Comments
This is insanely stupid stuff. Even the UK with our weird panic over Incredibly Specific Knives hasn't tried to do this kind of technical restriction to prevent people printing guns. Why not? Because nobody is printing guns! It's an infeasible solution to a non-problem!
Someone should dig into who this is coming from and why. The answers are usually either (a) they got paid to do it by a company selling the tech, which appears not to be the case here, or (b) they went insane on social media.
(can't confirm this personally, but it seems from other comments that it's perfectly feasible to just drive out of New York State and buy a gun somewhere else in the gun-owning US? And this is quite likely where all the guns used in existing NY crime come from?)
I would also note that the Shinzo Abe doohickey wasn't 3D-printed.
People print guns and gun parts. More than you think. Now even more since metal printing is starting to become affordable. I print grip and grip attachments for my 9mms and my AR15, trigger guards, barrel clamps, etc. I also find it stupid since, as the article suggests, what kind of algorithm can you implement to do smart detection of something that could be potentially dangerous? Will it also detect negative space? I print inserts in elastic filament with my gun outlines instead of foam (or as foam templates) for my carrying cases. Will the "algorithm" prevent me to do that too? What about my plastic disc thrower toy gun, or my PKD Blaster prop? Both look like guns to me. What about a dumb AI algorithm that lacks common sense?
Printing barrels and FCUs -- the fire control unit, which is the only thing tracked and serialized in a gun at least in the US -- is more difficult but not impossible. Actually, building a functional FCU that can strike a bullet primer, or a barrel that can be used once is not difficult at all and if you look around you can find videos of people that have tested that with a mixture of 3d printing and rudimentary metal working skills. The major issues on designing those parts are reliability and safety. In the Philippines there is a full bootleg gunsmith industry dedicated to build illegal guns that match commercial ones in those aspects too.
Sadly, instead of having better laws we get fallacy rhetoric by people who probably have never touched, much less fired a gun in their lives.
I don't get it - afaik you can get every single part of a gun except for the lower receiver/pistol frame without any restriction - as those parts are legally defined as the 'gun' - the rest are just replacement parts.
Even for those, you can get 80% finished parts for those - just drill a few holes, and file off some tidbits, and you get an almost factory-spec gun.
I'm no expert on US gun law, but afaik, some states even allow you to make your own guns without registration, as the law defines gun manufacturing as manufacturing with the intent of selling them.
So there's plenty of options, many of them better than making a gun with a printer.
But even all this is typically overkill, I dont think criminals go to these lengths to make their own guns, they just get them from somewhere.
The only usable part a plastic 3D printer will make for you is the receiver, which is the whole point, to circumvent that very narrow legal classification. You're right about alternative lawmaking avenues, but given the 2a pushback on controlling "replacement parts" Americans are kind of stuck with the bed they made.
By int_19h 2026-02-046:08 That was the case like 3 years ago. Things have advanced significantly since then.
> The only usable part a plastic 3D printer will make for you is the receiver
this hasn't been true for like 5 years now
By Neeek 2026-02-0415:29 Well over a decade actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberator_(gun) but of course just ignore the context of the parent comment about what's legally considered a firearm.
By enceladus06 2026-02-050:54 Exactly, but it's less effort to steal a gun or have someone else purchase a gun for you then to 3d print a gun.
But even then it's not that difficult, it's entirely possible and legal in many states to print a polymer lower for a AR15 or Glock 17. Then go buy a parts kit from PSA $450 and have fun zero background check or sales tax required as the smaller gun parts stores do not have multistate business nexuses.
It is also not difficult to 3dprint a glock switch, even though they illegal per the NFA https://3dgo.app/models/makerworld/2035005.
This is 100% virtue-signaling from politicians.
By jhallenworld 2026-02-043:56 The receiver is like the asset tag on computer servers- it's the one thing that is definitely not replaceable since it has the serial number used for entitlement.
By ErroneousBosh 2026-02-049:361 reply In the 1980s, my dad machined a lot of replacement parts for a gunsmith, right here in the UK. All legal, all perfectly legit. I will say it took a hell of a lot more skill than just "download file from thingiverse, press print" - but there's nothing stopping you doing it.
And no-one is (yet) suggesting banning lathes, hacksaws, or files.
By alt227 2026-02-0418:32 The difference is this takes years and years of skill learning and hard graft. Downloading a gun file and pressing print requires nothing.
By mayhemducks 2026-02-0416:313 reply This is my attempt to answer your question about "what kind of algorithm can you implement to detect something dangerous". Disclaimer though, I agree that the proposed regulation is way too broad and will have unintended consequences as written.
If you look at how Apple detects contraband imagery, they hash every image that gets uploaded into the photos app. Those hashes are transmitted to servers that compare them to hashes of known contraband.
A similar system could theoretically be used for STL files. So it isn't about detecting exact shapes, it's about preventing printing of STL files that are already known to be dangerous. This would make it harder to illegally manufacture parts for weapons because it would make it much harder to share designs. If you didn't have the knowledge or skill to design a reliable FCU, you would have to find a design someone with that knowledge and skill created - which the printer could theoretically detect with a cryptographic signature.
As the original author of the post pointed out though, this could and would be bypassed by actual criminals. As with most things like this, it's probably impossible to prevent entirely, only to make it more difficult.
> If you look at how Apple detects contraband imagery, they hash every image that gets uploaded into the photos app. Those hashes are transmitted to servers that compare them to hashes of known contraband.
You're spelling out a specific process in detail--which is the only reason I'm picking on details. Do you have anything documenting what you're describing?
From what I remember, Apple's system was proposed, but never shipped. They proposed hashing your photos locally and comparing them to a local database of known CSAM images. Only when there was was a match, they would transmit the photos for manual confirmation. This describes Apple's proposal [1].
I believe what did ship is an algorithm to detect novel nude imagery and gives some sort of warning for kids sending or receiving that data. None of that involves checks against Apple's server.
I do think other existing photo services will scan only photos you've uploaded to their cloud.
I'm happy to make corrections. To my knowledge, what you're describing hasn't been done so far.
[1] https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/929-On...
By mayhemducks 2026-02-0417:061 reply Aah okay - I remember it being proposed, but perhaps I wrongly assumed it had shipped. I do wonder sometimes if Apple is doing anything that we aren't privy to with photos that end up in iCloud.
By pfranz 2026-02-052:50 This page probably has the most detail: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651
This article is a few years old, but has more of a plain-English, third party explanation: https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/01/21/what-apple-surren...
Its fair not to trust Apple or any company, but Google and a lot of companies were scanning the cloud versions without the negative press Apple got. My understanding is Apple proposed scanning on-device because images were encrypted in the cloud. Uploading and have manual review process seems like a big ongoing cost.
Personally, I dont think Apple is doing anything with photos it stores in the cloud.
Like the first article says, technically they could, because they store the encryption key for user-convenience. Turning on Advanced Data Protection should take away their ability to decrypt photos. But there are a whole bunch of caveats if you're talking about all cloud their data and that has changed over the years.
By rblatz 2026-02-0514:57 Ok that works for STL files, but printers don’t print STL files they print g code. G code is generated by slicers, and depending on your printer and settings the g code will be different.
Is this law obligating printer manufactures to lock down their printer to slicers that can do the STL naughty check?
By rolph 2026-02-0418:29 what part of the dangerous part is the actually dangerous part?
its a framing trap to think you have to print or cnc the whole thing in one job.
split it up into many smaller jobs, each one not looking dangerous, rezero start the next section as if its a new job, spiff it all up with a session of crank and curse finishing, and the blockade is meaningless.
FCUs are not tracked in US (aside from full auto trigger groups, which however are classified as "machineguns" in their own right).
Receivers are tracked.
By hrimfaxi 2026-02-0413:09 That depends entirely on the gun. Sig "receivers" are just frames and the FCU is the controlled element. At least in the p320.
By alt227 2026-02-0418:32 > people who probably have never touched, much less fired a gun in their lives
People should not have to have great experience with killing machines to be able to regulate them.
By hyperbovine 2026-02-0323:299 reply > Sadly, instead of having better laws we get fallacy rhetoric by people who probably have never touched, much less fired a gun in their lives.
Why is this the litmus test for being qualified to write gun legislation? Do we also expect our lawmakers to have tried heroin or downloaded child porn so that they can regulate those activities?
This is a bad example. I've been notionally pro-ownership but also pro-regulation my whole life, and one of the major problems with gun legislation in the US is that it's incredibly poorly written and does not reflect the technical reality of guns.
The government allows private ownership of automatic weapons, but hasn't issued any new tax stamps for 50 years. You can convert any semiauto gun into a full-auto gun for a few cents of 3D printed parts (or a rubber band). The hysteria over "assault weapons" basically outlawed guns that _looked_ scary, while not meaningfully making anyone safer.
I think yes, it is reasonable for Congresspeople to fire a gun before they legislate on it, because otherwise they are incapable of writing good laws.
Good gun regulation in the US would probably look like car insurance, where gun owners need to register and insure their weapons against the possibility of crimes being committed with them. There are so many guns compared to the amount of gun crime that it would probably not end up terribly expensive, especially if you own a gun safe.
The mistake you're making here is assuming that
> The hysteria over "assault weapons" basically outlawed guns that _looked_ scary, while not meaningfully making anyone safer.
This wasn't the goal by the congresspeople, and that them having fired a gun would've changed that goal.
That was the goal. They knew they weren't going to be able to pass any kind of legislation that actually msde people safer, but they wanted to look like they were "doing something".
This is incredibly common. It's the primary reason behind the TSA and its continuous expansion, for example.
By cogman10 2026-02-0410:15 > It's the primary reason behind the TSA and its continuous expansion, for example.
I'd also add that the TSA is a good reason why we shouldn't expect talking legislators to gun ranges would make better gun laws.
The reason the TSA is what it is is because legislators fly more than most people. If you've ever been to DC you see a lot of this sort of security theater everywhere.
So much of the TSAs budget should be redirected towards what would actually make long distance travel safer, improving the ATC and Amtrak.
Thats defacto gun registration- and worse: registration with a private entity not beholden to due process. Given current realities, anybody who registers their firearm in such a manner can expect a no-knock raid because they were nearby when somebody phoned in an engine backfire as a gunshot.
By avidiax 2026-02-043:11 So make it allowed that the insurance is tied to the gun. You buy a lifetime policy for that serial number, provide payment, and you're done. Payment can be provided anonymously at a window in cash, if that's your thing.
If you want discounts because you live in a low-crime area, have a gun safe, have many guns, etc. then obviously the storage location for the weapon needs to be declared to the insurance company.
ATF is not allowed to digitize any of its records around gun sales or transfer of ownership.
By browsingonly 2026-02-046:151 reply That's not true. They have millions of digitized 4473s. They are banned by law from creating a searchable registry of gun owners but they digitize paperwork on a daily basis.
https://medium.com/statute-circuit/the-atfs-quiet-digital-tr...
By wombatpm 2026-02-0414:06 Thanks for the clarification. I knew there was limitation placed on them to hamstring their operations under the auspices of preserving the 2nd amendment.
You can get a stamp for full auto easily, my neighbor is an FFL and gets them frequently
By jeremyjh 2026-02-043:04 You can transfer them. You can't register a new one. This is why H&K transferable sears are like $50k.
By some_random 2026-02-0323:581 reply You're welcome to come up with a better litmus test, but it's beyond clear that lawmakers writing gun control regulation have less than a wikipedia level understanding of the topic. See "shoulder thing that goes up", the weird obsession with the Thompson, the entire concept of an Assault Weapon, etc.
Wikipedia has much better information about guns than most of the people talking about them in politics, generally speaking.
It's not too surprising, considering the way the rules are written at the ATF. There's basically zero logical thought that goes into pistol vs rifle vs felony:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/a4gnr3/makes_perf...
(Sorry for the reddit link, it's a common image but that was the first url I found from a quick search that had it up front and center).
By some_random 2026-02-043:061 reply ATF rulemaking can be unintuitive and arbitrary but there really is a level below it occupied by people who have dedicated a significant chunk of their lives to trying to restrict firearm ownership, who genuinely seem to believe that Die Hard, Rambo, and Spaghetti Westerns are real life. Politicians who can't answer basic questions about their legislation, who have to be told live on air that magazines can be repacked, that just make up impossible crime statistics. Yeah it's stupid that the ATF has decided that vertical grips are a rifle feature but angled grips aren't, but it gets worse.
By zdragnar 2026-02-043:37 A bit like Joe Biden complaining that a 9mm bullet will blow the lung out of a body, and crazier things from others, yeah.
By voidUpdate 2026-02-049:583 reply What's the difference between a "pistol brace" and a "stock"? Don't they both go into your shoulder to stabilise the weapon?
By zdragnar 2026-02-0414:45 There's no legal definition per Congress. Generally speaking, braces are intended to stabilize a pistol against your arm [0], whereas a rifle stock is meant to stabilize against your shoulder. However, braces can technically be "misused" such that the rear of the brace fits against the shoulder, meaning it is used as a stock. Likewise, the distinction is so small something as simple as a sling attachment to the stock could make it a brace, or an articulation that could be used as a cheek rest turn a brace into a stock, converting a pistol into a rifle or vice versa. For awhile, the only way to know the difference was for the manufacturer to submit an NFA and hope.
The ATF has been in court (and lost) quite a bit [1] over this.
[0] there's a nice picture and writeup here of a pistol brace being setup https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gear-review-sig-sb15-pisto...
[1] a brief rundown of the 2023-2025 legal rulings https://www.fflguard.com/atf-pistol-brace-rule/
By some_random 2026-02-0414:23 A "pistol brace" is designed and "intended" to be braced against your forearm to stabilize the "pistol" in a way that allows you to shoot a particularly large and heavy "pistol" with one hand. The ATF said this was fine, although I think they really regret that now.
By theodric 2026-02-0422:20 Stock goes against the shoulder. Brace goes against the elbowpit. If you let the brace touch your shoulder, your braced pistol suddenly becomes an unregistered SBR, and you become a felon. Oopsie!
US gun laws are bizarre.
By heavyset_go 2026-02-044:423 reply > Do we also expect our lawmakers to have tried heroin or downloaded child porn so that they can regulate those activities?
It would be nice if they delegated to experts, instead of think tanks or populism, when it came to dealing with these. Both are examples of rampant regulatory failure.
By galangalalgol 2026-02-0413:30 Knowing the difference between a think tank and experts might be hard without some rudimentary knowledge to spot nonsense? I don't know, actually asking. It seems to me that the primary skill we need in our leaders is that of spotting experts talking within their field and actually listen to them while ignoring others. The primary trait, which is even more important, is character so that they act on what they here in our best interests instead of their own.
By alt227 2026-02-0418:36 Having first hand experience in contraband, and having the knowledge to create and pass laws are very different things. If you think that current lawmakers dont know enough about contraband to regulate effectively, what makes you think someone who knows loads about drug use and porn would be able to contruct decent watertight legislation?
By rpmisms 2026-02-0414:34 At this point, I do expect that of them.
By freeopinion 2026-02-041:42 In this specific discussion familiarity does seem relevant. I don't think shooting is so relevant, but printing and assembling are.
You don't have to be a life-long user to regulate heroin, but if you start legislating second-hand heroin smoke, people might look at you sideways. You kinda need to know a little even if you've never actually ever seen heroin. If you demonstrate severe ignorance, people are going to call you on it.
By 83 2026-02-0416:14 I don't think its unreasonable to ask politicians to be familiar with how the machinery they are regulating functions and is used.
To use your heroin example, this is akin to banning spoons or needles because they heard those are tools of the heroin addict. It shows a lack of understanding on the part of the regulator and has a far reaching effect on people legally using the items.
By andrewflnr 2026-02-045:59 Having a clue about how guns work, or the general reality of any other field one may be attempting to legislate, is absolutely crucial. With guns it just happens that actually firing them is a good way to gain (some of) that understanding.
By 8note 2026-02-043:56 litmus test wise, regulators of 3d printing should be able to create strong parts with a variety of 3d printing mechanisms.
they should at least be able to understand that a 3d printer is akin to a turing machine and what the real limits are - strength of the printed material vs length of the strip of memory.
By wellthisisgreat 2026-02-042:41 It’s more like people who barely use computers regulating software features and development.. oh wait
I don’t own a gun, and think guns should be regulated more and better, but the heroin let alone another one are just flawed. There are no legitimate, non-life-ruining use cases for either of those analogies.
By rolisz 2026-02-045:49 Well didn't they? From the Epstein files, it looks like "all" the elite is involved....
By mothballed 2026-02-0316:431 reply The 3d-printed hybrid FGC-9 is readily and commonly made all over Europe[0]. Most notoriously exhibit by 'jstark' in Germany[1]. Ammo is no problem, as can be made with off the shelf components available in EU[2]. And fairly reliable, if not oversized, 9mm pistol, primarily printed except with an ECM machined barrel that is easily DIY'd by 3d printing a mandrel for the rifling electrode and a simple bolt. A really nice gun all things considered for people with no other options, that can be built quickly using simple instructions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGC-9
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygxGrxCEOp0
[2] https://odysee.com/@TheGatalog-Guides_Tutorials:b/BWA-Ammo-V...
By PlatoIsADisease 2026-02-040:28 I've been saying the same about deepfake noods of hot girls.
Something something about distribution.
By cjbgkagh 2026-02-041:44 It’s becoming a thing, police don’t like to report on it because they don’t want to give people ideas. They didn’t want to report on Glock switches either. I do machining as a hobby and am interested in machining guns from an academic challenge perspective, I’ve not done it because I focus on making things I can’t buy. Guns from an academic perspective are fascinating, we’ve been making them for a long time in just about every possible way, and there is an easy way to measure and communicate quality, I.e. does it shoot and how accurate is it. I think the ban is absurd, the tech to make 3D printers / CNCs is pretty generic and someone sufficiently motivated to make a gun is unlikely to have difficulty putting together the machines to do it.
Just imagine what happens when lawmakers discover the possibilities of every one with access to a lathe or CNC machine.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Every time I see one of these stories I wonder how many tools I would have to remove from my garage to make it impossible to build a primitive gun in there. With enough ingenuity I'm really not sure there would be anything left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Luty#Firearms_design
> one particular design, outlined in his book Expedient Homemade Firearms, is the best known. This design makes extensive use of easily procured materials such as folded sheet metal, bar stock, washers, and hex screws. It is a simple blowback-operated sub-machine gun and entirely made from craft-produced components, including the magazine and pistol grip. The major drawback of such designs is the lack of rifling in the barrel, which results in poor accuracy and limited range
This book was openly sold on Amazon 10 years ago. I still have one on my shelf.
See it in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YE9J7qcj0c
By ragazzina 2026-02-0513:02 "[The second amendment] basically says in order to keep us free we need to be able to keep and bear arms. A lot of countries though aren't necessarily that lucky and through things we won't talk about that's starting to show its ugly head".
Oh well.
By ErroneousBosh 2026-02-049:40 Wasn't the whole point of the Sten gun that it could be made out of readily-available materials (steel plumbing pipe mostly) with simple hand tools, and really only needed two of the 50 or so components to be machined?
So, unless your garage is down to a pair of rusty pliers and a dried-out Biro then you're probably still up there.
By 83 2026-02-0416:22 There are some Youtube videos about homemade weapons in African countries and it seems you'd have to remove peoples hands in addition to their tools. Some of the functional guns out there are mostly hand whittled wood with a piece of pipe and some bailing wire.
By stefanfisk 2026-02-044:191 reply The could if lawmakers wanted them to. Here in Sweden potato guns are actually illegal if the potato achieves 10+ joule.
That's effectively a complete ban as a thrown potato would have considerably more energy than that. A quick web search suggests professional baseball pitchers achieve ~130J, and a potato is roughly comparable to a baseball in mass.
By stefanfisk 2026-02-055:33 Yep.
I'm not saying that I'm for it, just that writing a law that bans them isn't all that hard.
By wombatpm 2026-02-044:43 I had friends who would scour the produce isle to find potatoes they could cut down to fit their potato gun with a rifled barrel.
By Mashimo 2026-02-048:06 This law in new york will also affect CNC machines and laser cutter AFAIK. Everything that is computer controlled that can "create" a 3d object.
By wombatpm 2026-02-044:41 Or as we learned on Star Trek, some rope, bamboo, charcoal, rocks, sulfur and Gorn dung will make a one time weapon.
By greenavocado 2026-02-0415:281 reply They are trying to criminalize everyone who uses a normal lathe or a normal CNC without a permit
House Bill 2321 (HB-2321) proposes exemptions only for machines with licensed AI firmware that connects to blacklists, potentially requiring refits or licensing for machine shops.
By luma 2026-02-0415:44 Really looking forward to NY funding upgrades to the computers connected to CNC machines which tend to be pre-2000 vintage running software that's even older.
The entire concept is absurd on about 10 different levels.
By paradox460 2026-02-040:30 Or fire and a hammer
By Retr0id 2026-02-043:18 > Even the UK with our weird panic over Incredibly Specific Knives hasn't tried to do this kind of technical restriction to prevent people printing guns.
They haven't done this specific restriction, but there is a movement to make it illegal to possess the CAD files: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3877
By derekdahmer 2026-02-0316:444 reply Actual shootings with 3D printed guns are relatively rare but it’s come up because Luigi Mangione killed the United Healthcare CEO with one.
And they're still doing anything except addressing the grievances that lead to that.
EDIT: I think you mean "allegedly"
By BobaFloutist 2026-02-0321:263 reply Right, because most people recognize that the US has become sufficiently polarized and radicalized that "If enough people are mad at you, a complete stranger might shoot you" is not a theory of change we want to encourage. Yes, even for causes we agree with, most adults in the room understand that "people being mad at you" is pretty independent of how righteous your cause is, and even how civil and thoughtful you are in pursuing it.
Are you claiming that the most likely proximal cause for his murder was the legal ability to print a gun rather than any concerns or grievances the shooter may have had related to the healthcare industry or United Healthcare specifically?
By BobaFloutist 2026-02-042:131 reply Yes, I think access to firearms affects the murder rate.
That wasn't the topic though. Are you saying the United Health CEO's murder was motivated primarily by access to printing guns on a 3d printer?
By BobaFloutist 2026-02-0415:23 I didn't say anything about motivation, I'm explaining why people didn't try addressing the assassin's complaints as a way to avoid a future repeat.
By 9875325996435 2026-02-0417:15 Won't someone think of the grievances that poor far-left terrorist had this vermin murdered Brian Thompson :'(
By cucumber3732842 2026-02-0414:151 reply >because most people recognize that the US has become sufficiently polarized and radicalized that "If enough people are mad at you, a complete stranger might shoot you" is not a theory of change we want to encourage.
God forbid individuals and organizations not choose paths of action that "low level piss off" millions of people such that their chance of being at the business end of some outlier who will actually do violence upon them is non-trivial.
It's not hard to not be "the thing" in any given crazy's life they choose to go out with a bang over, especially if you're not something they deal with every day. If that means that the default amount of screwage your organization applies needs to be dialed back, or that you must clean house a little better or more often then cry me a river.
>most adults in the room understand that "people being mad at you" is pretty independent of how righteous your cause is
Except it's not. The "budget" you have to wrong people and cause despair before people would be apathetic to violence done upon you is pretty directly coupled to the amount of good you do to offset your harm.
By BobaFloutist 2026-02-0415:30 >It's not hard to not be "the thing" in any given crazy's life they choose to go out with a bang over
> The "budget" you have to wrong people and cause despair before people would be apathetic to violence done upon you is pretty directly coupled to the amount of good you do to offset your harm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Abraham_Linco...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kenne...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_John_Lennon
Agree to disagree. I'm not willing to trust the judgement of those most willing to commit gun violence as to whom deserves gun violence.
> doing anything except addressing the grievances that lead to that.
Well yeah, it's not exactly easy to get everyone to understand that insurance isn't magic and money out has to match money in.
According to this source, united healthcare profits were $14B in 2024. https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/unitedhealth-unh-2024-re...
So yeah, money out not matching money in is exactly the problem.
I can't find the detailed breakdown for 2025, but in 2024, they took in $308bn in premiums and paid out $264bn in medical costs. So even ignoring all of the downstream and systemic problems caused by insurance existing as a for-profit entity, they're taking 14% off the top just to exist as a middle-man.
https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/content/dam/UHG/PDF/invest...
> they took in $308bn in premiums and paid out $264bn in medical costs ... they're taking 14% off the top just to exist as a middle-man.
In 2023, they had a 0.8% profit margin[0]. 9 billion dollars in a trillion dollar industry.
Ignoring the disingenuous framing ("taking off the top" including how much they pay their employees), how does that compare to other industries?
[0]https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/2024-annual-hea...
> including how much they pay their employees
Highlighting that was actually part of my point. What utility does insurance add to justify its existence as a middle man? How are we better off with a middle man taking a cut vs nationalizing the industry? And that 14% is at best, given the other externalities of the existence of insurance and its perverse incentives.
You're saying "how is that worse than other industries", but I'm saying, why is there an industry there at all?
By AuryGlenz 2026-02-0418:17 The government would still need employees to basically do everything that the people at insurance companies do. Theoretically it could be more efficient, realistically it would not.
The real problem with our system is that for anyone who is going to hit their deductible, or especially their out of pocket max, the costs no longer matter at all. Sure, that cancer drug can be $500,000. GLP1 drugs for $1,000 a month? Why not?
Of course, there's no free lunch on this. In a single payer system you get things like the UK not approving certain cancer treatments for people over a certain age, certain medications just aren't available, etc.
Otherwise you could make every plan a very high deductible plan, possible just not cover medications at all, etc. But then people will complain about people not being able to afford things, especially in the short term.
About half of those profits were from the Optum side of the business, not from insurance.
By throwaway173738 2026-02-0413:50 If you’ve had UHC you’d know very well that Optum is intimately tied to their insurance business. UHC just “administers the plan” while Optum controls plan decisions. So when there’s a problem, which there always is with every claim more complicated than a PCP visit, you get bounced between both companies for hours until you find someone willing to take responsibility for answering questions.
By freeopinion 2026-02-041:481 reply Money out had better not match money in or the insurance company will be in a lot of trouble.
By NoMoreNicksLeft 2026-02-042:43 Imagine if we removed the need for life to turn a caloric profit.
By BanazirGalbasi 2026-02-0316:511 reply That case started over a year ago, I would have expected the topic to come up long ago if this was motivated by the shooting. Granted, lawmaking takes longer than public sentiment lasts, but I didn't really hear much about 3D-printed guns at the time.
By kube-system 2026-02-0317:02 NY legislators have been pushing for this in public statements over the past year.
e.g. https://d12t4t5x3vyizu.cloudfront.net/ritchietorres.house.go...
By brewdad 2026-02-042:20 Given the potential chain of custody issues, I'm not sure we can be certain a 3D printed gun was involved at all.
By ragazzina 2026-02-0513:04 >Luigi Mangione killed the United Healthcare CEO with one
Do you have any source?
And so, Nick Bostrom's total surveillance required, starts
By AnthonyMouse 2026-02-048:35 The premise here would have to be that it was previously difficult for the majority of the population to obtain a weapon.
By ErroneousBosh 2026-02-049:35 > Why not? Because nobody is printing guns!
People are printing guns. They're printing guns right here in the UK.
Then they're taking them out to the firing range, setting them up on a test stand, firing them by remote control, and filming the ensuing carnage with high frame rate cameras.
If you make a really really good 3D printed gun, it'll last at least two shots before it explodes into about a trillion razor-sharp fragments expanding rapidly outwards from where your hand used to be. The way you tell it's a really really good one is it didn't explode into a trillion fragments on the first shot.
We've seen enough Terrifying Public Information Films about the dangers of fireworks to mess with that shit.
By nenxk 2026-02-0411:02 Tbf to New York it is much easier to print a gun in the us I imagine than Europe for example a 3d printed Glock the controlled part is the lower which is just a plastic shell that ends up containing the trigger group and a few other parts which you can all by easily online the only other thing you need is the upper which is just the slide barrel and a few other parts you can buy them online already completed the only part you actually have to file a form for and get approved for the is lower specifically the plastic shell so in the us once you print that which is pretty simple you can order everything else online no need to file or register anything I imagine in the eu the other parts are much more controlled which raises the complexity by a ton you’d need a lot of tools/parts and expertise to create a ghost Glock in the eu that you wouldn’t in America and you’d still probably need some street connections for the ammo which is much easier to come by in America I’d bet. If it was as simple to get your hands on all the other parts in the eu I would imagine there would much much more 3d printed guns there. I still think it’s stupid everyone should be allowed to print as many glocks as they want especially if your having to live in New York
Also atleast in America there is a very large 3d printed gun community lots of people are doing it I suggest checking out the PSR YouTube channel it’s a guy who is basically a real life dead pool who’s 3d printed every gun you can think of his videos are very entertaining and while you won’t learn much since YouTube restricts any teaching of gun manufacturing you may be surprised at how far 3d printed guns have come. His plastikov v4 video is good and pretty funny if I remember.
I haven't printed a full firearm but I've printed some replacement/ergonomic parts for my legally purchased firearms. And there are people printing guns - you don't hear about it because they keep their mouth shut about it.
In countries that ban guns, 3D printers don't help much because you still can't get the other parts that aren't printed and you can't get bullets. 3D printed guns are only really viable in places where guns are already common.
> because you still can't get the other parts that aren't printed
Every part except the firing pin is now printable (you can print quite strong carbon-fiber reinforced parts at home). The firing pin can be made from a nail or similar piece of metal.
> You can't get bullets
Bullets are mostly easy enough to make. One of my neighbors growing up was a competitive shooter who competed nationally and internationally. He manufactured his own ammo in his home shop, using tools any boomer dad had access to, like a lathe, presses and very accurate scales. He didn't really pay any more for ammo than we did per round. The only reason criminals don't do it is because buying factory ammo on the gray and black market is so easy.
The most difficult part to make would probably be the primers, but that still isn't difficult for any chemist.
Here's a (old) video of someone in Europe making their own ammo at home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5Cx4idIIe0
By mrheosuper 2026-02-048:271 reply In my country, Guns and Bullets are heavily controlled(Even airsoft is banned here). You can not get explosive unless you prove you have legit use for it(usually for mining). And of course DIY gun or bullet is no-no and you will be jailed.
Even in police force or army, they literally count every single bullet, and for every fired bullet, it must be explained in detail.
Maybe that's why we have low gun-related crime here.
By AnthonyMouse 2026-02-048:53 > You can not get explosive unless you prove you have legit use for it(usually for mining).
Gunpowder is fairly simple to make.
> Maybe that's why we have low gun-related crime here.
Mexico has extremely restrictive gun laws and that is not the case there. It seems to have more to do with how much crime you have than whether someone who could be charged with homicide could redundantly be charged with having a firearm.
By chippiewill 2026-02-049:081 reply The UK doesn't need to put restrictions in for 3d printing guns because the viable approaches for 3d printing them usually require _some_ off the shelf gun parts not to mention actual ammunition which you can't feasibly acquire in the UK to begin with.
By ErroneousBosh 2026-02-049:38 You can acquire guns, gun parts, and ammunition quite easily in the UK, and entirely legally.
You need to hold a suitable licence, which isn't expensive and is mostly an exercise in proving to the police that you're not a violent psychopath who's likely to run up to people in cars and shoot them in the face.
By anigbrowl 2026-02-0418:17 Why not? Because nobody is printing guns!
This is demonstrably untrue: https://gnet-research.org/2025/01/08/beyond-the-fgc-9-how-th...
Why would you waste everyone's time posting such nonsense? It's not that I support this legislation, but arguing against with counterfactual statements is unhelpful noise.
> who this is coming from and why
I would suspect it is at least partly because the gun that killed the United Healthcare CEO was partly 3D printed.
In other words, the most famous murder/assassination in NY in modern memory.
By NoGravitas 2026-02-0418:36 Allegedly, given chain of custody concerns with the evidence.
Is this even a problem that needs to be solved? How many people have 3d printed guns and used them?
Preemptive regulation is absurd.
By dghlsakjg 2026-02-040:36 Quite famously, Luigi Mangione. (allegedly)
Of course, this is silliness since it is very easy to just buy a gun in the US, and it is also legal to make one in your garage.
Could be the way guns are defined in UK are different. There is a fundamental problem in US law specifically, that you can purchase legally nearly any part of a gun separately, but only need to register the lower receiver. These are parts that take very little stress and can be relatively easily printed and used to hold together all the other parts that actually hold the stress of firing the bullet.
This is at least true for some specific rifles, where there’s a whole industry around selling unfinished receivers that are relatively easy to mill down with common machining tools to be able to assemble unregistered rifles.
My guess, is that these bills are a knee jerk reaction to constituents who’ve seen some tik toks talking about this. Though the conspiracist in me thinks that it’s mostly an excuse for control. This means, this bill is also coming for the UK too…
By bluedino 2026-02-0414:07 > These are parts that take very little stress and can be relatively easily printed and used to hold together all the other parts that actually hold the stress of firing the bullet.
A lot of the polymer guns (1911, AR15) need to be reinforced with metal at certain places for any kind of reliablity. A Glock doesn't need to be, because the material was invented by the designer of the gun and the gun was intended to be a polymer frame from the start.
By Duwensatzaj 2026-02-042:21 Lower receiver being the serialized part isn’t universal. Many firearms have only a single receiver or only the upper receiver is serialized.
Does the UK ban shows like Forged in Fire that teach you how to make all sorts of specific blades?
By RansomStark 2026-02-0410:03 No, and the blades created because of the methods used, would likely not be covered by the legislation anyway, theres a carve out for antiques and weapons made using traditional methods (now define traditional methods, because the law doesn't, but hammer and anvil would seem to be the most obvious traditional approach).
However, in practice the police continually take and often destroy legally owned antiques claiming they are zombie swords.
The law is written in such a way the police can take anything and you have to prove to a judge they aren't illegal.
One very large example of such police practices: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RPm4Pts23Qg
By notepad0x90 2026-02-040:282 reply is it because guns are easy to get without printing?
Because it is possible to print molds for cast iron, I wonder what else you need beyond that (although, don't indulge me if the topic is going in the illegal direction).
By convolvatron 2026-02-041:291 reply not a gunsmith, but cast iron manages to be both soft and brittle at the same time. and the barrel and bearing parts would have to be machined anyways. you have to try to harden it too. its probably easier to just machine the whole thing out of decent quality steel. just guessing.
By notepad0x90 2026-02-044:332 reply really? they didn't have machining in the 1700s. how about a good'ol musket? or a bit more modern: a gatling gun. I always thought those were made under coarse conditions. I mean, people just need something that makes a spark against gun powder,goes boom and shoots really fast projectiles. If a shotgun is possible, then an automatic shotgun doesn't feel like it's a stretch. I would think the firing mechanisms might not be tolerant of amateur techniques, but the reloading and trigger parts at least might be. I'm also not a gunsmith, no idea what I'm talking about for the record.
They certainly didn't have mills as we know them in the 1700s, but lathes, drills, and subtractive manufacturing had been in practice for millenia. You could say they were "machined by hand". Most early firearms (barring large-bore guns like cannons) were made from forged steel or iron, which is significantly stronger than cast iron due to its lower carbon content and regular grain structure. These forged parts were then worked on by gunspiths with cutters and abrasives to produce parts in tolerance for their mechanism. Cast iron (or more typically in early warfare, bronze) was suitable for cannons and large-bore guns due to the mass of the finished gun; more metal meant that the gun could withstand more shock, but even then they could fail catastrophically due to material fatigue or failure.
By notepad0x90 2026-02-045:011 reply Well, the kind of guns politicians are afraid people will make at home are not intended for durability. But things like street crime, school shootings,etc.. where it's just a one and done affair.
Complex manufacturing of improvised firearms has been practically made obsolete by the commodification of both steel tubing and cartridges. "Pipe guns" are incredibly easy to make, and require little more than a pipe, a cap, and a drill (which can sometimes be omitted as well). Many common cartridge diameters very closely or exactly match commercially available pipe diameters, and the hardware to make a single-shot firearm is ubiquitous in any store that sells plumbing supplies. Pipe guns are simple and cheap enough to make that some people abuse gun buy-back programs by deliberately manufacturing pipe guns for pennies and pocketing the money these programs offer [0]. These are real, functional guns, and I promise they're simpler, faster, and cheaper to manufacture than any 3d printed gun.
0: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/17/handing-zip-g...
By convolvatron 2026-02-0415:04 I assume this is mostly for a shotgun shell affair? otherwise the difference in bore, and particularly the seam that is present in almost all steel pipe (unless its drawn-over-mandrel which is a more speciality product), would make it pretty dodgy to fire a proper round
By beeflet 2026-02-045:04 they also didn't have 3d printers in the 1700s, so I figure the 3d printer doesn't add much if it requires all of these post-processing steps like molding, casting, and finishing
By bluedino 2026-02-0414:03
By standardUser 2026-02-0323:311 reply Few people would bring an illegal firearm into NYC or other major US metros because a) the penalties in most of those cities and states can be brutal and b) it's not that difficult to acquire a legal firearm in most cities. If someone's smuggling a gun it's likely because it's just a small part of more varied criminal activity. Or because they did it by accident.
Also, I find it unconscionable to suggest we should allow home manufacturing of automatic weapons without even engaging with possible ways to stem that tide.
By bluedino 2026-02-0414:10 > Few people would bring an illegal firearm into NYC or other major US metros
Someone is. They recover thousands of illegal guns in Chicago alone every year.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/report/firearms-trace-data/fire...
By talkinghead 2026-02-0316:533 reply i personally wouldn't described teenagers killing each other with luminous green hunting knives as a 'weird panic' but perhaps something that needs a lot of attention and a multitude of steps to solve. banning these insane weapons is, would you believe it, one quick step that might help.
It's just very easily substitutable with regular knives? Plus the Offensive Weapons Act already covers them? I would be very surprised if it has made a difference.
(those of us with longer memories remember the previous iteration and why the Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles don't have "ninja" in their name in the UK)
By RansomStark 2026-02-0410:23 Yeah, its almost as if the knives aren't the problem. The gang memebrs will use whatever gives them an advantage, guns, knives, acid, bats, bricks. We can't ban everything, we should possibly tackle the cause instead of the symptom...
But don't worry, in the mean time they're coming for our regular knives.
The BBC has already rolled out Idris Ebla to explain that kitchen knives shouldnt have points[0]. Yes this has been picked up by politicians with the minister for policing at the time calling it an interesting idea [1].
[0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1j...
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/...
Sorry about the amp links
By YurgenJurgensen 2026-02-040:31 How many crimes related to “foot claws”, “death stars” and “blow darts” were there before they were banned? The UK Offensive Weapons Act is a joke of a law that makes us look like morons afraid of cartoon turtles and farming tools.
Would they really do less stabbing if they had to use a mundane kitchen knife instead of a 'tacticool' knife or 'ninja sword'?
By silver_silver 2026-02-0317:141 reply Not necessarily a lot less but I’m sure removing the aesthetic/cool factor reduces how often they’re carried
Maybe if the law required all knives to be pink they might be too embarrassed to murder someone. One problem then is the switch to acid attacks which are just clear liquids in containers.
By int_19h 2026-02-046:38 It reminds me of a certain meme gun along these lines.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ATBGE/comments/b4d9gy/unicorn_rifle...
(Yes, it is a real gun and it shoots real 9mm bullets.)
By beeflet 2026-02-045:09 You could require that all acids are also dyed pink
My main concern is, how long is it before you can't print a replacement part for something you bought because it looks too similar to an OEM part and the manufacturer doesn't think you should be able to do that so they throw a little money to the right politician.
By laylower 2026-02-0413:22 This is part of the wider problem and heavily relates to the right to repair
Cory talked about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39jsstmmUUs
> how long is it before you can't print a replacement part for something you bought because it looks too similar to an OEM part and the manufacturer doesn't think you should be able to do that so they throw a little money to the right politician
At least 25 years. That's the time passed since the first introduction of Eurion marks on banknotes. As far as I know, noone has used it to block reproduction of anything other than money.
By jrockway 2026-02-0414:18 When I was in college I wrote a computer program (yes, involving yellow text) that couldn't be photocopied because I put the "o"s in the right place to trigger the eurion-finding algorithm. People thought it was neat.
That isn't true though, coupons, boarding passes, and even confidential documents use Eurion marks. It's not everywhere because it isn't worthwhile going through the hassle of getting printers that can print them; while 3D printing OEM parts would be much more valuable.
Who issues Eurion-marked boarding passes?
That strikes me as extremely counterproductive given the actually sensitive part of a BP is an (outside of the US) unsigned, semi-publicly-documented barcode.
By johann8384 2026-02-0614:44 It would be extra counterproductive since you can print your own boarding pass.
By ndsipa_pomu 2026-02-0416:38 When flying with easyJet, we can just print boarding passes using any old printer. As long as the number matches up, no security is required.
By JasonADrury 2026-02-0411:42 Lots non-currency of documents around the world with EURion marks. If you're a secure printing shop and your business model primarily revolves around impressing your clients with long lists of document security features, it'd be malpractice to not implement this kind of padding.
EURion marks are a feature you must include on your banknote for it to even be considered real. And it's _one_ feature. It's relatively trivial to make a chip which can detect their presence.
On the other hand, if I need a replacement part for something, it's unlikely I will find the manufacturer giving me models for it. And if a manufacturer is giving me models for it, they probably do so with the explicit expectation that I might end up using them to manufacture a replacement.
In most cases either me or some other volunteer will need to measure the existing part, write down all the critical measurements, and then design a new part from scratch in CAD.
Even if somehow you are able to fingerprint on those critical measurements, that's just _one_ part.
The only way this kind of nonsense law could work is if you mandate that 3D printers must not accept commands from an untrusted source (signature verification) and then you must have software which uses a database to check for such critical measurements, ideally _before_ slicing.
Except that still doesn't work because I can always post-process a part to fit.
And it doesn't work even more because the software will need to contain a signing key. Unless the signing key is on a remote server somewhere to which you must send your model for validation.
This is never going to work, or scale.
There are even more hurdles... I can design and build a 3D printer from scratch and manufacture it using non-CNC machined parts at home. A working, high quality 3D printer.
Where are you going to force me to put the locks? Are you going to require me to show my ID when buying stepper motors and stepper motor drivers?
What about other kinds of manufacturing (that these laws, at least the Washington State ones, also cover)?
Will you ban old hardware?
What about a milling machine? Are you going to ban non-CNC mills?
These are the most ignorant laws made by the most ignorant people. The easiest way to ban people from manufacturing their own guns is to ban manufacture of your own guns. But again, this is a complete non-issue in the US where you can probably get a gun illegally more easily than you can 3D print something half as reliable.
By NoGravitas 2026-02-0418:211 reply > This is never going to work, or scale
Neither does DRM, really, but it certainly causes a great deal of inconvenience, and is upheld by the legal system.
By Arch-TK 2026-02-0619:05 But that's the point. DRM works at all (in terms of causing inconvenience, not preventing copying, for that it will never work of course) because the people producing the data have an interest in applying the DRM.
But the people producing 3D printable gun parts are _not_ interested in applying the DRM.
If you want to draw an analogy to media, this is more like if the government mandated porn detection software on your computer which would prevent porn from being able to be displayed on your screen. Or mandating HDCP between your monitor and your computer so that your computer could implement restrictions on what you could view on the monitor.
Except that computers are extremely difficult to DIY from basic components (I mean raw chips and metal). Meanwhile I can literally buy aluminium extrusions, or even bits of wood, some stepper motors, some gears, some belts, some pulleys and some stepper drivers, an STM32 devboard and get PCBWay to make me a simple PCB, or just use a prototyping board. And at the end of it, I would have a high quality (maybe a bit slow) 3D printer. I can tell you with absolute certainty that it could print gun parts because I have personally taken a trash-tier prusa i3 mk2 clone and turned it into a machine which could probably rival the mk3 at least.
How exactly are they planning on stopping me from designing a part, slicing it, and then putting it on a DIY 3D printer?
They could maybe achieve this by restricting the sale of certain components such as hot-ends, extruder gears (although you can get away with generic gears), or stepper motors and stepper motor drivers. I just don't see it happening. Maybe they could ban open source slicers and CAD programs?
But I guess I better start stocking up on high quality stepper motors and stepper motor drivers and buy a milling machine and a lathe so I can manufacture the other parts myself. You never know when the UK government will steal another wonderful authoritarian idea from another country.
As an European I'd say any USAnite can almost get a gun with breakfast cereal boxes. But weapons' culture in the US it's obsolete. Militias can't do shit against tyranical govs because once they send drones it's game over.
> But weapons' culture in the US it's obsolete. Militias can't do shit against tyranical govs because once they send drones it's game over.
Pretty sure those 50 thousand or so civilians killed on the street in the recent Iranian protests/riots would have been a lot less, if all those Iranians had easy access to guns, and not just the government.
Drones are not enough, you still need boots on the ground for you to claim control over a territory, and boots on the ground think twice about signing up for service if that includes facing armed mobs with guns on a daily basis.
So no, mobs with guns are not obsolete.
Mob with guns would be useless against the Iranian Guards which are pretty much elite commandos.
Goat herders with guns in Afghanistan kicked the U.S. army out of their country.
By sidewndr46 2026-02-0413:391 reply This isn't really accurate. The Northern Alliance entered into an agreement with the US to secure the country. An insurgency sprang up and we fought it for 20 years before giving up. Since this is now after the fact, we can safely say the Taliban ran the insurgency the whole time.
The Taliban are a military and political group compromised of an ethnic minority in Afghanistan. It's not even that the US lost to "goat herders with guns". We failed to secure a small country against a well organized, armed minority.
By LorenPechtel 2026-02-0518:321 reply No. Pakistan supported an insurgency group for 20 years.
No insurgency like that can exist without foreign support in some form, usually from governments but it can be from resource export.
And the reality is nobody has ever defeated a foreign sponsored insurgency. Some have ended because the sponsor quit sponsoring them, but that is not the same thing as defeated.
By sidewndr46 2026-02-063:561 reply I don't really think it's news that the Taliban are sponsored by Pakistan. We've known that longer than I've been alive.
By LorenPechtel 2026-02-081:451 reply The point is we were actually fighting Pakistan.
Nobody has ever defeated a foreign-funded insurgency, other than by the funding going away. It's no surprise we didn't accomplish what nobody else has, either.
By sidewndr46 2026-02-2015:48 This is akin to arguing that the USSR fought the US in Afghanistan. It's known that we armed and helped the various groups active there at the time. It's also pretty well established we had only a handful of people on the ground there at any point in time. Had the USSR actually fought the US at this point in time, the resulting combat would have been the most significant combat engagements of the 20th century.
Everyone knows Pakistan funded the insurgency. Pakistan has no interest in actually running Afghanistan. It's a buffer state for them. The US has no real interest in trying to get Pakistan to stop this. It's a failure of domestic politics that we didn't drop pack up a few weeks after it became obvious Bin Laden was not there.
Afghanistan is a landlocked country on the other side of the planet, the soldiers didn't grow up with knowledge of the terrain, they had no knowledge of the language, culture, customs or social networks, no one locally (with few exceptions) wanted them there, and crucially they only lost once they left, and when they left, there were no penalties for the people who started the war; no US politicians were in any danger whether the war was won or lost, no land was lost, and no truly important geopolitical goals failed.
On the flip side in any domestic insurrection, the soldiers know the terrain, language, customs and culture of the people, the supply lines are nothing (rather than having to airlift materiel and people thousands of miles, you drive them on regular roads), the infrastructure supports espionage, most people support the regime and will collaborate to return to stability (since they voted for it), the regime never leaves (you can leave Afghanistan, you can't leave your own country or it ceases to be a country), and if you lose, you lose territory and/or politicians run the risk of violence. The stakes are why these comparisons are never relevant.
By AngryData 2026-02-0422:31 But at the same time a domestic insurrection means your enemies have direct access to all of your most important infrastructure and logistics and supporting economy. It might be expensive to fly or float materials and people over to the middle east, but you don't gotta worry about 1000+ miles of pissed off insurgents potentially around every bend and tree or mixed into your own military or logistic personnel.
By realo 2026-02-0418:13 First the russians tried. They were not goat herders. They failed.
Then the americans tried. They were not goat herders. They failed.
The pattern is clear.
By swiftcoder 2026-02-0413:41 To be fair, those "goat herders" were previously trained and armed by the US to fight Russian forces, so it's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison
By pegasus 2026-02-0413:09 But could they do the same to goat herders with bigger guns, drones, bombs, etc?
By JKCalhoun 2026-02-0413:35 Pretty sure Iranians with 3D printed guns would not be able to kick their own army out of Iran.
By mschuster91 2026-02-0412:18 Let's do some napkin math: Iran has about 94 million people. Iran's IRGC alone has a personnel count of 125.000 [1], of which about 2-5000 are estimated to be the elite of the elite ("Quds Force"). Together with the Basij (anywhere from 100-600k) that alone is a sufficient amount of force. And on top of that come maybe 400-500k of the regular Iranian Armed Forces [2], as well as about 260k active police+100k police reservists.
So, if one sees the whole of IRGC plus Basij as the "commandos", they alone form an active elite of about 0.5%, if one sees the entirety of the military+police we're looking at easily 2-3 million units, so up to 2%.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Co...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Armed...
By abosley 2026-02-0516:39 The Iranian guards, along with most of the armies in the second and third tier powers don't have elite anything. Please see Desert Storm, etc. Most of them ran. The ones that didn't were destroyed.
It’s not obsolete. In a country where your military is farm boys, the important thing is being able to start the war. Eventually chunks of the military will defect. We saw this happen during the Bangladesh independence movement. The revolutionaries got lucky and knocked over a weapons depot early in the conflict. They started fighting and a large number of the Pakistani army that was of Bangladeshi ancestry defected. I am confident the same thing would happen if the government in DC tried to oppress Iowa or Texas.
Drones cut both ways. You’re correct that it allows a small number of people loyal to the regime to asymmetrically oppress a large population. But drone technology is in theory accessible to the populace in an industrialized country.
By FatherOfCurses 2026-02-0416:422 reply The 2A crowd has been really quiet this past year. Hell, Trump even said in response to the Pretti shooting that only criminals walk around carrying guns in public. I guess no one cares about government tyranny unless they're asked to respect someone's pronouns.
Why would the 2A people say anything? Conservatives aren’t libertarians. They think government has legitimate functions and draw a distinction between government performing those functions (which isn’t tyranny) and the government exceeding its scope (which is tyranny). Removing foreigners here illegally is a core function of the government. Social engineering is not.
> Hell, Trump even said in response to the Pretti shooting that only criminals walk around carrying guns in public.
If you were paying any attention at all, you'd see pretty much every 2A community, advocate and lobbying group was outraged by that statement and made statements against it.
Having said that, it is actually illegal to carry a firearm to go commit crimes like destroying government property, assaulting federal officers and obstructing them in carrying out their constitutional duties.
> illegal to carry a firearm to go commit crimes
Of which Pretti did zero of.
There is video of him kicking light the tail light of a federal law enforcement vehicle, which is definitely a crime. And that’s just what we have video of.
We have video from both sides of the door of a stack of ICE agents with AR15s breaking down a door to a daycare without a warrant.
We have video of at least three ICE agents executing people in the street with testimony that contradicts what we see with our eyes.
An illegal immigrant fled a traffic stop and went into a daycare: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/11/05/dhs-sets-record-straight...
Pursuit is an exception to the warrant requirement, according to a 1976 Supreme Court case: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hot_pursuit
By computerthings 2026-02-061:18 [dead]
By vdqtp3 2026-02-0515:33 That same video shows him spitting on an officer.
By computerthings 2026-02-061:19 [dead]
By AngryData 2026-02-0422:25 Drones may be good against foreign adversaries, but you can't bomb your own population and cities into being productive economy. A war between two well funded and supported militaries is far different than an insurgency.
By lenerdenator 2026-02-0414:10 1) That's a mischaracterization of the FFL purchase process if I've ever heard one.
2) The weapons culture of the US is so obsolete that there are government officials parroting lines about it not being legal to carry a concealed weapon during a protest in Minnesota when it is, actually, very much legal. That is to say, it's not obsolete at all. Given the prior public stances of the Trump administration on firearms, this is incredibly telling, and all the more reason why you can't trust people like them.
By pocksuppet 2026-02-0414:10 Those drones lost some wars against guerilla militias
By riskable 2026-02-0414:15 Well, at birth every American is issued Baby's First Glock™
Actually I tried to use it just for fun on some vouchers, but it didn't work on the copy machines I tried. They just happily photocopied the vouchers.
Tried the same, doesn't do anything on my scanner. Interestingly, there are regions of banknotes my scanner refuses to scan. But had no time to investigate further.
By ale42 2026-02-0414:18 Some more tests on this old page: https://murdoch.is/projects/currency/ (2004)
By rustyhancock 2026-02-049:211 reply Is this true? Couldn't I put the mark on a page of my book and photocopiers would still detect and refuse to copy that page?
By ErroneousBosh 2026-02-049:28 Yes, absolutely. It's a pattern of five rings, well-documented although Omron appears to keep the exact details pretty tightly held.
They don't have to be exact circles, they just have to be some dots in about the right place. In the UK, the Bank of England issued notes with Elgar on them and the EURion constellation picked out in musical notes ;-)
By tobyjsullivan 2026-02-047:22 No idea why this comment is getting downvoted so hard. This was exactly what I thought of too, and it provides a concrete answer to the question.
There’s valid concern with these types of laws and scope creep. But there’s also precedent which shows they can work and be applied reasonably.
By PunchyHamster 2026-02-0416:27 Suuure buddy, we just need to throw away every gun and introduce new ones with special marks telling software not copy.
Go ahead, try that
By PlatoIsADisease 2026-02-040:277 reply I remember ~10 or 15 years ago, I had concerns about drones becoming illegal due to FAA.
I was assured by the internet, I was paranoid, blah blah safety...
Then a few weeks ago something about Minnesota and ICE making drones illegal to fly or something...
The weird part is that, in that 15 years, I've become more moderate and pro-democratic rule of law... but I was right about my previous concerns. Not that I believe in the Justice behind them anymore.
By salawat 2026-02-047:00 >I remember ~10 or 15 years ago, I had concerns about drones becoming illegal due to FAA.
My Plato hating friend, my "called it" list is filled with things the old-timers at the time said no one would be stupid enough to, and the old codgers went and died on me so I can't even give em a good lambast. I believed them, and helped them build things... Now I get to watch things get coopted by a madman and a NatSec apparatus. Pour one out.
The rights abuses occurring in Minnesota and at the hands of ICE are better characterised as a degradation of democracy, not a failure of it.
EDIT: To be clear, my belief is that a plurality of the voting population voted for this, that much is obvious.
My belief is also that despite the fact that the current administration was elected, there are democratic norms and rules for what outcomes require that a bill must be passed to enact, that states can decide how they can govern themselves within well defined bounds.
All of this is being ignored despite the structures defined in the American democatric system, not because of it.
By sheepscreek 2026-02-042:284 reply Yep. Democracy is working according to a non-minority in the country. Agree to disagree?
By mystraline 2026-02-042:583 reply Sure. I'll bite.
The majority in this country is "didn't vote". Multitudes of reasons for this.
They forgot.
They dont care.
They missed the registration deadline.
They're homeless, and no address.
They can't get proper papers, even though they are US born.
They're in prison/jail.
The candidates suck, so you dont vote.
Can't afford to take time off work.
They've been gerrymandered, so their votes are significantly degraded.
To think that the minority segment that, due to election game rules and FPTP, that a minority of the minority somehow reflects a majority? I wholly reject that.
It's always been this way. According to Google 64% of the voting age population voted in 2024. In 1972 it was 56%, in 1976 it was 55%, in 1980 it was 55%, in 1984 it was 56%... you get the idea [0].
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalst...
By mystraline 2026-02-043:308 reply "This is how its always been" is one of the banes of my existence. It explains why we're here, but not how to do better.
There are ways to do better. A national holiday for elections has been mentioned countless times.
We could do like Australia and mandate required voting.
Prisoners should be able to vote. But this country is too hell-bent on punishment.
Registration can be made on the same day of voting, rather than some states require 30 days, and others per state.
But in reality, none of these are done. Changes are glacial, if they do happen.
But these would all increase a democratic choice. Right now, its a horrendously gamified minority of a minority who decides, based on electoral college results.
By WalterBright 2026-02-044:362 reply > mandate required voting
I don't see how forcing a person to vote will result in carefully considering what to vote for.
A right to vote includes the right to not vote.
By defrost 2026-02-044:41 Sure, and countries with "compulsory voting" embrace the right to Donkey vote, pencil in whatever candidate you choose, criticise the government in a short haiku, and otherwise exercise freedom.
It's more a compulsory show you're still a citizen day. The making a valid vote part is down to personal choice.
They also appear to have generally better general political awareness and engagement in policy.
> A right to vote includes the right to not vote.
Then add an abstain option to the ballot while still requiring people to show up and select the box. While I do think voting should be mandatory, I'd say that we should make it substantially easier. More polling places, mail in voting, having a mandated paid day off to vote and having more than one day to vote in person would go a long way to making the requirement workable.
By WalterBright 2026-02-048:112 reply Forcing people to the polling place doesn't sound like a free society. Nor does it auger for any positive votes - people forced into something don't behave well. You'll get perverse voting.
By x______________ 2026-02-049:112 reply Living in a civilized society with other people should have its social responsibilities, amongst others.
By 9875325996435 2026-02-0417:111 reply And you get to decide what others are forced to do, right?
By Defletter 2026-02-065:05 Are you an anarchist by any chance? Because the logical conclusion to this argument is why anyone can "force" anyone else to do anything.
Yes, and most of this measures result in decisions being made by the most irresponsible people.
Prisoners voting is madness. They are in too dependent a position to believe that their vote will reflect their votes.
On the contrary, voting should be banned not only for prisoners but also for people working for the government in any capacity. People who live off taxpayers should not be able to decide how to spend their taxes.
Registration procedures should be more complex and strict, not simpler. If someone is irresponsible, disorganized, or illiterate enough to fail to fill the form on time, then why should we consider their vote meaningful? If someone believes they have more important things to do than vote, why force them to vote?
> Registration procedures should be more complex and strict, not simpler. If someone is irresponsible, disorganized, or illiterate enough to fail to fill the form on time, then why should we consider their vote meaningful?
The US tried to do this kind of "literacy test" before, remember? It's where the expression "grandfathered in" comes from: you had to do an impossible-to-pass test to gain the right to vote - except if your grandfather had the right to vote.
This was of course used to ban black people from voting without explicitly banning them for being black.
> Prisoners voting is madness
If prisoners can't vote, what's stopping the party in power from preventing them from ever losing an election by just jailing everyone expected to vote against them?
> People who live off taxpayers should not be able to decide how to spend their taxes
This should obviously includes everyone working for government contractors. Which is obviously going to include everyone working for any kind of tech company with any government contract. Which, considering HN demographics, means you likely shouldn't e allowed to vote.
Heck, why not extend this even further? Anyone living in a state which receives more money than it contributes in taxes should be banned from voting. Anyone using government resources should be banned from voting. Everyone driving their car on government-maintained roads should be banned from voting!
By WalterBright 2026-02-0417:38 There is a big problem with people voting themselves money out of the treasury. It gets worse every year.
> this kind of "literacy test"
Where did I mention a "literacy test"? I'm against such tests for exactly the same reasons I'm against prisoner voting.
> If prisoners can't vote, what's stopping the party in power from preventing them from ever losing an election by just jailing everyone expected to vote against them?
Prisons, by definition, are built on the principle that prisoners are under the full control of prison administrations. If everyone who will vote against could be imprisoned, there would be no problem allowing prisoners to vote: prisoners would still vote in the manner desired by the prison administration. That's how prisons work. And I don't think there's a need to increase incentives for authorities to imprison more people to achieve the desired election results through prisoners' voting.
> any kind of tech company with any government contract.
Obviously, this shouldn't apply to "any" government contracts. But if the majority of a contractor's income comes from government contracts, then yes, employees shouldn't vote.
> Anyone living in a state which receives more money than it contributes in taxes should be banned from voting. Anyone using government resources should be banned from voting.
I don't understand why you're trying to reduce this argument to absurdity. The goal is to preserve democracy by reducing the government's ability to build a totalitarian dictatorship through its ability to control taxes. And yet you're proposing measures that would proclaim such a dictatorship.
By autoexec 2026-02-0417:07 > And I don't think there's a need to increase incentives for authorities to imprison more people to achieve the desired election results through prisoners' voting.
Because what happens in the ballot box is private, it should be possible to let prisoners vote without interference as long as poll workers are allowed inside to do their job, but it's not just people currently in prison you have to worry about. There are places where convicted felons can lose their right to vote even after they've served their time and laws like that have already been used to suppress votes.
> The goal is to preserve democracy by reducing the government's ability to build a totalitarian dictatorship
Freedom means having enough rope to hang yourself with. By strictly limiting who is allowed to vote and taking that right away from millions of Americans you'd be destroying the country, not saving it.
By AngryData 2026-02-0422:45 Personally I don't find "tick atleast this one box and sign your name, otherwise you get a $20 fine" is too much to ask. If it wasn't the US I would assume most fines would still be ignored by the law anyways, but giving the US legal system another way to fuck with people is also kind of worrying when it is so bad already.
> A national holiday for elections has been mentioned countless times.
Many people already do get the option to ditch out of work to go vote. And it's not logistically possible for _everyone_ to have the day off. So really this is just a matter of sliding the scale a bit so _more_ people can vote; at the cost of more inconvenience.
Personally, I'd rather just make mail-in voting more common.
By hellojesus 2026-02-066:31 I love mail in voting, but it does run the unique risk of having verifiable votes to third parties, which means it allows pay-for-votes.
No election can mitigate this so long as your vote is provable to a third party.
There are a few things that could be done to improve the electoral process in USA.
An easy one would be to have people vote on weekends instead of Tuesday.
The second would be to have more polling station so that people don't have to wait hours to be able to vote (alas this seems to be by design).
Since we are there, but unrelated to the amount of people voting, fix the vote counting process so that you can get the result the following day.
The stuff above is not rocket science and is what most of the other civilized countries do.
If people still don't go out and vote, probably is because both candidates suck, or they don't look so much different one from the other. Fixing this would require changing the electoral system, which is not something I see done anytime soon in the USA
By SoftTalker 2026-02-0416:17 In recent years, people can vote early, vote by mail, or vote on election day. Hard to see how a "holiday" for voting makes anything easier for anyone, though I could maybe support it if you eliminated all the other options.
Also on the list: Tackling the electoral college thing such that every voter contributed equally, regardless of their home state.
I don’t live in the US, but US elections have quite an influence and it’s frustrating to see a system I perceive as very flawed having such an effect here, at the other end of the world in New Zealand.
By SoftTalker 2026-02-0416:192 reply In the US, states elect the president, not the people individually. This is a pretty foundational element of our constitution.
By mrguyorama 2026-02-0418:141 reply Another foundational element of our constitution was denying women the right to contribute to society, and not establishing any form of succession and other blatant and stupid failures.
Maybe the framers can go fuck themselves.
Yet the framers quite literally told you to change what they made, so they agree.
By lostlogin 2026-02-051:57 Do you mean farmers?
Having a president which a minority of cast votes picked is a problem in my view.
By jandrewrogers 2026-02-0418:29 The President is the representative of the constituent State governments of America, not the people. That is why it is the States that vote. The only part of the Federal government that is intended to proportionally represent the people, and is in practice, is the House of Representatives in Congress.
This is a good and appropriate thing. States are approximately countries. Most laws only exist at the State level e.g. most common crimes don't exist in Federal law. The overreach of the Federal government claiming broad authority over people is an unfortunate but relatively recent (20th century) phenomenon. The US does seem to be returning to States having more autonomy, which I'd say is a good thing.
By yazantapuz 2026-02-0410:36 > There are ways to do better. A national holiday for elections has been mentioned countless times.
In Argentina, elections are held on Sundays.
> There are ways to do better. A national holiday for elections has been mentioned countless times.
Sure. But let’s get rid of all early voting and mail in balloting. No excuses right? Throw in voter id too.
> We could do like Australia and mandate required voting.
I never quite understand why mandatory participation is a meaningful goal. If people are neither informed nor interested, why do you want them to have a say at all? At best they’ll be picking a last name that sounds pronounceable. Or going with whichever first name sounds more (or less!) male.
> Prisoners should be able to vote. But this country is too hell-bent on punishment.
We already strip them of their freedom of movement. Why do you want everyone up to and including rapists, pedophiles, and murders voting? Is there a particular voting bloc that you think would add value with their point of view?
> Registration can be made on the same day of voting, rather than some states require 30 days, and others per state.
I’m generally for this though there are a bit of logistics when you’re dealing with preprinted paper ballots and some expectations of processing quantity. Prior registration also addresses people showing up at the wrong polls in advance.
> But in reality, none of these are done. Changes are glacial, if they do happen.
Not always a bad thing either. If all it took was the stroke of an executive’s pen, you’d see a lot of things I bet you would not be fond of rather soon.
> But these would all increase a democratic choice. Right now, its a horrendously gamified minority of a minority who decides, based on electoral college results.
The electoral college is a feature. It forces you to win across large and small States.
> The electoral college is a feature. It forces you to win across large and small States.
Surely you want the leader that most Americans voted for?
When votes are held in the senate or congress, it’s a straight numbers game. Why aren’t those votes also weighted?
There wouldn’t be many who’d argue that the American political system is in good health. How would you fix it?
> When votes are held in the senate or congress, it’s a straight numbers game. Why aren’t those votes also weighted?
They are weighted - the House is allocated by population, and the Senate by state.
By lostlogin 2026-02-0415:57 They are weighted in how they are elected. They aren’t weighted in how the members vote.
By claytongulick 2026-02-0413:491 reply > Surely you want the leader that most Americans voted for?
I prefer not to live in the Hunger Games world, personally.
Those books are a brilliant exploration of the tyranny of urban clusters.
The electoral college is an effective foil to that.
By lostlogin 2026-02-0415:55 I wouldn’t call the US system ‘effective’. The US system is spiralling and it’s getting dystopian. The hunger games analogy is fitting, with The Patriot Games coming right up.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/18/politics/patriot-games-an...
By swiftcoder 2026-02-0413:571 reply > Why do you want everyone up to and including rapists, pedophiles, and murders voting?
About half of all folks in US prisons are there for non-violent crimes, and we're talking about a relatively small percentage of voters anyway. Maybe ~3 million added to the ~244 million eligible voters
By SoftTalker 2026-02-0416:251 reply For a consequence to be effective, you have to lose something. If you go to prison, the big thing you lose is freedom of movement. But other things, such as who you live with, what you eat, and the ability to vote are other things.
By swiftcoder 2026-02-0421:08 I don’t think we have a broad consensus that incarceration is effective.
No longer being able to vote seems like a rather petty inconvenience to heap on top
By LocalH 2026-02-0514:27 Voting is a civil right. People who are stripped of their right to vote should also pay zero taxes. You know, "no taxation without representation".
By Arainach 2026-02-046:12 >Sure. But let’s get rid of all early voting and mail in balloting. No excuses right? Throw in voter id too.
There's no reason that a holiday to give people time to do it requires or logically leads to either of those, no.
>I never quite understand why mandatory participation is a meaningful goal.
Mandatory participation generally includes write-in and abstain options, but requires people to participate in the process. Making it mandatory defeats the measures taken to stop groups of people from voting (insufficient polling places for long lines, intimidation keeping people away, purging voter rolls, etc.)
>We already strip them of their freedom of movement. Why do you want everyone up to and including rapists, pedophiles, and murders voting? Is there a particular voting bloc that you think would add value with their point of view?
Because it's easy to file bullshit charges against anyone you don't want voting, and because something being illegal doesn't make it morally wrong, so people should be able to vote to change things even when being persecuted for them.
By RHSeeger 2026-02-046:10 > > There are ways to do better. A national holiday for elections has been mentioned countless times.
> Sure. But let’s get rid of all early voting and mail in balloting. No excuses right? Throw in voter id too.
Why does having a day with "more people off work to go vote" mean we make voting harder in other ways? I don't understand what you're trying to say/imply here.
> > Prisoners should be able to vote. But this country is too hell-bent on punishment.
> We already strip them of their freedom of movement. Why do you want everyone up to and including rapists, pedophiles, and murders voting? Is there a particular voting bloc that you think would add value with their point of view?
Because, like it or not, they are citizens, and citizens get to vote. Do I think most pedophiles have much to contribute to the process? No, probably not. But there's a LOT of prisoners that are guilty of much lesser crimes; ones that don't imply their vote shouldn't matter.
> The electoral college is a feature. It forces you to win across large and small States.
Challenge. But this is very much an opinion thing.
>"This is how its always been" is one of the banes of my existence. It explains why we're here, but not how to do better.
This is true, but it's also very useful in assigning blame (or avoiding assigning it improperly).
So for all the people who complain about all the people who didn't vote, and try to blame them for Trump's election, we can just point to the historical record for voting in US presidential elections. The truth is: the turnout was not unusually low. In fact, it was somewhat high, historically speaking (though not as high as in 2020, which was a record; you'd have to back to the 50s or early 60s to see a higher turnout, and that was in a time when Black people weren't allowed to vote in many places).
So instead of blaming non-voters, blame can be assigned properly to those who DID vote. Because the factors that have prevented many people from voting in past elections were still a factor in the most recent election.
>We could do like Australia and mandate required voting.
Right, and how do you enforce this when people aren't allowed to take time off from work to vote? Also, looking at the state of Australian politics, I don't see mandatory voting as a worthwhile fix.
>A national holiday for elections has been mentioned countless times.
Lots of people have to work on national holidays. How do they vote? Society doesn't stop needing police, firefighters, or hospital workers on national holidays. And most stores (like grocery stores) are still open, so their workers are required to go to work too.
More importantly, why do you think the GOP would ever agree to any measures to increase voter participation?
I didn't see anyone blaming non-voters. The argument is that a majority of Americans didn't vote for this, because most Americans didn't vote at all. (Also, of those that did vote, less than 50% voted for Trump).
By reverius42 2026-02-046:531 reply "less than 50%" being 49.8%. Kind of winning on a technicality there.
A big problem of the American two-party system is that you can't distinguish a vote against one party from a vote for the other party: Did all of that 49.8% vote for Trump, or was he the "lesser of two evil" for a lot of people who genuinely hated Harris?
By SoftTalker 2026-02-0416:151 reply Voting is always a compromise. No candidate ever perfectly represents one's own views on every issue. So IMO reasons for voting "for" a candidate or "against" another don't really matter.
By thayne 2026-02-0416:47 Which is why it isn't really fair to say "this is what people voted for." Just because people voted for a candidate doesn't mean they agree with everything that candidate does.
By decremental 2026-02-043:41 [dead]
By Jtsummers 2026-02-0416:44 > Instead, the electorate should be narrowed to property owning people
Define "property owning", presumably you mean land or a home (would an apartment be enough without any real rights to the land it sits on?). This definition would end up disenfranchising most young adults and probably a majority of the members of the military (the military is relatively young, and young enlisted folks are housed in dorms, and if they move frequently often don't bother buying homes because it just doesn't make financial sense).
By buellerbueller 2026-02-0414:271 reply >Of course prisoners should not be allowed to vote
I don't follow. Please explain.
>Instead, the electorate should be narrowed to property owning people who have an IQ above 85 (within one SD of median) and two grandparents born in the U.S. (so culturally assimilated).
Yeah, just like the good old days when we had literacy tests in this country to vote down south.
You're literally calling for a return of Jim Crow.
Jim Crow was bad because it targeted people in the basis of a characteristic that didn’t matter: skin color. That doesn’t mean that all restrictions on voting are bad. If the restriction is based on a characteristic that does matter, like intelligence, that’s completely different.
By buellerbueller 2026-02-0417:491 reply If you are a citizen, subject to the laws and the taxes, you should get a vote: no exceptions.
By buellerbueller 2026-02-0418:521 reply I am certain, because you use IQ as a metric for who you think should vote, that you are smart enough to puzzle out a steelman argument for my position.
Use that big brain of yours and try it, you might learn something about humanity (and humility)!
By rayiner 2026-02-0421:50 There’s lots of potential reasons. I’m trying to figure out which one you’re invoking?
By mystraline 2026-02-0413:391 reply > Of course prisoners should not be allowed to vote, for the same reason as children.
Prisoners in jail can be there for a multitude of reasons. But the main difference is that they were likely of voting age. Some states even do allow prisoners to vote. Who more than anyone here is subject to its laws than people imprisoned?
It also naturally penalizes poor people, since they demonstrably get less 'legal equality', and thus go to prison more.
As for children. Thats a different issue. The moment this government(s) started tried children as adults is when and the voting age should have been lowered to the age of 'tried as an adult'.
> Expanding the electorate for the sake of expanding it doesn’t make the result better.
So, you do not believe or accept democratic principles.
It is no different than "get enough eyeballs on a problem, and every problem is shallow".
> Instead, the electorate should be narrowed to property owning people who have an IQ above 85 (within one SD of median) and two grandparents born in the U.S. (so culturally assimilated).
Holy crap, the dog whistles.
Sprinkle phrenology (IQ) in there. Used to defend treating black people as slaves cause "we(royal) were doing them a favor"
Literally grandfather clause, which disenfranchised former slaves.
And property-owning, so a strong retreat to royalist 2nd son tradition. Pray tell, you are only talking about land with property-owning, right?
You don't believe in social science. Sorry, I mean social "science". It feels like it'd be rude to quote you on that point, but it's one of your most consistent arguments and it's not reasonable to expect people not to notice the special pleading you're doing around it. It'd be like me suddenly talking about the virtues of DNSSEC.
By rayiner 2026-02-0418:29 I don’t think social science is credible as a field. That doesn’t mean that every finding within it is not credible.
By JKCalhoun 2026-02-0413:50 Sarcasm much? Ha ha, you forgot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_paper_bag_test
Yeah, and those figures are horrible. In other Western countries the turnout is closer to 80%, with some even hitting over 90%.
The fact that ~20% of the population either wants to vote but is unable to do so or is disillusioned about the democratic process to the point of not voting at all is extremely worrying. This is not what a healthy democracy should look like.
By SoftTalker 2026-02-0416:092 reply If you want people to vote at over 90% you need to make it compulsory as Australia does. IMO the problem with doing this is that the people who don't care or don't believe it matters are now going to be annoyed that they have to do it. They will vote randomly, or just pick the first candidate listed, etc. just to be done with it. I saw the same behavior in school by kids who didn't care about the standardized tests they had to take. They just filled in bubbles on the answer sheet at random.
If you don't care enough to inform yourself about the candidates or at least have a party affiliation, it's probably best that you don't vote.
By mrguyorama 2026-02-0418:20 If you think the people who CURRENTLY vote "Care enough to inform themselves" then you are very silly.
Stupid people already vote. Wrong people already vote. Your system has to accept that interference no matter what.
By kevin_thibedeau 2026-02-0416:38 This is nulled by randomizing the candidates position on the ballots.
By mikkupikku 2026-02-0417:20 The point of letting people vote is to make people feel as though they're involved in the process so they're less likely to cause social unrest. If somebody is too apathetic to vote, they're also too apathetic to cause trouble and therefore it's not a real problem that they didn't vote.
That doesn't change the fact that the majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump. In fact, the majority of people who did vote didn't vote for Trump. Yes, he won the "popular vote", but that just means he got more votes than anyone else, not more than half of the votes.
By mhb 2026-02-0413:58 Don't all the candidates base their strategies on the existing electoral structure? Why would he have wasted resources optimizing for a metric that isn't relevant? You don't know what the outcome would have been if he did that.
By reverius42 2026-02-046:511 reply I think he actually did get more than half the votes this time.
"Staying home" is not actually a vote, as much as people want it to be in their heart of hearts.
edit: sorry, I was wrong, he did not quite clear 50% -- looked it up and he got 49.8%.
By lostlogin 2026-02-048:28 The measure that interests me os the percentage of eligible voters that picked Trump - 31.6%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...
Multiple polls have found that if everyone had voted, Trump would have won by even more. https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2...
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-elec...
The average person who doesn’t vote is a low-trust individual who is skeptical about government and institutions. Those people are Trumpier than average.
By mrguyorama 2026-02-0418:21 I would prefer that reality to our current one.
I thought I had a decent understanding of the 2024 election; people were unhappy with the status quo, therefore mistrusting the people and institutions they believed responsible for it. Then I saw this and its supporting data in your first link:
> Voters saw Harris as more ideologically extreme than Trump
... what?
By rayiner 2026-02-0418:33 According to Gallup, the record high support for increasing immigration was about 36%. Harris presided over an administration that saw a large increase in immigration. So believe didn’t find it credible when she said she wanted to control the border. And the position of wanting to increase immigration is more ideologically extreme than Trump’s position of wanting to shut down the border to illegal immigration just as a factual matter.
The latest Harvard-Harris poll, which isn’t good for Trump, still shows people want to deport all immigrants here illegally by a 52-48 margin: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/HHP... (page 24). I don’t think even Trump intends to actually do that. He would have to dramatically escalate what he’s doing now in order to achieve that outcome.
By monero-xmr 2026-02-043:032 reply I mean you can make up all the excuses you want for losing an election but you still lost. Doesn’t make the result illegitimate
"you" lost? Did this guy you're replying to run for office? This whole my team vs your team bullshit is really one of the big problems in our country. No independent thought. Just stick with what news says. Always vote my team. Dumb. Here's a news bulletin for you, everybody lost.
By monero-xmr 2026-02-045:202 reply Parent posted a list of excuses for why people didn’t vote. Doesn’t change an election
I think people not being able to vote because their right to vote has been taken from them, or their vote was made pointless through gerrymandering, or because of other acts of voter suppression does change elections. The ability for it to change the outcome of a race is why voter suppression happens.
People who don't bother to vote for any reason changes elections. It also makes it very hard to make claims about what the majority of Americans want, since so many didn't make their opinions known
By FeepingCreature 2026-02-047:22 You can't gerrymander a presidential election. How would that work? It's not district-based.
A majority of Americans either wanted Trump or didn't care enough to vote against him.
By wavefunction 2026-02-047:50 In my experience in Texas, the right-wingers have this system set up where votes that were legally cast can be denied validity by some sort of "citizens election integrity board." I had no issue voting in Travis County but when I moved to a more conservative suburban county address I ran into this. There's a multitude of ways for anti-democratic forces in the US to deny citizens their rights. And it really hardened my opinion of these sorts of people that would do that to me and others. If they say my rights aren't valid how valid are their own, certainly nothing I should respect given their treatment of myself and others. That's why I have no tolerance for the right-wing I've seen their real face.
It is not democracy anymore. It is authoritarian regime dismantling the democracy.
By direwolf20 2026-02-049:531 reply 67% of people didn't vote against it.
By JKCalhoun 2026-02-0413:48 A half-empty kind of guy!
By monero-xmr 2026-02-043:001 reply When democracy votes for something you don’t like just call it populism
By decremental 2026-02-043:41 [dead]
By somenameforme 2026-02-048:511 reply I do not think the current government in the US is fascist, but electing fascists would indeed be an exercise in democracy. The entire point of democracy is that it's the will of the people, whether right or wrong.
This is precisely why democracy was never seen as a tenable system for millennia. Thinkers of the past always assumed that the people would be incapable of picking the most skilled leaders, and would instead end up picking the most charismatic leaders. This is precisely what Plato's endlessly cited allegory of the Ship of State [1] is about.
By mrguyorama 2026-02-0418:321 reply Democracy is not "Whoever gets half + 1 vote is king"
Winning representatives are still supposed to represent the people who didn't vote for them in fact.
Democracy isn't about picking the "best" leader because that's not necessary. "The best" is almost never necessary, and you are much better off building a system that handles regularly not getting the best, because no system reliably picks the best, especially since "The best" is a criteria that cannot be rigorously defined.
By somenameforme 2026-02-055:15 You're imposing your own ideological conditions that literally do not exist. It's like a supporter of e.g. imperial systems saying that the emperor is supposed to represent all of society. In society's opinion? Sure, but there is no such condition in reality. Some did, some didn't.
The problem with democracy is that we don't get anywhere even remotely near the best. It tends to promote people that are highly charismatic and highly corrupt. The latter trait is not a coincidence, but a part of getting ahead in democracy. Give corporations what they want and your election coffers will be full, refuse and they'll instead fund your opponent and their media will frame you as unelectable, a threat to democracy, or whatever new FUD phrase focus tests best at the time. And that corruption tends to correlate strongly with a complete vacancy of morals or ethics - see: how our entire political class, globally, flocked to pedo island like flies to shit.
By delaminator 2026-02-048:34 Good job no-one has elected any fascists then
By rpcope1 2026-02-043:47 They sort of tried with the remote ID and FRIA shit, I really doubt anyone but the kind of person that buys DJI or maybe the most broken hall monitor types bother with remote ID on fixed wing even above 250g. I think the Trump admin banned (or tried) to ban all the important parts for all RC craft, so maybe they'll keep jousting with windmills even harder.
By catgirlinspace 2026-02-0418:18 Recently they banned all new DJI drones and as far as I know they were basically the only option in the consumer space? And there's nothing domestically of course :/
By watwut 2026-02-049:05 To be fair, ICE is not particularly caring about rule of law. And DOJ is currently not caring about rule of law or constitution either. They are kind of irrelevant.
I guess it was a predictable outreach from the Patriot act - the new justification is flying drones "over a mission" from the border people, and they claim a lot of territory for their missions, right?
By butvacuum 2026-02-042:15 they also don't publish the NOTAMs ahead of time. So, they're effectively allowing ICE to retroactively make flying a drone illegal if an agent takes issue with the color of your cheesburger bun.
More likely the videos of FPV drones from Ukraine showing that an inexpensive quadcopter can be a very effective weapon of war.
And that radio jamming no longer neutralizes that threat.
That could be used to justify banning drones in general, or banning all drones which aren't radio controlled (not that those are being used domestically). And "it can be used for war" is a bit silly in a country where you can buy guns at the grocery store. Not to mention that cars can be very effective weapons as well, and those haven't been banned yet.
The far more likely explanation is that they just don't want people filming them. They can't legally stop someone with a cellphone from filming them, but that hasn't stopped them from using up-to-lethal force against observers. On the other hand, you can't exactly beat a flying drone into submission, so the obvious move is to observe using drones instead.
Luckily for ICE the FAA already has the mechanics in place to criminalize flying drones in certain places, so with their magic "no drones anywhere we operate" NOTAM they can now punish observers with a year of jail time.
By nemomarx 2026-02-0414:31 I agree with your point but they definitely want to kill you for being in a car and driving near them if they get scared so IDK if we can use cars as an example of something they don't mind
By djmips 2026-02-048:19 It's my understanding that they are no longer the border people as Trump extended their reach to every square inch of the USA
By onetokeoverthe 2026-02-044:39 [dead]
By 2muchcoffeeman 2026-02-048:4111 reply Too bad everyone jumped shipped to Bambuu Labs. If only we still had open source hardware.
We do still have open source hardware but that's the last line of defense against actions like this, not the first. They'll target distribution which will affect open source and proprietary hardware equally. You need to kill this sort of legislation in its crib.
By Brian_K_White 2026-02-0415:363 reply You need both, because there really is no such thing as kill it in it's crib. The people that want this will continue to want it forever, and will continue to propose it forever. And eventually it works.
By no_wizard 2026-02-0416:49 The missing the third ingredient which is passing rollback resistant legislation in its place that protects these freedoms.
That makes efforts far more durable.
Than it’s a matter of showing up in court to defend attacks against the law(s) that protect it.
In this way, we can have durable change, but it’s a high cost road. By design I am sure.
How would this situation be any different if BBL printers were open source?
The law doesn't care about licensing, there are just 2 groups of printers - those that follow the law and implement effective blocking technology and those that don't.
If BBL sells an open source printer that allows someone to trivially bypass proposed mandatory blocking technology, they'll be fined and held liable for any crimes that result from guns printed using their 3D printers.
So BBL, as open source as they might want to be, is not allowed to sell such a product.
By cindyllm 2026-02-053:52 [dead]
By kiba 2026-02-0415:59 Nothing is forever. This whole thing rose in the first place because a novel technology was used to make weapons.
To give another example, the whole modern anti-vaxxer movement was started by a doctor to sell bogus tests.
By bradfa 2026-02-0410:20 Just print the code to do what ever is disallowed on a t-shirt, ala DVDCSS. Is that not a legitimate way around things like this?
Prusa is still kicking... if open source hardware is your priority.
Prusa had been moving towards proprietary licensing (if they release files at all) for a while now, due to their open source design files being used to undercut the original with cheaper clones.
By regularfry 2026-02-0418:41 I seriously doubt it's the undercutting that's the problem here. When they release a new model they can't keep up with demand anyway, they max out production capacity on legitimate orders.
I think, if anything, the problem is when people buy a cheap clone and blame Prusa when it fails.
By pocksuppet 2026-02-0414:10 This is why we can't have nice things
I’m new to 3d printing. I saw bambu pushed a firmware update that bricked offline mode, so didn’t really consider them when shopping around.
I’m really liking my (better specs for less money) elegoo centauri. I compiled the slicer from source because there weren’t Linux binaries.
All problems solved. It even happily prints exotic stuff like TPU, which I guess bambu has been cracking down on for unclear reasons.
Maybe I don’t know what I’m missing, but I’ve had zero issues downloading files (even from bambu-centric websites) and running them through the slicer.
I can’t imagine wanting to use their cloud whatever thing, or it providing any value beyond the open source stacks.
By kanwisher 2026-02-0510:35 Bambu is leagues better than other printers. Also its super convienant to queue up a job from your phone and then watch it live video feed.
By hamdingers 2026-02-0418:19 My Bambu printer is working great in LAN mode on a vlan with no internet access. Never even complains about it. I'm not concerned.
You can still make an open source printer with some extrusion and stepper motors, same as always.
By MegaDeKay 2026-02-0415:53 We still have open source hardware in Voron. High performance and almost infinitely moddable. Pair it with the open source Klipper firmware and open source slicer OrcaSlicer and you're there.
By sharperguy 2026-02-0414:16 This bill would effectively make prusa illegal, which is my main issue with it. I refuse to buy anything else if it is not open in the same way.
By bluescrn 2026-02-049:50 3D printer hardware is pretty simple. All the magic happens in software, and there's plenty of open-source options.
By qmr 2026-02-0410:59 Sovol open source hardware and software.
By alnwlsn 2026-02-0416:46 All the open source designs from 10 years ago still work, not like they went away.
I had the Kobra S1 with the ACE Pro and I couldn't get rid of the thing fast enough, probably the worst electronic device I have ever owned in my entire life. In 8 months with it I completed one multi-colour print, and that was only with ~30 filament changes - to be fair to Anycubic, their support has been excellent and they kept shipping me more and more parts to replace, none of which would solve the fundamental issue of the ACE being generally unfit for the job. In the end if was just a fancy £300 filament dryer, and I decided that you know what, even my Ender 5 was giving me fewer issues than this whole thing. I got an H2D with 2 AMSes and yes, they cost a fortune but they just work. I finished a 9 colour print with 800 filament changes the other day and it just worked fine, not a single problem.
I will always admit that maybe I was just unlucky with my S1 but both the printer and the ACE was horrendous experiences and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone based on my problems with them.
By ddtaylor 2026-02-0416:28 I have a friend that runs a small print farm and he had similar issues, but I didn't know if it was a one off. Thanks for sharing.
None I know did. If you do your research, all the hype around Bambu is paid. Influencers pushed it. Tech deep dives show it is sub standard. Posted on HN.
Prusa is king. High quality. Open source. EU made and engineered. Slicer is a market leader (Bambu's a fork of it).
Prusa may still be king if you're using printers commercially, running them hard 24/7 in a print farm, wanting to be sure your investment has a decent lifespan with readily-available spare parts and upgrade options.
But it's a premium brand now. For lighter use by hobbyists, Bambu is the clear winner on price/performance. The 'less open' downside is not a factor to most people, and the printers generally work so well out-of-the-box that repairability isn't as much of a concern as it was on printers of the past.
Personally I went from a Prusa MK3s to a Bambu P1P (after looking long+hard at Prusa options), and so far, no regrets. (Although I've kept the old Prusa as a 2nd printer and upgraded it to a MK3.5, but mostly just because I do enjoy a bit of tinkering with them)
If your goal is to buy the cheapest machine you can find in the world, chances are good everything you buy is going to come from China. That Prusa Mk3 you bought ages ago can be upgraded to the latest model, which means you have the option of turning that device into a lifetime machine, something ONLY Prusa offers.
Yes, the initial purchase price is higher, the lifetime price might not be.
By bluescrn 2026-02-0416:13 Last time I looked, the MK3->MK4 upgrade kit is basically the same price as a complete MK4 kit (very little can be reused. New electronics, motors, extruder)
The upgrade kits are definitely a good thing, going from MK3 to MK3S to MK3.5S was a worthwhile upgrade path and has prolonged the useful life of the printer. But they have their limits.
(And with 3D printing going more mainstream, there's a large segment of the market that has no interest in building printers from kits or stripping down printer to install upgrades - even though some of us find that quite enjoyable)
By crote 2026-02-0413:00 Prusa used to be king.
Their QC and customer support has gradually been getting worse. Their printers are rarely competitive feature-wise. Several printer lines are quietly being retired - with bugs remaining open for years and new features only occasionally being backported from other printers. The open-source part is mostly abandoned due to cheaper third-party clones abusing it.
Don't get me wrong, I really like my Prusa printer, but in 2025 I'd have a really hard time justifying buying another one. The "Prusa premium" just doesn't seem to be worth it anymore.
I'm a hobbyist and price, in the end, sold me on Bambu Labs.
(And I stayed once I saw the quality. Likely Prusa can match or exceed it, but not with what I was willing to lose from my wallet.)
Not criticizing your decision, but I went the opposite way, deciding that I was ok spending a certain extra amount initially in order to encourage a non-Chinese manufacturer. But I understand not everyone has this luxury.
I bought the Core One kit to understand better how the machine works, which reduced the price delta somewhat.
It remains to be seen over the long term which way is actually better financially, as Prusas have historically had long lives, while there is only limited data on the Bambu Lab side yet.
So far, I am quite happy with my decision. But competition is on. I am excited about the upcoming INDX system for the Core One: if it delivers on its promise, it will be fantastic!
By JKCalhoun 2026-02-053:07 In hindsight, I would have been happy to spend more if I knew the quality of what I was purchasing would be high.
My Ender that I had purchased years earlier sat in the closet gathering dust because of how much of a pain it was trying to dial in the bed to level, etc. I took a second chance at 3D printing on the Bambu, but might not have if it were costly.
If someone now tells me a Prusa (or whatever) is as good as and simple as the Bambu, I would not hesitate to spend even double.
This _cannot_ be true
I'm new to 3D printing, so grains of salt abound, but since I started in on the hobby this Christmas, I've purchased four 3D printers. 3 budget-but-highly-regarded kings to start, but they all gave me tons of trouble. The Elegoo Centauri Carbon I got for Christmas that sparked this mess is a budget knockoff of the Bambu X1C, but in the first 30 days of ownership, I experienced 2 hardware failures that (thanks to having to ship parts from Mainland China) have resulted in 16 days of downtime.
To deal with the downtime, I bought a stopgap Qidi Q2, but it had tons of problems -- problems which, according to the reviewers, have all been solved for. Ambiguous error messages. Poor English. Choices between "OK" and "Confirm", neither of which advanced the system. Mainboard errors. Extruder failures. Boot failures. Firmware upgrade failures. I experienced all of these within the first 3 hours of ownership, and filed for a return.
I was working on a project that needed a printer, and now despite having bought a bunch of printers, I didn't have any printers that could print. Looking around locally at what I could buy that day amounted to either a Bambu P2S or a Sovol SV08. I struggled here, because I would _much_ rather be the Sovol owner than the Bambu owner, but I needed a printer, not a project, and so I decided I'd try out the Bambu until I got done with what I needed it for, and then I'd return it.
But it turns out it was amazing. The others (admittedly, budget units) were loud and cantankerous, but the Bambu was only uncivilized for a few minutes of each print, and the rest of the time you barely noticed it running. The ecosystem is obviously great. Being able to monitor jobs or initiate prints from my phone is admittedly a novelty, but it's a nice one, and one that speaks to a consistency of integration. But the important part is that it just worked. There were printable upgrades available, I didn't need to print modular pieces to fix design flaws like the other units. I didn't need to move it further away to deal with the noise. I didn't need to investigate arcane error messages because none ever arose.
Now, I haven't owned a Prusa, so I'm not trying to compare them. I understand that Prusa hardware quality is amazing. I believe that. I'm also wildly interested in the community efforts to implement tool-changing with INDX and INBXX, and they're the kinds of projects that I want to tinker with. But if I'm to own a Prusa, or a Sovol, or a Voron, it'll have to be as my second printer (well technically third, because I still own the Elegoo because it's too cheap to bother trying to return) because most of the time I want to print things, not tinkering with the printer. But while the Prusa machines might be amazing, the Prusa XL is wildly expensive for 5 colors, and the Core One right now can't be bought with multi-color capabilities.
I'm not trying to argue against Prusa here, but the idea that only shills are into Bambu seems flatly wrong. I am ideologically opposed to how Bambu got to the market position they've reached, and for sure they've undoubtedly got a fair amount of shills in their employ but sadly, their products more than live up to the hype.
By whynotmaybe 2026-02-0412:546 reply You are a "new" type of user for the 3d printing world.
In the last decade, most 3d printer users were hobbyists and liked to know the internals of the machine they were using.
That's why there are so many useless models of random gadgets on thingiverse. People didn't care about the output, more about the process.
With the arrival of bambu and the last Creality, the market has shifted to a plug and print model where more and more buy the printer as a tool to produce and output and they don't care about the internals or gcode.
They must be able to control their printers from their phone.
The people that started in 3d printing when they had to assemble the whole machine by hand are now sad to see their hobby replaced by something too easy, it feels like cheating.
"How come you don't know how to level the bed and measure the offset with a piece of paper? "
Just like senior dev are sad to see vibe coding replace "true development craft".
By gambiting 2026-02-0415:09 >>You are a "new" type of user for the 3d printing world.
Why can't you be both. I loved my time with my Ender 5 Pro, I had it for 3 years and I will always freely admit that 90% of the fun was with the tinkering to make the machine work correctly. But you know, you get bored of it. I got an H2D just before christmas and it's incredible to have a machine that "just works". I can print things for myself and others and not worry whether it's going to work or not - it just will.
Same as I used to tinker with my cars when I was younger, now I want an appliance car - I want to get in, press start and drive across europe not worrying whether I'll have to fix it on the roadside or not. I would say it's just getting older, but I Don't think it is - I think everyone goes through stages of developing things they enjoy about their hobbies.
By kortex 2026-02-0414:59 > The people that started in 3d printing when they had to assemble the whole machine by hand are now sad to see their hobby replaced by something too easy, it feels like cheating.
I have a 10 year old kit-built prusa I3 sitting next to me. Its brother is in the basement next to a kossel. It's been years since they have seen action, there is a litany of small bits of work they need.
I unboxed an A1 Mini and it's been like an epiphany. I've been printing almost nonstop. It's so much FUN. I just send from my phone and it just works. Everything has been nearly flawless until last night where half a batch of mini utility knife frames started to spaghetti, probably my fault for not fully cleaning the build plate in a bit.
Beats the hell out of glue stick or blue tape, fussing with slicer params, babysitting the first layers, etc etc. Fuck that, gimme the cheat.
By kube-system 2026-02-0414:30 There are plenty of us “old” type of users who made and designed our own printers and parts and spent hours on calibration, who no longer want to unnecessarily waste time doing so.
I might be a software engineering but I’m not going to waste time writing a bootloader for my next PC when it is a solved problem.
By bmelton 2026-02-0413:27 Sorry for the old-heads, but just because I'm new doesn't mean I don't appreciate the craft, or the pains endured by many others before me that enabled this painless experience.
But if nobody was fixing the problems everybody was experiencing except Bambu, then frankly, good for Bambu.
Boo to the gate-keepers. Vorons still exist and likely always will for those that want to dork around with printers, but for the rest of us, printers that work empower the field. In the past 5 weeks, I've started to learn and understand how 3D printers work, I've started to do some simple 3D modeling, and I've begun making models with OpenSCAD, which wasn't a thing that I knew existed before. Those parts are currently on Github.
I've organized a billion things. I've modeled a corner for my weird desk's keyboard tray so that it stops cutting my knees when I swivel my chair too quickly. I've delighted my wife by printing some conveniences. I have (admittedly infinitesimally) advanced the availability of 3D models in a way that I simply would not yet have if I were still messing around procuring the Voron parts list. Quality tooling advances the craft as it makes it more accessible.
But the main thing is that it doesn't actually help anybody for 3D printing to be more difficult, nor does wanting Bambu to be bad make them not good. They are good, and they're leaps and bounds better than most of the products in the field.
By theodric 2026-02-0422:04 My first printer was a delta in 2015. I spent more time calibrating it than I did printing, and it was never very good. I then got an Anet A8 in 2017, but it was too flimsy. Cheap, tho!
Around 2021 I spent quite a lot upgrading and dialing in an Ender 3 V2 so it was repeatable, whisper-quiet, and dead reliable.
That's it. This doesn't end with me buying a Bambu. It's still all of those things. I'm very happy with my printing appliance, and also that its only data connection is via microSD sneakernet.
By 2muchcoffeeman 2026-02-052:43 I built my Prusa from a kit and was interested in the internals, but I was always annoyed I spent more time working on the printer sometimes than learning CAD.
And the Prusa is a real workhorse. I’ve only had a couple problems in almost a decade.
A lot of the hobby is people printing out useless things. But the it doesn’t even work for people who are interested in learning CAD. There’s no surprised everyone is turning to Bambu. So will I when my Prusa breaks or there’s a sale too hard to pass up.
By passwordoops 2026-02-0412:04 IP/BigCo lawyers are probably the main lobbyists behind this article in the bill so I would think soonish
By dmux 2026-02-0419:47 I wonder if you could circumvent this by adding a thin appendage to whatever it was you're printing and then just snip it off post-print.
By PunchyHamster 2026-02-0416:25 probably about 6 months after people start screaming about the issue
By hedora 2026-02-054:48 It’ll happen the day this bill is passed.
If they cared even a little bit about gun violence, they’d focus on mental health and other preventive measures.
If they just wanted to provide the illusion that they cared about gun violence, they’d go after high-volume manufacturers first.
This reminds me of Trump’s Venezuela coup. I’m offended they aren’t even bothering to properly lie about their motives.
By nerdsniper 2026-02-043:044 reply I’ll just build my own 3D printer lol. Did it college 15 years ago. I’ll do it again.
"And when you're done that, can you build another one and sell it to me?"
You see how it's impossible to regulate technology? I don't want my tax dollars funding impossible missions.
> And when you're done that, can you build another one and sell it to me?
Yep, that's exactly what the fed undercover will say.
And sure, they can't catch everyone, but they don't have to. They just need to catch and visibly prosecute enough people to create a chilling effect. It's about making it harder, not making it impossible.
Whether the cost/benefit here justifies those gains is a different question.
By estimator7292 2026-02-046:041 reply The RIAA tried that. It did not go well for them, and piracy has never been more prevalent or easy.
By Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2026-02-0411:341 reply Are you sure about that? All the normies use streaming services for music and movies. Techies around here tend to too. The normies don't know about and can't work torrents. They can't even work their own file system. The techies decry it as "inconvenient".
By buellerbueller 2026-02-0414:33 I just don't believe I have the right to consume the creative output of others for free if they've put a price on it.
By crote 2026-02-0414:01 The obvious next move is to ban all sales of 3D printer parts. You got a license for that extruded aluminum profile?
By b00ty4breakfast 2026-02-043:243 reply I would unironically love to see the diy 3d printer scene come back.
By SequoiaHope 2026-02-043:322 reply It never went away. The Voron continues to be a popular DIY 3D printer, tho many people choose to buy ready-made printers.
By nerdsniper 2026-02-044:031 reply DIY used to just be “the way”. Today “the way” is Bambu. But the scene has also grown a lot, so I could see the market size of DIY staying the same or growing, even if its lost a lot of market share.
By _flux 2026-02-049:37 It's just the difference between having 3d printers as a hobby vs 3d printing as a hobby.
By b00ty4breakfast 2026-02-0420:201 reply THis is a case of me not knowing and assuming, ha. I remember the peak days of the RepRap scene so I just assumed as that slowed down, the entire thing was dead
By SequoiaHope 2026-02-052:30 I was attending Bay Area Reprap Club meetings in 2010! Got my first printer (Ultimaker V1) in 2011. My how things have changed. We just got a second Bambu H2D Pro at work. Incredible machine.
By Mashimo 2026-02-048:03 Open Source and DIY 3d printer scene is very active.
By jazzyjackson 2026-02-048:07 I’ve unclogged enough nozzles in my lifetime thanks
By DeathArrow 2026-02-046:27 You can do that if it is still legal.
The only logical end of this is that they should ban 3d printers and cnc mills to unlicensed individuals. Which, is probably the goal. Things like 3d printers, drones, GPUs, general purpose computers, vpns, encryption, talking to people in private and the like are far too dangerous for the citizenry to be allowed to do without appropriate oversight and approval.
By Kerrick 2026-02-048:27 > To prohibit a great people, however, from making all that they can of every part of their own produce, or from employing their stock and industry in the way that they judge most advantageous to themselves, is a manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind.
The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith, 1776
you can buy every individual component and build it yourself, it's absurd (I did some years ago)
By qiine 2026-02-0413:05 maybe amazon/aliexpress is also too powerful for you own good then ;p
By __turbobrew__ 2026-02-0415:49 OI WHERE IS YOUR GPU LOISENCE!?!?
