Sandy Hook familes sue...well, pretty much everyone

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

Conversion kit is easily purchased unofficially as you well know and fits in an envelope.

I don't know about other weapons such as AUGs, which strike me as being much simpler if you can find the kit, but for the common AR, it requires such machining tools and knowledge that if you can machine a semi-auto AR receiver to accept a full-auto sear, you're quite capable enough to just machine your own full-auto sear in the first place.

ike making the gun as obvious as possible, maybe even making it a glow in the dark high viss type affair

Why on Earth would you choose to give up a tactical advantage and make yourself more visible?

What always surprises me is hearing of criminals with unregistered new guns. How do they get them? Is the gun company fined for every unregistered gun that shows up in the hands of a criminal? It kind of implies they're either dealing with criminals directly or are losing guns all over the place.

Bit of both. A number of weapons are being purchased from shady dealers. Some are being purchased illegally from legitimate dealers. Some are brought North over the border. And some are just sold off the books legally, no questions asked, through gaps which should be sealed. The deputy director of the ATF testified last year that it does not go after people who lie when purchasing their firearms as they don't think it's worth the effort and money. (And what's our normal mantra about actually enforcing the laws on the books instead of making new ones?)

I was in Delaware and Vermont in the summer where there is permissive open carry and it was mad seeing people window shopping with a pistol strapped to their hip!! It seems the trend is towards allowing more people in more situations permission to carry a pistol both as an open carry or as a concealed carry.

Not a 'seem'. In the last thirty years, the vast majority of States have moved from "No concealed carry" to "concealed carry allowed." No particular bump in shootings has resulted. That said, so what? Did any of those folks with weapons threaten anyone?

It's arguable that the 'right to bear arms' does not extend to the individual, but to the community - in other words it's a right to raise a militia. Saying that, the toothpaste is out of the tube so arguments over the meaning / application of the Second Amendment are somewhat academic.

It's also academic because the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter, saying there is an individual right to firearms.

So make another change to whats legally available - you can still find a happy medium where people can own a weapon good for hunting or defense of their home yet not very good for spraying up a school.

There already is a happy medium. Try buying a submachine gun, a tank, a rocket launcher...

The problem with legislating specific weapons is twofold. Firstly, that much objection is founded simply on aesthetics. Some people just don't like the -look- of an AR, but don't mind the -look- of a Remington 750. But their mechanical operation is identical. Centre-fire, gas-operated, semi-auto. This is the basis for much recent legislation in the US which determines which firearms you can or cannot own.

The second problem is that the firearms which are best or most popular for hunting or defense of home, by their very nature, are also best or most popular for shooting up a school. Changing -that- is arguably going to be a Constitutional matter, not just Federal, but also at the State levels, where a number of States make hunting and self defense a Constitutional right. If you're going to limit the ability to exercise a Constitutional right (eg prohibit the use of semi-auto handguns for home defense), you need to have a damned good rationale for putting law abiding homeowners at a disadvantage. Otherwise, it's not going to pass muster in the courts, let alone politically.