posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 07:16 AM
I have been following the gun debate in the US for some years, and also have been keeping an eye on the people who are promoting a more distributed
knowledge base with regard to manufacture. Defense Distributed is one such organisation, but there are others. For instance, there is a fellow who,
realising that if one purchases a BLANK lower reciever, and machines it himself using a series of jigs, he can legally possess a firearm which has no
registration what so ever, did just that and made a video (A thousand curses upon me, but I cannot remember his name for the life of me right now).
The reason for this is that as long as the part is not sold pre-machined, it does not have to be stamped and serial numbered. Along similar lines
then, I doubt that Cody will be selling printed recievers. His entire ethos appears to be against regulation, so selling those recievers will be
tantamount to going back on that. This is because, if he sells the pre-printed reciever to a customer, he would be obligated by law to attatch a
serial number, and either he, or the purchaser would have to register the firearm.
What he can do however, is continue to refine the quality and strength of his product, up to (or, maybe above) industry standard, and continue to
provide that information to the public, so that those who have a 3d printer can make it for themselves, exempt from serialisation, and registration.
As mentioned in the documentary, there is a lot of research happening into different and more exotic material mediums for 3D printing, ones which may
be able to offer increased strength to printed products. Perhaps it will not be long before the rest of a firearm is printable therefore.
All of this poses a big question. Where does one draw the line? Do people believe that the part of the second ammendment which states that the right
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, ought to preclude the government from being able to monitor weapons at all? Are people dismayed that the
previously comprehensive monitoring appears to be dissolving in the face of this distributed knowledge base?
All I know is, that the changes in the manner in which such things are being manufactured, are going to change the way that firearms are looked at by
government, and by users, and by the general public, not to mention manufacturers themselves.