Rep Steve Israel 2nd Amendment 3D Guns
courtesy AP
Previous Post
Next Post

“(Rep. Steve) Israel also mentions the “constitutional free-speech right to share computer codes” asserted by Defense Distributed, the company whose software the DOJ recently agreed to allow online without the threat of criminal charges. But he offers no response to that claim. Presumably he would point out that the people who used quills to write the First Amendment couldn’t comprehend that one day a network of computers would make it possible to communicate electronically with people around the world, let alone that the exchanges might include instructions for making stuff at home with widely available equipment.

“By Israel’s logic, Americans have a right to own flintlock rifles, to circulate literature printed on hand presses, and to prevent the government from rummaging through their diaries and personal papers for no good reason. But the Second Amendment does not cover plastic guns made on 3D printers, the First Amendment does not protect speech on the internet, and the Fourth Amendment has nothing to say about the security of information stored on computers, because the Framers knew nothing of such things.” – Jacob Sullum in The Framers Did Not Know From 3D-Printed Guns. So How Can They Be Covered by the Second Amendment? [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Just another pro-tyrant progressive advancing illogical arguments to justify civilian disarmament. I don’t know what secure high rise he lives in, but I’m not about to give up my right to defend myself in the world in which I have to live.

      • AMEN, Nativeson!!! I refuse to be a victim on behalf of ANYONE!! I will do whatever I have to do when it comes to protecting what is mine…my family, my home, etc. They deserve to be protected from those who would do them harm and I would not hesitate to defend them! The anti-gun revelers can go straight to Hell!!!

  1. The left wants to pick and choose which rights to acknowledge. Rights for me but none for thee.

  2. The Second Amendment makes NO reference to “GUNS”.
    It refers to “ARMS”, short for armaments. Armaments include knives. spears, rockets, catapults, halberds, trebuches etc, and, of course, guns and firearms.
    The framers certainly knew very well about the evolution of weapons up to their time and could be fully expected to believe that such evolution would continue unabated into the future. As it has.
    The use of the word ARMS allows citizens to possess weaponry that is available in their own time, as needed to preserve their freedom.

      • Historically it was privately own ships with cannon that were the US Navy during the revolutionary war. Civilian aircraft patrolled the seas looking for U boats in early 1942, before the navy could get up to speed.

        As far as I’m concerned you can have a B-52 bomber, as long as you can pay for it, and the government is willing to sell it to you. Or buy some other ex military jet aircraft. You can also purchase Russian T-72 and T-80 tanks!!!
        A retired SR-71??? (smile)

        • I was pondering this question earlier this morning. I would go for lighter aircraft, but not heavy bombers. So an A-10 or F-16 would be ok.
          Too big of a chance of hitting the wrong target with heavy bombers. But then I also draw the line at nukes, biological weapons, and most chemical weapons since they are too indiscriminate in who they kill.

        • Where you draw the line is unimportant, unless and until you pass a constitutional amendment codifying it into our system of laws. Right now, the right, as passed and ratified, is unrestricted and cannot be infringed.

  3. I’m pretty sure that the framers of the Constitution understood that knowledge about constructing new technologies could be transmitted in written form, hence the patent & copyright clause:

    To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

  4. Ah, yes. The party of science once again out burning books lest the children learn.
    The unfocused lashing out by the left is looking more like Pol Pots uprising every day.
    Except all these angsty turds are rich kids living off of trust funds.

  5. False Flag Alert…Sorry for thread “Hijack”!

    Tomorrow is the anniversary of the alleged Aurora, Colorado theatre “Shooting”!

    As many of us know, numerology and anniversaries are important to Satanist and the illuminati!

    I fully expect the FBI to Try and STAGE some type of False Flag between today and this weekend, to Try and capitalize on this anniversary, so they can Try and get more Gun Control!

    If “Anything” happens, please call it out and DEMAND HD Video proof!

  6. Never in my life have I had a Friday the 13th. be any different than any other day. It was just a day after the 12th. and before the 14th.

    • “Never in my life have I had a Friday the 13th. be any different than any other day.”

      Same here, but I was sweating one particular Friday the 13th.

      My 13th birthday was on a Friday the 13th. I kid you not.

      And nothing bad happened!

      Well, outside of hanging out in TTAG 42 years later… 😉

  7. Perhaps someone should ask this clown what the purpose of the patent office was if the founders couldn’t conceive of advancing technology.

  8. Now, there are plenty of “Law and Order” conservatards who would gladly throw our 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendment protections under the bus even faster than the anti-gun crowd does the 2nd.

    • Not really. The surveys show when comes to people willing to throw the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight amendments under the bus, the left is more likely than people on the right. It is just with the Second Amendment the left even more broadly is willing to throw it under the bus.

      so you are correct that some on the right don’t respect the bill of rights, but nowhere near as many as people on the left don’t respect it.

      Need I remind you when it comes to fourth and fifth, NSA was Truman, FISA was Carter and Ted Kennedy, and while Patriot was Bush , the actual massive expansion of Patriot to include all Americans was Obama (including his intelligence director cabinet level officer directly lying about that under oath to congress)

      • I am talking more local, criminal matters. It is on the “right wing” sites you see the “If you have done nothing wrong………..” arguments. It is on the “right wing” sites where you see people arguing for torture . It is on the “right wing” sites were people start arguing about overturning a jury acquittal. It is on the “right wing” sites were you get the “He should have done everything the cop said and he wouldn’t have been………” arguments. Or the ever popular “Don’t break the law if you don’t want to be shot/tortured by a cop”.

        On the national level, right and left are meaningless. The leadership of both parties are big government elitists who want all of us dead or in chains.

        • On the national level, right and left are meaningless. The leadership of both parties are big government elitists who want all of us dead or in chains.

          By and large, I would say that you are correct.

          About the only significant difference I see between left and right leaning politicians is how fast they try to move us to the leftist notion of an all-powerful government run utopia.

          Having said that, while a non-trivial number of right leaning politicians have seriously infringed firearm rights for the working class, a non-trivial number of right leaning politicians have seriously restored firearm rights for the working class. We cannot say the same about left-leaning politicians.

        • Yes, Left wingers are certainly more opposed to strong bill of rights protections.

          It is “left wing sites” is where you see people saying “why do you need a warrant, if you have nothing to hide.” It is “left wing sites” where you see people saying “we should copy S. Africa and allow double jeopardy, setting aside acquittal to try and convict a second time.”
          Don’t break the law if you don’t want to be shot/tortured by a cop”.

          This is something I have only hear some left wingers say, can you give a citation for your quote?

    • I am okay with throwing all government bureaucrats and politicians under the bus after they attempt to throw our rights under the bus, regardless of which political party they claim as their own.

    • That’s not true. That’s just what your liberal professor told you, to make liberals seem more inline with freedom. They’re not. If you truly look at the parties true platforms and then look at the regions of the country they each control, you can see clearly one side values the constitution far more then the other. They’re not perfect at it, but far, far better then the leftists who worship the state.

  9. In Caetano v. Massachusetts the court held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”. In this ruling the court did 3 things… it clarified the definition of arms to mean bearable arms for the purpose of the 2nd amendment, it clarified that technology which did not exist at the time is covered by the 2nd amendment, and that the 2nd amendment covered all instruments that constitute bearable arms.

    • And the U.S. Supreme Court, in their Caetano v. Massachusetts decision, were simply quoting that section from their Heller v. District of Columbia ruling:

      Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

      • Sounds like this is all settled then. Good thing we can stop arguing about it once and for all, right?


        • While the U.S. Supreme Court decision is extremely clear and explicit, other courts nevertheless issue whatever ruling they see fit.

          This is not a problem of an unclear ruling or a ruling that is based on conjecture. This is a problem of black-robed tyrants who have no reservations sending people to prison for having “wrong” politics.

          I am of the opinion that government bureaucrats and politicians would screws us a lot less if federal prosecutors actually prosecuted offenders for “Deprivation of rights under color of law”.

  10. Airborne school was a long time ago so forgive me if I paraphrase Benjamin Franklin. “Where is the prince that can afford to so cover his land with troops, for its defense, that 10,000 troops descending from the clouds might do infinite damage before a sufficient force could be brought together to repel them.” Now, if a founding father could anticipate paratroopers it stands to reason other advances in technology might also have been anticipated. Including firearms.

  11. It says “arms” not “muskets.”

    It says “speech” not “long hand.”

    The U S constition is quite precise, defining crisp *categories*. It is also quite precise about how to change it … as the U S has several times.

    Interestingly, limited changes with broad backing go right through. Like refinement of the Presidential succession after Nixon, or temporary transfer of executive after Reagan. (What to do when the Pres is down, but not dead from an assassination attempt?)

    Interestingly, broad, vague changes advancing one interest group iver another don’t go so well. The E R A would have gone right through if the wording weren’t such a land grab, nor so squishy in “rights” and “genders.” – discuss. (Bonus: Do we need an E R A with an “equal protection” clause, or is the problem enforcement? – discuss.)

    Propose a crisp repeal of the 2A. Or shut up.

  12. They aren’t hypocrites, they simply do not believe in individual liberties and will say anything to promote their downfall.

  13. Every time a leftist douchebag opens his or her mouth, we understand more and more why we need the Second Amendment.

  14. Personally I don’t think the right is the home of unwavering 1A or 4A protection, so it’s somewhat laughable (dishonest?) to point out the hypocrisy only on the left.

    While generally the right is best at 2A protection, or at least talking like they care, IMO it’s best to focus on the individuals stance on an individual topic, not whether the name begins with (D) or (R).

    I care about all my rights, and it is unquestionable that neither party feels the same as I do in that regard.

  15. Since President Obama distributed thousands of free grenade launchers and M16s with select fire option as well as M14s to civilian police departments all across the United States. I see no issues with civilians being able to purchase the same weapons.

    And BTW they should stop going after the bump stock this way poor people will be able to afford a rapid-fire weapon as well.

    • There is no real cost increase between semi- and select fire ARs, all that’s needed is repeal/setting aside judicially NFA 1934. Plenty affordable, except for ammo.

    • “Since President Obama distributed thousands of free grenade launchers and M16s with select fire option as well as M14s to civilian police departments all across the United States. I see no issues with civilians being able to purchase the same weapons.”

      The beautiful thing about that move is, by flooding the country with those weapons, they are now solidly “In common use”.

      A judge somewhere has implied that the standard of what weapons are covered by the 2A is what police officers use in their patrol cars. By that logic, Glocks, pump or semi-auto shotguns and AR-platform rifles (including, thanks to Obama, select-fire) are protected by the 2A.

      And SCOTUS has spoken on “in common use” as it relates to firearms…

  16. Statists (left wing and right wing) believe the Bill of Rights should be condensed to one sentence: You have the right to shut up and do as you are told.

  17. They wrote the law to be intentionally broad and encompassing… Their concept was to limit government powers and allow the people to dictate to their servants how things are going to be. They didn’t write the law to control the people, it was to control the government. The rights of the people are not limited to what is written on a piece of paper nor are human rights subject to debate.

    America is at the point where the Bill of Rights no longer matters, the constitution is a living document subject to interpretation, the law is now selectively enforced. In other words, the U.S.A. is dead — it’s now a zombie state.

  18. Following the (il)logic of the unesteemed not so honorable former Congressman Israel, it follows that freedom of the press only exists for materials printed on parchment, with gloppy ink made from berries and lampblack, using a hand-operated 18th century-one-sheet-at-a-time Colonial-technology printing press of the sort that you see in history books alongside a woodcut black-line sketch of Benjamin Franklin.

  19. There’s a lways a Jew pushing for gun control….And no one wants to point out what’s obvious to everyone now…

  20. Does the congressman communicate with his constituents and fellow law makers electronically or does he limit himself to face to face exchanges, and or hand written communications?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here