Grokster case NOT comparable to Gun Laws

The latest issue of SANS Newsbites has some editorial comments from Steven Northcutt that could use some examining. Northcutt comments on the MGM Studios INC vs Grokster by saying ” So a gun company can produce a “Saturday Night Special” under the law but Grokster has “unlawful intent””.
First of all so-called Saturday Night Specials are a fiction. They are misnomer used by any anti-gun advocate for cheap guns. Anti-gun advocates want to make it so cheap guns are unavailable. That will make it impossible for people with lower incomes to protect themselves. If they reduce the overall gun owner population it will be easier to remove the right to bear arms.
Second of all, anti-gun advocates have largely been successfully in that campaign. Saturday night specials dont exist.
Third, gun rights are protected by the Bill of Rights. Stealing other people’s work is not.
Fourth, the primary purpose of a gun is legal. IE. hunting, target shooting, and self-protection. The primary purpose of Grokster was not legal.
Fifth, look at the caselaw. In the Betamax case, Betamax VCRs were allowed because the primary purpose is legal.
You cant look at these cases without consideration of the primary purpose of the device.
The court unanimously held that peer-to-peer file sharing services will be held liable for the copyright infringement of their customers if the file sharing services affirmatively promote infringement. Since you cant make the claim that gun makers affirmatively promote murder, the comparison is not valid at all.