-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gunsmiths 3D-Print 30 Round MAGAZINES To Thwart Proposed Gun Laws
- Thread starter CrankyJay
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Last I checked gun owners are americans. Why do they have to justify shit to youWhy do you need clips that large? In what practical situation do you see yourself needing to unload that many bullets that quickly? Hunting? Home defense?
I H8 Memes
Member
The second amendment is very clear that citizens are allowed to be armed so as to keep the nation free from tyranny. It is currently useless for that purpose as the weapons citizens are allowed to possess would be completely pathetic against the U.S. military. Completely useless. Armed citizens would be the Washington Generals to the U.S. militarys Globetrotters. It would be funny if it wasnt so sad.
The definition of Arms: A weapon, especially a firearm.
Brought to you by the Webster dictionary. I think we should have the right to own any firearm barring you have the correct license. If you can go through the qualifications you should be able to own the weapon.
Secondly a rocket launcher and/or nukes are considered explosive warheads, not a firearm, so I don't believe you can even compare the two.
Actually arms is short for armament and it means any tool used specifically to inflict damage.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Last I checked gun owners are americans. Why do they have to justify shit to you
Wow, what a pathetic attitude that does absolutely nothing to explain or even talk about anything. The second amendment is not a divinely inspired piece of scripture and suggesting that it may not unilaterally refer to all forms of armement is not blasphemy. Sorry if a world with shades of grey in it is too complex for you to handle.
No I completely understand the meaning and intention of the second amendment. It is meant to keep the people safe from rampant regulation from the federal government. Im not saying we should ever have to use those weapons but the Constitution was written in historical context because the people were tired of being over regulated by the British government. They wanted to make sure that they had the right and the responsibility to control their own lives.
Our founding fathers were very clear on this.
"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
"We think experience has proved it safer for the mass of individuals composing the society to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent and to delegate those to which they are not competent to deputies named and removable for unfaithful conduct by themselves immediately." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:487
you cant argue that point when it is defined so direct and deliberate.
Whether or not you think it is clear is completely irrelevant to what I posted and what you posted.
Are you or are you not aware that there is a rather large debate over the intention and meaning of the second amendment of the Bill of rights in the Constitution?
You are arguing one side of the debate. I don't care what side is right or wrong. I think it is ridiculous that you seem to claim that no debate even exists.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
The second amendment is very clear that citizens are allowed to be armed so as to keep the nation free from tyranny. It is currently useless for that purpose as the weapons citizens are allowed to possess would be completely pathetic against the U.S. military. Completely useless. Armed citizens would be the Washington Generals to the U.S. militarys Globetrotters. It would be funny if it wasnt so sad.
And it's not like the country is going to become a dictatorship or anything with how inept everyone is. I mean, look at all the trouble just to raise the debt ceiling!
I'm not opposed to owning guns or rifles, I am opposed to the current lack of safeguards including all the shit the NRA did to make even current laws ineffectual.
Actually arms is short for armament and it means any tool used specifically to inflict damage.
This is actually an interesting question. At the time the Bill of Rights was written, would anyone have expected the Second Amendment to extend to, say, artillery?
If I had several cannon in my backyard, would that be legal, or would someone try to take those away from me?
I'm actually curious about this, btw, this isn't rhetorical. Anyone know?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I am very curious about this as well.This is actually an interesting question. At the time the Bill of Rights was written, would anyone have expected the Second Amendment to extend to, say, artillery?
If I had several cannon in my backyard, would that be legal, or would someone try to take those away from me?
I'm actually curious about this, btw, this isn't rhetorical. Anyone know?
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
This is actually an interesting question. At the time the Bill of Rights was written, would anyone have expected the Second Amendment to extend to, say, artillery?
If I had several cannon in my backyard, would that be legal, or would someone try to take those away from me?
I'm actually curious about this, btw, this isn't rhetorical. Anyone know?
I have this vague recollection that there have indeed been private owners of artillery pieces, but it would be extremely impractical for anybody who wasn't a wealthy land owner at the time.
Whether or not you think it is clear is completely irrelevant to what I posted and what you posted.
Are you or are you not aware that there is a rather large debate over the intention and meaning of the second amendment of the Bill of rights in the Constitution?
You are arguing one side of the debate. I don't care what side is right or wrong. I think it is ridiculous that you seem to claim that no debate even exists.
Never said that the debate didn't exist. I just believe the debate is clearly one sided. The quote from Thomas Jefferson says it pretty well.
Never said that the debate didn't exist. I just believe the debate is clearly one sided. The quote from Thomas Jefferson says it pretty well.
Ah yes, Jefferson, noted author of the Second Amendment, right?
This is actually an interesting question. At the time the Bill of Rights was written, would anyone have expected the Second Amendment to extend to, say, artillery?
If I had several cannon in my backyard, would that be legal, or would someone try to take those away from me?
I'm actually curious about this, btw, this isn't rhetorical. Anyone know?
I suppose we should take into consideration that at the time the constitution was written our founding fathers were staunchly against having a standing army.
And it's not like the country is going to become a dictatorship or anything with how inept everyone is. I mean, look at all the trouble just to raise the debt ceiling!
I'm not opposed to owning guns or rifles, I am opposed to the current lack of safeguards including all the shit the NRA did to make even current laws ineffectual.
One step at a time. I'm not saying that the country is headed towards dictatorship but these things dont happen overnight.
It is much more discrete to poison someone over time than to shoot someone in broad daylight (no pun intended)
ClassyPenguin
Banned
This is quite interesting as well.
Of Rocks, Trees, Rifles, and Militia
Thoughts on Eighteenth-Century Military Tactics
Of Rocks, Trees, Rifles, and Militia
Thoughts on Eighteenth-Century Military Tactics
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Never said that the debate didn't exist. I just believe the debate is clearly one sided. The quote from Thomas Jefferson says it pretty well.
Lets take one of those quotes and examine it in the context of modern day gun legislation:
I've bolded the relevant part: currently in many states in the US theres no requirement that gun owners demonstrate their competence. How do you feel about that in the context of this quote and its implications?"We think experience has proved it safer for the mass of individuals composing the society to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent and to delegate those to which they are not competent to deputies named and removable for unfaithful conduct by themselves immediately." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:487
I have this vague recollection that there have indeed been private owners of artillery pieces, but it would be extremely impractical for anybody who wasn't a wealthy land owner at the time.
Their was that rebellion shortly after the revolutionary war. Forget what it was called, but from what i remember it was all rifles.
Ah yes, Jefferson, noted author of the Second Amendment, right?
And no, I never said that. Dont take a petty stab at my intelligence, but Thomas Jefferson was heavily involved in the process. I'm using him as an example because he is well respected and had a great grasp on the laws that established the country.
Lets take one of those quotes and examine it in the context of modern day gun legislation:
I've bolded the relevant part: currently in many states in the US theres no requirement that gun owners demonstrate their competence for gun ownership. How do you feel about that in the context of this quote and its implications?
I beg to differ, when applying for a concealed weapons permit, one undergoes a background as well as a safety course. Some states even require you to take a written competency test.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
I beg to differ, when applying for a concealed weapons permit, one undergoes a background as well as a safety course. Some states even require you to take a written competency test.
I bet that those people are competent because they are going for the extra steps of getting a CCW permit.
Those people are not the ones comitting most of the gun crimes
No it isn't divine or sacred. Your side could try to have it amended out of the constitution, but you guys don't even try. Probably because then you would answer questions like the one I asked.Wow, what a pathetic attitude that does absolutely nothing to explain or even talk about anything. The second amendment is not a divinely inspired piece of scripture and suggesting that it may not unilaterally refer to all forms of armement is not blasphemy. Sorry if a world with shades of grey in it is too complex for you to handle.
The world is full of shades of grey, thank god. A citizens right to defend himself is a rather historic shade of grey. Normally people lived at their governments mercy.. I
I bet that those people are competent because they are going for the extra steps of getting a CCW permit.
Those people are not the ones comitting most of the gun crimes
agreed
And yet those people are the one constantly being attacked.I bet that those people are competent because they are going for the extra steps of getting a CCW permit.
Those people are not the ones comitting most of the gun crimes
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I beg to differ, when applying for a concealed weapons permit, one undergoes a background as well as a safety course. Some states even require you to take a written competency test.
I wasn't talking about concealed weapons permits. Just owning and using a gun requires no registration or demonstration of competancy in many states.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
The world is full of shades of grey, thank god. A citizens right to defend himself is a rather historic shade of grey. Normally people lived at their governments mercy.. I
Which is why this country was founded by the people and for the fucking people! Representative democracy, not some free-for-all war-zone of unconditional access to armaments. The control on the government is voting
If anything attitudes like yours are unpatriotic because they spit in the face of the system that our founders believed in: change in government through representation of the people instead of bloody revolution.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
By all means try to amend the constitution. Then you can line up gun owners and ask them all the questions you want.
Who says I want to repeal the second amendment? I simply believe that it does not universally apply to all forms of firearms and that there is a genuine debate to be had about where the line is
And those you disagree with you can call unamerican and throw them in jail. In the name of the people of course.
How many cans of tomato soup do you have in your bunker?
Which is why this country was founded by the people and for the fucking people! Representative democracy, not some free-for-all war-zone of unconditional access to armaments. The control on the government is voting
If anything attitudes like yours are unpatriotic because they spit in the face of the system that our founders believed in: change in government through representation of the people instead of bloody revolution.
If we are a country founded by the people, for the people, then what gives you the right to tell me what I can and cant own? I have as much of a right to own weapons as you do to not own weapons. Last time I checked the US isnt a "free-for-all war-zone". I also haven't seen a "bloody revolution". Again i dont understand why people have to go to such extremes. Its irrational.
Side note, If the police end a violent crime, its an average of 18 people get killed before the criminal can be subdued. If a CCW or procure citizen interviens only am average of 2 die.
Who says I want to repeal the second amendment? I simply believe that it does not universally apply to all forms of firearms and that there is a genuine debate to be had about where the line is
How many cans of tomato soup do you have in your bunker?
What is with you and insulting people, why cant you have a healthy debate and keep it above the belt.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
What is with you and insulting people, why cant you have a healthy debate and keep it above the belt.
I am insulting remnant because he is the one who first started slinging when he brought patriotism into this by insinuating that its "un-American" to question certain types of gun ownership. And it pissed me off. I don't like having my dedication to my country questioned.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
And yet those people are the one constantly being attacked.
Nope. Not at all actually.
I am insulting remnant because he is the one who first started slinging when he brought patriotism into this by insinuating that its "un-American" to question certain types of gun ownership. And it pissed me off. I don't like having my dedication to my country questioned.
So you dive to his level? makes sense
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
If we are a country founded by the people, for the people, then what gives you the right to tell me what I can and cant own?
But there are already massive restrictions on what an individual can and can't own. Why is it that the idea of debating where that line is drawn is unthinkable?
so you want to restrict what firearms people can have but you support the 2nd amendment.Who says I want to repeal the second amendment? I simply believe that it does not universally apply to all forms of firearms and that there is a genuine debate to be had about where the line is
How many cans of tomato soup do you have in your bunker?
Seems like that would be a lot easier without the 2nd amendment.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
So you dive to his level? makes sense
Shock and awe, I occasionally have emotional responses. Being told that I am un-American for disagreeing with a specific belief about firearms apparently sets them off.
But there are already massive restrictions on what an individual can and can't own. Why is it that the idea of debating where that line is drawn is unthinkable?
Because it has become increasingly regulated over the past two decades. Whats to stop them from eventually banning weapons all together. It doesn't happen overnight, the government is notorious for taking away rights and freedoms little by little. Yes, its pushing the line just a little more now, but what about in twenty years when this same debate has come up three or four more times. Where does it stop?
Side note, If the police end a violent crime, its an average of 18 people get killed before the criminal can be subdued. If a CCW or procure citizen interviens only am average of 2 die.
I'm not entirely sure what this means, but can you back it up?
Stop fucking around and just ban guns instead. This is so fucking silly concentrating on FEWER people getting shot by maniacs when they have to reload instead of EVEN FEWER people getting shot by maniacs because they don't have easy access to guns. Are all American politicians inbred or what?!
Except right now. Or do you really think criminals care about background checks.Nope. Not at all actually.
And technomancer the only reason to ask a question like that is to shame them. Oh you own a gun with how many rounds? Do you live in a bunker too, blah blah blah.
I don't believe for a second that your question is genuine.
Stop fucking around and just ban guns instead. This is so fucking silly concentrating on LESS people getting shot by maniacs when they have to reload instead of MUCH LESS people getting shot by maniacs because they don't have easy access to guns. Are all American politicians inbred or what?!
Im assuming your from a different country, which means your opinions on this fortunately dont matter. The vast, vast majority of gun owners are competent, normal people. Why do you feel you even have a stake in this debate? No offense intended, but I dont think you can adequately participate if you dont have any bearing or connection.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
And technomancer the only reason to ask a question like that is to shame them. Oh you own a gun with how many rounds? Do you live in a bunker too, blah blah blah.
I don't believe for a second that your question is genuine.
I asked if you have a bunker because you apparently have a legitimate fear of an Orwellian state in which individuals with controversial opinions are arrested in the "name of the people"
Stop fucking around and just ban guns instead. This is so fucking silly concentrating on FEWER people getting shot by maniacs when they have to reload instead of EVEN FEWER people getting shot by maniacs because they don't have easy access to guns. Are all American politicians inbred or what?!
A right to guns is enshrined in our Constitution. Irrespective of the merits, banning guns altogether would require an amendment to the Constitution, which would be an extremely difficult process even if it didn't have 200+ years of inertia behind it.
This is why we quibble about the meaning of the Second Amendment--it's not going away, so whatever we do must work within its framework.
Im assuming your from a different country, which means your opinions on this fortunately dont matter.
This is a discussion forum. If Danneee wants to discuss gun laws in the US, s/he should feel free to, regardless of country of origin. Though I might recommend a less aggressive style.
And in your world demanding innocent people justify what they own is a totally fine and proper role of government.
Where did I get that view from. I don't know, the multiple jokes and mocking I see on GAF and other places. Fine let's pretend that's a serious question.
The vast majority of gun crime isn't even done with the weapons that would use these clips, not even bringing up the fact that many mass shooters run into jams or other malfunctions before they empty. There is no proof that clip size would make a dent in gun violence.
Where did I get that view from. I don't know, the multiple jokes and mocking I see on GAF and other places. Fine let's pretend that's a serious question.
The vast majority of gun crime isn't even done with the weapons that would use these clips, not even bringing up the fact that many mass shooters run into jams or other malfunctions before they empty. There is no proof that clip size would make a dent in gun violence.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
The purpose of the "how will you use that many rounds at once" is not to shame people. I have no idea where that idea comes from. Its so that we can weigh the merits of the restriction. If, for example, forcing shooters to reload more often has an appreciable effect on the ability of a bystander to stop them, we need to weigh that against the additional increase in inconvenience for other gun-users, and decide if the trade off is worth it.
It already does. Restrictions on what private citizens can own are not new nor are they to my knowledge controversial at any credible level. I hate to resort to this cliche, but yes, you do have to try and justify if you want to own a bomb. And it will probably fail.
And in your world demanding innocent people justify what they own is a totally fine and proper role of government.
It already does. Restrictions on what private citizens can own are not new nor are they to my knowledge controversial at any credible level. I hate to resort to this cliche, but yes, you do have to try and justify if you want to own a bomb. And it will probably fail.
I'm not entirely sure what this means, but can you back it up?
It means that when citizen end a violent crime, statistically the death rate is lower, mostly because police have to go through some many unnecessary hoops when using firearms. And yes, it is common knowledge, there are many scholastic articles that referenance this
Because doing so would force the issue out of DC in a way. The majority of the country are not afraid of guns and there just isn't the political force there to do it.Stop fucking around and just ban guns instead. This is so fucking silly concentrating on FEWER people getting shot by maniacs when they have to reload instead of EVEN FEWER people getting shot by maniacs because they don't have easy access to guns. Are all American politicians inbred or what?!
A right to guns is enshrined in our Constitution. Irrespective of the merits, banning guns altogether would require an amendment to the Constitution, which would be an extremely difficult process even if it didn't have 200+ years of inertia behind it.
This is why we quibble about the meaning of the Second Amendment--it's not going away, so whatever we do must work within its framework.
This is a discussion forum. If Danneee wants to discuss gun laws in the US, s/he should feel free to, regardless of country of origin. Though I might recommend a less aggressive style.
Well said, I didnt mean to be rude. I agree that he should be able to discuss this, but as an outsider looking in, I feel he shouldnt be part of the process. My mistake for being rude and/or non sensitive to his views.
difference being I don't have a right to a bomb. I do have a right to a gun. I don't need to have a cause or excuse to justify having 5 or 10 bullets.The purpose of the "how will you use that many rounds at once" is not to shame people. I have no idea where that idea comes from. Its so that we can weigh the merits of the restriction. If, for example, forcing shooters to reload more often has an appreciable effect on the ability of a bystander to stop them, we need to weigh that against the additional increase in inconvenience for other gun-users, and decide if the trade off is worth it.
It already does. Restrictions on what private citizens can own are not new nor are they to my knowledge controversial at any credible level. I hate to resort to this cliche, but yes, you do have to try and justify if you want to own a bomb. And it will probably fail.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
You have a right to bear arms. A bomb can be creatively construed as an armament. And if we're going to go down the route of "the founders didn't intend for the second amendment to refer to bombs" then we have to also talk about just what they were referring to and if todays guns unilaterally fall under that umbrella solely because as weapons go they function by using an explosion to propel a piece of metal at high-velocity.difference being I don't have a right to a bomb. I do have a right to a gun. I don't need to have a cause or excuse to justify having 5 or 10 bullets.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.