What good are gun control laws when one can just make a gun at home with some "cake mix"?

What good are gun control laws when one can just make a gun at home with some "cake mix"?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Y5PZ290rCfo
youtube.com/watch?v=D43ZeYu9dnM
youtube.com/watch?v=3f9ndZmyWxo
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Gun control isn't enough.

We need a nice invasive police state to go with it.

So by your logic, a law is invalid if you can break it.

laws have to follow a pre established social order, for example

A law making shoes illegal, would be an invalid law, even if passed legally through congress and the president, its a law that going against an already constructed social contract

so banning guns in the usa would actually be an invalid law, even is passed, people there have guns by culture and legacy, its a way of life

the government nor the law are all powerful, canadian cuck

They'll nerf your 3d printer too

So repealing slavery was wrong because it went against an already constructed social contract? They had culture and legacy!

thats why alcohol prohibition failed, even being a constitutional amendment,

the constitutional IS MADE BY PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE!!!! and that is all the matters, THE PEOPLE

everything else are just words on paper

fucking idiot

no you moron piece of shit, that is exactly my point

>slavery WAS legal

but it went against the common will of the people

>so the law was removed, through a war, that the PEOPLE fought

Creation
is law.

I told you. Gun control isn't a solution, it's an idea.

>the people = whoever was on the winning side

Ancaps truly are the most retarded posters on this board.

The main argument here us gun control laws are going to be ineffective because you can break the law, which is the same as saying that laws against murder, thief etc are all pointless because you can break the law. By that logic every laws are pointless.

If you wanna test your ideologies take them to the most absurd end and you quickly realize how silly they are.

yes you fucking idiot, thats how the world was build

the people that win, control, make law, still its the people! you cant make law that goes against the will of its people, its invalid from the conception

>Repealing slavery was wrong

Absolutely. Repealing slavery was a bad idea, because now those niggers have run loose and are destroying our country.

shut the fuck up, the main argument is the

YOU CANT LEGISLATE AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

you can try it, but see for how long it will last

Ignore the ancap retard.

Reductio ad absurdum only works if you maintain all parts of the argument.
You remove the context of what gun control is ineffective for. Stopping mass shootings.

lol, kill yourself retard, you cant disprove my solid arguments, and you know it

The government and the military are "the people" then, and anarchism is an invalid ideology :-)
If they legislate successfully then by default it's the will of "the people"

>YOU CANT LEGISLATE AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

so when all the libtards out there finally ban black weapons I guess you'll follow along because that was the will of the people?

Of course, you cannot prevent mass shooting. You would have to ban even hunting rifles, which is just too farfetched but it's fun to entertain an absurd debate.

its the duty of a people to overthrow the government if they rule (legislate) against their will

not saying every law passed has the "people's seal of approval",

but a society can tolerate only a certain amount of transgression to the social contract, the American people are accumulating many of those transgressions and in the end, if the changes are not accepted in the social contract, people will rise up, it takes time for the pressure to build up. The principle still is valid, the law is only an expression of the will of the people, an explicit manifestation of an already existing social contract

>so when all the libtards out there finally ban black weapons I guess you'll follow along because that was the will of the people?


nope, thats the point, in that case, the patriotic thing to do is NOT follow that law, as it is essentially invalid

people will not comply, try and see

Your arguments are whimsical and volatile just as your ideology is.

Okay so the majority is not a majority anymore if they do something you dont like? See what I mean by whimsical and volatile?

and what is the military but a group of our people, our sons, daughters, the military is part of the people

and they also have the obligation to protect THE PEOPLE, above the law and the government, the people is whats most important

and many soldiers will not follow disarmament orders

youtube.com/watch?v=Y5PZ290rCfo

The majority of Americans today don't even have any firearms desu.

The government is "the people" though. How are they legislating against their own will?

"The people" means whoever wins, remember?

Actually yes! This is how the law works in the USA! If you have proof that everyone just does it and gets away with it without penalty as a social norm, then the common law can change. Of course this is something that must be hashed out in court and theres alot of caveats to it.

>the military is part of the people
That's what I said.
Not "your" sons and daughters though. You aren't part of the people unless you win.
>the obligation to protect THE PEOPLE
Themselves? Obviously.

Give me an example of that please, something serious other than parking lanes or salt on railway

nobody said anything in this thread about ancap-ism, nothing to do with what i am saying, you tard


>majority
?

to this i can only say, the USA was comprised of several peoples, that agreed a common social contract, the constitution, the second amendment being part of that

if the people divide themselves over an aspect of the contract they dont agree anymore, you have two choices, either separate, or war, and the sub group that wins, becomes "the people"
you are purposefully playing dumb, you know exactly what i mean

stop playing dumb, the american people are currently 1 people, if this divide continues, like i said, the peoples separate, and either keep separate, or war, when the people separate, the military also fractures in factions


this retards dont have a clue

genericized trademark

exactly

>if this divide continues, like i said, the peoples separate, and either keep separate, or war, when the people separate,

But this already happened retard.
"The people" and their common will is determined by who wins, according to you.
The losers of the civil war weren't "the people". Right?
Ergo, you.. the loser of your resistance to the government's power, aren't "the people" either.

What country are you hiding behind that meme flag, by the way? Or are you just underage?

Ding.

I said something serious, that is mundane and doesn't hurt or have the potential to harm anyone

idk about anywhere else, but everyone here goes a minimum of 5mph over the speed limit at all times; 40 mph limit just equates to 45 mph

You don't even need a fancy 3D printer. Look up the "4 winds shotgun".
Even making your own rifling button to rifle tubing or drilled out bolts isn't impossibly hard to make yourself.
>youtube.com/watch?v=D43ZeYu9dnM
Make something illegal, and the majority will stay away from the knowledge. Though, there will always be rebels and those that seek knowledge regardless of the law.
Knowledge is power, and they have continually pushed to centralize power away from individual. It has nothing to do with the impracticality of actually banning weapons or knowledge thereof.
They want:
>ignorant
>unarmed
>manipulable
>masses

again those offenses are being ignored because they essentially do not arm anyone and for the sake of not engorging the already saturated system are being ignored but could I get away with murder by saying a lot of people do base on the sheer number of unresolved cases? I don't think so.

WRONG; take some time to analyse what you are posting

no war has happened yet, and the "ban guns" side of the war, would be the rebels, even if they are in government, since they are the ones going AGAINST the constitution, which the current valid social contract

sure, if the "ban guns" side, wants to secede and make their own constitution, go ahead, there you can be your people! and have the law be a reflection of your will, in this case, banning guns, or if you win and enforce it on the losing side

but no war has happened, yet

think of the previous civil war, the north won, slavery became illegal, and the country remained whole, after that moment, slavery WAS against the will of the people, because the people who WON made it such

are you an idiot?, trademarks are one of the most important things!!!!

they can destroy or make your life

if the sole purpose of the law is to make something difficult to do, yeah it's a waste of everyone's time.

>after that moment, slavery WAS against the will of the people, because the people who WON made it such

yes you stupid moron

>the people

doesnt mean every single individual living in the country, I already explained it well, you are either dumb or playing dumb

but arguably aren't a potential threat to someone's life. Its not like you can die because someone ripped you off.

again by that logic we're back saying laws are pointless as a whole because the sole purpose of them is to make bad things hard to achieve

sure you can, you may need the money for medicine, surgery, etc, even if you die you need the money for the burial lol

you can flip burgers for fifteen an hour now, case dismissed

lets imagine we are in rome

>the people

in this case would be actual roman citizens, the ones making and enforcing the law among themselves

roman law, like any law made by man, cant be against the will of the people that constitute the law, if that happens, the law changes, because the people change it, if a law is against the people, the people will revolt and remove from power whoever is enforcing said invalid law

>I already explained it well
Yes, retard, you did. It's whoever wins.
The constitution is only the valid social contract because the government (who won) chooses to accept it.
If they decide to discard it, that is valid because it's the will of "the people". This is your retarded braindead pseudo-relativist logic.

Answer my other question, stupid moron. What country are you hiding behind your memeflag?

You legitimately must have less than 70 IQ.

no, the government IS NOT the people, the government cant assume it has the will of the people when taking actions that CHANGE the current social contract

there has to be a process for that, a process that in the end, is the people, re agreeing, or disagreeing on said changes!

lol, you are the moron that swears up and down you are smart

its easy to see, i can understand your argument, i see is wrong, but i understand it,

you cant even wrap you shitty brain around the idea i am putting forth

define ''majority''
what is ''the people'', because clearly, we don't have the same definition here.
Or perhaps are you just willingly ignoring that the majority now is leftist and against guns

>Challenged on topic
>"Ur just not smart enuff to get my point"

Great argument, faggot.

Agreement or disagreement doesn't matter. Only who wins. The government by default has the will of the people because it is "the people".
This is your logic.

Your "idea" is a retarded mish-mash of nihilistic faggotry and relativism.

Now click Geographic Location so we can see what third world country is pretending to know anything about the US.

My bet is Brazil. They always have your style of broken English.

What a vapid post. Even if it’s not life threatening, trademarks have been behind the shifting of billions of dollars for their whole history, money that has collectively exerted an incredible amount of influence over events worldwide

Most people didn't want slavery. Government subsided it and shit was all gay and stupid.

But did it killed someone?

the constitution was by default the will of the people, not the government

you are the ones calling me dumb without any arguments, i said my part, now fuck you

broken english? its just typing fast, i bet i would destroy you in a grammar test

Oh boy, a plastic engine. Can't wait to make a plastic chamber in my plastic gun barrel.

I would have prefered a Ghetto Nigga to Obama tbqh

Did you see the pasta I typed out and remember the shotgun? Check out "Expedient Homemade Firearms" by P. A. Luty

that shoot plastic bullets

The constitution was written and instituted by the government so again you prove that your logic is "the people = the government"

Take off your flag

They wanted them sweet ca$h cropz though

you are fucking cuck, whoring out the constitution

the government is just a group of people currently administrating things,

the government IS NOT the constitution, and IS NOT the people

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE EXPRESSED WILL OF THE PEOPLE

And what do you think would happen if they would write an update about the will of the current people?

Isn’t that a finger box? I love those!

>faggot's only logic can't hold up

But yes of course the constitution is the expressed will of the people. The government wrote it, after all.

Last chance, take off your flag

What good are "assault rifle" control laws when all rifles only add up to 3% of all gun homicides?

Pandora's Box

They nerfed printers to not print money, that took 20 hours to bypass in 1983.

cause those 3% represent mass killings

everything else is just poorfags killing poorfags

really we shouldn't let people that make under $250k/year own a gun.

Ask Cody Wilson to hook you up with those components.

youtube.com/watch?v=3f9ndZmyWxo

depending, if the update is the will of the people, then it will remain, if not, it will be removed

and if the people are just too divided on the issues, well, war or separation

I know this is just in theory, in real life many governments dont give a fuck about the will of the people, and if they can, they just enforce anything it wants, but there is a difference between a tiny minority enforcing unpopular law, and a country that fought a full civil war and the winning side rules. In a dictatorship, there was no winning side, the people as a whole are being repressed by a small government (minority of the people).
Even so, dictatorship dont last forever, and thats because eventually, sooner or later, the will of the people is either civilly expressed, or a bloodbath ensues

"the government" didnt wrote the constitution, the constitution created the government, why do care about the flag? cant you take the information for what it is?

let me recap

THE GOVERNMENT DIDNT WROTE THE CONSTITUTION

THE CONSTITUTION CREATED THE GOVERNMENT, ERGO, THE PEOPLE CREATED THE GOVERNMENT

know your place god fucking dammit

but thats what we keep telling you dude ''the people'' are leftist faggots, why do you consistently disregard that

this is surreal honestly, it's like you're not living on the same planet, maybe the brazil theory isnt so farfetched

I dont know why you act like the majority of people are like Sup Forums because they arent and you cling on pretty murkan slogan WE THE PEOPLE while it means nothing these days jesus christ it's like you're larping

Wrong again.
The constitution was written by the government to codify itself. Your views are retarded gibberish.

>there is a difference between a tiny minority enforcing unpopular law, and a country that fought a full civil war and the winning side rules
If there was, you would have described it, but there's isn't and this is just you trying to escape how nonsensical your argument is.

In a dictatorship the winning side is the dictator. He is successfully repressing everyone else. And is therefore "the people".
Just like the winner of a civil war successfully represses everyone else, and is therefore "the people".
I'm only using your logic.

Now go eat some deep-fried monkey.

>THE GOVERNMENT DIDNT WROTE THE CONSTITUTION
The American federal government predates the Constitution.

flow of traffic

>all homicide is murder
Many are 2nd and 3rd degree

yeah, if it's beneficial for society, in the end, a judge can overlook that because he judges it right to do so

i see that, and i guess you are right, still, just because the half of the country that are leftists faggots want something now, doesnt mean we do an immediate change, changes to the social contract need to be "negotiated" among the people, this is whats happening now, i think

see what happened with marihuana

>it was illegal
>people smoke it anyways in mass quantities
>cartels make shitloads of money
>government begins to understand the war on drugs is against the will of the people
>government legislates based on the will of the people
>currently still in negotiation

many people oppose weed, but when dealing with social contracts, people have to compromise in other to remain together

just like they cant legalize weed fully from one day to the next, (because it would case social unrest)
they cant ban guns just because a big group of people wants it, if said group of people want the contract changed, they have to convince them, basically, or go to war and win.

the north winning the civil war, is the same as any dictatorship?

>In a dictatorship the winning side is the dictator. He is successfully repressing everyone else. And is therefore "the people".
Just like the winner of a civil war successfully represses everyone else, and is therefore "the people".

>I'm only using your logic

then what is the difference? please explain

>then what is the difference? please explain
"the people" IS every single individual living in the country.

>The American federal government predates the Constitution.
>The constitution was written by the government to codify itself.

maybe i chose the wrong words, still, the constitution was the last action of the "previous" government, to delineate the functioning of the new independent government

but still the "government" wrote it as "the people", that doesnt mean every government always, have the will of the people by default, to do whatever the fuck they want

it means, in that moment, the founding fathers (government if you like), wrote the constitution with the will of the people, thats why its the first fucking phrase

if the government acts within the constitution, then yes that act carries by default the will of the people BUT

NOT EVERYTHING A GOVERNMENT DOES; AUTOMATICALLY HAS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

and how to do pretend everybody will be always 100% on board with everything

>the people

has to be synthesized, but that doesnt mean "the government" is the default "people",

the government is just another wing, of the people

to me,

>the will of people

is the conglomerate of social contracts which most people agree, or compromise to tolerate

>implying you can make anything even remotely practical in the memebox
>single-shot .22lr pistols to prove a point
>AR lowers that come apart after a couple of shots
even commercial Gen2 and 3 polymer receivers from brands that specialize in them, ones made properly, not by layering like in the 3d printer, and from reinforced polymers, still end up cracking in stress points after a few hundred rounds

dream on

>then yes that act carries by default the will of the people
With "the people" being the government itself, as that is the only thing the constitution was written as.
You're arguing against your own logic now.

They don't have to be 100% on board with everything.
I reject your drivel about what makes a law invalid.

>or compromise to tolerate
In other words it's not actually their will and you're just using that as a meaningless phrase.

classic grand narrative vs neo-liberal ideological snorefestival

>using that as a meaningless phrase

no, it means we cant go to civil war for every minor difference, means that "the people" are not homogeneous and that always compromises have to be made

> being the government itself, as that is the only thing the constitution was written as

of the government, by the government, for the government

sounds right

>I reject your drivel about what makes a law invalid.

now seriously, i know you know what i mean, you are just being picky with terminology

forget about governments, just as "natural law", you cant force a living creature into something it naturally wont accept, or cant accept. The thing would die, or become violent and unstable

its the same thing, humans have a nature, and group arrangement, etc, man made law needs cant not conflict with human nature.

lets look at murder, it might be "natural" you say,
but humans arent really naturally wired to kill other humans, sure if we have to, we will, but there is a natural repulsion to murder, the law is an extension of that

>means that "the people" are not homogeneous
Which in turn means there is no "will of the people", hence you're using it as a meaningless phrase.

>sounds right
It is right.
But I don't have trouble believing that you think just because words were written on paper they're true.

>i know you know what i mean, you are just being picky with terminology
That's the great thing about not actually having a substantive belief system. You just continually shift it and change its meaning as it gets called out.
Now you're trying to talk about natural law.

>You just continually shift it and change its meaning as it gets called out.
>Now you're trying to talk about natural law.

no, dont be a fucking faggot, you know what I mean

>you cant have a law, against the natural logic of man

the law will be ignored and the whole system will grow unstable

what is this "natural logic of man"? you ask

well in this case, its self defense!, if you make a law making people unable to defend themselves, their human nature will override the "civil duty" of following that law, because that law goes against your nature


this is what i mean by "will of the people", the social contracts, that are also build from natural law, human nature

dont be butthurt because i called you names before, its fucking Sup Forums, retarded is like saying brother.

Yes of course, when you were talking about social orders being established by the people on the winning side of wars, what you actually meant was people's intrinsic human natures.

I'm not against the 2nd amendment but your understanding of it and justification for it is, much like the rest of your ideology, pulled straight from your ass.

The 2nd amendment was not written for individual people's self-defense. The Founding Fathers never in the slightest intended for their country to become one where a citizen would need to defend themselves from their neighbor.

The nature of wanting to be able to defend ourselves is overridden by the absence of environmental threats. Our instincts aren't evolved to consider political threats, which is why the founders decided it was necessary to codify the right to bear arms.

I don't give a fuck about third-worlders calling me retarded, I'm just bored of listening to you in general.

>The Founding Fathers never in the slightest intended for their country to become one where a citizen would need to defend themselves from their neighbor.

that doesnt happen, i would bet is extremely rare that neighbors attack each other to that point, or rob each other, unless you live in the guetto and their guns are illegally owned anywhy

i guess you mean neighbors as in "compatriots"

>pulled from your ass

everything is pulled from people's asses, dont kid yourself

>third-worlders

dont come running down here when you become a refugee fleeing your own country, or do come, i dont care

>i guess you mean neighbors as in "compatriots"
You didn't give a response either way. Not to the main part of my post, either, I notice.

>everything is pulled from people's asses, dont kid yourself
Some people actually think.
Is your brain in your ass?

Probably, and then some. Wonder if The do/k/ument is still floating around?
Used to frequent /k/, but took a break from all of Sup Forums until recently with Civil War II: Electric Boogaloo warming up.