Slashdot Mirror
Bill Regulating 3D Printed Guns Announced In NYC
New submitter BioTitan writes "New York City may be the first state to crack down on 3D printed guns. Two pieces of legislation were introduced on June 13, one in the City Council that only allows licensed gunsmiths to print the guns, and another in the State Assembly that would make it illegal for anyone to print a gun. Cody Wilson, creator of the first 3D printed guns, and founder of Defense Distributed, told The Epoch Times, 'Such legislation is a deprivation of equal protection and works in clear ignorance of Title I and II of U.S. gun laws.'"
They're just shooting from the tip..
So it will be legal to build your own guns with metal machining tools, but if you do it with a 3D printer, it will be illegal. I'm sure all the people who want a gun but can't buy one are going to listen. This will just be one more charge after the fact, after someone commits another crime that is already illegal.
They should wish that the only gun people could have is the 3d printed gun known as the liberator. 1 shot .380.... I believe that is what the government is ultimatley trying to whittle our gun rights down to. 1 shot useless calibers
They will be laughing on the other sides of their faces when Obama's storm troopers round them up and ship them to a FEMA camp.
Why should I worry? It's not like the government is tracking every website I visit and every person I talk to, how would they know if I've even downloaded this liberator gun, much less made one?
(oh wait...)
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Speaking as a leftist of a stripe, we're not. Seriously. Don't get me wrong, I think you're insane for thinking a gun is going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special, don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun, and don't like you personally (for trolling), but I'm actually mad that Obama et al are wasting political capitol on gun control.
Cody Wilson, creator of the first 3D printed guns, and founder of Defense Distributed, said in an email interview, “Such legislation is a deprivation of equal protection and works in clear ignorance of Title I and II of U.S. gun laws.” Wilson was referring to Title 1, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and Title 2, the National Firearms Act.
OK, anyone who reads or watches the news would realize that politicians overreact because most of the electorate falls for grandstanding and over reaction. If a legislator proceeded with common sense, caution, and reasoning, he would never get elected. And this was bound to happen and rest assured, other states WILL follow suit. There is going to be a lot of money spent fighting this in the courts and there WILL eventually be a law against 3D printers. I have no doubt.
Now we have Mr. Wilson. Mr Wilson goes and prints a 3D gun and blabs it all over the internet - yes, I'm well aware that there would have been someone else who would have done so; after all, we live i a society of attention whores and narcissists. But never the less, he was the first and he gets the blame.
tl;dr: WTF did he expect?!
Unless that was his game all along.
"New York City may be the first state"? Thats like watching a game show where the contestant is asked for a country in Europe that is fancy and them saying London or Paris.
-SaNo
A large number of atheists are libertarian, not leftist. We leave all religions behind, including the religions of the left and right, which, like any good religion, foists groupthink for the purpose of seizure of power for the leaders.
As with more normal religions, the best policy is to let people be free.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Well well. So there is this piece of legislation that will make it illegal to 3d-print a gun.
So now I wonder, what is and whether it will be altered or 'revised', the definition of: Gun. One needs not a gun to harm someone else. Illegalising the 3d-printing of Guns as we now think of guns, will only add one more law to the ocean of Laws and will only marginally solve the problem it is setting out to solve.
I can legally manufacture my own firearms in the US. So can most of you. I can make them, own them, and use them.
The only thing I can't legally do? Sell them.
So I could legally manufacture a more-or-less perfect replica of the gun used in Newtown. But New York gets its knickers in a knot over someone printing out a single-shot low-pressure piece of crap?
Dear politicians - We all know you couldn't think your way out of a paper bag. But can you at least prioritize the crap on which you waste our tax dollars?
Please keep in mind that New York City is not it's own state. And the rest of the state is pretty steamed about the recent gun legislation that the Governor jammed through the state legislature. Some upstate sheriffs have even gone so far as to say they will not enforce that legislation, which is a pretty big step for law enforcement to come out and state in public. Gun rights are a twitchy subject here right now, I find it hard to think of any upstate politician who would support any restriction on 3d printing right now.
Not sure that 'atieists' have to do with this issue, other than probably being someone who believes differently than you do on that particular issue and so who you believe probably doesn't agree with you on others too. But nice attempt at trolling.
Do everything over TOR and they'll never get y6796t7fcv gh. ck k.hgc g.khf
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
While the NRA spends quite a bit and does a good job protecting gun rights, its important to remember that they are financed by large arms manufacturers. They probably wont lobby as hard for your ability to print your own guns.
Actually, that will be an interesting thing to watch. Which way will the NRA fall on this (and similar) issues.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
was to circumvent crap like this. 2nd amendment protection, even when it's being attacked aggressively.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
OK, I'll print 100s of guns then. Fuck you New York Assholes!
It's always funny to see someone suggest that libertarianism eschews religion. Particularly when they conflate political leanings with religious tendencies. Freedom is no less religious than any other political dimension. Pragmatism and many-voice democratism are the only irreligious politics.
I mean, to me a 3d printed gun is like any weapon you can build at home or in the garage.
Is a weapon that doesn't follow the "normal" market chain.
So they also should regulate, say, hand made knives, archery and even deadly traps.
It looks to me just like a govt response to a buzzword. Just to let people know "we are watching over you".
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
The point of 3D printed guns is to be able to ignore such legislation if need be. In general, such laws could be anticipated, but are known to be mostly irrelevant.
To put this into another perspective - its currently illegal to download pirated music and movies off the internet. Not proposed legislation, not "we're thinking about it" - it's already 100% against the law. How effective is that?
Another example: its current illegal in nearly every state to possess, grow, or smoke marijuana - yet a significant chunk of the population ends up trying it at some point because when you get right down to it, the shit grows out of the fucking dirt.
3D printed guns are much the same. They're there not just to make it easy to make a gun, but to make laws against it ineffective. The government and politicians can stamp their feet, pound their gavel, and pass whatever laws they way - but if We The People still want a gun, we'll have them - and there's nothing they can do about it.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
According to FactCheck.org, nearly half of the funding for the NRA comes from membership dues alone. Voluntary donations to the NRA, however, still account for a majority portion of the remaining funding.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear
"going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special"
Logical Fallacy. It gives you more protection than having NOTHING, except the broken promises of the government protecting you. And we are seeing exactly how much the government protects you, even as it invades every aspect of your life. But being a good leftist, you must not protest government intrusions into your everyday life, for that is exactly what you're asking for.
Government regulation is government power, more regulation means government has more power. Don't complain when wake up and have no power to stop the government. That is the whole reason for the 2nd Amendment. Power corrupts and all that.
"Trust us, we're from the Government"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I don't own a gun for protection, I own them because they are fun to shoot make really loud noises explosions in fact and put holes in things. What more could a growing boy ask for?
For home defense I have a mental map of my house can find my way round in the dark and will use that and whatever blunt object is closest to me. If there's more than 1 intruder I wouldn't want to risk one getting away because he heard me shooting.
I'm like that really rare watch dog, you won't know I'm there until you are fully in and I'm blocking your exit and by then it's too late.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Don't forget - the batshit crazy folks have a right to print guns too...because...well they have a right to protect themselves just like the rest, don't they?
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
I think you're insane for thinking a gun is going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special
What are you talking about? Firearms are literally the best thing for defense from armed assailants.
I don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun,
Then it is clear that you do not have a very good understanding of the Constitution.
As a Libertarian, I find Libertarians defy most stereotypes. I do say, the Libertarian version of Atheism is much better than the leftist Atheists. Leftist Atheists have replaced GOD with Government as the all powerful being, and that is pretty scary concept. Libertarian Atheists tend towards not giving a shit what others believe and want to be left alone.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I think we can take a pretty good educated guess on this as it doesn't make THEM money... They'll be for the banning. And they'll put it down to them being reasonable and willing to compromise on things.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
There really needs to be a "-1, factually incorrect" option.
The NRA is completely on board with legal homemade guns, and membership dues and advertisements are the majority of their income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances_and_organizational_structure
Speaking as a leftist of a stripe, we're not. Seriously. Don't get me wrong, I think you're insane for thinking a gun is going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special, don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun, and don't like you personally (for trolling), but I'm actually mad that Obama et al are wasting political capitol on gun control.
Just wait until the current president is voted out of office and the next republican is in office. You will be doubly-sorry this stuff was started then when it's used to chase down and out women who have had abortions, people that don't go to church, and all kinds of other sinners.
Who's got guns won't matter when the feds decide to use information to destroy you. Gonna shoot back at a web page with your mom's three abortions listed on it? HA!
Your disregard for portions of the Constitution will cause the downfall of all of the Constitution.
How can you be certain that TOR isn't compromised? I admit that it's a paranoid view to have, but TOR is a very tempting target and lately the paranoid are being proved right on a daily basis.
You do realize that one can be a good leftist and anti-government or pro-small-government, don't you?
I'm anti-government, but I'm also anti-capitalism (a very clear sign that the person is likely to be a good leftist).
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
This will work.
Why? Because the sort of person who would shoot school children or rob a convenience store will of course obey these laws.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Instead of dealing with the problem they just do the ban everything method. Perfect for the no IQ crowd like the leaders of NYC..
Why don't they talk to large city leaders elsewhere about what works? They are simply doing what Chicago does, and Chicago is a complete failure.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
A good number of Libertarians think they can speak for everyone. You seem to be one of them. I would speculate more Atheists are humanist.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
You scared of owning guns? It's not about being scared of the boogie man as you put it, it's being prepared for the worst. Guns are fun to shoot and being able to handle them and use them is a skill everyone should have. You might live under a rock, but peoples homes do get invaded daily. Thiefs don't go to the ghettos to rob people they go to suburban neighborhoods.. Is it likely to happen to you?? Statistically no, but if it does and you have no skills or tools to protect yourself you become a victim. This "it can't happen to me" mentality is how highschool kids live their lives. Eventually you grow up and realize it CAN happen to you.
At first I thought this was a joke, it was a much better comment like that. What else is do you like better when it's the Libertarian version? I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and say everything?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Which problem does this license solve? We can bear arms. We cannot sell them without a license. You don't need a license to do what is not illegal.
That's federal law. State and city law can be more restrictive.
Gobshite indeed. Interestingly it is a British word. Which makes me wonder all the more. I don't know what kind of watch dog you are talking about, surely the whole point of a watch dog is you know that it's there and it makes a lot of noise to scare off intruders? Much like your post makes you sound. When you're all grown you can put away your childish things.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
i can see the headline on Slashdot in 2018ish
"First all 3d printed gun test fired 10k rounds"
Yesterday Crunktech successfully fired the Liberator V6 with 10k rounds. This was made possible by use of the new Super Goop with microwave activated hardening..."
but these PoliCritters need to understand the following
"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."
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun
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.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia
see definition 2.
A militia is the constitutional sense is a voluntary force called up from the citizens who bring their own guns and resources (cloths food etc). Please go back and review the revolutionary war. Go see what they were pissed off about go see how they started fighting. There are 3 documents you should read. The constitution, the deceleration of independence, and the magna carta. They were rebelling against an autocratic system where they had no rights. The very rights people like you think we dont/shouldnt have. The first 10 of the bill of rights was put into place very carefully as to thwart the very injustices that the english crown was ruling its people with at the time. They are very well thought out. I am amazed at how easy they are to read. How easy it is to see the sorts of things they nipped in the bud by using these laws. Not that it matters our gov seems keen on ignoring huge swaths of it for our 'safety'. Which other rights are you willing to give up?
I personally own 0 guns. I take owning one very seriously and am not sure if I want that responsibility. My wife has asked that we buy one. I am holding her off to see if it something she really wants (or if she is falling prey to hysteria). I personally think I do not need one where I live. However, I do not begrudge someone who feels they need one.
Also maybe he is trolling. But look at it from his POV all he sees is his group screaming that 'obama wants to take yer guns', then he watches TV and sees sure enough they are proposing another law to do just that. He sees the 50/50 vote in the congress split down party lines on this issue. Perhaps he has a right to be mad about it?
It's possible that 3D printers will get better.
And yet you post as AC, huh?
.45) is sufficient for protecting oneself between the 911 call and the police showing up.
It's less about being scared of the alleged 'boogie man' than it is about being realistic. Alot of things can happen when the average police response times between 5 and 10 minutes [http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/previous/cvus107.pdf]. Assuming an AK-47 is makes for the best defense ever is absurd. A moderate caliber handgun (between 9mm and
On the subject of being realistic, using an AK-47 for home defense is just dumb. A 7.62x39 bullet has way too much penetration potential! You run the risk of shooting through both interior walls, some exterior walls, and into neighboring structures.
don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun
Many gun control proponents read the 2nd amendment that way, and on its surface its not hard to read it that way. But the Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton) go into more detail about what was intended; that both "regulated militias" and individual gun ownership rights are necessary as protection from government tyranny:
It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power....To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.
To try to interpret the Constitution out of context without reviewing (basically) the supporting documentation does it a disservice. Indeed the Supreme Court has often invoked the Federalist Papers as evidence of original intent of both the Framers and Ratifiers.
If nothing else "select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power." seems to describe the new left and the new right pretty well.
You're both trolling. The reason mass gun ownership is effective is not that the individual gun owner can fight of the swat team. It's that for every time the swat team goes out, 1000 others start worrying it might come to them. Once that happens, they start to realize it's not like the police lives in barricaded ghettos for cooperative defense, they're spread out in the community. Usually protected from harm by the sense of "they're here to protect us". When that "they are serving us" goes away, you suddenly have 1000 targets (plus families) spread out withing a town with 100,000 gun owners. How many of those are stable? Take the LA case, one crazy guy took out two cops and two family members before he was taken down by the combined effort of all police departments in a 100 mile area. How many of those cases would it take until cops stay home to protect themselves and their families?
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
No gunsmith or criminal in his right mind would want a 3D rapid prototype "printed" gun.
Any sane criminal wants a real top notch machined steel gun that WORKS every time the trigger is pulled. And that criminal knows how to buy or steal one in an hour or two versus many days for a 3D RP gun (& I don't understand what they use for a barrel, unless they use laser sintered stainless steel or titanium for the barrel and then finish machine it or it will be truly worthless in aim and firepower.)
where in the libertarian party agenda does religion play a role or cause tendencies of any sort?
in ending the war on drugs?
pro choice stance on abortion?
removing government from deciding who can marry who?
or in ending corporate welfare?
where in the platform or in its representatives do you see anyone citing religion?
libertarians are all different backgrounds, many may be religious, but there is nothing religious about the platform or its purpose. Its principles exist with or without religion.
You have a valid point, but name calling is required?
A firearm by definition requires some sort of explosion. We could solve a lot of these problems by moving on to alternative projectile weapon technologies such as the coil gun, more commonly, and incorrectly, called the rail gun.
Then watch as the government tries to outlaw electricity.
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
You know someone has no basis for their argument when they go to nukes. It's the Hitler of gun debate.
Previously, thinking the government was secretly recording all our call and network connection information was "a paranoid view to have." Not sure that's still true.
Similarly, the view you put forth may be paranoid today, but it might be validated in the future.
http://bit.ly/11i3Gvq It's seems pretty clearly on the side of defending one's self as well as defending the innocent. 1/10
How is that? How does a "Left wing" enforce their social economic government structure without a strong powerful government behind it?
You're probably not anti-capitalist, you're probably anti-corporatist, which is different, but looks remarkably similar. Do you believe a committee should tell you how much you should be paid, and how hard you should work and what job you should do? If you say no to each of those, you're a capitalist.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I am not an Atheist. Libertarian Atheists don't care what I believe. And I don't care what Atheists believe. Leftwing Atheists would rather I not exist, as my belief somehow threatens them. They end up doing things like Jewish Purge of Soviet Union (killing Jews because they are religious), or persecution of the Falun Gong and Christians in China, if they had their way. Atheistic Socialistic States and those of faith don't mix.
The state should be agnostic towards religion (or lack thereof). First Amendment Style.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Historically, the "Liberator" hand gun that was distributed during WWII was deployed with exactly the strategy above in mind, a weapon valued for its psychological warfare effects as well as for its actual usage ... as a way to arm one's self with a better weapon, and more ammunition ... obtained from a defeated target of the resistance.
I see much the same psychological effect on the totalitarians of today with the 3D printed gun. It's no accident that it too is named the "Liberator".
Not only there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the second amendment being repelled. See 18th and 21st amendments for examples.
than by guns, plastic or otherwise.
The real point of the 2nd Amendment was two fold. First of all, it openly acknowledged that the real justification and authority of government is derived from the arms that government is able to field. If you start to defy that government, you rather quickly get a show of arms of some manner which reminds you who has the real authority. Allowing ordinary citizens to possess those arms sort of levels that playing field.
The other is a more general theme that is pervasive throughout the U.S. Constitution, which is that political power should not be concentrated in the hands of just one person or even a small group of people. The more you can push decision making out to larger groups of people the better off everybody becomes and in general you have more liberty if not one single person or a small group can make decisions on your behalf. This goes to a limited presidency who can't even create laws himself, a Congress that in itself has very limited authority to act where most of the real decision making was supposed to be handled by a distributed group of decision makers known as state legislators.
This gets into the role of the militia, where the military authority would be similarly distributed widely and not be concentrated in the hands of just a select few people. Generals weren't trusted, and it was presumed that every community would have their own "militia" made up of concerned citizens who would generally be protecting themselves against local threats or needs. Yes, if there was a need for mobilization on a national level those various militia groups could be organized or "regulated" on a federal level and pressed into national service, but that was presumed to be a rare event and something that generally required a formal declaration of war (a power given explicitly to congress and congress alone). A national army was permitted, but was generally intended to be quite small.
As a matter of practice, the national army was kept small throughout most of American history... with only the events subsequent to World War II that the U.S. Army in "peacetime" was ever kept at more than about 50,000 soldiers. Every major war previously including World War II itself had the national army formed by requesting assistance from the states to "donate" their militias to help grow the national army with just a small cadre of permanent soldiers who formed the core of that national army.
I seriously doubt that the misadventures subsequent to World War II would have happened had the national army been small. This includes the fiascos in places like the Balkans, Beirut (on multiple occasions), Vietnam, and Afghanistan (which might have been justified in terms of a formal declaration of war... but that would have at least brought some deliberation into the process). I seriously doubt that the U.S. Army would have ever been in Iraq if they had to depend on an army of about 30-50,000 soldiers as the whole of the U.S. Army.
This diffuse authority where there would be literally thousands of individual militias was the primary check against an over zealous federal government. If individual rights were being trampled to death and there was a real danger of the federal government over reaching its authority, it would be the collective nature of those militias that could certainly cause real concern to the federal army.
Mind you, I'm not even remotely arguing the individual possession of firearms here and I am suggesting that individual states can "regulate" how those militias are formed within their respective states. I personally think that states should license and charter individual militias subject to their state constitutions and be free to do that as much as they care without interference from the federal government. Those charters can be granted to groups of citizens that may not even be necessarily receiving tax dollars but instead can be completely voluntary groups operating on their own funds if necessary. Furthermore, I don't think that the "National Guard" should be the only milit
The more time these anti-gun nitwits spend trying to close the barn door after the horses have escaped, the less time they'll have for doing real damage.
Total non sequitur. They are talking about passing a local LAW ... not an AMENDMENT to the constitution. The controversy here is that the proposed LAW that the POLITICIAN is attempting to pass may VIOLATE said constitution, (sans your fantasy AMENDMENT that no one is actually proposing because it is generally considered political SUICIDE to do so).
You have a lot of nerve calling anyone here "ignorant".
Yeah and all those signs in Wisconsin that says concealed guns aren't allowed on the premises at random restaurants and shops and crap worked wonders to stop shootings and robberies. It was almost as effective as if they'd let level headed people carry concealed guns in just in case there was a robbery.
Seriously, do they really think passing a law is going to stop anyone from doing this? At least most criminals don't know how to use Autocad, Maya, Milkshape, a 3D printer, or a computer, lol.
I can see all the left wing atheists now, cowering, terrified of the devastating belief of Archangel Michael the rambling libertarian and his half composed thoughts.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
I think a lot of the excitement around these things is sort of similar to the excitement when Linux was first announced: not "this thing is a big deal", but "this thing will lead to a big deal".
Guns are a false hope in defending against any tyrannical government. If we are too incompetent to use the soap, ballot, or jury box to defend our liberty, what makes you think we're competent to use guns to defend it? Especially given that any gun you have, the government has much much bigger ones and a lot more of them.
At any rate, where were the second amendment activists with the patriot act or prism? It seems to me that most gun activists define "tyranny" as "gun control," nothing more and nothing less. If a candidate were to say "I'm in favor of abolishing the patriot act, prism, ending the outrageous drug war and war on terror, and abolishing homeland security, and also limiting sales of any gun bigger than a handgun," the NRA would be calling for his blood. Meanwhile, we have wave after wave of politicians who chip away at every amendment but the second (and third I suppose), and you guys don't ever discuss at what point you'd take up arms.
A very nice piece. Speaking of the National Guard, what was the legal basis for the Federal Government dispatching National Guard to Iraq? I thought the point was that National Guard was under command of the various state legislatures and/or governor.
I like the idea of forming state militias but I'm pretty sure the practical result would be that it would be used to curtail gun rights unless you were a member of it. Although the Texas State Militia would likely scare the crap out of most small countries, and the Massachusetts State Militia (armed entirely with Nerf Guns) might be a comedic tour de force.
I don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun
Ahh my favorite argument from people who don't understand this little clause:
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If the Constitution doesn't say anything about it, that implies it's might right and the government cannot restrict it. However in practice I realize the government could give two shits about the Constitution.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Probably because you cannot spell and espouse a wing-nut conspiracy theory. Or maybe Slashdot is secretly an arm of the NSA. Could be either one honestly.
I really don't see how TOR protects anyone. If NSA sets up a bunch of TOR nodes, then they can read the data that passes over the TOR network. If they are the first node you connect to, it could just pretend the data was sent between other nodes, when really they were just listening in on your messages while sending them straight to the receiver. Or it could just pass the message between "friendly" nodes to ensure that it could always read the messages, and know the route you took. Sure it protects the end web site from knowing your location, and it might stop a government from listening in on your connection, provided they aren't running any nodes themselves.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I'm an Atheist Libertarian and I don't speak for anyone but myself. The only request I have of other people is that they stop taking my money and forcing my actions. I don't understand what's so wrong with that policy. When you say humanist, what you mean is forcing charity. I want to help people, but I don't want to be forced to help people that don't want help.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Geez, if I can't print a shitty zip-gun, I guess I'll just have to take 5 mins to MAKE one out of some pipe, a rubber band, a tack, and if I'm feeling fancy, wood for a handle.
Certainly none of these is available at the local hardware store!
I feel safer already.
Fucking morons.
-Styopa
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Nothing about "guns", nothing about "owning"
"Arms" = guns, or more generally any weapon which would typically be carried by infantry. (Yes, this means the amendment is specifically referring to military weapons, not hunting weapons.)
"keep" = own
"bear" = carry in public
The words may be a bit unfamiliar after a few hundred years, but the meaning is obvious to anyone who cares to undertake some honest research.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Do you have a coherent thought or just rambling on because I don't follow your prescribed version of reality? And they are cowering, otherwise they wouldn't care what I believed (or didn't believe). I threaten them because I can make fun of them. And there is nothing funnier than evangelical Atheists.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/2010/03/atheist-billboard.jpg
Evangelical (adj) - marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.
What other "non-beliefs" can we put billboards up for?
"Don't Believe in Pink Unicorns? You're not alone"
"Don't Believe in UFOs? You're not alone"
"Don't Believe in Leprechauns? You're not alone"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I think you're insane if you think you can call the cops and have them respond in time to protect you and your family.
If you're so fucking worried about children, ban pools and 5 gallon buckets. You'll save a fuckton more children that way. The only reason your lefty schizo buddy Loughner was able to get a gun was because the mental health system failed. Same with Lanza. Both of them were beyond the stage of paranoid schizo where they should have been forcible committed. Also, why is it that all the mass shooters lately have lefty tendencies?
I'd like to see you bear a nuclear warhead, Duke.
You're probably thinking of the rules against murder, which doesn't include all killing. For example, the Old Testament Law gave parents explicit permission to kill their perpetually disobedient children, and God often told them to kill all the women and children when they conquered a city. Jesus took the stance against murder even further by denouncing all hatred for others, and requiring his followers to love everyone.
Murder and rape is rampart in NYC because 3D printed guns and dildos can pass a metal detector (already installed at every doorway in the city for your protection). Police is still armed with the outdated 2D technology, unable to pursue criminals past the detectors. This enlightened piece of legislation will target only the 3D outlaws who plan to use technology in nefarious ways, because no inlaws will want to print anything like that in the first place. All printer owners will be required to register their printers with NYPD and visit their case officer monthly.
You forgot the worship of money. There's a large group their form whom long numbers separated by columns is essentially identical to an angelic choir.
You're really pushing this point hard. Sure, the 2nd Amendment could be repealed, assuming anyone was willing to commit political suicide by proposing the repeal of anything in the Bill of Rights, and that three-quarters of the states were willing to ratify the change. That isn't going to happen any time soon.
Anyone in the USA who opposes any change to the second amendment but drinks alcohol is a morally bankrupt hypocrite not worth listening to, which I would imagine is most of them.
This is simply idiotic. Opposing any change to the 2nd Amendment does not equate to opposing the amendment process itself. The fact that the capacity exists to repeal the 2nd Amendment does not automatically make it a good idea. You're just looking for any excuse to tune out those who disagree with you by casting them as hypocrites.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
...damn you auto-correct..
A good number of people think they can speak for everyone.
FTFY.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The GOP is a religious organization, whether they want to be or not. So their stance is that everyone else must therefore be atheists or terrist muslims since Evangelism is the only true religion to them.
... as well as
The Democrats are a religious organization, whether they want to be or not. So their stance is that everyone else must therefore be Evangelicals or terrist muslims since State Worship is the only true religion to them.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Guns are a false hope in defending against any tyrannical government.
Name one tyranny that allows for the people to be armed. Just one.
And why are we arming Syrian Rebels if guns are a false hope against Tyranny?
Do you realize that tyrannies form only when the people are disarmed. And do not forget, Hitler was elected to office, so I do not trust the Soap, or Ballot boxes for obvious reasons (GWB, BHO) . I don't trust the Jury box for the similar reasons. Guns are the last but necessary resort.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
In my experience, many atheists don't take the hands off approach. There is a pervasive attitude where people seem to read, "freedom of religion", as "freedom from religion".
No need to be compromised. Being on TOR automatically puts you on the suspicious list.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
It will either be too narrow to make a difference or too broad to make sense.
On the subject of being realistic, using an AK-47 for home defense is just dumb. A 7.62x39 bullet has way too much penetration potential! You run the risk of shooting through both interior walls, some exterior walls, and into neighboring structures.
Indeed.
However, I can attest from personal experience that Kalashnikov's are hella fun to take to the range!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
"Not only there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the second amendment being repelled. See 18th and 21st amendments for examples."
No there is nothing in the constitution preventing a repeal of the 2nd amendment. But it has not been repealed. So what the fuck then is your point?
I would also point out to you that the first ten amendments are more than simple amendments. Try reading about this thing we call the Bill of Rights. You understand that the constitution would never have been agreed on and the country would never have existed had it not been for these specific ten amendments right?
If you want to repeal the 2nd amendment then go right ahead. Until that is done, how about you just fuck off.
You seem to be confused if you think atheists are depriving people of their rights. Religious people are the ones that try to make everyone else give up rights to comply with their delusions.
"Most generalizations are false, including this one." -- Samuel Clemens
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Statistically gun owners have a much higher risk of suicide: http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/press-releases/2007-releases/press04102007.html
"Removing all firearms from one's home is one of the most effective and straightforward steps that household decision-makers can take to reduce the risk of suicide,"
Statistically gun owners face a much higher risk of homicide in the home: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
Living in a home that contains guns increases the risk of homicide by more than 40%, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.
Gun ownership increases the cost of home insurance. Insurance agencies are in the business of managing risk. If the benefits of gun ownership decreased your overall risk, then insurance rates would go down.
This "it can't happen to me" mentality is how highschool kids live their lives. Eventually you grow up and realize it CAN happen to you.
I couldn't agree more. Your belief that firearms make you safer is based purely on a "it cant happen to me" attitude. You are gambling against the odds, assuming that your outcomes will be better, without applying facts and real world statistics.
I think we can take a pretty good educated guess on this as it doesn't make THEM money...
Make them money? The NRA is a non-profit agency. They are not allowed to make money. The profit motive doesn't have a role here (at least with the NRA itself).
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
So, you equate government with tyranny. Interesting.
The fact that a government tends towards tyranny is one of the reasons for the US Constitution being framed the way it was, including the 2nd Amendment. The fact that the government is not abiding by the law that defines it is no surprise. We the people must like tyrannies ;)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Also typical that this gets auto moderated to -1
Probably because you use words like "leftists" and (I assume) "athiests" as perjorative terms. If only you'd worked in something about 'dem liberals you might have got a point for the full set.
You did manage to shoehorn something about Obama in there, so at least there's that.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
They end up doing things like Jewish Purge of Soviet Union (killing Jews because they are religious)
There's so much wrong in this statement that I don't even know where to begin. For starters, the fact that most people affected by those purges (there was more than one) were atheists. Heck, most of the ones affected by Stalin's purge were staunchly communist!
It should be noted that some of those voluntary donations also come from members. Of all the political organizations I am a member of, NRA is by far the most likely to spam me with letters asking for moar money because otherwise "Obama will take away your guns!!!1!!".
So it would be ok for a 10 year old to print a gun and go shoot someone,,way to go idiots
Sorry, but I think you're in the wrong forum.
Yahoo/Huffpo is down the hall, third door on the left.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I see someone is making up enemies in their head.
You, and pretty much all the other gun nuts, have this fantasy that you'll be facing the intruders or attackers at the ready, hunkered down behind a bulletproof couch or car, dispensing justice with your True American gun of BadAssery.
Here's how those things actually pan out: intruders quietly get into the house, either through an unlocked door, through an open window or through a broken window. By the time you realize what's going on, they are either pointing a gun at you, took what they came for or decided it wasn't worth it to rob an occupied house. And for every anecdote about a home owner chasing off dangerous criminals with guns, I'll give you a story about a home owner gunned down by intruders while they were looking for their gun. See for example the deaths of the district attorney in Texas.
For muggings and robberies in the street, you're looking at even worse odds, because the attacker by definition pulls the gun on you before you do. Unless, of course, you walk with your gun drawn at all times, and then you're still open for someone to surprise you from behind. And finally, to be the hero in a mass shooting, you actually need to shoot the murderer. I'd like to see you identify the right guy from a crowd of 5-6 people all pointing guns in various directions.
And for a real fun fact, I'll give you a neat robbery scenario. Friends of ours woke up one morning with all the carpets gone in their apartment (persian rugs can fetch nice sums). Turns out the criminals had actually broken into the apartment and gassed it with sleeping gas.
In short, guns are an illusion of safety. Someone who wants to get you will get you, because they always have the benefit of surprise.
And this entire business of stopping a dedicated army with rifles and guns is an even bigger illusion. Syria is nicely illustrating why.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
During the Indian Wars, the federal army was usually about 30,000 or so soldiers strong. They were mostly a frontier border guard during that time, even though as you pointed out it led to several misadventures which can be compared to the current "war on terrorism" that supposedly is taking place. It should also be pointed out that the "Indian Wars" took place within the claimed territory of the United States of America and not in other countries (with a few exceptions that wandered into Canada and Mexico... but still very close to the border.
Perhaps the campaign by John Pershing prior to World War I when he was hunting down Pancho Vila could be compared to the current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, but again it was mostly done within U.S. territory and occasional border crossings that could even be considered a territory dispute. That is quite a bit different than going across oceans and mountain ranges far from American territory.
Yes, the U.S. Civil War was a major game changer in American history, and in some ways it was the death of the "Old Republic" that was in existence earlier. Still, after the Civil War the U.S. federal army was significantly reduced back to the small number that existed previously. The same thing happened with the Spanish-American War (since you mention it) where the army grew to a rather large size with state militias filling in the ranks and then the army was subsequently reduced to a very small size afterward on the federal level. It wasn't until after World War II and the rationalization that happened during the Cold War that kept the U.S. military, and especially the U.S. Army, at large staffing levels on essentially a permanent basis.
It should also be pointed out the SpanAm War was formally declared by an act of Congress (it passed both houses... the Senate for the actual declaration and the House for appropriations to make it happen and pay for the war). It also received generally popular support among the American people prior to that war actually happening. My point is that in order to send such an army off to battle you need to get a whole bunch of people to agree to that war prior to the conflict instead of that being the decision of a small group like the Joint Chiefs of Staff or even just the President. Sure, you can get the country whipped into a war frenzy for doing something that may be stupid, but at least you got that popular support and a country committed to seeing the war through to a final conclusion. It is also something that would happen much less often rather than the current misadventures that seem to happen every five years or so on and off during the last half of the 20th Century and into the 21st Century.
You also seem to have missed the point that soldiers are controlled by more than one person. Under the earlier "state militia" model, the President couldn't call up those soldiers except in declared war or other "national emergencies". That keeps them from being used except in extreme situations and forces the decision making process to commit those soldiers to be done by a large number of people and ultimately get the support of even state legislatures before it happens. That isn't going to be done on a whim or to further the political ambitions of a particular politician... as does currently happen. Sure, you get assholes like General George A. Custer who parade around and perform military actions for political purposes (and ultimately died because of that), Still, if Custer had tried to mess around in Texas and start killing off "white" towns.... he would have met the Texas militias and threats of secession all over again. He didn't have the authority nor did the President have the authority to try a stunt like that.
Never pass a law that won't be enforced or can't be enforced.
You cannot stop people from printing 3d guns anymore then you can stop someone from writing "I like purple poodles" in any old notebook with a ballpoint pen. Precisely how are you going to even know it happened in the first place?
So what does this law make illegal? Having an unlicensed weapon? Already illegal. Making your own gun? Already illegal.
Its an action utterly without meaning or relevance. If they want to stop 3d guns they're either going to have to have to enact a police state or invent a time machine. Short of that... get used to it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Name one tyranny that allows for the people to be armed. Just one.
The US government under the patriot act and PRISM.
Anyway, you're dodging my point. Gun control and tyranny could be correlated, but they ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Yet nothing aside from gun control seems to provoke a response. I suspect that if we were to gradually suspend the constitution but not touch guns, most gun rights activists would let it stand.
Well then thank you for commenting AC and undoing your moderation. You've really shown me who is a fucking idiot.
Rifles have been used quite effectively against U.S. troops operating in foreign countries, sometimes bring down helicopters too. The Supreme Court disagrees with your Constitutional interpretation, it is personal right.
Obama is wasting capital on something even half his party supports, even his wife says *she* would want sufficient protection were she to live in rural area, and Bill Clinton warned him about that crowd. listen to Michael, Barack, she's more common sense than you
You have quite an imagination. over a million times a year good people use guns to discourage attacks, usually without a shot fired. The family dog alerts about intruders even before they get close enough to house to touch it. In store robberies, sometimes guns help and sometime they don't. But people have a right to have a chance to defend themselves. Usually the bad guy in mass shooting is quite easy to identify, read the recent news accounts.
Funny you bring up placed where armed citizens are giving government a hard time. also, there are places where armed citizens are giving the full might of the US military a hard, bad time. hmmmm, something in your assumptions is off.
yes it does matter, supreme court recently threw a bunch of state and city's gun laws into the crapper.
The role of the National Guard to be able to fight in Iraq came directly from the legislation of the "authorization of the use of force" declaration by Congress shortly after 9/11. Prior to that, the National Guard was supposedly prohibited on a constitutional basis and legal basis from serving in that capacity. This is also one of the reasons why National Guard units didn't serve in Vietnam, as it wasn't a formally declared war and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution didn't give authorization to call up the state militias.
I also have a problem with the organization of the National Guard.... so far as having guard units as the only form of state militias. They have "dual oaths" that they must take, where they are in reality under the direct chain of command of the U.S. President and not the respective state governors with the state governors only exercising authority in a sort of "dotted line" capacity that is mostly titular as a practical matter. Governors can order the National Guard to perform acts of service to the respective state.... but the biggest catch is that the state government must pay for the use of guard units if they are in state service. As a practical matter, most of the activities of guard units are paid for with federal funds, thus are mostly on duty as federal troops. To show an example of this, ask a guardsman how they treat the federal flag as opposed to the state flag.... of the state they are serving. By far they will show utmost respect and courtesy to the federal flag, but the state flag they will wad up and toss into a bin when they take it down and certainly not even close to the same level of respect. That speaks volumes about who really is in charge.
That is not the organization that was envisioned under the 2nd Amendment when it was put forth. It was to allow citizens to form voluntary associations for common defense... both for protecting "borders" or the "frontier" as well as to keep ruffians at bay within their respective communities (including out of control federal agents). In earlier times all it would take for a group of citizens to form a militia was to get a couple dozen concerned citizens together (the exact number varied by respective state laws) and then they could petition the state legislature for a charter to become a recognized militia. Often they would even pay for their own uniforms and weapons, but would use rank structures and training methods as described by the federal government. Officers of those militias had to be commissioned by the state legislatures (with recommendations by the militia in question), but the federal government otherwise had no role at all.
Speaking about the Massachusetts state militias, the 182nd Infantry Regiment traces its heritage back to the colonial militia nearly a century before the Revolutionary War. I'm sure they have weapons a bit better than Nerf guns, although it suffers from the other issues of National Guard units at the moment.
Again, I'm not advocating that the National Guard be eliminated, but I think there is a role for state militia units which are outside of that structure and answer directly to the state governors and legislatures. My reading of the 2nd Amendment (and other amendments like the 10th) seems to suggest that the federal government couldn't even constitutionally stop such militias from forming and that gun control laws would definitely not apply on the federal level to stop what those militia units could be using. Heck, I'm not even sure that a federal law prohibiting a state militia from controlling nukes could be constitutional... even if I think that would be a stupid thing for a state militia to be messing with. At the very least, if gun rights are being taken away from ordinary citizens, these alterna
Nope, there isn't any such rule. The Bible says "Thou shalt not murder" or "Thou shalt do no murder". It says nothing about killing. A homicide is always a killing, but it is not always a murder. There is plenty of room in the Bible for the concept we understand as "self defense".
Thank you for playing - run along and play with the other children now!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Thank you. Out of mod points, but that's probably the most informative post we'll see under this story.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Wait - wait - wait - I'm straining my gray matter here. Just give it time. Something buried deep in my subconscious - it's fighting to get out -
http://www.onion-router.net/
This website comprises the onion-router.net site formerly hosted at the Center for High Assurance Computer Systems of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. It primarily covers the work done at NRL during the first decade of onion routing and reflects the onion-router.net site roughly as it existed circa 2005. As a historical site it may contain dead external links and other signs of age.
There you go - there's no way that the NSA might know about some back door in TOR. The Navy certainly wouldn't share any back doors with the NSA, would they?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
TOR is subject to a MIM attack - always has been, always will be. There may or may not be some back door, but if gubbermint is monitoring the internet backbone, then they ARE the MIM.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I am being helped either voluntarily or by mutual exchange of goods or services. Also, someone helping me does not obligate me to help others. Forcing help using government guns to enforce is no different than slavery, albeit temporarily.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
One might be moderately confused by the language contained in the constitution, and the bill of rights. But, if a moderately confused person were to go in search of the correspondence that passed between the authors and the signers of the constitution, and the bill of rights, the language contained therein would clear up any doubt. The people who authored those documents, as well as the signatories of those documents, clearly intended that all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 49 be armed, with their own personal weapons. Those persons are your mystical "militia".
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
On the contrary.... it is simply people who have ignored the traditions and constitution of America. Yes, there is a strong tendency toward centralization (not just in the military.... but in all aspects of government). There certainly are tyrants who want to ignore those governing documents and insist upon moving that decision making authority to as few people as possible and growing the Presidency to the point that a mere "executive order" can act as if it was legislation or even impact the lives of ordinary citizens.
The 2nd Amendment was intended to be a check on that centralization tendency as ordinary citizens in mundane groups free of that central authority can and will act on behalf of its citizens to stop blatant abuses of a federal army upon the local communities. The federal army legitimately puts a check to make sure the local militia doesn't go sacking a neighboring town or state either, so it goes both ways.
Perhaps I'm demanding that constitutional check be put back. The arguments about gun control seem to center on the role that lone nut jobs might be doing when they get turned loose in civilian populations as well as criminal elements who use guns to commit crimes that most people really do think deserve to be felonies (aka rape, murder, grand theft, and treason). All of the arguments if favor of gun control simply don't apply to local militias, and I think you would be very hard pressed to find a whole militia unit turned rogue with the exception of the U.S. Civil War. I'm also suggesting that the U.S. Constitution has not been changed... in spite of your claim to the contrary. Those soldiers who served in the Spanish-American War and the U.S. Civil War certainly did not "vote" to revoke the 2nd Amendment, even if the "system" did change to consider a more centralized authority.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff are there to say what should be done once the decision to go to war has been made, not to make the decision to start a war. I'm even fine with that, as a country at war needs some sort of central authority and why the decision to go to war is one that a republic should be very careful and deliberative about. I just disagree that somebody like the President should send troops to a place like Syria without explicit authorization in the form of a declaration of war by Congress. State governors should also be reluctant to send their state militias into harm's way if "authorizations of the use of force" are vague and based upon weak premises. There certainly was enough opposition to the Iraq War (sometimes called "Gulf War II") that I doubt such a war declaration would have been successful and certainly several governors suggested they really wanted to stop their guard units from going to Iraq due to that popular sentiment against the war. That it didn't happen shows a break down in constitutional authority and ignoring the constitution altogether.
Do you believe a committee should tell you how much you should be paid, and how hard you should work and what job you should do? If you say no to each of those, you're a capitalist.
Funny, I'm anti-capitalist specifically because I don't like committees of rich folks deciding exactly those things for everyone who has to sell their labor to live. Under capitalism, you only have much meaningful freedom to determine your conditions of labor to the extent that you are already wealthy --- for everyone else, the choice is "work on the terms dictated by richer folks, or die impoverished and homeless." Many alternatives proposed for capitalism are developed and motivated specifically to break the monopoly of a tiny wealthy class controlling the "ownership of the means of production."
> Isn't there some pretty big rule in the bible about not killing, or have you justified that away in your
> world of irrationality?
As an atheist, I don't give two shits what is in the bible but, you seem to be conflating the immorality of killing a human being outside of self defence with ownership and production of tools which are, quite rarely used for such things.
This would be kind of like confusing buying/making/owning a hammer with building a house. I own lots of hammers, never built a house though.
That is, unless you are concerned about the senseless slaughter of paper targets; which even the bible doesn't seem to have any rules about their treatment.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
It is about not murdering which is distinctly different than killing. For the cognitively challenged, blue is a color but a color is not blue.
"don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun" Obviously your reading comprehension is terrible.
Please explain how "the People", "keep and bear" and "not be infringed" says anything other than an individual having a right to own, carry and use.
If "the People" in the Second Amendment means all of us together but no one individually, then none of us have an individual right to privacy, from our homes being searched, from self-incrimination, to legal representation, etc. There is no justification for "the People" to mean one thing in nine amendments and something entirely different in another.
Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word. Benjamin: Yes, sir. Mr. McGuire: Are you listening? Benjamin: Yes, I am. Mr. McGuire: Plastics. Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean? Mr. McGuire: There's a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?
An examination of the context in which the words were written definitely informs the honest person that today's "guns" is yesterday's "arms". Only a commplete moron would even imagine that the founding fathers bothered explaining in the constitution how the government doesn't have the right to remove appendages from your body.
That sounds awesome!! But i thought a mass driver with discrete magnetic stages was considered a coil-gun...and a rail-gun had two straight rails and a conductive launching armature or conductive projective.
the hell are you blabbering about??? I own 3 homes and never have been asked if I own a gun by insurance companies.. Also the retarded stats you brought up are retarded. Saying i have a 40% chance to commit homicide is the most retarded argument I've ever heard of. Anyway my outcomes will be better by having a gun. I have one on me at all times. You can be afraid of yourself and not own a gun. I will just accept that there are bad people and keep mine to protect me.
Anyway my outcomes will be better by having a gun.
Statistically speaking, you are more likely to kill yourself in moment of depression, a family member in the heat of anger, or a family member in an accident, rather than a criminal seeking to do you harm.
Fact: If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.
Citation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Citation: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/4/888.full
Citation: http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/01/1559827610396294
Saying my argument is retarded is ignoring the clear and well establishing science. Rejecting the evidence with anger and namecalling does nothing to support your side that you will react with calm rationality in all situations, and never snap.
Haha. No. I am anti-capitalist because I am against people owning property far beyond what they can use. I am also very much against corporations as well for that matter.
I am anti-government, and anti-capitalist, because I'm an anarchist. I'm against anyone telling anyone what to do.
You say:
How do capitalists hold on to all their property without a strong powerful government to stop the poor from taking it off them? Oh wait...
Anarchists are opposed to enforcing any sort of government structure on anyone. That's the bloody point.
No, I'm anti-capitalist. And I think I'd know better than you. And yet I still don't want a committee saying how hard I should work etc. (Which, as pointed out by a sibling, does sound like capitalism anyway.)
I've nothing against a free market (which means, incidentally, that cost is the basic limit of price). I've also got nothing against communism. Which isn't what was practiced in the USSR, nor is it practiced currently in China, Cuba or North Korea; at best they claimed to be "moving towards communism". Communism of course being the class-less, state-less society where the means of production are held in common, and where all receive what they need.
The thing is, as a socialist and a left-winger, I'm for workers owning their own labor, and deciding for themselves where, and when to work. I'm for workers receiving the full product of their labor. And in a final utopian future, workers will happily work as much (or as little) as they desire, and share the product of their labor (or trade) as they will.
I know what I am, and any sort of pro-capitalist is not what I am.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
However, there is no practical way to crack down on that, and MANY classic battle rifles were first made on manual machine tools.
http://www.cncguns.com/
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Yep. Even the *severely* anti-gun _Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence_ estimates that firearms are used defensively at least 100,000 times a year. Independent researchers looking at the Brady data, and the Brady definitions of gun use say that's understating the number by at least 400%, still leaving the Brady study as a statistical outlier. Estimates from other studies range from 1.5 - 2.5 *million* times per year.
There really needs to be a "-1, factually incorrect" option.
I just use -1 Overrated for that, especially if someone else has already given it a +1 Informative.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun
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.
Having the right to own a gun does not require you to own one.
Exercising that right and owning one does not require you to serve in a militia.
Also, you are not using the definitions of "militia" and "regulated" from the 15 April 1755 version of Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language".
If you want to be entirely accurate, it refers to able-bodied males of a certain age range who have received some training in group tactics utilizing arms. Owning the arms in the first place is a necessary, but not sufficient, precondition for joining a militia and receiving that training, just as age, maleness, and being able-bodied were each necessary, but not sufficient, preconditions. Finally, there was the precondition of training having been competed, before a militia could be considered to be "well regulated".
Requiring someone to be a member of a militia before they are allowed to own arms is therefore putting the cart before the horse.
You should also be aware that "arms" was intentionally used, as it was a broader term that would also encompass privately owned cannon mounted on trading vessels, and from exploding bombardment loads for those cannons, all the way down to hunting knives or pitchforks. The framers of the constitution were perfectly aware of what a "gun" was, and deliberately chose the broader term to include stronger weapons than guns. They effectively, by that choice, included all of the best military weapons available of their day.
The point is that as soon as anyone talks about gun control, which in effect means amending the constitution the gun lobby go mental and start shouting about their second amendment rights and how any gun control is an infringement of their constitutional rights and must be stopped at all costs. In this context exactly how would I go about getting the second amendment amended and/or repelled?
Yes the first ten amendments are special as they came as a single package in the Bill of Rights. However there is nothing in the constitution that prevents them being repealed either. So why does the gun lobby scream blue murder about not messing with the constitution as soon as someone talks about gun control.
Further the vast majority of these people who shout second amendment as soon as someone talks about gun control will also drink alcohol which makes them hypocrites of the first order.
Of course I am in not a US citizen so I am in no position to get the second amendment repelled. On the other hand as a total outside with no stake I am able to look in and see the moral bankruptcy of the gun lobby for what it is.
I would also add for good measure that the I view the pro gun control side as moral cowards for not tackling gun control for what it is; an amendment to the constitution.
My personal view point is that the only purpose of owning a gun would be to increase ones safety. It is far from clear that owning a gun actually does that. It's game theory if only I have a gun then I am probably safer. If everyone has a gun then I am almost certainly less safe. The problem is if most people have a gun then I am probably also less safe as well, and getting from most people having a gun to most people not having a gun is the hard bit.
I am fortunate to live in a country where only a small minority of people own guns, and my chances of being murdered are much lower than in the USA.
Pass any law that won't be enforced or can't be enforced.
You cannot stop people from getting high anymore than you can stop someone from writing "Don't tread on me" in any old notebook with a fine quill pen. Precisely how are you going to know it happened in the first place?
So what does this law make illegal? Having untaxed weed? Already illegal. Growing your own weed? Already illegal.
Its an action utterly without meaning or relevance. If they want to stop people getting high they're either going to have to enact a police state or invent a time machine. Short of that... get used to it
If you think the government doesn't do shit just because then you haven't been paying attention. They pass whatever law they think will make them the biggest dollar amount. Now I do believe you were trying to state the ideal first rule of gov, but I hate to point out that the REAL first rule is exactly what I stated.
Dude that response does absolutley nothing to make your case look better. It actually furthers the idea that God is a fucking psychopathic asocial asshole who isn't worthy of any kind of worship or attention! Try again, young padawan.
Am I the only one who read the last sentence in Emperor Palpatine's voice?
Ahh I see you've had a sense of humour failure :)
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Yes because the vast majority of people who oppose changing the second amendment (which is what gun control is in effect) arguments start with this is the constitution and any change to that is tantamount to treason, and stop trying to take away my god given constitutional rights. It may then move onto a rational argument on whether everyone carrying guns leads to a safer society and whether the second amendment makes practical sense in the context of 21st century America, but truth be told this is actually very rare.
Consequently all those who feel that repealing the 18th amendment is fine but you cannot even talk about repealing or modifying the second are morally bankrupt. That is the majority of the gun lobby. Then again I suspect that most people with a stake in the argument are blinded to the truth of this. The shame is that while the founding fathers clearly had the foresight to see that the constitution as a static document that was unchanging through history would be monumentally dumb, a large proportion of the current population can't see that.
Actually it's pretty common for atheists (including myself) to vehemently support the second amendment. Ironically the deeply religious types I run into seem to have the most issue with them (e.g. jesus doesn't approve of violence.)
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Just wait until the current president is voted out of office and the next republican is in office. You will be doubly-sorry this stuff was started then when it's used to chase down and out women who have had abortions, people that don't go to church, and all kinds of other sinners.
I really don't see that being the case at all. Federal republicans talk about jesus about 33% more than the democrats, but they don't seem to ever force jesus on you. I've never felt in the slightest danger of being forced to go to church for example, which would bother me if it happened given I'm atheist and all.
However the current administration is definitely the least transparent, openly hostile to opposing views (see IRS), and has the worst domestic spying program to date. Also uses drones as terror weapons, which I'm sort of mixed about (I love the thought of blowing up mullah's, but I'm not sure if terrorism is the answer to terrorism.)
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
" I am anti-capitalist because I am against people owning property far beyond what they can use"
According to whom? Who Decides how much one person can use? A committee?
No thank you.
You end up with people like Al Gore with his HUGE mansion lecturing me on how green I am. People flying around in private jets telling me not to drive my car because it gets less than a certain mileage.
No thank you.
And be careful, the very thing you are advocating will have you lose everything you have, because I can assure you, the committee from some third world country will tell you, you have too much stuff, and don't need it all.
No Thank you.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Anarchy means never having to say sorry.
More to the point, we have enough production surplus right now to give everyone in the world a reasonable standard of living. However, if you want to claim six houses, then maybe you should split into six people. Because you can only live in one at a time.
Yeah, fuck Al Gore and his private jet. But the only reason he's in the position he's in is because of capitalism.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!