The fact is, no “law” has ever stopped anyone from violating it…not a single time…UNLESS an individual is (1) personally unwilling to violate a law for moral or personal ethical reasons, or (2) the consequences of violating that law are so horrendous that an individual is FRIGHTENED of them. Criminal behavior is a matter of personal CHOICE. One can CHOOSE not to obey a law and violate it. Most people don’t, but enough do to make passage of new laws necessary, but we eventually reach a point where governments outlaw EVERYTHING. We have over 20,000 “laws” on the books regulating firearms, for example. Why? There is no REASON for the vast majority of them. Most of them make little or no sense whatsoever and almost ALL of them violate, in some fashion, personal rights that are essentially ratified by the Constitution itself.
Bigger point is, if it’s an item you’re banning, can the Government control the means of production/ distribution?
If it can’t, then the law is academic.
Prohibition laws have conditions on the ground that need to be realized if they’re going to work. If those conditions aren’t there, it won’t work.
- You need overwhelming public consensus.
- You need cultural norms supporting that consensus.
- There needs to be something in the production/distribution that Government can effectively block.
If you don’t have consensus, black market economies will scale, and people will consistently find ways past the law.
Trouble is, in a world of advanced 3D printers, even tiny minorities of populations can negate the law. Nothing made with ordinary material or ordinary processes will be enforceable at that point.
Anyone who wants the thing, will have it.
So everything the government cannot “control” or eradicate should be legal, since that is everything in existence there should be no laws.
Since there should be no laws it follows that there is no such thing as Unalienable Rights so naturally the only logical society would be one which embraced Anarchy.
Since Anarchy is the philosophy of drunks, children and fools I suppose electing all democrats would be a step in the right direction.
The mind of the Leftist is hopelessly corrupt.
Control is not the same as “eradicate”, I would push back against that. Control or plausible mitigation should be the goal. If the law can’t establish that, then it’s likely counterproductive.
You undermine the rule of law with uneforcable laws. You yourself have pointed this out before RET.
If there’s a 1,000 laws we each break each day, which the busy bodies in the government couldn’t enforce even if they wanted to, you weaken the standing of the law before the people it’s supposed to govern.
It incentivizes and creates economies meant to break it, and creates zones of no law. Government should know its place better than that, it should not micromanage us.
Keep the laws few, simple, and unmolesting of natural rights. I see nothing wrong to this standpoint.
This is all the result of the rebelliousness of Americans. It was once postulated that if GERMANY, for example, had instituted a 55 mph speed limit nation-wide, the Germans would have IMMEDIATELY obeyed it–then voted out of office everyone who voted for it the next election. Americans, on the other hand, would simply disobey the stupid law, but keep electing the morons who passed it in the first place.
You people keep saying that that this on-line plastic gun issue doesn’t matter because (1) it’s a First Amendment issue and (2) the law is unenforceable.
Okay, lets say a 12 or 13 year old goes on-line, builds on gun and kills somebody with it, maybe one of your loved ones. Don’t tell me they don’t have the computer knowledge to do it, because you darn well that many kids are better with computers than many us older folks are.
Let’s say a group of terrorists builds these guns, that can get through metal detectors and using them to hijack an airplane and pulls off another 9-11. Is that okay with you? Don’t tell about “metal parts” in these guns that can be detected because terrorists are resourceful. They will learn how smuggle the parts on board and assemble the guns during the flight.
Where is it in the First Amendment that says you have the right shoot somebody without cause? If a law is difficult to enforce does that mean there should be no law? The liberals will tell you that enforcing the border is too difficult. Does that mean that we shouldn’t try to defend our borders?
The responses here have been very disappointing. They play right into the hands of the liberals who call all conservatives gun toting fools. It amazes me that you have made “First Amendment rights” into an excuse to aid and abet criminality.
I am disappointed in you. One of the fundamentals of conservatism is to preserve law and order. People should feel safe at home and when they are in public. Making easier to arm all segments of society with no restrictions runs counter to that principle.
You’re not asking the right question.
If it can’t be enforced, how are you stopping the terrorists? How does the law step in, and prevent them from getting guns? Where is the mechanism SendGOP?
How is this not resulting in you just punishing ordinary citizens who’ll be less organized, and far more likely to fall into law enforcement’s crosshairs?
You’ll never catch the bad guys with the guns, but you will catch good people who meant no harm by it.
This “people” said that it’s a bad idea because gun control laws in general and one related to online plans for a 3D printed gun in particular only restrict the law abiding. And enabling governmental tracing of guns enables governmental CONFISCATION of guns, as has happened prior to every major PURGE. Count the number of terrorism or non-terrorism murders vs. the number of purge victims of the 20th century. The former is a pittance of the latter.
You’re not admitting to yourself that your response plays into the hands of those who would disarm the citizenry, and with tragic results. One of the fundamental premises of conservatism is to preserve LIBERTY. Government being in a position to disarm me doesn’t do that, and it doesn’t make me feel safe either at home or in public. Making it easier for the government to disarm all segments of society (except for the criminals, terrorists, and government) runs contrary to that principle.
True. In EVERY case of mass murder by governments against their own citizens, the FIRST thing they did was disarm everyone but themselves. It’s what happened in Germany pre-WW II, in the Soviet Union, in China under Mao, in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Burma and North Korea and in Cuba and Venezuela today. These governments didn’t always shoot their opponents, Germany starved and gassed them. The USSR starved the Kulaks and others as did North Korea. Venezuela is TRYING to do that today, and none of the CITIZENS of any of these countries could do anything about that because they’d all been disarmed first. How were they disarmed? The governments had passed laws REQUIRING citizens to report all of their arms. Knowing, in large measure, WHERE the guns were, it was a small matter to confiscate them which they did in the name of “public safety.” Sounding familiar?
Where can we go where the people disobey the law and throw out the morons!?
They’re really not. They learn applications same as any other thing kids and grownups learn how to do. Today’s parents also grew up in a connected, computer literate world. It’s amazing how many of them are relatively computer illiterate. Some 12- or 13-year-old is going to manage to print a gun and use it. We have a population of more than 300 million. Most things happen or will happen with a population sample that size. It’s never going to be a particularly common thing any more than it is now. As a 12- to 13-year-old I had direct access to numerous guns. I didn’t need to print a gun to cause mayhem. I never used them to do anything wrong.
Or they can just take big fat metal guns and shoot into a crowd from a nearby hotel window.
Also, we don’t just rely on metal detectors any more. So stop worrying so much
For decades, airport security officials depended on metal detectors to screen travelers for concealed weapons. The technology was safe and simple but had one glaring flaw: it could not detect non-metal threats, including plastic explosives. In 2009, the infamous underwear bomber almost exploited that flaw to devastating effect.
Just so you’re aware, terrorists are going to hijack a plane and do terrible things again. It’s going to happen. Even if you manage to ban and destroy every file capable of printing a working gun.
The computer files are speech.
It amazes me that you would accuse conservatives defending the right to bear arms and free speech of aiding and abetting criminality. I am disappointed in you. One of the fundamentals of conservativism is the concept of rights and defending those rights.
I’m sorry you don’t feel safe at home in this world, where we actually can, do and are already printing guns. How do you feel when you’re at the store and you see someone carrying an exposed handgun? I know it makes me more alert, and I watch. It strikes me as a somewhat odd reaction since I often carry concealed and many others around me do the same. You should try to reason out what the real danger is – guns, metallic guns, are readily available, and the situations where they may be devastating are myriad to the slightly imaginative.
The bottom line, you are not safe. You have never been safe. You have always been at risk of being shot by a madman or a terrorist. You still are. The bright side, you are less likely to be shot by a madman or terrorist than you were 30 years ago. You are safer than you were, but it’s not because we banned guns. Gun laws have become less restrictive in the past 20 years, and we’re still not seeing the promised devastation the liberals fear and keep telling us is imminent.
Printable guns are not going to change that.
I’m curious as to what “devastating effect” was caused by the “underwear bomber.” It didn’t WORK!
The relevant text quoted again
Almost to devastating effect…
I didn’t think of this response to this the first time:
What was the Benjamin Franklin quote? It was to the effect of: