Slashdot Mirror
3D Printable Ammo Clip Skirts New Proposed Gun Laws
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Over the past weekend, Defense Distributed successfully 3D-printed and tested a magazine for an AR semi-automatic rifle, loading and firing 86 rounds from the 30-round clip. That homemade chunk of curved plastic holds special significance: Between 1994 and 2004, so-called 'high capacity magazines' capable of holding more than 10 bullets were banned from sale. And a new gun control bill proposed by California Senator Dianne Feinstein in the wake of recent shootings would ban those larger ammo clips again. President Obama has also voiced support for the magazine restrictions. Defense Distributed says it hopes to preempt any high capacity magazine ban by showing how impossible it has become to prevent the creation of a simple spring-loaded box in the age of cheap 3D printing. It's posted the 3D-printable magazine blueprints on its website, Defcad.org, and gun enthusiasts have already downloaded files related to the ammo holders more than 2,200 times." Update: 01/15 23:15 GMT by T : Mea culpa; please blame my flu for mistakenly letting through that headline with "clip" where it should say "magazine." I know the difference — and I don't own any clips.
Or maybe they'll say, "Of course no ban is perfect against a determined enough and skilled enough individual, but public policy is about statistics not perfection. After all it's perfectly possible for a home machinist to make a fully automatic weapon, but all mass shootings have involved off-the-shelf semi-automatic weapons. And frankly a world where school shooters are using home made plastic magazines is one where the goal of slowing the rate of fire due to reloading or jamming has been achieved."
I suggest "Defense Distributed" is classified as a terrorist organisation, and it's members appropriately pursued and prosecuted. If there's a law which limits magazine size, and these guys are not only circumventing it, but encouraging and enabling others to do so, that's enough justification.
and I think that many of the congresspersons and lobbyists who wouldn't know DA from SA if their life depended on it are completely unqualified to legislate on issues upon which other people's lives do depend.
The lives at risk are the victims of gun nuts.
Who gives a fuck what the correct acronym is. The point is how many fucking bullets you fucking gun nuts want to put in your fucking guns: or in other words, how many children you can kill in a single burst.
Nope, gp had it right, you are the gun nut.
The stated purpose of the freedom is to allow for the security of the state, not to arm the populous in defense against the political leaders of the state. In fact, the Constitution outright criminalizes the waging of war against the government.
- completely wrong.
You are reading something that you have no concept of.
Let me write it again for you and explain something:
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
- in this case 'well regulated militia' only means a militia that works well.
It is NOT regulated by government! There are no rights that apply in group, there are only individual rights, every right is a right of an individual, not a right of a group (thus the entire concept of 'civil rights' is a complete nonsense, but that's beside the point).
The right of people to keep and bear arms to protect the security of a free state means that individuals have right to keep and bear arms, not groups of individuals (militia) but individuals themselves since all rights apply to individuals, not groups.
There are no rights that at the same time state that those rights must be 'regulated' by the State!
Again, the 'well regulated' means 'working condition', it's a perversion of the language that is in use here. Militias are also not under control of the federal government, when we talk about rights we do not talk about privileges or laws that limit rights by the fed.
You can't handle the truth.