Slashdot Mirror
Cody Wilson Wants To Help You Make a Gun
An anonymous reader writes In 2013 Cody Wilson posted online the design files needed to 3D print weapons. The files were downloaded at least 100,000 times before the U.S. State Department ordered him to take them down. Last fall he reemerged with a new project, the Ghost Gunner--a relatively small and affordable CNC milling machine that could easily manufacture the lower receiver of an AR-15. It was a different approach toward the same goal of multiplying the number of firearms in the world. But are we really facing a world where backyard bunker-builders are manufacturing their own gun components? Reporter Andrew Zaleski visited Wilson to check on the status of his project. What he found was a man in the throes of small-business hell. As Wilson puts it, "It's like the nightmare of a startup with the added complication that no one will allow you to do it anyway."
Somehow, I doubt Wilson has a full-auto rifle he hands to journalists. And he's not doing anything that you're not allowed to do in your own garage.
The critical shortage of cheap firearms is a real problem desperately in need of solving. But at least now they can be homebuilt and thus untraceable. Hooray for technology!
He's taking a machine capable of making just about anything, and using it to make the one thing that just might make people want to regulate it. He's deliberately drumming up fear over something that people should be celebrating it's existence. I wish he would just use a lathe to make his gun parts rather than 3d printers or cnc milling machines. I'd make a thousand, a hundred thousand useful things with this cnc machine before I ever considered making a gun. It's like newspaper was just invented and he's running up to the palace and pointing out to the king that how this new thing can be used to draw pictures of the queen naked..
Another, favored by those in the lawmaking business, believes the right to bear those arms comes with some red tape: serial numbers and background checks.
It's like a Baptist Preacher and a Catholic Priest arguing over the same biblical text.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I don't want an AR 15... but I'd print a nice looking metal handgun.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yes, but the ITAR laws prohibit it.
You should know by now that the Constitution is just a piece of paper that no one pays attention to.
No. What makes you think that?
He may have thought that protesting gun laws would make it political speech and thus protected.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The First Amendment doesn't allow anything. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment), it guarantees government cannot interfere with rights that preexist government.
But yes, that would be a protected publication. He never challenged it. The designs were already out there (so he won), and it would have been expensive. I believe they used the same ITAR crap that used to prevent us from exporting encryption. But the courts ruled there that printed copies of encryption algorithms are protected expression, so this should be as well. More importantly, the Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority over publishing firearms plans.
And finally, when have you ever known the federal government to abide by the Constitution?
That said, please stop making homemade unserialized weapons.
I'm really finding the hobby of making self bows very attractive. There are some excellent tutorials on doing it on YouTube, it seems like something anyone can do with some patience and practice. I'm willing to give it a go knowing my first attempt is likely to be a failure.
I don't plan on putting a serial number on it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
While I would much like legislators to understand that no matter what laws they make that guns will always be available, I feel this approach is doomed to fail
All over the U.S., gun restrictions are generally faltering. You can concealed carry in more places than ever now, and every new gun control effort is faltering (like the ATF backing off on the recent ammo re-classification they were considering).
Now is not the time to fall back. Now is the time to move forward decisively and show that the people with an irrational fear of guns were always a a small minority, and rightfully scorned.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Have you been to California, or Illinois, or DC lately? The anti-gun crowd are just fine coming up with all those repercussions on their own, and then some. It doesn't matter if someone is 'in their face with new technology' or not, these lawmakers that want to regulate and get rid of guns are already out of control.
California already has mandatory micro-stamping, which is technologically infeasible, and will be a de-facto ban on all new hand guns for some time to come (mean while more and more existing gun models fall off the roster while no new ones can be added due to the micro-stamping requirement). In the last couple years, the roster of handgun models have been cut in half. All handguns available for purchase are older models that were already on the roster prior to the micro-stamping law becomming law, AND which haven't undergone ANY functional (and sometimes cosmetic) changes in design.
Actually, there aren't any laws -- at least in the majority of locales -- that forbid someone from building their own firearm. Such arms don't need serial numbers or background checks, but they can't be sold, or, I think, transferred.
"Another, favored by those in the lawmaking business, believes the right to bear those arms comes with some red tape: serial numbers and background checks. "
OTOH lawmakers believe that they can let people fly all over the land with a plane without any background checks or pilot licenses, if they build the planes themselves, be it from scratch or a kit that does 80% of the work.
And engraving 1,2,3,4,5 into ones rifles is surely no problem with this mill.
It's just control-freaks freaking out. Any idiot can go to gunsmith school, it's not rocket science.
You might think it's safe to say that, but it's completely wrong.
The number of guns in private hands in the US has doubled since the early 1990s. Yet the number of deaths (accidental or criminal) has plummeted, and the number of shootings (accidental or criminal) has plummeted as well. We have safer guns, and better gun education.
Let them have so many that citizens are scared of *not* owning a gun and demand their freedom.
Doesn't work that way. Citizens will expect an ever stronger police presence. The side effect of which is an eventual totalitarian state.
Have gnu, will travel.
Some TEA Partiers think so. As do did tis guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
why all the attention?
because he's a narcissist who takes any opportunity at self-promotion. his gun-fetish is just a means to that end, the consequences of his actions don't matter as long as he gets some publicity.
in short, just another libtard psychopath.
If it can't be restricted then owning a nuke is legal.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I have large CNC machine shop. Anyone else I know with a CNC machine shop in their garage of any size has probably made guns. Some of them have made full auto versions. Some have made mortar launchers and artillery cannons and other stuff. This has been going on for many decades...and yet it is barely even visible. No end of the world. No crime wave. The difference here is volume, not principle.
Guns are not even interesting after growing up with them. I don't understand why people are so obsessed with them...but then again, I don't know why Pharrell's "Blurred Lines" was even a blip on the music scene. But I have to admit the fetishization of firearms gives me the willies...it is a disturbingly reliable indicator of a state of mind I am wary of, avoid, and consider pitiable.
Nonetheless, I feel compelled to defend the right to make and use firearms because once I declare the 2nd amendment is worthless, their state of mind could easily compel them to decide that any of the freedoms I enjoy are equally worthless. Heck- a majority of Americans already do. I tend to place the majority of persons around where I live who openly carry in the same category as some of the unfortunate homeless ranks who suffer to spew collections of epithets at passersby. It is generally harmless, certainly within their rights, although somewhat disturbing. To feel they are that much under threat by the world around them is a lousy way to get through a day. To outlaw that sort of thing would also be a crime.
Build guns. I don't care.It is the least of any imagined problems that Americans have, and to ban the information or even their manufacture literally on a par with banning books or ideas in my mind.
Yes, I've been to California lately and those of us like myself that support efforts to stop the constant waterfall of idiotic, burdensome, ineffective gun laws have our hands full trying to keep gun phobic citizens and legislators in check. Having police going on television stating that they estimate there are 500K unserialized AR type guns in California alone and that some of them are showing up at high profile crime scenes is not helping the cause. Any action that creates more public fear related to firearms is counter-productive to maintaining our rights. I'm not citing that 500K number, because I don't believe it's true, but that is what the nightly news is allowing the public to hear. I do understand that Cody Wilson is not responsible for a high number of recently produced weapons; he hasn't been able to offer that many milling machines. It's more independent machine shops that are cranking out volume. I just have to pick on Cody, because he's been the vocal public face trying to legitimize homemade guns as a movement. It's perfectly legal to make a firearm for yourself in the manner Cody's machine is intended, but none the less, the idea of "Ghostguns" is all it takes to get the "Think of the Children" banners flying. If I had my way we'd have shall issue CCW in every state with national right to carry, open carry, stand your ground and castle doctrine in every state in the land. As it stands though our legislators and a good many of the citizens they serve are clueless and fearful of guns and the best I know how to do is play defense in the states that suffer with such ignorance.
Ooooo, so close! To paraphrase the amendment: "Since a militia/army is necessarily going to be used by the government, the right of the governed to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This interpretation is backed by numerous documents written by the founders.
This.
Its the lower receiver that requires a serial number and registration to be bought and sold. So the home CNC machine just ensures you can recreate this part when the gov't comes around to confiscate your guns. When they do, the only part you must surrender is the lower receiver. Everything else you are free to buy, sell, or trade with no restrictions or reporting. So when the confiscations begin, all the barrels will disappear. And when the cops leave with the one registered part, you just make a new one.
Have gnu, will travel.
And engraving 1,2,3,4,5 into ones rifles is surely no problem with this mill.
Even if it can't, or is too much a pain to do it with, You can get an electric engraver and freehand it for about $8. Note, you have to put a maker's mark on there as well if you're going to sell it.
I don't read AC A human right
It actually doesn't. A citizen militia overran a drug cartel in Mexico last year and stole their weapons because the government refused to protect them. Governments are limited by their ability to raise funds. Even with a printing press, that power is far from infinite.
An armed populace is far more cost effective at keeping the peace.
Which do you prefer, a psychopath that wants to dictate every bit of your life to you, or a psychopath who just wants to be allowed to tinker, and wants you to be left alone as well?
Your answer will determine whether or not you are yourself a psychopath.
those are not the only two options available.
even five year olds can see through bullshit false dichotomies, why can't libertarians?
Exactly right. "Since our new country will need an army (we wish it didn't but it will) then we must acknowledge and remember that the people have the right to bear arms just in case they'll ever need to destroy that very same army."
I agree with the sentiment but somehow, I think that government will want the barrel, the magazine, the bolt and the firing pin as well
Yes, Cody may be in their face and drawing attention to the "make your own weapon" movement, however, that movement has been underway for some time, and gaining momentum long before Cody, and most of the reasons were because of the lawmakers themselves. The lawmakers that are cranking out these rediculous laws don't seem to understand that they themselves become the number one reason and force behind these movements. I never knew of the concept until about 7-8 years ago, and it's gained lots of momentum since then. People spread the word, and the lawmakers create the conditions themselves that make ordinary people come to the conclusion that they might want a few weapons that aren't in a government database as a precautionary move (just in case).
There is a internet meme that has been around for awhile, stating that Obama is the nations #1 gun salesman. While I agree, I think the lawmakers come in close second. Everytime a government official, congress-critter, or state lawmaker open their mouths about guns, the result is a massive run on gun and ammo purchases... and I can't blame people for that, heck, I've been in on it too. I've purchased more guns and ammo in the last 5 years than I have in all the years before combined myself.
will they want the whole gun, lock, stock and barrel?
Even facebook and Obama haven't been on the front page of slashdot as many times in the past two weeks as he has.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
What is the URL?
btw, "well regulated" in colonial america speak means well trained
Right. There's no way to establish and securely maintain a country without an orderly military, and that means an armed force. Which is why the founders made a big point of making sure that said militia wouldn't be the only armed people in the country. They'd just had enough of that from Britain, and saw the results. In other words, "We'll be having an army to help protect the country, but in order to keep things in balance, the rights of the rest of people to own their own arms shall not be infringed."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Yet the number of deaths (accidental or criminal) has plummeted, and the number of shootings (accidental or criminal) has plummeted as well.
Not to contradict your point, but there is one kind of firearm-related death which is neither accidental nor criminal, and that is suicide. Homicides by firearm are down, but suicides by firearm are steady, and have increased slightly in the last few years. The rate of firearm suicide in the US is higher than pretty much everywhere else in the developed world.
So it's correct to say that easier access to guns means more gun deaths, even if it doesn't mean more accidents or more crime.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I think it is safe to say that the rapid spread of cheap weapons, serialized or not, is just going to lead to more gun accidents, and more gun deaths
That must explain the continuing, decades-long decline in all of those things. Right? Right.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Oh, and one more thing. As the number of guns in private hands in the US has increased, the number of criminal deaths has indeed skyrocketed... in Mexico.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
You can already finish an 80% AR-15 lower receiver with hand tools and a metal jig. There are companies selling the "paper weights" made from aluminum and some make them from plastic. I don't see what all the fuss is about.
That said, the machine appears to be a well made and sturdy. I'd be much more inclined to use it to make auto parts for my car projects. Hope his hand waving doesn't get him into trouble and that we'll be able to buy the machines.
The Court has been rather clear about that. The right to do a thing does not mean a right to do a thing without rules. Establishing the right means that you can go to court to have them examine the balance between the rule-making concerns of the Legislature, and the rights of the individual. They quite frequently throw out laws that effectively ban things you have a right to do, by writing rules that make doing said thing impracticable. At the same time, they frequently uphold things like background checks where there is a clear rule-making reason for it, and it doesn't prevent the protected activity.
Just like, driving is a privilege, but walking somewhere is a right. And yet, there are all sorts of rules regulating which part of the roadway you walk on at which time, and when you have to wait and walk later. Walking being a right means they can't ban you from the sidewalk (in most situations), but they can still tell you how you have to do it, within reason.
But are we really facing a world where backyard bunker-builders are manufacturing their own gun components?
That world already exists in the USA. building a gun yourself from scratch is legal and requires no registration. of course you can't sell that gun. unless you take it to a gun buy back. a few people recently hosed gun buy backs for thousands of dollars with parts bought at a hardware store.
lose != loose
/'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed./'
Even though I disagree with this, this is pretty clearly spelled out: you can't put restrictions of the armament of the people.
That probably meant even heavy weapons and explosives. Communities should be able to form their own militaries, no matter if that militia is for patriotic or rebelious purpose.
At the very least I think every adult should be allowed to carry a pistol or sword in public and face the penalty for their misuse if they do partake in that privilege.
Quick grammar lesson:
In the English language a sentence is a complete thought. They are started with a capital letter and end with a period. The bit of text you quote is not a complete sentence, because it does not start with a capital letter. The actual sentence includes another clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."
If that clause is a conditional clause, then the bit you quoted is only true to the extent keeping and bearing arms is necessary to maintain the militia.
If it's an explanatory clause then the first bit functions as an explanation of the second bit.
If you think it's clear which type of clause the Founders intended you are a textbook example of motivated reasoning. The Founders were dealing with a completely different military situation, the Federal Army was only 8 companies (about 1,000 men), and they only anticipated going above that number in war-time. State Armies were supposed to be a bulwark of the Armed Forces. Moreover individuals needed the ir own weapons to hunt, defend themselves from Indians, attack Indians, protect themselves from crime (which was orders of magnitude worse back then), etc. Given that state governments tended to be elected annually, by the people, and most of the Federal government was elected for much longer terms indirectly (i.e.: Senators chosen for six years by the State Legislature, and Presidents chosen by an elaborate Electoral College voted on by state legislators) it would probably take you days of explaining to a revived founder the difference between an individual right to bear arms and a state militia's right.
It's so interesting how when people think of government-oppression scenarios like this they don't think things through.
If the government has passed a gun confiscation act they have changed the law including the Constitution. That means they can easily change the rules defining what a gun is to include the rest. If they don;t think of this the first time they can go back and amend it.
I honestly don't get this attitude that you are going to overthrow the government or even hold them off with a bunch guys with AR-15s. Unless you can fit them with anti-air and anti-tank rounds, the Army and National Guard can bring in whatever is necessary to put down a rebellion. That doesn't even count the number of citizens with guns who will probably be on the side of the government. The best you can do is get a situation like those Cliven Bundy jackasses out west where the Government decided it just wasn't worth the trouble. But if it ever becomes worth the trouble, as in, if anyone actually fires those AR-15s, the Feds will eliminate those "Constitutional Patriots" with little difficulty. Look at those Branch Dividian nuts in Waco a couple of decades ago -- the Feds took them out with one tank without firing a shot, and they weren't even trying to hurt them. Posting AC because I am going to moderate up the non-crazy posts below.
Please, tell me your address. I'll park my gas tanker near your house. Oh, it's triggered to self-explode if anybody tries to move it. And it leaks oil and stinks just a little.
It's a Constitutional right to move around, right?
you didn't say a single fucking thing about my point
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There's a simple solution for that problem. Own a gun => go to jail law. After a few years most of guns will naturally be cleared from streets.
Except that nobody actually collects those stats. CDC is expressly forbidden from studying gun death epidemiology. Well, truth has always been the enemy of conservatives.
I understand the paperwork isn't bad. But then there's the fee and waiting to get approved. Someone told me it took a long time to get the approval.
It's far beyond that. You DON'T want to get the BATF annoyed with you. (And few things annoy them more than trying to get around their regulations.)
They have a track record of boobytrapping the paperwork and geting people jailed for typos and minor slipups. Honest errors, misunderstanding of details of what you're supposed to do, missing a deadline, etc. Also stuff where THEY made the error but YOU can't prove it.
They'll also just keep grinding you in court, even if you actually are legal, once they start in on you. They'll keep it up until you're broke and have to fold. They have a conviction percentage rate in the high 90s.
Long felony sentences in federal prisons (and NOT the "country club" kind). They love to do things like giving you a count per round of ammunition or whatever, and run them consectutive, too. The federal prisons have no "time off for X" or probation: You serve the whole sentence. If you survive to get out, much of a lifetime later, you have lost your civil rights, including voting and owning or even handling guns (and you jepoardize any gun-owning friends or relatives by living with them or just being in their presence).
Look it up on the web. Lots of horror stories out there. The number of people in federal prison for gun paperwork "crimes" is staggering.
If you want to do this, keep it legal and keep a low profile. Really build it in your state. Really never take it out of state. Really never sell it. (I shudder to think how one handles inheritance of such a gun ...) To do otherwise is to open the giant economy can of worms.
Making your own AR-15 and trying find a way to sell, give, or trade it is an effective way to find yourself "living in interesting times and coming to the attention of people in high places".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It's exactly a paperweight until the remaining 20% is milled.
It's exactly a paperweight until you MAKE THE FIRST CUT. Then it's over 80% and legally "a gun" for BATF purposes.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Although the lower receiver seems to be the most regulated part of a gun, it doesn't look that hard to machine (given that you have a mill -- CNC or manual). What parts (if any) are harder to make (at least with off-the-shelf equipment)? The barrel?
Doesn't the 1st Amendment allow him to post those blueprints?
Not according to the BATF and federal prosecutors.
One of the things F-troop has been doing is sending people into gun shows to ask gun-smithly people what the internal differences are between a semi- and full-auto models of various gun designs, such as the M-16 (select-fire) and AR-15 (semi-auto only).
If they reply with information, they are then busted for conspiracy to convert a gun to full auto in violation of federal laws and regulations.
Lots of people are in jail for that, now.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Sure I did. I addressed the actual point, instead of your imaginary one.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Do any of you really expect the $12 billion a year firearms industry to just let you make your own guns, when they have about a third of congress on speed dial? Just watch, this guy is going to get it from both sides.
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.
gee, it's right there in the constitution and everything
btw, "well regulated" in colonial america speak means well trained. the intent of the founding fathers was that those with guns be well trained. so the current status quo of "hand guns to every mouth breathing moron who grunts" is against the constitution and the will of the founding fathers
Another interpretation of "well regulated" comes from Masonic lodges, of which the founding fathers were in many cases members, which would be "well behaved and orderly". This is the definition that allows felons and others that are not "well regulated" to be denied the right.
the founding fathers desired americans to be well trained with guns
are you denying that is what is in the wording of the second amendment?
you avoided my point, which is a coward's way of conceding a point
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the founding fathers desired americans to be well trained with guns
are you denying that is what is in the wording of the second amendment?
I'm pointing out that you are completely misunderstanding the second amendment, and are doing so deliberately (because there are abundant contemporary writings by the people who wrote and ratified that amendment, explaining exactly what they had in mind - and it wasn't about a constitutional amendment designed to impact gun skills among the population). There is nobody with a shred of interest in this topic that hasn't already educated themselves on this topic. People who are pretending that the history of and debate surrounding that amendment at the time it was written don't exist and thus can't inform their 21st century mis-handling of the text - they should just stop talking. Because they're spouting nonsense.
you avoided my point, which is a coward's way of conceding a point
I have no need to engage your point, because it's based on a complete misunderstanding on your part, or deliberate misdirection. Either way, I'm not "avoiding" your point, I'm telling you that your point isn't the basis of a valid conversation about the second amendment's history and purpose.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
because there are abundant contemporary writings by the people who wrote and ratified that amendment, explaining exactly what they had in mind
this is either a bluff, because you know you are wrong, or it is a bluff because you're ignorant of what you speak of
let me help you out:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. ...
if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens.
so tell me, oh great second amendment scholar: is hamilton saying guns should be handed out to any asshole with no further claim on their intents or abilities with the gun? or is hamilton saying that to own a gun in the usa obligates one to be disciplined and trained in its use?
so far you've:
1. avoided my point
2. lied and bluffed your way around my point
will you now concede my point that the founding fathers clear intent in the second amendment was that gun owners in the usa be well-trained as a condition of their gun ownership?
or will you continue in cowardly intellectual dishonesty?
furthermore, if you consider yourself a responsible gun owner, or just a responsible person, period, are you saying owning a gun is something that does not require training, discipline and mastery? do you like the idea that any douchebag can grab a gun without any consideration as to their abilities or responsibility?
the founding fathers clearly did not think that
do you stand against the wishes of the founding fathers as clearly stated in second amendment?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The point of it is that they won't have a record, paper-trail, or database with the gun in it to use to aid in confiscation. They would have to go house to house, even to houses that have no record of owning a gun to look for possible guns that have to record of ever existing. That's a lot harder, than printing out a database of registered owners and their addresses.
Even if they did go house to house, they don't know if they got them all, since they would have no idea how many are out there. If people caught wind of a confiscation attempt, you could bury your ghost gun in the back yard, or in the woods so they wouldn't find it when they came to your house and searched it.
With a registered gun, this technique wouldn't work, since if they had records that said you owned 3 guns, and can only find 2 in your house, they would probably not leave, or arrest you until you gave up all the ones they know about.
No, but it's an arm.
Of course the British now enjoy rights roughly on par with our own and without the need for wide spread gun ownership.
They do? Last I checked, they had those crazy libel laws where truth is not a defense, and refusing a demand of the law enforcement to disclose the key for anything encrypted you might have in your possession is punishable by several years in prison.
The question is, if you take away the gun, how many of those suicides by gun would turn into suicides by something else?
I recall the stats from Australia after one of their sweeping gun bans was that gun suicides went way down... and suicides by hanging went right up for a net positive gain in suicides.
But I thought guns made people safe from government overstepping its authority...
No, the first amendment says that The People have the Right to form Well Regulated Militia. The Founders strongly opposed the idea of private armies, and in fact when people tried to set up their own military force outside of the Militia they were found guilty of treason and shut down by the army.
It's weird how modern gun salesmen have managed to twist "the people have a right to form well regulated militia" into "gun companies have the right to sell unlimited quantities of any kinds of guns to anonymous buyers over the internet".
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Actually it is merely an introductory clause, the second clause does not require any of the first and can stand alone. The first clause establishes one reason for the second and strengthens it but the first clause is not essential to the meaning of the second clause.
To further break it down, regulated has also changed in meaning since the Bill of Rights was drafted. It's meaning back then was to be working or functional. So "A well regulated (meaning functional (or working)) militia (the citizens of the community who respond with their own privately owned arms) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the people are disarmed the militia becomes non-functional, thus the need to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Fine they can have the entire firearm that they are aware of. But since none of the rest of the components require any registration or serialization, I can have a ready stockpile of spare parts. I mill a new lower, put it all together and thus I'm still armed.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
There are always a lot more variables than "untrained guys with guns vs the military". Especially where the ex-military population in the US is *huge*.
A guy with just enough chemistry knowledge can make an IED, and doesn't even have to be there for it to work.
A single sniper can hold down a squad of well armed and trained soldiers. He can be a half mile or more away to do it, and only needs to fire off a shot if they move.
Gaining access to non-civilian gear is inevitable if the war runs long enough. That can be gear captured in the field, overrun bases, or even supply drops from other nations friendly to the cause.
ISIS/ISIL have been using a lot of captured equipment.
If several thousand armed civilians showed up in Washington DC, air strikes are out of the picture. Heavy armor is questionable at best. Even heavy weapons fire isn't a good thing. "1,000 terrorists dead, 10,000 unarmed civilians killed" is never going to go over well.
That's not to say it would work. If someone did start a civil war with good cause, but poor planning, they may as well consider themselves dead before it starts. But enough people with light weapons (pistols, AR-15, hunting rifles) and an awesome plan can (possibly) go a long way.
A million angry people carrying torches and pitchforks could take over DC if they wanted. There wouldn't be a million surviving attackers though.
The Branch Davidians were a special bunch. Nothing about what they did really made sense. Fortifying yourself in a building with no escape route is suicide. They had no real motive or plan. Or if they had a plan it was a horrible one.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I don't know where you saw those statistics, but it's not true. The gun buyback programme started in October 1996. The suicide rate in Australia peaked in 1997 (before the programme was complete) and has been steadily decreasing since.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
From what I was reading elsewhere (mostly ATF stuff), they can be sold.
Firearms without serial numbers can be passed through a FFL dealer. There are antique firearms and custom firearms which simply don't have a serial number.
If so desired, a gunsmith (I believe with a FFL) can give a weapon a serial number, and file a form with the ATF.
I haven't looked into it any farther than reading. I have no legitimate purpose to ask, as I don't happen to have one, nor do I see it happening any time soon.
Also, in my state, there is no requirement of any paperwork when privately selling to another individual. I've bought a few weapons that way. I hand them cash, they had me the weapon, and we're done. I usually deal with FFL dealers though, just because they have stores I can shop in.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Places I've been in the US, there was no requirement that my weapons had to be at my residence. Not unless you have NFA restricted weapons.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Yet they do collect the stats. And publish them annually. And So does the FBI who also publishes the stats annually for all to find via google.
Your claim is false. Collecting stats is different from studying.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Wow. People like you just creep me out. I have no need or want for a tool that is only meant to kill something.
Guns aren't meant to kill. They are designed to fire a small metal ball at whatever it is pointed at. It could be a paper or metal target, or it could be something alive. But it is the person holding the gun that decides whether or not it kills. Hammers are designed to apply a large amount of force onto a small area. That area could be the head of a nail, or the head of a person. Either way it is just doing its job, just like guns.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Antique firearms (made before 1895 IIRC) are a unique case under the law. If one were to buy one from a dealer they don't have to do the paperwork that a modern firearm would have to go through and have the same requirements as a private party sale. Also firearms of that age can be shipped directly to individuals instead of having to be shipped to a FFL holder and transferred in person with the accompanying paper work. I actually did some research into this since I noticed that there were a number of Finnish M39s for sale over the internet that stated they didn't need to be shipped to a FFL holder first and I wondered what that was about.
Time to offend someone
https://ghostgunner.net/faq.html
Machinable dimensions: 175 x 75 x 60mm (~6.75 x 2.95 x 2.35")
Maximum part dimensions: 230 x 90 x 100mm (~9.05 x 3.50 x 3.90")
Overall footprint: 330 x 280mm (~13 x 11")
Weight: 20kg (~45 pounds)
Spindle Speed: 10,000+ RPM (Final Value TBD)
* Single piece powder coated 1018 steel exoskeleton to improve rigidity per unit weight
*Reinforced A36 steel end plates to further improve rigidity
*A new open source GrBLDC brushless motor controller shield for Arduino.
*Oversized 125W NEMA 23 BLDC motor, electronically throttled to 72W.
*Spindle incorporation of industry standard ER11 collet system, supporting tools up to 5/16”
The entire machine is Open Source. For other Open Source designs, Defense Distributed developed a custom spindle that exceeds the quality, accuracy, and cutting capabilities of any sub-$400 spindle we've tested. We also developed a custom signal conditioning PCB called GrbIO that reduces RF noise generated by the several stepper motors used on the machine. GrbIO includes screw-posts for easy wiring, including separate analog, digital, power supply and chassis grounds, which internally isolate noisy components from sensitive ground planes. The plug-and-play PCB connects between existing Arduino and gshield boards, requires zero software changes, and should resolve many headaches on other derivative designs. Their machine can likely to be scaled up to make larger parts.
Look forward to seeing Carbon fiber 3d printed guns being developed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L9mHtL1HTs
FYI- Cody purchased a Mark 1 within a day after posting the bounty.
"a relatively small and affordable CNC milling machine that could easily manufacture the lower receiver of an AR-15"
How about:
"a relatively small and affordable CNC milling machine" STOP.
I love how media likes to paint something as evil if it can be remotely associated with the subject of their agenda.
It's a milling machine. Just like a hammer is a hammer.
Yes, the best possible outcome to attempting to overthrow the government with guns:
Massive disruption in trade leading to a massive increase in poverty. Everyone will lose loved ones from starvation (food will get burned in the fields or can't get transported due to violence), violence, and poor medical care (see notes on starvation). Industries will collapse, some groups will decide to consolidate their power through violence and this will lead to genocide and warlords.
So, basically hell on earth or prepper heaven.
Cheap storage VM.
That sniper can hold down a squad, but not a squad with air support or artillery, welcome to WW2 era tactics. IED's and hit and run tactics are definitely where it's at, but you can't win with those tactics. The best you can hope for is to not lose before the other side gives up. You make life a hell on earth for civilians.
A civil war fought like that is nothing like an invasion force fighting against that. (bad grammer, sorry) Look at Syria for a lesson.
Cheap storage VM.
Rule of law, social norms, and trained police / military will do a pretty good job.
Cheap storage VM.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics! [enablingthefuture.org]
And yet your sig advocates the 3D printing of arms! Make up your mind. ;)
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
I work with some of those former military types. From some of my talks with them: It is also important to note that active duty military are required to follow lawful orders, not all orders. It is the duty of any military member to immediately detain someone issuing an unlawful order regardless of rank. Not having served myself, I don't know how this matches the military regulations, but that isa seemingly widely held understanding of their obligation. It seems a bit naive to consider the military as a cohesive pro-government force if an issue is big enough for a significant number of civilian gun-owners revolt.
Vietnam would beg to differ. You just have to be willing to drop a whole building to take out a few tanks. Then a small army can beat an organized and supported military. It's about commitment.
If half the country supports you, and most of the rest don't really oppose you, it doesn't really matter whether you just have sticks and stones, the army can't kill everybody.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
First poster should be shot on sight, fuck him. I'd deliver his shit for free if I had the means. Fuck fedex too.
Always good to get an official quote from the NRA.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Nukes are a different animal, but I'll let you in on a secret. It is legal to own military hardware (tanks, fighters, bombers), it is just very expensive.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
And as a Canadian, I won't let him.
Interesting. And how, exactly, do you plan to stop him? Remember, you don't have a gun, but he does. "Who said I don't have a gun?" The fact that you are opposing firearm ownership by the general public proves it. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.
Jesus Tittyfucking Christ, it's like reading a post from a seven year old school bully.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You seem to think that "not agreeing with your spin" is the same as "avoiding." Once again: no amount of side-bar commentary from people like Hamilton remarking on how handy it is to have a usable military when one is needed, or how a skilled (in weapon use) citizenry is more likely to be able to stand up to tyranny than an unskilled citizenry (this is a simple observation of fact) changes the fact that the amendment was written to be sure that nobody could confuse the nation's need to have a military available with the rights of the people to be individually armed if they so choose - that status being an essential counterbalance to an armed central government. They didn't protect that right because it was handy in forming armies, they protected that right BECAUSE there was going to be an army, and they didn't want to just re-create Britain's military monopoly of force all over again.
Your deliberate attempt to make the second amendment somehow about the maintenance of skills reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire constitution. It doesn't grant rights (it limits the government's ability to interfere with them). It doesn't define a right as being grudgingly necessary in order to maintain some set of skills should an army need to be raised or opposed - it simply recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms already exists and that they consider it so important (like speech, and assembly, etc) that they take a moment to explicitly prevent the government from interfering with it. Why? Because they knew it - like speech, and assembly, or the establishment of a state religion - was exactly the sort of thing that some future group of voted-in idiots would probably try to mess with.
furthermore, if you consider yourself a responsible gun owner, or just a responsible person, period, are you saying owning a gun is something that does not require training, discipline and mastery?
No, owning a gun requires none of those things. Just like owning razor sharp kitchen knives or a gallon of gasoline requires none of those things. But if you use an axe, or a pistol, or a bucket of rat poison in a reckless or malicious way, there are going to be serious consequences - just like if you were to beat someone over the head with a baseball bat. But owning a baseball bat or a piece of steel pipe, despite their lethality (more people are killed every year using club-like items and blunt objects or bare hands than by all types of rifles used both maliciously and accidentally) is not something that requires mastery, no. What's required is mastery of your own civil behavior. True with guns, as well as with things that are far more deadly in society (like cars).
the founding fathers clearly did not think that
The founding fathers had nothing to say on your imagined thesis. People like Hamilton pointed out that people won't be able to resist tyranny if they're no good at using their own weapons, but that has NOTHING to do with "shall not be infringed," when it comes to preventing the government from interfering with their rights to own the weapons. You talk about cowardly intellectual dishonesty, and here you are completely fabricating some sort of early-version federal gun skill regulation that didn't exist, was never suggested, and would have been absolutely inconceivably ridiculous to the people who chartered the nation.
do you stand against the wishes of the founding fathers as clearly stated in second amendment?
No, just against your completely BS fantasy of what it means. Next I suppose you'll tell us that they also thought the first amendment was really them saying that everyone should be able to conjugate verbs properly.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Intentional rewording of what you said:
I fucking HOPE the government oppresses this group I don't agree with. They deserve the oppression because they say things I don't like.
If this is truly how you feel, please feel free to move to another country as your beliefs are incompatible with the values of the US.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Did you deliberately misread the second amendment?
Well regulated = functional
Militia = everyone, as in the posse setup to hunt down that outlaw
The guns were supposed to be privately owned. It is not to repel the US government, as that is no longer possible, but to repel a red dawn type of attack. This won't work if there aren't enough people who own guns.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Marginal issues that have no effect on most people's lives and certainly don't invalidate my "roughly on par" statement.
Don't get me wrong their libel laws suck. Plus we're probably coming close to similar laws in regards to encryption here in the US as well. Just give it some time
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Is it better then to just shut up and allow an elite few to tell you exactly what you will and will not be allowed to do? Or say? Or drive, or wear or eat? This assumes of course that the elite are able or willing to actually provide you with basic staples of life, but history suggests otherwise.
At some point when governance becomes a very real tyranny would you remain a "safe" obedient tool? Or would you risk what is necessary to be free?
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
The irony is that you could be referring to either of the quotes you posted...
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-c...
Historians are often asked what the Founders would
think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such
questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of
the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this:
that the authors of the Second Amendment would be
flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican
principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also
precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous
property as firearms, which governments had always
regulated when there was “real danger of public injury
from individuals.” 2 DHRC at 624.
so who is full of ignorant bombast? who are you? just a nobody on the Internet. I'll be siding with what the founding fathers actually said, and historians agree on
you're going to have a hard time adjusting to the change that is coming. my ancestor fought in the revolution as a musketman, the second amendment was written for him. and i am proud of the constitution he fought for and i will not see it defiled. it will be enforced as *actually written and intended*
not as it was rewritten by dirty harry hotheads 50 years ago with no historical foundation. history will show that period to be an aberration. the second amendment is about community service, muskets, and the frontier. not about individual action, handguns, and urban crime
and most importantly, if you think you are going to win an argument by endorsing irresponsibility, you must know somewhere in your mind, in spite of all the denial and closed mindedness, that you will lose. there must be some inkling somewhere back in the dust in your skull that the *conservative* principle of personal *responsibility* is the foundation of morality and law. and to champion a broken legal status quo that champions irresponsibility is just not going to last. sorry but "a hand a gun to any mouth breathing douchebag who wants one" is not a winning position friend
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They are started with a capital letter and end with a period.
Your assumptions are incorrect because the US Constitution predates modern spelling reforms.
Sentences in English have started with a capital letter and ended with a period since at least Chaucer's time. Also, spelling is not the same as grammar.
But, apart from that, an interesting and informative post.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Or a chew toy. Or a switchblade. Or a baby pacifier.
Who cares?
The only thing that keeps us safe from bad people is a lack of bad people that want to do us harm. Anyone anywhere can make or procure the necessary materials to kill, maim, or otherwise harm someone else or commit mass murder. Legislating common tools like a mill or a hammer is an affirmation by a sponsoring legislator that they might not be particularly intelligent and that only the most reactionary fear based rhetoric can move legislation in modern America.
As.for this scheister...he is no revolutionary hand model. He might as well be screeching, "F=ma....F=ma!!!". The only reason he is getting attention in the first place is because he is obsessively calling attention to simple truths that cross people's preconceived notions about security, government sanctions, rights, etc.
I'm always surprised how basic discussions of these things become embroiled in frothy emotional Turret's outbursts on every side of an issue.
"They love authority and control, it's in their culture."
Hahaha. Okay, I'll just believe this because you say so.
I suppose their parliamentary democracy was thrust upon them from outside sources as well then?
"As for militias vs regular modern armies... The Taliban defeated NATO."
The Taliban "defeated" NATO? So the Taliban now rule Afghanistan? I must have missed something in the news...
If you're referring to our lack of a clear victory in Afghanistan, that had more to do with commitment on our part which is why citing a foreign occupation is a bad example. Syria is a prime example. Libya is another good example, those people were getting butchered by artillery and air power before our air strikes began.
If civilian militias can't defeat third tear armies fighting for their survival how will they fair againts first tear? I mean, think about it. How would that play out? Would it be like the 80's movie Red Dawn where a bunch of Americans with rifles savage the Soviet Army?
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
That is odd. I can pick up amphetamines from CVS in 30 days supplies (by prescription for my kid's ADHD). Why would they prevent you from buying allergy pills?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
That is a great idea, I will have to look into it. The boy scouts teach making bows as part of archery merit badge, maybe this is something I can do with the kids.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Of course the British now enjoy rights roughly on par with our own and without the need for wide spread gun ownership.
They do? Last I checked, they had those crazy libel laws where truth is not a defense, and refusing a demand of the law enforcement to disclose the key for anything encrypted you might have in your possession is punishable by several years in prison.
Truth is most certainly a defence in libel, it's just that you have to prove it (the assumption is that a defamatory statement is false).
As for the encryption thing, what's the difference between the police getting a warrant to seize your computer inside your locked house and the courts forcing you to reveal encrypted potential evidence?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Doesn't the 1st Amendment allow him to post those blueprints?
Not according to the BATF and federal prosecutors.
One of the things F-troop has been doing is sending people into gun shows to ask gun-smithly people what the internal differences are between a semi- and full-auto models of various gun designs, such as the M-16 (select-fire) and AR-15 (semi-auto only).
If they reply with information, they are then busted for conspiracy to convert a gun to full auto in violation of federal laws and regulations.
Lots of people are in jail for that, now.
I can't help thinking that being a gun-smith doesn't require much in the way of common sense if they're caught that easily.
Mind you, I also can't believe that someone could be convicted on federal conspiracy charges with such flimsy evidence. Are you sure that the Feds didn't subsequently find something like a cache of actually converted weapons?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If you want that, feel free to put forth the constitutional amendment that is needed to fulfill your desire. It will fail utterly, and we will all laugh at you; but it is what you want, right?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
They can do it right now with child porn or drugs. Why should I care specifically about guns?
Give me liberty or give me death.
Why do you feel like you have to dictate what everyone else can do? This is antithesis to the values of the USA. If you want to control what other people can and cannot do go become a dictator. I hear it is a pretty healthy career path.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
No amendment necessary. Just reinterpret the "well-organized" words and presto!
The Vietnamese did not win, America lost (lost interest, lost heart, lost a lot of lives). An occupying force is much different then a civil war (see Syria).
Cheap storage VM.
Please, define assault rifle. None of the politicians have been able to say more than "I'll know it when I see it".
Now, if you mean automatic weapons, those can be legally obtained. You can buy tanks too, perfectly legal. If you are concerned about people making their own guns, you should be terrified by the legal tank business out there.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I have a voice in government today. My impact is small, but my rights and voice are real. You would trade the "elite's" you don't like, for some "elite's" that you think you like, who will turn out to be, or be replaced by someone terrible.
See - almost every coup in history.
Your basically pinning your hopes on another George Washington.
Cheap storage VM.
Ah, I was not aware that you're The Official Speaker For All the Men and Women (Including Transgender Persons) Of The United States.
Meanwhile, the actual people in the US overwhelmingly support sane gun laws (mandatory registration, background checks and so on).
So why do you hate democracy? Why do you hate America? Are you some kind of terrorist?
done read the weapon shops of isher too many times.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
You might think it's safe to say that, but it's completely wrong.
The number of guns in private hands in the US has doubled since the early 1990s. Yet the number of deaths (accidental or criminal) has plummeted, and the number of shootings (accidental or criminal) has plummeted as well. We have safer guns, and better gun education.
The number of accidental deaths hasn't plummeted, it's stayed pretty constant, down a small fraction. https://cbssanfran.files.wordp...
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the constitution? Are you some kind of dictator?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I would also like to point out that sane gun laws (like what you mention) is a hell of a way from:
I fucking HOPE that government confiscates guns from these gun-fondlers. They are demostratably NOT responsible gun owners.
They are not even in the same state, let alone the same ball park.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
who are you? just a nobody on the Internet
Like yourself, you mean? Why does your footprint on this web site, which includes your inability to do things like use the shift key, make you in any way more valuable to society or a more informed thinker? Please be specific about your credentials, skipping over the part about how an ancestor did something that has nothing whatsoever to do with your own actions or abilities.
it will be enforced as *actually written and intended*
Right, It was intended to and written to protect the rights of you and me to free from government interference in our ability to defend ourselves, especially from an over-reaching armed force answering to politicians. Read what the founders actually said about why they realized the need to amend the country's charter specifically to prevent the government from in any way curtailing that right.
if you think you are going to win an argument by endorsing irresponsibility
Out of curiosity, what do you think it helps to pretend that somebody has said something they haven't? How does that deception help? Please quote my endorsement of irresponsibility. Be specific about where I say irresponsibility is a good thing.
there must be some inkling somewhere back in the dust in your skull that the *conservative* principle of personal *responsibility* is the foundation of morality and law
Leaving aside your embarassing need to use ad hominem in order to distract from a weakly supported position, how is saying that the constitution protects individuals from government interference with personal liberty in any way at odds with someone being personally responsible for their own actions? The people who think that the constitution is actually a prescription for government involvement in how others own items like cars, baseball bats, rifles, and matches are the ones who do NOT respect personal responsibility and consequences for one's choices. No, they are for prior restraint and a nanny state that saves people from their own liberty.
sorry but "a hand a gun to any mouth breathing douchebag who wants one" is not a winning position friend
Since you choose to embrace the erosion of the constitution and the liberties that it defends, no, you're not allowed to call me "friend." You are not friendly to the constitution, nor to people who are glad it was written.
... so, with pointy, bladed tools being used in thousands and thousands of deaths every year, where is your panicky enthusiasm for having the government step in and prevent people you don't like from owning steak knives? Please address that directly.
But since you're so worried about some "mouth breathing douchebag" getting a gun, you must be extremely anxious to have the constitution amended to deal with things that have proven to be far, far more dangerous than citizens owning guns. I'll be curious to hear your ideas on how to reduce people's liberties by getting rid of the cars that are involved in far more deaths, or the sports programs that injure and kill thousands of kids. Or the pipes, bats, and bare hands that are used to kill far more people than any sort of rifle or shotgun. To say nothing of knives, or matches.
Where is your handwringing concern about the "douchebags" who are allowed to own kitchen knives? The founding fathers certainly knew about how people could die by the knife or sword, but it never occurred to them to explicitly protect you from the government taking them away (because they would consider that to be completely preposterous)
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Ah, so you don't deny that you hate democracy? Good, now that we have your admission of guilt we can proceed with the assumption that you're a terrorist.
Oh, and get your facts straight - I'm a leftist commie statist. To become a dictator one should first become the ultimate power.
Since gun fondlers are impervious to reason, it's better to start from the extreme position. You want every toddler carry an untraceable gun suitable only for crimes but not for legitimate self-defence?
Fine. So we want to ban all guns then.
Truth is most certainly a defence in libel, it's just that you have to prove it (the assumption is that a defamatory statement is false).
Which effectively makes it a "whose lawyers are better" game, protecting the rich and powerful. There's a reason why most other developed countries don't do it that way.
As for the encryption thing, what's the difference between the police getting a warrant to seize your computer inside your locked house and the courts forcing you to reveal encrypted potential evidence?
The difference is that you're not required to assist the police in executing said warrant, and it is not considered a crime for you to not do so. Also, AFAIK, the UK law basically presupposes that encryption is even possible at all.
Yeah, us Americans had such an easy time with those simple minded desert dwellers in Iraq, didn't we. Just take a look at the combat we have been in lately and you can easily see that a bunch of guys with AR-15s can do quite a lot against the full on US military.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
I suppose it doesn't matter who the authoritarian is, it could be a dictator or the state itself.
I don't hate democracy, but rule of the majority is what brought about the worst abuses of the gay rights saga, so if you are pulling for that, then you don't believe in democracy either. Isn't it great that we have a representative republic instead of a straight democracy? It sure seems to have helped the homosexual cause.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Funny that you would attack me personally as a gun fondler. Would it surprise you to hear that I have never, and probably will never own a firearm? I have had 2 swords and a battle ax in my house since my children were little though. Does this suddenly make me a bad parent?
You have also gone from sensible to full on crazy, so I am done dealing with you. When you are prepared to submit the constitutional amendment needed to get rid of all guns, you can feel free to do so, until then, get the hell out of the gun debate you bigot.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I gave two possible interpretations of the Amendment. You have explained the pro-gun rights interpretation quite well, but have neglected to provide any proof that the anti-gun rights interpretation is incorrect. Which means you haven't actually disagreed with anything I said, you've merely explained one side of the debate.
The anti-gun-rightsd position is that the Amendment allows states to create, regulate, and train militia forces. But that's a state right, not a personal right. The personal right is entirely dependent on the condition in the first half of the sentence. All of which means you (as an individual person) have no inalienable right to bear arms unless you are part of the organized militia (the disorganized militia we're all members of by statute is not "regulated" in the 1789 sense of the term) of your state. Mostly that's the National Guard, but almost half the states have their own separate militia organized around Title 32, Section 109 of the US Code.
To actually contradict my case you'll have to prove one of several very difficult things: Conditional clauses don't exist; This particular clause cannot (for some grammatical reason) be conditional; etc.
Except back then even cannons were owned by private citizens. Had a battle coming up and needed a cannon? Start talking to the well-to-do in the town to see who can bring out their big weaponry.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Or they could just move to a country without the freedoms that they fear so greatly!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
"Which effectively makes it a "whose lawyers are better game, protecting the rich and powerful."
And that differs from the US how?
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
In that particular respect (libel... i.e. often telling inconvenient truths), US is better by a long shot, since the burden of proof is on the party that's claiming to have been libeled.
i stopped reading there
why do you keep changing the topic?
you either lack the intellectual capacity to understand the simple paragraph, or you are being purposefully intellectually dishonest and avoiding the point you don't have an answer for, rather than conceding a point like someone with integrity
1. read again
2. show you understand what the historians' paragraph says
3. then maybe i will read a comment from you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So making it harder to get your hands on a firearm solves, or at least lessens, suicide ?
I didn't say that, and I don't know if that's true in general. The only data point that I have is that the overall suicide rate did decrease in Australia after the gun buyback.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
So basically you're convinced that a government determined enough to grab all firearms won't bother to do any other kind of investigative work on you?
For example, a simple warrant for all credit card records relating to defense distributed would get all the guys who bought that mill. If they have the votes to ban AR-15s, they have the votes to ban the Mill. If the mill is banned, and they know you bought one, they have probable cause for a warrant to search your house.
And now you're in jail, and all your guns are grabbed.
Absolutely the opposite. I pin my hopes on the *lack* of another George Washington. I believe that the founders produced the best protection the common man has ever had. And while it is most certainly not perfect, it has not been matched in history in its primary purpose to prevent tyranny over a populace.
If that doctrine is faithfully upheld the power is rightfully in the hands of the governed, rather than those who govern. If the principles outlined therein are enforced, then it matters little who is actually in power, because the limitations on their impact to the governed is absolute. It's not until short-term populace influence modifies those powers specifically outlined by the founders grants power to those who can convince a short sighted and angry electorate to contradict the Constitution do we find ourselves in a bind.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
And to elaborate:
I don't wish to grant any new power to ANY authority. I don't want the President, the House, the Senate, the EPA, the Dept, or Ed, the Dept of Defense, the Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of Homeland Security... NONE OF THEM.
Today, in this period, under these leaders, with this global stage, it might seem completely reasonable to grant powers to those whom we entrust to govern us, tomorrow under a new President, and a new Congress, and a new global stage, things well me wholly different. 25 years from now you cant say "well that's not what I meant when I gave that power." Your opinion is no longer required.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
This mill is only the newest, and probably easiest method to mill your own lowers. Others use normal shop mills, some drill-presses, some routers, and with polymer lowers, all you need is a dremel tool. They certainly couldn't get warrants for anyone owning a dremel, or a drill press on the grounds that they may have made non-serialized weapons with it.
As far as this CNC goes, sure, they may have some kind of record of who has purchased one, and be fairly certain that they probably bought it in order to produce a firearm. However, they won't know all the people who made one on that mill. Suppose for a second that someone buys this CNC machine. They then have a "party" at their house with their buddies, who all bring over 'paperweights'. At the end of the day, a dozen friends all go home with a CNC'd non-tracable lower. While the owner of the mill would have a paper trail, the other dozen guys wouldn't. What if you had a mill, and did this every weekend with an open invite? How many people would be untracable from just a single CNC machine.
In fact, milling parties are quite common, and there are some rules to follow to be legal. Mainly, each person has to manufacture their OWN receiver, without help from another person. With traditional mills and drill presses, this would require each person to know how to operate the equipment all by themselves, without a helping hand. With this CNC, it just requires the person to press a few keys on the keyboard, so doing it without assistance is easier. If you've seen the video of the guy, notice that he sets it all up, and the person who will own the receiver has to be the person that starts and ultimately runs the machine to produce the receiver.
And to your first question, what I am convinced of, is that it would take a lot more work, and research to try to do as you suggest for each and every person in the country, vs. printing off a pre-made database of all registered owners. Personally, I don't think it would take longer than a day or two of raids, before it made news, and you'd have people moving to their "Plan B" whatever that is, and also be ready for search and seizure raids that would be coming to their neighborhood soon.
i stopped reading there
Why? You don't like people commenting on an out-of-context quote that YOU posted? Still being hilarious.
avoiding the point you don't have an answer for
I've addressed it directly. You're doing everything possible to use lazy ad hominem and playing dumb in order to avoid dealing the basic facts.
The second amendment wasn't written as a skill mandate. Your attempt to portray it that way is laughable. Your completely out of context use of an historian's quote doesn't backup up your opinion, it directly contradicts it. I don't need to "show" you anything, but I can get a laugh from your attempt to twist things around. Unfortunately, it's not really very funny when people completely misunderstand the constitution. It's there to prevent the government from interfering with liberties, not to list out ways in which certain rights can be bestowed in the interests some particular goal that you're fabricating out of thin air from a misunderstood historical reference.
The constitution doesn't grant rights. It protects them. You want to treat it like a regulatory framework. Absurd.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
the founding fathers, in the text of second amendment, and ancillary texts, clearly intended guns for well-trained individuals. there is no second amendment that supports handing out guns to any douchebag that wants one. adhering faithfully to the second amendment requires us to make sure all gun owners are adequately trained. i love the constitution and i want it enforced as intended, not warped by irresponsible assholes going against conservative principles of personal accountability
and i've supported my assertion in this thread, not that it's controversial or difficult to see. i've made my argument here well
but rather than concede the simple point, you change the subject. this is the intellectual dishonest way of conceding that someone is correct and that they have taught you something, even though it's obvious that i have
so you are welcome for the education today on the founding fathers, the constitution, and the conservative principle of responsibility
thread over
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As I recall, if you are a soldier and follow an unlawful order, you and your superior who gave the order, are responsible for that action. It is your responsibility to refuse the order and report it up your chain of command.
I did a lot of mental wargames with ex-military people over the years. They are interesting to think about. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it if it happened.
This is just a frontal assault scenario, extremely simplified. It also assumes the rebel faction has sufficient numbers to make it past the first encounter.
Imagine the first wave is 100 rebels storming the White House. The Secret Service and local law enforcement will be calling for a cleanup of 100 bodies on the lawn. Possibly the arrest of a few injured survivors.
You can be sure reinforcements will be called in.
The second wave of 1,000 rebels attempt to storm the White House. They might make it to the newly extended buffer zone, blocks away.
As someone else said, these civilians with weapons and passenger vehicles are facing the military at this point. They aren't just going to hang out waiting at the perimeter. They're going to aggressively hunt and stop the threat. So word will spread when that hunting goes a bit wrong. Like a AH-64 lights up a suspected rebel faction stronghold with the M230. That may turn out to just be an apartment building with women and children in it. That could have even been
Around the 4th or 5th attack, assuming the rebel propaganda machine was working, soldiers are going to start questioning what they're doing. They might sympathize with the rebels. They might recognize the fact that they're fighting other Americans. Who is right, a bunch of people willing to die over their belief, or the people who sign the paychecks. This is when the power may shift. The military would still have superior communications. Rebel factions would have poorer communications and intelligence, but would have numbers and motivation.
BTW, I intentionally wrote that with no motives behind it. It really doesn't matter what the reasons are. It will be messy.
There are other tactics that would change things dramatically. Say it were done quieter and a single shift at a single air base was infiltrated. They could put a few squadrons of fighter/attack aircraft in the air and on target in less than an hour. It could be booked as an "exercise". There is one I found with just a few quick searches that has enough aircraft and weapons to take a small country. I'm sure there are others.
pnutjam said in another comment, that won't happen and to use Syria as an example.
ISIS did that in Syria. Al-Tabqa air base, Aug 2014. That was less than 1,000 ISIS fighters in 3(?) waves.
I read mixed reports on how many aircraft they captured, how many were functional, and if they were used. Some said none were functional. Another report said two ISIS MiG-21Bs were shot down there. Other reports say that they are still using some MiG-21Bs on ground strikes.
So, yes, civilians with any sort of weapon can be dangerous. It doesn't even have to be homemade AR-15s.
Luckily, American civilians are disorganized and poorly motivated. Hell, look at OWS (New York). They had up to about 50,000 marchers. That's not a little protest. That's an army. They had no goal and no coordination, since they were intentionally lacking leadership. It could have flipped from being unarmed, to capturing everything the police brought. But even if they did that, they wouldn't have a clue where to go after that.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
The response is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the right is reserved to the people not to the states. The Bill of Rights applies to the people, only in the 10th does the rights of the States come into play. The 1st applies to the people, the 2nd to the people, the third to the people, the fourth to the people the 5th to the people, get the drift?
The right protected in the 2nd is the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms just as the freedom of speech and religion is the freedom of the people. It's not a conditional clause, it's an introductory clause explaining why the right of the people must be protected.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Hey AC. :)
It's all good, I know things don't always come across quite right. I didn't consider it too trollish.
More than likely if it did come down to a large faction versus another large faction, and the authorities (law enforcement and/or military) were divided on the cause, they'd be handing out weapons and gear anyways, and still run out of ammo too fast.
Either side would probably have to "borrow" from gun stores anyways. I don't think even most local law enforcement has enough real firepower to handle war like battles.
Look at cases like this. 23 officers fired at least 377 rounds in less than a minute. Even the professionals don't control themselves in less than critical situations. If that was a combat situation and they reloaded, they'd all be out of ammo before the fight started, and realize they took out an empty vehicle or apartment. Well, hopefully empty.
I happen to be one of the people who does have weapons, including an AR-15. I have quite a few magazines, and I buy ammo by the case. I really don't like paying range prices for ammo, and I don't like wasting range time reloading magazines.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
there is no second amendment that supports handing out guns to any douchebag that wants one
There is no second amendment that hands ANYTHING out to ANYONE. You're still completely misunderstanding the entire constitution. It doesn't "allow" something to happen, it prevents the government from interfering with something from happening.
If we applied your same complete confusion to the first amendment, you'd be suggesting that that amendment doesn't support providing printing presses to "just any douchebag." The first amendment isn't about handing out privilege or tools of communication to approved people any more than the second amendment is about handing out privilege or personal firearms. BOTH amendments are a chartered guarantee that the government CANNOT INFRINGE EXISTING RIGHTS in either area. The rights are considered inherent in their nature, and the founders went out of their way to make sure that the government couldn't interfere.
adhering faithfully to the second amendment requires us to make sure all gun owners are adequately trained
No. The constitution makes absolutely no requirement that farmer Jones is a good shot with the rifle he owns. Just like the first amendment makes no requirement that you learn how to use the shift key. Farmer Jones being a lousy marksman because the government hasn't trained or tested him in the military sense, or you being a lousy written communicator because the government hasn't trained or tested you in how to use the shift key on your keyboard make no difference with respect to farmer Brown's protected right to own a rifle, or your right to communicate, even if you can't make yourself clearer by hitting shift.
i love the constitution
No, you don't. You love the idea of an imaginary one that you're dreaming up, which instead of limiting the government's power over you as the framers intended, is instead the opposite - a document that places regulatory burdens on you. You have the entire purpose of the constitution exactly backwards. People who think the constitution grants rights to the people, and thus comes with baked-in limits on those rights, have never even seriously undertaking an elementary school level study of history.
i want it enforced as intended
Another sign you don't even understand what the constitution IS. The constitution isn't "enforced" against the citizens. It's not ABOUT the citizens. It's "enforced" against the government itself. The document is there to reign in government power, to protect us from its inevitable over-reaches. The founders couldn't be clearer about that. Everything else they leave up to the states, including things like criminal codes.
warped by irresponsible assholes going against conservative principles of personal accountability
So you think the act of owning a firearm is irresponsible? Or do you mean that you're worried about the irresponsible USE of a firearm? You know, the sort of thing for which we have countless laws in place which absolutely do hold you accountable for irresponsible behavior. Just like if you cut someone's throat with a kitchen knife, or run someone down with your car. The US Constitution isn't where criminal codes are defined. Do you think the framers though it was OK to cut someone's throat for no reason, or through recklessness while removing stumps from a farm field with barrels of black powder, accidentally blowing up people passing by on the road? No? Right. But in your backwards vision of the constitution, there would somewhere be an amendment that outlines the rights of people to use knives or explosives ... but only with correct government training. Which is absurd, and you know it.
and i've supported my assertion in this thread
No, you haven't supported it at all. Exactly the opposite. You're displaying
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The sheep can't tell the difference between the wolf and the sheepdog. The wolf in sheep's clothing sure is reassuring, though, so I'll just vote for him.
Now, who's ready to vote on what we are having for dinner tonight?
... To actually contradict my case you'll have to prove one of several very difficult things: Conditional clauses don't exist; This particular clause cannot (for some grammatical reason) be conditional; etc.
That argument may be plausable by the syntax, but is not Historically correct. Read the debates they had.
By the way, the words "well regulated", in this context, means regular or using the same ammunition, parts and uniform clothing. For ease of supply. It has nothing to do with laws, it means the civilian militia needs to have military equipment available.
Except that nobody actually collects those stats. CDC is expressly forbidden from studying gun death epidemiology. Well, truth has always been the enemy of conservatives.
That was because one or more of the CDC reserchers was caught lying about the data. look it up...
Well, a bunch of armed groups seizing power is certainly the best way to enable this scenario.
When I say, "another George Washington", I meant someone who is willing to step down and relinquish power. That's not a common attribute, I doubt it's anywhere to be found in the rabid tea-tardist camp. They want to be in charge and make sure we do things their way or die in a ditch.
Cheap storage VM.
... The Founders strongly opposed the idea of private armies, and in fact when people tried to set up their own military force outside of the Militia they were found guilty of treason and shut down by the army. ...
Actually, you have it backwards. The Founders strongly opposed the idea of a government Standing Army. There was only an army during the war, it was disbanded afterward. There was -only- supposed to be civilian militia, no Army. They did keep a Navy because they had to maintain the ships, I think.
They did make a standing army later, I think maybe 1812 but it might not have been until the Civil War.
Nope. It's because that might uncover very inconvenient truths for gun fondlers.
You can't read the debates they had. There are no minutes for the Constitutional Convention. There are numerous high-IQ people who don't understand the difference between "the people" and an individsual person who swear up and down that every time a Founder mentioned the collective group klnown as the people have the right to own guns it means that every single individual among that group had the right to own precisely the arsenal he wanted, but these people suck at a) grammar, and b) history.
One of the defining elements of an individual right is they can't make you do it, if you choose to do it they can't say what you do with it, etc. Obama can't pass a law saying all people have to publicly denounce Mitt Romney, go to secret Kenyan Muslim Church, and subscribe to the New York Times. Yet George Washington ordered all American men to a) buy a gun, b) buy a specific model, and c) register it with a dual hatted state/Federal local militia captain so that he could force guys who had two to bring them to militia drill and share with the poor. That's not an individual right of every American to own whatever firearm he wants, it';s a collective right for the people of that local county to have enough arms (and proper arms) to defend themselves from a) the Indians, b) the British, and c) the Feds.
Note that I'm not saying the pro-gun control side is right with these posts. I honestly have no fucking idea how the Founders would apply a rule intended to create a vast militia to support a minuscule standing army in a time when a) no state actually has militia duty, and b) the Federal military is large enough that it could totally crush the rifle-armed militia of any individual state in a week.
If milling parties are not so common that there are 3 million households with a fully milled AR-15 receiver they aren't common enough to seriously inconvenience gun-grabbers. You're treating the Feds, who literally have a $1 Trillion budget and the sovereign right to borrow $80 billion for no good reason, like they're the Ferguson PD or something.
To do this they'd need a Constitutional Amendment. That can;t happen unless 38 states want it to happen, and if 38 states want it to happen then 38 states are full of people who want your guns to be grabbed, and if the voters of 38 states send gun-grabbers to Congress and force a Constitutional Amendment it's likely that Congress adds Billion$ to the ATF budget every year until your ass is in jail.
That ATF that can track you down, get a warrant for the buddy they knew had to be at your party, when they find his receiver they can threaten him with prison until he snitches about the rest of your party-goers, who then get to choose between prison and snitching on the two guys your buddy forgot/that other milling party they heard about/etc.
Actually most Tea Party people just want government to leave them the fuck alone. They disdain government's intrusion, they don't trust it, and they would be far from interested in being directly associated with it. Most wouldn't run for office for fear of the rot in DC contaminating themselves. For the most part they just want government to be held to the limits that people like George Washington deliberately and purposefully crafted into the Constitution.
It's people who write law after law saying stupid shit like you're not allowed to buy a 32oz coke in a restaurant, or that you can have salt shakers on the table that want control over everything, and those people are not Tea Partiers. Those people are mocked by Tea Partiers. Those are the people who write laws that mean to prevent you from ever becoming guilty of making a mistake, rather than assuming your innocent, like our system of laws is intended.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Sure, that's the story when they are not on top. Just wait until they are calling the shots with a small army at their back (hopefully never). Look at the dumb stuff that went down at Cliven's ranch.
Cheap storage VM.
That's because you were asleep in history class. The United States was ruled by the most powerful Army and Navy in the world at the time. It was because we were armed that we could fight for our freedom. Look into history, look into how and why. It's very interesting. Also, understand that gun control is racist and why. You don't want to be a racist bigot asshole, do you? Then you can't be for gun control.
Now, where do I get my free CNC machine?
One could speculate that the increase in suicide with firearms is related to the increase in veteran suicides...
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
Waco, even if you believe the government story was over a $200 dollar tax. And they called up dozens of agents per person in the compound, not just one tank. And you need to brush up on guerrilla tactics. You don't stand at the top of the hill shooting at planes and tanks. Take out strategic targets and fade back into the noise. Tanks and plains are expensive. Rifles and nitroglycerin are cheap.
The best way to overthrow the government is just stop paying taxes and join in resilient economic communities. There may come a day when violent revolution is better than continuing to live under an oppressive regime, but yes there will be wailing and gnashing of the teeth if such a course becomes necessary.
Absolutely accurate assessment. It was dumb shit. And as soon as people figured out it was little more than dumb shit by a backward dipshit redneck, they distanced themselves fast because they knew it was WRONG.
Quite unlike the cult of personality aimed at certain political figures who will be defended to the media's dying breath, and in turn eaten up by weak-minded, intellectually dishonest populace, no matter how egregious the failures or betrayals may be.
Not just people who consider themselves Tea Partiers (which I am not included in), but also those who are independents and libertarians feel a need to challenge elected officials to actually uphold their oaths of office. They are currently slamming both Democrats and Republicans alike because they are sick and tired of having stupid shit rammed down their throats. You, and many like you seem to want to excuse every power grab, every lie, every failure, and every injustice. And I cant tell if it's because you're terrified of being called a racist or a misogynists (like you're so fond of calling anyone who challenges this administration, or Democrats in general), or if it's because you're too shallow to call out the people you voted for.
And while we're on the topic, and as you eluded to but cant seem to make the leap of critical thinking to comprehend; You allow these idiots in Washington to keep taking more power, and keep telling you that you have to do this, and you cant do that. And you allow it because you think this guy is so awesome and kind , he won a Nobel Peace Prize for Christ's sake! You believe its impossible that he/they/whatever wont abuse the powers they are taking. But what if the next guy, or the guy 4 elections from now is the worst of the worst right-wing bible thumping gun toting complete fucking nutjob?
YOU GAVE HIM ALL THE POWER HE NEEDS TO FUCK YOU OVER, AND SCREAMED AT THE IDIOT TEA PARTIERS FOR COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.
When you're bitching in a decade because shit has come completely off the fucking rails, don't come talk to me about.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
I hope you are under professional care. I'm no Democrat or Republican. I'm doing my part to reign in the government overreach. My only point is that armed insurrection is a fools game and will only lead to worse problems.
Cheap storage VM.
My guess is that you have causation confused on this one. Presumably if those people were that depressed and they hadn't had a firearm, they still would have committed suicide using some other means.
As I noted elsewhere, we don't actually know if this is true or not, but there is one data point: the overall suicide rate in Australia went down immediately after the gun buyback.
One data point does not a trend make, and even if it was a causal relationship, this doesn't imply that the same would be true in the US. Australia has a real public health system, remember. So yes, we're both presuming. More data is needed.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
This project is beyond sick! The more firearms there are the more damage they do. If Mr. Wilson had just one speck of responsibility, moral, and ethic in his body he would build a machine that effectively destroys guns. But maybe that is the plan? The 3D printed guns did not hold up well in the tests and are more likely to harm the shooter than anyone else.