Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday May 08 2015, @12:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the right-to-make-arms dept.

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

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 08 2015, @03:13PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 08 2015, @03:13PM (#180324) Journal

    Free speech is in the constitution.

    Arms control is NOT in the constitution. Quite the opposite - the constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. There are no restrictions in the constitution on barrel length, barrel circumference, chamber length, firing mechanism, weight of projectile(s), volume of charge - nothing. No strictures on color, grip(s), sighting mechanism, or even carriage. I have the right to keep and bear arms. Don't need a judge's approval, don't need a permit, don't need a dispensation from the Pope, or from congress.

    Gun control isn't about guns - it's about CONTROL.

    Washington D.C. does not control me.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=1, Informative=1, Underrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 08 2015, @03:55PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday May 08 2015, @03:55PM (#180349) Journal

    An export control, which is the topic under discussion, does not affect your ability to keep and bear arms domestically.
     
      The Congress shall have power ...
      regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

     
      Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution [cornell.edu]

    • (Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Saturday May 09 2015, @10:34AM

      by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Saturday May 09 2015, @10:34AM (#180708) Journal

      An export control, which is the topic under discussion, does not affect your ability to keep and bear arms domestically.

      Hooray! So, please point me, a person living inside the borders of the USA, to the place where I may obtain the information from Defense Distributed to print my own plastic popgun.

      Wait, I can't? The fedgov issued threats and caused the information to be unavailable to me?

      Seems that this is more than just a matter of "making regular" foreign commerce.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @03:59PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @03:59PM (#180352)

    Good! Then walk down main street open-carrying your untaxed grenade launcher. I'll be very interested to see how long you can last without being controlled.... or have the ultimate control applied to you. (And I am very pro-gun, BTW, but think that rights - even Bill of Rights guaranteed - are not quite as unlimited as you think they are.)

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 08 2015, @04:14PM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday May 08 2015, @04:14PM (#180360)

      Good! Then walk down main street open-carrying your untaxed grenade launcher.

      You do know that the government violates the constitution quite often, right? Just saying, "If you do X, you'll probably get in trouble!" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the government's actions are unconstitutional.

      (And I am very pro-gun, BTW, but think that rights - even Bill of Rights guaranteed - are not quite as unlimited as you think they are.)

      What specific exceptions are you talking about? The government would need to amend the constitution in order to add them. Right now, they just ignore it as it is convenient, which is intolerable.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 08 2015, @04:39PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 08 2015, @04:39PM (#180375) Journal

      "untaxed grenade launcher"

      You do realize that despite popular belief, you can have a Thompson, or any other machine gun, with the government's approval - IF YOU PAY THE FEES!!

      Yes, you stated your case more accurately than you intended. You may exercise all the rights that you might want to exercise - IF YOU PAY THE TAXES!

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2015, @04:05AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2015, @04:05AM (#180630)

        Nope. They slip you up on the paper work and put you in prison for 15 yrs.

        There needs to be a revolution.

        Marry girl children.

  • (Score: 2) by naubol on Friday May 08 2015, @04:25PM

    by naubol (1918) on Friday May 08 2015, @04:25PM (#180365)

    There's nothing in the constitution about clear and present danger or any of the other numerous restrictions on free speech. Aside from the legal justifications, these restrictions are allowed because to do otherwise would be insane. In a similar fashion, if you agree that we should restrict citizens from owning any of the above, tanks, attack helicopters, large bombs, nuclear bombs, etc. then we're arguing about a matter of degree when it comes to also restricting access to assault rifles.

    The existence of the line is obvious, we're only arguing about where to place it.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 08 2015, @04:44PM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday May 08 2015, @04:44PM (#180378)

      There's nothing in the constitution about clear and present danger or any of the other numerous restrictions on free speech.

      Which makes any such restrictions unconstitutional.

      Aside from the legal justifications, these restrictions are allowed because to do otherwise would be insane.

      If you want them so badly, amend the constitution. But I think people are responsible for how they themselves choose to react to speech, so I would oppose such a thing.

      In a similar fashion, if you agree that we should restrict citizens from owning any of the above, tanks, attack helicopters, large bombs, nuclear bombs, etc. then we're arguing about a matter of degree when it comes to also restricting access to assault rifles.

      I don't agree. If you want that, amend the constitution.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Friday May 08 2015, @06:07PM

        by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday May 08 2015, @06:07PM (#180401)

        'amend the constitution'.

        you're serious? you can't be.

        we can't even pass laws with agreement (unless those are 'control' laws that just repress us even more).

        there won't ever be any new ammendments. its impossible and you know it.

        stop saying stupid shit. we long ago lost control of our government. the idea that citizens can bear arms was to protect us AGAINST a gov gone bad. we have been there for well over a decade or two, now; but citizens cannot fight their government anymore (and its how the power brokers like it, of course!).

        sad to say, but our only hope for freedom is a total knock-down and rebuild. and I think that will only happen from the outside; our own citizens are too happy with their bread and circuses...

        --
        "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 08 2015, @07:42PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday May 08 2015, @07:42PM (#180444)

          there won't ever be any new ammendments. its impossible and you know it.

          Then tough luck. Gun control will remain unconstitutional.

          My point was that if these people want gun control so badly, they need to amend the constitution in order to make it truly constitutional. Instead they do what the guy below your comment does and assert that the constitution is a "living document" just so they can ignore it as is convenient, leading to predictably disastrous results.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @08:27PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @08:27PM (#180464)

            Gun control will remain unconstitutional.

            In your interpretation of the constitution. On the other hand, it will be constitutional to courts, law enforcement, all your fellow citizens. Sucks to be you, especially an armed you.

            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 08 2015, @09:30PM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday May 08 2015, @09:30PM (#180490)

              In your interpretation of the constitution.

              My interpretation of the constitution isn't based on convenience like it is with the government. You see the same thing with mass surveillance; they'll try to justify it at every turn, as you are doing with this now.

              Sucks to be you, especially an armed you.

              I've never owned any guns.

              • (Score: 2) by naubol on Saturday May 09 2015, @03:18AM

                by naubol (1918) on Saturday May 09 2015, @03:18AM (#180613)

                It is a bit of a scary road to insist that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation in a manner that assumes there can be no reasonable disagreement.

                • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Saturday May 09 2015, @10:24AM

                  by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Saturday May 09 2015, @10:24AM (#180707) Journal

                  It is a bit of a scary road to insist that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation in a manner that assumes there can be no reasonable disagreement.

                  If the legal equivalent of "two plus two equals four" is scary to you, then I'm afraid you'll either have to learn to deal with it, or keep your head embedded in the sand and hope reality chooses not to intrude upon you.

                  I've written two short journal [soylentnews.org] entries [soylentnews.org] that cover the mechanics of what Pumpernickel is claiming. The super-short version is that, as the USA was created with the delegated authority of individuals, the authority of the USA's governments cannot exceed that of a single individual. If I as an individual cannot justifiably shoot you in the face for a given reason, neither can government do or threaten to do the same.

                  Gun laws, drug laws, speech laws, domestic spying, "civil forfeiture", taxation, slavery - all illegal and void.

                  • (Score: 2) by naubol on Saturday May 09 2015, @01:15PM

                    by naubol (1918) on Saturday May 09 2015, @01:15PM (#180740)

                    Your comment sounds very reasonable except that there is a significant amount of disagreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation) about how to interpret the constitution in the judiciary. To act like you have the only right opinion, bar all arguments, is an interest mixture of willful ignorance and arrogance.

                    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Fauxlosopher on Saturday May 09 2015, @01:57PM

                      by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Saturday May 09 2015, @01:57PM (#180756) Journal

                      I could take this opportunity to detail a multitude of repugnant decisions reached by vaunted courts, all of which should give a thinking person pause as to entrusting "interpretation" of a document's plain language to a single instutiton which also derives its power from said document (Dred Scott vs Sandford; Marbury vs Madison; Buck vs Bell; Wickard vs Filburn; DC vs Heller)...

                      Instead, I will note that you have not addressed what I wrote and therefore will repeat myself: the totality of judicial authority is limited to be no more than its originating source, and that source is the authority inherent to a single individual. I've stated my claim and pointed you to writings that make claims of historical fact, ready and waiting for you to find specific fault with them.

                      • (Score: 2) by naubol on Saturday May 09 2015, @02:40PM

                        by naubol (1918) on Saturday May 09 2015, @02:40PM (#180767)

                        Marbury v Madison is widely hailed as one of the most important cases in the history of common law anywhere, and not for the practical effect of its ruling. Judicial review and courts of last resort have been eagerly imported by many other nation states. People on both sides of the current ideological divide in America are emphatically for judicial review. Even senators who say that the courts are legislating would agree that judicial review is a necessary element of a modern democracy. Of the three branches of government, historically the courts have maintained the highest approval ratings. The court is fallible and history has correctly judged the dred scott decision to be wrong on the elements, however it may have been the right tactical move by a fledgling state with serious internal problems. To get from A to Z you have to pass through B, and Dred Scot may have been B.

                        Marbury feels particularly unfair to cite as repugnant because Marshall was likely using an issue that he had to agree with in order to establish a much much larger prize, judicial review.

                        If you want a list of excellent supreme court decisions (by my lights):
                        Marbury v Madison
                        Miranda v. Arizona
                        Baker v Carr
                        Griswold v Connecticut
                        Lawrence v Texas
                        Brown v Board
                        Reno v ACLU
                        US v Windsor
                        Boumediene v. Bush

                        And... I'm hoping... Obergefell v Hodges will join their ranks, soon.

                        The court has definitely succumbed to tyranny a few times, plessy, dred scott, bucks, bush v gore, Korematsu, blah blah but they've also, over time, corrected many of their mistakes and helped guide US politics away from many tyrannical positions. What is more, they've provided a way to resolve disputes over quotidian matters which do not surface in daily speech. I suspect that the courts will eventually rule that the OP is a violation of free speech. What's more, it might not become a commonly cited case by armchair pedants like you and me, but such cases become bricks in a jurisprudence that is one of the best in the world and certainly has been copied by many modern democracies.

                        I feel that your emotional comment regarding the multitude of repugnant decisions is implying that the courts are a failed institution, a framing I would emphatically reject and for which I think you would find little consensus, which brings me back to my point. A point, I feel, that you didn't deal with. The constitution cannot be exact, and attempts at making it a more literal document would water down its value. Thus, interpretation is necessary by someone. This currently is done by all three branches of government. If the courts were to so seriously err in their interpretation, there are provisions for impeachment in that document. Interpretation being necessary, there are more opinions about how to do it than there are sitting federal justices, and I'm not so sure this is a bad thing. To disagree, and believe the matter to be straightforward and easy, is to be willfully ignorant and arrogant.

                        • (Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Saturday May 09 2015, @03:31PM

                          by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Saturday May 09 2015, @03:31PM (#180773) Journal

                          as the USA was created with the delegated authority [soylentnews.org] of individuals, the authority of the USA's governments cannot exceed that of a single individual. If I as an individual cannot justifiably shoot you in the face for a given reason, neither can government do or threaten to do the same.

                          Let me be as plain and direct as possible: in all matters where US courts and judicial decisions are used to impose upon people beyond what is permitted by the authority possessed by a single random individual, actions taken by government agents in response to such overreaching judicial arguments are literally criminal.

                          Arguing over an unlawful action's fine details or whether or not it was beneficial does not change the underlying issue of the action being unlawful. Majority opinion does not shape the nature of reality. Plenty of folks in the North, South, and around the world thought (and still do) think that human slavery was fine and dandy.

                    • (Score: 1) by Oakenshield on Saturday May 09 2015, @05:24PM

                      by Oakenshield (4900) on Saturday May 09 2015, @05:24PM (#180807)

                      Your comment sounds very reasonable except when you look at where all this judicial interpretation has gotten us. Personally, I would rather the government's feet be held to the fire and follow the unambiguous wording of the constitution regardless of convenience or convention.

                      • (Score: 2) by naubol on Saturday May 09 2015, @07:58PM

                        by naubol (1918) on Saturday May 09 2015, @07:58PM (#180851)

                        Where has it gotten us, exactly? One of the most enviable court systems in the world?

                        The constitution is not unambiguous, it is ambiguous, even by design. My point is to fail to acknowledge that ambiguity is to foster poor civil discourse.

                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday May 09 2015, @04:35PM

                  by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Saturday May 09 2015, @04:35PM (#180795)

                  When the courts ignore the constitution so they can increase the power of the government, there is tyranny. I don't know why it's so difficult for people to comprehend that the constitution can be amended when necessary. I know the authoritarians in the government realize that, but it's far easier for them to just ignore it than to admit that what they want is currently a violation of the highest law of the land, so they would rather deny it and ignore what it says.

                  I've often seen people argue that mass surveillance is now "reasonable" under the constitution because the times have changed. What other sorts of oppression will become "reasonable" if we go with this wishy-washy "living document" method of interpreting the constitution, where the government's power is consistently expanded as it is convenient? The TSA, the drug war, obscenity laws, DUI checkpoints, and other things are all different examples of the government using the most convenient 'interpretation' of the constitution to claim it has more power than the constitution gives it, and all of them have led to drastic reductions in freedom. And now people want to do the same with the 2nd amendment, where random types of arms are arbitrarily banned, even though the 2nd amendment doesn't list any exceptions. When it doubt, err on the side of the people's freedom, not granting the government more power. If you want your restrictions so badly, the only way to have them be constitutional would be to amend the constitution, and that is difficult for a reason.

                  The problem is that you seem to be saying that all these viewpoints are equal; that people who want oppressive mass surveillance or arbitrary firearm restrictions have interpretations of the constitution that are just as reasonable as the interpretations of people who actually care about freedom. I would say that is completely false, because one group clearly wants to ignore the constitution to expand the government's power, which prevents them from having the moral high ground.

      • (Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Friday May 08 2015, @06:21PM

        by Magic Oddball (3847) on Friday May 08 2015, @06:21PM (#180411) Journal

        There's nothing in the constitution about clear and present danger or any of the other numerous restrictions on free speech.

        Which makes any such restrictions unconstitutional.

        The Constitution was written very broadly as it was intended to be a "living document" where the courts interpreted or re-interpreted statutes to match society as the world changed, giving the nation a much better chance of survival in the long run. It was also intended to be given a highly nuanced interpretation, not a broad blanket ; Blackstone, whose views are believed (based on the evidence) by historians to match that of Founding Fathers like Jefferson:

        Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. ...

        But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings [after a "fair and impartial trial"] is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order...

        Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.''

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 08 2015, @07:40PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday May 08 2015, @07:40PM (#180441)

          The Constitution was written very broadly as it was intended to be a "living document"

          In the sense that it can be amended, not in the sense that the government can interpret it however they wish as it is convenient in order to give themselves more power. You might want to rethink your position, because the results of this sort of thinking lead to the sorts of things we're seeing today, such as the NSA's mass surveillance.

          Don't like it? You can always amend it.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 08 2015, @04:57PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 08 2015, @04:57PM (#180385) Journal

      Yeah, I suppose that I'd have to agree that there is some line somewhere, regarding what a private citizen should own. At the very least, every citizen should be entitled to own any weapon that his local police department is permitted to own. Flash bang? Yep. If the cops can have them, then you and your neighbor should be permitted to get them. Automatic weapons? Ditto. I'm not aware of any crew served weapons owned by police departments - but if they are buying them, then you should be able to do so as well.

      I'm kinda partial to naval guns, myself, but they lack mobility. Maybe a 105 mm recoilless rifle - it has the maritime tradition, easily portable behind almost anything larger than a Jeep, and it makes moderately large boom-booms at a respectable distance. I doubt that Wal-Mart stocks ammo for it though.

    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday May 08 2015, @09:03PM

      by jmorris (4844) on Friday May 08 2015, @09:03PM (#180474)

      When these arguments come up I always say I'm quite reasonable and willing to compromise. Let us examine the 2nd in the spirit it was written in and the actual practice of the men who wrote and ratified it.

      The stated intent of the 2nd is not about hunting or sport shooting, it is explicitly about military uses of arms. First in the service of the Militia, the only armed force imagined for the U.S. as standing armies were considered a clear and present danger. So they imagine We The People being mustered into arms bearing arms serviceable for war and being knowledgeable in their use. The other purpose imagined was the revolutionary one, the 2nd Amendment was after all written by revolutionaries.

      Given that private militia companies and ships of the day did in fact own cannon and the fact that weapons of today are really dangerous, here is my reasonable compromise. Individuals should be permitted to own any personal arm issued by the U.S. Army or other armed forces or variations similar in offensive power. People should be able to own any crew served weapon as well but 'common sense arms controls' mandating safe storage in a militia depot would be acceptable. Weapons forbidden to our armed forces and/or 'weapons of mass destruction' regulated by Treaty could be forbidden to the general public.

      Somehow I doubt any of the gun banners will find this proposal reasonable or a compromise.

      • (Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday May 09 2015, @01:47AM

        by tathra (3367) on Saturday May 09 2015, @01:47AM (#180598)

        Given that private militia companies and ships of the day did in fact own cannon and the fact that weapons of today are really dangerous, here is my reasonable compromise. Individuals should be permitted to own any personal arm issued by the U.S. Army or other armed forces or variations similar in offensive power.

        in the military, nobody uses any weapons system without the proper training. nobody*. given this, how about we compromise at something close to "Any individual can own any weapons system for which they have training", which would also properly cover the "well-regulated militia" portion of the second.

        * the lone exception being, hypothetically, in the middle of combat, if the weapon systems' operator gets killed and for some ridiculous reason nobody left alive has been trained on it, but thats why nearly everyone gets trained on every man-portable weapons system, and even some non-man portable, ie, most everyone gets training on the .50cal and MK19 grenade launcher, which are too heavy to be carried into combat and are vehicle-mounted if they're portable.

      • (Score: 2) by naubol on Saturday May 09 2015, @03:42AM

        by naubol (1918) on Saturday May 09 2015, @03:42AM (#180622)

        'personal' -- if we can make an ergonomic nuclear sidearm, ... ? AMRAM rockets? How many people does it take to drive a tank?

        Is a "nuclear football" a personal sidearm of the president?

        4th amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

        Is it infringing to say that some types of arms are not allowed? I don't think so from any method of constitutional interpretation.

        However, things become interesting if you examine motive. And, the founding fathers were helpful enough to write some motive into the amendment. In this sense, the security of a free state would definitely seem to be threatened by giving everyone a nuclear bomb. It also now seems to me that domestic terrorism is far more likely than martial law and therefore the security of the free state is more threatened by allowing people to maintain assault rifles.

        Did the framers anticipate just how large the disparity would grow between federal military power and individual military power? If anyone was paying attention to Shock and Awe, that is roughly what I imagine it would be like if it became a martial state vs the citizens. Equally amusing is that we have also learned how to be properly annoying with insurgency from Iraq.

        Now, I'm sure someone will say, we will want it in the case of martial law enough to deal with the very real threat of citizen-on-citizen gun violence. Okay, I doubt it, because of Shock and Awe. The US military would dramatically crush us in a conventional war. What would likely happen in that scenario, IMO, is that we'd breed a ton of insurgents and home made pipe bombs and things of that ilk will become quite common. The idea that the Brady bill somehow threatens the population's ability to revolt feels silly for these reasons. If we could afford drones, night vision, AEGIS radar, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers.... but we don't so we're screwed in conventional warfare.

        Even if you don't agree with this argument, my point is that it is up for debate and it non-trivially impacts the conclusion one can obtain after examining the motive as written in the fourth amendment in the reality of our modern military.

        In other words, for very very little gain, slight relational power against a modern military, we lose so much, namely that there's a lot more destructive power in citizen-on-citizen violence, which I interpret as undermining the stated intent.

        I've always wanted to deal with the other side's best argument, but I only know of the common sense arguments, like the one you wrote, which very clearly lacks for persuasiveness. Human principles are not a sound basis for observations of reality.