If Obama's gun control executive order...

[Flash]

[Q


which part guarantees the right to sell arms to whomever you like?

The part that says "shall not be infringed".

When the government regulates who can get a firearm then it is infringing upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I don't need permission from the ******* government to enjoy an individual right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. If I do then the Bill of Rights is worthless.

 

[the_human_being]

Actually I oppose any licensing to work. Why on earth should an electrician be required to pay a for a city, a county, and a state license in order to work in order to make a living? Hairdressers and other folks are required to do the same. The only purpose a license serves is to increase the cost of goods and services and to generate revenue for one or more governments who contribute absolutely nothing to the worker or to the consumer other than additional time and expense.

Yea thats the ticket. All you got to do is PRESENT yourself to a customer as an electrician. Dont need no stinkin license.

The fact that the pretend electrician screws up because they didnt know what they were doing and the fact that there was no city or county inspection of the work and the persons house burnt down, why would that be a problem?

You do mean that if there is no reason to license there in no reason to inspect the work. Right?

No. There's absolutely no reason inspections cannot be required without the electrician being required to have to purchase a bunch of licenses. Actually, in many cases, the inspections are not even handled by the city, county, or state but are done by a private inspections company that has absolutely nothing to do with any governmental agency. In reality, it is the electrician's liability insurance that protects the consumer - not any city, county, or local government.

What kind of work do you do? Are you required to purchase a license in order to do your job?

Where I live the county does building trades inspections.

They are really happy when they show up to do an inspection and find poor quality work. And they line up for the chance to train the electrician, plumber, HVAC person. Those country inspectors live to train what are supposedly already trained professionals.

Yea it sucks to be able to sell yourself to a prospective client by assuring the client that you have been not only trained but required by law to pass a test to be licensed.

I can see where you would be dumb enough to want to have work done by someone unlicensed. But for most, the idea of a competent, professional, licensed trades man is a real plus.

Has absolutely nothing to do with requiring the payment of a licensing fee though. Electricians are most often tested to be classified as a journeyman and then tested again to be qualified as a Master Electrician. Even with these tests under his belt, he must still purchase a license in order to go into a business to work for the public. Oftentimes, he must purchase various separate city licenses, county licenses, and even a state license. This is asinine. All it does is raise revenue for all these governments. The electrician must also have liability insurance if he is engaged in a business.

Now, does your auto mechanic have a city license, a county license, and a state license? No he doesn't, yet he works on your brakes, on your steering, etc. Now, if he works in his trade for twenty years and decides to go into business for himself, he will have to purchase al;l these different licenses as well.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Morons who don't give a **** about the Constitution or the rights of American citizens will support it.

which part would be unconstitutional

Any part

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama: Since I suck as a leader and can't get the people's representatives in congress to agree with me on gun control I'm throwing the constitution under the bus and issuing an executive order, **** the people, they are a bunch of racists anyway.

 

[ogibillm]

[Q


which part guarantees the right to sell arms to whomever you like?

The part that says "shall not be infringed".

When the government regulates who can get a firearm then it is infringing upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I don't need permission from the ******* government to enjoy an individual right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. If I do then the Bill of Rights is worthless.

so you're just ignoring all the case law and deciding for yourself what is and is not constitutional.

 

[ogibillm]

Morons who don't give a **** about the Constitution or the rights of American citizens will support it.

which part would be unconstitutional

Any part

that's vague and without thought. par for the course for you.

seriously, what would be unconstitutional about requiring someone that is selling 8 or more guns a year to get a dealer license?
what magic number no longer makes it unconstitutional?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Morons who don't give a **** about the Constitution or the rights of American citizens will support it.

which part would be unconstitutional

Any part

that's vague and without thought. par for the course for you.

seriously, what would be unconstitutional about requiring someone that is selling 8 or more guns a year to get a dealer license?
what magic number no longer makes it unconstitutional?

Supporting an unknown action as exampled in the poll is what's without thought.

 

[ogibillm]

Morons who don't give a **** about the Constitution or the rights of American citizens will support it.

which part would be unconstitutional

Any part

that's vague and without thought. par for the course for you.

seriously, what would be unconstitutional about requiring someone that is selling 8 or more guns a year to get a dealer license?
what magic number no longer makes it unconstitutional?

Supporting an unknown action as exampled in the poll is what's without thought.

he gave a description of the action in the op. if the president were to set a number - and in the op it's at least 8 - that an individual would need to sell in a year before needing a license what part of that would be unconstitutional as you claim?

second, if you did believe we weren't talking about a particular action how were you so able to declare that action unconstitutional?

you dumbass.

 

[Flash]

so you're just ignoring all the case law and deciding for yourself what is and is not constitutional.

History is full of examples where lawyers and judges enable tyranny.

The Bill of Right is pretty damn clear on this. Because we need firearms for the security of the state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When the government starts regulating who can have a firearm and who can't then the right has no meaning. The Bill of Rights is worthless when the ******* government has to give you permission to enjoy an individual right.

Liberals are always confused about things like this. They don't really understand the Bill of Rights. It is protection from the government abusing the individual. When you have to go to the government to get permission for those rights then you really don't have those rights, do you?

 

[ogibillm]

so you're just ignoring all the case law and deciding for yourself what is and is not constitutional.

History is full of examples where lawyers and judges enable tyranny.

The Bill of Right is pretty damn clear on this. Because we need firearms for the security of the state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When the government starts regulating who can have a firearm and who can't then the right has no meaning. The Bill of Rights is worthless when the ******* government has to give you permission to enjoy an individual right.

Liberals are always confused about things like this. They don't really understand the Bill of Rights. It is protection from the government abusing the individual. When you have to go to the government to get permission for those rights then you really don't have those rights, do you?

got it. you know better than the supreme court. see how far that line of thinking gets you.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Morons who don't give a **** about the Constitution or the rights of American citizens will support it.

which part would be unconstitutional

Any part

that's vague and without thought. par for the course for you.

seriously, what would be unconstitutional about requiring someone that is selling 8 or more guns a year to get a dealer license?
what magic number no longer makes it unconstitutional?

Supporting an unknown action as exampled in the poll is what's without thought.

he gave a description of the action in the op. if the president were to set a number - and in the op it's at least 8 - that an individual would need to sell in a year before needing a license what part of that would be unconstitutional as you claim?

second, if you did believe we weren't talking about a particular action how were you so able to declare that action unconstitutional?

you dumbass.

Because Obama's agenda is clear. NOTHING he does or can do would stop any of the recent mass murders or the current rampages going on in black America.
The Constitution is clear when it comes to gun ownership.
If you idiots spent your time on the causes of gun violence instead of guns you could make a difference but you're not smart enough to figure that out.

 

[Flash]

[
got it. you know better than the supreme court. see how far that line of thinking gets you.

Got it. You don't understand what a Bill of Rights is all about.

 

[Flash]

[

Because Obama's agenda is clear. NOTHING he does or can do would stop any of the recent mass murders or the current rampages going on in black America.
The Constitution is clear when it comes to gun ownership.
If you idiots spent your time on the causes of gun violence instead of guns you could make a difference but you're not smart enough to figure that out.

499 murders in Democrat controlled Chicago in 2015 and the Libtards idiots want to take away my ability to transfer a firearm to my law abiding nephew without government permission.

How stupid is that?

 

[ogibillm]

[
got it. you know better than the supreme court. see how far that line of thinking gets you.

Got it. You don't understand what a Bill of Rights is all about.

we can argue that all we want, i'm just trying to keep the conversation grounded in reality. reality says that when there's a legitimate state interest and the restrictions reasonable limitations on rights are not unconstitutional. it's a high bar, but since we're already licensing firearms dealers it's pretty easy to say expanding that requirement would not be unreasonable.

so you can claim you know better than the supreme court, but that claim and a nickel is worth 5 cents.

 

[ogibillm]

which part would be unconstitutional

Any part

that's vague and without thought. par for the course for you.

seriously, what would be unconstitutional about requiring someone that is selling 8 or more guns a year to get a dealer license?
what magic number no longer makes it unconstitutional?

Supporting an unknown action as exampled in the poll is what's without thought.

he gave a description of the action in the op. if the president were to set a number - and in the op it's at least 8 - that an individual would need to sell in a year before needing a license what part of that would be unconstitutional as you claim?

second, if you did believe we weren't talking about a particular action how were you so able to declare that action unconstitutional?

you dumbass.

Because Obama's agenda is clear. NOTHING he does or can do would stop any of the recent mass murders or the current rampages going on in black America.
The Constitution is clear when it comes to gun ownership.
If you idiots spent your time on the causes of gun violence instead of guns you could make a difference but you're not smart enough to figure that out.

so you don't have to read the op or know what you're talking about because you *know* obama, and everything he does is bad, right?

 

[OldLady]

Actually I oppose any licensing to work. Why on earth should an electrician be required to pay a for a city, a county, and a state license in order to work in order to make a living? Hairdressers and other folks are required to do the same. The only purpose a license serves is to increase the cost of goods and services and to generate revenue for one or more governments who contribute absolutely nothing to the worker or to the consumer other than additional time and expense.

public safety?

 

[Flash]

[
got it. you know better than the supreme court. see how far that line of thinking gets you.

Got it. You don't understand what a Bill of Rights is all about.

we can argue that all we want, i'm just trying to keep the conversation grounded in reality. reality says that when there's a legitimate state interest and the restrictions reasonable limitations on rights are not unconstitutional. it's a high bar, but since we're already licensing firearms dealers it's pretty easy to say expanding that requirement would not be unreasonable.

so you can claim you know better than the supreme court, but that claim and a nickel is worth 5 cents.

The reality that I think you fail to understand is that we have allowed our rights to be eroded and that is a bad thing.

Just because case law supports oppression doesn't mean the oppression was right.

This is what the Second Amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

This what the Liberals in this country have allowed the Second Amendment to be distorted to mean:

A well regulated Militia is unsafe and a threat to the government so an individual does not have the right to keep and bear arms without permission from the government.

 

[Missourian]

...is along the lines of "if an individual or business sells more than (a number 8 or higher) firearms per year, that individual must acquire a Federal Firearm License", will you support or oppose it? If you so choose...why?

here is the thing either one is a


1- firearms dealer

2- not a firearms dealer

what if i wanted to give my son all 32 firearms as an inheritance

why should i have to have an ffl

IMO, if you are selling firearms to make a profit...you are a firearms dealer.

Same as with automobiles. If you're selling an old one to get a new one, you don't need a dealers license...but if you sell six cars a year, you're doing it as a business, and need a licence.

According to Missouri law, a motor vehicle dealer is any person who sells, barters, leases, or exchanges six or more motor vehicles in a calendar year, with the intent to make a profit.

Missouri Car Dealer Licensing Requirements | DMV.org
​

I have no issue with requiring this standard for firearm dealers.

---------------------------------

If I was in a situation where I wanted to give my son 32 firearms...I'd just give them to him...no harm, no foul. You are not trying to make a profit, so you wouldn't be covered under the requirement.

 

[easyt65]

WHY don't we actually wait and see what is in the Executive Order before we spin out of control and start declaring what we will do about it? That's what Pelosi said we HAVE to do....

I know...'crazy'.

 

[ogibillm]

...is along the lines of "if an individual or business sells more than (a number 8 or higher) firearms per year, that individual must acquire a Federal Firearm License", will you support or oppose it? If you so choose...why?

here is the thing either one is a


1- firearms dealer

2- not a firearms dealer

what if i wanted to give my son all 32 firearms as an inheritance

why should i have to have an ffl

IMO, if you are selling firearms to make a profit...you are a firearms dealer.

Same as with automobiles. If you're selling an old one to get a new one, you don't need a dealers license...but if you sell six cars a year, you're doing it as a business, and need a licence.

According to Missouri law, a motor vehicle dealer is any person who sells, barters, leases, or exchanges six or more motor vehicles in a calendar year, with the intent to make a profit.

Missouri Car Dealer Licensing Requirements | DMV.org
​

I have no issue with requiring this standard for firearm dealers.

---------------------------------

If I was in a situation where I wanted to give my son 32 firearms...I'd just give them to him...no harm, no foul. Who's to know they weren't always his?

Here's a question for you - why shouldn't a beneficiary be required to undergo a background check to inherit that many weapons?