Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Lawmaker Wants 3-D Printers To Be Regulated

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-demand-background-checks-for-sketchpads-and-protractors dept.

New submitter phrackthat writes with news that California State Senator Leland Yee (D-S.F.) says he wants regulations to track who owns and uses 3-D printers. Yee's comments come in response to the recent news of Defense Distributed's successful test-firing of a 3-D printed gun. "He's concerned that just about anyone with access to those cutting-edge printers can arm themselves. 'Terrorists can make these guns and do some horrible things to an individual and then walk away scott-free, and that is something that is really dangerous,' said Yee. He said while this new technology is impressive, it must be regulated when it comes to making guns. He says background checks, requiring serial numbers and even registering them could be part of new legislation that he says will protect the public. Yee added, 'This particular gun has no trace whatsoever.'"

43 of 856 comments (clear)

  1. Gun control however... by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll bet you get a free gun when you buy one of those 3-D printers in some states.

    1. Re:Gun control however... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lets just clear something up right now, gun bans have NEVER worked and will NEVER work because of one simple flaw in the logic. you see criminals? DON'T FOLLOW LAWS which is why they are called criminals, fucking duh!

      Take Mexico, a country with a 100% ban on guns, you can't even one a 22 in that country...are the criminals throwing rocks at each other? Nope they do like all the other criminals with connections and buy from the former USSR where you can buy a crate of RPGs for the cost of a used BMW and where you can get a case of AK47s thrown in with every purchase over $50k.

      This is as fucking retarded as trying to regulate or ban copper pipes because somebody might make a zip gun. I mean have you SEEN this "gun"? You are gonna be lucky if it fires even a single clip before being just trashed, in fact I've seen zip guns that make better weapons than this thing, and it took a $50,000 3D printer to make a gun that had less quality than what you can make in any machine shop for less than $200!

      I'm sorry but this entire thing is just fucking retarded, every major city like Chicago where they have made it practically impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a gun has become a criminal paradise and why not? Don't have to worry about prey fighting back when even the cops in these areas tell you "don't resist, just beg real nice after they are done raping and looting and maybe they won't kill you". Its fucking disgusting is what it is, we should be teaching people how to defend themselves from these fucking scum and instead we are creating a nation of prey, that is ALL they are, they are prey and the wolves will feed and feed well.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Gun control however... by BoRegardless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      3D guns are ludicrous to anyone who has ever used 3D printers and knows anything about the tolerances, surface finish and strengths needed for a gun.

      Any criminal can by a top quality gun for far less than the software and printer needed to make a 3D printed toy plastic so-called gun.

      Politicians have no clue as to the real world.

    3. Re:Gun control however... by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do we have laws at all then? Why do we say don't have sex with children when criminals are just going to do it anyway?

      Really bad analogy. Your implication is that we could stop people from having sex with children by banning children.

      The analogy you're looking for is that just like we have laws that carry penalties for abusing kids, we have penalties for killing people. Using rifles, or using blunt instruments like pipes and bats (which are used far more often than rifles to murder people, says the FBI).

      So yes: we have laws that "ban" murder, by making it really suck to be a murderer that's been caught having murdered someone. Just like it sucks to be someone that's been caught having abused a kid.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Gun control however... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do we have laws at all then? Why do we say don't have sex with children when criminals are just going to do it anyway?

      If I sell you a gun, you and I both consent to the transaction. Doesn't matter whether it's legal or not, neither of us will call the cops.

      If you sexually assault someone, that person is not consenting, and will call the cops (or their parents will).

      You cannot effectively enforce a law against a transaction where all parties involved consent, and even trying to do so inevitably involved measures corrosive to liberty.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    5. Re:Gun control however... by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a difference between laws designed to regulate availability of material goods and laws designed to punish human beings.

      Exactly. Politicians just love that former category, precisely because it never works. It never works and never solves the problem, so there is always a menacing problem they can promise to do something about the next time they campaign. It also has the side-effect of requiring a police state to have even a slight hope of enforcement, which again is great from the perspective of most politicians.

      Politicians know the War on Drugs doesn't stop people from acquiring drugs. They know that mass shootings overwhelmingly tend to happen in "gun free" zones. They know even an outright ban on guns doesn't stop criminals from acquiring them. They know someone not afraid of a murder charge isn't going to be deterred by a weapons violation. They probably know that the USA has one of the highest murder rates of the industralized world ... unless you exclude Chicago and a few other cities where it is practically impossible to legally own a firearm; then the USA has one of the lowest. They understand all of this.

      They are interested in perpetuating the problems. It's what wins elections. It's what makes people increasingly feel they need government intervention. It's fun to think of them as a bunch of morons who couldn't find their ass in the dark, but this is called allowing sentiment to interfere with judgment.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    6. Re:Gun control however... by Si · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the only thing keeping you from having sex with children is a law stating so, then you're beyond all help as it is. Laws aren't made for the righteous, they're made so that *when a transgressor is caught* there's a system in place to apply punishment.

      --


      Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
    7. Re:Gun control however... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It depends a lot on culture and government as well. Nothing exists in a vaccume. What works for Australia and Britain won't work for the US. What works in Russia won't work in Mexico. China is different than Chile. All of these are pretty much "no duh" statements when you think about them, but most people try to bottle one statistic inside a glass jar as though the size of the country, population, cultural norms, etc have no effect on the outcome of a law. His point, while you can poke holes in bits and pieces all day long, is essentially correct.

      Criminals don't follow laws, and especially in the case of the US, the population is way to large and already well armed enough that it would be impossible to police and secure guns. The better option is to place reasonable limits on them (such as the ones that are already in place and have been in place for decades), punish people who use guns for evil purposes (killing, robbery), and let law abiding citizens protect themselves (gun ownership and carry permits). Basically, what has been going on. Instead politicians decide they can win votes by trying to either

      a) Invent a big scary imaginary monster, oh no, it'll eat you. Nevermind the fact that this gun is impractical for any realistic purpose, all of which have already been gone over elsewhere or
      b) Convince people that someone in an office somewhere, writing something in a book, will somehow protect them. Nevermind the fact that guns that can't be detected by metal detectors have been outlawed for nearly 30 years (if I remember the date right). Nevermind the fact that people can already make more practical firearms at home. Basically nevermind the fact that this breaks no new ground at all anyway.

      I call them feel-good laws. They make lawmakers feel like they've done something, they make people ignorant of what laws are already on the books, or the true capabilities of guns feel safer, but they basically do nothing except try to restrict law abiding citizens. There's no point to them at all and they have no real impact on criminals or crime.

      Anyway, I'm off the topic, and if your an Aussie and disagree, then feel free to pass all the gun laws you want. I mean that, in a non-sarcastic way, because that's what your country wants and what your culture wants. As an American, I don't want more (or less really) gun laws, I think things are fairly well balanced as they are, the media just likes to blow things out of proportion. All statistics aside, those are cultural differences.

      Way off topic from the original point I was making, but there you go.

    8. Re:Gun control however... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Australian experience of an increase in forcible rape after guns were banned.

    9. Re:Gun control however... by spasm · · Score: 4, Informative

      Err.. a) Mexico doesn't have a total ban on guns (gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right), it's just been limted to purchasing from a single army-run shop in Mexico City; b) Mexico happens to have this large nation to the immediate north with relatively limited small arms gun control, and the border heading south is only marginally guarded; so unsurprisingly c) The US Justice Department estimates 70% of guns recovered from Mexican cartels were legally purchased in the US. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guv1zxttoSAF-NOJzZkAJV2R93mg

      I wouldn't be shocked to hear cartels are also buying abroad, but why bother when you can get most of what you need immediately to the north?

    10. Re:Gun control however... by Grave · · Score: 5, Informative

      One of those rare times I wish I had mod points... gun violence went down after the ban, as did the murder rate (2-3%, as I recall). The rate of violent crimes went up, though. Does a reduction in murder justify an increase in rapes, assaults, and robberies?

    11. Re:Gun control however... by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Banning children is easier said than done. I child-proofed my house, but they still get in.

    12. Re:Gun control however... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Australian experience of an increase in forcible rape after guns were banned.

      False. There was no appreciable increase in the three years after the ban came into effect. There has been an increase since, however that follows a trend line that started before the gun ban, so there is no correlation between the ban and the incidence of rape.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    13. Re:Gun control however... by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation's population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm -- assaults, robberies and sex crimes -- was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

      http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

      And yet, every day when I look at google news, there is another story about some kind of gun violence/accident in some place thousands of miles from me. It's like a constant drumbeat in the media to get people to think things are so bad, something must be done. And politicians of course, are never hesitant to restrict people's rights or acquire yet ever more power. America's problem with guns is a media conspiracy that makes politicians cum in their pants.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    14. Re:Gun control however... by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Guns are equalizers. A 9mm pistol makes a 5 foot tall 100 pound woman the equal of a 6 foot 2 inch 190 pound man. This assumes of course that she is competent with it. He may kill her but trying to rape her is a dicey proposition. Given the banning of guns in the US I have no doubt that violence will explode. Crime in the US is different than Australia. I've heard conflicting things about crime in Australia since the ban although it is certain that gun deaths have decreased. I guess getting stabbed gives you a higher chance of survival than being shot. I admit that guns are more efficient.

    15. Re:Gun control however... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, but Sam Colt made them equal."

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    16. Re:Gun control however... by BetterSense · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mark Twain: "If you don't read the newspapers, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you are misinformed."

      Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study

      http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

      Are laws passed on actual data? No, they are passed based on popular support. Obtaining and maintaining popular opinion is what the media do.

    17. Re:Gun control however... by harrkev · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nice way to twist the facts.

      Fact: Gun control is argued as being about making people safer.

      Fact: It failed (for whatever reason).

      Fact: Violent crime went UP by 40% since the great gun grab in Australia.

      I ran the numbers myself a couple of months ago. I have a spreadsheet with my finding HERE. This spreadsheet has links to the sources for all data. It includes homicide (down a little), robbery (down a little), assault (way up), and sexual assault (way up). To put it another way, for every single person NOT murdered, an additional 671 people were assaulted. Those are the FACTS. My spreadsheet lays it all out, with data from the Australian Government.

      I invite you to inspect the data sources and my formulas. It is all open-source, so to speak. You can look for traces of deception yourself. Once you are done, you can grab a nice steaming helping of crow.

      DISCLOSURE: I used data from 1995 (just before the grab) and 2007 (latest data I found).

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    18. Re:Gun control however... by harrkev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The more you reduce the presence of firearms by honest citizens, the less they are used to prevent crime.

      Some numbers for you:

      There are approximately 300,000,000 guns in the US (give or take).
      2011 reported 11,101 gun homicides. That means that the gun grabbers
      want to restrict the rights of ALL Americans to try to stop the 0.0037%
      of guns that cause the problem. To put it another way,
      approximately 45% of households own guns. Assuming a uniform
      distribution of family sizes across gun-owning and defenseless
      households, that means that 140,200,000 people are in a household with
      guns (US population in 2011 is 311,591,917). The government wants to
      infringe on the rights of over 300 million people to stop 11,101
      criminals (assuming one criminal per murder). That means that gun-control laws are trying to stop the 0.008% of gun owners that do
      bad things. To put it another way, for every single murderer, there are 12,630 honest gun owners. Wow! Clearly, guns are indeed a problem.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    19. Re:Gun control however... by the_raptor · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am Australian, and our criminals have guns. Banning guns won't stop criminals or terrorists getting or making them. A full automatic sub-machine gun can be made in any basic machine shop.

      Banning guns will massively reduce their use in domestic disputes and suicide, but it won't stop criminals.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    20. Re:Gun control however... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you prefer to be raped or dead ?

      I'd prefer my would-be rapist be dead, which is much more likely if I'm armed.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Gun control however... by The0retical · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A couple of years ago if I looked at the news I'd have thought sharks grew legs, walked up on land, and started eating children out of playgrounds.

      Never underestimate the medias ability to over report and hyper sensationalize the fixation of the moment.

    22. Re:Gun control however... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why did he get modded down? look at the history of gun laws in this country and like poll taxes a LOT of them were designed to keep them "uppity niggers" from having guns. Look at how the media has demonized the so called "Saturday Night Special"...wanna guess which minority favored those for home protection in the 40s-70s?

      I can't remember which black leader said it, i think the head of the rainbow coalition, that "No matter how you feel about gun laws if you look at them, trace them back to their roots, you'll find a lot of them can be summed up as "fear of an armed negro" because an armed negro can fight back, its a lot more risky to try to lynch an armed negro than a defenseless one" and sadly he is right, look up who wrote the gun laws of the 30s-70s and its the same ones that were supporting Jim Crow and separate but equal. No matter how you feel about the gun laws i urge you to read more about it, what you find will probably shock you.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    23. Re:Gun control however... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To make your study meaningful, you should also take a few more data points both before and after the ban. This is so that you can identify any trends that were in place throughout the ban and were not really affected by it. To the best of my knowledge, both the decrease in homicide and the increase in assaults were in that category.

    24. Re:Gun control however... by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd prefer my would-be rapist be dead

      Sure we all would.

      which is much more likely if I'm armed.

      It increases the odds of a lot of things.

      It increases the odds he's also carrying a gun. It increases the odds he's had plenty of practice with it, since its legal for him to carry it around.

      It increases the odds of a shootout. It increases the odds you get shot. (Maybe he's a better shot than you. Maybe he approaches you with it drawn while yours is still holstered. Not much of an edge for you.

      It increases the odds an innocent bystander gets short. It increases the odds of an accidental discharge. It increases the odds someone irresponsible ends up with a gun in their hands. It increases the odds someone irresponsible ends up with -your- gun in their hands.

      I'm Not saying I wouldn't want to have a gun in my hands if I were attacked, but its wrong to oversimplify it so that is the only scenario we look at.

    25. Re:Gun control however... by jhol13 · · Score: 4, Informative

      AAARGH! Correlation is not causation!

      Especially when statistics are used like this. You pick several statistics, search for correlation and then "prove" that whatever was done was bad (or good). It does not work that way!

      You migh answer some questions first, like how many women did carry a gun and how many rapes did it prevent, before and after. Same with assaults and robberies.

    26. Re:Gun control however... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It increases the odds he's also carrying a gun.

      My being armed doesn't do that.

      It increases the odds he's had plenty of practice with it, since its legal for him to carry it around.

      Legal to carry is completely orthogonal to plenty of practice, because you don't practice with it while you're wandering around town. Further, odds are good he's already a felon, and is already barred from carry, if not ownership.

      It increases the odds of a shootout. It increases the odds you get shot. (Maybe he's a better shot than you. Maybe he approaches you with it drawn while yours is still holstered. Not much of an edge for you.

      If he has a gun, and I have no gun, then he's definitely got the edge.

      It increases the odds an innocent bystander gets short. It increases the odds of an accidental discharge. It increases the odds someone irresponsible ends up with a gun in their hands. It increases the odds someone irresponsible ends up with -your- gun in their hands.

      Yes, there are potential negative outcomes. But in the scenario of a more physically powerful attacker, none of them are very different from the already extant outcome, for the attacked in any case. Meanwhile, preventing or reducing attacks is everyone's responsibility, and we are collectively falling down on the job.

      I'm Not saying I wouldn't want to have a gun in my hands if I were attacked, but its wrong to oversimplify it so that is the only scenario we look at.

      You and your straw man must be cuddled close tonight. I never claimed that was the only scenario. You wanted something to complain about, but I didn't say what you want me to have said.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:Gun control however... by srmalloy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nevermind the fact that this gun is impractical for any realistic purpose, all of which have already been gone over elsewhere

      Actually, they've gone several steps further with another design, having printed a lower receiver for an AR-15 (the one part that, under BATF regulations, constitutes a gun), and have raised its reliability from the original six rounds before breaking to more than 600 rounds before breaking (they're discovering that the printed part has different design constraints -- where a milled aluminum receiver has sharp corners, a printed part needs to have curves to reduce points where stress concentrates, because the plastic is weaker). However, as assembled, it's hardly a concealable or undetectable weapon, with the sixteen-inch metal barrel, upper receiver, and action. However, as you allude, a wholly 3D-printed firearm has a long way to go before it's as effective as the cheapest 'Saturday Night Special'. But to a politician, that's not important; what's important is that the fear and paranoia be whipped to a frenzy now, so that draconian knee-jerk measures can be put in place while people are feeling about the subject, not thinking about it; it's so much easier to whip up emotion than reason.

    28. Re: Gun control however... by Python · · Score: 5, Informative

      Suicide rates aren't effected by firearms control laws. For example, in Japan the suicide rate almost twice that in the US, and in both the UK and Australia the Suisse rate did not decline after gun bans were instituted. And if you really need proof, here's a quote from the NC Juvenile Justice Department:

      "Of all children and adolescents, those incarcerated in the juvenile or criminal justice systems are at the highest risk of serious suicide attempts (Gray et al., 2002; Penn et al, 2003). Despite around- the-clock supervision and a lack of access to firearms, the methods for suicides and attempts used in this population tend to be more violent and more successful than those of young people in the general population (Penn et al, 2003)."

      Dispondent people find a way, so don't pat yourself on the back that gun control laws will prevent suicides. They won't, suicide isn't a gun control issue, if you really care about suicide prevention drop the political rhetoric.

      --

      Python

  2. Terrorists? by kk49 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think doing something horrible to an individual qualifies as terrorism. In my day we call those people criminals.

    --
    You can have your god back when you are old enough to handle the responsibility.
    1. Re:Terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I second that. 3-D printers aren't a very economical way to create guns, since they cost tens of thousands of dollars in the first place. Second, you have to know how to use one. Third, this lawmaker would be imposing further regulations on businesses that already use this technology (jewelry manufacturers and dentists, to name a few). Sounds to me like Yee didn't do his homework on what 3D printers are and what they do. Yeah, some of them can make a gun, but that's not even the most remotely useful thing they do. Maybe Yee should ban the citizens from learning metallurgy as well, since that goes much further in creating a high-quality gun than some printed plastic one.

  3. Horrible things? by erotic_pie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't most "horrible things" that you would do with a gun be illegal? Meaning you wouldn't be able to walk away scott-free.

    Unless there is some crazy loophole that says if you kill someone with an unregistered homemade gun it's 100% legal. Which if that's the case I don't think it's the 3D printer that is the problem.

    Also, I guess this means it's time to start regulating CNC machines as well.

  4. No terrorist needs a 3D printer by kawabago · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Guns and explosives are easy to get thanks to America's right to bear arms. The representative would have 3d printer regulation before gun regulation? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Since 3d printers can be made by hobbyists at home, effective regulation is impossible. Not to mention that firing a 3d printed gun as a proof of concept and having an effective weapon are two very different things. A car is a far more dangerous weapon than a 3D printer. Are you afraid to drive?

  5. Regulation of tools? by Antony+T+Curtis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not regulate lathes? They can be used to make a barrel of a high powered rifle.
    Why not regulate mills? They can be used to make land mines.
    Why not regulate sheet metal? They can be used to make the skin of missiles.
    Why not regulate screwdrivers? They can be used to make bombs.

    Why not just regulate and put a serial number in each and every bullet manufactured? I doubt that anyone would be able to 3D-print a bullet and its charge for many years to come.

    --
    No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
    1. Re:Regulation of tools? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      I doubt that anyone would be able to 3D-print a bullet and its charge for many years to come.

      It should be noted that bullet molds can be acquired quite easily - many reloaders make their own bullets.

      The powder charge isn't quite as easy to make, but it's not like you can't find recipes, since "modern" smokeless powder has been in use since the 1880's.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  6. Re:California Lawmaker... by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's the same guy that proposed a ban on videogames to minors.

    Leland Yee: using the government to protect you from bogeymen that don't exist.

  7. Re:Thanks, Cody! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The blame lies with the politicians. And nobody else.

  8. 3D Lego Printers by hawguy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait until he sees one of the 3D Lego Printers, then he'll want to regulate Legos too. 8 year old kids will have to pass a security check to purchase a set of Legos.

  9. I've said it before, I'll say it again. by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Protection" is a disease. The government is not obliged to protect you. Congress has upheld that police are not required to protect you. Protecting yourself and your family is your responsibility. Life is dangerous. Be prepared. More folks die in car crashes, we don't ban cars or streets. Zip-Guns made of junk can kill you, hell, a plastic knife can kill you if sharpened properly, a broken window tied to a stick is a lethal weapon of opportunity. Limiting freedom should never be the answer to fear. The answer is to simply be aware of the danger you face in every day life, and protect yourself. Regulations like these are cancerous leaches of tax-payer money.

    We really need to change the 2nd amendment, or create a new one clarifying that we have the right to bear technology, cryptography, photography, computers, and firearms included.

  10. Re:California Lawmaker... by The0retical · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is the same person that wants:

    Senate Bill 47 (Yee) expands the definition of “assault weapons” to BAN the future sale of rifles that have been designed/sold and are equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device, requires NEW “assault weapon” registration of ALL those semi-auto rifles that are currently possessed to retain legal possession in the future, and subjects these firearms to all other “assault weapons” restrictions.

    http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB47/2013

    Senate Bill 108 (Yee) requires mandatory locked storage of firearms within a locked house regardless of whether anyone is present.

    http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB108/2013

    My impression of him is that he is a reactionary that responds to any situation in the most forceful way possible to please the pundits who are calling for action that the constituency doesn't actually want. He doesn't actually understand what he's legislating against in many situations, like as mentioned below the ban on video games for minors but because the pundits call for it something needs to be done.

    The 3d printer is no different. Damn all the useful things that can be done with it he doesn't understand it and it can do one bad thing so ban it.

  11. Citizens want lawmakers regulated by Constitution. by aristotle-dude · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Funny how, "lawmakers" seem to often ignore the "law" of the land. The American constitution is supposed to be the measuring stick/regulations by which other laws are judged. If they do not measure up, they have to be repealed.

    A democracy stops working for the benefit for all as soon as people stop ignoring the constitution.

    When the laws are working for the benefit of all, some people will not be happy and some people will not get what they want. I know some of you believe that guns are evil but criminals will always find a way to procure guns. The majority of gun related violence is perpetrated by criminals. When I say gun violence, I am not just talking about deaths but also non-lethal injuries and use of guns for intimidation. The anti-gun people are too focused on individual stats and do not stop to consider armed robberies where nobody gets shot during the robbery. That is still a use of guns as a weapon to intimidate/coerce others into doing something against their will.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  12. Banning children? Backwards logic! by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Funny

    You need to go to the source of the problem and ban women.

    Banning children is as pointless as banning ammunition. Because an industrious person can always make more at home.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  13. Right of suicide by Hanzie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I disagree with the premise. I strongly believe that suicide is a fundamental human right. It's the one decision that is fundamentally yours.

    Who should have the right to force me to keep living if I don't want to?

    --
    ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.