(untitled)

I just got a 3d printer and I was wondering as a canadian, is it legal to have but not print the files for a 3d printed gun? Am I gonna get rekt for just having the files or would they need to catch me with the full thing?

Well they are certainly trying to make it illegal. See "Computer Data Offence" https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/441/Government/C-21/C-21_3/C-21_3.PDF As of now, you'll probably end up on a list of some sort if you are identified as someone who possesses or accesses information related to 3D printing guns.

>>22820 Same anon just wanted to talk about this a bit more. The wording is very vague and dangerous, stating: >"computer data that pertain to a firearm... that are capable of being used with a 3D printer, metal milling machine or similar computer system for the purpose of manufacturing or trafficking a firearm or prohibited device derived from that computer data..." There is very little distinction about what exact kind of data that pertains to a firearm is what should be considered prohibited. If someone uses the technical documentation of a firearm to machine their own gun, does that mean we should start banning firearm documents because someone might use them to get an idea of how a gun works and then macgyver their own? I'm someone who believes in meaningful and strict gun control and even I'm really uncomfortable by this kind of stuff. Parliament doesn't know how to actually solve these problems at all and it doesn't look like they're trying.

>>22815 Just encrypt the files and don't talk about them with anyone in the 3d world

>>22815 came here to say that only printing should be illegal, and only if you print a no-no gun, but apparently: >"computer data that pertain to a firearm... that are capable of being used with a 3D printer, metal milling machine or similar computer system for the purpose of manufacturing or trafficking a firearm or prohibited device derived from that computer data..." it all goes downhill... >>22821 >I'm someone who believes in meaningful and strict gun control and even I'm really uncomfortable by this kind of stuff Have you seen the shenanigans that happens with IRL firearms? A gun under US law used to be the receiver until somebody realized that you can sell an incomplete receiver- then they said that was bad too, until somebody realized you can just sell a slightly less complete receiver- now they are working on calling the sale of a literal piece of metal and some tools a receiver, if that metal and those tools can be combined to created a receiver. A machine gun used to be a literal machine gun, now it is any assistive device that enables more than one bullet per trigger pull OR that enables you to pull the trigger faster than big brother wants you too- what does too fast mean? Nobody knows! Sounds irrelevant? This (https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/shoestring-machinegun.jpg) is a machinegun under US law. A gun used to be a gun until somebody decided the length of the barrel matters. Now we have to differently regulate possession of handguns and shotguns and rifles. But wait, it turns out some rifles and shotguns ALSO have short barrels, so now we have NFAs and fingerprinting and anal probing because somehow a shorter barrel for a rifle makes it magically different. A magazine used to be a magazine until somebody decided that "too many boolits is bad"- now instead of 30rd magazines which are standard in majority of rifles we have special made gimp magazines. Not to mention the magic of 10rd limits when most handguns come stock with 12-15rds. Not to mention the extra special magic of NYS declaring you can only load 7 rounds in your 10 round magazine- thrown out by a judge, but still a wonderful precedent (https://gunsafety.ny.gov/changes-safe-act). Also now the very CONCEPT of a magazine is verboten in some states- instead you have to have a "hard to remove bullet container that requires a specialized tool to exchange" leading to the bullet button leading to CT now requiring that ""no-no sized magazines"" be WELDED to the firearm in question. Buying a gun used to mean buying a gun- now it means filing a ream of paperwork, getting background checked, getting a mental health check, filing out a special permit request, receiving 5-20 hours of training that you pay for, and waiting up to several years (this is for the worst states, such as CT + MA). Heck, NYS now has background check just for buying ammunition (that you, the buyer, get to pay for, every single time) (https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2023/10/23/new-york-background-check-delays-ensnare-local-police-chief-n76432).

>>22827 >Heck, NYS now has background check just for buying ammunition (that you, the buyer, get to pay for, every single time) Good. It's actually wild how americans are so against basic gun control because they value their guns over other peoples lives, jesus christ

The fundamental problem with Yankistan, and Canuckistan to a lesser extent, is that like 10% of the population is completely obsessed with firearms. They treat it like pokemon cards, and they get mad when people suggest that maybe a tool designed solely for killing people shouldn't be easily available. Gun control will never work in such a country. The only meaningful way to control firearms is to limit their importation and production, and that will never be done because rich people want to be able to do whatever they want. So you get all these ridiculous draconian laws that basically say "you can't have guns if you're poor". So, OP, you're probably fuarrrked if you have those files on your computer, so don't step out of line or the feds might magically find this thread and search your PC. "for the protection of the people" of course.

>>22827 all this but on the other hand its fairly legal in USA to make a lot of types of guns for home enjoyment. If OP werent a leaf or in a coo coo bird state he'd be fairly ok probably lol.

World is fuaarrkk, lain. Veracrypt or dm-crypt is your best friend from now on. Just download them now, before you can't find them anymore. You will print those files anyway, it's not like you just horde those files for no reason. Refuse to talk to anyone about this irl. Have good OpSec.

>>22918 >10% obsessed >rich people want to be able to do whatever they want note that ~1/3 of americans personally own firearms, and ~45% live in a household with a firearm i agree not all of those are "completely obsessed", but they certainly are not all rich either in my anecdotal experience the most anti-gun-control people are functionally poor but "middle class" (as in, working, not rich, not on food stamps) >"you can't have guns if you're poor" i agree the wild price tags some states associate with licensing are absurd an often explicitily anti-poor (usually hidden away through ""training"" requirements that cost hundreds-thousands of dollars to satisfy) >>22916 >guns >> lives two layer argument: 1: that is kind of the point of the whole "liberty or death" thing 2: gimme some numbers showing people without guns stop hurting each other. my anecdotal peepee-sensor says britbongs still stab each other at phenomenal rates, and those evil minorities in other countries seem to have just as many problems. can toss in acid attacks if you want. we can say oh knoifing is less killy than shooting, but shouldn't our goal be eliminating the roots of violence and not just sliding the scale? also: something gun violence something something brown people if you want the PC version: something gun violence something something gun ownership rates (inverse correlation tracking with population density- you can say income but WV is hella poor and has hella guns but the murder rate stays low) >>22921 ty for posting good advice lain >>22815 only thing to add: IF you somehow come into possession of such a device, be very careful about: 1) acquiring non-printable parts 2) make sure you own at least one legal firearm that chews the same ammunition!!!

>>22922 I generally agree but it's more like 75% of American adults who own at least one firearm. The history of the 20th Century shows that either you are armed or you are government property. >>22918 will start REEEEEing like an autistic child at this, no doubt. I wonder what his favorite flavor of boot polish is.

>>22945 >The history of the 20th Century shows that either you are armed or you are government property. When was the last time that privately owned arms were actually used, successfully, against government tyranny in the US? In all the examples of governments actually being overthrown by the people I can think of, weapons were acquired from military barracks or were imported illegally by foreign governments.

>>22946 >When was the last time that privately owned arms were actually used, successfully, against government tyranny in the US? 2014, Clive Bundy, off the top of my head.

>>22947 A guy refused to pay grazing fees... this is less significant than the BLM protests, lmao.

>>22948 You asked about "privately owned arms" that were "actually used, successfully, against government tyranny in the US." This guy, and many others, felt pretty strongly about it being a form of tyranny and stood their ground against armed government agents. Then this guy went on to win the court case, had all charges against him dropped, meaning that the courts even agreed with him. So, where do you want to slap the goal post now?

>>22949 Oh, I fully agree that this is a perfect example of what I was asking about. But it's also petty as hell.

>>22946 >When was there ever a time in US history where common people fought off an overzealous government with unreasonable demands? 1776, you fairy. I know that you're trying to imply that because there is supposedly no need or that it doesn't work anyway that nobody should have access to it besides the local gestapo. Which is lazy reasoning since if there was no point then why is there a push to disarm people? Besides, it does work since the US despite all their other flaws and how insane their feds are, are still further away from serfdom than people here in Europe. Expect maybe in the "no go" zones that are basically too dangerous for authorities to operate in so they rather police tweets (or X'es) from the comfort of their department office. And it's Canada that tries to make schematic data illegal, not the US. I really don't see how your supposedly "common sense" gun grabber position makes sense beyond the short sighted and vain attempt at keeping people from hurting each other, which will not be achieved by this since instead you'd have knife attacks and only criminals owning guns, just like it's currently the case in Britain. >inb4 but noifs are much less lethal Look up the 21ft rule or what the number was. You have little chance against a meth head with a rusty shiv, especially unarmed. As for the OP, practically you're only in trouble if you've been found to possess that sort of data at the wrong country so just don't do anything that could lead to such a situation. And also practically anything's legal as long as you can fend off the authorities.

>>22976 >I know that you're trying to imply that because there is supposedly no need or that it doesn't work anyway that nobody should have access to it besides the local gestapo Actually I just think gun nuts are not interested in "protecting liberty"

>>22977 And I think that gun grabbers are not interested in "protecting lives" whatsoever. Where do we go from here?

>>22978 >And I think that gun grabbers are not interested in "protecting lives" whatsoever. Agreed, if by "gun grabbers" you mean cops and democrat bootlickers. The thing is that most gun nuts are also bootlickers. They just prefer to lick a different boot.

>>22979 If you despise boots and their lickers so much then you ought to agree with me on the citizens/proletariat being able/having the duty to arm themselves in a capacity that will make authoritarian henchmen think twice before trampling on them. And even if a great portion of american gun owners are also sucking up to muh blue line, you really don't need that many who aren't to make the government's mercenaries face the real possibility of not returning from their next no-knock-raid over an unpaid parking ticket.

>>22981 Maybe. It's true that it is good if people that are interested in actually fighting authoritarianism have guns, but it is bad if authoritarians have guns. It isn't necessary at all for guns to be completely deregulated for guns to land in the hands of people that should have them. As you mentioned, criminals will have guns whether they're freely available or not, and anyone interested in revolution is a criminal. It's also not necessary at all to be armed and perform greatly effective revolutionary activity. For instance, sabotage is often much more effective and much harder to pin on a single person. Additionally, the people most likely to fire back at the cops are gangsters.

sage b/c wandering away from OP topic >>22979 >The thing is that most gun nuts are also bootlickers. They just prefer to lick a different boot. There are 2 camps of gun nuts. However, I would state 90+% of those with 3D printed firearms (what this thread is all about), are pro-total-gun-ownership and anti-boots of all flavors. Just based on my limited experience, but the 3d printing question is usually a great way to draw out if someone loves guns or boots more. OP pic literally related- IIRC it is the FGC-9 from defense distributed who's literal goal was/is making guns available to everybody, no other politics considered >>22982 >revolutionary activity stuff More people with guns is always better. The ""authorities/authoritarians"" already always have an advantage via military/police, so the goal is just to maximize warm bodies with guns. If the majority of the population also wants ""authority(arian)"", then just deal with it- the government already embodies the will of the people. >anyone interested in revolution is a criminal depends on your country? plenty of open commies in lots of countries don't go to jail and do a great job spreading their commie filth Really I guess I'd say that gun ownership has three big jobs: 1) Keep dumb criminals away 2) Keep foreign adversaries away 3) Keep the police/govt away The ""revolution"" thing is much harder to parse b/c very dependent on specifics.

>>22982 So to get this straight, if your point is that people who're opposing any sort of tyranny should obtain arms, regardless whether it's legal or not then that sounds pretty based and even in spirit of this thread. Not sure who you consider to be the authoritarians however. While my point is that legality, as opposed to what the Canadian government is doing, helps with the logistics and distribution of firearms to the sane part of the masses that may be oppressed by a centralized and militarized institution which ceased to have the good of its people in mind. And while I'm not arguing against the effectiveness of decentralized sabotage, civil disobedience and other asymmetric warfare techniques in the face of necessity, it's the passive aggressive path when direct opposition isn't an option any more. It's the equivalent of dropping the pot of soup just because you don't like the dish. It's when your last resort is to make all parties involved be as miserable as you are. >>22983 Yes, pretty much. Point 1 to 3 is of much greater practical utility than some sort of grand but ill defined "worker's revolution" that just gives the opportunity to the dregs of society to steal and rape from anyone who managed to be better off while paving the way for another dictator.

no one obsessed with guns actually gives a soykaf about tyranny. they just want to be able to murder minorities with zero consequences. they just use "muh goovernment tyranny" as cope because saying openly you want to kill black or trans people is not socially acceptable.

>>22990 You sound completely unhinged, likely involvement with a government office and a good showcase why we shouldn't just give carte blanche to people like you.

>>22993 Lol look at you making a big deal out of trigger discipline. Do you got another one for “clips”

>>22994 But Anon, this is how you avoid negligent discharge. Not sure why you seem so upset with me but at least I understand your hesitation about firearms now since judging by your responses you'd likely either hurt yourself or others with one. Anyway, take it easy pal.

>>22916 Americans value the check on power that is firearm ownership over being subjects of tyranny. They believe that death is better than life without freedom. This is literally the origin of the nation. I suppose it is a little wild that people would rather be dead than be slaves, yet it is not an unprecedented position in the history of humanity. New York is collapsing, because its policies aren't functional, btw.

>>22990 >basically I just hate minorities well you got me fam. That being said if you're not allowed to own weapons that means you're not trusted. If youre not trusted you're either a slave or a prisoner or maybe a child or something, but certainly not a citizen in any serious fashion. If someone wants you disarmed, it means they think you might be their enemy, or a danger to them otherwise and they want to hold disproportionate power over you. Personally I prefer to hold power over myself to the extent that I can.

>>22998 >They believe that death is better than life without freedom LMAO, this is the same country that had to have a whole civil war to end slavery. America is a country that values the freedom of the slave owners. Always has been. >>22999 >That being said if you're not allowed to own weapons that means you're not trusted. I don't trust the vast majority of people, because I don't know them. This is a pretty bad way of putting it. I don't actually have a problem with gun ownership, the problems with America are a lot deeper than just it being easy to buy guns. But a pathological obsession with weapons is definitely part of it. Yemen has almost half of the guns per capita of the US, and they've been in a horrible bloody war for years, and they don't have school shooters. That is almost uniquely a American/Canadian thing.

>>23000 >I don't trust the vast majority of people thats fair, but its a terrible prevailing attitude to have in a significantly democratic country as the US purports to be. If you cant trust the other factions in your own country to hold arms, then you can't trust them to obey laws and uphold contracts and respect common interests. And if that's the case then lol I want to be armed even more. >yemen has many guns and wars, few school shootings Yemen also just has fewer people in school. Literacy there is like 50%. Not saying USA doesn't have some special problems, but Yemen is an interesting example of a place to emulate, with what appears to be a ready and convenient outlet for violence for people who feel aggrieved or aggressive. Maybe there's something to that. >whole civil war to end slavery Not wanting to derail but I just want to lodge a complaint with this horribly simplistic misportrail of the cause of that late unpleasantness.

>>22998 >German gun corporation hands typed this post In theory, the USA was founded on the idea that a government can only exist with the legitimate consent of the people. The mere fact that the institutions still stand shows that people seem to think the government is doing a good job. If people were really unafraid to die, they would have no problem with the consequences of jobs, the economy, their own security going to soykaf while mexico, china, and russia just launched land invasions for the lulz. Access to guns IS one of america's problems. There are no organized militias. A bunch of niggers and white trash fat boys with guns is not the same as a well supplied fighting force with doctrine and policy for warfighting and defense. States used to require military service or at least participation in state militias for community defense. America has a glitterboy mercenary military now, people join for the welfare not to protect people. People don't care for their neighbors but want guns because the media told them it angers the snowflakes. >Is it racism and radicalization, or untreated mental illness, or toxic video games, or too-easy access to guns? All of these may be parts of the problem, but equally none of them makes complete sense outside of the larger context: The gun industry’s modern marketing effort did not just arm these shooters; in a very real sense, it created them. Gun companies told people everyone needs a gun to protect from crazies and of course tyrany, but in doing so encouraged crazies to arm themselves

>>23002 >there are no organized militias part of the reason for that is that organizing a militia looks awfully like preparing for terrorism (it is) and so is nearly disallowed except when directly sanctioned by the state.

>>23001 > this horribly simplistic misportrail of the cause of that late unpleasantness. You misunderstand: the war was the event which ended slavery. Without the war, probably slavery in the US would not have ended until much much later. Inability to come to an agreement over slavery was also one of the major causes of the war (it is the "state's right" that they were trying to exercise), so I think it's a decent one-sentence explanation as well.

>>23003 Your use of the word terrorism is incorrect. There is no such thing as terrorism against a state. Terrorism is an act of violence against civilians. Acts of violence against a government or a military is an insurgency or revolution (depending on perspective). Weird insinuation. Glowy propaganda. >>23002 This is a silly post. There is no way to vote unconstitutional government agencies out, thus the people have no say in the matter. So, without legitimate consent there is no way for you to realistically claim that people think the government is doing a good job. In fact, you suggest the government is tyrannical in that unconstitutional institutions exist anyway. Also, you are a racist. Not that this matters for my argument, but you're a crappy person.

>>23005 >Terrorism is an act of violence against civilians. Many "militias" in the US do exactly that. For a long time the biggest militia in the US was the KKK.

>>23005 A state is made out of people, most of whom are essentially civilians, or can be defined as such if you wish to do so. Organizations are variously legitimate governments or terrorist gangs depending significantly on whether or not the speaker likes them. Your definition is inconsistent and difficult to apply. Lets use an actually practical definition which just says that TERRORism is about TERROR. Its frequently directed against persons who are not active belligerents because they are likely to not already be in terror and perhaps have made choices to avoid danger, or be family of those who are actual belligerents, and so placing them in danger (as terrorism may suggest they are) shall alter the priorities of the actual belligerents. It can also just be used to induce fear and terror in any population. Terrorism is a classic tactic of psychological warfare that's been employed against active belligerants and civilians since time immemorial. >you are a crappy person gratuitous, silly. you two can feed off eachother and just make this turn into a silly contest about who's less racist (he deliberately included a diverse list of groups to deride). Ill make it easy for you: I am the least racist.