Is there a tougher background check?

[Ura-Ki]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he's trying to reinvent the wheel or tweak an already existing binary trigger system. If somebody has some earth shattering invention that's going to change the game one would not come on a forum and start floating around what ifs and already have restrictions in mind. At this point I'm just going to file this guy under troll. If you have some earth shattering gadget, take it to the right people, secure your patents, and retain legal if need be or just ask a mod to close the thread.

I smell an illegal off register Machinegun here!!!!!! Dose not matter if it's a twisted bit of wire and a Coors Light pull tab shoved just so in the trigger group, or some fancy schmancy trigger mod, I think we gotts ourselves a defacto machine gun here!

 

[Knobgoblin]

That's something I need to go learn about now.

This isn't a direct quote, but he said he would rather have been famous for inventing a better farm tractor.

 

[Ura-Ki]

The other Big Red Flag Flyin here, O.P. claims to love freedom and fully supports our 2nd right's, and then his very next sentence, demands a FED NFA BGC for a "Non NFA" Item! I smell a great big stinky here!

 

[American123]

This isn't a direct quote, but he said he would rather have been famous for inventing a better farm tractor.

Makes sense.

The tiny amount of research I just did said that, in effect, he didn't like that his invention had been used by terrorists around the world to kill "innocents." But that's a dumb reason of regret, all he did was invent a better 'rock,' people have been killing other people forever.

 

[Koda]

in effect, he didn't like that his invention had been used by terrorists around the world to kill "innocents." But that's a dumb reason of regret, all he did was invent a better 'rock,' people have been killing other people forever.

The problem with philosophical questions is there are no wrong answers to philosophical questions. Its true someone else would have invented a better rock, its also true his rifle is the preferred weapon of terrorists.

 

[Will_White]

Arguably reasonable. What would you have as licensing criteria?

Similar to a shall issue CCW.

 

[No_Regerts]

 

[40Garand]

View attachment 1098156

 

[Stomper]

It's a universal truth that knowledge can't be destroyed.

"Oh yeah? Here, watch this…. hold my peppermint, extra hot, triple venti, soy mocha latte"….


….said every ponytail wearing liberal-progressive college professor, EVER!

 

[tac]

This'll cheer you all up, for sure.

See, here in UK, we have absolutely ZERO hassle like you guys do.

No Feds, no extended BGCs.

Nothing.

Zero, Zilch and Nada.

Even rien and niemals.

See, full autos have been banned here since 1926.

So none of us here are jonesing for guns that were prohibited before our grandfathers were born.

(Extended sarcasm application now de-applicated)

 

[Stomper]

I've been humming the tune of "the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", myself.

Weird, I've been humming, "Let the bodies hit the floor" by Drowning Pool!

 

[Stomper]

This'll cheer you all up, for sure.

See, here in UK, we have absolutely ZERO hassle like you guys do.

No Feds, no extended BGCs.

Nothing.

Zero, Zilch and Nada.

Even rien and niemals.

See, full autos have been banned here since 1926.

So none of us here are jonesing for guns that were prohibited before our grandfathers were born.

(Extended sarcasm application now de-applicated)

Your sarcasm duly noted, my good man!

 

[OldTengu]

This must be a pretty game changing accessory. If we guess it will you tell us?

I'm guessing it's some sort of hypersonic dildo launcher.

 

[moroza]

The progression to arguing about personal ownership of ICBM was predictable.

Apparently you've had this conversation before. I haven't, at least not nearly to this extent.

To try to reframe this conversation compared to what the founders thought - since they didn't mention any caveats whatsoever to "shall not be infringed." Following that premise it would appear they wouldn't restrict that either.

Ships and cannons and fire back then could still level cities. The concept of total annihilation for groups of people was still real and possible even before modern bombs.

Yes, but with the exception of fire, none of them were practically usable by a single person. The closest that existed to one-trigger WMD back then was autocracy - one person being able to command legions of individuals at unquestioned unilateral whim. It seems to me that that the Founders went to great lengths - indeed, it was a if not the central theme to the Revolution - to address exactly that, to set up checks and balances to prevent any one person from accumulating that kind of social/political power and its resulting practical power, and that they didn't address its technological equivalent because it simply didn't exist.

This must be a pretty game changing accessory. If we guess it will you tell us?

Only after I get it working. Otherwise I'd indeed be trolling and posing and stand to be accused of peddling vaporware.

So, the real question here, does this dude what's peddlin his uber chooter thingamabob have an SOT or Manufactures License and ATF letters of approval?

Otherwise, this "device" as it were, is worthless, no matter what he claims it is or does!

I peddle nothing at this time. And it may remain nothing, either because it ends up not working, or I end up not selling it, or I abandon it in favor of umpteen other projects competing for my time. Such as a thermal insulation invention that does actually work, and may be way more profitable and certainly less contentious, just not as cool (except literally).

Similar to a shall issue CCW.

From what I understand of such permits, that - in principle, at least; details can be full of devils - seems reasonable enough. It's squarely within the spirit of regulating Who, not What.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he's trying to reinvent the wheel or tweak an already existing binary trigger system. If somebody has some earth shattering invention that's going to change the game one would not come on a forum and start floating around what ifs and already have restrictions in mind. At this point I'm just going to file this guy under troll. If you have some earth shattering gadget, take it to the right people, secure your patents, and retain legal if need be or just ask a mod to close the thread.

I will neither confirm nor deny any guesses, but I will say that as far as I'm aware, there is no commercially available competition. Possibly because it's been tried and doesn't work. We'll see.

Yes, I'm talking to patent and other lawyers as well, with NDAs involved. They tend to have longer attention spans that can handle more than a Tweet-length sentence, and tend to have more intelligent responses than clip art, slogans, and ad hominem labels.

So, what I'm hearing is you've invented something that makes a gun more lethal/easier to use/whatever that isn't an NFA item, but you want a more thorough background check that's analogous to an NFA process?

Pretty much, though the first question is whether the NFA process is more thorough in substance, not just more inefficiently implemented.

Ive had a hard time following this thread but if I understand correct the OP has invented something he thinks would qualify as an NFA item and is grappeling with the moral decisions to bring it to market. Consider that anyone can invent something and it isnt an NFA item until there is a reason it becomes an NFA item (or banned).

Close. Having read the National Firearms Act, it does not apply here, and I wish it did, at least in general principle if not details of implementation. I'd rather it didn't cost an extra two C-notes, really. It's clear by now that there is no legal mechanism - short of an act of Congress, or possibly an executive order - to have a non-NFA item regulated like one, which was the entire point of my original question: to see if there is such a law or legal framework, not that one be bent just for me.

That question has been answered, fulfilling the purpose of this thread that can now gather dust (that said, I'm passingly interested in continuing a couple of tangential dialogues that it spawned with some of the more articulate responders).

 

[Cavedweller]

The progression to arguing about personal ownership of ICBM was predictable.

Apparently you've had this conversation before. I haven't, at least not nearly to this extent. So what response follows?

Yes, we've had this discussion before on this site. I haven't taken the time to find previous threads, but if one wanted to, I'm sure they're out there. My response to the ICBM argument would be this:

Amateur rocketry has been a civilian hobby since rocketry was invented. Historically, amateurs have been responsible for many advancements in rocket science. We have billionaires today that are producing the equivalents of ICBMs (Bezos, Musk, et al.). They are not prohibited from possessing them. I'm sure there are safety requirements imposed by the government, and liability issues should a mishap occur, but possession of them is not a crime. It is the explosive warhead (whether conventional or nuclear) that would be illegal under our laws.

Simmilarly, one is not prohibited from possession of military aircraft. You can buy them and fly them if you can afford it. Same goes for military vehicles, warships, etc. It is only the weaponry that would arm them that would be illegal. It is the cost of purchasing and operating such that prevents most people from having them, not illegality.

That is my understanding, anyhow.

 

[American123]

I'm guessing it's some sort of hypersonic dildo launcher.

Apparently you've had this conversation before. I haven't, at least not nearly to this extent.


Yes, but with the exception of fire, none of them were practically usable by a single person. The closest that existed to one-trigger WMD back then was autocracy - one person being able to command legions of individuals at unquestioned unilateral whim. It seems to me that that the Founders went to great lengths - indeed, it was a if not the central theme to the Revolution - to address exactly that, to set up checks and balances to prevent any one person from accumulating that kind of social/political power and its resulting practical power, and that they didn't address its technological equivalent because it simply didn't exist.


Only after I get it working. Otherwise I'd indeed be trolling and posing and stand to be accused of peddling vaporware.


I peddle nothing at this time. And it may remain nothing, either because it ends up not working, or I end up not selling it, or I abandon it in favor of umpteen other projects competing for my time. Such as a thermal insulation invention that does actually work, and may be way more profitable and certainly less contentious, just not as cool (except literally).


From what I understand of such permits, that - in principle, at least; details can be full of devils - seems reasonable enough. It's squarely within the spirit of regulating Who, not What.


I will neither confirm nor deny any guesses, but I will say that as far as I'm aware, there is no commercially available competition. Possibly because it's been tried and doesn't work. We'll see.

Yes, I'm talking to patent and other lawyers as well, with NDAs involved. They tend to have longer attention spans that can handle more than a Tweet-length sentence, and tend to have more intelligent responses than clip art, slogans, and ad hominem labels.


Close. Having read the National Firearms Act, it does not apply here, and I wish it did, at least in general principle if not details of implementation. I'd rather it didn't cost an extra two C-notes, really. It's clear by now that there is no legal mechanism - short of an act of Congress, or possibly an executive order - to have a non-NFA item regulated like one, which was the entire point of my original question: to see if there is such a law or legal framework, not that one be bent just for me.

That question has been answered, fulfilling the purpose of this thread that can now gather dust (that said, I'm passingly interested in continuing a couple of tangential dialogues that it spawned with some of the more articulate responders).

I see and follow your reasoning except I believe the error is when the statement is made that the founders attempted to keep that much power from 1 person. It wasn't that they kept it from an individual, they kept it from being strictly possessed by the government, and they seemingly intended the civilians to have equal armament to the military or they would have specifically stated otherwise. The goal was seemingly that a government is less inclined to go tyrannical when the people aren't at a severe weaponry deficit to the government.

Tyranny can be described as what the government is allowed to do that the citizenry isn't.

 

[moroza]

Yes, we've had this discussion before on this site. I haven't taken the time to find previous threads, but if one wanted to, I'm sure they're out there. My response to the ICBM argument would be this:

Amateur rocketry has been a civilian hobby since rocketry was invented. Historically, amateurs have been responsible for many advancements in rocket science. We have billionaires today that are producing the equivalents of ICBMs (Bezos, Musk, et al.). They are not prohibited from possessing them. I'm sure there are safety requirements imposed by the government, and liability issues should a mishap occur, but possession of them is not a crime. It is the explosive warhead (whether conventional or nuclear) that would be illegal under our laws.

Simmilarly, one is not prohibited from possession of military aircraft. You can buy them and fly them if you can afford it. Same goes for military vehicles, warships, etc. It is only the weaponry that would arm them that would be illegal. It is the cost of purchasing and operating such that prevents most people from having them, not illegality.

That is my understanding, anyhow.

Somehow the question shifted from WMD (including but not limited to NBC) to expensive vehicles. The latter are (way cool; on my medium list of dreams is to play laser tag with AFVs or aircraft, both of which apparently exist, but I digress...) not at issue here, as they aren't weapons at all, any more than a tanker truck or plane is.

 

[Cavedweller]

Somehow the question shifted from WMD (including but not limited to NBC) to expensive vehicles. The latter are (way cool; on my medium list of dreams is to play laser tag with AFVs or aircraft, both of which apparently exist, but I digress...) not at issue here, as they aren't weapons at all, any more than a tanker truck or plane is.

Your question was about ICBMs, not nuclear warheads. I answered your question. Now you are attempting to dodge it.

 

[moroza]

No, it wasn't. See post 50. I specifically asked about NBC, not rockets or any other delivery vehicles.

I see and follow your reasoning except I believe the error is when the statement is made that the founders attempted to keep that much power from 1 person. It wasn't that they kept it from an individual, they kept it from being strictly possessed by the government, and they seemingly intended the civilians to have equal armament to the military or they would have specifically stated otherwise. The goal was seemingly that a government is less inclined to go tyrannical when the people aren't at a severe weaponry deficit to the government.

Tyranny can be described as what the government is allowed to do that the citizenry isn't.

Wasn't the three-branch system with its checks and balances designed to do exactly that? Yes, an armed populace is a check on the State as a whole, but the point of the branches was to keep any one person from being too powerful within the State. A government is less likely to go tyrannical when its ability to do so doesn't depend on one person's inclinations. At least, all I was taught in school and read on my own since then made it sound like Checks and Balances was very much "trending", as they say nowadays. I suppose I could read the Federalist Papers and verify that...

That's not to deny that a competitively-armed populace was intended, but I question that it was the only or main intent. C&B made it into the original constitution, after all, not an amendment.

Got any links to historical accounts of privately-owned artillery and (armed) warships in that time, and what people thought about it?

 

[Cavedweller]

No, it wasn't. See post 50. I specifically asked about NBC, not rockets or any other delivery vehicles.

Sorry. I was responding to your post #74, which was in response to the comment in post #53 about private ownership of ICBMs.

Wasn't the three-branch system with its checks and balances designed to do exactly that? ... but the point of the branches was to keep any one person from being too powerful within the State.

No, the check and balance system was to keep any one branch from becoming too powerful. The Executive branch is not a person. Neither are the legislative and judicial branches.

Got any links to historical accounts of privately-owned artillery and (armed) warships in that time, and what people thought about it?

"Lieut. Col. Smith to Governor Gage Boston, April 22, 1775.

Sir, In obedience to your Excellency's commands, I marched on the evening of the 18th inst. with the corps of grenadiers and light infantry for Concord, to execute your Excellency's orders with respect to destroying all ammunition, artillery, tents, &c., collected there, which was effected, having knocked off the trunnions of three pieces of iron ordnance, some new gun carriages, a great number of carriage wheels burnt, a considerable quantity of flour, some gunpowder and musket balls, with other small articles thrown into the river. Notwithstanding we marched with the utmost expedition and secrecy, we found the country had intelligence or strong suspicion of our coming, and fired many signal guns, and rung the alarm bells repeatedly; and were informed, when at Concord, that some cannon had been taken out of the town that day, that others, with some stores, had been carried three days before. . . ."

The Battle at Lexington Green, 1775 - the British Perspective

A letter from a British soldier describes the shot heard 'round the world.

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com

"Privately owned merchant ships that, in wartime, were armed by their owners and licensed by the government to attack the maritime trade of the enemy, privateers profited by the sale of ships and cargoes they captured. As soon as word of the war arrived, ship owners in the port cities up and down the Atlantic coast raced to get their sleek sloops and schooners to sea in their new predatory role. They found cannon where they could, signed up oversized civilian crews, and sent messengers to Washington to get licenses called letters-of-marque from the federal government. On 26 June 1812, a week after Congress voted for war, it passed a bill allowing privateers, which President James Madison signed the next day."

Yes, Privateers Mattered

A recent trend among historians to ignore or discount American privateering’s important role in the War of 1812 is plain wrong.

www.usni.org