Born in 1974. BB Guns. Won the single shot 410 shotgun at the Ducks Unlimited banquet at 8 years. Got Winchester Youth model 20 ga. at 10. First pistol, a Ruger Mark II .22, around 13. My own deer rifle (.243 Browning A-bolt), my Grandfather's WWII 38/40 pump carbine (saw action), never abused any or disrespected one. Beretta 9mm at 15 years old (still my favorite), and new Colt AR15 when my heroes liberated Kuwait the night before my 11th grade Physics final. My dad doesn't care for anything other than his over/under quail gun, but I love my right to own any reasonable firearm out there, and he respects that. He trusted me, I honored him, and his friends, and my friends' parents, had no qualms. People have screwed that to hell now, and our easy access to the media has made the pictures of gun rights abuse universal. Is it over? Is the legacy dead?

I'm pleased to report that my New York City Boy cousin (who's down here in FL for about the next month or so) is quite willing to go with us to the range when I break in the new AR (or two) some time in the next few weeks.   He's a Democrat, but he's not anti-gun.

Our whole family is like that.  Guns since birth, practically, and we live in the cities and in the country.

We're not a dead breed yet, not by any means!

CJ

Don't get me wrong. The 2nd protects the 'hood and the countryside, but we've got to find a way to discourage the abuse. Drive-by's in Compton, CA (or Macon, GA) don't involve Benelli's, AR15's, ParaOrdnance, or Browning Sweet 16's. It's the trash at guns shows, pawn shops, sat. night specials, TEC-9's, unsecured family heirlooms (yours or mine), etc. (and y'all know exactly what I mean) that make people want to take our rights away. If we can't control each other, if we can't keep that affordable trash out of the hands of thugs, then we lose our rights. That's OUR FAULT. You've seen 'em wearing Raiders jackets buying high cap mags at guns shows. You didn't like it, but you walked right by that table full of cheap guns, "anarchist cookbooks," KKK zippo's, and fake switchblades all the same. My kids deserve a good shotgun. They deserve to have a pistol and not be persecuted. They deserve to empty a 30 round mag on my farm and not have to pull some paperwork out of the buttstock when the sheriff drives up. Get real and realize that the 2nd Amendment doesn't owe us, we owe the 2nd Amendment.

Well stated.

I have to admit, when I see a brand new cheap gun in the gun store's display case, I'm thinking "What the hell is the manufacturer thinking by making a cheap gun like that, and why in the hell is this gun store selling that piece of crap?   It's not going to be bought by most serious gun collectors or shooters and it really has no legitimate purpose except to be cheap and easily concealable, just right for some punk."

I've started to make subtle comments on this to various gun store owners.   I am encouraging them to drop the cheap products from their line
to discourage casual use.

CJ

If you have kids, start teaching them WHY WE ARE HERE...GUNS.  If not for the guns, we would not have been able to wrest this country- a sometimes flawed one, but still the best country on God's Earth without doubt- from the tyranny of Great Britain.  If you don't have kids,"adopt some" by taking the guy in the next cubicle, your neighbor, your accoutant, your dentist, anyone, to the range and start gently showing them the truth.  

I grew up in much the same way.  My dad likes to hunt, but isn't into guns like I am.  He respects my hobby and knows that he taught me good gun safety at a young age.

I have guns for hunting (incl. a sweet 16 BTW), and I also have guns that are for my collection.  The times are changing, and unfortunately it's not for the better.  It's our responsibility to educate the sheeple, and make them realize that without guns we'd be just like England *shiver*.

LOL. And I suppose that someone could support his local communists for their stance on racial equality, but be pro "free-market."

Take a lesson from George Orwell, who during WWII declared pacifists to be "objectively pro-fascist." This is because their [i]course of action[/i], not their individual feelings, made easy the task of those whose ultimate aim was to impose fascism. Just as your democrat relative's [i]course of action[/i] in supporting democrats will serve to take away [i]my[/i] RKBA.

Wake him up, please.

Do not give up the faith!!


My club had 65 kids out for our junior program last Friday night!!!!!!

Only about 25 of them were members kids!!!

So you're saying only rich people should own guns?  Poor people that can't afford the expensive stuff you like, shouldn't own [i]any[/i] guns?

I first shot a gun when i was 7. had my 1st shotgun at 10, Franchi 48 20ga. I grew up on a dairy farm 12 miles from the nearest big town. I had my 1st 22 when i was 13, before that i just used dads marlin. 13 was the age when the started letting me go out with the guns on my own. I got a 22-250 when i was 14. I got my 1st handgun at 17, ruger gp. By the time i graduated high school i had 6-7 guns. now i'm 23 and i have 14.
Hmmmmm...... at this rate what will life be like at 40?[:D]

bricklayer

Very well stated jasperdog.

Seems we have almost identical upbringings.

Guns were always a part of our life.........heck, there is hardly a picture of me when I was a kid without me holding some sort of gun.  Cap guns, pop guns, lever action BB guns, Crossman pumps, Co2, then graduated up to the Remington Nylon 66, Winchester Mod 12 Featherweight etc etc.  Got my 870 when I was 12 and my 552 when I was 14.  Due to school and other obligations I did not start buying again until I was 20...............that was 15 years ago and I am still going strong.

I agree the the issues we face today are largely geographical in nature.  Country folk have always placed the gun right next to the bible.  It was used to feed the family and protect form any form of harm that may come the way of the family.  Kinda like the bible......

City people have grown up in a different environment; one in which the gun has been used as a tool of aggression and fear............hence, in these large metropolitan areas was the anti-gun movement born.  

Personally, I don't think pro-gun folks will ever attain total victory per say but we can stave off the enemy by being responsible, trained and dilligent in spreading our message and pressing our legislators and other politicos for tougher punishments and swifter court systems.  When there are effective deterrents to crime then the criminals may take notice.........now, they merely laugh and go out and kill, rob and rape again.

Until that day..........here's to you!

What part of the state are you in BTW?

Time to go shoot the AR...........      

"Serious gun collectors and shooters" do not have the market cornered on firearm possession.  Poor people have the right to keep and bear arms, too--while "cheap, easily conealed handguns" certainly are attractive to the criminal element, they're also attractive to law abiding citizens (especially those of us with carry permits.)  Some of us also can't afford to spend $600 on every gun we buy.

Get off your high horse.

That is not what he is saying Norm and you know it!

His point is all the crap manufacturers out there who peddle their $hit along side respectable dealers/manufacturers give the legitimate, honest, historical methods of firearm ownership a bad...bad name.

Everyone knows that when they see a slick, hip, happnin' dude,(choose your own race as this type is not race dependant) slinking through a gun show with their "street" garb on that they are not there because of collector, hunting or sports related matters.  They are there to buy cheap crap to keep on the street for uses which are most predominantly "dark".

Anyone who values their life and property can purchase a high quality weapon, even if it is used.  You can not convince me that finances force someone to resort to buying the type of crap jasperdog refers to.

Legitimate Pawn shops and hardware stores across the nation sell good used weapons.  Besides that, there are a number of newly emerging companies out there that are producing lower end but nonetheless fairly high quality pieces.

I think jasperdog is right on the money and I'll be glad to side with him on this issue.

Exactly the [b]wrong[/b] line to take. And if I might say, elitist - exactly what the gun-banners want you to do. John Lott proved overwhelmingly that people who would most benefit by inexpensive access to firearms are precisely those who are currently most restricted - namely, those in inner city, high crime neighborhoods who cannot afford expensive firearms - while their local criminals obtain absolutely [i]anything[/i] illegally. Leftists have sought, some intentionally, some not, to deny urban minorities access to inexpensive firearms. This makes them, out of desperation,  "radicalized" in favor of government power to "protect" them. This empowers the very same forces that are trying to take away your AR-15. Wake up.

You're also feeding into another leftist tactic - the easiest way to incrementally reduce something currently difficult to ban outright is to make it expensive. And in this, your position regurtitates the pablum regarding so-called "saturday night specials" that dominated the debate in the '80's.

And a word about prices of technology in a free market - prices generally fall as more items in any market are produced. What makes you think that pistol prices (across the board, for every variety) won't fall if we in the RKBA community win, and more people seek to arm themselves?

I'm surprised that it takes a former leftist anti-gunner to bring these things up. But I'll continue to do so.

PS. And the only reason I became an AR-15 enthusiast was because I could finally [i]afford[/i] one.

This makes me sick.  I guess you are willing to  send me 200 bucks so I can buy a good gun.  I have been saving or 2 damn months and have 50 bucks.  Am I supposed to wait until I have 450 so I can buy a good used gun?  Or should I go buy a star 9mm for 150?  If someone busts into my house should I tell them that I am saving up for a glock or shoot them with a star?  You arrogant pole smoker.

Well, sorry you feel that way, but I'm not going to back off of what I really feel.  It's simple to prove that the majority of guns seized off of street punks are cheap guns, mostly costing UNDER 100 dollars at retail.   If said cheap guns weren't so cheap, there would be fewer of these punks buying them.   That's simple economics.

The issue here is that the type of person who gets in trouble with one of these cheap guns (and usually, it's found concealed on him in a search following an arrest or even traffic infraction that is NOT related to gun use) bought it because it's cheap and he thinks it'd be cool to carry a gun.  There's not much in the way of sensible, reasoned thought given to carrying a gun by such a person.   If they did stop to think about it, and the consequences that may surround it, then perhaps they wouldn't have made the rash decision to buy the gun and stick it in a pocket.

Gun ownership is not something to be taken lightly.   If the gun is sufficently cheap and readily available, there will be those who buy it who DON'T take it so seriously, and that leads to trouble, not just for them, but for all gun owners.

I can't and won't blame the gun for the actions of the owner, but I can and do blame the manufacturers and dealers for making guns that are so cheap as to be virtually throw-away items and even may be thought of as 'impulse buys' based on their very low cost.

I'm not saying every gun should necessarily cost 300 or more dollars to keep the riff raff out, but I'm saying that a gun under 100 dollars is too cheap and is often bought by someone with a hundred bucks in his pocket and no sense in his head.

If you're considering buying a gun for self-defense, save your money and get one that has a reputation for excellent reliability and good accuracy.

If you're considering buying a gun for target shooting primarily, select an accurate gun.

In either case, you probably won't be making the best choice if you pick a .25 Raven or something else of that nature.    It doesn't fit either bill.

CJ

Where can I get a pistol for under a 100 bucks? I am not seeing them.  But maybe as soon as I buy one I will spin my hat around backwards, pull my pants down to my ass crack.  Grow a goetee, untie my shoelaces, only button my top button, and get a lowrider.

Edited to say that a .25 Raven is better than nothing at all.  Which is what you have when you are saving for a "better" gun.

I would say the reason most of the guns used in crimes are cheap'ens is because they can be tossed in the bushes without lament.

And it is simple Capitalism that says that the market should decide how much to sell guns for.  Perhaps going after the people who commit crimes would be more effective than targeting a whole class of budget firearms.

It's not like a drug dealer couldn't afford a more expensive pistol anyway.  They drive $50,000 cars.  The only people you would be helping, is the tax collectors, and the only people you would be hurting is the low-income, law abiding citizens.

Count me in as another vote for get off your high horse. Let's all villify the item and ignore the user. John Q. Public has the right to own any sort of firearm, regardless of cost. Are those cheap crappy guns attractive to hoodlums? Yes. Is crappy music also attractive to them? Yes. How about baggy clothes? Yup. Do any of those items commit crimes on their own? No. It takes a criminal. I started with the cheap crap because that's all I could afford. I quickly learned that you get what you pay for and if I was gonna be serious about shooting I was gonna have to spend a little $$$. I donated a Hi-Standard .22 revolver I payed $50 for to a family I know that couldn't afford a gun. They can at least scrape together a few $$ for .22s and now I have created a family of gun owners. When they can spare some more they'll buy another gun, probably something cheap.

No, actually, it isn't. Availability of these guns does not exist in a vacuum for one particular group with a homogenous set of motivations. You completely disregard any and all benefits of easy access to firearms in general - the very fallacy the antigun crowd exists because of. Have you even read [i]More Guns, Less Crime[/i]?

You sound like a LEO whose perceptions have been biased because of his particular line of work. The "dim view of humanity" effect, perhaps.



So you're saying you have a philosophical problem with mere posession of firearms not used to perpetrate criminal acts? Am I reading this correctly?



How do you know this? Do you think that if you lived, in say, South Central Los Angeles, that you would rather not have a concealed weapon? Even the most basic survival instinct provides reasonable motivations for it.

But beyond that, if you are a true believer in freedom, you'd recuse yourself from judging the dispositions of others, and instead focus on their actions. And not the tools of those actions.



You've just made the argument for the ridiculous "cooling off period," the lengthy background check, and a host of other antigun measures which have not shown to be at all effective in reducing any form of firearm related crime. But moreover, you reinforce the notion that firearm purchases, if immediate, are probably done for reasons of deficient psychology, or the "passions of the moment".

Hogwash.

Additionally, wealthy people are subject to the same types of whimsy and impulse that these impoverished "punks" possess - and I would argue more so, given their means. Ever been to Las Vegas and watched the high (or even no-so-high) rollers? What kind of firepower could be purchased with the money routinely lost in a single roll of the dice? What type of firearm do you feel a wealthy person might purchase with the same "rashness?" A cheap .22, 9mm semiautomatic pistol, or a Desert Eagle or Ruger .480?


But advocating prohibitive cost on gun ownership apparently is, I see. The founders would be so [i]proud[/i].

[continued]




This is true, but by kowtowing to it, you've legitimized all manner of collectivist blame theories espoused by the antis.

But that aside, this is simply specious reasoning. Automobile ownership is objectively far more dangerous than gun ownership. But when was the last time you drove past the Hyundai, Yugo, or for you Europeans, the [i]Twingo[/i] lot - stuck your head out of the window, and attempted to dissuade would-be sellers or purchasers from such a cheap, and therefore obviously [i]impulse[/i] transaction? You didn't, because you knew that even though these cars might not handle as reliably, or be as safe in a crash as a Volvo, it was what those buyers could afford, and you weren't in a position to second-guess them. These buyers, in all likelihood, know that what they can afford, what they need, where they need to drive, and how they need to get there - and are making the best trade-off they can between those factors. You cannot possibly make that decision for them.



No but your're doing something just as bad, if not worse - blaming the freedoms of all for the misdeeds of some.



You simply are not a believer in basic freedoms, then. You're making the same specious "impulse buy" argument as HCI/VPC constantly does. The same argument can be made about virtually [i]anything[/i]; be it guns, knives, cars, boxcutters, SUV's, ATV's, compound bows, baseball bats, swimming pools, or a litany of other dangerous items.



Actually, you [b]are[/b] justifying high prices to exclude a class of gun owners you'd rather not see own guns - and ignoring [i]others[/i] who benefit from the availability of these same guns.

Whether you choose to acknowledge this or not, it's what you, ahem, "feel" .

[continued]



This is fair advice for anyone, in buying anything. But you present the option of price-based quality for a firearm as a [i]categorical[/i] preference, rather than an [i]incremental[/i] decision (as per my car example) - which is the faulty reasoning leftists and other authoritarians use to declare what is best for all individuals, even though they objectively, cannot possess the specific knowledge on which to base that claim.

In this, flapjack actually had the question framed properly when he said:



And there are probably 1000 "flapjack's" for every unseemly "punk" you so fear. It's simple numbers.

Mr_bungle.........excellent reply and very well thought out but let me add something else.....
Can any of you boys quote the 2nd? Where does it say anything about crime or self protection?

It ain't the criminal class that the elitists's
care about.....it is the revolutionary class..

Agreed. The Second Amendement says nothing about crime simply beacuse the framers never imagined anyone seeking to infringe upon natural law - the self-evident right to defend self and property. It would be sheer absurdity to them.

But many people these days, influenced by the antis (and the left in general) care [i]nothing[/i], I repeat [i]nothing[/i] about the original intent of the 2nd. They seek only to create "something better" - so bringing up 2A rights in a gun crime discussion won't, unfortunately, change any minds.

I beg to differ.  This is still America.  

I DO NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHER'S BEING IRRESPONSIBLE.

[b]MY [/b]2nd Amendment right is NOT conditional upon YOU acting responsibly (or at least it shouldn't be).  THAT is the slippery slope to "collectivism" and "group punishment" for the misdeeds of certain individuals.

Don't try to shift responsibility to ME for the crimes committed of low-life scum.  

Individual rights = Individual responsibility

I obvioulsy don't have the passion of some of y'all, the age and experience of others, or the urgent desperation of a few. I respect all these replies and opinions, and they make me think. That, I hope, is why discussions like this exist.

To X--kill: I'm near Chattanooga, but I'm really from South Georgia (God's Country). I'm glad to share your feelings.

To some of you other folks: No, I'm not an elitist, despite having decent firearms and being from the South. Remember, the Government took that away a long time ago. The plantations are still owned by Germans, carpet-bagger Northern folk like the guy who owns Victoria's Secret, or paper companies, or the Olin ammunition family. We're still damn proud of our country, and we still work just as hard as any of y'all. But hey, I'll hold off on cable or premium unleaded or call-waiting to buy something I can both defend myself with and pass on to my kin. I can drag the river under an interstate overpass if I want some P.O.S. gun to blow up in my face if someone breaks into my house or the sky starts falling. If our numbers continue to dwindle, though, and OUR REPRESENTATIVES take our coolest firearms away, I'll stand right beside your SKS with may Grandad's 38-40 Winchester WWII pump carbine and defend OUR rights. But the only gun I'd keep at all costs is a sweet 16 to carry to the devine dove fields of Southwest Georgia.
Cheers,
John.

I can see that I drew a bit of heat for my statements.    That's fine.  Some of you threw up some well-articulated arguments and made some very good points for me to ponder.

Let me state here and now that I enthusiastically support the rights of any and every law-abiding citizen to keep and bear any manner of firearms that he or she wishes to, without reservation, registration,  or qualification, including short-barreled fully automatic shotguns with collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, flash hiders, pistol grips, and 200 round detachable magazines or belt feed mechanisms.    If you're a law-abiding citizen, that is.    No way to prove otherwise until you break the law.

However, that being said, I still have my reservations about the best use for such FINE handguns as the Raven 25, etc. that can be found for as little as 45 bucks in a pawn shop.  I can't personally see buying one because I don't trust the .25 round and I certainly don't expect to get the sort of accuracy out of it that makes a gun fun to shoot.    If you don't have accuracy and you don't have an effective self-defense round, but you do have very low cost and easy concealability,  then suddenly it looks TO ME like the target market for a gun like this is NOT going to be the serious (or even HALF serious) firearms enthusiast/collector.

And as I said earlier, such guns are very well represented among those that are confiscated from small-time hoodlums.  That's a fact.

I embrace our gun ownership freedoms, but this one sort of sticks in my craw and there's not a totally satisfactory answer to be found.

No need to continue to flame me about this one. It's an issue that bugs me from two different angles without needing any outside help!  

CJ

CJ,

No flames intended, but this statement stood out:



First off, let me say I agree with you whole heartedly on the virtues (or lack thereof) of both the .25ACP round and the raven platform itself.  

But whenever I've been through any sort of training, there inevitably begins a conversation on equipment--some guys like Glocks, some like 1911s, others think that pistols are for sissies, and we should all tote Mossberg 590s.  Most think their weapon of choice is the end-all be-all in self defense firearms.

But all agree:  When TSHTF, the best firearm (and cartridge) on the planet is [b]the one you have with you at the time you need it.[/b]

If you don't have a glock, 1911, Sig, Hk, or other high value firearm, and all you've got is a Raven .25, it's no longer a POS--it's the difference between your living and dying.

Food for thought.

CJ has common sense.

When TSHTF (or whatever) I'd rather have the $50 some jackass spent on a cheap .25 invested in some gas in a Jerry can to get me to a place where I can recompose. What would you stand down with that POS gun? A knife...a bigger person...not a baseball bat. If you casually watch things get so out of control that your only defense is a nickel-plated pocket-sized .25 with hot pink handguards then you've been a victim of natural selection. As the concrete slowly creeps over my heritage, I'll blame myself when I can't own a gun. We're watching capitolism bludgeon common sense, and we're arguing about trivialities, while our forefathers' dreams disappear forever.

Assume for the moment I live in a Big City (I used to--I wised up and don't anymore) Also assume I live in a bad neighborhood of said city.  Assume one more time (I know, I know, ASS U ME, but bear with me) that I lack the disposable income to change my circumstances.  

A bad guy kicks down my door, looking for drug money, or whatever else.  I've got kids in the house.  I can't buy a jerry can of gas and get out of dodge.  My back's to the wall.  Too bad jasperdog talked me out of buying that Raven and into saving up for that $600 Springfield--after all, that's a quality piece of work, designed for professional law enforcement, and the military!

Nickel plating, hot pink handguards, and all, it beats the CRAP out of NOTHING.

" If you don't have a glock, 1911, Sig, Hk, or other high value firearm, and all you've got is a Raven .25, it's no longer a POS--it's the difference between your living and dying.  "



                     
Granted, when you need a gun, ANY gun is better than no gun.   Who could argue with that?  But if you're going to rely on a gun for even the POSSIBILITY of it being used in a self-defense situation, you should assure yourself that it's going to be reliable in a pinch.  Get thee to the range and put a few boxes of ammo through it!  Make sure it feeds and fires when it's clean and when it's dirty.  Make sure it's accurate enough to score good hits at hallway combat distances.

Personally, if I were suddenly in a very tight financial position and gunless, I'd tighten my belt, eat soup for a few months, save my pennies (LITERALLY!), and go for a gun I could trust as soon as I had the money saved up.   That might just mean getting a 45 dollar Raven as a temporary measure, but I'd continue to save for something better and probably lose a few pounds in the process.  And that by itself would be worth the light meals!

I still question the legitimacy of a gun that's hardly a step removed from a "saturday night special" that is favored by punks.

Maybe if we installed punk detectors in all gun stores....?

CJ

Yeah, nowadays it's more like:

First hit of weed when at age 7
freebasing at age 9
Shot an old lady in a gang initiation ritual when at age 10 (used a Lorcin .25, oh yeah!)
Jail (armed robbery and aggravated assault) 12-18
Crack baby at age 19
Brief career as a hip hop singer's posse member age 20
Shot dead during a liquor store robbery gone bad, age 22

This "cheap pistols are prefered by criminals" stuff is an old leftwing, gun-banning line.  The leftists believed that if they repeated this lie often enough, it would become the truth.

The NRA asserts that criminals prefer and use the same quality of pistol that cops and civilians prefer (ones costing a few hundreds of dollars).  I believe the NRA figure was $400 bux.

"Serious gun collectors" prefer expensive pistols?  So what.  So do I.  But I just can't afford "expensive" pistols.  Does that mean I am not a serious gun collector?

What the heck is a serious gun collector, anyway?
I dunno, but I know them when I see them.


"The right of the Serious Guncollector to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed."
-------

Don't price us little people out of the shooting game.
That's just what the liberals want.

OK, now I've finally seen the light. All we have to do to reduce crime is have all gun manufacturers raise the price of all inexpensive, cheap firearms to at least $500.00 & then criminals will no longer want them. There by leaving only baseball bats for them to use. That will even the playing field for those of us who cannot afford the now very expensive guns that we used to be able to buy for our protection.
I just hope that the baseball bat manufacturers don't start making inferior,  inexpensive bats because the criminals will start buying & using even more of them & we will have to ask the manufacturers to raise the price of them to $500.00 &..........................etc.

Oh but wait a minute, isn't this the same bogus [img]http://members-http-1.rwc1.sfba.home.net/jeff.hoeft/pics/BS1.gif[/img] that California proposed last year???

Appearently some of you guys believe that the Californicators are right in letting what guns the criminals use, dictate to what gun laws should be created.
I cannot believe you guys are buying into this [img]http://members-http-1.rwc1.sfba.home.net/jeff.hoeft/pics/BS1.gif[/img]


ColtShorty

GOA KABA COA JPFO SAF NRA

"I won't be wronged,  I won't be insulted
and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do
these things to other people and I require
the same from them."

I don't like the idea of crap guns, because, well, they're crap, and I feel sorry for anyone who has to use one. But if there's a legitimate market for cheap guns, and there is, then I see no problem. You get what you pay for, though.

Just for the heck of it, what would you say to a gun that costs ten dollars, has accuracy that is only adequate at typical gunfight ranges, is made of materials that will NOT take fingerprints, and has barrel rifling and chamber machining that is so uniform that bullets and shells fired from one of these guns would be absolutely indistinguishable from bullets and shells fired by any other gun of the same type, even to an experienced ballistician, thereby making it impossible to prove that a particular gun was used in a crime?

Let's take it up one more notch: It's made of a unique material that works well enough for a limited use firearm, but if you toss it in a body of water it will completely disintegrate and wash away.

Would you believe that this is a 'legitimate' firearm?  Would it have a legitimate sporting or self-defense purpose?

This would be a good spy's gun, but other
than that, its best suitable use would be
by criminal types.


Just because you COULD make such a gun, (if it is possible), would it be right to actually do it?    I say no.

We all have a point at which something strains the limits of what's acceptable.   I don't view the very cheapest guns, the ones that are best suited for other than legal activities, as being in our best interests as responsible gun owners. They may be (and probably are) just fine in OUR hands, but the fact is that we're not the target market of these borderline 'saturday night specials' and never have been.   Even though WE may be responsible with such a gun, the fact is that they're a black eye to the image of gun owners in the eyes of the liberal media and the anti-gun types.   I see their viewpoint and understand how they got there.   All it takes is a pair of eyes and a little sense to see that these guns do NOTHING to further our cause.

We as gun owners maintain that there are LEGITIMATE reasons to have, own, and use guns. They are:

Self defense
Target practice
Collecting
Hunting

Such a gun as we're talking about here doesn't fit WELL into any of those categories.  They're not a first choice for self defense, they're not accurate enough to make a good range gun, they're not particularly desirable from a collecting standpoint, and given that they lack the accuracy it takes to make a good range gun, you can assume that they're not used much in hunting, either.

So what's left?   Non-legitimate uses, mostly.
Easy concealment, low cost, practically disposable.  Almost tailor-made for the common hoodlum.

We don't NEED that.  It's a black eye to our cause.  You and I would be fine with such a gun, but we're not most likely to buy it or have it.

Sometimes you have to evaluate what helps your cause, and what hurts it.   If you run a business, you get rid of the employees that cost you more money than they make for you in their work.  You keep the ones that make you money and give your company and products a good reputation.

I'm not saying these cheap guns should be banned. I'm questioning whether the manufacturers should be making them and whether the dealers should be selling them.  It's an ethical decision, not a gun freedom issue.

My ethics say no to these guns.  But they say YES to practically EVERYTHING else.   If I ran the zoo, I'd repeal the GCA of 1934 and the NFA of 1968, and every gun law on the books since '34, and mandate that the states have no rights to enact or enforce any gun laws that they make,
retroactively.

CJ

You might maintain that, but the men who wrote the constitution didn't.  Yes, all four of those activities are protected by the 2nd amendment, but that is most certainly not the reason why we have the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd amendment is about balance of force between the people and the government.  Attitudes like the one jasperdog has been promoting are exactly the reason our rights have been infringed to the point that they have.

I call it the "Duck Hunter Syndrome," that state of mind that usually takes the form of, "They aint never gonna take away my 12ga, so I don't care what they do.  Damn assault rifles make us all look bad anyway."  In jasperdog's case, it's "I don't care if they ban those low dollar firearms--they make us all look bad anyway."  Or my favorite yet, Bill Ruger saying, "No honest man needs a magazine with more than 10 rounds," leading directly to the hicap ban.

Of course, once you kick open the door and allow the government to ban things, it's really hard to argue later that they don't have the power to infringe on your rights--you've already let them in the past, the courts upheld it, hey, it [b]must[/b] be constitutional, right?

I don't know how to address your $10 supergun--my gut feeling is congress would ban them, but leave an exemption in for federal, state, and local governmental organizations (just like every other gun control law) and that the things would find their way to the streets anyway. (Gun control laws affect only the law abiding, remember?  Criminals don't obey the law.)