Slashdot Mirror
Digging Into the Legal Status of 3-D Printed Guns
jfruh writes "Defense Distributed, a U.S. nonprofit that aims to make plans for guns available owners of 3-D printers, recently received a federal firearms license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. That license doesn't cover semi-automatic weapons and machine guns, though — and there are questions about whether the legislation that defines that license really apply to the act of giving someone 3-D printing patterns. Experts on all sides of the issue seemed to agree that no clarification of the law would happen until a high-profile crime involving a 3-D printed weapon was committed."
It'd be a new type of weapon!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
In what way is using a 3d printer different than me making a semi-AK out of a sheet metal and supplies from homedepot?
I just don't see how it matter what tech made the gun parts. This seems more like attention seeking than a real concern. Home manufacture of semi-auto long rifles is federally speaking totally legal.
Yes, if it's a manufacturer's FFL (TFA didn't specify, but it seems to be the case from context), it does cover production of semi-automatic firearms as well as pump-action, bolt-action, revolvers, and most others. Machine guns are separate, being (as TFA notes) covered by the National Firearms Act, not the Gun Control Act. For right now, federally speaking, domestically-made semi-automatic firearms don't have any special or unique status. If Senator Feinstein gets her way, of course, that will change, but it's the case currently.
call it tomacco and you can sell it to kids
I think the summary means fully-automatic, ie: more than one round per trigger pull. Semi-Automatic is pretty standard.
While the article doesn't specify which Federal Firearms License type DefDist acquired, I am not aware of any that separate semi-automatic firearms form others... methinks they are in error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License
There was a time in this country when if a thing was not illegal, then it was legal. It's amazing, I know, but it is true.
That is no longer the case. And we are all the worse for it.
We can start by ceasing to make guns illegal, repealing the prohibition on marijuana, and removing of some of the more onerous parts of the various ADAs and EPAs.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
I can't even tell what the question is, here.
If you manufacturer something on a printer or a lathe, broad laws which cover the manufacture of certain shapes are going to apply, regardless of the technique. Unless the law explicitly mentions a particular manufacturing process. Does it? Probably not.
Defense Distributed's goal of selling plans isn't going to be covered. But apparently they intend to make and sell guns too, not just plans, and that's what they just got a license for.
Everything about the legal status appears to be pretty simple and in no need of clarification. At worst, people might not like the existing law, and "clarification" is a code word for "change."
Ammunition tends to be cheaper than the gun. Regulating bulk explosive charge materials would capture most of those who 3d print molds to make their own ammunition.
Umm, yea...I am pretty sure he can make and sell semiautomatics with an FFL. I am a bit tired of the media constantly getting little facts, here and there, wrong. What is up with this nonsense? He can't do full auto and silencers, but he can do semiautomatics / autoloaders.
You don't need an FFL to create your own guns. You just need an FFL if you want to sell your guns commercially. Don't fuck this up congress. It's still illegal for prohibited persons from making a gun for their own use unless it's a black powder muzzle loader (aka non-modern firearm), though that might be restricted in some states AFAIK
"Experts on all sides of the issue seemd to agree that no clarification of the law would happen until a high-profile crime involving a 3-D printed weapon was committed."
Yes, let's just file this issue away until the problem is too pervasive to control. Nobody take responsibility. Brilliant.
The ineptitude of American politics and their reactionist mentality have slowly turned us into a de facto laissez-faire society. The reality is that our government is highly ineffective at dealing with modern issues, let alone proactively seeking to address potential concerns from emerging technologies. With gun issues at the forefront of today's political discussion, how is this not a topic that needs immediate attention?
It's already legally settled. You CAN manufacture your own firearms provided it does not run afoul of NFA. You do not need an FFL for this. You cannot transfer the firearm to another person, but it is 100% legal to make a firearm for yourself. Where does a semi-automatic weapon even come into play here? Subby is very uninformed on firearms laws. There are no questions as to whether an FFL allows someone to teach another how to manufacture firearms. All it does is allows you to buy and sell firearms as a business. Terrible article description.
Run through my personal translator:
"instead of deciding how things should be, objectively, we want to wait until there are a few corpses we can parade around to make an emotional appeal to garner support to further reduce the rights of the law-abiding. Hopefully these corpses will be children, because they appeal to people's genetically programmed emotional reactions."
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
If you were a 3d printer manufacturer, would you like your company to be associated with a mass killing? Probably not. I can see 3d printer manufacturers implementeing DRM and an always-on internet connection; not to prevent illegal copies, but to prevent their copiers from making lethal components. You might see a noticable lag after you push the "PRINT" button as the design is scanned.
" Experts on all sides of the issue seemd to agree that no clarification of the law would happen until a high-profile crime involving a 3-D printed weapon was committed."
Considering criminals have no regard for the law anyway, I fail to see how any law or "clarification" of any existing law will make any difference. Gun laws are punitive measures against law abiding citizens, period. Unless you have a plan to vaporize all guns and advanced weaponry in existence these laws will make no difference. I'm not comfortable with all weapons being in the hands of the government or "police". Criminals will still find the weapons they need under such a scenario for whatever crimes they are bent on, and you'll have the perfect recipe for a runaway tyrannical state.
I disagree that we are a laissez-faire society. In fact we are we are only 'free' because we still think we are, largely do to freedom of speech still being intact.
i agree with you for the most part.
do you think it would be good if we identified issues like the one in this post, and have "mock trials" to identify in advance what the societal position should be? to identify them we could have some kind of crowd commenting and voting system. we would have to pay for all this somehow, maybe with some tax payer funded process. maybe lower costs by using university students that are enrolled in top "phd in law" programs.
either way, i think it is hard to justify paying for things in advance with tax payer money because nobody wants to risk failure and the damage to their careers.
With gun issues at the forefront of today's political discussion, how is this not a topic that needs immediate attention?
"Gun issues" are only at the front of any discussion because specific interest groups and politicians who pander to them are using a crazy person's already illegal acts to try to cement significant new reductions in liberty and increases in Nanny State invasiveness. Those broader goals are always at the top of that demographic's agenda, and they use whichever current events are handy in that mission. This is a topic [home made objects] that doesn't need immediate attention because it doesn't need ANY attention. It never did. It has nothing to do with what crazy, broken people do with objects they buy or make.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The current Federal laws on manufacture of firearms concentrate on commercial production, using an expansion of Federal powers over commerce that was started in the 1930's by claiming the power to "regulate commerce between the states" meant that if an action had ANY impact on interstate commerce, Congress could regulate it, even to the point of restricting how much wheat a farmer could grow for his own use because by growing it for his own use, because if he wasn't growing his own, he'd have to buy it from interstate commerce. Congress hasn't gone THAT far in regulating firearm manufacture, but they do require Federal licensing and tax payments for any firearm manufactured for sale or on behalf of someone else, and that any firearms someone makes for themselves must comply with the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, except personally manufactured firearms are not required to have a serial number or manufacturer's identifying information. Trying to restrict the home manufacture of firearms would likely lead to a successful Supreme Court challenge based on the Second Amendment, much as many of the newly passed or proposed laws governing magazine capacity are likely to fail Supreme Court challenge.
a: An FFL7 (which is what Defense Distributed got), once they complete some additional tax paperwork, allows them to make and sell semiautomatic rifles like any other manufacturer. And there are lots of small manufacturers these days. Heck, there is one in Napa, CA, if you want a fine, vintage 2013 AR-15 with "Made in Napa, CA" printed on the side.
b: Plastic AR lower receivers are old news. There is a lot of panic buying of AR rifle components thanks to Dianne Feinstein's salesmanship, but the plastic lowers are readily available.
You can even get a 5-pack for $400!.
Distributed Defense's sales, if any, are going to be those wanting to support their R&D, as there is no way they can compete with the existing aluminum lowers, let alone existing plastic ones, on price or quality for a given price.
c: There are a lot of businesses which legally help you make your own gun. EG, you buy an 80% lower (a not completed lower receiver) which the ATF does not consider to be a gun and then you finish it yourself by renting some milling machine time and doing it yourself. Until its finished by the purchaser, its a paperweight, not a gun.
d: Some guy has even managed to do a home-made polymer lower using molding techniques.
Test your net with Netalyzr
People make guns using everyday tools just as they did hundreds of years ago. You cannot prevent it or stop it. What you COULD do instead is focus on allowing everyone to carry their weapon of choice. Whether it be a gun, banana or lightsaber it doesn't matter let us do our job at protecting each other. There's a lot more good guys than bad guys and when bad guys know every good guy is well protected they will most likely stand down. But, there is a flaw to this -- they are clever and will find OTHER ways to make a living. But we can't figure out a solution for that until they start doing it.
Is that supposed to be in english?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I guess your world only has butterflies and unicorns then.
Just make it possible to hold the group and people who published the designs responsible as accessories to murder when the inevitable mass murder takes place using their designs. As long as that's possible and made clear to them they should get the message and stop their efforts to make rapid people-killing easier.
Well it's a right so you don't need it for anything to one one. However I use mine for hunting and sport shooting. I would use them for self-defense if I had to.
What is this new Tobocco thing, I am interested to learn more?
Is it used in defense, by nonprofit organisations maybe? That seemd unlikely to me at first, but after reading TF summary, I am becoming more convinced that I need to learn about it.
You can't handle the truth.
"Gun issues" are at the front of the discussion because people care about those issues, including yourself (hence this comment), and including the hugely well-funded pro-gun lobby you're an apologist for. To pretend they are non-issues when you are here commenting on them is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
This is a topic [home made objects] that doesn't need immediate attention because it doesn't need ANY attention.
The topic is not home-made objects, it is home-made gun components. More intellectual dishonesty *applause*.
This is non-news. The company has received an FFL07 that allows them to manufacture Title 1 firearms which includes lever, pump, bolt and semi-autos for commercial sale. Semi-automatic firearms are not special and do not require separate permission to build. In this, they are no different that any other AR-15 polymer lower manufacturer. Only the manufacturing is different. Sounds like they want to see their printed lowers to make money. More power to them.
If they want to build full-autos for government sale, then they need the SOT tax stamp to allow them to build Title 2 NFA firearms.
Private individuals who are otherwise not prohibited from possessing firearms are allows to do what an FFL07 can do to make firearms for their own use provided local, State and Federal law is obeyed. Look up "80 percent lower" for details. What varies here is solely the technology. It doesn't require a metal forger and a mill to machine the raw aluminum into a functioning lower. I can legally make any type of non-NFA firearm for my own use of an existing design or my own (provided I am very careful) as long as I have the skills to do so. The 3D printing technology simply lowers the manufacturing skill requirement. You still need to assemble the lower parts kit and add an upper to make a functional gun.
This has nada to do with making guns or whatever. It has everything to do with trying to retain a monopoly or control on production, not unlike VCRs were seen as a threat to the flow of information. A mass shooting will only be used as an excuse to restrict these, which has been the intent all along, just like regulating the internet was the real goal of "protecting the children" or whatever excuse was the cause of the day.
As a parallel, here in America, we have a ridiculous war on drugs. The same argument has been made that criminals get their drugs regardless of the laws. I'm actually in favor of decriminalizing 99% of drugs and legalizing 5% of them for the tax revenue. You could end the illegal drug trade overnight. (Hyperbolically, of course.) If people have free access to drugs, they have the right to choose what harm they may or may not do to themselves. Obviously, individual gun use has a far greater potential for hurting others than individual drug use. We have to at least be realistic about that.
I disagree that this doesn't need attention, and here is why. I agree that criminals will always ignore laws and have access to whatever they want, but what about children? Consider a depressed 13 year old, surrounded by responsible adults, who has no access to a gun. Said 13 year old is highly unlikely to have the machinery or skill-set to homemake a gun. If this kid has access to a 3D printer, however, suddenly he/she has access to a deadly weapon - that can harm not just themselves, but others, too - with just $100 in Internet-sourced parts. 3D printers will become more prevalent in the near future. I'm not suggesting that the government try to restrict their sale or use. I'm simply acknowledging a potential problem and asking why they aren't considering what we can do to help prevent unnecessary tragedy down the road.
I'm not looking for new legislation, just better enforcement of existing legislation, with a possible amendment to recognize new technologies that could affect the access of weapons to children.
1st amendment + 2nd amendment = right to print arms
rewriting history since 2109
I shoot feral animals.
You come up with a better way to deal with hogs I would love to hear it. They destroy property, kill pets and displace native fauna.
The right to keep and bear arms goes back to the founding days of this country. Our founding fathers realized that without an armed population, government is free to do as it wishes. Our founders needed their guns to declare their independence and self-rule. They also knew that maintaining that independence required an armed populace.
I am stunned when someone poses a statement along the lines of: "You don't have tyranny, why do you need guns?" The person asking this question never stops to think "maybe they don't have tyranny because they have guns".
The next standard argument against guns is that a guy with a rifle could never challenge a tank or aircraft. This is true. But what an armed population lacks in technology, they make up for in numbers. During hunting season the woods of Pennsylvania are filled with 600,000 to 700,000 armed people. At that time, it is the largest "standing army" in the world. Think about that for a minute - one state of hunters dwarfs the biggest standing army in the world.
If tyranny comes to our country, the entire armed population will need to fight. If Afghanistan and Syria taught us anything it's that armed asymmetric guerrilla warfare is very effective. It even gives the world's best funded, best trained military a difficult time.
The responsibility of bearing arms is not a "macho" or "manly" thing. I choose to become proficient with firearms for a number of reasons - readiness if my country needs me, and readiness if my family needs me. I could not live with myself if someone caused harm to my family and I could do nothing to stop them.
Finally, the right of free men and women to defend themselves and their property is a natural-born right, not subject to the political process or the whims of others. Those that say they are free without the means to defend themselves are only free so long as others allow them to be free. That is not true freedom.
The concepts of freedom, liberty, and self-defense are not difficult concepts to understand. They are so deeply ingrained in american life, that these protections have been intentionally and strongly worded into our government's founding documents. These are the documents we all agree to govern ourselves by.
We have guns and other defensive weapons not because we are trying to over throw the government or because it is a macho thing to do. It is as our Nation's Fore Fathers defined in the Constitution the right of American Citizens to bare arms and to have the right to assemble a well armed militia. The need for a militia may not be present now but at the time the document was written we had just finished a bloody revolution and we were marching into unknown territory as the population spread west. The Government could ill afford a standing military in every territory in which its citizens might find themselves. They were also aware that not all governments foreign or domestic may remain altruistic in their endeavors and that defense of home and hearth was likely to be necessary in the future. So yes we cherish our ability to own firearms and there are a lot of reasons for which we do. However I wouldn't expect anyone not a citizen of the U.S. to understand the rights we hold close to heart as is evidenced by your ignorance of our society and your apparent need to denigrate our cultural habits. The school shootings are very dark portions of our history and using them to take punches at our culture in general is base and unappreciated. -- Casey
You're right that it's symptomatic of what's wrong with American politics, but I think you stated the case backwards.
The "modern issue" at stake is that people are worried that 3D printers might start getting regulated, with people-going-apeshit-with-guns used as the justification. Wanna make dollhouses? Get a printer license, so that you can enter your license id into the printer, so that it can call the Manufacturer Restrictions Management server to get permission to operate, as well as upload your dollhouse plan. Or your sex toy or farm implement or vaguely-legal-or-illegal gun or car part.
The stuff about a "high-profile crime" can be seen as a cynical comment that while generic manufacturing tech isn't currently under attack, it eventually will be, as part of a stupid over-reaction to what some fuckwit decides to do with the power -- the power which tech improvements are handing to everyone. As we all get more capable, we all get more scary. And politicians know that scared people will demand government do authoritarian things. Make people-who-aren't-me less scary, by making people-who-aren't-me less capable.
People aren't "filing it away" ; they're making a statement. The statement is: don't do it. Don't continue the recent few decades' pattern of using prior restraint to regulate what people are able to do, since prior restraint has been shown to always end up limiting both good and bad activities.
With political speech itself, as a society we seem to mostly "get" that it's necessary to hold back on prior restraint and instead hold people accountable for bad things that they may do, and persuade people to not do bad things. With all other forms of liberty, we seem to be taking a diametrically opposite approach, of capability-prevention rather than responsibility. It's as though everyone in America is an armchair military intelligence officer, looking at everyone else's capabilities rather than their intents.
I'm saying that's bad, proven by how it has led to a lot of stupid stuff (e.g. DMCA, CALEA), all of which is daily fodder for Slashdot. That ain't "filing away"; that's flaming. Ok, so flaming isn't as good as voting, but maybe some day, more people will vote. Let's aim for 5% in 2014!
Where the fuck in America are you seeing that? How is it laissez-faire for government to say people are not allowed to write a computer program which plays a movie or makes a secure phone call? How is it laissez-faire for government's presence to be looming over 3D printing tech? I wish I could agree with you that we're turning into a laissez-faire society but every news story points to the opposite.
Even when we hear about massive industrial fraud (e.g. the bank thing) framed as failures of deregulation, we always find that government's involvement in restricting entry into the market, is the very thing which caused the criminals to be in such a privileged position to begin with, unaccountable and unnaturally-overpowered thanks to our rejection of laissez-faire.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Clarification of this law may not come soon. But there will be a lot of legal "clarification" going on when people run away with the idea that they can print a gun with the plastic from old yogurt pots, put a round in it and fire it. When the whole thing disintegrates and causes injury to anyone except the intended target.
Nullius in verba
If the government says it's illegal to make this information available — which seems like a clear First Amendment violation — it won't matter, because nobody is going to be able to stop the plans from floating around for people to find. Governments are having trouble understanding that they can't control digital "things" as they could easily control physical goods.
The article states it doesn't cover non-sporting semi-automatic firearms, so it would allow, for example, 3D printing a semiautomatic AR-15 clones. Unless you meet the definitions of a Title 2 firearm (which would include, for example, an AR-15 with a barrel less than 16 inches (406.4 mm) long), sporting purposes really only affect imported shotguns and semiautomatic rifles as well as shotguns in general (they're an exception to the general rule of a bore over 0.50 inches (12.7 mm) being a Title 2 firearm due to sporting purposes).
The basic manufacturer's license allows the manufacture of any non-Title 2 firearm. An additional tax can be paid to allow the manufacture of Title 2 firearms (including short barreled rifles and shotguns, firearms with bores greater than 0.50 inches, etc. but NOT machine guns for anyone but the government).
Semi-automatic rifles are under CGA. It's a shame that so many IT professionals who like to consider themselves intelligent and educated are bloody ignorant morons when it comes to firearms (and mostly should STFU).
Let me give you some basics:
- single shot muzzleloader = load from the front, and fire, then must reload every round).
- manual chambering (bolt, pump, lever, revolvers) = a mechanical action must be done to eject the old cartridge shell and chamber a new round, often this cocks the hammer/firing pin so the trigger can be pulled and one shot fired.
- single action revolver = cylinder is manually rotated by cocking of hammer. One shot fired, then chamber must be manually cycled.
- double action revolver = cyclinder is manually rotated by pulling of trigger, and fires a round. One shot fired for every trigger pull.
- semi-auto action = gas from bullet powder exploding is used to eject the empty cartridge shell. A spring is used to return the slide back to position, re-cock the firearm, and chamber a new round in the process. One trigger pull = one shot. (AR15s, "Assault Weapons", etc are all semi-automatics).
- automatic = gas from bullet powder exploding ejects cartridge, slide return re-cocks hammer, chambers a new round and then disengages hammer firing the new round. Repeat (or do/while ammo loop). An "assault rifle" M16/M4, and other fully automatic guns fall under this classification. These are the rifles which fall under the NFA.
Dang...can we computer peeps get some common sense?
As far as I can tell, school shootings are no more common in the U.S. on a per person basis than anywhere else in the world. There are two reasons they seem more common in the U.S. The first is that they get more press. The second is that there are more people in the U.S. relative to the populations of other countries than most people realize.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Let me lead everyone on a bit of a rabbit trail here, because this is very hypothetical. Still, I think it makes sense. Now, consider for a moment that the advent of and rapidly increasing accessibility and affordability of 3D printing may put common goods manufacturing into the hands of the consumer... and takes it away from the gigantic sweat-shop operating acmetm cartel. For Acme TM, that's scary as hell. Their business model goes away and, in spite of the fact that their once employees are now able to better take care of themselves via access to cyclical 3D reprinting technologies, the CEOs no longer have 1% style leverage and wealth. Said CEOs may want to find some way to turn the public AGAINST 3D printing, thus, before this paradigm shifts. Now consider, for a moment, than scared-irrational (or hobbyists) are printing 'illegal' triggers for guns, circumventing a community's ability to track and deal with said deadly weaponry. Prior to now, big-business interests have been mostly pro-gun because people, in general, are kinda pro-gun... but if you can use 3D printed triggers as a wedge issue to scare people away from 3D printing as a practice (thus ensuring your future as a law-leveraged manufacturing monopoly), do you really think they won't try? To be blunt, I personally am anti gun. I don't like them. I think they cause 10x as many problems as they solve, etc. But I also detect the possibility that a world in which people can see to their own common goods needs, underlying causes of violence will diminish and thus the desire for guns (and violence et al) will likewise go down. Sorry, I'm novelizing... the point is, I suspect that we will see (like this article, like some media lately) will overinflate their interest in gun triggers to silently try to rob the world of 3D printing as an individually available ability.
Pot meet kettle, kettle this is pot. I'm sure you two have a lot to talk about. Between the two of you maybe you can come up with a clue.
Guess what's already legal?
home-made gun components.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
... difficult for government to understand?
As the purpose of it was the people would be able to defend themselves from the government, should the government get to far out of line.(See Declaration of Independence for all this) But there seems to be all sorts of double standards being applied by government to removed the ability of the people to defend themselves against a rough government, If at least not having equal but lessor fire power (which is no defense)
As a rough government can be worse than any smaller criminal individual or group, being able to defending againt government would inherently have the ability to defend against lessor.
Talk about school shooting, postal worker shootings, day trading shootings, etc... does even get creat a scratch in the governments use of weapons in the world. And many believe the US government is arming itself for a civil war.... so... who is saying whether or not the second amendment applies?
There's no western society that "lives without guns". There's still gun owners in the UK and Australia, where guns are heavily restricted. The closest that I know of is Japan.
"US folk" use guns for pretty much the same way that people in other countries use them for: recreation, target shooting, hunting, competition, and other shooting sports. For various reasons, such sports are more common in modern America than they are in countries like the UK.
Self-defense is also a common reason for owning guns. There's a lot of places in the country that are quite rural and remote, where police response time can be measured in tens of minutes. Simply put, if a violent crime does occur then one has to fend for oneself until the police show up. Even in urban areas, police response is non-instantaneous: my friends used to live in a "nice" suburb of Phoenix, Arizona. Violent crime rates there are extremely low (60% lower than the state average and 50% lower than the national average). They lived in a gated townhouse community. Still, they had two attempted occupied-dwelling robberies within the span of a year and a half. In both cases, the fact that they were armed repelled the criminals -- one was later caught and arrested. They were lucky, as nobody was harmed and no shots were fired. Violent crime, while rare, can happen pretty much anywhere. (For what it's worth, they ended up getting a dog and moving to a bigger house with a yard rather than remain in the townhouse.)
The average American gun owner is not very likely to commit crimes -- nearly all gun-related violent crimes are related to drug trafficking or gang violence and are mostly carried out by people who already have criminal records that prohibit them from owning guns.
printed guns suck. i'm not sure why were even talking about this. Yes it's cool tech, but useless beyond a few rounds for now.
We have real stamped/machined guns that are going to not blow up in your face... what happens when u fire a hundred rounds through a printed gun? failure i think..
The problem is not w/ guns it's with the politicians.
this country is broken.
lets start it over
Really, cowardly idiots who have no clue what they're talking about. The parts they are making are not illegal. Restricted in that one has to be an FFL to make and sell them, yes. That's it...
Many would argue that gun violence has become more pervasive, and I'd have a hard time arguing against that statement.
Why? It's quite easy to argue against such a statement: according to FBI crime statistics gun-related homicide rates are at their lowest level since 1964 (scroll down to get the normalized rate-per-100,000 people) and have been declining for years. You can get the raw data from the FBI directly, if you prefer.
By any objective measure, gun-related homicide in the US has decreased significantly even as the number of legally-owned guns in the country has increased. People may perceive that gun violence is increasing (and it may well be true in certain localities in the country), but overall that's not the case.
According to crime records, while there's been some year-by-year variation in the number of mass shootings and victims, overall the trend has been constant since at least 1980. Despite the enormous media attention they get, they are statistically very rare. Are there too many? Absolutely.
So, you've got all these guns. What do you do with them exactly? There is no sign of anyone using them to overthrow the government or actually change anything.
Overthrowing the government is not why Americans have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
Not letting the government overthrow us is.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Ban information, if people know how to do something they can do it.
They'll use a 3d printer, or machine shop, or even hand tools.
All because we gave them the information on how to do something.
"Gun issues" are at the front of the discussion because people care about those issues, including yourself (hence this comment), and including the hugely well-funded pro-gun lobby you're an apologist for. To pretend they are non-issues when you are here commenting on them is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
This is a topic [home made objects] that doesn't need immediate attention because it doesn't need ANY attention.
The topic is not home-made objects, it is home-made gun components. More intellectual dishonesty *applause*.
He never said it wasn't an issue - he said the only reason that it's a major issue at the moment because certain political hacks have an agenda.
Learn to read what's written, instead of inferring what you want to see, Anonymous Jackass.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
thought this might be a well reasoned post as you started out with legalizing drugs, but then out of the blue
but what about children?
PLAZE THANK OF TEH CHILLUNS
Did you get bored typing all this?
Many would argue that gun violence has become more pervasive, and I'd have a hard time arguing against that statement.
Why would you have a hard time arguing about it? There's no need. Violent crime has been going steadily down since the 1980's. There is less of it now than there was 5, 10, or 20 years ago. What's more pervasive is social media saturation coverage of it. There are localized exceptions, of course. Look at Chicago. They have a gang problem, and a local culture problem, not a gun problem. Because there are places all around the country that have from slightly more options in owning guns to wildly more liberty in that regard than Chicago ... and they don't have gang-bangers killing each other non stop. It ain't about the guns.
If this kid has access to a 3D printer, however, suddenly he/she has access to a deadly weapon - that can harm not just themselves, but others, too - with just $100 in Internet-sourced parts.
That same kid could also slit his own wrists or hang himself with $5 worth of stuff bought at Home Depot ... or spend maybe $40, and make an utterly devastating bomb that could easily kill a classroom full of kids. Again, all with internet-sourced information, and off-the-shelf consumer goods.
I'm simply acknowledging a potential problem and asking why they aren't considering what we can do to help prevent unnecessary tragedy down the road.
But that potential is already present in a thousand other forms - from grabbing the parent's car keys, to playing with matches and gasoline, to using kitchen knives or a bit of amonia and bleach. "Unnecessary" tragedies already take place constantly. Most noticeably, when young people get behind the wheel. Wrong-headed or poorly trained/supervised kids kill themselves and other people with cars way, way more often than they do with any sort of weapon, guns included. Where's the appropriately hand-wringing? Rifles (of any kind) are used far, far less than bare hands and blunt objects to kill people. Having the ability to print the lower receiver section of a gun that still requires machined parts and ammunition isn't going to change that in any meaningful way.
... is not only ineffective, it's philosophically wrong, too. Violence is a cultural problem, not a tool problem. Putting the government in the role of controlling tools and making the case that that will fix what's wrong the the narrow part of the culture that sees violently eliminating a rival gang member as a validating and important thing to do ... craziness. Because it embraces a complete overturning of causality, and entrenching that mind set is completely toxic on so many other levels.
The point is that fixating on such a statistically small issue with notions of limiting the freedom of millions and millions of sane, rational people who never ever hurt anyone
But I know why people do it. Because they're uncomfortable making judgments about other people's world views (unless they're complaining about gun owners, of course!). Moral relativists find comfort in blaming inanimate objects for human behavior because it lets them off the hook of having to reconcile their absurd notions of nobody-is-ever-to-blame-for-their-own-actions (except evil gun companies) political correctness blather.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Rephrase the argument as a discussion about repealing the Voting Rights Act, and suddenly everyone will understand your point. "Minorities are allowed to vote, so why do we need a law that keeps the polls open to them?" *facepalm*
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
including yourself
The only reason I have any motivation to address the topic is because empty-headed, irrational people are cravenly making an issue out of it for political gain. You want to reduce my liberty, and I don't want you to. If you didn't want to reduce my liberty, I'd have nothing to talk about. Are you lucid enough to follow that?
The topic is not home-made objects, it is home-made gun components.
So, what's a home-made gun component? A pipe? a curved bit of sheet metal? Are you so obtuse that you don't grasp the uselessness of even factory-made gun parts - even once they're assembled into a working firearm - until a human being decides to pick it up, load it with ammunition, and actually do something with it? Are you equally wound up about home-made car parts, on the off chance someone decides to run down a pedestrian, later, with their car? This strange, magical-thinking mode, wherein people consider inanimate objects to have special intrinsic powers ... is crazy. The gun nuts are the people who think guns have their own will, the power of mind control, or the ability to do something on their own without human purpose and action. Parts are parts. Human action is the only thing that's dangerous.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"the right of American Citizens to bare arms"
I fully support your right to bare arms, but only in summer. Don't want to catch a cold you know.
"Defense Distributed, a U.S. nonprofit that aims to make plans for guns available [to] owners of 3-D printers, recently received a federal firearms license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tob[a]cco and Firearms. The license doesn't cover semi-automatic weapons and machine guns, though — and there are questions about whether the legislation that defines the license really appl[ies] to the act of giving someone 3-D printing patterns. Experts on all sides of the issue seem[e]d* to agree that no clarification of the law would happen until a high-profile crime involving a 3-D printed weapon was committed."
This is not hard. Your computer could have pointed out at least two of these errors to you.
*this should probably be present tense, as well.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The minimum legal length in the US is sixteen inches. That being said, the ATF generally considers it "constructive intent" if you have the parts to make an illegal weapon and ONLY an illegal weapon. It's been officially clarified that having a Thompson Contender interchangeable-barrel handgun, a rifle stock for the TC, AND a legal-length barrel is not constructive intent - while you could make a short-barreled rifle by putting the stock on TC, the long barrel justifies owning the stock. Same goes for AR pistols, if you have an AR pistol and an AR stock but no full-sized AR rifle, you're gonna be in some pretty serious poop. If you do have a rifle though, you're fine.
It is legally grey and I'm sure the ATF has played fast and loose with it before, but AFAIK it isn't a huge problem.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
...no clarification of the law would happen until a high-profile crime involving a 3-D printed weapon was committed.
Because the greatest laws are reactionary ones, hastily passed after the national dialogue has been whipped into an emotional fervor.
It's called assault with a deadly object. Armed assault. Or what have you. Been around since before cowboys and Indians.
More Bullshit(tm) from the pulpit of propaganda.
and besides if you "need" a Tank/Helicopter/Whatever its more or less certain you can get them if you are
1 Female with a Dancers Build (and Cs or Ds)
2 Dressed in a nice leotard and tights (short skirt optional)
3 Have a couple Pistols tucked into your belt/waistband
4 and have a rifle with you.
Bonus points if you know your targets in advance
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
If by "illegal or have restricted availability" you mean "legal to purchase from a dealer in most states" and "in violation of local and federal law" you mean "in compliance with local and federal law", then you're absolutely correct.
As a stupid question, why is it that pistols are legal and rifles are legal but putting a pistol barrel on a rifle isn't?
I am stunned when someone poses a statement along the lines of: "You don't have tyranny, why do you need guns?" The person asking this question never stops to think "maybe they don't have tyranny because they have guns".
But you DO have tyranny despite having guns. That's my point. I'm not sure what use an armed population is against the massive abuses of justice that occur within the US (e.g. Aaron Swartz), nor against the overseas abuses committed by the US government in the US people's name but without their permission. If the point of guns is to stop this happening, why didn't everyone storm the white house? It seems to me that this argument for having guns is bogus -- or at least it is not working as people suppose it does. If your democracy rests on gun ownership, when was the last time anyone voted with a gun? Is there a single instance in the last few decades where the population used their guns to force a change of policy? If not then the argument is bogus.
Incidentally, moderators, I am making a valid point. This is not flamebait. Argue against me with logic, not negative mod-points.
This is an outstanding comment, and it's worded very well. I'm bookmarking this so I can reference it later. I'd mod +1 insightful if I had mod points, but this reply will have to do. Thanks for articulating so precisely how I feel about freedom and the 2nd amendment.
A manufacturer's license ABSOLUTELY DOES cover semi auto guns. 99% of the guns made today are.
This gun gray area isn't something new. There's a Gamo (made in America, wooo) BB gun rifle that shoots 1400FPS, breaks the sound barrier on the way out, and uses sleeved hardened metal exotic rounds. It can kill a small animal instantly. They don't mention what it would do to a human, lol. According to US law, it's not a "gun" but it's also not not a gun. It's just a "weapon." What's the difference? Nobody knows. And yet, in almost all states, fully automatic BB guns are illegal because they're sort of guns. They don't require an orange tip because they're not a "toy" and yet high powered airsoft guns do. But, they don't require registration, a waiting period, or to have a serial number (I think). So nobody ever really classified what is and isn't a gun and the laws are just BS that politicians made up as they go.
So, you've got all these guns. What do you do with them exactly? There is no sign of anyone using them to overthrow the government or actually change anything.
Overthrowing the government is not why Americans have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
Not letting the government overthrow us is.
But the government does pretty much what they like to you despite you having guns. Or are all the abuses of the population by the government not quite enough to bring you to armed rebellion -- like boiling a toad in water. I'm kind of fed up with US folk talking up their gun ownership when they let the RIAA/MPAA walk all over them, and let corporations take more and more control of their lives. Can any of these problems be solved with guns? If yes, then solve them. If no, then I don't see the benefit of guns. Your guns give you no advantage I can see compared to a society that doesn't have them (talking about guns as common property, rather than for sport).
Moderators -- if you disagree with me, argue with me, make me understand. I'm getting fed up of being moderated into oblivion for expressing a valid point of view and asking valid questions.
Not a stupid question. The GP is simply wrong. 16 inches is specific to a RIFLE barrel. 18 for shotguns. If the 11 inch barrel is on a registered SBR (short barrel rifle) or on a pistol, it's legal. The gun it's attached to, and how that is classified is what makes it legal or not.
I've been able to make my own guns for years. A milling machine and a lathe in my garage for Pete's sake. I think the limit is 49 a year. The *only* difference here is the printer instead of a milling machine. sheesh.
T
If tyranny comes to our country, the entire armed population will need to fight
When tyranny comes to America, the ones most gung-ho about the Second Amendment will be the ones waving flags and chanting slogans between the Sousa marches.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
The right to keep and bear arms goes back to the founding days of this country. Our founding fathers realized that without an armed population, government is free to do as it wishes. Our founders needed their guns to declare their independence and self-rule. They also knew that maintaining that independence required an armed populace.
You are really naive. But cheer up. You have lots of company.
Trust me. If the US government wanted you dead, you have no defense at all against a Hellfire missle. Ever heard of Anwar al-Aulaqi? The idea that the US masses would rise and cohesively fight together and overturn the US military if it came down to it is just laughable.
The law defines what a gun (including machine gun) is. A diagram is not a gun.
Regulate all the facets of ammunition instead - including the fine-particulate generation of a known toxic material (lead). Don't bother banning home loaders as they could never create a significant amount of ammo to worry about (space for the materials *and* the finished product for starters). However, 'ammo parties' using an entire rented National Guard armory or community center over a weekend should be right out.
Cnc milling, even a simple 3 axis setup for $2000, can make almost anything everything a 3d printer can but in metal to high tolerance for less money. Lathes are also getting cheap. These days you could get the tools to make a reasonably accurate and durable firearm from metal stock for around the price of a form1 3d printer. Should we ban cnc mills and lathes as well?
Your definition of tyranny and mine are a bit different. Until "they" start shooting at us, we are merely seeking peaceful redress of our grievances.
Yes, our political and justice system do have their flaws, but a shooting match is not required to fix the current flaws. Good candidates and honest elections can fix these problems. Is our government ready to kill millions of it's own citizens? I don't think so.
The next standard argument against guns is that a guy with a rifle could never challenge a tank or aircraft. This is true. But what an armed population lacks in technology, they make up for in numbers. During hunting season the woods of Pennsylvania are filled with 600,000 to 700,000 armed people. At that time, it is the largest "standing army" in the world. Think about that for a minute - one state of hunters dwarfs the biggest standing army in the world.
Yeah, and a squadron of B-1's could reduce your army of hunters to a bunch of fat men running around with their hair on fire. But you don't need a bunch of old men with hunting rifles to fight back against a tyrannical federal government. Even if the federal government could ensure 100% loyalty among its troops when fighting against their own population (which is absurd) you still have 50 states with independent "Militia's" with modern weaponry including tanks, aircraft, and modern infantry gear. They are even trained along side the "federal" military. And this is why I think gun control is irrelevant to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is talking about a well regulated militia, and WE HAVE THAT. That is our protection against a tyrannical government and it could actually be effective while people with rifles and handguns would just be fighting an eternal and losing battle (as is being done in Afghanistan).
The argument for self defense with firearms should be independent of the 2nd amendment. In the 18th century they could be considered the same thing because the level of technology of a modern military was not too far above what was available to the average hunter. This has grown further and further apart as time has gone on. You should have to make your case that the benefits of owning a gun for hunting or self defense outweigh the cost of the gun violence that occurs in this country every day. And that is a debate that is not settled and should be backed up by data from both sides.
There are over 300 million guns in this country. There are probably 30-50 million gun owners in this country.
One man can not defend against a hellfire missle, but do you think that 2-4 million armed people could secure the fuel resources of this country? That is a staggering amount of people. Without fuel, a hellfire missile, tank or aircraft is pretty useless.
I know - the military would then obtain fuel overseas and bring it in.....right. We've made lots of friends in the world. Would the world would rush to the aid of our military during all out civil war? I doubt it.
You make the opponent fight your war, not the other way around. How do you explain the rough time our military had in Vietnam and Afghanistan? You can't tell me our side had a clear victory in either theater, despite clear financial and training advantages.
Losses on both sides would be enormous, and it's not clear that the US military would fire on its own people anyway. I know a few guys serving who have said flat out they would disobey any order to shoot american citizens.
Finally, even if you could not fight overwhelming force, and the situation became dire, would you rather die lying down, or fighting and hope you take out some of the opposition?
I want a fighting chance.
Who are these "minorities" of which you speak?
I take it you are aware that white people are less than 14% of the world's population, and that ALL of our countries are being invaded by hunfreds of thousands of non-whites every year.
Which is GENOCIDE.
Still, though, why do we have these restrictions? Why is an 11-inch barrel legal in one instance and illegal in another? What possible public interest is served by making rifles legal, pistols legal, "short-barreled rifles" legal, but a Frankengun that's a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches illegal?
American gun law seems sort of stupid... (as an American who has never really worried about it much because he doesn't own guns)
I believe the original intent of the regulation (and the reason for the question) was to outlaw sawed off shotguns (and rifles) which have no sporting and limited military purpose but are widely (?) used in criminal activities like pot smoking.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Hi from Arizona here, Just wanted to echo what you said on response times for police. short story starts:
I was driving home on the loop 101, a freeway that i take daily. I happened to be traveling down the North bound side in the East Valley (Scottsdale to be exact) when I noticed a car driving down the HOV lane the wrong way. I proceeded to call 911 to report the incident. I sat on hold for 10 minutes before getting a police operator. 10 minutes to have an operator make initial contact, I was then transferred to DPS (Highway patrol) where it took 2 minutes of gathering information before the police were dispatched. That is 12 minutes from the time I saw the driver and the police were notified. Now Im not saying a gun would have been useful here. But what I am saying is, think if that were home invasion. This could have been a rape and murder in that time.
Long story short, the police are not there to protect and serve, they are there to respond and clean up after shit hits the fan.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. -Deceleration of Independence 4 July 1776
I wish I had mod points. Well stated.
The problem with all of this laws which are ostensibly aimed at stopping "gun violence" is that they focus on the gun, not the violence. The elephant in the room is that people, not guns, commit violence acts and no one is willing to talk about the very small demographic which is responsible for the vast majority of murders and mayhem (using guns or not) in this country. So instead of honest people addressing the real problem, we have pandering politicians willing to shred the 1st and 2nd Amendments for political gain.
With apologies to George Carlin, why is selling legal, and fucking is legal, but selling fucking is illegal?
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Still, though, why do we have these restrictions? Why is an 11-inch barrel legal in one instance and illegal in another?
You should stop looking for a legitimate rationale or intellectual honesty within the NFA: it's almost entirely arbitrary and enforcement is capricious. Essentially, the only valid functional classification within the NFA is that of a machine gun (ie. a firearm that fires two or more shots with a single pull of a trigger); however, even that led to the ATF issuing a machine gun classification to a shoelace.
Furthermore, do you know that suppressors (aka "silencers") are classified as Title II firearms according to the NFA? Suppressors aren't "Hollywood quiet" in real life. As a matter of fact, I believe we should propose gun safety legislation to allow "firearm mufflers" ownership to be unrestricted, just like in Finland, Norway, Poland, Italy, etc. Gun safety for hearing protection, of course.
Essentially, the NFA was the 1930's equivalent of the "assault weapons" ban: a ban on "scary looking things" and machine guns. However, at that time the intellectual dishonesty of the Wickard v. Filburn decision had yet to come to pass. Therefore, the gun control proponents felt constrained by the Constitution: they had no power to ban these weapons but they had the power to tax. Therefore, they set a fixed $200 tax on these "evil weapons" that was many times the value of the regulated items.
Now they don't bother with workarounds that. According to the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich, even producing something and giving it away for free within a single state qualifies as "interstate commerce", which implies that Congress can regulate, restrict, or ban it.
So, you asked the correct question, but ultimately there is no valid rationale for the law for you to find. Your question also applies to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (and Feinstein's current proposed law): what valid reason exists to ban things simply due to cosmetics? Why are pistol grips on rifles "evil", but are okay on pistols? Why are adjustable rifle stocks evil?
It's farcical.
What possible public interest is served by making rifles legal, pistols legal, "short-barreled rifles" legal, but a Frankengun that's a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches illegal?
Actually, all of those are legal provided you comply with the NFA.
Title I firearms (eg. rifes, pistols, shotguns) are the "regular" kind of firearms found in everyday stores and require no NFA tax stamps. Title II firearms are things like short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, machine guns, and "Any Other Weapons" (AOW); these require the tax stamp, approval from the federal government to own, etc.
The "Frankengun" you describe would be classified as an NFA short-barreled rifle (cf. this rifle) needing a stamp + federal approval, unless it lacked a stock, whereupon it would be classified as a regular handgun (cf. this pistol) with no restrictions, unless it had a vertical forward grip, whereupon it would be an AOW and need a stamp + federal approval.
BTW, you have to choose the firearm's classification *before* you make/obtain the firearm (see first link in my post).
So, you've got all these guns. What do you do with them exactly? There is no sign of anyone using them to overthrow the government or actually change anything.
Overthrowing the government is not why Americans have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
Not letting the government overthrow us is.
But the government does pretty much what they like to you despite you having guns.
No, they don't.
This makes me think of all the anti-gun comments akin to "well, if the government wanted to, they could just have the military steam-roll all you gun owners." If that were true, why haven't they? Where are the checkpoints, where are the government agents demanding papers? Where are the platoons of soldiers roaming our streets?
As much as you may not want to believe this, the fact that there are almost as many guns in this country as people is a very, very good reason why we aren't living in a constant state of martial law. Granted, not the only reason, but still a major one.
Moderators -- if you disagree with me, argue with me, make me understand. I'm getting fed up of being moderated into oblivion for expressing a valid point of view and asking valid questions.
Agreed - censorship is for pussies who are incapable of cogent thought.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Oh, yea - Plus, if some criminal breaks into my home at 3 AM, I know I can meet them with force if necessary, instead of letting them violate my home and family.
Say you own no firearms, and this scenario happens to you; what will you do? Let the criminal have their way with your loved ones? Or will you... call a man with a gun to protect you?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
for the most part, not if you're making something like an AK-47 that was designed with very loose tolerances, and mostly out of sheet steel. If you don't need accuracy at range (becayse you're a psycho planning on going on a shooting spree where the distances are measured in yards) you don't even need to rifle the barrel.
It's a macguffin [1].
The real plot is the establishment reaction to the revolution of 3D printed items. Complex machinery can now be printed and manufactured without large workforces (it's not as easy as printing your boarding passes, but it's probably an order of magnitude in workforce reduction).
Guns? What happens when you can print a simple boat? How about a car? At some point, we're reaching Diamond-Age [2] matter-compiler complexity. Seemingly safe industries will be upended when the revolution of 3D printing comes fully into the fore.
And you think the establishment will sit by and let their investments and control go up in the air (like what happend to so many industries with the Internet)?
Printed guns are like terrorist funding - an issue to get everyone all worked up about it and the big boys can criminalize the future (at least until you completely control it).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Overthrowing the government is not why Americans have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
Not letting the government overthrow us is.
Well we missed that boat a while back. By any honest accounts we're already overthrown so long as we are lead along by a two party system.
Guns aren't the only means to fight tyranny. They are, among civilized peoples, considered the last resort. That they are a last resort does not imply that they should be eliminated or otherwise prohibited until such a time as they become necessary.
IMO, the most important thing people can do to understand the American thought process on this matter is to read the introduction and preamble to the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"Look, we know this is pretty crazy and that giant title is freaking you out. Let us explain why it's important that we do this."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
"Equality and irrevocable rights are the fundamental element of the human condition. We all deserve to exist, we deserve to exist in the manner of our own making and choosing, and we deserve to strive to better our existence if we so choose."
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
"People create governments to protect what we deserve, and the government has power only as long as the people agree that it does."
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
"We deserve to have a government that uses the power we invest in it to protect what we deserve. When they stop doing that, we deserve to have the ability to change the government."
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
"Since governments are created for the benefit of the people, so we deserve a government that actually benefits the people."
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
"Changing a government is a tremendous pain in the ass, however, so people tend to put up with a lot of bullshit they really shouldn't have to."
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
"Enough is enough. We gettin' real tired of your shit. That's all we can stands; we can't stands no more."
Personally, I feel that you'd have to be stupid or dead for that ideal to not to light a fire in your heart, but I'm a romantic. This is the moral fiber that America *should* be trying to reach. It's so sad that we forget every 50 years or so what this document really means.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Hey,
We have been reading about how simple it is to manufacture guns, so why can't you just cool your jets until the tyranny you fear so much starts to kick in. In the mean time you can help contribute to a civil society that eschews violence by speaking out against the proliferations of projectile weapons that are frequently used to kill or main (often a member of the household).
You NRA propaganda not with standing, gun addiction is an drain on the nation and the fact that many successful democracies operate quite well in the absense of wide spread weapon ownership puts the lie to it.
You are making assumptions. For example that we would have the opportunity to vote the tyrant out of power. That's not how tyranny works pal.
You obviously for some reason don't understand the true concept of tyranny , or freedom for that matter.
There is only one single way and one way alone to prevent tyranny , only one. And that is to have the power to throw it off.
There is no other argument , there is no other way to look at it. You can only have freedom in the true sense of the word if you have the power to forcibly counter would be tyrants. Period. Disproportionate force = I do as a please , you can't stop me. Votes don't mean a thing against a tyrant.
Again the ONLY way to guarentee freedom is by force , otherwise your just asking nicely for it , which works fine until someone with a standing army behind them decides they don't want you to have it anymore.
Democracy is not guaranteed for ever and till the end of time . It can go away. ... Who knows . What I do know is that's when tyrants step up and seize power if they can.
Our economy could collapse, a world war could break out, global warming could collapse society
Think a little bit harder about this. Our freedom is not guaranteed , we have had it for a few hundred years of human civilization , and it's already halfway gone , .... It's not guaranteed forever , it's fragile , and it has enemies at its gates constantly.
Wake up
It's even more stupid than you think it is, when you realize how they distinguish between pistols and rifles. Basically, if it has a stock, it is a rifle; if it doesn't, it is a pistol. So, for example, this is a pistol - and, as such, is perfectly legal and not regulated in any special way. But if you add a stock to it, it becomes a "short-barreled rifle", and now it's regulated as an NFA item. And keep in mind that a stock is anything that you can use to support it against your shoulder - i.e. a bent piece of wire duct taped to the receiver would qualify.
Shotgun/rifle distinction is also kinda weird. Rifles are, well, rifled, while shotguns are not. But you can still fire shot from rifled barrels, and there are rifled slug guns and even revolvers that do just that. Because they are classified as rifles, the limit on barrel length is 16", as opposed to 18.5" for shotguns, and no limit at all for handguns. My understanding is that originally there was only a limit for shotguns, and its purpose was to ban sawed-off shotguns (as they were seen as strictly close-range offensive weapon useful only for criminals and not for any legitimate purpose like self-defense, hunting or militia service). But today, the only thing that forbids rifled sawed-off "non-shotguns" firing large-size shot is not the barrel limit - since they would technically qualify as handguns - but rather the restriction on caliber (everything above .50 is a "destructive device"; 12 gauge is .729, and 20 gauge is .616). Hence why you can do it with .410 shotshells, but not with 12 or 20 gauge. Still, someone could make a "custom" .50 cal shotshell (and make it long to fit more shot in it) and design a handgun for it that would be legal and not specially regulated, while technically offering all features and benefits of a sawed off shotgun...
The problem is that firearm laws in US have evolved "organically", meaning that it is a hodge-podge of hastily adopted resolutions to address public outcry to some crimes that drew attention, various "common sense" hacks, hacks on top of those hacks etc. Even worse is that a lot of it is not even clearly spelled out in law, but is basically up to BATFE to decide - so a single unelected bureaucrat can considerably change policy either way by issuing an executive directive. E.g. bump fire "full auto" guns are not considered truly full auto by BATFE today, but they may become that tomorrow. On the other hand, even under existing policy, if a weapon accidentally double-fires (an uncommon but possible malfunction in any semi-auto), it could be reclassified as a full-auto, and its owner would then immediately become a felon.
We really need to just ditch this whole mess and rework it from scratch as a single coherent law based on well-defined policy. Of course, for that, we'd need to decide on policy, and that is very much a hot topic these days, with no consensus in sight.
This is no different than selling 80% lower receivers along with the instructions and jig needed to turn it into a functional lower, which is 100% legal. Just like all the books floating around with schematics for various firearms are legal.
Uninformed article trying to raise the ire of those equally ignorant... a manufacturing license covers any sort of action except full auto...
ANYONE can manufacture a firearm for their own use if they follow a couple of rules like "distinctive markings" and a rifled barrel.
The ONLY confusion is in the mind of those who think it's too easy...
CRIMINALS have had access to full auto weapons built in small shops as long as there have been machine guns... It's a BIG problem in countries that have total bans on firearms since it takes nothing more than the machines an automotive repair shop would need...
I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned http://defcad.com/ yet. It's an "Open-Source Search Engine for 3D Printing.", and they've got quite a few firearms (with the intent of having the plans for everything else too), and they're immune or at least resistant to takedowns and such. The site is apparently not complete, needing funding for the search functionality or something like that, but they do have downloadable plans already. The video on the site explains it a bit better.
Oh, yea - Plus, if some criminal breaks into my home at 3 AM, I know I can meet them with force if necessary, instead of letting them violate my home and family.
Say you own no firearms, and this scenario happens to you; what will you do? Let the criminal have their way with your loved ones? Or will you... call a man with a gun to protect you?
In the UK, police don't carry firearms, so I wouldn't be calling a man with a gun. If some criminal attacked my family, I know some martial arts -- and criminals are cowards, all I have to do is make it not worth the trouble. I think the problem is that you're so used to living with firearms you can't imagine it any other way. Yet whole countries live quite happily this way. You can't believe it is possible to live without firearms, and at the same time I can't quite see why it is really necessary as in the UK (and many other countries) we get on fine without them. (Talking about everyone having the right to carry firearms in daily life or to have them easily accessible at home to shoot at intruders/etc, rather than the mere existence of firearms in the country for other purposes.)
Right now we're living in Peru. In Peru, if you leave your car parked on the street, it probably won't be there in the morning. Everyone knows that, it's obvious. Yet in the UK all the cars are on the street and it isn't a problem. I think there is a lack of understanding in the US of cultural differences, and not understanding that there are differences influences this debate because people can't see it any other way. Maybe the entire population of the US needs to be sent on a "gap year" to other parts of the globe, on rotation, to open their minds a bit to other possibilities. (OMG I'll probably be moderated into oblivion again now.)
As A free man, I should never have to justify my choices for self-defense. My exercising of that right hurts no one.
Are you arguing that free people do not have the right to self-defense and choosing the tools that allow the people to exercise that right?
Self-defense is a natural-born right. As a human being I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones. I don't have to ask you or society for that permission.
That is ONE of the basic tenets of our government's founding documents. The second amendment PROTECTS the right of individuals to bear arms for self-defense, it does not GRANT that right.
Your view is one where governments grant rights - that is a wrong-headed view. Governments do not grant the "right" of self-defense" any more than they grant the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Our government is structured such that it protects natural-born rights, it does not "grant" them.
So you are saying in the event of a civil war the government would just obliterate every single city and township in the U.S.? The last country that tried something even remotely similar found that they had to try and take on pretty much the whole world, and it did not end well for Germany... as it would not end well if the U.S. tried anything like it.
The government obliterating everyone and everything to fight in a civil war is absurd. Not only would it incite the common man that was on the fence about the fighting, but would utterly destroy the countries economic base. It would come down to person to person / unit to unit fighting; and you can't win a guerrilla war where the person you are fighting against looks just like everyone else, you should have learned that lesson from studying the Korean war, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
But the government does pretty much what they like to you despite you having guns. Or are all the abuses of the population by the government not quite enough to bring you to armed rebellion -- like boiling a toad in water. I'm kind of fed up with US folk talking up their gun ownership when they let the RIAA/MPAA walk all over them, and let corporations take more and more control of their lives.
Civil war is a last resort. It is not something you start just because you don't like how a certain group is manipulating the laws ( in a non physically harmful way ) in a way the general public does not agree with. You try to fix the problem through the existing channels, and that takes time since the problems took many years to come to a head. It will take time to fix the issues as well. Once all other options are exhausted then and only then would it be time for a rebellion. It's the same for taxation, we as a country had to fight to get fair taxation instead of ruinous taxation. We can't fight just because we don't want to be taxed at all, all government needs to be funded by some form of taxation... it just needs to be a FAIR taxation. If we took up arms over everything that we didn't agree with without trying all other options we would be as bad as the stereotypical "American gun-nut" that some other countries like to portray us as.
Our second amendment rights are there to be another check and balance to the other factors of the government. Our government was designed to be a series of checks and balances, where if one portion ( Judicial, Executive, Legislative, [and the People, specifically because of the second amendment] ) tried to grab too much power for themselves the other branches would fight to retain or gain as much power for themselves.
As of yet, thankfully, the system has not broken down far enough to require a power grab by the people. It may very well come to that though, and if in the case of worst case scenario, I would rather be ready - even if I may not be armed as heavily as the true military, I will have SOMETHING - than be caught helpless. If there is one single thing we have learned from history the first steps in any tyrannical government was to disarm the population. The U.S. forefathers remembered this from the English monarchs who disarmed the aristocrats so they could not rebel again. That was one of the primary reasons to include the right to bear arms to keep the government in check.
As A free man, I should never have to justify my choices for self-defense. My exercising of that right hurts no one.
As a member of a community you always have to justify your choices of self-defense. That is done through the justice system. If you don't wish to follow the rules established by a community everyone is free to leave it. Good luck finding somewhere to move to though.
Are you arguing that free people do not have the right to self-defense and choosing the tools that allow the people to exercise that right?
Self-defense is a natural-born right. As a human being I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones. I don't have to ask you or society for that permission.
Again as a member of a community you are subject to the rules of that community. In our country there are ample allowances for people to defend themselves when attacked but there are also restrictions on the level of force allowed. If someone flicks you in the ear you cannot shoot them in the head even though they "attacked" you. You have the "right" to do this but it is not protected by the government.
That is ONE of the basic tenets of our government's founding documents. The second amendment PROTECTS the right of individuals to bear arms for self-defense, it does not GRANT that right.
Please read the second amendment again. It says "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 has nothing to do with self-defense. It has everything to do with maintaining a regulated Militia. Yes, an amendment protects the right from prosecution from the government, no disagreement there.
Your view is one where governments grant rights - that is a wrong-headed view. Governments do not grant the "right" of self-defense" any more than they grant the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Our government is structured such that it protects natural-born rights, it does not "grant" them.
I never said anything about the government granting rights. It does however specify which rights it feels is important to protect in its own best interest and the best interest of all its citizens. Our government protects SOME natural born rights. You have the right to walk around killing people, the government does not protect this "Natural born right". And for good reason, if this was allowed a society couldn't operate.
In the end people have the "right" to live as they please, however this is subject to the laws of the land. If people have issue with the laws that govern their society they have options, they can move to change those laws through the democratic process and allow the masses to decide through our representatives what makes sense or they can leave and find somewhere that better fits their world view. And if you feel that this country is too controlling of the rights that are important to you there are some places in Africa where the government has no power to stop you from doing anything, this comes with some downsides though because it doesn't stop anyone else either.
Oh, yea - Plus, if some criminal breaks into my home at 3 AM, I know I can meet them with force if necessary, instead of letting them violate my home and family.
Say you own no firearms, and this scenario happens to you; what will you do? Let the criminal have their way with your loved ones? Or will you... call a man with a gun to protect you?
In the UK
We're not talking about the UK. UK citizens do not have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. US citizens do.
Right now we're living in Peru.
So, you don't live in the US, but think you have a right to dictate what Constitutional rights US citizens are afforded? Don't you see the obvious problem with that?
OMG I'll probably be moderated into oblivion again now.
Well you should, sticking your nose into other people's business. You don't see US citizens calling for changes to Peruvian law, do you?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The rest, as they say, is hilarity.
Seriously, a 3D printer doesn't really lower the bar to execution any, it just requires a different skillset.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2012/11/27/shit-shovel-ak-47/
So we can print guns, and I'm sure bullets, but to make the bullets fly, something needs to explode in a little casing.. can a printer make the explosive?
Thanks
JF
Okay, we'll make a deal. If you can stop your government trying to apply your broken laws to the rest of the world, I'll stop complaining about the US population not fixing them whilst at the same time bragging about how gun ownership means their government can never get out of control. (It seems out of control to me.) You are welcome to have all the broken laws you like, and shoot each other as much as you like, if it affects no-one outside the US. Perhaps you are unaware of stuff like the Kim Dotcom raid in NZ? Or the whole of central america being corrupted by a war on drugs which seems to be only making things worse. Yes, through your government you are constantly calling for changes to Peruvian law (there is the small matter of coca eradication -- but coca is needed to live/work at altitude here -- and the CIA shooting down random light aircraft full of innocents because they might be drug smugglers). Well, I admit it is a big problem and I don't expect you to fix it overnight.
Okay, we'll make a deal. If you can stop your government trying to apply your broken laws to the rest of the world, I'll stop complaining about the US population not fixing them whilst at the same time bragging about how gun ownership means their government can never get out of control.
Nobody ever solved anything with a run-on sentence.
Anyway... Something tells me that you have about as much control over what your government does, that I do. Yea, I know The US government likes to sell the whole "Democracy OMGWTFBBQ!" angle abroad, but the reality of the US political situation is... well, best summed up by a cartoon, as sad as it sounds.
Basically, we get to choose either: the bought-and-paid-for mouthpiece who pretends to be your buddy while ramming you in the tookus, or the bought-and-paid-for mouthpiece who pretends to be the other guy's buddy... while ramming you in the tookus. Thanks to rampant corruption in election politics, it is nigh impossible for a non-millionaire to successfully run for federal office. And yes, the world suffers for it - so, if you, a citizen of the Earth, want to bitch about the US's fucked-up election process and its influence on your culture, by all means do so; but what we keep in our own borders - i.e., the 'gun debate,' driving laws, domestic drone usage - that's none of your damn business, and we thank you to stay out of it.
As for solutions, I would think you would have far more success getting the US government out of your country's business by imploring your own leaders to stop toeing the line every time Uncle Sam says 'jump,' then complaining to American citizens (who really can't do shit about it). My government wouldn't be able to exert so much control over the citizens of other nations, if the leaders of those nations were not complicit accomplices.
Regardless, you can be assured that you will never see me, a US citizen, attempting to influence the politics of any other nation, and I would appreciate the citizens of other nations affording us the same courtesy.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Would this meet your needs?