1. What if someone collects cases or bullets from the range and drops them at a crime scene? And before you call that paranoid, lots of people collect cases at ranges to reload, an it's possible to pick up bullets. I've collected a few because they were interesting.
2. Barrett stopped selling to California because of the state's stupid laws.
3. All a gun owner has to do is run a file over the firing pin or the extractor, and the microstamping is gone. The stamp is only a few milimeters thick.
4. How does a gun manufacturer sell to criminals? Manufacturers have to sell to licensed dealers.
5. Every time the gun fires, that microstamping press gets worn down.
"And before you call that paranoid, lots of people collect cases at ranges to reload"
Greg's comment also brought up another thought. Wonder what happens when you reload and reuse the brass in another pistol that employs microstamping. Then you get multiple stamps, and potentially what could become reasonable doubt at trial. Lets also not forget Ruger and Smith & Wesson opting out of microstamping. It will be interesting to see if Glock opts out. A friend of mine who's is a recently retired LEO in California tell me that the majority of police officers in the state carry Glocks. He has also mentioned that Texas is looking very good in his eyes right now.
4. How does a gun manufacturer sell to criminals? Manufacturers have to sell to licensed dealers.
I'm not a big fan of microstamping, although you know me, it's hard to find a gun control law that I don't like. I would like to comment on Greg's simplistic observation of what in my opinion was the best part of the video. Gun manufacturers and their lobbyists fight against any and all gun control laws, ensuring that the flow of guns into the criminal world is as unimpeded as possible. Gun-rights advocates support this unconscionable activity. All of you are complicit in the sale of guns to criminals, and the resultant damage. The gun makers have their bottom line inflated and the rest of you have added convenience to do what you like.
But Mikeb, you didn't answer the question. Gun manufacturers don't deal guns out of the trunks of cars in an alley somewhere. Your side will go on and on about straw purchases and private sales, but looking into the few bad dealers that we've discussed in the past sounds like an approach that would work--again, without violating anyone's rights, so you won't like it.
Greg, 500,000 guns fall into criminal hands each year because there are no safe storage laws. Do you think the gun manufacturers are unaware of that? Do you think they don't plan on that when drafting their production schedules?
And that's only one of the ways criminals get guns aided by the lack of proper gun control laws.
How does he come to the conclusion that it is “cost effective” without a single production line in the world having implemented it?
Also, Cenk just told us that the criminal gun buying populace of California is bigger than the lawful gun buying populace of California. That is what he believes. He thinks most people buying guns (at least in the state of California) are buying it with criminal intent. This is what he thinks of us.
That does raise an interesting point. Each stamp must be unique, so the punches will have to be reset after each gun rolls off the assembly line. In other words, it's just another way to make guns harder to get.
Cenk started off blasting these manufacturers for dropping the California market, noting that if CA were a country it would be the world’s seventh largest economy. The implication is that it is a stupid business decision that would cost them big on the bottom line, suggesting they are operating on principle instead of being a greedy cooperation only interested in profits. But by the end, he’s back to saying they are a greedy corporation only interested in profits, and that it was a business savvy decision because microstamping would be abandoning their criminal customer base- which must be bigger than their lawful customer base. He’s all over the place.
1. What if someone collects cases or bullets from the range and drops them at a crime scene? And before you call that paranoid, lots of people collect cases at ranges to reload, an it's possible to pick up bullets. I've collected a few because they were interesting.
ReplyDelete2. Barrett stopped selling to California because of the state's stupid laws.
3. All a gun owner has to do is run a file over the firing pin or the extractor, and the microstamping is gone. The stamp is only a few milimeters thick.
4. How does a gun manufacturer sell to criminals? Manufacturers have to sell to licensed dealers.
5. Every time the gun fires, that microstamping press gets worn down.
6. there is no production microstamped gun in existance.
Delete"And before you call that paranoid, lots of people collect cases at ranges to reload"
DeleteGreg's comment also brought up another thought. Wonder what happens when you reload and reuse the brass in another pistol that employs microstamping. Then you get multiple stamps, and potentially what could become reasonable doubt at trial.
Lets also not forget Ruger and Smith & Wesson opting out of microstamping. It will be interesting to see if Glock opts out. A friend of mine who's is a recently retired LEO in California tell me that the majority of police officers in the state carry Glocks. He has also mentioned that Texas is looking very good in his eyes right now.
4. How does a gun manufacturer sell to criminals? Manufacturers have to sell to licensed dealers.
DeleteI'm not a big fan of microstamping, although you know me, it's hard to find a gun control law that I don't like. I would like to comment on Greg's simplistic observation of what in my opinion was the best part of the video. Gun manufacturers and their lobbyists fight against any and all gun control laws, ensuring that the flow of guns into the criminal world is as unimpeded as possible. Gun-rights advocates support this unconscionable activity. All of you are complicit in the sale of guns to criminals, and the resultant damage. The gun makers have their bottom line inflated and the rest of you have added convenience to do what you like.
But Mikeb, you didn't answer the question. Gun manufacturers don't deal guns out of the trunks of cars in an alley somewhere. Your side will go on and on about straw purchases and private sales, but looking into the few bad dealers that we've discussed in the past sounds like an approach that would work--again, without violating anyone's rights, so you won't like it.
DeleteGreg, 500,000 guns fall into criminal hands each year because there are no safe storage laws. Do you think the gun manufacturers are unaware of that? Do you think they don't plan on that when drafting their production schedules?
DeleteAnd that's only one of the ways criminals get guns aided by the lack of proper gun control laws.
How does he come to the conclusion that it is “cost effective” without a single production line in the world having implemented it?
ReplyDeleteAlso, Cenk just told us that the criminal gun buying populace of California is bigger than the lawful gun buying populace of California. That is what he believes. He thinks most people buying guns (at least in the state of California) are buying it with criminal intent. This is what he thinks of us.
That does raise an interesting point. Each stamp must be unique, so the punches will have to be reset after each gun rolls off the assembly line. In other words, it's just another way to make guns harder to get.
DeleteI missed that part about most gun buyers in CA are criminals. Are you reading into something he said?
DeleteAny answer to the points that I've made, Mikeb?
DeleteCenk started off blasting these manufacturers for dropping the California market, noting that if CA were a country it would be the world’s seventh largest economy. The implication is that it is a stupid business decision that would cost them big on the bottom line, suggesting they are operating on principle instead of being a greedy cooperation only interested in profits. But by the end, he’s back to saying they are a greedy corporation only interested in profits, and that it was a business savvy decision because microstamping would be abandoning their criminal customer base- which must be bigger than their lawful customer base. He’s all over the place.
DeleteI answered you points when I said, "I'm not a big fan of microstamping."
Delete