A thirteen year old kid is prevented from buying cigarettes, beer, porn, and a lottery ticket, but is able to legally buy a rifle from a guy at a gun show.
I always wonder why there aren’t a shit-ton more videos like this.
A good point on the “watch list” being a ban and how watch lists don’t really use any sort of due process or even logic at times.
TLDR: There is no Due Process at all, you can be on it for saying just about anything and once on it you have basically no recourse for clearing your name.
Obviously written by a pro-gun guy, but his points about lists transcend politics.
In case you think Cato can’t be trusted, the same thing from the other side:
It says at the bottom of the page you linked to that “According to Virginia State Police you have to be 18 to buy a rifle or shot gun, and 21 to buy a handgun.” So no, the kid bought a rifle, but not legally.
I Guess that’s part of the problem with having random dudes who aren’t licensed sellers, selling guns at a fleamarket.
Another 4 year old child accidentally shot and killed by himself or another child. Gun was “legitimate”.
I hate that the watch list even exists. I am perfectly fine with our agencies performing surveillance on anyone they are concerned about, getting warrants to track them… whatever they need, but to limit rights based on something that has no due process, is incredibly inaccurate to a notable degree and not have a proper process for someone get off it unless you’re a senator or make some huge media splash just shouldn’t be allowed.
IF there is evidence, take them to court, otherwise watch them closely and intercept if they pile their vehicle full of weaponry. Maybe we strip some of the tax cuts for the rich and beef up our agencies to perform more surveillance.
Absolutely do studies. There should never have been any roadblocks to data points, ever. Study it. And finally, the slipper slope fear is just a bad argument. We can certainly look at removing access to these kinds of high kill guns used for sport and enthusiast and leave handguns and hunting weaponry in-tact. This fear about the military being turned on the populace, millions with hand-guns and hunting weapons is still a risk if you’re not just going to destroy the cities anyway.
My wife cannot reliably rack a shotgun. She’s too weak. Also weak wrist strength for a pistol, and not that great a shot. She constantly gets fail to eject because its hard for her to control muzzle flip and recoil. Give her a semi-auto rifle and she’ll give the Punisher some competition. Some say just give her a phone, but she has a hard time chucking it at 3000fps.
So we’re supposed to have automatic weapons all over this country because your wife has weak wrists? Do you live in ISIS held territory? What is the point your post?
JP. One point. The guns are not automatic. They are semi-auto. One shot per trigger pull. Fully automatic weapons are still illegal. Of course that doesn’t deny your greater point.
Unless you get a federal license or (I think) have a grandfathered weapon.
They’re legal, they’re just not worth the effort. Funny how that works eh?
Don’t worry, every other gun owner in the country responsibly locks and secures their gun. This is like the ONLY gun that was easily accessible to kids.
AND. The requirements to be able to purchase are pretty insane.
The market is also static since no new weapons can ever enter it, they all have to be grandfathered in.
Why ARs make excellent home defense weapons. So what do you propose my wife use for home defense since you seem to have an idea of what you are talking about.
A semi-auto shotgun, perhaps? Often a smaller profile, no need to rack, better at close range, no worries about short stroking it, etc…
Was thinking that but have pretty long barrel lengths, and quite expensive. Ones with that have detachable mags cost even more (around $1000+) and prone to feed or eject problems.
Automatic weapons are consistently misunderstood and misrepresented. They have been heavily regulated since 1934 and as of 1986 no new ones are allowed into civilian circulation at all. They are basically never used in the commission of a crime, or in defense, or really at all outside of a military conflict.
The media gets it wrong all the time on them though. I was flipping around news channels over the weekend and some MSNBC douche Smerconish was saying the Orlando shooter used an automatic weapon. He used the term automatic and semi-automatic interchangeably. Idiot.
All that said, automatic weapons are not more lethal than semi-auto weapons. It’s very difficult to keep an automatic weapon on target and most of the time firing a select fire weapon on auto, or a fully automatic weapon, just means you are wasting ammo. Automatic weapons are great on a battlefield for suppression, that’s it. They are not more lethal than aimed semi-auto fire.
Yes semi-automatic weapons are plenty bad. There is no reason they shouldn’t be heavily regulated and hard to obtain if not outright illegal. Same goes for handguns.
Revolvers, shotguns, and bolt or lever action rifles are all anyone needs for hunting, personal defence, or home defence.
Not what you think, but extremely relevant if not outright required to have this discussion imo.