Department of State seizes 3D model file

1. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   The DoS has "claimed control" of the 3D cad files related to the 3D printed pistol that came out last week.
   
   A blatant infringement on our basic rights. I'm sure people will applaud big brother though...

   replyreport
   1. 60

      John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Where in your basic rights is the right to a totally undetectable gun?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         This falls under freedom of speech and private property, just as any other creative work. 3D models are no different from blueprints are from a book of instructions are from photographs.
         
         You can legally make a gun at home, there are no laws against it. You can make a gun out of some metal pipe if you want.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            But I still don't see why blocking a gun that needs a £5000 bit of machinery to make it is infringing on your right to own a gun.
            
            It seems to be far more about export controls than owning a gun.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               It's not infringing on your right to own a gun. It's infringing on the right of the owner of a creative work to own that creative work. A 3D model is not an object. It is not a weapon. It cannot be exported. It is creative information owned by an individual.
               
               The Department of State stole that information and is stifling it.
               
               But heaven forbid you read what I post, instead of going off-topic. I didn't say it was a 2nd amendment issue, now did I? But you make it like I said that. Reading is hard, I guess.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Then what did you mean by "A blatant infringement on our basic rights."?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Can you read? I already explained that.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        Touchy!

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Learn to read, and don't make up Aunt Sally arguments, and I won't be so touchy.
                           
                           Sorry if it offends you, but I expect someone who wants to debate politics to be, at a minimum, capable of basic reading and reasoning.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              And I would expect the basic ability to express yourself clearly.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 Oh yes, blame me for your inability to comprehend basic English.
                                 
                                 "This falls under freedom of speech and private property, just as any other creative work." If that doesn't clearly state to you that this is a freedom of speech/private property issue, then I don't know what to say to you. Whatever I say you will clearly misunderstand, then construe an Aunt Sally and act like I'm stupid for having said something that I never said.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    And I was supposed to divine all that from your original post! I'm not psychic you know.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                       Your first post you asked for clarification. I replied to that post. The part I quoted was the first part of that reply.
                                       
                                       Then, after, you claimed you still didn't understand. If my reply was clear, why didn't it make sense until the second time?

                                       report
2. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   Forbes

   replyreport
3. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   Of course, what do I expect from someone, who on multiple occasions, has responded to posts where I quoted him saying something, and outright lie claiming he never said that, even though the quote and link were right there in black and white?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Touchy touchy! Got out of the wrong side of bed today?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Nope, just wondering what I honestly expect, since you have shown a willingness to ignore blatant fact on multiple occasions.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry, but as I said I could only go on what you had written in your OP, I'm not a mind reader.
            
            Oh, and a few less of the insults would do you good, you rather defeat yourself with all that.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               You can't go on what I posted in my reply to you? Why is that?
               
               I'm not insulting you. I'm stating facts. If that insults you, then that's your problem, not mine.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  The OP is not your reply.
                  
                  Opinions are not facts.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     You had my reply available to you when you claimed that you didn't know what the point was.
                     
                     When I quoted the reply, you acted like that cleared things up for you.
                     
                     So why didn't it clear things up the first time you read it?
                     
                     
                     And no opinion. Fact. Several times I quoted what you had said, and even linked to the post, and you claimed you didn't say it. That's not opinion, that's pure fact.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        Maybe you don't read too well either.
                        
                        Good night.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Lol, yeah I don't read too well. That's why I'm the one who claimed that something wasn't clear, until a certain phrase cleared it up, after that certain phrase was already posted!

                           replyreport