POLITICS NRA in financial trouble, per the NRA

This means "in my lifetime." That means birth to present.

So again I ask, what has lessened that was more restricted, in your lifetime, that makes this statement not bullshit?

And I'm not asking you about your awareness or lack of, I'm asking about reality; all of it. Again, not your limited perception, which is a biased and terrible recollection.

 

Cool.

I think it would be great wholesome fun for the entire family.

 

Yes, you are. You are arbitrarily deciding this, because it doesn't matter that the gun is 3D printed. It matters WHO can do the printing. You are the one that keeps repeating the same bullshit. Over, and over, and over again.

You are the one that is deciding that a spit wad is a weapon. And thus kids must be expelled for doing it.

You are arbitrarily deciding these things, despite any amount of logic to the contrary.

These are entirely your beliefs, and you are the one that needs to square them.

 

How do you assess my personal recollection? That's an empty claim, you weren't with me at all.

I can't look right now, but I think the number of firearms per owner has increased, the number of firearms has increased, the sale of slugs have increased, and yes the numbers of semiautomatic military style weaponry has increased. I bet the number of bump stocks out there has increased. All of these trends point to my statement being correct.

 

Chronology of events, and words, spoken by IP:

You told me to scratch that, which means your new argument is that the ability to be armed has expanded or become less restricted. These are your words. In your fashion. I don't assess anything but the words you type.

How does the fact that more people have weapons mean that the ABILITY to get them is expanded, or become less restricted?

 

I never said anything about kids being expelled for spitwads. I'm not the one drawing any kind of line regarding 3D printed guns whatsoever.

If I wanted to machine and construct my own rifle for personal use, there is no law preventing me. It is only 3D printing that is being singled out, and the rhetoric as to why is contradictory to decades of NRA statements about guns in general.

You can't seem to discuss this without making up positions for me I don't hold in an effort to push me into a well worn path of discussion. I never said shit about suspending kids over anything, certainly not over simple arms constructed out of every day materials. That's a complete reversal of what I'm saying, in fact.

 

Your deliberately obtuse nature doesn't count against me.

Let's say I want a firearm. My options now include kits, the internet, and mods that didn't exist in the 90's. I can buy all sorts of custom slugs designed to defeat barriers that didn't exist in the 90's. Without prefacing it, ask anyone on the street whether it is easier to shop for guns now or under clinton.

Deliberately obtuse.

 

The NRA is choosing to not fight on 3D printed firearms because of these laws, and this statement by the ATF. Not because it doesn't believe 3D printed guns should be legal, but because of this law. Fighting this law could result in a ban on all firearm manufacturing for personal use, which would not be defensible by a strict interpretation of the 2A.

They are actually the most consistent on this, of everyone, on this issue.

 

You didn't say since 1994. You said lifetime. IP, when were you born. When you were born, was it easier for people to get firearms? Was there a background check? Could anyone just go buy one?

[uck fay] off with obtuse. You are an idiot, who spouts bullshit and cotton had you fairly and accurately pegged.

 

No, you didn't say that. I'm not alleging you said that. I'm saying that is the logical conclusion to the believe that a spit wad is a weapon. That is the logical conclusion. That is what "and thus" means; it means "in conclusion."

Re-phrased for the reading comprehension impaired: "You are the one that is deciding that a spit wad is a weapon. In conclusion, kids must be expelled for doing it."

 

This makes me feel old. I graduated college in May '94 & started teaching in Aug '94.

Where does the time go?

 

So you agree there is no law against personal firearm manufacturing.

Are you saying a manufacturing ban wouldn't be defensible, and yet they are choosing to not fight one for a specific type so as to not force the issue?

If so, there is nothing consistent about it.

If you are saying manufacturing can be banned without running up against the 2nd amendment (and meant such a ban IS defensible), we go back around to what was said earlier regarding bearing arms inherently including fashioning them. You know, where you simultaneously pointed out every day items can be made into weapons and that they aren't really weapons or someone has to be suspended for spit balls. Which is somehow my opinion and not yours.

 

Ask someone if they find it easier to shop for weapons now or in the 90's or 80's. Ask them whether they own more weapons now or then? What kinds? Ask them what they shot then and now. Don't be mad, be happy. You are bearing armloads of arms with ease.

 

A manufacturing ban would be defensible. It exists now. There are things today that are banned from manufacture, even for personal use, and that ban has been upheld by court interpretation and strict interpretation. Thus (in conclusion) manufacturing bans do not run up against the 2A.

Not choosing to fight this manufacturing ban is consistent with not fighting other manufacturing bans, and the fights that have been made and lost. It's a concession that manufacturing can be banned.

Bearing arms DOES NOT inherently including fashioning them. At all. That is YOUR belief. All things can be made weapons. That DOES NOT make them protected by the 2A. They are still weapons. And the law says WEAPONS are to be banned. Which is logically inconsistent, if all things are weapons. Thus (in conclusion) one thing is contradictory: the belief that all things are weapons, or the law.

I choose the law. Which do you choose?

 

If a man picks up a brick and hits a man over the head with it in a fight, what's the charge?

When a person hits or attempts to hit a police officer with their car, what's the charge?

Weapons are about intent, even in the nebulous and inconsistent language of laws. Choosing the law doesn't settle this.

 

Kind does not matter. I get that you believe that it does, and that an AR somehow means someone is more armed than a Mini-14. That doesn't make it true, it just makes it your belief. This is called opinion. Yours and mine differ.

It is far easier to purchase firearms in the 80s and early 90s than it is today. This is called a fact. Changed.

The ability to own more weapons has not changed. This is a fact. There is no limitation. Fact. No change.

Guns that were legal to own in 1990 are legal to own today. Guns that are legal to own today were legal in 1990. Fact. No change.

Of the facts, the change produced more restriction. Of the opinions, well, they are simply vast. But just opinion.

 

No, weapons are not about intent. Action is about intent. Weapons are inanimate objects.

If the intent of a spit wad is to use it as a weapon, and it simply fails to be such, the intent is still that it was used as a weapon. Thus (in conclusion) the kid must be expelled for use of a weapon.

 

Where did one buy a bump stock in the 80's or when I was a kid, prior to their invention?

 

It was called a "hell fire" trigger. You'll note that one was used in the 1990s, if you choose to educate yourself.

 

Dude, by your logic a brick is then a weapon as an object and school buildings should be banned from school property. That's how you saw it with me calling a blow gun a weapon. Is a wet ball of paper a weapon? What injury will it inflict? Bricks can bring about plantar fasciitis just lying there, so clearly they'r the real threat. Expell the school from school grounds.

The concept of a weapon is abstract, even though the object to which the concept is attached is not. Action movies have been able to rely on this for creating memorable scenes for a very long time.