Slashdot Mirror
Sen. Chuck Schumer Seeks To Extend Ban On 'Undetectable' 3D-Printed Guns
SonicSpike writes with this snippet from The Guardian: "As the technology to print 3D firearms advances, a federal law that banned the undetectable guns is about to expire. The New York senator Chuck Schumer says he is seeking an extension of the law before it expires on 9 December. Schumer said the technology of so-called 3D printing has advanced to the point where anyone with $1,000 and an internet connection can access the plastic parts that can be fitted into a gun. Those firearms cannot be detected by metal detectors or x-ray machines. Schumer says that means anyone can download a gun cheaply, then take the weapons anywhere, including high-security areas. The Democrat is pushing the extension along with Senators Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Bill Nelson of Florida. The effort was announced on Sunday."
From those who kill it in the name of defending it.
I understand the apprehension caused by firearms that can't currently be detected, but I don't quite understand what he's trying to accomplish in enacting a law that can't be enforced
If only there was some way to ensure that the guns contained a large, metal object that would show up on an x-ray. You could make such an object out of a dense metal like lead to ensure that it showed up.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Because of course it's been scientifically proven that having 0.25000000 times the current number of laws is the optimum.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Allow me to rephrase that for you:
1 - I don't understand law
2 - We shouldn't make stuff I don't understand
3 - Let's just get rid of stuff I don't understand
The majority of every long legal text is there to be explicitly precise about every detail of how it's supposed to work. As new loopholes are found in existing terms, new language is used in future texts to avoid them.
For example, a hundred years ago, it might have been fine to say "buy" in a contract to refer to someone getting something, but thanks to the last hundred years of legal cases, there are many ways to avoid that particular term. You could trade for goods other than money. You could arrange a sequence of gifts. The exchange could be interrupted by a sudden death. Part of the exchange could be specified in a will. Once the trade is made, the items bought could come with attached expectations or conditions, or it could be part of a package deal.
Consider law as a program for illogical machines. Just as any other programming language requires verbosity (or a significant amount of definitions) to achieve precision, so must law. Humans are just particularly good at exploiting bugs.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Funny, I can't think of a single time where someone pulled a gun on someone else, was stopped before shooting them, and then was let free because they broke no laws. I can't even think of a single time I heard a cop say "we wanted to take him down before he shot someone, but damn if he hadn't broken a law yet". Not even once.
Frankly I think the problem is people lack any interest in really understanding the causes of violence and instead just pick their favorite scapegoat out of paranoia and overactive imaginations.
Never mind that the only people who could be said to really be shooting at eachother with any regularity in the entire US are gang members, and occasionally, the police (or police and people's dogs maybe, but that conflict is kind of one sided).
But no clearly, guns are the problem and not the bad drug policy that funds the gangs, and had lead to the systematic disenfranchisement of entire swaths of communities. No lets focus on the symptom some more, guns are much easier to solve....in our imaginations.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The majority of every long legal text is there to be explicitly precise about every detail of how it's supposed to work. As new loopholes are found in existing terms, new language is used in future texts to avoid them.
See, that's why I figure that the best way to address the situation is to divide up a bill like this:
Paragraph 1: The mission statement. What is the essence of the bill, and what is it ultimately trying to accomplish in broadest terms?
Paragraph 2: The general rules. State what the bill says is or is not acceptable, as it would apply to the overwhelming majority of cases. Rules that do not directly reflect the mission statement are dismissed from the bill (no more riders or earmarks).
Paragraph 3: Funding and enforcement. Who is paying for it, and who is ensuring that the rule is enforced?
Paragraph 4: Duration. How long will this bill last before it needs to be renewed? 15 years, tops.
Pages 2-10: Exceptions and legal speak. These are the pages intended to close loopholes, answer for as many exotic cases as possible, and be the part that is referenced if a court case needs examining. All statements made here must explicitly clarify and apply to Paragraph 2, and are subject to Paragraphs 3 and 4.
This way, the bill is divided up into the parts that are legible by any reasonable person, and the parts that ensure that define the rules of the court cases involving more unique situations.
As we have seen through history the only real fascists have always been liberal
This is just partisan nonsense. If you actually, you know, read about fascism, you'll learn that it doesn't fit into the current left/right political divide.
People generally think of fascism as far-right because:
These are all defining qualities of facism that you see on the political right *today*
But facism is also leftist in that:
Furthermore, both the Dems and the GOP (in practice) have an overlapping facist trait: the belief in the states role in monitoring its citizens. This is a true 3rd rail in US politics, since as many Rs/Ds are for it as against it.
Fascism has traits not seen in either the Dems or the GOP, such as endorsing terror to gain political power, and the notion that the entire population should be permanently and emotionally engaged in the political process.
Stop reading just right-wing books, and broaden your horizon a little. Just because you read it doesnt mean you have to believe it. And just because something is written down doesn't make it true. Real scholarship starts when you seek out differing views, and try to understand them.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right