I understand your point but disagree because I don't want to argue the point so they understand. I want to argue the point so I'm honest about my position.
Fair enough; don't suppose it would be right to argue against honesty.
You take my vote over my dead body. You take my gun over my dead body.
No compromise.
I think you've missed my point - I was implying that, when arguing your points with a gun-grabber, you'd be better off citing the First Amendment in comparison to the second than you would referring to any of the voting amendments. 1 & 2 are far more closely related than any amendment after #10.
And for the record, I'm glad you feel that way; not enough people do, which is a major setback for liberty.
I have lived in Indiana, and driven through the midwest several times. My experience has been that the roads are mostly flat and boring, and that the drivers are suicidal. For example, the Indiana habit of deliberately turning on you high beams when you see an oncoming car.
Sounds like an Indiana problem.
FTR, when I say "Midwest," I refer mainly to the region bordered by the Missouri River, Mississippi River, Rocky Mountains, and some part of Texas that doesn't suck (don't travel south much). Get much farther north than the Missouri, and yea, it's pretty much just flat nothing sprinkled with corn.
Driving in the US of A is more boring than in other places
I presume this is more of an issue in the densely populated coastal regions of the country? Come visit the midwest, we have miles of nice country roads begging to be driven.
That said, I few my right to own a gun as the same thing as my right to vote. Literally the same. And I feel the same way about both.
Bad comparison - first, the right to vote is not in the Bill of Rights, it came later. Second, voting is, sadly, considered more of a tertiary right by most Americans these days. Third, you can't really argue technical limitations when it comes to voting (you'll see what I mean).
Better to compare the Right to Bear Arms with another BoR right - the Right to Freedom of Expression. They are far more equivalent, and you can pose the same arguments against each; for example, when a gun-grabber tries to argue, "there were no assault weapons when the 2nd was written, so they shouldn't be protected," you can turn the argument back on them by asking if speech communicated across the internet or telephone shouldn't be protected, since such technologies didn't exist then either.
This is different from Zip guns in the following way: most people who would be outraged by Zip guns can't make one themselves, so they assume that since they are so smart and couldn't make one, that this can't be a real problem.
Those are probably the same people who believe what the government or media tells them without ever questioning it; You know, simple folk.
The reality is, zip guns are ridiculously easy to make if you have a basic understanding of physics and know how to get to your local hardware store. Hell, the US Army publishes a manual, TM 31-210: the Improvised Munitions Handbook, that includes explicit instructions on how to build several different types. All with typical off-the-shelf hardware, most of which can be obtained for less than fifty bucks.
Indeed, I probably don't have the skills to make a Zip gun, so it just doesn't seem real to me
Again I'll point out, "not having the skills to make a zip gun" means not having a basic understanding of general physics. Don't be so hard on yourself.
Agreed. These gun-nut clowns are going to ruin 3D printing before it gets properly started, by giving corporations and their government puppets the perfect excuse to demonise the entire concept and launch a crackdown on distribution of the plans.
Interesting you use the word "agreed," considering that your rationale is pretty much the complete opposite of his.
FWIW, OP was pointing out that it will be the idiot reactionaries and self-serving politicians who will try and "ruin 3D printing," not the innovators as you've implied.
The entire constitution, along with all criminal, civil, and tax law, needs to be tossed out and new ones drafted for the modern age. There is so much bullshit on the books that you can not venture outside your home without breaking some law and frankly may have already broken some laws before leaving your home.
Ah... you do realize that those overbearing laws that you "may have already broken some laws before leaving your home" are not only "modern age" laws, but most of them are in direct violation of the Constitution you are so ready to abandon? Apparently not.
Congratulations, you've unwittingly pointed out how you, yourself, are part of the fucking problem.
Most of the same people I know who are adamantly defending the 2nd amendment also seem to be of a mind that the guy responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing should be tortured, forced to testify against himself, and not allowed a lawyer. Also they don't seem at all worried about the cops forcing their way into innocent peoples' houses without warrants when they were looking for the guy.
Funny, I would say the same thing about the opposing camp. I guess that proves the old adage, "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'fact'"
So you're right, they defend "their" liberties -- but they are completely irresponsible toward the rest of the liberties that don't currently apply to their situation.
That's a two-way street, you know. For example, just try pointing out the fact that automobiles take far more lives than guns, and watch as the gun-grabbers call you every name in the book in order to avoid discussing a limitation that might actually affect them.
Because irresponsible morons never bought dangerous presents for kids who weren't ready for them before so we need to prohibit all responsible people from buying dangerous things ever.
This.
Statistically speaking, it's safer to buy your 6-year-old a.22 rifle than a trampoline or swimming pool.
comment typical of a person who thinks we should not try and make the place safer to live in.
When your idea of "try[ing] to make the place safer to live in" flat-out requires people other than yourself to sacrifice civil liberties against their will, fuckin' A you shouldn't.
For the record, automobiles are much more prolific than guns, take far more lives, and are used to commit many, many more crimes than guns are, but I don't see you advocating they be restricted. Kinda takes the wind out of your "want to make the world a safer place" argument when you won't even consider the more deadly of the two objects, presumably because doing so would inconvenience YOU.
When will the first accidental shooting occur with a printed gun?
When will the first child be killed with a printed gun?
When will the first suicide occur with a printed gun?
When will the first robbery occur with a printed gun?
When will the first car jacking occur with a printed gun?
When will the first plane hijack attempt occur with a printed gun?
42.
Wait, that doesn't work, does it?
Anyway, I guess the question of "When will the first chicken-shit asshole come up with a bunch of hyperbolic, speculative nonsense in a pathetic attempt to marginalize opposing opinions?" has just been answered...
So how long until we have news of the first killing by a 3d printed gun? How long until they are used in a criminal activity? How long until the guns are used in a mass killing?
Do you think Henry Ford* had to deal with morons like this, too?
*Yes, I know Ford did not invent the automobile, but he was instrumental in the vehicle's mass adoption, and had his fair share of detractors.
When was it ever legal to bring guns into the passenger compartment of a commercial aircraft? Citation please...
Prior to the late 1960's, there were no metal detectors or security checkpoints in American airports, meaning that passengers could bring pretty much whatever the hell they wanted onto a plane.
I haven't heard a good reason why random people need to have guns.
Then you haven't been listening - I can name two damn good ones right off the top of my head:
1) I love to eat venison, but the stores don't carry it - the only way for me to acquire fresh deer meat is to hunt, and a rifle is the most effective, humane means of doing so.
2) There are other people on the planet with guns, and many of those other people want to use their guns to force their dominion upon the rest of us. While you may be happy living on your knees as a slave, some of us prefer life as free men, and are willing to give our lives to maintain that status.
So is a home-made gun legal? Maybe in the US, but not in the more civilized parts of the world.
Funny, I wouldn't really consider places like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, or China to be all that civilized...
What? Hey, if the anti-gun crowd can cherry-pick their examples, why can't I?
What is interesting in this case is that making it easy to create your own gun is likely to work against the motives of Defense Distributed and force the US to adopt more gun control. Maybe even looking at how other countries solve this problem.:)
Yea, like how they 'solve the problem' in Iran, Iraq, North Korea...
When I went to high school in the early 90's; Saturday Night Specials were quite popular with drug dealers and little punk ass bitches that wanted to boast how dangerous they were. This ended when detectors were installed towards my senior year.
When I went to high school in the late 90's, we were allowed to have shotguns and.22 rifles on campus. We didn't have metal detectors, the district couldn't afford them even if they wanted to.
Still, nobody ever got shot, nor did anyone feel the need to brandish their weapons to "boast how dangerous they were." In fact, the only homicide to happen during my tenure at that school was when a good friend of mine was stabbed to death, in his house, by his own step-brother.
Sounds to me, when comparing anecdote to anecdote, that guns aren't the problem - your local culture is.
That was brave of her. But if he had a gun, would she still have drawn hers? Would she still have lived? Because he would probably pulled the trigger first. After that he would have stolen her purse, sold her gun to a colleauge, and you would have two robbers running around with guns.
Here's what a civilised country with a well-educated, well-paid police force would do: Give away the purse without resistance (and without a gun inside), allow the mugger to think he has won and leave you (it is VERY rare a person would kill if not threatened). Then contact the cops and give an accurate description of the suspect. They will keep a lookout for the suspect, and most likely find him. Then you call your card company to close your card, your phone company to close your phone and your insurance company to get some of your money back for your probably expensive phone.
If you do not have a well-educated, well-paid police force close by, then there is your real problem. Not guns.
And what if the "mugger" had actually been titled "rapist?" What's your brilliant solution for that one? Just get raped and pray?
Did not know that. Always heard that since we are 80% water, a bullet make a mess out of every muscle fiber, while a knife wound is usually an easily fixed cut.
Depends on the bullet, the wound location, and the knife. Sometimes bullets (especially low caliber, high velocity ones) will pass straight through a body with minimal damage.
Similarly, a clean knife wound, like the cut from a careful surgeon's scalpel, is easily fixed and tend not to bleed much.
However, a cut from the chipped, rusty blade of a crazed, AIDS & Hepatitis infected meth-head is not only far more likely to be jagged and difficult to suture, it also carries a far greater chance of giving the officer a deadly infection.
With bullets, it's not really an issue; a non-lethal injury is just that, without the risk of infection you would get from a knife wound.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand your point but disagree because I don't want to argue the point so they understand. I want to argue the point so I'm honest about my position.
Fair enough; don't suppose it would be right to argue against honesty.
You take my vote over my dead body. You take my gun over my dead body.
No compromise.
I think you've missed my point - I was implying that, when arguing your points with a gun-grabber, you'd be better off citing the First Amendment in comparison to the second than you would referring to any of the voting amendments. 1 & 2 are far more closely related than any amendment after #10.
And for the record, I'm glad you feel that way; not enough people do, which is a major setback for liberty.
I have lived in Indiana, and driven through the midwest several times. My experience has been that the roads are mostly flat and boring, and that the drivers are suicidal. For example, the Indiana habit of deliberately turning on you high beams when you see an oncoming car.
Sounds like an Indiana problem.
FTR, when I say "Midwest," I refer mainly to the region bordered by the Missouri River, Mississippi River, Rocky Mountains, and some part of Texas that doesn't suck (don't travel south much). Get much farther north than the Missouri, and yea, it's pretty much just flat nothing sprinkled with corn.
Cars, OTOH, have never been called "driving machines".
I take it you've never seen a BMW ad; their main tagline is (and has been, for as long as I can remember*) "BMW: The Ultimate Driving Machine"
* I wasn't around way back when they were making engines for the Luftewaffe.
Driving in the US of A is more boring than in other places
I presume this is more of an issue in the densely populated coastal regions of the country? Come visit the midwest, we have miles of nice country roads begging to be driven.
No. The point of a car is to get you from one place to another.
If "transport from point A to point B" was the sole use case for automobiles, the only model in existence would be the Ford Fiesta.
You may not believe or understand this, but some of us actually enjoy driving.
I'm pretty sure that just because they weren't checking for it didn't make it "legal".
No, the fact that there was not a specific statute making the possession of firearms on an aircraft a crime, is what made it legal.
To be quite honest... I can't seem to find any law prior to 2001 that makes it a crime to carry a firearm onto an airplane...
That said, I few my right to own a gun as the same thing as my right to vote. Literally the same. And I feel the same way about both.
Bad comparison - first, the right to vote is not in the Bill of Rights, it came later. Second, voting is, sadly, considered more of a tertiary right by most Americans these days. Third, you can't really argue technical limitations when it comes to voting (you'll see what I mean).
Better to compare the Right to Bear Arms with another BoR right - the Right to Freedom of Expression. They are far more equivalent, and you can pose the same arguments against each; for example, when a gun-grabber tries to argue, "there were no assault weapons when the 2nd was written, so they shouldn't be protected," you can turn the argument back on them by asking if speech communicated across the internet or telephone shouldn't be protected, since such technologies didn't exist then either.
This is different from Zip guns in the following way: most people who would be outraged by Zip guns can't make one themselves, so they assume that since they are so smart and couldn't make one, that this can't be a real problem.
Those are probably the same people who believe what the government or media tells them without ever questioning it; You know, simple folk.
The reality is, zip guns are ridiculously easy to make if you have a basic understanding of physics and know how to get to your local hardware store. Hell, the US Army publishes a manual, TM 31-210: the Improvised Munitions Handbook, that includes explicit instructions on how to build several different types. All with typical off-the-shelf hardware, most of which can be obtained for less than fifty bucks.
Indeed, I probably don't have the skills to make a Zip gun, so it just doesn't seem real to me
Again I'll point out, "not having the skills to make a zip gun" means not having a basic understanding of general physics. Don't be so hard on yourself.
Agreed. These gun-nut clowns are going to ruin 3D printing before it gets properly started, by giving corporations and their government puppets the perfect excuse to demonise the entire concept and launch a crackdown on distribution of the plans.
Interesting you use the word "agreed," considering that your rationale is pretty much the complete opposite of his.
FWIW, OP was pointing out that it will be the idiot reactionaries and self-serving politicians who will try and "ruin 3D printing," not the innovators as you've implied.
The entire constitution, along with all criminal, civil, and tax law, needs to be tossed out and new ones drafted for the modern age. There is so much bullshit on the books that you can not venture outside your home without breaking some law and frankly may have already broken some laws before leaving your home.
Ah... you do realize that those overbearing laws that you "may have already broken some laws before leaving your home" are not only "modern age" laws, but most of them are in direct violation of the Constitution you are so ready to abandon? Apparently not.
Congratulations, you've unwittingly pointed out how you, yourself, are part of the fucking problem.
Most of the same people I know who are adamantly defending the 2nd amendment also seem to be of a mind that the guy responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing should be tortured, forced to testify against himself, and not allowed a lawyer. Also they don't seem at all worried about the cops forcing their way into innocent peoples' houses without warrants when they were looking for the guy.
Funny, I would say the same thing about the opposing camp. I guess that proves the old adage, "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'fact'"
So you're right, they defend "their" liberties -- but they are completely irresponsible toward the rest of the liberties that don't currently apply to their situation.
That's a two-way street, you know. For example, just try pointing out the fact that automobiles take far more lives than guns, and watch as the gun-grabbers call you every name in the book in order to avoid discussing a limitation that might actually affect them.
Because irresponsible morons never bought dangerous presents for kids who weren't ready for them before so we need to prohibit all responsible people from buying dangerous things ever.
This.
Statistically speaking, it's safer to buy your 6-year-old a .22 rifle than a trampoline or swimming pool.
comment typical of a person who thinks we should not try and make the place safer to live in.
When your idea of "try[ing] to make the place safer to live in" flat-out requires people other than yourself to sacrifice civil liberties against their will, fuckin' A you shouldn't.
For the record, automobiles are much more prolific than guns, take far more lives, and are used to commit many, many more crimes than guns are, but I don't see you advocating they be restricted. Kinda takes the wind out of your "want to make the world a safer place" argument when you won't even consider the more deadly of the two objects, presumably because doing so would inconvenience YOU.
42.
Wait, that doesn't work, does it?
Anyway, I guess the question of "When will the first chicken-shit asshole come up with a bunch of hyperbolic, speculative nonsense in a pathetic attempt to marginalize opposing opinions?" has just been answered...
the looming possibility of mass circumvention of gun control laws
Citation desperately needed.
So how long until we have news of the first killing by a 3d printed gun?
How long until they are used in a criminal activity?
How long until the guns are used in a mass killing?
Do you think Henry Ford* had to deal with morons like this, too?
*Yes, I know Ford did not invent the automobile, but he was instrumental in the vehicle's mass adoption, and had his fair share of detractors.
When was it ever legal to bring guns into the passenger compartment of a commercial aircraft? Citation please...
Prior to the late 1960's, there were no metal detectors or security checkpoints in American airports, meaning that passengers could bring pretty much whatever the hell they wanted onto a plane.
I haven't heard a good reason why random people need to have guns.
Then you haven't been listening - I can name two damn good ones right off the top of my head:
1) I love to eat venison, but the stores don't carry it - the only way for me to acquire fresh deer meat is to hunt, and a rifle is the most effective, humane means of doing so.
2) There are other people on the planet with guns, and many of those other people want to use their guns to force their dominion upon the rest of us. While you may be happy living on your knees as a slave, some of us prefer life as free men, and are willing to give our lives to maintain that status.
So is a home-made gun legal? Maybe in the US, but not in the more civilized parts of the world.
Funny, I wouldn't really consider places like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, or China to be all that civilized...
What? Hey, if the anti-gun crowd can cherry-pick their examples, why can't I?
What is interesting in this case is that making it easy to create your own gun is likely to work against the motives of Defense Distributed and force the US to adopt more gun control. Maybe even looking at how other countries solve this problem. :)
Yea, like how they 'solve the problem' in Iran, Iraq, North Korea...
" It's simply not possible to get the density and frangibility required of a bullet in any material other than metal."
How about diamond?
You're halfway there...
When I went to high school in the early 90's; Saturday Night Specials were quite popular with drug dealers and little punk ass bitches that wanted to boast how dangerous they were. This ended when detectors were installed towards my senior year.
When I went to high school in the late 90's, we were allowed to have shotguns and .22 rifles on campus. We didn't have metal detectors, the district couldn't afford them even if they wanted to.
Still, nobody ever got shot, nor did anyone feel the need to brandish their weapons to "boast how dangerous they were." In fact, the only homicide to happen during my tenure at that school was when a good friend of mine was stabbed to death, in his house, by his own step-brother.
Sounds to me, when comparing anecdote to anecdote, that guns aren't the problem - your local culture is.
It might risk children trying to print their own guns and inadvertently killing themselves when they inevitably fail...
That sounds like more of a parenting problem than a gun problem.
FTR, if I wanted to be responsible for the actions of children, I would have some of my own.
That was brave of her. But if he had a gun, would she still have drawn hers? Would she still have lived? Because he would probably pulled the trigger first. After that he would have stolen her purse, sold her gun to a colleauge, and you would have two robbers running around with guns.
Here's what a civilised country with a well-educated, well-paid police force would do: Give away the purse without resistance (and without a gun inside), allow the mugger to think he has won and leave you (it is VERY rare a person would kill if not threatened). Then contact the cops and give an accurate description of the suspect. They will keep a lookout for the suspect, and most likely find him. Then you call your card company to close your card, your phone company to close your phone and your insurance company to get some of your money back for your probably expensive phone.
If you do not have a well-educated, well-paid police force close by, then there is your real problem. Not guns.
And what if the "mugger" had actually been titled "rapist?" What's your brilliant solution for that one? Just get raped and pray?
Did not know that. Always heard that since we are 80% water, a bullet make a mess out of every muscle fiber, while a knife wound is usually an easily fixed cut.
Depends on the bullet, the wound location, and the knife. Sometimes bullets (especially low caliber, high velocity ones) will pass straight through a body with minimal damage.
Similarly, a clean knife wound, like the cut from a careful surgeon's scalpel, is easily fixed and tend not to bleed much.
However, a cut from the chipped, rusty blade of a crazed, AIDS & Hepatitis infected meth-head is not only far more likely to be jagged and difficult to suture, it also carries a far greater chance of giving the officer a deadly infection.
With bullets, it's not really an issue; a non-lethal injury is just that, without the risk of infection you would get from a knife wound.