Slashdot Mirror


3D Printed Gun Maker Cody Wilson Defends Open Source Freedom

Lucas123 (935744) writes "Cody Wilson, the 26-year-old former law school student who published plans for printing 3D guns online, disputed claims by universities and government agencies that his thermoplastic gun design is unsafe. Wilson claims the agencies that tested the guns did not build them to spec. In a Q&A with Computerworld, he also addressed why he's continuing to press regulatory agencies to allow him to offer the plans again for upload after being ordered to take them down, saying it's less about the Second Amendment and more about the implications of open source and the digital age. "If you want to talk about rights, what does it mean to respect a civil liberty or civil right? Well, it means you understand there are social costs in having that right; that's why it deserves protection in the first place," he said. Wilson is also planning to release other gun-related project, though not necessarily a CAD design."

55 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. Who Cares? by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A first gen product using revolutionary technology and people are whining about it being unsafe? It's like complaining that the Model T didn't have airbags.

    I think they are missing the point entirely. 3D printing will only become more sophisticated, using stronger materials and will be faster. People will be able to manufacture devices that are currently controlled or are so specialized that it hasn't occurred to the Feds to control them.

    This is not about a plastic guns, this is about a paradigm shift that is no less momentous than VHS and later MP3s.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Who Cares? by Threni · · Score: 2

      > This is not about a plastic guns, this is about a paradigm shift that is no less
      > momentous than VHS and later MP3s.

      No, it's about guns. Nobody's talking about other 3d printed objects yet.

    2. Re:Who Cares? by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      logic fails you. It is already legal to make yourself a gun with traditional material by traditional means. Illegal gun manufacture not a relevant issue. Name one massacre (or murder in the past year, for that matter) done with a homemade gun. All gun killers, for all intents and purposes, use a factory made weapon.

    3. Re:Who Cares? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which has nothing to do with using a 3-D printer to make a gun. No one is outlawing the use of a 3-D printer. However, they are restricting the use of a 3-D printer to make guns. Thanks for missing the point.

    4. Re:Who Cares? by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Informative

      As an aside: what's with Americans and their guns? Sheesh, people, grow up. You don't need a plastic-or-metal penis to be a real man

      Your mistake is that thinking guns have anything to do with a penis or being a "real man". Seriously how often do you think people sit around thinking about the size of their dick?

      People like guns because they happen to like guns. Some people like golf, basketball, big trucks, or a whole host of other stuff without worrying about their mainhood.

      I swear we need to define a new logical fallacy revolving around this.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    5. Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can legally use tools in my home metal shop to make a firearm. Why should this be different?

    6. Re:Who Cares? by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the fact of the matter is that I don't even own a gun, nor do I particularly want one, but I fully support gun rights (so the logical fallacy is proven a fallacy in one simple case). I support gun rights because I support freedom, and freedom comes with some costs. In many of the countries with people with attitudes like this, they don't even have the right to free speech.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    7. Re:Who Cares? by RevDisk · · Score: 2

      Laser sintering, arguably a form of 3D printing, is used to make firearm components. Yes, likely used by hunters, soldiers, police officers or hobbyists. Firearm assemblers source out all the components (with specifications). Some firearm manufacturers do advertise their components (high end custom weapons), others do not (everything not high end or custom). Same with cars.

    8. Re:Who Cares? by RevDisk · · Score: 2

      Of all the women I know well, about 60% own and/or carry firearms. Believing that only men are attached to their firearms says more about your mentality than it does anything else.

    9. Re:Who Cares? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      You can't make crystal meth that way either. Or heroine, or cocaine, or LSD, or those new bath salts that apparently make people strip naked and then eat other people.

      Also, some places do ban weapons that are little more than tree branches, and you do get those by planting trees.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    10. Re:Who Cares? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By my reading of the 2nd Amendment, there are no illegal gun shops in the US. Making one illegal would violate the phrase "shall not be infringed".

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    11. Re:Who Cares? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      However, they are restricting the use of a 3-D printer to make guns.

      Nobody has any right to restrict how I use my printer, whether it's guns or even counterfeit money. You have to wait until I use either to commit a crime. Prior restraint is evil. Here's hoping the tech will make enforcement impossible. We should be controlling the authorities, not the other way around.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Who Cares? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      What is the "big difference". Ease? That is not a big difference. ALL technology makes something "easier", that is the point of it. At some point, you either become a Luddite or you realize that you can't stop progress.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:Who Cares? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      DNA hashes on the organism level would be almost useless unless you were only guarding against casual creation of dangerous pathogens - change a few base pairs and the hash no longer matches, while making no substantial changes to the organism - there's far more variation than that just within the species (and species is a poorly-defined concept for virii and bacteria to begin with). At best you could match certain characteristic sub-sequence "fingerprints", but as we come to understand just how robust DNA is to certain kinds of transposition it'd likely be trivial to obfuscate the organisms DNA to anything short of a complete transcription to some sort of canonical form.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    14. Re:Who Cares? by meerling · · Score: 2

      The 3d printed guns are crap. Not as bad as that new video shows, and that may very well be because they screwed it up intentionally to dissuade people from experimenting with them. However, they do work, at least for a few shots. Of course, it's too expensive, and takes too long. It's cheaper and faster to build a satuday night special if you've got a few tools, or buy one from the black market or a gun show. Of course, getting one legally is easy for most people, and again, cheaper than printing one, and you don't even need to own a 3d printer.

      Nobody is going to be able to create a massacre with a printed gun, they just aren't up to the task for a variety of reasons. It's also pretty unlikely that anyone is going to be murdered with one either. An accidental death, sure, but intentionally snuffing someone, not any time soon.

      By the way, there are no 'safeguards' that can 'protect against illegal gun manufacture' that can be employed without being either totally ineffective, or cripple the printing of standard items making it useless for 3d printing.

    15. Re:Who Cares? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

      I have an impressive flesh and blood penis.

      My guns serve a different purpose.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    16. Re:Who Cares? by maroberts · · Score: 2

      Nobody is going to be able to create a massacre with a printed gun, they just aren't up to the task for a variety of reasons. It's also pretty unlikely that anyone is going to be murdered with one either. An accidental death, sure, but intentionally snuffing someone, not any time soon.

      Why not for intentionally snuffing someone? As a murder weapon, a plastic gun has a lot of benefits - you can simply melt the gun after the event and therefore eliminate a major source of forensic evidence.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    17. Re:Who Cares? by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never seen a successful argument involves "the right to *not* . . .". You have the right to something. The right to "not" is just used as a contrived way to deprive others of rights.

      IE, "I have the right to not see gays kissing in the street.". "I have the right to not see a black man with a white woman.".

      As soon as you have to frame your argument around "the right to not", you've already lost.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    18. Re:Who Cares? by fuzznutz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is there is a conflict in peoples political agendas.

      I would simplify it further. The problem is hypocrisy. Everybody wants freedom for things they enjoy and wants to restrict others' freedom for things they dislike. The irony of it is that those whose political leanings are more to the left... shall we say, claim to want freedom, egalitarianism and tolerance, yet are lightning quick to form lines to restrict anything that violates their sensibilities.

      These days, everyone, left and right, wants to go crying to mommy when someone does something they don't like. Nobody wants to mind their own business and thinks they always know best.

    19. Re:Who Cares? by mark_reh · · Score: 2

      What a ridiculous argument. Next you'll tell me that the reason gun nutz aren't all using BB guns to poke holes in targets is because they want to make bigger holes.
      Handguns are specifically designed to be used to kill people, that's why the bullets are the size they are and they contain as much powder in the shell as they do. Oh yes, they can also poke holes in paper targets, but that is NOT the primary intent of the designers and manufacturers of most hand guns.

    20. Re:Who Cares? by Algae_94 · · Score: 2

      Well, technically it's the right to "bear" arms, not the right to "buy" arms. So regulating sales isn't against the 2nd amendment.

    21. Re:Who Cares? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Next you'll tell me that the reason gun nutz aren't all using BB guns to poke holes in targets is because they want to make bigger holes.

      Well, yea. That's also why stuff like Tannerite has become so popular (Tannerite is a brand of low-impact explosive used for target shooting, in case you didn't know).

      PS If you want to be taken seriously, please do refrain from using ad hominems such as "gun nutz" in the future, as opening your argument with pejoratives only serves to indicate a lack of both intellect and willingness to succumb to reason.

      (drops mic, walks off stage)

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    22. Re:Who Cares? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      No sane reason other than their own words at the time.

      Also, as has been pointed out repeatedly, why is this the one Constitutionally protected right that you think only applies to groups and not individuals?

      Is freedom of the press only for certified reporters working for incorporated news companies? Are only lawyers secure in their papers, because the rest of the citizenry doesn't have good reason to keep papers secret?

      Your argument fails so many logic tests it is a surprise it keeps getting posted. But you guys are persistent when you don't like something that someone else is doing.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    23. Re:Who Cares? by kwbauer · · Score: 2

      No, its because we want much more accuracy than a BB gun will give us and want to practice shooting at distances much farther than a BB gun will shoot its BB. Just in case you can't figure out why shooting 100-600 yds is different than shooting 20 feet, use your imagination and think about angles and trigonometry.

    24. Re:Who Cares? by kwbauer · · Score: 2

      "There is no sane reason to believe the founding fathers intended everyone to be allowed carry a gun just for the heck of it."

      Well, if you would actually bother to read what the founding fathers had to say about the matter, then, yes, there is a perfectly sane reason for believing exactly that.

      And the definition of militia as given by the founding fathers is basically every able-bodied adult male. Modern society (women's rights and all) should expand that into every able-bodied adult. You most certainly are not very well read in this area.

    25. Re:Who Cares? by kwbauer · · Score: 2

      If the regulation of sales infringes upon the keeping and bearing, then it would be an infringement, wouldn't it?

      For one supposedly so knowledgeable about this, why did you leave out the part about keeping? Kind of hard to keep or bear what you are not allowed to buy. The same argument has been used to heavily regulate the sale of ammunition but we all know that "bearing" a firearm is having the ability to use the firearm not just carry it around (the courts have even agreed) so not regulating ammunition is the same as regulating firearms themselves.

  2. Irresponsible by ebusinessmedia1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is not what the world needs - i.e. an easy way to make an unregulated *weapon* - i.e. an object designed to kill. This is not about open source, or anything else that Cody Wilson claims; it's about the *result* of his actions id these his designs are used to proliferate more *weapons*. America already experiences 33-35,000 gun deaths every year. America is FOURTH in gun deaths, worldwide - after Thailand, Colombia and Nigeria.Isn't that enough? Do we want to make guns even easier to obtain?

    Project forward ten years, when 3D printers are far less expensive, and gun designs have been perfected. It's trivial to consider the new kinds of concealable (and undetectable) weapons that could be made via 3D printers.

    Instead of arguing this point, we need to make it very clear that anyone making or distributing 3D gun models should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If there isn't a law, make one - make TEN! I don't care.

    It's sickening to hear pro-gun people talk about "freedom" and "self-defense", when they seem not one bit to care about the thousands killed by guns, and ironically attempt to make a self-defense argument for their position when it's the nearly unabated spread of weapons in America enabled by the terrorist NRA leadership; their Congressional whores; and, their gun-manufacturing overlords.

    If Cody sends out one more 3D plan, jail him for 10 years! People who want to be free of gun deaths have rights, too!

    1. Re:Irresponsible by sycodon · · Score: 2

      You are arguing that the Printing Press should be made illegal instead of making Libel a tortious act.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:Irresponsible by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      blah blah blah... You're trying to stop the wind. He's entirely right. This is something that's coming like a freight train and there's no stopping it. I've built guns, from scratch, for years. It's not even remotely difficult. What he's made with his thousand dollar 3D printer you could make by spending $10 at home depot on some pipe fittings and nails. Want it undetectable so you can take it on a plane? Drill a hole in a piece of oak, use a piece of graphite or other semi-hard substance for the firing pin. That's how simple this is. All these years you've been protected by ignorance. You're afraid of a myth.

      People don't make this stuff because people aren't generally murders. The ones that are murders can find a lot easier ways to kill you. Your kids are far more likely to die at your own hand in a car accident than they are from any gun, much less a 3D printed gun.

    3. Re: Irresponsible by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      No, I have a right to lobby my legislators to stop the irresponsible spread of killing weapons in America.

      And you'd have my support if that's all you wanted to do. Alas, your side of the fence seems to have a problem with firearms in general, not merely with the firearms used by bad actors.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Irresponsible by pedrop357 · · Score: 2

      The person shooting them is violating their rights, that is who needs to be held accountable.

      My right to possess a gun doesn't go away because SOMEONE ELSE might use a gun to violate someone's right not to be shot.

    5. Re:Irresponsible by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      Good point... one that people often fail to grasp. I support decriminalization of all drugs... yes, ALL drugs, as the individual should have the right to do with their body what they want. The most common come-back I hear is "so then it's OK for them to kill you for money to support their habit?"

      Uh... no, it's not OK. Only a moron could conclude that.

      I support the decriminalization of prostitution. The most common come-back I hear is "so then it's OK for a pimp to essentially force a woman to sell her body for him?"

      Uh... no, it's not OK. Only a moron could conclude that.

      Guns are tools, used for entertainment, sport, self defense... as soon as someone uses one to violate your rights, you can go ahead and execute them, as far as I'm concerned. But get rid of the person that violated your rights... "things" don't violate your rights, only other people do.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    6. Re:Irresponsible by RevDisk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not really. Go ahead and have an aneurysm when you read this.

      It's legal to post 3D print files of firearms. That's fully legal and permitted under the First and Second Amendments.

      It's illegal to export them internationally without State Department permission, due to The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Constitution grants the US government nearly unlimited control of the borders of the United States, and that include limits on goods going in or out of the country.

      Source: I did export control in the aerospace industry. Plenty of 100% fully legal domestic stuff is illegal to send internationally without a permit. Fun example? L3 FLIR cameras made in Canada are illegal to transport back into Canada. Or notch a tailpipe to fit in a HMMWV, it becomes a defense article.

    7. Re: Irresponsible by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

      Being that the NRA doesn't publish membership lists, and that they don't poll us on such questions, how can you claim to know anything about what NRA members want?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    8. Re: Irresponsible by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Crime continues to rise and you think America is getting better? Why not address the violence culture instead of their tools? Oh, that's right... It's because you feel it infringes on your rights to live in a culture who makes sport and entertainment of violence.

      FBI Statistical data disagrees with you (FBI Violent Crime Table). I realize the mainstream media has brainwashed a large number of people out there to believe the sky is falling on this issue, but it's really not.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:Irresponsible by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Guns are tools, used for entertainment, sport, self defense... as soon as someone uses one to violate your rights, you can go ahead and execute them, as far as I'm concerned. But get rid of the person that violated your rights... "things" don't violate your rights, only other people do.

      Taken to the logical extreme, the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument says any sort of gun control is illogical. Fully automatic AK-47s don't kill people, people kill people! Browning .50 caliber machine guns don't kill people, people kill people! Hand grenades don't kill people, people kill people! A plutonium implosion weapon doesn't kill people, people kill people! Ownership of a nuclear bomb doesn't violate people's rights, so we shouldn't restrict ownership of fissile material. Of course, if someone were to detonate a 20 kiloton weapon in a school and kill all the schoolchildren, and incinerate everyone for miles around, well should throw the book at them. But let's not get all crazy and talk about putting restrictions on enriched uranium. The fissile material, explosive lenses and triggers are just a tool, it's what people decide to do with it that matters, right?

      The reason that argument sounds insane because it IS insane. Except for failed states like Somalia and Afghanistan, EVERY state accepts some limitations on the kinds of weapons that people can carry, the only difference is that some states apply more restrictions than others. The U.S. gun control laws are far more lax than in the UK, Australia, or Canada, but we have them- you can't just buy a machine gun. This always seems to get forgotten in discussions about gun control: gun control is already in existence, the only question is whether we need less, more, or to keep things the same. The US, UK, Australia and Canada all agree that some weapons are too dangerous to let people run around with, we just disagree about where to draw the line. Given that the US has an endless series of mass killings, and the other countries don't, it's not hard to see who made the right call.

    10. Re:Irresponsible by diamondmagic · · Score: 2

      Of course every state "accepts some limitations" on weapons -- armed people are a threat to tyrannical governments and states in general, and this fact is entirely a result of one's self-preservation, whether good or not. (And a tyrannical government is most certainly not good.)

      We won the American Revolution because the general population was armed as well as or better than the British military. The Second Amendment isn't there for hunting, it exists explicitly to protect your right to shoot at the government.

      Suddenly, you logical extreme doesn't sound so illogical. (And it was always sounded logical, perhaps you mean "reasonable"?) Most people don't have nuclear weapons because they're nearly impossible to manufacture. But suppose you could 3D print a bomb or machine gun, mass killings are virtually always a losing proposition for organized crime - instead, it's typically a sole actor or very small group. These people are going to cause chaos with whatever they can get their hands on, laws be damned. Are we going to ban kitchen knives and fertilizer too, now?

    11. Re: Irresponsible by kwbauer · · Score: 2

      Ah yes, Michael Bloomberg and George Soros have that right because they are rich but my friends and I don't have the right to pool our money for the same purpose, at least according to the ramblings of our Senate Majority leader.

      I also haven't figured out how the Koch brothers shouldn't have the same right that Bloomberg and Soros do but that is probably because my values need some clarifying.

  3. Re:What if the costs are too great? by Albanach · · Score: 2

    We have many rights under the US constitution, but having the right and choosing when and how to exercise that right are two very different things. The constitution permits and protects a great many anti-social activities, yet I don't believe the founding fathers were attempting to promote anti-social behavior. They simply recognized that to fully protect beneficial behavior there was a need to make the safeguard as wide as possible.

    It is a mistake to think the impact is restricted to the United States. This is a man who said "We're so dissatisfied in participating in traditional politics, that we're looking for other kinds of projects that are still innately political and contest what can be done in political terms."

    There is no meaningful restriction on access to guns in the US. And were any restriction to come into effect, it is likely to be on where guns can be carried not on whether you can own one. The real impact of these weapons will therefore be felt by those in other countries - countries Cody Wilson has likely never visited let alone lived in.

  4. It's a 1A issue, not a 2A issue. by dbc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look people, this is NOT a 2A issue, this is a 1A issue. When does censorship stop? Why can't gun plans be published?

    What if after some future election it became illegal to publish plans for IUD contra-ceptives without a licence after some person posts plans for a 3D printed one. Then for a research physician to get published in a medical journal he'd need permission from the government. How about that? How is that different?

    How would you feel about needing to obtain a goverenemt license to publish anything about crytographic code? Where would that stop? Could you teach your kids how to make a Ceasar cipher, or would you go to jail for that under a national security gag-order.

    He is publishing plans. This is a 1A issue.

    1. Re:It's a 1A issue, not a 2A issue. by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      I've read several of your posts here, and wholeheartedly agree with them. As a libertarian I say it often: your rights should only end when used to violate the rights of others. Obviously printing a gun, in itself, does not threaten anyone else's rights.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  5. No parts list? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    I'll supply the parts list.

    1 drill press.
    1 vice, mounted in the drill press.
    1 .25 ID black pipe.
    1 .25 ID black pipe cap.
    1 roofing nail.
    1 drill to match the roofing nail diameter.
    1 .25 rimfire round.
    1 .25 chamber reamer. (optional)
    1 hammer.

    Maybe someone else will post how to put it together, though if you can't figure it out you might want to stop. To make a legal gun (not an 'other gun') you should add a handle, trigger, mechanical hammer and safety.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. Disagree. by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Disagree. The US got the first amendment right. And you got the second amendment wrong.

    Owning a firearm has nothing to do with essential personal freedoms or rights of the individual to exist in a free state. The only justification for it is to protect oneself from infringement on said freedoms, but that can just as easily be done through strong laws and a properly functioning government.

    Again, I would point to the US as the prime example of why the second amendment does absolutely nothing to help you secure any of your primary freedoms, since they are being violated ALL THE TIME by your government, but I don't see anyone successfully taking up arms against them.. and I find the concept that citizens with a few guns could hold their own against the american military-industrial complex a bit of a farce to begin with.

    All the second amendment gets your country is the highest per-capita gun violence rate in the western world. It hasn't gotten you anything else.

    1. Re:Disagree. by meerling · · Score: 2

      If "strong laws and a properly functioning government" are all it takes to prevent freedoms being trampled, there would be no governmental injustice in the world. Many nations with strong laws, a properly functioning government have fallen to corruption from within and changed to horrible places. This tends to continue until either the oppressors die without corrupt replacement, or are killed by rebels. It has happened so many times in history, even recent history, I have to wonder if you ever attended history class in school.

    2. Re:Disagree. by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now you're just being disingenuous... I never said that's what the revolution was about, I said owning firearms is part of the reason we have the U.S. and the bill of rights to begin with. IOW, we wouldn't have won without them. And the founders of this country, noting that that was the case, codified the right, not just own, but to bear arms, in the bill of rights.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    3. Re:Disagree. by geggam · · Score: 2

      So you slept through history I take it ?

    4. Re:Disagree. by pr0fessor · · Score: 4, Informative

      All the second amendment gets your country is the highest per-capita gun violence rate in the western world. It hasn't gotten you anything else.

      That may very well be true but you have to step back and look at the entire picture. It doesn't even make the top 10 {15 if you look at the pdf} leading causes of death and is ranked below Influenza and Pneumonia things we rarely even think twice about.

      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...

    5. Re:Disagree. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, but back in 1776 people with rifles and pistols could organize and defeat the government. What relevance does that have today? How does it counter what the GP said about guns being useless against the modern U.S. government?

      Either you have to accept that the right to bear arms no longer serves its stated purpose (to defend the citizens from the government) or you have to argue that citizens should get F15s, tanks and maybe the odd nuke to maintain the balance.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Disagree. by RevDisk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oddly, I have never heard a combat vet agreeing with that assessment. Never underestimate a lot of angry civilians with often homemade or virtually antique weapons. While it may (may, not certain) be possible to conquer such folks, it gets awfully expensive. Vietnam and Afghanistan are hardy examples. Saw examples of it in the Balkans. Hell, buddy of mine that spent time in Rwanda told me about mass combat with cheap PRC machetes.

      It's nearly cliche to say "Weapons don't win wars, people do". But there is more than a bit of truth in it. If weapons solely determined wars, history would be a very different place. Hell, if that was the case, pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine would not be stomping the ever lovin' hell out of the Ukrainian forces. That's actually a pretty good example of cheap, simple hand weapons taking down tanks and helicopter gunships.

  7. Re:What if the costs are too great? by Albanach · · Score: 4, Informative

    Seriously? For the most part, someone who is not a convicted felon or diagnosed as suffering from mental illness can buy a gun in a gun shop. The others can (illegally, but apparently with some ease) buy a gun at a gun fair.

    Here's an NRA guide by state

  8. Re:What if the costs are too great? by Albanach · · Score: 2

    Well, of course you can look at it that way, but absent the constitution or another social contract you have only the state of nature - where life is nasty, brutish and short.

    Certainly you could say we have many rights protected under the constitution, but really it's just semantics; the rights exist but to fully enjoy the benefits that flow therefrom might require discretion over which rights we exercise and when and how we do so.

  9. Tyranny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The second amendment was written by people who had just violently expelled a tyrannical government. The only plausible explanation is that they intended for the "militia", meaning all able bodied males, to be able to violently expel the government they were creating when it turned tyrannical.

    1. Re: Tyranny by TerryMathews · · Score: 2

      The Federalist papers disagree with you.

      History. Read some.

      --
      -- Terry
    2. Re: Tyranny by TerryMathews · · Score: 2

      So, change it. No one has once said that the Second Amendment shouldn't be changed if there's enough support.

      The problem is, both you and I know that banning guns is a minority position in this country, which is why the other side always tries to make an end-run around the Constitution - for shame.

      I'd love to see a conservative state like Texas pass a law that says you have to apply for a $200 tax stamp before you're allowed to have an abortion... Oh,the humanity!

      --
      -- Terry
  10. It's a publicity stunt by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is just someone who wants attention. Guns with plastic barrels are junk, worse even than low-end Saturday Night Specials. You can get a cheap gun for under $100 in the US. (Yes, the Raven is a crappy gun, but it's still better than anything made on an extruder-type 3D printer.)

    This is not the cutting edge of weapons design. Guns with aimbots. are the cutting edge. Right now, they're expensive, around $10K, but they will get cheaper.