Cody Wilson, the man who wants Americans to 3D print their own guns | Hacker News Reader

Cody Wilson, the man who wants Americans to 3D print their own guns

theguardian.com

77 pointskfullert119 comments

To be honest, though Cody Wilson was responsible for the initial organization of the movement, he is largely irrelevant now, and the DIY gun community has pretty much disavowed him and moved over to FOSSCAD.org // https://twitter.com/fosscad and IRC.

To show the difference in the developments, compare the single-shot Liberator featured in this article to the revolving Washbear designs by FOSSCAD: https://imgur.com/a/M1A0P/layout/horizontal#0 or the semi-auto Shuty MP-1v4 https://twitter.com/fosscad/status/718190339090059265

Cody is more of a political agitator and propagandist, whereas the FOSSCAD community are typically much more gun-enthusiast/engineer-y - although they share similar political opinions, their motivations seem to be much technical/recreational rather than political.

Thanks, this kind of perspective is useful for outsiders.

Quick comment: isn't "Free Open Source Software & Computer Aided Design" a pretty misleading name for a group that is apparently only interested in 3d printing firearms?

Agreed, but it came out of evolution - Cody's organization used to be called "DEFCAD" (Defense CAD), but it operated more as a company than as an open source initiative, so the community forked to "FOSSCAD" to indicate that's how they would be operating.

Maybe FOSSDEF would have made more sense but it's kind of too late now.

Thanks for those links. Fantastic!

IMHO this whole movement is out there to point out how ridiculous some legislation is. Pretty much anyone with a brain can make a deadly weapon with time and materials. They even make guns in prisons, so of course someone could 3d print the serialized parts of a gun. In certain types of guns those 3d printed parts are only minorly structual so they don't receive that much force, you could even conceivably hand carve one out of plastic.

In addition, you could mill your own parts pretty easily, those plans have been available for decades as well.

You can make a knife from a sharpened spoon, but you can do a lot more damage, more reliably, to more people, with a real sword. For now (although not forever) you're not going to 3D print an AR-15 Lower.

It is easier and more economical to mill with a cnc. It is probably far cheaper even to just walk to the gun store and buy a rifle than it is to 3D print something similar.

Not everywhere has gun stores.

A CNC is something that is pitifully easy for a regulatory agency to track, as far as large numbers of purchases go. See: that fellow who was milling AR-15 lowers and just got busted. We're talking about the difference between machining metal, and downloading and printing a schematic. I hope that you do see the difference.

Easier than 3D printers? how so?

I'm saying the exact opposite.

It is easier to track distributing a sold product. It is very difficult to track what a person makes in the comfort of their home. I dont think the federal government keeps a registry for the purchase of milling machines.

If everyone who wants to own (to keep using this one example) an AR-15 had to buy a CNC, that would be quite the commitment. If the current model of people buying many milling machines and selling their services is the only viable way to avoid that, then you've already seen the feds start to take notice. After all, if you can get word of mouth around enough to make money, you're making enough noise to be heard.

3D printing is presumably going to become ubiquitous, and require no skill or experience to operate and maintain.

But that's the thing - with the present level of technology, you can have a device that is, essentially, pre-programmed CNC to make AR lowers (which is what Ghost Gunner is, for example) for under $300.

To make a fully functional firearm from there, you also need a complete upper - can be had for another $400 or so these days; and a complete lower part kit with buffer tube and stock - can be had for less than $100. For a total of $800, some assembly required (or you can pay another $50 and have pretty much any gunsmith put it together for you).

So basically, a person can take GG and produce an unregistered, untraceable, no-background-check-required AR with it for $800-900. For comparison, the Bushmaster AR that was used in Sandy Hook shooting costs ~$700.

The Ghost Gunner drills/machines the right holes in an 80% receiver, it doesn't start with a 0% receiver: http://www.80percentarms.com/products/0-billet-ar-15-lower-r...

But it's not very difficult to start at that level: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-cartel-gunsmiths $25K for a pro CNC machine isn't much in the scheme of things.

For a cartel? It's nothing. For most people who want a particular gun, and don't intend to monetize the purchase, never mind the time taken to learn how to work and maintain it? That's a hell of a thing to be honest.

The real barrier is the knowledge, you don't need a relatively new CNC machine like that if you're just going to make a few for yourself. And old but high quality non-CNC machines are sufficient for that, and require a somewhat different set of skills.

But that's not the scenario I'm thinking about, nor is it relevant as of now in a country which has more than doubled its gun production since Obama was elected, with > 100 million being sold in that period (obviously not all those were new).

If the barrier to a decent firearm is knowledge of how to work and maintain and older CNC, that seems like a pretty excellent means of limiting firearms. "You're free to have what you can make from scratch, up to a certain point."

The cost argument is sound, and I'm not disputing it, but rather I'm thinking in the broader terms of the "Gun Control" debate. At some point in the future, maybe a decade, maybe two, supply-side gun control is going to be a pointless exercise. My argument however, is that the time has not yet come, although it's clearly on the horizon.

For now "Just get a CNC mill and learn how to use it" is still a substantial hurdle. I think it's fair to say that it's a hurdle that Adam Lanza wouldn't have managed to overcome.

Gun buybacks are the best gun control method I can think of. supply side is problematic especially in the US, where the amount of owned, unregistered guns is enormous. I think the first step is reducing the supply of used guns. and, it has the side effect that the people who sell guns to government for cheap, likely would sell the gun for cheap to anyone. Might as well be the government, though.

In the US at least, there are three classes of people who are willing to sell guns cheap at a buy back, and this is why the concept has never taken off, along of course with the cost, which isn't effective at buying votes:

Criminals wishing to dispose of weapons used in crime.

Savvy types who sell guns that are worth less.

The ignorant/those who don't want to be bothered to easily dispose of guns that they've inherited or whatever.

The savvy types will work the line to buy guns from the latter that are worth significantly more than the price.

> you're not going to 3D print an AR-15 Lower

this has already been done plenty of times, and i have a sneaking suspicion is far more widespread than anyone is letting on.

meanwhile, you can just buy a hundred 80% lowers off the internet for probably less than a grand, and keep them around just in case.

plenty of "normal" people stockpile this stuff. they just aren't telling anyone about it.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/579913_3D_printed_lower__...

Literally 10 seconds on Google.

You can start with an 80% lower and a $20 router from Harbor Freight and get something pretty good depending on how you set up a jig. It ain't rocket science.

No it isn't, but look at the instructions on a pack of ketchup some time and bask in the glory of the LCD. "Set up a jig" is alien babble to a huge number of people, for whom, "Press print" would not be.

That's what the internet is for.

Heh... sure. That, and blowing yourself up because the Navy Seal teaching you to make C4 was actually a 14 year old. The internet is a very YMMV experience, often that variance has to do with what you put into it. If the only people who can overcome a law are those smart and resourceful enough to learn how to mill their own guns, yet still criminally inclined, I'd say you've minimized your problem nicely.

Not only can you already print a lower, you can print a bolt-together lower than can be printed on a commercial Makerbot or similar.

Here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42zpwpmGOvc

and another of it being test-fired: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TXz9kb83yc

I remember when there was a rumor going around of a guy who took an old shovel and made it into an AK type firearm. Found a link with photos: http://acidcow.com/pics/40255-ak-47-made-out-of-a-shovel-49-...

The AK in particular is an interesting weapon in that the controlled part (legislation around guns deals with the concrete part that "is" the firearm, which is the action that houses nearly all of the other parts) is made out of stamped/bent sheet metal.

The harder part in the case of an AK is the parts kit that has all of the other parts that must be actually machined. Step 0 of making an AK from a shovel is "buy a parts kit made from an entire old, previously functional gun minus the sheet metal and wooden furniture". In terms of making a true firearm from scratch an AK would still be fairly difficult. In terms of making a technical "firearm" (the controlled part), the AK is one of the simplest.

I wouldn't say "anybody with a brain". It still requires a lot of time, motivation, and uncommon resources.

The real question is , should the law take any effort toward minimizing gun ownership by dangerous fruitcakes? If yes, then making it hard to trivially 3d print a gun is kind of necessary, otherwise, like you said, anybody with a brain could do it. Instead of now, where it requires a bit more.

It really doesn't require a lot of time nor resources. A 12 gauge zip gun is literally two steel tubes of the right diameter (can be found in most hardware store), and a tube cap with a hole that can have a bolt screwed in to serve as a firing pin. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wV3lmbSv4

Now, it is single-shot - but because they are so easy and cheap to make, someone who wanted to cause mayhem could just make and preload several dozen, and discard them as they shoot them. Still plenty deadly.

That's the thing, really... guns aren't particularly complicated mechanically to begin with, and they are even less complicated if you strip them down to bare essentials - which, if you only intend to use it at a close range, still leaves them quite functional.

On the other hand, the reason why guns are so simple is because most of the complexity is in the ammo. While that can be reloaded, it requires primers - and those can't easily be made at home.

So, if you want gun control that actually works (in a sense of preventing dangerous people from owning an overly destructive device), it has to be primarily about ammo, not guns.

And with US civilian ammo production above 12 billion rounds per year and increasing, 3 million rimfire (and not increasing due to the higher capital costs for than machinery), plus substantial imports, plus the seconds we are sold from military production, especially at Lake City (ATK has a win-win-win contract where the DoD can outright cancel orders and ATK can then run the materials they've bought through the government's machinery), well, that barn door has been wide open for 7 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9313_United_States_...

I said time, motivation, and uncommon resources.

As to the "uncommon resources" part- what percent of the people that you know have two steel tubes of the right diameter? I didn't say it was like securing refined plutonium for an A-bomb, but I stand by my statement that those resources are not common possessions.

As to the time part - yes, absolutely, it does. Just because you've got craft skills does not mean they are common. Do most people who own a home defense gun build them themselves using common parts from a hardware store? In fact, I bet that's extremely rare.

I didn't say they were super hard, and I didn't say the resources were super rare. They're not out of reach of any dedicated person who is intent on achieving a goal. But then, a speed bump doesn't force you to drive slower, either. You can sail over them at 90 miles an hour, once. But speed bumps still do their job.

My point is that it's not even hard, much less superhard. Sure, you won't have a couple of pipes of the right size just lying around - but all you need is a measuring tape to get the diameter of a shotgun shell, and then walking into the nearest Ace or Home Depot to get those. So I would argue that they are, effectively, "common possessions", in a sense that it is something that can be obtained with very little time and effort - comparable to grocery shopping.

And it doesn't require any specialized knowledge or skills at all - I couldn't fix my own sink, but I could make a working zip gun.

The reason why you don't see this happening a lot in practice is because it's easier to get a proper gun in US, and it's much more functional. But if you make that harder, you'll have to deal with this workaround suddenly becoming a lot more popular.

Speed bumps are a poor analogy, I think. They work, because their intended effect is localized - you put them where you want to avoid speeding because it's too dangerous. There's no similar locality in gun control.

With the advancement of technology it's harder and harder to sympathize with the idea that firearms in the US could effectively combat governmental tyranny. Situations such as Ruby Ridge and Waco could be handled by drones now. It's hard to believe that there is a principle at play here deeper than a simple love of guns.

Cryptography scared authoritarians and chicken little more than guns.

Can't tell if you're being ironic or not, but in case you're not: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_...

Yeah, you're right. See, for instance, the way that the West totally put down the Taliban in Afghanistan and pacified the entire country, which is now peaceful to this day. The Taliban were just a bunch of illiterate goat herders with AKs, so there's no way they could stand up to the America's more technologically advanced army, plus the drones.

And then look at Iraq, and Syria, and all of the other insurgencies involving irregular combatants armed with nothing but improvised explosives and small arms, that have now been totally put down by the drones...

Except that none of the above is true :p

In case of unbearable government tyranny, the civilians are going to have an insurgency against their own fathers, sons, and brothers?

Dunno why you got downvoted, but that's actually a much more legit objection to the "guns are a last defense against tyranny" argument than "ZOMG DRONEZ". My answer is, I have no idea, and I hope I never find out.

In case of unbearable government tyranny, the soldiers are going to kill insurgents that are their own fathers, sons, and brothers?

Absolutely. Given the full power of the UCMJ, Oathkeepers are little more than a fun Constitutionalist fantasy.

You mean like the Revolutionary and Civil wars in the US? Yes, that exact thing does sometimes occur. Historically it occurs frequently all around the world. At any given time, there is a civil war going on somewhere in the world that involves just such conflict.

It happened in the civil war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_against_brother

And that was with the sides largely being split geographically.

The idea that the sides were split geographically has some truth, but is overstated and a result of looking at the decisions of state governments -- there were supporters of the Union cause in states that seceded (and, in fact, there were union regiments raised from every state in the Confederacy except South Carolina), and supporters of the rebel cause in states that remained in the Union. The illusion of a clean geographic split is the result of the fact that a state government's choice to secede and join the confederacy or not was starkly binary.

According to [1] and [2] about 5% of Union soldiers were from southern states. "Largely" works for a split like that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Unionist

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Army

You may be interested in the Korean movie, "Tae Guk Gi," which illustrates exactly what you're talking about and occurred during your parents' or grandparents' lives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taegukgi_(film)

Err... the movie shows what happens when the government forces people to shoot the bad guys. When there are two governments (The Korean War), brothers end up shooting at each other.

To be sure, there were two governments in the US Civil War as well. I'd say it's a pretty rare situation where a unified government turns citizens against each other with guns. Maybe The Great Leap Forward and the like, but even that was maybe more prosecutorial.

I don't think there's enough evidence to say that we necessarily couldn't crush those insurgencies with drones. As far as I can tell, the US has (reasonably, humanely)[1] pulled its punches considerably over the last fifteen years.

[1] to the extent that any war can have these descriptors slapped on them. War is hell, The US has done inhumane stuff, I don't think they did as much as for example I think they did in Vietnam.

Then you're left to argue that the US military has pulled its punches on the Taliban, but they're really gonna take the gloves off if they get turned against their fellow citizens. Good luck with that.

That doesn't seem too unreasonable. The former is a conflict half a world away for (at best) geopolitical goals, the later would be an existential threat.

The whole scenario is predicated on some horrible tyrant taking control of the US. Why wouldn't the gloves come off in that case?

Because said tyrant wishes to avoid a coup by the armed forces/defections to the rebels/etc?

Surely the big lesson from the middle East is that guns can deliver violent chaos or despotic centralism but not peaceful stability?

I'm not sure that there are any good lessons to be learned from that region at this point. It brings to mind the ending of Burn After Reading.

First and last lesson: never partition countries out of disparate ethnic/religious/sectarian groups who don't have some sort of larger overriding loyalty holding them together.

Of course, that boat sailed a while ago.

Surely the big lesson from the middle East is that guns can deliver violent chaos or despotic centralism but not peaceful stability?

Guns, in and of themselves, don't deliver anything. They're tools, that's it. Whether or not the people of the Middle Eastern countries like Afghanistan find peaceful stability or not depends on a whole laundry list of variables.

In other words, "American civilians with guns" makes perfect sense if you predict (1) America will become like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria in the near future, or (2) civilians with guns can somehow stop America from becoming like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria.

Considering that all those armed insurgents in those countries didn't stop governments (domestic or foreign) from killing them, I'm skeptical on (2). Regarding (1), well, if you want to believe that... (shrug)

Just my opinion, but they do "well" against Americans (Russian, whoever else is foolish enough to weigh in) because the war is asymmetric. They have no issue killing civilians or causing any collateral damage. The US must instead try and precisely get them and only them - and while drone mistakes happen (and they might or might not be mistakes), the US largely has to operate under a completely different and restricted rules of engagement compared with their enemy. The enemy instead folds into the civilian population, making the war extremely challenging.

My belief is that you have apples and oranges. Nomadic goat herders are not reliant on the internet. In the US the starvation clock starts running without it. Guns are more effective in the Middle East, but control of the internet is more effective in the US.

Well guns don't do anything on their own, people do. Organizations of people overthrow governments. I think access to violence is important for the success of such organizations as the past has shown. I think your examples of the governments sieging individuals who refused to bend to its will just demonstrate what kind of resistance fails to threaten the government. The only way to resist a tyrannical government is to fight for the destruction of the structural institutions that enable tyranny. You can't get a government to back off. A government's purpose is to perpetuate itself and increase the scope of its power. No matter how long you try to hold out against it, it will persistently attempt to subjugate you or lose its patience and destroy you.

One thing i haven't heard explained in detail by people who justify the 2nd amendment as a safeguard against tyranny is what conditions they personally think justify armed insurrection against the government. There's a lot of abstract support for it, but how could you support insurrection in the abstract without knowing which concrete circumstances would cause you to take up arms against the government? How many pro-gun rights people are down with leftists who want to dismantle capitalism, for example? What about right-wingers who want to do away with liberal values? I think abstract arguments for gun rights, like abstract arguments for free speech are terribly inadequate compared to concrete values.

One of the most interesting things about the gun rights community is how strenuously this exact question of "where do you draw the bright line that, once crossed, you'll rise up?" is avoided.

You know how that guy took that video of himself asking anti-abortion protestors, "if abortion is murder, then shouldn't we put women who procure abortions on trial for murder?" and they all just short-circuited, like they'd never even thought of the question before? And how Trump stepped in it when he suggested that women who procure abortions should be punished?

The "ok, so exactly when do you plan on using that thing, and with what group (because we all know you're not going to fight tyranny by yourself)?" questions are sort of like that, but for pro-gun people. They either haven't really thought it through that far, or they're not willing to talk about it, or both.

FWIW, I think many gun rights people have the same delusion about guns as anti-gun people, and that's this: a gun in the hands of an individual is a thing of immense, Godlike power for mass destruction. The pro-gun people are all <boromir>We can use this power for good</boromir>, and the anti-gun people are all <gandalf>drop that ring!</gandalf>.

But where they both go wrong is at the heart of what you've pointed out: guns are an effective political force only when wielded by organized groups towards a specific set of goals. Everyone just having a gun in their closet is about as effective as everyone just going out and voting (without having a party or a plan). You can do that and feel like you've got some power, but you're not actually changing anything or threatening the status quo. It's just a political fantasy that you're buying into.

Indeed. Which is why the widespread social stigmatizing and LEA spying of militia membership is so very effective, and so very worrisome. No reasonable organized resistance could ever arise in the US, as it stands - even if despotism took hold.

Militias do a fantastic job of socially stigmatizing themselves, no government plots required for that one at least.

I don't disagree with your most of your points, and I would go further: most gun owners are buying fashion items without any intention to use them, ever, in any way.

I suspect there is another reason to consider about reticence to discuss where the line is and what exactly the plan is once crossed: the POR against insurgency is find, fix, and destroy [0] and there has been plenty of domestic [1] practice. Why make yourself an easy target?

So, to your first point that they haven't thought about it meaningfully, I agree. Fashion items.

[0] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/f...

[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/05/18/407665820/... etc

"most gun owners are buying fashion items"--thank you, I've never seen it better said.

As for where the line is drawn, well, I think the biggest reason people don't want to draw any such lines is because the US government isn't a tyranny and isn't heading there in any way.

One of the biggest political issues in recent times is, of course, health care, but can you imagine how stupid it would come off as to try and lead a revolution against mandatory health insurance? Likewise for every other hot-button issue--armed revolution because now gay marriage is a thing? Because it's harder to find incandescent light bulbs? Mandated gas mileage improvements?

Wherever you'd draw the line and not have it be 100% asinine, it'd be so far from reality that even declaring "here and no further" would make you look dumb.

I think you're underestimating the network effects of widespread, private gun ownership. It's true that private gun owners will rarely coalesce into a potent political organization (NRA notwithstanding), but those types of organizations often form in reaction to external pressures. In other words, the more oppressive the government becomes, the more likely such organizations would be formed.

Additionally, even without formal organization, they do serve as deterrents against crime. And then, of course, there are also individual benefits, but that's yet another matter.

That's because a lot of us don't want to let anyone know exactly when we'll take up arms, especially the more they have to lose and the more covert they might want to be about it.

Me, I have a number of declared lines in the sand, the first and most obvious is required registration of all firearms. Although the kinds of enemy of the state I'd become is not so obvious, e.g. I won't start wacking government officials. On the other hand, other people [censored by dang, but please don't open that door].

Heh, and I don't want anyone like you judging when it is a good idea to overthrow the government. Frankly speaking, I already don't trust the judgment of anyone who talks so casually about revolution as you've done here ("I have a number of declared lines in the sand"?????). I have far more confidence in the current system than anything that would emerge when the internet tough guys get together to try and take it down.

I have zero confidence that rational, reasonable people (and "I have a number of declared lines in the sand" and other such statements is not rational nor reasonable) would be included in the new politics following that revolution, and that would make me worried for how my friends, family, loved ones would be treated on the other side of such a revolution.

Heh, and I don't want anyone like you judging when it is a good idea to overthrow the government.

Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide that for others. "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you" (misattributed to Trotsky).

and "I have a number of declared lines in the sand" and other such statements is not rational nor reasonable

And we should care about your opinion because...?

that would make me worried for how my friends, family, loved ones would be treated on the other side of such a revolution.

Then, if you're on the Left/progressive, you should stop pushing the other half of the country so hard. The other half just wants to be left alone, but that's obviously not happening.

Wow! You really want to go to war on your fellow Americans! So much for democracy, eh? Screw voting, let's kill those lefties, is what you're saying.

"if you're on the Left/progressive, you should stop pushing the other half of the country so hard."

So, because a bunch of folks on twitter talk about rape culture or because gay people can now marry their partners...line in the sand kind of thing? I mean, you won't disclose the things that make you want to use your guns to overthrow the government we all share, but "progressive" is part of it. I'm so curious which leftie policy it is that makes you want to start killing (literally, in your own words, Mister "War is interested in you"!), but maybe asking questions is something else that will literally drive you to attempt to overthrow our government. Who knows?

Man, if that isn't scary, I don't know what is.

It's not unreasonable to have some lines in the sand, based on one's knowledge of history. For example, I could confidently say that genocide would be a line at which I would definitely consider armed resistance to a government that would perpetrate such a thing a moral imperative, even if I wasn't a target.

And it's not unreasonable for people to ponder such things when they look at history, see the parallels to today, and realize that they _could_ be targets. For example, I'd imagine that there are quite a few Muslims in US pondering these very questions right now.

It's the specific lines that some people state ("registration of all firearms", seriously?) that expose questionable judgment on their part. Or, alternatively, the lines can be reasonable, but their perception of reality is so skewed that they treat absolutely mundane things as crossing those lines in their mind. All the conspiracy theories around Jade Helm were a good example of that.

How are you going to engage in armed resistance in case of genocide if you've allowed yourself to get disarmed beforehand? You evidently don't know the pattern of registration being followed by disarmament followed sometimes by genocide, with the PRC being the major exception to this pattern (the CCP instead used rifle taxes imposed on the rich to dry up the supply of those not in their hands).

Even in the US mandatory registration has already led to confiscations in California and New York. And more of that will likely happen if enough of the coming "Gunpocalypse" gets enacted in California, although that might await a new governor, Jerry Brown is by no means all bad on this issue.

So you're just as welcome to question my judgement as I your knowledge of history, but neither is very productive when it comes to thinking about what various people will do if pushed too far.

Gun registration and/or licensing does not inevitably lead to confiscation of all guns. It may lead to confiscation of some of them (as with semi-autos in Australia), but just looking at various countries which have some form of mandatory gun registration - which is most of them outside of US - they have extreme variability in other gun control measures; from legal ownership of "assault weapons" & normal-capacity magazines and concealed carry in Czech Republic, to near-blanket bans in some Asian countries.

Yeah, definitely. You're right, it's not nuts to entertain the thought experiment, "what would be too far for a government?" Genocide, sure, I like to think I'd stand up against that, and defend the people who were the target.

But yeah, either putting nutty things on that list (like firearms registration, as you said), or looking at the state of the country and thinking we're anywhere near the need to overthrow a government, that's what's concerning.

There's a therapy term, catastrophizing, which I think fits here. It's where you take some situation, imagine the worst thing that could happen from it, and assume that is already happening or is about to happen. Like firearms registration leading to, what? FEMA death camps? Enslavement by the Bilderberg group?

And that's the pattern you see in all these overthrow-the-gubmint kind of conversations: X (harmless) leads to Y (not likely) leads to Z (increasingly unlikely) leads to W (totally implausible) and that's why we need to start killing our fellow citizens at X.

It's scary, but at the same time not too scary, since a lot of this stuff just falls under the umbrella of internet-tough-guy talk.

That's why the 2A states "arms" and not "firearms".

Right. If you ignore some 200 years of jurisprudence, you might have a point.

Well yeah, if it wasn't constitutional it should be ignored.

The courts can't make something constitutional.

> The courts can't make something constitutional.

That's literally what they do. They determine if executive or legislative branch actions are constitutional or not.

No, they can declare that the government shall currently act as if X is constitutional (or not).

They interpret the constitution, not write it.

In the present day, civilians own tanks, cannons, rocket launchers, grenades, machine guns, explosives, etc. This has largely been the case for 200 plus years. If we ignore the some 200 years of jurisprudence supporting that ownership, then what?

Then we can reinterpret it to mean "human arms", as opposed to legs. I mean, the courts have the final say in what the US Constitution says, so just rattling off "the constitution says X!!!" like it means one thing but ignoring the years and years of case law meaning something else (and what's actually enforced) is just being naive.

Eh, all of those incidents are examples of dubious "He shot first!" claims on both sides. I don't think drones are going to make the government look any better.

Errr, the government in both those cases admits to shooting first, to kill these groups' dogs. At Ruby Ridge, Weaver's son and friend were just behind the dog, at Waco, well, we know one BATF agent climbing a ladder had a negligent discharge and shot a guy underneath him, who did not survive. Contagious fire from the BATF agents after the guy who got shot shouted out is more likely than most other explanations, especially when you note how the government was very certain to destroy everything that might have indicated they shot first and shot the most (the vehicles in the back drop, the front door, the whole complex for that matter). And we know they lied about the denouement, for the Texas Rangers found and inventoried a relatively incendiary "tear gas" round they swore up and down that they never used.

And as I might comment elsewhere, drone operators have to sleep sometime, somewhere, and depend on a huge logistics tail; the US has never fought without a pretty secure rear, certainly not after the War of 1812 (threat of invasion from Canada).

The existence of an armed, trained civilian population prevents the current government from going completely insane with the vast power they've thus far been allowed to take and selectively abuse.

I'd love to see the people take some of the power back without a bloody, internal war.

"The existence of an armed, trained civilian population prevents the current government from going completely insane with the vast power they've thus far been allowed to take and selectively abuse."

Yes, that's why basically all Europe lives in a dictatorship now-a-days due to our gun control laws.

Hey, you never know.

Also, I'll bet the American government is a lot more afraid of the people than most European governments are of their people. I suppose that could be argued either way to be a good or a bad thing.

I disagree.

I bet the French government is more afraid of their people than the American government is.

The French people shut down their economy and raise holy hell when the government starts acting contrary to their interests.

The Americans mumble some crap about 2nd Amendment rights online, and then fire up steam or crack a beer.

I don't see people going on general strike, boycotting entire state agencies or even going out to protest massively

That american idea can only hold ground in the US, a country that has not experienced an external threat or revolution since its inception. The world's revolutions started from relatively unarmed people. Once the flame is ignited, and the socioeconomic conditions fan the flame, there is little chance a government can stop it.

it's harder and harder to sympathize with the idea that firearms in the US could effectively combat governmental tyranny.

People keep trotting out this argument, and it remains just as wrong. "Regular" firearms by themselves probably aren't enough to resist the US government, but that isn't the point. Firearms are just one tool out of many that would be in play if an actual armed revolution broke out. And what people gloss over are factors like:

1. Military units that defect to the "rebellion". Now the rebellion has tanks, airplanes, drones, etc.

2. IEDs and other improvised munitions which are capable of doing more damage that just, say, an AK-47.

3. The idea that "quantity is its own quality". Enough people, armed with AR-15's or AK-47's can constitute a formidable force just through sheer numbers.

Anyway, nobody is out there pretending that they are going to overthrow a hypothetical "tyrannical US government" using nothing but light weapons. But that doesn't mean that those light weapons aren't still important.

The only thing that really matters is (1) and if your revolution requires military defections to succeed then you didn't need amateur firearms to begin with.

Unless you believe a bunch of randoms with rifles are a match for a professionally trained army equipped with the latest tech. In which case I think Iraq may wish to disagree with you.

A revolution would not involve conventional warfare (invasion of Iraq) but asymmetric, guerilla warfare (Vietnam, occupation of Iraq)...

"Firearms are just one tool out of many that would be in play if an actual armed revolution broke out."

I reject your premise. How will militias assemble before these conflicts can take place? Facebook? I'm not being facetious. A ruthless government could, in a state of emergency, cut off the internet in a locality, or lean of Facebook to turn over names, or etc. The internet IS the battleground. Physical control of land with guns is a small, receding target. Guns aren't protecting us from the government, the EFF is.

Telephone, radio, couriers, etc...

by the US, I guess you mean the federal government. Remember people are actually at various smaller levels. Any sort of rebellion would require organization atleast at the city level. Cities have police forces, some of which have access to firearms, and maybe even a few non-active duty or defecting soldiers. After the federal government puts down uprisings at a few cities, they might get whole states defecting, if those city dwellers had powerful friends. This is not even considering possible rebellions at outfits like corporations, which are little countries in themselves, which internal economies, surveillance of their employees etc...

But realistically i can't even imagine USA going to war with any major trading partner, much less their own population.

More likely is some corrupt local city government gets ousted by organized people defecting to neighboring towns... again neighboring towns have police / weapons. But you can also just sue cities in state / federal court probably, as they don't have sovereignty. Not to mention elections. So again, i don't really see cities doing anything too stupid to a majority of their own population...

i think the need for weapons will continue to decrease as time goes on and the world economy consolidates more and more... weapons are mostly for sport, just like boxing or mma. Its more of a staged drama...

It's a straw-man to nitpick only the worst-case scenario - a full-on civil war against a nuke-wielding government.

Syria is an on-going example of people involved in limited engagements with a somewhat modern government, defending themselves with small arms. They don't need to be ideal to be better than nothing.

Even in Syria, a large part of the armed forces refused to fight their own people. I imagine in America it would be a greater percentage, and you'd only be facing limited local insurrectionists. And it'd be enough to hold out for help, rather than battle them to a stand-still ala Rambo.

I heard about this before on a documentary that was recommended on HN, so I'll pass the recommendation on:

Print the Legend, from 2014, on the story of 3d printing. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3557464/

It's really interesting when I tell people that I'm in the 3D printing industry and their first reaction is to tell me someone 3D printed a gun. So many people know about it now, and I don't think it's a bad thing either. It gets people thinking about what complex things can be created with this technology. I believe the story has been an overall positive educational tool for the industry and the mainstream's understanding.

I run a small Makerspace, I see a teenage boy come in the door every month or so, eye the printers, and ask if they can print a gun .... that gives me a good chance to explain that making your own hand gun is illegal and that using a printer doesn't change that.

> making your own hand gun is illegal

If true, that's extremely surprising to me as a US citizen.

Please don't make the assumption that many seem to do that US law or the US constitution applies everywhere on the planet

You can manufacture firearms for personal use across the US -- even in California -- provided those arms otherwise comply with the law[1].

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license...

again you assume that California laws, or even US laws apply everywhere on the planet, they don't - the 2nd amendment is historical curiosity everywhere else

> The theory is that for the first time ever, publication to the internet, apart from generating data, amounts to an export of technical data related to defense services.”

wasn't this the case with crypto 2 decades ago?

> “No,” says Wilson. “It does not register on my meter. Whatsoever.”

Seems like this could be phrased better at least.

...or you could just go to the hardware store and make a better one.

http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Zip-Gun

I'm going to pedantically nitpick the title, but surely "3D" should apply to "print" rather than "guns". Printing 2d guns isn't a big deal.

Imagine a paper cut at 370 m/s

That is the stuff of nightmares.

At the right angle the problem completely disappears.

As far as pedantic nitpicks go, that's actually pretty good. We changed the title.

Everyone has a natural right to self defense. But by what means? We understand the laws of sciences like physics and thermodynamics, but we still can't agree on how humans should live. Why is that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com