I heard of the current legal battle concerning posting plans for 3-D printing an AR style weapon. As I understand it that action has temporarily been halted, although a few thousand copies of those plans have already been downloaded. It is an issue with the first and second amendment. Can the government interfere with your right to a free press or your right to bear arms? The answer would seem obvious enough, no they cannot. But what if it is in the interest of national security or public safety? That is where the questions becomes a bit more complicated. But that complication should only be with the conscience of the individual doing the publishing. Just because one has a right to something doesn't mean they should exercise that right. That is where morality and ethics enter the picture. It is also what separated the United States from the rest of the world in regard to government. We formed a Republic, if you can but keep it as Benjamin Franklin so aptly replied, a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Therefore it is the responsibilty of people ( individuals ) to maintain that Republic , not government bureaucrats. The premise being those folks are our representatives, not our replacements!
Now the concern is that people will produce these plastic weapons and avoid detection. The government will have no idea of who or how many weapons are out there. I suggest to you that number has long since been unknown and isn't anything new. That isn't to say we should add to that number but that it exists. The free press was guaranteed by the first amendment, the absolute right to publish, speak or otherwise disseminate information is vital to the Republic. Remember a Republic means the power rests with the public, not with the government. That " government " is a public matter. Information is power and must be shared with all. The second amendment was a guard against the government seizing all our weapons and leaving the population defenseless. The founding fathers were all to aware of this possibility having come from England and other nations were that had taken place. The person wishing to post these plans to the internet cites this as the very reason he should post them, to prevent the government from controlling our right to bear arms. We call that " gun regulation " and it is at the forefront of the news almost daily. Now if the bad guys can just 3D print a weapon what will be the result? Well call me a pessimist if you like but the bad guys are going to get weapons anyway. Additionally I can download the plans to build a nuclear device and I haven't heard of anyone doing that, except for some kid and he couldn't get any fissionable material. That was before Hillary had it for sale though. But my point is, the information is out there.
Do I believe this person should make these plans available on the internet? No, I don't. I base that not on legal grounds but on moral ones. I don't believe there is a need for that information. I do believe if you really want to print an AR style weapon you could figure it out for yourself. I'm no expert on any of this, guns, 3D printing and all of that. I do know one thing for certain, an AR style of weapon means it is capable of firing multiple rounds in rapid succession, IE: they are really machine guns. I also know we don't have any plastic that will withstand that, an AR style weapon will " melt " a steel barrel, not literally, but render it useless. So my thinking is why would you manufacture, at considerable expense I would think, an AR style weapon that in reality could only discharge a few rounds? The answer would have to be, because I can. Back in 2003 100,000 downloads for a 3D printed handgun were distributed before the government stopped that. You really didn't hear a whole lot about that. Of course mention an " AR " style weapon and folks are up in arms! No pun intended.
The big question is of course should the government get to decide what information is disseminated and what is not? If this information is prohibited from being on the Internet in the United States does that mean it will not be available on the Internet at all? Hardly, so is the government then going to restrict what we can view or download from the Internet in general? Is the government going to monitor just what it is we are reading, looking at and downloading? There are foreign countries that do just that, think North Korea for one example. You know, freedom is an all or nothing thing! Either you have it or you don't. Still we must remember freedom of choice doesn't relieve us of our moral and ethical responsibilty. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. That's why you can't holler fire in a crowded movie theater. But the freedom to do that exists, if it didn't we would all be muzzled upon entry to the theater. I don't think those plans should be made available to everyone but I believe everyone has a right to that information. It's a personal decision. If that decision infringes upon your rights, then its' personal. It's a sticky wicket alright.
Now the concern is that people will produce these plastic weapons and avoid detection. The government will have no idea of who or how many weapons are out there. I suggest to you that number has long since been unknown and isn't anything new. That isn't to say we should add to that number but that it exists. The free press was guaranteed by the first amendment, the absolute right to publish, speak or otherwise disseminate information is vital to the Republic. Remember a Republic means the power rests with the public, not with the government. That " government " is a public matter. Information is power and must be shared with all. The second amendment was a guard against the government seizing all our weapons and leaving the population defenseless. The founding fathers were all to aware of this possibility having come from England and other nations were that had taken place. The person wishing to post these plans to the internet cites this as the very reason he should post them, to prevent the government from controlling our right to bear arms. We call that " gun regulation " and it is at the forefront of the news almost daily. Now if the bad guys can just 3D print a weapon what will be the result? Well call me a pessimist if you like but the bad guys are going to get weapons anyway. Additionally I can download the plans to build a nuclear device and I haven't heard of anyone doing that, except for some kid and he couldn't get any fissionable material. That was before Hillary had it for sale though. But my point is, the information is out there.
Do I believe this person should make these plans available on the internet? No, I don't. I base that not on legal grounds but on moral ones. I don't believe there is a need for that information. I do believe if you really want to print an AR style weapon you could figure it out for yourself. I'm no expert on any of this, guns, 3D printing and all of that. I do know one thing for certain, an AR style of weapon means it is capable of firing multiple rounds in rapid succession, IE: they are really machine guns. I also know we don't have any plastic that will withstand that, an AR style weapon will " melt " a steel barrel, not literally, but render it useless. So my thinking is why would you manufacture, at considerable expense I would think, an AR style weapon that in reality could only discharge a few rounds? The answer would have to be, because I can. Back in 2003 100,000 downloads for a 3D printed handgun were distributed before the government stopped that. You really didn't hear a whole lot about that. Of course mention an " AR " style weapon and folks are up in arms! No pun intended.
The big question is of course should the government get to decide what information is disseminated and what is not? If this information is prohibited from being on the Internet in the United States does that mean it will not be available on the Internet at all? Hardly, so is the government then going to restrict what we can view or download from the Internet in general? Is the government going to monitor just what it is we are reading, looking at and downloading? There are foreign countries that do just that, think North Korea for one example. You know, freedom is an all or nothing thing! Either you have it or you don't. Still we must remember freedom of choice doesn't relieve us of our moral and ethical responsibilty. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. That's why you can't holler fire in a crowded movie theater. But the freedom to do that exists, if it didn't we would all be muzzled upon entry to the theater. I don't think those plans should be made available to everyone but I believe everyone has a right to that information. It's a personal decision. If that decision infringes upon your rights, then its' personal. It's a sticky wicket alright.
No comments:
Post a Comment