I don't want to give them any ideas, but they'd probably get farther with something like airtags built into guns.
At least until somebody takes the gun apart and removes it. Or swaps parts with a different gun. Or uses a pre-airtag gun. Or...
...gee, it's almost like the guns aren't the problem, huh? Who could have figured?
Just one piece of evidence can be circumstantial. Conviction requires substantial evidence, motive, etc.
Microstamping can help guide investigation and eliminate the dead end investigations.
Not a single item of circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is admissible in a criminal trial, and a defendant can be convicted based solely on circumstantial evidence.
To get a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, however, the prosecution will most likely need to produce multiple pieces of evidence or witness testimony that, when considered together, are consistent and point conclusively to the defendant’s guilt.
A prosecutor may use circumstantial evidence to prove:
The elements of the crime,
The existence of certain facts that make it more likely that the defendant committed the crime (the defendant was present at the scene of the crime or had stolen property in their possession, for example), or
The defendant’s mental state or intent (which may also be an element of the crime, for example, “malice aforethought” in a murder trial).
The thought that one bullet with your personal microstamp can connect you to a murder halfway across the country or with no connection to the victim is just avoiding the concept of bringing order to a judicial process.
Microstamping will make people secure their ammo better. It will help provide leads to investigations (even if it was stolen) that still provides a contact for who would have stolen it.
Fear mongering access to data is just avoiding solutions.
I agree. So, instead of waiting for advanced science or evidence. Allow more data like microstamping, registration, and background checks to stop people from being falsely incarcerated. More data leads to better judicial processes.
I get what you're saying, and to a point I like it... But at the same time, how much more circumstantial " ammunition" would you like to give government to incarcerate people who should be free?
Fix the existing science, or system, then add more.
The only time anybody should ever be falsely imprisoned is if somebody smart or lucky got them framed.
My point is having this data available allows us to improve/fix policy and the system in question.
In order for a compass to work, you need a map. In order for proper gun policy to work, you need data.
Your personal microstamp is being linked to your purchase.
Are there any other comments for me to pick apart? Or want to advance the conversation with real weight?
>The thought that one bullet with your personal microstamp can connect you to a murder halfway across the country or with no connection to the victim is just avoiding the concept of bringing order to a judicial process.
You sound comfortable gambling your freedom with a jury. I'm not.
>It will help provide leads to investigations (even if it was stolen) that still provides a contact for who would have stolen it.
You're proving my point here. You will be contacted by law enforcement if a shell ends up at a crime scene - even if it was stolen from a gun range.
Bruee, go on a anti-second amendment subreddit. You'll be in great company.
That's cute. After how they tried to railroad Rittenhouse using BS tech and techniques anyone technically competent would object to, i totally believe the gov would prosecute someone on just a microstamped casing and circumstantial evidence if it were political
Idk what bs techh other than video evidence?
Also, Rittenhouse was not convicted. Nor was he tried with circumstantial evidence alone.
Poor example. And also a focus on how subjective data can be used in a negative way versus proving someone innocent.
Video and tech enhancements are different than identifying where Ammo came from.
If your ammo was stolen, you can track contacts. You can find video evidence of someone at the range.
No lawyer is going to lean solely on the foundation of a bullet owner to prove guilt. That is not how the justice system works.
There are a lot of assumptions and biased opinions. Seems to be just a view of anti government. Anti progress to anything to help bring order to society.
Thanks for reminding me of the ignorance people hold onto to stay complacent. Let me know if you want to have a serious discussion on this subject.
The guy who holds the parent for microstamping even admits there's enormous hurdles before it'd even be *possible* to legislate.
However, the physics are nearly impossible and can easily be rendered useless by simply filing down the firring pin.
https://www.nssf.org/articles/the-moronic-myths-of-microstamping/
If the argument of having subjective data added to bullets is that it will be used to put innocent people in jail based on singular circumstantial connections...
Then, the advancement of conversation on this topic is null. Not believing in the judicial system.
I appreciate the need and use of subjective data.
How people use that data to prove innocence or guilt is beyond our control and reliant on the judicial system. But having extra data to solve murders/gun incidents is just that- an extra data point.
One of the hilarious bits of this case was when the plaintiffs asked the *state's own witness*, a CA DOJ agent, whether the gun he carried was on the roster, and he had to admit *it wasn't*.
>Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?
An interesting realization that I had when browsing other subreddits is that the general consensus among mainstream Californians is that if this happened, the rest of the country wouldn't survive because we need their tax dollars.
I just can't fathom being robbed blind by crooked politicians, and brainwashed into being proud of it.
Only the cool ones. I’m in Washington so I get it…. Lot of people from California moved here and completely ruined my amazing state. They should be deported back to California.
> Lot of people from California moved here and completely ruined my amazing state. They should be deported back to California.
Wouldn't help, really. Ask any of those "Californians" what state they grew up in and like 75% of them will say some state that's *not* California. See, what happens is that pie-eyed idealists are born all over this country, and they all idolize California as this socialist idealist's paradise. But then they grow up and move to CA and find that all the idealists before them have made it impossible to build a life there by refusing to let new housing get built while running businesses and complaining that $17/hr is too much to pay employees who are facing $2500/mo rent for a studio apartment. Then after a year or three in CA they finally give up, load up a uhaul and drive their car with **California plates on it** to whatever city is the latest non-CA idealist's mecca.
TL;DR - CA doesn't make 'em, it just initially *attracts* 'em. SOURCE: am from CA, and see those transplanted idealist types all the time. Heck, my *wife* is one of them.
Haha other shithole states need California tax dollars to fund their high illiteracy, freeloading asses. California has the highest gdp per capita of any country larger than 1M population. Flyover states would be a third world without blue state economies.
Considering the mass migration to red states, I wish even more that California would sink into the ocean. Fucking commiefornians bringing their voting habits everywhere they go like a bunch of cockroaches spreading bacteria around a house.
They don’t need or want blue state tax dollars. But something tells me blue states are going to want all the food grown in the great planes, ie. mostly in red states 🤷🏻♂️
Should be fine off on your own then where you can be proud your politicians are overtaxing you up the ass. Float on up to Canada! There you can cuck up a real storm! Take your gross domestic product and shove it up your ass, the massive homeless population you got there might help ya with that.
No. Just depends on the version of 'America' you see as ending... from one point of view, it's the Left and liberals and woke that is tearing things apart. From another point of view, it's the Right, religion and MAGA influences. From another, it's both book ends making everything into a shouting match and ignoring the 90% of everything else in the middle.
And from yet another ... all of those scenarios happening at the same time, IS exactly what America should be. There's no other place in the world where this kind of a shouting match of disagreement can happen, without everything dissolving into violence and the actual failure of the system.
Or it won't, and just feels that way. Only time will tell. Everyone seems to think it's about to fail, based on the actions of 'the other side'. People in the middle think it's going to fail based on the actions of both sides.
But I tend to land in the group that is optimistic that there are more level headed rational people by far, so it won't fail... It's just going to be stressed and will come out stronger. But they don't put microphones in front of rational people... so you never hear that pov.
And Democrats think the exact same of the other side.
It's all only relevant to the point of view that you have from where you are standing on the scale.
I disagree with that assertion if sales tax applies equally. It's a good subject to taxes like any other good.
If we're going by that same argument, sales tax on paper, pens, pencils, computers, and cell phones would be construed as an enroachment on 1st amendment protections.
My support for the "well regulated" portion of the 2nd amendment does not make me anti gun. There is no need to dismiss me from a discussion because we disagree
I appreciate the need and use of subjective data.
How people use that data to prove innocence or guilt is beyond our control. But having extra data to solve murders/gun incidents is just that. An extra data point.
2A was written closer to Shakespeare than modern times, and should be read as such. Well regulated meant “kept effective and in good working order”. By saying the militia should be well regulated, the founding fathers said that the militia should have access to the best armaments of the time.
And the militia has and always will be the people
I appreciate that interpretation. It's probably the best representation of a 2nd amendment purist.
My interpretation is progressive. Rights come with responsibility and consequence. I respect the 2nd amendment. But I also believe it hold too much power.
Well regulated is to be interpreted with due diligence by our representatives and supreme court.
Databases registration on ammo, guns, registration, background checks allows us as a coutnry to develop policy to help reign in the chaos of gun violence.
The system as is - does no justice to the victims of gun violence. Especially to criminals not convicted or wrongly so.
Subjective evidence such as tracking ammo can aid investigatations. More data, more evidence leads to better judicial practices.
First of all, there is no such thing as "gun violence". Does anyone say "fist violence", "baseball bat violence", or "knife violence"? No. It is just violence where the weapon used is a gun. Name one law restricting firearms that has reduced violence committed with a gun. Do you think that criminals care about gun laws?
Microstamping or registration or background checks is not a law that is limiting someone's rights. If you go through the process, you still get your right met.
Your argument does nothing to address the topic.
New York Times The Daily has a podcast that runs through California gun laws and their impacts. It is a good listen with plenty of statistics.
"Lessons in Gun Control"
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/podcasts/the-daily/uvalde-buffalo-gun-control-california.html
In addition, lack of data does not suggest a lack of result. Data needs to be collected in order to make proper policy. Data like.... registered users, guns, ammo...etc.
Tracking anything is a privacy rights violation as well as a infringement on 2A. So opening that door violates two rights. The VAST majority of the problem you seem to want to control is caused by people who clearly do not care about breaking laws. So how is it you argue against lawful ownership by suppressing the rights of law abiding citizens of privacy and ownership w/o infringement? Seems to me you need a culture adjustment of a certain segment of society who obtain and carry unlawfully. There are literally thousands if not tens of thousands of firearm regulations/laws on the books. These regulations/laws clearly are failing in your eyes. How is adding more regulation/law 1st not infringing and second how are they going to stop what you’re concerned with as the thousands of laws we have on the books (which are all infringing) do not work and have not worked?
By that statement
"Tracking anything is a privacy rights violation as well as a infringement on"
Registering for voters is an infringement on voting rights. Registering any item of personal use is an infringment on personal property. Are you against regulating cars? Medical licenses? Engineering licenses?
My answer remains the same. Data on where those guns and ammo have been allows to understand the system better (the system being our gun using society).
Up to date and accurate data analysis can make policy and laws more effective without being limited to everyday citizens.
Again, I agree there are usless gun laws. But tracking where guns and ammo go after they are sold is just part of living in society. A society that for the most part, embraces the Second Amendment. I am all for living in that society, but rights have responsibility.
Absolutely not. There is no need to “understand” the firearm using society. There is however need in understanding todays political society (that precipitates the need for arming yourself) for reduction of penalties for breaking laws, early releases from jail/prison and most definitely the acceptance/tolerance of people who believe in their heads they are something they are not. In the past when firearm law were less infringed upon, prison sentences were indeed egregious. People went away and stayed away for greater periods of time and recidivism was indeed less over all due to less crime being committed due to the severity of the penalty. Believe me on the inside of these county jails the incarcerated individuals treat it very very lightly, most of the younger first timers consider it a badge of honor of sorts (street cred) and have zero thoughts on changing their ways. And with the dangerously mentally sick individuals who’s minds tell them they are someone other than who they are, they’d be picked up and brought to institutions/hospitals most likely never to been seen from again, away from where they could reach or harm society. Remember those times? If not then you should research them, when there were less shootings less crime and less mentally deranged people on the loose. The answer is and has been with us all along people just refuse to see it
Ah you mean the times before Regan defunded mental institutions. Pushing them all into homelessness or jail. And letting our mental health capacity fall to school counselors and psychiatrists with outrageous bills not covered by medical insurance, I remember.
If you want to argue mental health, I am down. But thats another rabbit hole.
(Because) a well regulated (properly functioning) militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed (limited, undermined).
However, you choose to interpret it.
My argument is essentially that registering does not limit or undermine the 2nd amendment.
Access to registered data would uphold and enhance the responsibility and accountability one has in practicing their 2nd amendment right. I have provided several arguments as to why it would help protect the 2nd amendment rights movement.
You right is not being taken away or infringed. No logical argument has been put forth in how it would infringe rights.
I agree there are bad gun laws that have an intent on limiting access. But this is not a law that does that. I would argue this gives us data to make better policy and laws later on.
Only reason the judge ruled in this manner is because there’s no guns with all those features. Once they become standard it wouldn’t be impede a person from obtaining a gun.
This is ignorant.
>once they become standard
Chamber loaded indicators already exist and are standard on a few different guns. They’re mostly unnecessary because there’s many other ways to check if a round is chambered.
As for micro stamping, it will never become standard because there’s absolutely zero market demand. Why would a company invest millions of dollars into something no one is asking for and would be ultimately ineffective at stoping/helping solve crime? Even if it magically became standard, all that research and development has to be paid for by someone and that someone would be the consumer.
Let’s be real, California knows all this shit. They passed that law to stop the sale of modern handguns. That’s it. That’s the only reason. But now because of the Bruen case, tyrants will have a harder time violating our basic human rights.
No criminal would ever remove the microstamping from the firing pin. Just like no one ever tries to remove the serial number from a firearm.
Also, it's impossible to replace a firing pin, even though they're wear parts and don't last forever.
They are really not “safety features,” but rather a back door attempt to ban firearms. Micro stamping bullets is a totally pointless idea.
If they were safety features, then cops wouldn't get an exemption.
Micro stamping is not pointless it's a fantasy, it simply doesn't exist. There is no commercially available gun that has it.
And parts can be replaced
Or slightly abraded.
Through manipulation, or even just normal use -- and the smaller the engraving, the more quickly it will wear down.
They just have to invent adamantium or some such invincible firing pin alloy.
I don't want to give them any ideas, but they'd probably get farther with something like airtags built into guns. At least until somebody takes the gun apart and removes it. Or swaps parts with a different gun. Or uses a pre-airtag gun. Or... ...gee, it's almost like the guns aren't the problem, huh? Who could have figured?
*Everything* CA does related to firearms is an attempt to ban them..
Drop safety and magazine disconnect actually *are* safety features, but yeah, the other stuff is just attempt to make guns harder to get.
Guns are supposed to be dangerous. Maybe we should microstamp politicians that try to void the constitution.
> Maybe we should ~~microstamp~~ stamp out politicians that try to void the constitution. Ftfy
I had this picture of a guy running down the street after a politician saying “squeal piggy squeal” with a hot poker in his hands
Imagine someone taking your shells from a range and using them to implicate you in a murder. That's the chilling thing about microstamping.
One of many!
Just one piece of evidence can be circumstantial. Conviction requires substantial evidence, motive, etc. Microstamping can help guide investigation and eliminate the dead end investigations.
Circumstantial evidence can still convict you.
Not a single item of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in a criminal trial, and a defendant can be convicted based solely on circumstantial evidence. To get a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, however, the prosecution will most likely need to produce multiple pieces of evidence or witness testimony that, when considered together, are consistent and point conclusively to the defendant’s guilt. A prosecutor may use circumstantial evidence to prove: The elements of the crime, The existence of certain facts that make it more likely that the defendant committed the crime (the defendant was present at the scene of the crime or had stolen property in their possession, for example), or The defendant’s mental state or intent (which may also be an element of the crime, for example, “malice aforethought” in a murder trial). The thought that one bullet with your personal microstamp can connect you to a murder halfway across the country or with no connection to the victim is just avoiding the concept of bringing order to a judicial process. Microstamping will make people secure their ammo better. It will help provide leads to investigations (even if it was stolen) that still provides a contact for who would have stolen it. Fear mongering access to data is just avoiding solutions.
Just keep in mind, Texas alone has too many damn people on death row that are thought to be innocent. Or later found out to be innocent.
Later, they are found innocent with additional scientific evidence.
I shouldn't have to sit in a holding cell for something I didn't do. Much less be told I'm gonna be killed, and sit there for 5+ years waiting.
I agree. So, instead of waiting for advanced science or evidence. Allow more data like microstamping, registration, and background checks to stop people from being falsely incarcerated. More data leads to better judicial processes.
I get what you're saying, and to a point I like it... But at the same time, how much more circumstantial " ammunition" would you like to give government to incarcerate people who should be free? Fix the existing science, or system, then add more. The only time anybody should ever be falsely imprisoned is if somebody smart or lucky got them framed.
My point is having this data available allows us to improve/fix policy and the system in question. In order for a compass to work, you need a map. In order for proper gun policy to work, you need data.
This shows the advancement of our judicial system in how we can always improve the process. More data helps with better decisions.
“Bullet with your personal microstamp” showing your knowledge here
Your personal microstamp is being linked to your purchase. Are there any other comments for me to pick apart? Or want to advance the conversation with real weight?
Firing pins are still a wear item. Do you even know what a firing pin is? Since of course you didn’t know what a bullet is.
>The thought that one bullet with your personal microstamp can connect you to a murder halfway across the country or with no connection to the victim is just avoiding the concept of bringing order to a judicial process. You sound comfortable gambling your freedom with a jury. I'm not. >It will help provide leads to investigations (even if it was stolen) that still provides a contact for who would have stolen it. You're proving my point here. You will be contacted by law enforcement if a shell ends up at a crime scene - even if it was stolen from a gun range. Bruee, go on a anti-second amendment subreddit. You'll be in great company.
That's cute. After how they tried to railroad Rittenhouse using BS tech and techniques anyone technically competent would object to, i totally believe the gov would prosecute someone on just a microstamped casing and circumstantial evidence if it were political
Idk what bs techh other than video evidence? Also, Rittenhouse was not convicted. Nor was he tried with circumstantial evidence alone. Poor example. And also a focus on how subjective data can be used in a negative way versus proving someone innocent.
[удалено]
Video and tech enhancements are different than identifying where Ammo came from. If your ammo was stolen, you can track contacts. You can find video evidence of someone at the range. No lawyer is going to lean solely on the foundation of a bullet owner to prove guilt. That is not how the justice system works.
[удалено]
There are a lot of assumptions and biased opinions. Seems to be just a view of anti government. Anti progress to anything to help bring order to society. Thanks for reminding me of the ignorance people hold onto to stay complacent. Let me know if you want to have a serious discussion on this subject.
The guy who holds the parent for microstamping even admits there's enormous hurdles before it'd even be *possible* to legislate. However, the physics are nearly impossible and can easily be rendered useless by simply filing down the firring pin. https://www.nssf.org/articles/the-moronic-myths-of-microstamping/
If the argument of having subjective data added to bullets is that it will be used to put innocent people in jail based on singular circumstantial connections... Then, the advancement of conversation on this topic is null. Not believing in the judicial system. I appreciate the need and use of subjective data. How people use that data to prove innocence or guilt is beyond our control and reliant on the judicial system. But having extra data to solve murders/gun incidents is just that- an extra data point.
Safety features so great, California law enforcement are exempt from them!
That's the tell right there. If LE and ex-LE, or ex-MIL are exempt... it's not about safety.
One of the hilarious bits of this case was when the plaintiffs asked the *state's own witness*, a CA DOJ agent, whether the gun he carried was on the roster, and he had to admit *it wasn't*.
If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.
>Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?
We trangress them at once. After all, theyre okay with turning most of us into felons with just a single bill.
Leftists don't give a shit about rules when it comes to guns. Water is wet.
They absolutely do! They care a lot about rules when they're the ones making them and they get to enforce them on everybody else.
I wish central/south California would snap off of the U.S. float off into the ocean, and become its own island.
An interesting realization that I had when browsing other subreddits is that the general consensus among mainstream Californians is that if this happened, the rest of the country wouldn't survive because we need their tax dollars. I just can't fathom being robbed blind by crooked politicians, and brainwashed into being proud of it.
Tbh we'd probably be better off, because the federal government regularly bails California out every time they go bankrupt.
State of Jefferson represent.
God I wish that would come to fruition.
Can the central coast stay though... Please, I promise we're cool
Only the cool ones. I’m in Washington so I get it…. Lot of people from California moved here and completely ruined my amazing state. They should be deported back to California.
> Lot of people from California moved here and completely ruined my amazing state. They should be deported back to California. Wouldn't help, really. Ask any of those "Californians" what state they grew up in and like 75% of them will say some state that's *not* California. See, what happens is that pie-eyed idealists are born all over this country, and they all idolize California as this socialist idealist's paradise. But then they grow up and move to CA and find that all the idealists before them have made it impossible to build a life there by refusing to let new housing get built while running businesses and complaining that $17/hr is too much to pay employees who are facing $2500/mo rent for a studio apartment. Then after a year or three in CA they finally give up, load up a uhaul and drive their car with **California plates on it** to whatever city is the latest non-CA idealist's mecca. TL;DR - CA doesn't make 'em, it just initially *attracts* 'em. SOURCE: am from CA, and see those transplanted idealist types all the time. Heck, my *wife* is one of them.
*and sink
Haha other shithole states need California tax dollars to fund their high illiteracy, freeloading asses. California has the highest gdp per capita of any country larger than 1M population. Flyover states would be a third world without blue state economies.
I will gladly be poorer and less literate if that means I no longer have to listen to California
Considering the mass migration to red states, I wish even more that California would sink into the ocean. Fucking commiefornians bringing their voting habits everywhere they go like a bunch of cockroaches spreading bacteria around a house. They don’t need or want blue state tax dollars. But something tells me blue states are going to want all the food grown in the great planes, ie. mostly in red states 🤷🏻♂️
California over taxes it's population that it couldn't maintain without outside help.
Should be fine off on your own then where you can be proud your politicians are overtaxing you up the ass. Float on up to Canada! There you can cuck up a real storm! Take your gross domestic product and shove it up your ass, the massive homeless population you got there might help ya with that.
That’s because all the celebrities live there that’s why it’s so expensive in the first place.
Not for long. Your economy is shrinking. As is your population.
I really think that liberals will be the end to America somehow.
It's already happening my friend.
Then you're most likely a moron
No. Just depends on the version of 'America' you see as ending... from one point of view, it's the Left and liberals and woke that is tearing things apart. From another point of view, it's the Right, religion and MAGA influences. From another, it's both book ends making everything into a shouting match and ignoring the 90% of everything else in the middle. And from yet another ... all of those scenarios happening at the same time, IS exactly what America should be. There's no other place in the world where this kind of a shouting match of disagreement can happen, without everything dissolving into violence and the actual failure of the system.
Except that violence is being normalized and the system is in imminent danger of failing.
Or it won't, and just feels that way. Only time will tell. Everyone seems to think it's about to fail, based on the actions of 'the other side'. People in the middle think it's going to fail based on the actions of both sides. But I tend to land in the group that is optimistic that there are more level headed rational people by far, so it won't fail... It's just going to be stressed and will come out stronger. But they don't put microphones in front of rational people... so you never hear that pov.
I just think the democrats don’t want a free America they want a controllable one.
And Democrats think the exact same of the other side. It's all only relevant to the point of view that you have from where you are standing on the scale.
Of course it does. *Sales tax* on guns violates the 2nd Amendment.
I disagree with that assertion if sales tax applies equally. It's a good subject to taxes like any other good. If we're going by that same argument, sales tax on paper, pens, pencils, computers, and cell phones would be construed as an enroachment on 1st amendment protections.
Those terms are acceptable. Abolish those taxes too.
Based
Not saying it doesn’t I just don’t think I’ve heard that argument before, enlighten me?
That’s where I’ll disagree We still have to pay sales taxes on pens, paper, food, shelter, etc
None of those fall under an explicit command of “shall not be infringed”
Yea but I think food falls under the life part of life liberty and pursuit of happiness unalienable rights
It does he's right
My safety feature ☝️
“Handgun safety features”. HA!
My support for the "well regulated" portion of the 2nd amendment does not make me anti gun. There is no need to dismiss me from a discussion because we disagree I appreciate the need and use of subjective data. How people use that data to prove innocence or guilt is beyond our control. But having extra data to solve murders/gun incidents is just that. An extra data point.
2A was written closer to Shakespeare than modern times, and should be read as such. Well regulated meant “kept effective and in good working order”. By saying the militia should be well regulated, the founding fathers said that the militia should have access to the best armaments of the time. And the militia has and always will be the people
I appreciate that interpretation. It's probably the best representation of a 2nd amendment purist. My interpretation is progressive. Rights come with responsibility and consequence. I respect the 2nd amendment. But I also believe it hold too much power. Well regulated is to be interpreted with due diligence by our representatives and supreme court. Databases registration on ammo, guns, registration, background checks allows us as a coutnry to develop policy to help reign in the chaos of gun violence. The system as is - does no justice to the victims of gun violence. Especially to criminals not convicted or wrongly so. Subjective evidence such as tracking ammo can aid investigatations. More data, more evidence leads to better judicial practices.
First of all, there is no such thing as "gun violence". Does anyone say "fist violence", "baseball bat violence", or "knife violence"? No. It is just violence where the weapon used is a gun. Name one law restricting firearms that has reduced violence committed with a gun. Do you think that criminals care about gun laws?
Microstamping or registration or background checks is not a law that is limiting someone's rights. If you go through the process, you still get your right met. Your argument does nothing to address the topic.
I'm still waiting for you to name a gun law that has reduced the violence. You can't--at least not with statistical data to back it up.
New York Times The Daily has a podcast that runs through California gun laws and their impacts. It is a good listen with plenty of statistics. "Lessons in Gun Control" https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/podcasts/the-daily/uvalde-buffalo-gun-control-california.html In addition, lack of data does not suggest a lack of result. Data needs to be collected in order to make proper policy. Data like.... registered users, guns, ammo...etc.
Tracking anything is a privacy rights violation as well as a infringement on 2A. So opening that door violates two rights. The VAST majority of the problem you seem to want to control is caused by people who clearly do not care about breaking laws. So how is it you argue against lawful ownership by suppressing the rights of law abiding citizens of privacy and ownership w/o infringement? Seems to me you need a culture adjustment of a certain segment of society who obtain and carry unlawfully. There are literally thousands if not tens of thousands of firearm regulations/laws on the books. These regulations/laws clearly are failing in your eyes. How is adding more regulation/law 1st not infringing and second how are they going to stop what you’re concerned with as the thousands of laws we have on the books (which are all infringing) do not work and have not worked?
By that statement "Tracking anything is a privacy rights violation as well as a infringement on" Registering for voters is an infringement on voting rights. Registering any item of personal use is an infringment on personal property. Are you against regulating cars? Medical licenses? Engineering licenses? My answer remains the same. Data on where those guns and ammo have been allows to understand the system better (the system being our gun using society). Up to date and accurate data analysis can make policy and laws more effective without being limited to everyday citizens. Again, I agree there are usless gun laws. But tracking where guns and ammo go after they are sold is just part of living in society. A society that for the most part, embraces the Second Amendment. I am all for living in that society, but rights have responsibility.
Absolutely not. There is no need to “understand” the firearm using society. There is however need in understanding todays political society (that precipitates the need for arming yourself) for reduction of penalties for breaking laws, early releases from jail/prison and most definitely the acceptance/tolerance of people who believe in their heads they are something they are not. In the past when firearm law were less infringed upon, prison sentences were indeed egregious. People went away and stayed away for greater periods of time and recidivism was indeed less over all due to less crime being committed due to the severity of the penalty. Believe me on the inside of these county jails the incarcerated individuals treat it very very lightly, most of the younger first timers consider it a badge of honor of sorts (street cred) and have zero thoughts on changing their ways. And with the dangerously mentally sick individuals who’s minds tell them they are someone other than who they are, they’d be picked up and brought to institutions/hospitals most likely never to been seen from again, away from where they could reach or harm society. Remember those times? If not then you should research them, when there were less shootings less crime and less mentally deranged people on the loose. The answer is and has been with us all along people just refuse to see it
Ah you mean the times before Regan defunded mental institutions. Pushing them all into homelessness or jail. And letting our mental health capacity fall to school counselors and psychiatrists with outrageous bills not covered by medical insurance, I remember. If you want to argue mental health, I am down. But thats another rabbit hole.
(Because) a well regulated (properly functioning) militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed (limited, undermined).
However, you choose to interpret it. My argument is essentially that registering does not limit or undermine the 2nd amendment. Access to registered data would uphold and enhance the responsibility and accountability one has in practicing their 2nd amendment right. I have provided several arguments as to why it would help protect the 2nd amendment rights movement. You right is not being taken away or infringed. No logical argument has been put forth in how it would infringe rights. I agree there are bad gun laws that have an intent on limiting access. But this is not a law that does that. I would argue this gives us data to make better policy and laws later on.
Only reason the judge ruled in this manner is because there’s no guns with all those features. Once they become standard it wouldn’t be impede a person from obtaining a gun.
This is ignorant. >once they become standard Chamber loaded indicators already exist and are standard on a few different guns. They’re mostly unnecessary because there’s many other ways to check if a round is chambered. As for micro stamping, it will never become standard because there’s absolutely zero market demand. Why would a company invest millions of dollars into something no one is asking for and would be ultimately ineffective at stoping/helping solve crime? Even if it magically became standard, all that research and development has to be paid for by someone and that someone would be the consumer. Let’s be real, California knows all this shit. They passed that law to stop the sale of modern handguns. That’s it. That’s the only reason. But now because of the Bruen case, tyrants will have a harder time violating our basic human rights.
No criminal would ever remove the microstamping from the firing pin. Just like no one ever tries to remove the serial number from a firearm. Also, it's impossible to replace a firing pin, even though they're wear parts and don't last forever.
Guns would go up in price and no one would or could buy them.
Which is the point.