Defense Distributed Is The Greatest

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think they've mastered the AR lower receiver.
Video of testers firing 600 rounds through a printed polymer lower receiver.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Video of testers firing printed 30 round magazines on selected-fire to show the resilience.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...On a printer that will likely be in each of our homes within the next 5-10 years.

Feel free to donate money to urge them on in their noble effort and buy your own AR today if you can find one and still live in a free state. Build on, Wayne

Here is Dvorak's Tempo Di Valse, in case you were wondering

[Crazed Rabbit]

This is the beginning of the end of gun control.

CR

[Fragony]

I took this for an april's fools joke, how is this actually possible?

[Greyblades]

Ok, you can make guns, can you make viable bullets, percussion caps and propellant from these? Otherwise it's just models.

[Idaho]

I don't understand. Is it saying you can print the whole gun, or just a few parts of it? How do you make the barrel?

Doubt it would make much difference in the UK, as it's very hard to get bullets, and I doubt you can print those.

[Husar]

You can just buy a standard issue copper pipe for plumbing and use it as the barrel, maybe put some vaseline inside to reduce the stress on the somewhat weaker copper material. Or buy a standard issue household hardened steel printer, which will soon be available. If the plastic printers can also print carbon materials or nanotube barrels then the government can finally be overthrown as well.

The future is bright, mostly from the gunfire and explosions.

[Fragony]

I don't understand. Is it saying you can print the whole gun, or just a few parts of it? How do you make the barrel?

Doubt it would make much difference in the UK, as it's very hard to get bullets, and I doubt you can print those.

It's very easy really, you can just order them from Belgium

[Idaho]

Ok. So I have printed my stock, magazine and trigger. I've ordered my barrel from Belgium and smuggled in my bullets from Russia. Will I finally be safe from the king of England?

[gaelic cowboy]

bah big deal some company decides to print a piece of 19th century tech.



The real innovators are talking about printing everything from toys, musical instruments, clothes and jet engines.
This is going to be big and just like in the music industry has the potential to turn manufacturing upside down.

The exporting of manufactured goods will essentially evaporate overnight once it becomes widely available.

[HoreTore]

No he's half right. It went both ways. But this entire discussion is a microcosm of a huge issue: No matter where you are in the world or your station in life, your perspective is still colored by local versions of history. Europeans deny their horrible history even better than we do. But of course we learned from the best

What I find most intresting is the "national myth" we all have. For example, in Norway it's the image of the "independent farmer"("storbonde" in norwegian, not sure how to translate it properly) as the foundation of our nation. We have a romantic image of the farmer who grew his potatoes, managed his sheep and so on. The manliest of men who managed his life without outside influence. Of course, a quick look at the map tells a different story: we have one of the longest coastlines in the world. The waters outside are filled with fish. Rather than being funded on agriculture in the inner regions, we've been funded on fishing along the coast. Our wealth has come almost exclusively from our merchant navy, indeed those farmers would never have survived if they had not been able to transport wood down the rivers and onto the ships.

I believe the US claim that "an american wants the state to go away" belongs in the same category. It can only be true if you choose to ignore huge parts of your history and population.

[HoreTore]

Depends on how you pick your generalizations. Pick any American off the street and ask him or her about their grievances with the system, and you'll get an earful. The talking points are partisan but the mistrust of the establishment (not just the government) is universal. It defines us.

....and you think Europe is any different?

You've read Frag and IA's posts, right?

[Greyblades]

No he's half right. It went both ways. But this entire discussion is a microcosm of a huge issue: No matter where you are in the world or your station in life, your perspective is still colored by local versions of history. Europeans deny their horrible history even better than we do. But of course we learned from the best

We do? I thought we just refused to even acknowledge it's existance and hope the next generations dont find out.

Personally I think the good parts resulting from european history outweigh the bad in the end. I wish, like in every chapter of history, that the bad stuff didnt happen but you gotta take the mistakes into account or risk repeating them.

[The Lurker Below]

hmmm mmmm mmmhmmhmm hhmmmm

er, thank you mr. inventor of the chocolate printer

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think it is sometimes difficult to tell if one nations political trends are being exported to another's, or if these trends developed organically in both countries, with this just happening a little later in one than the other.

I've heard a couple of hints that certain parts of British politics are being 'Americanised' in the sense that we are moving towards a sort of neo-con (eg 'I hate the government)/liberal-left divide. I've even read articles that Britain might be developing something akin to the USA's Religious Right.

I think there is some truth in these observations. But is this because we are being influenced by American politics, or is this a more natural development that resembles what happened in the USA a couple of decades beforehand?

[Greyblades]

(unless that ideal is how to conquer--just ask Hitler, he used the USA's treatment of the Indians as one of his justifications for the holocaust; he called the Jews "The Indians of Europe")

Hah! Good one! Conquer! Hillarious!

[Greyblades]

Yes. Conquer. Through ethnic cleansing and outright imperialism (Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Phillipene Insurgency, you name it) we had an empire Larger than the Continent of Europe before WWI even started. So, yeah. Its a good blue print.

Really?

America had one, maybe two bouts of successful conquest (a good part of the mexican land america took was occupied by people who were literally asking to join you, not exactly conquering) then stopped and went on to messy invasions and intentionally temporary occupations.

America is good at propaganda, great at beating up natives, but keeping the lands and peeved off indigenous peoples in your country for any length of time? Kinda lacking compared to European empires, its takings are comparable to belgium. America has a long way to go before it teaches master classes, if you know what I mean.

[Strike For The South]

The United States is basically a commonwealth nation.

We are all on the same sliding scale of ideas.

The only place where these places diverge is bigotry

The United States is years ahead of the rest of the commonwealth

[Greyblades]

Assuming you're talking about the british commonwealth: It's only that way because we split apart.

If I was feeling bitter I'd say it was because of America's meddling that happened.

Oh wait, I am feeling bitter.

[Strike For The South]

What other commonwealth would I be talking about?

[Greyblades]

Well you just called America a commonwealth so the definition is kinda up in the air.

[Greyblades]

Dude, Britain wasnt a vassal until the 1950's-60's when you used our weakened state to pressure us into dispanding the empire.

[Greyblades]

Yes I wasnt arguing that point, I'm still saying we are better conqerors.

*Greyblades totally missed my point though. Hitler would have won, and Europe would have been much stronger (militarily and strategically) and certainly more unified and independant in the face of the rest of the world. The USA and the USSR couldn't have that. Europe today is just a collection of satellite states.

Actually I am of the impression that had Germany carried on with out getting you or russia involved Britain and Germany would have devolved into a stalemate ending with one starving the other enough to surrender.

[Greyblades]

Well now I'm confused, lets see... I probably misinterprited one of your posts and made challenge saying that american methods of conquest weren't a good blueprint, you seemed misinterprit it and responded as if I said america sucked, then we went back and forth tearing eachother's posts to pieces with no real goal (You know, like every other argument in this forum)

[Greyblades]

Ugh, not again, You know what I say Europe were better conquerors, America were better power players, can we call this pointless and move on?

[Greyblades]

My ultimate point was that you Europeans should learn to get along, and quickly adopt a stronger and more unified federal structure. Your failure to do so as a continent is your legacy of failure--and your brutal methods for attempting to gain the upper hand over eachother (which is all that your Imperialistic Conquests ever were) don't amount to a legacy of military success at all in the big picture.

Huh, I dont think anyone in history has ever done that, even america's "sucess" is a direct result of constant attempts to gain the upper hand actually succeeding; Britain's sucess in gaining the upper hand over France and spain, the colonist's success in gaining the upper hand over Britain, The USA's success in gaining the upper hand over Mexico, the Unionists sucess in gaining the upper hand over the confederates, America getting the upper hand over Europe, America gaining the upper hand over Russia to finally become on top.

[Greyblades]

They didn't succeed at all! Many of your former colonial conquests are stronger than the nations they came from. In attempting to exploit the world to gain that upper hand, they sowed the seeds of their own destruction, and now Europe's only hope on the world stage is peaceful unification. Why the USA's legacy is more successful than yours is discernable on a map, for the same reason Russia's is: A whole lot of space where people used to live, but they all died or assimilated. Most of America is still just empty space waiting to be populated by the next generations. That is an unequivocal success, even if it was gotten in a horrible way (and it was--the US Government's treatment of the Natives should go down in history as something every bit as bad as the holocaust). Europe, due to a complete lack of success in gaining the upper hand over eachother, now finds itself faced with having to do something that's never been done: Peaceful Unification of an entire Continent. In the end, after all, Europeans share more in common with eachother than they do with anybody else--including Americans.

I dont think I said they did succeed, I said you succeeded. The USA's success is a result of it's own attempts to gain the upper hand over it's neighbours, China's success was due to the same, Russia too, there is no precident of spontanious peaceful unification.

[Fragony]

My ultimate point was that you Europeans should learn to get along, and quickly adopt a stronger and more unified federal structure. Your failure to do so as a continent is your legacy of failure--and your brutal methods for attempting to gain the upper hand over eachother (which is all that your Imperialistic Conquests ever were) don't amount to a legacy of military success at all in the big picture.

Europe is a continent only on a map, it's no entity.

[Montmorency]

Europe is a continent only on a map

You consider yourself a Eurasian?

[Visor]

You consider yourself a Eurasian?

Eastasian.

[Fragony]

You consider yourself a Eurasian?

I am Dutch. The Netherlands is a country on the continent of Europe, that's all.