9 ms·

The irony isn't lost on me that it's the USA, the country with some of the most permissive gun laws in the world, that's imposing these draconian rules on 3D pr

by nippoo 8mo ago

The irony isn't lost on me that it's the USA, the country with some of the most permissive gun laws in the world, that's imposing these draconian rules on 3D printed guns - or is this pressure from the gun manufacturing lobby?

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
WillPostForFood 8mo ago
It is pressure from the gun control lobby. Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group, is the brains behind it. The states moving this legislation (California, Washington) are very hostile to gun ownership, and already have bans on assault rifles and printed guns. This is just another step in tightening the noose.
kube-system 8mo ago
Politically the US is very much not a monolith on this topic and many states and localities have passed laws that were later struck down as unconstitutional. This is a bill in California, which does have about the strictest laws that the federation allows them to have, and they would place even stronger restrictions on guns if they could. This is not really ironic as much as it is pushing the envelope for gun control as far as they legally can. But also, California regulators likely see the regulatory landscape as the reason this law is needed rather than in spite of it. Gun manufacturers are likely against these types of regulations because many of them would affect manufacturers and the tools they use too.
- guelo 8mo ago
  > strictest laws that the federation allows them to have Note that "the federation" allowed states to have stricter gun laws until recently when we got a new partisan supreme court that is out of step with the previous 200 years of jurispudence.
  - kube-system 7mo ago
    It was confirmed for the previous ~130 or so, at least, since United States v. Cruikshank... although I certainly wouldn't want to go back to those days before the Bill of Rights were incorporated against state/local governments... Basically it was a blank check for racists to suppress minorities. The result of United States v. Cruikshank was that southern states were allowed to to prohibit black individuals from owning firearms to defend themselves from the KKK. Not exactly a great example of gun control. What's also crazy it is that it is also relatively recently that the first amendment was incorporated against states and localities as well.
- PunchyHamster 7mo ago
  > Gun manufacturers are likely against these types of regulations because many of them would affect manufacturers and the tools they use too. No chance. For them compliance is the easiest thing in the world to law like that
  - kube-system 7mo ago
    Well, the NRA has come out against all of these proposed bills and has mentioned concerns about requirements that they may place on manufacturers. https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260218/washington-action-alert-senate-committee-hearing-on-3d-printing-ban-this-friday https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260218/washington-action-a... https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260112/bans-for-3d-blueprints-new-york-governor-pushes-anti-gun-anti-speech-proposals https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260112/bans-for-3d-bluepri...
  - maxlybbert 7mo ago
    The gun manufacturer's trade association has consistently said that 3D-printed "ghost guns" are more fantasy than reality, and that legal designs don't cause any more trouble than other legal guns: https://www.nssf.org/articles/3d-printers-cannot-produce-undetectable-firearms/ https://www.nssf.org/articles/3d-printers-cannot-produce-und... .
thom_nic 8mo ago
> is this pressure from the gun manufacturing lobby Definitely not, it's pressure from the anti-gun lobby that keeps pushing "one more bill that this time will actually change violent crime statistics, we promise!" These bills are being introduced in the states that already have the most restrictive gun control already, yet to nobody's surprise, hasn't done much to curb violent crime. But the lobby groups and candidates campaign and fundraise on the issue so they have to keep the boogeyman alive rather than admit that the policies have been a failure.
- sellmesoap 8mo ago
  Ironically the anti-gun lobby seems to drive a lot of gun sales, perhaps it is not what it says on the tin?
  - nostromo 8mo ago
    No conspiracy required. There's a lot of money to be made lobbying against guns - in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year - regardless of efficacy.
  - delichon 7mo ago
    I have three guns. One I inherited, two I bought right before California turned up gun restrictions. Possibly the greatest time for gun makers was when Hilary Clinton had a clear lead in the race for president.
    - dylan604 7mo ago
      A democratic governor/president is the greatest salesman for the gun industry. When a Dem is in office, the right wing comes out with all of the "they're coming for your guns" which is followed by a spike in gun sales.
      - tracker1 7mo ago
        The latter doesn't make the former untrue. There are plenty of people that want to eliminate all private gun ownership altogether, even if their public speech is more moderate.
rconti 8mo ago
This is a reaction to the inability to accomplish anything at the federal level in the "we have to do SOMETHING" vain.
- ToucanLoucan 8mo ago
  ^ This. The Feds are so utterly gridlocked in culture war nonsense and whatever dumb bullshit Trump is up to that they cannot effectively govern. States and activists groups are trying to address actual problems the country has, instead of just playing political games on Twitter.
  - nostromo 7mo ago
    Ah yes, the actual problem facing America right now... unsanctioned 3d printers. Thank you California for acting on this, our top national priority.
    - ToucanLoucan 7mo ago
      The actual problem is gun violence which you absolutely, 100% know.
      - nostromo 7mo ago
        Which this bill will do nothing to solve, which you absolutely 100% know.
        ToucanLoucan 7mo ago
        I know no such thing. The number one type of gun death is by far, suicide. When a gun owner takes a gun home (or in this case, prints one) statistically speaking they are more likely to use it to end their own lives or harm themselves more than anything else. You could make a similar case for this as was made for the banning of highly toxic coal gas in the UK in the 1960's. Most suicides are acts of distressed individuals who have quick, easy access to means of ending their own lives. The forced changeover from coal gas to natural gas is largely credited with a reduction of suicide by 40% after it was done. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC478945/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC478945/ I don't think 3d printed guns have been around long enough to really provide meaningful data on whether this law will be effective, and on the whole, I'm not thrilled about it. But again, as was originally commented: this is an issue where states are, perhaps ineffectively and ineptly, attempting to solve what they see as problems, under a federal government that has shown itself incredibly resistant to common sense gun regulation that virtually everyone, including the gun owning community, thinks is a good idea.
conradev 8mo ago
It is both the USA and California. California doesn't allow most guns that other states allow and there is a lot of friction between CA and the USG.
jwitthuhn 8mo ago
In the US there is a certain class of politician that considers poor people being able to exercise their rights a problem that needs to be solved.
- dylan604 7mo ago
  Is that really limited to the US though?
stuffn 8mo ago
It's the anti-gun lobby. Bloomberg's band of morons who believe a government monopoly on force is good. These bans are almost exclusively in states with already extremely strict (high rated by the gifford's law people) gun laws. So far, there is zero evidence in the last 30 years more strict gun laws have curbed crime. The states with the strictest laws conveniently have the highest proportion of gun crime. The same people writing these laws don't understand what "per capita " means. Nor are they willing to confront the reality of what the data shows. The calculus for these petty tyrants has changed from banning guns wholesale to lawfare. Make owning and purchasing firearms so burdensome the market dies, and with it, the rights. This is just another play in that strategem. Fun fact: More people died last year putting foreign objects in their rears than by AR-15s. That is how insane the anti-gun lobby has become. They are literally barking at their own shadow these days.
- dekhn 8mo ago
  Can you redo your "fun fact" but include all types of guns?
  - Dylan16807 7mo ago
    Well there is a lot of weird focus on entirely the wrong things when criticizing guns.
  - rpdillon 7mo ago
    Pew does what they can: > In 2023, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 53% of the 13,529 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 4% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (42%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.” Interesting findings: Most gun deaths are suicides with handguns. Assault weapons are used in less than 5% of deaths. Handguns account for 53% of the deaths. Shotguns are negligable. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-...
plandis 8mo ago
I think the current government of California would significantly regulate firearms if they could. It’s prevented from passing more restrictive laws due to the US constitution and a Supreme Court which takes an extremely broad interpretation of the rights derived from the second amendment.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
oceanplexian 8mo ago
It's not the most "permissive gun laws in the world". In Norway you can buy a suppressor off the shelf with little to no paperwork. If you live in CA and don't want to experience permanent hearing damage from shooting, you'll catch a Felony for simply possessing one. It's a big middle finger like the rest of California's gun laws.
- FireBeyond 7mo ago
  I mean on Amazon you can buy them too, you just might have to look for something like a "lawnmower muffler for 9mm exhausts".
  - jerkstate 7mo ago
    That’s a felony everywhere though
  - OkayPhysicist 7mo ago
    Sure, if you're a big fan of getting your dog shot and yourself thrown in federal prison for 10 years.
- BobaFloutist 7mo ago
  I'm pretty much a gun control maximalist, but I would be more than happy to barter suppressor restrictions for pretty much anything else, since I agree with you that there's a good non-shooting-other-people reason to want to have them and I doubt they're actually that relevant to murder stats.
jopsen 8mo ago
This only benefits expensive proprietary enterprise 3D print makers..
rdtsc 8mo ago
> The irony isn't lost on me that it's the USA, the country with some of the most permissive gun laws in the world, that's imposing these draconian rules on 3D printed guns - or is this pressure from the gun manufacturing lobby? It's like saying "I am baffled by Europe, look at what Hungary is doing ..." For example, some states don't need any permit to open or conceal carry, some have no minimum age requirements to buy guns, and the majority don't have any mention of 3D printed guns. Federal law applies then about untraceable guns and or arms that cannot be detected by metal detectors. But those predate 3D printers as we know them today.
SilverElfin 7mo ago
It’s pressure from the anti gun obsessed nonprofits on the left like Everytown. Bloomberg has nowhere else to waste money and there are legislators willing to present bills authored by Everytown blindly. But in many cases gun control bills are known to be unconstitutional and pushed through anyways. It takes years for laws to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and even if they are, states like Washington or California or Oregon will just pass the next Everytown authored unconstitutional bill with a slight variation. The real fix is that we need to get rid of immunity for legislators. When they violate the civil rights of the constitutional rights of citizens through their actions, they must be held personally liable and must go to jail.
- throwway120385 7mo ago
  > The real fix is that we need to get rid of immunity for legislators. When they violate the civil rights of the constitutional rights of citizens through their actions, they must be held personally liable and must go to jail. Why are you so angry about this?
  - 15155 7mo ago
    If someone prevents you from exercising your right to vote, would you be angry?
- AngryData 7mo ago
  If by "the left" you mean the DNC, then sure. Otherwise, Marxists, Socialists, and other far left groups are perfectly fine with guns. Hell Vermont has some of the highest gun ownership rates and most permissive gun laws in the nation, while having Bernie Sanders as a senator.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
gopalv 7mo ago
> that's imposing these draconian rules on 3D printed guns This is a bill with no votes - the first committee hearing is in March. The purpose of the bill seems to be have some controversy & possibly raise the profile of the proposer. The bill is written very similarly to how we enforce firmware for regular printers and EURion constellation detection.
almosthere 7mo ago
No, this is probably an illegal CA law. I'm a strong believer in 2a rights. However I think every type of weapon might require a license. So if you 3d print a gun that you would be allowed to own if you had already completed your background check, then you're gold. If you end up 3d printing a nuclear bomb, the licensing requirements for that would be a billion times harder. (secure facilities, 24/7 guards, blood oath to the United States etc...)
stronglikedan 7mo ago
[flagged]
- lovich 7mo ago
  [flagged]
kmeisthax 7mo ago
It's important to note that the USA also has some of the fiercest opponents of private gun ownership in the world. The most important thing to note here is that a majority of the support for gun control in America is cultural. Even the loud-and-proud pro-gun people got extremely shy about their own principles once the Black Panthers started packing heat. On the flipside, it's also not hard to find gun control supporting Democrats that happen to own firearms in their house. There's a related cultural argument over "assault weapons", or "black guns" - i.e. the ones that look like military weapons rather than hunting tools. The result of all this confusion - and, for that matter, any culture war fight - is a lot of stupid lawmaking designed specifically to work around the edges of 2A while ignoring how guns actually work or how gun laws are normally written. Like, a while back there were bans on purely cosmetic features of guns. Things like rail attachments, that do not meaningfully increase the lethality of the weapon, but happen to be preferred by a certain crowd of masculinity-challenged right-wingers. In other words, a ban on scary-looking guns. What's going on here is that someone figured out how to make a 3D printed gun that will not immediately explode in your hand on first firing. In the US it's legal to manufacture your own guns, and there's no requirement to serial-number such a gun, which makes it more difficult to trace if that gun is used to commit a crime. You can't really stop someone from making such a "ghost gun" (practically, not legally), so they want to take a page out of the DMCA 1201 playbook and just ban all the tools used to make such a thing possible. Personally, I don't think that will pass constitutional muster - but that also relies heavily on existing culture-war brained nonsense that happens to be standing constitutional principle. 2A itself can be interpreted in all sorts of different ways. The original interpretation was "no interfering with state-run slave catching militias", and then later that turned into "everyone has the right to own firearms". Nothing stops it from changing again.
tracker1 7mo ago
It's mostly the same Karens that want to outlaw guns altogether so come up with burdensome rules to inhibit gun ownership. I've always been pretty libertarian on 1A and 2A myself.

by nippoo 8mo ago

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

WillPostForFood 8mo ago

It is pressure from the gun control lobby. Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group, is the brains behind it. The states moving this legislation (California, Washington) are very hostile to gun ownership, and already have bans on assault rifles and printed guns. This is just another step in tightening the noose.

kube-system 8mo ago

Politically the US is very much not a monolith on this topic and many states and localities have passed laws that were later struck down as unconstitutional. This is a bill in California, which does have about the strictest laws that the federation allows them to have, and they would place even stronger restrictions on guns if they could. This is not really ironic as much as it is pushing the envelope for gun control as far as they legally can. But also, California regulators likely see the regulatory landscape as the reason this law is needed rather than in spite of it. Gun manufacturers are likely against these types of regulations because many of them would affect manufacturers and the tools they use too.

guelo 8mo ago
> strictest laws that the federation allows them to have Note that "the federation" allowed states to have stricter gun laws until recently when we got a new partisan supreme court that is out of step with the previous 200 years of jurispudence.
- kube-system 7mo ago
  It was confirmed for the previous ~130 or so, at least, since United States v. Cruikshank... although I certainly wouldn't want to go back to those days before the Bill of Rights were incorporated against state/local governments... Basically it was a blank check for racists to suppress minorities. The result of United States v. Cruikshank was that southern states were allowed to to prohibit black individuals from owning firearms to defend themselves from the KKK. Not exactly a great example of gun control. What's also crazy it is that it is also relatively recently that the first amendment was incorporated against states and localities as well.
PunchyHamster 7mo ago
> Gun manufacturers are likely against these types of regulations because many of them would affect manufacturers and the tools they use too. No chance. For them compliance is the easiest thing in the world to law like that
- kube-system 7mo ago
  Well, the NRA has come out against all of these proposed bills and has mentioned concerns about requirements that they may place on manufacturers. https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260218/washington-action-alert-senate-committee-hearing-on-3d-printing-ban-this-friday https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260218/washington-action-a... https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260112/bans-for-3d-blueprints-new-york-governor-pushes-anti-gun-anti-speech-proposals https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260112/bans-for-3d-bluepri...
- maxlybbert 7mo ago
  The gun manufacturer's trade association has consistently said that 3D-printed "ghost guns" are more fantasy than reality, and that legal designs don't cause any more trouble than other legal guns: https://www.nssf.org/articles/3d-printers-cannot-produce-undetectable-firearms/ https://www.nssf.org/articles/3d-printers-cannot-produce-und... .

thom_nic 8mo ago

> is this pressure from the gun manufacturing lobby Definitely not, it's pressure from the anti-gun lobby that keeps pushing "one more bill that this time will actually change violent crime statistics, we promise!" These bills are being introduced in the states that already have the most restrictive gun control already, yet to nobody's surprise, hasn't done much to curb violent crime. But the lobby groups and candidates campaign and fundraise on the issue so they have to keep the boogeyman alive rather than admit that the policies have been a failure.

sellmesoap 8mo ago
Ironically the anti-gun lobby seems to drive a lot of gun sales, perhaps it is not what it says on the tin?
- nostromo 8mo ago
  No conspiracy required. There's a lot of money to be made lobbying against guns - in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year - regardless of efficacy.
- delichon 7mo ago
  I have three guns. One I inherited, two I bought right before California turned up gun restrictions. Possibly the greatest time for gun makers was when Hilary Clinton had a clear lead in the race for president.
  - dylan604 7mo ago
    A democratic governor/president is the greatest salesman for the gun industry. When a Dem is in office, the right wing comes out with all of the "they're coming for your guns" which is followed by a spike in gun sales.
    - tracker1 7mo ago
      The latter doesn't make the former untrue. There are plenty of people that want to eliminate all private gun ownership altogether, even if their public speech is more moderate.

rconti 8mo ago

This is a reaction to the inability to accomplish anything at the federal level in the "we have to do SOMETHING" vain.

ToucanLoucan 8mo ago
^ This. The Feds are so utterly gridlocked in culture war nonsense and whatever dumb bullshit Trump is up to that they cannot effectively govern. States and activists groups are trying to address actual problems the country has, instead of just playing political games on Twitter.
- nostromo 7mo ago
  Ah yes, the actual problem facing America right now... unsanctioned 3d printers. Thank you California for acting on this, our top national priority.
  - ToucanLoucan 7mo ago
    The actual problem is gun violence which you absolutely, 100% know.
    - nostromo 7mo ago
      Which this bill will do nothing to solve, which you absolutely 100% know.
      - ToucanLoucan 7mo ago
        I know no such thing. The number one type of gun death is by far, suicide. When a gun owner takes a gun home (or in this case, prints one) statistically speaking they are more likely to use it to end their own lives or harm themselves more than anything else. You could make a similar case for this as was made for the banning of highly toxic coal gas in the UK in the 1960's. Most suicides are acts of distressed individuals who have quick, easy access to means of ending their own lives. The forced changeover from coal gas to natural gas is largely credited with a reduction of suicide by 40% after it was done. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC478945/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC478945/ I don't think 3d printed guns have been around long enough to really provide meaningful data on whether this law will be effective, and on the whole, I'm not thrilled about it. But again, as was originally commented: this is an issue where states are, perhaps ineffectively and ineptly, attempting to solve what they see as problems, under a federal government that has shown itself incredibly resistant to common sense gun regulation that virtually everyone, including the gun owning community, thinks is a good idea.

conradev 8mo ago

It is both the USA and California. California doesn't allow most guns that other states allow and there is a lot of friction between CA and the USG.

jwitthuhn 8mo ago

In the US there is a certain class of politician that considers poor people being able to exercise their rights a problem that needs to be solved.

dylan604 7mo ago
Is that really limited to the US though?

stuffn 8mo ago

It's the anti-gun lobby. Bloomberg's band of morons who believe a government monopoly on force is good. These bans are almost exclusively in states with already extremely strict (high rated by the gifford's law people) gun laws. So far, there is zero evidence in the last 30 years more strict gun laws have curbed crime. The states with the strictest laws conveniently have the highest proportion of gun crime. The same people writing these laws don't understand what "per capita " means. Nor are they willing to confront the reality of what the data shows. The calculus for these petty tyrants has changed from banning guns wholesale to lawfare. Make owning and purchasing firearms so burdensome the market dies, and with it, the rights. This is just another play in that strategem. Fun fact: More people died last year putting foreign objects in their rears than by AR-15s. That is how insane the anti-gun lobby has become. They are literally barking at their own shadow these days.

dekhn 8mo ago
Can you redo your "fun fact" but include all types of guns?
- Dylan16807 7mo ago
  Well there is a lot of weird focus on entirely the wrong things when criticizing guns.
- rpdillon 7mo ago
  Pew does what they can: > In 2023, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 53% of the 13,529 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 4% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (42%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.” Interesting findings: Most gun deaths are suicides with handguns. Assault weapons are used in less than 5% of deaths. Handguns account for 53% of the deaths. Shotguns are negligable. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-...

plandis 8mo ago

I think the current government of California would significantly regulate firearms if they could. It’s prevented from passing more restrictive laws due to the US constitution and a Supreme Court which takes an extremely broad interpretation of the rights derived from the second amendment.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

oceanplexian 8mo ago

It's not the most "permissive gun laws in the world". In Norway you can buy a suppressor off the shelf with little to no paperwork. If you live in CA and don't want to experience permanent hearing damage from shooting, you'll catch a Felony for simply possessing one. It's a big middle finger like the rest of California's gun laws.

FireBeyond 7mo ago
I mean on Amazon you can buy them too, you just might have to look for something like a "lawnmower muffler for 9mm exhausts".
- jerkstate 7mo ago
  That’s a felony everywhere though
- OkayPhysicist 7mo ago
  Sure, if you're a big fan of getting your dog shot and yourself thrown in federal prison for 10 years.
BobaFloutist 7mo ago
I'm pretty much a gun control maximalist, but I would be more than happy to barter suppressor restrictions for pretty much anything else, since I agree with you that there's a good non-shooting-other-people reason to want to have them and I doubt they're actually that relevant to murder stats.

jopsen 8mo ago

This only benefits expensive proprietary enterprise 3D print makers..

rdtsc 8mo ago

> The irony isn't lost on me that it's the USA, the country with some of the most permissive gun laws in the world, that's imposing these draconian rules on 3D printed guns - or is this pressure from the gun manufacturing lobby? It's like saying "I am baffled by Europe, look at what Hungary is doing ..." For example, some states don't need any permit to open or conceal carry, some have no minimum age requirements to buy guns, and the majority don't have any mention of 3D printed guns. Federal law applies then about untraceable guns and or arms that cannot be detected by metal detectors. But those predate 3D printers as we know them today.

SilverElfin 7mo ago

It’s pressure from the anti gun obsessed nonprofits on the left like Everytown. Bloomberg has nowhere else to waste money and there are legislators willing to present bills authored by Everytown blindly. But in many cases gun control bills are known to be unconstitutional and pushed through anyways. It takes years for laws to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and even if they are, states like Washington or California or Oregon will just pass the next Everytown authored unconstitutional bill with a slight variation. The real fix is that we need to get rid of immunity for legislators. When they violate the civil rights of the constitutional rights of citizens through their actions, they must be held personally liable and must go to jail.

throwway120385 7mo ago
> The real fix is that we need to get rid of immunity for legislators. When they violate the civil rights of the constitutional rights of citizens through their actions, they must be held personally liable and must go to jail. Why are you so angry about this?
- 15155 7mo ago
  If someone prevents you from exercising your right to vote, would you be angry?
AngryData 7mo ago
If by "the left" you mean the DNC, then sure. Otherwise, Marxists, Socialists, and other far left groups are perfectly fine with guns. Hell Vermont has some of the highest gun ownership rates and most permissive gun laws in the nation, while having Bernie Sanders as a senator.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

gopalv 7mo ago

> that's imposing these draconian rules on 3D printed guns This is a bill with no votes - the first committee hearing is in March. The purpose of the bill seems to be have some controversy & possibly raise the profile of the proposer. The bill is written very similarly to how we enforce firmware for regular printers and EURion constellation detection.

almosthere 7mo ago

No, this is probably an illegal CA law. I'm a strong believer in 2a rights. However I think every type of weapon might require a license. So if you 3d print a gun that you would be allowed to own if you had already completed your background check, then you're gold. If you end up 3d printing a nuclear bomb, the licensing requirements for that would be a billion times harder. (secure facilities, 24/7 guards, blood oath to the United States etc...)

stronglikedan 7mo ago

[flagged]

lovich 7mo ago
[flagged]

kmeisthax 7mo ago

It's important to note that the USA also has some of the fiercest opponents of private gun ownership in the world. The most important thing to note here is that a majority of the support for gun control in America is cultural. Even the loud-and-proud pro-gun people got extremely shy about their own principles once the Black Panthers started packing heat. On the flipside, it's also not hard to find gun control supporting Democrats that happen to own firearms in their house. There's a related cultural argument over "assault weapons", or "black guns" - i.e. the ones that look like military weapons rather than hunting tools. The result of all this confusion - and, for that matter, any culture war fight - is a lot of stupid lawmaking designed specifically to work around the edges of 2A while ignoring how guns actually work or how gun laws are normally written. Like, a while back there were bans on purely cosmetic features of guns. Things like rail attachments, that do not meaningfully increase the lethality of the weapon, but happen to be preferred by a certain crowd of masculinity-challenged right-wingers. In other words, a ban on scary-looking guns. What's going on here is that someone figured out how to make a 3D printed gun that will not immediately explode in your hand on first firing. In the US it's legal to manufacture your own guns, and there's no requirement to serial-number such a gun, which makes it more difficult to trace if that gun is used to commit a crime. You can't really stop someone from making such a "ghost gun" (practically, not legally), so they want to take a page out of the DMCA 1201 playbook and just ban all the tools used to make such a thing possible. Personally, I don't think that will pass constitutional muster - but that also relies heavily on existing culture-war brained nonsense that happens to be standing constitutional principle. 2A itself can be interpreted in all sorts of different ways. The original interpretation was "no interfering with state-run slave catching militias", and then later that turned into "everyone has the right to own firearms". Nothing stops it from changing again.

tracker1 7mo ago

It's mostly the same Karens that want to outlaw guns altogether so come up with burdensome rules to inhibit gun ownership. I've always been pretty libertarian on 1A and 2A myself.