Earlier today we reported that Defense Distributed, an organization that recently released open-source plans for a 3-D printed gun, received a letter from the U.S. State Department to remove the plans.
Defense Distributed Founder Cody Wilson's reaction: "I'm disappointed, not surprised," he tells us in a phone interview. And besides, he says, "[The blueprint] has been downloaded over 100,000 times, so it's like, I mean, we win."
What he means is that though he complied with the State Department and removed the files from his site, the files still exist elsewhere on the internet. A lot of the downloads were through the online file-hosting service Mega, based in New Zealand, and the peer-to-peer file sharing site Pirate Bay has copies as well.
According to Wilson, this is the first time the State Department has contacted him, even though the site already hosted blueprints for gun parts and featured ammunition magazines named after a sitting senator and governor. "They have now suggested, basically, that I need to ask for permission for basically all [of the files hosted]," Wilson told Popular Science.
The Department of State specifically listed 12 files in the takedown notice, and included language implying that all files hosted were up for review.
Wilson has contacted the Electronic Frontier Foundation for help counteracting what he sees as an infringement on free speech rights. Says Wilson:
This is only the beginning, Anarchy rising
The less we leave up to others is the more we command our lives
Not to be nitpicky, but since TPB is, like you mentioned, a peer-to-peer files sharing service and not a file host, they don't "have" copies of anything but magnet links. That means the file essentially can't be taken down, since it's distributed among many different users.
I think enabling anybody to print weapons is a major downside to 3D printers, but trying to stop people from printing what they want is just as futile as stopping them from sharing what they want through services such as bittorrent. Luckily, ammunition can't be 3D printed (yet). The proper response would probably be to make buying ammo at least as difficult as buying guns and limiting quantity per customer/time.
PS: Why does the spam filter keep insisting my posts could be spam?
as Tracy replied I'm shocked that people able to get paid $5277 in four weeks on the internet. have you read this site........ <strong>fox85.com</strong>
With gun manufacture going to the masses- they need to prohibit the sale of bullets/ammunition/gunpowder without a gun license.
Sure. It'll be a while before 3d printers are mainstream- and these printed guns break after being fired a few times; however, designs will improve and 3d printers will come down in price.
Guns that are harder to detect- that can be smuggled past gun checkpoints opens up a whole new world for criminals. No reason anyone legitimate would want/need a gun to get past metal detectors (other than for novelty sake).
In the era of 3d printed-at-home plastic guns we need to take better precautions. Idiotic invention that helps no-one good.
It will force goverment to take other precautions to prevent wackos getting handguns- which will hurt people that HAVE followed proper procedure to get their guns. This is one of those inventions that both sides of the political spectrum are eventually going to with was never invented.
If you can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals... regulate the ammunition more.
If the bad guy is shot buy a printed unregistered gun made by a home owner, can the bad guy sue the home owner for an unregistered weapon? Might the home owner go to jail for possessing an unregistered weapon and shooting the bad guy, who broke into the home owner home?
For all bad guys who desire to break into a house and cause harm, beware a PRINTER lurks inside that home! Bra-ha-hahaha!
I adore a good deterrent!
I didn't realize guns were so hard to get that printing them was a threat to our safety. I know this single shot death machine is going to change our world.
From the ATF website:
Q: Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle?
With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency.
[18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]
.... In other words, you can manufacture a firearm at home, by yourself, for your own personal use.
@hollycow it's not that guns are scarce, i've been outspoken about the gun debate and i live in the least "free" state but i could still go out and buy a normal gun because i have no criminal record and i have not been to a doctor to disprove my sanity. that's not the point of this gun though, this gun really isn't for home protection, it isn't for hunting, and it most certainly isn't for target shooting. it's too terrible of a shot for any of that. what this gun is for is to act as a subversive weapon to the government itself, this gun is dangerous to no one except the government who is afraid of an armed citizenship. this goes beyond the united states, if you download, like i did, the file then you'll realize that they published the read me for how to make it in mandarin, this means that the heavily censored state known as china now becomes less stable because suddenly the population that's had no real way of fighting against their own government suddenly has access to an almost infinite supply of guns that are not only vaguely effective but are undetectable without specific parts that are "OPT-IN" by nature.
simply put this weapon isn't against highway robbers, dear, and pictures of bad guys from the movies with a bulls eye superimposed on it. it is purely a weapon against governments world wide, suddenly with the release of this file governments are afraid that they'll be held accountable for their actions by their own people. suddenly the drug cartels will be facing armed citizens when they go out on their hourly killings. suddenly china will be faced with the problem of a divisive populace, that was there before but is now armed. suddenly the united states of america has no effective way of controlling guns and cutting the population off from their ability to defend themselves.
i'm not calling our government a tyranny, not yet, but i am calling it a very good rendition of 1984's big brother mentality.
to mars or bust!
You are correct by saying it is against the government and by extension the people of this country. This gun is only good for getting past metal detectors and taking a weapon where a weapon should not be, i.e. on a plan.
This gun (not this version anyway)will not help anyone living in a repressive government, because plastic gun that breaks or fails after one or a few shots vs an automatic or semi-automatic = fail and because once these autocratic countries realize that "Hey, 3D printers can print more than just plates that our citizens could have used to make their pitiful lives a little better. We had better restrict their sale entirely and make it illegal to own one." So not only do they not get guns, as you say, they also do not get a chance to use a 3D printer that could have helped their community.
What you likely meant was that this weapon is for the U.S. government, but wanted to justify how good it is for all the people in the world when it never will be. Rather than build weapons and moan about how evil our government is, volunteer to get people educated so they can go out and vote. Education has been proven to raise the level of a community.
Guns aren't meant for hunting. They certainly can be used for hunting, but people don't keep guns for that. Guns are meant to kill bad guys. There shouldn't be any moral hold-up with saying that. Lets all be frank about what we're talking about. We want guns to deter and defend against bad guys - lethally if necessary.
And the biggest bad guy in recent, living history, as much as past history, is government. That is not to say I think we need a violent overthrow, or that our government is inherently evil.. blah blah blah. But it does wield power. And it has happened in similar countries and it can just as easily happen here. And the guard against that potential tyranny is an armed citizenry. The alternative is everyone being a disarmed subject. Since my father has been alive, over 100 million subjects have been killed through forced starvation, midnight murders, or modern-day Committees for Public Safety. And that is excluding Nazi Germany, where an unarmed, 'other-ed' section of the populace was unable to resist being rounded up, 10 or 20 or 30 at a time by 3-4 men with guns, and summarily culled.
This gun isn't meant to be overly functional (though it does shoot more than once. They made a lower-end of an AR-15 that shot over 600 rounds and didn't break. They wouldn't release a single-shot hand cannon. I'm sure this thing hasn't even been fully tested to exhaustion after hundreds of shots.)
I would also like to point out, for the gun control advocates, that
A) they primarily seem to go after "assault rifles" (a purely aesthetic definition) rather than handguns when 97% of homicide by firearms are in fact done with handguns. So props on logical consistency for once, but I doubt any legislation to handle this will have any less focus on "assault rifles".
B) whenever you hear about some random rampaging gunman, how does the story often end? "...shot by an off-duty cop...". You read that line and you are happy he/she was there to stop the violence sooner. But what is special about being an off-duty cop? Does he have more moral clarity than an average Joe to shoot a mass killer in the act? Does he have some judicial privilege in the use of force? (Nope - off duty). Is he a better, safer shot than an average Joe?
And that line also means the on-duty cops were too slow to get there.
The conservative solution is to say: "Hey, off duty cops seem really effective at stopping proximal mass murderers. We should have a good number of off duty cops sprinkled all over, so these guys are stopped quickly. Actually, why not make EVERY single person a potential off-duty cop?"
The anti-gun solution is: "Hey, some people use guns to become villains. Therefore lets ban guns in as many places as we can, to keep them from turning their carriers into villains. Everyone carrying a gun is just as bad as the villain. We were just lucky that off-duty cop was on our side."
Guns are easy enough to get for those who want to murder with them, and those murderers will likely not be deterred by law. (Even in 'gun-free' countries like the UK and Australia, there are still gun homicides, and a heck of a lot more violent crime.) These actions disarm the potential off-duty cops, while only encouraging the mass murderers - because they should receive less resistance. Tell me, if I wanted to kill a lot of people to become famous before I kill myself, can you name a better place than a school with lots of children, closed packed classrooms, and no armed people to stop me? Surprise surprise, all but one of the "mass killings" (that used guns) in the country in the last 50 years have taken place in 'gun free zones'.
This is also why the idea of "high-capacity magazines" is stupid, and those who understand guns are arguing the point just as poorly. The question isn't "Do you really NEED 12 shots, or 20, or 30?" The question isn't about quantity at all. Plain and simple, running out of your magazine means you have to manipulate your gun, which is not what you want to do in a gun fight. At the same time, if you are planning for it, several extra magazines can be at the ready, and can quickly be switched out. Plus, magazines (a metal box with a spring) are easy to make. For an example - see the Virginia Tech Shooter. Backpack full of small magazines. Killed 30 people despite being limited to 10. Weird.
Limited magazine capacity hurts the unexpecting and the law-abiding participant in the gun fight, not the one who has planned for the occasion. Once you understand that, the question is very simple. Do we limit magazine sizes? No, because it doesn't do anything, and it threatens innocent citizen's capacity to defend themselves and others against bad guys. Cut and dry. Just as banning guns in, oh, say a movie theater showing The Dark Knight Rises, hurts the ability of the unsuspecting to defend themselves, while advantaging the prepared.
No, the ultimate point of this gun "The Liberator" was to start the conversation we're having right here. It is supposed to finally put guns to the point that they can't be easily regulated, and force the government to adapt. Because no matter what statistics and arguments are made for gun's positive effect on our society, many in the government want to go after them out of fear, ignorance, or the displeasure at having a potentially rebellious population that might resist their grand plans.
Being against guns is just anti-science. It's anti-behavior science, and it is anti-statistics.
A. emule or the bit torrent of your choice or visit piratebay
B. Search for Liberator_First_3D_Printable_gun and/or DefDistDEFCADMEGAPACKV4.2 (all defense distributed files pack). (won't be hard to find thousands have popped up overnight)
E. Enjoy making the Feds cry
I can understand the reason for taking down their designs, As they should have limited download availability to the US the same way video links get limited to specific regions. I would hope someone pointed out to them prior to putting up these plans that all it will take is a single 3D printed Anti Tank shell being fired at US troops and killing or injuring them and the company is going to be in for a world of legal hurt. However as others have noted, this technology isn't going anywhere and is only going to improve. Which is why I think you should be required to get a license to have a gun just like you get a license to drive a car or a different license for a Semi-Truck then individuals can be authorized to own specific classes of weapons based on their training and anyone caught with a weapon self printed or otherwise with out the proper license would be in violation instead of the current free for all this will allow.
Why does it seem like no one is paying attention to the details here. This is NOT a censorship issue. This is an issue of whether Wilson has violated US law that regulates international arms trade.
The cease and desist letter states that specifically: the "Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Enforcement Division is responsible for compliance with and civil enforcement of the Arms Export Control Act...." and that "it is unlawful to export any defense article or technical data for which a license or written approval is required without first obtaining the required authorization..."
The details are all in that letter. And they are valid concerns for this technology.
Now, Wilson has complied with all local and federal laws so far. He got a manufacturing license when they said he should. He added an unnecessary 6oz chunk of metal to his printed gun (HIS gun only...its not in the plan) to comply with laws about detectable firearms. (Come to think of it...he's a terrible anarchist.) I suspect this matter will be worked out reasonably as well.
Besides, if the State Dept wanted to squash this it would have happened long before now.
HAHAHAH! If any of you dumb as rocks gun nuts think this piece of crap 3d printed pea shooter is going to do ANYTHING to save you from the big bad super scary evil guber'ment, PLEASE, I beg you, for the mere sake of thinning the heard of you idiots, take up arms. All you morons sound the same to me, "the government is bad" "they're taking our rights away" blah, blah, blah. I can't wait for the day when you and your banjo plucking, inbreed buddies take your anti-government rhetoric too far and wind up with a cruise missile through your front door. 3d print that you subversive a$$ hats.
Sort of like a few arabs in Iraq and Afghanistn with rusty AK-47's and homemade bombs have pretty much sent the entire military might of the "big bad super scary evil guber'ment" home with it's tail between it's legs? Now magnify that by 1000 and take into account that government couldn't use near the force it got away with in the Middle East for fear of the backlash that would result if it started bombing or using drone attacks on American towns.
So you're admitting that our government is more than capable of defeating its citizenry in the all-out war-at-home scenario that gun nuts keep pitching, but they'll restrain themselves for PR reasons?
Please...you do realize that the "government" force is our military, right? So gun nuts are really saying that the US military, which we love and adore so much and write sad country songs praising to remind everyone of how bloody patriotic we are, will one day attack us because Obama said so. Therefore, we'll all need guns (3D printed or otherwise) to kill off our drone-flying, ICBM-launching, tank-driving military.
You people have officially lost it, and the overwhelming majority of America has divorced itself from the "conservative" label for that very reason (I was raised a sane Republican, btw).
So "intrepidDesign" wants people who disagree with him politically to be murdered because they are 'anti-government.' That's good to know, "intrepidDesign".
Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.
gallup - January 12, 2012 "40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal."
Seems like derosanick82 (an many others here) are divorced from reality. Doesn't surprise me at all.
@ Mister Thomas:
It's no secret that both Rasmussen and Gallup are awful at polling and tend to track to the right (as seen in their consistently inaccurate poll tracking right up to Obama winning re-election).
Also, the perceived meaning of conservative is a positive trait which any sane person should take pride in having (good with money, level-headed, environmentally conscious, etc.). The term liberal tends to bring to mind wastefulness and excess, no ability to use reason when necessary. The perceived meanings of these words in the political sense are quite twisted when compared to the intended literal meaning....for instance, I wouldn't touch the current crop of "conservative" politicians with a 10 ft stick, but I consider myself to be a conservative person.
And IntrepidDesign never intimated that those who disagree with gun control should be murdered, simply that the treacherous "down with government" nuts who are taking up arms to overthrow our nation's government/military (like they'll ever need to anyway) will get exactly what they deserve if they're actually as crazy as they proclaim.
Quit dabbling in semantics, you're no good at it.
Oh, the government is capable on paper, certainly. The military could launch its nuclear arsenal and destroy 90% of the population of the country. But the definition of "win" changes when it is a military attacking its own people.
For instance, a gun confiscation would not work, because a conservative estimate puts it at anywhere from 300,000 to 800,000 gun owners willingly and openly resisting the seizure. With those numbers, the military would have to get involved. It is also a question of numbers, because collateral damage from tank shells and such would end up killing innocents, and the US army has only ~100,000 soldiers. There simply are not enough resources to stop an armed rebellion, because the army is so hamstrung by circumstance. And the military -cannot- win by killing 200,000 American citizens, because that would lead the remainder of the country into unrest. It is a civil brinkmanship.
But for that unspoken eventually to prevent any real action, you need the threat of an armed civilian resistance. Take that away, and suddenly arresting individuals in the night for saying the wrong thing, or for being homosexual, or Jewish, or a Tea Party member, or a Democrat, becomes quite simple.
And yes, the military is part of it. Individual soldiers are highly respected for the commitment and sacrifice they make. And many of them would refuse to fire on US citizens if ordered. Others would not, and that is a danger we have to guard against.
Please don't make the Nazi allusion....it's tired, lazy, and pretty offensive. Besides, the gun laws in Germany were actually relaxed under the Nazi regime, so unless Obama starts passing gun laws that only apply to gay people or those of Asian descent, etc. it's a pointless argument.
And MOST of our military is unwilling to fire on their own people (it's not like it's 50/50 or anything). And the overwhelming majority who are sane and never would are more than capable of sorting out the crazies on their own...we don't need a million-strong militia of more crazies to stop them. But thank you for volunteering.
Seems like a clear violation of free speech and the right of people to have knowledge and ideas. I'm saddened they laid down so easily on this.
Nazi's? Oh yeah. Them too.
I was talking about the French Revolution. Or China.
...or North Korea.
...or <fill in your historical preference>.
It doesn't matter if the gun control is targeted. Broadband accomplishes the same thing.
And putting our faith in the military members standing down, refusing orders, risking court martial, possibly risking death, is STILL putting your faith in armed, voluntary, free people. I never said it was 50/50. I have a good bit of faith in most of our armed military members that they would not fire on American citizens.
At the same time, the Boston Bombers were United States citizens. Everyone, myself included, was happy to see them get taken down, alive if possible, dead if not. Were they citizens? Yes, but they were also "others" that had given up that right. The line gets blurry, as @Intrepid demonstrated quite well.
First you ostracize a section of the populace as crazy, dangerous, parasitical, etc., then you "other" them - you make the leap that that society would be better off without them, and then, suddenly, rounding them up or executing them or infringing on their rights isn't a problem. It's not a problem for the rest of society because a) they deserved it, and b)"I'm not like then, so its not like this precedent is dangerous to me."
Having arms is protection for subsets of the population that may get "other-ed". It's individual protection, because society kills individuals - not groups. I didn't bring up NAZI Germany, but since you did, tell me how big the Jewish population was in comparison to the number of people that rounded them up. 90% of our military could defect, and yet the numbers would be comparable here.
And I cannot clarify enough that I don't think Obama, or George Bush, or anybody I could name right now in politics would ever do such a thing. But I can tell you that once we lose our guns, we won't get them back. And we won't have them if we ever need them. Nor will our kids, or our grandchildren.
While it is a shame, as there should be common sense laws to keep nuts from having guns, there is absolutely no way (short of a straight up police state) to prevent this technology from being attainable to everyone in ten or so years time. Probably best to focus on mental health, addiction, education and moving people out of poverty as this would be a more effective long term strategy.
@brian144--that was beautiful, man. Eloquent and hit every verifiable pro 2A point.
In my humble opinion Cody is another lefty, his agenda is not to make self defense available to everyone his agenda is to have the Second Amendment removed from the Constitution. There is nothing to be gained here by distributing gun plans. I'm sure their hope is that some whack job will make one of these guns and kill someone and then big brother can ban ALL firearms and bullets. The gun has no utility, I'm sure terrorists already know how to make plastic guns that fire one bullet. Just a different permutation of the Fast and Furious grab the guns scheme.
I don't think he is any lefty at all.
"There is nothing to be gained here by distributing gun plans."
Of course there is. Confiscation is left's only end game for all this, and always has been.
I'm sure you remember Feinstein decades ago declaring, "Ladies and Gentleman turn them all in."
Trying to not provoke them, or something, won't do any good at all. They want what they've always wanted, a docile populace that cannot think of let alone accomplish resistance to their plans.
What this development and it's follow on developments mean is that confiscation is impossible, and that the public is reinforced in being able and willing to resist the left with effective means, regardless of the circumstance.
Next up is 1st and 2nd amendment protected dispersion of the technology to create ammunition. And then, yes, other weapons. The Weapons Shop at Isher should be downloadable. It is not possible for a just monopoly on violence to be established by democracy, let alone any other form of government.
It is not possible to prevent the bad guys from getting what they want, what is required is acknowledging the constitution demands the individual common people also be armed if they choose it, with no a priori restrictions--only for due cause and after due process, in consequence of an unjust tort, as judges by a fully informed jury of peers.
Pretty flimsy reading of the treaty.
This is why the US ought to get out of the UN.
This is why the First Amendment ought to be protected by the Second Amendment.
By the way, ammo is easier to make than firearms. You can't regulate cotton and nitric acid anymore than you can regulate sulfur charcoal and salt peter. OPPS! Hope I didn't export that idea to some foreign agent.
Your police state in action.
jefro beat me to it on ammunition, but let me add this:
In the _extremely_ unlikely event that armed resistance
by private citizens against federal agents is necessary
it will be carried out by a small number of activists
in self defense against a small subset of agents selected
for their willingness to arrest/detain/execute activists.
It will not end well for the agents or the administration.