>This is exactly the point. The objective of these laws is not to deter illegal possession of firearms. That's already super, duper, triple, illegal. It's to de

>This is exactly the point. The objective of these laws is not to deter illegal possession of firearms. That's already super, duper, triple, illegal. It's to deter the law abiding from exercising their Constitutional rights. right. the law is not to deter illegal possession, it's to deter certain kinds of manufacturing. > There is no situation in which a criminal could be charged with these laws, where the criminal would not already be facing decadess of prison time for illegal possession of a firearm. Someone manufactures the weapon and then sells it. If you have no proof of possession you have no case. If you have proof of manufacturing firearms, then you have a case. Saying "law A should not exist because if law A were broken, law B would already be broken" does make sense if that can be guaranteed to be true, however it's not possible to provide that guarantee, therefore that logic doesn't make sense to go with.