3D-printed guns are a thing. Once it became legal for the files to be shared within the United States, the days of gun control advocates having a hope in Hades of disarming the good guys in this country were over. When we had to buy guns or have a lot more skill than most people have to build our own, that was one thing. Now, we can just use a 3D printer--something that you can order off of Amazon and that has millions of non-gun purposes--and make your own.

Some states and countries have made it illegal to varying degrees, but a lot of people think that's wrong.

Myself included.

And it seems one so-called media outlet has decided to out a previously anonymous voice for favoring the right of people everywhere to keep and bear arms.

Authorities say they have identified John Elik, a 26-year-old gunmaker from Illinois, as a major figure behind the increase of 3D-printed guns, specifically the FGC-9 model, RadarOnline.com can reveal.

Known online as "Ivan the Troll," Elik is a prominent member of an online group called Deterrence Dispensed, which distributes free instructions on how to make these guns at home.

The FGC-9, which stands for "F*** Gun Control" and uses 9mm bullets, is now widely used by paramilitaries, extremists and criminal organizations around the world, The New York Times reported.

Elik is a licensed firearms manufacturer and the nephew of a state representative. According to The Times, he has become one of the key proponents of the 3D-printed gun movement, frequently appearing under aliases in online videos and podcasts.

The publication reported his involvement was confirmed through court documents, corporate records and his social media posts. Although Illinois restricts homemade gun components, Elik operates legally as a licensed manufacturer.

The FGC-9, made largely from plastic with some metal parts, is designed to be assembled using a standard 3D printer and basic metalworking skills.

So, what's the problem here?

If he's not making guns and selling them illegally, he's done nothing wrong. If he's sharing them in places where they're intended for lawful citizens to obtain and use in accordance with relevant laws, he's done nothing wrong.

All that we're seeing here is that Elik, if authorities are correct, seemingly just advocates for people to have guns as a means to resist tyranny, a position given later in this piece.

In the UK, even possessing the instruction manual for the FGC-9 is considered a terrorist offense, underscoring the perceived threat these weapons pose.

Colonel Hervé Pétry of the French national gendarmerie expressed concern over the rise of these guns, noting that their accessibility is not just about weaponry but also about spreading a dangerous ideology.

Deterrence Dispensed promotes a radical vision of universal armament as a means to resist perceived tyranny, with slogans that call for people everywhere to arm themselves.

Yes, resisting tyranny is terrible...if you're a tyrant.

The UK wetting themselves over these guns isn't exactly a red flag. They've literally wet themselves over people's kitchen knives.

The outlet, RadarOline, doesn't seem to suggest that Elik has actually done anything illegal. He makes guns in accordance with the law in his home state. He expresses his opinions on the right to keep and bear arms. He fails to confine his belief to just the United States, arguing that people throughout the world should be armed as a measure of preventing tyranny from rising or toppling it where it already exists.

I don't actually see why this private individual is being "exposed" here...unless you want to celebrate his good work or something.

The problem is that for many in the media, those opinions alone are the problem and that is his crime, apparently.

It should be noted that the outlet in question tends toward celebrity news and juicy True Crime stuff, but again, they lack any approaching charges for this private individual who seemingly expresses nothing but his personal opinions. That's not illegal and since he's not a celebrity or anything--though apparently his uncle is a state representative, so that changes everything--why are they even caring about this?

I'm honestly at a loss.

But unless he was actually making guns and physically selling them to criminals, there isn't anything he's done that could be considered wrong, at least based on what we're seeing here. People don't lose their rights because of their opinions. I know some like to think otherwise in this day and age, but they don't.

Since there is no mention of him having done this, what we have here is an attempt to add to the stigmatization of gun ownership by painting someone who advocates for it as some kind of horrific evil.

I fail to see the problem with a single thing he did.