|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,505
Posts562,175
Members14,588
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,786 Likes: 673
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,786 Likes: 673 |
I interpret the definition of "Significant Military Equiptment" and "defense articles" to be firearms that are to be used by our military. Not civilians. I do not see how it can be interpreted any other way. But that is just me... Even if this was the absolute intent and limitation of the ITAR regulations, it would still include millions of military surplus and military styled firearms such as 1911's, M1 Carbines, Garands, 1903 Springfields, etc. Since it doesn't specify U.S. Military equipment, it could easily include Mausers, AK's, SKS's, and many more. But if we choose to ignore canvasback's warning about the intent being twisted and expanded, it is only because we also choose to ignore past history of the anti-gunners. Why on earth would our government sign on to regulations that would restrict and tax gunsmithing work on firearms used by our own military? That's about as likely as making the U.S. Marines undergo background checks. I think the ACGG is more than justified in their concern that this is aimed at civilians. Those who think otherwise would be advised to do some research into what happened to the noted custom flintlock gunsmith John Bivens when the BATF decided that this builder of fine flintlocks was subject to manufacturers excise taxes and penalties.
Voting for anti-gun Democrats is dumber than giving treats to a dog that shits on a Persian Rug
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,786 Likes: 673
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,786 Likes: 673 |
Where did you get the notion of a president or any political party accountable to the electorate as guarantor of gun rights or smithing activity? There is no other reliable option in the US than NRA.
You say above pols can't be trusted. What a crock of bullshit King. You've spent much of the last 3 years denigrating our NRA, as you relentlessly support and defend the Liberal Left Democrats who consistently work to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment. The Court departed from the original understanding of the Second. The NRA and other groups rejected the original interpretation. Even as late as 1991, the jurist Burger appointed by Nixon said "the Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In 2008, in the District of Columbia v. Heller, what Burger said was fraud was accepted by the court. Interesting stuff. Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so. Dave, Dave, Dave: you're like those fundamentalists who claim Jesus walked with the dinosaurs. There was no NRA at time of the Founding Fathers. The change was recent to what the Second is today. You acknowledge as "infringements" all those jurisdictions making the Second what they want it to be. But still the law.
Whether Americans carry because they can or have to is not the issue. They democratically make decisions on how they want to live. Their homicide record is not edifying among modern societies. It is a violent country. And this is one of my all time favorites... where you came up with a warped justification for Obama to violate his Oath of Office. With respect, you tend to believe the written as something sacrosanct as it appears in the Constitution and other bills. Look at the Oath you posted: It says only that the president will do to "the best of my ability" to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. What he determines "best"---wrongly or rightly.
It takes a special kind of person to twist reality like that King. It further illustrates why I say the Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Voting for anti-gun Democrats is dumber than giving treats to a dog that shits on a Persian Rug
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 Likes: 1 |
Keith: You would probably lower your blood pressure if you just put this bullshiter and others of his ilk on your ignore list as I have done. Trying to reason with one of them is a waste of time. You can't deal rationally with the irrational. Hopefully Darwin's laws will eventually prevail and the problem will solve itself.  Jim
The 2nd Amendment IS an unalienable right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,786 Likes: 673
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,786 Likes: 673 |
Jim, my blood pressure is usually around 103/60. Doc tells me I don't have to worry about having a stroke. But I'm sure it raises the blood pressure of King and the other anti-gun trolls when I reproduce their anti-gun rhetoric. I'm pretty sure King would just love it if I ignored his posts. Then he could go back to the good old days when he could pretend to be things he isn't. I don't try to reason with him or his kind at all. And I don't make silly excuses for them either. You cannot support and defend anti-gunners and still claim to be pro-gun. Not if you have even a shred of honesty. You and I both know where that leaves King. The roots I'm comfortable with are the radical---"to get to the root of"---and that's Jesus's teaching. The shame is how far the Christian community has drifted from it. We act irrationally from fear when the Christian message is to fear not, even death itself.We call ourselves Christian nations and stockpile ammunition, need concealed carry to protect ourselves and a regulated militia without regulations to protect us from our own governments, abandoning Jesus's teaching to defend it. The Second is what originalists and others want it to be, the former seeing any variances as infringements. So it goes and ever will be. It is not inviolable and inalienable as some members want all of us to believe. But it may surprise some to know that there was one time when I agreed with Ed Good: YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES,,,
KING BROWN IS AN ANTIGUNNER...
NOW WILL YOU LEAVE IT ALONE?
Voting for anti-gun Democrats is dumber than giving treats to a dog that shits on a Persian Rug
|
|
|
|
|
