Gun Show Vendor Jokes With Insane Customer About How He Hopes He's Not Insane
ANDERSON, IN—While he was selling mentally unstable customer Bernie Lovell a brand-new hunting rifle earlier this afternoon, local gun show vendor Mark Palmer joked with the new firearm owner and insane man about how he “sure hopes” he’s not insane. “Boy, that sure would be something if you turned out to be one of those lunatics who shoots up a school or a mall or whatnot, right? Ha, ha!” said Palmer, laughing unknowingly with a clinically deranged individual about how the man “better not be a crazy person.” “Promise not to do that? Ha, just kidding! Anyway, you need some ammo with this?”
Immediately after the two finished laughing, Lovell grabbed the rifle, stared blankly at Palmer’s face for 20 seconds, and left the gun show.
Gun Show Vendor Jokes With Insane Customer About How He Hopes He's Not Insane
ANDERSON, IN—While he was selling mentally unstable customer Bernie Lovell a brand-new hunting rifle earlier this afternoon, local gun show vendor Mark Palmer joked with the new firearm owner and insane man about how he “sure hopes” he’s not insane. “Boy, that sure would be something if you turned out to be one of those lunatics who shoots up a school or a mall or whatnot, right? Ha, ha!” said Palmer, laughing unknowingly with a clinically deranged individual about how the man “better not be a crazy person.” “Promise not to do that? Ha, just kidding! Anyway, you need some ammo with this?”
Immediately after the two finished laughing, Lovell grabbed the rifle, stared blankly at Palmer’s face for 20 seconds, and left the gun show.
Why does the government need to know if a law abiding citizen is compiling an arsenal? WHY? This is suppose to be a capitialistic society damnit. People have the right to buy whatever the hell they want within the law. Certain types of guns are within the law.
RustyS, I've read some of this thread and although you and I think pretty differently on guns, I appreciate your arguments and your respectful approach. Its a breath of fresh air in this type of debate.
I will do my best to answer this becaus eI am actually in between on a lot of the guns issue. I do not think guns should diasspear/be taken away. I do think that guns like the AR-15 (which were at one time illegal) are a bit excessive and unnecessary for public availability. I think magazines of 30+ rounds is too much.
And as a person who has very seriously considered buying guns, I think better background checks are common sense, gun show sales without background checks are asinine, and internet sales need to have some better rules. But as far as registering goes, I think some good could come out of it -- it would/could put more pressure on responsible gun owners to make sure their guns dont end up in the wrong hands. I honestly cant see the govt going door to door to confiscate guns when there are 300 million of them in the USA. Its not about being one step closer to confiscation, its about being one step closer to having more accountability.
Gun Show Vendor Jokes With Insane Customer About How He Hopes He's Not Insane
ANDERSON, IN—While he was selling mentally unstable customer Bernie Lovell a brand-new hunting rifle earlier this afternoon, local gun show vendor Mark Palmer joked with the new firearm owner and insane man about how he “sure hopes” he’s not insane. “Boy, that sure would be something if you turned out to be one of those lunatics who shoots up a school or a mall or whatnot, right? Ha, ha!” said Palmer, laughing unknowingly with a clinically deranged individual about how the man “better not be a crazy person.” “Promise not to do that? Ha, just kidding! Anyway, you need some ammo with this?”
Immediately after the two finished laughing, Lovell grabbed the rifle, stared blankly at Palmer’s face for 20 seconds, and left the gun show.
that funny I am terrified about having idiots shooting me. (sorry I think this might come out wrong. I am not calling you an idiot) but going back, you say that registration is one step closer to confiscation. I am showing you that Canada does register and no one guns have been confiscated.
yet
but again Canada is NOT America, I realized that on my last visit. But Canadians know this.
that funny I am terrified about having idiots shooting me. (sorry I think this might come out wrong. I am not calling you an idiot) but going back, you say that registration is one step closer to confiscation. I am showing you that Canada does register and no one guns have been confiscated.
yet
but again Canada is NOT America, I realized that on my last visit. But Canadians know this.
I don't know what you mean? do you mean that we don't have the same type of relationship with guns that america has?
Why does the government need to know if a law abiding citizen is compiling an arsenal? WHY? This is suppose to be a capitialistic society damnit. People have the right to buy whatever the hell they want within the law. Certain types of guns are within the law.
RustyS, I've read some of this thread and although you and I think pretty differently on guns, I appreciate your arguments and your respectful approach. Its a breath of fresh air in this type of debate.
I will do my best to answer this becaus eI am actually in between on a lot of the guns issue. I do not think guns should diasspear/be taken away. I do think that guns like the AR-15 (which were at one time illegal) are a bit excessive and unnecessary for public availability. I think magazines of 30+ rounds is too much.
And as a person who has very seriously considered buying guns, I think better background checks are common sense, gun show sales without background checks are asinine, and internet sales need to have some better rules. But as far as registering goes, I think some good could come out of it -- it would/could put more pressure on responsible gun owners to make sure their guns dont end up in the wrong hands. I honestly cant see the govt going door to door to confiscate guns when there are 300 million of them in the USA. Its not about being one step closer to confiscation, its about being one step closer to having more accountability.
First, Thank you for understanding that their is always two or more sides to every issue...
In my opinion, the background check situation does need to be handled differently. I know where I live, PA, our background check system is pretty good. At a gun show, you are required to go through the same background check as you would in a gun store. There obviously needs to be a more uniform system.
As far as confiscation goes...Not in my wildest dreams do I believe the government would try to confiscate guns from american citizens on a massive scale. But the fact remains, with registration, leaves the opportunity for it to happen, no matter how small that chance may be.
Why does the government need to know if a law abiding citizen is compiling an arsenal? WHY? This is suppose to be a capitialistic society damnit. People have the right to buy whatever the hell they want within the law. Certain types of guns are within the law.
RustyS, I've read some of this thread and although you and I think pretty differently on guns, I appreciate your arguments and your respectful approach. Its a breath of fresh air in this type of debate.
I will do my best to answer this becaus eI am actually in between on a lot of the guns issue. I do not think guns should diasspear/be taken away. I do think that guns like the AR-15 (which were at one time illegal) are a bit excessive and unnecessary for public availability. I think magazines of 30+ rounds is too much.
And as a person who has very seriously considered buying guns, I think better background checks are common sense, gun show sales without background checks are asinine, and internet sales need to have some better rules. But as far as registering goes, I think some good could come out of it -- it would/could put more pressure on responsible gun owners to make sure their guns dont end up in the wrong hands. I honestly cant see the govt going door to door to confiscate guns when there are 300 million of them in the USA. Its not about being one step closer to confiscation, its about being one step closer to having more accountability.
First, Thank you for understanding that their is always two or more sides to every issue...
In my opinion, the background check situation does need to be handled differently. I know where I live, PA, our background check system is pretty good. At a gun show, you are required to go through the same background check as you would in a gun store. There obviously needs to be a more uniform system.
As far as confiscation goes...Not in my wildest dreams do I believe the government would try to confiscate guns from american citizens on a massive scale. But the fact remains, with registration, leaves the opportunity for it to happen, no matter how small that chance may be.
your second paragraph is exactly what I think most people here are wanting.
Why does the government need to know if a law abiding citizen is compiling an arsenal? WHY? This is suppose to be a capitialistic society damnit. People have the right to buy whatever the hell they want within the law. Certain types of guns are within the law.
RustyS, I've read some of this thread and although you and I think pretty differently on guns, I appreciate your arguments and your respectful approach. Its a breath of fresh air in this type of debate.
I will do my best to answer this becaus eI am actually in between on a lot of the guns issue. I do not think guns should diasspear/be taken away. I do think that guns like the AR-15 (which were at one time illegal) are a bit excessive and unnecessary for public availability. I think magazines of 30+ rounds is too much.
And as a person who has very seriously considered buying guns, I think better background checks are common sense, gun show sales without background checks are asinine, and internet sales need to have some better rules. But as far as registering goes, I think some good could come out of it -- it would/could put more pressure on responsible gun owners to make sure their guns dont end up in the wrong hands. I honestly cant see the govt going door to door to confiscate guns when there are 300 million of them in the USA. Its not about being one step closer to confiscation, its about being one step closer to having more accountability.
First, Thank you for understanding that their is always two or more sides to every issue...
In my opinion, the background check situation does need to be handled differently. I know where I live, PA, our background check system is pretty good. At a gun show, you are required to go through the same background check as you would in a gun store. There obviously needs to be a more uniform system.
As far as confiscation goes...Not in my wildest dreams do I believe the government would try to confiscate guns from american citizens on a massive scale. But the fact remains, with registration, leaves the opportunity for it to happen, no matter how small that chance may be.
Yeah, I agree. There needs to be some uniformity.. too many loopholes simply allows for too many guns to unqualified buyers.
Personally, I just wish it was harder to get them in some places.. I think that would ultimately slow sales and reduce the overall amount of guns out there. But we may be past that with the amount of guns in the USA already.
I also think what could help with registering guns is that there is a good amount of guns that are passed down through generations and some people might not be as responsible with them. For instance, I had a friend whose dad died and he left him like 6-7 guns. He didnt particularly want them and didnt know what to do with them. I think he sold them to a pawn shop or online or something. Anyways, the point is, if they were registered, there's a little more responsibility with where they ultimately end up I guess, and transfer of registration. Its just an idea, but I dont know if it would work or help..
that funny I am terrified about having idiots shooting me. (sorry I think this might come out wrong. I am not calling you an idiot) but going back, you say that registration is one step closer to confiscation. I am showing you that Canada does register and no one guns have been confiscated.
yet
but again Canada is NOT America, I realized that on my last visit. But Canadians know this.
I don't know what you mean? do you mean that we don't have the same type of relationship with guns that america has?
tbh I don't think canada does has the same relationship to guns as the US does. I don't think australia does either. the right to bear arms is enshrined in the US constitution. it is their god given right.. that is why they hold so fast to it and cant see another way. the way their country was formed plays a massive part in their attitude and whilst i can understand all that, I cant grasp their reticence to adapt. all they see is control and the relinquishing of weapons and the erosion of their rights. owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right. and it should be treated as such.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Some words from a bereaved father who successfully lobbied the Howard government for change in Australia:
Foundation Patron Walter Mikac shares his thoughts on gun laws after losing his wife, Nanette, and daughters, Alannah and Madeline, in the 1996 Port Arthur tragedy.
- ed12013_walter_girls
By Walter Mikac, Foundation Patron
"Mama, put my guns in the ground,
I can't shoot them anymore.
That long black cloud is comin' down,
I feel I'm knockin' on heaven's door."
Whenever I hear the lyrics to Knockin' on Heaven's Door, a shiver goes through my psyche. How can we allow gun massacres to continue happening? Aren't our lives worth more than this? Particularly the l ives of our children, our next generation? Our children and their children have the right to live in a safe environment without fear.
When the Port Arthur tragedy occurred in 1996 and I lost my wife, Nanette, and daughters, Alannah and Madeline, the world was left incredulous and dumbfounded. How could one person
kill 35 people and cause such carnage and mayhem?
Only one week after the Port Arthur tragedy, I faxed newly elected Prime Minister John Howard a letter asking that we have real change to minimise the chances of an event like this occurring again. I wanted a legacy for my wife, two daughters and the other 32 victims. John Howard rang me at home that night to ask if he could read my letter at a police ministers' meeting the next day. He wanted to make a clear statement that this is not the society Australia wants nor will tolerate.
John Howard, surrounded by a tsunami of public opinion, introduced uniform national gun laws banning semi-automatic firearms that same year. I plead for all Australians to never become complacent about what was achieved. Australians be proud. In the 17 years since these laws were introduced, our rate of death by guns has declined by 50 per cent.
Don't get me wrong, some groups like farmers and the military have reasons to have guns. I'm not anti-guns, but why do we need semi-automatic firearms of any type?
And what will eventuate in the US? Sadly, massacres there no longer register as front-page news. George W. Bush said of the 2007 Virginia Tech tragedy, "These students (in their lecture theatre) were in the wrong place at the wrong time."
The biggest elephant in the room for US politicians is firearms. There seems to be an attitude that they need more guns to protect against the massive number of people who already possess guns. This is a spiral more threatening than all the cyclones and catastrophes mother nature can summon.
The National Rifle Association is big business in the US with an annual turnover of US$231 million and a membership of 4.5 million people. Gun sales and donations spike every time there is a massacre in the US.
How can you make sense of the US having such a high per capita death rate by guns when compared to the minute one of its similar-sized neighbour, Canada?
Surely sanity will prevail and the US will leave a legacy to the 20 students and six teachers lost at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Yes, for all those poor innocents knockin' on heaven's door. How can they not? What is needed is Uncle Sam pointing his finger to the word - "ACTION".
itll be ok thirty... im anticipating something akin to a bikie war where they just turn their guns on each other and leave us the fuck alone... tho there might be some collateral damage.. you know peeps in the wrong place at the wrong time.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
For those out there worried that our nation's stern gun laws were keeping firearms out of the hands of too many people, the solution appears to have arrived: the printable gun.
Produced by a nonprofit organization called Defense Distributed, this small plastic gun, dubbed the "Liberator," has been tested and is able to fire a bullet in a video demo. Assuming this is no crazy hoax, the ramifications of such a weapon for gun control are potentially profound.
I can't imagine that too many people with rational minds think printable guns will add to the serenity of the world. Granted, 3-D printers aren't yet a household item, but as technology improves and becomes less expensive, they may become common.
Although the "Liberator" appears unreliable, tending to fragment after a few shots, subsequent models will likely improve. Either way, it's a workable and untraceable gun.
Open source guru Eric Raymond has said, "I approve of any development that makes it more difficult for governments and criminals to monopolize the use of force." The development of the printable gun seems to be particularly popular with the ultra-libertarian crowd. The founder of Defense Distributed apparently describes himself as a crypto-anarchist.
It's difficult to envision a situation in which a law-abiding homeowner prints a gun for self-defense. Sure, a few people may print the darn things for the novelty of it. But the printable gun, assuming it moves forward unregulated, would be the obvious realm of the criminal.
Can't pass a background check? No need to take your chances, such as they are, at a gun show anymore. Just print out your weapon from home! As only the firing pin is metal (a household nail), I can only imagine the nightmare of trying to detect these things.
Most homicides are impulsive, not the cold calculated affairs of Agatha Christie novels. Would enraged individuals without a gun be able to print one of these in response to some perceived slight? Yes, they'd have to go buy a bullet (and a nail), but it's still a way around a background check.
This scenario seems foolish only because it's already so easy to get a real gun. There are approximately 300 million guns in the United States. If we want to reduce the number of homicides (or suicides for that matter), making it difficult to get immediate access to guns can help reduce impulsive behaviors. Allowing people to print their own gun is just the opposite.
Beyond a doubt, calmer heads will want to regulate these things. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect this is one example in which technology may have raced ahead of the law. Is Defense Distributed selling guns or information? Is this a gun control issue or a First Amendment issue? Can the printers be regulated to refuse to print weapons, or could new designs simply circumvent existing prohibited products?
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, has expressed interest in legislation to block printable guns , so we'll see where it leads. As he puts it, "We're facing a situation where anyone -- a felon, a terrorist -- can open a gun factory in their garage and the weapons they make will be undetectable. It's stomach-churning." It seems that way.
Don't get me wrong. I'm probably about as neutral as anyone can be on the issue of gun control. I believe law abiding citizens have constitutional rights to own weapons. But at the same time I believe in reasonable safeguards to make sure access to firearms is limited from criminals and those with chronic mental illnesses.
In this sense, to me, printable guns are a step in the wrong direction. Granted, the actual impact of printable guns on societal violence is obviously unknown. Perhaps they'll remain so unreliable or difficult to assemble from the individual pieces that the impact will be negligible. Or perhaps not.
Some have described Defense Distributed's efforts as a kind of political performance art. Very funny, Defense Distributed. We get it. I just hope we don't regret it.
For those out there worried that our nation's stern gun laws were keeping firearms out of the hands of too many people, the solution appears to have arrived: the printable gun.
Produced by a nonprofit organization called Defense Distributed, this small plastic gun, dubbed the "Liberator," has been tested and is able to fire a bullet in a video demo. Assuming this is no crazy hoax, the ramifications of such a weapon for gun control are potentially profound.
I can't imagine that too many people with rational minds think printable guns will add to the serenity of the world. Granted, 3-D printers aren't yet a household item, but as technology improves and becomes less expensive, they may become common.
Although the "Liberator" appears unreliable, tending to fragment after a few shots, subsequent models will likely improve. Either way, it's a workable and untraceable gun.
Open source guru Eric Raymond has said, "I approve of any development that makes it more difficult for governments and criminals to monopolize the use of force." The development of the printable gun seems to be particularly popular with the ultra-libertarian crowd. The founder of Defense Distributed apparently describes himself as a crypto-anarchist.
It's difficult to envision a situation in which a law-abiding homeowner prints a gun for self-defense. Sure, a few people may print the darn things for the novelty of it. But the printable gun, assuming it moves forward unregulated, would be the obvious realm of the criminal.
Can't pass a background check? No need to take your chances, such as they are, at a gun show anymore. Just print out your weapon from home! As only the firing pin is metal (a household nail), I can only imagine the nightmare of trying to detect these things.
Most homicides are impulsive, not the cold calculated affairs of Agatha Christie novels. Would enraged individuals without a gun be able to print one of these in response to some perceived slight? Yes, they'd have to go buy a bullet (and a nail), but it's still a way around a background check.
This scenario seems foolish only because it's already so easy to get a real gun. There are approximately 300 million guns in the United States. If we want to reduce the number of homicides (or suicides for that matter), making it difficult to get immediate access to guns can help reduce impulsive behaviors. Allowing people to print their own gun is just the opposite.
Beyond a doubt, calmer heads will want to regulate these things. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect this is one example in which technology may have raced ahead of the law. Is Defense Distributed selling guns or information? Is this a gun control issue or a First Amendment issue? Can the printers be regulated to refuse to print weapons, or could new designs simply circumvent existing prohibited products?
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, has expressed interest in legislation to block printable guns , so we'll see where it leads. As he puts it, "We're facing a situation where anyone -- a felon, a terrorist -- can open a gun factory in their garage and the weapons they make will be undetectable. It's stomach-churning." It seems that way.
Don't get me wrong. I'm probably about as neutral as anyone can be on the issue of gun control. I believe law abiding citizens have constitutional rights to own weapons. But at the same time I believe in reasonable safeguards to make sure access to firearms is limited from criminals and those with chronic mental illnesses.
In this sense, to me, printable guns are a step in the wrong direction. Granted, the actual impact of printable guns on societal violence is obviously unknown. Perhaps they'll remain so unreliable or difficult to assemble from the individual pieces that the impact will be negligible. Or perhaps not.
Some have described Defense Distributed's efforts as a kind of political performance art. Very funny, Defense Distributed. We get it. I just hope we don't regret it.
For those out there worried that our nation's stern gun laws were keeping firearms out of the hands of too many people, the solution appears to have arrived: the printable gun.
Produced by a nonprofit organization called Defense Distributed, this small plastic gun, dubbed the "Liberator," has been tested and is able to fire a bullet in a video demo. Assuming this is no crazy hoax, the ramifications of such a weapon for gun control are potentially profound.
I can't imagine that too many people with rational minds think printable guns will add to the serenity of the world. Granted, 3-D printers aren't yet a household item, but as technology improves and becomes less expensive, they may become common.
Although the "Liberator" appears unreliable, tending to fragment after a few shots, subsequent models will likely improve. Either way, it's a workable and untraceable gun.
Open source guru Eric Raymond has said, "I approve of any development that makes it more difficult for governments and criminals to monopolize the use of force." The development of the printable gun seems to be particularly popular with the ultra-libertarian crowd. The founder of Defense Distributed apparently describes himself as a crypto-anarchist.
It's difficult to envision a situation in which a law-abiding homeowner prints a gun for self-defense. Sure, a few people may print the darn things for the novelty of it. But the printable gun, assuming it moves forward unregulated, would be the obvious realm of the criminal.
Can't pass a background check? No need to take your chances, such as they are, at a gun show anymore. Just print out your weapon from home! As only the firing pin is metal (a household nail), I can only imagine the nightmare of trying to detect these things.
Most homicides are impulsive, not the cold calculated affairs of Agatha Christie novels. Would enraged individuals without a gun be able to print one of these in response to some perceived slight? Yes, they'd have to go buy a bullet (and a nail), but it's still a way around a background check.
This scenario seems foolish only because it's already so easy to get a real gun. There are approximately 300 million guns in the United States. If we want to reduce the number of homicides (or suicides for that matter), making it difficult to get immediate access to guns can help reduce impulsive behaviors. Allowing people to print their own gun is just the opposite.
Beyond a doubt, calmer heads will want to regulate these things. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect this is one example in which technology may have raced ahead of the law. Is Defense Distributed selling guns or information? Is this a gun control issue or a First Amendment issue? Can the printers be regulated to refuse to print weapons, or could new designs simply circumvent existing prohibited products?
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, has expressed interest in legislation to block printable guns , so we'll see where it leads. As he puts it, "We're facing a situation where anyone -- a felon, a terrorist -- can open a gun factory in their garage and the weapons they make will be undetectable. It's stomach-churning." It seems that way.
Don't get me wrong. I'm probably about as neutral as anyone can be on the issue of gun control. I believe law abiding citizens have constitutional rights to own weapons. But at the same time I believe in reasonable safeguards to make sure access to firearms is limited from criminals and those with chronic mental illnesses.
In this sense, to me, printable guns are a step in the wrong direction. Granted, the actual impact of printable guns on societal violence is obviously unknown. Perhaps they'll remain so unreliable or difficult to assemble from the individual pieces that the impact will be negligible. Or perhaps not.
Some have described Defense Distributed's efforts as a kind of political performance art. Very funny, Defense Distributed. We get it. I just hope we don't regret it.
Don't worry about this, the founding father wanted this and they were able to see the future. :shock:
US GOVERNMENT: It's Fine For Us To Print 3D Weapons, Not So Much For Cody Wilson
On the same day that Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed got a notice from the State Department about ripping his 3D printing handgun schematics from the web, the U.S. Government launched a $200 million initiative, $30 million of which went to Defense Department's "additive manufacturing" pilot program.
Additive manufacturing is another way of saying 3D printing; and it's unlikely the DoD is going to be printing off a bunch of tables and chairs.
They're going to be printing weapons parts.
More specifically, the Department of Defense envisions customizing parts "on site" for operational systems that would otherwise be expensive to make or ship.
Building weapons on site gets rid of the expensive and time consuming paper trail and hassles of shipping overseas. The U.S., like Cody Wilson used to do, will likely just upload schematics to a secure website and bypass the middle man.
Where what Cody Wilson is doing is being explained as "illegal arms dealing," what the US Government is doing is being defined as "streamlining."
Comments
well I wouldnt want to see anyone take his 'rights' away.
is this article even real?
RustyS, I've read some of this thread and although you and I think pretty differently on guns, I appreciate your arguments and your respectful approach. Its a breath of fresh air in this type of debate.
I will do my best to answer this becaus eI am actually in between on a lot of the guns issue. I do not think guns should diasspear/be taken away. I do think that guns like the AR-15 (which were at one time illegal) are a bit excessive and unnecessary for public availability. I think magazines of 30+ rounds is too much.
And as a person who has very seriously considered buying guns, I think better background checks are common sense, gun show sales without background checks are asinine, and internet sales need to have some better rules. But as far as registering goes, I think some good could come out of it -- it would/could put more pressure on responsible gun owners to make sure their guns dont end up in the wrong hands. I honestly cant see the govt going door to door to confiscate guns when there are 300 million of them in the USA. Its not about being one step closer to confiscation, its about being one step closer to having more accountability.
oh its real.. tis just that its satirical.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
but again Canada is NOT America, I realized that on my last visit. But Canadians know this.
you should... its hilarious.. mostly cause its a reflection on the truth. and ive a feeling americans need to laugh more.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I don't know what you mean? do you mean that we don't have the same type of relationship with guns that america has?
First, Thank you for understanding that their is always two or more sides to every issue...
In my opinion, the background check situation does need to be handled differently. I know where I live, PA, our background check system is pretty good. At a gun show, you are required to go through the same background check as you would in a gun store. There obviously needs to be a more uniform system.
As far as confiscation goes...Not in my wildest dreams do I believe the government would try to confiscate guns from american citizens on a massive scale. But the fact remains, with registration, leaves the opportunity for it to happen, no matter how small that chance may be.
your second paragraph is exactly what I think most people here are wanting.
Yeah, I agree. There needs to be some uniformity.. too many loopholes simply allows for too many guns to unqualified buyers.
Personally, I just wish it was harder to get them in some places.. I think that would ultimately slow sales and reduce the overall amount of guns out there. But we may be past that with the amount of guns in the USA already.
I also think what could help with registering guns is that there is a good amount of guns that are passed down through generations and some people might not be as responsible with them. For instance, I had a friend whose dad died and he left him like 6-7 guns. He didnt particularly want them and didnt know what to do with them. I think he sold them to a pawn shop or online or something. Anyways, the point is, if they were registered, there's a little more responsibility with where they ultimately end up I guess, and transfer of registration. Its just an idea, but I dont know if it would work or help..
Let the rhythm hit 'em!
tbh I don't think canada does has the same relationship to guns as the US does. I don't think australia does either. the right to bear arms is enshrined in the US constitution. it is their god given right.. that is why they hold so fast to it and cant see another way. the way their country was formed plays a massive part in their attitude and whilst i can understand all that, I cant grasp their reticence to adapt. all they see is control and the relinquishing of weapons and the erosion of their rights. owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right. and it should be treated as such.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Foundation Patron Walter Mikac shares his thoughts on gun laws after losing his wife, Nanette, and daughters, Alannah and Madeline, in the 1996 Port Arthur tragedy.
- ed12013_walter_girls
By Walter Mikac, Foundation Patron
"Mama, put my guns in the ground,
I can't shoot them anymore.
That long black cloud is comin' down,
I feel I'm knockin' on heaven's door."
Whenever I hear the lyrics to Knockin' on Heaven's Door, a shiver goes through my psyche. How can we allow gun massacres to continue happening? Aren't our lives worth more than this? Particularly the l ives of our children, our next generation? Our children and their children have the right to live in a safe environment without fear.
When the Port Arthur tragedy occurred in 1996 and I lost my wife, Nanette, and daughters, Alannah and Madeline, the world was left incredulous and dumbfounded. How could one person
kill 35 people and cause such carnage and mayhem?
Only one week after the Port Arthur tragedy, I faxed newly elected Prime Minister John Howard a letter asking that we have real change to minimise the chances of an event like this occurring again. I wanted a legacy for my wife, two daughters and the other 32 victims. John Howard rang me at home that night to ask if he could read my letter at a police ministers' meeting the next day. He wanted to make a clear statement that this is not the society Australia wants nor will tolerate.
John Howard, surrounded by a tsunami of public opinion, introduced uniform national gun laws banning semi-automatic firearms that same year. I plead for all Australians to never become complacent about what was achieved. Australians be proud. In the 17 years since these laws were introduced, our rate of death by guns has declined by 50 per cent.
Don't get me wrong, some groups like farmers and the military have reasons to have guns. I'm not anti-guns, but why do we need semi-automatic firearms of any type?
And what will eventuate in the US? Sadly, massacres there no longer register as front-page news. George W. Bush said of the 2007 Virginia Tech tragedy, "These students (in their lecture theatre) were in the wrong place at the wrong time."
The biggest elephant in the room for US politicians is firearms. There seems to be an attitude that they need more guns to protect against the massive number of people who already possess guns. This is a spiral more threatening than all the cyclones and catastrophes mother nature can summon.
The National Rifle Association is big business in the US with an annual turnover of US$231 million and a membership of 4.5 million people. Gun sales and donations spike every time there is a massacre in the US.
How can you make sense of the US having such a high per capita death rate by guns when compared to the minute one of its similar-sized neighbour, Canada?
Surely sanity will prevail and the US will leave a legacy to the 20 students and six teachers lost at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Yes, for all those poor innocents knockin' on heaven's door. How can they not? What is needed is Uncle Sam pointing his finger to the word - "ACTION".
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
they don't get it moreton... * shrugs*
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
3-D printed guns are a boon for criminals
http://us.cnn.com/2013/05/07/opinion/fe ... hpt=hp_bn7
For those out there worried that our nation's stern gun laws were keeping firearms out of the hands of too many people, the solution appears to have arrived: the printable gun.
Produced by a nonprofit organization called Defense Distributed, this small plastic gun, dubbed the "Liberator," has been tested and is able to fire a bullet in a video demo. Assuming this is no crazy hoax, the ramifications of such a weapon for gun control are potentially profound.
I can't imagine that too many people with rational minds think printable guns will add to the serenity of the world. Granted, 3-D printers aren't yet a household item, but as technology improves and becomes less expensive, they may become common.
Although the "Liberator" appears unreliable, tending to fragment after a few shots, subsequent models will likely improve. Either way, it's a workable and untraceable gun.
Open source guru Eric Raymond has said, "I approve of any development that makes it more difficult for governments and criminals to monopolize the use of force." The development of the printable gun seems to be particularly popular with the ultra-libertarian crowd. The founder of Defense Distributed apparently describes himself as a crypto-anarchist.
It's difficult to envision a situation in which a law-abiding homeowner prints a gun for self-defense. Sure, a few people may print the darn things for the novelty of it. But the printable gun, assuming it moves forward unregulated, would be the obvious realm of the criminal.
Can't pass a background check? No need to take your chances, such as they are, at a gun show anymore. Just print out your weapon from home! As only the firing pin is metal (a household nail), I can only imagine the nightmare of trying to detect these things.
Most homicides are impulsive, not the cold calculated affairs of Agatha Christie novels. Would enraged individuals without a gun be able to print one of these in response to some perceived slight? Yes, they'd have to go buy a bullet (and a nail), but it's still a way around a background check.
This scenario seems foolish only because it's already so easy to get a real gun. There are approximately 300 million guns in the United States. If we want to reduce the number of homicides (or suicides for that matter), making it difficult to get immediate access to guns can help reduce impulsive behaviors. Allowing people to print their own gun is just the opposite.
Beyond a doubt, calmer heads will want to regulate these things. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect this is one example in which technology may have raced ahead of the law. Is Defense Distributed selling guns or information? Is this a gun control issue or a First Amendment issue? Can the printers be regulated to refuse to print weapons, or could new designs simply circumvent existing prohibited products?
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, has expressed interest in legislation to block printable guns , so we'll see where it leads. As he puts it, "We're facing a situation where anyone -- a felon, a terrorist -- can open a gun factory in their garage and the weapons they make will be undetectable. It's stomach-churning." It seems that way.
Don't get me wrong. I'm probably about as neutral as anyone can be on the issue of gun control. I believe law abiding citizens have constitutional rights to own weapons. But at the same time I believe in reasonable safeguards to make sure access to firearms is limited from criminals and those with chronic mental illnesses.
In this sense, to me, printable guns are a step in the wrong direction. Granted, the actual impact of printable guns on societal violence is obviously unknown. Perhaps they'll remain so unreliable or difficult to assemble from the individual pieces that the impact will be negligible. Or perhaps not.
Some have described Defense Distributed's efforts as a kind of political performance art. Very funny, Defense Distributed. We get it. I just hope we don't regret it.
My shit wasn't registered any fucking way"
baffles me totally
Don't worry about this, the founding father wanted this and they were able to see the future. :shock:
On the same day that Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed got a notice from the State Department about ripping his 3D printing handgun schematics from the web, the U.S. Government launched a $200 million initiative, $30 million of which went to Defense Department's "additive manufacturing" pilot program.
Additive manufacturing is another way of saying 3D printing; and it's unlikely the DoD is going to be printing off a bunch of tables and chairs.
They're going to be printing weapons parts.
More specifically, the Department of Defense envisions customizing parts "on site" for operational systems that would otherwise be expensive to make or ship.
Building weapons on site gets rid of the expensive and time consuming paper trail and hassles of shipping overseas. The U.S., like Cody Wilson used to do, will likely just upload schematics to a secure website and bypass the middle man.
Where what Cody Wilson is doing is being explained as "illegal arms dealing," what the US Government is doing is being defined as "streamlining."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-gover ... z2Sv80Vnl1