BCs for Gunpowder only...?


PDA






Krusty783
February 19, 2013, 08:57 AM
Okay, hear me out. I ran across this article on Wired this morning:http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/gunpowder-regulation/

I realize they are typically liberal, but the Wired writers display random nuggets of basic firearm knowledge and seem to possess some common sense. Given that this is a tech magazine, they have done a pretty good job of following Cody Wilson (the guy in TX working to create an open source design for a 3-D printable AR lower. His latest design survived 5 or so 5.7 rounds before the receiver extension lug spontaneously disassembled from the rest of the lower.)

The author of the article raises an interesting question, IMO; why not regulate only gunpowder? Of course, this would be extended to whole ammunition. What does THR think about requiring background checks for powder/ammo purchases only? (with firearms being complete cash & carry - no NICS check req'd) Without ammo, a firearm is no more dangerous than a hammer or bat; granted anyone on the pointy end doesn't know if that firearm is loaded or not.

It's still an infringement upon the 2nd amendment, I get that, but it makes sense from a regulatory standpoint; rather than demonizing certain cosmetic features, or setting arbitrary magazine limits, regulate the one common item that is required of all firearms.

The genesis of this article is the continual development of the 3D printing industry. The materials and designs aren't quite there yet, but in a few years, one will probably be able to print your own design for a firearm. There are plans of opening public "manufacturing shops" stocked with these printers in large cities. One could go to a shop and print your own gun, thereby bypassing the purchase requirements and staying under the radar.

With a widespread public firearms manufacturing capability, the only feasible way to regulate firearms would be through ammunition/gunpowder.

If you enjoyed reading about "BCs for Gunpowder only...?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
alsaqr
February 19, 2013, 09:22 AM
What does THR think about requiring background checks for powder/ammo purchases only? (with firearms being complete cash & carry - no NICS check req'd)

It stinks.

calaverasslim
February 19, 2013, 09:26 AM
Sounds like your an anti 2A liberal who is hiding in sheeps clothing trying to sound compromising and attempting to give your friends a new way to stick it to the reloaders and shooters.

ivankerley
February 19, 2013, 09:43 AM
no more compromises on any of it, what would be the difference between draconian regulation on the firearm or the ammunition? If they regulate powder or ammo or any materials used in production of ammo the politicians can say "well see we didnt take your guns" slap themselves on the back and celebrate the fact that they accomplished their goal anyways. The quickest way to shut down a culture they dont approve of is to throttle the supply of a materials used by said culture, lotsa really cool firearms and no way to shoot them, means you have a doorstop. Death by a thousand cuts applies here
IMHO its a really bad idea
regards
gene

PedalBiker
February 19, 2013, 09:50 AM
Potassium nitrate has vetrinary and ag uses.

Sulfur has agricultural uses.

Even a liberal sometimes wants to buy charcoal to cook their tofudogs.

Now what - you need a permit buy a bag of Kingsford?

Modern powders are made from nitrated cellulose - you know, plant fiber.

There is plenty of dangerous stuff, people just have to get over the fact that life amongst other humans is going to carry some risks.

I pedal around our streets surrounded by 4000 lb cars and I still manage to keep from freaking out in fear. Pretty much any dolt can get a driver's license, most who lose them still drive against the law anyhow. You cannot make life risk free by writing more and more laws.

AlexanderA
February 19, 2013, 10:09 AM
This same idea -- of regulating gunpowder -- also cropped up in a Washington Post article this morning that discussed making gun parts with 3D printers. It's beginning to dawn on the antigunners that they can't effectively regulate guns, so they're turning to other components. It's the idea of identifying the "choke point" in the process. (Yes, I know, you can make black powder at home, but making smokeless propellant requires a whole industrial base.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/weapons-made-with-3-d-printers-could-test-gun-control-efforts/2013/02/18/9ad8b45e-779b-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html

tyeo098
February 19, 2013, 10:10 AM
I can make flash/smokeless powder (nitrocellulose) in my basement using nothing but KNO3, Sulfuric Acid, and some cloth. Ever see mythbusters where they made 'guncotton'? Same stuff.

Regulate KNO3? It can be extracted from the dirt using nothing but a bucket some ash and some water. Sulfuric acid? Car batteries. Criminals don't know this, but people who are self sustaining do.

Krusty783
February 19, 2013, 10:17 AM
Sounds like your an anti 2A liberal who is hiding in sheeps clothing trying to sound compromising and attempting to give your friends a new way to stick it to the reloaders and shooters.

Actually, I've seen more radical anti-2A Liberals rant in a tone like this rather than what I posted. Obviously you haven't read any of my other posts on THR. Maybe I'm just trying to present a dissenting idea and get the communities thoughts. Maybe I hate guns, Maybe I have a $20k arsenal with 50k rounds sitting in a bunker somewhere. If you wish to truly understand an issue, you need to be familiar with arguments for both sides. I thought THR was about taking the higher road and trying to have intelligent discussions.

This idea almost makes sense and would potentially be a lot simpler than other schemes, which means there's no chance in hell the government would ever think of doing this. They are for expanding their own coffers and never adopt anything contrary to that.

Yes, 3D printers are the next step beyond 80% lower receivers. They could be a great resource for many things beyond firearms; making replacement car parts, hobbies, etc. If these things do mature and proliferate (3D printers)who's to say they won't change the manufacturing sector in a similar way to how the internet and it's proliferation of knowledge have impacted society.

Solo
February 19, 2013, 12:00 PM
Interesting note: Urine was used before the development of a chemical industry in the manufacture of gunpowder. Urine, a nitrogen source, was used to moisten straw or other organic material, which was kept moist and allowed to rot for several months to over a year. The resulting salts were washed from the heap with water, which was evaporated to allow collection of crude saltpeter crystals, that were usually refined before being used in making gunpowder.

AlexanderA
February 19, 2013, 01:39 PM
For those that say you can make smokeless powder at home, how do you precisely control for burn rate, granulation, etc.? The reloading data that we use rely on very specific formulations of the many smokeless propellants available. Unless these specifications are known, using homemade smokeless powder is a hit-or-miss, even dangerous, proposition. I still say you need an industrial infrastructure (with millions of dollars of capital investment) to make the product with the required safety and precision.

brickeyee
February 19, 2013, 03:05 PM
" how do you precisely control for burn rate, granulation, etc.?"

It is called trial and error.

The same way it was done originally.

316SS
February 19, 2013, 03:12 PM
Gee, trying to control gunpowder ... why does that sound familiar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Incident)

tyeo098
February 19, 2013, 06:16 PM
Getting a bullet out of a tube is WAY different than maintaining a sub-MOA group.

ontarget
February 19, 2013, 09:11 PM
LOL they don't have to regulate the ammo or powder. Dept. of Homeland inSecurity just ordered more ammo than the makers can produce for a looooong time. Guess who gets their orders first. Pretty slick on the part of the Feds if you ask me. We may all be back to flintlock muskets before it's over and they won't even have to try very hard. Kind of makes this Leatherneck sick.

USAF_Vet
February 20, 2013, 10:37 PM
What does THR think about requiring background checks for powder/ammo purchases only?

It's still an infringement upon the 2nd amendment

You answered your own question in the first post.

hogbody74
February 20, 2013, 10:56 PM
You just figured out that is what is going to happen. Here in Kommiefornia we have been stacking it deep for a long time. hogbody74

If you enjoyed reading about "BCs for Gunpowder only...?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!