Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[dnno1]

just curious...how hard is it to make your own gun?

It would probably cost more to get the equipment than it would be to just buy one.

 

[Kable24]

just curious...how hard is it to make your own gun?

The first AR15 I built cost me around $800, not counting the price for tools I needed, such as the barrel wrench, vise and other odds and ends. Some people have made them for as low as $500.

 

[KalMart]

No, it's just a part and not a gun since it can't fire a round by itself.

Again, we're talking about a disassembled gun with all the parts present, not just one part with no others around. This is what we're referring to...

I and I am saying that you don't need hands on experience to tell that the safest way to inspect the barrel of a gun is when it's disassembled (i.e. when it's technically no longer a gun). Furthermore, I do know what I am doing since that's part of my job. Can't you tell?

As a whole, it is still a gun even though it's been disassembled. Laws that ban ownership of a gun will get you arrested if you have all those parts, even if it's not assembled, legally it's still technically a gun if all the parts are still in the same place. So that's why it's important to be specific about the language here. It technically can't fire if disassembled, sure...if you know the firing assembly is separated/chamber is empty, etc.

As for 'safest way', again, a disassembled barrel would be a safer way to manually inspect IF you didn't know if there was a round in the chamber or not...but not by a huge amount. But if an assembled rifle has its bolt locked open, and has been visually inspected not to have a chambered round (which just about any rifle can be), then it is equally safe as a separated barrel is. No round, locked open bolt...just as likely to fire a round as a lone barrel with no round or firing mechanism. If you know there's no cartridge, you can't fire one. And that open-bolt/visual inspection is what every soldier does when presenting a rifle for inspection.

 

[dnno1]

Again, we're talking about a disassembled gun with all the parts present, not just one part with no others around. This is what we're referring to...

Yes, we are talking about a disassembled gun. The individual parts can not fire a round by themselves so they can't be considered a firearm.

As a whole, it is still a gun even though it's been disassembled. Laws that ban ownership of a gun will get you arrested if you have all those parts, even if it's not assembled, legally it's still technically a gun if all the parts are still in the same place. So that's why it's important to be specific about the language here. It technically can't fire if disassembled, sure...if you know the firing assembly is separated/chamber is empty, etc.

As for 'safest way', again, a disassembled barrel would be a safer way to manually inspect IF you didn't know if there was a round in the chamber or not...but not by a huge amount. But if an assembled rifle has its bolt locked open, and has been visually inspected not to have a chambered round (which just about any rifle can be), then it is equally safe as a separated barrel is. No round, locked open bolt...just as likely to fire a round as a lone barrel with no round or firing mechanism. If you know there's no cartridge, you can't fire one. And that open-bolt/visual inspection is what every soldier does when presenting a rifle for inspection.

Even if they are all sitting on a table together, if they are not assembled in the right way they can't fire a round. You have to add a number of parts together to do that. Your discussion of them as a whole all hinges on if they are assembled properly or not, which goes beyond what I have said. Remember, I stated that the safest way to inspect a gun is when it is disassembled and that the individual parts themselves are not firearms if they air not capable of firing a round. The parts just lying on the table does not give them the capability of doing that so they can not be considered a firearm.

 

[KalMart]

Yes, we are talking about a disassembled gun. The individual parts can not fire a round by themselves so they can't be considered a firearm.

Legally they are, if still all in the same place where they can be reassembled. Can't be fired at that very moment, no, but still qualifies as an existing firearm. And in a lot of cases...even if you're missing a magazine, or a few screws to a buttplate, or even a rear site, it's still legally considered a complete firearm assembled or not.

Just as if you left all the parts to a car in a space that says no parking of cars...you'd still get a ticket because it'd still be considered a car even though you can't drive it. Technically, it's still a car....even if you remove the gas cap of even an entire wheel.

Just a single wheel with nothing else around, obviously not....but you still may get a ticket.

Even if they are all sitting on a table together, if they are not assembled in the right way they can't fire a round. You have to add a number of parts together to do that. Your discussion of them as a whole all hinges on if they are assembled properly or not, which goes beyond what I have said. Remember, I stated that the safest way to inspect a gun is when it is disassembled and that the individual parts themselves are not firearms if they air not capable of firing a round. The parts just lying on the table does not give them the capability of doing that so they can not be considered a firearm.

But again, that's not necessarily true and hinges upon unknown variables. An assembled gun, whose chamber has been inspected to be empty and bolt is locked back is just as safe...i.e. it too is incapable of firing a round since none is present. So the setting and circumstances have to be considered instead of just making a blanket assumption. IF it's a case where no-one has confirmed that there is a round in chamber or not, then yes a barrel separated from the rest of the parts is safer to look down than on an assembled one. BUT.....if the rifle is presented in military-style inspection, then the chamber has been checked to be clear before the rifle has been handed off, so it is just as safe to look down as a disassembled barrel...and in fact, part of the military inspection indeed looks down the muzzle of the rifle. So it depends.

And again, if in parts it's not considered fireable, but it is still considered a gun that's disassembled....because it's not anything else. It's clear that what you mean is the former.

 

[dnno1]

Legally they are, if still all in the same place where they can be reassembled. Can't be fired at that very moment, no, but still qualifies as an existing firearm. And in a lot of cases...even if you're missing a magazine, or a few screws to a buttplate, or even a rear site, it's still legally considered a complete firearm assembled or not.

Just as if you left all the parts to a car in a space that says no parking of cars...you'd still get a ticket because it'd still be considered a car even though you can't drive it. Technically, it's still a car....even if you remove the gas cap of even an entire wheel.

Just a single wheel with nothing else around, obviously not....but you still may get a ticket.

Okay, I see you smiling. This will be my last two comments on this matter and I will stop. The parts themselves technically, and functionally are not firearms because they do not meet the requirement of being capable of discharging a round. Your allegory of the car is off because you get a ticket for parking a vehicle in a no parking zone (a vehicle being a device which can propel, move, or trans port a person or property). Just leaving junk in a no parking zone is littering.

But again, that's not necessarily true and hinges upon unknown variables. An assembled gun, whose chamber has been inspected to be empty and bolt is locked back is just as safe...i.e. it too is incapable of firing a round since none is present. So the setting and circumstances have to be considered instead of just making a blanket assumption. IF it's a case where no-one has confirmed that there is a round in chamber or not, then yes a barrel separated from the rest of the parts is safer to look down than on an assembled one. BUT.....if the rifle is presented in military-style inspection, then the chamber has been checked to be clear before the rifle has been handed off, so it is just as safe to look down as a disassembled barrel...and in fact, part of the military inspection indeed looks down the muzzle of the rifle. So it depends.

And again, if in parts it's not considered fireable, but it is still considered a gun that's disassembled....because it's not anything else. It's clear that what you mean is the former.

My premis stems from the fact that we as civilians have been trained to assume that a gun is loaded (even if it isn't) and to never look into or point a gun at anyone (even yourself). Thus we shouldn't be inspecting guns like the military does. The parts of a firearm are not considered as such in themselves because the don't meet the definition and requirement of a gun or a firearm -- i.e. being capable of discharging a shot/round. the barrel of a gun in it self is not a true firearm for that reason. It may be a firearm part, but not functionally a firearm. It can't become one until other key parts are assembled to it. If no assembly is done, then it is safe to inspect without fear of a discharge (because it can't).

 

[Bill]

M1 Garand Upper Receiver
(view looking aft)

I'm still not convinced that you can't.

What part of that picture gives you the idea that you can look down the bore of the barrel from the breech to the muzzle?

I suppose nothing will convince you. If people who have actually handled the rifle can't convince you, then you need to hold one yourself. Like I said, I think ego is standing in the way, not evidence.

 

[KalMart]

Okay, I see you smiling. This will be my last two comments on this matter and I will stop. The parts themselves technically, and functionally are not firearms because they do not meet the requirement of being capable of discharging a round. Your allegory of the car is off because you get a ticket for parking a vehicle in a no parking zone (a vehicle being a device which can propel, move, or trans port a person or property). Just leaving junk in a no parking zone is littering.

But you're not leaving junk, you're leaving a disassembled car.

Again, in regions where unregistered/unlicensed gun ownership is illegal having al the parts to a gun but disassembled technically counts as a gun and will get you arrested. This isn't opinion, as you keep assuming...it's fact.

It is still technically a gun, even though it can't fire.

My premis stems from the fact that we as civilians have been trained to assume that a gun is loaded (even if it isn't) and to never look into or point a gun at anyone (even yourself).

Which is a good safety measure, as it is not to accept rides from strangers. But if you are trained to know that the gun is undoubtedly unloaded, or yo know the driver, then you can. But you must know that.

Thus we shouldn't be inspecting guns like the military does.

Unless we know how. Then you can. Of course you shouldn't carelessly look down a barrel of an unchecked gun...but you really shouldn't do that with a disassembled barrel either. If the barrel and chamber are together like on a shotgun, there could still be a round in there as well even if the barrel is disconnected. You have to check wither way.

The parts of a firearm are not considered as such in themselves because the don't meet the definition and requirement of a gun or a firearm -- i.e. being capable of discharging a shot/round. the barrel of a gun in it self is not a true firearm for that reason. It may be a firearm part, but not functionally a firearm. It can't become one until other key parts are assembled to it. If no assembly is done, then it is safe to inspect without fear of a discharge (because it can't).

You see what I wrote above...and in every other post? That means it isn't capable of firing. That's what you mean. But it is still, as an object, again, just disassembled. If you're only referring to one single part by itself, yes it's only a barrel or what have you, but that's not what you said. You probably meant it, but misspoke.

But really, a gun inspected militarily is no more dangerous than a disassembled barrel with no chambered round...since neither has a bullet in it. So if you have an issue with a picture of someone looking down the barrel of an assembled gun, you need to consider the circumstances before you pass judgment. More importantly...and this applies to about every one of your posts anywhere...you need to be better informed before making claims that you know about something.

 

[KalMart]

Enough. On to the real discussion at hand.

I seriously doubt that any new gun laws would include disarming the police. I also feel that it's not quite sensible to include all deaths by police shooting as a crime statistic or something to gauge gun-deaths. Can't just go by the numbers, they need to break down which were legally owned, which weren't, and the circumstances, etc....and look at which categories gun laws would be effecting most.

 

[Bill]

But you're not leaving junk, you're leaving a disassembled car.

Again, in regions where unregistered/unlicensed gun ownership is illegal having al the parts to a gun but disassembled technically counts as a gun and will get you arrested. This isn't opinion, as you keep assuming...it's fact.

It is still technically a gun, even though it can't fire.

According to the ATF, a stripped AR15 lower is a firearm, even though it can't fire.

 

[Bill]

Enough. On to the real discussion at hand.

I seriously doubt that any new gun laws would include disarming the police. I also feel that it's not quite sensible to include all deaths by police shooting as a crime statistic or something to gauge gun-deaths. Can't just go by the numbers, they need to break down which were legally owned, which weren't, and the circumstances, etc....and look at which categories gun laws would be effecting most.

I feel the same about suicides since those who are suicidal will find some other way to kill themselves.

 

[KalMart]

edit

 

[dnno1]

But you're not leaving junk, you're leaving a disassembled car.

Again, in regions where unregistered/unlicensed gun ownership is illegal having al the parts to a gun but disassembled technically counts as a gun and will get you arrested. This isn't opinion, as you keep assuming...it's fact.

It is still technically a gun, even though it can't fire.

If you check those laws they will say "firearms parts". I used the word junk but it's the same thing. If you leave the car parts its not illegal parking, but littering. You certainly can't move off with the parts disassembled so it's not a vehicle.

Motorcycle made from Car Parts

Now, on a side note (and just for laughs), there was a story about a French man who was stranded in the desert in Africa who took the parts from his Citroen car and used the parts to make a motorcycle. I guess this kind of proves that even though the parts are disassembled, it doesn't mean that they necessarily mean that it's will be a car that is put back together.

... But really, a gun inspected militarily is no more dangerous than a disassembled barrel with no chambered round...since neither has a bullet in it. So if you have an issue with a picture of someone looking down the barrel of an assembled gun, you need to consider the circumstances before you pass judgment. More importantly...and this applies to about every one of your posts anywhere...you need to be better informed before making claims that you know about something.

That might be true, but, like I said before, for safety reasons civilians are being taught never to do that. That's why I said that it was ironic that a civilian President would be pointing a rifle at his face.

 

[Bill]

That might be true, but, like I said before, for safety reasons civilians are being taught never to do that. That's why I said that it was ironic that a civilian President would be pointing a rifle at his face.

Not so ironic considering Truman left the military as a Colonel and would have performed such inspections in just that fashion. Interesting thing, context.

 

[dnno1]

Not so ironic considering Truman left the military as a Colonel and would have performed such inspections in just that fashion. Interesting thing, context.

But, he was a civilian in that picture.

 

[Bill]

But, he was a civilian in that picture.

With military experience, including experience with that rifle, including experience on how to perform that inspection, including experience on how to check the bore without shooting himself in the face. I'd say his military experience, 37 years worth, ought to get him a break from some random guy who's never served and doesn't know much about the rifle in question or firearms in general than what he's read on the internet, and can still manage to misconstrue that.

 

[KalMart]

Motorcycle made from Car Parts

Pretty symbolic. Cheers.

With military experience, including experience with that rifle, including experience on how to perform that inspection, including experience on how to check the bore without shooting himself in the face. I'd say his military experience, 37 years worth, ought to get him a break from some random guy who's never served and doesn't know much about the rifle in question or firearms in general than what he's read on the internet, and can still manage to misconstrue that.

Don't bother.

 

[KalMart]

I feel the same about suicides since those who are suicidal will find some other way to kill themselves.

And then you take something like the Sandy Hook shooting, which was a legally owned (but taken from him mother) firearm that killed 20 people but was only one incident, whereas a criminal could have used an illegal gun in eight gun robberies and killed one person over that span. Lots of variables.

 

[dnno1]

With military experience, including experience with that rifle, including experience on how to perform that inspection, including experience on how to check the bore without shooting himself in the face. I'd say his military experience, 37 years worth, ought to get him a break from some random guy who's never served and doesn't know much about the rifle in question or firearms in general than what he's read on the internet, and can still manage to misconstrue that.

That wasn't the first time Truman put himself in an awkward position with a firearm.

 

[Hotwire]

That wasn't the first time Truman put himself in an awkward position with a firearm.

Just stop. He's not in the line of fire.

 

[Kable24]

You can obviously tell he's off to the side of the barrel. Just ignore dnno1. He's showing more and more that he's trolling and everyone is feeding into it.

 

[Kable24]

Some FBI stats just came out...

There have been 65,376,373 background checks completed for Americans purchasing firearms since February of 2009, the first full month of Barack Obama's presidency.
According to data compiled by the FBI, the number of Americans purchasing guns has skyrocketed since Obama was elected.
In 2009, there were 13,984,953 background checks for Americans buying firearms. If we subtract the 1,212,860 checks completed in the month of January, the total checks for the year under Obama were 12,772,090.
For 2010, background checks totaled 14,320,489. In 2011, checks were 16,336,732, and in 2012, 19,463,832. Background checks for the month of January 2013 were 2,483,230.
This totals 65,376,373 background checks completed since President Obama's first full month in office, or 44,748 background checks per day!
By comparison, the number of background checks in Obama's first term is 91.1% higher than President George W. Bush's first-term total of 34,214,066.

 

[Hotwire]

Some FBI stats just came out...

There have been 65,376,373 background checks completed for Americans purchasing firearms since February of 2009, the first full month of Barack Obama's presidency.
According to data compiled by the FBI, the number of Americans purchasing guns has skyrocketed since Obama was elected.
In 2009, there were 13,984,953 background checks for Americans buying firearms. If we subtract the 1,212,860 checks completed in the month of January, the total checks for the year under Obama were 12,772,090.
For 2010, background checks totaled 14,320,489. In 2011, checks were 16,336,732, and in 2012, 19,463,832. Background checks for the month of January 2013 were 2,483,230.
This totals 65,376,373 background checks completed since President Obama's first full month in office, or 44,748 background checks per day!
By comparison, the number of background checks in Obama's first term is 91.1% higher than President George W. Bush's first-term total of 34,214,066.

People really think he's going to try and take their guns, don't they?

 

[KalMart]

Background checks also can't reliably predict crimes or thefts with crimes committed with said checked ownership. A big reason why for some the only answer is to remove or drastically limit the common denominator.

 

[Kable24]

People really think he's going to try and take their guns, don't they?

I'm sure there are a few. To a point, I think the current administration and their mindless followers would like to take away my guns and the guns of others, but it's a futile attempt.
He really is becoming the greatest gun salesman ever.