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.
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?
Maybe FOSSDEF would have made more sense but it's kind of too late now.
In addition, you could mill your own parts pretty easily, those plans have been available for decades as well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Literally 10 seconds on Google.
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.
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.
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.
I'd love to see the people take some of the power back without a bloody, internal war.
Yes, that's why basically all Europe lives in a dictatorship now-a-days due to our gun control laws.
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...
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.
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).
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
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)
[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.
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.
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.
Print the Legend, from 2014, on the story of 3d printing. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3557464/
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license...
If true, that's extremely surprising to me as a US citizen.
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.
