News flash, people have known how to make weapons for as long as I can remember. I was always taught where there is a will there is a way. Maybe we should be glad they are only printing guns in computer class instead of building nukes in science class. If I'm being shot at, atleast I can shoot back and defend myself but an unknown bomb going off doesn't give anyone a self defense. Let's get real, if someone wants to hurt someone else there is always gonna be a way to do it with or with a gun. Hell give a man a pen and he could kill a person just as fast as he could by shooting them. The tools are not the problem, human beings are
Judge says ATF cannot decide when a piece of 3D-printed plastic legally becomes a firearm
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
LordVile95
Posts: 757 +488
Ah yes, this argument holds water. Until you look at the rest of the developed world that for some reason doesn’t have the gun issues or the incarceration rates the US has. Almost like guns make violence easier isn’t it.
At this point I’m not sure whether we’re discussing an ATF rule, staging a coup, invading Normandy, arguing international law, or planning to defeat an Abrams tank with a 3D printer and a copy of War Thunder.
The actual issue is considerably less cinematic.
The Supreme Court already ruled 7-2 that the Gun Control Act can cover at least some unfinished frames, receivers, and weapon part kits. This new ruling is not “LOL ATF has no authority, print whatever you want.” It’s a different constitutional fight over how far the agency can stretch those definitions, whether the line is sufficiently clear, and whether ATF can effectively decide when an unfinished object crosses the legal boundary into being a firearm.
That distinction seems rather important before we mobilize the armored divisions.
Then we somehow wandered into the Geneva Conventions, where apparently the United States “never signed” them. Small problem...it did. In 1949. It ratified them in 1955. What the U.S. never ratified was the Rome Statute establishing the ICC.
So within a few dozen comments we’ve managed to confuse the ATF with Congress, the Geneva Conventions with the ICC, constitutional rights with absolute immunity from regulation, and a federal firearms case with an upcoming civil war.
Outstanding work! At this rate, three more pages and someone will explain how the Magna Carta prohibits background checks because George Washington personally invented PETG filament at Valley Forge.
And the “AR-15 vs. M1 Abrams” detour is especially precious.
Yes, because whenever courts examine the scope of administrative power, the natural next question is obviously whether Kevin from accounting can immobilize the 1st Armored Division from behind his recycling bin.
Meanwhile, the actual legal question is sitting quietly in the corner wondering why nobody invited it to its own discussion.
You can support gun rights and still admit firearms can be regulated.
You can support regulation and still question whether an executive agency gets to invent an endlessly movable definition of when a block of material becomes a federally regulated firearm.
Those positions are not mutually exclusive. That’s what courts are supposed to sort out.
But by all means, carry on with the tanks, revolutions, war crimes and clandestine Glock factories in seventh period algebra.
I’m sure the constitutional scholars will be along shortly after lunch. Until then...
The actual issue is considerably less cinematic.
The Supreme Court already ruled 7-2 that the Gun Control Act can cover at least some unfinished frames, receivers, and weapon part kits. This new ruling is not “LOL ATF has no authority, print whatever you want.” It’s a different constitutional fight over how far the agency can stretch those definitions, whether the line is sufficiently clear, and whether ATF can effectively decide when an unfinished object crosses the legal boundary into being a firearm.
That distinction seems rather important before we mobilize the armored divisions.
Then we somehow wandered into the Geneva Conventions, where apparently the United States “never signed” them. Small problem...it did. In 1949. It ratified them in 1955. What the U.S. never ratified was the Rome Statute establishing the ICC.
So within a few dozen comments we’ve managed to confuse the ATF with Congress, the Geneva Conventions with the ICC, constitutional rights with absolute immunity from regulation, and a federal firearms case with an upcoming civil war.
Outstanding work! At this rate, three more pages and someone will explain how the Magna Carta prohibits background checks because George Washington personally invented PETG filament at Valley Forge.
And the “AR-15 vs. M1 Abrams” detour is especially precious.
Yes, because whenever courts examine the scope of administrative power, the natural next question is obviously whether Kevin from accounting can immobilize the 1st Armored Division from behind his recycling bin.
Meanwhile, the actual legal question is sitting quietly in the corner wondering why nobody invited it to its own discussion.
You can support gun rights and still admit firearms can be regulated.
You can support regulation and still question whether an executive agency gets to invent an endlessly movable definition of when a block of material becomes a federally regulated firearm.
Those positions are not mutually exclusive. That’s what courts are supposed to sort out.
But by all means, carry on with the tanks, revolutions, war crimes and clandestine Glock factories in seventh period algebra.
I’m sure the constitutional scholars will be along shortly after lunch. Until then...
This is a really not well thought out commonly used argument.
Like duh, we know what a criminal is.
Laws exist. Without them, nobody would be a criminal. Nobody is a criminal until they break a law.
Should we get rid of all laws since only criminals break them? Then criminals dont exist, duh.
You are essentially saying, get rid of all laws because only criminals break them. Its nonsensical, its not logical and it really doesnt add anything to a discussion but repeat something fox entertainment would say.
We as a society (for the most part) decide common ground on things we think people shouldnt do. Or government mandates it. Those are laws. Removing the law around murdering someone would cause more folks to be murdered. Its that simple. It doesnt mean nobody is going to murder. Same with drunk driving, without a law, it would be happening much more. It doesnt mean that it doesnt happen.
Like this concept flies right over so many peoples heads its maddening.
Win7user
Posts: 701 +490
The ATF knows this. They simply think they're running something. Much easier to just do it, and see if someone will sue them and a court spank them! This in large part why people don't trust law enforcement. Just about law enforcements motto has always been, "Do as we say, not as we do" ...
Robertrogue
Posts: 132 +82
I love these arguments, "AR15 vs M1 Abrams, wonder what will win" one on one, yes you are correct. But add 2000, 5000, or 10,000 people with AR15's vs M1 Abrams, and now you have a different outcome. The laws in the US allow its citizens to legally carry and have firearms, what really causes heartburn to anti-weapon folks is that with 10's of millions of weapons and trillions of ammo, overall, the country is very safe. You have a better odds of winning the lottery, getting bit by a shark, winning 1000 in a row on blackjack, and getting struck by lightning the same day than getting shot by a legally owned firearm.
LordVile95
Posts: 757 +488
No you don’t… because what are they going to do? Throwing a million tennis balls at Mount Everest isn’t going to do anything same principle here. Better yet what are they going to do about the drone?
Gun deaths in the US annually. 44,000. People struck by lightning, 400. So just Counting deaths not just being shot over 99% of them would have to be using an illegal firearm for your claim to work just on one of those factors.
AnilD
Posts: 671 +924
Whatever your position on gun regulation, the underlying legal problem here is legitimate: there has to be some reasonably clear point where a block of plastic or metal becomes a regulated receiver. "We'll know it when we see it" is a terrible standard for criminal liability.
Honest Abe
Posts: 51 +53
In a free country, I think people should have the right to print whatever they want on their own printer. The government is overreaching in big ways these days and we're getting closer to China.
The rise of mass shootings has everything to do with gun-free zones, which are asymmetric risk environments for any attacker, not matter how incompetent. Disallowing self-defense is social Darwin award material.
yRaz
Posts: 9,690 +17,125
I partially agree. Most people doing that stuff are either so stupid they can't be helped or ridiculously mentally ill where a risk assessment rarely happens.
And they're easily deterred, we just lost the social understanding that shooting at others will get you hurt or worse. If that comes back people will just do less harmful things when they're crazy. I also completely agree that the bottom of the social safety net is non-existent, which is a huge problem.
Using the Civil War as a baseline is… A choice, I suppose. Has nothing to do with modern society in the slightest, but you do you.
You really need to tone down the mainstream media, my man. The doomerism panicking isn’t the play, I’m not blind - this also isn’t my first day on earth. If you think our current situation is so despicable, the future is really gonna disappoint you.
2A does work, it’s been proven for the past 200+ years, you just may not agree with it. That’s your choice, not a fault of the concept itself.
Blaming Trump for gerrymandering is hilarious, considering the Democrats do it all the time as well. If I have to point that out to you… Yikes.
You’re clearly looking at the entire landscape from a very narrow, biased point of view.
LordVile95
Posts: 757 +488
Almost like the second amendment which is older has nothing to do with modern society isn’t it.
It’s literally been proven not to work. You have someone trying to effectively be king and no one is trying to stop them.
The democrats literally tried to get the maps regulated through an independent body and the republicans voted it down. Maybe you need to get off the podcasts.
To quote Trump:
“Get me more seats”
Not really you’re just misinformed
Both blue and red states are attempting this. CA, OH, and MD succeeded.
The right to arms is a foundational human right that also keeps civil tyranny and military coups in check. The world depends on US military power for peace, and large militaries tend to destabilize national politics. Russia and China's belligerent postures are codependent on their overlarge defenses. Whereas countries that depend on US defense have the luxury of strong social programs, weak defense, and diminished social rights. Which is a vassal state posture. Ironic, given all the gloating from the rest of the free world about their superior societies.
Societies without these rights have fewer rights in general; many of them are extremely oppressive. Not at all a coincidence. Arms rights are the first to go at the rise of oppressive regimes.
LordVile95
Posts: 757 +488
You mean after trump told the republicans to alter their maps? And California had a statewide vote on it I’m not sure about the other two.
I’ve never heard such nonsense, the rest of the developed world does just fine without them.
I’m sorry but America has by far to least rights of any developed nation and has the most oppressive regime too.
I wish that were true, but global trade is secured by US naval power, and the US is the lynchpin member of developed nations' mutual defense treaties. The entire post-WW2 international consensus is a US-developed system spearheaded by Eisenhower. If you've never heard of this, someone failed to inform you.
LordVile95
Posts: 757 +488
Yeah because that’s doing so well in Iran right now isn’t it
Robertrogue
Posts: 132 +82
Check the stats again Lord "nothing". Gun deaths by "legal" firearms are less than getting struck by lightning. Which I said not "killed" by lightning. Plus you did say a tank vs one AR and I said thousands of ARs vs a tank. Plus break down the gun deaths by type and you will see a large portion not from mass shootings and not from legal gun owners. I am sorry you hate guns and people who support having and keeping them. 2nd amendment is to protect the citizens from not only the tyranny of a government but the other citizens too.
LordVile95
Posts: 757 +488
Again no it’s not, I literally spelled it out for you and used the best case for YOUR argument and it still came up short. I used gun deaths. Which are less likely that just being shot, and lighting strikes. 44,000 gun deaths vs 400 lighting strikes. Which is less likely? Again you would need 99.9% of those deaths to be with illegal firearms to make your argument work which just lighting strikes not compounded with the other probabilities to make the chance lower.
It doesn’t make a difference. The AR15 round wouldn’t get through armour, thousands of rounds wouldn’t do anything aside from maybe strip some paint. A 0.5 SLAP round won’t penetrate an Abrams
74-87% of mass shootings are committed with a legally owned firearm according to various databases. 55% of all gun deaths are caused by legally owned firearms. The only case where illegal firearms are more prevalent such as gang violence and street crime but that’s the minority. You are incorrect.
Robertrogue
Posts: 132 +82
Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) indicates that many recovered crime guns were originally purchased legally. A multi-year ATF analysis showed that roughly 54% of traced crime guns were recovered three or more years after their initial retail purchase, meaning they spent time in legal circulation before being used in a crime. However, this is not an indicator that the person committing the crime obtained it legally. According to historical and recurring surveys of state prison inmates by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the vast majority of incarcerated individuals who used a gun during an offense did not obtain it legally from a licensed firearms dealer; instead, most acquired it via theft, family, friends, or the underground street market. Firearm suicides account for 52% of all gun deaths.
LordVile95
Posts: 757 +488
Which isn’t relevant, your claim is false and you’re spouting off nonsense to deflect from that.
Robertrogue
Posts: 132 +82
You really are just obstinate to be obstinate. Either way I will keep my guns and will fight to keep them and the 2nd amendment! Good day.
LordVile95
Posts: 757 +488
The 2nd amendment that doesn’t work? Why aren’t you stopping the destruction of the country, destruction of the constitution and mass surveillance with them?
Similar threads
