|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
3D-printed guns: activists urge government to block blueprint
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The nation’s three largest gun control advocacy groups are asking a Texas judge to prevent the impending release of a “trove” of digital blueprints for 3D-printed firearms.
“It is dangerous, irreparable and … raises issues of national defense and national security of the highest order,” the groups said of a June settlement by the Trump administration that would allow for the data files to be freely downloaded as of 1 August.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence are the three organizations seeking an immediate injunction. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/26/2018)
|
The feds agreeing to a settlement means that the government has no constitutional power to stop it.
So, why are these ninnies continuing to whine as if there's anything they can do about it? |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/26/2018)
|
| (stink) |
| Comment by:
lucky5eddie
(7/26/2018)
|
| Well PHORTO, they are not well known for telling the truth, must be against their religion or something. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
