ForumGarden

In Texas, of course. I consider this a perversion of technology but that's just me...

BBC News - Working gun made with 3D printer

Lots and lots of other applicatilons for a 3D printer. Can you imagine an architecture student seeing her design being printed like that? Wonderful!

Amazing technology.

Perfect for making prosthetic bones.

This video shows how it works. No end to its uses. Imagine a portable scanner at an archaeological site or any place where one would encounter fragile items. Scan it first before trying to move it.

Noy just you snooze. What does it say about america that the first thing they think of doing with this technology is make a firearm?

gmc;1426224 wrote: Noy just you snooze. What does it say about america that the first thing they think of doing with this technology is make a firearm?
What's it say about the Brits that the first thing they report on is making a firearm, regardless of what was tried first?

Accountable;1426231 wrote: What's it say about the Brits that the first thing they report on is making a firearm, regardless of what was tried first?


It wasn't actually the first thing that was reported 3d printers are hardly new.

This is from last month. The first feature on them was in 2004 and they have been featured elsewhere including on bbc science programmes.

The Gadget Show | Future Special - 3D Printers video from The Gadget Show



For most people making a gun would not be the first use to spring to mind. I would also point out the thread was not started by a brit - as you put it.

Making a gun grabs attention, wheels and cogs don't,so much.

Where's the panic?

For well under $20 I could make a totally legal shotgun.

So why the panic?

tude dog;1426246 wrote: Making a gun grabs attention, wheels and cogs don't,so much.

Where's the panic?

For well under $20 I could make a totally legal shotgun.

So why the panic?


That's right. Don't let rational thought impede you in any way. Maybe think before you speak.

tude dog 06:50 PM Modifying Signature

Just saw the above in "Who's Online". Hilarious. :wah: :yh_rotfl :yh_laugh :yh_clap :yh_bigsmi

gmc;1426235 wrote: It wasn't actually the first thing that was reported 3d printers are hardly new.

This is from last month. The first feature on them was in 2004 and they have been featured elsewhere including on bbc science programmes.

The Gadget Show | Future Special - 3D Printers video from The Gadget ShowIn that case, you give lie to your previous post.



gmc;1426235 wrote: For most people making a gun would not be the first use to spring to mind. I would also point out the thread was not started by a brit - as you put it.But you didn't write "What does it say about Snooze that the first thread she starts about this technology is make a firearm?"



gmc;1426224 wrote: Noy just you snooze. What does it say about america that the first thing they think of doing with this technology is make a firearm?

I find it more strange the the Homeland security folks haven't devised a way to hack and disrupt sites giving bomb building instructions .



I mean, seriously folks - how hard could it be to conduct a search on the internet (I just did and came up with too many returns, including follow the picture instructions) for building a pressure cooker bomb? Hack the page, replacing a critical part of the instructions with something that would detonate immediately?



Poof! Bomb terrorist threat greatly reduced.

Ooooooo now there's a devious idea :sneaky: ........ which you've now linked to your IP address. :yh_ooooo

Accountable;1426286 wrote: Ooooooo now there's a devious idea :sneaky: ........ which you've now linked to your IP address. :yh_ooooo


Hey, I don't mind if they take my idea and run with it.



but I do admit to hesitating before even googling the topic. :wah:

flopstock;1426284 wrote: I find it more strange the the Homeland security folks haven't devised a way to hack and disrupt sites giving bomb building instructions .



I mean, seriously folks - how hard could it be to conduct a search on the internet (I just did and came up with too many returns, including follow the picture instructions) for building a pressure cooker bomb? Hack the page, replacing a critical part of the instructions with something that would detonate immediately?



Poof! Bomb terrorist threat greatly reduced.


LOL

Maybe while at it we could do a big book burning!

The Anarchist Cookbook:sneaky:

Looking at the CONTENTS page looks like it hasn't been updated since I bought mine around 1977.

If bugging, wiretapping, Electronic Surveillance etc. is more to ones liking,

The Big Brother Game.:-3

I got a lot more fun from that. I liked the part about picking locks as at work often someone would leave tool box keys at home then I got to show off.:guitarist

These books are old and dated, but back then we didn't have the internet.

No doubt one could find plenty of books of that sort updated to this century.:-6

Accountable;1426268 wrote: In that case, you give lie to your previous post.



"


No it doesn't I was responding to your comment

What's it say about the Brits that the first thing they report on is making a firearm, regardless of what was tried first?






They'd reported on other uses for it previously. Presumably you were unaware it has been around for a while. It's startling (to non americans) that someone would want to market a gun, only in america would that be seen as an viable business proposition.

But you didn't write "What does it say about Snooze that the first thread she starts about this technology is make a firearm?"




Well no, of course I didn't, that would be irrelevant and unnecessarily provocative. I presume she finds it startling as well or as she put it a perversion of technology. Why this fascination with parsing sentences? It's probably pointless since we both use different versions of the english language and there are sufficient differences in semantics to make argument inevitable, it causes enough confusion as it is.

It's nothing new Is It ?

Schools are full of kids who fiddle around with what Is to hand to make something else.

My brothers used to make cannons and all sorts.

tude dog;1426293 wrote: LOL



Maybe while at it we could do a big book burning!



The Anarchist Cookbook:sneaky:



Looking at the CONTENTS page looks like it hasn't been updated since I bought mine around 1977.



If bugging, wiretapping, Electronic Surveillance etc. is more to ones liking,



The Big Brother Game.:-3



I got a lot more fun from that. I liked the part about picking locks as at work often someone would leave tool box keys at home then I got to show off.:guitarist



These books are old and dated, but back then we didn't have the internet.



No doubt one could find plenty of books of that sort updated to this century.:-6


My thought process isn't to burn the book... it's to wonder why it hasn't occurred to anyone to alter the instructions.

flopstock;1426314 wrote: My thought process isn't to burn the book... it's to wonder why it hasn't occurred to anyone to alter the instructions.


I agree. Some of the recipes in the Anarchist Cookbook can literally blow up in your face.

Acting in the best interests of humanity

State Department orders firm to remove 3D-printed guns web blueprints



Day late, dollar , , How's that saying go?



The US government has blocked a Texas-based company from distributing details online of how to make a plastic gun using a 3-D printer.

The ban, by the State Department citing international arms control law, comes just days after the world's first such gun was successfully fired.


The action came too late to prevent widespread distribution of the files: Defense Distributed told Forbes that the files have already been downloaded more than 100,000 times in the two days since they were uploaded. The largest number of downloads initially were to addresses in Spain, followed by the US, Brazil, Germany and the UK.


the Guardian

tude dog;1426617 wrote: State Department orders firm to remove 3D-printed guns web blueprints




Isn't that an infringement of the 2nd ?

Bruv;1426621 wrote: Isn't that an infringement of the 2nd ?


Maybe an infringement on 1st but not the 2nd. No guns were outlawed just blue prints.

I suspect the gun lobby got involved to ban the info... their overlords would lose money if the riffraff started making their own guns.

Yeah, keep this sort of thing up and the gun manufactures and tea-baggers will have each in the cross hairs of the other. As much as I'd like to see that happen, in reality it's like hoping cigarette smokers get tough on the tobacco industry.

YZGI;1426643 wrote: Maybe an infringement on 1st but not the 2nd. No guns were outlawed just blue prints.


Sooooo many freedoms, no wonder the American public is so confused.

Bruv;1426661 wrote: Sooooo many freedoms, no wonder the American public is so confused.


With many freedoms there is a requirement for much responsibility and that's what the public is confused about, if confusion is the right word.

Bruv, I think I forgot to tell you how Glad I am you are Back!

Bruv;1426661 wrote: Sooooo many freedoms, no wonder the American public is so confused.


We used to know how to feel when we all had our mood rings.

AnneBoleyn;1426665 wrote: Bruv, I think I forgot to tell you how Glad I am you are Back!


I am sure you thought it.....I felt the vibes

YZGI;1426673 wrote: We used to know how to feel when we all had our mood rings.


No we didn't, I used to have cold hands, black ring.

SnoozeAgain;1426676 wrote: No we didn't, I used to have cold hands, black ring.


I rest my case.:sneaky::wah:

I never liked you.

Bruv;1426621 wrote: Isn't that an infringement of the 2nd ?


I'm more concerned at this point that my federal gov't is claiming to enforce international gun control laws.

SnoozeAgain;1426644 wrote: I suspect the gun lobby got involved to ban the info... their overlords would lose money if the riffraff started making their own guns.
.

The "gun lobby" has such special influence with President Obama and his Sect. of State John Kerry?

I find it laughable that any gun manufacturer would be all that scared of some one who produces what amounts to be a crappy zip gun.

If anything the Obama administration is using International Traffic in Arms Regulations to stifle such innovation.

Would the 3D gun trip a metal detector? (without bullets, of course)

This may Interest you

State Department orders firm to remove 3D-printed guns web blueprints | Technology | guardian.co.uk

SnoozeAgain;1426678 wrote: I never liked you.


There goes my vacation to Utah.

Accountable;1426687 wrote: I'm more concerned at this point that my federal gov't is claiming to enforce international gun control laws.


Why? On the grounds that the US is not part of the international community?

Bryn Mawr;1426943 wrote: Why? On the grounds that the US is not part of the international community?On the grounds that the international community is not part of our domestic society.

Never mind that there is no overarching global government to pass international law. Anything international rules that the US participates/cooperates with is done through treaty. Any valid treaty can't violate our Constitution.

Accountable;1426956 wrote: On the grounds that the international community is not part of our domestic society.

Never mind that there is no overarching global government to pass international law. Anything international rules that the US participates/cooperates with is done through treaty. Any valid treaty can't violate our Constitution.


Any treaty signed by the duely elected government of the USA is a valid treaty - to say otherwise makes every treaty the US has ever signed worthless.

If the treaty breaks your internal rouls then that is an internal matter between that gonernment any the people of the USA.

(and there does not need to be a World Government for there to be International Law. International Law is that set of laws agreed between the governments of the world, not by the World Government).

Bryn Mawr;1427208 wrote: Any treaty signed by the duely elected government of the USA is a valid treaty - to say otherwise makes every treaty the US has ever signed worthless.


uH, no

Bryn Mawr;1427208 wrote: If the treaty breaks your internal rouls then that is an internal matter between that gonernment any the people of the USA.


Well, yea. That would be a confusing matter.

Considering the requirements to pass a treaty it ,would seem difficult to get past the Senate regulations totally objectionable to the general populace. But then, objectionable or not, we have our Bill of Rights, all of them.

Bryn Mawr;1427208 wrote: (and there does not need to be a World Government for there to be International Law. International Law is that set of laws agreed between the governments of the world, not by the World Government).


Darn you!

When posters would talk of violating International Law, I would tell them to call a cop.

Bryn Mawr;1427208 wrote: Any treaty signed by the duely elected government of the USA is a valid treaty - to say otherwise makes every treaty the US has ever signed worthless.I don't see how you make that leap. Any one treaty that the US enters into that is later found to violate our Constitution would be invalidated, independent of any other treaty. I don't see how proving one as invalid automatically invalidates all.

Bryn Mawr;1427208 wrote: If the treaty breaks your internal rouls then that is an internal matter between that gonernment any the people of the USA.Of course.

Bryn Mawr;1427208 wrote: (and there does not need to be a World Government for there to be International Law. International Law is that set of laws agreed between the governments of the world, not by the World Government).Any such law would not apply to a given country without that country's government agreeing to its provisions. In the US, that means a valid treaty, which means a treaty that not violate our Constitution.

It is not easy to enter into an international treaty:

shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

tude dog;1427225 wrote: uH, no



Well, yea. That would be a confusing matter.

Considering the requirements to pass a treaty it ,would seem difficult to get past the Senate regulations totally objectionable to the general populace. But then, objectionable or not, we have our Bill of Rights, all of them.



Darn you!

When posters would talk of violating International Law, I would tell them to call a cop.


Why no?

The people of the USA elect a government, in part, to represent them to the outside world. By electing them and giving them legitimacy you are agreeing to abide by the treaties they sign - either they have the right to sign a binding agreement or they do not, you cannot pick and choose. If they have the right to sign a binding agreement then you are bound, if they do not then all treaties signed by them are invalid. Simples!

Accountable;1427277 wrote: I don't see how you make that leap. Any one treaty that the US enters into that is later found to violate our Constitution would be invalidated, independent of any other treaty. I don't see how proving one as invalid automatically invalidates all.




The people of the USA elect a government, in part, to represent them to the outside world. By electing them and giving them legitimacy you are agreeing to abide by the treaties they sign - either they have the right to sign a binding agreement or they do not, you cannot pick and choose. If they have the right to sign a binding agreement then you are bound, if they do not then all treaties signed by them are invalid. Simples!

Accountable;1427277 wrote:

Of course.




If it is an internal matter then it does not affect the external treaty that has been duly signed.

Accountable;1427277 wrote:

Any such law would not apply to a given country without that country's government agreeing to its provisions. In the US, that means a valid treaty, which means a treaty that not violate our Constitution.

It is not easy to enter into an international treaty:

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


No, it means a treaty signed by the body with the authority to sign a binding agreement. That such an agreement is against your constitution is not material in law. Sack the government and rescind the treaty but until you do that you are bound by it.

Bryn Mawr;1427287 wrote: The people of the USA elect a government, in part, to represent them to the outside world. By electing them and giving them legitimacy you are agreeing to abide by the treaties they sign - either they have the right to sign a binding agreement or they do not, you cannot pick and choose. If they have the right to sign a binding agreement then you are bound, if they do not then all treaties signed by them are invalid. Simples!



If it is an internal matter then it does not affect the external treaty that has been duly signed.





No, it means a treaty signed by the body with the authority to sign a binding agreement. That such an agreement is against your constitution is not material in law. Sack the government and rescind the treaty but until you do that you are bound by it.
You are being completely illogical, but I think I see why. You don't have a written constitution. You are a subject of the Queen and have to trust human nature not to abuse absolute power (rant all you want. I'm just going by the absurd logic you put forth). We have a document that sets limits on our gov't.

If I give a person power of attorney limited to selling my car, that doesn't give him cart blanche to sell my kidney. That's not part of the deal. In the same way, when We the People give the government power to run our national affairs, that doesn't give them cart blanche to exceed the limits placed on them. They can't legally violate the very document that gives them power.

Accountable;1427290 wrote: You are being completely illogical, but I think I see why. You don't have a written constitution. You are a subject of the Queen and have to trust human nature not to abuse absolute power (rant all you want. I'm just going by the absurd logic you put forth). We have a document that sets limits on our gov't.

If I give a person power of attorney limited to selling my car, that doesn't give him cart blanche to sell my kidney. That's not part of the deal. In the same way, when We the People give the government power to run our national affairs, that doesn't give them cart blanche to exceed the limits placed on them. They can't legally violate the very document that gives them power.


If you give someone power of attorney to sell your car but have vowed to yourself never to sell to a New Yorker, if that someone sells the car to a New Yorker can you claim the car back?

When a foreign government signs a deal they cannot be expected to make a judgement as to whether the US legislature will uphold it as constitutional. They are signing a binding agreement and so are the US government. If you reserve the right to retrospectively invalidate that agreement then there is no agreement - your government either has the right to bind you or they don't, there can be no half way house.

Bryn Mawr;1427293 wrote: If you give someone power of attorney to sell your car but have vowed to yourself never to sell to a New Yorker, if that someone sells the car to a New Yorker can you claim the car back?Huh??

Bryn Mawr;1427293 wrote: When a foreign government signs a deal they cannot be expected to make a judgement as to whether the US legislature will uphold it as constitutional. They are signing a binding agreement and so are the US government. If you reserve the right to retrospectively invalidate that agreement then there is no agreement - your government either has the right to bind you or they don't, there can be no half way house.The foreign government can't be expected to make that judgment, but the US representative must. If a treaty is signed by a US representative and is later found by a US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, then it can no longer be honored. It would be declared void because it was never legal to go into the agreement. I'd love to know what international treaty we signed onto that qualifies as international gun control law.

Accountable;1427299 wrote: Huh??

The foreign government can't be expected to make that judgment, but the US representative must. If a treaty is signed by a US representative and is later found by a US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, then it can no longer be honored. It would be declared void because it was never legal to go into the agreement. I'd love to know what international treaty we signed onto that qualifies as international gun control law.


If the foreign government cannot be expected to make that judgement then how can you not recognise the treaty as binding?

If, subsequently, the USSC finds it unconstitutional then they can move to have it revoked. In the period between being signed and being revoked it is binding and must be honoured.

I've no idea what treaties you might have signed, I'm trying to establish principles here.

Bryn Mawr;1427302 wrote: If the foreign government cannot be expected to make that judgement then how can you not recognise the treaty as binding?

If, subsequently, the USSC finds it unconstitutional then they can move to have it revoked. In the period between being signed and being revoked it is binding and must be honoured.

I've no idea what treaties you might have signed, I'm trying to establish principles here.We agree on the principles. I just can't fathom us being beholden to international law that directly contradicts our supreme law of the land. According to the article Tude Dog linked, the publication was banned "citing international arms control law." Based on principles that you and I agree on, our federal gov't could not possibly have signed on to such international law.



eta: I don't doubt such law exists, I just doubt that there is a document stating that we will abide by it.