Proposed Regulation Could Keep 3D-printed Gun Blueprints Offline For Good

SonicSpike sends a report on a proposed update to the International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) regulations which could shut down the sharing of files for 3D printed gun parts over the internet. "Hidden within the proposal, which restricts what gear, technology, and info can and cannot be exported out of the U.S., is a ban on posting schematics for 3D printed gun parts online." This follows a lawsuit from Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed back in May fighting the federal government's command to remove blueprints for the "Liberator" 3D-printed gun from their website. A senior official at the U.S. State Department said, "By putting up a digital file, that constitutes an export of the data. If it's an executable digital file, any foreign interests can get a hold of it."

Comments

Because...it's the LAW!

[sycodon]

All Constitutional issues aside (Free Speech, Prior Restraint, etc.) They can't keep details of their spying program out of the news. They expect to prevent people from exchanging these documents?

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[delt0r]

Because they just don't get it. They still think it is "their" internet.

But really i don't get the big deal anyway. It is not like its that hard to make a gun with a half decent set of tools anyway. But why bother when you get just go to the store to get one. Or if its commit a crime, pay slightly more for a "reported stolen" gun.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or in Switzerland. 20 Swiss Francs to get your criminal record. 50 Swiss Francs to get a buying permit for up to 3 guns. Go to the gunshop or online. Get your git. I fucking love this place, that money is chump change here.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[kheldan]

Exactly. Remember USENET? Used to be that if you wanted something to never be forgotten, all you had to do was upload it to USENET, and you were more or less assured that it would be impossible to erradicate it completely. So it goes with this: the digital genie is already out of the bottle. If there are 3D printed gun files on the Internet at any point in time, it's now impossible to supress it, as impossible as trying to prevent filesharing of any other kind is. You can make all the laws you want, threaten people all you want, but just like Mr. Universe said: "You can't stop the signal, Mal.". Also just like non-3D printed guns, if you outlaw 3D printed guns, then only outlaws will have 3D printed guns. Stop wasting taxpayer money.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[fustakrakich]

They still think it is "their" internet.

It IS still their internet! Who do you think provides access?

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Orange Crush]

More importantly, they think it' s"their" government and they forget who it is they're supposed to be working for.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

They know who they're working for: the One Percenters.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[jellomizer]

Or in America. In rather liberal states like Vermont we can get guns at the local Walmart.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[jellomizer]

How is 3D printing enabling anyone?

If you wanted to make your own gun. Any Joe Smo with a garage workshop could make one, even without a 3D Printer. A bench drill, with a metal drilling bit, and some metal cutting and welding tools. is enough for someone to make their own gun. And just like a 3D printed model. It may not be the safest or relabel gun. But it can get the job done.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Vermonter]

I live in Vermont, and I don't pay anything to have my criminal record reviewed, nor do I have to pay for a permit to purchase, open carry, or conceal carry a handgun, rifle, or shotgun. I can purchase as many guns as I can afford.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Faust6]

Methinks this is mostly to protect gun manufacturers' interest in the market.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[TheCarp]

Do you have any idea how much better shape we would be in if this was actually true? The 1%ers are the middle management who work for the people that this government actually works for. More like the 1%ers of the 1%ers.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[ArmoredDragon]

Didn't Phil Zimmerman already resolve an issue exactly like this? The US government said PGP was a munition and was banned from export, so he argued that he could print the source code in a book and mail it overseas, and since it was in book form it was explicitly spelled out in the constitution as protected speech.

Snippet:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

While the constitution doesn't say anything about executable binary code (which if you REALLY stretch it, it can be considered machinery, and thus can be munitions) there's absolutely no slipping around the "press" part of it. It's very much ironclad and can't be broken, I don't care how they word any laws. So while they may be able to prevent digital distribution because some of the old people in the judicial branch don't always understand the difference between that and a book, you just print the schematics or even a bunch of QR codes (or whatever) that convey digital information in print form, and you easily get around any kind of law like this that even old people can understand.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

It IS still their internet! Who do you think provides access?

....My ISP? I seriously have no idea what you are implying.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[ArmoredDragon]

Except in Chicago where you have to pay all of that, and then you technically aren't even allowed to have a gun in your own house. (Well, you can have the gun but probably not the ammunition.)

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

USENET still exists, it's not dead, ya know. Just a bit harder to get access to than it used to be (you might have to pay for it elsewhere). Oh, and things could be "forgotten" with message cancelling and poisoning, for certain values of "forgotten".

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Half-pint HAL]

Yes, but you would need plans, and transmitting plans on te internet will be illegal.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[CreatureComfort]

Um, AT&T, Verizon, Google, Time Warner, (Comcast charges for providing access, but really can't say they DO it.), etc.

I can't say that I know of any Federal provided public access to the Internet, and they certainly don't own or operate any of the major backbones any more.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't normal? Every Walmart I have ever been to across the country has a sporting goods department with guns and ammo.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[cjonslashdot]

Indeed.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Jason Levine]

*Takes out Items To Ban List*

So what you're saying is we also need to ban bench drills, metal drilling bits, and metal cutting and welding tools as well.

(The sad part is that I'm joking but all too many people would say this completely seriously.)

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[delt0r]

I am currently living in Switzerland. Previously i was in Austria. There you don't even need a licence for many rifles.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Opportunist]

That's exactly the problem we're facing. More and more people consider it "their" government. Not "ours". Not something that represents them.

And that's dangerous.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[delt0r]

Isn't that what i said?

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloomberg, Moms Demand Action.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Applehu Akbar]

Yessiree, if you want safe streets, move to a strict gun control city like Chicago.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, sorry dumbass, but most Americans are quite supportive of gun rights, your stupid name calling aside.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[fustakrakich]

Yes, those companies own the internet. The government enforces their monopolies and filters your content. That is my point. They can and will control what you see and hear and say when they deem necessary. And every little thing goes through their wire, with a big ol' hard drive attached, harvesting every byte. And please save your breath on the VPN/Tor thing. They are 'placebos' at best.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Recently I came across the video showing why all gun control is futile. 7 dollars simple home built guns can be built. Even without the shop, but with more risk, common plumbing pipe works with just parts in a hardware aisle. Not that it is particularly safe...

In the case of strong encryption the State Departments ITAR line in the sand was proof you are in the U.S. To download the source code, but written form (books) were fine. Even that is all but eliminated. From the publicly obtainable US government sources you can get the blueprints of sophisticated weapons. These can be relatively easily translated to a cad design file. But even then they represent the concept of a firearm, not a firearm. They are not directly executable. They are interpreted by another program. And they can be used by either a subtractive process, like a CNC controlled milling machine, or an additive process such as a 3d printer.

Finally the DoS (odd coincidence) can't limit what is dispersed online within the U.S. And as Apple and the iTunes online store, the BBC, and others, amply proved, it is possible to restrict based on region. VPN you say, to circumvent, well it makes as much sense to say those are people visiting and therefore in the U.S. as it does that putting something up online is exporting it. So all those VPN cross country boundaries should be considered for VISA requirements DoS!

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Austerity Empowers]

"extremely" high is an exaggeration. Quite a lot of us who are liberal are also against gun control, I can't say I've met more than a handful of true gun control advocates in my travels. There are a number of people who want strong gun control, but I'm not sure how large this group of people is. I usually equate them to Mother's Against Drunk Driving, who continue to try to essentially ban alcohol sales or consumption any time the issue is raised, and are very effective at keeping old anti-alcohol laws on the books (in several different states I've lived). They remain a minority, but a powerful one in that they can be relied upon to consistently fight for their beliefs, even though it is usually a losing battle.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[I'm New Around Here]

You forget that a certain portion of our government, and even readers of /. , think that international agreements outrank our own Constitution when it comes to granting or limiting freedoms.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Vermonter]

Yes, I meant specifically in Vermont you can do all these things.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[O('_')O_Bush]

Hey man, don't mock them. We all know how DMCA and other anti-piracy legislation kept movies/music from being available illegally. Just think how well it will keep something that someone actually wants from being available.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please read McDonald v. Chicago again.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Half-pint HAL]

Most people at the very least would be happier with stricter background checks, and yet even reasonable moves to have mandatory mental health checks are decried as "taking our freedoms". Which is a bit much.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Half-pint HAL]

"Gun rights" and "gun controls" are not mutually incompatible. For example, mandatory mental health checks for licensees seems emininently sensible as a control, and yet there are people who cry "freedom" and "rights" even when people try to establish checks of that sort. Do you really value the "freedom" of potentially homocidal individuals that much?

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[tlhIngan]

All Constitutional issues aside (Free Speech, Prior Restraint, etc.) They can't keep details of their spying program out of the news. They expect to prevent people from exchanging these documents?

Actually, ITAR is a brilliant solution.

Because no, they don't expect you to not post the information. Because you can - as long as it's within the US or to people in ITAR-approved countries.

It's just like the "strong encryption" thing of two decades ago. You were free to distribute software containing strong encryption, but only to ITAR countries.

And export of such content was basically a criminal act.

So yes, you can post your 3D gun plans, but you need to verify the user is in an ITAR approved country lest you be charged with export of munitions.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[anagama]

So we can just add the 1st amendment to the pile, you know, that pile of constitutional directives the government adheres to so much, like the 4th and 5th amendments, congressional responsibility for declaring wars, and likely others things I'm not aware of too. Essentially, anything that stands in the way of ever expanding executive power, corporate welfare, or wall street bailouts is just ignored. Instead, the NSA must monitor us and the police must practice military tactics, not because of terrorism, but because those mega-money interests pulling the puppet strings don't want to face any dangers.

That constitution is so quaint -- it makes a great wall hanging.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, they do it for show. It's security theater. FUD. Even though they can't manage their own documents, they remember enough history to know how well this worked for PGP. But their audience does not, hence the show. It's like calling a gun an "assault rifle." Sounds scary, but it's no different from any other rifle. But people think it means the gun is scary, so they are ok with it being outlawed, because most people are willing to sacrifice your rights in order to make themselves feel safer.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really value the "freedom" of potentially homicidal individuals that much?

Absolutely, yes. We are all "potentially homicidal" in that there is no natural law that prevents it. If the government can deny people their rights because of what they might potentially do with them, than we don't really have rights. Pre-crime is bollocks.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gun rights" and "gun controls" are not mutually incompatible.

So you say, but your example fails to demonstrate it.

For example, mandatory mental health checks for licensees

That's not gun control. That's people control. You're demanding law abiding people to modify their behavior. The criminals still aren't gonna care.

and yet there are people who cry "freedom" and "rights"

Correctly so, as you are demanding (lawful) people to modify their behavior in order to exercise their rights. Do you have to take mandatory mental health checks before exercising your right to free speech?

Do you really value the "freedom" of potentially homocidal individuals that much?

Why wouldn't you value the freedom of potentially homicidal individuals that much? YOU are a potentially homicidal individual. Everybody has the "potential" to do very very bad things. Everybody also have potential to do good things. Having potential doesn't make you a good or bad. Action does.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[TWX]

It seems to fundamentally come down to people not wanting the government to have records that connect them to their firearms. I live in a state that's gotten somewhat nutty lately; we already did not require any firearms registration for private-party sales, so not only are background checks less effective as second-hand purchase avoids them and registration entirely, but we've also taken away a need for a concealed carry permit, so now anyone can carry a concealed firearm without any need to undergo training or to demonstrate proficiency (which were previous requirements). The need to obtain permits in the past was one tool available to the citizenry and the police to determine who, most likely, was carrying for personal protection (ie, those with permits) versus those who were carrying with bad intent (ie, those who didn't get permits and were carrying illegally).

I didn't think that the burden to obtain a CCW permit was especially high. Demonstrate that you can shoot and actually hit the intended target, and review situations when it is and when it is not appropriate to introduce a firearm. That was basically it. Unfortunately, there were those who felt that this was too much of a burden and they got the law changed.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason the government cares *at all* about handguns is because a huge portion of their constituency cares. Handguns aren't a threat to the government or the military, so, left to their own concerns, they wouldn't regulate them at all.

But, the voter base includes a huge segment of people who are afraid of handguns, and don't want their neighbors to have them (and are perfectly happy to not have them themselves). Since fear is their primary motivation, reason and argument have little impact on this group.

Gun control measures will absolutely get these people to stand up and vote, so the government pushes it when they want support from this segment of the population.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a city called Chicago in Vermont?

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the 9th and 10th amendments. Those have been dead for a long time.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Cederic]

So I'm going to have to stop playing http://store.steampowered.com/... ?

The company behind that game do state that they aren't publishing plans, and you couldn't build a firearm based on their game, but it's easily got enough information on how designers went from breech loaders to fully automatic that I could translate into a functioning system.

I just don't own a lathe or CNC..

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Calhune]

What "licensees" are you talking about? Federal Firearms LIcensee's? Concealed Carry licensees (in states where you even need a license)? Or do you think folks need a license to buy a firearm? Outside of places like New Jersey/DC/New York City/Chicago, that just ain't the case. And to the point directly... every time a firearm is purchased from a dealer the purchaser does pass a mandatory mental health background check. It's called NICS.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloomberg, Clintons, etc

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about moving to New Jersey:

Text of the STS-33 form for Firearms Owner ID and Handgun Purchase Permit. It's a text dump from a PDF doc, so please pardon the mess. Notice Question 28. It is the only state in the USA where such a question is asked. To a reasonable individual, how one exercises the First Amendment via "freedom of association" determines whether (or not) one is permitted to exercise the Second Amendment.

Signature Title
Department of Police Municipal Code #
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Check Appropriate Block(s)
Initial Firearms Purchaser Identification Card Change of name on Identification Card
Lost or Stolen Identification Card List former name and attach copy of marriage license or court order
Mutilated Identification Card
Change of Address on Identification Card
Change of Sex on Identification Card Application to Purchase a Handgun Quantity of Permits:
Application for Firearms Purchaser Identification Card and/or Handgun Purchase Permit
(22) If answer to question 21 is yes, does this make it unsafe for you to handle firearms? If not, explain.
(16) Have you ever been convicted of any domestic violence offense in any jurisdiction which involved the elements of (1) striking, kicking, shoving, or (2)
purposely or attempting to or knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury, or (3) negligently causing bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon? If yes, explain.
(11) U.S. CITIZEN
Yes No
(24) Have you ever been confined or committed to a mental institution or hospital for treatment or observation of a
mental or psychiatric condition on a temporary, interim, or permanent basis? If yes, give the name and location of the
institution or hospital and the date(s) of such confinement or commitment.
(5) DATE OF BIRTH
(1) NAME Last ( If female, include maiden) First Middle
(3) RESIDENCE ADDRESS Number & Street City State Zip
(6) AGE (7) PLACE OF BIRTH City, State, Country
(2) SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
(9) SEX RACE HEIGHT WEIGHT HAIR EYES (10) DIST. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (Marks, Scars, Tattoos)
(14) ADDRESS APPEARING ON FORMER FIREARMS IDENTIFICATION CARD (If Applicable) (15) N.J. FIREARMS ID CARD/SBI NUMBER
(17) Are you subject to any court order issued pursuant to Domestic Violence? If yes, explain.
(4) HOME TELEPHONE
Yes
No
(8) DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER & STATE
(12) NAME OF EMPLOYER EMPLOYER'S ADDRESS & TELEPHONE (13) OCCUPATION
Yes
No
(18) Have you ever been adjudged a juvenile delinquent? If yes, list date(s), place(s), and offense(s). Yes
No
(19) Have you ever been convicted of a disorderly persons offense in New Jersey or any criminal offense in another jurisdiction where you could have been
sentenced up to six months in jail that has not been expunged or sealed? If yes, list date(s), place(s) and offense(s). Yes
No
(20) Have you ever been convicted of a crime in New Jersey or a criminal offense in another jurisdiction where you could have been sentenced to more than
six months in jail that has not been expunged or sealed? If yes, list date(s), place(s) and crime(s). Yes
No
(21) Do you suffer from a
physical defect or disease?
Yes
No
Yes
No
(23) Are you an alcoholic?
(25) Are you dependent
upon the use of a narcotic(s)
or other controlled
dangerous substance(s)?
(26) Have you ever been attended, treated or observed by any doctor or psychiatrist or at any hospital or mental
institution on an inpatient or outpatient basis for any mental or psychiatric condition? If yes, give the name and location
of the doctor, psychiatrist, hospital or institution and the date(s) of such occurrence.
Yes
No
(27) Have you ever had a firearms purchaser identification card, permit to purchase a handgun, permit to carry a handgun or any other firearms license or
application refused or revoked in New Jersey or any other state? If yes, explain. Yes
No

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Kerry...

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Calhune]

The question is who defines a mental health check? And what is going to disqualify a person from owning a gun? There's already federal gun laws that quantify what it takes to remove 2A rights from a person due to mental health issues. If there's to be any meaningful discussion about expanding that, it has to be specifics - not just "expand the mental health checks" which could mean anything. Want to ban anybody who every suffered from PTSD? Than the should say that. Ban anybody on anti-depressents? Than they need to say that. Then it can be debated.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[SuricouRaven]

It does bring the cost down. Metalworking and welding tools will set someone back a few thousand dollars - a 3D printer can be obtained for a tenth that much.

The 3D printed gun will probably explode on the second shot, but that's ok. Use the old flintlock method and carry six of them. The technology will improve eventually anyway.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Calhune]

Curious about how the crime rate (especially violent crime rate) has changed since your state went to universal concealed carry? Blood in the streets from shootouts? Or lower crime rates since the criminals don't know who the easy victims are?

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[geogob]

You, sir, have obviously never had to deal with ITAR. Because thats pretty much what ITAR does. First ban publication of information. Next ban export of 3D printing system. Finally ban export of any componrent being used to build 3D printing units.

Its only the beginning. And with the military behind ITAR, there is no saying where they'll stop. Your rights are obviously not put into question, as it concerns export only. As you put info on Internet, you pretty much export it.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Calhune]

Gates, Buffet

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Jane Q. Public]

The question is who defines a mental health check?

This. Mod up.

I don't understand why so many people don't get this. I think many do, but pretend not to for ideological reasons, or are simply afraid of their own shadows, or are power-mongers. Or some combination of the three.

The USSR was a prime example: disagree with somebody in power? Suddenly you're in a "mental health" hospital, being sedated or worse.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[delt0r]

again the cheaper and safer option. Just buy a gun. They are easy to get hold of. And pretty cheap really.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[harrkev]

Don't forget unintended consequences. Jimmy loves to hunt, so he is afraid to see a shrink lest the cops show up to grab his guns. So, he never gets any help. Is this really an improvement?

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you need plans? Anyone with the smallest amount of mechanical aptitude could figure it out. Glock wasn't a gun manufacturer, he knew nothing about it and still managed to design one of the most popular pistols of all time.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[TWX]

This is admittedly anecdotal, but my work brings me into casual contact with municipal law enforcement relatively often, and several officers have complained that it's now harder to bust gang-bangers with firearms. The lack of registration requirements also means that it's much harder to prosecute straw-purchases; someone can purchase firearms with the intention to resell, hold them for long enough to 'own' them, and resell them with some mark-up private-party to those that cannot buy firearms through legitimate means.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

So I need to be licensed (ask for government permission) to exercise an enumerated God given right?

They tried that in a town a lived in and the only people given carry licenses were the biggest campaign contributors, politicians, and their politically connected buddies. The rest of us got the ol "just call the cops" line and were denied no matter what.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Calhune]

Sadly, you don't need to use the USSR as an example. Google up about Senator Grassley sending a letter to the DOJ and Veterans Administration about why the VA has been adding thousands of veterans to the NICS database if the veteran has somebody managing their financial affairs for them. Despite no federal law stating anything even close to saying that having somebody manage your finances makes you mentally defective under ATF standards, the current administration has implemented this rule. http://www.grassley.senate.gov...

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here but I have a thing for semiauto rifles, pump-action shotguns, and nukes.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just had to commend you for using "liberal" correctly. This is all.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Calhune]

Not all Walmarts carry firearms and ammo. They go by local laws and also local politics - you might have 90% of a state where the Walmarts carry firearms, and then the Walmarts in one city won't. I live in one such state.. fortunately I don't live in the one city that has issues. ;-)

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[XxtraLarGe]

Don't forget unintended consequences. Jimmy loves to hunt, so he is afraid to see a shrink lest the cops show up to grab his guns. So, he never gets any help. Is this really an improvement?

But if Jimmy goes on a shooting spree, then it gives the gun banners more ammo (pun intended). One thing you'll notice is that in most instances where there's been a mass shooting, the proposed remedy for gun control would not have prevented the mass shooting from happening in the first place.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[harrkev]

The vast majority of mass shootings happen in "gun free zones." And yet the likes of Obama and CNN seem to be amazed that a criminal would walk right past this sign.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Calhune]

1) gangbanger - most serious gangbangers have already committed some offense that makes them a prohibited person, and so simply catching them with a gun is enough to send them away. Otherwise maybe it's just some kid trying to defend himself from hardcore gangbangers... why shouldn't he be able to do so? 2) straw purchase prosecutions are a dead end according to ATF reports. The more you clamp down on straw purchases or try to implement full gun registration schemes such as universal background checks, the more common it becomes for the person to simply report the gun stolen. Example: Felon Jack gets cousin Jill to buy a gun and sell it to him for 50% markup. He then has Jill report it stolen. Cops can't do a thing.. and Jill can repeat this. Felons will always find ways to get guns. If you think banning guns in America will work, how well did banning marijuana work for 50 years?

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

I carry, I believe very strongly in the right of people to defend themselves, and I would be delighted if the other people in the gun debate were willing to be half as reasonable as you.

Spending $50 every five years for my CCW costs far less than the ammunition that I spend in 5 years retaining my proficiency. It is not an undue burden in any shape or form.

The second hand purchase rules are a hairyier problem. Good people almost never sell guns to criminals, or people who look like criminals. At my local gunshow they have always required that any sales go to members, and that to get a membership you need a background check. Zero people at that show will sell you a gun without current membership badge. By the third time you try there will be people in motion to escort you out.

So the problem is, people that know they are selling to a criminal have worked the risk factor into the cash price of the gun, and they don't care about the law. The rest of us don't sell to criminals. So those laws have almost no impact on criminals getting guns. The rules that prevent second hand sales impact good people's ability to treat guns like tools, where we lend them to friends, trade them for car parts, do the pine/save/buy/use/hate/sell thing like any other expensive tool.

It would be nice if my state could meet in the middle some day rather than using this as a tool to demonize political candidates on both sides.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Half-pint HAL]

Are you also in favour of removing the need for a driving license on public roads? People can have their licenses refused or removed on medical grounds if their condition makes them dangerous on the road (eg narcoleptics and epileptics, and that's not considered "pre-crime". Not putting a gun in the hands of a paranoid schizophrenic isn't "pre-crime" either, just good sense.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Half-pint HAL]

Who was it that told us to beat our swords into ploughshares again...?

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[currently_awake]

You don't need plans if all you want is a simple gun. You can figure out most of the stuff by trial and error. Or you could copy a friends gun. Or you can have someone overseas mail you the 3D file on a USB stick, or encrypted email.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[currently_awake]

I think you have your costs backwards. You can rig up a handheld drill for the press, and a hacksaw and file costs less than $5 used. The 3D printer removes the skill requirement, not the cost.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Half-pint HAL]

If you make security one of the determiners of "fit to own firearms", you tend to get fewer fake thefts. Having your gun stolen is not a pleasant experience in places with such laws.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Half-pint HAL]

I never really understood the second-hand argument. If I buy a car in the UK, it gets registered in my name on the national database. I'm allowed to lend it to my friends, but if there's an incident involving the vehicle and the vehicle leaves the scene, I will be the police's first point of call. In fact, unless I can prove who was driving at the time, I'm responsible. It seems slightly onerous, but it's all part and parcel of a trust relationship -- only lend your car to someone you trust. The same principle should surely apply with guns. If I sell my car, I have a legal requirement to ensure that the national registry is updated with the current owner's details. This not only makes sure that the correct person is prosecuted in the case of serious accidents, but it also makes it harder to fence stolen vehicles or to claim ignorance if caught trading stolen vehicles. I can't see why anyone would object to a similar system for firearms, which are far more co,parable to cars than to hammers in their ability to cause accidental harm or to be used in deliberate criminal acts.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[kenai_alpenglow]

Kardashian Klan, Mrs Clinton, Algore, ...

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[kenai_alpenglow]

Let me check the 'ole constitution---nope, don't see anything in there about driving. Still see pesky Amendment #2 (and #1) still there... Also, "Gun Control" folks also want to ban guns on *private* property. No state that I know of requires license to drive a car on your own land.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Half-pint HAL]

One thing you'll notice is that in most instances where there's been a mass shooting, the proposed remedy for gun control would not have prevented the mass shooting from happening in the first place.

That's a subjective statement. The Columbine shooters took half their weapons from the legally-owned stash of one of their fathers, and the other half were bought on the black market, and the argument is that they would have just bought more if they hadn't had access to Dad's guns. This may be true. Some claim that te presence of guns at home somehow "normalised" the idea of having guns, and that they wouldn't have gone and bought them. This may be true, but seems to be a pretty thin argument. The real crux of the argument, though, is the effect of supply, demand and risk on price. Illegal firearms are extremely cheap in the US as they're much easier to get hold of and easier to transport, due to the number of legal arms around. In the UK, there are very few legal guns in circulation, so the cheapest source of illegal firearms is unavailable (I refer, of course, to those obtained by burglary and mugging). Prices are so different over here that e Columbine shooters would have been able to afford one at most... but then he gun market is so specialised and paranoid that they probably would never have found anyone to sell to them.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but most people in Chicago are black and they aren't good at geography.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[TWX]

At least where I live there are similar problems for both.

If I sell a car private-party, all that I have to do is to send to the motor vehicle department a notice stating that the car has been sold. It doesn't necessarily mean that the title is transferred, but it does notify MVD that I have upheld my end and told them that I don't have the car anymore. It's the buyer's responsibility to register the vehicle. Admittedly, with visible license plates (which the seller is supposed to pull when the transaction is completed) it should be hard for unregistered vehicles to drive around, but it does still happen, either with expired plates/tags or with a stolen front-plate from the same model being applied to the rear of the car.

Similarly, since there's no required registration for firearms, if I sell a firearm that I had purchased new and therefore was registered to me, if the police later come to me I would probably not have to do a lot more than tell them that I sold it for cash. Unfortunately for the investigation that's probably where it would stall. I might find myself under law enforcement scrutiny myself for a bit, but so long as my explanation wasn't contradicted I'd probably be fine.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[ArmoredDragon]

Oh I accidentally replied to the wrong post, meant to reply to the one describing Vermont as a liberal (as in politics) state. Chicago is in a very liberal state.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Half-pint HAL]

If you argue that gun control requires an amendment to be truly legal that's one thing, but the constitution is not some immutable natural law, and can and should be amended whenever it diesn't serve society's needs. The right to bear arms is about civil defense, and handheld firearms don't offer any real protection against a hostile military. So are you going to rip up the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and allow Donald Trump to build his own flotilla of nuclear submarines? If not, then the role of an armed citizenry needs to be revisited. Even if re-examination results in an affirmation of the right to carry, that process still needs to be followed.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Calhune]

1) determiners of "fit to own firearms"? Constitution says that is everybody in the US, barring some very nasty behavior on the person's part. Actually the Constitution is stating a pre-existing right, that of the people to have the right and means to defend themselves. 2) The more "secure" a firearm is, the less useful it is for actually defending yourself. Nothing like asking a rapist or home invader to please wait a couple of minutes while you remove your handgun from the state mandated gun safe and then remove the trigger lock and then load the magazine (no more than 7 rounds, naturally). Not to mention that Heller vs DC struck down storage requirements such as trigger locks - and trigger locks pale next to requiring gun safes or similar. Quote: "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Half-pint HAL]

Here the plates don't usually change when the car changes hands.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Half-pint HAL]

On the other hand, if you've been unable to prevent the gun being stolen, it's not really working as self-defence, is it?

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Half-pint HAL]

Anyway, in case you had forgotten, the sentence in the constitution relating to bearing arms also refers to a "well-regulated militia", so it isn't unconstitutional to regulate gun ownership.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Austerity Empowers]

I don't consider background checks and mental health investigations as "gun control", that falls into the bucket of "people control". The reason I think this falls short is if we admit we have a problem with lunatics running around in society, we also admit we have a very expensive problem we should fix.

Instead, we blame inanimate objects.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Nick Hanauer, Michael R. Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, and John Mack.

http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Universal_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Purchases,_Initiative_594_(2014)

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[TWX]

They didn't around here either, until there were far too many cases of unregistered vehicles with otherwise unexpired plates running around. My guess is that the change was partially a response to the purchasing habits of undocumented immigrants, which could not get vehicle registrations on their own but could 'inherit' the old plates with up to two years remaining on them even if they were technically no longer valid, as it would require comparing registrations and MVD 'sold-notices' to catch the discrepancy. Just easier to pull the plate when selling so that the buyer has to obtain his own registration, and if he can't then he might find himself unable to get plates.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[TWX]

All statements in the Constitution are dependent on the courts agreeing to their meaning. Remember there was a time when there was an assault-weapons ban, which limited magazines to a certain size, and there still is a ban on the sale of new full-automatic weapons to private citizens. The magazine size law expired through its own vocabulary setting a duration of effect, while the automatic weapons ban is still in-effect.

As long as the courts are willing to accept that there are such things as reasonable limits, there will be regulation of firearms.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget Soros.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to transmit the plans, just a pirate copy of Autodesk. Any reject can get a book out of a library to understand the principles of a supressed blowback automatic (or look on Wikipedia) and put those principles to action.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[SvnLyrBrto]

Or you could try Singapore, or Tokyo, or Hong Kong, or Sydney, or Berlin or Taipei. The difference is, of course, that those cities actually have and exercise the political will to ENFORCE their gun laws (Well... their parent governments do, aside from the one that doesn't *have* a parent government.) and proactively imprison offenders instead of turning a blind eye until someone gets killed.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[pslytely psycho]

Indeed! Up here in Liberal Washington State, guns are easily obtained at Walmarts or specialty shops, we have open carry of handguns, and legal weed.

People totally do not understand the meaning of liberal!

I don't what fees or documents are required as I have never felt the need to own one. I don't believe they are onerous however.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

People with gold are afraid of people with guns.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

"handheld firearms don't offer any real protection against a hostile military"

And yet, here we are into our 15th year of war in Afghanistan, which is waged primarily by insurgents who are vastly under-armed compared to the US citizenry. There are about 2 million total active and reserves in the military, vs about 80 million armed citizens. Doesn't matter how many Apaches or A10s they have, they would lose. Keeping those citizens armed is the single most important thing we can do to persevere what this country was founded upon.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Predicting what will serve society's needs best and claiming to be the person with the Right Answer is a game played by fools.

The law of unintended consequences will see that you get your just desserts.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, but you can make an AK47 out of a trench shovel if you've got some mechanical skill about you.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

And the militia was every male over the age of eighteen. Care to try again?

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[modecx]

And how. It wasn't so long ago that being gay was thought to be a mental illness, and not long before that, having a vagina and being subject to the estrous (the word even implies being driven mad) cycle was basically an open indictment against one's mental state.

In a fit of circular logic, a certain subset of the anti-2A crowd pretty much imply that wanting to own a firearm for whatever purpose is equivalent to being crazy.... and so... Oh, you want a gun huh? Oops. DENIED. I bet if we were to come up with an ultimate political Venn diagram, these folks would strongly overlap with uber-feminists who believe that having a penis means you're a rapist, you just haven't been caught yet.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Half-pint HAL]

Wasn't that the very same game played by ecery government ever, including the guys who wrote the constitution? All lawmaking is "best guess", and society can't function without the rule of law. Community can, but not society.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Half-pint HAL]

I was referring to the fact that regulation is mandated by the constitution. You didn't even attempt to address my argument.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Washington *state* is not at all liberal. Washington's population center - King county - may be, but the rest of the state may as well be Wyoming politically. Hell, half the state is a literal desert.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Vermonter]

Yeah Vermont is very odd in that regard. Vermont used to be a very reliable conservative state, and would constantly vote republican in the presidential elections up until a few decades ago. Due to our culture of being comfortable around guns though, there isn't really much of a push to restrict them, despite the state becoming far more liberal.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because he is one of those idiots who thinks the USA would be a better place if all the brown people left and women had no rights and men could run around the streets shooting their little pistols off at each other. It's rather juvenile.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

All you need is a tube that fits your ammo, and a pin to fire said ammo. Then you have a gun. Magic.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Calhune]

The 2nd Amendment includes civil defense against foreign powers, but goes far beyond that to include the right to personal protection as well as protection from our own government and it's agents.That is according to the Supreme Court in Heller vs DC (though they skipped over the protection from our own gov't for the most part), the Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (which emphasizes protection from our own gov't), and practically any other discussion on the 2nd Amendment from the time of the founding of the nation.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[david_thornley]

Um, no. Not in the US. There is no "the government" here. Any monopoly status is given by local governments, not any national government. The Feds have not demonstrated an ability to pre-censor the Internet, and I don't think they have any such. They have the ability to come along afterwards and prosecute, if they can convince a court that this is justified despite the First Amendment.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[david_thornley]

What bothers me about mental health checks is what they'll classify as acceptable. I see enough people who think that an existing mental health condition should be excluded from something or other (which leads to a LOT of untreated mental health problems).

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Calhune]

You need to read Heller vs DC. That prefatory clause doesn't limit the 2nd Amendment at all. If the founders had intended it only to apply to state militias, they would have phrased it as "the right of states to arm and maintain militias will not be infringed." and never mentioned "the people" at all. That reading doesn't make any sense to anybody who knows even a little bit about the Revolutionary War though. The Shot Heard Around The World at Lexington happened while the lawful agents of the governor (the British military) were on their way to confiscate firearms and powder stores from various townships. Why would the Founders immediately say in the first Congress that the states had the right to arm or disarm the people at their whim when they just fought a war over England NOT having the right to disarm the people? I know the prefatory clause is confusing for a lot of people who are only familiar with modern English, but the intent of the founders to say that the 2nd Amendment applied to "the people" was clear at the time.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[david_thornley]

The Second Amendment has been gutted already. AFAICT, it isn't legal for me to go out and acquire a modern military rifle, while the Second's mention of a militia suggests that it was particularly intended to allow citizens to own military weapons (the "militia" thing).

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Shakrai]

"Gun rights" and "gun controls" are not mutually incompatible. For example, mandatory mental health checks for licensees seems emininently sensible as a control, and yet there are people who cry "freedom" and "rights" even when people try to establish checks of that sort.

That would be prior restraint; in the United States we do not apply prior restraint to fundamental rights. You can be denied your right to keep and bear arms because of an established mental illness (the Federal standard requires that you be deemed mentally incompetent by a court) but you can not be compelled to prove a negative in order to exercise it.

"I have schizophrenia." <--- Denied
"Prove you don't have schizophrenia." <--- Unconstitutional

If you're not an American that may seem like a weird place to draw the line but we've got centuries of case law and tradition behind this concept. Speech works the same way too.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Shakrai]

If you argue that gun control requires an amendment to be truly legal that's one thing, but the constitution is not some immutable natural law, and can and should be amended whenever it diesn't serve society's needs.

Please name 38 States that you think would ratify such an amendment. My own State (New York) would not ratify a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, despite our hostility to gun rights; the votes simply aren't there in the New York State Senate. If New York State would not ratify it just who do you think would? Other than New Jersey there is no State that is more hostile to gun rights than New York. I could set the bar lower for you than an outright repeal and you still can't get to 38.

Politics is the art of the possible; whatever the merits or lack thereof of gun control you do need to acknowledge this reality.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[fustakrakich]

There is no "the government" here.

Tell that to the millions of victims of prohibition. On the other hand, our airlines and prime time TV are very safe...

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is very little "liberal" about Illinois where did you get that from?

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Archangel_Azazel]

The Klingons, The lizard people, The Illuminati... Hey man, just because you don't see them in the open doesn't mean that they're not there!!!

*dons hat* Yeah...it's all being run by a shadow government.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[Archangel_Azazel]

When this was written, you had to reload your musket after one shot. Now we have 100 round drum magazines and guns that can eat through them in no time flat. Do you still wipe your ass with your hand and then eat, or have you evolved and learned about germs? To use a more fitting example, we could always just use leeches on you for medical treatment. How's your humors these days?

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[david_thornley]

Yes, many things have gotten better since the Bill of Rights was ratified. Do you have a point?

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[david_thornley]

Prohibition was a combination of Federal, state, and local laws, the decisive actions being Federal. That's not the case with internet access. That's a matter of numerous different governments interacting badly.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[fustakrakich]

"Illegal" content is decided by the feds.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

It never would have happened if the parents or the school would have listened to the kids at all. They were experiencing blackouts and hallucinating for months before it happened. They were experiencing severe anger for little to no reason as well, all this from the medicine they were being forced to take. The important thing here is that they were begging for help from both parents and school councilors well before this happened and were ignored.

Re:Because...it's the LAW!

[Anonymous Coward]

No you wouldn't!

A gun is a very simple machine. All they would need to do is lookup the dimensions of the round they want to shoot from the gun which is readily available from any magazine that sells ammunition. The only things left are the trigger and the hammer, which are also not particularly difficult to implement.

If you think a gun would be hard to make in your own garage then you know nothing about guns, and likely little about weapons in general.

Re: Because...it's the LAW!

[ArmoredDragon]

Well basically every highly urbanized and high crime area tends to be politically left. And no that isn't a jab or a partisan comment, just look at the red vs blue voting maps, population density, and crime rate. All three have a very strong correlation.

It stopped piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Making it illegal to transmit data put an immediate end to software piracy. I don't see why it can't work here as well.

Re:It stopped piracy

[bobbied]

Making it illegal to transmit data put an immediate end to software piracy. I don't see why it can't work here as well.

Hey, while we are at it, let's outlaw murder and rape too... Oh wait... What is already illegal?

Re:It stopped piracy

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Making it illegal to transmit data put an immediate end to software piracy. I don't see why it can't work here as well.

It'll work - just like the ban on exporting strong encryption worked.

Re:It stopped piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. Are you saying that rape and murder should be made legal because that will reduce the number of rapes and murders?

Re:It stopped piracy

[Vitriol Angst]

They will probably have limits on the "commercial" 3D printers that consumers purchase. So it will be a hindrance for the Average Joe but not for the geek or committed bad guy.

If you ever noticed, you can't scan in the images of money into Adobe PhotoShop either. Well, that is -- an ENTIRE bill cannot be scanned. You can however, scan it in two parts, and then assemble them in PhotoShop.

So it may be that nobody in the future will be able to print a gun (with off the rack 3D printers) but they'll print out a pipe that seems suspiciously like a muzzle, they'll print out a "spring-loaded-dispenser" that's a lot like a magazine, they'll print out a "striking compartment" that is a lot like a gun chamber, and two more parts added on -- with 5 minutes of assembly, and you've got a gun.

Gun's will be stopped! But not gun-like parts. Or sprinkler systems with that ability to handle explosive rounds.

Re:It stopped piracy

[Opportunist]

TL;DR: If you outlaw printing guns, only outlaws print guns.

Re:It stopped piracy

[Applehu Akbar]

"I like Pez so much that I'm building a dispenser that ejects it at the speed of sound."

Re:It stopped piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

On what planet is software piracy comparable to rape and murder? The difference between the two is that people take rape and murder seriously.

Re:It stopped piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

On the same planet where making a law against something actually stops everyone and anyone from doing it.

Re:It stopped piracy

[lister king of smeg]

Well there is precedent the MPAA compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler in the early 80s.

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." --- Jake Valenti (President of the MPAA)

If they thought a device that would allow you to recorded live tv was equivalent to a serial murderer then there thought of piracy must be at least equally hyperbolic.

Re:It stopped piracy

[ArylAkamov]

Compare prison sentences between the two and you'll see that software piracy is frequently taken more seriously than rape and murder.

Re:It stopped piracy

[KGIII]

Yeah... Hmm... Google indicates otherwise. I am going to need a citation for that.

What would possess you to lie like that? I do not understand. This is the internet, it is the one place where you can be completely honest and nobody will know who you are (within reason). Why lie?

Re:It stopped piracy

[Shakrai]

Hey, while we are at it, let's outlaw murder and rape too... Oh wait... What is already illegal?

New York State limits you to carrying no more than seven condoms at a time. It's a bit of common sense legislation; there's no legitimate reason why a non-rapist would need more than seven condoms. :)

Re:It stopped piracy

[bobbied]

So is that's 6 with one chambered, or just 7 in your pocket and a quick loader?

Re:It stopped piracy

[ArylAkamov]

I misspoke, I was intending to compare total income loss (Time spend in prison vs the fine). The time spent in prison is definitely incomparable except in extreme cases.

The RIAA/MPAA usually attempts to get more money than the average person makes in several decades.

The average income in the United States in 2011 was $27,500. A year in prison could be considered a $27,000 fine.

Let's compare this to some fines for piracy.

Joel Tenenbaum, who was fined $675,000, which would be equal in income loss to 24.5 years in prison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_Music_Entertainment_v._Tenenbaum)

There's also Thomas-Rasset , who was originally fined 1.5 million dollars (54.5 years) but was reduced to $222,000 (8 years) after an appeal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thomas-Rasset)

Outrageous fines like this are not unusual, but a number of people have (After several appeals) managed to get them reduced to something more reasonable

Lets compare this to murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Second degree murder ranges from 5 years to life, depending on the state (Keep in mind a "life" sentence can mean as little as 15 years).

Here's an extreme example:

http://www.kansascity.com/news...

4 years, two months for shooting, torturing and beheading a man.

Re:It stopped piracy

[KGIII]

You can not equate loss of freedom to financial harm. They are not equivocal. Not even if you try... This is why you can not (in theory, at least) buy your way out of prison. See Enron executives and others for examples of this.

Re:It stopped piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

All those parts have to be created separately anyway, so it really wouldn't matter.

I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletproof.

[fustakrakich]

When do we get the indelible internet?

Controlling the information of ideas

[NetNinja]

Controlling the information of ideas

Re:Controlling the information of ideas

[bobbied]

Controlling the information of ideas

Orwell just had his year wrong....

Re:Controlling the information of ideas

[ArhcAngel]

Probably just Skynet going to the past and mucking with things. It's inevitable but just delayed.

Yay, regulation!!

[rodrigoandrade]

Because it worked so well for RIAA / MPAA, right?

Re:Yay, regulation!!

[fustakrakich]

Yes, it does... They are making billions of dollars. The system works!

Re:Yay, regulation!!

[harrkev]

Actually, most people, including myself, are just honest. While I could get pirated movies, I would rather be able to live with myself and I follow the law willingly. Note that I do use VLC so I don't have to watch the FBI warnings and previews (probably breaking the law somehow).

Re:Yay, regulation!!

[SuricouRaven]

I view copyright law as intrinsically flawed today. It was a good idea pre-internet - but today it can't possibly be enforced without resorting to draconian measures. An unenforceable law is a very bad thing indeed, as it becomes easily abused, and such a law should be either repealed or reworked into a more practical form.

Quick!

[CanHasDIY]

Somebody put the genie back in the bottle!!!

Re:Quick!

[Cro Magnon]

Nah, I'm too busy trying to get the horse in the barn.

Re:Quick!

[PitaBred]

But where did the cats go? I've got a great bag right here...

Crappy precedent...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

If we start banning content because it could be a violation of INTERNATIONAL export...cue the Great US Firewall.

Re:Crappy precedent...

[delt0r]

This is not the first time they did this. In fact it has quite an interesting history in cryptography that was classified as a munition for just this reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Crappy precedent...

[wvmarle]

You must be new here.

Ever heard of PGP? The versions that used the large encryption keys (>1024 bits at the time, iirc, or maybe even smaller keys), used to be banned for export under certain US military laws. The rest of the world had to do with a weaker version of PGP. Not that the full version wasn't available to us anyway...

Re:Crappy precedent...

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the world had strong encryption in those days. We could not import it from the U.S: - sure. But that did not stop us, for everything does not originate in the U.S. "Munitions" are developed elsewhere too. Taking the short-key version of PGP and develop the long-key version from it is particularly easy.

For slightly more of a challenge - start with the mathematical theory (which were unrestricted) and write long-key encryption from scratch. Easy enough.

Re:Crappy precedent...

[Anonymous Coward]

The PGP software as bits was banned for export.

The PGP software as printed hardcopy of the sourcecode was not (1st Amendment). There was a brief booming business in hardcopy of the PGP source in easily OCR'd fonts.

If it came down to it, it would be trivial to print out the G-code for 3D printable (or CAM millable, for that matter) gun parts, and then OCR it.

Of course it will

[Trailer Trash]

Proposed Regulation Could Keep 3D-printed Gun Blueprints Offline For Good

Yep. And drug laws totally eliminated illegal drugs, prostitution laws totally eliminated prostitution, etc.

Come on, people. This is the stupidest headline I've read in awhile. If laws actually had magical powers like that it would be irrelevant since there's already a law against using a gun to murder someone.

Re:Of course it will

[delt0r]

But out of those making prostitution illegal is the stupidest of the lot.

Situation 1, i go to a bar, find a girl that wants nice things for a night and puts out for it.
Situation 2, Some girl wants extra cash and finds a porn movie studio, gets paid for sex.
Situation 3, someone you don't find too objectionable offers X dollars for a shag, and you aggree.

Why would anyone think that 3 is soo different from the rest? What is gained by making it illegal.

Re:Of course it will

[Anonymous Coward]

But wait, it gets better! Following the success of the War on Drugs(tm), you can expect the equivalent of a no-knock warrant served on your servers because the government got an "anonymous tip" you were hosting gun blueprints. And the only way to "be sure" will be to strip your box down to its wires searching for the blueprints or any fragments of blueprints. And because there are so many computers in the world, we'll need a lot of Internet cops...

Re:Of course it will

[Anonymous Coward]

You've apparently never travelled to these two places:
Place 1. Somewhere where prostitution is legal.
Place 2. Somewhere where prostitution is illegal.

Place 2 is rarely somewhere that Place 1 would even dump their garbage. It brings the entire city down. You act as though prostitution is a spur-of-the-moment, "you know, while we're talking..." encounter. It's not. It's more like "Heeeeey shuggaaah, u wanna ride the bess pussy yo lyfe? HEY!!! WHERE THE FUK U GOIN? I WAS TALKIN YOU! Ah, fuck off needle dick" Yeah, that's what I want to hear every time I walk down a city street, because delt0r can't get laid without paying a girl.

Re:Of course it will

[Anonymous Coward]

What is gained by making it illegal.

Prostitution is competition for women, so not surprisingly women make sure it's illegal.

What women want, they get (this is why abortion is legal, but prostitution isn't, for example).

Re:Of course it will

[Anonymous Coward]

Making alcohol illegal was even stupider.

Re:Of course it will

[alvinrod]

It's even more pointless considering that digital files are practically impossible to contain already (see the Pirate Bay) and that information can be encoded in any format a person cares to use and encryption or other techniques can be used on top of that to make it even more difficult to stop. Use some stegonography and suddenly that cute picture of a kitten contains the necessary data to reconstruct the banned content assuming you also have the necessary function to decode the hidden data.

At least with drugs that can't be magically disguised as something else until they're trivially converted back to their original substance, but they can't even come close to solving that problem which contains a physical element.

Re:Of course it will

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if you're trying to say that Place 1 is better or worse than Place 2.
In my experience Place 2 will always be worse, with hookers on the corner being picked up.
In Place 1, since it's legal, everything can be done above board instead of out on the street.

Re:Of course it will

[Anonymous Coward]

You've apparently never travelled to these two places:
Place 1. Somewhere where prostitution is legal.
Place 2. Somewhere where prostitution is illegal.

Place 2 is rarely somewhere that Place 1 would even dump their garbage. It brings the entire city down. You act as though prostitution is a spur-of-the-moment, "you know, while we're talking..." encounter. It's not. It's more like "Heeeeey shuggaaah, u wanna ride the bess pussy yo lyfe? HEY!!! WHERE THE FUK U GOIN? I WAS TALKIN YOU! Ah, fuck off needle dick" Yeah, that's what I want to hear every time I walk down a city street, because delt0r can't get laid without paying a girl.

And while we're at it, let's ban automobiles too, because I'm so sick of seeing those inflatable-tube-man things every time I walk down a street that has car dealerships!

Re:Of course it will

[Anonymous Coward]

Prostitution is legal everywhere on the face of the earth. Every jurisdiction in every country.

They just have to call it "marriage."

Re:Of course it will

[delt0r]

You realize that in *most* countries prostitution is legal or getting legalized right?

Re:Of course it will

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's all those evil wimmen plotting against you, keeping you from getting what you so desperately crave, but cannot have. Don't worry, they're probably all lesbians!

Re:Of course it will

[SuricouRaven]

In some US states, 2) is legally equivalent to 3). The camera makes no difference: If they get paid to have sex, it's considered prostitution.

Re:Of course it will

[david_thornley]

I don't think the camera makes any difference in any state. Apparently, in California, prostitution means that I pay you to have sex with me. If I pay you to have sex with somebody else, that's legal. This is not the case in all states, as you point out.

Re:Of course it will

[david_thornley]

There are some problems with other laws. Welfare recipients are frequently required to accept any job offer or lose their benefits, and if prostitution were legalized without changing anything else this would force poor women into prostitution (not that it's altogether rare; it's a way for a welfare recipient to get a little extra money without reporting it). Many people, including me, think it wrong to pressure people into having sex against their will. Personally, I'd like to see prostitution legalized (along with various other victimless crimes), but with some care.

Also, you left out Situation 4 (standard when I was young): Some girl makes a deal where she'll get financial support for the rest of her life in exchange for sexual favors more or less on demand. Since then, the workforce has become a lot more welcoming of women, and a wife's right to not have sex with her husband has been recognized, and it's a lot easier to get divorced, but it still happens. Formal wholesale prostitution has been legal pretty much forever.

Re:Of course it will

[ebvwfbw]

Yet another law to punish only law abiding citizens that didn't know any better. ITAR nearly got me decades ago. Figured it out and got a license.

F14 is largely declassified

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The goal, of course, is not to prevent this stuff from getting out -- people will sneak it out trivially and host it outside the US. And state-level agency, or large terrorist organizations, could just send legal (on the surface anyway) visitors to pick it up, if they wanted to, which they don't.

The goal is to intimidate the makers of such designs. Arrest first and ask questions later, when such designs get out. I wonder how they will take that intimidation?

Re:F14 is largely declassified

[bev_tech_rob]

Arrest first and ask questions later, when such designs get out. I wonder how they will take that intimidation?

Doesn't matter. Only thing matters is how deep your pockets are retaining competent legal counsel. Usually your pockets run out before the government's, unfortunately.

Re:F14 is largely declassified

[tsqr]

F14 is largely declassified

The security classification of an item really isn't relevant. Although it would be an ITAR violation to export classified data, there are countless non-classified items on the ITAR list.

The goal, of course, is not to prevent this stuff from getting out -- people will sneak it out trivially and host it outside the US.

Sneaking ITAR-controlled data out and hosting it outside the US constitutes an "export". If the perpetrator is caught, they are subject to extremely onerous fines and federal imprisonment.

And state-level agency, or large terrorist organizations, could just send legal (on the surface anyway) visitors to pick it up, if they wanted to, which they don't.

ITAR doesn't work that way. Allowing foreign visitors, regardless of their legal status, to "pick up" ITAR-controlled data is an "export". Anyone allowing that to take place would be subject to extremely onerous fines and federal imprisonment.

Re:F14 is largely declassified

[Anonymous Coward]

F14 is largely declassified

Doesn't matter. Making a F14 would be a copyright infringement, similiar to how making a Simpsons t-shirt is infringement.

Any terrorist doing this would break international laws and can be dealt with accordingly.

Re:F14 is largely declassified

[currently_awake]

Or the goal is to justify mandatory internet filtering. On every single connection, and with mandatory access to your encryption keys. Because, the law.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[squiggleslash]

I don't know about that, were the ACM provisions of the DMCA (the part that in theory banned DeCSS) ever declared to be in breach of the first amendment? I recall we "lost" that legal fight, even if DeCSS's ubiquity meant it ended up being a Pyhrric victory for the DVD-CCA.

Legally I suspect they can "ban" 3D gun blueprints if stored in some computer parsable form. Practically, of course, they'll find that hard to enforce.

USA only?

[Moskit]

ITAR would apply mainly to USA, question is whether through ACTA-like actions they would impose it on the World?

Re:compensating?

[JonWan]

This has nothing to do with guns or dicks. It's about control, the control of information that everyone already has. It's useless regulation that will end up costing billions of dollars.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Archangel Michael]

Torrent Style Protocol where the parts are never fully assembled until delivered. How can you ban PART of a diagram?

Pointless, since we already have a work-around

[Totenglocke]

They tried this with encryption methods and the result was to simply print it out and publish it as a book, then it became an irrefutable 1st Amendment issue. Idiot politicians never learn.

Re:Pointless, since we already have a work-around

[knightghost]

Voters are the ones that don't learn - they keep putting these idiot politicians into office.

Re:Pointless, since we already have a work-around

[delt0r]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Pointless, since we already have a work-around

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for mail-order gun schematics.

Re:Pointless, since we already have a work-around

[fustakrakich]

Shhh! They don't want to hear that! They just dig in... *It's the money's fault*

Re:Pointless, since we already have a work-around

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know, that the odds of an idiot politician learning are 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 to 1. ;)

Re:Pointless, since we already have a work-around

[Anonymous Coward]

If I don't vote for lesser evil, then the huge issue I heard about on the news will go the wrong way! This election is too important to be an impractical idealist, you're just betraying poor people and/or Jesus. Why do you hate democracy?

Re:Pointless, since we already have a work-around

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring the actual political process whereby connections to rich corporations and people is a prerequisite for becoming a politician. Is literally ignorant to blame the public for the fact that corporations control the government through lobbyists, It's stupid to assume the general public is responsible when they don't have a real say in any politics (as the Princeton study shows), meanwhile ignoring that the situation was caused by a small and dedicated percentage of very rich and very corrupt people.

Sorry, it's not our fault but it is our problem. "The public sucks", yeah, funny, but also quite wrong. The people in office don't come from "the general public" they come from the elite.

The internet doesn't work like that

[sideslash]

Not only are there many people who will continue to share such documents on peer to peer networks, but also it may surprise our Wise and Venerable Legislators to learn that there are foreign web hosts not subject to US law. You can't really ban anything from the internet or keep anything "offline".

Re:The internet doesn't work like that

[OrangeTide]

You realize that the Wise and Venerable Legislators are OK with drone strikes against foreign countries right?

Re:The internet doesn't work like that

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that the Wise and Venerable Legislators are OK with drone strikes against foreign countries right?

Well we certainly don't want drone strikes against domestic countries, do we?

Re:The internet doesn't work like that

[OrangeTide]

They're working on the details for that one, the legislator seems OK with it, but as long as the drones aren't pointed at them.

Foreign interests?

[Nidi62]

By putting up a digital file, that constitutes an export of the data. If it's an executable digital file, any foreign interests can get a hold of it."

Right. Because in countries where you can trade a goat for a fully automatic AK-47 or even an RPK, people are instead going to download and print a flimsy, crappy piece of plastic that can shoot maybe 10 rounds before blowing your hand off. And in any case, they make much better weapons in caves than what this guy is making.

Re:Foreign interests?

[fuzznutz]

You miss the big picture. 3D printed guns are in their infancy. The powers-that-be are scared shitless that 3D printed guns will EVENTUALLY be way better than your conventional home built firearms.

Re: Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not about the avalibilty of guns. This is about the control of information.

Re:Foreign interests?

[harrkev]

And you miss the bigger picture. Making it illegal for an honest citizen to print a 3D gun will not stop the criminals from doing it.

That is the biggest problem with gun control -- criminals do not obey laws.

Re: Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is not, and has never been, about keeping the criminals under control. They're a small minority of the populace. The point is to control the majority of the populace.

Re:Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that being made of plastic they won't trigger metal detectors.

Re:Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the big picture. 3D printed guns are in their infancy. The powers-that-be are scared shitless that 3D printed guns will EVENTUALLY be way better than your conventional home built firearms.

Call me when you can 3D print the ammo...

Re:Foreign interests?

[Nidi62]

The difference is that being made of plastic they won't trigger metal detectors.

The "foreign interests" most likely to use this (ie. people without the industrial capacity to develop their own covert weaponry) are more likely to just blow up said metal detector, along with anyone in or near the security checkpoint.

Re:Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course criminals obey laws, what a stupid comment. You go around not obeying any laws and you see how long you last. The point of criminality is to benefit the criminal - he does this by breaking laws selectively, not by constantly flagging himself to every passing police officer. If you have to break laws just to prepare for a crime, it makes the crime harder to commit. Don't condescend about the "bigger picture" when you're missing fundamental basics like these, or live in a dream world where all crime is committed by a certain type of person obeying certain precepts. I mean do they all wear stripes and carry bags labelled "swag" too?

Re:Foreign interests?

[nitehawk214]

Was disappointed the link was not this video about a weapon made in a cave.

Re:Foreign interests?

[Nidi62]

Was disappointed the link was not this video about a weapon made in a cave.

Hey, I could always have linked the forum post where a guy made a AK-47 out of a blank kit and a shovel. I'd take a shovel AK over a "Liberator" any day.

Re:Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a slight chance the "foreign interest" might use a 3D printed gun, that would take a way a sales opportunity for the CIA.

Re: Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all about the information! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfIIbCIeOT

Re:Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

Been done. Everything but the powder, anyway. And the powder can be made pretty easily with stuff you can buy for a few bucks at any hardware store.

Re:Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

..., they make much better weapons in caves than what this guy is making.

For a second, I thought you meant this cave man.

Re:Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

You go around not obeying any laws and you see how long you last. The point of criminality is to benefit the criminal - he does this by breaking laws selectively, not by constantly flagging himself to every passing police officer. If you have to break laws just to prepare for a crime, it makes the crime harder to commit. Don't condescend about the "bigger picture" when you're missing fundamental basics like these, or live in a dream world where all crime is committed by a certain type of person obeying certain precepts.

Your comment is completely absurd. You've taken "criminals break laws" and presented it as "criminals break every law". It's ridiculous that your post was rated insightful, when it's actually fallacious. Additionally, how do you explain politicians? Most of which break the law every day by defiling the constitution they were sworn to protect -- Every day these politicians break the law by refusing to protect our 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments via entertaining such propositions as TFA, encryption export controls, or NSA warrantless wire-tapping. Hey, there's another one. All those people wearing NSA security badge, they break laws just to prepare for other crimes. Face the fact: It really is a certain type of person who commits certain kinds of crimes, take those treasonous traitors with loyalty to the US constitution for example.

Re:Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

they make much better weapons in caves

I thought you were going to post a link to an Iron Man torrent.

Re:Foreign interests?

[SuricouRaven]

Not better. More available.

Here in the UK, it's pretty hard to get an illegal gun. You need connections - a contact in organized crime who can put you in touch with the right people. That means your common street gang member doesn't have a gun - they have to make do with knives. If 3D printed guns became more practical, every gangsta-wannabe would have one.

Re:Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

Been done.

Link please...all I've seen is a risible shotgun slug so far...my google-fu isn't providing anything else this evening..other than some machined insert type cartridge.

..Everything but the powder, anyway. And the powder can be made pretty easily with stuff you can buy for a few bucks at any hardware store.

Ah, you forget some of us live in countries where the plods watch and collate the purchases of 'precursor' materials..

Re:Foreign interests?

[fuzznutz]

Not better. More available.

Here in the UK, it's pretty hard to get an illegal gun. You need connections - a contact in organized crime who can put you in touch with the right people. That means your common street gang member doesn't have a gun - they have to make do with knives. If 3D printed guns became more practical, every gangsta-wannabe would have one.

It's a US law/regulation. Guns are already easily available here. It's not a problem to get one. Availability is not the issue. And they are not afraid of a unreliable, single shot, kludge like the liberator and its ilk.

The Feds are scared that some bright boy genius will take existing plans and improve things with newer and improved 3D printing technology to make a highly reliable and effective, undetectable weapon. They don't give two shits if some UK hoodlum can suddenly print a Liberator and have an illegal handgun in London. They are worried about someone bringing something that works well and can't be detected on a plane or on a Federal property.

Re:Foreign interests?

[fuzznutz]

And you miss the bigger picture. Making it illegal for an honest citizen to print a 3D gun will not stop the criminals from doing it.

That is the biggest problem with gun control -- criminals do not obey laws.

You cannot see the forest for the trees.

This is ALL ABOUT buying time by making sharing research more difficult so they can improve detection technology. They know criminals will print them and they are not afraid of the single shot Liberator. They want to be ready to detect a highly reliable, multi-shot, semi or fully automatic, 3D printed firearm. They want to threaten those who would share their insights and improvements to slow development.

Re:Foreign interests?

[harrkev]

Are you really that dumb? Of course criminals obey SOME laws. Otherwise, rounding up criminals would be easy, as you just arrest the guy crossing the street a dozen time because jaywalking is illegal.

My point is that criminals do not mind breaking laws if it benefits them. Honest citizens, in general, will obey the laws.

If a criminal can 3D print a gun, he will. Getting jail time is just an occupational hazard for a criminal.

An honest citizen, one with children that they are responsible for, will generally not do things that will get them locked up for years.

Re:Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

Criminals won't bother 3D-printing a gun. They will steal one, or buy from the black market. Consumer 3D-printers use plastics - which will never be good for gun barrels. Metal 3D printers exist and may get "better", but they won't ever be cheap. The black-market machine gun will forever be cheaper.

Re:Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bigger picture is not even about guns. its about control of what we can talk about, and share with others.. This is just a testbed..a pilot, so to speak.

Re:Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a highly reliable, "undetectable" gun, you don't 3D print it, you machine it from high density Nylon or Delrin, and insert a machined graphite barrel and breach into it.

Jeez, everyone knows that.

Re:Foreign interests?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an ammendment to the International Traffic in Arms Restrictions (ITAR) Act. So it most surely is about foreign diplomacy, than internal US safety.

Countries like Australia, New Zealand and the UK, are bat shit crazy over 3D printed guns (strangely not over the thousands of other ways you can cheaply and illegally make a gun), and are probably putting pressure on the US to do something about it.

Re:Foreign interests?

[backwardsposter]

At least it'll prevent those hooligans and armed militias!

Re:Foreign interests?

[jwhitener]

That is the biggest problem with gun control -- criminals do not obey laws.

I know. I mean, what is the point of outlawing murder? Criminals are just going to do it anyway.

Re:Foreign interests?

[harrkev]

The point of laws is to describe what bad behavior is, and determine a punishment.

Outlawing murder does NOT stop a murder from happening, it just allows you to punish the criminal once they are caught, and provides a deterrent. If a person is willing to commit a murder and break that law, what logical process leads you to believe that this person will suddenly worry about gun laws too?

Ultimately guns laws are a disproportional burden to the honest people. Did France's gun laws stop the attack on the magazine office? And yet it is the honest people of France that have to obey those laws.

Please think just a little deeper than a knee-jerk reaction.

Re:Foreign interests?

[jwhitener]

It is a logically consistent reaction to your comment.

Making certain guns illegal, or certain acts with guns illegal, does "just allows you to punish the criminal once they are caught". It also means the market is smaller for gun X. Even if criminals have access to assault rifle X, there will be less of them around than if they were legal. It takes time though. Criminals will continue to posses them until caught or worn out.

But I agree with you in general, laws alone are not going to stop the absurdly high levels of gun violence in the US. It is a very complicated issue. I think it is a combination of the following that needs to be addressed: 1) we need higher levels of social services (mentally ill, poor people feeling desperate, safety nets, giving people public works jobs rather than turning to selling drugs, etc... ). 2) We need to lower the income inequality in the US. Our poor are *really* poor. We have huge problems with poverty cycles in inner cities. Huge wealth inequality also goes hand and hand with lower social mobility (usually) and in the case of the US, we do have very low social mobility. Once poor, you tend to stay poor. 3). The availability of guns. Guns should have longer waiting periods, more in depth background checks, etc.. it works in other countries. And if polling is too be believed, most gun owners in the US favor increases in lots of different types of new regulations. It would work here, but it wouldn't happen over night. It would take a generation until some of the guns in the black markets cycled out due to wear/seizure. 4). etc..

Re:Foreign interests?

[harrkev]

#1 and #2 are great ideas. Tough ideas, but great if you can pull it off without crippling the economy.

Things start to fall apart around #3. As I have stated before, laws disproportionately affect those who are honest enough to follow them. Guns laws will REALLY stop honest people from getting them, and you HOPE that a little splashes over to the criminals. And if you have a criminal without a gun, you still have a criminal.

Look at the UK. I dare you to do this: do a Google image search for "stop knife violence." Since England has mostly tamed the gun beast, they are now turning their sights on knives, since people who intend to kill use whatever tools are at hand. Do you carry a Leatherman tool? I have heard (but no 1st hand knowledge) that you can get arrested for that in London since it has a locking blade.

And even if you DID manage to get rid of all knives, people would switch to another tool. "Stop cricked bat violence" anyone?

If get get rid of a gun, the criminal can use other tools. If you get rid of the criminal, you have NO reason to fear guns. It is as simple as that.

Yay, 'murica!

[msobkow]

This will be extremely effective, because no other nation in the world could possibly come up with a 3D-printer blueprint for producing gun parts. :P

Re:Yay, 'murica!

[Kohath]

It's not about any other country. The goal of the regulation is to prevent Americans from having access to 3D printed guns and to intimidate any American who would design one of these guns.

The best answer is for people outside the US to create these designs and post them online.

Re:Yay, 'murica!

[msobkow]

Ah. You mean like regulations have eliminated torrents and drugs, right?

Re:compensating?

[Archangel Michael]

Simple, name one Totalitarian regime that allows for its citizens to be armed.

Compensating for European idiots who vote for despot dictators, and who love Chamberlain types gathering peace accords while handing over entire countries to said dictators. You think it cant happen again?

It's been an hour

[behrooz0az]

Where is the magnet link?

Re:It's been an hour

[fustakrakich]

Doesn't work with non metal parts...

bans on knowledge rarely work

[nimbius]

disclaimer: I am ardently anti-gun.

People will always want to 3d print a gun. In some cases 3d printing a gun or components to a firearm is an excellent idea. For example, in a rural or exurban environment where parts may be scarce, raw materials to remanufacture failing components of firearms for hunting or defense are more efficient. A farmer may be able to use the same 3d printer to rebuild a thresher, reprint a broken connector, and rebuild a rifle used for varmint hunting to protect his cattle.

there will always be bad guys. bad guys will always want to 3d print a gun that can't be traced and isn't registered. But it bares worth remembering, our present United States method of determining who is fit for ownership of a gun is basically a checklist and a phone call. Given the rash of recent mass shootings this system didn't prevent, its clearly lacking. Any attempt to regulate 3d printing of guns, should come with an overhaul of our background or application process for gun ownership. simply banning the devices, the knowledge, or their export is an ambitious but futile approach to the actual problem: wholesale gun violence in the united states as a manifestation of the permanent race based caste and class system inequality in the united states..

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[bobbied]

So, lets get this straight... You are for people out in the country being able to print parts for their guns because getting parts might be hard? Um, so if they cannot mail order gun parts, where on earth are they going to get a 3D printer and supplies to run it?

The rest of your post is 100% not original thinking but pabulum rhetoric from the Anti-Gun crowd. Of course gun laws don't stop bad guys from using guns in bad ways, new laws will have the same problem, only the law abiding will follow them, bad people won't care. The problem YOU have is that until you take 100% of the guns off the streets and out of EVERYBODY'S hands there is no way your utopian views will ever eliminate the "bad people" doing "bad things" which happen to be illegal. However, the 2nd amendment prevents you from disarming the citizens in the USA. Guns are here to stay.

What we actually NEED in this situation is to ARM the law abiding. Put guns in the hands of good people. Give them the ability to protect themselves and others from the nut cases hell bent on shooting people for what ever reason. Make it so these crazed "I don't care what the law says I'm going to shoot somebody" shooters don't last long because waiting for the police to get there takes too long, too many people die while the police are responding.

ONE gun in the hands of a ordinary citizen in the movie theater, could have prevented many deaths. Multiple guns would have been even better... Sure, people may still die, but in an active shooter situation, if you can stop the shooter sooner, less people die.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[Anon-Admin]

It wont make a difference.

I dont need a 3d printer to make a gun!

I drill press and some angle iron to make a jig and I can produce produce AK47's all day long.

Best part is, guns made at home dont have to be registered and the parts that you order to make them dont have a background check. Meaning As long as I make the receiver for my own personal use (that's the part with the serial number and the part that legally constitutes a gun) then I don't have to serial number it, it does not have to be registered, and I don't have to have a background check.

Officially I break the law if I sell it or make it full auto, with a note that the mechanical difference between a semi-auto and a full auto is literally a hole in the receiver and a couple of extra parts that come with the kit.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[harrkev]

So, short of hiring a psychic to predict future crime, what else do you suggest as far as a background check? Do you have a criminal record? Have you been declared mentally incompetent?

Anything beyond that is a judgement call, and who gets to make that call? On what basis?

Keep in mind that every year, less than one out of every 30,000 gun is used in a murder.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[Kohath]

wholesale gun violence in the united states as a manifestation of the permanent race based caste and class system inequality in the united states..

Once Obama finally becomes President, that will be solved and the racial healing can begin.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[Anonymous Coward]

One gun in the hands of an ordinary citizen in the movie theater... accidentally goes off and kills the five-year-old sitting next to him. Being armed has both benefits and risks, and it seems you've grossly underestimated the risks.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[Anonymous Coward]

you do realize that your "one out of every 30,000 gun[sic]" bit just makes you look silly. Given the extreme proliferation of firearms that ratio is quite large and only going to get larger. If you don't want to look stupid use a different metric, something like the percent of homicides committed in a year that involve a gun, or the percent of deaths in a year that are the result of homicide, or something similar.

But measuring the number of deaths to the number of guns is just stupid.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[PraiseBob]

ONE gun in the hands of a ordinary citizen in the movie theater, could have prevented many deaths.

Yes, of course, you've figured it all out. Because an asshole who decides exactly when he can spring an ambush on unsuspecting people, hiding behind cover & wearing body armor, can instantly be taken out by an average handgun holder. Seriously?

You are aware that highly trained and experienced soldiers almost always fail and die under those circumstances right? The shooter has more firepower, better armor, better cover, and the advantage of surprise. I would put the odds somewhere in the 1000 to 1 range for the handgun winning in that scenario. Wtf is it with you rambo types thinking one handgun will just magically win in a firefight?

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[Anonymous Coward]

"there will always be bad guys. bad guys will always want to 3d print a gun that can't be traced and isn't registered. ."

Just a heads up. . . . .

Bad guys don't care about the gun being registered or not. It will either be stolen, purchased off the black market, or the individual using it doesn't give two shits about the entire registration system if they're about to commit any crime of a serious nature. You can purchase the weapon a decade ago when you were a poster child of health and ten years later go on a rampage when the economy implodes, the stock market burns up and your entire life, as you know it, dissolves.

If you want the shootings to stop, figure out what's pissing everyone off and causing them to snap. Here's a tip: A happy population doesn't riot, protest, and spawn mass shooters. Anyone who has ever played any of the Sim City games knows to keep your people happy or things become rather difficult for you. It's hilarious the leaders of this country have never quite figured that out :|

Fix the economy, deal with the wage inequality, get us out of the non-stop wars, stop stirring up shit overseas, quit treating the civilian population like we're all criminals ( Eg: quit fucking spying on me ), quit lying to us all the damn time, fix the immigration issue and a whole list of things I could go on about here that tend to piss the population off.

AS LONG AS PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY HAPPY, THEY TEND NOT TO KILL EACH OTHER.

Captcha: Harmless

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[ExecutorElassus]

Cripes, I wish I had mod points this week. It's so nice to read someone who can reasonably articulate what's actually going on here. Cheers.

Re: bans on knowledge rarely work

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullets do work kind of instantly. The shooter doesn't know if and who has the one handgun. Also, its obvious you don't know much about modern body armor, because getting shot, even with armor, is still at best a very painful experience and some broken bones. Thats assuming the shot hits the armor. It definitely could buy people time to get out and could potentially end the situation altogether.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[Anonymous Coward]

But it bares worth remembering

I have learned to distrust the reasoning of fools who can't even use normal grammar when making their arguments.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[Anonymous Coward]

And it seems you and every anti-gunner in America has grossly underestimated the benefits of mass gun ownership/carry, as well as grossly underestimated the risks associated with government monopolies on force and mass disarmament. Ask British and Aussie victims of home-invasion robberies as well as general assaults and rapes, which are more prevalent there because the criminal element are encouraged by general public disarmament.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[Anonymous Coward]

99.999999% of guns don't accidentally go off, idiots are finger fucking the trigger for no good reason and pull it. Then they say "it just went off" to divert blame.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[Anonymous Coward]

1000 to 1, vs 1000 to 0. This is almost always the argument I hear from anti-gunners, just absolute defeatism, 'don't even try to protect yourself pleb'.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[Anonymous Coward]

wholesale gun violence in the united states as a manifestation of the permanent race based caste and class system inequality in the united states.

No, it's a money based class system. You sound like an ignorant Marxist repeating that rubbish. The reality is that poverty breeds violence -- Just look at Trailer Parks full of white people vs Ghettos full of minorities. Your bullshit "racial system of inequality" nonsense was refuted decades ago by a black man who actually looked at the data.

Furthermore, ever wonder why socialists are against the general public having access to the guns they need to overthrow the commie bastards? It's because they've bought into bogus ideologies rather than looked at the facts. Heart disease and accidents are absolutely the most dangerous to life in America, outclassing violence by a few orders of magnitude. Bathtubs are far more dangerous than guns by the numbers. I can't take anyone seriously who's against gun ownership yet still takes a shower then drives the kids to get a happy meal. Your priorities are out of whack, and whether consciously designed or not are a recipe for ignorance, division, and true oppression. I bet you even believe news coming from the provably corrupt P.C. media since it fits your bogus narrative.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[_Sharp'r_]

Thank you for making my day with your comment. Provided a good laugh at just the right time. Way too much of a kernel of truth in there...

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[strikethree]

Given the rash of recent mass shootings this system didn't prevent, its clearly lacking.

That system IS working. None of those people who did the mass shootings owned the firearms legally. Ipso facto: the system is working.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[david_thornley]

Let's picture the theater. The gunner is next to the screen, and is very hard to see. There's some sort of smoke in the air. The average citizen with a gun isn't too accurate with it anyway, let alone in a live situation, and if he or she stands up to try to aim he or she is likely the next target. People are moving around, and any would-be defender who isn't in the front rows is not going to get a clear shot.

General handgun ownership is not nearly as useful against mass shootings as it looks.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[bobbied]

Seriously?

So you are going to invent a hypothetical situation here? Well, maybe this armed person is sitting 2 rows back and the shooter is concentrating on the other side of the theater and CAN get a good shot or two off. Or maybe the shooter is directly aiming at the armed good guy and they both fire at the same time? Say there are TWO or more armed folks who can engage the shooter from different directions? The possibilities are endless, but hypothetical. I say we just skip the hypothetical arguments though because they are pointless.

I contend that we need to arm good people. If armed people can just SLOW DOWN the shooter by making him wary about getting shot you will likely have less innocent people dead when the thing is over. The more good guys we have armed and ready, the less damage the lone shooter will manage, so get as many people armed as you can. There are many (like me) who are willing to carry, but cannot because the law prevents me.

Someone in the theater is more likely to disrupt an active shooter WITH a gun than without one. Until the police arrive in 5 to 10 min, it's all you got and it's better than just being a victim. This isn't about keeping bad things from happening, but limiting the damage being done when they happen. Disarming everybody but the bad guys is a sure fire way to enable the crazies to do more damage. Having armed folks doesn't prevent a crazy from trying something, but it sure can disrupt their attempts and limit the harm they can manage, if not outright end the event.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[david_thornley]

I'm not making up a hypothetical situation. I'm describing the Aurora shooting as best I can from what I read. The shooter was standing next to a very bright screen, making himself close to invisible, and there was some sort of smoke in the air.

If you add competent gun users to the theater, the odds get better, yes. It's still not good, and the bad guy is likely to get off quite a few rounds.

If you add guns to the good guys, without extensive training, you get chaos. People without the appropriate training are terribly inaccurate in a real life situation. There's also the question of who's doing the shooting, a guy you can't see by the screen or that other guy who just fired his gun you don't know at what.

I suspect that most of the people that I'd want going around armed are already competent with their weapons, are aware of gun safety, and have whatever permits they can get. Arming more people without mandatory training is going to create more gun accidents and provide dubious benefits.

Re:bans on knowledge rarely work

[bobbied]

No, you where making hypothetical situations up by adding details to try and support your position by placing the hypothetical "good guy" with the gun into circumstances which put them at a disadvantage.

Boil it down to what it was, bad guy with gun shooting unarmed innocent people in a theater. People where dying because they had no way to defend themselves or get away from the single guy with a gun.

Surely you see the benefit of having a couple of armed law abiding people in that theater. Sure, there is no guarantee they will be able to stop the guy, but there is a good chance they will be able to at least slow him down and save lives in the process. Having NOBODY there with a gun only guarantees that the shooter does what he wants for the 7-15 min it will take for the police to arrive.

Silly me, I'm for giving the law abiding the right to be armed and defend themselves if they can.... You on the other hand want to condemn the innocent to die, and wring your hands about how dangerous guns are. Here's hoping YOU don't find yourself in a dark theater, unarmed, while some nut is shooting up the place... I'd bet you'd LOVE to have a gun then...

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[squiggleslash]

Good luck, Judges hate it when you try to be "clever" with tricks like that, and rarely rule in your favor. Also don't forget that the diagram is already technically broken into parts (individual bits) by virtue of being digitized and sent through the Internet anyway, so that particular attempt to circumvent a ban is unlikely to work with any law as effectively written.

Re:compensating?

[Anonymous Coward]

>handing over entire countries to said dictators
do you care enough to give some recent examples

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, I know, the legal fight was over a long time ago. Ah well, the 1st Amendment isn't very popular anyway... There are lots of people who would like to see it knocked off the books. As it's written, it's just a bit too definitive and encompassing for their tastes. Eh, circumvention is all that's left. And then, like police band scanners, general purpose computers will be banned from sale to the general public. The people themselves will demand it.

Because it worked so well for PGP...

[GoddersUK]

PGP: Source Code and Internals - Phil Zimmerman - books have 1A protection. So I have no doubt we'll soon see "The Liberator: Source Plans and Internals - Cody Wilson".

Also, WTF does "If it's an executable digital file, any foreign interests can get a hold of it" mean? Is ISIS unable to use non-executable files?

Re:Because it worked so well for PGP...

[drinkypoo]

Also, WTF does "If it's an executable digital file, any foreign interests can get a hold of it" mean? Is ISIS unable to use non-executable files?

It means some asshole who doesn't understand computers is talking. I love it when people use words above their pay grade. I know immediately what to think of them. However, I would assume that nobody actually fucking told them anything. "a senior State Department official told FoxNews.com" ... yeah, fucking, right. Some minor peon in the state department mumbled some shit they didn't understand.

Re:Because it worked so well for PGP...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well given the stupid shit that comes out of our elected officials mouths it may very well have been "a senior State Department official". I mean Hillary couldn't seem to figure out how to work a fax machine so spouting some bullshit computer jargon seems well within the expected abilities of a senior State Department official.

Re:Because it worked so well for PGP...

[Anonymous Coward]

`chmod -x Orion_AR_15_lower_strengthened.stl`

Legal!

Re:Because it worked so well for PGP...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it did work well. How many people use PGP today (or any type of email encryption)? How much financial success did Phil Zimmerman enjoy? Did his PGP phone software ever get released?

   

Re:Because it worked so well for PGP...

[jc42]

Also, WTF does "If it's an executable digital file, any foreign interests can get a hold of it" mean? Is ISIS unable to use non-executable files?

It means some asshole who doesn't understand computers is talking. ...

Yeah, this triggered a WTF flag in my head, too. Most of the web servers I've worked with do just the opposite of this: If a web file is non-executable, anyone can download a copy of it. But if it's made executable, attempting to download it causes the server to run it and send you its output. So executable files are the ones that can't be downloaded by anyone.

I wonder how they have their servers configured. Maybe they've figured a way to reverse the meaning of the "x" bits, so that only non-executable files are run, while executables are sent as-is to the client. Ya think?

(Actually, I do have some directories with a .htaccess file that declare nothing there to be executable. I sometimes used that to provide an easy way for clients to download the source code rather than execute it and get its output, as happens in the main directories. But somehow, I don't think this is what that idiot was talking about. I suspect he's clueless about web servers and their capabilities, and was just making stuff up that he thought might mean something to someone. ;-)

Re:Because it worked so well for PGP...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, WTF does "If it's an executable digital file, any foreign interests can get a hold of it" mean? Is ISIS unable to use non-executable files?

I suspect "executable", in this context, means that the file is usable. And from that would follow that it's alright to distribute encrypted files as they are unusable as long as no one are able to decrypt them.

Re:Because it worked so well for PGP...

[GoddersUK]

That has nothing to do with export regulations and everything to do with the fact that strong implementations of asymmetric cryptography and user friendliness have, so far, proved to be mutually exclusive.

In fact, PGP has become the defacto standard for assymetric, non-centralised cryptography - so I'd say it's been very successful.

How much financial success did Phil Zimmerman enjoy?

PGP was sold to Network Associates for $36 million. I don't know how much of that Zimmerman saw personally, but I'd call that a financial success.

Funniest story heard all day

[J'raxis]

Yeah, because a piece of paper pinched out by the government is going to stop people from sharing information.

3D-printed gun blueprints are on the Pirate Bay (for example). They're hosted on overseas websites. When the first story about the government forcing the author to take down the DefDist package came out, I made copies and posted them to six different domains I own (for example). If this regulation passes, I, and I'm sure plenty of other people, will step up their efforts to spread such files wider and wider.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[bobbied]

When do we get the indelible internet?

The 1st amendment is only bullet proof with the 2nd amendment... Well that and the rest of the bill of rights....

Oh, OK great!!

[Sand_Man]

That should take care of it once and for all then. Glad that's resolved. (insert obligatory face-palm here)

Re:compensating?

[bobbied]

At least we have dicks, Eunuch.

Eunuch - You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means...

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Archangel Michael]

So, how meta do we go? Legal limits are debatable, and must undergo rigorous challenges, unless you get a stacked supreme court that makes shit up as they go along.

Re:compensating?

[fustakrakich]

Well, the people receiving those billions of dollars won't find the regulations so useless then, will they?

Easy workaround

[Anonymous Coward]

Print out the digital file in human-readable form on giant posterboard, carry it to just this side of the Mexican or Canadian border, and hold the poster up facing away from the border.

Then wait for someone with a shiny, mirror-finish automobile to drive by and hope someone on the Canadian side takes a picture with camera good enough to capture every letter, so that it can be (relatively) easily converted back into a computer-readable, ready-to-3D-print, form.

Just don't try to recruit anyone to do the drive-by or to take the picture, or you may be arrested for conspiracy.

Bonus points if the digital file is printed in such a way that it is clearly a piece of art. Printing the letters in various shades of light and dark so that they look like a copy of the United States Flag or the US Constitution from a distance would be a very in-your-face way of doing this.

Re:compensating?

[DigiShaman]

With massive unemployment and young men and women looking to start a new career; there will be plenty of opportunities to work for oppressive regimes at curtailing freedom for the established ruling elite. It's like the intellectual and societal form of the broken window fallacy.

World war can't come soon enough!

Re:compensating?

[Archangel Michael]

Hitler is recent enough that there are people alive that remember him. But yeah, you want more recent example, why are we negotiating with Iran? And would you agree that getting a signed piece of paper from them is as meaningless as the piece of paper Chamberlain got from Hitler?

The fact is, no totalitarian regime ever had a second amendment style freedom. And the fact is, you can't name even one, so you pick a less substantial point out to make it seem more reasonable to be on your side of the argument. It isn't. There will always be Chamberlains getting pieces of paper from despots who have no intention of honoring them.

Re:compensating?

[ShanghaiBill]

Simple, name one Totalitarian regime that allows for its citizens to be armed.

The Soviet Union. Gun ownership was common there, and is common in Russia today.

Khyber Pass Copy

[davidwr]

weapons in caves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy]

Khyber Pass Copy sounds a lot like "Cyber Pass Copy".

Re:compensating?

[Archangel Michael]

Eunuch has a dick, just no balls

Kind of like Hillary.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[fustakrakich]

I'm not looking for a weapon. I'm looking for a shield to neutralize it.

Up Next ...

[thrillseeker]

Posting photos of weapons will be come illegal - someone might reason out how to file some metal and make one. Goodbye gun mags.
Followed soon by making it illegal to describe in print how to make a weapon .. because, same thing.
Followed then by making it illegal to mention when a weapon is used, even in self defense - "it just promotes 'bad think'".
Followed by making it illegal to use a weapon in self defense, because - oh wait, hello United Kingdom.
Followed by making it illegal to use the word "weapon" - because ideas are dangerous.
Jellyfish will lead more reasoning lives.

Re:Up Next ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting photos of weapons will be come illegal - someone might reason out how to file some metal and make one. Goodbye gun mags.

UK police take an interest in pictures featuring guns on FB etc.
Not Illegal yet, per se, but they add you to their little list....

Re:Up Next ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean "next"? School kids have already gotten into trouble for pointing a finger like a gun, making a drawing like a gun, and tearing a piece of bread into the shape of a gun.

Re:Up Next ...

[fredgiblet]

I remember watching a show where Brit cops went to a kid's house and I think arrested him for Facebook photo where he was wielding a club in an aggressive manner. Note that he wasn't attacking someone, he was posing for the camera.

Re:Up Next ...

[ColdWetDog]

Yes! Finally! Star Wars cosplay will be illegal. No more Ewoks!

Re:Up Next ...

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Cooking will be affected as well -- can you imagine the damage a chef's knife or cleaver could do to the human body?

Followed by sports, due to murders and assaults using baseball bats, golf clubs, hockey sticks, etc.

Carpentry is the next activity to require a license, due to saws, chisels, hammers, etc. all proving dangerous in the right/wrong hands.

Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that. More people are running Tor now than ever. This stuff will find a happy home there.

An executable file?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only person that read that as someone in D.C. honestly thinks out in the wild is a "PrintMyGun.exe"?

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[PopeRatzo]

unless you get a stacked supreme court that makes shit up as they go along.

Are you still mad about Bush v Gore and Citizens United?

Re:compensating?

[Archangel Michael]

/citation needed/

Gun Ownership was highly controlled in the USSR. They had massive gun confiscations.

Try again.

Re:compensating?

[fustakrakich]

The despots of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and so on are 'honoring' their contracts so far. Damn near a hundred billion between the two of them alone. Iran is merely working off the books (since 1980), we have clients on all sides of any conflict. We sure don't want to lose them to this 3D nonsense.

Ohhh Kayyyy!

[AndyKron]

But posting files for a drone that can autonomously deliver a warhead with pinpoint accuracy is perfectly fine. Ohhh Kayyyy!

Executable File

[Anonymous Coward]

Quickly, enable the nx bit on the files!

Re:compensating?

[parkinglot777]

And would you agree that getting a signed piece of paper from them is as meaningless as the piece of paper Chamberlain got from Hitler?

Well, at least you can attack them with a reason when they don't honor the said "meaningless piece of paper" (think of it as a warrant when police invade your house)???

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Archangel Michael]

No, I am still mad at "its not a tax" ... "oops it is a tax" ObamaCare decision. Followed up by "the state means individual states" ... "oops we must fix the legislation to mean Federal Exchange too".

That alone should bother everyone, on both sides of the ObamaCare argument. It basically means the nine justices can fix broken legislation, effectively legislating from the bench.

Why do we have 435 people in the legislature?

Export Violence

[PopeRatzo]

If you read the story, it's specifically about trying to stop the export of these blueprints, not keeping Americans from printing their own guns to carry when they go to Wal-Mart. It's not a 2nd Amendment issue.

On the other hand, given the number of guns the US exports every year, I don't understand the concern. Maybe they're just worried that 3D printed guns could cut into the profits of the big weapons manufacturers.

Violence is the United States' number one export. We do it better and bigger than anyone.

Re:Export Violence

[fredgiblet]

Wrong. The JUSTIFICATION is the "exporting", they don't actually give any shits if Abdul in Pakistan makes a Liberator, the goal is to prevent US citizens from 3d printing guns, but the only currently legal way to achieve that goal is the export argument.

Re:Export Violence

[Anonymous Coward]

Violence is the United States' number one export. We do it better and bigger than anyone.

For now, anyway. You reap what you sow. Oh, right, 9/11. That wasn't even your first clue.

Re:Export Violence

[PopeRatzo]

the goal is to prevent US citizens from 3d printing guns,

Are you so silly that you think the US government has an interest in keeping guns out of the hands of US citizens?

The US has the highest per capita gun ownership in the world. Back in 2013, there was a gun for every man, woman and child in the US, and now certainly even more than that. The US government doesn't care about your guns. In fact, they know you are statistically more likely to kill yourself with that gun than you are someone else.

Do you see Second Amendment activists using guns against the government anywhere in the US? Do you think you're little gun worries the US government in any way, shape or form?

You dumb sonofabitch, your guns are just another way the government controls you. It's population control by another name and the argument is between you and "them libruls", not between you and the government, and the government knows this. As long as you're busy marching around open-carrying and fighting with liberals over gun control, you're not aware of just how controlled you are. As long as the "Second Amendment" is a big issue in elections, they know you're taking your eye off of what's really going on. You think you're a big winner when you march down to the local gun shop and spend your disability money on guns, and the government is laughing at you.

Re:Export Violence

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in 2013, there was a gun for every man, woman and child in the US, and now certainly even more than that.

Why do you lie on the internet when anyone can make five keystrokes and find out how full of shit you are? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

you're little gun

You dumb sonofabitch

Hahahahaha

your guns are just another way the government controls you

Wow, this is the best new conspiracy theory I heard in years! Yes, I'm sure that every gun has a mind control device inside it that resonates with people's teeth to insert government-approved thoughts in their head. And of course, the government loooooves guns, which is why Obama's administration has been doing the best they can to make firearms and ammunition as difficult to acquire as possible.

Re:Export Violence

[PopeRatzo]

Why do you lie on the internet when anyone can make five keystrokes and find out how full of shit you are? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Look at the date on your citation. It's 2007.

which is why Obama's administration has been doing the best they can to make firearms and ammunition as difficult to acquire as possible.

No, they talk about making firearms and ammunition as difficult to acquire as possible. They haven't done one thing in eight years to actually make it so. In your mind, is the same guy who's so diabolical and tyrannical as to force gay marriage and health care down your throat really that impotent when it comes to guns? He can wave his arms and change the Constitution and "fundamentally transform America", but he can't tighten one single gun law?

The entire gun "debate" is a sideshow to keep the yokels busy. They really think they're arming against the government.

Re:Export Violence

[fredgiblet]

Actually I'm not a single issue voter, if I could trade my guns for universal health care I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'm probably voting for Bernie and I don't even know what his stance on guns is because it's not THAT important.

The government has failed to restrict guns, that doesn't mean they don't want to, it just means that the 2nd Amendment is too clear to be overturned as easily as they would like.

The government wants to keep easily made guns out of our hands because they want to know who ha the guns. That's what a lot of proposed legislation is about, forcing us to tell the government exactly who has what.

Re:Export Violence

[PopeRatzo]

The government has failed to restrict guns, that doesn't mean they don't want to, it just means that the 2nd Amendment is too clear to be overturned as easily as they would like.

The second amendment is so clear that until the 1980s it didn't cover individual ownership of guns?

The government wants to keep easily made guns out of our hands because they want to know who ha the guns.

So they just need to know who has the 3D printers.

Come on. You're smarter than that.

Encoded with an OTP

[locofungus]

So two people, independently, publish files of random numbers.

It just so happens that when the two files are XORed together you get the plans for a gun (or any other "restricted" file)

Who are you going to prosecute? After all, anybody can publish files of random numbers. Only one of the two needs to be "constructed" and it's impossible to determine which one is the "artificial" one.

Re:Encoded with an OTP

[Anonymous Coward]

Both, of course. Gotta maintain those contractual prosecution rates or the prison corporations get antsy.

Re:Encoded with an OTP

[Astro Dr Dave]

Both would be prosecuted, with the additional charge of criminal conspiracy.

How do you define a "gun part"?

[Darth Muffin]

If I put out plans for a screw or a pin, is that a gun part? A tube? A box? Spring?
Would the trigger on plans for a garden sprayer be illegal?

Re:How do you define a "gun part"?

[ColdWetDog]

They've already defined 'gun' as the receiver.. So go ahead and print your barrel (that should be interesting...), the stock (easy) and all the little accessory gizmos.

Or just buy a complete and functional AK-47 from Abul (discounts for quantity 1000). If he likes you, he might sell you an anti tank weapon as well.

Re:How do you define a "gun part"?

[lgw]

Everything but the lower receiver is easily available online as those parts are "not a gun". It's really the CnC milling of the lower that's relevant here (3D printing the lower is still not anything practical or sane). I fully expect someone will make those plans available in printed book form, or perhaps on a T-Shirt like the DeCSS T-Shirt I still have somewhere.

Re:How do you define a "gun part"?

[SuricouRaven]

The most basic guns don't have a receiver. A zip gun might only fire one shot, but one is enough - and they can be made disposable-cheap, so you are limited only by the capacity of your pockets.

Re:How do you define a "gun part"?

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

So go ahead and print your barrel (that should be interesting...)

Not really. It's old news by now in fact.

Now, of course, people don't have additive printers using the laser sintred process at home just yet. But I don't see anything fundamentally difficult about getting those to market at a reasonable cost in the future. And neither does the experts aparently.

So, forget the plastic pop-gun crap. "Real" guns are just around the corner. The first are already here.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Anonymous Coward]

Judges can't do shit.
Just like it's legal to buy a piece of metal vaguely shaped like a lower receiver (but definitly not a lower receiver), it will be legal to distribute blueprints of a piece of plastic vaguely shaped like a gun part (but not that gun part).
The legally questionable part is then taking that piece of metal, drilling some holes in the right place, and presto, instant lower receiver.

encryption software

[TsuruchiBrian]

They also tried to prevent open source encryption software from being posted to the internet using ITAR as well. Look how well that turned out.

Re:compensating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple, name one Totalitarian regime that allows for its citizens to be armed.

The United States of America. You torture people. Your spy on your own citizens, who thanks to your laws on average commits 3 felonies a day. This of course helps earn you your place as #1... in incarceration rates. Your Congress has low approval rating but the same people keep getting put back in. You have the largest military in the world, which you insist you need to keep you safe, which looking at the results mainly refers to protecting the rich elite class and their friends' profits secure.

Judges aren't all dicks

[NotQuiteReal]

There was just a case where a parking/tow-away fine was overturned due to a missing comma between "motor vehicle" and "camper" (e.g. no parking for "motor vehicle camper", so, my non-camper is ok...)

So, being a clever grammar Nazi can pay off, in the realm of law.

Re:Judges aren't all dicks

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, for every judge like that, there are a bunch who are dicks. Or you need to be willing (and able) to pay a ton of money for good lawyers and appeals.

Re:Judges aren't all dicks

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Commas can completely change the meaning of a sentence and can save lives. Let's eat, Grandma!

Re:Judges aren't all dicks

[SuricouRaven]

There is a comma in the second amendment to the US constitution that has been the subject of many long debates.

Re:compensating?

[Archangel Michael]

That worked out well for Europe the last time didn't it?

It is not about gun control.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is about control, period.

Export restrictions, really?

[morgauxo]

I think it shows just how unreasonable the anti-gunners can be that they would use weapons export regulations against the sharing of 3d printed gun designs.

If I were in the Pentagon or Homeland Security (theatre) I would ENCOURAGE the export of 3d printed gun designs. Let the enemy blow their own hands and faces off with their plastic guns! Hell, let domestic criminals do the same!

Meanwhile law abiding gun users can just buy them or make them on lathes. Personally I may just try to 3d print a gun some day just to say I did but the only way I am firing it is with a long string tied to the trigger and myself ducked down in a ditch or behind a good strong barrier.

Plastic guns! They make the bogey man sound like a reasonable fear!

BOO!

Look it up

[daninaustin]

This isn't completely true.

Why do we have 435 people in the legislature?

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be a lot more. When the country started, there was one congress member for 30,000 citizens, so we should have 10,000 now.

I live in a COUNTY that has more people than many states, and they all get at least two senators and a member of congress.

They don't need to build some big-ass building, they could do it all on line.

Re:Why do we have 435 people in the legislature?

[KGIII]

If we had 10,000 legislators then nothing would get done - ever. Note that I do not say that that is a bad thing.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Anonymous Coward]

It's checks and balances. Judges are intended to interpret the legislation. Since the 435 people couldn't write the document without typos, the judges had to interpret and read between the lines. Let's not forget that both republican and democratic appointed supreme court justices agreed on the interpretation. It's pretty hard to send a document back 4 years later for a correction to a congress which is no longer formed by the members that wrote the original legislation.

Wasted effort for zero gain

[Anonymous Coward]

A 3D printed gun:

Costs more than a tool shop made gun
Is much less effective than a tool shop made gun
Is much, MUCH harder to make than a tool shop made gun
Requires hardware that the vast majority of people don't have and still don't want
Requires hardware that is both more expensive and harder to use than simply buying an illegal firearm
Has already been posted on line and is terribly unlikely to disappear
Will still have plans posted on line because traditionally criminals don't have much respect for the law

But yeah, let's focus on the issues and restrict 3D printing plans for firearms instead of focusing on the social issues that make some people want to use firearms for violent purposes. I'm sure it'll be a glaring success.

Well, I'm sure it'll be a glaring something.

Re:Wasted effort for zero gain

[Anonymous Coward]

Their concern:

Is (perceivably) much easier to get through metal detectors than a tool shop made gun.

Raising my Confederate Flag

[Anonymous Coward]

At least slavery is still legal. Yeee hawww

Re:Raising my Confederate Flag

[Anonymous Coward]

At least slavery is still legal. Yeee hawww

Indeed, blacks in the US have been voluntary slaves to the Democrats/Progressives since LBJ said "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!".

Re:Raising my Confederate Flag

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Republicans have the whites fighting over the scraps and blaming the blacks. It's brilliant.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[fnj]

Why do we have 435 people in the legislature?

To distribute the blame so they can all point to each other.

I got it !

[aepervius]

then only outlaws will have 3D printed guns/

I know ! It is a ploy to have outlaw use crappy gun more likely to explode in their hand than a normal gun ! *slow clap* that is a great idea.

Re:I got it !

[kheldan]

Because 3D printing technology has already reached it's ultimate potential, no further improvement in the technology will ever be possible. Sure thing, buddy.

is print ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

UUEncoded text in an OCR-friendly font anyone?

Re:compensating?

[Anonymous Coward]

massive gun confiscations do not necessarily mean that gun ownership was not common, it only means the oppressive regime did not want it to be. Obviously your mind is made up and you will not listen, but here goes:

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c65dc/how_common_was_gun_ownership_in_the_soviet_union/

Re: compensating?

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep using that aphorism - I think you must be a twat.

Treaties Don't Override the Bill of Rights

[Baldrson]

The combination of freedom of speech and of the press combined with the _very_ strong language of the 2nd amendment nullifies any law against publishing instructions on building firearms.

This does not mean that the US Government will not only pass but enforce such laws. The US Government hasn't been lawful for a long time.

Presumably you've never been shot at

[zerofoo]

Anti-gunners seem to boil down defensive gun uses to winning and losing.

An armed population is a deterrence. There is a reason why many mass shootings happen at schools. They are completely disarmed soft targets. Shooters know there won't be anyone to shoot back at them.

I guarantee a mass shooter will move much more slowly and carefully if even ONE person shoots back. It's human nature. Slowing a mass shooter is one way to save lives - you don't need to hit the guy between the eyes for there to be a benefit.

Re:Presumably you've never been shot at

[PraiseBob]

You seem to acknowledge that the good guy with a gun, most likely, cannot kill or fully disable the shooter in this situation. So now you have to calculate, how many people could potentially be saved in that scenario, versus how many people would be killed if handguns are more widespread. If 5% of the populace is armed now, what happens to the death by gun rates when its 10%, 20%, 75%, 100%? What kind of curved graph does it make? I think most people would agree that 0.01% in the hands of criminals only is bad, just as 100% in the hands of everyone is equally bad. Where is the ideal spot? The thing is, that most people who want guns, already have them. Does it help society to force guns into the hands of people who have chosen not to carry them? Will cheaper guns lead to more people being armed and a safer society? Will the number of random shootings go down by allowing anyone, including the mentally ill, to have easier access to guns without waiting periods?

I've never understood this part of the "more guns" argument: Where the hell is this mysterious population of "good guys" that want to carry guns and would be responsible gun owners, but currently can't get a gun?

P.S. Several school shootings (like Columbine) have taken place at schools with an armed police presence.

Re:Presumably you've never been shot at

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the hell is this mysterious population of "good guys" that want to carry guns and would be responsible gun owners, but currently can't get a gun?

May issue states that don't issue permits. Unless you argue that the number of "good guys" is literally zero.

Re:Presumably you've never been shot at

[Anonymous Coward]

P.S. Several school shootings (like Columbine) have taken place at schools with an armed police presence.

Obviously this means that police are totally ineffective and should be done away with, you've just saved us so much tax money.

Re:Presumably you've never been shot at

[swillden]

You seem to acknowledge that the good guy with a gun, most likely, cannot kill or fully disable the shooter in this situation.

zerofoo said nothing of the sort. He said that killing or fully disabling the shooter isn't necessary, not that it's not possible, or even unlikely.

The history of mass shooting violence in the US bears out both zerofoo's point that killing or disabling the shooter often isn't necessary, since mass shooters tend to suicide as soon as they meet armed resistance, and even those who don't are clearly going to have to shift their focus from mass murder to self-defense or be an easy target. There are plenty of cases in which shooters have been killed, disabled or otherwise stopped by citizens, though they tend to get less press for the simple reason that fewer people die.

So now you have to calculate, how many people could potentially be saved in that scenario, versus how many people would be killed if handguns are more widespread. If 5% of the populace is armed now, what happens to the death by gun rates when its 10%, 20%, 75%, 100%?

Interestingly, the US has conducted this experiment over the last 40 years or so, as the number of concealed carry permit holders went from basically zero to up to 15% in some areas of the country. What happened? Not much. Violence declined, and there is some weak statistical evidence that it declined faster in areas where more people began carrying guns on a daily basis. There is no evidence that violence increased.

Will the number of random shootings go down by allowing anyone, including the mentally ill, to have easier access to guns without waiting periods?

I suspect it won't change at all. What would reduce the number of shootings is removing all of the guns, but that is impossible.

P.S. Several school shootings (like Columbine) have taken place at schools with an armed police presence.

This is something of an unrelated point, but I think it's worth noting that police did not respond quickly at Columbine High School, and that the experience dramatically changed police doctrine for responding to active shooters, across the nation. After-action analyses showed that as soon as the shooters faced aggressive armed response, they killed themselves, but that happened many minutes, and several deaths, later than it could have. At the time standard procedure was to cordon the area, isolate the shooters and wait for enough backup to arrive -- preferably SWAT -- that the police could enter in overwhelming force. But Columbine changed that, and most police departments now train their officers that if they have good reason to believe it's a lone shooter then the very first officers on the scene should enter immediately.

Immediate entry, without overwhelming force or special weapons, seems like it significantly increases the risk to the officers, but in practice it doesn't, much. And, of course, waiting tends to give shooters time and space to rack up massive body counts.

Re:Presumably you've never been shot at

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, mass shooters almost always commit suicide the moment they are confronted with someone who is armed.

Re:Presumably you've never been shot at

[Anonymous Coward]

"you don't need to hit the guy between the eyes for there to be a benefit."
But it sure helps!

Re:Presumably you've never been shot at

[Anonymous Coward]

I guarantee a mass shooter will move much more slowly and carefully if even ONE person shoots back. It's human nature.

Mass shooters don't care if someone shoots back - if they aren't mentally ill they've already decided they don't care about the consequences of their actions. In fact, you may be doing them a favour by shooting them dead. However, in the meantime several other people who didn't have quick enough reflexes have been injured or killed.

Re:Presumably you've never been shot at

[Anonymous Coward]

"that's why many mass shootings happen at schools"
George Pierre Hennard, Killed 29 in a restaurant in Texas
James Oliver Huberty, Killed 21 in a McDonalds in California
Jiverly Antares Wong, Killed 13 in an Immigration Center in New York
Howard Unruh, Killed 13 people in a neighborhood in New Jersey
James Eagan Holmes killed 12 people in a movie theater Colorado...

I could go on. Mass shootings happen all over the place, including places where people could shoot back, like Texas and Colorado - where gun culture is strong and concealed carry isn't as challenging as it is in strong gun control states like California. Many mass shootings actually end in the shooter being shot by police. It's been shown over and over again that arming a population doesn't deter crime. It's also been shown that controlling guns doesn't actually control guns (see Oakland California). So, what then is the benefit of an armed population?

We all know the answer: armed insurrection and penile enhancement. I really wish gun-rights advocates wouldn't try to sugar coat this. Be honest - you want guns so that you can fight against an oppressive government if you want to, or to compensate for a lack of impressive male genitalia. It's not public safety. It's a dick extension and/or an insurance policy against state-based oppression.

Just be real. Stop trying to white knight this bullshit.

Re:Presumably you've never been shot at

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a problem of escalation. I bet that in the US many burglars carry guns because they need to be able to defend themselves against homeowners, or other possible encounters, which may carry guns. Muggers are likely to use guns too because a knife isn't threatening enough against somebody who may be carrying a gun.

Now take a country with gun control, like where I live. Sure, a criminal CAN get a gun, but most of them won't, because it's not worth it - if you do get caught, having a gun will just increase the sentence. Almost no burglars will carry a gun, almost no muggers will have a gun either - a knife is sufficient. Guns are mostly used between criminals.

I think that's actually working.
It's probably too late for the US to go that route with so many guns already our there.

Re:Presumably you've never been shot at

[Anonymous Coward]

Mass shootings happen at schools because schools happen to be where a lot of people are.. massed together.

Arming teachers means fuck all when the gunman has the element of surprise and shoots first. It also means a mass shooter will simply go after the teachers first.

Re:Presumably you've never been shot at

[Anonymous Coward]

More people get hurt in places with guns.
The paranoia and fear about being shot makes people more likely to use their guns.

An armed anomaly is quickly noticed and people call the police.

How will a mass shooter be deterred if they have the surprise advantage?

A misunderstanding can quickly turn into a bloodbath if the paranoia and fear of being shot is high while everybody carrying guns with them.

Most mass shootings are not done in a rational way under rational motivations and with careful rational weighting of options before doing something. You are assuming people are 100% rational, non-emotional robots. People are not 100% emotionless, super-rational beings.

Re:Presumably you've never been shot at

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the "Draw the Profit" event in Texas a while back. 2 men showed up to shoot the place up, and those same 2 men were the only ones killed.

Re:Presumably you've never been shot at

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a good illustration of that. Someone starts shooting up a mall in Clackamas, OR, and when he saw someone else (a concealed carrier) with a gun, he went into the stairwell and shot himself (apparently wanting to go out on his own terms).

Even the sight of possible resistance is enough to "end the fun" for these sickos.

http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2014/07/24/12405148/

Re:compensating?

[Anonymous Coward]

what's with the obsession with guns ? compensating for your small dicks ?

My other penis is an SUV, you insensitive clod!

Re: I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpr

[Anonymous Coward]

It was slightly different. CSS was considered a protectable technology, for various copyright and patent concerns. So DMCA protected the copyrighted portions. It is not good law. But it is law.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[PRMan]

No. The gay marriage last week. I'm sure that's exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Really?

[MitchDev]

Because laws have worked so well on music, movies, etc on the internet.

The more laws you pass, the less Americans pay attention to ANY of them....and the less respect the American public has for lawmakers and the laws they pass...

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[I'm New Around Here]

"Interpret", sure, when it is ambiguous. "Rewrite" just because they want it to mean something else? Where is that in their charter?

Re:compensating?

[jgriffith325]

That warrant is a meaningless piece of paper too. It's the guns they bring along that get them in your house.

Re:compensating?

[jgriffith325]

Maybe you missed the part where he said 'allows'? Maybe your mind is made up?

Good.

[whitroth]

As Sen. Sanders say, gun laws for rural New Hampshire, where they often hunt for food, *must* be very different from Chicago or LA, where the hunting is for members of some opposition social group of *people*.

Oh, and then there's all the cowards who are TERRIFIED of anyone not just like them, and needs GUNS to protect themselves....

              mark, who lived in inner cities half his life, and has never felt the need for one,
                                              and who's only known a few people with one

2nd Amendment

[CauseBy]

The Constitution gives you the right to keep and bear arms.

It doesn't give you the right to acquire or manufacture arms.

A strict constructionist would have to concede that it would be Constitutional to bar anyone from ever acquiring any new weapon, and after a century or so all gun possession would be illegal.

See, textualism goes both ways. This is why I'm not a strict constructionist or textualist.

Re:2nd Amendment

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

> It doesn't give you the right to acquire or manufacture arms.

Actually, it does.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

bar anyone from ever acquiring any new weapon, and after a century or so all gun possession would be illegal

Not really. I own a firearm that uses modern powder and cartridges yet is 118 years old and is in great shape and will probably still work good in another 100 years. Modern firearms are very durable if one takes care of them, especially the really simple ones like bolt action rifles or anything based off of an AK receiver. While there has been advancements with modern firearms in the last 100 years it isn't anything like the advancement in the 100 before that. Weapons similar to my Finnish M39 (Mosin-Nagant variant) still are showing up on battlefields around the world today even if they really haven't been produced in any real numbers in 70 years and the venerable AK-47 family of weapons will probably show up on battlefields in large quantities for the next 150 years even if all production was stopped now given their proliferation and simplicity.

Re:2nd Amendment

[CauseBy]

If it did, it would say so.

Re:2nd Amendment

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

You should probably take a course in constitutional law. Under our system, anything not prohibited is allowed. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that people are not allowed to acquire firearms, and the "keep and bear arms" part implies that acquisition is indeed allowed.

Re:2nd Amendment

[CauseBy]

That's a weird take on it. As if all laws are void, unless they appear in the Constitution? That's not how it works.

The Constitution says that some things must happen and other things can't happen; everything else is left up to statutes. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you must be able to procure weapons, nor does it prohibit the legislatures from restricting procurement of weapons.

Now, I don't think that would fly politically or in most courtrooms, nor would I support it myself. I bring it up merely to shit on the asshats who try to claim they are "textualists". Those people are hypocrites and jackasses unless they agree that there is no right to procure or manufacture arms, and if they did agree then they would be ridiculous. Because textualism is ridiculous.

Re:2nd Amendment

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

" As if all laws are void, unless they appear in the Constitution?"

No, that's not what I said. Basically, "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" is a constitutional principle of English law (that US law is based upon), and if it's not prohibited then you may indeed do it.

The framers of the Constitution clearly intended firearms to be used, kept, and owned, which implies their acquisition. They devoted an entire amendment to firearms and even called them out by name as an object, something that I don't believe appears anywhere else in the entire constitution. As far as I'm aware firearms are the only object specifically mentioned by name. Like it or not, the intent of the 2nd amendment is pretty clear.

Guns were extremely important to them, and to think that they'd specifically state that they'd allow people to own them without the implied step of acquiring them just doesn't make any kind of sense.

In any case, it is perfectly legal to manufacture your own firearms for your own use, and always has been. You may not transfer or sell them, but you can make them and use them without violating the law.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the basic presumptions of our legal system is that legislators don't *intentionally* write laws that are gibberish or counter to their stated intended effect(s).

When someone argues, in court, that part of a law has an effect which is demonstrably and measurably in conflict with both the stated intent of the legislature, and the legislative record, and the rest of the same law, judges in general (and the Supreme Court in specific) are required (and empowered) to determine what the people who wrote the law actually intended, and enforce the law according to that intent. This is not a new principle, nor was it a new principle when our country was founded.

Well then.....

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I guess I'll have to download a file for something that looks like a barrel, and another file for something that looks like a grip, and another file for something that looks like a magazine, and another file for something that looks like a trigger....see where this is going? Good luck with that.

Because, you know, outlawing the downloading of movies has been such a spectacular success, that's why no one ever downloads movies anymore!

Re:Well then.....

[PPH]

I guess I'll have to download a file for something that looks like a barrel,

Not a gun. So this is OK.

and another file for something that looks like a grip,

Also not a gun.

and another file for something that looks like a magazine,

Not a gun either.

and another file for something that looks like a trigger

Still not a gun.

The only part regulated is the lower receiver.

Re:Well then.....

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Then I guess I'll have to download a file for something that looks like a lower receiver. :)

Here's the thing- it's always been completely legal to make your own firearm. Anyone with a decent home workshop could crank them out by the dozen. And guns made in a shop at home do not need to have any serial numbers or other identifying marks. That's why the "80% lower receiver" kits are legal. A drill press and some sharp files and voilà, you've got a working lower receiver with no serial number, and it's legal.

They're trying to regulate the flow of information which never works (these days anyway). If they can't stop child porn or stop people downloading movies, what's the chance that they'll be able to keep CNC files off the web? Approximately 0% by my calculations.

Foxxed

[T.E.D.]

This has nothing to do specifically with guns, 3D or otherwise.

This appears to be a change to ITAR to define making files available for download as part of the law. This has long been a work-around that multiple people in my company at least have pointed out was stupid during ITAR training: If I install software on my laptop I have to go through ITAR with it, but if I leave it on a server at work and access it remotely from Europe, not ITAR. There are still laws, mind you, but they are different laws. Fixing this, while annoying to some, at least makes the law make a bit more sense.

So where do guns come into this? As near as I can tell, only because this story is on Fox news, and they can't get their 80-to-dead audience excited about "Obummer" by griping about internet files.

Political clickbait.

simpler solution

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be easier to ban plastic imports, so no one has anything to print with. But I expect China to veto a ban on plastic...

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[PopeRatzo]

No. The gay marriage last week. I'm sure that's exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Who gives a good god damn what the Founding Fathers had in mind? I'm serious. These were guys with wooden teeth who owned slaves. The streets were filled with horse shit. Is that your idea of a good time?

Oh great, tell me the latest conspiracy news

[chasm22]

"He has said in the past that the "Liberator " project was intended to highlight how technology can render laws and governments all but irrelevant."

So we have a self professed anarchist being ardently defended by some who feel his constitutional rights are being trampled. Can I see that definition of irony again?

How about this? How about poor little plastic gun dude simply offering to send his digital drawings to anyone he wants via email? Too simple? No , that wouldn't get him the repeated click bait articles he gets.That wouldn't make governments and laws irrelevant would it. No, that would simply allow him to distribute his drawings to every single person within the US. That would be bad, very, very bad. Right?

Instead let us boldly move towards a world without government and laws where every little freak can do whatever they want without 'fear' of government restrictions.

This idiot just makes it harder for gun owners like me to tell people that I like and own guns.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Archangel Michael]

The intention of the subsidies was clear, they wanted to force the states into having their own Health Care Exchange; they wanted all the Republican held states to suffer. They stated it so. And they also stated that it wasn't a tax, because nobody would have voted for a "tax increase" and a violation of Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K/yr.

But that doesn't matter now. Now that it is a tax, it can be repealed as such. Who is gonna vote against someone repealing a tax? Oh right, liberals.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Archangel Michael]

Yeah, screw liberty and justice .... and freedom, lets live under threat of ever expanding state! YEHAH /Merica!

Hilarious!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because all the regulation banning drugs, fireworks, etc - tangible goods - have worked so well and its just so much easier to ban online things, right? You know, things like copyrighted software, movies, nasty immoral porn, etc, etc, etc.

This is more laughable "look, we're doing something!" unenforceable feel good regulation.

Gun control is a

[Anonymous Coward]

Godwin!

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[squiggleslash]

Did you just argue that preventing States from letting gay people get married is expanding the State and "screwing" liberty, justice and freedom?

Generally speaking, when SCOTUS says "No, you can't pass laws preventing consenting adults from doing X", it's defending freedom, not restricting it. Unless your concern is the freedom of State governments, in which case we, the people, don't give a shit. The States exist to serve us, not vice versa.

Darknet anyone?

[Matt_H_79]

Drugs are illegal and the purchase of those is readily available from several different sites on Tor. Development is also currently ongoing on a peer to peer decentralised and anonymous darknet marketplace called OpenBazaar. While the I2P darknet is very efficient at propagating anonymous bittorrent traffic.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Libertarian_Geek]

I'm not looking for a weapon. I'm looking for a shield to neutralize it.

So, you're looking for a shield that's hard enough to stop a weapon, but soft enough that it can't be used as a weapon.
Are you sure that your requirement doesn't contradict itself?

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Calhune]

The gay marriage thing is a tricky one.. but in many minds it's very troubling that 225 years worth of Supreme Courts would have ruled one way, but our current Court ruled another way. AND!! There's always the threat that another Court ruling will reverse it, since there is no legislative basis to their ruling - simply an interpretation. The smart thing should have been for a Constitutional Amendment be passed which gave legal basis and definitions to who was entitled to the institution of marriage. Right now it's undefined... Gays? Check. polygamy? siblings? gay siblings? Not like there's a threat of children from that... Is it legal to discriminate by age on marriage now that it's a fundamental right? Etc, etc. Constitutional Amendments - those guys with wooden teeth and slaves set up a pretty nifty system if you follow it.

NEVER

[Anonymous Coward]

Constitutional issues are NEVER aside.

torrent sites

[codebonobo]

I wonder if these items are available from the physible section of torrent tracking sites?

https://thepiratebay.mn/browse/605/0/7/0

DD response to the attack on the first amendment by the state department- http://www.scribd.com/doc/2699...

Proper title

[hardcorejon]

Bureaucrats and Control-Freaks Fantasize that Somehow, Everyone in the Entire World Will Mindlessly Obey Their Regulation to Keep 3D-printed Gun Blueprints Offline For Good

but maybe that would have been too long.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only a tax on those who do not acquire health insurance for themselves. Either get insured, or be "fined" so that the government can pay for you butt when you ultimately show up at a hospital for your death bed. Everyone WILL go to a hospital at some point in their life.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I vote to repeal a tax against you, that I'm not paying because I'm insured? My premiums are higher because you're not insured. You get fined, my premiums come down, I'm a happy guy! The tax is not getting repealed.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[PopeRatzo]

Yeah, screw liberty and justice .... and freedom

Someday, you'll have to explain what the "Founding Fathers" 240 years ago have to do with "liberty, justice...and freedom".

Freedom for whom?

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[PopeRatzo]

Constitutional Amendments - those guys with wooden teeth and slaves set up a pretty nifty system if you follow it.

If we followed the "pretty nifty system" the guys with the wooden teeth set up, we'd still have slaves and half the population would be forbidden from voting because they don't have penises.

Fuck your Founding Fathers. They were a bunch of wine snobs who didn't want to have to pay taxes. All the flowery rhetoric was so much bullshit.

1st amendment won't apply.

[Anonymous Coward]

if its banned content, the 1st does not apply and they can yank it and arrest you. Not saying its "right" but it happens and the courts will uphold it.

Re:1st amendment won't apply.

[russotto]

if its banned content, the 1st does not apply and they can yank it and arrest you. Not saying its "right" but it happens and the courts will uphold it.

We're talking the same courts that said you can't ban drawn pictures of kids having sex, right?

Columbine

[zerofoo]

Police have been very clear that their tactics changed after columbine. The one big change was do not wait for backup in an active shooter scenario. If you are armed, you charge and return fire as soon as possible.

The only reason police adopted this strategy post Columbine is that they know to slow or stop a mass shooting you need to return fire immediately.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Archangel Michael]

Let me know when you accept all versions of "marriage" how anyone defines it, in all 50 states (see plural marriages) We already define marriage and redefining it simply suggests that it isn't really a right.

Gay marriage isn't about sex, or living with someone, kids or anything else they make it out to be, instead it is all about government sanction benefits. I would like to marry my daughter (not for sex, or living with her) so that I can have the same benefits granted to gay people. Until then, you aren't for "marriage equality" you're for redefining marriage as long as it suits your particular version. My version doesn't count.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Archangel Michael]

"We hold these truths to be self evident" ...

The responder to my initial post was simply tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Freedom, Liberty are being eroded for group politics; this is evil as the group always has more power than an individual.

Good luck convincing me that groups have more rights than individuals.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Archangel Michael]

There is no definition. The court rule that defining marriage is a violation of 14th Amendment. Guess what, polygamists and incestuous marriages are also now legal.

Which is why OpenBSD is hosted in Canada

[Ungrounded Lightning]

This is not the first time they did this. In fact it has quite an interesting history in cryptography that was classified as a munition for just this reason.

Which is why OpenBSD is hosted from outside the US. (It's NOT just that Theo happens to live in Canada.)

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Archangel Michael]

"We hold these truths to be self evident"

They knew what they were saying. The fact that they had some distastful things in their past, doesn't negate what they set up.

Oh, and the one guy that was perfect, you won't follow either, so unless you are without sin, stop throwing stones.

BTW, Liberals kill babies by the millions, which is much worse that owning a slave IMHO. So can I toss out everything Democrats have supported over the last 40 years?

Database for civil servents comments?

[BlueCoder]

I'm starting to think that we need a public database for comments from civil service (both elected and appointed) and in the case of appointed positions to correlate it to their elected bosses. We can also collect information about their education and past training.

Whomever this civil servant was at the state department is was lying his a** off. This is a clear first amendment issue and if that wasn't all that was needed there is the 2nd amendment. A child with only a sixth grade education could tell you that.

For elected officials are they no longer requiring an oath to protect and defend the constitution? Are they not responsible for what those under them do or say? This civil servant should clearly be fired. People have used social media to get people justly and unjustly fired from jobs. Why can't we do this with officials from the "state department"? Note I'm not talking about the perfectly reasonable action of trying to change the constitution but rather those that ignore it.

Also to try to head off "the common man".

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The goal is to intimidate the makers of such designs. Arrest first and ask questions later, when such designs get out.

It's also to make it harder for "the common man" to arm himself - in case a Schelling Point is reached and a LOT of people suddenly decide that they need to arm themselves against the government or its puppeteers. By slowing them down, and reducing the number and quality of designs available, the powers that be have more time to react and try to divide and reconquer.

Of course intimidating designers is a big part of that.

ITAR applies to imports, cue FREEDOM FIREWALL

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right folks, due to the stupidity of ITAR, it also applies in both directions, despite the tacit assumption being the prevention of US high tech stuff leaking to allegedly lesser countries. So not only will mean blocking 3D build files going out (or at the least heavy penalties for anyone who openly hosts files for download without geoIP restrictions), it implicitly is requiring US border filtering of 3D build files coming in too. So DHS/Customs and Border Patrol just got a green light to ingress filter the internet.

Yeah

[Greyfox]

That worked very well for PGP.

I believe technically ITAR classifies me as a weapon, because of the things that I know. One of which being exactly how well using ITAR to forbid the distribution of software worked on PGP. And also that putting shit back in the dog doesn't tend to work very well. And that the law was crafted by ignorant people who were under the illusion that was an option. The funny thing is, Americans are actually getting interested in making things again. With their hands. And other parts. And after a couple-three... four... or so... decades of Americans not really being all that interested in that, policy makers have no idea how to deal with it. So they can keep writing their laws and then someone will invent something like a crossbow that shoots dildos, and the legal arms race will continue. Except then at least one person will already have a crossbow that shoots dildos.

There you go, some premium weapon-grade snark. If someone is inspired by this post to create a crossbow that shoots dildos, please credit me. Or at least send me a youtube link.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[PopeRatzo]

Oh, and the one guy that was perfect, you won't follow either

You mean Ronald Reagan, I assume?

Streisand Effect, anyone?

[heretic108]

A 'ban' on publishing 3D componentry online will solve everything.

Re:compensating?

[ShanghaiBill]

Maybe you missed the part where he said 'allows'? Maybe your mind is made up?

The Soviet Union allowed many of its citizens to own guns. There were restrictions on handguns, and private guns were banned in some urban areas. But most people could legally own a rifle or shotgun, and many people did. The same is true in Russia today. Gun ownership is common.

The homicide rate in Russia is far higher than America, but Russia does not report gun homicides separately, so a direct comparison is difficult.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[Pfhorrest]

I'd bet that if someone were to introduce a sci-fi style personal force field right now, it would probably be banned as "military hardware" or something tantamount to "we can't let people just be invincible, how the hell would we control them with the threat of overwhelming force then?"

Re:compensating?

[jgriffith325]

Touché.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[jp_831]

"PopeRatzo" literally cannot understand the concepts of limited government, Common Law and the Rights of Englishmen. He probably has no Anglo-Saxon blood in him whatsoever.

Clearly, his ancestors never should have been allowed in.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[jp_831]

I agree. "All men are created equal" is obvious bullshit.

Not all men are created equal. Some are created as sub-human savages who just aren't cut out for civilization, and therefore, probably deserve to be slaves.

Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro

[PopeRatzo]

Let me treat you to a few more of "jp_831"'s comments on Slashdot. He hasn't been around long so there weren't many to choose from:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

This is what 8chan has brought to Slashdot.

Re:compensating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you missed the part where he said 'allows'? Maybe your mind is made up?

The Soviet Union allowed many of its citizens to own guns. There were restrictions on handguns, and private guns were banned in some urban areas. But most people could legally own a rifle or shotgun, and many people did. The same is true in Russia today...

So basically still illegal, unless you live in the right area, or are buddy-buddy with the local constabulary. I'm from the former USSR, and there was definitely very few guns there, except for a hunting smoothbore that your grandpa in the village owned, and the shitload of handguns and machineguns that the local mafia used to shake down business owners and kill each other. Nothing even close to USA's level of ownership. Hell, even Canada has looser rules than the former USSR (and modern Russia). Thankfully the Russians are starting to realize it and are loosening things up for the honest citizens.

3D printing tech

[aepervius]

No it has not, but by its nature it cannot have the same QA control and special processes than mass manufacture for a specific good. As such the quality of a normal hand gun manufactured specifically by a process made for that sole purpose, will always be higher than one made by 3D printing of a generic process.

Re:3D printing tech

[kheldan]

Sez you. Even if you're a certifiable expert in the field, you can't predict what innovations there might be in the future.

Re:3D printing tech

[david_thornley]

The quality of a mass-manufactured thing may not be as good as the quality of the thing produced by a high-end 3D printer. The price will be lower, and the price will generally always be lower for the same quality. Part of designing a production process is determining what level of quality is needed, and going higher than that is likely to introduce additional cost.

ITAR Issue, not 3D printed guns

[Anonymous Coward]

ITAR restricts the export of military technical data to foreign nationals. Historically, tech data has been produced by US tech companies. That is changing however. The prevalence of cheap/free CAD/CAE software and the rapid growth in modern manufacturing methods are enabling small design teams to iteratively design products that would have required many man hours and lots of cash only a few years ago.

New laws are needed to restrict the flow of tech data in this new environment. The alternative is to let US designs leave the country -- bad for the economy, and potentially bad for US weapons supremacy.

ITAR Issue, not 3D printed guns

[Lando17]

ITAR restricts the export of military technical data to foreign nationals. Historically, tech data has been produced by US tech companies. That is changing however. The prevalence of cheap/free CAD/CAE software and the rapid growth in modern manufacturing methods are enabling small design teams to iteratively design products that would have required many man hours and lots of cash only a few years ago. New laws are needed to restrict the flow of tech data in this new environment. The alternative is to let US designs leave the country -- bad for the economy, and potentially bad for US weapons supremacy.

Re:compensating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun homicides is irrelevant. Only homicide rate matter. There is no difference being murderer by gunshot or by knife stab, in both case you are equally dead.

Anti-Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

This is anti-free market or even regulated market.

Where is the conservative outrage about their previous free market being destroyed by government?

1st Amendment Anyone?

[LifesABeach]

Really? Liability of a document I post on my site? Big hint here, it's not a secret if I show you how its done.

Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Pandora's box was already opened on the 3d printed guns. Now that there is a desire for people to have these things, then if the Government bans them, there will be an underground trade of these same files, done with heavy encryption, anonymous exchange, and great secrecy. ON THE INTERNET! So, really, it's just a ban. woo friggin hoo.

Good move

[MoarSauce123]

There are way too many guns in private hands where they clearly do not belong. It is time to limit gun ownership to well-controlled militias aka police force!