This is a tactic of Trump, not exclusively, but it is his main schtick. When he says this crap he is dividing us. His constant theme is don't trust each other, don't trust your neighbors, don't trust your eyes and ears, only trust my lies.
"Only I can tell you the truth don't believe the lying press.
The Hollywood elites and librul media are the enemies of the people.
A Federal judge has blocked Defense Distributed from allowing people to download the design files for 3-D printable guns from its website, citing that criminals and terrorists could manufacture similar weapons. There are things which the judge needs to remember about this particular case:
1) most criminals--most people in general--do not have access to a 3-D printer because of the price 2) terrorists will just buy black market weapons, which is cheaper, faster, and probably more reliable 3) by now, Defense Distributed is not the only website through which weapon design files may be downloaded--I have no doubt that a dozen other sites are hosting the files for download, which means the judge is going to have to amend his order to include those sites, prompting people to open up even more sites for hosting the files. The genie is out of the bottle, judge, and it doesn't feel like going back inside. 4) possessing a nonmetallic firearm with no serial numbers or registration is already a Federal crime
Defense Distributed will likely appeal but I am uncertain they will succeed. As with all technology, the price of 3D printers will eventually fall to the point where regular people may choose to purchase one and I doubt anyone wants to see people manufacturing guns in their garage every weekend.
Another problem with these plastic guns is that metal detectors will be useless they won't be able to detect them. So conventional security screening will be useless. Maybe everyone will need a pat down and every bag opened before doing things like flying or going to a concert or entering a courthouse. Another possibility is that Cops will assume even more than they already do that everyone they encounter is armed and police shootings will continue to climb.
And as you mentioned there's issue with people that shouldn't have guns or have been forbidden from owning guns easily being able to print them. It would be a nice thing if 3D printing got cheaper and more common but if people are going to use their printers for 3D printing of guns then the thing will carry negative connotations.
A good use of 3d printing is 3d printed houses there's a startup in San Francisco that specializes in that and can print a whole house for under $10k. The Netherlands also is printing habitable 3D houses. I've also seen 3d printing of missing limbs.
Warning: I'm going to be speaking in generalities at times. Yes I know there are exceptions to general rules. Yes I know not everyone of every political persuasion thinks the same. But trends exist, and can be backed by things like polls and other evidence, so I think it's fair to speak about these general trends and their implications, and of course it's fair to question the existence of the trends at all. Context, as always, is important.
What happened to the left-libertarians? That's probably not at all the right term to use but it's what I call them. Maybe it's a perception thing and it has always been this way, but the left of the modern day looks nothing like the left I remember from when I first became interested in politics; the Bush (jr) era days, when the left was skeptical of giant unaccountable institutions, the left that once generally promoted freedom on social matters and is now bordering on the tyrannical, the left that could have a conversation with you without implying you are evil, or racist, or both. I identified with that sort of political philosophy. I do not identify with what I see today.
I remember the rhetoric and attitude of the anti war movement that grew out of our invasions into Iraq, and the lies the intelligence agencies told in order to manipulate us into that particular war. People like Dennis Kuchinich and Glenn Greenwald weren't afraid to try to hold these institutions to account. Wikileaks was a heroic source of truth and not a subversive foreign puppet. Nowadays, expressing the sentiment that the word of the CIA and FBI isn't the Word of God is controversial at best, despite their history. This served a healthy social function as any powerful institution with no skepticism or accountability levied on it grows self serving, unfit for purpose, and, in the case of something like an intelligence agency, dangerous. More importantly, they were entirely correct.
This poll basically says it all about how attitudes in American politics change according to the political whims of the moment, on all sides. What's dangerous however is how skepticism has been vastly diminished from left wing attitudes in the U.S, reflecting increasing partisanship and the lack of common ground. In that same poll, it was found that less than 25% of democrats want to wait and see what the evidence says before assuming wrongdoing on the part of the president, compared to the 73% who assume as much. On the flipside, 42% of Trump supporters wanted to wait for evidence before making conclusions, compared to 49% who want to defend Trump.
Also, contrary to @jjstraka34's poll, this one finds only 7% of Republicans and 5% of Democrats would be okay with election interference if it helped their own party.
The left is also far to obsessed with silencing and punishing ordinary people these days. I was utterly disgusted at their repeated meme of "punch a nazi" last year. Not because I have love for Nazis. Not because I think advocating for actual genocide or any physical harm for that matter has a free speech right to exist. But because they were and are using that term as a pejorative for anyone they don't like. The person being punched can't be called a nazi in any intellectually honest sense of the word, even if his actual beliefs are fringe and repugnant. Because violence is not how you change someones mind. Because if you are willing to use violence or excuse it you are only planting the seeds for more of it. Because violence should be a last resort in self defense and not as a tool to make someone submit. Etc. Etc. And it's like every other day you hear of some right wing politician getting chased out of somewhere in a city or harassed or threatened. Sarah Huckabee. Kirstjen Nielson. Ivanka. Milo. You almost never hear of it happening on the flipside. I don't recall it ever happening to anyone in the Obama era but please correct me if I am wrong.
And it's not like they don't encourage it, either. The left has stopped arguing in many cases. Bring up a topic or position deemed offensive and a squad of left wing extremists will simply try to destroy your employment and life and, if they can't do that, will try to unperson you to try to make your life unlivable. Articles will be written in their favorite sites about what a heroic act it is. These kind just want to hurt you for disagreeing, and ensure their ideological hegemony endures through fear if nothing else. This attempt at a climate of fear isn't healthy for a free society and seems to be only getting worse. It should not be encouraged nor justified. Yet it is.
As @Mathsorcerer stated, 3D printing is a technology not going back in the bag. I knew a guy who bought one and did some pretty impressive things with it in his own house. It's only going to get more accessible, and easier to produce things like firearms in your own home, and I guess public policy is just going to have to keep up. The technology itself has far too many upsides for us not to want to have it as easily accessible as possible.
But 3D printing of firearms is the exact opposite of what the U.S police need right now, their track record and reputation being what it is. I would support a full on ban of that practice, personally.
A good use of 3d printing is 3d printed houses there's a startup in San Francisco that specializes in that and can print a whole house for under $10k. The Netherlands also is printing habitable 3D houses. I've also seen 3d printing of missing limbs.
There is a different, highly-durable plastic which is medically sterile that physicians are using to threeprint (I am coining that word, defined as "using a 3D printer to manufacture an object") bones for things like hip replacements. I have also seen exoskeleton-type devices used for children which doctors can resize and threeprint as the child grows.
I know one company here in the United States is threeprinting houses out of concrete; this is both faster and less costly than traditional house building methods. I believe someone on the last page mentioned low-cost housing--this is the method of attaining that goal.
I agree with @WarChiefZeke that threeprinting has too many positive uses. Maybe if I were a sculptor--is designing something on a computer then threeprinting it "sculpting"? *shrug*--or running a small manufacturing business I could see getting one, but for right now I don't have a use for one.
The left is also far to obsessed with silencing and punishing ordinary people these days. I was utterly disgusted at their repeated meme of "punch a nazi" last year. Not because I have love for Nazis. Not because I think advocating for actual genocide or any physical harm for that matter has a free speech right to exist. But because they were and are using that term as a pejorative for anyone they don't like. The person being punched can't be called a nazi in any intellectually honest sense of the word, even if his actual beliefs are fringe and repugnant. Because violence is not how you change someones mind. Because if you are willing to use violence or excuse it you are only planting the seeds for more of it. Because violence should be a last resort in self defense and not as a tool to make someone submit. Etc. Etc. And it's like every other day you hear of some right wing politician getting chased out of somewhere in a city or harassed or threatened. Sarah Huckabee. Kirstjen Nielson. Ivanka. Milo. You almost never hear of it happening on the flipside. I don't recall it ever happening to anyone in the Obama era but please correct me if I am wrong.
I will say this - some liberals and even some so-called "progressives" are some of the most smug, self-righteous people I've ever had the displeasure of seeing; the self-appointed moral vanguards of society. And because this type of self-flatulence indulging snobbery is far more prominent among the affluent, the social power that these people wield is virtually unchallengable. Unless of course you want to start shooting them - and that's probably a bad idea.
However, I wish people would stop referring to them as "leftists". If you want to hear the opinions of actual leftists, go check out the World Socialist Website. Here it is. The actual left certainly hates the right-wing, but they are not exactly fond of smug, grossly privileged liberals.
That is what happens when one side views the other side as so monstrously wrong that they feel that defeating that other side is appropriate, even if "by any means necessary" has to be invoked. I refer you back to the war between the Vorlons and the Shadows. This is the future of our politics, which is why I don't support either major party.
The left has stopped arguing in many cases. Bring up a topic or position deemed offensive and a squad of left wing extremists will simply try to destroy your employment and life and, if they can't do that, will try to unperson you to try to make your life unlivable. Articles will be written in their favorite sites about what a heroic act it is. These kind just want to hurt you for disagreeing, and ensure their ideological hegemony endures through fear if nothing else. This attempt at a climate of fear isn't healthy for a free society and seems to be only getting worse. It should not be encouraged nor justified. Yet it is.
If the "other side" is so horrible that it poses a threat to the most basic principles of democracy, then defeating them by any means necessary is the same as defending the most basic principles of democracy. When we view the other side as fundamentally evil, we stop expecting our side to be good--and we stop caring if it isn't.
This is exactly why I've tried to discourage people from making generalizations about the "other side." This is exactly why it's so important to focus on what is right rather than who is right.
That is what happens when one side views the other side as so monstrously wrong that they feel that defeating that other side is appropriate, even if "by any means necessary" has to be invoked. I refer you back to the war between the Vorlons and the Shadows. This is the future of our politics, which is why I don't support either major party.
The left has stopped arguing in many cases. Bring up a topic or position deemed offensive and a squad of left wing extremists will simply try to destroy your employment and life and, if they can't do that, will try to unperson you to try to make your life unlivable. Articles will be written in their favorite sites about what a heroic act it is. These kind just want to hurt you for disagreeing, and ensure their ideological hegemony endures through fear if nothing else. This attempt at a climate of fear isn't healthy for a free society and seems to be only getting worse. It should not be encouraged nor justified. Yet it is.
If the "other side" is so horrible that it poses a threat to the most basic principles of democracy, then defeating them by any means necessary is the same as defending the most basic principles of democracy. When we view the other side as fundamentally evil, we stop expecting our side to be good--and we stop caring if it isn't.
This is exactly why I've tried to discourage people from making generalizations about the "other side." This is exactly why it's so important to focus on what is right rather than who is right.
But what is right and wrong isn’t black & white.
Two people’s views on what is considered right can be on the opposite end of each other, for example abortion. Both pro choice and pro life make compelling, and equally important stances.
Don't plastic guns still have to fire metal bullets? It doesn't do much good to smuggle a gun onto a plane or into a concert hall if you have no ammunition. Much ado about nothing if you ask me. But hey, here's something the Republicans can jump on board and show how they're 'tough on guns'!
The main problem I have with the absolutely no generalizations rule is that, in a very real way, the art of political science and political discussion in general is figuring out the reasons and motivations for why large swaths of voters vote the way that they do. I mean, this is basically why polling exists. And I have worked in polling at various times. There is a methodology to the questions, and the main reason things are worded the way they are is not to confuse people, but to find the answers to these questions without having to individually asked hundreds of millions of people what they think.
For instance, I was called by what I am positive was the Heidi Heitkamp campaign last week to take a survey. I could tell immediately that they were trying to find out whether she should vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation or not, and I tailored my answers to let them know that I was definitely in favor of her voting no. And if they had asked me to provide a running commentary at the end, or give advice, I would have told them that the people who care about Kavanaugh getting confirmed aren't going to vote for her anyway. That is a generalization, but I also believe it's correct in the macro sense.
Don't plastic guns still have to fire metal bullets? It doesn't do much good to smuggle a gun onto a plane or into a concert hall if you have no ammunition. Much ado about nothing if you ask me. But hey, here's something the Republicans can jump on board and show how they're 'tough on guns'!
Not to mention the guns are crap that could blow up in your hand, the designers recommend changing the barrel after every shot, you can really only print them on a very high-end machine and the plans have been available on pirate sites for the last 5 years.
In therms of making homemade guns, CNC machine > 3d printers
In therms of gun ownership, Switzerland is the safest place in Europe and have the higher gun ownership. In Latin America, Uruguay have the highest gun ownership and is the most peaceful country while Brazil and Mexico who had insanely strict gun controls are extremely violent.
One of the interesting things about the "no generalizations" rule (which I largely agree with, although maybe it should have some wiggle room to allow for the making of broader points) is that Donald Trump speaks pretty much only in generalizations.
Imagine that. An internet forum that attempts to hold itself to a higher standard of political discourse than the President of the United States of America.
I imagine plastic bullets, rocks, whatever projectiles you can rig to fire from a from a plastic gun would still be lethal. Not as deadly as lead bullets but could certainly ruin your life or your month.
3D printed guns could be printed all over the world once the plans are online. Terrorists could use them some extremist countries are swimming in cash. It won't just be a US problem.
I remember the rhetoric and attitude of the anti war movement that grew out of our invasions into Iraq, and the lies the intelligence agencies told in order to manipulate us into that particular war. People like Dennis Kuchinich and Glenn Greenwald weren't afraid to try to hold these institutions to account. Wikileaks was a heroic source of truth and not a subversive foreign puppet. ... .. The left is also far to obsessed with silencing and punishing ordinary people these days. I was utterly disgusted at their repeated meme of "punch a nazi" last year. Not because I have love for Nazis... ... And it's like every other day you hear of some right wing politician getting chased out of somewhere in a city or harassed or threatened. Sarah Huckabee. Kirstjen Nielson. Ivanka. Milo. You almost never hear of it happening on the flipside. I don't recall it ever happening to anyone in the Obama era but please correct me if I am wrong.
I appreciate the discussion Zeke while not agreeing on every point.
Dems were skeptical about the CIA and Bush administrations claims about WMDs but by and large went along because we had been attacked (by Afghanistan via Saudi Arabia but we attacked Iraq huh?). Those wmd claims were bogus but the FBI is not always wrong and again it was mainly CIA and Bush officials like John bolton lying here.
Milo is a horrible person who preaches hate his toxicity should not be welcomed. Sanders lies and spins and repeats Trump's outrageous lies. This person should not be welcomed either. Nielson resided over the needless orphaning of hundreds of children and is in charge of the people who have raped immigrant children and forced psychoactive drugs into them. A little uncomfortability at her dinner is less than she deserves since her own moral code seems to not be working. Why didn't this happen under Obama? Because Obama officials did not do this shit. Worst they did? Killed too many people in drone strikes. At least they kept their atrocities on the downlow instead of rubbing it in our faces.
Some of these immigration center horrors WERE happening when Obama was in office. The difference of course is that the Obama Administration was not purposefully adding more children to the mix, for no other reason that what seems to be punishment or spite. That doesn't excuse the abuses that went on (and to be sure, we are only finding out about alot of them now that the spotlight is on the issue), but it is also true that the new policy of the Trump Administration has made the problem orders of magnitude worse. If the meter was at a 50 before, Trump (with this policy and taking ICE completely off their leash) has raised it to about a 90.
Some of these immigration center horrors WERE happening when Obama was in office. The difference of course is that the Obama Administration was not purposefully adding more children to the mix, for no other reason that what seems to be punishment or spite. That doesn't excuse the abuses that went on (and to be sure, we are only finding out about alot of them now that the spotlight is on the issue), but it is also true that the new policy of the Trump Administration has made the problem orders of magnitude worse. If the meter was at a 50 before, Trump (with this policy and taking ICE completely off their leash) has raised it to about a 90.
There seems to have been little planning or effort to ensure kids would later be able to be put back with their parents. Unconscionable. There is more effort to track things made by parking meter readers. And this whole thing, besides being mean-spirited to show people running from gangs and murder "a lesson" seems to be a money making scheme. Charging the government 700$/night to sleep in tents and stuff.
The family separation policy is all Trump not Obama though surely there will always be abuses when the powerful are given nearly unchecked power over the powerless.
I don’t jump in very often, but I have to say that this 3D printing of guns is not a thing.
First:
Though many guns are made of lots of plastic, the barrel and the gun stock, which is considering by law the actual gun (in the US), are both made entirely of metal and must be machined to exact specs using a mechanic’s lathe or a machine. Making a gun stock out of plastic is possible, seeing as it’s literally just a square/rectangular block with holes drilled in it. But the entire gun, especially the stock and the barrel, which are always metal, needs to be capable of withstanding the force of a powerful explosion, even for low powered guns, like shotguns. This isn’t going to happen with any kind of 3d printing plastic. You might be able to fire off one shot, but it would destroy the gun. Besides, the ammunition and the housing of the ammo must always be metal, or it will explode, not fire. There is no way to make non-metal ammo housing.
Second:
Americans have been making guns in their homes for decades. You can buy every piece of a gun for most model guns online except for the gun stock. And you could just (illegally) machine that piece using a mechanics lathe—with downloadable plans that are online. But you never hear about any of the people that do this going on killing sprees, because that never happens. Trust me, if it happened even once, CNN would make it headline news for months and everyone who’s heard of Columbine would’ve heard of this.
Third:
3D printers, especially ones that would be capable of handling even moderately heavy plastics, are tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you’re afraid of the common man making making plastic guns in his basement, this is just not feasible. If you’re afraid of foreign terrorist doing this, no law we pass in the US is going to stop them. But they would be stupid terrorists, so we don’t have to worry about it.
Fourth:
If a criminal wanted a gun, he could just go buy one off the street for a grand instead of going through all this nonsense. Most violent crimes are crimes of passion, and such people do not have the ability to defer gratification to the point that they would do such complicated things when they can just go buy one illegally (or legally) or steal one from an acquaintance. Even premeditative criminals don’t use a homemade guns. Bombs, yes, but we’re not going to talk about outlawing Draino.
Conclusion.
Unless you wanted to spend a hundred grand on a non-detectable plastic gun that could only fire one detectable shot before shrooming out and becoming useless, when you could just buy a true and tested gun for a standard week’s pay, this is just not happening.
My opinion.
I believe this is just an excuse for the government to start meddling in the internet. The first thing they did was take down a website handing out plans. It is NOT the purview of the government to control public information.
I believe this is just an excuse for the government to start meddling in the internet. The first thing they did was take down a website handing out plans. It is NOT the purview of the government to control public information.
@mashedtaters I know very little about guns, but I'm not sure all of your statements are correct - for instance I believe fully plastic bullets have been available for decades. I agree though that a 3d printed gun and plastic ammunition would be much less lethal - and that given the easy availability of weapons in the US it is questionable how much additional danger such weapons would pose in reality. I can though understand the concerns that this technology could undermine gun control initiatives.
Trump's tweets against the Russia investigation were ramped up to a new level yesterday. Content included saying that the Attorney General should stop the investigation immediately and suggesting that Paul Manafort was being treated worse than Al Capone.
It seems to me that this is clear evidence of a criminal intention to obstruct the inquiry. Sanders' comment on this is that the tweet was not an order and only reflected the President's well-known opinion. However, given how often tweets have been used as a form of executive authority I don't think that's sufficient defense.
Even if the tweets were not found to constitute criminal obstruction though, they clearly show a desire to obstruct, which doesn't go down well with many politicians on all sides. So why is Trump doing it? I still can't see any plausible reason except that Trump knows he is guilty of something serious and wants to muddy the waters as far as possible before the investigation publishes information on him.
Just so. And ridiculously SHS went out there and said Trump's order to sessions to end the probe now was only like an opinion, man. Yeah when my boss says I should do something now it's a suggestion. Sure. Reality it's Trump saying "Will no one rid me of this meddling investigation?'
I didn't clarify why I included the reference to Manafort in my earlier post. His trial has just started, so for Trump to comment in the way he has is (at the least) inappropriate. In the UK this would certainly constitute contempt of court (that's a criminal offence defined in legislation and includes publishing anything that creates a substantial risk of seriously prejudicing active criminal proceedings). It would be a resignation matter for a prominent politician to comment in this way and a serious or repeat offender would be prosecuted (and people are jailed for this offence). There is a specific exemption against contempt proceedings for people speaking in Parliament and there have been a number of cases over the years where this has been relied upon by MPs making inflammatory statements - that privilege though would not protect them when publishing information outside Parliament.
I've done a quick check to confirm that contempt of court also exists in the US legal system, though the basis for enforcing that seems to be somewhat different. The US law around contempt can be found here.
I've not gone through everything, but it does look to me like there is a clear case even in the US system. I wouldn't suggest making an immediate prosecution though, as that requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the person making a statement knew or should have known that it constituted contempt. However, the trial judge in the Manafort case would be entirely justified in ordering Trump not to make further statements that could prejudice the case. If he then did so, criminal proceedings should follow.
Rubber bullets have been available for many years—this is obviously undetectable by metal detectors. But the housing for ammunition must be metal (usually brass). There really isn’t any material other than metal that can withstand the combination of brief, repetitive intense heat, pressure, and explosive force, followed by sudden cooling, while still having the physical capacity to reliably direct an object in a specific direction and away from the user. Also, even “fully” plastic guns still must have a metal barrel and gun stock. Same reason.
It is my opinion that your second point is irrelevent. The government released the Pentagon papers, but that doesn’t mean they later have a right to try to restrict the public’s access to it.
If you don’t know too much about guns, I highly recommend you talk to your local NRA chapter and take some classes. Even if you are anti-gun, the information you learn from those classes will better arm you when advocating for stricter gun control. I’m not an NRA member and I don’t own a gun, but I’ve taken classes. If you do so, one thing you will notice is how absolutely stupid the government is when it comes to writing gun laws. They never make any sense and are most often self-defeating, which of course makes the term “common sense gun laws” frivolous and annoying to my gun-owner friends.
@mashedtaters a quick search on the internet provides multiple sources for plastic casings for ammunition, e.g. here.
On the point about the government that's an issue of definition. Most of the time when people refer to the government they mean the executive (as opposed to all 3 branches of executive, judicial and legislative) and and I assumed that was what you meant. One responsibility of the judicial system is to enforce the constitution and often that means balancing different factors within that. The constitution certainly mandates free access to information, but it also mandates many other things that free access to information may conflict with (such as national security for instance). It is the role of the courts to consider how to weigh such conflicts.
I live in the UK, but wouldn't be interested in gun classes even if I were in the US . As for legislation it's pretty clear that for many years there have been attempts to sabotage "common sense" gun laws. That can be done for instance by amending what could have been short and simple legislation to make it long and complex - to the point that it eventually becomes worse than useless even if it is passed. I posted recently on an analogous situation in relation to taxation, where laws can get amended by special interests to a point where they fail to meet their original objectives.
@Grond0 Wow, I stand corrected. After nearly 3/4 of a century trying, the free market found a way to make plastic housing for five types bullets (maybe more!) 6 years ago. Amazing.
The manufacturer appears to indicate that these are not reuse housings, so you would still be unable to make the barrel or gun stock with it, but hey, with the free market, anything is possible.
But the original point stands: this is not happening for 3D printing. If you know anything about plastics, then you know there is no way that anyone could make this in even the most expensive, hi-tech 3d printer. My guess is the manufacturing process for these is so expensive as to be nearly prohibitive. The price of those bullet housings seem to indicate such.
Edit: but then again, with the free market maybe this will be a thing in another 75 years. That would be really cool.
The cost of something should never be an arguement do or not do something. Prices fluctuate especially with technology and usually downward. When price becomes more reasonable and a governering body does want to restrict the use of the technology for any reason, the arguement always becomes, “This has been available for years? Why restrict it now? What happens to those who legally obtained it before this restriction?” It’s a larger can of worms. I am glad this discussion is happening instead of 20 years from now after either some of these plastic guns have exploded on their owners, or have been used in a crime.
However, the trial judge in the Manafort case would be entirely justified in ordering Trump not to make further statements that could prejudice the case. If he then did so, criminal proceedings should follow.
Trump has placed himself above the law. His lawyers regularly argue that he can't be charged with criminal charges for crimes he commits while President. It appears this is correct and a huge loophole that people who wrote our Constitution assumed that the President wouldn't intentionally commit criminal acts as President like Trump does. The remedy for this behavior is impeachment but the Republican controlled Congress is not interested in acting as a check to criminal behavior of President Trump.
Additionally, the judge in the Manafort case appears to be kind of a loose cannon lunatic who should not be a judge. Described as no-nonsense this idiot judge has been doing all he can to help the defense. In the beginning he blasted Muellers team because he said their intentions was to get to Trump and he could not stand for that. Judges aren't supposed to guess intentions. Since the trial started he has admonished Muellers team to not use the term oligarch and not let them show pictures of the things Manafort has bought will his illegal income.
Comments
When he says this crap he is dividing us. His constant theme is don't trust each other, don't trust your neighbors, don't trust your eyes and ears, only trust my lies.
"Only I can tell you the truth don't believe the lying press.
The Hollywood elites and librul media are the enemies of the people.
Democrats want crime.
Mexicans are rapists."
He is dividing us. He is your monster, right now.
1) most criminals--most people in general--do not have access to a 3-D printer because of the price
2) terrorists will just buy black market weapons, which is cheaper, faster, and probably more reliable
3) by now, Defense Distributed is not the only website through which weapon design files may be downloaded--I have no doubt that a dozen other sites are hosting the files for download, which means the judge is going to have to amend his order to include those sites, prompting people to open up even more sites for hosting the files. The genie is out of the bottle, judge, and it doesn't feel like going back inside.
4) possessing a nonmetallic firearm with no serial numbers or registration is already a Federal crime
Defense Distributed will likely appeal but I am uncertain they will succeed. As with all technology, the price of 3D printers will eventually fall to the point where regular people may choose to purchase one and I doubt anyone wants to see people manufacturing guns in their garage every weekend.
And as you mentioned there's issue with people that shouldn't have guns or have been forbidden from owning guns easily being able to print them. It would be a nice thing if 3D printing got cheaper and more common but if people are going to use their printers for 3D printing of guns then the thing will carry negative connotations.
A good use of 3d printing is 3d printed houses there's a startup in San Francisco that specializes in that and can print a whole house for under $10k. The Netherlands also is printing habitable 3D houses. I've also seen 3d printing of missing limbs.
What happened to the left-libertarians? That's probably not at all the right term to use but it's what I call them. Maybe it's a perception thing and it has always been this way, but the left of the modern day looks nothing like the left I remember from when I first became interested in politics; the Bush (jr) era days, when the left was skeptical of giant unaccountable institutions, the left that once generally promoted freedom on social matters and is now bordering on the tyrannical, the left that could have a conversation with you without implying you are evil, or racist, or both. I identified with that sort of political philosophy. I do not identify with what I see today.
I remember the rhetoric and attitude of the anti war movement that grew out of our invasions into Iraq, and the lies the intelligence agencies told in order to manipulate us into that particular war. People like Dennis Kuchinich and Glenn Greenwald weren't afraid to try to hold these institutions to account. Wikileaks was a heroic source of truth and not a subversive foreign puppet. Nowadays, expressing the sentiment that the word of the CIA and FBI isn't the Word of God is controversial at best, despite their history. This served a healthy social function as any powerful institution with no skepticism or accountability levied on it grows self serving, unfit for purpose, and, in the case of something like an intelligence agency, dangerous. More importantly, they were entirely correct.
https://www.salon.com/2015/05/20/george_w_bushs_cia_briefer_admits_iraq_wmd_intelligence_was_a_lie/
https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq-2015-3
This poll basically says it all about how attitudes in American politics change according to the political whims of the moment, on all sides. What's dangerous however is how skepticism has been vastly diminished from left wing attitudes in the U.S, reflecting increasing partisanship and the lack of common ground. In that same poll, it was found that less than 25% of democrats want to wait and see what the evidence says before assuming wrongdoing on the part of the president, compared to the 73% who assume as much. On the flipside, 42% of Trump supporters wanted to wait for evidence before making conclusions, compared to 49% who want to defend Trump.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-wary-of-trump-tariffs-impact-but-support-plan-to-aid-farmers-cbs-poll/
Also, contrary to @jjstraka34's poll, this one finds only 7% of Republicans and 5% of Democrats would be okay with election interference if it helped their own party.
The left is also far to obsessed with silencing and punishing ordinary people these days. I was utterly disgusted at their repeated meme of "punch a nazi" last year. Not because I have love for Nazis. Not because I think advocating for actual genocide or any physical harm for that matter has a free speech right to exist. But because they were and are using that term as a pejorative for anyone they don't like. The person being punched can't be called a nazi in any intellectually honest sense of the word, even if his actual beliefs are fringe and repugnant. Because violence is not how you change someones mind. Because if you are willing to use violence or excuse it you are only planting the seeds for more of it. Because violence should be a last resort in self defense and not as a tool to make someone submit. Etc. Etc. And it's like every other day you hear of some right wing politician getting chased out of somewhere in a city or harassed or threatened. Sarah Huckabee. Kirstjen Nielson. Ivanka. Milo. You almost never hear of it happening on the flipside. I don't recall it ever happening to anyone in the Obama era but please correct me if I am wrong.
And it's not like they don't encourage it, either. The left has stopped arguing in many cases. Bring up a topic or position deemed offensive and a squad of left wing extremists will simply try to destroy your employment and life and, if they can't do that, will try to unperson you to try to make your life unlivable. Articles will be written in their favorite sites about what a heroic act it is. These kind just want to hurt you for disagreeing, and ensure their ideological hegemony endures through fear if nothing else. This attempt at a climate of fear isn't healthy for a free society and seems to be only getting worse. It should not be encouraged nor justified. Yet it is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/26/chasing-white-house-officials-out-of-restaurants-is-the-right-thing-to-do/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a83ac6a401aa
But 3D printing of firearms is the exact opposite of what the U.S police need right now, their track record and reputation being what it is. I would support a full on ban of that practice, personally.
I know one company here in the United States is threeprinting houses out of concrete; this is both faster and less costly than traditional house building methods. I believe someone on the last page mentioned low-cost housing--this is the method of attaining that goal.
I agree with @WarChiefZeke that threeprinting has too many positive uses. Maybe if I were a sculptor--is designing something on a computer then threeprinting it "sculpting"? *shrug*--or running a small manufacturing business I could see getting one, but for right now I don't have a use for one.
However, I wish people would stop referring to them as "leftists". If you want to hear the opinions of actual leftists, go check out the World Socialist Website. Here it is. The actual left certainly hates the right-wing, but they are not exactly fond of smug, grossly privileged liberals.
This is exactly why I've tried to discourage people from making generalizations about the "other side." This is exactly why it's so important to focus on what is right rather than who is right.
Two people’s views on what is considered right can be on the opposite end of each other, for example abortion. Both pro choice and pro life make compelling, and equally important stances.
For instance, I was called by what I am positive was the Heidi Heitkamp campaign last week to take a survey. I could tell immediately that they were trying to find out whether she should vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation or not, and I tailored my answers to let them know that I was definitely in favor of her voting no. And if they had asked me to provide a running commentary at the end, or give advice, I would have told them that the people who care about Kavanaugh getting confirmed aren't going to vote for her anyway. That is a generalization, but I also believe it's correct in the macro sense.
In therms of gun ownership, Switzerland is the safest place in Europe and have the higher gun ownership. In Latin America, Uruguay have the highest gun ownership and is the most peaceful country while Brazil and Mexico who had insanely strict gun controls are extremely violent.
Imagine that. An internet forum that attempts to hold itself to a higher standard of political discourse than the President of the United States of America.
3D printed guns could be printed all over the world once the plans are online. Terrorists could use them some extremist countries are swimming in cash. It won't just be a US problem. I appreciate the discussion Zeke while not agreeing on every point.
Dems were skeptical about the CIA and Bush administrations claims about WMDs but by and large went along because we had been attacked (by Afghanistan via Saudi Arabia but we attacked Iraq huh?). Those wmd claims were bogus but the FBI is not always wrong and again it was mainly CIA and Bush officials like John bolton lying here.
Milo is a horrible person who preaches hate his toxicity should not be welcomed. Sanders lies and spins and repeats Trump's outrageous lies. This person should not be welcomed either. Nielson resided over the needless orphaning of hundreds of children and is in charge of the people who have raped immigrant children and forced psychoactive drugs into them. A little uncomfortability at her dinner is less than she deserves since her own moral code seems to not be working. Why didn't this happen under Obama? Because Obama officials did not do this shit. Worst they did? Killed too many people in drone strikes. At least they kept their atrocities on the downlow instead of rubbing it in our faces.
The family separation policy is all Trump not Obama though surely there will always be abuses when the powerful are given nearly unchecked power over the powerless.
Homemade .50 bmg
Homemade shotguns
Homemade armored vehicle
First:
Second:
Third:
Fourth:
Conclusion.
My opinion.
As for government meddling, the administration had reached an agreement with Defense Distributed to publish gun blueprints. In the 3 days before judges ordered the material to be taken off the web more than 1,000 people had downloaded instructions for building an AR-15 rifle.
It seems to me that this is clear evidence of a criminal intention to obstruct the inquiry. Sanders' comment on this is that the tweet was not an order and only reflected the President's well-known opinion. However, given how often tweets have been used as a form of executive authority I don't think that's sufficient defense.
Even if the tweets were not found to constitute criminal obstruction though, they clearly show a desire to obstruct, which doesn't go down well with many politicians on all sides. So why is Trump doing it? I still can't see any plausible reason except that Trump knows he is guilty of something serious and wants to muddy the waters as far as possible before the investigation publishes information on him.
I've done a quick check to confirm that contempt of court also exists in the US legal system, though the basis for enforcing that seems to be somewhat different. The US law around contempt can be found here.
I've not gone through everything, but it does look to me like there is a clear case even in the US system. I wouldn't suggest making an immediate prosecution though, as that requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the person making a statement knew or should have known that it constituted contempt. However, the trial judge in the Manafort case would be entirely justified in ordering Trump not to make further statements that could prejudice the case. If he then did so, criminal proceedings should follow.
Rubber bullets have been available for many years—this is obviously undetectable by metal detectors. But the housing for ammunition must be metal (usually brass). There really isn’t any material other than metal that can withstand the combination of brief, repetitive intense heat, pressure, and explosive force, followed by sudden cooling, while still having the physical capacity to reliably direct an object in a specific direction and away from the user. Also, even “fully” plastic guns still must have a metal barrel and gun stock. Same reason.
It is my opinion that your second point is irrelevent. The government released the Pentagon papers, but that doesn’t mean they later have a right to try to restrict the public’s access to it.
If you don’t know too much about guns, I highly recommend you talk to your local NRA chapter and take some classes. Even if you are anti-gun, the information you learn from those classes will better arm you when advocating for stricter gun control.
On the point about the government that's an issue of definition. Most of the time when people refer to the government they mean the executive (as opposed to all 3 branches of executive, judicial and legislative) and and I assumed that was what you meant. One responsibility of the judicial system is to enforce the constitution and often that means balancing different factors within that. The constitution certainly mandates free access to information, but it also mandates many other things that free access to information may conflict with (such as national security for instance). It is the role of the courts to consider how to weigh such conflicts.
I live in the UK, but wouldn't be interested in gun classes even if I were in the US
Wow, I stand corrected. After nearly 3/4 of a century trying, the free market found a way to make plastic housing for five types bullets (maybe more!) 6 years ago. Amazing.
The manufacturer appears to indicate that these are not reuse housings, so you would still be unable to make the barrel or gun stock with it, but hey, with the free market, anything is possible.
But the original point stands: this is not happening for 3D printing. If you know anything about plastics, then you know there is no way that anyone could make this in even the most expensive, hi-tech 3d printer. My guess is the manufacturing process for these is so expensive as to be nearly prohibitive. The price of those bullet housings seem to indicate such.
Edit: but then again, with the free market maybe this will be a thing in another 75 years. That would be really cool.
Modern caseless ammunition (not musket balls and gunpowder) has also been a thing for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition
Containing the force of these munitions is far beyond any consumer-level plastic printing tech but who knows what the future will bring?
When price becomes more reasonable and a governering body does want to restrict the use of the technology for any reason, the arguement always becomes, “This has been available for years? Why restrict it now? What happens to those who legally obtained it before this restriction?”
It’s a larger can of worms. I am glad this discussion is happening instead of 20 years from now after either some of these plastic guns have exploded on their owners, or have been used in a crime.
Additionally, the judge in the Manafort case appears to be kind of a loose cannon lunatic who should not be a judge. Described as no-nonsense this idiot judge has been doing all he can to help the defense. In the beginning he blasted Muellers team because he said their intentions was to get to Trump and he could not stand for that. Judges aren't supposed to guess intentions. Since the trial started he has admonished Muellers team to not use the term oligarch and not let them show pictures of the things Manafort has bought will his illegal income.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ts-ellis-paul-manafort-judge-trial-russia-collusion-donald-trump-campaign-chairman-a8473411.html