3D Printing Guns Is Now A Fact Of Constitutionalism: Deal With It, Statists

[Aegis]

Personally, I think the 3D printed gun thing is much ado about nothing. You'd be about as well served with a homemade musket.

Regarding the Second Amendment, misunderstandings proliferate. It was written with the sole intent of providing for a standing army at a point in time wherein the nation possessed none. This has obviously since become obsolete.

The misunderstanding is yours. The Founders were specifically opposed to standing armies, and did not trust them. Read the Federalist Papers, specifically #29 and #46. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the government. And the Supreme Court confirmed that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right in DC vs. Heller in 2008.

 

[CTDolan]

I beg to differ on this. Our founding fathers were rebels with a cause. The cause was freedom from an oppressive government. And I believe the term referred to in A2 is "militia", not army. And wasn't militia at that time meant as a citizen group of armed men?

In any case, IMO A2 had more to do defending the rights of the people from an oppressive government. And our constitution, and especially our Bill of Rights was and is meant to do just that.

Not simply to arm the government.

Yes, because it was to be a militia (a conscript “army”, as opposed to an enlisted force). However, that said, the point regarding defense against an oppressive government is one that remains open to interpretation. In this regard a case may be made either way (often the situation when it comes to controversial topics...hence the controversy).

For now, certain freedoms remain. With all hope no ground is lost (or at least none more than already has been...we owners and users of firearms need to take the lead, that way, as opposed to the NRA, in my opinion).

 

[mrpoindexter]

I would imagine that if somebody wanted to see why an inherent right to bear arms might be necessary, they could look at South Africa.

 

[Aegis]

Yes, because it was to be a militia (a conscript “army”, as opposed to an enlisted force). However, that said, the point regarding defense against an oppressive government is one that remains open to interpretation. In this regard a case may be made either way (often the situation when it comes to controversial topics...hence the controversy).

For now, certain freedoms remain. With all hope no ground is lost (or at least none more than already has been...we owners and users of firearms need to take the lead, that way, as opposed to the NRA, in my opinion).

"Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

From the Supreme Court ruling in DC vs Heller. There is no longer any "controversy" over whether or not the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right.

 

[CTDolan]

Do your research, please, as per absolute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

The adversary will contradict, given even a minimal opportunity.

 

[sestoppelman]

Personally, I think the 3D printed gun thing is much ado about nothing. You'd be about as well served with a homemade musket.

Regarding the Second Amendment, misunderstandings proliferate. It was written with the sole intent of providing for a standing army at a point in time wherein the nation possessed none. This has obviously since become obsolete.

Wrong on all accounts! The 2nd Amendment is all about being able to fight tyranny, or if you prefer all enemies foreign and domestic. Do your homework!

 

[sestoppelman]

Don't ya just love it when a guy on a gun and hunting forum wants to say we have no gun rights! Unbelievable! There are plenty of places in this world that have no Bill of Rights you know... just sayin.

 

[ActionBob]

Don't ya just love it when a guy on a gun and hunting forum wants to say we have no gun rights! Unbelievable! There are plenty of places in this world that have no Bill of Rights you know... just sayin.

Like Australia..... I picked up a newspaper the other day where they were discussing that very topic.

 

[Dr Ray]

They would have to be pretty low pressured rounds. I would think that a common centerfire would blow the gun up if fired in it.

I thought that too

 

[Aegis]

Do your research, please, as per absolute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

The adversary will contradict, given even a minimal opportunity.

It's right here (emphasis mine):

"Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

 

[sestoppelman]

Beats me how anyone with any gray matter between their ears can still look at it as a "militia" only thing. Why when in all of the Bill of Rights, the "people" are considered individuals, would it somehow be that in the 2nd Amendment, the people are a collective? Without the 2nd, the rest of the Bill is just paper. Its number two for a reason.