DOJ Reaches Settlement On Publication of Files About 3D Printed Firearms (joshblackman.com) 374
He Who Has No Name writes: Those who remember Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed -- the self-described cryptoanarchist and his organization that published plans for 3D printable firearm parts, respectively -- also remember that not long after the plans for the printable Liberator single-shot pistol hit the web, the Department of State seized the Defense Distributed website and prohibited Wilson from publishing 3D printable firearm plans, claiming violations of ITAR -- the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, a U.S. law taxing and restricting the distribution of a wide variety of physical goods listed as having military value. Slashdot covered the website seizure here (the Department of Defense was initially misreported in sources to have been the agency responsible).
In both a First and Second Amendment win, the Second Amendment Foundation has settled with the Department of State after suing on behalf of Defense Distributed. Slashdot reader schwit1 shares an excerpt from the report: "Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs' attorney's fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint. Significantly, the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
In both a First and Second Amendment win, the Second Amendment Foundation has settled with the Department of State after suing on behalf of Defense Distributed. Slashdot reader schwit1 shares an excerpt from the report: "Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs' attorney's fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint. Significantly, the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
Woot! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Woot! (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Finally, a good reason to get that 3D printer!"
If you don't mind it exploding in your hand when you target practice. I can think of a million better/more useful things to make with a 3D printer than an unreliable, dangerous, inaccurate, single-shot, plastic "gun".
Also, just because you can make it yourself doesn't mean it is legal to do so, or possess it, or carry it, or use it. Just like buying a car doesn't mean you can legally drive it, or making your own meth means you can use it.
At stake was the fact that the INFORMATION ITSELF is not illegal to document/share/know. In that regard, it was a correct decision. It was a win for the 1st Amendment because it is just information. The win for the 2nd Amendment wasn't making plastic guns, it was the statement that the government also correctly acknowledged that "non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Supreme court (Score:3)
If you don't mind it exploding in your hand when you target practice. I can think of a million better/more useful things to make with a 3D printer than an unreliable, dangerous, inaccurate, single-shot, plastic "gun".
Also, just because you can make it yourself doesn't mean it is legal to do so, or possess it, or carry it, or use it.
One pleasant surprise from the last election is that gun rights are now safe for decades to come - by some estimates, 25 to 40 years.
Also, it was pointed out that gun rights lobbies have not pressed gun ownership issues to the supreme court in recent decades because it would have resulted in a tossup decision (making precedent that would be very hard to overturn). Now that we have seated actual constitutionalists, the expectation is that after Ruth Bader Ginsburg(*) retires and Trump appoints the next justi
Re: (Score:2)
Also, just because you can make it yourself doesn't mean it is legal to do so, or possess it, or carry it, or use it.
Actually, if we are talking about firearms, as long as you give it a serial number, and keep it as a single shot, sub .50 round, that's exactly what it means. It's when you try to distribute it that Uncle Sam has a problem.
Try making something with your hands sometime, and then imagine some bureaucrat telling you that it's toooooo scary, and you can't keep it. Imagine he demands you have to give it to him. That's the sort of behavior that the 2nd was written for.
There used to be an outfit in California that
Re: (Score:2)
>"Actually, if we are talking about firearms, as long as you give it a serial number, and keep it as a single shot, sub .50 round, that's exactly what it means. It's when you try to distribute it that Uncle Sam has a problem."
There are a LOT of factors to consider..... Mere possession, in any way, of a firearm (of any type, no matter how you came about it) by a felon, for example, is a Federal crime. Carrying a firearm legally obtained, in a concealed way, without being properly licensed, off your own p
Re: (Score:2)
Single shot isn't a requirement. Neither is a serial, although a serial is recommended just to save hassles with range fudds who think they know the law (I have 4 guns w/o serials, serials weren't required on rifles/shotguns until 1968) and cops. And with the cops, you'll beat the rap but you never beat the ride....
Re: (Score:2)
The win for the 2nd Amendment wasn't making plastic guns, it was the statement that the government also correctly acknowledged that "non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
I don't agree that it's a win. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about being "inherently military", and, a plain reading of it makes clear that it's talking about military weaponry since we need a militia. I'd rather see the DOJ just say "Yes, we understand what the Founders meant, which is that you can have weaponry even if it's military grade."
Re:Woot! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Woot! (Score:5, Funny)
Out of interest what sport is an AR-15 suited to?
Shooting.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Out of interest what sport is an AR-15 suited to?"
Generally the same thing as all other semi-automatic rifles, like hunting and target shooting. There are plenty of more "dangerous" older and newer semi-automatic rifles. The AR-15 just "looks" more military-ish. It's main advantages are flexibility, affordability, reliability of the design, and interchangeability of parts and accessories.
Re: (Score:3)
Out of interest what sport is an AR-15 suited to?
I'll bet that if my uncle were still running the farm he grew up on he'd use an AR-15 to shoot all the jack rabbits that would get into his crops. He typically used a .22 long rifle cartridge and a 5.56mm or .223 would be more expensive, but it would also be easier to use as the larger powder charge would cycle a semi-automatic more reliably than a .22LR
Re: Woot! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it just says that we have the right to arm our selves with what they called guns at the time.
In other words, muskets.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to assume that you also don't believe the First Amendment covers any kind of communications technology developed after the 18th century.
Because otherwise you would be a blatantly partisan hypocrite, and I don't want to speak ill of you on assumption.
Not exactly a win (Score:4, Insightful)
The Government re-categorized common small arms to no longer fall under ITAR, but instead be regulated by standard Dept. of Commerce international trade regulations.
Since ITAR no longer applies to Defense Distributed, the case is over.
But it's just an administrative policy change. The next administration could swap it back at any time. It needs Congress to pass a law protecting blueprints and plans, or for the Supreme Court to decide a case in favor of the First Amendment to prevent future victims.
Re: (Score:3)
But it's just an administrative policy change. The next administration could swap it back at any time.
That's true but in the mean time there will be many months or years of people posting these plans on the internet, other people downloading them, and the machines capable of producing firearms getting cheaper and more numerous.
Any administration that follows that wants to change this rule will have to find a way to put this toothpaste back in the tube. The DOJ obviously stepped out of line in preventing these plans from being distributed. Perhaps they took the steps they did out of an abundance of caution
Has meaning for Open Source Space research (Score:4, Interesting)
There is an expanding Open Source Space community. You can meet them at the upcoming Open Source Cubesat Workshop. [oscw.space] This is actually an interesting precedent for us, because satellites and various space technologies are also "munitions" under ITAR or EAR, both laws have a carve-out for Open Source, and here it has been tested.
Second-amendment issues are out-of-scope for most space research organizations, so nothing said about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see it now. (Score:5, Funny)
I can see it now, pissed off guy wants to go on a shooting spree.
Order 3d printer on amazon after hours of research, forgot to order filament, order filament, open cad, sketch rifle, does a horrible job, searches internet for a pattern, downloads pattern, load pattern into 3d printer, hit print, hours later, realizes he has wrong filament, re-order filament, printer pauses ruining print, try printing again, platter not cold enough and ruins print, platter to hot and melts print, after 2 dozen tries, gets a good print. Realizes he needs bullets, drives to sporting store buys bullets. Takes gun into woods, gun shoots 1 bullet at a time due to stress, gun jams, gun breaks after 4 bullets.
Queue up another print job to print replacement gun, repeat, while waiting for his 3rd print, subscribes to 3d printer forums.
Over a month late, finally gets a good prototype gun printed, forgets why he was mad, and starts printing 3d printed boats.
Or just buy a 3D Printed gun (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Buy your max gun buyback number.
2. Sell to state (potentially saving an innocent good gun from being melted down).
3. Profit. note No ?.
4. Optional. Buy ammo!
Re: (Score:3)
Alternatively:
Buy some bullets. find a piece of steel pipe in which the bullet fits smoothly. Drill a hole in a bloc of wood to hold the pipe. Drive a nail in another block of wood. Attach a rubber band to each side of the first block of wood, after first passing it through a hole in the second block. Put bullet in end of pipe. Pull second block back, so that the rubber band slams the nail head against the bullet.
Yes, that is actually a gun. Yes, that will actually work. Yes, you do stand a good cha
What Happens When 3D Printers Get Better??? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that 10 years from now there are 3D printers that print really strong metal parts which can be assembled into a machine gun or similar.
Do you mean like the sintered metal 3D printers that some car manufacturers are already using? You can slap down your credit card and walk away with such a printer today.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean like the sintered metal 3D printers that some car manufacturers are already using? You can slap down your credit card and walk away with such a printer today.
No I really can't: my credit limit doesn't go anywhere near that high! I think for now the credit for one of those machines is out of reach of most people.
Re: (Score:2)
You can always order parts from online services. Then you get actual quality parts, from quality printers, run by people who know what the heck they're doing.
Of course, if you're trying to order gun parts, you're limited by how effectively the company can recognize what you're printing as gun parts.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, though, I really don't understand why guns seem to be the number one thing people obsess over printing. At least be creative.
There's one 3d printing project which has been tempting me recently... trying to make the first 3d printed telescope mirrors (stiffened on the back with a 3d truss structure). Now obviously you can't get anywhere near the required precision from today's printers. For example, on iMaterialise, the best resolution in metal is ~100 micron, and in plastic ~200-250 micron. So 2-3
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Todays (expensive) printers can print metal components.
Not going to be expensive for long
scientists working at Michigan Technological University have developed a 3D metal printer that costs just $1,500 to build
https://www.element.com/nucleu... [element.com]
Re:What Happens When 3D Printers Get Better??? (Score:4, Interesting)
For that matter, you can make an incredibly devastating dust bomb with a bag of flour from the grocery store and a fan with a sparking motor. It has never been particularly difficult to wipe out half a school if you really wanted to. What is new is the number of crazy people willing to do such a thing and that is most likely because people are heavily sensitized and emotionally weak due to lack of dealing with things like every guy bullying every other guy in high school and such. A slightly rougher society and "words will never hurt me" attitude actually results in a thicker skin and words genuinely not bothering you so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Manufacturing a new machine gun is generally a crime for a civilian (without the proper BATFE blessing) since 1986, just as has it long been illegal to take a hacksaw and saw off the barrel of a shotgun.
How does the inability to prevent one (and it's lack of being a serious problem) mean that the other is destined to happen and become a serious problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lockdown (Score:4, Interesting)
This is great news for the school-shooting industry. I expect that the NRA and Second Amendment activists are thrilled at having these new tools to murder children.
Yeah, because the existing AR-15 and similar weapons which are readily available all across the country are no match for these plastic super weapons, which on a good day, may be able to fire one bullet without exploding and killing the shooter!
Re:Lockdown (Score:4, Interesting)
What a fucking douche. There are millions of people who own firearms and don't shoot children. There are drivers who intentionally run over children. [independent.co.uk] Are you going to forbid kit car plans because someone might use them for killing children? There are legitimate uses of a weapon. Self defense, hunting (legalized and regulated), sport (skeet shooting), and of course on the firing range.
You and your fucking comment are as sick as the deranged asswipes who shoot at innocent people, children included. Fucking retard.
Re:Lockdown (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Lockdown (Score:2)
That's a very good point. But with our defense budget, I felt the counter arguments would be strong so I left he whole "armed citizenry" argument off my list. I agree with you though.
Re:Lockdown (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Old joke but true.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man, what a great joke!
What?
Re:Lockdown (Score:4, Informative)
Deterrent for Invasion that will never happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh good, if America is so well protected we should be able to redirect the billions in defense spending to more productive use.
Baby's first invasion (Score:4, Insightful)
The "invaders" will be those brainwashed by Russian PR. They are already here and coincidentally, they are gun owners. Putin knows there will never be a Red Dawn, to many guns. So in true KGB style he is using our own strength against us by turning it to his desires. #MAGA
Don't count on it (Score:3)
oh and another one (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why I have never understood why progressives don't spin solar power and electric vehicles as a defense measure. Worried about that electrical grid? You won't once it has been completely decentralized. Worried about fuel distribution and foreign supply during a time of war? Hey, they can't block out the sun, so no problem!
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get his argument, since an AR-15 is useless against an invading force then you may as well not have one. Okay then, let's say I agree that an AR-15 is useless. Would not the proper response be to allow the average citizen to own anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons?
Saying the guns allowed by law are now useless to stop an invasion or a tyrannical government means that the laws have gone outside the bounds of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment meant that the people could not be disarmed by
Re: (Score:2)
We're not that far from full fab units tnat can replicate themselves.
You'll still need to buy the electronics, but metal and plastic and feeds for preexisting parts are all there.
Aka download plans, visit Radio Shack with a shopping list, and push a button. Drone.
We heavily regulate cars (Score:2)
Re:Lockdown (Score:4, Insightful)
most of the murders are committed in areas which have harsh gun laws. like Chicago for example. Oh and don't forget LA.
Re: Lockdown (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Re:Lockdown (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lockdown (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Those files were either
A) also potentially in violation until this administrative court ruling or
B) not covered under this rule as those plans are not compatible with a computer controlled mill or 3D printer
The DOJ ruled that a computer readable file to produce certain kinds of firearms violated the regulations under ITAR. This was flawed from the start, as you imply, as these were already plans in human readable form that have been printed and spread by electronic means in human readable form since the 19
Re: (Score:3)
The Obama era ATF tried to add ITAR/Non-Sporting BS to home built guns as a back door prohibition/ban.
ATF FAQs
Does an individual need a license to make a firearm for personal use?
No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use. However, a license is required to manufacture firearms for sale or distribution. The law prohibits a person from assembling a non–sporting semiautomatic rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as well as firearms that cannot be detected
Re: (Score:2)
Did you click the link on the parent site?
http://thehomegunsmith.com/ [thehomegunsmith.com]
Did you notice the giant UK flag at the top?
It's very likely that this site isn't hosted in a location where a US court has much jurisdiction. Contrary to popular belief, Americans are not the only people interested in firearms.
Re: Lockdown (Score:2)
Re: Lockdown (Score:2)
Don't have links to a court case but in -93 the single of Here comes the war by the British band The New Model Army at least caused some controversy by including a simple diagram for an atomic bomb in the inlay http://www.newmodelarmy.org/in... [newmodelarmy.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Also VERY IMPORTANT point. If you are legally able to buy/own a firearm (AK, AR, BB gun, Shotgun, Pistol, etc). You are 100% legally able to build yourself one or 100 of them.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q... [atf.gov]
Does an individual need a license to make a firearm for personal use?
No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use. However, a license is required to manufacture firearms for sale or distribution. The law prohibits a person from assembling a non–sporting semiautomatic rif
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Flint was fucked long ago.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wild hyperbole like that is why fewer and fewer people take the Left seriously about anything any more.
Re: (Score:3)
"Wild hyperbole like that is why fewer and fewer people take the Left seriously about anything any more."
Keep thinking that please. Trump has just named a supreme court justice who is likely to help role back abortion and gay marriage which are two issues a current and growing majority of Americans support. American conservatives are currently on the winning end of losing fights just like they once were with slavery and civil rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump has just named a supreme court justice who is likely to help role back abortion and gay marriage which are two issues a current and growing majority of Americans support.
And if the Democrats had not spent 100 years undermining federalism and states rights, this would not be a problem. Of course the Republicans helped also; federalism is only good when the other party is in power.
Re:He's just a troll (Score:5, Informative)
Except they aren't talking about 'Assault Rifles', or as they are more commonly called... 'machine guns'... which are already heavily regulated.
'Assault Weapons' are the made up term they use today, which encompasses primarily cosmetic features... unless you want to get to the point of cracking down on all semi-automatic handguns... which at last check SCOTUS has ruled a constitutional right to be able to own.
Except the rifles which the left seeks to ban mostly shoot 223... which on average is about half the weight as say... my 270 deer rifle. Both fire a round at about the same speed, however my 270 has about 2x as much muzzle energy.
Take this comparison of a 223 vs 30-06 against a pair of watermelons: the not at all scary looking 'hunting rifle' has far better wide hole leaving abilities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:He's just a troll (Score:5, Interesting)
It's videos like that which demonstrate the lie that is the "assault weapon". The gun grabbers say they want to take those "evil weapons of war" from the public but leave us with our hunting rifles. That's a lie and if they know anything about rifles or hunting then they know it's a lie. So either they are ignorant or they assume the people are ignorant.
Oh, and an "assault rifle" is a real thing. An assault rifle is a weapon capable of switching between single shot with each trigger pull (semi-automatic) and multiple shots per trigger pull (burst or fully-automatic). To the DOJ anything that is capable of firing more than one cartridge with a pull of a trigger is a "machine gun". A shotgun fires multiple projectiles with each pull of the trigger but that does not make it a machine gun so long as all the projectiles are in a single cartridge. There are air guns that can fire multiple projectiles but since the projectiles are not contained in a cartridge that is also not a machine gun. State laws vary on this such as my own where any "dangerous weapon" is categorized along with firearms, so even pepper spray or a taser needs a permit to carry concealed.
The definition of an assault weapon varies by state. There was a big deal made about some insane person murdering schoolchildren with an "assault weapon" which was a lie. Assault weapons, by their definition, are banned and so no one has committed a mass murder in a school with an assault weapon as defined in that state. Now that we've seen a handful of murders done with handguns and pump action shotguns it seems, to me at least, the concept of the "assault weapon" is fading. Banning shotguns will not go over well, and finally people are discussing things that will actually stop murders such as armed guards at schools.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the size of each hole, it's about how quickly you can put holes in lots of things with accuracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Lets put it this way, if you went nuts, which would you choose if you wanted to put a lot of holes in a crowd of people at fairly close range?
The bolt action is absolutely the correct choice for a single target at 100 yards.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of people going nuts and shooting people en-masse choose a fairly close range and rapid firing. They don't tend to be the sort of people who practice seriously enough that they would be any more accurate with a bolt action rifle. There are exceptions, of course, but unless we want to ban butter knives, there needs to be a cut-off somewhere.
I have mixed feelings about that approach, but there is some logic to the thought.
No, when the left says Assault Rifles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's got to do with the speed of the bullet and how it tears through flesh leaving a wide hole).
Where do you get your information? Everything in that sentence is wrong.
Buddy of mine who's a gun nut (Score:2)
Fact is the rest of the world doesn't have mass shootings all the time. Or any kind of shootings for that matter. You can blame culture, but we're not going to change that. You can blame medical care, but nobody wants to pay for that. So what's left? Gun regulations. I can't drive a car over a certain tonnage w/o a commercial license but I can buy just about anything up to and including a grenade launcher (I cant' get the ammo, but r
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, so my .30-06 single shot is an "assault rifle"? Because it can put a bullet downrange with the same sort of muzzle speed as an AR-15, and it will make a MUCH bigger hole than an AR-15 does.
Or my Lee Enfield. Yeah, it can be handloaded to the same sort of muzzle speeds as an AR-15. 100 year-old rifle, but an Assault Rifle! Way
Re:He's just a troll (Score:4, Informative)
Actually a wounded soldier is more out of it than a dead one, because he'll tie up his buddies who are helping him, and tie up medical resources, etc, and the associated logistics.
In actual combat, most rounds are expended just keeping the other guys' heads down.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you oppress him with your accurate definitions.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only does it make people not respect the political left,...
Who are you trying to convince that there is any 'left" in US politics?
What you actually have is two corporate controlled sides of the same coin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good point. Plus, MAGA hat wearing school shooters are probably not really equipped to 3D-print anything, since they need buttons like "POPCORN" on their microwaves or they wouldn't be able to figure out ho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, he was featured in a San Diego Padres shirt, so we should look into banning baseball bats. Anyway, again, well done!
Re: (Score:2)
Nice to see you wearing your nazi brand on your sleeve these days instead of hiding it.
Re: (Score:3)
These plastic guns though... how many children can you murder before it breaks?
Then bring more than one.
These plastic guns are small, light, and cost very little. It shouldn't be that difficult to carry multiple plastic guns.
That's the important bit. I mean, if you're a psychopath that has to surround yourself with guns to feel safe, who knows what could set you off, so you really need that information while you're relatively rational.
Rational adults need to realize very soon that gun control laws of any kind will not keep children safe. What keeps children safe are armed rational adults.
Irrational law: Felons are barred from owning a firearm.
Rational law: Those that cannot be trusted to possess a firearm need to be confined to prison or a mental health facility.
Irrational law: Parents are
Re:HALF RIGHT! (Score:4, Informative)
>"Of course guns are military. What a stupid thing to say. Thanks, Trump!"
? The article said:
"The government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
And that is 100% true. It didn't say "guns are military" or "guns are not military", they said that non-automatic firearms UP TO .50 caliber are not INHERENTLY military (IE, exclusively for military use).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That was a curious ruling in itself, given that at the founding of the United States, the expectation was that most warships would be in private hands rather than government. That's why the Constitution includes a provision for issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal to charter private citizens to conduct warfare on its behalf.
Re: (Score:2)
Also a curious ruling when reminded of the following bit from the wikipedia article on the ruling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:HALF RIGHT! (Score:4, Interesting)
>"What then is inherently military?"
Remember their statement:
"The government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
They just defined it, in reverse. It would be all automatic firearms, and firearms over .50 caliber. ANY firearm can or may be used by the military, but the previous sentence define those that are inherently military.
Your followup statements are out of bounds, since their definition only regards firearms. Nuclear bombs, tanks, etc, are not "firearms".
Re: (Score:2)
For those who aren't aware, there was a major revision to the list of military weapons by Secretary Clinton which triggered ITAR authority. There was also a coinciding adjustment to ATF regulations regarding gun manufacturing, hopefully this has or will be revised as well. The
Re: (Score:2)
"Only in USA is an AR-15 "not inherently military"
Only on slashdot would a victory for non-military firearms be considered a win for the second amendment - the purpose of which is to keep military arms in private possession.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything in your post is wrong. That's impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a small high velocity round that fractures on impact, creating more damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is not.
The military doesn't use the AR-15.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't inherently military. What makes an AR-15 military?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a high powered semi automatic rifle based on the M4?
Re: (Score:2)
It's why we've never been successfully invaded by a conquering force, while most European capitals sit atop Roman ruins, and one strata above that, hastily-buried Nazi party armbands.
Gun make it really, really easy to kill (Score:2)