3 ms·

> Not a big fan of someone being able to evade all sorts of gun laws by 3D printing their own gun. It's been legal since the dawn of the USA to manufacture you

by koolba 3y ago

> Not a big fan of someone being able to evade all sorts of gun laws by 3D printing their own gun. It's been legal since the dawn of the USA to manufacture your own firearms. A criminal who is otherwise not legally able to acquire or possess a firearm is not going to care about 3D printer laws. This only impacts the law abiding. > There's already far too many nutcases who own far too many guns - allowing them to print their own guns and ammo to avoid being on some sort of watchlist is just a really slippery slope. There's no federal requirement for a "watch list" for owning a gun. There's background checks for transfers of firearms, but even those are not applicable in all cases (e.g. a father can transfer a long gun to his son in most States without any paperwork at all). Manufacturing your own ammo is legal across the entire country. There's no registration requirement or any paperwork whatsoever needed. > I'm all for people owning guns, I support the 2nd amendment vigorously, Let's be honest here, you clearly don't. > but there's a reason the words "highly regulated" appears in the 2nd amendment. The words are "well regulated" and they don't mean what you think they mean. In 18th century American English, the phrase "well regulated" means well equipped. It's saying that people should have lots of guns! > Sick and tired of fringe nutcases (supported by the gun lobby) saying any and all regulations are a threat to the freedoms we all enjoy as Americans. The problem with new firearm regulations is multi fold, but the main problems are: 1. There's plenty of existing regulations in place that are not being properly enforced. 2. The majority of new regulations are bans on cosmetic features or simply make things more inconvenient for law abiding gun owners. 3. Anything that was previously considered a "compromise" turns into a "loophole".

weego 3y ago
It's been legal since the dawn of the USA to manufacture your own firearms. Yeah that was conceived and written at a time where you had to hand carve and forge a single shot breech loading rifle. You can espouse history all you want, but asserting unbounded rights in the face of dramatic technological progress is not a healthy attitude towards society.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > Yeah that was conceived and written at a time where you had to hand carve and forge a single shot breech loading rifle. At the time the Second Amendment was ratified, private individuals could, and did, own fully armed and crewed warships and field artillery pieces. > You can espouse history all you want, but asserting unbounded rights in the face of dramatic technological progress is not a healthy attitude towards society. So you're arguing that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet, then?
mikehearn 3y ago
> A criminal who is otherwise not legally able to acquire or possess a firearm is not going to care about 3D printer laws. This only impacts the law abiding. This is kind of a blanket argument against all laws, right?
- chmod600 3y ago
  No, it applies more to some laws than others. A law against carrying a broadsword is enforceable before the broadsword is actually used in a crime, because it's highly visible. A law against a dagger isn't easily enforceable until it's actually taken out in some violent manner. (Don't over-analyze the example it's just to show a difference in how laws work in practice as opposed to on paper.)
elil17 3y ago
>It's been legal since the dawn of the USA to manufacture your own firearms. Glad to see the government is finally doing something to fix this.
Brystephor 3y ago
Laws exist at deterrents don't they? An extreme example: if we removed all laws, would there be more acts of crime (as judged by the laws that were removed)? I bet yes. Which means, the laws existence does deter people from doing certain things. It doesn't deter 100% of people, but the percentage is greater than 0.
- koolba 3y ago
  > Laws exist at deterrents don't they? An extreme example: if we removed all laws, would there be more acts of crime (as judged by the laws that were removed)? > I bet yes. Which means, the laws existence does deter people from doing certain things. It doesn't deter 100% of people, but the percentage is greater than 0. This is exactly the point. The objective of these laws is not to deter illegal possession of firearms. That's already super, duper, triple, illegal. It's to deter the law abiding from exercising their Constitutional rights. There is no situation in which a criminal could be charged with these laws, where the criminal would not already be facing decadess of prison time for illegal possession of a firearm. It's already illegal for a criminal to be in possession of a firearm. It does not matter if it is manufactured at or purchased (and the latter is potentially a crime on the part of the seller). In contrast, this type of blanket ban on otherwise legal activity turns yesterday's law abiding into de facto criminals. And many would not even know they're criminals unless they go out of their way to read the fine print on defense spending bills.
  - Brystephor 3y ago
    >This is exactly the point. The objective of these laws is not to deter illegal possession of firearms. That's already super, duper, triple, illegal. It's to deter the law abiding from exercising their Constitutional rights. right. the law is not to deter illegal possession, it's to deter certain kinds of manufacturing. > There is no situation in which a criminal could be charged with these laws, where the criminal would not already be facing decadess of prison time for illegal possession of a firearm. Someone manufactures the weapon and then sells it. If you have no proof of possession you have no case. If you have proof of manufacturing firearms, then you have a case. Saying "law A should not exist because if law A were broken, law B would already be broken" does make sense if that can be guaranteed to be true, however it's not possible to provide that guarantee, therefore that logic doesn't make sense to go with.
gremlinsinc 3y ago
what's stopping 12 year olds from doing this? Do you think kids should be allowed to make ghost guns and take them to school?
- chmod600 3y ago
  Not an answer to your question really, but it's just going to get easier and easier for people to make stuff. Laws are not a great tool for stopping or even slowing that.
taylodl 3y ago
> The words are "well regulated" and they don't mean what you think they mean. In 18th century American English, the phrase "well regulated" means well equipped. It's saying that people should have lots of guns! Um, no. You were doing alright until you get to this bit of mythology. "Well regulated" means then, as now, adhering to rules, regulation, and law as set by an authority. In many towns people could not keep weapons in their homes (that was true in some places up through the late 19th century). A quartermaster kept all the weapons safely stowed, and when a call to arms was issued, the (male) town folk would go retrieve their weapons. As time progressed they would be told what weapons they could get and the quartermaster would ensure they remained in good operational order. The law and custom of the age made it clear that firearms were not considered a weapon for self defense, but instead were a weapon for town and state defense. As I alluded to earlier, even in territories where firearms could be kept on person it was not infrequent that they would be surrendered when entering town. The 2nd Amendment was interpreted as local law will determine the regulation, as that was what was meant to be "well-regulated."
tmaly 3y ago
> The words are "well regulated" and they don't mean what you think they mean. In 18th century American English, the phrase "well regulated" means well equipped. Can you provide some sources or references for this assertion?

by koolba 3y ago

weego 3y ago

It's been legal since the dawn of the USA to manufacture your own firearms. Yeah that was conceived and written at a time where you had to hand carve and forge a single shot breech loading rifle. You can espouse history all you want, but asserting unbounded rights in the face of dramatic technological progress is not a healthy attitude towards society.

Turing_Machine 3y ago
> Yeah that was conceived and written at a time where you had to hand carve and forge a single shot breech loading rifle. At the time the Second Amendment was ratified, private individuals could, and did, own fully armed and crewed warships and field artillery pieces. > You can espouse history all you want, but asserting unbounded rights in the face of dramatic technological progress is not a healthy attitude towards society. So you're arguing that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet, then?

mikehearn 3y ago

> A criminal who is otherwise not legally able to acquire or possess a firearm is not going to care about 3D printer laws. This only impacts the law abiding. This is kind of a blanket argument against all laws, right?

chmod600 3y ago
No, it applies more to some laws than others. A law against carrying a broadsword is enforceable before the broadsword is actually used in a crime, because it's highly visible. A law against a dagger isn't easily enforceable until it's actually taken out in some violent manner. (Don't over-analyze the example it's just to show a difference in how laws work in practice as opposed to on paper.)

elil17 3y ago

>It's been legal since the dawn of the USA to manufacture your own firearms. Glad to see the government is finally doing something to fix this.

Brystephor 3y ago

Laws exist at deterrents don't they? An extreme example: if we removed all laws, would there be more acts of crime (as judged by the laws that were removed)? I bet yes. Which means, the laws existence does deter people from doing certain things. It doesn't deter 100% of people, but the percentage is greater than 0.

koolba 3y ago
> Laws exist at deterrents don't they? An extreme example: if we removed all laws, would there be more acts of crime (as judged by the laws that were removed)? > I bet yes. Which means, the laws existence does deter people from doing certain things. It doesn't deter 100% of people, but the percentage is greater than 0. This is exactly the point. The objective of these laws is not to deter illegal possession of firearms. That's already super, duper, triple, illegal. It's to deter the law abiding from exercising their Constitutional rights. There is no situation in which a criminal could be charged with these laws, where the criminal would not already be facing decadess of prison time for illegal possession of a firearm. It's already illegal for a criminal to be in possession of a firearm. It does not matter if it is manufactured at or purchased (and the latter is potentially a crime on the part of the seller). In contrast, this type of blanket ban on otherwise legal activity turns yesterday's law abiding into de facto criminals. And many would not even know they're criminals unless they go out of their way to read the fine print on defense spending bills.
- Brystephor 3y ago
  >This is exactly the point. The objective of these laws is not to deter illegal possession of firearms. That's already super, duper, triple, illegal. It's to deter the law abiding from exercising their Constitutional rights. right. the law is not to deter illegal possession, it's to deter certain kinds of manufacturing. > There is no situation in which a criminal could be charged with these laws, where the criminal would not already be facing decadess of prison time for illegal possession of a firearm. Someone manufactures the weapon and then sells it. If you have no proof of possession you have no case. If you have proof of manufacturing firearms, then you have a case. Saying "law A should not exist because if law A were broken, law B would already be broken" does make sense if that can be guaranteed to be true, however it's not possible to provide that guarantee, therefore that logic doesn't make sense to go with.

gremlinsinc 3y ago

what's stopping 12 year olds from doing this? Do you think kids should be allowed to make ghost guns and take them to school?

chmod600 3y ago
Not an answer to your question really, but it's just going to get easier and easier for people to make stuff. Laws are not a great tool for stopping or even slowing that.

taylodl 3y ago

> The words are "well regulated" and they don't mean what you think they mean. In 18th century American English, the phrase "well regulated" means well equipped. It's saying that people should have lots of guns! Um, no. You were doing alright until you get to this bit of mythology. "Well regulated" means then, as now, adhering to rules, regulation, and law as set by an authority. In many towns people could not keep weapons in their homes (that was true in some places up through the late 19th century). A quartermaster kept all the weapons safely stowed, and when a call to arms was issued, the (male) town folk would go retrieve their weapons. As time progressed they would be told what weapons they could get and the quartermaster would ensure they remained in good operational order. The law and custom of the age made it clear that firearms were not considered a weapon for self defense, but instead were a weapon for town and state defense. As I alluded to earlier, even in territories where firearms could be kept on person it was not infrequent that they would be surrendered when entering town. The 2nd Amendment was interpreted as local law will determine the regulation, as that was what was meant to be "well-regulated."

tmaly 3y ago

> The words are "well regulated" and they don't mean what you think they mean. In 18th century American English, the phrase "well regulated" means well equipped. Can you provide some sources or references for this assertion?