General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNRA gunning for making elephants extinct
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/23107-nra-gunning-for-more-than-just-right-to-bear-arms
hen the Obama administration announced plans to halt the domestic sale of most elephant ivory, the National Rifle Association urged its members to mobilize against the ban.
While the NRA said it agreed with the goal of ending endangered elephant poaching, it warned that something far more important was at stake: This is another attempt by this anti-gun administration to ban firearms, the organization asserted in an alert.
When it comes to defending gun rights, no issue is seemingly too obscure for the NRA not even the ivory trade. Amid the high-profile epic battles, including the recent clashes following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut, there have been smaller, under-the-radar ones, too often appearing to touch only tangentially on actual guns.
Indeed, the NRA doesnt pick its battles: It fights every single one, according to Professor Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at the State University of New York in Cortland and author of The Politics of Gun Control.
Part of their political strategy is to look for any issue, any time, any place, any moment where they can exert some political pressure, Spitzer said, because the larger strategy is to be aggressive and always be on the offensive.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)calimary
(81,267 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)It's not complicated.
eridani
(51,907 posts)liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)I saw a segment on PBS or History explaining that they try to sell new ivory as old to get past this situation. By banning all ivory, it avoids this and sends a signal that we need to protect the elephant.
hack89
(39,171 posts)at what point do you compromise and take the best deal possible?
As for existing ivory artifacts, why not establish standards by which owners can verify and document the age of artifact? Make it the responsibility of the owner but give them the opportunity to prove the ivory is not new.
7962
(11,841 posts)So write it into the law and take the argument away from them.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)they seem to be saying it is.
of course you take their side.
To my knowledge the NRA has never objected to the decades old ban on new ivory. In fact it says just that in the op. Further the NRA is in the company of many areas of collectable and antiquities interests on this issue.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I will put you down as all or nothing.
If it can be proven that a gun does not use new ivory, what is the harm? I thought the idea was to stop the sale of new ivory. Why is it something that cannot be compromised on?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)with a straight face.
if you're going to be more skeptical of the administration than the NRA, it's a waste of oxygen to discuss it with you.
hack89
(39,171 posts)would you support a scheme that would allow owners to keep and sell ivory artifacts if they can prove they were not made with new ivory? Simple question.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)exemptions for commercial trade of 100-year-old antiques into regulations that re-affirm the criteria that must be met for an item to qualify as an antique
imports of African elephant ivory will be limited to certain items and purposes where the ivory item will not be sold, including ivory for law enforcement and scientific purposes, specified worked ivory items such as musical instruments, items in museums and other exhibitions, and items that are part of a household move.
what do you think?
hack89
(39,171 posts)the cut off is 1990 or 1975 depending on the type of elephant.
I would support a total import ban of ivory - I think the domestic market is big enough to allow owners to sell if they want. I just question the bans on sales across state lines - that is what the real issue is here.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)just like the legislation requires for in state sales.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)But some people will support this utterly useless (to the elephants) idea because it has a negative impact on people they don't like.
Ah, the human condition...gotta love it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)A thriving domestic market in illegal ivory. Make sure that the reward for ivory poachers is as great as possible. All because the NRA says so.
Brings gun nuttery to an entirely new level.
GOPee
(58 posts)jmowreader
(50,557 posts)Sorry, NRA: synthetic ivory has existed for a very long time and the first thing anyone ever made out of it was a set of pistol grips. If you want to sell your ivory handled revolver, switch out the grips for these elephant-and-rhino-friendly ones.
hack89
(39,171 posts)at least for in state sales. If what you say is impossible, why is it written in to EO?
As for guns, the ones with ivory built it are valuable collectors items. It is not a question of functionality - it is about the artistic value of the weapon. The president is blithely asking these owners to throw away thousands of dollars and some are shocked when they say no?
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)It's also not impossible to fake an old weapon for the purpose of moving real ivory from an elephant killed last year.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)The better market for ivory from last year is Asia.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)If we were only talking about guns...guns are the absolute tip of the iceberg. I don't think people get how many antique and collectibles have ivory adornments. ..including the desk in the Oval Office.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)many people collect guns for their historic or artistic merit - many are never fired, just admired.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)I have a few collectibles myself, but they ain't that fancy
pipoman
(16,038 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Ineffectual, silly and short sighted. There are countless items of antiquity that contain ivory. Making those items illegal to sell or trade robs the owner of wealth unnecessarily. The OP title is deemed a lie in the very first sentence of the second paragraph. The antiquities world is reeling because of this stupidity too..
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)It has been illegal to trade in ivory for decades now over most of the 1st world. This new ban encompasses ivory harvested long before the ban on new ivory, in some cases centuries before. Items of historical importance. Items of interest to vast numbers of people. How does banning the sale of a 19th century Steinway piano, or a 1920's carpenters rule, or an 18th century game table, or a 1890's colt revolver help the problem of modern day elephant poaching?
Paladin
(28,261 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)I'll mark you in the 'ban pianos' opinion. ..
That seems simple. I believe the assertion is that they use the currently legal trade in old Ivory to mask sales of new ivory.
If you make all Ivory sales illegal, then there's no way to cover the new ivory sales and pretend they are legal.
And if you reduce the opportunity to sell new ivory, that would presumably result in a reduction of modern elephant poaching.
Whether the facts support that logic, whether a significant portion of illegal ivory sales are slipped by using the guise of a legal old Ivory sale, I could not speak to. But the rational seems fairly obvious.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)good explanation.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)There have been several incidents lately where poachers, helped by park rangers, have simply poisoned the water holes and many elephants have died. One whole family of 30 was killed this way.
It's disgusting. And so horribly sad.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)There are some parks in Africa where poachers are simply shot on site.
The waterhole where the 30 elephants were killed? The Park Ranger was paid $85 to tell the poachers where the elephants were.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)They did not consider a white Ranger shooting black poachers to be "proper". I guess I should have let my Zulu and Masai trackers spear them.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)That is really pushing it. But I do wish they could get people who would protect those animals and not sell the store for some miserly amount of money. That might seem like a lot of money to someone who has very little and has kids at home to feed.
Those animals are Africa's national treasure. She should protect them.
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)putting aside the gun aspect, there are a whole bunch of other consumer products that historically used ivory, would the suggested ban make it impossible to sell antique Ivory combs, pocket knives with Ivory handles or for that matter would it prohibit me from selling the 1938 Steinway with Ivory keys that is sitting in my living room? There is certainly the need for reasonable accommodation for existing objects that may contain ivory and that includes but should not be limited to firearms.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)And that is exactly what the NRA and many others (myself included) are objecting to.
They will have to pry the Ivories from my wife's baby Grand from her cold, dead fingers. Seriously, they don't want to piss her off!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)it instate, provided you can verify that the ivory was legally imported before 1990 or 1975:
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/interior-announces-ban-on-commercial-trade-of-ivory-as-part-of-overall-effort-to-combat-poaching-wildlife-trafficking.cfm
hack89
(39,171 posts)what is it about out of state sales that require a different rule?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)For example, allowing in state sales but not out of state sales would make the market for potential illegal traffickers smaller, while still allowing people with legitimate objects to sell them. But I'm pretty sure that whatever the rationale, you are going to take the NRA's side regardless. After all, when it comes down to the Obama administration versus Wayne LaPierre, we all know where you come down.
hack89
(39,171 posts)just allow owners that can prove the age of the ivory to keep and sell them. Are you so anti-gun that you are willing to torpedo this legislation rather than give an inch? I suspect yes.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And when it comes to the Obama adminstration's judgement vs the NRA's I'm pretty sure what side I come down on. The NRA is saying absurd things as usual ("This is another attempt by this anti-gun administration to ban firearms" , and team NRA on DU is coming to their defense no matter what they say, also as usual.
Oh, and this isn't piece of legislation, it's an executive order.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I trust his political instincts - he obviously knew it would create this uproar. Why not give the president credit and see where it ends - this may end up as a defeat for the NRA.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Of course, the NRA always thinks it's the right time to pick a fight with Obama, so this is nothing new really.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that is why they win all the time. (A lesson, btw, that the LGBT community has learned with great success)
And clearly the Obama administration understood that when they proposed this EO - so maybe they think this is a winning issue for them.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)The feds have little to no control over intrastate commerce....
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There are ways to get around the interstate commerce clause.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)states' rights grounds, like Rand Paul and the rest of the crew.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)jmowreader
(50,557 posts)Intrastate commerce is properly the purview of the states.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
merrily
(45,251 posts)in his own back yard, for consumption only by him and his immediate family.
President Kennedy used interstate commerce to justify forcing integration via the Interstate Commerce Commission.
IOW, one can find a nexus between interstate commerce and almost anything, if that is what one wants to find.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)I saw that in your other post after I posted the question. Interesting.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Long before, if you count things like child labor laws. Whether it's the spending power or the interstate commerce power or the general welfare (more controversial), one can always find a way.
If one wants to, that is. If one doesn't want to, one can slip and slide.
The SCOTUS holding that feds could, under the interstate commerce power, regulate a lone man growing food in his own back yard for consumption only by him and his immediate family is a perfect example of how political the definition of interstate commerce is. So does Roberts holding that the feds could not, under the interstate commerce power, impose the individual mandate of Obamacare (though they could under the taxing power).
Bottom line: all of this, including interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, is a lot more subjective than anyone in power will ever admit to the general populace, lest we cease pretending otherwise. JMO
merrily
(45,251 posts)Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)I'd like to know how the person who possess's an object made of ivory is supposed to be able to determine whether the origin was from an African or Indian Elephant or from a completely different species for that matter. DNA test? ridiculous.
So an item made in the 1920's, long before there were any kinds of bans on the use of elephant ivory is excluded from being classified as a "bone fide antique" because it's less than 100 years old? equally ridiculous.
I'm all for stopping poaching but these kind of over-reaching, arbitrary and essentially unenforceable laws are the wrong way to remedy the problem.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)actually validate that their ivory was imported legally over protecting endangered species. I'm pretty sure the Obama administration has put more thought into this than the NRA...
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)ivory that was given to my mother in 1974. She received it from an African man from Chad who was a guest in our house. How is my father supposed to prove the age of the ivory?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If he wants to sell it, he probably needs to figure out how to certify that it was legally brought into the country before 1990. Otherwise, looks like he's just going to have to hold on to it. Not really the end of the world. The alternative, it seems to me, is to allow free domestic commerce in illegal ivory.
I must say, I'm not an expert on the ivory trade, but this seems like a pretty reasonable step to take to help protect an endangered species, and the fact that the only people here complaining seem to be the pro-gun people (who probably wouldn't even have heard of this if not for the NRA stamping its feet) makes me think that this is more just a case of taking the NRA's side reflexively over the Obama administration than anything else.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)is taking the side of the NRA jist to oppose President Obama. I don't own a gun with ivory grips, but if this issue prevents the sale of guns with ivory grips in which the ivory pre-dates 1990, then I am opposed to making a change in the law. Using new ivory is already illegal.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Like I said, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me. And it certainly isn't some back-door attempt by the Obama administration to ban guns, like the NRA claims.
The regulation is designed to reduce the trade in illegal ivory, in order reduce demand and protect endangered species. Sure, it would be nice to be able to not worry about the legality of imported ivory, but there are tradeoffs, and at some point convenience has to give way to protecting the environment.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I'd rather protect the elephants.
Dating ivory grips is easy, that is if the date of the gun's manufacture is acceptable as proof of the age of the grips. On older models, the serial number of the gun is sometimes written on the inside of the grips. The problem I have with laws like this is that it puts otherwise law abiding people into law breakers with no intent on their part. I tbink it should be ip to the government to prove that the ivory is new. You know, "innocent until proven guilty"?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Well, I care more about species extinction than the convenience of ivory traders. In fact, one problem with the whole gun debate is that the pro-gun side places the convenience of gun owners above everything else, be it human life, or in this case elephants and rhinos.
"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to criminal courts. It has nothing to do with the current situation. This change doesn't make anyone a law breaker because you can still own the ivory. Now, if someone decides to sell the ivory without certifying it's legality, then they will be actively and intentionally breaking the law, which means they would no longer be "law abiding".
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)and then sells the gun with ivory grips is in same category as the people who actually are selling new ivory tusks?
And I'm pretty sure that actual ivory smugglers will be punished more severely than people who just sell a gun they own with an ivory grip. Both will be breaking the law, but one of them in a much more significant way.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Selling a gun with ivory grips should not be against the law. Not having that law will not endanger elephants.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Having a thriving secondary market for ivory in the US increases the value to poachers and smugglers. So, yes, allowing people to sell a gun with an ivory grip without certification ultimately endangers elephants, because it increases the international value of the illegal ivory. Selling an ivory grip is legal, provided you certify that the ivory was imported legally, which seems like a good compromise to me.
The NRA isn't known for it's careful policy analysis, they only care about inconvenience to gun owners. The Obama administration's decisions regarding how to best protect endangered species are much better informed than the NRA's.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)I haven't studied the issue personally, but the administration has, and I don't have any reason to doubt them. In fact, some environmental groups think the regulation doesn't go far enough, and they need to simply ban all domestic ivory commerce period.
Conversely, I'm pretty sure that the NRA has not done any studies of the impact of the US market on ivory smuggling, and their theory that Obama made the whole thing up as an excuse to attack gun owners is patently absurd. At least it is to me -- do you actually believe that?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)is doing. I am agreeing with them on this issue of reselling guns with ivory grips not because the NRA is opposed to it, but because I am opposed to it. That I became aware of it because of the NRA is immaterial.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)... the NRA would say he is grabbing guns.
When their only tool is a gun, everything they see is either a bullet or a target.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)In circulation with ivory components. From grips on pistols and inlays on rifle stocks to tiny bead sights on shotgun barrels.
Jgarrick
(521 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)in support of the NRA and against the administration.
so fast.
Jgarrick
(521 posts)Under that circumstance, what would you expect the NRA to do?
pipoman
(16,038 posts).
All of these historically significant tools are BANNED by this decision. The decision is stupid. Time for the administration to realize that and rethink this silliness.
ET Awful
(24,753 posts)Is that a part no. or a date?
The site that lists that picture has a very similar item made of ebony and ivory that's listed as a reproduction and priced at over $3,000.
Methinks that may not be an antique.
Edited to add: http://www.jimbodetools.com/Magnificent-Rare-Paul-Hamler-4-1-2-inch-Ebony-Ivory-SANDUSKY-Center-Wheel-Plow-Plane-p24318.html
Actually, I'm fairly sure it's NOT an antique. I wonder where Mr. Hamler got the ivory to build that reproduction.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Ivory plow plane. There are planes like this that are ivory. This one looks like a reproduction. I have seen several reproduction ivory pieces. The ones I have seen were all micarta, a very realistic synthetic ivory. Some collectors fill out their collection with these because the real thing is crazy expensive.
The only ivory tools I have collected are rules. Mostly Stanley. I quit buying them several years ago because they got so pricey. The last one i bought was off an auction in London. ..absentee bidder. The ones I have I intend to sell when I retire. I also have a brace like the one on the bottom only it is entirely box wood except for an ivory button on top.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Duh!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)For sort of complicated reasons, the "DU is for Democrats" rule is waived during gun discussions. If you want to see the really ugly side, check out the Gun Control and RKBA forum (aka the gungeon). It's pretty much indistinguishable from Free Republic in there. It sort of started out as a "big tent" thing and then somehow the tent got so big that Michelle Bachmann and Louis Gohmert would feel right at home.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Actually, my family aren't gun nuts and support some gun control.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)anywhere near these kinds of extreme right-wing views on guns. And I lived in Texas for a while, so I've known my share of gun owning Democrats.
I've also met a bunch of gun nut yahoos like you find in the gungeon, but none of them had anything good to say about the Democratic party. Of course, the gungeoneers don't often talk about too many issues other than guns, so who knows...
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I think the country is slowly turning against these extremist gun nuts.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)My feeling, entirely. You'd think they would realize how hollow and incoherent that line of thinking is. And how patently ridiculous it sounds.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)while supporting their position in the thread.
charming.
Making fun of people who oppose positions based on who supports them without regard for the merits of the discussion is what I'm doing. ..
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)I'm not seeing anything that would indicate that.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Of the 2nd paragraph of the op...it is also not the headline of the linked story....it was made up by the op...
"When the Obama administration announced plans to halt the domestic sale of most elephant ivory, the National Rifle Association urged its members to mobilize against the ban. "
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/23107-nra-gunning-for-more-than-just-right-to-bear-arms
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Decades no?
I am not aware of the NRA opposing those long standing bans.
This is about banning items, deeming them worthless, that have been around since long before any ban. That is what the NRA opposes from everything I have read..
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I wonder what next the NRA will oppose...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)without actually reading what the regulation says?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4819837
Paladin
(28,261 posts)Jeez, don't slip that in while I'm having my late morning coffee, you'll owe me a new key board (one without a bayonet lug). As if there's anything like rational, productive discussion to be had anymore on guns.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Some of which happen to be guns...
Paladin
(28,261 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The ivory ban issue was just the lead-in, really. The article is correct about the NRA's "scattergun" approach (see what I did there?). That's just one reason I abandoned that organization about 15 years ago.*
The thread, though, has focused largely on that ivory ban plan, as one might expect when it's the subject of the headline. the discussion of that need not involve the NRA, except perhaps to cote the old "stopped clock" homily. The plan's faults transcend consideration of that organization's many foibles.
* That was hard for me to do, not because I think the organization is a good influence (it's not), or that it even deserves to be a "thought leader" for 2nd Amendment rights (it doesn't). It was hard because the Life Membership I rescinded was a gift when I was younger from my much-loved late grandfather.
Paladin
(28,261 posts)spanone
(135,834 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The ban's broad-reaching effect on all sales, even those of antique items, is ill-considered. If the goal is to protect endangered elephants, banning the sale of ivory taken decades (or centuries) ago is pointless. Differentiating between old and new items is far from impossible.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)is it because, gasp, there are guns out there with ivory handles?
how materialistic does one have to be to value that over elephants?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Living elephants, whilst ignoring the millions of other nongun aantiquities banned by this stupidity?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)if it won't work, then it's not going to have any effects, therefore won't be unfair.
i love it when NRA talking points crash into each other.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The argument isn't that it "won't work" in terms of the transfers taking place anyway. The argument is that it "won't work" in terms of doing fuck-all to help elephants. Duh.
Stop and actually think things through instead of being in such an obvious hurry to take potshots at gun owners.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and based on your above posts, maybe you should read the ban and the proposed changes because it seems like you don't know what the ban is and isn't.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Fucking priceless...
And I most certainly have read the details of the proposal...which you seem not to have done. I suggest the Washington Post article...I'm sure you can find it.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and out of control-ness.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Since you seem determined to make this about me, rather than the actual matter under discussion (argumentum ad hominem...quelle surprise!) and to make shit up, I'll just back quietly away and leave you to your...whatever it is you think you're doing.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Why would anyone support a pointless law? New ivory has been illegal for decades.
I'm actually more concerned over the effect on wonderful vintage pianos than ivory-gripped pistols, and such. So your clumsy attempt at "poisoning the well" falls flat. Moreover, you're presenting a very transparent false dichotomy in asserting that retaining the ability to buy and sell antique ivory is incompatible with the continued survival of elephants. Critical thinking fail.
Next time bring your A-game. If you have one...
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)yes or no? or are we just reading the NRA stuff to figure out what was actually proposed?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)First off, I have no idea what the NRA's "information" about this might be, save for the brief snippet in the cited article. I could care less what that clown car full of shitheels says.
More to the point, while the proposal has some exemptions written into it, those exceptions are qualified in such a way that the vast majority of antique and pre-ban ivory will be ineligible for sale (and even that which does fall under the exemptions will remain ineligible to sale across state lines). In actual effect, this is a ban on almost all sales of pre-ban ivory in the US.
Ironically, the plan has provisions for still allowing the "non-commercial" importation of hunting trophies. While trophy hunting isn't nearly the threat to these species that poaching is (so that the tusks - and rhinoceros horn - can be made into "medicine" so insecure assholes in China can get wood), it's still a source of elephant deaths...which trade in pre-ban ivory is not.
You did look into the specifics of the law before commenting, right?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Whatever it takes to defend the NRA and St LaPierre on all fronts, I guess.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Are so anti gun that they believe it is a good idea to ban 17th century game tables...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Apparently, the NRA lemmings didn't bother to even read the regulation in question before heeding St LaPierre's call to arms. I mean, I get it, when has the NRA ever exaggerated or been wrong about anything before, right?
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/interior-announces-ban-on-commercial-trade-of-ivory-as-part-of-overall-effort-to-combat-poaching-wildlife-trafficking.cfm
Prohibit Commercial Import of African Elephant Ivory: All commercial imports of African elephant ivory, including antiques, will be prohibited.
Prohibit Commercial Export of Elephant Ivory: All commercial exports will be prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, certain noncommercial items, and in exceptional circumstances permitted under the Endangered Species Act.
Significantly Restrict Domestic Resale of Elephant Ivory: We will finalize a proposed rule that will reaffirm and clarify that sales across state lines are prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, and will prohibit sales within a state unless the seller can demonstrate an item was lawfully imported prior to 1990 for African elephants and 1975 for Asian elephants, or under an exemption document.
Clarify the Definition of Antique: To qualify as an antique, an item must be more than 100 years old and meet other requirements under the Endangered Species Act. The onus will now fall on the importer, exporter, or seller to demonstrate that an item meets these criteria.
Restore Endangered Species Act Protection for African Elephants: We will revoke a previous Fish and Wildlife Service special rule that had relaxed Endangered Species Act restrictions on African elephant ivory trade.
Support Limited Sport-hunting of African Elephants: We will limit the number of African elephant sport-hunted trophies that an individual can import to two per hunter per year.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Christies of London, an yes it would be illegal for a US buyer to bring it home. Further there are millions of legally produced items. ..collectables of historical significance not 100 years old.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bet let's keep in mind the real victims here. No, I don't mean endangered species. I mean the 1%ers who can't satisfy their thirst for ivory antiques domestically, and instead bid at Christies in London. LOL. Poor hedge fund managers. Anything for the NRA, I guess.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)I mean, I get that you couldn't care less about endangered species, but can't you think of a better victim than some 1%er who adorns his McMansion with antiques that bids on at London auctions?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)would you say that's a liberal opinion? you might, but almost nobody else would.
and it's factually wrong too. but you said it.
and on issue after issue, you're arguing with liberals and telling them they are wrong here.
i'm not saying you're wrong, i'm just surprised that you won't own it.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Civil rights *can* only be violated by government. ..civics 101 it is...
Banning art, antiquities, and destroying historical artifacts is not liberal, regardless who supports it...
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)And not enough admitting you are wrong, or making your case....lol...
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)You are completely wrong on the very first point you made. Civil rights can only be violated by government. It's a fact, like it or not. Prove otherwise.
oh, and that fact is EXTREMELY liberal. ..
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)when you talk about spending too much time, i think it's a waste of time to come here and argue with stuff i could read on the Daily Caller.
but with certain people, that's what you end up doing.
and with you, the same.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)You are as wrong on these things as on civil rights violation. One at a time.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)funny though, that's not what you've been saying.
and you support passage of hate crime legislation? funny, i'd love to hear about that because that's not what you've been saying.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Responding in the wrong window? One of the many you have open trying to make a case of some sort?
Back to civil rights, once that is settled we can move on to your next piece of damning evidence...lol...
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)or else you'd have to talk about what you think of global climate change (or don't think of it)
or else you'd talk about what you think of the dangers of second hand smoke (or don't think of it)
or what you think of hate crime legislation...
like i said before, when we started talking about the ivory ban, i thought to myself, "i don't come to DU to argue with conservative or NRA talking points..."
if someone is providing them on this topic, and they provide them on a host of topics across the board...
then i know enough to thin it's pointless to discuss with them here.
Yeah, I know if someone is unwilling to admit when they are obviously and demonstrably wrong about one thing, it is a waste of time to discuss other things with them.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)finding that organization associated with something doesn't automatically make it liberal.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 07:16 PM - Edit history (1)
divert and deflect
Oh, and i have met very few ACLU members who aren't liberal and Democrats.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)Instead of using ivory, they can use the bones of children murdered by guns. Always a steady supply of those.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)I can't believe anyone would post such an insensitive comment. Sometimes DU sucks. I'm outa here for awhile.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)The NRA expletives care more about their guns than everything else, especially human life.
Jgarrick
(521 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)anybody in the NRA IMHO is pure shit!
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)It is about banning forever the white keys on pianos and must be stopped!
If the white keys are also black, how will anyone know which notes to play?
I just don't get it. This is an outrage and just another example of the Obama administration taking away our freedoms.
Plus it is obviously also geared to have fewer...well... you know...whites. This multiculturalism must be stopped ! NOW !!
But wait... there are no wild elephants in America..
merrily
(45,251 posts)magnificent to ponder.
Heartbreaking to see what has been happening to all of them, whether it's guns, war, global warming, or other greed-driven things.
Trivial pursuit: In the movie Wall Street, Gorden Gekko was paraphrasing comments made by Ivan Boesky during, of all things, a commencement speech. Like Mr. Gekko, Mr. Boesky was convicted of securities law violations some time after making the speech.
http://www.pophistorydig.com/?tag=greed-is-good-speech
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Turbineguy
(37,331 posts)the NRA is making people extinct too. It's just a question of who gets there first.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 15, 2014, 10:47 AM - Edit history (1)
gun deaths have been steadily declining for 20 years and you think that the NRA is making people extinct?
Turbineguy
(37,331 posts)for replying in a gun thread. And you are right, they are declining. For example, in 1999 there were 28,874 gun deaths and in 2011 the number had declined to 32,163.
That many lives is certainly worth the wonderful freedoms we enjoy from gun ownership. I just have to wonder, how many lives do the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights cost?
hack89
(39,171 posts)perhaps I was to snarky in my reply - I apologize.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)marmar
(77,081 posts)I hate to say I hate anyone, but what I feel for the NRA leadership is something very close to it. ....... Makes you wish we could arm the elephants.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)Bingo, Bango, Bongo!!!
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)catbyte
(34,390 posts)elephants? A despicable organization led by despicable people and has despicable members. Anybody who supports today's NRA doesn't give a shit about people. My dear dad, a cop for 30 years and a Lifetime NRA member, saw the writing on the wall & cancelled his membership a decade ago. He saw where they were headed & hated it. I miss my dad.