View Full Version : NRA: Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new Obama regulation
Phillygunguy
06-07-15, 15:28
IF posted elsewhere Mods please delete
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nra-gun-blogs-videos-web-forums-threatened-by-new-obama-regulation/article/2565762
NRA: Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new Obama regulation
BY PAUL BEDARD | JUNE 7, 2015 | 10:10 AM
Photo - AP Photo
AP Photo
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.
RELATED: House votes to let nonviolent ex-felons restore gun rights
According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.
"Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities," said the NRA in a blog posting.
"This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second," warned the NRA's lobbying shop. "Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published," it added At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers.
The NRA said that the rules predate the internet, and now the federal government wants to regulate technical arms discussions on on the internationally available web.
RELATED: Bam: Arms maker to sell 6,134 guns a day to benefit NRA
State's proposal is highly technical. It took 14 pages in the Federal Register to explain. But the NRA boiled it down for gun owners with this warning:
"In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the 'public domain.' Essentially, this means data 'which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public' through a variety of specified means. These include 'at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.' Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.
"The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been 'exported,' as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.
"With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be 'clarifying' the rules concerning 'technical data' posted online or otherwise 'released' into the 'public domain.' To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the 'authorization' of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible." Below are the State changes drawing the NRA fire:
Paragraph (b) of the revised definition explicitly sets forth the Department's requirement of authorization to release information into the ''public domain.'' Prior to making available ''technical data'' or software subject to the ITAR, the U.S. government must approve the release through one of the following: (1) The Department; (2) the Department of Defense's Office of Security Review; (3) a relevant U.S. government contracting authority with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public, if one exists; or (4) another U.S. government official with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public.
The requirements of paragraph (b) are not new. Rather, they are a more explicit statement of the ITAR's requirement that one must seek and receive a license or other authorization from the Department or other cognizant U.S. government authority to release ITAR controlled ''technical data,'' as defined in § 120.10. A release of ''technical data'' may occur by disseminating ''technical data'' at a public conference or trade show, publishing ''technical data'' in a book or journal article, or posting ''technical data'' to the Internet.
This proposed provision will enhance compliance with the ITAR by clarifying that ''technical data'' may not be made available to the public without authorization. Persons who intend to discuss ''technical data'' at a conference or trade show, or to publish it, must ensure that they obtain the appropriate authorization.
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.
I wish other people in this country loved liberty as much as the rest of us.
Phillygunguy
06-07-15, 15:35
Yeah this AHOLE in Chief basically wants to infringe on the second via the first
Well in that case, 24grs. of TAC with 55 gr. FMJ's works for me as a good training load... Just thought I'd mention that while I could.
SilverBullet432
06-07-15, 16:31
Freedom of speech slowly going away... Hope they (we) can stop it. Im not afraid to say it online: kiss my ass obama...
MorphCross
06-07-15, 18:44
Such an erosion of civil liberties will get the ACLU involved regardless of ACLU not exactly being a friend of the NRA. I don't see the State Department having much success getting positive support by lawmakers. Time to contact your Congressmen and Senators so they can shove a lit Bunsen burner in John Kerry's ass about it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-07-15, 19:06
So we won't be able to talk about guns, but they can have websites radicalize our dumbasses.....
I fully expect these relentless Alinsky fools to attempt to overwhelm our defenses. It's a page right out of their playbook. Take note that this news come right after the DOJ decides to publish their mixed bag of legislation. This is a concerted effort and it will take a concerted effort to shut it down.
Phillygunguy
06-07-15, 19:54
Yeah this President has a sick obsession with trying to destroy the second amendment, and undermine our constitution.
When I think of all things this guy is allowed to get away with, I often wonder if Karma/ God will stop him
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
I highly doubt it is as dire as you are led to believe. Let's wait for some lawyers to chime in before we jump off the bridge in unison.
So we won't be able to talk about guns, but they can have websites radicalize our dumbasses.....
Pretty much. Starting to think the whole ITAR thing needs to go away. Just another .gov over reach. Guess Wikipedia is toast.
The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been 'exported,' as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.
So how do they plan on keeping a copy of Jane's or a Blake Stevens book from going overseas? Never mind that there are probably thousands of "TM"s provided to the Iraqi military that are in the hands of ISIS along with abandoned weapons, vehicles and armor. The absurdity of this entire premise is astounding.
If it keeps people from buying up the components I like, then I'm in!!! :jester:
SomeOtherGuy
06-07-15, 21:30
I highly doubt it is as dire as you are led to believe. Let's wait for some lawyers to chime in before we jump off the bridge in unison.
I am a lawyer. I have briefly read the proposed changes and the NRA comments on them, and have tried to make sense of it. Very important preliminary information: most federal regulations are extremely dense and specific to a certain context, and it is often difficult for anyone, even a lawyer who deals with other federal regulations, to understand exactly how they are meant to work without some length of time practicing with them. I find that regulations are often specific on some topics while being totally silent on important related topics, and simply reading the regulations is often not enough to understand what the agency actually plans to do while claiming to be following those regulations.
With that said, what I see in the changes could, conceivably, be used to do bad things the way that the NRA describes, but I doubt that is actually the intent.
I'm fully aware that some parts of the current administration are extremely sneaky and dangerous, but major parts of the federal administration are simply career employees doing their thing, with limited responsiveness to whatever political regime happens to be in office.
I expect this is intended to limit web publication of blueprints and complete data packages. It might readily be used to limited the "Defense Distributed" and similar types of complete CAD files for firearms manufacturing. I don't think it's meant to limit the sort of discussions we have here or at other common forums.
It might be worthwhile to write in with comments expressing concern that this not be applied to hinder discussion forums and journalistic articles. But it's not the topic I'd be most excited about right now.
I am a lawyer. I have briefly read the proposed changes and the NRA comments on them, and have tried to make sense of it. Very important preliminary information: most federal regulations are extremely dense and specific to a certain context, and it is often difficult for anyone, even a lawyer who deals with other federal regulations, to understand exactly how they are meant to work without some length of time practicing with them. I find that regulations are often specific on some topics while being totally silent on important related topics, and simply reading the regulations is often not enough to understand what the agency actually plans to do while claiming to be following those regulations.
With that said, what I see in the changes could, conceivably, be used to do bad things the way that the NRA describes, but I doubt that is actually the intent.
I'm fully aware that some parts of the current administration are extremely sneaky and dangerous, but major parts of the federal administration are simply career employees doing their thing, with limited responsiveness to whatever political regime happens to be in office.
I expect this is intended to limit web publication of blueprints and complete data packages. It might readily be used to limited the "Defense Distributed" and similar types of complete CAD files for firearms manufacturing. I don't think it's meant to limit the sort of discussions we have here or at other common forums.
It might be worthwhile to write in with comments expressing concern that this not be applied to hinder discussion forums and journalistic articles. But it's not the topic I'd be most excited about right now.
Do you mean like the RICO statutes went from reigning in the mob, to stealing some poor schlep's money on the side of the road? Or perhaps the way Sarbanes Oxley was intended for Enron type fraud, but is now used to individual people for deleting their web browser history at home?
Yeah, they can say it's for the best intention in the world, but they'll still pave the road to hell with it. :(
SomeOtherGuy
06-07-15, 22:10
Do you mean like the RICO statutes went from reigning in the mob, to stealing some poor schlep's money on the side of the road? Or perhaps the way Sarbanes Oxley was intended for Enron type fraud, but is now used to individual people for deleting their web browser history at home?
Never heard of that claim about use of SOX - do you have any links to articles?
But otherwise, yeah, something may be passed for one fairly legitimate purpose, and later be used for something else that's abusive. Happens all the time, but it could happen with almost any law. While I like narrowly drafted statutes, fundamentally that is more an issue with our current system of government than with the drafting of specific statutes. For example, stop and realize that the topic of this thread is not a statute, but a change in administrative regulations - something that has the legal effect of a statute (99% of the time), but is created by an agency through a non-democratic process, with only mild checks and balances. The sheer growth of administrative law is a bigger issue than any one particular regulation.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-07-15, 22:11
Let me grab my tin foil hat. What I could see is something like the old porn law regulations. All kinds of stuff flying around out there with little to define what is illegal. Then you get selective enforcement- so everyone gets nervous about what they post and that ends up being the chilling effect.
Probably not going to happen, but if 10 years ago you had told me about the selective use of the IRS and the lack of MSM interest, I would have said that was tin foil hat fodder too.
Never heard of that claim about use of SOX - do you have any links to articles?
But otherwise, yeah, something may be passed for one fairly legitimate purpose, and later be used for something else that's abusive. Happens all the time, but it could happen with almost any law. While I like narrowly drafted statutes, fundamentally that is more an issue with our current system of government than with the drafting of specific statutes. For example, stop and realize that the topic of this thread is not a statute, but a change in administrative regulations - something that has the legal effect of a statute (99% of the time), but is created by an agency through a non-democratic process, with only mild checks and balances. The sheer growth of administrative law is a bigger issue than any one particular regulation.
http://www.thenation.com/article/208593/you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history
They used it on one of Tsarnaev's buddies, so no one is going to really get up in arms about it. This time... :(
Pretty much. Starting to think the whole ITAR thing needs to go away. Just another .gov over reach. Guess Wikipedia is toast.
So how do they plan on keeping a copy of Jane's or a Blake Stevens book from going overseas? Never mind that there are probably thousands of "TM"s provided to the Iraqi military that are in the hands of ISIS along with abandoned weapons, vehicles and armor. The absurdity of this entire premise is astounding. Small detail, Janes is a British publisher already ;)
Moose-Knuckle
06-08-15, 00:09
But you get your dick cut off, slather on some whore paint, and put on a wig given hero status with protected speech.
Circling the bowl . . .
They only have to win ONCE...
Granted it is all speculation at this point. But this administration has pursued ban after ban and has openly stated their intentions. So I think we crossed the threshold from "conspiracy theory" into the realm of straight-up conspiracy long ago. I have zero doubt this will be used to undermine civil liberty, and not the dreamed-up civil liberties the left has invented as of late. I see this weakening most of the first 10 amendments.
Let me grab my tin foil hat.
Granted it is all speculation at this point. But this administration has pursued ban after ban and has openly stated their intentions. So I think we crossed the threshold from "conspiracy theory" into the realm of straight-up conspiracy long ago. I have zero doubt this will be used to undermine civil liberty, and not the dreamed-up civil liberties the left has invented as of late. I see this weakening most of the first 10 amendments.
Like anything else it's incremental. First it won't matter, then slowly change over the next 20 years to a total ban on information IF people keep voting like they do. End goal is probably to include alternative medicine, alcohol, explossives, survival, and generally anything else that keeps people off the government tit. I'm sure hate speech will be involved too. But I'm out now, I'm starting to sound like I wear foil.
Doc Safari
06-08-15, 10:45
Whether or not the proposed regulations are genuinely draconian or it's just a bunch of fear-mongering, who can say?
But one thing is FACT: the free world will breathe a huge sigh of relief as soon as Barry is out of office.
Unless we get Hillary of course.
Phillygunguy
06-08-15, 10:50
Whether or not the proposed regulations are genuinely draconian or it's just a bunch of fear-mongering, who can say?
But one thing is FACT: the free world will breathe a huge sigh of relief as soon as Barry is out of office.
Unless we get Hillary of course.
The problem is that he knows he's out soon and nobody has any balls to stop him. That's why I think this is a legit concern.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
They only have to win ONCE...
Lenin won once.
The wet dreams of some people should make our hair stand on end. History has been characterized as a butcher's block--and that is too damn true for comfort.
Never say never.
Outlander Systems
06-08-15, 11:44
If this is retroactive, KevinB, rob_s, and IraqGunz are ****ED!
Do you mean like the RICO statutes went from reigning in the mob, to stealing some poor schlep's money on the side of the road? Or perhaps the way Sarbanes Oxley was intended for Enron type fraud, but is now used to individual people for deleting their web browser history at home?
Yeah, they can say it's for the best intention in the world, but they'll still pave the road to hell with it. :(
Full text of this here:
http ://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844.pdf
For the sake of my paranoia, please do no make this into a hyperlink.
Paste it into a new browser tab. Clicking hyperlinks will tell the site you are going to where you linked to it from.
No reason to alert them even more so than already (although I am sure that each one of us here is on a list somewhere).
I know I sound like a tin foil moron, but in all honesty, I don't give a ****. This crew of professional, anti-American saboteurs has shown time and again that it will go above and beyond the call of treason to sabotage the American Constitution.
Weaponizing the IRS, ramming through Obamacare and lying about what it was, "regulating" the Internet, smuggling weapons to terrorists, covering up the murder of an Ambassado and 3 other US citizens (ex-SEALS, at that), paying billions to Iran's theocracy, the list goes on.
I read this document. I am not a lawyer, and whatever the "intent" may be, we all know how it is going to be interpreted and used.
Remember, these are the same people that take "The right of the People" and "Shall not be infringed" to mean that it is a collective (Federal gov) right, and they can infringe on whatever doesn't fit a magical "sporting purpose".
The law means NOTHING to this elitist nobility. The law is what they say it is.
Outlander Systems
06-08-15, 16:41
Full text of this here:
http ://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844.pdf
For the sake of my paranoia, please do no make this into a hyperlink.
Paste it into a new browser tab. Clicking hyperlinks will tell the site you are going to where you linked to it from.
No reason to alert them even more so than already (although I am sure that each one of us here is on a list somewhere).
I know I sound like a tin foil moron, but in all honesty, I don't give a ****. This crew of professional, anti-American saboteurs has shown time and again that it will go above and beyond the call of treason to sabotage the American Constitution.
Weaponizing the IRS, ramming through Obamacare and lying about what it was, "regulating" the Internet, smuggling weapons to terrorists, covering up the murder of an Ambassado and 3 other US citizens (ex-SEALS, at that), paying billions to Iran's theocracy, the list goes on.
I read this document. I am not a lawyer, and whatever the "intent" may be, we all know how it is going to be interpreted and used.
Remember, these are the same people that take "The right of the People" and "Shall not be infringed" to mean that it is a collective (Federal gov) right, and they can infringe on whatever doesn't fit a magical "sporting purpose".
The law means NOTHING to this elitist nobility. The law is what they say it is.
You forgot shredding the 4th, 5th, and 6th Ammendments through domestic surveillance. Which, as William Binney has pointed out, has shown itself to be a waste of time, and resources.
$1MM fine? 20years? Well shoot fire, with penalties like that, we've got nothing to lose if this regulation goes into effect. Hey Horse-face Kerry, go fornicate with yourself - my 5.56mm N match load is 25.4gr. of Reloder 15 under a 77gr. Sierra Match King. It's good to 600yds. out of my Colt Match HBAR.
So, fellow frogs, is it just me or is the water in this pot getting warmer?
I am FIRM BELIEVER in wearing a tin foil hat at ALL times. In today's world it is better to be paranoid and prepared than unaffected and dead.
I wonder why they took the time to reaffirm ITAR now? For one, they are afraid of 3D printers. They are afraid that the 3D printers that are coming will be good enough to actually make gun parts they cannot control. They want to make the 3D printer code illegal. Another reason is obvious, they perhaps see guns becoming more popular and interesting and they want to find ways to stomp it down.
Personally, I think the Feds will fail. Prior restraint won't fly in the courts.
I am a lawyer. I have briefly read the proposed changes and the NRA comments on them, and have tried to make sense of it. Very important preliminary information: most federal regulations are extremely dense and specific to a certain context, and it is often difficult for anyone, even a lawyer who deals with other federal regulations, to understand exactly how they are meant to work without some length of time practicing with them. I find that regulations are often specific on some topics while being totally silent on important related topics, and simply reading the regulations is often not enough to understand what the agency actually plans to do while claiming to be following those regulations.
With that said, what I see in the changes could, conceivably, be used to do bad things the way that the NRA describes, but I doubt that is actually the intent.
I'm fully aware that some parts of the current administration are extremely sneaky and dangerous, but major parts of the federal administration are simply career employees doing their thing, with limited responsiveness to whatever political regime happens to be in office.
I expect this is intended to limit web publication of blueprints and complete data packages. It might readily be used to limited the "Defense Distributed" and similar types of complete CAD files for firearms manufacturing. I don't think it's meant to limit the sort of discussions we have here or at other common forums.
It might be worthwhile to write in with comments expressing concern that this not be applied to hinder discussion forums and journalistic articles. But it's not the topic I'd be most excited about right now.
Thank-you for chiming into the thread. That is about what I figured it was all about. I need less, not more, drama in my life.
When the NRA whips everyone up into a frenzy about "nothing" it hurts all of us.........if they are just doing it to raise funds, shame on them. That said, I don't trust the current administration or its mindless minions any further than I could kick them.
Thank-you for chiming into the thread. That is about what I figured it was all about. I need less, not more, drama in my life.
When the NRA whips everyone up into a frenzy about "nothing" it hurts all of us.........if they are just doing it to raise funds, shame on them. That said, I don't trust the current administration or its mindless minions any further than I could kick them.
Inconguent statements are incongruous...
I just don't see this as some dramatic, emotinal appeal in order to whip everyone into a frenzy and dupe them into mailing in their life savings. The proper response is to make reasoned and regular phone calls and emails to the proper representation. The m855 ban was turned back by the grassroots of the U.S. Leading the charge with the help of various pro-gun organizations. This stuff should be well practiced and routine after the Obama years. No drama needed.
Inconguent statements are incongruous...
No, just because I don't trust them doesn't mean everything they do is 100% evil. Nothing is that simple.
No, just because I don't trust them doesn't mean everything they do is 100% evil. Nothing is that simple.
I gave two virtually unassailable examples where "reasonable" laws were passed to combat a true scourge, which were promptly twisted into hideously distorted perversions of justice by those who claim to uphold the law. This isn't an Obama thing, it's a government thing. The only distinction between "D" and "R" on this one is the target. :(
Truth!
This isn't an Obama thing, it's a government thing. The only distinction between "D" and "R" on this one is the target. :(
I expect this is intended to limit web publication of blueprints and complete data packages. It might readily be used to limited the "Defense Distributed" and similar types of complete CAD files for firearms manufacturing. I don't think it's meant to limit the sort of discussions we have here or at other common forums.
Those are covered by ITAR right now (a company that I worked for some time ago went trough procedures to obtain ITAR license to import blueprints from US), so if they want to protect that, no change in law is needed. Maybe just better enforcement.
Mauser KAR98K
06-09-15, 12:02
Lenin won once.
The wet dreams of some people should make our hair stand on end. History has been characterized as a butcher's block--and that is too damn true for comfort.
Never say never.
Ideas are peaceful, history is violent.
Lenin won once.
The wet dreams of some people should make our hair stand on end. History has been characterized as a butcher's block--and that is too damn true for comfort.
Never say never.
Very, very well said.
Whenever I hear some politician/official/bureaucrat/aspiring totalitarian say that no one "needs" an "assault rifle"/"high capacity clips"/handguns, I damn well know that I need those things, and then some.
Those are covered by ITAR right now (a company that I worked for some time ago went trough procedures to obtain ITAR license to import blueprints from US), so if they want to protect that, no change in law is needed. Maybe just better enforcement.
True. But, like gun control, they always have some noble-sounding stated aim to justify more unconstitutional controls.
Layers and layers of confusing redundant jurisdiction...rolls and rolls of red tape. We should have a Department of Redundancy Department.
True. But, like gun control, they always have some noble-sounding stated aim to justify more unconstitutional controls.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-09-15, 21:44
All the State Dept has to do is come out and say that this won't affect firearms blogs, forums and online discussion- but they haven't done that, have they?
When some thug gets shot by the police, all kinds of weird tales come out- and the police releasing details shuts that down. Same principle applies, but I guess State doesn't want to do that.
I don't think it is unreasonable to extrapolate that ITAR restrictions could extend to discussions about ITAR items. I could see State and the MSM putting that argument forward. Considering the vast amount of general gun gear that is ITAR restricted, that is pretty chilling.
Oddly, I have a FLIR camera that you attach to an iPhone 5. Pretty interesting tech. I've looked all over and I can't find anything on the box or online about it being ITAR restricted. Not saying that I want to fly a plane or drive at night based on it, but it is real FLIR tech.
Yeah this President has a sick obsession with trying to destroy the second amendment, and undermine our constitution.
When I think of all things this guy is allowed to get away with, I often wonder if Karma/ God will stop him
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
He figures that the most progressive crap he can force on us during his tenure, the better his legacy will be. After all, who would rescind anything he makes into law once its already done?
All the State Dept has to do is come out and say that this won't affect firearms blogs, forums and online discussion- but they haven't done that, have they?
When some thug gets shot by the police, all kinds of weird tales come out- and the police releasing details shuts that down. Same principle applies, but I guess State doesn't want to do that.
I don't think it is unreasonable to extrapolate that ITAR restrictions could extend to discussions about ITAR items. I could see State and the MSM putting that argument forward. Considering the vast amount of general gun gear that is ITAR restricted, that is pretty chilling.
Oddly, I have a FLIR camera that you attach to an iPhone 5. Pretty interesting tech. I've looked all over and I can't find anything on the box or online about it being ITAR restricted. Not saying that I want to fly a plane or drive at night based on it, but it is real FLIR tech.
Unfortunately, I think you are right on the money.
Kind of infuriating that this law will not apply to Hussein and Co. transferring weapons and technology to their co-Muslims in the Muslim Brotherhood, AQ and ISIS.
Dons flame suit. Awaits barrage.
Averageman
06-10-15, 09:07
No one hates personal freedoms more than someone who comes out as a progressive.
Baltimore, Detroit and Ferguson seem to be the Utopian dream to those who wish to see the progressive agenda well served.
If you place your bipod as far forward on weapon, install 1.4" height leupold mark 2 I.M.S., and install a Geissele ssa-e trigger enhancement system, accuracy of your armament chambered in 5.56mm nato, 223 wylde, and 223 Remington may improve accuracy from 1% to 500% dramatically improving effectiveness.
Ah crap......... It looks line under these new proposed ITAR'ed rules I just did something insanely illegal and aided the enemy by posting technical data....
Better come pick me up and toss my ass in the crow bar hotel. I don't have a million dollars either...... Can you take payments?
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-11-15, 14:52
What about Hollywood movies where the characters Mag-pul up and play with all kinds of ITAR gear...
What about Hollywood movies where the characters Mag-pul up and play with all kinds of ITAR gear...
Most of that would fall into the "disinformation operations" category and therefore, would not fall under ITAR. :rolleyes:
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-11-15, 19:39
Most of that would fall into the "disinformation operations" category and therefore, would not fall under ITAR. :rolleyes:
My wife watches 'Forever', where they had an semi-auto flint lock pistol......... The antagonist shot once and then with out loading, shot again.
Moose-Knuckle
06-12-15, 01:04
My wife watches 'Forever', where they had an semi-auto flint lock pistol......... The antagonist shot once and then with out loading, shot again.
I was eating dinner what night at one of my favorite places, that show was on the TV in the background. I though to myself WTF, and who TF would watch this show.
I have not had TV in years. From time to time when I see the s**t they have on now days I just have to shake my head. How anyone finds s**t like that entertaining is beyond me . . .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.