SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
THIS WEEK MARKS the two-year anniversary since Cody Wilson, the inventor of the world’s first 3-D printable gun, received a letter from the State Department demanding that he remove the blueprints for his plastic-printed firearm from the internet. The alternative: face possible prosecution for violating regulations that forbid the international export of unapproved arms.
Now Wilson is challenging that letter. And in doing so, he’s picking a fight that could pit proponents of gun control and defenders of free speech against each other in an age when the line between a lethal weapon and a collection of bits is blurrier than ever before.
Wilson’s gun manufacturing advocacy group Defense Distributed, along with the gun rights group the Second Amendment Foundation, on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the State Department and several of its officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry. In their complaint, they claim that a State Department agency called the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) violated their first amendment right to free speech by telling Defense Distributed that it couldn’t publish a 3-D printable file for its one-shot plastic pistol known as the Liberator, along with a collection of other printable gun parts, on its website.
In its 2013 letter to Defense Distributed, the DDTC cited a long-controversial set of regulations known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which controls whether and how Americans can sell weapons beyond U.S. borders. By merely posting a 3-D-printable file to a website, in other words, the DDTC claimed Defense Distributed had potentially violated arms export controls—just as if it had shipped a crate of AR-15s to, say, Mexico. But the group’s lawsuit now argues that whether or not the Liberator is a weapon, its blueprints are “speech,” and that Americans’ freedom of speech is protected online—even when that speech can be used to make a gun with just a few clicks.
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-war-arms-control-free-speech/
Here’s the full complaint from Defense Distributed: https://www.scribd.com/doc/264435890/Defense-Distributed-et-al-v-U-S-Dept-of-State
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Finkus on Friday May 08 2015, @12:55PM
The 1st amendment protects it, but that doesn't mean people won't try to suppress it.
The entire thing is absurd, as schematics for actual weapons have been available forever [PDF] [weaponeer.net], and most firearms are simple enough to be reverse engineered provided. Attempting to ban the printer file has nothing to do with any actual threat. Anyone who would be able to do harm to the US (which is what I'd imagine export regulations are targeting) has access to metal guns that aren't equally likely to blow up as they are to fire.
I'm doubt the people behind this at the State Department are naive enough to think they'll be able to stop the files from being distributed either. It's purely bullying. They want people to know that they know that this is going on.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Alfred on Friday May 08 2015, @01:35PM
But the fact about how the world actually runs is that bullying works. This guy who loves guns and free speech will be overpowered by those who hate his guns or hate free his speech. The political class wants all the guns and free speech for themselves, everyone else can STFU.
I wish him luck, the cards are double stacked against him.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 08 2015, @03:50PM
Interestingly, the gun advocates are on his side, but the gun manufacturers would love him to win...
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 08 2015, @03:53PM
and of course, I meant lose.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday May 08 2015, @04:09PM
Possible unlikely plot twist: they do want him to win, waiting for an accident to boost their sales of real and safer guns. This would have to be balanced with the possibility of using such an accident as leverage against all guns. Nevermind, this plot twist is a wash.
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Friday May 08 2015, @04:20PM
New plot twist: they help him win. Put blueprints for really dangerous weapons online, which a psycho uses to murder children in their classroom. Instantly, the president rushes to do ... nothing.
Crap, another dead end!
New plot twist: blue prints are used by Ze Eeevil Terrorizts to attack a gun show. Proud citizens mow them down (and each other a bit) with one of the few legal machineguns! Yay for citizens! Boo for Terrorists! Yay for all auto machineguns to become legal again! Ban 3D printers as terrorist tools!
Now we've got something!
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Saturday May 09 2015, @03:55AM
That is the craziest, most ridiculous, unpossible scenario I have heard in a while.
And since I have been paying attention to the recent congress critter's campaigning, I truly think you may have nailed it.
30 or 40 years ago, if someone would have described the world we live in today to me back then, I would have immediately asked them for a hook-up with their drug dealer... that must be some good shit, man!
The 1960's and early 1970's were wilder and whoolier than today, especially actually having terrorist groups active in the US. Malcolm X, Black Panthers, PLA, PLO, Baeder-Meinhoff, KKK, and many more. Alphabet soup!(mostly 'homegrown' groups in the US, but YMMV)
We had weekly betting pools on airline highjackings, for Murphy's sakes! Really.
Then, Vietnam protests(Kent State), race riots, bussing, desegregation, and a lot of other wacky shit..all at the same time it seemed.
But no PATRIOT Act, Dept. of Homeland Security(would have sounded too 'commie' back then), or TSA hassling troops returning from combat(with weapons) about fingernail clippers. About the most we had was the CIA drug-running in SE Asia, and J. Edgar Hoover's FBI chasing commies all over.(and everbody was looking for Jimmy Hoffa)
Crazy, but fun times.
It might be getting old, but the way things look presently, I'm a bit concerned about our gov't. Crazy, but not so fun times.
The past few months have seen a few bright spots, so all hope is not lost.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @06:20PM
It's even easier to bully when you have a gun. Not everyone who supports gun control hates freedom, in fact very few do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @07:48PM
Given the number of people that support the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, the prohibition of drugs (besides perhaps marijuana, as there's more opposition there), censorship, and many other things, that seems *very* unlikely. There are simply too many people on who support any of those things to say that very few gun control advocates hate freedom (though that position is anti-freedom in and of itself).
And many gun lovers love the second amendment but are eager to discard the rest of the constitution, so there are many unprincipled people in both camps.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2015, @01:34AM
Nice demonizing assumption there, that gun control advocates are all in favor of the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, drug prohibition, and many other things. It is, in fact, the other way around - the pro-guns-for-everyone camp are the authoritarians in favor of everything you've listed.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2015, @03:55AM
They're all against marrying cute young girls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2015, @05:51AM
...if one (simplistically) considers the right to bear arms as pure freedom (which I think many 2nd Amendment advocates do). Having to arm oneself because of the proliferation of weapons around them isn't freedom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @11:31PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 09 2015, @02:04AM
what matters is that that group is growing
They aren't growing fast enough to be relevant. There just aren't that many gun deaths in the US in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2015, @07:11AM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday May 09 2015, @02:02PM
Gun violence != deaths.
Gun violence severe enough to "lose loved ones" is.
Also, you should start watching the news.
Dumbest thing you'll write all day. News is entertainment not information. They have no interest in accurately portraying the US levels of gun violence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2015, @09:51PM
Gun violence severe enough to "lose loved ones" is.
You tried to make the scope bigger, which didn't help your point.
News is entertainment not information. They have no interest in accurately portraying the US levels of gun violence.
I'm not talking about gun violence in the news. You said they're not growing enough to be relevant. You've been wrong for a few years now.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 09 2015, @11:35PM
You tried to make the scope bigger, which didn't help your point.
No, I didn't. Read my post, I don't change the scope at all. It was quite clear that the previous poster was speaking of gun deaths from gun violence which is why I used the term, "gun deaths". I assumed also he was referring to suicides and accidental deaths, which might be incorrect on my part. But having said that, if he were speaking of generic "gun violence" and I choose instead to speak of "gun deaths" from gun violence, then I would be narrowing the scope not widening it.
Nor does your accusation doesn't make sense even if we ignore the context of the thread. After all, if I widen the scope and hence, the number of people effected and still made my point, then I see no reason for complaint. It's like complaining that I won a chess game unfairly ("I didn't help my game") because I took one of my pieces away which substantially harmed my starting position.
Having said that, the following is how you make the scope bigger. While there is some attention paid to people who lost loved ones, no attention has been paid here to people who have saved their lives or property by use of a gun, not necessarily to kill someone or even fire the gun. Merely brandishing a handgun is often enough to prevent crime and the harm that can come of it. That group is growing as well.
This is the huge elephant in the tent that gun control advocates routinely ignore. There are a lot of people who have experienced a legitimate improvement in their lives by using a handgun to intimidate or even kill a criminal who was intent on doing harm. Those people won't be appreciative of efforts to cripple their ability to defend themselves.
I'm not talking about gun violence in the news.
Then you're not talking about anything I would consider relevant in this thread since we were speaking of gun violence and gun deaths. Nor am I interested in guessing what you mean by your coy, misleading insinuations.
As to the claim that somehow we in the US are closer to broad gun control measures, I think that's absurd. Here, we have on paper the strongest gun control advocates in the White House ever and despite being in the White House for six years, they have yet to propose any serious gun control legislation. States are rolling back gun control legislation. My state of residence, Colorado recently rolled back a relatively mild though idiotic gun control regulation by voting out most of the instigators. Similarly, the national park where I work (Yellowstone National Park) now allows people to have firearms in the park which is a recent change in policy. I believe there are similar small trends throughout the US to more liberal gun ownership.
I notice that there is this insistence on claiming that a belief is widely prevalent even though it is obvious that public sentiment isn't in line with that. I think it's the fallacy of appeal to consensus. Everyone has this opinion so you should do. The obvious rebuttal is that a casual glance at public attitudes and political movements don't show the consensus. My view is that it's going to take a lot more than the rare mass shooting or bombing to convince enough people that there is an actual problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 10 2015, @02:49AM
But having said that, if he were speaking of generic "gun violence" and I choose instead to speak of "gun deaths" from gun violence, then I would be narrowing the scope not widening it.
I inverted my terms, I apologize for the mis-communication. I'll rewind a bit and clarify: Guns are giving tons of people reason to hate them. It's not limited to deaths, either murder or suicide, it's jail time, long-term injuries, you name it. This number is not small enough to be irrelevant. Even if it was, it grows. Small number today, large number tomorrow.
Nor am I interested in guessing what you mean by your coy, misleading insinuations.
My point is you shouldn't have to guess. You have an opinion on a topic yet you're unaware of years of current events. This isn't coy, this is "ugh I'm not even sure how we're going to have this conversation without giving you a history lesson you're just going to argue with anyway."
My view is that it's going to take a lot more than the rare mass shooting or bombing to convince enough people that there is an actual problem.
Your view fails to take memory into account. Every tragedy that comes by means less people seeing value in allowing gun ownership. That clock is ticking. If you want to keep that right, start finding a solution. Others are, right now, acting on it. They're misguided, but they're doing it. What you want is action that isn't misguided instead of sitting there with your arms crossed complaining about how every solution is wrong.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 13 2015, @11:42PM
You have an opinion on a topic yet you're unaware of years of current events. This isn't coy, this is "ugh I'm not even sure how we're going to have this conversation without giving you a history lesson you're just going to argue with anyway."
I apologize for the late reply. I'm quite aware of current events. For example, most gun control laws get reversed either by voters or by being ruled blatantly unconstitutional in the courts. Gun violence, not just gun deaths is at a near future low. There is slight movement towards gun liberalization and not much going on at the state level. You could give me a history lesson, but reality already doesn't go your way. The precondition of giving me an erroneous history lesson results in the consequence of me correcting those errors to the best of my ability. It's not due to some mental problem on my part, it's just a simple matter of bad priors leading to bad conclusions.
What you want is action that isn't misguided instead of sitting there with your arms crossed complaining about how every solution is wrong.
Let us keep in mind that my alleged non-solution is better than most of the proposed solutions! You haven't even established that there is a gun problem which warrants such restrictions.
But since we have sort of transitions into speaking about actual solutions rather than merely dwell on my shortcomings, I'll propose a couple of solutions: 1) legalize all recreational drugs, and 2) enforce the Second Amendment rather than repeatedly try to undermine it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2015, @03:59AM
Shoot them when they try to imprison men.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2015, @12:50AM
Now there's a rare combination if I ever saw one. Most pro-gun people are vehemently anti-free speech. Free speech means the right for people to say things you don't agree with, something the overwhelming majority of the pro-gun camp absolutely cannot stand.
(Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Saturday May 09 2015, @02:40AM
Now there's a rare combination if I ever saw one. Most pro-gun people are vehemently anti-free speech. Free speech means the right for people to say things you don't agree with, something the overwhelming majority of the pro-gun camp absolutely cannot stand.
Most PEOPLE are vehemently anti-free speech, you just have to find the right issue. I'm pleasantly surprised when I meet someone who never says anything like "I'm all for free speech, but...".
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday May 10 2015, @01:05PM
You seem to think being for free speech means that you never think someone else shouldn't ever say something specific. That's wrong. Free speech just means nobody should be forbidden to say something. A big difference.
Note that if you complain that someone complains about someone saying something, you are doing exactly what you argue against: Claiming that some things should not be said.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Sunday May 10 2015, @02:40PM
You seem to think being for free speech means that you never think someone else shouldn't ever say something specific. That's wrong. Free speech just means nobody should be forbidden to say something. A big difference.
Note that if you complain that someone complains about someone saying something, you are doing exactly what you argue against: Claiming that some things should not be said.
I never said that. There are certainly things that I believe shouldn't be said (anti-vaccine misinformation as an example) but I wouldn't support any censorship of that "information". The answer to "bad" speech is more speech.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]