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