Legally manufacture unserialized firearms in the comfort of your own home


Recommended Posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Even if I possessed the machining expertise, I'm not comfortable with that... especially when it's not a big problem to buy and legally register firearms.

Greg

Agreed.

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

". . . it's not a big problem to buy and legally register firearms."

Gun registration is a problem only for criminals and terrorists. Decent citizens need not fear a government list of who has the weapons. We are a nation based on trust! And if government ever does seize our arms, we can console ourselves with the knowledge that we deserved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if government ever does seize our arms...

Notice how weak and passive your thought processes are, Frank? You chose to reference the point in time after the fact... while ignoring what can happen before it occurs.

That's how victims think... after the fact.

They don't think preemptively.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

". . . it's not a big problem to buy and legally register firearms."

Gun registration is a problem only for criminals and terrorists. Decent citizens need not fear a government list of who has the weapons. We are a nation based on trust! And if government ever does seize our arms, we can console ourselves with the knowledge that we deserved it.

This is sarcasm but it's a sarcasm too far. I wish you'd do some straight-arming and stop seeming to run at the wrong goal post. Don't be a kosher intellectual.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No citizen should ever register any weapon with any government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No citizen should ever register any weapon with any government.

The problem is "any."

--Brant

if there be a problem

Agreed and a chance I am willing to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if government ever does seize our arms...

Notice how weak and passive your thought processes are, Frank? You chose to reference the point in time after the fact... while ignoring what can happen before it occurs.

That's how victims think... after the fact.

They don't think preemptively.

Greg

Yeah, a victim would think after the fact and register his weapon with the government after it breaks bad. If you're smart like me and you, you think preemptively: "It's not a big problem to buy and legally register firearms" right now when the good guys are still in charge. The ones that treat us as decent as we are. They may have our names, addresses and gun serial numbers, but we have the freaking guns, baby!

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, a victim would think after the fact and register his weapon with the government after it breaks bad. If you're smart like me and you, you think preemptively: "It's not a big problem to buy and legally register firearms" right now when the good guys are still in charge. The ones that treat us as decent as we are. They may have our names, addresses and gun serial numbers, but we have the freaking guns, baby!

Yeah, that's what I meant.

I've yet to see the violation of the principle of the US government treating each individual as decent as they are... neither in my own life, nor observed in the lives of others. This is because the government answers to exactly the same higher moral law that everyone else does.

The government is not the enemy.

So if you ~feel~ that you are being treated unfairly by the government, you'd do well to change how you are living your life instead of angrily blaming (unjustly accusing) the government for the consequences of your own failure.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've yet to see the violation of the principle of the US government treating each individual as decent as they are... neither in my own life, nor observed in the lives of others. This is because the government answers to exactly the same higher moral law that everyone else does.

The government is not the enemy.

Decent people are entitled to keep the property they earned through their own labor and not have it seized by the IRS.

Decent people ere entitled to grow herbs for their own use or to trade with others without being placed in a federal cage.

Decent people are entitled to pay whatever wage they want for a job without being fined or imprisoned.

Decent people are entitled to possess, trade, and sell weapons without being threatened by federal officers.

Of course, your definition of "decent" may be anyone who bows to the will of government. Obama is not our enemy. He's our friend.

obama-the-saint.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, a victim would think after the fact and register his weapon with the government after it breaks bad. If you're smart like me and you, you think preemptively: "It's not a big problem to buy and legally register firearms" right now when the good guys are still in charge. The ones that treat us as decent as we are. They may have our names, addresses and gun serial numbers, but we have the freaking guns, baby!

Yeah, that's what I meant.

I've yet to see the violation of the principle of the US government treating each individual as decent as they are... neither in my own life, nor observed in the lives of others. This is because the government answers to exactly the same higher moral law that everyone else does.

The government is not the enemy.

So if you ~feel~ that you are being treated unfairly by the government, you'd do well to change how you are living your life instead of angrily blaming (unjustly accusing) the government for the consequences of your own failure.

Greg

Sorry, Greg. Not only is this complete horse shit, it's horse shit on stilts (with the horse on stilts going around and around in circles).

You fail to understand that what you've made work 100% on your own personal level--so you think--cannot be extended in its moral innocence and purity to infinity. You are intellectually purblind. In this sense you are kind of like Ba'al (Bob), but completely out of the ballpark of facts, logic, reason, and interesting ratiocination. The pure discounting of evil to victims' default is a moral obscenity on the face of it. (You get off that hook with proper consideration of the source, but that's a lot of work.)

Since this will not offend you--or inform you either, BTW--I'm not writing it for you, just everybody else who reads it. I'm here on OL, baseline, to defend Objectivism so nobody gets away with anything contrary if I come across it, at least apropos my level of understanding. I even defend it from Ayn Rand. In that sense I am an OL site moderator. I don't ban or delete just call spades spades. I suspect I've helped drive off a lot of posters here for that reason--or set them up to be knocked down. With only one or two exceptions, ironically, I've never actually wanted anyone to leave, including you. I love having someone or something to shoot at and I shoot at what they write, generally speaking.

Now, personally, you've been the single most valuable poster on OL for me. A great irony, I suppose. But the irony doesn't tickle me and now I'm bored. I'm through shooting at you. It's another irony that that's out of respect to you.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

obama-the-saint.jpg

OK, all together now...

In the name of ME,

And of the SON, ME,

And the Holy Ghost oops, Spirit, ME,

AMEN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You fail to understand that what you've made work 100% on your own personal level--so you think--cannot be extended in its moral innocence and purity to infinity.

Well Brant... it only matters to me that living by moral law works 100% within my own personal sphere of influence, because within my personal sphere of influence includes everyone with whom I interact on a face to face basis. That's all I need to work, because that's all I'm responsible for. Everything else is the responsibility of others, because I have no control over what goes on outside of my sphere of influence.

Everyone else is on their own to figure out for themselves how the world works. I know how the world works for me simply by observing the empirical results of the operation of moral law in my own life.

So while I don't know what moral law is... I do know how it works... and that's all that matters. :wink:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice Potter Stewart...I know it when I see it - hard core pornography...

To the general public, Stewart may be best known for a quotation, or a fragment thereof, from his opinion in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."[13] Usually dropped from the quote is the remainder of that sentence, "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Justice Stewart went on to defend the movie in question (Louis Malle's The Lovers) against further censorship. One noted commentator opined that: "This observation summarizes Stewart's judicial philosophy: particularistic, intuitive, and pragmatic."[13] Justice Stewart later recanted this view in Miller v. California, in which he accepted that his prior view was simply untenable.

Justice Stewart commented about his second thoughts about that quotation in 1981. “In a way I regret having said what I said about obscenity -- that’s going to be on my tombstone. When I remember all of the other solid words I’ve written,” he said, “I regret a little bit that if I’ll be remembered at all I’ll be remembered for that particular phrase.” Washington Post Obituary

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice Potter Stewart...I know it when I see it - hard core pornography...

To the general public, Stewart may be best known for a quotation, or a fragment thereof, from his opinion in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."[13] Usually dropped from the quote is the remainder of that sentence, "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Justice Stewart went on to defend the movie in question (Louis Malle's The Lovers) against further censorship. One noted commentator opined that: "This observation summarizes Stewart's judicial philosophy: particularistic, intuitive, and pragmatic."[13] Justice Stewart later recanted this view in Miller v. California, in which he accepted that his prior view was simply untenable.

Justice Stewart commented about his second thoughts about that quotation in 1981. “In a way I regret having said what I said about obscenity -- that’s going to be on my tombstone. When I remember all of the other solid words I’ve written,” he said, “I regret a little bit that if I’ll be remembered at all I’ll be remembered for that particular phrase.” Washington Post Obituary

A...

One consequence of this is members of the SCOTUS started screening movies for pornography. One Justice, at least, Douglas, never bothered. I'm not sure if the "Warren Court" was still the Warren Court at that time. My grandfather was likely friends of every liberal on that court. The last book he wrote published in his lifetime, (Brant) Impeachment (1972), was to protect Douglas from just that and Congressman Gerald Ford, who wanted to hang him out to dry.

--Brant

stupid is as stupid does

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, a victim would think after the fact and register his weapon with the government after it breaks bad. If you're smart like me and you, you think preemptively: "It's not a big problem to buy and legally register firearms" right now when the good guys are still in charge. The ones that treat us as decent as we are. They may have our names, addresses and gun serial numbers, but we have the freaking guns, baby!

Yeah, that's what I meant.

I've yet to see the violation of the principle of the US government treating each individual as decent as they are... neither in my own life, nor observed in the lives of others. This is because the government answers to exactly the same higher moral law that everyone else does.

The government is not the enemy.

So if you ~feel~ that you are being treated unfairly by the government, you'd do well to change how you are living your life instead of angrily blaming (unjustly accusing) the government for the consequences of your own failure.

Greg

Save your ass is all you are saying.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now