Even though the issue is the codes, if there are prints to make 3D guns people will make them. America already has a problem with shooting people. Now there's a gun that can't be detected. The whole thing is asking for trouble. They can say it's only illegal if someone makes the guns, but that's not going to stop anyone. making pot is illegal, people still do it. Driving drunk is against the law it still happens. Saying it's illegal is nothing to people. And if they don't want people making these guns then what's the point of having the codes? It's just taunting people to make them and they will.
Should the information on printing 3d guns be released to the public. I feel like it hurts both the First and Second Amendment. It hurts the First Amendment because the government is not telling us what is going on in the country, but if they would tell us we would have people making guns from their own home. It also messes with the Second Amendment because it would lead to more gun violence and the people of this nation will have guns without a license and the First and Second Amendment are muddled because the legal framework been weak
Should 3D printing guns be available in the public. According to the text they are used for speech rights and protection. There not used violently 3D print guns is just a simple design .
The question on, should 3D printed gun plans be available to the public? Yes, they should be out there and available to everyone who wishes to look at them or use them. It is the time we have came to where technology surrounds us with everything we do and if the government is keeping that from us, how are we so posed to keep succeeding and making it better. 3D printers are new to us and as soon as we create something that is evolving technology the government wants to shut it down. They should be the ones who want us to make better things, not shutting something great down.
The information on 3D printing shouldn't be out there. Even though it's not being used for violence. There is also the thing as in it shouldn't be posted about because the government wouldn't know who has or doesn't have a gun. This whole thing is just hurting the amendments. So a overall thing is that the information people received should of never got out.
The information should be available to the public, as just the information alone is not harmful. With the tools necessary in order to utilize the information effectively some damage could be done. This is why the tools should be regulated, not the information. As it stated in the article "a recipe is no less 'speech' as it calls for an oven", printed gun information should be treated in the same manor. It may be scary but it is a risk we must take in order to ensure that freedom of speech is not tainted. If we let our emotions control us, we will not progress as a people.
Having the design plans for 3D Printed firearms be easily accessible can be incredibly dangerous. A large amount of untraceable firearms being in circulation could enable some rather despicable things to take place. However, the designs are some what of a form of free speech, and shouldn't be totally locked away. Perhaps there should be a fair amount of hoops paperwork, and background checking that should occur before you are allowed access to these plans, and filter it through the government, similar to regular firearms and their licenses. It'd be dangerous to allow anyone and anyone to construct 3D printed firearms, but it'd be an infringement on freedoms to have them locked away permanently. If we attempt to make sure these fall into the hands of the right people, then 3D printed guns may not end up being a big problem.
Should the blueprints for 3D printed guns be allowed? This question has been a very popular one in the news lately. I could see both sides of this argument but whats really illegal about sharing the plans for a gun. Matthew Larosiere said "booby traps, landmines, and other explosives are illegal yet you can still find the Anarchist Cookbook on amazon." If its legal to share plans for illegal explosives then whats wrong with sharing the plans for a 3D printed gun.
Should information for 3D guns be available to the public? Yes I believe that the information should be available to the public. According to Matthew Larosiere the ability to have things such as this online falls under the category of the 1st amendment, which is the freedom of speech. Also according to Matthew there is information online for illegal drugs and bombs, so why would the issue of information about guns be different than that of drugs or bombs.
Information on 3D-printed guns should be available to the public. Taking away the right to see them would be infringing on the First Amendment. Like Matthew Larosiere said, "Cooking meth is certainly illegal, but this publication on the synthesis of amphetamines and cannabinoids is not". The publication of the designs would not be the issue. With that, there should be regulation on who gets to print them. You have to have a permit to buy a gun and the same rules should apply to being able to print them.
The question referring to if we should make information about 3D guns legal or not raises a few answers. Although there are many opinions about the subject. I think we should make information about 3D guns legal simply because the information is the same as something you would hear on the news. It is a first amendment debate and not a second amendment issue. People associate the plans to people actually making the guns and that's not the case. It has turned into a political theater with far too many muddled sides to choose from on the issue. With the information out there this allows people to study and learn about the 3D printed guns. and that itself is not harming nor should it be illegal
I feel that the information surrounding these plans and such should not be accessible to all and that this problem does lay within the 1st Amendment. Many see this as gun rights and are connecting it to the Second amendment. I see this as having nothing to do with the 2nd amendment as long as nothing is recreated via 3D printing or other ways. The first amendment allows many other ideas and forms of expression that are along the same blurred lines. As the author brings up that there are books and videos on how to recreate guns and drugs all over but none of those are a problem until someone takes action and actually creates them. There is a problem with free speech and nothing to do with the second amendment.
The issue about 3D printed guns is that many people are wondering how the government is going to regulate who can and who cant access the data needed to build these firearms and that scares them. This issue isn't the main problem though we need to realize that if the blueprints for the guns are found unconstitutional its not the guns that are getting the ban its the ideas and creativity of a company that are being squashed. With this said I believe that the blueprints should be allowed to enter the public due to the fact that if we do truly have freedom of speech we should be able to share whatever type of information without the governments involvement.
The question is, is it necessary to release 3D gun printing information out to the public, which consists of a numerous amount of different aged people. In my opinion, I believe we should due to the fact that we have came such a long way into this technological world that we so very much created by evolving ideas and turning them into everyday references. 3D printing isn't supposed to be looked at in an evil perspective. It should be admired because it shows how far we have come over the years. The only way this could be a negative idea, is if we use it in a negative way. Therefore, I say begin the process to bigger and better things.
For some people the debate over the 3D printed gun plans is an issue of the second amendment. I on the other hand believe that it is more of a first amendment issue and it should be available to the public. I say this because freedom of speech is speech in every form even gun plans, so with that every American has the right to have access to those plans. An example from the text that would help me prove my point is " Any form of expression is presumably protected by the first amendment. For example, booby traps, landmines, and various other explosives are illegal, yet you can still find the Anarchist Cookbook on Amazon" Matthew Larosiere. The plans for the 3D gun printing plan is a first amendment issue not a second and should not be confused. The gun itself should be illegal but not the plans.
No information on 3D printed guns should not be released to the public. These 3D guns are undetected and can be smuggled in anywhere. It's asking for some trouble. Sending the codes out will just tempt people to make the 3D guns even if it's illegal or not.
3D printed gun plans are not the issue. I am definitely not all for the plans bing public, but if someone wants to make a gun illegally, they will. The designs are just making it easier on for people that want to make guns illegally. It says in the article that, "no matter how illegal it is to synthesize flunitrazepam, you'll still find its exact composition in chemistry books." This is a very good point and helps people understand that people will do what they want even if they have help doing it.
Information on 3D printing guns should be available to the public. I believe that information on printed guns should be allowed because it is a right of ours. Information such as this is our freedom of speech protected by our First Amendment. The 3D guns are more than just a gun, they are a person's design, making it their speech. According to Matthew Larosiere, "Designs, recipes, and plans are all forms of expression protected by the First Amendment". This quote shows that a design of a gun is simply our expression. We are free to make any designs we want or say anything in our nation, because of the protection by the First Amendment. 3D printing gun plans should be open to the public, because the plans are our expressions. Our expressions are protected by the First Amendment.
Their has been a discussion about if 3D-printed gun plans should be allowed on the internet for people to be able to print them on their own. The First Amendment states that people have the freedom of speech and they can put what ever they want on their website. So the State Department forced a removal of files from the Defense Distributed's website. The reason that they did that was because according to the article they have a lawsuit from a partisan group of state attorneys general sued to stop the release of the DeDist's files that was about "undetectable frearms." The 3D printed guns are plastic and they can be detected by and metal detector and that is a security issue and that is where people can sneak the gun into places and endanger people and kids.
Should information about 3D gun printing be shared with public? I do not think that this information about making 3D guns should be a public thing. Not everyone who has a 3D printer should be allowed to make a gun whenever they feel like it. These guns would also be undetectable from metal detectors, so no one know if it was brought in to an area where it is not supposed to be."A partisan group of state attorneys general sued to stop the release of DefDist's files in a lawsuit that yammered on about "undetectable firearms."" says Matthew Larosiere in his article he wrote. I just think this would not be a good idea, just for the safety of the public.
The issue of 3D printed guns has been a hot topic in today's news the past couple of weeks on whether it should be allowed or not. However, the possibility of printing the 3D guns should be allowed. This issue was looked at as a Second Amendment issue, but it is not so. As Matthew Larosiere writes, "Our Constitution rightly defines speech broadly. Any form of expression is presumably protected by the First Amendment." This means that the recipe to create weapons or anything in general from a printer is protected by the First Amendment. This amendment is the most important of all of them due to the fact that it is what the establishment of this country was based on. So it is the divine right of citizens to have the opportunity to print whatever the wish off of the 3D printer. However, the rights of the Second Amendment and who can get them has been a hot topic in today's society. Some guns are illegal though and are not protected by the Second Amendment, but may be printed via 3D printer. An alternative for this is to only allow software for weapons protected by the amendment to be printed, and have a similar staging process to get the right to buy or carry a gun online before being able to pint it.
In regards to the article asking "Should the plans for 3-D printed guns be legal and made available to the public?", I personally believe that they should be available to the public, but the same measures should be taken in order to receive them as is taken to obtain a regular firearm. 3-D printing has become a fast growing market and people find ways of creating new things everyday. If this trend continues, people would have a very easy, accessible way to access parts and create dangerous things, and that's where a line must be drawn. When used for good, like prosthetic limb replacements, 3-D printing technology is what is bringing people into the practice and allowing for new advances. When used for bad, like "homemade" guns, it gives people the wrong impression that these new technologies are becoming dangerous and too accessible.
The debate that 3D guns should or should not be released to the public is a legal and congress debate. My opinion if it should be released to the public or not is no, there is no need to release them to the public. If anyone wants to buy a guy they can go to Dick's or anywhere they sell them legally. If anything the blueprints could be used for in the military to produce more guns faster and cheaper. This debate shouldn't be going on right now. According to the article in paragraph 4 its not used violently but they still can't guarantee no one will figure it out.
Should information about 3D guns be available to the public? Yes and no, everyone should know whats going on in the world. It may not be safe, because they are not able to be detected, but in some cases people should be able to know whats going on. People are still going to make them even if they are illegal, but even without releasing the information, they'll eventually figure it out. We should find a way to be able to detect the guns, or how to stop them from being made, instead of acting like we can hide them from the public forever. It doesn't matter if we release the information, people are smart and will figure it out and find a way to make them. We need to be focusing on how to detect them and make them safe for the public, hopefully before information gets released, but once we have them safely designed then we wouldn't have to worry about it. We are focusing on the wrong things, and not addressing the real issue. We need to focus on how to make them safe, not on how to get rid of them because they will never be fully gone.
If you said yes to publicizing these documents you are putting yourself and your family in grave danger. There are people who have mental disorders in this world an they will abuse this power by the click of a button. It will cause chaos an fear to the people of this nation if those documents are released because anyone with a 3D printer could have access to a deadly weapon. There are already guns all over America being attainable to most people, there's no reason why our government should put even more danger onto the streets, buses, and planes.
The question is should infomation on 3D printing guns be available to the public? I feel like the infomation should be released to who wishes to use them. I do agree that we need to have some kind regulation involved with the printing of these 3D guns but if someone is going to commit a crime then there will use a regular gun sense its cheaper and easier to obtain.
For a couple weeks now the concept of 3D printed guns has been buzzing around headlines everywhere discussing whether or not that you should or should not be allowed to have access to make a 3-D printed gun. This matter has been discussed as an issue relating to the 2nd amendment but Matthew Larosiere says "This issue has everything to do with the First amendment, and if we continue to confuse it with the Second Amendment we will damage both". In the article they bring up a point that 3-D gun blueprints can't be banned because it violates the first amendment like how the Anarchist Cookbook cannot be banned because it is only a book on how to make it but now when you actually make something then it becomes illegal. In my opinion they shouldn't ban it because if you ban it then you would have to ban every other recipe of something that is illegal.
i personally agree with the author of the article when he says its an equivalent to books such as the "Anarchist Cookbook" which details how to create bombs. Defense Distributed is and should be protected by the 1st amendment as they are not doing anything illegal but rather exercising their rights. The media is attacking it is disregarding the 1st amendment and correlating it to a 2nd amendment issue which is causing what shouldn't be a big deal, a mass media outrage.
The company behind the "Juul" should not be held responsible for it being used in classrooms because they are not selling their product directly to the customer. When a firearm is sold to a person who decides to use it illegally, the manufacturer of the weapon is not at fault, the person who bought the gun is. This same standard should be held to Juul Labs and their customers. Also, I do believe that extra measures should be taken to prevent the sell of them to minors and to keep them out of the classroom. For example, Juul Labs could restrict the product to in-store purchase only, with a valid ID required, This would negate all false online purchases by minors using other peoples' IDs, or fake ones altogether.