tudderone wrote: »

Plenty of tyrants out there, but they come along not with soldiers dogs and guns, but a manipulated media, soothing words and smiling face.

A fact that came about with the US election, for the past few elections, is that young people and probably older people too, no longer believe democracy works.

The plastic guns ? My first pistol was a glock. I was dubious about its plastic contruction, despite their reputation, I'm old enough to remember when everything was made of metal, and plastic was cheap rubbish. But you could squeeze the grip and watch it flex, you could bend the frame under the barrel, but it worked flawlessly and took the battering of the slide no problem.

'm not sure what you mean by democracy not working.
The election was a fairly basic example of how democracy works.

The issue is that the US is so polarised that wide margin lose still means close to 50% of the voters went on the "losing" side. And they are increasingly refusing to accept losing. That's a massive failing of the people imo.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I'd tip that he is German, as I had a listen to a few of the Lbary podcasts and he does have certain German inflexions on the English accent.A giveaway on people who have learned English in Europe in recent times. None speak the queens English:pac: They all have American influence on their phraseology etc.

Anyhoo,I think his point is now that gun control and "tyranny" whether active or a slow malignant cancerous format, or "boiling the frog slowly" that we suffer more of in the West, has lost one of its nastier fangs of gun control thru the technology of 3 D printing. We have been here before, with the crossbow, the printing press, the PGP encryption software, and now3d printable guns.

There is no way to really stop this technology falling into civilian hands." you cant stop the signal" as the info is on the web and block chained, these guys are super careful in their internet habits, controlling 3D printers is not going to happen. They are now at 150 euros on Ali express, ditto the plastic printing materials, and even if you did license them, there is nothing stopping anyone building one with a licensed 3d printer and spare parts. You could make it an "offence " like in the UK to "download or possess information likely to be of use to a terrorist or organisation" IE the files themselves.But that's a spiderweb of protection and a non-knowledge of how the Net works or VPNs etc, and would require the global consensus of net regulation.
Only thing I can see that's just about controllable is,the powder and primers for the ammo,or peoples unwillingness to learn CAD and some basic programming skills.

Endurance of the gun is moot really, as this is a throwaway device. Good enough to get you something better off your enemy, or to build a couple to have handy.

I certainly could see it as being a game-changer in places like Venezuela or Hong Kong or the US where gun control to ever kick off properly.
Sleepy Joe's 200usd mag tax won't happen if people can print up their mags...As an aside on that, it is confirmed...Not ONE high cap mag has been handed in in NY or NJ to LE since the ban 3 years ago...

So guess how many "assault weapons of war"[the new anti buzzterm] will be handed in?And guess how much fun there will be with the "buyback" those idiots are proposing? Flogging them a fortune in 10 dollar 3d printed guns made from Home depot springs and barrels for hundreds?:p:p:p

4 or 5 decentralised printers making the component parts in a "cell" Another "cell" buying the springs,or making the trigger parts and barrel out of steel rod [soon to be printable too no doubt] All being delivered to one assembly point, and distributed via cutoffs.
Another cell printing the ammo...All you need as a resistance leader is to figure out where you get enough powder and primers or fresh 9mm to keep a loaded ammo supply to your fighters.
Intresting times ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NceBBAKDLEY

Also regarding the high cap mags, didn’t the California Supreme Court find that the ban was unconstitutional?

tudderone wrote: »

What i meant was, a sizeable amount of people don't see any real difference between the dem's and the republicans, tweedle dum and tweedle dee, or fine gael and fianna fail, so give up and don't bother voting anyway.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Hence many Communist states have "democratic" in their titles.
Constitutionalist Republicanism[what the US and Irl and supposedly most Western countries are based on] is the protection of the minority from the majority's tyranny.

The Rifleman wrote: »

The system will never change. It's all a con. If you vote you are giving them a mandate to rule over you. The only way to remove that mandate and try to effect real change is if enough people don't vote. Then the political class has to admit the system is broken and start offering real alternatives to the people.

I've always voted and always complained. I will no longer vote and will still complain. I never consented to being ruled in this backward system by backward people. If you vote you can't complain because you get what you vote for.

Rows Grower wrote: »

Ooops my mistake and my apologies. Sometimes I speed read and shoot from the hip.

The Rifleman wrote: »

It doesn't matter who you vote for, things stay the same. If no one votes then alternative systems will have to be proposed. Such as direct democracy for example. It's impossible to hold politicans accountable for their actions if they can screw the whole country but get re-elected because they look after their constituents.

As it is there will never be a way to vote for real change. Anyone that promises change are usually lying to get power.

We need a system that takes the power from the politicans and makes the citizen more accountable. Like a direct democracy type of system.

Mellor wrote: »

Not the poster above. But I don't think it's contradictory. However, I do think it's incorrect, along with another statements.



Firstly the idea that nothing changes via democracy is a false. I can think of many examples within my lifetime, obvious examples being referendums.
In terms of Government, there are many lunatics who never get near a seat, that's also down to the voice of the people.

You keep saying not voting will elicited change. But haven't explained how you think that will actually happen. There has been 3 general elections in the last decade. In each, over 1million didn't vote. 1.3m in the most recent.
If what you are saying were true, why is there no radical change.

I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting an executive government, as opposed to the current one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0wAbQUMfWs

ut I find that a lot vote based on local issues as opposed to national ones. For example, people voting for Michael Lowry.

It feels like the electorate get codded every time someone makes a promise.

Feisar wrote: »

I get your disillusionment with the current setup. It's also galling that at the first chance the incumbents get their noses stuck into the trough. The amount of brother/sisters/husbands/wives on committees is mental. Also I don't know that politics effect us that much.

That's open to debate I know but would we have had the last crash if there had been a Labour government in as opposed to FF? Of course we would. As a small open economy on the periphery of Europe, we are always going to be swayed by the prevailing winds.

We actually were in better shape than many. Our National debt was well within manageable levels. But when it had private banking deb tacked onto it, that's when Aughrim was lost! Anywhere else the banks would have been sunk straight off. But because bankers and politicians move in the same circles and everyone here has their hands in everyone else's pockets and /or on other parts of their anatomy. Those parts could be pulled, very hard! if need be by the banks. Elections are fierce expensive things to contest, and the aul church gate collection won't cut it anymore.Sp are you going to let your main election source of income fail???...