It is clear, and has been for some time, that 3-D printers are going to destroy the entire “gun control” effort to disarm people. In order to assuage the fears of gun owners, gun prohibitionists have ensured that their laws only forbid the sale, purchase, gift, or inheritance of firearms, but not the ownership itself. How one is supposed to own a firearm without the ability to receive it is a mystery that is self-explanatory.
The 3-D printers therefore find the large loophole in the entire gun prohibitionist effort. People with a 3-D printer do not need to purchase or inherit a firearm. They can make the weapons themselves, and these firearms do not contain any traceable serial numbers that would enable the government to determine who had purchased firearms in the past.
While this is leaving most progressive hoplophobes confused, some are taking an interesting line to attack the 3-D printed firearms. They are deriding these firearms on the grounds that these firearms are fragile and of very low quality. If used seriously they would not last long.
This is a fascinating attack. It is analogous to saying that since Gutenberg’s press could only print twelve lines per page there is no way it would ever evolve into the modern newspaper and book publishing industry. Babbage’s difference engine is much too slow to handle millions of calculations per second.
The printing press and the difference engine did indeed improve after they were first invented by Gutenberg and Baggabe, which is why there is now the internet in which people can access phenomenal amounts of information instantly.
The same is true of the 3-D printer. It is in its earliest stages of development, which means that the current printer is much like a twenty line printing press. Those who deride the quality of the 3-D printed firearms are effectively saying that it is no use to develop the technology any farther much like it was not useful to develop the movable type printer.
Yes, the current printed firearm is not as of high quality as a manufactured firearm. That does not mean it will always be not as of high quality.
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Sunday, February 24, 2013
The Nose in the Tent
A constant mantra of those who constantly seek additional restrictions on firearms is that there is no call to confiscate any firearms. All the restrictions have been on the acquisition of firearms; the purchase, sale, gift, inheritance, or manufacture. Whenever those who oppose limiting self defense get too worried about new firearm restrictions get concerned about new proposals, the mantra is repeated that the panic is over nothing since nothing in the new proposed legislation involves confiscation. Even the gun registration proposals do not include any proposals to confiscate any already owned firearms.
That is until now. In California there are now proposals to end the "grandfathering" of older acquisitions that are restricted by new laws. In a package of legislation there is the first step towards a law that authorizes confiscation.
According to the proposed legislation, the purchase of ammunition would require the same background checks that are required for firearms. The purchase of semi-automatics would be forbidden, which is more extreme than legislation anywhere else in the United States. The sale of magazines that can hold more than ten bullets would also be restricted. The part that should be of greatest concern is that the ownership of any existing magazines larger than the ten bullet limitation would be forbidden.
The author of the legislation explains that the biggest failing of any gun control (sic) legislation is that a person can claim that any forbidden item was purchased before it was forbidden. Although this newest restriction does not cover firearms, it does cover magazines and therefore sets a precedent for applying ownership restrictions and turn in restrictions to the realm of gun legislation.
That is the point of the additional feature of the restriction of magazine size. It creates a precedent. Unless this particular measure is overturned in the courts it creates a precedent that will be difficult to challenge when future applications of ownership restrictions are enacted. The argument by those who wish to restrict ownership will be that ownership restrictions are not new, that by accepting the confiscation for one feather therefore confiscation for all features is accepted. Also when these measures are enacted in other states, their existence in California will serve as a precedent.
That is why this particular law, the law that requires the turn in of all oversized magazines, must be the first priority to challenge the requirement to turn in all magazines that are covered by this new proposed legislation. It stands in stark contrast to all the assurances of those who oppose effective self defense and is the next step towards disarming the population of the United States.
That is until now. In California there are now proposals to end the "grandfathering" of older acquisitions that are restricted by new laws. In a package of legislation there is the first step towards a law that authorizes confiscation.
According to the proposed legislation, the purchase of ammunition would require the same background checks that are required for firearms. The purchase of semi-automatics would be forbidden, which is more extreme than legislation anywhere else in the United States. The sale of magazines that can hold more than ten bullets would also be restricted. The part that should be of greatest concern is that the ownership of any existing magazines larger than the ten bullet limitation would be forbidden.
The author of the legislation explains that the biggest failing of any gun control (sic) legislation is that a person can claim that any forbidden item was purchased before it was forbidden. Although this newest restriction does not cover firearms, it does cover magazines and therefore sets a precedent for applying ownership restrictions and turn in restrictions to the realm of gun legislation.
That is the point of the additional feature of the restriction of magazine size. It creates a precedent. Unless this particular measure is overturned in the courts it creates a precedent that will be difficult to challenge when future applications of ownership restrictions are enacted. The argument by those who wish to restrict ownership will be that ownership restrictions are not new, that by accepting the confiscation for one feather therefore confiscation for all features is accepted. Also when these measures are enacted in other states, their existence in California will serve as a precedent.
That is why this particular law, the law that requires the turn in of all oversized magazines, must be the first priority to challenge the requirement to turn in all magazines that are covered by this new proposed legislation. It stands in stark contrast to all the assurances of those who oppose effective self defense and is the next step towards disarming the population of the United States.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
They Should Be Allies
There was recently a gun buy-back program, sponsored by a medicinal marijuana dispensary. This is an interesting, if unfortunate event considering the common ground between those who believe in marijuana reform and protecting the second amendment.
It is a common enough occurrence, people who should be allies find themselves separated by party lines and the same underlying issue is divided between red and blue. Those who believe in ending the war on drugs are seldom the same people who believe in ending the war on guns, yet both are reacting against an overly strong federal government violating people's rights.
It is the same basic issue, self determination and the freedom to act in any way that doesn’t cause harm to others. Yet many liberals who support marijuana reform are terrified of firearms, and many conservatives who defend the second amendment are staunch opponents of drugs.
Not all liberals support drug reform, but it is within the allowable range of ideas for liberals. Likewise not all conservatives want to protect the second amendment, but it is within the allowable range of ideas. But support for gun liberty is not allowed for liberals and support for drug reform is not allowed for conservatives. Libertarians are once again completely outside the standard spectrum.
This is yet another in a long list of examples of how the two party system is designed to keep people apart from and opposed to each other. Natural allies lose sight of the common ground by the focus on specific issues as well as the great blinders of the red versus blue divide.
It is a common enough occurrence, people who should be allies find themselves separated by party lines and the same underlying issue is divided between red and blue. Those who believe in ending the war on drugs are seldom the same people who believe in ending the war on guns, yet both are reacting against an overly strong federal government violating people's rights.
It is the same basic issue, self determination and the freedom to act in any way that doesn’t cause harm to others. Yet many liberals who support marijuana reform are terrified of firearms, and many conservatives who defend the second amendment are staunch opponents of drugs.
Not all liberals support drug reform, but it is within the allowable range of ideas for liberals. Likewise not all conservatives want to protect the second amendment, but it is within the allowable range of ideas. But support for gun liberty is not allowed for liberals and support for drug reform is not allowed for conservatives. Libertarians are once again completely outside the standard spectrum.
This is yet another in a long list of examples of how the two party system is designed to keep people apart from and opposed to each other. Natural allies lose sight of the common ground by the focus on specific issues as well as the great blinders of the red versus blue divide.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
False flag cell phone guns
One alleged reason that the police are so quick to take action against anyone who uses a cell phone to make a video recording of their activities is because the cell phone might actually be a weapon. And there are two reported incidents of firearms that are disguised as cell phones.
The first was discovered in 2000. The second was discovered in 2008. Their existence was verified by Snopes. There are a few problems with the reports though.
First, the only reports of these disguised firearms come from reports of the police finding them. There are no reports of anyone ever actually using these firearms. There is never even any follow-up to the stories, such as trials for those the police seized these firearms from.
Second, although the design of cell phones has changed during the eight years between the two stories, the pictures are nearly identical to the point where it is very possible that they are pictures of the same firearm. If they are not the same firearm then they were manufactured from identical cell phones by the same person and function the same way.
Third, there are only two incidents in eight years. One report could mean this is an isolated incident of one person trying to disguise a gun. More than one report means these are being manufactured in some bulk. But if they are being manufactured in that way why are there only two incidents?
To believe the official version of events it is necessary to believe that the government never runs any false flag operations. On the other hand, to believe that this is a set up by the government to give police an excuse to confiscate any cell phones (that coincidentally have cameras) is to be a conspiracy theorist. Never mind that when cell phones are returned the videos have been deleted.
The first was discovered in 2000. The second was discovered in 2008. Their existence was verified by Snopes. There are a few problems with the reports though.
First, the only reports of these disguised firearms come from reports of the police finding them. There are no reports of anyone ever actually using these firearms. There is never even any follow-up to the stories, such as trials for those the police seized these firearms from.
Second, although the design of cell phones has changed during the eight years between the two stories, the pictures are nearly identical to the point where it is very possible that they are pictures of the same firearm. If they are not the same firearm then they were manufactured from identical cell phones by the same person and function the same way.
Third, there are only two incidents in eight years. One report could mean this is an isolated incident of one person trying to disguise a gun. More than one report means these are being manufactured in some bulk. But if they are being manufactured in that way why are there only two incidents?
To believe the official version of events it is necessary to believe that the government never runs any false flag operations. On the other hand, to believe that this is a set up by the government to give police an excuse to confiscate any cell phones (that coincidentally have cameras) is to be a conspiracy theorist. Never mind that when cell phones are returned the videos have been deleted.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Yet another Obama "reversal"
Obama has filled his cabinet with people who have positions in alignment with Obama's voting record but at variance with his campaign rhetoric and the wishes of his true believers. One example is that "peace candidate" Obama has appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. It is no secret that she was one of the most hawkish members of the Senate.
Also Obama supposedly is not as bad on gun liberty as most Democrats are, based on one speech he gave where he expressed some support for the second amendment. This stands in contrast to his record, but with Obama the image has been shown to be more important than the reality time and again. Then, like the appointment of Hillary which reflects questionable positions on war, he appointed Eric Holder who has never met a restriction on gun rights that he did not like to the position of Attorney General.
When confronted by the dissonance between the position and the appointment, Obama supporters are quick to assure people that these subordinates will take their cues from Obama, that they will not press their own agenda. A more interesting question to ask, and one avoided by Obama supporters, is whether or not these appointments reflect Obama's actual positions and therefore there is no need for Obama to rein in his underlings.
According to Attorney General Holder, Obama has recently come out in favor of renewing the "assault" weapon ban.
The "assault" weapon ban was one of the worst pieces of firearm legislation ever passed, and its renewal should be opposed by both who believe in the liberty of self defense and those who oppose the liberty of self defense.
There is no actual definition of "assault weapon." Firearms are classified by operation. Primary classifications are fully automatic, semi-automatic, and those that are not automatic at all. Secondary classifications include muzzle velocity and caliber.
The "assault" weapon ban did not impact a single fully automatic weapon. Not only did none of them fit into the bill's definition, fully automatics were already generally forbidden to the public before the "assault" weapon ban passed.
Every firearm banned by the "assault" weapon ban was a semi-automatic, but it did not ban all semi-automatics. Nor did it ban semi-automatics according to classifications such as muzzle velocity or caliber. It banned some due to cosmetic effects, and failed to ban others that were functionally equivalent in every way.
It was a horrible bill, one that deserved to expire. Only someone with absolutely no regard for any form of common sense with regards to gun control could possibly support it. Eric Holder supports it, and according to Holder, Obama also supports it.
Also Obama supposedly is not as bad on gun liberty as most Democrats are, based on one speech he gave where he expressed some support for the second amendment. This stands in contrast to his record, but with Obama the image has been shown to be more important than the reality time and again. Then, like the appointment of Hillary which reflects questionable positions on war, he appointed Eric Holder who has never met a restriction on gun rights that he did not like to the position of Attorney General.
When confronted by the dissonance between the position and the appointment, Obama supporters are quick to assure people that these subordinates will take their cues from Obama, that they will not press their own agenda. A more interesting question to ask, and one avoided by Obama supporters, is whether or not these appointments reflect Obama's actual positions and therefore there is no need for Obama to rein in his underlings.
According to Attorney General Holder, Obama has recently come out in favor of renewing the "assault" weapon ban.
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
The "assault" weapon ban was one of the worst pieces of firearm legislation ever passed, and its renewal should be opposed by both who believe in the liberty of self defense and those who oppose the liberty of self defense.
There is no actual definition of "assault weapon." Firearms are classified by operation. Primary classifications are fully automatic, semi-automatic, and those that are not automatic at all. Secondary classifications include muzzle velocity and caliber.
The "assault" weapon ban did not impact a single fully automatic weapon. Not only did none of them fit into the bill's definition, fully automatics were already generally forbidden to the public before the "assault" weapon ban passed.
Every firearm banned by the "assault" weapon ban was a semi-automatic, but it did not ban all semi-automatics. Nor did it ban semi-automatics according to classifications such as muzzle velocity or caliber. It banned some due to cosmetic effects, and failed to ban others that were functionally equivalent in every way.
It was a horrible bill, one that deserved to expire. Only someone with absolutely no regard for any form of common sense with regards to gun control could possibly support it. Eric Holder supports it, and according to Holder, Obama also supports it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)