Obama Plans To Muzzle Gun-Related Speech

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: AlexJowls


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.

That is a good one.

a reply to: AlexJowls

Guns have one, explicit purpose, and that's to kill.

Incorrect.
Signalling guns, line launching guns and parlor guns are not designed to kill. In fact, parlor guns were designed with the idea of not killing.

originally posted by: marg6043
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

"Constitutional" is an arbitrary word -- a trained aspiration of sound through the expulsion of air through the vocal cords to form what we interpret as communicatory speech.

"Constitutional" does not bring school children, work mates or soldiers (et al.) back from the dead. "Constitutional" only provides a wafer-thin defilade for fretful gun-lovers to hide behind in the face of a fusilade of overwhelming evidence and fact. As indeed is evinced in this very thread and its laughably desperate attempt to justify military armaments in the hands of the capricious, "freedumb" embued proletariat on the feeble grounds someone shot some knife-wielding assailant. (...Naturally, and obligatorily, eliding the fact that the robber in question might not have even had any intention of harming their victim, only dispossessing them of whatever they were after... but now we'll never know for sure.)

If guns truly made one safe, there would be no need for police or even the military... or to lock one's doors. The fact of the matter is, guns only make ignorant people feel safe; not unlike an intimidating dog by their side or wearing gang colours might. Because the fact is, these people believe they're all Yosemite Sams and their foe will always be a cardboard cutout carrying a peeling knife.

>think

originally posted by: marg6043

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: AlexJowls
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.

That is a good one.

The fool always finds one more foolish to admire him. (See: the NRA).

originally posted by: butcherguy
Incorrect.
Signalling guns, line launching guns and parlor guns are not designed to kill. In fact, parlor guns were designed with the idea of not killing.

What about a Light Amplification through the Stimulated Emission of Radiation gun -- also known by some evil geniuses as a "LAYZERRRR"...?

(See? It's not that hard to sound dumb )

a reply to: AlexJowls

We in the US only have one meaning of Constitutional rights and is not arbitrary for us, because is self explain.

constitutional rights

n. rights given or reserved to the people by the U. S. Constitution, and in particular, the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments). These rights include: writ of habeas corpus, no bill of attainder, no duties or taxes on transporting goods from one state to another, (Article 1, Section 9), jury trials (Article III, Section 1),[/freedom of religion, speech, press (which includes all media), assembly and petition (First Amendment), state militia to bear arms (Second Amendment), no quartering of troops in homes (Third Amendment), no unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment), major ("capital and infamous") crimes require indictment, no double jeopardy (more than one prosecution) for the same crime, no self-incrimination, right to due process, right to just compensation for property taken by eminent domain (Fifth Amendment); in criminal law, right to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses against one, and to counsel (Sixth Amendment), trial by jury (Seventh amendment), right to bail, no excessive fines, and no cruel and unusual punishments (Eighth amendment), unenumerated rights are reserved to the people (Ninth amendment), equal protection of the laws (14th amendment), no racial bars to voting (15th amendment), no sex bar to voting (19th amendment), and no poll tax (24th amendment). Constitutional interpretation has expanded and added nuances to these rights. (See: constitution, Bill of Rights)

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

This are laws and we love and enjoy them as citizens.

a reply to: AlexJowls

No fools, just constitutional rights loving people after all they are rights given to us, no that we imposed them into us.

a reply to: AlexJowls

And yet another ignorant foreigner chimes in to a discussion they have little to no knowledge of.

Honestly, don't you have some pressing issues within your home country to discuss? Or are you too busy wanting to dictate rule from across an ocean or border.

It is not clear to me that this is anything other than restricting information about military weapons. Certainly there would some howls about not being able to post about your Remington 700.
a reply to: xuenchen

a reply to: projectvxn

Just saw this, and according to the "revised definition" set forth by the state department you will need approval from the state department to post any technical data about weapons, or ammo. It actually states unclassified material so it covers more than just guns and ammo. It includes accessories related to these weapons and ammo.

...
The Department proposes to create new sections detailing the scope of licenses, unauthorized releases of information, and the ‘‘release’’ of secured information, and revises the sections on ‘‘exports’’ of ‘‘technical data’’ to U.S. persons abroad. Finally, the Department proposes to address the electronic transmission and storage of unclassified ‘‘technical data’’ via foreign communications infrastructure. This rulemaking proposes that the electronic transmission of unclassified ‘‘technical data’’ abroad is not an ‘‘export,’’ provided that the data is sufficiently secured to prevent access by foreign persons. Additionally, this proposed rule would allow for the electronic storage of unclassified ‘‘technical data’’ abroad, provided that the data is secured to prevent access by parties unauthorized to access such data. The revisions contained in this proposed rule are part of the Department of State’s retrospective plan under Executive Order 13563 first submitted on August 17, 2011.
...

www.gpo.gov...

As to what sort of technical data of weapons, and other equipment would be covered by the "revision" to only be authorized to be published if it is not publicly accessed by anyone overseas. Here is the list that is of most concern since it includes items that are available for civilian use.

...
These are articles as specified in § 120.29 of this subchapter and appear on the list at § 121.16.
CATEGORYI—FIREARMS, CLOSE ASSAULT WEAPONS AND COMBATSHOTGUNS

* (a) Nonautomatic and semi-automatic
firearms to caliber .50 inclusive (12.7 mm).
* (b) Fully automatic firearms to .50 cal-
iber inclusive (12.7 mm).
* (c) Firearms or other weapons (e.g. insur-
gency-counterinsurgency, close assault
weapons systems) having a special military
application regardless of caliber.
* (d) Combat shotguns. This includes any
shotgun with a barrel length less than 18
inches.
* (e) Silencers, mufflers, sound and flash
suppressors for the articles in (a) through (d)
of this category and their specifically de-
signed, modified or adapted components and
parts.
(f) Riflescopes manufactured to military
specifications (See category XII(c) for con-
trols on night sighting devices.)

* (g) Barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames)
or complete breech mechanisms for the arti-
cles in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this cat-
egory.
(h) Components, parts, accessories and at-
tachments for the articles in paragraphs (a)
through (g) of this category.
(i) Technical data (as defined in § 120.10 of
this subchapter) and defense services (as de-
fined in § 120.9 of this subchapter) directly re-
lated to the defense articles enumerated in
paragraphs (a) through (h) of this category.
Technical data directly related to the manu-
facture or production of any defense articles
enumerated elsewhere in this category that
are designated as Significant Military Equip-
ment (SME) shall itself be designated SME.
(j) The following interpretations explain
and amplify the terms used in this category
and throughout this subchapter:
(1) A firearm is a weapon not over .50 cal-
iber (12.7 mm) which is designed to expel a
projectile by the action of an explosive or
which may be readily converted to do so.
(2) A rifle is a shoulder firearm which can
discharge a bullet through a rifled barrel 16
inches or longer.
(3) A carbine is a lightweight shoulder fire-
arm with a barrel under 16 inches in length.
(4) A pistol is a hand-operated firearm hav-
ing a chamber integral with or permanently
aligned with the bore.
(5) A revolver is a hand-operated firearm
with a revolving cylinder containing cham-
bers for individual cartridges.
(6) A submachine gun, ‘‘machine pistol’’ or
‘‘machine gun’’ is a firearm originally de-
signed to fire, or capable of being fired, fully
automatically by a single pull of the trigger.
...

www.pmddtc.state.gov...


Otherwise you face a fine and time in prison if you have no authorization and post "technical data" on any of these weapon systems/firearms, and the rest of the list which I did not include.

I just posted the parts that also affect weapons/equipment which up to now have been legal for civilians to have. (Note that in the case of firearms I bolded the word "nonautomatic" for a reason. Since nonautomatic firearms are widely used by civilians, more so than the heavily regulated fully auto firearms.)

(BTW, yes I know this is not banning firearms, please read again that I mention technical data, not the weapons and accessories themselves.)

a reply to: marg6043

Marg, actually that website is wrong. The second amendment is not just on

...state militia to bear arms (Second Amendment)...

In the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution there is a comma in between the part about a well regulated militia and the right to own and bear arms for a reason. Because they are separate. The right to own and bear arms is not stated to be only for a well regulated militia. In fact it states, and I quote.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

www.usconstitution.net...

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is about both, a well regulated militia, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

originally posted by: macman
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.

Mac, have you heard from your lawyers yet? I'm asking because I had dinner with my lawyer last night and it would be interesting to see how your lawyer responds, compared to mine.

a reply to: introvert

I have not yet. Been wrapped up with day job stuff and my business.

Don't fret. I am working on it.

I may be wrong but it seems to me that the pro-sayers are missing the point here. For me at least it's clear. It takes time to draft a bill, maybe years. Once written it goes through 1000's of hands, and checked for everything from wording to spelling, and back again. Being written and rewritten many times over before ever making it to the public. It takes years to draft a bill and have it voted into law. Then after all that someone comes in, not in the final hour, but after the clock ran out and says "Oh we made a mistake and need to better define the wording". REALLY ?? after all that. Here's the thing when you change the wording, or how the words are defined, you change the law. This means it's not the same law that was passed. The correct way to do it is they should repeal the law completely, rewrite it the way you want it to read. Then put it back to the voters to decide if they like the changes or not. To put it more simple, you CAN add to a law already in place, but you CAN NOT change the definition of what that law means. To change the meaning of even a single phrase can change the way the entire law is applied. If that happens it opens the door to go back and change ANY law already on the books without going through the same process of checks & balance's. I, for one, can't see any HONEST reason for doing it like this. It's a back door attack pure and simple.

Oh and by the way "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE". I know it's a well worn phrase, but it's still true. Guns are not made just to kill people. Some use them in target shooting, (A sport) some use them to provide food for their family, (Hunting) some even use them to fend off an animal attack while hiking or camping. Lumping ALL gun owners into one group is the same as saying ALL blacks are drug dealers, or ALL whites are dumb rednecks. Funny how people don't like being hamstrung like that, but don't mind doing it to others.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You may have missed one here. The government has a history of this kind of law. Back in the 50's or 60's I think it was it became legal to sell narcotics like coc aine in the US, provided you had a tax stamp. The trouble was that there was NO way to get a tax stamp. No forms to fill out or government agent you could go to too get one. The law was repealed because there was no way for a person to comply with it. This looks like the same thing. You can do it BUT only with permission. (wink wink)

a reply to: MikeA

Then after all that someone comes in, not in the final hour, but after the clock ran out and says "Oh we made a mistake and need to better define the wording"

It's done all of the time. What logic is there in repealing an entire law or regulation, when all they want to do is clarify definitions in order to reflect the same language used in another existing law or regulation that it works in conjunction with?

These types of actions make government a bit more efficient. That's a good thing, is it not?

without going through the same process of checks & balance's

These proposed changes will go through a system of checks and balances.

Lumping ALL gun owners into one group

I hate that as well. I am pro-2nd amendment but I am lumped together and treated as if I'm some extreme gun nut, but then again I am not evangelical about my rights, so the gun-nuts think I'm a gun grabber.

I don't concern myself with the gun grabbers, as they are never going to succeed in their cause. The extreme gun nuts do concern me because they make all of us pro-2nd people look like a bunch of morons that become outraged at things like this, when there is no cause for alarm. Even I have to question the intelligence of some of the gun extremists because it seems like they lack reading comprehension skills and are more politically motivated than actually concerned about their 2nd amendment right.

It is people such as myself that have to step up and defend our 2nd amendment rights in a debate because the gun nuts are too busy crying about Obama and screaming "theys comin' fer me guns" to intelligently articulate what their 2nd amendment right even means.

It is people such as myself that have to step up and defend our 2nd amendment rights in a debate because the gun nuts are too busy crying about Obama and screaming "theys comin' fer me guns" to intelligently articulate what their 2nd amendment right even means.

O thnk ya so much fer perteken us poo gun shotin hiks dat caint red nor rite Iz waz sooo skard dey wood tooken mi gunz.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

a reply to: MikeA

An expected response. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

sorry, gave up reading after "foreign raised President of the United States" in the first sentence.

If you're gonna open with a theory that's been so widely debunked, the rest doesn't deserve my attention.

originally posted by: marg6043
No fools, just constitutional rights loving people after all they are rights given to us, no that we imposed them into us.

Some poorly written, even error riddled words inscribed generations ago and today used to justify all manner of inane idiocy, is not some license to lobotomise oneself (*assuming there is a brain to lobotomise). Kind of like the rule one should apply to the Bible / Talmud / Qur'an, if you will.

originally posted by: macman
And yet another ignorant foreigner chimes in to a discussion they have little to no knowledge of.
Honestly, don't you have some pressing issues within your home country to discuss? Or are you too busy wanting to dictate rule from across an ocean or border.

The irony of a U.S. citizen name-calling a non U.S. citizen "ignorant", is indeed rich. As for having more pressing domestic issues to deal with -- one could ask that very question of the U.S.... since World War II, in fact!

All I can say, with utmost surety, is that I'm well glad I live in a nation where I don't feel the need to arm myself like a soldier in order to feel 'safe'.

originally posted by: AlexJowls

originally posted by: marg6043
No fools, just constitutional rights loving people after all they are rights given to us, no that we imposed them into us.

Some poorly written, even error riddled words inscribed generations ago and today used to justify all manner of inane idiocy, is not some license to lobotomise oneself (*assuming there is a brain to lobotomise). Kind of like the rule one should apply to the Bible / Talmud / Qur'an, if you will.

That's fine if you want to believe that, but we have a process for changing those types of laws to more accurately reflect the manner in which society wants to interpret them. The proper process of doing that is through a Constitutional convention and another amendment which rewrites or eliminates the 2nd. Its not by twisting the interpretation as it suits society. Ironically, that twisting of the Constitution in other ways is largely what has enabled some of the foreign interventionism that you complain of.