Welcome to the age of the printed gun

[Zaune]

Anyone have an idea of its expected service life?

Long enough to steal a better gun off the cop or soldier you just shot in the back with it, probably.

[Simon_Jester]

You are very unlikely to get into that position, and it will usually not be a helpful thing to do.

The main reason the original "Liberator" pistol was produced at all was that the US had ridiculous arms production capacity, more than it needed- so airdropping piles of guns into occupied France was practical even if the vast majority of the guns were never used or captured. At the same time, airdropping good guns into France was stupid because it would indirectly arm the Germans, and airdropping any substantial amount of ammunition was impossible for logistics reasons. The result? Airdropping huge numbers of very very crappy pistols.

The theory was, as much as anything else, that just knowing the Resistance had large numbers of ambush weapons would affect German tactics- force them to move in larger groups and so on. In practice this didn't have much effect...

[Zaune]

Oh, I dare say; I was referring to how the designer fondly imagines it will be used.

[Aaron MkII]

Yeah, maybe as a hold out piece.

See, I think he would have been better served by just designing a single shot rifle or shotgun, maybe marketed towards bush pilots and others who would just need a basic gun or hobbyists. Rather then an idealogical project.

[TimothyC]

Update:

Security| 5/09/2013 @ 2:36PM |31,835 views
State Department Demands Takedown Of 3D-Printable Gun Files For Possible Export Control Violations

The battle for control of dangerous digital shapes may have just begun.

On Thursday, Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson received a letter from the State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance demanding that he take down the online blueprints for the 3D-printable “Liberator” handgun that his group released Monday, along with nine other 3D-printable firearms components hosted on the group’s website Defcad.org. The government says it wants to review the files for compliance with arms export control laws known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR. By uploading the weapons files to the Internet and allowing them to be downloaded abroad, the letter implies Wilson’s high-tech gun group may have violated those export controls.

“Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with final [commodity jurisdiction] determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled,” reads the letter, referring to a list of ten CAD files hosted on Defcad that include the 3D-printable gun, silencers, sights and other pieces. “This means that all data should be removed from public acces immediately. Defense Distributed should review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any other data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.”

Wilson, a law student at the University of Texas in Austin, says that Defense Distributed will in fact take down its files until the State Department has completed its review. “We have to comply,” he says. “All such data should be removed from public access, the letter says. That might be an impossible standard. But we’ll do our part to remove it from our servers.”

As Wilson hints, that doesn’t mean the government has successfully censored the 3D-printable gun. While Defense Distributed says it will take down the gun’s printable file from Defcad.org, its downloads–100,000 in just the first two days the file was online–were actually being served by Mega, the New Zealand-based storage service created by ex-hacker entrepreneur Kim Dotcom, an outspoken U.S. government critic. It’s not clear whether the file will be taken off Mega’s servers, where it may remain available for download. The blueprint for the gun and other Defense Distributed firearm components have also been uploaded several times to the Pirate Bay, the censorship-resistant filesharing site.

Wilson argues that he’s also legally protected. He says Defense Distributed is excluded from the ITAR regulations under an exemption for non-profit public domain releases of technical files designed to create a safe harbor for research and other public interest activities. That exemption, he says, would require Defense Distributed’s files to be stored in a library or sold in a bookstore. Wilson argues that Internet access at a library should qualify under ITAR’s statutes, and says that Defcad’s files have also been made available for sale in an Austin, Texas bookstore that he declined to name in order to protect the bookstore’s owner from scrutiny.

Despite taking down his files, Wilson doesn’t see the government’s attempts to censor the Liberator’s blueprints as a defeat. On the contrary, Defense Distributed’s radical libertarian and anarchist founder says he’s been seeking to highlight exactly this issue, that a 3D-printable gun can’t be stopped from spreading around the global Internet no matter what legal measures governments take. “This is the conversation I want,” Wilson says. “Is this a workable regulatory regime? Can there be defense trade control in the era of the Internet and 3D printing?”

Wilson compares his new legal troubles to the widely-followed case in the mid-1990s of Philip Zimmermann, the inventor of the cryptographic software PGP, who was threatened with indictment under ITAR for putting his military-grade encryption software online. “It’s PGP all over again,” says Wilson.

In Zimmermann’s case, much of the technology community was outraged that PGP’s inventor was being treated as if he were selling bombs or missiles to a foreign regime when he had simply put a powerful piece of privacy software on the Internet. That public support is widely thought to have influenced the State Department decision in 1996 to drop its case against him.

In this case, by contrast, Cody Wilson is literally an arms manufacturer. But whether the government will have any more luck in controlling the spread of his invention remains to be seen.

I’ll provide updates as this story develops.

Correction: In an earlier version of this story I described Wilson as an “arms distributor.” In fact, he’s an arms manufacturer, while Defense Distributed is a software distributing non-profit. Since Defense Distributed–not Wilson himself–is the target of the State Department’s query, that may be an important distinction.

Update: Here’s the full text of the letter.

United States Department of State

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

Offense of Defense Trade Controls Compliance

May 08, 2013

In reply letter to DTCC Case: 13-0001444

[Cody Wilson's address redacted]

Dear Mr. Wilson,

The Department of State, Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Enforcement Division (DTCC/END) is responsible for compliance with and civil enforcement of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) (AECA) and the AECA’s implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 C.F.R. Parts 120-130) (ITAR). The AECA and the ITAR impose certain requirements and restrictions on the transfer of, and access to, controlled defense articles and related technical data designated by the United States Munitions List (USML) (22 C.F.R. Part 121).

The DTCC/END is conducting a review of technical data made publicly available by Defense Distributed through its 3D printing website, DEFCAD.org, the majority of which appear to be related to items in Category I of the USML. Defense Distributed may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.

Technical data regulated under the ITAR refers to information required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of defense articles, including information in the form of blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation. For a complete definition of technical data, see 120.10 of the ITAR. Pursuant to 127.1 of the ITAR, it is unlawful to export any defense article or technical data for which a license or written approval is required without first obtaining the required authorization from the DDTC. Please note that disclosing (including oral or visual disclosure) or tranferring technical data to a foreign person, whether in the United States or abroad, is considered an export under 120.17 of the ITAR.

The Department believes Defense Distributed may not have established the proper jurisdiction of the subject technical data. To resolve this matter officially, we request that Defense Distributed submit Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) determination requests for the following selection of data files available on DEFCAD.org, and any other technical data for which Defense Distributed is unable to determine proper jurisdiction:

1. Defense Distributed Liberator pistol
2. .22 electric
3. 125mm BK-14M high-explosive anti-tank warhead
4. 5.56/.223 muzzle brake
5. Springfield XD-40 tactical slide assembly
6. Sound Moderator – slip on
7. “The Dirty Diane” 1/2-28 to 3/4-16 STP S3600 oil filter silencer adapter
8. 12 gauge to .22 CB sub-caliber insert
9. Voltlock electronic black powder system
10. VZ-58 sight

DTCC/END requests that Defense Distributed submits its CJ requests within three weeks of the receipt of this letter and notify this office of the final CJ determinations. All CJ requests must be submitted electronically through an online application using the DS-4076 Commodity Jurisdiction Request Form. The form, guidance for submitting CJ requests, and other relevant information such as a copy of the ITAR can be found on DDTC’s website at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov.

Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with the final CJ determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled. This means that all such data should be removed from public access immediately. Defense Distributed should also review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any additional data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.

Additionally, DTCC/END requests information about the procedures Defense Distributed follows to determine the classification of its technical data, to include aforementioned technical data files. We ask that you provide your procedures for determining proper jurisdiction of technical data within 30 days of the date of this letter to Ms. Bridget Van Buren, Compliance Specialist, Enforcement Division, at the address below.


Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance

PM/DTCC, SA-1, Room L132

2401 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20522

Phone 202-663-3323

We appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please note our reference number in any future correspondence.

Sincerely,

Glenn E. Smith

Chief, Enforcement Division

[Aaron MkII]

Its too late.

[Atlan]

Its too late.

Not the point. It's easyer and cheaper to make a zip gun that fires 12 gauge ammo anyway.

What has happened here is that chuckles the anarchist lolbertarian has run afoul of ITAR, and it's entirely possible that he's going to be used as target practice to create some more precedent setting law cases to strengthen ITAR and other export related regulations.

[Saxtonite]

The groups stated intention is to go full Ayn Rand and bring down ALL GOVERNMENTS through total deregulation of firearms and arming extremists.

Did you actually read their web site? I did and that position is not stated anywhere.

The guy who made the printed gun, the Texan post graduate is a self-admitted Anarchist who believe gun control is immoral and wrong and releasing the information is a public good. It's not necessarily Randian 'Go Galt' bullshit - it's anti-state ideology put into practice to show that gun control is unenforceable and it is a bad idea to even try.


oh; and VICE did a doucmentary on this a few weeks ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyA

i heard of it last year or so.......

EDIT: oh you can still get the files off thepiratebay. Freedom marches on....

EDIT 2: also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTYWGrfo-ao

[Starglider]

The groups stated intention is to go full Ayn Rand and bring down ALL GOVERNMENTS through total deregulation of firearms and arming extremists.

Did you actually read their web site? I did and that position is not stated anywhere.

The guy who made the printed gun, the Texan post graduate is a self-admitted Anarchist who believe gun control is immoral and wrong and releasing the information is a public good. It's not necessarily Randian 'Go Galt' bullshit - it's anti-state ideology put into practice to show that gun control is unenforceable and it is a bad idea to even try.

'Gun control is a bad idea' is not the same thing as 'all governments must be destroyed'. The site had plenty of the former but not the later, other than of course 'tyranical government must be resisted and guns make that more viable'.

EDIT: oh you can still get the files off thepiratebay. Freedom marches on....

Yes, it's always heartwarming to see government censorship rendered impotent by modern digital technology.

[Metahive]

'tyranical government must be resisted and guns make that more viable'.

Yeah, except not really. Under Saddam every Iraqi had a right to own an assault rifle, yet Saddam remained firmly in power. This sort of delusion always amazed me, it's as if people have completely missed the fact that it isn't the 1770's anymore.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, he " totally" remained in control of the Kurdistan autonomous regions.

[Simon_Jester]

The regional separatists who had their own heavy weapons and an organized rebel force were able to maintain some degree of independence- but the average Iraqi citizen was just about as brutalized and terrorized as we'd expect him to be without the rifle.

Basically, mass gun ownership is only going to prevent tyranny if the masses rebel against the government as a whole. If the government enjoys majority support and uses the armed majority as a bludgeon against minorities, tyranny still happens. Likewise if the government can bribe or organize one faction of the population into neutralizing another.

[energiewende]

Basically, mass gun ownership is only going to prevent tyranny if the masses rebel against the government as a whole. If the government enjoys majority support and uses the armed majority as a bludgeon against minorities, tyranny still happens. Likewise if the government can bribe or organize one faction of the population into neutralizing another.

Or an armed minority. It is worth remembering that rebels massing against the government as a whole have brought down numerous governments in the Arab world recently with the process still on-going in Syria. The problem in the Middle East is there is no popular groundswell in favour of liberal democracy, without which the use of guns by the masses to preserve liberal democracy falls flat on its face. This is (or at least should be) disturbing for both the left and the right in the West. The only forces that have successfully united people to resist Middle East governments are nationalism and religion, of which only the latter has been successful.

[Metahive]

O you mean the same Kurds that got their asses repeatedly handed to them by Saddam until the US lend a helping hand like a no-fly zone? Yeah, great thinking there.

Popular uprisings can only succeed if also either at least part of the army joins the insurrection or a foreign country helps out. A citizen militia packing handguns and assault rifles is no match for a modern army, period.

[xthetenth]

Was that ever the case, though? How many insurrections have actually won without the assistance of a modern army of that time?

[Beowulf]

Was that ever the case, though? How many insurrections have actually won without the assistance of a modern army of that time?

Only one I can think of is the Soviets. However, insurrections need to reach a certain level of competence in order to even get to the point of getting the assistance of what is at the time a modern army. Even with that help, it's generally the rebels that are fighting the majority of battle, and dying, not the modern state.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Yeah, except not really. Under Saddam every Iraqi had a right to own an assault rifle, yet Saddam remained firmly in power. This sort of delusion always amazed me, it's as if people have completely missed the fact that it isn't the 1770's anymore.

George Washington wrote extensively about the utter uselessness of militia against professional soldiers, even when the soldiers were vastly outnumbered, so the "private citizens can overthrow tyrannical government" meme was specious even in the musket era. I shudder to think what artillery and drone-delivered hell would be unleashed on the right-wing militiamen if their paranoid fantasies ever played out for real.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

O you mean the same Kurds that got their asses repeatedly handed to them by Saddam until the US lend a helping hand like a no-fly zone? Yeah, great thinking there.

Popular uprisings can only succeed if also either at least part of the army joins the insurrection or a foreign country helps out. A citizen militia packing handguns and assault rifles is no match for a modern army, period.

That's simply a lie, as endless rebellions since WW2 would indicate, but you will, of course, hide behind your agenda of gun control and pretend they're not relevant, when they virtually all started with old castoff rifles. The Kurds held the mountains since the revolt began and were never dislodged from the Zagros, ever. Ruling an area larger than a half-dozen Luxembourgs for twenty years without help is hardly getting your ass handed to you. The simple fact is that trying to control a population trying to revolt is like trying to grip water in the hand. You celebrate democratic rebels in the mid-east using the same tactics you furiously claim could never work in America, because you're against the traditions and beliefs of the armed people. Well, there are armed leftists in America too, at least in the Pacific Northwest, and perhaps you should get with the times... Oh, who am I kidding, you're Metahive.

[Zaune]

The rebels in the Middle East weren't generally facing Apache gunships or Predator drones. And if by some miracle some of these militia fucknuts managed to stroll off with some half-decent modern anti-air or anti-armour weapons, and recruited or suborned someone who knew how to use them? Time to write off the whole town and send the B-52s in.

[Simon_Jester]

Was that ever the case, though? How many insurrections have actually won without the assistance of a modern army of that time?

Only one I can think of is the Soviets.

In which case the army was actively disintegrating with masses of soldiers deserting to join the revolutionaries on a daily basis...

Arguably this is exactly the sort of outcome we'd hope for in a scenario where a mass popular uprising actually does uphold liberal democracy against would-be tyrants: the army is called upon to suppress the rebels, but starts calving off so many deserters that it becomes an impotent shell of its former self.

The idea that such a parallel would be desirable strikes me as ironic when calls for an armed populace are usually though not always a right-wing province.

That's simply a lie, as endless rebellions since WW2 would indicate, but you will, of course, hide behind your agenda of gun control and pretend they're not relevant, when they virtually all started with old castoff rifles. The Kurds held the mountains since the revolt began and were never dislodged from the Zagros, ever. Ruling an area larger than a half-dozen Luxembourgs for twenty years without help is hardly getting your ass handed to you. The simple fact is that trying to control a population trying to revolt is like trying to grip water in the hand. You celebrate democratic rebels in the mid-east using the same tactics you furiously claim could never work in America, because you're against the traditions and beliefs of the armed people. Well, there are armed leftists in America too, at least in the Pacific Northwest, and perhaps you should get with the times...

The really fundamental concern, I think, is that in the US we are far more likely to see the tyrannical government enlist one faction of the people to suppress another.

We are also going to have one HELL of a problem with drone strikes, as those do make it extremely hard to organize any kind of significant resistance when combined with communications intercepts. Sure, rebels can continue to hold the countryside- but they won't be organized and won't be able to resist efforts by the Loyalist Popular Militia or whatever to rout them out.

[Sea Skimmer]

The rebels in the Middle East weren't generally facing Apache gunships or Predator drones. And if by some miracle some of these militia fucknuts managed to stroll off with some half-decent modern anti-air or anti-armour weapons, and recruited or suborned someone who knew how to use them? Time to write off the whole town and send the B-52s in.

Totally Saddam didn't have twenty thousand armored vehicles and artillery pieces he used indiscriminately, or hundreds of jets and attack helicopters, or bomb the Kurds with nerve gas or anything like that. No surely not.

[Spoonist]

O you mean the same Kurds that got their asses repeatedly handed to them by Saddam until the US lend a helping hand like a no-fly zone? Yeah, great thinking there.

Popular uprisings can only succeed if also either at least part of the army joins the insurrection or a foreign country helps out. A citizen militia packing handguns and assault rifles is no match for a modern army, period.

That's simply a lie, as endless rebellions since WW2 would indicate, but you will, of course, hide behind your agenda of gun control and pretend they're not relevant, when they virtually all started with old castoff rifles. The Kurds held the mountains since the revolt began and were never dislodged from the Zagros, ever. Ruling an area larger than a half-dozen Luxembourgs for twenty years without help is hardly getting your ass handed to you.

Endless rebellions? Cites please.
Are you speaking generally or about the iraqi kurds specifically? Cause there aren't that many kurdish rebellions against Iraq and fewer against Saddam since saddam came into power after the first kurdish iraqi war.
So I'd guess that there was a handful *goes googling* don't know the accuracy but this is about what I found:
1974–1975, The Second Kurdish Iraqi War.
1976–1978, PUK insurgency in Iraq.
1982–1989, Kurdish rebellion against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War (including the Al-Anfal campaign).
1991-1992, Spring uprisings in Iraqi Kurdistan


So lets look at those, before Saddam we have the first war where the kurds where heavily dependent on supplies from Iran.

Second kurdish iraqy war - no army or foreign power support - utter and complete failure for the kurds since they tried to fight army battles with a guerilla army vs a real one. This lost them the control of iraqi kurdistan and saw a huge influx of "arabs" as an iraqi policy - especially around Kirkurk.
No autonomy where the governement cared (ie not remote mountain villages with no economical importance)

PUK insurgency - no army or foreign power support - utter and complete failure for the kurds leading to countless atrocities and mass deportations of kurds.
Still no autonomy where the governement cared (ie not remote mountain villages with no economical importance)

Kurdish rebellion - indirectly helped by Iran and later limitied supplies by Iran who didn't want them to succeed - pretty much failed with no objectives gained and an official decree of autonomy which was worthless and completely reneged as soon as the Iran-Iraq war was over. Countless of atrocities by saddam et al vs the kurds, including genocide on a larger scale. Then mass relocations of peshmerga fighters.
Still no autonomy where the governement cared (ie not remote mountain villages with no economical importance)

1991 Spring uprisings - supposed to be helped by the US but wasn't at first since it was only propaganda anyway so no army or foreign support - lots of initial success with whole army units surrendering and giving up their equipment etc. And then mostly collapsed under gunship/tank assault by saddam loyalists allowed by the US as per the ceasefire. I don't think it even lasted a month. Leading to the displacement of some 1.5+ Meg of kurds. Atrocities and genocide.

Then the UN (resolution 688) started acting with the no fly zones (operation Comfort part I and II) and establishing ground forces etc to protect refugees - so plenty of foreign support - this led to the Kurdish resistance to continue the fight in the north until an agreement with the establishment of the Kurdistan Regional Government. As soon as Saddam agreed to this limited autonomy he also got what he wanted which was the foreign troops out of his country with very little except for symbolic power given to the kurds.

Which is what I'm guessing you are falsely aluding to in your post above.

During this so called autonomy for the region Saddam kept all important things federal - like oil income etc.
Its very telling how little this so called autonomy actually did and what it managed to do for the kurds in other regions. Its also telling what kind of armament they could get after the UN resolution ended.
So still no autonomy where the governement cared about it.

And yes they were getting their asses handed to them before intervention by foreign power.




So how any of this could even remotely be attributed to "castoff rifles" is delusional.


What should be talked about is the fighting spirit of the kurds, how they after millenia still retain a cultural identity, how they have consistently rebelled and gotting curbstomped for hundreds upon hundreds of years and still come back fighting.
That is what is important, not some stupid shit about US related gun control from nutjobs.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No, I'm referring to the fact, Bean, that during the entire period you mention, Iraq was never able to establish lawful authority over the rural areas of the upper Zagros range. All you can bleat about is Kirkuk and the other i]cities[/i] of Kurdistan repeatedly falling to the Baathist forces. And the Kurds were never fully disarmed after the initial rebellion that started with just old British and Ottoman rifles, and always had this area to fall back into.

Let's start with 20th century rebellions:

1. Irish War of Independence: Protestant population expelled and autonomy achieved for Catholic majority regions of Ireland by popular uprising.
2. 1919. Egyptians launch a combined campaign of protests and targeted assassinations of British officials, with attacks on military installations in the countryside by local militias, which see the British quietly shift away from the planned Protectorate over Egypt to make it into an independent state. Egyptian independence was real and the campaign was successful, even if the British retained control over the canal and several military bases.
3. The Irgun started a terrorist insurgency in Palestine in 1931. We all know how that succeeded and bore fruit after 17 years of effort in 1948.
4. 1934 Putsch in Austria against the Dolfuss government: This "failed", but since the only man who could run Austria as an independent state in the period was killed, it in fact strategically succeeded: Without it, Anschluss, the objective of the Nazi militias, could have never taken place. This shows the whole "objects may be met despite defeat in the field" aspect of rebellions you'd do well to remember. Armed force is just a tool after all.
5. Indonesian independence movement: Lightly armed Indonesian independence fighters rise up against the Japanese they had previously collaborated with (no allied help), secure the surrender of the Japanese garrisons; now armed with Japanese heavy weapons, fight to stalemate with the Netherlands, forcing the United States of Indonesia compromise in the postwar era.
6. 1946: Villarroel government in Bolivia overthrown by a group of armed students and teachers and other protestors who seize an armoury and then advance on the Presidential palace and hang the President.
7. Enosis campaign in Cyprus: Led to British withdrawal from most of the island rather than suppression, though the original goal of union with Greece wasn't met.
8. Achinese rebellion against remaining Dutch authority in Indonesia helps finish their rule over their half of the country; occurred on the opposite side of Sumatra from any native troops and was essentially unsupported.
9. 1952 - 1954: Guerrilla attacks on French forces in Tunisia bring about a modification to the terms of the treaty of protection, leading to independence a year late.
10. French Algeria. Toussaint Rouge starts the 8 year conflict with thirty coordinated attacks of small arms. The end result, as we all know, was technically a military defeat, but the French are politically defeated and agree to Algerian independence.

[...] -- insert about 50 other revolts from 1955 - 2010.

11. Afghanistan. All those drones and helicopters have sure been helping control entire provinces like Nuristan, haven't they?

Now, am I supposed to be some robot who spends all day listing every successful armed revolt in the second half of the twentieth century? Because there sure as hell were a lot, and most of them didn't spring fully formed from the bosom of communism with crates of AK-47s and 81mm mortars, either; they had to be successful enough to garner such support.

[Metahive]

No, I'm referring to the fact, Bean, that during the entire period you mention, Iraq was never able to establish lawful authority over the rural areas of the upper Zagros range. All you can bleat about is Kirkuk and the other i]cities[/i] of Kurdistan repeatedly falling to the Baathist forces. And the Kurds were never fully disarmed after the initial rebellion that started with just old British and Ottoman rifles, and always had this area to fall back into.

If you and your militia friends are content to live within barren mountainranges over which your oppressors frequently pour poison gas and other goodies then I guess the kurdish way is for you.
VICTORY FOR THE CITIZEN MILITIA *cough* *cough*!

*snip* list

First off, we are talking about revolts against domestic tyrants, so most of your list is already disqualified. Foreign occupants are not exactly in the same ballpark as oppressors that don't have the option to just go home if they don't wish to play ball anymore. And even then, half of your examples happened when the occupier came all exhausted and nearly bancrupt out of one or even two world wars, those are not circumstances that are easy to replicate, if you know what I mean.

But I really have to comment on this:

4. 1934 Putsch in Austria against the Dolfuss government: This "failed", but since the only man who could run Austria as an independent state in the period was killed, it in fact strategically succeeded: Without it, Anschluss, the objective of the Nazi militias, could have never taken place. This shows the whole "objects may be met despite defeat in the field" aspect of rebellions you'd do well to remember. Armed force is just a tool after all.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...*looks again*...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So, not only do you try desperately to gloss over the fact that the Putsch failed rather ignominiously, you also try to somehow claim that this was that somehow enabled Hitler to just swallow Austria and not, say, him getting Mussolini to drop his protective stance over Austria, the one thing that was actually keeping the Anschluss from happening. Also, weren't you trying to sell successful uprisings that were not backed by a foreign powers which this very instance rather quite obviously was not?

Why even discuss with someone who's being as disingenuous as you?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, my profound personal conviction that Engelbert Dolfuss had the widespread respect of the Austrian public and military and could have brought battle against an invading German army with the Bundesheer and Heimwehr in the name of traditional Austrian independence, Catholicism, etc, had he not be eliminated and with him the personal charisma that held the Austrofascist movement together, is not something that the entity known as Metahive is going to dissuade me from on a message board.

Anyway, the issue is armed backing, not vague support and cross border gunrunning, which an American insurrection could rely on quite readily from Mexico (the flow of illegal assault rifles would just reverse for enough money).

I shall anyhow take your declaration of "why bother discussing it" as a concession and consider the matter closed, regardless. Thank you for your time!