The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine 651
An anonymous reader writes: You may recall Cody Wilson as the man behind the world's first 3D-printed gun. He built a company behind the ideals of DIY gun-making, and now he's come back with another device: the "Ghost Gunner," a CNC mill designed to create the lower receiver of an AR-15 rifle. "That simple chunk of metal has become the epicenter of a gun control firestorm. A lower receiver is the body of the gun that connects its stock, barrel, magazine and other parts. As such, it's also the rifle's most regulated element. Mill your own lower receiver at home, however, and you can order the rest of the parts from online gun shops, creating a semi-automatic weapon with no serial number, obtained with no background check, no waiting period or other regulatory hurdles. Some gun control advocates call it a "ghost gun." Selling that untraceable gun body is illegal, but no law prevents you from making one." Wilson's goal is still to render government gun regulation useless, even as debate rages on banning this kind of manufacturing.
the solution: (Score:5, Funny)
Ban "Assault Lathes"!
Re:the solution: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Any references to this? Searching for 'California Assault Lathes' gave me some giggles but no real info. I certainly would not put it past the California legislature to try to ban or regulate mills or lathes (the former being more 'dangerous'), but it wouldn't ever work and would piss a lot of people off.
Re: (Score:3)
California was proposing to ban lathes? Where do you get that from TFA?
I read that they wanted to ban the act using a CNC to finish off an "80% Lower" without assigning it a serial number, but that the governor thought that this requirement wouldn't deter any criminals so he vetoed it.
Re:the solution: (Score:5, Informative)
Since homemade guns are not transferable it was mostly a symbolic idea which at most would add another charge onto an existing arrest and that is about it.
In a fit of sanity... (Score:3)
California was debating requiring a serial number on home made guns independent of how they were made.
Actually, the legislature passed that. But, in a fit of sanity, governor Jerry Brown vetoed it.
Anyone familiar with California politics will realize how extrordinary that is. B-)
Re: (Score:3)
If a person has the time, money, skills, and tools to use a CNC mill to finish an AR lower, they probably are not in the violent crime lifestyle.
Translation: I am leisured, rich, and well educated, and therefore shouldn't be subject to the same laws as those real criminals.
Re:the solution: (Score:4, Interesting)
Instead of calling people names, why don't you and yours [thehill.com] simply campaign to abolish the Second Amendment altogether? If we read the First the same way we are told to read the Second, our freedom of speech too would be limited to "petitioning the government" — and only for "redress of grievances". Oh, and only after a "cool-down" period [theonion.com].
"Assault firearms" my foot — you can't even carry a freaking sword [findlaw.com] or brass-knuckles [findlaw.com] in many parts of the country nowadays. If only the British kept those blades away from Patrick Henry and his "nutball" cohorts!
Re:the solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
If only the British kept those blades away from Patrick Henry and his "nutball" cohorts!
If the British would have had,
the NSA,
there never would have been,
a USA
Burma Shave
Re:the solution: (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering people don't read the 2nd Amendment correctly, there shouldn't be a problem with misreading the 1st.
Both in words and actions the Colonial government required people to register with their local authorities whether or not they had a gun so they could be called up to suppress insurrection or protect the state (PA has that written explicitly in its Constitution. Article 1, section 20. Also, go read The Federalist Papers where calling up the militia, using their own guns, was mentioned several times by Madison, the guy who wrote the Constitution).
Yet apparently what was good enough for the originating government isn't good enough for us so people read only the part of the Amendment they want to read and ignore the rest.
Pretty convenient, huh?
Re:the solution: (Score:5, Informative)
If the laws you speak of were meant to do what you claim, then the AR-15 would be joined by the Mini-14 on the list of "evil assault weapons".
Alas, the Mini-14 is on the Exempt List of each of the Assault Weapon Bans.
Of course, the Mini-14 is exempt because it is a self-loading rifle firing 5.56mm (.223 for you non-metric types) rounds using magazines ranging from 5 to 35 rounds capacity, as opposed to the AR-15, which is a self-loading rifle firing 5.56mm (.223 for you non-metric types) rounds using magazines ranging from 5 to 35 rounds capacity....
If it isn't obvious from the above descriptions, there are two essentially identical rifles - one an evil assault weapon, the other a perfectly fine sporting rifle out there in the wild. If the various bans on things like the AR-15 lower receiver (or the AR-15 itself) were actually about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, there would be no distinction made between the Mini-14 and AR-15.
What the Bans actually are is a ban on Scary Looking Rifles. And that's all they've ever been - a feel-good measure that accomplishes nothing....
Re: (Score:3)
Well then, what's the big deal? You can still actualize your 2nd Amendment rights by purchasing a non-scary-looking rifle that does the exact same thing.
Really though, we should ban all guns that are not bright pink in color. If you're a teenager or gangster who wants a gun to show off your machismo, that will get in the way. If you actually need the gun for defense, you won't care about the color.
Re:the solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever. Here's an idea, either respect the Constitution and its underlying values, or focus on repealing the Second Amendment using the process provided for doing so.
Legislative end runs around the founders' clearly expressed intents are not acceptable. Why not? Because they'll come for your favorite amendment next.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, in what ways specifically has the 2nd amendment been used to advance the cause of freedom in the US?
An armed populace is a deterrent to totalitarianism. Specific enough?
Go through a history book, look up all the societies that allowed government to disarm them, and how things turned out for the regular people living there.
Re:the solution: (Score:5, Informative)
Jeff Flanagan trolled But Cody Wilson really is a libertarian nutball. It's an accurate description, not random name-calling. He's disconnected from reality, and thinks that he can bypass laws intended to keep weapons designed to kill a large number of people out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. Your post makes it pretty clear that you're one of the deeply-confused gun-nuts who thinks that banning guns designed for mass murder means banning defensive guns.
Apparently, people who don't agree with you are gun-nuts, and it's OK for you to use random name-calling.
Right...
m
Re: (Score:3)
Gun enthusiasts have been machining their own DIY guns for decades. In fact many of the guns used by military forces around the world began with an idea in the workshop of a private citizen. David Marshall Williams designed the M-1 Carbine automatic rifle used in WWII while he was in prison. He was allowed to use the prison machine shop and guards let him service their weapons.
There are thousands of amateur machinists who could build an assortment of exotic and scary guns if they wanted to. Mr. Wilson ha
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I should think there's very little call for walking around with a sword.
Come to NJ and walk around west of the I-95 at night.
Re:the solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, it doesn't matter what you should think. "Arms" doesn't mean "hunting rifles." It means "arms." It's a very broad term covering things like swords.
Is it silly to think people should be able to walk around with swords? Maybe... but then we need an ammendment to the constitution limiting what "arms" means, you can't just arbitrarily think it should mean something to everybody... and any laws that ban keeping and bearing swords violate the 2nd ammendment just as much as bans on firearms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[...] "Arms" doesn't mean "hunting rifles." It means "arms." [...]
We have to make the laws that are reasonable to our time. The Constitution allowed slavery, for instance, and no vote for women. There are lots of things that we can look at now and say need (or needed) to be changed from the original document, with the perspective of the passing of 200 years.
Make arguments, please, that are really arguments, rather than hiding behind a document. Does it make sense now for individuals to buy and sell full-
Re:the solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I am kinda curious where this 'the 2nd amendment is so we can keep the government in check' idea came from. Historically it is complete nonsense.
At the time the US just got through fighting the revolutionary war. In that war the average citizen was about as well-armed as a professional soldier, with most people providing their own arms. Stuff like artillery was of course controlled by armies, but at the time a fairly small force with small arms was able to do stuff like capture the guns at Ft Ticoderoga.
Things have changed significantly since then. The weapons of war have become much more powerful and expensive. Communications has become much mo
Re:the solution: (Score:4, Informative)
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story
What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts
you were saying????
Re:the solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
I think your post, while well thought out, misses the point of an armed citizenry. No one is realistically thinking a lightly-armed, poorly-trained citizenry can effectively wage war against a well-equipped, well-trained professional military force. Nor do I think anyone is suggesting a straight up guerrilla-style campaign for asymmetric warfare.
No, the point of an armed citizenry is to give the government pause. An unarmed populace can be brought to heel without much in the way of bloodshed. But an armed populace? Even a lightly-armed one means the government can't just march in and round up potential dissidents. There is the strong possibility of a firefight. Sure, the little guys will probably lose. But it means the government must escalate to lethal force just to get started on whatever nefarious course it may be planning for its citizens.
In a way, it's little like conventional vs. nuclear combat between nation-states. When both sides were purely conventional, wars were fairly common (call this analogous to both sides being armed with swords). When one side has nukes and the other does not, the side with nukes gets its way pretty much whenever it wants without ever having to drop a nuke (analogous to a police state with a disarmed citizenry). But when both sides are equally armed with dangerous weapons that require either side to really think about whether they want to invite a deeply damaging and dangerous conflict...you get very few actual wars (analogous to an armed state and armed citizenry).
If I'm unarmed and the government (for whatever reason) decides I need to be removed, not only can I not stop them, but I probably can't even inflict significant harm on them. They will most likely even take me alive, without a protracted fight. The risk to them in this case, both in blood and bad PR, is minimal.
If I'm armed and the government (for whatever reason) decides I need to be removed, they will most likely succeed. I will, however, most likely succeed in causing casualties and/or making a big PR spectacle of being taken down. I might even achieve martyr status if I'm killed, causing a PR debacle for the government. The government will want to avoid these things, thus they will try to find means other than brute force of arms to remove me. Or they might not remove me at all, deeming the political risk too high. This is why we need to be armed. Not as a credible army-in-waiting, but as a deterrent.
Re: (Score:3)
In times past, yes. Nowadays however gun-rights activists indeed are heavily recruiting minorities to try and appeal to them. The NRA brought on Colion Noir (a black gun owner/vlogger) as a spokesperson, and they were very quick to jump to Shaneen Allen's defense when she (a black woman) was arrested in New Jersey for accidentally violating one of their draconian gun laws.
Simply put - trying to paint the NRA or gun rights activists as racist is a trick that simply doesn't work anymore. 40-50 years ago it was true, but back then half the country was racist. The whole country - including the gun rights movement - has come a long way.
No. Even today, gun laws are enforced disproportionately against blacks.
Best evidence of that is New York's stop and frisk laws. That was basically an experimental suppression of the 4th Amendment. They arrested people mostly for drugs and secondarily for guns. There was lots of court testimony to show that the stops were disproportionately used against blacks.
The overall result was to take guns away from blacks. A lot of black people said they didn't carry guns because they were afraid of stop and frisk. W
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution allowed slavery, for instance, and no vote for women.
It did no such thing, it simply reserved such matters to the States, per the 10th Amendment. The 14th and 19th Amendments changed that of course.
The way I read English, when the Constitution doesn't prohibit slavery, and leaves it to the states, it allows slavery.
Incidentally, the established process of amending the Constitution (Article V) is available for gun control proponents to take advantage of if they think they can actually win a debate on the merits of the issue. All you need to do is convince 2/3rd's of Congress and 3/4ths of the State Legislatures to sign off on a repeal or amendment of the 2nd Amendment. Best of luck with that. :)
Unfortunately, a small, aggressive, well-funded minority can always subvert the democratic process.
Re:the solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and when times changed it got amended. But the right to bear arms hasn't been amended, and until it does, it still stands as the law of the land that all arms are included.
Absolutely! How else is the public supposed to support a revolt against tyranny? (That is what the 2nd Amendment is for, you know... it's a rule written by violent revolutionaries for violent revolutionaries.)
Re:the solution: (Score:5, Informative)
Has the 4th amendment been updated?
Or are you under the illusion that this one amendment is sacrosanct while they crap all over the rest of it?
Because blanket surveillance, property seizure because police lie and say they suspected drugs, and parallel construction are pretty much in violation of your Constitution as well.
Look, you're descending into tyranny now. So, either get on with it, or stop whining about how you'll do it when you get around to it or someone really outlaws jumbo sized soda.
Otherwise, it's just lip service. Your government is already ignoring your Constitution on a large scale, but apparently nobody gives a damn.
Re:the solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
Or are you under the illusion that this one amendment is sacrosanct while they crap all over the rest of it?
Because blanket surveillance, property seizure because police lie and say they suspected drugs, and parallel construction are pretty much in violation of your Constitution as well.
I have yet to see a single comment from anyone (democrat or republican) arguing that the US government is properly following the 4th amendment.
I'm not sure how this makes not following the 2nd amendment in addition to not following the 4th ok.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yes and no. In the original debates (not The Federalist Papers, which had specific authors expressing their own opinions) there was a great deal of 'of course we do not mean XYZ', with significant disagreement about how absolute they were and what did not even need saying (ah, common sense). For instance there were arguments about whether Islam, Judaism, and Catholicism counted as religions. There was no debate about whether the native ones counted, they were most certainly not.
The original debates, while important, were not as important as the ratification debates that came later. That is where the Federalist Papers (and Anti-Federalist Papers) came in. They explained the original meanings of many of the clauses in the Constitution, and the ratification debates used them as references.
For example, during the ratification debates it became clear that many states would not ratify UNLESS the Constitution was interpreted to mean that there would be no Federal control of arms at al
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with the US constitution is that it's a terrible piece of writing. Partly because it was the product of political compromise, so parts were kept deliberately vague, and partly because legal drafting at the time was, by modern standards, pretty poor.
A constitution should be incredibly precise about the rights that it protects and exactly how far it protects them. If it's not, then judges impose their views, or the views of the majority, and give them constitutional force. That's the opposite of w
Re: the solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're black. White people can bring semi auto rifles into Walmart and the police don't give a fuck.
It's not about race, it's about attitude. If you are friendly and polite people assume you are there to help them. If you are dour and moody, people assume you are there to hurt them.
No. It is about race, in a significant number of cases. Just look at the statistics of people open carrying (or people getting shot at). Hell, just look at the statistics of how people are treated by "the law" per race where some groups *get harsher* penalties for the same goddamned crime.
And since we are on John Crawford's case (RIP), let's look at the Walmart video just released:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/breaking-video-finally-released-cops-shooting-man-toy-gun-wal-mart/ [thefreetho...roject.com]
In the specific case of John Crawford (RIP), the poor guy that got shot down while carrying a toy gun to the cash register, he didn't do anything of the above in bold. Nothing in his fucking attitude indicated he was a treat.
The, OTH, you have white militia pointing rifles at federal agents at the Cliven Bundy stand-off on April 2014, with photographs clearly identifying those threatening federal agents with deadly force, and have you seen any one of them arrested?
Crawford might or might not have been shot at the way was due to his race, but there is a clear distinction in attitude and partial/subjective enforcement of the law that still crosses racial lines (Militia at the Bundy's ranch for example.)
Re:Racism of law-enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
Your attempt to include links to such statistics failed.
I did not include the link in an attempt to provide statistics.
Please, try again.
No, I won't. This shit is clear as daylight. I have lived in the flesh. People "see it" or they "don't see it."
If it were "clear", you would've had no problems substantiating it with links to evidence..
We could extend that statement to say if the statement "Jim Crow laws are bad" weren't clear in the past, we wouldn't have needed a whole goddamned Civil Right Movement to make the case for it.
For something like this, with so much evidence that had been published in so many years, "clear" is firmly in the eye of the beholder.
You see it or you don't. I am not going to debate you, and if that gives *you* the impression of winning the point, go ahead and do your victory dance.
Re: the solution: (Score:5, Interesting)
It is about race.
Do you know where the old gun control laws in this country came from? In 1966, the Black Panthers started carrying guns in public. In 1967, the California legislature passed a law against carrying guns in public, which was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The fastest way to get gun control today would be for the black demonstrators to carry guns every time a black man gets shot by a cop.
Re:the solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite - He knows perfectly well that the haplophobes won't just pack it in and go home, just as the anti-DRM crowd know that Sony won't just give up and release everything without adding in-house developed viruses to them.
More importantly, he does what he does to point out absurdity. CA's legislators will pass a band-aid over this particular reality-hack, and Wilson will find a way to mercilessly mock that, as well. The cycle can pretty much continue indefinitely; but most importantly, at each step, they look like fools and he has yet again made his point.
Re:the solution: (Score:5, Interesting)
More importantly, he does what he does to point out absurdity.
He thinks he is pointing out absurdity of gun control laws, but that's because he is (or appears to be, I don't actually know him) emotionally invested into getting rid of all gun control laws. Objectively, though, he's pointing out pretty valuable information regarding future illegal weapons manufacturing. Gun control advocates should be very pleased, because now governments have a much more urgent reason to think about how the law might work with 3D-printed weapons. He's the gray hat hacker of gun control.
Re: (Score:3)
BZZT. (Score:2, Informative)
Selling an un-serialized lower is not illegal. It's just illegal to make it with the intention of selling it.
It's a good idea to serialize it before you sell it though, and record the transaction.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a good idea to serialize it before you sell it though, and record the transaction.
Yup. When the police find an AR-15 with the number "1" cheaply engraved on it, they'll be hot on the trail of the person who bought it!
Re:BZZT. (Score:4, Insightful)
it is against the law to transport it across state lines though
Does it or its owner become suddenly more dangerous after crossing a state line?
This device is not new or interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a small CNC and with a few tool changes and some time i've been making 1911s and ar15s for years...
this isn't new or exciting this is the way ar-15's and 1911s are made
cast rough shape machine to precise specs...
I'm not sure why this is a big deal, its still REALLY hard to build a barrel and chamber so you still need to buy them, honestly making the receiver the registered part is silly most people could build a receiver with time and effort few people could make a decent barrel or precise chamber.
is the only thing he did to make this special is provide the right tooling in the box? and a pre-installed set of gcode big fucking deal it takes 2 seconds to get the gcode for an ar of the net
Re: (Score:2)
and if you don't want to buy any expensive machining equipment you can make an ak47 with some sheet metal and a large format printer
Re: (Score:2)
Hell one guy made a good one out of a single steel shovel and a few parts (barrel blank, bolt, etc).
Re:This device is not new or interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Or just get a shovel.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning!
Re:This device is not new or interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
If this takes off (which I kind of doubt outside of the fringe), you could expect the government to start regulating replacement chambers and barrels as well. I would expect it to have the opposite effect that Cody Wilson is intending.
However, this just delays the inevitable. As home manufacturing improves over time, it will eventually be cheap and easy to make your own gun at home, at which point the Genie is out of the bottle. About the only thing left would be strict regulation of primers and maybe gunpowder itself.
Re:This device is not new or interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
The Genie is already out of the bottle. In fact it has been for centuries. Manufacturing firearms has been been possible for your average person for about as long as blacksmithing has been a vocation. There are parts of modern weapons which require tooling and equipment that is generally beyond the average garage hobbyist, but none of this technology is all that hard or expensive to obtain or duplicate. All the steps are decidedly low tech.
What keeps most from doing all this is that you have to have an uncommon level of understanding of the processes required as well as how to run the equipment needed to produce the necessary parts and it takes a LONG time to run though them all. There are a lot of steps needed to produce properly tempered parts of the correct shapes and sizes. None of the steps are beyond the guy in the garage, there are just a lot of steps. So many that it's a whole lot easier to just buy a ready made weapon, especially when you consider how much your time is worth.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't even think it'd require all that many steps if you designed a weapon meant to be built and assembled by amateurs. During WW2 some clever people actually designed what became known as the STEN, which could be easily produced in significant numbers by resistance fighters and used the ammunition stolen or looted from the Germans. Sure if you want to replicate something as complicated as an M-4 you are looking at a lot of work, but something like a STEN could be done much more easily.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Everyone already has an FBI file.
Re:This device is not new or interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
People, like, the police, for instance?
My uncle, long retired from the NYPD and now dead several years, told me a long time ago that smart cops carry a "throwaway." A throwaway is a small handgun that cannot be traced back to you. Should you happen to shoot dead a denizen of the 'hood you work in, and the shooting might be deemed questionable, you take your throwaway and plant it on the dead guy. Then, there's no question about why you had to shoot him.
Now, I realize we're only 3-D printing AR-15's at this point, and no one can keep one of those in his sock; but one day all sorts of guns will be able to be printed. The cops will be just as happy about this as the mafiosi and cartel kingpins.
Re: (Score:3)
So, your uncle, a law "enforcement" officer, basically admitted to you that he conspired to commit many, many murders over the years, even going so far as to teach his fellow cops how to do the same.
Then he told you about it, and presumably you did not turn him in as you would be legally required to.
Makes a guy wonder... if the average American commits 3 felonies a day, how many felonies do you think Americans who hide behind badges, and their families, commit?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The ability to trace a firearm is overblown. The majority of traces will lead back to a legal owner who had the weapon stolen. The other alternative is an idiot who buys a weapon, registers it, commits a crime with it, and then leaves it at the scene. Even then that is probably not enough to convict. You will have to establish motive and place them at the scene.
And if you have serial numbers then you are most likely in possession of the weapon, so finger printing is a far better investigative track to follo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why this is a big deal, its still REALLY hard to build a barrel and chamber
The answer, of course, is that you print them.
Re: (Score:3)
The receiver is the only part of the gun controlled by the federal government. It's considered "The gun" for all intense and purposes.
All other parts can be ordered online and are exempt from firearms laws. So for those that think the federal government over-regulates firearms (myself included) making a tool that can cheaply produce a receiver is a big win. For years you could cast a receiver and then mill it out. But that required a lot of skill. With this, you can buy this CNC mill, order the cast block o
Hope He Continues (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Next step: abolish all laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But that's just an excuse as well because other countries have th
Re: (Score:3)
Your comment about Canada fails to note that Canada not only has fewer guns per capita, but also fewer capita per square mile. People kill other people either because they are crazy and just want to kill people, or because they are pissed at them. It's a lot harder for crazy people to kill other people when their aren't any other people around. And it's a lot harder to get pissed at people if fewer people are around. I also wonder what their drug/crime rates are, removing gun incidents that occur around oth
Alarmist BS (Score:5, Informative)
But precisely finishing the last 20 percent of a lower receiver has still required access to a milling machine that typically costs tens of thousands of dollars.
Whatever. I made mine with a $350 micro milling machine from Harbor Freight. The template kit to mill & drill the other 20% of the incomplete lower receiver was about the same cost as the 80% complete lower receiver. So all of the parts & tooling in sum total less than $550. Plus I use the mill for other things and the template has resale value. Also FTA:
Defense Distributedâ(TM)s machine canâ(TM)t carve pieces as large as its competitors, but its small size makes it more rigid and precise, allowing it to cut an aluminum lower receiver from an 80 percent lower in around an hour. Thatâ(TM)s a task Wilson says would still be impossible with todayâ(TM)s cheapest hobbyist mills but doesnâ(TM)t require five-figure professional tools. âoeWeâ(TM)re making this easier by an order of magnitude,â he says.
I think that they meant to quote him as saying it is POSSIBLE. An order of magnitude is a gross overstatement, given that this was the 3d milling version of trace paper.
Subversive ambitions aside, Wilson doesnâ(TM)t hide the fact that the Ghost Gunner is also a money-making project.
Indeed.
Or... (Score:2)
Wilson's goal is still to render government gun regulation useless, even as debate rages on banning this kind of manufacturing
Or he will wake the sleeping giant and increased regulation will proliferate!
Honestly, rifles are not the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Are too big to easily hide, attracting the attention of cops. So crooks don't like to carry them.
2) Are too big to easily commit suicide with.
3) Are too big for young children to easily play with.
As a direct result of this, long guns kill less than 500 people a year.
Pistols, however, are used by criminals, by people committing suicide, and by kids playing around with them. As a direct result, over 30,000 people die every year after being shot with a pistol.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pistols are also the best self-defence weapon, and are used countless times around the world to protect the life and dignity of innocents.
People who want to commit suicide will still commit suicide.
Criminals will still get an illegal pistol, or use another equally deadly weapon (knife, machete, baseball bat)
Kids, well, are more likely to drown in a pool or get run over in traffic. Parents are responsible for their well-being and education anyway.
Yet innocent citizens will only have bare hands and harsh lang
Re:Honestly, rifles are not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Dogs are the best self-defence weapon. Their barking scares away countless intruders. They're armed even when you're not home. THEY GO AROUND CORNERS. They can be recalled, do not kill instantly, and can quickly recognize friends by smell.
20 years ago, my dad and I came home from a camping trip a day early, but late at night. If my mom had been armed, she would have shot at both of us. Instead, the dog woofed to wake her up and then went to go greet us.
Re: (Score:3)
The best thing about dogs is their uncanny friend-or-foe instinct.
The other afternoon we had the main front door open but the storm door closed and our dog, a 95 lb. pit bull/dane mix went nuts at the door. I looked outside, expecting to see a squirrel, chipmunk or rabbit close by in the front yard but saw nothing. The field of view is narrow and two seconds later a religious pamphleteer crossed into my view and started heading up the walk and the dog went REALLY nuts.
He doesn't react like this to neighbo
Re:Honestly, rifles are not the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Banning CNC would be utterly pointless (Score:5, Interesting)
An AK-47 receiver made out of a rusty shovel:
http://thechive.com/2012/12/06... [thechive.com]
Perhaps the problem is that the receiver is the legally-controlled part of the gun. Everything else is spare parts. Making receivers is easy now.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that making a barrel is the hardest part. Why isn't the barrel the controlled part?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
from the NRA, who represent weapons manufacturers profit margins (not you.)
As an NRA member I can assure you they are representing me. I pay them to do so and I observe that they do indeed pursue the agenda I expect of them. Membership fees constitute almost half of NRA revenue. In my case that does not include additional voluntary donations to ILA, which amount to about 300% of my membership fee, annually.
To the extent that the NRA also represents the interests of weapon manufacturers they represent me indirectly, as I am a patron of those manufacturers, and it pleases me when
Ok, several aspects to this. (Score:3)
First, guns don't protect, never have, never will. That is not the function of a gun. So anyone on their high horse should look to see if they're suffering altitude sickness.
Second, the design of these specific rifles is a non-issue. The gun market is inherently grey, which means regulation is minimal to non-existent. There's no white hats in weaponry of any kind. And, yes, that includes the re-enactment stuff I work with. I know that, recognize that and accept it*. No shades, just a thick, pea-soup foggy grey.
*That is why I despise "goody two shoes" arguments from both extreme camps. This isn't black, this isn't white, this is murky grey. I own it for my part, I hold nobody to a higher standard than I hold myself, but I refuse to hold them to a lower one either. Own it.
Third, the design of any regular weapon is a non-issue, but nothing stops you from designing an irregular weapon. With modern cheap hardware, a 3D printer and suitable low-cost materials, a person is quite capable of designing a 3-5 mile range sniper rifle that can be controlled via telerobotics from the home. We already know that low-cost cruise missiles with ranges in excess of 100 miles can also be built at home. With 3D printing, the costs become lower. With advances in technology (remember, the $5000 100-mile cruise missile was designed over a decade ago and it wasn't even close to what budget efforts could do), you can expect far greater ranges, far greater precision and far greater payloads today.
This, again, goes back to this being grey hat technology. If a black hat wanted to use such devices, we'd know about. Or, rather, the survivors would. America still exists, so black hats either don't have the courage of their convictions or they don't have the skill. Either way, they're not worthy of consideration. Worthy of being dumped into a deep oceanic trench, bu not worthy of consideration.
White hats? If white hats were building actively guided systems capable of that sort of range, you'd be seeing miniature computer boards running Linux, Squid and Tor relays launched into stable orbits that crossed nations with restricted network access. We don't. We see "peace corps" infiltrators attempting to install such devices directly, along with who knows what malware, causing international incidents and seriously destabilizing international relations, as part of neocon stupidity. White hats putting in a passive alternative with no hostile software and no damage to other nations -- that's an OBVIOUS way to do good for everyone and to minimize harm. But, no, they either don't have the skill or the courage of their convictions.
So it's all grey. That's all there is. Thick, pea-soup fog.
Re:Ok, several aspects to this. (Score:4, Insightful)
First, guns don't protect, never have, never will.
The first eight of your 457 word wall of text shows you're so out of touch with reality that there's no point in reading the rest.
The primary function of guns in private hands is to protect those who carry them. They do that exceptionally well. In criminal attacks, resistance with gun is the most effective way to avoid injury or death. It's substantially more effective than the second best - knuckling under completely - and beats the pants off everything else, from running away, to trying to talk your way out, to resisting with bare hands or other tools. (Resisting with knife is about the worst.)
Research on self-defense is hard, because faiures leave tracks in crime stats while successes usually don't (and often leave the self-defended victim with an incentive to keep quiet about it). Nevertheless, even the first well-run projects were able to put a lower bound of guns preventing or aborting more than six times as many crimes as they aid in committing.
In private hands they're safer than police, too. A defense-with-gun is usually effected by no more than brandishing or occasionally getting off a round in the general direction of the perp. But of those instances where a victim or a policeman shoots someone believed to be a perpetrator, the cop is over 5 1/2 times as likely to erroneously shoot an innocent than an armed private citizen.
My family has substantial personal experience with armed self defense. For just a few examples on my wife's side: In college she was accosted by the rapist in the window, who was dressed in just running shoes and a dirty knife. Fortunately there was a hunting rifle behind the bed: She actually had to go as far as cocking it before he stopped trying to get her to drop it and jumped back out the window - apparently to take it out on another girl a few blocks away, with over 130 cuts while raping her. Her mother defended self and family against a Klan attack with a pistol. (Her granddad was caught away from his gun, though, and had to do his anti-Klan defense with a hammer.) Then there was the aunt, the uncle, ...
At the larger scale it's hard to argue with the fact that the US, founded in a revolution (by religious nut with guns) against their self-admitted "legitimate government" and with over half the adult civilian population armed, has now gone over two centuries without a substantial attack from abroad and only one major internal war, while Europe continues to suffer from genocidal wars, often with multi-million body counts. (With the exception of Switzerland, of course: Every adult citizen there is armed and has had military training. Even World Wars go around them.)
It's also hard to argue with the fact that the US is multi-ethnic, and the common denominator of each of its ethnic groups is that their members' murder victimization rate is substantially less than that of contemporary members of the same ethnic group still residing in their land of origin.
As for resisting an oppressive regime if push comes to shove: We have experiences like "The Battle of Athens" just after WWII, and the documented question from Nixon to a thnk-tank about what would happen if he suspended the presidential election. (Answer: That would precipitate an armed rebellion, and the population was well enough armed that it would succeed.) Uprisings aren't always successful and small or UNarmed uprisings are often put down, sometimes with lots of deaths. (Witness the Bonus Marchers' Massacre.) But recent decades of world politics have shown how effective a popular uprising can be, against even a coalition of world powers and superpowers.
If it came to that in the US, you can expect a substantial amount of the military (especially retirees) to be on the side of the people, along with lots of military equipment raided from armories. (You can see that now in the Middle East. The big difference between Al Queda and ISIS/ISIL is that the latter has bunch of col
Big Deal.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Both of my AR's were obtained without a background check. I bought both from a private seller. 100% legal.
Honestly this is all mental masterbation. You can easily build an AK47 lower without a milling machine and just some hand tools and a old shovel.
In fact.... here you go....
http://www.northeastshooters.c... [northeastshooters.com]
The AR15 is not the best platform in the world, it's just popular. if you really want a gun that can take insane abuse and easily built with hand tools.... AK47 is the gun to build to be subversive..
Why governments hate this so much (Score:3)
Of all the politicians bleating about the dangers of home-made untraceable weapons, and (probably) exhorting us to 'think of the children', how many of them are motivated primarily by concern for their fellow man? I'm betting it's at least a minority, and perhaps a vanishingly small one. No, I think most of them are reacting primarily out of fear - fear of losing their power over the citizenry; fear of primal, animalistic human urges that they want to see only on football fields and battlefields; and fear for their own skins.
I'm very much anti-gun and am strongly in favour of gun control. As a Canadian I contrast the level of gun violence here with that in the US and am thankful my country's traditions are so different. I really don't want to live in a crazy, bullet-riddled land. But in the face of rapidly-growing government power, and rampant governmental abuses of citizens, I'm starting to see the wisdom of people having access to guns. I'd like to think we can find a better way though.
News? (Score:3)
At $1200 for a lower that has no finish on it and doesn't have the upper with it? This is just another PR stunt by some anti-gun group that cooked up this terrible idea. Shocking how stupidly long it took them to come up with it considering the amount of time the 80% lowers have been around. And for what that's worth, what criminal is going to spend that type of cash and time for weapons he can obtain illegally and cheaper then the one this D-bag is selling?
FUD, a term coined on slashdot that now is apparently the stories they strive to put on the site. Sad common sense is no longer used on this site.
Re: (Score:2)
strictly speaking its not a new way, its just a media hyped version of the old way, only now instead of a $10 drill and $5 piece of plastic to finish an ar15 lower, you need a $1200 machine...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
>>>Libya?
Two things.
1. It was coalition airstrikes, not citizens with guns that brought the regime down. No outside force will airstrike nuclear-armed US, no matter how bad things get internally.
2. Where are they now? Anarchy. Not exactly happy ending.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the people of Washington state who are likely going to pass I-594 whose supporters more or less claim it will do just that... While ignoring all of the accidental and nonviolent felons it will create.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Rather missed the point. More rape is actually bad (Score:3)
You rather missed the point, and no, my numbers are not wrong. My numbers are accurate, yours are pointless and irrelevant (but useful to mislead).
When these countries removed the ability of law-abiding citizens to to defend themselves by presenting a gun, far more of them were raped and murdered, often by an attacker with a knife, often by an attacker with a gun. After the ban, the number of attackers with guns dropped a little bit (your statistic), while the number of law-abiding citizens with a gun dro
Re: (Score:3)
Gun deaths in Australia dropped sharply after the ban was enacted [medicalnewstoday.com].
And rapes, and beatings, and other non-gun related violent crimes? Did they also "drop sharply," or did they increase exponentially?
FYI, I already know the answer. I'm just curious if your broken-record train of thought can handle admitting a fact that contradicts the claims you're implying.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Selective use of data can convince you of anything if you desperately want to be convinced of that (which is why climate change is still a debate)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
So, for example
UK firearm deaths (per 100,000 of population): 0.25
US: 10.30
ie, you're 40 times more likely to get killed by a gun in the US than in UK, but sure.. believe what you like.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to, but Obama won't return my calls.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would you want an untraceable computer? I cannot think of any ethical reason
Re: (Score:3)
well put. A lot of "anti-gunners" say to "just call the police"
I usually tell them to read up on Warren vs DC (three college aged women got raped for 4 hours. called 911 several times, and had no response from police. because police are NOT OBLIGATED TO PROTECT YOU)
Re:ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Good. As a libertarian, driver, voter, and not insane person, I understand that there needs to be SOME government regulation of cars. There is no reason not to try something to prevent insane people from getting cars. They're going to murder anyway, but a car makes it simple.
Ban high capacity assault cars- you don't NEED to go faster than 15 mph. You don't NEED to be able to haul a boat.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This guy needs help, not attention (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems like this guy is TRYING to get 3-d printers, CNC machines, and other manufacturing techniques heavily regulated/banned to the public.
Perhaps he is trying to get stupid attempts at firearms regulations banned.