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...
Where in your basic rights is the right to a totally undetectable gun?
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.
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.
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.
Then what did you mean by "A blatant infringement on our basic rights."?
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.
And I would expect the basic ability to express yourself clearly.
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.
And I was supposed to divine all that from your original post! I'm not psychic you know.
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?
Touchy touchy! Got out of the wrong side of bed today?
Nope, just wondering what I honestly expect, since you have shown a willingness to ignore blatant fact on multiple occasions.
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.
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.
The OP is not your reply.
Opinions are not facts.
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.
Maybe you don't read too well either.
by RealityTalk4 years ago
Is freedom of speech compromised in America today?It appears difficult to publish articles pertaining to racism, unless the racist in question is white skinned. It also appears difficult to publish articles...
by Susie Lehto17 months ago
Office of Inspector General: 78 pages PDF https://cryptome.org/2016/05/state-oig- … emails.pdf Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements This is huge!...
by Judy Specht3 years ago
This is the way our government is striving to increase jobs and make your life better.http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/2621/
by edmondpogi6 years ago
Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?
by James Smith5 years ago
"Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are...
by OLYHOOCH5 years ago
Dear fellow Patriot,Nearly 1 million American rifles.Banned by a stroke of Barack Obamaâ��s pen.In a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama Administration secretly banned the re-importation of nearly one...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.