Gun Rights Hacktivists To Fab 3D-Printed Guns At State Capitol

giulioprisco writes On January 13th Come And Take Texas (CATI) will be manufacturing 3D-printed firearms on location at the State Capitol. In 2013 Defense Distributed made public the 3D printable files (STL files) for the world's first fully 3D printable gun. Their more recent Ghost Gunner is designed to automatically manufacture publicly created designs with nearly zero user interaction. According to CATI’s website, “In the last year and a half Texan Gun Rights Groups all around the Lone Star State have walked, assembled, and engaged in Humanitarian efforts all while Open Carrying their Long Guns and Black Powder Pistols. This has succeeded in Educating the Public as well as Law Enforcement, to show that the presence of Firearms in Public is not only Safe but Highly supported.”

Comments

however, Proper Capitalization

[Slartibartfast]

is Still a Lost Art. Thank goodness for "Educating" the Public.

Thanks, assholes

[rainwalker]

If there's anything that'll push forward legal restrictions on 3D printers/home CNC, it'll be assholes like this making a media push over how easy it is to make weapons and OMG THE CHILDREN. This is why we can't have nice things.

Re:Thanks, assholes

[Penguinisto]

...because children are an emotional cudgel with which folks try to beat down logical arguments. Folks treat it like some sort of trump card in a debate.

A: "...but your proposal is unconstitutional because it directly violates..."

B: "...DEAD CHILD! YOU WANT DEAD CHILDREN YOU EVIL FUCK! HEY EVERYONE! THIS GUY WANTS TO KILL CHILDREN!"

Re: Thanks, assholes

[RabidReindeer]

You don't need guns to take down a bunch of clowns with boxcutters when there's 200 of you and 4 of them.

What was lacking wasn't firearms, it was the realization that the usual way of dealing with hijackers no longer worked. Flight 93 was warned in time to change to a more active response. If they'd known even earlier, they might have even been able to save the pilots.

Re: Thanks, assholes

[TheCarp]

Well yes and no. The main thing that 9/11 hijackers exploited was NOT the fact that passengers were disarmed but, the fact that previous hijackings all resulted in hostage situations. Seriously, you are sitting in a seat, on an airplane, going somewhere.

In a pre-9/11 world (ugh i can't believe I said that), what is your expectation when a hijacking happens? You expect the plane will be grounded, the hijackers will make demands. Eventually they will either be killed and arrested, but you are going to be released within a couple of days, unharmed.

A small crowd can easily overpower a couple of hijackers with knives. The reason they didn't was simply that everyone expected they were going to be walking out alive and well within a few days.

Re:Thanks, assholes

[ganjadude]

the law has to be updated.

So call in a constitutional convention, and get 2/3rds of the states to agree. that is the ONLY Legal way to make the changes you want

Re: Thanks, assholes

[Jason Levine]

Just to add to your comment, during the pre-9/11 days, standing up to the terrorists risked injury or death. Sitting quietly virtually guaranteed you'd emerge unharmed.

The 9/11 terrorists exploited this mindset but that's a one time deal. If some terrorists were to try to take over a plane tomorrow, the passengers wouldn't just sit quietly since now sitting quietly equals certain death. When one option is certain death, fighting back is a better option even if you might die in the process.

Re:Thanks, assholes

[CanHasDIY]

Recently seen on Facebook:

'I want gay married couples to be able to defend their marijuana plants with guns.'

Couldn't agree more.

Re: Thanks, assholes

[BlueStrat]

Your "belief" does not, however, trump the reality that an increased number of people carrying weapons for self defense purposes creates a safer society.

Citation needed.

Look at it like this: The only effective counter to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. There are more good people than bad people. Bad people will always have access to guns because they do not follow laws or restrictions.Therefor, having more of the general public armed means more good guys with guns than bad guys with guns. Q.E..D.

Strat

Re:Thanks, assholes

[harrkev]

Hmmm. What else does Detroit also have? Yes, the have guns. So does Dallas, but Dallas is much safer. Detroit has major economic problems, which Texas does not suffer from so much.

It is not the guns, it is the poverty. Why not attack the root cause instead of just the tools used?

If you take guns away from Detroit, you still have more criminals, just without guns. Take away poverty and provide jobs and you don't just reduce crime, but you also make the general population much happier, as they could then afford luxuries like food.

Re: Thanks, assholes

[mi]

the second amendment speaks of redcoats and muskets

No, actually, neither word is found anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

then there is the whole *well-regulated* part: trianing, proficiency, responsibility, level headedness *BEFORE* you get a gun.

If we read the 1st Amendment the way you propose we read the 2nd, then your Freedom of Speech would also be limited — to Petitioning the Government. And only for Redress of Grievances. And only after a cool-off period. And only using the medium in existence back then — not on radio, TV, or the Internet.

As things stand, however, we consider selling pornography on the Internet and the publishing of bomb-making instructions to be protected by the 1st Amendment...

the second amendment is nothing at all like the dirty harry fiction

Huh? I think, you got carried away...

Not doing what they're thinking

[GameboyRMH]

They think they're protesting against gun control, but they're actually making a powerful and probably effective protest for 3D printer control.

Highly supported?

[Grisstle]

It seems to me that there has been a lot of media and public backlash against open carry. I'm not personally affected by open carry at the moment, but I'd be hesitant to visit any state where open carry becomes too prolific. My opinion is simply that when everyone open carries, I will have a harder time discerning who is a threat and who isn't.

Priveldge Protest

[T.E.D.]

Interesting country, where white folks earnestly protest that they should be able to openly carry weapons and not be viewed as a threat, while black folks have to protest that they should be able to walk around unarmed and not be viewed as a threat.

All just show ...

[gstoddart]

If you don't plan on using any of these much vaunted gun rights to defend the other rights in your Constitution, WTF is the point?

If you're going to say "well, the 1st amendment is shot, the 4th is being ignored, the 5th is being tramped on, but I have my gun" ... why the hell are you even bothering??

Why are none of you gun advocates killing off the NSA officials and the rest of the security people who are shitting all over the rest of your fucking rights? Or are you just a bunch of one trick ponies who only give a crap about your guns?

If so, you should seriously STFU and start worrying about the other rights they've been taking away from you. Otherwise you're just a bunch of children playing cowboy.

Or should we conclude gun advocates are totally OK with tyranny and the erosion of your other rights?

If you won't defend the rest of your Constitutional rights, you don't deserve this one either.

Pathetic.

Why promote dangerous fanatics?

[laird]

The whole idea is stupid - good quality guns in the US (where this is going on) are cheap and easily available. 3D printed guns are expensive and incredibly unsafe, because they're not only made of bonded plastic powder or filament, which can't stand up to the stress of gunpowder exploding, so the guns risk exploding and injuring the user, and in any case will be inaccurate and have a very short useful life. You could make a better "gun" with a block of wood and a drill, more quickly and at lower cost.

The only perspective from which this makes sense is that they're gun fanatics trying to attach themselves to 3D printing for PR purposes, to promote their theory that there need to be more guns in the US, and that they be completely uncontrolled, which is a position that is not only extremely unpopular (90% of the US supports background checks, so violent felons can't easily get guns, and only a few fanatics think that it's a good idea for guns to not be detected by metal detectors).

So really, why promote a few fanatics who, if successful, would lead to even more gun deaths in the US? With the internet we can't stop them completely, but by giving them front-page promotion, we're just encouraging them, which is (IMO) extremely bad judgement.

Just so you know,

[melted]

It's already illegal for a felon to have a weapon, and it's already illegal for anyone to use a weapon in the commission of a crime (and last I checked, shooting people _not_ in self defense is still a crime in this country). So your lawmaking escapade seems to be a little misplaced.