Obama Plans To Muzzle Gun-Related Speech

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Oh, sorry about that, I knew something was not right with that part of it, but we all know what the constitution means.

a reply to: AlexJowls

Thanks to that poor written paper, no other laws can surpass the laws given to us when it comes to our rights, as citizens of the US, thank to that pesky poor written words in your views will never allow any other law like Islamic laws to ever become the law of the land, thank to that poor written paper we have the legal rights to bear arms.


And is not anything you can do about it or any body else.

a reply to: marg6043

but we all know what the constitution means.

No we don't. That's the issue I have with the second amendment, in that it is vague and does not clearly define 'arms' in any way whatsoever.

That lack of clarity has allowed politicians and bureaucrats the opportunity to further define the 2nd amendment how they see fit outside of the constitution.

Even many among the pro-2nd community cannot come to a consensus as to what is defined as 'arms' and to what point our rights extend.

originally posted by: AlexJowls

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'.

And WE here are glad that you live where you live. And WE here are also ecstatic that your opinion means about as much as a fart in outer-space.

Please, do everyone a HUGE favor and don't come to the US. You would just probably be shot by one of OUR crazy solder-like citizens carrying solder-like firearms in a solder-like fashion.

a reply to: introvert

Yes they can "define" but up to this days the supreme court will back the issue of who have the rights to arms, and that is us legal citizens of the US under the law, at least for now.

a reply to: introvert

The 2nd Amendment is flexible.

Definitions change.

But handguns and rifles are "arms" yes?

a reply to: marg6043

The debate is not about whom has the right to bear arms, the debate is over what is defined as arms and to what extent does the 2nd amendment cover that. It doesn't matter who has the right if we can't agree on what the right even protects.

a reply to: xuenchen

But handguns and rifles are "arms" yes?

Yes, but that's too simplistic in the scope of this debate. Does the 2nd amendment cover fully-auto firearms? Does it cover machine guns, etc.

There is no consensus among the pro-2nd people and the lack of detail within the 2nd has created a void that politicians and anti-gun people have stepped-up to fill.

The 2nd Amendment is flexible.

Then it's not much of a set in stone right, is it?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Maybe you can point out the parts that take individuals off the hook.

It's right in the title.

International Traffic in Arms: Revisions
to Definitions of Defense Services,
Technical Data, and Public Domain;
Definition of Product of Fundamental
Research; Electronic Transmission
and Storage of Technical Data; and
Related Definitions

Where?

a reply to: introvert

The definition of "Arms" could be weapons for individuals.

like maybe a howitzer on a rail car is not something one individual could operate alone.

or a hydrogen bomb.

wide open meanings.

originally posted by: Sweeper80

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Maybe you can point out the parts that take individuals off the hook.

It's right in the title.

International Traffic in Arms: Revisions
to Definitions of Defense Services,
Technical Data, and Public Domain;
Definition of Product of Fundamental
Research; Electronic Transmission
and Storage of Technical Data; and
Related Definitions

Where?

The title of the action at the root of the very topic we are talking about.

International Traffic in Arms: Revisions
to Definitions of Defense Services,
Technical Data, and Public Domain;
Definition of Product of Fundamental
Research; Electronic Transmission
and Storage of Technical Data; and
Related Definitions

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

The definition of "Arms" could be weapons for individuals.

like maybe a howitzer on a rail car is not something one individual could operate alone.

or a hydrogen bomb.

wide open meanings.

Exactly. None of us have come to a consensus as to what the 2nd amendment even covers.

That was my point.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: EternalSolace At least you're rational. I'd like to learn more about why you think this is so.

I just came accross an article that confirms my belief that this definitely about 3D printed firearms.

A notice posted on June 3rd in a recent Federal Register show that some changes are being made to the International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) regulations. Hidden within the proposal, which restricts what gear, technology, and info can and cannot be exported out of the US, is a ban on posting schematics for 3D printed gun parts online.

Proposed regulation could keep 3D-printed gun blueprints offline for good

The state department is wanting the schematics to fall under technical data under ITAR so they can pull all information on the 3D-printed firearms off the web.


The following link is an excellent article written by Anthony M. Masero at Boston College.

I Came, ITAR, I Conquered: The International
Traffic in Arms Regulations, 3D-Printed Firearms,
and the First Amendment

Citation for Anthony Masero's article:

Anthony M. Masero, I Came, ITAR, I Conquered: The International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 3DPrinted
Firearms, and the First Amendment, 55 B.C.L. Rev. 1291 (),
lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu...

originally posted by: macman
Please, do everyone a HUGE favor and don't come to the US. You would just probably be shot by one of OUR crazy solder-like citizens carrying solder-like firearms in a solder-like fashion.

What, like that Aussie baseball up-and-comer out for a jog the other month...?

Nah. I'm more world weary than that and quite au fait with the risks associated with living in a nation in a perpetual state of fear and war mongering. Thanks for the heads-up though!

originally posted by: marg6043

Constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution...*

And I thought ISIS were brainwashed and fanatical...

originally posted by: AlexJowls

originally posted by: marg6043

Constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution, constitution...*

And I thought ISIS were brainwashed and fanatical...

You really hate that Constitution, too, don't you? You're British aren't you? We have that Constitution because one day 239 years ago our ancestors decided that we didn't want to be subject to and ruled by your monarch anymore.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather have that Constitution and its basic legal framework detailing the limitations of government than the alternative. Further, considering all your complaining over and over in various threads on this issue, I might remind you that our Constitution has a process by which it can be changed. Its not an easy one, but it wasn't meant to be, nor should it be.

a reply to: AlexJowls

I've asked a couple of times in other threads, what you would replace it with. You are, after all, according to your own description...

Among the top 1 or 2 percent of IQ's on the planet, or words to that effect.

Let's hear what you'd replace it with. C'mon, Alex, let's reap the benefit of your wisdom.

a reply to: AlexJowls

Oh, lord, hard for you to understand the meaning of that word don't you.

CONSTIUTION.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: marg6043

but we all know what the constitution means.

No we don't. That's the issue I have with the second amendment, in that it is vague and does not clearly define 'arms' in any way whatsoever.

That lack of clarity has allowed politicians and bureaucrats the opportunity to further define the 2nd amendment how they see fit outside of the constitution.

Even many among the pro-2nd community cannot come to a consensus as to what is defined as 'arms' and to what point our rights extend.

Right? If the 2nd was supposed to allow the citizens to protect themselves from the government, the the public should be allowed to buy Abrams tanks, 50 caliber machine guns, drones, Apache helicopters, land mines, grenades, ect ...

When the 2nd was written, the public had the ability to buy the same tools of war as the government, mainly muskets and cannons. Today, the battlefield is a thousands times more complex, and we've come up with a gazillion new ways to kill each other -- most of which the public can't own.

I don't think an AR-15 and a 9mm side arm is going to scare the government.

The people have already lost if the intent of the 2nd is to protect the people from the government. Can any of YOU own a thermonuclear weapon or a bunker buster?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I don't think an AR-15 and a 9mm side arm is going to scare the government.

Not in the hands of scattered individuals, no. Won't frighten them a bit.

In the hands of an organized, and pissed off populous? Whole 'nother cup of joe.

a reply to: seagull

Yeah, but a few air-fuel bombs dropped by a few UAV's, flown by a handful of loyal drone pilots would make quick work of those folks.

It's like a bunch of folks with pitchforks and torches against the Titans of Olympus.

Rabble, rabble, rabble -- one big swipe of the paw and they're done.

We can pretend all day that we're big, tough, and scary as a unified group -- but that's make a HUGE assumption we can even unify. The reality is that people won't unify and the government has terrible weapons that only need a small handful of people to deploy.