barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
'This new ITAR law makes perfect sense; after what the Rosenbergs did, we'd be idiots not to restrict the disclosure of non-classified technical data that could still be seen as strategically sensitive. It's not like they'd ever seek to restrict mundane stuff like civilian small arms information'
It certainly appears that is exactly what this new regulation is capable of, if not purpose-built for. The name of the law is International Traffic in Arms Regulations, for Pete's sake; that most certainly includes small arms, and the restrictive means to ensure they are not traded internationally (which, in a globalist society, translates into strict control, generally)
"i don't see the feds coming after people for discussing guns on the web."
I have to say I'm growing increasingly worried, not by the content, but by the response of a good 1/3 of commenters I see relating to this issue. "They won't do that" is a horrible assumption to make of government. Are you tired of selective enforcement and executive discretion? That is what you are endorsing when you tolerate a law because it is unenforceable at present.
They'll never shut down and prosecute bloggers for hosting restricted information (even on foreign servers), huh? That's exactly what is happening to the silkroad scum, so it is far more accurate to say authorities currently lack the will, not the ability to shut down gun forums for some perceived slight and prosecute the operators. I believe something similar happened with regards to US-based WikiLeaks sites, though they shut down after mere cease-and-desist letters.
I know the regulation is a tough read. I know this is complex and stupid. And I see gun owner after gun owner on forums throw up their hands and say "it couldn't possibly mean that; they aren't that crazy" or "you guys are paranoid wingers" without actually addressing the concerns raised from the plain text. More worrisome, it appears the initial reporting came off as so click-baitey to so many readers (even though the 'ban gun forums' headlines don't seem quite so off the mark according to my estimation), and the subsequent explanations so poorly-worded, long-winded (guilty), and confusing in logical progression that it has been dismissed, and is not remaining a headline topic at many major gun news outlets. And without being properly debunked as a hoax/exaggeration like the other hoaxes/exaggerations
M855 seemed to light a fire under everyone almost immediately, and I think because it was easy to understand; "the gubbermint says they're armor-piercing and wants to ban them, but they lie and here's why." Our response to the ITAR proposal is a lengthy explanation of what ITAR is (since no one knows/cares), and why the proposal is needlessly expansive and out of step with our long understood constitutional restraints on governmental authority and--
"BOR-RING! It can't possibly be a real threat if it takes that long to explain. 'All technical gun discussion on the web could be banned,' you say? Why, that's crazy talk. There's no way the law says that."
...
"...What's this? THR received a cease and desist letter from the State Department ordering them to immediately put an end to new discussion regarding technical data pertaining to the manufacture, performance, and use of firearms and ammunition, and are shutting down the equipment and reloading forums as a precaution? The use agreement now forbids discussion of such and is grounds for a permanent ban from the forum?"
...
"Well, it seems AR15.com has been shut down entirely, and the operators subpoenaed for a large list of members who began making threats of violence once the cease and desist was posted --that's to be expected."
It is worth repeating that our wealth of gun-talk is but a tiny drop in the cesspool that is the general public discourse. App-writing forums probably get more traffic than we do. The vast, vast, vast majority of Americans and our legal/representative leaders do not share our thirst for this information, and most likely find it uninteresting to off-putting (hunting/terminal ballistics threads, anyone?). They will not fight our censorship, they will if anything request it after being exposed to the scarier sounding (as well as legitimately scary) corners of gun forum topics.
TCB
It certainly appears that is exactly what this new regulation is capable of, if not purpose-built for. The name of the law is International Traffic in Arms Regulations, for Pete's sake; that most certainly includes small arms, and the restrictive means to ensure they are not traded internationally (which, in a globalist society, translates into strict control, generally)
"i don't see the feds coming after people for discussing guns on the web."
I have to say I'm growing increasingly worried, not by the content, but by the response of a good 1/3 of commenters I see relating to this issue. "They won't do that" is a horrible assumption to make of government. Are you tired of selective enforcement and executive discretion? That is what you are endorsing when you tolerate a law because it is unenforceable at present.
They'll never shut down and prosecute bloggers for hosting restricted information (even on foreign servers), huh? That's exactly what is happening to the silkroad scum, so it is far more accurate to say authorities currently lack the will, not the ability to shut down gun forums for some perceived slight and prosecute the operators. I believe something similar happened with regards to US-based WikiLeaks sites, though they shut down after mere cease-and-desist letters.
I know the regulation is a tough read. I know this is complex and stupid. And I see gun owner after gun owner on forums throw up their hands and say "it couldn't possibly mean that; they aren't that crazy" or "you guys are paranoid wingers" without actually addressing the concerns raised from the plain text. More worrisome, it appears the initial reporting came off as so click-baitey to so many readers (even though the 'ban gun forums' headlines don't seem quite so off the mark according to my estimation), and the subsequent explanations so poorly-worded, long-winded (guilty), and confusing in logical progression that it has been dismissed, and is not remaining a headline topic at many major gun news outlets. And without being properly debunked as a hoax/exaggeration like the other hoaxes/exaggerations
M855 seemed to light a fire under everyone almost immediately, and I think because it was easy to understand; "the gubbermint says they're armor-piercing and wants to ban them, but they lie and here's why." Our response to the ITAR proposal is a lengthy explanation of what ITAR is (since no one knows/cares), and why the proposal is needlessly expansive and out of step with our long understood constitutional restraints on governmental authority and--
"BOR-RING! It can't possibly be a real threat if it takes that long to explain. 'All technical gun discussion on the web could be banned,' you say? Why, that's crazy talk. There's no way the law says that."
...
"...What's this? THR received a cease and desist letter from the State Department ordering them to immediately put an end to new discussion regarding technical data pertaining to the manufacture, performance, and use of firearms and ammunition, and are shutting down the equipment and reloading forums as a precaution? The use agreement now forbids discussion of such and is grounds for a permanent ban from the forum?"
...
"Well, it seems AR15.com has been shut down entirely, and the operators subpoenaed for a large list of members who began making threats of violence once the cease and desist was posted --that's to be expected."
It is worth repeating that our wealth of gun-talk is but a tiny drop in the cesspool that is the general public discourse. App-writing forums probably get more traffic than we do. The vast, vast, vast majority of Americans and our legal/representative leaders do not share our thirst for this information, and most likely find it uninteresting to off-putting (hunting/terminal ballistics threads, anyone?). They will not fight our censorship, they will if anything request it after being exposed to the scarier sounding (as well as legitimately scary) corners of gun forum topics.
TCB