Search the Community

This book is a hybrid between a manifesto and a memoir of this young Texan who invented the 3D printed gun. I liked this book because it really lays bare the unique American philosophy, this review will comment on that philosophy and make it concrete in context of a politically tectonic level recent event, the site of which I'm not far from at the moment. America is the one country wherein citizens are obligated to overthrow the government if it gets too out of hand. Every other country is set up to protect the cartel of the powerful elite. America is unique in that our constitution provides... A concrete legal protection of a citizen’s right to violently abolish the law. The author Cody Wilson feels this experiment of a philosophically rigorous country is flat lined and needs to be re-animated The best I could say then was that America was a failed but worthwhile experiment. A miracle from the finest moment of liberal thought. Proof that foolish political experiments, be they compound republics or plastic guns, still had their fruits in the animating contest of liberty. Cody has significant disdain for politicians that would constrict our rights The force of her famous distemper for the popular ownership of arms seemed matched only by her muscular defense of our warfare-surveillance state. Cody's way of fighting back against that is to publish... Universal access to arms. ...in the same way that way open source software publishers distribute their products. Power can no longer be centralized in a world empowered by the Internet. He writes that the greatest mistake [the United States Government] ever made: not licensing the personal computer!” On Dangerous Freedom At the heart of the American philosophy we embrace a dangerous degree of freedom. We especially believe in freedom of speech to an extreme degree; America is the one country that allows Draw Muhammad contests, Neo-Nazi rallies, God Hates Fags preachers and art exhibits of cannibalism and crucifixes submerged in urine, we produce the most depraved porn and snuff films. All just a few clicks away from you now. So Cody asked... What if guns were becoming speech? And then instead of asking for permission he made it so by publishing and releasing to the Internet (that never forgets) the CAD files to 3D print firearms. Science fiction coming soon to a garage near you. “It’s like stealing something from the future. Something that’s not yet supposed to be here.” On Bitcoin The digital currency is - unsurprisingly - mentioned frequently Taaki was hoping to do with currency what I believed was possible with weapons— namely, to place them outside state structures. It would be terrible if bitcoiners were to just sleepwalk into letting the bureaucrats license their firms and activities. My favorite line of the book is And any man worth knowing is a man at war with himself. I think I first saw this guy in a viral Vice documentary; the first thing that really struck me about him is his extraordinary verbal ability. Politicians, TV personalities, professional commentators, pick up artists and sales people take public speaking and improv classes for years to become as verbally dexterous as this guy is. As a truly talented political pontificator he ranks up there with some of my favorite podcasters like Sam Harris, Stefan Molynuex or Gad Saad. It's remarkable that given the amount of money this guy could be making with his million dollar mouthpiece he has chosen the business he is in. Checkout this ReasonTV interview. Time will tell if this guy is too rebellious for his own good; I hope he doesn't end up in jail. However; the very fact that someone can do something as disruptive as release to the world downloadable guns is a reassuring sign that perhaps the American experiment with freedom yet draws breath. How the Printed Gun may change Revolutions The other night I watched this incredibly compelling Netflix documentary about the Maidan Revolution in Kiev, Ukraine. The film viscerally portrays the violence of the state. As I watched it in my flat in Kiev not that far from the stately European sites which were transformed into war zones in the events shown in the film I kept thinking how the prospect of printed guns could have radically changed how the Maidan revolution played out. In Winter on Fire the image that you'll see over and over again is of a bunch of government thugs in riot gear beating up protesters. I lived in the Ukraine and I have heard a bunch of different perspectives on the Maidan revolution. I know it's a complicated event that I would do a real disservice to if I tried to meta analyze it but just imagine how much shorter it could have been if Cody's guns were available to the revolutionaries... Just imagine how many lives could have been saved if the government thugs feared their adversaries... How much violence could have been avoided if the protesters could have brought something more menacing than rocks and sticks to a rubber bullet and steel baton fight? In my mind a printed gun or a multiplicity of them is much more powerful as a psychological weapon than it is.practically. Tactically I just can't imagine it being that much more dangerous as a weapon than a knife (or a truck!); nobody is going to slay dozens of victims in a mass murder spree in a mall or school with this thing. The hordes of hundreds of government thugs wouldn't have been nearly so aggressive if they knew there was a chance of being shot back at. Battling a crowd throwing rocks and sticks while fully armored in riot gear is probably just a little more risky than playing football with friends after a few beers and - let's be honest - probably a lot of fun! But what if one out of every hundred protesters had a gun? Even a crappy gun; it becomes an infinitely less appealing activity. How many of the riot cops would have transformed from cruel brawlers into assertive yet courteous peace keepers? How many of them would have flat refused to participate? The film is a 90 minute crescendo of escalation of force. A small group college students start to protest. Some riot police beat them up. A social media outrage ensues. Thousands rally to protest the police beatings of peaceful protesters. Some angry people advance on government buildings to protest. Larger scale melees occur with the police. The outrage grows and the protest becomes a revolution. The protesters organize a militia that can more capably combat the riot police. The government resorts to bringing in military professionals; snipers begin using real bullets to kill protesters on the front lines of the stand off. The revolutionary leader gives the President an ultimatum and the militia members promise to lay down their lives. Finally, given the prospect of presiding over a true massacre, the Ukrainian President resigns and hides. If the government faced a pervasive lethal threat amongst the protesters would they have had to be more reasonable at any early stage of the Maidan revolution? Would have so much blood ran on the icy streets of Kiev in 2014? I suspect not. If only I sold time travel devices instead of smart drugs I could make a bloody fortune by selling one to the dictator in the 2020's who is about to be overthrown by revolutionaries wielding plastic guns. Just imagine what such a dictator would pay to have Cody Wilson assassinated in 2013 before he opened this Pandora's box... Now that guns can be printed every despotic government around the world has a real reason to think twice about abusing their own citizenry.

Article The Mint Press lists its bias on their about page as "Through the lens of social justice and human rights, we report on how these dynamics drive our foreign affairs and impact the world, and examine the effects they have on our democracy and freedoms as defined by the constitution." Now I almost always cringe when I hear the words social justice, however the article makes some good arguments on the correlation between gun ownership and murder rates, notably that they don't correlate either way. They also point out that governments really only want to ban citizens from owning rifles because you need rifles to overthrow a government.

I have to get off of CIAbook, Orwellian land but I have accumulated so many arguments and memes. Speaking of disturbing behavior, why are there articles talking about pedofiles as anything but Monsters. Here is an article about "Meet the pedophiles that mean well" http://www.salon.com/.../01/meet_pedophiles_who_mean_well/ However on this issue of guns, when you look into the research gun control is actually used right before a genocide in so many cases as you can see from the attached graph from I believe the genocide museum in Hawaii. Also all the mass shooters have been on SSRI drugs, and instead of the pharmaceutical companies getting into trouble people are blaming guns. I'm sorry but liberal democrats are wrong on this issue and I think they are covering for all the pharmaceutical companies

Recently, a co-worker of mine was arrested, charged with 4 felonies and a pile of lesser charges, and released on bail. His situation is one involving multiple drug charges. I do want to state that I do not agree with the terms of his arrest, nor do I feel that he did anything wrong. But, being as the state sees his actions as a crime, and that he was also involved with others who were also committing crimes, for the sake of argument, I will refer to him as a criminal. People who commit drug related crimes are often involved with people who many of us would find undesirable to associate with. I'm not going to bother to further clarify my feelings on his character of that of his circle of friends. I don't trust him, or them. Period.So now that he somehow, amazingly made it out of jail, albeit temporarily at this point, there are a few of us here at my work that feel unsafe around him. We're not really worried about him personally, but more so the people he associated with. He somehow made bail of $250,000 cash. We are sure he didn't have the money. And we know there is no one out there who footed a quarter-million dollars just to get him out of lock-up. So, the common assumption is that he is helping the authorities locate and arrest other dealers and suppliers. This, in turn, will create a very hostile response from former associates of his.Our employer has decided to allow him to return to work. Obviously, it's his business and he can hire who he wants. But, he has introduced a person into our working environment who may bring danger to all of us. Upon voicing the concerns of myself, and others I had spoken to, to the vice-president, I was reassured that nothing will happen here. He stated that we have daylight and the deterrence of CCTV cameras all over the premises, on our side. He went as far as to say that were were perfectly safe due the fact that "no one is dumb enough to come after him here". His reassurances obviously did nothing to quell my fears, nor the concerns of others I have spoken to.In reality, our employer has placed us in a potentially dangerous situation. If someone would come looking for him, find him here, and attempt to commit violence in retaliation for his possible involvement in snitching on others, the employees here are now between him and his assailants. Most of us arrive when it's still dark in the morning. So my boss' statement about having daylight on our side means nothing to me. As for the cameras, well desperate people do things that get caught on camera constantly. There are reality television shows based on an hour's worth of footage of "stupid criminals" doing things that were caught on tape. The cameras don't seem like much of a safety net when were dealing with desperate people attempting to quiet a former associate who may very well be leading authorities to them. Their freedom is at stake. Not only their physical freedom, but their tax-free, constant flow of illegal drug money that supports their lifestyle is at stake.The employee handbook states that weapons of any kind, including but not limited to firearms and ammunition, are not permitted on the property. As an employee I worry that carrying my pistol during work would get me fired and jeopardize my family's well being and financial security. As a libertarian I feel the ethical pull of property rights and a philosophical need to follow the rules of the property owner, As a realist I feel threatened by the presence of someone who has made possible enemies with desperate drug dealers.When I acquired my concealed carry license a few years back, I asked the vice-president, of the company I work for, if he had a problem with me keeping my pistol locked in my vehicle during my shift. He stated that it was no issue, and asked if I would keep it quiet as to scare any of the other employees. After this new situation, I have chosen to carry my weapon without asking for permission. I feel that if I inquire about carrying my pistol, I will bring attention to the situation, cause a rift between my employer and I, and possibly damage our working relationship. Our employers (father and son) are not gun guys in any way. They feel relatively safe as they go about their days. They don't have a problem with guns, but they don't quite understand the need for them in a self-defense situation.My issue here is purely ethical... do my rights to self defense supersede their rights to private property? Am I in the wrong for violating their rules? Are they wrong for violating my right to defense? Any input is greatly appreciated.