In The Beginning: Printable Gun Can Spew Hundreds of Bullets

March 4, 2013
By

” Published on Feb 25, 2013 SLA and FDM. Does not fail from firing stresses. 600+ rounds (.223). ” — http://defcad.org

Wired Article:

” Late last year, a group of 3-D printing gunsmiths developed a key component for an AR-15 rifle that anyone with a 3-D printer could download and make at home. The problem: It only lasted six shots before snapping apart. Now the group is back with a new and improved receiver that can fire more than 600 rounds.

Defense Distributed demonstrated the receiver — the base of a gun that includes the trigger mechanism — in a video posted this week to the group’s blog. Its arrival comes the week Congress returned from vacation to debate a series of potential gun regulations. In the video, dozens of bullets contained in a high-capacity drum magazine are seen being fired by the printed receiver. (The magazine was shoved into the printable receiver, itself attached to traditional rifle parts.) It’s also the first printable receiver to fire .223 caliber high-pressure rifle rounds without breaking. An earlier version fired low-pressure .22 caliber cartridges. ” — continued here: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/printable-receiver/

Related Resources:

can fire more than 600 rounds

can fire more than 600 rounds

The Face of Printable Firearms: A Conversation with Cody Wilson
http://blog.makezine.com/2013/02/07/the-face-of-printable-firearms-a-conversation-with-cody-wilson/

Congressman Says He’ll Propose Ban On 3D-Printable Gun Magazines
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/16/congressman-says-hell-propose-ban-on-3d-printable-gun-magazines/

DEFCAD – The island of misfit objects
http://defcad.org

Defense Distributed
http://defensedistributed.com

Pushing the Boundaries : 3-D Printing
http://iysn.org/2011/09/17/pushing-the-boundaries-3-d-printing/

3D Printing Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing

Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • DaveM48

    I hope that Defense Distributed is making the plans or printer code for its receivers and magazines available for download and distribution. The sooner this information is in the hands of millions of people worldwide, the less chance there will be that any meaningful form of restriction on individual firearms ownership can ever be effective (by no means only in the United States).

    Assuming this technology pans out, the only way of containing it will be control access to 3-D printers. Given their myriad applications in industry, this does not seem a likely prospect.

    Materials are likely to evolve in strength and durability rapidly. Many handguns now have frames made of “polymer” (plastic) and are extremely durable indeed. Anyone else remember the hysteria over Glock’s “plastic guns”? They were nothing of the sort, of course, and chances are your local police department carries them. But the frames are made of a plastic composite.

  • http://www.facebook.com/daryl.hunt.98 Daryl Hunt

    NO, it’s not the fact that it’s a gun. The receiver is the only thing that cannot be bought over the counter without any kind of background check or waiting period. All the other parts you see here are not controlled at all with the possible exception of the Magazine (pending legislation on that). In order to buy the receiver (it is serial number controlled and is considered the Gun, itself) you have to go through exactly the same procedure as actually buying the gun. The Barrel, Stock, Mag, rails, sights, etc. do make the gun a gun.

    This receiver is made from a composite material on a 3-D printer. If you own one of those, you can make a doll that looks exactly like yourself in all dimensions. On a 3-D printer, you can also make the parts that make up the receiver by scanning them in from 4 shots, front, back, right and left side. Without the original receiver to scan in you can’t make the 3-D printer duplicate the parts to make one out of composites. The good news is, you can have your own 3-D printer for right around 3000 bucks. The bad news for the wannabes is that you pretty much have to be a NASA Chemical Engineer to come up with the composites for the 3-D printer to make it out of.

    Oh, the Horrors of it all.

    You will notice the rate of fire. It has roughly the same rate of fire as a Heavy Machine Gun. It’s good for about 600 rounds before the receiver wears out even with the Rocket Scientist Compound. IT has roughly a 370 rpm fire rate. That means that that 100 round clip is good for about 37 seconds of continuous fire. I guess some may argue that you may need it for hunting. You never know when you get a Deer cornered in a Warehouse armed with a Bazooka.

  • LibertarianAtheist

    Lets hurry and get a law passed banning this technology! Because that will stop people from doing it. I mean, look how well it worked with piracy on the internet!

    • That Guy

      There’s a problem or two with your comment, but don’t dispair. At least you’re consistent. No one is talking about banning guns.

      • http://comgen.blogspot.com/ ComGen

        Everyone knows that download piracy is = to guns killing innocent people http://youtu.be/I9_hWoGrxWg

        • That Guy

          Yes. It’s the *exact* same thing!

        • LibertarianAtheist

          Yeah, and would you like to point out where I implied this statement? Just because you make up some absurd statement by taking what I said extremely out of context, doesn’t make your statement relevant.

          My point (as stated before) was merely that making something illegal will not stop people from doing it.

          Piracy is illegal, drugs are illegal, murder is illegal. So, why do
          people do it? Piracy and drugs is an easy (mostly) answer. Murder, not
          so much.

          But you said “guns killing innocent people” without a hint of irony. Let’s start with the obvious. You say guns kill innocent people, so you must also say that guns kill guilty people. Now, the question is which out weights the other. Impossible to say. If a government can say a person is guilty for defending their country (if you don’t know, i’m talking about the middle east here) and shoot them down because of a war started by a Republican president then continued and spread by a Democratic president. Does that automatically make that person guilty? If you say yes, then you agree that a government has the absolute power to say who is guilty and innocent. without being held accountable. Which, is a very dangerous theory. Remember, government with guns have killed more people than citizens with guns ever have. For this reason, is why an armed populous is necessary.

          Next, you are implying that the gun kills innocent people. Have you ever heard anyone say that guns killed Osama Bin Laden? No, of course not. You hear that Seal Team Six carried out the execution of Osama Bin Laden. Yes, we have a president who says that guns killed people, but doesn’t give the credit to the gun when carried out by his military? Contradictory statement. If the gun is the problem, it cannot be the answer.

          Saying a gun is the problem is like saying money is the
          root of all evil. Both are completely foolish statements. A gun is only
          a means to an end.

          • http://comgen.blogspot.com/ ComGen

            Have fun with this:

            From your comment above: “Will NOT stop people from doing it… Gun Control is a knee jerk, feel good method of handling a problem. It’s illogical and unreasonable. ”

            Yet, these laws [ running stop signs ] do reduce greatly the number of offenses which in return helps to save a life or three / prevent injury. Sure some people are going to avoid the law(s)..run a red light, but overall once in place people follow them. Those that don’t are charged, sentenced….price those idiots must pay. Making it a felony to own/use/operate concealed or semi-auto high capacity weapon without proper license for example would make a few more people pause..lets add manufacturing weapons/ammo. This pause could save lives, same with wait list and background checks. I look at it like this, if you’re in a big f-ing hurry, must have it this minute to purchase a semi-auto, multiple rounds of ammo with silencer there’s something up. Contact the police if you feel your life is in danger. A responsible gun owner will plan ahead, not mind waiting for background check, etc. It’s the shady folks that seem to have an issue with this. Same applies to gun show and private purchase, these loopholes need to be fixed. Personally I support DMV style approach to gun ownership: person must have: be of adult age [ voter ], non violent criminal past, pass gun safety class, test and be licensed which is updated every X-years..stamp placed on ID/DMV license. If person can not prove or provide license when caught with weapon…3 strike law: 1) jail/suspended sentence with probation and fine 2) mandatory jail and all but single/dual shot weapon ownership allowed 3) felony + prison. I own multiple firearms and collect, I have zero problem making an extra effort to prove I’m responsible. Troll on my little friend…..

            • LibertarianAtheist

              You know why the laws stop people from doing it? The punishment justifies the crime. I will gladly take 10 seconds to stop to avoid a 100 dollar ticket. The same does not apply to murder. Our jail system is a joke. You can kill some one and be out in 10 years because we are too busy locking up people for drug offenses and cannot afford to maintain our jail system. Not to mention you still get three decent meals a day, books to read, a gym, TV time, full health care, etc. You want to held crime? Make going to jail horrendous. Make it so they will not want to go back. Make them break rocks for 10 hours a day. Also, ending the war on drugs would stop the black market for drugs thereby reducing gang violence (a major cause of murder in this country). Another method to reduce violence is bringing back corporal punishment in schools. Not extreme abuse, but a paddle to the ass surely straightened me out. Why isn’t anyone looking at these three things as options as reducing murders and crime?

              A concealed weapon is not a problem if the person trained. And here in my state (Ohio) you have to be properly trained and pass a class before you get your license. Which, I do agree with because it is a responsibility not to be taken lightly. I am all for training. I actually believe having a gun safety course in high school would benefit this country tremendously.

              However, a license to own a gun should not exist. Mainly because it will not reduce anything. Partly because I believe the government has no right taxing me because I own a gun. And you better believe a license to own a gun will have to be renewed (at my expense) every few years.

              Now let’s move on to the high capacity magazine argument. So, the magic number of bullets in a magazine is what? 10? What will this stop? It makes a non skilled gun operator less than 5 seconds to change a magazine. And more magazines isn’t that much more difficult to carry. So, this is only keeping these “high capacity” magazines out of the hands of law abiding citizens for no reason besides it will make you feel good yet do nothing.

              Do you know what a silencer does? It only reduces the muzzle volume. Go ahead and look at youtube videos of guns with silencers. It still sounds like a gun. Don’t believe movies. Silencers do not silence guns. How many murders have you seen happened with silencers? Very few Another pointless argument.

              Background checks already exist. The so called “gun show loophole” you speak of is a complete lie. Anyone with a table at a gun show is required to perform a background check. The sales and trades made without a background check are done from person to person, as in people who go to the gun show, and are usually done OUTSIDE the gun show because every gun show I have ever been to ban the sale and trades of guns between people on the premises. So, how effective would a law requiring universal background checks be? It would still happen, and also would strengthen the black market on guns. It’s still illegal for a person to sell a gun to another person who is not allowed to own a gun (felon, underage, mentally unstable). A person could also be held responsible for selling a gun to a person who immediately uses it for a crime.

              And you say that a wait list could save lives? Remember Adam Lanza? Yeah, he was denied the right to buy a gun. So what did he do. He stole his mothers guns. Also, if a person is dead set on murder. How would a waiting period stop them? Meth is illegal, do the laws stop people from doing it? Drunk Driving is illegal, does it stop people from doing it? No.

              If you know so much about guns, how do you not know any of this information?

              Your DMV approach does not stop people from driving drunk that cause 12000+ deaths a year.

              • http://comgen.blogspot.com/ ComGen

                ” Your DMV approach does not stop people from driving drunk that cause 12000+ deaths a year. ”

                Having an enforceable [ DUI ] law sure does, more people think twice about drinking and driving as a result, they cab it, have sober drivers on hand, thus the rate could be much higher if no law was in place. I’ll take and keep in mind ” idiots ” are still going to be a factor, lower death rate over higher. Like with drones, death rate per attack of the innocent are much lower than traditional airstrikes. Both kill but I’ll take the lower civilian body count solution when there are no better options–war is still on the table. Decent article on drones vs. airstrikes if interested: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/02/drones_war_and_civilian_casualties_how_unmanned_aircraft_reduce_collateral.html

                Preventive measures.

                DMV-gun license: I’ll simplify: if a person is caught outside of his/her behind closed door home with weapon and they can not prove/provide said license three strike law goes into effect. Preventive measures and again legitimate, truly responsible, care for personal security and those around them safety gun owners should have no problem. The shady folks over time will be taken off the street, I imagine by strike two the average street thug will think twice before packing an illegal or rather non DMV like-licensed weapon and knowing there will be more than a slap and mild fine if caught-enforceable law. This does not prevent idiots from obtaining firearms…will curb it enough to save lives though. Gun control laws are all about prevention and safety of the overall population. The point behind DMV style is to enforce the law, no and if or but….we must be able to weed out the criminal element so some sort of identification-restriction is required. There will be no tax per se, if you wish to carry in public firearms you pay for a license, etc. If not you’re free to remain behind doors with them. I’m more for personal responsibility / accountability, not so much “ gun banning “, granted I really can’t see the need for semi-auto assault weapon with 30+ round clip for personal security nor hunting for food-not sport. If you can’t hit your target within a few rounds you’re probably f-ed anyway. Yet having these weapons in the market place does make available or easy access. There are no 100% solutions, but look if we can cut preventable gun deaths by 10% or more I’m happy.

                • LibertarianAtheist

                  And having an enforceable law against murder makes more people think twice about killing. The weapon is only a means to an end. That is not what you are understanding here. Stronger gun control laws (without banning them) will only make a black market of guns stronger and raise gang violence. IE: Prohibition.

                  And your drone argument would be relevant, if you believe that the “terrorists” Mr Obama is targeting are actually terrorists. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Most of these people in the middle east just want us to leave them alone. The rest are pissed about Palestine and our unjust involvement with Israel. We have no right to be droning OR sending airstrikes in the middle east. We have no right having a military presence in half the world.

                  Your DMV License argument has one major flaw. How are you going to catch these people? You can’t come to our homes to search us, that would be invasion of privacy. You can’t randomly search us on the street, again, invasion of privacy. You would have to catch these people while they are already committing crimes. Which changes nothing. It’s already illegal for a felon to own a gun, it’s illegal for people with a history of violent crime to own a gun. It’s illegal for some one who is deemed mentally unstable to own a gun. There is a long list of disqualifications already that make it illegal for a person to own a gun. If they are caught with guns, they can be charged. So, how is a license going to help? It’s only going to create another step and another tax for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. Your argument punishes those who do not commit crimes. THAT is the problem. It’s about personal liberty and freedom It will stop nothing. Criminals will still get guns and law abiding citizens will have yet another step to jump through to own a gun. These shady folks you speak of are who? Am I shady because I feel I should not be punished for the atrocities of others? I am doing nothing wrong with my firearms, and because less than .01 percent of people use them for atrocities, I should be punished? And say we do give your idea a chance, and it doesn’t work (which, it wouldn’t) What is the next step? Slowly stripping our rights to own guns.

                  You say the point of the DMV style is to enforce the law, yet the law already states that murder is illegal, armed robbery is illegal, armed mugging is illegal. Using your gun for any crime IS ILLEGAL. Yet, you are asking for yet ANOTHER law. We already have over 20000 gun laws, when will be the perfect number? Ohh, that’s right, when they are all illegal. That way, we can watch the violent crime rate jump through the roof.

                  “You cannot stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws” – Penn Jillette

                  And, what exactly makes you qualified to say no one needs a 30 round magazine? Have you ever had 4 or 5 armed criminals break into your house? Have you ever had a government invade your country? I haven’t, but having 30 round magazines for my AR-15 sure does help my preparedness. A Japanese general once said “The reason no country will ever think of invading America is because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” I am a law abiding citizen, why should I be punished because a few people do wrong?

                  And you say if we can prevent deaths by 10% you will be happy? What about after that? Some one else won’t be happy until its this number, then this number, then this number, until it’s illegal for a citizen to own guns. This is a slippery slope. This is the slow process of removing rights not for your protection, but for the protection of a totalitarian government.

                  I know there is no 100% solution, but stripping the rights from law abiding citizens and/or punishment them because of a less than 1% minority who do wrong is not the answer. Again, see my three examples of how to try to curve violence from my previous post. More punishment in jails, stop the perpetuation of gangs, and try to curve violent behavior at a young age.

                • LibertarianAtheist

                  I think the major difference between us, is I believe you had the right to push for this legislation in your own city, county, state. That is constitutionally protected.

                  What is not constitutionally protected is a federal law against gun control. ANY Federal law against gun control is unconstitutional per the second amendment. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear. If you want to pass a law for gun control, see the tenth amendment.

                  • http://comgen.blogspot.com/ ComGen

                    Right to free speech but can be arrested for communicating threats or inciting a riot, Gun and voting rights can be taken away or limited [ felony ].. We live in a modern world, as we grow we must adapt. The law of this land was written to include future changes [ not static ], thus unless you’re still living in 1700′s many things have changed over time [ amendments ]. If we need to regulate people, since I hear you say guns don’t kill people, people do…then so be it. Lets put stricter laws and enforceable in place to ” help ” prevent or curb firearm related deaths/crime. Obviously you’re looking into this much too deep. Very simple, something has to be done to make more people think first, think smart, will not stop a bulk of the ” black market ” / crime. Nothing will. Regardless, ALL gun owners should be required to be fully licensed and do training there is no excuse not to. Guns are both good and bad, but in the wrong hands….

          • http://www.facebook.com/george.post.5 George Post

            Look at all the dumb knee-jerk leftists who auto-voted the comment down. A classic display of “herd-wisdumb”; “Nah; take that!!!” Keep spite-farting at people; it just makes you look petty and narrow-minded, as well as malicious. You leftists and your goofy political-religion… you’re just as dumb and lame as the rednecks who want to ban video-games and movies; the onbly difference is WHICH stupid statements you make, and which particular things you want to ban.

      • LibertarianAtheist

        “Congressman Says He’ll Propose Ban On 3D-Printable Gun Magazines”

        From above. But, you seem to have found somewhere in my comment where I was worried about people banning guns. My comment was merely a sarcastic response at the lunacy of illogical laws that would ban some one from using 3-D printing from making weapons.

      • http://www.facebook.com/george.post.5 George Post

        You really think these leftists wouldn’t love to ban guns? That’s all they ever bitch about. And all their pseudo-Freudian talk of guns being an extension of the penis really shows an obsession with penises, and who might have a bigger one than them, apparently. It’s clear that they have a phobia of guns, no doubt through hanging out at coffee-shops too much with the nerds there, who likely have never handled a firearm. This comment of yours “No one is talking about banning guns.” sounds like too much snarky disingenuous denial on your part, apparently ‘cuz you’re afraid of guns, too.

    • Sally

      And I bet you don’t wear seatbelts or stop at signs either. “Cause, you know, if the government promotes it, it must be EVIL. When you get a head injury requiring 24 hour care, I do hope it’s in a state that requires you to have insurance.

      • LibertarianAtheist

        You completely missed the point. Have you ever seen some one run a red light? Not stop at a stop sign? Not wear a seat belt? I surely have. Yet, all those actions are against the law. What you seem to not be able to comprehend, is just because there is a law against it. Will NOT stop people from doing it.

        You claim you want to ban guns to save lives. Yet, you seem to forget that murder IS STILL ILLEGAL. So, you call for more laws. How do you see the problem as a lack of laws, yet fail to see that the problem MAY be some where else. You want less crime? Make the punishment for crime justify a fear of performing said crime. Our jail system is a joke. If you are homeless, you may as well kill some one.

        We have given gun control a chance in cities like Chicago (highest crime in the country) and even countries like Australia or England (one of the highest violent crime rates in the world). Yes, there is less murder by guns in both of those countries (Chicago actually has a high gun crime rate despite being illegal) but the total violent crime is at least double what ours is.

        Gun Control is a knee jerk, feel good method of handling a problem. It’s illogical and unreasonable.

    • Biting Reality

      As our friend ComGen pointed out below, not everything is equal…Another case in point – Public Education……..it produces scientists, presidents, humanitarians, economists, physicians and then, well…you

      • LibertarianAtheist

        All of which are groups of people what would include those who use guns, and those who do not. All of which may include evil and good people. All of which include people who I claim to not know what is best for their lives. So, I stay out of it. They are allowed to live their lives any way they want as long as they do not interfere with my personal liberty. But you better believe I have the right to protect myself if they choose to interfere with my personal liberty with just action.

        You cannot control free will. But you can protect yourself from the actions of others. Self-Preservation is an instinct all people can agree with.

        The problem is agreeing on the methods of it. Which will never happen. So I put my belief in a system that protects EVERYONE’S right. If you think self-preservation means not owning guns, then don’t buy one. But DO NOT try to act like you know what is best for my life by telling me citizens shouldn’t own guns.

        • Biting Reality

          In the GOP CAP vernacular you choose to speak. DO NOT try to act like guns have a fucking thing to do with your rights, the US Constitution or anything else.
          No where does the Constitution say “gun”.
          In fact, it isn’t until the Bill of Rights did “bearing arms” come into play and that only to put MORE laws in and more gub’mint in you face and up your ass to appease them 2 nanny states (more GOP/faux libertarian speak for you) to feel all safe and cozy to sign on.
          “Bearing arms” is not “owning a gun”. Arms can be anything from a club, snare, bow and arrow to a pin knife and it comes solely and purposefully as an appeasement for those two colonies that did not like the all uppity and intentional intellectual vagueness of the Constitution – Virginia and Rhode Island

          By the by, one of the main issues concerning “bearing arms” had to do with the remaining fear and hostility at the treatment of colonials by the East India Company and their hired British army who could and would come in and steal anything they wanted from the colonials – food, clothing, wives, cattle. A colonial, especially a POME, could not “raise an arm” against them – it was perfectly legal to steal from a colonial if you were part of the company.

          Just like it is perfectly legal for gun manufacturers to manipulate childish fear in “libertarian/athiests” in order to con them out of their money and manipulate the angst in order to get those angst ridden ’2nd amendment remedies” types to support them in their snake oil sales

          History is your friend – learn it and quit acting out the re-play of old worn out drama – the only actions from which you need protection are your own and it appears you aren’t doing a very good job

          • http://comgen.blogspot.com/ ComGen

            Plus “ guns “ do not have constitutional rights, person has the right to bear arms as law abiding citizen however, Fed/State Gov. has the right to revoke said right [ felony ] and regulate the manufacturer of firearms [ any item ] and control the marketplace–which firearms can be purchased and owned. Commerce Clause–United States Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, just to name one which gives power to congress to regulate. Gun nuts cling to the 2nd but forget all the amendments and law of the land which follow.

            • http://www.facebook.com/george.post.5 George Post

              You leftists are always arguing in favor of a police-state (apparently because you feel that enough of you have infiltrated the government now, and the police-state will be one that YOU want). No wonder you people pine for the old Soviet Union. Stop trying to fulfill your thwarted fantasies of being a commissar through “assault-weapons” bans. You people lost the Cold War and now your losing the war on guns; get over it, and yourselves.

          • Guest

            Your brand of fear is “We should ban assault-weapons ‘cuz they kill people!” So shut your leftist ass up. Your assault-weapons bans are an extension of your mangina. Being a leftist with an unreasonable fear of firearms, you have no comprehension of true “biting reality”. Just because your white-flight ass fled to a realitively safe suburb patrolled by the legal protection-racket (the police; thought you leftist pseudo-rebels” were against the police and police-brutality? Oh that’s right, only when it’s someone who might potentially vote the same way; otherwise you don’t care.Now you’re arguing in favor of the police-state. Hypocrite.)
            “By the by, one of the main issues concerning “bearing arms” had to do
            with the remaining fear and hostility at the treatment of colonials by
            the East India Company and their hired British army who could and would
            come in and steal anything they wanted from the colonials – food,
            clothing, wives, cattle. A colonial, especially a POME, could not
            “raise an arm” against them – it was perfectly legal to steal from a
            colonial if you were part of the company. ”
            Are you saying no one would steal anything from current occupants of the area? Shut your leftist ass up; you just want your own selfish way, and to get over on the rednecks so you can smirk about it. Looks like you failed; haha. Looks you’re the one “ruminating in that sludge that feeds your anger.” So much for your supposed “superiority” The only freedom you believe in is the “freedom” to fart out the same shit that you do.
            “History is your friend – learn it and quit acting out the re-play of old
            worn out drama – the only actions from which you need protection are
            your own and it appears you aren’t doing a very good job”
            Jesus, more farted-out snark from a coffee-shop nerdy leftist with a superiority complex. Your actions of creating a leftist police-state created and maintained by selfish hypocrites is the REAL danger. And we have already seen that in history, from every communist nation that you stupidly claim wasn’t “real communism”, which is beside the point because not only did they all claim it, but why is that every time communism is claimed, a totalitarian police-state that oppresses its people is the result? The answer is hypocritical leftists that are power-hungry, self-righteous pieces of shit are inevitably attracted to it. That’s because the religion-surrogate of leftism appeals to malignant narcissists.

          • http://www.facebook.com/george.post.5 George Post

            Your brand of fear is “We should ban assault-weapons ‘cuz they kill
            people!” So shut your leftist ass up. Your assault-weapons bans are an
            extension of your mangina. Being a leftist with an unreasonable fear of
            firearms, you have no comprehension of true “biting reality”. Just
            because your white-flight ass fled to a relatively safe suburb
            patrolled by the legal protection-racket (the police; thought you
            leftist pseudo-rebels” were against the police and police-brutality? Oh
            that’s right, only when it’s someone who might potentially vote the same
            way; otherwise you don’t care.Now you’re arguing in favor of the
            police-state. Hypocrite.)
            “By the by, one of the main issues concerning “bearing arms” had to do
            with the remaining fear and hostility at the treatment of colonials by
            the East India Company and their hired British army who could and would
            come in and steal anything they wanted from the colonials – food,
            clothing, wives, cattle. A colonial, especially a POME, could not
            “raise an arm” against them – it was perfectly legal to steal from a
            colonial if you were part of the company. ”
            Are
            you saying no one would steal anything from current occupants of the
            area? Shut your leftist ass up; you just want your own selfish way, and
            to get over on the rednecks so you can smirk about it. Looks like you
            failed; haha. Looks you’re the one “ruminating in that sludge that feeds
            your anger.” So much for your supposed “superiority” The only freedom
            you believe in is the “freedom” to fart out the same shit that you do.
            “History is your friend – learn it and quit acting out the re-play of old
            worn out drama – the only actions from which you need protection are
            your own and it appears you aren’t doing a very good job”
            Jesus,
            more farted-out snark from a coffee-shop nerdy leftist with a
            superiority complex. Your actions of creating a leftist police-state
            created and maintained by selfish hypocrites is the REAL danger. And we
            have already seen that in history, from every communist nation that you
            stupidly claim wasn’t “real communism”, which is beside the point
            because not only did they all claim it, but why is that every time
            communism is claimed, a totalitarian police-state that oppresses its
            people is the result? The answer is hypocritical leftists that are
            power-hungry, self-righteous pieces of shit are inevitably attracted to
            it. That’s because the religion-surrogate of leftism appeals to
            malignant narcissists.

  • nelyublyukoshek

    What’s the matter gun nuts 300 million guns not enough?

Related Posts