Fearmongering CNN Analyst Warns: 3D Printable Guns Could Bring Next 9/11

August 1st, 2018 1:01 PM

3D printable guns are the catalyst for the next 9/11, or so says CNN Legal & National Security Analyst, Asha Rangappa. In the most recent bout of hysteria surrounding blueprints for the weapons being available to the public, liberals are doubling down any way they can.



Appearing on Tuesday night's episode of Cuomo Primetime, Rangappa whipped up a case against these blueprints, produced by Defense Distributed. The designs for 3D printed guns were made available online previously, and over 100,000 people downloaded them. But, thanks to a temporary court order, the company distributing the blueprints have been forced to take them down. Rangappa had this to say:

“But I think really the practical effect is every day when you get on an airplane, you now have to worry about someone who may be sneaking in a plastic gun, and this is really just asking for potentially another 9/11. And I think that should be concerning to all of us.”

This point went unchallenged by host Chris Cuomo and fellow panelist Alan Dershowitz. CNN could not even provide a gun expert to give an opinion, instead relying on legal analysts who seemed to be on the same team, despite purporting to have different opinions on the matter. This falls in line with the entirety of network coverage on these 3D printable weapons.

In the future, if we as a society can avoid comparing things to historic tragedies such as 9/11 or the Holocaust, that would be fantastic. By comparing issues that have nothing to do with a tragedy to said tragedy, you take away what should be remembered about the event. But the liberals seem to be using the traditional playbook: when in doubt, fear monger.

Read the full transcript of the July 31st segment below:

Cuomo Prime Time
9:45 PM EST

CHRIS CUOMO: All right. This 3-D gun thing, the fundamental merits of the case were not argued in court. So let's hash it out in Cuomo's court. We have the perfect counselors. CNN Legal and National Security Analyst Asha Rangappa, and Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus, Alan Dershowitz, author of,"The Case against Impeaching Trump." Thanks to both of you. For the prosecution, Rangappa, why is this wrong?

ASHA RANGAPPA, CNN LEGAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, this is wrong on so many levels. So first there is a law that prohibits the possession of undetectable firearms, so these plastic firearms. So as you noted, Chris, in your earlier discussion, by definition, anyone who is downloading these instructions and actually makes these guns is going to be an illegal gun owner of said gun. The first amendment argument, I don't think really goes anywhere. There are public safety exceptions. In 1997 after the Timothy McVeigh bombing, Senator Feinstein passed an amendment making it illegal to post bomb-making instructions. So there are public safety exceptions to this. But I think really the practical effect is every day when you get on an airplane, you now have to worry about someone who may be sneaking in a plastic gun, and this is really just asking for potentially another 9/11. And I think that should be concerning to all of us.

CUOMO: Alan, the man who was just on argues, no, it's about speech. You should have the right to these ideas. These words are speech. These prints are speech. These designs are speech, and they should be protected.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Well, this is a terrible form of speech. These blueprints are awful, and I want to totally dissociate myself from what your previous guest went earlier said about this is good speech. It's terrible speech. But the question is, is it terrible speech that's protected by the first amendment? And the answer is clear. We don't know. We don't know. We've never had a case like this go to the Supreme Court. The earlier case called the progressive case, where they wanted to print instructions for how to make a hydrogen bomb, ended up being moot, and being moot for the reason that will probably make this case moot. By the time the case came to the court, the instructions were all over the place. Anybody could easily find how to make a hydrogen bomb. And now -- 

CUOMO: How about the argument that they haven't seen it used in a crime?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, you know, that's not a good enough argument. Look, the answer is that the court may very well say the instructions, the blueprints, are protected by the first amendment. But you should disable any machine from making this kind of weapon, not only prohibit the weapon, which we've already done, but also prohibit any 3-D machine from being capable of making the weapon. That would raise a second amendment question.


DERSHOWITZ: But second amendment issues are easier than first amendment issues. So in the end, I think the blueprints will be allowed to be shown, and that's a moot issue because they've already been shown. And anybody who wants to have access to this is going to be able to get it one way or another.

CUOMO: And you have all the terrorist handbook stuff that's out there that falls into the same kind of categories.

DERSHOWITZ: They're already out there. I don't want to compromise the first amendment.

RANGAPPA: And Chris, can I -- 

CUOMO: Go ahead, Asha.

RANGAPPA: I can add one thing here?


RANGAPPA: You know, right now federal law protects gun manufacturers from tort liability, from being sued by people who get shot by the weapons they make.

DERSHOWITZ: That's right. Terrible law. Terrible law.

RANGAPPA: These people are putting these instructions on are now -- there are now reasonably foreseeable consequences to what they're doing. And I think that if any of these guns end up being used in a crime, they can expect to have their hands sued off of them and they should.

CUOMO: Well, we will see. That's an actually interesting point. There was a strain of first amendment thought.

DERSHOWITZ: You know, but -- 

CUOMO: We got to go. We got to leave it there. But, you know, I was doing some research on this, and there was some jurisprudence early on in discussion of the first amendment that, you know, the first amendment's purpose isn't just to justify the most ugly and vile things that can be said that that's not the standard always for enforcing the first amendment. It will be interesting to see if a judge takes that on at all.

DERSHOWITZ: I think it is.

CUOMO: But we'll see. Alan Dershowitz, Asha Rangappa, thank you very much.