Printed 3-D Gun Blueprints Now Unavailable Online

[Salvador]

Should 3-D printed gun blueprints be legally allowed to get downloaded to American citizens from the internet?

"Defense Distributed is an online, open-source organization that develops digital firearms files, or "wiki weapons", that may be downloaded from the Internet and used in 3D printing or CNC milling applications.Among the organization's goals is to develop and freely publish firearms-related design schematics that can be downloaded and reproduced by anyone with a 3D printer or milling machine, facilitating the popular production of ghost guns.

The company is best known for developing and releasing the files for the Liberator, the world's first completely 3D printed gun. On May 5, 2013, Defense Distributed made these printable STL files public,and within days the United States Department of State demanded they be removed from the Internet, citing a violation of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

On May 6, 2015, Defense Distributed, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), brought suit against the Department of State in the Western District of Texas, which denied its preliminary injunction request. It subsequently appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the denial, and then the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.

On July 10, 2018 it was announced that Defense Distributed and Second Amendment Foundation had accepted a settlement offer from the Department of State, effectively winning the case and restarting their work. Western Washington District Court Judge Robert S. Lasnik subsequently issued an order suspending the settlement and the public release of Defense Distributed's files. Multiple lawsuits are currently filed by state governments and Defense Distributed seeking to challenge or uphold this settlement."

Reference: Defense Distributed - Wikipedia

Aren't printed 3-D gun blueprints an expression of free speech, which is a legal individual right that the U.S. Constitution guarantees?

 

[PruePhillip]

Should 3-D printed gun blueprints be legally allowed to get downloaded to American citizens from the internet?

"Defense Distributed is an online, open-source organization that develops digital firearms files, or "wiki weapons", that may be downloaded from the Internet and used in 3D printing or CNC milling applications.Among the organization's goals is to develop and freely publish firearms-related design schematics that can be downloaded and reproduced by anyone with a 3D printer or milling machine, facilitating the popular production of ghost guns.

The company is best known for developing and releasing the files for the Liberator, the world's first completely 3D printed gun. On May 5, 2013, Defense Distributed made these printable STL files public,and within days the United States Department of State demanded they be removed from the Internet, citing a violation of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

On May 6, 2015, Defense Distributed, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), brought suit against the Department of State in the Western District of Texas, which denied its preliminary injunction request. It subsequently appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the denial, and then the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.

On July 10, 2018 it was announced that Defense Distributed and Second Amendment Foundation had accepted a settlement offer from the Department of State, effectively winning the case and restarting their work. Western Washington District Court Judge Robert S. Lasnik subsequently issued an order suspending the settlement and the public release of Defense Distributed's files. Multiple lawsuits are currently filed by state governments and Defense Distributed seeking to challenge or uphold this settlement."

Reference: Defense Distributed - Wikipedia

Aren't printed 3-D gun blueprints an expression of free speech, which is a legal individual right that the U.S. Constitution guarantees?

Mortars, cannon, napalm and tactical nukes are free speech too, I suppose.
Not sure about backyard chemical weapons as they are prohibited by the
Geneva Convention - but there again, this convention is against free speech
too.

 

[Salvador]

Mortars, cannon, napalm and tactical nukes are free speech too, I suppose.
Not sure about backyard chemical weapons as they are prohibited by the
Geneva Convention - but there again, this convention is against free speech
too.

Mortars, cannon, napalm and tactical nukes can't be replicated with any commercially available 3-D printers. Right?

Maybe there are books or online schematics freely available about how these weapons are designed, and so as well they should.

 

[PruePhillip]

Mortars, cannon, napalm and tactical nukes can't be replicated with any commercially available 3-D printers. Right?

Maybe there are books or online schematics freely available about how these weapons are designed, and so as well they should.

Well, in theory all you have to do is slam two lumps of military grade uranium or plutonium
together in a special way, and you have your Bomb.
Haven't looked but by now such plans should be freely available on the Internet.

It's a joke when gun supporters think they can fight their nuclear powered government. To
fight your government (you know, the one elected By The People) you need to learn how to
create your own bespoke nukes. I think all groups should be able to do that - there are a lot
of grievances which can be quickly sorted out this way.

 

[Salvador]

Well, in theory all you have to do is slam two lumps of military grade uranium or plutonium
together in a special way, and you have your Bomb.
Haven't looked but by now such plans should be freely available on the Internet.

It's a joke when gun supporters think they can fight their nuclear powered government. To
fight your government (you know, the one elected By The People) you need to learn how to
create your own bespoke nukes. I think all groups should be able to do that - there are a lot
of grievances which can be quickly sorted out this way.

Good points:

Information on making bombs should be freely available, but access to uranium or plutonium should be restricted. These are dangerously radioactive materials.

Our duly elected leaders are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Hitler was elected, but then took away people's rights and democracy. Of course, this tragedy wouldn't have ever happened if the citizenry were as well-armed as the state.

 

[PruePhillip]

Good points:

Information on making bombs should be freely available, but access to uranium or plutonium should be restricted. These are dangerously radioactive materials.

Our duly elected leaders are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Hitler was elected, but then took away people's rights and democracy. Of course, this tragedy wouldn't have ever happened if the citizenry were as well-armed as the state.

Of course, and assault weapons won't cut it.
Did you know that the Trident submarines carry half of the active strategic thermonuclear warheads
of the USA?
Half, okay? If the citizens can control these Tridents it would give them a share of the nuclear arsenal.
All we need to do is nominate which citizens these should be, and somehow gain control of the
submarines and their nuclear codes.
If the government is too strong and won't allow its own citizens to control nuclear weapons and their
delivery systems then the citizens can bring down the government by triggering a nuclear war with
Russia.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Information on making bombs should be freely available

I doubt you'd agree if you realized that very literally every house has the stuff you need to build a very basic and very potent bomb, and it's super easy to do.

Hitler was elected

In what election?

 

[PruePhillip]

I doubt you'd agree if you realized that very literally every house has the stuff you need to build a very basic and very potent bomb, and it's super easy to do.

In what election?

Okay, you can make a bomb and kill, what, a few dozen people max?
A citizen nuke can kill a few hundred thousand.
The American citizen is not going to fight the government without some
sort of nuclear capability. Defending your freedom with a few AR15's
simply won't cut it. The government ALLOWING you to have assault
rifles could simply be a way for them to lull you into a false sense of
freedom. What will you do with your gun when the government sends
in an armored Apache helicopter?

 

[SomeRandom]

Good points:

Information on making bombs should be freely available, but access to uranium or plutonium should be restricted. These are dangerously radioactive materials.

Our duly elected leaders are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Hitler was elected, but then took away people's rights and democracy. Of course, this tragedy wouldn't have ever happened if the citizenry were as well-armed as the state.

I dunno, I have to agree with the historians who dispute the Nazi Gun Control argument.
As if average Joe would have risked their lives to defend minority groups being targeted by Hitler. Maybe many would have regretted that in the long run had they been given that choice, but wasn't the Third Reich actually more loose with such gun control laws than their predecessors?
I seem to recall that from my feeble historical education.

Also, if the Government has access to nuclear weaponry, pretty sure the people aren't equally well armed by default. Unless US citizens all have plutonium in their backyards?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The American citizen is not going to fight the government without some
sort of nuclear capability. Defending your freedom with a few AR15's
simply won't cut it. The government ALLOWING you to have assault
rifles could simply be a way for them to lull you into a false sense of
freedom. What will you do with your gun when the government sends
in an armored Apache helicopter?

Nuclear weapons wouldn't be necessary. And AR15s are sufficient enough, especially if you convert them to burst or automatic fire.
Military arsenal is not all that determines a war. The Vietcong faced the American military machine and fought to a draw using lower tech weaponry and guerilla warfare tactics.

 

[PruePhillip]

Nuclear weapons wouldn't be necessary. And AR15s are sufficient enough, especially if you convert them to burst or automatic fire.
Military arsenal is not all that determines a war. The Vietcong faced the American military machine and fought to a draw using lower tech weaponry and guerilla warfare tactics.

So how did the Vietcong bring down B52 high altitude bombers?
And shoot down US fighter aircraft?
That Vietcong in the tunnels story is just a myth fabricated by the
US government into making gun supporters think they can win a
war with them*. Facts be told, North Vietnam has a vast arsenal of tanks,
anti-aircraft missiles, fighter aircraft, mines, radars... the works.
That's how you win a war, not fighting with AK47's.

* conspiracy theory of my own !!!!!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So how did the Vietcong bring down B52 high altitude bombers?
And shoot down US fighter aircraft?
That Vietcong in the tunnels story is just a myth fabricated by the
US government into making gun supporters think they can win a
war them. Facts be told, North Vietnam has a vast arsenal of tanks,
anti-aircraft missiles, fighter aircraft, mines, radars... the works.
That's how you win a war, not fighting with AK47's.

The Vietcong didn't lose the war.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Vietcong didn't lose the war.

This is a different subject, but yes, I posit that the Vietcong DID lose the war.
First they lost the Tet offensive - annihilated in fact when the South
didn't rise up to fight with them.
After that the North Vietnamese got involved.
The North and the US couldn't win so they signed a peace deal.
The North broke that deal (invading from Cambodia)
What was left of the Vietcong played little part in the Hanoi
controlled Vietnam. Their protests about "self determination"
and "liberation from imperialism" fell on deaf ears.

 

[Jumi]

This is a different subject, but yes, I posit that the Vietcong DID lose the war.

They were disbanded in 1976 when their goal was achieved and they were no longer needed.

I thought the US goal of fighting in Vietnam was to keep the Communists from taking over, what do you think the US tried to do?

 

[PruePhillip]

They were disbanded in 1976 when their goal was achieved and they were no longer needed.

I thought the US goal of fighting in Vietnam was to keep the Communists from taking over, what do you think the US tried to do?

Just that. I take the whole war as part of Communist containment.
Pure and simple.
America wasn't fighting just Hanoi, it was fighting Maoist China and
Communist Russia.
The dominoes fell within days or weeks. Cambodia, Laos and Sth
Vietnam. Communism failed in Indonesia and Malaysia. It's still
at it in the Philippines I think.

 

[Audie]

Okay, you can make a bomb and kill, what, a few dozen people max?
A citizen nuke can kill a few hundred thousand.
The American citizen is not going to fight the government without some
sort of nuclear capability. Defending your freedom with a few AR15's
simply won't cut it. The government ALLOWING you to have assault
rifles could simply be a way for them to lull you into a false sense of
freedom. What will you do with your gun when the government sends
in an armored Apache helicopter?

The Turner Diaries does a horrifyingly
believable job of showing how quickly
and completely a small group could
overwhelm law enforcement's resources
to investigate and control.

Throwing nukes in a civil war?
I doubt it.

 

[Audie]

So how did the Vietcong bring down B52 high altitude bombers?
And shoot down US fighter aircraft?
That Vietcong in the tunnels story is just a myth fabricated by the
US government into making gun supporters think they can win a
war with them*. Facts be told, North Vietnam has a vast arsenal of tanks,
anti-aircraft missiles, fighter aircraft, mines, radars... the works.
That's how you win a war, not fighting with AK47's.

* conspiracy theory of my own !!!!!

Weird

 

[Audie]

Nuclear weapons wouldn't be necessary. And AR15s are sufficient enough, especially if you convert them to burst or automatic fire.
Military arsenal is not all that determines a war. The Vietcong faced the American military machine and fought to a draw using lower tech weaponry and guerilla warfare tactics.

Vietnam drove out the Americans with the heroic
determination of a people who'd fought foreign invaders
for hundreds of years.

 

[PruePhillip]

Vietnam drove out the Americans with the heroic
determination of a people who'd fought foreign invaders
for hundreds of years.

After 1975 my country was host to thousands of refugees fleeing Communism.
Many didn't make it. Large numbers were executed. Some of my friends spent
years in "Re-education camps."
I think about eight million people died in the Communist takeover of Indochina.
Growing up I used to think that one day South Vietnam would be like South
Korea - after '75 it became like North Korea.

If you are a Marxist then certainly you can make the point that South Korea
lives under Imperial aggressors and the North lives in a Workers Paradise.
But by 1975 most South Vietnamese were no longer fooled by the Communists
of the north - Southerners had a saying "Don't listen to what they say, watch what
they do." And that's pretty sad. It's a lesson we ought to learn in watching what
takes place in American campuses today.

 

[Woberts]

That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.