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..
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.
"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.
9. May I lawfully make a firearm for my own personal use, provided it is not being made for
resale?
Firearms may be lawfully made by persons who do not hold a manufacturer’s license under the GCA
provided they are not for sale or distribution and the maker is not prohibited from receiving or
possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semiautomatic
rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as set forth in regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.39. In
addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF. An
application to make a machinegun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing
that the firearm is being made for the official use of a Federal, State, or local government agency (18
U.S.C. 922(o),(r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 C.F.R. 478.39, 479.62, and 479.105).
Source: https://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/0501-firearms-top-10-qas.pdf
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.
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 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.
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.
I think "for your own use" means the same thing that it means in relation to the other two categories of things that the ATF cares about. You can have and make alcohol [beer...not liquor], tobacco [products], and firearms [as long as they're not fully automatic machine guns], it's when you start selling them that oversight gets intrusive.
Gun restriction law is in-and-of-itself perverse (as are the other two categories above). Prohibition's success rate for gun manufacture is only high due to the barrier to learning the process. 3-D printing is getting so much attention because now people who are frightened of guns (instead of people) realize they could be produced without complete government oversight and accountability.
I'm not especially worried about it because the people I'm likely to get shot by will have guns whether there is 3-D printing or not. Banning 3-D printing just means they're more likely to have a reliable gun.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
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.
In the USA, anyone can make a gun, perfectly legal gun. You can make them all you want, you just can't sell them. THAT takes a firearm license. But when everyone can make a gun, the idea of gun registration (for the purposes of selling them) becomes useless. Guess what, gun laws are going to change, and they are going to effectively repeal the 2nd Amendment, without the formality of doing so, because people are scared of things that make loud noises.
The fact that more people died at the hands of hammers and clubs than rifles, proves it isn't about killing people. It is about killing people with things that make loud noises that scare people. Make people afraid, tell them only the Government can protect them, and the people become pawns in the struggle for power among the elite. Who can scare the people the most. "Republicans want to kill grandma and eat kittens" or "Brown People are invading from Mexico". It doesn't matter what it is.
Everything is a parody when you start looking through things with clear eyes.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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?
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.
Because it's not about guns. They want to regulate 3D printers to minimize their effect on entrenched manufacturing industries. Making up scary stories about them will get the public to go along. The bill is saying that only licensed gun smiths should have one.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.)
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.
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".
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
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".
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.
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'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
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.
In good company as well... ”The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20.” ~Sam Cohen (inventor of the neutron bomb)
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?
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.
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
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".
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.
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
> 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"
All the people citing that the 2nd Amendment can be repealed need to understand that the Constitution's purpose is to limit the powers of the government. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought to prevent misinterpretation by authoritative tyrants like yourself who believe rights have to be enumerated to be enjoyed. See 10th Amendment.