Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Status_Silver_5114 t1_ixw0ibs wrote

Reply to comment by ProvBroker in Non-Political RI Gun Law Question by provendumb

So without the illegal component the gun is non functional I assume? Get a different gun.

−32

lelekfalo t1_ixw132f wrote

Tell me you know nothing about firearms without telling me you know nothing about firearms.

36

Status_Silver_5114 t1_ixw24wl wrote

Is that not factually correct tho? Go ahead I’ll wait.

−2

Billiam201 t1_ixw7iod wrote

You won't be waiting long. No, it's not correct.

17

ProvBroker t1_ixwgu3a wrote

Lol, no it’s not factually correct. Honestly commentary like what you are contributing betrays a complete ignorance of firearm construction and function.

I won’t berate you like the others, but this sort of know nothing commentary leaves pro gun-control legislators and proponents mouths all of the time, which only serves to make the folks who understand the subject matter uncomfortable about accepting the proposals, as it makes it clear the gun control people have absolutely no idea how the thing they are regulating even works.

It’s very important that we have thoughtful and nuanced regulation around the matter so that we can protect important constitutional rights while mitigating tragedies and violence involving deadly weaponry.

16

MajorDrGhastly t1_ixwffog wrote

i cant imagine ever embarrassing myself so hard as you have just done. just go to bed friend.

9

Yz-Guy t1_ixwgqxk wrote

This was a roller coaster. Lol

2

anonymous_troII t1_ixwtv47 wrote

No dumb dumb. It's not factual. There will be an injunction. The law is unconstitutional, see the response from the lawyer above. There is precedent showing this will be overturned.

7

glennjersey t1_ixw24im wrote

Thats literally one of the main points if the current lawsuit against the state.

OP is being deprived of his legally owned property because of a likely unconstitutional law they passed.

10

Guyincognito4269 t1_ixw7ufx wrote

Who's taking it? He still has it. My car can go over 100 mph, am I legally being deprived of it because I can't go that fast? Get a 10 rounder and go on with your life.

−20

glennjersey t1_ixw91hw wrote

That's the point. He can't get a 10 rounder.

Not every firearm has 10 round mags available.

Further - without the magazine the firearm is operable useless. Many of them won't even fire without a magazine inserted (as a safety feature). So your car analogy is more apt if you said someone was taking the gas tank out of your car. Sure they're not taking your car, but they're rendering it pretty useless, no?

8

Guyincognito4269 t1_ixw94ki wrote

What kind of weapon is it?

−11

glennjersey t1_ixw9o8c wrote

OP has not said, other than;

>I cannot order a 10 or less capacity magazine for this firearm as they are not made

One of the young senators made mention of a similar situation during the joke that was the hearings before they passed the law. This is not going to be an uncommon occurrence.

8

provendumb OP t1_ixwf8id wrote

Pistol

7

Dopey-NipNips t1_ixwr5wj wrote

But you won't say what kind because you'll get 50 links showing how easy compliance with the law is

−6

sailri t1_ixz1j34 wrote

Yes you are. Because in your scenario your engine is capable of pushing your (over $10,000?) car over the speed limit. And having it in your car in your possession would make you a felon.

3

sailri t1_ixz1td6 wrote

You could just get rid of the engine of course. Isn’t that free? Sure it is. But the cost to replace the engine? And if you can’t the cost to replace the car? That’s taking.

3