6144326
You're right, we shouldn't have to mod a firearm to make it automatic.
We should be able to buy fully automatic firearms.
I'd buy a ton of them.

6144329
6144331
That moment when I'd choose a 12 year old girl to be on my fire team before any of you guys.

6144326
Alrighty, I’ve been doing this for days, so pardon me if I’m a little pissy. I’m tired of beating people into a coma with the ‘fact stick,’ so I’m just going to bullet point things. For reference in case people aren’t aware of my background with firearms. Almost a full decade as a FFL dealer, an extra decade on top of that shooting, I’m still involved in the NFA community despite not owning any, etc. (mostly money is why not)

-Because America was founded on the individual right over the societal. Meaning the person’s rights are more important than that of society as a whole. You cannot put ‘undue burden’ on someone’s individual rights, per dozens of court cases. Some things, like the Las Vegas shooting, literally nothing could stop. The asshole met every background check and method of gun control on the books, and we have over 20,000 firearms laws already. Seriously. The book that was on my desk at work was 2-3” thick, not counting the supplements that were printed off as tech branch changed this or that, clarified something, etc.

Doesn’t help if the .gov isn’t evenly enforcing the laws or only does it when they want to though. And yes, I can cite multiple cases of them purposely breaking/bending the law, or flat out not charging people for things that would put other people in jail for a lifetime.

-Modifying a firearm to be full auto is already illegal. As in 10 years in federal prison and $250,000 in fines per charge, which there would be several of. Hell, just owning the parts and a matching firearm (without them installed or modified to do so) is still the above charge under ‘constructive intent.’ NO new full auto has been allowed into civilian hands since 1986. Hell, there have only been 3 crimes committed with NFA weapons, and 2 of them were by police officers. (crooked cop shooting informant, cop finding wife in bed with someone, and finally I think, was a bank robbery back in the late 30’s)

So making it more illegal does nothing when it’s already highly illegal. It isn’t a mod that some random jackoff can do on their own. There are certain measurements that need to be within a hundred thousandth for your machining, let alone that the major dealers won’t sell you the parts without a copy of your form 4 (form to own NFA weapon).

-Because you are looking at the 2nd Amendment with the understanding of modern English and not how it was used back in the day.

Why don't we have common militias and all that. Main reason for the Second Amendment. Mind you, the authors were some of the most learned men of their times, and debated on the placement of a single comma (see highlighted) for a literal day. Simply because it broke the 2nd Amendment up into two different clauses. That way it reads as a militia is necessary to the security of a free state AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

To bring it back to your question though. A ‘well regulated milita’ didn’t mean what you think it does. ‘Well regulated’ meant equipped, available, and understanding in the use of their weapons. To the same standard like they would have in the military? No, but understanding how to shoot and reload if needed, yes. The militia part itself was any man between the ages of 17 and 45 who was not already part of the military and who was healthy enough to fight. That’s it.

Let alone the fact that they wrote the 2nd Amendment knowing that the Continental Army and Navy were vastly, and I mean vastly outgunned. The Privateer Navy (personally owned warships, Q ships, etc) outclassed the Continental on an order of 4:1 in both tonnage, ships, and weaponry. The numbers for the army were even larger leaning toward private people, who openly owned artillery, howitzers, the ‘assassin’s weapons’ and machine guns of the day. A huge ‘assassin’ weapon was the uncommon but still very used Girandoni air rifle, which was semi automatic, nearly silent, held 20 balls, and could fire 30 before needing a complete reload. Or the puckle gun, a large bore (mini cannon essentially) with a rotating cylinder. Fire, pull out a pin, rotate the cylinder, pin in, fire, repeat until empty. Drop cylinder, insert new, continue.

-Storage laws vary from state to state, not to mention it makes it a hell of a lot harder to defend yourself if you have to dick around opening a safe. The only exception is NFA weapons, which have very strict rules about storage. Hell, it’s a felony for me to leave the room if someone else is home and those are out.

-Define what you call an ‘assault rifle.’ Because that is a very specific legal term that doesn’t fit pretty much anything. Now if you are meaning an AR15 or similar, it could be that they are easily modifiable to fit the user, low recoil, easily maintained, etc. So they can be used by everyone from women to cripples to children without major issues. ALL rifles are semi automatic or less. One bullet per trigger pull. Other than cosmetics and mechanical differences, they are all built to the same exacting legal standard.

And if you don’t think they are good for home defense, you are hilariously wrong. 5.56 is probably one of the best current rounds for it. Low/no overpenetration (unlike shotguns and some handgun calibers) so you don’t have to worry about accidentally killing someone else, low recoil, lightweight, etc.

I’m not even touching the magazine one. That just... wow.

6144333
Having access to short barreled weapons like pistols (for the sake of argument) is not defenseless, but it at least lessens the range a SWAT team needs to search.

Do you want firearms legal for personal defense, or firearms legal so you can get the biggest weapon money can buy?

Guess we're just going to have to accept that even if guns are allowed for open carry, I'm going to have to deal with the possibility someone might decide to pull out that automatic you wanted and mow down an entire sidewalk before people can get their own guns out and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it? Gee, why do terrorists even need to gain entry, or do something as dramatic as a plane hijacking? Just find a whackjob and wire them a few tens of thousand bucks to buy a M2 to fit to the roof of his car, then drive at the biggest clump of people.

Ain't that a nice thought.

6144370
Speaking of mowing down sidewalks...

But don't worry, a lot of people with guns stopped him.
After he ran over a shit ton of people.

Too bad nobody in that crowd was carrying an automatic rifle.

6144374
Hey, there's a solution in the works for that. AI systems that refuse to allow the vehicle to impact something on it's sensors, and refuse to move if the sensors are tampered with.

6144384
I'll use my rifle, thanks.

6144384
Because that level of computer learning exists right now? Let alone the fact that a vehicle is already multiple times deadlier than a firearm. So the whole premise makes zero sense. Let alone the fact that they’d still have to wait nearly a year for the firearm, in the case of a M2, pay probably ~$100k, etc.

A short barrel doesn’t have a huge amount to do with the range of the weapon, that is largely caliber dependent. For example, I personally can still land hits on a torso target at 800+ yards with a 10.5” SBR all afternoon. Granted, the bullet is barely piddling along at that point, but that’s just basic 223/5.56 for reference. Barrel selection is only part of terminal ballistics.

Firearms are legal ‘because.’ There isn’t a clause for any reasoning beyond that you have the legal right to do so. In fact, short of NFA paperwork there is no federal ‘reason’ to own them, because asking that is unconstitutional.

6144331
You do realize we already have a background check in place that covers everything from crimes, drug use, mental health, citizenship status, etc, right? It gets called into the FBI NICS system and they are the ones that say yes/no/delay.

While you’re pointing out the NRA’s funding, I’d like to note that some of the largest anti-gun politicians, states, and groups actually own significant amounts of stock in firearms companies. Weird, ain’t it.

Oh yeah, and 44% of their funding is membership dues, another 26% from personal donations, 9.2% from advertisements, 5.5% from ‘other related organizations (that would be other companies btw) 5.2% from selling stuff, and 5% from royalties. The last tiny bit is all misc sources. When you have 5 million people as members, the money kinda adds up fast.

6144329
Mental health is garbage that politicians don’t want to touch. Kinda like actually doing the things that would lower crime. Like enforcing the gun laws we currently have.

And you seem to think that being armed is a magical ‘fix all.’ It doesn’t work like that. It puts odds more in your favor if you need lethal force, but it doesn’t magically become an ‘I win’ button. Your average attacker is using a knife or handgun. If someone is attacking you with a rifle from a distance, things are completely gone to shit, and a handgun isn’t the weapon you’d want. BUT for 99% of the time, it is the best weapon to have on you.

Not to mention a ton of laws regarding use of lethal force.

6144062

6144071

Guns are a right to own. 

 owning a gun is a privilege most of all.

6144080

Australia threw out the right to due process and innocent until proven guilty, punishing people for an act they had zero hand in just because they owned guns. 

There was thing called a firearm amnesty that gave people several months and compensated them for it, and there's no breach of any due process as the constitution, under Section 51 (xxci) gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to acquire property on just terms.

6144065

If you don't like freedom, move to a place like Australia where you can live

Fixed it up for you.

6144384
>because a proximity sensor is going to help the vehicle slow down fast enough when it's skidding with it's brakes locked at 90mph down a nicely paved road towards a crowd

That only helps if the car isn't in motion or it's very slow.

6144472
Color it up all you like, but what they did was go around and threaten people who hadn't committed any crime whatsoever with legal action if they didn't give up lawfully-acquired property simply because they shared a single characteristic with the shooter. I don't care what the Constitution says, that is not and cannot be a right of any government.

6144098
If the government doesn't have to prove you guilty of a crime before punishing you, you don't have to commit a crime for them to punish you.

It's that simple.

6144479
Did I say it had to be proximity? There can be, and are radar and lidar systems that can tell if there's a car crash happening before it even happens. It wouldn't be that hard to have a program that progressively slows you down the closer you're driving towards. And maybe in a few years, you won't be able to aim at a crowd of people anyways due to Class 5 driving AI.

6144420
My point was that at least its going to be a lot harder to fatally injure someone with a pistol at 2000 yards than a rifle due to muzzle velocities, forcing a hypothetical killer to have to get closer.

A rifle let's you do that same, but at range, and since anyone with enough cash to buy one, guess we should all accept that long range killings are going to be a thing that we mark our calendars for every few years.

Well, im going to put in my 2 cents, with 1 being a more basic arguement, and 1 being all fact laiden.

On a simplistic level, here are my thoughts on this discussion.
1. If there is going to be a restriction on automatic weapons that description should also extend to parts that would make a weapon (for all intents and purposes) automatic. Further, extended magazines ( to my mind meaning extended past standard issue, so greater than 30 rounds) really serve no purpose and i wouldn't bat a eye if they were banned as well.

2. A ban, however well intended, is basically pointless due to A) the current availibility of these parts and B) the general ease they can be made with. A gatling converter part and bump stock are not complex, and can be easily fabricated. Even resttictng magazine size to 10 rounds wouldn't really work, because a batard would simply get more magazines. In order to prevent something like this happening again, a full ban and confiscation of all semi-automatics would need to happen. And that wouldn't work either.

3. If there was not a single semi automatic weapon in the us there would still be these atrocities, tbey would just happen differently. Remember the DC sniper? Remember the bath school disaster? Remember the nice france truck attack? The kansas city or IRA bombings? People with intent to kill on a massive scale will, and they will make their plans based on what means they have,or can aquire.

4. It is not hard to either aquire a illegal weapon or even build a submachine gun. Guns are fairly simple tools, and with a little effort anyone with a lathe or machinre tools can slap together a sten or a blyskawica, and equip themselfs for crime. The only reason they dont do so now is becauae it is easier to aquire a gun through legal or illegal means.

5. A ban on assault weapons kinda misses the point of the second ammendment. The second ammendment was not written so that people could hunt, or engage in competitions, or even know that they could join a milita. It was written with the intent that people could be armed for the securty of a free state, meaning they could fight a foreign or local body on relativly even terms.back in thre time of writing, everyone usedmuskets , and there was relative parity. Nowdays, a ar-15 is what achives relative parity to standard small arms, and should be legal per the intents of the document.
The question should be if the second amendment is still necessary in this day and age, not to what extent it is granted.

6. The world is, to my mind, a dangerous snd shitty place. Its one of the reasons that i watch this show. Its nice and happy. But in the world that we live in evil people of all motivations will find a way to commit atrocities, and there is no feasible way to stop them. And it sucks, and i know that it sucks. But thats the way it is.
Freedom is great, but it is also dangerous, without the freedom to buy assault weapons there probably would not have been a mass shooting in las vegas. But there would have been something else. And if acts of evil happen with or without gun regulation, then what is the point of regulating?

6144649
That's still proximity based.

>imblying the crazies won't just buy older autos or tear out the computer systems on board to combat this

These AI are more for the benefit of distracted drivers and morons than they are for a determined ebil road warrior.

6144749
Still a lot harder to kill than a point and click. Especially since it's a Melee weapon, and you can't hide from a distance.

Also, it's not inconcievable that manual drive may be heavily restricted.

6144683
1. Restriction already exists and is punishable with 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine per charge. Minus rare and specific circumstances.
2. Gatling converters and bump stocks are legal as is, per all current (over 20,000) gun laws. For confiscation you’d need registration, and it is illegal for the .gov to create a database of gun owners or firearms.
3. Yup.
4. Tube guns like your Sten, Swedish K, Mac 10, etc are hilariously easy to make.
5. Please don’t use the ‘assault weapons’ terminology. That is a very specific section of law that doesn’t apply here. Beyond that, per the USSC it is necessary and an individual right. The only way to change this is to either collapse the .gov or have 3/4 of the states agree to it at a constitutional convention.
6. Bingo.

6144659
By that logic, let’s ban anything that can kill someone at range. Goodbye harpoon gun, drones, rocks dropped from buildings, etc. Long guns used in homicides are an extreme minority of deaths. Knives, hammers, and improvised weapons are way higher on the list, so you best get started on that.

Or I mean hell, if we want to reduce the death toll, actually enforcing the laws on the books might do something. How weird of an idea is that?

6144749
not to mention how horrifyingly totalitarian it'd be to allow the government to have total control of your brakes.

6144418
Wait, so remind me how a felon legally got a gun?

Not saying you're wrong, but, like shit. We're a superpower.

6144898
My point wasn't range, my point was long range and effort. Notice I didn't say anything about pistols.

6145117
In some cases, a felon isn't necessarily a felon at the time they got the weapon. In many of the cases, such as the most recent, the perpetrator was otherwise an upstanding member of society, passing all background checks and relevant tests.

6145771
And the courts have ruled that felons can't be forced to admit they own a gun.

6144613

Color it up all you like, but what they did was go around and threaten people who hadn't committed any crime whatsoever with legal action if they didn't give up lawfully-acquired property s

So it was a breach of "due process" when they illegalised and seized every drug made illegal ever?

6145117
Which one? Because to my knowledge the Vegas shooter wasn’t a felon. His brother is and dad was. If they are a felon in possession of a firearm, hell even a single round of ammunition, it’s a felony for them.

6145695
Reread your post then, as it comes across that the range is your key point.

My point was that at least its going to be a lot harder to fatally injure someone with a pistol at 2000 yards than a rifle due to muzzle velocities, forcing a hypothetical killer to have to get closer.

A rifle let's you do that same, but at range, and since anyone with enough cash to buy one, guess we should all accept that long range killings are going to be a thing that we mark our calendars for every few years.

a harpoon gun has the range of 2000 yards?
Every building is tall enough to throw a few hundred rocks from?

My point was that at least its going to be a lot harder to fatally injure someone with a pistol at 2000 yards than a rifle due to muzzle velocities, forcing a hypothetical killer to have to get closer.
I was responding to how Jack Hammer wanted long range and/or automatics for everyone, and how that would do nothing to prevent Las Vegas.

6146046
The first part was sarcasm.

The vast majority of gun owners, myself included, are starting to see things Jack_Hammer’s way. Whenever something happens, WE the legal gun owners get bent over and fucked without lube. Do the laws ever change or get universally enforced on the criminals? No. So the laws just keep screwing away, driving the gun control boner deeper into our collective asses.

So yeah, we’re fed up. If gun control truly mattered to people outside of tragedies that still couldn’t have been prevented, then do something about it in those times. Otherwise they’re just grandstanding to say they did something, when they had all the time in the world to do things, but beat off to ponies instead. Case in point, Chicago. Strictest gun control laws in the US. You can’t buy a gun anywhere without a FOID card and permitting if you are from IL. If you go out of state, you still can’t unless you have the card and a permit, but 99.95% of dealers will tell you to fuck off. Not worth the drama. Strictest laws in the US mind you.

Yet they are the murder capitol of the US. Literally the Las Vegas shooting (death toll) is every month there. It’s almost as if it is a criminal and mental health problem instead of something that just sits on the counter and does nothing. Trust me, I’ve tried. Even if you walk away, they just sit there instead of going out to murder people. Mine must be defective or something.

Link to accurate description, since the image gets shrunk a lot on fimfic.

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png

6144062
Evil people will always find ways to kill no matter what. I live in Australia, the ban doesn't make it less dangerous, you're just unlikely to get shot by a legally owned gun, but getting stabbed is the way you'll go.

The founding fathers left the second amendment to protect citizens from future tyranny.... Why on earth would you listen to the government as they talk about disarming citizens.

I've seen an argument, banning guns because of criminal shootings is like having some kid driving 90 mph in a 25 mph zone and changing it to 20 mph, they're still going to do it. Criminals aren't exactly willing to give in because all of a sudden guns are illegal, they are criminals for a reason. One great example is Chicago.

6146083
On the flip side, California isn't known for being a center of heavy firearm violence, and it has strict gun laws too. On the other hand gang violence isn't something California deals with as often as Chicago, so until somebody is able to stop guns from getting into their hands I doubt much will solve anything. I'll agree with you that until that variable is taken out of the way, gun control's use there will vary wildly.

I'll agree to funding research on this topic (how guns get in, are laws actually being enforced, how guns get into criminal hands so we stop those options, etc) before we do any sweeping changes to what we have currently, though apparently that's being blocked by the NRA.

On your cake picture thing, I wish to ask something I'm confused about in the analogy. Would it be right to consider that weapons available in the late 1800's on average are more clunky, and slower than firearms on average produced in the 2000's? Wouldn't that mean your cake is getting bigger with new manufacturing and technologies that made a Vietnam era soldier much more deadly than a WW1 era soldier? What I mean to say is that if firearm development completely stopped at the level of WW1, would it be reasonable to say that firearm laws wouldn't be so strict?

6145947
Charleston

What part of,
SHALL.
NOT.
BE.
INFRINGED.
Is so hard to understand?

6146135

The founding fathers left the second amendment to protect citizens from future tyranny.... Why on earth would you listen to the government as they talk about disarming citizens.

I never said I was.

Christ, I even said I was pro second amendment in my first post, and yet I get downvotes for daring to even question things.

6145117
That guy bought a gun because someone was lazy and didnt enter the fact that he had charges against him into the database that runs the background check. It wasn't that the current system is too weak, or that he exploited a loophole, or anything like that. it was human error.

Basically, in a idyllic world, he would have been stopped by the background check because someone took twenty minutes to upload his criminal record into the database, and this white supremacist who wanted to kill people in a church would have shrugged and said, "well shit, I couldn't get a gun so now I'm going to just go home and not try and think of any separate ways of carrying out my horrible terrorist plot that I believe in to the point that I will throw my life away for it."

More likely, he would have found a alternative.

6147955
I think i was just talking about the argument against guns in general. I dunno man, late night carl is a crackpot.

also didn't downvote, but also didn't upvote.

6144336
Why do you need it though? Like you have the right, since the Founding Fathers wanted people to be able to defend themselves since we had a very weak military and many wanted a weak federal gov. but why do you need it? We're not in a war zone. You don't need it for hunting. If you find it fun that's probably gonna get pretty expensive pretty fast. If you're defending yourself you don't need to turn the other person into ground meat to do so. So why?

6144393
So you just carry around a rifle with you? So if a terrorist decides the best way to kill people is by running over them? Keep in mind he's probably doing that because he's in, say, Britain, where they don't have guns, and because they didn't have hundreds of millions of guns in the first place, he has to think outside the box. That's the main reason we shouldn't ban guns, besides the obvious 2nd amendment, is that we have so many it'd be pretty easy for people to get them on the black market.

6146083
That comic makes a fairly good point, but the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed because you had people (gangsters) who could, and did, legally walk down the street with a Tommy Gun in their hand, and even then it didn't ban them [machine guns and short-barreled guns, such as a saw-off shotgun], it just put a tax on them, like we do with cigarettes.

6148539
Let's put it this way.
You attack someone else, they run away crying on their cellphone.
You attack me, you get turned into ground meat.
Who are you more likely to attack?

6148539
That ‘tax’ was designed to be a block. It’s roughly $4000 dollars I’d they adjusted it for inflation.

6148539
1. There is no ‘need’ for the 2nd Amendment and firearms as it is an enumerated right. On a similar bent, since writing technology was so primitive back then, why do you need a computer, smartphone, or even a ball point pen? Oh wait, freedom of speech is an enumerated right as well. Oh darnit.

For self defense, you shoot to end the threat. So yes, if they have several holes in them already and are still going for a weapon or are otherwise a threat, yeah they’ll look like hamburger when done. Case in point, the vast number of police and private encounters with people that are on drugs or otherwise ALC states.

6148595
The gun was already half as much as a car, but point maid.
6149005
Yes, you shoot to end the threat, but what I was asking is why you (not necessarily you specifically) need a gun that shoots several rounds a second for that. After all, I doubt there are many cases where you might need it because the person was on pcp or whatever. Hell, if the person was just a bugler they'd probably piss themselves before running out the house if they heard a gun being cocked.
6148580
The other guy. But do you carry that shit around with you all the time? And would you be able to pull that sucker out, aim, and fire, and hit/kill the crazy dude before he shoots you?

6149618
The 2nd Amendment isn’t about ‘need’ as it is an enumerated right. If I want one to shoot smiley faces in paper with, it’s my right to do so. As with any other legal option.

6149618
You don't know what I carry or how good I am with it.
Better yet, you don't know who i am, or who is carrying what at any time.
So you never know if the person you're attacking is as heavily armed as the guy who sees you attacking them and draws on you.

6149650
Fair point.

Bit of a necropost here, but there's a couple more things I want to add that I didn't in my original comment way back when.

Specifically looking at Europe and homicide rates, a bit on using absolute numbers instead of relative rates as well as this is taken from a post I made today against someone using absolute numbers.

First and foremost, using absolute numbers isn't statistically relevant because it doesn't take into consideration population differences.

For example, the US absolute homicide count for 2016 was 17,250, the Australian count was 227, making the difference of 75 times higher in the US, however going by rate per 100,000 people the numbers become 5.35 for the US and .94 for Aus, a difference of only 5.7 times, though to be sure, still significant. (Figures using general homicides, not guns specifically.)

In the UK, which also has really strict gun control, the homicide rate is 1.20, much lower than the US, but also a fair bit higher than Aus. Canada's is 1.68 with its tighter regulation, (though on a US state to state matter that varies) higher still, but less than the US.

Then we have the other side, the Czech Republic, which has a much higher conceal carry rate and defensive registered gun owners than the US per capita, and is across the board a shall issue nation for defensive conceal carry, where in the US a lot of states are only may issue for conceal carry, yet the Czech homicide rate is only .61, a fair bit lower than Aus, half the UK's, and nearly a third of Canada's.

Switzerland is another point, the Swiss also have fairly high gun ownership per capita, and while they restrict ammo for military firearms of at home servicemen, civilian hunting rifle calibres and shotguns are generally fine, yet their homicide rate is lower still, at only .50.

In fact if you look at Europe you find homicide rates and gun regulations vary so much that there is no evident correlation at all, even nations that are a shall issue state allowing semiautomatic firearms for hunting still have quite low homicide rates despite, compared to some US states, actually having more lax regulation.

Then there is the matter that total gun deaths, in the US anyway, mostly are suicides, not homicides, roughly 2/3rds to be specific with a bit over 11k homicides to a bit over 20k suicides. (I mention this because I see a lot on articles and such they use total gun deaths to inflate numbers and make it look even worse than what it is. Suicide only requires a single shot, so unless you are talking about banning all guns, even muzzleloaders, there's no point to including it into your numbers. It's just a distasteful way to bloat them for better shock value.)

Now, does the US have a problem? Yes, its homicide rates are much higher than other first world nations like those of Europe. Is it solely a gun problem? I don't think so, certainly the guns contribute, but I think it also has a lot to do with law infrastructure as well as other cultural and political facets, it is not a single big cause.

Indeed even if you took out the ~11,200 gun homicides and left the other ~6050 homicides, the US homicide rate would be about 1.87, still nearly double what you see in Europe, and that's assuming none of the gun users at all would still kill, but with a different weapon. Which lets face it, is a pretty absurd assumption, so clearly guns alone aren't the problem.

(I felt the need to take this jab at Americans as a people mainly because I see the argument, our dear old Lorenzo here in particular I've seen use it, that the only reason American homicide is much higher than other First World nations is because of guns, yet the fact that even if you took out gun homicides and assumed that those former murderers would now be gentle souls and not kill, every single one of them, the homicide rate would still be very high proves this to be an entirely false sentiment.)

6144195
The fact your name no longer contains "Seal" in any form is greatly disturbing, pls fix.

6144755

Also, it's not inconcievable that manual drive may be heavily restricted.

The fact that these:

...are still road legal makes it pretty inconceivable.

Legit that sentence killed some brain cells.