Recent posts by jhco50 on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Yes tenco, you are right. Vika is an expert at everything and the last 45 years as part of the firearms community taught me nothing. I don’t doubt her abililty with her chosen field and would not dream of arguing with her about it. That is where she knows what she is doing, but when it comes to firearms, that is my forte. I can run rings around most of you about them and the politics involving them. I have fought this same fight many times against those who don’t’ know what they are talking about yet have an uninformed opinion on the subject. I have given you people fact after fact and you ignored them to continue on with your emotional pleas. You yourself have admitted these laws will not stop these killings, yet you come at me with at least it might help. No logic, but a willingness to give up freedoms for what you perceive as a little security. According to a well known person (you wouldn’t care who), you deserve neither.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Karma, I understand losing is really upsetting to you, but life can be tough. The laws in Colorado that were passed without public input have come home to roost. That bothered you too. Now Colorado is being sued by the sheriffs in that state,

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/4/nra-supports-lawsuit-against-gun-control-in-colorado.aspx

If you think gun owners and the organizations they belong to are going to roll over and play dead, you are a brick short of a s*&^house. You and your buddies can continue to pretend the gun owners are fractured and incapable of organizing, but you have buried your head in the sand.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/4/confiscate-confiscate!.aspx

You complain because I name those who are behind this push for gun confiscation, which is exactly what they are trying to do, but Obama is not making a secret of his agenda.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/4/obama-administration-to-sign-un-arms-trade-treaty-in-the-very-near-future.aspx

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by thijser:

They have a total ammo need per year let’s call it x and bought a amount of y.
Now this stockpile is going to last them y/x years. During these years they either keep buying ammo thus wasting resources and letting the market adjust their production (thus lowering prices by allowing for mass production) or they are going to stop buying more ammo until they have used their supply thus reducing price by lowering demand. It’s simply impassible to increase the long therm price of a resource that’s easy to mass produce by buying it in large quantities. If they wanted to increase ammo prices all they need to do is increase their import tariffs and impose higher health requirements for their workers (find dangerous gunpowder components and increase their safety requirements). Not only would this increase the price of ammo it would also earn money trough the increased tariffs and decreased healthcare cost (sure not much but it’s better then paying for a large amount of ammo).

If the congressional hearings determine homeland security has been buying ammo to limit supply, it will probably be to take it off the shelves, not necessarily to raise the prices. articles I have read suggest they have purchased enough ammunition to fight a war for several years. whether that is accurate or not I don’t know. I have read they have purchased 4.7 million cartridges through different bureaucracies, such as the social security administration. I think that could be suspect right there, unless the SSA is planning on attacking old people. :)

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

I don’t think so thijser. All of the ammo companies are working at full production, but they know it will subside eventually and they don’t want a lot of new equipment sitting idle when it is all over. I have noticed some new companies sprouting up but the are small and limited in production. Whether or not these small upstarts stay after the run on ammunition is yet to be seen. I think a couple will and the rest go under. It really can’t be determined at this point. I do know a lot of the gun manufacturers have quit taking orders and are backlogged. I have also heard from a good source that prices on the military (black rifles as we call them) looking rifles are starting to come down which means the run may be subsiding.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Well, I personally think they may be trying to dry up the market on ammo. It would make sense since they can’t stop the exaggerated sale of firearms. I haven’t heard any of the people investigating it say so, but that would be my best guess. They may be succeeding too, ammo shelves are pretty bare.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by JohnRulz:

I make gunpowder all the time. It is good fun.

---

Looks like our only real option at the moment is to start regulating ammunition the best we can, put serial numbers inside the casings as I suggested before, or use some other method (chemical or radioactive marker? RFID?). Ammo smuggling would become a problem.

Regulating the harder to print weapons (such as assault rifles) is still an option, but handgun regulation is pretty futile at this point, and will become increasingly so.

Actually, homeland security basically tried that. they are under investigation now for the large quantities of ammunition they have purchased. they have been buying almost as much as the military and the house and senate want to know why and for what purpose.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

just for informational purposes.

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:21357

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:23030

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsLVjkI5Czg

It seems it is possible to be able to print the rifling in a barrel. At least it is possible to print a nut and bolt.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Karma, you see strong, deep merit only in the parts that suit you. I see the merit in the entire document. It is the basis for our entire form of government. The Bill of Rights are what give you the freedom to sound like a dufus.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by thijser:

Originally posted by jhco50:

Thiser, do you really think killing babies would be considered a basic right? These are rights considered to belong to all human beings. It doesn’t matter how old the Constitution is. the way it was written allowed it to continue as is for all time. Read it sometime and you will see what I am talking about.

However just because the founding fathers decided it is a right makes it a right which is protected by the ideas by the founding fathers that these rights should be protected. It all seems kinda circular don’t you think? What if one of them was crazy and put something like killing babies in there? Shouldn’t we be able to chance it if the majority felt like it?

They didn’t just decide it was a right. It was/is established that all human beings have certain inalienable rights. What would be included in the Constitution was discussed thoroughly.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Thiser, do you really think killing babies would be considered a basic right? These are rights considered to belong to all human beings. It doesn’t matter how old the Constitution is. the way it was written allowed it to continue as is for all time. Read it sometime and you will see what I am talking about.

Let me post the Bill of Rights for your perusal. These are the rights Americans cherish so much.

BILL OF RIGHTS

Article I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Karma, do you actually comprehend what is being said before you go into you diatribes? Read them as a whole and answer them within the context they were made. They were not made with any aggression, yet you seem to be ignoring that fact. Does losing the battle over gun control bother you that much? And stop with the F*bomb, it makes you sound like you have no vocabulary at your disposal.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

I have explained it a few pages back. I will give a brief explanation. Our basic rights are enumerated in our constitution as the bill of rights. They are rights given to us, as we say, by god. God given rights. The Bill of Rights were put into the Constitution to protect American citizens from our government.

A privilege is given to us by laws created by our governments. Our rights cannot be legislated away (supposedly) while a law can be changed with the stroke of a pen. When our government was created, the people of the original 13 states insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would sign on to the Constitution. The Constitution limits the power of our government. In other words, the Constitution is the rule of law for the United States.

Because we have our basic rights enumerated in this document, our government cannot just take those rights. Driving, being allowed by legislation can easily be taken away by that same government by changing the law. I hope I made that clear enough for you, it’s kind of hard to read.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by tenco1:

Originally posted by jhco50:Not mentioned before, it was the NRA that supported the background check system.

Perfectly sound reasoning that they now treat it like the second worse thing since the plague.

This system will eventually be usurped.

By what, by who? Actually, why would it?

Originally posted by jhco50:

Tenco, I was not trying to slap vika on her post.

Did I say you were?

I was clearing up some misinformation.

See vika’s post after yours.

You really don’t need to protect her.

I have a problem with people assuming the wrong reason why I say what I say, don’t I?

Okay little fella. Although NRA supported the NICS in it’s present form, it did not support the changes proposed for it. The changes were blatantly unconstitutional and far reaching beyond the purpose of it. That and they would allow an already abusive government agency even more power and room for abuse. Remember the gun-running to Mexico? Yeah, that was the same agency, the BATFE.

If and when people have the ability to print a weapon (not likely in the near future) the NICS would not be used by those printing the guns. Why would they? Print what you want and go on about your business. It would have other problems as well. All guns made in modern times have a serial number stamped on the frame somewhere. A printed gun would not have one. It would be a throwaway weapon.

Your ability to be a real smart-ass tends to lead people to assume sarcastic intentions in all of your answers.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Yes Vika, that is the correct link, thank you for fixing it. A normal CAD file will not work in printing. I know, I used AutoCad for years. My son now uses Cad and another program I’m not familiar with. He also works (as a matter of fact, he helped design one) with 3D printers. We discussed this very subject yesterday and he told me the file had to be a different format than a normal Cad file. I suppose it can be converted.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Tenco, I was not trying to slap vika on her post. I was clearing up some misinformation. You really don’t need to protect her.

3d printers use IGES files, Initial Graphics Exchange Specification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/iges

No Tenco, they will not be the only two weapons to be printed. They are the beginning, but they are a long way from perfected.

Yes, this disturbs me a bit as criminals will easily aquire what ever they want. The laws we have accepted as ok will become null and void. Not mentioned before, it was the NRA that supported the background check system. This system will eventually be usurped.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Not to mention Ung, the taxes and fees collected for driving licenses and vehicle fees the individual states collect for their own use. All of our driving laws are by state, as they should be, and each state sets the fees and taxes for this privilege. Our state for instance must have voter approval for increases in a tax, because of the “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” passed in this state several years ago. As a consequence, our state levies fees, as they don’t need voter approval. Fees on the privilege of driving an automobile have gone dramatically up, making it very difficult on some of our citizens. The purpose of the increase had nothing to do with safety or assumption of any risk, it had to do with our state wanting more revenue.

What I am trying to explain is this. If (already defeated) our government managed to pass requirements for firearms as they do for automobiles and driving, it wouldn’t be long before they made everything more difficult and expensive to fill their coffers with more of the taxpayers money. Give the government an inch and they want a mile. It has always worked this way. This is the main reason we have social programs that are so bloated, we gave them an inch. As I have stated before though, firearms ownership is a right and driving is a privilege. This is extremely important in this discussion. If we let our government break our bill of rights (give an inch), they will continue to degrade them until there was nothing left. They would dismantle our Constitution completely and the great experiment would be over. We would no longer be America the land of the free, but just another society under government rule. I have tried to get this across to the people on this forum for a long time. Our founding fathers didn’t trust government and made this very clear in their letters and essays. However, they recognized that we needed a representative for foreign matters and protection for the states as a whole. This is why they established our government the way they did….and why they wrote the Constitution the way they did.

Our Bill of Rights were established to protect us from our government and the propensity of all governments to pull more and more power to themselves. We have allowed our government to become bloated with too much power, power they were never supposed to have. This is the main difference between conservatives and liberals, or progressives as they like to be called. As a conservative, we believe is a less powerful government and strict adherence to our constitution as it was written. Liberals believe that a central government should be all powerful and rule the people. They believe the constitution is invalid and should basically be discarded as no longer being the rule of law since government would perform that function.

This is why this discussion on gun control has developed as it has. Two completely different views on the purpose of our government. One side has promoted a federal government with power over our rights as American citizens and the other side promotes a government that stays out of both the state and citizens lives. This disagreement will go on and on as we conservatives fight to protect our freedoms, our god given freedoms.

I wish the posters on this forum were more familiar with the core arguments that are a part of almost all of these different threads. I understand foreign posters having and opinion, and that is fine. But when they demand, they have gone over the line. It becomes exactly what they complain our government does with it’s military forces….interferes with a sovereign country and it’s culture.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Vicka and Karma, yes they have printed a gun with plastic, but you are now misleading the others on the capability of both the product and the printers. The printers you are suggesting (for metals) cost thousands of dollars, many thousands. Of course they have printers that will print metal within reason, but they are nowhere developed to a point where they are common as most are still being developed and experimented with. And they don’t use CAD drawing files to operate. They use a special file with special coding, but I overlook that mistake. A common person could never afford the 3D printers you describe. Just for your information.

Now, the guns that have been printed. To my knowledge, only two have been printed. An AR upper receiver that failed after 6 shots fired and a single shot handgun in .38 Special that is unwieldy. It is quite big to make up for the strength of the material used, plastic resin. Both were made entirely of this plastic resin. The handgun was very interesting to say the least. It was taken on a passenger train (as an experiment) and actually went through all of the checks. This was all filmed and you can find it on youtube.

Of course this sent shivers through the anti-gun crowd and Washington moved to remove the files for making it from the internet. They were too slow and I understand it was downloaded about a 100,000 times before they got it removed. Of course, this will present a problem in the future. As this is perfected and the printers become more affordable, yes, you will see more and more of these weapons surface. As far as being able to smuggle then on airlines? Probably.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Tenco, it is crap like that, that really hurts you posts. Childish and insulting, the very things I have mentioned several times to you. From what I read, Wepoke put a lot of time into his post. He researched the facts and presented them to you. In turn, you did just like all of you demanding gun-control do when you don’t have any legitimate argument, you insult and call names. I expect more from you.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Karma, I’m sorry I used a word you had trouble understanding, I probably should have used the f*bomb in some way so you could comprehend what I said.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by softest_voice:

And I believe YOU have lost all credibility as someone capable of discussing this issue rationally.

Any and all suggestions, no matter how reasonable, are dismissed.
You essentially just answer “BECUZ FREEDOM” to everything brought up, including the ongoing train of horrors that is children killed by firearms.

Your complete inflexibility is disgusting.

Many of us, myself included, are or were firearms owners.
And yet we don’t get all foamy when someone suggests that owning a firearm is a responsibility that needs some regulation, in order to keep people safe.

You roll out old chestnuts like the inaccurate “Well what about cars and knives huh?” analogies, and “It’s a TOOL”, which serve to further convince me that you simply do not care what happens to others, so long as you are allowed to feel “free”.

Meanwhile, you laud the likes of the NRA, a corporate front for the manufacturers that are gouging you at the register RIGHT NOW simply by feeding you some paranoid bullshit, knowing full well that you’ll swallow it down without hesitation.
Believing the propaganda and spending even more of your money to fatten the wallets of industry; that’s an interesting definition of “freedom” you’ve got there, old timer.

Before Newtown, Obama had done LITERALLY FUCKING NOTHING to curtail gun rights. He’d actually EXPANDED THEM in some areas, for fuck’s sake!
But OH NO NOBAMA COMIN FER MAH GUNZ!!!!

You’re a delusional moron. Kindly die and let the country move on in a more rational direction.

And pray tell, what do you consider credible, agreeing with you? The big “Compromise”? YOu know, that thing where we are happy with status quo, but you aren’t so you tell us we must compromise with your demands or we are unreasonable….or lacking credibility? You people slay me with your ignorant logic.

My inflexibility? Have you really shown any? Oops! Talking out the side of your mouth softest. I don’t really care if you owned, own, or any other improbable falsehood you might spew. What in your wildest dreams makes you credible and me not? Oh that’s right, you want something I won’t relinquish. You are so full of horse-pucky it makes me sick.

You and your ilk want a narrow discussion with you making the rules. One of those, let’s not look at violence as a whole, let’s not look at those countries with more violence, cars, knives, and all the other things that might muddy the waters for you. No, let’s keep it really narrow so people will only see what you want them to see.

Then you try to make out like I am just a sheep who believes everything that comes my way. Nice insult, but it’s you who seems to be repeating liberal talking points. Yet you haven’t yet showed how these bans and other BS will stop shootings like Sandy Hook, nor has the administration. What’s wrong, you can’t find any? My, my….that’s because these stupid laws you propose won’t do anything to curb this type of crime.

Before Newtown, Obama wanted reelected. Duh! He wouldn’t have had a chance if he attacked gun owners too early, but the indications were starting to surface. The treaty with the UN started in his second year. But of course that run around the constitution didn’t work. Guess what? He gave the indications before the second election, but he didn’t implement them until after the election. Don’t’ pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining bubba. The only thing he did to expand “any” gun rights, he passed one bill to allow firearms in national parks. Any other expansions were state implemented. I’m sure he took credit for them, but he is a liar.

You sir are the moron, thinking I would bend over so you feel important with touchy-feely arguments that are nothing but hot air. You my good man are the real moron.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by tenco1:

Originally posted by issendorf:

It’s a kid getting hold of a handgun in a house. You can’t legislate around accidents.

Have people give a shit about adequate storage of firearms?

Kids are always going to drown in puddles.

How-How does that happen?

I believe you have already lost your ability to infuse any reasonable argument as to why we should be remolded in your image of compliance.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by Draconavin:

Every think of not allowing him have access to a gun in the first place. Like the rest of the rational world. Like, I dunno, Australia, perhaps?
Whats with this emotional appeal to the second amendment. Ever gonna grow up? We could do away with the second amendment, and nothing would change. We could still allow people to have access to guns, and enjoy them, but allowing the rule of law—order—to keep the citizens safe. Everyone would love to play with nuclear waste, but we don’t give them the freedom to build their own mini-nuclear reactors or weapons to blow shit up? Do we now.

Of course it wouldn’t bother you to get rid of our 2nd Amendment. It wouldn’t affect you since you don’t live here. You want to tell me to grow up but I might ask the same of you if you think I am stupid enough to listen to an armchair outside do-gooder, with nothing to lose, tell me how I should live in my own country.