10 thoughts on “Another day another hole in the gun control argument”

  1. off the books in the US. Looking at German gun laws, it seems the barrel is the firearm. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_waffg/englisch_waffg.html http://www.sddc.army.mil/PP/Defense%20Personal%20Property%20Program%20DP3/SDDC%20Europe-Pacific/AER190-6%20Regulation%20for%20POF%20and%20Other%20Weapons%20in%20Germany.pdf

    I didn’t read very closely, but this comes up from time to time as Germans are freely able to own M16 lowers that are fully operable (and, in the US, would be considered a machine gun under the law) but the barrels have to be solid or plugged.

  2. Doesn’t this strengthen the anti’s argument that you shouldn’t be able to buy guns parts unregulated? I came home last night and an AR-15 upper receiver from Midway was leaning against my garage door. It would have given my neighbors fits if they knew what was in that FedEx box.

    • Serializing and tracking all the parts is completely impractical. If it essentially can’t be done and they pass such a law anyway then the courts would be extremely likely to throw it out.

  3. friends:

    have a friend. he’s got family in germany.

    guns are being traded as a matter of everyday life. strictly illegal. the “demand” for guns doesn’t give a shit if they are illegal or not, it wants guns. so, with the proper amount of money, guns are being trafficked.

    if the idiot germans cannot keep muzzies out of germany, how does anyone expect them to keep guns out? it’s impossible. in the end, “money talks, and bullshit walks.”

    john jay

    • None if this will stop the authoritarians, or even give them pause.

      From their point of view it doesn’t have to “work” or be “feasible”. That’s not even an issue. Simply making more Americans into law-breakers is enough. It gives them more cover, or justification, for messing with people.

      The War On Drugs for example is an unmitigated disaster by any measure, and yet they’ll hang on to it for the money and power it gives them. It works.

      Once we fall for the premise that coercion can be a legitimate tool of government, we’ve lost the argument right there.

      “Get them asking the wrong questions, and you won’t have to worry about the answers.”

      They’ve largely got us asking the wrong questions.;
      “Is this law enforceable?”
      “Will this reduce crime?”
      “What do the statistics say?”
      “Will this law keep guns out of the ‘wrong hands’?”

      Those are all slight-of-hand questions, distracting from the one point; government has no more authority to violate human rights than do you or I. Keeping an bearing arms, and self defense, are human rights, and so; hands off.

      It’s a simple as that. We get into the weeds (where the coercives want us) when we take the focus off of the distinction between rights and coercion, and instead argue over side issues.

      I see some new 3D printing tech, and think;
      Freedom of the press
      Printer = “press”
      File sharing = information sharing = first amendment.
      So a 3d printed gun is double hands off. It’s specifically protected by both the first and second amendments. The next thought is that it’s now easier to exercise those rights under some tyrannical laws against the RKBA. None of that will stop the coercives though, as I believe is readily demonstrable..

      Only the inevitability of physical force will stop them. That’s the currency in which they deal.

      • What kind of printer does this or what sort of printing material is required to do this? Considering what the Jews were able to do INSIDE the Warsaw ghetto in 1943, Tam’s statement about 80% STEN gun receivers available in Loews and Home Depot is truer every day.

        • According to the article, it was done on a Fusion F306, which goes for about $4000. Given the material used (PLA plastic) it probably could be done on a significantly cheaper machine; the main issue is the size of the largest part. The F306 is probably more than you need (it can make things a cubic foot in size), but some hobbyist printers have rather limited size constraints.

  4. I’m afraid Lyle is right. And invoking the 1st amendment here won’t help — the antis hate that one, too — much of the time anyway.

    I wonder how well a barrel printed with continuous-fiber reinforced 3d printing (see markforged.com) would work. For that matter, fiber reinforcement seems like a great way to make the whole thing much more compact. It’s said to be as strong as 6061 alloy aluminum, which isn’t quite up to the specs of the strongest aluminum alloys out there but not shabby at all.

    I also wonder if one could print bullets: plastic jackets around, say, a tungsten (or tungsten carbide?) slug inside for adequate mass. The jacket could even be made weak so it comes off, rather than attempting to make it strong enough to hold up to the projectile spin (“discarding sabot”).

  5. “Only the inevitability of physical force will stop them. That’s the currency in which they deal.”

    Which is partly why so many Americans are becoming first time gun owners and the believers in freedom are stocking up on ammunition and buying even more firearms.

    The POTUS truly is the firearms salesman of the century.

    I hope that they do not put us to the test regarding the “currency of force” however the top two Democratic candidates (the criminal and the commie) are making all the wrong noises for gun control. It could end very badly.

Comments are closed.