What we ‘should’ be able to do is radically different from what we ever actually will be able to do. That genie is out of the bottle. There’s no stuffing it back.
Netflix has a documentary on the MakerBot 3D printer (trailer) that covered some of this controversy. MakerBot’s official position is to never say a word about it.
Why? Because they realize that if it becomes a big issue, Congress will try to outlaw the printing of guns. But, as has been stated here, you can’t prevent access to a file.
So how else might Congress prevent it? They would (and may yet) try to regulate the 3D printer industry. That will horribly muck everything up. It would turn into a total mess.
I’m against regulation of the 3D printer industry, and you can’t prevent publishing (for two reasons–1st A. and practicality). So that dictates my position on it.
Oh my! I’m against letting terrorists into our country. (Maybe we can restrict immigration from lawless or uncooperative countries that lack infrastructure. And also build a wall.) And there are already laws against felons getting guns, but they don’t stop them, so how much damage is done?
Short answer: YES.
The guy who wrote “The Anarchist Cookbook” has 1st amendment rights, UPHELD BY THE COURTS, to publish details on making ricin. Available on Amazon, Barnes&Noble etc. for years.
You are out of touch and need to learn a great deal about the Constitution and the real world. I will be charitable and assume that since you have lived your life under the protection of the Bill of Rights that you have no clue as to what it is like not to. This whole 3D printing issue is yet another manufactured issue to try and smear the President, Republicans, the NRA and attack the 1st amendment. It is a political joke issue and if Congress passed some law prohibiting publishing the software and the President signed it (which is NEVER gonna happen) it would only be a matter of time for the courts to strike it down. It’s a meaningless “feel good” issue for people ignorant of our wonderful Constitution or those who wish to further destroy it. On top of it all, no law is ever going to stop dissemination of this information as long as we are not ruled by Big Brother.
It’s probably out there already. However, sarin gas is not the same issue as guns, including automatic weapons, the same reason bombs aren’t really protected by the Second Amendment. They kill gobs of people indiscriminately. While guns may be used that way, they’re targeted and useful by citizens for self-defense. Sarin gas and bombs kill everyone around you (and you) while you defend yourself. It’s not a good comparison.
Technology removes the limits.
People can already say whatever they like online, without consequence, if they’re careful.
People can download music “illegally” without consequence, as there isn’t much Government can do to stop it.
This apart of the Democratization of technology; we have less gatekeepers, less limits.
You can talk about taking away guns in theory, but in practice, it’s impossible. The Government has no way of controlling what people make on 3rd printers.
How could they possibly enforce people to only make things they approve of? Any such policy would have just as many holes as music piracy laws do today.
No. I’m saying that you can’t prevent terrorists, career criminals, and the insane from getting guns; all these measures will do is prevent the law-abiding from getting them.
Why is it a benefit that guns can be traced by the government? You mention public safety, but who keeps the government from coming in, confiscating guns, and committing a purge?
I believe Benjamin Franklin said something to the effect that those who would trade essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither (and they won’t have it in the end; the problem is that those measures take liberty (and its own attendent security) from the rest of us).
No, we lose our 2nd Amendment rights by insisting that the government infringe upon them, or fail to support it in the name of alleged “security.”
Actually, it’s both.
Not with you; the 2nd Amendment does not say: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms that do not kill gobs of people indiscriminately shall not be infringed.”
Do I like the idea of any crackpot having nerve gas or a nuke missile? No (I’m not thrilled with governments having them, either). But the solution is amendment; not creative interpreting (misinterpreting) of existing articles of the Constitution (or just flat-out doing an end-run around the Constitution by ignoring it in the legislature or judiciary).
Agreed, FC. One thing that the left ROUTINELY ignores is that criminals aren’t deterred by the passage of laws, statutes or regulations. There has NEVER been a law passed in this country that has PREVENTED a single crime…not one. The only law that comes even close is the imposition and USE of the death penalty. In the early 70’s there was about 2 years in Texas where Texas’ death penalty law was declared “unconstitutional.” During that time, a group in Dallas committed several convenience store robberies in which they killed everyone in the store. When caught, they ADMITTED that they killed everyone because it lessened their chances of being caught and the WORST that could happen to them was life in prison…the IDENTICAL punishment possible for armed robbery at that time.
I think they’re functionally different and probably not covered by the Second Amendment. Our courts do seem to think they aren’t covered. I tend to agree with that viewpoint.
Choose either PDF or HTML for one of the first two links to see how easy it is to avoid government interference in our gun rights.
Uh … Courtesy of Our Government!
This next link is … well, just check it out!
A rogue Congress could repeal the 2nd Amendment tomorrow and it would have NO EFFECT on our right to keep and bear arms. You see, the 2nd Amendment does NOT confer any rights. It merely acknowledges that the right exists. Failing to so acknowledge doesn’t NEGATE the right one iota.
I don’t, because there’s nothing in the wording of the 2nd Amendment from which to draw such a conclusion. As I’m sure you know, the courts have made all sorts of posterior-backward rulings.
If you want to talk about “original intent,” my understanding is that many of the cannons used in the American Revolution were privately owned. Load them with grape shot, and you have a weapon which can “kill gobs of people indiscriminately,” relatively speaking.
I still think this issue comes down to “How would you enforce that SendGOP”?
And enforce it in a way that wouldn’t violate other rights in the process?
Does he even have answer for that?
How does it work? Where is the enforceability?
“Enforceability” has nothing to do with anything here. What’s important is what’s “right” and what’s “wrong.” This proposed prohibition is simply wrong…on several levels. We have the absolute right to self-protection so therefore the right to own and carry the MEANS of self-protection. We have the right to purchase said means of self-protection, but also the right to MAKE said means of self-protection if we so choose. As I’ve said before, I can make a single-shot zip gun in about a half hour and assemble it to a workable condition in about 3 minutes–and always HAVE been able to do that without the government’s approval or permission, irrespective of any BATFEO “regulations,” an agency, by the way, whose basic function is to collect TAXES on Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and Oleomargarine. NOT to exercise CONTROL over any of those things.
ATF should be a convenience store chain, not a government agency.
Let’s see, where’s the appropriate emoji…
We already HAVE a tax-collection agency…the IRS. Why did we EVER come up with the idea that we needed yet ANOTHER one…the BATFEO? The IRS is PERFECTLY capable of collecting the taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and Oleomargarine. Why would we INVENT another tax collecting agency and then allow it to morph into an ARMED group that routinely conducts SWAT-like assaults?
It does; how do you stop people from using 3D Printers to make… anything?
The strategy now is to register the printers, but you can make a 3d printer, with another 3d printer.
And registering the printers, doesn’t stop you from making guns.
How do you enforce this? Seems the policy is dead on delivery.
I think PD’s point is that what’s more important here is the basic right. While it really is unenforceable, regulating these files is wrong on the face of it.
Inability to enforce a law isn’t really a very good argument against a law. Law-abiding citizens won’t break the law, while criminals won’t hesitate. It’ll make criminals of some normally law-abiding citizens. You can’t hang your hat on that argument either. Murder, for example, is “unenforceable.” All laws are really.
Music and move piracy may or may not be wrong, but it’s nearly impossible to enforce anti-piracy laws thanks to the Interwebz. That doesn’t change the shape of the underlying argument. At the risk of turning this into another illegal immigration thread, it’s your weakest argument involving illegal immigration – although you’re not wrong about the practicality.
I will, however, say (and this is probably a matter of semantics) that laws are enforceable; it’s a question of degree, reliability, and consistancy.
Yet the reality is that Governments are inconsistent in recognizing those rights; even here.
A stronger point is that the policy is completely academic if you can’t offer a means to enforce it.
It damned Prohibition. It’s on everyone’s mind when it come to gun regs.
“Anyone who wants a gun, will have a gun”. This is the reality we are coming to.
That’s not the same RN, we have a rational way of parsing this.
Ordinary people tend to help you enforce murder laws, because there’s an underlying issue of altruism, people don’t want to see themselves or people they care about murdered.
They are far more reluctant to report people carrying guns in a country with our culture & history; they’ll more likely cover for the people in question out of altruism.
Mind, Prohibition polices can work, but they require conditions on the ground to do so.
Examples? Airplane glue that was classified as an inhalant, and PFC aerosols.
Those policies worked, as you had:
- An overwhelming public consensus that these should be gone.
- Reinforcing cultural norms that continued to insist they be gone.
- Plausible government control of the means of production.
None of these conditions exist for guns. Gun prohibition doesn’t pass this test.
Efficacy, which is what laws rely on in order to be effective, isn’t there.
This isn’t a stealth argument for illegals, I’m speaking to the very aim Cody Wilson of Defense distributed has in mind.
He wanted guns that could not gated by any central authority.
Even when the State Department knocked on his door, and gave him a cease & disist, he all too happily complied, because he knew it was already too late.
Anyone now can do a quick web search, and find those files. I have the torrent myself.
Democratization of technology – it spells the end of any prohibition of things made from ordinary materials.