Wishful Thinking Is Control Freaks' L...

Wishful Thinking Is Control Freaks' Last Defense Against 3D-Printed Guns

There are 56 comments on the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph story from May 9, 2013, titled Wishful Thinking Is Control Freaks' Last Defense Against 3D-Printed Guns. In it, Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph reports that:

After Defense Distributed published video of a successul test of a 3D-printed handgun , the responses came fast and furious: politicians, including Rep.

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

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
That

Huntsville, AL

#41 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to explain THIS?
).]
would be your task. You are the one posting irrelevant spam from 1856

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#43 May 12, 2013
That wrote:
<quoted text>
would be your task. You are the one posting irrelevant spam from 1856
More demonRat HYPOCRISY:

The Democratic National Convention which gathered at Chicago on the 29th of August[1864], and presented the names of GEORGE B. McCLELLAN for President, and GEORGE H. PENDLETON for Vice-President, agreed on and adopted the following PLATFORM.

Resolved, That the aim and object of the Democratic party is to preserve the Federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired; and they hereby declare that they consider the Administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution, the subversion of the civil by military law in States not in insurrection, the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force, the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press, the denial of the right of asylum, the open and avowed disregard of State rights, the employment of unusual test-oaths, and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms, as calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union and the perpetuation of a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.

Don't see any "militia" in there, do you? HYPOCRITES.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
The Democratic National Convention
Vikings: Spam spam spam spam...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#46 May 12, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Vi.
And THIS has been the demonRat plan all along:

New "Democratic" Doctrine.

Slavery not to be confined to the Negro race, but to be made the universal condition of the laboring classes of society.

The line of defense, however, is now changed. The South now maintains that Slavery is right, natural, and necessary, and does not depend upon difference of COMPLEXION. The laws of the Slave States justify the holding of WHITE MEN in bondage.

Another Buchanan paper, the leading one in South Carolina, says:

"Slavery is the natural and normal condition of the laboring man, whether WHITE or black.--The great evil of Northern frne Society is, that it is burdened with a servile class of MECHANICS and LABORERS, unfit for self-government, and yet clothed with the attributes and powers of citizens. Master and Slave, is a relation in Society as natural as that of parent and child; and the Northern States will yet have to introduce it. Their theory of free government is a delueion."

There's "Democratic" doctrine for you, with a vengeance; "our theory of free government a delusion,"--"laborin g men, whether white or black, to be slaves,"--Verily, matters are coming to a pretty pass with us.

The Richmond (Va.) Enquirer, Mr. Buchanan's confidential organ, and considered by the "Democratic" party as the ablest paper in the South, speaks as follows in a recent number:

"Repeatedly have we asked the North 'Has not the experiment of universal liberty, FAILED? Are not the evils of FREE SOCIETY INSUFFERABLE? And do not most thinking men among you propose to subvert and reconstruct it?' Still no answer. This gloomy silence is another conclusive proof, added to many other conclusive evidences we have furnished, that free society in the long run is an impracticable form of society; it is everywhere starving, demoralized and insurrectionary.

We repeat, then, that policy and humanity alike forbid the extension of the evils of free society to new people and coming generations.

Washington, 1850.
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.rbc/rbpe.20304000

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
New "Democratic" Doctrine.
.
GunShow1 wrote:
However, of myself I am nothing.
Finally, something everyone can agree on.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#48 May 12, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Finally, something everyone can agree on.
Why are you joined in the conspiracy to overthrow We The People's Constitution? And this by defending the tyrannical usurpations perpetrated by our perverse public servants in governments? In order to betray your fellow citizens into slavery? What was the price paid to you for your treachory? Was it more than the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#49 May 13, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you joined in the conspiracy to overthrow We The People's Constitution?
Tell us about Area 52, PA.
Lamer

Hopkins, MN

#50 May 13, 2013
As if wrote:
<quoted text>
the world needs another gun and one designed to be smuggled past metal detectors.
Let me know how those plastic bullets work out for you...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#51 May 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us about Area 52, PA.
That's where you landed when you came here to earth?(Funny, but I had always thought you had dug your way up from hell.....)

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#52 May 13, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's where you landed when you came here to earth?
I see you skipped over this, GayDavy:

GunShow1 wrote:
Why were there NO 'gun control laws' from 1791 all the way up to 1934?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#53 May 13, 2013
Lamer wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me know how those plastic bullets work out for you...
Metal detectors at airports don't pick up bullets, dingus.

Wipe your chin.

...

Why Airport Metal Detectors Won’t Pick Up Bullets
By consumerist.com March 14, 2006

Yesterday, we wrote about how they found a single bullet found on the floor of an Alaskan Airline. We noted,“You d think that' d be something the metal detector would pick up.”

Michael wrote in to say, no, you could wear a full lingerie set made from .22 caliber bullets, but…

“Metal detectors won’t pick it up. They work by inducing a magnetic field in ferrous metals, and then sensing the resulting field.

Cartridges (bullets) are composed of: copper, lead, brass, smokeless gunpowder (nitrocellulose/nitroglycerin) , and a primer which does have some ferrous metal in it, but its so minimal I seriously doubt anything would pick it up. The primers [weighs] only a few grams, and only about 1/2 of its mass is metal.

…That and something like a 747 is designed to fly (and remain pressurized) with something like 5 or 6 windows completely removed… A single (hell, an entire magazine) shot won’t cause the aircraft to depressurize.”

Thanks, Michael, that is some good chunky info. However, our concern wasn’t about someone shooting the windows and depressurizing the airplane. Rather, we were concerned about the bullets being used to depressurize people’s skulls, as in the Pro Diablo Ultimate Hunting Slingshot?
....

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#54 May 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you skipped over this, GayDavy:
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do understand the difference between STATE and FEDERAL, right traitor-troll? Or maybe not, considering how little you use your brain[?]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#55 May 13, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do understand the difference between STATE and FEDERAL,
~stomp stomp stomp~

GunShow1 wrote:
Why were there NO 'gun control laws' from 1791 all the way up to 1934?
Poor GayDavy: caught with his panties around his ankles again.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#56 May 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
~stomp stomp stomp~
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor GayDavy: caught with his panties around his ankles again.
You do understand the difference between STATE and FEDERAL, right traitor-troll? Or maybe not, considering how little you use your brain[?]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#57 May 13, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do understand the difference between STATE and FEDERAL, right traitor-troll?[?]
.
GunShow1 wrote:
Why were there NO 'gun control laws' from 1791 all the way up to 1934?
Gosh, what do "NO" gun control laws mean down in New Mexico, GayDavy?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#58 May 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
?
"87. Right of Self-defence.(a)

"There are some injuries which, once committed, cannot be adequately redressed. The taking of life is an extreme case of this kind. Against the commission of such injuries, therefore, every person should not only have the protection of government, when practicable, but should also have a right to defend himself. The right of self-defence would of course exist in a state of nature, and the social compact does not take it away; but the right of avenging an injury already committed is taken away. This is a fundamental distinction. You may prevent an injury from being done, by all proper means; but when done, you may not take redress in your own hands. The social compact provides a tribunal to which you are bound to resort; and abundant provision is made for securing the redress to which you may be entitled. Thus the right of self-defence and the right of redress are two distinct things; but both are equally guaranteed by the constitution. We have already seen that "the enjoying and defending life and liberty," is declared to be an inalienable right. Also, "that the people have a right to bear arms for their defence and security." (b) In England, this right is qualified by the condition, that the arms must be suitable to the condition and degree of the bearer; but here, there is no qualification."

(a) See 2 Story, Const. 1896; 1 Black. Com. 148.[A party may use reasonable force to defend the possession of his property, but he cannot use force against the person in regaining or obtaining the possession of property to which he is entitled. 3 Black. Com. 4, 179; Sampson v. Henry, 11 Pick. 387; 1 Bishop, Crim. Law, 397; 1 Hilliard on Torts, ch. v. ss 12, pp 196, 197.]
(b)[This provision is not infringed by a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. State v. Jumel, 13 La. An. 399.]

- Timothy Walker, LL.D,[INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW. DESIGNED AS A FIRST BOOK FOR STUDENTS. BY TIMOTHY WALKER LL.D. LATE PROFESSOR OF LAW IN THE CINCINATTI COLLEGE. FIFTH EDITION, REVISED BY J. BRYANT WALKER, OF THE CINCINNATI BAR. BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY 1869.]

It is self-evident that the right to arms is corollary to the Right to Self-Defense. Which of course is a natural right that can NEVER be surrendered, even after entering into society. It is a retained right that NO person can be deprived of by ANY law of man. Thus making the RESTRICTIVE clause found in the 2nd amendment; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed" abundantly clear in meaning.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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 Court: Banning Doctors From Asking About Firear... Wed payme 1
News With Obama leaving, Congressional Republicans l... Wed WasteWater 38
News Those Who Plan and Enjoy Murder Tue justice 1
News Pennsylvanians ask feds to help disarm intimida... (Aug '13) Feb 21 Sisboi Markie 22
News Will Sixty Senators Vote To Protect The Second ... Feb 19 Trump your President 8
News Pistol permit fees would quadruple under the bu... Feb 19 frankspeak 2
News GOA Addresses Congress in Favor of Concealed Ca... Feb 18 jimwildrickjr 2
More from around the web