|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 17, 2013, 08:36 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Glenn noted:
Quote:
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
|
November 17, 2013, 08:39 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
Quote:
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
|
November 17, 2013, 08:42 PM | #28 |
Junior Member
Join Date: November 9, 2013
Posts: 11
|
The debate is concerning plastic lower recievers on AR15 style weaponry. The lower reciever is the only part that is regulated so if you can build your own (which has already been done succesfully), then you can get around the regulation.
A plastic upper reciever would be much more difficult and is not currently possible (to my knowledge) because of heat. |
November 17, 2013, 08:55 PM | #29 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Quote:
Chaz88 noted: Quote:
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
||
November 17, 2013, 09:14 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
Quote:
News plays clips of an AR type gun with the printed lower. Then talks about how the gun can go right through detectors. Maybe the lower can but it needs the upper to work. News shows a mostly plastic gun that can shoot once or twice and portrays it as an end of the world bad guy dream weapon. I can accomplish the same thing with some drill bits and a piece of plastic or even better some carbon fiber cloth and resin. You can already build an unregulated lower as long as it is for your own use and not be breaking the law. Now because of a 3D printer it might all change. Maybe it is a change nobody cares about. If so then maybe it is the test case for the "compromise" people are always talking about. Give them the invisible gun renewal, I think that is a non issue anyway, and give up manufacture for your own use and get some other regulation repealed. But remember it is not compromise if you do not get anything in return.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
|
November 17, 2013, 10:44 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Posts: 525
|
Anything the 3-D printers can currently make, can currently be done with better materials using a lathe and mill. This may one day change such that the 3-D printers can compete. It doesn't matter. This only changes the method for something which can already be done. Any panic mongering connection to firearms production is just that and part of a wider attempt to create fear.
This is also probably more a pre-cursor to general control of 3-D printers and scanning. The printers are getting all the press, but 3-D scanning is getting cheaper too. It'll be a joke to reverse engineer some things with a 3-D scanner and then print them out. Some products will no longer make sense to market because folks will be able to make it themselves. |
November 17, 2013, 10:59 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
|
Things like this aren't going to silence the debate at all:
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-P...inister-318733 Quote:
|
|
November 17, 2013, 11:17 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
I guess that makes the invisible gun law more relevant but I still do not think it makes the 3D printer an issue.
From what I read it was not loaded. Could he have gotten ammunition through security? If not then it was a fancy piece of plastic. I think the bottom line is if bad guys want to do bad things and are willing to die doing it they can find a way.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
November 18, 2013, 12:54 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
I think it's a fallacy that a plastic gun won't show up on a x-ray scanner. I've seen the scanned images on the airport security scanners and am pretty sure it will show. People are concerned about body bits showing up on the scanner so the plastic gun is going to show.
Now, if it had a profile that was significantly different from a common handgun, it may slip through unrecognized. |
November 18, 2013, 03:38 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
Airport scanners are pretty sophisticated. But, most other scanners (federal building, courts, etc.) are simply metal detectors.
|
November 18, 2013, 06:13 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 22, 2012
Location: Marriottsville, Maryland
Posts: 1,738
|
Reliable authorities consider it questionable whether a metal detector can detect metallic ammo in a plastic polymer made gun. I've heard --- from the inventor --- that the plastic pistol experiences many misfires; so it's "not reliable." I believe he BATFE complained and shut down the inventor's web site about the makings of the plastic pistol, after about 100,000 downloads.
__________________
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." --- George Orwell |
November 18, 2013, 07:46 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
|
I would think getting .380 ammo in would be pretty simple, hidden inside a pen, or an electronic device, or even a belt buckle. You only need one or two to accomplish what you're there to do.
2ndsojourn - I've never seen one other than airports, but you're right it would pick up the shape no problem. Last time a flew I had to pull a small wad of bills out of my pocket cause the agent could see them on the monitor. But if the solution is to install the new gen scanners at court houses, federal buildings, etc. then I need to invest in the companies with those contracts. Who's going to pay for all those, I wonder? |
November 18, 2013, 08:27 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
All this talk about concealable weapons for an assasin brings to mind the 1971 novel The Day of the Jackal where an assasin hid a custom built sniper rifle inside a crutch. It's the sort of thing that could still be done today since most crutches are metal which would presumably mask a rifle barrel, etc.
|
November 18, 2013, 09:26 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
I might need to reconsider my stance on the subject. The last several posters have made a good case for more laws and restrictions.
That darn reasonable inch leads to trouble every time.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
November 18, 2013, 10:10 PM | #40 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Banning a new technology because of how it might be used? That leads to a rather lubricious incline.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 18, 2013, 10:18 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
Quote:
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
|
November 18, 2013, 10:35 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
"A dedicated attacker will succeed."
The question becomes how much of a hole do you want to live in. I may be getting older but still not willing to live scared in a basement.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
November 26, 2013, 01:11 AM | #43 |
Member
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: Saint Michael, MN
Posts: 47
|
This pdf has some pictures of thermo-conductive imaging. 3D printing of firearms pdf Several sources, examiner.com Is NRA throwing printed guns under the bus?, a National Shooting Sports Foundation email that I received, and a few others have stated that the undetectable firearms act renewal bills will start moving again after Thanksgiving. The current law will sunset on Dec 9th. A new bill, S1774 was introduced Nov 21st. Its text is not yet available, but it is likely a strait renewal with a one year sunset. Gabrielle Giffords'/Mark Kelly's "American's for Responsible Solutions." reports that the NRA has agreed not to oppose the bill. They are not a trustworthy source, and it is not clear which bills they are referring to. Everyone please contact your reps and the NRA, as well as every other gun organisation and forum to get the word out to oppose this renewal effort. The NSSF email indicated that a strait renewal was going to pass. Even lowering the metal requirement per the standards in the law asking the AG to do that as technology advances does not seem to be in the cards. Edit: Note that HR1474 and S1149 would ban manufacture of plastic bodied magazines and firearm receivers from non FFL 07 holders. Last edited by dustind; November 26, 2013 at 01:18 AM. |
November 26, 2013, 03:18 AM | #44 |
Member
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: Saint Michael, MN
Posts: 47
|
S1774 A bill to reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 for 1 year was just introduced on Nov 21st. Its text is not yet available, but it is likely a strait renewal.
Several sources, examiner.com Is NRA throwing printed guns under the bus?, a National Shooting Sports Foundation email that I received, and a few others have stated that the undetectable firearms act renewal bills will start moving again after Thanksgiving. The current law will sunset on Dec 9th. Everyone please contact your reps and the NRA, as well as every other gun organisation and forum to get the word out to oppose this renewal effort. This issue has been in the news heavily for the last two weeks. I was hoping it would expire quietly, but that clearly will not happen. |
November 26, 2013, 09:15 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
FYI Philadelphia has banned making 3D guns.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
November 26, 2013, 09:49 AM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
I really could care less about 3-D printed guns. Clunky, dangerous, expensive, and what not render them out of my sphere of interest.
However, the thought of being able to print my own 30 round standard capacity magazines makes me as giddy as a school boy in a candy store the day before Christmas.
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
November 26, 2013, 11:13 AM | #47 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Where does the GCA ban making unimportable guns? Most of the small pistols and military style rifles are US made to avoid import bans.
|
November 26, 2013, 01:37 PM | #48 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
We had an older thread on this matter, and folks are still commenting there, so I'm going to merge them.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
November 26, 2013, 03:47 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
Wow, I didn't realize the original Undetectable Firearms Act dated to 1988. I always though it came about in 1990 with Die Hard 2.
Yeah, kinda glad I was just getting around to being born when that passed. However, something I've noticed in my experience with gun rights activities, and this is tangentally related to the new bill, is that guys and girls who are my age, and who came about in the firearms world during the AWB seem to get more invovled via social media with proposed legislation. That's a good thing, a gun culture 2.0 if you will.
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
December 2, 2013, 05:55 PM | #50 |
Member
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: Saint Michael, MN
Posts: 47
|
From TTAG (The Truth About Guns):House of Representatives Could Vote on “Undetectable Firearms Act” As Soon As This Afternoon
They clearly didn't today but it is likely to happen this week. Spread the word near and far. Contact your reps, the pro gun groups that haven't come out against this, and everyone else you know. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|