|
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
Topics39,496
Posts562,075
Members14,586
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350 |
Craig Libhart made a perfectly reasonable post on legislation ploughed thoroughly on an earlier thread but as president of an association integral to our enjoyment of sporting firearms. A member seemed to caution that it was politics.
Politics is everything. Some call it the art of life: choosing dogcatchers and presidents, who gets the keys to the car tonight, to you can't wear those clothes to school. For my money, cpa's take on politics has it right:
"No question in my mind that the implementation of the regulation is political, but I don't see the discussion as political, unless one chooses to make it such." Some choose to make it partisanly political but the last word should be Brian's:
"I am disappointed that the ACGG did not mention that the regs are in regsrds to Military Firearms (defined as "defense articles" and "significant military equipment". NOT civilian firearms. Leaving this information out only adds to the problem of spreading misinformation."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,710 Likes: 346
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,710 Likes: 346 |
....Some choose to make it partisanly political but the last word should be Brian's:
"I am disappointed that the ACGG did not mention that the regs are in regsrds to Military Firearms (defined as "defense articles" and "significant military equipment". NOT civilian firearms. Leaving this information out only adds to the problem of spreading misinformation." I am disappointed that Brian does not see, as the ACGG does, that the definition of firearm and manufacture MAY have been changed. I'm disappointed that for all the speculating, the best course to take is probably for individuals to retain paid legal assistance to inquire about the applicability of a new regulation that's now barely a month old. I'm disappointed that Brian, and you, won't provide any alternate course to follow. I respect Brian's opinion, but he never quite confirms that an individual ought to define 'defense articles' in their own way. Would you happen to know, in a non political way, when the next firearms related regulation will come out? How will you know or not know if it will be related to what law abiding people currently believe to be civilian firearms?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,674 Likes: 581
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,674 Likes: 581 |
Craig Libhart made a perfectly reasonable post on legislation ploughed thoroughly on an earlier thread but as president of an association integral to our enjoyment of sporting firearms. A member seemed to caution that it was politics.
Politics is everything. Some call it the art of life: choosing dogcatchers and presidents, who gets the keys to the car tonight, to you can't wear those clothes to school. For my money, cpa's take on politics has it right:
"No question in my mind that the implementation of the regulation is political, but I don't see the discussion as political, unless one chooses to make it such." Some choose to make it partisanly political but the last word should be Brian's:
"I am disappointed that the ACGG did not mention that the regs are in regsrds to Military Firearms (defined as "defense articles" and "significant military equipment". NOT civilian firearms. Leaving this information out only adds to the problem of spreading misinformation."
King, you and Brian seem to be hanging your hat on the specifics of the language used, not intent. The intent is clear and the implementation will be guided by the twisting of the language to serve the purposes of the anti gun faction. As it is now and ever was. That IS the way politics works. You and I both know that, don't we? (That's rhetorical. LOL)
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,405
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,405 |
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...
And i have said it before, this regulation does not effect as many as people make it out to. Do i agree with anything that regulates or restricts any business, be it one or many? NO. Do I say that i support the regs? NO.
It simply annoys me when things like this are looked at on just the surface and made out to be the end of the world when people say that "ALL" gunsmiths are effected by this when in actuality, the vast majority are not.
Again... Just the way i interpret what is written.
B.Dudley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,674 Likes: 581
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,674 Likes: 581 |
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...
And i have said it before, this regulation does not effect as many as people make it out to. Do i agree with anything that regulates or restricts any business, be it one or many? NO. Do I say that i support the regs? NO.
It simply annoys me when things like this are looked at on just the surface and made out to be the end of the world when people say that "ALL" gunsmiths are effected by this when in actuality, the vast majority are not.
Again... Just the way i interpret what is written. Brian, as you say, it's just the way you are interpreting it, and so those who interpret it differently annoy you? Can you imagine that the way you interpret it annoys us, the same way? Whose interpretation is better? IMHO and I've seen it put into action in Canada, is that the language use in gun legislation is vague on purpose....to allow for the most restrictive interpretation imaginable, without setting off alarm bells while the legislation is being made into law. They are hoping for people like you to calm the fears of the rest of us. I'd put money down on a bet today that 10 years from now, without action by a Republican congress and president, that this little regulatory hiccough will be affecting most smiths, professional and amateur.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,710 Likes: 346
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,710 Likes: 346 |
....It simply annoys me when things like this are looked at on just the surface and made out to be the end of the world.... It doesn't annoy me, but it's interesting to note that other opinions are superficial and belittled. And, we still need to wonder if there're reasons to pick sides?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,405
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,405 |
Lets just agree to disagree then, ok?
B.Dudley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,674 Likes: 581
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,674 Likes: 581 |
Lets just agree to disagree then, ok? Well, I'm fine with that but I've never called your interpretation annoying or "misinformation". I've simply warned against taking the politicians and bureaucrats at their word. Because IMHO they can't be trusted. This thread, and the other thread on the same subject, turns on the concept of "interpretation". Eye, there's the rub. What's the interpretation? How long will it remain the same? What will it be changed to in the future....changed via a new "interpretation" not a new law?
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350 |
James, safe bet, don't you think? Look at the last 10 years and tell me the world in 2026 won't be as different from the colossal change in human activity since 2006. Everything's changing at warp speed. The issue is will it will be better?
On the evidence of the last year in the US and UK, stupidity still reigns, one making the biggest foreign blunder since George III lost the American colonies, the other allowing a celebrity businessman to take over a great party as his own.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,674 Likes: 581
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,674 Likes: 581 |
Haha, King, you caught me. I only make safe bets as I'm not much of a betting man in general. Traveled to Vegas 30-40 times in 10 years on business and only went to a casino when my ex asked me to show her how to gamble. Taught her how to play blackjack in a casino and left.
Will it be better in 10 years? Probably not, if we continue to let the governing classes get away with their lying, equivocations and corruption.
Stupidity may reign but is it the stupid proles or the stupid elites. IMHO the jury is still out. However, I would likely have gone along with the proles in both countries. The elites have lost their way.
Guarantor of gun/property rights? Political parties? Where did you get the idea I think that?
Last edited by canvasback; 08/25/16 02:42 PM.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
