Downloadable 3D Printed Gun Designs, Yay or Nay?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

I see you like to use the Big Lie technique. Richard Nixon decided to concede to an election that was stolen in Chicago by the corrupt Democratic Machine. In contrast, the Democrats whined and wailed when Al Gore was defeated by W. Bush. Wailed and whined when John Kerry was beaten by W. Bush. Had a hysterical fit when Donald J. Trump defeated them and they were utterly shocked that their terribly flawed and corrupt candidate Hillary Clinton lost. 

The encyclopedic corruption of the Obama administration was perpetrated by a large cast of evildoers who were very loyal to their leader Barack Obama and bereft of true ethics. My curated stories about the evil Obama administration are here.  https://docs.google.com/document/d/11axnqv_b3L2k9CD6HWNMwrdIECJZSxowxjO4RIc-rbE/edit 

The Clintons have a similar history that laid a framework for the evils of the Obama administration which cooperated with them and looked the other way regarding Hillary's wealth gathering, Behghazi, Uranium One, The Clinton Foundation donations while Hillary was Secretary of State, etc. etc. 

Voter registration suppression in Red States is a total smokescreen Big Lie and any honest person knows that. Requiring identification is common sense and is used in all advanced and most less advanced nations. The Democrats would prefer that felons, illegal aliens, and dead people vote. Sometimes even if they are dead or more people vote than are alive in the precinct. The latest trick is letting unconfirmed voters file "contested" ballots. 

Democratically appointed judges prefer to ignore the Constitution whenever it gets in the way of the leftist agenda, and have done anything they could to make judgments that thwart the will of the Trump Administration. 

Using foul terms to describe conservatives only toughens the resistance to the "progressive", socialist, communist agenda of the left. We proudly accept being called Deplorables. We take pride in Holding on to our Bibles and our guns. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-attacks-trump-for-playing-on-working-class-fears/

Edited August 28, 2018 by ronwagn
reference

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 8/22/2018 at 5:39 PM, Eodmatt said:

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.

Water causes drowning.  Ban all water.

(Relax, I know you are not being serious.)

[Eodmatt + 114]

actually there is something in what you say, Tom. 

But no need to ban water. What's needed is an Action Safety Plan. For example.

• No water anywhere in the world more than a foot deep. Yeah i know, but there are plenty of deserts where all the excess could go.
• Shipping to use designated deep water lanes.
• Every discrete body of water to have 'trained water marshals' in attendance.
• No person allowed to carry more than 1 litre of water unless specially trained and licensed.
• All water to be carried in view - no covert or concealed water.
• All persons worldwide to be issued with water wings by the UN.
• Any person intending to go within 1 mile (1.62 kilometres) is to have conducted a due diligence overview, have completed an up to date Risk Analysis Matrix and be in possession of an emergency contingency plan which is to be sealed and waterproofed.

And thats just for starters,

[Eodmatt + 114]

On 8/21/2018 at 6:27 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

Did you know that making a circle with the thumb and forefinger which means "OK" in the USA actually means A*shole in Germany?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

6 minutes ago, Eodmatt said:

Did you know that making a circle with the thumb and forefinger which means "OK" in the USA actually means A*shole in Germany?

Nope.  Good to know.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

19 minutes ago, Eodmatt said:

Did you know that making a circle with the thumb and forefinger which means "OK" in the USA actually means A*shole in Germany?

Oh, the comments I could make about this statement!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

Oh, the comments I could make about this statement!

Sounds A-OK to me : )

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 8/21/2018 at 7:53 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

 

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.

South Africa may be next on the list of slaughter, after legal guns are removed from its citizens.

This is where 3D printed guns might actually save lives against a tyrannical government crackdown.

As Land Confiscations Loom, South Africa Rules 300,000 Gun-Owners Turn Over Their Weapons

The Constitutional Court of South Africa recently ruled that 300,000 gun owners must turn in their firearms.

This judgement came in response to the North Gauteng High Court’s ruling in 2017 which said Section 24 and Section 28 of the Firearm’s Control Act were unconstitutional.

A report from The Citizen explains what Section 24 and Section 28 entail:

“Section 24 of the Act requires that any person who seeks to renew a licence must do so 90 days before its expiry date Section 28 stipulates that if a firearm licence has been cancelled‚ the firearm must be disposed of or forfeited to the state. A 60-day time frame was placed on its disposal, which was to be done through a dealer.”

Now that the High Court’s initial ruling has been overturned, gun owners who failed to renew their firearms licenses must hand in their firearms to the nearest police station, where authorities will then proceed to destroy them.

Many naïve political observers will paint this event as a casual gun control scheme, but any astute student of politics will recognize that the floodgates are now open for further encroachments – not only on the gun rights of South Africans, but also on others facets of theirs lives.

A look at South Africa’s current political climate will give us an idea of the potential ramifications of this gun control scheme. ...

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 8/22/2018 at 12:45 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

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.

I would like to highlight a common omission about this.  Gun control in Australia was mandatory.  It was not voluntary gun control it was involuntary, mandatory, gun confiscation.

The Australia Gun Control Fallacy

"The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory. Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of gun confiscation. Only the articles from USA Today and the Washington Post cited above contain the crucial information that the buyback was compulsory. The article by Smith-Spark, the latest entry in the genre, assuredly does not. It’s the most important detail about the main provision of Australia’s gun laws, and pundits ignore it. That’s like writing an article about how Obamacare works without once mentioning the individual mandate.

Yet when American gun control advocates and politicians praise Australia’s gun laws, that’s just what they’re doing. Charles Cooke of the National Review shredded the rhetorical conceit of bellowing “Australia!” last year after President Obama expressed his admiration for gun control à la Oz:

You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change this. Again, one doesn’t bring up countries that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward confiscation.

Cooke, of course, is right. When gun control advocates say they want Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States. ..."

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

On 8/21/2018 at 12:09 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

"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?

Allowing to post blueprints for printing 3D weapons is a really stupid idea. It will remove all kind of control and allow everyone to build a weapon. If every unstable teenager with a 3D printer can convert in a gun dealer don't be surprised if the number of shoolshootings skyrockets in the coming years. 

[TXPower + 643]

1 hour ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

Allowing to post blueprints for printing 3D weapons is a really stupid idea. It will remove all kind of control and allow everyone to build a weapon. If every unstable teenager with a 3D printer can convert in a gun dealer don't be surprised if the number of shoolshootings skyrockets in the coming years. 

Then hand over your car keys sir.  Every person motivated by mental instability, jihad or hate that gets behind the wheel instantly becomes controller of a deadly weapon.  No gunpowder necessary.  

 

 

 

[Jo Mack + 43]

It's a question that can be answered with an opinion, but the ship has sailed.  If the government stops the blueprints on-line, even e-mail, you can go to the library.  Plus there are a lot of people capable of making the gun without a blueprint.  

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

On 8/29/2018 at 4:59 PM, TXPower said:

Then hand over your car keys sir.  Every person motivated by mental instability, jihad or hate that gets behind the wheel instantly becomes controller of a deadly weapon.  No gunpowder necessary.  

 

 

 

Sadly, you are right. Vehicles have become weapons.

[Jonathan Galt + 40]

On 8/21/2018 at 9:27 AM, Marina Schwarz said:

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.

A false premise.  Although the process was less formal, all communities had "the guy(s) they turned to" when problems arose and convened legal tribunals of one sort or another.  In the absence of formal law, everyone became part of the posse.  That is not the "absence of lawmen" as you infer.

But that, completely aside, had nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of the 2nd which was displayed clearly above this post in the words of George Washington himself.  The purpose of the 2nd has nothing to do with self defense from bandits, a right which the authors believed to be so obvious as to be insulting to enshrine into the Constitution.  The purpose of the 2nd was to ensure that, should the people determine that it was time to "change or abolish" the government WE created, that we would be assured of being legally able to have access to the MEANS to evict them.

Flowers simply don't convince evil rogue politicians that they must leave their offices and relinquish control of government.

By the way, there is not one single documented case in history of a gun committing violence - just in case "gun violence" is your next talking point.

[Jonathan Galt + 40]

On 8/21/2018 at 7:05 PM, Epic said:

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

The answer to all of these questions revolves around "what was the purpose of the 2nd, and what is necessary to guarantee that right."

If fighter jets are minimum or even desirable technology necessary for we the people to be successful in overturning our own government if we decide it has gone rogue, then the answer is an obvious "yes."  Given the cost and training necessary to use them and public visibility, their presence among civilians would be self-limiting.  WMDs, on the other hand, are probably worth banning (from everyone, not just citizens).

All Rights have limits; all politicians seek to curtail our rights and protect the power they have obtained.  The limits on our rights end where we fail to protect them.  However, anyone who believes we should ban "assault weapons" (for example) based on the reasoning that they could be used to attack multiple people more easily than a hand gun is applying the wrong test (and has bought into the propaganda) - assault rifles may in fact be too LITTLE to accomplish the purpose of the 2nd.

Will some people die because a nutcase got a gun?  Certainly.  The question is not "did someone die?," the question is "what is liberty worth?"  Not being omniscient we cannot of course "know" what may have happened without the 2nd, but there are plenty of examples in history suggesting that far more people would die without it than with it - including our latest contestant, Venezuela, which once allowed guns and was as prosperous per person as the U.S.  An argument can be made that based on other historical examples it may be only BECAUSE of the 2nd that that fate has not occurred here.  Detractors will of course poo-poo the idea.  Let them - if they want it changed and we are foolish enough as a people to give up their rights, there is a way to do so legally - change our Constitution.  Good luck storming the castle, boys!

Our government does indeed have the ability to revoke the rights of people - one individual at a time, through due process, and only when their actual criminal (not merely "undesirable," as determined by bureaucrats) or mentally unstable behavior warrants it.  They are expressly denied the right to revoke Rights from "classes of people" (e.g. they cannot for example revoke the rights of purple people, or people who visited a shrink because they were unhappy in their lives).

To those who haplessly believe that "things are different today" are clueless idiots.  There is no less harsh way to say it.  Technology changes, but people's behavior and thirst for power have not changed in 10,000 years of human history.  Everyone is capable of killing under the right circumstances; the concern that everyone around them may be armed is one of the best deterrents.  If you are on the fence about this issue, I urge you to read, "The Prince" by Machiavelli, and pay particular attention to the similarity of actions of the players in that book to people today - and then consider what those same sociopathic power-mad people might have done had there not been 300 million weapons in this country.

[Jonathan Galt + 40]

On 8/29/2018 at 1:43 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Cooke, of course, is right. When gun control advocates say they want Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States. ..."

The other omission is that Australia's program was not actually a success.  Had it been a success, there would have been an UNEXPECTED drop in crime in the nation, which already had (like many other Western nations) declining crime statistics.  What was observed instead of an INCREASING rate of crime decline was a SLOWING of that rate of crime decline.

But, politicians being politicians point to the "continuing decline" as "evidence" that gun confiscation "worked."

Well, from their perspective it certainly did.  Now those pesky citizens can't pose a threat to government no matter what they decide to do.

[PaulG + 21]

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 5:09 AM, Marina Schwarz said:

"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?

Well it looks like he about to lose his  2nd amendment rights  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/09/23/cody-wilson-3-d-printed-gun-designer-jailed-sex-assault-charge/1403448002/

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 9/3/2018 at 12:24 PM, Jonathan Galt said:

 

Our government does indeed have the ability to revoke the rights of people - one individual at a time, through due process, and only when their actual criminal (not merely "undesirable," as determined by bureaucrats) or mentally unstable behavior warrants it. 

That is actually not true.  Government bureaucrats routinely revoke the rights of the people in the USA  (as sell as pretty much all other countries).  I point to the so-called "forfeiture laws," or more accurately "forfeiture banditry," where govt agents take money they find in autos they do traffic-stop searches on, cash money found inside houses, and money placed in bank accounts that the govt calls "structuring<' all done without any evidence whatsoever.  

If you need examples, look up the "Institute for Justice," about which I know little to nothing (as to politics), which seems to be a cadre of attorneys who go around suing the various govts that abusively engage in "forfeiture."   You have the case of the woman I think from Chicago going to buy a house in I recall Oklahoma, stopped underway, and the cops simply take all her cash, some $150,000, with zero suspicion of wrongdoing, simply saying:  "You must have come upon this money illegally, so we take it."   Then there was the case of a homeowner who kept about $50,000 in cash at home, his "emergency money" in case he had to head to Europe on a second's notice, the house caught fire, he said "I gotta save my cash," and was arrested and funds confiscated when he left the building.  There was no allegation of any wrongdoing; the cops simply took his cash for themselves.  And the case of the small laundromat owner, who ran an obviously cash business, making deposits regularly of less than $10,000; she was charged with "structuring," the imagined and made-up offense of depositing sums greater than $10,000, which would be reported to the "authorities,"  into smaller amounts so that it would fall under the reporting threshold to the cops.  The fact that a laundromat generates lots of little bills daily and she had no big safe to hold it, nor an armored-car contract to transport it, requiring her to do multiple runs to the bank to safeguard against too much money piling up, and being robbed, became the excuse for bureaucrats to rob her - of everything, cleaning out her entire bank account and rendering her penniless and destitute. 

I have a client who has a 200-acre farm in Connecticut, most of which has not been farmed for decades and has reverted to bush.  On the far side is a tract housing development.  The teenage kids go into those woods with their girlfriend and make a marshmallow fire, and make out with the girls.  Some fire warden finds the coals, accuses the (82-year-old) farmer of setting a "brush fire" on the far side of the land without a Permit, and he gets arbitrarily fined $11,000.  And the bureaucrats put a lien on his farm!  Yup, that is the behaviour of bureaucrats and officious abusers in Connecticut, and a good reason not to live there. 

The idea of "due process" in the modern Administrative State is a laughingstock.  There is none.  It is nothing more than mentally-disturbed bureaucrats grotesquely abusing their authority, victimizing innocent people.  And they do that all day long.  You just don't see it, because the victims they select are not powerful Wall Street bankers, or attorneys - they are the immigrant washer-woman who sets up a simple laundromat, or the Polish potato-farmer who is elderly, or the immigrant woman from Lithuania living in Chicago who does not trust banks  (and she should not).  Those are the victims.  It is a complete disgrace.  And that is why Americans should have and need their guns - to be able to overthrow their government, against the day it becomes necessary. 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Jan van Eck

[Epic + 390]

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

That is actually not true. 

...

...against the day it becomes necessary.

Based on my limited experience, I'd have to agree with everything Jan wrote in this post.  However, I'd argue that a majority of this doesn't happen because the government officials are diabolical and intentionally target the poor; rather, I would suggest that it happens because those government officials tend to be quite incompetent, and the poor (due to their financial situation) are just unable to properly defend themselves against that incompetence.  Those poor people cannot afford high paid lawyers to get the charges dropped and sue the city for their mishaps, and are thus then forced to pay the fine (which they still can't afford, but at least the fine tends to be less than the lawyer fees would be).  

I'll give you a personal example that actually occurred to me when I was a police officer: daughter calls up her best friend and tells the friend that she is being abducted by her ex-boyfriend against her will.  Girl-being-abducted gets her ex-boyfriend to agree to meet with her best friend before he takes her out of State; she does this in hopes that her best friend will be able to arrange for someone to save her from her ex-boyfriend.  Best friend, seeking help to stop the abduction, then calls the father of the girl being abducted, who races over to stop the abduction.  While en route to stop the abduction, father calls police, thinking that they might be able to arrive sooner.  Unfortunately, father arrives first and is able to take the car keys from the ex-boyfriend to prevent him from fleeing the scene with his daughter in tow.  

Sgt arrives on scene and arrests father for assault.  

Did the father have an exemption to arrest in this case?  Yes.  Does that exemption mean he cannot legally be arrested for any reasonable actions taken to prevent the abduction?  Yes.  Did Sgt care when I explained the legal technicalities as to what "exemption" actually means?  No.

Father goes to jail.  

I imagine this same thing happens over and over again, throughout all levels of government.  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Epic said:

Sgt arrives on scene and arrests father for assault.  

Did the father have an exemption to arrest in this case?  Yes.  Does that exemption mean he cannot legally be arrested for any reasonable actions taken to prevent the abduction?  Yes.  Did Sgt care when I explained the legal technicalities as to what "exemption" actually means?  No.

Father goes to jail.  

I imagine this same thing happens over and over again, throughout all levels of government.  

In your case, the sergeant was (and presumably is) utterly incompetent.  He has no business being a police officer.  Incompetence is a continuing theme in and among govt officials; however, that is no excuse. 

I had a client (woman) who was working late in an office that she was co-owner of, with a man, also present.  The man had a dysfunctional relationship with his girlfriend (the "girl-toy").  She broke into the office that night and accused her boy-toy of doing sex with the woman co-owner, my client (a ridiculous proposition).  The girl-toy attacks my client, as she is on the phone with 911 dispatch.  The tape makes clear that the girl-toy is pulling the hair out of the woman on the phone.  Boy-toy then grabs girl, the two struggle, and when the police arrive, the two are rolling on the floor pulling and grappling each other.  My client is still on the phone with 911 dispatch. 

The police arrest my client, cuff her (behind her back), and force her to walk down a flight of steep stairs handcuffed.  Ditto for the male.  The crazy woman ("girl-toy") is let go, notwithstanding that she had broken into a locked building and done the attacks.  It is speculated that the girl-toy, who was well known to police, was also "servicing" the sergeant who was at the scene that night!  

Out of this morass I sued the policemen for my client and the department for false arrest.  The insurer settled for $30,000.  Rather covers the cost of being in that jail for the night. Later on, the chief of police was fired by the police commission for selling department tires and two machine guns out of the trunk of his cruiser.  The chief was running guns in a profitable side-line; got caught when he moved up to town-purchased tires instead of confiscated machine guns, ans there were Town purchase-order records on the tires, so the auditor went looking for them.  Oh, well. 

And, this was a respectable, upper-class suburb in tony Connecticut.  Go figure. 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Jan van Eck

[Otis11 + 551]

18 hours ago, Epic said:

Sgt arrives on scene and arrests father for assault.  

Did the father have an exemption to arrest in this case?  Yes.  Does that exemption mean he cannot legally be arrested for any reasonable actions taken to prevent the abduction?  Yes.  Did Sgt care when I explained the legal technicalities as to what "exemption" actually means?  No.

Father goes to jail.  

Can anyone say wrongful imprisonment?

Originally, no, but if you've explained the law to him and he fails to take timely action to confirm the law and release the father - well, the father could be quite the wealthy man if he finds a decent attorney.

[bongo twocanchoo + 4]

On 8/21/2018 at 12:33 PM, 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.

Ok...fair point. Let’s apply your argument to the First Amendment and see if it makes sense. Do you think the people who came up with the First Amendment had TVs, radios, and the internet in mind? No. So should we limit 1A to only written, spoken or printed media? Again, emphatically, “NO”. So it goes with the Second Amendment. 2A doesn’t “allow” the right of Americans to defend themselves, it enshrines the God-given right to do so. Without 2A, the right still exists, but would not be codified as law. We don’t have a gun problem, we have a politics and culture problem. I’m sure Most everyone would wholeheartedly agree we didn’t have the same problem with shootings in the 40’s,50’s,or60’s, yet, back then you could order a rifle from a Sears catalogue and have it sent directly to your home address. Guns don’t kill, people kill.