Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   If 3D plastic guns are outlawed, only 3D plastic criminals will have them   (nydailynews.com) divider line 359
    More: Asinine, Chuck Schumer, Defense Distributed, Liberator, Security checkpoint, plastic guns  
•       •       •

8327 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 May 2013 at 5:47 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



359 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-06 01:46:28 AM  

vygramul: Harry_Seldon: studebaker hoch: [www.extremetech.com image 850x609]

Some of these 3D printed parts don't look half bad.

And if you wanted metal ones, you could select a suitable plastic for use in an investment casting process.

Why would anyone in their right mind need to manufacture their own guns? Near as I can tell, guns are basically pornography for some vocal minority.

I don't recall mass gun confiscations after the Brady Bill was signed.

"Vocal minority," isn't really an appropriate term for somewhere in the neighborhood of 47 million gun-owning households.


As one of the gun owning households,  I will stick the the fringe vocal minority theory that believes Obama is coming after their guns, and there is need to manufacture their own plastic guns to protect their liberty and freedom.
 
2013-05-06 01:46:58 AM  

Molavian: Giltric: Sometimes slow enough that you could see it but fast enough that you couldn't do anything about it.

If the light's right, you can see .45 ammo flying downrange.


I've seen and heard a lot of bullets fly downrange when fired from a gun with a silencer. It really changes the experience, your eyes don't want to instinctively blink. I want a silencer.
 
2013-05-06 01:55:47 AM  

Harry_Seldon: vygramul: Harry_Seldon: studebaker hoch: [www.extremetech.com image 850x609]

Some of these 3D printed parts don't look half bad.

And if you wanted metal ones, you could select a suitable plastic for use in an investment casting process.

Why would anyone in their right mind need to manufacture their own guns? Near as I can tell, guns are basically pornography for some vocal minority.

I don't recall mass gun confiscations after the Brady Bill was signed.

"Vocal minority," isn't really an appropriate term for somewhere in the neighborhood of 47 million gun-owning households.

As one of the gun owning households,  I will stick the the fringe vocal minority theory that believes Obama is coming after their guns, and there is need to manufacture their own plastic guns to protect their liberty and freedom.


Oh, you mean the molon labe crowd. Yeah.
 
2013-05-06 02:08:44 AM  

Harry_Seldon: vygramul: Harry_Seldon:

Why would anyone in their right mind need to manufacture their own guns? Near as I can tell, guns are basically pornography for some vocal minority.

I don't recall mass gun confiscations after the Brady Bill was signed.

"Vocal minority," isn't really an appropriate term for somewhere in the neighborhood of 47 million gun-owning households.

As one of the gun owning households,  I will stick the the fringe vocal minority theory that believes Obama is coming after their guns, and there is need to manufacture their own plastic guns to protect their liberty and freedom.


Are these guns likely to ever be as functional and durable as a real, designed-by-a-gunsmith, precision-made whatever, or to be produced with actual intent to use them?  Of course not -- and that's not the point.   To the Escape Zeppelin! had it right -- the point is to further demonstrate what anybody with basic machine skills has known forever: guns that work "well enough" are not particularly difficult to make (they did it with what we consider crude hand tools 200 years ago, and a lot of those guns produced by skilled smiths worked just fine).  Guns that work well are only marginally harder.  And as technology marches on, it gets easier and cheaper to hit whichever quality mark you're aiming for.
 
2013-05-06 02:15:53 AM  
Imagine you really can 3D-print a working firearm by downloading a file from the Internet and printing it.  How does anyone realistically expect to ban this?  Make 3D printers illegal?  That's not going to work when there are plans on the Internet showing you how to make your own.  If you did ban 3D printers how would this effect America's productivity and innovation in a global market when 3D printers were legal elsewhere in the World?   How do you expect to ban a file from the Internet?  Nearly everyone considers pedophiles to be the lowest form of human existence, yet ever so often a child pornography ring gets busted with tens of THOUSANDS of banned and universally despised images on their servers.
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-05-06 02:34:23 AM  
What a great viral marketing campaign by the 3D printer guys.
 
2013-05-06 02:47:27 AM  
This has probably been linked already, but in case anyone missed it.. 3D-printed gun fired on video:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/6/4304164/video-of-defense-distribute d- liberator-3d-printed-gun-test
 
2013-05-06 03:00:19 AM  

dbrunker: tens of THOUSANDS of banned and universally despised images on their servers


Well, not universally, obviously.
 
2013-05-06 03:10:11 AM  
They should print out dildos instead of guns. Everyone would be happier.
 
2013-05-06 03:17:57 AM  

dbrunker: Imagine you really can 3D-print a working firearm by downloading a file from the Internet and printing it.  How does anyone realistically expect to ban this?  Make 3D printers illegal?  That's not going to work when there are plans on the Internet showing you how to make your own.  If you did ban 3D printers how would this effect America's productivity and innovation in a global market when 3D printers were legal elsewhere in the World?   How do you expect to ban a file from the Internet?  Nearly everyone considers pedophiles to be the lowest form of human existence, yet ever so often a child pornography ring gets busted with tens of THOUSANDS of banned and universally despised images on their servers.
[farm4.staticflickr.com image 350x491]


I expect a law to be passed that would require the plastic used in 3D printers to be weak enough to never be used in a plastic gun.  Part of me wonders if this is just an anti-gun fight, or the start of a different fight?  The reason why I ask that is that Congress missed the boat on any useful legislation on pirating copyrighted materials from the internet.  Some members of Congress wanted computers to catch a virus or blow up if they downloaded copyrighted files (seriously).  Now we have a new technology that is going to expand piracy from digital only to digital and physical.  We could seriously see more members of Congress pointing to 3D printers and explaining how they will be used for illegally downloading toys and anything else people get that's made of plastic.  More members of Congress seriously suggesting that the 3D printer will be used for building guns from downloaded schematics and will cause a rise in crime (Thugs may not be the brightest of the criminals, but even they wouldn't be dumb enough to use a plastic gun downloaded from the internet).  I am expecting Congress to fight against 3D printers for home use, or do all they can to nerf the plastic that would be used in them.
 
2013-05-06 03:26:35 AM  
www.goldismoney2.com

...3D printable wiki rifle in the forty megabyte range.

/hey just what you see in this directory, pal.
 
2013-05-06 03:30:05 AM  

Great Janitor: dbrunker: Imagine you really can 3D-print a working firearm by downloading a file from the Internet and printing it.  How does anyone realistically expect to ban this?  Make 3D printers illegal?  That's not going to work when there are plans on the Internet showing you how to make your own.  If you did ban 3D printers how would this effect America's productivity and innovation in a global market when 3D printers were legal elsewhere in the World?   How do you expect to ban a file from the Internet?  Nearly everyone considers pedophiles to be the lowest form of human existence, yet ever so often a child pornography ring gets busted with tens of THOUSANDS of banned and universally despised images on their servers.
[farm4.staticflickr.com image 350x491]

I expect a law to be passed that would require the plastic used in 3D printers to be weak enough to never be used in a plastic gun.  Part of me wonders if this is just an anti-gun fight, or the start of a different fight?  The reason why I ask that is that Congress missed the boat on any useful legislation on pirating copyrighted materials from the internet.  Some members of Congress wanted computers to catch a virus or blow up if they downloaded copyrighted files (seriously).  Now we have a new technology that is going to expand piracy from digital only to digital and physical.  We could seriously see more members of Congress pointing to 3D printers and explaining how they will be used for illegally downloading toys and anything else people get that's made of plastic.  More members of Congress seriously suggesting that the 3D printer will be used for building guns from downloaded schematics and will cause a rise in crime (Thugs may not be the brightest of the criminals, but even they wouldn't be dumb enough to use a plastic gun downloaded from the internet).  I am expecting Congress to fight against 3D printers for home use, or do all they can to nerf the plastic that would be used in them.


Yeah, there's really nothing they can do about that either.  The cat's out the bag.
 
2013-05-06 03:36:15 AM  
Ban everything. It's the only way. But I think it's more a way to keep 3D printers out of the people's hands in order to make sure his supporters can keep their Chinese factories running more than anything. Schumer's a tool, but he's no fool. The only reason he wants controls on these things is to keep himself in office for as long as possible. I honestly don't think he gives a wet ***t about plastic guns.
 
2013-05-06 03:39:38 AM  

werty789: Notice there is no video of someone firing the pistol. I wouldn't fire it. I saw a video of someone firing an AR15 with a printed  plastic receiver and it broke after three or four shots.

What round is it suppose to  fire? Until I see it fired I will assume it is bogus.


Here's a video of it being fired. One shot, doesn't explode. I presume it's firing .22LR, perhaps something like Super Colibri or some other low-pressure round.

The AR receiver that broke after a few shots was a very early design. They basically took the design for aluminum receivers and made them out of plastic. Turns out that doesn't work so well (the buffer tower breaks fairly easily with plastic). They re-did the design to better account for the strengths/weaknesses of plastic and it was able to fire over 600 rounds before breaking due to a non-shooting-related cause. They've pretty much got the kinks worked out of 3D-printed AR lowers.
 
2013-05-06 03:41:44 AM  

lewismarktwo: Yeah, there's really nothing they can do about that either. The cat's out the bag.


Never estimate the power of 535 stupid people with an infinite number of real, non-3D-printed guns.
 
2013-05-06 03:42:17 AM  

heypete: I presume it's firing .22LR, perhaps something like Super Colibri or some other low-pressure round.


Addendum: according to the photos available here, it looks like the gun fires some sort of pistol-caliber round. Not sure what, but it's probably down-loaded a bit so it doesn't reach such high pressures.
 
2013-05-06 04:05:31 AM  
Great Janitor: I expect a law to be passed that would require the plastic used in 3D printers to be weak enough to never be used in a plastic gun.

You sound like a reasonable person and I'm not looking for an argument but even that strategy has a loophole.  What if you go the other way and instead of making your gun stronger make 3D-printed, gun parts out of a material with a low melting point, like wax.  A part could be printed, packed in the right kind of sand, heated up so the wax melted, leaving a hole that you could pour something like zinc into.  Zinc has a melting point of just under 790f and can make really detailed cast parts and is much stronger than nearly any kind of plastic.  After you're crime is all finished you can reheat the gun and your weapon becomes a bar of metal, indistinguishable from any other.  Can't get zinc?  Use epoxy and silicon molds.

Seems we just don't live in an era where things can be banned anymore.
 
2013-05-06 04:07:20 AM  
Of course this stuff is going to break at first.
 
2013-05-06 04:08:34 AM  

heypete: heypete: I presume it's firing .22LR, perhaps something like Super Colibri or some other low-pressure round.

Addendum: according to the photos available here, it looks like the gun fires some sort of pistol-caliber round. Not sure what, but it's probably down-loaded a bit so it doesn't reach such high pressures.


According to Forbes, it's a .308 pistol round.
 
2013-05-06 04:32:10 AM  

redsquid: Show me a consumer level 3D printer that can print a usable gun.


Okay. First please define "usable" so you don't go moving those goalposts again.
=Smidge=
 
2013-05-06 06:03:00 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: way south: The gun that took longer to reload than it did to make?
Seemed so obvious that its hardly worth mentioning.

Wow.

You didn't know, (or couldn't guess),  the whole point of that gun was to use it to kill an enemy soldier, and take that guys weapon?

wow... just wow.



That was the plan, but not its purpose, because you have to ask that awkward question: "And then what?".

It was a .45acp zip gun.   One shot from an extremely short barrel with little range and even less accuracy, unsuppressed.
Now you've made a loud bang and maybe got a dead german soldier on your hands, cause bullets aren't kill rays.   His equipment (a bolt action rifle being the common thing of the day) isn't going to stop his friends from doing ugly things to you, and the Germans were notorious for doing ugly things.
No one was going to rise up and build an army on stolen equipment like this. The guns purpose was to piss off the germans and make it so they wouldn't feel safe patrolling their captured territory.
This was trolling, 1940's style.

This wasn't the last time the concept would come about, but its hard to say if its ever had a real impact.
Giving things that barely qualify as guns to a population with no 4th amendment protection isn't going to drive out an occupying force. They'll just drag people out into the street and kill anyone who's picked the thing up.
Maybe it could have been the base for some asymmetrical warfare if the guys making it understood that it takes more than "a gun" and delivered something worth a damn to carry.

/When the Russians handed out free guns they gave the Mosin Nagant, SKS, and AK-47.
/Those were more effective.
 
2013-05-06 07:09:18 AM  

Harry_Seldon: I don't recall mass gun confiscations after the Brady Bill was signed.


That's because the Brady Bill was about waiting periods and background checks.  Don't be stupid.
 
2013-05-06 07:57:37 AM  

GUTSU: Curious: Southern100: But for someone to take on an airplane? Absolutely possible. Is there anything the government can really do to stop it? Nope.

not to pick on you but so far no one has mentioned ammo. as in how does one get that on the plane? if i'm going to print my gun and use in on main street fine. well not fine but .. if i'm going to use it in your town on your main street and fly there ...? do i buy ammo when i arrive. have it shipped to a UPS store for pick up?

Ammunition doesn't have to contain metal. We've been over this. A glass bullet will kill you just as dead as a lead one.


Is that "We've been over this. A glass bullet will kill you just as dead as a lead one" as in "Someone proposed that and it got thoroughly debunked"?  Because I seem to remember one guy saying "glass bullet" and then getting dogpiled with refutations.

I know it's from 1995, but here's the Straight Dope on the topic.  I'm no expert, but my Google-Fu turns up plenty of rumors and speculation, but no definite examples of a non-metallic cartridge that has been successfully shot out of a firearm.

As far as I can tell it's still just an urban legend, which is not to say it won't ever happen.
 
2013-05-06 08:01:57 AM  

God-is-a-Taco: They should print out dildos instead of guns. Everyone would be happier.


Why not both?   (image possibly nsfw)
 
2013-05-06 08:05:02 AM  
apparently the new "Pirate Bay of 3D printers" is nothing but guns!  what else is there to do but kill people these days
 
2013-05-06 08:06:03 AM  

ciberido: I'm no expert, but my Google-Fu turns up plenty of rumors and speculation, but no definite examples of a non-metallic cartridge that has been successfully shot out of a firearm.


I should have said "a non-metallic cartridge that has been successfully USED in a firearm," since obviously it's only the bullet part that actually gets shot out.  But my point is that the entire cartridge needs to be non-metallic, not JUST the bullet.
 
2013-05-06 08:33:42 AM  

way south: That was the plan, but not its purpose, because you have to ask that awkward question: "And then what?".


Why it seems that you think "And then we continue to march into the gas chambers" was a viable alternative, since one of the original ideas was to drop them on concentration camps.

Beyond that, if you don't think a putative resistance fighter cannot figure out a useful plan for his newly acquired Sturmgewehr 44, my response is "wow...just wow!" again.
 
2013-05-06 08:37:54 AM  

Great Janitor: Lsherm: Great Janitor: The firing pin is metal not to comply with federal law, but so it would work.  The firing pin is what hits the bullet causing the explosion to propel the bullet.  I am not sure how you could build one out of plastic and expect it to work.

Firing pins aren't very big.  Get a hard enough piece of plastic and there's no reason it shouldn't work.

Looking at how bullets are assembled, you probably wouldn't need a metal firing pin to get one to fire.  The job of the firing pin is to get the bullet to fire.  The bullet is a bomb, the gun just controls the explosion.  Using a plastic fire pin would mean that you'd get one shot out of it before it melted.  A melted plastic firing pin could jam the gun.

In short, a plastic firing pin would be as useful as plastic brake pads for a F1 racecar.


I don't think anyone expects these guns to fire more than one time.
 
2013-05-06 08:38:06 AM  

lewismarktwo: Imagine if instead of wanting to keep people from printing 'untraceable' 'undetectable' guns we might concentrate on wanting to keep people from wanting to use 'untraceable' 'undetectable' guns.

Also, no religion too.


You're not helping.
 
2013-05-06 09:09:22 AM  

luxup: Pro-gun, anti-gun whatever. I know for a fact that it is only a matter of time before some kid prints out a plastic gun and we hear about the carnage on tv.  Nobody will really care about the dead because it will be to  soon to talk about them.

Let's take a moment to morn the 1st person killed with one of these shall we, because after it happens people will be too busy defending their right to have all the guns you want or saying we should ban them.


How about let's take a moment to discuss how some things are simply unpreventable no matter how many freedoms you restrict in your attempt to do so?
 
2013-05-06 09:21:51 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: way south: That was the plan, but not its purpose, because you have to ask that awkward question: "And then what?".

Why it seems that you think "And then we continue to march into the gas chambers" was a viable alternative, since one of the original ideas was to drop them on concentration camps.

Beyond that, if you don't think a putative resistance fighter cannot figure out a useful plan for his newly acquired Sturmgewehr 44, my response is "wow...just wow!" again.


You seem to think there wasn't a measure of complicity between the public and their oppressors.
There was resistance, but we're talking about small militias VS the worlds top military power. This rarely ended well.    This isn't the age of political correctness where the bad guy can run off and hide among non combatants.  This was an era where it was considered reasonable to burn a city down if it was too much trouble to get your way.

The French could have pulled aStalingrad and made the Germans pay for every inch, but they played the "France Surrenders" card and capitulated to save their city by sacrificing their populace.

The MP-44 was a rare bird held by top units. It didn't even prevent the Germans from being overwhelmed. One or two in civilian hands wasn't going to save Europe.
A few million, maybe... But then shouldn't we have been sending more things like grease guns to the resistance, instead of liberator pistols?

The "run out and steal a gun" plan was wishful thinking.
 
2013-05-06 09:57:35 AM  

Draskuul: jayphat: utah dude: jayphat: utah dude: jayphat: utah dude: PaLarkin: A plastic gun used for an assassination only needs to be fired once or twice.  Since it's made of plastic it can easily be burned or melted beyond recognition.

a remington 700 in .308 with a leupould scope will run you about 1400 and will give you time to leave the grassy knoll.

That's one helluva markup. I could get the same setup at Walmart for $800 easy.

not with those optics you won't

A $600 rifle and $200 scope?

i was thinking about 700 for both, brah.

That's what I was originally. Where is this guy getting 1400?

Leupold scopes are horribly overpriced.

Your average Remington 700 in .308 will run you around $700.  A really, really low-end Leupold scope will run you $400, but the ones you'd be likely to use in this setup are in the $1400-2200 range--and that's just for the scope.  The original $1400 price was probably for a well-used setup from a pawn shop desperate for a sale.

As soon as we decide that radio, television and the internet aren't afforded First Amendment protection because the 'technology didn't exist back then', then maybe I'll give a rat's ass about the idiots trying to limit the Second Amendment.


i just favorited you.
 
2013-05-06 10:18:16 AM  

Southern100: According to Forbes, it's a .308 pistol round.


.380, not .308. Basically a shorter, wimpier 9mm. (.308 is a rifle round.)

Interesting. That's not what I was expecting them to use, but it actually has a lower pressure than .22LR -- I didn't know that -- so it makes sense.
 
2013-05-06 10:47:11 AM  
People are forgetting pneumatics. You can make a plastic gun that you can pump up and use to shoot a bullet. Add in psionics and you've got a combination that can be... deadly serious.

Now. Roll for initiative.
 
2013-05-06 12:37:17 PM  

Honest Bender: Rincewind53: Honest Bender: Why do they "have" to outlaw them?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it perfectly legal for me to manufacture my own firearms now?  What difference does it make how I do so?  Or are things just legal until it becomes too easy to do?

Key word here is  plastic. aka, invisible to metal detectors, therefore more dangerous and not permissible under federal law (I think).

That's their problem.


No, it's not.  That's the smoke screen.  What is ammo made out of?

This is a classic case of treating the symptoms instead of the problems.  The problem isn't guns, it's people killing each other.  If you remove guns, people still kill each other... so very clearly, guns aren't the problem.  Good, now shut the fark up about guns, because I'm getting sick of having to defend my constitutional rights to people too ignorant to think for themselves for 10 seconds.

Also, as a foot note, that law was passed when metal detectors were the only available security device.  That is not true anymore, and should have invalidated the law (only if we had rational laws, but since we don't...).  In short, a backscatter array, like used at AIRPORTS would detect a hard plastic object in heartbeat.  The metal detectors will still pick up the ammo as well.
 
2013-05-06 12:41:17 PM  

brantgoose: The Founding Fathers did not mean for every Tom, Dick and Harry to have an arsenel that would impress the King of England.


Bald-faced lie. The actual verbiage of the Second Amendment stands in stark contrast to your statement. The Founding Fathers realized that the ONLY balancing force against the military is a well-armed populace. The rich and politicians are too few in number to possibly resist a military coup. That leaves the citizenry.
 
2013-05-06 01:08:23 PM  

way south: Vlad_the_Inaner: way south: That was the plan, but not its purpose, because you have to ask that awkward question: "And then what?".

Why it seems that you think "And then we continue to march into the gas chambers" was a viable alternative, since one of the original ideas was to drop them on concentration camps.

Beyond that, if you don't think a putative resistance fighter cannot figure out a useful plan for his newly acquired Sturmgewehr 44, my response is "wow...just wow!" again.

You seem to think there wasn't a measure of complicity between the public and their oppressors.
There was resistance, but we're talking about small militias VS the worlds top military power. This rarely ended well.    This isn't the age of political correctness where the bad guy can run off and hide among non combatants.  This was an era where it was considered reasonable to burn a city down if it was too much trouble to get your way.

The French could have pulled aStalingrad and made the Germans pay for every inch, but they played the "France Surrenders" card and capitulated to save their city by sacrificing their populace.

The MP-44 was a rare bird held by top units. It didn't even prevent the Germans from being overwhelmed. One or two in civilian hands wasn't going to save Europe.
A few million, maybe... But then shouldn't we have been sending more things like grease guns to the resistance, instead of liberator pistols?

The "run out and steal a gun" plan was wishful thinking.


Oh I see.  You're stuck with the romantic notion of 'the brave Minutemen used their superior rifles and threw off the yoke of the English' as the only valid concept of a insurrection.  Sorry bucko, that's not the real world.

That wasn't the proximate goal of the Liberatior.  If you were arming specific people via a specific plan, of course you'd supply real military weapons.   But if you are trying to use mass scattering of weapons to arm a previous disarmed population, you don't toss AK-47's off the back of an airplanef lying over town.  But something like a Liberator is another story.  Itt was designed to be scattered lake chaff in the wind.  Will the population snatch the weapon and immediately shoot  the nearest enemy?  Except maybe in the case of the Concentration Camps, of course not.  Will it cause chaos with the enemies rear.  Certainly it will.  Oh you say they'll just sweep up the weapons.  Yeah.  And the soldiers doing that will not be defending the front lines anymore.   Oh their buddies will protect each other.  That's right, and they'll have to man their checkpoints with a squad for that, instead of a couple of guys.  All this costs them men and time away from the front.  More troops to protect the lines of supply and communications instead of fighting on the front.

The American colonials did not throw out the English by rising up in a militia.  An army was formed.  And it was supported by French army troops.  Militia actions were a sideshow, and were often derided  Consider their performance at the Battle of Camden.  This is why the Constitution desires a 'Well Regulated' militia

Regardless of your opinion of the French, go ahead and call the Poles, Danes and Finns surrender monkeys and see what you get.  Especially the Finns. None of them managed to reform a new army in occupied regions and expel occupations.  All of them had resistance movements.

TL;DR:  The FP-45 was not a magic wand to wave and make a people instantly free by giving them the all holy gun.  It was tool to cause the enemy trouble by changing a a pacified region back into a dangerous one,   It wasn't expected that that populace would throw off the invader by itself, but instead cause enough trouble to aid in their liberation by real troops.  This is the critical step that the 'there is a second amendment solution to problems' people always seem to neglect..
 
2013-05-06 01:16:31 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: way south: Vlad_the_Inaner: way south: That was the plan, but not its purpose, because you have to ask that awkward question: "And then what?".

Why it seems that you think "And then we continue to march into the gas chambers" was a viable alternative, since one of the original ideas was to drop them on concentration camps.

Beyond that, if you don't think a putative resistance fighter cannot figure out a useful plan for his newly acquired Sturmgewehr 44, my response is "wow...just wow!" again.

You seem to think there wasn't a measure of complicity between the public and their oppressors.
There was resistance, but we're talking about small militias VS the worlds top military power. This rarely ended well.    This isn't the age of political correctness where the bad guy can run off and hide among non combatants.  This was an era where it was considered reasonable to burn a city down if it was too much trouble to get your way.

The French could have pulled aStalingrad and made the Germans pay for every inch, but they played the "France Surrenders" card and capitulated to save their city by sacrificing their populace.

The MP-44 was a rare bird held by top units. It didn't even prevent the Germans from being overwhelmed. One or two in civilian hands wasn't going to save Europe.
A few million, maybe... But then shouldn't we have been sending more things like grease guns to the resistance, instead of liberator pistols?

The "run out and steal a gun" plan was wishful thinking.

Oh I see.  You're stuck with the romantic notion of 'the brave Minutemen used their superior rifles and threw off the yoke of the English' as the only valid concept of a insurrection.  Sorry bucko, that's not the real world.

That wasn't the proximate goal of the Liberatior.  If you were arming specific people via a specific plan, of course you'd supply real military weapons.   But if you are trying to use mass scattering of weapons to arm a previous disarmed population, you don't toss AK-47's off ...


There is a perfectly valid "second amendment solution" to our governmental problems, but they went ahead and limited access to area denial weapons system and artillery.  So it's not as easy as it should be to remove congress.
 
2013-05-06 01:20:58 PM  

Kahabut: So it's not as easy as it should be to remove congress.


And here I was expecting him to sign off with "BRB, someone at door"
 
2013-05-06 01:31:42 PM  
Since when does the Gestapo stop at the door anymore?
 
2013-05-06 02:55:24 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Kahabut: So it's not as easy as it should be to remove congress.

And here I was expecting him to sign off with "BRB, someone at door"


Not my door.

/proxies
//guns
///etc.
 
2013-05-06 03:22:36 PM  

dittybopper: Harry_Seldon: I don't recall mass gun confiscations after the Brady Bill was signed.

That's because the Brady Bill was about waiting periods and background checks.  Don't be stupid.


That's the point.
 
2013-05-06 05:04:00 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: That wasn't the proximate goal of the Liberator.   If you were arming specific people via a specific plan, of course you'd supply real military weapons.   But if you are trying to use mass scattering of weapons to arm a previous disarmed population, you don't toss AK-47's off the back of an airplane flying over town.  But something like a Liberator is another story.  It was designed to be scattered lake chaff in the wind.  Will the population snatch the weapon and immediately shoot  the nearest enemy?  Except maybe in the case of the Concentration Camps, of course not.  Will it cause chaos with the enemies rear.  Certainly it will.  Oh you say they'll just sweep up the weapons.  Yeah.  And the soldiers doing that will not be defending the front lines anymore.   Oh their buddies will protect each other.  That's right, and they'll have to man their checkpoints with a squad for that, instead of a couple of guys.  All this costs them men and time away from the front.  More troops to protect the lines of supply and communications instead of fighting on the front.


Its a matter of having effective firepower and being able to use it in a successful manner.
You expect someone wouldtake a Liberator to the neareststormtrooper and bet the farm on winning a close range tussle. Their expectation was to do whatever it takes to survive the war, and this wasn't likely with such a limited weapon or risky plan.
If we spared a barrel more, to make this a pepperbox or something formidable, then maybe they'd have used it.Instead we gave them something they could have made in their own basement.

If they had that kind of drive from the start, they wouldn't have needed the liberator.

/We were more successful in disrupting Germans by distributing "my littlesaboteur" kits to the resistance.
/A machine gun or bomb in the hands of a willing group does more than zip guns scattered in a field.
 
2013-05-06 06:18:28 PM  

way south: You expect someone wouldtake a Liberator to the neareststormtrooper and bet the farm on winning a close range tussle.


Actually, no.  Excepting the concentration camp scenario, I expect the nationalist to sneak up behind an isolated enemy and blow his farking head off when he's not looking. Or some other kind of ambush.  Woman says come up to my room for a little nookie, and BLAM while the guy is taking his pants off.  That sort of thing. its basically an assassination weapon, not a battle weapon.  Go ahead., Nazi, stay on alert 24/7.  Only go out in groups. Enjoy your PTSD.

You really do a romantic idea of how wars are fought, don't you  Quickest draw at high noon, may the best man win.  Wrong. War winners fight dirty, and the FP-45 is a little dirty weapon.
 
2013-05-06 06:36:04 PM  

calbert: this is clearly what the founding fathers were thinking of when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.


Actually, if you told the FFs that technology would one day make it possible for every man to own his own armory, most of them would probably approve of the idea.
 
2013-05-06 06:45:37 PM  

Mouser: calbert: this is clearly what the founding fathers were thinking of when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.

Actually, if you told the FFs that technology would one day make it possible for every man to own his own armory, most of them would probably approve of the idea.


Pretty much. If you told them that technology would one day make it possible for black people and women to tell everyone what they're thinking, they'd probably reconsider the 1st amendment.
 
2013-05-06 07:29:14 PM  

vygramul: Mouser: calbert: this is clearly what the founding fathers were thinking of when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.

Actually, if you told the FFs that technology would one day make it possible for every man to own his own armory, most of them would probably approve of the idea.

Pretty much. If you told them that technology would one day make it possible for black people and women to tell everyone what they're thinking, they'd probably reconsider the 1st amendment.


Gender roles were vastly different 300 years ago, women were not shackled in the kitchen and beaten with canes for not making biscuits fast enough. Women could publish written works back then, they weren't muzzled.. Back then not all blacks were seen as mongoloids, some in fact were slave owners, and many traders bartered things like rum and firearms to blacks in Ghana for slaves.

But none of that actually matters, now does it?
 
2013-05-06 07:34:21 PM  

untaken_name: You don't have to register that piece if you manufacture it yourself. So says the law. If you have a machine shop, you can make all the metal unregistered (fully automatic, even) guns you want to make. Just don't try to sell or move them across state lines, and if you're in Arizona, don't manufacture a fully automatic gun because they've illegitimately banned them.


You can legally own fully automatic guns at least as easily as anywhere else in the US. It's illegal to have one if it's not properly NFA registered, but that's illegal anyway.

Look here and read all the way to the bottom: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03101.htm
 
2013-05-06 07:47:16 PM  

GUTSU: vygramul: Mouser: calbert: this is clearly what the founding fathers were thinking of when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.

Actually, if you told the FFs that technology would one day make it possible for every man to own his own armory, most of them would probably approve of the idea.

Pretty much. If you told them that technology would one day make it possible for black people and women to tell everyone what they're thinking, they'd probably reconsider the 1st amendment.

Gender roles were vastly different 300 years ago, women were not shackled in the kitchen and beaten with canes for not making biscuits fast enough. Women could publish written works back then, they weren't muzzled.. Back then not all blacks were seen as mongoloids, some in fact were slave owners, and many traders bartered things like rum and firearms to blacks in Ghana for slaves.

But none of that actually matters, now does it?


Yes, yes, American was the land of chocolate rivers and gumdrop smiles, where the natives laid out thankful spreads for the colonists and black folks whistled while they worked.
 
2013-05-06 07:47:39 PM  
Mehh...... i'd rather just buy an 80% complete metal lower and complete the process with a drill press.  Seems a lot easier than plastic, and the results could be better.

No serial numbers either way.
 
Displayed 50 of 359 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report