Slashdot Mirror
Come and Take It, Texas Gun Enthusiasts (Video)
In Texas, guns are a common sight:gun-racks are visible in the back of many pick-ups, and pistols, cannons, and rifles are part of the state's iconography. Out-of-sight guns are common, too: The state has had legal (though highly regulated) concealed carry for handguns since 1995, though -- contrary to some people's guess, and with some exceptions -- open carry of handguns is not generally legal. One thing that's definitely not a common sight, though, is a group of people manufacturing guns just outside the south gates of the Texas capitol building. But that's just what you would have encountered a few weeks ago, when an organization called CATI (Come and Take It) Texas set up a tent that served as a tech demo as much as an act of social provocation. CATI had on hand one of the same Ghost Gunner CNC mills that FedEx now balks at shipping, and spent hours showing all comers how a "gun" (in the eyes of regulators, at least) can be quickly shaped from a piece of aluminum the ATF classifies as just a piece of aluminum. They came prepared to operate off-grid, and CATI Texas president Murdoch Pizgatti showed for my camera that the Ghost Gunner works just fine operating from a few big batteries -- no mains power required. (They ran the mill at a slower speed, though, to conserve juice.)
Not really relevant to this particular topic, but thanks for stopping the auto-play of video in the comments section, Slashdot.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
You have to not poke the bear. Provocation like open carry "just because" is why we don't have open carry in most states. Yes, the ATF is aware people can make their own guns, and for the most part is seems like they don't want to know because that's a whole new headache. These guys are shining a spotlight on home fabrication and basically waving it in their face. So now it will get regulated. Thanks, guys; this is why we can't have nice things.
Also, Slashdot, fix the stupid posting. I'm logged in, but you only let me post AC and you forget I'm logged in.
...is that they're basically taking an issue that most people either didn't really know about or didn't really care about too strongly, and are shoving it into everyone else's faces, so that they now have a reason to take a stance against it?
Several years ago I remember a protest in an open-carry state about a public library attempting to prohibit open-carry in the library. Things were nice and peaceful and respectful, until some jackass wearing hunting camo and leather two sashes covered in shotgun shells came in carrying a pump-action twelve gauge. Any goodwill that the previous firearms enthusiasts created was utterly destroyed by one jerk that decided to push the limits.
Guns are a lot of fun to shoot. There are times when guns serve a legitimate use. On the other hand, if guns are introduced into situations where they have no business then it's not exactly a surprise when movements to prohibit them or to confiscate them come to be.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
So when we're talking about net neutrality, taking a law from the 1930's and applying to today's technology is bad, but if we're talking about gun control doing the same thing with an 18th century amendment is somehow good? Pick one, conservatives.
Can you expand on this? I can't connect the dots.
Keep in mind that in the 18th century, private citizens owned artillery and warships.
I'm from the UK and I'm having a hard time understanding this. What are these gentlemen trying to do? What is the context around blocks of aluminium being made into guns? What problem does that solve?
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Do you feel the same way about the 1st Amendment and modern technology?
Rights are Rights. You can argue about whether a certain expression of those Rights is "good" or "bad". But they're still Rights.
Don't confuse them with business decisions/rulings.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Small-scale manufacturing is the source of all coming nice things. Yes, yes, you can use it to make guns - or anything else for that matter! 3D printing will never, by itself, make Star Trek replicators a reality, you need both additive printing and milling to make small-scale, eventually in-every-home, manufacturing a reality. The "Ghost Gunner" is just an ordinary CNC mini-mill. That's kind of the point here: it's not a tool for making guns, it's just a tool. And a damn impressive one.
Yesterday I had a crown put in. The last crown I had took 2 dentist visits, because the crown had to be manufactured in a lab and mailed, a multi-day process. Yesterday it took under 2 hours. The dentists scanned my tooth, designed the replacement on a computer as I watched, and (with some intermediate steps) it was automatically milled in a back room while I waited. We're living in the future, and, yes, the future will have guns, which even if you think that's a bad thing, just think of all the other stuff we'll be making ourselves, or in the office of the appropriate professional.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Well I love my home state and it's people. We're mostly down-to-earth, and pragmatic. Unfortunately we're really big on grand gestures. And fond of the metaphorical sharp-stick-in-the-eye brand of protesting.
I think this one is going to backfire big time. "Look how easy it is to home fab a gun guys!" sounds like a demonstration ANTIgun activists would do. Dafuq guys. Dafuq.
Done/10
I've been hearing a lot of talk about how applying Title II rules from 1936 nowadays is a bad thing because technology has changed so much. But in the arena of gun laws, applying a law from the late 18th century to modern assault rifles and the like is considered to be completely reasonable.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Conservatives dislike federal regulation on guns and federal regulation on the internet. More government control of any entity should be met with suspicion until the details are known, and the FCC has yet to release those details. The big question is why would you blindly support a rule that you have no idea how it is implemented.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
The law mentioned in the video is the Gun Control Act of 1968 which was a passed in 1968. 1968 was in the 20th century, not the 18th century. More to your argument, it was passed 34 years after the Communications Act of 1934, not 150+ years before the Communications Act of 1934.
1968 was in the 20th century or the nineteen hundreds.
1768 was in the 18th century or the seventeen hundreds.
What's really changed about military technology? Most of the high end gear requires a ridiculous supply chain. Sure, I grant that most people probably shouldn't have nuclear weapons which in theory one can own without requiring a fancy supply chain to maintain it in working order and can cause damage far in excess of any conceivable use, including the overthrow of a tyrannical government. But I just don't see the problem for typical military hardware, be it assault rifles, artillery, or patrol boats.
The US allowed a lot of crazy stuff over the years, and it just hasn't caused much problems, especially given the firepower we're speaking of.
So when we're talking about gun control, taking an amendment from the 18th century and applying to today's technology is bad, but if we're talking about net neutrality doing the same thing with a 1930's law is somehow good? Pick one, liberals.
Legally speaking I would say conservatives have a better leg to stand on simply because an amendment is much more fundamental to how our government is supposed to govern. I don't really agree with either of them completely.
Democracy is based on 2000 year old principles. This argument was dead before you typed it. Common carrier is common carrier, bits are bits.
Good-bye
On the other hand, it's been commonplace to carry your gun everywhere in some places. The entire planet is not a concrete jungle in the style of Coruscant quite yet.
Taking your gun to school is only seen as a problem because some people choose to act hysterically when it comes to a particular bit of modern technology. They wallow in their fear and ignorance and take great pride in it. They confuse ignorance with sophistication.
It's seen as "something that's not done" simply because it's taboo and there's a good part of the population that chooses to be intolerant.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall pass no law infringing the bearing of arms, or of the arms press."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I'm sure there's a dozen companies out there, but this is the one most of us will recognize:
http://www.rolanddga.com/solut...
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
A bit off topic, but it sounds like you've been oversold on the quality of cerec. The milling is quite a few years short of what a proper crown delivers - AFAICT the machines are much more around getting more money to the dentist at the expense of the lab than delivering patients with a better product.
There's a bunch of discussion about it, though not so much on the internet. That said there is some, e.g. http://www.realself.com/question/cerec-lab-dental-crown
For regulation to work... You have to not poke the bear.
If you only have a "right" while nobody exercises it, and it goes away as soon as a few people do, did you actually have it? Hardly!
Rights unused can be silently abrogated. You have to use them occasionally, to test whether this has happened, so you can take corrective action if it has.
(If nothing else, it's easy for law enforcement personnel to start assuming that something that doesn't occur often is actually banned. So important things like carrying guns need to be done occasionally, just to keep them aware that it's really OK.)
Provocation like open carry "just because" is why we don't have open carry in most states.
If you can't do something "just because", it's not a right.
In fact its open carry demonstrations that have eduated police forces in many areas, bringing peace between law enforcement personnel and gun-toting ordinary citizens in many places where open carry was legal but had fallen out of use. It also brings the issue to visibility and educates others, especially those who grew up when it was rare, that they DO have these rights, when they hadn't been taught they did. It is a fine icebreaker for bringing out related facts - like the actual numbers on safety and the effect of gun carry on crime and injury rates.
Yes, "Poking the Bear" can also have bad effects: For instance, California's draconin gun bans got started largely when the Black Panthers carried rifles into the gallery of the State Legislature, back during the period of the Civil Rights riots when it was legal. But black people at the time were de-facto banned from carrying guns (which was much of why they could be oppressed). The legislature just made that unconstitutional infrigemet de-jure.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
They should've called it the Molon Lathe
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Notice that again the conservative voice on slashdot is screaming about how FedEx doesn't want to transport certain goods. If the product was a pamphlet for a local union hall, the conservatives would say that FedEx was exercising their rights to free speech and freedom of association. But since the product is something that conservatives believe all Americans have god-granted rights to, FedEx's refusal to transport it is clearly a constitutional crisis.
In other words, FedEx is free to transport whatever goods they want, unless refusing them angers the conservatives. Then, FedEx must transport them in spite of their objections.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Even if you wanted to, how could you possibly regulate this? Once items get to the point of being able to be easily manufactured in your own house, in mass, relatively cheaply, it's nearly impossible to regulate this away.
Think of prohibition. People can/could easily make their own alcohol in their own house by just leaving grapes in a barrel. It was next to impossible to regulate and required substantial man power to prevent the little they did. Grape juice in the era actually said on the label "Do not leave in a jug for 20 days as it might turn into wine." CNC mills are not illegal, just as grape juice wasn't illegal during prohibition. You're likely to start seeing CNC mills with warnings like "do not use to make firearms."
If you try to regulate schematics, people can just download plans from some P2P service. Now you guns that are made from lower grade materials AND questionable designs.
Yesterday it was alcohol prohibition. Today it is drug prohibition. Tomorrow it will be homemade gun parts. You can try to regulate away these things, but once you can easily make them in your own home, it's a losing battle. Attempting to regulate these impossible to regulate things leads to no-knock raids, death, and more criminals. Nobody is safer and I'd argue we're all less safe. Even if they are illegal tomorrow, 20 years and 1 million no-knock raids later, they will be legal again. Prohibition never lasts.
If more guns on the street is creating a problem, then you need to start thinking about different solutions. Making it illegal to possess a firearm isn't going to fix anything.
"an act of social provocation"
All the open carry demonstrations and make a gun tricks... All seem to be the kind of sarcastic "social provocations" that one undertake to encourage stricter gun control.
I find it hilarious...
3D printing will never, by itself, make Star Trek replicators a reality
But I want to make a cup of Earl Grey by converting energy into matter, at enormous cost, because it's clearly easier than having a tank of water and recycling it as needed. :)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Assault rifles are automatic weaponry, and are regulated under laws from the 1930s and the 1980s (and likely other decades). Assault weapons are an imaginary category dreamed up by politicians that weapons from the 18th century can easily fall under, or not, as the definitions are political and oscillate depending on whatever looks scary.
Ok, the guy has what they consider a 80% lower, meaning that 80% of the lower receiver of the gun is already milled. You can buy these on the internet and not need a FFL to purchase one since it's not a completed lower (has no trigger area, no area for the clip to go in, and a couple different pins and mechanics holes that are needed) I can get one forged and partly machined for a lot cheaper plus less time consuming and I wouldn't have to finish the outside of it. I would need the jigs to machine it properly and I for one would not trust doing it with hand tools or the machine shown because I wouldn't trust the accuracy and would fear catastrophic failure. You can clearly see it only a 2 axis machine. It would take more then some battery power to machine a block of aluminum in that. You'd have to do at least 3 setups of the stock. That battery would die after the first half of machining. The guys in the video seem to think people are idiots and no one knows about machining
But let assume you have a lower. Fine, but you need all the rest of the parts that make up the gun. The upper that includes the barrel, the bolt, the charging handle, on and on which you are not machining or even consider making on your own. Then you have to put it together, which by it's own is not the easiest thing, but parts a lot of times need gunsmithing to get them to fit properly. So there are tools for both the assembly AND working on parts fitment. That only is going to scare off 90% or more of people in even trying to build one. Add the cost (80% lower that's decent about 90 buck, upper kit that decent at least 500 if luck to find, the jigs 100+ dollars, tools to put it together properly 100+ to 200, time to do it all and the equipment which the "ghost gunner cnc" doesn't even tell you a price, just $250 NRD to "reserve" a spot to get one) and you pretty much eliminate it down to a select few that would enjoy this as a hobby. Oh, and you can legally only make them for yourself. Can't sell them either unless you get a manufacturers license, and nobody with a rickety l
but if we're talking about gun control doing the same thing with an 18th century amendment is somehow good? Pick one, conservatives.
You realize that you're using the 1st Amendment on a computer, right? I'll turn in my modern firearm in favor of a musket when you exchange your computer for a printing press.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Thought Experiment: I don't like what you have to say, so I want jackbooted thugs to assault your home to confiscate your computer equipment and rough you up. Discuss.
the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun
Unless you:
1. Are a convicted felon.
2. Are a convicted domestic abuser.
3. Are currently charged with any crime punishable by a year or more in prison.
4. Are an unlawful user of any controlled substance.
5. Are addicted to any controlled substance, even one lawfully proscribed.
6. Have been dishonorably discharged from the United States military.
7. Have renounced your American citizenship.
8. Are the subject of an order of protection.
9. Are a fugitive from justice.
10. Are in the United States illegally.
Those are just the people proscribed from ownership under Federal law. Many States have tougher laws and add even more people to the list. Some (my home state, New York) go further and treat gun rights as a privilege, requiring a license, which is doled out at the whim of local bureaucrats who can deny you for virtually any reason they wish.
Point being, nowhere in the United States does the "current understanding" of gun rights say anyone should have firearms. Do you actually know what the existing body of Federal, State, and Local law has to say on this subject or are you just repeating talking points you read somewhere?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Personally, I'm in support of 'all of the above'. The internet today fills the place that phones did back then. I also think that the 1st applies to more than hand operated printing presses and the 2nd to more than muskets.
If a law doesn't make sense anymore, it's time to amend or repeal it.
I don't read AC A human right
Taking your gun to school is only seen as a problem because some people choose to act hysterically when it comes to a particular bit of modern technology.
Taking your gun to school is only seen as a problem because kids make bad judgement calls and haven't mastered their tempers. Having weapons around them is generally considered a bad idea.
Seriously. If I had a gun at school, and nobody stopped me, I would have shot four or five people (at least) out of anger, and I've always had a fairly even temper. I wouldn't do that now, but I'm an adult now.
Keeping adults from carrying guns into schools makes sense, because there's no reason to have one there. The only people that have a reason to bring guns into a school are either A) cops, which are authorized to do so, B) lunatics who want to shoot up the place, or C) instructors who want to use a gun as an example when teaching kinematics or history. A) is a non-issue, B) we don't want and C) is unnecessary since we have powerpoint and projectors.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
But in the arena of gun laws, applying a law from the late 18th century to modern assault rifles and the like is considered to be completely reasonable.
AND... what has changed to make it UNreasonable? You appear to be trying to make an argument here, but you haven't actually made one.
According to the US Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment does specifically apply to military-style arms, and with good reason. It ain't about shooting that raccoon in your back yard with a pellet gun.
The guns you refer to as "assault weapons" (which is an inaccurate propaganda term; they aren't assault weapons at all) aren't even "military style" weapons. Here are 2 facts that might surprise you:
(A) Those "assault weapons" you refer to are legal for hunting whitetail deer, as well as smaller game, in some states. And they are very well suited for doing so. They perfectly legal for hunting smaller game in many more states.
(B) It has never, at any time, been illegal in the United States to manufacture a gun for your own use.
(C) There is no demonstrable connection in the United States between prevalence of guns, and crime. In fact, over the last 30 years per-capita gun ownership and concealed carry has gone way UP, while crime, including violent crime, has plummeted. It is now less than half what it was then.
You're the one who claimed, emphasis mine: "the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun ." Don't try and backpedal away from it now.
I could respond to your silly training argument by pointing out:
1. Driving is a privilege, not a constitutionally recognized right.
2. The prefatory clause is not a limiting clause. It was not imagined as such by the people who wrote it nor ever interpreted that way by a court.
Of course, what's the point of having that discussion? You've got the facts so hopelessly wrong that I believe your ignorance is willful. One bloody Google search would have been enough to dispel your misinformed belief about the "current understanding of gun rights in the usa" and you couldn't even be bothered to do that.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I think it's pretty clear that the intent behind the second amendment was the perceived need to have a well regulated militia. In other words, if you want to carry a guns, sign up to join the national guard.
And you would be wrong. According to historical documents and the debates surrounding ratification, it was exactly the opposite.
The Founders were terrified of the necessity of having a "standing army" for defense. They had just fought a war against the "well regulated militia" of their own country! They considered a standing government army to be the single biggest threat to the Republic. Thus, (emphasis added):
"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."
The People are to be armed, to protect the country (which is The People), AGAINST its own army, if need be.
There were considered to be TWO militias: the common militia, which consisted of all the people, and a "Well Regulated Militia", which was the standing army. The accepted definition at the time of "well regulated" was "ordered, disciplined." That's a trained army.
But The People are not a "well regulated militia". They are NOT trained and disciplined. Yet as recently as a few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled again that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed arms to The People.
The important part to take away from Democracy is that every person is automatically a participant. Just as we tempered raw democracy with Republic ideals, so too have we amended the laws since the 30s to account for changing tech. The point remains, these arent archaic, outdated laws. Common carrier principals are pretty sound considering we spent almost a century refining it.
Good-bye
Is "executing the mentally ill" one of those grand gestures? What about "electing morons governor"?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Point being, nowhere in the United States does the "current understanding" of gun rights say anyone should have firearms.
False. All the conditions you give above, are circumstances under which people are considered to have waived their rights as ordinary citizens. Except:
4.Are an unlawful user of any controlled substance.
5. Are addicted to any controlled substance, even one lawfully proscribed. 8. Are the subject of an order of protection.
These conditions were wholly made-up by the government, and people have been arguing ever since that these conditions are blatantly unconstitutional.
And I could be wrong, but item 8, as I understand it, is a State issue, not Federal.
Gun nut logic.
Ah, gun nut, one of the favorite insults of the anti-rights crowd. Much easier to demean those that disagree with you rather than respond to their points, eh?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes. I have dentures. Good dentist and virtually pain-free when he extracted all my teeth and dug remaining bits of root out of my gums, but the cost! Crazy. He needs to have one of these in in a back room instead of paying a lab and marking their charges up. Sadly, the major chain discount denture makers in my part of FL have terrible user ratings. Ah well. One day. I'm not complaining. I have high-end dentures that fit and look good, and the cost, while high to me, was lower than a lot of people pay. But one day....
This is a false interpretation of the Second Amendment, even according to the Supreme Court.
The well-regulated militia meant "standing army".
The People are guaranteed arms (as opposed to the "well-regulated militia), BECAUSE of the necessity of having a standing army. The Founders considered a government army to be the single biggest THREAT to the Republic, and guaranteed that THE PEOPLE should therefore also be armed.
History is very clear on this. The other interpretation -- the claim that only the army is to be armed -- contradicts the actual historical proof so outrageously that it can be nothing but propaganda.
All the conditions you give above, are circumstances under which people are considered to have waived their rights as ordinary citizens
Irrelevant. The point was in response to the GP's ridiculous assertion about the "current understanding" of gun rights in the United States. It is not and never has been an "understanding" in the United States that everybody should or can have firearms.
I had to get permission from our County Court Judge before I could legally touch a handgun, never mind own or carry one. He could have said no for almost any reason that he wanted. The law says I can't have a license unless I have "proper cause" but does not define what proper cause is.
It is literally a felony to pick up a handgun in New York State without a license. If you so much as touch a pistol without a license you go directly to jail without passing go or collecting $200. That's been the "current understanding" in New York State since 1911, so you'll forgive me if I can't take people like the GP seriously.
And I could be wrong, but item 8, as I understand it, is a State issue, not Federal.
You are wrong.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I thought the replicator used the crew's waste to do that stuff. Not energy.
I like my guns. I'm not bat shit crazy about them. If people want ot be ammosexuals, they can have at it. But it doesn't make them not bat shit crazy.
But the kooks will be descending like flies on this rotton carcass of a subject, in 3....2....1....
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Ironically, this statement makes you a bigot. :P
The aluminum used in 80% lowers is typically the same used in production "military grade" weapons. For an AR15 it's typically 6061 or 7075 cast, billet or forged aluminum, all can handle pressures in the tens of thousands of PSI, multiple orders of magnitude greater than the pressure they'll come in contact with under operation of the firearm. The lower just holds the firing mechanism and magazine, in addition the stock and upper receiver attach to the lower. The upper receiver is what's under pressure and requires a bit more skill to produce. The worst thing that will happen to a poorly milled AR15 lower is the parts won't fit, or not end up in the right spot, and the weapon just won't work. A device like this removes a bit of error making this process more reliable.
TL;DR - no, these won't blow up.
First of i'm not a conservative however I do believe that if the 2nd ammendemnt should be treated the same as the 1st. You can't say the 2nd ammendment is null and void but still want the privacy afforded to you by the first ammendment. That is outright hipocrisy.
It's all about regulation. NN (and all the Title II mumbo jumbo) is bad, because it allows the government intervention in private business. The second amendment is good because it *prevents* the government from imposing new regulations.
Private firearm manufacture is illegal wrt. NFA restricted weapon, eg. you cannot saw off a shotgun below 16", it would make it as SBS. The same, you cannot build a full-auto AR in your basement, even if all the blueprints are available online.
> (They ran the mill at a slower speed, though, to conserve juice.) That doesn't conserve juice.
Obama is currently trying, through executive action via the ATFE, to ban M855 "green-tip" 5.56x45 (.223) ammo, so they're not dreaming. He already succeeded banning Russian 5.45x39 7n6 under false pretense of its soft body armor-piercing capability, which is utter bs as anybody knowledgeable in the field knows that soft body armor is no good against any rifle round, but I digress...
BS. Any CNC / lathe / mill can be used to manufacture a gun. Heck, you can even forge the required part if you wanted to...
Spent all my mod points over in another story, but now I really wish I hadn't. +1 Insightful.
You only answered half of the previous poster's question.
Conservatives say the Communications Act of 1934 can't work for regulating the Internet simply because its an "old law" that predates the Internet.
Those same conservatives say the 2nd amendment is perfect, simply because its old, and that it applies to any weapon invented since and any weapon we might invent in the future.
You addressed the 2nd amendment part, but don't explain the former. How is it that the 2nd amendment perfect only because its "old", and at the same time the 1934 act is flawed only because its old (according to you)?
I had a CNC crown done many years ago. It cost more than a lab crown and never fit right. I now have a lab made crown in it's place and my dentist no longer has a CNC machine.
Early adopters take the hits for the rest of us. The crown wasn't exactly right out of the mill - the dentist still did a bit if drilling on it to get my bite right - but it did fit solidly on the tooth-stub it crowns.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I always thought Texas was the most liberal second amendment state, but apparently not. In Arizona, concealed carry isn't regulated at all (you can get CCW permits, but there's no reason to get one unless you plan to concealed carry out of the state) and neither is manufacturing.
And I mean "liberal" literally, and not the political connotation that is usually anything but liberal when it comes to firearms.
In reality there wasn't supposed to be a standing army at all. In the powers of congress they congress is given the power to:
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
So an army was only supposed to be raised when needed. Which is how it was for over 100 years.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Nope. Energy to matter conversion. With the warp core they have more energy than they can ever need on tap, so the energy cost is irrelevant.
Likewise, waste is converted to energy. A bit of a loss, but overall a decent energy recovery.
"mains power" is very British. Right to bear arms, where's that come from?
Go on YouTube and search for 80% lower. People are making them with hand drills, drill presses, and routers. Even easier if they have access to a milling machine.
There are a number of incorrect claims wandering around. Rather than answer each post, I'll summarize.
Like most machines, a gun is a collection of parts. For various reasons, one of those parts must (legally) be the gun itself, and the rest are just parts attached to the gun. For guns similar to (or clones of) the AR-15/M-16, the gun is the lower receiver.
The other parts are not restricted at all. Anyone can buy barrels, springs, sears, stocks, triggers, hammers, whatever they want, off the street, over the internet, or mail order. No ID, no registration.
If a dealer is selling a receiver, either alone, or as part of a completed firearm, they have to do the background check, fill out the paperwork, etc. A non-dealer doesn't need to do any of that, but the ATF will consider you to be a dealer if you act like a dealer.
The receiver is a complicated part. It takes a lot of work to turn a piece of metal into a receiver. At some point during that work, it changes from "piece of metal with some cuts" into a receiver.
Pieces of metal that have had some work done, but not enough to become receivers, are sold as "80% receivers". These are subject to no more regulation than any other random block of metal, because it is the end user that actually manufactures the gun.
Building your own gun is perfectly legal, by the way, as long as you are doing it for yourself. If you intend to sell it, or give it away, you need to get licensed and pay for a tax stamp. If you decide later to sell it, or give it away, that is perfectly legal too, but you need to make sure that you don't do anything that would make a reasonable person think that you had intended to pass it on when you made it.
The Ghost Gunner ONLY works on these 80% Receivers. They are not capable of milling a receiver out of raw billet. Nor could they work with a raw casting or forging.
Desktop milling machines don't have the power to spin up a heavy chuck, nor, generally, could they manage enough axis velocity to keep the feed rate up when using a large diameter tool. That means 1/8" or 1/4" chucks and tools. That limits the milling depth two an inch or two. That's plenty for milling out the trigger pocket, but nowhere near enough for the magazine well.
And if anyone is interested in the topic, there is a forum thread somewhere showing a guy making an AK receiver out of a shovel. The same technique has been used around the world. The Afghans made their AKs in caves, with hand tools.
See that "Preview" button?
Nope, not an executive order at all. Please cite the source (other than the crazy blogs). Yes I'm a gun owner.
The problem has always been that criminals will still have access to guns because the banning of desirables actually increases access via the resulting highly profitable black markets.
The only ones with such weapons will be criminals and the government, leaving the vast mass of law-abiding people defenseless.
That's how society runs. Citizens are supposed to take part in it but so few even bother to vote even if they don't like the conditions, thus special interest groups push conditions that are not so good for society.
The NRA is just a sporting club that does very badly with safety standards in it's sport FFS - yet they have so much political power because others don't bother to participate.
Entirely irrelevant because anyone who puts together a large counter-revolutionary force to overthrow the United States and put a King back in charge or whatever they want to do is going to end up in GITMO before they have got very far.
There's BEEN a revolution. We won.
the common militia, which consisted of all the people, and a "Well Regulated Militia", which was the standing army.
False. You're using semantics to cloud the obvious.
The Militia Act of 1792 clearly indicates the militia is composed of citizens who own a gun and not a standing army. Here is the most telling part of the act:
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war:
Pretty darn clear the difference between militia and standing army. In fact, if you read the entire act, the word militia is used and defined throughout as well as the regulations regarding the militia, not a separate standing army.
The Founding Fathers wanted citizens to own firearms while at the same time letting the citizens know they could be called up at any time to suppress insurrection or invasion. The only way to do this was to regulate them, set down specific requirements for what they must bring and how they were to be trained. The act lays this out in plain, clear language.
To use Jefferson's own words:
that the militia would "be our best reliance in peace and for the first months of war until the Regulars may relieve them". Link to source
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
There's nothing more military grade than a WWI Zepellin which was the first major use of that family of alloys :)
Two different concepts and I'm completely sorry you cannot see that fact. I'll try to explain it to you but because of how obvious it already is and you missing it, I'm not sure I will be successful.
Ok, for starters, the second amendment is a bar on the government to act in certain ways. If you think times have changed to the point the second amendment is no longer needed or needs adjusted, then gather support and amend it.
The 1930's act does not directly cover the internet as a title II service because the 1930's act has another category that the FCC was perfectly fine placing it in called an "information service". This information service was defined as
In 1970, the FCC attempted to classify the early internet or computer or data processing as an information service with it's computer I inquiry. This attempted to define a bright line to differentiate between communications services/processing as the phone lines would be and computer data processing (think internet or BBS) which is an information service. It left some ambiguity because it created a dual category or hybrid category that were both information services and communication services. Clearly this was not working as more phone systems started automating their networks and more grey area hybrid categories started popping up. So around 1976, the FCC started it's second computer inquiry or "computers II".
In computers II or computers two, the FCC further distinguished between data processing and communications processing and introduced a term called enhanced services. This also distinguished between computer processing to maintain a communications network as remaining regulated under the communications services portions of the law. This enhanced service is defined by Federal Standard 1037C as
which the internet or any reasonable interpretation would group it into. It's design was to clear up the gray areas and insert data processing into either it's information service or communications service category respectfully.
Well, fast forward to 1996 with the telecommunications law. It added under title II of the telecommunications act, a requirement that upon subscription of internet services that providers must inform customers of commercially available content filtering or blocking software commonly known as parental controls and absolved liability of any software or company on the behalf of the customer filtering or screening content for offensive material. It also put the definitions of enhanced services into law as information services copying almost directly from the computers II inquiry findings.
Now the FCC has always maintained that the law classified the internet and versions that led up to the internet as an information service and not a title II regulation. Even for the short time after the Portland cable case which the courts ruled the FCC had to regulate it under title II the FCC held it was not and contributed to the overturning of such order on appeals which was validated by the supreme court.
So in short, here we have a law from 1936 that has historically been interpr
You are confused. The "can't work for regulating the Internet simply because its an "old law" that predates the Internet" is incorrect. The old law already has provisions for the internet and does not allow the regulation of it without legislative action. The FCC since 1970 or so has been dealing with it and regulating it per the "old law" perfectly fine. This change to a title II regulation is outside the scope of the law and needs a law to be passed to make it kosher.
Also, if you need a distinction between the two, the second amendment bars the government from action. The old law is being use (although illegally) to take action that isn't allowed by the law. In both situations, the answer is to amend- not ignore.
this happened over a month ago.
"Lame" - Galaxar
You can't confiscate guns from criminals. With this machine criminals will always have access to guns.
Period.
The only question is whether you want law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves.
The division largely falls on whether you see citizens as peasants or not.
You can take weapons away from peasants. They shouldn't have them anyway, filthy animals. But citizens are halfway between peasants and nobility. And you don't take guns away from the nobility. They won't let you. They'll literally shoot you in the face if you try it.
The argument over guns is that many people feel citizens are more peasants than nobles and some feel citizens are more nobles than peasants.
That's what it boils down to.
Peasants don't really have rights as such. There's no Magna Carta for peasants. You give them what you need to give them to keep them working.
Nobles however can walk right up to the king, look him in the face, and tell him that he can't do something if the king is overstepping some agreement. The nobility won't permit it.
And that's what the gun debate at least is all about.
But it doesn't really matter anymore... because micro manufacturing makes it impractical to deny the ownership of goods through the regulation of stores and manufacturers. The manufacturing system becomes too distributed and defuse to regulate. No government agent is going to rubber stamp literally every thing that comes off your mill. So they can't stop it.
Once they've adapted to that reality and that might take another generation. Human beings are often inflexible and lacking in imagination. Look at the drug war for example... that they didn't see that one coming is further evidence of the point. But eventually they're going to lose this one.
It might take 50 years for them to finally admit it. But they can't win it.
this micro manufacturing stuff is checkmate.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The definition of "well regulated" has not changed, and Heller/McDonald specifically dismantle the infantile "militia" argument:
[T]he activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
Furthermore, under US v. Miller, the 2nd Amendment covers arms "commonly used for self defense", which certainly does not exclude "military" weapons, especially since the 2A specifically protected state of the art (at the time) firearms equipped by infantry.
There is basically nothing about your post which is even remotely factual - just typical partisan whining.
That just makes my point that only selective reading is applied since "well regulated" is deemed irrelevant and now not even "militia" is considered to matter.
It's seen as a right with zero responsibility despite the obvious consequences we see at regular intervals.
We don't want every last citizen to own a weapon. Personally I'm fine with you being unarmed.
"Well regulated", relevant or not, means well equipped and trained. Always has. Not sure what you think it means, you haven't said.
As far as "consequences" go, the states with the strongest laws have the highest incidence of violent crime.
You sure you want to trot out the fallacy that prohibition is effective? Didn't work out very well for alcohol, utterly failed for MJ.
The Second also says that the militia are all men. Congratulations, you just revoked a right from 50% of the population. Well done.
You see how this goes? You start fucking with shit and doing things that seem obvious to you, then boom come the unexpected (to you) consequences. STOP FUCKING WITH SHIT.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
In contrast to cyber-arms control, which is in fact about NOT keeping vulnerabilities secret which will make everyone safer, gun control is a lost cause.
Because when it comes down to it, a gun consists of information, which is freely available; raw materials, which are freely available in the necessary quality; the abilities to really work the materials according to the information, which is available widely, from afghani weaponmakers to milling and printing machines; and finally the time to do it. Plus of course, the will to do it despite of government attempts to criminalize it.
With guns, the horse left the barn around 1350 A.D., and every attempt to close the door has been a failure.
Besides, the problem is not really the availability of the weapons, but the culture to use it. Guess why we've got nearly the same amount of guns as the USA, but our homicide-rate is ten times lower? Because it's really not the guns. It's the culture.
Of course you can excarbate the problem with making stupid laws that lead to the proliferation of criminal gangs by outlawing things like alcohol, drugs, prostitution and so on. Or by not having a social system that that takes care nobody falls between the gaps.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
Banned already via BATFE fiat. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/k...
Seriously. If I had a gun at school, and nobody stopped me, I would have shot four or five people (at least) out of anger, and I've always had a fairly even temper. I wouldn't do that now, but I'm an adult now.
My personal perspective on armed schoolchildren aside, I can only imagine you spent significant time in juvie for your repeated vehicular, IED, knife, sharpened pencil, metal chair leg, brick, and rock assaults on your peers.
You know, because as you said, not having access to a firearm was the only thing that prevented you from using that kind of weapon to attack people.
Hopefully you were able to keep your juvenile criminal record sealed, though.
Nope, not an executive order at all. Please cite the source (other than the crazy blogs). Yes I'm a gun owner.
Oh good lord. How pedantic are you trying to be?
Obama promised to implement as much gun control as he could without involving Congress, later, ATF issues new decision reclassifying commonly used sporting ammunition in order to ban it. Would you be happy if the technically incorrect term "executive order" were replaced by "Presidentially-directed regulatory policy alteration"?
I'll remind you that executive orders aren't in the Constitution, but are derived from an implicit constructive reading of the law. So, be careful how far you push the pedantry.
No, it was not "anyone in debt". There were laws in every Confederate states that white people could not be bought or sold as slaves.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I figured I was arguing with the contingency from 8chan. That means the words "white genocide" are not far behind.
GamerGate history is great fun. It's kind of like the History Channel's Ancient Aliens series without all the solid information.
You are welcome on my lawn.
There was another political gun enthusiast on this site a few weeks back who went on at great length on a very long thread about how it didn't mean "well equipped and trained" as we both agree it does. I was just referring to that but I've forgotten what handle he goes by.
I was putting up an example of an idiot railing about the amendment instead of a reasoned argument - non-idiots shouldn't take it personally.
Let's not go near prohibition since that's an extreme and a guns are a wide range of tools that some people need to use and others want to use for sport and should be able to. Regulation is a very different story to prohibition, and since idiots like the NRA are off with the pixies demanding everyone should be able to have their own AK47 and a nanny state should put security guards in schools to protect kids from those AK47s then self regulation is not working - it's needs to be discussed at a different level than "I want!". We certainly need to get away from the cretinous "but we need to a gun so we can overthrow the government" shit.
Banned already yet oddly available. http://ammoseek.com/rifle-ammo...
Obama didn't promise jack about gun control.
You only answered half of the previous poster's question.
Bollocks.
Conservatives say the Communications Act of 1934 can't work for regulating the Internet simply because its an "old law" that predates the Internet.
Those same conservatives say the 2nd amendment is perfect, simply because its old, and that it applies to any weapon invented since and any weapon we might invent in the future.
I did not attempt to answer a "conservatives vs whoever" question. I replied to one demonstrably false thing GP said there is a difference.
If someone says "I believe in unicorns AND mermaids", I am justified in debunking the unicorn claim even if I don't know or care about mermaids.
Saying you are "part of a militia" and not serving is the cowardly part. It's about having something without the responsibility that comes with it.
In reality there wasn't supposed to be a standing army at all. In the powers of congress they congress is given the power to:
You are contradicting yourself.
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
That's a standing army. It only says that FUNDS can't be appropriated for more than 2 years at a time. That just means they have to vote on it every 2 years.
If they meant you couldn't have an ARMY for more than 2 years, they would have said that instead. They were hardly stupid.
Pretending to be a soldier without a soldiers responsibility isn't very "conservative" is it? It's about being a cowardly asshole.
Regulation is a very different story to prohibition, and since idiots like the NRA are off with the pixies demanding everyone should be able to have their own AK47 and a nanny state should put security guards in schools to protect kids from those AK47s then self regulation is not working - it's needs to be discussed at a different level than "I want!".
First you state (and I agree) that regulation is very different from prohibition, but then you imply that people shouldn't be allowed to have their own AK47 (a prohibition). The government should not be allowed to decide what tools for defense one can use. Arguments over which gun is a better tool garner as much attention as arguments over which caliber is best. Those are matters of opinion and as per Justice Jackson in WV State Board of Education v Barnette (1943) "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
We certainly need to get away from the cretinous "but we need to a gun so we can overthrow the government" shit.
You're mischaracterizing the argument here, though I can't tell if it's intentionally or not. The argument about governmental overthrow is simple: the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that if the government that our founding fathers were creating ever became as tyrannical as the government they were fighting to overthrow, that the patriots of the time would have the tools available to do exactly what they were in the process of doing. As citizens of the nation they created with their actions, we have both a right to be prepared for that possible eventuality and a civic responsibility to be prepared for it. Is it that preparation which itself can help stave off tyranny for a government that understands the fact that it truly does govern by the consent of the people (not just on paper, but in reality). In other words, a government that knows it can be replaced at any time will not (at least outwardly) attempt to enact oppressive measures against its own people.
This is merely an extension of the ancient concept si vis pacem, para bellum.
All other arguments about hunting, sporting, and self defense against criminals are perfectly valid and should not be dismissed. The right to self defense is a basic human right. To deny common, non-violent people the right to have and carry tools for self defense is to effectively deny the right of self defense itself. I'm in favor of respecting human rights as much as I am in favor of respecting constitutional rights. I should hope everyone would be.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
You are right, Conservatives are very consistent about government control: So long as it feels like "Us" controlling "Them", they are for it. Control over abortions, control over marriage, control over brown people ...
The idea is to point out how easy it is to make a gun. If it is so easy that anyone can do it in their own home, what's the point of the draconian gun control restrictions that progressives want?
It's even easier to make car bombs or ricin in your own home: no special milling equipment required. Laws should attempt to balance safety against liberty, not newsworthiness against DIYability.
criminal masterminds will always get guns. and use them wisely
casual hotheads simply won't get guns. because they aren't trying hard in life. they'll pick up baseball bats and knives for their idiotic reasons and instead. which is a wonderful impovement, because those are hugely less lethal than a gun
proof:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
casual hotheads are the assholes that are causing all the senseless death. and for some moronic reason, some americans think it is important that guns be very easy to get for irresponsible hotheads. why?
now mod me down for stating the plain truth
look at all of our social and economic peers. they do not suffer from all the fearmongering bullshit you spout if guns are controlled as the founders intended, as stated in the second amendment
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ge a real car. Nothing screams 'overcompensation crisis' like a Cobra.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
And CA is the 7th largest economy in the world. Unlke TX which has been compared to having an economy more like Nigeria due to its reliance on oil. I never ever want to live in TX. n fact my dad left TX just as soon as he could and never looked back.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Obama didn't promise jack about gun control.
"After the legislation failed, Mr. Obama vowed to take whatever steps his administration could through executive action. He later issued 25 executive orders intended to tighten the rules for gun ownership."
NYT
BTW, the post you replied to said "executive action", not "executive order", you doubly-failed pedant.
"Among the orders that Mr. Obama already signed are efforts to include more information about mental illness in the federal background check system, new efforts to research the causes of gun violence, incentives for schools to hire more security officers, and new requirements for federal authorities to trace guns used in crimes." Not exactly gun control.
You are a failed pedant, and now you resort to moving the goalposts?
Fact: Obama promised to continue doing everything in his power to combat gun violence through executive action.
Fact: The ATF, a department of the executive branch, is banning commonly used sporting ammo.
Yet here you sit and shill, trying first to argue that Obama didn't use "executive orders" (which isn't what the poster said anyway), then you claim Obama didn't promise to try to implement gun control via executive action (which is either odiously disingenuous or ignorant of you), and now you are trying to claim that the stuff Obama did as part of his attempt to implement gun control... wasn't an attempt to implement gun control.
Check.
You're a shill.
Well, when my 300 rounds of green tip 5.56 comes in from Alamo Ammo I'll let you know if Obama and the ATF are waiting at my door.
Hey, shill, remember how all those other firearm restrictions implemented in the US were immediately enforced with no grandfathering? Like when the Clinton AWB was passed and they suddenly required everyone to turn in all the "eeevul black rifles", standard capacity mags, and so on?
Oh wait, no, they grandfathered everything in circulation because Feinstein (who through stereotypical liberal hypocrisy has a CCW permit for herself), et al, couldn't summon the votes for a retroactive ban.
Same thing applies here: what's in circulation will be allowed to be sold.
What, are you 12? I presume you can grok the implication of a forward ban. Hell, you probably bought the ammo with the intention of scalping it once the supply dries up.
Hardly a shill. But at this point it's still a proposal. A bad one at that. The reality is that judges have the final say on how laws are interpreted so even if the ATF tried to implement their new interpretation of the law it would be settled in court. Let's just stick to the facts. There is currently no ban on green tip 5.56 ammo. Hell, congress might even get off their dead asses and do something: http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb...
This is precisely my point, the bullshit that this gun lobby is pulling will undermine the advantages of C&C and 3D printing for the rest of us.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
No, actually. You need to turn your brain on and reread my comment. The key words there (which you quoted, ironically enough) were "out of anger."
For that few seconds where I actually would have killed someone, I didn't have a vehicle, IED, knife, brick, chair leg, or rock in my pocket. I did have a pencil, but that's one-on-one combat, and I wasn't any good at that. Not that I didn't consider it.
I wonder where you went to school that you had easy access to the things listed above. My town funds their schools well enough that bricks don't just come out of the walls at a tug, and chair legs don't snap off without a great deal of force. The janitors are pretty good at keeping rocks and other debris out of the halls, and it was against the rules to carry knives, explosives, or drive your cars inside the building.
By the time I would had access to any of the above things, I was calm enough that I wasn't going to kill someone.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
Actually, he's right, during the 1700s, aka the 18th century, there was quite a bit of white slavery going on. Difference was it wasn't hereditary. You might want to stop reading Zinn when it comes to your advanced history sources.
I think it's pretty clear that the intent behind the second amendment was the perceived need to have a well regulated militia. In other words, if you want to carry a guns, sign up to join the national guard.
This myth has been thoroughly debunked. There are numerous quotes from the key figures alive at the time that completely discredit this position. I'll let you do the research, since doing so will help you fill some gaps in your historical education.
Like it or not, individual ownership of firearms was accepted as an individual right at the time (and long after), and was associated with political freedom. This didn't mean weapons couldn't be taken from criminals, within reason.
There is also a long history behind this position, tracing back through British history. It's not an accident that most people in the Robin Hood stories are carrying weapons, and know how to use them. The audiences that heard these stories accepted this as normal and appropriate. In Britain, the traditions were different than they were in many other places (where only the nobility could carry arms). The British often saw themselves as superior to others in part because of this. Certainly, they were much freer than those in many parts of the world (particularly places where serfdom survived until the 19th century). These British traditions evolved into a belief or philosophy that ownership of arms was an integral part of being a free person, which would eventually be expressed by the US descendants of Britain in their Bill of Rights.
In US Colonial times, some jurisdictions required (by law) every household to not just have arms, but also to carry them to public meetings (including church services), to make sure that community was armed in the event of a surprise Indian attack.
For that matter, privately owned ships were routinely armed. In some cases, they were well enough armed to fight off warships.
If you wish to oppose the right to bear arms, do so for other reasons than a misunderstanding of the text and the history.
And it's Unfounded Assumption right out the gate, quickly followed by Hyperbolic Strawman with Historians Fallacy not far behind.
Item 1.) I am not a channer. The only time I've been to 4chan is through links, generally on BRBU.
Item 2.) The history behind Gamergate is quite simple. The history behind Quinngate is more complex. They are, however, two different movements as any honest analysis of the Twitter and Google statistics bears out.
Item 3.) I am curious as to how Schaefer's fuckwittery at the GDC in any way links me to 8chan. Please explain.
Oh, I read what you wrote just fine. You were just being overly dramatic. Because if you truly had sufficient rage to murder someone then you wouldn't have cared that your pencil was an apparently insufficient weapon or that you might have to walk 10m to obtain another improvised weapon.
None of this has anything to do with whether it's a wise idea to issue handguns to school kids. I'm just calling bullshit on your distorted assessment of your emotional state.
Yes, pretty much the only hope is a legal challenge, but what are the odds that will work?
Basically the law is written to allow the agency to decide whether to forbear on banning this ammo. In an Office Space-type move, ATFE "fixed the glitch". Thanks to civil service, we can't exactly directly vote to recall the bureaucrats making these decisions.
Hell, congress might even get off their dead asses and do something:
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb...
As for legislation, in this case the shoe is on the other foot for the Republicans. There aren't enough to override a veto.
They could try to tack it into must-pass legislation, but Harry Reid is all too willing to use brinksmanship over shutdowns, as demonstrated by the Homeland Security funding/immigration debacle. That is "irony" given how much they whined about these tactics when they were majority.
Nope. Home to one of the most diverse cities in the world. You can probably make the same racism case in your neck of the woods.
I lived in Texas for years, so your denial is meaningless. And laughable.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Given that I know a lot more about what's going on in my own head, I'm calling bullshit on your armchair psychology.
I know what I'm capable of, and what I'm not. I wasn't capable of attaking someone with a pencil in school. I was capable of shooting someone in anger, had I been armed. It's the difference between standing up to a bully and his friends, therefore getting your ass kicked, and shooting the bully and any of his friends that didn't run away.
The difference is obvious to me. Just because it isn't obvious to you doesn't mean you understand how my brain works.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
I don't know what roads you're driving on, all the roads around me look like they haven't been maintained in 40+ years. Try i-80 to Reno and see how "maintained" California keeps roads.
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
Not in the US, which is what this conversation was about.
Peddle your "white genocide", "save white heritage" bullshit elsewhere.
You are welcome on my lawn.
the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun
Unless you:
1. Are a convicted felon.
2. Are a convicted domestic abuser.
3. Are currently charged with any crime punishable by a year or more in prison.
4. Are an unlawful user of any controlled substance.
5. Are addicted to any controlled substance, even one lawfully proscribed.
6. Have been dishonorably discharged from the United States military.
7. Have renounced your American citizenship.
8. Are the subject of an order of protection.
9. Are a fugitive from justice.
10. Are in the United States illegally.
Those are just the people proscribed from ownership under Federal law. Many States have tougher laws and add even more people to the list. Some (my home state, New York) go further and treat gun rights as a privilege, requiring a license, which is doled out at the whim of local bureaucrats who can deny you for virtually any reason they wish.
Point being, nowhere in the United States does the "current understanding" of gun rights say anyone should have firearms. Do you actually know what the existing body of Federal, State, and Local law has to say on this subject or are you just repeating talking points you read somewhere?
Also, if you are mentally ill, you are prohibited from owning a firearm. However, that is seldom enforced, because, almost by definition, if you WANT a gun, you are fucking crazy.
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
But in the arena of gun laws, applying a law from the late 18th century to modern assault rifles and the like is considered to be completely reasonable
Do you have the same objection to the First Amendment? After all, it's from a time period where newspapers were pretty much the only form of mass media, and even that was fairly new.
Being prevented from possessing a small class of items is obviously different from complete prohibition which was discussed above.
Would you accept a "small class" of speech being prevented by the government? Say, political rallies for Democrats? If not, then why would you accept other rights being arbitrarily infringed by the government? Particularly rights whose existence is based on keeping governmental power and abuse in check.
If you are going to pretend to be so stupid so early in a post then I suggest not wasting so much time writing a long post that is not going to be read beyond the point of pretended stupidity. Maybe you were doing it to build a strawman in my name - I don't care - if you start with fake stupidity you are just wasting your time.
I'm going to assume this was written in lieu of a cogent counter-argument to the ideas I wrote in my post. I'll take that to mean you have no real argument. If you'd care to have a real discussion, I'm game. If you're unable or unwilling to do so, just say so up front.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
When I explicitly wrote otherwise? You started off with pretended stupidity, so, as I indicated above, there's no reason to take anything after that total lack of respect seriously.
If you're calling bullshit on my "armchair psychology" then I suggest you look in the mirror. You are speaking with absolute certainty regarding how you would have reacted in a hypothetical scenario.
Good luck with your grasp of reality, Freud.
That thing which goes up.
Laws which cannot be universally enforced may be selectively enforced replacing the rule of law with the rule of men so they are still useful.
And then you are left to explain why homicides in the US are proportionally high for all weapons including knives, fists, and rocks. Or are you suggesting that stronger gun control laws will reduce crimes involving these weapons as well?
No worries. We will get there soon enough by slices:
"The Massachusetts court said the Second Amendment protections did not apply to stun guns because, among other reasons, they were “thoroughly modern” inventions that were not in common use at the time the Second Amendment was enacted in 1789."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/met...
Still incapable or unwilling to argue ideas which are actually on topic? Very well, my point stands and yours' refuted. Good day!
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Not at all. If the idea was to have a standing army it would have been written just like the Navy.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Irrelevant. The point was in response to the GP's ridiculous assertion about the "current understanding" of gun rights in the United States. It is not and never has been an "understanding" in the United States that everybody should or can have firearms.
Utterly ridiculous. Every place in the Constitution that says "the people" meant just that: every able-bodied person. Are you trying to say that the 2nd Amendment is the SOLE exception? The Supreme Court disagrees with you. In fact they ruled as much just three or so years ago.
but the second amendment is about long guns, community action, and rural hinterland
Nice theory, but it's hilariously wrong. The historical record is very clear what it was about: being able to protect yourself from the standing army of your own government.
The Supreme Court has ruled, at different times, that (A) the Second Amendment specifically applies to military-style arms (because it's purpose is for protection from military-style arms), and (B) that it is an individual right.
now mod me down for stating the plain truth
I'm not about to mod you down, but you certainly aren't telling the plain truth. At least as it exists in the United States.
In the U.S. it is very far from "casual hotheads" causing firearms crime. On the contrary, the vast majority of firearms crime in the U.S. are by gangs and drug dealers (who are often the same people) shooting each other. When you remove those figures, firearms crime here is very much comparable to other first-world countries. Possibly even less.
Here's a plain truth for you: in the UK, after the gun ban of 1998, firearms crime doubled and remained elevated for at least 8 years. It did decline after that, but it declined at a rate comparable to the U.S., which kept its guns.
Those are figures from Scotland Yard.
Pardon me. That was probably incorrect. The figures may not have been from Scotland Yard. They were published by the Government of England, but I don't recall what ministry or branch of the government it was, and I'm not going to bother to dig up the papers tonight.
Don't include me in your "we".
The point wasn't about "revolution" anyway. The second amendment was about PREVENTING a military takeover, not creating one.
False. You're using semantics to cloud the obvious.
No. I was clearing up the semantics to reveal the actual historical reasoning. Did you read what I wrote carefully? It doesn't seem so.
The general militia was ALL the people. However, the founders foresaw that at times it might be necessary to have a "well-regulated" militia -- a real army -- for defense.
The general militia -- The People -- were not "well regulated". Get a history book. Look it up.
Most of what you state is true, but it is you who are confused.
The Militia Act of 1792 clearly indicates the militia is composed of citizens who own a gun and not a standing army. Here is the most telling part of the act:
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war:
Correct. Militia who are EMPLOYED in the Army were to receive pay just like all the rest of the "Standing Army"... the well regulated militia. This does not contradict me at all.
Further, you contradict yourself here:
To use Jefferson's own words:
that the militia would "be our best reliance in peace and for the first months of war until the Regulars may relieve them
And who were "the Regulars"? What did Regulars mean? The professional, WELL REGULATED militia. The regular -- regulated -- army.
Yes, your petty little strawman you decided to set up in my name is indeed wrong.
What a pathetic creature you are. Stepping in and pretending I'd said one thing and not what I'd actually written then claiming some win in some childish game - so congrats - you win your little game of mass debate. I just wish you'd mass debate over somebody else instead.
This is precisely my point, the bullshit that this gun lobby is pulling will undermine the advantages of C&C and 3D printing for the rest of us.
Gee, sorry that protecting fundamental freedoms is slightly inconvenient for you. But you might better focus your worry on the BS that will come with IP law and home manufacture - the MPAA/RIAA bullshit of the past few years is just the beginning. The "gun lobby" is at least trying to preserve a basic right.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Being prevented from possessing a small class of items is obviously different from complete prohibition which was discussed above.
.223 Remington and 5.56 NATO -- it's a small round, useful for hunting small game and Deer. AR-15's are popular because they're accurate, and have very low recoil. Meanwhile, because it's not a "assault rifle", you libs ignore my bolt action .308 Winchester... which is FAR NASTIER of a round, capable of taking down medium to large game -- Elk, Moose, etc.
.45 ACP. Single stack, 5 rounds. On the hard shell case it a huge label: "NOT LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA".
The problem with that is who decides where that line is?
Liberals want to ban "assault rifles", and by assault rifles they mean "black and scary looking". My AR-15 fires both
Here's another example of stupidity -- I have a Springfield XDS chambered in
Why not? What the fuck is wrong with California?
Pretty sure both Rick Perry and Greg Abbott -- and especially Ted Cruz -- would wipe the floor with any Democrat on Jeopardy.
Especially the "brilliant" Sheila Jackson Lee.
I asked Barack Obama about Ms. Lee, he said he learned about her idiocy from the papers. You know, like he learned about Benghazi, Hillary's illegal email accounts, etc.
Yes, which is why the all or nothing strawman the other poster was presenting me as was so offensive.
Preventing six year olds from driving cars is not prohibition and neither is stopping ex-cons from owning rocket propelled grenades.
A lot of people think that should be whoever we vote in to run law enforcement - with the axe hanging over their heads being that if they do a shit job they lose it - obvious really. Asking that question at all sort of implies you feel disenfrancised and you think the obvious is not working for you. Is that the case? Government is supposed to be FROM the citizens and not outsiders imposing their will on citizens with little power.
Others portray themselves as thinking it's up to the individual so that ex-con with a string of armed robbery convictions gets to decide whether or not they should be able to get as much firepower as they can afford. Do they really believe this or are they just pretending to be idiots so they can pretend it's a simple situation? Is it an idiot detector situation where if they find people that can be swayed into going along with them on such a silly suggestion then they have found people who are easily manipulated?
What about the 18th Century eludes your understanding?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
and seeing as how, when the 2nd amendment was written, there wasn't a hell of a lot of "densely populated regions", and those regions that were populated, densely or otherwise, many had laws that said that when in town, leave your guns at sheriff's office, get them back when you leave Look, I own guns, I used to hunt ( as a personal, don't any more), but I love target shooting Own an Olympic grade air rifle, and my personal motto is: Ten shots, 10 meters, one hole (it's sort of a Zen thing)
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
""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." The People are to be armed, to protect the country (which is The People), AGAINST its own army, if need be. " an awful lot of personal opinion there "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it." H.L. Mencken
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
"“Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.” Abraham Lincoln In "The Second Amendment: A History", Michael Waldman quotes that statement from Abraham Lincoln by way of explaining that judges, even Supreme Court justices, are not much different from politicians when it comes to public opinion: It informs, even where it does not direct, their actions and decisions. The Supreme Court only got around to affirming the individual’s right to gun ownership in 2008—by then the court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was more or less in line with public opinion, which itself had changed markedly over time, thanks largely to a two-pronged propaganda blitz by the National Rifle Association and the equally vociferous arguments of conservative legal "scholars". In 1959, a Gallup poll reported that 60 percent of Americans favored banning handguns; by 2012, that figure had dropped to 24 percent. Waldman is not cynically suggesting that the Supreme Court is a slave to public opinion. Rather, he is pointing out what should be obvious but is too often ignored: The court does not operate in a vacuum. Our view of the Second Amendment, he writes, “is set at every stage [of the nation’s history], NOT BY A PRISTINE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT , but by the push-and-pull, the rough-and-tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.” I rest my case
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.