Landmark legal shift opens pandora’s box for diy guns

Nov 2017
1,431
793
.
#41
As I thought. There's no substance to your allegation.
False dilemma fallacy; either show me my version of what I want or there's no substance to your allegations. This, despite me rebutting you; I asked you if you wanted me to provide information that backed my position but you didn't say yes or no.

It's just a "time-honored" meme that spurs gun sales.

I'm not in the gun sales business & this thread is about something that would go against the gun manufacturing industry, if you want to get into that issue.

No one in the USA who wants to be armed isn't armed, laws be damned.
People who want to be good citizens who abide by the law and live in places where they have gun "control" laws aren't armed; for people who don't care about the laws (meaning they mug people, rob banks, threaten people with their weapons, etc.), you're right - laws be damned, to them.
 
May 2018
3,748
2,218
Chicago
#42
False dilemma fallacy; either show me my version of what I want or there's no substance to your allegations. This, despite me rebutting you; I asked you if you wanted me to provide information that backed my position but you didn't say yes or no.


I'm not in the gun sales business & this thread is about something that would go against the gun manufacturing industry, if you want to get into that issue.


People who want to be good citizens who abide by the law and live in places where they have gun "control" laws aren't armed; for people who don't care about the laws (meaning they mug people, rob banks, threaten people with their weapons, etc.), you're right - laws be damned, to them.
People who do not care about laws, whatever they may be, are not going to abide by them. Does that mean we should simply have no laws?
 
Nov 2017
1,431
793
.
#43
People who do not care about laws, whatever they may be, are not going to abide by them. Does that mean we should simply have no laws?
Yes, unless there's a victim. In a society where there are no laws, unless there's a victim, a person who doesn't care about laws will either still care about being shot and killed if they try to victimize someone (such as breaking into their home) & if they're wise they'll choose not to try to victimize someone, or they're taking an awfully dangerous and highly risky gamble by trying to victimize someone.

I'm not trying to claim that in a society where there are no laws except when there's a victim will be perfect or a utopia or a paradise, but it would certainly be much closer being perfect or a utopia or a paradise. Crimes would still happen, but probably close to a relatively insignificant rate. I think the elimination of victimless crime laws alone would be more than enough for this to be true.

Would-be criminals not messing with a society that is not only potentially very armed, but them also not knowing who is or isn't armed would serve to motivate the bulk of them to choose not to resort to crime (victimizing someone). Elimination of victimless crime laws would also result in elimination of crimes that occur as a consequence of black markets (crimes that happen in addition to black market victimless crimes).

Elimination of victimless crime laws would also be much better for the economy. A better economy means less poverty. With maybe the exception of special categories of crimes such as sex crimes, pretty much all crimes are the result of someone being in bad economic shape. A better economy, as a result of no victimless crimes, means much fewer people resorting to committing crimes.

By victim, I don't necessarily mean there has to be an actual victim; the "victim" in question could be the collective of society. For example, traffic laws such as speeding, running red lights, etc. don't necessarily result in someone being injured or killed when someone violates those traffic laws, but the collective of society is still victimized because if those traffic violations happen it makes things dangerous for society, or it would hypothetically make it so society cannot function.

By victimless crimes, I'm referring to possession of this or that laws, or in the case of weapons, concealing them (without a permit), magazine capacity limits, etc. I am not a fan of anarchism (particularly as long as capitalism exists, which may be for as long as humans exist); I am pro-state/government. I just don't want the state or government interfering in anyone's business unless there's a victim; that's the only core reason for the existence of the state/government. I don't even oppose government being involved with pollution issues, because there is a victim when someone gets sick or dies as a result, or someone's property is damaged or destroyed, etc.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2012
5,613
3,335
Kekistan
#44
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.
No, your not right. For starters one of those guys being used on American citizens would violate federal law. Posse Comitatus act. Therefore, if they did use one of those guys, they would be in fact a rogue government.

When the Branch Davidian massacre occured in Waco Texas, there was strong speculation that Navy Seals punching through the roof with with charges is what started the fire. It was never proven, but wow, that would have been some prison time for someone had it happened. We do know that Delta Force were on the ground in Waco Texas that day, the official government story is they were acting as "Advisors".

Secondly, lets assume the "federal government" did use one of those guys on citizens in a state. Then lets just say that state used its national guard to defend its citizens. See how this begins
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2012
5,613
3,335
Kekistan
#45
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.
Its also would be a violation of the posse comitatus act
 
Dec 2014
25,114
13,550
Memphis, Tn.
#46
This is the Brady Bunch - and old TV series:



But I know you're trying to be condescending towards those involved in the Bundy standoff incident.

Anyway I don't know that they were inept cowards. I was only ever somewhat familiar with the incident and some of the details. I don't even know if I necessarily completely agree or side with what either side of the incident did. The Bundy's might have been right about some of the things they did & wrong about others & same with the BLM or Nevada.

If they were cowards, maybe you need to ask them.
LOL...gives away my age, Grady Bunch instead of Bundy Bunch. If they were to be considered even a limited & local military threat of course they were inept cowards. If they were only RW "performance theater" designed only to catch a few headlines & air-time, bring attention to themselves, then they were successful.
I did not ASK anything, I made a statement, voiced an opinion.
 
Dec 2014
25,114
13,550
Memphis, Tn.
#47
I knew someone who had their hunting rifles confiscated by law enforcement in DC; this was a long time ago so I don't know the details. He was passing through DC, got in a car accident if I recall correctly, I guess it was DC police on traffic patrol who saw his hunting rifles and took them from him.


A concealed carry permit isn't arms and no one should need a permit to carry, concealed or otherwise.


Would you give them up if someone told you to give them up?


That involves disclosing information I'd rather keep private. Maybe I have piles of weapons that I don't want to reveal. Maybe I have never owned any weapons knowing I don't need to own any as long as my neighbors and I are still allowed to legally own and possess weapons thus keeping the neighborhood safe - meaning I have never been in a situation where I could've been disarmed. Maybe there's yet another explanation that by merely describing it would disclose something I wish not to reveal.




source: https://247sports.com/high-school/t...s/The-history-of-disarming-citizens-108411549
Do you REALLY need to be told I was talking about in The United States, in THIS century? You either want to discuss this seriously or you do not.
Your post in nonsense.
 
Jun 2018
3,402
832
South Dakota
#48
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.
Using Afghanistan and Pakistan as a model, homemade guns are all over the place. Many are AK types. Making parts for guns is a cottage industry there.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/15/dis...he-notorious-darra-adam-khel-arms-market.html

Blacksmiths made guns all over the world ever since guns were brought to prominence.
Controlling who makes, sells and uses firearms is a mid 20th century notion brought to the fore by the apocalyptic cries raised by the first machine guns. The isn't a new idea. A king once called for the abolishment of crossbows because they could penetrate his armor.
 
Oct 2010
64,226
25,266
Colorado
#49
No, your not right. For starters one of those guys being used on American citizens would violate federal law. Posse Comitatus act. Therefore, if they did use one of those guys, they would be in fact a rogue government.

When the Branch Davidian massacre occured in Waco Texas, there was strong speculation that Navy Seals punching through the roof with with charges is what started the fire. It was never proven, but wow, that would have been some prison time for someone had it happened. We do know that Delta Force were on the ground in Waco Texas that day, the official government story is they were acting as "Advisors".

Secondly, lets assume the "federal government" did use one of those guys on citizens in a state. Then lets just say that state used its national guard to defend its citizens. See how this begins
What part of "going rogue" don't you understand? A rogue government restrained by the Posse Comitatus Act???? That's ridiculous.

Waco is a great example of the government deciding it'll get ya and there's nothing that you can do to stop it.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jun 2018
3,402
832
South Dakota
#50
Its also would be a violation of the posse comitatus act
Watch for a declaration of Martial law. That suspends it.

Also suspended by this:

Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.
 
Last edited:

Similar Discussions