FOR THE GUN GUYS, and Everyone else too, I want thoughts on this

[atomic charvel guy]

I saw a piece last night on this guy Cody Wilson on CNN who has invented a way to make a weapon on a 3d printer, do you think this is a good thing? I mean with all the crazies out there, don't you think some of them would try and make a gun that is not detectable in an airport and do some real damage? what are your thoughts? It's not a 2nd amendment issue, I think it's more of a first in which the sharing of information comes into play. Just curious here. http://dailybail.com/home/cnn-interv...inted-gun.html

[atomic charvel guy]

the piece I saw last night on CNN was not the link above, I couldn't find it. it was pretty cool I must say how the pieces of the gun were being made.

[atomic charvel guy]

this was part of it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX3bMvYkGRc

[Rsmacker]

I wouldn't worry about it, the fucking ink carts will only do half the job and then cost almost as much as a new printer to replace. Stick to good old metal guns.

[leftykingv2]

I don't lean one way or the other. Gun control is useless anyway. If somebody really wants to hurt people they'll find a way to do it no matter what constraints the government puts on the people. I don't personally own any guns but I know where I could buy an illegal pistol or rifle in less than 24 hours if I really wanted one which I don't.

[atomic charvel guy]

i'm not talking gun control, i'm talking about the passing and use of information. it's a first amendment issue, not a 2nd.

[rjohnstone]

His gun design would most likely never get through a metal detector as it still requires a metal piece for the firing pin.
Then there's the fact that the bullets (casings) would trigger the metal detector as well.
And the fact that the gun can explode in the shooters hand if there's a flaw in the printing process or materials being used.


I think anyone trying to prevent him from sharing the data file used to build it is an idiot though. Clearly falls under free speech.

Besides, it's much easier to build a rudimentary shotgun in your garage with parts from Home Depot than it is to build one of these things.
Cheaper to.

[atomic charvel guy]

gotcha RJ, it does indeed fall under free speech at the end of the day

[Newc]

Where does the issue of 1st Amendment vs 2nd Amendment come from? You keep pointing it out, and while I've not clicked the linked or watched the piece (CNN can blow me, buncha liberal pinko commie zealots), I'm having trouble understanding where the 1st vs 2nd is coming from.

Regarding the 1st Amendment (Right of Free Speech), when was this amended to include "sharing information" specifically? Because data is information, and digital files are data, and copyrighted material such as music or motion pictures in digital form are data, thus information, thus can be shared freely. Since I know for a fact it is illegal to "share" copyrighted material, the argument seems more like wishful extrapolation of a misinterpretation vs "you have the freedom to utter any such words as what pops into your head at any given moment in public or private".
While we're on that subject, I'd also like to know when "action" became "speech" and "making a statement" as a figure of speech became identical to "uttering words". Granted, the mute who can only speak through action (specifically sign language) would be covered, but surely someone had the foresight to specify that exclusion as being the only one.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, as soon as you make anything considered a firearm, even through whatever wishful extrapolation of misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment you can such as the 3D printer, it is covered under the 2nd Amendment. It's also a matter for ATF, as you are now in possession of an unregistered firearm.


Regarding the story in general, I can appreciate that someone had the foresight to look at this amazing technology of 3D printing as more than just the "gee whiz wowee wow wow!" invention it is, and look at the realistic possibility that someone out there has been using these machines to make weapons and weapon components which can be easily smuggled through a mass-transit system. However, the reaction that must be guarded against is that of the guvmint to use this as an excuse to quarantine and monopolize the technology through "regulation", as they did with adaptive camo.
Some years ago, the Science Channel ran a piece on future technology and such as inspired by movies, and there was one guy who was watchjing Predator, when he started thinking of how to go about actually making adaptive camo a reality. He did it, and since it's an entirely man-made material, he called it "meta-material".

I saw that episode twice, but after that, no more. Of all the episodes of all the TV shows one can find online, good luck finding that one.

Then, sometime last year, one of the major "news" networks ran a story about "the military's latest invention, meta-material, an adaptive camo once thought to be restricted to Science Fiction". So here we have a clear-cut case of the government having the audacity to monopolize technology as well as information.

[rjohnstone]

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, as soon as you make anything considered a firearm, even through whatever wishful extrapolation of misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment you can such as the 3D printer, it is covered under the 2nd Amendment. It's also a matter for ATF, as you are now in possession of an unregistered firearm.

This is where you are wrong. There is no federal requirement to register any firearm you manufacture yourself for personal use. Being in possession of such a weapon is not a crime.
The ATF only get involved if you try to sell it.

[atomic charvel guy]

what are you saying newc? illegal to share copyrighted material I understand, but this guy wants to share it with everyone, and even though it's technically data, it's his "utterings" or "words" but on paper. i'm retarded, so tell me what you mean in your post. consider who you are talking to when replying haa haa!!, this me don't forget...........

[lepard]

Cody has released programs to manufacture AR-15 lowers(receiver) and magazines only, not a full gun. You still need metal barrels, springs for the magazine, etc.

If you've been watching the news lately, you saw the gun store in California that got raided after they legally procured a restraining order against the ATF from a State jude. The ATF is going after their customers now. They build plastic AR 80% lower receivers without serial numbers. The response among the gun industry has been to give the ATF a huge middle finger and now some manufacturers are selling AR-15 80% lowers with no serial number as "paper weights" on eBay and on Amazon. Gotta love American ingenuity.

[Jayster]

Addressing the OP, there have been guns made that could easily 'fool' metal detectors for 20+ years. This is currently cost prohibitive to think an average citizen could 'manufacture' their own guns at will. I agree that it is more strongly a 1st amendment issue, however it's also a 2cd amendment issue as well.

I fully support freedom and personal liberties, always. There are already laws against just about everything that could possibly need a law against it, and plenty of generic law/violations to through on top of anything else. The simple fact is that when everything is illegal, then everyone is a criminal. Did you ever wonder why the 'Land of the free and home of the brave' has the highest incarceration ratings in the world? Maybe 'prisons for profit' isn't a very good idea?

But, people are fucking stupid!!!

For example: Here in Atlanta, there's a proposal for making a law ~ Affectionately called the slow poke law. The crux of it is, if you're in the fast lane and not going with the flow of traffic, then you're violating the slow poke law. Idiots rally behind this because they lack basic reasoning skills..... It will probably pass and become law.


Why is this so stupid, you ask?

Here's what a few million douchebags in the metro area can't figure out! If the speed limit remains constant, which is what the bill reads. Assume you're driving the speed limit(which is the law), but now you're driving the speed limit in the fast lane - holy fuck, you've just broke the (subjective)law for not going with the flow of traffic. Of course if you're speeding, you've also broken the law. Effectively, this will render the fast lane illegal to drive in ~ that should really help the flow of traffic(or perhaps help generate a fuckload of revenue in traffic tickets).

People are fucking stupid, and politicians know how to play to the knee jerk reactions of idiots and morons. Getting back to the OP, how many politicians send their kids to public schools(ones that aren't guarded(by people with guns)). How many politicians don't believe they need security from people with guns? The world is fucked up and making more laws to legislate self defense into a crime is utterly ridiculous!!!

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Ben Franklin

[Razor]

Tommy, the drama over a 3d printer gun is that "oh God, someone can make a gun at home" is to simply cause panic because there's no way in hell a pure plastic gun will do anything other than seriously hurt or kill the operator of it. Now, a plastic gun still has to have internals, and I have yet to see a plastic barrel handle the pressure caused by ignition. Also, a plastic firing pin just isn't going to cut it as stated above, then of course there's that pesky metallic ammo cartridge too that will more than likely set of a metal dectector also and is damn sure going to be easy to see on xRay TSAvision.

Look at it this way, if the big gun companies could safely make a plastic barrel to withstand the pressure of ammo ignition, we would have been shooting them for a long time. It would be immensly cheaper costwise, and would give them a hella profit margin. The reason you're not ever going to see a plastic/polymer barreled gun is that they can not withstand the pressure of being fire. Hell, even polymer framed pistols (Glock, etc...) still have metal reinforcements in the frame because the polymer can't with stand the repeated work of the action.

So, 3D plastic printer guns make good headlines for scare tactics, but the people who know something about guns know that it's just much ado about nothing because you can not make a 100 percent functional 100 percent made out of plastic firearm that will not kill you if you try to use it. If someone makes a plastic/polymer AR lower (which several companies do), they still have to put a metal barreled upper on it. That's what the media likes to omit, the reality that a completely plastic weapon is not viable because it's totally unsafe to shoot. The gun that the bad guy make in the movie "In The Line Of Fire" is just what the movie is: fiction, as is all the hoopla over 3D printer guns.

As Rick stated, it is not illegal to build your own personal firearm for you personally. You just can't sell it. If you do then you have become a manufacturer, and you must have an ATF license to do that.

To me it's really just common firearms sense, but unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who don't know anything about guns, and just believe what the media tells them. There are a lot of people who haven't had the opportunity to learn about proper firearms safety and handling, and to me it's just sad.

For people in my neck of the woods (and I'm sure in Rick's and others), it's a right of passage to get your first BB gun, and then 22 rifle, and then shotgun. I would bet that quite a bit (a majority) of the firearms safety, training, and handling for a lot of us started with our BB guns and our fathers/grandfathers/step fathers. I know mine sure did. I still have my first Benjamin pellet/BB gun (I was the tender age of 7), my first 22 rifle (when I was 9), and my 16 gauge shotgun Gramps gave me when I was 10 or 11. It's normal to me, I carried my Benjamin air rifle with me hunting with my Gramps and my step dad for two years before I was allowed to carry my 22 rifle, and that's how I learnt to properly handle any type of firearm.

By the way, my old Benjamin air rifle is still deadly accurate. With 10 pumps of that dude it can still put the hurt on squirrels, rabbits and birds. Me, my kid, and my nephew take it in the back yard sometimes to harrass pop cans and the occasional Blue Jay with it. My kids Red Ryder can't hold a candle to the old Benjamin.

[Newc]

RJ - Thanks for the clarification.

Tommy - Unless there has been a specific update to the Right of Free Speech to include data that is held in a physical medium (disk drive, etc), or that printed materials such as stereo instructions or the Terrorist's Cookbook are now considered "speech" instead of "Freedom of the Press", then writings and data are not classified as vocal utterings, which is the definition of "speech", or "spoken words".