Video Come and Take It, Texas Gun Enthusiasts (Video) 367
Video no longer available.
In Texas, guns are a common sight:gun-racks are visible in the back of many pick-ups, and pistols, cannons, and rifles are part of the state's iconography. Out-of-sight guns are common, too: The state has had legal (though highly regulated) concealed carry for handguns since 1995, though -- contrary to some people's guess, and with some exceptions -- open carry of handguns is not generally legal. One thing that's definitely not a common sight, though, is a group of people manufacturing guns just outside the south gates of the Texas capitol building. But that's just what you would have encountered a few weeks ago, when an organization called CATI (Come and Take It) Texas set up a tent that served as a tech demo as much as an act of social provocation. CATI had on hand one of the same Ghost Gunner CNC mills that FedEx now balks at shipping, and spent hours showing all comers how a "gun" (in the eyes of regulators, at least) can be quickly shaped from a piece of aluminum the ATF classifies as just a piece of aluminum. They came prepared to operate off-grid, and CATI Texas president Murdoch Pizgatti showed for my camera that the Ghost Gunner works just fine operating from a few big batteries -- no mains power required. (They ran the mill at a slower speed, though, to conserve juice.)
Yay, no autoplay of videos (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay, no autoplay of videos (Score:5, Informative)
You're welcome. Everybody who actually works on this site hates autoplay as much as you do. We also want a volume control in the player. That's our next video crusade.
So what you're saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
Several years ago I remember a protest in an open-carry state about a public library attempting to prohibit open-carry in the library. Things were nice and peaceful and respectful, until some jackass wearing hunting camo and leather two sashes covered in shotgun shells came in carrying a pump-action twelve gauge. Any goodwill that the previous firearms enthusiasts created was utterly destroyed by one jerk that decided to push the limits.
Guns are a lot of fun to shoot. There are times when guns serve a legitimate use. On the other hand, if guns are introduced into situations where they have no business then it's not exactly a surprise when movements to prohibit them or to confiscate them come to be.
Re: (Score:2)
...is that they're basically taking an issue that most people either didn't really know about or didn't really care about too strongly, and are shoving it into everyone else's faces, so that they now have a reason to take a stance against it?
Curse you, Mapplethorpe!
Re: (Score:2)
Things were nice and peaceful and respectful, until some jackass wearing hunting camo and leather two sashes covered in shotgun shells came in carrying a pump-action twelve gauge. Any goodwill that the previous firearms enthusiasts created was utterly destroyed by one jerk that decided to push the limits.
Or it was staged. It's not that hard to find someone to play the jerk and you don't have to tell anyone else you're doing it.
Re:So what you're saying... (Score:4, Funny)
And the question is who decides what those situations are? The same people who think "the shoulder thing that goes up" is what makes a deadly AKR-47 assault RPG?
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has to decide, otherwise you have to legalise RPGs, howitzers etc. There needs to be a limit and the only sensible way to decide is to trade utility against the danger of allowing general ownership. You can try to rebalance things by mandating training or background checks.
But yeah, just accuse people of being ignorant and fearful, instead of making an argument. Good job on the advocacy.
Re: (Score:2)
I can buy an RPG and rockets right now. It'll cost an obscene amount of money, $200 to the ATF, and 6 months to over a year of investigation and paperwork processing but it's perfectly legal for me to do.
Also this isn't some random ad-hom, that was a literal quote from a major political player. People are literally so ignorant that they think "the shoulder thing that goes up" is a deadly part of an "assault weapon" and trying to write absurd legislation that regulates purely cosmetic features or go for a gu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what you think of gay pride parades. Or even gay people kissing in public.
Re: (Score:2)
...is that they're basically taking an issue that most people either didn't really know about or didn't really care about too strongly, and are shoving it into everyone else's faces
Why don't you ask the same question of the Piss Christ guys? I don't see any difference if you think of this as an art project...
Well there is one difference, this is actually practical and informative.
"an act of social provocation"? (Score:3)
I'm from the UK and I'm having a hard time understanding this. What are these gentlemen trying to do? What is the context around blocks of aluminium being made into guns? What problem does that solve?
Re:"an act of social provocation"? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure what they're really trying to accomplish. They're shoving their political opinion in everyone's face. Quite often, however, people like this end up generating a fair amount of animosity towards their cause and bring together opponents trying to stop them who otherwise wouldn't have enough ambition to do so. Their actions end up being counterproductive. I'm not sure why they insist on hurting their own cause but they're hell bent on doing it.
Many of us who enjoy responsible recreational and sport shooting really wish these idiots would shut up and go away because they bring unwanted attention to the subject and end up making it more difficult for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
This is America: the place made for "shoving your political opinion in other people's face". People in coastal areas with heavy handed government tend to forget this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that in the very near future, guns will be incredibly easy to manufacture. It does not matter if you ban sales. If someone really wants a gun, they will be able to machine their own, and not too terribly long after that, simply feed a series of instructions into a machine that will create the gun without any required skills on part of the person pushing the button.
The point is that you can't solve crime and gun crime with restrictions in a future where it'
Re: (Score:2)
The funny (tragic) part is that the kind of people who tend to be strongly pro-gun, also tend to be strong against social programs that could prevent a great deal of the violence typically associated with guns.
Ain't that the truth...
Re: (Score:2)
The funny (tragic) part is that the kind of people who tend to be strongly pro-gun, also tend to be strong against social programs that could prevent a great deal of the violence typically associated with guns.
Ain't that the truth...
It's not really the truth. If you doubt it, go to the neighborhoods in your city most thoroughly covered by "social programs."
I wouldn't go there unarmed, but that's up to you.
All of those violent neighborhoods would benefit from more of the law-abiding residents being armed to the teeth. The old saying goes "an armed society is a polite society," as nothing deters assholery so much as the sudden onset of room temperature-ness.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really, they are showing how futile it is to restrict gun ownership in some ideological view that it will restrict access to guns. Anyone who wants a gun illegally can get one eventually or even make one. Taking guns from law abiding citizens will only take the best means of defense away from them and likely not hamper the illegal uses at all.
Re:"an act of social provocation"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who knows
The best argument I've heard for what they're doing is "if you are afraid to express your rights do you actually have those rights?"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure they do have the right they think they have... The constitution mentions baring arms as part of an organised militia, but that doesn't seem to be what they are trying to do.
Re: (Score:3)
The constitution charges the government with protecting the people's rights to keep and bear arms after noting that a free people need to be well practiced with their guns.
The Supreme Court has been upholding the plain language reading all up and down the country lately, much to the annoyance of those that wish it said something else.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the Constitution does not. It mentions the militia as the REASON that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and that's all.
Note that even if it did, the Militia Act (which is still in force), REQUIRES every able-bodied man to own a firearm suitable for militia use. Which would be a selective-fire M4/M16 equivalent these days (you want common ammo and magaz
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think the idea is to show the futility of attempting this kind of control in the era of 21st century technology. Ultimately, every gun is just a few bits of metal, and with a modern 3D printer or CNC machine, anyone in any first-world country can manufacture one that is not subject to any controls. Given that eventuality, arguments for why gun control is necessary become meaningless: they can be tools for oppression or revenue generation, but they cannot be said to actually increase public safety.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The way the law is written, it is fully legal to create your own lower receiver and convert it to a fully functional weapon without regis
Re: (Score:2)
It can be given away, and it can be sold. You just can't intend to do that when you make it.
Or, more accurately, you can't do things that would make a reasonable person think that you intended to give it away or sell it when you made it.
Re: (Score:3)
The way the law is written, it is fully legal to create your own lower receiver and convert it to a fully functional weapon without registration as long as it is for your own personal use. It can never be given away nor sold.
Actually, it can. Beware of state rules, it has to have a maker's mark and serial #, and you definitely can't be 'in the business' without a FFL, But if you make a firearm, the decide to sell it(and it's the only one you sell) in a used condition 4 years later, having fed 1k rounds through it, then you're good to go. Selling a non-used individually manufactured firearm is an indication that you 'might' be in the business, so don't do that. Try to not make a profit on your hobby. Definitely don't make a
Re: (Score:2)
Demonstrating how easy it is to manufacture guns with modern equipment shows the futility of trying to stop it with simple restrictions, such as the silly shipping restriction. As a related example, some people in the US think that a useful answer to gun violence is stronger rules on who can purchase guns and how they are registered/tracked. That's just ridiculous when any yahoo can whip out an unregistered gun this fast. (Our yahoos are similar to your chavs, but with even worse outfits)
The US is close
Re: (Score:3)
And I just came back from riding my recumbent trike around the neighborhood. During my ride 3 motorists cut me off. This is not an uncommon occurrence in Florida. A man walking was put into the hospital around the corner from us last week by a hit and run driver -- while in a crosswalk.
Since traffic laws don't stop these morons, does this mean we should not have traffic laws?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm from the UK and I'm having a hard time understanding this. What are these gentlemen trying to do? What is the context around blocks of aluminium being made into guns? What problem does that solve?
It solves the problem that any untrained knucklehead can now mill a gun without having to bother to take the time to master the craft. It makes a political statement of sorts because a lot of Americans think there's a hidden secret government agenda to disarm society and implement a pseudo-socialist police state under UN control on American soil. Promoting the idea of a such a secret agenda is good business for the gun industry, the NRA, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe what they really want is to ship firearms via mail without interference from the feds.
I wonder that too... (Score:2)
"an act of social provocation"
All the open carry demonstrations and make a gun tricks... All seem to be the kind of sarcastic "social provocations" that one undertake to encourage stricter gun control.
I find it hilarious...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Selling/possessing chunks of aluminum in a certain shape will land you time in a FPMITA prison.
They have made an economical mini mill economical that makes the chunk of aluminum. In America, we believe that it's only illegal if you get caught, and so these folks fancy themselves as finding a great hack.
Missed a great opportunity (Score:2)
They should've called it the Molon Lathe
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate freedom, unless we say otherwise (Score:2)
In other words, FedEx is free to transport whate
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I object to Fedex's position because they're citing concerns about the law, when the law says nothing about gun-smithing tools.
And yes, a lot of guns get shipped despite their policy marked as 'machine parts'.
If they just said 'we don't want to ship this because we don't support gun-rights', then we could boycott them with a clear heart.
(Note: More libertarian than conservative).
Re: (Score:2)
There's precedent to suggest that sexual orientation is a protected group, political activism and/or related products, are not in and of themselves protected from discrimination by private entities. FedEx is free to ban wedding cakes, they can't ban gay wedding cakes exclusively. So yes, there would likely be a lawsuit over a gay cake shipping ban.
Regulation (Score:4, Informative)
Even if you wanted to, how could you possibly regulate this? Once items get to the point of being able to be easily manufactured in your own house, in mass, relatively cheaply, it's nearly impossible to regulate this away.
Think of prohibition. People can/could easily make their own alcohol in their own house by just leaving grapes in a barrel. It was next to impossible to regulate and required substantial man power to prevent the little they did. Grape juice in the era actually said on the label "Do not leave in a jug for 20 days as it might turn into wine." CNC mills are not illegal, just as grape juice wasn't illegal during prohibition. You're likely to start seeing CNC mills with warnings like "do not use to make firearms."
If you try to regulate schematics, people can just download plans from some P2P service. Now you guns that are made from lower grade materials AND questionable designs.
Yesterday it was alcohol prohibition. Today it is drug prohibition. Tomorrow it will be homemade gun parts. You can try to regulate away these things, but once you can easily make them in your own home, it's a losing battle. Attempting to regulate these impossible to regulate things leads to no-knock raids, death, and more criminals. Nobody is safer and I'd argue we're all less safe. Even if they are illegal tomorrow, 20 years and 1 million no-knock raids later, they will be legal again. Prohibition never lasts.
If more guns on the street is creating a problem, then you need to start thinking about different solutions. Making it illegal to possess a firearm isn't going to fix anything.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a book by Charles Stross named Rule 34 that deals with trying to regulate 3D printing. It focused more on child sex dolls than guns, but the concept is the same.
And yeah, enforcement didn't work very well.
Re: (Score:2)
Whole lotta bullshit involved. (Score:2)
And add another (Score:2)
I like my guns. I'm not bat shit crazy about them. If people want ot be ammosexuals, they can have at it. But it doesn't make them not bat shit crazy.
But the kooks will be descending like flies on this rotton carcass of a subject, in 3....2....1....
Let me clear a few things up... (Score:5, Informative)
There are a number of incorrect claims wandering around. Rather than answer each post, I'll summarize.
Like most machines, a gun is a collection of parts. For various reasons, one of those parts must (legally) be the gun itself, and the rest are just parts attached to the gun. For guns similar to (or clones of) the AR-15/M-16, the gun is the lower receiver.
The other parts are not restricted at all. Anyone can buy barrels, springs, sears, stocks, triggers, hammers, whatever they want, off the street, over the internet, or mail order. No ID, no registration.
If a dealer is selling a receiver, either alone, or as part of a completed firearm, they have to do the background check, fill out the paperwork, etc. A non-dealer doesn't need to do any of that, but the ATF will consider you to be a dealer if you act like a dealer.
The receiver is a complicated part. It takes a lot of work to turn a piece of metal into a receiver. At some point during that work, it changes from "piece of metal with some cuts" into a receiver.
Pieces of metal that have had some work done, but not enough to become receivers, are sold as "80% receivers". These are subject to no more regulation than any other random block of metal, because it is the end user that actually manufactures the gun.
Building your own gun is perfectly legal, by the way, as long as you are doing it for yourself. If you intend to sell it, or give it away, you need to get licensed and pay for a tax stamp. If you decide later to sell it, or give it away, that is perfectly legal too, but you need to make sure that you don't do anything that would make a reasonable person think that you had intended to pass it on when you made it.
The Ghost Gunner ONLY works on these 80% Receivers. They are not capable of milling a receiver out of raw billet. Nor could they work with a raw casting or forging.
Desktop milling machines don't have the power to spin up a heavy chuck, nor, generally, could they manage enough axis velocity to keep the feed rate up when using a large diameter tool. That means 1/8" or 1/4" chucks and tools. That limits the milling depth two an inch or two. That's plenty for milling out the trigger pocket, but nowhere near enough for the magazine well.
And if anyone is interested in the topic, there is a forum thread somewhere showing a guy making an AK receiver out of a shovel. The same technique has been used around the world. The Afghans made their AKs in caves, with hand tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it goes away if you use it, you didn't have it. (Score:5, Insightful)
For regulation to work... You have to not poke the bear.
If you only have a "right" while nobody exercises it, and it goes away as soon as a few people do, did you actually have it? Hardly!
Rights unused can be silently abrogated. You have to use them occasionally, to test whether this has happened, so you can take corrective action if it has.
(If nothing else, it's easy for law enforcement personnel to start assuming that something that doesn't occur often is actually banned. So important things like carrying guns need to be done occasionally, just to keep them aware that it's really OK.)
Provocation like open carry "just because" is why we don't have open carry in most states.
If you can't do something "just because", it's not a right.
In fact its open carry demonstrations that have eduated police forces in many areas, bringing peace between law enforcement personnel and gun-toting ordinary citizens in many places where open carry was legal but had fallen out of use. It also brings the issue to visibility and educates others, especially those who grew up when it was rare, that they DO have these rights, when they hadn't been taught they did. It is a fine icebreaker for bringing out related facts - like the actual numbers on safety and the effect of gun carry on crime and injury rates.
Yes, "Poking the Bear" can also have bad effects: For instance, California's draconin gun bans got started largely when the Black Panthers carried rifles into the gallery of the State Legislature, back during the period of the Civil Rights riots when it was legal. But black people at the time were de-facto banned from carrying guns (which was much of why they could be oppressed). The legislature just made that unconstitutional infrigemet de-jure.
Re: (Score:2)
Spent all my mod points over in another story, but now I really wish I hadn't. +1 Insightful.
Re:For regulation to work... (Score:5, Interesting)
Texas does in fact allow open carry of long guns. What it doesn't allow is open carry of hand guns.
In fact back when the whole Ferguson thing was more of a thing, there was an open carry demonstration by a black shooting club. They marched through one of our large cities (with rifles and shotguns) and deposited themselves next to a number of on duty police officers on their meal break.
No fireworks ensued though. Nobody got over excited. Although it does bear mentioning that the jurisdiction in question does have a black police chief and had a black DA.
Re: (Score:2)
Texas does in fact allow open carry of long guns. What it doesn't allow is open carry of hand guns.
"This is my rifle, this is my gun, this one*s for fighting, this one's for fun."
I'll need to remember that on m next trip to Texas.
I can claim my right to carry open my "long gun".
However, I think I will get jail time for that.
Re: (Score:2)
( Should still be legal, just not a great idea unless you're out hunting )
Because if you're carrying it out in the open in public, it makes it easier for the guy who snaps to know whom to target first.
( Then again, you walk into a location with the intent of going on a rampage and note EVERYONE is carrying a firearm, you may change your mind )
Or for the police to harass for that matter. ( They generally dislike folks without badges carrying gu
Re: (Score:2)
The odds of any one person within a lifetime ever encountering someone who is about to go on a rampage is so small it may as well be zero. Sure, it happens and we see it on the news but there are a lot of people out there occupying a lot of space. It's not very likely to ever happen to you.
Now compare that to the odds of encountering someone wanting to rob, rape or otherwise harm you.
The rampage people are clearly crazy and I would hesitate to even predict how they would react to the site of your weapon.
Re: (Score:3)
There are no reliable studies to compare those two things.
Gunowners rarely actualy end up in shootouts with would-be attackers. The common scenario is would-be attacker starts to walk over, gun owner shows what they have just by pulling it out and holding it. There is no need to even point. Would-be attacker walks away. Everyone lives. Police are not called, nothing is recorded making useful statistics pretty much impossible.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It might seem that open carry is a bad idea, but studies indicate that bad guys simply leave when they see an open carry person and not start the crime at all. Criminals don't like resistance or danger. Even in mass shootings, something like 40% of mass murderers shoot themselves when confronted with any armed resistance.
And another problem with not allowing open carry is that it actually makes it viable for law enforcement in some states to prosecute people with concealed carry handguns if their gun is vis
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget Jobs for Jihad!
Re: (Score:2)
So when we're talking about net neutrality, taking a law from the 1930's and applying to today's technology is bad, but if we're talking about gun control doing the same thing with an 18th century amendment is somehow good? Pick one, conservatives.
Can you expand on this? I can't connect the dots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assault rifles are automatic weaponry, and are regulated under laws from the 1930s and the 1980s (and likely other decades). Assault weapons are an imaginary category dreamed up by politicians that weapons from the 18th century can easily fall under, or not, as the definitions are political and oscillate depending on whatever looks scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'm in support of 'all of the above'. The internet today fills the place that phones did back then. I also think that the 1st applies to more than hand operated printing presses and the 2nd to more than muskets.
If a law doesn't make sense anymore, it's time to amend or repeal it.
Re: (Score:2)
But in the arena of gun laws, applying a law from the late 18th century to modern assault rifles and the like is considered to be completely reasonable.
AND... what has changed to make it UNreasonable? You appear to be trying to make an argument here, but you haven't actually made one.
According to the US Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment does specifically apply to military-style arms, and with good reason. It ain't about shooting that raccoon in your back yard with a pellet gun.
The guns you refer to as "assault weapons" (which is an inaccurate propaganda term; they aren't assault weapons at all) aren't even "military style" weapons. Here are 2 facts th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You only answered half of the previous poster's question.
Conservatives say the Communications Act of 1934 can't work for regulating the Internet simply because its an "old law" that predates the Internet.
Those same conservatives say the 2nd amendment is perfect, simply because its old, and that it applies to any weapon invented since and any weapon we might invent in the future.
You addressed the 2nd amendment part, but don't explain the former. How is it that the 2nd amendment perfect only because its "old
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just Askin' (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that in the 18th century, private citizens owned artillery and warships.
Re:Just Askin' (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you feel the same way about the 1st Amendment and modern technology?
Rights are Rights. You can argue about whether a certain expression of those Rights is "good" or "bad". But they're still Rights.
Don't confuse them with business decisions/rulings.
Re:Just Askin' (Score:4, Informative)
the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun
Unless you [atf.gov]:
1. Are a convicted felon.
2. Are a convicted domestic abuser.
3. Are currently charged with any crime punishable by a year or more in prison.
4. Are an unlawful user of any controlled substance.
5. Are addicted to any controlled substance, even one lawfully proscribed.
6. Have been dishonorably discharged from the United States military.
7. Have renounced your American citizenship.
8. Are the subject of an order of protection.
9. Are a fugitive from justice.
10. Are in the United States illegally.
Those are just the people proscribed from ownership under Federal law. Many States have tougher laws and add even more people to the list. Some (my home state, New York) go further and treat gun rights as a privilege, requiring a license, which is doled out at the whim of local bureaucrats who can deny you for virtually any reason they wish.
Point being, nowhere in the United States does the "current understanding" of gun rights say anyone should have firearms. Do you actually know what the existing body of Federal, State, and Local law has to say on this subject or are you just repeating talking points you read somewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
Point being, nowhere in the United States does the "current understanding" of gun rights say anyone should have firearms.
False. All the conditions you give above, are circumstances under which people are considered to have waived their rights as ordinary citizens. Except:
4.Are an unlawful user of any controlled substance.
5. Are addicted to any controlled substance, even one lawfully proscribed. 8. Are the subject of an order of protection.
These conditions were wholly made-up by the government, and people have been arguing ever since that these conditions are blatantly unconstitutional.
And I could be wrong, but item 8, as I understand it, is a State issue, not Federal.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how society runs. Citizens are supposed to take part in it but so few even bother to vote even if they don't like the conditions, thus special interest groups push conditions that are not so good for society.
The NRA is just a sporting club that does very badly with safety standards in it's sport FFS - yet they have so much political power because others don't bother to participate.
Re: (Score:3)
You're the one who claimed, emphasis mine: "the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun ." Don't try and backpedal away from it now.
I could respond to your silly training argument by pointing out:
1. Driving is a privilege, not a constitutionally recognized right.
2. The prefatory clause is not a limiting clause. It was not imagined as such by the people who wrote it nor ever interpreted that way by a court.
Of course, what's t
Re: (Score:3)
The well-regulated militia meant "standing army".
The People are guaranteed arms (as opposed to the "well-regulated militia), BECAUSE of the necessity of having a standing army. The Founders considered a government army to be the single biggest THREAT to the Republic, and guaranteed that THE PEOPLE should therefore also be armed.
History is very clear on this. The other interpretation -- the claim that only th
Re: (Score:2)
There's BEEN a revolution. We won.
Re:Just Askin' (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's pretty clear that the intent behind the second amendment was the perceived need to have a well regulated militia. In other words, if you want to carry a guns, sign up to join the national guard.
And you would be wrong. According to historical documents and the debates surrounding ratification, it was exactly the opposite.
The Founders were terrified of the necessity of having a "standing army" for defense. They had just fought a war against the "well regulated militia" of their own country! They considered a standing government army to be the single biggest threat to the Republic. Thus, (emphasis added):
"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."
The People are to be armed, to protect the country (which is The People), AGAINST its own army, if need be.
There were considered to be TWO militias: the common militia, which consisted of all the people, and a "Well Regulated Militia", which was the standing army. The accepted definition at the time of "well regulated" was "ordered, disciplined." That's a trained army.
But The People are not a "well regulated militia". They are NOT trained and disciplined. Yet as recently as a few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled again that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed arms to The People.
Re: (Score:2)
In reality there wasn't supposed to be a standing army at all. In the powers of congress they congress is given the power to:
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
So an army was only supposed to be raised when needed. Which is how it was for over 100 years.
Re: (Score:2)
False. You're using semantics to cloud the obvious.
The Militia Act of 1792 clearly indicates the militia is composed of citizens who own a gun and not a standing army. Here is the most telling part of the act:
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United St
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The law mentioned in the video is the Gun Control Act of 1968 which was a passed in 1968. 1968 was in the 20th century, not the 18th century. More to your argument, it was passed 34 years after the Communications Act of 1934, not 150+ years before the Communications Act of 1934.
1968 was in the 20th century or the nineteen hundreds.
1768 was in the 18th century or the seventeen hundreds.
Re: (Score:2)
The
Re: (Score:2)
So when we're talking about gun control, taking an amendment from the 18th century and applying to today's technology is bad, but if we're talking about net neutrality doing the same thing with a 1930's law is somehow good? Pick one, liberals.
Legally speaking I would say conservatives have a better leg to stand on simply because an amendment is much more fundamental to how our government is supposed to govern. I don't really agree with either of them completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Just Askin' (Score:2)
Well I love my home state and it's people. We're mostly down-to-earth, and pragmatic. Unfortunately we're really big on grand gestures. And fond of the metaphorical sharp-stick-in-the-eye brand of protesting.
I think this one is going to backfire big time. "Look how easy it is to home fab a gun guys!" sounds like a demonstration ANTIgun activists would do. Dafuq guys. Dafuq.
Done/10
Re: (Score:2)
Is "executing the mentally ill" one of those grand gestures? What about "electing morons governor"?
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, this statement makes you a bigot. :P
Re:Gee, thanks Texas (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why we can't have nice things.
Small-scale manufacturing is the source of all coming nice things. Yes, yes, you can use it to make guns - or anything else for that matter! 3D printing will never, by itself, make Star Trek replicators a reality, you need both additive printing and milling to make small-scale, eventually in-every-home, manufacturing a reality. The "Ghost Gunner" is just an ordinary CNC mini-mill. That's kind of the point here: it's not a tool for making guns, it's just a tool. And a damn impressive one.
Yesterday I had a crown put in. The last crown I had took 2 dentist visits, because the crown had to be manufactured in a lab and mailed, a multi-day process. Yesterday it took under 2 hours. The dentists scanned my tooth, designed the replacement on a computer as I watched, and (with some intermediate steps) it was automatically milled in a back room while I waited. We're living in the future, and, yes, the future will have guns, which even if you think that's a bad thing, just think of all the other stuff we'll be making ourselves, or in the office of the appropriate professional.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there's a dozen companies out there, but this is the one most of us will recognize:
http://www.rolanddga.com/solut... [rolanddga.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I have dentures. Good dentist and virtually pain-free when he extracted all my teeth and dug remaining bits of root out of my gums, but the cost! Crazy. He needs to have one of these in in a back room instead of paying a lab and marking their charges up. Sadly, the major chain discount denture makers in my part of FL have terrible user ratings. Ah well. One day. I'm not complaining. I have high-end dentures that fit and look good, and the cost, while high to me, was lower than a lot of people pay. But
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the replicator used the crew's waste to do that stuff. Not energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Energy to matter conversion. With the warp core they have more energy than they can ever need on tap, so the energy cost is irrelevant.
Likewise, waste is converted to energy. A bit of a loss, but overall a decent energy recovery.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a CNC crown done many years ago. It cost more than a lab crown and never fit right. I now have a lab made crown in it's place and my dentist no longer has a CNC machine.
Early adopters take the hits for the rest of us. The crown wasn't exactly right out of the mill - the dentist still did a bit if drilling on it to get my bite right - but it did fit solidly on the tooth-stub it crowns.
Re: (Score:3)
I always thought Texas was the most liberal second amendment state, but apparently not. In Arizona, concealed carry isn't regulated at all (you can get CCW permits, but there's no reason to get one unless you plan to concealed carry out of the state) and neither is manufacturing.
And I mean "liberal" literally, and not the political connotation that is usually anything but liberal when it comes to firearms.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, it's been commonplace to carry your gun everywhere in some places. The entire planet is not a concrete jungle in the style of Coruscant quite yet.
Taking your gun to school is only seen as a problem because some people choose to act hysterically when it comes to a particular bit of modern technology. They wallow in their fear and ignorance and take great pride in it. They confuse ignorance with sophistication.
It's seen as "something that's not done" simply because it's taboo and there's a
Re: (Score:3)
Taking your gun to school is only seen as a problem because some people choose to act hysterically when it comes to a particular bit of modern technology.
Taking your gun to school is only seen as a problem because kids make bad judgement calls and haven't mastered their tempers. Having weapons around them is generally considered a bad idea.
Seriously. If I had a gun at school, and nobody stopped me, I would have shot four or five people (at least) out of anger, and I've always had a fairly even temper. I wouldn't do that now, but I'm an adult now.
Keeping adults from carrying guns into schools makes sense, because there's no reason to have one there. The o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The aluminum used in 80% lowers is typically the same used in production "military grade" weapons. For an AR15 it's typically 6061 or 7075 cast, billet or forged aluminum, all can handle pressures in the tens of thousands of PSI, multiple orders of magnitude greater than the pressure they'll come in contact with under operation of the firearm. The lower just holds the firing mechanism and magazine, in addition the stock and upper receiver attach to the lower. The upper receiver is what's under pressure and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)