5 ms·

Designing this gun was clearly an asshole move I, for one, welcome any asshole moves that make governments afraid of their citizens. DefDist's Bitcoin: 1Gb5GN

by stfu 13y ago

Designing this gun was clearly an asshole move I, for one, welcome any asshole moves that make governments afraid of their citizens. DefDist's Bitcoin: 1Gb5GNxrVGMT8e9uoJ8CmamrdVz9o8fAEa ( http://defdist.org/bitcoin/ http://defdist.org/bitcoin/ )

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
A typically and uniquely American response. The main problem that you have now is that your citizens are afraid of each other's sidearms. The government, not so much.
rollo_tommasi 13y ago
This is so silly. If the country ever comes to the point where only you and your 3D printed gun stand between freedom and the government's tyranny, you'll just be obliterated by a Predator drone. Advances in and proliferation of 3D guns will only endanger innocent citizens. Thinking that it's any kind of check on government power is a childish fantasy.
- hga 13y ago
  You really ought to read about the namesake of this gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator If it comes to that, it's merely a tool to get better guns.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    Interesting link, thanks. "General Eisenhower's staff never saw the practicality". And I don't either.
    - hga 13y ago
      Perhaps all of the above are lacking in imagination---and/or the staffs didn't want masses of soon to be liberated people to be armed. Since mass distribution would have consumed precious air transport/bomber resources, we don't know if their tradeoff was correct. The one thing we can say is that the proposition was not put to the test.
- smsm42 13y ago
  This stupid argument is reiterated again and again and doesn't become less stupid. There are about 100 millions of gun owners in the country. Do you think any government can wage war with 100 million armed citizens, drones or not? Do you read newspapers, do you know how successful the war in any territory where the population is hostile, noncooperative and armed? Do you think US tried to find local allies in Afganistan and Iraq because they didn't think of using drones? Drones aren't some magic wand that makes you invincible, and no government can remain in place if 100 million armed people want it out, drones or not.
  - rollo_tommasi 13y ago
    Buddy, if it ever comes to pass that fully 1/3 of the population rises up in armed rebellion against the government, equipped with the kind of military-grade weaponry and foreign backing that sustained the Afghan/Iraqi insurgencies, then the USA has become a dystopian warlord state and freedom and democracy are dead letters for the next dozen generations. Get real. These kinds of justifications are just completely absurd fantasies, for people who want to picture themselves as the heroes of another "Red Dawn" remake.
    - hga 13y ago
      Are you familiar with the concept known as an insurance policy?
    - smsm42 13y ago
      So you acknowledge that the government can not rule over non-consenting armed population, yet call this idea "absurd". >>> for people who want to picture themselves as the heroes of another "Red Dawn" remake. Nobody wants it. But the option is there, and was there from the start. Just as no responsible person wants to kill other people, but if these people break into his house and threaten his life... And yes, this is an unrealistic scenario which never happens to vast majority of people. But if it does, some people want to be prepared. Given how many times defense against completely imaginary scenarios was brought in this topic, as justification for government doing anything, I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand when it's not the government that is doing it.
- stfu 13y ago
  This is not the point. I'm looking at the bigger picture. At its current form the US government attempts to take away individual liberties from its citizens. Guns are polarizing, but the same goes for the TSA/Security Theater, Online Privacy/Anonymity, and so on. What child pornography is for Internet censorship, terror threats for public security measures, are mass shootings for gun control. It is a strategy of spotlighting extremely rare exceptions in order to justify the reduction of individual liberties on a large scale. Therefore I am welcoming any attempts that balance the powergame - no matter how small they are. If you are going to develop an app that allows me encrypt all my mobile phone traffic you deserve the same level of applause as that guy who developed the gun.

by stfu 13y ago

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago

A typically and uniquely American response. The main problem that you have now is that your citizens are afraid of each other's sidearms. The government, not so much.

rollo_tommasi 13y ago

This is so silly. If the country ever comes to the point where only you and your 3D printed gun stand between freedom and the government's tyranny, you'll just be obliterated by a Predator drone. Advances in and proliferation of 3D guns will only endanger innocent citizens. Thinking that it's any kind of check on government power is a childish fantasy.

hga 13y ago
You really ought to read about the namesake of this gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator If it comes to that, it's merely a tool to get better guns.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  Interesting link, thanks. "General Eisenhower's staff never saw the practicality". And I don't either.
  - hga 13y ago
    Perhaps all of the above are lacking in imagination---and/or the staffs didn't want masses of soon to be liberated people to be armed. Since mass distribution would have consumed precious air transport/bomber resources, we don't know if their tradeoff was correct. The one thing we can say is that the proposition was not put to the test.
smsm42 13y ago
This stupid argument is reiterated again and again and doesn't become less stupid. There are about 100 millions of gun owners in the country. Do you think any government can wage war with 100 million armed citizens, drones or not? Do you read newspapers, do you know how successful the war in any territory where the population is hostile, noncooperative and armed? Do you think US tried to find local allies in Afganistan and Iraq because they didn't think of using drones? Drones aren't some magic wand that makes you invincible, and no government can remain in place if 100 million armed people want it out, drones or not.
- rollo_tommasi 13y ago
  Buddy, if it ever comes to pass that fully 1/3 of the population rises up in armed rebellion against the government, equipped with the kind of military-grade weaponry and foreign backing that sustained the Afghan/Iraqi insurgencies, then the USA has become a dystopian warlord state and freedom and democracy are dead letters for the next dozen generations. Get real. These kinds of justifications are just completely absurd fantasies, for people who want to picture themselves as the heroes of another "Red Dawn" remake.
  - hga 13y ago
    Are you familiar with the concept known as an insurance policy?
  - smsm42 13y ago
    So you acknowledge that the government can not rule over non-consenting armed population, yet call this idea "absurd". >>> for people who want to picture themselves as the heroes of another "Red Dawn" remake. Nobody wants it. But the option is there, and was there from the start. Just as no responsible person wants to kill other people, but if these people break into his house and threaten his life... And yes, this is an unrealistic scenario which never happens to vast majority of people. But if it does, some people want to be prepared. Given how many times defense against completely imaginary scenarios was brought in this topic, as justification for government doing anything, I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand when it's not the government that is doing it.
stfu 13y ago
This is not the point. I'm looking at the bigger picture. At its current form the US government attempts to take away individual liberties from its citizens. Guns are polarizing, but the same goes for the TSA/Security Theater, Online Privacy/Anonymity, and so on. What child pornography is for Internet censorship, terror threats for public security measures, are mass shootings for gun control. It is a strategy of spotlighting extremely rare exceptions in order to justify the reduction of individual liberties on a large scale. Therefore I am welcoming any attempts that balance the powergame - no matter how small they are. If you are going to develop an app that allows me encrypt all my mobile phone traffic you deserve the same level of applause as that guy who developed the gun.