US Politics Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2020

[JessFR]

Did... You watch that video you put up?

It's using a 500k machining system. That system isn't gonna be something you buy off the shelf for maybe a grand anytime soon. Calling that 3d printing is bullshit.

Modern 3d printers print plastic shapes. You can't make a 9mm semiautomatic or anything like it with 3d printer plastic. Like I said at best you can fire a .22 maybe a couple times.

Arguing that this is a 3d printed gun is soo disingenuous.

No 3d printer, defining 3d printer to be all those things advertised as 3d printers, can make a gun like that. None. Not even close.

 

[JessFR]

If we want to really split hairs, metal working and fabrication isn’t beyond many to learn. I’ve seen homemade guns before.

-GC

Yes, with a metal working shop anyone with the knowhow can make a gun. That's true. But the whole argument here is about people downloading a file and printing out a gun without any knowhow using a relatively cheap 3d printer.

That's what is being talked about in debates on 3d printers.

And that technology CAN NOT make a gun that will fire much more than a 22 a few times, manually reloading each shot.

To build a gun like in that video you need metal parts. And the kinda 3d printers people talk about when discussing this don't do metal.

You said we live in an age when anyone can make a gun with a simple 3d printer, NOT with a 50 thousand dollar CNC machine or something.

What people think of when they think 3d printer, is a device that cant make much more than a single shot 22. And frankly that's probably a less dangerous weapon than an everyday car.

 

[Deleted member 521610]

harris is anti american and anti the constitution. Literally will make biden get less votes. Wanting to steals everybodys guns is sure going to go down well with america right?

MODEDIT by JessFR: OK so I started a tangent in replying to this post in the election thread. I didn't wanna make work for other mods so decided to move the tangent into the gun control thread along with a copy of this one.

 

[JessFR]

harris is anti american and anti the constitution. Literally will make biden get less votes. Wanting to steals everybodys guns is sure going to go down well with america right?

Roflmao, people's guns aren't going anywhere it's a totally absurd suggestion.

We've had decades of people buying up piles of guns fearing a gun confiscation is right around the corner. Not only has it not happened, it only gets harder to do it every year.

I remember 8 fucking years of "Obama's gonna start the confiscation any minute now". Never happened.

Settle down with your far right nonsense, your guns aren't going anywhere. No matter who wins.

 

[Deleted member 521610]

Acutally somebody figured out how to 3d print a ar-15 which can fire through 500 + rounds with the right plastics. It just requires trial and error and alot of money for somebody to perfect the 3d printed gun and once they have it down then yeah anybody with the file can print a ar-15 the us government supressed the file and i believe the guy who perfected it can only sell the file via usb in america and not upload it online.

 

[JessFR]

Acutally somebody figured out how to 3d print a ar-15 which can fire through 500 + rounds with the right plastics. It just requires trial and error and alot of money for somebody to perfect the 3d printed gun and once they have it down then yeah anybody with the file can print a ar-15 the us government supressed the file and i believe the guy who perfected it can only sell the file via usb in america and not upload it online.

Yeah I don't believe that. Sorry but it makes way more sense that it's just bullshit than that the government was able to suppress it to the point that you can't even prove it exists. They can't even suppress child porn on the darknet in spite of virtually universal support. I can go google right now and find out how to make bombs from common readily available chemicals.

If it existed and they tried to suppress it it would go to court and almost certainly win, it's free speech. Even if it lost, we'd know it existed.

Not every myth is true, and this sounds exactly like a false myth.

To 3d print plastics, the plastics have to have low melting points so they can be liquified and printed.
Exploding gunpowder is hot, real hot. Extreme hear plus a the pressure wave is gonna destroy any plastic used by a 3d printer real fast.

That's why the only 3d printed gun that works at all is a tiny .22, and only for a few shots.

 

[Deleted member 521610]

Theres literally a vice video of the guy who did it successfully and his business which to get around regulations can only physically sell the 3d printing files he also sells the specific plastics mix for it.

 

[JessFR]

Theres literally a vice video of the guy who did it successfully and his business which to get around regulations can only physically sell the 3d printing files he also sells the specific plastics mix for it.

You talking about this video?



Cause I just finished it. And what I'm seeing is exactly what I thought. They can't even keep the parts of the gun that don't have to deal with tiny explosions going off from falling apart. Let alone an entire plastic semiautomatic rifle.

It's just not happening. If you have evidence that anyone has been able to do it, I'll look, but I continue to believe it's not possible.

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

Roflmao, people's guns aren't going anywhere it's a totally absurd suggestion.

We've had decades of people buying up piles of guns fearing a gun confiscation is right around the corner. Not only has it not happened, it only gets harder to do it every year.

I remember 8 fucking years of "Obama's gonna start the confiscation any minute now". Never happened.

Settle down with your far right nonsense, your guns aren't going anywhere. No matter who wins.

If they aren't coming for them how come every year they impose more restrictions and try to make more laws?
-We just want the semi-autos
-We just want you to register all your guns
-We just don't like the ones that are black
-Why do you need more than 5 bullets in a magazine?
-If there is x item/feature on it we can declare it illegal and make you a felon overnight
-Technically X is legal but you'll have to give us your finger prints, pay up $200, wait 2 years for the paper work, and ask us for permission every time you move or travel with it
-If you have this gun in the same house as a cloths hanger bent a certain way it's considered a machine gun and you should go to prison for 10 years

I can go on and on. It's always done the same way: Register then confiscate. It isn't "far right nonsense" it's the same thing that was done in every country where the population was stripped of their rights to own a firearm. The entire purpose of being able to own them is to keep the Government in check. If they weren't attempting to take them away it wouldn't be a major talking point every election.

If you don't want gun owners paranoid about losing their rights maybe they should stop attempting to take the rights away. It isn't a left vs. right issue either the NRA bargains away gun rights all of the time. Trump banned bump stocks just for the PR. The fact is All guns laws in the United States are illegal and the population should be allowed to own any gun they want including fully automatics. The founder fathers weren't idiots, they owned cannons, when they wrote down that the people are allowed to own firearms that is what they had in mind. The 2nd isn't there so I can hunt deer.

 

[JessFR]

If gun laws only ever increase we'd still have Clinton's assault weapon ban and concealed carry wouldn't have slowly become legal in most states over the past several decades.

Not to mention DC v heller and it's related laws.

It's all crap. You're not gonna have your guns taken away because it's shamelessly unrealistic.

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

i believe the guy who perfected it can only sell the file via usb in america and not upload it online.

Would you like a copy of that file?

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

If it existed and they tried to suppress it it would go to court and almost certainly win, it's free speech. Even if it lost, we'd know it existed

I have it and so do plenty of other people. The Government did attempt to suppress it though. If you share it they can come after you for it under some precedent that you aren't allowed to distribute it legally. I can't remember the details now but it was big news at the time.

The guy that was running this business did the rounds on all the big MSM news shows the day this was announced. The next day he was accused of having sex with an underage woman at a hotel. He ordered a call girl and they sent someone that was under the age of 18. He fled the country and hasn't been in the news since it happened. If they can't legally shut you down they just get you with a honey trap or plant child porn on your electronic devices. Everyone says you're crazy and paranoid if you talk about it but if you're paying attention you'll see it happen over and over again.

Stand up to the US Government and get enough support from regular people that you can't be ignored and it'll happen to you too. I don't think this guy did anything wrong but he should have known better than to walk right into a honey trap. I can't fault him because he probably has a sex addiction.

I don't know how well the 3D printed guns work because I don't have the hardware but I've been told a lot of the files work fine if you use the proper plastics. The AR-15 file is for a lower receiver so it doesn't have to stand up to much punishment. The intention is to mate the 3D printer lower with a standard upper and standard lower parts kit. All the designs are intended to be used with metal parts (you need a barrel). The ones that aren't only fire a few times because they can't take the abuse. That's fine because those guns aren't intended for long term use. The intention of them is to be used like the Liberator in WW2. You only need to fire it once to kill a soldier and take his weapon for your own use. That's the plan most people have if the Government ever starts rounding people up. If they send in the guard you take them out, steal their weapons and supplies (ammo), and wait for their backup. That's why the Government doesn't want Americans to own AR-15s. They're terrified of the public having guns that use the ammo they're using and experience with the weapons platform they use.

 

[alasdairm]

All guns laws in the United States are illegal

how so?

there is a case to which those who aggressively trumpet the importance of the 2nd amendment often point: district of columbia vs. heller

they point to it because they believe it takes their side on the issue of individual gun ownership depending on membership of a "well regulated militia". they believe the case proves that the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. that's some pretty important case law, right? i mean it went to the u.s. supreme court! and the opinion was written by republican antonin scalia. so this case is important right? and right right?

here's an excerpt from the opinion of the court. not the dissent - the opinion:

"E.III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

that's a little hard to read with those inline footnotes so here is just the text:

"E.III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

there it is.

"...or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." it's right there in black and white in antonin scalia's opinion for the court.

so, for example, background checks are constitutional.

"curtail" means to "reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on". the government could impose restrictions on the sale of arms which a pro-gun individual might characterize as severe curtailment but which the court could decide were perfectly legal based on the heller decision.

alasdair

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

so, for example, background checks are constitutional.

All you've proven in this post is the Supreme Court like most of the federal government is using the Constitution as toilet paper on a daily basis. The Constitution is clear; shall not be infringed.

 

[G_Chem]

Did... You watch that video you put up?

It's using a 500k machining system. That system isn't gonna be something you buy off the shelf for maybe a grand anytime soon. Calling that 3d printing is bullshit.

Modern 3d printers print plastic shapes. You can't make a 9mm semiautomatic or anything like it with 3d printer plastic. Like I said at best you can fire a .22 maybe a couple times.

Arguing that this is a 3d printed gun is soo disingenuous.

No 3d printer, defining 3d printer to be all those things advertised as 3d printers, can make a gun like that. None. Not even close.

I had a feeling the fact they have a professional setup would be used, again that is 6yrs ago!!

Here’s an article from last year talking about a community of people online creating guns via 3d printers.

3D-printed guns are back, and this time they are unstoppable

A decentralised network of gun-printing advocates is mobilising online, they're anonymously sharing blueprints, advice and building a community. There's no easy way they can be halted

www.wired.co.uk

Yes they aren’t as advanced yet as modern firearms, many being single shot, but they aren’t far off.

My point is mainly to show just how easy it is to make a gun, and if your someone who believes outlawing something only creates a dangerous underground culture for it (drug war anyone?) then the only way forward is to learn to live with them instead of making them illegal.

The drug war is idiotic, unstoppable I think we’d all agree, my point is drugs are often harder to make than guns so it’s obvious a nasty underground would flourish if we decided to do away with them.

-GC

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

My point is mainly to show just how easy it is to make a gun, and if your someone who believes outlawing something only creates a dangerous underground culture for it (drug war anyone?) then the only way forward is to learn to live with them instead of making them illegal.

They've already made an underground culture out of guns. I can purchase fully automatic rifles from the same people locally that I can purchase hard drugs from. They're better rifles than I can purchase legally because they're modern semi-autos converted over to fully automatic. To legally own a similar fully automatic rifle I would have to apply for the permit and spend 30-50k (IF I can find someone willing to part with a pre-1986 AR-15). If I don't want to go through the trouble of buying a fully automatic AR-15 from these people I can purchase any AR-15, drill a hole in it, drop in a couple of parts, and have the same thing the Army has. If I'm willing to part with semi-auto mode I can just cut and bend a lawn mower blade and put it in any standard AR-15. It'll go boom 30 times in a row as long as I'm holding down the trigger. I own another rifle that becomes highly illegal and fully auto with the addition of a shoe string. The ATF actually considers a shoe string a fully automatic firearm.

These rifles and modifications are common. People just don't show them off to others because they don't want to spend 10 years in prison. It's just like drug culture. If you want opioids you can purchase heroin or pills illegally from the guy on the corner or you can get them legally from a doctor if you're willing to pay the fees and do the paper work. At the end of the day you're still getting high.

For most people fully automatic is impractical and loses its novelty fast because it goes through so much ammo. Most people only desire them because the Government says they can't own them. That having been said I've never seen anyone that fired a rifle in fully automatic for the first time that didn't have a huge grin on their face after they emptied the magazine. Even anti-gun folks can't help but smile. If you ever go to the range and they have a fully automatic up for rent you should mag dump one at least once.

Like I said they're impractical for most people but they do have one use which is cover fire. That's why the Army uses them and why the public should be allowed to own them because once the situation becomes the people vs the US Government or the people vs a invading Army the fully automatic feature suddenly becomes a matter of life and death.

 

[alasdairm]

All you've proven in this post is the Supreme Court like most of the federal government is using the Constitution as toilet paper on a daily basis. The Constitution is clear; shall not be infringed.

sure. and the supreme court's ruling confirms that "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" do not unconstitutionally infringe the right to bear arms as laid out in the second amendment.

do you believe the second amendment should allow u.s. citizens to own and operate nuclear weapons?

do you believe that a company ceo should be allowed to lie about their company's quarterly results in an attempt to influence the company share price?

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

I had a feeling the fact they have a professional setup would be used, again that is 6yrs ago!!

Here’s an article from last year talking about a community of people online creating guns via 3d printers.

3D-printed guns are back, and this time they are unstoppable

A decentralised network of gun-printing advocates is mobilising online, they're anonymously sharing blueprints, advice and building a community. There's no easy way they can be halted

www.wired.co.uk

Yes they aren’t as advanced yet as modern firearms, many being single shot, but they aren’t far off.

My point is mainly to show just how easy it is to make a gun, and if your someone who believes outlawing something only creates a dangerous underground culture for it (drug war anyone?) then the only way forward is to learn to live with them instead of making them illegal.

The drug war is idiotic, unstoppable I think we’d all agree, my point is drugs are often harder to make than guns so it’s obvious a nasty underground would flourish if we decided to do away with them.

-GC

I'll be honest I'm getting a little sick of arguing this point. Not saying that's anyone else's fault, I feel like maybe I didn't explain what I was actually saying as well as I could have.

I don't really care if someone is able to make a lower receiver out of 3d printer plastic. Cause I don't really care about arguing this from the perspective of the atfs silly opinions of exactly what part of the gun is the gun.

I'm just talking ability the ability to buy a regular 3d printer at a cost of under a thousand bucks, and print say an 9mm semiautomatic or something.

Because once you can actually do that, gun control becomes a lot harder.

What I am saying, is that's unlikely to ever happen because it requires a material that probably doesn't exist. A plastic that starts off able to be liquid and moldable at room temperature, then suddenly takes on the properties of steel.

You may be able to print a gun according to the atf's definition of what a gun is, but you can't print a whole gun beyond the parameters I've laid out. And I don't see advancing technology changing that any time soon.


Beyond thay point, there wasn't really anything else I meant to debate here.

 

[Deleted member 521610]

materials do exist like that, polymer chemistry and material science is a multi million dollar business where chemists are working to come up with the next best polymer plastic to make themselves rich. Its all about time and research anything is possible.

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

sure. and the supreme court's ruling confirms that "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" do not unconstitutionally infringe the right to bear arms as laid out in the second amendment.

I can cite countless Supreme Court rulings that contradict the one you cited. Generally, the closer they are to the founding of the country the more they agree with the Founding Fathers. I have always been of the opinion that anything the Federal Government does that contradicts the Constitution is illegal and can be ignored. The Constitution is clear, the Government can not declare itself to have more power than laid out in that document. This means the FBI, ATF, NSA, IRS, DEA and many other departments (the 4th branch) are illegal and should be burned to the ground. I don't file income taxes because they're illegal and there is no law that says I have to pay taxes on my labor. I know people in the IRS and none of them file income taxes.

The intention of the document is clear because there are countless quotes from the people that wrote it that explain what the intention of it is. I'm tired of the Feds trying to tip-toe around the restrictions and limits on their power. They've done plenty of things that are illegal. The main one happened in 1913 when they illegally founded the Federal Reserve during Christmas break (most of the states weren't there to ratify it). That's when they sold out the country and the sitting president at the time said that it was a horrible idea and he was ashamed that he signed off on it and handed the power over to the bankers.

do you believe the second amendment should allow u.s. citizens to own and operate nuclear weapons?

If the military has it the people should be able to own and use it too. I should be allowed to have a reactor on my property as my own power source. If they don't want the people owning nukes the solution is simple. Disarm the military and make them illegal for everyone.

do you believe that a company ceo should be allowed to lie about their company's quarterly results in an attempt to influence the company share price?

What does this have to do with guns? My opinion on CEOs is they shouldn't be allowed to take a salary above a certain % of company profits. They should have to follow the Japanese system that keeps CEOs and related positions in check. A handful of CEOs are the reason why my father didn't get his pension and is forced to work for the rest of his life. I don't think I need to explain to you what I would do to them if I found myself in the same room with them. I'm a peaceful guy but screw with my family and I have no issues with showing you that I don't appreciate it.