Talk-Polywell.org

"No, but this gun has no purpose other to be used by criminals."

Maybe. But depending on the laws, that sounds like an excellent possibility.

A very fine thing indeed.

As has been said -- "The purpose is to prevent a government monopoly on violence."

It is not possible for a government in particular or government in principle, to have a just monopoly on violence. Government should not be no omnipresent and cannot be so omniscient as to make that work either in theory or in practice.

TDPerk wrote:"I don't see why it's not just a matter of time before it is a gun crime issue."

Because it isn't that useful a gun. The ammunition alone renders it visible to x-ray and most metal detectors. or the same wright and volume, many other firearms are preferable.

Whether for just or unjust purposes, this isn't that good a gun.

Ladajo got me. I didn't mean this gun but the guns that home fabbing will eventually give us. It's going to be sooner than later.

Well, eventually, high quality firearms will be printable. I think that is something every one here can agree on.

As for the effectiveness of gun control that is the controversy. To me it's very apparent that gun control is completely ineffective at preventing murder and crime.

The reason the government is upset with this, is that it removes one of their illusions that they think they are in control.

Really it gives me the willies that the people who are in government think they need to be in control of us.

What kind of sick twisted moron needs that?

I would offer that only bad government is afraid of good citizens.
My quote. Please attribute.

kunkmiester wrote:This gun would be useful to a normal person for the same purpose the original Liberator was intended for--killing a jackboot and stealing his(much better) gun. Even made from poorer quality materials, it would be more than enough for one or two shots, as made.

The purpose is to prevent a government monopoly on violence. Are there other ways to do it? Sure, but the symbolism here can be just as important as having a functional system.

That is such a stupid argument. Why cant you just use a gun that you bought legally instead? What is the problem with buying a legal, registered gun, instead of this contraption? The government does not prevent any non criminal from having a gun. Also what does "monopoly on violence" mean? So you want to be violent? I dont get it.

"Why cant you just use a gun that you bought legally instead? "

Because you might be in a position to start with this file and a 3D printer you unimaginative mope!

Skipjack wrote:

kunkmiester wrote:This gun would be useful to a normal person for the same purpose the original Liberator was intended for--killing a jackboot and stealing his(much better) gun. Even made from poorer quality materials, it would be more than enough for one or two shots, as made.

The purpose is to prevent a government monopoly on violence. Are there other ways to do it? Sure, but the symbolism here can be just as important as having a functional system.

That is such a stupid argument. Why cant you just use a gun that you bought legally instead? What is the problem with buying a legal, registered gun, instead of this contraption? The government does not prevent any non criminal from having a gun. Also what does "monopoly on violence" mean? So you want to be violent? I dont get it.

Monopoly on violence

The re-imposition of arbitrary absolutist government based on socialist ideology as opposed to hereditary bloodlines is the chief accomplishment of the Rousseauan tradition in political economy. There in fact can be no legitimate monopoly on violence, but that is required for the Rousseauan state to succeed. Not enough people will put up with the spreading of the wealth required to bring the peasantry into the support of the philosopher kings otherwise. It leads directly, however, from Rousseau to Marx, and then to Lenin and Stalin (and the one with the small mustache, and baldy) and to Mao, Pol Pot, and Abimael Guzman, and ultimately to the farce of Hugo Chavez. They are all on the same continuum with Brussels' bland dirigistes which stretches to the pyramids of skulls in Cambodia, et al.

The Enlightenment tradition rejected by Europe, however predicates that all social contracts are revocable, and the ultimate just arbiter of that revocation is the individual, and that there is no higher power created when the social contract is respected. America is founded on that Enlightenment tradition. It's constitution recognizes in the 2nd amendment that the state can have no just monopoly on the use of force, both the right to self defense and it's innately congruent right to revolution inhere to the individual without severability being possible.

In side point to that, there is nothing of Burke or his peers in American conservatism, Burke is an import from Europe via Buckley who rose in reaction to the French Revolution--that one the first of Rousseau's get--instead what is conservative in America is Joseph Plumb Martin laying Burke's peers low from their saddles.

There is one revolution that worked, Europe's seems to require repeating on a regular basis. Perhaps they just haven't laid the proper foundation yet.

TDPerk wrote:

Skipjack wrote:

kunkmiester wrote:This gun would be useful to a normal person for the same purpose the original Liberator was intended for--killing a jackboot and stealing his(much better) gun. Even made from poorer quality materials, it would be more than enough for one or two shots, as made.

The purpose is to prevent a government monopoly on violence. Are there other ways to do it? Sure, but the symbolism here can be just as important as having a functional system.

That is such a stupid argument. Why cant you just use a gun that you bought legally instead? What is the problem with buying a legal, registered gun, instead of this contraption? The government does not prevent any non criminal from having a gun. Also what does "monopoly on violence" mean? So you want to be violent? I dont get it.

Monopoly on violence

The re-imposition of arbitrary absolutist government based on socialist ideology as opposed to hereditary bloodlines is the chief accomplishment of the Rousseauan tradition in political economy. There in fact can be no legitimate monopoly on violence, but that is required for the Rousseauan state to succeed. Not enough people will put up with the spreading of the wealth required to bring the peasantry into the support of the philosopher kings otherwise. It leads directly, however, from Rousseau to Marx, and then to Lenin and Stalin (and the one with the small mustache, and baldy) and to Mao, Pol Pot, and Abimael Guzman, and ultimately to the farce of Hugo Chavez. They are all on the same continuum with Brussels' bland dirigistes which stretches to the pyramids of skulls in Cambodia, et al.

The Enlightenment tradition rejected by Europe, however predicates that all social contracts are revocable, and the ultimate just arbiter of that revocation is the individual, and that there is no higher power created when the social contract is respected. America is founded on that Enlightenment tradition. It's constitution recognizes in the 2nd amendment that the state can have no just monopoly on the use of force, both the right to self defense and it's innately congruent right to revolution inhere to the individual without severability being possible.

In side point to that, there is nothing of Burke or his peers in American conservatism, Burke is an import from Europe via Buckley who rose in reaction to the French Revolution--that one the first of Rousseau's get--instead what is conservative in America is Joseph Plumb Martin laying Burke's peers low from their saddles.

There is one revolution that worked, Europe's seems to require repeating on a regular basis. Perhaps they just haven't laid the proper foundation yet.

I dont get it. Why do these things even matter in the discussion?

TDPerk wrote:"Why cant you just use a gun that you bought legally instead? "

Because you might be in a position to start with this file and a 3D printer you unimaginative mope!

I still dont get it.

Skipjack wrote:Why cant you just use a gun that you bought legally instead?

If the State Stupers get their way only supporters of the State would be permitted to arm themselves. The rest of us would be slaves subjugated to the will of the State. The ability to improvise resistance from impossible to regulate means then becomes important.

what he said ^

IBID

IBID

only bad government is afraid of good citizens

Skipjack,

What is the problem with buying a legal, registered gun, instead of this contraption? The government does not prevent any non criminal from having a gun.

But that is the whole point, the state determines who is a criminal and who isn't, and they have shown themselves to not be honest boy scouts. How many gay people were made criminals just by a pen? How many black people were enslaved by the state, here? Of course, the real problem is in this day and age, a printable gun is just for show against the drones, and Big Brother's eyes are now everywhere, and the Ministry of Truth is the MSM, including Faux. Makes one seem certifiable just to describe where we are.

Want to see what revolution does, just look at any occurring today. And does anyone think our neighbors would not take advantage of that? What was the ending scene of 1984, didn't work out, did it? This is not the 1700's, did anyone point that out?

I still dont get it.

I don't know what's more likely.

That Skipjack either through the divergence of European thought from the Enlightenment philosophers like Locke and Smith, has a genuine inability to understand, because he lacks the language and mental framework for the concepts for it.

Or that he's pretending for the sake of comedy.