"Right, I said the ight to bear arms was granted to protect other rights as a matter of last resort."
But it wasn't. Again, this is wrong. The founders' own writings clearly show that the Constitution and Bill of Rights (which includes the 2nd Amendment) merely LISTED rights that they considered already existed by nature of our humanity. The government did not "grant" those rights, at all.
"However it is granted to you in the recognition that it may be necessary to exercise it as a last resto to defend other rights e.g; home invasion or tyrranical regime."
Historically, this is wrong.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not "grant" rights. They merely enumerated rights that were already considered to exist, by nature of our humanity. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment. (The founders considered the right of defense to be a fundamental human right.)
The Constitution -- and the government -- have no power to "grant" actual rights. If something can be granted, it can be taken away... which makes it a privilege, not a "right".
That is precisely why copyrights and patents are described as "limited" rights. They aren't actual rights per se, but are granted by government for only a limited time. They aren't "natural" rights like the others.
"To be pedantic, the Thompson was actually designed to be a literal 'assault weapon'."
You're not being pedantic. Even today, a Thompson would qualify as an assault weapon. A lot more than some others that are currently classed as assault weapons.
Look at some of the features: large removable magazine, pistol-style grip, fully automatic fire.
Yep. Even by modern "standards" (if you can call them that), a Thompson is an assault weapon.
"It's also legal to make a muzzleloading CANNON for your own personal use."
I know someone who did. Solid brass, about 4' long, with a 2" bore. (He owned a fabricating plant and ended up with some big chunks of brass for some reason.) The walls were about 2" or so thick at the rear and about 1.5" at the front.
He never shot anything out of it. He'd just fill it up with oxy & acetylene from his welding torch and set it off as a noisemaker.
"It also means it's total crap to claim that 3d-printing this piece is equivalent to a "3d-printed gun", as the charlatans do."
If you are old enough to remember, those same charlatans were raising all kinds of hell about "plastic guns" when the Glock came out. Remember that? They were saying they were too easy to conceal, they'd get through airport security, etc. etc.
But it was all total crap. A Glock has 2 pounds or more of solid steel in it. Sure, a lot of it's plastic. But a lot of it's not.
"Also, you'd have to look at material strength of the 3D printed metal which is 'hard as steel', but that covers a lot of ground."
Yes, it does. Hardness is only one property of a material. When it comes to gun barrels, bursting pressure, i.e. tensile strength, is probably a lot more important than hardness, at least in the short term. (A barrel that wasn't hard would not retain its rifling very long, for example.) And the two properties are not very related. A material can have high tensile strength but not be very hard, and vice versa.
That's one reason ceramic guns are still only experimental. Ceramic can be plenty hard enough. Harder than steel, in fact. But it tends to be brittle.
"Making a pipe gun from some plumbing parts is not very difficult. I've seen one demonstrated."
If I were you I'd be careful. It isn't illegal to make your own gun, but you should look at the laws pretty carefully. It *IS* illegal to make a pipe gun with an unrifled barrel.
It's not illegal to make an unrifled shotgun, however.
As someone pointed out above: once someone who does have skill creates the CNC code, any fairly unskilled person can load an ingot, fill the lube reservoir, and hit the "start" button.
I doubt it. GP was quire correct. If you build a gun to sell, you have to have a license to manufacture.
What he didn't say, and you may be surprised to know, is that if you build it for yourself, and don't sell it or give it away, it's perfectly legal and you don't need any kind of license.
"3d printing turns making a gun into a script-kiddie kind of operation instead of requiring some technical skills."
Hahahaha! It does nothing of the sort.
You aren't going to make the upper receiver, bolt & bolt carrier, and barrel out of 3D printed plastic. It just isn't practical with today's technology.
Maybe in 5 or 10 years. Then maybe you might have reason for concern. (Not that I think it's really a concern anyway.)
This whole debate reminds me of the "plastic gun" scare of the 70s and 80s. They were referring to Glocks. Of course, the anti-gunners somehow neglected to mention that even the smaller Glocks, which substantially made of polymer, still have more than 2 lb. of solid steel in their construction. They don't, and never did, get past metal detectors.
Of course, that didn't stop the anti-gun forces from telling us that they would. And they're as full of bullshit today as they were then.
"However, when that day comes, the ATF is screwed. They will have no more luck at controlling distribution of printable weapons than the MAFIAA has had at controlling distribution of movies and music."
Spoken like someone who doesn't know squat about either firearms or the law.
First off, manufacturing your own gun is, and always has been, legal. Anybody can do it. I read a post recently by someone who made one himself. He wrote that it was ridiculously easy. (He made a rifle, complete with rifled barrel, from scratch.)
ATF isn't concerned because it never has been concerned about people who make their own guns for their own use. As long as it's within certain limits, they simply don't care. (You can't make a gun that would otherwise be illegal. You can't legally build yourself a shotgun that is shorter than legal length, for example.)
Even though the lower receiver in this type of firearm is considered by ATF to be "the gun", by far more difficult are the upper receiver, bolt & bold carrier, and barrel (which contains the chamber). Nobody is going to be making those out of plastic any time soon. So there really isn't any reason for the ATF to be concerned, AT ALL. Even if it were possible to make the whole gun out of 3D-printed plastic, it's perfectly legal.
A "Pyrrhic Victory" is a victory that is questionable because of all the resulting loss at the same time. Arguably, the situation with Veoh is different because it's a "victory," but only after the victor is already dead. That's neither Pyrrhic or even a real victory.
"+1 to that. Don't try to customize so much. Just use Ubuntu 12.04 (or 12.10) the way it comes."
Please explain to me why you would want someone new to *nix to start out with something that is crazy far from "standard"? With a constantly changing, non-mainstream desktop?
This. BUT personally I go with Kubuntu. KDE is the interface with "least surprise", and you don't have to worry about what direction vanilla Ubuntu is going with Canonical's frankly bizarre ideas about window management.
"In case you couldn't tell, I'm in favor of using FUD to our advantage. Feel free to try to convince people to care about net neutrality by honest, unbiased information, and feel free to call me a cynic for thinking that approach won't work."
Try: "Better service, plus more freedom and privacy, for a lower price."
If the freedom and privacy parts don't get them, maybe the better service and lower price parts will.
"Every one of Obama's campaign promises comes with a expiration date..."
I can hardly wait for the expiration date of his term in office. The guy is evil. Sadly, he's evil in such a way that many Americans don't even see it. And that just adds to the evil.
"There's nothing good about energy beets. We already know we can use algae, and that it is superior in a variety of ways.
Do not cheer this. There is nothing good about this. It is merely less evil than using corn as a fuel feedstock."
We already know how to make even more "biofuel" -- fuel-grade oil -- from things such as corn STALKS than from the corn itself. There are already plants in operation. They can convert almost anything organic. They can also use chicken parts in the same factories (although different sources have to be run in different batches to tune the process).
I agree. This is just turning another food crop into fuel, at the expense of food prices. Bad idea. It is merely less evil than the other.
"If you don't need much from your OS, then trim the OS down. That doesn't mean you're not using an OS. Unless you run bare-metal code, you are using an OS."
You took the words right out of my mouth. First comment. Well done.
Slashdot Mirror
No, GP is correct. What you describe took place before "this country" existed.
In THIS COUNTRY, we have indeed always had the natural right to make and use firearms.
"Right, I said the ight to bear arms was granted to protect other rights as a matter of last resort."
But it wasn't. Again, this is wrong. The founders' own writings clearly show that the Constitution and Bill of Rights (which includes the 2nd Amendment) merely LISTED rights that they considered already existed by nature of our humanity. The government did not "grant" those rights, at all.
"However it is granted to you in the recognition that it may be necessary to exercise it as a last resto to defend other rights e.g; home invasion or tyrranical regime."
Historically, this is wrong.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not "grant" rights. They merely enumerated rights that were already considered to exist, by nature of our humanity. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment. (The founders considered the right of defense to be a fundamental human right.)
The Constitution -- and the government -- have no power to "grant" actual rights. If something can be granted, it can be taken away... which makes it a privilege, not a "right".
That is precisely why copyrights and patents are described as "limited" rights. They aren't actual rights per se, but are granted by government for only a limited time. They aren't "natural" rights like the others.
"To be pedantic, the Thompson was actually designed to be a literal 'assault weapon'."
You're not being pedantic. Even today, a Thompson would qualify as an assault weapon. A lot more than some others that are currently classed as assault weapons.
Look at some of the features: large removable magazine, pistol-style grip, fully automatic fire.
Yep. Even by modern "standards" (if you can call them that), a Thompson is an assault weapon.
"That's a false analogy. People only want guns because other people have guns."
Hahaha. Bullshit. Every time the government has announced intentions to restrict guns, there has been a run on the gun stores. Just recently, in fact.
When Obama was first elected, certain kinds got downright scarce for a while, because demand was so high.
Yes, Virginia, threats to restrict guns DO increase gun sales. Not just a little, but dramatically.
"It's also legal to make a muzzleloading CANNON for your own personal use."
I know someone who did. Solid brass, about 4' long, with a 2" bore. (He owned a fabricating plant and ended up with some big chunks of brass for some reason.) The walls were about 2" or so thick at the rear and about 1.5" at the front.
He never shot anything out of it. He'd just fill it up with oxy & acetylene from his welding torch and set it off as a noisemaker.
And man... it made a hell of a noise.
"It also means it's total crap to claim that 3d-printing this piece is equivalent to a "3d-printed gun", as the charlatans do."
If you are old enough to remember, those same charlatans were raising all kinds of hell about "plastic guns" when the Glock came out. Remember that? They were saying they were too easy to conceal, they'd get through airport security, etc. etc.
But it was all total crap. A Glock has 2 pounds or more of solid steel in it. Sure, a lot of it's plastic. But a lot of it's not.
"Also, you'd have to look at material strength of the 3D printed metal which is 'hard as steel', but that covers a lot of ground."
Yes, it does. Hardness is only one property of a material. When it comes to gun barrels, bursting pressure, i.e. tensile strength, is probably a lot more important than hardness, at least in the short term. (A barrel that wasn't hard would not retain its rifling very long, for example.) And the two properties are not very related. A material can have high tensile strength but not be very hard, and vice versa.
That's one reason ceramic guns are still only experimental. Ceramic can be plenty hard enough. Harder than steel, in fact. But it tends to be brittle.
"Making a pipe gun from some plumbing parts is not very difficult. I've seen one demonstrated."
If I were you I'd be careful. It isn't illegal to make your own gun, but you should look at the laws pretty carefully. It *IS* illegal to make a pipe gun with an unrifled barrel.
It's not illegal to make an unrifled shotgun, however.
"That is why the ATF is not concerned at the moment."
Nonsense. The ATF is not concerned at the moment -- and may never be concerned -- because it's not illegal to make your own gun. And never has been.
"Because they require skill to operate."
Sorry, but no.
As someone pointed out above: once someone who does have skill creates the CNC code, any fairly unskilled person can load an ingot, fill the lube reservoir, and hit the "start" button.
"Cheap untraceable guns means little, if the stores are out of bullets."
Bullets can be -- and have been -- made out of cardboard tubes, with some powder, and a lead slug.
Of course, you have to design the gun a little differently to use that, but it works.
Just because a certain design has turned out to be efficient for mass manufacture, don't start thinking that it's the only way it can be done.
"... you'd need a specialized lathe to make a barrel with any degree of accuracy and safety..."
Not really. Long ago, barrels were made from straight steel tube, and the rifling was done by hand, with a tap.
"Are you being sarcastic?"
I doubt it. GP was quire correct. If you build a gun to sell, you have to have a license to manufacture.
What he didn't say, and you may be surprised to know, is that if you build it for yourself, and don't sell it or give it away, it's perfectly legal and you don't need any kind of license.
"3d printing turns making a gun into a script-kiddie kind of operation instead of requiring some technical skills."
Hahahaha! It does nothing of the sort.
You aren't going to make the upper receiver, bolt & bolt carrier, and barrel out of 3D printed plastic. It just isn't practical with today's technology.
Maybe in 5 or 10 years. Then maybe you might have reason for concern. (Not that I think it's really a concern anyway.)
This whole debate reminds me of the "plastic gun" scare of the 70s and 80s. They were referring to Glocks. Of course, the anti-gunners somehow neglected to mention that even the smaller Glocks, which substantially made of polymer, still have more than 2 lb. of solid steel in their construction. They don't, and never did, get past metal detectors.
Of course, that didn't stop the anti-gun forces from telling us that they would. And they're as full of bullshit today as they were then.
"However, when that day comes, the ATF is screwed. They will have no more luck at controlling distribution of printable weapons than the MAFIAA has had at controlling distribution of movies and music."
Spoken like someone who doesn't know squat about either firearms or the law.
First off, manufacturing your own gun is, and always has been, legal. Anybody can do it. I read a post recently by someone who made one himself. He wrote that it was ridiculously easy. (He made a rifle, complete with rifled barrel, from scratch.)
ATF isn't concerned because it never has been concerned about people who make their own guns for their own use. As long as it's within certain limits, they simply don't care. (You can't make a gun that would otherwise be illegal. You can't legally build yourself a shotgun that is shorter than legal length, for example.)
Even though the lower receiver in this type of firearm is considered by ATF to be "the gun", by far more difficult are the upper receiver, bolt & bold carrier, and barrel (which contains the chamber). Nobody is going to be making those out of plastic any time soon. So there really isn't any reason for the ATF to be concerned, AT ALL. Even if it were possible to make the whole gun out of 3D-printed plastic, it's perfectly legal.
"Yes. It does. Exactly."
Not really.
A "Pyrrhic Victory" is a victory that is questionable because of all the resulting loss at the same time. Arguably, the situation with Veoh is different because it's a "victory," but only after the victor is already dead. That's neither Pyrrhic or even a real victory.
"+1 to that. Don't try to customize so much. Just use Ubuntu 12.04 (or 12.10) the way it comes."
Please explain to me why you would want someone new to *nix to start out with something that is crazy far from "standard"? With a constantly changing, non-mainstream desktop?
If you said Kubuntu instead, I might agree.
This. BUT personally I go with Kubuntu. KDE is the interface with "least surprise", and you don't have to worry about what direction vanilla Ubuntu is going with Canonical's frankly bizarre ideas about window management.
"What, you have evidence his replacement will be any different?"
I wouldn't call it evidence, but if the trends shown with the last 3 Presidents are any indication, the next one will be even worse.
(1) Clinton. - I wouldn't call him a GREAT President, but at least his administration had the economy in order.
(2) George W. Bush - What can I say?
(3) Barack Obama - Yikes! Run for the hills! Stock up on food and ammo while you can still get them!
"What kind of BS is this? There is no difference in recovering from full encryption of partial encryption, start by making backups of your keys."
Try telling that to OP. His story contradicts this idea.
If he has a drive failure, his backup is USELESS.
"In case you couldn't tell, I'm in favor of using FUD to our advantage. Feel free to try to convince people to care about net neutrality by honest, unbiased information, and feel free to call me a cynic for thinking that approach won't work."
Try: "Better service, plus more freedom and privacy, for a lower price."
If the freedom and privacy parts don't get them, maybe the better service and lower price parts will.
"Every one of Obama's campaign promises comes with a expiration date..."
I can hardly wait for the expiration date of his term in office. The guy is evil. Sadly, he's evil in such a way that many Americans don't even see it. And that just adds to the evil.
"There's nothing good about energy beets. We already know we can use algae, and that it is superior in a variety of ways.
Do not cheer this. There is nothing good about this. It is merely less evil than using corn as a fuel feedstock."
We already know how to make even more "biofuel" -- fuel-grade oil -- from things such as corn STALKS than from the corn itself. There are already plants in operation. They can convert almost anything organic. They can also use chicken parts in the same factories (although different sources have to be run in different batches to tune the process).
I agree. This is just turning another food crop into fuel, at the expense of food prices. Bad idea. It is merely less evil than the other.
"If you don't need much from your OS, then trim the OS down. That doesn't mean you're not using an OS. Unless you run bare-metal code, you are using an OS."
You took the words right out of my mouth. First comment. Well done.