Landmark legal shift opens pandora’s box for diy guns

Nov 2017
2,100
985
.
#21
It's founded in the illusion that individuals possessing firearms are safer than those not having them. And that's true to a very limited extent. Yes, safer perhaps from a home intruder, that's about it.
But safer from a oppressive government, able to resist, defy and even over throw such a government. VERY questionable. If the Govt. wants you badly enough you're toast, that's all there is to it.
That's why the government should never be permitted to disarm the people to any degree.

In such a "revolt' small arms such as rifles & pistols would be useful only for assassinations of Govt. agents, perhaps raids on isolated rural National Guard Armories to obtain serious weapons.
Basically the guy with a stack if AR-15's with 10,000 rounds of ammo in his basement is like the guy sitting at a stop light in city traffic in a Dodge Charger with 707 HP. He's just having a macho-man fantasy, that he has POWER and he sure LOOKS good! As i said, it fosters an illusion of individual power, control.
Just because that's the reason you or someone you know has or does those things doesn't mean it's the reason everyone has or does those things.
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2017
2,100
985
.
#22
Bottom line though, the unceasing arming of America really sets the stage for American vs. American ... to the delight of our enemies.

We're getting a glimpse from all the Russia-NRA revelations.
Unceasing arming of America? What we've been having is the unceasing disarming of America. Someone had to resort to coming up with 3D printer plans to try to begin the process of reversing course.
 
Dec 2012
19,550
8,331
California
#23
Oh, now your just being silly. Gunsmiths were "citizens" and individuals so "individuals" have been making their own firearms for centuries!
"Work for an armory?" Since the definition of armory is a place where firearms are stored or manufactured, then yes, many did.
What kind of nonsense are you trying to sell here?
Try again uninformed. An armory can also manufacture guns.
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2017
2,100
985
.
#24
What makes you think it was common for citizens to manufacture their own firearms "for centuries?" Gunsmiths, like blacksmiths, had skills and tools the average citizen just did not have.
Gunsmiths are still around, and any average citizen can learn the trade. Anyone can buy or or learn the skills to make the needed tools.
 
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2012
19,550
8,331
California
#26
Oh, now your just being silly. Gunsmiths were "citizens" and individuals so "individuals" have been making their own firearms for centuries!
"Work for an armory?" Since the definition of armory is a place where firearms are stored or manufactured, then yes, many did.
What kind of nonsense are you trying to sell here?
Private Gunsmiths have been here since the earliest days of this country. Privately owned and operated. They're still in operation today. Try opening a damned book before you run your uneducated mouth!
 
Likes: 2 people
Dec 2012
19,550
8,331
California
#27
It's founded in the illusion that individuals possessing firearms are safer than those not having them. And that's true to a very limited extent. Yes, safer perhaps from a home intruder, that's about it.
But safer from a oppressive government, able to resist, defy and even over throw such a government. VERY questionable. If the Govt. wants you badly enough you're toast, that's all there is to it.
In such a "revolt' small arms such as rifles & pistols would be useful only for assassinations of Govt. agents, perhaps raids on isolated rural National Guard Armories to obtain serious weapons.
Basically the guy with a stack if AR-15's with 10,000 rounds of ammo in his basement is like the guy sitting at a stop light in city traffic in a Dodge Charger with 707 HP. He's just having a macho-man fantasy, that he has POWER and he sure LOOKS good! As i said, it fosters an illusion of individual power, control.
If you truly believe that, turn your guns in, if you have any. You can defend yourself with that vulgar language you use.
 
Likes: 2 people
Dec 2012
19,550
8,331
California
#29
Our revolution would almost certainly have failed w/o the support of the state-of-the art professional French Army and Navy.

Some would and some would not.
Well now, here I agree with you. The French did save our bacon. But, they were a foreign army helping us. Today's all-volunteer army would be hard pressed to back a rouge government.
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2017
2,100
985
.
#30
If we're talking a government gone rogue, some Bundy clones with "assault rifles" could do just what was done, the government would tell them they had 24 hours to disarm and leave the premises, if they overstayed their time one of these might just show up and then it'd be martyrville and game over for the Bundy clones.



The Bundy's were "successful" because a governmental command decision had been made to get them out of there peacefully, no injuries or deaths. The government wasn't held at bay because they were afraid of the little militia and their assault rifles. Think guy. I'm right about this.

The Second does indeed give citizens a means of self-defense, from criminal and the acts of criminals, but technology has ended the Second as a stop for a truly rogue government. Imo.
First of all, that technology came from average people who invented all or part of it; those same average people might be able to do something about it one way or another if it were to be turned against us.

Second, there are people within the government either wouldn't allow such a thing to happen, or there could be repercussions by people within the government against those in the government who tried to do such a harebrained thing as use military hardware against those they're supposed to protect.

Third, the government could face a backlash from the general public, the same general public that works in the infrastructure industries ranging from factories that produce and assemble military hardware, to the online industry, to the food industry, to the power distribution industry, etc. etc.

Fourth, there would probably be a huge international backlash; it wouldn't be inconceivable for Americans to partner with the international community to remedy such an odious act by an out of control government.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person

Similar Discussions