Bitcoin Forum

Forbes Article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/09/state-department-demands-takedown-of-3d-printable-gun-for-possible-export-control-violation/

On Thursday, Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson received a letter from the State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance demanding that he take down the online blueprints for the 3D-printable “Liberator” handgun that his group released Monday, along with nine other 3D-printable firearms components hosted on the group’s website Defcad.org. The government says it wants to review the files for compliance with arms export control laws known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR. By uploading the weapons files to the Internet and allowing them to be downloaded abroad, the letter implies Wilson’s high-tech gun group may have violated those export controls.

Wow.

Can't take down their BTC address...

Defense Distributed/DefCad.org:
1Gb5GNxrVGMT8e9uoJ8CmamrdVz9o8fAEa

Yeah, it's WAY too late:
Magnet link for the Liberator pistol:
Magnet link for Mega Pack 4.2 (Saito) (everything else):
edit: It was brought to my attention that SMF treats all links like http:// If you want them, you'll have to copy and paste into your torrent grabber of choice, sorry.

The horse is gone!  Shut the gate!

Now all they have to do is send take-down notices to the 100k+ people who downloaded these guns.  What a waste of trees, anyway.

I lold

But as serious weapon 3D printing is not practical. Firearm must be reliable to fire tens of thousands of rounds. It must not break when dropped or grabbed by enemy in close quarter combat.

Sharing blueprints of real guns is the way to go. Maybe initially optimized designs like Sten SMG or Makarov PM. Then someone with right tools and materials can make copies.

At the moment. 3D printing is a rapidly advancing technology.

These files are already out there and hundreds of thousands of computers. Not to even mention how many torrents or 3rd party server downloads have been created for them as well. I think this is more for show than anything else (kind of like the megaupload fiasco), they just want to kick somebody in the balls and scare everybody else involved.

A disarmed populace doesn't need a gun capable of firing tens of thousands of rounds. They don't need a gun sturdy enough to use in close quarters combat. They don't need a gun accurate enough to kill a man at a thousand yards.

They just need a gun good enough to get a gun like that.

Edit to add:
Just to illustrate how ridiculous this whole thing is, this (http://defcad.org/125mm-heat/) was specifically mentioned in the take-down letter:

http://defcad.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/123mm.png

I'm not so sure about that. Yes, "real" guns are certainly much better long term.

But perhaps the question should be more something like this:

Could John Wilkes Booth have used this effectively?

Sounds like a job for Tor.

He can still provide the data to US citizens.

Too bad it doesn't matter, the files are all over everywhere already. Pirate Bay has still not fallen to government scrutiny after spending millions, so...

Open Source is our weapon against oppression, and now that we have moved P2P from simple file sharing into directly messing with money and weapons on the same principals: welcome to the new paradigm. Pretty cool to see this all evolve from the ground floor.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZRUpmMIQy8

DefDist already has a working full auto. The first had problems with the receiver cracking after a few rounds. Realizing they are not made of metal they beefed it up considerably, and can now make it through several clips. This is just the first one

Bingo. 

Nothing like something one-time-use lethal to kill your least favorite rich person or politician.


:)

The 2nd amendment is not about killing the person you don't like, rich or poor. You can simply use a shank made from a spoon like in any prison for that.

Cody wilson just made a lot laws irrelevant with his plastic gun while the governement is running guns to mexico and through Benghazi.

We can now add 3d-printing as one of the new Internet-based technologies that are eroding the power of the state.

The other Internet technologies that have contributed to that are:
- blogs/alternative media
- file-sharing
- cryptocurrencies

I want to point out, as this is a huge misunderstanding in the current US gun control debate, an AR-15 is semi-automatic, not fully automatic.

A fully automatic fires repeatedly with one pull of the trigger; aka a 'machine gun'.  These have been generally banned since the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act was passed at the federal level.

Semi-automatic weapons fire one shot each time you pull the trigger without needing to be manually reloaded or reset.  Most guns are semi-automatic, with the exception of muzzle-loaders, bolt-action, single-shot, and some revolvers.

Absolutely correct (been up too long...)

I suppose more my point was simply there is already a big brother of the Liberator being developed. I'm curious why the Feds are only now freaking out, since the receiver has been around a while already. The receiver still counts as a gun which is why DefDist went through the steps to be recognized as a legal weapons manufacturer in the 'States.

I would by the way recommend, if you are seeding those, not to do this when NOT behind a foreign VPN or Tor.

If it is easy to find someone that downloads movies... take my guess.

Still, I don't know why you should actually own these things, but that is kind of an american thing.

"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free" - A. E. van Vogt

One would imagine the right to make weapons would be even more the right to be free.

I doubt there is that much truth to it. Freedom needs weapons? What for? For the right to shoot someone?

The one thing I have never understood is, considering the immense might of the united states military. How does anyone in his right mind think that beating this complex with a revolution is a good idea? :D

The use of weapons always brings nothing else but death. 


Don't get me wrong, im not an anti gun nut, but neither am I a believer that everyone should be armed. I don't see any use for it.

For me, it's for fun (target shooting) and for if someone breaks into my house.  They'd get a face full of rounds from me.

See, that's exactly my point. The massive power disparity is exactly the problem.

Think about it. Why could knights and kings lord it over the peasants? Why did the Japanese forbid any but the Samurai to carry swords? Even Hitler knew the value of keeping the populace disarmed:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
         --- Adolf Hitler

The simple fact is that if you do not have a weapon to defend yourself, you are a slave to anyone who does have a weapon. The right to buy a weapon is the right to be free. Period.

I'm a strictly self-defence, defence of others person kind of guy, I do however believe if that you're going to have gun control the people policing should have to obey the same rules as well and come up with other forms of defence against guns which I'd actually be happy to help with if that were the case. Anything else is just a power grab and shows that governments only want to have complete control over us.

https://bitcointalk.org/useravatars/avatar_67267.png

Thanks USA, thanks for finding new ways of killing people.

See, here is my problem with this: Human psychology is tending to simply comply. There is no need for weapons, you just tell people what to do and a majority will follow.



I get that. That is what I believe is an okay solution. Even if I consider the statistics of how many people are actually shot by burglars with their own guns ;)


What I don't get is this idea of resistance against the government. I get it if you are totally libertarian, but at the same time the people that talk about lax gunrights seem to support anti terrorism laws and a strong military. It is like "we are a state, we have the right to bear an army and kill everyone to remain free."

I don't get that logic, to be honest. I have traveled the world like crazy, and the countries that are the "least" free when it comes to these matters felt the most free to me. Free from fear.

Ahh, indeed, that is why socialized education is so important to a modern State:

"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." - Vladimir Lenin

A well-brainwashed populace doesn't need to be forced with arms, they'll follow along willingly.

A free population, once conquered, however, must remain under the gun until a few generations have passed and the people are well trained.

Because things like the Holocaust actually happened.  That's why.  It's not resistance against the government today, it's resistance against the government in the future in case we need it.

Even if this plastic gun is a piece of sh**, considering you can print dozens of them and just throw them around the house...

People are too focussed on this being revolutionary in the US.

But think about someone in Rwanda getting hold of a cheap 3D printer, perhaps a whole village pooling their money to get one and spitting out a gun for every man woman and child in a village. The next time a warlord rolls in with his truck full of armed men to rape and pillage, they may be met by a village of armed citizens.

There is plenty of tyranny out there suprisingly worse than the US. This will have an impact there before anything happens in the US.

This. This right here. This is exactly what I was saying. The right to own weapons is the right to be free.

As has been said many times before, it puts a little old lady on (mostly) equal footing with a burly 250lb man.

that's the US conservatives/republicans. Libertarians usually do not support strong military (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I) (or any state military for that matter). It's a philosophy of strong individualism.

Sorry but this is so ridiculous I had to comment, so basically your solution to rape and pillaging is more guns. Ok so lets pretend these crimes do not happen in legal gun ownership countries for a second. So the Rwandas who do not even have access to computers are expected to print out a gun and fighter back those who are armed with real long lasting guns? If America wants guns that is cool, go for it, we get daily broadcasts showing us the benefits of that "freedom", but please do not project those thoughts onto Africa. Africa is a victim of guns so please do not suggest that poor people are "aided" with more guns. I am not saying this for arguments sake, I feel very strongly about this, I do not own a gun yet I feel safe. The US is built on war and an fed up of war, humanity can survive without a gun in its hand!

Sure. If nobody had any guns. But people do have guns. Bad people. People who don't listen to laws saying "you can't have guns." So the only way to put the good guys on the same footing as the bad guys is to arm them.

In short, "More guns, Less crime (http://books.google.com/books/about/More_Guns_Less_Crime.html?id=j6cMYKRgqQ8C)."

The UK do not allow guns, every week we read about another killing spree in the US. Believe me I am as anti government as you get and I do not worry near as much for myself as I do for those associated with US gun culture. Yes the bad guys (government) in US have guns, I understand why US citizens wish to protect themselves from those guns, that seems sensible. However, in reality what are US citizens going to do against warships, jet fighers, drones and so on?

Nothing. If you are revering to general criminals then again your prison system is a shining example of how not to rehabilitate.

The more you support guns and gun culture, the more money you give to your dictators to carpet bomb people in third world countries, not to mention the continued stock of an arsenal that could dispose of 90% of the US population within a fortnight. Criminals exist in the UK, fortunately a very large propotion do not have access to guns, our government could not over rule us either, unless of course they get the US military justice system to help them.

I don't mind hunting animals, but I disagree with shooting, bombing, gassing and any other methods developed for killing a human beings but that is just me. I guess I just dont know what it feels like to be "free" as you guys put it.  ::)

um... wut?

Remember, this got started with this:

Supporting the notion of armed citizens resisting tyranny in no way supports the tyrants themselves.

Do those broadcasts mention that most of those massacres take place in places where having a gun is illegal?

Yes It does, the "um... wut?" seems to suggest you don't yet understand. Think of it this way, the West supports those in question with millions in aid/charity. So where does the financial support end up, not in the hands of the general population! Instead that "support" either ends up in the hands of corrupt government, or in the hands of those willing to exploit the hard working people through the use of guns and weapons to impose their agenda on others. If you support 3D printing guns in Africa then I hope you have considered all the kidnapped children brainwashed ready to invade the nearest village. If anything plastic guns are more suited to the rich in Africa then the general population, only the corrupt will own them just as they own the US Apaches, Tanks and so on.

I guess we can agree to disagree, I come from the perspective that one can argue that a gallows could be used ethically to chop fruit, but in real terms that gallows will be used for taking off heads.

To be honest, I think we should not be using the word "perhaps" when people lives are at steak. I find it hard to believe that any African will feel the same way most Americans do about guns being a solution to any kind of problem.




The US war on drugs = Death, Murder, Bloated prison system, Crime etc. etc....
The US Gun Cultue = Death, Murder, Bloated prison system, Crime etc. etc....
The US Police = Death, Murder, Bloated prison system, Crime etc. etc....

I am not trying to attack the US, I just come from a land which has been responsible for many wrong doings in its history (The Britsh had advanced weapons). This is not about my country vs yours, this is about human beings. I do not want my kids growing up around guns, nor do I want anyone else's kids to grow up around guns. The UK does not have police driving through streets in armored vehicles, believe me when I say we are more safe and less worried about the fire power of our government then US citizens should be.

Actually, it appears that you come from a perspective of a very poorly educated person who probably believes anything that was told him in school.

A few quick facts:
Printing a plastic gun does not pay for an Apache helicopter, and to think it does is moronic.
A gallows is a frame for attaching a hangman's noose. I believe the word you're looking for is "guillotine."
The phrase is "lives are at stake."
I'm quite certain that any african would gladly take an AK to defend his village from the local warlord rather than watch his mother and sisters raped and then himself be forced into the army of that warlord.

I hated the educational system, I was producing anti-propaganda from a very young age so please do not make assumptions as a basis for your argument. Also yes I meant guillotine but the principle still stands regardless, I am sure you could see beyond my incorrect use of terminology to see the valid principle of my argument. You avoided the fact those local warlords would take the printed guns, the printers, the computers and so on. I hope you realize those warlords are also African, sure the majority could kill the warlords, then of course the majority will split into larger factions, because they are are surrounded by weapons and the gun culture that the warlords that were exterminated grew up in. Just like gang culture, when guns and violence are the preferred methods of control over intelligence, the results are inevitable.

Like I said, if guns are your idea of a solution then great, I guess I just think from a moronic perspective. Those silly people thinking humans can co-exist peacefully without shooting each other. ;)

Guess what? They can do that with guns, too.

Guns don't force non-violent people to commit violence. They don't force violent people to commit violence. They do allow non-violent people to defend themselves from the violent ones.

Let's assume there were no guns anywhere in the world. How would you suggest a non-violent person defend himself from a violent one?

The gun 'control' freaks do not want to get rid of guns. That's a big fat lie. They want ALL the guns, tanks and nukes in the hands of a small class of psychopathic mass murderers (aka Govts) and the 'commoners' disarmed. Basically sending us back to medieval times of Kings, Emporers, etc. only today they're called 'presidents' and 'prime ministers'. Democracy is another evil, archaic institution touted as the great alternative. Two wolves and a sheep choosing what to have for dinner is the old saying.

Many say these views are a result of Stockholm Syndrome, a well documented mental disorder. Look it up. If these hypocrites were really sincere, they would be calling for disarming beaurocrats and doing away with the military. If, and only then, should liberty-lovers even consider disarmament. As it is right now, we need much, much, MUCH more laxer 'laws' to level the playing field and hopefully keep these tyrants somewhat in check.

If I am considered the gun control freak in this debate then I feel it is necessary to disagree with your statement. Actually I would rather weapons were taken out of the hand of all human beings, people fail to see that giving guns to the population means giving the psychopaths even more guns. The same concept applies to finance, give the populace some money and those supplying the populace the money gain control. This is a very simple concept, power always trickles down from the top, my personal belief is that those at the top need to grow up in an environment away from the conditions that give them an excuse to kill and abise power.


Guns do not force violence on any one, however they do make violence a whole lot more efficient. Knife attacks for instance cannot be compared to an automatic shot into a crowd. I feel your argument is one sided, basically a bad guy armed has no encouragement to use the firearm, but a good guy armed has lots of encouragement to use it? So weapons are a defensive measure? From a historical perspective guns seem to be preferred by the attacker, if government is the attacker which I do believe is the case then I would try to avoid supporting government military spending with my own finance. If you buy a gun, you are basically financing a supplier who is going to benefit substantially from the government contracts that you are going to pay for, over the health, education of society. I really do see your perspective,it is one of those political divides that will never be agreed upon.

If you are in a room with a load of people and you keep hanging weapons on all the walls to defend yourself then not only are you supplying all those in the room with the same weapons, but you are also increasing your own risk of getting attacked. I would rather no one had guns then everyone had guns, so in my opining the no guns perspective is the best option.

You're a master of talking much without saying much. You never answered my question.

POOF All guns are gone. How does a non-violent person defend himself from a violent one?

So I understand how the AR can be printed, but how are bullets printed? I mean wouldn't they need to have some kind of real gunpowder or explosive material, not just plastic?

Non-violent person defends himself and kicks the ass of the violent guy once disarmed as they are on equal terms. Plus sheer numbers of good vs bad would always put the bad guy at a disadvantage, providing humans are ethical in the majority. It is 2.30AM and I have finished my beers so it is time to sign off, for the record everything I have said is just based on my own opinion so no hard feelings, it would be a far worse situation if everyone had the same beliefs, thoughts, ideas etc. Few areas of human reality are not up for debate and that is what makes life interesting. Good night all. :)

Yeah, you can't print bullets. You can print a mold (well, the model of a mold, that you can use to make a more sturdy one), and gunpowder is not a difficult material to make. The percussion cap is the real sticking point for making your own bullets. It should be noted that an electrical spark, such as that made by a piezoelectric lighter, can indeed ignite gunpowder.

Hah! No. The gun puts them on equal terms. Without the gun, the strongest person wins. That puts women, small men, and the aged at a significant disadvantage.
This argument works for my side as well. Better, in fact.

A violent person will win the fight anyway. He will move faster, more aggressive and with a purpose.

A non violent person will always, always hesitate, even to pull a trigger. That is one of the reasons in hand to hand combat knife attacks and pistol disarming moves are so piss easy on an amateur. Someone who knows his way around a gun and is ready to use it is someone where it is hard to take his gun from him. Keeping a distance, moving position, on target, will shoot.

A scared person that is non violent in nature will make mistakes. Stress rises, cortisol rises, adrenalin rises, neo cortex shuts down. Rational decision making goes away. Over 80% of people I put in a simple spot of defense in training can be put in a state of catharsis by a sudden scream. Take a mask and a paintball marker and try it. I have always been hit on the field, suck at that. But taking it from a non violent person when you are ready for this? Fuck it, violent person will always win.


Look at street fights. You think the guy that is cornered by a group of five has any chance because he is the guy with the gun now?

But i can tell you, how non violent people have survived. Because that is how evolution helped: They grouped together in larger bands of people and stood in larger numbers. Attackers, even violent ones, knew that larger groups are harder to attack and kill than smaller groups.

That is why we have created tribes in the past.

Well, at least that's a more realistic answer than Johnny Kung-Fu.

However, it's a known fact that criminals prefer unarmed victims. And an armed group of peaceful people will be better able to defend itself from a violent person than an unarmed group, even if the violent person is unarmed as well.

So right now the popular thing to do is to print firearms and just buy real ammo?

Well, I don't know how popular it is, but it's certainly the cool thing to do.  8)

I am just curious, what is your solution to the problem? Warlords, aka very bad people, have guns. Villagers do not. We can't arm villagers or stop the very bad people with guns. So... Do we politely ask them to stop being very bad people? (I mean, that WOULD be a very British thing to do, but...)


BTW, still pissed at your country for canceling Mongrels. That was a horrible atrocity that you guys did.