Quote :

"The printers are too expensive, and it will be years before "billy boy" can go to Best Buy and get one."

If by years you mean, now: http://www.staples.com/3D-Printing/cat_CL20565

Quote :

"Second, I guarantee you every one of "Billy Boy's" guns are legal, with his background checks checking out. He doesn't need to print a one-shot plastic gun. This would be beneath "Billy Boy." He has plenty of real ones. "

Clearly you don't know many gun enthusiasts. Most of the ones I know would probably print one of these just to say they had it.

5/11/2013 6:27:04 PM

You people are fixating way too much on Billy Boy. That just means any non technical person. It could be an Islamist terrorist as much as a tea party gun nut.

The point is that since it will be an idiot proof process, bans and seizures are irrelevant, similarly to how banning illegal music is irrelevant." Data just wants to be free"

5/11/2013 6:42:23 PM

With respect to the more narrow point regarding 3D printing and its relation to firearms, I'll point out again that this is primarily due to the left's continued desire for and attempts at gun control. Very nearly everything you people do on this front will continue to be counterproductive to your own goals, with the ultimate example being that the mainstreaming and wild popularity of the AR-15 is a direct outgrowth of the phenomenally stupid '94 AWB. 3D gun printing progress is another thing that the left is effectively driving. Additionally, the few sensible tweaks that should actually be implemented are met with rabid opposition, and die on the vine without half the country even willing to hear the case for them.

As a side note, the plastic-ness, I think, is largely incidental. The motivation isn't to build weapons to sneak through metal detectors--it's that plastics are what's readily available for 3D printers.

5/11/2013 11:44:45 PM

How much good will murder laws do us when murderers aren't going to follow them in the first place?

5/12/2013 12:12:04 AM

I see people violating traffic laws daily

thus

we should not have traffic laws

5/12/2013 11:53:00 AM

^^^
You seem to be saying that republican politicians are like petulant children and need to be "tricked" into doing the right thing?

[Edited on May 12, 2013 at 12:10 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2013 12:10:28 PM

^^Do you think adding additional laws attempting to prevent uninsured drivers from driving would actually keep uninsured drivers off the road? No. Same thing.

5/12/2013 2:16:49 PM

yes, increased enforcement and more strict laws would make a difference

5/12/2013 3:36:25 PM

^^^ No, I think they're mostly doing--petulant or not--exactly what one should expect them to, given the stimuli they are subjected to. I'm saying that whatever tenuous bridge could ever exist between the two camps on that subject is periodically burned by the left, after which the GOP goes full-retard in response and exhibits no interest in even the slightest dialogue on the subject.

...and it's happened enough times now that the distrust is becoming permanent and the paranoia is becoming more widespread.


I am arguing that, if nothing else, that the left should take a pragmatic view of things and completely shut the fuck up about guns for a long, long, long time, and if they ever want to breathe another word about it, to do so with the utmost restraint and caution. Without even considering the merits of the different positions, the reality for the left--from a self-serving perspective--is that at LEAST on a national political scale, the best thing they can do to further their desired ends regarding guns is nothing, or maybe better yet, to explicitly concede the status quo.

Every time a left-wing politician mentions guns, they sell a fucking zillion of them. When they move against a particular type or family of weapons, they bring them to the forefront. AR-15s were a sort of boutique rarity up until 1994--the domain mostly of really dedicated gun nuts. Now they're the most popular rifle in America, built for every conceivable application, sporting and otherwise. This is almost exclusively the result of the '94 AWB. The other piece is the actual merit of the weapon, but I don't think it would've ever been recognized to the point of being mainstream without the ban.

5/12/2013 5:17:24 PM

To add to what ^ said, now you have a bunch of people who have gone out and bought these guns, as well as handguns, who probably shouldn't have had them in the first place, and who wouldn't have purchased them until they heard all of the crap on the news.

The left tried to sensationalize how evil "assault" weapons are and it backfired in their faces, and now more people than ever own guns. Had they just kept their mouths shut, you wouldn't need factories working around the clock to keep up with the demand.

5/12/2013 9:26:15 PM

Quote :

"How much good will murder laws do us when murderers aren't going to follow them in the first place?"

How many times do I have to post the response to this infantile "logic"?

Quote :

"The argument isn't "we can't 100% prevent gun violence, so why try." The argument is that such laws severely infringe on people's Constitutionally protected rights and make law-abiding citizens jump through tons of legal hoops just to exercise those rights while having zero effect whatsoever on curbing gun violence, much less curbing the violence that provoked the creation of the laws in the first place. Laws don't mitigate illegal activity in any appreciable way; instead, they give us a way to deal with those who engage in activity that is socially undesirable. It is undeniably apparent to all but the most ardent anti-gun mouth-breathers that simple gun ownership is in no way socially undesirable, much less is it in any way comparable to murder, theft, and assault."

5/12/2013 10:08:33 PM

Talk about infantile "logic"

Quote :

"Laws don't mitigate illegal activity in any appreciable way"

5/12/2013 10:23:29 PM

Quote :

"^^^ No, I think they're mostly doing--petulant or not--exactly what one should expect them to, given the stimuli they are subjected to. I'm saying that whatever tenuous bridge could ever exist between the two camps on that subject is periodically burned by the left, after which the GOP goes full-retard in response and exhibits no interest in even the slightest dialogue on the subject."

What stimuli are you referring to?

It seems the driving force is the belief that "they are coming to take your guns" , which is being pushed by all the progun groups with literally zero evidence behind it. Look at all of the NRA speeches, and how many of them focus on that theme. The NRA took the further step of framing this as a broader cultural issue, which pretty much throws any bipartisanship out the window.

If this stimuli of blatantly untrue, paranoid, fear mongering were removed, their could maybe be some meaningful discussion.

I don't expect the common man to see through this, but it shouldn't be unreasonable for me to expect politicians not to cave to idiocy. There were enough dems that saw through the new AWB, shame the right didn't have any sane people on their side to see through the nra's bs to update the background check system.

^^ lol, what laws specifically are infringing on what rights?

[Edited on May 12, 2013 at 10:30 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2013 10:29:40 PM

Quote :

"It seems the driving force is the belief that "they are coming to take your guns" , which is being pushed by all the progun groups with literally zero evidence behind it."

I think this is because many of the gun-control crowd have, at some point in their recent political careers, supported gun registration, bans, or confiscation.
http://coldservings.livejournal.com/51731.html
Yes, I realize some of these comments are pulled out of context and the author adds some comments. My point is that there seem to be many elected officials and influential group members that are at least somewhat willing to move towards registrations, bans, confiscation; and that's concerning.

Quote :

"If this stimuli of blatantly untrue, paranoid, fear mongering were removed, their could maybe be some meaningful discussion. "

Perhaps gun owners are concerned because IF U.S. citizens were to lose their gun rights and then become subject to a tyranny, there would be no quick reversal to regain what was lost. It's a "mistake you only get to make once" situation. Thus, there's a lot of hostility towards any bans, registries, etc. I'm actually encouraged by the strong gun-rights supporters in this country. To me, it shows that we are not willing to relinquish a "check" on our government and be ruled.

Quote :

"shame the right didn't have any sane people on their side to see through the nra's bs to update the background check system."

Perhaps if the left didn't warp their "talking points" / "statistics" so badly, changes could have been made. Instead, the distorted presentation was right in plain view of the citizenry:
http://www.firearmspolicy.org/2013/04/newslink-lies-damned-lies-and-gun-control-statistics/

[Edited on May 12, 2013 at 11:24 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2013 11:08:18 PM

^ most of those quotes are irrelevant (as in having been said by irrelevant people), or out of context; did you look into any of them, or did you just read them, piss your pants, then clutch your guns tightly?

And you're still demonstrating the very same fear and paranoia that I'm talking about. Do you realize that a bill closing the gun show loophole, that has specific mandates against a registry, isn't an infringement of rights, and can't result in your guns being taken?

5/12/2013 11:24:19 PM

BUT OH MY GOD, WHAT IS A GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE, THERE IS NO SUCH THING #semantics #argumentsforsimplepeople #everyoneknowswhatitis

5/12/2013 11:26:19 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps gun owners are concerned because IF U.S. citizens were to lose their gun rights and then become subject to a tyranny, there would be no quick reversal to regain what was lost. It's a "mistake you only get to make once" situation."

The one time something like that did happen (prohibition), it was fairly quick reversal.

5/12/2013 11:40:20 PM

Quote :

"^ most of those quotes are irrelevant (as in having been said by irrelevant people), or out of context; did you look into any of them, or did you just read them, piss your pants, then clutch your guns tightly?"

I said as much. My point is that it's not so foreign and outlandish as you make it sound. And lol @ the ridiculous hyperbole.

Quote :

"And you're still demonstrating the very same fear and paranoia that I'm talking about."

Do I not have a right to be concerned if I feel my rights are being threatened w/ proposed legislation?

Quote :

"that has specific mandates against a registry"

I know what you're talking about here, but as the anti-registration mandate is unfortunately not a part of the 2A, this could be overturned by the next gun-control bill proposed, correct?

Quote :

"isn't an infringement of rights"

In your opinion

Quote :

"BUT OH MY GOD, WHAT IS A GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE, THERE IS NO SUCH THING #semantics #argumentsforsimplepeople #everyoneknowswhatitis"

Why was the previous gun-control law ('86 I think) written such that it allowed the 'gun show loophole' ?

5/12/2013 11:45:29 PM

Quote :

"Do I not have a right to be concerned if I feel my rights are being threatened w/ proposed legislation? "

What specific right of yours is being threatened by what proposed legislation?
And of course you have the right to be concerned, but when your concern drifts into irrational beliefs and statements, you become a blathering idiot. Unfortunately, as a democracy, the blathering idiots have as much say as everyone else.

My concern at this point is how to get the blathering idiots to realize that not all gun bills mean the government is coming to take your guns, that we are not anywhere close to Syria or Libya, where violent revolution might even be necessary, and that the majority of politicians on BOTH SIDES of the aisle are against banning guns. You have the odd nutball who thinks guns should be banned (just like you have Michelle Bachmann or the republicans on the Science Committee that don't believe in evolution and think the earth is 7000 years old), but this doesn't represent the trajectory for the legislation.

Quote :

"I know what you're talking about here, but as the anti-registration mandate is unfortunately not a part of the 2A, this could be overturned by the next gun-control bill proposed, correct? "

This is gibberish. US Code and legal precedent determine what the amendments mean. You realize that nothing in the 2nd amendment says registries are not allowed...? It's only by cultural and political forces we don't have gun registries, but this wouldn't be unconstitutional based on the 2nd amendment (could be a 4th amendment issue though-- do you even know what's in that one?). Even a gun ban on certain guns wouldn't be unconstitutional based on supreme court rulings, because we ALREADY restrict certain firearms from civilian ownership.

5/12/2013 11:57:24 PM

Quote :

"What specific right of yours is being threatened by what proposed legislation?"

2A, the "shall not be infringed" part.

Quote :

"My concern at this point is how to get the blathering idiots to realize that not all gun bills mean the government is coming to take your guns, that we are not anywhere close to Syria or Libya, where violent revolution might even be necessary"

I realize that may be true. It's the incrementalism that concerns me. Perhaps in a generation or so Congress may use gun control bills enacted today to build into another, more stringent gun control law. I know that gun control laws will likely change over time, but I have just as much right to oppose them as you do to support them. That doesn't make me a "blathering idiot". I'm trying to see past the "here and now."

Quote :

"that the majority of politicians on BOTH SIDES of the aisle are against banning guns"

This is true, at least concerning the recent AWB.

Quote :

"This is gibberish. US Code and legal precedent determine what the amendments mean. You realize that nothing in the 2nd amendment says registries are not allowed...?"

Yes, I do. I think maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I guess I think of the anti-registration provision for this bill as sort of 'empty' in the long run. While I'm glad it made it into the bill, it would make me feel much better about these gun control bills if the 2A DID include an anti-registration portion (wishful thinking).

Quote :

"It's only by cultural and political forces we don't have gun registries, but this wouldn't be unconstitutional based on the 2nd amendment "

I disagree. I think it would violate the "shall not be infringed" part or the 4A.

Quote :

"(could be a 4th amendment issue though-- do you even know what's in that one?)"

I agree. Honestly, if this is going to devolve into an insulting discussion, I'm not interested.

Quote :

"Even a gun ban on certain guns wouldn't be unconstitutional based on supreme court rulings, because we ALREADY restrict certain firearms from civilian ownership."

True. Although, the specific type or firearm in question plays a large role in this ruling.

5/13/2013 12:20:57 AM

Quote :

"I realize that may be true. It's the incrementalism that concerns me. Perhaps in a generation or so Congress may use gun control bills enacted today to build into another, more stringent gun control law. I know that gun control laws will likely change over time, but I have just as much right to oppose them as you do to support them. That doesn't make me a "blathering idiot". I'm trying to see past the "here and now." "

Or they can go the other way, and allow people to own rocket launchers. Do you realize the trend over the past 2 decades is for less gun control? You can carry more guns in more places now, than you could have 10 years ago, in large part thanks to Obama.

What makes the argument "we shouldn't pass any gun control, and we should accuse anyone who tries to of 'wanting to take our guns', because at some far point in the future it might be built on for something bad" one of a blathering idiot is that it prevents reasonable measures from being considered and prevents the reasonable ability to talk about problems. It further polarizes the entirety of politics, and even further encourages both sides to use smear tactics and guilt by association to further political agendas. It also ignores the fact that people 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now are still going to be able to contact their representatives or make arguments for or against gun control.

We should be able to at least talk about gun controls, without a bunch of low-information voters saying "you're trying to take our guns! "

5/13/2013 12:37:24 AM

Quote :

"Do you realize the trend over the past 2 decades is for less gun control? You can carry more guns in more places now, than you could have 10 years ago"

Yes. This is a good thing.

Quote :

"What makes the argument "we shouldn't pass any gun control, and we should accuse anyone who tries to of 'wanting to take our guns', because at some far point in the future it might be built on for something bad" one of a blathering idiot is that it prevents reasonable measures from being considered and prevents the reasonable ability to talk about problems. "

This all hinges on the individual's opinion on what he/she considers "reasonable measures". There's been talk of gun control for months now in Washington. Do you mean to say: "the reasonable ability to bring a bill to the floor and debate it there"? If so, didn't the more 'reasonable' T-M bill get serious attention while the less 'reasonable' AWB and magazine-limitation bills receive much less?

Quote :

"and even further encourages both sides to use smear tactics and guilt by association to further political agendas"

Agreed. There is very little discussion and a whole LOT of emotional finger-pointing, whining, and fear-mongering surrounding this debate.

Quote :

"It also ignores the fact that people 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now are still going to be able to contact their representatives or make arguments for or against gun control."

Sure, people can contact their representatives the day after a bill passes if they'd like. But isn't this always the case w/ any law?

Quote :

"We should be able to at least talk about gun controls, without a bunch of low-information voters saying "you're trying to take our guns! ""

The Senate DID talk about gun controls. Only 1 bill was remotely close to 'reasonable' by their opinions. Ultimately it still failed. Like any other proposal, if a voter thinks that a bill could lead the way to some restriction in their lives, his or her vote counts just as much as anyone else. That doesn't automatically make them a "low-information voter", just one that sees the issue on a long-term scale.

5/13/2013 7:44:21 AM

Quote :

"2A, the "shall not be infringed" part. "

translation: my simple reading of the amendment ignores supreme court decisions and language because i am a more accomplished constitutional scholar than them

Quote :

"Quote : "Do you realize the trend over the past 2 decades is for less gun control? You can carry more guns in more places now, than you could have 10 years ago" Yes. This is a good thing. "

so then you understand that your fears of incrementalism are not justified, or at least are certainly less justified as someone who fears incrementalism in the other way, right? you agree to that statement then?


[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 8:43 AM. Reason : .]

5/13/2013 8:39:18 AM

Plus, you can't accuse people now, who are trying to reach reasonable decisions and middle grounds, who definitely AREN'T trying to take anyone's guns, of wanting to take your guns because a boogeyman you've manufactured in your head that may or may not exist and some unspecified point in the future might want to take your guns.

5/13/2013 1:42:45 PM

yeah, just ask the citizens of the state of New York

5/13/2013 1:45:47 PM

What about it? I can post a map demonstrating the vast amounts of people who own guns there...

And are you suggesting localities can't pass reasonable ordinances based on the particulars of their locations gun crimes? Seems pretty asinine.

Guns are inherently more dangerous than most other things, you shouldn't forget that.

5/13/2013 1:53:27 PM

New York's SAFE Act is confiscation

so don't tell me that no one wants to take my guns. plenty of folks do.

5/13/2013 2:12:18 PM

^ lol

your guns could only be taken if a doctor thinks you're likely to hurt yourself or someone else.

that's not confiscation.

5/13/2013 2:17:44 PM

^^^and those places that have 'reasonable ordinances' also have higher crime rates, and instances of gun violence.....
Obviously those 'reasonable ordinances' have a positive impact....

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2013 2:18:25 PM

because the rates are definitely related to the ordinances, and not to population density or median incomes or anything else

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM. Reason : and because that's relevant to his point]

5/13/2013 2:21:04 PM

For places like Chi or NY, where gang violence is a serious issue, tougher laws on guns make sense. But this is the problem. No one is trying to ban guns at the federal level, yet the paranoia always drifts discussions this way. And even worse yet, the reasonable bills are lumped in with the paranoia.

If you want to play that game, we could look at other countries where guns were banned too.

It's likely that without the 2nd amendment, we'd have much tighter gun laws than we have now. But the cost of this freedom is significantly higher gun deaths than other developed countries. Allowing gaping loopholes is purely a principle thing, not a practical thing. We pay in blood for the principle of this freedom.

5/13/2013 2:48:50 PM

It's really not even a principle thing since, not very long ago, NRA members supported much further reaching gun laws. And even now, most people, even NRA members, supported parts that were killed. Its a lobbying and corporatism issue, the people who bankroll the NRA and other anti gun control lobbying groups don't have the same desires as the general public, or even members of those organizations. They just want to sell guns and make money.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 3:03 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2013 3:03:19 PM

We pay in blood so the gun companies that fund the NRA can continue to reap massive profits that this paranoia has bred, despite the ongoing relaxation in gun laws under Obama.

5/13/2013 3:12:36 PM

Quote :

"your guns could only be taken if a doctor thinks you're likely to hurt yourself or someone else. that's not confiscation."

have you read about the SAFE Act? It's AWB on steroids without any grandfathering. sell the firearm out of state or turn it in to LE or you are in violation of the law.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 3:39 PM. Reason : and it's not just a bill. it is law. the people of NY are having their firearms confiscated.]

5/13/2013 3:35:03 PM

hasn't the NY supreme court already said that the state needs to show how its not unconstitutional or they will issue an injunction?

5/13/2013 3:45:23 PM

i'm not here to argue the constitutionality of the SAFE Act. all i'm saying is this:

Quote :

"Plus, you can't accuse people now, who are trying to reach reasonable decisions and middle grounds, who definitely AREN'T trying to take anyone's guns, of wanting to take your guns because a boogeyman you've manufactured in your head that may or may not exist and some unspecified point in the future might want to take your guns."

is wrong

they don't actually want middle ground. they want AWB, confiscation of scary-looking guns, etc. the only thing preventing them from passing those things is the threat of political backlash a la 1994.

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 3:52 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/13/2013 3:49:45 PM

well wouldn't the fact that the court is likely to decide against the parts you are most afraid of make this:

Quote :

"the only thing preventing them from passing those things is the threat of political backlash a la 1994."

also not true?

5/13/2013 3:56:47 PM

i'd hate to know that the only thing preventing SAFE Act on a federal level was a bunch of partisan puppets

5/13/2013 4:02:22 PM

^

5/13/2013 4:14:47 PM

are all supreme courts partisan puppets, or just the NY supreme court?

5/13/2013 4:21:20 PM

[alll]

5/13/2013 4:22:26 PM

so the supreme court decision that, for the first time in the history of our nation, affirmed that the 2nd amendment was an individual right and did not only apply in the collective to militias, was partisan hackery?

5/13/2013 4:24:47 PM

all decisions are as all courts are political hacks.

doesn't mean they don't get some decisions "right" or that I agree with.

5/13/2013 4:28:57 PM

All able-bodied males are in the militia, so I don't see why that decision was such a big deal. Seems cut and dry to me.

5/13/2013 4:29:10 PM

well, that's not at all how they got to their decision, but i know you guys are constitutional scholars

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 4:31 PM. Reason : seriously, you guys are hilarious]

5/13/2013 4:31:05 PM

Quote :

"The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 6:25 PM. Reason : AAAA]

5/13/2013 6:24:40 PM

Your perspective seems to be that nothing about the United States legal or governmental system has any legitimacy, except for the 2nd amendment. If the judicial branch are puppets, the executive branch has a muslim, the legislative branches are children, laws are irrelevant, only the 2nd amendment is meaningful, then why even bother? Seems counterproductive to give someone with this mentality say in how the country should run, if they don't believe in the governing structure of that country.

5/13/2013 6:56:39 PM

^^ that was a bit of a setup.

Now read down to number 2, and remember that every time you post "shall not be infringed"

5/13/2013 7:06:30 PM

Quote :

"translation: my simple reading of the amendment ignores supreme court decisions and language because i am a more accomplished constitutional scholar than them"

I'm sorry, man, but any group of people that can take "shall not be infringed" and from that conclude that a little bit of infringement is ok has automatically lost any and all credibility on the matter on account of their plainly displayed inability to read and comprehend what they just read.

Quote :

"It's likely that without the 2nd amendment, we'd have much tighter gun laws than we have now. But the cost of this freedom is significantly higher gun deaths than other developed countries. Allowing gaping loopholes is purely a principle thing, not a practical thing. We pay in blood for the principle of this freedom."

Ummm, facts not in evidence...

[Edited on May 13, 2013 at 7:18 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2013 7:15:36 PM

You should follow neuseriverrats link and read below to number 2 also

5/13/2013 7:19:24 PM