This election is far too important.... because the Supreme Court!

[tanstaafl72555]

Frankly, I will probably go back to not voting, just because I don't want to encourage the bullshit idea that you are actually affecting something by doing it. I might vote in local stuff, but the federal gov is unsavable, and is mostly a huge energy and emotional suck of resources that could better be spent elsewhere. I get it that "you might not be interested in them, but they are interested in you." I recognize that, but am increasingly coming to see that the way to "resist" is to simply walk away. Maybe that will be retreat to the fringes, maybe to emigrate to someplace where there is not resources to carry out the lunacy, or maybe (I hope not) to revolt. The difference is that I no longer believe that "voting" makes any difference.

 

[specops56]

Though more minor, here is another Trump anti-2A move. It also mentions the disillusionment in the 2A community possibly leading to them sitting out the election: http://www.captainsjournal.com/2019/06/16/magazine-export-ban-by-state-department/
Magazine export ban by the State Dept: Trump’s Rex Tillerson

What magazine ban is he talking about? He gives no link to it.

Terry

 

[noway2]

What magazine ban is he talking about? He gives no link to it.

The links in his blogs don't really look like links. They're the yellow segments. I think he was referring to this: Trump Administration Export Ban on Over 32 Round Magazines Raises Question of “Why?” which was the David Codrea text.

 

[Charlie]

So the export of certain arms components may not be allowed. How does that affect the 2A or our freedom?

I see Trump is pushing to open up something like 1.4 million acres of federal land for hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreation.

 

[specops56]

So the export of certain arms components may not be allowed. How does that affect the 2A or our freedom?

I see Trump is pushing to open up something like 1.4 million acres of federal land for hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreation.

Terry

 

[Charlie]

Terry

I thought some of you folks might like to hear something good the administration seems to be doing for us.

Again, why does limiting arms exports affect the 2A? It may cost a few jobs at home, but what freedom is reduced because these magazines are on a list of things that can not be exported?

 

[noway2]

Again, why does limiting arms exports affect the 2A? It may cost a few jobs at home, but what freedom is reduced because these magazines are on a list of things that can not be exported?

The question is more correctly phrased as (from the article):

As long as exports aren’t being made to designated hostile countries, and as long as rules imposed by recipient nations aren’t being violated, how does it serve “in furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the U.S.” to continue imposing an arbitrary infringement when State enjoys such wide latitude and deference for its policies?

What purpose does it serve to restrict standard capacity magazines, that are legal in many countries? What’s more is that it is just one more additional form of infringement, even if it is minor, from an administration that catered to a 2A community that is quickly becoming disillusioned with said administration.

 

[Charlie]

I like the question the way I asked it. No answer?

 

[gc70]

The question is more correctly phrased as (from the article):
What purpose does it serve to restrict standard capacity magazines, that are legal in many countries? What’s more is that it is just one more additional form of infringement, even if it is minor, from an administration that catered to a 2A community that is quickly becoming disillusioned with said administration.

Exactly what is being infringed?

 

[SC380]

Exactly what is being infringed?

I like the question the way I asked it. No answer?

Again, why does limiting arms exports affect the 2A? It may cost a few jobs at home, but what freedom is reduced because these magazines are on a list of things that can not be exported?

Free commerce and someone else's natural right to keep and bear arms for starters.

 

[Charlie]

Free commerce and someone else's natural right to keep and bear arms for starters.

Free commerce? What does an export restriction have to do with our 2A rights? The 2A is not concerned with the natural rights of people in other countries. They do not live under our Constitution.

 

[gc70]

Free commerce and someone else's natural right to keep and bear arms for starters.

The Founders intended for commerce to be regulated.

Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

People in other countries have no 'natural right' to buy whatever they please from our country.

 

[Dale Gribble]

Free commerce? What does an export restriction have to do with our 2A rights? The 2A is not concerned with the natural rights of people in other countries. They do not live under our Constitution.

FWIW, the Founders believed those natural rights belonged to ALL people.

Even in our own DOI, Jefferson stated that

“ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 

[Charlie]

FWIW, the Founders believed those natural rights belonged to ALL people.

Even in our own DOI, Jefferson stated that

“ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That may be all well and good, but restrictions on exports has no effect on the rights of the people in this country who are living under the Constitution. I suppose globalists and one-world-government people would argue that any restrictions on the trade of any item would violate the natural rights of all citizens of the world. I do not share that opinion. I doubt that TJ would think that restricting some trade items would compromise the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of people in other countries.

This Trump trashing is getting to the silly stage if people want to give him grief for export restrictions because those restrictions infringe on the natural rights of citizens of other countries while having no effect on the constitutional rights of the people in this country. Sometimes the boogie man people see behind every blade of grass is not a boogie man but rather the shadow of the blade of grass. Sometimes it is, indeed, a boogie man. It is important to be able to distinguish between a boogie man and a shadow.

 

[SC380]

The Founders intended for commerce to be regulated.

The founders revolted over a tea tax...do you think they were keen on outright and nonsensical bans of commerce?

People in other countries have no 'natural right' to buy whatever they please from our country.

As wsfiredude said, people everywhere have the same natural rights. Why do I have the right to buy a Glock from Austria but they can't buy a magazine from the US?

 

[Charlie]

. Why do I have the right to buy a Glock from Austria but they can't buy a magazine from the US?

You live in this country and they do not. Why do I really care whether someone from Austria can buy a 33 round magazine made in America?

 

[SC380]

You live in this country and they do not. Why do I really care whether someone from Austria can buy a 33 round magazine made in America?

I am not saying you have to care, I am saying they have the same natural rights. Why do I or they care if you don't care?

 

[Charlie]

I am not saying you have to care, I am saying they have the same natural rights. Why do I or they care if you don't care?

So you care about the natural right of someone in Austria to buy a 33 round magazine from us. Interesting. Should that determine our trade policy? Keep in mind that there are certain models of Glocks that they do not export to this country. How dare they infringe upon my natural rights like that.

I care if my rights are infringed. I care if the rights of anyone living under our Constitution has their rights infringed.

How does the export limitation affect your 2A rights? Sure, they have the same natural rights, but why is it my responsibility to make sure their rights are not infringed. They can try to do that for themselves. We have a hard enough time making sure our own 2A rights are not infringed here in our country that I should not have to be the one to try to make sure everybody in the whole world has the same freedoms, rights, and privileges that our Constitution spells out for us.

I suppose that some want to have a one world government with a worldwide constitution that would govern everybody. I should change "some" to a whole bunch of people in this country.

I suppose it is the natural right for everybody on earth to have not just 33 round magazines but all the material goods and services we enjoy here in the USA. Let us open our borders completely and divide all our wealth equally among everybody in the whole world. We should even ship our stuff overseas to people who do not want to come here so their natural rights would not be infringed by our greed. The rest of the world would have to do the same for us. Lots of people want to do that as well.

Let us have a leader with absolute powers, perhaps a king or dictator, and large standing domestic armies to insure that nobody cheats and infringes on the natural rights of someone else. Does that sound familiar?

 

[gc70]

As wsfiredude said, people everywhere have the same natural rights. Why do I have the right to buy a Glock from Austria but they can't buy a magazine from the US?

You have no "natural right" to buy things from Austria if the Austrians decide to not sell to you. The "natural right" is to chose whether or not to buy things that are offered for sale to you.

What you are trying to claim as a "natural right" is forcing someone else to sell you something you want.

 

[SC380]

You have no "natural right" to buy things from Austria if the Austrians decide to not sell to you. The "natural right" is to chose whether or not to buy things that are offered for sale to you.

What you are trying to claim as a "natural right" is forcing someone else to sell you something you want.

Nonsense. There is a willing seller, a willing buyer, and a government stepping into the middle and arbitrarily saying no. If I read correctly it is our state dept that says the export can't happen, not the manufacturer or the wholesaler.

So your natural right would only allow you to choose from the firearms the government says you can buy...like California?

So you care about the natural right of someone in Austria to buy a 33 round magazine from us. Interesting. Should that determine our trade policy? Keep in mind that there are certain models of Glocks that they do not export to this country. How dare they infringe upon my natural rights like that.

I care if my rights are infringed. I care if the rights of anyone living under our Constitution has their rights infringed.

How does the export limitation affect your 2A rights? Sure, they have the same natural rights, but why is it my responsibility to make sure their rights are not infringed. They can try to do that for themselves. We have a hard enough time making sure our own 2A rights are not infringed here in our country that I should not have to be the one to try to make sure everybody in the whole world has the same freedoms, rights, and privileges that our Constitution spells out for us.

I suppose that some want to have a one world government with a worldwide constitution that would govern everybody. I should change "some" to a whole bunch of people in this country.

I suppose it is the natural right for everybody on earth to have not just 33 round magazines but all the material goods and services we enjoy here in the USA. Let us open our borders completely and divide all our wealth equally among everybody in the whole world. We should even ship our stuff overseas to people who do not want to come here so their natural rights would not be infringed by our greed. The rest of the world would have to do the same for us. Lots of people want to do that as well.

Let us have a leader with absolute powers, perhaps a king or dictator, and large standing domestic armies to insure that nobody cheats and infringes on the natural rights of someone else. Does that sound familiar?

I don't care how you rationalize it, or what you care about, or how you rank people as far as who gets what rights...our government is overstepping its bounds. There is no national security threat from 30 rd magazines. Keeping the government from over regulating trade in no way equates to opening the border and dividing up your stuff. More nonsense.

I agree, they shouldn't be able to tell me which Glock I can buy or whether it has to have a serrated trigger to get enough ATF points...you might be catching on.

 

[vaskeet]

The founders revolted over a tea tax...do you think they were keen on outright and nonsensical bans of commerce?




As wsfiredude said, people everywhere have the same natural rights. Why do I have the right to buy a Glock from Austria but they can't buy a magazine from the US?

If glock or Austria decides that you cant buy a glock from Austria you do not have that right. They have the right to export what they want.

 

[vaskeet]

I am done with this thread and I give up TRUMP BAD ELECT BIDEN

 

[HMP]

FWIW, the Founders believed those natural rights belonged to ALL people.

Even in our own DOI, Jefferson stated that

“ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I disagree with this one brother
Liberty...freedom...we had almost a whole race of people enslaved.
Hell, even women had it rough

I dont see a ban on the US EXPORTING things as an attack on the 2nd Amendment

 

[noway2]

If glock or Austria decides that you cant buy a glock from Austria you do not have that right. They have the right to export what they want.

That’s Austria. This is the US. Just because some loud mouth NY Democrat managed to convince people he’s a “republican” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) who has enough minions willing to carry out his pet agenda (export ban) doesn’t mean that it’s right or not an infringement on people. Jesus the belief in “authority” runs deep in some folks.

 

[SC380]

If glock or Austria decides that you cant buy a glock from Austria you do not have that right. They have the right to export what they want.

I agree, that isn't my argument. If Austria and Glock do not want to participate, that is their business. In that case, it isn't my government infringing on my rights or theirs.

At this moment, Glock will voluntarily ship any Glock to the US that the ATF will allow. The only thing standing between me and a .380 Glock is the US govt.

 

[SC380]

I dont see a ban on the US EXPORTING things as an attack on the 2nd Amendment

You all need to read up on ITAR. Why would our government interfere with the export of legal products with no national security risks and give up the associated tax revenue, jobs, and GDP? Global gun control. If they damage a few US based gun businesses in the process, that is fine with them. Incrementalism...this should be familiar by now.

 

[specops56]

I like the question the way I asked it. No answer?

While it may or may not be, technically an infringement of the 2A, it is yet another demonstration of Trump's growing anti-gun record.

Terry

 

[Charlie]

That is grasping at straws.

 

[SPM]

I am done with this thread and I give up TRUMP BAD ELECT BIDEN

 

[gc70]

So your natural right would only allow you to choose from the firearms the government says you can buy...like California?

You sure are working hard to avoid the difference between INTRA- and INTER-.

Your idea of enforcing natural rights for others is the same argument that is made for eliminating a country's controls to prevent mass migration ... after all, those people from other countries have a "natural right" to live where they want.

 

[Is this leagal?]

So you care about the natural right of someone in Austria to buy a 33 round magazine from us. Interesting. Should that determine our trade policy? Keep in mind that there are certain models of Glocks that they do not export to this country. How dare they infringe upon my natural rights like that.

I care if my rights are infringed. I care if the rights of anyone living under our Constitution has their rights infringed.

How does the export limitation affect your 2A rights? Sure, they have the same natural rights, but why is it my responsibility to make sure their rights are not infringed. They can try to do that for themselves. We have a hard enough time making sure our own 2A rights are not infringed here in our country that I should not have to be the one to try to make sure everybody in the whole world has the same freedoms, rights, and privileges that our Constitution spells out for us.

I suppose that some want to have a one world government with a worldwide constitution that would govern everybody. I should change "some" to a whole bunch of people in this country.

I suppose it is the natural right for everybody on earth to have not just 33 round magazines but all the material goods and services we enjoy here in the USA. Let us open our borders completely and divide all our wealth equally among everybody in the whole world. We should even ship our stuff overseas to people who do not want to come here so their natural rights would not be infringed by our greed. The rest of the world would have to do the same for us. Lots of people want to do that as well.

Let us have a leader with absolute powers, perhaps a king or dictator, and large standing domestic armies to insure that nobody cheats and infringes on the natural rights of someone else. Does that sound familiar?

"I care if my rights are infringed. I care ifthe rights of anyone living under our Constitution has their rights infringed."
You do?
"
"Those who have been found guilty have, indeed, forfeited some of their rights. Those rights were not seized from them but were voluntarily forfeited by the criminal when he committed the crime."
This was you... Stand firm in what you believe, or don't stand at all. I'll tell you this, there's no way I'd "forfeit" my natural right of self preservation. I have the right to destroy that which seeks to do me harm... Everyone does.

 

[Is this leagal?]

That’s Austria. This is the US. Just because some loud mouth NY Democrat managed to convince people he’s a “republican” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) who has enough minions willing to carry out his pet agenda (export ban) doesn’t mean that it’s right or not an infringement on people. Jesus the belief in “authority” runs deep in some folks.

bbbbbut the lllllllaw. Lol.

 

[Charlie]

"I care if my rights are infringed. I care ifthe rights of anyone living under our Constitution has their rights infringed."
You do?
"
"Those who have been found guilty have, indeed, forfeited some of their rights. Those rights were not seized from them but were voluntarily forfeited by the criminal when he committed the crime."
This was you... Stand firm in what you believe, or don't stand at all. I'll tell you this, there's no way I'd "forfeit" my natural right of self preservation. I have the right to destroy that which seeks to do me harm... Everyone does.

You are going there again. You voluntarily forfeited some rights when you stole stuff from other people and got caught. Live with that fact. Don't give me grief because you behaved badly and harmed people but now want to have everything go back to the way it was as if nothing happened. You did not forfeit your natural right to self protection. You knowingly and voluntarily forfeited your rights to use certain tools for your self protection. Big difference.


On a different topic, I was looking through the Numrich web site and noticed quite a few parts for an AR15 that they claim can not be shipped outside the USA,

 

[vaskeet]

Trump at it again ooops not Trump "On Friday, July 22, just as members of his party were gathering in Philadelphia to coronate Hillary Clinton as their presidential nominee, the Obama Administration once again released a sweeping gun control measure by executive fiat. This time the bad news came via the U.S. State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), which is primarily responsible for administering the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and its implementing rules, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The upshot is that DDTC is labeling commercial gunsmiths as “manufacturers” for performing relatively simple work such as threading a barrel or fabricating a small custom part for an older firearm. Under the AECA, “manufacturers” are required to register with DDTC at significant expense or risk onerous criminal penalties. " https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...tration-releases-latest-executive-gun-control

 

[vaskeet]

Trump again Sorry "President Obama on Monday signed a bill that extends the ban on plastic firearms for another 10 years." https://www.pcmag.com/news/318758/obama-signs-bill-to-extend-ban-on-plastic-guns

 

[Is this leagal?]

You are going there again. You voluntarily forfeited some rights when you stole stuff from other people and got caught. Live with that fact. Don't give me grief because you behaved badly and harmed people but now want to have everything go back to the way it was as if nothing happened. You did not forfeit your natural right to self protection. You knowingly and voluntarily forfeited your rights to use certain tools for your self protection. Big difference.


On a different topic, I was looking through the Numrich web site and noticed quite a few parts for an AR15 that they claim can not be shipped outside the USA,

I love going there... The Bill of Rights, the Constitution, those are my favorite topics. Why keep someone living in the past? I do want things to go back the way they was. What's wrong with that? I believe I'm far from acting as if they never happened. My question is... How is it right for the gubment, to be able to steal a tool, from a law abiding Citizen? How is right for the gubment to say who can, or cannot own a tool that levels the playing field against a determind enemy? It's okay to judge me, just remember to be perfect the rest of your life. I'm in this fight for Freedom, preserving our Constitution, just as much as the next man. The hypocrisy in this forum sometimes is insane.

 

[SC380]

You sure are working hard to avoid the difference between .

Your idea of enforcing natural rights for others is the same argument that is made for eliminating a country's controls to prevent mass migration ... after all, those people from other countries have a "natural right" to live where they want.

I am making two very clear points: the government shouldn't unnecessarily interfere in trade and all people have the same natural/unalienable/endowed by their creator rights. None of this prevents the forming of a country with borders. Obviously the Constitution allows the federal government to create a process of naturalization despite the concept of "all men created equal....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and a means to defend the borders. There is not an amendment that says "the right of everyone in the world to move to America shall not be infringed" so I am not sure why you insist these issues are co-dependent.

The Constitution created a conservative (limited powers) federal government to keep the peace and provide a common defense in minimalist fashion to promote trade/prosperity. It was not intended to become an activist to subvert the rights of the people or force upon them a subversive globalist agenda that conflicts with their rights (which is tyranny). The difference between INTRA- and INTER- only matters if you advocate intrusive heavy handed governments fighting over every opportunity to grab power and manage the finest details of your life. Conservatism says the federal government should be relatively hands off in intrastate commerce, interstate commerce, international commerce, and typically only step in to remove obstructions to fair trade. I am not working hard at avoiding anything...the conservative position on this issue is pretty obvious.

You seem to be advocating a very progressive interpretation of the commerce clause which allows the federal government to continue with the tyranny and the power grab. In addition, you seem to be in denial of the fact that if peoples' rights were recognized in their own countries, you wouldn't have to worry about mass migration. If you are an intrusive/progressive government kind of guy that is fine with me (for purposes of internet discussion) but why you would want so bad to keep an american company from making a profit on the export of legitimate products or keep a person in another country from having the means to fight tyranny is beyond me.

 

[gc70]

You seem to be advocating a very progressive interpretation of the commerce clause which allows the federal government to continue with the tyranny and the power grab. In addition, you seem to be in denial of the fact that if peoples' rights were recognized in their own countries, you wouldn't have to worry about mass migration. If you are an intrusive/progressive government kind of guy that is fine with me (for purposes of internet discussion) but why you would want so bad to keep an american company from making a profit on the export of legitimate products or keep a person in another country from having the means to fight tyranny is beyond me.

When all else fails, turn to personal attacks.

 

[Charlie]

I love going there... The Bill of Rights, the Constitution, those are my favorite topics. Why keep someone living in the past? I do want things to go back the way they was. What's wrong with that? I believe I'm far from acting as if they never happened. My question is... How is it right for the gubment, to be able to steal a tool, from a law abiding Citizen? How is right for the gubment to say who can, or cannot own a tool that levels the playing field against a determind enemy? It's okay to judge me, just remember to be perfect the rest of your life. I'm in this fight for Freedom, preserving our Constitution, just as much as the next man. The hypocrisy in this forum sometimes is insane.

The government took away your right to own guns because you were not a law abiding citizen. The government did not steal it. You gave it away with your actions. I do not judge you. A jury judged you. The government should definitely have the duty to deny someone a tool for the use of force if a jury has determined that that person can not be trusted to live by our laws. Does the government have the right to deprive you of your freedom by putting you in prison when you break the law against stealing? I think that is another one of their duties. Do you think that should not happen to someone when they steal stuff from some innocent person?

I do not have to be perfect. I just have to try to obey the laws that we, as a society, have agreed should help guide our behavior so that others are kept from harm. All aspects of behavior are not covered by laws. I can be imperfect and still not break any laws that lead to having my rights removed.

I do not want to live in the past but realize that I must live with the consequences of past actions.

With rights comes responsibility. You did not shoulder your responsibility, and we took some of your rights away. All you have to do to see the hypocrisy is to look into a mirror.

 

[Is this leagal?]

The government took away your right to own guns because you were not a law abiding citizen. The government did not steal it. You gave it away with your actions. I do not judge you. A jury judged you. The government should definitely have the duty to deny someone a tool for the use of force if a jury has determined that that person can not be trusted to live by our laws. Does the government have the right to deprive you of your freedom by putting you in prison when you break the law against stealing? I think that is another one of their duties. Do you think that should not happen to someone when they steal stuff from some innocent person?

I do not have to be perfect. I just have to try to obey the laws that we, as a society, have agreed should help guide our behavior so that others are kept from harm. All aspects of behavior are not covered by laws. I can be imperfect and still not break any laws that lead to having my rights removed.

I do not want to live in the past but realize that I must live with the consequences of past actions.

With rights comes responsibility. You did not shoulder your responsibility, and we took some of your rights away. All you have to do to see the hypocrisy is to look into a mirror.

You miss understood me, as far as the gov stealing a tool... I meant, men, that have been through the correctional institution, if they, after being rehabilitated, law abiding, buy a tool(not stolen), and gov catch the Citizen with his property and take it. How is that not stealing? It's no different! As far as Law abiding... You've never broken the Law? They don't break the Law? It's laughable, it's a cruel joke. I've been stolen from my whole life, whether it be so called friends, .gov, or just some other criminal, yet I do not feel that I have the Authority to take, a Right, from no one. I also know they do not either, it's writen in the very Constitution they swore an Oath to.
I'll also add this, I know from chatting with you in other threads. That you've had a theif take something from you... That something must have been really special. Even though I did not take from you, I'll say I'm sorry. All I'm trying to get The People and you to see is... The very people we have in the highest offices of authority, take, that which is not theirs. They take, that which they did not labor for, they also take life. These are the very same people, that you and a whole lot of others champion... Sometimes.