alamo5000
9 January 2016, 15:40
Recently just to humor myself I decided to watch the CNN town hall that Obama was at.
While there is a whole lot to complain about on a number of levels about Obama's long term assault on guns... banning particular types of ammo, endorsing 'assault weapons' bans, etc...
Near the beginning of the town hall Obama directly pointed out saying that 'short barreled rifles, silencers, and short barreled shotguns are the MOST DANGEROUS' of all weapons.
He seems very much like he's on the defensive about his overall plan and rightfully so. They are trying to spin it as a case about 'background checks' but to me it's far more than that.
Here is his exact quote:
"And we're also trying to close a loophole that has been developing over the last decade, where now, people are using cut-out trusts and shell corporations to purchase the most dangerous weapons -- sawed-off shotguns, automatic weapons, silencers -- and don't have to go through background checks at all."
The topic isn't about trusts... I would have never used a trust to buy anything if it wasn't such a hassle to do it any other way. I would have gladly gone to my FFL and got all the background check anyone wanted for silencers or whatever... if that was an option. But it's not.
The topic I am talking about is that we have people who are completely unaware of factual information about firearms trying to make up rules.
What makes a silencer 'the most dangerous weapon'? Nothing. Because it's not.
What makes a short barreled rifle 'the most dangerous weapon'? Nothing. Because it's not.
So how and why are they on his list? My theory is back in the day (1930s) they were trying to come up with a political solution to take down mobsters and bootleggers. They never caught Al Capone for any crime... they caught him for tax evasion.
Same thing applies to these 'most dangerous' weapons... they couldn't catch a mobster in the act of a crime, but if they caught them with a short barrel rifle or shotgun or silencer... they would have grounds to prosecute them for that. So if I was a cop and pulled over Lucky Luciano for not signaling a lane change and found a sawed off shotgun in the car I could take him to jail. They had known outright criminals that they were unable to catch and those rules were just part of the overall strategy they used. It really had nothing to do with the danger level of the actual weapon.
Fast forward to now and you can go to the sporting goods store and buy an AR pistol with a short barrel on it and walk out and you're just fine. It makes no sense to waste so much time and effort and not to mention money trying to enforce something so stupid.
Background check... ok fine. Whatever. I have been through more than my share. But my question is about the nature of the designation and how someone can so ignorantly think those are more dangerous weapons?
To me, cutting off the barrel of a rifle actually disables the rifle to some degree. The shorter the barrel the effective range is severely effected. But they are more concealable you say? Well what about that AR pistol with a short barrel? That can be put under a trench coat too. Silencers are also something that baffles me as to why anyone thinks they are 'dangerous'.
In both cases you have severely out dated laws on the books. At the same time the parts to create all of the above 'most dangerous' weapons are readily available and for cheap. You can go to AutoZone or Home Depot and get all the stuff you need if that was your intent. Get a $5 oil can or a cheap hacksaw blade and you're right there...
The main thing is these people up there are trying to make some deal about background checks but they are actually wasting time, effort, money, and resources of all types on a bunch of very outdated ideas and laws.
What about this Mr President... do as the NRA suggests and make background checks (and the system to conduct them) more effective... at the same time why not abandon a useless set of cumbersome laws that technology has already left it's wake.
Then, maybe, if they tried... they could actually focus on criminals.
While there is a whole lot to complain about on a number of levels about Obama's long term assault on guns... banning particular types of ammo, endorsing 'assault weapons' bans, etc...
Near the beginning of the town hall Obama directly pointed out saying that 'short barreled rifles, silencers, and short barreled shotguns are the MOST DANGEROUS' of all weapons.
He seems very much like he's on the defensive about his overall plan and rightfully so. They are trying to spin it as a case about 'background checks' but to me it's far more than that.
Here is his exact quote:
"And we're also trying to close a loophole that has been developing over the last decade, where now, people are using cut-out trusts and shell corporations to purchase the most dangerous weapons -- sawed-off shotguns, automatic weapons, silencers -- and don't have to go through background checks at all."
The topic isn't about trusts... I would have never used a trust to buy anything if it wasn't such a hassle to do it any other way. I would have gladly gone to my FFL and got all the background check anyone wanted for silencers or whatever... if that was an option. But it's not.
The topic I am talking about is that we have people who are completely unaware of factual information about firearms trying to make up rules.
What makes a silencer 'the most dangerous weapon'? Nothing. Because it's not.
What makes a short barreled rifle 'the most dangerous weapon'? Nothing. Because it's not.
So how and why are they on his list? My theory is back in the day (1930s) they were trying to come up with a political solution to take down mobsters and bootleggers. They never caught Al Capone for any crime... they caught him for tax evasion.
Same thing applies to these 'most dangerous' weapons... they couldn't catch a mobster in the act of a crime, but if they caught them with a short barrel rifle or shotgun or silencer... they would have grounds to prosecute them for that. So if I was a cop and pulled over Lucky Luciano for not signaling a lane change and found a sawed off shotgun in the car I could take him to jail. They had known outright criminals that they were unable to catch and those rules were just part of the overall strategy they used. It really had nothing to do with the danger level of the actual weapon.
Fast forward to now and you can go to the sporting goods store and buy an AR pistol with a short barrel on it and walk out and you're just fine. It makes no sense to waste so much time and effort and not to mention money trying to enforce something so stupid.
Background check... ok fine. Whatever. I have been through more than my share. But my question is about the nature of the designation and how someone can so ignorantly think those are more dangerous weapons?
To me, cutting off the barrel of a rifle actually disables the rifle to some degree. The shorter the barrel the effective range is severely effected. But they are more concealable you say? Well what about that AR pistol with a short barrel? That can be put under a trench coat too. Silencers are also something that baffles me as to why anyone thinks they are 'dangerous'.
In both cases you have severely out dated laws on the books. At the same time the parts to create all of the above 'most dangerous' weapons are readily available and for cheap. You can go to AutoZone or Home Depot and get all the stuff you need if that was your intent. Get a $5 oil can or a cheap hacksaw blade and you're right there...
The main thing is these people up there are trying to make some deal about background checks but they are actually wasting time, effort, money, and resources of all types on a bunch of very outdated ideas and laws.
What about this Mr President... do as the NRA suggests and make background checks (and the system to conduct them) more effective... at the same time why not abandon a useless set of cumbersome laws that technology has already left it's wake.
Then, maybe, if they tried... they could actually focus on criminals.