Slashdot Mirror
Should We Print Guns? Cody R. Wilson Says "Yes" (Video)
The Wiki Weapon Project and its idea of making guns with 3D printers has already been mentioned on Slashdot. It has also been written up on Forbes.com and a lot of other geek and non-geek sites. Note that when some Wiki Weapon proponents talk about making "guns" with 3D printers, they may be talking only about lower receivers or other static parts, not barrels, firing pins or other parts that must be machined to close tolerances and are subjected to a lot of stress when the gun fires. But low-cost 3D printing and low-cost CNC machining technologies are both advancing at a rapid rate, so thinking about the intersection of firearm manufacturing and open source is both worthwhile and timely. There's been a strong debate about this topic on Eric S. Raymond's Armed and Dangerous blog that's worth reading. Also recommended: The Home Gunsmith.com and CNC Gunsmithing. Astute Slashdot readers will, no doubt, recommend many more. Meanwhile, this video is about licensing, distribution, and legal matters, not the actual manufacture of firearms. There's a transcript (we're finally doing transcripts of selected videos) below the video for those who prefer to read instead of watch.
The definition of "arms" has changed greatly in the last 200+ years. I don't think the government even today has any restrictions (no background check, no license, no registration) on possession of breech-loading muskets for those people who haven't lost their rights through due process (i.e. conviction).
So this comes down to whether you think the Constitution is a static document, written exactly how the authors pictured things in their time, or if it's designed to change and adapt as culture and language change around it.
After all, if you think the Constitution should be interpreted literally, but substituting the modern definitions for its terms, then I propose we start a movement to refer to bong parties as "well regulated militias", and to call marijuana "arms". Keep it up for 100 years and some conservative dudes out there will start to argue that the framers fully intended the second amendment to protect the possession of pot.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Yeah, here is the thing right here. "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." This is clearly out of date. You can have all the guns you want - your sawed-off shotguns, your full-auto assault weapons with hundred round cartridges, rainbow unicorn uzi's with sparkle decals, whatever. Knock yourself out. None of that makes you part of a militia, and actually a militia full of guys with guns is no deterrent to some kind of (entirely imaginary) land invasion of North America.
a.) Wars simply are not fought that way any more. The next war will be fought with drones, robotic autonomous vehicles, with persistent surveillance, with computers, and (possibly) organic weapons, pulse weapons, and in orbit.
b.) No country in its right mind would have any interest in invading the USA. What could possibly be gained from it? Can you imagine what a horrendous pain it would be? We can't even hold down sparsely-populated agrarian society from the last century (e.g. Afghanistan) with the largest military in the entire world.
There's no UN invasion coming. There's no jack-booted socialist brigade marching across the Atlantic to steal your concealed carry privileges. There's no invasion coming from the ghetto. Get over it. There's no deterrent effect because there's no one to be deterred.
If you want to own a gun, because it makes you feel powerful, and because you can secretly fantasize about blowing away the guy who cut ahead of you in line at Home Depot or whatever, go ahead. But stop hiding behind the second amendment, because the militia thing doesn't even work as a fantasy any more.