Originally shared by Charbel Moussalem

Originally shared by Charbel Moussalem

What is more sad is that the people pushing gun ownership are the first to threaten the non-gun owners with violence when expressing opposition to gun regulation…and the non-gun owners ARE THE MAJORITY, and the government the gun owners are afraid of, was democratically elected. Sigh.

Indeed , such a technology(3D printing) should be used for good reasons and higher aims. unfortunately that’s a clear example about how tech shifts to negative aspects!

…except the government will never “take our guns” or “disarm the populace”.


So… this is still just one guy who’s desperate for attention doing something controversial solely for the sake of being disruptive and getting attention.

Right now, Obama is trying to extend background checks to all dispositions of guns to close a loophole and prevent those who we (as a society) have deemed not trustworthy enough to own a gun from buying one. He’s not trying to take guns away from anyone.

Even if the president manages to get the assault weapons ban reinstated, that wouldn’t “disarm” anyone. Every change in the legal status of a certain kind of gun in this country has always come with a grandfather clause, allowing all banned weapons in private hands before the law was passed to remain in private hands. To do otherwise would be too expensive (the takings clause of the constitution means any attempt to “disarm” people would require paying those people for the guns taken away, an extremely expensive proposition) and too politically unpopular for anyone to actually vote for it.

The US != Russia, and the US president talking to the Russian president is indicative of absolutely nothing. Also, the president alone does not have the power to “disarm us” and congress has proven itself unwilling to get anything done (let alone anything the president is behind) so I don’t really know where your theories are coming from other than a misunderstanding of how the US government works.

The second amendment prevents your disarmament scenario, and the supreme court has shown itself willing to protect the second amendment even more fervently than it protects the first amendment (which is already pretty damn fervently).

@Matt_Clark1 Do you believe that politicians fairly elected by a majority of the voters will go “completely corrupt”? Of course, if citizens are denied the right to vote (for any reason), or a voting district is arbitrarily arranged to favor a minority of the constituents and thereby suppress the will of the majority, I suspect you will end up with corrupt politicians. Is that a reason to take up arms as a FIRST resort? You might want to reconsider that, since a “completely corrupt” government (such as Syria) would think nothing of completely wiping out the insurgents and their “undetectable” guns with tanks, bombs, gas, whatever. Have you ever been to war? Have you ever served in the military? Do you think you should be able to build nuclear weapons as well? Who will you ally yourself with? Probably not the majority of citizens, who are unlikely to fight. You never know.

The 2nd amendment is not absolute, regardless of the “shall not be infringed” clause. There is also the “well regulated militia” clause as well, and you cannot disregard parts that you do not like. Even the 1st amendment has restrictions (not yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, “hate” speech, incitement to riot, etc…) The law is what the current majority says it is, and you are not with the majority.

Obama is not trying to disarm law abiding citizens. Even in Australia, with a severe “assault weapon” ban, the citizens still can own guns, and they seem to me to be a pretty stable, and free, society. We could learn from them.

It doesn’t matter to me if you are “fully pro-gun” (whatever that means), because in real life, there are only shades of gray. For every “absolute” position you can name, I can name a situation that would change your viewpoint. I know I will not change your thinking on this, nor will you change mine. Just know that I have several times sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend” our country and constitution, and I will do so in the future, against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. If someone decides to take up arms against our freely and majority elected government, they will have a problem. I have served in the military and been to war. I know what it means.

Gary also makes an important point - A single citizen, or even a group of citizens, armed with these printed guns (or even legitimate M-16s) are not going to be a match for the US armed forces.

Even if you went extreme and said people should be able to own any military hardware they want, up to and including tanks with functioning main cannons, it would be unlikely that they’d win against the US armed forces.

If the US government devolved into “complete corruption” and turned into some sort of totalitarian state these guns, or any guns, aren’t going to change that.

Ah, so you’re a 13 year old who knows nothing about law, the constitution, the operation of the US government, or current events. You seem to have been spoon fed some pretty bad misinformation, which is unfortunate. But you also seem highly resistant to facts, so…

I’m afraid you’re not worth my time trying to educate you about reality.

I never said the government was “perfect” or would never try to “pull a fast one”. I just said there’s no factual or legal basis for your concerns over disarmament. You really ought to read what is actually said rather than what you want to be said.

And just a tip for life: If the crux of your argument is that those who disagree with you are “falling for it” or somehow “blind to the facts” (which you are either unable to present, or have simply refused to present) then your argument is an epic failure.

@Matt_Clark1 radicalism never helps actually win an argument, the core problem with this project is that it doesn’t actually address any problems. The barrier for manufacturing a firearm is still just as high. It was easier than this to make a gun that is equally as effective. It was cheaper than this to obtain a gun that was equally effective. This group is only causing problems for both gun owners and the 3d printing industry. I can’t wait for it to be old news. (If you want to get into the whole reasons why this is harder, please print an object or build a zip gun first, then we can have a well reasoned discussion. Please don’t hurt 3d printing for this)

who knows once he’s got over the gun, maybe he could design and print a water pump for the 3rd world, " that may require a creative mind ". on a another note would/could you turn up at the range with that pistol without being laughed off!!!.