Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Monte_RCMS said:
With the cost of a 3-D printer dropping below $2000, and using metal instead of ink, anyone can print a gun.

There are now more than 100,000 freeware programs for 3-D printers.

OR, you could just use a laser scanner and make your own software for your 3-D printer
Click to expand...
I’ve looked into printing my own (or at least an ar-15 lower receiver), but the technology just isn’t there for the tolerances required nor would I trust a home printed trigger assembly with my life.

Yet. The technology is getting there.

Machining one yourself is an option but I lack the expertise and the initial investment is too great. I’ve seen dvd’s to mill your own AR or AK receiver, but thats not feasible for most people. i do think 3d printing will change that in the future. :cool:
 
Geist said:
…

but I can name people killed by waiting periods. All were women who knew they were facing danger from a psycho ex who acted before the waiting period was over leaving the women defenseless. …
Click to expand...
Well, southern CA and NY (see Riss vs New York) prove the adage, governments, like criminals, prefer unarmed victims.

In SoCal women in the situation you describe are denied CCW permits, although after the 15 day waiting period they can receive their firearm (assuming they completed the training etc.) at least for use inside their home. Unless of course, they are a celebrity or well-connected to a politician or demonstrate that they clearly have the good judgement to carry a firearm as evidenced by a sizable donation to the sheriff’s re-election fund.
 
Geist said:
I’ve looked into printing my own (or at least an ar-15 lower receiver), but the technology just isn’t there for the tolerances required nor would I trust a home printed trigger assembly with my life.

Yet. The technology is getting there.

Machining one yourself is an option but I lack the expertise and the initial investment is too great. I’ve seen dvd’s to mill your own AR or AK receiver, but thats not feasible for most people. i do think 3d printing will change that in the future. :cool:
Click to expand...
Well, if you’ve got any skill with metal working, here’s a guy who made an AK47 receiver out of a shovel.

northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/build-yourself/179192-diy-shovel-ak-photo-tsunami-warning.html
 
Fairwinds said:
The second amendment is politics. believe me, every Catholic gun owner wants to build a culture of life;at the same time,
Click to expand...
I can vouch for this observation! Every Catholic gun owner that I’ve met is solidly on the side of the culture of life. I would also observe that the Catholics here in Washington State that want to disarm citizens don’t seem as aligned with the culture of life.
 
Geist said:
How does not having one make anyone more vulnerable?
Click to expand...
That is not what I asked. Your demeaning of the word “possible” is… well, something else. Comparing a meteor strike to death by gunfire is simply not logical.

You will have to pardon me if I have great concern for loss of life and could care less about anyone’s convenience in purchasing a firearm. If you want to be responsible enough to own a gun, then buck it up and deal with it.
 
Geist said:
I can’t name people made more vulnerable by the NICS, but I can name people killed by waiting periods. All were women who knew they were facing danger from a psycho ex who acted before the waiting period was over leaving the women defenseless.
Click to expand...
Waiting periods are not the issue. The Brady Bill has been the law for about two decades now. It is fun to look up some of the names that were thrown around back them as being “killed” by waiting periods and just see the embelishment the blogs will go to trying to make a point. Three points of logic that applies to most of these “names” are:
  1. The waiting period can always be overcome by going and getting your handgun earlier when you are not in crisis.
  2. It is hard to make a point that we can somehow know that some woman might be alive if only she had this gun… which she never has fired, or practiced with.
  3. If one was really in that much fear, they could always avoid the handgun waiting period by buying a shotgun, or a tazer, or pepper spray. Interesting none of these women sought alternative protection.
  4. The main cause of death in most of these cases is women going back to the same nut case again and again instead of dumping them once they find out they are dangerous.
Finally, most of the stories are full of false facts. One family heard a woman’s name mentioned by someone opposing the Brady Bill and protested that there was no way that this woman who was murdered would try and by a handgun. A reporter then interviewed the gun shop owner and it turns out he really did not know the name of the person who had requested the gun. When a murder happened, he just thought it might be the girl and the story grew from there.
 
grabbers: gun control is dead and here’s why:

the Administration politicized the Newtown shootings to an outrageous extent, including parading some of the family members in public and proposing impossible gun bans (e.g., Pelosi’s wish list). this provoked a backlash from the NRA and other election savvy gun advocates. you lost the PR fight, as evidenced by the defeat in the senate of what should have been a passable bill. in other words: scoreboard.

the consequences of gambling on politicizing Newtown and getting slapped down in the senate is that you don’t get to propose moderate, reasonable reforms now. if you were serious, you’d have done this before rolling the dice. you could have drafted proposals compliant with Heller and the later Supreme Court cases, but no, no opportunity can be lost to exploit a tragedy.

try again in a year or two or five.

F/
 
pnewton said:
:confused: Grabbers? To whom are you addressing this opinion?

There is a huge difference between measures to make gun sales safer and confiscation of firearms.
Click to expand...
that wasn’t addressed to you personally…

regardless, its too late to make a case for reasonable measures of control, some of which I might, and probably do, agree with. the Obama administration and its allies want incursions into the second amendment that I believe exceed constitutional limits and it exploited Newtown to the best of its ability to do that. a political gamble that failed so, regardless of how reasonable the case put forward now, gun control is dead in congress and grabbers aren’t bargaining from strength.

for what its worth, those background inspections could be made so onerous that the democratic party would achieve indirectly what it actually wants to do: burden gun ownership so much that the right is suppressed. the party has plenty of experience in doing this, when it suppressed black voter rights with overbearing requirements and regulations – all slapped down by the courts.

and, to spin this my way, overburdening lawful ownership of firearms only serves criminal interests and encourages more Newtowns.

F/
 
pnewton said:
Waiting periods are not the issue. The Brady Bill has been the law for about two decades now. It is fun to look up some of the names that were thrown around back them as being “killed” by waiting periods and just see the embelishment the blogs will go to trying to make a point. Three points of logic that applies to most of these “names” are:
  1. The waiting period can always be overcome by going and getting your handgun earlier when you are not in crisis.
  2. It is hard to make a point that we can somehow know that some woman might be alive if only she had this gun… which she never has fired, or practiced with.
  3. If one was really in that much fear, they could always avoid the handgun waiting period by buying a shotgun, or a tazer, or pepper spray. Interesting none of these women sought alternative protection.
  4. The main cause of death in most of these cases is women going back to the same nut case again and again instead of dumping them once they find out they are dangerous.
Click to expand...
  1. A woman should have psychic powers and know in advance she will be hunted and killed?
  2. A gun boasts an amazingly simple point and click interface. Are women too stupid to point something and press a trigger?
  3. The states with harsh gun laws also ban tasers and pepper spray; see NY and CA.
  4. Classic blame the victim.
Finally, most of the stories are full of false facts.
Click to expand...
Source?
 
pnewton said:
That is not what I asked. Your demeaning of the word “possible” is… well, something else. Comparing a meteor strike to death by gunfire is simply not logical.
Click to expand...
You do realize the odds of being a random victim of murder by firearm is extremely low in this country of 300,000,000 with around 200,000,000 guns right? It is right to demean this hysterical “possible” as an excuse for the further erosion of civil liberties in the name of unfounded and unproven safety. Our awesome new police state TSA didn’t stop Boston (or anything else) yet has it?
You will have to pardon me if I have great concern for loss of life and could care less about anyone’s convenience in purchasing a firearm. If you want to be responsible enough to own a gun, then buck it up and deal with it.
Click to expand...
How does it demonstrate responsibility to suffer under laws that criminals will not obey written up by people who have amply demonstrated they know nothing about how guns even work? According to Feinstein its “legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines” anyway. 😃
 
Geist said:
…According to Feinstein its “legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines” anyway. 😃
Click to expand...
the Administration and its shills like Feinstein lost the game this time. if they can’t get reasonable reforms, they have themselves to blame by being unreasonable to begin with. there’s no reason to compromise now.

ProTip: be selective in exploiting tragedy.

F/
 
Fairwinds said:
grabbers: gun control is dead and here’s why:

F/
Click to expand...
Actually it is dead because there is no political hay for the democrats any more. This bill was supposed to sail through the democrat controlled Senate and die in the Republican controlled House. Then the democrat party was going to beat up on the Republicans in the midterm elections as the party that wants to kill your child with an assault rifle while conducting a war on women. That easy arguement isn’t viable any more even if they somehow managed to pass some sort of bill on the Senate in the future. The people who cared (on both sides of the argument) knew the last bill was bad and that any future bill would be even worse.
 
SamH said:
Actually it is dead because there is no political hay for the democrats any more. This bill was supposed to sail through the democrat controlled Senate and die in the Republican controlled House. Then the democrat party was going to beat up on the Republicans in the midterm elections as the party that wants to kill your child with an assault rifle while conducting a war on women. That easy arguement isn’t viable any more even if they somehow managed to pass some sort of bill on the Senate in the future. The people who cared (on both sides of the argument) knew the last bill was bad and that any future bill would be even worse.
Click to expand...
and now is the time to reject all compromise offers, no matter how reasonable, from the blue side.
 
pnewton said:
:confused: Grabbers? To whom are you addressing this opinion?

There is a huge difference between measures to make gun sales safer and confiscation of firearms.
Click to expand...
This term is used when someone posts an opinion supporting background checks, and not bans. It would be no different if someone were to refer to gun rights advocates as gun ‘worshipers’. 🤷
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Oh, so it’s not the result we look at, but the partisanship? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
all decisions in the USofA are political, this more than ever at the moment. if the Obama administration hadn’t tried to exploit the Newtown tragedy, you might have gotten a better result. with a compliant press and control of the senate, you still managed to alienate enough of the public so that you couldn’t get any reforms, no matter how modest. even now the administration is still acting like a petulant teenager. blame Obama and the politicians and gun grabbers who shill for him.
 
SamH said:
First there has to be a reasonable compromise - so far that hasn’t happened in the last 40 years.
Click to expand...
Obama should have thought about that a couple of months ago.

I think the state of the second amendment and gun control is within an acceptable range balancing rights vs public interest. the 2d Amendment, National Firearms Act (1934) *Heller *(2008) and *MacDonald * (2010) cases show what the government can and can’t do. there’s a lot of room within those boundaries.

the gun grabbers include in their numbers extremists who want to ban as much as possible, even if its outside constitutional limits and the President who may or may not be in their ranks is willing to exploit tragedies to get what he wants. they lost. game over for now.

F/
 
Fairwinds said:
all decisions in the USofA are political, this more than ever at the moment. if the Obama administration hadn’t tried to exploit the Newtown tragedy, you might have gotten a better result. with a compliant press and control of the senate, you still managed to alienate enough of the public so that you couldn’t get any reforms, no matter how modest. even now the administration is still acting like a petulant teenager. blame Obama and the politicians and gun grabbers who shill for him.
Click to expand...
Matters of life and death, even in our relationship to our fellowman, are moral issues. The politicization of Newtown was not one-sided, or we wouldn’t hear the partisan arguments surrounding it, one way or the other. So, there is no ‘moral’ high ground for not supporting any controls aimed at limiting the number of criminals, who have easy access to guns. Also, it’s not me, personally, it is the common good of all people, including those who have no interest in arming themselves.

Every time I see ‘gun grabbers,’ it makes me think quite the opposite. Guns are not saviors, and the discussion is about controls, not banning. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top