Pudge
Member
Saying that the current check system has faults just leads to the argument that it gets tightened up. Isn't that simple to see. It's not an argument to get rid of it, if that is what folks are making.
It is a problem with progun folks. They see an antigun policy and suggest - it doesn't work well, so get rid of it. The antigun folks say - fix it.
It is similar to the folks saying that a lever gun can shoot as many as a semi EBR, there is no evidence that the AWB affected crime rates.
So the response is to get rid of the lever guns and truly come after all semis. I heard this from their experts at a DOJ panel way back
And that is the problem. Violent crime is the justification for a policy that any thinking person knows will not affect violent crime whatsoever. When it doesn't reduce violent crime, the solution is always to expand the policy into more areas that will not reduce violent crime.
Instead of making the argument: braces are a workaround to allow people to acquire SBR's without going through the (ridiculous, pointless, expensive) official process, so they should be illegal. The argument should be, if we reduce the number of SBR's available to the public, it would have X impact on violent crime, and that justifies the policy of making private property illegal which we have a history of allowing the manufacture, marketing and ownership of. That argument has not been made, by anyone, at any time.
If there's no beneficial justification for altering the status quo, then leave things alone, and do not further restrict law-abiding citizens' civil rights.