Cool now let's exempt hobbyists from the 3-D printer must certify you are not printing gun parts pending legislation.

A quick search suggests that 3D-printed guns being used in crime is an actual, for-real, and growing problem.

I take it that you wouldn't be OK with somebody building a uranium enrichment facility in their backyard for their hobby reactor. So there is a line to be drawn on where people's freedom to tinker ends; it's just a question of where you draw it.

Personally, I think given there is an actual documented, non-isolated problem with 3D printed guns being used for violent crime, there's a debate to be had that's more sophisticated than "REGULATION BAD".

My position on anything is "REGULATION BAD" when it's against individuals and non commercial/open source projects, "REGULATION GOOD" for massive corporations, and "REGULATION MAYBE GOOD NEEDS NUANCED DEBATE" for anything in between.

Individuals can do a lot of bad stuff too? "Mark Zuckerberg" is still an individual.

What do you mean by regulation? Laws that could lead to a fine or jail time, or the enforcement of laws through ie. the police?

Non-commercial projects and individuals can do bad stuff too.

I agree the bar is a lot higher for those projects than massive corporations, but I think it's a pretty arguable case that "people are using 3D printers to make guns with features that would otherwise be illegal, and they are being used in crimes in some number" clears that bar.

The problem may exist, but I don't believe that intrusive "gun part deyection" solves it.