Slashdot Mirror


After Court Order, 3D-Printed Gun Pioneer Now Sells Pay-What-You-Want CAD Files (arstechnica.com)

CaptainDork writes: In a surprising announcement, Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson announced Tuesday that while he would continue to comply with a federal court order forbidding him from internationally publishing CAD files of firearms, he would also begin selling copies of his 3D-printed gun files for a "suggested price" of $10 each. The files, crucially, will be transmitted to customers "on a DD-branded flash drive" in the United States and won't be available as downloads.

6 of 338 comments (clear)

  1. I have no issue with this by oldgraybeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trying to hide knowledge never protected anyone from anything.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  2. Yep - he is by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a Patriot. I'll bet he going to be protecting our freedoms real soon now.

    Actually, he pretty-much is.

    You don't see that because you're on the other side of the issue, on the side of speech you don't like.

    We often say that freedom of speech means freedom for others to say things we don't like.

    You don't like it, I get that.

    Do you believe in free speech or do you believe in suppression of speech?

    1. Re:Yep - he is by ronaldbeal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things. A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce “no assembly” edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband. None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit. Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks. BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them. If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They’re all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them. --The above quoted from an anonymous source on the internet--

    2. Re: Yep - he is by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not really a First Amendment issue though.

      Why can't you shout "fire" in a theatre?

      Censorious trope two. Who says that you can't shout "fire" in a theater, especially when it's true?

      The Pentagon Papers case did not allow for suppression of true information where the consequences of that speech were "dire." The Federal government agreed that this information was not within the scope of ITAR and that it could not prohibit publication. The judge in issuing this very injunction admitted that "Regulation under the AECA means that the files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States."

      Note: personally I support DD here, I'm just refuting the argument that it's a simple 1st Amendment issue.

      Then why are you attempting to justify the outrage here using exception-to-the-first-amendment arguments?

    3. Re: Yep - he is by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does the law say you can eat a bowl of Cheerios in the morning? Better put that spoon down! Unless there is a law on the books prohibiting an action, ANY action is essentially legal. There is NO LAW saying you cannot distribute information about building a firearm (in fact, Amazon has a full list of books on how to turn basic materials into firearms), thus the information is completely legal.

      What scares me about you and people with your opinion is that you have turned over ALL your freedoms and rights to the Government. You don't get it - they are YOUR RIGHTS, from the Creator and inherent. You choose to surrender ALL to the Government, and let IT dictate what you can do. One of the central tenets of the Constitution was the duties of Government were limited, and - as the Constitution itself says - it lists what the Federal Government can do. If it's not in that list - it cannot do it.

      Our system of law is prohibitive, not permissive; it says what you cannot do - not what you can do. If there is no law restricting the distribution of this 3D file, then it is implicitly legal, and a judge has ZERO basis for banning such distribution. There is no legal grounds for Government to "ban" something without a law behind it.

      People with your viewpoint on Government and governance are the true threat to freedom. You wish to turn this concept on its head, effectively allowing Government to tell you what you can do. To lose all freedoms and rights and become a mere serf. It is because Government has defined limits to its powers, and that we have the freedom to do as we will if no law restricts, that keeps society moving. Your approach leads to the USSR, to feudalism, to slavery. You willingly clamp a chain around your neck and hand it to your master - because they get to say what you can do. Sad.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  3. Re:I have no understanding of this, FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone should have access to chemical/biological/nuclear weapons tech

    We already do. Check out your local college library.

    In this case, the 2nd Amendment is being stretched well beyond its original intent

    Quite the opposite. The intent was to allow citizens to own military hardware. Remember the first US Navy ships were privately owned, cannons and all.

    the supporters ... we still have law and order to maintain ... Nobody is being realistically oppressed ... ridiculous an argument

    Leave tribalism to baboons. Humans have moved on and the wise among us have decided certain rights are necessary to retain every other right.