NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => General Firearm Discussion => Topic started by: RobertH on August 05, 2018, 12:20:08 PM
-
Anyone print their own lowers yet? I've downloaded all the files, but haven't printed anything.
Also, Facebook and Instagram are censoring all links and mentions of code is free speech. Twitter is not censoring it
I say share to everyone! Can't stop the signal!
-
Put the word out on minds.com and gab.ai
-
I don't have a need for them (I don't have a 3D printer), but I figure it can't hurt to have them.
-
I don't have a need for them (I don't have a 3D printer), but I figure it can't hurt to have them.
my thoughts exactly. i don't have a 3D printer either.
remember, technology changes, Rights do not. if you're social media, web articles are protected under the 1st, then 3D printer files are protected as well.
-
I do have a 3d printer and I'm not sure I would risk my bodily wellbeing by shooting the liberator -- even once. I might put it in a vice and hide behind a tree and pull a string connected to the trigger... ok, I downloaded it. :laugh: It might be fun!
-
I do have a 3d printer and I'm not sure I would risk my bodily wellbeing by shooting the liberator -- even once. I might put it in a vice and hide behind a tree and pull a string connected to the trigger... ok, I downloaded it. :laugh: It might be fun!
please record your testing. wanna print one for me? are you going to the NFOA Annual Meeting, you should print one off and have it there so people can see it!
-
I do have a 3d printer and I'm not sure I would risk my bodily wellbeing by shooting the liberator -- even once. I might put it in a vice and hide behind a tree and pull a string connected to the trigger... ok, I downloaded it. :laugh: It might be fun!
I'll be at the members meeting and I'd be interested in taking a look and I'm sure others would be as well.
-
I'll be at the members meeting and I'd be interested in taking a look and I'm sure others would be as well.
Second....err, thirded!
-
I'm not sure I can get it done before the meeting. While his instructions are pretty clear, there's some parts I'll need to get -- like the chunk of metal you have to put in the receiver to comply with the Undetectible Firearms Act of 1988 (silliness).
-
I'm not sure I can get it done before the meeting. While his instructions are pretty clear, there's some parts I'll need to get -- like the chunk of metal you have to put in the receiver to comply with the Undetectible Firearms Act of 1988 (silliness).
Dimensions of said "Chunk of metal"?
-
I thought the firing pin was that piece of metal?
-
I thought the firing pin was that piece of metal?
I was under the impression it's 3.7 oz. of stainless steel.
-
Still waiting.................
-
Dimensions of said "Chunk of metal"?
From the instructions:
Once the frame is finished, epoxy a 1.19x1.19x0.99" block of steel in the 1.2x1.2x1.0" hole in front of the trigger guard. Add the bottom cover over the metal if you don't want it to show.
Once the epoxy has tried, the steel is no longer removable, and is an integral part of the frame. Now your gun has ~6 ounces of steel and is thus considered a 'detectable' firearm. So now you can print all the other parts.
I thought the firing pin was that piece of metal?
Yes, the firing pin is a nail, but my guess is the nail by itself doesn't meet the minimum weight and is also a removeable part of the gun -- it must be integral from what I understand.
-
Interesting, the metal is simply ballast and not functional. I suppose one could sandwich 1/4" pieces 1.19x1.19 to get the requisite thickness? That is, if one was so inclined.
-
Of course no one wants to make or use a plastic gun.
However, using DMLS technology a metal gun can and has been made on a 3D printer, FIVE years ago!:
https://www.designboom.com/design/worlds-first-3d-printed-metal-gun-by-solid-concepts-11-08-2013/
Here's an explanation of the process:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiUUZxp7bLQ
-
Why am I not surprised you found this. Even more surprising is you haven't done this yet if not for the cost. :D
-
Why am I not surprised you found this. Even more surprising is you haven't done this yet if not for the cost. :D
And also not surprising is that YouTube has taken down that Solid Concepts video about the printed 9-11 .45 handgun, just as they are censoring conservative voices and videos about the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, labeling them "hate speech". At the same time they allow disgusting videos by AntiFa showing them attacking police, persons and property and shouting death to everyone they disagree with. Somehow, in Marxist theology, that is not hate speech.
-
Of course they did. It is criminal to defend yourself or help others but if you are all about "legitimate change" then everything is fine.
but there is no bias at YouTube, none at all.
-
In a privately owned entity can't they control content? If I'm not mistaken all the social media platforms we all use are privately held twitter/bookoffaces/instagram/etc. Why are we surprised when we're silenced/shadow banned. Does the 1st amendment apply here? If I owned one of these platforms, I might think I can control content because it's america, and we're free. Flame suit on................Discussion is of course preferable. ;D
-
In a privately owned entity can't they control content? If I'm not mistaken all the social media platforms we all use are privately held twitter/bookoffaces/instagram/etc.
Can they ban conservatives? Yes. Is it within their rights? Yes again. Should they? Well, that's the real question.
I'd argue that alienating a huge portion of the population from your services, is a recipe for the eventual downfall of all you've built. Of course, that doesn't take into account Youtube being run at a complete loss for years anyway. Given how much money is being thrown at liberal causes (Soros, Bloomberg, etc), it's possible that even run at a loss they wouldn't fail for many years to come.
-
In a privately owned entity can't they control content? If I'm not mistaken all the social media platforms we all use are privately held twitter/bookoffaces/instagram/etc. Why are we surprised when we're silenced/shadow banned. Does the 1st amendment apply here? If I owned one of these platforms, I might think I can control content because it's america, and we're free. Flame suit on................Discussion is of course preferable. ;D
For years Internet companies pushed for Congress to enact legislation which held them harmless for the content of messages posted to their services by clients. They got it. The Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230, as it came to be called, is the legislation that ensures that online services aren’t liable for user-generated content. It creates a “safe harbor” for online services, allowing them to operate without the threat of being shut down over the actions of their users. The principal argument that won over the politicians was that the Internet companies (ISP's and social sites) did not "edit" the posts for content the way traditional media (new and TV) does, so they are not responsible for its content.
As long as "understandings" remained that way all was fair. But then, along came Google, FB, Twitter and the like. During the run up to the 2016 election it became obvious that posts by ordinary citizens were having a large affect on the thinking of voters. The dam broke when Wikileaks published the emails released by a whistle blower at the DNC. Suddenly, HIllary's and Podesta's laundry were hanging out in the air for everyone to see. And, those emails exposed one other fact that many Conservatives assumed but couldn't prove: the media was in bed with the Democrats. 95 of the top talking heads of TV News met for dinner with Podesta in April of 2015 in order to discuss how to "present Hillary's campaign to the public" during the next 18 months prior to Nov of 2016. Armed with that information the term "Fake News" began being applied to many of the news stories about the politicians campaigns, especially Trump's.
Since the election of Trump the MNM have gone overboard to smear Trump in every possible way, even to making up accusations and claims out of thin air. My first presidential election was between Goldwater and Johnson. I was told that if I voted for Goldwater there would be war. I voted for Goldwater and there was war. Johnson lied about the gulf of Tonkin incident to start it. Since Goldwater, who was smeared badly, I have never seen a president treated so roughly and unfairly as President Trump has been treated. David Muir of ABC Evening News starts each broadcast with a 15 minute tirade against Trump.
The 2016 election also saw the beginnings of Google, FB and YouTube censorship of any views to their right of the corporate CEOs, who are known and dedicated Marxists. Our elected officials in Congress, especially the Democrats and RHINOS, since they can't constitutionally monitor or censor the free speech of citizens, have outsourced that task to their allies in the social websites. The socials are private companies but by selectively censoring conservative posts/accounts they have abandon the safe harbor of Section 230. Their platforms represent the digital public square. As such, EVERYONE should be given the unhindered opportunity to express their opinion in that digital public square without fear access denial or censorship. Congress should revisit Section 230 and specifically declare Internet social websites a First Amendment zone. Facebook has already shown us what the outcome of censorship will be if the Bill of Rights isn't applied.
https://www.verdict.co.uk/facebook-rating-score-china-social-credit/
Facebook has confirmed that it now ranks some of its users on a trustworthiness scale, prompting comparisons to China’s Social Credit System.
The social media giant reportedly assigns users with a reputation score between zero and one. According to the Washington Post, who broke the story, Facebook has been developing the system over the past year.
It forms part of a wider crackdown on fake news and misinformation, a scheme first started by Facebook in 2016.
In case you have any doubts, that "crackdown" has been almost entirely against Conservatives and their accounts. The FB system is almost a direct copy of China's system for social ranking.
https://www.marketplace.org/2018/02/13/world/social-credit-score-china-blacklisted
and Google helped China set it in place.
-
Thanks GreyGeek.
The Communications Decency Act was what I was going to bring up.
The interpretation that I heard from a lawyer on a podcast (can't remember which one) was, since they are not acting the same for left leaning voices as they are right leaning (ie, leaving up multiple antifa and black lives matters groups that openly advocate for violence, while banning anyone conservative that one possible interpretation could be calling for violence), they are now acting as publishers. That would then open them up to libel/slander for anything written that is demonstrably false.
-
Can you imagine what it would cost to be the test case? Taking on one of the biggies? I'd rather not.
-
Can you imagine what it would cost to be the test case? Taking on one of the biggies? I'd rather not.
Honestly, if my reasoning is the tactic, I think it almost has to be Trump that does it. Either personally, or by getting the DOJ after them for something.
Not sure how they would do a DOJ suit for slander/libel (can never remember which is written or said, so including both terms), but maybe if the gov decides to go after them for discrimination.... don't know.
I would rather see a private alternative that could take a big chunk out of the big tech stuff, rather than have our wonderful government overlords do it for us. Just don't know what the alternative is or would be.
-
Honestly, if my reasoning is the tactic, I think it almost has to be Trump that does it. Either personally, or by getting the DOJ after them for something.
Not sure how they would do a DOJ suit for slander/libel (can never remember which is written or said, so including both terms), but maybe if the gov decides to go after them for discrimination.... don't know.
I would rather see a private alternative that could take a big chunk out of the big tech stuff, rather than have our wonderful government overlords do it for us. Just don't know what the alternative is or would be.
Honestly can you see a private entity investing money and resources to fight it? I can't imagine PDT taking this on while he's a sitting President. Of course he is somewhat of a wildcard.
-
Honestly can you see a private entity investing money and resources to fight it?
I did hear recently of some joke site suing facebook. Background was they were making tons of money off of facebook, had a highly trafficked page on facebook, facebook changed their algorithm, and they are now broke. I don't see it winning, but the guy is trying.
In a more general sense, no, I don't see any private entity fighting this unless they are directly affected like the guy above.
I can't imagine PDT taking this on while he's a sitting President. Of course he is somewhat of a wildcard.
I see this happening only if they cut him off, ie twitter bans him for something. That's even with the recent posts he's made about "doing something". I think his lawyers (ie Jeff Sessions) will inform him that first amendment prevents him from doing anything.
-
I did hear recently of some joke site suing facebook. Background was they were making tons of money off of facebook, had a highly trafficked page on facebook, facebook changed their algorithm, and they are now broke. I don't see it winning, but the guy is trying.
In a more general sense, no, I don't see any private entity fighting this unless they are directly affected like the guy above.
I see this happening only if they cut him off, ie twitter bans him for something. That's even with the recent posts he's made about "doing something". I think his lawyers (ie Jeff Sessions) will inform him that first amendment prevents him from doing anything.
Funny thing is, he's living rent free in a lot of peoples heads.