Slashdot Mirror
The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine
An anonymous reader writes: You may recall Cody Wilson as the man behind the world's first 3D-printed gun. He built a company behind the ideals of DIY gun-making, and now he's come back with another device: the "Ghost Gunner," a CNC mill designed to create the lower receiver of an AR-15 rifle. "That simple chunk of metal has become the epicenter of a gun control firestorm. A lower receiver is the body of the gun that connects its stock, barrel, magazine and other parts. As such, it's also the rifle's most regulated element. Mill your own lower receiver at home, however, and you can order the rest of the parts from online gun shops, creating a semi-automatic weapon with no serial number, obtained with no background check, no waiting period or other regulatory hurdles. Some gun control advocates call it a "ghost gun." Selling that untraceable gun body is illegal, but no law prevents you from making one." Wilson's goal is still to render government gun regulation useless, even as debate rages on banning this kind of manufacturing.
I have a small CNC and with a few tool changes and some time i've been making 1911s and ar15s for years...
this isn't new or exciting this is the way ar-15's and 1911s are made
cast rough shape machine to precise specs...
I'm not sure why this is a big deal, its still REALLY hard to build a barrel and chamber so you still need to buy them, honestly making the receiver the registered part is silly most people could build a receiver with time and effort few people could make a decent barrel or precise chamber.
is the only thing he did to make this special is provide the right tooling in the box? and a pre-installed set of gcode big fucking deal it takes 2 seconds to get the gcode for an ar of the net
Really government over reach is a huge problem and I like the idea of people being able to make their own guns. I know a lot of people want to blame guns for many problems but that is a rather cheap excuse and avoidance of the fact that the public needs improved living conditions so that there are less violent people who act out irrationally. Without much hope of a decent future we do have far too many people who act out. We also have prisons that make only token gestures at rehabilitation of inmates and a mental health system that is a national disgrace.
But in the mind of libertarian nutball Cody Wilson, lawmakers will just say "Welp, he beat us, time to pack up and go home, I'll see if I can charter an APC for us since it's gonna be like Somalia out there. This is the worst day since the basic theoretical disproof and repeated cracks of DRM made us give up on digital copyright issues."
Not quite - He knows perfectly well that the haplophobes won't just pack it in and go home, just as the anti-DRM crowd know that Sony won't just give up and release everything without adding in-house developed viruses to them.
More importantly, he does what he does to point out absurdity. CA's legislators will pass a band-aid over this particular reality-hack, and Wilson will find a way to mercilessly mock that, as well. The cycle can pretty much continue indefinitely; but most importantly, at each step, they look like fools and he has yet again made his point.
Why would you want an untraceable computer? I cannot think of any ethical reason
Good. As a libertarian, driver, voter, and not insane person, I understand that there needs to be SOME government regulation of cars. There is no reason not to try something to prevent insane people from getting cars. They're going to murder anyway, but a car makes it simple.
Ban high capacity assault cars- you don't NEED to go faster than 15 mph. You don't NEED to be able to haul a boat.
Pistols are also the best self-defence weapon, and are used countless times around the world to protect the life and dignity of innocents.
People who want to commit suicide will still commit suicide.
Criminals will still get an illegal pistol, or use another equally deadly weapon (knife, machete, baseball bat)
Kids, well, are more likely to drown in a pool or get run over in traffic. Parents are responsible for their well-being and education anyway.
Yet innocent citizens will only have bare hands and harsh language to defend themselves against a criminal. Not a world we want to live in.
Wilsons goal of enabling anyone to privately fabricate an untraceable gun is part of a larger anarchist mission: To show how technology can render the entire notion of government obsolete. Hes spent the last two years developing firearms designed to be printed as easily as ink on a page, neutering attempts at gun control. 'This is a way to jab at the bleeding hearts of these total statists' Wilson says. 'Its about humiliating the power that wants to humiliate you,' he says.
I'm all on board the maker train (I own a makerbot at home) but Jesus tap-dancing Christ...Anarchy? You dont need to make "ghost" guns to skirt gun control. After 4 major shootings in the US in 2 years, lawmakers themselves refuse to enact any sort of gun control. Hell, getting a gun in america is as easy as filling out a form. the biggest hurtle is the waiting period and even that is only a sometimes kind of thing. We cant even use serialized guns to independently track homicide rates in our country unless we get a FoIA from the ATF, which incidentally hasnt had a full time director in years. News reports routinely redact the make and model of firearms used in shootings out of fearfulness they'll incur a defamation lawsuit from the NRA. if you really want to "humiliate the power" and "jab at hearts" you leak confidential information. Hell, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are national treasures and they did it without a gun.
my prediction is the homemade printable gun will be outlawed not from some evil 'obama gunna take muh gunz" scheme but by lobbying pressure from the NRA, who represent weapons manufacturers profit margins (not you.)
Good people go to bed earlier.
It seems like this guy is TRYING to get 3-d printers, CNC machines, and other manufacturing techniques heavily regulated/banned to the public.
Perhaps he is trying to get stupid attempts at firearms regulations banned.
Have gnu, will travel.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what you should think. "Arms" doesn't mean "hunting rifles." It means "arms." It's a very broad term covering things like swords.
Is it silly to think people should be able to walk around with swords? Maybe... but then we need an ammendment to the constitution limiting what "arms" means, you can't just arbitrarily think it should mean something to everybody... and any laws that ban keeping and bearing swords violate the 2nd ammendment just as much as bans on firearms.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Dogs are the best self-defence weapon. Their barking scares away countless intruders. They're armed even when you're not home. THEY GO AROUND CORNERS. They can be recalled, do not kill instantly, and can quickly recognize friends by smell.
20 years ago, my dad and I came home from a camping trip a day early, but late at night. If my mom had been armed, she would have shot at both of us. Instead, the dog woofed to wake her up and then went to go greet us.
[...] "Arms" doesn't mean "hunting rifles." It means "arms." [...]
We have to make the laws that are reasonable to our time. The Constitution allowed slavery, for instance, and no vote for women. There are lots of things that we can look at now and say need (or needed) to be changed from the original document, with the perspective of the passing of 200 years.
Make arguments, please, that are really arguments, rather than hiding behind a document. Does it make sense now for individuals to buy and sell full-auto weapons? "Assault rifles"? Flamethrowers? Surface-to-air missles? What are the real distinctions?
And there were amendments made to the Constitution to eliminate slavery and give women the right to vote. Amendments are how the Constitution is a "Living" document. Just ignoring the parts you don't agree with is not how it is done. The right to bear arms was put in place to make sure the people never fell under the boot of the government, which means it was intended for us to have arms capable of standing up for our rights. You may be naive enough to trust the government, that does not mean others are.
Whatever. Here's an idea, either respect the Constitution and its underlying values, or focus on repealing the Second Amendment using the process provided for doing so.
Legislative end runs around the founders' clearly expressed intents are not acceptable. Why not? Because they'll come for your favorite amendment next.
If only the British kept those blades away from Patrick Henry and his "nutball" cohorts!
If the British would have had,
the NSA,
there never would have been,
a USA
Burma Shave
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Yeah, and when times changed it got amended. But the right to bear arms hasn't been amended, and until it does, it still stands as the law of the land that all arms are included.
Absolutely! How else is the public supposed to support a revolt against tyranny? (That is what the 2nd Amendment is for, you know... it's a rule written by violent revolutionaries for violent revolutionaries.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
it is against the law to transport it across state lines though
Does it or its owner become suddenly more dangerous after crossing a state line?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
If you're black. White people can bring semi auto rifles into Walmart and the police don't give a fuck.
It's not about race, it's about attitude. If you are friendly and polite people assume you are there to help them. If you are dour and moody, people assume you are there to hurt them.
No. It is about race, in a significant number of cases. Just look at the statistics of people open carrying (or people getting shot at). Hell, just look at the statistics of how people are treated by "the law" per race where some groups *get harsher* penalties for the same goddamned crime.
And since we are on John Crawford's case (RIP), let's look at the Walmart video just released:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/breaking-video-finally-released-cops-shooting-man-toy-gun-wal-mart/
In the specific case of John Crawford (RIP), the poor guy that got shot down while carrying a toy gun to the cash register, he didn't do anything of the above in bold. Nothing in his fucking attitude indicated he was a treat.
The, OTH, you have white militia pointing rifles at federal agents at the Cliven Bundy stand-off on April 2014, with photographs clearly identifying those threatening federal agents with deadly force, and have you seen any one of them arrested?
Crawford might or might not have been shot at the way was due to his race, but there is a clear distinction in attitude and partial/subjective enforcement of the law that still crosses racial lines (Militia at the Bundy's ranch for example.)
Yes I love how in the 1860s in the US an armed citizenry overthrew a corrupt goverment that allowed the enslavement of its citizens - oh wait, that didn't happen, the armed citizens were there to suppress slave revolts on the south, which was the original purpose of the second amendment - not to overthrow a tyrannical goverment, it was to preserve a tryranical government which allowed slavery - i.e. to allow (white) people to carry guns to suppress local slave revolts - duh, you can't really keep slaves without guns to keep them in line. The freedom loving patriots in the south never rose up to free the black slaves - that took a fucking government army.
Has the 4th amendment been updated?
It hasn't, and we must fight this unconstititional crap as well.
Or are you under the illusion that this one amendment is sacrosanct while they crap all over the rest of it?
Because blanket surveillance, property seizure because police lie and say they suspected drugs, and parallel construction are pretty much in violation of your Constitution as well.
I have yet to see a single comment from anyone (democrat or republican) arguing that the US government is properly following the 4th amendment.
I'm not sure how this makes not following the 2nd amendment in addition to not following the 4th ok.
I think your post, while well thought out, misses the point of an armed citizenry. No one is realistically thinking a lightly-armed, poorly-trained citizenry can effectively wage war against a well-equipped, well-trained professional military force. Nor do I think anyone is suggesting a straight up guerrilla-style campaign for asymmetric warfare.
No, the point of an armed citizenry is to give the government pause. An unarmed populace can be brought to heel without much in the way of bloodshed. But an armed populace? Even a lightly-armed one means the government can't just march in and round up potential dissidents. There is the strong possibility of a firefight. Sure, the little guys will probably lose. But it means the government must escalate to lethal force just to get started on whatever nefarious course it may be planning for its citizens.
In a way, it's little like conventional vs. nuclear combat between nation-states. When both sides were purely conventional, wars were fairly common (call this analogous to both sides being armed with swords). When one side has nukes and the other does not, the side with nukes gets its way pretty much whenever it wants without ever having to drop a nuke (analogous to a police state with a disarmed citizenry). But when both sides are equally armed with dangerous weapons that require either side to really think about whether they want to invite a deeply damaging and dangerous conflict...you get very few actual wars (analogous to an armed state and armed citizenry).
If I'm unarmed and the government (for whatever reason) decides I need to be removed, not only can I not stop them, but I probably can't even inflict significant harm on them. They will most likely even take me alive, without a protracted fight. The risk to them in this case, both in blood and bad PR, is minimal.
If I'm armed and the government (for whatever reason) decides I need to be removed, they will most likely succeed. I will, however, most likely succeed in causing casualties and/or making a big PR spectacle of being taken down. I might even achieve martyr status if I'm killed, causing a PR debacle for the government. The government will want to avoid these things, thus they will try to find means other than brute force of arms to remove me. Or they might not remove me at all, deeming the political risk too high. This is why we need to be armed. Not as a credible army-in-waiting, but as a deterrent.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Crazy bullet-ridden land? A couple inner city subcultures doing most of the bullet-riddling, meanwhile there are bigger nice areas where the per capita gun ownership rate is high but there is no gun crime
Your attempt to include links to such statistics failed.
I did not include the link in an attempt to provide statistics.
Please, try again.
No, I won't. This shit is clear as daylight. I have lived in the flesh. People "see it" or they "don't see it."
If it were "clear", you would've had no problems substantiating it with links to evidence..
We could extend that statement to say if the statement "Jim Crow laws are bad" weren't clear in the past, we wouldn't have needed a whole goddamned Civil Right Movement to make the case for it.
For something like this, with so much evidence that had been published in so many years, "clear" is firmly in the eye of the beholder.
You see it or you don't. I am not going to debate you, and if that gives *you* the impression of winning the point, go ahead and do your victory dance.
First, guns don't protect, never have, never will.
The first eight of your 457 word wall of text shows you're so out of touch with reality that there's no point in reading the rest.
The primary function of guns in private hands is to protect those who carry them. They do that exceptionally well. In criminal attacks, resistance with gun is the most effective way to avoid injury or death. It's substantially more effective than the second best - knuckling under completely - and beats the pants off everything else, from running away, to trying to talk your way out, to resisting with bare hands or other tools. (Resisting with knife is about the worst.)
Research on self-defense is hard, because faiures leave tracks in crime stats while successes usually don't (and often leave the self-defended victim with an incentive to keep quiet about it). Nevertheless, even the first well-run projects were able to put a lower bound of guns preventing or aborting more than six times as many crimes as they aid in committing.
In private hands they're safer than police, too. A defense-with-gun is usually effected by no more than brandishing or occasionally getting off a round in the general direction of the perp. But of those instances where a victim or a policeman shoots someone believed to be a perpetrator, the cop is over 5 1/2 times as likely to erroneously shoot an innocent than an armed private citizen.
My family has substantial personal experience with armed self defense. For just a few examples on my wife's side: In college she was accosted by the rapist in the window, who was dressed in just running shoes and a dirty knife. Fortunately there was a hunting rifle behind the bed: She actually had to go as far as cocking it before he stopped trying to get her to drop it and jumped back out the window - apparently to take it out on another girl a few blocks away, with over 130 cuts while raping her. Her mother defended self and family against a Klan attack with a pistol. (Her granddad was caught away from his gun, though, and had to do his anti-Klan defense with a hammer.) Then there was the aunt, the uncle, ...
At the larger scale it's hard to argue with the fact that the US, founded in a revolution (by religious nut with guns) against their self-admitted "legitimate government" and with over half the adult civilian population armed, has now gone over two centuries without a substantial attack from abroad and only one major internal war, while Europe continues to suffer from genocidal wars, often with multi-million body counts. (With the exception of Switzerland, of course: Every adult citizen there is armed and has had military training. Even World Wars go around them.)
It's also hard to argue with the fact that the US is multi-ethnic, and the common denominator of each of its ethnic groups is that their members' murder victimization rate is substantially less than that of contemporary members of the same ethnic group still residing in their land of origin.
As for resisting an oppressive regime if push comes to shove: We have experiences like "The Battle of Athens" just after WWII, and the documented question from Nixon to a thnk-tank about what would happen if he suspended the presidential election. (Answer: That would precipitate an armed rebellion, and the population was well enough armed that it would succeed.) Uprisings aren't always successful and small or UNarmed uprisings are often put down, sometimes with lots of deaths. (Witness the Bonus Marchers' Massacre.) But recent decades of world politics have shown how effective a popular uprising can be, against even a coalition of world powers and superpowers.
If it came to that in the US, you can expect a substantial amount of the military (especially retirees) to be on the side of the people, along with lots of military equipment raided from armories. (You can see that now in the Middle East. The big difference between Al Queda and ISIS/ISIL is that the latter has bunch of col
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way