By RU Twisted
Not that you had a lot of faith in our lawmakers to begin with, but the whole topic of 3-D printed guns does a fantastic job of showing just how ridiculous our politicians are at erring on the side of freedom taking things away from people because they don’t know what else to do.
First, what is 3-D printing? For those unaware, 3-D printing technology is reshaping the world we live in. From rapidly-advancing medical devices to sending tools to outer-friggin-space, the ability to design something on your computer and print it out offers countless possibilities in nearly every area of life.
Think of it like a regular printer, except the “ink” is a multi-layered material that, when stacked together in the order chosen by the blueprint, composes a three dimensional object. So as long as the printer can handle the material, it can be printed.
I know you’re already imagining a way to design the perfect girlfriend/boyfriend, but slow down—we’re not there. Yet. 
“But wait—I saw in the title that you mentioned guns being made by 3-D printers?”
Yes, you most certainly did. Because they are! A guy by the name of Cody Wilson invented the first one about two years ago. And while it’s not the most beautiful weapon you’ve ever seen, the idea that one can download the blueprints for it and print it on a 3-D printer is nothing short of revolutionary.
And apparently terrifying to nearly everyone in a position of power.
Approximately 37 seconds (give or take a few months) after Cody offered his blueprints online, he received a letter from Ye All Mighty Department of State telling him to remove said blueprints, lest he be guilty of endangering children everywhere by having the gall to not think of them first. Their claim is that his blueprints violate regulations forbidding the export of “unapproved arms.”
Now here is where this story gets super fun and allows us a chance to see the cognitive dissonance of partisan political players shine bright and true. Wilson and the group representing him are challenging this letter, but they are doing it on the grounds of the First Amendment.
Stop and consider for a moment what this means. Proponents of absolute free speech—see flag burning, flag stomping, etc.—will have to be on the same side as proponents of firearms freedom if they wish to be logically consistent.
I can see it now. Some hippie on a college campus ranting about how “the man” is keeping his speech down and how he should be able to say/write anything he wants and a farm kid says “cool, that means I can print guns at home and sell the designs to my friends all across the country!”
Annnnnnnnnnnnd the hippie’s head explodes from the war inside of it.
A couple things going on here that I’d like to break down super-quick. I can see some saying how “well, this is a really complicated issue,” but it’s actually not.
One, the rules that exist at the federal level for firearms manufacturing, selling, and exporting are a complete joke. I’ve read a lot of them and one thing is very clear from doing so—they don’t make Americans any safer so much as they make it very difficult for small businesses to operate because of the depth of red tape one must go through in order to be involved in the firearms business.
Sure, a group like Remington or Colt can easily navigate through that silliness, but only because they can afford to. Joe Bob Small Business can’t—thus furthering the endless cycle perpetuating the relationship between large businesses and the federal government.
Second, this issue really isn’t that difficult—as long as you remain consistent. Do you want an absolute interpretation of the First Amendment? Great! That means the same mentality applies to the Second, as well. Do you want lawyers, judges, and legislators making a mess of the Second Amendment? I’m sorry, but they aren’t going to stop there—and they haven’t, as evidenced by our current legal system.
Third, this is exactly where a “but” after a certain freedom leads. If you say “well, I believe in the right to bear arms, but…” there will inevitably be a contradiction with other laws at some point. 
For example, over the years our government has taken the stance that you totally deserve the freedom to do X, just not in Y or Z cases (because they know better than you, duh). So things like the Second Amendment get tweaked in the name of “safety for the children” or some such idea.
The problem comes, as we are already starting to see, not just when technology finds a way (which it nearly always does) to shine a light on these inconsistencies, but when government takes the side of “you can’t do that!” instead of “well, we really have no right to stop you until it hurts someone…” which is where it should be. They err on the side of control rather than freedom.
We live in a fascinating time. Rapid advances in technology that can make millions of lives better are being made on a daily basis.
What should interest (and scare the hell out of) everyone is that we employ a government that is desperately trying to regulate all of it and, in the process, making a huge mess out of most of it.
Think of it this way—what if your kid needs a skin graft and the only way you can afford to do it is via 3-D printing (this is a real possibility, by the way). But wait, you can’t! Why? Because legislators, who were “thinking of the children,” of course, made it illegal to download blueprints online and print them because some guy made a gun one time that might have been used in a crime (even though it never was).
Now who’s thinking of the children?
If this sounds far-fetched, it’s anything but. Cody Wilson’s case is currently demonstrating how convoluted these things are going to get, as legislators scramble to figure out how to control something they don’t even understand (no, not health care this time—although it will probably affect that industry, as well).
Simply put, what we will probably see is a whole host of new regulations—hell, maybe even a whole new agency if we’re lucky, am I right??—governing an area of technological advance the regulators know very little about, that will most assuredly contradict at numerous levels with most if not all of the Bill of Rights. I recommend keeping an eye on stories like this one for that very reason, as rulings on “firearms exports” that are actually “internet speech” can have profound influence on each of us.
But mostly you should pay attention so you can make that ideal husband/wife on a printer and usher in a whole new era of thinking of the children.
The post 3-D Printing: Gun Control, Speech Control, and Control Control appeared first on Unapologetically American.