CSGV doing the hysterical shriek about 3D guns

From an article in Forbes about Amazon removing The Liberator 3D Code book

First of all, you cannot falsely yell “FIRE” in a theater. Actually it would be morally low to see fire and leave without issue a warning which I’d believe the morons at CSGV would do if there was a profit for them.  But since Mr. Patrick bring the fire issue, in another article I foolishly forgot to save, mentions that one of the books still being offered for sale at Amazon is Unconventional Warfare Devices and Techniques: Incendiaries Tm 31-201-1.  (You can download a copy in PDF here.)

I bring that manual because the biggest mass killing in the US apart from 9-11 were arsons being the most simple #3, The Happy Land Social Club in 1990 killing 87 people with a dollar’s worth of gasoline. Now imagine what would happen if a dedicated predator would use the details found in the book above to commit arson in a public gathering.

But for both Amazon and CSGV a bunch of pages with nothing but codes is the equivalent as the apocalypse or something. Books with detailed instructions on how to kill and maim are OK.

As always, you can download the 3D blueprints at CodeIsFreeSpeech.com or in a myriad of other locations like this here.

21 Replies to “CSGV doing the hysterical shriek about 3D guns”

  1. Remember that those people are totally and utterly enthralled by credentialism.
    Only by having a proper degree in a subject, taught by properly credentialed teachers from official books can one have any knowledge of a subject.

    Which is why the idea of 3D printed guns is freaking them out, because the fact that a person could actually think up and build a submachine gun from common hardware store parts cannot enter their brains. Machining and tinkering is deep, dark black magic to them (so is engineering, but it’s credentialed and thus properly controlled by the right people).

    However, printing is an idea they can grok, so they panic. You just push a button, and the machine makes a machine gun- that is a process they understand.

    Remember that superstition and magical thinking rules the progressives.

    1. “Remember that those people are totally and utterly enthralled by credentialism.”

      Also credentials only matter if they are in the correct field. Thus a PhD in Women’s Studies can pontificate at length on the dangers of Nuclear Power, but a guy with a B.S in nuclear engineering, and some 20 yrs in nuclear power is a paid shill of the industry.

  2. You know that Mark Twain quote about, “a lie gets around the world before the truth can put on its pants”? The lie about “undetectable” is like that.

    These are as detectable as anything else. You can call Cody Wilson a lot of things, but “stupid” isn’t one of them. He knows the “undetectable firearms act” and put enough metal in the thing so that it complies.

    And nobody presses a button and gets a usable gun out of a printer. Not with the files I downloaded.

    1. Is it even possible to make a truly undetectable firearm? What are you going to use as a firing pin? Would plastic even work? Would the gun in general work?

      I’ve seen a lot of frothing, ignorant rage, but this time from gun owners, decrying the NRA for supporting the ban of “undetectable guns”. NRA hating gun owners have decided this means the NRA wants to ban 3D printed guns, but that’s incorrect.

      To me it seems a bit like if the NRA came out and said “we support the ban on hunting Bigfoot”. Sure, I support a ban on undetectable guns, because as best as I can tell, they don’t even exist.

      1. For one thing, you’d need caseless ammo. Possibly you could fire it electrically rather than by firing pin, but if you need a firing pin, ceramics should do. I wonder if the same could be done for the projectile. That still leaves the bullet. I’ve been wondering if something like tungsten carbide would work: ceramic so non-conductive (I think) but pretty heavy. Also hard, which is useful for certain types of targets.
        For the “undetectable” bit, the question is “by what sensor”? Magnetometers wouldn’t pick up plastic/ceramic items, but X-ray machines certainly would. Organic nitrogen compound sensors would detect propellants, unless you switch to exotics that don’t have nitrogen (I know there are explosives of that description; are any of them suitable as propellants?).

        Meanwhile, on the subject of NRA supporting a ban on “undetectable guns”, I don’t see why the fact that those things currently don’t exist is at all relevant. The NRA is flat wrong here. Undetectable guns are just as much protected by the 2nd Amendment as a hunting rifle or a 1911 pistol. What part of “slippery slope” do they STILL not understand?

        1. If I worked for the NRA, in the interest of politics, I’d say “Wayne, endorse the ban on 3D printed guns, those things don’t exist anyway.”

          You’re not wrong in the sense that if they did exist, restricting them would be an infringement, but supporting a ban on a non-existent item is an easy political win for the NRA. If someone actually comes up with one, perhaps the NRA could revisit their position, and likely would. It wouldn’t be the first time.

          Though I suppose if the NRA came out and said “We support a ban on Star Wars blasters” people would get up in arms about that as well, as they should also be protected under the second amendment. Even if they are completely fictional.

          1. Supporting a ban on 3d printing guns causes all kinds of problems in developing technology.

            It cuts off the possibility of developing additive manufacturing to make firearms, and it harms the development of normal firearms, because lots of manufacturers use 3d printers to make prototype parts for doing things like checking fit.

          2. The problem with supporting a ban on one thing then rejecting a ban on something similar is that you get accused of inconsistency, and rightly so. If political expediency is the criterion, where is the cutoff? It’s ok to ban a weapon of which there exist zero? What if there exist 100? What about 10,000?
            The inconsistency argument is a particular concern because the opposition doesn’t admit that these things don’t exist, and the uninformed aren’t aware of it. So they see it simply as “banning gun 1 is ok, but banning gun 2 is not.”

            1. I understand your point, and I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I brought it up originally because people were losing their minds over the NRA endorsing the banning of something that is fictional and I thought the overreaction was silly.

  3. I suppose my engineering degree means I do have the credentials to work with 3d printing and traditional manufacturing tools and design guns.

    But I doubt the left is going to like me 3d printing a magwell for a tube reciever subgun and posting it to youtube.

    It’ll even be completely legal, since I work part time for an SOT, and we are going to do everything in his shop.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick. Also, You can use html code to decorate your comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.