Absolutely it's cultural and I accept that the historical context explains the situation, but it doesn't for a minute make it okay in my mind. I just accept that there's only so far rational arguments go when something is so culturally embedded.
But no, that doesn't make it ok or beyond criticism. I think it represents and imbalance between the rights of the individual and collective rights. I think the right to live in a country where people aren't routinely walking around with weapons is far more important than an individual's right to 'protect themselves'.
The second amendment is a collective right. The right, as you say, of the citizenry to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. But it talks specifically about a militia being well armed.
It does not talk about people carrying guns to protect themselves against eachother. Nor does it talk about people carrying guns because guns are fun. Nor because guns make them feel powerful. Which I would think, if you're honest, covers the main reasons why the vast majority of people own guns.
There's no rational argument for the carrying of guns that stands up to scrutiny. They clearly don't work as a deterrant since your rates of homocide, homocide with a gun and armed robbery are all higher. They don't work for self defence for the aforementioned reason and also because if you carry a gun then you're more likely to die should a violent situation ensue than if you don't. They wouldn't work for the overthrow of a tyrannical government because while you have, at best, AKs and AR-15s and so on, the government has tanks, f-22s, helicopter gunships, artillery and guided missiles.
You carry guns because you enjoy carrying, owning and using guns. That's fine, I understand that. It can't be rationalised though and I don't think it's worth the price.
And it will be shit compared to the mass produced stuff we currently buy!
Ha, yeah if it's a case of the guns that are sourceable being shit and converted so poorly that they're very dangerous to the user than that's fine by me!
I agree with all your points, pretty much. Where I get angry is the government telling me I can or can't do anything, I don't care what it is. As long as I'm not harming anyone they shouldn't have a say in what I do. I think that's the view of most Americans and I think with that view it makes guns one of those things that we should be allowed to own and use as long as we don't harm anyone.
Yeah at first it will be. But can you picture the day where you can play that anti-piracy ad about downloading a car while you're downloading a car? It will be glorious!
But people with legally-owned guns are harming people. Guns are weapons. They are for harming people. While they can be used for target shooting that is not what they are for, that is not their designed purpose (in the vast majority of cases).
That's like saying: I should be allowed to walk around strapped with C4. So long as I don't flick the switch then I'm not harming anyone so why not?
Do you think there should be no laws at all? or just the ones you like?
(tangent: You're pro gay marriage then?)
I may be well off with this view (and in years to come you're welcome to rub it in my face) but I think mass-produced products will still be of a better quality and much cheaper no matter how good 3D printing gets.
I certainly wouldn't consider driving a 3D printed car.
I do love the idea of 3D printing. I think it will be great for DIY, projects, building small stuff. But not for anything with many many parts, especially something that needs to be incredibly safe.