A 3-D printed lower receiver on the print bed of a Makerbot Replicator. (Photo: Josh Valcarcel/WIRED)
The idea of making guns has reached the attention of trendy urbanites.  Apparently overpriced coffee and being assimilated by electronic devices wasnât enough.  Everything old is new and cool again, so it seems.  Iâm referring to a recent article in Wired.com titled, âI Made an Untraceable AR-15 âGhost Gunâ in My OfficeâAnd It Was Easy.â In this, the author, Andy Greenberg, described on his author page as a âsenior writer for WIRED, covering security, privacy, information freedom, and hacker culture,â assembles an AR-15 from parts he declares to be untraceable, including an 80% aluminum lower.  He used a Defense Distributed milling machine to fashion a working part.  He labels this a âghost gun,â a firearm with no serial number, no record of manufacture, and no registration of ownership.
Heâs not the first hipster to discover our world.  Joel Stein, author of Man Made: A Stupid Quest for Masculinity, and Kurt Andersen, host of the radio program Studio360, visited a gun range in New York City (New York City!) to experience what they regarded as a stereotypical male activity. Andersen actually refers to the loading of a Ruger 10/22âs magazine as âold school, analog, and artisanal.â
Oy vey schmeer.
With that out of the way, letâs consider whatâs going on here. Â Artisanal? Â Well, um, actually, yes. Â Firearms have been in the West since at least the Hundred Years War in the early 1400s, and those of us who enjoy black powder muzzle-loaders spend time with technology that has been around for centuries. Â Even semiautomatic and full-auto guns have been with us a long time. Â Many of us also reload ammunition, and we have a lot in common with people who make their own cheese or who build furniture with traditional (unplugged and unwired) tools. Â And as I discussed in my article on the big tent of gun rights, we should welcome in anyone who will stand with us in the defense of rights, even those who sip lattes while doing it.
And the statement that loading a magazine is âanalogâ is in fact spot on. Â There are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of âsmart guns,â but chief on my mind, when I consider arming myself with such a device, is battery life and electronic contrariness. Â I can use computers and iPhones and Internet-connected coffee makers when I must, but a hand-wound mechanical watch and an all-steel M1911 appeal to my soul. Â (Yes, I carry Combat Tupperware. Â Compromises, compromises.) Â Thereâs a pleasure to be had in something that I can look inside and know how it works. Â Iâve never had that sense about my computer. Â Guns donât ask me if Iâm sure I want to fire the round. Â (Most of the time, that is.) Â And unlike a flashlight or cell phone, I donât have to wonder if the battery is charged up even in my most modern of guns.
I do have to take issue though with Greenbergâs claim that the AR-15 he made is untraceable. Â If he bought any of the parts on-line or if he used a credit card in the purchase, someone somewhere, probably in the depths of the alphabet soup departments in Washington, D.C. can trace what he was doing. Â He could have taken steps to reduce the paper trail, but if he bought parts that clearly are made to go into what the anti-gun crowd calls an âassault weapon,â that fact is available to anyone who wants the information enough.
Of course, the manufacture of true âghost gunsâ is nothing new. Time and again, pictures of homemade guns show up on news sites, along with gasps of horror.  But as surprising as it may seem to advocates of gun control, making your own is legal. If you attempt to sell what you make, youâll need a license, and presumably if you make a lot, the ATF will wonder if you intend to distribute guns at some point, but in terms of federal law, what Greenberg did was not a crimeâcheck your local laws, state, county, and city if you get any ideas here.
The fact that Greenberg is identified as someone who reports on privacy and hacker culture is important. Â If youâve been paying attention, you know all the threats to our privacy that we face today. Â But itâs the hacker connection that stands out for me. Â Hackers have a mixed reputation, but fundamentally, the drive is to get inside a machine, take it apart and put it back together, understand how it works and how it might be improved or shifted to some new purpose. Â The hacker is the opposite of centralized control. Â And this fact must be alarming to people who yearn to regulate gun rights.
Imagine a world in which everyone can make quality firearms in their own homes without seeking permission first and without anyone knowing about the process taking place. Â This doesnât require too much imagination, since that world is very nearly our own. Â Itâs already the case for anyone with the skills who has access to a machine shop. Â Will there be dangers in this new reality? Â Indeed, there will, but the essential truth is that it canât be stopped. Â At least I hope it canât. Â Life itself is dangerous, but if history has taught us anything, itâs the lesson that distributed power makes the best societies. Â When individuals can speak their minds, run their own businesses, shape the courses of their own lives, and yes, own and carry weapons, their governments have to listen to them, instead of imposing commands from on high.
So sip your latte, pour on some more coal in your iPod, and come on in to the culture of guns.
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the authorâs and do not necessarily reflect the position of Guns.com.
 Cover: Josh Valcarcel/WIRED