Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama Rants Against The First Amendment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • G David Bock
    replied
    My baloney has a first name, it’s B-A-R-A-K,
    My baloney has a second name, it’s O-B-A-M-A!
    Oh, I’d like to chuck him in the trash and if you ask me, “Why?”, I’ll saaaaaaaayyyy….
    ‘Cause Barak Obama has a way of messing up the USA!

    (Can't take credit for thinking that one up, but got amused when I saw it.)

    Leave a comment:


  • SRV Ron
    replied
    Obama's solution to all problems as proposed by FDR's New Deal, a new Constitution to replace the original one.

    PREAMBLE
    We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish social justice, draw the fangs of privilege, effect the redistribution of property, remove the burden of liberty from ourselves and our posterity, and insure the continuance of the New Deal, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

    http://theamericanmercury.org/2010/0...-constitution/

    It would surely solve a lot of problems he currently faces as well as allow him and his Progressive buddies to do as they please.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Mann III
    replied
    Remember when the author of the cookbook called for banning it a few years ago?

    I got out of a felony charge by blaming my actions on the cookbook. Hilarious.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    But then, should some discussion related to firearms be illegal? Should a website be free to post information on how to defeat airport security or how to convert a semi-automatic into a fully-automatic?
    Yes they should be able to. Putting a ban on information because it might have a potential criminal use should not be allowed. The problem is once you allow government to ban something that they determine might have a criminal use then you are allowing them to potentially ban anything that government can attribute even a remote criminal use to.

    So, it potentially goes from say the above to banning discussion of how home security systems work. I could even see companies that sell these systems asking for such a ban so criminals don't know how they work making it such that only "professionals" and companies in the trade have access to that information so they can control the market.

    This is truly a slippery slope. Should we be banning books too?





    (The instructions on how to do it are printed on the back...)

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
    You have to dig through the pdf files of the proposal. Even then, it isn't clear if it is detailed discussions of technical data, or discussion or releasing classified data on line that is the punishable offense. (Think Eric Snowden of Wikileaks.) Such is the problem with rules and regulations written up by Government bureaucrats that soon explode into thousands of pages of laws designed to regulate every minute details of our lives.
    Thanks for the help!

    My impression of the repeated reference to 'technical data' was to criminalize, say, the illegal passing of copyrighted or classified information to a third party, or perhaps to make it illegal to spread information on certain types of weapons or equipment (such as an illegal clip or whatever), since 'technical data' has different connotations than just "I have a shotgun with a 18" barrel".

    Don't get me wrong, healthy skepticism when the government is involved is always good, but my impression so far is that this would be a bit of a reach to think this will lead to making it illegal to talk about guns - the 1st amendment is probably one of the strongest and there are enough pro-gun lobbies, people, and states to keep the government from making even talking about guns illegal.

    But then, should some discussion related to firearms be illegal? Should a website be free to post information on how to defeat airport security or how to convert a semi-automatic into a fully-automatic?

    Leave a comment:


  • SRV Ron
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    I'm afraid I read the page linked, but couldn't tell where it said discussing firearms could be illegal, or the section that could be interpreted that way. Could you paste it for me here? I'd really appreciate it.
    You have to dig through the pdf files of the proposal. Even then, it isn't clear if it is detailed discussions of technical data, or discussion or releasing classified data on line that is the punishable offense. (Think Eric Snowden of Wikileaks.) Such is the problem with rules and regulations written up by Government bureaucrats that soon explode into thousands of pages of laws designed to regulate every minute details of our lives.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
    Did you misread the article? It is discussing the State Department shutting down discussion on websites about guns and ammo, not journalist using them as a news source.

    Decide for yourself what this policy means and if it could be used to censor free speech on the Internet.
    https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulat...sed_rules.html
    I'm afraid I read the page linked, but couldn't tell where it said discussing firearms could be illegal, or the section that could be interpreted that way. Could you paste it for me here? I'd really appreciate it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Mann III
    replied
    Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post

    Decide for yourself what this policy means and if it could be used to censor free speech on the Internet.
    https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulat...sed_rules.html
    I'm not worried in the least...

    Leave a comment:


  • SRV Ron
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post
    The Washington Examiner, Ron?

    Yikes. Real journalists shouldn't be using a blog as their primary source.
    Did you misread the article? It is discussing the State Department shutting down discussion on websites about guns and ammo, not journalist using them as a news source.

    Decide for yourself what this policy means and if it could be used to censor free speech on the Internet.
    https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulat...sed_rules.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post
    The Washington Examiner, Ron?

    Yikes. Real journalists shouldn't be using a blog as their primary source.
    Too bad we don't have a real journalist here to call the Washington Examiner out, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Mann III
    replied
    The Washington Examiner, Ron?

    Yikes. Real journalists shouldn't be using a blog as their primary source.

    Leave a comment:


  • SRV Ron
    replied
    The latest assault on the First and Second Amendment

    Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a "gag order on firearm-related speech," the National Rifle Association is warning.
    In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nr...rticle/2565762

    The results would be a ban on discussion of specific guns in this forum as well. So, no discussions or links to a Nitro 600 or anything gun or ammo related.


    And, if you think it would stop there, I have this bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Mann III
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    And yet you consistently turn a blind eye to the corruption and criminal activity present in our government. Not the moral high ground you claim, it it?

    I don't believe you subscribe to my newspaper, website, breaking news mailer, or our social media releases.

    So, I don't think you have a clue what you're referring to when you accuse you me of turning a blind eye to corruption or criminal activity, two of my favorite story topics.

    I'm so high up on the moral high ground that I can't even hear your baseless complaints.

    Just because I don't spend my days posting every story that comes from FOX News onto a niche forum doesn't mean I don't care about the government.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post
    Rest assured that we in the press have not received any instructions from Obama, and if we did receive them, we would release a collective laugh.

    We answer to ourselves. That is all.
    And yet you consistently turn a blind eye to the corruption and criminal activity present in our government. Not the moral high ground you claim, it it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post
    Rest assured that we in the press have not received any instructions from Obama, and if we did receive them, we would release a collective laugh.

    We answer to ourselves. That is all.
    This is exactly what everyone had suspected that the press has been instructed to say.................

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X