Machine Gun Parts kits

There is until the vote is taken. d8-)

What do you think you're going to settle about ARs, anyway? Some people think they're just more of the same ol'. Others think they represent a qualitative change in the culture of civilian gun ownership.

If you wanted to pin it down to something technical, I'd say it's because they're the spawn of a new doctrine in military small arms: more lead downrange, more enemy casualties. Precise aimed fire seems to have gone the way of snipers and the dodo. The small caliber is chosen to minimize recoil, for the sake of maintaining high rates of fire, whether in semi-auto or burst-fire mode.

That doesn't relate to civilian uses of guns in any sensible way. Whether you accept the guns into the fold of civilian gun culture depends on whether you accept the concepts they represent.

That would depend on whether they'd even hear a case. In over 20 years, no state case has made it. A federal case (extremely unlikely) would depend on how the Circuit Court that heard the case decided. My guess is we will never see an AR-ban case granted cert by the Supreme Court.

We'll probably see a change or two during this administration, whether they leave before or after dementia sets in.

Arguing never changed anyone's mind about anything. In fact, it probably causes them to sling tighter to their opinions.

If you can sway someone's opinion, they probably didn't have a solid opinion for you to change in the first place.

I'm pretty sure voting never did either.

Wrong. There is speculation, but no argument. Saying how many people want to do sometihing is not an argument.

Dan

And, along that line, logic dictates...

I like seeing that because it takes it out of me. I love seeing some bad guy get what's coming to him. It's so unlike real life (amidst CONgresscritters (and Speaking Weasels and other libruls) where the bad guys are given more rights than the victims.

I just watched Atlas Shrugged and believe that Ayn Rand was absolutely right. We ARE headed down that very same punkass path.

Go for it, Dan. Whatever satisfies the definitions in your head is fine with me.

Yep. I posted the same thought a month or two back. The nay sayers jumped all over me for it. But that's exactly where we are heading.

Aviation hadn't developed all that far in Rand's day. Nothing like today.

I wonder if air travel could become so expensive (and cars too) that rail will end up the only viable transportation?

Try thinking.

Dan

Pffhhht. Why don't you try it yourself? Before the election, editorial pages were FULL of arguments about why one candidate or the other was going to win. One of my faves was an argumentative article two or three weeks before the election, by one of the righty publications, listing 5 or 10 reasons (I forget the number) why Nate Silver was so very, very wrong. d8-)

So you think that how many people favor something is an argument?

Try reading

No thanks, Dan. I don't need Wikipedia to know what an argument is, but thank you anyway.

In looking a little more at some of the machine gun parts kits, it looks like people buy them to build legal semi-auto rifles out of. So you can purchase a "machine gun parts kit" because you want to build a semi-auto and possibly be accused of intending to build a machine gun. Also I have read that they can consider a machine gun part as a machine gun. So on an AR, the lower receiver is considered the gun but on a machine gun, they can consider a part as a machine gun. If you legally own a machine gun, you can take a part off and they can claim you have 2 machine guns.

The stupidity of such is amazing, it would be like getting caught changing your tire and the officer ticketing you for not having a license and registration for the tire you just removed as if it was a second vehicle.

RogerN

Apparently you do.

Dan

You wanna' argue about it? d8-)

Apparently you do...

Not an argument.

Just an assertion.

Dan

'Really short of things to do today, eh, Dan? I wish you were here. You could do something useful and help me fix my dishwasher. d8-)

I've found that in discussions with Ed, he stops responding when backed into a corner. That's easier than admitting he might be wrong.

David

Mostly I stop when the argument is too ridiculous to respond to. Here's Dan arguing over whether we're having an argument. I'm speaking English, so I say yes we are. Dan is speaking Latin and talking philosophy, and he says no we're not.

I'll stick with English and the English-language dictionaries, and leave Dan to contemplate his declensions -- or his navel. It's not worth an argument. It's not even worth an assertion. d8-)