Slashdot Mirror
Version 2.0 of 3D-Printed Rifle Successfully Fires 14 Rounds
coolnumbr12 writes "The world's first 3D-printed rifle, named 'The Grizzly' after Canadian-built tanks used in World War II, was fired in June, but the first shot fractured the barrel receiver. The creator, a Canadian man who simply goes by 'Matthew,' refined his design and posted a video Friday on YouTube of Grizzly 2.0 successfully firing 3 rounds of Winchester bullets. The video description says the Grizzly 2.0 fired 14 rounds before it cracked. The new rifle was also safe enough for Matthew to fire it by hand rather than the string system used in the first test."
It's still easier for first-graders to steal their parents' guns than printing their own. That might not be true for long, though.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Oh mozumder, I never tire of your batshit crazy posts
Nothing like wishing harm on people to show how you're morally superior and non-violent. Amirite?
Only on
What's this? A weapon too large to conceal that is also really bulky? Only one thing to do, call it an "Assault Rifle" (yes sir those are scare quotes!) and ban the thing lest some law abiding citizen manage to protect themselves with it!
Just because criminals only actually use unregistered handguns that they can get for cheap, doesn't mean we should not fear this monstrous beast of technology!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In other words, "somebody did something I disagree with, so I think he should be seriously injured and/or killed."
So.. when exactly did you sign up for Slashdot, Kim Jong? Or am I addressing a different batshit insane despot?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
...I think what's needed here is a way to infuse the printing medium (ABS?) with strands of Kevlar, or something similar.
That, and then printing the contact parts of a slide-action with a Teflon/Kevlar composite, and you might have something.
Then you're a worse person than you imagine him to be.
Syrian rebels have requested more resin to help in their recent push...
Well, they certainly look cheap enough that they could be useful for guerrillas/resitances. Besides, remember that the same knowledge that led to the nuclear bomb also led to advances in other fields (I believe it led to nuclear energy) and advances in physics itself. I don't see how knowledge how to make a firearm that doesn't break couldn't be adapted to some other item that handles explosions/very strong forces. Of course, then one could wonder why the motivational factor to gaining such knowledge is a firearm, but then ask yourself why is the US investing in military research (that will undoubtedly produce technology useful for civilians).
I think wishing that it kills him is a bit too much. Besides, wouldn't terrorists have an R&D group that could do the same this man is doing or more? Unless you mean limited-resources terrorists, but those aren't really the ones we probably need to care about (imo).
I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
TBH that's exactly how democracy works, except your opinion just has to be popular enough for whatever you "disagree with" to be outlawed. And instead of just hitting someone, we lock them away, which comes down to the same thing.
And no, libertarianism's no different, because that's just based on popular support for property law. And no, communism's no different, because that's just based on popular support for sharing anything you happen to cherish.
So, your alternatives are tyranny of the majority, or tyranny of the minority. Welcome to civilisation. Regardless, we don't do too badly, you know?
"First-graders-killed-per-minute"?
that would be a measure of performance
You're looking for the MTBF typically measured in "Second-graders-killed-per-receiver".
With even just a single shot, it would be really useful as an emergency backup gun to have around the house somewhere, in the same way people sometimes keep uber-cheap crappy cell-phones in cars for emergency use only.
It doesn't replace a real gun but it's not in way useless as a tool for defense.
If you really want to dodge regulations there are lots cheaper and easier ways to do that with real guns.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As someone who was brought up in a school with a cadet force which taught marksmanship and such, but in a country which doesn't have much of a gun culture, I really don't get this obsession with 3D-printer-manufacturing of parts of guns. In particular, I don't get why it's such a thing on /. What's the big deal, really? I assume some US states have always allowed the home building of guns, perhaps with licences, while others haven't? And that lots of people have fucked up, while others do a competent job? What's *new* here?
It's a "live by the sword, die by the sword" kind of thing. He doesn't want to inflict harm or even kill him, he just wants "divine justice": For someone who makes things that will be used to kill other people to die by his own invention.
Hi, you either don't understand the premise of non-aggression, or intentionally ignore it. Don't do that. It cheapens your argument.
Only on
What's this? Someone having too much fun with something they found growing in their back yard? Only one thing to do, call it "reefer madness" (yes sir those are scare quotes!) and ban the thing lest some law abiding citizen manage to enjoy themselves with it!
Never fear, the same Interstate Clause that says growing pot for your own use is interstate trade will be used to ensure that guns printed for your own use are very well regulated.
Is there gonna be a story each time a 3D-printed gun fires?
I don't know what these people are trying to achieve, you're clearly never going to be able to build a reliable firearm entirely out of ABS plastic. The people at Glock figured this out quite a while ago.
Is that anything like the "child body count from creating gun-free zones in which only criminals have guns"?
Cannot imagine taking the risk to fire one of these by hand.
Live by the sword implies the use of the tool, not merely the existence of the tool. This man didn't murder anyone, it wouldn't be divine comeuppance for him to die. It would make as much sense (i.e. none at all) to look at a demolition engineer and say, "He worked with explosives, a bomb-maker, it's fitting that it exploded in his face." This man has not "lived by the sword" by any sane definition.
Only on
You're not saying enough to be clear about what you're referring to, but I can guess already that I might disagree with your definition of "non-aggression".
You're saying that you want to be killed by a torrent of really bad troll posts? That's what I'm getting from this.
Only on
Nuclear bomb was morally ambiguous. It was developed to actually stop an aggression of a terrible enemy. These guns are made specifically to make dodging regulations easier.
This shows a disdain for the will of people. If you don't like the gun control laws then go and change them. If your political system is corrupt - go and change it.
I'm referring to one of the core tenants of Libertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle -- Your disagreement is somewhat irrelevant.
Only on
If your political system is corrupt - go and change it.
Using...
Only on
said the newly nose-less man.
And if you watch the video you will see that the reload time and method for this weapon is both lengthy and somewhat conspicuous. Not to mention having to hide behind something to fire it with a piece of string...
It's definitely got to go!
Getting trolled in return? I don't mind.
You can shut your mind to the obvious, but he's working on a method to make a gun that bypasses regulation and makes creating and disposing of any number of murder weapons very easy, with hardly any other application (because we already have guns that are better, except they're not as easy to get and to get rid of). Someone who just gives orders and never fires a gun or makes the weapon and never fires it is still to blame and to hope that it backfires on them is not immoral.
So, "non-aggression" here seems to mean "don't violate people's rights" (among other possible definitions); "rights" means "not having stuff done to your person or property without your consent" (among other possible definitions); and "property" itself has all sorts of contentious definitions. That's a fairly specific and non-universal definition of non-aggression, isn't it?
Anyway, you're not referring to a "tenant" of anything, unless punning in the context of property rights... in which case well played, I guess, although I would say that the Koch brothers are the core "tenants" of libertarianism in the US.
When first graders can print the ammo too, then we'll have a problem.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
All of that sounds like a bunch of fear mongering to me. Ermahgerd! A flash mob with GUNS!
You mean the UK?
Nothing like wishing harm on people to show how you're morally superior and non-violent. Amirite?
Go fuck yourself.
(yes, this post is a joke, but I doubt you'll get it).
Your Truly,
- Johnny Bitcoin
Live by the sword, die by the sword. This weapon has no applications except for mischief; the only people really benefiting from this are criminals and those who need a untraceable gun (hard to find any legal reasons for that).
All us whom have legal weapons will instead be having hard time with new regulations concerning bullets, storage, producing and buying. If they can't stop creation of the weapons they sure will do all they can to stop "illegal bullets".
For sure bullets will become very expensive for those who have legal use of them and a new reason to get searched.
Say it all you want, that doesn't give it weight. Care to justify your claim?
I'm no 'gun nut', but you seem to think it's self-evident that millions of armed citizens would pose no obstacle to a determined military force. This is false. Look at the US involvement in the middle East, or what happened in Northern Ireland.
Especially not printed guns.
We already know that improvised weapons can be effective against modern militaries.
I really wish gun nuts would stop taking technology and perverting it for their meaningless displays of power and aggression.
I've never understood why gun nuts are so fearful and have to constantly prove to the world that they have the capability to kill. Let's use 3D printing for good purposes that benefit people, instead of enabling the fearful and violent.
Personally I can't imagine living like that, being afraid of everything all the time and finding more solace in a gun than the friendship or love of another human being.
Guns and current combustion engine share the same principle. If you can print a gun that fires reliably, you are much closer to be able to print an engine. The design of a printed engine could be radically different compared to one that need to be assembled and maintained.
Just illustrating your point. But to add one of my own. Today, you can machine a gun using a lathe and a few other low tech tools, yet it seems that everybody is nevertheless finding real factory made gun: drug lord, petty thief, terrorist, 13 year old kid in Africa, ...
People developing these weapons have hands as bloody as the people who skirted automatic-fire regulations with easily modified guns like the mak 10.
They deserve as much sympathy as a terrorist bomb-maker.
I wait for the day when a 3-d printer creates an honest, service to others, politician who is happy to have a job with modest income.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
What are you going to do against a modern army? Poke Abrams tanks with a sharp 3D-printed stick? Perhaps, shoot bombers from your handgun? You can not win against a modern army using only light weapons. There's no question about it. Can you remind me which military has given something beyond token resistance to the US army lately?
Sure, if you want to use terrorist tactics (hiding between civilians, striking off-duty soldiers - that sort of thing) then you can make the life of an occupying army a living hell. But if you're thinking about using terrorist weapons with impunity, then have you ever thought about an army that doesn't have modern rules of engagement?
Oh, I get it. You'd prefer to kill toddlers, perhaps even primary school children. That'll surely help your cause.
1. Use a 3D printer to print an inkjet cartridge ...
2. Fill generic ink
3.
4. Profit!
I honestly think this might be more economically viable than buying generic ink cartridges new from the manufacturer.
Matthew said he improved upon his first design of the Grizzly by making the barrel 50 percent larger, increasing the size of the receiver (the main portion that holds the firing mechanism),
Good things to do.
and adding groves to the inside of the barrel.
Maybe not so good. Depending on the depth of the grooves they may allow gases past the bullet and decrease the muzzle velocity. If they are helical groves they may increase accuracy.
By the way, without helical grooves the weapon is a musket and not a rifle.
I wonder what the muzzle velocity and accuracy of the weapon is.
Those regulations are already in the pipe, 3D printable weapon or not. Their agenda is to disarm you, to weaken you, and to control you. The question is, what are you going to do about it?
You really are a pretty bad person.
dodging regulations.
Regulations like "Juden kann nicht besitzen Schusswaffen." Stop being a racist Nazi.
If there isn't a legal way to get weapon, we'd do like criminals get them illegally. If there is a need there is a market. This market on the other hand where we have 3d printed guns only benefits criminals and those who'd want to be untraceable after using a gun.
What if you make comments wishing for others' death and you are subsequently killed by those people? That seems to follow your childish line of reasoning appropriately enough. It is probably a good thing that you haven't been an integral part of the evolution of man or the weight of the old testament would have crushed us by this point.
The fact that you wish such a violent death on this man outlines the vast difference between people like you and the rest of us free-thinking individuals. We don't correlate only possible negative consequence with new technologies, studies, or avenues of thought...we try to explore ALL possibilities and think of ways to benefit others and build societies instead of assuming the worst of any advancement in technology or thought. If one were to apply your logic to any critical invention or advancement in human history we would still think the world was flat, we would be bloodletting to cure disease and infection alike, and we would take 10 years to travel across the US with half our family dying of dysentery.
The man is building a gun in his home using new technological advancements and not using it on people. Until he does, he deserves to be treated as though he would never do anything of the sort. Maybe he is a gun enthusiast and just likes them? I like computers and I build those...does that mean I steal from people using them? I like working on cars and I build those also...does that mean that I run people down in the street with them? Maybe he just feels, as Alexander Hamilton did (even though he is Canadian), that "it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
If you believe that simply getting rid of all guns is the answer, you have a simple mind. Try putting a little more thought into it for once...explore all avenues and ask yourself these things constantly: Does your government have any interest in you being anything other than an automaton? What happens when the pretense fails and those with power want to keep their power? There are plenty of examples in human history of fallen empires and societies. The United States was created with a system of checks and balances to prevent this but what happens when the people themselves, who are supposed to act as a check to their elected officials, fail to live up to their end of the bargain? (I'm assuming you're from the US, but this is a fairly universal concept.)
Call me a nut...I'll keep my guns and continue not killing anyone, just like I've done for 20 years. I'm sure you are thinking, "what good are guns against tanks and a modern military anyway?" I tell you that I would rather die with them in my hands than become a slave.
Well, a gun is by itself a rather simple design. You need a barrel to hold the explosion, you need a way to get a bullet in (if everything else fails, stuff it in from the end where it will go out of again) and some way to strike the priming pan. These are by no means features that the average teen with at least a hint of metal working skills cannot pull off.
And if they are front loader, just take a few more along and come prepared. Kids have a lot of time at their hands.
In general, I see that demonstration more as something to show off what you can actually do with 3D printing. It's quite striking because it happens to be a tool that can kill, but it's not like making a gun from "normal" materials is really that difficult. Actually, I'd consider it a lot easier (and probably faster, too) than printing one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm not surprised...
Any country that can make a solid-fuel nuclear [CanDo] reactor work -without- needing costly -reprocessed- fuel-rods (and, who's already got some of its nuclear experts focussing on Energy from Thorium, as I write)...
should -surely- be capable of producing folks who can 1-up the competition in making a 3D-printed rifle fire.
PS As we watched the post-firing shell-removal step, :-)
we couldn't help thinking of the pre-firing step required
to make a "flint-lock" rifle fire.
If the barrel can now withstand multiple bullets being fired, does that also mean that the material used to make the barrel is strong enough to become a bullet that would cause serious injury to a human? At that point, does the only requirement for metal become the firing pin and the jacket for the bullet (the part that holds the gunpownder explosion and which the firing pin strikes.)
He's not putting the gun in anyone's hands and sending him off to go on a killing spree. By your logic, pretty much everyone from Heckler, Koch, Smith and Wesson should go to hell for making people kill each other.
Let's be sensible for a moment. If at any moment in the future such guns surface where they could even REMOTELY be linked to any kind of terrorism, you'll soon see how police starts peering around for people with "suspicious" cargo. Even WANTING a gun that cannot be detected is illegal and punishable, and unless you spent the last 2 months or so under a rock, you should know that it is trivial for certain three letter goons to find out who downloaded what blueprint for a 3D model.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's odd that I'm saying this again, but have you ever heard of the Battle of Athens?
Please take your common sense elsewhere, this thread here is for fear mongering.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
People who attempt to infringe on others' rights to self-defense, security, and private property deserve as much sympathy as any of the dictators who disarmed their citizens and then committed acts of genocide against them.
I'd really like if every decision had consequences.
My take is that if we had some sort of enforced karma, you'd be getting a lot of consequences. Wishing death or grievous injury on someone merely because they build something. What's a fitting "consequence" for that sort of pathology?
Yes, I have. It required conditions that are pretty much unique in the history. Like recently demobilised soldiersm with actual combat experience, and a local government that couldn't call for military support.
I'd just discovered a way to make a plague lethal in 80% cases, using only kitchen tools and 3d printer! What a wonderful discovery! I hope everyone makes a vial of it - for self-defense, of course. Or for duck hunting.
So... one of the core tenets of libertarianism is "don't be an asshole", and people actually expect that this would work in the real world?
That's almost as naive as the Marxists....
Well, like 3D printing it seems the designs are evolving. This is a fairly novel approach in his design. I do like how the cartridge brass had to be tapped out of the end after each shot. The twist lock of the barrel into the receiver also helps hold any damage caused by cracking at the end of the barrel. It also became easier for the brass to fall out after each round indicating that the bore was increasing or becoming imprinted with the brass signature. While some people may disagree on gun control grounds I think the progress that is being made with 3D printing and materials is fascinating. I think we can also assume that a small form factor printed gun isn't practical yet, that is until there is some polymer technology that will render a much more durable plastic. The rifle is pretty useless unless it's used as a last resort and it's probably slower than a musket to load and fire but still, you have to admire the inventive spirit.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
I'd just discovered a way to make a plague lethal in 80% cases
Ah, yes, another Slashdotter who flips out when anyone disagrees with him. Well, carry on.
I'm no 'gun nut', but you seem to think it's self-evident that millions of armed citizens would pose no obstacle to a determined military force.
You seem to think it's self-evident that there actually would be millions of armed citizens to take up arms against the government....
A very large majority of the population is, by and large, satisfied with the job the government is doing, and while they may disagree with the party currently holding the power, they do not believe that armed resistance is necessary.
Also, since you seem to be American, I'll remind you that the phrase "well-regulated militia" implies that there's actual training involved. When you can download the plans to make a weapon from the Internet, and buy the ammunition for said weapon from Wal*Mart, that greatly reduces the chance that the people doing so will know what the hell they're doing.
For the record, as a former member of the military, I feel that gun control is a good thing. Weapons that are not being properly maintained, and with which you don't maintain proper proficiency are dangerous, to you and everybody around you. When the general population has the same requirements for recertification and the same penalties for not properly maintaining their weapon that I had when I was in the army, I will support them having the same access to weapons I had.
It is merely a manner of force multiplier. If guns were not helpfull, we wouldn't have soldiers carrying guns in the army, we would only have tanks, and planes when we attacked. If you watch Black Hawk down for example, eventually that plane, tank, whatever is going to go down in a bad spot. Equipped with guns they tore into the US, requiring thousands more people and equipment. Same in Iraq, Afganistan, etc, it required a huge force of 100,000+ troops to take on the guns, without the proliferation of guns, it would have taken less than 1/10th that. In the USA with most every base in the middle of a major city in the USA, if you have a majority of the population against the military side, and 10% of the population armed, the military wouldn't be able to hold onto many of the bases in the USA for long. Without a secure base, the army couldn't take the US population on at home. Guns alone wouldn't cut it, but explosive are easier to improvise... I would see a military coop overthrow happening with armed civilians taking a major base, then using what they acquire from that base to move on the next one...
This shows a disdain for the will of [the?] people.
Just like Jews who hid from the Nazis, and just like the Germans who hid them. Don't be a racist Nazi.
Non-aggression is enforced with violence by those who support it. Arbitrarily defining "aggression" makes all systems exactly the same, and from my discussions with libertarians about non-aggression, there is no alignment that indicates any consistent definition (specifically around pollution and abortion).
Learn to love Alaska
If this dude knew what he was doing WRT firearm prototyping, he would have "worked up a load" instead of starting out his "testing" with high-velocity varmint ammo.
Just like a handloader, prototyping any firearm (not just 3D printed ones) requires starting with light loads & working up until you start to see signs of excess pressure (deformed cases, sticky bolt, etc), then backing off.
Granted this thing is a rimfire so hand-reloading is not really a practical proposition, but part of the awesomeness of 22LR is that there are a zillion different kinds of ammo out there.
He should have started out with CB caps, then regular 22 shorts, then subsonic 22LR match ammo, then standard velocity, then HV varmint ammo (which is what he started with...), then blow the thing to bits with a max-pressure round like the CCI Velocitor.
Also sense the barrel is made of polymer, hard copper-jacketed bullets are probably a no-no. It would be a good idea to moly lube the thing & keep a chronograph on hand so you know when the effectiveness of the lube is starting to wear off & re-lube it. The better match bullets come pre-lubed so this is another good reason to test with them.
For all we know the thing may work just fine all day long with subsonic match ammo & proper lubrication.
Big kudos for making a 3D printed rifle that actually works, but use good methodology & it might continue to work instead of eventually blowing up every time you take it out...
I still think that in the rifle's present condition he should still blow it to bits with a Velocitor for good measure :-).
Be sure to get a group on paper with the next try...
Nope. I'd really like if every decision had consequences.
What a childish load of crap.
You'd like it right up until the moment when you were on the receiving
end of the consequences. At that time you'd cry like a baby and beg to be
exempt. But there would be no mercy, nor any exemptions.
Still a fan of your fairy tale world ? Talk is cheap. Put your self on the line
and it all looks different very quickly indeed.
String must be banned also!
Then later on Twine when you "hackers" figure out it can also apply force from a distance.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm from Colorado, where we will pay exactly as much attention to interstate trade in gun printing as we do pot growing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Using..."
I think I'm liking this Guinness person. Maybe we should name a beer after him. But what's a "beaumont"?
"A very large majority of the population is, by and large, satisfied with the job the government is doing, and while they may disagree with the party currently holding the power, they do not believe that armed resistance is necessary."
See... there's just this LITTLE flaw in your logic here...
Maybe lots (not a "majority"... read the recent polls) of people are not too dissatisfied with government right now (not the same as "satisfied" at all... again read the polls). BUT... IF there were military in the streets shoving those people around, you can bet your ass that would change in a heartbeat.
There are 100 people in this country for every military man, and there is a gun for each one of them. PLUS, you can also bet that most of the military would NOT be out there trying to fight their own people for some tyrannical President. So the odds just get worse from there.
No, the U.S. military would not have a snowball's chance in Hell against its own citizens. Count on it.
>This market on the other hand where we have 3d printed guns only benefits criminals and those who'd want to be untraceable after using a gun.
I am not sure I agree. One that can only shoot a few times, I agree. But this is the early stage. Since not all shot projectiles are for killing, I used a .22 cal cartridge to attach my deck to the block walls, and concrete slabs (uses a blank to shoot a nail.) Also other things, like balloonists have been using helium balloons for wind speed/direction, cheap plastic gun to shoot parachutes to hundred feet would be much quicker and cheaper.
Granted I think the point of this effort is an attempt to say, the gun is out of the bag, we have to assume everyone at all times has one. So lets forget about stopping people from having them, and concentrate on the root cause of the violence. I am not sure that is completely possible, but I do think getting to a reasonably low fatality rate from guns is do able, even when they are prolific.
Also, since you seem to be American, I'll remind you that the phrase "well-regulated militia" implies that there's actual training involved.
It DOES mean training is involved. That's what "well-regulated" means. However, not being the historian that I am, you don't seem to understand what the Second Amendment actually says.
The Founders were terrified of the necessity to have a standing army ("well-regulated militia"), that being THE SINGLE BIGGEST THREAT TO DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, as their recent experiences taught them very plainly (as well as history... they were no dummies).
What the Second Amendment says, in Modern English, is this: "Because we have to have an army ("sell-regulated militia") to defend the country, we are going to let THE PEOPLE be armed, to protect us from that army".
And yes, that IS what it means, despite all the rhetoric from left-wing gun-controllers. It's a historical fact.
s/sell/well
Bit of a Freudian slip there. You're welcome, Halliburton.
No, all these assholes are doing is pushing toward crazy laws such as "owning a 3D printer makes you a terrorist".
Remember we're talking about politicians and law makers, they don't care if a lathe can make a better gun, they will still outlaw 3D printers anyway.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I understand that this is all about 3d printing and the neato things that you can print on it (guns and whatnot), and this is causing some American legislators to get fits and shout "ban them, ban them all", but you can build all this crap out of ceramic or plastic by hand using machine tools, and they can shoot more than 14 shots before things go boo, and just like the 3d stuff, it doesn't show up on metal detectors or x-ray scanners. So much for the boogeyman.
From your incorrect correction, I think you don't understand what non-aggression is.
Your disagreement is somewhat irrelevant.
Another core of libertarians. "I'm right, even when I'm wrong. I don't discuss, I lecture. You may listen, but questions and contradictions will be ignored."
Learn to love Alaska
Well, they should go to hell. Did they? No clue, but they are not innocent.
It required conditions that are pretty much unique in the history.
In other words, a valid counterexample to the claims you've been making. Any other such example will also have conditions that are pretty much "unique in the history" by whatever criteria you happen to be using.
Another core of libertarians. "I'm right, even when I'm wrong. I don't discuss, I lecture. You may listen, but questions and contradictions will be ignored."
I don't hear a big THANK YOU for providing this completely novel and entertaining rhetorical technique to the world. Now, nobody has to ever be wrong again.
This shows a disdain for the will of people.
Is there a problem with that?
Only until disney rolls out 3d printers for every kid and to the next defcon where they hack the firmware.
Experiments and other stuff
It doesn't change whether you are wrong, just whether you'll listen to reason.
Learn to love Alaska
This seems a very strange explanation, and exactly opposite the normal explanation from gun supporters I have heard. At that time "militia" meant an army of normal citizens, there was no way to distinguish the militia from the people. The militia, besides helping to defend the country against evil, would not be controlled enough by the government that it could not turn on it. To make the militia work the people needed guns (the guns used in the start of the revolution were personal weapons).
My personal opinion is that the gun rights argument existed even then, resulting in an unreadable weasel-wording of the amendment to try to make both sides happy.
Another core of libertarians. "I'm right, even when I'm wrong. I don't discuss, I lecture. You may listen, but questions and contradictions will be ignored."
Or it may be that the original posters' disagreement is genuinely somewhat irrelevant. I note that this is just a disagreement about semantics of the term, "non-aggression". Since a meaning was given and not just the word, we can just use the meaning rather than the word, even if the word usually has some other connotation.
We don't get in a tizzy, if say someone uses the mathematical or physics versions of the word, "field" (for a particularly notorious example), rather than the normal English usage as an area of open land. So why do so when libertarians use "non-aggression" in a particular sense? You aren't required to accept that definition outside of the scope of the discussion.
Going back to Joining Yet Again's assertion that libertarianism is "no different" in outlawing whatever isn't popular enough, there is the principle of so-called "non-aggression". From the previously mentioned Wikipedia link:
The non-aggression principle is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. [...] Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individualâ(TM)s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.
So outlawing an unpopular activity (which isn't itself aggression) is initiating aggression by the above definition and hence, counter to libertarian tenets, contrary to the original assertion.
Only because it's a copying tool that could threaten "important" (I'll use the term loosely here) industries.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
People developing these weapons have hands as bloody as the people who skirted automatic-fire regulations with easily modified guns like the mak 10.
In other words, their hands aren't at all bloody. But then I measure "blood" by actual harm caused to people, not by whether or not I get a blowhard upset on the internet.
So outlawing an unpopular activity (which isn't itself aggression) is initiating aggression by the above definition and hence, counter to libertarian tenets, contrary to the original assertion.
If I agreed with everything you said, it's unrelated to the initial point. When someone's right to travel conflicts with someone else's right to property (someone buys land surrounded by his neighbor with no explicit right-of-way), the traveler must initiate aggression to leave his property. That means the libertarians would be "forcing" him to initiate aggression by the arbitrary asignment of property ownership above the right to travel. If the right to travel was higher, then the circling property owner must let the traveler pass, or would be the aggressor if he blocks the right to travel.
NAP doesn't define aggression, in that abortion isn't a settled issue either. Is it aggression by the mother to get the abortion, of aggression by the state to prevent her? It's like the statement "a house should have a foundation." It's true and unarguable, but still useless if you get into a disagreement over slab vs pier and beam. The devil is in the details, and that's why I pointed out "what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are." from the link he provided. Until there's agreement on rights, aggression is undefined.
Learn to love Alaska
That was never true in countries with strict gun control laws. Of course, in those countries those first graders can print guns but will still have a hard time obtaining the ammo for them.
Speaking of gun control: in my country there's a ban on anything that looks like a real gun (and a ban on actual guns as well). So you can have things like Airsoft guns as long as they are made to look like toys, having bright colors etc. But now we'll have actual guns that look like toys...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
People living in a country with strict gun control laws will also benefit, if they desire a gun for home defense. Not legal (in those countries), but morally that hardly counts as mischief.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
He's not putting the gun in anyone's hands and sending him off to go on a killing spree.
So I guess it's also morally impeccable if I print out detailed plans on how to create bombs from pressure cookers and put them on the Internet for everyone to read? Right? As long as I don't put the bombs into someone's hand for him to go off on a killing spree, there is no harm done and I'm clearly in the moral clearwater.
No wait, guns are totally different of course. They can be used for self-defense, so every kid at school should be able to print out his own gun.
SA-80 already looks (and feels) like a toy.
I'm sorry I guess I should look at this as a technological leap, but I'm getting worried about where this 3D printing is headed..
Well said. The "core tenant" is an unclear proritisation of a vaguely delimited set of rights, and is a fine illustration of what happens when you start by observing a practice and build a theory to justify its extremes.
In a pinch, and maybe in rural areas, pressure cooker bombs can also be used for self defence.
You seem to think it's self-evident that there actually would be millions of armed citizens to take up arms against the government....
Really I was commenting on the effectiveness of improvised weapons more than the state of things in the USA, but yes, I suspect the number would hit millions if the government were to get completely out of control.
A very large majority of the population is, by and large, satisfied with the job the government is doing, and while they may disagree with the party currently holding the power, they do not believe that armed resistance is necessary.
Again I'm not advocating an armed uprising, just commenting on the effectiveness of improvised weapons. For all the problems with the US government, I don't think it warrants armed revolution.
Also, since you seem to be American, I'll remind you that the phrase "well-regulated militia" implies that there's actual training involved. When you can download the plans to make a weapon from the Internet, and buy the ammunition for said weapon from Wal*Mart, that greatly reduces the chance that the people doing so will know what the hell they're doing.
Agreed that you've got nothing without training. Not that it really matters, but I'm not American.
For the record, as a former member of the military, I feel that gun control is a good thing. Weapons that are not being properly maintained, and with which you don't maintain proper proficiency are dangerous, to you and everybody around you. When the general population has the same requirements for recertification and the same penalties for not properly maintaining their weapon that I had when I was in the army, I will support them having the same access to weapons I had.
Reasonable points from a safety perspective, but it assumes no (need for) armed revolution, which was the whole point of the Second Amendment.
If an armed citizen presents no threat to tyranny, then *why* is the state so intent on preventing us from being armed?
One need only ask themselves that very question, to understand this whole subject.
No, I don't think so. You've made quite a leap. You've not addressed the central pro-gun-control argument that it can keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
In a lot of countries, like the UK, gun control generally works pretty well at preventing gun-crime, by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It doesn't work perfectly, but pretty well. It would be a problem if the people wanted a revolution, but I don't think that's what politicians are thinking.
I would see a military coop overthrow happening with armed civilians taking a major base, then using what they acquire from that base to move on the next one...
To my knowledge this has never happened in the Middle East. The military would still have a tremendous advantage in training and coordination.
Can you remind me which military has given something beyond token resistance to the US army lately?
We're talking rebels, not 'military'. The Middle East and Northern Ireland are the proof that modern militaries won't have an easy time occupying countries.
Sure, if you want to use terrorist tactics (hiding between civilians, striking off-duty soldiers - that sort of thing) then you can make the life of an occupying army a living hell.
Off-duty?
But if you're thinking about using terrorist weapons with impunity, then have you ever thought about an army that doesn't have modern rules of engagement?
In a hypothetical armed rebellion in the USA, the rules of engagement would very much apply. I don't think the USAF would be ok carpet-bombing their own country to get at rebels, assuming they were ok with domestic deployment to begin with.
Oh, I get it. You'd prefer to kill toddlers, perhaps even primary school children. That'll surely help your cause.
You think that kind of idiocy will help yours?
Like I said, I'm not a gun-nut. I'm not even really pro-gun. I'm just pointing out that this particular anti-gun argument - that they'd be useless in a revolution - is nonsense.
Its called an assault rifle because of the blistering rate of fire, which is almost comparable with professionally made muzzle-loading muskets at this point.
Why? Don't you think that a home-made infectious plague is a tool to control government? If no, then why?
Yes. If you decide that your clique has a monopoly on the public opinion and should use weapons to enforce your view, then what stops other groups from doing it?
What regulation is he bypassing? You are legally allowed to make your own guns. So i would love to hear what regulations he is bypassing for his MURDER WEAPONS!
The actual difference between any of those is whether normal people have access to guns. If not, it is tyranny. If so, it is liberty.
Karl Marx believed in individual ownership of guns. Russian communism did not. One is tyranny, the other....has never been attempted on a large scale.
Guns make the only difference that matters.
Read Article 1, Section 8. The US Constitution clearly differentiates between an army and a militia. I interpret that as meaning that the militia is the non-standing part of the army, ie, people called up on short notice to support the government, maintain the peace, defend against bad guys.
(Otherwise I agree with your interpretation of the 2nd. It means, "Unfortunately, we need to let the government have the power to call up a militia, coz it's a dangerous world, so we need to make sure towns can defend themselves against the misuse of that militia." Which means it has nothing to do with home defence and hunting, everything to do with military-grade weapons (back then cannons and barrels of gunpowder, today RPGs.) Indeed, I interpret most of the original BoR in that light. The first is the right to agitate and organise against the government. The second to defend against pro-government militias.The third to prevent government intimidation, by housing troops in anti-government towns. Fourth to allow you to secretly plot and plan and pass messages between your groups. The fifth to prevent you from being jailed for not confessing or informing; to prevent perpetual re-trials/jury-shopping; to prevent unjust seizure of property, etc etc. The sixth to prevent indefinite detention without trial, secret trials and kangaroo courts. The seventh to limit the power of pro-government judges. The eighth to prevent excessive punishments/bail for political reasons. And when interpreted in that light, it becomes obvious how far the US has drifted away from the Constitution. And I say all this as a latte-drinking wishy-washy Guardian-reading left-wing pro-gun-control moonbat.)
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Really? Useless for hunting or self defense? How many shots do you think you need to defend yourself or take down a deer? While I think the people pushing this are a bit misguided, these are far from useless for "standard" purposes that people buy weapons.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Yes, it's useless for hunting. It has very bad accuracy and can't use a large-caliber ammo. Or do you hunt dears that are tethered to a tree?
If you watch Black Hawk down for example, [...] Equipped with guns they tore into the US, requiring thousands more people and equipment.
Have you watched it? Ignore the incompetence of the commanders, just the events on the ground. The opposition militia did not "tear into the US". About 100 US troops held out in an unprotected, unplanned crash position, in an urban area, with no resupply and little support, against several thousand armed opposition who could bring in more men and supplies at will. And they did so with 50-1 kill ratios. And this was the first such battle since Vietnam, with the whole command structure notoriously incompetent to cope with the unexpected. (Today's US military has had over a decade of experience against such militias, IEDs, RPGs, ambushes, etc.)
If anything illustrates Cyberax's original point, it's the battle of Mogadishu.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
I ask - who really cares about this??? Don't people realize you can make mush more robust and successful weapons using traditional materials and tools?
This seems a very strange explanation, and exactly opposite the normal explanation from gun supporters I have heard. At that time "militia" meant an army of normal citizens, there was no way to distinguish the militia from the people. The militia, besides helping to defend the country against evil, would not be controlled enough by the government that it could not turn on it.
Militia implies some level of organization of people into groups for the common goal of defending against something. "there was no way to distinguish the militia from the people" is a ridiculous argument, of course you can distinguish between them. A member of a militia meets regularly or irregularly with fellow citizens for the purpose of of mounting a defense against something or someone using weapons. At the time the constitution was written, organization was at a local level, and then the local organizations joined up with other local organizations as needed to form larger groups.
"the people" should refer to ordinary citizens going about their business. "The people" can belong to a militia, but a militia is not "the people"; it is an organized group of "the people".
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
How many military veterans do you think there are that own guns? I'll tell you; as of 2011 it was over 21 million former military members. Let's assume the standard 36% (as of 2011) distribution of gun ownership amongst those veterans. That's what 7 1/2 million trained users of guns? The US military currently has approximately 1.5 million active duty. Now, consider that many, if not most, of those military members would not fight against US citizens and suddenly the likelihood of a massacre of armed civilians by the military seems much less likely. Hell, a lot of the military would fight for the civilians.
Training will never be a problem, even on military grade weapons.
As far as "terrorist tactics", how exactly do you think this country was founded? Welcome to reality, smaller "civilian" forces have overthrown governments throughout history. Just because it is currently the "most powerful military" doesn't mean the US couldn't be overthrown by a citizenry of armed amateurs. Mostly because many of them simply wouldn't be amateurs.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
These things may be ready to defend a classroom of first graders from someone trying to shoot them.
If you decide that your clique has a monopoly on the public opinion and should use weapons to enforce your view, then what stops other groups from doing it?
So disrespect for public opinion means I want to use weapons to enforce my view? I didn't know that. I better stock up then.
In the event of a tyrannical government, circumventing regulations may be just the thing those people need.
And yet I have to say, so what? Your argument is not the "initial point". In a society of conflicting interests, there will never be enough agreement on rights to completely eliminate these sorts of problems, but we can come to broad agreement on a lot of that and greatly reduce the conflict.
And that leaves us with a core principle of libertarianism which is counter to the assertion that libertarians would be as much regulatory meddlers as anyone else.
BUT... IF there were military in the streets shoving those people around, you can bet your ass that would change in a heartbeat.
Except that "those people" they are pushing around would be those who are already against the government. That's the only reason troops would be in the streets, to "keep the peace" against violent anti-government protesters. Or to round up "terrorists" and confiscate their weapons (long titillating list of their stockpiled arms/explosives-ingredients/etc released to the servile media.) Would the US public tolerate that? Look at the acquiescence to the TSA, to warrantless stop-and-frisk, the media support (both "liberal" media and Fox News) for universal NSA surveillance, and against Snowden, the public tolerance of police abuses against the Occupy protesters, and the routine support by court juries for officers who abuse their power, etc etc etc....
Even tyrants don't put actually put troops on the streets unless they have to. And the people in your country seem to tolerate abuses of power that the average tyrant would love to be able to get away with without resistance.
You are picturing a sudden overthrow of government or declaration of dictatorship. You should be picturing a gradual build up of abuse of power. A slowly boiling frog, and you are already in the pot being trained to tolerate heat.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
That doesn't make the assholes the enemy. It just makes them painfully clumsy at fighting the enemy. (And I agree that they are clearly idiots who will end up getting 3d printers licensed and killing the entire maker-movement.) The enemy are the politicians and media who go along with the ignorant hysteria over "z0mg 3d printed guns".
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
You can shut your mind to the obvious, but he's working on a method to make a gun that bypasses regulation and makes creating and disposing of any number of murder weapons very easy, with hardly any other application (because we already have guns that are better, except they're not as easy to get and to get rid of). Someone who just gives orders and never fires a gun or makes the weapon and never fires it is still to blame and to hope that it backfires on them is not immoral.
You are quite stupid and misinformed. Or, just unwilling to put in the effort to not be (as evidenced by your posting anonymously).
Aside from NFA items, there are NO regulations banning the creation of firearms at home for personal use. If have the tools, means and knowledge, I can build myself a gun.
It's particularly efficient to just create the serial stamped part (which currently, is the part that holds the fire control group involving the trigger and associated pins and in some cases the hammer, firing pin, or hammer actuator).
So, for example, if I choose to make an AK-47 pattern rifle out of an old shovel and parts, there is NO regulation or paperwork or anything like that. All I need to do is fold it, cut it, and drill it and I have the frame, the serialized part that I would have to do paperwork to purchase. The ONLY thing unusual about this is instead of machining a few parts and buying the rest, the guy is printing most of them and adding a few springs and hard points.
Not revolutionary, not new. Just a simple small step in the progression.
It's not bypassing anything. It's "making it out of plastic". Sorta like how some people think adding "on the internet" creates a new and novel thing, your opinion is equally myopic and retarded. This is an OBVIOUS next step. Just because you don't understand how the world works is no reason to panic. Just stay off the freeway (that's the big driveway with the white and yellow lines painted on it).
People developing these weapons have hands as bloody as the people who skirted automatic-fire regulations with easily modified guns like the mak 10.
They deserve as much sympathy as a terrorist bomb-maker.
Yes. Yes young padwan. Let the butthurt flow through you.
Face it gun grabbers, you lost. People saw through your pantywaste crap and dumped your ideals by the wayside.
I have the feeling, from your ilk, that you have quite a bit of sympathy for the terrorist bomb makers as long as they are muslem.
You are expected to think here, go away, you don't fit in.
Bypasses what regulation, exactly? In my state (VA) and in most others, there is no "regulation" of firearms beyond that limited by the National Firearms Act of 1986 (which includes restrictions on machine guns, short-barreled (sawed-off) rifles and shotguns, and "destructive devices" like grenades, mortars, RPGs and the like). It is only a small minority of US states that require any sort of licensing or registration of firearms. In most places, it is perfectly legal to build anything you like--out of any materials you like--as long as you do not sell (transfer) it to another person.
That? That was a pigeon.
The summary wasn't clear about where he was located but as far as I know there aren't too many countries that allow unrestricted ownership of weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
No, but you're saying in effect that the use of weapons is OK to enforce minority views.
No, I don't hunt at all. I do know people who hunt with small caliber rifles, though. And once there is some more development caliber won't be an issue either. Accuracy will certainly be improved as well. The fact that you overlooked the self-defense aspects speaks volumes to your particular bias. Of course your bias is pretty obvious on this position, as I'm sure you intend it to be, so it's not really a surprise.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Rifles and handguns are useless for hunting or self-defense? WTF!
Those two purposes cover the design goal of the overwhelming majority of rifles and handguns.
Even if you were talking only about 3D printed ones, you are still way off base. Many modern hunting rifles are being built with as much polymer as possible to reduce weight and to better handle the elements. Have you ever actually looked into hunting to know that much of it happens in wet conditions? Do you realize the harmful effects wet conditions can have on the metal parts of a gun? Why would hunters not be looking for improvements in that area and why would that not be a legitimate desire?
Saying that the legitimate desire of a hunter becomes illegitimate because someone else may repurpose it for illegitimate purposes is like saying that all human communication is illegitimate because some people like to use communication to plan "evil" deeds.
Who said any kids should be allowed to do that?
I would think most honest geeks would love to see how far 3D printing can go in the realm of the engineering involved. How many gun-haters here realize the strength requirements being worked on and what kind of advances solving them entails for other areas requiring high-strength materials?
Are there any countries that allow unrestricted ownership of weapons? I happen to live in the US and have never heard of a single legal jurisdiction within the US that allows unrestricted ownership of weapons. A quick search will show the honest seeker that fact.
Assuming that there won't be a significant portion of the military siding with the civilians is probably a bad mistake. The US military requires its officers and enlistees to swear to uphold the Constitution of the US and to obey all lawful orders. They are actually taught that they may be given unlawful ones and reminded about the Nurmberg trials.
So as long as my Desert Eagle 50 cal is bright orange and doesn't look real I'm allowed to keep it in your country?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Really? A barrel to hold the explosion, and a firing pan? Do you know how a gun works and what century are you from? Guns haven't had firing pans in well about 100 years.
A barrel directs the energy and force of the bullets propellant explosion which means path of least resistance IE the open side.
Bullets now have a nifty little thing called a primer cap. Once impacted it causes a wee little explosion that ignites the powder inside the cartridge causing a bigger explosion.
Now I didn't bother to RTF but if this is either a flintlock muzzle loader or a matchlock that's different. They both have firing pans.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
If ever comes a day when you can't go to your local shop and buy food you will be thankful for that weapon that allows you to hunt and kill your food. Or that allows you to defend yourself from those that would just as soon kill you for what you have than spit on you.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Kind of. Guns must be capable of withstanding much greater pressures than ICEs. ICEs must be capable of withstanding way more friction than guns.
While that's a noble sentiment the fact is that a criminal with a gun would likely shoot him just to watch him bleed out if for no other reason than for something to do.
If everyone in the world shared his mentality we wouldn't need weapons and war and conflict would never have even existed on this planet.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Not easy to get rid of?
I live in a coastal town. Not a 15 minute drive from the ocean front, I could hop in a boat motor out 3 or 4 hours offshore and toss it's gone forever never to be seen again.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
" These guns are made specifically to make dodging regulations easier. This shows a disdain for the will of people. If you don't like the gun control laws then go and change them. If your political system is corrupt - go and change it." dodging which regulation exactly, it is perfectly legal for a citizen to create/make their own guns as long as they don't sell it. The will of the people ? People want access to firearms for many reasons this just makes it easier for someone with the available cash to purchase a printer and materials to create something for themselves.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
By that rationale god should also go to hell for the countless millions of people that used rocks to bludgeon each other to death prior to having guns.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Everywhere I have ever lived, it is illegal to hunt "dears". Doing so gets you charged with domestic violence, murder or both.
Also in the event of revolution.
Thank you for seeing the benefit of having knowledge like this.
Just because you know how to make something doesn't mean you will use it to blow something up. Some people want to know how stuff works and why.
The day could come that the knowledge becomes useful, the day may not.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I wouldn't use this to hunt deer but you might have some luck with varmints.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Or carry it illegally.
I'm in VA too I know it's an open carry state, I've carried before no license not needed. Police say nothing I know I was in front of one at 7-11 one day while carrying.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
They are CURRENTLY useless for hunting and self-defense due to the limitations of 3D printing. With improvements in the technique and potentially through design workarounds we might get to a point where a 3D printed weapon become legitimately useful tools unless we let people go nuts and ban the whole thing.
I am against killing people with guns, baseball bats, kitchen knives, rocks, pointy sticks, and anything else including bare hands. I recognize that removing all of those items from availability is impossible. I recognize that removing one or two of those things will just result in substitution.
I hope this rifle explodes and kills him. I understand the motivation to go and explore the limits of 3D printing. But rifles and handguns? They are useless for hunting or self defense. About the only thing they're useful is terrorism and/or dodging regulations.
Nice use of violence to drive your point that these are supposedly only good for violence...
Your logic is also flawed. You claim these are useless for hunting or self defense, but they are useful for terrorism? A "terrorist" would use these to (possibly) kill someone, yet a "normal person" can't use this for self defense (e.g., possibly killing someone)?
Also, this is a prototype. The technology will get better in time, then we'll be able to use it for hunting, self defense, and everything else.
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
What I meant was that "the militia" are the people most likely to lead the revolt against an oppressive government, according to the most common argument for why the 2nd amendment is worded the way it is. You are implying that the reason for allowing people to have guns was to *fight* "the militia". That is an unusual position to take.
I think the real reason for the "militia" was that there were some writers opposed to gun rights and they managed to mangle the wording of the 2nd amendment so it did not say anything clearly.
See, now I was just trying to overlook the fact that the plural of deer is deer. I wasn't even getting into the misspelling part of it, but there you have it.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
I agree that Russian communism, especially after Lenin, was nothing like Marxism (*), but guns don't make as much of a difference, since psychological manipulation is even more important than physical oppression, and someone bigger than you probably has access to a weapon much bigger than yours too.
(*) It's curious that we make a big deal out of the fact that Stalin called his tyranny "communist", but make little noise about e.g. Mussolini calling his tyranny "corporatist", even though, as fat bastard Benito said:
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Being something like what the US has today. Perhaps one day the US will get over its hatred of "communists" and realise that the problem with the USSR was that it was a threat - anything else is detail, and the US has dealt with regimes far worse, providing they have agreed to cooperate.
[citation needed]
Sharing the same principle is one thing, but apparently it's not the only thing.
Or why is there a four century gap between the two becoming practical?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Im guessing he lives in the US. And in the US you can make your own firearm as long as you dont sell it. They call them zip guns. They are legal wether made from random pieces of metal, in a CNC machine, or 3d printed. You cant sell or give them away to people, but you can definitely make them for your own use.
You can own almost anything you want in the US if you have the proper licenses.
Not sure if your talking usa or in general. This is how syrian rebels took over. Bengazi had a similar path recently. Many us outposts have been lost in Iraq, but the us main bases were well seperated from populations.
I understand that you don't think guns make that much of a difference, and I agree with you that psychological manipulation is far more effective than physical oppression. After all, the Holocaust would never have been allowed by the German public without Goebbel's anti-Jewish propaganda campaign using Edward Bernay's template for public relations. However, in that particular case, the Jews were categorically disarmed before they were rounded up into cattle cars.
I am unaware of any widespread act of genocide that has been successfully waged against an armed populace. The vast majority of genocides have been conducted against utterly (or mostly) disarmed populations. The Holodomir, the Holocaust, the Communist Chinese genocide, the Khmer Rouge genocide, the Rwandan genocide, the nightmare in Zimbabwe, even the Serbian campaign against Kosovo, all were conducted on unarmed populations.
I personally believe that history tells us that widespread, unregistered gun ownership is the antidote to genocide. If true, then gun ownership is a single factor that could have prevented the Communist genocides in Russia and China. What do you think?
"Except that "those people" they are pushing around would be those who are already against the government."
That's STILL a flaw in your logic. Because, see... genuine treason is disloyalty to your country and your people, not disobedience toward your government.
Forgetting exactly that was what led people to bring Hitler to power. And no, that is not a joke or an example of Godwin's Law. It is a simple historical fact.
A large part of the German population felt that patriotism meant loyalty and obedience to Government, not to the people and to the rule of law.
"You are picturing a sudden overthrow of government or declaration of dictatorship. You should be picturing a gradual build up of abuse of power. A slowly boiling frog, and you are already in the pot being trained to tolerate heat."
I am picturing nothing of the kind. I am picturing an increase (gradually OR sudden) of the kind of government we've been actually seeing under Obama.
The "so what" is that NAP without defined heirarchy of rights is *no different* from any other system, where the rights under NAP could be prioritized to mimic the other system. And I've never seen a system that couldn't be fit with creative rights-ordering.
When the rights are unordered, NAP is undefined. When your "core principle" is undefined, it says much about your belief system.
Learn to love Alaska
As someone else mentioned in this thread: look up The Battle of Athens. The one in the U.S. in 1946, not the others (Wikipedia lists at least 4 events called "Battle of Athens".)
Ex-GIs did exactly what I was talking about: fighting a government and police that had become corrupt and out of control. If this were to happen on a larger scale, which side do you think most of our military would be on? The side of their own People, or the side of a tyrannical government? Based on your own comment, it appears that YOU would be on the side of the government. That puts you in a minority. (It would also violate your oath to uphold the Constitution.)
And no, it would not take a sudden overthrow. It would only take more of what Obama and friends have provably been doing. Haven't you been reading the news?
hypocrite much?
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
"What I meant was that "the militia" are the people most likely to lead the revolt against an oppressive government, according to the most common argument for why the 2nd amendment is worded the way it is."
Yes, that's a valid point. The problem is that "the common argument" is often not a scholarly argument as a result of research. "The common argument" is... well... common. It generally comes from people listening to propaganda on one side or the other, rather than actually picking up a good (well-researched) history book.
I'm not pointing fingers at anybody in particular; this is true of a great many issues. Often the things you hear and see on the news and in the press has little to do with actual history, and is far more related to somebody's political agenda. I wish it were otherwise.
"I think the real reason for the "militia" was that there were some writers opposed to gun rights and they managed to mangle the wording of the 2nd amendment so it did not say anything clearly."
That, too, is a "common argument". And yet those who make it consistently fail to point out anywhere else in the Constitution that the Founders "garbled" their words.
The interpretation I gave is historically accurate. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." (a well-regulated army is necessary for the defense of the country) "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." [emphasis mine]
Remember that they had just fought off the army belonging to their own government in order to win their freedom. There is no way in Hell they were going to turn right around and say "We have to establish a Government army and give it all our weapons in order to remain free." The very idea makes no sense.
"The people" appears elsewhere in the Constitution, too. And IN EVERY CASE where it appears, it clearly means you and me, Jane and Joe Public.
Nowhere in the Constitution did they use phrasing that means one thing in one place and something else in another. It is a very consistent piece of work.
"I interpret that as meaning that the militia is the non-standing part of the army, ie, people called up on short notice to support the government, maintain the peace, defend against bad guys."
The difference is in the phrasing "well-regulated".
By definition, the general populace is not "well-regulated". Otherwise, it would not have been necessary in Section 8 to say "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia..."
There is a difference between "the general militia" which in other historical documents is described as "every able-bodied man between 14 and 50...", and a "well-regulated" or "disciplined" militia. It was a standing army that so terrified the founders, which is WHY they defined the general militia to be just about everybody.
Are you claiming the opposition wasn't helped by having guns? Can we agree a thousand armed civilians, can take on and make progress against a hundred US soldiers, without reverting to terrorist attacks against the families? I agree the odds are against them, it will be 50:1 losses, without armed civilians it would be more like 10000:1. Recap, no civilian arms vs US army, terrorist style attacks only. Armed civilians against army, 50:1 or 100:1 deaths when out numbering them 100:1. I would say that a few thousand cannot control a few million when just 10% of the civilians are armed. The 1% better armed cannot be confident of victory. take away the arms from one side, then we know who wins.
Interesting. Can you link me to a relevant source?
"In a lot of countries, like the UK, gun control generally works pretty well at preventing gun-crime, by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It doesn't work perfectly, but pretty well. It would be a problem if the people wanted a revolution, but I don't think that's what politicians are thinking."
The UK's own official firearms statistics put the lie to this claim.
According to official government figures, immediately after the last major "gun grab" by the UK in the late 90s, gun crime went WAY UP, and stayed that way for something like 8 years. To a level that was 50% or more higher than it had been for quite a few prior years.
Further, the later gradual reduction in crime cannot be attributed to the gun laws, because crime was going down in every other major western country, too, at about the same rate. INCLUDING in the United States, where during that period per-capita gun ownership actually went up.
And further yet: you have to be careful about how you interpret the statistics. Because (again, according to official government figures from both the U.S. and the UK), in the UK there is actually 10x the amount of gun crime per gun (not per person) than in the United States.
So what does that mean? Well, for one thing, it means that the image of Americans as crazy murderous gun nuts is not even remotely related to reality. Citizens of the UK are far less responsible with their guns. THEY are the ones who deserve the image of crazy and murderous, far more than Americans do.
(To be clear: I'm not accusing them of being crazy and murderous. But to say many of them are guilty of "the pot calling the kettle black" is a gross understatement.)
And further yet: you have to be careful about how you interpret the statistics. Because (again, according to official government figures from both the U.S. and the UK), in the UK there is actually 10x the amount of gun crime per gun (not per person) than in the United States.
To be expected, which ever side of the fence you're on.
Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns, right?
For that reason I don't think it's fair to say THEY are the ones who deserve the image of crazy and murderous, far more than Americans do.
The gun-grab statistics are somewhat persuasive, but it remains that British criminals generally don't have guns. Knives, sure (despite that it is, in general, illegal to carry one).
I think that men with bigger guns would have demanded the handing in of firearms before executing a genocide.
"For that reason I don't think it's fair to say THEY are the ones who deserve the image of crazy and murderous, far more than Americans do."
My only point was that it's a hypocritical argument. I don't really think any of them, as a whole, deserve the label "crazy and murderous". The majority of people in both countries are civil and responsible.
Nonsense. None of the other amendments have a preliminary "explanation" sentence. Your interpretation would be equally served by truncating it to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which would match the wording of all other 9 amendments.
The word "well-regulated" is the problem: even 200 years ago, the idea of fighting back against an enemy was never called "regulating the enemy".
I certainly agree that the purpose of the amendment is to allow anybody to have guns, not limiting it to a "militia". This is because it was obvious the militia would have guns (and at that time the only practical way to do this is for the members to take the guns home with them), thus there would be no need for the amendment. However it really does seem that there were opponents to this and that is why the weasel words were added at the start. It does seem that both sides of the argument today want to believe that silly political games did not exist back then, but they did.
And I thought the "core principle" was "small government" and NAP is a justification for eliminating taxes, or otherwise a derivative of the "no taxes" core principle.
Further, the basis of rights is property in libertarianism. Yes, I've been sent the pile of bad youtube lectures about how it's personal rights, not property, but they all were a justification for property rights, not relating rights to personal rights.
Learn to love Alaska
Live by the sword might e applicable if this man where killed in a freak 3d printer accident
My only point was that it's a hypocritical argument. I don't really think any of them, as a whole, deserve the label "crazy and murderous". The majority of people in both countries are civil and responsible.
Sure, but my point was that Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns goes both ways.
In the USA there are plenty of responsible, legal owners of handguns. There are very few of those in the UK, as civilians may not legally own them; the only British civilians in possession of handguns are those who disregard the law, so they're almost bound to be used for crime.
To put it another way: in a country where everyone has a gun, one would expect that the proportion of guns used for crime would be lower than otherwise, as you are now weighing the number of criminals against the full number of the country's non-criminals. Civilian gun ownership is much more common in the USA than the UK, so we'd expect to see that a higher proportion of UK guns are used for crime.
(I'm assuming of course that your "per gun" was including all guns, legal and illegal.)
"There are very few of those in the UK, as civilians may not legally own them; the only British civilians in possession of handguns are those who disregard the law, so they're almost bound to be used for crime."
That's a very interesting point, and it deserves some real consideration.
Can we agree a thousand armed civilians
Try five thousand. Probably more.
Are you claiming the opposition wasn't helped by having guns?
Not just "guns", AK-47s plus RPGs to bring the helos down. And a perfect storm of events in their favour. They had the US troops trapped, cut off, and pinned down. The US troops were inexperienced at this kind of firefight, not one of them had any prior experience (the last major firefight was in Vietnam). The opposition had elevation, supply lines, and over an order of magnitude more men, in an area they had total control over, against a US command structure that was caught completely flat footed and crippled by conflicting rules of engagement. So in a perfect storm, with every odd stacked in their favour, the opposition ultimate lost; they failed to overrun the US position and prevent their eventual rescue. In 24 hours of fighting, they killed just 18 Americans, versus hundreds of their own killed (and the US estimates were as high as 1500 deaths plus 3000 casualties.)
[Everyone treats the battle as a disaster for the US, and yes on the command side (and political side) it was, but I've always seen it as the purest example of how US troops really perform in combat, in a way that is rarely seen even in wars like Iraq. And the result is breath-taking. Makes Frank Miller's "300" look like a piece of crap.]
Since then, the US has not only changed training and equipment, they've been hardened by a decade and a half of precisely that kind of war; against opposition themselves hardened by years of fighting. You'd be facing veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, with a perfect supply chain, plus whole new classes of weapons from X-25s to drones. And you'd lack things like RPGs which are necessary just to balance the odds, let alone proper anti-air/anti-tank weapons. And you'd be learning your own tactics and training from almost scratch.
The great citizen revolution would be over in hours.
The only way you'd have any hope of winning would be when thousands of unarmed protesters are gunned down by security forces loyal to the government, live on international TV/internet, and amid international condemnation, a major chunk of the US military (such as a full Marine division) comes to the aid of the protesters, putting themselves between the security forces and the civilians (and basically daring the security forces to cross the line). Eventually leading to senior military commanders basically staging a coup, forcing the President-for-life to stand down or flee into exile, and, you hope, holding UN supervised elections with the intention of restoring the constitution and ending martial law.
OTOH, any armed protesters or resistance-groups will be put down and used to justify further loss of liberty, and will reduce the active opposition to the government amongst civilians. And US troops wouldn't support a violent resistance, because the moment the resistance kills its first US soldier, the entire US military and most of the civilian population would unify against you, no matter what they thought of the government.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
No, you're the one saying that. I'm not the confused one here.
The "so what" is that NAP without defined heirarchy of rights is *no different* from any other system, where the rights under NAP could be prioritized to mimic the other system.
You're making the very sketchy assumption that you can model any political system with just the right collection of rights sorted in the right way. I don't buy it.
Further, NAP doesn't appear in a vacuum. Libertarians do have some ideas about orderings of these rights.
Further, NAP doesn't appear in a vacuum. Libertarians do have some ideas about orderings of these rights.
Yes, and they are in a bad order. Which is why every conversation of NAP turns into the "you don't get NAP" answer, as this thread started with. No, no, we get it. It's just that you ordered the rights hierarchy in a manner that gives priority to the wrong rights. Your right to smoke is not greater than my right to not be assaulted by having smoke blown in my face (just to pick one of the many where everyone agrees on NAP, but disagrees on the order of rights).
Learn to love Alaska
I suspect the answer to your question is "no".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Uhm, other people in this thread mentioned (multiple times) that guns can be useful against a tyrannic government. Of course, they'd be the ones to define what "tyranny" is.
Yes, and they are in a bad order.
This is one of the annoying reasons why it's such a pain having any discussion with you. Drop the strawmen. You haven't yet given a justification for this claim.
For example, in the property conflict earlier in this thread where one person owns all the property around a second person's property, it's solved via a right of way by which the first person has to grant to the second person. While I'm sure there's some libertarian out there whose view of property rights doesn't include this, basic property conflicts have been solved for a long time.
Your right to smoke is not greater than my right to not be assaulted by having smoke blown in my face
That's a non sequitur since assault without cause is naturally the initiation of aggression in the libertarian sense and hence, counter to libertarian principles. OTOH, the "right to smoke" probably wouldn't be recognized as such. It's just part of a massive blob of relatively harmless behavior that could be performed where allowed by the property owner.
So as I see it, you're comparing violation of a basic principle to a behavior that would be granted by libertarians under generous circumstances, calling both of them "rights", and then claiming that libertarians would support the violation of the basic principle over exercise of the behavior.
That doesn't make sense. I see no reason to debate what your imaginary fake libertarians would do or rationalize.
For example, in the property conflict earlier in this thread where one person owns all the property around a second person's property, it's solved via a right of way by which the first person has to grant to the second person. While I'm sure there's some libertarian out there whose view of property rights doesn't include this, basic property conflicts have been solved for a long time.
I've talked to too many Libertarians then. Nothing is solved. A room of 100 will have 100 different solutions, and no discussion as they all think they are right, so no reason to discuss it. I'm not posting strawmen. I'm posting reality. That you complain it's inconvenient doesn't make it a strawman.
That's a non sequitur since assault without cause is naturally the initiation of aggression in the libertarian sense and hence, counter to libertarian principles. OTOH, the "right to smoke" probably wouldn't be recognized as such. It's just part of a massive blob of relatively harmless behavior that could be performed where allowed by the property owner.
And if I'm off the property (I note all rights belong to the property, and not to people), but close to it, and someone on the other property blows smoke in my face, that's aggression, even if I "could" walk away.
That doesn't make sense. I see no reason to debate what your imaginary fake libertarians would do or rationalize.
You must "no true Scotsman" a lot. I've been in Libertarian meetings where there were discussions about the value of privatizing all roads, and instituting toll sidewalks. But when I bring up "toll sidewalks" I'm told that's a common distraction, but not a real Libertarian idea.
I will take reality over apologists lies. It's not a strawman if it's true. It's not an imaginary fake libertarian when it's real, and I witnessed it first-hand. I don't care if you don't like it or don't believe me. Your whining will not change reality, no matter how much you'd like it to.
Learn to love Alaska
Well, they aren't talking with me. As I noted before, you're the only one here telling me what I'm supposedly saying - without crediting what I was actually saying.
Plus, using guns against a government (whether tyrannical or not) is not the same as using guns to enforce a minority view. In the latter case, your choice of targets can be far more broad than appointed agents of the State.
I've talked to too many Libertarians then. Nothing is solved. A room of 100 will have 100 different solutions, and no discussion as they all think they are right, so no reason to discuss it. I'm not posting strawmen. I'm posting reality. That you complain it's inconvenient doesn't make it a strawman.
Wait? You're complaining because libertarianism by its very nature isn't a monolithic belief system? Too bad.
As to the strawman thing. I get you don't think you're doing it. But you don't get to characterize libertarianism only by considering the most fucked up 5% or whatever of libertarianism, and not fall into the strawman trap.
And if I'm off the property (I note all rights belong to the property, and not to people), but close to it, and someone on the other property blows smoke in my face, that's aggression, even if I "could" walk away.
Again, what did I say about unprovoked assault? It's not just aggression but the initiation of aggression. One doesn't have to consider whose property you are standing on.
Second, so your body and personal space isn't property? Do tell.
You must "no true Scotsman" a lot. I've been in Libertarian meetings where there were discussions about the value of privatizing all roads, and instituting toll sidewalks. But when I bring up "toll sidewalks" I'm told that's a common distraction, but not a real Libertarian idea.
The Libertarian party can be just as hypocritical as it wants to be. But again, libertarianism and in that case, the Libertarian Party isn't a single unified belief system. Many people believe many things.
Further, as a political party, the Libertarians might all favor toll sidewalks or whatever, but never advocate for those relatively extreme measures because it just shoots them in the foot politically.
I will take reality over apologists lies. It's not a strawman if it's true. It's not an imaginary fake libertarian when it's real, and I witnessed it first-hand. I don't care if you don't like it or don't believe me. Your whining will not change reality, no matter how much you'd like it to.
Then do so and stop wasting your breath here. I would suggest starting to "take reality" by dropping those strawmen.
Many people believe many things.
Like I said, no true Scotsman. I could see it coming. When a self-proclaimed libertarian says one thing, why should I take your word over theirs? You deflect the hard questions and refuse to discuss anything other than your brand of libertarianism, which doesn't seem to match anyone else's.
Learn to love Alaska
Like I said, no true Scotsman.
That's an erroneous application of the fallacy. For example, if I said "All true Scotsmen are male natives or nationals of Scotland or men of Scottish descent", then I would be right, not echoing the fallacy, because that is the definition of Scotsmen.
When something is part of the definition, such as NAP is of libertarianism, then the "no true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't apply.
Yes, and when a male national of Scotland does not fit your stereotype, then you exclude him from the group. As I said, no true Scotsman.
Learn to love Alaska
Yes, and when a male national of Scotland does not fit your stereotype
As I said, definition not stereotype.
Then define it in an objective manner. All you've done is dance around about how every self-proclaimed libertarian but yourself isn't one, so long as they don't agree with you.
Learn to love Alaska
Then define it in an objective manner.
This has been done numerous times. For example, I prefer the minimal government version: libertarianism is an advocacy for a society with minimal governance sufficient to uphold individual freedom and property rights, the carrying out of contracts and other such agreements or cooperation, and the resolution of conflicts between members of the society (via the NAP).
I prefer the minimal government version
So do I, that's why I support government programs like Head Start. They result in the smallest possible government. But libertarians argue that taxes are force, so they should only be used for functions they personally approve of, and "small government" is an ideal, not a goal or measuring stick.
Learn to love Alaska
Having knowledge is a good thing. Putting it to use to mine your property with pressure cooker bombs is something else entirely.
Also, that whole "I got to be ready to defend myself against the govnement" attitude is detrimental to the ownership you actually _should_ feel towards your own government.