Legiondude

Oh boy, I'm going to need some popcorn for this one.
 
Don't get me wrong, I do understand somewhat of how people outside the US feel about America's firearm proclivities, but there are some fundamental cultural and legal aspects you are missing out on.
 
So, firearms that are introduced into commerce in the US are required to have a serial number. This number officially isn't tracked in any database, and by law the federal government cannot maintain a list of who owns what. They find other ways around that law, but the amount of paperwork they have to process to pin anyone down to any firearm can be pretty crazy. Much of the firearms sales records in the country are paper records, so when the ATF does a trace on a gun, they have to comb through their paper database, find the store that sold it, and ask them to look through the stores records to find the private buyer, and go from there. A serial number that has been destroyed or obliterated is a big no no, and you cannot have one reissued to you, because that breaks any sorts of traceability. The said, there are legal ways to have an unserialized/unmarked firearm in the US. It is still illegal for felons to be in possession of firearms or ammunition, but there is nothing physically stopping them from making their own firearms. If they can't make them, they will buy them on the black market, or steal them.
 
As far as a national database, an official one will be very unpopular, because there belief in the US gun community is that registration is a necessary step towards total confiscation. Considering that our war for independence started when the British tried to disarm a local militia, confiscation won't go over very well here, and neither will registration. Colorado can't even enforce it's magazine ban and universal background check.
 
Creating incentive structures on purchases through taxation is troublesome, from a legal standpoint. You cannot impose taxes that would have a chilling effect on the free exercise of a protected right, in theory. In practice, they like to pretend that the 2nd amendment, which happens to be pretty fucking clear in it's meaning, is an orphan when it comes to legal protection in the courts. People treat it like an absolute bastard of an amendment, making up complete bullshit to help achieve the interpretation that they want. But anyways, there always be ways around stupid laws and definitions like that. People will make a "hunting" rifle variant to a avoid the tax, but the rifle will be trivial to convert to it's "assault" configuration.
 
As far as getting people to buy "less lethal" weapons, good luck. Firearms exist because they are a tool designed to apply lethal force. Lethality is their raison d'etre. Practicality is determined by other factors, not lethality. Generally, if it is a defensive firearm, you go with the most lethal option that is in your scope of "practical".
 
Everyone thinks there is this massive gun crime problem in the US, which is what people would assume after hearing about these mass shootings. The actual numbers are very different. Firearm related deaths aren't even in the top 10 causes of death in the US, and way less than that if you take out suicides. We have over a hundred million gun owners, with close to five hundred million guns in the US, 46% of the total number of firearms in the world. We have 30,000 gun deaths of all types annually. Suicide is more than half, and if you take it down to just homicide, it's about 12,000 deaths. The kicker is that 8,000 of those are gang related shooting in certain urban areas with handguns. The same urban areas that have the strictest gun control laws in the US, and has been run by the same party for 60 years. The same party that wants more gun control on a national level. It's been a while since I've seen the numbers, but that's the rough breakdown. So, I don't really see a 0.0024% rate of firearms to homicides to be a problem. If anything, it's pretty fucking amazing. And it's not one firearm per homicide, either, so the actually rate in lower still. Basically, +99.99% of guns in the US will never be used to take a life. Guns are not the problem.

This sort of stuff really gets me excited. Now that barrels are almost hashed out thanks to the wonders of ECM milling technology, it becomes significantly harder to limit the global proliferation of firearms by people DIYing them on their own. Basically, this guy along with another guy I know called Jeff have been successful not only in rifling a steel barrel, but also drilling it completely. The ECM process doesn't care about hardness or whatever, only conductivity as far as milling goes so even 4150 steel is no problemo.
 
Sure there's still limitations regarding making nitrocellulose propellant, but Jeff has some cool ideas on making a "boom loom" that takes cotton string through an automated process that nitrates it and then washes it, along with other neat things like nichrome electrical primers. I think the future looks pretty bright, don't really need to depend on an incompetent NRA or some men in black dresses if technology marches forward enough.

I see some claim by Peter Chamberlain that it was used on Jagdpanther(Originally for Panther II) but Spielberger and Jentz don't seem to back that up

We may (very soon) get Constitutional carry in Kentucky.
Keeping my fingers crossed.
 
ETA-
IT PASSED.  Kentucky has Constitutional carry.   60 "yes" , while 37 found freedom "scary".

US House rep from San Fran area: "If you enter armed revolt, we'll just nuke ya"
I can see a kernel of a point in here, but in terms of political rhetoric this is one of those years that just keeps on giving

Bonus tweet
 

According to his screencapped Gab.ai wall(before they suspended it to begin cooperation with the FBI) the guy is one of those unironic Nazis who thinks Trump and his voting base are internationalist cucks controlled by the Jews

Also on the other side of the "bomb", the clock, has no alarm function. It's function was to grab as much attention as possible and so far it's succeeded.

Oh no, he lives rent free in the minds of millions.

Meanwhile, at NBC... 
 

EDIT - Apparently this was a tweet hinting about Amy Coney Barrett replacing RBG but Twitter won't load the tweet

EDIT - Apparently this was a tweet hinting about Amy Coney Barrett replacing RBG but Twitter won't load the tweet

I hope Trump orders a NICS check and then five minutes later be like:
 
"Yep he's good to go!" 
 
I mean after all it is an FBI investigation. 

"BELIEVE WAHMEN"

"I've got 80+ women from high school, college, my time as a lawyer, and serving the White House attesting to my good character"

"NOT THOSE WAHMEN"

"BELIEVE WAHMEN"

"I've got 80+ women from high school, college, my time as a lawyer, and serving the White House attesting to my good character"

"NOT THOSE WAHMEN"

If your preferred energy source isn't nuclear just get the fuck out.
 
 

I just noticed something, Trump’s presidency is similar to Grant’s presidency: 
 
 
Both are republican. 
 
Both had very little political experience before running for office. 
 
Both had very narrow wins during their first terms. 
 
Both were embroiled in scandals that were mostly hot air. 
 
Both were elected after a previously ineffective president (unfortunately, Obama served 2 terms). 
 
Both believe in nepotism  
 
 
and I predict (using pure Columbian cocaine, and Grant as a guide): 
 
Trump will have exceptional foreign policy successes later in this term. 
 
Trump will be re-elected by a very large margin (bonus points if his rival dies within months of Trump being re-elected, x10 if it’s Hillary). 
 
Trump will push for more peace (rather than the typical warmongering) all over the world. 
 
Corruption and abuse will plague Trump’s cabinet, but Trump will be innocent on all accounts. 
 
Trump will get his face on a dollar bill (maybe the 100, cause it’s yuuuge) 

Feinstein is trying to reinterpret "in common use" used in DC v. Heller to mean not "common possession" but the "act of using [a firearm]"
 

Ergo, if you aren't pulling the trigger, you don't have a right to bear [an "assault weapon"]

Feinstein is trying to reinterpret "in common use" used in DC v. Heller to mean not "common possession" but the "act of using [a firearm]"
 

Ergo, if you aren't pulling the trigger, you don't have a right to bear [an "assault weapon"]

Feinstein is trying to reinterpret "in common use" used in DC v. Heller to mean not "common possession" but the "act of using [a firearm]"
 

Ergo, if you aren't pulling the trigger, you don't have a right to bear [an "assault weapon"]

Journo: Hey, did you hear about those guys who indoctrinate kids to pick up guns so they can shoot things?

Me: You mean those jagoffs from New Mexi-
 
Journo: No! I'm talking about the Civilian Marksmanship Program!

Me: No Bloomberg, I did not. You whale dorks
 
Text below for those who don't want to give them a click

Journo: Hey, did you hear about those guys who indoctrinate kids to pick up guns so they can shoot things?

Me: You mean those jagoffs from New Mexi-
 
Journo: No! I'm talking about the Civilian Marksmanship Program!

Me: No Bloomberg, I did not. You whale dorks
 
Text below for those who don't want to give them a click

Journo: Hey, did you hear about those guys who indoctrinate kids to pick up guns so they can shoot things?

Me: You mean those jagoffs from New Mexi-
 
Journo: No! I'm talking about the Civilian Marksmanship Program!

Me: No Bloomberg, I did not. You whale dorks
 
Text below for those who don't want to give them a click