Obama Plans To Muzzle Gun-Related Speech

I have not read the whole thread yet, so my apologies up front if this is covered... Are they solely [federal] regulations, or are they the implementing regulations for statutes in a positive law title of the USC, such as title 18? New regulations are published all the time and only apply to federal employees. Whereas, for any statute to be binding on the general populace, it must have an implementing regulation published in the federal register, and thus be enacted as positive law. Examples of positive law titles include title 1, title 5, and title 18. Examples that are not positive law, and do not include implementing regulations are title 26 and title 42.

originally posted by: buster2010
It would really help if people actually read the EO's instead of taking the NRA's word for it.

Well, if they actually read them how could they whine about Obama?

a reply to: buster2010

The problem with executive orders are that the states do not have to follow them, another that can be debated by federal circuit courts.

Also another problem is the stupid and complicated "wording used" that can be interpreted by those that wants to keep pushing them in order to satisfied certain groups or individuals.

But at the end the only stick as long as is not courts or states that will challenged them.

Gee...more nonsense about Obama by right wing nut jobs on ATS - whodathunkit.

Its funny that the previous poster decided to ignore my reply to buster advising him to read his own sources which illustrate the concern many of us have with this EO and the regulations they are changing.

a reply to: introvert

All I can say is to read the PDF I provided.

Are these plans like those he supposedly had regarding repealing the 2nd Amendment, and confiscating all guns, and outlawing ammo? If these new 'plans' are those old plans, I don't think you paranoid gun nuts have anything to worry about. Until your deep-pocketed benefactor, the NRA, runs out of contributions, this country's insane gun laws will continue to allow people who have absolutely no business owning a gun to continue to but military grade weapons. Whew!

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: introvert

All I can say is to read the PDF I provided.

I did. There is nothing in this that creates any new regulation. All it does is make specific revisions to definitions of words, for god's sake. Even the title tells you as much.

Why can't we have an honest discussion about these things? There is no meat to this, you know it, but we continue to pretend like this is Obama's final march to take our firearms.

Like I said in another thread, it is crap like this that gives the pro-2nd crowd a bad reputation and it is the pro-2nd crowd that are a bigger threat to my 2nd amendment rights than anyone else.

a reply to: introvert

The changing of words is an issue.

While none of us here are lawyers, specializing in Constitutional Law, I will defer to those, namely the NRA and NFA lawyers, that are best at reading such things.

I will reach out to my NFA rights attorney in this and see what he states. Once I hear back, I will let everyone here know.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Yo ?

Gun control, and EO's is 'right' wing nonsense.

Anyone seeking to preserve individual freedoms is what they use to call 'liberalism'.

originally posted by: TownCryer
Are these plans like those he supposedly had regarding repealing the 2nd Amendment, and confiscating all guns, and outlawing ammo? If these new 'plans' are those old plans, I don't think you paranoid gun nuts have anything to worry about. Until your deep-pocketed benefactor, the NRA, runs out of contributions, this country's insane gun laws will continue to allow people who have absolutely no business owning a gun to continue to but military grade weapons. Whew!

I think you may be missing the point here. Once we start down the path of taking away the rights of the people it will not stop. Today it's guns tomorrow maybe your right to vote.

Bottom line if you want to do something about gun violence STOP BUYING DRUGS. 90% of all gun related crime stems from drug use. That is straight from law enforcement records. The US consumes more illegal narcotics than any other 2 country's combined. Even if you only smoke a little pot now and then, if it came from Mexico someone suffered for it. It might be that 14 or 15 year old kid forced to carry it over the border, or the old lady down the street getting killed because she called the cops on a dealer. Someone, somewhere, DIED so you could get high. In 2000 reports said that as many as 3/4 of Americans use illegal drugs of some kind. So in my view if your kid smokes a little weed on the weekend then they killed someone. If you did nothing to stop them then YOU killed someone. I don't care if you've never handled a gun in your life, you still pulled the trigger.

originally posted by: TownCryer
Are these plans like those he supposedly had regarding repealing the 2nd Amendment, and confiscating all guns, and outlawing ammo? If these new 'plans' are those old plans, I don't think you paranoid gun nuts have anything to worry about. Until your deep-pocketed benefactor, the NRA, runs out of contributions, this country's insane gun laws will continue to allow people who have absolutely no business owning a gun to continue to but military grade weapons. Whew!

What military grade weapons?

a reply to: TownCryer

Until your deep-pocketed benefactor, the NRA,

Hate the NRA i take it, but guess what ?

Gun control created the NRA.

Pick any industry when government grows it's power it creates the NRA's to push back.

Of course money exchanges hands , and thus how ALL lobbyists/special interests get created.

And to think?

Had the 'progressives' left the second alone ?

The NRA wouldn't even exist.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: introvert

All I can say is to read the PDF I provided.

I did. There is nothing in this that creates any new regulation. All it does is make specific revisions to definitions of words, for god's sake. Even the title tells you as much.

Why can't we have an honest discussion about these things? There is no meat to this, you know it, but we continue to pretend like this is Obama's final march to take our firearms.

Like I said in another thread, it is crap like this that gives the pro-2nd crowd a bad reputation and it is the pro-2nd crowd that are a bigger threat to my 2nd amendment rights than anyone else.

I have to say it must be nice to still have a child like view of how things work.

Here's an example of what's wrong with that thinking. When Bush jr. left office he put in place what he called "An open border policy" He told the people it was to promote free trade with the US and create new jobs. No one questioned it enough to prevent it from happening. Now, I don't know if the stated intent was true, but I do know the effect it had. Hundreds of US company's closed up shop and moved outside the US. Why, lower wages, no taxes more money for them. And thousands of Americans out of work. That means less income for the government, OR higher taxes for the rest of us. Since we know the government isn't about to take a pay cut we lost. There's no such thing as a law that ONLY covers 1 issue.

a reply to: MikeA

I have to say it must be nice to still have a child like view of how things work.

Wow, is that how you enter an intelligent conversation? If I were to respond in kind, I'd drop the obligatory "you're a doo-doo head", in which your response would be "I know you are but what am I?".

Please, If you want to challenge my position, do it with facts and logic. Childish insults only reflect on you.

As to your main point, I assume you are referring to the Security and Prosperity Partnership between the US, Canada and Mexico which some have said created an open border policy. I don't know if that is true because I haven't looked in to it.

But I do know that a signed agreement between countries is not in the same ballpark as this issue. Nay, not even the same universe. That agreement CREATED NEW POLICY and this current issue only streamlines definitions so that the EXISTING POLICIES reflect each other in their usage of DEFINITIONS.

Your second amendment rights are in the same state as they were before this was proposed, so relax.

a reply to: introvert

GEEE I feel so stupid

NOOOOOOOOOOT

First I didn't just enter GO CHECK before you assume.

Second I believe my point IS right in the ballpark. But if you want to believe that laws don't have double meanings, or that they won't be used for something other than what's stated, that's your problem. I spent 12 years enforcing laws and can tell you that nothing is as cut and dried as you may think.

Third some of us have and do fight to protect those rights that a lot of people see as just a way to get out of trouble. So YES I tend to get a little ticked when anyone for any reason tries to change them.

Last if you don't like what I said that's fine it is your right ( You're welcome ) but until you do something besides complain about what others do, I just don't care what you think of me.

a reply to: MikeA

Perhaps you are not grasping that no new laws or policies are being put in place to enforce. It was only a streamlining of definitions to make sure the two jived.

There is nothing to misinterpret. In fact, that's the purpose behind clarifying the definitions.

Third some of us have and do fight to protect those rights that a lot of people see as just a way to get out of trouble. So YES I tend to get a little ticked when anyone for any reason tries to change them.

Don't fight for my rights. I can do that all by myself and I stand up for them/exercise them when the need arises.

You're not talking to some anti-gun, gun-grabbing lunatic. I know what my rights are I don't need the extreme nutters out there compromising my rights just because they have a hard time with reading comprehension, have a political ax to grind or believe there is some conspiratorial hidden meaning behind things.

Last if you don't like what I said that's fine it is your right ( You're welcome ) but until you do something besides complain about what others do, I just don't care what you think of me.

Hilarious! This entire thread is about complaining about what others have done, when they haven't done anything at all. I understand that this topic can be emotional, but I am a literalist and look at things logically before I pour my heart all over the web. If that's what you want to do, fine. But do not get mad at me when I look at things for what they are worth and do not come to the same conclusion.

Guns have one, explicit purpose, and that's to kill. As such, curtailing speech aimed at promoting such instruments of death seems like sound governance, to me.

Though, I'm not from the U.S.. So, my conception of "sound" might be somewhat different than what it translates to in 'American', much less below the Mason-Dixon Line...

a reply to: AlexJowls

While you are right about guns only meaning is to kill, you have to understand that is not only a constitutional right but also free speech, you can not try to downgrade one without downgrading the other one and that is what is been done by those that do not give a crap about constitutional rights in the nation.

This has been going on for a long long time and is not limited to those two rights.

Tyranny can not be enforced when is so many rights given to the people by a pesky old document call the constitution.

Those old men that redacted such document were the genius of their time.

What we got now are corrupted morons in the pocket of big interest

a reply to: AlexJowls

A guns sole purpose is to offer a platform to expel a projectile in an accurate fashion.

You really need to get your definitions correct if you are going to come into this.

If my firearms sole purpose were to just KILL, then they are not functioning correctly and I need to send them back to the manufacturer, as they have yet to perform in this manner.