Gun Rights Hacktivists To Fab 3D-Printed Guns At State Capitol 573
giulioprisco writes On January 13th Come And Take Texas (CATI) will be manufacturing 3D-printed firearms on location at the State Capitol. In 2013 Defense Distributed made public the 3D printable files (STL files) for the world's first fully 3D printable gun. Their more recent Ghost Gunner is designed to automatically manufacture publicly created designs with nearly zero user interaction. According to CATI’s website, “In the last year and a half Texan Gun Rights Groups all around the Lone Star State have walked, assembled, and engaged in Humanitarian efforts all while Open Carrying their Long Guns and Black Powder Pistols. This has succeeded in Educating the Public as well as Law Enforcement, to show that the presence of Firearms in Public is not only Safe but Highly supported.”
however, Proper Capitalization (Score:4, Insightful)
is Still a Lost Art. Thank goodness for "Educating" the Public.
Re:however, Proper Capitalization (Score:5, Funny)
I blame all the pinko commie anti-capitalists.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, a Hidden Invisible Text is to be found in there.
Thanks, assholes (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's anything that'll push forward legal restrictions on 3D printers/home CNC, it'll be assholes like this making a media push over how easy it is to make weapons and OMG THE CHILDREN. This is why we can't have nice things.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you pondered that the purpose is to cut the "think of the children" argument off at the pass? It's up to the rest of us to defeat that logic now before it's too late. I, personally, support Defense Distributed pushing the envelope with both 3D printers and gun rights. What value does a free society have if we cannot tackle the difficult questions like adults?
Re: (Score:2)
So, your suggestion is that we roll over? No thanks.
Re:Thanks, assholes (Score:4, Insightful)
Recently seen on Facebook:
'I want gay married couples to be able to defend their marijuana plants with guns.'
Couldn't agree more.
Re: (Score:3)
If there's anything that'll push forward legal restrictions on 3D printers/home CNC, it'll be assholes like this making a media push over how easy it is to make weapons and OMG THE CHILDREN. This is why we can't have nice things.
You don't get it. He's trying to force them to charge him. Because everything he's doing is protected by the constitution. If they did charge him, he'd get whichever law they tried to use struck down. He's trying to "Draw the foul" and he knows it.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't get it. He's trying to force them to charge him. Because everything he's doing is protected by the constitution. If they did charge him, he'd get whichever law they tried to use struck down. He's trying to "Draw the foul" and he knows it.
I don't see this as a bad thing, truth be told. Bad laws are still bad laws, even if they're not challenged.
Better to strike down a bad law now with someone determined to do so, than to have some innocent schmuck get slapped with it later who is either incapable or unwilling to fight back against it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thanks, assholes (Score:4, Informative)
As long as you aren't making a fully automatic weapon, it is perfectly legal today to make your own guns by any means (CNC, 3D printer, holodeck...etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Some states have even passed laws allowing new manufacture of machine guns *as long as* they are for in-state use. Theory being that the BATFE (and fed gov) only get the ability to restrict/deny based on interstate commerce.
And while I am definately for gun rights, and love shooting full auto (if someone else is buying the ammo) I don't have pockets deep enough to become a test case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll never understand the thinking process that leads us to conclude that a dead kid is less dead due to beating, traffic, starvation, etc. than it is due to a gun.
Re:Thanks, assholes (Score:4, Insightful)
...because children are an emotional cudgel with which folks try to beat down logical arguments. Folks treat it like some sort of trump card in a debate.
A: "...but your proposal is unconstitutional because it directly violates..."
B: "...DEAD CHILD! YOU WANT DEAD CHILDREN YOU EVIL FUCK! HEY EVERYONE! THIS GUY WANTS TO KILL CHILDREN!"
Re: (Score:3)
Simple solution to thwart those who would emotionalize the debate in the manner you suggest - hold the debate on a cross-country flight to Orlando.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. Copyright laws written by companies selling parts and deliberate obsolescent products will kill 3D printing before it ever gets to the "in every home" state that could enrich civilisation.
Re: (Score:3)
This. While people waste energy bitching about 3D printed guns, the Copyright Mafia is going to walk in like a boss, unopposed, and get all those unpleasant laws passed for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's anything that'll push forward legal restrictions on 3D printers/home CNC, it'll be assholes like this making a media push over how easy it is to make weapons and OMG THE CHILDREN. This is why we can't have nice things.
Sorry, but staying silent and furtive about it is no better protection. And it allows them to make all sorts of unopposed claims about how "bad" an activity is as the government fucks over its citizenry yet again.
Re: (Score:2)
I do find it hilariously stupid that the first thing Americans decide to print when they get 3d printers is guns... Thank you (America) for confirming my prejudice
Smoothbore firearms are already easy to make (Score:3)
All you need is a length of steel pipe, a nail, a piece of wood, and a few other things that you can purchase at your local Home Depot for like 20 bucks. Just search for "pipe shotgun" on Youtube or Google. The "3D printing" makes for a good clickbait headline, but if you want a serviceable weapon, the $20 Home Depot Special is actually a better option, because it's more powerful and it won't blow up in your face.
Re:Thanks, assholes (Score:5, Interesting)
Times and technology change, the law has to be updated. The current rules seem to be based on the fact that few people have the ability or means to produce their own reliable and accurate firearms. As such the requirement that purchased weapons have a serial number and some traceability, as well as restrictions on who can buy them in some areas, was considered reasonable by law makers.
3D printers will allow anyone to print a reliable and somewhat accurate weapon cheaply one day. At the moment they are still expensive, but won't stay that way for long. As such, the law may need to change in order to maintain the status quo, or a decision will have to be made to accept that untraceable non-metal weapons in widespread ownership.
Re:Thanks, assholes (Score:5, Informative)
The notion of a "reliable and somewhat accurate weapon" coming from a $2,000 FDM (fused deposition modeling, i.e., plastic extruder) is laughable and drastically oversells the ability of the technology. Oh, sure, you can produce a gun today that'll kill someone, but don't expect 3D printers to enable the next Continental Army.
Perhaps a gunsmith could say otherwise, but my understanding is that a "reliable and somewhat accurate weapon" requires metal. 3D printing of metal is going to stay expensive for a long time, maybe for good, if only because the power it takes to sinter/melt metal is high and isn't going down. A 40-kW laser in every tinkerer's basement isn't likely. I've seen FDM-like metal printers that are more or less wire welders on an XYZ base, but the results leave much to be desired. Even then, a printed metal part will still need a decent amount of post-machining, in which case you may be better off fab'ing your gun from solid stock.
(I use 3D printing (FDM, SLS, DLMS) in my day-to-day job, have experience with hobbyist 3D printers)
Re: (Score:2)
Metal is the most suitable material, but there are plastics that can make a reasonable firearm. Give it time, there are people working on it. Maybe it will require a simple metal part, like that one that needed a metal firing pin which could be made from a nail.
Re:Thanks, assholes (Score:4, Insightful)
the law has to be updated.
So call in a constitutional convention, and get 2/3rds of the states to agree. that is the ONLY Legal way to make the changes you want
Re: (Score:3)
As such, the law may need to change in order to maintain the status quo, or a decision will have to be made to accept that untraceable non-metal weapons in widespread ownership.
Just make it illegal to have an untraceable non-metal weapon, and when you find someone with one, put them in jail for a couple of years. That's how it works with real metal guns in most of the rest of the world.
Just so you know, (Score:4, Insightful)
It's already illegal for a felon to have a weapon, and it's already illegal for anyone to use a weapon in the commission of a crime (and last I checked, shooting people _not_ in self defense is still a crime in this country). So your lawmaking escapade seems to be a little misplaced.
Re: (Score:3)
People have been able to make reasonably reliable firearms with $30 and a trip to the hardware store since... well, since the advent of hardware stores; Google 'zip guns.'
Still waiting to see nails, rubber bands, and steel pipe to be regulated.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thanks, assholes (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm. What else does Detroit also have? Yes, the have guns. So does Dallas, but Dallas is much safer. Detroit has major economic problems, which Texas does not suffer from so much.
It is not the guns, it is the poverty. Why not attack the root cause instead of just the tools used?
If you take guns away from Detroit, you still have more criminals, just without guns. Take away poverty and provide jobs and you don't just reduce crime, but you also make the general population much happier, as they could then afford luxuries like food.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They should be making shoe-bombs and guns that dod't show up in body scanners too! Fucking assholes that try to stop people from carrying dangerous stuff
Guns and knives on the airplanes on 9/11 would have prevented the terrorist attacks. The brave men and women on Flight 93 proved that (though the best counter-defense they could mount was to sacrifice themselves). It's assholes like you who are a danger to society.
Re: Thanks, assholes (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need guns to take down a bunch of clowns with boxcutters when there's 200 of you and 4 of them.
What was lacking wasn't firearms, it was the realization that the usual way of dealing with hijackers no longer worked. Flight 93 was warned in time to change to a more active response. If they'd known even earlier, they might have even been able to save the pilots.
Re: Thanks, assholes (Score:5, Insightful)
Well yes and no. The main thing that 9/11 hijackers exploited was NOT the fact that passengers were disarmed but, the fact that previous hijackings all resulted in hostage situations. Seriously, you are sitting in a seat, on an airplane, going somewhere.
In a pre-9/11 world (ugh i can't believe I said that), what is your expectation when a hijacking happens? You expect the plane will be grounded, the hijackers will make demands. Eventually they will either be killed and arrested, but you are going to be released within a couple of days, unharmed.
A small crowd can easily overpower a couple of hijackers with knives. The reason they didn't was simply that everyone expected they were going to be walking out alive and well within a few days.
Re: Thanks, assholes (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to add to your comment, during the pre-9/11 days, standing up to the terrorists risked injury or death. Sitting quietly virtually guaranteed you'd emerge unharmed.
The 9/11 terrorists exploited this mindset but that's a one time deal. If some terrorists were to try to take over a plane tomorrow, the passengers wouldn't just sit quietly since now sitting quietly equals certain death. When one option is certain death, fighting back is a better option even if you might die in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is a legal problem. The Second Amendment is perfectly clear — keeping and bearing arms is a right. Any and all laws imposing licensing requirements turn that right (which can only be taken away by the Judiciary) into a privilege (to be granted and withdrawn by the Executive), are just that: Unconstitutional.
That may or may not be so. I tend to like it, however.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I can. But first, please, explain, how the right to produce and sell pornography [nap.edu] is related to petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
You would not suggest, we apply different rules to reading two consecutive Articles of the Bill of Rights, would you?
Re: Thanks, assholes (Score:4, Interesting)
Please explain why this is relevant. The 2nd explicitly states that is it because of the need for a militia that the right will not be infringed. I don't see where there is any requirement that gun bearers be members of the militia or that the militia itself even must exist, just that because of the need for one, the right wont be.
It is a clause in support of the declaration that the right will not be infringed, I see no dependency on it.
Re: Thanks, assholes (Score:5, Insightful)
No, actually, neither word is found anywhere in the Bill of Rights.
If we read the 1st Amendment the way you propose we read the 2nd, then your Freedom of Speech would also be limited — to Petitioning the Government. And only for Redress of Grievances. And only after a cool-off period. And only using the medium in existence back then — not on radio, TV, or the Internet.
As things stand, however, we consider selling pornography on the Internet [nap.edu] and the publishing of bomb-making instructions [salon.com] to be protected by the 1st Amendment...
Huh? I think, you got carried away...
Re: Thanks, assholes (Score:5, Informative)
Austalia had a great "gun-ban" and their homicide rate DID go down (it wend down MORE here is the USA during the same period, but why bother with facts). Let's look at one of the consequences:
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool... [aic.gov.au]
Choose Homicide, 1995 and Homicide, 2012. The number of gun homicides, by percentage, looks almost EXACTLY the same. Firearm usage in murder dropped from 18.38% to17.5% Wow. WHAT A SLAM DUNK! There might be a LOT of reasons for the decrease in homicide rate, but apparently less than 1% can be attributed to banning guns. Wow, that makes a difference, huh?
I know, Australia is also cracking down on knife crime too, and cops can hassle a person for carrying a Leatherman -- nice freedom over there guys.
Re: Thanks, assholes (Score:4, Informative)
You've carefully elided the fact that homicide rate in Australia is about a quarter of that of the US. The reason the homicide rate in the US fell more, is because it had a lot further to fall - and it's still four times that of Australia! You might consider the trade-off worthwhile, the tree of liberty needing to be watered by the blood of innocents from time to time and all that, but we don't. Over here you look like a bunch of crazed loons.
The knife thing is about knives over a certain size (poor Crocodile Dundee!). I have carted around a Leatherman (the knife) plenty of times and have not been hassled.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Thanks, assholes (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the data shows the opposite. The areas with the highest density of legal guns have the lowest crime. The most commonly cited example is Kennesaw GA.
http://rense.com/general9/gunl... [rense.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Here is a challenge for you: Go to this page (Gun violence in the United States by state):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
Copy and paste the entire table into your spreadsheet of choice. Next, delete all columns except for the state name, gun ownership, and homicides per 100,000. Make an "X-Y" scatter plot. Looks pretty random, right?
Next, make a linear trend line for the data. CONGRATU
Re: (Score:3)
And if a child falls in a pool, the child is still dead. Accidents are preventable. Accidental drownings do not mean that we ban pools -- it means that parents must be careful. Why should this be suddenly different for guns, except for the fact that you are looking for excuses to ban guns, not pools.
Re: Thanks, assholes (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at it like this: The only effective counter to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. There are more good people than bad people. Bad people will always have access to guns because they do not follow laws or restrictions.Therefor, having more of the general public armed means more good guys with guns than bad guys with guns. Q.E..D.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
You implicitly assume that anti-weapon measures are always completely ineffective. They're not. There's rather obviously a trade-off here.
As we adjust various parameters, the ideal policy will vary. Trustworthiness of average law-abiding citizen, weapon-handling competence of average citizen, proportion of citizens who are criminals, how widespread are guns currently among criminals/civilians/police. These all factor in, and there are less direct factors like escalation.
It's not always a good idea to take a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This.
For those distanced from the rabid gun rights Open Carry in Texas, it's just what you'd stereotype: Urban male wannabe soldiers and their female admirers.
I have hunted all my life (to date) and plinked beer bottles and cans and stuff.
When I get to a camp where these assholes start talking about the right to carry guns to protect 'murika from the gubmint, I go over the edge.
Well, first I get the hell out of there when some duck dynasty weirdo tries to kill me when he puts a loaded rifle on the hood of h
Not doing what they're thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
They think they're protesting against gun control, but they're actually making a powerful and probably effective protest for 3D printer control.
Re: (Score:2)
But how exactly would the government regulate 3D printers? Tax them to hell? Ban them completely? Because there's little chance they can enforce any other regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
How does government regulate color printers from printing paper money?
Re: (Score:3)
How does government regulate color printers from printing paper money?
By using expensive technology, inks and papers not readily available to the average person. Sure, you might be able to use an inkjet to print $100 bills that will fool a machine or even some people, but with micro threads in the paper and specially formulated inks applied using offset printing, counterfeiting bills is pretty difficult and expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason more people don't counterfeit money is because if they get caught they go to jail for a long time.
I'm sure there are plenty of multi millionaires who could easily fund a high quality counterfeiting operation, but they don't want to take the risk of spending ten years shitting in a bucket and playing who dropped the soap in the showers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Highly supported? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
try not to look so nervous, or you might find yourself being seen as a threat.
Re: (Score:3)
try not to look so nervous, or you might find yourself being seen as a threat.
Ha, ha, That's good advice, along with: "try not to look so black" :) :)
Or when in a bad neighbourhood: "try not to look so rich"...
All sounds advice, we should all abide by
Re: (Score:2)
Something I think will eventually happen, especially if the open carry state also has concealed carry....Florida and Texas, I'm looking at you.
A person will see someone openly carrying, pull out their wallet and cell phone, and say loudly and clearly, "Don't shoot, just take my things. Please don't hurt my kids!" Then the concealed carriers will shoot at the open carrier, thinking themselves "the good guys with the guns" and the area (likely) turns into a free-fire zone as everyone with a gun imagines tha
Re: (Score:2)
nervous=suspicious according to the police training manuals. They will Terry Stop you if you even *look* like you don't belong. Walking with your hands in your pockets? Prepare for a kerb search. It's standard procedure in just about every jurisdiction now.
Anecdote: I grew up in a city suburb. Ironically, the other week I was escorted out of the neighbourhood I GREW UP IN by a police officer who thought that I might be endangering myself just by being there. Just because I was wearing a thick leather jacket
Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
It seems to me that there has been a lot of media and public backlash against open carry. I'm not personally affected by open carry at the moment, but I'd be hesitant to visit any state where open carry becomes too prolific. My opinion is simply that when everyone open carries, I will have a harder time discerning who is a threat and who isn't.
You do realize what OPEN carry means, right? It generally means on the hip, outside the clothes, ie. in plain view. As in, you know EXACTLY who is carrying and who isn't. Now, CONCEALED carry is where the firearm is tucked away in a pocket, or a shoulder holster under a jacket, or inside the waistband. Concealed carry is when you don't know who is armed and who isn't. For gun control advocates open carry should be preferable to concealed carry, because you can at least tell who is armed and who isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because someone *isn't* going to corneal their weapon....
Most gun owners are lawful gun owners. If the law requires open carry, then those carrying openly are probably not a threat to you. Anyone still carrying concealed more likely is. It's like making schools and other places gun free zones: if a person is already planning to commit an illegal act (robbery, murder, etc) then tacking on one more illegal act isn't a big deterrent. The only ones affected by the law are those that actually follow it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to see all the long gun carrying peacocks strutting and getting in my face to remind me of my rights that I don't care about. I don't want to own a gun, but I don't want to stop other people from owning them if they want one and can own it responsibly.
As a gun owner, to me the "long gun carrying peacocks" as you put it are not responsibly owning their firearms. There is no need in society for someone to be walking around with an assault rifle. The first priority in gun ownership and gun safety is responsibility. That means storing them appropriately, always treating them as if they are loaded, don't point them at anything you don't want to shoot, and most importantly, don't treat them as a toy or "accessory". Carrying a firearm in public is supposed
Re: (Score:2)
You are making the assumption that no one openly carrying can be a threat.
No I'm not. I'm stating the fact that anyone open carrying is someone you know for a fact is armed. I am then arguing that the perosn you know for a fact is armed is less of a potential threat than someone who MIGHT be armed. The greatest threat is always the threat you can't identify.
Re: (Score:2)
My opinion is simply that when everyone open carries, I will have a harder time discerning who is a threat and who isn't.
Quite the opposite. When everybody becomes a threat, determining who is a threat becomes child's play.
Re: (Score:2)
What good is identifying the threat, when you aren't allowed to defend yourself and the police aren't required to help you?
I guess that depends on how good you are at running
Kudos to 2nd Amendment activists! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Kudos to 2nd Amendment activists! (Score:5, Funny)
Because a right not exercised is a right lost .
Does this also apply to the Right to Die?
Re: (Score:3)
He was probably referring to the right to same sex marriage.
Re: (Score:2)
I really wish people would say "right to marriage".
I'm straight. I'm white. I'm male. I do not have the right to get married. Seriously, I challenge you to find any legal literature anywhere stating I have the right to get married. It doesn't exist. I wish people would quit with the "right to same sex marriage", as that would give unequal rights. You can run with "legalize same sex marriage" all day, and that's fine. Screaming for equal treatment in all aspects of the law is fine as well.
Exaggeration pisses people off and turns them away from your cause when they would otherwise support it. Yes, it sounds better to say "right to marry", but it's a fallacy at all levels, since nobody has the right to marry in the US any more than they have the right to get a driving license.
Marriage comes with it tax breaks, the ability to transfer retirement or pensions to a spouse upon death, and other tangible benefits. The argument is that these benefits are being improperly denied to a subset of the population solely based upon the person they choose to marry. Should marriage only be limited to people of the same race? How about height, or weight, or hair color? No? Because that is discriminatory, arbitrary, and ridiculous. It's not so much a "right to marry" as it is simply a "right
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because a right not exercised is a right lost .
Then buy a gun at a local gun store (supporting small local business, yay America!), or if you really feel ambitious, get a CNC machine and 80% milled receiver blank. 3D printing a crappy gun out of cheap plastic that is more likely to hurt the shooter than any target out in public is a publicity stunt that is more likely to increase regulation of home manufactured firearms and 3D printing in general than anything else. This is akin to those idiots who felt the need to walk around with AR-15s and AK-47s
Obsession with 3-d gun printing (Score:3)
Why? Because :
1) Our gun laws are already so loose that it's easy to buy an illegal gun. No need to print it out.
2) It takes too long to make. You go and buy one in ten minutes.
3) Most gun deaths are crimes of passion/accidents. In either case, you are not going to print a gun first to do it.
4) The real 'advantages' of said gun - it's a virgin gun unconnected to any thing else and being able to melt it down to destroy the evidence, are not that important. They don't apply in accidental deaths and most murders would rather use a proven weapon that isn't likely to blow up on you.
Re: (Score:3)
"2) It takes too long to make. You go and buy one in ten minutes."
Bought a gun recently? Even with CCW license to speed the process, it takes a lot longer than 10 minutes.
Priveldge Protest (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
black folks have to protest that they should be able to walk around unarmed and not be viewed as a threat.
That's what their publicity message is, but almost every recent unarmed black "victim" of police shootings initiated a physical altercation with police. These protesters are really campaigning for a day when black people are free to physically attack police officers without fear of being killed, and I can say with authority that it's never going to happen. Of course, that will be taken as evidence of institutional racism.
They're actually campaigning for a day where the police practicing standard procedure don't turn encounters needlessly lethal.
Officer Wilson's shooting of Michael Brown was probably justified, but from the moment Wilson saw Brown to the moment he shot him dead there were likely many opportunities for him to make decisions that de-escalated instead of escalated.
Was it really necessary for the police to shoot Kajieme Powell for carrying a knife and shouting "Shoot me, shoot me now"? Surely there were non-leth
morons (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody accepts openly carried firearms. It's just stupid, insecure men trying to show off. I think almost everyone should have a gun but CONCEALED on them. Otherwise guess who the criminal is shooting first. There's no point in carrying a gun unless nobody knows it's there.
Yeah, because people are more likely to use the gun successfully against an attacker, than getting shut by their kid while browsing walmart...
Still scared of the government? (Score:2)
The goal and dream of the "starve the beast" group has been realized, the government has been shrunk small enough to be drowned in a bath tub. And the big banks and the financial industry has promptly drowned it in the bath tub. What these people see as government is nothing but reanimated corpse, the zombie totally under the con
Re: (Score:3)
In 2014, US Federal, State, and Local governments spent 35.5% of GDP [usgovernmentspending.com]. Compare with 31.6% of GDP [usgovernmentspending.com] in 2000.
All just show ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't plan on using any of these much vaunted gun rights to defend the other rights in your Constitution, WTF is the point?
If you're going to say "well, the 1st amendment is shot, the 4th is being ignored, the 5th is being tramped on, but I have my gun" ... why the hell are you even bothering??
Why are none of you gun advocates killing off the NSA officials and the rest of the security people who are shitting all over the rest of your fucking rights? Or are you just a bunch of one trick ponies who only give a crap about your guns?
If so, you should seriously STFU and start worrying about the other rights they've been taking away from you. Otherwise you're just a bunch of children playing cowboy.
Or should we conclude gun advocates are totally OK with tyranny and the erosion of your other rights?
If you won't defend the rest of your Constitutional rights, you don't deserve this one either.
Pathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
You really need to do a bit of research into Anarchists like Cody Wilson's philosophy before jumping to these conclusions. 3d printed guns were never intended to be more efficient than stamped ones and they don't represent a violent call to armed revolution.
They represent a backstop and to show the ultimate futility in regulations. A shifting of the paradigm and a change of the power dynamic more towards decentralized and egalitarian power structures vs the NRA, factory gun manufacturers and the military i
Re: (Score:3)
And, at what point will your Constitution have been so thoroughly shat upon that you decide you've reached the level of unjust that merits action?
Civil forfeiture didn't do it. Clearly free speech zones didn't do it. Border stops within 100 miles of a border didn't do it. Warrantless wiretapping hasn't done it. Torture done in secret hasn't done it. A CIA who blatantly lies to Congress didn't do it.
So what will?
If you're going to make loud noises about your right to keep and own guns, and stand quietly
Why promote dangerous fanatics? (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole idea is stupid - good quality guns in the US (where this is going on) are cheap and easily available. 3D printed guns are expensive and incredibly unsafe, because they're not only made of bonded plastic powder or filament, which can't stand up to the stress of gunpowder exploding, so the guns risk exploding and injuring the user, and in any case will be inaccurate and have a very short useful life. You could make a better "gun" with a block of wood and a drill, more quickly and at lower cost.
The only perspective from which this makes sense is that they're gun fanatics trying to attach themselves to 3D printing for PR purposes, to promote their theory that there need to be more guns in the US, and that they be completely uncontrolled, which is a position that is not only extremely unpopular (90% of the US supports background checks, so violent felons can't easily get guns, and only a few fanatics think that it's a good idea for guns to not be detected by metal detectors).
So really, why promote a few fanatics who, if successful, would lead to even more gun deaths in the US? With the internet we can't stop them completely, but by giving them front-page promotion, we're just encouraging them, which is (IMO) extremely bad judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullets don't kill people Physics does...
Also if you hit a bullet with a hammer you will not achieve much explosive velocity in the projectile, you need to compressive space of the barrel to achieve an effective velocity.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when we approach the heat death of the universe, physics will kill everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, you are saying that Batman originated in England???
Yes, they did [wikipedia.org], although the practise was quite common in many other countries.
Re: (Score:3)
would someone please post the 2nd amendment, in its entirety, or at least the first part about a State run and organized militia. oh yeah, I forgot, the Constitution and the Bible are only suggestions, not for literal translation.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
State in the true sense of the word- meaning a nation, not the popular US use, a slightly autonomous defined district whose laws are superceeded by those of a national body. Militia are groups of civilians, armed with their own weapons, who in a time of crisis fight alongside the standing army in the defense of their homes and their communities. Therefore it
Re: (Score:3)
Oh Yeah, You forgot that the Supremes already weigh in on that issue...you lost.
Re:learn your rights! (Score:4)
Recall that the Founders had just won a war where the people's arms played a key part in overthrowing the despotic government they had lived under--because they had arms they were able to stand up to the British Army. The Founders often expressed their concern that the new government they were founding could itself become despotic (despite the check-and-balances they were building in), and in particular were fundamentally against a standing army. A standing army could be used to oppress the people, but only if the people were not similarly armed. If the people were armed as the standing army, they would easily be able to outnumber any such regular army, and thus the presences of an armed populace--the militia--served as a deterrent to despotic government. So rather than equating the militia to the National Guard, the stated purpose of the militia is specifically to be able to fight the federal government (and its army) to preserve the free state, should it ever come to that.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
George Mason
Madison: "The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
Alexander Hamilton: "[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[, ] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
Theodore Sedgwick: "[it is] a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved. . . Is it possible. . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the Second Amendment says NOTHING about a "State run and organized militia".
Note however, in relevance to the "Militia" that the "Militia Act" is still in force.
The Militia Act REQUIRES members of the militia to own a military-grade firearm.
The Militia Act also defines "members of the militia" as pretty much every adult male in the USA. Arguably, non-citizens are exempted, though.
So, in keeping with the (idiotic) notion that the Bill of Rights lists a bunch of INDIVIDUAL Rights, except for th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As ratified by the States:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Original:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Initial proposal:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Then there were a whole bunch of revisions that started
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
They removed the definition of militia because it was deemed redundant and they removed the religious objection clause because it was covered under religious freedoms.
As a side note, reading the Journal of the Senate from 1789 is kind of interesting if you never have. Not only are they doing the Bill of Rights but also establishing a whole slew of the guidelines for how sessions of congress should be r
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Replace black with poor, under educated and often from single parent families due to the drug war, and I'll agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimer - I do not own any firearms and have no intention of ever wreaking havoc in a destructive way.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it's much better than that.
The guy had a gun store in the mall. The mall kicked him out and pasted the 30.06 weapon ban.
The police charged him with causing a disturbance (scaring people); confiscated his AR-15; ran ballistics on it and put that in a database; revoked his concealed weapon license; revoked his concealed weapon training certification and his small business tanked because people are afraid of the guy.
Open Carry Texas, a wingnut outfit in its own right, shunned him because, contrary to