"Executive Order Banning Online Gun Talk – What To Do About It"

That's cool, we'll rent some servers in Russia.

Vasily, I cannot figure out how to check feedback score
putin-computer.jpg

Allow me to show you comrade.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprised if one day there is an actual internet police force. One wrong move and a drone will ring your doorbell and serve you a fine.
[rules]
 
The Colonists best weapon against the Crown was an over-worked printing press...
Nothing, and I mean nothing can stop the freedom of expression...
 
Regardless of whether this is bogus or not, nice job of outing yourself, Barry. [grin] Having a "Ready For Hillary" party soon?

Yes, I'm Obama because I use common sense and critical thinking. You're actually praising Obama with that one.

Didn't go the way you thought it would, did it?!
 
Nope it does not apply to anything as:

All*laws*which are*repugnant to the Constitution*are*null and void.” (Marbury vs. Madison, 1803.)*..

That pesky Constitution thing again....I know why this administration is so stressed out now...[rolleyes]
 
They're using that exact interpretation of ITAR to stop distribution of printed gun files.

While the author is being grandiose, the ITAR law is being expanded in EXACTLY that fashion incrementally. The same exact way the ATF keeps using existing law to try and ban specific ammo as armor piercing.

Stopping the free flow of information in the form of printed gun files is more than enough reason to object and resist. The clear precedent of .gov using laws and executive orders in an increasingly broad ways makes it urgent.

I don't know how much bias and lack of trust of our supposed representatives is contributing to my point of view, but it seems to be getting so much worse so fast that it frightens me.
 
Information flow has already been stemmed systematically. Hardly anything goes out without a bias as to which party the news outlet I'd in bed with. They do this to irratate people on the other side. I mean I know why everyone posts here and what is usually said but an anti argument gets thousands of clicks from here alone. As long as they keep posting controversial material and keep getting his and the add dollars keep coming they are happy. But just reporting without sensationalism doesn't get clicks. So we feed into like everyone else.
 
Yes, I'm Obama because I use common sense and critical thinking. You're actually praising Obama with that one.

Didn't go the way you thought it would, did it?!

Oh, I get it....obama has NOTHING to do with the State Department. He only knows about anything by hearing it on the news. Been carrying water for the obama regime long? Do you actually own a gun, or are you just a troll?
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to fight this?
Could someone post a link or a draft of an email as to what to say fight this bill?
Regardless of the actual language in the bill, and it being a valid constitutional issue,
I actually think this is but another step on that "slippery slope".\
ggboy

I do, but there are laws against that as well.

It's not a bill, it's an executive order, the only way to fight it is to deal with the executive branch or to challenge it in court.
 
I do, but there are laws against that as well.

It's not a bill, it's an executive order, the only way to fight it is to deal with the executive branch or to challenge it in court.

But...but...but, according to our resident (short term, non green) obama bumkisser, the State Dept, is responsible. Hmmm, the State Dept issues Executive Orders????? Only in Hillary Land.
 
Oh, I get it....obama has NOTHING to do with the State Department. He only knows about anything by hearing it on the news. Been carrying water for the obama regime long? Do you actually own a gun, or are you just a troll?

But...but...but, according to our resident (short term, non green) obama bumkisser, the State Dept, is responsible. Hmmm, the State Dept issues Executive Orders????? Only in Hillary Land.

[popcorn]
 
Gee I hope ( Guns ) they don't see me ( Guns ) talking about ( Guns ) online ( Guns ).

Ok now what?
 
But...but...but, according to our resident (short term, non green) obama bumkisser, the State Dept, is responsible. Hmmm, the State Dept issues Executive Orders????? Only in Hillary Land.

You need to think more, the EO is from decades ago it simply governs these overall things. Again, I love how you're so desperate as to label me some type of Obama supporter (and I magically don't own 5 firearms because I use common sense?) because I correctly pointed out this is fearmongering and it is issued by the State Department.
 
Last edited:
For anybody wondering what this is about, see [thread=283809]Dupe1[/thread] Dupe2, [thread=283800]Dupe3[/thread] and [thread=283788]Dupe4[/thread].

I opposed abuse of ITAR during the cryptography wars of the 1990s, and volunteer to be a test case if this regulation is actually used to clamp down on non-classified postings of firearms technical data. But that will almost certainly never come to pass, for good summary of why, see here.

I do, but there are laws against that as well. It's not a bill, it's an executive order, the only way to fight it is to deal with the executive branch or to challenge it in court.
It's not an EO. Even the NRA doesn't claim this is Obama himself, but describe the driving force as "the Obama State Department", making changes to " the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). ".

So this is rulemaking which falls under the authority of the state department, as authorized by the AECA of 1976; not an EO, but a law, passed by congress and signed by Gerald R. Ford on June 30, 1976. It's a bit late to impeach him.

Federal Register FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844 said:
5. Revised Definition of Public Domain The Department proposes to revise the definition of ‘‘public domain’’ in ITAR § 120.11 in order to simplify, update, and introduce greater versatility into the definition. The existing version of ITAR § 120.11 relies on an enumerated list of circumstances through which ‘‘public domain’’ information might be published. The Department believes that this definition is unnecessarily limiting in scope and insufficiently flexible with respect to the continually evolving array of media, whether physical or electronic, through which information may be disseminated. The proposed definition is intended to identify the characteristics that are common to all of the enumerated forms of publication identified in the current rule...

The proposed definition requires that information be made available to the public without restrictions on its further dissemination. Any information that meets this definition is ‘‘public domain.’’ The definition also retains an exemplary list of information that has been made available to the public without restriction and would be considered ‘‘public domain.’’ These include magazines, periodicals and other publications available as subscriptions, publications contained in libraries, information made available at a public conference, meeting, seminar, trade show, or exhibition, and information posted on public Web sites.
. . .
A note is added to clarify that a person will be deemed to have knowledge of U.S.-origin ‘‘technical data’’ if the person previously participated in the ‘‘development’’ of a ‘‘defense article’’ described in the same USML paragraph, or accessed (physically or electronically) that ‘‘technical data.’

If you actually read the information published in the Federal Register, this is a "clarification" of the ancient ITAR regulations, and a bunch of bloggers (and the NRA) are taking the worst possible misreading of the change to generate clickbait posts claiming the sky is falling.
 
Last edited:
For anybody wondering what this is about, see [thread=283809]Dupe1[/thread] Dupe2, [thread=283800]Dupe3[/thread] and [thread=283788]Dupe4[/thread].


It's not an EO. Even the NRA doesn't claim this is Obama himself, but describe the driving force as "the Obama State Department", making changes to " the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). ".

So this is rulemaking which falls under the authority of the state department, as authorized by the AECA of 1976; not an EO, but a law, passed by congress and signed by Gerald R. Ford on June 30, 1976. It's a bit late to impeach him.



If you actually read the information published in the Federal Register, this is a "clarification" of the ancient ITAR regulations, and a bunch of bloggers (and the NRA) are taking the worst possible misreading of the change to generate clickbait posts claiming the sky is falling.

Thank you for explaining it better without fearmongering, I'm being called an Obama-bot for doing the same thing here.
 
Thank you for explaining it better without fearmongering, I'm being called an Obama-bot for doing the same thing here.
You conveniently forget that I referred to this as bogus. I was disputing that the "State Department" issues EOs, as you claimed. "Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies."
 
Thank you for explaining it better without fearmongering, I'm being called an Obama-bot for doing the same thing here.

If you don't blame everything on Obama regardless of what it is, Bt74 calls you that or something like that. It really doesn't matter what it is, its Obamas fault. But hey, at least he's consistent. No facts have got in his way yet.
 
Help me understand this thread clearly. The .gov wants to ban talk! And here I've been thinking that .gov emloyee's took an oath to defend the "whole" constitution of the United States. I guess that they get to cherry pick the parts that they'd like to defend. When did free choice cherry picking happen? I must have missed that in the news.
 
Well yes, the government would LOVE to suppress free speech, though this is more specifically, about suppressing the dissemination of information.

When did this happen? I guess you did miss the news because this has been happening my entire lifetime.

But really, they don't cherry pick the parts they like to defend. They don't defend any of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom