Monday, April 08, 2013

Coming soon: a pro-gun control NRA

A few days ago, NBC ran a story about people using 3D printers to manufacture guns and gun components.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

CPL's MakerBot Replicator 2
Whatever viewers take away from that footage, a few obstacles remain before John Q. Public is pumping viable machine guns out of his den. I have a little experience with this. During the research for this story, I had the privilege of seeing some 3D printers up close.

Lower end machines such as the MakerBot Replicator 2 run a couple thousand dollars and produce low quality, low resolution items, mostly suitable as models. At the top of the line, you'll find machines such as the Fortus 400mc, which can produce high quality objects and will run you about $60,000--pretty cost prohibitive (for the curious, creating any sort of weapon or gun is prohibited within the walls of think[box]--I know, I asked). I saw the Fortus printing with the same hard plastic used to make Legos; and while there are other options for input material, most metals require a little more muscle than the Fortus 400mc can muster. As for a study in polymers, I have no idea what sort Glock uses or if a 3D printer could process a such a material. Nonetheless, I think it's safe to say that 3D printed guns ain't quite here yet, but they're coming.

The one entity that will do everything within its power to stop that is the NRA.

Fortus 250mc and 400mc at CWRU
When those DIY guns make a solid landing, they will seriously threaten the sovereignty and bankrolls of the gun industry. I predict the NRA will obediently serve its master and become the most emphatic pro-gun control lobby imaginable. First order of business: demonize DIY guns as beneath industry standards, ineffective, unreliable and unsafe. They'll have videos of homemade guns misfiring, melting, whatever. The NRA will back all measures that restrict the home manufacture of viable weapons: taxes, expensive certifications, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they turn a new leaf and back punitive laws for possession/sale of homemade guns and gun parts or even a gun registration program that further delineates homemade firearms from the professionally manufactured ones that line LaPierre's pockets.

Want a precedent? Enter Big Tobacco. That lobby was all indignant and in-your-face over smokers' rights when the bans started coming down. It was also the first one to throw smokers under the bus when roll-your-own cigarettes became a viable and less expensive alternative to their product. Tobacco lobbyists claim roll-your-owns "evade federal and state cigarette taxes and don't comply with state fire standards for cigarettes. They also don't bear the congressionally mandated Surgeon General warning labels and do not meet other FDA regulatory criteria."

It won't be so easy for the NRA. Big Tobacco always billed itself as Big Tobacco. The NRA slithers around beneath the guise of a pro-gun owner organization. Thus far, LaPierre & Co., haven't had much trouble fooling gun enthusiasts (and a slew of others) into believing that the protection of their "rights" looks exactly like the protection of the interests of the gun industry. Unfortunately for LaPierre & Co., those two schools of thought will part ways when the viable DIY gun comes to fruition.

So to the gun campers, I say this: the NRA couldn't give a damn about your rights, buddy. It's all about the money.

Man, is this going to be fun to watch.

*  *  *


Anonymous said...

I'm gonna watch the festivities with the high resolution camera on the Ronco Home Drone patroling my property.


Erin O'Brien said...

"The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun that ONLY is supplied by the select group of manufacturers that you can find at the end of my myriad proboscides!"

Craig Hughes said...

Even liberal Walter Hickey could only exagerate a revenue percentage of 10% directly from the gun industry and another 10% indirectly (advertising, etc.) for the NRA. Even using his numbers comparing the tobacco industry directly to the NRA is misleading. You can go industry to industry but a not to a organization that receives roughly 80% of it's revenue from other sources.

Just another scare tactic. No mention of other negatives this technology could effect.

Also, considering that the recipe for Glock's polymer is a highly guarded secret, though based on Nylon 6, and the costs as you described them these machines will not flood the nation. Obama's threats have already done that.

Erin O'Brien said...

Who do you think I'm trying to scare, Craig? And how? I defy you to directly quote the scare tactic in this essay.

As for the 3D printing phenomenon, I imagine China is shitting straight up its collective back over it.

3D printing will follow a learning curve similar to 2D printing. Remember those huge dot matrix printers and the paper with the holes on the side? They cost a fortune 25 years ago. Laser printers did too. Now I pull perfectly professional results out of my $100 desktop laser printer every day.

In 20 years, everyone will have a 3D replicator, maybe sooner. Don't believe me? Let's chat about it over at Skype, so we can look each other in the eye. How long did it take that technology to go from SciFi to mainstream?

Erin O'Brien said...

Forgot to say thanks for dropping in and commenting. I do appreciate your time.

Oh and for the record, back in the early aughts, I was telling my writer buddies that pretty soon everyone would have personal electronic devices that would be the source for all their newspapers, books and magazines. They didn't believe me either. They rolled their eyes. They got mad. They decided not to like me anymore.

Yeah, yeah.

Craig Hughes said...

The crux of my message was this. If this technology takes off (and there have a thousand failures as well as successes that never became part of everyday life) it could effect everything manufactured. Industry requires more than design and R&D. Raw materials, precision just to name a few. Can these be overcome? Possibly, as you note many, many may be possible in our future. Your premise in attacking the NRA alone on this is pedestrian and your argument there weak in my opinion. This could have gone so much farther.

I do have fun following the blog.

Woodman said...

Tobacco Industry and NRA don't equal each other.

Tobacco Industry and Gun Industry, yeah. I'm sure Beretta, HK, Remington, all those guys will be up in arms about it. They'll do destructive testing, and put out bad press by the truck load. Probably find someone who modified a design to fit what they had and then gave that gun to their kid, who then blew their own eye out when the gun blew up.

But that's what you would expect. And it will work about as well as the paper press pushing against the internet has.

However, the purpose of a 3D printed gun/magazine/knife, isn't to replace regular guns yet. It's to prove how silly it is to ban these things in the first place.

Hell, right now you can make a gun with a crapped our C&C machine and a drill press. You can make a zip gun with some pvc pipe and some rubber bands. Blacksmiths in the Philippines make pistols almost indistinguishable from the original.

It's like trying to ban fresh vegetables. Anyone can make them with enough incentive and information.

Anonymous said...

"Just another scare tactic. No mention of other negatives this technology could effect."-Craig Hughes.

I was thinking the same thing. What will happen to Nike if poor people start printing shoes.


Anonymous said...

BTW...Speaking of scare tactics... what's really scary is the thought that an American President might say how proud we all were when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher stood shoulder to shoulder on behalf of Freedom and Democracy.


WV-"ngigin"- Custer stuttering.

Erin O'Brien said...

Dig how Big Beer has kept up a fight against home brewing.

Woodman said...

Again, expected behavior. Liquor stores fight grocery stores selling liquor. The store on the corner fights the new store on the other corner. Entrenched businesses don't like new paradigms.

I bet people who bred and sold slaves fought the cotton gin. But it's like you are saying that the emancipators would side with them so more slaves could be sold.

It's like you are saying a pro-choice outfit would fight Plan B to defend Planned Parenthood.

PETA being against fake fur.

Erin O'Brien said...

Not sure I follow you're thinking, Woodman, but thanks for dropping in.

Anonymous said...

"One only has to look to the NRA’s leadership to discover that the organization is operated by a group of individuals who promote racism, misogyny, homophobia, anti-immigrant animus, religious bigotry, anti-environmentalism, and insurrectionism."


Woodman said...

My thinking is that you are conflating an rights advocacy group, that has a very narrow focus, with an industry.

The NRA has a million issues in my book, which is part of why I'm not a member. But saying that buying a gun is supporting the NRA which is an organization of criminals, and they'll come after 3D printers next seems kind of weird. I was trying to come up with weird examples, which made me sound weird.

The NRA doesn't equal the majority of gun owners thinking, no more than AAA does car owners. Or the ACLU represents the majority of American's thinking. All three of those organizations supply services that millions of people use daily, without having to agree to their exact motives.

Erin O'Brien said...

"The NRA doesn't equal the majority of gun owners thinking"

True, but it will still very likely kill universal background checks, which the overwhelming majority of gun owners and Americans support.

Also, I never said the NRA would "come after 3D printers." It will wage a campaign against homemade guns and gun parts if and when they become a threat to traditional gun sales--the same way it's waging war against universal background checks, which threaten gun sales.

Woodman said...

Universal back ground checks are not supported by a majority of Americans, gun owners or otherwise.

Not in any way shape or form. Asking the ATF or FBI if pretty please I can sell my gun to my neighbor, or give my gun to my daughter is a serious issue.

If the NRA was in the pockets of the industry that deep then they would be for background checks. The only sales that will stop are private sales.

You do also realize that there are tens of thousands of false positives on background checks every year. That maybe when you want to give your gun to your cousin and you go to store to do so, and they charge you $25-$50 for their time and effort, that he might get turned down because someone else exists with the same name that's a convicted felon. So, the special moment when Grandad's rifle is passed along to the next generation is delayed another month, or year, or whenever everyone can get together at the gun store again so you can hand the rifle over legally.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the issue is with universal background checks for commercial dealers, it is more with how deep does it go. How do you do a background check on your son if you decid.e to give him a rifle to squirrel hunt or deer hunt? Do you run on down to the walmart, police station,or registered gun dealer and how much does it cost? Also background check is very different from gun registration. If anyone kills the bill it will be Congress and as RJ pointed out in his link the NRA has stopped being the force it use to be. As for 3D printing, the government will stop that way before any one can come up with a reasonable and cheap way to print up an UZI. I just don't see GM,BMW, Ford or General Electric letting you print up your own replacement parts without having some of the profit.
Interesting comments though.

James Old Guy

Erin O'Brien said...

"Fully 85% of Americans favor making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks, with comparable support from Republicans, Democrats and independents."

From Pew Research.

DogsDontPurr said...

This comment is almost entirely off topic, but I trust Erin will indulge me:
You people are missing the boat! Forget guns....those 3D printers will really take off once people realize that you can print knives, forks, and spoons! Why do the dishes when you can simply print more!?!

Speaking of which....I really need to do the dishes right now....

toko baju muslim said...

I am amazed to get This is a great posting I like your article.

Erin O'Brien said...

Imagine being able to print out a replacement bolt, bottle cap, allen wrench or ... missing puzzle piece (!!!)

Eventually, the printers will be self-recycling. Use that allen wrench, throw it back into the hopper and turn the same plastic into a phillips head screwdriver.

For more loftier applications, dig what sort of stuff the Cleveland Clinic is turning out of 3D printers. And they're working on custom fit replacement human body parts.

The implications are absolutely boundless.

A person might, even dare to imagine printing a custom marital aid. hmmmm ...

RE: background checks. They're not much different from obtaining a hunting/fishing license or car registration. Why doesn't anyone bellyache about that stuff? Because the NRA hasn't told them to.

According to online gun forums, the going rate for running a check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (known as NICS) at a dealer or public agency ranges from zero to $5 to $15 to $25. Paperwork? The check is electronic. NICS operators resolve more than 90 percent of cases immediately, and if the resolution is delayed more than three days, by law the sale can go through. Last Thursday, at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, Keene admitted the check “is not much of a burden on people” because it takes less than two minutes, and in the worst outlier cases 10 days. He also conceded that extending it to gun shows “would be relatively easy.”


Anonymous said...

"Honey I'm Home"...(The 3 words you never want to hear while having sex) Anyway...Google Skylar Tibbits(no shit) He is head of a lab at MIT that is working on self-assembling machines. He also gives a TED talk with some examples on video. In the meantime I'll be at the community center taking HTML for Geriatrics. One day I , too, will be able to post a link.


Woodman said...

"They're not much different from obtaining a hunting/fishing license or car registration."

There is no constitutional right to drive a car on a public road. There is no inherent right to hunt or fish on public land.

Most of the sales at gun shows are run through the database already. It's only personal sales that don't, because private individuals aren't allowed to call the database. For obvious privacy reasons.

It is a burden, you are adding a step that didn't exist at all before to a process. I don't have to register a car at all if I'm not going to drive it on public roads, and if I own the car outright I don't have to do anything but sign the title over and I'm done, I don't have to buy a fishing license if I'm on my property.

If you had to fill out a form with the government to start your blog, would you fight that? What if you had to go to an office supply store to pay someone to check that it was ok that you start one? Would you consider that an infringement on your 1st amendment rights? Would you be concerned that if other people started problems on your blog that the government might enact some vague law that would hold you liable for any damage caused?

And frankly, what crime is it that universal background checks would stop? Not Newtown, not Aurora, not Columbine even.

I can sell or give away every single thing I own without government intervention. Including many items as or more deadly than a firearm.

Just this past Easter my MiL gave three of her late husband's guns to her daughters. Under this law she couldn't do that, we'd all have to meet up at a gun store and fill out paperwork and wait till we were allowed to make the transfer. Which you can't do on Easter, so somehow we'd all have to make the trek down there during business hours, pay the fee, and then hope there is no snag so we can exchange our personal property.

VideoDude said...

Guns at gun shows do not go through a background check! 40% of all guns sales happen at gun shows, with no background check. Please site the study that says the majority of the American people do not favor background checks. Because, even a Faux News pole shows Americans support background checks. Thanks to the NRA's lobbying efforts persons on the Terrorist No Fly list, can buy any weapon, anywhere, anytime. "You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts."

Bill said...

It's disgusting, but not surprising, that the President is using these grieving families as props for his assault on the 2nd amendment. Nothing he's touting has anything to do with the sick kid who killed those babies.

VideoDude said...

From the second amendment: "...A well regulated militia..." How can you use someone who is there by their own free will? Newtown families traveled, via Air Force 1, to Washington to talk to members of Congress. Sounds like to me, they are happy to support reasonable gun safety laws!

VideoDude said...

2nd Amendment: "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."

I have noticed that most Teapublicans forget the phrase "well regulated".

Bill said...

Weapons are a problem in Russia to:
Russian Secret Service protects Putin from a couple of bazookas

Woodman said...

"Guns at gun shows do not go through a background check!"

Guns sold by gun stores, which are most of the exhibits at gun shows, go through background checks. Guns sold by private individuals at gun shows, just like any other private property sold.


"But the high figure comes primarily from including such transactions as inheritances or gifts from family members. Putting aside these various biases, if you look at guns that were bought, traded, borrowed, rented, issued as a requirement of the job, or won through raffles, 85 percent went through FFLs; just 15 percent were transferred without a background check.

If you include these transfers either through FFLs or from family members, the remaining transfers falls to 11.5 percent."

251 people were surveyed 20 years ago, wow, that's definitive.

On the polls showing support for universal background check support. 92%, or 81%, support Background Checks, but 48% believe that the government will use that information to confiscate guns. So half the people in favor think the government will take the guns that are so registered.

Since background checks are required no matter where a licensed firearms dealer sells a gun, on the street, gun show, in a boat, wherever; but the disinformation campaign indicates that people think you can just walk up and buy a gun without even being looked at, exactly how accurate is that poll to begin with.

I've been to the Indy 1500 multiple times, and there are chairs, and lines, and laptops and cell phones constantly in use from people getting NCIS checks. Occasionally there are individuals walking around trying to offload a gun they don't want anymore, or some guy with a private collection, but by and large the checks are already being done.

I didn't know the TSA, or HSA had the power to remove the protection of the Bill of Rights from certain individuals.

So, knowing that most private transfers of firearms are gifts, inheritances, or individual sales, and not "gun show loophole" sales, what purchases are you against? Some guy somewhere will still sell you an AK 47 in a parking lot with no questions asked.

Erin O'Brien said...

Those Newtown parents are very vocal and adamant about their cause. Anyone who doesn't believe that didn't see last Sunday's in-depth group interview on 60 Minutes.

Full transcript of interview available here.

VideoDude said...

So we are supposed to believe the partisan National Review? When my father died his 1959 Cadillac was willed to me. I had to register it as mine. If you give a gun to someone who commits a crime and the gun is registered to you, then you will be the first person the police come to see. If someone sells something illegal he is breaking the law. That is what laws are for to deter people from committing a crime and to punish those who do!

Woodman said...

"I had to register it as mine. "

No, you actually didn't. You have to register it as yours to drive it on public roads, as part of a contract. Not to own it. Or sell it. You could have driven that thing all day on your own land and roads, you could let your 10 year old kid drive it around all day too. The government can't say one word about you owning it. As long as you don't use their roads.

Look up Mark Mattioli, Darrell Scott, Evan Todd, survivors, and parents of survivors aren't this monolithic block that oppose evil guns.

You can dismiss the source, but the 40% figure is still 20 years old and based on 251 people.

Go ahead, walk into a gun show, pay the $10 to get in. Walk around and compare the individual guns here and there being sold against the tables full of firearms that have to have background checks.

As soon as they start arresting more than .03% of the individuals currently falsifying their NCIS checks, then they can talk abou t expanding the law. If they don't have time according to Mr. Biden to deal with the current felons who are trying to buy guns, how are they going to deal with the increase?

Try this one out. You got a gun from your dad when he died. You registered it, then you sold it in a legal transaction, 20 years later it's used in a crime by that person. Exactly what crime did you commit? Let's say that person uses it a week later, or leaves your house and uses it to carjack someone that day, what's your liability there? The cops will come knocking on your door, so you better have an answer.

You are making criminals out of innocent people. And still not actually stopping a single murder.

Show me how Universal Background Checks stop a single person from dying. Remember, the President himself said if it saves one life we should do it...

Here we have several people running into issues with waiting periods. Did the people threatening them deal with waiting periods or background checks?

The real question is, knowing that most legal sales are already checked, and that illegal sales will never be checked anyway, exactly what do you expect to be the result of universal background checks? What will this stop?

Anonymous said...

In review...I have seen estimates that there are 300 million guns in the USA. Almost 1 per person. Given the math I think it would be fair to say any meaningful regulation is unlikely. However, if the standard is "One life saved" I'd be willing to speculate Universal Background checks might keep one crazy person from getting a weapon, even though statistically it might not impact the overall problem of senseless gun deaths, so I'd say go ahead and go for it.
But I think a bigger problem is despite the fact most pols love to say "we are a nation of laws" our culture encourages pushing limits, looking for edges. People dodge taxes with reckless abandon, they use drugs, they gamble. Until such time as the majority of people change their self seeking behavior we will have all manner of tragedy.


Erin O'Brien said...

+1 RJ.

I have to add that the "criminals are going to get guns anyway" argument makes me crazy.

If that thinking holds, why regulate anything? Why not sell heroin, grass and meth legally? Women who really want an abortion will get one illegally, so why regulate them?

Why bother with speed limits? People are going to speed anyway.

As for Woodman's complaints about inconvenience, my response is simple: tough shit.

Owning a gun comes with responsibility. You should know where that gun is at all times. If you sold it legally and have the appropriate documentation, you are no longer responsible for the gun. If it is stolen, you should immediately report it as such.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're negligent with your gun you ARE a criminal and should face fines, and criminal charges.

Anonymous said...

I've said it before and...I get very confused when 2nd Amendment proponents argue so passionately for individual freedom but remain silent on the erosion of civil liberties manifested by actions like warrantless wiretaps and the suspension of habeous corpus. I suppose one can logically argue that those later issues are not germane to the former but it sure seems they all fall under constitutionally protected freedoms so why, for the sake of discussion, the double standard. Allow me to offer an example...Pvt. Bradley Manning is a Whistleblower and should be legally protected as such. Now go on over to Red State where most commenters call him a spy and suggest his execution.


Woodman said...

"As for Woodman's complaints about inconvenience, my response is simple: tough shit."

Thankfully I don't need your approval of the Bill of Rights to actually exercise them.

30-40 years ago over 80% of the population was against gay marriage. Many laws were passed to stop it from moving forward, because of public opinion polls. Thankfully people are getting over that. Now, apparently a similar number of people think another right shouldn't be allowed to everyone. So your response is to pass a bunch of laws to prevent it. And this is a right that is actually in the constitution. Hell, it's in the English common law that the constitution was partially based on, and it was disarming the citizens of the colonies that was one of the final steps to cause the revolution.

Again, if the government required you to sign a form and ask permission for your blog it's just an inconvenience. If the government requires you to opt out of having your home randomly searched ahead of time by posting a sign, if you have to register on a website as not wanting troops quartered on your property, hey, it's just an inconvenience.

Gun laws effectively stop poor people and minorities from being able to protect themselves. Rich people can get around them, white middle class people can usually break them without being caught (not being subject to crimes like driving while black and being searched), and criminals get them anyway.

Like I said on Joe's site, why do you support racist laws? The Sullivan Act, the Californian gun laws are all race based. Anywhere with shall issue permits, "people we like get guns, not those other people".

Erin, the point in criminals getting the guns anyway is that criminals buying guns is already illegal. Somehow making legal gun sales more difficult is going to make it harder? It's already illegal for me to sell a gun to a felon. How does making me giving my wife a gun illegal without a form, make it so Bubba can't get one?

"As far as I'm concerned, if you're negligent with your gun you ARE a criminal and should face fines, and criminal charges."

Want to back that up with any act of negligence? Car accidents, didn't clear the snow off the sidewalk, wasn't looking in the grocery store, dropped a knife, sneezed on someone with AIDS? Right now there are plenty of people who have accidentally killed or injured someone because of ignorance or stupidity that aren't in jail, just because the object in question is a gun doesn't change the facts.

Anonymous said...

@ "Woodman"...Even if one were to accept some of your figures (and I'm not-most of them are bullshit)how many murders prevented would be too few murders prevented?


Woodman said...

"I've said it before and...I get very confused when 2nd Amendment proponents argue so passionately for individual freedom but remain silent on the erosion of civil liberties manifested by actions like warrantless wiretaps and the suspension of habeous corpus"

I don't know anyone in favor of the second amendment who was in favor of the PATRIOT Act. Or the TSA, or any of that carp.

I value all of the bill of rights near equally. Though I don't think they 5th ID is going to be camping out in my neighborhood commons any time soon, it's still a right.

I'm not sure how you come to your conclusion.

As for Manning, I am not going to muddy the water even more with that individual.

Erin O'Brien said...

I do not support racist laws.

"Gun laws effectively stop poor people and minorities from being able to protect themselves."

Supporting documentation, please.

Woodman said...

"@ "Woodman"...Even if one were to accept some of your figures (and I'm not-most of them are bullshit)how many murders prevented would be too few murders prevented?"

Taking rights away from innocent people is wrong.

Do you disagree?

Erin O'Brien said...

Companion reading.

Woodman said...

I do not support racist laws.

"Gun laws effectively stop poor people and minorities from being able to protect themselves."

Supporting documentation, please


NYPD site.

How much does it cost to apply for a handgun license?

The application fee for a handgun license is $340.00. Effective March 9, 2012, the fee for fingerprints is $91.50. These fees may be paid by credit card or with money orders when you submit your application. Money orders should be made payable to the “New York City Police Department.”

$450 for a application. Typed.

This permit can be turned down for any number of reasons, in fact so many that "because" should be one of them.

"This is not a complete list. If your investigation results in a determination that you lack character and fitness for a license or permit, your application will be denied."

"Shall issue" is invisible racism. They don't have to say why they decline it if they don't want to. Or they can pick a bogus reason without having to back it up.

But, do you think Bloomberg has armed security? Does Jim Carey? Do rich people have issues getting protection? Think a multimillionaire can get hold of a pistol legally in NYC or LA?

more information can be found here.

Erin O'Brien said...

Yup, $340 is a lot of clams--just a tad more than my quarterly water/sewer bill. The good news is that a rifle permit is just $140 in NY.

Do you live in NY? I do not. It's good to see your concerned about low income individuals. Maybe you could start a movement to get the license fees waived for persons at or below poverty level.

Oh, and your link was from a paper published 22 years ago. Got anything more recent than 1991?

Anonymous said...

@Woodman Re: Patriot Act, etc. While I'm certain it was not a universal sentiment the statement I recall clearly about complaints about Civil Liberties from local Conservative radio talk shows post-9/11 was "If you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't care if calls, etc. are monitored."
In re: habeas corpus. Would you support charging or releasing the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo?


Woodman said...

$340 is more than a decent handgun costs. I said the law prevents poor people from obtaining guns and that's a pretty big obstacle.

It doesn't matter how old the paper is in this case. The Sullivan Act was passed in the early 1900's, it hasn't changed since then. It's just been added to. That was a paper that I found in five seconds of google fu.

If they passed a law in 1950 to restrict the purchase of raw milk. And didn't change the law in the intervening time, would an article written in 1985 about how the law was written to suppress the family farm be any less accurate now?

The original laws written to suppress "undesirables" are in many cases still the basis for the additional laws.

Hell, the NRA was for gun control as long as it was controlling blacks with guns.

We are talking about the same classes of people that can't pay $5 for a photo ID to vote. Or take the bus to the DMV to get a picture taken. And you expect them to drop $340 and type out an application to do something that's actually protected in the constitution?

Woodman said...

"@Woodman Re: Patriot Act, etc. While I'm certain it was not a universal sentiment the statement I recall clearly about complaints about Civil Liberties from local Conservative radio talk shows post-9/11 was "If you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't care if calls, etc. are monitored."
In re: habeas corpus. Would you support charging or releasing the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo"

The if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear people are crazy. And they deserve to live in the government fishbowl if they like. I think a Republican who thinks like that, like McCain, defines the term RINO.

At this point at Gitmo, to make a blanket statement I'd say if we haven't charged them yet then we need to either call them POWs and prepare to keep them for the rest of their lives, since it's not like there will be a treaty. Or charge and or release them. It's insane that there are still people there from 10 years ago.

I think the above statement should cover 95% or more of the people there. I can't speak to the details of all of them obviously. Seeing as how we still don't know why most of them are even there.

Erin O'Brien said...

Woodman, I am sure there has been racism involved with weapon availability over the years. I'm also pretty sure the NRA & Co. has corrected that and will take anyone's money no matter what their skin color.

As for the NY fees, yup, them's a lot of clams. You didn't mention how often it needs to be renewed or how much your gun license(s) cost. Does NY give impoverished people a break on license plate fees?

As for constitutional rights, Did you get this upset over North Dakota's recent abortion restrictions? Abortion is a constitutional right as well, but women are subject to waiting periods and bans all the time. The country has let rights erode everywhere you look (I will not reiterate RJ's points about the Patriot Act). Having lawmakers interfere between a doctor and a women over a decision that concerns her well being is hella more intrusive than some background check.

Woodman said...

The NRA didn't change those laws, they are mostly still in effect. Look at the most violent gun areas in our nation and every single on of them has almost total bans on firearms unless you are the correct sort of person.

I don't care how long it lasts, is there another right you have to license on any sort of basis? Can a woman in fear for her life in NYC that's on a fixed income, who is lucky enough to have a friend or relative that gives her a gun for defense afford to register it? No, there is no assistance to pay the fee, in fact because of the "Good Character" section no one unemployed, or on government assistance, or from the wrong area can get a permit, at all.

I'm responding to your stated opinion and don't see why you and others here are trying to derail the topic and make me defend or explain my position on another topic.

Erin O'Brien said...

Derail the topic, eh? You were the one to reference hypothetical GOV forms to start a blog, but very real limitations on women's rights are off limits.


That said, I appreciate all your thoughtful comments and input on this thread.

The whole point of this post had nothing to do with gun control. It was about the NRA and my prediction of their response to 3D printing. As for the subject of gun control, I always supported it in the strictest sense, but I have sort of (ahem) evolved into a position similar to RJ's. With 300 million guns in the US, the cat is pretty much out of the bag. The NRA won. People like me lost. I get it.

So you have all the guns you want--and I'm sure you do. I'd just appreciate it if you'd keep the filthy goddamn things away from me.

Yeah, yeah. With 300 million of them floating around, I guess my rights are shitcanned as far as that's concerned.

Woodman said...

I compared a right given by the second amendment to a right given by the first.

I can't find where abortion is listed by name in the constitution. I can find where "speech" and "right to bear arms" is.

Frankly, abortions are going to happen, they've always happened, and always will. I'm fine with them being legal and Dakota's actions are silly and won't stand. Unfortunately the same people that call ND inhumane cover up people like Kermit in PA.

"Filthy goddamn things" what makes a gun dirty? Why do you view what is nothing but a tool with such distaste and loathing? Most of the guns I own were used in WWII to protect our nation and our allies in Europe.

I have no idea what right of your is shitcanned if your neighbor has a gun. You still have every right you had to begin with. Your neighbor is the same person they were before they had a gun, so it's not like you have anything to fear. If they weren't going to kill you before they aren't exactly going to now.

Erin O'Brien said...

RIP Trayvon Martin.

Bill said...

A teacher armed with a 3D printed gun may have stopped or reduced the carnage at Sandy Hook.

Woodman said...

And RIP George Zimmerman would have been better? Or him spending the rest of his life in a nursing home because his brain doesn't work right any more?

If a young black man had beat to death a middle aged Hispanic man then it wouldn't have made the news and we wouldn't know either name.

While walking around looking into windows is not a crime, neither is asking someone why they are doing so. Neither of those men deserved to die, but one of them was going to as soon as Trayvon attacked George.

Trayvon, the violent thieving drank using thug in training. And George the frustrated son of a judge with anger management problems and an inflated sense of importance as the neighborhood watch. Neither of them are heroes in my book, but George isn't a murderer.

Erin O'Brien said...

"Trayvon, the violent thieving drank (sic) using thug in training."

Your prejudice is mind boggling.

Woodman said...

Drank is the word I meant to use. No reason for (sic).

Violent, he reportedly punched his bus driver.

Thieving, he had a screwdriver and multiple pieces of women's jewelry in his bookbag.

Drank using, he mentions it several times in his tweets, but let's drop that one and talk about his marijuana pipe and empty baggie he was suspended for.

Thug in Training, his comments and attitudes as evidenced by his Twitter account.

I would use the same terms to describe a white kid, or hispanic, or asian, or whatever. Tell me please what prejudice it is that I am displaying? One against violent youth? Yeah, I have three daughters, I can't stand young men in general, violent ones particularly.

My point being that this wasn't a power hungry pistol waving maniac and a choir boy. Having seen the pictures of Zimmerman from that night, he got the shit kicked out of him. From the little I've heard (And I don't know if it's fact, but it's been reported) Trayvon didn't have a mark on him except bruised knuckles and a bullet hole.

Your choice of such a unclear situation as the reason you hate guns is odd to me. How about that four year old that shot and killed his aunt? That hit me, and I'm in favor of guns.

Erin O'Brien said...

Did I say "hate?" I rarely say that word, but I do always hate it when people put words in my mouth.

As for something sad, did you know that seven kids between the ages of one and 19 are killed every day in the United States with a gun?

Woodman said...

The report that is from.

In the 1-14 range there is around one a day from all causes. 208 murders, 81 suicides, and 62 accidents.

It's the 15-19 range, which includes two years of adults, and some of the most potentially violent years of a young man's life, that is bad. 1,554 homicides, 668 suicides, and 72 accidents.

In the last ten years, by reading the statistics from the CDC, it appears that the rate per 100,000 dying, from any cause, from firearms is going down. This during a period where several gun control laws were overturned.

It's already getting better, crime numbers are down in general, murder is down, accidents are down, but there are more guns and more people with them.

Yes, it's sad when a kid gets a gun and accidentally shoots their mother, or when a kid steals his grand father's .22 pistol and shoots six kids at his school. It's also sad when a kid is run over by his dad with his snowplow, or when my neighbor's cousin was run over by his grandfather in his own driveway, or any number of things are sad accidents.

Sorry, I assumed you hated guns since you called them "goddamned filthy things". That was my mistake.

Are those 150 or so accidental deaths worth the 10k to 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year? I don't know. I guess it depends on what you personally have had to deal with. I know people who have had to use their gun in self defense, not to kill, but to stop an attack. I know someone who's son shot a hole in a waterbed playing with it and who could have killed himself.

I happen to think that the positive use of guns outweighs the negative part. You don't.

And that's why there is such a problem with compromise.

Thanks for the discussion. I would think that you dislike having people put words in your mouth a bit less than I like being called prejudiced. But we usually disagree at least semi cordially here. I'll try to comment next time I agree with you on something so I don't just show up here to bicker.

Erin O'Brien said...

And all those numbers are deaths. No ones counting non fatal shootings. I've heard those are estimated somewhere between (ahem) 10,000 and 2,500,000.

I happen to think that the positive use of guns outweighs the negative part. You don't.

Wrong again. You don't know what I think. It's hardly that simple.

Bill said...

Tucson: Nut case
Ft Hood: "allahu Akbar"
VA Tech: Nut case
Auroura CO: Nut case
Sandy Hook: Nut case

Would the legislation being discussed have deterred any of these?

Anonymous said...

"Gun laws effectively stop poor people and minorities from being able to protect themselves."-Woodman.

I know I'm way, way late with this comment and I can't say for sure why. It's just my brain I guess. But for some reason as I was driving to work this morning something triggered a memory of the statement above, (something on the radio perhaps?) and my head exploded. To wit: Working in healthcare I have sometimes seen geriatric patients have to choose between buying their meds or food. However, I can't think of a single instance when I've heard a poor person complain about the costs of guns and ammo vis a vis something like...I don't know, FOOD. To contemplate a conservative srguing for economical gun laws on behalf of the poor being able to defend themselves just boggles the fucking imagination.
Thank you for your time and attention.


Woodman said...

You are making my point for me. A good gun can last generations well taken care of.

But while a gun could be saved up for and bought once per family, or once per generation, paying $340 for a gun license every few years is impossible. Assuming they coulg type the application, make it to 1 Police Plaza, and pass the "character" exam. I don't see anything about refunds if you don't pass either.

So yeah, how is a poor family supposed to legally defend themselves, especially when they live in under patrolled areas with response times listed in dozens of minutes?

Go buy your free speech permit and you can say whatever you want citizen. Oh, can't afford it, then shut your yap. A lot of these places also have knife size limits. And walking around with a baseball bat is not recommended.

Anonymous said...

"So yeah, how is a poor family supposed to legally defend themselves, especially when they live in under patrolled areas with response times listed in dozens of minutes?"-Woodman

Actually you're making my point for me Mr. Woodman. Perhaps if "the poor" weren't so fucking marginalized they would have improved public safety response times equivalent to some gravy sucking pigs in a gated-community who hire a vigilante like George Zimmerman to keep the colored folks off their lawn.


There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.
— Elie Wiesel

Woodman said...

George Zimmerman, the volunteer, Hispanic/African American neighborhood watch captain. Who with his wife mentored many young people, of all colors. And protested against the racist acts of the local police department in the beating of a homeless man.

In the "gated-community" that had in the year prior to Martin's death included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting.

Careful RJ, your predetermined answers are showing. I suggest enabling people to take care of themselves, and you bring up some macabre version of events that fits your perception that they can only be protected by others.

Again, if Zimmerman didn't have a gun, then he is the dead one and it never hits national news.

Woodman said...

When seconds count, police are only minutes away.

At Sandy Hook it took the police over 20 minutes to cover the 2.3 miles between the station and the school. And that"s responding to a nightmare shots fired at a school phone call. Hell, it took 5 minutes for someone to call 911 in the first place.

Erin O'Brien said...

If Zimmerman hadn't had a gun, he never would have gotten out of the car.

Erin O'Brien said...

Newtown police officers "made it in under three minutes, arriving in the parking lot while gunfire could still be heard."


The 20-minute bit is a bunch of tripe extrapolated from a generalized quote LaPierre made. It's been debunked time and time again.

I've written for the NYT and I've been through their fact checking. They don't botch these things. And there are undeniable police records documenting all of it.

Woodman said...

I stand corrected on the 20 minutes. But I got it from CNN, so I plead lack of double checking I guess.

From the scanner recording the report of the first call is at 9:35, the report of the gun shots from the parking lot is at 9:40. The entrance of police to the building is at 9:43.

So, 8 minutes, pretty average then. I feel a bit better about the response time, but the police are never going to prevent a crime unless they are there first. We guard banks with guns, we guard schools with signs saying there are no guns.

As For NYT and fact checking...

Hey, one of the largest religions in the world, and apparently no one could even bother to do a google search on it.

Not to mention the stories that were made up, plagiarized, and flat out wrong over the last 10 years or more. The Grey Lady is going senile.

I suppose rape victims shouldn't be dressed that way, or go down that alley. And if Zimmerman had stayed in his car he'd be ok. I don't blame the victim, and in the case of someone who was apparently assaulted and killed his attacker, he's the victim until proven otherwise. According to the police report, some of the eyewitnesses, and most interpretations of the forensic evidence that's what happened.

Erin O'Brien said...

From the police report:

"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely, if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern," the report says. "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."


Twelve of Zimmerman's peers will decide his fate.

Anonymous said...


The only caution I need exercise is wasting my time in useless exchanges with trolls on the internet.

While you are extolling the vitues of personal responsibility and constitutional rights people within the boundaries of the U.S. of America are hungry, homeless and dying from lack of healthcare due to no fault of their own. No amount of willpower or personal effort would change their condition. You can take your erudite attitude and cram it up your ass.


Erin O'Brien said...

That would be an example of free speech.

Woodman said...

See, and here I thought you could identify the troll by the personal attacks.

RJ, I give to charity, and I pay taxes that also end up helping the poor. I should ignore attacks on the bill of rights because people are hungry?

Erin, you are right, and that report is right. George could have not volunteered to be the neighborhood watch and not been involved too. Conversely, Trayvon could have avoided the issue as well by not attacking George. I mean really, should we all huddle in our house and hide from people?

If I see someone poking around my neighbor's back yard, I say something. And I'm not part of any watch. I've gotten calls from neighbors when something is going on at my house, it's called looking out for each other.

Here is the kicker. If George Zimmerman is found innocent by a jury of his peers, does that mean justice is served, or will people explode? If George is found guilty, I'll be surprised, but I won't feel betrayed or anything, hopefully something would be said that would explain why he was found guilty. Right now I don't see any evidence that says he is, but I'm not in the court room reading the testimony and hearing the lawyers.

I will say so much for a speedy trial. I know his lawyers have delayed a couple times, as well as the prosecution, but you'd think they could go to court faster than a year and a half.

Erin O'Brien said...

Zimmerman INITIATED PURSUIT of Martin WITH A GUN. According to the report, he did not properly identify himself.

Did it ever occur to you that Trayvon Martin saw this guy coming at him with a gun and died fighting for his life?

I don't think the constitution gave anyone, including George Zimmerman the right to be judge, jury and executioner.

Like I said, a jury of 12 will decide.

Woodman said...

Wait, what?

You think George had his gun drawn when they ran into each other? I haven't seen anything that even suggested that.

That's the only way anyone but George would know he had a gun, is if he had it out. (Florida law prohibits open carry, or even being able to tell if someone has a concealed weapon from inspection, even briefly accidentally flashing a gun is a crime)

And you think Trayvon's response to having a gun pointed at him is to charge George, somehow break his nose and pound his head into the pavement a couple times, scream for help (One of them) for over 30 seconds, only then for Zimmerman to finally pull the trigger of the gun already in his hand and kill Trayvon with single shot to the heart from contact range.

How does that possibly work? And if he has the gun out already, why use both hands beating him down "MMA style" instead of grabbing the gun.

If that's what happened then both men involved in this are even dumber than I thought they were. Like I said originally Zimmerman is far from a hero in this situation. I'm not praising him for his actions, but I don't think he is a cold blooded murderer. No more than Trayvon meant to kill someone that night either.

"I don't think the constitution gave anyone, including George Zimmerman the right to be judge, jury and executioner. "

Neither do I, but I think he had the right to defend himself.

I think we've drawn our lines here. I believe that Zimmerman was attacked and defended himself, and you believe something else.

Erin O'Brien said...

I believe a jury of 12 will weigh the evidence and decide Mr. Zimmerman's fate.


Bill said...

Mr Zimmerman is lucky, indeed, that E and RJ won't be on the jury. Btw, he did NOT have his gun drawn when Trayvon attacked him. Do you think he would have his gun pointed at his attacker, let him break his nose, bang his head on the cement? Has anyone else noticed that RJ is obsessed with "gravy sucking pigs"? RJ, I know more about poor old people than you will ever know. Your hatred of success and individual responsibility detracts from your credibility. And, your hateful comments do nothing to help the people who you purport to defend. I get me a little free speech too.

Anonymous said...

An irony, indeed, that the concern now is that Mr Zimmerman can face an unbiased jury. Because this case initially came to widespread attention because of the fact that Mr Zimmerman WASN'T EVEN CHARGED. He slept that night in his own bed. A dead black kid didn't seem very important to the police of Sanford, Florida. It was six weeks before the charges were filed. Most of the pro-Zimmerman sturm-und-drang up to that point was was predicated on this point: that it wasn't a fair question to ask if there should be a full criminal investigation over a dead black kid.

PBS is screening a Ken Burns film this very moment entitled "The Central Park Five." If there are any of you reading this who are unfamiliar with that case, it might be instructive as to why there are is a large portion of the populace in our country with a little extra edge when it comes to issues of fairness when a case arises such as this one where it is plain that there was at best perfunctory police work over a dead black kid.


Bill said...

The police work in the Zimmerman/Martin case, rises to the level of Sherlock Holmes compared to the police work in Chicago. Some people only get concerned when a black kid is killed in a confrontation with a lighter skinned person. Maybe Ken Burns, or someone, should look into the mostly black on black killing in Obama's home town.

Bill said...

And then there's the case of the murder of 7 babies and a woman, that the press may FINALLY be starting to cover. Maybe the Gosnell trial will bring some outrage

Anonymous said...

Epic Bill.

There are plenty of accounts of what is happening in Chicago, why it seems to be happening, and what is being done to try and abate it.

It's all over the internet-just about any news source that you'd care to peruse will give you in-depth coverage, from any number of points of view.

But you don't really give a rat's ass about any of it unless you can couch it in terms of black-on-black crime or use it as an angle to take another fucking cheap shot at our-YOUR-President.

I thought your 'he's hiding behind those dead babies to attack the Second Amendment' line was the worst you could possibly come up with.

But I'm pretty sure you'll keep trying anyway. You, and many people like you, seem to be unable to control yourselves. That'll lend itself to an in-depth examination one day too.


Bill said...

Anyone check out that Kermit Gosnell trial?

Bill said...

Have you all registered your pressure cookers?