Cody Wilson Wants To Help You Make a Gun 449
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."
M-16? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> The difference between a full-auto receiver and a semi-auto AR-15 receiver is 1 hole
OMG, ban assault holes now.
Re: (Score:2)
it can only finish the remaining 20% of an 80% (complete) lower receiver.
So the idea is to buy this legal mill, and buy a legal paperweight, and then turn it into something is not as east or legal to sell?
Re: (Score:3)
It's exactly a paperweight until the remaining 20% is milled. There isn't a place for the trigger, hammer, or safety - it's solid metal in that area.
I'm guessing that "east" is supposed to be "easy" and that's accurate. It is legal to sell, but there are hoops to jump through. From what I understand, it's difficult to find an FFL willing to deal with that kind of transfer (of a non-serialized gun). Once you've serialized it and it goes through an FFL transfer, it isn't so secret anymore and the papertr
Worse than approval is doing it right. (Score:5, Interesting)
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".
Re: (Score:3)
> lost your civil rights, including voting
I really wish people would stop spreading this lie. Ex cons CAN vote in all but 3 states. Most states your right to vote is reinstated automatically as soon as your sentence is served completely. this includes probation. In the rest of the states, you have to fill out paperwork to get the vote back. And, no state can remove your right to vote for conviction in another state. So even if you do live in one of the KKK states (The laws were pushed by the KKK to try a
Re:M-16? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:M-16? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:M-16? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Another false dichotomy. And an overgeneralization to boot.
The valid comparison isn't looking for RWNJ's who want to take guns away.
The comparison should be with those who oppose background checks, licensing, training, and preventing purchases that seek to avoid existing gun laws. what's the refrain? oh yes: "we have enough gun control laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have" Except if that was true, they'd stop blocking said enforcement at every turn.
Almost no one wants to actually "take them a
Re:M-16? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Reagan and the NRA started the whole gun control craze when the Black Panthers started open carry demonstrations teaching black people how to protect themselves. They pushed for and passed the California gun control laws you hate so much to try and disarm blacks.
http://www.theatlantic.com/mag... [theatlantic.com]
In 1991 Reagan backed the Brady Bill which placed a 7 day waiting period on purchasing guns and allowed for background checks.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03... [nytimes.com]
Along with former presidents Ford and Carter, Reagan sign
Re: (Score:3)
The guy posts a good comment and you pick on his use of the word "to"
Heres your video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on your message, but I think you ought to admit that it's a little ironic that you're berating journalists for failing at something that you find important while simultaneously failing at journalism.
Re: (Score:2)
If people are so much more critical of grammar than they are about misinformation, it's a good thing I never tried to be a journalist.
Re: (Score:3)
Understanding the components and assembly of a machine makes me an "internet tough guy"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And he's not doing anything that you're not allowed to do in your own garage.
This is what I don't get.
There is nothing illegal about what he is doing, and as far as I know no-one is touting new laws that will stop it. Yes there are some private companies that are refusing to do business with him, but as far I as I can see is their choice. Yet here he is making noise all over the place as if he is trying to attract attention like a 15 year old drama queen poking a stick at a wild animal. If he keeps doing this I can't see it ending well for someone, but I don't know if it will be
Re:M-16? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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?
I see your point of view, and generally agree with it. But one example of a company that refused to do service with Cody was an insurance company. They probably assessed his business as a risk that they didn't want to deal with and hence withdrew their business. But would you also force insurance companies to insure you regardless of the business venture? (EG using hyperbole - a children's petting zoo that had an open, live spitting cobra pen)
Personally I would support the insurance company in this inst
Re: (Score:2)
I must say that I find that offensive.
Re:M-16? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But would you also force insurance companies to insure you regardless of the business venture?
If insurance is required by law for a normal activity (driving, operating a business manufacturing CNC mills, etc), then yes, the insurance company should be required to provide service to any lawful entity at a fair price regardless of who that person is.
That doesn't exactly answer your question, because I don't know if he's required to have insurance, especially with so few employees. I still think they should be required to provide basic insurance coverage. There are companies that actually make guns, an
Re: (Score:2)
Curious how you felt about photographers who didn't want to shoot gay weddings getting forced to do that by the courts.
The only case I have heard of that happening was when the photographer had signed the contract to do it, and then realized after signing that it was a gay wedding. I have not heard of anyone being forced to do anything for a homosexual couple that they had not already signed up for. It was the photographer's own dumbass fault for not having looked more closely at the names of the customers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Depends on the ideology, and the justification for not giving them business. Gay husbands are not gonna use their wedding photos as offensive weapons, and their is very little business reason for a photographer to turn down a wedding, so it's really hard for me to side with the photographer.
OTOH, if the "KKK Make This County Lily-White By Any Means Necessary" coalition is probably not a non-profit you should sell shit. Unless can prove, in both the Courts of Law and public opinion, they're hipsters being ir
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. A company should not be allowed to only serve Blacks in the back alley, nor have separate but unequal restrooms.
As long as I can give my fellow parishoners I see at church their 50% discount for being a good christian and keep those heathens who are atheists or potential jihadists/muslim terrorists out of my restaurant; I don't care what color they are.
Re:M-16? (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If they are common carriers they are not able to deny service based on a political view.
It is not clear if FedEx or UPS are common carriers. This website Fundamental Legal Differences within UPS and FedEx [parcelindustry.com] indicates that members of each of those groups holds "common motor carrier" status, but not the groups in its entirety. So it is quite possible that they have the right to refuse service.
However IANAL
Re: (Score:3)
It is not clear if FedEx or UPS are common carriers.
OK, so hold them responsible for all goods they carry, because they're not common carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the political point of view.
Do you think there's any chance at all that a group called Al Qaeda in America could FedEx a box that looked like a letter-bomb? Let's say it doesn't look like a bomb, but a FedEx guy notices the return address before accepting the package. That ain't getting shipped.
Remember what happened when one idiot decided to have an open carry demonstration in front of a polling place and said he was a Black panther?
Wilson's problem here is that a political-point-of-view that's
I'm mad at him (Score:4, Interesting)
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..
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like if newspaper (I assume you mean the printing press) was just invented, and he showed people how they can print essays that challenge the government's monopoly on power.
This device shows the government that they can't maintain the absolute control they want to. So either they get even more totalitarian (and we overthrow them with our 300,000,000+ guns), or they scale it back (and we win peacefully).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
instead of starting with the Gutenberg Bible, you decided to start with Playboy.
Many of us believe the world would be a better place had they started with Playboy and never printed that damned bible.
Re: (Score:2)
You think that Playboy would have been well received in the Holy Roman Empire during the 1450s?
Ever seen the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? This obsession with nudes is a modern phenomenon. The Roman Catholic Church was far more concerned with different bible versions (and other theological publications) undermining their authority. Which they did. And it didn't get the printing press banned.
'We only read it for the articles' was far more frightening to them.
Re: (Score:2)
You are the type of person who doesn't deserve either liberty or security, and costs us all both.
Re: (Score:2)
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..
Too bad. I guess he just made you a codefendant.
Re: (Score:2)
huh, more like I'm annoyed he's poking the dog. He keeps its up and its going to bite. All the while, he's yelling "I'm not afraid of you!"
Re: (Score:3)
The more pertinent question is: why would anyone allow a rabid bear to even continue existing, much less let them into their workshops and bedrooms to threaten them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can poke my dog all day and he won't bite me. This is more like biting a bear with rabies.
The more pertinent question is: why would anyone allow a rabid bear to even continue existing, much less let them into their workshops and bedrooms to threaten them.
Because historically the alternative to having a rabid bear in your capital is having somebody else impose their rabid bear on you. Native Americans, for example, had no governmental institutions with coercive authority at all. The Chief could not tax your ass, he could not stop you from killing that one white guy who was pissing you off, he could not arrest you after you did it, all he could do was take his loyal section of the tribe to the local US Army Fort in hopes that the Star-Spangled-Rabid Bear woul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
We weren't talking about the legality or the rights, we were talking about you being so scared you need to surround yourself with guns.
Way to put up a strawman to deflect from the fact that you just got served.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it every time someone decides they want to be responsible for their own safety and protection, as opposed to relying on the government for it, they are somehow afraid/scared and/or have some physical deformity/mental handicap?
I mean really? Can you not provide a more effective argument than "your a scaredy cat" or "my dick is bigger than yours" or "your a stupid head". I understand that you are just following the saul alynsky routine, ridicule, radicalize, demonize, but it seems to me you could do a
Re: (Score:2)
So we have somebody who thinks you need a gun in case of the government and somebody who doesn't. I think the one who thinks he needs to be armed is the one who is frightened of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
they ARE currently better at making guns after all. I want all three machines, but I'd rather make stuff I need.
At this time, I have no compelling reason or desire to make guns... unless, y'know they take away my 3d printer, lathe and milling machines.
Waiting for the 1911 plan (Score:3)
I don't want an AR 15... but I'd print a nice looking metal handgun.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a 100% plastic AR-15 lower. It's a gun according to federal law but needs another $500 in parts I can't 3D print to become a gun. Fortunately I can order them online. ;)
Real soon I expect all of it to be 3D printable except the barrel.
Re: (Score:3)
"Real soon I expect all of it to be 3D printable except the barrel."
Why not? A company printed a complete 1911A1 Colt 45, barrel included.
Laser sintering made it better than the original done 104 years ago with the tech of that time.
Also I'm sure you can built a gyrojet with plastic, even if the ammo at over 100$ a round is a bit expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I think I have a moderately complete collection of blueprints for the 1911 at this point, if you're really interested. They're not as miserably hard to come up with for free as, say, complete tube frame chassis plans.
Why is this interesting? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That's not a very nice way to think of the police. They are just trying to serve and protect.
When did Cody Wilson buy slashdot? (Score:2)
Small CNC Machine? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool CNC machine (Score:2)
You can already finish an 80% AR-15 lower receiver with hand tools and a metal jig. There are companies selling the "paper weights" made from aluminum and some make them from plastic. I don't see what all the fuss is about.
That said, the machine appears to be a well made and sturdy. I'd be much more inclined to use it to make auto parts for my car projects. Hope his hand waving doesn't get him into trouble and that we'll be able to buy the machines.
i have bad news for you (Score:2)
But are we really facing a world where backyard bunker-builders are manufacturing their own gun components?
That world already exists in the USA. building a gun yourself from scratch is legal and requires no registration. of course you can't sell that gun. unless you take it to a gun buy back. a few people recently hosed gun buy backs for thousands of dollars with parts bought at a hardware store.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment is not related to the summary or the article. The summary says "It was a different approach toward the same goal of multiplying the number of firearms in the world," but this is a misinterpretation. The goal isn't to make cheap guns. you think buying a home CNC machines and manufacturing a gun bespoke piece by piece is going to multiply the number of firearms? There are factories in China belching out thousands of assault rifles every day.
The ghost gunner is about taking away from congress the
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's like a Baptist Preacher and a Catholic Priest arguing over the same biblical text.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Its the lower receiver that requires a serial number and registration to be bought and sold. So the home CNC machine just ensures you can recreate this part when the gov't comes around to confiscate your guns. When they do, the only part you must surrender is the lower receiver. Everything else you are free to buy, sell, or trade with no restrictions or reporting. So when the confiscations begin, all the barrels will disappear. And when the cops leave with the one registered part, you just make a new
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the sentiment but somehow, I think that government will want the barrel, the magazine, the bolt and the firing pin as well
Re: (Score:2)
will they want the whole gun, lock, stock and barrel?
Re: (Score:2)
It's so interesting how when people think of government-oppression scenarios like this they don't think things through.
If the government has passed a gun confiscation act they have changed the law including the Constitution. That means they can easily change the rules defining what a gun is to include the rest. If they don;t think of this the first time they can go back and amend it.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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 g
Re: (Score:2)
And engraving 1,2,3,4,5 into ones rifles is surely no problem with this mill.
Even if it can't, or is too much a pain to do it with, You can get an electric engraver and freehand it for about $8. Note, you have to put a maker's mark on there as well if you're going to sell it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If it can't be restricted then owning a nuke is legal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
/'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
Re:1st Amendment (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Some TEA Partiers think so. As do did tis guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the ITAR laws prohibit it.
You should know by now that the Constitution is just a piece of paper that no one pays attention to.
Re:1st Amendment (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:1st Amendment (Score:4, Informative)
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."
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No. What makes you think that?
He may have thought that protesting gun laws would make it political speech and thus protected.
Re: (Score:3)
That said, please stop making homemade unserialized weapons.
I'm really finding the hobby of making self bows [wikipedia.org] 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.
Does not seem like it is failing (Score:2)
While I would much like legislators to understand that no matter what laws they make that guns will always be available, I feel this approach is doomed to fail
All over the U.S., gun restrictions are generally faltering. You can concealed carry in more places than ever now, and every new gun control effort is faltering (like the ATF backing off on the recent ammo re-classification they were considering).
Now is not the time to fall back. Now is the time to move forward decisively and show that the people wi
Re:Cody, just stop. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Cody, just stop. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cody, just stop. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet the number of deaths (accidental or criminal) has plummeted, and the number of shootings (accidental or criminal) has plummeted as well.
Not to contradict your point, but there is one kind of firearm-related death which is neither accidental nor criminal, and that is suicide. Homicides by firearm are down, but suicides by firearm are steady, and have increased slightly in the last few years. The rate of firearm suicide in the US is higher than pretty much everywhere else in the developed world.
So it's correct to say that easier access to guns means more gun deaths, even if it doesn't mean more accidents or more crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and one more thing. As the number of guns in private hands in the US has increased, the number of criminal deaths has indeed skyrocketed... in Mexico [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Let them have so many that citizens are scared of *not* owning a gun and demand their freedom.
Doesn't work that way. Citizens will expect an ever stronger police presence. The side effect of which is an eventual totalitarian state.
Re:Thank you Cody (Score:4, Interesting)
An armed populace is far more cost effective at keeping the peace.
Re: (Score:2)
why all the attention?
because he's a narcissist who takes any opportunity at self-promotion. his gun-fetish is just a means to that end, the consequences of his actions don't matter as long as he gets some publicity.
in short, just another libtard psychopath.
Re: (Score:2)
Your answer will determine whether or not you are yourself a psychopath.
Re: (Score:2)
those are not the only two options available.
even five year olds can see through bullshit false dichotomies, why can't libertarians?
Re: (Score:3)
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. Th
Re: (Score:3)
A civil war fought like that is nothing like an invasion force fighting against that. (bad grammer, sorry) Look at Syria for a lesson.