[InfiniteRand]

There is a potential here for there to be a change similar to the 18th century. Suddenly, non-governmental forces or fledgling governments can quickly equip a lightly armed force. For the last 1-2 centuries you needed a manufacturing infrastructure under your control, but a 3-D printer device like this (if I am understanding the article correctly, and perhaps I am not).

In the 18th century, relatively low-cost and reliable rifles became available, and this fundamentally changed the balance between established governments and small armed groups. This changed contributed to the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the downfall of the Mughal Empire (where small regional rebellions suddenly became more viable and central control began to break down).

This period eventually ended in the 19th century, when is debatable, but once you had a gatling gun, a professional heavily armed force could mow down lightly armed forces without large casualties.

Chances are this development will be the final word (and certainly it has not had a huge impact yet, so maybe my speculation is premature), eventually there will become some expensive but exceptionally effective weapon only large governments can afford or supply, but 3-D printers making guns could have serious effects on the course of politics and warfare within the next few decades.

As the old curse goes, may you live in interesting times...

[chadgeidel]

(opinion of a non-gun owner)

It is my understanding that the important part of arming a group of people is quality/reliability of the weapons. I was watching an interesting History channel episode of some series (back when they were good) about the horrible gun that was the Chauchat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauchat Basically these guns didn't have interchangeable parts and would often jam. The narrator said that the Americans who received this gun would basically throw it away once they encountered an enemy gun.

[PhantomGremlin]

I don't know where you live, but in the USA the weapons aren't an issue. This country has literally tens of millions of high quality small arms already available to the people.

Instead, the real key can be found in the words "well regulated" in the US 2nd Amendment.[1]

   "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing
   more than the imposition of proper discipline and
   training."

A hundred true "soldiers", well trained in small unit tactics, can easily outfight twenty times as many idealist hipsters. It doesn't matter if the hipsters have the most expensive commercial rifles or if they're using crude AK knockoffs.

The professionals will win even if they aren't "heavily armed". Because they are trained and they're not simply a disorganized mob.

In the USA, most of these professionals can be found in "a well regulated militia", which nowadays we tend to call by a slightly different name, the National Guard. [2] Every state has one, they're full of veterans of the Gulf Wars and of Afghanistan, and they're not simply "weekend warriors".

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_%28United_States...

[na85]

>eventually there will become some expensive but exceptionally effective weapon only large governments can afford or supply

This already exists. Ubiquitous air presence via unmanned drones armed with air-to-ground rockets, missiles, or guided bombs.

Sometimes I feel like libertarians and NRA types seriously believe that they (a bunch of angry right-wing hunters or whatever) could actually throw off what they feel are the chains of oppression emanating from Washington, if only they could be sufficiently organized and motivated to rise up together.

Any serious armed rebellion in the United States would be deftly crushed. I'm not convinced that a peaceful/political rebellion would not be crushed also.

The System exists to perpetuate itself.

[rgrieselhuber]

> This already exists. Ubiquitous air presence via unmanned drones armed with air-to-ground rockets, missiles, or guided bombs.

Your other comments aside, this actually isn't too far outside the realm of possibility for sufficiently motivated and skilled independent manufacturers. What militaries really have a monopoly on is superior supply chains and logistics. The advanced weaponry is icing on the cake.

[hga]

You're assuming we'd play by some set of rules that would allow these drones to make enough of a difference.

[na85]

You're kidding, right?

[hga]

Not in the least. E.g. there are those who are making concrete plans to kill large, Blue cities wholesale http://www.bob-owens.com/2014/02/i-swear-you-write-one-littl...

For the Drone Menace, well, the people who make, maintain, supply, operate and fly them have to sleep somewhere, sometime. The US has never fought a war where it didn't have a safe and secure far rear area, modulo the Civil War at times, and for the South at the end. No drone can detect someone carrying a concealed firearm, or a small anti-personal IED.

For more, check out this book written after the brutal suppression of the 1956 Hungarian revolution by a Swiss officer at the behest of the nation's Non-commissioned Officer's Association : http://www.amazon.com/Total-Resistance-H-Von-Dach/dp/0873640...

If our betters try this sort of stunt, they'll experience Total Resistance, alright.