Anyone notice Thingiverse took the AR-15 lowers off the site??

Cowards. Its LEGAL to build your own gun.

This is a move I approve of.

It's been disturbing to me to see how many people immediately jump to "so can you print your own gun?" when I mention 3D printing. 3D printing shouldn't be about weaponry, and if we allow the manufacturing of weaponry to be the dominant theme that the mainstream public sees, we're going to have a much harder time gaining mainstream acceptance and fighting regulation.

anode505 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone notice Thingiverse took the AR-15 lowers
> off the site??
>
> Cowards. Its LEGAL to build your own gun.


It is ILLEGAL to build your own gun... at least in a lot of the developed world (You know the countries with very low death by firearms statistics). There is nothing cowardly about what they have done at Thingiverse. They have always said that they were uncomfortable with people posting weaponry on the site that they fund and manage. It's their site and their choice.

If you want a site for sharing killing machines, you build it yourself. And get yourself a good lawyer to defend yourself against the lawsuits that will inevitably come rolling in as people injure themselves and others.

This is what the pro-gun lobby just don't get. You have a right to your opinions... But other people have different opinions and don't want to have weapons inflicted upon them.

It's not legal to build a gun in the US.
You need special permits.
Like explosives, you can't just build a pipe bomb or pencil gun.

You should also mention that this is a Federal criminal issue.
The Federal legal system doesn't have any wiggle room.
Those prosecutors have very strict guidance. It's how they are graded.
They don't negotiate to lesser sentences.
Lawyers in the civil system are flexible to interpret and smudge stuff around.

It's like using the US Postal system to commit fraud. It shifts your crimes into the Federal system.
Everyone knows to use UPS or Fedex for criminal activity.

i've had the question "can you print a knife" to me this is more plausable and more of a threat to the freedoms we now enjoy in the 3d printing world, the idea of a printed gun is just too dangerous ,stupid and unpredictable

Quote
davew tx
It's not legal to build a gun in the US.
You need special permits.

That statement is completely false. In the United States you can build as many otherwise legal firearms for your own use as you feel like. Many thousands of people have. There is a large cottage industry devoted to the home gun maker.

[www.atf.gov] discusses making firearms from parts kits.

[www.weaponeer.net] has some good information on the subject.

The only real limit is that you cannot make complete receivers with the intent to sell them without becoming a licensed firearm manufacturer. You can for example make an 80% complete receiver, (by the ATF's definition, not yours) and make 100% of the other non-controlled parts of a weapon and sell them en mass without any issue.

You can also decide later to sell a firearm that you made provided you follow ATF guidelines, ie add the city and state of manufacture, and I think caliber, possibly a serial number.

Why would anybody want to use this technology for anything but good purposes?

So you are automatically assuming that anyone who wants to print a gun or gun parts is doing it for evil purposes?

bbriggstkd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you are automatically assuming that anyone who
> wants to print a gun or gun parts is doing it for
> evil purposes?

Yes, guns are inherently evil.

Next.

a gun is just a tool, PEOPLE are inherently evil......give a death row inmate a pencil or an ink pen and see what they can do with it.

Yes

What possible good purpose could there be to create a plastic gun?

If you wanted a toy gun, they're cheap and in the stores.

Guns are invented and designed to KILL PEOPLE. They have alternate uses, but their primary purpose is to kill people. Get your learn on and google 'history of firearms'. Quite informative. Hunting game was never their intended use. Killing people on the battlefield was.

So if the sole purpose of an object is to kill, and we as a society deem killing to be an act of evil, how can guns be anything but tools of evil?

Yes, they can be used defensively. But I haven't seen any of these semi-automatic rifles described as "Defense Rifles". No. "Assault Rifles" describes their true intent - they are offensive weapons.

My biggest problem is the lack of respect that gun owners in the US have for the Second Amendment. People who take up arms don't respect their obligation under the Second Amendment. Instead, they use the Constitution to shield themselves from all sorts of bad and reckless behavior. Taking up the Second Amendment is a heavy burden that many gun owners take very lightly. Adam Lanza's mother took her responsibility lightly. She is directly responsible for the deaths of 20 children, six adults, her son and herself. All because she didn't take her obligation to the rest of us seriously. SHE was licensed to posses those firearms, not the members of her household. SHE didn't secure them. SHE didn't secure the ammunition. SHE didn't secure anything. If she had this never would have happened. End of story.

So if people who exercise their Second Amendment rights can't be trusted to regulate themselves then society must step in and ensure that they do. As a society we regulate things for the public good. We do so because improper behavior exposes the populace at large to significant risks. This is why we don't let ten year old children drive cars for instance. We as a society have a responsibility to regulate these implements of death.

An NO. Gun deaths are not comparable to car deaths, or poisonings, or drownings, etc. None of those activities are INTENDED TO KILL. They are deaths by misadventure. Are there safety issues with everyday activities? Sure. But none of those activities posses the innate intent to kill another human being. If you want to compare statistics let's compare across similar implements of death - knives, swords, crossbow, arrow, spear, pike, etc.

That takes me Defense Distributed. Who in their right mind thinks that this project won't get into the hands of criminals? It's probably ALREADY in the hands of criminals. Now we come back to the responsibility of shouldering the second amendment. Is this RESPONSIBLE? No. No it is not. And this willful irresponsibility may eventually lead to a Constitutional crisis - one where we AMEND the Second Amendment to spell out exactly what kinds of guns people can have, as well as the rights and duties of gun ownership. To think that this is far-fetched is naive. Wait until the first wiki-weapon is used in a crime. Wait until one is used in a mass-murder. If you think the uproar over Newtown, CT is a big deal, just wait. Now the threat of semi-automatic rifles is COMPLETELY UNREGULATED. NOW THE THREAT IS EVERYWHERE AND YOU ARE POWERLESS TO STOP IT. I don't think that will go down too well with non-gun owners (and even some gun owners). If you own a gun this project is a direct threat to you being able to acquire/keep one in the future.

The wiki weapon project is a threat to all of us in the 3D printing/reprap community. We will be tarnished when 3D printed guns are used in crimes. We will be taken to task. We will bear the burden when government seeks to regulate what we can create with our machines.

Something needs to be done, but I fear it won't until it is too late.

20 dead 6 year old children are apparently not enough for the wiki weapon and Defense Distributed. They want more dead children and adults - anything less is a failure in their eyes. I say this as they have continued to push forward even after the Newtown tragedy. I think the word I'm looking for is hubris.

I am not pro-gun.

I am not anti-gun.

I am sensible-gun.

This does not make sense.

Semi-automatic rifles do not make sense. They are designed to kill people, not animals.

Large capacity clips do not make sense. If you need more than one shot you need to "take some shooting lessons, asshole." <- from 'Falling Down' (Best. Movie. Ever.)

People don't kill people. People with GUNS kill people. Knife attack in China on THE SAME DAY bears this sad statement out.

Enough of a rant.

And if you're in Newtown, CT I am at a loss for words. Nothing I can say can bring your precious children back. Nothing I can say can bring those teacher - heroes back. Nothing I can say will return your lives to normal. All I can say is that we are with you, and this tragedy will never be forgotten. Peace be with you.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

dirty steve,
the man in jail can kill 2 or 3 people with a shapened object before being overpowered - he can kill 20 or 30 people in less than
a miniute with a automatic gun ... "All of these events, from the first bullet ... took approximately 15 seconds, during which 12 people were killed and 10 more were wounded" - see massacre below.

military style weapons were banned in australia in 96 after a massacre of 35 people at port arthur in tasmanian.
the gun lobby said it would be the end of the world.
15 years down the track we have not had any mass shooting since.
people can still hunt. i have an old man and his friends and dogs who pop over one a year - he asks if he can shoot fox on my property and he does. farmers can still shoot rabbits, ferral cats, dog, pigs, etc. my neighbor still hunts deer. gun clubs are still vibrant. we still won medals for shooting at the olympics. our police forces have guns, our armies bigger guns.

and... by the way ...
how come amercians don't take their military style weapons on board jet aeroplanes - how did this get past the nra?

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2012 12:55AM by rogerw.

---

Prusa 'Explorer' (3dStuffMaker), GEN6, J-head Mk III-B, Bowden Extruder, Marlin 1.0.0 RC2, Repitier-Host V0.84 and Slic3r 0.9.8, PLA. Live at Victoria, Australia.

just saw this Defense Distributed site spoken of above - my god you americans are crazier than i thought - why would any society allow the meatheads in the video own such a killing machine ... and defence against what ? what is going to attack you that you need 30 rounds to defend your self with ???

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2012 01:15AM by rogerw.

---

Prusa 'Explorer' (3dStuffMaker), GEN6, J-head Mk III-B, Bowden Extruder, Marlin 1.0.0 RC2, Repitier-Host V0.84 and Slic3r 0.9.8, PLA. Live at Victoria, Australia.

Quote
akhlut
SHE was licensed to posses those firearms, not the members of her household.

No license is required for possession.

Quote
akhlut
SHE didn't secure them. SHE didn't secure the ammunition. SHE didn't secure anything. If she had this never would have happened.

No one secures access to dangerous items from 20 years olds. Does any single person on this forum keep knives locked away in their house?

Quote
akhlut
If you own a gun this project is a direct threat to you being able to acquire/keep one in the future.

Projects like that will hopefully get people to address the social issues and stop focusing on common inanimate objects. At the very least people will be less inclined to try and control the law abiding citizen's access to such items.

"common inanimate objects" - we are talking about military assault rifles not door knobs.
"law abiding citizen's access to such items" - again what do you need them for??

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2012 02:00AM by rogerw.

---

Prusa 'Explorer' (3dStuffMaker), GEN6, J-head Mk III-B, Bowden Extruder, Marlin 1.0.0 RC2, Repitier-Host V0.84 and Slic3r 0.9.8, PLA. Live at Victoria, Australia.

Almost every police department has moved to the AR-15 or M4 (shorter AR-15/M16) platform, they find them very useful.

As for me, I don't like the word "need", but 3 gun competitions, sport shooting, self defence, deer hunting (if using something bigger than the common 223/556 ammo) even though I have not gone big game hunting in several years, shooting nuisance animals.

The AR-15 platform is probably sold more than any type of rifle in the United States, figuratively speaking, every gun owner has at least one. They are extremely versatile.

Dustin,
All of the activities that you enjoy seem to be able to be done with a single shot rifle. Why do you a 30 shot automatic gun?
Just trying to understand this. Unfortunatly this is big news in Aust. We watch it on tv and just can't comprehend it. Espcailly self defence... from what? Animals or people? Are you likely to be attacked by 30 people?
Roger.

---

Prusa 'Explorer' (3dStuffMaker), GEN6, J-head Mk III-B, Bowden Extruder, Marlin 1.0.0 RC2, Repitier-Host V0.84 and Slic3r 0.9.8, PLA. Live at Victoria, Australia.

Dustin,

Apparently in CT you are correct - no need for a permit to purchase. Maybe NJ is ahead of the curve on this. Here you must apply for a permit to purchase *any* gun.

> SHE was licensed to posses those firearms, not the
> members of her household.

No license is required
> for possession.

Fair enough.

>
>
> SHE didn't secure them. SHE didn't secure the
> ammunition. SHE didn't secure anything. If she had
> this never would have happened.
> No one secures access to dangerous items from 20
> years olds. Does any single person on this forum
> keep knives locked away in their house?

Let's address your straw man. Knives are perhaps the original utilitarian tool that allowed man to evolve into the gun-wielding greater ape that he is today. Knives are tools that have a purpose other than killing people. Can they be used to kill people? Sure. But they take a hell of a lot more work/effort/time to butcher 26 people than guns do. Guns are made to kill people. Get that false equivalence out of your head.

Let's leave the gun safe open. Genius! We see how that worked out - time and again. This is the HEIGHT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY. Especially if you have a 20 year old living with you that isn't quite right in the head. It wasn't news to her that her son was mentally/emotionally challenged.

But let's put that aside. What if someone broke into her house and stole her unsecured armory? What would her responsibility be then? Would she be held responsible for not securing her arsenal? She owned the guns. She was responsible for them. Not just to herself and the state, but her friends, neighbors and community. Death has been writ large across an entire community due to the irresponsibility of a single gun owner. Imagine a world populated with irresponsible AR-15 owners. Surely gun violence would have to go down, wouldn't it?

I guess the old adage is true - 'live by the gun, die by the gun' Maybe that she died isn't so surprising after all. Interesting reading.

>
>
> If you own a gun this project is a direct threat
> to you being able to acquire/keep one in the
> future.

> Projects like that will hopefully get people to
> address the social issues and stop focusing on
> common inanimate objects. At the very least people
> will be less inclined to try and control the law
> abiding citizen's access to such items.

Common? Not really. Common means you see it everywhere. I don't see guns everywhere. These uncommon, inanimate objects have a single purpose. Killing people. They aren't spoons. They aren't TV's. Their utility is derived from their ability to kill quickly and efficiently. They are implements of death, plain and simple.

So how does Defense Distributed sort the "Law Abiding Citizens" from criminals? Do people have to sign a disclaimer? Nope. As of 3AM EST 510 views of the AR-15 receiver. How many good guys have downloaded it? How many bad guys? No one knows! Isn't that just great. This is a perfect world, now isn't it.

How is this a social issue?

What societal ill will be cured by MORE guns? Maybe you're right. There is a societal ill at work here - the false notion that citizens possessing personal arsenals will somehow deter a tyrannical government. That possessing the power of life and death in your hands is something other than a power trip. What exactly is an AR-15 pea shooter going to do against an Abrahms tank or a drone? Bupkis.

But here's the rub. We are a government by the people, for the people. If there is tyrannical government in power then the only way to put a stop to it is at the ballot box, not at the end of a gun.

Where the "personal responsibility'" argument falls flat on its face is that personal responsibility is not a uniform quality across all individuals. This is why there is car insurance - some people are good drivers while others a poor drivers. Do you propose "gun violence insurance" to "protect" us from gun violence due to poor gun ownership practices? That'll be really useful when you're a fatality due to gun violence in a nation gone insane with guns. More guns in more hands will lead to more violence, not less.

How many people a year are killed by guns in the US?
How many deaths are required to make you consider gun violence to be "too high"?

Mass shootings shock and horrify us but they happen every day, just not all in one place at one time. 2009 saw 16,799 homicides, 11,493 (68%) of which were due to firearms, or 31.5 firearm deaths per day. 31! Are you willing to accept a Newtown incident every day? This is what is happening - the numbers do not lie. Source.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2012 04:01AM by akhlut.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Hello rogerw,

Except for hunting all of the activities require or benefit from larger magazines. Our own police force carries about 200 rounds a person when arresting suspected armed violent criminals. I normally carry 2000 paint balls when playing 15 minute games of 10 vs 10. My paintball marker holds 200 rounds in its hopper, it doesn't last long.

Hello akhlut,

I am going to write most of this post for the benefit of the world audience.

By social issues I meant the issues that cause mentally ill people to go untreated, or the far more common gang violence and its causes. In the US we have three large causes of death by firearms; suicide, gangs, and death by police officers, usually against gang members. Almost all of the crime is concentrated into a few large cities that are basically failed states onto themselves. Detroit being a perfect example where in many ways the government doesn't exist or function. Much of it goes unreported, but the stories of what parts of that city are like are almost unbelievable. The rest of the US has lower crime than most first world countries. Where I live most people don't lock the doors on their homes or cars. We have very low violence from guns or anything else.

Roughly 40-45% of the house holds in the US have firearms in them, and guns are very easy to get here, and cheap on the black market. In most states private sales are unregulated. I have purchased many firearms with cash and no background checks or licensing, registration, or anything else. If it wasn't for the fact that you can't sell to known felons or other disqualified individuals, and our byzantine set of regulations on what is or isn't legal to possess this year we couldn't even have a black market. Anyway my point is that we really can't have more guns as everyone who wants them has them, and other than a few states, Illinois, New Jersey, and a few cities, you can buy most firearms without any paperwork from a private individual, and with minimal hassle from gun stores.

Over 100 million people were killed by their own government in the last century. [en.wikipedia.org] Being killed by your government is the single largest cause of non-natural death. In every case of high body counts there was strict gun control. There are also many stories of the little guy beating the bigger guy, Vietnam vs USA, Afghanistan (twice vs the USA and vs Russia), the IRA vs the Brits, really dozens of examples, plus several examples of the government winning.

Hi Dustin,
Thanks for your replies.
I'm happy for your police force to have a guns (and the army bigger ones)
I'm happy for you to play paint ball with as many bullets as you want (have even done it myself a couple of times - ouch).
Why do your mentally ill go untreated? Why would the republican be against a public health system? Do people there see these basic rights as over government? Can the mentally ill get guns (sounds like it)? Do people argue the 2nd amendment right for the mentally ill to have a gun? (maybe the 2nd amendment needs another amendment).
do people there have guns to defend themselves from a government who goes off the rails - is that what you are syaing - say like to rise up if hitler took over.
is this what you mean by defend yourselves?
what about an uprising from the poor, the negroes, the gangs? do americans feel the need to defend themselves from this too?
surely things will only be worst for the usa as the divide between rich and poor gets worst?
roger

---

Prusa 'Explorer' (3dStuffMaker), GEN6, J-head Mk III-B, Bowden Extruder, Marlin 1.0.0 RC2, Repitier-Host V0.84 and Slic3r 0.9.8, PLA. Live at Victoria, Australia.

You guys can all be good little sheep victims if you want.
Im gonna keep my guns.
Im gonna make whatever i want with MY 3d printer.
the end.

again with the victims thing ?? who is going to "get you" glrra19 ?? who are you all afraid of ??
and
its not all about YOU and what you want. you live in a society where you need to show some restaint in your activites so we can all live in harmony.

---

Prusa 'Explorer' (3dStuffMaker), GEN6, J-head Mk III-B, Bowden Extruder, Marlin 1.0.0 RC2, Repitier-Host V0.84 and Slic3r 0.9.8, PLA. Live at Victoria, Australia.

Dirty Steve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a gun is just a tool, PEOPLE are inherently
> evil......give a death row inmate a pencil or an
> ink pen and see what they can do with it.

Maybe he would write an autobiography, or an appeal?

Death row inmates are allowed pens, and there has never been case of pen being used as a weapon on death row. Guns are tools specifically designed for killing, and have no other use.

The idea that guns are just tools like any other, and any object can be a weapon is just nonsense. These are myths propagated by Hollywood and the NRA.

> PEOPLE are inherently evil

which is a very good reason that guns should not be easily available.

Quote

But here's the rub. We are a government by the people, for the people. If there is tyrannical government in power then the only way to put a stop to it is at the ballot box, not at the end of a gun.

Actually you can probably still do it, but it is a very miserable path. Citizens arent organized, and even with(edit) guns are poorly equipped. They dont have assault helicopters, probably most of them dont even see the merit of IR cameras or duds. They're very far from a tactically effective force and would have to learn how to be one with blood.

Even if they succeed the aftermath might be what? A bunch of separate armed groups? Would they work together and put something better in place? From my estimate of the character of these people i expect not.

I do think defense is something that is needed(at a much smaller budget than the US gives it now ftr), but it has to be done so it represents the people. Just like govt aught to represent the people.(and it unfortunately doesnt quite) And of course there must be control of where weapons are and who has access to them.(in some way, i am not going into how to organize it)

Nonviolent activism is the better way to keep government in check. 'The ballot box' is a too limited view, it can involve community building, research, education/awareness, discussion, civil disobedience, lawsuits.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2012 02:35PM by Jasper1984.

if you would like to stop this crazy gun printing stuff ruining this great 3d printing experience then you/we need to do something about it.
the only way to make people change is through the hip pocket.
that should start with the companies advertising on the Defence Distributed web site, namely:
Forbes
Wired
PC Magazine
Vice
the guardian
Popular Science
The New York Times
CNet
CBS
CNN
Perhaps a open letter or something from oppposed forum members. In the current environment of grief and dispair I believe (hope) most parents in america who be disgusted to know these companies are associated with such a project.

Recently in Aust social media has forced companies to withdraw advertising (if only temporarily) from:
A radio station in which the broadcaster (Alan Jones) attacked the Prime Minister shortly after the death of her father
A radio station in which two radio presenter made a hoax call to the hospital in England were princess Kate of watchamacalllit was staying - the nurse who took the call and transferred it to Kate's room later killed herself. (the radio station plainly broke the law by broadcasting a recorded conversation without the person's consent).
The advertisers pulled their ad campaigns as they were publicly shamed to be associated with such boof heads.
The government agency who oversees radio broadcasting did bugger all or is still investigating.
Are these boof heads still on the air? Yes. Will they think twice before doing the same next time? Absolutely.
Both radio companies were losing hundreds of thousand of dollars in lost advertising revenue.

I unfortunatetly don't have much hope that you govt will do much about gun control by themselves. It seems it is up to the masses to protest their desire for change in regards to gun laws and also this printing stuff. Good luck. Lets hope it is not your children or grandchildren next.

---

Prusa 'Explorer' (3dStuffMaker), GEN6, J-head Mk III-B, Bowden Extruder, Marlin 1.0.0 RC2, Repitier-Host V0.84 and Slic3r 0.9.8, PLA. Live at Victoria, Australia.

It just so happens that is how America was founded, by unorginized citizens. Those founders saw the evil that a totalitarian government could cuase. They truely believed, as do I, that a humans rights are endowed by the creator, not a government. The second ammendment was included for one reason, to give our government a reason to fear its citizens. Libertys teeth and all.

If we allow the second ammendment to be trampled on for the sake of security, what's next? The first, fourth? How about we strip women and blacks of full citizenship and the right to vote? Allowing fear to control the course of a nation is a slippery slope. How many people died or were victims in AUS after the ban? Would you like to volunteer your family up to deal with the backlash of armed criminals?

IMHO, the fathers of the rest of world gave up the fight for freedom loooooong ago. I will not disgrace the blood of my ancestors by allowing our liberty to be striped away now.

As for Thingaverse, it's their site. I personally can see why they took those files down. The have a worldwide audience that does not have the same attraction to firearms that America does. One also has to ponder the possible liabilty. It could be a life changing event to be in any way directly involved with a innocent life being lost. I would have to do some serious soul searching to consider leaving them up.

foshon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The second ammendment was included for
> one reason, to give our government a reason to
> fear its citizens. Libertys teeth and all.

This is exactly the reason that AR-15's and such should be legal. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with preventing tyranny. If you think that nothing like that could happen in a developed country today, you are just ignorant.

---

Help improve the RepRap wiki! Just click "Edit" in the top-right corner of the page and start typing. Anyone can edit the wiki!

@ Dustin

I think rogerw hit the nail on the head. There is a toxic convergence between the Republican party, the NRA and the health insurance system. We don't treat the economically disadvantaged mentally ill in this country. We give them a prescription (which they cant afford to fill) and kick them out the door. Our healthcare and mental healthcare system in this country is fundamentally broken. Is it the best in the world? For the rich, yes. For the rest it sucks - hard.

Let's talk about the black market. It's where supposedly responsible gun owners (those that can buy from a licensed dealer) sell guns to those who cannot. This is a problem. Want to know how criminals get guns? They get them from gun owners. Prove me wrong on this one. There is no data to dispute my claim. If what I say is untrue then how do criminals get guns? But if I am correct then gun owners are the root cause of all gun violence in the US.

As far as the decline of cities goes there is a singular explanation - drugs and drug gangs. Want to tamp down on this violence? Legalize marijuana. People don't just go around willy-nilly shooting one another in gang violence. There is a dispute and guns are the way they solve it. Do I think gangs will dissolve if we legalize marijuana? No. But it will free up an insane amount of resources - think about the cone of expenses involved with a single marijuana possession conviction. Then we can plow some of that lost funding into police departments to actually take the time to tackle and eliminate the gangs in our inner cities.

And let's talk about the totalitarian regimes that slaughtered their own people last century. They would have happened whether the citizenry was armed or not. It's not like these regimes weren't brutal. They arrested an killed whomever they chose. I think if you owned a gun you'd simply get to die in your home instead of a concentration camp. Outcome would be the same. What's worse is that the authorities would look justified in their actions - they eliminated a "threat to society" - that's how it'd be spun. So here's a question - What makes the US different? We locked up Japanese Americans during WWII for their own "protection". We didn't massacre them (although we mistreated them). Why? The government imposed tyranny on a subset of it's own citizens, but the outcome was radically different from Stalinist Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia or Hitler's Germany. Why? Maybe our government cannot impose tyranny as it has political consequences and elections are frequent. Maybe, because we have the ballot box no one side can muster the votes to impose tyranny on the populace.

@ Jasper

I think you are correct. Citizens must organize and then express their disgust at the ballot box. I fully expect the next election cycle or two to be single-issue. Topic:Guns.

@ foshon

Unorganized citizens? You're joking, right? Remember the Continental Congress? You know, that whole Declaration of Independence thing. The fellas who founded the Continental Army, Navy and Marines before creating the Declaration of Independence? To say that the founding fathers we just a bunch of unorganized "folks" is appalling. They were organized to the hilt. How do you think delegates were selected and sent to the Continental Congress? Caprice? No, they were elected and sent. Elections require organization. They were sent to represent the citizens of their state. Imagine the amount of responsibility these men shouldered.

I'm not saying we need to remove the second amendment. It's just fine the way it is. But citizens do not have the right to possess any firearm they desire - it's why you can't have a machine gun. The second amendment does not grant absolute rights.

Besides, it is very difficult to change the US Constitution. There has to be a massive consensus amongst the states and congress, and we don't have it surrounding the gun issue. Maybe if we have a couple more school shootings involving kindergartners or preschoolers will Americans wake up and notice. Until then guns aren't going anywhere.

But as a gun owner let me ask you - if they stripped the second amendment or toned it down and made some of your weapons illegal to possess what would you do when the Feds come calling to collect them?

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

NewPerfection Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> foshon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The second ammendment was included for
> > one reason, to give our government a reason to
> > fear its citizens. Libertys teeth and all.
>
> This is exactly the reason that AR-15's and such
> should be legal. The 2nd amendment has nothing to
> do with hunting. It has to do with preventing
> tyranny. If you think that nothing like that
> could happen in a developed country today, you are
> just ignorant.

That's paranoid and delusional, as well as ignorant. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about overthrowing the government by force, such an act would be regarded as treason under Article 3. Even with AR15s, you would stand aboslutely no chance against the Federal government in the unlikely event it went against the people. The idea of independent armed citizens fighting evil forces is pure Hollywood fantasy.

146 people in the US have died due to gun violence since Newtown. Tyranny is not killing US citizens, but an adherence to an outdated and obsolete piece of text, written in a completely different age.

The irony is that if you own a gun, you or your family are more likely to be the victim of gun violence. Guns don't, and can't protect you from evil.