Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TrollBuster9090

(5,953 posts)
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:14 AM May 2013

People were building .22 'zip guns' when Rand Paul was just a twinkle in the milkman's eye. So...

can the kids in the libertarian peanut gallery please stop jerking off over 3D printer guns, now? The fact that you can MAKE a (pathetic, half-assed excuse for a) gun yourself, instead of having to buy one does not signal the redundancy and impotence of government. Sorry. It didn't mean that in 1973 when my friends and I were building zip guns in High School metal shop when the teacher wasn't around, and it doesn't mean that in 2013 when you're printing zip guns in the computer lab when the teaching assistant isn't around.

In my opinion, this new 'development' will only result in two things. One is very likely, and bad. The other is very unlikely, but good, and long overdue.

1. A lot of libertarian dweebs will end up blowing their fingers off firing plastic guns, and will end up getting snickered at by their grandkids in 2060 when they explain why Grandpa only has seven fingers...and


2. Congress will finally pull its thumb out of its ass and START REGULATING AND TRACKING THE SALE OF AMMUNITION. You can print off all the toy guns you want, but the one thing you'll NEVER be able to make on your own is ammunition. People have been making their own half-assed 'zip guns' for ages, by converting track and field starter pistols, slapping them together out of plumbing supplies, and now printing them out of plastic...but not one of them has ever been able to make their own ammunition.



EDIT-PS: In case you missed it, the reason this is in the news is not necessarily because people are experimenting with the printing of 3D plastic guns. They've been doing that for awhile. The reason it's in the news is because The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (renewed in 2003) is set to EXPIRE in December, and there is a push from one side to renew it, and a push from the other side NOT to renew it.

It's already illegal to make, sell, transport or POSSESS plastic guns. The law was passed in 1988 specifically to prevent HIJACKERS and other criminals from getting guns that can get through metal detectors.
Gun manufacturing companies were already making guns out of polycarbonate that couldn't be detected by metal detectors. The law was intended to prevent your average Joe criminal, terrorist or hijacker from being able to get one legally. The law included exceptions so that 'spy agencies' could still buy them. (ie-CIA agent spies, and Air Marshals could still buy them, just not Joe average.)

It was intended to make it harder for criminals and terrorists to get guns that could escape metal detectors.

Did it completely ELIMINATE the prevalence of guns that could escape metal detectors? NO. Did it make it more difficult for criminals, hijackers and terrorists to get them? YES. Does the fact that it's possible to get around a law or break a law make it pointless to make gun safety laws? NO. But that's what this debate is actually about.

Bringing in UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK legislation would have made it more difficult for criminals to get guns. THAT'S WHY THE GUN LOBBY BLOCKED IT. Because they know that HALF THEIR BUSINESS comes from criminals buying guns through straw man purchases. STOP THAT, AND THEY'LL LOSE MONEY.

THIS IS THE SAME! The GUN LOBBY wants the plastic gun law to EXPIRE in December, and when it does, guess what they'll start doing....MANUFACTURING PLASTIC GUNS.
This has nothing to do with libertarian college geeks printing plastic guns in their college computer science lab. This is yet another FALSE FLAG, front-group move by the gun manufacturers lobby to make more money AT THE EXPENSE OF PUBLIC SAFETY (not to mention public sanity!), and it should be called out for what it is.

40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
People were building .22 'zip guns' when Rand Paul was just a twinkle in the milkman's eye. So... (Original Post) TrollBuster9090 May 2013 OP
True, you need a factory for that. Deep13 May 2013 #1
Yes, ironically the kinds of guns AND ammo you can make yourself TrollBuster9090 May 2013 #3
Muzzle loaders are not Firearms under the FFA formercia May 2013 #8
are you thinking of GCA? gejohnston May 2013 #38
They built black powder guns that oldbanjo May 2013 #12
I don't think those were around when the Constitution was written. brush May 2013 #18
Not black powder, but there was a 20 shot semi-auto rifle in Austria and imported to the US prior to AtheistCrusader May 2013 #19
They were difficult to maintain, expensive and not widespread. brush May 2013 #24
In the 1790's the Austrians were using them against the french. AtheistCrusader May 2013 #25
So gun regulation/law is fine how it is? brush May 2013 #29
Since the NFA, there have been two crimes committed with fully-automatic weapons that were register AtheistCrusader May 2013 #30
Thanks for clearing up your position brush May 2013 #31
However, SkyDaddy7 May 2013 #16
This particular 'printed' gun has a 6oz slug of metal built into it to comply with the AtheistCrusader May 2013 #26
Does not change a thing... SkyDaddy7 May 2013 #33
The technology is not new. AtheistCrusader May 2013 #34
Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #39
welcome to DU gopiscrap Sep 2013 #40
Take away their ammo and they'll run out,... Spitfire of ATJ May 2013 #2
Here's an even better one. $5 for a couple of blocks of wood, a spring, and a break line. TrollBuster9090 May 2013 #4
Fortunately, 3-D printing is still prohibitively expensive Warpy May 2013 #5
I have never made a zip gun but oldbanjo May 2013 #13
Just a few things. A Simple Game May 2013 #14
AR-15 lowers have already been printed and fired for 600 rounds. GreenStormCloud May 2013 #21
K&R jberryhill May 2013 #6
Mine is in a Police Museum formercia May 2013 #7
Society will put up with this for only so long. Massive far reaching gun control will come. onehandle May 2013 #9
Thanks for pointing that out nt Progressive dog May 2013 #10
Tell me where these things are legal. baldguy May 2013 #11
Helps to actually know the law before you start making such claims. AtheistCrusader May 2013 #20
As criminals, actually. :) TrollBuster9090 May 2013 #23
Bullshit. AtheistCrusader May 2013 #27
Pretty sure it isn't illegal in most states to make pipoman May 2013 #15
Late '40's/early '50's zip guns liam_laddie May 2013 #17
Yep, and we also made 'fire-cracker guns' in high school metal shop. TrollBuster9090 May 2013 #22
I was in junior high school in the '50s RebelOne May 2013 #32
Home perms were just a dream back then Blue Owl May 2013 #28
What do home perms have to do with home-made guns? n/t RebelOne May 2013 #35
They have a lot to do with Rand Paul's hair Blue Owl May 2013 #36
OK. You have a point just like his pointed brain. n/t RebelOne May 2013 #37

Deep13

(39,154 posts)
1. True, you need a factory for that.
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:26 AM
May 2013

Serious shooters sometimes assemble their own ammunition components and even cast their own projectiles, but the brass cases and percussion primers need to be mass-produced. The smokeless, modern powder needs a modern chemical factory to produce. There is simply no way to make it at home. There are some guns that can take traditional, black powder, of course, but not high-capacity handguns or semi-auto rifles.

TrollBuster9090

(5,953 posts)
3. Yes, ironically the kinds of guns AND ammo you can make yourself
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:35 AM
May 2013
are exactly the kinds of guns and ammo that the Founding Fathers were referring to when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. As far as I'm concerned, people should be allowed to buy or build as many single-shot, muzzle-loading, black-powder muskets as they want. Let's see how many people a crackpot can shoot at a shopping mall when he has to reload every shot with a ram rod and a powder horn.

formercia

(18,479 posts)
8. Muzzle loaders are not Firearms under the FFA
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:55 AM
May 2013

No Background Check or paperwork.

You can make as many as you like, unless local codes restrict them.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
38. are you thinking of GCA?
Wed May 8, 2013, 08:16 PM
May 2013

The FFA passed in 1938, simply required the first FFLs, record keeping of gun sales by FFLs, required serial numbers, and made possession by convicted felons a federal crime.

brush

(53,467 posts)
18. I don't think those were around when the Constitution was written.
Tue May 7, 2013, 10:04 AM
May 2013

You may have seen it but here's a link for a video about office shootings that will make you think about present day gun laws. The point is, muzzle-loading, Constitution-era guns can not get off a full 30 round magazine in a few seconds and kill up 26 teachers and kids like that Sandy Hook school shooter did.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/16/new-pro-gun-control-psa-depicts-office-shooter-using-a-musket-guns-have-changed-shouldnt-our-gun-laws/

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
19. Not black powder, but there was a 20 shot semi-auto rifle in Austria and imported to the US prior to
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:02 PM
May 2013

the ratification of the 2nd. Girandoni Repeating Rifle. Powerful enough to kill a deer just fine.

brush

(53,467 posts)
24. They were difficult to maintain, expensive and not widespread.
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:41 PM
May 2013

Single fire muzzle loaders were the dominant weapon at the time of the 2nd amendment ratification — point being, guns have changed since 1791 and gun laws have to change accordingly to keep the public safe.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
25. In the 1790's the Austrians were using them against the french.
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:18 PM
May 2013

Also "I don't think those were around" and "not widespread" don't seem to be the same bar to me.

Not long after the ratification, one of these rifles figured prominently into American history. Meriwether Lewis carried one on the Lewis and Clark expedition. Yes they were expensive. Yes they required more specialized training than the contemporary musket-equipped soldier. Yes, they required then-exotic manufacturing processes to build the tanks. But they existed, and were used, and gave plenty of idea where the future of firearms would go. Coincidentally, pepper-box revolvers existed in 1790 as well. Firearms technology has changed considerably less than you might think in the last ~240 years.

'guns have changed' is no more a justification than 'speech has changed', WRT the printing press, wherein you and I can post messages to each other from anywhere in the world without ever having even met, or truly knowing who the other is.

'gun laws have to change accordingly' is also a strange comment, because such laws can and have changed and are changing all the time. Many Revolutionary-Era calibers (anything larger than .50) are now classified a 'destructive device' and therefore not available to the public. We have also restricted weapons on size, cyclic rate, mass of metal, you name it. In some places, we've limited capacities. None of this is impermissible per the courts interpretation of the 2nd amendment, as you cannot carry any time in any place in any manner, just as you cannot use speech at any time, in any place, in any manner, per certain reasonable restrictions.

I can, and have said 'fire' in a theater and nothing happened. I can and do carry a firearm, and nothing has ever happened. it is possible for me to do either task in such a manner as to incite reasonable fear, or break any number of perfectly valid and constitutional laws.

So, better to tighten your group about specifically what, point by point, and tackle them individually, as you would like to protect the public. I happen to support not just background checks, but full registration, yet I can tell you precisely why the last proposed background check legislation was horribly flawed, and did not deserve to be passed into law. We must be correct and true in our aim, or these measures will continue to fail, or have unintended consequences.

brush

(53,467 posts)
29. So gun regulation/law is fine how it is?
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:31 PM
May 2013

More mass shootings to come I guess then with automatic and semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, and no common sense registration of guns like we do cars — NOTHING?

It's not about taking peoples' guns. No one is advocating that at all. We're not even talking about registration for guns already owned but for guns to be sold after the legislation is passed. What's wrong with that?

So school kids, movie-goers, office workers, anyone really, are still to be vulnerable to random gun violence by someone who decides he/she is having a bad day/week/month/year and someone is going to die because they feel like it?

C'mon!

Sensible gun control laws need to be passed and not blocked by a relative few, not all by any means, gun enthusiasts who don't want to own up to owning their weapons?

THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU?

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
30. Since the NFA, there have been two crimes committed with fully-automatic weapons that were register
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:56 PM
May 2013

ed and legally owned in the last fifty years, so you can just skip that part.

I personally believe semi-autos would be a good thing to add to the NFA registry, but unfortunately gun control proponents closed the registry in 1986. That's why a lawfully registered M-16 costs $16,000, to many tens of thousands of dollars, for a $700 piece of machinery. So, in zealously attempting to eradicate these weapons, we've not only ruined a mechanism we could have extended downward with a very simple one-line law, to include semi-auto's, but we also provided the far right with a reason to NEVER register these weapons at all, with the closure of the registry, and effective ban of every select fire weapon made after 1986.

Unintended consequences.

Also, I'm tired of the stupid-assed strawman paraphrase questions. I actually suggested some needed new regulations and laws, don't ask me if I think the laws are fine as they are, as if 'do nothing' might be my opinion. Stop it.

I'm all for registration, but there are significant barriers to enacting such, including past registry performance nationwide with the NFA registry, and in localized cases like the California Assault Weapons registry.

"It's not about taking peoples' guns. No one is advocating that at all. We're not even talking about registration for guns already owned but for guns to be sold after the legislation is passed. What's wrong with that?"

Not registering the existing firearms solves pretty much nothing, given 300 million in circulation. It would help I guess. Not much. Hardly worth doing half-assed. It also raises questions around what was done with the NFA registry. Some guns were registered. When the registry was closed, any gun that qualified under that law, not yet registered, is now illegal to possess. So again, you have to mitigate the fallout of political fuckups of the past that we keep getting beaten around the head and neck with.


Give a little, take a little. Want registration of semi-autos? I propose:

1. Repeal the Hughes Amendment and re-open the NFA registry. (This means civilians can once again purchase NEW fully automatic weapons as they could in 1985. A 'cost', or a 'give'.)
2. Cast-iron grandfathering of existing weapons so long as they be registered. (A 'cost' or 'give', no ex post facto bans even if we identify firearms that are somehow a specific threat to public safety in the future)
3. Extend the NFA registry downward to include ALL semi-auto weapons. (A win/take)
4. New excise tax on firearms, ammo, and ammo components modeled on the existing Pittman-Robertson Act 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition that can be used for hunting purposes, for habitat restoration. Apply these new tax funds to pay for the firearm registry. (win/take)

Package deal, done and done. A re-vitalized registry we can use for all high cyclic rate weapons, implied:

1. We get registration of ALL semi-auto sales, private or public. (No 'gun show loophole' for semi-autos, so-called)
2. We get periodic inspection of people's firearms to ensure they haven't been trafficked, as we have now for fully-automatic weapons.
3. We get 200$ tax stamps for every registered semi-auto to the registry, plus an excise tax of an amount to be determined, hence, no public cost for the registry eating into other budget programs. Maybe money left over for law enforcement, safe storage, etc.
4. We get a list we can use to collect guns from anyone with a restraining order or misdemeanor Domestic Violence conviction, per the Lautenberg Amendment, giving that amendment some long-overdue teeth.
5. They get new NFA weapons.
6. They get exempted non-semi-auto weapons, so granpa's bolt-gun, lever gun, shotgun, revolver, etc, is hedged toward antique/curio status, but still usable.



You can't say 'sensible gun control laws' when you haven't addressed the weaknesses of the already-proposed legislation, which I mentioned, without even asking me what it was, if you don't already know. The previously proposed/spiked legislation was a piece of shit, and passing things like that make it HARDER, not EASIER to pass actual reasonable gun control legislation.

We ALREADY have enormous amounts of damage to un-do from past bad legislation.

brush

(53,467 posts)
31. Thanks for clearing up your position
Tue May 7, 2013, 08:18 PM
May 2013

The tone of your first response made it seem that you were for no gun control legislation at all.

SkyDaddy7

(6,045 posts)
16. However,
Tue May 7, 2013, 09:22 AM
May 2013

Like any technology it will get leaps & bounds better with time...These guns are really illegal anyway because most of the gun can evade airport security & that was made illegal in 1988 (I think) by the passage of the Undetectable Firearms Act & renewed in 2003 under the Bush Administration!! However, it expires in 2013!

We will see if Congress moves to renew strengthen the law to directly address printed firearms or simply write another to address the manufacture of printed guns.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
26. This particular 'printed' gun has a 6oz slug of metal built into it to comply with the
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:21 PM
May 2013

'undetectable weapons' statute currently on the books.

SkyDaddy7

(6,045 posts)
33. Does not change a thing...
Wed May 8, 2013, 04:52 PM
May 2013

The metal slug has nothing to do with the operation of the gun...The gun can be fired without the metal slug & by law that could render this technology illegal. All one needs is a thin nail that can easily escape detection by metal detectors. The fact the guns can be made anywhere by anyone & used to get into secure areas is all that matters. This one guy putting a chunk of metal in his gun did so in an attempt to keep the heat off his back...Especially due to the fact he is making such a public display & knows he has many eyes on.

However, he could be doing lawmakers a big favor by freaking the public out so much that the government might actually get out ahead of this technology before a major political figure is assassinated by one of these one shot one kill weapons that do not require a metal slug inside them to fire.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
34. The technology is not new.
Wed May 8, 2013, 04:58 PM
May 2013

The manner of manufacture is new. That is all.

The Undetectable Firearms statute does not require that the metal in the weapon be a functional component required for the weapon to operate. It merely requires that it be present in the gun. So yeah, that changes it.

What he did was legal. I agree with you, this will likely result in some impending legislation on such firearms. Unfortunately, possibly some legislation on the printers as well.

Response to Deep13 (Reply #1)

TrollBuster9090

(5,953 posts)
4. Here's an even better one. $5 for a couple of blocks of wood, a spring, and a break line.
Tue May 7, 2013, 03:44 AM
May 2013

And I'll bet it's still better than a 3D printed plastic gun.

Warpy

(110,900 posts)
5. Fortunately, 3-D printing is still prohibitively expensive
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:26 AM
May 2013

especially for a gun that has a good chance of melting into uselessness before you get halfway through an ammo magazine of any size.

I'm old enough to remember zip guns, deadly at close range but get someone more than 6 or so feet away and forget it. Thugs might as well have used their switchblades.

oldbanjo

(690 posts)
13. I have never made a zip gun but
Tue May 7, 2013, 08:37 AM
May 2013

I know how and I will guarantee you it would be deadly at 25 yards or more. With the right tools and material you could use most any cartridge.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
14. Just a few things.
Tue May 7, 2013, 08:39 AM
May 2013

3-D printers are not that expensive anymore.
Many 3-D printers can print with metals. These are a little pricier but still surprisingly affordable.
3-D printers can also print clips of any size.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
21. AR-15 lowers have already been printed and fired for 600 rounds.
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:55 PM
May 2013

The upper still has to be steel and aluminum.

formercia

(18,479 posts)
7. Mine is in a Police Museum
Tue May 7, 2013, 06:52 AM
May 2013

Mommy Dearest called the Cops on me.

They didn't find the Colt .38 under a pile of periodicals.

Made mine with just common hand tools.

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
9. Society will put up with this for only so long. Massive far reaching gun control will come.
Tue May 7, 2013, 07:35 AM
May 2013

Keep open carrying. Keep building plastic guns. Keep holding Klan rallies from coast to coast to 'save your culture.'

You are digging your fetishes' grave.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
11. Tell me where these things are legal.
Tue May 7, 2013, 08:11 AM
May 2013

The fact is, they're not. IEDs and child porn are easy to make to. We still have laws against making them, and treat those who do as pariahs.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
20. Helps to actually know the law before you start making such claims.
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:05 PM
May 2013

There are certain criteria it must meet with current laws on the books (6oz of metal in it for detectability), can't be sold, has to be for your own use as you make it, can only fire one shot per pull of the trigger, etc. But yes, within certain constraints it is fully legal.

TrollBuster9090

(5,953 posts)
23. As criminals, actually. :)
Tue May 7, 2013, 02:28 PM
May 2013

That was my point. These people are trying to make the ridiculous argument that because it's possible to get around or break the law, or because a law is difficult to enforce, there is no point to making a law. It's a silly, sophomoric argument, and I can't believe how many people are buying it. I was only demonstrating that home-made guns have been around since the founding of the nation, and so far it hasn't made the idea of governments and laws obsolete. The fact that people are now making them out of plastic instead of brass tubing doesn't change anything.


AND, many people are not aware of the fact that plastic guns are ALREADY illegal. The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 made it illegal to make, transport, sell or POSSESS plastic guns. (Companies were making and selling polycarbonate guns, specifically to evade airport metal detectors. The law made selling them illegal, but allowed certain companies to go on making them for sale to the CIA etc., so that spies could get them through metal detectors. They just weren't available to average Joes.) The law didn't completely STOP the prevalence of plastic guns, it just reduced it. AND, if you CAUGHT somebody with one, they were automatically a CRIMINAL, which they wouldn't be without the law. That's the whole point.

That law is set to expire next December, which is why it's in the news.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
27. Bullshit.
Tue May 7, 2013, 04:38 PM
May 2013

The UFA/88 (Re-passed in 2003, expiring in December of this year, I believe) sets a minimum metal threshold at 3.7oz of stainless or equivalent detectable mass of other metal. (What is required to trip the reference standard for metal detectors)

"The law didn't completely STOP the prevalence of plastic guns, it just reduced it."
My ass. No firearms manufacturer was making a 'plastic gun' in 1988. There were some making polymer FRAMES (Glock, for instance) but the slide and barrel, and other miscellaneous bits and bobs were WELL in excess of 16oz of metal, even completely unloaded, or disassembled into component parts. FAR in excess of the detection threshold of contemporary metal detectors.

Your comments on one-off skunkworks production of exotic weapons for the CIA (alleged) is hardly relevant to this issue. They were exempted anyway, but if they have ever possessed such a tool, it has never been publicly acknowledged. It is entirely possible that the 'prevalence' of such weapons is ZERO.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
15. Pretty sure it isn't illegal in most states to make
Tue May 7, 2013, 09:03 AM
May 2013

a gun for personal use..maybe it should be, I don't know..

liam_laddie

(1,321 posts)
17. Late '40's/early '50's zip guns
Tue May 7, 2013, 09:37 AM
May 2013

Made zip guns out of car radio aerials, cap pistol hammers, a rubber band and a hand-made wood pistol grip. Used 22 shorts only. Very lucky that the brass tubing was strong enough not to fracture and take out an eye or two. Stupid youth we were. Any kind of gun is dangerous when in the hands of short-fused, fact-free idjits. This includes a radical minority of NRA members, especially its leadership and its enabler, the arms industrial complex. YMMV.

TrollBuster9090

(5,953 posts)
22. Yep, and we also made 'fire-cracker guns' in high school metal shop.
Tue May 7, 2013, 02:20 PM
May 2013

You'd get a piece of brass tubing with a closed end, drill a hole small enough to stick the fuse through, then put a fire cracker and a ball bearing in it and light the fuse. Ideally, you'd make some kind of a handle for it because the tubing would heat up when the fire cracker went off. I'm still amazed nobody I knew blew their hand off, but I'm sure other kids probably did.

Still, none of those things were as dangerous as those horrible sling shots that they used to advertise at the back of comic books. Do you remember those? They used rubber tubing and shot a ball bearing. They were probably more deadly than any of those zip guns.

(After all, if Sam Bottoms could shoot Andy Griffith with one, they MUST be dangerous!)

RebelOne

(30,947 posts)
32. I was in junior high school in the '50s
Wed May 8, 2013, 01:26 PM
May 2013

and remember zip guns. It was mostly the teenage thugs that had them.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»People were building .22 ...