Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No more gun regulations! Now clinically insane people, felons and terrorists can stockpile guns with nothing to stop them. God bless America.
Whether it's legal or illegal you are not going to stop anyone from using this tech to manufacture any type of gun they want, that is just the facts. I could attach a file to this post for fully automatic machine gun if I had one...
The machine the dude sells does the same functions same exact functions as an automated bridge port. It's just scaled down to fit on a computer desk.
Would you have said the same to John Browning back when primitive manufacturing existed when he produced the 1911? The BAR?
3D printing from sintered metal works better than a traditional forge or casting or MIM.
Guess you haven't heard of Sig Sauer latest boondoggles. P320 P365 and MCX suffer catastrophic failures.
Please link up the Catatrophic failures of SIGS products.
There were teething issues and the BS firing while dropped test, which was another false test that had nothing to do with militarys test for gun trials.
Catastrophic is harsh wors, as none blew up.
Why? The 2nd does mention a "well-regulated" militia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
For that time frame that term would be interpreted as "in good working order" or simply as "effective".
The Bill of Rights was written at a time when the authors had just had a long, bitter (and bloody) fight with a Big Government (England) trying to disarm its subjects (colonists) as it tried to oppress them.
The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment did so to make sure the American government could NEVER try any such thing here. And they did not have in mind, that under certain circumstances various kinds of government restrictions on guns would be OK. That's why the 2nd amendment (unlike the 4th, 6th etc.) was written with NO exceptions or caveats... and even included an explanation.
Their intent was to cast in stone the idea that government could never have ANY say in who can own a gun and who couldn't. They had already seen far too many attempts by Government to wiggle and find excuses to disarm them. They knew that if you gave Big Govt an inch, they'd take a mile. So they wrote the 2nd, to not give even an inch.
Quote:
You also need to note the commas and their locations, they have meaning.
The version of the 2nd amendment that was passed by Congress and ratified by the States, had only one comma, not three. It was after the word "state".
The other two were added later, as the BOR was being prepared for public release, by a Committee on Style and Prose, who thought that a few extra commas would not change its meaning. Because in the 1790s, those commas didn't change its meaning.
Please link up the Catatrophic failures of SIGS products.
There were teething issues and the BS firing while dropped test, which was another false test that had nothing to do with militarys test for gun trials.
Catastrophic is harsh wors, as none blew up.
LOL the 365 MIM firing pin failure isn't catastrophic? I would say it is for should you find you need that weapon to defend yourself you pull the trigger and it go click and no bang...
How about SIGS attempt at a piston driven AR where the plastic cups for the recoil Springs in the charging handle crack causing the bolt carrier to lock in the rearward position when the springs unravel and jam rendering the weapon inoperable isn't a catastrophic failure?
Why? The 2nd does mention a "well-regulated" militia.
Doesn't say guns cannot be regulated, just says the general "right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
It does not, in any way, shape or form, say "anyone can own a gun of any kind at any time."
Just says that people can own guns.
SCOTUS technically should be allowed to interpret what constitutes "arms" for the purposes of the 2nd amendment, should Congress or the POTUS overstep their bounds.
This guy printing guns is an anarchist nut job.
There's a good argument that is exactly what the 2nd Amendment is saying. The founders who wrote the 2nd Amendment in the first place were find with private citizens owning primitive automatic weapons, cannons, etc. The notion of "military weapons" not being covered under the 2nd Amendment is a new concept and has nothing to do with the original intended meaning. The courts had to fudge it to set such precedents, just like you are. Your latching onto the words "well regulated" hoping it can mean what you want it to. The 2nd Amendment does not specify what kinds of arms the people had the right to own. The founders knew technology would change and left that pretty open-ended, which is reflected in the way they responded to questions while they were still alive.
Like I've said a million times, if you don't like the 2nd Amendment, stop trying to sneak around it. The process to repeal and/or modify it has been in place since the ink was drying on the Constitution. If you have the numbers to do it, then amend the Constitution. If you don't then you don't get to grab up everyone's guns. Simple and easy.
BTW, even before the BOR was added to the Constitution, the Fed govt still had no authority to restrict people's guns, or even taking guns away from the mentally ill, enact waiting periods etc. It had only the powers expressly included in the Constitution. And privately-owned weapons were nowhere mentioned.
Many scholars at the time considered a Bill of Rights to be superfluous. Since the Fed govt was given no authority to restrict speech, restrict religion, restrict guns etc., why add extra language saying forbidding them to do any of that?
Fortunately others knew better, that govt would eventually use the excuse that since it wasn't expressly prohibited from doing these things, that meant they DID have the authority (as RedZin keeps trying to do here). That's why the 10th amendment was included, to expressly say to the government "No, you DON'T have the authority, and you are banned from even trying."
This whole case is an acknowledgement that the government has the right to regulate property rights. It is only because the government decided not to classify the AR-15 as a military grade weapon that Mr. Wilson won his case. He essentially gained permission from his masters to proceed. This fellow lost the right to call himself and anarchist the moment he petitioned the government for permission. No compromises, remember? That what the anarcho-capitalists are always so condescendingly berating conservatives about isn't it? Any compromise makes you a hypocrite and a coward. You should be ashamed to support somebody who recognizes the authority of the court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Nope. Not even close.
The government has no right to classify anything, for any reason.
As long as government courts exist and are funded through stolen income he can, and should, use them. Just like government roads.
The abolition of the State cannot be done overnight; it takes years or decades. This is just a baby step in that direction.
I'm not siding with Uncle Bully but let's give him some credit here. It's very rare to see a Statist have a little bark in their argumentative bite so I want to applaud him for at least putting some thought into this situation.
Of course the government can't regulate property rights. Of course regardless of the government's edict natural rights exist and are absolute. The government has no rights. It is illogical. It is immoral. It is fictional...right up there with the Easter Bunny.
Having said all that us anarchists must make sure we consider the mindset of the statist when talking about cases like this. Since the statist still believes in the Easter Bunny, authority, submissiveness, and rights being protected and granted to individuals by government it's important to note that when us anarchists see "bad things" happen to the government, even through the government's own machinery, we will celebrate.
This of course is a "bad thing" for government. So we celebrate. Also to note, the shot at the liberal Statist NRA is another thing to rejoice over.
Any time the government is inconvenienced, strained, weakened, or otherwise simply made angry...we celebrate.
If these things contribute to the collapse of the government...fantastic. If the government collapses overnight because the overwhelming majority/everyone finally realize it's a sham...fantastic.
You have two basic strains within the mindset of the anarchist.
The first one wants to retreat to the smallest Statist footprint as possible. Most, if I had to guess, fall into this category. These are your off-grid folks who use as little government resources as possible and interact with the government only when absolutely necessary. As I've mentioned in here before I know a family living in the mountains of Vermont who have adopted this approach to fulfill their anarchist mindset. They are down to property taxes. That is their last association with the government and it's the government keeping that relationship alive...obviously. My friend's wife must babysit and get paid in U.S. dollars to cover this expense which is the height of irony. In order to be legal and pay tribute she must break the law and work under the table. This is a good time to point out that the government makes criminals out of all of us. It's one way it keeps us in line.
Strain 2, the less popular approach, are people we call "plants". I've only known one plant in my entire life. It was an old boyfriend of my sister several decades ago. His entire goal in life was to strain the government as much as possible. Consume as much government resources as possible. Any welfare state offering he could qualify for or scam he did so with much pride. We call them "plants" because their political, or more appropriately apolitical, goal is to zap the State of its resources causing its collapse by basically sitting and doing nothing...hence qualifying for services and having the time to fight the government.
Of course Statist cons will label Strain 1 as hypocrites but again...who is keeping the relationship alive? And they will label Strain 2 as leeches not really interested in ending the State but if it is their money being redistributed back to them how are they a leech? Furthermore, if they are getting my money instead of the government, while not 100% kosher, I would be much happier with that outcome.
I'm not siding with Uncle Bully but let's give him some credit here. It's very rare to see a Statist have a little bark in their argumentative bite so I want to applaud him for at least putting some thought into this situation.
Of course the government can't regulate property rights. Of course regardless of the government's edict natural rights exist and are absolute. The government has no rights. It is illogical. It is immoral. It is fictional...right up there with the Easter Bunny.
Having said all that us anarchists must make sure we consider the mindset of the statist when talking about cases like this. Since the statist still believes in the Easter Bunny, authority, submissiveness, and rights being protected and granted to individuals by government it's important to note that when us anarchists see "bad things" happen to the government, even through the government's own machinery, we will celebrate.
This of course is a "bad thing" for government. So we celebrate. Also to note, the shot at the liberal Statist NRA is another thing to rejoice over.
Any time the government is inconvenienced, strained, weakened, or otherwise simply made angry...we celebrate.
If these things contribute to the collapse of the government...fantastic. If the government collapses overnight because the overwhelming majority/everyone finally realize it's a sham...fantastic.
You have two basic strains within the mindset of the anarchist.
The first one wants to retreat to the smallest Statist footprint as possible. Most, if I had to guess, fall into this category. These are your off-grid folks who use as little government resources as possible and interact with the government only when absolutely necessary. As I've mentioned in here before I know a family living in the mountains of Vermont who have adopted this approach to fulfill their anarchist mindset. They are down to property taxes. That is their last association with the government and it's the government keeping that relationship alive...obviously. My friend's wife must babysit and get paid in U.S. dollars to cover this expense which is the height of irony. In order to be legal and pay tribute she must break the law and work under the table. This is a good time to point out that the government makes criminals out of all of us. It's one way it keeps us in line.
Strain 2, the less popular approach, are people we call "plants". I've only known one plant in my entire life. It was an old boyfriend of my sister several decades ago. His entire goal in life was to strain the government as much as possible. Consume as much government resources as possible. Any welfare state offering he could qualify for or scam he did so with much pride. We call them "plants" because their political, or more appropriately apolitical, goal is to zap the State of its resources causing its collapse by basically sitting and doing nothing...hence qualifying for services and having the time to fight the government.
Of course Statist cons will label Strain 1 as hypocrites but again...who is keeping the relationship alive? And they will label Strain 2 as leeches not really interested in ending the State but if it is their money being redistributed back to them how are they a leech? Furthermore, if they are getting my money instead of the government, while not 100% kosher, I would be much happier with that outcome.
Blast away Uncle Bully. I know you want to.
*Insert gif of Kermit the frog looking into the camera and shaking head*
*Insert gif of Kermit the frog looking into the camera and shaking head*
LOL.
Thanks.
I'll add another Youtube clip for Uncle Bully to get the point: while we don't approve of the State's machinery we love it when it's used to defeat the State at its own game.
Cue Nelson Muntz pointing at the State in this case:
Would you buy a lawnmower that your neighbor made from scratch? I doubt it.
Why not? Would you eat a home-cooked meal from scratch at your neighbor's house as opposed to eating out at a restaurant?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
