Krusty783
Member
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.
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.
