4 ms·

When that happens, I'm immediately printing off several high-capacity mags out of principle, and I don't even own a firearm (thought about it, but I don't have

by Firehed 14y ago

When that happens, I'm immediately printing off several high-capacity mags out of principle, and I don't even own a firearm (thought about it, but I don't have time to go to a range so the liability isn't worth it for me). While I understand the intent of the law, it's a totally impractical way to solve the problem. It sounds like the majority of weapons used in violent crimes are obtained illegally so it will do little to deter criminal activities; meanwhile, it increases the liability around owning a 3d printer.

kennywinker 14y ago
I believe that the majority of weapons used in non-gang-related mass shootings were purchased legally. Why are you not immediately distilling a few bottles of moonshine on principle? My feeling is gun-freedom supporters view gun ownership as a proxy for freedom. Why not view alcohol distillation as your symbolic meter-stick instead? Just like illegally produced spirits, owning a gun won't stop the TSA from violating your rights. Nor will it stop the FBI from raiding your home.
- Firehed 14y ago
  Ironically, I'd be much more likely to harm someone with moonshine than with an XL magazine. In any case, the stand I'd be taking is about the absurdity of trying to ban 3d printing of specific devices, not about gun rights. I can't think of a reasonable excuse for a private citizen to own high-capacity weapons of death, and the theoretical argument about defending ourselves from the government went out the window long ago in my eyes. The second amendment was written well before the days of SWAT teams (on the low end of potential government firepower) and anyone crazy enough to think that stockpiling high-powered weaponry will be sufficient to take on highly-trained professionals is, well, crazy.
  - hga 14y ago
    You're failing to exercise your imagination; perhaps look at the recent difficulties the US military has had in the Middle East with adversaries who had no interest in playing by the former's rules.

by Firehed 14y ago

kennywinker 14y ago

I believe that the majority of weapons used in non-gang-related mass shootings were purchased legally. Why are you not immediately distilling a few bottles of moonshine on principle? My feeling is gun-freedom supporters view gun ownership as a proxy for freedom. Why not view alcohol distillation as your symbolic meter-stick instead? Just like illegally produced spirits, owning a gun won't stop the TSA from violating your rights. Nor will it stop the FBI from raiding your home.

Firehed 14y ago
Ironically, I'd be much more likely to harm someone with moonshine than with an XL magazine. In any case, the stand I'd be taking is about the absurdity of trying to ban 3d printing of specific devices, not about gun rights. I can't think of a reasonable excuse for a private citizen to own high-capacity weapons of death, and the theoretical argument about defending ourselves from the government went out the window long ago in my eyes. The second amendment was written well before the days of SWAT teams (on the low end of potential government firepower) and anyone crazy enough to think that stockpiling high-powered weaponry will be sufficient to take on highly-trained professionals is, well, crazy.
- hga 14y ago
  You're failing to exercise your imagination; perhaps look at the recent difficulties the US military has had in the Middle East with adversaries who had no interest in playing by the former's rules.