5 ms·

It would be fairly trivial to outlaw non-licensed manufacturing of high-capacity magazines. The same way distilling alcohol is illegal in the US, but owning a

It would be fairly trivial to outlaw non-licensed manufacturing of high-capacity magazines. The same way distilling alcohol is illegal in the US, but owning a still, owning alcohol, and purchasing distilled alcohol is not illegal.

jmvoodoo 14y ago
Trivial to write the law perhaps, but enforcing it would be another thing entirely.
- kennywinker 14y ago
  I hoped that implication would have been obvious by comparing it to home distilling. Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean nobody does it.
Firehed 14y ago
When that happens, I'm immediately printing off several high-capacity mags out of principle, and I don't even own a firearm (thought about it, but I don't have time to go to a range so the liability isn't worth it for me). While I understand the intent of the law, it's a totally impractical way to solve the problem. It sounds like the majority of weapons used in violent crimes are obtained illegally so it will do little to deter criminal activities; meanwhile, it increases the liability around owning a 3d printer.
- kennywinker 14y ago
  I believe that the majority of weapons used in non-gang-related mass shootings were purchased legally. Why are you not immediately distilling a few bottles of moonshine on principle? My feeling is gun-freedom supporters view gun ownership as a proxy for freedom. Why not view alcohol distillation as your symbolic meter-stick instead? Just like illegally produced spirits, owning a gun won't stop the TSA from violating your rights. Nor will it stop the FBI from raiding your home.
  - Firehed 14y ago
    Ironically, I'd be much more likely to harm someone with moonshine than with an XL magazine. In any case, the stand I'd be taking is about the absurdity of trying to ban 3d printing of specific devices, not about gun rights. I can't think of a reasonable excuse for a private citizen to own high-capacity weapons of death, and the theoretical argument about defending ourselves from the government went out the window long ago in my eyes. The second amendment was written well before the days of SWAT teams (on the low end of potential government firepower) and anyone crazy enough to think that stockpiling high-powered weaponry will be sufficient to take on highly-trained professionals is, well, crazy.
    - hga 14y ago
      You're failing to exercise your imagination; perhaps look at the recent difficulties the US military has had in the Middle East with adversaries who had no interest in playing by the former's rules.

jmvoodoo 14y ago

Trivial to write the law perhaps, but enforcing it would be another thing entirely.

kennywinker 14y ago
I hoped that implication would have been obvious by comparing it to home distilling. Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean nobody does it.

Firehed 14y ago

When that happens, I'm immediately printing off several high-capacity mags out of principle, and I don't even own a firearm (thought about it, but I don't have time to go to a range so the liability isn't worth it for me). While I understand the intent of the law, it's a totally impractical way to solve the problem. It sounds like the majority of weapons used in violent crimes are obtained illegally so it will do little to deter criminal activities; meanwhile, it increases the liability around owning a 3d printer.

kennywinker 14y ago
I believe that the majority of weapons used in non-gang-related mass shootings were purchased legally. Why are you not immediately distilling a few bottles of moonshine on principle? My feeling is gun-freedom supporters view gun ownership as a proxy for freedom. Why not view alcohol distillation as your symbolic meter-stick instead? Just like illegally produced spirits, owning a gun won't stop the TSA from violating your rights. Nor will it stop the FBI from raiding your home.
- Firehed 14y ago
  Ironically, I'd be much more likely to harm someone with moonshine than with an XL magazine. In any case, the stand I'd be taking is about the absurdity of trying to ban 3d printing of specific devices, not about gun rights. I can't think of a reasonable excuse for a private citizen to own high-capacity weapons of death, and the theoretical argument about defending ourselves from the government went out the window long ago in my eyes. The second amendment was written well before the days of SWAT teams (on the low end of potential government firepower) and anyone crazy enough to think that stockpiling high-powered weaponry will be sufficient to take on highly-trained professionals is, well, crazy.
  - hga 14y ago
    You're failing to exercise your imagination; perhaps look at the recent difficulties the US military has had in the Middle East with adversaries who had no interest in playing by the former's rules.