Guns and Stuff.

[2ndRateMind]

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You mean like this $120 .22 caliber rifle?

Ha ha! I guess they aren't then. But I'm happy you don't have machine guns universally available. So the issue seems to be not quite so clear cut as 'I have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms', but more a matter of which arms I have a right to keep and bear. Can we agree on that?

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited May 19, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[jerome1232]

1) semi-autos are legal for civilians.

 

2) Automatic weapons are illegal for civilians to own.*

*There is a process to purchase historic automatic weapons.  They aren't easy or cheap to get.

Edited May 19, 2018 by jerome1232

[2ndRateMind]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Notice that once you remove the ambiguous meaning of "assault rifle" then the answers are crystal clear.

Indeed so. So this little sub discussion has not been entirely useless, in that we now all understand each other a little better. As Winston Churchill once pointed out, Americans and Britons are two peoples divided by a common language.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[jerome1232]

This is really a look into what runs through my head when people call for gun control.

 

The inner mind of Jerome1232

[estradling75]

14 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Ha ha! I guess they aren't then. But I'm happy you don't have machine guns universally available. So the issue seems to be not quite so clear cut as 'I have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms', but more a matter of which arms I have a right to keep and bear. Can we agree on that?

Best wishes, 2RM

Indeed... Note that all these NRA membered, conceal carrying, 2nd Amendment supporting, people have been ok with this 'Sensible' Gun Control laws for one hundred years.  And yet they get the blame for being unwilling to be 'Sensible' about gun control.  Whereas people who need to be told the difference between Full-auto, semi-auto, and assault weapon try to claim the high-ground on 'Sensible' Gun control discussions, and paint the others as totally irrational

[2ndRateMind]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

How so? Do you think that someone oppressing another from exercising his rights somehow makes those rights cease to exist?

As I have already pointed out, my position is that rights do not exist unless they are enshrined in law and enforced by the nation state. In the presence of such law and such enforcement, an individual 'oppressing' another individual clearly does not impact the existence of those rights. But in the absence of such law and such enforcement, it seems to me that no individual has rights, and one individual oppressing another individual does not make them suddenly appear.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[mordorbund]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

And how did Optimus and Rodimus become prime?  There are two of them.

There can be two primes (there's provably more that 2), but one prime cannot be a multiple of another. In the case of the autobots, it's a bit more complicated because the matrix of leadership is involved but the principle is the same. Both are primes because of their matrices.

 

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

my position is that rights do not exist unless they are enshrined in law and enforced by the nation state.

Then your position is directly contrary to that of the US founding document, "The Declaration of Independence". Seeing as how you're talking with a group of mostly Americans, your definitions on this matter are not likely to be accepted.

We have the fundamental right of keeping and bearing arms. That is a "natural" right -- a God-given right, if you are a theist. You need not believe that, but we do. Your efforts to convert us to a more European view of rights is unlikely to be successful; therefore, your insistence that a European view of the matter of firearm ownership sheds the least light on the matter is unwarranted and futile.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

rights do not exist unless they are enshrined in law and enforced by the nation state.

That is a fundamental disagreement that will ever be the barrier to understanding.

We believe that we are endowed by our creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the use of such to pursue happiness.  Government does not endow these rights to us.  Governments are instituted among men to secure these rights. 

Big difference between government granting rights vs. securing rights.

Edited May 19, 2018 by Guest

[person0]

11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed... Note that all these NRA membered, conceal carrying, 2nd Amendment supporting, people have been ok with this 'Sensible' Gun Control laws for one hundred years.

I suppose you can rule me out of the sensible club.  I believe that there should be exactly 0 infringement on civilian ownership of arms.  If the government can have fully automatic weapons, I should be able to have one.  However, I acknowledge and accept the fact that is pretty much never going to happen.

Reality indicates to me that with the advent of 3d printing, and with the relatively new branch of 3d printing metals, eventually, anyone who wants any type of gun will be able to reproduce a functioning model.  Therefore, further resulting in the failure of any form of gun legislation.  Criminal enterprises will be able to produce their own fully automatic weapons, and will not even need to worry about smuggling, etc.

[2ndRateMind]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Then your position is directly contrary to that of the US founding document, "The Declaration of Independence".

Indeed. I am aware of that. That doesn't make me wrong and The Declaration of Independence right, in our differing philosophies on rights. Doubtless the founding fathers were wise men, but I have the advantage both of learning from them, and the developments of the last two centuries.

Quote

Seeing as how you're talking with a group of mostly Americans, your definitions on this matter are not likely to be accepted.

Perhaps not. But if I have arguments justifying my position to proffer for your consideration, I would hope you would, at least, discuss them, if only with the intention of explaining to me why I am incorrect.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

24 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

As I have already pointed out, my position is that rights do not exist unless they are enshrined in law and enforced by the nation state. In the presence of such law and such enforcement, an individual 'oppressing' another individual clearly does not impact the existence of those rights. But in the absence of such law and such enforcement, it seems to me that no individual has rights, and one individual oppressing another individual does not make them suddenly appear.

Best wishes, 2RM.

This strikes me as being the difference between a “citizen” and a “subject”.

2RM, there’s a certain appealing realpolitik to your approach; but what then is the basis on which oppressed minorities can seek redress?  On what basis can a 1940s European Jew claim that the Holocaust was morally wrong?  On what basis does a 2013 American gay claim the right to marry his chosen partner?

[Vort]

For the benefit of @2ndRateMind, assuming he's an honest man and not just a lying troll, here are some questions he overlooked:

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sure.  And can we also agree that @Carborendum‘s position has consistently been that such weapons are effectively banned in the US, and have been for the better part of a hundred years?

 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Can I be any more clear than:

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I believe your confusion seems to be based on two things.

• The difference between state and federal laws.  Federal laws are those passed by the national government in Washington D.C.
• Definition of assault rifle.

The Federal Government passed the National Firearms Act which effectively makes any "machine guns" illegal to own by civilians.  So, regardless of state laws or lack of state laws, any fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US.

The term "assault weapon" doesn't have a widely recognized legal definition.  The State laws are there to define that term.  The commonly recognized definition by firearms manufacturers, experts, and officianados, would require that the weapon be fully automatic.

Some states are trying to change that definition so they can make additional weapons illegal.  Since the term "machine gun" is already defined federally, the states decided to define a different, but related word so they can further infringe on our gun rights.

What specific statement here is so confusing that you could not find the answer to your question above?

I am confident that @2ndRateMind, paragon of virtue and honesty that he is, simply missed these questions and will now quickly respond to them.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Quote

Seeing as how you're talking with a group of mostly Americans, your definitions on this matter are not likely to be accepted.

Perhaps not. But if I have arguments justifying my position to proffer for your consideration, I would hope you would, at least, discuss them, if only with the intention of explaining to me why I am incorrect.

Please detail which arguments you have presented that establish the word "rights" as meaning what you claim rather than meaning what I claim. I have seen no such arguments from you, only assertions.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, person0 said:

Reality indicates to me that with the advent of 3d printing, and with the relatively new branch of 3d printing metals, eventually, anyone who wants any type of gun will be able to reproduce a functioning model.  

I used to say that this would never be the answer until you could do 3d printing with metal.  Well, I just found out that this is now a reality.  Currently, the technology is so crazy expensive that it will not be commonly available for another generation or two.

Solder based 3D printers may not be too far away.  But there would be some logistical issues to solve.  And solder is not that ductile as metals go.

[2ndRateMind]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

For the benefit of @2ndRateMind, assuming he's an honest man and not just a lying troll, here are some questions he overlooked:

 

I am confident that @2ndRateMind, paragon of virtue and honesty that he is, simply missed these questions and will now quickly respond to them.

Vort, my dear friend, I truly think you are beginning to tend towards the passive aggressive! Welcome to the club! We'll make a debate out of this discussion yet!

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I used to say that this would never be the answer until you could do 3d printing with metal.  Well, I just found out that this is now a reality.  Currently, the technology is so crazy expensive that it will not be commonly available for another generation or two.

Solder based 3D printers may not be too far away.  But there would be some logistical issues to solve.  And solder is not that ductile as metals go.

Two obvious possibilities:

1. 3-D printing with metal powders that are then sintered into solid metal. This would require sintering technology that would produce strong, non-brittle results, which is not a huge leap of science fiction to envision in a relatively short time.

2. Lost-wax printing (or some functional equivalent, like expanded polystyrene blanks for sand-casting) could produce the desired outcome in a home garage setting, even today.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Indeed. I am aware of that. That doesn't make me wrong and The Declaration of Independence right, in our differing philosophies on rights. Doubtless the founding fathers were wise men, but I have the advantage both of learning from them, and the developments of the last two centuries.

And what exactly has developed in the past two centuries that would inform you that our rights are NOT endowed by our Creator?

What in the past two centuries has changed the following to become right instead of wrong:

Someone harming you physically.

Someone stealing from you.

Someone imprisoning you for their own pleasure.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Vort, my dear friend, I truly think you are beginning to tend towards the passive aggressive! Welcome to the club! We'll make a debate out of this discussion yet!

For the benefit of @2ndRateMind, assuming he's an honest man and not just a lying troll, here are some questions he overlooked:

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sure.  And can we also agree that @Carborendum‘s position has consistently been that such weapons are effectively banned in the US, and have been for the better part of a hundred years?

 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Can I be any more clear than:

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I believe your confusion seems to be based on two things.

• The difference between state and federal laws.  Federal laws are those passed by the national government in Washington D.C.
• Definition of assault rifle.

The Federal Government passed the National Firearms Act which effectively makes any "machine guns" illegal to own by civilians.  So, regardless of state laws or lack of state laws, any fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US.

The term "assault weapon" doesn't have a widely recognized legal definition.  The State laws are there to define that term.  The commonly recognized definition by firearms manufacturers, experts, and officianados, would require that the weapon be fully automatic.

Some states are trying to change that definition so they can make additional weapons illegal.  Since the term "machine gun" is already defined federally, the states decided to define a different, but related word so they can further infringe on our gun rights.

What specific statement here is so confusing that you could not find the answer to your question above?

I am confident that @2ndRateMind, paragon of virtue and honesty that he is, simply missed these questions and will now quickly respond to them.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Two obvious possibilities:

1. 3-D printing with metal powders that are then sintered into solid metal. This would require sintering technology that would produce strong, non-brittle results, which is not a huge leap of science fiction to envision in a relatively short time.

I believe that is what the current technology does.  But as I said, it is crazy expensive.

It will be a while before it becomes commercially available.

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

2. Lost-wax printing (or some functional equivalent, like expanded polystyrene blanks for sand-casting) could produce the desired outcome in a home garage setting, even today.

I'm not really familiar with this.  How does this satisfy the temperature and strength properties desired in printing a gun?

[2ndRateMind]

19 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

2RM, there’s a certain appealing realpolitik to your approach; but what then is the basis on which oppressed minorities can seek redress?  On what basis can a 1940s European Jew claim that the Holocaust was morally wrong?  On what basis does a 2013 American gay claim the right to marry his chosen partner?

Exactly. The only bases I can see by which oppressed minorities have ever received redress has been either violent revolution, or gradual social progress. Certainly, appeals to the divine provenance of universal human rights never seem to have done the trick. On the contrary, churches tend to be conservative institutions, and to their shame, have often supported an unjust status quo rather than equitable reform. Maybe that will all change, one day. I hope so.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited May 19, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Quote

2. Lost-wax printing (or some functional equivalent, like expanded polystyrene blanks for sand-casting) could produce the desired outcome in a home garage setting, even today.

I'm not really familiar with this.  How does this satisfy the temperature and strength properties desired in printing a gun?

You print the gun out in a wax form, then use the "lost-wax" method to cast it. This means that you pack the wax form inside and out with binder-laced sand, wait for the sand to set up, then melt out the wax and pour molten metal into the resulting cavity. Not quite as convenient as straight 3-D printing, but well within the capabilities of your average garage tinkerer who watches YouTube videos.

If you could set up a 3-D printer that printed in expanded polystyrene (aka Styrofoam), you could do this same thing but even simpler, by burying the form in plain old (fine-grained) sand and pouring directly onto the form. As long as you have machining tools, this could work just fine.

[Vort]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This strikes me as being the difference between a “citizen” and a “subject”.

2RM, there’s a certain appealing realpolitik to your approach; but what then is the basis on which oppressed minorities can seek redress?  On what basis can a 1940s European Jew claim that the Holocaust was morally wrong?  On what basis does a 2013 American gay claim the right to marry his chosen partner?

Exactly. The only bases I can see by which oppressed minorities have ever received redress has been either violent revolution, or gradual social progress. Certainly, appeals to the divine provenance of human rights never seem to have done the trick. On the contrary, churches tend to be conservative institutions, and to their shame, have often supported an unjust status quo rather than equitable reform. Maybe that will all change, one day. I hope so.

"Exactly" is not an answer, but another passive-aggressive dodge. Answer the questions. On what basis can oppressed minorities seek redress, if not by appeal to natural rights?

Seriously, @2ndRateMind, your status as an honest participant is being greatly strained. One might be led to think you're nothing but a lying troll. But I'm sure you'll go right ahead and respond to all those questions, as any honest participant would.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Exactly. The only bases I can see by which oppressed minorities have ever received redress has been either violent revolution, or gradual social progress. Certainly, appeals to the divine provenance of universal human rights never seem to have done the trick. On the contrary, churches tend to be conservative institutions, and to their shame, have often supported an unjust status quo rather than equitable reform. Maybe that will all change, one day. I hope so.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

The trouble I see here is that you aren’t elucidating any theory for the protection of the disempowered; other than that if they think they can take power forcibly they should try to do so, out of nothing more than bare self-interest.  What am I missing?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

You print the gun out in a wax form, then use the "lost-wax" method to cast it. This means that you pack the wax form inside and out with binder-laced sand, wait for the sand to set up, then melt out the wax and pour molten metal into the resulting cavity. Not quite as convenient as straight 3-D printing, but well within the capabilities of your average garage tinkerer who watches YouTube videos.

If you could set up a 3-D printer that printed in expanded polystyrene (aka Styrofoam), you could do this same thing but even simpler, by burying the form in plain old (fine-grained) sand and pouring directly onto the form. As long as you have machining tools, this could work just fine.

This sounds like we're combining several large pieces of equipment that will take up a LARGE amount of space. I have a CR-10 printer.  It is considered a rather large model for a desktop model.  I don't see how the lost-wax process could be miniaturized to this point or even close.  Could it?