Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[Montmorency]

All anybody would need is their little printer and that can have all the material goods they desire.

As I said, you can't just make stuff out of thin air.

Material inputs can be controlled at every stage. You don't even need to emplace any new systems, just extend whatever exists today for the raw-material supply-chain.

Also, these devices are inherently more complex than either paper-printers or printing presses. I doubt a large proportion of the population will quickly learn how to maintain the devices. And replacement surely can't be as easy as with, say, a $50 inkjet. If a commercial model is developed that is both large enough to print a wide variety of whole objects or modules, and small enough to fit within a typical garage or shack, it likely will never cost less than whatever the equivalent worth of your average car today is.

Let's be honest: outside of large-scale manufacturing, 3D-printing will have little direct impact besides permitting hobbyists to print plastic trinkets. A very few will be using them to build up customized vehicles for fun. No one will printing advanced electronics in their homes. No one will be printing organs or animals outside specialized institutions.

If we're looking out for socially revolutionary technologies, then neurocosmetic surgery and omnipresent surveillance systems backed by powerful computer algorithms are better candidates.

[Papewaio]

You can right now order online mass produced versions of home made fast prototypes.

For sure, most people will end up using it for replacing missing monopoly pieces. The raw material is expensive... Still less per gram then printer ink.

Materials aren't limited to plastic, you can order items in wood and metal or use a CNC quilt maker for a wool made item.

The home maker versions have dropped rapidly in cost and are getting much easier to assemble... some require as much assembly as an inkjet. Most are priced in the $2k to $4k range for home users.

The big thing is the ability to take a home CAD drawing and then put that into a commerical operation.

Sure a country can decide to stop the home maker revolution. It happens all the time... But the competive advantage will be with the countries that embrace this... Some country will get the new Silicon Valley another will be North Korea with the rest somewhere in the middle.

[Ironside]

In my dystopia, it's a post-materialist world - it is post-materialist in the sense that in the absence of any other social relations, materialism and material goods are no longer something distinct from the society that they exist in - materialism ceases to be the phenomena it once was. Material wealth is so abundant that it has no value as material wealth - it is just a form of social expression. But rather than expressing natural social relations as in the pre-materialist society, material goods form the actual basis of social relations. Like I said earlier, people will not identify by community or faith etc, but by the mass culture that they buy and reflect in their material possessions. Whether it's their clothes, or their CD's, what they collect, or whatever.

A strange and scary world...

Also, I should note that I came up with the terms pre or post materialism by myself, maybe other people use them for what might be other meanings, but that is coincidental. I'm not meaning to identify with them.

I'm curious on how you come to that conclusion. The abundance of material goods will increase the value of non-printed products and non-material things, aka much as it is today. Retail will be hit hard in the west, but most consumer items are already produced in another country (like China).

The big expenses are housing and eating. Those doesn't disappear do they? So the need for work will stay, the excess money will be expressed in exclusive items, travels and "experiences" (like today). I can see it driving towards "worker redundancy" where normal employment will be less than the number of workers, but there's a lot of factors involved there.

[Papewaio]

It's not going to get rid of economies of scale or mass production.

It is going to open up mass production to more people. Shorten the speed to market.

Essentially as think of the ease with which a web page can be updated, so can 3D printing and its ilk.

However do not mistake 3D printing from removing factories anymore then home printers removed industrial printers. Nor think that everyone will become an artisan maker anymore then laser printers made everyone a published author.

It will level the playing field and allow smaller more dynamic outfits to get their designs out there. They still will use mass manufacturing... But it won't rely on their direct capital, it will be a pay per item model.

[HopAlongBunny]

Pffft! why not just scan your trinkets?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...atterform.html

[HopAlongBunny]

The death of Freedom?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...crackdown.html

[drone]

ITAR rears it's ugly head. Pretty ridiculous, but them's the rules.

[ICantSpellDawg]

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITAR" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">ITAR</a> rears it's ugly head. Pretty ridiculous, but them's the rules.

We are being blocked from accessing information that we are legally entitled to because people around the world are not free. This is a bad omen, but we will begin fighting back harder. The government has decided to make their response a clumsy and rights abusing one. Our position will gain more traction than it had before.

International Isps who don't believe in freedom should block access to these sites, our government should not block American Citizens access to information which we are legally entitled to ESPECIALLY for the crappy rationale that "other people arent free to access, so our freedom should be curtailed"

Imagine how else this line of reasoning could be used against us. In the end, the files have been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times in a matter of days and have now entered into the realm of the indominable common use around the world. They have been endlessly torrent seeded and will now exist on the global black market. Americans can still access the files legally, but new development will be curtailed, at least by defense distributed. And as 3d printers become diffuse we will see these guns pop up left and right

[Lemur]

ICSD, it would be a lot easier to take your arguments seriously if you hadn't been celebrating the filibuster of the background check bill.

Your credibility on this subject, outside of the self-selecting circle of NRA true believers, took a major hit from that.

On the face of it, sounds like the government was faced with a weird new situation and responded stupidly. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT HAS EVAR HAPPENED.

You might want to look at the case law surrounding cell cameras and police, as a parallel example. The guvmint always responds stupidly to a new technology that potentially threatens or limits their power. Then the courts come in and knock the executive back a bit. It's a process. It takes a while. Your NRA-style panic-hyperventilation does absolutely nothing to move the process along.

[drone]

We are being blocked from accessing information that we are legally entitled to because people around the world are not free. This is a bad omen, but we will begin fighting back harder. The government has decided to make their response a clumsy and rights abusing one. Our position will gain more traction than it had before.

Not really sure you understand how ITAR works. These are firearms (cheap POS's but still), which fall under the US Munitions List section of ITAR. If Defense Distributed wants to legally publish the printer files, they need to make sure downloads are limited to US IPs. If they want to publish to the rest of the world, they need to open a site in another country, and maybe form a non-US corporation to run it. Or, just maybe, get State Department approval before putting it out there.

ITAR is not about treaties or appeasing the commie pinko Euro gun-grabbers. ITAR is all about keeping weapons tech inside the US. Giving or selling military tech to other countries is controlled by the State Dept.

[Lemur]

Now nobody will ever be able to get those plans! Oh, wait, this is the internet we're talking about.

[gaelic cowboy]

Not Monetized, Monopolized.

is monopoly not inherently all about monetisation

[ICantSpellDawg]

ICSD, it would be a lot easier to take your arguments seriously if you hadn't been celebrating the filibuster of the background check bill.

Your credibility on this subject, outside of the self-selecting circle of NRA true believers, took a major hit from that.

Try attacking the idea rather than the man. My credibility as a human being on every issue is now in question because I successfully opposed something you thought was an ok idea? Why don't you just marry expanded background checks if you love them so much?

You are better than ad hominem attacks.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not really sure you understand how ITAR works. These are firearms (cheap POS's but still), which fall under the US Munitions List section of ITAR. If Defense Distributed wants to legally publish the printer files, they need to make sure downloads are limited to US IPs. If they want to publish to the rest of the world, they need to open a site in another country, and maybe form a non-US corporation to run it. Or, just maybe, get State Department approval before putting it out there.

ITAR is not about treaties or appeasing the commie pinko Euro gun-grabbers. ITAR is all about keeping weapons tech inside the US. Giving or selling military tech to other countries is controlled by the State Dept.

The law may say those things, I get that the government may be legally entitled to do this, but I disagree that this line of thinking has a future in the modern world that is digitally interconnected. Proof Pudding is the fact that their review will not stop rapid dissemination of the files around the globe.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Let me get this straight - you guys are defending a dated, speech hampering, ITAR, that has been proven to be ineffective due to the technical realities of the day - just so you can tell yourselves that supporters of the technology have egg on their faces?

Good job.

[Lemur]

Your credibility on this subject

My credibility as a human being on every issue

Misquoting to achieve an aggrieved (but false) cry of ad hominem is beneath you.

Your credibility on this subject is shot, in my opinion.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Misquoting to achieve an aggrieved (but false) cry of ad hominem is beneath you.

Your credibility on this subject is shot, in my opinion.

Have I ever lied to you about something on this issue?
Did I not correct my assertions on 2 separate occasions when proven incorrect? (refresher -my post about Obama's statement that he never made, and my expectation that the AWB/mag ban would pass this Senate)
Do I support the basic idea of expanding background checks to all sales?

[Lemur]

Do I support the basic idea of expanding background checks to all sales?

And yet you gloated and chest-thumped when it was defeated. Revealing, no? Tell me again how "your" side will "reintroduce" the bill.

[Greyblades]

Misquoting to achieve an aggrieved (but false) cry of ad hominem is beneath you.

It is also very confusing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And yet you gloated and chest-thumped when it was defeated. Revealing, no? Tell me again how "your" side will "reintroduce" the bill.

I challenge you to find an issue that I had credibility on in the first place before I get upset about losing the respect people never had for my political opinions.

The reality is that you value moderation. Because you feel that no moderation was had, you feel that an injustice has been done. Even though the checks had nothing to do with New town, even though violence has decreased dramatically in at least a correlative relationship with a dramatic increase in guns owned.

As we have stated, I don't live in the Midwest or have the luxury of not knowing what life is like in the enlightened northeast these days. There is no moderation in forcing me to have 7 rounds in my previously mandated 10 round mags. Or in requiring me to drive 50 miles and take time out of work over a period of 3 days in order to buy a handgun... Every time you buy one - after already going through a face to face background check which renews every 5 years. Or in forcing you to take the most modular modern rifle and butcher it in order to make it state legal.

BTW, this isn't the end. The Democrats in NY wanted 5 round mag limits. The "compromise" was 7.... Last time the compromise was 10. They'll keep pushing until it is one. One round, one gun. Then it will be none. These laws are stupid and have become dangerous. I don't believe that they help the issue at hand, but I do believe that they help democrats whittle away at our second amendment rights. Nipple-twists just to hurt their enemies. This is how people work when they hate each other, and they hate us. Especially because we have been beating them on this issue, both numerically and logically. They will use their laws to persecute us, to harass us and to make our lives more difficult if we let them. That's what they do where I live. That's probably what Republicans do to democrats where they are in the majority. How much "moderation" should I have to accept in NY? We've got background checks for all sales in NY already.

Should the background bill have failed? probably not, because background checks are not infringements, but if it ends up helping democrats at the midterms I wont be surprised that it failed. They had the opportunity to make it work and didn't want to because they thought they'd get more currency out of letting it fail as it was then coming to an agreement and having it affect crime in no way.

BTW, I celebrated the defeat of the democrats on that bill, I thought that the 3 parts that I could live with would pass. I would like to see checks expanded to all sales. The only reason that they wont pass is because you won't go the extra length to get the agreement. Remember, this is what you guys think will work to cut down crime. We think it's short-sighted but might not hurt if done correctly. You come to us on the re-hash of this issue or don't be surprised if it fails again

[ICantSpellDawg]

ITAR is obviously being used to prohibit something for political reasons, which is a double-dose of insulting because 1.) Its never cool to take a law out of context because you need a knee-jerk reaction to something, and 2.) The domestic problems of other nations are their own problems. The way ITAR has been used here can only be considered a restriction of the American citizen's ability to buy and sell an American product on the behalf of... people who aren't American. That's not cool either.

This is a good read of the situation. It carries over for other speech/property issues, too.

[Husar]

The government can't even balance its checkbook, so what is it doing by wasting energy playing dirty politics?

I thought the whole austerity thing was proven wrong due to an Excel sheet error.
Look how Europe is turning into a post-apocalyptic wasteland by trying to balance the checkbooks.

[Husar]

Who said anything about Austerity? That's just a political shakedown scheme. Really fixing the economy would require a measured discussion, not scaremongering.

The whole point of austerity is to balance the checkbooks.

In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions. These policies can include spending cuts, tax increases, or a mixture of the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity

You cannot balance the checkbook by only talking about it, you have to adjust income and spending. The whole scaremongering part is usually performed by the investors who run away screaming once a country can't pay back its debt anymore. A measured discussion is also a pipe dream when you have hundreds of special interest groups who will fire torpedoes at any discussion regarding their special interest. It always ends up in torpedo valley.

As for the whole gun thing, there's fewer special interest groups but it's already just as hopeless. And even the winning side isn't happy as long as they haven't shot their opposition so deep into the ground that they can even arm toddlers and dogs it seems. Because you know it's a slippery slope, today you allow gays to carry guns and tomorrow they'll want guns for their dogs and goats.

[ICantSpellDawg]

As for the whole gun thing, there's fewer special interest groups but it's already just as hopeless. And even the winning side isn't happy as long as they haven't shot their opposition so deep into the ground that they can even arm toddlers and dogs it seems. Because you know it's a slippery slope, today you allow gays to carry guns and tomorrow they'll want guns for their dogs and goats.

This is a problem. We've forgotten how to compromise. Today, it sounds like compromise when you get 5 opposition Senators to sign on to your bill. That is a vote, not a compromise. A compromise entails one group winning some, losing some for their idea of what will sove a percieved problem. Then, the other side wins some and loses some for their idea of what will solve a related percieved problem. This is required in todays government and that is a good thing.

To me, a flat bill would include a requirement that all sales undergo an easy to obtain federal background check. The end. This could be spot checked and you can be slapped with jail time or a fine if you are caught breaking this law. This is not an infringement. Instead, Democrats wanted to increase record keeping requirements and create an early draft of a gun registry which would include every gun sold on a 40 year delay (when FFL's retire or close down they must submit all records to the ATF). Equally intense, Republicans were pushing for concealled carry reciprocity on top of it.

If we keep it simple, without a record keeping requirement we will most likely pass it. This will be good for everyone - it is litterally a win/win. This is a compromise, and only Tom Coburn could see it. We should all be ashamed, if there is shame going around.

[Lemur]

Trecord keeping requirements and create an early draft of a gun registry which would include every gun sold

Factually untrue, unprovable, without documentation of any sort, slippery slope fallacy, and (not surprisingly) take straight from the NRA talking points.

But hey, don't let that stop you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Gun store owners claim that ATF agents will occasionally copy their records on inspection. Additionally, if the ATF is collecting ALL personal records upon store closure or license revocation, what do they do with our records?

Also - you are going to give us a promise that no Registry will be made? Didn't we already have that in the 1986 bill?

What about "out of business records"? where do those go? If FFL's are required to record ALL sales, professional or private; personal records will exist for ALL sales. There will be a record of every sale with personal information to EVERY owner of a firearm that the ATF has access to at all times and regularly makes copies of improperly.

The reality is that we supposedly have a ban on a registry already (which is ignored with impunity), offering us what we already have is a BS compromise and is meant to fool those who are not aware of it.

Based on my understanding, you are either knowingly or unknowingly mis-representing truth on this issue.

[Strike For The South]

Gun store owners claim that ATF agents will occasionally copy their records on inspection. Additionally, if the ATF is collecting ALL personal records upon store closure or license revocation, what do they do with our records?

Going to need a source

[Greyblades]

Wait, has the ATF been revived? Because last I heard the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was so declawed they didn't even have a director. If so I doubt they do anything with your records more than use them to collect dust.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Going to need a source

http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2013/02/2...of-4473-forms/

check appendix

The main concern beyond dated record collection is 4473 record copies outside of specific criminal investigation with subpoena. Could it be overstated? absolutely. Could it be an outright lie on the part of gun groups? I hope so.

Also, I'm pretty sure that many States keep gun records. Handgun permits in my state require addition to your file of the specifics of each handgun (and now "assault rifle") that you own. I don't know what you think that they dio with them.

[Strike For The South]

Which one Tuff?