[flagged]
> Although it's a good thing that a good deal of Americans have plenty of guns to defend themselves (unlike us, who reside outside of the US)
Getting a gun is trivial about anywhere, btw, and in EU or latam ammunition enough for self defense is little trouble either. The fgc-9 and 'but what about ammo' are excellent education for curious Europeans.
In practice I assure you people don't notice one concealing a gun (especially in gun naive places) and for anyone who isn't a moron, it isn't pulled out unless they're trading a casket for a court docket.
I'm not religious anymore, but wasn't it Paul who made the argument that we should respect temporal authority and their temporal laws, because it was God Himself who allowed them to become an authority in the first place?
>fgc-9
Isn't it a bit too big to carry concealed for self-defense purposes?
That aside, don't 3d printed guns jam much more frequently than "real" guns?
So, for example, if you're in a life and death situation, and you live in a country that doesn't allow the concealed carrying of guns, and your opponent is a mafia member - who is, for all practical purposes, untouchable by the corrupt class of bureaucrats who are there to purportedly enforce and carry out the law (like the beauty of a country i find myself in) - and has a "real" gun pointed at you, and all you have is little better than a glorified plastic bb gun (because these days, unless you have a father or grandfather who had bought a gun 20 years ago to give to you today, buying a real gun is not as trivial as you make it sound, at least where I am), who wins nine times out of ten?
Like, sure, I've read articles about how there are resistant forces in some south east asian country (I forgot which one exactly and im too lazy to look it up right now, nor is it important to what im about to say) that are fighting a dictatorial military regime, and the resistant forces do use 3d printed guns; but the only reason they're doing so is because, one, before the conflict happened the citizenry didn't have a legal "right" to buy guns and so at the beginning of the conflict they had no real amount of "real" guns to use, and, two, they kill the oppressive military officers and take their "real" guns because they're just better.
But keep in mind, they're fighting an actual war, and don't have to conceal their guns (3d guns are too big to conceal in everyday settings), and two, even if someones 3d gun jams, there will be someone else with them to shoot at the opposite side trying to kill you (i.e not something likely to happen in a country that is not the US, where people aren't allowed to carry around guns for self-defense purposes)
Given the alternative is a glorified bb gun as you put it, or dealing with the same mafioso, it's not clear to me the calculus is so clearly dismissed as you put it. Certainly wasn't to the German Kurd 'Jstark' who invented it and indeed concealed it on German soil.
> Certainly wasn't to the German Kurd 'Jstark' who invented it and indeed concealed it on German soil.
Okay, I don't know much about him aside from just now doing a quick search on him, but he didn't conceal carry the fgc9 when out in public did he (correct me if im wrong)? And that's what im trying to say, the gun he made - while it is better having something than nothing - you cant conceal carry as you could a glock or any other pistol; or are there small, relatively decently reliable 3d guns that you can that im unaware of?
But fine:
The government - all three branches of it (judicial, legislative, executive) - is not some nebulous entity made up of some nebulous actors. The government is made up of people, more precisely, citizens of the United States, a.k.a Americans, not just by feeling - but by law as well.
Americans, as you may - or may not - be aware, have free speech rights as defined in the Constitution of the United States - the First Amendment, if I'm not mistaken.
Americans, when fulfilling certain qualifications, can one day, become part of the government, whether that's going to be a more visibly important position (like, say, the POTUS, a Supreme Court Judge, or a Senator, or a Governor of a state, or a Director of some agency, or other positions that I did not mention), or a, relatively speaking, menial employee, working for some government agency.
The President has free speech rights, the judges (in all courts) have free speech rights, the Senators and all other law-making individuals at the federal, state, or any other level, Governors have free speech rights, "menial" employees, and all others, have free speech rights.
Their free speech comes from the fact that they're, one, American citizens, and, two, on US soil, thanks, in part not just to the First Amendment of the Constitution, but also to the long-practiced precedent of freedom of expression expressed on that particular part of the world.
The government, being made up of American citizens (in all three branches), as explained, has, ipso facto, free speech rights.
Now, please tell me - as it is your turn to do so - if you are a gentleman, how these Americans on US soil, who happen to govern (make the laws, judge the laws, execute the laws) these United States on any possible level (federal, state, county, municipal, etc.) could possibly NOT have free speech rights PURELY because they happen to govern? What is it that you imagine the government to be in the first place? Thank you.
Obviously the government has free speech rights. You laughed at the ridiculous notion that the government could possibly have speech restrictions imposed on it. I would laugh too. It’s a funny notion.
But instead of saying a second thing that I agree with, you immediately veered off into kook talk.
Now I am being aggressively challenged to explain how it could be possible for the government to be restricted in its speech by a person who has not demonstrated any capacity for reading comprehension. This, I will not do. Have a nice day.