You're equating a print at home firearm to an artificial limb?
What about nuclear suitcase plans? Or plans for the Grand Gulf 1 power plant? Or the nuclear missile codes?
Obviously there are legitimate reasons to censor information.
You're conflating national secrets protected by classification with commonly available technical information. For example, plans for a power plant are going to be protected by a Department of Energy classification level. Anyone with access who publishes this information will be prosecuted for mishandling of classified information and violation of a nondisclosure agreement. However, someone without such access who designs and publishes theoretical and virtually identical information is free to do so.
Basically, the government can only restrict its own proprietary information, and does so through classification levels.
No , actually it is relevant. Not because you do not have the right to express an opinion but because the mindset is actually different a lot of times.
No. Classification and censorship are not the same thing. Classification protects proprietary government information. Censorship is the restriction of privately held information.
anyone focusing on the gun part of this is watching the wrong hand.
I know in the US your have your "untouchable" amendments etc. Yes, even those should change if needed.
I thought I told Howard not to discuss religious matters.
..Then he brings up Fender owners.
Oh jeez... No, they're not. We already established that.
Even in the US, there are some people who are not allowed to own firearms.
Yes, they are indeed inalienable. That's the whole point of the Bill of Rights. Of course there are people who have given up their right to posses a firearm. Note that these people are themselves responsible for their inability to posses a firearm, not the governments. Big difference, but I don't expect you to admit that point.
No offence, but I think you're reaching there.
Classified Information is information that is restricted by law. There's nothing at all to suggest that only proprietary information can be classified as Classified Information.
Censorship is the restriction of information.
When information is determined to be Classified Information, it is censored.
Proprietary relates to ownership. I've never heard of any mandate that states that the government can only certify information as Classified Information if it's proprietary. And just thinking that through, it doesn't make sense. Countries share information between themselves. I think you're suggesting that if the UK shares its proprietary classified information with the US, then the US cannot maintain the Classified Information status on that content since that information isn't proprietary to the US. I doubt very much that this is the case.
It is about ownership. The government can only classify information that it owns or controls. It cannot classify information held by private individuals because the government does not own it. Maintaining classification of foreign government information that has been entrusted to the control of the United States is not the same as the government declaring that it wants to suppress a private citizen's information and slapping a classification on it.
For instance, let's say the government has a bit of information we will call Document X. Now, let's also say the New York Times finds out the same information independently. The government cannot classify they information held by the NYT, even though the exact same information is considered classified when held by the government. In fact, a cleared individual would still be prosecuted for releasing Document X - even though the information is publicly available and can be freely disseminated by a non-cleared private citizen. Classification is about ownership (and by extension, control of information owned by another government that is entrusted to the US). I deal with this stuff every day.