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.)

6 of 367 comments (clear)

  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
  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: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.
  4. 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?"

  5. 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
  6. 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.