Tam has lovingly decided to play devil's advocate in my rant about illegal chunks of metal. The general consensus from the infringers (JUST KIDDING) is that some part of the system must be considered the firearm in order to have any laws that are effective.
Laying aside my feeling about firearms laws, this is why I disagree with that sentiment
To define a gun based on a single part makes as much sense as defining an egg as a cake. Eggs are an integral part of cake. Oh sure, there are probably ways to make a good cake without an egg, but you need those proteins nonetheless. You also need flour and sugar, oil, etc. Simply having eggs doesn't a cake make.
Instead, we consider it a cake when you mix all those ingredients together and bake it. Hell, it's not a cake when it's all liquidy, that's just batter – you still have to take action in order to have you cake (so you can eat it too).
My overall issue is that we spend so much time on trying to define what a firearm is so that it can be regulated, serialized, taxed, controlled, and covered in the dross from refined absurdium that we as a society fail to concentrate of the real issue which is focusing on the actions that are illegal.
Harming another human being without just cause is actionable. Doesn't matter if you do it via a projectile that was provided its velocity by the rapid expansion of gases contained within a tube sealed at one end, with a sharpened stick, a thrown pebble, or by dropping a congresscritter on their head from 13 stories (although that might be considered justifiable in most circumstances). It is the action of harming that is the issue, not how you define "congresscritter", "gravity" and if the 14th floor really is the 13th floor even if they didn't label it that way on the elevator.
Another example of this scenario (and why I'm so vehemently against defining things by their parts) would be suppressors. Just having the parts can get you in hot water with the BATFE, even if it's just an empty tube and some rubber washers. You can be arrested and charged with a felony for having the ability to make something, and that's scary.
What is your opinion on this? I know I've got a few readers who are not gun enthusiasts (*cough* UBU52 *cough*) and I'd really like to get your opinions on this as well.
In summary, unless life hands you some water and sugar to boot, your lemonade is going to suck, but just having the lemons is apparently all that is needed to tax you for a lemonade stand.
YES! I almost totally agree, BUT, it seems that you are OK with possession of some implement being a crime.
The ATF is full of stupid rules that are far more likely to trip up the unwary than perform any real Public Safety service. Why 16 inches, Why 10 inches, why a bayonet lug, percent of American made parts?
Harming another human being without just cause is actionable. Doesn't matter if you do it [...] by dropping a congresscritter on their head from 13 stories (although that might be considered justifiable in most circumstances).
Er, nope. You've still harmed a human being - you just used a congresscritter to do it.
What if I was aiming for another congresscritter?
If you are going to have laws restricting a thing, you need to define the thing.
Cake is a form of food that is usually sweet and often baked. Cakes normally combine some kind of flour, a sweetening agent (commonly sugar), a binding agent (generally egg, though gluten or starch are often used by lacto-vegetarians and vegans), fats (usually butter, shortening, or margarine, although a fruit purée such as applesauce is sometimes substituted to avoid using fat), a liquid (milk, water or fruit juice), flavors and some form of leavening agent (such as yeast or baking powder), though many cakes lack these ingredients and instead rely on air bubbles in the dough to expand and cause the cake to rise. Cake is often frosted with buttercream or marzipan, and finished with piped borders and crystallized fruit.