Downloadable 3D Printed Gun Designs, Yay or Nay?

"A federal judge in Seattle is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday on whether to block a settlement the U.S. State Department reached with a company that would allow it to post blueprints for printing 3D weapons on the internet.

The federal agency had tried to stop a Texas company from releasing the plans online, arguing it violated export regulations. But the agency reversed itself in April and entered an agreement with the company that would allow it to post the plans. The company is owned by a self-described “crypto-anarchist” who opposes restrictions on gun ownership."

I'm not sure I like the sound of that, to be honest. "Crypto-anarchism", really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution says, in full:

"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."

To me, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says.

Definition of "infringed" from Merriam Webster dictionary, along with Merriam-Webster's example sentence for the definition:

Merriam-Webster Logo
SINCE 1828
MENU
  • infringe
verb  in·fringe  \ in-ˈfrinj \

Legal Definition of infringe

infringed; infringing
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
  • the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
  •  U.S. Constitution amend. II
especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name)
 

infringer

 noun

Origin and Etymology of infringe

Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangereto break
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

militia
mɪˈlɪʃə/
noun
  1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
    "creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
    • a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
    • (in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DWHqrb5UMAI8rz0.jpeg

image_f0024f45-84ec-4c87-915e-52c6c27e7d1c20180218_125303.jpg

DWdsxxcX4AETcqV.thumb.jpeg.0e39d456591c91f0d24f41bd78330e90.jpeg

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point but do you think the people who came up with the Second Amendment had 3D-printable guns in mind? It's a bit like the concept of democracy. The original democracy was not exactly, um, democratic as we understand the word now.

Also, comparing guns to drugs and alcohol is a bit of an apples/oranges case. Guns are not addictive and behaviour-changing, I think, But I may be wrong. I'm all for the right to be able to protect oneself and one's family, no question about it but a lot of people seem to believe America has a gun problem. I'm only an outside observer, though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

I see your point but do you think the people who came up with the Second Amendment had 3D-printable guns in mind? It's a bit like the concept of democracy. The original democracy was not exactly, um, democratic as we understand the word now.

Also, comparing guns to drugs and alcohol is a bit of an apples/oranges case. Guns are not addictive and behaviour-changing, I think, But I may be wrong. I'm all for the right to be able to protect oneself and one's family, no question about it but a lot of people seem to believe America has a gun problem. I'm only an outside observer, though.

I don't like to get in the middle of this argument with anyone.  People are going to have their opinions and that is fine with me, as long as their opinions don't take away my rights.  BTW, I don't own any guns and never have, but I want the right to take up arms if I so choose, especially in the event that Washington finally goes over the top.

Having said that, when the question "do you think the people who came up with the Second Amendment had ABC-XYZ in mind?" comes up, I like to point out that, during the time the constitution was drawn up, most people had guns, either on their person or within easy reach.  You see, everyone was rather touchy from the recent war with England and, those damn Indians!  I know, I know.

Also, on the apples/oranges front, how is it relevant that you think guns are not addictive and behaviour-changing?  In Tom's proffered cartoons, 1) laws have failed to stop drug usage (as most people believe making guns illegal won't stop people from having guns; that cat's out of the bag) and in 2) the alcohol is the addictive element, not the cars (guns, in that example).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

 all for the right to be able to protect oneself and one's family, no question about it but a lot of people seem to believe America has a gun problem. I'm only an outside observer, though.

 

DWWU34wX4AEqdmK.jpeg

Gun control, followed by genocides

Background checks, no problem. Gun registration is a big problem. Every genocide in modern history has started with a gun registration, followed by confiscation, followed by genocide.

 

1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, 20 million dissidents rounded up and murdered.

1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Christian Armenians rounded up and exterminated.

1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others rounded up and exterminated.

1935: China established gun control. From 1948-1952, 20 million political dissidents rounded up and exterminated.

1964: Guatemala established gun control. From 1981-1984, 100,000 Mayan Indians rounded up and exterminated.

1970: Uganda established gun control. From 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians rounded up and exterminated.

1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975-1977, 1 million educated people rounded up and exterminated.

In the 20th Century more than 56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated by people using gun control.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are all clearly cherry-picked examples. I mean, Stalin didn't need gun control to starve millions of people and neither did Britain to do the same to Ireland, to mention just a couple of horrible examples. Germany--or Turkey, for that matter--now seem to have no problem with gun control, or the rest of Europe. Same for Australia, I think. I can see you're passionate about the issue but I'm not. I believe in natural selection, which is how a friend who sells guns for a living called all the child shooting accidents and the mass shootings in the States.

You still have not answered my question specifically about 3D printed guns, though. :) When you have the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

You still have not answered my question specifically about 3D printed guns, though. :) When you have the time. 

I don't have an issue with 3D printed guns.  Bear in mind most 3D printed guns won't last too many rounds, as the gun barrels are not hardened metal like "real" guns.

Many countries do not allow citizens to legally own guns.  3D printed guns may eventually circumvent that.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

You still have not answered my question specifically about 3D printed guns, though. :) When you have the time. 

 

41 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Having said that, when the question "do you think the people who came up with the Second Amendment had ABC-XYZ in mind?" comes up, I like to point out that, during the time the constitution was drawn up, most people had guns, either on their person or within easy reach.

There's my answer.  Logic.  If everyone had guns when the constitution and the amendments were written, then obviously there was no question about anyone having guns, ever, 3D or otherwise.  Personally, I don't find 3D gun access to be a good thing and I am sure that restrictions/laws will need to be developed.  That is where rule of law comes into play.  Although that may be a long and painful, even deadly, process, one hopes that some form of balance and sanity arises before long.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys!

Now, call me petty but the word "militia" caught my eye as did the words "well regulated". I'm sure you know where I'm going but for the onlookers: pre-police days. Not so now. Elaborate, please. (Okay, I just like reading your comments, so there!)

@Dan Warnick, I'd never bet on naturally emerging sanity but I salute your optimism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marina Schwarz said:

I see your point but do you think the people who came up with the Second Amendment had 3D-printable guns in mind? It's a bit like the concept of democracy. The original democracy was not exactly, um, democratic as we understand the word now.

Also, comparing guns to drugs and alcohol is a bit of an apples/oranges case. Guns are not addictive and behaviour-changing, I think, But I may be wrong. I'm all for the right to be able to protect oneself and one's family, no question about it but a lot of people seem to believe America has a gun problem. I'm only an outside observer, though.

That sentiment is instructed by the belief that our Constitution is a Living Breathing Document that should evolve with the times, or at least the belief that our understanding and application of it should.  This cancerous idea has metastasized over the last 40 years especially and manifests through judicial activism.  That is, getting done through judges that which you cannot accomplish in the manner prescribed by our Constitution.  

That is a faulty view, not supported by the beliefs of our Founders as evidenced by their writings and the writings of their contemporaries.  Our Founders believed our Constitution meant what it says, especially concerning the Second Amendment.  Tom did a fine job providing one example in quoting George Washington.  I'll add what Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said, " The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them".

The brilliance of our Founders was that they knew America would change.  They also knew the dangers of the judiciary.  They left a mechanism for change, amendment of our Constitution.  For the time being revoking the 2nd amendment remains untenable and those who would, know it.  So they set about trying to overcome the Constitution through the courts while vilifying guns and gun owners/enthusiasts through the media.

As to our "Original Democracy", our Founders didn't set up a democracy, they set up a Representative Republic.  Benjamin Franklin one of our Founders, said of democracy, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!".  Now, I must admit not everyone had representation at our birth as a nation or all along the way but am pleased with our progress in that regard.

Yes, it would appear we have a "gun problem" but that is false.  We have a heart problem, a morality problem, we have an accountability problem.  Even Rahm Emanuel who was quoted as saying, "This may not be politically correct," he said, "but I know the power of what faith and family can do. … Our kids need that structure. … I am asking … that we also don’t shy away from a full discussion about the importance of family and faith helping to develop and nurture character, self-respect, a value system and a moral compass that allows kids to know good from bad and right from wrong", gets it right once in a while. 

Guns are the mechanism and one of many ways to kill others.  Human beings killed one another quite often prior to the invention of guns.  Apples to oranges.  As pointed out earlier, why not ban all cars because drunk drivers kill people with cars.  

No, the Founders would have no issue with the printing of 3D guns.  They would have a problem with the lack of morality, accountability, the break down of the family, level of absentee fathers and other real causes of crimes committed with guns, 3D or otherwise.

TXPower

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can make a really awful gun with a 3D printer that might be good for one shot. and even them you'd be lucky for it not to blow up in your hand. A much better alternative is to buy a small CNC mill and you can make all the guns you want that might actually work and also not blow off your hand.

In other words I'd be much more worried about a guy with a small CNC milling machine than a guy with a 3D printer.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TXPower said:

That sentiment is instructed by the belief that our Constitution is a Living Breathing Document that should evolve with the times, or at least the belief that our understanding and application of it should.  This cancerous idea has metastasized over the last 40 years especially and manifests through judicial activism.  That is, getting done through judges that which you cannot accomplish in the manner prescribed by our Constitution.  

That is a faulty view, not supported by the beliefs of our Founders as evidenced by their writings and the writings of their contemporaries.  Our Founders believed our Constitution meant what it says, especially concerning the Second Amendment.  Tom did a fine job providing one example in quoting George Washington.  I'll add what Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said, " The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them".

The brilliance of our Founders was that they knew America would change.  They also knew the dangers of the judiciary.  They left a mechanism for change, amendment of our Constitution.  For the time being revoking the 2nd amendment remains untenable and those who would, know it.  So they set about trying to overcome the Constitution through the courts while vilifying guns and gun owners/enthusiasts through the media.

As to our "Original Democracy", our Founders didn't set up a democracy, they set up a Representative Republic.  Benjamin Franklin one of our Founders, said of democracy, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!".  Now, I must admit not everyone had representation at our birth as a nation or all along the way but am pleased with our progress in that regard.

Yes, it would appear we have a "gun problem" but that is false.  We have a heart problem, a morality problem, we have an accountability problem.  Even Rahm Emanuel who was quoted as saying, "This may not be politically correct," he said, "but I know the power of what faith and family can do. … Our kids need that structure. … I am asking … that we also don’t shy away from a full discussion about the importance of family and faith helping to develop and nurture character, self-respect, a value system and a moral compass that allows kids to know good from bad and right from wrong", gets it right once in a while. 

Guns are the mechanism and one of many ways to kill others.  Human beings killed one another quite often prior to the invention of guns.  Apples to oranges.  As pointed out earlier, why not ban all cars because drunk drivers kill people with cars.  

No, the Founders would have no issue with the printing of 3D guns.  They would have a problem with the lack of morality, accountability, the break down of the family, level of absentee fathers and other real causes of crimes committed with guns, 3D or otherwise.

TXPower

 

TXPower, you nailed it.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution says, in full:

"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."

So, Tom, do you think this means that I get to buy my own fighter jet? 

Based on the literal wording of the second amendment, it seems the US government actually does have the authority to revoke the rights of a citizen from owning a shotgun for the purposes of hunting, or a rifle for the purposes of sport-shooting, or a musket for the purpose of being a collector, or even a handgun for the purpose of home defense.  However, it does seem that it cannot revoke my right (or the rights of any US citizen) from owning, say, an F-22 fighter jet, complete with sidewinders, a 1000 lbs bomb or two, and a 20mm Vulcan cannon, at least as long as I am part of a well-egulated Militia.  

I suppose the term "well-regulated" might be up for debate, though...

 

10 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

I see your point but do you think the people who came up with the Second Amendment had 3D-printable guns in mind?

Of course!  Back then, everyone had to make their own guns and none of them were serialized.  Back then was basically the epitome of 3d-printed guns since everyone made their guns at home.  Eli Whitney's first firearm's factory wasn't built until 1798, 7 years after the second amendment was passed.  I see your point, however.  It could be possible that the wording of this amendment needs an update.  However, I think the amendment was fine, it is just that our language has changed.  What we should probably do rewrite the amendment so that it uses today's language to more accurately describe what was envisioned by it back in 1781.  For instance, read the following concerning language and Tom:  

 

11 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Definition of "infringed" from Merriam Webster dictionary, along with Merriam-Webster's example sentence for the definition:

Tom, I also wanted to warn you to be careful when using today's Webster's dictionary to reference quotes from early in the days of America.  This is because many of the terms used back then have changed definitions and meanings.  Sometimes they have completely reversed their definition and now mean the exact opposite of what they used to mean.  So if you use today's meaning in reference to an old statement, you could end up with more than a little confusion.  It is much more insightful to use Webster's 1828 dictionary.  For instance, here is the 1828 definition of 'infringed':

INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj'. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. See Break.]

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

As you can see, it is a bit different from today's definition because the 1828 definition seems to suggest that a contract has been, whereas today's definition has left that idea out.  So what contract could they be referencing?  Well, that likely has to do with the old definition of 'Militia':

MILI'TIA, noun [Latin from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, Latin molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

This definition is actually really different than today's definition, and it provides a lot more insight into the thought processes of the founders than does our current definition.  Based on this definition, it would seem the only people who have an unqualified right to own guns in the US would be those on active duty or reserve duty.  This definition also seems to reinforce the concept of "contract" that we saw in the previous definition of "infringe", since a contract would be required for a soldier to join a militia.   

As much as this seems like a counterfactual statement based upon the gun debate today, I think if we returned to the original ideas surrounding the second amendment, it might actually go a long way to improve things in the US.  After all, people who burn the US flag don't join the US military reserve forces.  I'm fine with taking guns away from people who burn the flag.  Criminals also do not join the military reserve force.  I'm fine with taking guns away from criminals.  On the other hand, the type of people who are willing to join the military are more commonly known as heroes.  I'm ok with letting heroes have guns, even when they are not actively being heroes.  And as long as those heroes are well regulated, I'm ok with them having F-22s as well.  

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Epic, from what I see from over here halfway around the world from the U.S. is that major "gun controlled" cities in are the cities with the highest gun violence.  Chicago springs to mind.  Law abiding citizens don't have guns, while "illegal" guns abound.

image_a195caa8-9af3-4305-85ae-27987fbd23f320180217_140806.jpg

In America, gun control doesn't work.  The concerted, shrill hysteria of imposing gun control and essentially repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution should be rightly met with heavy opposition.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Native Americans (sometimes mis-named "Indians") learned the hard way that when guns are peacefully surrendered to the government, they become defenseless, and bad things will tend to happen in the face of being defenseless against a government onslaught.

In the 1800's the U.S. "Wild West" could be pretty violent and bloody.  There is a good reason why a Colt .45 revolver had the name of "Peace Maker".

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

15 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

These are all clearly cherry-picked examples. I mean, Stalin didn't need gun control to starve millions of people and neither did Britain to do the same to Ireland, to mention just a couple of horrible examples. Germany--or Turkey, for that matter--now seem to have no problem with gun control, or the rest of Europe. Same for Australia, I think. I can see you're passionate about the issue but I'm not. I believe in natural selection, which is how a friend who sells guns for a living called all the child shooting accidents and the mass shootings in the States.

You still have not answered my question specifically about 3D printed guns, though. :) When you have the time. 

Britain did the same to Ireland? Actually despite this commonly held view, the Irish famine was the fault of crop failure. The fact that the British government exacerbated the problem by denying the distribution of other food types to the people of Ireland was not the root cause. And in fact the statistics show that during the time of the famine, Ireland was producing twice as much food as its population needed. However much of it was being exported at the behest of English and Irish landlords.

And I dont really see what this has to do wiith gun control (OK I can see that there is a vague, tenuous, connection - people died). But in this case the famine was a natural disaster exacerbated by greed and stupidity.

However, Millions of people have died from Malaria across the globe, with not a gun in sight.

The fact is that if there were no Plasmodium parasites, which are carried by the Anopheles mosquitos and transferred to a human host by the female mossie, there would be far fewer deaths from Malaria, worldwide. 

Likewise, if there were no guns, there would, ipso facto, be far fewer deaths caused by shooting.

Now, having said all that, I am believer that I should be allowed to carry a weapon if I choose. When I lived in Germany I passed the German examinations to become a Jager (hunter) and I was the allowed to hold and carry concealed a pistol - in fact if you are a Jager in Germany it is mandatory to carry a pistol, for two reasons, one being for protection against wounded animals and the other being to administer the Coup de Gras to wounded animals. And I was allowed to purchase and use a high powered rifle and a shotgun or several  for the purpose of filling my freezer with game.

In the UK a few years ago we had shootings at schools at Hungerford (England) in 1987 and at Dunblane (Scotland) in 1996. In the case of the Hungerford shooting, the police, who had issued a gun licence to the the Hungerford killer, had been strongly devised by the local shooting club not to do so. But they did anyway.

After the Dunblane shooting the government reacted  by banning hand guns. This has had zero effect on shootings and killings in the UK.

However, to get some perspective  on killing in general - in the British Isles - there is an interesting Wikipedia chart here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Great_Britain

The problem is one of people, not of the weapons themselves.

You could also compare traffic accident related deaths with gun crime. However the vast majority of traffic accidents are caused by poor judgement, stupidity, alcohol and drugs involvement and a small contingent of mechanical failure.

People die from gunshot wounds as a a direct result of someone pulling a trigger. I was very much aware of this whilst walking the streets of Northern Ireland in uniform during the 1970's and saw at first hand the results of a 7,62 calibre NATO standard copper jacketed bullet hitting a human body. When out and about on the streets in those days I was fully aware of the amount of copper jacketed death in my weapon and made sure that my thumb was almost glued to the safety catch in the SAFE position. And still tragedies like  Bloody Sunday occurred.

But in every case, if there is no finger on the trigger, no foot on the accelerator, deaths and injuries do not occur.

I am personally therefore, not in favour of Joe Public being able to print guns off on their 3 D printers.

Edited by Eodmatt
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eodmatt, that was my point: a lot of disasters have nothing to do with gun control. I was commenting on Tom's selection of gun control/dictatorship examples.

Yep, the gun problem is a people problem as are all other similar problems such as car accidents. And yep, the strongest argument against gun control is that while law-abiding citizens will surrender their guns, the criminals won't.

Still, if we have an Australian among us, I'd really like to hear more about their gun control story. It has been publicized as a success story, so based on everything that has been said so far in this thread, I'd like to hear more about it. Or about Australian gun violence statistics after the controls entered into effect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Epic, from what I see from over here halfway around the world from the U.S. is that major "gun controlled" cities in are the cities with the highest gun violence.  Chicago springs to mind.  Law abiding citizens don't have guns, while "illegal" guns abound.

You are right.  There is no gun problem in the US: there is a criminal problem.  To prove your very correct view, Tom, I'd like to back you up with a 154 examples: In the first half of 2018, there have been 154 school shootings in the US.  You will notice that in all 154 of those cases, gun control has been used to protect the people at those locations.  After all, schools are gun free zones, and it is illegal to carry a gun onto them!  Notice how criminals tremble and fear gun control laws!  

On the other hand, take a guess as to how many shootings have occurred at police stations in the US this past year?  If you said ZERO, you would be correct. 

In all 154 examples, the criminals decided to go to locations where they knew their victim was unarmed, and specifically avoided locations where they knew their victims would have been most assuredly armed.  

As I said before and as you know, the US does not have a gun problem, it has a criminal problem, and criminals prefer unarmed victims.  

I would also like to point out the irony of the politicians who support gun control: you can usually find them walking next to several armed body guards. 

 

It is reasonable to conclude that there are only two kinds of people who support gun control:

1. Those who are afraid of guns.

2. Criminals.

The reasoning behind #2 is obvious.  Concerning #1, (those who are afraid of guns), the first question we should always ask any gun control proponent whenever we meet them is: "how many different types of guns have you fired?"  In my experience, they have never fired even one, and their lack of familiarity with guns has caused them to fear them. Rather than acknowledge their own limitations and insecurities in the area of self-defense, they subconsciously attempt to save face by passing that responsibility off to a higher power: in this case, the government.  Asking these people how often they shoot guns usually brings to the forefront the realization of their own limited experience with guns, and I have found that once they hear themselves say it out loud, they tend to realize pretty quickly how stupid they have been acting.  After all, who would be dumb enough to take horse riding advice from someone who has never ridden a horse?  Or parachute-packing advice from someone who has never packed a parachute?  So why take gun control advice from someone who has never controlled a gun?  Their fear is causing them to act unreasonably, and so you can't expect them to listen to reason and facts and data, at least not until you can help them see their real problem: that their fear has clouded their judgment.  They are just scared.  We have all been there at some time in our lives, scared, maybe alone, and those feelings are not necessarily shameful things.  Once gun-proponents realize that most gun-control advocates are simply like little children who are afraid of the world because of their lack of experience, it becomes much harder for us to hate or despise or be even angry at them.  They are just people in need of protection and knowledge.  Luckily, you are wise and armed and so you can provide both.  

I once knew a missionary who preached in Sudan.  Now, Sudan is dangerous territory, just like the wild west...or at least it was back then.  This missionary traveled to the US to look for other missionaries to join him.  He had only one rule: you have to bring a gun.  Why?  Because it was exactly like you said, Tom: 

5 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

"Wild West" could be pretty violent and bloody.  There is a good reason why a Colt .45 revolver had the name of "Peace Maker".

^Safety first.  He wanted to make sure his missionaries made it back home.

 

15 hours ago, TXPower said:

No, the Founders would have no issue with the printing of 3D guns.  They would have a problem with the lack of morality, accountability, the break down of the family, level of absentee fathers and other real causes of crimes committed with guns

^This.  ;) 

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Epic said:

There is no gun problem in the US: there is a criminal problem.

Well said on your lengthy comment, Epic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the real answer to the problem is to destroy all guns so that neither the law abiding nor the criminals have access to them.

Clearly it isn't really the answer to the problem. Except in a perfect world.

Now, if I was a lefty liberal, I would start spouting about addressing the real causes of crime, which would obviate the need for criminals to be criminals. But I'm not, so I wont.

Profiling for criminal tendencies, anyone? .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

If we ever have another Civil War it will be over defending the Second Amendment. That could happen even if a constitutional amendment was passed to do away with the Second Amendment. It is also quite possible that battles will be fought in Blue States over their infringements on the Second Amendment. 

Edited by ronwagn
punctuation
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

19 hours ago, ronwagn said:

If we ever have another Civil War it will be over defending the Second Amendment. That could happen even if a constitutional amendment was passed to do away with the Second Amendment. It is also quite possible that battles will be fought in Blue States over their infringements on the Second Amendment. 

And voter suppression/intimidation in the RED STATES, via a callous disregard, for the 1st,4th, 5th, 6th, and most importantly the 14th amendment.

Tea bagging, douche canoes & Cruzers always holler "VOTER FRAUD" when the count does not go their way, at the end of election day.

It always amuses me greatly, that THOSE stanch defenders of the strict interpretation of the Constitution, look the other way when it does not support, their self styled rightwing agendas.

Edited by Glenn Ellis
Spelling
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites