Slashdot Mirror


Cody Wilson Wants To Help You Make a Gun

An anonymous reader writes In 2013 Cody Wilson posted online the design files needed to 3D print weapons. The files were downloaded at least 100,000 times before the U.S. State Department ordered him to take them down. Last fall he reemerged with a new project, the Ghost Gunner--a relatively small and affordable CNC milling machine that could easily manufacture the lower receiver of an AR-15. It was a different approach toward the same goal of multiplying the number of firearms in the world. But are we really facing a world where backyard bunker-builders are manufacturing their own gun components? Reporter Andrew Zaleski visited Wilson to check on the status of his project. What he found was a man in the throes of small-business hell. As Wilson puts it, "It's like the nightmare of a startup with the added complication that no one will allow you to do it anyway."

449 comments

  1. Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And as a Canadian, I won't let him. I'd gladly take a free CNC, though.

    1. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Too much deference to government considered harmful.

      Toss Godwin the proverbial rubber chicken.

    2. Re: Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First poster should be shot on sight, fuck him. I'd deliver his shit for free if I had the means. Fuck fedex too.

    3. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as a Canadian, I won't let him.

      What's it like to live ON YOUR KNEES ?

    4. Re: Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First poster should be shot on sight, fuck him.

      Yeah, because that attitude doesn't make people less nervous about random people owning guns.

    5. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't get this attitude that you are going to overthrow the government or even hold them off with a bunch guys with AR-15s. Unless you can fit them with anti-air and anti-tank rounds, the Army and National Guard can bring in whatever is necessary to put down a rebellion. That doesn't even count the number of citizens with guns who will probably be on the side of the government. The best you can do is get a situation like those Cliven Bundy jackasses out west where the Government decided it just wasn't worth the trouble. But if it ever becomes worth the trouble, as in, if anyone actually fires those AR-15s, the Feds will eliminate those "Constitutional Patriots" with little difficulty. Look at those Branch Dividian nuts in Waco a couple of decades ago -- the Feds took them out with one tank without firing a shot, and they weren't even trying to hurt them. Posting AC because I am going to moderate up the non-crazy posts below.

    6. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as a Canadian, I won't let him.

      Interesting. And how, exactly, do you plan to stop him? Remember, you don't have a gun, but he does.

      "Who said I don't have a gun?"

      The fact that you are opposing firearm ownership by the general public proves it. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

    7. Re: Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a mental illness to believe that someone with a gun is safer than someone without.

    8. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vietnam

    9. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS, at Waco the FBI and ATF shot every single person that exited the burning building from the rear basement entrance.

    10. Re: Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a mental illness to believe that someone with a gun is safer than someone without.

      Police disagree.

    11. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

      There are always a lot more variables than "untrained guys with guns vs the military". Especially where the ex-military population in the US is *huge*.

      A guy with just enough chemistry knowledge can make an IED, and doesn't even have to be there for it to work.

      A single sniper can hold down a squad of well armed and trained soldiers. He can be a half mile or more away to do it, and only needs to fire off a shot if they move.

      Gaining access to non-civilian gear is inevitable if the war runs long enough. That can be gear captured in the field, overrun bases, or even supply drops from other nations friendly to the cause.

      ISIS/ISIL have been using a lot of captured equipment.

      If several thousand armed civilians showed up in Washington DC, air strikes are out of the picture. Heavy armor is questionable at best. Even heavy weapons fire isn't a good thing. "1,000 terrorists dead, 10,000 unarmed civilians killed" is never going to go over well.

      That's not to say it would work. If someone did start a civil war with good cause, but poor planning, they may as well consider themselves dead before it starts. But enough people with light weapons (pistols, AR-15, hunting rifles) and an awesome plan can (possibly) go a long way.

      A million angry people carrying torches and pitchforks could take over DC if they wanted. There wouldn't be a million surviving attackers though.

      The Branch Davidians were a special bunch. Nothing about what they did really made sense. Fortifying yourself in a building with no escape route is suicide. They had no real motive or plan. Or if they had a plan it was a horrible one.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    12. Re: Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew it, Obama IS nuts!

    13. Re: Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So do soldiers. Espically in countries where the police and soldiers don't look or act any different from each other. Every time it happens one of the first orders of business is to confiscate weapons. Second order of business? Rape, pillage, and steal. Those weak peasants should learn their rigthful place under the boot. They don't have rights unless the Fuehrer deems it. If you don't agree, board this train. The armed man will ensure that you get on board. When you see a neighbor with a gun, be sure to tell the paramilitary police so men with guns can come and tell him that he can't have guns.

    14. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Yes, the best possible outcome to attempting to overthrow the government with guns:

      Massive disruption in trade leading to a massive increase in poverty. Everyone will lose loved ones from starvation (food will get burned in the fields or can't get transported due to violence), violence, and poor medical care (see notes on starvation). Industries will collapse, some groups will decide to consolidate their power through violence and this will lead to genocide and warlords.

      So, basically hell on earth or prepper heaven.

    15. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by pnutjam · · Score: 2

      That sniper can hold down a squad, but not a squad with air support or artillery, welcome to WW2 era tactics. IED's and hit and run tactics are definitely where it's at, but you can't win with those tactics. The best you can hope for is to not lose before the other side gives up. You make life a hell on earth for civilians.

      A civil war fought like that is nothing like an invasion force fighting against that. (bad grammer, sorry) Look at Syria for a lesson.

    16. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Rule of law, social norms, and trained police / military will do a pretty good job.

    17. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by internerdj · · Score: 1

      I work with some of those former military types. From some of my talks with them: It is also important to note that active duty military are required to follow lawful orders, not all orders. It is the duty of any military member to immediately detain someone issuing an unlawful order regardless of rank. Not having served myself, I don't know how this matches the military regulations, but that isa seemingly widely held understanding of their obligation. It seems a bit naive to consider the military as a cohesive pro-government force if an issue is big enough for a significant number of civilian gun-owners revolt.

    18. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Vietnam would beg to differ. You just have to be willing to drop a whole building to take out a few tanks. Then a small army can beat an organized and supported military. It's about commitment.

    19. Re: Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The r-square for gun-ownership rates to intentional homicide by country is 0.023: being in a country where you are more likely to encounter a gun doesn't at all mean you are less safe. If you want to take my rights, then come up with some real science.

    20. Re: Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said Canadian, not religious.

    21. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      The key to a successful uprising, insurgency, revolution or whatever you want to call it is in the level of mass support, not the number or type of weapons you have.

      If half the country supports you, and most of the rest don't really oppose you, it doesn't really matter whether you just have sticks and stones, the army can't kill everybody.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re: Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      First poster should be shot on sight, fuck him. I'd deliver his shit for free if I had the means. Fuck fedex too.

      Always good to get an official quote from the NRA.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And as a Canadian, I won't let him.

      Interesting. And how, exactly, do you plan to stop him? Remember, you don't have a gun, but he does. "Who said I don't have a gun?" The fact that you are opposing firearm ownership by the general public proves it. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

      Jesus Tittyfucking Christ, it's like reading a post from a seven year old school bully.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    24. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was the AC you replied to. Thanks for the thoughtful post, as mine was approaching the edge of "trolly". You are right that any such situation has a lot of variables. I think the biggest variable is that I doubt it will ever be the People vs the Government. If it ever comes to anything like rebellion here it will be a real civil war with a bunch of citizens on one side and a bunch of other citizens on the other side shooting each other, probably with divided local authorities, too. I guess in that case you do want some AR-15s handy.

    25. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Is it better then to just shut up and allow an elite few to tell you exactly what you will and will not be allowed to do? Or say? Or drive, or wear or eat? This assumes of course that the elite are able or willing to actually provide you with basic staples of life, but history suggests otherwise.

      At some point when governance becomes a very real tyranny would you remain a "safe" obedient tool? Or would you risk what is necessary to be free?

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    26. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      The irony is that you could be referring to either of the quotes you posted...

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    27. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      The Vietnamese did not win, America lost (lost interest, lost heart, lost a lot of lives). An occupying force is much different then a civil war (see Syria).

    28. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I have a voice in government today. My impact is small, but my rights and voice are real. You would trade the "elite's" you don't like, for some "elite's" that you think you like, who will turn out to be, or be replaced by someone terrible.

      See - almost every coup in history.
      Your basically pinning your hopes on another George Washington.

    29. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, us Americans had such an easy time with those simple minded desert dwellers in Iraq, didn't we. Just take a look at the combat we have been in lately and you can easily see that a bunch of guys with AR-15s can do quite a lot against the full on US military.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    30. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In waco the feds did use a few flash bangs through a window. In other uses flash bangs have caused fires. No need to shoot if the enemy is on fire. I would say that counts as firing a shot.

    31. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Absolutely the opposite. I pin my hopes on the *lack* of another George Washington. I believe that the founders produced the best protection the common man has ever had. And while it is most certainly not perfect, it has not been matched in history in its primary purpose to prevent tyranny over a populace.

      If that doctrine is faithfully upheld the power is rightfully in the hands of the governed, rather than those who govern. If the principles outlined therein are enforced, then it matters little who is actually in power, because the limitations on their impact to the governed is absolute. It's not until short-term populace influence modifies those powers specifically outlined by the founders grants power to those who can convince a short sighted and angry electorate to contradict the Constitution do we find ourselves in a bind.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    32. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      And to elaborate:
      I don't wish to grant any new power to ANY authority. I don't want the President, the House, the Senate, the EPA, the Dept, or Ed, the Dept of Defense, the Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of Homeland Security... NONE OF THEM.

      Today, in this period, under these leaders, with this global stage, it might seem completely reasonable to grant powers to those whom we entrust to govern us, tomorrow under a new President, and a new Congress, and a new global stage, things well me wholly different. 25 years from now you cant say "well that's not what I meant when I gave that power." Your opinion is no longer required.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    33. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It is better to destroy your enemies.

      They punish men for everything that is good.
      Be it girls (can't marry female children anymore, can in the Bible and pre-1870s northern US states for instance, the south held out longer), to guns.

    34. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      As I recall, if you are a soldier and follow an unlawful order, you and your superior who gave the order, are responsible for that action. It is your responsibility to refuse the order and report it up your chain of command.

      I did a lot of mental wargames with ex-military people over the years. They are interesting to think about. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it if it happened.

      This is just a frontal assault scenario, extremely simplified. It also assumes the rebel faction has sufficient numbers to make it past the first encounter.

      Imagine the first wave is 100 rebels storming the White House. The Secret Service and local law enforcement will be calling for a cleanup of 100 bodies on the lawn. Possibly the arrest of a few injured survivors.

      You can be sure reinforcements will be called in.

      The second wave of 1,000 rebels attempt to storm the White House. They might make it to the newly extended buffer zone, blocks away.

      As someone else said, these civilians with weapons and passenger vehicles are facing the military at this point. They aren't just going to hang out waiting at the perimeter. They're going to aggressively hunt and stop the threat. So word will spread when that hunting goes a bit wrong. Like a AH-64 lights up a suspected rebel faction stronghold with the M230. That may turn out to just be an apartment building with women and children in it. That could have even been

      Around the 4th or 5th attack, assuming the rebel propaganda machine was working, soldiers are going to start questioning what they're doing. They might sympathize with the rebels. They might recognize the fact that they're fighting other Americans. Who is right, a bunch of people willing to die over their belief, or the people who sign the paychecks. This is when the power may shift. The military would still have superior communications. Rebel factions would have poorer communications and intelligence, but would have numbers and motivation.

      BTW, I intentionally wrote that with no motives behind it. It really doesn't matter what the reasons are. It will be messy.

      There are other tactics that would change things dramatically. Say it were done quieter and a single shift at a single air base was infiltrated. They could put a few squadrons of fighter/attack aircraft in the air and on target in less than an hour. It could be booked as an "exercise". There is one I found with just a few quick searches that has enough aircraft and weapons to take a small country. I'm sure there are others.

      pnutjam said in another comment, that won't happen and to use Syria as an example.
      ISIS did that in Syria. Al-Tabqa air base, Aug 2014. That was less than 1,000 ISIS fighters in 3(?) waves.

      I read mixed reports on how many aircraft they captured, how many were functional, and if they were used. Some said none were functional. Another report said two ISIS MiG-21Bs were shot down there. Other reports say that they are still using some MiG-21Bs on ground strikes.

      So, yes, civilians with any sort of weapon can be dangerous. It doesn't even have to be homemade AR-15s.

      Luckily, American civilians are disorganized and poorly motivated. Hell, look at OWS (New York). They had up to about 50,000 marchers. That's not a little protest. That's an army. They had no goal and no coordination, since they were intentionally lacking leadership. It could have flipped from being unarmed, to capturing everything the police brought. But even if they did that, they wouldn't have a clue where to go after that.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    35. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Hey AC. :)

      It's all good, I know things don't always come across quite right. I didn't consider it too trollish.

      More than likely if it did come down to a large faction versus another large faction, and the authorities (law enforcement and/or military) were divided on the cause, they'd be handing out weapons and gear anyways, and still run out of ammo too fast.

      Either side would probably have to "borrow" from gun stores anyways. I don't think even most local law enforcement has enough real firepower to handle war like battles.

      Look at cases like this. 23 officers fired at least 377 rounds in less than a minute. Even the professionals don't control themselves in less than critical situations. If that was a combat situation and they reloaded, they'd all be out of ammo before the fight started, and realize they took out an empty vehicle or apartment. Well, hopefully empty.

      I happen to be one of the people who does have weapons, including an AR-15. I have quite a few magazines, and I buy ammo by the case. I really don't like paying range prices for ammo, and I don't like wasting range time reloading magazines.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    36. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Well, a bunch of armed groups seizing power is certainly the best way to enable this scenario.

      When I say, "another George Washington", I meant someone who is willing to step down and relinquish power. That's not a common attribute, I doubt it's anywhere to be found in the rabid tea-tardist camp. They want to be in charge and make sure we do things their way or die in a ditch.

    37. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Actually most Tea Party people just want government to leave them the fuck alone. They disdain government's intrusion, they don't trust it, and they would be far from interested in being directly associated with it. Most wouldn't run for office for fear of the rot in DC contaminating themselves. For the most part they just want government to be held to the limits that people like George Washington deliberately and purposefully crafted into the Constitution.

      It's people who write law after law saying stupid shit like you're not allowed to buy a 32oz coke in a restaurant, or that you can have salt shakers on the table that want control over everything, and those people are not Tea Partiers. Those people are mocked by Tea Partiers. Those are the people who write laws that mean to prevent you from ever becoming guilty of making a mistake, rather than assuming your innocent, like our system of laws is intended.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    38. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Sure, that's the story when they are not on top. Just wait until they are calling the shots with a small army at their back (hopefully never). Look at the dumb stuff that went down at Cliven's ranch.

    39. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      That's because you were asleep in history class. The United States was ruled by the most powerful Army and Navy in the world at the time. It was because we were armed that we could fight for our freedom. Look into history, look into how and why. It's very interesting. Also, understand that gun control is racist and why. You don't want to be a racist bigot asshole, do you? Then you can't be for gun control.

      Now, where do I get my free CNC machine?

    40. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Waco, even if you believe the government story was over a $200 dollar tax. And they called up dozens of agents per person in the compound, not just one tank. And you need to brush up on guerrilla tactics. You don't stand at the top of the hill shooting at planes and tanks. Take out strategic targets and fade back into the noise. Tanks and plains are expensive. Rifles and nitroglycerin are cheap.

    41. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      The best way to overthrow the government is just stop paying taxes and join in resilient economic communities. There may come a day when violent revolution is better than continuing to live under an oppressive regime, but yes there will be wailing and gnashing of the teeth if such a course becomes necessary.

    42. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Absolutely accurate assessment. It was dumb shit. And as soon as people figured out it was little more than dumb shit by a backward dipshit redneck, they distanced themselves fast because they knew it was WRONG.

      Quite unlike the cult of personality aimed at certain political figures who will be defended to the media's dying breath, and in turn eaten up by weak-minded, intellectually dishonest populace, no matter how egregious the failures or betrayals may be.

      Not just people who consider themselves Tea Partiers (which I am not included in), but also those who are independents and libertarians feel a need to challenge elected officials to actually uphold their oaths of office. They are currently slamming both Democrats and Republicans alike because they are sick and tired of having stupid shit rammed down their throats. You, and many like you seem to want to excuse every power grab, every lie, every failure, and every injustice. And I cant tell if it's because you're terrified of being called a racist or a misogynists (like you're so fond of calling anyone who challenges this administration, or Democrats in general), or if it's because you're too shallow to call out the people you voted for.

      And while we're on the topic, and as you eluded to but cant seem to make the leap of critical thinking to comprehend; You allow these idiots in Washington to keep taking more power, and keep telling you that you have to do this, and you cant do that. And you allow it because you think this guy is so awesome and kind , he won a Nobel Peace Prize for Christ's sake! You believe its impossible that he/they/whatever wont abuse the powers they are taking. But what if the next guy, or the guy 4 elections from now is the worst of the worst right-wing bible thumping gun toting complete fucking nutjob?

      YOU GAVE HIM ALL THE POWER HE NEEDS TO FUCK YOU OVER, AND SCREAMED AT THE IDIOT TEA PARTIERS FOR COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.

      When you're bitching in a decade because shit has come completely off the fucking rails, don't come talk to me about.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    43. Re:Cody Wilson wants to help you make a gun by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I hope you are under professional care. I'm no Democrat or Republican. I'm doing my part to reign in the government overreach. My only point is that armed insurrection is a fools game and will only lead to worse problems.

  2. Not sure I agree with his cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but I am looking forward to more affordable, good quality CNC mills.

  3. M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Somehow, I doubt Wilson has a full-auto rifle he hands to journalists. And he's not doing anything that you're not allowed to do in your own garage.

    1. Re:M-16? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, and his machine doesn't even make a complete lower receiver - it can only finish the remaining 20% of an 80% (complete) lower receiver.

      The difference between a full-auto receiver and a semi-auto AR-15 receiver is 1 hole. The rest of the full-auto portion of the fire control group is several internal components that his machine has nothing to do with.

      I built my 2 AR-15 rifles, this stuff isn't rocket science - but it's probably a little to advanced for any liberal journalist.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    2. Re:M-16? by OzPeter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And he's not doing anything that you're not allowed to do in your own garage.

      This is what I don't get.

      There is nothing illegal about what he is doing, and as far as I know no-one is touting new laws that will stop it. Yes there are some private companies that are refusing to do business with him, but as far I as I can see is their choice. Yet here he is making noise all over the place as if he is trying to attract attention like a 15 year old drama queen poking a stick at a wild animal. If he keeps doing this I can't see it ending well for someone, but I don't know if it will be Cody himself , or in fact collateral damage somewhere else.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re: M-16? by Anon-Admin · · Score: 2

      The guy posts a good comment and you pick on his use of the word "to"

      Heres your video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    4. Re: M-16? by kwiqsilver · · Score: 1, Troll

      And the hoplophobes mark the insightful, pro-gun comment as a Troll.

    5. Re:M-16? by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Curious how you felt about photographers who didn't want to shoot gay weddings getting forced to do that by the courts.

      Should a company be able to decide to serve to because of ideology, or not?

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    6. Re:M-16? by Anon-Admin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He is making noise about common carriers that are refusing to move is product based on it's potential to produce a weapon.

      If they are common carriers they are not able to deny service based on a political view. That is like an ISP trying to block all republican sites on the Internet because they are owned by democrats. Which I can now say because the FCC has applied common carrier status to ISP's and called it "Net Neutrality" lol

    7. Re:M-16? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      If they are common carriers they are not able to deny service based on a political view.

      It is not clear if FedEx or UPS are common carriers. This website Fundamental Legal Differences within UPS and FedEx indicates that members of each of those groups holds "common motor carrier" status, but not the groups in its entirety. So it is quite possible that they have the right to refuse service.

      However IANAL

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    8. Re: M-16? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 0

      OMG, I'm so mortified that I made such a simple mistake!

      It's almost like I was more concerned with the content of my message than the approval of a slashdot grammar nazi!

      Wait, no - I'm not mortified at all. I think that might have been a burp.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    9. Re:M-16? by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      Curious how you felt about photographers who didn't want to shoot gay weddings getting forced to do that by the courts.

      Should a company be able to decide to serve to because of ideology, or not?

      I see your point of view, and generally agree with it. But one example of a company that refused to do service with Cody was an insurance company. They probably assessed his business as a risk that they didn't want to deal with and hence withdrew their business. But would you also force insurance companies to insure you regardless of the business venture? (EG using hyperbole - a children's petting zoo that had an open, live spitting cobra pen)

      Personally I would support the insurance company in this instance, but feel that FedEx and UPS are out of line. However as I mentioned in a post below, it is possible that FedEx and UPS (as attempted to be used by Cody) are potentially not common carriers, so may have the right to refuse business, although IANAL.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    10. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      > The difference between a full-auto receiver and a semi-auto AR-15 receiver is 1 hole
      OMG, ban assault holes now.

    11. Re:M-16? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      So you're saying no cakes for the gays then?

      I must say that I find that offensive.

    12. Re:M-16? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      it can only finish the remaining 20% of an 80% (complete) lower receiver.

      So the idea is to buy this legal mill, and buy a legal paperweight, and then turn it into something is not as east or legal to sell?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    13. Re: M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hoplophobe" is a word that ammosexuals use to describe people who think that not any mouthbreathing moron should have unrestricted access to firearms.

    14. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, yeah guy, U R ANAL.

    15. Re:M-16? by AK+Marc · · Score: 0
      No, they shouldn't be required by law to do it. That's slavery. They should be fined 10x the cost of doing it for violating the civil rights of the people they refused.

      Should a company be able to decide to serve to because of ideology, or not?

      Nope. A company should not be allowed to only serve Blacks in the back alley, nor have separate but unequal restrooms.

    16. Re:M-16? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 2

      It's exactly a paperweight until the remaining 20% is milled. There isn't a place for the trigger, hammer, or safety - it's solid metal in that area.

      I'm guessing that "east" is supposed to be "easy" and that's accurate. It is legal to sell, but there are hoops to jump through. From what I understand, it's difficult to find an FFL willing to deal with that kind of transfer (of a non-serialized gun). Once you've serialized it and it goes through an FFL transfer, it isn't so secret anymore and the papertrail begins.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    17. Re: M-16? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on your message, but I think you ought to admit that it's a little ironic that you're berating journalists for failing at something that you find important while simultaneously failing at journalism.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:M-16? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Curious how you felt about photographers who didn't want to shoot gay weddings getting forced to do that by the courts.

      The only case I have heard of that happening was when the photographer had signed the contract to do it, and then realized after signing that it was a gay wedding. I have not heard of anyone being forced to do anything for a homosexual couple that they had not already signed up for. It was the photographer's own dumbass fault for not having looked more closely at the names of the customers.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    19. Re:M-16? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      It is not clear if FedEx or UPS are common carriers.

      OK, so hold them responsible for all goods they carry, because they're not common carriers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:M-16? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Curious how you felt about photographers who didn't want to shoot gay weddings getting forced to do that by the courts.

      Should a company be able to decide to serve to because of ideology, or not?

      Depends on the ideology, and the justification for not giving them business. Gay husbands are not gonna use their wedding photos as offensive weapons, and their is very little business reason for a photographer to turn down a wedding, so it's really hard for me to side with the photographer.

      OTOH, if the "KKK Make This County Lily-White By Any Means Necessary" coalition is probably not a non-profit you should sell shit. Unless can prove, in both the Courts of Law and public opinion, they're hipsters being ironic or something.

      In this case they seem to have excellent business reasons for turning this guy down. If you're a 3D printer manufacturer, and you want to sell printers in Latin America, it's probably a really bad idea for you to be associated with a right-leaning American group who can turn any home into a gun manufacturer with a $15-$20k printer. They have had experiences with the wealthy using private armies to destroy their governments, so they are highly unlikely to deb cool with that shit, which means there will be an entire continent on which your printer is illegal. Given that African states have problems with foreigners donating $20k to some crazy asshole who then turns it into a massive rebellion that kidnaps entire schools full of girls, that's another continent you're banned on. Add in the Chinese and Indians and you've risked being banned by half the human fucking race to sell printers to a population roughly the size of Canada (American gun hobbyists are only about 10% of our population).

      I strongly suspect that a) the printer company does not give a shit about the Second Amendment, but nonetheless b) their next model will have firmware that bricks it if you try to print out a Defense Distributed design, and auto-updates when new designs are made, and phones the manufacturer if it's altered in any way by the end-user.

    21. Re:M-16? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      So you're saying no cakes for the gays then?

      It's right there in the Bible that preparing food for gays is against the rules. I think it's the seventh or eight commandment. It's the one between, "thou shalt not let blacks drink out of the whites' water fountain" and "thou shalt not let the blacks and whites marry or else you'll get zebra babies". Or maybe I'm confusing it with the one that says, "thou shalt have my fucking AR-15 when you wrest it from my cold dead fingers".

      The bible is based on sound science and the US is nothing if not a Christian nation.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:M-16? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Depends on the political point of view.

      Do you think there's any chance at all that a group called Al Qaeda in America could FedEx a box that looked like a letter-bomb? Let's say it doesn't look like a bomb, but a FedEx guy notices the return address before accepting the package. That ain't getting shipped.

      Remember what happened when one idiot decided to have an open carry demonstration in front of a polling place and said he was a Black panther?

      Wilson's problem here is that a political-point-of-view that's relatively mainstream in America (very few people will agree that hobbyists should not have the right to make their own weapons) is one of the bannable ones in much of the world. The Mexicans are not gonna say "gee, this 3D printer technology is so amazing, it will allow every Mexican (including the cartels) to own the weapon of his choice with a mere few hours tinkering, let's subsidize the shit out of it so everyone can have guns." They are going to ban the import of everything related to the printer platform that Defense Distributed uses.

      Most of Latin America has experienced at least one coup d'tat against an elected government that happened because the right-leaning conservatives have greater access to firearms due to their control of the military. In a country with a per capita income under $10k, where almost nobody has a full-sized computer much less a paper printer, a technology which turns a $15k printer into a gun factory is not gonna be seen as democratizing. It's gonna be seen as a really good way for Machiavellian rich guys to stage coups.

      And much of the rest of the world is slightly less paranoid about weapons, but still extremely uncomfortable with private ownership of them, which means that if you sell Defense Distributed shit, and they put on their website "this company is great, you can use them to make REALLY COOL DEADLY GUNS!!!" whoever is unlucky enough to be this company will probably be banned from doing business in something on the order of half the world.

    23. Re:M-16? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 2

      Understanding the components and assembly of a machine makes me an "internet tough guy"?

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    24. Re:M-16? by unrtst · · Score: 1

      But would you also force insurance companies to insure you regardless of the business venture?

      If insurance is required by law for a normal activity (driving, operating a business manufacturing CNC mills, etc), then yes, the insurance company should be required to provide service to any lawful entity at a fair price regardless of who that person is.

      That doesn't exactly answer your question, because I don't know if he's required to have insurance, especially with so few employees. I still think they should be required to provide basic insurance coverage. There are companies that actually make guns, and ones that make and test bullet proof vests, and ones that make and test drugs, and ones that make and test tasers, etc etc etc. He's making small CNC mills. His intent doesn't really matter**.

      ** I'm assuming this isn't some odd insurance request, like asking to be insured against any suits or claims against him as a result of someone being hurt by the items made by the product he's shipping. Even in this case, they should provide it, at a reasonable rate with reasonable deductables and all that stuff - I mean, why not. Anything else is just based on principals that do not align with the law.

    25. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's exactly a paperweight until the remaining 20% is milled. There isn't a place for the trigger, hammer, or safety - it's solid metal in that area.

      I'm guessing that "east" is supposed to be "easy" and that's accurate. It is legal to sell, but there are hoops to jump through. From what I understand, it's difficult to find an FFL willing to deal with that kind of transfer (of a non-serialized gun). Once you've serialized it and it goes through an FFL transfer, it isn't so secret anymore and the papertrail begins.

      Your last comments assume, of course, that the person intends to transfer it to someone else. I'm not so sure that applies to most of the people looking at doing this.

    26. Re: M-16? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      If people are so much more critical of grammar than they are about misinformation, it's a good thing I never tried to be a journalist.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    27. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know...
      You know...

      They don't. It just represents the world going to hell in a hand basket to sheltered liberals.

      "Commonly available Drill Press and a 3 axis vice allows people to create guns to kill children!"

      We're fucked because these people are just in full panic mode, all the time, about everything but reality. They want the government to be the family they never had to parent them and give them money for being alive.

    28. Re:M-16? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I built my 2 AR-15 rifles, this stuff isn't rocket science - but it's probably a little to advanced for any liberal journalist.

      I find it curious that people want to make gun ownership a liberal vs. conservative issue. I know many liberals who either own guns or have no problem with guns. Personally, I appreciate a well made weapon and enjoy target shooting with a fine weapon. I also realize the importance of securing a weapon so that it doen't used in an inappropriate manner and believ the 2cd is a god amendment. A gun is a tool to be used properly and not some replacement for a functional penis. To me, owning a gun and supporting liberal ideals is not an existential contradiction, nor requires some bullshit rational to justify such a position. It's simply a choice I have aright to make. Some like to point to Switzerland as an example of why gun ownership doesn't mean guns are bad yet ignore the many liberal concepts the Swiss also embrace, such as universal healthcare or safe free abortions. To argue one point while ignoring the other is an existential conridiction to my admitly simple mind. YMMV. HAND.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    29. Re:M-16? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      I also hate spell checking.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    30. Re:M-16? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      It is legal to sell, but there are hoops to jump through.

      I think the better way to say that is that it is NOT legal to sell, UNLESS you jump through a lot of Federal hoops.

      I understand the paperwork isn't bad. But then there's the fee and waiting to get approved. Someone told me it took a long time to get the approval.

    31. Re:M-16? by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Nope. A company should not be allowed to only serve Blacks in the back alley, nor have separate but unequal restrooms.

      As long as I can give my fellow parishoners I see at church their 50% discount for being a good christian and keep those heathens who are atheists or potential jihadists/muslim terrorists out of my restaurant; I don't care what color they are.

    32. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's probably a little to advanced for any liberal journalist.

      Don't make that mistake. They know exactly what they're doing to manipulate public opinion.

    33. Re:M-16? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I find it curious that people want to make gun ownership a liberal vs. conservative issue.

      "People" in this case being almost exclusively liberals. Not all of them of course, and you are an example of that. Nevertheless, the vast majority of people who want to get rid of guns vote Democrat.

      It isn't the "other side's" fault, because if that particular set of Democrats would stop trying to take them away, nobody else would have cause to oppose them on the issue.

      I know of very few -- very few indeed -- "conservatives" who want to get rid of guns.

    34. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it curious that people want to make gun ownership a liberal vs. conservative issue.

      You might have a point if almost all of the gun control legislation didn't originate with liberal politicians.

    35. Re:M-16? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 0

      I am not so sure. I know plenty of conservatives who would like to keep their guns while denying that right to those who don't look like them. Then again, anecdote doen't equal data in any case.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    36. Re:M-16? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Should a company be able to decide to serve to because of ideology, or not?

      Some ideologies are overridden by rights. There is not right to manufacture guns but there is a right to freedom of association. See the difference?

    37. Re:M-16? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I see your point of view

      I'm not sure I have a point of view yet, very torn on this generally.

      One thing to mention regarding the insurance company - if one were to say they should be required to give service, it should I think so nothing of the fee they would be allowed to charge because of greater perceived risk.

      On the other hand then you can simply price yourself such that you cannot be hired (which incidentally was something I wondered why anyone against photographing a gay wedding wouldn't do to sidestep the issue). If you can side-step it so easily, it doesn't seem like requiring service has any real benefit, and just makes things more complex.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    38. Re:M-16? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Even so, companies break out of contracts all the time - why should that be any different?

      I could see them being fined for doing so if it left the couple little time to find another photographer, then there is clear harm.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    39. Re:M-16? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Even in this case, they should provide it, at a reasonable rate with reasonable deductables and all that stuff

      Rates are based on risk and usually calculated by looking at many similar companies and the claims filed against them. Being the only company in the business leaves nothing to compare to. How would you come up with a rate for a unique company in a dangerous business?

      Anything else is just based on principals that do not align with the law.

      It could come down to "We have no idea what to charge you and therefore will not risk it".

    40. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - I think it was more to do with the sudden leap in your post from "technical interesting" to "weird ad hominem attack". It caught me out - and it makes you sound like a repressed psycho.

      Not saying you are a repressed psycho! But it was that little twist at the end that made me think, "huh, jerk", which is a shame because the rest of the post was cool. Not sure the last bit wasn't a mild joke, but at this distance it was indistinguishable from involuntary bitchiness.

      That's why PopeRatzo accused you. Not a big deal really. Have a fantastic day!

    41. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just checked my bible and holy shit it's right there!!

      Mine doesn't say AR-15 though - it's the King James edition - so it says "+6 two-handed sword" instead.

    42. Re: M-16? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If people are so much more critical of grammar than they are about misinformation, it's a good thing I never tried to be a journalist.

      Tacticool guns are popular because they look cool, proper grammar is popular because it is useful.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:M-16? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So you are attempting to excuse a massive generalisation based on nothing but some base hatred or distrust? Brilliant.

    44. Re: M-16? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      Grammar doesn't fend off coyote, wild hogs or bobcats in my part of the country. I have livestock to protect.

      Tacticool is something city folk do. Here in the sticks, they're tools to do a job.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    45. Re: M-16? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Grammar doesn't fend off coyote, wild hogs or bobcats in my part of the country. I have livestock to protect.

      Sure, and guns don't fend off spelling errors that make your article less effective.

      Tacticool is something city folk do. Here in the sticks, they're tools to do a job.

      Come on now, there's plenty of hicks in sticks with rails on their varmint rifles, lots of cheap good guns come that way now so it's less unusual. I personally have a Peruvian Mauser with a[n old, cheap] variable scope and a quick-mount Bushnell red dot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re:M-16? by dwillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Very good point. I try and try and try to get this message out to many of my fellow gun owners. Liberal does not mean gun hater, and conservative does not mean gun lover. Yes the majorities of those two groups are found within the respective political persuasions. But exceptions to the rule are easily found. Bloomberg is or was supposedly a Republican, meanwhile Liberal Vermont just slapped down attempts to impose tighter restrictions and are one of the first constitutional carry states.

      Anti-gun folks are found on both sides.
      Pro-gun folks are found on both sides.

      For those that support the right to keep and bear arms we need to keep this in mind and not attack our allies. Without the Liberals who love guns our rights would be at a much greater risk. Thanks from this conservative.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    47. Re:M-16? by dwillden · · Score: 1

      One name: Bloomberg!

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    48. Re:M-16? by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Your example is a failure. Explosives are hazardous materials restricted by law, requiring special handling to ship. The parcel companies are required by law to refuse to ship explosives.

      A CNC mill does not fall under any level of hazardous materials. The fact that it can be used to legally complete a legal manufacturing process means they have no grounds to refuse it. They do not as a practice open or inventory packages. If a foreign government bans it, then it gets stopped because it must be identified on the customs shipping label. Still not grounds for a blanket refusal to carry a 100% legal device within this country.

      And if someone wants to manufacture guns in a foreign country they'll probably go for the much easier to make AK style weapons (someone with basic blacksmithing skills can build the receiver out of a shovel.)

      But ultimately what the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant as he's seeing to ship within the borders of this country, and UPS and FedEx have zero grounds to refuse his shipment of these mills. Of course he can just get around their decision by using a different company name and not mentioning the purpose of the machines being shipped.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    49. Re:M-16? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Even so, companies break out of contracts all the time - why should that be any different?

      Can you provide an example where it was any different? When companies break out of contracts they have penalties for doing so. From what I've seen it has been exactly the same as any other company breaking out of a contract.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    50. Re: M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mens restrooms dont have couches in them, but nobody cares about that I guess.

    51. Re: M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keeping and bearing arms implies you can produce them, not that you can only carry around the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

    52. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I built my 2 AR-15 rifles, this stuff isn't rocket science - but it's probably a little too advanced for any non-technical journalist.

      There. I fixed that for you. This has nothing to do with philosophies. Don't try and steer it that direction please!

    53. Re:M-16? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Actually, it does. You insert a blank aluminum billet (held in the right jig), and you get back a completed receiver.

      The jigs are 3-D printed. With the right jig, almost any smallish aluminum gadget can be produced.

    54. Re:M-16? by pnutjam · · Score: 3, Funny

      preach it bother!

    55. Re:M-16? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I think they stopped, the last massive gun rights limitations were passed under Raegan. Maybe they never started...

    56. Re:M-16? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Check the cover, if it says D&D, it's not the same bible he's talking about.

    57. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he's not doing anything that you're not allowed to do in your own garage.

      Well, I think the real problem is that he thinks that people will actually use his stuff. Even in Maryland you can still easily buy an HBAR AR-15, and Maryland has some of the tightest gun laws in the country. I'm in Maryland and I could go get a shotgun on my lunch break, and I'd have to wait a whole week for a Glock. Most places you can still buy a semi-auto AK variant for under $600, and an AR for not much more than that. There are only a very few people who want to actually go to the trouble of using his little mill just to prove a point.

      Let's face it, in the US availability of guns is not a big issue.

    58. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference between a full-auto receiver and a semi-auto AR-15 receiver is 1 hole

      Don't lie. A fairly substantial part of inner receiver must also be machined away to so there is clearance for the FCG components.

    59. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again Jane Q public posts misinformation.

      No one is trying to take them away.

      The general platform on the left is background checks, licensing, and training.
      Please do tell the world, which of those words is synonymous with "confiscation".

    60. Re:M-16? by dywolf · · Score: 2

      Yep. Another false dichotomy. And an overgeneralization to boot.

      The valid comparison isn't looking for RWNJ's who want to take guns away.
      The comparison should be with those who oppose background checks, licensing, training, and preventing purchases that seek to avoid existing gun laws. what's the refrain? oh yes: "we have enough gun control laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have" Except if that was true, they'd stop blocking said enforcement at every turn.

      Almost no one wants to actually "take them away". That is the extreme position, but if you get to paint with jumbo sized brush, then I get to paint all persons on the right as gun fetishists who view guns as a fashion accessory rather than a tool, and who all oppose such common sense simple rules as "preventing criminals and mentally ill from obtaining weapons", "knowing how to handle a weapon", "having some sort of proof of the above". And of course, the afore mentioned dodging of the rules.

      But of course that isn't every rightwinger, those proposals enjoy broad support across the political spectrum, generally > 75-80%.

      But hey, let's just say "its all the democrats faults", while ignoring reality and the very vocal extremists on both sides.
      It's the intellectually lazy thing to do, which is probably why you proposed it in the first place.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    61. Re:M-16? by I'm+just+joshin · · Score: 1

      You mean the guy who changed his political affiliation, but not his policies, from D to R so he could ride Guiliani's coat tails? Not the best example.

    62. Re:M-16? by stoploss · · Score: 1

      I think they stopped, the last massive gun rights limitations were passed under Raegan.

      Feel free to corroborate your claim. I've been seeing this "President Reagan implemented gun control" meme lately.

      I'm going to stop you right here if you are referring to the Hughes Amendment poison pill to the Firearm Owners Protection Act that Charlie Rangel (D, NY) gaveled through on an obviously opposed voice vote at 3 AM.

      So, what examples of Reagan's federal executive action do you have to support this ridiculous claim?

    63. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that the Democratic Party has made gun control part of their platform.

    64. Re: M-16? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If grammar was important in journalism, than most journalists seemed to have missed the memo. Have you ever tried to read actual news?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    65. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. A company should not be allowed to only serve Blacks in the back alley, nor have separate but unequal restrooms.

      I'm sure your policies will be popular when you force the installation of urinals in the women's restrooms. Oh, who are we kidding, these liberal feelgood policies invariably end up with deprivation... meaning urinals will be removed from the men's room in order to obtain "equality".

      Satire?

    66. Re:M-16? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      someone with basic blacksmithing skills can build the receiver out of a shovel.
      I have to call bullshit on this, there are no modern firearms that can be built with a hammer and anvil.

    67. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curious that you can understand the encyclopedia size of laws that are written, court cases, court opinions, briefs which differ from state to state and federal court to federal court, all written in a language open to interpretation.

    68. Re:M-16? by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Google it on Youtube (I don't have access at work) the Receiver for an AK-47 can be made out of a shovel with simple blacksmithing skills, videos exist. Search for shovel ak-47. The trigger assembly and chamber and barrel are purchased but the part that is officially the gun is the receiver.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    69. Re:M-16? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Who supplies the machinery that Remington uses to manufacturer their firearms? There are other companies in the exact same business.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    70. Re:M-16? by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Guiliani isn't exactly the biggest friend of the 2nd Amendment either. Nor is Chris Christie who still thinks he has a shot at the R Nomination (he doesn't).

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    71. Re:M-16? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      "Why I Support The Brady Bill" - by Ronald Reagan, 1991:
      http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03...

      Saint Reagan, holy be his name, is formerly living proof that one can be both pro-gun-rights and pro-gun-control.

      While as President there wasn't much that he did in terms of federal executive action, he supporter of gun rights, and of gun control, both before and after his Presidency. As Governor of California he signed into law both the Mulford Act and California's 15-day waiting period.

      While in other areas his views were more one-sided, in this area his personal views embodied a compromise that reflects the position of most Americans.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    72. Re:M-16? by stoploss · · Score: 0

      Almost no one wants to actually "take them away".

      Funny you should say that, because that's exactly what the majority of Congress and the President did in 1994 and tried to do again after Sandy Hook. Feinstein (the CCW-permit-holding hypocrite) is on record saying she wished she had been able to implement a complete confiscation at that the 1994 juncture.

      Oh, did you mean to say "Almost no one wants to actually 'take away the ones we feel like letting you keep'?"

      If so, tautologies are tautologies.

      Let's not pretend there isn't a strong desire to recapitulate UK gun laws here, complete with bans and (ideally) confiscation.

    73. Re:M-16? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      The rule of thumb is: "things about you that are intrinsic and immutable".

      If I own a restaurant, I can generally refuse service to anyone, for any reason...except on the basis of race, gender, religion, age, or disability. IE, the "protected classes", which if the current trend continues will soon include "sexual orientation".

      At some point, some of these things may come into tension. And that's when the courts generally institute a test, to check for certain ideals under the law, or determine the "lesser harm", or what have you.

      Remember, that religious belief is also among the defenses they tried to use to deny service black customers at lunch counters, to justify Jim Crow, et al.

      But just as skin color isn't a choice, neither is being gay. But even "choice" isn't the right factor, as religious belief is a choice, and that's protected as well. No the real test ultimately comes down to discrimination. REAL discrimination in this case is the blocking or removal of someone from the marketplace on the basis of some intrinsic part of that person. And its has been found to be harmful to society and to individuals and to American ideals involving equality to allow such discrimination.

      Therefore if a photographer want's to do business in the marketplace he must do business with ALL of the marketplace.
      And requiring him to do so, preventing him from discriminating, is not itself discriminatory.

      Because that's essentially what the complaint about being denied the "right to discriminate" boils down to:
      it's a variation on the theme that "fighting racism is racist", which is absolute BS.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    74. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting his own presidential library seems to be censoring his old speeches. Apparently Ronald Reagan was to liberal back in the day.

    75. Re:M-16? by butchersong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't really have a dog in this fight but you do not license a human right. If you take the stand that gun ownership shouldn't be taken away and is codified in the constitution then you cannot really argue that licensing is constitutional. Would you license people to speak freely?

    76. Re:M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens to my gun if I've skipped all the bureaucratic busy-work? It gets confiscated. You can't be this dense.

    77. Re: M-16? by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      It's a sad state of affairs when random_forum_schlub_0001 is judged as a peer to "journalists". But it sure explains a lot about how so many people have such ridiculous stance on any number of topics.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    78. Re:M-16? by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Yet here he is making noise all over the place as if he is trying to attract attention like a 15 year old drama queen poking a stick at a wild animal.

      Well obviously it's a far better business model to be really really quiet and not let those pesky customers know that you exist.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    79. Re:M-16? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Remington has an engineering and testing department and has been in business for many years. That is very different than some guy with as CNC machine producing receivers.

    80. Re:M-16? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1
      When the bakery opened, they were expected to be aware of the laws that apply to their business. The ACLU page you linked to specifically mentions a Colorado state law that

      prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

      Hence they were willingly and blatantly violating the law.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    81. Re:M-16? by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to say a business cant refuse all services to a person based on that person's inclusion in protected class (race, sex, age, etc.). It's another entirely to say that the business must participate in a private ceremony or activity that they disagree with.

      I'm not remotely anti-gay. But I dont think any person should be required by government to participate in any private activity, of any kind. And just like the gay marriage cake example (which by the way I dont think government should have ANY part in recognizing or not, just like my heterosexual marriage), a Muslim baker should never be required to make a bar mitzvah cake, a T-Shirt company should not be required to print pro 2nd Amendment t-shirts, or a theater owned by a Catholic family should not be required to allow a showing of 50 Shades of Grey.

      What about the case of the photographer who was sued because she wouldnt do the wedding photos for a gay wedding? What if another photographer is sued because they refuse to do the photos for a rifle demonstration? Or a military funeral? If that photographer has a problem with guns or the military, they shouldnt even be required to explain themselves, let alone provide the service.

      You cant blur the lines. As soon as you do you the assholes come out of the woodwork just to be assholes.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    82. Re:M-16? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      My point stands, your not building a modern firearm without mail-order & a shovel.

    83. Re:M-16? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention that litigants go after the deep pockets. If they can't get the money from the person who used the CNC machine they will try to gt it from the company that made the CNC machine. Even if they do not succeed the company is out the litigation costs.

    84. Re:M-16? by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      I am a liberal, and I own guns. I also support reasonable gun control laws.
      Zero tolerance is stupid in any application. This includes gun control.

    85. Re:M-16? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Your example is a failure. Explosives are hazardous materials restricted by law, requiring special handling to ship. The parcel companies are required by law to refuse to ship explosives.

      But they're not explosives. One of the packages looks like explosives, which could trigger the refusal, but the second package is just a package. If they can refuse to ship a package that's just a package from AQ, they can do it to anybody.

      And you're ignoring the actual PR and potential legal costs associated with shipping the devices. Sure federal law says you can't be held liable if a weapon you made yourself legally is used to turn a kindergarten class into dog-food by your insane son, and Defense Distributed can also not be held liable, but it doesn't explicitly say anything about freight companies. And Juries are not known for being particularly rational when following the law means some pretty upper-middle-class white mom can lose her son to a brutal murderer and nobody can be punished. At a minimum shipping these things has a very good chance of being a PR nightmare.

      As for the rest, you've managed to ignore my point. The printer company does not give two shits about your rights as an American, US Law, the Constitution, Apple Pie or the baby Jesus. It is a for-profit business and your rights as an American apply to a minuscule part of the global target market. It does give a shit about the likely reaction of politicians in countries that are reflexively anti-firearm to some asshole ion the internet declaring that he has created a program that will allow little old ladies to 3-D print enough materiel for a company of soldiers in their spare time.

      Note that, given that this is about politicians, a logical reality-based argument is only relevant to precisely the extent the politician concerned agrees with a) logic and b) reality.

    86. Re:M-16? by nobuddy · · Score: 2

      Reagan and the NRA started the whole gun control craze when the Black Panthers started open carry demonstrations teaching black people how to protect themselves. They pushed for and passed the California gun control laws you hate so much to try and disarm blacks.
      http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...

      In 1991 Reagan backed the Brady Bill which placed a 7 day waiting period on purchasing guns and allowed for background checks.
      http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03...

      Along with former presidents Ford and Carter, Reagan signed a publicly posted letter backing the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
      http://articles.latimes.com/19...

      need any more info on Saint Ronnie's anti-gun position?

    87. Re:M-16? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      So you are attempting to excuse a massive generalisation based on nothing but some base hatred or distrust? Brilliant.

      Absolutely not. I made the "massive" generalisation based on many years of experience with this issue. Granted, as someone else pointed out, that's only "anecdotal evidence". But it was not based on "hatred or distrust", just good old observation.

      Where did you get "hatred or distrust" from what I wrote? Methinks thou dost protest too much.

    88. Re:M-16? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Yep. Another false dichotomy. And an overgeneralization to boot.

      It wasn't a "false dichotomy". You read far more into my comment than I actually wrote. It wasn't a "dichotomy" or choice of any kind.

      I simply observed that it is almost exclusively liberals who want to impose further so-called "gun control" measures in the United States.

      Almost no one wants to actually "take them away".

      This is demonstrably false. In Washington State for example, liberals just passed a "universal background check" bill, which in effect makes it impractical for people to sell used guns to each other. The requirement is onerous, almost nobody will do it (as the people who fought for the bill well knew), and it is now illegal to sell or in some cases even loan a gun for a hunting trip to someone else unless you do.

      If that isn't an attempt at "taking them away", I don't know what is. Strict regulation and banning only differ in terminology and time. The terminology lets them pretend it isn't an effective ban.

      Under pressure from the Obama administration, the BATF attempted to ban the most widely-used ammunition for the most popular rifle in the United States. If that isn't an attempt to effectively take away, I don't know what is. Once again, they can put up a pretend front and say they didn't "ban" any guns... they just wanted to make them useless. And once again, in practice it's only a matter of semantics.

      Are you trying to pretend that the people in Washington who did this were not overwhelmingly liberals? You would be wrong. Are you trying to pretend that the Obama administration is not "liberal"? Or more accurately, sees itself as "Progressive"? You would be wrong.

      People can talk all they want about Reagan and other past events. But this is now. And NOW, today, it is overwhelmingly liberals who want to restrict guns. It's a simple fact. You can't talk your way out of it.

    89. Re:M-16? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Would you license people to speak freely?

      Actually, yes, some would. There has been lots of talk by the Obama administration and the crony press about "official approval" of journalists, and also about suppressing speech, particularly in the area of "climate change".

    90. Re:M-16? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The women's bathrooms in the dorms had urinals. The discussions at the time were that it would be unfair to have some people right next to the bathrooms for 4 years, while others were super-far from them. So the rotating bathrooms were the preferred solution, compared to making smaller bathrooms for all. So yes, the women's bathrooms have urinals. The male and female bathrooms were identical.

    91. Re:M-16? by stoploss · · Score: 1

      So, what you're saying is that the recent attempts to force a "the last massive gun rights limitations were passed under Raegan" narrative are as false as I said they were?

      Yep. Not that the anti-gun lobby allows facts to get in the way of a narrative they wish to force.

      As for the AWB shit, that's just retarded. I think most people understand at this point just how stupid that ban was. It was basically as pointless as the 1986 ban on civilian ownership of newly manufactured machine guns.

      BTW, you don't have to "educate" me on how the history of gun control worldwide has been to disarm marginalized groups in order to enable more effective persecution. Gun control was originally pushed in the South by Democrats in order to keep the African Americans under their thumb. If you think I have a problem with armed blacks (or anyone else) then you're making baseless, incorrect assumptions. It's too bad that gun control laws prevented blacks from being able to defend themselves from lynchings and so forth.

    92. Re:M-16? by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Actually according to the laws of this land at least the receiver is the firearm. The rest of it is just finishing touches and are not tracked. And that is what I said in my post, you can build a receiver out of a shovel. So my point stands, in the eyes of the government you can build a firearm (the receiver) out of a shovel.

      The part that the government cares about and tracks can be and occasionally is blacksmithed out of a shovel. The barrels and other components are not tracked. The government has no idea how many of the other parts anyone has or where they keep, bought or shipped them. The receiver is the key component that you must go through an FFL to buy new. Or to buy across state lines. But the receiver is so simple to build that it can easily be made without any government knowledge of it's existence. The other stuff they don't track so build it your self (with a machine shop) buy it at the local gun shop or order online they don't track the components as they are not considered the firearm.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    93. Re:M-16? by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Actually it does. The carrier is not liable for what it carries if the product is not a hazardous material restricted from transport or requiring special handling. The carrier can't be held liable if the Ginsu knives you orders are then used to butcher your family. Similarly nobody went after the company that delivered the fertilizer Tim McVeigh used to the stores he bought it from. They didn't even go after Ryder Trucks for renting him a truck. The person who planned and or carried out the crime is the one held liable.

      As to printing, I ignored that because it's a small irrelevant part of this discussion. We are not talking about a 3-D printer here. This topic is about Cody trying to ship a small CNC mill, something used in workshops and factories around the world every day to produce all kinds of stuff. Yes one that comes pre-programmed for a specific design, but still no different in capabilities (and possibly even reprogrammable for other purposes) than any other CNC Mill of similar size.

      And the fact stands that pertinent to the goals of Distributed Defense and Cody Wilson the desires of the Mexican government or any other foreign government are irrelevant at this point. In the future that may change but for now he wants to sell and distribute within the boundaries of this country. And thus that is the shipping requirements he needs to meet.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    94. Re:M-16? by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      I built my 2 AR-15 rifles, this stuff isn't rocket science - but it's probably a little to advanced for any liberal journalist.

      I find it curious that people want to make gun ownership a liberal vs. conservative issue. ....

      I think the line is more about journalists than liberals. 8-)
      But that is true, gun ownwership is not a liberal vs conservative issue. Gun owners that complain about all liberals might be yelling at people that are on their side, at least on this issue.

      Gun "control", and other things, are issues about "control" of the population vs freedom. Unfortunatly, the politicians seem to divide up the issues without reguard to which side is for freedom, as though they just drew straws. Liberals for freedom on one issue, conservatives for freedom on another issue...

      Maybe it is just that people are for freedom on things that know about and for control on things they -don't- know about?

      To quote a line from the NRA, "Vote for Freedom first."

    95. Re:M-16? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is just that people are for freedom on things that know about and for control on things they -don't- know about?

      Possibly, o more about freedom on things they value or think is right while controlling others on things they don't think are valuable or that are bad. For example, people value free speech when what they agree with is said by want to stop others from saying things they disagree with or think is bad speech. Or, they are all for property rights and should be allowed to do what they want on or with their property until someone wants to build a strip club next door. They want the government's broadsword to be a fine rapier that only cuts others but not them when it is swung.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    96. Re:M-16? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      So, the laws are stupid, the reality is you can't build a modern firearm with blacksmith tools.

    97. Re:M-16? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      You're talking about FedEx and UPS. I've never made a post on the issue that wasn't a direct response to you talking about FedEx and UPS.

      You're ignoring their justification, and that Wilson isn't using any legal recourse. They say they can refuse to ship products that are potentially illegal without proof that both sides of the transaction have the proper license/paperwork/etc. Since Wilson doesn't have a case against them in Court, that implies they do have the right to jerk his ass around until he comes up with firearm manufacturing licenses from his buyers. It's not like he a) doesn't know how to do this shit himself, or b) couldn't get a lawyer from Texas to sue them for him for the publicity.

      And as I've said before, this isn't Wilson's major problem in the long-term. He can figure something out, even if it's only "I'll ship to gun stores who then hold the product for my clients," "I'll hire this random chick to mail packages on behalf of my subsidiary, and neither chick nor subsidiary's name will ever appear on my publicity," or "the post office better be nice to me or the entire NRA will call their Senators." His long-term problem is that any 3D printer company he uses is doomed on the global market, so no sane 3D printer company will allow Defense Distributed designs to be printed on their machines.

  4. No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The critical shortage of cheap firearms is a real problem desperately in need of solving. But at least now they can be homebuilt and thus untraceable. Hooray for technology!

    1. Re:No thanks by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Look up 'zip guns'. The ability to home produce a firearm has always been there. A 3D printer or CNC mill just makes it fractionally easier while also making it approximately an OOM more expensive.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:No thanks by kwiqsilver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ask the Canadians how many times they used their gun registry to successfully trace a gun used in a crime (hint: it's zero, that's why the provinces are trying to get out of it).

      Gun registries and serial numbers aren't for preventing, or even investigating, crime. They're for tracking down guns, when the government decides the guns are a threat to its power.

    3. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a zip gun has no accuracy, single shot, and has poor reload times.
      mocking 3d printed guns is the same as mocking personal computers in the 70s & 80s.

    4. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Any well equipped machine shop can manufacture guns. The most expensive machine is the long bore machine to core the barrel. It isn't rocket science. It's just expensive for a one off.

    5. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Years and cars and dishwashers too.
      Better build your own everything.
      The all have serial numbers. Just so the government can get you.
      Waco had .50 calls and they kept the Govenerner away with children.

    6. Re:No thanks by plopez · · Score: 2

      "The critical shortage of cheap firearms is a real problem"

      I hope you're not serious. There are cheap guns everywhere. Even store clerks in the US can own several. I used to have 5; big game, small game, bird, large bore pistol, and small bore pistol. I'm not rich at least by US standards; i.e. 90% of my pay goes to food, shelter, transportation, and health care. But I still had money left over for shooting.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    7. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which weapon, in particular, kept you away from high school English class?

    8. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      take off the aluminum foil hat there , ok.
      IF the government came for your gun(s), you would wet yourself when they showed up.

      I know it, the guy sitting next to me knows it, your neighbors and co-workers know it.

    9. Re:No thanks by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

    10. Re:No thanks by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Your comment is not related to the summary or the article. The summary says "It was a different approach toward the same goal of multiplying the number of firearms in the world," but this is a misinterpretation. The goal isn't to make cheap guns. you think buying a home CNC machines and manufacturing a gun bespoke piece by piece is going to multiply the number of firearms? There are factories in China belching out thousands of assault rifles every day.

      The ghost gunner is about taking away from congress the means to protect yourself. there are people in congress and elsewhere that think nobody should have guns and any firearm should pass through govt hands. this is wrong. the ghost gunner is a proof of concept, and it's scaring a lot of people.

    11. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, we did get rid of it. After the RCMP in the western provinces said they wouldn't enforce it and after we elected a conservative government.

    12. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The part that's regarded poorly in Canada is the "long-gun" registry. This is the part of the registry covering, for instance, hunting rifles, which are very seldom used in any crimes, and popular amongst Canadians for hunting and all of that. No one has really challenged the remainder of the registry, covering prohibited and restricted firearms, including hand guns, automatics converted to semi-autos, certain assault rifles even in semi-auto form, etc. That includes the current Conservative government. One of their early platform points was scrapping the long-gun registry, but they made no noise at all about the rest of it.

    13. Re:No thanks by AkiraFactor · · Score: 1

      Ask the Canadians how many times they used their gun registry to successfully trace a gun used in a crime (hint: it's zero, that's why the provinces are trying to get out of it).

      Gun registries and serial numbers aren't for preventing, or even investigating, crime. They're for tracking down guns, when the government decides the guns are a threat to its power.

      The Canadian Long Gun Registry has already been thrown out.

    14. Re:No thanks by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      If you want a cheap firearm start looking at some old Russian M91/30s or Russian M44s. I bought a 91/30 for $89 about 6 years ago on sale and while they have gone up in price since then $130 isn't bad for a gun that shoots real bullets. Hell even my Mossberg 500 shotgun that I got 7 years ago was only $225 new and it came with 3 chokes, a bird barrel, rifled slug barrel, and a 2.5x scope. If you wanted "untraceable" you could always go for a private party sale instead of buying from a dealer if you live in a state that allows transfer of firearms between 2 private individuals without having to register the transfer.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    15. Re:No thanks by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Maybe not a wnoosh. There are a lot of people who think that firearms are actually fairly expensive. For example if one only sees the cover of the ads in my local newspaper for sporting goods stores they will usually have a fairly high end firearm on sale on the front. This would be something like a really nice semi auto shotgun with some engraving on the receiver, a really nice side by side or OU shotgun, a high end semi auto AR style rifle, or other such firearms with a sale price of $1200 and up.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    16. Re:No thanks by dywolf · · Score: 1

      paranoid tin foil hattery modded +5.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  5. 1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't the 1st Amendment allow him to post those blueprints?

    1. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the 1st Amendment allow him to post those blueprints?

      No. What makes you think that?

    2. Re:1st Amendment by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      That would be one interpretation of the Constitution.

      Another, favored by those in the lawmaking business, believes the right to bear those arms comes with some red tape: serial numbers and background checks.

      It's like a Baptist Preacher and a Catholic Priest arguing over the same biblical text.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:1st Amendment by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the ITAR laws prohibit it.

      You should know by now that the Constitution is just a piece of paper that no one pays attention to.

    4. Re:1st Amendment by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      No. What makes you think that?

      He may have thought that protesting gun laws would make it political speech and thus protected.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:1st Amendment by kwiqsilver · · Score: 4, Informative

      The First Amendment doesn't allow anything. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment), it guarantees government cannot interfere with rights that preexist government.

      But yes, that would be a protected publication. He never challenged it. The designs were already out there (so he won), and it would have been expensive. I believe they used the same ITAR crap that used to prevent us from exporting encryption. But the courts ruled there that printed copies of encryption algorithms are protected expression, so this should be as well. More importantly, the Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority over publishing firearms plans.

      And finally, when have you ever known the federal government to abide by the Constitution?

    6. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed./'

      Even though I disagree with this, this is pretty clearly spelled out: you can't put restrictions of the armament of the people.

      That probably meant even heavy weapons and explosives. Communities should be able to form their own militaries, no matter if that militia is for patriotic or rebelious purpose.

      At the very least I think every adult should be allowed to carry a pistol or sword in public and face the penalty for their misuse if they do partake in that privilege.

    7. Re:1st Amendment by Invidious · · Score: 2

      Actually, there aren't any laws -- at least in the majority of locales -- that forbid someone from building their own firearm. Such arms don't need serial numbers or background checks, but they can't be sold, or, I think, transferred.

    8. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you combine the first and second amendments, does that make terrorism a constitutional right of the people?

    9. Re:1st Amendment by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "Another, favored by those in the lawmaking business, believes the right to bear those arms comes with some red tape: serial numbers and background checks. "

      OTOH lawmakers believe that they can let people fly all over the land with a plane without any background checks or pilot licenses, if they build the planes themselves, be it from scratch or a kit that does 80% of the work.
      And engraving 1,2,3,4,5 into ones rifles is surely no problem with this mill.

      It's just control-freaks freaking out. Any idiot can go to gunsmith school, it's not rocket science.

    10. Re:1st Amendment by plopez · · Score: 1

      Some TEA Partiers think so. As do did tis guy:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    11. Re:1st Amendment by plopez · · Score: 1

      If it can't be restricted then owning a nuke is legal.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    12. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Allahu Akbar!

    13. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ooooo, so close! To paraphrase the amendment: "Since a militia/army is necessarily going to be used by the government, the right of the governed to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This interpretation is backed by numerous documents written by the founders.

    14. Re:1st Amendment by PPH · · Score: 1

      This.

      Its the lower receiver that requires a serial number and registration to be bought and sold. So the home CNC machine just ensures you can recreate this part when the gov't comes around to confiscate your guns. When they do, the only part you must surrender is the lower receiver. Everything else you are free to buy, sell, or trade with no restrictions or reporting. So when the confiscations begin, all the barrels will disappear. And when the cops leave with the one registered part, you just make a new one.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    15. Re:1st Amendment by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      And engraving 1,2,3,4,5 into ones rifles is surely no problem with this mill.

      Even if it can't, or is too much a pain to do it with, You can get an electric engraver and freehand it for about $8. Note, you have to put a maker's mark on there as well if you're going to sell it.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    16. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      66 If you combine the first and second amendments, does that make terrorism a constitutional right of the people? 99

      This is called the Miri-Piri Approach. You may want to read up on a lawsuit filed against the State of California by a certain Gursant Singh. His position is that as a Sikh, it is his First Amendment right to carry a firearm since the religion requires a weapon in possession at all times.

    17. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly right. "Since our new country will need an army (we wish it didn't but it will) then we must acknowledge and remember that the people have the right to bear arms just in case they'll ever need to destroy that very same army."

    18. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why did it say "people" and not "militia" afterwards, idiot? And the two are separated as by a comma. Funny how liberals can't read.

    19. Re:1st Amendment by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I agree with the sentiment but somehow, I think that government will want the barrel, the magazine, the bolt and the firing pin as well

    20. Re:1st Amendment by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      will they want the whole gun, lock, stock and barrel?

    21. Re:1st Amendment by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Informative

      btw, "well regulated" in colonial america speak means well trained

      Right. There's no way to establish and securely maintain a country without an orderly military, and that means an armed force. Which is why the founders made a big point of making sure that said militia wouldn't be the only armed people in the country. They'd just had enough of that from Britain, and saw the results. In other words, "We'll be having an army to help protect the country, but in order to keep things in balance, the rights of the rest of people to own their own arms shall not be infringed."

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    22. Re:1st Amendment by Aighearach · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Court has been rather clear about that. The right to do a thing does not mean a right to do a thing without rules. Establishing the right means that you can go to court to have them examine the balance between the rule-making concerns of the Legislature, and the rights of the individual. They quite frequently throw out laws that effectively ban things you have a right to do, by writing rules that make doing said thing impracticable. At the same time, they frequently uphold things like background checks where there is a clear rule-making reason for it, and it doesn't prevent the protected activity.

      Just like, driving is a privilege, but walking somewhere is a right. And yet, there are all sorts of rules regulating which part of the roadway you walk on at which time, and when you have to wait and walk later. Walking being a right means they can't ban you from the sidewalk (in most situations), but they can still tell you how you have to do it, within reason.

    23. Re:1st Amendment by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      /'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed./'

      Even though I disagree with this, this is pretty clearly spelled out: you can't put restrictions of the armament of the people.

      That probably meant even heavy weapons and explosives. Communities should be able to form their own militaries, no matter if that militia is for patriotic or rebelious purpose.

      At the very least I think every adult should be allowed to carry a pistol or sword in public and face the penalty for their misuse if they do partake in that privilege.

      Quick grammar lesson:
      In the English language a sentence is a complete thought. They are started with a capital letter and end with a period. The bit of text you quote is not a complete sentence, because it does not start with a capital letter. The actual sentence includes another clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."

      If that clause is a conditional clause, then the bit you quoted is only true to the extent keeping and bearing arms is necessary to maintain the militia.

      If it's an explanatory clause then the first bit functions as an explanation of the second bit.

      If you think it's clear which type of clause the Founders intended you are a textbook example of motivated reasoning. The Founders were dealing with a completely different military situation, the Federal Army was only 8 companies (about 1,000 men), and they only anticipated going above that number in war-time. State Armies were supposed to be a bulwark of the Armed Forces. Moreover individuals needed the ir own weapons to hunt, defend themselves from Indians, attack Indians, protect themselves from crime (which was orders of magnitude worse back then), etc. Given that state governments tended to be elected annually, by the people, and most of the Federal government was elected for much longer terms indirectly (i.e.: Senators chosen for six years by the State Legislature, and Presidents chosen by an elaborate Electoral College voted on by state legislators) it would probably take you days of explaining to a revived founder the difference between an individual right to bear arms and a state militia's right.

    24. Re:1st Amendment by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      It's so interesting how when people think of government-oppression scenarios like this they don't think things through.

      If the government has passed a gun confiscation act they have changed the law including the Constitution. That means they can easily change the rules defining what a gun is to include the rest. If they don;t think of this the first time they can go back and amend it.

    25. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are started with a capital letter and end with a period.

      Your assumptions are incorrect because the US Constitution predates modern spelling reforms.

    26. Re:1st Amendment by Cyberax · · Score: 0

      I fucking HOPE that government confiscates guns from these gun-fondlers. They are demostratably NOT responsible gun owners.

    27. Re:1st Amendment by skam240 · · Score: 0

      Of course the British now enjoy rights roughly on par with our own and without the need for wide spread gun ownership.

      On top of that, good luck to anybody trying to rise up with a bunch of rifles againts a military like ours. The Syrian people are fighting a third rate military and are slowly loosing. What hope would there be available ts the US military?

      Face it, unless they're armed with AA guns and anti tank weaponry, militias as a means of countering government control are a pre 20th century relic.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    28. Re:1st Amendment by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Please, tell me your address. I'll park my gas tanker near your house. Oh, it's triggered to self-explode if anybody tries to move it. And it leaks oil and stinks just a little.

      It's a Constitutional right to move around, right?

    29. Re:1st Amendment by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you didn't say a single fucking thing about my point

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    30. Re:1st Amendment by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Sure I did. I addressed the actual point, instead of your imaginary one.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    31. Re:1st Amendment by Temkin · · 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.

      gee, it's right there in the constitution and everything

      btw, "well regulated" in colonial america speak means well trained. the intent of the founding fathers was that those with guns be well trained. so the current status quo of "hand guns to every mouth breathing moron who grunts" is against the constitution and the will of the founding fathers

      Another interpretation of "well regulated" comes from Masonic lodges, of which the founding fathers were in many cases members, which would be "well behaved and orderly". This is the definition that allows felons and others that are not "well regulated" to be denied the right.

    32. Re:1st Amendment by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      the founding fathers desired americans to be well trained with guns

      are you denying that is what is in the wording of the second amendment?

      you avoided my point, which is a coward's way of conceding a point

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    33. Re:1st Amendment by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      the founding fathers desired americans to be well trained with guns

      are you denying that is what is in the wording of the second amendment?

      I'm pointing out that you are completely misunderstanding the second amendment, and are doing so deliberately (because there are abundant contemporary writings by the people who wrote and ratified that amendment, explaining exactly what they had in mind - and it wasn't about a constitutional amendment designed to impact gun skills among the population). There is nobody with a shred of interest in this topic that hasn't already educated themselves on this topic. People who are pretending that the history of and debate surrounding that amendment at the time it was written don't exist and thus can't inform their 21st century mis-handling of the text - they should just stop talking. Because they're spouting nonsense.

      you avoided my point, which is a coward's way of conceding a point

      I have no need to engage your point, because it's based on a complete misunderstanding on your part, or deliberate misdirection. Either way, I'm not "avoiding" your point, I'm telling you that your point isn't the basis of a valid conversation about the second amendment's history and purpose.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    34. Re:1st Amendment by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      because there are abundant contemporary writings by the people who wrote and ratified that amendment, explaining exactly what they had in mind

      this is either a bluff, because you know you are wrong, or it is a bluff because you're ignorant of what you speak of

      let me help you out:

      http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...

      Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. ...

      if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens.

      so tell me, oh great second amendment scholar: is hamilton saying guns should be handed out to any asshole with no further claim on their intents or abilities with the gun? or is hamilton saying that to own a gun in the usa obligates one to be disciplined and trained in its use?

      so far you've:

      1. avoided my point

      2. lied and bluffed your way around my point

      will you now concede my point that the founding fathers clear intent in the second amendment was that gun owners in the usa be well-trained as a condition of their gun ownership?

      or will you continue in cowardly intellectual dishonesty?

      furthermore, if you consider yourself a responsible gun owner, or just a responsible person, period, are you saying owning a gun is something that does not require training, discipline and mastery? do you like the idea that any douchebag can grab a gun without any consideration as to their abilities or responsibility?

      the founding fathers clearly did not think that

      do you stand against the wishes of the founding fathers as clearly stated in second amendment?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    35. Re:1st Amendment by amxcoder · · Score: 2

      The point of it is that they won't have a record, paper-trail, or database with the gun in it to use to aid in confiscation. They would have to go house to house, even to houses that have no record of owning a gun to look for possible guns that have to record of ever existing. That's a lot harder, than printing out a database of registered owners and their addresses.

      Even if they did go house to house, they don't know if they got them all, since they would have no idea how many are out there. If people caught wind of a confiscation attempt, you could bury your ghost gun in the back yard, or in the woods so they wouldn't find it when they came to your house and searched it.

      With a registered gun, this technique wouldn't work, since if they had records that said you owned 3 guns, and can only find 2 in your house, they would probably not leave, or arrest you until you gave up all the ones they know about.

    36. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it can't be restricted then owning a nuke is legal.

      A nuke isn't a Firearm.

    37. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fucking HOPE that government confiscates guns from these gun-fondlers. They are demostratably NOT responsible gun owners.

      Why don't you go turn yourself in then?

    38. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the British now enjoy rights roughly on par with our own and without the need for wide spread gun ownership.

      On top of that, good luck to anybody trying to rise up with a bunch of rifles againts a military like ours. The Syrian people are fighting a third rate military and are slowly loosing. What hope would there be available ts the US military?

      Face it, unless they're armed with AA guns and anti tank weaponry, militias as a means of countering government control are a pre 20th century relic.

      Bearing arms prevents genocide by government.

    39. Re:1st Amendment by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No, but it's an arm.

    40. Re:1st Amendment by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Of course the British now enjoy rights roughly on par with our own and without the need for wide spread gun ownership.

      They do? Last I checked, they had those crazy libel laws where truth is not a defense, and refusing a demand of the law enforcement to disclose the key for anything encrypted you might have in your possession is punishable by several years in prison.

    41. Re: 1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Brits do not enjoy "rights", just "privileges". They love authority and control, it's in their culture. It doesn't mean it can work anywhere else. As for militias vs regular modern armies... The Taliban defeated NATO.

    42. Re:1st Amendment by laird · · Score: 1

      No, the first amendment says that The People have the Right to form Well Regulated Militia. The Founders strongly opposed the idea of private armies, and in fact when people tried to set up their own military force outside of the Militia they were found guilty of treason and shut down by the army.

      It's weird how modern gun salesmen have managed to twist "the people have a right to form well regulated militia" into "gun companies have the right to sell unlimited quantities of any kinds of guns to anonymous buyers over the internet".

    43. Re:1st Amendment by dwillden · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually it is merely an introductory clause, the second clause does not require any of the first and can stand alone. The first clause establishes one reason for the second and strengthens it but the first clause is not essential to the meaning of the second clause.

      To further break it down, regulated has also changed in meaning since the Bill of Rights was drafted. It's meaning back then was to be working or functional. So "A well regulated (meaning functional (or working)) militia (the citizens of the community who respond with their own privately owned arms) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the people are disarmed the militia becomes non-functional, thus the need to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    44. Re:1st Amendment by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Fine they can have the entire firearm that they are aware of. But since none of the rest of the components require any registration or serialization, I can have a ready stockpile of spare parts. I mill a new lower, put it all together and thus I'm still armed.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    45. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are coming to take your guns away, you better be in the hills with lots of other people willing to fight.

    46. Re:1st Amendment by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      From what I was reading elsewhere (mostly ATF stuff), they can be sold.

      Firearms without serial numbers can be passed through a FFL dealer. There are antique firearms and custom firearms which simply don't have a serial number.

      If so desired, a gunsmith (I believe with a FFL) can give a weapon a serial number, and file a form with the ATF.

      I haven't looked into it any farther than reading. I have no legitimate purpose to ask, as I don't happen to have one, nor do I see it happening any time soon.

      Also, in my state, there is no requirement of any paperwork when privately selling to another individual. I've bought a few weapons that way. I hand them cash, they had me the weapon, and we're done. I usually deal with FFL dealers though, just because they have stores I can shop in.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    47. Re:1st Amendment by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Places I've been in the US, there was no requirement that my weapons had to be at my residence. Not unless you have NFA restricted weapons.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    48. Re: 1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Owning nukes is perfectly legal in the us, though you need a liscence for the radioactive material.

    49. Re:1st Amendment by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Antique firearms (made before 1895 IIRC) are a unique case under the law. If one were to buy one from a dealer they don't have to do the paperwork that a modern firearm would have to go through and have the same requirements as a private party sale. Also firearms of that age can be shipped directly to individuals instead of having to be shipped to a FFL holder and transferred in person with the accompanying paper work. I actually did some research into this since I noticed that there were a number of Finnish M39s for sale over the internet that stated they didn't need to be shipped to a FFL holder first and I wondered what that was about.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    50. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try reading the Federalist Papers sometime. The Founders went to great lengths to explain that the Second Amendment's intended meaning was the unrestricted right of the people to own and use weapons to defend themselves and those around them from any threat, even the government itself (your 'explanatory clause' scenario). There is zero ambiguity about it.

      Believe it or not, the Constitution isn't the only piece of paper the founders wrote stuff on.

    51. Re:1st Amendment by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Enable 3D printed prosthetics! [enablingthefuture.org]

      And yet your sig advocates the 3D printing of arms! Make up your mind. ;)

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    52. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Seems they make lots of noice about making guns and selling gun-making machines. But don't seem to actually use these guns in any irresponsible way . . .

    53. Re:1st Amendment by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Nukes are a different animal, but I'll let you in on a secret. It is legal to own military hardware (tanks, fighters, bombers), it is just very expensive.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    54. Re:1st Amendment by ScentCone · · Score: 1
      You're hilarious. Your own citation illustrates your (now, obviously deliberate) misrepresentation of the founders' thinking behind the second amendment. You can keep stamping your feet and saying your point is being "avoided," or you can correct your understanding of the word "avoided" just like you need to adjust your understanding of history.

      You seem to think that "not agreeing with your spin" is the same as "avoiding." Once again: no amount of side-bar commentary from people like Hamilton remarking on how handy it is to have a usable military when one is needed, or how a skilled (in weapon use) citizenry is more likely to be able to stand up to tyranny than an unskilled citizenry (this is a simple observation of fact) changes the fact that the amendment was written to be sure that nobody could confuse the nation's need to have a military available with the rights of the people to be individually armed if they so choose - that status being an essential counterbalance to an armed central government. They didn't protect that right because it was handy in forming armies, they protected that right BECAUSE there was going to be an army, and they didn't want to just re-create Britain's military monopoly of force all over again.

      Your deliberate attempt to make the second amendment somehow about the maintenance of skills reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire constitution. It doesn't grant rights (it limits the government's ability to interfere with them). It doesn't define a right as being grudgingly necessary in order to maintain some set of skills should an army need to be raised or opposed - it simply recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms already exists and that they consider it so important (like speech, and assembly, etc) that they take a moment to explicitly prevent the government from interfering with it. Why? Because they knew it - like speech, and assembly, or the establishment of a state religion - was exactly the sort of thing that some future group of voted-in idiots would probably try to mess with.

      furthermore, if you consider yourself a responsible gun owner, or just a responsible person, period, are you saying owning a gun is something that does not require training, discipline and mastery?

      No, owning a gun requires none of those things. Just like owning razor sharp kitchen knives or a gallon of gasoline requires none of those things. But if you use an axe, or a pistol, or a bucket of rat poison in a reckless or malicious way, there are going to be serious consequences - just like if you were to beat someone over the head with a baseball bat. But owning a baseball bat or a piece of steel pipe, despite their lethality (more people are killed every year using club-like items and blunt objects or bare hands than by all types of rifles used both maliciously and accidentally) is not something that requires mastery, no. What's required is mastery of your own civil behavior. True with guns, as well as with things that are far more deadly in society (like cars).

      the founding fathers clearly did not think that

      The founding fathers had nothing to say on your imagined thesis. People like Hamilton pointed out that people won't be able to resist tyranny if they're no good at using their own weapons, but that has NOTHING to do with "shall not be infringed," when it comes to preventing the government from interfering with their rights to own the weapons. You talk about cowardly intellectual dishonesty, and here you are completely fabricating some sort of early-version federal gun skill regulation that didn't exist, was never suggested, and would have been absolutely inconceivably ridiculous to the people who chartered the nation.

      do you stand against the wishes of the founding fathers as clearly stated in second amendment?

      No, just against your completely BS fantasy of what it means. Next I suppose you'll tell us that they also thought the first amendment was really them saying that everyone should be able to conjugate verbs properly.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    55. Re:1st Amendment by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Intentional rewording of what you said:

      I fucking HOPE the government oppresses this group I don't agree with. They deserve the oppression because they say things I don't like.

      If this is truly how you feel, please feel free to move to another country as your beliefs are incompatible with the values of the US.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    56. Re:1st Amendment by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Did you deliberately misread the second amendment?

      Well regulated = functional
      Militia = everyone, as in the posse setup to hunt down that outlaw

      The guns were supposed to be privately owned. It is not to repel the US government, as that is no longer possible, but to repel a red dawn type of attack. This won't work if there aren't enough people who own guns.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    57. Re:1st Amendment by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Marginal issues that have no effect on most people's lives and certainly don't invalidate my "roughly on par" statement.

      Don't get me wrong their libel laws suck. Plus we're probably coming close to similar laws in regards to encryption here in the US as well. Just give it some time

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    58. Re:1st Amendment by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-c...

      Historians are often asked what the Founders would
      think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such
      questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of
      the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this:
      that the authors of the Second Amendment would be
      flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican
      principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also
      precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous
      property as firearms, which governments had always
      regulated when there was “real danger of public injury
      from individuals.” 2 DHRC at 624.

      so who is full of ignorant bombast? who are you? just a nobody on the Internet. I'll be siding with what the founding fathers actually said, and historians agree on

      you're going to have a hard time adjusting to the change that is coming. my ancestor fought in the revolution as a musketman, the second amendment was written for him. and i am proud of the constitution he fought for and i will not see it defiled. it will be enforced as *actually written and intended*

      not as it was rewritten by dirty harry hotheads 50 years ago with no historical foundation. history will show that period to be an aberration. the second amendment is about community service, muskets, and the frontier. not about individual action, handguns, and urban crime

      and most importantly, if you think you are going to win an argument by endorsing irresponsibility, you must know somewhere in your mind, in spite of all the denial and closed mindedness, that you will lose. there must be some inkling somewhere back in the dust in your skull that the *conservative* principle of personal *responsibility* is the foundation of morality and law. and to champion a broken legal status quo that champions irresponsibility is just not going to last. sorry but "a hand a gun to any mouth breathing douchebag who wants one" is not a winning position friend

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    59. Re:1st Amendment by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      They are started with a capital letter and end with a period.

      Your assumptions are incorrect because the US Constitution predates modern spelling reforms.

      Sentences in English have started with a capital letter and ended with a period since at least Chaucer's time. Also, spelling is not the same as grammar.

      But, apart from that, an interesting and informative post.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    60. Re: 1st Amendment by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "They love authority and control, it's in their culture."

      Hahaha. Okay, I'll just believe this because you say so.

      I suppose their parliamentary democracy was thrust upon them from outside sources as well then?

      "As for militias vs regular modern armies... The Taliban defeated NATO."

      The Taliban "defeated" NATO? So the Taliban now rule Afghanistan? I must have missed something in the news...

      If you're referring to our lack of a clear victory in Afghanistan, that had more to do with commitment on our part which is why citing a foreign occupation is a bad example. Syria is a prime example. Libya is another good example, those people were getting butchered by artillery and air power before our air strikes began.

      If civilian militias can't defeat third tear armies fighting for their survival how will they fair againts first tear? I mean, think about it. How would that play out? Would it be like the 80's movie Red Dawn where a bunch of Americans with rifles savage the Soviet Army?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    61. Re:1st Amendment by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Of course the British now enjoy rights roughly on par with our own and without the need for wide spread gun ownership.

      They do? Last I checked, they had those crazy libel laws where truth is not a defense, and refusing a demand of the law enforcement to disclose the key for anything encrypted you might have in your possession is punishable by several years in prison.

      Truth is most certainly a defence in libel, it's just that you have to prove it (the assumption is that a defamatory statement is false).

      As for the encryption thing, what's the difference between the police getting a warrant to seize your computer inside your locked house and the courts forcing you to reveal encrypted potential evidence?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    62. Re:1st Amendment by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Ah, I was not aware that you're The Official Speaker For All the Men and Women (Including Transgender Persons) Of The United States.

      Meanwhile, the actual people in the US overwhelmingly support sane gun laws (mandatory registration, background checks and so on).

      So why do you hate democracy? Why do you hate America? Are you some kind of terrorist?

    63. Re:1st Amendment by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the constitution? Are you some kind of dictator?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    64. Re:1st Amendment by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I would also like to point out that sane gun laws (like what you mention) is a hell of a way from:

      I fucking HOPE that government confiscates guns from these gun-fondlers. They are demostratably NOT responsible gun owners.

      They are not even in the same state, let alone the same ball park.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    65. Re:1st Amendment by ScentCone · · Score: 1
      So, you start your post by quoting someone who says the founders would be surprised by newer technology or by the evolution of tools and society? That's supposed to make the rest of your non-sequitor post more relevent?

      who are you? just a nobody on the Internet

      Like yourself, you mean? Why does your footprint on this web site, which includes your inability to do things like use the shift key, make you in any way more valuable to society or a more informed thinker? Please be specific about your credentials, skipping over the part about how an ancestor did something that has nothing whatsoever to do with your own actions or abilities.

      it will be enforced as *actually written and intended*

      Right, It was intended to and written to protect the rights of you and me to free from government interference in our ability to defend ourselves, especially from an over-reaching armed force answering to politicians. Read what the founders actually said about why they realized the need to amend the country's charter specifically to prevent the government from in any way curtailing that right.

      if you think you are going to win an argument by endorsing irresponsibility

      Out of curiosity, what do you think it helps to pretend that somebody has said something they haven't? How does that deception help? Please quote my endorsement of irresponsibility. Be specific about where I say irresponsibility is a good thing.

      there must be some inkling somewhere back in the dust in your skull that the *conservative* principle of personal *responsibility* is the foundation of morality and law

      Leaving aside your embarassing need to use ad hominem in order to distract from a weakly supported position, how is saying that the constitution protects individuals from government interference with personal liberty in any way at odds with someone being personally responsible for their own actions? The people who think that the constitution is actually a prescription for government involvement in how others own items like cars, baseball bats, rifles, and matches are the ones who do NOT respect personal responsibility and consequences for one's choices. No, they are for prior restraint and a nanny state that saves people from their own liberty.

      sorry but "a hand a gun to any mouth breathing douchebag who wants one" is not a winning position friend

      Since you choose to embrace the erosion of the constitution and the liberties that it defends, no, you're not allowed to call me "friend." You are not friendly to the constitution, nor to people who are glad it was written.

      But since you're so worried about some "mouth breathing douchebag" getting a gun, you must be extremely anxious to have the constitution amended to deal with things that have proven to be far, far more dangerous than citizens owning guns. I'll be curious to hear your ideas on how to reduce people's liberties by getting rid of the cars that are involved in far more deaths, or the sports programs that injure and kill thousands of kids. Or the pipes, bats, and bare hands that are used to kill far more people than any sort of rifle or shotgun. To say nothing of knives, or matches.

      Where is your handwringing concern about the "douchebags" who are allowed to own kitchen knives? The founding fathers certainly knew about how people could die by the knife or sword, but it never occurred to them to explicitly protect you from the government taking them away (because they would consider that to be completely preposterous) ... so, with pointy, bladed tools being used in thousands and thousands of deaths every year, where is your panicky enthusiasm for having the government step in and prevent people you don't like from owning steak knives? Please address that directly.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    66. Re:1st Amendment by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you don't deny that you hate democracy? Good, now that we have your admission of guilt we can proceed with the assumption that you're a terrorist.

      Oh, and get your facts straight - I'm a leftist commie statist. To become a dictator one should first become the ultimate power.

    67. Re:1st Amendment by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Since gun fondlers are impervious to reason, it's better to start from the extreme position. You want every toddler carry an untraceable gun suitable only for crimes but not for legitimate self-defence?

      Fine. So we want to ban all guns then.

    68. Re:1st Amendment by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Truth is most certainly a defence in libel, it's just that you have to prove it (the assumption is that a defamatory statement is false).

      Which effectively makes it a "whose lawyers are better" game, protecting the rich and powerful. There's a reason why most other developed countries don't do it that way.

      As for the encryption thing, what's the difference between the police getting a warrant to seize your computer inside your locked house and the courts forcing you to reveal encrypted potential evidence?

      The difference is that you're not required to assist the police in executing said warrant, and it is not considered a crime for you to not do so. Also, AFAIK, the UK law basically presupposes that encryption is even possible at all.

    69. Re:1st Amendment by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I suppose it doesn't matter who the authoritarian is, it could be a dictator or the state itself.

      I don't hate democracy, but rule of the majority is what brought about the worst abuses of the gay rights saga, so if you are pulling for that, then you don't believe in democracy either. Isn't it great that we have a representative republic instead of a straight democracy? It sure seems to have helped the homosexual cause.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    70. Re:1st Amendment by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Funny that you would attack me personally as a gun fondler. Would it surprise you to hear that I have never, and probably will never own a firearm? I have had 2 swords and a battle ax in my house since my children were little though. Does this suddenly make me a bad parent?

      You have also gone from sensible to full on crazy, so I am done dealing with you. When you are prepared to submit the constitutional amendment needed to get rid of all guns, you can feel free to do so, until then, get the hell out of the gun debate you bigot.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    71. Re:1st Amendment by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I gave two possible interpretations of the Amendment. You have explained the pro-gun rights interpretation quite well, but have neglected to provide any proof that the anti-gun rights interpretation is incorrect. Which means you haven't actually disagreed with anything I said, you've merely explained one side of the debate.

      The anti-gun-rightsd position is that the Amendment allows states to create, regulate, and train militia forces. But that's a state right, not a personal right. The personal right is entirely dependent on the condition in the first half of the sentence. All of which means you (as an individual person) have no inalienable right to bear arms unless you are part of the organized militia (the disorganized militia we're all members of by statute is not "regulated" in the 1789 sense of the term) of your state. Mostly that's the National Guard, but almost half the states have their own separate militia organized around Title 32, Section 109 of the US Code.

      To actually contradict my case you'll have to prove one of several very difficult things: Conditional clauses don't exist; This particular clause cannot (for some grammatical reason) be conditional; etc.

    72. Re:1st Amendment by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Except back then even cannons were owned by private citizens. Had a battle coming up and needed a cannon? Start talking to the well-to-do in the town to see who can bring out their big weaponry.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    73. Re:1st Amendment by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Which effectively makes it a "whose lawyers are better game, protecting the rich and powerful."

      And that differs from the US how?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    74. Re:1st Amendment by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In that particular respect (libel... i.e. often telling inconvenient truths), US is better by a long shot, since the burden of proof is on the party that's claiming to have been libeled.

    75. Re:1st Amendment by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      So, you start your post by quoting someone who says the founders would be surprised by newer technology or by the evolution of tools and society? That's supposed to make the rest of your non-sequitor post more relevent?

      i stopped reading there

      why do you keep changing the topic?

      you either lack the intellectual capacity to understand the simple paragraph, or you are being purposefully intellectually dishonest and avoiding the point you don't have an answer for, rather than conceding a point like someone with integrity

      1. read again

      2. show you understand what the historians' paragraph says

      3. then maybe i will read a comment from you

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    76. Re:1st Amendment by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      So basically you're convinced that a government determined enough to grab all firearms won't bother to do any other kind of investigative work on you?

      For example, a simple warrant for all credit card records relating to defense distributed would get all the guys who bought that mill. If they have the votes to ban AR-15s, they have the votes to ban the Mill. If the mill is banned, and they know you bought one, they have probable cause for a warrant to search your house.

      And now you're in jail, and all your guns are grabbed.

    77. Re:1st Amendment by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      This mill is only the newest, and probably easiest method to mill your own lowers. Others use normal shop mills, some drill-presses, some routers, and with polymer lowers, all you need is a dremel tool. They certainly couldn't get warrants for anyone owning a dremel, or a drill press on the grounds that they may have made non-serialized weapons with it.

      As far as this CNC goes, sure, they may have some kind of record of who has purchased one, and be fairly certain that they probably bought it in order to produce a firearm. However, they won't know all the people who made one on that mill. Suppose for a second that someone buys this CNC machine. They then have a "party" at their house with their buddies, who all bring over 'paperweights'. At the end of the day, a dozen friends all go home with a CNC'd non-tracable lower. While the owner of the mill would have a paper trail, the other dozen guys wouldn't. What if you had a mill, and did this every weekend with an open invite? How many people would be untracable from just a single CNC machine.

      In fact, milling parties are quite common, and there are some rules to follow to be legal. Mainly, each person has to manufacture their OWN receiver, without help from another person. With traditional mills and drill presses, this would require each person to know how to operate the equipment all by themselves, without a helping hand. With this CNC, it just requires the person to press a few keys on the keyboard, so doing it without assistance is easier. If you've seen the video of the guy, notice that he sets it all up, and the person who will own the receiver has to be the person that starts and ultimately runs the machine to produce the receiver.

      And to your first question, what I am convinced of, is that it would take a lot more work, and research to try to do as you suggest for each and every person in the country, vs. printing off a pre-made database of all registered owners. Personally, I don't think it would take longer than a day or two of raids, before it made news, and you'd have people moving to their "Plan B" whatever that is, and also be ready for search and seizure raids that would be coming to their neighborhood soon.

    78. Re:1st Amendment by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      i stopped reading there

      Why? You don't like people commenting on an out-of-context quote that YOU posted? Still being hilarious.

      avoiding the point you don't have an answer for

      I've addressed it directly. You're doing everything possible to use lazy ad hominem and playing dumb in order to avoid dealing the basic facts.

      The second amendment wasn't written as a skill mandate. Your attempt to portray it that way is laughable. Your completely out of context use of an historian's quote doesn't backup up your opinion, it directly contradicts it. I don't need to "show" you anything, but I can get a laugh from your attempt to twist things around. Unfortunately, it's not really very funny when people completely misunderstand the constitution. It's there to prevent the government from interfering with liberties, not to list out ways in which certain rights can be bestowed in the interests some particular goal that you're fabricating out of thin air from a misunderstood historical reference.

      The constitution doesn't grant rights. It protects them. You want to treat it like a regulatory framework. Absurd.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    79. Re:1st Amendment by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the founding fathers, in the text of second amendment, and ancillary texts, clearly intended guns for well-trained individuals. there is no second amendment that supports handing out guns to any douchebag that wants one. adhering faithfully to the second amendment requires us to make sure all gun owners are adequately trained. i love the constitution and i want it enforced as intended, not warped by irresponsible assholes going against conservative principles of personal accountability

      and i've supported my assertion in this thread, not that it's controversial or difficult to see. i've made my argument here well

      but rather than concede the simple point, you change the subject. this is the intellectual dishonest way of conceding that someone is correct and that they have taught you something, even though it's obvious that i have

      so you are welcome for the education today on the founding fathers, the constitution, and the conservative principle of responsibility

      thread over

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    80. Re: 1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The civvies militias would die.
      But so would america.

      Sometimes a phyrric victory is the only way to defeat an enemy.
      Samson option.

      Tyrannies should be destroyed, and america is one now.
      (Specifically an imperial(abroad and over the states) and feminist(home) tyranny)

    81. Re:1st Amendment by dwillden · · Score: 1

      The response is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the right is reserved to the people not to the states. The Bill of Rights applies to the people, only in the 10th does the rights of the States come into play. The 1st applies to the people, the 2nd to the people, the third to the people, the fourth to the people the 5th to the people, get the drift?

      The right protected in the 2nd is the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms just as the freedom of speech and religion is the freedom of the people. It's not a conditional clause, it's an introductory clause explaining why the right of the people must be protected.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    82. Re:1st Amendment by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      there is no second amendment that supports handing out guns to any douchebag that wants one

      There is no second amendment that hands ANYTHING out to ANYONE. You're still completely misunderstanding the entire constitution. It doesn't "allow" something to happen, it prevents the government from interfering with something from happening.

      If we applied your same complete confusion to the first amendment, you'd be suggesting that that amendment doesn't support providing printing presses to "just any douchebag." The first amendment isn't about handing out privilege or tools of communication to approved people any more than the second amendment is about handing out privilege or personal firearms. BOTH amendments are a chartered guarantee that the government CANNOT INFRINGE EXISTING RIGHTS in either area. The rights are considered inherent in their nature, and the founders went out of their way to make sure that the government couldn't interfere.

      adhering faithfully to the second amendment requires us to make sure all gun owners are adequately trained

      No. The constitution makes absolutely no requirement that farmer Jones is a good shot with the rifle he owns. Just like the first amendment makes no requirement that you learn how to use the shift key. Farmer Jones being a lousy marksman because the government hasn't trained or tested him in the military sense, or you being a lousy written communicator because the government hasn't trained or tested you in how to use the shift key on your keyboard make no difference with respect to farmer Brown's protected right to own a rifle, or your right to communicate, even if you can't make yourself clearer by hitting shift.

      i love the constitution

      No, you don't. You love the idea of an imaginary one that you're dreaming up, which instead of limiting the government's power over you as the framers intended, is instead the opposite - a document that places regulatory burdens on you. You have the entire purpose of the constitution exactly backwards. People who think the constitution grants rights to the people, and thus comes with baked-in limits on those rights, have never even seriously undertaking an elementary school level study of history.

      i want it enforced as intended

      Another sign you don't even understand what the constitution IS. The constitution isn't "enforced" against the citizens. It's not ABOUT the citizens. It's "enforced" against the government itself. The document is there to reign in government power, to protect us from its inevitable over-reaches. The founders couldn't be clearer about that. Everything else they leave up to the states, including things like criminal codes.

      warped by irresponsible assholes going against conservative principles of personal accountability

      So you think the act of owning a firearm is irresponsible? Or do you mean that you're worried about the irresponsible USE of a firearm? You know, the sort of thing for which we have countless laws in place which absolutely do hold you accountable for irresponsible behavior. Just like if you cut someone's throat with a kitchen knife, or run someone down with your car. The US Constitution isn't where criminal codes are defined. Do you think the framers though it was OK to cut someone's throat for no reason, or through recklessness while removing stumps from a farm field with barrels of black powder, accidentally blowing up people passing by on the road? No? Right. But in your backwards vision of the constitution, there would somewhere be an amendment that outlines the rights of people to use knives or explosives ... but only with correct government training. Which is absurd, and you know it.

      and i've supported my assertion in this thread

      No, you haven't supported it at all. Exactly the opposite. You're displaying

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    83. Re:1st Amendment by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      ... To actually contradict my case you'll have to prove one of several very difficult things: Conditional clauses don't exist; This particular clause cannot (for some grammatical reason) be conditional; etc.

      That argument may be plausable by the syntax, but is not Historically correct. Read the debates they had.

      By the way, the words "well regulated", in this context, means regular or using the same ammunition, parts and uniform clothing. For ease of supply. It has nothing to do with laws, it means the civilian militia needs to have military equipment available.

    84. Re:1st Amendment by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      ... The Founders strongly opposed the idea of private armies, and in fact when people tried to set up their own military force outside of the Militia they were found guilty of treason and shut down by the army. ...

      Actually, you have it backwards. The Founders strongly opposed the idea of a government Standing Army. There was only an army during the war, it was disbanded afterward. There was -only- supposed to be civilian militia, no Army. They did keep a Navy because they had to maintain the ships, I think.

      They did make a standing army later, I think maybe 1812 but it might not have been until the Civil War.

    85. Re:1st Amendment by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      You can't read the debates they had. There are no minutes for the Constitutional Convention. There are numerous high-IQ people who don't understand the difference between "the people" and an individsual person who swear up and down that every time a Founder mentioned the collective group klnown as the people have the right to own guns it means that every single individual among that group had the right to own precisely the arsenal he wanted, but these people suck at a) grammar, and b) history.

      One of the defining elements of an individual right is they can't make you do it, if you choose to do it they can't say what you do with it, etc. Obama can't pass a law saying all people have to publicly denounce Mitt Romney, go to secret Kenyan Muslim Church, and subscribe to the New York Times. Yet George Washington ordered all American men to a) buy a gun, b) buy a specific model, and c) register it with a dual hatted state/Federal local militia captain so that he could force guys who had two to bring them to militia drill and share with the poor. That's not an individual right of every American to own whatever firearm he wants, it';s a collective right for the people of that local county to have enough arms (and proper arms) to defend themselves from a) the Indians, b) the British, and c) the Feds.

      Note that I'm not saying the pro-gun control side is right with these posts. I honestly have no fucking idea how the Founders would apply a rule intended to create a vast militia to support a minuscule standing army in a time when a) no state actually has militia duty, and b) the Federal military is large enough that it could totally crush the rifle-armed militia of any individual state in a week.

    86. Re:1st Amendment by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      If milling parties are not so common that there are 3 million households with a fully milled AR-15 receiver they aren't common enough to seriously inconvenience gun-grabbers. You're treating the Feds, who literally have a $1 Trillion budget and the sovereign right to borrow $80 billion for no good reason, like they're the Ferguson PD or something.

      To do this they'd need a Constitutional Amendment. That can;t happen unless 38 states want it to happen, and if 38 states want it to happen then 38 states are full of people who want your guns to be grabbed, and if the voters of 38 states send gun-grabbers to Congress and force a Constitutional Amendment it's likely that Congress adds Billion$ to the ATF budget every year until your ass is in jail.

      That ATF that can track you down, get a warrant for the buddy they knew had to be at your party, when they find his receiver they can threaten him with prison until he snitches about the rest of your party-goers, who then get to choose between prison and snitching on the two guys your buddy forgot/that other milling party they heard about/etc.

    87. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might be a simpler discussion than you think. James Madison, in Federalist #46, mused about the possibility of a runaway federal government.

      "The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

      The militia, as crackpot-sounding a term as it has been made, is not any army. It is citizens with arms in their hands.

      No reason to fear them except for tyrants. You, with firearms in your hands, is just you, and you would remain a nice guy.

  6. I'm mad at him by Gnaythan1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He's taking a machine capable of making just about anything, and using it to make the one thing that just might make people want to regulate it. He's deliberately drumming up fear over something that people should be celebrating it's existence. I wish he would just use a lathe to make his gun parts rather than 3d printers or cnc milling machines. I'd make a thousand, a hundred thousand useful things with this cnc machine before I ever considered making a gun. It's like newspaper was just invented and he's running up to the palace and pointing out to the king that how this new thing can be used to draw pictures of the queen naked..

    1. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation:

      You're angry with him because you live in fear of the government and he does not.

    2. Re:I'm mad at him by kwiqsilver · · Score: 1

      It's more like if newspaper (I assume you mean the printing press) was just invented, and he showed people how they can print essays that challenge the government's monopoly on power.

      This device shows the government that they can't maintain the absolute control they want to. So either they get even more totalitarian (and we overthrow them with our 300,000,000+ guns), or they scale it back (and we win peacefully).

    3. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'd buy a real lathe and milling machine before I ever bought a 3d printer.

    4. Re:I'm mad at him by Gnaythan1 · · Score: 1

      huh, more like I'm annoyed he's poking the dog. He keeps its up and its going to bite. All the while, he's yelling "I'm not afraid of you!"

    5. Re:I'm mad at him by blackpaw · · Score: 0

      Nothing funnier - and sadder than the libtards who imagine the government quakes in fear of them using their guns to overthrow it.

    6. Re:I'm mad at him by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      It's precisely because I DON'T live in fear of the government that I'm annoyed with him. Even some of the liberal wing of the country has given up on trying to ban guns entirely and is focusing more on gun education and home firearm safety.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    7. Re:I'm mad at him by Gnaythan1 · · Score: 1

      they ARE currently better at making guns after all. I want all three machines, but I'd rather make stuff I need.

      At this time, I have no compelling reason or desire to make guns... unless, y'know they take away my 3d printer, lathe and milling machines.

    8. Re:I'm mad at him by khallow · · Score: 1

      He's taking a machine capable of making just about anything, and using it to make the one thing that just might make people want to regulate it. He's deliberately drumming up fear over something that people should be celebrating it's existence. I wish he would just use a lathe to make his gun parts rather than 3d printers or cnc milling machines. I'd make a thousand, a hundred thousand useful things with this cnc machine before I ever considered making a gun. It's like newspaper was just invented and he's running up to the palace and pointing out to the king that how this new thing can be used to draw pictures of the queen naked..

      Too bad. I guess he just made you a codefendant.

    9. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's precisely because I DON'T live in fear of the government that I'm annoyed with him. Even some of the liberal wing of the country has given up on trying to ban guns entirely and is focusing more on gun education and home firearm safety.

      Bullshit.

      The gun-grabbing statists are just resorting to back-door methods like trying to effectively ban ammo.

    10. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more like if newspaper (I assume you mean the printing press) was just invented, and he showed people how they can print essays that challenge the government's monopoly on power.

      I'd say it's more like the printing press just got invented, and instead of starting with the Gutenberg Bible, you decided to start with Playboy.

    11. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, the us government showed everyone how well it can fight an asymmetric war in iraq & afghanistan...

    12. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are now aware that anyone can manufacture a zip-gun with common hardware parts found at your Lowes or Home Depot.

      The point is that Hardware Stores don't face the same scaremongering and regulations as 3D printers and they arguably sell more dangerous stuff, like fertilizer and diesel fuel, cast iron pipe, etc. One could build a deadly potato cannon with some PVC and an air compressor. Oh, but there's no one building dangerous machines and publicizing them? No, that would be wrong. What about those "gun nuts" building machines for that Trebuchet competition?

      Why aren't you pissed off at the folks building giant functional cannons and catapults? Someone could fling a car through your house -- Let alone just drive one. You're angry at the wrong people, moron.

    13. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using a tool to make guns is the same thing as using a newspaper to print pictures of the Queen naked?

      Last time I checked naked pictures of the Queen can't defend innocent peoples' lives, which are the only important thing in this world.

    14. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that? Punkin Chunkers aren't dangerous? Here's one demolishing a grain silo and a mini van.

    15. Re:I'm mad at him by PPH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      instead of starting with the Gutenberg Bible, you decided to start with Playboy.

      Many of us believe the world would be a better place had they started with Playboy and never printed that damned bible.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    16. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are smart enough to figure out that Tea Baggers can't tell the difference between "the government" and "Liberals" if a armed insurrection happened.

    17. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you don't understand history. You think that Playboy would have been well received in the Holy Roman Empire during the 1450s? The printing press would've been forbidden for centuries. And the Bible existed either way, though without the printing press it may have left the Christian world almost exclusively under the Catholic Church for a substantially longer period of time.

    18. Re:I'm mad at him by tmosley · · Score: 2

      I can poke my dog all day and he won't bite me. This is more like biting a bear with rabies.

      The more pertinent question is: why would anyone allow a rabid bear to even continue existing, much less let them into their workshops and bedrooms to threaten them.

    19. Re:I'm mad at him by tmosley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Women have little dicks and are cowards because they don't want to be raped. I learned that from a liberal, and hold it to be a universal truth.

      Also, granny doesn't have a right to keep her stuff or her life when a 250 pound "youth" breaks into her home to take the things she spent a lifetime acquiring through legitimate means.

    20. Re:I'm mad at him by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Nothing sadder than a person who sees the might of the government and just rolls over and allows themselves to be crushed because they were to cowardly to so much as speak a word in their own defense.

      You are the type of person who doesn't deserve either liberty or security, and costs us all both.

    21. Re:I'm mad at him by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      So we have somebody who thinks you need a gun in case of the government and somebody who doesn't. I think the one who thinks he needs to be armed is the one who is frightened of the government.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    22. Re:I'm mad at him by PPH · · Score: 1

      You think that Playboy would have been well received in the Holy Roman Empire during the 1450s?

      Ever seen the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? This obsession with nudes is a modern phenomenon. The Roman Catholic Church was far more concerned with different bible versions (and other theological publications) undermining their authority. Which they did. And it didn't get the printing press banned.

      'We only read it for the articles' was far more frightening to them.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    23. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to deflect. You admit then that you're scared. We weren't talking about the legality or the rights, we were talking about you being so scared you need to surround yourself with guns. You confirmed that.

    24. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normally when someone tries to rape you, you at least have the chance to try and run away. Not so when he's pointing a gun at your face.
      The guy breaking into granny's house isn't planning on killing her, unless he sees her as a threat. And for her stuff, that's what insurance is for, it's not worth risking your life over.

    25. Re:I'm mad at him by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      If we all just pretend the bear is not rabid, it will go away.

    26. Re:I'm mad at him by bigfinger76 · · Score: 2

      We weren't talking about the legality or the rights, we were talking about you being so scared you need to surround yourself with guns.

      Way to put up a strawman to deflect from the fact that you just got served.

    27. Re:I'm mad at him by rsmoody · · Score: 2

      Why is it every time someone decides they want to be responsible for their own safety and protection, as opposed to relying on the government for it, they are somehow afraid/scared and/or have some physical deformity/mental handicap?

      I mean really? Can you not provide a more effective argument than "your a scaredy cat" or "my dick is bigger than yours" or "your a stupid head". I understand that you are just following the saul alynsky routine, ridicule, radicalize, demonize, but it seems to me you could do a better job is all.

      The simple fact of the matter is I don't have to justify myself to you or anyone else. It's my right.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    28. Re:I'm mad at him by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I can poke my dog all day and he won't bite me. This is more like biting a bear with rabies.

      The more pertinent question is: why would anyone allow a rabid bear to even continue existing, much less let them into their workshops and bedrooms to threaten them.

      Because historically the alternative to having a rabid bear in your capital is having somebody else impose their rabid bear on you. Native Americans, for example, had no governmental institutions with coercive authority at all. The Chief could not tax your ass, he could not stop you from killing that one white guy who was pissing you off, he could not arrest you after you did it, all he could do was take his loyal section of the tribe to the local US Army Fort in hopes that the Star-Spangled-Rabid Bear would only eat your dumb ass.

      You can limit your rabid bear in certain ways and still survive. But you really, really need an entity with significant powers to restrict your own personal rights or those rights become obsolete.

    29. Re:I'm mad at him by Cyberax · · Score: 0

      Because gun nuts are totally trembling in fear that they might be deprived of their penis-extenders. And they won't be able to protect their homes and precious little children without at least AR-15 and a bazooka.

      For the record, I support gun ownership with strict background checks, regular checks for gun safety and mandatory serial numbers on firing pins.

    30. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd make a thousand, a hundred thousand useful things with this cnc machine before I ever considered making a gun.

      I find my guns to be very useful things.

    31. Re:I'm mad at him by DogDude · · Score: 1

      People who live in fear tend to have guns. People who don't live in fear don't need guns.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    32. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen to that!

    33. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      instead of starting with the Gutenberg Bible, you decided to start with Playboy.

      Many of us believe the world would be a better place had they started with Playboy and never printed that damned bible.

      And many of you are fucking idiots.

      The Gutenberg Bible took power away from the monks and priests of the church hierarchy and made religion accessible to everyday men and women. It changed the Bible from something rare and difficult to obtain into something that everyone who wanted one could one day have.

    34. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to my grandparents, who had someone break into their house in the middle of the night, beat, strangle, stab both my grandparents, killing my grand father. They didn't steal a F'ing thing in the house, and no other motive for the crime. They attacked a helpless elderly couple while they were asleep in their bed. So tell my grandmother, that the people who did that weren't planning on killing her or my grand father!

      You are ignorant and have no clue how evil people in this world can be.

    35. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it's more like the printing press just got invented, and instead of starting with the Gutenberg Bible, you decided to start with Playboy.

      As the post you quoted said, a challenge to the government/church's monopoly on power.

      The printing of bibles was not looked upon favourably by the established religious institutions.

    36. Re:I'm mad at him by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      There were lots of cultures that made your decision of decadence. They're not with us any more. Does anyone suspect a coincidence?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    37. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever seen the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? This obsession with nudes is a modern phenomenon.

      Big difference between nudity and porn.

    38. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Women have little dicks and are cowards because they don't want to be raped. I learned that from a liberal, and hold it to be a universal truth."
      I've not heard anyone, liberal, conservative or otherwise, say anything like that.

      Yet that bizarre incoherent post got marked "insightful"? Good old slashdot.

    39. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because gun nuts are totally trembling in fear that they might be deprived of their penis-extenders. And they won't be able to protect their homes and precious little children without at least AR-15 and a bazooka. For the record, I support gun ownership with strict background checks, regular checks for gun safety and mandatory serial numbers on firing pins.

      I'm going to invent a coal powered AR15 just to piss you off more.

    40. Re:I'm mad at him by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Why are you mad at him, rather than at people who'd ban the machine over it?

    41. Re:I'm mad at him by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So she has to stay sober and ready, gun-in-hand, 24/7 in case someone breaks in. If she gets ill or has to sleep, she needs some sort of backup to guard her while she sleeps. She could - and I'm just guessing here - actually secure her house against being broken into, and then she could do whatever she wanted and never have to worry about this nonsense. It sounds like she lives in a failed state.

    42. Re:I'm mad at him by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You don't have to justify yourself as it is your right. It's also everyone else's right to laugh at your paranoia and perverse belief that, contrary to available statistics, having a gun makes you safer.

    43. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at other cultures that weren't influenced by the Bible religions. Rape, murder and mass murder make headlines today. Arguably, what they have should've been replaced with Playboy too. But don't single out the Bible in this.

    44. Re: I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice platitude. Now, fries with that.

    45. Re:I'm mad at him by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Your argument makes the assumption that the wide and easy availability of guns protects women from getting raped and protects old women from being robbed. Unfortunately the US stats don't seem to back that up. There must be more to it.

      The only way you can reduce those sorts of crimes is by improving your society and bringing everyone up to a better standard of living. People don't just turn into evil criminals one day, the process is long and slow and mostly driven by poverty. Not just having little money, but not being able to afford mental health care or take sick days off work for treatment.

      It's not very macho, I know, and it probably feels like you have a better chance with a gun in your hand, but you don't. If you look at the numbers all having your own gun does is increase the chance of you being shot by the criminal who is similarly looking to protect himself. The numbers don't lie.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    46. Re:I'm mad at him by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      If granny is anything like my grandmother I would trust her with a firearm more than a lot of people. Last summer she mentioned that she missed going pheasant hunting so my uncle, my cousin, and I took my 89 year old grandmother out pheasant hunting on opener. We didn't go as deep into the really thick stuff and slop as we usually do but grandma kept up just fine.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    47. Re:I'm mad at him by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Really?

      Then I must live in one of the most fearful neighborhoods in the world as most of my neighbors have multiple firearms. Either that or I happen to live in a neighborhood where a lot of the people still go out hunting in the fall and winter. I guess I do own one firearm out of fear but from what I can tell it is a fairly well founded fear of the large predators that I have had fairly close encounters with where I hunt. Nothing gets the blood pumping like having a wolf trying to drive you back into the waiting pack, have a cougar come up to the tree you are in, being 2 feet from a black bear. So I guess my magnum class sidearm that I take out with me into the woods is something that I keep because of fear. Then again when I am not hunting those firearms all just sit nice and secure in the large heavy fireproof safe that is bolted into the poured concrete floor and poured concrete wall in my basement.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    48. Re:I'm mad at him by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      He isn't drumming up fear. I think he's doing the best things possible: getting out in front of the hysteria and shining a big fucking light on the whole thing. Remember when the DMCA was passed and it was only nerds who stood up and said "hey, this is bullshit! Don't you see the implications?! They're taking away our right to own our devices, to tinker, to create! Stop this!" and nobody gave a shit? You fast forward 17 years and you know if they tried that today there would be a huge backlash. It might still pass, but it would be much more difficult. The internet has shown we have the ability to stand up to things like SOPA, to fight for net neutrality. DMCA might still pass, but it wouldn't be a forgone conclusion.

      3D printing is going to come under the same scrutiny as soon as they become commonly available, and manufacturers start freaking out because their "patented designs" are being copied. And then the government's going to step in and make you have to have a license, and DRM for printers, and all that kind of crap. But by getting out in front and making everyone aware of printers and the fundamental rights that are involved he's raising awareness. Now when the government tries to restrict 3D printing, you'll have the NRA on your side. You can spam grandma on facebook with memes about how Big Gub'ment trying to ban your 3D printers is a secret communist muslim atheist plot to snatch your guns. Whatever the government does about 3D printing, it won't be done in secret, before the average person realizes what's going on. There will be noise, and he's making that noise.

      Cody's doing God's work. More power to him.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    49. Re:I'm mad at him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being an atheist myself, i disagree. Even if religion itself is a poisonous idea, the fact that the firtst thing printed was a bible and not the anarchist cookbook certainly helped to put it in a more positive light (consider it a PR move)

    50. Re:I'm mad at him by stoploss · · Score: 1

      For the record, I support gun ownership with strict background checks, regular checks for gun safety and mandatory serial numbers on firing pins.

      "For the record, I support freedom of speech with strict prior restraint on publication, regular censorship of inciteful or seditious content, and mandatory review by a cultural diversity panel to ensure nothing will be perceived as libelous or offensive to anyone now or in the future."

      BTW, you seem intelligent enough to understand that the microstamping firing pin concept is a completely unworkable fantasy technology, on the level of CSI's "enhance" video command. If you still support microstamping after doing a trivial amount of research, you will be implicitly outed as someone whose primary interest is a ban via setting impossible criteria... much like how Congress originally tried to ban marijuana by instituting a tax on it and then refusing to allow payment of said tax (that was unconstitutional, BTW).

    51. Re:I'm mad at him by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Funny, cause the statistics are that gun owners ARE safer. But I guess you just ignore the statistics that disagree with you.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    52. Re:I'm mad at him by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      People without guns get robbed and murdered. Just look at Washington DC or Detroit up until recently.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    53. Re:I'm mad at him by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is that Playboy is well known as nudity, not porn. There is no sex in Playboy.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    54. Re:I'm mad at him by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Women have little dicks and are cowards because they don't want to be raped. I learned that from a liberal, and hold it to be a universal truth. Also, granny doesn't have a right to keep her stuff or her life when a 250 pound "youth" breaks into her home to take the things she spent a lifetime acquiring through legitimate means.

      If you're a rapist or murderous burglar, I doubt you're going to approach your would-be victims openly and give them a chance to draw their weapon and shoot you.

      The only criminals that get shot by heroic citizens exercising their right to bear arms must be pretty fucking useless and ineffective ones.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    55. Re:I'm mad at him by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      all having your own gun does is increase the chance of you being shot by the criminal who is similarly looking to protect himself

      Quite. I doubt there are many criminals in the US who aren't armed, and they're not going to be any calmer or more professional about shooting than the cops are, and we know how that works out.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    56. Re:I'm mad at him by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Hunting animals and protecting yourself against rabid wolves or whatever in the woods is an entirely separate issue from walking around armed in a city and shooting someone because you thought they looked like they might hit you.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    57. Re:I'm mad at him by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      This is about the stupidest response I have heard. How long are you going to wait while being killed or raped for the chance to get a phone to call the police and then wait some more for them to show up. If you get the chance to grab the phone, you also have the chance to grab the gun. One situation you might save your life, the other is where the police inspect your dead body for clues as to who did it. Police don't prevent crime, they chase after it when it is all over.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    58. Re:I'm mad at him by tmosley · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately the US stats don't seem to back that up. "

      I don't think you actually looked at the stats, as you fail to actually cite any. You didn't even bother to make any up on the spot. How could we possibly trust someone so lazy?

      But seriously, small town in Georgia passed a law requiring a gun in every home, crime dropped dramatically immediately afterwards.

    59. Re:I'm mad at him by tmosley · · Score: 1

      "All criminals are ninjas, therefore there is no reason to allow women to carry firearms."

  7. Waiting for the 1911 plan by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    I don't want an AR 15... but I'd print a nice looking metal handgun.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      I have a 100% plastic AR-15 lower. It's a gun according to federal law but needs another $500 in parts I can't 3D print to become a gun. Fortunately I can order them online. ;)

      Real soon I expect all of it to be 3D printable except the barrel.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    2. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "Real soon I expect all of it to be 3D printable except the barrel."

      Why not? A company printed a complete 1911A1 Colt 45, barrel included.

      Laser sintering made it better than the original done 104 years ago with the tech of that time.

      Also I'm sure you can built a gyrojet with plastic, even if the ammo at over 100$ a round is a bit expensive.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    3. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys are going about it all wrong. The whole point is (in a stupid trolling fashion), create a weapon that in other situations would be banned? How about a knife? Or a sword?

    4. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think I have a moderately complete collection of blueprints for the 1911 at this point, if you're really interested. They're not as miserably hard to come up with for free as, say, complete tube frame chassis plans.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      WOOT! Gyrojet high-explosive ammo! That brings back memories of Star Frontiers RPG...damn, 1982...makes me feel old LOL.

    6. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you can either tell me where to find them or whatever you feel is best way to do it... then I'd be happy to get my hands on them.

      At some point, I want to be able to do this. I don't want to run afoul of the law... but at the same time, I want whether or not I obey it to be a choice on my part rather than an involuntary consequence of government policy.

      That is... if and when I decide I want one... I want to know I can do it.

      I'm not an AR15 guy. They look ugly in my opinion. They're made to look military issue and I'm not a member of the military. They don't speak to me.

      Which begs the question, are any of the rifles pretty? They tend to have a very boring or even ugly look. Just personal aesthetics. :-D

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The printers that can print entirely in metal only cost 50 grand right now. And that price is falling fast.

      In ten years, I wouldn't be surprised if they were affordable for the consumer.

      And that is just additive manufacturing.

      What you need for a barrel is a machine to bore the barrel out. Rather than try to make the gun, get your CnC machine and 3d printer to build the machine that makes the barrel instead. You can use a bar of steel... and then bore it out.

      One thing that I don't think anyone has realized is that we could build a von neumann machine. No, not the sci fi nannites, but rather a collection of machines that if used together can make anything.

      All you need is all the machines.

      The entire global industrial complex is collectively capable of making any of our industrial or electronic goods. And it is capable of making any of the machines that make those goods.

      If we want to have a self contained summary of the industrial range of the entire system... we could do it. It might not all fit into one building but it could possibly fit into several. I'm not saying it would be efficient or cheap. But you could put all the relevant machines in a finite amount of space.

      And then the next challenge would be combining similar machines so that redundant space isn't use. If you work at it and don't worry about maintaining high output or efficiency but merely capability... you could probably pack it all into a single factory. An anything factory. A factory that could make anything.

      And then you want to look at which machines can be built by the other machines. Such that if you only had this portion of the factory you could build the rest.

      Ideally, I'd want that in a space capable size. Something not more than perhaps ten tons at most. Why? Because once you have that you can launch it at the moon or mars... and with sufficient automation robots could build an industrial base on any world where they don't melt or freeze. Which means if humans sent a manned ship to one of those worlds... it could be greeted with a red carpet, a cold beer, and a warm bath. Oh and all the spare parts and fuel to return if you so desire.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Just looked up the boring issue... the bits for boring and rifling a barrel cost about 100 each. The equipment is otherwise non-specialized. I wouldn't be surprised if you could use a drill press or something with one of those bits. Apparently you need to be more careful as the barrels get longer but the shorter barrels are apparently pretty easy.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      links to 1911 plans

      I have a lot more documentation saved about 1911 assembly, though, because the truth is that there's often quite a lot of smithing involved just in fitting parts. When I wanted to put an extended safety on my Kimber SS Pro-Carry II, I had to fiddle it a bit to make it fit properly and work smoothly. I had to do even more work when replacing my mainspring housing, which needed substantial modification to properly clear the extended beavertail.

      Having bought a slightly fancy 1911, before I went to all the trouble of building one I'd want to shoot the S&W M&P .45 sidearm. It seems like a better design. About the 1911's only real advantage over modern pistols is that it will operate in any orientation... but that's assuming that you hold it just right and it doesn't FTE because you didn't hold the grip tight enough, etc etc. But boy, it does have a sweet feel in my big fat hands, very very natural.

      Which begs the question, are any of the rifles pretty? They tend to have a very boring or even ugly look. Just personal aesthetics. :-D

      Some of the wooden ones, maybe. And I find the P90 attractive in a nerdchic kind of way.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      It would be nice to get those cad files from that company that printed the metal 1911. There looks like a lot of trial and error to turn the old blueprints into something useful.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    11. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There looks like a lot of trial and error to turn the old blueprints into something useful.

      Well, that's just sort of a 1911 problem anyway. Even after you assemble it you still need to tailor the weapon for the type of ammunition you're going to fire, and switching brands can cause FTL, FTF, or FTE depending on specifically how the round differs, which extractor design you've got, and how the throat is shaped. Browning's following design, the Hi-Power, is based on the lessons learned while designing the 1911. More modern sidearms are based on the hi-power than the 1911 because it's a better-sorted design.

      Some of the new 1911s are indeed CAD-designed and computer-milled, and they have very high precision as a result. This has resulted in being able to buy an accurate 1911 off the shelf, but you still have to custom-fit any third-party parts, because there's an immense variance. Also, these tight-fit CAD/CAM 1911s have break-in periods in which they are more likely to have a failure, where the old school guns didn't. And they still have the problem of ammo specificity due to the ammo loading path.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re: Waiting for the 1911 plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use .410 slugs.

    13. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As the industrial process shifts to more of a downloaded standard... I expect we're going to see a tightening of standards for what is considered right and not right.

      The primary reason being that if everyone is manufacturing parts then there will be a greater need for standardization in those parts.

      If you download the plans for a machine are you going to build the one that uses all sorts of weird parts or the one that tries to comply with community standards?

      The beauty of it is that you'll have the choice. You can do whatever you want. But look at what happens with software and see the future of hardware. You're going to get a few designs that are very popular and they're going increasingly create standards. And anyone that wants to contribute to that will need to at least acknowledge those standards when they make whatever.

      Appreciate, I'm not just talking about guns. I'm talking about washing machines and cars are egg beaters and anything else you can think of really.

      I suspect we're going to see some very different designs for guns and really all sorts of machines getting developed.

      Existing designs assumed a factory custom making those guns often by skilled craftspeople. What happens when the skill is mostly in the machine and there is an increasing emphasis on people being able to maintain the thing without resorting to help from gunsmiths? You might see some very mad max looking contraptions. But its just a consequence of a different industrial model.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    14. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What happens when the skill is mostly in the machine and there is an increasing emphasis on people being able to maintain the thing without resorting to help from gunsmiths? You might see some very mad max looking contraptions.

      Well, going back to guns since it's a convenient example, that's already how it is. In the AR-15 world in particular you can mix and match all kinds of parts from all kinds of vendors and build pretty much any kind of rifle. But where 3d printing and machining can make a really big difference for a lot of people right now is in custom grips. Whether it's for a firearm or for anything, really, a custom grip improves tool use in the same way proper tires improve handling. This being Slashdot, it is of course necessary to return to an automotive comparison.

      Besides custom grips it seems like the low hanging fruit is still in parts replication. When a user get a new something by simply taking both pieces of something which fell apart and dumping them into a drawer at the hardware store, that will be transformative.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see more home made silencers.

      It is annoying they require a special tax stamp and license.

      They don't work the same way they work in movies. The point is not to make the gun silent just not ear deafening.

      Back in the old days, people would use silencers for hunting so they didn't have to wear ear protection. I believe Teddy Roosevelt used them with some frequency.

      The shot is still quite audible. It doesn't make that "pift" sound in the movies. It is very much a bang. It is just not a crack you can hear for miles.

      I saw one company that made a fitting that allows you to use an oil filter as a silencer. It is just a metal adapter that screws on to the barrel and then accepts an oil filter on the other side.

      The thing is still expensive but the price is about 99 percent the damn tax stamp. Since the adapter itself is classified as a silencer.

      If you could print that adapter then you'd have a DIY silencer.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    16. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I could make an adapter to mount a silencer to my rifle with my drill press, but I'm not going to, because it's illegal. I live in California, so it's double-extra illegal.

      It is super-annoying, though, that I can't have relatively quiet shooting.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Waiting for the 1911 plan by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      In 60 years they'll be in much the same position the government is on drugs. The "war on guns" is increasingly futile when a micro factory in a one bedroom apartment is going to start turning out more guns then the whole neighborhood needs.

      And what is really going to undermine their position is that it is going to be international. Other countries that brag about their lack of guns are suddenly going to find themselves awash with them.

      This is because most things are prohibited by controlling manufacture, import, and legal sale at retail establishments.

      If the entire system bypasses every chock point then they're going to have to rely on defuse enforcement and that is just not something regulations do a good job of managing.

      We're also seeing the cartels treat the borders with less respect. Heads on spikes and bus loads of people pushed into mass graves. The anti gun people are not on the right side of history. Time is going to erode their position.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  8. Cody, just stop. by LessThanObvious · · Score: 0

    While I would much like legislators to understand that no matter what laws they make that guns will always be available, I feel this approach is doomed to fail. Guns are old technology, so as long as humans have the means to combine propellant with a projectile and an ignition source in a tube of sufficient strength, guns will be available in society. That said, please stop making homemade unserialized weapons. All that is going to result from that is that they will make new laws and those laws may be written so poorly as to put controls not only on serialized parts considered to be the "firearm", but on many common components. The spread of unserialized weapons may also cause more states to require gun registration. Cody, your actions will have harmful unintended consequences for gun owners. I'm sure you mean well, but it is a flawed strategy.

    1. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fully expect this to go down the same path the drug war went, where now we can't buy more than 14 days' worth of decent allergy meds at a time and even getting that requires red tape and ID and God help you if you wanted to get some at 9PM so you can sleep.

    2. Re:Cody, just stop. by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      That said, please stop making homemade unserialized weapons.

      I'm really finding the hobby of making self bows very attractive. There are some excellent tutorials on doing it on YouTube, it seems like something anyone can do with some patience and practice. I'm willing to give it a go knowing my first attempt is likely to be a failure.

      I don't plan on putting a serial number on it.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:Cody, just stop. by amxcoder · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have you been to California, or Illinois, or DC lately? The anti-gun crowd are just fine coming up with all those repercussions on their own, and then some. It doesn't matter if someone is 'in their face with new technology' or not, these lawmakers that want to regulate and get rid of guns are already out of control.

      California already has mandatory micro-stamping, which is technologically infeasible, and will be a de-facto ban on all new hand guns for some time to come (mean while more and more existing gun models fall off the roster while no new ones can be added due to the micro-stamping requirement). In the last couple years, the roster of handgun models have been cut in half. All handguns available for purchase are older models that were already on the roster prior to the micro-stamping law becomming law, AND which haven't undergone ANY functional (and sometimes cosmetic) changes in design.

    4. Re:Cody, just stop. by kwiqsilver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You might think it's safe to say that, but it's completely wrong.

      The number of guns in private hands in the US has doubled since the early 1990s. Yet the number of deaths (accidental or criminal) has plummeted, and the number of shootings (accidental or criminal) has plummeted as well. We have safer guns, and better gun education.

    5. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. Maybe when I leave California I'll sell off my Ca approved hand gun and buy 4 guns in Arizona with the profits. That will be nice.

    6. Re:Cody, just stop. by LessThanObvious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, I've been to California lately and those of us like myself that support efforts to stop the constant waterfall of idiotic, burdensome, ineffective gun laws have our hands full trying to keep gun phobic citizens and legislators in check. Having police going on television stating that they estimate there are 500K unserialized AR type guns in California alone and that some of them are showing up at high profile crime scenes is not helping the cause. Any action that creates more public fear related to firearms is counter-productive to maintaining our rights. I'm not citing that 500K number, because I don't believe it's true, but that is what the nightly news is allowing the public to hear. I do understand that Cody Wilson is not responsible for a high number of recently produced weapons; he hasn't been able to offer that many milling machines. It's more independent machine shops that are cranking out volume. I just have to pick on Cody, because he's been the vocal public face trying to legitimize homemade guns as a movement. It's perfectly legal to make a firearm for yourself in the manner Cody's machine is intended, but none the less, the idea of "Ghostguns" is all it takes to get the "Think of the Children" banners flying. If I had my way we'd have shall issue CCW in every state with national right to carry, open carry, stand your ground and castle doctrine in every state in the land. As it stands though our legislators and a good many of the citizens they serve are clueless and fearful of guns and the best I know how to do is play defense in the states that suffer with such ignorance.

    7. Re:Cody, just stop. by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      Yes, Cody may be in their face and drawing attention to the "make your own weapon" movement, however, that movement has been underway for some time, and gaining momentum long before Cody, and most of the reasons were because of the lawmakers themselves. The lawmakers that are cranking out these rediculous laws don't seem to understand that they themselves become the number one reason and force behind these movements. I never knew of the concept until about 7-8 years ago, and it's gained lots of momentum since then. People spread the word, and the lawmakers create the conditions themselves that make ordinary people come to the conclusion that they might want a few weapons that aren't in a government database as a precautionary move (just in case).

      There is a internet meme that has been around for awhile, stating that Obama is the nations #1 gun salesman. While I agree, I think the lawmakers come in close second. Everytime a government official, congress-critter, or state lawmaker open their mouths about guns, the result is a massive run on gun and ammo purchases... and I can't blame people for that, heck, I've been in on it too. I've purchased more guns and ammo in the last 5 years than I have in all the years before combined myself.

    8. Re:Cody, just stop. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Yet the number of deaths (accidental or criminal) has plummeted, and the number of shootings (accidental or criminal) has plummeted as well.

      Not to contradict your point, but there is one kind of firearm-related death which is neither accidental nor criminal, and that is suicide. Homicides by firearm are down, but suicides by firearm are steady, and have increased slightly in the last few years. The rate of firearm suicide in the US is higher than pretty much everywhere else in the developed world.

      So it's correct to say that easier access to guns means more gun deaths, even if it doesn't mean more accidents or more crime.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    9. Re:Cody, just stop. by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      I think it is safe to say that the rapid spread of cheap weapons, serialized or not, is just going to lead to more gun accidents, and more gun deaths

      That must explain the continuing, decades-long decline in all of those things. Right? Right.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:Cody, just stop. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Oh, and one more thing. As the number of guns in private hands in the US has increased, the number of criminal deaths has indeed skyrocketed... in Mexico.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    11. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load of BS. Anyone working in Emergency Medicine knows the hospital is required by law to report all firearms related visits. They are keeping better stats on guns than any other ER medical procedure.

    12. Re:Cody, just stop. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      There's a simple solution for that problem. Own a gun => go to jail law. After a few years most of guns will naturally be cleared from streets.

    13. Re:Cody, just stop. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Except that nobody actually collects those stats. CDC is expressly forbidden from studying gun death epidemiology. Well, truth has always been the enemy of conservatives.

    14. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Learn upholstery.
      2. Make Kevlar sofas.
      3. Profit!!

    15. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go look up what started the shooting in the american revolutionary war.

      Yes, I know, us worthless male civillians couldn't overthrow the government now, and we'll die. But maybe , maybe, such a war would destroy america either way.

      America is a feminist state that bans everything men used to want to do.
      (men used to beable to marry 9 yr old girls up untill the late 1800s, early-mid 1900s in various US states)

      It would be good if it were dust in the wind.

    16. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. People like you just creep me out. I have no need or want for a tool that is only meant to kill something. I have held and fired many weapons over the years but as I've gotten older I've outgrown the need I once felt for them. Fear is the reason you feel you need them. If you truly fear no one than you have no need.

    17. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. People like you just creep me out. I have no need or want for a tool that is only meant to kill something. I have held and fired many weapons over the years but as I've gotten older I've outgrown the need I once felt for them. Fear is the reason you feel you need them. If you truly fear no one than you have no need.

      Yes, I also have noticed that when people get old they just don't give a f--- about things in general. The Swiss have it right. Trained with your weapon, then take it home.

    18. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. People like you just creep me out. I have no need or want for a tool that is only meant to kill something. I have held and fired many weapons over the years but as I've gotten older I've outgrown the need I once felt for them. Fear is the reason you feel you need them. If you truly fear no one than you have no need.

      And when the need arises, you'll be unarmed. Good luck with that.

    19. Re:Cody, just stop. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The question is, if you take away the gun, how many of those suicides by gun would turn into suicides by something else?

      I recall the stats from Australia after one of their sweeping gun bans was that gun suicides went way down... and suicides by hanging went right up for a net positive gain in suicides.

    20. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and one more thing. As the number of guns in private hands in the US has increased, the number of criminal deaths has indeed skyrocketed... in Mexico.

      And in Mexico you can only buy a gun legally from the Federal Police.

    21. Re:Cody, just stop. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you saw those statistics, but it's not true. The gun buyback programme started in October 1996. The suicide rate in Australia peaked in 1997 (before the programme was complete) and has been steadily decreasing since.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    22. Re:Cody, just stop. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Yet they do collect the stats. And publish them annually. And So does the FBI who also publishes the stats annually for all to find via google.

      Your claim is false. Collecting stats is different from studying.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    23. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, that law would work great. Until the outlaws that stashed away a bunch of cheap throw away saturday night specials takes one, breaks into your parked car, tosses it under the seat, then leaves and phones in an anonymous tip to the gun crime hotline.

      Draconian laws + dumb and eager enforcement == crminials don't need to shoot you to get rid of you, because they can just frame you so easy

    24. Re:Cody, just stop. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Wow. People like you just creep me out. I have no need or want for a tool that is only meant to kill something.

      Guns aren't meant to kill. They are designed to fire a small metal ball at whatever it is pointed at. It could be a paper or metal target, or it could be something alive. But it is the person holding the gun that decides whether or not it kills. Hammers are designed to apply a large amount of force onto a small area. That area could be the head of a nail, or the head of a person. Either way it is just doing its job, just like guns.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    25. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The number of guns in private hands in the US has doubled since the early 1990s. Yet the number of deaths (accidental or criminal) has plummeted, and the number of shootings (accidental or criminal) has plummeted as well. We have safer guns, and better gun education."

      Gun ownership in the US is like no speed limits on the Autobahn in Germany. It's not an evidenced based decision. Its part of culture and identity for many and as such a highly emotional topic, people should admit this it would simplify the debate.

      And yet the US has firearms deaths more in line with 3rd world countries:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

      When compared to Canada it has almost 5 times the number of fire arms deaths
      When compared to Germany it has almost 10 times the number of fire arms deaths
      When compared to the UK it has a staggering 40 times the number of fire arms deaths

      If we really wanted to make an evidenced based decision rather that giving statistics out of context we should be looking at firearms deaths data and compare them to other countries that have fire arms and how they regulate them, then we could learn what works and strikes a balance between access and safety.

      The reality is that gun regulations _do_ reduce firearms related deaths. Its particularly interesting to note that 60% of those deaths are suicides and 30% homicides so more than 80-90% of firearms deaths are for improper use of firearm (aka not in self defense, hunting accident etc...)

      Given the social and economic impact of a death (especially if the person is a provider for others) meaningful regulation restricting access to guns to those that really need them, and are qualified to use them makes a lot of sense. Much the same way we restrict access to motor vehicles (cars) and have laws governing their use to those 16 and older that have demonstrated the ability to have a minimum set of driving skills by pass a driving testing. When I read about the accidents where children are handling guns and shoot and kill another family member, I really think some people are not responsible enough to have and handle guns (how can you be considered a responsible parent when you allow your child access to fire arms, much the same way you don't let your children play in the street). Unfortunately this shows that some sort of regulation / training is necessary to protect those (like children) from those who misuse or mishandle fire arms.

      While rules of the road are PITA a lot of the time, I accept that I am much safer on the road because of them (data is out there to support this), as do most people.
      Ask yourself why do you wear a seat belt?

      For those that argue they need firearms to protect themselves, you should be open to a discussion about whether the protection offered by a gun is outweighed by the risk of misuse, mishandling and the risk associated with other people doing so. Only then is it an evidence based rational (rather than emotional) discussion.

      While I have taken a gun safety course at a range and learned how to safely handle a firearm, I've personally chosen not to own one as I feel that the effort and activities (safe storage, regular practice etc...) I would need to under take to safely have a gun outweigh the protective benefit. That could change if I move to a rural area or take up hunting. That being said in the country I live in (Canada) when I have an emergency that requires a firearm, I'd rather call a trained firearms expert (aka the police), that's much better trained to handle the situation than I am (average response times in Toronto are about 7 minutes which is probably shorter than the time I would need to get and ready a properly secured firearm).

    26. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is indeed probably safe to say that, because it is common sense. However, just because it is a generally held truth doesn't mean that reality follows. In fact, the data, at least on a country by country level, doesn't seem to support the idea that a society with more guns is more dangerous to people in that society. I, for one, am happy to depart common sense for the actual data on the subject.

    27. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "People like you just creep me out." "If you truly fear no one than you have no need." Doesn't sound like you've outgrown your fear of people to me, just sounds like you'd rather protect yourself with policy than take that defense on personally.

    28. Re:Cody, just stop. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That is odd. I can pick up amphetamines from CVS in 30 days supplies (by prescription for my kid's ADHD). Why would they prevent you from buying allergy pills?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    29. Re:Cody, just stop. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That is a great idea, I will have to look into it. The boy scouts teach making bows as part of archery merit badge, maybe this is something I can do with the kids.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    30. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell does everyone use firearm deaths? Nothing drives me crazier in all the crap thinking that comes up in the gun control debate from either side. Of course firearm deaths are correlated to firearm ownership. Traffic accidents are also correlated to car ownership. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Being stabbed or blown up or being beaten by a mob of criminals isn't a better way to go than being shot. Use intentional homicide or even just intentional death, using firearm related death is a pretty obvious begging the question fallacy.

    31. Re:Cody, just stop. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If you want that, feel free to put forth the constitutional amendment that is needed to fulfill your desire. It will fail utterly, and we will all laugh at you; but it is what you want, right?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    32. Re:Cody, just stop. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      They can do it right now with child porn or drugs. Why should I care specifically about guns?

    33. Re:Cody, just stop. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      No amendment necessary. Just reinterpret the "well-organized" words and presto!

    34. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is the reason the Founder's created the 2nd Amendment. Lexington and Concorde were caused by the British confiscating guns, and they were being very polite about it while doing it. But look at what it lead to. Many of the Founder's fully intended for the people to rise up if that ever happened again.

      Thomas Jefferson: "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

    35. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why gun deaths? Someone, somewhere give me a reason to care about gun deaths.

    36. Re:Cody, just stop. by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      You might think it's safe to say that, but it's completely wrong.

      The number of guns in private hands in the US has doubled since the early 1990s. Yet the number of deaths (accidental or criminal) has plummeted, and the number of shootings (accidental or criminal) has plummeted as well. We have safer guns, and better gun education.

      The number of accidental deaths hasn't plummeted, it's stayed pretty constant, down a small fraction. https://cbssanfran.files.wordp...

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    37. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an assumption presented as fact.

      American suicide rates are not that different than other industrialized nations with massive gun control. Austria, France, Finland has a higher rate, UK, Germany, etc. has a slightly lower rate. We're all within something like 10% of each other. So if banning all firearms in the US will only get us to the UK suicide rate which is 2 per 100,000 lower among males..... I don't think that's a battle that will win the overthrow of the 2nd Amendment.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

    38. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So making it harder to get your hands on a firearm solves, or at least lessens, suicide ?

      Folks who want to kill themselves will do so, with or without a firearm. The methods for self-termination are nearly infinite and many are even easier to perform than utilizing a firearm.

      The suicide rate in the US may also be the result of an over-dosing of its population on any number of anti-psychotic / anti-depressant pharmaceuticals. Or the perpetual state of conflicts we seem to be in ( high numbers of military suicides due to this ), the shitty economy, or a multitude of other reasons that drive the individual to a point of hopelessness where death is a preferable alternative to the life they live.

      The short version: Perhaps the rest of the worlds population are happier / more content with their lives than their US counterparts. Perhaps citizens of other countries use differing methods to kill themselves or perhaps the other countries don't report suicides in the same way.
       

    39. Re:Cody, just stop. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Or they could just move to a country without the freedoms that they fear so greatly!

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    40. Re:Cody, just stop. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      So making it harder to get your hands on a firearm solves, or at least lessens, suicide ?

      I didn't say that, and I don't know if that's true in general. The only data point that I have is that the overall suicide rate did decrease in Australia after the gun buyback.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    41. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Your govt is allready your enemy, if you're a male.

    42. Re:Cody, just stop. by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Except that nobody actually collects those stats. CDC is expressly forbidden from studying gun death epidemiology. Well, truth has always been the enemy of conservatives.

      That was because one or more of the CDC reserchers was caught lying about the data. look it up...

    43. Re:Cody, just stop. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Nope. It's because that might uncover very inconvenient truths for gun fondlers.

    44. Re:Cody, just stop. by loimprevisto · · Score: 1

      One could speculate that the increase in suicide with firearms is related to the increase in veteran suicides...

      --
      Much Madness is divinest Sense --
      To a discerning Eye --
      Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
    45. Re:Cody, just stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is that you have causation confused on this one. Presumably if those people were that depressed and they hadn't had a firearm, they still would have committed suicide using some other means.

      I am curious if suicides increased from jumping off tall buildings would the same statist people try to legislate against tall buildings. It is more likely that suicides increasing in recent years is more closely tied to the economic downturn than to gun ownership.

    46. Re:Cody, just stop. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      My guess is that you have causation confused on this one. Presumably if those people were that depressed and they hadn't had a firearm, they still would have committed suicide using some other means.

      As I noted elsewhere, we don't actually know if this is true or not, but there is one data point: the overall suicide rate in Australia went down immediately after the gun buyback.

      One data point does not a trend make, and even if it was a causal relationship, this doesn't imply that the same would be true in the US. Australia has a real public health system, remember. So yes, we're both presuming. More data is needed.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  9. Thank you Cody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the Government won't let me have guns (I'm not in the USA, obviously) then the criminals must have them in spades. Let them have so many that citizens are scared of *not* owning a gun and demand their freedom.

    I'd rather it be done a safer way, but liberalism has destroyed that. The unsafe way it must be. Freedom has no price.

    1. Re:Thank you Cody by PPH · · Score: 1

      Let them have so many that citizens are scared of *not* owning a gun and demand their freedom.

      Doesn't work that way. Citizens will expect an ever stronger police presence. The side effect of which is an eventual totalitarian state.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Thank you Cody by tmosley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It actually doesn't. A citizen militia overran a drug cartel in Mexico last year and stole their weapons because the government refused to protect them. Governments are limited by their ability to raise funds. Even with a printing press, that power is far from infinite.

      An armed populace is far more cost effective at keeping the peace.

    3. Re:Thank you Cody by Cyberax · · Score: 0

      Then this militia replaced the local gang and business was back to normal.

    4. Re:Thank you Cody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said the warlord....

  10. Does not seem like it is failing by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    While I would much like legislators to understand that no matter what laws they make that guns will always be available, I feel this approach is doomed to fail

    All over the U.S., gun restrictions are generally faltering. You can concealed carry in more places than ever now, and every new gun control effort is faltering (like the ATF backing off on the recent ammo re-classification they were considering).

    Now is not the time to fall back. Now is the time to move forward decisively and show that the people with an irrational fear of guns were always a a small minority, and rightfully scorned.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Does not seem like it is failing by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and also ban all gun death research. No data = no problem! Ignorance is strength!

      I think the best way forward would be to take a page from those nice police officers in Cleveland and just legalize shooting anyone carrying a gun. Outright and without any questions.

    2. Re:Does not seem like it is failing by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and also ban all gun death research.

      Why would I do something that so clearly supports gun ownership? Crime rates in the U.S. have fallen dramatically with gun ownership.

      The more research the better, because it shows people like you the truth you don't want to see. With enough research, even you can see it...

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Does not seem like it is failing by Cyberax · · Score: 1
      Because it doesn't? Especially when compared with other countries with sane gun laws.

      Crime rates in the U.S. have fallen dramatically with gun ownership.

      And in Germany they fell without gun ownership.

    4. Re:Does not seem like it is failing by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Crime rates in the U.S. have fallen dramatically with gun ownership.

      And in Germany they fell without gun ownership.

      Which is irrelevant. The point is that crime rates are falling even though we have large numbers of firearms. Which means that firearms are NOT causing crime, as many of the gun-banners would like to make you believe.

      And if my firearms aren't harming you, why should it matter to you that I have them?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Does not seem like it is failing by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      They cause crime. That's demonstrably true. It's just that crime falls so much that additional gun deaths are masked. Then this happens: http://thesocietypages.org/soc...

  11. What's the issue here again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing he's doing is illegal. Why all the attention? People have been making guns with machine tools for decades.

    Enough with the fearmongering.

    1. Re:What's the issue here again? by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      why all the attention?

      because he's a narcissist who takes any opportunity at self-promotion. his gun-fetish is just a means to that end, the consequences of his actions don't matter as long as he gets some publicity.

      in short, just another libtard psychopath.

    2. Re:What's the issue here again? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Which do you prefer, a psychopath that wants to dictate every bit of your life to you, or a psychopath who just wants to be allowed to tinker, and wants you to be left alone as well?

      Your answer will determine whether or not you are yourself a psychopath.

    3. Re:What's the issue here again? by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      those are not the only two options available.

      even five year olds can see through bullshit false dichotomies, why can't libertarians?

    4. Re:What's the issue here again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those are not the only two options available.

      even five year olds can see through bullshit false dichotomies, why can't libertarians?

      We can when your mom isn't busy giving us a BJ.

    5. Re:What's the issue here again? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Give me liberty or give me death.

      Why do you feel like you have to dictate what everyone else can do? This is antithesis to the values of the USA. If you want to control what other people can and cannot do go become a dictator. I hear it is a pretty healthy career path.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    6. Re:What's the issue here again? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      The sheep can't tell the difference between the wolf and the sheepdog. The wolf in sheep's clothing sure is reassuring, though, so I'll just vote for him.

      Now, who's ready to vote on what we are having for dinner tonight?

  12. Just exploiting a loophole. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is exploiting a loop hole in the law. If it was not for NRA main is running wild it would get closed and those with multiple barrels for their rifles would be pissed.

  13. Why is this interesting? by sugarmatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have large CNC machine shop. Anyone else I know with a CNC machine shop in their garage of any size has probably made guns. Some of them have made full auto versions. Some have made mortar launchers and artillery cannons and other stuff. This has been going on for many decades...and yet it is barely even visible. No end of the world. No crime wave. The difference here is volume, not principle.

    Guns are not even interesting after growing up with them. I don't understand why people are so obsessed with them...but then again, I don't know why Pharrell's "Blurred Lines" was even a blip on the music scene. But I have to admit the fetishization of firearms gives me the willies...it is a disturbingly reliable indicator of a state of mind I am wary of, avoid, and consider pitiable.

    Nonetheless, I feel compelled to defend the right to make and use firearms because once I declare the 2nd amendment is worthless, their state of mind could easily compel them to decide that any of the freedoms I enjoy are equally worthless. Heck- a majority of Americans already do. I tend to place the majority of persons around where I live who openly carry in the same category as some of the unfortunate homeless ranks who suffer to spew collections of epithets at passersby. It is generally harmless, certainly within their rights, although somewhat disturbing. To feel they are that much under threat by the world around them is a lousy way to get through a day. To outlaw that sort of thing would also be a crime.

    Build guns. I don't care.It is the least of any imagined problems that Americans have, and to ban the information or even their manufacture literally on a par with banning books or ideas in my mind.

    1. Re:Why is this interesting? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      I tend to place the majority of persons around where I live who openly carry in the same category as some of the unfortunate homeless ranks who suffer to spew collections of epithets at passersby.

      That's not a very nice way to think of the police. They are just trying to serve and protect.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    2. Re:Why is this interesting? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Lots of countries restrict gun ownership and yet are much freer than the US. So I call BS on this.

    3. Re:Why is this interesting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 2nd Amendment was never about "individual" rights, it was about states getting a guarantee from the federal government.

    4. Re:Why is this interesting? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even take a CNC machine shop. Or even a lathe, for this matter. Here is a book describing manufacturing a fully automatic 9x19mm submachine gun at home from readily available parts such as steel tubing (apparently, you can actually find the right tubes to work even as a barrel - obviously it's not rifled, but close up it doesn't matter all that much), and with tools such as metal saw and file.

    5. Re:Why is this interesting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, all it takes is one douchey libertarian to make it a big deal. Thanks Cody Douchebag Wilson.

    6. Re:Why is this interesting? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking anyone smart and careful enough to use a CNC milling machine is also smart and careful enough to use a firearm responsibly. Someone who buys a machine, plugs it in, and removes finished weapon...not so much.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    7. Re:Why is this interesting? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It'a a barrier to entry thing. To make your own gun you currently have to know a bit about how guns work, how the tools to make guns work, and then practice doing it until you produce a reasonable firearm. If you can do that, you probably aren't interesting in using it to rob a liqueur store.

      What people worry about is people with no skills, even children, being able to click a few links on the internet, press print and start shooting people. Of course we are a long way off that point but it does need some though. Even a well constructed sling shot can kill people or take out an eye, which is why we tend not to give them to young children to play with any more.

      No need to panic, it just needs to consideration.

      --
      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:Why is this interesting? by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Quote>... Even a well constructed sling shot can kill people or take out an eye, which is why we tend not to give them to young children to play with any more. ...

      I really don't think even -that- CNC machine is that easy to set up.

      I had a slingshot when I was a kid. It was quite capable of killing a squirrel, outright. Funny how, after I had that, the 1 or 2 bullies in the area didn't bother me any more. But I seldon shot at anything alive, and never at people. I never heard of anyone else shooting at people, either.

      Kids did get hurt on bicycles, though. Did you know there was a movement to ban all bicycles? If you have a bicycle, can you imagine it being illegal, even for adults? Do you want to live in that kind of world?

      Could it be, that the kids who never had slingshots or cap guns or bow and arrow, are the ones who wave around guns like toys, if they get hold of one?

  14. Nazi fail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you referring to the poster who Grammar Nazis people while simultaneously being unable to figure out what an ellipsis is or how to use it?
     
     

    is unable to assemble it either......

  15. When did Cody Wilson buy slashdot? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Even facebook and Obama haven't been on the front page of slashdot as many times in the past two weeks as he has.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  16. Small CNC Machine? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    What is the URL?

    1. Re:Small CNC Machine? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I just searched for it on Google, found it, $1200? I can get a real CNC machine for that. But what I like is the programmability of it. I could make small custom auto parts, or general house hold parts from various metals, that's cool. One project that comes to mind is that I have to get a bracket to hold a 50 inch TV. I'd like to make it myself, that would be cool.

    2. Re:Small CNC Machine? by codebonobo · · Score: 1

      The closest CNC machines with similar specs I can find is more than twice as expensive. Do you have a link?

    3. Re:Small CNC Machine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use a 2x4 and make a french cleat. I've hung about 10 TVs like that. All you need is a saw and a drill with the right sized bits.

      AC

    4. Re:Small CNC Machine? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I saw the vedio. The inventer took a 3D printer and put an electric drill on it. I'm thinking that offering 1m, 2m, and 3m boxes might appeal to other folks that fabricate stuff. One industry that comes to mind is making Injection Molds, that could be cool.

      This just in, my wife broke a piece on the food processor, Now's the time to fabricate a replacement part.

    5. Re:Small CNC Machine? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the link? eBay.

  17. Cool CNC machine by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

    You can already finish an 80% AR-15 lower receiver with hand tools and a metal jig. There are companies selling the "paper weights" made from aluminum and some make them from plastic. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

    That said, the machine appears to be a well made and sturdy. I'd be much more inclined to use it to make auto parts for my car projects. Hope his hand waving doesn't get him into trouble and that we'll be able to buy the machines.

  18. i have bad news for you by steak · · Score: 1

    But are we really facing a world where backyard bunker-builders are manufacturing their own gun components?

    That world already exists in the USA. building a gun yourself from scratch is legal and requires no registration. of course you can't sell that gun. unless you take it to a gun buy back. a few people recently hosed gun buy backs for thousands of dollars with parts bought at a hardware store.

    1. Re:i have bad news for you by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You absolutely can sell a self-manufactured gun. What you can't do is manufacture with intent to sell.

  19. Do your background research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do yourself a favor and look up an extended radio interview with this guy.
    I'd suggest some here but I'm sure someone from across the political
    or Aspergers spectrum would find fault with the source regardless of what
    that source was.

    If you are hoping for some sort of deep philosophical strength as is found
    in the writing of the constitutional founders, I'm sorry, you're going to
    find a shallow young republican frat boy troll who likes attention instead.
    I'd hoped for a lot more.

  20. Worse than approval is doing it right. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I understand the paperwork isn't bad. But then there's the fee and waiting to get approved. Someone told me it took a long time to get the approval.

    It's far beyond that. You DON'T want to get the BATF annoyed with you. (And few things annoy them more than trying to get around their regulations.)

    They have a track record of boobytrapping the paperwork and geting people jailed for typos and minor slipups. Honest errors, misunderstanding of details of what you're supposed to do, missing a deadline, etc. Also stuff where THEY made the error but YOU can't prove it.

    They'll also just keep grinding you in court, even if you actually are legal, once they start in on you. They'll keep it up until you're broke and have to fold. They have a conviction percentage rate in the high 90s.

    Long felony sentences in federal prisons (and NOT the "country club" kind). They love to do things like giving you a count per round of ammunition or whatever, and run them consectutive, too. The federal prisons have no "time off for X" or probation: You serve the whole sentence. If you survive to get out, much of a lifetime later, you have lost your civil rights, including voting and owning or even handling guns (and you jepoardize any gun-owning friends or relatives by living with them or just being in their presence).

    Look it up on the web. Lots of horror stories out there. The number of people in federal prison for gun paperwork "crimes" is staggering.

    If you want to do this, keep it legal and keep a low profile. Really build it in your state. Really never take it out of state. Really never sell it. (I shudder to think how one handles inheritance of such a gun ...) To do otherwise is to open the giant economy can of worms.

    Making your own AR-15 and trying find a way to sell, give, or trade it is an effective way to find yourself "living in interesting times and coming to the attention of people in high places".

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Worse than approval is doing it right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have a track record of boobytrapping the paperwork and geting people jailed for typos and minor slipups.

      They even have a track record of packing a bolt with grease to cause a gun to slam fire and then prosecuting the owner for possession of an illegal machine gun.

      They are NOT the good guys.

    2. Re:Worse than approval is doing it right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They'll also just keep grinding you in court, even if you actually are legal, once they start in on you. They'll keep it up until you're broke and have to fold. They have a conviction percentage rate in the high 90s."

      Tools exist to be used.
      Guns are tools.

      Please use them and use them often.

    3. Re:Worse than approval is doing it right. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I know I'm going to go down in flames for this, and it's bad policy to respond to a troll...but...

      That case is so full of stupid on the part of the guy who got convicted. He is a poster child for dumbass and deserved to get convicted. Any gun owner with a brain make sure people don't confuse him with responsible gun owners.

      Do some research on your own, http://www.thehighroad.org/arc...

    4. Re:Worse than approval is doing it right. by nobuddy · · Score: 2

      > lost your civil rights, including voting

      I really wish people would stop spreading this lie. Ex cons CAN vote in all but 3 states. Most states your right to vote is reinstated automatically as soon as your sentence is served completely. this includes probation. In the rest of the states, you have to fill out paperwork to get the vote back. And, no state can remove your right to vote for conviction in another state. So even if you do live in one of the KKK states (The laws were pushed by the KKK to try and reduce black votes), just move and you can vote in your new state.

    5. Re:Worse than approval is doing it right. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      It's far beyond that. You DON'T want to get the BATF annoyed with you.

      The BATF processes paperwork like this, and for FFLs, all the time. There is no reason to assume that merely filing honest paperwork would get them "annoyed" at you.

      There are lots of cases of BATF getting annoyed at faulty or otherwise improper paperwork. But the vast majority of those are dealers and sales outlets.

      Making your own AR-15 and trying find a way to sell, give, or trade it is an effective way to find yourself "living in interesting times and coming to the attention of people in high places".

      Sorry, but that's just WRONG. People do it all the time, and BATF made a very clear statement about that just recently in response to an inquiry from the press, publicly declaring it "perfectly legal" and something they do simply not bother with. Because, in fact, it is perfectly legal and always has been.

  21. Not until finished. Until you make the first cut. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    It's exactly a paperweight until the remaining 20% is milled.

    It's exactly a paperweight until you MAKE THE FIRST CUT. Then it's over 80% and legally "a gun" for BATF purposes.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  22. What parts of the gun are harder to make? by dlenmn · · Score: 1

    Although the lower receiver seems to be the most regulated part of a gun, it doesn't look that hard to machine (given that you have a mill -- CNC or manual). What parts (if any) are harder to make (at least with off-the-shelf equipment)? The barrel?

  23. Free speech = "Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law" by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Doesn't the 1st Amendment allow him to post those blueprints?

    Not according to the BATF and federal prosecutors.

    One of the things F-troop has been doing is sending people into gun shows to ask gun-smithly people what the internal differences are between a semi- and full-auto models of various gun designs, such as the M-16 (select-fire) and AR-15 (semi-auto only).

    If they reply with information, they are then busted for conspiracy to convert a gun to full auto in violation of federal laws and regulations.

    Lots of people are in jail for that, now.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  24. On the record. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not want a single gun in existence.

  25. I'd expect to see some legislation on this soon by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    Do any of you really expect the $12 billion a year firearms industry to just let you make your own guns, when they have about a third of congress on speed dial? Just watch, this guy is going to get it from both sides.

    1. Re:I'd expect to see some legislation on this soon by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Given the investment necessary to get into such manufacturing, and how crappy the results are (and going to be for the foreseeable future), I don't think the industry is worried about 3D-printing guns.

      On the other hand, his Ghost Runner requires an 80% AR lower as input to make a complete lower. Well, guess who makes those 80% lowers? The same guys who make the complete ones - all it takes for them is omitting the last few steps of the process. And they can still sell it for just as much, if not more due to it being a specialty item. So if anything the guy creates new customers for them.

  26. Re:Free speech = "Conspiracy to Violate Federal La by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need to use their guns.

    Or burn alive any F-Troop encountered.

  27. Multiplying number of firearms worldwide? Insane! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > the same goal of multiplying the number of firearms in the world

    Multiplying? He is either lying or has absolutely no idea how many firearms are already there in THE WORLD. For example, AK-47 production figure estimates are growing retro-actively every year, once it was 80 million total, now more like 125 million, considering all those unlicenced asian copycats and the realization WARPAC satellite countries, on soviet urging, produced ~1.5x as many AK47 as they ever admitted. Just my little Hungary of 10 million ppl manufactured over 500.000 extra during Cold War, of which 90% went to crates immediately, waiting for the "heroic" days of a WW3 that luckily never happened.

    There are literally Great Pyramids of stacked firearms stored all over the world, complete with entire mountains built of unopened ammunition crates. CNC milling of M-16 cannot make a drop of difference there, because mass production uses sheet-metal pressing machinery. The only reason early A-K47 batches were milled, because all presses were needed to make large skin panels for the MiG fighter jets and there wasn't enough soviet capacity for both at the same time. Milling is insanely wasteful, pressed receiver making lines are 4-5x more productive.

    Anyhow, does THE WOLD really need more firearms or armaments of any kind? For example, in the Urals there are several huge russian tank depots, containing several thousands of T-34, T-55, T-62 at EACH site. Their presence can be detected by geodesic satellites, as the sheer weight depresses the surface...

    Did the presence of so many weapons made this world a better place? Will even more armaments mke the world a better place? He should get a girl and multiply the number of kids instead of firearms, that's what I recommend!

  28. Re:Free speech = "Conspiracy to Violate Federal La by dave420 · · Score: 1

    But I thought guns made people safe from government overstepping its authority...

  29. Details by codebonobo · · Score: 1

    https://ghostgunner.net/faq.html

    Machinable dimensions: 175 x 75 x 60mm (~6.75 x 2.95 x 2.35")

    Maximum part dimensions: 230 x 90 x 100mm (~9.05 x 3.50 x 3.90")

    Overall footprint: 330 x 280mm (~13 x 11")

    Weight: 20kg (~45 pounds)

    Spindle Speed: 10,000+ RPM (Final Value TBD)

    * Single piece powder coated 1018 steel exoskeleton to improve rigidity per unit weight

    *Reinforced A36 steel end plates to further improve rigidity

    *A new open source GrBLDC brushless motor controller shield for Arduino.

    *Oversized 125W NEMA 23 BLDC motor, electronically throttled to 72W.

    *Spindle incorporation of industry standard ER11 collet system, supporting tools up to 5/16”

    The entire machine is Open Source. For other Open Source designs, Defense Distributed developed a custom spindle that exceeds the quality, accuracy, and cutting capabilities of any sub-$400 spindle we've tested. We also developed a custom signal conditioning PCB called GrbIO that reduces RF noise generated by the several stepper motors used on the machine. GrbIO includes screw-posts for easy wiring, including separate analog, digital, power supply and chassis grounds, which internally isolate noisy components from sensitive ground planes. The plug-and-play PCB connects between existing Arduino and gshield boards, requires zero software changes, and should resolve many headaches on other derivative designs. Their machine can likely to be scaled up to make larger parts.

    Look forward to seeing Carbon fiber 3d printed guns being developed:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L9mHtL1HTs

    FYI- Cody purchased a Mark 1 within a day after posting the bounty.

  30. Love the description by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    "a relatively small and affordable CNC milling machine that could easily manufacture the lower receiver of an AR-15"

    How about:

    "a relatively small and affordable CNC milling machine" STOP.

    I love how media likes to paint something as evil if it can be remotely associated with the subject of their agenda.

    It's a milling machine. Just like a hammer is a hammer.

  31. this machine can be used to make a pipe bomb. by sugarmatic · · Score: 1

    Or a chew toy. Or a switchblade. Or a baby pacifier.

    Who cares?

    The only thing that keeps us safe from bad people is a lack of bad people that want to do us harm. Anyone anywhere can make or procure the necessary materials to kill, maim, or otherwise harm someone else or commit mass murder. Legislating common tools like a mill or a hammer is an affirmation by a sponsoring legislator that they might not be particularly intelligent and that only the most reactionary fear based rhetoric can move legislation in modern America.

    As.for this scheister...he is no revolutionary hand model. He might as well be screeching, "F=ma....F=ma!!!". The only reason he is getting attention in the first place is because he is obsessively calling attention to simple truths that cross people's preconceived notions about security, government sanctions, rights, etc.

    I'm always surprised how basic discussions of these things become embroiled in frothy emotional Turret's outbursts on every side of an issue.

  32. Re:Free speech = "Conspiracy to Violate Federal La by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Doesn't the 1st Amendment allow him to post those blueprints?

    Not according to the BATF and federal prosecutors.

    One of the things F-troop has been doing is sending people into gun shows to ask gun-smithly people what the internal differences are between a semi- and full-auto models of various gun designs, such as the M-16 (select-fire) and AR-15 (semi-auto only).

    If they reply with information, they are then busted for conspiracy to convert a gun to full auto in violation of federal laws and regulations.

    Lots of people are in jail for that, now.

    I can't help thinking that being a gun-smith doesn't require much in the way of common sense if they're caught that easily.

    Mind you, I also can't believe that someone could be convicted on federal conspiracy charges with such flimsy evidence. Are you sure that the Feds didn't subsequently find something like a cache of actually converted weapons?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  33. Re:Guns... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Please, define assault rifle. None of the politicians have been able to say more than "I'll know it when I see it".

    Now, if you mean automatic weapons, those can be legally obtained. You can buy tanks too, perfectly legal. If you are concerned about people making their own guns, you should be terrified by the legal tank business out there.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  34. That's an HHS issue not CDC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would the CDC being studying an issue that would fall under the Health and Human Services department?

  35. Re:Free speech = "Conspiracy to Violate Federal La by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Safe" is not the correct word. Anyone with half a brain knows that "completely safe" is a theoretical ideal that does not exist in this place. It is more like owning deadly weapons potentially increases the cost of abusing you, which causes some would-be abusers to reconsider.

  36. somebody by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    done read the weapon shops of isher too many times.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  37. Re:Multiplying number of firearms worldwide? Insan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He should get a girl and multiply the number of kids instead of firearms, that's what I recommend!"

    Girls are illegal in feminist america. You go to jail for pedophillia.

    It is fine in the Old Testament law of the God of the book of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 22 28-29 in hebrew).

  38. We need less guns not more! by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    This project is beyond sick! The more firearms there are the more damage they do. If Mr. Wilson had just one speck of responsibility, moral, and ethic in his body he would build a machine that effectively destroys guns. But maybe that is the plan? The 3D printed guns did not hold up well in the tests and are more likely to harm the shooter than anyone else.