Defense Distributed Sues State Department Over 3-D Gun Censorship

SonicSpike writes with word that Cody Wilson, whose projects to create (and disseminate the plans for) printable guns have fascinated some and horrified others, is not going to quietly comply with the U.S. State Deparment's demand that he remove such plans from the internet. Wilson, says Wired, is picking a fight that could pit proponents of gun control and defenders of free speech against each other in an age when the line between a lethal weapon and a collection of bits is blurrier than ever before. Wilson's gun manufacturing advocacy group Defense Distributed, along with the gun rights group the Second Amendment Foundation, on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the State Department and several of its officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry. In their complaint, they claim that a State Department agency called the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) violated their first amendment right to free speech by telling Defense Distributed that it couldn't publish a 3-D printable file for its one-shot plastic pistol known as the Liberator, along with a collection of other printable gun parts, on its website.

Comments

Bureaucrats

[rfengr]

Still amazes me that bureaucrats think things can be "removed from the internet". Good for DD.

Re:Bureaucrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, but fuck DD.

Re:Bureaucrats

[morgauxo]

Yes, may their significant others do so and if they have none then may the mate of their dreams take the job.

Re:Bureaucrats

[DaHat]

It still amazes me that Americans think guns are OK.

Yeah, damn that evil second amendment that no one can seem to do away with

Bottom line is, More guns = more dead Americans

Oh what a simplistic view of the world you have, if it was just about guns... why then does a hard to get gun place like Detroit or Chicago have such high shooting and murder rates... while a easy to get a gun place like Plano, TX has such a low murder rate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

WHEN the US starts thinking their people and their children lives have value, then perhaps they will finally take the steps to protect them by removing guns

Yes, we don't think lives have value... which is precisely why we do not use guns to protect people, nor have certain people (lets call them police, military and body guards) carrying guns to protect others.

Re:Bureaucrats

[sycodon]

Gun deaths - Down
Gun violence - Down
Violent crime - Down

Gun ownership UP.

Get the picture?

Re:Bureaucrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing intentional homicides to firearm ownership by nation seems to show that America has deeper societal issues leading to violence that has very little to do with whether or not we have firearms. I can only conclude that until we fix the other causes of violence, removing guns not only doesn't fix the problem it will make law abiding people more susceptible, particularly those people who are in socially protected classes.

Re:Bureaucrats

[PRMan]

Mental health treatment is beyond atrocious in the US. Most gun homicides involve people that are largely in a state of non-treatment of various mental illnesses.

Re:Bureaucrats

[lgw]

WHEN the US starts thinking their people and their children lives have value, then perhaps they will finally take the steps to protect them by removing guns

Every mass shooting in my lifetime, except one, happened in a gun-free zone (the exception was a political shooting). Making guns illegal, by the evidence, just makes the shooter feel safe that there won't be any return fire.

Re:Bureaucrats

[Anonymous Coward]

"First they came for the Russians' memes, and I did not speak out--

because I was not a Russian.

Then they came for the 3-D printable guns, and I did not speak out--

because I did not own a 3-D printer.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

-Abraham Lincoln

Re:Bureaucrats

[DaHat]

Nice straw men

On the contrary, I was responding to what was said... and unlike you providing additional information and the suggestion that maybe things weren't as clear cut as was being said.

Try comparing murder rates between Europe where guns are hard to get and the U.S. where guns are easy to get. Comparing U.S. cities is just silly.

First... why is it silly? Why is it silly to recognize that gun violence is not uniformly distributed across the country and instead often seen in largest #'s in certain locations? If we follow your logic to other areas, it would seem that you'd claim that economies of all of Europe be balanced out on paper to judge their collective status without noting the relative differences between say... Germany and Greece?

It's plenty easy to say X==Y or even X=>Y, and often such assertions will be accepted. Often though it's good to examine the underlying environment to see if X=>Y, or if X+(A+B+C)=>Y while X-(A+B+C) !=> Y.

We let well-trained (in most cases) police and body guards carry weapons, unless you live in Texas where just about any yokel can arm up.

'We'? Who is 'we'? Where is 'we'? Here in the US, it's relatively straight forward to get a gun in most of the states, though some states (New Jersey being the biggest) and municipalities (Chicago, DC, etc) have additional restrictions on simply purchasing/owning something.

It's funny you mention carrying... while 3 states allow largely unrestricted concealed carrying of a pistol (ie no permit required), another 39 are 'shall issue' states, which means so long as you meet the requirements and are not otherwise prohibited, you get your permit. I know hating on Texas (a state I have never been to/in) is a favorite pastime on /., it's kind of funny you mentioning them as that while a shall issue state, they are one of only six that prohibits open carrying if a pistol.

Now that should make you feel real safe, eh?

Nope, I'm still waiting to hear about 'we'.

Now, let's make sure only the non-crazy people get those permits to carry a gun. How do you tell which are the crazy ones? You just have to ask them.

Now we see you straying into straw man territory, where in my original post did I discuss carrying a gun? *hint* I didn't, I only brought it up now in reply to you.

To my point above, in most states a permit is not required to carry a gun... provided it is visible. And what magic does a permit bestow on a person when carrying concealed? More often than not, you as a private individual cannot tell the difference between a person carrying and not... let alone if the person carrying has a permit to carry or not. This was part of why stop and frisk was so useful, the police were better at spotting such people and removing illegally carried guns from the streets of New York City.

More so, what on earth does 'asking them' have to do with telling 'which are the crazy ones'? I've known a few disturbed people who are pretty good actors and would not show up on your radar if you asked... but that is why we have other mechanisms to check ones background... if they opt to carry concealed legally.

Re:Bureaucrats

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the only difference between the US and Europe? I weep for the world if the other civilized nations treat their mentally ill and poverty stricken the way that we do.

Re:Bureaucrats

[peted56]

Only 30,000 US citizens die from gun deaths each year, seems a perfectly acceptable number.

Re:Bureaucrats

[DaHat]

Most gun homicides involve people that are largely in a state of non-treatment of various mental illnesses.

Citation please.

Are you claiming that suicide == homicide?

I ask because something on the order of ~70% of gun deaths in this country are suicides... a good number of which I would expect have some untreated mental issues... I've not seen a stat that claims that of those committing a homicide via a firearm, that at least 51% of them have untreated mental issues which played some part in it.

Or are you claiming that the victim may also have untreated mental issues?

Re:Bureaucrats

[DaHat]

Maybe you should have considered the possibility that guns are purchased legally in Plano, TX and sold illegally in Detroit or Chicago.

I'm fully aware, not just of that possibility but that reality, black markets often crop up to meet demand... but then how does that change things?

Is it more or less favorable to have more legally purchased guns?

Is it more or less favorable to have more illegally purchased guns?

We could get into a 'criminals prefer unarmed victims' and 'criminals don't follow laws anyway' style argument, however I'll just point go back to my point that if it were as simple as 'more guns == more deaths' as the OP seemed to be implying, then the fact that hard to get a legal gun cities having such high murder rates seems to contradict that and that there are likely other more contributive factors.

Re:Bureaucrats

[DaHat]

I know people like to point to the lack of mass shootings following the gun law changes since the Port Arthur massacre, but rarely do they look at how many there were prior to it.

You should try it sometime, you might discover less of a trend of mass violence only ending afterwards and more of an anomaly.

Re:Bureaucrats

[sycodon]

I suggest you read material by John Lott.

Then you won't be talking out of your ass when you come here.

Re:Bureaucrats

[DaHat]

You fail to mention that ~70% are due to suicide.

Let's imagine that back on New Years day all guns magically disappeared from the United States and no new ones could be constructed or imported, of the 21,000 people who would have statistically killed themselves with a gun... how many of those would find other successful ways vs would never attempt (or be successful at) killing themselves?

Now, how many lives do you think would be lost because they were not able to defend themselves against a home invader, carjacker or mugger on the street still armed with knives, clubs & broken bottles?

It's not as simple of math as you think, no matter how unfortunate.

Re:Bureaucrats

[Crashmarik]

You are arguing religion with people that don't even understand they are religious.

Not trying to dissuade you just observing

Re: Bureaucrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Barely mentioned in the press fact, almost all mass shootings in modern history where the killer fires at victims unknown involve people who are on or were recently on prescribed mind altering medications. Can't offend the pharmaceutical business after all...

Re:Bureaucrats

[DaHat]

Oh I know. It's a slow day at work so I decided to play the part of a cat... while these people are playing the part of a ball of yarn.

Though it does help that it's a subject I'm well familiar with so it's not just a matter of me having fun with them.

Re:Bureaucrats

[pla]

Are you claiming that suicide == homicide?

Hoplophobes like to include suicide stats in that number because it makes their argument look somewhat better - As though someone deciding to end their own life via a fairly effective method somehow magically also endangers random children and strangers in a 10-mile radius around them.

Some even go further and claim that guns make you more likely to try to kill yourself (as opposed to merely more likely to succeed, two radically different concepts that they don't quite "get") - Because my sweet, sweet lord Satan tempts me with lullabies from the barrel, no doubt.

The whole argument, however, counts as inherently unwinnable by either side. Oh, no, wait - The pro-2nd-amendment side wins by default. Go team! XD

Re:Bureaucrats

[DaHat]

That would be nice, though they are more likely to cite (not read) one of the articles which criticizes his work... and still not understand the qualitative differences between the two.

Re:Bureaucrats

[dywolf]

Red herring.

The answer is very few, on the order of ~5-10%, because most non-gun suicide attempts are not successful.
In fact most suicide attempts in general are not successful.
But the majority of successful suicides are carried out with a gun.

The difference is that other methods aren't as final and decisive as a gun, and still have a chance of being treated with medical attention, whether because of regret on the part of the person attempting suicide, or someone else calling for help.

Firearm suicides on the other hand aren't as forgiving.

Re:Bureaucrats

[dywolf]

Blatant bullshit myth.

62 mass shootings over the past 30+ years, and not one location was chosen because it banned guns.

These shooters aren't choosing locations based on whether guns are or aren't allowed.
Most are choosing locations because it's where they got pissed off, such as 20 workplace shootings.
Even at the schools where shootings occurred, only in 1 of the 12 school incidents did the shoot not have personal ties to the school.

Also let's consider that most of these shootings weren't just rampages, but Murder-Suicides.
These shooters were not people picking locations based on their chance of survival or retaliation.

Some reading so that you might become better informed: http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

Re:Bureaucrats

[Em Adespoton]

Now, how many lives do you think would be lost because they were not able to defend themselves against a home invader, carjacker or mugger on the street still armed with knives, clubs & broken bottles?

It's not as simple of math as you think, no matter how unfortunate.

Not simple indeed -- if violent offenders didn't have guns, the fallback items would be knives, clubs, broken bottles and syringes. All of these are in-close items, which means carjackings would likely go way down, muggings would be against people perceptibly weaker, and broken bottle fights would still end up in ER.

I'd definitely wonder whether things such as slings, shruiken and crossbows would make a comeback, however (on both sides of the equation).

Re:Bureaucrats

[epyT-R]

Surely the behavior of the US federal government suggests why americans like guns. A runaway state is noone's ally.

Re:Bureaucrats

[epyT-R]

Maybe you should also consider why schools are being targeted at all. Perhaps that says more about the school system than it does about gun ownership.

Re:Bureaucrats

[DaHat]

What you say is very related.

While Chicago is well known for having a couple dozen shooting per weekend, they too are not evenly distributed through the city. Instead there are certain places where your chances of getting shot are much much higher than others.

Re:Bureaucrats

[harrkev]

You should not determine public policy by "mass violence." True mass shootings are relatively rare -- they just seem common because of the publicity. It is much better to compare the number of mass shooting victims to the number of people who are struck by lightning. There is a thing called "unintended consequences." Maybe you have heard of it.

Now, if you actually DID remove all guns, that means that they have also been removed for the hands of honest citizens, and prevented them from preventing crimes! Guns are used around 800,000 times to per year to deter crime (from Wikipedia on defensive gun use).

Did you know that for every gun used to murder somebody, there are over 30,000 guns that were NOT used in crime? The rates look far worse if you compare the number of penises compared to the number of forcible rapes, and yet you do not claim that we need to reduce the number of male members in society. Why not?

Re:Bureaucrats

[harrkev]

Well, Australia and England now cracks down on knife ownership, since they got rid of the gun bogeyman, but violence still happens (actually, violence in Australia has gone UP while it has gone DOWN over here). Do a google image search for "Stop Knife Violence."

Once knives are banned, then it will be "stop club violence" and you will need a license to buy a 2x4.

The problem isn't the weapon, it is human nature, including economics, mental health care, the culture, and the family structure.

Re:Bureaucrats

[DaHat]

Blatant bullshit myth.

I look forward to seeing that evidence.

62 mass shootings over the past 30+ years, and not one location was chosen because it banned guns.

Wait... so every mass shooter over that time was interviewed after the fact and affirmatively said "Yeah, I didn't pick the school/mall/theater/etc because it was a gun free zone"? No? Then I call bullshit on your unsubstantiated claim.

These shooters aren't choosing locations based on whether guns are or aren't allowed.

We are still waiting for evidence of that from you.

Most are choosing locations because it's where they got pissed off, such as 20 workplace shootings.

'Most'... not... 'all'? Again, you fail with useful citations.

Remember the Aurora shooting? Funny thing, the shooter didn't decide to go shooting up his nearest theater, nor the second nearest nor even the third... he chose one which apparently 100% unrelated to you... prohibited guns. But that's just a coincidence... right?

Even at the schools where shootings occurred, only in 1 of the 12 school incidents did the shoot not have personal ties to the school.

So you again grasp for straws to try to argue against reality, I feel sorry for you.

Also let's consider that most of these shootings weren't just rampages, but Murder-Suicides.
These shooters were not people picking locations based on their chance of survival or retaliation.

You claim that... but again, reality doesn't well work for you.

It's quite rare that the shooter realizes they have one bullet left or killed everyone they wanted and decide to off themselves just for the heck of it... more often than not they only off themselves with faced with resistance, be it the swat team, a cop or an armed citizen.

The upshot of a gun freezone which you are conveniently ignoring for them is that they will likely have a longer period of time to carry out their rampage prior to the suicide part and fail to acknowledge that that may just come into the plans of the perpetrator.

Some reading so that you might become better informed:

Those of us who have looked into this issue do not give much credence to a political piece from a partisan site, instead academic studies on the subject are far more revealing, you really should read up on the work of John Lott... or offer a similarly well researched pieces.

Re:Bureaucrats

[harrkev]

Nice quote from the article:

Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.

And yet how many mass shooting were prevented because the person REALIZED that people there did carry weapons. Whoops, the article never mentions this. We only know about the ones that happened, not the ones that never made it past the planning state. Maybe the person goes through with the thought of a mass killing because there is nothing (like an armed response) to stop them. But why let logic get in the way of an article that reinforces your prejudices?

And the "murder-suicide" thing doesn't hold water either. The purpose of a person in this kind of mind set is to do as much damage as possible before they die. If you are going to plan to go out in a blaze of glory and want your own posthumous Wikipedia page, you probably want to kill a dozen before you die, not get shot by an honest citizen as you were getting out of your car. There are many instances of mass shootings being stopped by honest people.

And, don't point to that stupid Mother Jones article about "nobody has stopped a mass shooting." That is full of so many logical holes that you loose credibility by mentioning it.

Re:Bureaucrats

[Jane Q. Public]

Well, here's a statistic that many aren't aware of, but Lott does mention it. And it's a particularly compelling point when speaking to people who cite "other countries, like the UK".

Immediately after the last big gun ban in the UK, in 1998, FIREARMS violence DOUBLED... and stayed way up for 8 years. This is according to UK's own government statistics.

After that, it did start to decline... but at the same rate it was declining in other countries like the US, where gun ownership was going steadily up. So there is no valid argument that lack of guns caused the later decline.

I've argued before about this with people from the UK, who didn't seem to know about these statistics... and who suddenly shut up when they were pointed out. (I'd find a link but I'm too busy right now.)

Re:Bureaucrats

[lgw]

Hehe, "nobody has stopped a mass shooting." ISIS, this week, Texas. Mass shooting stopped with two headshots. Of course, that hero was a cop, but clearly one who spends a lot of time at the range.

Wasn't there a school shooting this year that was stopped by someone armed at the school? As you say, many instances - they're just not newsworthy to the MSM.

Re:Bureaucrats

[dywolf]

And did you seriously just reference John Lott, and then use the phrase "well researched" in the same sentence? You dumbass: That's like citing Senator Inhofe as your source for global warming data.

If you would reference Lott, you should a bit about him first:

From ( http://www.armedwithreason.com... ):

Lott’s work is filled with bizarre results that are inconsistent with established facts in criminology.

According to Lott’s data, for example, rural areas are more dangerous than cities. FBI data clearly shows this is not the case. Lott’s model finds that both increasing unemployment and decreasing the number of middle-aged and elderly black women would produce substantial decreases in the homicide rate, conclusions that are so bizarre that they should cast doubt on the entire study.

From ( http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~la... , basically 47 pages of why "correlation is not causation"):

Only 20% of permits were issued to women, but the male and female homi-
cides rate went down by the same amount and the reduction in the rape rate
was similar to the decrease in assaults. Lott speculates that guns are four
times as effective for females. While this is not impossible it seems more
likely that the decreases were caused by some other factor that applied to
males and females equally.

Or from my favorite:

The empirical studies of right-to-carry laws preceding Lott and Mustard’s study may be flawed,2" but if these studies have any value, they suggest that right-to-carry laws and high gun ownership levels either have no significant effect on crime or else increase it Both Ludwig and Black and Nagin conclude that no credible empirical evidence supports the judgment that right-to-carry laws deter crime. At this point, there is essentially no reason for an intelligent consumer of social science research to accept the Lott and Mustard findings.

Of course the right-to-carry cure for violence worked for the Hatfields and McCoys. It worked for Bernhard Goetz. It worked on the American frontier. It is being copied in Rwanda today. According to John Lott and David Mustard, right-to-carry can work for us too.

http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/v...

Although let's be honest, you didn't look into shit, and you never actually read Lott's research either. (Helpful link: http://www.johnlott.org/ )

You just picked up the name from the NRA or some other group of idiots.

Re:Bureaucrats

[dywolf]

Ah yes.
The Elephant Whistle defense.

Re:Bureaucrats

[dywolf]

I look forward to seeing that evidence.

Well then you aren't you lucky I provided a link to the research for you.

None of the rest of your comment bears reading, as its A) bullshit, and B) all countered by research that you still haven't yet, have you? Hmmm?

Re:Bureaucrats

[harrkev]

The whole point of the Mother Jones article can be summarized as follows:

1) Person X got mad for some reason at a particular place
2) Person X shot the place up and did not choose it based on it's gun policy.

Fair enough. All I am saying is that this may have happened:

1) Person X got mad for some reason at a particular place
2) Person X realized that people there carry guns and gave up.

Or perhaps this.

1) Person X got mad for some reason at a particular place
2) Person X started to shoot the place up but was shot himself, and thus never made it to the national news.

Are you saying that the last two scenarios never happened? Really?

Re:Bureaucrats

[blindseer]

Mother Jones claims that the mass murderers did not seek out gun free zones, therefore the gun free zones do not attract mass murderers. This is a straw man. The implication is not that mass murderers seek gun free zones, it's that gun free zones allow a murderer to be more successful in taking lives.

Had these places not been gun free zones then it would be much less likely for the murderer to be so successful, the murder would have been stopped much sooner.

This is not lost on policy makers. There was a shooting in France where a Muslim wanting to carry out the orders of Allah and kill those that insulted their prophet. That person was successful in murdering many people because the whole of France is a gun free zone. In Texas a pair of Muslims choose to carry out their holy war on people that insulted their prophet, the only people that died were the two Muslim attackers. That is because Texas is not a gun free zone.

But the attack in Texas does not get the news coverage that the one in France did. That's because successful murderers are rare, successful self defense is commonplace.

Re:Bureaucrats

[blindseer]

We need to realize our "children lives have value"?

OK, I'll go down that path. When walking through the mall the other day I saw a man servicing an ATM. That man was armed with a pistol on his belt. Why was he armed? Was it because the money has value?

When I go to school I see no one armed. All over the college campus no one is allowed to be armed with a gun, knife, pepper spray, taser, or club. Why is that? Does my life not have value? Or the lives of my fellow students? We will allow a man to be armed to protect money, it's just paper. That paper only has value so long as we deem it so, we can print another piece of paper just like it and now it has value but the other does not. A person is not so easily replaced.

You may claim that we disarm people around schools because we value our children. I say we disarm people because we do not. If we valued our children like we did our money then we'd have the people watching over both be armed to the teeth.

You also claim that more guns equals more dead Americans. Prove it. Show me your evidence. I can claim otherwise because while gun ownership rates have gone up the murder rates have gone down. However I will not claim that more guns means less death because I don't have to to make my argument. I merely claim that there is little to no correlation between gun ownership and murder or suicide rates.

If gun control will not save lives then why would I advocate against gun control? Because I find government interference in my life insulting. Unless there is proof of gun control being effective, by a wide margin, then I cannot advocate for the intrusion in my life, the lives of others, the government expense, or general reduction in liberty.

I don't have to advocate against gun control because the law of the land says my right to defend myself is not to be violated. The bar to restrict it should be very high, but it is not. Thankfully, after at least a century of restrictions on our right of self defense we are seeing liberty return. We've seen a half dozen states enact rules that allow for the carry of a deadly weapon without first requesting permission of the government to do so. The result has been uninteresting. I remember the old Chinese curse about living in interesting times. We could use less "interesting" around here.

Re:Bureaucrats

[dcollins]

"Some even go further and claim that guns make you more likely to try to kill yourself (as opposed to merely more likely to succeed, two radically different concepts that they don't quite 'get')"

There is in fact pretty consistent support that even a brief barrier from effective means of suicide will result in someone not ever attempting it. Example paper: Yip, et. al., "Means restriction for suicide prevention", Lancet, 2012.

"Abstract: Limitation of access to lethal methods used for suicide--so-called means restriction--is an important population strategy for suicide prevention. Many empirical studies have shown that such means restriction is effective. Although some individuals might seek other methods, many do not; when they do, the means chosen are less lethal and are associated with fewer deaths than when more dangerous ones are available."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726520

Re:Bureaucrats

[dcollins]

"how many of those would find other successful ways vs would never attempt (or be successful at) killing themselves?"

Significantly less. Sample paper on the subject by Yip et. al., Lancet, 2012:

"Many empirical studies have shown that such means restriction is effective. Although some individuals might seek other methods, many do not..."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726520

Re:Bureaucrats

[Jane Q. Public]

Isn't Lott the guy who was so dishonest that he created a female sock puppet named "Mary Rosh" to defend his work and call Lott "the best professor I ever had"?

Why are you asking me?

And what does it have to do with government-supplied statistics?

Re:Bureaucrats

[blindseer]

It's funny you mention carrying... while 3 states allow largely unrestricted concealed carrying of a pistol (ie no permit required), another 39 are 'shall issue' states, which means so long as you meet the requirements and are not otherwise prohibited, you get your permit. I know hating on Texas (a state I have never been to/in) is a favorite pastime on /., it's kind of funny you mentioning them as that while a shall issue state, they are one of only six that prohibits open carrying if a pistol.

The number of states that do not require permits to carry a sidearm, concealed or openly, has increased to six recently. Kansas the most recent to do so.

Additionally there are 24 states that do not require a permit to carry a sidearm. This becomes 25 if Texas passes their open carry bill into law. The number goes to 25 also if you include the Texas open carry of long guns without a permit, and there are likely more states that do not restrict open carry of long guns but I am not aware of them.

More than half of the US states do not restrict the carry of firearms and other deadly weapons excepting that it must be done so visibly. Compare this to the other half that place severe restrictions on the carry of deadly weapons and I feel it is quite fair to compare the homicide rates of a US state with that of a European nation.

People forget that the USA is not, technically, a nation. The USA is a federation of nations. The USA has more in common with other federations, like the European Union, than with a unitary nation like France. This means that a wide variation in laws on things like weapons can occur. It does not follow to blame the murder rate in the USA on the gun laws in Texas when it's people in Illinois and Louisiana that are getting killed. If one wanted to make a logical argument then compare the murder rate of Texas to that of France and then compare the laws on guns.

What also steams me is that people will claim that the USA is at the top of murder rates compared to other "developed" nations. What of the murder rate in Mexico? Well that is not a "developed" nation, or so the claim goes. As the term "developed" nation has no real definition it is easy to claim that any nation with a higher murder rate is not "developed" like the USA. Did it occur to anyone that these nations are not "developed" like the USA because the people have been disarmed by their government? I mean it's real hard to keep people from stealing your stuff if they have no fear of getting shot as they trespass on your land.

I'll also point out how useless it is to require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Concealed means concealed, no one knows who is carrying a firearm or other deadly weapon until that person chooses to reveal the weapon. People drive without a license and people carry weapons without a permit. In both cases it does not make sense to me to require law abiding people to get a permission slip from the government. If these people choose to follow the law then why should I care if they have government permission to do so.

Let that sink in a bit. We require a permit for what? So that people can show that they can follow the law? How about we do away with these stupid little pieces of paper and let people follow the law without first asking the government if they can follow the law? Requiring a permit to keep the insane from doing insane things is insane. A piece of paper is not going to stop the insanity. Getting rid of these pieces of paper would increase the level of sanity in this federation.

Re:Bureaucrats

[blindseer]

While it's possible that guns sold in Plano are used to kill people in Detroit it is much more likely that a gun used to kill someone in Detroit was purchased in Detroit.

That must take some dedication for a criminal, going to Texas to buy a gun and then return to Michigan to use it. If they've gone all this way to buy a gun then why not use it to commit a crime in Texas? I know why, because it's likely they'd get shot in the act.

Also, does this not show that gun laws in Detroit don't work? I mean they've already banned the guns but it does not seem to cut down on the crime. Let's take this to an extreme, no one may buy a gun except those approved by the government, and they may purchase only one after they've passed a background check. You know what happens then? I can tell you because that is roughly what the laws are in Mexico. What happens is you have soldiers in the army selling their guns to criminals. What are you going to do then? Ban guns from the army?

Re:Bureaucrats

[coofercat]

Just how scared of home invaders, carjackers and muggers are you? Where I live all of these things happen occasionally, but honestly, it's not something that I would think most people here would consider very likely. Thus, our need to 'defend ourselves' is close to zero because the threat of that sort of crime is close to zero. If where you live it's not close to zero, then I'd ask why not, and what could be done to address that problem?

Re:Bureaucrats

[beastofburdon]

The difference, fucktard, is that the people using a gun are serious about it. The others are crying for attention.

Re:Bureaucrats

[Jane Q. Public]

But you haven't given a link to these "government-supplied statistics".

Because, as I clearly stated, I was too busy to bother with it.

You just said that Lott mentioned them.

He did. But he was not the originator of them.

Surely you can see how a skeptic might want an actual link rather than relying on the word of a man who's so dishonest he even lies about his own gender?

(A) You about as much a "skeptic" as I am actually female. Nothing dishonest about that.

(B) This is completely irrelevant and completely removed from the context of your original comment.

I repeat: learn how to argue. You fail at it. Until you do, stop harassing me.

Re:Bureaucrats

[Jane Q. Public]

Since I am a skeptic, you're claiming to be female once again.

Logic fail. No surprise.

My statement allowed for at least two logical possibilities. That very definitely was not the one I meant.

Goodbye.

Re:Bureaucrats

[DaHat]

Well then you aren't you lucky I provided a link to the research for you.

Actually... you didn't, I even referenced the sort of 'proof' I was expecting from folks like you as part of another convo.

None of the rest of your comment bears reading,

Really? So you admit defeat as you refuse to continue to engage? Good to know... but wait...

as its A) bullshit,

You realize that repeating the same claim over and over again doesn't make it true... right?

and B) all countered by research that you still havent yet, have you?

If you had bothered to read what I said and considered it, the falseness of your underling claims would be quite evident... but given your refusal to read what I said, is there a purpose to me saying much more?

I will finally say this... you and the other hoplophobes have lost not unlike those seeking to prevent same-sex marriage to be recognized legally in the US as the courts keep on upholding these individual rights, more so in fact in the case of the second amendment with Heller & McDonald which were rather broad, something that SSM supporters can only hope for from SCOTUS this summer... but again, why let facts get in the way of a good old fashion hate fest?

Re:Bureaucrats

[dywolf]

no, and that's a moronic thing to say.
everyone who attempts suicide is serious about it, and crying for attention.

Re:Bureaucrats

[dywolf]

you are confusing attempted suicide rates, successful suicide rates.
one is a subset of the other.
and even in japan the number of attempts is far larger than the number of successes.

as for available statistics, that's EXACTLY what i was quoting.

Re:Bureaucrats

[Jane Q. Public]

You're still trying to put words in my mouth. Won't work.

But then, you've been doing it for years now, and it still isn't working, and you still haven't learned anything.

That makes one of us.

Re:Bureaucrats

[Agripa]

Nice straw men. Try comparing murder rates between Europe where guns are hard to get and the U.S. where guns are easy to get. Comparing U.S. cities is just silly.

Or compare homicide in the US with different types of weapons like knives. Is our proportionally high rate of homicide by knives the results of our lax gun laws?

Re:Bureaucrats

[Jane Q. Public]

Why should I "admit" anything? I don't owe you anything.

However, if this is the claim you make, then I am happy that you are reinforcing my case that you have been abusively "cyberstalking" me for years. You claim to be following even my deleted tweets. How interesting.

In fact, I now have two good pieces of evidence in less than 24.

I repeat what I said before, more that once: you aren't as smart as you think you are.

All you have to do to protect yourself is to stop being an asshole. I've told you before. You have refused to listen.

Re:Bureaucrats

[Jane Q. Public]

As a general principle, I don't lie. I make jokes now and then, and that sort of thing, but I am probable far LESS of a liar than about 99 out of 100 people you'll meet.

I have no problem at all with conscience. But I strongly suggest you start examining yours. Because at some point you may have to defend it.

Re:Bureaucrats

[Jane Q. Public]

You just get more hilarious by the year.

I repeat: you might want to examine your own conscience. Because you never know when you might be called on to defend it.

I, on the other hand, am an open book. I have been consistently amused that you have never learned to read it.

Re:Bureaucrats

[Jane Q. Public]

Again you try to put words in my mouth. That's a fundamentally dishonest thing to do.

I commented about Revkin's own comment. No more. There was no argument AT ALL, there was no "stumping". You're fabricating.

Re:Bureaucrats

[Jane Q. Public]

Your habit of misrepresenting comments taken out of context is very likely to get you nailed to a very rough wall one of these days, if you keep it up. It's not as though I haven't warned you. And I'm not even saying I would be the one to do it. If you do this to other people too, it would probably not be reasonable to expect them to be as tolerant as I have.

Re:Bureaucrats

[Jane Q. Public]

In my honest opinion, there is something very, very wrong with you.

Re:Bureaucrats

[ULTROS]

And most homicides are committed by Democrats

Hmmm ...

[gstoddart]

In their complaint, they claim that a State Department agency called the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) violated their first amendment right to free speech by telling Defense Distributed that it couldn't publish a 3-D printable file for its one-shot plastic pistol known as the Liberator, along with a collection of other printable gun parts, on its website.

So, just as a hypothetical ... would Defense Distributed support someone publishing the names, addresses, SSNs, names of children and the schools they attend for the members of Defense Distributed?

Or is their robust defense of freedom of speech limited solely to commercial activities? Might they even suggest that not all information falls under freedom of speech or serves the public good?

As often as not, corporations make what they claim is a principled stand, which really amounts to "Yarg, we want to make money".

Re:Hmmm ...

[Marful]

A person has rights to privacy, disclosing said person's personal information, particularly with regard to a controversial topic is at the very least negligent and at worst directly contributing to any potential harm that may befall them.

There is quite a bit difference from public access to 3D printer files and public access to personal information of a specific person.

Re:Hmmm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain to me how publishing *other* people's *private* information in any way even vaguely compares to publishing information that was created from the beginning with the express purpose of being given to the public.

Idiot.

Re:Hmmm ...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

There's still quite a bit of difference between public access to 3d printer files and public access to 3d printers.

Re:Hmmm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Difference being that disclosing PII in that way is a violation of numerous federal laws, the penalties for which can land a person in jail and bankrupt the company they're working for. No such laws are being used to quash DD's speech -- there's just a lot of hand waving and vague talk about "the public good."

Re:Hmmm ...

[wonkey_monkey]

So, just as a hypothetical ... would Defense Distributed support someone publishing the names, addresses, SSNs, names of children and the schools they attend for the members of Defense Distributed?

How is that in any way equivalent to DD trying publish its own data?

Re:Hmmm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a principled stand that the government shouldn't censor speech (a la 1984). You can have this opinion completely orthogonally to whether or not you believe in full disclosure of everything. You can even hold this opinion and believe in boycotting those whose speech you disagree with.

In this case, the Supreme Court has upheld (see Heller ) the rights of citizens to own and keep small firearms (which, other than the material used to manufacture them are materially similar to Liberator) under the second amendment. We also have the right to speak without government censorship (barring certain exceptions, none of which seem particularly pertinent here). These two rights together seem to imply the right to speak freely about firearms, such as how to use, store, maintain, and manufacture them.

However, such information about firearms is caught under a broad interpretation of ITAR (specifically 22 CFR 121.1). The last time we really discussed this was the crypto wars in the '90s (see Bernstein ), where free speech won. On the other hand, I would expect the Supreme Court to prohibit publishing an easy how-to guide for making effective nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. I think we're closer to the former than the latter in this particular case.

Re:Hmmm ...

[gstoddart]

Equivalent? No.

But the question (for which I don't pose an answer) is "do we accept there are valid limitations on free speech, and if so what defines that?"

Some entities are awfully quick to cite freedom of speech, and then just as quick to deny it from others.

So that "principled" stance is often self-serving bullshit.

Re:Hmmm ...

[XxtraLarGe]

So, just as a hypothetical ... would Defense Distributed support someone publishing the names, addresses, SSNs, names of children and the schools they attend for the members of Defense Distributed?

How is that in any way equivalent to DD trying publish its own data?

It's not. The only reason gstoddart is asking is because it's a gun group, and he's anti-gun, and can't imagine that someone who is pro-2nd amendment rights could also be pro-1st amendment. The right to self-defense is as much of a civil liberty as the right to free speech, I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

Re:Hmmm ...

[ShanghaiBill]

So, just as a hypothetical ... would Defense Distributed support someone publishing the names, addresses, SSNs, names of children ...

Just because someone has a right to say something, doesn't mean you have to "support" what they say. Publishing names, addresses, and names of children is legal, as long as it is not done as part of a credible threat. Disclosing someone's SSN may or may not be illegal depending on what jurisdiction you are in, and what the judge had for breakfast.

Personally, I think disclosure of SSNs should not only be legal, but should be encouraged. Then we can get rid of the idiotic notion that "knowing" an SSN is somehow evidence that you are the person it belongs to.

Re:Hmmm ...

[fustakrakich]

Patience... Hopefully time will remedy that situation.

Re:Hmmm ...

[gl4ss]

it actually isn't hypothetical.
it's perfectly legal in USA to sell gun plans. to my knowledge also legal to make a personal firearm in almost all states.

patent office has shitloads of gun plans available as well.

you can even sell a book about HOW TO MAKE A FUCKING PROPER GUN, so it's pretty petty and seemingly illegal for the state department to ban them from distributing some stl files..

Re:Hmmm ...

[jythie]

Both deal with limitations on 1st amendment protection. While the two acts are not equivalent, any discussion where proponents of free speech take a hardline view have to be able to defend their beliefs against the other consequences of them. If they drop to 'well, some things should be stopped and some do not' then they have to provide a better argument than 'free speech' alone.

Granted the burden on arguments for exceptions is really on the side pushing the exception, but the other side still needs to address the issue.

Re:Hmmm ...

[Dog-Cow]

How about: if you can't point to a law forbidding it, it's not forbidden?

Publishing certain private information can cause harm to the person, therefore a law was created to limit dissemination. But the point is, it was legal until the law was written and approved.

If the State Department feels disseminating plans for printable gun parts should be illegal, they can ask Congress to pass such a law.

Re:Hmmm ...

[Dog-Cow]

Sincerity is irrelevant to the law. Either there is a specific law forbidding specific (types of) speech, or there isn't. There is a law, HIPPA, which forbids disseminating patient information. Prior to that law, it was legal. Prior to anti-hate speech laws, it was legal. Get the picture?

It is currently legal, based on the first amendment, to disseminate plans for printable gun parts. If there is a law which covers it, it is the State Department's burden to prove that in a court of law.

Re:Hmmm ...

[jythie]

There is an existing law involved, the Arms Export Control Act. That is the one Defense Distributed ran afoul of.

Which also means they can comply via simple IP geolocation restrictions, which will make any 'undue burden' argument more difficult.

Re:Hmmm ...

[OhPlz]

IP geolocation doesn't work reliably. To comply with export laws would be an onerous burden for anything on the Internet. No one has accomplished such a feat yet.

Re:Hmmm ...

[Roger W Moore]

But the question (for which I don't pose an answer) is "do we accept there are valid limitations on free speech, and if so what defines that?"

Really what we mean by free speech is that we should be free to communicate any ideas or feelings we have without restriction no matter what they are. Where we should draw the line is with deliberate lies which will likely result in physical harm or loss of property e.g. shouting fire in a crowded theatre when you know that there is no fire, lying about a financial scheme to persuade people to invest etc. Here though it is not the speech which is illegal but rather the intent of the person speaking.

Re:Hmmm ...

[mccrew]

Personally, I think disclosure of SSNs should not only be legal, but should be encouraged. Then we can get rid of the idiotic notion that "knowing" an SSN is somehow evidence that you are the person it belongs to.

OK, you first. :)

Re:Hmmm ...

[XxtraLarGe]

Because humans are irrational and self serving. Like your entire post.

Yeah, it's pretty self serving in that I like having civil liberties. What's your interest in being consistently anti-gun?

Re:Hmmm ...

[DaHat]

Or they should go the Phillip Zimmerman route with PGP and print a few hundred copies of a book with the plans inside which anyone could type to reproduce the source code/model files... then dare the government to ban either the physical book or the free copies that are being given away online.

Re:Hmmm ...

[DaHat]

Prior to anti-hate speech laws, it was legal.

Really? Where exactly is hate speech illegal in the US today? The First Amendment would seem to preclude such a thing from being enforced much, as like it or not plenty of protected hate-speech exists today... just ask anyone who has heard members of the Westboro Baptist Church speak or protest.

And no... I'm not talking about "incitement" or "fighting words", they have their own carve outs and for very explicit reasons.

Re:Hmmm ...

[DaHat]

Yes and no... making your own gun or telling someone how to do so in the US is legal... we do have laws with regards to exporting certain things... say this rifle stock, which you could casually buy online or in person with out hassle is considered regulated under International Traffic in Arms Regulations, so you attempting to export 1-100 of them would require prior approval from the feds.

The interesting case here (which is not unlike PGP back in the day), is that we are no longer talking about potentially exporting completed items, but very detailed information as to how to construct such an item.

While encryption export controls were easy to get around in the 90's, it's even easier today... and the federal government hasn't come to recognize that yet.

Re:Hmmm ...

[wonkey_monkey]

And just because a group wraps itself up in the first amendment doesn't make it sincere.

It also doesn't make it insincere just because you can come up with a wildly different example of potential free speech infringement.

It's like berating your neighbour for holding a noisy barbecue, and asking him how he'd like it if you broke into his house in a ski mask, threatened him with a baseball bat and trashed his furniture.

Re:Hmmm ...

[ShanghaiBill]

OK, you first. :)

617-34-2135

Re:Hmmm ...

[jythie]

Well, it does not have to be reliable, one generally only has to demonstrate that they are making a legitimate effort to prevent foreign downloaders from using the site.

Re:Hmmm ...

[Chester_Lyons]

I agree but I think I would put it differently. I think what we need is absolute free speech, including the ability to tell deliberate lies etc. What we should seek to prohibit are actions with the intended consequence of hurting others. I also think the our public discourse/debate, as well as the laws themselves, should be focused the maliciousness of the actions and consequences, rather than the freedom of the speech.

Re:Hmmm ...

[lgw]

Fraud is different, though. There's no "prior restraint" on fraud, slander, libel, etc - lies in general. Financial products, gossip mags, etc aren't forbidden, instead if you harm someone the justice system will come for you after the fact. As you say: the intent matters.

There's very little in America where a category of speech is simply banned whole cloth. Blasphemy is not illegal (Obama's "The future does not belong to those who mock the Prophet of Islam" nonwithstanding), "hate speech" is not illegal as a category, there's very little that is: pretty much just "speech intended to cause immediate violence", and some lingering obscenity laws.

Re:Hmmm ...

[lgw]

Please mod up - most informative post thus far.

Re:Hmmm ...

[HornWumpus]

The Anarchists Cookbook has had instructions for making Ricin for decades.

It mostly kills those trying to make it. The cookbook has much disinformation in it.

Re:Hmmm ...

[HornWumpus]

You can't even export a 50 cal BMG primer tool without a permit.

Re:Hmmm ...

[martas]

Just because it's self-serving, doesn't mean it's bullshit. Example: I, for one, take a principled stand for habeas corpus rights -- mostly because I really really really like my OWN personal freedom.

Re:Hmmm ...

[beastofburdon]

I have often heard that it was released by the CIA for the purpose of people fucking up and killing themselves.

Re:Hmmm ...

[Agripa]

In this case, the Supreme Court has upheld (see Heller [wikipedia.org] ) the rights of citizens to own and keep small firearms (which, other than the material used to manufacture them are materially similar to Liberator) under the second amendment.

But oddly enough not the design of the Liberator which lacks rifling making it a Title II AOW (any other weapon) with significant restrictions on ownership. It is outright banned in many states.

BATFE has already moved to add restrictions on gunsmithing so I figure it is just a matter of time before they or Congress goes after printed firearms. If they follow the model of the NFA, it seems unlikely that the court would strike it down.

Standard Law

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding of the law, when it comes to gun manufacturing, is that an individual can make a gun themselves, but once they try to sell it (or in this case give it away, selling their "idea" if you will), then it is illegal without going ahead with all the legal paper work and such that other more traditional manufacturers have to deal with.

From what I can tell, they either want to criminalize the plans for the guns (which I think is not feasible) or they want to make 3D printers regulated (and costly) as high end printers that could potentially forge money. I can't see any "win" for them aside from publicity and very likely getting a lot of hate if they win.

Re:Standard Law

[0123456]

For good or bad, 3D printing is the end of government controls over physical items, unless they require some exotic material, like plutonium.

They'll obviously try to control them, as the Soviets tried to control typewriters, but that will only be a temporary speed-bump. Widespread availability of the technology is essential if we're ever going to get off this planet.

Re:Standard Law

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree.

All that is needed is to pass a law requiring 3D printers to only allow signed documents to be printed, with multiple private places acting as clearinghouses that vet items (they are not infringing, not a gun part, etc.) Existing 3D printers can be easily banned with ownership of one becoming a felony, just like how magazines over x amount of rounds are illegal to possess now in NJ, California, and other states.

It will be easy to catch someone with a non-DRM-ed 3D printer. Just demand hardware makers provide a set of downloadable drivers which phone home if it detects one.

At an extreme, put a clause in having the OS actively deny access to a non-DRM-ed 3D printer, and no operating system without this capability can be specced for government work.

Re:Standard Law

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Especially once the tech matures to the point where 3d printers can make 3d printers.....

Re:Standard Law

[0123456]

All that is needed is to pass a law requiring 3D printers to only allow signed documents to be printed, with multiple private places acting as clearinghouses that vet items (they are not infringing, not a gun part, etc.) Existing 3D printers can be easily banned with ownership of one becoming a felony, just like how magazines over x amount of rounds are illegal to possess now in NJ, California, and other states.

Like I said, they'll try to control them like the Soviets tried to control typewriters. And that will just result in an economic collapse, as the free countries where anyone can make whatever they want become far more wealthy than the totalitarian Luddites.

Re:Standard Law

[gstoddart]

Don't worry about that ... at that point the machines will just take over and wipe is out anyway. ;-)

Re:Standard Law

[BECoole]

It is legal to produce guns for your own personal use. It is also legal to sell those guns. It is illegal to produce & sell guns on a commercial basis.

The law is not quantitative on this issue, it is qualitative. So, if you make and sell, say, for instance 5 guns, you could be charged and convicted for unlicensed commercial production and sale, or you could just as easily be no-billed. It depends upon how bad they want you and who the judge is, and, of course, whether or not you have the resources to appeal.

Making and later selling 1 gun is extremely unlikely to result in any charges.

Re:Standard Law

[KiloByte]

They'll obviously try to control them, as the Soviets tried to control typewriters, but that will only be a temporary speed-bump.

Not only Soviets. Currently, every single laser printer fingerprints its output.

Re:Standard Law

[Falos]

> once they try to give their idea away it is illegal
Be careful, this edges across the line into thoughtcrime. There's nothing illegal about me describing shiv-building steps to you in a Starbucks. It CAN be illegal if it's a substep of conspiracy for me/you to operate said shiv (in an illegal manner). If they're trying to own/sell the design as imaginary property, SALES of the design, now a commercial item, may mean openings for intervention.

If it's free, they still might find an illegality ("Fire!" in a theater endangers humans) in there somewhere that allows for intervention, but the 1stA makes it hard to prevent a mere recitation of knowledge in a vacuum.

Printing one is a physical process that's easier to draw fences around, though messy to enforce. Sales are a physical process, and more conducive to enforcement. Laws on those two will probably vary by state.

Re:Standard Law

[aaron4801]

The Anarchist's Cookbook is all over the internet, and home-made bombs have killed many, many times more people than a plastic gun ever will. Despite decades of attempted censorship, it's still available. This is just one more exercise in futility, "for the children."

Re:Standard Law

[dywolf]

Well, not illegal, but there are restrictions and regulations on the practice. IE, you need a license, and the products needs to be serialized, and you need certains record kept, etc. At least as far as the Feds are concerned.

But States vary and I only know the few I've lived in (and that knowledge could be outdated by now).
Mostly...they had few or none, being good ol boy states.
But in Cali, you can make it for your own use. But you cannot sell that gun you made for yourself down the road, unless it's sale is permitted by and in compliance with the current Cali laws regarding gun sales when you go to sell it. Essentially in this case it's "manufactured date", as far as regulation compliance is concerned, is considered to be the date you tried to sell it.

Re:Standard Law

[Lord Kano]

You're naive.

At an extreme, put a clause in having the OS actively deny access to a non-DRM-ed 3D printer, and no operating system without this capability can be specced for government work.

That's the whole fucking point of F/LOSS operating systems. This kind of nonsense can just be removed.

What next? Another law criminalizing Operating Systems that lack this capability? How will you enforce that? How will you detect them?

Cody Wilson's objective is to illustrate the idiocy of people who think that utopia is "just" a few laws away.

You don't like what he's doing. That's fine, you don't have to but you can't stop it either.

LK

Re:Standard Law

[dcollins]

Disagree. Technology is entirely controllable (see: documents that current photocopiers, printers, or Photoshop will not print). And: We will never get off this planet, that's just fantasy stuff. Come back to reality.

Only the first two amendments?

[Tim the Gecko]

We should have 3D-printed robotic redcoats so we can give the third amendment some love as well.

No real choice but to accept it

[Ambassador Kosh]

It doesn't matter if you think this is a good idea or a bad idea since as a society we have no choice but to accept it and figure out how to best integrate it into our society. 3D printers exist now and they will continue to get better. They can print things like weapons just as they can engines, food or any number of other things. What can be printed is going to continue to advance fairly rapidly. In the end how to 3D print something is just a file and there is no way to control files.

The music industry has tried to stop music sharing and the movie industry has tried to stop moving sharing and we all now how effective that way.

We can choose to bury our heads in the sand and not see that our technology has advanced to the point where it has destabilized certain aspects of our society or we can try to figure out a new stability point.

Re:No real choice but to accept it

[tepples]

I remember game companies saying they would charge less if people didn't copy that floppy

They do charge less. Prices have fallen from $60 in 1991 dollars to $60 in 2015 dollars.

Re:No real choice but to accept it

[PRMan]

I remember game companies saying they would charge less if people didn't copy that floppy... sure hasn't happened.

In fact, console games are more expensive than PC games for the same game, even though there is still piracy on PCs.

Re:No real choice but to accept it

[Pubstar]

Console piracy is rampant. It was like 6 months after the 360 came out that my local Craigslist was full of people offering JTAG services.

I can get plans to build a still

[OrangeTide]

But I can't distill alcohol without a license. I can't even own a still without such a license (California, but other states are the same). I can brew 200 gallons of beer and wine a year, but I can't make a pint of vodka.

But I can freely purchase plans to make my own still, I can order plumbing supplies to put it together. But the moment I have one that is ready to use, I've broken the law. And it will be confiscated and I will be subject to serious fines. (and incarceration in some jurisdictions, although usually not for a first offense)

Hopefully this parallel helps inform people that government regulation can take many forms. And that if one aspect is too difficult or is illegal to regulate, there are other ways to control a problem and enforce the law.

Re:I can get plans to build a still

[Anonymous Coward]

The ironic thing is while you CAN'T build a still, you CAN build a gun. There is no Federal legal prohibition against building a firearm for your own use.

So basically you have plans to build an item that itself is legal, and the construction of which at home is legal, but the government is still trying to force him to pull the plans down because it makes a legal act "too easy".

Re:I can get plans to build a still

[OrangeTide]

improvised firearms are illegal to build here.

Re:I can get plans to build a still

[PRMan]

I think this argument is falling flat lately, as the US government has been treating its citizens worse than the UK treats theirs for quite some time now.

Re:I can get plans to build a still

[Em Adespoton]

It's specifically the exporting of the plans that's problematic. It's illegal to ship a gun out of the country without regulatory approval (as well as more menacing items described as "arms" under ITAR, like battleships and space launch vehicles). It's also illegal to export the plans for the gun (or the battleship). The argument is that they uploaded it to the internet, so some non-US person could download a copy. I think in the case of handguns, it's a clear case of censorship (given the second amendment right to own handguns, prohibiting distributing relevant data is an end-run around this). In the case of battleships, it's not obviously unreasonable to prevent persons from designing battleships and selling the plans to non-allied nation states. In the case of launch vehicles (which are practically ICBMs), there's more of a gray area.

Also on the ITAR list are such things as cellphone SIMs and other hardware-based cryptographic tools. Yeah, PGP can be freely exported now, but there's still a large list of "gray area" things that use the same export paperwork as nuclear weapons.

And along with that, there are the export restrictions to countries like Iran, N. Korea, etc... these plans would definitely run afoul of those restrictions if the site isn't actively blocking those countries. However, if the guy sets things up in the same way Phil Zimmerman did back in the day for PGP, there shouldn't be an issue.

Re:I can get plans to build a still

[dywolf]

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.)

Re:I can get plans to build a still

[OrangeTide]

Federal law trumps state law as long as the commerce clause is in effect. The citizens of MO are still subject to BATF raids for running illegal stills.

Re:I can get plans to build a still

[jp_831]

Why then, didn't FDR try to amend the Constitution instead of killing it?

Encryption was defined as a weapon as well

[putaro]

Encryption was defined as a weapon until '97. There were a number of interesting end runs around that, including a book with all of the PGP source code in it. Since you could print the definition for a 3D gun, banning 3D files for guns should run into the same legal restrictions that banning the publishing of encryption software did.

Re:Encryption was defined as a weapon as well

[0123456]

It's worth noting that many lawyers believed the export restrictions would be tossed out as unconstitutional for digital files as well as printed books (since not doing so would clearly be insane, though that's obviously no guarantee the Supreme Court would do it), but no-one really wanted to be the test case when they could just print the source code and OCR it abroad.

Re:Intent matters.

[CrashPoint]

Information that could make civilians more dangerous to police or military should not be available to civilians at all, obviously.

You really haven't thought that through.

I'm all for DD

[morgauxo]

I'm all for DD supporting second amendment rights but come on... I still can barely believe that people are actually printing guns.

Sure.. with some super-expensive, totally out of reach equipment you can print a nice metal gun at many many times the price of making it the old fashioned way. But plastic guns? Really... let me type that again... PLASTIC F'ING GUNS!!

Law abiding citizen or criminal... I think a person shooting a plastic gun is mostly a threat to themself. One of these things is going to blow up in somebody's face!

Those who support individual rights can call 3d printed guns a great thing. Those who fear inanimate objects and bogeymen can call it a disaster. I'll just call it a boatload of Darwin Awards waiting to happen!

Re:I'm all for DD

[xtal]

This isn't about plastic f'ing guns.

The mill they're making is designed to turn pieces of high grade billet (commonly available) into real, functioning, accurate gun bodies.

You could always do this, but it required investment of time to gain the required skill. You also needed at least a $2500 mill and some brains.

Things change when it's a $500 box you put metal in and a weapon comes out. You can do that with a specialized gig and inexpensive stepper motor drives.

3D printing metal technology is advancing on a near daily basis.

Interesting times.

Look for laws controlling ammunition to be more popular.

Re:I'm all for DD

[msauve]

US regulations define the "gun" to be the receiver (usually the part that the other parts attach to). Other parts are unregulated and can be easily purchased. On some firearm designs, like the AR-15, the receiver does not require a great deal of strength, because the bolt and barrel lock together to take the force of firing. So, making one from plastic isn't as dangerous as you think. The parts requiring strength are still made of metal.

While 3D printed guns made entirely of plastic guns have been made, it was more of a "let's see if it's even possible," than a practical goal.

Re:I'm all for DD

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confusing their different projects.

DD has different designs and plans for actual plastic guns made entirely of plastic except for the ammunition. Those can be printed using classic plastic extruding 3D printers.

DD also has a project for CNC milling a block of metal in order to create a receiver out of it which can be assembled with freely available pieces in the US to create a *full* gun (excluding the ammunition).

Re:I'm all for DD

[morgauxo]

Uh, no.

The article was about digital plans for the Liberator, a 3D printed gun which is meant to be printed in plastic.

The last I heard their mill was just a nifty little CNC mill. It's good for making guns and that's what they market for but it's nothing new. If you have the skill and knowlege to make a gun with it then you already have the skill and knowlege to make a gun with tons of other machines which have been available for a long time.

Re:I'm all for DD

[morgauxo]

That's not what the article is about. The article is about a fight over their right to distribute plans for the Liberator. That is an all-plastic 3d printed gun.

Re:I'm all for DD

[msauve]

You're wrong. To quote from the lawsuit, it is about multiple files

...regarding a number of gun-related items, including a trigger guard, grips, two receivers, a magazine for AR-15 rifles, and a handgun (the "Published Files").

Not just the Liberator pistol, as you claim.

Re:I'm all for DD

[morgauxo]

People have been building their own mills for far less than your $2,500 for a long time now. With the 'maker movement' cheaper, more available mills are a given regardless of anything DD does. Then there is all of the used factory equipment that is becoming available quite cheap at auctions as the manufacturing industry keeps dying. Check out Craigslist some time. I'm constantly seeing metalworking shops that are going out of business selling off their tools in my area.

Surely somebody would realize they can make a gun on one without DD specifically calling their mill a gun making device! All I see that is unique coming from DD in regard to making a metal gun is marketing fluff.

Printing the Program

[Etherwalk]

Encryption was defined as a weapon until '97. There were a number of interesting end runs around that, including a book with all of the PGP source code in it. Since you could print the definition for a 3D gun, banning 3D files for guns should run into the same legal restrictions that banning the publishing of encryption software did.

I have a vague recollection of reading about guys in 1980s-1990s taking suitcases of encryption algorithms on printer paper across the border to get around the export restrictions. It's a crazy work we live in...

Re:Printing the Program

[mlts]

At the time, it was OK to publish source code in a printed book... but stored online as a computer document and exported, it was an ITAR violation. So, one encryption company (think ViaCrypt) printed out the source code of PGP and made a book out of it, which was freely and legally exported. Then it was scanned in and OCR-ed for the source code.

This is one reason why that law eventually just got pulled, and export limited to the few countries on the blacklist.

The biggest problem for the courts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the very thing they are afraid of happening (people taking the information & converting it to the real thing) appears to be legal:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html#commercial-parts-assembly

as long as it's for personal, non-commercial use & single shot?

Re:Intent matters.

[Paco103]

Information that could make civilians more dangerous to police or military should not be available to civilians at all, obviously

Obviously! We wouldn't want the ability for the peasants to stand up to a rogue dictatorship. The police and military should not have to fear repercussions from their actions against against the undesirables. Let the ruling class do whatever they want, as history has repeatedly shown, as long as I can still get a Big Mac and watch American Idol!

Government entities and proponents of such love to use the "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" argument, but shouldn't the same be said of police, military, and others that we grant the authority to "rule" over us? What about information that makes the police or military more dangerous to us?

Code is not a weapon

[MobyDisk]

The article makes the very same mistake that Code Wilson is trying to correct via the law suit. The article says:

Only this time the fight isn’t over code erroneously labeled as a weapon. The code in question actually is a weapon.

No! The code is not a weapon. A blueprint is not a weapon. A drawing is not a weapon.

Re:Code is not a weapon

[pruss]

You could roll up a blueprint and hit someone with it. Not a very effective weapon, but a weapon nonetheless. And a drawing can be used to inflict papercuts. It's harder to hurt someone with code, though I guess you could drive someone to pull out their hair upon seeing how badly written it is.

Re:Intent matters.

[ArcadeMan]

For example, information that can personally identify someone (name, SSN, purchasing habits, etc.) should be freely available for unregulated commerce.

He also haven't thought about this one. This would not only mean easy and legal spamming, it would also mean it would become next to impossible to stop other people from stealing your identity online, blackmailing, etc.

Re:You americans...

[ArcadeMan]

He does have a name, you know.

Re:Code can be a weapon

[Overzeetop]

Code can be a weapon (stuxnet, et al.). It isn't, in this case, of course - but it can be.

There are several tacks to take on this particular file. From the point of view of the State Dept, it looks like they are regulating this similar to encryption and weaponizable technologies which are regularly embargoed. For example, it's not unusual to be restricted from selling a project which contains encryption technology the NSA can't break. It's also illegal to sell - or even give away - a program which removes encryption from encrypted media (DVDs, BluRay discs).

Of course, he still has to show he has been harmed in order to have standing. It will be interesting to see this play out.

Black Pipe Shotgun Videos?

[Bob9113]

After they outlaw disseminating the information on how to make an impractical, barely lethal 3D printed gun, are they going to try to stop videos about how to make highly lethal, highly effective, plumbing parts shotguns?

https://www.youtube.com/result...

Hammering plowshares into swords is almost as old as opposable thumbs.

Re:Black Pipe Shotgun Videos?

[PRMan]

True. It's mentioned in Joel after all (around 600 BC).

Re:Code can be a weapon

[Overzeetop]

I should add - it's not illegal to decrypt your own media for personal uses which are allowed under fair use and other laws, but it's not legal for anyone else to help you do so. It's like locking you in a cell and saying that you may leave any time, which is your right, if you choose to unlock the door. But you can't hire anyone to unlock it for you, give you a key, or even teach you locksmithing. It's a fucked up world.

Re:Regulate bullets instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this is why man-portable firearms (pistols, muskets, etc) never existed before the modern industrial complex existed.

What are lead molds?

Who knows, right? I mean it would be absolutely impossible for someone to make lead bullets on their own. I mean, they would need advanced "fire" technology and some means to shape the molten lead. Both of these facts are why all wars before 1995 were fought with swords, spears, and bows.

Re:You americans...

[mrchaotica]

Our commitment to gun ownership is WHY we're Americans (and not British subjects, or even Canadians) in the first place.

Re:Code can be a weapon

[MobyDisk]

Code can be a weapon (stuxnet, et al.). It isn't, in this case, of course - but it can be.

Yeah, that is a good counterexample. It's interesting because in both cases you need something else to actually make it work. With stuxnet: a computer to run it on. With the gun design: a 3d printer, plastic, a bullet, and a human to pull the trigger. The stuxnet example is much closer to the code being an actual thing.

This is most unfortunate

[fustakrakich]

With Geller trying to make free speech look bad, and succeeding, DD is going to have a rough time on that issue.

Re:Intent matters.

[TwoEyedJack]

Information that could make civilians more dangerous to police or military should not be available to civilians at all, obviously.

Um, no, that is not obvious at all. In fact, it makes you sound like a bootlicker. Are you a bootlicker?

Re:Intent matters.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he did. He clearly came to the conclusion that education and libraries are the cause of most political dissent in the world. Once people are liberated from the concept that a human could have rights, the police and military have a much easier job.

Re:Intent matters.

[Dave Emami]

Information that could make civilians more dangerous to police or military should not be available to civilians at all, obviously.

On the contrary, it's precisely the opposite: civilians must have access to such information, to keep the police and military in check. As far as the US goes, this is discussed extensively in the Federalist Papers, in particular by James Madison #46 and Alexander Hamilton in #29. Both explicitly state the assumption that the citizenry at large will outgun any Federal standing army. To quote the latter, "...if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens." The rationale for the Constitution, and therefore for the very existence of the Federal government of the United States, is predicated on this imbalance of power in favor of the citizenry.

And mind you, Madison and Hamilton were speaking for the pro-big (relatively speaking) government faction. Their argument, stripped of the flowery language, was: "Don't worry, it's safe to let the central government field an army. If the politicians try to misuse it, the citizens will just shoot them."

Furthermore, the very idea of any power or information being available to government agents but not to the citizenry is contrary to the core philosophy of the US system. Per the Declaration of Independence, governments "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." That is, whatever powers government has are delegated to it by the citizens. The government's powers are a subset of the powers of the citizenry, by definition, because for the government to have the power to do X, the citizens must first have the power to do X in order to be able to delegate it.

Printed Guns are Dangerous!

[BECoole]

Yes, they are - dangerous to the shooter, not the target!

It's going to be a looonngggg time before a gun can be made completely by a 3D printer and be safe to the user, muchless approach any semblance of firing accurately. Non-metallic components just can't put up with the stresses of containing nearly explosive charges of propellent nor can they deal with the stress involved in the engraving of a bullet by the rifling. It is far simpler and safer to make a firearm out of iron pipe.

In the meantime, I'll seek out 100 year old machine tools if I want to make a gun.

Re:Intent matters.

[ColdWetDog]

Right. A rich AC on Slashdot.

That's rich.

Re:Regulate bullets instead?

[HornWumpus]

Idiot AC no doubt means ammunition. Bullets are butt easy.

Re:Intent matters.

[mrchaotica]

Information that could make civilians more dangerous to police or military should not be available to civilians at all, obviously.

Indeed, that is obvious -- obviously WRONG!

The police and military exist for the benefit of civilians, and for no other reason whatsoever. The second they forget that is the second they should be put down like rabid dogs.

Your statement might be the most dangerously wrongheaded totalitarian bullshit I've read so far this year.

Re:You americans...

[XxtraLarGe]

And have you seen what the American government does? if anyone needs protection from the American government, it's the American people!

That's exactly what it's there for.

Re:Stop reporting on Cody Wilson

[Anonymous Coward]

You really miss the point of what pro-gun is about... Nobody that is pro-gun / 2nd amendment wants to run around shooting people. Those who own guns for self defense realize that criminals don't give a crap about the law, if you outlaw a weapon, or ammo, that doesn't stop them from using them, it only stops those who legally abide by the law in the first place. Then there are those that just like sports shooting, god forbid some skeet or bottles get shot up! What about people who live in the middle of nowhere? Hard to image for city people but yeah a huge portion of America still has wilderness with all the dangers and needs there-in, including hunting for food because the nearest supermarket could be 100 miles away with a mountain range in the middle (I live in true NorCal where this is very true). Then you have the very reason the 2nd amendment exists, not to protect the right to self defense, not to protect the right to hunt, not the right to shoot for fun as in sports shooting, but so that the government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people can be kept inline BY THE PEOPLE. The only thing perverting the situation are people such as yourself and those that seek to try to control these things. So yeah, I think every single American should not just have a gun, but should have many guns, even more so today then ever as our democracy has been corrupted to the point of being something completely different then it is supposed to be, and instead of the sheeple doing something about it, we instead sit back and allow our rights to just get stripped little by little more and more everyday, a tipping point is bound to come, and when it comes you bet your skippies I plan to be armed to protect the American way of life.

Re:You americans...

[sycodon]

Without the Second, the First cannot remain for long.

Re:You americans...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the exact same sentiment that caused us to become Americans.

It wasn't taxes or government representation that started the fighting during the American Revolution; it was access to firearms. The British government decided to send soldiers to confiscate the arms and powder at the Lexington powder magazine (the room where the town's citizens and militia stored their excess gunpowder for safety.) and the local militia stood up and said no.

By the end of the war, America's love for modern military rifles and modern sporting rifles had won the day. Our adoption of rifled barrels over the British Army's smoothbore muskets gave us the advantage of being able to fire more accurately and at greater distances.

Some 239 years later "gun control" has become an issue that simply didn't exist during those years. And just last week we saw a great example of why intentionally destroying gun culture is a dangerous thing. Unlike other shootings inspired by cartoons deemed insulting to terrorists, the one in Garland Texas was stopped within seconds by a man who was outnumbered and outgunned. Within 15 seconds of the first shots ringing out, both terrorists were shot dead in spite of wearing body armor, carrying semi-automatic AKM rifles, and facing down one man armed with a handgun. This didn't happen by accident, and that officer didn't get the handgun skills he showed that day at the police academy. He got those skills in competitions and through civilian marksmanship practice. The officers in France and Denmark were similarly outgunned, and didn't slow those terrorists one bit.

So you keep your gun-bans and warm fuzzy feelings about safety and we'll keep our actually being safe.

Publish the plans as a work of art

[davidwr]

Take the source code, "print" it to image files (similar to "print to PDF") then make a rectangular composite image of all of the pages, with random images to fill in enough pages so you have a nicely porportioned rectangle or other shape of your choosing.

Then use one of those "turn a bunch of pictures into a mosaic picture" program that lightens and darkens the individual pictures so you have an image that, from a distance, looks like a gun or other relevant shape.

Since it's art, it will have a much stronger free-speech claim than plain old source code. Heck, it's not only art but it's clearly art being used to make a political point (the point being to say "*BLEEP* YOU" to anyone who tells you that you can't publish gun-printing source code on the web).

Now all anyone has to do if they want the original source code is to run the image through a good OCR program that can recognize the individual pages and extract the text from them.

A word of caution: If you do this, don't use the image of a recognizable person or place as the "composite" image - it will just give the police an excuse to treat it as a "credible threat" or "incitement to encourage others to attack" that person or place. The whole point of this is exercise is to create a way to publish the source in a way that the 1st amendment is so CLEARLY in control of the situation that any judge will take one look at it and laugh any government-led censorship effort out of court.

Re:You americans...

[operagost]

This is about the first amendment, not the second, AC.

Everyone has the files already

[Karmashock]

I downloaded them immediately when they went live and I don't even have a 3d printer. They're also all over the torrent networks still.

So... totally pointless.

What the state department really stopped was FURTHER files. DD put out the files to print a lower receiver for an AR15 and the files for that liberator gun. Potentially they could have put more out by now had they not been gagged.

As to going forward, I'd suggest they try this... The lower receiver blanks are sold legally right now. I think they're 80 percent complete and because they're not 100 percent they're technically just pieces of metal. So why not do that with the gun files. Make them 80 percent complete and leave it to the internet to fill in the remaining 20 percent. Really you could just leak the complete file under an anonymous name but keep your organization associated with the 80 percent file. That way you might get by this state department nonsense.

If they were permitted to

Re:Everyone has the files already

[mysidia]

Make them 80 percent complete and leave it to the internet to fill in the remaining 20 percent.

Include some 'extra pieces of material' that render the part unusuable, But which are easily removed, either before printing or using some common tools after printing.

Re:Everyone has the files already

[Karmashock]

Well, the whole point of a file like that would be to create plausible deniability. You release a limited file on your website mostly to show you created something and then using a pseudonym or other proxy you release a complete/FIXED file that is what people will actually use.

That way you aren't releasing dangerous tech on your website because its limited and hunting down RabidPussy15 is not something the lawyers have shown any facility for over the years. Perhaps the NSA might get somewhere but going over the way they've busted people over the years... they've mostly made really stupid mistakes. If you use a different account every time you proxy a new file, possibly run it through one of the many anonymizing systems... I think it should be functionally impossible to prove it came from you. Unless you left meta data on the file saying it came from Ted's computer. Then that's just death by stupidity again. Always check the metadata. :D

Re:Everyone has the files already

[Libertarian_Geek]

You assume that the answer is more important than the question.
Their end goal is not to produce plastic guns, but to show the futility of restricting guns.
An idea can be both weapon and expression. As a free individual, I have a right to both.

Re:Everyone has the files already

[Karmashock]

No I don't.

I am well aware that they're mostly making a political statement. However, it is not as yet made to the powers that be.

So to be effective they're going to have to release more gun designs and of a higher quality or the powers that be aren't going to budge.

Look at the gun control people, have they altered their message at all? I mean even 1 percent? Nope.

So... it is clearly time to get a bigger hammer.

RepRap

[tepples]

You're referring to RepRap, correct?

Re:RepRap

[Marxist Hacker 42]

RepRap comes close, but I was more referring to a full on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine. RepRap can print something like 90% of its parts, but there are still parts within itself that it cannot manufacture as of yet.

Re:You americans...

[mrchaotica]

We fought Because we didn't want to pay the king. We won because we had guns.

Re:You americans...

[mrchaotica]

Yea, but that's like saying I'm a Mariners fan because I grew up near Seattle.

Not at all. We have the Second Amendment precisely because we had the experience of violently rebelling against tyranny, and recognized the benefits of ensuring that it would be able to happen again, if/when the time came. That is an experience the British and Canadians never had, and that makes us different.

It's fine to be patriotic and all, but do you actually have something against being British or Canadian in modern times, or are your thought processes unchanged from a few centuries ago?

Thought process only need to be changed when they've been proven incorrect. The thought processes that produced the Second Amendment remain correct.

Re:Intent matters.

[rahvin112]

It really doesn't matter what the federalist papers propose or the founders discussed because the weapons the government allows you to own are no threat whatsoever to them. Modern heavy weaponry is not allowed to be owned and without it no citizenry could stand up against a government willing to use said heavy weaponry against their citizens. The 2nd amendment defense against government aggression died when the federal government was allowed to classify weapons and restrict access to the heaviest of those weapons.

I'm a big supporter of 2nd amendment rights but you are fooling yourself if you think your handgun and semi-automatic rifles are a deterrent to government aggression. The only thing that protects Americans from government aggression in the 21st century is our armed forces being unwilling to take action against the citizenry. That's it, if the military as a whole decided to side with an autocratic regime that seized power in the US there would be no civilian resistance because anyone that tried would be dead. Small arms are not an effective weapon against armored heavy weaponry. This is just a fact.

There should be no need to defend the 2nd amendment using this silly defense against government. The 2nd amendment exists and it's not going to go away no matter how much the anti-gun lobby wants it to.

Re:You americans...

[OrangeTide]

That's exactly what it's there for.

"9 out of 10 US Senators disagree."

But seriously, the US government's job is to spy on citizens, and for its police force to militarize and shoot unarmed black citizens.

Re:Code can be a weapon

[PRMan]

Pre-emptive restriction of speech is automatically reason for standing, isn't it?

Re:You americans...

[dywolf]

Technically it was the rich landowners and politicians of our colonies and their opposition to paying taxes that resulted in us being Americans.

Plus, you say that like there are no gun owners in England or Canada.
You really should try to correct your perception on that.

Re:You americans...

[dywolf]

We won because of the help of French, along with the BIG FUCKING OCEAN between us and England.
England had other concerns in Europe that also demand its attention, and were a lot closer to home.

Guns are the reason we survived long enough to win (and didn't get roflstomped by the best military in the world),
but they aren't the reason for the win itself.
Logistics and allies are the real reason we won.

We essentially created the insurgent playbook that's been used against us these past 14 years.

Re:Intent matters.

[BlueStrat]

Small arms are not an effective weapon against armored heavy weaponry. This is just a fact.

Said the Soviet general right before they invaded Afghanistan. Then left humiliated.

Afghans were living in stove hovels and caves without access to the materiel available in a 1st-world nation, and they also were not occupying the very heart of the Soviet industrial complex and source of logistic supply.

The only way the military could assure "victory" over the civilian population would be to nuke the overwhelming majority of them in the first hours.

The US military would at the least fragment if not outright side with citizens if given such orders, so there would be a not-insignificant amount of heavy/modern weaponry operated by trained personnel on the side of citizens.

Strat

Re:Intent matters.

[blindseer]

SO, because my right to own a ground to air missile has been violated then it's okay that my right to own a machine gun is also violated? If my right to own a machine gun is denied then it's okay to take my pistol?

The NRA was right, if they can ban one weapon then they can ban them all.

Re:Intent matters.

[BlueStrat]

SO, because my right to own a ground to air missile has been violated then it's okay that my right to own a machine gun is also violated? If my right to own a machine gun is denied then it's okay to take my pistol?

The NRA was right, if they can ban one weapon then they can ban them all.

According to the authors of the 2nd Amendment as they discussed it in the Federalist Papers (might want to give those a read some time), the intention was for an individual citizen to be roughly equal in firepower to an individual military infantryman.

MANPADS, anti-tank rockets, and the like, although carried by many infantry units, are not a standard-issue infantry weapon given to every soldier. The same with missiles, artillery, crew-served weapons like mortars, high-explosives, landmines, etc.

I wish people would stop with this ridiculous and wrong hyperbole that either we must embrace gun control or every idiot will have nukes.

Strat

Wishful Thinking

[hey!]

picking a fight that could pit proponents of gun control and defenders of free speech against each other

This is a bit like Marx writing in 1848 that Communism is a specter haunting Europe. Sure, in seventy years time but in 1848 that was just posturing for shock value.

The idea that somehow that 3D printed guns are going to be a wedge issue to use against the left is fantasy. Domestically we're awash in cheap guns that are way better than anything that could be printed and would take generations to get off the street, even if we had the political will to do so which we don't. Internationally, I have two letters and two numbers which together puncture any pretense of significance for 3D guns: A-K and 4-7. There are over 100 million AK-47s and derivatives in the world -- that's one for every seventy human beings on Earth. And if you wanted to bring that number closer to parity, building more AK-47s would be far more effective.

Sure, in twenty years 3D printed firearms may become a potent transformative political force. But at present it's political theater.

Re:Wishful Thinking

[shutdown -p now]

But political theater is exactly what "pit proponents of gun control and defenders of free speech against each other" is, so it sounds like you're actually in agreement.

Re:Intent matters.

[blindseer]

I have not read the Federalist Papers, but I do have a copy on my bookshelf. I really should get around to reading them. I have read the US Constitution and there is something that I found curious under the powers of Congress.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Letters of marque and reprisal were legal documents allowing for private citizens to act on behalf of the government to wage war on a foreign nation. How is a citizen supposed to go toe to toe against foreign battleships unless private citizens were also allowed to own battleships?

You can argue that even in the time the US Constitution was ratified no one owned a true battleship, they are a specific purpose vessel that would be much to expensive for any entity short of a government to possess and man. What they did have were merchant vessels with cannons capable of piercing the hulls of a battleship. At that point the distinction between a true battleship and a merchant vessel has no difference, either one can ruin your day. These merchant vessels were so well armed that, as I recall, they were more capable than the ships of the Chinese navy of the day. That tells me that the authors of the US Constitution intended to maintain some level of weapon parity with merchant vessels and the battleships of any navy.

If you want to argue that the citizens of this federation should have access to the same weapons as the common infantry soldier then I can go with that. That means I can get grenade launchers, anti-tank missiles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, select fire rifles, .50 caliber rifles, hand grenades (high explosive and tear gas), pistols, and mines. You might claim some of the things I listed are not issued to the common infantry. I say I listed off items I was trained with when I was in the army and what a friend of mine trained with. I was military intelligence, he was a combat engineer, neither of us infantry exactly but expected to know how to successfully employ every weapon that the infantry would see. He got to play with a few more other interesting weapons, like armored bulldozers and land mines. He also got to go "play in the sand", I didn't.

So, yes, let's allow the common citizen access to the weapons of the modern infantry soldier. After we get that far then we can talk about anti-aircraft artillery.

Re:3D printers

[DanielRavenNest]

They aren't, ever, for the same reason you have more than one kind of tool in a toolbox. 3D printers are very useful, but they can't wind electric motor coils or populate circuit boards with chips, both of which are needed in a decent machine. A collection of different machines, however, can collectively make the parts for each other, and they can all be controlled by shared software and parts files. Such a collection is called a "machine shop" or "factory", though, rather than a 3D printer.

Re:Intent matters.

[DanielRavenNest]

> Modern heavy weaponry is not allowed to be owned and without it no citizenry could stand up against a government willing to use said heavy weaponry against their citizens.

This is a stupid argument. Anyone with an understanding of military doctrine knows you don't fight toe-to-toe with a well-armed force. You fight asymmetrically, and go for their weak spots. For example, infect some MRE's (field rations) with a deadly toxin, but don't announce which ones. They then waste a lot of time and energy figuring out how to feed the troops. You can similarly contaminate fuel supplies upstream of the supply depots. It's one thing to detect an IED in a dirt road, the metal parts stand out. It's quite another to detect one underneath a metal manhole cover. The list goes on.

Re:Intent matters.

[BlueStrat]

How is a citizen supposed to go toe to toe against foreign battleships unless private citizens were also allowed to own battleships?

You can argue that even in the time the US Constitution was ratified no one owned a true battleship, they are a specific purpose vessel that would be much to expensive for any entity short of a government to possess and man.

It was standard practice for nearly all sea-going vessels of the time to carry at least some armament. Many trade vessels carried significant cannon, as piracy was common.

Most of the enemy ships targeted were lightly-armed cargo/transport ships, as it's true that something like one of the common ships used for such attacks, like a converted schooner with some extra cannon, was no match for a Man 'O War style full military vessel.

If you want to argue that the citizens of this federation should have access to the same weapons as the common infantry soldier then I can go with that. That means I can get grenade launchers, anti-tank missiles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, select fire rifles, .50 caliber rifles, hand grenades (high explosive and tear gas), pistols, and mines.

Grenade launchers, rockets, missiles, mines, etc are not a standard-issue weapon provided every soldier, as are things like crew-served weapons like mortars

Hand grenades are a tricky issue, as they are a mass-casualty area-weapon, but *are* a pretty standard-issue infantry weapon. For hand grenades, I'd go with sort of the same kind of system now in place for ownership of fully-automatic weapons; ie licensed, registered, and with conditions on safe storage and extreme penalties for misuse.

The rest of your list (short-barreled/fully-automatic weapons) I have no problem with allowing civilian ownership of. As a matter of fact, some of the weapons you list are already legal, like .50BMG rifles, and I would strongly be in favor of loosening restrictions on the other weapons, like select-fire rifles.

Strat

Re:Intent matters.

[dcollins]

Your interpretation makes no sense in a few different ways. First: The Federalist Papers are arguing in support of the core Constitution at a time before the Bill of Rights or 2nd Amendment existed or had even been proposed. Second: Once again, the argument by Hamilton is not that random ownership of guns will protect liberty, but actually the exact opposite. Federalist No. 29 is specifically in support of the the fact that the Federal government needs to be in charge of an elite armed forces, and that this is "the best possible security", that the people as a whole cannot possibly be up to the task. The only question here is whether this well-trained and Federally-organized "select corps" is a full-time army or a part-time militia. Here's your quote in context of the full paragraph:

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

I recommend that anyone read the whole paper, it's pretty short and highly illuminating to the true purpose of a Federally-run armed force, specifically in contrast to disorganized and undisciplined random mobs.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

Re:Intent matters.

[blindseer]

Grenade launchers, rockets, missiles, mines, etc are not a standard-issue weapon provided every soldier, as are things like crew-served weapons like mortars

I have a US Army recruit training manual that disagrees with you. All recruits out of basic training were expected to know how to operate a grenade launcher, anti-tank missile launcher, and claymore mines precisely because they are common infantry weapons. I know this because I was in the US Army and went through basic military training.

Don't tell me what I was trained with in the US Army.

Re:Intent matters.

[BlueStrat]

I have a US Army recruit training manual that disagrees with you. All recruits out of basic training were expected to know how to operate a grenade launcher, anti-tank missile launcher, and claymore mines precisely because they are common infantry weapons.

Knowing how to operate a weapon system =/= each soldier being issued said weapon system, as in being a standard-issue infantry battle weapon. Such weapons systems are squad level weapons. A unit on foot patrol will have one or 2 soldiers assigned to carry a couple anti-tank rockets or MANPADS as the likely threats determine.

An M4 battle rifle, M249 light machine gun, or their equivalents are perfectly reasonable, however.

Strat

Re:You americans...

[shutdown -p now]

Some 239 years later "gun control" has become an issue that simply didn't exist during those years.

Go look up the gun laws in, say, Texas or Alabama as they were after Reconstruction and until the end of Jim Crow (or, in many cases, until early 90s even). Your "some 239 years later" figure is grossly out of proportion - gun control as a means of suppressing potential violent dissent has been a stable of American minority oppression politics since after the Civil War.

Re:You americans...

[Dunavant]

So it looks like you're agreeing with him that Gun Control is bad?

Re:You americans...

[shutdown -p now]

Yes. I'm just saying that the debate on gun control vs gun rights is not at all a new or recent thing. The only thing that's new about it is actually how polarized it is across party lines (much to my chagrin as a pro-gun liberal), and the fact that a large part of the debate these days is judicial / constitutional, rather than just whether some law is a good idea or not.