1160X130 HeaderFP  

Digital Daily Gun News Website

BREAKING :
HOW CAN YOU TELL GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES ARE DISINGENUOUS—ASIDE FROM THEIR LIPS MOVING AND THE UNINTELLIGIBLE SOUNDS SLITHERING OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS? BY THEIR DOGMATIC DEVOTION TO INEFFECTIVE “SOLUTIONS.” FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN THOUGH STUDIES HAVE FOUND “UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS” HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE IN STATES SUCH AS DELAWARE, WASHINGTON, AND COLORADO WHERE THEY’VE TRIED IT, GUN CONTROLLERS CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR THEM AS IF THEY’RE A PANACEA FOR ALL GUN CRIME.THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EACH YEAR TRY TO BUY GUNS NATIONWIDE EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW, BUT RARELY ARE THOSE CASES ELEVATED TO A PROSECUTOR’S DESK FOR CHARGES. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REFERRED 23,777 FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECK DENIALS FOR INVESTIGATION BUT ONLY 95 OF THOSE WERE REFERRED FOR PROSECUTION AND EVEN FEWER — 25 — RESULTED IN PROSECUTIONS, ACCORDING TO FISCAL 2016 AND 2017 FEDERAL DATA.STARTING THURSDAY, ANYONE WHO CAN LEGALLY POSSESS A GUN IN KENTUCKY CAN CARRY IT AROUND UNDER A COAT, IN A PURSE OR HIDDEN IN A HIP HOLSTER — NO PERMIT REQUIRED. SENATE BILL 150, WHICH WAS SIGNED INTO LAW ON MARCH 11 AND TAKES EFFECT JUNE 27, ELIMINATES THE SIX-HOUR GUN-SAFETY TRAINING COURSE, BACKGROUND CHECK AND $60 APPLICATION FEE THAT KENTUCKY PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED. A DIVIDED SUPREME COURT RULED MONDAY THAT A FEDERAL LAW REQUIRING LONGER PRISON SENTENCES FOR USING A GUN DURING A "CRIME OF VIOLENCE" IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE. THE COURT VOTED 5-4 STATING THE LAW "PROVIDES NO RELIABLE WAY" TO DETERMINE WHICH OFFENSES QUALIFY AS CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.MULTIPLE ANTI-GUNNERS IN THE SENATE ARE MOVING TO BAN SUPPRESSORS FOLLOWING THE TRAGIC SHOOTING IN VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA. THE HELP EMPOWER AMERICANS TO RESPOND (HEAR) ACT IS BEING INTRODUCED BY DEMOCRATIC SENS. BOB MENENDEZ (NJ), DIANNE FEINSTEIN (CA), RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (CA) AND TIM KAINE (VA).

The 3-Dimensional Battle of Amendments

Steve Comus

August 1, 2018 — Constant vigilance keeps freedoms off the junk heap of time. Using the First Amendment in matters involving the Second Amendment is not new, but there is a new twist on it – the printing of guns.

In the computer age, 3D printers can literally make gun parts. The anti-gun cabal is going apoplectic.

Everything surrounding the entire 3D gun printing situation and debate seems to skirt the edges and lurk in the shadows of traditional thought and response.

It frustrates antis’ efforts to clamp down on guns if folks can print firearms anytime they want one. Granted, it is not as simple as hitting a button and having an AR-15 pop out a few minutes later. But it also is not so difficult that it would significantly limit the number of people who could do it.

The growing interest in 3D printing as it relates to guns demonstrates clearly that “gun control” is not about controlling guns. It is about controlling people.

This came through loudly and clearly with the Trump administration’s simple but profound observation that it had no problems since the guns involved were already readily available on the open market.

If guns themselves are openly available, then the only significant result of banning the printing of them is to deny the printing.

The whole 3D gun printing debate rekindled recently when digital blueprints that would allow people to 3D print firearms were set to go online.

The State Department didn’t get in the way because there seemed to be no added threat to society since the kinds of guns that might be involved are generally available on the commercial market anyway.

The government, however, continues to be concerned about developments that might involve sensitive, high-tech military weaponry. But that’s another story.

“The controversy centers around Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson’s 2013 suit against the State Department after he was forced to take down blueprints his company posted online,” reported ABC News.

The First Amendment comes into play when the government attempts to halt the posting of the blueprints. Whenever there is a tug-of-war involving more than one amendment to the Constitution, it is certain that something is rotten. In this instance, it is over-control. Overregulation has been rife in Gundom for a long time.

Consider the magazine capacity limitation while hunting migratory birds. Conservation was stated as the need for such overreach. The assumption was that no one needed more than three shots, and that having more than three shells in a gun resulted in unnecessary crippling of birds that were hit, but not brought to bag. A secondary argument was that large magazine capacities contributed to hunters shooting more than their limits of birds.
Never have I seen any high-capacity gun shoot itself, unnecessarily crippling ducks or bagging more than a limit. About the only thing a gun can do by itself is rust – and even then it needs the help of moisture to do it.

Truth is that it shouldn’t matter if a gun is belt-fed. It is easy to take shots that are too long or to shoot more than a limit with a single-shot gun. It is not the gun, but the shooter of it who determines whether things are done properly.

In similar manner, those who oppose the ability to print guns argue that there will be guns without registered serial numbers. The Second Amendment doesn’t address a specific right to keep and bear serialized or registered arms.

Those who argue against the printing of guns suggest that should such printing be allowed, criminals will have easier access to guns. What a joke! Criminals won’t follow such laws. They are criminals.

Freedom is a scary concept for sheeple. For them, it is comforting to have someone else tell them how to live their lives. For them, rules translate into order. They worship order.

It is not necessary to embrace chaos as a friend to understand that oppressive order is not the answer.

Yet society must have order or it is not a society. This is the true conundrum. How can there be social order and personal freedom at the same time and in the same place?

That’s why the battle over guns will be with us so long as we exist. Guns represent freedom. Guns were used to gain our freedom and guns play heavily in guaranteeing that freedom continues to exist. That’s why the Second Amendment was written in the first place.

So here we are, discussing whether someone should have the right to publish blueprints about how to print guns. The argument actually is whether the exercise of multiple freedoms can be precluded preemptively.

If so, then what stops precluding the exercise of all freedoms in a single move, or even in a series of moves? Again, how society gets there is not nearly so important as whether it gets there at all. Freedoms can be lost by sliding down a slippery slope or by falling off a cliff. Wreckage is strewn at the bottom regardless. Losing freedoms is not an option.

Download
Our Mobile App

and get our latest news and featured videos instantly

Download Now

BREAKING :
HOW CAN YOU TELL GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES ARE DISINGENUOUS—ASIDE FROM THEIR LIPS MOVING AND THE UNINTELLIGIBLE SOUNDS SLITHERING OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS? BY THEIR DOGMATIC DEVOTION TO INEFFECTIVE “SOLUTIONS.” FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN THOUGH STUDIES HAVE FOUND “UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS” HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE IN STATES SUCH AS DELAWARE, WASHINGTON, AND COLORADO WHERE THEY’VE TRIED IT, GUN CONTROLLERS CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR THEM AS IF THEY’RE A PANACEA FOR ALL GUN CRIME.THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EACH YEAR TRY TO BUY GUNS NATIONWIDE EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW, BUT RARELY ARE THOSE CASES ELEVATED TO A PROSECUTOR’S DESK FOR CHARGES. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REFERRED 23,777 FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECK DENIALS FOR INVESTIGATION BUT ONLY 95 OF THOSE WERE REFERRED FOR PROSECUTION AND EVEN FEWER — 25 — RESULTED IN PROSECUTIONS, ACCORDING TO FISCAL 2016 AND 2017 FEDERAL DATA.STARTING THURSDAY, ANYONE WHO CAN LEGALLY POSSESS A GUN IN KENTUCKY CAN CARRY IT AROUND UNDER A COAT, IN A PURSE OR HIDDEN IN A HIP HOLSTER — NO PERMIT REQUIRED. SENATE BILL 150, WHICH WAS SIGNED INTO LAW ON MARCH 11 AND TAKES EFFECT JUNE 27, ELIMINATES THE SIX-HOUR GUN-SAFETY TRAINING COURSE, BACKGROUND CHECK AND $60 APPLICATION FEE THAT KENTUCKY PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED. A DIVIDED SUPREME COURT RULED MONDAY THAT A FEDERAL LAW REQUIRING LONGER PRISON SENTENCES FOR USING A GUN DURING A "CRIME OF VIOLENCE" IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE. THE COURT VOTED 5-4 STATING THE LAW "PROVIDES NO RELIABLE WAY" TO DETERMINE WHICH OFFENSES QUALIFY AS CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.MULTIPLE ANTI-GUNNERS IN THE SENATE ARE MOVING TO BAN SUPPRESSORS FOLLOWING THE TRAGIC SHOOTING IN VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA. THE HELP EMPOWER AMERICANS TO RESPOND (HEAR) ACT IS BEING INTRODUCED BY DEMOCRATIC SENS. BOB MENENDEZ (NJ), DIANNE FEINSTEIN (CA), RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (CA) AND TIM KAINE (VA).