The Genie Is Out Of The Bottle

Whatever one thinks of the proliferation of firearms, it’s a fact that the technology needed to make reliable, effective weapons is well in hand. Even at the lowest levels of industrial capability firearms are practical, manufacturable items, and this includes those capable of fully automatic fire. Weapons with a great deal of firepower can be made from simple, off-the-shelf items at home. Proof of this can be seen in the numerous improvised firearms that continually turn up all over the world.

ImproGuns, who contributes to this site, recently published an article on a weapon made to an extremely high standard; an illicit machine gun that turned up in large numbers in Croatia, as well as in Holland and the UK. Following that, he also wrote about a different firearm made to nearly as high a standard as the first. Either weapon is small, concealable, and capable of unleashing fully automatic firepower. How can you keep such weapons out of the hands of criminals? simply, there is no way, besides locking up the criminals themselves.


A simple weapon, made cheaply and inexpensively in a clandestine shop. With the addition of a magazine, which is itself no more than a box with a spring in it, and some cheap and easily acquired or manufactured ammunition, it can put out lethal firepower reliably. Image source:


Weapons like the one above are no more than simple tubes with a minor amount of welded sub-assemblies, and trigger mechanisms that amount to nothing more than a bar blocking the bolt from going forward. The heart of their mechanism is a mass on a spring, no more complex than the simplified oscillation diagrams in a high school physics textbook, with a protruding, fixed pin at the front to detonate the primers of cartridges. There are no complex internal sub-assemblies, nothing requiring precision machining, and every single component can be made in a garage by unskilled labor. These kinds of weapons were perfected in WWII, but people have been “rolling their own” well before that, and many, many of the most famous gun designers (one of whom was, himself, a cop-killer and an outlaw, Williams was for the record a distinct outlier among gun designers) got their start making improvised weapons at home, before turning their talents towards the pursuit of designing and making factory firearms.

In that second of the World Wars, a weapon was devised that was so simple, scuttlebutt has it that it took longer for a shooter to load one than it did for the factory to make it. The cost per unit of that FP-45 Liberator was, at the time, only $2.40 a unit, or a little over $30 in today’s money. The single-shot Liberator was designed as a weapon to be dropped in large quantities all over Europe for partisans to use against the occupying German forces, but even it was not so much cheaper than the existing fully automatic 9mm Sten submachine gun, that the latter eventually was chosen instead as the weapon that would arm Europe for its liberation. Either weapon is a model for the home-builder, and those few with the legal sanction to do so have often chosen the Sten, or something equally simple, as their first fully automatic weapon to manufacture legally.

When the conversation turns to guns, my father is fond of saying “the genie is out of the bottle”. No matter what laws or regulations are in place, the technology to make firearms from readily available materials and simple processes is in-hand, and nothing short of total de-industrialization can turn that clock back. Examples of the unleashed genie abound; a recent trip to the National Firearms Museum had me beholding weapons made by Vietnamese Communists out of tubes and boards, with dubious firing mechanisms. Beyond this crude level of work, [Advisement: The following links will take you to Amazon pages for volumes on how to make your own fully automatic firearms; these are illegal in many countries, and in the United States if you do not possess a Type 2 SOT, and there is a chance that law enforcement may perceive the purchase of these volumes as a precursor to criminal activity – having said that, they are all on my Amazon wish list] many volumes have been written detailing the construction of simple, pistol-caliber blowback submachine guns. As long as suitable ammunition is available, it is very difficult to prevent the manufacture of relatively modern, effective fully automatic weapons, as they can be produced in almost any shop or garage capable of even basic fabrication.

Even without ready sources of quality ammunition, propellants, primers, and cartridge casings can be produced from scratch given even modest industriousness, let alone industrial facilities. Earlier, we ran an article on YouTuber Cody’s successful effort to make homemade blackpowder – and even selfloading weapons can be made to function with ammunition loaded with blackpowder:

Moving forward, it must be recognized that firearms are here to stay. The road to such a level of de-industrialization as to make the cheap manufacture of highly capable firearms impractical is a long, and bloody one, and the future after that is dull and brutish. It’s an unfortunate fact that many bad men are creative. The world would be a safer place if all evil men were slackjawed australopiths, little more than upright apes that could scarcely grasp the magic of man-made fire, much less the complexities of modern industrial technology, but creativity seems to be a nearly universal trait among humans, good and bad.

Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at


  • Matrix3692

    Just out of curiosity, had anyone tried to couple it with a drum mag? or any other hi-capacity magazines?

    Cause based out the guns design and proposed method of employment, it’s just looks like it’s begging for a drum mag……

    • PK

      “It” being…? A simple machine pistol? Yes. I have a KG-9 which was registered as a machinegun prior to the cutoff date in May 1986, and I have since modified the magazine well to accept Kp31 drums and surplus 36 round magazines. Luckily, these days factory made drums are available which can be used without modification to the firearm.

      Other than that, I have fired a post-86 dealer sample converted G17 (FA only, backplate autosear) using drums as well.

      • dshield55

        The coffin mags for the KP-31s are pretty nice too, just not as readily available.

      • Matrix3692

        I mean these illicitly manufactured ones. But simple machine pistol, yes.

  • “The following links will take you to Amazon pages for volumes on how to make your own fully automatic firearms; these are illegal in many countries, and in the United States if you do not possess a Type 2 SOT”

    You’re talking about the full-autos or the books themselves? Because I don’t see how it could be possible to ban or restrict ownership of books under the Constitution of the United States.

    “and there is a chance that law enforcement may perceive the purchase of these volumes as a precursor to criminal activity”

    What’s that, now? “Minority Report”?

    • Cornelius Carroll

      I think the first paragraph was meant to reference that the fully automatic weapons are illegal, not the possession of the books.

    • PK

      Ownership of such books, the tools, the materials, and being under the eye of police over another matter can lead to a serious investigation. I don’t know of anyone who has been convicted based on that alone, but it is considered probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion in many jurisdictions, sadly.

      • Bill

        I’d like to see some documentation or cases: after all “Inspire” magazine is easily available, and in the past there was a book that was common among pedophiles. Either could be “suspicious,” but due to the 1st Amendment books will never, and I know never say never, rise to the level of probable cause, let alone lead to a criminal conviction.

        • Triplanetary

          Though it was in the UK Douglas Luty was jailed for writing his how to make a 9mm smg book.

        • “I’d like to see some documentation or cases…”

          You might want to read:
          [Dempsey and Cole. “Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties In The Name Of National Security”. The New Press. 2005.]

          It goes through the US history and legality of persecuting people on the basis of 1st Amendment activities in significant depth. One of the difficulties is that such abuse by law enforcement is often conducted against politically unpopular groups and that those categories can shift with political winds. The book spends a good deal of effort outlining the history of abuses under the Committee For Un-American Activities, how it was then leveraged as a tool for going after [suspected] Communists during McCarthyism and then the same laws were then applied to Palestinians and Lebanese after hunting Communists fell out of favor. Then were ‘militia groups’ and the ‘right wing extremists’. The bottom line is that it always involves guilt-by-association and often Constitutionally-protected behaviors rather than actual criminal behavior.

          • n0truscotsman

            Thanks for that citation. Im making a order now.

      • whskee

        I wouldn’t put it past an investigator who finds the dreaded Anarchist Cookbook to then claim any of the routine crap under the sink is actually bomb-making materials. It may not be a conviction outright, but it’s certainly going to bring more scrutiny to the person.

    • Peirangelo, I can’t know how police in every jurisdiction will react, so that warning was just an idiot light.

    • ” Because I don’t see how it could be possible to ban or restrict ownership of books under the Constitution of the United States.”

      You’d think that, wouldn’t you? And “ban” would not be the correct word. Rather, we have been opening criminal investigations and persecuting people on the basis of clearly protected 1st Amendment activities for… well about as long as the US has existed… and the courts/legislature has seldom reigned it in. [Dempsey and Cole. “Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties In The Name Of National Security”. The New Press. 2005.] presents a good history of the problems (including particularly the abuses leading up to and through the McCarthy era) and potential solutions. David Cole, one of the authors, was counsel for the LA 8, whose persecution by the FBI and INS lasted 20 years.

  • Michael Wilson

    And politicians are talking about “common sense” regarding gun laws? Why don’t they get some “common sense” and talk about security up in these schools and places of business?

    • Squrrily

      I am a gun owner. As a matter of fact, I own about 500 lbs of guns. I don’t need 500 lbs of guns, but if I want 600 lbs I want to be able to get the other 100 lbs. I am also a mental health Nurse and have been for 30 years. In that time I have seen countless numbers of a’holes committed because they were waving a gun around in public. I also appreciate the NRA but if gun owners don’t reign in politicians like Mike Huckabee and, yes, the NRA we are all at risk of losing our gun rights. Do you remember when you could get tipsy and get behind the wheel of a car? MADD put a halt to that behavior, and guess what??? Someday soon a Mother who lost a child to gun violence will form a group like maybe, Mothers Against Assualt Rifles and we will all lose or maybe we will all win. Maybe then we will begin to get laws in place that stop crazies from owning a gun, not for one or two years but for the rest of their lives. GUN VIOLENCE MUST STOP NOW!

      • Sianmink

        What do you propose that will accomplish this?

        • Squrrily

          Deepen firearm background check to include mental health admissions

          • Sianmink

            Which mental health admissions? Do you want everyone being treated for any mental illness to be denied firearms? People will simply avoid treatment.
            I agree that the background check should include mental health stops, but this needs to be carefully done. Someone must be adjudicated incompetent or dangerous by a judge before they can be denied a right.

          • Squrrily

            Maybe you should get a part time job in mental health. Work in the morgue. Roll a few corpses into the cooler missing part or all of their heads due to suicide by shotgun. Emotional problems of any kind and firearms simply do not mix. As for denial of gun ownership to anyone who has EVER had mental problems and as far as that goes anyone ever convicted of domestic violence. As I said if gun owners don’t figure this out then some group will do it for us. Death by gunshot is ugly and if the bloddy corpse is your child it becomes a horror

          • Sianmink

            Are you proposing denial of ownership rights for everyone on mental health medication, everyone with depression, bipolar, Ptsd, anxiety, etc? That is over half the population, and ridiculous. Rights should only be denied under strict scrutiny and a judge’s order.

            Anyone convicted of domestic violence is already denied. Many also want denial to those merely *ACCUSED* of it, which is patently ridiculous.

          • Squrrily

            That half of the population is where the mass murderes are coming from
            So yeah…NO guns for them….too unstable

          • The Brigadier

            I agree with your last paragraph, but not your first. See my lengthy post for a possible solution.

          • “That is over half the population, including most of our veterans and most of our police and ridiculous.”

            I will also guarantee that it includes people who have been mental health nurses for “thirty years”. It is one of the fields— like policing— where the risk of developing occupational mental health issues is *extremely* high and almost inevitable that a practitioner will have some problem at some point in a long career.

            It is also worth pointing out that mental health is not really a ‘science’ but something closer to educated voodoo even with the major advances over the last century. One can predict psychological effects fairly well statistically over a large population, but when it comes down to one or a handful of professionals diagnosing one or a handful of individuals, false negatives and false positives abound, particularly in the border zone where such evaluation is useful for evaluating safety with firearms: ‘Hannibal the Cannibal’ is always going to be an inpatient and Mother Theresa won’t want a gun, but both Adama Lanza and the shooters in Columbine were given a clean bill of mental health by professionals, the latter while planning and preparing for their attack, making bombs, stealing materials, and making death threats against a local family.

            Prospective mental health evaluation as a magic cure for gun violence is a fantasy. It is a nightmare fantasy which would undermine our rights and cause harm to innocent people. The removal of rights is required to be adjudicated by a neutral party for a reason.

          • Michael Wilson

            Nope, this is wrong. This will get ugly and create and help fuel a civil war. I believe background checks are sufficient enough to include felons and that is enough for you. If you still feel raw, then volunteer to become an armed militia with the purpose of preventing active shooting scenarios inside our schools.

          • The Brigadier

            No militia can be everywhere all the time Michael.

          • Brac

            The government has already shown they are not able to control such power. Given the chance to pick and choose who can own guns, the very same men and women we trained and that fought for their country would be denied arms. Wanna stop a bad guy with guns? Let the good guys carry guns, get rid of gun free zones. Obamas kids go to a school with armed guards why can’t yours?

          • Squrrily

            I was a member of an armed militia for thirty years. That militia still exists today. Its called the U.S. Army. I also pay taxes to support local ( sometimes corrupt) police departments. I have NO desire to support, in any way, armed militias. One reason I own weapons is to protect my family from armed nut jobs, be them lone shooters or some band of idiots who form mini armies with the notion of possibly going head to head with our military. Since when did gun ownership move from hunting to militias?? Was it because some people no longer support our political system? Do we really want government propped up by a group of armed thugs? Militias were designed to overthrow standing governments not to protect schools. I stand by my statement that we need to STOP ALL GUN SALES TO PEOPLE WITH ANY HISTORY OF MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES along with strict background checks. As militia members raise their ugly heads to support military style weapon ownership as a means to overthrow an elected government we should seek them out take their weapons, and issue them paintball guns.

          • Michael Wilson

            Well it is obvious by now we need trained armed men and women in and around every school and college in the United States. If you do not want security in these areas, I politely ask you to shut up and never bring the subject up again because your idea is out of the question. You wanna stop the violence, you got to fight and if the enemy has a gun and you do not…. Well we know how to solve that problem…

          • whskee

            Unless I’m massively confused, the idea of militias was never to overthrow .gov, they were to provide internal security in the event of the main forces defeat. They were essentially Natl. Guard. Our country defines most of the population as ‘Unorganized Militia’ by the way. I’m sure there’s some wingnuts out there but I have seen little evidence or intelligence to show a significant threat from any militia type groups. Gangs on the other hand are well documented as posing serious threats, enough so that we have foreign soil operations ongoing against some groups.

            Denial of a constitutional right is a serious problem and should NOT be taken lightly and HELL NO should it be at the stroke of a pen. If someone has serious issues and may be a threat to society, then there needs to be an accuser, a judge, a jury, and a trial for the accused to defend themselves. I think perhaps an emergency order should be made on a temporary basis only if there’s enough legitimate evidence and a judge agrees until a trial can be established.

          • B-Sabre

            You do realize you are talking about a document written by a group of men who had just used an armed militia to overthrow a tyrannical government, and who had a galloping allergy in general to large standing armies….

          • whskee

            And it’s uncanny just how smart and well-thought those men were. The decisions that led to the overthrow of the ruling party did not come lightly or without just cause. Reading up on their letters, I’m humbled, it wasn’t easy for them or their families. A much different situation brought about their institution however. You said it yourself, a tyrannical gov.

            Anyway, Squrrily, seems to think he was militia while serving in the Army. If he can’t even identify his own place in the structure, he ain’t the guy I’m taking advice from. The statement that irked me (among others, now) was “Since when did gun ownership move from hunting to militias??”. Aside from the lack of understanding for the Constitution/Bill of Rights, just where are these boogey-men and why are they waiting so long? I mean, if this is supposed to be the worst gov ever then why would they wait the whole 8 years of the current admin?

          • “… [militias] were to provide internal security in the event of the main forces defeat.”

            Close, but not quite. The standing army was meant to be the rapid response force to slow down an invasion to provide time to activate the (organized) militia. The organized militia would then buy time if necessary to activate the unorganized militia. The organized militia and standing army then provided a core for helping to organize and discipline the unorganized militia as they activated (essentially raw recruits). The militia were actually intended to *be* the main forces.

            If this sounds strange or unworkable, consider that we have done one worse in most modern wars: drafting or recruiting citizens directly into the armed forces without organizing them into the militia first. In WWII, many new recruits did not survive even to their first posting because they were never trained in skills like not milling around in groups waiting for an artillery shell to drop on them. General Leonard Woods (guy who has a nearby fort named after him) attempted to correct this some prior to our anticipated entry into WWI by operating camps where veterans could train civilians in martial skills and increase the prevalence of those skills in the general population. It did not eliminate the need to train troops once we enter WWI, but it shortened the window and upped their survival skills.

            As for overthrowing government, militias were not intended for that per se, but Madison (and others) from the time make it clear that they were intended as a deterrent to keep government *from needing to be overthrown*. They believed that 1) the population would never be stupid enough to allow a large standing army independent of state control and 2) the federal government would never be stupid enough to attempt a military coup with the states in control of the militia. #1 was clearly an optimistic assumption.

          • whskee

            Excellent info, thank you.

          • n0truscotsman

            For those curious about the problems encountered by the AEF during WW1

            Tragically, these lessons were re-learned during the Battle of the Bulge as well. Same with TF Smith in Korea.

            I have no confidence that we have remembered any of these lessons at all in the 21st century, especially with our reliance on a professional caste of warfighters when it comes to national security matters. It can never happen again, right? (*sighs)

          • n0truscotsman

            I think you bring up compelling points, and perhaps similar to you, i have argued for drastic changes to our gun legislation so that laws are actually enforced, can be simply enforced/complied with, and those individuals who committ crimes or traffick can face measurable consequences for violations.

            Militia has a negative connotation, thanks to the media who gives publication to the pro-gun control side, and also thanks to the few dilweeds that cling to their guns when there is still a ballotbox and soapbox available for rational discourse. Thankfully, I see more and more gun owners calling them out and repudiating themselves from this group.

            Militias have multiple uses, from ad hoc civil protection units, neighborhood watches, and yes, as makeshift armies in the case of foreign invasion or impending tyrannical regime, now matter how unlikely myself or others may believe such things may happen.

            Myself and others have long argued that the 2A was created to deny the state (or body) a monopoly on force. As unintelligently and untactfully many on the pro-gun/political side may put it, it is still a credible argument, even if it was intended as a ‘doomsday provision’ after all means are exhausted (pulverized?).

          • Grindstone50k

            Suddenly, a wild FUDD appears.

        • Squrrily

          I enjoyed the banter ….no .more posts from me… master ks big into censorsbip,……thinks it goes well with the 2nd amendment…. Wants to stifle the one about freedom 0f speech
          I’m done here

      • Adam

        All the laws in the world wont stop lunatics from getting weapons, it wont stop criminals from getting them either…

        • The Brigadier

          Everyone keeps saying that, but it isn’t true. We will have to build all kinds of new prisons to house violators of some laws conservative are proposing. Read all the posts in here.

      • 35Whelan

        Problem with getting “laws in place that stop crazies” is that it depends on WHO is interpreting WHAT “crazy” means. “Crazy” could eventually come to be known as “any such condition by which a person shows signs of nonconformity to the loyalty of the state”. New mental health disorders are invented every year. This line of gun control is open-ended and exactly what the elite want to use to sucker moderates in on. The 2nd says what it says. It is as plain as can be. Shall not. Be infringed. The militia segment is separated by commas and an add-on statement of fact.

        If we want to solve the problem with mentally ill persons, then pharmaceuticals that deliver psychopathic tendencies should be more closely examined. They seem to be thrown around like candy off a float these days. If someone is sincerely bat$#it crazy, then perhaps they should be in an institution. Simply barring them the possession of firearms will not prevent them from using other tools or instruments to cause death and/or injury upon others. Mass killings are not caused by the existence of firearms. They are the result of a combination of self aggrandizement, self hatred, and in virtually every case SSRI’s. So much so of the latter, that attempts are now made to hide the fact upon each new incident. The dots are so large that even the 65 IQ journalist hacks are picking up on it. Some truths are inconsistent with the narrative.

        • The Brigadier

          Not if we frame the law. The commies don’t have all the power, and our Communist-in-Chief only has a 30% approval rating right now. Everyone of those shooters, except for the jihadist/racists were psychotics (various pyschoses) under treatment. The Colorado theater shooter, Sandy Hill, and this latest squirrel in Oregon are glaring examples of this.

          • 35Whelan

            Problem is, the law we currently have (Constitution) couldn’t be more clear or framed. It is routinely violated daily, and now is a bleak shadow of its former self. It is more an artifact of legend now, than a legally binding document. If those who create, enforce, and judge the law have no respect for the law, then the people such law is designed to constrain will not respect it either.

            “When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”

            Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

          • Squrrily

            I will add this if we want to talk about government leaders. As a mental health professional, if you are interested, I will direct you to the fact the God of the political Right, Ronald Reagan destroyed our mental health system. The woods around big cities are filled with people who need mental health care. Why can’t they get help? Because in his willingness to cut taxes he closed government run mental health facilities. Still, knowing this back then I would never have considered overthrowing our government to stop his poor policies. Maybe those who do not believe in elected government should buy a country and see how government NOT by the people works for them.

          • The Brigadier

            Ronald Reagan did not destroy our mental health system. Before he was governor family members could petition the courts to have relatives declared “not of sound mind”. In many cases the courts would find for the relatives and the person adjudged to be insane were hospitalized. I mean if you are wearing a shirt and shoes but no pants and underwear and you squat in the middle of an intersection and take a crap then you are pretty much insane.

            During Reagan’s governorship of California, the ACU filed suit that many people were committed without proper due process. A liberal court agreed and the doors of California mental institutions were opened under court order and very sick people were let loose on society. This included slashers, cannibals, maimers, choppers, etc. along with very sick people who harmed only themselves.

            The cost to retry every case would have cost tens of billions of dollars and California did not have anywhere near that kind of money in the 70’s. Reagan got blamed for the ACU’s irresponsible actions because a few sociopaths challenged the law. Ronald Reagan closed them because of the court costs and that was because of the American Civil Union’s meddling. Look it up and stop being a squirrel.

          • Squrrily

            Reagan did more to destroy the infrastructure in our society than ANY other President

          • The Brigadier

            You liberals just can’t get over the fact that he took us from the brink of total collapse from Jimmy Carter’s profligate spending and built our economy back to the greatest wealth buildup in human history and he did it in only six years. Obama has had seven years and real unemployment is somewhere between 21 – 23%. We are slipping back into recession and we just went over 19 trillion dollars in debt. Obama has failed and we are worse off than Jimmy Carter left our economy. Keep whining Squirrily because the Hildebeest is not going to be elected and Donald Trump probably will be. He too will build our economy back up and you will have someone new to whine about.

          • Squrrily

            Too bad ol’Ronnie is just worm food cause if he were alie and it was his pre Alzheimer’s daze even that jackass would choose a Dem over Trump
            I suggest you pull your head outa your butt and get on the progressive train.My vote will cancel yoursyours anyway

          • The Brigadier

            You Progressives are communists. Get on your train? If we have a civil in the next two months all you Progressives will escorted out the country. All you survivors. You and yours have almost destroyed our nation. I’ll wave bye bye while you sail for Europe.

      • The Brigadier

        Not as long as they keep making The Salad Shooter.

    • Michael Wilson

      The bullshit Squirrily is spitting brings an end to all privacy. You are essentially bringing the government in to inspect every aspect of our lives to include knowing and evaluating everyone’s medical, and psychological status. This bullshit will start a war.

      I have said this once and I will say this again. The answer to active shooter situations is more security. We need people like Squirrily in front of, around, and in our schools to be security so as to prevent this event from happening again. Yes they need to be armed! And train once or twice a week.

  • Isaac Newton

    I have this same thought when ever I read a gun control article: Our brain is a creative machine for good or evil. Criminals can get guns and its hard to think of a way to fix that with laws or technology.

    • Esh325

      There’s no law that can stop all criminals from getting guns, but there regulations that cab limit them like what England and Australia has done

      • Micki

        I always find it strange when gun control advocates bring up places like the UK as examples of how it works. The UK had very little gun crime before its numerous bans and it has very little afterwards. They never seem to bring up countries like Mexico, which has quite strict laws and is riven by murders and killing.

        Guns appear in violent societies. They do not cause violent societies. If they did, Switzerland would be a charnel house.

        • Micki

          That should read “… Guns don’t only appear in violent societies, but they don’t cause violent societies. “

        • tazman66gt

          because Mexico and the like don’t fit the narrative that they try to push, that the US is the only evil place on Earth and we all secretly wish to kill everyone.

          • Grindstone50k

            Don’t forget that when antis rail on about gun-control paradises, they usually caveat it with “industrialized nations” or “first-world”. Trying to omit places like Mexico seems a tad racist, no?

          • Esh325

            Because why would you compare that have numerous other problems and so different?

          • Grindstone50k

            And the US doesn’t have it’s own problems? Yet isn’t too different from the UK for comparison? Please. You’re not fooling anybody with your soft racism.

          • The Brigadier

            Not everyone.

        • Esh325

          Mexico is extremely corrupt 3rd world country that’s practically a war zone because of drugs. Apples and oranges

          • Sianmink

            Mexico is a modern industrialized nation that has a lot more in common with us than we do with anywhere in Europe.

          • Micki

            And the UK is a stable country that doesn’t have all the many social problems and border problems that the US has. Also apples to oranges, so why bring it up?

      • mikewest007

        Look at Brazil instead. Despite all the gun bans, you have a much bigger chance of getting shot in Brazil than in any state of the US.

      • Grindstone50k

        You mean regulations that limit EVERYONE from getting guns, criminal or not. Presumption of innocence until proven guilty does not exist.

        • Esh325

          People still own guns in the UK and Australia

          • Grindstone50k

            And are treated like a criminal through the whole process. Or become a criminal for utter bullshit like possessing hollow points. No thank you, you can keep all of that.

          • mosinman

            and the bike gangs in Australia have full auto homebuilt SMGs despite all the laws

  • Cornelius Carroll

    “The cat is out of the bag”

    Yup. Has been. It was a kitten when it got it out and now it’s just starting to grow up.

  • PK

    More articles like this would be very welcome. This is fantastic content!

    A minor nitpick, you have this reversed: “it took longer to manufacture than it did to load.” The Liberator joke goes that the gun took longer to load than make.

    You may also enjoy looking into the more modern version of the Liberator, a 9x19mm single shot from the CIA called the “Deer Gun”.

    • dshield55

      I also enjoy the DIY/Improvised weapons articles. My favorite posts from TFB are these and picture posts of obscure firearms not available to US Market/Civilians.

    • Thanks for the correction. Whoops!

    • MrEllis

      No they wouldn’t. Literally every website on the net does this, all that’s missing is some “libtard” this and that and a direct comparison between Hitler and the president.

      • PK

        It’s a matter of opinion. I personally enjoy articles like this, and I love that politics are kept away from here. I can’t stomach much of that either!

  • Esh325

    I haven’t seen any evidence that guns have become easy enough to make that they defeat the purpose of gun regulation. Places with strict gun control and where home made weapons show up still have much lower instances of crimes involving guns and gun deaths than the USA

    • B.K.

      It’s always great to hear other perspectives on such topics. However I feel you might be in the wrong place, as I only ever hear you discuss policy matters when it comes to the firearms community. You seem quite passionate in your views and have been nothing but respectful as I’ve seen. I guess my question would be this….Do you have an interest in firearms outside of policy? It could be anything from hunting,sport,self-defense,miltary,construction,history,etc. I truly am just curious. Thanks!

    • Bal256

      You mean like El Salvador, Brazil, or Mexico?

    • Dan

      Then maybe just maybe it’s not the guns that are the problem in America. We would run around killing each other with sharp pointy sticks if that is all we had

    • Major Tom

      “I haven’t seen any evidence that guns have become easy enough to make that they defeat the purpose of gun regulation.”

      3D printers. You can manufacture a firearm receiver or trigger group or many things that make weapons fully automatic and they’ll have no serial numbers, no markings of origin, no clue how they came into being beyond the guy with the 3D printer.

      Numerous increasingly quality lower receivers for AR-15s have already been printed and boasted about on YouTube and elsewhere.

      And there’s not a thing the law can do to close this Pandora’s Box.

  • MrEllis

    Weapons have always been manufactured illegally in all societies that have laws. This may be the most poorly constructed argument for the removal of controls I’ve seen to date.

    • dshield55

      The argument worked very well in ending prohibition where it was realized that the ban on alchohol didnt stop the production and distribution of alchohol yet caused more problems than it solved. Gun grabbers continue to push for more laws that make it harder for persons to exercise their rights for self defense even though their proposed laws do not curtail the availability of guns to criminals or curtail gun violence.

      • MrEllis

        Wrong website. Or is it?

        • dshield55

          No. Right website, right comment thread.

          • MrEllis

            Yeah, I agree they should remove the “politics” part from the header.

    • I am not arguing for any policy changes, this is an informative article, not an opinion piece.

      • MrEllis

        That keeps being said here. I don’t think that means what you think it means.

        • It’s not my opinion that firearms are easy to make, that is a fact. It’s a fact I know because I’ve made a few.

          I have no political agenda even in my personal life, MrEllis. I don’t vote, I am not a member of any political parties, and I haven’t campaigned in any way for any political cause since I was in high school. The article is an expanded statement of fact, “guns are easy to make,” and it’s geared towards introductory audiences that might not know that as well as I do. I can see how that would be an uncomfortable fact for some political agendas, but that is their problem, not mine.

          • MrEllis

            Again, when you pick a side, state your points and then throw your hands in the air and claim, “But I’m just saying these things, I’m not arguing one way or another.” You’re full of it.

            You’re making an argument, the comments, yours and others show exactly what intent was. Feigning ignorance doesn’t change the fact. Not owing it doesn’t change intent or content. Just remove the “politics” part from the header already, it’s been ringing hollow for a while now. It’s not like you are the first or only writer here to do this.

          • What side did I pick, Ellis? Where did I say “vote for such-and-such politician” or “implement such-and-such law” or “don’t implement such-and-such law”?

            How can the article express a political agenda I don’t actually have?

          • MrEllis

            I suppose you can keep going down that road, but really, it’s insulting to suggest this doesn’t promote anything. I think we’re done, you’ve doubled down on feigning ignorance and for some reason keep interjecting you have no opinion while displaying one. At lest I hope it was a feint.

            I come here because there isn’t supposed to be all the hyperbole and agenda. Thanks for changing my mind about that. I say lean into it, start filling the slow days with Hitler memes and let the good times roll.

            Good news is, more clicks! Bad news is, less clicks from people who would rather just read about guns and shooting. Word of advice, you have to pull farther and farther right to sate your base when you do that, or you’ll wind up angering the mob.

          • You think it promotes something, but you can’t tell me what you think it promotes.

          • The Brigadier

            That is a false argument based on faulty logic Ellis. He didn’t provide any information about how to build one, but just said their are lot of simple weapons being made out there. Your obviously have an agenda and assume Nate does too. Now I am very political and I am not afraid to say so. I dislike leftists intensely because they are destroying our nation. I suspect you are one. By the way Mortimer Zuckerman, a leftist, wrote anyone who mentions Hitler in an article automatically loses the argument. You lost. Go away.

          • MrEllis

            Thanks for proving my point in splendid fashion.

          • The Brigadier

            Nate he is a circular arguer. Ignore him. He won’t stay if people simply tune him out.

          • The Brigadier

            He’s simply baiting you again with the same circular argument. Treat him like a ghost and simply don’t answer him anymore and maybe he will get tired and go bother someone else. I’m done responding to him and his cohorts in this thread.

        • For the record, I wrote most of this article a week ago.

          • MrEllis

            For the record, I thought it was a redirect from Truth About Guns.

          • nadnerbus

            All you do in the comments is complain that this site is not down the middle enough. Any perceived twinge of rightward agenda and you are here to pipe up about it.

            This site is nothing like TTAG, and has not become more so in the years I have been reading it. Guns as a hobby broadly attract more right leaning people than left leaning, as such you will run into more of those opinions in the comments, and sometimes some will spill into the articles. Put on your big boy pants and deal with it, or stop giving them page views.

          • MrEllis

            Yeah, you suck at reading.

          • nadnerbus

            Fair enough, anything political, vice conservative.

            Either way, I don’t think I have ever seen you talk guns in the comments. It’s always to angrily call out politics, which are of course conservative opinions that you find anathema. And your complaints are pretty weak sauce.

            I’ll be on your side when TFB starts posting articles on the President’s appeal to try to ban guns again, gun free school zones or whatever. But sometimes their topics are going to touch the political, and their commenters most certainly will do so. Thankfully they don’t censor much, because for the most part, the commenters are thoughtful and rational, and not foaming at the mouth gun nuts.

            Guns are inherently politicized in this country. There is no way around that.

      • The Brigadier

        The law states you can make your own firearms as long as you are NOT making them for sale. One of each design would make you a citizen. Two or three of each would make you an illegal manufacturer, and without a licence that will get you hard time.

        This does not apply to machine guns. You must obtain a licence to own one and it must be obtained before you take possession or build your weapon.

    • Bal256

      You can choose to believe that this is in response to recent events. It might be so, but TFB publishes articles on articles on homemade weapons or black market weapons regularly. This article isn’t out of place even considering recent events.

      • Especially since I wrote most of it over a week ago.

  • jaquebauer

    Wake up Americans. Today, stuff that was in student chemistry sets sold all accross America are now contraband listed on the federal explosives list. There was a time in our once free country that the fireworks and rockets I built as a 14 year old would get todays 14 year old a felony conviction. Today ammonium nitrate fertilizer is contraband, fireworks that go boom or fly are contraband. Purchase of lab glassware and certain common products will trigger an police investigation, and turn an honest law abiding citizens life upside down. We live in a police state compared to Americans living in the 1800s. The heat of opressive uncontrolled regulations and laws promoted in the name of safety is now at boiling point. Speaking from experience, one can quickly become a suspect if they are advanced hobbiests, and have a garage workshop with 50 years of electrical parts, metals, wire, tools, compressed gases, machine tools, ham radios, and books covering topics from chemistry to guns, Paladin Press series, Dace Gingery, etc. Because I had a bin of cut pieces of 1 inch steel tubing basiclly EMT, and a garage full of tools and books I was interrogated for an afternoon by several 3 letter federal agencies for a local mail box bombing that I reported…….my mailbox. I should had refused LEO access into my home, but hey, Im a good citizen with nothing to hide. I think the only thing that stopped me from being railroaded into an arrest for suspicion was having a Deputy Sheriff in my family who vouched for my hobby and work background. After that experience of interrogation I will never report a crime, even when I am a victim. You see, victims are also suspects. I also have no doubt that mail order purchases of Ammunition, and gun parts are being tracked by the federal Gestapo, as are posts to forums such as this , subscriptions to certain magaxines, etc. Now with proposed ITAR regs writing and publishing about guns will become illegal. If Americans dont wake up and start fighting for their freedoms and for the Constitution they (we) will become servile to the state, servants and not citizens. Obamas latest speech about “common sense gun safety” now included words that sounded like implementation of the England and Australia solution. That means outright bans and confiscation. This is why the gun press must never be censored, never. This means we must have books printed on paper.

    • Tassiebush

      Here in Australia, between the war on drugs and the war on terror there have been a heap of restrictions on what you can purchase. It’s amazing how many materials are monitored as drug precursors or seen as explosive components to the extent that restricting them takes priority over the benefits of people having access to use them. Simple things like iodine are restricted.
      You have to provide your drivers licence to buy effective cold and flu medication with psuedoephidrine here now and they’ll only let you buy one packet at a time because clearly being able to manage your kids cold or flu discomfort and your own at the same time is likely to be a cover story for a speed lab rather than a multiple yearly event for your average family…

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        Same in the states with the cold medicine.

      • The Brigadier

        Tassie go online and see what you can buy at your local supermarket or hardware store that goes BOOM.

        • Tassiebush

          Haha sure there’s still a few things but it’s the whole looking and being treated as a would be drug cook or mass murderer that bothers me.
          Legitimate uses for things take a back seat to suspicion.

  • Edeco

    Good article. That hysteria about the 3D printed guns was initially funny to me, then it became scary. I mean, it showed that a lot of people just have the idea that the ability to make guns is somehow tenuous, but for maybe the scary printers, and can easily be legislated away. That’s incorrect of course, which in and of itself doesn’t bother me. But having some idea fo instance what can be done with a knee mill, I’m burdened with the knowledge of what a nightmare the attempt to control personal-use gun-manufacturing would be.

  • Kelly Jackson

    It seems to me the easy solution is to use a steel tube for the upper then make the lower out of plastic the way most modern gun makes would produce them.

  • Shmoe

    Nail on the head, Nathaniel! Not to mention, prohibitionism motivated by moral panic is always a fairly crude, blunt instrument. Neither just, nor effective in the face of technological inertia and preexisting demand.

  • Lance

    So true Mr. Wilson. face it no law can top evil acts and stop people who want weapons from having them.

  • iksnilol

    True, but do you really think you aren’t on some watchlist for posting on TFB?

  • John

    >As the article points out, people clearly do make their own weapons – even our ‘civilized’ European friends.

    Take a sock. Just a normal, white sock you’re probably wearing on your foot. Put a rock inside it, or something heavy. Tie a knot in the sock so the rock doesn’t fall out.

    Congratulations, you’ve just made a “sap”, a centuries-old weapon that civilians are banned from possessing in a few countries. It probably took you longer to read this sentence than to manufacture it. The ability to create, does not necessarily correlate with, the intent to use.

    It speaks volumes of the world that many people in power feel such a threat against their safety that they would like to ban this sort of knowledge from existing. They can’t, but they’ll try.

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    If you wanted to hurt some people it would be far easier to build a large bomb with stuff under the sink than it would to build a MG.

    Attn NSA: I am in no way endorsing any such actions. Comments are for entertainment purposes only.

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    I think it’s slightly obtuse to suggest that it would be necessary to “de-industrialize” our entire society in order to keep homemade machine guns away from criminals.

    • nadnerbus

      It’s impossible to know, as these are off the book weapons of course, but it would be interesting to know what kind of numbers they are produced in. Either way, they have to be far less common than factory guns, even in countries with strong gun restrictions.

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        Kind of a moot point in the US anyway.
        Even if the ATF confiscated every legally bought gun tomorrow nobody would need to resort to rolling their own for another 20 years.

        • nadnerbus

          In the land of a US gun ban, the black market gunsmith would be king. A little maintenance can keep a decent gun going for a hundred years.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            True but the gun will last longer than its ammo supply.

  • Mark Stapleton

    in Australia there are more guns and gun owners than before Port Arthur , the requirement of compulsory membership of a shooting club meant that these organisations ( mainly the SSAA , our NRA ) have become Powerful , cashed up , professionally staffed and politically active . This wholly unintended result of the anti gun types campaigning has seen a massive improvement in the future of the shooting disciplines in this country. True the average shooter can’t own a semi auto but they are far from banned thousands sold each year to farmers and those involved in Feral animal control . A recent gun show in Brisbane had an attendance of ten thousand over the weekend . adjusted by population compared to the USA this would equate to a show in say Salt Lake City attracting circa 140 000 people

    • Don Ward

      That is an interesting anecdote and a story that we don’t get very often up here.

      • Mark Stapleton

        Thanks Don , I often see comments that indicate some shooters believe guns are banned in Australia , totally not the case as my preceding post explains . great article and indeed the blog in general is very readable and intelligently presented .

    • Adam

      Thousands of semi auto’s sold in Australia each year? I did a State by State FOI on that 3 years ago, I will do another, I bet in the last 3 years the number of Semi Autos in private hands has increased by under a 1000.

    • The Brigadier

      Maybe if enough people are opposed you can get the law abolished and put the right to own semi automatic guns in your constitution. I know Australia has been a leftist nation since its inception, but so have many states in America and they aren’t anymore. Texas was one of them. Keep talking to your citizens and don’t give up.

      • Tassiebush

        Re the Leftist things it’s actually the more politically right wing mainstream party in Australia that has brought in the most restrictions on firearms. The simple fact is they’re very much into big govt.
        We can and certainly do try to change things but basically we’re a fairly impotent minority politically speaking, albeit we have some influence. But realistically we’re more occupied with avoiding the loss of more ground IMO.

  • nobody

    Is it just me, or does this article go against this website’s “firearms not politics” ideal.

    • Squrrily

      News Flash! Political speech is allowed if it is Right wing speech….

      • The Brigadier

        Of course it is. The goal of you progressive is to disarm us so you can force us all to become communists like you. We outgun ya Squirrely by a wide margin. and if anyone is going to be disarmed it will be all you progressives. Try to do it us and see what happens.

        • Squrrily

          Socialist and proud of it! BTW…..if that civil war does break out that last glint of light your kind see will be the reflection off the scope of a gun toting Progressive…don’t threaten me….Best Wishes, your Liberal comrad in Arms

  • phuzz

    Weapons are easy to manufacture, ammunition is the limiting factor.
    While it is possible to make your own black powder at home, I’m not sure how safe it would be, especially when fired in a home-made gun.
    More modern propellants would be even more tricky to manufacture at home, not to mention the danger of working with low order explosives.

  • MrEllis, you have yet to explain why an article expanding on a simple fact is pushing any sort of agenda, much less a pro-right-wing, anti-left-wing one.

    Given that I myself am not political as a principle as I have said previously, how is it that this agenda that you cannot define or pinpoint anywhere in the article slipped in? Am I being controlled by the NRA via radiowaves beamed from satellites? Do I need to get a tinfoil hat to protect myself?

    • MrEllis

      Two things here, I’m confused as to what exactly you are trying to pin down with your demand. You claim to be a writer yet are assuming some weird stance where you are defending something you can’t even name and then pretend I am attacking nothing at all as if no context or reason exists for any of this. Facile, sure, but lacking in every other respect. Up to this point I’ve worked under the assumption you were playing dumb, trying to force me to say something or commit some bizarre technical error in .

      Secondly, denying you are not political then pushing an agenda doesn’t make it any less so. This is right wing blather, it doesn’t require you to espouse all right wing agendas or even agree with them. You seem to have embraced this one fairly well enough. Doing away with gun controls is firmly a right wing agenda, it always brings the worst people to the comment section with the most inane bull. If you cater to them, they will show up and continue to show up. Just be honest about it, remove the “political” part of the tag and be like the rest of them. Lip service is just that.

      The tin foil thing to undermine my opinion is rather hamfisted, I expect better. Like I said, we’ve really got no more to say, you’re at the point where you’re asking me to define the argument even though you’ve been going at it this whole time. Yeah, this ended a few posts ago, I’m saying one thing you’re denying it to be true. No point in going on.

      • nadnerbus

        Be honest though. You are assuming that the article is in relations to current events in the news, that it is aimed to get page views based on current gun politics. If you give Nathan the benefit of the doubt that he did indeed write this prior to said events, which clearly you are not willing to do, and try to read this article with that in mind, it is an informative article on an underground cottage industry that exists in places where gun control is more strict. There have been several posts on this site in the past about semi-professional home made sub guns in Australia, and I think it was Germany. They have written dozens of articles on 3-D printing technology and its potential for gun making. They have covered 80% lowers extensively. I don’t think titling an article “The Genie is out of the bottle” is too far outside that line.

        And again, you make yourself look silly equating this place with The Truth About Guns. It is no where close, and never has been.

        As a side note, I live in raving liberal California, where I don’t share the same opinions, but still manage to get along with and like most people, despite those differences. Nobody is exiling you, nobody is attacking your political beliefs, You are choosing to get offended and making a big deal about it.

        • MrEllis

          The mass shooting has nothing to do with this, it’s not my point of contention. My point of contention is, promoting removal of all gun controls is political. Where did you two even construct that argument this is about the mass shooting? Sure it’s tasteless to put it out now, but that wasn’t my main gist.

          If I’m to be honest, I’ve already pretty much written this off, read the comment section and you’ll see what this is about. It’s like you two think if you don’t say “Gun Control” three times out loud Brady won’t appear and get you into some sort of whacky Tim Burton adventure.

          This whole claim, “I’m just putting this out there for information” is absurd. But you and he seem determined to run that one into the ground. Like somehow I will change my mind and you telling me what I should think will grant me this huge epiphany.

          As a side note, your side note confirms things, it doesn’t defuse anything. You are the last person who needs to tell me how to think or feel.

          I’ll sum up, seems the issue is clouded for some. These articles are political in nature. Talking about gun controls is political in nature. The far right element will manifest if you do it enough. There that is it. Stay on target, Gold Leader.

          • nadnerbus

            The fact that it took us this long for you to actually state what you find objectionable probably demonstrates why we didn’t get your point or agree with you what your are implying. I still don’t agree with you that this article should be “off limits” or something because it comes up against the political nature of gun control, but at least now we can agree to disagree because you have outright stated a position instead of just attacked.

            You could probably save yourself some effort by just coming straight out in the first comment and saying “this article is about gun control, or how the author is arguing against it. It violates the ‘no politics’ rule.” At least then we will all be arguing about the same thing.

          • MrEllis

            No, I was shocked you actually didn’t understand. Now more things make sense. Later.

          • Please tell me where I said I wanted all gun laws/regulations to be removed, and I will edit it out as it clearly was a mistake.

          • MrEllis

            Again, I don’t care when you made it or when you put it out, missing the point on this one. I did not realize I had to be entirely literal and spell it all out, man.

      • The Brigadier

        More stupid leftist ranting. You are a mental lightweight Ellis. Your party suffered the worst defeat in seventy years and your President is an abject failure at most everything. You come in here to stir the pot because your agenda is to ban guns in America. Push hard enough and you leftists are going to see a lot of guns up close and personal, now get your red butt out of here. Crazies are not welcome.

        • MrEllis

          If you were only able to grasp irony…

          Nate, here’s your new audience, congrats.

          • So, you’re basically angry at what I wrote, but you cannot articulate to me exactly why? Sounds like a personal problem.

          • MrEllis

            Playing dumb becomes something different carried out to the Nth degree, man. Your article is about the inability to regulate firearms, thus the Genie and the bottle. Claiming to have no stance is absurd, you obviously have a stance on it. Repeating you don’t understand what I’m talking about after you’ve went on about it ad nauseam is a bit silly as well.

            Don’t bother constructing a counter “argument.” I gave you too much credit, obvious mistake on my part, I have no desire to engage anyone here on the subject, just remove the politics part. You’re more akin to The Brigadier, start up a convo with him. I’ll just skip your writings here on out. It’s painful to deal with literalists on a regular basis.

  • tigers are awesome

    I really want real weapons back ( guns and more ) lets get rid of the laws the NFA, the Hughes amendment, the 1934 weapons act , and my favorite the BATFE … They make me vomit. They say we can’t live without them well we actually used to I’m tired of being hindered by all of these laws we need our guns more than ever

    • Squrrily

      What we need is leglal atomi band grenades

      • tigers are awesome

        What. The. Hell. Are you even talking about ?

        • Squrrily

          When were you released from the Psych unit???

          • tigers are awesome

            I could react to this but I know better and I know what you are and what you are doing now stop because I don’t fall for troll bs … I’m sure you think you are funny but quite honestly I’ve already beaten you cheers

  • The Brigadier

    Peter Luty put out several working designs of 9mm SMGs. Both had homemade 40 round magazines that hold 9mm. One is based on plumbing parts and looks absolutely cool. Someone in here told me Luty died recently, but his ingenious designs are still availabe online. His barrels are grooveless and are made high pressure hydraulic tubing. He shows you to cut the chamber in those pipes, and the bolt is made from standard washers. You could make 90 percent of the gun from plumbing parts and buy a good quality long 9mm barrel and you can make your own SMG easily. I know they are fading away, but they are so cool to shoot.

  • The Brigadier

    Here are some ideas. First, most psychotherapists won’t report psychotics they treat because they maintain if they do the psychotics won’t come in for treatment. Let’s pass a national law that says if a psychotherapist doesn’t report a psychotic patient to the Don’t Buy a Gun list then the psychotherapist will go to trial as as equal partner to the murders. Try a few and put them on death row and you’ll see how fast the crazies are listed.

    Second, all gun purchases, from stores or private citizens selling theirs must go through a FFL. That law will have stiff penalties for anyone not going through a FFL and that includes family members. For gun shows, make it a law that security must be present in the parking lot for the entire show to stop the sales out there. Furthermore, each gun show will be required to have at least two FFLs during the shows. All guns must be transferred from the dealer through the FFL to the buyer. It doesn’t matter if they are all there as long as an instant background check is done.

    People selling or buying guns through local papers or conducting a private sale without going though a FFL for the deal will be subject to a mandatory jail sentence. This should apply to gun shows also. Perhaps four years is appropriate and a fine of $50,000 dollars should take a healthy bite out most peoples’ net worth.

    These laws may seem draconian to some of you, but remember the last several years worth of multiple killings have been caused by jihadists and psychotics. Both groups will severely limited on the guns they can obtain if these measures are enacted.

    Then when the Convention of States to amend our Constitution convenes next year, the Second Amendment can be changed to read. “The right of the people with sounds minds to own and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    • Squrrily

      I can agree with your logic 100%

    • Sianmink

      If we put even MORE stigma on mental illness than we do today, as you suggest, people simply won’t seek treatment. It’s already a life-ruiner if anyone finds out you’re bipolar or depressive. They will only get it after they have been forced, which will be when it is already too late.

      As for forcing all gun purchases to go through an FFL, just what will that accomplish? (aside from a possible tax boon for the state) Criminals already acquire their guns through other, illegal means. it won’t change their acquisition path one bit. What it will do is create a database of owners of legal guns, which will inevitably be abused by the government (See: Australia, UK, Germany) and also likely be compromised by hackers who will happily publish a list of which addresses do and don’t have firearms. I’m sure you can imagine the uses of that.

      When people buy or sell guns illegally, it is already, as I said, illegal. But the government isn’t enforcing this. Prosecutors don’t pursue the charges. If straw purchasers were harshly punished, if denied persons found in possession were harshly punished, if those who lie on their background check were harshly punished, this would be a different conversation. Currently none of this is true. VP Biden says it isn’t important enough. Likely because it’s hard to push gun control without tragedy, and tragedy is easier if the laws we already have are not actually enforced. The background check system failed in the majority of high-profile shootings this year. What is the reason for expanding a system that is broken?

      “The right of the people with sound minds to own and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      The trick comes in defining what is a ‘sound mind’, isn’t it? What’s to stop them from declaring that ‘anyone who disagrees with the state is obviously insane’?
      I mean it wouldn’t matter to the *important* people. They can work the system and still get whatever they want, and that’s what really matters.

      • The Brigadier

        Don’t you get it!!!!! All those shooters already have sought treatment and still killed dozens of people each! If we do nothing then the leftists will seek to ban our weapons. Wise up. I want to keep weapons out of the hands of psychotics as much as the most virulent anti-gun hater. If we can keep them from getting their hands on one, they will have to find some other way to kill people. Regardless with fewer of them killing people with guns, then we can buy and sell freely. What is wrong with going through an FFL to keep the crazies from getting a gun? Do you object to the $15- 30 bucks? Or do you have something to hide like a conviction for violent crime or are you on you anti-psychotic drugs? We are not asking to ban neurotics, psychopaths, or manic-depressives. We do want to ban psychotics and sociopaths. These are the specific brain dysfunctions that cause them to kill people.

        • Sianmink

          What price to prevent these rare, isolated (if high profile) events?

          Look, it seems like a solid idea to begin with, but who gets to define what level of mental unwellness disqualifies someone from owning guns? In California they’re raiding the homes of people who live with relatives who have mental health issues. Isn’t that going too far? Millions of people are on anti-depressives and other mind-altering prescription drugs, only a very, very few of them act murderously.

          In nearly every mass shooting case this year, the shooter had clear signs of escalation that were ignored. In nearly every one since Sandy Hook, the shooter passed a background check, often times when they shouldn’t, but conditions were under-reported and the system failed. For the most part none of them had any prior record which would disqualify them anyway. In any case, the most reliable way we have to diagnose a disassociative disorder is when they get caught doing something shocking. At that point it doesn’t really help anymore.

          Why should I have to be punished for what people with no respect for the law do?

        • “We do want to ban psychotics and sociopaths.”

          So, just to rephrase, you ‘just’ want to ban the class of people who are the hardest to detect and the most adept at lying and manipulation by putting a bunch of administrative forms, evaluations, and bureaucratic hoops in their way? Do you understand that *exactly* these people are better at jumping through these hoops and passing evaluations than *you are*?

          The Columbine shooters, one of which was a violent sociopath and the other a (mostly) unwitting dupe, passed a Juvenile program and psych eval *with flying colors* while plotting and preparing for their attack. This is not at all uncommon.

          • The Brigadier

            There was a show on about six years ago called “Lie to Me”. It was about the leader of a private company who hired themselves out to companies and law enforcement agencies to find out people who lied. In one episode, they encountered a brilliant sociopath who exhibited none of the tells the main character was highly trained to detect. He knew the guy did it from circumstantial evidence, but they had to develop a new set of rules to be able read sociopaths.

            This was fiction, but psychiatrists and psychologists have now developed a list of tells for sociopaths. I’m not surprised the Columbine shooters were able to fool trained observers because they have warped brains and don’t react to questioning like ‘normals” do, and they got there weapons from a dishonest FFL anyway. He was only interested in making four times the profits of the sales and could care less with what they were going to do with them. He’s in prison now for a very very long time.

            If we are going to detect sociopaths then they need to be identified as such when children. This should be done at schools at regular stages of childhood. They can be read by lie detection experts trained to detect normal lying patterns and those of sociopaths. The initial finding should then be corroborated by a licensed psychiatrist or a psychologist licensed to administer the test. If two sources determine their sociopathy (the school and the independent), then their identities along with their DNA, fingerprints and photos need to be put be on the “Do Not Sell To” list and a national registry of sociopaths. These people are human monsters and identifying and sequestering them will save a lot of terror and horror in our society. If we can identify them in the womb that is one of the few reasons for a legal abortion I can think of. They are fiends and will act out and will eventually savage and kill people.

            Psychotics are fairly easy to read by most psychologists. Take them off their meds and the lunacy becomes readily apparent. They can then be put on the list.

          • “This was fiction, but psychiatrists and psychologists have now developed a list of tells for sociopaths.”

            The author of those diagnostics specifically disclaims its ability to do what you want it to do and regularly writes articles lambasting professionals for misusing his criteria. I can probably find one of his papers if you really want, but I do not have a citation immediately to hand. Among other limitations, it is only intended for use in independent examination of detailed case histories and therefore is by definition only useful after substantial case history has been developed (e.g. after a series of criminal activities). With young violent-type sociopaths such as Kleibold, that obviously does not help much. It is also not a yes/no diagnostic (sociopath/not-sociopath) but rather a measurement on a scale of sociopathy which leads to questions of margin-of-error, false positives, and just-how-much-is-irredeemable.

            “If we are going to detect sociopaths then they need to be identified as such when children.”

            There is no evidence that sociopathy is fully fixed until adolescence and even if it were, it would be extremely difficult to separate from other disorders in the less-developed personality of a juvenile.

            “These people are human monsters and identifying and sequestering them will save a lot of terror and horror in our society.”

            I agree, and my experience with violent sociopaths was rather direct and personal. However, several severe problems:

            1) As above, detection is not fool-proof and likely will never be, especially as the very people attempting to be detected are adept at fooling tests and manipulating those attempting to evaluate them.

            2) Not all sociopaths are violent. Those which are, because they perceive no limits of conscience (are not capable of perceiving such limits), tend to be rather spectacular, but even with a fool-proof detection method, it would still not be possible to state *with certainty* that a given individual would commit violence if not forcibly restrained.

            3) The Constitutional implications of sequestering and detaining [alleged] sociopaths for prospective crime— either before any crime has been committed or singling them out for greater sentencing for minor crimes— would be absolutely devastating to civil liberties and presents a horrifying moral dilemma. Again, even having been directly confronted with the terror of violent sociopathy, I would not endorse such an action. If they have already committed capital murder— well, the very definition of capital murder permits life imprisonment or the death penalty, so no additional authority is needed in that case to keep them out of society forever. Short of that, *they* might not have a conscience, but, unfortunately *I* do.

            Aside: “they got there weapons from a dishonest FFL anyway… He’s in prison now for a very very long time.”

            Yes, most people miss that detail. If I remember correctly, the seller’s girlfriend plead to a lesser offense as well. We do *and should* prosecute such crimes vigorously.

      • The Brigadier

        There are already severe penalties for lying on the background check application especially the name and SS# with false ID. That’s why if someone is treated for psychosis or sociopathy they need to be listed by name and SS# by their treating psychologist or psychiatrist.

    • Michael Wilson

      What you may be referring to is the black market. No one will ever be able to manage the black market because guns are made by human beings and you can not control all human beings. Are you crazy?

      • The Brigadier

        The psychotics who have committed mass murder, purchased guns from people selling in the newspapers and gun stores, not on the black market. They got background checks and were approved.

        Now to answer critics that doctors could put anyone on the Do Not Buy, then you can file a challenge in the courts and also file a tort against the doctor if he did it maliciously. If you file a malicious suit for several million dollars and win, you can send a judgement copy to his malpractice bond insurer.

        If he claimed to the bond writer he made a mistake in the posting and the judgment says he did it maliciously, they will yank his bond. Other bond insurers always asks if anyone have ever had their bond cancelled. If the answer is yes, then you have to explain everything including the bond writer’s name and location. That is the power you will have against any doctor that lists you without a valid reason for banning you. The law can also be written for the correct analysis and process for listing anyone on the list. We have to get all the crazies on the list and the law has to have some teeth.

        • Sianmink

          If it was any risk to physicians they just wouldn’t do it, for any reason.

          They have student loans to pay off, man.

          But let’s just say we go ahead with the above plan.

          how long will a challenge take? Does the accused keep his guns while the challenge is active? How much will it cost, and what sort of state resources will be required to maintain the system?

        • Michael Wilson

          Or we can just keep things just like they are and… Put security in schools and let them train to combat active shooter situations. That will also help the economy.

          • The Brigadier

            Who will compel them to do this? The Feds? The States? Most everyone is near broke right now and hiring security is expensive especially if its nationwide. Find the cash to pay for it and I would agree, otherwise its a nonstarter.

    • whskee

      It would be tiring to state why you’re off base with FFL’s, but in summary I don’t think y understand the current federal laws about FFL’s, nor why your suggestion is unenforceable.

      Worse, you are suggesting that persons should be stripped of a constitutional right without a trial if any MD can just “add you to the list”. How would you react if I said I have the power to put you on a list to revoke your first amendment rights? Anytime I hear someone say demolish the 2nd I ask if the same process would be acceptable on the 1st, 4th, etc. It’s usually not.

  • Mark Stapleton

    Adam thousands of guns are sold every year and semi autos are available to certain groups was what I meant , poor grammar. The main message is guns are not banned as many believe overseas

  • Adam

    Gun confiscation or banning guns will not stop people from getting guns…It just doesn’t work…
    I’ve been doing firearm prototyping in the Philippines since 2007..And i do it in a place called Danao with a guy who actually has a license to manufacture.. theres about 10,000 people in the Danao area who’s soul income is from the underground manufacturing of firearms.. And they can produce some very well built firearms..from scratch..3 years ago a group went Modern, they got a injection molding machine.. And hey, now you can buy a Glock 17 in .45 acp for about $300 USD. mind you, thats twice the price a hand made 1911 goes for.. So If guns got banned in the USA etc.. How long do you think it would be before some enterprising people decided, Lets start making throw away pocket pistols , derringers , Tec 9 copies.. Criminals in Australia have no issue paying $3-5000 for a handgun..$10,000 for a AK, M16, Mac11

  • Squrrily we don’t go down this political road on TFB and you should know that. I did delete part of your comment since it was political in nature. Berating politicians is fine on forums that thrive on that. Just not here.

    • Squrrily

      So if a blogger goes to far left you resort to CENSORSHIP?? Here is a direct quote that passed your scrutiny, “The Brigadier 35Whelan • 2 days ago

      Not if we frame the law. The commies don’t have all the power, and our Communist-in-Chief only has a 30% approval rating right now.”
      Now I understand the “ROAD” you allow participants to “GO DOWN”. No need to worry about censoring me. I’m out. Good luck with your agenda, whatever it may be. Fact is though, these mass shootings happen on a regular basis (another one in Arizona this morning). Discouraging active discussion by way of censorship will not solve the problem.

  • NO politics Brigadier—–

  • MrEllis

    E Pluribus Unum. You’re adorable when you’re ignorant, don’t ever change!

  • n0truscotsman

    Im very poor with satire, so could you dip it in a bit more with some condescension and a bit of sarcasm?

    I already went on a vice vacation just the other month, I dont need a political bureaucrat to send me on one 😉

    • Squrrily

      Maybe your “vice vacation” was a bit too “short” because it didn’t do much for your attitude.This group is fixated upon the false notion that gun rights somehow trump the rights of parents to protect their children. While no one wants gun confiscation, sensible people understand the danger of high capacity mags in semi and full auto weapons in the hands of some jackass who stopped taking his Haldol and has begun hearing voices. As I stated early on in this mindless conversation….DO NOT SELL A GUN TO A PERSON WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES! Initiate INTENSIVE background checks. Either gun owners take the lead of have someone else do it for us. Now leave me alone and go get your VICE on!

      • n0truscotsman

        “this group” has many different viewpoints (as indicated here), just like gun owners all have different viewpoints. we (gun owners) are obviously not a amorphous blob with a collective consciousness. And I haven’t even *begun* with my attitude yet. Under my own volition, I could step it up a couple notches.

        Because of the political crapstorm regarding gun control, a dialectic of “gun rights vs protect our children” has been created, when no such thing in reality exists. You can have both.

        “sensible people” is also a myth, for the same reason indicated above. All people have differing viewpoints on what they perceive as “reasonable and unreasonable”. For example, if high capacity magazines are so “dangerous”, when why is it they are associated with a fraction of 1% of all homicides? (a fraction of the 393 killed by all rifles) Just because you dont like them, doesn’t mean you get to label the other side as “not sensible” just because you disagree with them.

        “Either gun owners take the lead of have someone else do it for us.”

        Gladly, if it was possible. We all have differing viewpoints on ‘reasonable’ and ‘unreasonable’ remember? why should we be pressured by those who would be interested in annihilating our sport, nothing more?

        I didn’t realize I created a new term “vice vacation”. Well I wont correct it. Monte Carlo is indeed a “vice vacation”.

  • No politics please— There are other places to talk politics but this is not one of them.

  • n0truscotsman

    I served two decades in active duty Army (light infantry, armor/RSTA), as have other people here in a wide variety of different roles.

    But that really misses the point doesn’t it? a lack of military service doesn’t disqualify someone’s points or their argument, particularly when it comes to civil liberties. Thats not a road we want to go down either.

    And why are you assuming that us pro gun people are ignorant of the silent corporate coup d’etat? or somehow supportive of it?and why is violence a solution at all when things can still be fixed from soapboxes and ballot boxes? TFB isn’t the place to discuss such things either; their agenda seems to be new tech, historical curiosity, and firearm news.

    You criticize (generalize) militias for having a proclivity towards violence against political forces they find disagreeable, yet ridicule them for not resorting to violence to deal with things *you* find disagreeable.

    The contradiction couldn’t be greater. And I reject your notion that violence is even an option now, given that we haven’t checked the “doomsday provision” box yet. Thats another road that we have no business walking down.

    • Squrrily

      Said my piece…..I’m out!