Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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.
When do we get the indelible internet?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Controlling the information of ideas
Because it worked so well for RIAA / MPAA, right?
Somebody put the genie back in the bottle!!!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If we start banning content because it could be a violation of INTERNATIONAL export...cue the Great US Firewall.
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.
Do you have ESP?
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?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
ITAR would apply mainly to USA, question is whether through ACTA-like actions they would impose it on the World?
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.
Torrent Style Protocol where the parts are never fully assembled until delivered. How can you ban PART of a diagram?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
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".
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.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
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?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Where is the magnet link?
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
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..
Good people go to bed earlier.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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?
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.
Liberty in your lifetime
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....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
That should take care of it once and for all then. Glad that's resolved. (insert obligatory face-palm here)
At least we have dicks, Eunuch.
Eunuch - You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Well, the people receiving those billions of dollars won't find the regulations so useless then, will they?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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!
Life is not for the lazy.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
weapons in caves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy]
Khyber Pass Copy sounds a lot like "Cyber Pass Copy".
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Eunuch has a dick, just no balls
Kind of like Hillary.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I'm not looking for a weapon. I'm looking for a shield to neutralize it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Posting photos of weapons will be come illegal - someone might reason out how to file some metal and make one. Goodbye gun mags. .. because, same thing.
Followed soon by making it illegal to describe in print how to make a weapon
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.
/citation needed/
Gun Ownership was highly controlled in the USSR. They had massive gun confiscations.
Try again.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
But posting files for a drone that can autonomously deliver a warhead with pinpoint accuracy is perfectly fine. Ohhh Kayyyy!
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)???
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?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
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?
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
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.
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.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
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!
This isn't completely true.
To distribute the blame so they can all point to each other.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
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.
Seastead this.
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.
No. The gay marriage last week. I'm sure that's exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
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...
"Interpret", sure, when it is ambiguous. "Rewrite" just because they want it to mean something else? Where is that in their charter?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
That warrant is a meaningless piece of paper too. It's the guns they bring along that get them in your house.
Maybe you missed the part where he said 'allows'? Maybe your mind is made up?
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
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.
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!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
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.
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?
You are welcome on my lawn.
"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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Yeah, screw liberty and justice .... and freedom, lets live under threat of ever expanding state! YEHAH /Merica!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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!".
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.
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?
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
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.
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...
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.
Look at the date on your citation. It's 2007.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Someday, you'll have to explain what the "Founding Fathers" 240 years ago have to do with "liberty, justice...and freedom".
Freedom for whom?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"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?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
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.
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You mean Ronald Reagan, I assume?
You are welcome on my lawn.
A 'ban' on publishing 3D componentry online will solve everything.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
The second amendment is so clear that until the 1980s it didn't cover individual ownership of guns?
So they just need to know who has the 3D printers.
Come on. You're smarter than that.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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?"
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Touché.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
We're talking the same courts that said you can't ban drawn pictures of kids having sex, right?
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.
If we had 10,000 legislators then nothing would get done - ever. Note that I do not say that that is a bad thing.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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!