Wanting to restrict rights because of hypothetical future scenarios

Now that’s a knee jerk reaction.

quote:

---

It would be the same thing as restricting free speech because someone, somewhere might ‘yell fire in a crowded theater’.

---

It is called "prior restraint" and is not allowed.

quote:

---

Yea , Im all for gun rights but the implications of anyone printing out his/her own stock pile frightens me .

---

You can make zip guns already without these printers.

quote:

---

None of these guns have been used in any violent crimes as far as I know.

---

A private citizen has never nuked a city. Can we get some enriched uranium?

quote:

---

private citizen has never nuked a city. Can we get some enriched uranium?

---

Nukes aren’t protected by the Constitution.

Do you even think of the children, bro?

Ignoring the fact that these bans are complete horse shite, is anyone else sick of federal district court judges exceeding their "limited jurisdiction" and issuing nationwide injunctions? They've done it with immigration, DACA, and now 3d guns. It's completely unconstitutional for them to do it and especially pisses me off that some cocksucker judge in Seattle thinks he can tell me what I can and cannot do.

My statement still stands. How can you stop terrorists from using it?

The printer has already been created. Guns aren't some insanely hard items to build. It will be used. They could make them illegal, the penalty for owning one could be death and it wouldn't stop a single terrorist.

Pandoras box has been opened.

Democrats know this is nothing more than a talking point with no solution. As usual, they don't even want a solution. They want something to scream about.

Why didn't they change immigration law when they had the House, Senate and Presidency?

Why didn't they repeal the Patriot Act when they had the House Senate and Presidency?

Why didn't they change gun laws when they had the House Senate and Presidency?

Because at the end of the day, they want something to scream about. They aren't interested in solving anything. That is a fact. Dispute it all you want but you can't dispute they had the House Senate and Presidency and did shite when they had the chance.

No different than the clowns on here hoping Roe v Wade gets overturned so they can win the next election. They are so illogical, they would rather their base be hurt so they can win an election.

In short, let me know how to stop terrorists from using something that already exists, or shut the frick up. This is nothing more than lip service fear mongering.

The files are mostly just the receivers. One must still add a barrel, trigger group, magazine, the bullets themselves, etc.

There is one file ( Liberator, I think) that requires a metal tube for a barrel and a nail for a firing pin. But, that is a rudimentary firearm at BEST. Crude, inaccurate, etc.


This is much ado about nothing. frick Fed Gov overreach based upon fear and ignorance

quote:

---

It would be the same thing as restricting free speech because someone, somewhere might ‘yell fire in a crowded theater’.

---

It is basically this.

The gun plans aren't a gun. It is information.

This is not the restriction of a firearm, this is government censorship of information that the government deems unacceptable.