Philadelphia Becomes First City To Ba...

Philadelphia Becomes First City To Ban 3D-Printed Gun Manufacturing

There are 585 comments on the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph story from Nov 22, 2013, titled Philadelphia Becomes First City To Ban 3D-Printed Gun Manufacturing. In it, Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph reports that:

Philadelphia magazine reports that councilman Kenyatta Johnson, who crafted the legislation, is unaware of any actual 3D gun manufacturers in the city, and in a surprisingly earnest statement Johnson's office explained that "It's all pre-emptive.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#218 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep.
Gun fatalities projected to overtake vehicles by 2015
Here's the facts:
http://www.bloomberg.com/image/i3cs6F7hTHkc.j...
MEANINGLESS:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#219 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
So after I prove that gun fatalities are overtaking vehicle fatalities, you want to move the goalposts to GLOBAL fatalities!
HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
That's just another one of your meaningless and perverse side-tracking ploys. And like all of the rest of your spewings, it was summarily dismissed.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#220 Nov 30, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting how that you employed Alexander Hamilton
Interesting how you brought up this homosexual that has been dead for 200 years.

Let's see what you said about it...
2ndAmRight wrote:
I'm not the one stuck in the 1800's troll, >you< are.
Help stamp out CenturySpam™!! Flag appropriately!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#221 Nov 30, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just another one of your meaningless
No one has to make you understand anything means anything, GayDavyQ.

But if someone is comparing vehicular deaths to firearm deaths, ya see, here's the thing: firearm deaths count.

Are you going to post on topic this year, dear?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#222 Nov 30, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
MEANINGLESS:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
I agree.

Your version: It's not part of the US constitution.

YOu can be sure you will see your quote again, Shug.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#223 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting how you brought up this homosexual that has been dead for 200 years.
Let's see what you said about it...
<quoted text>
Help stamp out CenturySpam™!! Flag appropriately!
Hmmmmm, out of context ... just like you are.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#224 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has to make you understand anything means anything, GayDavyQ.
But if someone is comparing vehicular deaths to firearm deaths, ya see, here's the thing: firearm deaths count.
Are you going to post on topic this year, dear?
Let's see now. Is the right to drive SPECIFICALLY SECURED in the United States Constitution? Why NO, it most certainly is NOT. Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms SPECIFICALLY SECURED in the United States Constitution? Why YES, it most certainly IS:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

Which of course makes your meaningless and specious 'vehicular deaths' argument a MOOT point, now DOESN'T IT?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#225 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
Your version: It's not part of the US constitution.
YOu can be sure you will see your quote again, Shug.
The level of your blindness [deliberate ignorance] is astounding. Here, let me help you with that:

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION or ABUSE of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added: And as EXTENDING the ground of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the Government, will BEST ENSURE the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, ALL, or any of which Articles, when RATIFIED by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be VALID to ALL INTENTS and PURPOSES, as PART of the said Constitution; viz.]

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution....

...Amendment II

DECLARATORY clause;

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

RESTRICTIVE clause;

the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed.

Perhaps you'd be able to see better if you first wiped the sewage out of your eyes before posting?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#227 Nov 30, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm, out of context ... just like you are.
NO, dear.

Out of context is when you quote a paragraph but cut off the leading sentences because they refute your post.

"Unlike most university presses owned or financially supported by universities, Princeton University Press has always been privately owned and controlled. Initially established as a private corporation, it was reincorporated in 1910 as a non-profit company. Throughout its history, however..."

Or when I pointed to your homosexual hero Alexander Hamilton and you "forgot" the opening paragraph of his letter to his "buddy":

"ALEXANDER HAMILTON TO JOHN LAURENS

[April, 1779]

Cold in my professions – warm in my friendships – I wish, my Dear Laurens,
it were in my power, by actions rather than words, to convince you that I love
you. I shall only tell you that 'till you bade us Adieu, I hardly knew the value
you had taught my heart to set upon you. Indeed, my friend, it was not well
done. You know the opinion I entertain of mankind, and how much it is my
desire to preserve myself free from particular attachments, and to keep my
happiness independent of the caprice of others. You should not have taken
advantage of my sensibility, to steal into my affections without my consent.
But as you have done it, and as we are generally indulgent to those we love,
I shall not scruple to pardon the fraud you have committed, on one condition;
that for my sake, if not for your own, you will always continue to merit the
partiality, which you have so artfully instilled into me. "

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#228 Nov 30, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
The level of your blindness [deliberate ignorance] is astounding. Here, let me help you with that:
Let me remind you of your DIRECT quote:
2ndAmRight wrote:
MEANINGLESS:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
Direct quote, Stool Sample.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#229 Nov 30, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see now. Is the right to drive SPECIFICALLY SECURED in the United States Constitution??
Gosh: If you could only find someone some where sometime who insist people have a constitutional right to drive.

PS: The FF's didn't have cars in 1776.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#230 Nov 30, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<
Which of course makes your meaningless and specious 'vehicular deaths' argument a MOOT point, now DOESN'T IT?
You don't know what MOOT is, Stool sample.

It's like when you insist Democrats control Congress even though there are 30 more Republicans than Democrats.

Wipe your chin, dear.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#231 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, dear.
Out of context is when you quote a paragraph but cut off the leading sentences because they refute your post.
"Unlike most university presses owned or financially supported by universities, Princeton University Press has always been privately owned and controlled. Initially established as a private corporation, it was reincorporated in 1910 as a non-profit company. Throughout its history, however..."
Or when I pointed to your homosexual hero Alexander Hamilton and you "forgot" the opening paragraph of his letter to his "buddy":
"ALEXANDER HAMILTON TO JOHN LAURENS
[April, 1779]
Cold in my professions – warm in my friendships – I wish, my Dear Laurens,
it were in my power, by actions rather than words, to convince you that I love
you. I shall only tell you that 'till you bade us Adieu, I hardly knew the value
you had taught my heart to set upon you. Indeed, my friend, it was not well
done. You know the opinion I entertain of mankind, and how much it is my
desire to preserve myself free from particular attachments, and to keep my
happiness independent of the caprice of others. You should not have taken
advantage of my sensibility, to steal into my affections without my consent.
But as you have done it, and as we are generally indulgent to those we love,
I shall not scruple to pardon the fraud you have committed, on one condition;
that for my sake, if not for your own, you will always continue to merit the
partiality, which you have so artfully instilled into me. "
Interesting how that the Princeton Press thoroughly refutes your first idiotic contention.[Which you know already of course. But just keep pathetically posting in the vain hope that people will forget.]

And your projecting Hamilton as being gay, which was thoroughly refuted as well. In order to alleviate your own shame of being gay, is just plain despicable.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#232 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh: If you could only find someone some where sometime who insist people have a constitutional right to drive.
PS: The FF's didn't have cars in 1776.
Lame is definitely what you do best,

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#233 Nov 30, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting how that the Princeton Press thoroughly refutes your first idiotic contention.
I said Princeton Press was privately owned and books it prints are not endorsements by the University.

Let's see what the quote says:

"Unlike most university presses owned or financially supported by universities, Princeton University Press has always been privately owned and controlled. Initially established as a private corporation, it was reincorporated in 1910 as a non-profit company."

Hmmm.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#234 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I said Princeton Press was privately owned and books it prints are not endorsements by the University.
Let's see what the quote says:
"Unlike most university presses owned or financially supported by universities, Princeton University Press has always been privately owned and controlled. Initially established as a private corporation, it was reincorporated in 1910 as a non-profit company."
Hmmm.
"Throughout its history, however, the Press has maintained a close relationship with the University: its five-member Editorial Board, which makes controlling decisions about which books will bear the Press's imprint, is appointed from the faculty by the President of the University and nine of the fifteen members on the Press's Board of Trustees must have a Princeton University connection."
http://press.princeton.edu/about_pup/puphist....

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#235 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I said Princeton Press was privately owned and books it prints are not endorsements by the University.
Let's see what the quote says:
"Unlike most university presses owned or financially supported by universities, Princeton University Press has always been privately owned and controlled. Initially established as a private corporation, it was reincorporated in 1910 as a non-profit company."
Hmmm.
"its five-member Editorial Board, which makes CONTROLLING DECISIONS about which books will bear the Press's imprint, is appointed from the faculty by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY AND NINE of the fifteen members on the Press's Board of Trustees MUST have a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY CONNECTION."
http://press.princeton.edu/about_pup/puphist....

Hmmmmm.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#236 Nov 30, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
"its five-member Editorial Board
I am not going to teach you English, DavyQ, not where your fifth grade teachers failed.

Enough to say you had to edit your response and that's enough for me.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#237 Nov 30, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
"its five-member Editorial Board, which makes CONTROLLING DECISIONS about which books will bear the Press's imprint,.
You do know the difference between a INDEPENDENT university press is the FACT that the organization is controlled by a BOARD rather than an academic administrator?

Well: you insist the 200 Democrats control Congress which has 231 Republicans.

And you use as a source- your reliable source- someone who says the moon landing was faked and that the government had a hand in the Oklahoma and 9/11 bombings.

And that there are dead Russians on the moon.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#238 Nov 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not going to teach you English, DavyQ, not where your fifth grade teachers failed.
Enough to say you had to edit your response and that's enough for me.
ENORMOUS GAIN IN FIREARMS SALE

Believing in the theory that the criminal can beat be met with his own weapon Washington residents are stocking up with various types of firearms, ranging from double-barreled shotguns to .22-caliber revolvers.

The demand for revolvers is due to the protective measures being taken by District residents since the mad-man of the northwest began his attacks on Washington women.

Eight Washington Business men who deal in firearms report an increase in the sale of revolvers.

The .32-caliber automatic is the most popular, although .22-caliber revolvers are in demand among women customers. The .22-caliber revolver is said to be a comparatively ineffective weapon, unless fired at close range, and at a vital spot, but is more favored by the fair sex, because it hasn't the kick of a higher calibered weapon....

[The Washington Times, Washington [D.C.], Monday Evening, January 27, 1919. FINAL EDITION, Number 11,056 Pg. 2]

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bristol Palin is engaged (May '15) 12 hr Geraldine Jones 64
News Ted Cruz, the perfect candidate for the coming ... 21 hr Dannette 13
News UPDATE 2-Facebook to prohibit private firearm t... Feb 3 Here Is One 17
News News 2 hour ago 4:57 a.m.VA reverses concealed-... Feb 1 Say What 1
News Hillary: In a Hole, and Digging Hard Jan 27 Ritual Habitual 5
News City Council to consider open carry guidelines Jan 27 Dannette 14
1 Dead After Home Invasion Jan 25 Marauder 2
More from around the web