10 December 2013


Should we have fought the passage of the Undetectable Firearms Act?

On one hand it's really unconstitutional because the Gov't has been granted no power here.

On the other, which was pointed out in comments in my earlier UFA post, that detection technology has advanced so much since it was first passed that any gun is detectable now; making the requirements of the law essentially meaningless.

Opposing renewal would have been the principled stand, but at what cost?  Pyrrhus anyone?

Looking at the way it passed, our congress critters don't care.  But that's a symptom, not a cause.

No comments:

Post a Comment

You are a guest here when you comment. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: Sign your work.

Anonymous comments must pass a higher bar than others. Repeat offenders must pass an even higher bar.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.