I think that this argument is more focused on the fact that the 3d guns and or files are "undetectable"and illegal. In the first paragraph they mention how these firearms are undetectable they also go on stating that it is illgeal and that it shouldnt be legal because you are supply the people with knowledge that the government doesn't want out there.
In the article The fight over 3d guns it talks about whether it is about the second admendment and the first admendment and which this stands for. I think it falls under the second admendment because it is a gun and we do have the right to bear arms. This is a gun being printed which still is a gun. As these people yammer in court about if this is wrong or not people need to take into realization that as long as the 3d printed gun has some sort of metal plating to set off a metal detector it should be legal.
No, information on 3D printing of guns should not be avaliable to the public. The information shouldn't be public because it can affect peoples safety. People would most likely use the weapons for bad and not good.
Should 3-D printed be aloud to the public ? I certainly do not think it should be aloud to the public , because if a civilian was to get the software or figure out how they do it they could hurt others with the 3-D printed guns. According to Matthew Larosiere he states " there are no "guns" at issue here , only designs embodied in various digital formats". Matthew also states that " it can artistic as well as mechanic " .
I think we should be able to have information about printing 3d guns because it would be interesting to a lot of people and a lot of people would like to understand how it works. One of those people are me.
I do support the 3D gun printing because this is a first Amendment issue. There was no seizure of weapons only digital files online which is apart of our freedom to information. There are all kinds of illegal information you can get online like a Anarchist Cookbook. The only thing that has been seized in this case is the design of the guns.
The fight for 3-D printed weapons is one focused on the First Amendment, not the Second Amendment. The First Amendment gives the citizens of the United States of America the right to speak freely without being censored by the government. The blueprints for printing 3-D weapons was just blueprints that were censored the public could not see and this is infringement on our First Amendment right. In my own personal beliefs, printing the weapons would be hazardous to our society; however, there was no printing happening. If weapons were to be printed, I believe, it wouldn't cause any sort of damage to society only because a select few citizens actually have the technology to print said weapons. Government censorship caused the idea to be much worse then what it originally was.
3D printings of guns should be available to the public. Some may argue that it is violating our 2nd amendment, but in reality it is violating our 1'st. "It sees this shifting of the focus from what is actually at large (distribution of digital files) to the much more polarizing subject of guns has been intentional. Our Constitution rightly defines speech broadly. 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 on Amazon. It is undoubtedly illegal for most people to manufacture a machine gun at home, and yet, is the 1985 publication of “The Do-it-Yourself Submachine Gun: It's Homemade, 9mm, Lightweight, Durable-And It'll Never Be On Any Import Ban Lists!” Cooking meth is certainly illegal, but this on the synthesis of amphetamines and cannabinoids is not." states Matthew Laroisere. So this isn't a gun rights problem, this is a freedom of speech problem.
I agree with the author on how this is not a second amendment issue but a first. As stated by the author "booby traps, landmines, and various other explosives are illegal, yet you can still find the Anarchist Cookbook on Amazon. Hiding information from the public is wrong, which is why it should be illegal to produce the weapons but not to hide how they are made.
I think that 3D printing guns should be illegal because in todays society, people are not responsible with them. The idea of 3D printing guns is very unique, however, some people will eventually start to take advantage of that. In the past couple years, there have been many shootings in the US, so many to where the government is trying to ban all guns and only let our police and military force carry one. I think that, if someone releases the blueprint to print one, that it will make it easier for the dangerous people to have one. The article states how they are "undetectable firearms." Although it does not make it fair to the people who will use the gun the legal way, I think it's not worth the tragedy that may come with those who want to do nothing more than hurt people with them.
I think that this is a 1st amendment issue and that people have the right to this information and that it should be illegal we as citizens have the right to know stuff like this to defend ourselves that being said i also think the government doesn't have the right to hide information from us and we have a right as people to have access to that.
The information on 3D printing of guns should not be available to the public because this could protect people. But it aslo can be worse. In the real life, there is person shooting his wife and other people who are in the there at store. Most people died from that shooting and fight.