Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:the US if you make the gun yourself? Or if you like, you can get a gun-making kit and build yourself a gun and no law says you have to register it. Totally legal. So much for gun control.

PhilX

Who cares?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:the US if you make the gun yourself? Or if you like, you can get a gun-making kit and build yourself a gun and no law says you have to register it. Totally legal. So much for gun control.

PhilX

Who cares?

bobevenson wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

bobevenson wrote:It doesn't matter whether you make a gun or buy a gun, the government has no way of establishing ownership of the 300 million guns in America, thank God for the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates.

You're deliberately overlooking state law.

I'm telling you that the federal government does not have the ability to track gun ownership as mandated by congress, and if the federal government can't do it, I guarantee you that the states don't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing it!

bobevenson wrote:Again, it's not that the Federal government can't computerize owner information, it's that Congress won't let them. All the government has are boxes of forms that would choke a horse and are basically unusable unless you hired an army of clerks to look for something. Comprende? Viva la Second Amendment!

"A computerized system is strictly limited by federal law that prohibits the creation of a searchable database based on firearms' purchasers."
-USA Today

bobevenson wrote:If Procter & Gamble and the FBI, two of the most powerful institutions on Earth, couldn't get me, I'd like to know who in the hell could!

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
It wasn't this particular article, but the information's the same. If you want to do a search, try gun-making kits laws:

https://www.google.com/amp/fusion.net/s ... -home/amp/

PhilX

PS I checked out this article further and it has more details so you're getting more in the bargain.

Why don't you EVER read what you link.
FROM YOUR OWN LINK:'
"Anyone can build their own gun at home, as long as they are legally able to own one."

You haven't read the article well. Here's the part that actually makes it legal for anyone:

"It all goes back to one very special part. The lower receiver is the part of the firearm that makes a gun a gun—the part that gets stamped with a serial number, and that requires a background check. It connects all the moving parts of the gun and makes it shoot. If you purchase what’s called an “unfinished lower receiver,” one that still requires a few extra holes to be drilled out, it’s not a gun yet, so you’re buying a hunk of metal like any other, according to federal gun laws. No background check necessary."

The kit lets you drill those holes yourself. This means you can make the gun for yourself without having to register it nor serialize it. And this is all legal.

PhilX

PhilX

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Why don't you EVER read what you link.
FROM YOUR OWN LINK:'
"Anyone can build their own gun at home, as long as they are legally able to own one."

You haven't read the article well. Here's the part that actually makes it legal for anyone:

"It all goes back to one very special part. The lower receiver is the part of the firearm that makes a gun a gun—the part that gets stamped with a serial number, and that requires a background check. It connects all the moving parts of the gun and makes it shoot. If you purchase what’s called an “unfinished lower receiver,” one that still requires a few extra holes to be drilled out, it’s not a gun yet, so you’re buying a hunk of metal like any other, according to federal gun laws. No background check necessary."

The kit lets you drill those holes yourself. This means you can make the gun for yourself without having to register it nor serialize it. And this is all legal.

PhilX

PhilX

Anyone can make a gun. That is not the issue. The issue is that even if you make it, if you are not legally allowed to have a gun you are still not allowed to OWN it.

bobevenson wrote:Well, I do admit that when I came to the conclusion that Tor will be the name of the Second Coming of Christ, I flinched like I was going to be hit by a bolt of lightning!

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Well, I do admit that when I came to the divinely inspired and guided conclusion that Tor will be the name of the Second Coming of Christ, I flinched like I was going to be hit by a bolt of lightning since I thought it was the most blasphemous idea that had ever crossed my mind!

Do you blame yourself or P&G for having the FBI come after you?

bobevenson wrote:
Thank God for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution!

bobevenson wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Well, I do admit that when I came to the divinely inspired and guided conclusion that Tor will be the name of the Second Coming of Christ, I flinched like I was going to be hit by a bolt of lightning since I thought it was the most blasphemous idea that had ever crossed my mind!

Do you blame yourself or P&G for having the FBI come after you?

I believe P&G entered into an illegal conspiracy with the FBI based on my letters to P&G. I didn't do anything illegal, but I think P&G and the FBI did. The business reporter for the Cincinnati Enquirer who covered P&G for the paper asked me why P&G didn't sue me like it did so many other people, and when I told her, she wanted to write an investigative article, but couldn't get editorial approval http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/cincinnati-enquirer.pdf.