Slashdot Mirror


Come and Take It, Texas Gun Enthusiasts (Video)

In Texas, guns are a common sight:gun-racks are visible in the back of many pick-ups, and pistols, cannons, and rifles are part of the state's iconography. Out-of-sight guns are common, too: The state has had legal (though highly regulated) concealed carry for handguns since 1995, though -- contrary to some people's guess, and with some exceptions -- open carry of handguns is not generally legal. One thing that's definitely not a common sight, though, is a group of people manufacturing guns just outside the south gates of the Texas capitol building. But that's just what you would have encountered a few weeks ago, when an organization called CATI (Come and Take It) Texas set up a tent that served as a tech demo as much as an act of social provocation. CATI had on hand one of the same Ghost Gunner CNC mills that FedEx now balks at shipping, and spent hours showing all comers how a "gun" (in the eyes of regulators, at least) can be quickly shaped from a piece of aluminum the ATF classifies as just a piece of aluminum. They came prepared to operate off-grid, and CATI Texas president Murdoch Pizgatti showed for my camera that the Ghost Gunner works just fine operating from a few big batteries -- no mains power required. (They ran the mill at a slower speed, though, to conserve juice.)

367 comments

  1. Yay, no autoplay of videos by Beerdood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not really relevant to this particular topic, but thanks for stopping the auto-play of video in the comments section, Slashdot.

    --
    Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
    1. Re:Yay, no autoplay of videos by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're welcome. Everybody who actually works on this site hates autoplay as much as you do. We also want a volume control in the player. That's our next video crusade.

    2. Re:Yay, no autoplay of videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn! Now you provoke the question, who ordered the autoplay to begin with? And why does that person still have a job? And why do I have log in over and over? Who stole my hat?

    3. Re:Yay, no autoplay of videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! I don't think I have ever seen a user number so low and I've been here since '99! They do exist!

  2. news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.dikiligundemi.net

  3. For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You have to not poke the bear. Provocation like open carry "just because" is why we don't have open carry in most states. Yes, the ATF is aware people can make their own guns, and for the most part is seems like they don't want to know because that's a whole new headache. These guys are shining a spotlight on home fabrication and basically waving it in their face. So now it will get regulated. Thanks, guys; this is why we can't have nice things.

    Also, Slashdot, fix the stupid posting. I'm logged in, but you only let me post AC and you forget I'm logged in.

    1. Re:For regulation to work... by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      destroy your cookie and log back in. I haven't sorted out what's going on, but it does seem to fix the problem for me.

    2. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "we don't have open carry in most states"

      Facts disagree with you. In fact, Texas is one of a handful of states that don't allow open carry in some manner.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States#Jurisdictions_in_the_United_States

    3. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, the ATF is why you can't have nice things. Actually, as a Kansas resident, I can already manufacture my own suppressors, along with short barreled rifles and shotguns.

    4. Re:For regulation to work... by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Texas does in fact allow open carry of long guns. What it doesn't allow is open carry of hand guns.

      In fact back when the whole Ferguson thing was more of a thing, there was an open carry demonstration by a black shooting club. They marched through one of our large cities (with rifles and shotguns) and deposited themselves next to a number of on duty police officers on their meal break.

      No fireworks ensued though. Nobody got over excited. Although it does bear mentioning that the jurisdiction in question does have a black police chief and had a black DA.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:For regulation to work... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Who really wants the regulation to "work"? There's a bigger issue here than just a bunch of people wanting to simplify firearm manufacturing regulation. What's the real problem here is that you have a bear who when poked has the power to make a new stupid regulation. Do something about the bear.

    6. Re:For regulation to work... by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The Overton Window works both ways. I imagine you are not so squeamish about the exercise of your other civil liberties precisely because your masters haven't been as successful marginalizing them ... yet.

    7. Re:For regulation to work... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Texas does in fact allow open carry of long guns. What it doesn't allow is open carry of hand guns.

      "This is my rifle, this is my gun, this one*s for fighting, this one's for fun."

      I'll need to remember that on m next trip to Texas.

      I can claim my right to carry open my "long gun".

      However, I think I will get jail time for that.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:For regulation to work... by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Open carry of guns in general probably isn't a good idea anyway.
      ( Should still be legal, just not a great idea unless you're out hunting )

      Because if you're carrying it out in the open in public, it makes it easier for the guy who snaps to know whom to target first.
      ( Then again, you walk into a location with the intent of going on a rampage and note EVERYONE is carrying a firearm, you may change your mind )

      Or for the police to harass for that matter. ( They generally dislike folks without badges carrying guns yanno )

    9. Re:For regulation to work... by jopsen · · Score: 0

      Then again, you walk into a location with the intent of going on a rampage and note EVERYONE is carrying a firearm, you may change your mind

      The kind of people who are going on a rampage aren't likely to be thinking all that much. The idea that a deterrent would stop them is pretty out there...

      The first line of defence against people like that I social services, engagement and outreach programs. Followed by restricting access to weapons. Followed by police officers trained to do defuse a situation rather than escalate it. Followed by armed police capable of neutralising a threat. And if all else fails civilians capable of defending themselves.

      The US often seems to have this backwards...

    10. Re:For regulation to work... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      The odds of any one person within a lifetime ever encountering someone who is about to go on a rampage is so small it may as well be zero. Sure, it happens and we see it on the news but there are a lot of people out there occupying a lot of space. It's not very likely to ever happen to you.

      Now compare that to the odds of encountering someone wanting to rob, rape or otherwise harm you.

      The rampage people are clearly crazy and I would hesitate to even predict how they would react to the site of your weapon. That second, much larger group... they will likely just walk away peacefully. You will pobably never even know what you avoided.

    11. Re:For regulation to work... by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Did the karma get reset or are you "NSA compliant"? Seems mine went neutral after my ES post.

    12. Re:For regulation to work... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Jobs for Jihad!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, you walk into a location with the intent of going on a rampage and note EVERYONE is carrying a firearm, you may change your mind

      The kind of people who are going on a rampage aren't likely to be thinking all that much. The idea that a deterrent would stop them is pretty out there...

      The first line of defence against people like that I social services, engagement and outreach programs. Followed by restricting access to weapons. Followed by police officers trained to do defuse a situation rather than escalate it. Followed by armed police capable of neutralising a threat. And if all else fails civilians capable of defending themselves.

      The US often seems to have this backwards...

      I agree the prevention (social services, engagement, and outreach programs) are the first step (and unfortunately, the US has a lot of shoddy issues when it comes to mental health). But the rest seems backwards:

      Restricting access to weapons - the can be found/acquired. Look at WarOnDrugs.

      Police (defusing is best) - Not there. Will arrive shortly after the Domino's guy.

      Civilians - Already there (calling the cops and Domino's just to get the timing right)... and an armed citizen may be able to defuse (though being armed is not necessarily necessary or sufficient). Ought to be able to neutralize (or should not be armed!).

    14. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Provocation like open carry "just because" is why we don't have open carry in most states.

      Hmmm... 44 of the 50 states allow open carry. In what world do the *6* states which prohibit open carry count as "most states"?

    15. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must mean some kind of obscure non-suicidal rampages where deterents actually matter. For the suicidal kind common these days it is more likely than not to increase body count unless everyone is highly coordinated and can pick out the perpetrator.

    16. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sure, you can continue manufacturing them right up until the day you are manufacturing license plates in a Unicor factory, LMFAO

    17. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It might seem that open carry is a bad idea, but studies indicate that bad guys simply leave when they see an open carry person and not start the crime at all. Criminals don't like resistance or danger. Even in mass shootings, something like 40% of mass murderers shoot themselves when confronted with any armed resistance.

      And another problem with not allowing open carry is that it actually makes it viable for law enforcement in some states to prosecute people with concealed carry handguns if their gun is visible at all. I believe Texas is like this and is why they are pushing so hard for open carry. How ridiculous is it to charge a lady with a concealed carry permit and a holstered pistol in her purse with a crime simply because a cashier glimpses the gun as she's paying for groceries? But it's happened.

      Many states have had open carry for... ever. Vermont, for example, has never required any training for licensing for concealed or open carry. It's not exactly a hotbed of criminal activity.

    18. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real guns have wheels.

    19. Re: For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same world in which the General Social Survey is considered the "gold standard" of surveys.

    20. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last times blacks demonstrated in California by openly carrying arms, then Governor Ronald Reagan passed some of the countries most strict gun regulations.

      Glad to hear that Texas didn't freak out. Although in California what really put politicians over the edge were the Black Panthers open-carrying in the Capitol building. I don't think many white California congressmen slept soundly that night in Sacramento.

      But can somebody explain to me the logic of permitting concealed carry but not open carry? The only reason I can think of is that open carry spooks people. But if the electorate is spooked by open carry, it's only a matter of time before they ban concealed carry.

    21. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "why we don't have open carry in most states"

      Did the US suddenly gain 40 more States? I only ask because Texas is trying to become the 45th State to allow open carry, so for your statement to be true, there would have to be 90 States.

    22. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And another problem with not allowing open carry is that it actually makes it viable for law enforcement in some states to prosecute people with concealed carry handguns if their gun is visible at all. I believe Texas is like this and is why they are pushing so hard for open carry. How ridiculous is it to charge a lady with a concealed carry permit and a holstered pistol in her purse with a crime simply because a cashier glimpses the gun as she's paying for groceries? But it's happened."

      That law actually changed in Texas last year. Having a concealed handgun display is not illegal if the display is accidental. So go ahead and reach for the Charmin on the top shelf at Walmart, not a problem!

    23. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The kind of people who carry guns because they are planning on defending themselves in a rampage are living in a fantasy created for the probability challenged. Related note: somehow the CCW crowd missed violent crime dropping to its lowest level in decades when deciding what risks to obsess about.

    24. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Now compare that to the odds of encountering someone wanting to rob, rape or otherwise harm you.

      Now compare the odds of a gun owner defending themselves with a gun to the odds of someone in the gunowner's family being harmed by the weapon. Cue argument over whose studies are lousier.

    25. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real guns have wheels.

      Because a smoothbore shotgun isn't a real gun?

      Wat now, bitches?!

    26. Re: For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first four solutions are off the table in America. The last one allows me to pretend to be that guy I saw in that movie one time. Finally, I'm the hero of the day!

      Pew pew.

    27. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first line of defence against people like that I social services, engagement and outreach programs. Followed by restricting access to weapons. Followed by police officers trained to do defuse a situation rather than escalate it. Followed by armed police capable of neutralising a threat. And if all else fails civilians capable of defending themselves.

      um, you seem to be confused. When you are in the room with a madman, and cops are minutes away, and you only have seconds to respond. better hope you have your own protection.

    28. Re:For regulation to work... by zenaida_valdez · · Score: 1

      The rampage people are clearly crazy and I would hesitate to even predict how they would react to the site of your weapon. That second, much larger group... they will likely just walk away peacefully. You will pobably never even know what you avoided.

      But.. But.. You want the criminal to pull a weapon on you so you can shoot him and be famous in the "Armed Citizen" page in the NRA magazines and then everyone will know how brave you are and all the chicks will dig you and the tires on your truck will get bigger and everything!!

    29. Re: For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A concealed weapon should not be in a hand bag. Or a jacket pocket. It should be on your person and under you control. This avoids shooting the toilet or kids shooting you with it.
      It is not a toy it is a responsibility.

    30. Re:For regulation to work... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The ATF knows full well that people can make guns, because people do make guns. ATF has a bunch of regulations surrounding this, too. But they are a law enforcement agency, not a lawmaking agency; they enforce the law as written (sometimes making decisions along the way, since many of gun control laws are vague and ambiguous), but they cannot make new law. So they can't really ban people from making their own guns, no matter how prominent it becomes.

    31. Re:For regulation to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now compare that to the odds of encountering someone wanting to rob, rape or otherwise harm you.

      Now compare the odds of a gun owner defending themselves with a gun to the odds of someone in the gunowner's family being harmed by the weapon. Cue argument over whose studies are lousier.

      You're right. Clearly we need to ban guns, because it isn't like there are other options available to try to curb accidental shootings in the home.

      Goit.

    32. Re:For regulation to work... by morgauxo · · Score: 2

      There are no reliable studies to compare those two things.

          Gunowners rarely actualy end up in shootouts with would-be attackers. The common scenario is would-be attacker starts to walk over, gun owner shows what they have just by pulling it out and holding it. There is no need to even point. Would-be attacker walks away. Everyone lives. Police are not called, nothing is recorded making useful statistics pretty much impossible.

    33. Re:For regulation to work... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Nah, these days most of those cowboy wannabe types just join the police force and get their jollies that way.

      Most non-criminal gun ownwers would much rather just flash the gun and watch their would be attacker walk away before the violence starts.

    34. Re:For regulation to work... by RailGunner · · Score: 1

      somehow the CCW crowd missed violent crime dropping to its lowest level in decades

      Here in Texas, this drop corresponded with former Governor George W. Bush signing the CCW law into place. All of the sudden, criminals didn't know if the person they were about to mug would shoot them.

      It's an old truism -- an armed society is a polite society.

    35. Re:For regulation to work... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      If the cops thought that everyone was likely to have a gun police violence would practically disappear overnight.

    36. Re:For regulation to work... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I propose bear stew.

    37. Re:For regulation to work... by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... USA: 1 in 30,000 people EVERY YEAR are killed in homicides with guns. UK: a hundredth of that. How can you read those stats and think everyone having a gun is a good thing? Any idiot with a gun could get pissed off with a friend/neighbour/someone who cut them up on the highway and kill them.

  4. Just Askin' by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 0

    So when we're talking about net neutrality, taking a law from the 1930's and applying to today's technology is bad, but if we're talking about gun control doing the same thing with an 18th century amendment is somehow good? Pick one, conservatives.

    --
    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    1. Re:Just Askin' by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      So when we're talking about net neutrality, taking a law from the 1930's and applying to today's technology is bad, but if we're talking about gun control doing the same thing with an 18th century amendment is somehow good? Pick one, conservatives.

      Can you expand on this? I can't connect the dots.

    2. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Keep in mind that in the 18th century, private citizens owned artillery and warships.

    3. Re:Just Askin' by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you feel the same way about the 1st Amendment and modern technology?

      Rights are Rights. You can argue about whether a certain expression of those Rights is "good" or "bad". But they're still Rights.

      Don't confuse them with business decisions/rulings.

    4. Re: Just Askin' by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Well I love my home state and it's people. We're mostly down-to-earth, and pragmatic. Unfortunately we're really big on grand gestures. And fond of the metaphorical sharp-stick-in-the-eye brand of protesting.

      I think this one is going to backfire big time. "Look how easy it is to home fab a gun guys!" sounds like a demonstration ANTIgun activists would do. Dafuq guys. Dafuq.

      Done/10

    5. Re:Just Askin' by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      I've been hearing a lot of talk about how applying Title II rules from 1936 nowadays is a bad thing because technology has changed so much. But in the arena of gun laws, applying a law from the late 18th century to modern assault rifles and the like is considered to be completely reasonable.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    6. Re:Just Askin' by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Conservatives dislike federal regulation on guns and federal regulation on the internet. More government control of any entity should be met with suspicion until the details are known, and the FCC has yet to release those details. The big question is why would you blindly support a rule that you have no idea how it is implemented.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    7. Re:Just Askin' by syzler · · Score: 1

      The law mentioned in the video is the Gun Control Act of 1968 which was a passed in 1968. 1968 was in the 20th century, not the 18th century. More to your argument, it was passed 34 years after the Communications Act of 1934, not 150+ years before the Communications Act of 1934.

      1968 was in the 20th century or the nineteen hundreds.

      1768 was in the 18th century or the seventeen hundreds.

    8. Re:Just Askin' by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0

      "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." D.C. V. Heller

    9. Re:Just Askin' by khallow · · Score: 1

      What's really changed about military technology? Most of the high end gear requires a ridiculous supply chain. Sure, I grant that most people probably shouldn't have nuclear weapons which in theory one can own without requiring a fancy supply chain to maintain it in working order and can cause damage far in excess of any conceivable use, including the overthrow of a tyrannical government. But I just don't see the problem for typical military hardware, be it assault rifles, artillery, or patrol boats.

      The US allowed a lot of crazy stuff over the years, and it just hasn't caused much problems, especially given the firepower we're speaking of.

    10. Re:Just Askin' by stms · · Score: 1

      So when we're talking about gun control, taking an amendment from the 18th century and applying to today's technology is bad, but if we're talking about net neutrality doing the same thing with a 1930's law is somehow good? Pick one, liberals.

      Legally speaking I would say conservatives have a better leg to stand on simply because an amendment is much more fundamental to how our government is supposed to govern. I don't really agree with either of them completely.

    11. Re:Just Askin' by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Democracy is based on 2000 year old principles. This argument was dead before you typed it. Common carrier is common carrier, bits are bits.

      --
      Good-bye
    12. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get out of here with your facts.

    13. Re: Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea is to point out how easy it is to make a gun.
      If it is so easy that anyone can do it in their own home, what's the point of the draconian gun control restrictions that progressives want?

      It's the same argument some people used to use against anti-pot laws.

    14. Re:Just Askin' by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 0

      I think it's pretty clear that the intent behind the second amendment was the perceived need to have a well regulated militia. In other words, if you want to carry a guns, sign up to join the national guard. The first amendment doesn't have such provisions. In practice, the very liberal interpretation of the second amendment outside of its original intent seems to be a wholly bad idea in densely populated regions. In rural areas, less of a problem.

    15. Re:Just Askin' by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Assault rifles are automatic weaponry, and are regulated under laws from the 1930s and the 1980s (and likely other decades). Assault weapons are an imaginary category dreamed up by politicians that weapons from the 18th century can easily fall under, or not, as the definitions are political and oscillate depending on whatever looks scary.

    16. Re:Just Askin' by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      the second amendment refers to a *well-regulated* militia

      so if you want to adhere to your actual constitutional rights, then you need training (the 1700s meaning of well-regulated is well-trained) before you get a gun, rather than the current US status quo of handing out guns to any mouth breathing moron who wants one. and with easy guns for any untrained douchebag, we have our pathetic american status quo of high homicide rates

      the american legal status quo on guns is not actually in line with the second amendment. we require people to take drivers ed and pass a course before they can drive a car. to be more in line with the second amendment, we need to require people to get gun and safety training, and then pass a test, before getting a gun. thus the *well-regulated* militia refered to in the second amendment

      the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun, no questions asked. that's not actually the second amendment. why or how do people think they can ignore the *well-regulated* part of the second amendment?

      they can't

      and we will fix this erroneous late 20th century constitutional activism against the founder's clearly stated intent

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    17. Re:Just Askin' by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      but if we're talking about gun control doing the same thing with an 18th century amendment is somehow good? Pick one, conservatives.

      You realize that you're using the 1st Amendment on a computer, right? I'll turn in my modern firearm in favor of a musket when you exchange your computer for a printing press.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have liked Athenian democracy.

      "We need an army. You, spire3661, will buy us a tank, because we voted and decided so. What, you can't afford a tank? Then I guess you lose your citizenship. To the mines, new slave!"

    19. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a special kind of stupid going on there.

    20. Re:Just Askin' by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun

      Unless you:

      1. Are a convicted felon.
      2. Are a convicted domestic abuser.
      3. Are currently charged with any crime punishable by a year or more in prison.
      4. Are an unlawful user of any controlled substance.
      5. Are addicted to any controlled substance, even one lawfully proscribed.
      6. Have been dishonorably discharged from the United States military.
      7. Have renounced your American citizenship.
      8. Are the subject of an order of protection.
      9. Are a fugitive from justice.
      10. Are in the United States illegally.

      Those are just the people proscribed from ownership under Federal law. Many States have tougher laws and add even more people to the list. Some (my home state, New York) go further and treat gun rights as a privilege, requiring a license, which is doled out at the whim of local bureaucrats who can deny you for virtually any reason they wish.

      Point being, nowhere in the United States does the "current understanding" of gun rights say anyone should have firearms. Do you actually know what the existing body of Federal, State, and Local law has to say on this subject or are you just repeating talking points you read somewhere?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      11. Have been involuntarily hospitalized.
      12. Have been adjudicated mentally ill or defective.

    22. Re:Just Askin' by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      i was talking about training

      you're changing the subject

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    23. Re:Just Askin' by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the militia. Here is the legal definition. You are likely a member: "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." This is the "regulation" you are looking for. Note nothing regarding banning arms from citizens.

    24. Re: Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Home to one of the most diverse cities in the world. You can probably make the same racism case in your neck of the woods.

    25. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Assault rifle" is a made-up term by fear-mongering legislators. In California "evil features" make a rifle an "assault rifle." Nothing in the definition of "assault rifle" has anything to do with it being an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons are able to fire more than one bullet with the single press and hold of the trigger.

      A rifle with a detachable magazine and an "evil feature" becomes an "assault rifle" in California. You can fix the magazine with a "bullet button" which then requires a "tool" (a bullet can serve as that tool) and then it is no longer an "assault rifle." Additionally, you can remove all the "evil features" such as a pistol grip, and then you can have a detachable magazine, and if you own magazines before the ban date, they can be 10+ round magazines.

      The "assault rifle" laws are convoluted and written be people who are afraid of guns and know little to nothing about them. Please don't perpetuate this by using their imaginary terms, and if you are going to use them, don't confuse them.

      "Assault rifle" != automatic weapon.

    26. Re:Just Askin' by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm in support of 'all of the above'. The internet today fills the place that phones did back then. I also think that the 1st applies to more than hand operated printing presses and the 2nd to more than muskets.

      If a law doesn't make sense anymore, it's time to amend or repeal it.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    27. Re:Just Askin' by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      i am referring to the wording of the second amendment

      are you saying that in addition to required training (well-regulated), anyone who has a gun has to also register with a militia?

      in accordance to the second amendment, that seems to be indeed a more accurate reading of our fundamental rights

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    28. Re:Just Askin' by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      But in the arena of gun laws, applying a law from the late 18th century to modern assault rifles and the like is considered to be completely reasonable.

      AND... what has changed to make it UNreasonable? You appear to be trying to make an argument here, but you haven't actually made one.

      According to the US Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment does specifically apply to military-style arms, and with good reason. It ain't about shooting that raccoon in your back yard with a pellet gun.

      The guns you refer to as "assault weapons" (which is an inaccurate propaganda term; they aren't assault weapons at all) aren't even "military style" weapons. Here are 2 facts that might surprise you:

      (A) Those "assault weapons" you refer to are legal for hunting whitetail deer, as well as smaller game, in some states. And they are very well suited for doing so. They perfectly legal for hunting smaller game in many more states.

      (B) It has never, at any time, been illegal in the United States to manufacture a gun for your own use.

      (C) There is no demonstrable connection in the United States between prevalence of guns, and crime. In fact, over the last 30 years per-capita gun ownership and concealed carry has gone way UP, while crime, including violent crime, has plummeted. It is now less than half what it was then.

    29. Re:Just Askin' by Shakrai · · Score: 3

      You're the one who claimed, emphasis mine: "the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun ." Don't try and backpedal away from it now.

      I could respond to your silly training argument by pointing out:

      1. Driving is a privilege, not a constitutionally recognized right.
      2. The prefatory clause is not a limiting clause. It was not imagined as such by the people who wrote it nor ever interpreted that way by a court.

      Of course, what's the point of having that discussion? You've got the facts so hopelessly wrong that I believe your ignorance is willful. One bloody Google search would have been enough to dispel your misinformed belief about the "current understanding of gun rights in the usa" and you couldn't even be bothered to do that.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    30. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 2nd amendment says that, because a well regulated [1] militia [2] is *necessary* to a free state, right of the people [3][4] to keep [5] and bear [6] arms[7] shall not be infringed[8].

      [1] well-trained, disciplined and provisioned; see 'a well regulated machine'
      [2] populace who gather in times of need, such as war, for the common defense, supplying their own arms and ammunition
      [3] humans who live in the US (note, there is a difference between 'the people' and 'citizens')
      [4] note: the right is 'of the people', not 'of the militia'
      [5] own and store
      [6] carry and transport
      [7] weapons, including small-arms, cannons, swords, knives, etc.
      [8] limited, hindered, abolished, etc...

      Basically, you can't *have* a militia without an armed populace. An armed populace is a requisite precursor for a militia.

    31. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely wrong. The well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state. I.e. a country needs a standing military. The right of the "people" (not militia) to bear arms will not be infringed since there has to be a militia. This is so the PEOPLE can OVERTHROW the militia / government.

    32. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely wrong. The well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state. I.e. a country needs a standing military. The right of the "people" (not militia) to bear arms will not be infringed since there has to be a militia. This is so the PEOPLE can OVERTHROW the militia / government.

    33. Re:Just Askin' by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      I can't connect the dots.

      Then I definitely don't want you having a gun.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:Just Askin' by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it's pretty clear that the intent behind the second amendment was the perceived need to have a well regulated militia. In other words, if you want to carry a guns, sign up to join the national guard.

      And you would be wrong. According to historical documents and the debates surrounding ratification, it was exactly the opposite.

      The Founders were terrified of the necessity of having a "standing army" for defense. They had just fought a war against the "well regulated militia" of their own country! They considered a standing government army to be the single biggest threat to the Republic. Thus, (emphasis added):

      "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."

      The People are to be armed, to protect the country (which is The People), AGAINST its own army, if need be.

      There were considered to be TWO militias: the common militia, which consisted of all the people, and a "Well Regulated Militia", which was the standing army. The accepted definition at the time of "well regulated" was "ordered, disciplined." That's a trained army.

      But The People are not a "well regulated militia". They are NOT trained and disciplined. Yet as recently as a few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled again that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed arms to The People.

    35. Re:Just Askin' by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The important part to take away from Democracy is that every person is automatically a participant. Just as we tempered raw democracy with Republic ideals, so too have we amended the laws since the 30s to account for changing tech. The point remains, these arent archaic, outdated laws. Common carrier principals are pretty sound considering we spent almost a century refining it.

      --
      Good-bye
    36. Re: Just Askin' by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately we're really big on grand gestures.

      Is "executing the mentally ill" one of those grand gestures? What about "electing morons governor"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    37. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing "Assault Rifle" with "Assault Weapon".

      There are certain features that define an "Assault Rifle" (see wikipedia). Select fire and full auto capability is one of those features.

      "Assault Weapon" on the other hand is undefined - as you said, in California/Connecticut/1994 ban/etc - some arbitrary and ever changing list of features makes up an "Assault Weapon". I've seen definition that put most semi-auto shotguns into the realm of assault weapons.

    38. Re:Just Askin' by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Point being, nowhere in the United States does the "current understanding" of gun rights say anyone should have firearms.

      False. All the conditions you give above, are circumstances under which people are considered to have waived their rights as ordinary citizens. Except:

      4.Are an unlawful user of any controlled substance.
      5. Are addicted to any controlled substance, even one lawfully proscribed. 8. Are the subject of an order of protection.

      These conditions were wholly made-up by the government, and people have been arguing ever since that these conditions are blatantly unconstitutional.

      And I could be wrong, but item 8, as I understand it, is a State issue, not Federal.

    39. Re:Just Askin' by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Gun nut logic.

      Ah, gun nut, one of the favorite insults of the anti-rights crowd. Much easier to demean those that disagree with you rather than respond to their points, eh?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    40. Re:Just Askin' by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      This is a false interpretation of the Second Amendment, even according to the Supreme Court.

      The well-regulated militia meant "standing army".

      The People are guaranteed arms (as opposed to the "well-regulated militia), BECAUSE of the necessity of having a standing army. The Founders considered a government army to be the single biggest THREAT to the Republic, and guaranteed that THE PEOPLE should therefore also be armed.

      History is very clear on this. The other interpretation -- the claim that only the army is to be armed -- contradicts the actual historical proof so outrageously that it can be nothing but propaganda.

    41. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Supreme Court in Heller vs Washington DC ruled that the amendment's preferatory clause does not restrict the amendment, but rather states one of the primary reasons the amendment is being made. This interpretation if heavily backed up by historical documents including the Federalist Papers and other documents from sources at the time.

      It's just that we don't phrase things in English now the way they used to. An equivalent phrasing now would be something like:

      The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, if for no other reason than that an established civilian Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

      As well, the majority of states still have laws on the books that all healthy males of a certain age are members of the inactive militia. So whether you like it or not, you are almost surely a member of a militia.

    42. Re:Just Askin' by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      All the conditions you give above, are circumstances under which people are considered to have waived their rights as ordinary citizens

      Irrelevant. The point was in response to the GP's ridiculous assertion about the "current understanding" of gun rights in the United States. It is not and never has been an "understanding" in the United States that everybody should or can have firearms.

      I had to get permission from our County Court Judge before I could legally touch a handgun, never mind own or carry one. He could have said no for almost any reason that he wanted. The law says I can't have a license unless I have "proper cause" but does not define what proper cause is.

      It is literally a felony to pick up a handgun in New York State without a license. If you so much as touch a pistol without a license you go directly to jail without passing go or collecting $200. That's been the "current understanding" in New York State since 1911, so you'll forgive me if I can't take people like the GP seriously.

      And I could be wrong, but item 8, as I understand it, is a State issue, not Federal.

      You are wrong.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    43. Re: Just Askin' by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Ironically, this statement makes you a bigot. :P

    44. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A MANPAD is, prima facie, bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Yet it is not legal.
      Even in 2001 they existed and were not legal.

    45. Re:Just Askin' by andydread · · Score: 1

      First of i'm not a conservative however I do believe that if the 2nd ammendemnt should be treated the same as the 1st. You can't say the 2nd ammendment is null and void but still want the privacy afforded to you by the first ammendment. That is outright hipocrisy.

    46. Re:Just Askin' by x0ra · · Score: 1

      It's all about regulation. NN (and all the Title II mumbo jumbo) is bad, because it allows the government intervention in private business. The second amendment is good because it *prevents* the government from imposing new regulations.

    47. Re:Just Askin' by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Private firearm manufacture is illegal wrt. NFA restricted weapon, eg. you cannot saw off a shotgun below 16", it would make it as SBS. The same, you cannot build a full-auto AR in your basement, even if all the blueprints are available online.

    48. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, statist, weak, sycophant; it is a completely suitable analogy.

    49. Re:Just Askin' by mcl630 · · Score: 1

      You only answered half of the previous poster's question.

      Conservatives say the Communications Act of 1934 can't work for regulating the Internet simply because its an "old law" that predates the Internet.
      Those same conservatives say the 2nd amendment is perfect, simply because its old, and that it applies to any weapon invented since and any weapon we might invent in the future.

      You addressed the 2nd amendment part, but don't explain the former. How is it that the 2nd amendment perfect only because its "old", and at the same time the 1934 act is flawed only because its old (according to you)?

    50. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so because the GP supports the 2nd Amendment, he also is against Title II?

      As far as I can see, it was some random guy that introduced the Title II comment into the discussion.

    51. Re:Just Askin' by trout007 · · Score: 1

      In reality there wasn't supposed to be a standing army at all. In the powers of congress they congress is given the power to:

      To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

      To provide and maintain a navy;

      So an army was only supposed to be raised when needed. Which is how it was for over 100 years.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    52. Re: Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can make a SBS, as long as you pay the 200 'tax' for the background check. Full-auto weapons are a different story, one which we won't get a definitive answer on until some rich eccentric bastard attempts to tilt windmills or the illegally passed 1986 FOPA amendment is nullified.

    53. Re:Just Askin' by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      the current intepretation is a product of late 20th century judicial activism in an era of increasing crime and bernie goetz/ dirty harry style anger. it has to do with handguns, individual action, and urban environments

      but the second amendment is about long guns, community action, and rural hinterland

      as crime declined and continues to decline (due to the waning of the crack epidemic and better policing like COMPSTAT, not handgun ownership) we are at a crossroads where a loud minority insists hothead douchebags walking around half cocked with guns in civil society is good. it's fucking stupid, it's a recipe for unnecessary death, and doesn't impact crime at all

      our social and economic peers control hand guns far better, and are not cesspools of rape, murder, and robbery. in fact, they are a mostly equivalent on crime measures as us, but a lot lower than us on measure of murder. because we're the morons with all the extra pointless easy guns

      so we shall return to the original intent of the founding fathers: long guns, community action, and rural hinterland (no one wants to take away your shot gun, farmer/ hunter, and you deserve it), and do away with this late 20th century judicial activism about handguns, individual action, and urban environments

      you get trained, tested, THEN you get a gun. and we will cut down on the USA's absolutely insane sky high homicide rate compared to our social and economic peers

      do you see a problem here that needs correcting? the majority of americans do:

      http://www.conferenceboard.ca/...

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    54. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's pretty clear that you're a brainwashed mewling little moonbat liberal.

    55. Re:Just Askin' by rea1l1 · · Score: 1

      The problem has always been that criminals will still have access to guns because the banning of desirables actually increases access via the resulting highly profitable black markets.

      The only ones with such weapons will be criminals and the government, leaving the vast mass of law-abiding people defenseless.

    56. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assault rifles are automatic weaponry, and are regulated under laws from the 1930s and the 1980s (and likely other decades). Assault weapons are an imaginary category dreamed up by politicians that weapons from the 18th century can easily fall under, or not, as the definitions are political and oscillate depending on whatever looks scary.

      What turns a firearm into an assault weapon? Pretty much just replace the wood with plastic and paint it black. Seriously.

    57. Re:Just Askin' by dbIII · · Score: 0

      Those same conservatives say the 2nd amendment is perfect, simply because its old, and that it applies to any weapon invented since and any weapon we might invent in the future.

      But they also say that "militia" means anyone of an age that can sign up for military service and that "well regulated" can be ignored because the language has changed (yes - they seriously do argue that shit). So don't expect anything logical or indeed conservative - instead it's self serving radical bullshit that they think can fool people into letting them play with guns as a penis substitute instead of a tool.
      They think the trick is working because people in politics are swallowing it so they will get money and votes, but they forget that many in politics will pretend to believe anything if they can get an advantage out of it. This cynical second amendment shit is not fooling anyone - it's the foundations of the national guard and not the right for someone to have military weapons when they are too much of a coward to sign up to fight for the country.

    58. Re:Just Askin' by dbIII · · Score: 1

      These conditions were wholly made-up by the government

      That's how society runs. Citizens are supposed to take part in it but so few even bother to vote even if they don't like the conditions, thus special interest groups push conditions that are not so good for society.
      The NRA is just a sporting club that does very badly with safety standards in it's sport FFS - yet they have so much political power because others don't bother to participate.

    59. Re:Just Askin' by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Entirely irrelevant because anyone who puts together a large counter-revolutionary force to overthrow the United States and put a King back in charge or whatever they want to do is going to end up in GITMO before they have got very far.
      There's BEEN a revolution. We won.

    60. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the 1930's, they knew a few things about monopolies. Today, its anti-business to interfere with the power that corporations have over citizens, and also over government itself. So yes, 1930's laws are better at dealing with this. Just like the 18th century knew a bit more about the requirements for preserving freedom (as opposed to today, where we just give it lip service and do the opposite).

    61. Re:Just Askin' by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      the common militia, which consisted of all the people, and a "Well Regulated Militia", which was the standing army.

      False. You're using semantics to cloud the obvious.

      The Militia Act of 1792 clearly indicates the militia is composed of citizens who own a gun and not a standing army. Here is the most telling part of the act:

      Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war:

      Pretty darn clear the difference between militia and standing army. In fact, if you read the entire act, the word militia is used and defined throughout as well as the regulations regarding the militia, not a separate standing army.

      The Founding Fathers wanted citizens to own firearms while at the same time letting the citizens know they could be called up at any time to suppress insurrection or invasion. The only way to do this was to regulate them, set down specific requirements for what they must bring and how they were to be trained. The act lays this out in plain, clear language.

      To use Jefferson's own words:

      that the militia would "be our best reliance in peace and for the first months of war until the Regulars may relieve them". Link to source

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    62. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Aussie I read "current understanding" to mean "popular understanding", the US really does portray a "Dirty Harry" persona wrt guns. At the end of the day, laws that can't be enforced because of the prevailing culture are just as useless as rights that can't be exercised because they may cause offense.

    63. Re:Just Askin' by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Two different concepts and I'm completely sorry you cannot see that fact. I'll try to explain it to you but because of how obvious it already is and you missing it, I'm not sure I will be successful.

      Ok, for starters, the second amendment is a bar on the government to act in certain ways. If you think times have changed to the point the second amendment is no longer needed or needs adjusted, then gather support and amend it.

      The 1930's act does not directly cover the internet as a title II service because the 1930's act has another category that the FCC was perfectly fine placing it in called an "information service". This information service was defined as

      I
      NFORMATION SERVICE. --The term ''information service'' means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.

      In 1970, the FCC attempted to classify the early internet or computer or data processing as an information service with it's computer I inquiry. This attempted to define a bright line to differentiate between communications services/processing as the phone lines would be and computer data processing (think internet or BBS) which is an information service. It left some ambiguity because it created a dual category or hybrid category that were both information services and communication services. Clearly this was not working as more phone systems started automating their networks and more grey area hybrid categories started popping up. So around 1976, the FCC started it's second computer inquiry or "computers II".

      In computers II or computers two, the FCC further distinguished between data processing and communications processing and introduced a term called enhanced services. This also distinguished between computer processing to maintain a communications network as remaining regulated under the communications services portions of the law. This enhanced service is defined by Federal Standard 1037C as

      Enhanced service is service offered over commercial carrier transmission facilities used in interstate communications, that employs computer processing applications that act on the format, content, code, protocol, or similar aspects of the subscriber's transmitted information; provides the subscriber with additional, different, or restructured information; or involves subscriber interaction with stored information.

      which the internet or any reasonable interpretation would group it into. It's design was to clear up the gray areas and insert data processing into either it's information service or communications service category respectfully.

      Well, fast forward to 1996 with the telecommunications law. It added under title II of the telecommunications act, a requirement that upon subscription of internet services that providers must inform customers of commercially available content filtering or blocking software commonly known as parental controls and absolved liability of any software or company on the behalf of the customer filtering or screening content for offensive material. It also put the definitions of enhanced services into law as information services copying almost directly from the computers II inquiry findings.

      Now the FCC has always maintained that the law classified the internet and versions that led up to the internet as an information service and not a title II regulation. Even for the short time after the Portland cable case which the courts ruled the FCC had to regulate it under title II the FCC held it was not and contributed to the overturning of such order on appeals which was validated by the supreme court.

      So in short, here we have a law from 1936 that has historically been interpr

    64. Re:Just Askin' by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You are confused. The "can't work for regulating the Internet simply because its an "old law" that predates the Internet" is incorrect. The old law already has provisions for the internet and does not allow the regulation of it without legislative action. The FCC since 1970 or so has been dealing with it and regulating it per the "old law" perfectly fine. This change to a title II regulation is outside the scope of the law and needs a law to be passed to make it kosher.

      Also, if you need a distinction between the two, the second amendment bars the government from action. The old law is being use (although illegally) to take action that isn't allowed by the law. In both situations, the answer is to amend- not ignore.

    65. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If a law doesn't make sense anymore, it's time to amend or repeal it."

      Ok, let's see - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

      Yup, still makes sense - it's a keeper!

    66. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the US really does portray a "Dirty Harry" persona wrt guns."

      Nope, sorry - what you meant to say is HOLLYWOOD really does portray a "Dirty Harry" persona wrt guns.

    67. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you get trained, tested, THEN you get a gun. and we will cut down on the USA's absolutely insane sky high homicide rate compared to our social and economic peers"

      Not going to bother with the rest of your inane post, don't have the time. Just a comment on this little quote. I have a MUCH BETTER solution than your idea. Here's my solution - you commit a felony with a gun, you go to prison FOR EVER. No possibility of parole, EVER. And I mean real felonies, like robbery, rape, murder, not those silly fabricated felonies like "oh, you have a gun in your car, and you parked on the Post Office side of the parking lot -ohh, you FELON!". You put away the real criminals for ever, and in a year or two your gun problem is solved, and honest citizens can still be armed and protect themselves from the remaining criminal who want to be stupid enough to bring a knife to a gun fight.

    68. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gun nuts are people who fantasize so much about shooting someone in self defense that they go out and buy weapons, then natter on about how they are going to shoot the big bad criminal that surely MUST be knocking on their door pretty soon, then fantasize more about shooting people, then buy more guns ... Jeebus. Just get your jollies playing Call of Duty already. If gun nuts were serious about preventing harm to them and theirs they would be nattering on about quitting smoking, losing 20 lbs and getting their blood sugar/lipids under control, and their gear fetishes would revolve around the NHTSA ratings of their cars.

      Buy a gun because it's fucking fun to shoot at the range or to go hunting, not because of delusions of grandeur/civil war.

    69. Re:Just Askin' by nyet · · Score: 1

      The definition of "well regulated" has not changed, and Heller/McDonald specifically dismantle the infantile "militia" argument:

      [T]he activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

      Furthermore, under US v. Miller, the 2nd Amendment covers arms "commonly used for self defense", which certainly does not exclude "military" weapons, especially since the 2A specifically protected state of the art (at the time) firearms equipped by infantry.

      There is basically nothing about your post which is even remotely factual - just typical partisan whining.

    70. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares.. an outdated amendment can be changed. The Second Amendment is stupid.

    71. Re:Just Askin' by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That just makes my point that only selective reading is applied since "well regulated" is deemed irrelevant and now not even "militia" is considered to matter.
      It's seen as a right with zero responsibility despite the obvious consequences we see at regular intervals.

    72. Re:Just Askin' by nyet · · Score: 1

      "Well regulated", relevant or not, means well equipped and trained. Always has. Not sure what you think it means, you haven't said.

      As far as "consequences" go, the states with the strongest laws have the highest incidence of violent crime.

      You sure you want to trot out the fallacy that prohibition is effective? Didn't work out very well for alcohol, utterly failed for MJ.

    73. Re:Just Askin' by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The Second also says that the militia are all men. Congratulations, you just revoked a right from 50% of the population. Well done.

      You see how this goes? You start fucking with shit and doing things that seem obvious to you, then boom come the unexpected (to you) consequences. STOP FUCKING WITH SHIT.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    74. Re: Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite theoretical angle of attack on 922(o) is to find a friendly small town PD in a nice red state and have *them* transfer the newly manufactured machinegun to you. Go ahead and read (o)(2)(A) and tell me the legal theory by which ATF can refuse to issue the Form 4 stamp for that transfer.

    75. Re: Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a coward is not the only reason for not serving in the US military. Nice propoganda, though.

    76. Re:Just Askin' by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Always has. Not sure what you think it means, you haven't said.

      There was another political gun enthusiast on this site a few weeks back who went on at great length on a very long thread about how it didn't mean "well equipped and trained" as we both agree it does. I was just referring to that but I've forgotten what handle he goes by.
      I was putting up an example of an idiot railing about the amendment instead of a reasoned argument - non-idiots shouldn't take it personally.
      Let's not go near prohibition since that's an extreme and a guns are a wide range of tools that some people need to use and others want to use for sport and should be able to. Regulation is a very different story to prohibition, and since idiots like the NRA are off with the pixies demanding everyone should be able to have their own AK47 and a nanny state should put security guards in schools to protect kids from those AK47s then self regulation is not working - it's needs to be discussed at a different level than "I want!". We certainly need to get away from the cretinous "but we need to a gun so we can overthrow the government" shit.

    77. Re:Just Askin' by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You only answered half of the previous poster's question.

      Bollocks.

      Conservatives say the Communications Act of 1934 can't work for regulating the Internet simply because its an "old law" that predates the Internet.

      Those same conservatives say the 2nd amendment is perfect, simply because its old, and that it applies to any weapon invented since and any weapon we might invent in the future.

      I did not attempt to answer a "conservatives vs whoever" question. I replied to one demonstrably false thing GP said there is a difference.

      If someone says "I believe in unicorns AND mermaids", I am justified in debunking the unicorn claim even if I don't know or care about mermaids.

    78. Re: Just Askin' by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Saying you are "part of a militia" and not serving is the cowardly part. It's about having something without the responsibility that comes with it.

    79. Re:Just Askin' by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      In reality there wasn't supposed to be a standing army at all. In the powers of congress they congress is given the power to:

      You are contradicting yourself.

      To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

      That's a standing army. It only says that FUNDS can't be appropriated for more than 2 years at a time. That just means they have to vote on it every 2 years.

      If they meant you couldn't have an ARMY for more than 2 years, they would have said that instead. They were hardly stupid.

    80. Re:Just Askin' by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Regulation is a very different story to prohibition, and since idiots like the NRA are off with the pixies demanding everyone should be able to have their own AK47 and a nanny state should put security guards in schools to protect kids from those AK47s then self regulation is not working - it's needs to be discussed at a different level than "I want!".

      First you state (and I agree) that regulation is very different from prohibition, but then you imply that people shouldn't be allowed to have their own AK47 (a prohibition). The government should not be allowed to decide what tools for defense one can use. Arguments over which gun is a better tool garner as much attention as arguments over which caliber is best. Those are matters of opinion and as per Justice Jackson in WV State Board of Education v Barnette (1943) "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

      We certainly need to get away from the cretinous "but we need to a gun so we can overthrow the government" shit.

      You're mischaracterizing the argument here, though I can't tell if it's intentionally or not. The argument about governmental overthrow is simple: the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that if the government that our founding fathers were creating ever became as tyrannical as the government they were fighting to overthrow, that the patriots of the time would have the tools available to do exactly what they were in the process of doing. As citizens of the nation they created with their actions, we have both a right to be prepared for that possible eventuality and a civic responsibility to be prepared for it. Is it that preparation which itself can help stave off tyranny for a government that understands the fact that it truly does govern by the consent of the people (not just on paper, but in reality). In other words, a government that knows it can be replaced at any time will not (at least outwardly) attempt to enact oppressive measures against its own people.

      This is merely an extension of the ancient concept si vis pacem, para bellum.

      All other arguments about hunting, sporting, and self defense against criminals are perfectly valid and should not be dismissed. The right to self defense is a basic human right. To deny common, non-violent people the right to have and carry tools for self defense is to effectively deny the right of self defense itself. I'm in favor of respecting human rights as much as I am in favor of respecting constitutional rights. I should hope everyone would be.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    81. Re:Just Askin' by pepty · · Score: 1

      You are right, Conservatives are very consistent about government control: So long as it feels like "Us" controlling "Them", they are for it. Control over abortions, control over marriage, control over brown people ...

    82. Re: Just Askin' by pepty · · Score: 1

      The idea is to point out how easy it is to make a gun. If it is so easy that anyone can do it in their own home, what's the point of the draconian gun control restrictions that progressives want?

      It's even easier to make car bombs or ricin in your own home: no special milling equipment required. Laws should attempt to balance safety against liberty, not newsworthiness against DIYability.

    83. Re:Just Askin' by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      criminal masterminds will always get guns. and use them wisely

      casual hotheads simply won't get guns. because they aren't trying hard in life. they'll pick up baseball bats and knives for their idiotic reasons and instead. which is a wonderful impovement, because those are hugely less lethal than a gun

      proof:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      casual hotheads are the assholes that are causing all the senseless death. and for some moronic reason, some americans think it is important that guns be very easy to get for irresponsible hotheads. why?

      now mod me down for stating the plain truth

      look at all of our social and economic peers. they do not suffer from all the fearmongering bullshit you spout if guns are controlled as the founders intended, as stated in the second amendment

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    84. Re:Just Askin' by redlemming · · Score: 1

      I think it's pretty clear that the intent behind the second amendment was the perceived need to have a well regulated militia. In other words, if you want to carry a guns, sign up to join the national guard.

      This myth has been thoroughly debunked. There are numerous quotes from the key figures alive at the time that completely discredit this position. I'll let you do the research, since doing so will help you fill some gaps in your historical education.

      Like it or not, individual ownership of firearms was accepted as an individual right at the time (and long after), and was associated with political freedom. This didn't mean weapons couldn't be taken from criminals, within reason.

      There is also a long history behind this position, tracing back through British history. It's not an accident that most people in the Robin Hood stories are carrying weapons, and know how to use them. The audiences that heard these stories accepted this as normal and appropriate. In Britain, the traditions were different than they were in many other places (where only the nobility could carry arms). The British often saw themselves as superior to others in part because of this. Certainly, they were much freer than those in many parts of the world (particularly places where serfdom survived until the 19th century). These British traditions evolved into a belief or philosophy that ownership of arms was an integral part of being a free person, which would eventually be expressed by the US descendants of Britain in their Bill of Rights.

      In US Colonial times, some jurisdictions required (by law) every household to not just have arms, but also to carry them to public meetings (including church services), to make sure that community was armed in the event of a surprise Indian attack.

      For that matter, privately owned ships were routinely armed. In some cases, they were well enough armed to fight off warships.

      If you wish to oppose the right to bear arms, do so for other reasons than a misunderstanding of the text and the history.

    85. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      service and that "well regulated" can be ignored because the language has changed (yes - they seriously do argue that shit).

      No, its not that "well regulated" can be ignored, it is that it should be read as it was written, not as how people want it to mean. Well Regulated, at the time of writing means something very simple and has NOTHING to do with government regulations. It simply means having a gun in working order.

    86. Re: Just Askin' by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Nope. Home to one of the most diverse cities in the world. You can probably make the same racism case in your neck of the woods.

      I lived in Texas for years, so your denial is meaningless. And laughable.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    87. Re:Just Askin' by romons · · Score: 1

      the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun

      Unless you:

      1. Are a convicted felon.

      2. Are a convicted domestic abuser.

      3. Are currently charged with any crime punishable by a year or more in prison.

      4. Are an unlawful user of any controlled substance.

      5. Are addicted to any controlled substance, even one lawfully proscribed.

      6. Have been dishonorably discharged from the United States military.

      7. Have renounced your American citizenship.

      8. Are the subject of an order of protection.

      9. Are a fugitive from justice.

      10. Are in the United States illegally.

      Those are just the people proscribed from ownership under Federal law. Many States have tougher laws and add even more people to the list. Some (my home state, New York) go further and treat gun rights as a privilege, requiring a license, which is doled out at the whim of local bureaucrats who can deny you for virtually any reason they wish.

      Point being, nowhere in the United States does the "current understanding" of gun rights say anyone should have firearms. Do you actually know what the existing body of Federal, State, and Local law has to say on this subject or are you just repeating talking points you read somewhere?

      Also, if you are mentally ill, you are prohibited from owning a firearm. However, that is seldom enforced, because, almost by definition, if you WANT a gun, you are fucking crazy.

      --
      Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
    88. Re:Just Askin' by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      But in the arena of gun laws, applying a law from the late 18th century to modern assault rifles and the like is considered to be completely reasonable

      Do you have the same objection to the First Amendment? After all, it's from a time period where newspapers were pretty much the only form of mass media, and even that was fairly new.

    89. Re:Just Askin' by Agripa · · Score: 1

      What turns a firearm into an assault weapon?

      That thing which goes up.

    90. Re:Just Askin' by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Laws which cannot be universally enforced may be selectively enforced replacing the rule of law with the rule of men so they are still useful.

    91. Re:Just Askin' by Agripa · · Score: 1

      our social and economic peers control hand guns far better, and are not cesspools of rape, murder, and robbery.

      you get trained, tested, THEN you get a gun. and we will cut down on the USA's absolutely insane sky high homicide rate compared to our social and economic peers

      And then you are left to explain why homicides in the US are proportionally high for all weapons including knives, fists, and rocks. Or are you suggesting that stronger gun control laws will reduce crimes involving these weapons as well?

    92. Re:Just Askin' by Agripa · · Score: 1

      No worries. We will get there soon enough by slices:

      "The Massachusetts court said the Second Amendment protections did not apply to stun guns because, among other reasons, they were “thoroughly modern” inventions that were not in common use at the time the Second Amendment was enacted in 1789."

      http://www.bostonglobe.com/met...

    93. Re:Just Askin' by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Not at all. If the idea was to have a standing army it would have been written just like the Navy.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    94. Re:Just Askin' by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant. The point was in response to the GP's ridiculous assertion about the "current understanding" of gun rights in the United States. It is not and never has been an "understanding" in the United States that everybody should or can have firearms.

      Utterly ridiculous. Every place in the Constitution that says "the people" meant just that: every able-bodied person. Are you trying to say that the 2nd Amendment is the SOLE exception? The Supreme Court disagrees with you. In fact they ruled as much just three or so years ago.

    95. Re:Just Askin' by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      but the second amendment is about long guns, community action, and rural hinterland

      Nice theory, but it's hilariously wrong. The historical record is very clear what it was about: being able to protect yourself from the standing army of your own government.

      The Supreme Court has ruled, at different times, that (A) the Second Amendment specifically applies to military-style arms (because it's purpose is for protection from military-style arms), and (B) that it is an individual right.

    96. Re:Just Askin' by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      now mod me down for stating the plain truth

      I'm not about to mod you down, but you certainly aren't telling the plain truth. At least as it exists in the United States.

      In the U.S. it is very far from "casual hotheads" causing firearms crime. On the contrary, the vast majority of firearms crime in the U.S. are by gangs and drug dealers (who are often the same people) shooting each other. When you remove those figures, firearms crime here is very much comparable to other first-world countries. Possibly even less.

      Here's a plain truth for you: in the UK, after the gun ban of 1998, firearms crime doubled and remained elevated for at least 8 years. It did decline after that, but it declined at a rate comparable to the U.S., which kept its guns.

      Those are figures from Scotland Yard.

    97. Re:Just Askin' by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Pardon me. That was probably incorrect. The figures may not have been from Scotland Yard. They were published by the Government of England, but I don't recall what ministry or branch of the government it was, and I'm not going to bother to dig up the papers tonight.

    98. Re:Just Askin' by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Don't include me in your "we".

      The point wasn't about "revolution" anyway. The second amendment was about PREVENTING a military takeover, not creating one.

    99. Re:Just Askin' by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      False. You're using semantics to cloud the obvious.

      No. I was clearing up the semantics to reveal the actual historical reasoning. Did you read what I wrote carefully? It doesn't seem so.

      The general militia was ALL the people. However, the founders foresaw that at times it might be necessary to have a "well-regulated" militia -- a real army -- for defense.

      The general militia -- The People -- were not "well regulated". Get a history book. Look it up.

      Most of what you state is true, but it is you who are confused.

      The Militia Act of 1792 clearly indicates the militia is composed of citizens who own a gun and not a standing army. Here is the most telling part of the act:

      Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war:

      Correct. Militia who are EMPLOYED in the Army were to receive pay just like all the rest of the "Standing Army"... the well regulated militia. This does not contradict me at all.

      Further, you contradict yourself here:

      To use Jefferson's own words:

      that the militia would "be our best reliance in peace and for the first months of war until the Regulars may relieve them

      And who were "the Regulars"? What did Regulars mean? The professional, WELL REGULATED militia. The regular -- regulated -- army.

    100. Re:Just Askin' by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0

      You do of course understand that you can surrender whatever civil rights you want. Leave me out of it.

    101. Re:Just Askin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they wanted the 2A to apply only to militias then why did the wording specifically say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"? Why doesn't it say "the right of militias to keep and bear arms"? Because you're a fucking idiot, that's why.

    102. Re: Just Askin' by RailGunner · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure both Rick Perry and Greg Abbott -- and especially Ted Cruz -- would wipe the floor with any Democrat on Jeopardy.

      Especially the "brilliant" Sheila Jackson Lee.

      I asked Barack Obama about Ms. Lee, he said he learned about her idiocy from the papers. You know, like he learned about Benghazi, Hillary's illegal email accounts, etc.

    103. Re:Just Askin' by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      and seeing as how, when the 2nd amendment was written, there wasn't a hell of a lot of "densely populated regions", and those regions that were populated, densely or otherwise, many had laws that said that when in town, leave your guns at sheriff's office, get them back when you leave Look, I own guns, I used to hunt ( as a personal, don't any more), but I love target shooting Own an Olympic grade air rifle, and my personal motto is: Ten shots, 10 meters, one hole (it's sort of a Zen thing)

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    104. Re:Just Askin' by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      ""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." The People are to be armed, to protect the country (which is The People), AGAINST its own army, if need be. " an awful lot of personal opinion there "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it." H.L. Mencken

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    105. Re:Just Askin' by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      "“Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.” Abraham Lincoln In "The Second Amendment: A History", Michael Waldman quotes that statement from Abraham Lincoln by way of explaining that judges, even Supreme Court justices, are not much different from politicians when it comes to public opinion: It informs, even where it does not direct, their actions and decisions. The Supreme Court only got around to affirming the individual’s right to gun ownership in 2008—by then the court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was more or less in line with public opinion, which itself had changed markedly over time, thanks largely to a two-pronged propaganda blitz by the National Rifle Association and the equally vociferous arguments of conservative legal "scholars". In 1959, a Gallup poll reported that 60 percent of Americans favored banning handguns; by 2012, that figure had dropped to 24 percent. Waldman is not cynically suggesting that the Supreme Court is a slave to public opinion. Rather, he is pointing out what should be obvious but is too often ignored: The court does not operate in a vacuum. Our view of the Second Amendment, he writes, “is set at every stage [of the nation’s history], NOT BY A PRISTINE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT , but by the push-and-pull, the rough-and-tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.” I rest my case

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  5. So what you're saying... by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...is that they're basically taking an issue that most people either didn't really know about or didn't really care about too strongly, and are shoving it into everyone else's faces, so that they now have a reason to take a stance against it?

    Several years ago I remember a protest in an open-carry state about a public library attempting to prohibit open-carry in the library. Things were nice and peaceful and respectful, until some jackass wearing hunting camo and leather two sashes covered in shotgun shells came in carrying a pump-action twelve gauge. Any goodwill that the previous firearms enthusiasts created was utterly destroyed by one jerk that decided to push the limits.

    Guns are a lot of fun to shoot. There are times when guns serve a legitimate use. On the other hand, if guns are introduced into situations where they have no business then it's not exactly a surprise when movements to prohibit them or to confiscate them come to be.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:So what you're saying... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      ...is that they're basically taking an issue that most people either didn't really know about or didn't really care about too strongly, and are shoving it into everyone else's faces, so that they now have a reason to take a stance against it?

      Curse you, Mapplethorpe!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:So what you're saying... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Things were nice and peaceful and respectful, until some jackass wearing hunting camo and leather two sashes covered in shotgun shells came in carrying a pump-action twelve gauge. Any goodwill that the previous firearms enthusiasts created was utterly destroyed by one jerk that decided to push the limits.

      Or it was staged. It's not that hard to find someone to play the jerk and you don't have to tell anyone else you're doing it.

    3. Re:So what you're saying... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Funny

      And the question is who decides what those situations are? The same people who think "the shoulder thing that goes up" is what makes a deadly AKR-47 assault RPG?

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    4. Re:So what you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Common sense and social contracts decide it and gun nuts need to stop pressing the issue. i have nothing against guns of any kind and people owning them but no sane person really believes they NEED an automatic rifle at a library. It's that kind of extremism that leads to problems.

    5. Re:So what you're saying... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930s, were further regulated in the 1980s, and the civilian ownership thereof is exceedingly rare.

      You're thinking of semi-automatic weapons, like the AR-15 which look like their automatic counterparts, but are in fact no deadlier than any semi-automatic firearm. The United States Government has been selling surplus semi-automatic military issue firearms to the general public for decades, so it's a bit late to claim that semi-automatic firearms represent a level of firepower that should be unavailable to civilians.

      I will concede that the provocative asshats who open carry AR-15s into Starbucks are just that, provocative asshats trying to piss people off for no reason. I view them the same way I view gay couples that engage in PDA in inappropriate settings (read: anywhere it would be inappropriate for a heterosexual couple to do the same) solely to piss people off.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:So what you're saying... by Jiro · · Score: 1

      ...is that they're basically taking an issue that most people either didn't really know about or didn't really care about too strongly, and are shoving it into everyone else's faces, so that they now have a reason to take a stance against it?

      I wonder what you think of gay pride parades. Or even gay people kissing in public.

    7. Re:So what you're saying... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Someone has to decide, otherwise you have to legalise RPGs, howitzers etc. There needs to be a limit and the only sensible way to decide is to trade utility against the danger of allowing general ownership. You can try to rebalance things by mandating training or background checks.

      But yeah, just accuse people of being ignorant and fearful, instead of making an argument. Good job on the advocacy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:So what you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't NEED to post to Slashdot. Should your right to do so be infringed or abolished because your blatant ignorance makes people uncomfortable?

    9. Re:So what you're saying... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      ...is that they're basically taking an issue that most people either didn't really know about or didn't really care about too strongly, and are shoving it into everyone else's faces

      Why don't you ask the same question of the Piss Christ guys? I don't see any difference if you think of this as an art project...

      Well there is one difference, this is actually practical and informative.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    10. Re:So what you're saying... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Or even gay people kissing in public.

      Shouldn't be done anywhere it's inappropriate for a heterosexual couple to do the same. I really don't feel like watching anybody go to first base while I'm trying to eat dinner, thank you very much....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:So what you're saying... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      I can buy an RPG and rockets right now. It'll cost an obscene amount of money, $200 to the ATF, and 6 months to over a year of investigation and paperwork processing but it's perfectly legal for me to do.

      Also this isn't some random ad-hom, that was a literal quote from a major political player. People are literally so ignorant that they think "the shoulder thing that goes up" is a deadly part of an "assault weapon" and trying to write absurd legislation that regulates purely cosmetic features or go for a gun grab instead of actually doing something sensible.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    12. Re:So what you're saying... by andydread · · Score: 1

      what a moron. Show me where any person can go into a store in the USA and buy and automatic weapon. You should just shut up now because you have no clue what the hell you are talking about. - smh

    13. Re:So what you're saying... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Or even gay people kissing in public.

      In the city where I live they've got to be prepared to run fast to get away from drunken idiots that will attempt to beat them up. It's weird, older people don't appear to care one way or another but guys that were not even alive when being gay was illegal decide that it's their job to beat up the gays.

    14. Re:So what you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ATF are an evil agents of an occupation force blighting the nation and usurping our liberties

    15. Re:So what you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're embarrassing yourself.
      http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=471786347
      http://www.gunbroker.com/FFL/DealerNetwork.aspx

      http://thegunwriter.blogs.heraldtribune.com/10328/an-nfa-trust-class-iii-without-the-hassle/

    16. Re:So what you're saying... by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      A "false flag" a-hole? What's this world coming to? Aren't there enough genuine a-holes?

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    17. Re:So what you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so...what did the guy do to ruin things other than "looking scary"???

    18. Re:So what you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it was staged. It's not that hard to find someone to play the jerk and you don't have to tell anyone else you're doing it.

      or it was done very intentionally. Right out of the leftist cookbook. Also, claiming to be the other side, then doing something stupid like saying something negative against a group.

      Not ethical, however they don't care about ethics, or society. They don't even care that this could eventually end up in their own horrible death.

    19. Re:So what you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like something a paranoid gun owner would say!

  6. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if only you knew how wrong you were.

  7. "an act of social provocation"? by gilgongo · · Score: 2

    I'm from the UK and I'm having a hard time understanding this. What are these gentlemen trying to do? What is the context around blocks of aluminium being made into guns? What problem does that solve?

    --
    "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    1. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure what they're really trying to accomplish. They're shoving their political opinion in everyone's face. Quite often, however, people like this end up generating a fair amount of animosity towards their cause and bring together opponents trying to stop them who otherwise wouldn't have enough ambition to do so. Their actions end up being counterproductive. I'm not sure why they insist on hurting their own cause but they're hell bent on doing it.

      Many of us who enjoy responsible recreational and sport shooting really wish these idiots would shut up and go away because they bring unwanted attention to the subject and end up making it more difficult for the rest of us.

    2. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by jgtg32a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who knows
       
      The best argument I've heard for what they're doing is "if you are afraid to express your rights do you actually have those rights?"

    3. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It solves the problem of inbred rednecks not having enough problems to fight over and get their rocks off on.

    4. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the idea is to show the futility of attempting this kind of control in the era of 21st century technology. Ultimately, every gun is just a few bits of metal, and with a modern 3D printer or CNC machine, anyone in any first-world country can manufacture one that is not subject to any controls. Given that eventuality, arguments for why gun control is necessary become meaningless: they can be tools for oppression or revenue generation, but they cannot be said to actually increase public safety.

    5. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a protest against the people wanting to ban semi-auto rifles like the AR platform. Barring individual state laws, under federal laws it's perfectly legal for a person to manufacture a firearm for personal use (have to have a license to manufacture firearms for sale). And those firearms are not registered or even serial numbered. So.. go ahead and ban, but the guns will still be out there.
      In my opinion, it's a pretty silly way to protest and I doubt anybody even noticed they were there. Nothing like Connecticut where the state tried to mandate registration of all semi-auto scary rifles, and hundreds of thousands of owners have refused to comply.

    6. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The intention is to demonstrate the folly of creating new regulations concerning the sale and distribution of mechanical items that can be made at home. I will choose not to opine on the validity of that argument.

    7. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      This is America: the place made for "shoving your political opinion in other people's face". People in coastal areas with heavy handed government tend to forget this.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    8. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some folks pitch a fit over the fact that once milled, you now possess the means to fully assemble a working AR-15 without it being registered with the Federal Government. ( The lower receiver is typically what is serialized when manufactured for sale ) ( Though some folks in this country pitch a fit over anything that even looks like a gun, so this isn't really news. )

      The way the law is written, it is fully legal to create your own lower receiver and convert it to a fully functional weapon without registration as long as it is for your own personal use. It can never be given away nor sold.

      In the past, the tech and equipment to build such a thing was extremely expensive and complex enough to keep this situation from becoming a reality for the average person. What this guy has done is basically built a box that will mill and spit out a fully functional receiver for you at low cost and zero knowledge of how it's done. In effect, giving everyone the ability to create a non-serialized AR-15. Not all that big a deal unless you're the media who sensationalizes everything.

      The tech itself is exciting when you broaden your thinking a bit. Drop in a block of ( insert material here ), download the instructions and make whatever the instructions are designed to make. It certainly isn't limited to just making guns.

    9. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      Demonstrating how easy it is to manufacture guns with modern equipment shows the futility of trying to stop it with simple restrictions, such as the silly shipping restriction. As a related example, some people in the US think that a useful answer to gun violence is stronger rules on who can purchase guns and how they are registered/tracked. That's just ridiculous when any yahoo can whip out an unregistered gun this fast. (Our yahoos are similar to your chavs, but with even worse outfits)

      The US is close to having a gun for every single citizen. It will take more than any of these "think of the children" laws to make that go away. And media hysteria here is actually leading to more gun sales. We had a spike in talk of banning "assault weapons" again a few years back, whatever that means. The only result of that was a giant increase in AR-15 sales.

    10. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by bkmoore · · Score: 1

      I'm from the UK and I'm having a hard time understanding this. What are these gentlemen trying to do? What is the context around blocks of aluminium being made into guns? What problem does that solve?

      It solves the problem that any untrained knucklehead can now mill a gun without having to bother to take the time to master the craft. It makes a political statement of sorts because a lot of Americans think there's a hidden secret government agenda to disarm society and implement a pseudo-socialist police state under UN control on American soil. Promoting the idea of a such a secret agenda is good business for the gun industry, the NRA, etc.

    11. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by khallow · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the complaint is really about arcane regulations on what firearms can be shipped by mail. Here, the specialized CNC mill makes what is called a "lower receiver" for the AR 15, a common rifle used by the US armed forces. The lower receiver houses both the trigger mechanism and the magazine so it is a critical part of the gun, required in order to operate the weapon.

      I believe what they really want is to ship firearms via mail without interference from the feds.

    12. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      It can be given away, and it can be sold. You just can't intend to do that when you make it.

      Or, more accurately, you can't do things that would make a reasonable person think that you intended to give it away or sell it when you made it.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    13. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you just want to hide in your duck blind hoping the feds don't notice you and your 12 gauge.

    14. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why America is not a British asset.

    15. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      That would be relevant to me if I wasn't living over 1000 miles from any coast.

    16. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      The way the law is written, it is fully legal to create your own lower receiver and convert it to a fully functional weapon without registration as long as it is for your own personal use. It can never be given away nor sold.

      Actually, it can. Beware of state rules, it has to have a maker's mark and serial #, and you definitely can't be 'in the business' without a FFL, But if you make a firearm, the decide to sell it(and it's the only one you sell) in a used condition 4 years later, having fed 1k rounds through it, then you're good to go. Selling a non-used individually manufactured firearm is an indication that you 'might' be in the business, so don't do that. Try to not make a profit on your hobby. Definitely don't make a business so you can deduct your tools & supplies.

      But I still recommend on reading up on the rules first.

      You've been able to get '80%' finished receivers for decades that didn't need much more than a drill press to finish. This does lower the bar, but not by much.

      If I got something like this, I'd

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    17. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure they do have the right they think they have... The constitution mentions baring arms as part of an organised militia, but that doesn't seem to be what they are trying to do.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2014 saw the the highest handgun sales in California ever - with over half a million new handguns sold. The reason? A ban that will start in 2015 on a method used to circumvent a "safe handgun roster" which limits which all handgun sales. Further, because of another restriction, no new non-revolvers will ever be added to the list of permitted guns to be sold because they cannot reliably and manufacturers will not add the fairytale microstamping technology the law requires.

      Many people I know bought one handgun per month all of 2014. Why? Because California limits you to purchasing one new handgun ever 30 days.

      Gun controls don't stop criminals who are already forbidden from possessing them, and the gun right-restricting laws don't stop legitimate citizens from owning them either. Just like the Internet sees censorship as a malfunction and will route around it, so will gun enthusiasts find a way around gun laws while fighting them in the courts.

      Every single law I mentioned are all tied up in the courts, plus many others. Including ridiculous ones which won't let gun stores show a picture of a handgun in the window.

    19. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the above AC is an absolute waste of space and his post inane beyond all reason, I'll take this opportunity to congratulate Slashdot for fucking up their site today.

      Thank you Slashdot webmasters, you fucking morons.

    20. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, as was pointed out in the video, the only way this CNC mill is 'specialized' is that it is *small*. IF someone were to program it, it could take a raw aluminum block and mill it into *anything* that will fit inside the workspace. That 'anything' could be an AR-15 receiver, a pistol frame, a replacement part for a car, or even a toy. Literally *anything* that can be milled out of something that will fit into the workspace can be created with this CNC mill.

    21. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      I think you're missing the point.

      The point is that in the very near future, guns will be incredibly easy to manufacture. It does not matter if you ban sales. If someone really wants a gun, they will be able to machine their own, and not too terribly long after that, simply feed a series of instructions into a machine that will create the gun without any required skills on part of the person pushing the button.

      The point is that you can't solve crime and gun crime with restrictions in a future where it's easy to get a gun whenever you want one and it's even harder for the government to clamp down on the manufacture and distribution. That will not stop criminals or crazy people who really want to harm others. The point is that you need a good social safety net that can prevent people from turning to crime and provide medical help to people who might express violent tendencies so that they don't go on any kind of rampage.

      The funny (tragic) part is that the kind of people who tend to be strongly pro-gun, also tend to be strong against social programs that could prevent a great deal of the violence typically associated with guns.

    22. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2

      The constitution charges the government with protecting the people's rights to keep and bear arms after noting that a free people need to be well practiced with their guns.

      The Supreme Court has been upholding the plain language reading all up and down the country lately, much to the annoyance of those that wish it said something else.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    23. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      The funny (tragic) part is that the kind of people who tend to be strongly pro-gun, also tend to be strong against social programs that could prevent a great deal of the violence typically associated with guns.

      Ain't that the truth...

    24. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your interpretation of some wording really doesn't matter. People have interpreted it in different ways and luckily we have a method for resolving such disputes about what a statement in the consitution does and doesn't mean. That method is called the Supreme Court. Conveniantly they've already resolved that particular one, and they disagree with your interpretation.

      http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/07-290.htm

      Which means your interpretation is wrong*. Just like the "the income tax is illegal" crowd's interpretation of some documents is wrong.

      * Wrong by definition, it doesn't matter if you have a time machine and went and asked the authors - the interpretation of the Supreme Court is right until the Supreme Court contradicts it.

      On another note, why is this anonymous? I have to enter a stupid captcha even though I'm clearly logged in. Oh well...

    25. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      The constitution mentions baring arms as part of an organised militia, but that doesn't seem to be what they are trying to do.

      No, the Constitution does not. It mentions the militia as the REASON that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and that's all.

      Note that even if it did, the Militia Act (which is still in force), REQUIRES every able-bodied man to own a firearm suitable for militia use. Which would be a selective-fire M4/M16 equivalent these days (you want common ammo and magazines, so my mini-14 (5.56 also, but not magazine-compatible with the M16) wouldn't cut the mustard.

      So, if you want to translate "shall not be infringed" to apply only to the militia, tell me, do YOU own the firearm you are required to own as part of the militia (which you are, by definition)?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    26. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Roblimo · · Score: 2

      And I just came back from riding my recumbent trike around the neighborhood. During my ride 3 motorists cut me off. This is not an uncommon occurrence in Florida. A man walking was put into the hospital around the corner from us last week by a hit and run driver -- while in a crosswalk.

      Since traffic laws don't stop these morons, does this mean we should not have traffic laws?

    27. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by x0ra · · Score: 1

      They want to be able to legally open-carry, something that you, brits, can't possibly understand, as you are subjects, not free citizen...

    28. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by pgillan · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what they're really trying to accomplish. They're shoving their political opinion in everyone's face. Quite often, however, people like this end up generating a fair amount of animosity towards their cause and bring together opponents trying to stop them who otherwise wouldn't have enough ambition to do so. Their actions end up being counterproductive. I'm not sure why they insist on hurting their own cause but they're hell bent on doing it.

      Many of us who enjoy responsible recreational and sport shooting really wish these idiots would shut up and go away because they bring unwanted attention to the subject and end up making it more difficult for the rest of us.

      I think I'm finally starting to get a handle on this mindset. By "pushing" their agenda, they want to force the other side to push back. Presumably, then, they can say to all the other like-minded enthusiasts "Look, we were right, they are trying to take our guns!" In other words, they're launching a war because they think they have the numbers to win, if only everyone on their side would 'wake up.'

    29. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. But it would be cool if some guy walked up to them and shot them in the head.

    30. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if you want to translate "shall not be infringed" to apply only to the militia, tell me, do YOU own the firearm you are required to own as part of the militia (which you are, by definition)?

      He's a Brit with a fetish for the Japanese, so no he doesn't own a gun. He's appropriately British and scared shitless of guns.

    31. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by BetterSense · · Score: 1

      Selling and possessing chunks of aluminum (aluminium) is legal.

      Selling/possessing chunks of aluminum in a certain shape will land you time in a FPMITA prison.

      They have made an economical mini mill economical that makes the chunk of aluminum. In America, we believe that it's only illegal if you get caught, and so these folks fancy themselves as finding a great hack.

    32. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by component · · Score: 0

      "Since traffic laws don't stop these morons, does this mean we should not have traffic laws?" Of course not. But your point is a good one to raise whenever you come across anyone suggesting the repeal of laws against homicide, assault or reckless endangerment. My guess is you know very well that opposition to gun laws is not the same as opposition to laws that people might use guns while violating.

    33. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called freedom!

    34. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by rho · · Score: 1

      The funny (tragic) part is that the kind of people who tend to be strongly pro-gun, also tend to be strong against social programs that could prevent a great deal of the violence typically associated with guns.

      Ain't that the truth...

      It's not really the truth. If you doubt it, go to the neighborhoods in your city most thoroughly covered by "social programs."

      I wouldn't go there unarmed, but that's up to you.

      All of those violent neighborhoods would benefit from more of the law-abiding residents being armed to the teeth. The old saying goes "an armed society is a polite society," as nothing deters assholery so much as the sudden onset of room temperature-ness.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    35. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      as part of the militia (which you are, by definition)?

      This again? Being eligable for something is not the same as being part of something, as you well know despite pretending not to and playing the stupid card.
      Yes there's people in politics that pretend to be stupid enough to fall for it so they get your vote - but while you are laughing at them for pulling the wool over their eyes they are laughing right back at you and watching the donations come in.

    36. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      So, what are you? A free citizen or a subject?
      What exactly is the difference? What can a britt not do, but you can? What is the britt government doing that the US one does not?

      Yes, we don't understand ... I'm german btw. and not a britt.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    37. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Saxerman · · Score: 1

      Do you feel safe? Are you afraid someone is going to come and threaten your life and liberty? Do you believe that if you were ever threatened, your society is already equipped with stalwart heroes to come and defend you? Do you consider yourself such a stalwart hero?

      The core belief here is that only by empowering society to keep guns in the hands of 'the people' can a society truly be free. So the self manufacture of guns is the best way to ensure that freedom. They tend to hold strong beliefs that those in power are only held in check by an armed populous. Otherwise, they claim, what is to stop those in power from taking away the liberty of anyone who displeases them?

      For some, the philosophy of freedom is that which you can defend. They tend to view the world in a cold and unforgiving light, and believe that self reliance is the only true chance at prosperity. You likely fall closer to the other end of the spectrum where the strength of society is measured by how well people work together. Civics is a rather broad topic, and we all have our own personal political beliefs. Groups like CATI are just trying to stand up for their own beliefs.

      --

      A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.

    38. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      a lot of Americans think there's a hidden secret government agenda to disarm society and implement a pseudo-socialist police state under UN control on American soil.

      Naw. We just want to keep guns around. It keeps the politicians a little more honest than they would be otherwise.

    39. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Not really, they are showing how futile it is to restrict gun ownership in some ideological view that it will restrict access to guns. Anyone who wants a gun illegally can get one eventually or even make one. Taking guns from law abiding citizens will only take the best means of defense away from them and likely not hamper the illegal uses at all.

    40. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It solves the problem of government tyranny for one.

      You clearly don't know your history: Governments -- *ALL GOVERNMENTS** want power, and will progressively accumulate power at the expense of your rights.

      The corollary to that law is that it is ultimately people -- *ALWAYS PEOPLE* that keep governments in check.

      And before you start spouting idiocy: No, democracy and "checks and balances" do not work to keep government's thirst for power at bay. The confiscation of guns is just another example of how governments want the sole ability to commit violence and remove all threats of resistance.

      Now you're probably going to say something stupid like, "Do you really think civilians can repel the US Army?"

      Yes. Again. You don't know your history at all. (Even very recent history).

      Next you're probably going to say something asinine about terrorism. Which is funny, considering that your chances of getting killed by the POLICE in the USA are 50x greater than being killed by a terrorist.

      Never. Never. Never give up your fundamental human right to use force to protect yourself. Millions of dead people would tell you that if they could.

    41. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it would seem that they not only have the right to "print" guns, but they have the right to organize into a militia.

      NOTE: The founders also knew the word "military".

      They didn't use it.

    42. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What problem does that solve?

      Its a question of rights and individual sovereignty.

      What right does a government official have to tell you how you many cut/shape/mill blocks of aluminium ?
      Why should some people be allowed to carry defensive weapons anywhere they go, and others be prevented from doing so? Why should some citizens have more rights and freedoms that others.(police vs citizens)

      The freedom to bear arms is the opinion that individuals are responsible for their own actions, and allowed to defend themselves at their discretion.

      I am aware that in the UK this opinion is not widely held; The UK public does not accept that a person may prepare for self defense in advance, such as by carrying a pistol or other weapon, unless they are a government official.

    43. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... I think it would have to be "yes." Freedom of speech, for instance, when you're in a biker bar. I might be afraid to express my lifelong hatred of those high handlebars. I still have the right, but it might not be smart to express that right everywhere.

    44. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm from the UK and I'm having a hard time understanding this. What are these gentlemen trying to do? What is the context around blocks of aluminium being made into guns? What problem does that solve?

      True with creeping Sharia law in parts of Britain (Britain now accepts Sharia laws of inheritance) you are unlikely to understand the point re freedom they are trying to make, though it is likely to lead to problems.

      Perhaps rather you should contemplate the name of the organization: Come and Take It. That says far more and far more eloquently than all the machining and 3D printing does.

    45. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hit a little close to home there, huh? :)

    46. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to this, you're a part of it by merely being a male citizen of a certain age. It's not something you need to actively join (unless you're female).

      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.

    47. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Under US law the lower receiver ( where the trigger is located ) is the part that has a serial number and has to be registered. The ATF does not consider one that is only 80% finished by the manufacturer to be a firearm. A person can buy one of these and finish it himself and not have to register it. All the other parts can legally be bought to create a working unregistered gun.

      This can be done with a simple jig on a small ordinary drill press without too much effort. The CNC machine will do it with no effort. It is illegal to sell the finished lowers or to charge someone for access to your machine. Polymer blocks can also be used and are even easier to machine.

      This is only for the .223 AR-15. This is a very popular kit gun and can be customized with different accessories.

    48. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The most recent militia act does actually say that every able-bodied male is a member of the (unorganized) militia, not merely eligible to be one:

      "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age "

    49. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      At the time, it was assumed that all males of military age would show up to repel an invasion. Those males were the militia, and the founders thought it wise that they be competent in the use of their weapons.

      So they made clear that the rights to keep arms and to practice with them (bear arms) were explicitly defended. And they used the strongest possible language. Not "Congress shall make no law", but "Shall not be infringed".

      "Shall not be infringed" is not qualified in any way. The second amendment is not a grant of rights to the people. It is a command to all three branches of government to defend a pre-existing right of all free citizens against any and all that might try to infringe upon it.

      English tradition was that the Lords had a right, and a duty, to be armed. In America, every citizen is a Lord. The right to be armed is in the constitution. The duty was in the Militia act from 1792 until 1903.

      See Assize of Arms and English Bill of Rights (1689) for English context. And Militia Act for the US.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    50. Re:"an act of social provocation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a good ole' time, having beer is a right not to be infringed.

      Now, does it really matter why beer is a right to not be infringed? Are you going to tell me you can't sell beer for funerals because it wouldn't be a good ole' time?

  8. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by MobSwatter · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Nice things, or trophy items? In California they won't let you own a .50. Probably for the same reason that the state has higher taxes, more tax payers and is always broke...

  9. Call me impressed when they put the guns to use. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And no, I don't mean going to the firing range and shooting off a few rounds

    I mean doing something with them like giving them to the needy.

  10. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why we can't have nice things.

    Small-scale manufacturing is the source of all coming nice things. Yes, yes, you can use it to make guns - or anything else for that matter! 3D printing will never, by itself, make Star Trek replicators a reality, you need both additive printing and milling to make small-scale, eventually in-every-home, manufacturing a reality. The "Ghost Gunner" is just an ordinary CNC mini-mill. That's kind of the point here: it's not a tool for making guns, it's just a tool. And a damn impressive one.

    Yesterday I had a crown put in. The last crown I had took 2 dentist visits, because the crown had to be manufactured in a lab and mailed, a multi-day process. Yesterday it took under 2 hours. The dentists scanned my tooth, designed the replacement on a computer as I watched, and (with some intermediate steps) it was automatically milled in a back room while I waited. We're living in the future, and, yes, the future will have guns, which even if you think that's a bad thing, just think of all the other stuff we'll be making ourselves, or in the office of the appropriate professional.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  11. The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    an <unnamed black president> is going to take their guns. That won't happen. What most people want is sensible gun laws, better background checks, better safety training (google toddler gun deaths), limits on high capacity magazines, restrictions on assault rifles, better mental health care (because a huge number of gun deaths are suicides so capacity is not an issue there). You don't need to carry a gun everywhere (schools, churches, grocery stores, hospitals, gov't buildings). Conceal carry makes much more sense because then you aren't advertising and making yourself a target. You shouldn't go someplace you wouldn't normally go just because you have a gun. It gives you a false sense of security.

    1. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, it's been commonplace to carry your gun everywhere in some places. The entire planet is not a concrete jungle in the style of Coruscant quite yet.

      Taking your gun to school is only seen as a problem because some people choose to act hysterically when it comes to a particular bit of modern technology. They wallow in their fear and ignorance and take great pride in it. They confuse ignorance with sophistication.

      It's seen as "something that's not done" simply because it's taboo and there's a good part of the population that chooses to be intolerant.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by spauldo · · Score: 2

      Taking your gun to school is only seen as a problem because some people choose to act hysterically when it comes to a particular bit of modern technology.

      Taking your gun to school is only seen as a problem because kids make bad judgement calls and haven't mastered their tempers. Having weapons around them is generally considered a bad idea.

      Seriously. If I had a gun at school, and nobody stopped me, I would have shot four or five people (at least) out of anger, and I've always had a fairly even temper. I wouldn't do that now, but I'm an adult now.

      Keeping adults from carrying guns into schools makes sense, because there's no reason to have one there. The only people that have a reason to bring guns into a school are either A) cops, which are authorized to do so, B) lunatics who want to shoot up the place, or C) instructors who want to use a gun as an example when teaching kinematics or history. A) is a non-issue, B) we don't want and C) is unnecessary since we have powerpoint and projectors.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    3. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Obama is currently trying, through executive action via the ATFE, to ban M855 "green-tip" 5.56x45 (.223) ammo, so they're not dreaming. He already succeeded banning Russian 5.45x39 7n6 under false pretense of its soft body armor-piercing capability, which is utter bs as anybody knowledgeable in the field knows that soft body armor is no good against any rifle round, but I digress...

    4. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Nope, not an executive order at all. Please cite the source (other than the crazy blogs). Yes I'm a gun owner.

    5. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You don't need to carry a gun everywhere (schools, churches, grocery stores, hospitals, gov't buildings)"

      Because criminals never go into those places? I like that first one - we've had mass shootings there BECAUSE there are no guns there! Why, oh why is it that some folks just cannot learn - if you do the same thing, how in the name of sweet Jesus is it that you expect to at some point get a different result? That is what Einstein called a definition of madness. If you keep guns out of schools, insane people will disobey your rule (funny how they have a tendency to do that) and yet again kill a bunch of folks. AGAIN. But if you allow law-abiding citizens to carry, one of them just might pop that weasel dead before he gets too many folks. Otherwise, everyone is just standing in line, waiting to get shot, until the police can arrive. How many more people are you willing to sacrifice with this method that obviously DOES NOT WORK. Please, let us try something different!

    6. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not by executive order but under request by the executive brach via BATF letters. The difference is trivial. Yes I am an arms dealer and licensed FFL.

      ATF PDF here

    7. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1

      Banned already via BATFE fiat. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/k...

    8. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Seriously. If I had a gun at school, and nobody stopped me, I would have shot four or five people (at least) out of anger, and I've always had a fairly even temper. I wouldn't do that now, but I'm an adult now.

      My personal perspective on armed schoolchildren aside, I can only imagine you spent significant time in juvie for your repeated vehicular, IED, knife, sharpened pencil, metal chair leg, brick, and rock assaults on your peers.

      You know, because as you said, not having access to a firearm was the only thing that prevented you from using that kind of weapon to attack people.

      Hopefully you were able to keep your juvenile criminal record sealed, though.

    9. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Nope, not an executive order at all. Please cite the source (other than the crazy blogs). Yes I'm a gun owner.

      Oh good lord. How pedantic are you trying to be?

      Obama promised to implement as much gun control as he could without involving Congress, later, ATF issues new decision reclassifying commonly used sporting ammunition in order to ban it. Would you be happy if the technically incorrect term "executive order" were replaced by "Presidentially-directed regulatory policy alteration"?

      I'll remind you that executive orders aren't in the Constitution, but are derived from an implicit constructive reading of the law. So, be careful how far you push the pedantry.

    10. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Banned already yet oddly available. http://ammoseek.com/rifle-ammo...

    11. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Obama didn't promise jack about gun control.

    12. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Obama didn't promise jack about gun control.

      "After the legislation failed, Mr. Obama vowed to take whatever steps his administration could through executive action. He later issued 25 executive orders intended to tighten the rules for gun ownership."

      NYT

      BTW, the post you replied to said "executive action", not "executive order", you doubly-failed pedant.

    13. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      "Among the orders that Mr. Obama already signed are efforts to include more information about mental illness in the federal background check system, new efforts to research the causes of gun violence, incentives for schools to hire more security officers, and new requirements for federal authorities to trace guns used in crimes." Not exactly gun control.

    14. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by stoploss · · Score: 1

      You are a failed pedant, and now you resort to moving the goalposts?

      Fact: Obama promised to continue doing everything in his power to combat gun violence through executive action.

      Fact: The ATF, a department of the executive branch, is banning commonly used sporting ammo.

      Yet here you sit and shill, trying first to argue that Obama didn't use "executive orders" (which isn't what the poster said anyway), then you claim Obama didn't promise to try to implement gun control via executive action (which is either odiously disingenuous or ignorant of you), and now you are trying to claim that the stuff Obama did as part of his attempt to implement gun control... wasn't an attempt to implement gun control.

      Check.

      You're a shill.

    15. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Well, when my 300 rounds of green tip 5.56 comes in from Alamo Ammo I'll let you know if Obama and the ATF are waiting at my door.

    16. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Hey, shill, remember how all those other firearm restrictions implemented in the US were immediately enforced with no grandfathering? Like when the Clinton AWB was passed and they suddenly required everyone to turn in all the "eeevul black rifles", standard capacity mags, and so on?

      Oh wait, no, they grandfathered everything in circulation because Feinstein (who through stereotypical liberal hypocrisy has a CCW permit for herself), et al, couldn't summon the votes for a retroactive ban.

      Same thing applies here: what's in circulation will be allowed to be sold.

      What, are you 12? I presume you can grok the implication of a forward ban. Hell, you probably bought the ammo with the intention of scalping it once the supply dries up.

    17. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Hardly a shill. But at this point it's still a proposal. A bad one at that. The reality is that judges have the final say on how laws are interpreted so even if the ATF tried to implement their new interpretation of the law it would be settled in court. Let's just stick to the facts. There is currently no ban on green tip 5.56 ammo. Hell, congress might even get off their dead asses and do something: http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb...

    18. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by spauldo · · Score: 1

      No, actually. You need to turn your brain on and reread my comment. The key words there (which you quoted, ironically enough) were "out of anger."

      For that few seconds where I actually would have killed someone, I didn't have a vehicle, IED, knife, brick, chair leg, or rock in my pocket. I did have a pencil, but that's one-on-one combat, and I wasn't any good at that. Not that I didn't consider it.

      I wonder where you went to school that you had easy access to the things listed above. My town funds their schools well enough that bricks don't just come out of the walls at a tug, and chair legs don't snap off without a great deal of force. The janitors are pretty good at keeping rocks and other debris out of the halls, and it was against the rules to carry knives, explosives, or drive your cars inside the building.

      By the time I would had access to any of the above things, I was calm enough that I wasn't going to kill someone.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    19. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Oh, I read what you wrote just fine. You were just being overly dramatic. Because if you truly had sufficient rage to murder someone then you wouldn't have cared that your pencil was an apparently insufficient weapon or that you might have to walk 10m to obtain another improvised weapon.

      None of this has anything to do with whether it's a wise idea to issue handguns to school kids. I'm just calling bullshit on your distorted assessment of your emotional state.

    20. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Yes, pretty much the only hope is a legal challenge, but what are the odds that will work?

      Basically the law is written to allow the agency to decide whether to forbear on banning this ammo. In an Office Space-type move, ATFE "fixed the glitch". Thanks to civil service, we can't exactly directly vote to recall the bureaucrats making these decisions.

      Hell, congress might even get off their dead asses and do something:
      http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb...

      As for legislation, in this case the shoe is on the other foot for the Republicans. There aren't enough to override a veto.

      They could try to tack it into must-pass legislation, but Harry Reid is all too willing to use brinksmanship over shutdowns, as demonstrated by the Homeland Security funding/immigration debacle. That is "irony" given how much they whined about these tactics when they were majority.

    21. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Given that I know a lot more about what's going on in my own head, I'm calling bullshit on your armchair psychology.

      I know what I'm capable of, and what I'm not. I wasn't capable of attaking someone with a pencil in school. I was capable of shooting someone in anger, had I been armed. It's the difference between standing up to a bully and his friends, therefore getting your ass kicked, and shooting the bully and any of his friends that didn't run away.

      The difference is obvious to me. Just because it isn't obvious to you doesn't mean you understand how my brain works.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    22. Re:The gun fetishists and ammosexuals think by stoploss · · Score: 1

      If you're calling bullshit on my "armchair psychology" then I suggest you look in the mirror. You are speaking with absolute certainty regarding how you would have reacted in a hypothetical scenario.

      Good luck with your grasp of reality, Freud.

  12. The CNC mill is just a nice to have.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have a drill and simple hand tools? Make yourself a gun. The unfinished lowers don't require that much effort to finish.

    https://medium.com/war-is-boring/i-built-an-ar-15-rifle-in-my-kitchen-cdbc5e9c7197

  13. New Second Amendment by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall pass no law infringing the bearing of arms, or of the arms press."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:New Second Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you have to show membership of a well-regulated militia before you could buy one?

    2. Re:New Second Amendment by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the Founding Fathers truly fucked up this one. Thinking that by disallowing congress to infringe on the bearing of arms, a well-regulated militia would be formed. Automatically. What were they thinking? Look at these guys in the video: a well-regulated militia? No, bozos with lethal weapons. Epic logic fail.

    3. Re:New Second Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to brush up on your reading skills.

      Our founding fathers knew (rightly) that without an armed populace, you can't *have* a militia. They also knew (rightly) that not every armed member of said populace would join said militia. Knowing all of that they decided to prohibit their fledgling government from infringing upon the right of the people to bear arms, because the *ability* to form a militia was (rightly) deemed important to the security of said fledgling nation in the face of potential oppression and tyranny, such as that which they had just fought to free themselves.

      So,yes. There was, indeed, an 'epic logic fail'. However, it was on your part, not theirs.

    4. Re:New Second Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep using those words. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    5. Re:New Second Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please specify what made you think these people are "bozos with lethal weapons".
      From experience, I have seen firearms enthusiast who are safer, more accurate and more responsible with their firearms than many of the local law enforcement personnel.
      one of the things I've taken away from this article and video is that a Right not exercised is somehow considered not a Right. The same people who claim the Second Amendment does not apply to me are doing so thinking the First applies to them.
      If you restrict or eliminate one Right, then you have, by default, restricted or eliminated them all. They are all part of the same document.

      i also find it interesting that you only seem to hear of the bad uses of firearms. Why should I have to go hunting for news of firearms being used to successfully defend people from "the bad guys", while articles of misuse are plastered all over the front page?
      Why are articles describing some group's defense of their homes from oppressors all over, but people scoff at this use here in the U.S.?

      the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

  14. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    I'm sure there's a dozen companies out there, but this is the one most of us will recognize:
    http://www.rolanddga.com/solut...

  15. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A bit off topic, but it sounds like you've been oversold on the quality of cerec. The milling is quite a few years short of what a proper crown delivers - AFAICT the machines are much more around getting more money to the dentist at the expense of the lab than delivering patients with a better product.

    There's a bunch of discussion about it, though not so much on the internet. That said there is some, e.g. http://www.realself.com/question/cerec-lab-dental-crown

  16. If it goes away if you use it, you didn't have it. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For regulation to work... You have to not poke the bear.

    If you only have a "right" while nobody exercises it, and it goes away as soon as a few people do, did you actually have it? Hardly!

    Rights unused can be silently abrogated. You have to use them occasionally, to test whether this has happened, so you can take corrective action if it has.

    (If nothing else, it's easy for law enforcement personnel to start assuming that something that doesn't occur often is actually banned. So important things like carrying guns need to be done occasionally, just to keep them aware that it's really OK.)

    Provocation like open carry "just because" is why we don't have open carry in most states.

    If you can't do something "just because", it's not a right.

    In fact its open carry demonstrations that have eduated police forces in many areas, bringing peace between law enforcement personnel and gun-toting ordinary citizens in many places where open carry was legal but had fallen out of use. It also brings the issue to visibility and educates others, especially those who grew up when it was rare, that they DO have these rights, when they hadn't been taught they did. It is a fine icebreaker for bringing out related facts - like the actual numbers on safety and the effect of gun carry on crime and injury rates.

    Yes, "Poking the Bear" can also have bad effects: For instance, California's draconin gun bans got started largely when the Black Panthers carried rifles into the gallery of the State Legislature, back during the period of the Civil Rights riots when it was legal. But black people at the time were de-facto banned from carrying guns (which was much of why they could be oppressed). The legislature just made that unconstitutional infrigemet de-jure.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  17. Hate "Come and Take It" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't really care about gun regulation one way or the other, but I really hate the "Come and Take It" bullshit mentality. Completely based on just that, I want the military to step in and take their guns. The idea that it couldn't if it really wanted to is absurd.

    1. Re:Hate "Come and Take It" by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      Thought Experiment: I don't like what you have to say, so I want jackbooted thugs to assault your home to confiscate your computer equipment and rough you up. Discuss.

    2. Re:Hate "Come and Take It" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thought experiment? Ok.

      I'd welcome it, provided you accept that once it's done I come for you and skin you family alive while you watch before finally turning to you. I wouldn't kill you, though. Just remove you arms, legs, jaw, eyes and dick (but not balls). I'm more than capable of holding my own, above genius level intellect and have absolutely no regard for the life of you, your family or your thugs. The world would be a better place if we COULD work out things like that. Violent for a while, maybe psychopathic, but better in the end. More honest.

      New thought experiment:
      It's interesting that the op just talked about confiscating guns presumably without violence, but you had to add "rough you up" to your retort. Escalation is an excellent way to assert control, if you're willing to take it far enough. Don't you agree? Of course, I meant everything I said in your thought experiment and there really are people like me in the world. Something to keep in mind when escalate things person. How far are you willing to take it? When does your morality override the desire to win? Are you really willing to do what it takes? What if you aren't, but the other person is? History is built on the back of winning violent, brutal struggles. Discuss.

    3. Re:Hate "Come and Take It" by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0

      So, AC, what possible evidence do you have that confiscation of arms in America would be peaceful? Last time it was tried by one General Gage, it lead to all kinds of unpleasantries. BTW, you seem to have serious anger management issues. You should get some treatment.

  18. Missed a great opportunity by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

    They should've called it the Molon Lathe

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re:Missed a great opportunity by khallow · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. It probably would break people who actually know some Greek though.

  19. Corporate freedom, unless we say otherwise by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Notice that again the conservative voice on slashdot is screaming about how FedEx doesn't want to transport certain goods. If the product was a pamphlet for a local union hall, the conservatives would say that FedEx was exercising their rights to free speech and freedom of association. But since the product is something that conservatives believe all Americans have god-granted rights to, FedEx's refusal to transport it is clearly a constitutional crisis.

    In other words, FedEx is free to transport whatever goods they want, unless refusing them angers the conservatives. Then, FedEx must transport them in spite of their objections.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Corporate freedom, unless we say otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, if FedEx refused to ship a gay wedding cake, you know there would be a lawsuit.
      So I don't think you are right.

    2. Re:Corporate freedom, unless we say otherwise by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Personally, I object to Fedex's position because they're citing concerns about the law, when the law says nothing about gun-smithing tools.

      And yes, a lot of guns get shipped despite their policy marked as 'machine parts'.

      If they just said 'we don't want to ship this because we don't support gun-rights', then we could boycott them with a clear heart.

      (Note: More libertarian than conservative).

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Corporate freedom, unless we say otherwise by HappyDrgn · · Score: 1

      There's precedent to suggest that sexual orientation is a protected group, political activism and/or related products, are not in and of themselves protected from discrimination by private entities. FedEx is free to ban wedding cakes, they can't ban gay wedding cakes exclusively. So yes, there would likely be a lawsuit over a gay cake shipping ban.

    4. Re:Corporate freedom, unless we say otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but what if it had a hacksaw inside? I mean, if you figure that soon there might be a lot of gay 'weddings' inside the prison system when the law becomes more, you know, 'relaxed'.

    5. Re:Corporate freedom, unless we say otherwise by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Really, if FedEx refused to ship a gay wedding cake, you know there would be a lawsuit.

      First of all, only an idiot - gay or otherwise - would use FedEx, UPS, or the postal service to ship a wedding cake.

      That said, if we substitute something else gay-positive for the hypothetical cake, they could still say "we won't transport that product" and the conservatives would be championing their cause. Carriers have the right to refuse to do business with whomever they want, for whatever reason they want. In this situation, however, the conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to force a company to take a type of business that it does not want.

      If you think FedEx doesn't decide what goods it will or won't ship, go ask them to ship your car, or your pet. They refuse both for different reasons and nobody has ever tried to make a constitutional crisis out of either. There is no law prohibiting them from shipping either, they decided on their own that shipping them isn't worth their bother.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  20. Regulation by watermark · · Score: 3, Informative

    Even if you wanted to, how could you possibly regulate this? Once items get to the point of being able to be easily manufactured in your own house, in mass, relatively cheaply, it's nearly impossible to regulate this away.

    Think of prohibition. People can/could easily make their own alcohol in their own house by just leaving grapes in a barrel. It was next to impossible to regulate and required substantial man power to prevent the little they did. Grape juice in the era actually said on the label "Do not leave in a jug for 20 days as it might turn into wine." CNC mills are not illegal, just as grape juice wasn't illegal during prohibition. You're likely to start seeing CNC mills with warnings like "do not use to make firearms."

    If you try to regulate schematics, people can just download plans from some P2P service. Now you guns that are made from lower grade materials AND questionable designs.

    Yesterday it was alcohol prohibition. Today it is drug prohibition. Tomorrow it will be homemade gun parts. You can try to regulate away these things, but once you can easily make them in your own home, it's a losing battle. Attempting to regulate these impossible to regulate things leads to no-knock raids, death, and more criminals. Nobody is safer and I'd argue we're all less safe. Even if they are illegal tomorrow, 20 years and 1 million no-knock raids later, they will be legal again. Prohibition never lasts.

    If more guns on the street is creating a problem, then you need to start thinking about different solutions. Making it illegal to possess a firearm isn't going to fix anything.

    1. Re:Regulation by spauldo · · Score: 1

      There's a book by Charles Stross named Rule 34 that deals with trying to regulate 3D printing. It focused more on child sex dolls than guns, but the concept is the same.

      And yeah, enforcement didn't work very well.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    2. Re:Regulation by Gliscameria · · Score: 1

      Bullets. Guns aren't worth much if there isn't ammunition, and ammunition has been getting very expensive. Plus, most bullets don't last forever, intentionally. This way you can start shutting down suppliers and really make shooting impractical. You'll be stuck with muskets if you can still buy the gun powder. I'm just waiting for battery technology to reach the point that we can have usable homemade gauss rifles.

      --
      X
    3. Re:Regulation by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Grape juice came with a warning that was also complete instructions for the thing it was warning against?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grape juice came with a warning that was also complete instructions for the thing it was warning against?

      Clever, isn't it? Obviously not a government-mandated warning, this was way before those came about.

    5. Re:Regulation by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Bullets. Guns aren't worth much if there isn't ammunition, and ammunition has been getting very expensive. Plus, most bullets don't last forever, intentionally. This way you can start shutting down suppliers and really make shooting impractical. You'll be stuck with muskets if you can still buy the gun powder. I'm just waiting for battery technology to reach the point that we can have usable homemade gauss rifles.

      Oh goody!

      Then we can have the government try to regulate "'weapons-grade' batteries and similar energy storage devices".

      I can almost hear the sound-bites; You can't sell that #DEVICE (phone, tablet, whatever) with a battery that lasts more than X-hours, as it could be turned into a weapon! Every one of those #DEVICEs on the streets is a potential dead cop!

      And so in 10 years, even though battery tech is certain to make large leaps, we would still need to charge our mobile devices daily.

      I don't think many in government and the powerful will be satisfied until electricity and ferrous metals/alloys are heavily restricted and regulated and/or considered as contraband, and the masses are reduced to Bronze Age tech & weapons for the most part while the powerful elites enjoy modern tech in "gated communities" taken to extreme.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can piss in the wind trying to defang a viper but humans will find a way to act like humans. I'm a trained CNC machinist with a Solidworks License and access to tooling. Do you want to ban COMSOL and 4140 steel? The only part of ammunition that a high school chemistry and shop teacher can't mass produce are the primers. You going to do rectal cavity searches at every international border? They'll import the damn things with quadcopters.

      Gun control lost. What scares gun grabbers most is that guns are no longer is scary arms. Try banning college textbooks and we can all live like the Taliban.

    7. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen that movie. It's called "Stargate".

    8. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you try to regulate schematics, people can just download plans from some P2P service. Now you guns that are made from lower grade materials AND questionable designs.

      Yesterday it was alcohol prohibition. Today it is drug prohibition. Tomorrow it will be homemade gun parts. You can try to regulate away these things, but once you can easily make them in your own home, it's a losing battle.

      This isn't really a new problem. It's just that then, it was 2-d printing. They'll probably implement the same sort of solutions they did the last time, like intercepting a print job when it detects a part suspiciously similar to a critical gun part, like a lower reciever.

      Frankly, I would be suprised if the ATF hasn't already started looking into how to implement these sort of restrictions.

    9. Re:Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the fact that a lot of people reload their own ammunition and mold their own bullets

    10. Re:Regulation by Gliscameria · · Score: 1

      I love your take on it. An electric car battery will be more or less a weapon of mass destruction. The rules will still make no sense whatsoever though. Possessing a "high capacity" battery will be a federal offense, but carrying many small batteries will be perfectly legal. I don't know how they'll handle 'wire' in this dystopia

      --
      X
  21. I wonder that too... by jopsen · · Score: 1

    "an act of social provocation"

    All the open carry demonstrations and make a gun tricks... All seem to be the kind of sarcastic "social provocations" that one undertake to encourage stricter gun control.
    I find it hilarious...

  22. Black Panthers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Open carry of long guns is what the Black Panthers started with in Oakland 50 years ago...
    The police won't protect us, so we're going to do it, with open carry.

  23. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    3D printing will never, by itself, make Star Trek replicators a reality

    But I want to make a cup of Earl Grey by converting energy into matter, at enormous cost, because it's clearly easier than having a tank of water and recycling it as needed. :)

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  24. Whole lotta bullshit involved. by NetNed · · Score: 1

    Ok, the guy has what they consider a 80% lower, meaning that 80% of the lower receiver of the gun is already milled. You can buy these on the internet and not need a FFL to purchase one since it's not a completed lower (has no trigger area, no area for the clip to go in, and a couple different pins and mechanics holes that are needed) I can get one forged and partly machined for a lot cheaper plus less time consuming and I wouldn't have to finish the outside of it. I would need the jigs to machine it properly and I for one would not trust doing it with hand tools or the machine shown because I wouldn't trust the accuracy and would fear catastrophic failure. You can clearly see it only a 2 axis machine. It would take more then some battery power to machine a block of aluminum in that. You'd have to do at least 3 setups of the stock. That battery would die after the first half of machining. The guys in the video seem to think people are idiots and no one knows about machining


    But let assume you have a lower. Fine, but you need all the rest of the parts that make up the gun. The upper that includes the barrel, the bolt, the charging handle, on and on which you are not machining or even consider making on your own. Then you have to put it together, which by it's own is not the easiest thing, but parts a lot of times need gunsmithing to get them to fit properly. So there are tools for both the assembly AND working on parts fitment. That only is going to scare off 90% or more of people in even trying to build one. Add the cost (80% lower that's decent about 90 buck, upper kit that decent at least 500 if luck to find, the jigs 100+ dollars, tools to put it together properly 100+ to 200, time to do it all and the equipment which the "ghost gunner cnc" doesn't even tell you a price, just $250 NRD to "reserve" a spot to get one) and you pretty much eliminate it down to a select few that would enjoy this as a hobby. Oh, and you can legally only make them for yourself. Can't sell them either unless you get a manufacturers license, and nobody with a rickety l

    1. Re:Whole lotta bullshit involved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I was going to point that out. Milling a rifled barrel in steel and making a breech/bolt etc to complete it has not been demonstrated.

  25. As if I needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    another reason to stay away from Texas. Texas should really break off and form it's own republic, they would be much happier that wat.

  26. DIY "gunsmithing" isn't complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just absurdly dangerous. And this DIY isn't making it less so.
    Go to Home Depot, get some black iron pipe (12 gauge size), a pipe cap, a drill and a nail. Nice if you can get a spring...
    Only machining necessary is to drill a hole in the pipe cap so it holds the nail in the right place to hit the primer.

    Likely to blow up after 2 shots. Possibly not survive the first one; I give it the same odds as a piece of aluminum. Probably under $10.

    1. Re:DIY "gunsmithing" isn't complicated by HappyDrgn · · Score: 1

      The aluminum used in 80% lowers is typically the same used in production "military grade" weapons. For an AR15 it's typically 6061 or 7075 cast, billet or forged aluminum, all can handle pressures in the tens of thousands of PSI, multiple orders of magnitude greater than the pressure they'll come in contact with under operation of the firearm. The lower just holds the firing mechanism and magazine, in addition the stock and upper receiver attach to the lower. The upper receiver is what's under pressure and requires a bit more skill to produce. The worst thing that will happen to a poorly milled AR15 lower is the parts won't fit, or not end up in the right spot, and the weapon just won't work. A device like this removes a bit of error making this process more reliable.

      TL;DR - no, these won't blow up.

    2. Re:DIY "gunsmithing" isn't complicated by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The aluminum used in 80% lowers is typically the same used in production "military grade" weapons. For an AR15 it's typically 6061

      There's nothing more military grade than a WWI Zepellin which was the first major use of that family of alloys :)

  27. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by Roblimo · · Score: 1

    Yes. I have dentures. Good dentist and virtually pain-free when he extracted all my teeth and dug remaining bits of root out of my gums, but the cost! Crazy. He needs to have one of these in in a back room instead of paying a lab and marking their charges up. Sadly, the major chain discount denture makers in my part of FL have terrible user ratings. Ah well. One day. I'm not complaining. I have high-end dentures that fit and look good, and the cost, while high to me, was lower than a lot of people pay. But one day....

  28. Re: Gee, thanks Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe its not so energy expensive if you just have a tank of random matter, and use teleportation technomagic to rejigger that matter into whatever you need. So, when you're done borrowing it, it gets broken down again to be reused.

  29. Just what we need, more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we can have stories like this:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
    and this
    http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

    At least they had a gun and were safe....

    Anyone want to share a story about when a civilian with a gun really saved the day?
    I've asked before so please dont post stories about the "authorities backing down" because squatters were armed, or other such posts.

    Just a story about Bad guy with gun, good guy with gun and the story ends well.

    1. Re:Just what we need, more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, too lazy to look that up.

      BUT - this site has hundreds:

      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/

      I'm sure they're all made up, though (/sarcasm)

  30. Gun rack? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't seen a gun rack in the window of a pickup since my high school days in the '70s.
    But if that myopic thinking keeps you out of Our Great State then keep it up.
    We all carry guns in holsters on our hips, we all have oil wells and we all have cows in the front yards of our ranches.
    Keep the anachronisms alive in your tiny-little brain...

  31. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by neoritter · · Score: 1

    I thought the replicator used the crew's waste to do that stuff. Not energy.

  32. For the last time, what is so hard to understand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See the thing is, according to the text of 18USC 44, you are utterly FUCKED when you characterize you activity you intend with this tool as MANUFACTURING. See, that needs extensive licensing. It's well defined and settled part of the law.

    Cody Wilson (possible confidential informant/agent provocateur) already characterized activity he wishes to engage in as MANUFACTURING
    Cody Wilson marketed these tools for MANUFACTURING in interstate commerce.
    Cody Wilson went as far as to troll FedEx, who wouldn't ship the tools because they being put forth in commerce as tools for MANUFACTURING which is unregulated,
    and also there's the tiny fact that anyone who receives one of these will no doubt run afoul of CONSPIRACY statues relating to 18USC44 and Cody's little game. That's right, every single person that receives these can potentially be considered a WILLFUL criminal actor in the total trade in all of these devices, and all illegal weapons manufactured with them.

  33. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yesterday I had a crown put in. The last crown I had took 2 dentist visits, because the crown had to be manufactured in a lab and mailed, a multi-day process. Yesterday it took under 2 hours. The dentists scanned my tooth, designed the replacement on a computer as I watched, and (with some intermediate steps) it was automatically milled in a back room while I waited. We're living in the future, and, yes, the future will have guns, which even if you think that's a bad thing, just think of all the other stuff we'll be making ourselves, or in the office of the appropriate professional.

    I had a CNC crown done many years ago. It cost more than a lab crown and never fit right. I now have a lab made crown in it's place and my dentist no longer has a CNC machine.

  34. yet another derpy lib by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually it was anyone in debt. You know, so not much has changed really. I can tell you are one of those special little snowflakes that is owned by a creditor, aren't you? Now get back to work and pay off that $200,000 student loan for your useless liberal arts degree. LMFAO

    1. Re: yet another derpy lib by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now now, I doubt that's an accurate description of PopeRatzo. OTOH he is a complete fucking idiot in the same vein of idiocy as Tim Schaefer.

    2. Re:yet another derpy lib by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Actually it was anyone in debt.

      No, it was not "anyone in debt". There were laws in every Confederate states that white people could not be bought or sold as slaves.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re: yet another derpy lib by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      the same vein of idiocy as Tim Schaefer.

      I figured I was arguing with the contingency from 8chan. That means the words "white genocide" are not far behind.

      GamerGate history is great fun. It's kind of like the History Channel's Ancient Aliens series without all the solid information.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:yet another derpy lib by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was not "anyone in debt". There were laws in every Confederate states that white people could not be bought or sold as slaves.

      Slavery replaced indentured servitude in the Colonies. And, yes, under the old British laws anyone in debt might end up either in debtors prison or in indentured servitude.

      Ironically, though the British did more to end slavery than most (perhaps in an attempt to balance the moral scales for having made so much money off the system), they still perpetuated an indentured servitude system that lasted until just before WW1 (long after the US Civil War). It wasn't all that different from slavery for many of the unwilling participants, who were often kidnapped, then worked to death.

    5. Re: yet another derpy lib by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Actually, he's right, during the 1700s, aka the 18th century, there was quite a bit of white slavery going on. Difference was it wasn't hereditary. You might want to stop reading Zinn when it comes to your advanced history sources.

    6. Re: yet another derpy lib by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      And it's Unfounded Assumption right out the gate, quickly followed by Hyperbolic Strawman with Historians Fallacy not far behind.

      Item 1.) I am not a channer. The only time I've been to 4chan is through links, generally on BRBU.

      Item 2.) The history behind Gamergate is quite simple. The history behind Quinngate is more complex. They are, however, two different movements as any honest analysis of the Twitter and Google statistics bears out.

      Item 3.) I am curious as to how Schaefer's fuckwittery at the GDC in any way links me to 8chan. Please explain.

    7. Re: yet another derpy lib by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Actually, he's right, during the 1700s, aka the 18th century, there was quite a bit of white slavery going on.

      Not in the US, which is what this conversation was about.

      Peddle your "white genocide", "save white heritage" bullshit elsewhere.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  35. And add another by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    genre to the Clickbait articles like Women in STEM, systemd, and Global warming.

    I like my guns. I'm not bat shit crazy about them. If people want ot be ammosexuals, they can have at it. But it doesn't make them not bat shit crazy.

    But the kooks will be descending like flies on this rotton carcass of a subject, in 3....2....1....

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  36. Re:For the last time, what is so hard to understan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh and by the way, with CONSPIRACY statutes, they can charge the criminal actors with a total number of weapons that could be POTENTIALLY manufactured with all the units. So that would be several hundred thousand weapons or so. Cody is going away/going to put some fools away for a LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG time! LOL and you guys thot he was "an hero"

  37. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean because the anti-tax people got there first?

    Common sense broke out and they raised taxes, and they have a surplus now?

    Having driven in California and Texas, California at least can maintain the highways. Texas... by the time they are done trying, the roads will be well past the time they need to be redone.

  38. E = P * t by trumpetplayer · · Score: 1

    > (They ran the mill at a slower speed, though, to conserve juice.) That doesn't conserve juice.

    1. Re:E = P * t by tkjtkj · · Score: 1

      He explained in the vid that reasons for slowing down the process included the fact that the milling could be viewed by more passers-by .. i.e., a marketing ploy.

      --
      "There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
    2. Re:E = P * t by trumpetplayer · · Score: 1

      That makes more sense. I guess the guy who wrote these news didn't care to watch, then.

  39. Re:For the last time, what is so hard to understan by x0ra · · Score: 1

    BS. Any CNC / lathe / mill can be used to manufacture a gun. Heck, you can even forge the required part if you wanted to...

  40. Res quality control please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean ... FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

  41. Re:If it goes away if you use it, you didn't have by weilawei · · Score: 1

    Spent all my mod points over in another story, but now I really wish I hadn't. +1 Insightful.

  42. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those machines are awesome. I've asked my dentist about them and he tried one out. He said they aren't worth it for him yet. First, they are still really expensive. Second, for the front teeth, it is harder to get a natural looking, color matched appearance. Real teeth have subtle color variations that are easy for a lab to match, but hard to match when you mill it out of a block of material.

     

  43. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by lgw · · Score: 1

    I had a CNC crown done many years ago. It cost more than a lab crown and never fit right. I now have a lab made crown in it's place and my dentist no longer has a CNC machine.

    Early adopters take the hits for the rest of us. The crown wasn't exactly right out of the mill - the dentist still did a bit if drilling on it to get my bite right - but it did fit solidly on the tooth-stub it crowns.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  44. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

    I always thought Texas was the most liberal second amendment state, but apparently not. In Arizona, concealed carry isn't regulated at all (you can get CCW permits, but there's no reason to get one unless you plan to concealed carry out of the state) and neither is manufacturing.

    And I mean "liberal" literally, and not the political connotation that is usually anything but liberal when it comes to firearms.

  45. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    Nope. Energy to matter conversion. With the warp core they have more energy than they can ever need on tap, so the energy cost is irrelevant.

    Likewise, waste is converted to energy. A bit of a loss, but overall a decent energy recovery.

  46. mains power by kwoff · · Score: 1

    "mains power" is very British. Right to bear arms, where's that come from?

  47. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by MobSwatter · · Score: 0

    Surplus? What are you kidding me? The roads have been going down hill quite a bit. Tore up the bushings in my Cobra in a few years time. The schools would have better luck buying lottery tickets from the lottery that was designed to pay for the schools to begin with. Pretty much a more things change, the more they stay the same thing.

  48. Re:For the last time, what is so hard to understan by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    Go on YouTube and search for 80% lower. People are making them with hand drills, drill presses, and routers. Even easier if they have access to a milling machine.

  49. Disgusting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Promoting this kind of gun-crazy, misogynist, conservative disgrace of a video is the reason why slashdot is filled with racists and harassers. Nerds so blinded by technology that they can be lead into supporting rape and gun culture just because someone dangles a shiny piece of machinery in front of them.

    There are impressionable young geeks on this website and Slashdot has a RESPONSIBILITY not to poison their minds with this propaganda. Tech is supposed to help society grow. We can't do that if we're promoting machines that make weapons that kill people.

    Slashdot is betraying nerd culture with this video.

  50. Let me clear a few things up... by Orgasmatron · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are a number of incorrect claims wandering around. Rather than answer each post, I'll summarize.

    Like most machines, a gun is a collection of parts. For various reasons, one of those parts must (legally) be the gun itself, and the rest are just parts attached to the gun. For guns similar to (or clones of) the AR-15/M-16, the gun is the lower receiver.

    The other parts are not restricted at all. Anyone can buy barrels, springs, sears, stocks, triggers, hammers, whatever they want, off the street, over the internet, or mail order. No ID, no registration.

    If a dealer is selling a receiver, either alone, or as part of a completed firearm, they have to do the background check, fill out the paperwork, etc. A non-dealer doesn't need to do any of that, but the ATF will consider you to be a dealer if you act like a dealer.

    The receiver is a complicated part. It takes a lot of work to turn a piece of metal into a receiver. At some point during that work, it changes from "piece of metal with some cuts" into a receiver.

    Pieces of metal that have had some work done, but not enough to become receivers, are sold as "80% receivers". These are subject to no more regulation than any other random block of metal, because it is the end user that actually manufactures the gun.

    Building your own gun is perfectly legal, by the way, as long as you are doing it for yourself. If you intend to sell it, or give it away, you need to get licensed and pay for a tax stamp. If you decide later to sell it, or give it away, that is perfectly legal too, but you need to make sure that you don't do anything that would make a reasonable person think that you had intended to pass it on when you made it.

    The Ghost Gunner ONLY works on these 80% Receivers. They are not capable of milling a receiver out of raw billet. Nor could they work with a raw casting or forging.

    Desktop milling machines don't have the power to spin up a heavy chuck, nor, generally, could they manage enough axis velocity to keep the feed rate up when using a large diameter tool. That means 1/8" or 1/4" chucks and tools. That limits the milling depth two an inch or two. That's plenty for milling out the trigger pocket, but nowhere near enough for the magazine well.

    And if anyone is interested in the topic, there is a forum thread somewhere showing a guy making an AK receiver out of a shovel. The same technique has been used around the world. The Afghans made their AKs in caves, with hand tools.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  51. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Always broke? California has had record budget surpluses the past several years, and just passed state ballot measures strengthening rainy-day fund requirements.

    What's changed? A Democratic supermajority! Isn't it ironic that when Republicans had veto power, the budget was a mess and the state constantly had budget shortfalls. This was the case even in the hay days of the 2000s, when every last cent was spent because of Democratic-Republican horse trading.

    Just more evidence that while Democrats may be the party of spend-spend-spend, they're the only party that can balance a fscking budget without abandoning poverty programs.

  52. Why do we support anarchists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish Slashdot would stop pandering to pothead anarchists who want every last American citizen to be armed to the teeth with guns.

    Yes, anarchists are subverting 3D printing technology to aid their cause. No, that doesn't make it sufficiently 'tech related' to warrant repeated coverage on Slashdot.

    If I want to read about mentally unstable Texas gun nuts there are plenty of other sites I can read. Slashdot is for intelligent people, not anarchists, not drug addicts, and not gun nuts.

    1. Re:Why do we support anarchists? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      We don't want every last citizen to own a weapon. Personally I'm fine with you being unarmed.

  53. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, I have a hard time entrusting such sensitive dental needs to a company that has a difficult time manufacturing a reliable device that has existed for 60 years (a speaker cabinet). Cool tech, I just wouldn't expect it to work for a damn.

  54. These three things are not the same... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually it was anyone in debt. You know, so not much has changed really.

    Troll food...
    Bonded servants are "bad humans", slaves are "sub-humans". Sure, living conditions were similar but bonded servants were rarely whipped/lynched in public for running away. Bonded servitude of Blacks was still a thing in the southern US when I was a kid in the 60's, are your political blinkers that tight that you really believe a modern office job is comparable to either situation?

  55. Re: Gee, thanks Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, California has record surpluses. Never mind the underfunded public union pensions...

  56. Reading comprehension is not your strength by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, and if you trade in tools with stated public intent to MANUFACTURE arms in commerce, your local ATF/AUSA will be happy to nail you for it.

  57. Re:For the last time, what is so hard to understan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you read the statute? Do you know the difference between fabrication and manufacturing? Do you know what it means to intentfully state your plans to commit future crimes and for you to have taken actual steps toward such crimes?

    Apparently not. Typical dumbfuck (probably a postbot anyway)

  58. Amazing... by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

    this happened over a month ago.

    --


    "Lame" - Galaxar
  59. The debate is over by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    You can't confiscate guns from criminals. With this machine criminals will always have access to guns.

    Period.

    The only question is whether you want law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves.

    The division largely falls on whether you see citizens as peasants or not.

    You can take weapons away from peasants. They shouldn't have them anyway, filthy animals. But citizens are halfway between peasants and nobility. And you don't take guns away from the nobility. They won't let you. They'll literally shoot you in the face if you try it.

    The argument over guns is that many people feel citizens are more peasants than nobles and some feel citizens are more nobles than peasants.

    That's what it boils down to.

    Peasants don't really have rights as such. There's no Magna Carta for peasants. You give them what you need to give them to keep them working.

    Nobles however can walk right up to the king, look him in the face, and tell him that he can't do something if the king is overstepping some agreement. The nobility won't permit it.

    And that's what the gun debate at least is all about.

    But it doesn't really matter anymore... because micro manufacturing makes it impractical to deny the ownership of goods through the regulation of stores and manufacturers. The manufacturing system becomes too distributed and defuse to regulate. No government agent is going to rubber stamp literally every thing that comes off your mill. So they can't stop it.

    Once they've adapted to that reality and that might take another generation. Human beings are often inflexible and lacking in imagination. Look at the drug war for example... that they didn't see that one coming is further evidence of the point. But eventually they're going to lose this one.

    It might take 50 years for them to finally admit it. But they can't win it.

    this micro manufacturing stuff is checkmate.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:The debate is over by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Don't go using logic against the government. They don't play that shit. This is the same crazy fucking government that holds terrorists in containment for over a decade and instead of putting them against a wall and shooting them turns them loose to go back and join ISIS and start back on the terror thing. Logic isn't part of their repertoire.

    2. Re:The debate is over by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The thing is that it doesn't matter whether they admit or not.

      On this issue they're about as likely to get traction as a plucked chicken is to fly. Its beyond futile.

      Its over. They might as well try CPR on a mummy. Completely fucking pointless.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  60. In contrast to cyber-arms control... by Kirth · · Score: 1

    In contrast to cyber-arms control, which is in fact about NOT keeping vulnerabilities secret which will make everyone safer, gun control is a lost cause.

    Because when it comes down to it, a gun consists of information, which is freely available; raw materials, which are freely available in the necessary quality; the abilities to really work the materials according to the information, which is available widely, from afghani weaponmakers to milling and printing machines; and finally the time to do it. Plus of course, the will to do it despite of government attempts to criminalize it.

    With guns, the horse left the barn around 1350 A.D., and every attempt to close the door has been a failure.

    Besides, the problem is not really the availability of the weapons, but the culture to use it. Guess why we've got nearly the same amount of guns as the USA, but our homicide-rate is ten times lower? Because it's really not the guns. It's the culture.

    Of course you can excarbate the problem with making stupid laws that lead to the proliferation of criminal gangs by outlawing things like alcohol, drugs, prostitution and so on. Or by not having a social system that that takes care nobody falls between the gaps.

    --
    "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
  61. Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Texas, guns are a common sight:gun-racks are visible in the back of many pick-ups

    Uh, no. They aren't unheard of but they aren't "common" especially in large cities.

    Whoever wrote that has probably never been there.

  62. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not the lab bill, lab bill generally runs 20-25% of the dental fee. Probably half of what you paid was for the surgery, not the dentures, and likely also included a tissue conditioning or a soft liner done about 6 weeks post-op and a reline about 6 months post-op. CNC crowns work when done by skilled operators, but way too may dentists will not pay for the necessary skill. Dentures aren't there yet, and probably never will be.

  63. Pretending to be a soldier without a soldiers by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Pretending to be a soldier without a soldiers responsibility isn't very "conservative" is it? It's about being a cowardly asshole.

    1. Re:Pretending to be a soldier without a soldiers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I soldiered my dick into your moms gaping, worn out vag last night. That took some real courage.

  64. Fine. Then lets ration/ban ammunition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck with your homemade gun when you can't get any ammunition anymore. But wait, you say you'll make the bullets too. Fine. Then possession and manufacturing of gunpowder should be a felony too. We'll take you down to your muskets just like the founding fathers had when they envisioned the 2nd amendment.

  65. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by plopez · · Score: 1

    Ge a real car. Nothing screams 'overcompensation crisis' like a Cobra.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  66. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by plopez · · Score: 1

    And CA is the 7th largest economy in the world. Unlke TX which has been compared to having an economy more like Nigeria due to its reliance on oil. I never ever want to live in TX. n fact my dad left TX just as soon as he could and never looked back.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  67. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

    This is precisely my point, the bullshit that this gun lobby is pulling will undermine the advantages of C&C and 3D printing for the rest of us.

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  68. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by MobSwatter · · Score: 0

    Actually it was 100HP light when I bought it, knew that almost immediately on WestGard Pass. There is buying a car for the status, then there is buying a car for it's advertised capabilities, I am the latter on the subject.

  69. Re: Gee, thanks Texas by keith_nt4 · · Score: 1

    I don't know what roads you're driving on, all the roads around me look like they haven't been maintained in 40+ years. Try i-80 to Reno and see how "maintained" California keeps roads.

    --
    "UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
  70. Go get a dictionary son by dbIII · · Score: 0

    Being prevented from possessing a small class of items is obviously different from complete prohibition which was discussed above.
    If you are going to pretend to be so stupid so early in a post then I suggest not wasting so much time writing a long post that is not going to be read beyond the point of pretended stupidity. Maybe you were doing it to build a strawman in my name - I don't care - if you start with fake stupidity you are just wasting your time.

    1. Re:Go get a dictionary son by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Being prevented from possessing a small class of items is obviously different from complete prohibition which was discussed above.

      Would you accept a "small class" of speech being prevented by the government? Say, political rallies for Democrats? If not, then why would you accept other rights being arbitrarily infringed by the government? Particularly rights whose existence is based on keeping governmental power and abuse in check.

      If you are going to pretend to be so stupid so early in a post then I suggest not wasting so much time writing a long post that is not going to be read beyond the point of pretended stupidity. Maybe you were doing it to build a strawman in my name - I don't care - if you start with fake stupidity you are just wasting your time.

      I'm going to assume this was written in lieu of a cogent counter-argument to the ideas I wrote in my post. I'll take that to mean you have no real argument. If you'd care to have a real discussion, I'm game. If you're unable or unwilling to do so, just say so up front.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    2. Re:Go get a dictionary son by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Still going? What's the point of jumping into the middle of a conversation and showing you have zero respect for the posters involved?

      I'm going to assume this was written in lieu of a cogent counter-argument to the ideas I wrote in my post

      When I explicitly wrote otherwise? You started off with pretended stupidity, so, as I indicated above, there's no reason to take anything after that total lack of respect seriously.

    3. Re:Go get a dictionary son by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Still incapable or unwilling to argue ideas which are actually on topic? Very well, my point stands and yours' refuted. Good day!

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    4. Re:Go get a dictionary son by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, your petty little strawman you decided to set up in my name is indeed wrong.
      What a pathetic creature you are. Stepping in and pretending I'd said one thing and not what I'd actually written then claiming some win in some childish game - so congrats - you win your little game of mass debate. I just wish you'd mass debate over somebody else instead.

    5. Re:Go get a dictionary son by RailGunner · · Score: 1

      Being prevented from possessing a small class of items is obviously different from complete prohibition which was discussed above.

      The problem with that is who decides where that line is?

      Liberals want to ban "assault rifles", and by assault rifles they mean "black and scary looking". My AR-15 fires both .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO -- it's a small round, useful for hunting small game and Deer. AR-15's are popular because they're accurate, and have very low recoil. Meanwhile, because it's not a "assault rifle", you libs ignore my bolt action .308 Winchester... which is FAR NASTIER of a round, capable of taking down medium to large game -- Elk, Moose, etc.

      Here's another example of stupidity -- I have a Springfield XDS chambered in .45 ACP. Single stack, 5 rounds. On the hard shell case it a huge label: "NOT LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA".

      Why not? What the fuck is wrong with California?

    6. Re:Go get a dictionary son by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, which is why the all or nothing strawman the other poster was presenting me as was so offensive.
      Preventing six year olds from driving cars is not prohibition and neither is stopping ex-cons from owning rocket propelled grenades.

    7. Re:Go get a dictionary son by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is who decides where that line is?

      A lot of people think that should be whoever we vote in to run law enforcement - with the axe hanging over their heads being that if they do a shit job they lose it - obvious really. Asking that question at all sort of implies you feel disenfrancised and you think the obvious is not working for you. Is that the case? Government is supposed to be FROM the citizens and not outsiders imposing their will on citizens with little power.

      Others portray themselves as thinking it's up to the individual so that ex-con with a string of armed robbery convictions gets to decide whether or not they should be able to get as much firepower as they can afford. Do they really believe this or are they just pretending to be idiots so they can pretend it's a simple situation? Is it an idiot detector situation where if they find people that can be swayed into going along with them on such a silly suggestion then they have found people who are easily manipulated?

  71. Re: Gee, thanks Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been a dental technician for 10 years, before that a C programmer. Without totally nerding out.....

    We are some of the last artisians, everything is made to order just for your specific case. You wouldn't believe the kinds of cases I work on. teeth in all sorts of not normal directions.

    Computers are nothing but the programmer. However I couldn't for the life of me make you a program or algorithm which would match the quality of work I can create with wax, porcelain, gypsum and carving tools. In almost every way imaginable.

    I could however write something which would make an meh case quickly, or just use cerec, nobel,3shape.

    It will be a sad day when the last of the artistians die off. However,I do believe there will always be market for handmade.... $$$$$

    I will just become more rare, and the knowledge will die off with my colleagues; Until everyone is left with meh prosthetics.

    (Trust me, working with models in your hands is a far better learning experience then just clicking a mouse)

    On a final note, I'm from California and now live in Texas. Less crime, more guns! It's true!

  72. Re:Fine. Then lets ration/ban ammunition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DIAF

  73. Re: Gee, thanks Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Milled crowns are less aesthetic and weaker than lab produced crowns, unfortunately. Coloration on milled crowns is a superficial, just a stain, while in lab crowns the coloration is intrinsic within the material. For a better crown come see us at the Tijuana Clinic for Cosmetic Dentistry. Tccdentistry (dot) com

  74. Re:Gee, thanks Texas by lgw · · Score: 1

    This is precisely my point, the bullshit that this gun lobby is pulling will undermine the advantages of C&C and 3D printing for the rest of us.

    Gee, sorry that protecting fundamental freedoms is slightly inconvenient for you. But you might better focus your worry on the BS that will come with IP law and home manufacture - the MPAA/RIAA bullshit of the past few years is just the beginning. The "gun lobby" is at least trying to preserve a basic right.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  75. Ahh, excuse me, but by Phoghat · · Score: 1

    What about the 18th Century eludes your understanding?

    --
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.