Are firearms really regulatable? It's a fundamental question with regard to gun control. Societies have attempted to place regulations on unregulatable products before and the result has been a disaster. Right now we are engaged in "war on drugs" which is looking more and more like an attempt to regulate the unregulatable ... the result is a handy excuse for one of the biggest assault on the rights of the citizens of this nation we have ever seen.
So-called <cite>modern</cite> cartridge firearms are 19th century technology. Almost all the refinements we see today in firearms, military or otherwise, have their immediate roots in designs from that century. What happens when you try to ban a device made of steel and wood requiring tolerances that are easily achieved by moderately priced modern milling machinery? What happens when Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) metal working devices become more ubiquetous and cheaper than they already are? What will keep mass distributors of metal working tools (Sears, Black & Decker) from marketing 3 in 1 CNC metal working tools to average consumers at some point in the future? What will keep CNC-style automation from being extended to include automated-alignment, automated-tool selection and other setup procedures?
Now juxtapose this with the information revolution, in particular the Internet. Suppose some pro-gun engineers decide to design in-depth a rifle, several rifles, rifles and pistols whatever, create a website and put the design into the public domain. Then publish detailed blueprints, and CNC code for producing the parts. You can download the whole thing for free in a few minutes. OK so there's a disclaimer saying you have to have ATF permission to make these guns.
I know that such things exist in print now, but their reach is limited and from what I've seen their presentation and design leave a bit to be desired. Lets say someone designed a reliable high-quality assault rifle and published the designs electronically, then put up a chat board devoted to refining and troubleshooting the design. Now it's a First Amendment issue.
The fact of the matter is that the technology probably already exists to allow the average Joe with no machinist training to successfully to run a home automated machine shop with the capability of producing an assualt rifle. The technology would be expensive now and no one has really put out the effort to create a product with just that in mind, but I believe it is entirely possible.
In other words with regard to gun control technology is rapidly presenting the social engineers with a <cite> Fait Acompli </cite>.
Now add the last element. There are lots of angry folks in this and other nations who <strong> would </strong> do it, law or no law. Prohibition, The War on Drugs, Gun Control. They may all have in common the fact that they painfully point -out society's limited ability to control its citizens. More importantly perhaps it also points out how dependent today's idealistic social engineers are on <cite> managing </cite> (witholding) information from the public. This creates a situation where they are in direct conflict with the most fundamental issues of this or any Democracy: The right to know.
=rod=
So-called <cite>modern</cite> cartridge firearms are 19th century technology. Almost all the refinements we see today in firearms, military or otherwise, have their immediate roots in designs from that century. What happens when you try to ban a device made of steel and wood requiring tolerances that are easily achieved by moderately priced modern milling machinery? What happens when Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) metal working devices become more ubiquetous and cheaper than they already are? What will keep mass distributors of metal working tools (Sears, Black & Decker) from marketing 3 in 1 CNC metal working tools to average consumers at some point in the future? What will keep CNC-style automation from being extended to include automated-alignment, automated-tool selection and other setup procedures?
Now juxtapose this with the information revolution, in particular the Internet. Suppose some pro-gun engineers decide to design in-depth a rifle, several rifles, rifles and pistols whatever, create a website and put the design into the public domain. Then publish detailed blueprints, and CNC code for producing the parts. You can download the whole thing for free in a few minutes. OK so there's a disclaimer saying you have to have ATF permission to make these guns.
I know that such things exist in print now, but their reach is limited and from what I've seen their presentation and design leave a bit to be desired. Lets say someone designed a reliable high-quality assault rifle and published the designs electronically, then put up a chat board devoted to refining and troubleshooting the design. Now it's a First Amendment issue.
The fact of the matter is that the technology probably already exists to allow the average Joe with no machinist training to successfully to run a home automated machine shop with the capability of producing an assualt rifle. The technology would be expensive now and no one has really put out the effort to create a product with just that in mind, but I believe it is entirely possible.
In other words with regard to gun control technology is rapidly presenting the social engineers with a <cite> Fait Acompli </cite>.
Now add the last element. There are lots of angry folks in this and other nations who <strong> would </strong> do it, law or no law. Prohibition, The War on Drugs, Gun Control. They may all have in common the fact that they painfully point -out society's limited ability to control its citizens. More importantly perhaps it also points out how dependent today's idealistic social engineers are on <cite> managing </cite> (witholding) information from the public. This creates a situation where they are in direct conflict with the most fundamental issues of this or any Democracy: The right to know.
=rod=