Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

xraytango wrote:
For our friend down under (I used to think that people who lived in OZ and NZ actually spent their lives upside-down, the imagination of an 8 year old boy)

Undoubtedly you have heard of a little thing that is in this country that is called the Bill of Rights. It is the first five amendments to the Constitution. In it there is the guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This means that the government cannot review or censor or censure anyone or anything that is written by that person.

There are very few things that are restricted speech.

You are correct that people in Australia and New Zealand are not upside down. Your second lesson about the rest of the world is that we actually have civil rights as well, including fundamental protections on free speech. They're not exactly the same as in the US (some things are more restricted, others are less restricted) but you don't need to lecture me or anyone else in the rest of the world on existence of free speech. I mean holy fething gak I shouldn't have to type that out but there you go.

Anyhow, free speech is not actually curtailed by merely meeting with government or anyone else just to see their opinion. What is discussed in such meetings is not binding. Such meetings are matter of course in the real world - it just plain makes sense when you're on contentious ground to size up exactly what the other side wants. It's frequently the case that you can find a ground where both sides get 99% of what they want without the time and expense of court action. But all too often that doesn't happen because people just love to butt heads, especially when ideology gets involved.

Once again, I'm not commenting on the specifics of the firearm information or the need to restrict it, just commenting on the simple process used in cases like this, and my observation that one party is making all sorts of stupid noises instead of just sitting down, establishing both sides true positions and moving from there.

Let's not forget that the 1st, like any other amendment, can be undone by the 2/3rds clause, so nothing is set in stone. Unlikely to ever happen but worth remembering.

 sebster wrote:

xraytango wrote:
For our friend down under (I used to think that people who lived in OZ and NZ actually spent their lives upside-down, the imagination of an 8 year old boy)

Undoubtedly you have heard of a little thing that is in this country that is called the Bill of Rights. It is the first five amendments to the Constitution. In it there is the guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This means that the government cannot review or censor or censure anyone or anything that is written by that person.

There are very few things that are restricted speech.

You are correct that people in Australia and New Zealand are not upside down. Your second lesson about the rest of the world is that we actually have civil rights as well, including fundamental protections on free speech. They're not exactly the same as in the US (some things are more restricted, others are less restricted) but you don't need to lecture me or anyone else in the rest of the world on existence of free speech. I mean holy fething gak I shouldn't have to type that out but there you go.

Anyhow, free speech is not actually curtailed by merely meeting with government or anyone else just to see their opinion. What is discussed in such meetings is not binding. Such meetings are matter of course in the real world - it just plain makes sense when you're on contentious ground to size up exactly what the other side wants. It's frequently the case that you can find a ground where both sides get 99% of what they want without the time and expense of court action. But all too often that doesn't happen because people just love to butt heads, especially when ideology gets involved.

Once again, I'm not commenting on the specifics of the firearm information or the need to restrict it, just commenting on the simple process used in cases like this, and my observation that one party is making all sorts of stupid noises instead of just sitting down, establishing both sides true positions and moving from there.

Seb... we have legal doctrine from past cases that the mere 'act' of getting approval from government on 'open source information' is an unconstitutional burden here in the states.

I'll need a few minutes to find them, but there's plenty of case laws supporting this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Let's not forget that the 1st, like any other amendment, can be undone by the 2/3rds clause, so nothing is set in stone. Unlikely to ever happen but worth remembering.

Why bring this up?

The 1st amendment is in effect.

Also, the 2nd amendment protects the 1st.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
@sebster, I partially agree with you, and partially dont.... I think these guys are coming across as the same type who want to say, "im a third year law student, I have a camera phone, now watch me totally be a legal douche to this police officer over here" So while I know, at least based on what has been published so far, that these guys are well within their rights to continue doing what they have been doing... I simply think, as you do, that they should hit the "pause" button while this thing plays out.

Exactly. It's the adult way to do things - establish what the other side will allow you, and then if no decent compromise can be found you move to court to establish the rest. This approach of 'publish first then figure out where we stand in the aftermath' absolutely wreaks of trying to bring government down on you, just because you have to be a martyr in order to prove you really love the cause.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
@sebster, I partially agree with you, and partially dont.... I think these guys are coming across as the same type who want to say, "im a third year law student, I have a camera phone, now watch me totally be a legal douche to this police officer over here" So while I know, at least based on what has been published so far, that these guys are well within their rights to continue doing what they have been doing... I simply think, as you do, that they should hit the "pause" button while this thing plays out.

Exactly. It's the adult way to do things - establish what the other side will allow you, and then if no decent compromise can be found you move to court to establish the rest.

Yep, and the 'adult way' equates to the Feds being able to use massive resources and tie up the small business/organization/individual in a lengthy and costly legal process which they are generally unable to afford or unwilling to submit themselves to. So if by 'adult way' you actually mean 'submit to a bully' you are indeed on the spot.

 djones520 wrote:
No, it's not the "adult" way to do things.

Freedom of speech is still sacrosanct here.

Free speech isn't sacrosanct anywhere. Americans love to go on about it, but it doesn't actually make it true. You have restrictions on speech like everyone else. Your restrictions are different, but they're there.

Whether this is a lawful restriction or not, once again I am not fething entering it to that - I do not have the technical knowledge of firearms, nor a fine understanding of US constitutional law regarding free speech, nor a complete understanding of the facts of the case. And I'm going to bet that everyone else in this thread lacks at least two of those three things, making most other opinions equally worthless.

What I am going to comment on is the process as I've seen it in the real world, when none of the parties involved are idiots or worse - ideologues.

The "adult" thing to do is to stand up to this bullying.

And the juvenile thing is to think you stand up to bullies by provoking them and then charge in fists flailing.

Of course you fight for what matters, but you fight smart, even if that means it's nowhere near as exciting as our teenage anti-establishment fantasies promised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
First Amendment;
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

For some people 200 years of judicial review and consideration just don't fething matter.

Incredible, really.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

xraytango wrote:
For our friend down under (I used to think that people who lived in OZ and NZ actually spent their lives upside-down, the imagination of an 8 year old boy)

Undoubtedly you have heard of a little thing that is in this country that is called the Bill of Rights. It is the first five amendments to the Constitution. In it there is the guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This means that the government cannot review or censor or censure anyone or anything that is written by that person.

There are very few things that are restricted speech.

You are correct that people in Australia and New Zealand are not upside down. Your second lesson about the rest of the world is that we actually have civil rights as well, including fundamental protections on free speech. They're not exactly the same as in the US (some things are more restricted, others are less restricted) but you don't need to lecture me or anyone else in the rest of the world on existence of free speech. I mean holy fething gak I shouldn't have to type that out but there you go.

Anyhow, free speech is not actually curtailed by merely meeting with government or anyone else just to see their opinion. What is discussed in such meetings is not binding. Such meetings are matter of course in the real world - it just plain makes sense when you're on contentious ground to size up exactly what the other side wants. It's frequently the case that you can find a ground where both sides get 99% of what they want without the time and expense of court action. But all too often that doesn't happen because people just love to butt heads, especially when ideology gets involved.

Once again, I'm not commenting on the specifics of the firearm information or the need to restrict it, just commenting on the simple process used in cases like this, and my observation that one party is making all sorts of stupid noises instead of just sitting down, establishing both sides true positions and moving from there.

Seb... we have legal doctrine from past cases that the mere 'act' of getting approval from government on 'open source information' is an unconstitutional burden here in the states.

I'll need a few minutes to find them, but there's plenty of case laws supporting this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Let's not forget that the 1st, like any other amendment, can be undone by the 2/3rds clause, so nothing is set in stone. Unlikely to ever happen but worth remembering.

Why bring this up?

The 1st amendment is in effect.

Also, the 2nd amendment protects the 1st.

And the 16th amendment taxes the hell out of you and leaves you too poor to buy guns

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

xraytango wrote:
For our friend down under (I used to think that people who lived in OZ and NZ actually spent their lives upside-down, the imagination of an 8 year old boy)

Undoubtedly you have heard of a little thing that is in this country that is called the Bill of Rights. It is the first five amendments to the Constitution. In it there is the guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This means that the government cannot review or censor or censure anyone or anything that is written by that person.

There are very few things that are restricted speech.

You are correct that people in Australia and New Zealand are not upside down. Your second lesson about the rest of the world is that we actually have civil rights as well, including fundamental protections on free speech. They're not exactly the same as in the US (some things are more restricted, others are less restricted) but you don't need to lecture me or anyone else in the rest of the world on existence of free speech. I mean holy fething gak I shouldn't have to type that out but there you go.

Anyhow, free speech is not actually curtailed by merely meeting with government or anyone else just to see their opinion. What is discussed in such meetings is not binding. Such meetings are matter of course in the real world - it just plain makes sense when you're on contentious ground to size up exactly what the other side wants. It's frequently the case that you can find a ground where both sides get 99% of what they want without the time and expense of court action. But all too often that doesn't happen because people just love to butt heads, especially when ideology gets involved.

Once again, I'm not commenting on the specifics of the firearm information or the need to restrict it, just commenting on the simple process used in cases like this, and my observation that one party is making all sorts of stupid noises instead of just sitting down, establishing both sides true positions and moving from there.

Seb... we have legal doctrine from past cases that the mere 'act' of getting approval from government on 'open source information' is an unconstitutional burden here in the states.

I'll need a few minutes to find them, but there's plenty of case laws supporting this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Let's not forget that the 1st, like any other amendment, can be undone by the 2/3rds clause, so nothing is set in stone. Unlikely to ever happen but worth remembering.

Why bring this up?

The 1st amendment is in effect.

Also, the 2nd amendment protects the 1st.

And the 16th amendment taxes the hell out of you and leaves you too poor to buy guns

'Taint too bad.

Guns are cheap here.

 CptJake wrote:
Yep, and the 'adult way' equates to the Feds being able to use massive resources and tie up the small business/organization/individual in a lengthy and costly legal process which they are generally unable to afford or unwilling to submit themselves to. So if by 'adult way' you actually mean 'submit to a bully' you are indeed on the spot.

No, and don't just make stupid gak up.

There's is nothing in what I proposed that says you just accept what government decides. The point is that you enter in to discussion first, establish exactly what you will lose from your publication by accepting the government position, and then negotiate to include what you can (as government will let plenty slide to avoid the courts themselves). And if that process doesn't give you a decent enough outcome, then you resort to the expensive and time consuming nightmare of court action.

Or, if you're a starry eyed ideologue desperation for attention from your sub-culture, you make lots of internet noise and promise court action as a first step.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Seb... we have legal doctrine from past cases that the mere 'act' of getting approval from government on 'open source information' is an unconstitutional burden here in the states.

I'll need a few minutes to find them, but there's plenty of case laws supporting this.

As I've already said, I couldn't give a flying feth about the specifics of case law on this issue. Don't take this the wrong way but I'm completely convinced that no-one here is both a constitutional lawyer and fully read on the specifics of this case, so even I did care I wouldn't find the answer in this thread.

What I am saying, over and over again, is that protesting before you've actually gone through any meaningful kind of discussion on the subject is puerile.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Seb... we have legal doctrine from past cases that the mere 'act' of getting approval from government on 'open source information' is an unconstitutional burden here in the states.

I'll need a few minutes to find them, but there's plenty of case laws supporting this.

As I've already said, I couldn't give a flying feth about the specifics of case law on this issue. Don't take this the wrong way but I'm completely convinced that no-one here is both a constitutional lawyer and fully read on the specifics of this case, so even I did care I wouldn't find the answer in this thread.

I'll break it down for you...

The information were already public domain information.

The websites owners simply collated them in one easy location.

There's a distinction you're missing...

What I am saying, over and over again, is that protesting before you've actually gone through any meaningful kind of discussion on the subject is puerile.

Um... this legal battle is over 3 years old buddy, and worst, the government DIDN'T FETHING respond until recently.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
No, it's not the "adult" way to do things.

Freedom of speech is still sacrosanct here.

Free speech isn't sacrosanct anywhere. Americans love to go on about it, but it doesn't actually make it true. You have restrictions on speech like everyone else. Your restrictions are different, but they're there.

Whether this is a lawful restriction or not, once again I am not fething entering it to that - I do not have the technical knowledge of firearms, nor a fine understanding of US constitutional law regarding free speech, nor a complete understanding of the facts of the case. And I'm going to bet that everyone else in this thread lacks at least two of those three things, making most other opinions equally worthless.

What I am going to comment on is the process as I've seen it in the real world, when none of the parties involved are idiots or worse - ideologues.

The "adult" thing to do is to stand up to this bullying.

And the juvenile thing is to think you stand up to bullies by provoking them and then charge in fists flailing.

Of course you fight for what matters, but you fight smart, even if that means it's nowhere near as exciting as our teenage anti-establishment fantasies promised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
First Amendment;
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

For some people 200 years of judicial review and consideration just don't fething matter.

Incredible, really.

And thus my last post in response to this.

While I am not an expert on this, I do have the phone number to my Family's Law Firm, where I can waste some poor paralegal's time to question about issues (to a point).

Which is why I pointed out the relevant law the government is likely using (The Commerce Control Laws) that support the government's claim to be able to restrict (redact) the proposed "speech."

I was not endorsing the position of the government, just pointing out that they do have established law that can be cited to support their position.

There are equal and opposite laws that support the position of the company.

Pointing out that the government has had other, more important technology stolen from them is, unfortunately, neither an excuse, nor applicable to this instance.

If the U.S. government allowed Lockheed to publish, in Chinese, the technical specifications of the Lightning II, or allowed other companies to openly publish the technical specifications of weapons vital to national security, THEN the two instances would be equal.

But the specs for the new fighter were stolen by hackers, who were exceptionally skilled and dedicated (and with the aid and support of the other largest national economy on the planet: China).

The government claims here are simply that vital strategic technologies not be handed to our enemies.

If the enemies steal those technologies, it is a different issue.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Seb... we have legal doctrine from past cases that the mere 'act' of getting approval from government on 'open source information' is an unconstitutional burden here in the states.

I'll need a few minutes to find them, but there's plenty of case laws supporting this.

As I've already said, I couldn't give a flying feth about the specifics of case law on this issue. Don't take this the wrong way but I'm completely convinced that no-one here is both a constitutional lawyer and fully read on the specifics of this case, so even I did care I wouldn't find the answer in this thread.

I'll break it down for you...

The information were already public domain information.

The websites owners simply collated them in one easy location.

There's a distinction you're missing...

I did not miss this distinction, and I pointed out why it is irrelevant to this case.

To summarize:

Information about how to make a 1960 - 1970 era Hydrogen Bomb is also available in the public domain.

But it is still mostly illegal to assemble that information in ONE PLACE and then publish it such that it would be available to our enemies.

You are applying an absolutist standard to information control, and to law in general.

For instance, everything there is about making methamphetamine is also open source. Yet it remains illegal to knowing instruct others in the manufacture of methamphetamine (or heroin, or morphine, or LSD, or MDMA) without certain standards and safeguards in place.

And it remains illegal, even with those standards and safeguards in place to give this information to certain people (criminals or people who have either stated express intent to use the information illegally, or who have been previously convicted of such manufacture and sales).

These are just two of a nearly infinite number of cases when information that is open source is restricted in some fashion by the U.S. government.

MOST people will not be motivated to seek out that (weapons) information, even if they have a goal of using such information against us.

But that is no reason to do their job for them, and assemble and collate the information into step-by-step instructions.

MB

I'm going to stop you there...

I know for a fact there's websites describing step-by-step instructions to manufacture meths.

Same with how to breed, cultivate and extract potent marijuana.

Same with how to produce morphine from opiate sources.

I've seen the exploded diagram on how to build a nuclear bomb and it's technical specification therein.

All convienently a click away.

What we're discussing is what we're allowed to do with freely available information in the 'Net.

Sebster's point about being the adult and get approval over this is absurd.

 sebster wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Yep, and the 'adult way' equates to the Feds being able to use massive resources and tie up the small business/organization/individual in a lengthy and costly legal process which they are generally unable to afford or unwilling to submit themselves to. So if by 'adult way' you actually mean 'submit to a bully' you are indeed on the spot.

No, and don't just make stupid gak up.

There's is nothing in what I proposed that says you just accept what government decides. The point is that you enter in to discussion first, establish exactly what you will lose from your publication by accepting the government position, and then negotiate to include what you can (as government will let plenty slide to avoid the courts themselves). And if that process doesn't give you a decent enough outcome, then you resort to the expensive and time consuming nightmare of court action.

Or, if you're a starry eyed ideologue desperation for attention from your sub-culture, you make lots of internet noise and promise court action as a first step.

You clearly don't understand what is going on in this case nor what I typed. Which is fine.

The Gov't has the resources to delay and harass, and is using them. There is no 'fair' bargaining table or negotiation being offered, to think there is naive.

 whembly wrote:
I'm going to stop you there...

I know for a fact there's websites describing step-by-step instructions to manufacture meths.

Same with how to breed, cultivate and extract potent marijuana.

Same with how to produce morphine from opiate sources.

I've seen the exploded diagram on how to build a nuclear bomb and it's technical specification therein.

All convienently a click away.

What we're discussing is what we're allowed to do with freely available information in the 'Net.

Sebster's point about being the adult and get approval over this is absurd.

I already pointed out that this happens, yet it remains illegal to do so.

Just because something exists does not mean it is legal.

The government tends to have a difficult time shutting down websites that explain how to do illegal things.

I could easily create one myself (I have made most drugs when I was younger), but doing so tends to come with a raft of problems that I don't need, yet which some people are willing to gamble with for whatever reason.

This is still trying to apply an absolutist standard to the law (a law must be 100% effective, or it is pointless to have it).

By those standards, traffic signals are a waste of time since some people ignore them.

MB

A PDF of the filed document (or at least that is what it claims to be...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/05/DefenseDistributed.pdf

BeAfraid wrote:

This is still trying to apply an absolutist standard to the law (a law must be 100% effective, or it is pointless to have it).

It's not taking the absolutist approach.

Where are you getting that?

This is a case of governmental malfeasance. Re-read the original post... read the PDF that CptJake just posted.

Here is Wired's take on it:

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-war-arms-control-free-speech/

They compare it to the PGP/Cryptowars. It is seemingly a good comparison.

 whembly wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

This is still trying to apply an absolutist standard to the law (a law must be 100% effective, or it is pointless to have it).

It's not taking the absolutist approach.

Where are you getting that?

This is a case of governmental malfeasance. Re-read the original post... read the PDF that CptJake just posted.

My quote has nothing to do with that point.

It has to do with trying to use the existence of other illegal publications as an excuse to break another law (or to at least try to excuse it).

The issue of whether the government has the Right to redact or restrict speech in the case of the group in question is still very much open to debate.

But trying to apply absolutist standards to that debate tends to create huge problems in other areas, or simply excuses dangerous or illegal acts because people have gotten away with it.

MB

 CptJake wrote:
Here is Wired's take on it:

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-war-arms-control-free-speech/

They compare it to the PGP/Cryptowars. It is seemingly a good comparison.

Yep.

That isn't new... the FBI blasted Apple/Google for offering encryption that the government couldn't access.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeAfraid wrote:

 whembly wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

This is still trying to apply an absolutist standard to the law (a law must be 100% effective, or it is pointless to have it).

It's not taking the absolutist approach.

Where are you getting that?

This is a case of governmental malfeasance. Re-read the original post... read the PDF that CptJake just posted.

My quote has nothing to do with that point.

It has to do with trying to use the existence of other illegal publications as an excuse to break another law (or to at least try to excuse it).

The issue of whether the government has the Right to redact or restrict speech in the case of the group in question is still very much open to debate.

But trying to apply absolutist standards to that debate tends to create huge problems in other areas, or simply excuses dangerous or illegal acts because people have gotten away with it.

MB

MB...

Those examples I posted are NOT illegal. That's where your argument falls flat.

 CptJake wrote:
Here is Wired's take on it:

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-war-arms-control-free-speech/

They compare it to the PGP/Cryptowars. It is seemingly a good comparison.

OK... see, to me, arguing and going to court over "M-16 blueprints" as we've been discussing is, in my eyes, entirely different from publishing 3-D printing schematics for a single-shot gun.

However, whether this is actually the case or not, I think that there should be a time limit on the sort of action that's apparently been going on in regards to the OP.

 CptJake wrote:
Here is Wired's take on it:

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-war-arms-control-free-speech/

They compare it to the PGP/Cryptowars. It is seemingly a good comparison.

It seems that I was absolutely correct on why the government was stepping in.

The issue has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the production of one gun, or one type of gun, but rather in its applicability to ALL manufacture red weapons, as Cody Wilson has solved several key technical problems with the 3D printing of weapons (having worked in the 3D printing and prototyping business, it is something I am well aware of, because many of our machines at work come with Federal Oversight from the DEA, FDA, ATF, FBI, and Secret Service - we can use the machines to create absolutely perfect printing plates for money of any kind, as one example).

Cody Wilson is like many of the extremist Libertarians who tend to not understand the complexities of the world we live in, or that certain issues go beyond just their personal, and often myopic goals and/or ideologies.

This is not saying that the government has an absolute right to interfere, but merely that prior established law certainly provides a justification for them to do so under the CCL, and other laws establishing the right of the government to control strategic technologies, which this certainly qualifies as.

That the information to do so is readily available elsewhere just means that the government would have others it needed to confront, just like they have an interest in shutting down sites that instruct people in the manufacture of illicit narcotics (that they fail to shut down all sites that do so makes it no less or more illegal to do so).

In this case, we obviously will need to see how this plays out now, and in the future, as the technologies change our world.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Here is Wired's take on it:

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-war-arms-control-free-speech/

They compare it to the PGP/Cryptowars. It is seemingly a good comparison.

OK... see, to me, arguing and going to court over "M-16 blueprints" as we've been discussing is, in my eyes, entirely different from publishing 3-D printing schematics for a single-shot gun.

However, whether this is actually the case or not, I think that there should be a time limit on the sort of action that's apparently been going on in regards to the OP.

Again, it is not about one gun, or any number of individual weapons.

It is over specific aspects of the technology that offer solutions that can be generalized to produce ANY type of firearm (including artillery).

MB

No...

I see this move as nothing more than harassment and retaliation against the company.

Remember the hysteria about 3D printing guns?

Remember the hysteria that the ATF tried to shut down companies offering uncut lower receivers?

Defense Distributed tried for 2 years to comply and got ZERO response back.

ZERO.

Hence, this lawsuit.

Keep in mind, Defense Distributed is known for offering plans for building ghost guns (un registered lower recievers) and that they're now offering cheap CNC equipment to mill your own ghost gun. The ATF hasn't looked too kindly on this company since then...

 whembly wrote:

I see this move as nothing more than harassment and retaliation against the company.

The more I look at it, the more I see it this way as well, ESPECIALLY given that this is the same company that caught flak for the printed gun.


And, as far as I'm aware, the website/publication in the OP wasn't "just" how to cut a lower receiver or something specific to the M-4/M-16 type rifle, it was also designed to be a guide to "what tacticool toys should I put on it" and be much more of a one-stop shop for all things firearms enthusiast.

It may be retaliation against the company.

But there does exist legal precedent as a foundation for that retaliation.

Part of the problem may come from many rather questionable statements from the company or Cody Wilson that seem to be rather oblivious to the dangers of an arms race occurring within the population, and the dangers of further escalation of a race of this sort.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
the dangers of an arms race occurring within the population, and the dangers of further escalation of a race of this sort.

wtf are you on about mate???

The majority of the "danger" that I see here, is that yes, there's a perception among some pro-gun people that "dem evil demmmo-Crats are outta get ma gunz!" Combined with the militarization of local police forces (in the last thread on that topic we had here, someone posted articles showing that many/most of the departments who had done this are backing off, and getting rid of a lot of the military hardware they had) the people aren't really in any sort of "arms race" Hatfields aren't feuding with McCoys right now.

BeAfraid wrote:
It may be retaliation against the company.

But there does exist legal precedent as a foundation for that retaliation.

Part of the problem may come from many rather questionable statements from the company or Cody Wilson that seem to be rather oblivious to the dangers of an arms race occurring within the population, and the dangers of further escalation of a race of this sort.

MB

An 'Arms race occurring within the population'? Seriously? That is what you come out with?

There are already state and federal laws against the types of activities/manufacturing/acquiring unlicensed fire arms that could in any way conceivably be used in an 'arms race occurring within the population'. Your fear, or the Government's fear of that occurring doesn't give them carte blanche to feth with this company or with anyone else. Just as they didn't have the right to do so for encryption (God Forbid citizens make it harder for the gov't to violate their 4th amendment rights...) And you will note, the DOS has ZERO damned authority to screw with anything domestic which would promote a domestic 'arms race occurring within the population'. They are not even attempting that lame excuse for their actions. The thugs of the ATF would be the appropriate agency if that was the issue.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
the dangers of an arms race occurring within the population, and the dangers of further escalation of a race of this sort.

wtf are you on about mate???

The majority of the "danger" that I see here, is that yes, there's a perception among some pro-gun people that "dem evil demmmo-Crats are outta get ma gunz!" Combined with the militarization of local police forces (in the last thread on that topic we had here, someone posted articles showing that many/most of the departments who had done this are backing off, and getting rid of a lot of the military hardware they had) the people aren't really in any sort of "arms race" Hatfields aren't feuding with McCoys right now.

The technology being developed by Cody Wilson was inspired by Neil Stephenson's Cryptomomicon, where an acquaintance of one of the protagonists developed an assault rifle that could be built in third world countries with no logistical support.

Cody Wilson is exactly one of those pro-gun people who believe that the population needs to be flooded with guns (i.e. That more guns in a population make it "safer").

The technology involved here is aimed at being able to print guns with cheap low-res 3D printers, like the Maker-bot.

And it could lead to a case of the government militarizing the police even further with the presence of easily manufactured assault weapons among a population that has an increasing hostility to the government (further fanned by people who cynically abuse that sentiment to gain power of their own).

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
Part of the problem may come from many rather questionable statements from the company or Cody Wilson that seem to be rather oblivious to the dangers of an arms race occurring within the population, and the dangers of further escalation of a race of this sort.

There is no danger of an arms race because there is no need for an arms race. Currently all the guns you could ever need are available at your local store (if you don't have a criminal record) or on the black market (if you do). The only people who feel that the current options are inadequate are a handful of collectors who want a cool toy to have fun with at their local gun range, and a few tinfoil hatters who feel compelled to obsessively stock up on weapons in preparation for a fantasy war that will never happen. The first group is not a danger because the only arms race they're going to participate in is the desire to have a cooler toy than all of their friends, and the second group is not a danger because they're an irrelevant minority that will hide in their pointless survival bunkers and fantasize about how persecuted they are until they finally get bored of it all.

 Peregrine wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
Part of the problem may come from many rather questionable statements from the company or Cody Wilson that seem to be rather oblivious to the dangers of an arms race occurring within the population, and the dangers of further escalation of a race of this sort.

There is no danger of an arms race because there is no need for an arms race. Currently all the guns you could ever need are available at your local store (if you don't have a criminal record) or on the black market (if you do). The only people who feel that the current options are inadequate are a handful of collectors who want a cool toy to have fun with at their local gun range, and a few tinfoil hatters who feel compelled to obsessively stock up on weapons in preparation for a fantasy war that will never happen. The first group is not a danger because the only arms race they're going to participate in is the desire to have a cooler toy than all of their friends, and the second group is not a danger because they're an irrelevant minority that will hide in their pointless survival bunkers and fantasize about how persecuted they are until they finally get bored of it all.

You do realize that the reason many police dept.s gave for the need for military equipment was due to what they saw as a threat from an increasingly heavily armed population?

THAT is an arms race, and one which the population itself will ultimately lose.

And it is one that the government is aware of, and wishes to prevent, so that it will have further reason to de-militarize the police (at least the current administration does. I imagine that a President Ted Cruz, or Jeb Bush would love nothing more than to give the police actual Main Battle Tanks to do their job).

Do people ever stop to think that even with the difficulties involved with interagency communication that some amount of such communication does occur?

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
The technology being developed by Cody Wilson was inspired by Neil Stephenson's Cryptomomicon, where an acquaintance of one of the protagonists developed an assault rifle that could be built in third world countries with no logistical support.

That doesn't make any sense. Unless you're talking about some kind of technobabble self-assembling nanomachines or whatever anyone who has the infrastructure to 3d print a gun has the ability to build guns the conventional way. A quick google search will give you plans and instructions for building a machine gun with nothing more than parts from your local hardware store, and any decent machine shop can build sten guns/AK-47s/etc.

Cody Wilson is exactly one of those pro-gun people who believe that the population needs to be flooded with guns (i.e. That more guns in a population make it "safer").

So what? The population is already flooded with guns. I can go to my local walmart and buy a better gun than any 3d printer is able to make. And, unlike the 3d-printed gun, my walmart gun has passed strict safety tests and I can be pretty sure that it won't explode in my hands when I try to use it.

The technology involved here is aimed at being able to print guns with cheap low-res 3D printers, like the Maker-bot.

So what? Anything a maker-bot produces is going to be no better than the kind of single-shot pipe + nail + rubber band "gun" you can make with a few dollars and a trip to your local hardware store. And if you have a better 3d printer capable of making a better gun you almost certainly have access to the tools required to make an AK-47 the conventional way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeAfraid wrote:
You do realize that the reason many police dept.s gave for the need for military equipment was due to what they saw as a threat from an increasingly heavily armed population?

What's your point? You can already buy a better gun than any 3d printer can make, so that "justification" for military equipment already exists. And even if you increase gun control the police can still come up with other "justifications" for getting that equipment if they really want it.