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."
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.
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
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..
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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 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+
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
/'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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cheap storage VM.
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?