781–790 of 861 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are a citizen, subject to the laws and the taxes, you should get a vote: no exceptions.
Why? To what end?
Use that big brain of yours and try it, you might learn something about humanity (and humility)!
As you might expect on a tech website, folks in the comments have immediately jumped to workarounds for this. Before we do that, spare a thought for whether our government should be allowed to conceive of something like this in the first place.
realistically, if it fails now due to public outrage, they will try to sneak it again in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't conflate "populace" with "lobbying groups". The populace wants health care and this ain't it.
[flagged]
Yes, I get that you're trying to express a deeply RWNJ partisan view but as a proud LWNJ I must express that the real world is much more complicated than "commies are nuts yo". Perhaps the issue is rampant authoritarianism?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is, in fact, a good question wrt how much of NFA is actually constitutional. A funny thing about this is that ATF has dropped cases on several occasions where the defendant tried this angle, presumably because they didn't want something contrary to their current regulations as written to be overturned in court, and because they had plenty of other charges to throw at those guys anyway.
Given that it was modeled on gun control legislation from pre-WWII Germany, it's _not_ something which they want looked at too closely.
Not only did jews have guns, but Polish jews had an entire military and state and that did not protect them.
Because guns do not protect you, other people willing to die for you protect you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Uh, Marx is the one who said "Under no pretext..." but who's keeping score at this point. Yes, I get that you're trying to express a deeply RWNJ partisan view but as a proud LWNJ I must express that the real world is much more complicated than "commies are nuts yo". Perhaps the issue is rampant authoritarianism?
My main concern is, how long is it before you can't print a replacement part for something you bought because it looks too similar to an OEM part and the manufacturer doesn't think you should be able to do that so they throw a little money to the right politician.
I think it's interesting to note that not only is there precedent for this type of "blocking technology that prevents the printing of certain things"[1], but it's also inconsequential and uncontroversial enough that most of the people here obviously have never even heard of it. We lost the ability to print $50 bills with our HPs[2] and it had no noticeable negative impact on society. I'm not sure why losing the abili…
Huge, important distinctions: Manufacturing firearms is not unlawful in the State of New York, nor is it unlawful federally. As far as I can tell, there is no federal or state law that compels any company to add features like the ones HP has added to their products. I have not spent a large amount of time researching. Just browsed a few articles like this one https://www.itestcash.com/blogs/news/your-guide-to-federal…
I also don't see the point about manufacturing firearms as particularly convincing. It was a process that used to be more difficult and technology has made that process substantially easier. It's reasonable for a government to think the old process didn't need regulation due to that complexity while the new technology intensifies the problem enough for a government response. New technology prompts new regulation all the time for exactly this reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any evidence that any significant number of Americans want this restriction on 3D printers?
I think the representatives pushing for this legislation is evidence that a significant portion of their polled constituents want restrictions on printed ghost guns. Is that more or less believable than a manufacturing lobby pushing legislators in NY state for printer DRM?
Why is that considered evidence? There are many cases of elected representatives doing things that do not align with the wishes of their constituents. There are also many cases of regulators regulating things that their constituents don't care about at all, but help a politician's career by building their reputation as one of "getting things done".
Actual evidence would be polling, citizen organizations, donations etc. None of which seem to exist for this issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would unironically love to see the diy 3d printer scene come back.
It never went away. The Voron continues to be a popular DIY 3D printer, tho many people choose to buy ready-made printers.
> 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.
How? The printer only ever retrieves G code for individual parts without any knowledge of what they are going to be assembled into. There is no viable way to solve this classification problem on this kind of incomplete data, is there?
Since such a printer is incapable of determining whether or not this gcode represents a legislatively-restricted item and then blocking its production, then that machine becomes illegal to sell in New York. Easy-peasy. It just takes a quick vote or two and the stroke of a pen, and it is done.
You're probably thinking something like "But that doesn't work at all," and I agree. But sometimes legislators just don't care that they've thrown out the baby along with the bathwater.