Slashdot Mirror
The First Fully 3D-Printed Gun Has Been Successfully Test-Fired
On Friday, we mentioned that Defense Distributed had created a (near-enough-to) fully 3-D printed pistol. Sparrowvsrevolution now writes that "Last week, the Liberator was fired for the first time at a firing range and successfully shot a .380 caliber bullet using a remote firing setup. Over the weekend, Defense Distributed's founder, the anarchist and radical libertarian Cody Wilson, was bold enough to try firing it by hand. The results of that test, witnessed by a reporter, indicate that the era of the 3D-printed firearm may be upon us, for better or for worse." Predictably, certain politicians are — so to speak — up in arms about it.
Predictably, certain politicians are â" so to speak â" up in arms about it.
Considering how often these gun bills have come up, and then gone flaccid, it's going to take some industrial-strength Viagra to get gun control advocates to mount a campaign to put to bed any criticism and pass the climax of votes necessary for it to become a law.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
While 3D printing looks cool and interesting in general, this is really far fetched. You already can make assassination weapons from schematics from Internet - if you have skills and good understanding of physics involved.
And no, you can't really use this are argument against gun control laws.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Now militia style groups mostly in rural areas are going to be recruiting geeks to operate the 3D printers. Anyone fancy making up a t-shirt saying: "Will print for moonshine"
... and buing it completelly legally for your kid is absolutelly alright. Welcome to America! Where only thing standing between you and realiable rifle is 7 day waiting period. At the same time God forbid you fail at making science expiriment - even if you're 15 year old girl - you'll be charged as an adult terrorist! Thank God I'm not living there
The Gorn is inconsolable.
Don't care if OP likes Mr. Wilson or not, but spreading false information is simply childish. Cody Wilson is not an "anarchist". He is a CRYPTO-ANARCHIST. There is a tremendous difference. I would have thought the /. crowd would know the difference, but I guess ignorance knows no boundaries.
that's the gun this is.. and it exploded on second shot.
the design should use some metal pipe, imho.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Does everyone see these malformed characters or is it a problem in my Web browser?
are â" so to speak â" up
This guy doesn't do this right, if he wants to make better guns of higher quality he shouldn't be printing PARTS for guns, he should be doing something else, printing molds and figuring out ways to use thermal molding and composite materials, like carbon fibers and plastics to make really durable quality parts.
You can't handle the truth.
The law says that its not illegal to produce a gun at home. People have been making guns at home for years.
Why is it suddenly a problem that someone can 3D print a gun instead of making one out of a block of metal with machine tools?
When I went to high school in the early 90's; Saturday Night Specials were quite popular with drug dealers and little punk ass bitches that wanted to boast how dangerous they were. This ended when detectors were installed towards my senior year. The size of this 3d printed looks compareable. So how do you scan for this? We really don't need more guns contrary to arguement. People are always going to kill each other by some means already invented. So why do we need new ways? I'm not a pacifist. I like to fight but even I can see no practical beneficial need to become an armory courtesy of a printer that can do anything. There's something else wrong with our society and THAT' s exacerbating this. Fix that. Guns don't solve problems long term. A.B.
Video here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185
From the video, looks like despite the modest cartridge used, there's quite a kick. Guess the plastic is rather light.
So, no need to get excited folks; a one-shot weapon with really poor accuracy, which needs a 3D printer.
Thus more difficult and costly to produce, yet no more effective, than a 'saturday night special', 'zip gun' or 'bang stick', plans for which have been freely available for a long time.
Probably equally as likely to blow up in your face, too...
This is the real story here. Someone has, for the first time in history, managed to be both an anarchist and a libertarian at the same time. Up until now they have been mutually exclusive.
A printable nuclear missile?
Technology is fun and all, but I sure hope we'll never reach the point where people can print stuff like that in their basement.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I don't really see home-made guns as a big problem. In fact, we all have hundreds of items in our homes that could be combined to form lethal devices. Strangely enough, most of us don't...
So is a home-made gun legal? Maybe in the US, but not in the more civilized parts of the world. It certainly wouldn't be legal for me without a proper license.
What is interesting in this case is that making it easy to create your own gun is likely to work against the motives of Defense Distributed and force the US to adopt more gun control. Maybe even looking at how other countries solve this problem. :)
Shortly followed by the first fully 3D-printed pun.
Legislating that guns must be detectable by metal detectors so that they cannot be brought onto airplanes......
I mean, if you haven't understood yet how retarded so many laws are and how much of a show it is for a politicians who is pushing for nonsense legislation to make a name for himself, just look at this one.
So it remains or becomes illegal to make fully plastic guns that cannot be detected, but how is it legal to bring guns on planes anyway? It's illegal right now (used to be legal in USA), so it doesn't matter if it's a plastic gun or any other gun. But the point is:
a person who wants to bring a plastic gun that he prints onto a plane is already committing an illegal act by taking the gun to the plane. This legislation does NOT prevent him from printing the gun and bringing it onto the plane.
What it does do it prevents people from legally printing plastic guns that they are not taking on planes. Understand?
This legislation is nonsense, it doesn't change anything. People who want to bring undetected plastic weapons on planes will not be stopped by that law.
You can't handle the truth.
Of the four test shots it worked twice, misfired once and exploded once. Not exactly something I would want to rely upon.
So how long until we have news of the first killing by a 3d printed gun?
How long until they are used in a criminal activity?
How long until the guns are used in a mass killing?
A lump of plastic that took months and is barely a "gun". This is what is supposed to change the world?
"the anarchist and radical libertarian"
I'm gonna have to stop you right there. The total number of fucks I give about anything Greenberg has to say is now exactly zero. I don't know who you're pandering to with such blatant manipulation, but I'm not sure the people who would fall for it are literate anyway.
Is find a way to Darwinize the fringies using it. Excellent.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
You don't need a 3d printer to make molds. Making molds would nullify the advantage of using a 3d printer: simplicity.
Unless, of course, somebody invents a 3d printer that can automate the entire process.
Don't rule it out completely. Using a 3d printer to make a mold of something I downloaded is within the reach of my finances and ability, while making a mold from other means might not be. That doesn't really help me make a gun though, as i'd need to inject my mold with metal so it would need to withstand high temperatures, and such a printer is maybe not within my reach.
You could print out the appropriate patterns to make a mold out of though, and the rest of the casting process is also simple enough
Seems easier just to buy or steal a gun though, if you really wanted one
Sill, I would like one pro gun person to admit that a printed gun will kill somebody, and not just some drug dealing child molesting scum, but a real live human being who didn't deserve to die. Like a kid who thinks that it's a toy. So man up for once, and admit that guns kill people. Just face the truth once, and stop complaining that I'm a "stupid liberul", or that you have a constitutional right to own a gun. That's not relevant. Dead people are relevant. So if you have a shred of integrity, stop dodging the question. Who will be the first person to be murdered by a printed gun? And all the other examples that follow:
Why is Snark Required?
Does ANYONE think that someone who wanted a gun for nefarious reasons could only now get one?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Is it just me or does anyone else have that feeling that Cody Wilson has a death by gunshot wound in his future?
I mean this in the greek tragedy sense, not the conspiracy sense.
...the US elites are freaking out about gun controls NOW and not 20 years ago.
With this tech in 15 years from now, most will just copy/paste their guns.
So sales will drop though ownership will rise, massive wise.
No wonder why deep US cointel is framing all those patsies... You can feel they are rushing to complete their (multiple) agendas.
Oh noes... Teh Undetectable Firearm act! Terrorism thwarted again!
Oh wait... they are ignoring all the laws so I guess maybe they will ignore that one too and just leave out the metal. The pin could be easily made of a composite.
now all we need is someone to make a 3D printed baby sister to shoot
We have been able to build our own firearms for our own use all along. The only thing this will accomplish is that congress will get the bright idea that we shouldn't be able to do that anymore... and make it illegal. Yeah, thanks for that.
of gravestones will soon become a booming businness.
From TFA:
In the Forbes article, other than "a single nail that is used as a firing pin", the gun also includes another nonprintable part. The group, the article says, added a six-ounce chunk of steel into the body to make it detectable by metal detectors in order to comply with the undetectable firearms act. The act, Congressman Steve Israel says, is set to expire at the end of the year. "The very least we should do, as a matter of common sense, is extend the undetectable firearms act so that a plastic gun or component can't be brought onto planes because a metal detector can't detect them," notes Israel.
I could never understand why people have no problem with a law that categorically bans ALL guns that are made from non-ferrous materials, and/or that do not look like a gun by X-Ray, but run around like crazy people talking about armed citizens overthrowing the government over limitations on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines--or f***ing background checks. The only way a citizens group would ever have a chance at affecting change in government with guns would be by assassinating a politician--you have no chance against the military or police, sorry. And the Undetectable Firearms Act was written pretty much with that problem in mind (and, obviously other public places like airports.) Why then aren't people pooping their pants over this clear restriction to the supposed core principle of the Second Amendment?
Seriously, where are the protests and demonstrations against the banning of plastic guns 25 years ago? Where were all the threats to vote politicians out of office for violating their constitutional rights? If the answer to the theater shooting in Aurora was that movie-goers should have been carrying guns, and the answer to school shootings is armed teachers, then why not airplanes? Wouldn't we all feel safer if everyone in an airplane was carrying an undetectable plastic gun? I mean, what can box cutters do against bullets? This cognitive dissonance (and the total capitulation of the trampling of the rest of the Bill of Rights) perplexes me.
(This is a re-post because I genuinely want to know the answer)
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
You're an obvious troll, but I'll take the occasion to state a point here:
Freedom means nothing without stating what ehtical priciples are inspiring it. That's not how anarchy (the movements) work.
It really pisses me off that some random guy can develop printing guns for the sake of "freedom", calling himselp "anarchist", and people accounting him on that.
guns are useless without ammo
These things have been around forever (image google it). The predecessors usually lasted for more than one or two shots however. But they have been fashioned from every imaginable material. The only reason this is going to gain any legislation traction will be due to A) frenzied knee-jerk reactionaries running amok screaming "Think of the children!" B) Politicians proxying legislation from corporations with an agenda in one direction or the other. It's stupid to give this thing much more attention than slapping a "21 only" label on it. Anything else will be a waste of time, money and energy.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I agree. You have just lost the freedom to vote, as you agree only harm will come from such a freedom.
But I think I just need to say... I'm for it.
I know the anti gun people aren't going stop. That's fine. Neither will we stop.
I am not a violent person. I don't believe in using violence as anything but a means of defense. Truly.
That said, I few my right to own a gun as the same thing as my right to vote. Literally the same. And I feel the same way about both.
Imagine if someone came to take away your right to vote? Would it matter what reasons they came up for it... what excuses? Unlikely. That is where I am on the issue. And I'm not alone for what that is worth. I don't think most of us are violent or desire violence. We simply believe we're entitled to be dangerous. I'm free. I'm a citizen. You should fear me. Not because I'm crazy. But because the free are powerful.
This gun... this technology... It made me cry the first time I saw it. To me, its beautiful. And I will protect it. This is a flame that will not go out.
I regret if this offends anyone. That is not my desire. I see in this a weapon that might one day free the world. Naive? Perhaps... but possibly this is the beginning of something glorious.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It's more a problem in places where getting a gun is more difficult than it is in the USA.
I can see the NRA howling that the gun manufacturers (its real constituency) would be losing money on this and that it ought to be taxed, with the money going to a fund .... ;-)
Personally, I'd be just as worried, if not more so, firing a cast iron gun than a 3D printed gun. Both are potential pipe bombs. So are all firearms, but most have been tested to a fault many times over to see what they can take, so you fire it within a known tolerance.
Tyranny is a small price for safety. But we still have a long way to go to eradicate all the things that bad people can use to hurt and kill good people. I mean, they haven't even collected all the guns and pressure cookers. It's will be a long time before they get around to all the sharp and jagged rocks.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Is the 3D printed atom bomb far behind? Big limiting factor in that is the radioative material, I know, but I'm just speculating. What other potentially dangerous objects can you manufacture with a 3D printer?
Once this becomes public knowledge (if it isn't already) then everyone can adequately defend themselves. Kudos to these guys for protecting our freedoms.
When you say something that is actually insightful and not drooling, I'll stop vomiting.
Think about it. Our greatest right is the right to vote. If you can't trust people with a gun how in hell can you trust them to vote? This might explain everything.
Don't forget the need to put cameras in everyone's houses so we can watch and make sure they aren't up to anything that might hurt someone. Saftey first!
I would rather get killed by something i had a chance of defending myself against than something killing me instantly. So, yes, it is comforting knowing that punks in dark alleys are not carrying guns.
There is not that much to know about a catapult. And with an arm-piece and a trigger they can be made quite accurate, and (armed with an M24 nut) more destructive than your basic pistol.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
In many ways, owning and USING a gun is the ultimate vote. After all, the Second Amendment speaks of maintaining a free state, not hunting. . .
Think about it. Our greatest right is the right to vote. If you can't trust people with a gun how in hell can you trust them to vote? This might explain everything.
Serious question - what kind of weapon would you not trust people with, and what would be the principle reason to draw the line exactly there? Heavy machine guns/gatling guns? Autocannons? Bazookas? etc.
Being able to make a gun simply and cheaply in your own home is nothing new. You can make a zip gun from stuff you buy at Home Depot for less than $10. That gun has just as much killing power as the plastic printed gun. These have been around for 50 years. Bad guys can buy or steal a high performance gun so easy none of them will spend the time or money to get a 3d printer to print one. This gun can only fire a single shot. Takes several seconds to load another round. Would not be accurate (no rifling) for more than a few feet. Break after a few rounds. The fact that it can pass through metal detectors does pose some risk for use as an assassins weapon, However better plastic parts can be machined and cast just as easy as it is to 3D print them. A 3D printed part is not nearly as strong as a molded part of the same material. People have this false sense of security and when someone points out the risks associated with living in a free society they freak out. Will someone eventually do something bad with 3D printed stuff in the future. Yes someone will. Will it make life more risky? No more risky than all our other high tech stuff that can be misused does.
1st ammendment + 2nd ammendment = right to print arms
rewriting history since 2109
is that it's just as likely that the people firing these will be killed or maimed by them as the people not holding them.
BFG's.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Our greatest right is the right to vote.
Hmmm. Not if you're an Australian citizen. Here, it's compulsory to vote - if you don't, then you get fined. But the (major) political parties have indistinguishable policies, and their representatives are liars or creeps (or, in the case of the current opposition leader, both).
If you can't trust people with a gun how in hell can you trust them to vote?
WTF? If that's how you reason, then you are incapable of reasoning at all. However, I guess it might just be appropriate to deal with all of our politicians, one bullet at a time.
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.
It's a short amendment, but if you quote the whole thing then you can't cherrypick and change it's meaning. The second amendment is not about keeping the state at an arbitrarily defined level of "free", it is about keeping the state safe from foreign conquerors.
While it does not speak of hunting, it does speak of "a well regulated militia", a point that is always overlooked and twisted by pro-gunners that are so quick to cling to the hunting defense.
The "R" in NRA is for rifle. The NRA is a sportsmen's organization that advocates for the rights of hunters. Historically the NRA has been for gun control, having helped draft the ban on fully automatic weapons in the 1980's. All this posturing to present themselves as patriots has exposed the gun lobby for what it is, an efficient scheme to separate fools from their money and make super wealthy people even richer.
Ammunition has tripled in price, most guns have doubled in value, and the gun-rights groups eat it up as signs to keep buying. They buy so much they create shortages which in turn fuel their paranoia causing them to feel compelled to buy even more as soon as it comes available. They did this when Obama was elected and they did it again when he won reelection. Guess what, the buying trend will happen again in 2016 when another Democrat wins the Whitehouse after Texas goes blue thanks to the Latino vote.
The worst part about it is that most of those guns will end up stolen and on the streets at some point in the very near future.
...so as long as it's a state-sanctioned group of people that have guns, you're fine with it? Most of those guns will end up stolen and on the street?
You're scaring the shit out of me, I'll admit, but not in the way you probably intended.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
So they mention that the gun had to have a steel bar in it to comply with the stupid metal detector laws about all firearms. Um, wouldn't it detect the stack of bullets? It might not detect one I suppose but a couple would set the typical one off.
It is that it was made with new technology. Seriously this strikes me as more technophobia than anything. These are the kind of people who fear computers because they don't understand them and the world is changing on them.
The government trying to ban 3D printed guns by legislation will be about as effective as hollywood trying to prevent MP3 downloads by suing people. It won't work.
The lawmakers are saying things like "a terrorist could 3D print a gun and take it past airport security". Well, how exactly will banning 3D-printed guns prevent a terrorist from doing it? Short of regulating the sale and use of 3D printers, the law will be unenforceable.
You're right, I don't own a gun and I support our rights to own guns. I see the minority, those that want to remove the 2nd Amendment, trying to shout and scream things like "think of the children" in order to do this. Thankfully the minority has yet to manage it.
Stronger background checks? Go for it. Assault weapons ban? Get a clue, no way. When the cosmetics are what's used to make decisions common sense has left the auditorium. Magazine limits? Seriously? Our reps don't even realize that magazines themselves can be reloaded let alone that it's possible to swap magazines and continue firing. Printable magazines are also available BTW although I'm told that this is actually a difficult thing to do correctly, something to do with the spring. More people are killed by automobiles in this country and yet we focus on guns. That's okay though as our cars are already so fat it's disgusting as they strive to swaddle us ever more in protective devices. I'm betting more than one person in Boston is a new gun owner after the fallout from the Marathon bombings and I don't blame them. If a manhunt in an urban neighborhood wasn't a wake up call I don't know what is.
BTW, unless you've got some sort of special machine that detects "wrong people" guns will always end up being wielded by them, checks cannot screen them all out. Any competent machine shop can build a damned gun and plans to do so aren't hard to find. The problem is so many people are freaked out by the news and screaming Chicken Little's that it's the "right people" who're going to end up being restricted. It's common sense that if someone is going to break the law that "yet another damned gun law" isn't going to even slow them down. Guns are so easy to get that the Boston bomber twits had a whole arsenal! Oh wait no they didn't...
What will you aim to ban next? Knives? Screwdrivers? Sticks? Baseball bats? Fireworks? Tree stump remover? Model rocket engines? Lithium batteries? Fertilizer? Dry ice? Perfect safety is NOT achievable no matter how many rights you decide to give up...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
They've been around since the invention of the firearm, and the practice is legal, as far as I'm aware, pretty much universally. Is the "big deal" here simply that it's now easier than it used to be?
Sadly I really think that the politicians should just not worry about 3d printed guns as given time and beer the problem will sort itself out nicely.
One in four exploded? That's not a gun, that is an "emergency room visit enabler"!
I apologize to you and Pecisk. Both of you have been Mod down in error by people who don't know how to use the points given them. Comments aren't to be marked down based on the Mods opinion. Time should be spend with focus on marking good comments up and adjusting comments modded in error. It's a sad state of affairs they had to mod based on their hurt feelings.
To be honest I wouldn't have modded either one of you up, but Troll and Flamebait shows the intentions of said Mod. I apologize for not having Mod points to correctly place the both of you at 0. People, when you're given Mod points, it doesn't mean you're suppose to rate based on your opinions. Remember that. I am a strong Linux supporter but rarely do I find myself rating up comments simply because I might agree with them. Usually there is a link at the very bottom of all comments entitled "Moderator Help", you should read that please. Thank you.
To be on Topic I will say, this was bound to happen, we all know that 3D Printing will lead to the Printing of things that some people may find undesirable. But make no mistake about it, it's a Firearm that wasn't bought. The legality of this will be brought up if it gets out of control. I know it's not all Plastic, but someone will find a way to do it, and rest assured, some criminal mind will find a way to commit a Murder in hopes of avoiding capture.
I have heard a lot about printing up this or that in relation to guns. I have yet to here if they are even minimally accurate.
Usually the meticulous machining of a heavy barrel is what will lead to accurate shots.
Not sure plastic guns fall into the same level of refinement.
Dude; have you not been following the last 30 years of elections? When was the last time *anyone* running for an office actually represented *you*?
Campaigns now cost millions of dollars, even for local elections. The only people that can run are people with "connections" to money, meaning they are already friends of the elite, and therefore, represent the elite. They are not interested in, nor do they represent the common people.
And never mind big, federal elections, We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars needed. The bar has been raised so high that no common man can ever run for a Congressional Office.
So really, what's your "vote" doing for you? You can vote for representative (D), who represents the elite, or representative (R), who represents the elite. Neither choice is for you. So your vote has already been taken away -- they just didn't take it away in a form you recognize!!
I'm sorry to say that the real world isn't like the movies. It doesn't take a stormtrooper in a black uniform to take away your rights, it can be done in a much more subtle way, in a way you'll end up going along with, and NOT rebelling against.
And in fact, you'll end up working *for* the oppression of other people's rights. And all the time, your guns will sit idle, because you trust your government while they continue to screw you.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
to finally pass some legislation improving mental health care.
Think about it. Our greatest right is the right to vote. If you can't trust people with a gun how in hell can you trust them to vote? This might explain everything.
One person with bad voting sense is a fraction of a percentage point—hardly of interest. One person with bad shooting sense is a classroom full of dead teenagers—kind of a big deal. Does that make more sense to you now?
It will happen.
ie: colossal douchebag.
http://static5.infoimages.net/resources/originals/41a32a7f101271bc9729ab421de3d97e070938dd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juTfsdL7M8g (haha)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh0SXBtT_lA (a more tacticool version)
personally I think these shotguns are a hell of a lot more dangerous and readily available than anything made with a crazy expensive 3d printer.
Admit it, you posted that entire story just for the pun. Didn't you?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Until the anarchists also upload CAD drawings for cartoon characters, flowers and fluffy bunnies to decorate the guns so that more 5-year-olds can kill their 2-year-old siblings. Way to improve society, guys.
The people who helped create this evil will be responsible for the horrors that are committed with it. May they burn in hell.
Easy solution: don't use cast iron. Use some flavor of brass or bronze instead. Won't have the same wear life, but much less prone to blow up.
Better yet, outlaw curtains and make all new housing construction out of clear acrylics. Then outlaw clothes and mandate full body scanners to prevent anybody from carrying a concealed weapon.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
You are so so far off it's not even funny.
The 2nd Amendment was for the protection of society. That meant from foreign, domestic and criminal. But if you study the documents and statements at the time, it is clear that the authors felt the number one threat the potential threat of one's own government. Considering they had just suffered greatly at the hands of their own government.
Actually, the NRA was not about hunters. It was due to the fact that after the Civil War, it was noted that northerners were far less adept marksman than southerners. Largely due to the fact that hunting in much of the north had diminished with the advent of industry. Where as it was still common in the south.
The NRA was established to help ensure that Americans were well equipped skill wise to be able to respond to a call for defense if neded.
"a well regulated militia",
Did NOT mean regulations like today. It meant disciplined and capable.
"They buy so much they create shortages which in turn fuel their paranoia"
And DHS placing an order for 1.5 billion rounds over 5 years isn't fueling it either? That's about 3x the rounds per person the military is using. And our military is in an active state of war. Just something to consider.
"The worst part about it is that most of those guns will end up stolen and on the streets at some point in the very near future."
And this statement is based on zero proof of evidence.
Copyright and patent infringement, combined with people finally realizing that at-home manufacturing can build anything, eventually, will result in Kindle-like DRM - you can put your own e-books on a Kindle, but you have to upload those first to Amazon for conversion to their format, before Amazon lets it display on your Kindle. And then they know what illegal books you might have on your Kindle. No hassle now, but the option to hassle is indefinitely retained.
So it goes with 3D printing, although it will happen much faster than it did with e-books. 3D printer manufacturers will be given de facto ultimatums to install DRM backdoors on all printers, at least, to enable a looksee by whomever to monitor what is being printed. I imagine the next step will be IP examination and of course seeing if you are being naughty and printing something like a gun or a suspicious casing for a bomb or whatever else they would like to stop.
"I can't do that, Dave.", your printer will say. And you get a copyright warning in the mail, or sometimes a visit from men in a black official car who want to take you somewhere while others borrow your hard drives.
Yup, you easily can build your own printer. Which, eventually, will be a crime. How fast did Bittorrent become criminal? And yes, it is considered criminal in most minds now. Ten years. Less. How fast you think they will make printing your own Glock illegal? Or the machine that can.
Firearm deaths are irrelevant. Total homocides are what matters. If you ban guns but more people are killed with knives. It doesn't matter if your firearm deaths went down.
Second, we have a gang problem fueld by a misguided drug war.
Third, we have a very different legal system, one that has a habit of re-releasing violent criminals time and again. 85% of crime is done by the same criminals....
Prohibition 1: Liquor. Failed, created criminal sydicates.
Prohibition 2: "Drugs". Failed, etc.
Prohibition 3: "Piracy". Failed, made most people criminals.
Prohibition 4: Guns. But it can't happen, not even massive background checks can't work. There are far more guns than people in the country. How are we going to take them away from the people, now criminal, who own them? Background checks, house checks, trackers, whatever - a massive, guaranteed-to-fail undertaking which will manufacture a lot more criminals.
We can't keep trying to fix everything we don't like by making it illegal. It just won't work.
Guns are bad, yes, because they are designed to kill. Societies like ours like to use them to settle scores, here and abroad. But what possible scenario can one envision that makes them go away? Think! Cure worse than disease. And a lot of gun owners aren't going to cooperate.
Lets ban all books because some of them could have questionable views on sexual orientation (or incite violence, or whatever is in your agenda). Basically that is the approach demonizing 3d printers because they can be used to print anything in plastic, including guns.
Unless they bring totally new to the table (i.e. no conventional bomb can do what an atomic bomb do, so is ok to restrict what can be used for energy or medicine just because that potential), is something with too much good potential to limit it. And no, printing guns to pass thru airport scans while letting people to pass a lot of potentially dangerous materials (at the very least, to buy inflammable drinks and matches at the very airport) is not bringing something radically new into the table.
The spring situation has been resolved.
PLA and ABS were not the right printing materials to use.
You can't get a plastic gun through airpor security....
As the detectors and x-ray machines sense density and hardness. Not just metal. So this would still show up.
Heck, and do you know how many "real guns" have accidentally made it through security. Hundreds....
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.
It's a short amendment ... you can't cherrypick and change it's meaning.
Sounds good
The second amendment is ... about keeping the state safe from foreign conquerors.
Hold on a sec..."foreign"? What happened to "can't change it's meaning"???
Do you think the British were "foreign"? Just distribute guns to draftees when anything "foreign" shows up, no need for militia for that.
other then the slug exited the barrel, I wonder if they could aim this thing over any usable distance, and hit the target with it?
Or in my case: Don't =)
Around these here parts of the woods (Norway) it's against the law. I am actually fine with that.
1. A bazooka can do a lot of damage, but hardly more than any of the mass shootings in the history of US (and abroad), most of which were done with regular semi-automatic guns.
2. At the same time I would not trust a stranger with a single-shot musket. There are some pretty strange wierdos out there, and some of them get their hands on guns now and then.
It says something about "well-regulated militia" in the comstitution, something that is being omitted and forgotten most of the time. By "militia" I understand "a group of volunteers, well trained and instructed on safety, who gather twice a year for a weapons drill.", hopefully with some system to filter out dimwits who give guns to children as birthday presents
The right to defend and protect myself and my family is the most fundamental of all rights.
The right of a government to be armed is far more questionable.
Yeah, it's against the law to protect yourself against fucking psychos, so you pretend they don't exist, ha, Breivik?
You can't handle the truth.
When was it ever legal to bring guns into the passenger compartment of a commercial aircraft? Citation please...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
MOD UP...
The NRA is a sportsmen's organization that advocates for the rights of hunters. Historically the NRA has been for gun control, having helped draft the ban on fully automatic weapons in the 1980's.
I will be charitable, and assume you are misinformed. Otherwise, you're either talking out of your ass, or just plain knowingly lying.
The NRA was incorporated after the end of the Civil War by former Union general officers to improve the general level of marksmanship among the population--because, as Ambrose Burnside put it, "Out of ten soldiers who are perfect in drill and the manual of arms, only one knows the purpose of the sights on his gun or can hit the broad side of a barn." It's mission is TRAINING the same and effective use of firearms. Hunting had exactly nothing to do with the purpose of the organization--though, of course, the NRA DOES support hunting, since it is one of the shooting sports.
As for your comment about the 1986 ban on machine guns, the NRA most certainly did NOT help draft that legislation. The ban was attached to legislation that the NRA DID help draft, the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which undid some of the worst parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968. After the amendment was adopted, the thinking was that the ban on machine guns, while not desirable, was worth getting the rest of the bill enacted into law.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
If you're American, aren't your felons disallowed from voting? It would be consistent, then, to disallow them from owning guns, via background checks at gun shows.
I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
You should check out DC v. Heller where the Supreme Court found that the right to bear arms for self-defense was Constitutionally protected by the 2nd Amendment. And McDonald v. Chicago where the Surpreme Court found the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the people - meaning States cannot infringe on the right. The right to keep and bear arms is for individuals, and also covers their own personal self-defense uses.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
One person with a container and some fertilizer can kill many as well... I guess we should be careful and regulate pressure cookers and fertilizer sales...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
smokers and the obese are actually *cheaper* in the long run, because they die earlier and thus save money in health care in their declining years.
Old people are expensive due to chronic issues.
Where in the 2nd Amendment does it state that people who have been convicted of crimes or determined to be mentally ill are not included in "the people"? These designations are made by the State. It seems to me a rather glaring loophole to allow the State to blacklist citizens from 2nd Amendment privileges, if one buys the argument that the 2nd Amendment's purpose is to allow citizens to arm themselves against State tyranny.
Its not that the assault weapon ban was not 100% effective, its that it was 0% effective. When a ban is based on purely cosmetic features then firearms that are 100% functionally identical, but lack the cosmetic feature, will be perfect replacements. There are legit hunting and sporting rifles that are 100% functionally identical replacements for firearms like the civilian AR-15.
We saw this happen in the California and Federal assault weapon bans of the 90s. Unless you ban all semiautomatic firearms with a detachable magazine the bans will not meet the stated goals of the proponents. They will merely be a placebo that makes some feel better, ignorance is bliss. And of course politicians will get a bunch of free press, which is why otherwise intelligent people vote for legislation they know will not work.
That said, I agree there should be no buying loopholes. Every sale should go through a dealer and a background check. Personally I would be in favor of a buyer having gone through safety instruction at some point before making their first purchase. Something like a hunter's safety course would go a long way to preventing accidents.
Firearms related deaths is a bit of a red herring, misdirection. It includes suicides and justifiable self defense. It also fails to consider that criminals merely use different lethal weapons. Hence the need for police in the UK to weak stab proof vests. Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
Plus one could just as easily cherry pick a different comparison. Switzerland where that are over a million of what in the US would be considered "assault weapons" in private hands according to wiki, and there is no threat to society. What is different between the US and Switzerland? The Swiss have proper background checks, proper safety training and proper storage. Its not mere availability of rifles that is the problem. It the deficiencies we have in the US related to background checks, safety training and storage according to you logic of comparing countries.
How the hell did this pile of garbage get modded as "informative"? Let's examine the bullshit, shall we?
The guys who wrote the Second Amendment were very clear in their other writings that it was about letting communities (not states, and certainly not the feds) organize their own militias. In 1789, there were no national guard units. Regardless of the introductory phrase, the second part is pretty clear that no government, at any level, can restrict the rights of the people to own or carry firearms. No taxes, no bans, no magazine restrictions, nothing. Additionally, since the main body of the Constitution explicitly defines the finite powers that the states and people grant to the federal government, and none of those powers mention the ability to restrict firearms ownership, there is no such power to begin with.
The NRA is not a sportsmen's association. A handful of Union Civil War veterans founded the NRA, because they realized that the Union soldiers were horrible shots compared to their Confederate counterparts. They founded the NRA to improve the general firearms skills of the population, in preparation for defensive readiness.
I've purchased three firearms so far this year. They were all about the same price as a year ago. Ammo is definitely up though. Part of this is civilians buying up civilian production, but a bigger piece is the government buying up hundreds of millions of rounds. Additionally, commodity prices are up. Ammunition is mostly processed metals, so when the metal gets expensive, so does the ammo. Also, given the depression that is now finally kicking in (notice the world-wide drop in commodities last month, and the increasing number of bank panics) will probably not be over in 2016, because government idiots will try to legislate it away, which will only worsen it, I doubt a democrat will get elected in 2016. That would be almost as bad as electing a Republican.
Now I'm sure you have a source for your claim that over 50% of these firearms will end up stolen (perhaps your ass?), but the number of stolen firearms in the US is actually pretty low. As is our crime rate, including our gun crime rate. Yes other countries have an even lower rate, but if you take out the drug smuggling related crimes, our murder rate is pretty low.
The article quotes a politician from Queens (making me very glad I live on the good coast, with the smart people, who aren't completely clueless about guns) who is worried that if the untraceable firearms act expires, terrorists will start smuggling guns on planes. Am I the only one who realizes that a criminal with a 3D printer building a gun for criminal purposes probably won't worry about the untraceable firearms act?
It would be far easier just to smuggle a standard gun through the TSA checkpoint, given that the TSA has failed every single security audit they have ever had, and has failed to detect knives and guns, until the owners were stupid enough to go back and inform the TSA agents.
Also, I noticed that they tried to imply in the article that Cody was building semi-auto AR-15 rifles out of plastic, by intermixing text about the plastic gun and his work with AR-15 parts. The printed gun is a single shot .380ACP, lethal to about 10 feet, if you aim well. Way to go media neutrality.
"Security" isn't limited to foreign conquerors; it applies to anything that would threaten the state, foreign or domestic. This includes one's own government, should it become necessary. The Declaration of Independence and the American War of Independence should be all the proof you need that the founders thought it was important to be able to cast off an oppressive government.
The worst part about it is that most of those guns will end up stolen and on the streets at some point in the very near future.
Based on...?
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Out of curiosity, is it possible to vote for none of the candidates? I've always felt that not voting is a vote against the system itself, and thus, a type of vote.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
the 3D printed version is likely easier to make
Not at all.
Never mind just being able ot figure out how to download and print 3D models, there's also assembling the pieces...
All more complex than even a complex ZIpgun
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I know you don't see it. I pity you.
It's coming. In fact go buy 2 tons of fertilizer and see what happens. I bet some people come ask you why you bought it if you don't have a farm.
It's already the case. Here in Georgia you have to have a background check before you can buy a weapon.
Hmm, 300+ million guns owned by Americans. Do you REALLY believe that "most of those guns" have been stolen?
Because there's not really a good reason to suppose that the guns bought this year are any more likely to be stolen than the guns bought last year, the year before, the year before that, etc.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I love the bit in the Fox News article about needing to renew the undetectable firearms act so that people won't bring plastic guns on planes.
Would-be hijacker: "Here it is - a plastic gun that will enable us to take over a plane and crash it into a building."
Partner: "Whoa, buddy! I'm fine with burning myself up in an enormous explosion, but that gun could get me 5 years in prison for carrying an undetectable firearm. We should use real guns instead so that we get caught at the security checkpoint."
Hey! Banning clothes is restricting my religious freedom!
(Yes, the line should be drawn a lot sooner than that.)
You get a wild hair, you pick up a 3d Print-o-matic at Staples, and two days later you're out on the town playing Zombie Refuge. That's the fear/problem. To make a gun requires skill and machinery which is both expensive and - more importantly - time consuming. You don't get a wild hair and then spend the next two years learning all the operations and machinery skills necessary to make a working firearm. Well, you could, but the intersection of bat-shit crazy and patient enough to learn gunsmithing skills is pretty small.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Fortunately, we passed a law requiring that about 20 years ago.
Yep, gun dealers are required to do background checks at Gun Shows, just like in their own shops. And have been for nearly 20 years.
Note that what the proposed "background checks at gunshows" law would have done is require YOU to do a background check if you took a gun to a show and sold it.
And it would have had no legal force across the street, so if you really didn't want to bother (yes, the cost of the background check is non-zero, since you actually can't do one on your own - you have to pay a gun dealer to do it for you) you can just walk out the door, down to the next block and complete your sale PERFECTLY LEGALLY.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Any competent machine shop can build a damned gun and plans to do so aren't hard to find.
Plans are easy, competent machine shops are hard. Training machinists runs contrary to selling us a new whatchamajigger every four years or so.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Right now, I think I'm more worried about people printing their own (potentially very sub-standard) car parts in order to save money on repairs.
Guns may be the hot button, but it got the conversation started. These printers have been around for a while. The bigger picture is that anyone can get and use a 3-d printer, cost permitting (which will drop eventually), and 'print' pretty much anything that can be made from these types of plastics. In the future, will the 'copyright/trademark police' come after you for printing copies for profit, rather than pay the manufacturers prices, or 'making available' the files to do so?
V for Vendetta: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
When was it ever legal to bring guns into the passenger compartment of a commercial aircraft? Citation please...
Prior to the late 1960's, there were no metal detectors or security checkpoints in American airports, meaning that passengers could bring pretty much whatever the hell they wanted onto a plane.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'm pretty sure that just because they weren't checking for it didn't make it "legal". If someone had waved one around I wouldn't have been surprised if there were objections raised to having it in a pressurized aircraft. Things might have been a bit more "free" but people certainly weren't stupid.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Why is this marked insightful? Moral hazard (which is what the OP is complaining about) is endemic to all forms of insurance, public and private. It's got nothing to do with how you vote. Unless you opt out of health insurance completely you are always going to be paying higher premiums than you would have to in a perfect world where no one ever did anything self-destructive or otherwise stupid.
You say this but meanwhile in other countries teens are being shaken down by cops to make sure they aren't carrying screwdrivers and people talk about making kitchen knives that cannot be used to stab someone and do it with a straight face.
http://www.dailybulldog.com/db/features/man-arrested-following-screwdriver-stabbing/
http://www.insight-security.com/facts-knife-crime-stats.htm
http://allamericanblogger.com/13474/in-london-its-illegal-to-carry-a-screwdriver-without-a-good-reason-by-the-way-knife-crime-is-skyrocketing/
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/british-doctors-call-for-ban-on-long-kitchen-knives-to-end-stabbings/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192969/Pointless-The-new-kitchen-knife-chops-wont-stab.html
What's next, bats that can't be used to clobber someone? You call US nuts?! If people want to hurt one another they will find a way....
P.S. OMG they actually made such a knife! Sure hope no one decides to slash someone with it - then what?
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
I'm pretty sure that just because they weren't checking for it didn't make it "legal".
No, the fact that there was not a specific statute making the possession of firearms on an aircraft a crime, is what made it legal.
To be quite honest... I can't seem to find any law prior to 2001 that makes it a crime to carry a firearm onto an airplane...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Yes, of course you can. It's compulsory to show up on election day (or to postal-vote) but that's all. If you so choose, you can childishly scrawl a big penis on the paper and submit that. Or eat the ballot paper. Or stuff it up your nose.
Or, you could vote for a third-party. In 15 years of being a voter in .au, I've never seen a ballot paper with only two choices on it.
Or, of you think you've got a great idea and people will agree with you and vote for you, start your own party. You know that if you want to register a party you can actually get funding _from the government_ if you can recruit enough members?
I'll be the first the agree that there are a lot of shitty things about politics in Australia. But the Australian Electoral Commission is not one of them. Truly independent and pretty good at ensuring fair elections (eg, no shenanigans like not having polling booths in dissenting neighbourhoods)
sustainable living
Fuckit. I'll deal with the karma loss.
My line is after machine guns and before explosive charges. Why? Control over collateral damage. Flying grenade fuzes and other large chunks have been documented to kill people over 1.5 miles away; they were most certainly not the device's intended target. While one can use a machine gun indiscriminately, it's also possible to use it judiciously and without causing unintended harm. By the same standard, you might expect I'd be unhappy with shotguns - but, fun fact, the spread of shotgun pellets tends to be limited to only a few inches rather than the two-meter-wide cone of most video games. The More You Know!
I'd even be willing to reconsider small explosives if the effective radius can actually be limited; in practice, I don't think that'd ever happen. Also, it's not unusual for "stun grenades" or flashbangs to cause immediate and permanent deafness; larger charges will also have this problem; until it's solved - and it may never be - even the smallest grenades aren't bystander-safe.
Also, I must emphasize, can != should; what's legal may not always be responsible.
Sorry, that last paragraph should have read "first TO agree..."
sustainable living
But you don't need 2 tons - just a 50 lb bag will do nicely, for a small scale boom. And you can get that at Home Depot, Ace Hardware, even Safeway...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Whoops, mod undone.
You should check out DC v. Heller where the Supreme Court found that the right to bear arms for self-defense was Constitutionally protected by the 2nd Amendment. And McDonald v. Chicago where the Surpreme Court found the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the people - meaning States cannot infringe on the right. The right to keep and bear arms is for individuals, and also covers their own personal self-defense uses.
And where do you draw the line on what kind of weapons people can have, and what is the principle 2nd Amendment reason for having the line exactly there? Some call it an infringement on the rights to limit semi-auto rifles w/large magazines, but why isn't it then an infringement to limit machine guns, and if it is, where do you draw the line and why? (you can escalate forever, up to nuclear/biological/etc)
Pretty much anything the military can have, the citizens should be able to have. Does that include nuclear weapons? Well - if you can scrounge up the $100 billion or so needed to make one, why not? Fully automatic weapons should be allowed; banning them is an infringement - especially if you want to talk about that first part (militia important to a free State). Citizens should be free to own anything the Government owns - why would that not be the default case, and you need to argue why the People should NOT be able to freely purchase whatever the Government purchases?
If I wanted to kill a lot of people, there are MUCH better ways to do it than with a fully automatic weapon (or even a crew-served weapon, or even a tank). I think we learned that back in the 90s, where a single van with a lot of fertilizer took down an entire building and killed hundreds. Paranoia over some "whacko" gunning down dozens isn't a reason to infringe the rights of all, is it?
Restricting liberty and freedom in one area of our Constitutionally recognized rights (not granted - recognized - we already had them) simply leads to restrictions in others. Today firearms. Tomorrow, the 5th and 4th Amendment (already heavily pressured). How about the 3rd, or the 1st? Hey, a little less free speech never hurt anyone, did it?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Why? Control over collateral damage.
But, it this your personal subjective opinion, or directly based on the 2nd amendment? I'm struggling to understand when gun support views are based on the 2nd amendment, and when they are just personal opinions. Especially given how polarized the debate is. If you want to limit semi-automatic rifles with large magazines you are a socialist tyrant that is taking away the crucial freedom of the 2nd amendment from the American people, but if you are ok with setting a limit just a little bit higher in type of weapons you are the complete opposite.
You should check out DC v. Heller where the Supreme Court found that the right to bear arms for self-defense was Constitutionally protected by the 2nd Amendment. And McDonald v. Chicago where the Surpreme Court found the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the people - meaning States cannot infringe on the right. The right to keep and bear arms is for individuals, and also covers their own personal self-defense uses.
And where do you draw the line on what kind of weapons people can have, and what is the principle 2nd Amendment reason for having the line exactly there? Some call it an infringement on the rights to limit semi-auto rifles w/large magazines, but why isn't it then an infringement to limit machine guns, and if it is, where do you draw the line and why? (you can escalate forever, up to nuclear/biological/etc)
Pretty much anything the military can have, the citizens should be able to have. Does that include nuclear weapons? Well - if you can scrounge up the $100 billion or so needed to make one, why not? Fully automatic weapons should be allowed; banning them is an infringement - especially if you want to talk about that first part (militia important to a free State). Citizens should be free to own anything the Government owns - why would that not be the default case, and you need to argue why the People should NOT be able to freely purchase whatever the Government purchases?
If I wanted to kill a lot of people, there are MUCH better ways to do it than with a fully automatic weapon (or even a crew-served weapon, or even a tank). I think we learned that back in the 90s, where a single van with a lot of fertilizer took down an entire building and killed hundreds. Paranoia over some "whacko" gunning down dozens isn't a reason to infringe the rights of all, is it?
Restricting liberty and freedom in one area of our Constitutionally recognized rights (not granted - recognized - we already had them) simply leads to restrictions in others. Today firearms. Tomorrow, the 5th and 4th Amendment (already heavily pressured). How about the 3rd, or the 1st? Hey, a little less free speech never hurt anyone, did it?
Thanks. This is at least consistent. Scary :) but principle consistent. And in line with how I understand the 2nd amendment being about an effective militia. For that you need really serious weapons, far more than handguns.
On the cost of nuclear weapons as a barrier, outside a number of very wealthy people that could also be absorbed by private weapon manufacturers once it became a legal weapon. And, bio and chemical weapons don't necessarily need to cost much.
Gun crime is so low in Norway, I in no way feel intimidated by that.
I know a madman can obtain weapons illegally. But using Breivik as an example in this setting is borderline stupid, as he obtained his weapons legally. Except the magazines, which he bought legally _in_the_US_ and smuggled to Norway (30 shot 5.56 STANAG mags + 30 shot hi-cap 9mm Glock magazines). He specifically chose the Ruger Mini-14 because of it's capacity to use 5.56 STANAG magazines.
This is one of the reasons the Mini-14 has been used specifically in the gun debate here at home before Breivik ever got into the picture, as the law only permits semi auto hunting rifles with a 2+1 capacity. The magazines you buy in Norway are blocked with those laws in mind, as according to the Berne treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Conservation_of_European_Wildlife_and_Natural_Habitats
Even though the Mini-14 can be used for hunting, it is not designed with that in mind. There are better hunting rifles out there.
And before you write me off as an "Anti-gun-nut", as is so common in these debates, consider the following:
1 ) I know more about weapons than the average gun nut.
2 ) I've been an active pistol shooter.
3 ) I had applied for gun smith school, to get a career out of mending guns. Didn't get in unfortunately, as there is way to many applying for those classes. (it's a three year college equivalent).
4) I learned to disassemble and assemble an H&K G3 (Norwegian military model name: AG3) 7 years old.
But here is where the biggest difference between Norway and the US comes in: Most Norwegians doesn't approve of using guns for self defence. Most consider it a gross over reaction, and also makes you a liability.
Also, precedence in Norwegian courts states that the responce to a threat/unlawful activity can not be bigger than the threat in the first place. That means if you shoot and kill an unarmed burglar _within_your_own_home_, you will still be charged with murder. You might get off those charges, but that is up to the court to decide.
Also, the Norwegian police is unarmed. They do have weapons in their patrol cars, but do not carry.
You see, not all of the world is as blood thirsty as the US.
Bullets do.
Ammunition is what needs to be controlled. And there is not currently any plan for 3D printable ammunition.
It seems I still have a mod troll following me around. Lucky for me, I am a better slashdotter than they are, and I have more karma than they have modpoints.
Ontopic: It is a fact that trained machinists are becoming difficult to locate. This is not open to debate; there are many less machinists in the USA than there were 20 years ago. Whether it is due to the ongoing trend of expecting us to rebuy everything every few years is up for debate, but I'd stake my life on it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It wasn't. You could have them in your checked-in luggage however. Carry-on in passenger compartment has never really been legal. Holes in cabin at 35,000 feet would not go well for anyone onboard.
In many ways, owning and USING a gun is the ultimate vote
It's certainly a lot easier than all that pesky democracy stuff, if you're a few rounds short of a full clip in the brains department.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This is just libertarian attention whoring.
News that matters by Timothy.
That makes more sense to me. I believe you can still carry them in checked luggage but they must be declared, locked, and they search them. I also believe that ammo cannot go along for the ride. This is what I'm told anyway by owners, I own no firearms myself
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Then the laws regulating knife length some states have are unconstitutional? (Serious question - I do not understand these laws, and the constitutionality of them. In America, hollow point bullets are legal, although I believe hollow points are illegal under certain treaties during war that the U.S. has signed. Knives above a certain length are illegal, although individual military personnel are issued such weapons (bayonets). Armor piercing ammo I believe has been restricted. The rules are not very consistent).
If they can print something that will withstand the temperatures and pressures of a 38 special, that's some tough stuff! Now we can make parts for motorcycles, cars, bicycles, etc. Shouldn't break. Bad stuff is people without a clue or enough of a clue to print something could make stuff and not make it right. Even I probably fit into that category.
Sounds more and more every day like we're living in an incredible time. For as long as we can have it before they take it away from us for our own good. It's coming I bet.
Interesting to know; thanks!
If you can't convince them, convict them.
...Additionally, since the main body of the Constitution explicitly defines the finite powers that the states and people grant to the federal government, and none of those powers mention the ability to restrict firearms ownership, there is no such power to begin with.
I don't believe the constitution defines a finite power to prohibit people from owning binary nerve gas munitions. There are several broad grants of power in the constitution.
Some of them, many people feel are being misused. There's a comedian who does a great routine demanding to know how preventing people from shooting Republicans promotes the general welfare.
Australians are not compelled to vote. They are compelled to attend their voting station. Then they can tear up their ballot paper or write insults on it: "no suitable candidates; resubmit".
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
Heck, and do you know how many "real guns" have accidentally made it through security. Hundreds....
Hundreds out of how million journeys? We know the probability must be really low or else there would have been more plane hijackings since 9/11 if terrorists had a reasonable chance of getting a gun through.
Once you've got an armed terrorist gang on a plane, I don't care how strong the cockpit door is, the terrorists will get their publicity one way or another when the plane has to land.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Not to mention, the private sales at gun shows account for a nearly non-existent percentage of total gun show sales. It's pretty rare to have someone selling privately at a show who is not a collector (usually of rather expensive arms).
When parsing the Constitution, it's routinely held by the SCOTUS that dependent clauses do nothing to limit the language of the independent clause to which they are attached.
Pub. L. 103-272, Sec. 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1234.
As codified in 49 USC 46303.
Prior to July 5th, 1994, or the date of enactment set in Public Law 103-272 if it were later, carrying a firearm in the passenger compartment of an airplane was legal. I cannot find an earlier law prohibiting carry, though I may have missed one. There are those who claim it was outlawed in 1968, but I have been unable to verify if that was the case.
This is all about disarming the American Masses, so the US Government can affect Martial Law when it chooses & it is coming soon.
This from an Australian that is has never been Pro_Gun. But the information we are getting indicates that the USA is in serious trouble.
The underlying message is the US economy will collapse and there will be a great depression & with that comes anarchy.
Your Government knows this & is preparing for if, Just look at all the Camps that are being built, who do you think they are for. !
BTW, unless you've got some sort of special machine that detects "wrong people" guns
As far as the gun control lefties are concerned, every gun in private ownership is a "wrong people" gun. Like you said, they're idiots.
What will you aim to ban next? Knives? Screwdrivers? Sticks? Baseball bats? Fireworks? Tree stump remover? Model rocket engines? Lithium batteries? Fertilizer? Dry ice?
You forgot board with rusty nail
Perfect safety is NOT achievable no matter how many rights you decide to give up
Yes, but liberals believe that it is or at least they see no problem in eliminating all of your rights to try because in their minds it was worthwhile if even one life was saved (which it probably wasn't).