Slashdot Mirror
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.”
is Still a Lost Art. Thank goodness for "Educating" the Public.
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.
They think they're protesting against gun control, but they're actually making a powerful and probably effective protest for 3D printer control.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
Because a right not exercised is a right lost .
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
You do realize what OPEN carry means, right? It generally means on the hip, outside the clothes, ie. in plain view. As in, you know EXACTLY who is carrying and who isn't. Now, CONCEALED carry is where the firearm is tucked away in a pocket, or a shoulder holster under a jacket, or inside the waistband. Concealed carry is when you don't know who is armed and who isn't. For gun control advocates open carry should be preferable to concealed carry, because you can at least tell who is armed and who isn't.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Replace black with poor, under educated and often from single parent families due to the drug war, and I'll agree with you.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Why? Because :
1) Our gun laws are already so loose that it's easy to buy an illegal gun. No need to print it out.
2) It takes too long to make. You go and buy one in ten minutes.
3) Most gun deaths are crimes of passion/accidents. In either case, you are not going to print a gun first to do it.
4) The real 'advantages' of said gun - it's a virgin gun unconnected to any thing else and being able to melt it down to destroy the evidence, are not that important. They don't apply in accidental deaths and most murders would rather use a proven weapon that isn't likely to blow up on you.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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.
We have long gone past sensible gun restrictions. Background checks at gun shows and for business sales are sensible. I don't even have a problem with the tax stamp system for short barreled rifles/shotguns, machine guns, and Any Other Weapons. But the ban on adding new machine guns to the transferable pool is asinine. Arbitrary bans on how many rounds a magazine can hold are just plain ineffective, here in Colorado it is being proven once again how such a ban does nothing. As far as your hysteria of non-metal-detectable guns, that is a fairy tale just like the fear of blood in the streets over the last 20ish years as concealed carry laws became the norm. Barrels for a good long time are going to be metal. All these defenders of the 2nd Amendment are doing is printing receivers, which don't have to handle high pressures. In addition it has long been legal to make your own firearms, I can legally buy an 80% finished receiver and finish it myself. In this case I don't have to put a serial number on it, as long as I don't have a business I can even sell the occasional one. For an AK you just need a jig to bend and drill the sheet metal and some rivets, for an AR-15 it requires machining which can be done with typical home equipment.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
would someone please post the 2nd amendment, in its entirety, or at least the first part about a State run and organized militia. oh yeah, I forgot, the Constitution and the Bible are only suggestions, not for literal translation.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
State in the true sense of the word- meaning a nation, not the popular US use, a slightly autonomous defined district whose laws are superceeded by those of a national body. Militia are groups of civilians, armed with their own weapons, who in a time of crisis fight alongside the standing army in the defense of their homes and their communities. Therefore it is intended that civilians should keep weapons so that they can be called up in times of national defense. At most the 2nd Amendment calls for training for gun owners, maybe require them once a month to attend a class (provided free by the government) where they shoot a few rounds to demonstrate basic proficiency in their firearm and review gun safety (exemptions from classes possibly for antique firearms/collectors, or those who would be unable to be called up in a militia by age or physical disability). There you have it: with this proposition every point in the 2nd Amendment is upheld, without any additional limitations than we have already.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Oh Yeah, You forgot that the Supremes already weigh in on that issue...you lost.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
This may come as a surprise to you, but the amendment does not actually say anything about a "state run militia". The actual ratified text is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
If you go on to read additional support documentation (yeah, there's more there than just the amendment itself), it talks about allowing the people to form their own militias. Some of the quotes in the debate about the amendment are quite enlightening, one I particularly agree with is "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." along with "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." both attributed to George Mason (known historically as the father of the bill of rights).
So, you are saying that Batman originated in England???
Yes, they did, although the practise was quite common in many other countries.
The NRA has a problem with those kooks in Texas.
These kooks even try to intimidate people who may disagree with them.
And their premise that it is safe is wrong.
And as someone who goes to the shooting range(s) once in a while, I can tell that most of those folks seem to think that they are living an action movie. Aside from the few hunters and target/skeet shooters (me), the rest of them think the "bad guys" are just itching to break into their home, rape their women, take their big screen TVs and their Arnold, Steven Segal, Chuck Norris DVD collections. Those are the guys with the military styled guns on the range - with their fetish for .223 and .40. They are the ones who talk about "stopping power" and "penetration" and other ballistic shit.
We normal guys try to stay away from them and cringed when we see those redneck morons in Texas acting like jackasses.
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.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Recall that the Founders had just won a war where the people's arms played a key part in overthrowing the despotic government they had lived under--because they had arms they were able to stand up to the British Army. The Founders often expressed their concern that the new government they were founding could itself become despotic (despite the check-and-balances they were building in), and in particular were fundamentally against a standing army. A standing army could be used to oppress the people, but only if the people were not similarly armed. If the people were armed as the standing army, they would easily be able to outnumber any such regular army, and thus the presences of an armed populace--the militia--served as a deterrent to despotic government. So rather than equating the militia to the National Guard, the stated purpose of the militia is specifically to be able to fight the federal government (and its army) to preserve the free state, should it ever come to that.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
George Mason
Madison: "The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
Alexander Hamilton: "[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[, ] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
Theodore Sedgwick: "[it is] a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved. . . Is it possible. . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"
Actually, the Second Amendment says NOTHING about a "State run and organized militia".
Note however, in relevance to the "Militia" that the "Militia Act" is still in force.
The Militia Act REQUIRES members of the militia to own a military-grade firearm.
The Militia Act also defines "members of the militia" as pretty much every adult male in the USA. Arguably, non-citizens are exempted, though.
So, in keeping with the (idiotic) notion that the Bill of Rights lists a bunch of INDIVIDUAL Rights, except for the Second, which isn't an individual Right, we can assume that the Second PLUS the Militia Act REQUIRES every American male (presumably the ERA or similar legislation means it applies to women as well) to own a military grade firearm - full auto or selective fire, in 5.56mm NATO (the current round favoured by the Army).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
except for you have an understanding issue. "well regulated" at the time, meant in working order, not regulated by the government like we would understand it today.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
As ratified by the States:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Original:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Initial proposal:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Then there were a whole bunch of revisions that started
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
They removed the definition of militia because it was deemed redundant and they removed the religious objection clause because it was covered under religious freedoms.
As a side note, reading the Journal of the Senate from 1789 is kind of interesting if you never have. Not only are they doing the Bill of Rights but also establishing a whole slew of the guidelines for how sessions of congress should be run.
I don't live in Texas for very good reasons. This Gun Mania is one of them.
In 2014, US Federal, State, and Local governments spent 35.5% of GDP. Compare with 31.6% of GDP in 2000.
Actually, it's much better than that.
The guy had a gun store in the mall. The mall kicked him out and pasted the 30.06 weapon ban.
The police charged him with causing a disturbance (scaring people); confiscated his AR-15; ran ballistics on it and put that in a database; revoked his concealed weapon license; revoked his concealed weapon training certification and his small business tanked because people are afraid of the guy.
Open Carry Texas, a wingnut outfit in its own right, shunned him because, contrary to their mission statement, he actually made things worse.
The mall had a POLICY of no guns, but looked the other way. After this incident, the mall posted the 30.06 and the mall patrons who are licensed to carry said, "Thank a lot."
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Most gun control laws, as currently written, are unconstitutional. The reason they have stood for so long is either challenges were not brought, or the supremes refused to hear the case.
Heller and Peruta affirmed the individual right to bear arms for the purposes of individual self-defense as well as group defense . It is legal to manufacture firearms for personal use (and always has been). Licensing and serialization are only required if you choose to manufacture arms for sale to others.
The bottom line is that manufacturing your own weapons is legal - as per the ATF FAQ:
http://www.atf.gov/files/firea...
9. May I lawfully make a firearm for my own personal use, provided it is not being made for
resale?
Firearms may be lawfully made by persons who do not hold a manufacturer’s license under the GCA
provided they are not for sale or distribution and the maker is not prohibited from receiving or
possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semiautomatic
rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as set forth in regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.39. In
addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF. An
application to make a machinegun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing
that the firearm is being made for the official use of a Federal, State, or local government agency (18
U.S.C. 922(o),(r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 C.F.R. 478.39, 479.62, and 479.105).
Currently there is a very pro-gun trend throughout the country. I do not see lawmakers stomaching any more gun-control any time soon. Personally, I would like to see many of our unconstitutional gun-control laws repealed or struck down by the courts.
Here is some clarification on the legal definition of "militia" in the US. United States Code TITLE 10 – ARMED FORCES SUBTITLE A – GENERAL MILITARY LAW PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS CHAPTER 13 – THE MILITIA Section 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
All you need is a length of steel pipe, a nail, a piece of wood, and a few other things that you can purchase at your local Home Depot for like 20 bucks. Just search for "pipe shotgun" on Youtube or Google. The "3D printing" makes for a good clickbait headline, but if you want a serviceable weapon, the $20 Home Depot Special is actually a better option, because it's more powerful and it won't blow up in your face.
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.