Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

14th Most Dangerous Man In The World

Recommended Posts

14th Most Dangerous Man In The World

 

...He's a self-styled "crypto-anarchist". He quotes Foucault. His Twitter handle is @Radomysisky, which was the real name of Zinoviev, the Russian revolutionary tried and executed at the start of the purges. He has a 19th-century taste for ideologies and theories. His hero is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a Frenchman who, it's claimed, is the "father of anarchism" and was the first to declare that property is theft. And he believes that the Liberator will be a mechanism for radical redistribution of power.

He was a law student when he co-founded Defense Distributed . It's an organization that describes itself as "a non-profit software developer and publisher dedicated to striking the roots of all statist monopolism". Its mission is to "radicalize digital natives" by "employing political philosophy, activism and technology … to subvert the physical and digital architecture of oppression on behalf of the public".

What he isn't is some spotty loner who's dreamt all this up in his bedroom because he couldn't get a girlfriend. He was class president of his school, class president of his university, he had offers from Ivy League law schools. He is not even much of a geek. He didn't write the software, he announced it as a goal, at which point the company, Stratasys, that leased him his 3D printer, demanded its return, and the ensuing fight created headlines that led to developers and engineers flocking to his cause.

He is an articulate proponent of an influential new subculture. Welcome to the world of the techno-libertarians, an ideology based on the convergence of libertarian politics and a free and open web. Its poster boy is Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of PayPal, and a funder of causes ranging from paying young people not to go to college, to Seasteading, a floating offshore nation state. Its spiritual home is Silicon Valley but, like the internet, it's distributed everywhere, an increasingly visible, well-funded new political ideology.

It is also for many people, liberals like myself, a pretty uncomfortable convergence. Because it's one thing to be pro-Edward Snowden, pro-internet privacy, pro-the open source movement. And it's another to be pro the freedom to print off your own assault weapon. And it's this discomfort that Cody Wilson is reveling in.

"There were a lot of comments on Reddit right when the government shut us down," says Wilson. "Reddit is normally anti-gun, by the way. It's young and it's left. And they were saying, 'Shit! I'm having to choose between a world of guns and a world of the managed internet! And I won't give up the internet, so therefore guns! It had forced the decision."

In fact, the issues that 3D guns raise are more complicated, sophisticated and ultimately unknowable than might first appear. Wilson and Defense Distributed are pushing at the margins of the internet, the margins of freedom, of what the ramifications of this technology will mean. And it's impossible to know. Technology is changing our relationship with everything. The future, once a far-off place of mind control and replicants, is thundering up behind us in our rear-view mirror. And he's right: it couldn't be more political....

 

How did he get all the way down to 14th? I'd say that to statists, he might just be number one.

 

To me, the world would seem more dangerous without his elk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14th because you need to be careful not to draw too much attention to the truely dangerous (to the establishment) people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14th because you need to be careful not to draw too much attention to the truely dangerous (to the establishment) people.

 

It is kind of an obscure number.

 

13th would have been funnier, being unlucky and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's an Anarchist.

 

Everything else there is convolution. If you support him, you support anarchy, at least to some degree.

 

It's not about guns as much it is about the A. There is a world of difference between anarchists and libertarians; anarchists are willing to sacrifice part of their wealth and comfort for their goals. Libertarians, more typically, use the ideals of anarchy to fight for their causes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's an Anarchist.

Everything else there is convolution. If you support him, you support anarchy, at least to some degree.

It's not about guns as much it is about the A. There is a world of difference between anarchists and libertarians; anarchists are willing to sacrifice part of their wealth and comfort for their goals. Libertarians, more typically, use the ideals of anarchy to fight for their causes.

He says he's an anarchist, so why point out the obvious?

 

I loved that the Reddit tribe understood that they must choose between managed Internet content and guns and decided to support anarchy.

 

OK, maybe Cliff is going a bit far saying those people are now anarchists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's an Anarchist.

Everything else there is convolution. If you support him, you support anarchy, at least to some degree.

It's not about guns as much it is about the A. There is a world of difference between anarchists and libertarians; anarchists are willing to sacrifice part of their wealth and comfort for their goals. Libertarians, more typically, these the ideals of anarchy to fight for their causes.

He says he's an anarchist, so why point out the obvious?

 

I loved that the Reddit tribe understood that they must choose between managed Internet content and guns and decided to support anarchy.

 

OK, maybe Cliff is going a bit far saying those people are now anarchists.

I restated his anarchy because the L-word managed to creep into the article, as well as left-right diversion. Is it necessary for libertarians to claim the sacrifices of anarchists as their own?

 

As for the Reddit users, if they want an unmanaged resource then they have embraced some ideals of anarchism. Their enlightenment began long ago, but in sacrificing something. it's clarifying their vision.

 

The divisions between left and right are meaningless in the spectrum of authoritarianism versus anarchy. In mentioning the left-right of the Internet group, the writer obviously didn't understand that, and in parroting it, you forgot it.

 

C'mon Normy, don't you keep up with the Libertarian screeds? Forgot about the World's Smallest Political Quiz already? That's the one big thing that Libertarians got right, they were the ones to introduce the inherent diversion of left-right politics as a means to guide people away from anarchy and into authoritarianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yee, doggies... this case is about guns. And here I was ready to convict. I may need to rethink my position here. This man might deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

For Tom - it's always the gun. Reminds me of the saying, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail, which reminded me of this...

 

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/70ca308603/it-s-not-about-the-nail

 

Always!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn!

 

From the title, I thought this was going to be an ad for some obscure beer.

 

The-Most-Interesting-Man-in-the-World.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two years ago, Cody Wilson put his Liberator 3D printable gun design on the net.

 

Now the Second Amendment Foundation wants to do it again.

 

...Within two days of publishing the blueprints on the Internet, on May 5, 2013, 100,000 people around the world had downloaded them.

 

...

 

Wilson’s invention also caught the attention of the State Department, which came after him with both barrels blazing. The feds claimed Wilson violated the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which “requires advance government authorization to export technical data,” and as a result, could spend up to 20 years in prison and be fined as much as $1 million per violation.

 

Wilson was ordered to remove the blueprints for The Liberator from his web site. The government also told him they were claiming ownership of his intellectual property.

 

“Defense Distributed is being penalized for trying to educate the public about 3-D guns,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, whose organization is backing Defense Distributed in a court action.

 

Gottlieb said his Second Amendment group, made up of 650,000 members nationwide, wants to publish theinformation about three-dimensional printing of firearms on its web site as educational material for its members, supporters and general public.

 

On Wednesday, the Second Amendment Foundation filed a federal lawsuit on in Texas, where Defense Distributed is now based, alleging the State Department, Secretary of State John Kerry and four other State Department officials and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, are among the defendants who violated Wilson’s First Amendment rights by restraining him from publishing information about three-dimensional printing of arms, as well as his Second and Fifth Amendment Rights.

...

The Liberator unleashed a panic about the threat of 3-D guns, Blackman said, pointing as an example to statements made by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has proposed legislation that would ban 3-D guns.

 

“We’re facing a situation where anyone—a felon, a terrorist—can open a gun factory in their garage and the weapons they make will be undetectable. It’s stomach-churning,” Schumer said at a news conference in May 2013.

 

However, the threat of the 3-D guns, and the need for regulating them, has been greatly overstated, Blackman said.

 

“Contrary to Schumer's suggestion, a working gun does not pop out of the 3-D printer ready to fire, like a pop-tart from the toaster,” Blackman said. “Using a 3-D printer to create the parts, and assemble them, is a time-intensive process that requires advanced knowledge of machining and gunsmithing.”

 

Defense Distributed, which had released its blueprints at no charge until being ordered by the State Department to remove them, began in 2013 to sell a $1,500 milling machine called the “Ghost Gunner.”

With Defense Distributed software, the milling machine allows the user to build the plastic lower receiver for an AR-15 rifle, one of America’s most popular sporting rifles, and because it is self built, allows the owner to avoid registering the firearms with a government database....

 

100k copies of the Liberator downloaded, who knows how many of them subsequently shared, two years gone by, and once again Schumer's panic over guns proves unjustified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14th Most Dangerous Man In The World

 

...He's a self-styled "crypto-anarchist". He quotes Foucault. His Twitter handle is @Radomysisky, which was the real name of Zinoviev, the Russian revolutionary tried and executed at the start of the purges. He has a 19th-century taste for ideologies and theories. His hero is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a Frenchman who, it's claimed, is the "father of anarchism" and was the first to declare that property is theft. And he believes that the Liberator will be a mechanism for radical redistribution of power.

 

He was a law student when he co-founded Defense Distributed . It's an organization that describes itself as "a non-profit software developer and publisher dedicated to striking the roots of all statist monopolism". Its mission is to "radicalize digital natives" by "employing political philosophy, activism and technology … to subvert the physical and digital architecture of oppression on behalf of the public".

 

What he isn't is some spotty loner who's dreamt all this up in his bedroom because he couldn't get a girlfriend. He was class president of his school, class president of his university, he had offers from Ivy League law schools. He is not even much of a geek. He didn't write the software, he announced it as a goal, at which point the company, Stratasys, that leased him his 3D printer, demanded its return, and the ensuing fight created headlines that led to developers and engineers flocking to his cause.

 

He is an articulate proponent of an influential new subculture. Welcome to the world of the techno-libertarians, an ideology based on the convergence of libertarian politics and a free and open web. Its poster boy is Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of PayPal, and a funder of causes ranging from paying young people not to go to college, to Seasteading, a floating offshore nation state. Its spiritual home is Silicon Valley but, like the internet, it's distributed everywhere, an increasingly visible, well-funded new political ideology.

 

It is also for many people, liberals like myself, a pretty uncomfortable convergence. Because it's one thing to be pro-Edward Snowden, pro-internet privacy, pro-the open source movement. And it's another to be pro the freedom to print off your own assault weapon. And it's this discomfort that Cody Wilson is reveling in.

 

"There were a lot of comments on Reddit right when the government shut us down," says Wilson. "Reddit is normally anti-gun, by the way. It's young and it's left. And they were saying, 'Shit! I'm having to choose between a world of guns and a world of the managed internet! And I won't give up the internet, so therefore guns! It had forced the decision."

 

In fact, the issues that 3D guns raise are more complicated, sophisticated and ultimately unknowable than might first appear. Wilson and Defense Distributed are pushing at the margins of the internet, the margins of freedom, of what the ramifications of this technology will mean. And it's impossible to know. Technology is changing our relationship with everything. The future, once a far-off place of mind control and replicants, is thundering up behind us in our rear-view mirror. And he's right: it couldn't be more political....

 

How did he get all the way down to 14th? I'd say that to statists, he might just be number one.

 

To me, the world would seem more dangerous without his elk.

 

JFC Tom! Imagine, people printing their own guns! What would the gun manufacturers think about that?

 

Awesome stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have to ask. The same people who are able to buy a gun ... are not allowed to print one? That correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normy, the panic may be unjustified, but remember, the technology still isn't there, so your point isn't exactly emboldened by reality. Right now, 3D printers are still fairly expensive and require a level of expertise to operate ... and oh yeah, most of them only print in plastic, not exactly the best material for making firearms.

 

But someday soon, when that piece of plywood next to your barn has weathered to dust, and every shmoe in Kalamazoo has a 3D printer that sits between their microwave oven and their Mr. Coffee, and that printer uses titanium powder to additive manufacture devices, that's when your support for those blueprints will take on a new level of urgency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normy, the panic may be unjustified, but remember, the technology still isn't there, so your point isn't exactly emboldened by reality. Right now, 3D printers are still fairly expensive and require a level of expertise to operate ... and oh yeah, most of them only print in plastic, not exactly the best material for making firearms.

 

But someday soon, when that piece of plywood next to your barn has weathered to dust, and every shmoe in Kalamazoo has a 3D printer that sits between their microwave oven and their Mr. Coffee, and that printer uses titanium powder to additive manufacture devices, that's when your support for those blueprints will take on a new level of urgency.

 

Funny that you'd phrase it as such, Mikey. Consider this perspective, if ya will: Could it be that the position isn't "support for blueprints" but, the opposition to ineffective government sponsored prohibition of an object based upon irrational ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normy, the panic may be unjustified, but remember, the technology still isn't there, so your point isn't exactly emboldened by reality. Right now, 3D printers are still fairly expensive and require a level of expertise to operate ... and oh yeah, most of them only print in plastic, not exactly the best material for making firearms.

 

But someday soon, when that piece of plywood next to your barn has weathered to dust, and every shmoe in Kalamazoo has a 3D printer that sits between their microwave oven and their Mr. Coffee, and that printer uses titanium powder to additive manufacture devices, that's when your support for those blueprints will take on a new level of urgency.

 

Doesn't look like Schumer's point is emboldened by reality and he's the one passing laws. If "someday soon" actually comes and we actually see a problem, that would be the time to try to solve it by seizing intellectual property and restricting its use. Preemptive restrictions are not justified and have proven unneeded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have to ask. The same people who are able to buy a gun ... are not allowed to print one? That correct?

 

No, that's wrong. We're allowed to build our own guns. Now that there's new technology to do it, we should be allowed to use it just as we've been allowed to adopt tech changes in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Normy, the panic may be unjustified, but remember, the technology still isn't there, so your point isn't exactly emboldened by reality. Right now, 3D printers are still fairly expensive and require a level of expertise to operate ... and oh yeah, most of them only print in plastic, not exactly the best material for making firearms.

 

But someday soon, when that piece of plywood next to your barn has weathered to dust, and every shmoe in Kalamazoo has a 3D printer that sits between their microwave oven and their Mr. Coffee, and that printer uses titanium powder to additive manufacture devices, that's when your support for those blueprints will take on a new level of urgency.

 

Funny that you'd phrase it as such, Mikey. Consider this perspective, if ya will: Could it be that the position isn't "support for blueprints" but, the opposition to ineffective government sponsored prohibition of an object based upon irrational ideas?

 

 

You're preaching the choir. I think it's ridiculous too.

 

But again, the reason it hasn't been an actual concern until now has as much to do with the deficient technology than the lack of desire or ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Normy, the panic may be unjustified, but remember, the technology still isn't there, so your point isn't exactly emboldened by reality. Right now, 3D printers are still fairly expensive and require a level of expertise to operate ... and oh yeah, most of them only print in plastic, not exactly the best material for making firearms.

 

But someday soon, when that piece of plywood next to your barn has weathered to dust, and every shmoe in Kalamazoo has a 3D printer that sits between their microwave oven and their Mr. Coffee, and that printer uses titanium powder to additive manufacture devices, that's when your support for those blueprints will take on a new level of urgency.

 

Doesn't look like Schumer's point is emboldened by reality and he's the one passing laws. If "someday soon" actually comes and we actually see a problem, that would be the time to try to solve it by seizing intellectual property and restricting its use. Preemptive restrictions are not justified and have proven unneeded.

 

 

Seriously?

 

We have a Constitution that protects the ability to share knowledge like that. If it's an actual threat then we'll just have to deal with that without restricting the free exchange of blueprints. I'm more concerned about an attack on the First Amendment than I am about a bunch of people with titanium weapons.

 

I know a bit about additive manufacturing, not too much, but from what I do know, metal powder, deposited and baked, will never make tooling of the quality of gently-cut cold steel, because it's basically amorphous, the crystalline domains in well-protected cold steel are going to win in hardness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Normy, the panic may be unjustified, but remember, the technology still isn't there, so your point isn't exactly emboldened by reality. Right now, 3D printers are still fairly expensive and require a level of expertise to operate ... and oh yeah, most of them only print in plastic, not exactly the best material for making firearms.

 

But someday soon, when that piece of plywood next to your barn has weathered to dust, and every shmoe in Kalamazoo has a 3D printer that sits between their microwave oven and their Mr. Coffee, and that printer uses titanium powder to additive manufacture devices, that's when your support for those blueprints will take on a new level of urgency.

 

Doesn't look like Schumer's point is emboldened by reality and he's the one passing laws. If "someday soon" actually comes and we actually see a problem, that would be the time to try to solve it by seizing intellectual property and restricting its use. Preemptive restrictions are not justified and have proven unneeded.

 

 

Seriously?

 

...

 

Yes, seriously, in the extremely unlikely event that "someday soon" ever comes.

 

What did you mean by "a new level of urgency" anyway?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Normy, the panic may be unjustified, but remember, the technology still isn't there, so your point isn't exactly emboldened by reality. Right now, 3D printers are still fairly expensive and require a level of expertise to operate ... and oh yeah, most of them only print in plastic, not exactly the best material for making firearms.

 

But someday soon, when that piece of plywood next to your barn has weathered to dust, and every shmoe in Kalamazoo has a 3D printer that sits between their microwave oven and their Mr. Coffee, and that printer uses titanium powder to additive manufacture devices, that's when your support for those blueprints will take on a new level of urgency.

Doesn't look like Schumer's point is emboldened by reality and he's the one passing laws. If "someday soon" actually comes and we actually see a problem, that would be the time to try to solve it by seizing intellectual property and restricting its use. Preemptive restrictions are not justified and have proven unneeded.

Seriously?

...

Yes, seriously, in the extremely unlikely event that "someday soon" ever comes.

 

What did you mean by "a new level of urgency" anyway?

Do I understand correctly that if crime with these additive weapons becomes a problem that you might support restriction of the blueprints that make them? If so, I can't get behind that, at least from what I see now.

 

Regarding your question, I meant that it's one thing to support free distribution of blueprints when we currently don't have much in the way of general ability to effectively use them. But at some point inthefuture, if and when that ability becomes commonplace and easy, then the need for us to support the free exchange of that information will become more critical.

 

In other words, if we want to protect tigers, it's no big thing for us to advocate not shooting them if we live in NYC. But if NYC suddenly became infested with tigers, then our support for them would take on new urgency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not seriously advocating the seizure of intellectual property and attempts at censorship we are seeing, more trying to point out that it's unnecessary and very likely won't be necessary.

 

...if and when that ability becomes commonplace and easy, then the need for us to support the free exchange of that information will become more critical.

 

I took your previous post to imply pretty much exactly the opposite. I agree that protecting technologies that can be abused is important and becomes more so if they are abused. Encryption is a good example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defense Distributed in the Government Crosshairs Again

Earlier this week, the State Department sent a letter to the controversial gun access group Defense Distributed, confirming that it will require the group to get specific permission from the government before publishing its 3-D printable gun files online. That warning comes more than two years after the State Department sent Defense Distributed an initial letter telling it to take its gun files off its website pending a decision about their legality.

...

The State Department’s renewed attempt to control the spread of gun files online comes just as the conflict between the control of digital weapons “exports” and free speech is coming to a head: A month ago, Defense Distributed sued the State Department on First Amendment grounds, arguing that its right to free speech is being violated by the State Department’s demand for prior approval of its printable gun file uploads.

“Just because information can be used for some bad purpose doesn’t make it illegal to publish it,” says Matthew Goldstein, an export control lawyer representing Defense Distributed. “This isn’t just a firearms case, even though it deals with firearms. It’s really a free speech case.”

...

A State Department spokesperson, who was authorized to speak to WIRED only on background, said that the notice in the federal register wasn’t intended to target specifically 3-D printed guns, and that its timing with Defense Distributed’s lawsuit was an “unfortunate coincidence.”

...

As for the letter to Defense Distributed, the State Department spokesperson confirmed that it was intended to counter the publication of 3-D printed gun blueprints. The spokesperson was unpersuaded by Defense Distributed’s free speech argument. ...

 

 

I'm not sure it matters whether first amendment rights are collateral damage or a deliberate target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking a 3D printer cannot possibly print rifled barrels, therefore you can't really do all that much better than a zip gun or any other sort of improvised firearm with a 3D printer. Anyone who does have the skills and equipment to do the rifling, probably doesn't need to download blueprints. AFAIK people who build their own (legal) firearms buy the barrel stock from outfits like this-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking a 3D printer cannot possibly print rifled barrels, therefore you can't really do all that much better than a zip gun or any other sort of improvised firearm with a 3D printer. Anyone who does have the skills and equipment to do the rifling, probably doesn't need to download blueprints. AFAIK people who build their own (legal) firearms buy the barrel stock from outfits like this-

 

 

It seems they're good enough to censor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"To me, the world would seem more dangerous without his elk."

 

He has a pet elk.

He must be a whacko.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking a 3D printer cannot possibly print rifled barrels, therefore you can't really do all that much better than a zip gun or any other sort of improvised firearm with a 3D printer....

 

 

Or a dart gun.

 

Peter Alaric built a 3D-printed dart gun to make a point about proposed State Department laws banning weapon blueprints on the internet.

 

 

 

He claims that thanks to an air-gun exemption, his weapon is legal, though it's hardly as dangerous as a real 3D-printed gun (especially to the user). Nevertheless, it could still be lethal, so it seems that Alaric's point is that the rules will arbitrarily ban certain weapon designs and not others. He believes that gun designs are a form of speech protected by the constitution, a similar argument made by infamous 3D pistol creator Cody Wilson. However, opponents of weapon blueprints believe they're "functional things," not speech, and therefore subject to regulation.

A weapons blueprint is not, by itself, a functional thing.

 

I have no 3D printer. What function would it serve if I downloaded such a blueprint? Other than wasting some disc space, I can't think of one.

 

They're controlling knowledge, not things. Another word for controlling knowledge is censorship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japanese man gets arrested for his 3D printed revolver

 

Among the half-dozen plastic guns seized from Yoshitomo Imura’s home in Kawasaki was a revolver designed to fire six .38-caliber bullets–five more than the Liberator printed pistol that inspired Imura’s experiments. He called it the ZigZag, after its ratcheted barrel modeled on the German Mauser Zig-Zag. In a video he posted online six months ago, Imura assembles the handgun from plastic 3-D printed pieces, a few metal pins, screws and rubber bands, then test fires it with blanks.

 

“Freedom of armaments to all people!!” he writes in the video’s description. “A gun makes power equal!!”

 

 

And the kittens continue to shred the bag. I don't think the cat is going back in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repub Congresscritters Support Defense Distributed in Amicus Brief

 

 

Does anyone else think saying "you can't spread that around the net" AFTER a file has been downloaded 100,000 times might just be ineffective?

 

Even those who support censoring what can be put on the internet should at least want the censorship to achieve something. Or maybe putting the censorship in place is DOING SOMETHING so that makes it OK, even if ineffective. That would be congruent with pretty much all gun control efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electronic Frontier Foundation Amicus Brief Supports Defense Distributed

The scope of ITAR’s prohibition on speech could apply to members of the press republishing newsworthy technical data, professors educating the public on scientific and medical advances of public concern, enthusiasts sharing otherwise lawful information about firearms, domestic activists trading tips about how to treat tear gas or resist unlawful surveillance, and gun control opponents expressing a point about proliferation of weapons. Innocent online publication on certain topics is prohibited simply because a hostile foreign person could conceivably locate that information, use it to create something harmful, and use a harmful device against US interests. Speech cannot permissibly be repressed for such an attenuated and hypothetical government end.

Information about how to make weapons is not a weapon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the GA printer thread, this was posted about metal printing.

 

Laser Sintering

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRE-PzI6uZA&feature=youtu.be

 

 

They are making an injection mold.

After it comes out of the printer, part goes through a heat treat process, & then final machine critical surfaces to dwg.

 

Sequence would be the same if it were gun parts .

 

However, there are issues w/trying to make a barrel, or most of the other parts in any gun.

 

(1) it requires a final machine.

With the cup mold, there is only one critical surface, the 'outside',

, ( which actually makes the inside surface of the cup)

The inside part of the mold is cooling channels, no dimensionally critical stuff.

 

A gun barrel is critical dims an ALL surfaces, so would have to be final machined same.

 

Cup mold has to withstand a few hundred psi, barrel has to withstand thousands psi.

 

 

, and that is what makes my radar go off.

 

Cup mold has to withstand a few hundred psi, barrel has to withstand thousands psi.

 

Printer part is "welded together from little beads of material"

 

Kreiger (and the other barrel specialists) are starting with bar stock with a known and repeatable strengths.

 

 

dos centavos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the GA printer thread, this was posted about metal printing.

 

Laser Sintering

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRE-PzI6uZA&feature=youtu.be

 

 

They are making an injection mold.

After it comes out of the printer, part goes through a heat treat process, & then final machine critical surfaces to dwg.

 

Sequence would be the same if it were gun parts .

 

However, there are issues w/trying to make a barrel, or most of the other parts in any gun.

 

(1) it requires a final machine.

With the cup mold, there is only one critical surface, the 'outside',

, ( which actually makes the inside surface of the cup)

The inside part of the mold is cooling channels, no dimensionally critical stuff.

 

A gun barrel is critical dims an ALL surfaces, so would have to be final machined same.

 

Cup mold has to withstand a few hundred psi, barrel has to withstand thousands psi.

 

 

, and that is what makes my radar go off.

 

Cup mold has to withstand a few hundred psi, barrel has to withstand thousands psi.

 

Printer part is "welded together from little beads of material"

 

Kreiger (and the other barrel specialists) are starting with bar stock with a known and repeatable strengths.

 

 

dos centavos

 

Did you get a license before you exported that information to the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost two years since this thread was started and it's still reason to PANIC!

 

Fears ISIS terrorists could soon print 3D guns for just £100 thanks to anarchist weapons fanatic

 

Ruthless Cody Wilson could put the lives of hundreds of innocent Brits at risk by handing terrorists the ability to build 3D weapons .

 

 

Because he's the only person in the world who understand the magical secrets of 3D printing and there are no clever terrorists anywhere who could figure it out without him.

 

I liked "Ruthless Cody's" response:

 

"There are all kinds of books in a library about how to build a bomb. You just have to have a certain commitment to the free exchange of ideas.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Almost two years since this thread was started and it's still reason to PANIC!

 

Fears ISIS terrorists could soon print 3D guns for just £100 thanks to anarchist weapons fanatic

 

Ruthless Cody Wilson could put the lives of hundreds of innocent Brits at risk by handing terrorists the ability to build 3D weapons .

 

 

Because he's the only person in the world who understand the magical secrets of 3D printing and there are no clever terrorists anywhere who could figure it out without him.

 

I liked "Ruthless Cody's" response:

 

"There are all kinds of books in a library about how to build a bomb. You just have to have a certain commitment to the free exchange of ideas.”

 

 

 

Pretty silly, isn't it?

A gun is not rocket science. It's a fairly uncomplicated mechanism that most half-wits could design if they felt like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Almost two years since this thread was started and it's still reason to PANIC!

 

Fears ISIS terrorists could soon print 3D guns for just £100 thanks to anarchist weapons fanatic

 

Ruthless Cody Wilson could put the lives of hundreds of innocent Brits at risk by handing terrorists the ability to build 3D weapons .

 

 

Because he's the only person in the world who understand the magical secrets of 3D printing and there are no clever terrorists anywhere who could figure it out without him.

 

I liked "Ruthless Cody's" response:

 

"There are all kinds of books in a library about how to build a bomb. You just have to have a certain commitment to the free exchange of ideas.”

 

 

 

Pretty silly, isn't it?

A gun is not rocket science. It's a fairly uncomplicated mechanism that most half-wits could design if they felt like.

 

 

But actually machining a functioning weapon is another story. That requires a lot of genuine, hard-won expertise, under very high tolerance, with careful attention paid to material stock and tooling. 3D printing a gun though -- eventually -- will require little more expertise than polishing and assembling a snap-together model of George Jetson's flying cartoon car.

 

 

In the two-something years since this thread started, I've seen 3D prototype printing rocket off the scale in complexity and strength ... turbine blades, heat exchange units subject to extremely high pressures, NASA-grade tolerances. Rifling a barrel in additive manufacturing (3D printing)? No problem. If anything, much better rifling can be obtained when you're layering up the part just 10,000 atoms per layer ... you can make all kinds of nonlinear structures that can potentially make projectiles do new things before they exit the barrel, improve the fluid dynamics, parabolic structures, etc..

 

I've thought about it a bit ... if much of the rest of the world insists on restricting guns as they do now, then they'll have to go to increasingly draconian measures to restrict the information. I don't know if that will be possible, or how people will take that. The corollary is that we all have high resolution color printers and scanners which could conceivabley counterfeit money, even with the defeat chips, but almost none of us counterfeit because the idea is repugnant to us and the penalty are incredibly severe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A slight thread drift..is a bomb a firearm? one lights it or triggers it..it goes bang. it is a projectile as in one can lob one. it uses gunpowder.

Why cant I make my own bomb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A slight thread drift..is a bomb a firearm? one lights it or triggers it..it goes bang. it is a projectile as in one can lob one. it uses gunpowder.

Why cant I make my own bomb?

 

The answer depends what you mean by bomb and where you are. But bringing it back to this thread,

 

"There are all kinds of books in a library about how to build a bomb. You just have to have a certain commitment to the free exchange of ideas.”

 

 

Making a bomb and writing about it are different activities and this thread is about prohibiting writing about it, not making it. It's about prohibiting information, not weapons.

 

Why should we censor our books and their modern equivalents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A slight thread drift..is a bomb a firearm? one lights it or triggers it..it goes bang. it is a projectile as in one can lob one. it uses gunpowder.

Why cant I make my own bomb?

 

The answer depends what you mean by bomb and where you are. But bringing it back to this thread,

 

"There are all kinds of books in a library about how to build a bomb. You just have to have a certain commitment to the free exchange of ideas.”

 

 

Making a bomb and writing about it are different activities and this thread is about prohibiting writing about it, not making it. It's about prohibiting information, not weapons.

 

Why should we censor our books and their modern equivalents?

 

we shouldn't..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm thinking a 3D printer cannot possibly print rifled barrels, therefore you can't really do all that much better than a zip gun or any other sort of improvised firearm with a 3D printer. Anyone who does have the skills and equipment to do the rifling, probably doesn't need to download blueprints. AFAIK people who build their own (legal) firearms buy the barrel stock from outfits like this-

 

 

It seems they're good enough to censor.

 

That is because it might get printed in scary black plastic. The fact that it fires a round is all the anti-gun nuts are interested in. They are afraid, very afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defense Distributed Fails To Get Injunction

 

Ordinarily, of course, the protection of constitutional rights would be the highest public interest at issue in a case. That is not necessarily true here, however, because the State Department has asserted a very strong public interest in national defense and national security. Indeed, the State Department’s stated interest in preventing foreign nationals — including all manner of enemies of this country — from obtaining technical data on how to produce weapons and weapon parts is not merely tangentially related to national defense and national security; it lies squarely within that interest.
...

We are mindful of the fact that the parties and the amici curiae in this case focused on the merits, and understandably so. This case presents a number of novel legal questions, including whether the 3D printing and/or CNC milling files at issue here may constitute protected speech under the First Amendment, the level of scrutiny applicable to the statutory and regulatory scheme here, whether posting files online for unrestricted download may constitute “export,” and whether the ITAR regulations establish an impermissible prior restraint scheme. These are difficult questions, and we take no position on the ultimate outcome other than to agree with the district court that it is not yet time to address the merits.

 

 

They do make a good point in saying there's no such thing as "temporarily" releasing the files out into the wilds of the internet. That cat doesn't go back in the bag. Still, I agree with Justice Jones' dissent. The words "national security" should not be a magic wand that can make our rights disappear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy 3D printed a plastic .357 and on the first test-firing, it cracked.

 

No problem. Glue and zip ties! Good as new.

 

Yikes. The article asks, "Would you fire it?"

 

I can't believe that's even a question when it comes to a .357 held together by zip ties. But OK, the answer is no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If printing guns is legal, so is publishing plans

 

Can the government block the online publication of files that let anyone make an assault rifle on a 3-D printer? In a defeat for free speech and a win for gun-control advocates, an appeals court has said yes. The court declined to suspend a State Department regulation that treats posting the files as a foreign export of munitions.

 

Although the impulse to block the easy creation of untraceable weapons is admirable, the court got it wrong. The First Amendment can’t tolerate a prohibition on publishing unclassified information – even if the information is potentially harmful.

...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

,,,

 

Yikes. The article asks, "Would you fire it?"

 

,,,

I alluded to that in #30, even talking about "printed" steel.

, the cup mold has to withstand a few hundred psi, a pistol is thousands psi

 

? plastic,, any plastic ?

 

Not "No", but HELL no, I refuse to be in the same area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defense Distributed's Legal Case Grinds On

 

The 5th circuit panel said:

 

Ordinarily, of course, the protection of constitutional rights would be the highest public interest at issue in a case. That is not necessarily true here, however, because the State Department has asserted a very strong public interest in national defense and national security.

 

 

This is the problem with the War on Terror in a nutshell.

 

Whether it's restricting publication of files on the internet, secret snooping, or using our "watch lists" for population control, the underlying idea is the same: in the battle of rights vs security, security must always prevail.

 

There was a Ben Franklin quotation on that point that was pretty popular during the W administration but it hasn't been seen in a while and I forget exactly how it goes.

 

At least the dissenting justice on the 5th circuit seems to get it:

 

Undoubtedly, the denial of a temporary injunction in this case will encourage the State Department to threaten and harass publishers of similar non-classified information. There is also little certainty that the government will confine its censorship to Internet publication. Yet my colleagues in the majority seem deaf to this imminent threat to protected speech. More precisely, they are willing to overlook it with a rote incantation of national security, an incantation belied by the facts here and nearly forty years of contrary Executive Branch pronouncements.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Defense Distributed's Legal Case Grinds On

 

The 5th circuit panel said:

 

Ordinarily, of course, the protection of constitutional rights would be the highest public interest at issue in a case. That is not necessarily true here, however, because the State Department has asserted a very strong public interest in national defense and national security.

 

 

This is the problem with the War on Terror in a nutshell.

 

Whether it's restricting publication of files on the internet, secret snooping, or using our "watch lists" for population control, the underlying idea is the same: in the battle of rights vs security, security must always prevail.

 

There was a Ben Franklin quotation on that point that was pretty popular during the W administration but it hasn't been seen in a while and I forget exactly how it goes.

 

At least the dissenting justice on the 5th circuit seems to get it:

 

Undoubtedly, the denial of a temporary injunction in this case will encourage the State Department to threaten and harass publishers of similar non-classified information. There is also little certainty that the government will confine its censorship to Internet publication. Yet my colleagues in the majority seem deaf to this imminent threat to protected speech. More precisely, they are willing to overlook it with a rote incantation of national security, an incantation belied by the facts here and nearly forty years of contrary Executive Branch pronouncements.

 

 

 

Truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is the manufacturer?

 

As it turns out, if you want to be a successful subversive, you probably shouldn't take on the moniker "Dr. Death" as you publicly tout your establishment-challenging ways. That's what Daniel Crowninshield did with regard to the unfinished firearm receivers he sold, to be completed on computer numerically controlled (CNC) mills in his North Sacramento, California, machine shop. Theoretically, customers operated the mills themselves, making the finished firearms legal. But an undercover agent insisted that shop employees did the honors, and Crowninshield got three and a half years in prison.

 

 

Sounds to me like he was "engaged in the business" of manufacturing guns for sale but only because he didn't dumb down the process enough to actually let customers "do" the manufacturing. That's already achievable.

 

But enthusiasts actually can and do personally operate Cody Wilson's push-button Ghost Gunner CNC mills—which Wired described as "absurdly easy to use." Again, there's enough demand for such services that hundreds of the high-tech machines have been sold, putting the manufacture of finished firearm receivers within reach of people who don't have machinists' skills. And there's no way of knowing how many finished receivers have been quietly knocked out on the devices after they're delivered. Which was the whole reason Wilson developed the Ghost Gunner, after demonstrating that a working, if simple, pistol could be created on a 3D printer.

 

 

"Dr. Death" allowing his employees to help in the manufacturing process resulted in his conviction but technology is already providing a route around such regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Lark said:

If possession would make all future firearms illegal due to your felony conviction and the gov used crawlers like the music companies and shutterstock do, they would still be rare.   


Think carefully about what you're advocating here.

The government searching computer files for naughty content, in that case the code to 3D print a bump fire stock.

But these things have a way of spinning out of control. Asset forfeiture was going to target the drug lords. See the "FAIR Act" thread for how that's been going. RICO was supposed to dismantle the mob but has also targeted ordinary people. The Patriot Act was all about terrorism (and prosecuting PayPal over online gambling.)

This isn't a second amendment issue. It's a first amendment issue when government starts looking through our computer files for naughty content. It's a fourth amendment issue when they do it without a warrant. Yes, even if the naughty content has to do with evil guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


Think carefully about what you're advocating here.

The government searching computer files for naughty content, in that case the code to 3D print a bump fire stock.

But these things have a way of spinning out of control. Asset forfeiture was going to target the drug lords. See the "FAIR Act" thread for how that's been going. RICO was supposed to dismantle the mob but has also targeted ordinary people. The Patriot Act was all about terrorism (and prosecuting PayPal over online gambling.)

This isn't a second amendment issue. It's a first amendment issue when government starts looking through our computer files for naughty content. It's a fourth amendment issue when they do it without a warrant. Yes, even if the naughty content has to do with evil guns.

Not your private files.  Publically posted content.   Shutterbox watches my business page since they are copywriter trolls.   They went after me for purchased content even.    I watched a bunch of videos last night educating myself on .17 vs .22.   A lot of gun shop and gun smith content, some clearly with sponsorship from the gun industry or at least help from the shop's rep.    Some serious financial interests would quickly make sure there weren't YouTube videos on how to modify a gun to quasi infantry performance.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lark said:

Not your private files.  Publically posted content.   Shutterbox watches my business page since they are copywriter trolls.   They went after me for purchased content even.    I watched a bunch of videos last night educating myself on .17 vs .22.   A lot of gun shop and gun smith content, some clearly with sponsorship from the gun industry or at least help from the shop's rep.    Some serious financial interests would quickly make sure there weren't YouTube videos on how to modify a gun to quasi infantry performance.   

The internet is already ahead of your idea. Those things are often posted in a way to be visible to the public, but on private servers.

And private servers can present problems. Naughty lectures and naughty 3D plans might not be allowed.

But there's LBRY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list is as stupid as "the ten sexiest" or similar and those who read such lists hoping to learn are more stupid than the lists themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

The list is as stupid as "the ten sexiest" or similar and those who read such lists hoping to learn are more stupid than the lists themselves. 

Thank you Gov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moderate said:

Sure, you can buy one, but then what?

For most, the answer is, "I dunno."

That guy figured out a way for people to have another answer. Of course, he fucked up and got in trouble, but it could have been done in a way that was completely legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 10:56 PM, Moderate said:

I just bought the jig and used my router

He had an answer for those who would respond, "What's a jig? I don't own a router."

But his employees crossed the line between showing and doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

How naughty.

The word "naughty" assumes a bit of innocence.  A $1500 milling machine mfg unit for untraceable LCM receivers broaches on evil.  This bit builds on gun mayhem in a land of too much gun mayhem. 

Regulation will happen from the adults in the room. Same for bump stockas.  And if individuals want to choose felony behavior for illegal weaponry, that's their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

With today's laws, a mass murderer could buy an AR-15 or lookalike, albeit as a kit.  The ad below is typical and one should note that the no FFL means no background check.  Closing this workaround should be number one on the agenda.  

SBR-CLASSIC-AD.jpg


I brought this post over here because closing this workaround involves restricting computer files and 3D printing, a much broader subject than gun regulation with first as well as second amendment implications.

So how do we close it, Cal20?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grabberz Want To Shut Down 3D Printing

Quote

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A gun control group founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords asked two web hosting companies on Friday to shut down websites selling parts and machines that help make untraceable homemade firearms known as "ghost guns."

The problem is, "parts and machines" that can be used to make firearms are useful for other purposes. The same rationale could be used to ban a drill press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2017 at 7:59 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Grabberz Want To Shut Down 3D Printing

The problem is, "parts and machines" that can be used to make firearms are useful for other purposes. The same rationale could be used to ban a drill press.

I spent about 4 hours watching videos for finishing 80% receivers for several different gun types.  If you don't already have a shop, 'finishing' a receiver is highly improbable (you'll fuck up the alignment) and is not cost effective at all.  It's vastly cheaper to just buy what you want.   If you really want to make a gun and have all that hardware, then go make your gun.  It's easier to download the specs and throw it into a CNC if you're that far already.  And frankly, you can buy a used CNC for about what you're gonna blow on 'harbor freight' parts.

Having spent a lot of time 3-d printing parts, can you 'print' a receiver that could be used to make a gun?  Yes - but it's going to be expensive also.  And if by 'make a gun' you mean shoot a bullet.  But I can do the same thing with a piece of pipe, a nail, and a mouse trap.  Can I print an AR receiver?  Um.. sort of?  I'll end up with a blank very close to the mail-order 'finish it up' receiver because I'm still going to have to clean up all the goobers and re-machine to get the tolerances and surface finish that's required for an actual gun.  How long will it last?  Odds are, not very long.   3-d printers work by melting stuff and it can get  kind of hot inside a gun receiver.  Metal 3-d printers are EXPENSIVE to print a gun. 

There's always some guy who got lucky and made something and shows off 'LOOKIE WHAT I DID!". Bully.  

The most important thing - there's already rules in most states that implicate guys making more than a couple for their own use.  We don't need more laws.  The 80% receiver ban would be much more of a 'fool and their money' ban to keep people from wasting cash on trying to go around the system.  For that, go after the penis enlargement business.

The whole argument seems to be about the 'traceability'?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

I spent about 4 hours watching videos for finishing 80% receivers for several different gun types.  If you don't already have a shop, 'finishing' a receiver is highly improbable (you'll fuck up the alignment) and is not cost effective at all.  It's vastly cheaper to just buy what you want.   If you really want to make a gun and have all that hardware, then go make your gun.  It's easier to download the specs and throw it into a CNC if you're that far already.  And frankly, you can buy a used CNC for about what you're gonna blow on 'harbor freight' parts.

Having spent a lot of time 3-d printing parts, can you 'print' a receiver that could be used to make a gun?  Yes - but it's going to be expensive also.  And if by 'make a gun' you mean shoot a bullet.  But I can do the same thing with a piece of pipe, a nail, and a mouse trap.  Can I print an AR receiver?  Um.. sort of?  I'll end up with a blank very close to the mail-order 'finish it up' receiver because I'm still going to have to clean up all the goobers and re-machine to get the tolerances and surface finish that's required for an actual gun.  How long will it last?  Odds are, not very long.   3-d printers work by melting stuff and it can get  kind of hot inside a gun receiver.  Metal 3-d printers are EXPENSIVE to print a gun. 

There's always some guy who got lucky and made something and shows off 'LOOKIE WHAT I DID!". Bully.  

The most important thing - there's already rules in most states that implicate guys making more than a couple for their own use.  We don't need more laws.  The 80% receiver ban would be much more of a 'fool and their money' ban to keep people from wasting cash on trying to go around the system.  For that, go after the penis enlargement business.

The whole argument seems to be about the 'traceability'?  

Background checks, so they say.

Quote

 

The sites sell kits, components and machines that help create homemade semi-automatic weapons. It's legal to build a gun in a home or a workshop, and advances in 3-D printing and milling have made it easier to do so. The kits can be purchased legally for a few hundred dollars without the kind of background check required for traditional gun purchases.

Attorneys for the gun control advocacy group said the homemade weapons are increasingly being used in crimes and asked each of the companies to "invoke its policies to help stem the tide of this illegal, deadly behavior."

 

I'm not sure how big this "tide" really is. Gungrabby lobbyists complained about the "epidemic" of one dead guy to justify their bump stock ban. So if one is an epidemic, a "tide" might be half a person?

Your comments on the current state of technology tell me that we might have a tide of wealthy and industrious criminals with a good eye for attention to detail. Or maybe not. OTOH, my new cellphone has tech that I'm sure my father couldn't imagine when he was programming our earliest room-sized computers for the space program before I was born. What CNC might my grandson live to see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocking Ghost Gun News

Quote

Ghost guns appear to be most prevalent in California, where there are restrictions on battlefield .22's that make it difficult to buy guns that are available in other states.

OK, so maybe I changed a word or two in the interest of accuracy.

Gotta love Uncooperative Californicators.

The unintended consequence of trying to ban battlefield .22's has been more of them that have no serial number. I expect that's the point, and for that reason I expect very, very few cooperative types to apply for a confiscation number by 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic from an interview with Cody Wilson:
 

Quote

 

So is gun control dead?

Gun control can never die, because it lives in the hearts of men. No, gun control is not dead. Gun control is undead. We just keep killing it but it keeps coming back.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Build Your Own Glock
 

Quote

 

This article is part of Reason's special Burn After Reading issue, where we offer how-tos, personal stories, and guides for all kinds of activities that can and do happen at the borders of legally permissible behavior.

Let's start with a disclaimer: If you have little to no experience with guns, it's probably not wise to try assembling your own. It can be dangerous to make a mistake—even deadly. There's no shame in buying a firearm from a reputable manufacturer and then taking a class to learn how to handle it safely, defensively, and intelligently.

But do-it-yourself has its appeal as well. For those who already have basic firearm know-how and competence with common tools, it's easy to make a gun that's just as safe as one bought from a store.

 

It's also perfectly legal in most American jurisdictions...

 

Hah! I haven't bought a print issue in quite some time but might have to buy that one just so I can not burn it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Build Your Own Glock

Quote

Communicating instructions for how to build a gun is constitutionally protected speech, after all.

got one on bombs ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mid said:

got one on bombs ?

No, but I'd share it if I did and it would be constitutionally protected as well.

I'm a recidivist that way. Years ago, I committed a felony violation of our munitions export laws by exporting a copy of PGP to Anguilla. Non-North Americans weren't supposed to have it at the time. And yes, I'd do it again. Some of us are just Uncooperative that way and we think that individuals, not just governments, need strong encryption.

My crime was really a pointless waste of electrons by the time I did it. The cat was out of the bag because math exists. The cat then had kittens, the first of which was Phil Zimmerman, who tore a giant hole in the bag. Lots of other kittens continued to shred it. By the time I came along, another kitten handed me a piece of the shredded bag and I tore it. To emphasize the point: the cat is NOT going back in the bag.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Some of us are just Uncooperative that way and we think that individuals, not just governments, need strong encryption

To me, free speech is the means to offset the asymmetry of tyranny and is the most formidible line of defense of any democracy.  That's why dictators always go after free speech and free assembly early in their consolidation of power phase.

If you believe in democracy, if you believe that when it comes to governance, the sum intelligence of the many is better than the sole intelligence of the one, then you have to defend free speech, particularly when you don't like what is being said.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DOJ settles and pays the 14th most dangerous legal bills in the world.
 

Quote

 

The Justice Department has reached a settlement with the Second Amendment Foundation and Defense Distributed, a collective that organizes, promotes, and distributes technologies to help home gun-makers. Under the agreement, which resolved a suit filed by the two groups in 2015, Americans may "access, discuss, use, reproduce or otherwise benefit from the technical data" that the government had previously ordered Defense Distributed to cease distributing.

...

In what is a very unusual move in ITAR actions, the government will pay more than $39,000 of the plaintiffs' legal and administrative fees. Cody Wilson, chieftain of Defense Distributed, tells Wired that this is only about 10 percent of what they've spent.

 

So we're allowed to discuss this subject. Isn't that nice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Code is $peech
 

Quote

 

One convenient way to crack down on the spread of encryption would be to classify it as a kind of high-grade munition. This would subject it to ITAR oversight, which would empower the State Department and other agencies to muzzle security researchers and professionals in a roundabout way. They couldn't outright ban encryption in the US. But they could bar technologists from exchanging encryption code with others in foreign countries. Due to the inter-connected nature of the internet, this would effectively put the kibosh on the future of accessible security.

But techies are a clever bunch. Privacy and security advocates undertook a number of effective strategies to highlight the questionable logic and constitutional grounds underpinning the State Department's ITAR gambit. Some puckish activists started wearing t-shirts with ITAR-controlled encryption code emblazoned on the front and back, and dared the authorities to punish them for sending them overseas or even allowing foreign eyes to gaze upon them. An engineer named Phil Karn probed the rules' boundaries by attempting to send a copy of Bruce Schneier's authoritative tome, Applied Cryptography, overseas: The State Department confusingly ruled that sending the book itself was kosher, but once the text was transferred to a floppy disk it became a munition. These incidents, and others launched by security researcher Daniel Bernstein and PGP creator Phil Zimmerman, extended the rhetorical and legal argument that code is speech, and speech is protected under the First Amendment.

 

I participated in making sure that the kittens shredded that bag once the cat got out. Phil Zimmermann is one of my heroes for launching it.

But he's wrong about this:

Quote

Still, it is true that many in the technology community that offer full-throated defenses of the Crypto Wars are tepid or even hostile to Defense Distributed's related campaign. Indeed, Crypto War veteran Phil Zimmerman refuses to align the two causes, telling WIRED that "Encryption is a defense technology with humanitarian uses. Guns are only used for killing."

The idea that guns don't have defensive uses is astoundingly stupid, more so coming from someone I know to be so smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I participated in making sure that the kittens shredded that bag once the cat got out. Phil Zimmermann is one of my heroes for launching it.

But he's wrong about this:

The idea that guns don't have defensive uses is astoundingly stupid, more so coming from someone I know to be so smart.

 

I wouldn't put too much into that comment.  He's just being pithy for his audience.

In many countries, getting put on the wrong end of a list is just as lethal as being shot dead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schumer Laments Death of Censorship

And intends to fix it.
 

Quote

 

Prior to settling with Wilson, the federal government had argued that his company's gun-making files violated the International Trade in Arms munitions export regulations. Defense Distributed responded by suing. As Doherty writes,

Defense Distributed's suit claimed that this was was "censorship of Plaintiffs' speech," since the files in question consist of computer code and thus counted as expression. It also argued that "the ad hoc, informal and arbitrary manner in which that scheme is applied, violate the First, Second, and Fifth Amendments." (The Second because the information in the computer files implicates weapons possession rights.)

Thanks to the settlement, Wilson and others will soon be free to post blueprints for 3D guns. But Schumer intends to fight the feds' decision. "This decision to allow ghost gun blueprints to go unchecked across the internet will come back to haunt the feds and cost lives," he said. "That is why Congress must take aim at stopping these websites before the damage is done." A Schumer spokesperson tells the New York Post that the senator plans to announce a bill to do just that before the week is up.

 

This reminds me very much of the fights over PGP. While Al Gore and his elk were freaking out and trying to invent a Clipper Chip backdoor, people like me had already exported thousands of copies of PGP all around the world.

So they were arguing over whether commonly available information that would ALWAYS be commonly available should be commonly available.

That's exactly the case this time around too. The naughty computer code is out there and lots of Uncooperative types have already spread it all over the place so well that it can't be retrieved.

But Schumer's going to try anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict emergency rooms are going to be full of hideously injured idiots.

"My 3-D anarchist freedom gun blew up in my face. Please help me, statist regulated uniformed educated nurse-type person."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Happy said:

I predict emergency rooms are going to be full of hideously injured idiots.

"My 3-D anarchist freedom gun blew up in my face. Please help me, statist regulated uniformed educated nurse-type person."

I think you understand the situation about as well as Schumer.

The government settled, paid the legal bills, and said Defense Distributed could spread these computer files around at will.

Great. All official and everything.

Here's the part you don't get: lots of us are Uncooperative. We've had those files available since they were released. The big change now? They're available.

Wait. That's not a change!

So if your prediction were going to come true, it would have already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I think you understand the situation about as well as Schumer.

The government settled, paid the legal bills, and said Defense Distributed could spread these computer files around at will.

Great. All official and everything.

Here's the part you don't get: lots of us are Uncooperative. We've had those files available since they were released. The big change now? They're available.

Wait. That's not a change!

So if your prediction were going to come true, it would have already.

I dunno tom.  I'm a bit torn on this issue.  I don't know if I consider computer files or lines of code to be "speech".  What is the "speech" actually trying to say?  Is the detailed design of say a thermonuclear weapon "speech"?  I don't think so.  Its just a design.

And just because something's been available since the beginning doesn't make them legal or morally right.  Child pornography has been around for a really long time and there are uncooperative people in that area as well.  Does that make it right to possess or distribute?  

I think one of the issues I have these days is we've expanded the concepts of what $peech is way beyond what was envisioned by the FF and we have lost their intent.  I don't have an issue with 3-D files that allow you to print gunz.  But not because I consider it protected speech but because the right to the gun itself is protected.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful, you’re favorite Court has concluded there’s a personal right, and personal rights can be regulated...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I dunno tom.  I'm a bit torn on this issue.  I don't know if I consider computer files or lines of code to be "speech".  What is the "speech" actually trying to say?  Is the detailed design of say a thermonuclear weapon "speech"?  I don't think so.  Its just a design.

A nuke is kind of an engineer's work of art. And that's where the connection has been drawn: authors and artists of all kinds do things that are similar to writing various kinds of code. As with whether illegal immigrants are the people, your feelings don't coincide with legal reality.

24 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And just because something's been available since the beginning doesn't make them legal or morally right.  Child pornography has been around for a really long time and there are uncooperative people in that area as well.  Does that make it right to possess or distribute?  

My point in that reply was this: if we made child porn legal tomorrow, would we suddenly see an explosion of it? I don't think so. Those people already have it, just as Uncooperative types have always had the code for things like PGP and printed guns.

25 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I think one of the issues I have these days is we've expanded the concepts of what $peech is way beyond what was envisioned by the FF and we have lost their intent.  I don't have an issue with 3-D files that allow you to print gunz.  But not because I consider it protected speech but because the right to the gun itself is protected.  

That's one of several arguments being made. It might be one of several reasons the government settled.

20 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Careful, you’re favorite Court has concluded there’s a personal right, and personal rights can be regulated...

And regulations can be more severe and intrusive if there's no personal right, so we should be careful not to lose it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grabber$ $peak!
 

Quote

 

A federal judge on Friday tossed out a motion from three national gun control groups seeking a last-minute halt to a settlement that would allow for blueprints of 3-D printed firearms to be posted and dowloaded online.

...

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords Law Center argued in Wednesday's filing that the government provided no explanation for reversing a policy to allow the legal download of products previously considered to be a national security threat.

 

As always, I'm pleased to see non-human entities exercise their long-established first amendment right to express themselves by filing lawsuits.

I'm also pleased that their $peech was tossed but a bit disturbed by the reason offered by NSSF.
 

Quote

 

A general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) argued that concerns over the weapons were overstated, as the technology is very basic and does not produce quality weaponry, Reuters reported.

“I don’t see it likely at all that criminals will use this clunky and expensive technology,” NSSF general counsel Lawrence Keane said.


 

He's right. For now.

I remember hounding one of my geekier friends about 20 years ago. I was very happy that I could at last get local radar via the internet any time I wanted, but I wanted it in my pocket. And waterproof. When was I going to get it? He just laughed and said he didn't know. Turns out, the answer was, "A little under 20 years."

So what will become of that NSSF argument in 20 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good news for first amendment fans just keeps coming! Now Defense Distributed is expre$$ing itself with a lawsuit.
 

Quote

 

The suit asserts that the threats from New Jersey and Los Angeles

violate the First Amendment speech rights of Defense Distributed and its audience, including [the Second Amendment Foundation's] members; run afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause; infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of those who would make use of the knowledge disseminated by Defense Distributed; constitute a tortious interference with Defense Distributed's business; and are in any event, federally pre-empted by Congress's export control laws as well as Defense Distributed's export license, by which the State Department has explicitly authorized the speech that the Defendants are seeking to silence. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney fees.

Josh Blackman, one of Defense Distributed's lawyers, adds via email that "States do not have the power to censor speech or commerce in other states, especially when that commerce is licensed by the federal government."

Cody Wilson announced via twitter today that his Defcad website is currently not accessible in New Jersey. This is at this point his own choice, given the legal threat he faces, a threat he hopes to eliminate with this lawsuit.

UPDATE: Within an hour before filing the above lawsuit, Defense Distributed was informed by the state of Pennsylvania that it was seeking a temporary restraining order in federal court to stop it from distributing weapon-making files in that state. During an emergency telephone hearing before U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond (which lawyer Josh Blackman had to participate in from a United Airlines lounge at LaGuardia Airport), Defense Distributed agreed to, at least through next week, voluntarily block Pennsylvania I.P. addresses until the legal issue can be resolved. As Wilson told Philly.com, despite that, he will "fight any effort by state officials to seek a permanent ban. 'Americans have the right to this data, Wilson said. 'We have the right to share it. Pennsylvania has no right to come in and tell us what we can and can't share on the internet.'"

 

The reference to the dormant commerce power is confusing. Courts long ago found that it exists in areas in which Congress has chosen not to regulate, but could.

But when "commerce is licensed by the federal government" it means that Congress has chosen to regulate.

Blocking Pennsylvania IP's is funny. Because we're on a satellite connection, websites that guess where I am based on IP usually put me in Nebraska someplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Feds stepped back but now States are attempting to censor these files
 

Quote

 

this afternoon, in that last suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington by eight states and the District of Columbia, a temporary restraining order was indeed issued against Defense Distributed to stop them for now from continuing to distribute the software.

...

This is not about the Trump administration being wild pro-gun ideologues. Despite speculations spread, for example, in a Wired story on the settlement, the decision was a specific technical decision based on ITAR, not about feeding or appeasing some imagined Second Amendment fanaticism on Trump's part.

As one of Defense Distributed's lawyers, Alan Gura, told me, the Trump administration continues to fight against gun rights in all the same cases the Obama administration did, and the most likely reason for settlement was that the government "realized that not a single 5th Circuit judge offered that they were likely to succeed on the merits. To the contrary, the centerpiece of their victory was that they could somehow avoid the merits. When they could avoid the merits no longer, suddenly the national security threat faded away."

Donald Trump tweeted today that he is "looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn't seem to make much sense!" The settlement has nothing to do with any pro-gun agenda on the part of Trump.

 

As usual, Trump knows little and naturally returns to his New Yorker emotions when guns come up, at least until the NRA gets hold of him again. No one is selling 3D plastic guns. People are sharing information and some of them have 3D printers.
 

Quote

 

As the company's legal team wrote in the lawsuit, "the use of the ITAR to impose a prior restraint on publications of privately generated unclassified information into the public domain violated the First Amendment of United States Constitution," a point with which they believed previous Department of Justice doctrine agreed.

In a court filing responding to the multi-state lawsuit to stop Wilson's organization from distributing the files, one of Defense Distributed's lawyers, Josh Blackman, said that such attempts to legally prohibit Americans ability to "access, discuss, use, reproduce, or otherwise benefit from the technical data" are not constitutionally permitted, as such acts are "expressly protected by the First Amendment. In Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. [2011], the [Supreme] Court recognized 'that the creation and dissemination of information are speech within the meaning of the First Amendment.'"

As Blackman rightly stated, this latest state lawsuit to limit Defense Distributed's activities constitutes a

demand [of] a prior restraint of constitutionally protected speech that is already in the public domain. We know that "[a]ny system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." That presumption of liberty is even heavier where, as here, the speech is already available on the internet, and has been available for years....Yet, nine Attorneys General, who swore an oath to the Constitution, failed to even mention the First Amendment in their emergency pleadings. Such a careless disregard for the Bill of Rights fails to meet the "heavy burden" needed to justify a prior restraint.

By eliding what's really at stake here—more a matter of free expression than any meaningful expansion of the already existing legal ability to make a gun at home—the states suing, and alas too much of the media, are ginning up unwarranted fear to expand the government's power to restrict speech, and alas those states have had at least a temporary success for now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Printed guns are an awesome thing.  That would mean that all the gun nuts print heaps,  shoot each other and the Manufacturers make ... nothing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2018 at 6:06 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

This was a legal idea on June 1 and remains one today, but that hasn't stopped the LWNM from entering full panic mode.

Alyssa Milano is pretty when she has her mouth shut

 

Quote

 

(CNN)Imagine this: the convicted domestic abuser next door tries to buy a gun. He's turned down because he fails his background check. When he gets home, he opens up his browser, and in half an hour he's printing out his own undetectable, fully functional plastic gun, with no background check and no record of his purchase.

As of August 1, it will be a reality in America -- unless we are able to stop it.

 

 
It will continue to be a reality.
 
I do continue to support her right to form an organization for the purpose of $peaking on this issue.
 
But she's an actress. Candidates should be better informed on the facts, right?
 
 
To those who don't see the first amendment problem here, I offer this:
 
Quote

There is absolutely no requirement for 3D-printed guns to be printed with a serial number and, in addition, there is no requirement for background checks in place for those who download or use the blueprints.

A background check to download information. I can explain it further if needed, but i hope it's not. More:

Quote

Congress needs to regulate blueprints for and the production of 3D-printed guns or, at a minimum, hit the pause button until we have common sense laws in place.

Regulating blueprint files and regulating production seem to me to be different. And the former seems to me to be a first amendment problem, in addition to the second amendment problem.

It's cute that he thinks there's a magical "pause button" that will erase the current reality and replace it with his desired one.

The reality is, this suggestion from another thread was feasible in 2013, in June of this year, and remains feasible today:

23 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Go buy a 3D printer and become a modern subversive.

FKT


I'm glad we have those subversives but my Polynavicular Morbus prevents me from participating.

 

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites