6 ms·

I wouldn't worry about it too much. It's not like there's a constitutional amendment protecting your right to own and operate a 3d printer.

gruez 6y ago
What are you suggesting? That we ban/restrict the use/ownership of 3d printers? A 3d printer is just some motors and a extruder on a set of rails, so I'd imagine it's not too hard to make your own. At that point you're back to square one.
- jowsie 6y ago
  A gun is just a tube and a pin.
  - ape4 6y ago
    Of course they are called "arms" in the second amendment
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > A gun is just a tube and a pin. That's kind of the point. Prohibiting of the sale of something that anybody can easily make for themselves only restrains the people who follow the law from having them.
- StillBored 6y ago
  Hasn't stopped them from outlawing a plant that will happily grow on the roadside.
71615BFC3796 6y ago
You make a good point. The second amendment is already dreadfully infringed throughout the US (in some states far more than others), and the first amendment is being chipped away, too. It's unfortunate that we the people allowed it to get so bad. But guns are scary.
- tashoecraft 6y ago
  The problem with the second amendment is that it is an awful sentence. Malcolm Gladwell went over this in a podcast with an NYT chief editor, the way it is structured makes in ambiguous whether the intention was for militias to have access to firearms, or the people. That's why it is a such a hotly contested topic, that and we're talking about guns. To say it's "already dreadfully infringed" completely depends on your interpretation of that amendment. I think pro gun advocates need to distance themselves from irresponsible gun owners and the NRA. It doesn't help your cause. Promoting responsible gun legislation without spouting "they're going to take our guns over my dead body" just makes you sound like a nut. We also need to address the vastly different circumstances the city living has compared to rural in terms of gun ownership. As well as stop burying the conversation when it comes to mass shootings, they happen way to often and absolutely would not happen if gun control was stricter, the entire world is evidence of this. Making guns harder to acquire makes them less likely, but only if that applies to an entire geographic region. If DC makes guns really hard to get, but Virginia makes them super easy, then it doesn't matter at all. I just don't have much hope for anything bipartisan to actually work. Things are too split, and there's very little upside for people to change sides.
  - digi59404 6y ago
    The sentence is only ambiguously defined if you look at the sentence by itself. Thankfully courts don’t do that and shouldn’t. When an interpretation is hotly contested you need secondary supporting documents to interpret it properly. Of which we have numerous writings and documents to show what that sentence means. We have documents which break down what the Founders at the time meant by militia and what they thought about ownership.
    - agurk 6y ago
      There was disagreement at the time of writing between the founding fathers, which was a factor in ending up with its somewhat quirky phrasing[0]. Most of this disagreement does seem to be about State vs Federal power rather than the topics in contemporary discussions about it. The Supreme Court does seem to have settled upon it being an individual rights[1] issue. Considering all the other rights in the bill of rights are individual, there does seem to be some consistency to that. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp0-g-cjxmM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp0-g-cjxmM [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Supreme_Court_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
saalweachter 6y ago
Just taking another opportunity to mention the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." One of the early arguments about whether the Bill of Rights should exist was that special-casing some rights would narrow the scope of "rights that exist" to just those explicitly listed; the compromise was the Ninth Amendment.
salawat 6y ago
Absolutely worthless in cases where States get away with flagrant violation of it regardless. Looking at you California and New York. Also, good luck with actually exercising your right to "keep and bear" arms when the Interstate commerce clause is the preferred mode of shadow firearm regulation, so production of regulated parts can get you into hot water if someone doesn't like you enough. Enjoy carefully planning every travel arrrangement with having the possession of your firearm in mind, so you know the right song and dance to do on crossing State/jurisdictional boundaries, and double check with any NFA items and whether you need to engage with an FFL before crossing State lines. Also God help you if they really don't like you and you have the means and knowledge to manufacture an automatic firearm or other NFA item. In today's world, I'm not entirely sure they wouldn't try to spin it as constructive possession. Furthermore, if you machine or manufacture related components, enjoy your Special Occupational Tax, and if you're a Federal Firearm License holder, surrender of your 4th Amendment rights as a condition of doing business, and opening yourself to at will audit by the government. Yeah, yeah, I get it. "Just don't do anything illegal and you'll be fine." That's cute and all, but I've been trying to run down and list everything I have to technically pay attention to and make sure to never slip up on as a pre-condition of owning something, and to be honest, cannot justify the risk of ownership given most of the penalties involved, because I'm horrible about keeping up with the bureaucracy. It seems to me to be less a means to get anything meaningful done, and just something to increase the odds you can throw the entire book at someone if they do do something. So while technically the argument can be made you face no infringement to keeping and bearing of arms, I don't buy that that assertion holds water. When you create a secondary class of citizen that has to report every movement to the government just to keep their personal property with them, that's the very definition of infringement. Same thing is relevant to the closing of the Machine gun registry via the restriction of funding applied to maintinging the bloody thing since 1986.
- kls 6y ago
  It gets worse than that, if you buy a gun that was imported you are subject to the 922 rule. Which means that if you take that imported gun and put a US part on it, you are subject to being viewed as having assembled a foreign manufactured gun. So to comply with the law one must change out a certain percentage of the gun with US made parts to not violate the law. https://www.ficarettalegal.com/domestic-assembly-of-nonsporting-rifles-and-shotguns-from-imported-firearms-avoid-violations-of-18-u-s-c-%C2%A7-922r/#:~:text=The%20Statute,Gun%20Control%20Act%20(GCA) https://www.ficarettalegal.com/domestic-assembly-of-nonsport....

gruez 6y ago

What are you suggesting? That we ban/restrict the use/ownership of 3d printers? A 3d printer is just some motors and a extruder on a set of rails, so I'd imagine it's not too hard to make your own. At that point you're back to square one.

jowsie 6y ago
A gun is just a tube and a pin.
- ape4 6y ago
  Of course they are called "arms" in the second amendment
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > A gun is just a tube and a pin. That's kind of the point. Prohibiting of the sale of something that anybody can easily make for themselves only restrains the people who follow the law from having them.
StillBored 6y ago
Hasn't stopped them from outlawing a plant that will happily grow on the roadside.

71615BFC3796 6y ago

You make a good point. The second amendment is already dreadfully infringed throughout the US (in some states far more than others), and the first amendment is being chipped away, too. It's unfortunate that we the people allowed it to get so bad. But guns are scary.

tashoecraft 6y ago
The problem with the second amendment is that it is an awful sentence. Malcolm Gladwell went over this in a podcast with an NYT chief editor, the way it is structured makes in ambiguous whether the intention was for militias to have access to firearms, or the people. That's why it is a such a hotly contested topic, that and we're talking about guns. To say it's "already dreadfully infringed" completely depends on your interpretation of that amendment. I think pro gun advocates need to distance themselves from irresponsible gun owners and the NRA. It doesn't help your cause. Promoting responsible gun legislation without spouting "they're going to take our guns over my dead body" just makes you sound like a nut. We also need to address the vastly different circumstances the city living has compared to rural in terms of gun ownership. As well as stop burying the conversation when it comes to mass shootings, they happen way to often and absolutely would not happen if gun control was stricter, the entire world is evidence of this. Making guns harder to acquire makes them less likely, but only if that applies to an entire geographic region. If DC makes guns really hard to get, but Virginia makes them super easy, then it doesn't matter at all. I just don't have much hope for anything bipartisan to actually work. Things are too split, and there's very little upside for people to change sides.
- digi59404 6y ago
  The sentence is only ambiguously defined if you look at the sentence by itself. Thankfully courts don’t do that and shouldn’t. When an interpretation is hotly contested you need secondary supporting documents to interpret it properly. Of which we have numerous writings and documents to show what that sentence means. We have documents which break down what the Founders at the time meant by militia and what they thought about ownership.
  - agurk 6y ago
    There was disagreement at the time of writing between the founding fathers, which was a factor in ending up with its somewhat quirky phrasing[0]. Most of this disagreement does seem to be about State vs Federal power rather than the topics in contemporary discussions about it. The Supreme Court does seem to have settled upon it being an individual rights[1] issue. Considering all the other rights in the bill of rights are individual, there does seem to be some consistency to that. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp0-g-cjxmM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp0-g-cjxmM [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Supreme_Court_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...

saalweachter 6y ago

Just taking another opportunity to mention the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." One of the early arguments about whether the Bill of Rights should exist was that special-casing some rights would narrow the scope of "rights that exist" to just those explicitly listed; the compromise was the Ninth Amendment.

salawat 6y ago

Absolutely worthless in cases where States get away with flagrant violation of it regardless. Looking at you California and New York. Also, good luck with actually exercising your right to "keep and bear" arms when the Interstate commerce clause is the preferred mode of shadow firearm regulation, so production of regulated parts can get you into hot water if someone doesn't like you enough. Enjoy carefully planning every travel arrrangement with having the possession of your firearm in mind, so you know the right song and dance to do on crossing State/jurisdictional boundaries, and double check with any NFA items and whether you need to engage with an FFL before crossing State lines. Also God help you if they really don't like you and you have the means and knowledge to manufacture an automatic firearm or other NFA item. In today's world, I'm not entirely sure they wouldn't try to spin it as constructive possession. Furthermore, if you machine or manufacture related components, enjoy your Special Occupational Tax, and if you're a Federal Firearm License holder, surrender of your 4th Amendment rights as a condition of doing business, and opening yourself to at will audit by the government. Yeah, yeah, I get it. "Just don't do anything illegal and you'll be fine." That's cute and all, but I've been trying to run down and list everything I have to technically pay attention to and make sure to never slip up on as a pre-condition of owning something, and to be honest, cannot justify the risk of ownership given most of the penalties involved, because I'm horrible about keeping up with the bureaucracy. It seems to me to be less a means to get anything meaningful done, and just something to increase the odds you can throw the entire book at someone if they do do something. So while technically the argument can be made you face no infringement to keeping and bearing of arms, I don't buy that that assertion holds water. When you create a secondary class of citizen that has to report every movement to the government just to keep their personal property with them, that's the very definition of infringement. Same thing is relevant to the closing of the Machine gun registry via the restriction of funding applied to maintinging the bloody thing since 1986.

kls 6y ago
It gets worse than that, if you buy a gun that was imported you are subject to the 922 rule. Which means that if you take that imported gun and put a US part on it, you are subject to being viewed as having assembled a foreign manufactured gun. So to comply with the law one must change out a certain percentage of the gun with US made parts to not violate the law. https://www.ficarettalegal.com/domestic-assembly-of-nonsporting-rifles-and-shotguns-from-imported-firearms-avoid-violations-of-18-u-s-c-%C2%A7-922r/#:~:text=The%20Statute,Gun%20Control%20Act%20(GCA) https://www.ficarettalegal.com/domestic-assembly-of-nonsport....