“The first iteration came in 2013. It was a clunky white plastic handgun that was not very reliable and held only one bullet. The kits available today are more advanced. Plastic has been replaced with metal, and a buyer can now replicate a semi-automatic AR-15 assault weapon in just a few hours. A recent online demonstration showed a homemade AR-15 that can reliably shoot more than 660 bullets at a time. And there are no laws against making these guns.” – Diane Diamond in In Age of 3D Printers, Ghost Guns Gotta Go [via noozhawk.com]

104 Responses to Quote of the Day: Ban 3D Printed Guns!

    • Don’t be an ass, it is fairly easy to understand she was talking about a 600 round endurance test. If that was from a printed lower I am really impressed.

      • Words mean something. Saying “660 bullets at a time” outs you as the unintelligent, uneducated, gun grabber that you are. At a time of what…in an hour…before it breaks…is it a ghost gun that can shoot 660 bullets out of the clipazine is under 4 seconds thanks to that evil barrel shroud that goes up?

        Come on.

        • Here, you can get the info from Defense Distributed.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAW72Y_XPF4&t=18s

          If you read her opinion piece and manage to get around her paranoia, she is way more knowable about Defense Distributed than most antis. But like most people who comment on TAG you would rather ridicule than see what may actually be brewing on the anti’s side.

          The funny part is that the Cartels are already machining lowers from blanks (not 80% lowers)
          https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-cartel-gunsmiths

        • Its a little disingenuous to say that this is a 3D printed gun like the liberator. It is a lower, which is the registered part, however, it is not a 3D Printed Gun. Saying that makes it appear like you can just whip up a fully-usable gun in your living room out of melted army men. Yes, you can get the other parts without the hassle, but there is still quite a bit of $$$ involved.

          And, look, still only one bullet per trigger pull. Heh, and it looks like the shooters finger was getting a bit tired 🙂

      • To me, it looks like her main point is if the weapon can be traced or not. It seems to me she either does not know-or care- that criminals use guns that won’t be traced back to them, whether the gun has a serial number or not. Limiting the amount of ammo that can be purchased via the internet? Just another way of saying that she is anti-gun, or at least anti MY gun! Yes, we do need to keep up on what the disarmament folks are up to, but there’s no harm in having a little laugh among ourselves when they say stupid stuff!

        • Of course, tracing of guns rarely works in any practical way. Sure, ballistic forensics are awesome for tracing a particular gun to a particular murder. But beyond that? The idea that guns can be traced, and that such a trace would provide ANY tangible benefit to law enforcement is insane. However, it does fit with the antis’ mindset that criminals buy guns legally and from established FFL’s using some kind of arcane magic. Realize that the vast majority of crime guns are stolen, however, and you can see that tracing guns is a worthless idea. Plus, criminals in high crime areas (like the kind where the vast majority of murders occur) will frequently sell a hot and/or dirty gun back to an arms dealer, who then sells it again and it winds up back in circulation.

          (Cue the anti gun morons saying, “Well, that’s why we need universal background checks!).

        • “The idea that guns can be traced, and that such a trace would provide ANY tangible benefit to law enforcement is insane.”

          Coupla thoughts:

          – Every gun has a test bullet on file with every LEO agency. Criminals always throw down their guns, that they bought legally, after a crime. Tracing will always lead back to the criminal/purchaser. Have seen this on TV for over 40 years. It is what actually happens.

          – Depends on the real reason for wanting to trace guns. The real intent is to get at the legal purchaser, who has let a gun fall into the hands of a criminal. The legal gun owner is responsible for what happens to their gun, even if stolen. Guns that are securely locked up are not stolen. A stolen gun means an irresponsible gun owner, who need to be punished for allowing or inducing an otherwise law abiding citizen to use a stolen gun in a crime. Tracing to a criminal who stole a gun is not the goal. It is never the goal.

        • “Here’s a thought for you sam i am – replacement barrel.”

          Oh, is that legal? We need to shut that down. Or maybe get manufacturers and retailers to only be able to sell new barrels as if they were new guns. Besides, “good” people would not get new barrels in an effort to thwart police, only criminals would do that, and if they can only get new barrels after a background check, they can’t get them.

          I think you missed the underlying tenor of my previous comment.

        • Sarge, you have put your finger on it. “Gun control” – i.e., the approach of controlling the gun not the gunman – is at the end-of-it’s-life.
          At some time passed, it was realistic to control gun manufacturers. Have them put serial numbers on their products and then create paper-trails. Sure, the tracing possibility could be frustrated by defacing a serial number; but, the response could be to make possession of a defaced serial a crime.

          Now it’s clear that America’s criminal justice system has no appetite for locking up minorities for felon-in-possession or straw-selling. Gun control is for OFWGs.

          CNC machines have already (and 3D printers soon will) make clandestine manufacture of receivers/frames a realistic cottage industry. Traffickers will simply buy receivers/frames from such unlicensed manufacturers for about the cost of an 80% receiver (~ $100). Moreover, the unlicensed manufacturers will cheerfully counterfeit a legitimate manufacturer’s maker’s-mark and a random serial number. Now, you have a ghost-gun that looks as if it’s legitimate.

          It’s completely un-trace-able. Traffickers can protect their valuable stables of straw-buyers. They continue buying new/used guns from FFLs or private parties. Launder these guns using counterfeit receivers/frames. (Dis-assemble the legitimate gun and re-assemble it on the counterfeit receiver/frame.) Increase the street price by about $100; and, protect your straw-buyers.

          No such laundered gun will be trace-able. The genuine receivers/frames will be deep-six’ed. Counterfeit serial numbers will trace to . . . no-one! That is to say, “crime-guns” will be trace-able to no-one. Now, we can get rid of NICS checks and 4473 forms. And archiving these forms for 20 years. No more ATF audits of FFLs.

          America’s gun industry is going to save a lot of money.

          (To say nothing of the un-trace-ability of stolen guns.)

      • Lighten up, Frances. It’s a quote that on it’s own sounds incredibly stupid. Of course people are going to have some fun with it.

  1. 660 rounds in one trigger pull, talk about “burst mode” WOW! In reality this is more rounds fired than I’d guess most “AR” owners ever fire. Judging by the amount of them for sale on any given day. No, really. Heeeyyyyy I got an Idea. Bic disposable AR??

      • Have to agree with you here. Not getting past the semantic error to the meat of her argument is a little like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. You can mock her all the way up to the point where the restrictive laws get passed, feeling clever every step of the way.

        • NO DMJ747, I’m not. I just think people other people are little a little sick stupid clipzien jokes. I’m all for them, to a point, but this is an example trying to ridicule and anti who might actual know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

  2. So….. ban things and the making of things? That’s effectively the end of the line for these people. This cause of theirs has become an eschatological pursuit complete with a rapture and Armageddon.

    • That “banning things that make things” was in the news not long ago where someone wanted to consider any material that could be used in manufacturing a gun would require a serial number for that material. That would extend all the way back to dirt. So yes, banning things that make things would be logical. The end state would be government approval for every activity on the planet. The real end goal.

      • I agree; killing the hobby gunsmith is a long road with a dead-end. So long as we have the right to keep-and-bear-arms we will have the right to assemble them from parts. Which parts are you going to regulate?

        Now, the Feds regulate only the receiver/frame; so, that’s the only thing they can regulate. Regulate all you want. We will either buy a finished receiver from an FFL or make it and register it under some new scheme. Then, we buy all the other parts over the internet.

        Any unlicensed, clandestine, manufacturer can mill-out/print a finished receiver/frame – with a counterfeit maker’s mark and serial – and sell it to a trafficker. The trafficker uses the unlawful receiver/frame to launder a legit gun into an un-trace-able gun. Raises the street price by about $100.

        What will the Feds do about this? Regulate barrels in the same way receivers/frames are regulated. It’s more work, but unlicensed clandestine manufacturers will buy barrel-blanks, rifle them, and apply counterfeit makers’ marks and serial numbers.

        Are the Feds going to start regulating barrel blanks? How about hammers? Triggers? Springs?

    • remember that MetalStorm thing? maybe someone adopted the principle to the AR platform and we’re just hearing about it 😀

      • Actually, her article really wasn’t that bad factually. Much better than the usual anti-gun stuff. I don’t agree with her opinion but she is entitled to hers. I also will take her opinion more seriously as she presents herself professionally, i.e., no gratuitous cleavage shots or purple hair.

  3. “showed a homemade AR-15 that can reliably shoot more than 660 bullets at a time.”
    A rifle with 660 barrels would be a heavy sumb!tch.

    • “He killed me Mal. Killed me with a sword. How weird is that?”

      Perhaps you missed the end of the movie. They don’t have to kill the signal, it doesn’t really matter that much. Millions killed on Miranda, not to mention the creation of Reavers. After broadcasting to all the receivers everywhere in the ‘verse, the Alliance Parliament was slightly weakened. There were no trials, no mass revolts, nothing. The government killed millions in an experiment, and, meh.

  4. In the old, old days, most stupid humans got themselves killed by their stupidity. Then, sixty years ago, the democrat party gave stupid humans “Endangered Species Protections”.
    Now we are inundated with them and they will destroy all intelligent life on the planet.

  5. And how, I wonder, would a 3d printed gun ban be implemented, practically speaking? Mandate firmware that will recognize gun parts and refuse to print them? That’ll work.

    But the ‘ware will need broad recognition parameters to avoid small changes to the design files serving as a workaround. Of course you also won’t be able to print anything with tubes, holes, threads or interior cavities (aka “anything useful for anything”) but that’s okay.

    Oops, best also exclude solid objects – can’t allow bullets to be printed – so those are out also.

    And now you have a paperweight.

    • I think their theory is if you Ban the making of – anybody you find with one is now a criminal and can be locked behind bars.

      • Indeed, that is the theory. If only we prosecuted people caught doing illegal things with illegal guns. Or better yet, illegal things with guns period. Then there need not be “illegal” guns. Simply guns that exist and can be used. If only there were a Constitutional amendment stating that we have the right to make and use guns…

    • Mandate firmware? Yup, that’s the rather near future. For the benefit of a whole bunch of disparate interests, that’s exactly the real future of 3D printing. Ten different ways to implement it, but the long and the short is you won’t be able to print until the .gov computers approve and release your code. If it looks like whatever they don’t like, you won’t be “allowed” to make it. Possession of an unregistered machine will be a felony.

      Almost there already, and you can thank Cody Wilson for it. They wouldn’t even know about hobbyist created guns were it not for him.

      • It won’t matter or work at all. CFW is written everyday by regular folks to get around all sorts of barriers.
        There is literally nothing whatsoever that can be done about restricting or regulating code unless the .gov is willing to kick in every door for random tech checks. Even then masking is a thing. It would take a full deep level forensic investigation to be able to determine the existence of contraband code.

        The very fact that these fools persist to attempt regulating code speaks to their ignorance. Nobody should listen to a fool who speaks on a subject he does not understand which basically means anytime any politician or media pundit starts talking tech you can stop listening.

      • I think blaming Cody Wilson isn’t appropriate, here.

        He may have been the first one to design and make a functional 3d printed firearm, but heavy regulation of the printers was already envisioned at least half a decade before. Wilson released his plans in 2013 (according to Wikipedia). The earliest reference I know of off-hand to 3d printer control in popular media (fiction) was in Scalzi’s “The Android’s Dream” which came out in 2006. Some areas of the S&T community have been thinking about it from considerably further back than that, to my personal knowledge, but I don’t have a direct reference for you there. Mostly coffee discussions about the repercussions.

        As you say, there are a lot of entities that will feel threatened by this technology as it gets faster, cheaper and more effective; even without firearms in the picture, I can still very easily see a strong push for extreme regulation.

        • ” The earliest reference I know of off-hand to 3d printer control in popular media (fiction) was in Scalzi’s “The Android’s Dream” which came out in 2006. ”

          Actually the first one I ran across was the nanoforge concept in Forever Peace by Joe Haldeman (1997). Part of the story is how they were heavily restricted access-wise and further programmed to disallow self-replication. End result is that they fundamentally changed the world economy.

          Android’s Dream was a fun book. It’s a shame that Scalzi is a flaming liberal turd.

        • “He may have been the first one to design and make a functional 3d printed firearm…”

          Not even close. He was just the first poorly educated f-wit r-tard who stood in front of the enemy, whipped it out, and said “ya caint stop us! wahoo!”. Had he a decent education in war (Sun Tzu) or business (Uber, Lyft) he’d have known that the most important thing is to establish facts on the ground, before running your mouth about things that could be readily couched as ‘marginally legal’. Instead, as a sadly stereotypical millenial, he sought attention for himself, to the detriment of others who had actually been printing guns long before this meathead punk showed up.

          Cody has only one interest – Cody. He’s accomplished absolutely zip-fckin-shit in real terms. Other than piss off the powers-that-be, and leave the hobbyists, who have been actually building guns, in the proverbial sights of legislative drones. I’ve helped people build more guns than that pathetic attention whore .

      • “Ten different ways to implement it, but the long and the short is you won’t be able to print until the .gov computers approve and release your code.”

        The same tech that lets car owners ‘re-map’ the engine management computer in their cars to better suit the desires of the car owners can also be used to clamp onto the EPROM in the CNC mill.

        There are *lots* of 24/7/365 CNC machine shops that have skeleton crews on the night shift to tend the mills.

        Those same techs will have no problem mounting a chunk of bar stock and plugging in a flash drive on that idle Haas (Spare me your Haas hate, people) and knock out a few AR lowers in their spare time on that work shift.

        Barrels? Pretty much the same thing. To be effective they would have to make things like deep drills and chamber reamer tooling a ‘controlled substance’.

        …and we know how the ‘war on drugs’ has worked out…

    • “And how, I wonder, would a 3d printed gun ban be implemented, practically speaking?”

      Okay, so now she/they are not only advocating violating the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms, but the First Amendment as well. Next they will decide that you don’t need a warrant and probable cause to search for a 3D printer and if you are caught with one you have no 5th amendment protection either – you gotta fess up and take you medicine.

      First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

      Freedom of speech means you can communicate your ideas without being censored. Freedom of the press means you can print those ideas and disseminate the result. Both of these concepts still work when the ideas are computer programs on how to print 3D guns and the printer used to create these ideas. Printing is printing, even if the result is 3 dimensional and useful for other than bird cages or wrapping fish.

  6. mine shoots 666 rounds and has a pentagram on the side. I got the +6 capacity in a deal with the devil, who sold me an extended mag plate.

    • You know it’s really funny you should say that, it’s not like it hasn’t been plausible for people to cast AR-15 receivers using lost wax methods for costs that are less than a 3D printer and they’d be out of more durable aluminum. It takes more effort though and is not as sensationalist as someone pushing a button and an AR lower popping out. It also simply ignores the fact that some sheet metal, a $100 harbor freight press and some box steel later and someone can make an AK receiver.

      I think people forget that people used to manufacture things they needed, or hell just do it for fun at a not so distant point in our history.

      • And I’m on my way to making my own front trunnion for a blowback 9mm ak build. I could even make the bolt, but screw that noise when an AK74 bolt can be modified to work. We are only limited by our imagination, time, and physics.

  7. Everyone here really just needs to read the linked articles and not TAGs quotes. The interesting part of the article was not about printed guns but the home CNC mill that is now offered for $1500.

    • Correct. I read some of her other stuff. This woman is actually pretty bright. She’s a registered Independent in New York and is willing to savage Democrats. She is not the typical non-thinking, emotional Mom that TTAG usually offers up every morning for reader attack, ridicule and virtue-signalling.

  8. Should we ban ceramics? Those Germans make those ceramic pistols that won’t buzz metal detectors (pardon me, but die hard Die Hard fan dies hard even in older man)!

    But seriously, did she need a filler article, or what? 3D printed plastic firearms need to go long way from curious proofs-of-concepts to useful weapons, and Ghostgunner is essentially a CNC mill. I wonder if she understands implications of nation-wide ban on metalworking equipment. Probably not.

    • Yes, but he is selling them pre-programmed to mill out 80% lowers. While I personally think it is fine, he may be pushing it. I can see the argument for distributed manufacturing. If you operated a CNC machine remotely to machine someone someone else’s 80% I think you are violating the law.

      • If you belong to a maker space that has the GhostGunner and you mount your own 80 pct. lower and, (more importantly, don’t get any direct assistance from anyone there) and then push the start button, would that be kosher?

        That would be the same thing as if you went to a neighbor’s garage and used his drill press, no? The neighbor didn’t assist on the labor in any way…

      • Unless Cody Wilson left some hole in legal armor (i.e. copious amounts of “The Buyer accepts legal responsibility of hitting this ten-pound canister of nitroglycerene with provided hammer”), he is not unlike ammo manufacturer: he sold a product enabling operation of a firearm.

  9. Try to make a law against code and plans for these guns and then they will have to train people in what to look for. How many of those trained are going to build one or more just because thet know how it is done?

    Kind of like showing cops all about drugs and you always end up with one who goes over to the dark side……

  10. If your government shuts down all arms manufacturers in order to prevent you from having one to carry out the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, it won’t be effective unless they have first shut down your ability to make your own.

    Push back 200% on all > = Pigs !

  11. *sigh* Why can’t these people understand the simple concept that making something illegal doesn’t make it impossible? The techniques and technology for making guns at home aren’t going to go away, no matter how fervently liberals may wish it so.

    • “Why can’t these people understand the simple concept that making something illegal doesn’t make it impossible?”

      Because they believe themselves to be “good” people, and everyone they know are “good” people, and “good” people always follow the law. as to “bad” people, well, they are just “bad”, and there is noting to be done about the few of them. Besides, “good” people do not go into “bad” areas, so “bad” people are not the problem. It is the people who were “good” until they got their hands on a gun and “snapped”. those once “good” people go to places all the other “good” people go, and that is the problem.

    • Stinkeye,

      Why can’t these people understand the simple concept that making something illegal doesn’t make it impossible?

      Sam I Am is on the right track. I explain in slightly more technical terms. Progressive brains (yes, they do have brains) operate on altruism, fantasy, and emotion. Altruism: people are supposed to be good and do good and follow laws and laws are supposed to stop bad people from doing bad things. Fantasy: laws actually work and virtually eliminate bad results from bad people. Emotion: accept the altruism and fantasy because it feels good — and reject reality because facing reality feels scary and bad.

    • Heck, she even acknowledges as much in the article – the second paragraph is “And besides, criminals don’t follow the law when they go out to get or use a gun.” Then she goes on to propose more laws like the ones she just admitted that criminals won’t follow. You can’t make this shit up.

      I personally am amused by all the “sky-is-falling” panic over weak plastic ARs that have no serial number. Guess what? The serial number on *all* AR lowers is in a non-critical place and can be completely removed with a $20 Dremel tool. And yet, we’re not seeing crime scenes littered with ARs that have a slot cut in the magwell where the serial number used to be… It’s almost as if this is a completely invented non-issue or something.

      • ” Then she goes on to propose more laws like the ones she just admitted that criminals won’t follow.”

        She is simultaneously acknowledging reality, and taking away a talking point from pro-gun supporters. The intent of new law is not constraining “bad” people, but adding another layer of law to keep “good” people from getting gun and “snapping”, and becoming a mass shooter. “Good” people will obey laws, but more laws declaring,
        “We really, really mean it” will make “good” people think hard about doing bad things, like buying a gun, or stealing a gun.

  12. Please don’t be fooled and believe these people are stupid becase they say and write ignorant things like “660 bullets at the same time”. They know better. They aren’t ignorant. Their audience is ignorant. They get paid to write this stuff. They write what their audience wants to read.

  13. Seriously, is there a school people go to in order to sound this handy-wringy? Does this woman drive a mini-van? Do her kids play AYSO soccer? The only thing that might redeem her from being a total cliche is the fact that she did some porn back in the late 90’s [OK maybe not a “fact” but the name come’on].

    • That was her sister, Debbie Diamond. The dirty blonde who provided some of my early teenage education.

      Ah, Debbie. That dirty, dirty blonde.

  14. 80% lowers come in Polymer too. A printed gun of quality material is pretty much indistinguishable from one machined from an 80% lower.

    So here’s my thing. Does that mean everyone who’s home machined a gun has to turn it in or dispose of it? Is there a “grandfather clause” as it were? Because, couldn’t anyone printing a gun just say they made it prior to the ban?

    It seems to me that her ban requires either A, that there is no grandfather clause and government has to confiscate all homemade guns made legally before the ban or B, this is 100% unenforceable.

  15. Yikes! We need to ban printing presses because they can print 660 pages of BS at a time – and we all know that the press is mightier than the gun (or is it pen and sword?). What happens when printing presses get in the wrong hands? We need background checks of newspaper owners – and a 7 day waiting period before they can print what they hear. Don’t even get me started on TV – we need to slow down those electrons, reduce the magazine of channels to 5, and make the remote bolt-action . . . Save us, Obama!

  16. It’s always funny to listen to people who don’t know a friggin’ thing about guns trying to tell us we should be scared of them.

    I really should get to work on my riveted together MAC-10 copy I’ve been designing. >,,>

  17. Dear Ms. Diamond, you obviously know nothing about 3D printing and firearms! You also do not know the meaning of the word infringed. There are far better ways to obtain a firearm, both legally and illegally, than 3D printing one. I can spend a little more than an hour in a good hardware store and obtain everything I need to make a so-called ghost gun and it would be a far better gun than anything most people can print. Libtard ignorance notwithstanding, firearms are actually very simple mechanical devices. People have made a AK-47s from the metal of shovels and cut AR-15 lower receivers from pieces of lumber. Small milling machines have been available for a long time as have various resins, molds and metal casting techniques. If 3D printing had not come along I’m sure we would be seeing these other methods in more common use, in response to the current political climate with you violent libtards trying to use the arms of the State against innocent and virtuous armed people and the Bill of Rights.

  18. Don’t worry. There’s already a law. One twice endorsed by the NRA even! It’s called the “Undetectable Firearms Act”

  19. Realistically speaking what she’s arguing against is civilian ownership of 3D printing tech because that tech can be used to create a myriad of dangerous and controlled objects.

    This is just as stupid as the regulation of “precursor chemicals”. You can’t have lysergic acid or diethylamide without a license because if you combined them you’d get LSD. You similarly can’t buy large quantities of ammonium nitrate without a license, nor can you have large quantities of the the immediate precursor chemicals.

    Both of these are retarded. I can think of at least three simple ways to make ammonium nitrate in quantity and the chemicals to do it ALL have other purposes. But if you have the wrong combination in the wrong amounts well… Hello, Mr. Constructive Intent, how are you today? Not to mention that, were one so inclined, one could make both lysergic acid and diethylamide from their precursors and if you go back far enough they “can’t” regulate the possession of those substances, hence they can’t stop a determined person from making “bad things”.

    You can’t realistically regulate what people make with these devices so, whether she knows it or not, she’s effectively arguing for 3D printer control via the logic of constructive intent. Of course she’s also arguing ultimately for the licensing and control for possession of Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Hydrogen too because… C20H25N3O.

    But hey, DMT is one of the most heavily regulated and controlled substances on the planet. It’s flat out illegal for anyone to possess without a license… but every one of us possesses it right now. No one said .gov folks or .gov lovers were going to make sense.

    As we often say, it’s not about guns. It’s about control. Control of people.

    • “This is just as stupid as the regulation of “precursor chemicals” ”

      Kinda like holding the precursors to a silencer?

      • I would say that “solvent traps” are quite obviously meant for one thing whereas these other things have multiple uses that may or may not create something illegal.

        However, the concept that a “solvent trap” is illegal even though it’s not a silencer is fucking retarded. “Constructive intent” is a hellish idea that leads to a rabbit hole the country should never have embarked down. The whole concept needs to be stricken from the law.

  20. Did I miss Diane’s citation/link to information confirming someone has actually been, ahh, killed by a ‘ghost gun’?

    I’m not gonna get too snarky because I certainly may have missed it. It might be somewhere in that article.

    But Lord, ghost gun. So tired of that…

  21. Would someone please give her a 500 round box of .22 ammo and see how long she can hold it, arms extended, as if she were to shoot a rifle?

    This is my second favorite quote, the first being “an assault rifle that shoots 6,000 rounds a minute”.

  22. Ban 3D printing of guns??

    Sounds like a really easy law to ignore. I can definitely see criminals with intent to murder – simply not clicking print because it was against the law.

    Please use your noggin congressmen, and if you are going to make silly laws, at least make it so it is feasible that they can be enforced. It would also be nice if these laws had roots in moral decision making (you know – laws that involve a victim). It is not inherently wrong that I make a weapon. It is inherently wrong that I use it for non-defensive purposes.

  23. I’m in Canada, I own a 3d printer, I have a valid PAL. By law I am aloud to build cannons of any reasonable size that I can safely shoot. I can also by law, build any non-restricted rifle that I’m legally aloud to own as part of my Pal. If I build a weapon that is illegal for me to own in the first place, then it doesn’t matter if I print it. Furthermore, if I’m in the business of building full auto illegal guns, will a new law stop me from printing ANYTHING?

    THE LAWS THAT ARE IN PLACE WORK. LET ME WORRY ABOUT WHAT COMES OUT OF MY PRINTER…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *