New York Looking to Regulate 3D Printed Firearms

Decimus said:
No just No. They organized the government so people could elect those that they felt best would represent them and their interests. Not to elect those that they thought were the smartest. Tom Cruise is rich how about we let him make your decisions. How is Scientology for you? No one ever inherits all their money either right? No such thing as "old" money
Click to expand...

I dunno, Tom must know something that other people don't since he has more money. I don't want to criticize someone else about their religious beliefs because that's not fair to them and I don't really know anything about Scientology so it'd be rude to pass judgment. Aside from that, I think there are a couple of different ways to view this government's representation. I see it as a way for average people to elect the best and smartest of us to make the best decisions. Then there's the thing where your elected people are supposed to mirror your views. Um...Jackson versus Jefferson views on the purpose of representation (<---- though I totally admit I might be randomly picking the wrong two people in our past that were proponents of those views).

So let's reconsider free speech too huh? I mean that can be deadly and pain in the ass too for the government to have to deal with. Or how about the third amendment. Let's get rid of that one because it isn't likely to be used anytime soon since the government is so trustworthy you would never think that if we did away with the 2nd and 3rd that we would ever have a problem right?
Click to expand...

It's pretty much true that your rights only exist until they infringe on someone else's rights in some way so I'm open to thinking about those things too when Steve and Al give us a thread about them. :D Yes, that's totally a cop out for having to go further. I'm kinda guessing that might be upsetting enough so I'm just gonna leave it and run away.
 
tuksonrider said:
Ironic, all those listed who you said should own guns have no duty to protect me.

Protection of myself and my family is my responsibility, and I want the best tool for the job.

I will not give someone else that responsibility because they are often ill-trained, and their best response time is just enough to pickup my warm corpse.

Self-defense is a natural right. It cannot be granted thus is cannot be taken away.
Click to expand...

I'm okay with that except that there's no such thing as a natural right. Humans invented the idea of rights and what they're allowed to have so saying something is natural that we came up with isn't really fair.
 
Commander FAT said:
You're trying to equate lawful gun owners with mass murderers. Typical gun hating bullshit.

Would it even really matter to you what that person used? He's still killing people and needs to get shot.
Click to expand...

No, thats the damn point. People dont go on killing sprees with baseball bats and hammers.
 
Ducman69 said:
Liberal logic:

Sugar Land, TX... highest gun ownership rate of any city in the US, highest number of CHLs issued per capita in Texas (excluding minor towns), and yet second lowest crime rate in the United States.

New York.... bans on firearm ownership, yet one of the highest crime rates in the country second to Chicago that also bans all firearms.

Conclusion, we should ban 3D printed firearms, because firearm availability is clearly the problem. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Typical gun nut logic: compare a city with a population of 80,000 to one with 8 million.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I'm okay with that except that there's no such thing as a natural right. Humans invented the idea of rights and what they're allowed to have so saying something is natural that we came up with isn't really fair.
Click to expand...

Actually there is much debate on that so you jumping in and saying one side is correct is rather ridiculous. The idea is if there were no government or regulation would your feel "right" in killing another person in defense of your family. Most people would say that yes it would be perfectly justifiable and in some cases instinctual. The natural instinct of man to protect himself and his family much like you see in nature when a mother lion would defend her cubs. Hence "natural"

By the way I am still waiting on your response to calling all gun owners and people who want to be gun owners premeditating (mass)murderers. . . Also just saw someone quote something up above but how the hell did you get your idea that "country living" is part of the equation for if someone will snap and go on a rampage?. . .
 
Decimus said:
Actually there is much debate on that so you jumping in and saying one side is correct is rather ridiculous. The idea is if there were no government or regulation would your feel "right" in killing another person in defense of your family. Most people would say that yes it would be perfectly justifiable and in some cases instinctual. The natural instinct of man to protect himself and his family much like you see in nature when a mother lion would defend her cubs. Hence "natural"
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's nothing stopping me from jumping in on one side or another and there's nothing ridiculous about it. There's a debate about it so there's obviously something reasonable to be said by both sides. If my view doesn't agree with yours, that doesn't mean I think your view is worthless. Also, I don't know what most people say, but if there's a debate, there are probably enough people saying otherwise to make it, well, debatable. It's off topic so I'm not gonna discuss it much. Sorry.

By the way I am still waiting on your response to calling all gun owners and people who want to be gun owners premeditating (mass)murderers. . . Also just saw someone quote something up above but how the hell did you get your idea that "country living" is part of the equation for if someone will snap and go on a rampage?. . .
Click to expand...

Anyhow, I did respond to that already. It's in post number 64 right here :):

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1039974913&postcount=64
 
So much stupidity in this thread is making my head hurt.

Its also earned someone a hard look at being added to the ignore list.
 
Nobody has brought up the fact in the constitution one of the main reason for people to arm themselves is to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Wake up people you think that over 1000 of these fema prison camps just popped up in the USA for no reason ? War on terror now includes any us citizen thus anyone can be arrested and thrown in one of the fema camps without even a trial and held indefinitely. Wonders also why at these fema camps all are located by railroads and all have coffins stacked up by the millions waiting for us. They are also all managed by outside government military! Do yourself a favor look up fema camps on google, and youtube. Remember this is only one reason of many that all citizens should have guns. Ending with this bug in your ear if I had been at one of these locations with a concealed gun I would of shot one of crazy people and saved many innocent lives.
 
Imaulle said:
so the message here is, guns are ok as long as you buy them from our major donors/lobbyists
Click to expand...

No, the Bloomberg message is: "since I have my private army, you cannot have guns to fight back with."

Bloomberg isn't stupid, he knows it has absolutely nothing to do with crime, except for when he wants to abuse power (which is not a crime in his book).
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Yes, I'm 100% okay with the government being in control of the guns and I think that it won't hurt anything at all. .
Click to expand...

You absolutely know nothing about history, or you are blatantly a liberal plant who wants to impose the 'one world order'.

Either way, you have moronic tendancies.
 
Here is my stance.

I own multiple guns and no one is ever going to take them from me. I served in the military and as I see it, I have more than earned the right to arm myself by protecting others rights to run their stupid mouths.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Here is my stance.

I own multiple guns and no one is ever going to take them from me. I served in the military and as I see it, I have more than earned the right to arm myself by protecting others rights to run their stupid mouths.
Click to expand...

So to those personnel who in the military who drove tanks, flew fighter jets, or controlled the Trident nuclear missile launch platforms on submarines are entitled to use such weapons to defend themselves with personally? Let's just pretend for a second that Sergey Brin served in the military and can afford to buy an ICBM now that he's head of Google. Is this his right as defined under the 2nd amendment? To protect himself with whatever arms he deems fit?
 
McFry said:
So to those personnel who in the military who drove tanks, flew fighter jets, or controlled the Trident nuclear missile launch platforms on submarines are entitled to use such weapons to defend themselves with personally? Let's just pretend for a second that Sergey Brin served in the military and can afford to buy an ICBM now that he's head of Google. Is this his right as defined under the 2nd amendment? To protect himself with whatever arms he deems fit?
Click to expand...

Weapons of mass destruction are a little different than personal defense weapons. ;)
 
McFry said:
Typical gun nut logic: compare a city with a population of 80,000 to one with 8 million.
Click to expand...
Did you notice the "per capita"?

Otherwise, maybe you're on to something. Maybe we should ban Big Cities since they appear to be fundementally dispose to Crime based on your statement.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Here is my stance.

I own multiple guns and no one is ever going to take them from me. I served in the military and as I see it, I have more than earned the right to arm myself by protecting others rights to run their stupid mouths.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
McFry said:
So to those personnel who in the military who drove tanks, flew fighter jets, or controlled the Trident nuclear missile launch platforms on submarines are entitled to use such weapons to defend themselves with personally? Let's just pretend for a second that Sergey Brin served in the military and can afford to buy an ICBM now that he's head of Google. Is this his right as defined under the 2nd amendment? To protect himself with whatever arms he deems fit?
Click to expand...

One toke over the line...
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I'm okay with that except that there's no such thing as a natural right. Humans invented the idea of rights and what they're allowed to have so saying something is natural that we came up with isn't really fair.
Click to expand...

Your idiocy is only compounded by your utter ignorance of facts. Natural rights exist as a function of living in a society that promotes such rights. Go read Hobbes or Locke or Paine. Stop with your foolishness. The right to life. The right of self-defense, the right of ownership, the right to seek ones own interests. These are natural rights and if you don't think they exist for every human being then you're useless idiotry is complete and you should just kill yourself and save us the trouble of having to read your utter incompetence.
 
Methadras said:
Your idiocy is only compounded by your utter ignorance of facts. Natural rights exist as a function of living in a society that promotes such rights. Go read Hobbes or Locke or Paine. Stop with your foolishness. The right to life. The right of self-defense, the right of ownership, the right to seek ones own interests. These are natural rights and if you don't think they exist for every human being then you're useless idiotry is complete and you should just kill yourself and save us the trouble of having to read your utter incompetence.
Click to expand...

You seem upset.
 
McFry said:
So to those personnel who in the military who drove tanks, flew fighter jets, or controlled the Trident nuclear missile launch platforms on submarines are entitled to use such weapons to defend themselves with personally? Let's just pretend for a second that Sergey Brin served in the military and can afford to buy an ICBM now that he's head of Google. Is this his right as defined under the 2nd amendment? To protect himself with whatever arms he deems fit?
Click to expand...

Retarded "What If's" don't earn you any credibility, they instead make you lose any credibility for any point you may of had.
 
Well one person was added to the ignore list, a second soon after.

If people don't like guns they are more than welcome to move to a country where they are banned.
 
hity645 said:
Well one person was added to the ignore list, a second soon after.

If people don't like guns they are more than welcome to move to a country where they are banned.
Click to expand...

The irony is they'll be more likely to be killed by a gun and/or violence due to the lack of citizens owning guns than they will here.

What I'm trying to say is. I will buy their ticket.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Maybe I'm wrong about that. I'm a big kid and can admit it. :)



Yes, I'm 100% okay with the government being in control of the guns and I think that it won't hurt anything at all. People are way to power trippy about what they think a gun lets them do and the rich successful people have at least proved they're smart enough to become rich and successful so they should be making the decisions for everyone else. They did, after all, organize the government for that whole reason -- so smarter people could be elected and take control of people who don't know better or can't fend for themselves.



I'm pretty sure it was reasonable when they wrote the amendment, but it'd be kinda a bad thing not to at least reconsider it in modern times, just to make sure it's still valid and there's a good reason for it to exist.
Click to expand...

The government was created to protect the citizens from foreign invaders. The bill of rights was created to protect the citizens from the government.

The country wasn't created to control anyone. Its design was as far from that as it could get. Now keeping it that way has obviously been an issue. Look at all the things the government is doing right now that would have been madness 50 years ago.
 
McFry said:
So to those personnel who in the military who drove tanks, flew fighter jets, or controlled the Trident nuclear missile launch platforms on submarines are entitled to use such weapons to defend themselves with personally? Let's just pretend for a second that Sergey Brin served in the military and can afford to buy an ICBM now that he's head of Google. Is this his right as defined under the 2nd amendment? To protect himself with whatever arms he deems fit?
Click to expand...

Well just so you know the ICBM equivalent during the time of our nations creation was the cannon. Now where do you suppose most of those cannons we used to fight off the British came from? Most were borrowed from private citizens.
 
I would love one of the anti gun ownership supporters to have a maniac break in their home on intent to murder them and family members. I bet then they would be like dam what the hell was I thinking we are all going to die. BTW police can't help you they only come after a crime has been committed. Good luck dialing for help after your already dead.
 
zeekle said:
Well just so you know the ICBM equivalent during the time of our nations creation was the cannon. Now where do you suppose most of those cannons we used to fight off the British came from? Most were borrowed from private citizens.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that having average people own ICBMs is a bad idea. Kinda is the same thing with biological or toxic agents. The situation is different and they're a lot more horrible than someone having a random cannon in their backyard. (BTW - Private citizens with cannons? Huh? Are you sure?)
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Yes, private citizens owned canons. Especially those that owned merchant fleets.
Click to expand...

He should have at least googled it.


Posted from Hardforum.com App for Android
 
So you have to have a license to manufacture guns

And 3d printing allows you to manufacture guns

So they want to make it so that you have to have a license to manufacture guns with a 3d printer

And the problem with this is?
 
maverikv said:
So you have to have a license to manufacture guns

And 3d printing allows you to manufacture guns

So they want to make it so that you have to have a license to manufacture guns with a 3d printer

And the problem with this is?
Click to expand...

You don't need a license to manufacture guns. You need one to sell them.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
You don't need a license to manufacture guns. You need one to sell them.
Click to expand...

You certainly do need a license to manufacture guns

You need a different one to sell them

A gunsmith can make guns for his personal use and does not need either license for that, but I can see debating the issue when it comes to 3d printing as it may be considered less of an art and more of machinery manufacture since the 3d printer makes the componentes automatically from data schematics.
 
maverikv said:
You certainly do need a license to manufacture guns

You need a different one to sell them

A gunsmith can make guns for his personal use and does not need either license for that, but I can see debating the issue when it comes to 3d printing as it may be considered less of an art and more of machinery manufacture since the 3d printer makes the componentes automatically from data schematics.
Click to expand...

So, you can manufacture guns for your own personal use without a license, but you can't manufacture guns without a license. Makes perfect sense.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
So, you can manufacture guns for your own personal use without a license, but you can't manufacture guns without a license. Makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

Its not considered "manufacturing" when a gunsmith makes a gun for their personal use
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top