-auto conversion on his own, or used a silencer. I;m sure somebody's done it, probably a Mexican cartel, but it just is not common.
More often than not, they take their money to someone who knows what he's doing and get him to do the conversion and build the suppressors.
LK
Is there any country in the world that actually has underground gunsmiths?
Yes. The USA.
Who do you think makes the illegal silencers and illegally converts guns to fully automatic?
Colt's latest bid was $1,221. This is a significant increase on it's '99 bid of $521, and indicates either a) Colt understands supply/demand really well, b) M-4 cost more to make then Colt thought, or c) a and b. I suspect Colt's accountants have really really good evidence for b), but I don't believe them.
The M4 isn't the standard infantry weapon. The M16-A2
LK
Drop three zeros.
LK
You've got to accept that FOSS etc can be used for good and bad.
And this is good.
LK
And do you know why the average person doesn't need to worry about being railroaded by the police?
Because the average person forms the basis of society. If they were routinely setting up average citizens, it would be harder to get done. People would know that it happens routinely and would be less likely to convict.
LK
Re-read what I wrote. I'm saying the opposite of what you think.
I misinterpreted your meaning. I too intend to be among the last holding onto my firearms and as of right now, I'm not a criminal.
If they can't convert an AR-15 to fire full-auto, how are they gonna make an entire M-16?
They won't be making them, they'll be buying them from underground gunsmiths.
That's like saying "Bill can't upgrade his Hard Drive, but she's about to build his own PC from the motherboard up."
More like, Bill can't upgrade his hard drive but he can buy a new computer.
They wanna restrict weapons like the AR-15 because they have been used in a lot of very bad shootings recently. But AFAIK nobody's even proposed an Australia-style buy-back.
Three to five is not a lot. Several have been proposed, but I do not believe that any have gotten out of legislative committees yet.
Not as easy as a Soviet weapon.
In any industrialized nation, like ours, the difference is negligible. Khyber pass manufacturing technology favors the AK, that's not much of an issue here.
The USSR designed everything to be easy to produce because their doctrine required large numbers of troops, and their economy couldn't support spending $1,000 on a rifle.
The US isn't spending $1,000 per rifle. At least not for the main battle rifle. Spec-ops types and sniper rifles notwithstanding.
As you've pointed out ammo is trivial if you can make firearms, so if criminals had any desire to set up their own illegal gun factories they already would have done so.
Why would they need to? Today, they just steal them. If it were suddenly impossible to steal them, they'd make them.
They could completely re-arm themselves in a matter of weeks if the cops started wearing some armor their old weapons couldn't penetrate.
If the goal is simply to take out cops in body armor, they'd just use hunting rifles.
LK
No, Rifles are devices that launch projectiles. Arguably, they're devices that use projectiles to transfer kinetic energy. Damage isn't a given or a guaranteed result.
LK
Are you saying that Joe Biden isn't smart?
He's a gun owner, you know?
LK
Funny how all those pro-gun people who trot out the "we need to defend ourselves agaisnt the government" revile Mcveigh rather than actually look up to him for doing exactly what they claim they need their guns for!
No, we revile him for parking his truck-bomb outside of a daycare. I understand his anger, it was righteous anger, he should have been more selective in his targeting. If he had killed only BATF agents or FBI HRT, I would have stood up and cheered.
LK
Painting guns pink would also have the added benefit of getting women more interested in gun ownership.
The idea that we need to make things pink and cutesy in order to appeal to females is incredibly sexist.
And unfortunately accurate.
LK
I've seen guns develop holster wear after just a couple of months of use.
Assume that you put it in the holster when you conceal the gun and remove it from the holster before you put it in a safe. That's maybe 60-90 in/out cycles. It doesn't take much.
LK
I'm not a murderer, but I have the equipment and skills necessary to produce bullets in my garage. Even being out of practice, as I am, I could crank out about 10 bullets per minute. 600 per hour from someone who hasn't operated a press in years. Someone who does this regularly could produce at twice the rate that I can.
Criminals will actually be the last people to hold on to these weapons.
Only if you engage in circular logic. Because anyone who refuses to give up their firearm would then be a criminal. There are millions of people who are otherwise law abiding who will never willingly disarm.
That's why none of the criminals involved in any massacre using an AR-15 bothered pushing out the one pin that stops it from firing full auto.
You have just outed yourself. There is no such pin. The AR-15 bolt carrier is different than the M-16 bolt carrier so that if one were to alter or remove the sear, it will still not fire full-auto. A more likely reason is because these gunmen haven't possessed the skills to convert their rifles to full auto.
If there was a buyback program, and the Feds got a warrant for the records of companies that sell these things; a lot of refuseniks would be tracked down.
And that^ is the real reason why they want to "close the gunshow loophole" because as of now, it's possible to legally purchase a firearm that the feds can't track down.
What you're talking about is government applied gun violence in search of an end to gun violence.
Why would they bother doing it with AR-15s or high-capacity clips?
Because AR-15s are easy for machinists to make. And standard capacity magazines are cheap and plentiful enough that no one needs to make them underground.
LK
Some laws are intended to not work just so politicians can get public support to pass even more oppressive laws.
LK
You do understand that laws don't work by magic, right?
It is a lot more complicated than that.
LK
Our rights aren't based upon the needs of the average person.
Does the average person own a printing press?
Does the average person need to worry about being railroaded by the police?
LK
What you seem to be missing is that most Americans don't *want* to change over.
We aren't a people who respond well to being dictated to.
We know that we could, but we don't perceive it as being worth the effort. Any effort.
It doesn't matter how it was done in Australia or France or India. The US isn't any of those places.
LK
The coin is a splendid idea, as long as the Fed covers it with bonds in a timely manner.
But he'll never use it. If he uses the trillion dollar coin, he won't be able to blame Republicans. They will be able to claim clean hands in the last trillion dollars of debt. Obama and the Democrats can never allow that. So, the President will use his lapdogs and attack dogs in the media to demonize the Republicans into agreeing to raise the debt ceiling so that they have to accept their share of the blame for the increase in the national debt.
LK
Historically this is uncontroversial and Congress does it as a matter of course.
You disregard that the current President called it a failure of leadership when the debt ceiling had to be raised under his predecessor.
It's just a matter of the opposition sticking it to him with his own principles.
LK
The USA wants you to succeed: it's not "punishing" you for making more money, it's taking some money to keep society running and ideally investing in the next generation.
When you pay a higher rate because you earned more money, it certainly is punishing you.
Have you ever worked on commission or gotten overtime? There are times when my gross was several hundred dollars higher but my net was $50 higher. That's what we're talking about.
LK
The problem since 1980, is that those with the most money have voted that they pay a lower share of taxes than their share of wealth.
Those people are a very small percent of the population. There aren't enough of them to vote in a candidate to lower their taxes.
LK
Romney had no concrete principles. We don't really know if he was better or worse than anyone else because his core was so protean.
I've been a Republican since I turned 18 and I didn't vote for Romney.
LK
Its Congresses job to work with the President at this point, not the other way around.
My congressman's job is to represent ME, MY district, MY interests. It's not his job to care about what the people of New York voted for. I don't live in New York. If I sent a Republican to Washington to oppose Obama, that's what he's supposed to do.
LK