comment: >
  
  Where in  the report does it show the NRA was funded by Russia?
context: This is a really good thing.
  I own guns and I built a Glock knockoff.  It's stupid easy, and all the parts for a functional gun were mailed to my house.  Took less than an hour to do it all. >
  
  
  This is a really good thing.
  
  It's a largely useless thing.  3D printing exists and will make perfectly serviceable receivers for guns. >
  
  3D printing a handgun is currently a lot more involved than mail ordering a Polymer 80 kit and removing a few bits of plastic.  Of course this ruling won’t completely prevent illegal possession of handguns, but it will reduce distribution to people who are prohibited from possessing firearms.  If 3D printing becomes cheap and easy enough for anybody to do it, then that’s a different issue to address. >
  
  
  If 3D printing becomes cheap and easy enough for anybody to do it, then that’s a different issue to address.
  
  it already is.  you can print anything in metal too now, and 3d metal based printers are getting cheaper all the time.  you can print in resin that has metal powder in it, bake it, and end up with a sintered metal part.  this can be done in any resin printer.  the fancy laser/layer metal dust printers are getting cheaper too. >
  
  It’s not that easy and the part will still probably require post printing machining. >
  
  Ok, so where is the line on what is/isn't a receiver now? 80% complete used to be the threshold. Do shovels and billet aluminum need serial numbers and background checks now? >
  
  Read the letter.  As they point out, 80% was never the threshold.  That’s something the market came up with, not the government.  ATF explains their ruling as to where the threshold is in the letter. It basically revolves around what ‘readily’ means and it’s not some simple line like X%.  They’re going to take the same approach they did for the AWB.  If you have a product you wish to sell, send it in for classification and they’ll decide case by case if it is a firearm. >
  
  80% was the threshold the ATF themselves came up with and now they want to change it. They don’t explain it they just say “readily” as you said. Readily can be interpreted as a block of aluminum and a cnc machine. Or spool of plastic and 3d printer. >
  
  Yeah, that's why they're doing it case by case. >
  
  They are months behind on doing their real job of approving NFA items. Why are they taking on more and more things when they’re in trouble for not meeting their 90 day turn around times on their backlog? They can’t possibly do this without n a case by case basis and also that opens it up for imposing these laws unjustly on minorities and not rich white people as they have in the past. The NFA was enacted just so that poor blacks couldn’t get those types of guns. >
  
  So they should just not even try to fix regulation on lethal weapons?
  Solving one problem causes others to arise, you then solve those too. It's not insurmountable. >
  
  No the ATF has no legal authority to regulate. Only congress is able to do this, unless congress wants to vote to give them the ability to do so. If we want to regulate weapons (lethal weapons is pretty superfluous because all weapons can be lethal) then we need to have our representatives legislate for us. The ATF is solely appointed members and giving them the ability to legislate is dangerous and short sighted. What if republicans get in next time and decide to legalize all machine guns? This is why we have to vote on these issues. >
  
  We regulate tasers, knives over a certain length, flame throwers, pepper spray, and dangerous medications
  Firearms are the exception to lethal weapon regulation it's not some crazy undefinable term or a slippery slope.
  And we did vote on these issues by electing Democrats into the Senate and presidency who support gun regulation, this is the result of democracy.
  For your last point, they probably will. And should they win an election on that promise it will be deserved, but they lost the last 2 elections so it's time we actually make progress instead of conserving a broken system. >
  
  You can buy any knife you want, no matter the length….. do you have a kitchen? Flame throwers can be purchased legally and are used in crop burning. Medications are regulated because they’re normally addictive or can be taken in wrong amounts and result in death/we also need a way for insurance companies to control medications (that’s a whole other issue). And we have thousands of gun laws and you not understand that proves you don’t understand the issue at hand. 
  Yes we voted in those legislators, but they themselves have to vote on an actual law to make these changes to the Gun Control Act. You can’t have an independent government agency changing laws. Their job as I said is to enforce it.
  Do you have any other terrible arguments? >
  
  1) Did you not know knife lengths are regulated?
  2) We regulate medications for many reasons, but yes they can be used as dangerous weapons like in the case of rufies
  3) Actually voting on policy change has been destroyed by Republican obstructionism. Instead we use alternative legal avenues to proceed with regulation. And yeah, their job is to enforce it so they're doing exactly that by closing loopholes and solving problems in the regulations, hence this article. You do not vote on every single change in a government agency. >
  
  Under no pretext >
  
  Mouth frothing rant about how Biden doesn't do anything from both sides of the aisle >
  
  It would Be a shame if private sales/ 3d printers existed >
  
  Shame indeed >
  
  They can be 3d printed at this point and it only requires ffls to do anything, that's if it even holds up in court. >
  
  Its a big step. Thank you. >
  
  About dang time, no way to know how many millions of these guns have been built. Assembling the AR15 jig different you can cut out the extra for full auto parts, then order them off the internet, or buy at a gun show. 
  Moved from the US to Thailand, had a guy on the news busted for ordering the various parts thru the internet since there is zero regulation of them. Stupidly posted a video of him shooting it. >
  
  …aaand queue the gun fetishists’ lawsuits claiming infringements on freedumbs >
  
  
  …aaand queue the gun fetishists’ lawsuits claiming infringements on freedumbs
  
  Can you please explain how it would not be a constitutional violation? >
  
  Well if you want to be technical the constitution calls for a well regulated militia with bearing arms, so technically we should not be allowed to have guns since we are not a well regulated militia >
  
  
  Well if you want to be technical the constitution calls for a well regulated militia with bearing arms, so technically we should not be allowed to have guns since we are not a well regulated militia
  
  You're using the wrong definition of "well regulated". Please look to the definition at the time of ratification. Also, the 2A doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it says the people. We had started a war with the world's most powerful government BECAUSE they tried to confiscate our firearms at Lexington and Concord.
  We have writings from the Framers explaining their intent on how we apply the 2A. They explicitly did not want government prohibiting regular citizens from having and carrying arms. We have court cases going back all the way to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth validating our individual rights to keep and bear arms.
  Excerpt from Bliss vs Commonwealth
  
  If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
  And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
  
  How to interpret.
  
  "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
  - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 
  
  You cannot take arms away from peaceable citizens.
  
  "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
  - Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
  "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
  - Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
  
  The militia is everyone.
  
  "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
  - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
  “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
  - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788 >
  
  Good you proved my point that 2A is up to interpretation and there is no were that it says you cannot regulate guns and put restrictions and a lot of cases agreed that you can do this >
  
  The new verbiage can make 3d printers classified as assault weapons quite easily. Literally anything can be turned into a gun…. Pipes, solid blocks of metal, anything. Also these “ghost guns” aren’t used in hardly any crimes. They are using any gun with a filed off serial number as a ghost gun in stats to boost numbers and scare people into banning this… also the ATF is not legally allowed to change the definition of a firearm. That is part of the GCA legislated by congress, you have to pass an actual law to do this and they did not do that. It’s blatantly illegal and will ultimately be rules unconstitutional in court and likely cause challenges to NFA along with it. They’re trying to do this in a sketchy way and it’s going to turn out poorly. If you want to make a new gun law then pass it through congress otherwise just do your job and enforce the ones we have. The ATF needs to just do their job. >
  
  angry NRA noises >
  
  
  angry NRA noises
  
  The NRA are a bunch of fudds who support gun control. The Firearms Policy Coalition on the other hand kicks ass. >
  
  Buh, lower your voice. The NRA is the big bad biggie man they need to keep their eyes on, remember?