Ghost Gun! Ha! I can't believe you guys are actually going with that goofy moniker. I still can't hear it without laughing at the silliness, even when it doesn't remind me of the even funnier comments made by that state senator clown from Cali.
As for the issue itself, this is kind of like the gods trying to bottle up fire and take it back. The knowledge is out there, just like knowledge of how to make other guns has been out there for centuries. Even if you purge the internet, control access to 3D printers and CNC machines, and ban purchase of blocks of billets of metal and drums of plastic pellets by non-industrial users, criminals will still be able to make homemade guns just like they do in other places with strict gun control or complete civilian bans. Look around on the web at the pictures of homemade guns from all over the world. Here's a great collection of pictures of what I'm talking about: https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com Some of those are so simple anyone could whip one up in an hour or less--most others would take no more skill than is required by the people making the "ghost guns" you're worrying about. Some even have improvised ammo using the little blanks used to drive nails into concrete--another item you'll have to ban, tightly control, and put serial numbers on along with the staple guns used to fire them!
Ah, yes--good ol' Senator Kevin de León. Yet another fanatical gun ban zealot who I am thrilled to have as an enemy, because it would be humiliating to have to call him an ally.
Sort of funny how all of the examples they were showing, at least that I saw didn't have anything to do with a 3D printer. I believe all you need for the AR lower receivers is a drill press. And of course, the AK pattern rifle is made from sheet metal.
Unless we implement full universal background checks, licensing and registration, I don't see what the big deal is. Without all those things in place, tracing guns is an impossible task regardless of whether they have serial numbers or not.
No, Kurt, because most gun owners are law-abiding citizens and don't have any plans to disobey the laws they don't like, as you do.
Those were never your "problem" in the first place. It's the ones whose criminal history (for example) renders them ineligible for legal firearm ownership who are empowered by this emerging technology to arm themselves despite whatever laws are passed.
One potential benefit for criminals is that they can get or make the gun without a paper trail leading back to them if they ditch it (provided they don't leave fingerprints or other evidence on it. They can get similar benefits by buying privately, stealing, straw purchasing, bringing in from Mexico, etc.
There are some with no criminal intent who prefer privately purchased guns or homemade ones on general principle or to prevent the government from having a paper trail in case there was ever a ban without grandfathering of some type of gun.
Another group isn't necessarily in it for the untraceability of the gun, but because they just like to work with their hands, or with their intellect, and to be able to say they made something themself. One of my favorite knives, though by no means my best one, started as a railroad spike.
Finally, some people build their own guns because this is the cheapest way to get what they want, or because they can get some of the parts but the whole gun can no-longer be imported legally. For these people, they can make the receiver and build the gun legally so long as they abide by the relevant federal and state statutes.
Others may know of other motivations, but these are what come to mind at the moment.
SJ, I see no reason to benefit criminals by allowing them a source of untraceable guns. I've seen no evidence that the government is going to confiscate, or ban guns. I believe in gun identification to help police track guns used in crimes. That includes a record of what gun was purchased, an individual number identifying each gun, and proof of identification of who bought the gun. Public safety is the reason for most regulations and laws. I think guns effect public safety more than most products and should have rules and regulations about their manufacture, sale, and ownership. Public safety is certainly the governments business. Kurt you posted this: "Actually, I would go further, and argue that even if Robinson's victimless "felony" were a violent crime, he still could not legitimately be denied his fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, no matter whether or not any document acknowledges that right. As David Codrea has long contended, "Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian." Sorry, I can't support convicted violent felons getting their gun rights back.
"the government has no business knowing who owns firearms"
Ha. No problem that the government knows what your income is and what car you drive and what you spend on your credit card and what channels you subscribe to, etc., etc. But the guns, oh no, they have no busness knowing that. That's a joke, Kurt. You and all the other government hating, gun fetishists are a joke.
No problem that the government knows what your income is and what car you drive and what you spend on your credit card and what channels you subscribe to, etc., etc. But the guns, oh no, they have no busness knowing that.
I never claimed to have presented an exhaustive accounting of what is none of the government's business. It's my understanding that, "This blog is about gun rights and gun control"--wouldn't want to be accused of dragging the blog off-topic, now, would I?
You and all the other government hating, gun fetishists are a joke.
Well, enjoy your giggles, although you seem to be more than a little confused. I'm neither "government hating," nor a "fetishist" of any kind. Actually, I have very serious doubts that this notion of "gun fetishists" is anything more than a silly myth.
I understand your point here: "I see no reason to benefit criminals by allowing them a source of untraceable guns." However, as I noted above, criminals can already get untraceable guns by having non-prohibited associates buy them, stealing, etc.
They will also be able to continue manufacturing guns regardless of any law--if you would, please look at the wordpress site whose URL I included in the middle of the first comment to this post. The guns shown there were everything from single shot guns you could make in an hour or less to sub-machine guns which could be easily cranked out with no more effort than these "ghost guns." There isn't really any way to stop these criminals from manufacturing guns.
Every time I say something like that, Fred, Sandra, or Sammy comes along and trumpets "I guess we should just get rid of laws then!" or something of that nature. They probably will do so again, but let me explain why I think this is an important part of the analysis here. First, we have laws forbidding murder, theft, burglary, insurance fraud, etc. etc. because these acts are genuinely bad enough that we want to forbid them and punish those who commit them. We also have laws with public safety ramifications like you are proposing here. The making of the gun is not, itself, a bad act you are wanting to prevent--instead, you seem to be wanting to cut off the supply to the criminal market.
Because this is the motivation of such a law, it is valid to ask how well the law would do this. As I've pointed out above, such a law would be easily circumvented by criminals, providing no more than a speed bump. Instead, it would only inconvenience those who would obey it simply because it is the law. It would also not provide any new tools for police to go after criminals as, when the cops arrest them with a "ghost gun" they would already be able to charge them with whatever precipitated the arrest, and likely with illegal carry, illegal possession, etc. At most, this law would provide the opportunity for a slightly longer sentence, but we can get that result, if we want it, by increasing other penalties for their other crimes without the inconvenience to those who obey the law.
You say: "I've seen no evidence that the government is going to confiscate, or ban guns." True, they're not about to do it now, but it would be silly to pretend that there isn't an element of the gun control movement that wants to ban some or all of them. This fact is what causes some to desire that their AR-15 not be on a list somewhere.
"The government knows what your income is." Yes. Because we listened to you progressives when you said "This income tax will only ever be used to soak the rich!" and passed a Constitutional Amendment that has resulted in us all paying taxes and, indirectly, authorizes them to know this information.
"The government knows what car you drive." Yeah, that's generally a consequence of setting up a system where we register, with the government, any vehicle we plan to use on the road, and register others so we can still prove they're ours.
"The government knows what you spend on your credit card." Really? And how do they know this? Oh yeah, because of the PATRIOT Act, FISA court, and the rape of the Fourth Amendment. I thought you were against that as an invasion of privacy?
"The government knows what channels you subscribe to." Basically copy and paste the paragraph above. Also, while we're pointing out these things, how about talking about their knowledge of what books you read at the library, websites you visit, and some of the other things they've been tracking. Let's forget how much we used to be upset by the invasion of privacy and instead tell people: "The government has violated your privacy in all these ways! You're a joke if you don't want to give them one more!"
Yes, SJ, as I said. You've lain down for all those abuses, but now all of a sudden, there's a line in the sand about guns? I seriously doubt it. Eventually, gun control will prevail because your precious gun rights are too closely tied to unnecessary deaths. The scales will tip and you'll step right in line.
Ah yes, forget the letter writing, the changing of how I voted, the protests, the support of legal groups fighting those abuses, the time spent trying to educate others and point out what the government is doing and why that should upset them. None of that matters. I've lain down for these abuses because I haven't found the nearest clock-tower.
As many of us have told you before, your suggestion that violence would be the proper solution to the current abuses is sick and is the thinking of Timothy McVeigh, Osama Bin Ladin, and others such mass murderers; It has nothing to do with anything we have said.
As for stepping into your line, or dog gone's line for redefinition of the First Amendment: Nuts.
I would say, just because there are other ways doesn't mean that's right and certainly doesn't mean we should give criminals another way. The act of a criminal being able to make a gun is bad, and yes, I would want to stop that. Laws doesn't mean all crimes stop, but that's no reason not to have laws. If it's found that a criminal did manufacture his own gun and used it in a crime, that should be another charge against the criminal with the other charges of the crime.
The real problem with all this is not the possibility of flooding the market with untraceable firearms manufactured in people's basements, that's not going to happen.
I'm saying all the bruhaha about 3d printing is nonsense. The cost is not just a little bit prohibitive, it's very prohibitive. I doubt very seriously if it will become cost effective and eventually add anything at all to gun availability.
You know what's funny about this? Gun-rights fanatics insist that the million-dollar cost associated with 3D metal printing will soon be so reduced that it'll be available to every idiot with an internet connection but smart gun technology is out of the question.
So which is it, Mikeb? Is widespread home manufacture of guns, facilitated by emerging technology, never to become practical, and thus of no concern to the morally and intellectually bankrupt who actually believe that it's any of the government's business who owns guns, and what kinds of guns they are, or is this technology going to change the world?
I may have underestimated the problem. I usually don't allow gotcha comments from you but this one may have a good point. I'm not sure, though.
Are those guns with no serial numbers all the result of home 3-D printing? Or could they be the result of a small number of clandestine manufacturers who can afford the technology that is still way out of reach to the average joe?
I don't know about the percentages of guns they're finding in Cali, but the 3D printing is still pricey and not as common a source of home built guns in the US as ones made by people with access to or who own CNC milling machines or presses capable of bending metal. Neither of these things are prohibitively expensive for the average joe.
I've heard of a lot of things over the years, but I've never once gotten wind of any "clandestine manufacturers" turning out tons of unregistered receivers. Instead, I've heard of hobbyists buying parts kits and building receivers to put them together.
Are those guns with no serial numbers all the result of home 3-D printing?
I very much doubt it, and apologize if I gave the impression that I was claiming they are. I suspect most of them were made from the "80% complete" lower receivers that can be legally sold to anyone without a background check--even to a child just out of the mental institution after murdering his entire kindergarten class. Those can be, and indeed have been in fairly large numbers, converted at home, by people with no special skills or very specialized equipment, into complete receivers even before the new technology (not 3-D printing, but consumer grade CNC milling machines, like Defense Distributed's "Ghost Gunner")--but that technology makes it far easier, and thus within the capabilities of even people with no mechanical skills, like me.
In the video, the BATFE spokesfascist, when he spoke of the process as being "as easy as sticking a pizza in the oven" (that's a paraphrase--not a direct quote, but it's close), he was talking about the milling machines--maybe the "Ghost Gunner" itself.
I don't really make a distinction between 3-D printing, the consumer grade CNC milling machines, the Kalashnikov "build parties," where someone with the know-how and the sheet metal-bending equipment teach a group how to make their own AK, etc. All of those methods empower people to build guns that the government tries to make impossible to buy--and I don't see how the forces of evil are ever going to stop it.
BATFE tried recently, by saying that someone who owns such equipment (3-D printer, CNC milling machine, etc.), and allows others to use it to make guns, has to be licensed as a manufacturer, perform background checks on the people making the guns for themselves, etc.
It's bullshit--they're just making law up out of whole cloth. Better yet, it's easily gotten around. I talked to a Texas gun rights group that bought a "Ghost Gunner," with the idea of just letting people walk up and make guns, and they and their lawyer worked out a system where the person who wants to make a gun buys a share of their "company" (for, say, one dollar), thus becoming part owner, and thus neatly dodging BATFE's silly, evil rule. Is that another "hidden criminal" action, by (one of) your definition(s), Mikeb?
From the video, quoting the BATFE thug: "There could be as many as 500,000 on the streets of California right now."
Half a million, in California alone. Perhaps half a million people liberated from California's forcible citizen disarmament tyranny. Ah--makes my heart sing.
Oh, and thisis interesting: a 3-D printer that can work in carbon fiber, and even Kevlar.
Sure, the manufacturer is idiotically trying to stop Cody Wilson (and thus Defense Distributed) from getting one, but I think we all know that Wison will get one, and print guns with it--because nobody can stop this.
"But," some may ask, "is it appropriate to be happy about new ways of producing 'crime guns?'" The answer is that in places like California, where the mere existence of guns like these (mostly so-called "assault weapons") is a "crime," indeed it is. Where the mere existence of guns not registered with the government is a "crime," indeed it is. Where the mere existence of guns in the hands of decent people who are nevertheless subject to state mandated defenselessness under California law is a "crime," indeed it is. And California is just one example (albeit one of the worst).
What KCRA "News" calls a "growing problem" is in fact a growing blessing.
Ghost Gun! Ha! I can't believe you guys are actually going with that goofy moniker. I still can't hear it without laughing at the silliness, even when it doesn't remind me of the even funnier comments made by that state senator clown from Cali.
ReplyDeleteAs for the issue itself, this is kind of like the gods trying to bottle up fire and take it back. The knowledge is out there, just like knowledge of how to make other guns has been out there for centuries. Even if you purge the internet, control access to 3D printers and CNC machines, and ban purchase of blocks of billets of metal and drums of plastic pellets by non-industrial users, criminals will still be able to make homemade guns just like they do in other places with strict gun control or complete civilian bans. Look around on the web at the pictures of homemade guns from all over the world. Here's a great collection of pictures of what I'm talking about:
https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com
Some of those are so simple anyone could whip one up in an hour or less--most others would take no more skill than is required by the people making the "ghost guns" you're worrying about. Some even have improvised ammo using the little blanks used to drive nails into concrete--another item you'll have to ban, tightly control, and put serial numbers on along with the staple guns used to fire them!
Ah, yes--good ol' Senator Kevin de León. Yet another fanatical gun ban zealot who I am thrilled to have as an enemy, because it would be humiliating to have to call him an ally.
DeleteHave I shown you my my mad skills with Photoshop?
Sort of funny how all of the examples they were showing, at least that I saw didn't have anything to do with a 3D printer. I believe all you need for the AR lower receivers is a drill press.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, the AK pattern rifle is made from sheet metal.
Unless we implement full universal background checks, licensing and registration, I don't see what the big deal is. Without all those things in place, tracing guns is an impossible task regardless of whether they have serial numbers or not.
ReplyDeleteWe need it all - proper gun control laws.
Without all those things in place, tracing guns is an impossible task regardless of whether they have serial numbers or not.
DeleteAnd if you get all those things (hint: you won't--ever), then untraceable, untrackable, uncontrollable guns will render them all irrelevant.
We shall overcome.
No, Kurt, because most gun owners are law-abiding citizens and don't have any plans to disobey the laws they don't like, as you do.
DeleteNo, Kurt, because most gun owners are law-abiding citizens and don't have any plans to disobey the laws they don't like, as you do.
DeleteThose were never your "problem" in the first place. It's the ones whose criminal history (for example) renders them ineligible for legal firearm ownership who are empowered by this emerging technology to arm themselves despite whatever laws are passed.
And apparently there are already 500,000 of them in California alone...
DeleteWhat's the benefit of having untraceable guns? I must have missed the issue of 3D guns in this video.
DeleteShelly,
DeleteOne potential benefit for criminals is that they can get or make the gun without a paper trail leading back to them if they ditch it (provided they don't leave fingerprints or other evidence on it. They can get similar benefits by buying privately, stealing, straw purchasing, bringing in from Mexico, etc.
There are some with no criminal intent who prefer privately purchased guns or homemade ones on general principle or to prevent the government from having a paper trail in case there was ever a ban without grandfathering of some type of gun.
Another group isn't necessarily in it for the untraceability of the gun, but because they just like to work with their hands, or with their intellect, and to be able to say they made something themself. One of my favorite knives, though by no means my best one, started as a railroad spike.
Finally, some people build their own guns because this is the cheapest way to get what they want, or because they can get some of the parts but the whole gun can no-longer be imported legally. For these people, they can make the receiver and build the gun legally so long as they abide by the relevant federal and state statutes.
Others may know of other motivations, but these are what come to mind at the moment.
What's the benefit of having untraceable guns?
DeleteTo protect the owner's anonymity. Very important, since the government has no business knowing who owns firearms, and what kinds of firearms they are.
I must have missed the issue of 3D guns in this video.
3-D printing is one of several ways of building so-called "ghost guns."
SJ,
DeleteI see no reason to benefit criminals by allowing them a source of untraceable guns.
I've seen no evidence that the government is going to confiscate, or ban guns.
I believe in gun identification to help police track guns used in crimes. That includes a record of what gun was purchased, an individual number identifying each gun, and proof of identification of who bought the gun.
Public safety is the reason for most regulations and laws. I think guns effect public safety more than most products and should have rules and regulations about their manufacture, sale, and ownership. Public safety is certainly the governments business.
Kurt you posted this:
"Actually, I would go further, and argue that even if Robinson's victimless "felony" were a violent crime, he still could not legitimately be denied his fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, no matter whether or not any document acknowledges that right. As David Codrea has long contended, "Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian."
Sorry, I can't support convicted violent felons getting their gun rights back.
"the government has no business knowing who owns firearms"
DeleteHa. No problem that the government knows what your income is and what car you drive and what you spend on your credit card and what channels you subscribe to, etc., etc. But the guns, oh no, they have no busness knowing that. That's a joke, Kurt. You and all the other government hating, gun fetishists are a joke.
Sorry, I can't support convicted violent felons getting their gun rights back.
DeleteWell, the wonderful news, Shelly, is that your support appears to be utterly unnecessary. It's happening, whether or not you like it.
No problem that the government knows what your income is and what car you drive and what you spend on your credit card and what channels you subscribe to, etc., etc. But the guns, oh no, they have no busness knowing that.
DeleteI never claimed to have presented an exhaustive accounting of what is none of the government's business. It's my understanding that, "This blog is about gun rights and gun control"--wouldn't want to be accused of dragging the blog off-topic, now, would I?
You and all the other government hating, gun fetishists are a joke.
Well, enjoy your giggles, although you seem to be more than a little confused. I'm neither "government hating," nor a "fetishist" of any kind. Actually, I have very serious doubts that this notion of "gun fetishists" is anything more than a silly myth.
Shelly,
DeleteI understand your point here: "I see no reason to benefit criminals by allowing them a source of untraceable guns." However, as I noted above, criminals can already get untraceable guns by having non-prohibited associates buy them, stealing, etc.
They will also be able to continue manufacturing guns regardless of any law--if you would, please look at the wordpress site whose URL I included in the middle of the first comment to this post. The guns shown there were everything from single shot guns you could make in an hour or less to sub-machine guns which could be easily cranked out with no more effort than these "ghost guns." There isn't really any way to stop these criminals from manufacturing guns.
Every time I say something like that, Fred, Sandra, or Sammy comes along and trumpets "I guess we should just get rid of laws then!" or something of that nature. They probably will do so again, but let me explain why I think this is an important part of the analysis here. First, we have laws forbidding murder, theft, burglary, insurance fraud, etc. etc. because these acts are genuinely bad enough that we want to forbid them and punish those who commit them. We also have laws with public safety ramifications like you are proposing here. The making of the gun is not, itself, a bad act you are wanting to prevent--instead, you seem to be wanting to cut off the supply to the criminal market.
Because this is the motivation of such a law, it is valid to ask how well the law would do this. As I've pointed out above, such a law would be easily circumvented by criminals, providing no more than a speed bump. Instead, it would only inconvenience those who would obey it simply because it is the law. It would also not provide any new tools for police to go after criminals as, when the cops arrest them with a "ghost gun" they would already be able to charge them with whatever precipitated the arrest, and likely with illegal carry, illegal possession, etc. At most, this law would provide the opportunity for a slightly longer sentence, but we can get that result, if we want it, by increasing other penalties for their other crimes without the inconvenience to those who obey the law.
You say: "I've seen no evidence that the government is going to confiscate, or ban guns."
True, they're not about to do it now, but it would be silly to pretend that there isn't an element of the gun control movement that wants to ban some or all of them. This fact is what causes some to desire that their AR-15 not be on a list somewhere.
Mike,
Delete"The government knows what your income is."
Yes. Because we listened to you progressives when you said "This income tax will only ever be used to soak the rich!" and passed a Constitutional Amendment that has resulted in us all paying taxes and, indirectly, authorizes them to know this information.
"The government knows what car you drive."
Yeah, that's generally a consequence of setting up a system where we register, with the government, any vehicle we plan to use on the road, and register others so we can still prove they're ours.
"The government knows what you spend on your credit card."
Really? And how do they know this? Oh yeah, because of the PATRIOT Act, FISA court, and the rape of the Fourth Amendment. I thought you were against that as an invasion of privacy?
"The government knows what channels you subscribe to."
Basically copy and paste the paragraph above. Also, while we're pointing out these things, how about talking about their knowledge of what books you read at the library, websites you visit, and some of the other things they've been tracking. Let's forget how much we used to be upset by the invasion of privacy and instead tell people: "The government has violated your privacy in all these ways! You're a joke if you don't want to give them one more!"
Yes, SJ, as I said. You've lain down for all those abuses, but now all of a sudden, there's a line in the sand about guns? I seriously doubt it. Eventually, gun control will prevail because your precious gun rights are too closely tied to unnecessary deaths. The scales will tip and you'll step right in line.
DeleteAh yes, forget the letter writing, the changing of how I voted, the protests, the support of legal groups fighting those abuses, the time spent trying to educate others and point out what the government is doing and why that should upset them. None of that matters. I've lain down for these abuses because I haven't found the nearest clock-tower.
DeleteAs many of us have told you before, your suggestion that violence would be the proper solution to the current abuses is sick and is the thinking of Timothy McVeigh, Osama Bin Ladin, and others such mass murderers; It has nothing to do with anything we have said.
As for stepping into your line, or dog gone's line for redefinition of the First Amendment: Nuts.
Superbly stated, SJ.
DeleteI would say, just because there are other ways doesn't mean that's right and certainly doesn't mean we should give criminals another way. The act of a criminal being able to make a gun is bad, and yes, I would want to stop that. Laws doesn't mean all crimes stop, but that's no reason not to have laws. If it's found that a criminal did manufacture his own gun and used it in a crime, that should be another charge against the criminal with the other charges of the crime.
Delete"A Growing Problem," Mikeb?
ReplyDeleteBut what about this?
The real problem with all this is not the possibility of flooding the market with untraceable firearms manufactured in people's basements, that's not going to happen.
And this:
I'm saying all the bruhaha about 3d printing is nonsense. The cost is not just a little bit prohibitive, it's very prohibitive. I doubt very seriously if it will become cost effective and eventually add anything at all to gun availability.
And this:
The whole thing is exaggerated nonsense and really has no impact on the gun debate.
And this:
You know what's funny about this? Gun-rights fanatics insist that the million-dollar cost associated with 3D metal printing will soon be so reduced that it'll be available to every idiot with an internet connection but smart gun technology is out of the question.
So which is it, Mikeb? Is widespread home manufacture of guns, facilitated by emerging technology, never to become practical, and thus of no concern to the morally and intellectually bankrupt who actually believe that it's any of the government's business who owns guns, and what kinds of guns they are, or is this technology going to change the world?
I may have underestimated the problem. I usually don't allow gotcha comments from you but this one may have a good point. I'm not sure, though.
DeleteAre those guns with no serial numbers all the result of home 3-D printing? Or could they be the result of a small number of clandestine manufacturers who can afford the technology that is still way out of reach to the average joe?
Mike,
DeleteI don't know about the percentages of guns they're finding in Cali, but the 3D printing is still pricey and not as common a source of home built guns in the US as ones made by people with access to or who own CNC milling machines or presses capable of bending metal. Neither of these things are prohibitively expensive for the average joe.
I've heard of a lot of things over the years, but I've never once gotten wind of any "clandestine manufacturers" turning out tons of unregistered receivers. Instead, I've heard of hobbyists buying parts kits and building receivers to put them together.
Are those guns with no serial numbers all the result of home 3-D printing?
DeleteI very much doubt it, and apologize if I gave the impression that I was claiming they are. I suspect most of them were made from the "80% complete" lower receivers that can be legally sold to anyone without a background check--even to a child just out of the mental institution after murdering his entire kindergarten class. Those can be, and indeed have been in fairly large numbers, converted at home, by people with no special skills or very specialized equipment, into complete receivers even before the new technology (not 3-D printing, but consumer grade CNC milling machines, like Defense Distributed's "Ghost Gunner")--but that technology makes it far easier, and thus within the capabilities of even people with no mechanical skills, like me.
In the video, the BATFE spokesfascist, when he spoke of the process as being "as easy as sticking a pizza in the oven" (that's a paraphrase--not a direct quote, but it's close), he was talking about the milling machines--maybe the "Ghost Gunner" itself.
I don't really make a distinction between 3-D printing, the consumer grade CNC milling machines, the Kalashnikov "build parties," where someone with the know-how and the sheet metal-bending equipment teach a group how to make their own AK, etc. All of those methods empower people to build guns that the government tries to make impossible to buy--and I don't see how the forces of evil are ever going to stop it.
BATFE tried recently, by saying that someone who owns such equipment (3-D printer, CNC milling machine, etc.), and allows others to use it to make guns, has to be licensed as a manufacturer, perform background checks on the people making the guns for themselves, etc.
It's bullshit--they're just making law up out of whole cloth. Better yet, it's easily gotten around. I talked to a Texas gun rights group that bought a "Ghost Gunner," with the idea of just letting people walk up and make guns, and they and their lawyer worked out a system where the person who wants to make a gun buys a share of their "company" (for, say, one dollar), thus becoming part owner, and thus neatly dodging BATFE's silly, evil rule. Is that another "hidden criminal" action, by (one of) your definition(s), Mikeb?
Regardless, it seems to be working.
From the video, quoting the BATFE thug: "There could be as many as 500,000 on the streets of California right now."
ReplyDeleteHalf a million, in California alone. Perhaps half a million people liberated from California's forcible citizen disarmament tyranny. Ah--makes my heart sing.
Oh, and this is interesting: a 3-D printer that can work in carbon fiber, and even Kevlar.
ReplyDeleteSure, the manufacturer is idiotically trying to stop Cody Wilson (and thus Defense Distributed) from getting one, but I think we all know that Wison will get one, and print guns with it--because nobody can stop this.
Nobody. ;-)
Here's my take on it (excerpt):
ReplyDelete"But," some may ask, "is it appropriate to be happy about new ways of producing 'crime guns?'" The answer is that in places like California, where the mere existence of guns like these (mostly so-called "assault weapons") is a "crime," indeed it is. Where the mere existence of guns not registered with the government is a "crime," indeed it is. Where the mere existence of guns in the hands of decent people who are nevertheless subject to state mandated defenselessness under California law is a "crime," indeed it is. And California is just one example (albeit one of the worst).
What KCRA "News" calls a "growing problem" is in fact a growing blessing.