Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

blog.adafruit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 861 posts

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#131

Post by ndriscoll »

Retric wrote: post #122
ndriscoll wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Girardoni repeating air rifle predates the ratification of the constitution by ~11 years and was taken on the Lewis and Clark expedition ~13 years later. Really the whole discussion around 2A is usually nonsense because it ignores the context that the entire Bill of Rights had a completely different meaning prior to the 14th amendment leading to incorporation over the last century (and other expansions of federal…

> Girardoni repeating air rifle Not a firearm. I didn’t say we could ban compressed air powered guns, I specifically said percussion caps. The Girardoni was way less dangerous than a modern handgun.

Sure, but compressed air guns are deadly (you can find videos of people using them on deer on youtube, or if you want something less graphic, you can find ballistic gel test videos), and a repeating rifle did exist at the time and was used a couple years later by an official American expedition commissioned by Jefferson. So fast-firing weapons were not some alien technology. The wider context also makes it clear that 2A was supposed to give individuals the right to own whatever weapons the military uses because at the time, there was no standing military. Individuals were summoned and expected to bring their own weapons, hence the law requiring them to own them.

In the 230 intervening years, we've vastly increased the scope of the federal government and developed a formal military, so one might argue we ought to amend the constitution to change exactly what's allowed under 2A (e.g. it should be straightforward to have a nuclear weapons ban added with unanimous agreement), but as it stands, 2A (+14A) clearly gives individuals the right to own the arms necessary to run a functioning ("well-regulated") militia, which in 2026 means at least semi-automatic firearms.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#132

Post by Hizonner »

billfor wrote: post #18
RajT88 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The zip gun people are mostly just weird nerds, and not professional assassins. The latter seems to be doing it the old fashioned way which leaves no traces - buy cheap gun, file off serials, throw it in the river after. Zip guns may get past a metal detector, but not the standard x-ray luggage scan. To the extent it'll make it past the x-ray screeners, it's because they let all kinds of stuff through, becau…

Same thing happened to me -- had a large vice grip in the duffel bag. Could have killed somebody over the head with it. They looked at their "regulations" and vice grips weren't on it so they let me through. You know who didn't let it through though - I left it in the bag and the Chinese security confiscated it on the way back. btw don't try that with something that is on their list like ammo, even one bullet. Your l…

> had a large vice grip in the duffel bag. Could have killed somebody over the head with it.

There must be a billion things in the "sterile" area of your average airport that would make better clubs than vise-grips.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#133

Post by everyday7732 »

delichon wrote: post #78

> The obvious problem: you cannot reliably detect firearms from geometry alone. The obvious problem with this argument is that in just the medium term, world-model style AI will get good at this task, but having big brother pre-approve every print will still be bad.

I think it's still not a viable problem to solve.

What happens if you print the handle on a different printer, and print it with an attachment which works as an ice-cream scoop?

Or how about you actually print an ice-cream scoop, and then stop the print halfway to just take the handle, and do the same for several other innocent looking parts which are carefully modelled to fit together after printing individually. There are just so many ways to get around any measures they could put in place.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#134

Post by hoarseAAPL »

9x39 wrote: post #112
hoarseAAPL wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS has ruled before that 2A does not afford freedom to own any kind of weapon. There are limits on explosives for example. They tend to lean on whether it is reasonable that the Founders might have had access to such a weapon with their technology. Machine gun is just a rifle with automatic rechamber. Not an unreasonable upgrade for 1700s technology. Maybe, I dunno; political people don't have to actually care ab…

>SCOTUS has ruled before that 2A does not afford freedom to own any kind of weapon. There are limits on explosives for example. This is largely machine guns and explosives. Pistols, rifles, etc are ordinary weapons in common use* *NYC authorities may not agree

https://ammo.com/research/list-of-banned-guns-and-ammo-by-st...

Sawed off shotguns seems arbitrary and that was ultimately my (pre-coffee) point; government is fine with coming up with an arbitrary restriction when they want.

They could outlaw the means of production. Gen pop is not allowed to own that.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#136

Post by Retric »

kube-system wrote: post #130
Retric wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forearms yes, percussion caps no. A large fraction of the harm from firearms comes from their ability to fire rapidly which didn’t exist when the constitution was written. As such it was making a very different balance of risk between the general public and individuals.

1. The second amendment wasn't written because the authors thought guns were inert. It was written precisely because they could impart deadly force. 2. As someone else pointed out, early repeating rifles did exist then. 3. If the meaning of the constitution is only to be evaluated against the technology available at the time -- what does that say about the validity of the 1st or 4th amendments with modern technology?

Air guns existed sure. There’s a reason those aren’t used by the military today, they just aren’t that dangerous.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#138

Post by 0_____0 »

nradov wrote: post #85
0_____0 wrote: post #54

Policy in the pursuit of easy political narrative wins looks like this. US gun crime is a national issue, and therefore unsolvable in the current political climate, so useless posturing like this is what we're left with. The real fix is something like a nationwide licensing system like for cars, with auditing of weapons and weapon storage.

No thanks. We don't need law enforcement checking weapon storage in private homes. And there's already a national background check system for most legal firearm transfers.

I didn't say it was politically feasible. I'm just saying that's how you control gun crime.

It's mostly handguns, and about half of firearm homicides are with illegally trafficked arms. They can be trafficked because there's no way to account for the guns.

All this rests on the assumption that anyone actually wants to solve gun homicide. A lot of people SAY they do, and that's how you get shit like 3D printer bans.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#139

Post by hoarseAAPL »

reactordev wrote: post #124
mothballed wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only weapon class I know of that's outright illegal to own is anti-aircraft missiles. That carries life imprisonment just for possession, with no violent intent. Because the government never wants to give up its air supremacy. This is why whenever you hear of feds concocting an international weapons conspiracy they always have to add anti-air bazookas to the charges because it's the only thing that actually can u…

Fully automatic assault rifles, anti-aircraft guns (that still operate), anti-aircraft missiles (that still operate), land mines over a certain size, or any Comp B. Those are on the naughty list. There’s a whole community of folks building semi-automatic auto-return triggers that are “technically” semi automatic, but with just a gentle squeeze, fire off another. If you maintain that grip, the return mechanism engages…

Sawed off shotguns, sawed off barrels in general.

My point overall was government is fine with arbitrary exceptions that would get Stan's dad going all "Oh I'm sorry, I thought this was America."

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#140

Post by Retric »

ndriscoll wrote: post #131
Retric wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Girardoni repeating air rifle Not a firearm. I didn’t say we could ban compressed air powered guns, I specifically said percussion caps. The Girardoni was way less dangerous than a modern handgun.

Sure, but compressed air guns are deadly (you can find videos of people using them on deer on youtube, or if you want something less graphic, you can find ballistic gel test videos), and a repeating rifle did exist at the time and was used a couple years later by an official American expedition commissioned by Jefferson. So fast-firing weapons were not some alien technology. The wider context also makes it clear that…

> So fast-firing weapons were not some alien technology.

Thrown stones are a fast firing deadly weapon. They, compressed air guns, and ball musket etc aren’t used by modern military forces in combat because they are less dangerous.

A rule that allows compressed air weapons yet bans percussion caps is quite reasonable and could pass constitutional scrutiny.

Post reply on HN