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."
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..
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
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?
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.
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.
> The difference between a full-auto receiver and a semi-auto AR-15 receiver is 1 hole
OMG, ban assault holes now.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
preach it bother!
Cheap storage VM.
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?