LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

[viva la ben]

They need to ban those machines

[blurryhaze312]

They need to ban those machines

3d printers? Are you serious? Just because the possibility exists for someone to build a gun, you want to ban one of the most exciting newish manufacturing technologies??

It's been around for a while, but now that 3d printing is becoming a cheaper technology, people are doing great things. I know a guy that built a fully functioning robotic "animal" for the Carnegie museum in his own home.

You can make homemade explosives and other weaponry out of a slew of easily-obtainable items - should we ban those, too?

[ExPatriatePen]

They need to ban those machines

3d printers? Are you serious? Just because the possibility exists for someone to build a gun, you want to ban one of the most exciting newish manufacturing technologies??

It's been around for a while, but now that 3d printing is becoming a cheaper technology, people are doing great things. I know a guy that built a fully functioning robotic "animal" for the Carnegie museum in his own home.

You can make homemade explosives and other weaponry out of a slew of easily-obtainable items - should we ban those, too?

And I thought I was the only one who didn't have a sarcasm radar

[DelPen]

All they fabricated was one part, the receiver. It's what holds the magazine, stock and trigger together:



What broke was the area where the stock and buffer tube connected to the receiver. You still, hoever, need dozens of more metal parts including an upper receiver and barrell. The only thing this would do is avoid a serialized receiver from being produced.

[Sarcastic]

I hope to one day print out a 1990 version of Pamela Anderson android babe.

[DelPen]

I hope to one day print out a 1990 version of Pamela Anderson android babe.

There's not enough plastic in the world...

[Sarcastic]

I hope to one day print out a 1990 version of Pamela Anderson android babe.

There's not enough plastic in the world...

Very good.

[viva la ben]

Could the 3d printer print a 3d printer.

[blurryhaze312]

They need to ban those machines

3d printers? Are you serious? Just because the possibility exists for someone to build a gun, you want to ban one of the most exciting newish manufacturing technologies??

It's been around for a while, but now that 3d printing is becoming a cheaper technology, people are doing great things. I know a guy that built a fully functioning robotic "animal" for the Carnegie museum in his own home.

You can make homemade explosives and other weaponry out of a slew of easily-obtainable items - should we ban those, too?

And I thought I was the only one who didn't have a sarcasm radar

It's too hard to tell lately when everyone is over exaggerating their view on the topic one way or another.

[tifosi77]

Could the 3d printer print a 3d printer.

Spoiler:

[Shyster]

Megan McArdle's article is by far the most logical, rational, and prescient response I have seen thus far to the Sandy Hook shootings:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... sacre.html

[Sarcastic]

I really don't care about the 'unconstitutional' argument. I think people sometimes hide behind the constitution, including all the free speech advocates who do all sorts of crazy things, nothing to do with speech, then say it's free speech and to bite them. Besides, maybe it's time to update the constitution. Although, you would have to be careful because you know the gov. would like to put something nasty in there.

[ExPatriatePen]

I really don't care about the 'unconstitutional' argument. I think people sometimes hide behind the constitution, including all the free speech advocates who do all sorts of crazy things, nothing to do with speech, then say it's free speech and to bite them. Besides, maybe it's time to update the constitution. Although, you would have to be careful because you know the gov. would like to put something nasty in there.

Ammendments?

[Sarcastic]

Also, if the mom didn't have guns in her house, she likely would have still been alive. Unless he stabbed her. But how would he do the attack on school with no gun? Just tells me that her mom owning her guns was the problem. Argument goes back to availability.

[Rylan]

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

[Sarcastic]

Ammendments?

I will not go into specifics of how or in what areas. I'm just looking at the right to bare arms thing. I have to be honest.. I'm not crazy about it. I'm just me and I know others care about that deeply. Just not sure it plays the same role now as it did then.

[MRandall25]

Also, if the mom didn't have guns in her house, she likely would have still been alive. Unless he stabbed her. But how would he do the attack on school with no gun? Just tells me that her mom owning her guns was the problem. Argument goes back to availability.

And availability IS NOT the problem.

.01% of gun owners use it to kill other humans. That's statistically insignificant.

[Sarcastic]

Also, if the mom didn't have guns in her house, she likely would have still been alive. Unless he stabbed her. But how would he do the attack on school with no gun? Just tells me that her mom owning her guns was the problem. Argument goes back to availability.

And availability IS NOT the problem.

.01% of gun owners use it to kill other humans. That's statistically insignificant.

I beg to differ. In this case it was. The overall % is what's insignificant here.

[ExPatriatePen]

Also, if the mom didn't have guns in her house, she likely would have still been alive. Unless he stabbed her. But how would he do the attack on school with no gun? Just tells me that her mom owning her guns was the problem. Argument goes back to availability.

Again, no one has told me how the guns were stored or what the laws are in CT regarding same.

It's not that the mom had the guns that's the issue. She didn't kill anyone. It's that Adam had access to them.

I'm all for biometric locks in such a situation.

[ulf]

Also, if the mom didn't have guns in her house, she likely would have still been alive. Unless he stabbed her. But how would he do the attack on school with no gun? Just tells me that her mom owning her guns was the problem. Argument goes back to availability.

He wouldn't have looked anywhere else for guns? He would have just went on living his life because his mom didn't own guns? There's good arguments for gun control and this isn't one.

[Sarcastic]

Going to pick up my girl and to dinner now. BBL.

[pfim]

I really don't care about the 'unconstitutional' argument. I think people sometimes hide behind the constitution, including all the free speech advocates who do all sorts of crazy things, nothing to do with speech, then say it's free speech and to bite them. Besides, maybe it's time to update the constitution. Although, you would have to be careful because you know the gov. would like to put something nasty in there.

Yes, I don't see why something being "unconstitutional" prevents change.

[Sarcastic]

He wouldn't have looked anywhere else for guns?

Where? Like a private sale with no background check? Outlaw those too and give 5 years to anyone who makes a sale.

[Sarcastic]

Anyway. BBL.

[Shyster]

It’s illegal in every state to sell cocaine or heroin, with penalties that are often a lot longer than 5 years, but cocaine and heroin are still widely available. And neither cocaine nor heroin are grown or manufactured in the United States in any significant quality. They’re both imported from other nations, many of them quite far away from the United States (like Afghanistan). They still get here. What would stop the same cartels that smuggle literally tons of cocaine and heroin into the United States from adding crates of handguns or rifles to those shipments? If the demand is high enough, the profit will be there, and those people have already demonstrated that they care more about profit than any silly laws.