People also need to get the idea that just cause X was a good law 100 years ago, doesn't mean it doesnt need an update to account for changes in technology, society, etc.
For example: long ago guns were created individually by a craftsman, a gunsmith. It took a while, so output was low. And they held only one shot, that took awhile to reload. There were few rules involved at any stage, on both the manufacturing side and ownership side. There didn't need to be.
But progress marched on. Manufacturing became more efficient. Output increased, particularly with assembly lines. The guns themselves gained multiple shots. The amount of firepower available, and hte number of guns, increased over time dramatically. To the classic bank robbers and their Thompsons. At that point rules began to be adopted, and rightly so: large scale manufacturing needed serial numbers and sales records, while ownership of certain classes (such as the Thompson) was restricted or controlled.
Times changed, and so did the laws.
That's how it SHOULD be.
Hell, we talk about it enough on this site when it comes to copyrights and the expansion of the digital medium, or the anti-hacking laws from the 70s and 80s, and how outdated laws are being misapplied and need updated.
So now we're at the next step in gun tech progress: 3D printing. If it's small scale production, I see it no different from the gunsmith or DIY making for personal use. Larger scale production, I could see the rules that apply to large manufactures coming into play; not much different. There are potential concerns at "undetectable guns" (ie, no metal)....that's largely a thing from bad tv at the moment, but never underestimate materials science. But such a thing could logically call for once again updating law to account for it, as previous security practices taken for granted (metal detectors, etc) would no longer be relevant.
But again that's how it should be: laws regularly updated for the current needs of society, rather than assuming a bunch of farmers and lawyers from 200 years ago running a country of 2.5 million* largely uneducated folks got it 100% right the first time, and knew all there was know about running a country of 350 million folks who even in the worst conditions live like a king compared to those farmers. After all...aint that why they gave us the mechanisms to update the law, up to and including the founding document itself?
(*Just think about that: there 21 major cities (metros) in this country with more people in them now than were in the entire US when the Constitution was written.)
