With 3D Printer Gun Files, National Security Interest Trumps Free Speech, Court Rules (arstechnica.com) 438
A federal appeals court ruled this week against Defense Distributed, the Texas organization that promotes 3D-printed guns, in a lawsuit that it brought last year against the State Department. In a 2-1 decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was not persuaded that Defense Distributed's right to free speech under the First Amendment outweighs national security concerns. From an ArsTechnica report: The majority concluded: '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.'
Asinine. (Score:4, Insightful)
They act as if these are nuclear or biological weapons. There is no compelling interest in keeping plans for primitive 3D printed guns away from anyway, and there is no possible argument that there is.
Re:Asinine. (Score:4, Informative)
In the 90's the feds viewed the PGP source code as a possible violation of the Arms Export Control Act as the feds had long viewed encryption tech as a munition, so this is nothing new. There is an easy solution though: https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
People were printing crypto algos on t-shirts back in the 1990s to fight ITAR classifying crypto as a weapon.
I didn't know about this. So Defence Distributed just needs to publish books with all 3d schematics .. maybe also a ton of individually scaleable QR codes that represent the actual files.
Re:Asinine. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Asinine. (Score:5, Insightful)
Banning books...?
The US government has grown ever more authoritarian and has violated ever more Constitutional limits and civil rights over the last century and has grown ever bolder. Many here have even cheered on government violations of civil rights and limits to government power when it fits their political/ideological agendas. I've warned against this sort of thing for years and was flamed and ignored because for far too many people including many here, the ends justify the means.
With all the support they've received from the public for violating other civil rights and limits to their power for political/ideological goals, are you really shocked or surprised they would violate the 1st Amendment?
If you allow them the power to "reinterpret" one thing, they can and will use the same powers, methods, and tactics to reinterpret anything else they want.
As far as Defense Distributed's 3D printer files, just strip the files of anything tying them to anyone and upload them to torrent sites across the internet. Let them waste time & resources on playing 'whack-a-mole'.
Strat
Re:Asinine. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the US's slide down the slippery slope picking up speed.
Good god I never thought the militias would sound saner than the government....
Re:Asinine. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm curious how this comes into play at all.
It is NOT against the law to manufacture your own guns. There is even a market out there that helps you do this for conventional rifles and pistols, where they sell you the lower (the only part of a gun officially recognized as a gun by the US Feds) that is 80% complete.
They will also sell you a jig, that you can used with a drill press to finish the last 20% of the lower, and then, you have a perfectly legal, lower with NO serial number, no record of sale and you can buy all the parts you want to make it into a working gun.
This is 100% legal...you just cannot resell it.
Why would selling code to "print" a gun be any different than this?
I would think this precedent would be a valuable argument on this situation too.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you probably can sell legally sell it, but right now it's worth the risk. It all has to do with intention and protocol, but since that's always open to interpretation, it's probably not worth doing.
As long as you create a firearm with the intention of owning and not selling it, then you are not violating the law. That means that one day you might decide that you should sell that firearm. As long as you follow all the firearm transfer laws properly, then nowhere along the way have you broken any la
Re:Asinine. (Score:4, Insightful)
They act as if these are nuclear or biological weapons. There is no compelling interest in keeping plans for primitive 3D printed guns away from anyway, and there is no possible argument that there is.
Exactly. One can't help think there is a hidden agenda here of allowing the government better control of DOMESTIC gun possession. I certainly hope the Supreme Court reviews this case. This represents a huge blow for First Amendment rights, and seems at odds with previous rulings pertaining to source code of encryption software being ruled free speech despite ITAR regulations controlling the export of cryptography.
Re:Asinine. (Score:4, Insightful)
Predicted response: "Won't someone think of the children! Guns kill people, encryption doesn't!"
Alas when it comes to proponents of gun control, you don't often encounter honest or thoughtful people. They have a single goal in mind and ignore all of the existing regulation on the books today.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am against current US gun policy and think the 2nd amendment is insane.
That being said, I'm against this ruling. Source code and schematics are free speech. This ruling makes no sense from a legal perspective.
I do think America should register guns, permits should be issued and databases should be searchable and indexable. Currently the only thing the absence of gun registration in the US does is make it more difficult to track crime.
Guns aren't speech. If you like guns, fine. That's great. Go buy a gun,
Re:Asinine. (Score:4, Interesting)
Their gun laws post-Hobart shootings have greatly reduced the number of suicides.
I'm not sure what's more odd or ridiculous about your post:
That you think Australia's gun control laws were a significant factor in lowering its suicide rate, or that you think most people care about suicide in the first place.
Re: Asinine. (Score:3, Insightful)
So right about source code and so wrong about everything else. The only thing a gun database accomplishes is a ready made list of who to go after if things get bad. Make it searchable and you have a ready made list of who owns expensive firearms to rob, and of course who DOESN'T own firearms because they're even better to rob.
As to Australia, that's a tragedy and loss of freedom of epic proportions and I'm saddened to even think about what happened there with mass gun confiscation and destruction, though
Re:Asinine. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, let's just ignore that Australia used their registration database to confiscate their firearms.
Fuck your mother. [thefederalist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I got my CCW permit in Colorado in 2012, and didn't have to take ANY kind of test. All I had to do was sit through a presentation, at least half of which was an infomercial for a prepaid lawyer plan. The guy also kept reminding us "You have until November to buy all the guns you'll need for the rest of your life."
A range session was an extra-cost option.
Re: (Score:3)
America is on a road to totalitarian bullshit after dismantling public education to stop people from questioning the almighty and all-knowing Government Big Brother....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Asinine. (Score:4, Insightful)
How far you willing to carry that? Some old lady had her double barrel shotgun stolen by a couple thugs, they cut it down to fit under a coat, kill a man, rape his girlfriend, and then burn down the house in the hope to hide the crime. Now you have granny on death row for murder, rape, arson, and an unregistered short barreled shotgun. Good job there, Tex. That will teach the thugs that got away. See granny didn't get their names. Can't prove she didn't sell it to them. So what if she filed a police report of the theft, that's another crime of filing a false report.
Another outcome. No one sells a gun any more. They sell scrap metal pieces, 3D printers, and a small computer loaded with the files to make a gun. The guns won't have serial numbers because someone along the line left out that little piece of code to print the number on the barrel. OOPSIE! Now instead of a couple dozen firearm manufacturers which are watched over like hawks there are now millions of people making their own guns in spare bedrooms, garages, and basements. Perhaps a few of them just "forgot" that they aren't supposed to sell these firearms without a serial number and registering the sale with the local sheriff.
The first scenario is not likely to every happen because that means so many things have gone wrong with our legal system. We've been looking at the gun instead of the criminal. The second scenario is nearly inevitable. People like the idea of do it yourself. It's become a kind of lifestyle of people building their own furniture, growing their own food, making their own clothes. It's a small leap from that to making their own firearms, especially if that same device that prints the firearm can print things like faucets, teacups, and kitchen utensils
Have you learned nothing from the "war on some drugs", or the "war on poverty", or the "war on bootleggers". All of them failed. If you declare a war on the gun trade then it will fail just like the wars on everything else. We didn't get less from these wars, we got more.
Re: (Score:3)
Your understanding of physics is astonishingly bad.
The only reason a bullet needs to go that fast is because the mass is so small. F = m * a
Nobody needs to propel a bat at 500 mph, and in fact it would probably break apart if you did. Who's a fucking moron again?
Re: (Score:3)
Instant background check or suddenly it's a 6 month wait for the check.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I say, make guns like driving, but on a "shall issue" permit requiring a reasonable proficiency test.
And you can purchase any car that you can afford, transport it anywhere in public without needing a license unless you use another car to transport it (realistically, pulling an F1 race car on a trailer by hand is ludicrous, but the law doesn't restrict it), and you can drive that car on private property without needing a license, insurance, registration of the vehicle, or any of the safety requirements for a car operated on public streets. Apply the same 'restrictions' to firearms, and watch the gun-contro
Re: (Score:3)
3D printers make gun control legislation pointless. Unless you also ban 3D printers, you can't stop anyone from getting a gun. Rather than trying to fight the inevitable we should work to create a society where no one has
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Alas when it comes to the subject of guns, you don't often encounter honest or thoughtful people. They all have a single goal in mind and ignore all of the existing regulation on the books today.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It was The Progressive [wikipedia.org], in 1979, and it was thermonuclear bombs, not atomic. (there is no secret to be kept, quoted in 1945. Everyone already know how to build a Uranium bomb, so much so that it wasn't worth testing.) And it wasn't a complete guide, but more of a "these are the mountainous engineering challenges you need to solve". Since communist spies had already lifted far better materials, I don't think the magazine actually helped anyone except curious American nerds.
Full issue in PDF available her [progressive.org]
Re:Asinine. (Score:4)
Nobody has come for your guns. You are literally Chicken Little.
Well, actually, no, he is not. If this survives a SCOTUS challenge, it opens the door for legislatures to criminalizing possession of blueprints (of guns) without a license.
Re: (Score:3)
nobody is trying to take away your guns
Quite a few Democratic politicians have firmly stated that they want to confiscate guns, including Hillary (look upthread for citations). They're pretty open that they just want common sense gun confiscation laws, often mentioning how wonderful that was in Australia.
Totalitarians realize the necessity of disarming the populace before they can fully impose their will on the people.
Re: (Score:3)
So you move the goalpost from "no one will try" to "no one has tried", but that's still quite wrong. Hawaii, New York, Missouri, Virginia, New Jersey, Oregon, and of course California all proposed gun confiscation legislature, as well as Feinstein pushing it at the federal level, and that just in 2013.
Politicians try all the time.
Or did you mean "no one has sent troops to do it"? Or did you mean "I'm just making up bullshit because I'm a troll"? Cause I'm pretty sure it's that last one.
Re: (Score:3)
long story short, you wrong!
Re:Asinine. (Score:5, Informative)
You mean other than in California [washingtontimes.com] where the State can confiscate your firearms on an anonymous "tip" that you are a danger. And it can do it without warning, and does not have to return the firearms until you can prove that you are not a danger.
Oh and they have criminalized possession of magazines that were previously legal [cbslocal.com], meaning if you did not turn them in to the police on-time, then you run the risk of losing all your firearms - permanently (convicted of a gun violation = automatic, lifetime loss of firearm privileges in CA).
But other than that, yeah - no one's coming for your guns...
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody has tried to take away your guns. Stop.
It doesn't matter what they have tried to do in the past. It's a fact that many politicians have stated that they would like to confiscate guns. That they haven't done it yet only means that they think it would be political suicide at this point. I'm surprised you haven't made this tiny logical step.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There was a Democratic president and Democrats held both houses of Congress in 2008. Nobody took your guns.
There are more guns in private hands than ever. Get over the fact that you've been snookered by the gun lobby.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You are a disingenuous lying scumbag if you think the end goal of most progressive/liberal/democrats wouldn't be a ban on purchase or possession of all semi-automatic weapons.
Now now, to be fair, he'd only be a disingenuous lying scumbag if he thought they WOULD take the guns and was SAYING they wouldn't in an attempt to mislead you. If he does actually think "...the end goal... wouldn't be a ban..." then you should claim he is mistaken... or to use your vernacular "a pathetic ignorant scumbag" perhaps.
Personally, I agree with him. I'm a liberal and so are most of my friends. And none of us want to outright ban/collect legally owned guns.
Re:Asinine. (Score:5, Informative)
You may not, but the problem is that too many of the politicians you vote for do. HRC is on record many times this campaign saying she wants to see the "Australian model" implemented in the US. That means forced confiscation of all personally owned firearms under the guise of "buybacks." The buybacks are mandatory, and you go to prison is you don't comply.
Here's a list of politicians talking about confiscating guns, just from a short period in 2013:
Hawaii legislature proposes gun confiscation
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/... [hawaiireporter.com]
New York Assemblyman asks colleague not to mention that original proposed SAFE Act included confiscation
http://www.breitbart.com/Breit... [breitbart.com]
Missouri Democrats introduce legislation to confiscate guns
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-... [foxnews.com]
VA has veterans who cannot manage their own financial affairs declared prohibited persons unable to own firearms
http://www.humanevents.com/201... [humanevents.com]
NJ State Senator "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate confiscate confiscate."
http://www.politickernj.com/ba... [politickernj.com]
Oregon Legislator calls fears of gun confiscation a "paranoid delusion" and then states he is in favor of gun confiscation
http://www.examiner.com/articl... [examiner.com]
Governor Cuomo says, "confiscation could be an option."
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
Feinstein suggests "compulsory buyback."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/... [washingtonexaminer.com]
CA assembly proposes confiscating 166,000 legally registered guns.
http://www.mercurynews.com/bre... [mercurynews.com]
And the classic from 1995:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Do you notice any common political party among the people calling for confiscation?
Re: (Score:3)
I clicked on a bunch of your links (the youtube has suffered a takedown, btw) and almost all of those are re: assault weapons and high capacity weapons/magazines. I'm not surprised people get more upset about those when they really are overkill for any hunter worth their salt (and yes, I've hunted with bows and arrows as well as rifles... never saw th
Re:Asinine. (Score:5, Insightful)
I clicked on a bunch of your links (the youtube has suffered a takedown, btw) and almost all of those are re: assault weapons and high capacity weapons/magazines. I'm not surprised people get more upset about those when they really are overkill for any hunter worth their salt (and yes, I've hunted with bows and arrows as well as rifles... never saw the need for semi-automatics).
If you think the Second Amendment is about hunting ducks and deer then you've missed the whole point.
I tend to favor letting people own them, but I also favor registering them and having robust training and licensing. The NRA seems to want unlimited rights with no regulations, precautions or monitoring, apparently.
We just saw a court rule that a computer file can be banned because it describes how to build a single shot pistol. I'd think that might wake you up that perhaps the NRA isn't just paranoid here. They didn't rule that the files could only be available domestically, or just to people licensed and trained in firearm use, or both. They ruled the files themselves were banned from distribution.
This is quite simply a weapons ban, and the weapon is a computer file. Words are weapons here, according to them. They seem to fear foreign nationals might be able to build these single shot weapons to... do what exactly? Invade the USA? They are already smuggling in machine guns so that makes no sense. Especially when the machine guns that they smuggle into the USA were sold to them by the US government.
The governemnt don't want to disarm these foreign nationals, they are already arming them. They don't want me and you armed is all. If it wasn't about disarming Americans then they'd have said the files need to be sent to people with a US address, proper training, and registration. They didn't say that, they said the files cannot be shared.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think the Second Amendment is only to ensure the public is sufficiently armed to take down the government,
That is one reason. The Second Amendment is also there to make sure people can protect themselves from criminals, animals, zombies, or whatever. The purpose is so the government cannot leave people defenseless from whatever potential harm may come their way. That harm includes government action but is by no means limited to it.
The case that is the subject of TFA is far far far from over.
Whether that is true or not is, IMHO, irrelevant. We just had 2 out of 3 judges rule that the 1st and 2nd Amendments to our Bill of Rights can be suspended because... TERRORISTS!
H
Re: (Score:3)
While citizens do not have access to the same class of weaponry as the state, we out number them.
There are 300,000,000 gun in private hands.
Compared to the whole of the US military and civilian law enforcement which comes to just under 3,000,000.
If 3% of the adult population stands up and says we will not give up our guns then we outnumber the government almost 3 to 1.
Thought I think they would have an issue collecting the guns from the 25,000,000 people in Texas.
Before someone says "They will just bring in
Re: (Score:2)
Many things would be less asinine if our government didn't operate from positions of fear and/or paranoia.
Our government fears the people, yet there is still tyranny. Jefferson would be perplexed and outraged.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree completely. Primitive simple weapons are the only dangerous ones. Who cares if technical documents for a hundred billion dollar rocket that takes a team of 500 scientists and engineers to produce and will break down in 5 minutes without a staff of the mostly highly skilled operators and maintainers running 24/7. Now give out technical specifications some naked jungle man can actually use to upgrade his pointy stick to a AK47 and you have something that is actually going to make a difference to na
Re: (Score:2)
There is no compelling interest in keeping plans for primitive 3D printed guns away from anyway, and there is no possible argument that there is.
My read is that the argument is a "slippery slope" one. The lawsuit was intentionally filed with the aim of setting a legal precedent that could potentially apply to other, less primitive weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
How about keeping them out of the hands of convicted felons who lost the right to have a firearm? Will the weak controls in place, anything is an improvement.
With the weak controls in place and millions of black market guns out there, restricting 3D gun models will have *no* effect. The felon that wants a gun will just buy one from an acquaintance. The only risk he faces is being found in possession of one, and a 3D printed gun carries the same risk.
Re: (Score:2)
How about forbidding using the words "Allah" and "jihad" on the internet? After all, some sites that encourage terrorism and actually publish instructions to make bombs use such terms.
Better to be safe than sorry in a corner case - it's just the First (and, in this case, the Second) Amendment. That's a very small part of the United States Constitution so such limitations are nothing to be concerned about.
Re: (Score:2)
Publish a f-ing book already. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is nothing new, Philip Zimmermann was receiving similar threats during the first crypto-war so published the source code of PGP in a book (https://www.amazon.com/PGP-Internals-Philip-R-Zimmermann/dp/0262240394/) and more or less dared the feds to ban a book.
He won.
(this is the short version).
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. What, if anything, prevents Defense Distributed from also using this tactic to distribute the CAD designs for their 3D printed gun?
I know there is the matter of the government cracking down on "with a computer" actions but if the goal is to distribute information as freely as possible then I'd think that all means of communication should be utilized. Use the internet, print, semaphore, whatever.
Send it to the NRA and see if they'll print it in one of their magazines.
Have they never heard of Phil Zimmerman? (Score:4, Insightful)
Print the code for the lower receiver in a book.
Re: (Score:3)
It is an unfortunate thing that basically no one involved in the second crypto-war has any memory or even knowledge of the first.
Interests (Score:2)
because the State Department has asserted a very strong public interest in national defense and national security
It's nice when people express an interest in my life, but when they start demanding information it gets creepy, and when they start using it as a justification for violating my rights it has become abusive.
HFS, what is happening with our country? (Score:2)
Improvised firearms are simple to make with little skill, see the Royal Nonesuch YouTube channel for proof.
The blueprints for the Colt AR-15 have been available on the internet for years, it's just that taking those and producing an actual firearm has been difficult.
I'm not so sure it's about the proliferation of firearms as much as it is an effort to control our society by denying them access to information. It has been proven time and again that ne'er do wells *DO* obtain firearms illegally.
Re: (Score:3)
"That's only because the gun control laws in neighboring states are too lax" - Typical response from control proponent regarding Chicago, New York, DC, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Improvised firearms are simple to make with little skill, see the Royal Nonesuch YouTube channel for proof.
The blueprints for the Colt AR-15 have been available on the internet for years, it's just that taking those and producing an actual firearm has been difficult.
I'm not so sure it's about the proliferation of firearms as much as it is an effort to control our society by denying them access to information. It has been proven time and again that ne'er do wells *DO* obtain firearms illegally.
During world war 2 plans for sten guns (submachine guns) were dropped to resistance groups behind enemy lines. They were incredibly easy to build, even without 3d printers and CNC rigs.
"Activist" judges? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those people who are always worrying about "activist" judges should look at this case.
It appears to me that the court has used a completely made-up "national security exception" to override a clear constitutional right.
um... isn't this covered (Score:2)
You can argue that point, you can even argue that I should be able to shout fire in that theater. But it's not fair to call the judge "activist" or declare the issue settled. In fact
Re: (Score:2)
Let me suggest that you do a little more reading about the "shouting fire in a theatre" claim, since this is not as settled as many people think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I am not sure that *this* judge is an activist judge, so much as he is relying on other activist rulings.
And just because it is settled does not mean that it is right. At one time, it was settled knowledge that the sun orbits the earth. "settled" in this context merely means "current situation".
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Second Amendment defenders not paranoid (Score:2)
The government really is out to get them, by any means including corrupting the rule of law to do so.
Banning means of obtaining personal weapons (like the one used to stop Minnesota Stabby) is clearly not a national security issue, indeed the prevention of means to allow law abiding citizens to acquire guns is far more clearly against the interests of the people - fewer guns mean more rapes, mean more crime, mean more violence against the weak and elderly.
So we see from this ruling that "national security"
Google to get several versions in seconds... (Score:3)
These files are in the open. The are publicly available to anyone who wants to look. I found several in minutes.
This ITAR issue is prior restraint...trying to put the genie back into the bottle. It reminds me of the silliness in trying to get people with security clearances to not read the Snowden files.
It is public record. Subjecting it to ITAR at this point simply makes it glaringly clear just how incompatible ITAR is with Constitutional principles.
Complying doesn't prevent distribution within US (Score:3)
Yes it is ridiculous, but it is also trivial to comply and legally make those plans available to 300 million Americans. Just label the files with the appropriate export control warnings and have down-loaders agree to the restrictions via the type of click through legal agreement that many software downloads have.
We went through this with encryption software and even web browsers that supported https... ITAR could have broken the Internet except people figured out how to comply and in their compliance show
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The what Department? (Score:5, Informative)
Here I was thinking that national defense was the purview of a different department... The name escapes me at the moment.
Fix the real problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what does a "tracked" weapon get us?
terrorist or armed robber can't use a "tracked" weapon? whackjob can't shoot up a schoolyard with his mother's "tracked" weapon?
My guns were purchased in 1980s and early 1990s. The serial numbers on the record of sale were then kept in file cabinet at the gun store as per state law...but those gun stores aren't around any more. In theory those stores should have turned over those records to the state police and maybe that's what happened. Wonder what cheap paper with
No rights for Americans because other people? (Score:2)
what does 3D printing get a terrorist? (Score:2)
If a terrorist was going to bother to make a gun, why wouldn't they use 150 year old methods rather than 3D printing one?
Aside from very underpowered calibers such as .22 or .380ACP, to have an entirely 3D printed gun that fires a normal standard self-defense or carbine round requires laser sintered metal process, plastic doesn't work without significant risk of explosion.
AK-47 variants on the black market can be had for $250 to $600 in various parts of the world. Not seeing any reason a terrorist would ev
Why.... (Score:2)
ha? (Score:2)
Completely retarded. (Score:2)
Making semiauto or single-shot firearms for personal use is 100% legal in the US but a plastic gun that will blow up in your face after 20 rounds is teh evilz....
PDF books containing blueprints for real zip guns and submachine guns you can make in your basement like the Sten Mk II are ok.
PDF books containing plans and construction guidelines for submachine guns you can construct from materials at the hardware store are ok.
The Anarchist Cookbook is ok.
There is even court precedent proving that these were all
Re: (Score:2)
Much as I hate to defend either of the two bobble-heads, Trump did not make a veiled threat against Clinton. Saying "You're against guns? Why not see what happens when your secret service detail doesn't have any" is not a threat. It's a challenge to hypocrisy - that the little people should have fewer rights.
Of course, there's no possibility of having a rational law passed (or even a rational debate) on gun control in the US. That's a dog-whistle issue for both sides.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump later downplayed this in various ways, but what it SOUNDS like is a suggestion that if Hillary packs courts with judges that deny rights, that th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...because, no matter how closely I scrutinize the text of the First Amendment, I can't find this "national security" exclusion they're talking about.
Too right. And when I sell goods/services/information to North Korea or Iran, I should be allowed to do so because it's an expression of my free speech, because I don't see ITAR mentioned in the constitution either.
Re: (Score:2)
> Seeing that there's no longer a militia needed to repair foreign invaders, the 2nd no longer has justification.
I think you meant repel and that was not the intent. I know you have some warped and incorrect assumption about why there is a second amendment but there are plenty of supplementary materials produced describing how and why the drafters came up with the amendments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] might lead you to some facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] must have been a crackpot in your
Re: Unconstitutional (Score:2)
Don't be retarded. "Security of the state" is a lot broader than "foreign invaders". Shit, we could be 7 weeks away from electing one of the two most unscrupulous candidates to ever run for president, and you _still_ want people to give up the only thing that denies the government absolute power.
Re: (Score:2)
Shit, we could be 7 weeks away from electing one of the two most unscrupulous candidates to ever run for president, and you _still_ want people to give up the only thing that denies the government absolute power.
Saying it is the "only" thing is not accurate. I actually think the "primary" thing standing in they way of a tyrannical government are the countless government employees and members of the armed forces who would refuse to follow such orders and would actively work to prevent them from being implemented. That includes the bureaucracy and military chain of command.
Re: Unconstitutional (Score:2)
Played well against the people, armed forces will be quite happy to lend the government a helping hand. All you need is near total control of mainstream media and a few provocations. This happened MANY times in the past, just not in the US. It is foolish to think it can't happen here.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing that there's no longer blah blah blah, the 2nd no longer has justification.
Since there's no longer anyone alive who was born a slave in the US who needs to become a citizen, the 14th amendment no longer has justification either.
(See, two can play at that game!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Did you miss the terror attacks this past weekend, or the many that came before them? We're being invaded by an ideology that wants us all dead. "Lone wolfs" that aren't actually lone. It may be recent immigrants, it may be the offspring of immigrants. But the ideology is the same. The foreign countries they visit before becoming radicalized tend to be the same. St Cloud could have been worse if not for the armed off-duty cop. Some of the other attacks might have been stopped sooner if more people ex
Re: (Score:2)
So what if people die that might have been able to save themselves, you were a proper liberal!
I'd consider myself extremely liberal and I own guns. Lots of guns, include the "terrible awful scary black guns" (AR-15, etc) as well as Glocks, .45s, various 9mm's, etc etc. I've also carried daily for 30+ years. You'd be surprised how many "liberals" like and own guns. Please don't paint us all with the same, broad brush.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Refuse people re-entry but leave our borders wide open? There's a good plan. I'm sure those that leave and get radicalized wouldn't try to sneak back in. I mean, if you can't trust a terrorist, who can you trust? Right?
And no, let's not take in the refugees. Greece already let a terrorist in that was posing as a refugee. A lot of people in France paid for that mistake with their lives. Hillary mocked Trump's "strict vetting", yet she's now proposing "strict vetting" as well. I'd prefer no vetting.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Writing this as someone who listens with open ears and mind when you speak on matters concerning gender spectrum, trans/gay and trans/straight community relations, gender intelligence, etc. You are cogent, empathetic, and well read; all qualities I respect and that I look for and notice. And, as a personal note, I prefer the company of people who can face themselves and choose to drop societal norms and external reference points for their identity and in doing so free themselves to truly be themselves. I
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing that there's no longer a militia needed to repair foreign invaders, the 2nd no longer has justification.
I think you're being sarcastic but in case you're not, the 2nd Amendment isn't just about "foreign invaders". It's not about hunting, either. It's about self defense, and that includes defending oneself from an out-of-control, oppressive government as well as threats from outside the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't some asshole in France just prove that you don't need a gun to cause bloody mayhem anywhere you have a truck and a bunch of people?
I wonder how long it will be until we get autonomous terrorist vehicle rampages?
Re: (Score:2)