3D Printing

Sen. Schumer's Magical Legislative Forcefield Against 3D-Printed Guns

|

Sen. Charles Schumer
U.S. Congress

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-Any Television Camera), dedicated foe of private ownership of firearms, is deeply concerned that the Undetectable Firearms Act will sunset on December 9, 2013. He also thinks simply renewing the law once again is insufficient to deal with the Dread Scourge™ of 3D-printed plastic firearms that will soon be coming to a playground near you unless much tougher restrictions are imposed. His magical belief that just one more law will stop people from printing whatever they damned well please in the privacy of their workshops is a tad baffling—unless you realize that, after so many years in government, he's basically nuts.

The Hill quotes Schumer as saying, "The House bill is better than nothing, but it's not good enough. We absolutely must close the loophole that allows anyone to legally make a gun that could be rendered invisible by the easy removal of its metal part." This echoes a comment the senator made last month:

"3D printers are a miraculous technology that have the potential to revolutionize manufacturing, but we need to make sure they are not being used to make deadly, undetectable weapons.  By attaching an extension of this bill to one of the several must pass pieces of legislation, we can prevent an explosion of these silent killers."

His press release continues:

The existing law, the Undetectable Firearms Act, expires on December 9th, 2013. Once expired, it will be perfectly legal to print, sell, or carry a 3D plastic gun like any other gun. If the legislation is not renewed, individuals will be able to easily carry a 3D plastic gun through a metal detector and gain access to an airplane, school, sporting event, courthouse or other government buildings.

The temptation is to assume that Schumer doesn't understand the technology of 3D printing. Perhaps he believes printers are three stories high, sit on street corners emitting clouds of steam, and fire flares in the air when they produce objects he doesn't like.

In fact, though, it's abvious that a leading contender for the most annoying man in the United States Senate doesn't understand law. He thinks passing legislation through Congress, and then getting it signed by the president, is equivalent to altering gravity or the speed of light. Pass another bill, he suggests, and manufacturing plastic guns will then become not just illegal, but impossible.

This, needless to say, is not true. If nothing else, we may finally have evidence that spending too long in public office actually causes insanity. Years of ranting and unwatched Sunday morning TV appearances really can lead people to believe that laws have special powers beyond people's agreement, or at least their willingess to comply when in view of enforcers.

But the wonder and promise of 3D printers, as with so much modern technology, is its small-scale and private nature. Once you have a printer in your possession, it's really impossible to tell what you're using it for. Even the materials they use are generic. Are you using ABS plastic to print pistols? Or lawn gnomes? Who the hell knows?

If somebody wants to print and "carry a 3D plastic gun through a metal detector," the Undetectable Firearms Act simply won't play a role in the matter. Good people won't pose a threat to others whether or not the law is on the books, and bad people won't be deterred by the law. Under the circumstances, the good people may be thankful they can sneak their plastic guns through, too, in order to deal with any predators who show up.

But Schumer seems unlikely to agree. He's fully invested in his belief that laws have magical powers, and can actually change what's possible in the world. If anybody can disabuse him of that notion, it might save us all a lot of hassle.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

145 responses to “Sen. Schumer's Magical Legislative Forcefield Against 3D-Printed Guns

  1. 3D guns: Fantasy or Fetish?

    Next, on Entertainment Tonight!

  2. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-Any Television Camera),

    You, sir, win one internet.

  3. Good people won’t pose a threat to others whether or not the law is on the books, and bad people won’t be deterred by the law.

    The flip side of this coin is, even though people will be able to print their own plastic guns, it wouldn’t be legal, and even an unenforceable law will kind doors to kick in trying. Good people will find themselves fucked in the ass by career politician with man boobs and his agents.

    1. This is pretty much it. Lots of people ’round these parts wave off laws as unenforceable, but ignore the fact that many a SWAT raid, dogs shot and people jailed will ensue. All because of an unenforceable law.

      1. Schumer is one of those totalitarian “fear of this battle station” types. The reason he wants more laws with more draconian penalties is that people just aren’t scared of their government enough. He knows the law will do nothing by itself, but he’s hoping fear of the law’s annihilating consequences for breaking it and being caught will keep people from doing things that offend Chuck Schumer. And that’s basically all he’s got.

        1. And that’s basically all he’s got.

          That’s pretty much all the government in general has. Fear, force, and coercion are their only real weapons.

          1. Well, Fear, force, coercion, and lots and lots of actual weapons are their only weapons.

            1. Fear, force, coercion, and lots and lots of actual weapons are their only weapons.

              …and nice red uniforms – OH DAMN!

              1. And ruthless inefficiency.

                1. Best glad it’s inefficient. An efficient government is something I’d rather not deal with….

      2. Isn’t that kind of the idea? The government will still attempt to enforce very broad, unenforceable laws, and any attempt to do so must be very broad itself. Very narrow, enforceable laws don’t give “law enforcement” any justification to broaden their enforcement.

  4. Semi-OT: Gawker reacts to banned NFL gun ad.

    Here’s how this is going to go down: Most of you will be outraged or disgusted by this ad. By its overt luddism and sexism and libertarian man-musk.
    […]
    That is how a kinda-savvy gun company commodifies the dissent of unsavvy gun nuts. Never mind that anyone who thinks an AR-15 or its shorter cousin, the M-4, is a valuable home-defense weapon is a shit-for-brains lemming. The gun’s high-velocity, low-caliber, low-weight slugs won’t stop shit up close, as those guys in Somalia and Iraq and Afghanistan have learned pretty succinctly. If you really want a home defense weapon, if you really want to open your family up to the high statistical probability that one of them will be killed or maimed at your well-intentioned hands, get a shotgun, or a large-caliber pistol, and get some training.

    But I know, I know. The AR-15 and M-4 are the “it” guns now. So, fine. If you want to take down hajjis at distances greater than 50 yards, or you want to lay down suppressive fire for your squadmates’ flanking maneuvers, or you want to massacre kindergartners, or you want to start the race war, or you want to shoot the shit out of peaceable moviegoers while blocking the exits, then yeah, at $1999.99, the nasty black assault rifle is your piece. Cock and lock! You’re a real man now. Quick, go watch some football!

    1. So is he volunteering to be shot by an AR-15 at close range? After all, “they don’t stop shit up close” so he’ll be fine.

      1. So is he volunteering to be shot by an AR-15 at close range?

        Only so long as it doesn’t have the shoulder thing that goes up. Because that makes the guns more dangerous.

        1. No, it’s the mag capacity. If he gets hit by a bullet that came from a 5-round mag, he’ll be fine.

          -jcr

    2. When Adam Weinstein starts weeping blood out his asshole, I’m just going to laugh and laugh.

      1. The BAN BONER crowd’s frustration and quaking rage that they’re losing terribly is so, so delicious. Yummy!

    3. Never mind that anyone who thinks an AR-15 or its shorter cousin, the M-4, is a valuable home-defense weapon is a shit-for-brains lemming. The gun’s high-velocity, low-caliber, low-weight slugs won’t stop shit up close

      Well, if he says it, it must be so. After all, he is clearly an expert in the field of firearms.

      1. Yeah, I will complete purge my memories of what actually happened during my time in Afghanistan and Iraq in favor of his sweeping pronouncement!!!!

    4. Also, somehow the M-4 is the reason we lost in Iraq/Somolia/Afghanistan? Oh if only we had issued the troops Desert Eagles and Mossbergs instead!

      1. Double barreled shotguns for the women, because the AR platform is harder to aim and harder to use.

        Then the female troops can fire two shots in the air and piss themselves to stay safe.

    5. The writer, one Adam Weinstein, is apparently a Navy veteran who claims to “know guns.”

      And yet in the second sentence of the article talks about “an AR-15 assault rifle.”

      I always enjoy it when one of these fucking retards appoints himself an expert and then promptly shows his own ass while condescending to lecture the rest of us about what’s best for us.

    6. Forget to add this opening paragraph:

      Okay, at the outset, let me say this: I like guns. I know guns. I never heard of Daniel Defense until I saw this ad. Which means Daniel Defense is winning.

      So: he likes guns. He knows plenty of guns. Hell, even some of his best friends are guns! So he’s not a smug proggie hoplophobe, but…

      1. I never heard of Daniel Defense until I saw this ad. Which means Daniel Defense is winning.

        “Winning” means keeping your business out of the public eye so that tools like Adam Weinstein don’t take on themselves the chore of upbraiding your marketing conduct. Except that Daniel Defense, by harnessing the gungrabber commentariat, saves itself several million dollars in buying the Superbowl advert yet maintains a much larger commercial presence than it previously had.

        Handwritten letters thanking the Adam Weinsteins of the world for their service would be appropriate, Daniel Defense.

      2. I never heard of Daniel Defense until I saw this ad.

        How the hell would this supposed gun lover never hear of Daniel Defense? They’re a pretty popular company.

        1. I ain’t heard of it neither must be regional, in-fact that’s probly the point of the add since it was just trying to get its name out, not hawking a specific gun like most adds in magazines and the like.

    7. if you really want to open your family up to the high statistical probability that one of them will be killed or maimed at your well-intentioned hands

      I notice he understands statistics just about as well as he does firearms.

    8. The gun’s high-velocity, low-caliber, low-weight slugs won’t stop shit up close, as those guys in Somalia and Iraq and Afghanistan have learned pretty succinctly.

      The injured deer that I put out of its misery looked plenty dead to me.

      By its overt luddism

      We’re not the ones frightened by technology, dumbass.

    9. AR’s are back to down $800.

      1. There’s just too much derp in this post to completely cover.

        I think the actual extent of this man’s firearms knowledge ends with his Naval discharge.

        1. This may be just lingering inter-service prejudice from my Army days but do sailors (apart from the shore-patrol and the UDT guys) actually receive any small-arms training?

          1. actually receive any small-arms training?

            No. Hell, my training was pathetically inadequate and consisted of two whole hours (one in officer training and one on my ship) and firing about 60 rounds from a handgun.

            1. well army officers in my unit don’t get much weapon time either (though that is most likely because they are mostly AMED) anyway my brother was navy enlisted said he qualified with pistol/shotgun in basic and then when he got to his ship he qualified with the M2 and M16 but only cuz he was an LCACer

          2. I do know that most personnel in Engineering and Supply (with a few exceptions) didn’t receive anything beyond familiarization. Combat Systems and Deck department usually made up the security force (again there were some exceptions.) As part of SSDF (Ship’s Self Defense Force) I received rather extensive training, from a .45 ACP up to a .50 cal. SSDF was also part of the ship’s boarding and landing parties.

            1. Depends on your ship, too. Our twidget department got fairly extensive time with the M9, M16A3, M60(M249 after the switch), M2HB, percussion grenades, M32 (and the M79 when they realized we had use for the M32), and the 25MM.

        2. “I think the actual extent of this man’s firearms knowledge ends with his Naval discharge.”

          You typoed anal.

      2. Smith and Wesson M&P 15s are way less than that.

        1. Yeah, but we’re talking about good ARs, which are back to $1000-$1300, not AR-shaped things that are the firearm equivalent of the $9.99 survival knife with compass and bottle opener.

      3. you can get ’em cheaper than that, though they will be pretty lean.

    10. Mmmmm. Loserrage. Delicious.

      And he’s claiming that a pistol will stop an attacker better than a rifle? Mmmmm. Abject, pitiful ignorance. Delicious.

    11. Don’t forget the comments, as well.

      VeryWellUAdam Weinstein201L
      Meh. I’ve been worn down arguing about this shit. I give up. A mass shooting a day statistically will do that. What I did hear recently though is that there’s a spike of shootings around massacre anniversaries, Columbine, VTech, etc. (Adam Lanza was obsessed with these events) The more reporting done on guns and their sad, inevitable misuse only seems to strengthen the gun apologists’ resolve and sharpen the axe of the crazies with access to the tools of mayhem. We seem trapped. Today 11:22am

      Mmmm. A loser acknowledging failure. DELICIOUS.

      1. A mass shooting a day statistically will do that

        Is there a website that they go to that just makes up these fake statistics? Or is it that they just read about old mass shootings to the point that they actually believe that each reading is a new shooting?

        1. Why would they need a website? They just make shit up as they go along, and spread it through osmosis. As we have seen time and time again, facts are irrelevant. Only intentions matter.

        2. I thought Gawker was the site where they go to make up the fake statistics.

          1. No, no. Gawker is the site where they go to read the fake statistics that bubble out of the miasma of the hive-mind.

            You know, nicole, if you had gone to the Borg Institute of Technology, like me, instead of the Vulcan Science Academy, you’d know these things. It’s like me going to MIT and you going to Reed. Bunch of Vulcan hippies.

            1. It’s not my fault Hot Young Spock was at the Vulcan Science Academy and Jeri Ryan at the BIT. I mean have you ever seen the guys there? No. Just no.

              1. What are you implying about my looks, nicole?!? I had the operation! Everything is even now and I have the proper amount of everything!

                1. Uh…sorry, I didn’t realize we were officially filing you under “guy” at this point. Do you prefer masculine singular third-person pronouns now too?

                  1. That’s what the operation was for, nicole! So, technically, yes, I am male now. Technically. You can stop referring to me as “it” and can call me “that thing that’s sort of a dude” now.

                    1. Ahem. I will amend the records. Thank you for the update.

            2. Bunch of Vulcan hippies.

              (Plays harp, sings) Hey, brother…

          2. I thought Gawker was the site where leftists gather to get really angry about how people don’t act like they think they should. Or is that tumblr?

            1. Both, but Tumblr caters more to those whose rage is so inchoate they can’t even verbalize it properly. Gawker is more for dismissive smugness.

            2. That’s Pinterest, moron.

              1. I though pintrest was for fat girls to share pictures of food.

                1. Why are you being redundant? Is it because today is your PCP day?

                  1. There was this guy once this one time, you see this scar?

        3. Or is it that they just read about old mass shootings to the point that they actually believe that each reading is a new shooting?

          In addition to having no understanding of basic ecnomics, cause and effect, science, or math, apparently these proggie fuckwits also have no concept of time or the order of events.

          It’s most likely a side effect of being completely disconnected from reality. So yes, they keep reading about the same shootings and think it’s a different event.

        4. “Is there a website that they go to that just makes up these fake statistics?”

          Manatees.

    12. The defeatist attitude in the comments is refreshing.

      1. Not to me. That’s our schtick they’re infringing.

    13. I like guns. I know guns. I never heard of Daniel Defense until I saw this ad. Which means Daniel Defense is winning.

      My bf is in the next room. I just said, “Have you heard about this NFL gun ad shit?” “No.” “Have you heard of Daniel Defense?” “Yep.” Which is not to say they aren’t winning, but.

    14. Geez, someone better tell the special forces their guns don’t work well at close range where THEY USE THEM ALL THE F’ING TIME!!

    15. if you really want to open your family up to the high statistical probability that one of them will be killed or maimed at your well-intentioned hands

      Also seems to have a problem with the meaning of “high probability”. I think I woudl have noticed if there was a high probability of guns injuring people (you know what I mean) in homes that contain guns.

      And further, make up your fucking mind. Is an AR15 useless up close, or is it perfect for massacring little kids. I’m pretty sure the massacre he has in mind was done at close range.

    16. Well, sure it’s an ineffective weapon, but we should still ban it!

      Fucking hell. Some people are completely immune to cognitive dissonance.

    17. Why do you inflict Gawker on yourself?

      As for the author’s firearms points, he couldn’t be more wrong. An AR-15 is the perfect weapon for home defense, particularly if the user is small-framed/recoil sensitive, like many women. Faster follow-up shots than the shotgun he mentions, higher lethality than just about any handgun, greater accuracy than both, less likelihood of zipping through ten interior walls in your house and your neighbors’: it’s just plain better.

      Ignorant bigoted asshole.

      1. no actually a carbine firing pistol ammo would be best for home defense because high velocity rifle rounds WILL penetrate multiple walls.

        Drywall may as well be paper and a 7.62×39 will penetrate up to 18in of pine (.556 with higher velocity and smaller diameter will penetrate more). When choosing a cartridge for home defense larger lower velocity rounds are better for reducing penetration. This of course does not mean that .556 is anything less than adequate just remember weapon safety rule #3 know your target and what is BEHIND your target.

  5. Schmuck Schumer.

    1. Unfortunately, he’s one of my two US Senators.

      The fuckstain hasn’t worked in the productive sector in 39+ years, either.

    2. In a sane world, Chucky Bitchtits would be the worst politician we had.

  6. I hope Chuck Schumer dies of something that would be curable by a drug the FDA has banned.

  7. What Schumer wants here is an example of a species of law that I think has to be eradicated in its entirety – the law designed to make the conduct of citizens correspond to what’s easiest for the state to police.

    His beef against plastic guns is that there’s an existing detection infrastructure at the state’s disposal, and they’ll be annoyed if technological development renders their entire investment in that infrastructure moot. Therefore, all citizens must refrain from engaging in any activity that might do that.

    This is of a piece with the anti-cash-transaction rage statists have, or their anti-foreign-account rage, or their lust for e-Verify, or their criminalization of citizens altering digital devices they buy. “We’re trying to police you so we demand you do nothing we don’t already expect!” doesn’t impress me. I also feel no desire to be your fucking deputy or posse member.

    We need an Omnibus reform bill eliminating all of these at once.

    1. Omnibus Reform Bill

      Thanks, Fluffy. Now I know what to name the neutron bomb I am putting together in my garage.

      1. the neutron bomb I am putting together in my garage.

        With a 3-D printed plastic casing, right?

    2. I know the kind of law- tinted windows, secret compartments, shit like that. Fucking police have no entitlement to their job being easy.

    3. Oh, data retention and “discovery” laws, too.

    4. I think I’ll really piss off the greentards and print myself a high-flow rate shower head.

      -jcr

  8. The concept of laws sans enforcement to regulate behavior generally works well when there is an arguable benefit to the behavior change. Nanny state laws (seatbelts, cellphones, etc.) are the lead example of laws in which Nick’s “magic” does apply. Yes, the law may still be widely ignored, but the law does serve as a functional (albeit only marginally effective) tool for pushing a cultural change.

    “Magic” laws are generally in the realm of the banning actions where the primary beneficiaries of the action are planning to engage in criminal activity anyhow, where I’m defining “criminal activity” in a wholly libertarian context (i.e. invalid use of force against others, etc.)

  9. He’s fully invested in his belief that laws have magical powers, and can actually change what’s possible in the world.

    So…he’s an animist?

    1. Technically, I think he believes he is a wizard or sorceror. What else do you call it, if you believe you can change reality just by chanting the right words?

      1. Being insane? But JD already covered that.

        Chuck, are you a wizard?

      2. “With my super lawyer powers we can rid our town of cats, “

    2. I think he’s pandering to animists.

      One of the high school classmates who blocked me on facebook in the wake of Sandy Hook wrote a bizarre paean to the voting booth my classmate had used to vote. Apparently the previous voter to vote in that voting booth was Chuck Schumer, and my classmate seemed to feel that imbued it with some greatness and that it was cool that he (my classmate) had gotten to bask in that greatness.

      It was very creepy and pathetic.

      1. Did you ask him if he prayed before the holy relic? And did he ask Schumer for a benediction?

        1. No, I just told Facebook I didn’t want to see that comment.

          The sad thing was when we were kids he was entertainingly witty and bright.

          Now, in his forties, everything he wrote on facebook was stupid. Occasionally he would link to something cool from the world of science, but that was about it.

          I don’t think progressivism appeals to stupid people. Rather it cognitively reprograms people to be stupid emotional automata.

          1. “I don’t think progressivism appeals to stupid people. Rather it cognitively reprograms people to be stupid emotional automata.”

            Yes.

          2. Even if that is true, there has to be something about being reprogrammed into stupid emotional automata that appeals to them, or they wouldn’t do it. I’m not sure what it is, but it probably has something to do with wanting to belong to something.

            How was this guy’s family? Was it close-knit? Or was it uncaring and fractious?

            1. My family was (and is) uncaringly close-knit. And lookit how I turned out!

              1. So there’s no hope for anyone, then.

                (starts priming doomsday device)

                1. (starts priming doomsday device)

                  You mean, Omnibus Reform Bill?

                  1. KABOOOOOOMMMMMMMM

                    1. Where’s Commodore Decker when you need him?

            2. His family was a bit fucked up.

              His younger brother was busted for drug dealing in the middle school of the tony private K-12 school we attended and sent off to some boarding school to be reformed.

              Honestly, it started out as a way to be cool. All the smart intellectual kids were proggies. It was a way of showing how sensitive and modern you were. They hated Reagan. They hated Thatcher. They were pro-Israel. They thought only losers joined the military. They believed in technocracy. They would drive the cars their dads bought them to volunteer at a soup kitchen and pat themselves on the back about how caring they were.

              I really found them quite shallow. Everything they believed they believed because it was cool. Even then if you discussed stuff with them and challenged their views, they would be at a loss for words and go to personal attacks. I was accused of being an anti-Semite, a communist, and a right-wing shill for corporations all in one epic conversation.

              1. Sure, I’ve encountered tons of those types. But usually the similarity between them is that their parents ignore them, because they have the money to do so. They crave approval, and you can get guaranteed approval if you join TEAM BLUE and mouth all the right words. You don’t even have to do anything, just say the right stuff, and instant approval.

                It’s unsurprising that they go for this.

                1. It’s also unsurprising that they get so spitting mad when challenged. You’re not challenging their politics, you’re challenging the very core of who they are.

                  1. Well, you’re also threatening their status in the group they’ve joined. If they think about what you said and go “actually, you make a good point”, they are out of the group. And viciously, too. So when you start trying to dismantle their bullshit, to them you’re trying to get them turned on by the group they’ve joined for acceptance. It’s like going up to a gang member and going “here’s the money from the detective” really loudly so that the other gang members can hear.

          3. I went to high school and was friends with somebody who was an overachieving-yet-laid-back stoner. While at college he apparently picked up quite a guilt complex over his parents being totally loaded and now he posts stuff to Facebook like: “Hey girls, I could have been making bank at a white shoe law firm but I’m heroically working for the DNC against the evil Republikkkans; line up to suck my dick now.”

            OK, that’s not exactly what he wrote but it might as well be.

            1. Dumbass. Lots of cash is way more likely to get your dick sucked.

            2. but I’m heroically working for the DNC against the evil Republikkkans

              Conveniently leaving out the part that he can only do so because he’s still dependent on his parents wealth.

          4. I told Facebook I didn’t want to see it. Immediately after I first heard about Facebook.

  10. Charles Schumer anagrams:

    Camels Crush Her

    Cream Chess Hurl

    1. “Schumer Man Boobs” gets you “Chamber Unbosoms.” That is a fantastic screen name.

      1. And “Bum Scab Hormones.”

    2. Chucky Wobbletits :

      Chubby Tickles Two
      Stubbly Cock White
      Bitchy Bucks Towel
      Hubby Lick Cow Test

    3. Crasser Mulch He

    4. Gun Control: Colon Grunt

      1. Colon Grunt

        I’m guessing that’s what you could call it when you fart with such exposive force that it feels like you almost blew out your sphincter. Either that or somthing the aftermath being raped by Warty.

        Either way it’s a strangely appropriate anagram for gun control. Considering most of their arguments are forcibly expelled from their asses.

        1. Either that or something to do with the aftermath of being raped by Warty.

          I’ve fired my Cambodian orphan proof reader, so hopefully that won’t happen again.

      2. Colon Grunt: The Queef of the Farting World

    5. Her Cumless Arch.

  11. “We must do something, this is something, therefore, we must do this.”

  12. This was my favorite Man-boobs quote from the article; it combines wishful thinking, vapid stupidity, and horribly mixed metaphors into one great big ball of Schumer – “…we can prevent an explosion of these silent killers”

  13. “By attaching an extension of this bill to one of the several must pass pieces of legislation, we can prevent an explosion of these silent killers.”

    In additon to his infantile belief in the magical powers of laws passed by Congress, he seems to also belive that 3-D guns are: a) made with integrated silencers and b) prone to sprout legs and develop a will of their own and go out and kill people. Because they’re killers. Not just killers, SILENT KILLERS!!!!! DOOOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!11!!!!

    Chuck Schumer: insane, duplicitous fear mongering shit weasel, or both? I think the smart money is on both.

    1. Holy shit, man, haven’t you heard? GUNS MAKE YOU INTO A SERIAL KILLER!

      1. That’s the thing, he’s not saying that guns make you into a rampaging killer, he’s saying the 3-D printed guns themselves are “silent killers.” That’s about the most batshit insane thing I’ve seen this week (so far, it’s only Tuesday of course).

        1. I don’t think he sees a difference between the gun killing you and the gun making him kill you, since, in either case, it was all the gun’s fault.

  14. “3D printers are a miraculous technology that have the potential to revolutionize manufacturing, but we need to make sure they are not being used to make deadly, undetectable weapons. By attaching an extension of this bill to one of the several must pass pieces of legislation, we can prevent an explosion of these silent killers.”

    If “closing the loophole” is such a no-brainer, it shouldn’t need to be snuck through as a rider.

  15. A personal forcefield? Really? How does he carry the power source? I’ve never heard of such a thing.

    1. He doesn’t need a power source. He’s a wizard, man! Pay attention!

      1. I’ve heard of such things for starships and cities, but for just a guy? Maybe you’re right, maybe he is some kind of wizard.

    2. Runs on Derponic Energy. Needless to say, Chuckie is well protected.

  16. unless you realize that, after so many years in government, he’s basically nuts

    2Chili, sayin’ it like it is.

  17. Why did they think that shit eating grin was an appropriate selection for an official portrait?

    1. Perhaps the shit eating grin is really the artist’s rendering.

      1. Maybe he’s always just finished eating a big portion of shit.

  18. we can prevent an explosion of these silent killers.

    Huh?

    1. Duh!

      If they weren’t “silent killers” you would definitely have heard of them, but the ARE silent.

      So it stands to reason that only TOP MEN can know about them. Because they have super hearing or something.

  19. He thinks passing legislation through Congress, and then getting it signed by the president, is equivalent to altering gravity or the speed of light. Pass another bill, he suggests, and manufacturing plastic guns will then become not just illegal, but impossible.

    They’re words. On paper.

    Presto, the rhinoceros comes out of the hat.

  20. Forget not understanding how laws work. I like how he does not understand how optics works.

    “…a gun that could be rendered invisible by the easy removal of its metal part.”

    The plastic isn’t invisible. Also, if you remove the metal part from a steel sword, it becomes invisible.

  21. It’s just occurred to me that the kids in high school who were most likely to become politicians were also the ones most likely to be influenced by, and make use of, peer pressure. They’re little weasels who have never once thought for themselves, and I have to assume they believe most everyone else operates the same way. They have no basis for exercising their self control, so anything that influences them at all cannot be counteracted. So, they conclude, if you have a gun, it will MAKE you kill people. If there’s a commercial on for Alphabits, you MUST buy some. If there’s a McDonald’s on the corner, you HAVE to eat there. Nanny state laws (should we just start calling them “Bloombergs?”) are entirely predicated on the idea that no one can think for themselves, including the people who wrote them. And there’s a feedback loop in that when their nannyisms don’t work, they need to believe it’s because they weren’t nannying hard enough. They NEED laws to replace their own lack of self-control. It’s a fucking pathology.

    1. It’s also straight up projection. If they can’t control themselves, well then obviously no one else can.

      1. Oh, absolutely. They have no self control, and they project that no one else does either. They can’t even conceive of having self control since they have no frame of reference, so they assume you’re a big, fat liar when you say you won’t shoot everyone in sight.

    1. So, how about them Browns?

      1. They’re playing the Pats this week. I don’t think we’ll see much Bradyface, sadly.

        1. Well, you never know.

          (shakes head sadly when Warty isn’t looking)

        2. Here you go, Warty. May the memories warm your black heart.

  22. This kind of fight makes me stronger in my belief that every law should sunset after 5 years. Congress will fall over themselves in fighting over what to do when it sunsets, and we’ll end up with a whole lot fewer laws.

    1. And every Senator.

  23. Until someone makes non-metallic bullets, cartridges and primers, undetectable firearms are still imaginary.

    Didn’t the original law come about because people were all worried about polymer frame pistols being “plastic guns” or something?

    1. I was wondering this same thing. My XD-S .45 is ‘undetectable’ too, if I remove the metal parts.

  24. It’s a wonder that I haven’t already heard the Schumer-Feinstein Axis (backed by captains of various sunset industries) call for strict licensing of any device that can be used to make a Tool O’ Death.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.