3D Printing

Meet the 'Reason'

"Who can argue with reason?"

|

Reason gun
Eric Mutchler

Asked why the 3-D-printed metal gun he designed has the word REASON emblazoned on its slide, engineer Eric Mutchler says, "Who can argue with reason?"

Mutchler's gun—which was not, alas, named after this magazine—also has the preamble of the Declaration of Independence picked out on the front of the grip, as well as a unique trigger designed to look like its creator's initial, M.

The weapon was made mostly from stainless steel on an EOSINT M 280 3-D printer with a technique called direct metal laser sintering, which uses a laser to heat metal powder. The whole piece, including the inscriptions, can be reproduced using downloadable CAD specs.

Mutchler's day job is with the 3-D printing firm Solid Concepts, which was recently acquired by the publically held Stratasys. Mutchler worked on the Reason (and its predecessor, the 1911, which was released last year and has since been fired over 5,000 times) on his own time. But after the tech press erroneously identified the weapon as a company product, his employer asked him to stop talking to media about the homemade gun.

The machine used to make the Reason costs over a half million dollars. Still, the gun is an example of the wide-ranging artistic, design, and technical possibilities of personalized metal printing, which will almost certainly get progressively cheaper and more widely available.

NEXT: The Reason Gift Guide!

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.

  1. Mutchler’s gun?which was not, alas, named after this magazine?also has the preamble of the Declaration of Independence picked out on the front of the grip…

    Not The Declaration of Independents?

  2. Asked why the 3-D-printed metal gun he designed has the word REASON emblazoned on its slide

    Not POWER?

    I am disappoint.

    1. I was thinking “racist teabagger”

      1. You sure? I was going to suggest “Small Penis Substitute Death-Rape Machine.”

        1. Maybe when they print a rifle……

    2. At least it didn’t say SWORD like the guns in that shitty Romeo and Juliet movie starring DiCaprio from the 90’s.

      1. That’s funny. I showed my wife the illustration here and told her it reminded me of the R+J SWORD pistols! She thought the latter were cute, and she appreciates the irony of inscription of “Reason” (as opposed to “Force”) on the current weapon.

      2. First thing it reminded me of was Snow Crash.

        Second thing, though, was the gun design from that movie, yeah. (The movie was fun and inventive :-p)

    3. Ultima Ratio Regum.

    4. Max Power (Simpsons reference)

  3. There will be no spiking the football here:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Internat…..d=27397528

    Interesting that Obama only issued a written statement. He jumped in front of the cameras the last time a raid was successful.

    1. That’s a shame.

      I think its good we continue to send in actual ‘boots’ to rescue people. Obama has been so failure prone of late that i’d almost have expected him to be keeping on the sidelines to avoid further whiffs. Trying and failing in this case is better than not trying at all.

      I’d hope the list of “Americans dumb enough to hang out in Yemen/Somalia/Syria” is short enough that this sort of thing doesn’t need to be needlessly repeated.

      1. I think its good we continue to send in actual ‘boots’ to rescue people.

        SOF teams aren’t really “boots on the ground” in the common vernacular.

        1. Ballet slippers on the ground?

        2. While we’re splitting hairs can you take a little off behind the ears?

          kidding… I appreciate the distinction. The point is that in the current media climate Obama could well leave people like these guys to Rot and there’d be no political price to pay. At least we make the effort.

          I also think he’d probably want to tamp down any reminders that ISIS isn’t the only jihadi party in town, and that “Al-Q in AP” actually has a longer track record of making (lame) attempts at international terrorism. Unless I’m mistaken they’re the Geniuses behind the Nigerian Underwear Bombing Plot. They pre-date most other AL-Q offshoots and we’ve been targeting them since the Bush admin.

          1. This… is new information for me.

            “Who puts the Ass-in Assassinate? YEMENIS DO!”

            “But while al-Wahishi is at the top of AQAP’s command structure, U.S. security officials are equally, if not more concerned, about Ibrahim al-Asiri, identified as the terror group’s master bomb maker.

            Al-Asiri is believed to have been the mastermind behind the airline bombing attempts on the U.S., as well as a particularly gruesome failed attempt on a member of the Saudi royal family in 2009. In that case, al-Asiri supposedly hid explosives in the rectum of his younger brother, who then attempted to detonate the device while in the presence of Saudi Prince Muhammed bin Nayif.

            The explosion was apparently underpowered and only managed to kill al-Asiri’s brother, but as the State Department put it, “the brutality, novelty and sophistication of the plot is illustrative of the threat posed by al-Asiri.” The U.S. offers $5 million for information leading to al-Asiri’s capture.”

            1. With his brothers death perhaps he can leave his terrorist ways behind him.

            2. Unless the brother is the guy from Goatse, the anus bomb isn’t going to kill anybody else in the room.

              1. I think it is notable that “ass bomber” apparently ‘learned from his earlier error’…

                …and then helped design the Nigerian Underwear Bomber’s kit.

                I mean, you have to start to wonder about the guy’s actual motives. Maybe he’s not really in it for the ‘terrorism’ so much. Maybe he’s just the world’s *meanest* practical joker.

                1. Imagine a firecracker in the palm of your hand. You set it off, what happens? You burn your hand, right? You close your fist around shove the same firecracker up your ass…

                  [clenches his hand into a fist butt cheeks]

                  …and set it off. Your wife’s brother’s gonna be opening your ketchup bottles the rest of your life covered in shit.

                  1. Biggest fart in history!!!!

                    1. The Wario Waft.

            3. al-Asiri supposedly hid explosives in the rectum of his younger brother … The explosion was apparently underpowered and only managed to kill al-Asiri’s brother, but as the State Department put it, “the brutality, novelty and sophistication of the plot is illustrative of the threat posed by al-Asiri.”

              So… not much of a threat at all if the best he can come up with is an ass bomb. And this is their “master bomb maker”?

              Although it might not be entirely his fault it didn’t work. If only his brother had been Goatse, he might have been able to pack enough explosives in his ass to blow up himself, the target, and anyone else in a 100 foot radius. Hell, he might have even been able to use a snuke.

              1. “And this is their “master bomb maker”?”

                In the ‘bomb making’ hierarchy, its whomever has the most fingers.

                You also need to keep in mind that Yemen is not world-famous for their technological innovations…. well, since around 1700 BCE at least

            4. It takes two asses to spell assassinate.

          2. Thereby combining shooting ff his mouth and talking out of his ass.

            Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

            1. How could you help yourself? It begs to be the butt of many jokes.

              1. These kinds of gastric outbursts will not be tolerated!

        3. Similarly, when the CIA is used, it’s “loafers on the ground” not “boots.” Thus, the use of the CIA is justified. /govtlogic

      2. Even this failure is a partial success. At least we tried, and the guy’s family won’t have to see him beheaded and dying a gruesome death on the internet.

        But in true Obama fashion, this was dumped into the press pool late Friday night.

  4. Who can argue with reason?”

    Well, the whole point of a gun is that sometimes reason proves insufficient by itself.

  5. And now, a word on behalf of the GOOD GUYS

    Austin Police Sgt. Adam Johnson fired one shot from his Smith & Wesson M&P .40 pistol and hit Larry McQuilliams square in the chest last month, stopping the gunman’s downtown shooting rampage. (YouTube)

    Holding the reins of two horses with one hand, Austin Police Sgt. Adam Johnson raised his service pistol and fired a bullseye into the target some 312 feet away.

    Down went Larry McQuilliams, and so ended his rampage through the streets of the Texas capital, where he’d fired more than 100 rounds from his AK-47 and .22-caliber rifles at buildings. The shot, from Johnson’s Smith & Wesson M&P .40 pistol, hit McQuilliams square in the chest and made the 15-year-veteran the toast of gun enthusiasts around the country.

    That guy was shooting his gun at buildings!

    HIS EVIL RAMPAGE OF VANDALISM HAD TO BE STOPPED.

    Take that, you America-hating bigorati naysayers.

    1. Sorry, unless he took the shot while standing *astride* 2 horses, i’m not impressed. He has competition

    2. That guy was shooting his gun at buildings!

      HIS EVIL RAMPAGE OF VANDALISM HAD TO BE STOPPED.

      Uh, I have a feeling that the people inside those buildings who could have conceivably been hit by a bullet as it ricocheted through a window are probably glad he was stopped.

      Are you really going to criticize a cop who is clearly well-trained, shot someone who needed to be shot, and did so with no collateral damage? When you’ve got cops in New York shooting people in stairwells for no reason, I don’t see why you’d mock this guy.

      1. And only expended one bullet doing it, instead of emptying a clip while hiding behind and MRAP for four hours?

      2. We actually may have found The Good Cop. Incredible shot.

    3. Am I supposed to have a problem with this event? Because I’ll take it over a dozen officers firing 300 rounds into a car with unarmed passengers, or cops instantly shooting kids with toy guns, or choking guys out for nonviolent crimes.

    4. Not sure if serious.

      1. P Brooks is a serious imbecile.

    5. Uh, wildly shooting a gun in inhabited areas is exactly the kind of thing that lethal force is justified in combatting.

      I mean, I hate cops and the ideology that leads (some of) them to kill innocent and *harmless* people, but this guy wasn’t either.

      1. I would praise a civilian who took that guy down, so it’s only fair that I give a cop the same credit.

        -jcr

        1. It’s an absolutely amazing shot. Over 100 yds with a handgun, one-handed, at 2 in the morning, while he’s holding horses with the other hand? Vs a guy armed with a rifle?! That could have gone sideways for the officer extremely quickly. When told the story, my fiancee wondered why the Olympic pistol competitor was stuck on horse-wrangling duty…

          1. Wow. For the hell of it I’ve tried a pistol on the 100-yard-line. Not even close, ever.

            1. It’s not even the, “can you make the shot?” question. It’s whether your first (maybe your only) hit on the guy is going to stop him enough to prevent him from shooting at you with an AK. Also, I dunno what the nut was wearing, but crazy old white guys with improvised bombs are right in the ‘buys body armor’ demographic. How do you know whether or not you have to hit him in the head or arm to stop him?

              Glad the officer did it, but I wouldn’t have, were I him.

    6. The Late P Brooks. A little perspective.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gly3bafUhcU

    7. I hope you are joking about the vandalism. Buildings don’t usually stop AK47 rounds until they have made their way through several walls – and any occupants in between.

  6. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. But how much has getting shut of the imfection she caught off of the german sheppard cost?

  7. I love bringing up 3D printed firearms and magazines when arguing with grabbers. Watching them lose their shit is so gratifying.

  8. I’ll take one. But I want “Fuck Off” on the slide.

    1. Not “Bad Motherfucker”?

      1. I could work with that. Or perhaps “Molon Labe” or “Sic Semper Tyrannis”.

      2. “Go in that bag and find my wallet…”

      1. ^ This! How could ANYTHING but that be engraved (virtually) into a 3D printed gun?

  9. Cultural ULTRAVIOLENCE

    n a city traditionally as hostile to architectural preservation as it is hospitable to architectural innovation, the gigamansion trend is accelerating the decimation of residential gems. A midcentury modern home in Bel Air designed by Burton Schutt (best known as the architect of the Hotel Bel-Air) and furnished by the decorator Billy Haines for Earle Jorgensen, a member of President Ronald Reagan’s “kitchen cabinet,” and his wife, Marion, was recently razed by the action-movie director Michael Bay and replaced with a three-story 30,000-square-foot dwelling with two master bedrooms and a movie-prop museum.

    Another front in the Change Sucks When the Wrong People Are Doing It wars.

    1. Well, that does suck, but he has a right to do it. And this:

      A midcentury modern home in Bel Air

      Reminds me of the Eddie Izzard bit on American History.

      It was built FIFTY YEARS AGO! What? No one was ALIVE back then!

    2. The NYT weekend ‘Style’ section is essentially an entirely special subgenre of “bogus news” ginned up for middle aged suburban women in Westchester. The whole point is to share a “Well, that’s just horrible” story with people who’d otherwise probably be browsing a Home & Garden or reading a recipe about Mango Chutney.

      The Sunday Magazine is *even worse*. The NYT sunday magazine is like… concentrated suburban rich-person retardedness. For the people who find the Style section too ‘hard hitting’.

      There was a great cartoon once of an ethnic family in the Bronx talking about how much they enjoyed reading the NYT sunday magazine and how it reflected their lives and interests… because who doesn’t need to know more about the “5 Best Spas in the Dutch Antilles” or “how to make Vegan Flan really pop” or compare advertisements for Cartier or Bvlgari novelties.

      1. I see no reason to include chutney in your diatribe of negativity.

    3. My Mother was involved in early efforts to spread historical preservation, starting in the 1960’s. To her disgust it morphed from saving genuine architectural and historical treasures to preserving anything old, even when it was mass produced, and bug ugly, when new and had been getting worse for the best part of a century.

      1. This reminds me of when The Nation published an article about Cuba and were upset that Cuban expats are buying land in Havana in an attempt to modernize the buildings. Here’s the quote, and it’s awful:

        While home ownership is high, thanks to housing subsidies, laws requiring apartment owners to maintain their own apartments but absolving them of responsibility from maintenance of common areas, have resulted in the buildings’ overall deterioration. The average house is seventy-five years old, maintenance subsidies are non-existent, therefore even working professionals find home repair simply too costly. Residents have been very innovative to meet basic housing needs and one sees shanty towns built at the top of buildings or the courtyards of colonial houses and balconies used for different purposes to the original ones. A program of renovation started in the eighties has been proceeding slowly.

        More worrisome are the consequences of recently enacted laws allowing Cubans to buy their own houses, which they do for the most part with remittances from relatives in Florida. This is resulting in many of the historical buildings to be purchased by Cuban Americans who will quite likely demolish them, due to their state of disrepair, and will replace them with large glass towers as has been the case in many cities the world over.

        Got that? When people are living in abject squalor, it’s bad to replace their living conditions with something more modern.

        1. What the fuck?! I don’t even…

          More proof that there’s no such thing as speak derp. Just when I think I’ve read the most insipid thing ever, you manage to find something even dumber. “Oh no, we can’t tear down these slums, think of the historical architecture that’ll be lost!” What a bunch of retarded horse shit.

          1. It’s as though some people out there read the phrase “Peak Derp” and think “Challenge accepted!”

          2. Speak derp to power

    4. Here’s my position on historical preservation:

      You want to preserve something? BUY IT. Otherwise, fuck off.

      1. N the early days, most of the effort went into shifting tax incentives so that it was possibke to make more money preserving a historic building than it was tearing it down for a parking lot.

        It didn’ STOP there, but getting rid of perverse regulatory incentives was a decent start,anyway.

  10. Your daily schadenfreude:

    Jessica Valenti’s response to the Rolling Stone retraction:

    Jessica Valenti

    .@RollingStone: “our trust in her was misplaced.” Kudos on throwing this young woman under the bus for your failures. Assholes.

    On @RollingStone: 1) This DOES NOT mean this woman lied about being raped – many victims have trouble recounting details of trauma

    Yeah, they forget minor details like whether or not they were beaten on top of broken glass.

    And Amanda Marcotte:

    Here.

    Interesting how rape apologists think that if they can “discredit” one rape story, that means no other rape stories can be true, either.

    RAPE APOLOGISTS. GABBLE GABBLE BURN STRAWMAN

    Recommend everyone who expects victims to have perfect memory sit down and construct, word for word, the last dinner conversation they had.

    In fairness, I wasn’t gang raped on a glass table at dinner.

    What I don’t get is if rape apologists are so sure rapes are hoaxes, why oppose investigating them and getting out that fact?

    Yes. If you believe individual sexual assaults aren’t true because facts don’t add up, then you believe that all rapes are hoaxes. Smart. Take.

    1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

      Sabrina Erdely from September:

      Vanessa Grigoriadis @thevanessag
      Is all bad reporting just laziness?

      Sabrina Rubin Erdely

      @thevanessag Not always. Sometimes bad reporting is finding the facts that will best support a faulty premise.

    2. This DOES NOT mean this woman lied about being raped – many victims have trouble recounting details of trauma.

      Many victims (unproven assertion) have trouble recalling details, therefore Jackie must be one of them, right?

      Recommend everyone who expects victims to have perfect memory sit down and construct, word for word, the last dinner conversation they had.

      Perfect memory is not required. Only that the accusation be plausible and be supported by evidence.

      What I don’t get is if rape apologists are so sure rapes are hoaxes, why oppose investigating them and getting out that fact?

      Damn all of those rape apologists on college discipline boards, opposing investigations by the police and trying to throw men accused of rape out of college without contacting the police. Damn them all to hell!

    3. “Interesting how rape apologists think that if they can “discredit” one rape story, that means no other rape stories can be true, either”

      Er, no it means what anyone should already know, that any given allegation might be true or it might not and this should always be in mind.

      1. Wrong, Bo. You either have to believe that all rape accusations are true or that all rape accusations are false.

        It is absolutely impossible for anyone to believe that some are true and some are not and to argue that we should collect evidence before staking out a position.

        You don’t want to be a rape denialist, do you Bo?

        1. On that basis, I sure as hell do.

    4. “Amanda Marcotte:

      Interesting how rape apologists think that if they can “discredit” one rape story, that means no other rape stories can be true, either.”

      A retort from someone=

      Marcotte Surrounding Herself With Straw Men to Ensure The Bonfire of Her Credibility Can be Seen From Space

      1. “Marcotte Surrounding Herself With Straw Men to Ensure The Bonfire of Her Credibility Can be Seen From Space”

        Time to have the quote of the year framed!

    5. In fairness, I wasn’t gang raped on a glass table at dinner

      that you recall. You might be suffering from PTSD and blacked it out.

      1. Hell, my Lady surpressed memory of childhood abuse by a family member. But we always knew her memory was full of blamks, and the only person in the whole family who didn’t believe that child abuse was consistent with the swine’s character was his mother. The little shit died of Aids, proving that Karma exists.

        The system of “innocent until proven guilty beyond resonable doubt” is imperfect, as all systems involving humans must be. It is still one hell of an improvement on any variation of “Guilty until proven innocent” that I have ever heard of. That some ( and it sometimes seems like all) feminists want to replace the former with the latter is the harshest indictment of Feminism possiblle.

    6. Marcotte didn’t learn a damned thing from her days as a cheerleader for the Duke Lynch Mob, eh?

      Not surprised at all.

      -jcr

      1. Au contraire = she built a career and a loyal following by continuing to assert that even though the ‘facts’ may have not been what were alleged, that frat boys are still all rapists and rape apologists are just EVERYWHERE and Grrrrrg!! Gnash!!!!

        iow = its a living

  11. Interesting how rape apologists think that if they can “discredit” one rape story, that means no other rape stories can be true, either.

    Well, duh.

    Any idiot knows that.

    1. I know, right? I mean, God forbid a person actually make an informed judgment based on the merits of each individual case. To do so would be an assault on women everywhere. How dare you question the validity of a rape claim. Only a heartless misogynist would ask for, you know, evidence. Emote! Emote! Emote!

      1. No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims.

        We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist. Even if Jackie fabricated her account, UVA should have taken her word for it during the period while they endeavored to prove or disprove the accusation. This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..pe-claims/

        1. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.(my phone doesn’t have an alt text option)

          She should do some research on how just being accused of rape has destroyed the lives of thousands of people. They routinely lose thier families, jobs, and friends before their names have been cleared. Even then, The accusation alone forever attaches a stigma to the accused.

        2. ” during the period while they endeavored to prove or disprove the accusation”

          Ok, that strikes me as a potentially important qualifier to the rest of her rhetoric. Perhaps she means investigators should take her charges as true in the sense of ‘assume they’re true to motivate you to investigate until your satisfied they’re not.’ I imagine at the same time she means ‘take it to be true in providing support for the alleged victim’ as well

          1. There should be no “believe” involved. Investigators should investigate and gather information that supports the claim or doesn’t. No belief necessary.

            Our expectation should be that all crimes will be investigated (yeah, I know) with some level of competence and evidence gathered. But before something can be investigated it needs to be reported to people capable of investigating.

            1. There should be no “believe” involved.

              ^This. The rhetoric of ‘believe’ vs. ‘disbelieve’ which feminists use in this instance really shows how much of a religious cult that movement is. It’s all about faith rather than evidence.

              You should neither believe nor disbelieve a given allegation. You should treat the complainant respectfully as you look into the allegations. That’s all you should do – no belief required.

              What modern feminists are basically doing is engaging in a ridiculous, almost Manichean false dilemma. Basically we must either assume everything a victim says is true or assume that it is false. Since a rational person should not be making assumptions either way until evidence is presented, this shows how irrational the feminist movement as embodied by people like Zerlina Maxwell really is.

            2. But this is kind of my point. Don’t you have to be operating from an assumption of plausibility to be motivated to start checking out something thoroughly?

              1. Don’t get me wrong, if she meant the much more sane idea ‘take every allegation of sex assault very seriously and never be dismissive’ she could have said it much more clearly.

                1. The fact that she explicitly says it’s not a big deal if the accused lose their friends and are suspended from their jobs makes me think that her position on this is far from sane.

              2. Plausibility and belief, while not mutually exclusive, are not the same thing. What she’s advocating seems to be is placing the burden of proof on the accused, not the accuser. I don’t know, maybe my logic is flawed. Tends to happen more than I like. If so, straighten me out.

                1. This quote makes me think your logic is not flawed:

                  The accused would have a rough period. He might be suspended from his job; friends might defriend him on Facebook. In the case of Bill Cosby, we might have to stop watching his shows, consuming his books or buying tickets to his traveling stand-up routine. But false accusations are exceedingly rare, and errors can be undone by an investigation that clears the accused, especially if it is done quickly.

                  ‘Friends might defriend him on facebook.’ Yeah, or they might stop being friends with him in real life and render him a social pariah.

                  ‘He might be suspended from his job.’ Yeah, who cares about bourgeoisie niceties like a paycheck? Losing your source of income and potentially being rendered destitute is totally okay if it occurs in service to the revolutionary truth.

                  She’s not just arguing that we should engage in a regime of ‘trust but verify,’ she’s arguing that we should believe the accuser so thoroughly that we essentially destroy the accused’s life. And she has no problem with this.

                  1. She’s a sociopath. The accused (and the accuser) are merely pieces to be moved about in her game. The idea that such an accusation could harm them terribly, the empathy of what they would go through, is utterly lost on her, since she doesn’t view others as people, just puppets in her play. That’s what sociopaths do.

                2. Thanks guys. I thought that was the case. I tend to second guess myself on these boards. I’m well aware that I’m just intelligent enough to be dangerously misinformed unless I really, really think about certain issues.

                  1. Wisdom, morality and education are far more important than raw intelligence.

                    Most of us libertarians are just lucky to have them all. 😛

                    1. I don’t get it.

        3. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says.

          Cotton Mather would agree.

          -jcr

          1. We’ve found a witch! May we burn her?!

  12. engineer Eric Mutchler says, “Who can argue with reason?”

    Oh, I think you’d be surprised, Eric.

  13. P Brooks is a serious imbecile.

    I’m sorry your butt hurts, you pathetic warmongering jackass. Don’t you a cake to decorate?

    1. Usually it’s the person who’s using names from the elementary school playground and is accidentally his verbs who’s butt hurts. In this case, he’s a projectionist too. An imbecilic projectionist.

  14. So, how soon can we expect a bill in Congress to be drafted that tries to have metal 3-D printers outlawed? We can’t have people just making weapons willy nilly. Or will you have to submit to a criminal background check before purchasing the printer itself? Something tells me this is already in the works, for the children.

  15. Tuping is hsrd.

    1. For you, thinking is harder.

  16. Something tells me this is already in the works, for the children.

    No man’s freedom is secure when Congress is in session.

    1. The actual quote hits even harder;

      “No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session”
      Gideon j. Tucker

      (And here I thought is was Twain)

  17. Buttplug will love reading about the awesome success Obamacare has had in helping Employers keep costs down …by firing people, and giving the sick-people in their plans raises and kicking them onto exchanges.

    ‘Markets work’! indeed

    1. Officials got wind that some employers planned to bypass the mandate by giving their workers bonuses, asking them to decline company-sponsored insurance and sending them to the Obamacare marketplaces to buy subsidized policies. Nudging sick workers, in particular, onto the exchanges could save employers’ health plans money and shift the cost onto publicly subsidized plans. The Labor Department published new guidelines in November to explicitly forbid that practice.

      Well now, that sure is a predictable consequence.

  18. But employer plans are increasing at “unexpectedly” slower rates, you ignorant Peanut!

    Fucking averages- how do they work?

  19. Why so much effort trying to skirt the mandate?why not just bite the bullet and buy the insurance?

    McMurdy has asked the same question at the seminars he does for business owners in New York and New Jersey. “There’s been a lot of resistance because they’re starting from the proposition that this [mandate] will kill them. I tell people if they spent as much time figuring out how to comply as they did avoiding compliance, they wouldn’t have an issue.”

    Why do you fight the yoke, Citizen? Pull. Pull gladly, and sing the praises of the new and brighter world we have made for you! Elsewise, you get the lash.

    1. Why does anyone need to “figure out” how to comply? I thought that regulations were simple and easy to follow?

      Methinks McMurdy doth protest too much.

  20. For you, thinking is harder.

    ooh, ZING!

    *clutches chest, falls to floor*

    1. Isn’t your recess break over yet?

  21. “Who can argue with reason?”

    Not me, I always LOVED Reason. And now, I will voluntarily donate 300 dollars to their Webathon. Oops, I mean 500 dollars.

  22. (And here I thought is was Twain)

    I also thought it was Twain.

  23. What excites me the most about this technology is that if you can print a working gun, you can also print a working engine. I’d love to see people making new parts and entire engines to replace original Rolls Royce Merlins and Pratt & Whitney Wasps. Eventually, we could print entire spitfires and mustangs.

    -jcr

    1. Yep, you can print your own car, motorcycle, whatever.

      The decentralization that 3D printing will bring will be epic and beautiful.

  24. The preamble was not on the gun the first time this was posted; has it since been added?

  25. My buddy’s ex-wife makes $84 /hr on the computer . She has been fired from work for 7 months but last month her payment was $13167 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    site here ???? http://www.jobsfish.com

  26. I just got paid $ 7500 working off my computer this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $ 8 k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do,,

    COPY THIS URL IN YOUR BROWSER..

    ??????? http://WWW.PAYFLAME.COM

  27. My Uncle Nathan got a stunning cream Cadillac CTS-V Sedan by working part-time at home online… Check This Out
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\——- http://snipr.com/29i4rlk

  28. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My neighbour’s sister has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do…. http://WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

  29. simple and quick direct question:

    how can 3D printers do rifling in the barrel?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.