# 3D Printing > 3D Printing News, Interviews & Editorials Supplied by 3DPrint.com >  3D Printing and Gun Control

## Brian_Krassenstein

Home build firearm enthusiast and YouTuber derwoodvw has created a sophisticated hybrid gun mixing metal gun parts and several 3D printed components. The Shuty is a fully functional 9mm pistol that is considerably more durable than most 3D printed gun options. While the Shuty is just a work in progress, it still is a huge leap forward for 3D printed guns and should start a serious discussion on the future of 3D printing and firearms. Read more about the Shuty over on 3DPrint.com: http://3dprint.com/89919/shuty-hybri...rinted-pistol/


Below is a photo of the Shuty 9mm pistol:

----------


## ArdRhi

> But firearms enthusiasts and gun owners are also going to have to face up to some hard realities. They can quote the second amendment all that they want, while trying to pretend that the words “well regulated” aren’t in it, but it simply does not mean all or nothing no matter how much you want it to. The Supreme Court has already ruled that regulation doesn’t violate the Constitution, and because of the fragmented nature of our country, each state sets its own gun laws that are often wildly out of sync with each other. Rather than fighting the inevitability of gun regulation, the smarter move is to implement sane, logical and effective legislation that preserves gun owners’ rights but puts a system in place to help prevent those who would misuse them from getting their hands on them.


 -- From your editorial.

Um...no.

The "well regulated", when taken in the actual vernacular of 1791, did not mean "hemmed about with government-issued rules and controls", as most seem to think, including you. It meant, quite simply, "properly trained". Regulation did not in this context mean to have rules put upon it from the OUTSIDE, but to have good and proper technique imposed from the INSIDE. The militia members "regulate" themselves by being good at what they do, and the purpose of the statement in the context of the Second Amendment was to specifically and unequivocally REMOVE the Federal Government's ability to provide that regulation, but instead to place it firmly under the auspices of the Militia -- the People.  Giving the power of determining what "properly functioning" or "well calibrated" means to those who are not performing those tasks, and may in fact have a widely disparate agenda, is not only counterproductive, it can be disastrous. The fox would determine that the proper function of the door to the henhouse was to let him walk through it whenever he wished, while the hens would hold a distinctly different definition of that door's proper function.

The term "well regulated" pertains to the skill with which the members of the militia perform their duties. It is not possible for the government to CREATE such expertise by the imposition of a rule. They may be able to REQUIRE the militia members to seek such skill, but they cannot cause it to come into being simply and solely by making a performative utterance. The militia members must look to, practice, and strive to achieve that expertise ON THEIR OWN. Because of this necessity, the Second Amendment demands that the government not infringe upon their rights to keep and bear arms, because without that right, they cannot achieve the well-regulated status that is required to safeguard the free state.

To support my statement (take note that one is from Constitution.org):

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/20...ly-did-it-mean
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

----------


## Derwood

The shuty v2 has had over 800 rounds fired and has had no damage. Currently working on the Shuty V4.

Shuty v2 files. https://www.sendspace.com/file/7vx5t8

----------

