Congress debates plastic gun ban

[JColt]

Congress is racing toward renewing a 25-year-old prohibition against firearms that can evade metal detectors and X-ray machines, just days before the ban expires. But with 3-D printers increasingly able to produce plastic weapons, many Democrats, gun control advocates and law enforcement officials say the restrictions must be tightened.

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20131203&id=17157930

 

[deedeeiam]

I love my guns, but this...like any law...usually only gets followed by the people that are law-abiding.

 

[WebSlave]

So how would they outlaw something that is nothing more than a program that runs on these 3D printers? This would be outlawing INFORMATION, wouldn't it? Would providing the program to make such parts over the internet be illegal?

Is the knowledge about how to make explosives illegal? How about the descriptions and diagrams detailing how to convert semi-auto weapons into full automatic weapons?

Quite frankly, unless someone is making plastic gun parts and selling them across state lines, the federal government has absolutely NO jurisdiction over something of that nature. Any laws made concerning such would not be supported by what is allowed them by the US Constitution.

So, of course, the next question is, when are we going to vote in ONLY people who not only talk the talk about supporting and defending the US Constitution, but walk the walk? And not just the parts of it that they happen to personally like.

 

[deedeeiam]

So how would they outlaw something that is nothing more than a program that runs on these 3D printers?

Same way they do pretty much every law on the books - politically agree and then assign a punishment.

Everyone reads the constitution differently. I mean...where in the constitution does it give you permission to own a specific type of gun? You can have a few semi-autos and be a well-armed militia, or at least much more armed than the creators of the constitution ever imagined I'm sure.

I have a love/hate relationship with the constitution. While it's a fundamental part of our history, we've already modified it from it's original. Politics has played a parting in picking and choosing which parts to ratify.

 

[WebSlave]

Same way they do pretty much every law on the books - politically agree and then assign a punishment.

Everyone reads the constitution differently. I mean...where in the constitution does it give you permission to own a specific type of gun? You can have a few semi-autos and be a well-armed militia, or at least much more armed than the creators of the constitution ever imagined I'm sure.

I have a love/hate relationship with the constitution. While it's a fundamental part of our history, we've already modified it from it's original. Politics has played a parting in picking and choosing which parts to ratify.

You apparently do not understand what the US Constitution actually IS. It was made to limit the powers of the new federal government it created. Any mention of rights of "the people" was done to reinforce the recognition of those rights by itemizing and specifially calling attention to them, not create them. It was not created to give "permission" to "the people" for anything. The permissions already existed as rights that the federal government was restricted from infringing upon. The authors were talking about THEIR rights that they did not want to lose to this monster that they were afraid they were creating.

As for everyone reading the Constitution differently, perhaps so, but an honest and truthful investigation of both the letter and INTENT of that document along with the Bill Of Rights leaves very little doubt as to actual intentions of what has been written there. The authors wrote those documents for THEIR protection from the US Government after having fought a war with the powerful government of England to get THEIR rights back. So honestly, how do you THINK that they would mean those words under that context?

As for firearms in particular, there was NO restriction placed at all on what arms any member of "the people" could own. Anyone could own even the most powerful warships and cannons available. The PURPOSE of this was for "the people" to have the actual means to keep the newly created federal government under check by specifically stating that the government could NOT infringe on this RIGHT of "the people". The ONLY way that could happen is if the people were not restricted in having the same weapons available that the government had and used. Seriously, how can this even be argued? The Second Amendment had nothing at all to do with duck hunting or protection from indians. WHY would the authors have itemized such a concern in documents that were creating a new government?

Of course the US Constitution has been pretty much used as merely toilet paper by those who have undermined it. But I am still hopeful that will turn around some day. It probably would help a lot if more people really understood it and what the Bill of Rights really mean, I suppose.

 

[JColt]

Unfortunately both major parties have no problems restricting or out right banning our rights.

 

[WebSlave]

Unfortunately both major parties have no problems restricting or out right banning our rights.

True. But it is still our RIGHT to say NO when they violate the US Constitution. A lot of people died to get us free and keep us that way. It would seem pretty silly to give up now and have their efforts completely wasted. This country is not immune to widespread disobedience that other countries have shown when displeased with their government. Sooner or later those bozos in our country are going to just push the wrong buttons and go too far. I'm sure they would rather us all be disarmed before that happens, though.

 

[deedeeiam]

As for everyone reading the Constitution differently, perhaps so, but an honest and truthful investigation of both the letter and INTENT of that document along with the Bill Of Rights leaves very little doubt as to actual intentions of what has been written there.

Umm...no. There's plenty of people on both sides of the fence when it comes to understanding and implementing the intent of that document. There is not a clear-cut answer. There is doubt, that's kinda the problem...

 

[WebSlave]

Umm...no. There's plenty of people on both sides of the fence when it comes to understanding and implementing the intent of that document. There is not a clear-cut answer. There is doubt, that's kinda the problem...

With an honest and unbiased investigation of the historical documents surrounding the intent of the authors when creating the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I'm sorry, but in my opinion, there can be no doubt about what the authors meant concerning their intentions.

Specifically in relation to the Second Amendment, Congress did exactly this and published a document in February, 1982 entitled "THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS - Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session." In summation on page 12 of this 175 page document, it states:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

As for the situation changing over the years and therefore negating the intent and authority of the Second Amendment, well, if that is true, then won't that also apply to the First Amendment as well? If not, then why not? Very often this single question, and how it is answered, clearly separates the men from the boys in this sort of discussion.

 

[Celtic Constrictors]

As far as I'm concerned our right to bear arms is a direct fail safe to defend against our own governing body should the need arise. That being said, the types of weapons we own should be limited to those that the government uses. We should be able to keep up with the Joneses so to speak.

I see no problem with civilians owning fully automatic weapons so long as they do so in a legal manner (i.e. tax stamp/registration).

ETA: Just to preempt any bashers I don't mean civilians should have RPGs or Tanks or Nukes... Just the firearms. BTW, flamethrowers aren't illegal....

 

[Focal]

Well, if you are offended by TSA search procedures, clench your butt cheeks because allowing unregulated printed guns is only going to give them more reason. As an avid gun owner, I may be the only one that sees a potential problem with this. Metal detectors in schools would no longer be effective and your children will be subjected to daily TSA-style searches soon.

 

[Celtic Constrictors]

Well, if you are offended by TSA search procedures, clench your butt cheeks because allowing unregulated printed guns is only going to give them more reason. As an avid gun owner, I may be the only one that sees a potential problem with this. Metal detectors in schools would no longer be effective and your children will be subjected to daily TSA-style searches soon.

Funny you bring up metal detectors in schools... That wasn't a thing when I was growing up (and I'm not that old, just 29). What is the purpose? Seriously, what's the purpose of all the extra security and scrutiny?

I have yet to see a news report that says "School metal detector stopped attempted murdered in his tracks. 20+ lives have been spared."

No, what it does is it stresses everyone out, costs taxpayers money, and creates the facade that everyone is safe.

Arm the teachers, protect the students.

 

[Focal]

Funny you bring up metal detectors in schools... That wasn't a thing when I was growing up (and I'm not that old, just 29). What is the purpose? Seriously, what's the purpose of all the extra security and scrutiny?

I have yet to see a news report that says "School metal detector stopped attempted murdered in his tracks. 20+ lives have been spared."

Prevention is immeasurable.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=54

Overall, 50 states, the District of Columbia (D.C.), Puerto Rico, and outlying areas reported data under the GFSA for 2005-06 and 2006-07. They reported that they expelled 3,028 students determined to have brought a firearm to school in 2005-06, and 2,695 students in 2006-07. The expulsion rate was 6.1 students per every 100,000 students in 2005-06 and 5.5 per 100,000 in 2006-07.

In 2005-06, more than half of the expulsions (55 percent) involved students determined to have brought a handgun to school, 12 percent involved a rifle or shotgun, and 34 percent were for some other type of firearm or other destructive device, such as bombs, grenades or starter pistols.
In 2006-07, more than half of the expulsions (53 percent) involved a handgun, 10 percent of the incidents involved a rifle or shotgun, and 37 percent were for some other type of firearm or other destructive device.

 

[WebSlave]

Arm the teachers, protect the students.

That sort of thinking will give anti-gunners heart attacks. They know that the only way they can defeat support for the Second Amendment is by forming young minds into the mold of "guns are bad". What better place to do that than the school yards? The gun-free zones really had nothing at all with trying to protect the children. It's brain wash conditioning....

Hopefully the kids will be smart enough to figure out that normally the only places where wholesale gun slaughters take place are in places where guns are not supposed to be permitted. Seriously it doesn't take a genius to put that two and two together......

 

[WebSlave]

Prevention is immeasurable.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=54

Well, I'm looking at the raw data, and have to ask something. There are three categories listed for banned items. (1) Handguns, (2) Rifles or Shotguns, and (3) Other Firearms. What are "other firearms"?

The reason I ask is because, for instance, Kansas is showing 39 students expelled in the 2006-2007 data, ALL of them having "other firearms". I just can't figure out WHAT they had on them to get expelled for from the data if it wasn't handguns, rifles, or shotguns. And KANSAS????

 

[Focal]

I hate to classify it as an "other firearm," but they are probably referring to pellet guns, toy guns and those little cigarette lighters that look like handguns I'm sure to beef stats. When I was in school, I actually witnessed several students "excused" for those lighters, although now, it seems like nothing compared to what they are expelling kids for.

 

[Celtic Constrictors]

"Overall, 50 states, the District of Columbia (D.C.), Puerto Rico, and outlying areas reported data under the GFSA for 2005-06 and 2006-07. They reported that they expelled 3,028 students determined to have brought a firearm to school in 2005-06, and 2,695 students in 2006-07. The expulsion rate was 6.1 students per every 100,000 students in 2005-06 and 5.5 per 100,000 in 2006-07.

In 2005-06, more than half of the expulsions (55 percent) involved students determined to have brought a handgun to school, 12 percent involved a rifle or shotgun, and 34 percent were for some other type of firearm or other destructive device, such as bombs, grenades or starter pistols.
In 2006-07, more than half of the expulsions (53 percent) involved a handgun, 10 percent of the incidents involved a rifle or shotgun, and 37 percent were for some other type of firearm or other destructive device. "

Let's take those numbers and make them more realistic. 3,028 were expelled 2005-2006 in all 50 states plus Puerto Rico etc. Of those, 37% were for "Other Firearm or destructive device". Let's take out the firecrackers and toy guns.

This brings us to a number of 1,908 expulsions for real firearms infractions (allegedly).

How many of these were innocent mistakes? I had a rifle rack in my pickup truck in high school and there were times I forgot to remove my shotgun from going hunting. I hid it under the seat and locked my truck. I betcha another 40% or more of these incidences were accidental.

 

[Focal]

How many of these were innocent mistakes?

My point wasn't in regards to intentional shootings, but the effort involved to fix these innocent mistakes and how it could lead to further invasive searches. Searches when I was in school consisted of a quick swipe of the handheld metal detector and could soon be private searches. Innocent mistakes happen all the time and I think that is the main motive behind these searches. We lose far more children to innocent mistakes than intentional shootings.

http://kidshootings.blogspot.com/

 

[Celtic Constrictors]

I think Benjamin Franklin said it most eloquently when he said "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Our forefathers had some serious foresight.

 

[Focal]

I think Benjamin Franklin said it most eloquently when he said "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Our forefathers had some serious foresight.

That quote has nothing to do with civil liberties, unfortunately.

I understand where you are going with it though.