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."
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
/'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.
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.
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?