5th line wingnutt Posted July 11, 2018 Report Posted July 11, 2018 https://www.wired.com/story/a-landmark-legal-shift-opens-pandoras-box-for-diy-guns/
Eleven Posted July 12, 2018 Report Posted July 12, 2018 As much as I despise what he's doing, I have to concede that he has every right to do it.
LTS Posted July 12, 2018 Report Posted July 12, 2018 This information never stopped being available. It was just a little bit harder to get and not by much. Just like a celebrity sex tape. Once it's out, it's out. The video is actually the easiest way to keep track of the information. It's much harder to track the schematic files you use to print the gun. They are also much easier to distribute. I suppose that banning the video reduces the overall number of vectors the information can be obtained. I would liken it to locking one side of a double door.
SwampD Posted July 17, 2018 Report Posted July 17, 2018 I gotta get me a 3D printer. Actually, bullets are still just too expensive. I would probably just use it to make a bong,… or a ukulele. Probably both. Ooooh, a gun shaped bong! 1
Eleven Posted July 28, 2018 Report Posted July 28, 2018 According to a WaPo article thisnmorning (can’t post link from Apple News feed), he intends to go live with the blueprints on Wednesday.
5th line wingnutt Posted July 28, 2018 Author Report Posted July 28, 2018 Judge allows release of printed 3D gun blueprints
Eleven Posted August 1, 2018 Report Posted August 1, 2018 On 7/28/2018 at 4:54 PM, 5th line wingnutt said: Judge allows release of printed 3D gun blueprints And another judge has issued a TRO preventing the release. I haven't seen the judge's reasoning yet, but at first blush it seems unsound. If The Anarchist's Cookbook is protected, surely a digital analog thereof should be too. Even if I don't like it.
5th line wingnutt Posted June 1, 2019 Author Report Posted June 1, 2019 Freedom Wins in New York! Governor Cuomo signs Gravity Knife Repeal!!! 1
SABRES 0311 Posted June 2, 2019 Report Posted June 2, 2019 In light of the VA Beach shooting the issue of gun control is back in the lime light. Well, sort of. It seems like it’s not being talked about as much as it was after the Parkland shooting. Or maybe I’m not watching TV enough. I agree there are some people who should not have a firearm be it mental instability or history of violent crimes. What I don’t agree with is more federal laws. Instead I think it should be on the states individually to enforce/enact whatever laws they see fit. What works for the residence of Texas may not be the same as New York.
Weave Posted June 2, 2019 Report Posted June 2, 2019 2 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: In light of the VA Beach shooting the issue of gun control is back in the lime light. Well, sort of. It seems like it’s not being talked about as much as it was after the Parkland shooting. Or maybe I’m not watching TV enough. I agree there are some people who should not have a firearm be it mental instability or history of violent crimes. What I don’t agree with is more federal laws. Instead I think it should be on the states individually to enforce/enact whatever laws they see fit. What works for the residence of Texas may not be the same as New York. I used to feel that way. I totally get the "what works there doesn't work here" mindset. I live in a predominately rural county. Things work differently here than they do in the urban and suburban areas. I don't want my county to do things the way that Erie, Monroe, etc. do it. It's just different here. The needs are different. But the biggest problem I see with leaving it fully with the states is the interstate movement of firearms. We all know that illegal weapons in NY, MI, IL etc aren't originating in those states, for the most part. Same with magazines and other accessories. And I've also become cynical enough that I don't trust the firearm industry any more than I trust the pharmaceutical industry. Or the finance industry. Or the insurance industry. There is no growth in the firearms business in sales to regular gun owners. Hunting is a decreasing pastime. Places to shoot recreationally are going away. Fewer and fewer people own the bulk of the firearms today. That industry should be shrinking, yet it's not really. Hmmm.... My spider sense tingles. 1
SABRES 0311 Posted June 2, 2019 Report Posted June 2, 2019 6 hours ago, Weave said: I used to feel that way. I totally get the "what works there doesn't work here" mindset. I live in a predominately rural county. Things work differently here than they do in the urban and suburban areas. I don't want my county to do things the way that Erie, Monroe, etc. do it. It's just different here. The needs are different. But the biggest problem I see with leaving it fully with the states is the interstate movement of firearms. We all know that illegal weapons in NY, MI, IL etc aren't originating in those states, for the most part. Same with magazines and other accessories. And I've also become cynical enough that I don't trust the firearm industry any more than I trust the pharmaceutical industry. Or the finance industry. Or the insurance industry. There is no growth in the firearms business in sales to regular gun owners. Hunting is a decreasing pastime. Places to shoot recreationally are going away. Fewer and fewer people own the bulk of the firearms today. That industry should be shrinking, yet it's not really. Hmmm.... My spider sense tingles. For me it’s not just what the law says. Criminals will ignore it so essentially it would impact law abiding citizens. Even then some would choose to become criminals rather than obey something they perceive as infringement on 2A. I just think at the state level a person’s voice would be louder than it is in DC. For criminals the black market prices would go up but won’t deter violent acts. We see it in Europe and in Boston that you don’t need a gun if you are a determined psycho. Therefore, why should a good person, trained in firearms be subjected to more restrictions when the people those restrictions are meant to deter will simply ignore them. We already have laws against murder. Don’t make more laws impacting good people’s ability to defend themselves. Im not disagreeing on the interstate issue or the corruption of the industry. Just putting my point of view out there.
Weave Posted June 2, 2019 Report Posted June 2, 2019 10 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said: For me it’s not just what the law says. Criminals will ignore it so essentially it would impact law abiding citizens. Even then some would choose to become criminals rather than obey something they perceive as infringement on 2A. I just think at the state level a person’s voice would be louder than it is in DC. For criminals the black market prices would go up but won’t deter violent acts. We see it in Europe and in Boston that you don’t need a gun if you are a determined psycho. Therefore, why should a good person, trained in firearms be subjected to more restrictions when the people those restrictions are meant to deter will simply ignore them. We already have laws against murder. Don’t make more laws impacting good people’s ability to defend themselves. Im not disagreeing on the interstate issue or the corruption of the industry. Just putting my point of view out there. Every law impacts law abiding citizens more than criminals until they are caught. We get impacted specifically so we CAN react to the sociopaths. As for why should the law abiding be impacted, my mind has changed alot on this. Society has changed. I think we all know this. Mass shootings weren't a thing when I was in grade school. They are now. And have been since Columbine in '99. That's most of a generation now. The cry always is that things need to go back to the way they were. But that is not possible, and not reasonable or rational. The evolution has had many inputs, most of them we probably couldn't change if we wanted to. We can't turn it back. All we can do is react to what society is now. And I think society has reached a point where things like high capacity magazines just can't be put out there for general access any more. The percentage of people capable of doing terrible things with them are still incredibly low, but higher than it ever was before, and most importantly, high enough that it is having a terrible effect. The effect of limiting access to things like high capacity magazines won't be immediate. There are too many in circulation, and as you said, too many that people won't hand them in, but if we never make any changes, the sociopaths will continue to shoot up buildings in perpetuity. At some point we have to determine that it is time to make the change so somewhere in the future some nut job that want's to shoot up a building won't have access to the tools he needs to do it. If that is a generation away, so be it. At least we'll have started the process of making these things unobtainable to the sociopath down the road. I don't see where any suggested law limiting access to things like high capacity magazines would have an affect on your ability to defend yourself, unless you are planning to defend yourself from your government, and as a member of the military I'm sure you are well aware of the futility of attempting to defending yourself against your government.
SABRES 0311 Posted June 4, 2019 Report Posted June 4, 2019 (edited) On 6/3/2019 at 7:43 AM, Weave said: Every law impacts law abiding citizens more than criminals until they are caught. We get impacted specifically so we CAN react to the sociopaths. As for why should the law abiding be impacted, my mind has changed alot on this. Society has changed. I think we all know this. Mass shootings weren't a thing when I was in grade school. They are now. And have been since Columbine in '99. That's most of a generation now. The cry always is that things need to go back to the way they were. But that is not possible, and not reasonable or rational. The evolution has had many inputs, most of them we probably couldn't change if we wanted to. We can't turn it back. All we can do is react to what society is now. And I think society has reached a point where things like high capacity magazines just can't be put out there for general access any more. The percentage of people capable of doing terrible things with them are still incredibly low, but higher than it ever was before, and most importantly, high enough that it is having a terrible effect. The effect of limiting access to things like high capacity magazines won't be immediate. There are too many in circulation, and as you said, too many that people won't hand them in, but if we never make any changes, the sociopaths will continue to shoot up buildings in perpetuity. At some point we have to determine that it is time to make the change so somewhere in the future some nut job that want's to shoot up a building won't have access to the tools he needs to do it. If that is a generation away, so be it. At least we'll have started the process of making these things unobtainable to the sociopath down the road. I don't see where any suggested law limiting access to things like high capacity magazines would have an affect on your ability to defend yourself, unless you are planning to defend yourself from your government, and as a member of the military I'm sure you are well aware of the futility of attempting to defending yourself against your government. Take away guns or restricting access and crazy people/criminals will find a way. Then comes the call for more restrictions and the cycle continues. Where is the line drawn? How far are we willing to go in sacrificing rights for a sense of perceived/promised security? To your last comment I completely disagree with that assessment. Every force has its centers of gravity and vulnerabilities. In this case I think the biggest factor is moral appeal to the military. Essentially is the citizen’s cause in line with the individual service member’s values. As for violence of action and efficiency, that revolves around skill and mindset. Both can be taught. The type and effectiveness of weaponry is 100% dependent on the willingness to employ which for this scenario would be heavily degraded for all parties involved with the exception of war mongers. This reminds me of Swalwell’s comments a while back. Edited June 4, 2019 by SABRES 0311
LGR4GM Posted June 4, 2019 Report Posted June 4, 2019 34 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said: Take away guns or restricting access and crazy people/criminals will find a way. Then comes the call for more restrictions and the cycle continues. Where is the line drawn? How far are we willing to go in sacrificing rights for a sense of perceived/promised security? To your last comment I completely disagree with that assessment. Every force has its centers of gravity and vulnerabilities. In this case I think the biggest factor is moral appeal to the military. Essentially is the citizen’s cause in line with the individual service member’s values. As for violence of action and efficiency, that revolves around skill and mindset. Both can be taught. The type and effectiveness of weaponry is 100% dependent on the willingness to employ which for this scenario would be heavily degraded for all parties involved with the exception of war mongers. This reminds me of Swalwell’s comments a while back. That's a good question for the Southern States and their efforts to "secure elections" by committing widespread and targeted voter suppression.
SABRES 0311 Posted June 4, 2019 Report Posted June 4, 2019 Just now, LGR4GM said: That's a good question for the Southern States and their efforts to "secure elections" by committing widespread and targeted voter suppression. Sounds like a good topic for a separate thread. I’ll bite though. What is an acceptable voter registration criteria? What do you not agree with for each southern state?
LGR4GM Posted June 4, 2019 Report Posted June 4, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said: Sounds like a good topic for a separate thread. I’ll bite though. What is an acceptable voter registration criteria? What do you not agree with for each southern state? Voting ID laws. Closing polling places. The list is a long one. If we can't have gun control because "How far are we willing to go in sacrificing rights for a sense of perceived/promised security?" than we cannot have voter control. Quote There have also been reports about the cancellation of more than 100,000 registrations last year of people who have not voted in recent elections, and complaints over the closure of more than 200 polling stations across the state in the last six years. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45986329 Edited June 4, 2019 by LGR4GM
Weave Posted June 4, 2019 Report Posted June 4, 2019 2 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: Take away guns or restricting access and crazy people/criminals will find a way. Then comes the call for more restrictions and the cycle continues. Where is the line drawn? How far are we willing to go in sacrificing rights for a sense of perceived/promised security? Crazy people will find a way with less frequency as the supply tightens over time. Noone is expecting perfection. The biggest issue I see with 2nd amendment advocates is that they want to throw away ideas that will improve the rate of these events because they are not perfect. There are no perfect solutions, but there are better ones. Its difficult to justify status quo without coming off as selfish.
Eleven Posted June 4, 2019 Report Posted June 4, 2019 3 hours ago, Weave said: Crazy people will find a way with less frequency as the supply tightens over time. Noone is expecting perfection. The biggest issue I see with 2nd amendment advocates is that they want to throw away ideas that will improve the rate of these events because they are not perfect. There are no perfect solutions, but there are better ones. Its difficult to justify status quo without coming off as selfish. Your opinion on this topic has evolved a great deal. I think that’s admirable. 1
Weave Posted June 4, 2019 Report Posted June 4, 2019 2 hours ago, Eleven said: Your opinion on this topic has evolved a great deal. I think that’s admirable. I'm still a firm believer in the right to own firearms. My main break from most is, I don't think we can have high capacity magazines in the hands of the general public anymore. And I think a background check for all sales is a reasonable accommodation. As long as due process is available for those that are turned down, I don't understand the complaints of 2nd amendment advocates. And I think the NRA has been playing their members like so many string puppets. For as long as the NRA has been in my consciousness (early 80's at least) they've been telling their members that gun ownership is in imminent danger. That's 35 or so years at least that they have been crying the sky is falling. They've been lying because it is profitable for them to lie. And that isn't the only lie. Here's your fake news.....
SABRES 0311 Posted June 4, 2019 Report Posted June 4, 2019 14 minutes ago, Weave said: I'm still a firm believer in the right to own firearms. My main break from most is, I don't think we can have high capacity magazines in the hands of the general public anymore. And I think a background check for all sales is a reasonable accommodation. As long as due process is available for those that are turned down, I don't understand the complaints of 2nd amendment advocates. And I think the NRA has been playing their members like so many string puppets. For as long as the NRA has been in my consciousness (early 80's at least) they've been telling their members that gun ownership is in imminent danger. That's 35 or so years at least that they have been crying the sky is falling. They've been lying because it is profitable for them to lie. And that isn't the only lie. Here's your fake news..... I honestly have spent about five minutes total listening to what the NRA has to say and that is only from the news. My thoughts are my own. With that said I respect your opinion and respectfully disagree on some points. I don't think "the sky is falling" I just see people calling for more and more restrictions if/when shootings continue with restrictions in place even if those shootings are smaller in scale due those restrictions. If anything people will say the restrictions had a positive impact which justifies more and more restrictions. Sounds like you have an accepted set of controls you would like to see enforced as do I. I think you should be required to attend formal training and I support a criminal background check. So the question is where do we draw the line on gun restrictions? 7 hours ago, LGR4GM said: Voting ID laws. Closing polling places. The list is a long one. If we can't have gun control because "How far are we willing to go in sacrificing rights for a sense of perceived/promised security?" than we cannot have voter control. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45986329 As with guns I support voter ID laws. That doesn't mean I support everything but you should have to prove you are a U.S. citizen. I would think a drivers license could do that but I don't know every states requirements for issuing a license. If you had to prove your citizenship prior to issue it should be accepted. Maybe states could issue state IDs like the military does for its personnel and their dependents. This would at least cover those people who do not or cannot obtain a drivers license. Bottom line is there should be laws that ensure your rights are protected while also protecting against criminal behavior.
5th line wingnutt Posted June 4, 2019 Author Report Posted June 4, 2019 4 hours ago, Eleven said: Your opinion on this topic has evolved a great deal. I think that’s admirable. Evolved = moved to the left.
5th line wingnutt Posted June 4, 2019 Author Report Posted June 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Weave said: I'm still a firm believer in the right to own firearms. My main break from most is, I don't think we can have high capacity magazines in the hands of the general public anymore. And I think a background check for all sales is a reasonable accommodation. As long as due process is available for those that are turned down, I don't understand the complaints of 2nd amendment advocates. And I think the NRA has been playing their members like so many string puppets. For as long as the NRA has been in my consciousness (early 80's at least) they've been telling their members that gun ownership is in imminent danger. That's 35 or so years at least that they have been crying the sky is falling. They've been lying because it is profitable for them to lie. And that isn't the only lie. Here's your fake news..... First bold: Please define. Second bold: For magazines?
Weave Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 1 hour ago, 5th line wingnutt said: First bold: Please define. Second bold: For magazines? I think a reasonable limit is 10rounds. Firearm sales. 1 hour ago, 5th line wingnutt said: Evolved = moved to the left. Evolved = changed to reflect reality.
SABRES 0311 Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 21 minutes ago, Weave said: I think a reasonable limit is 10rounds. Firearm sales. Evolved = changed to reflect reality. I’ll stick with 15 in the mag and one in the chamber. The reality is those who are prepared win.
SwampD Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said: I’ll stick with 15 in the mag and one in the chamber. The reality is those who are prepared win. Not to call BS, but when is the last time a US citizen used that number of rounds to defend themself and “win”? Seems to me like the larger the magazines, the more innocents are killed by crazies. If there’s a study proving otherwise, I’d like to see it.
Recommended Posts