It’s obvious that what the 2nd Amendment debate is going to be about in the next ten years and ever after in this century is the “need” for citizens to have firearms to defend themselves.

Obviously if you live in a city like New York, where the police are monitoring the population 24/7/365 with Microsoft software and using cameras, radiation detectors, chemical sniffers, microphones and who knows what else – you are obviously taken care of. Therefore, you don’t need to own a weapon, and you won’t be allowed to own one.

That is what “reasonable restrictions” are going to mean under the ubiquitous surveillance state, and it’s quite clear (and has been for a long time) that *that* is the real threat to the 2nd Amendment and the RKBA.

Because if Bloomberg can get up in front of a television camera and say:

“Listen, we watch everything and we *anticipate* crime. There is no reason for anyone to own a gun except the criminals because there are no legitimate sporting purposes in New York City.”

It is comprehensive surveillance technology that is next going to be used as a pretext to disarm Americans. The logic (and Moore’s law, and the software and hardware) are inescapable.

Get ready now.

“You want to own a gun? Then you’re going to pay $5,000 a year for the license and $3,000 a year for the insurance and $10 a bullet when you shoot one. Or you’re going to be a cop, or a member of the military.”

And that’s it!

As Larry Niven will tell you: “Ethics change with technology.”

That cuts both ways. As the technology to disable firearms used by individuals increases, firearms manufacturers are going to be under increasing pressure to incorporate them into their products. All it takes is an act of Congress. In fact, it’s old news.

Biometric handguns have been in development at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (Newark, NJ) for a long time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Gun

The smart gun is supposed to:

Reduce the likelihood of unintentional injuries to children
Preventing teenage suicides and homicides.
Limit the violent acts committed by criminals using stolen guns.
Protect law enforcement officers from criminals grabbing their firearms during a struggle.

If chip failure occurs one of two things can happen:

For Civilian use, the gun will be set to not fire.
For Law enforcement use, the safety system will be bypassed, and the gun will be allowed to fire.

It’ll be one of those “reasonable restrictions” that 3D printers won’t be able to do.

It will *not* however stop people with 3D printers and machining equipment of the more pedestrian and conventional kind, however. The point is that you won’t be able to do it lawfully.

It almost pains me to see that article because I know that’s the first thing they’re going to regulate.

From understanding how easy it is going to be for legislators to regulate them out of existence. The fact is that almost all the firearms you can buy today are very simple machines. They’re certainly not as complicated or even as difficult to maintain as an IBM Selectric typewriter. They’re not even as mechanically complicated as a bicycle. And the way they are regulated by governments is going to change drastically by adding LOTS of complex circuits to them.

Yes, they need to be engineered properly and machined properly and put together well if they’re going to function reliably. But they’re *not* complicated machines – and in fact, they could be made simpler and less reliable without a lot of effort.

An AK-47 is about the most dumb-ass simple rifle design anyone has ever seen. It’s ugly, anyone with early 20th century manufacturing capability can build one, and it’s so reliable that it’s the firearm of choice for about 3/4ths of the world’s people.

Handguns are simple, simple simple. Yeah, if you want to spend $3000 on one you can, but the basic principle of a blowback action can be had in a pistol that will get the job done, CHEAP:

http://www.hi-pointfirearms.com/handguns/9%20mm/hi_point_9mm.html

It ain’t pretty, but a lot of people can buy them. And they should. They’re going to be the first ones to be driven out of business, though.

Don’t forget that after it became obvious with 2-D color laser printers back in the 1990s that people might use them to print currency, all of the major printer manufacturers (including Xerox) introduced algorithms into their print engines to leave ineradicable signatures that could be identified on every single sheet of paper that goes through the machine.

On many Xerox machines, it’s a very faint signature of Yellow dots out of CMYK.

If you scan a dollar bill and print it out on a Xerox 6060, you will get nailed by the Secret Service every time they look at one. In fact it’s not even possible to print a reasonable fasc. of any US currency any longer. But the basic technology for adding the signature to the prints was done *before the machines were sold*.

That’s why very few people have ever really used color laser printers to duplicate currency. In addition to not having the right paper (which is special) the machines themselves add a signature to every document that comes out of the machine. It’s built into the firmware of the laser engine.

Anyone who prints a gun with a 3-D printer is going to have a similar imprint on those devices, trust me. They’ll be traceable and trackable right back to the machine that “printed” them.

It sounds pretty grim. Well, that’s on purpose. I believe in giving people I love the bad news first, so they can better deal with it and aren’t surprised by it.

I will say one other thing for tonight: Jeff Quinn (who I also admire a great deal) said a lot of the same things about the Colorado shooter that I did – and he makes sense.

Here’s the article:

http://www.gunblast.com/MakingtheShot.htm

“Having a gun is not enough. You need to know how to effectively use that weapon, under stress and in the dark. If your training consists of punching paper at the local range, that is not enough.”

I sound contrarian here when it comes to guns in direct proportion to how much I think people need to know what’s coming down the pike. Or at least I try to.

All the people I know who own guns are the more thoughtful people I know. It’s the ones who have a caricature of it – a stereotype – in their own minds who are not thoughtful.

But I agree with you – the best “weapon” 2nd Amendment people have is dialogue. I’m not afraid of talking about owning weapons because I know what I’m talking about and more importantly, I know *who* I’m talking about, including myself. It’s occurred to me many times to ask the question: “Should I own a gun?” … “Why do I own guns?” … “In what way should I understand my ownership of guns?” … “What would I do if I had to use my gun(s) in a defensive situation?” … “Why do I think it’s important for people to be able to own guns in the same way I do?” Lots of philosophical questions, practical questions, and existential questions that I ask myself not just once but continuously. I have my Ruger SR9 sitting right next to me as I type this, and I’m glad I do. Loaded, with a round in the chamber and the safety on, that is how I pick up that pistol every night and place it where I can get to it at night if I need it.

I’ve always said here at Redstate that anyone considering carrying a gun on their person, into a public place – concealed or not – has a great deal more to consider than the first 30 seconds of thought. It isn’t a simple thing, but neither is it beyond the vast majority of people’s capacity to handle. It’s a serious responsibility, but millions of people do it every single day without any trouble at all. It’s ridiculous and insulting to use the acts of madmen to somehow impugn them.