Print-your-own gun debate ignores how the US government long provided and regulated firearms : The Conversation

The current debate over a Texas company’s “right” to allow anyone to download blueprints to its 3D-printed guns is following the same well-trodden terrain as every firearms fight for the past few decades: differing interpretations of the Second Amendment.

Cody Wilson, the founder of Defense Distributed and the creator of the first working plastic gun in 2013, argues it’s about every American’s right to bear arms. “I believe that I am championing the Second Amendment in the 21st century,” he told “CBS This Morning.”

On the other side are the federal judge who is temporarily blocking the release of the blueprints, the eight state attorneys general who sued Wilson’s company from putting the designs online and gun control advocates across the country who want the government to do more to regulate firearms.

This misses the point. Government regulation and the gun industry are not natural enemies. They have a historical synergy that long predates Supreme Court rulings on the constitutionality of gun control legislation. It was not until 1886 that the Supreme Court even addressed the federal government’s ability to regulate gun ownership. For most of the nation’s first century, the government perceived its constitutional duty as providing guns – not protecting an open-ended “right to bear arms.”

My research on the history of the government’s intervention in the arms industry suggests a return to its role as guarantor of the gun trade would allow it to do more to reduce gun violence and mass shootings without trampling on the Second Amendment.


Source: Print-your-own gun debate ignores how the US government long provided and regulated firearms : The Conversation

Is Piers Morgan Right?

Piers Morgan petitions

Piers was right the gun lobby progressed by the NRA   is too powerful in the USA.

Re 2nd Amendment, this does give a right to bear arms, but only to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, not to go to schools, etc to kill innocent people. Also it was created in the 18th century, when guns were not as fast loading as they are now. Although there have been some amendments.  The first was the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Gun Control Act of 1968, and finally the Hughes Amendment in 1986. In essence, what these three laws have done is to say respectfully that fully automatic firearms must be taxed and regulated, cannot be imported from outside the United States, and can no longer manufacture and/or register new/existing full auto weapons with the federal government (BATFE).

No one is advocating the withdrawal of the right to bear arms, just restrict it so the modern fast loading weapons are not included.

Who needs an automatic gun that has a magazine of many rounds to protect your own home?

Now Piers goes for the Bible

Piers is chairing an entertainment show and whether you like him or not he is certainly great at PR, look at all the free publicity he is having.


How many are now watching his show, just to find out what outlandish comments he will make next.


He is certainly pushing the 1st Amendment to its core.


Which Amendment will he go far next? Is he working is way through the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Will he last the pace?