Obama's Planned Gag Order on Firearm-Related Speech

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150605/stop-obamas-planned-gag-order-on-firearm-related-speech

I requested my other thread be locked as I am starting a second one. Anyone who wants to take this off topic instead of addressing the fact that our tyrant wannabe President wishes to deny gun enthusiasts freedom of speech will be reported.

Obama has failed to ban every semi-automatic firearm in the country. Obama has failed to ban all 5.56 NATO in the nation. Obama has failed to ban every rifle cartridge in the nation.

So instead he moves to remove gun enthusiast's right to freedom of speech and to the press. Want to talk about guns on the internet? You need to ask daddy Obama if it is alright.

Submit your comments to the link provided. The overwhelming opposition to the prohibition of 5.56 NATO ammunition shelved it. Overwhelming opposition to our wannabe dictator's plan to ban free speech will go a long way.

What if a Republican wished to use an EO to ban pro-choice information from being distributed to the internet?

 

Obama is going for a third term?!!

 

I would have thought at least one person would rail against their party and condemn Obama for his tyrannical suppression of the 1st Amendment.

 

Is there any point in railing against the boy king? Most of us are probably already on watch lists for being right wing, gun owners, veterans, and God only knows whatever perceived enemies of his realm. All the while this administration continues to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)foot around with the real enemies of the state...

- - - Updated - - -

Is there any point in railing against the boy king? Most of us are probably already on watch lists for being right wing, gun owners, veterans, and God only knows whatever perceived enemies of his realm. All the while this administration continues to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)foot around with the real enemies of the state...

 

I understand that this would make reload data illegal to post online. Is that true?

 

I meant at least one Obama supporter would come in and say something.

But it appears he can do no wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it would be technical data.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it would be technical data.

 

Sadly the problem isn't really the boy king's program, its the horrendous decayed and corrupted courts and DOJ that would prosecute and oversee such trials and charges. Let the witch hunt begin!

 

Mark Steyn brought this up this morning as the fill-in for Rush Limbaugh. I struck me as odd.

In 2006, the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was passed and signed into law. It basically outlawed the funding of off-shore gambling sites by Americans by making it a crime for monetary transfers from Americans through banks and online ewallets that ultimately would fund their online accounts.

I was working at an online poker forum. I wrote the reviews of online poker sites, discussed and wrote pages on bonus chasing, gathered the information for Player of the Year races and moderated subsets of the forum.

Yet the very same DoJ never targeted any of our forums for discussing and suggesting ways around the UIGEA. It didn't shut us down for continuing to be rakeback affiliates for online poker sites nor getting sign-up fees for site sign-up for both Americans and non-Americans alike.

Yet it seems to me today that they would have had a case against us if they thought we were acting illegally.

I am appalled that they have actually started to pressure fora for their members list for discussing hings that are legal. Talk about serious overreach.

 

LOL - "Obama tries to restrict free speech".

Well, guess what? (*)(*)(*)(*) Obama. Just ignore him. He's meaningless anyway, he's out of here in a heartbeat.

The thing we need to focus on is what's next, because if you've been paying attention you've seen how this president has amplified everything that the one before him did - and the last guy amplified everything the one before him did. If this "rule by executive order" becomes precedent, you can expect Queen Hillary to rule that way too.

And, she's formidable, and Obama is not. Regardless of what you think of Hillary, you have to admit she's a formidable politician. (Anyone who survived this long against what's already been thrown at her, deserves at least a tip o' the hat). If Hillary gets a precedent like this, she'll make use of it. And she'll be able to convince our idiot Congress that she's doing the right thing, because she's a world-class liar (and a pretty good actor too).

Therefore, it would seem to become important to nip this thing in the bud now, before the next idiot (whomever it may be) gets the idea that any of this is okay.

 

Yet his policies, and the changes that have been made, will remain long after his departure, and will be affecting your life, and the lives of everyone around you.

 

Is there a link to the proposed legislation anywhere? I'm an NRA member but everything they publish is sensationalized propaganda.

 

Please read for comprehension. It's a proposed executive order, not legislation. The link is in the NRAILA article.
Starts at the bottom of page 31525 and on for several pages
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844.pdf
[

 

Ok, all I see this pertaining to is defense articles and expanded definitions of technical data regarding exports.

What am I missing?

 

What is being missed, is how distribution on the internet is being interpreted as exportation.

 

Well, some say that data about ammunition and guns could be considered technical data. Export of information is defined as anything on the internet. I agree the argument is a bit far-fetched, but I don't put it past the current administration to stretch the law this way.

 

Yea I don't see anything nefarious here.

 

Other than the fact that technical data on the internet will be prohibited. LOL

 

Limited technical data involving defense articles. Your claims are a stretch.

 

I doubt that very much. Even the Democrats are ready to undo Obama's version of "hope and change".

 

Well, can't publish the technical data on 5.56 NATO or 9x19 NATO eh?

 

Where does it say that?

 

Is that not technical data that concerns US weapons?

 

So you couldn't find it either?

 

I asked you a simple and direct question.

 

So did I. And I asked first.

Where does it say that?