3D Printing Guns Is Now A Fact Of Constitutionalism: Deal With It, Statists

[Hoas]

See here on 3D Printing Guns

 

[ack]

Absolutely no need for this garbage..Only purpose is to evade detection..Ugly as hell to boot..

 

[Hoas]

http://time.com/5353286/trump-administration-3d-printing-guns/


8 States Are Suing the Federal Government for Allowing 3D-Printed Gun Plans

Eight states are filing suit against the Trump administration over its decision to allow a Texas company to publish downloadable blueprints for a 3D-printed gun.

People can use the plans to manufacture a hard-to-trace plastic gun using a 3D printer.

The suit, to be filed Monday in Seattle, asks for an order to block the federal government from lifting its ban on the gun plans and to prevent the company, Defense Distributed, from continuing to make the blueprints available on the Internet.

Democratic officials in Washington, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maryland, New York and the District of Columbia are behind the suit.

Defense Distributed filed its own suit in Texas on Sunday, asserting that it’s the victim of an “ideologically-fueled program of intimidation and harassment” that violates its First Amendment rights.

 

[Hoas]

https://www.cnet.com/news/3d-printed-guns-nationwide-restraining-order-granted-after-8-states-sue/


3D-printed guns: Nationwide restraining order granted after 8 states sue

Update: A Seattle judge has granted a temporary restraining order, and the download links appear to be gone.

 

[Hoas]

States Engage in Witch Hunt Against A Free And Open Internet- 3d Printed Guns

 

[Aegis]

Absolutely no need for this garbage..Only purpose is to evade detection..Ugly as hell to boot..

Undetectable firearms are already illegal (Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988). Manufacturing a firearm at home for personal use is legal, and always has been. The files were published years ago, and are already out there...it is too late to stop it. And it is the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

http://codeisfreespeech.com/

 

[Brent in Az]

I am pro-2nd amendment, however, undetectable guns are not a good thing. The terrorists of the world get their hands on that stuff, and it will only be a matter of time.....

 

[Royal27]

Isn't it interesting that this isn't a 2A issue, but rather a 1A issue?

They are trying to shut down freedom of speech, not right tobear arms with this one, even if they don't realize it.

 

[CAustin]

Isn't it interesting that this isn't a 2A issue, but rather a 1A issue?

They are trying to shut down freedom of speech, not right tobear arms with this one, even if they don't realize it.

Exactly!

 

[lwaters]

They would have to be pretty low pressured rounds. I would think that a common centerfire would blow the gun up if fired in it.

 

[Aegis]

I am pro-2nd amendment, however, undetectable guns are not a good thing. The terrorists of the world get their hands on that stuff, and it will only be a matter of time.....

They are not "undetectable." Undetectable firearms are already illegal. (As if terrorists are being restrained only by their inability to obtain firearms legally.)
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-102/pdf/STATUTE-102-Pg3816.pdf

 

[sestoppelman]

They have been hashing this about for some time, not new. Be interesting to see where the courts eventually come down on it. Why would terrorists bother with these things when they can bring down three airliners with box cutters?

 

[Joe P]

Even if people want to produce these the up front cost is rather significant. You have to by the printer, buy the material, develop the weapon which is going to take a fair amount of trial and error. It would be far easier, cheaper, and more reliable to make a zip-gun. As far as airports, which is what I think we are talking about here, that is what the screenings are for. I don't see them getting anything very complicated by the x-ray unit so that means likely single shot. They better make it count because someone on that plane is going to get up and stop them after the shot.

 

[Bullthrower338]

Even if people want to produce these the up front cost is rather significant. You have to by the printer, buy the material, develop the weapon which is going to take a fair amount of trial and error. It would be far easier, cheaper, and more reliable to make a zip-gun. As far as airports, which is what I think we are talking about here, that is what the screenings are for. I don't see them getting anything very complicated by the x-ray unit so that means likely single shot. They better make it count because someone on that plane is going to get up and stop them after the shot.

TSA has already found a couple 3D printed guns. If the mouth breathers at TSA can find them they are quite detectable, mainly because they look like a gun shape. Remember the undetectable glock 17 of the 1980’s? Planes were falling from the sky because of the misconception that a polymer gun would not be detected at airports. Hype! I wouldn’t have the balls to pull the trigger on one of these things anyway, I’m certain a face full of plastic would result along with missing digits.

 

[CTDolan]

Personally, I think the 3D printed gun thing is much ado about nothing. You'd be about as well served with a homemade musket.

Regarding the Second Amendment, misunderstandings proliferate. It was written with the sole intent of providing for a standing army at a point in time wherein the nation possessed none. This has obviously since become obsolete.

 

[Brent in Az]

Since 2016, TSA, has confiscated four 3-D printed guns. Looks like people are searching for ways to get them onto an airplane.

 

[Joe P]

Since 2016, TSA, has confiscated four 3-D printed guns. Looks like people are searching for ways to get them onto an airplane.

Also looks like they failed

 

[mrpoindexter]

Well Joe, in all fairness it looks like they failed four times. We don't know how many times they have succeeded. People have ended up getting normal guns through security when they accidentally left them in bags, but I don't know the rate that happens. People are highly unlikely to report getting a gun through airport security successfully, whether intentional or accidental.

As for the box cutter comment - that worked once because people were sheep. Nobody would be able to take over a plane today with box cutters because the passengers will no longer comply with hijackers.

 

[ActionBob]

Personally, I think the 3D printed gun thing is much ado about nothing. You'd be about as well served with a homemade musket.

Regarding the Second Amendment, misunderstandings proliferate. It was written with the sole intent of providing for a standing army at a point in time wherein the nation possessed none. This has obviously since become obsolete.

I beg to differ on this. Our founding fathers were rebels with a cause. The cause was freedom from an oppressive government. And I believe the term referred to in A2 is "militia", not army. And wasn't militia at that time meant as a citizen group of armed men?

In any case, IMO A2 had more to do defending the rights of the people from an oppressive government. And our constitution, and especially our Bill of Rights was and is meant to do just that.

Not simply to arm the government.

 

[Joe P]

Well Joe, in all fairness it looks like they failed four times. We don't know how many times they have succeeded. People have ended up getting normal guns through security when they accidentally left them in bags, but I don't know the rate that happens. People are highly unlikely to report getting a gun through airport security successfully, whether intentional or accidental.

As for the box cutter comment - that worked once because people were sheep. Nobody would be able to take over a plane today with box cutters because the passengers will no longer comply with hijackers.

I agree partially. I'm not saying it has only happened four times and they got caught every time. However, you made the point of we don't know how many times they did get through. That makes a good point. If one got through and we never heard about it then it stands to reason nothing too bad happened. I'm not saying it should be allowed or "eh a few get through not a big deal." Not at all.

I am saying I will judge the severity of this problem based on known facts. When we start to see this become an epedemic then sure, it's something to worry about.

However, I think a very serious argument can be made that you are currently taking a much higher risk driving to and from work every day than the risk that 3-D printed guns pose.

Just my opinion and it's worth probably less than the $0.02 that it's commonly associated with. I'm just saying I won't live my life on what-ifs.