If Obama's gun control executive order...

[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.

public safety?

What does buying a license or buying multiple licenses have to do with public safety?

 

[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. 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?

Why should they?

It is the fathers property. The father knows the son far better than any government agency does. The father isn't making a profit, so there is no way he could be in any way construed as a dealer. The son likely had access to the firearms whenever he wanted anyway. And what difference does it make...1 or 32? The number, to my way of thinking, is pretty irrelevant.

Now, your turn...why should a son have to go through a background check to inherit his fathers guns, when he has likely had access to them whenever he wanted while they were still owned by the father?

 

[OldLady]

[
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.

I think all you folks realize that background checks are intended to keep guns from dangerous hands. It doesn't necessarily work, but closing the loopholes has the same intention. You can argue constitutional law all you like, but the fact is, with rights come responsibilities. I'd like someone to think about the safety of the more than 60% of American households that choose not to own/use guns. Being one of that number, I'd like to see someone do something to keep guns out of the hands of crazies and criminals--so I don't get shot. Republicans/conservatives don't want to do anything but scream about their freedoms and say no to any proposals that would make the public safer. Background checks may be a lame gesture with little effect, but it's more than I hear from those people deflecting the argument toward constitutional rights.

 

[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?

Why should they?

It is the fathers property. The father knows the son far better than any government agency does. The father isn't making a profit, so there is no way he could be in any way construed as a dealer. The son likely had access to the firearms whenever he wanted anyway. And what difference does it make...1 or 32? The number, to my way of thinking, is pretty irrelevant.

Now, your turn...why should a son have to go through a background check to inherit his fathers guns, when he has likely had access to them whenever he wanted while they were still owned by the father?

well i would just say that if it's illegal for someone to buy a gun it should be illegal for them to inherit a gun.

the father may know the son best, but that doesn't mean the father has good judgment.

 

[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?

What does buying a license or buying multiple licenses have to do with public safety?

I think you answered that question in your later post. You know what it has to do with public safety, same as I do.

 

[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.

public safety?

What does buying a license or buying multiple licenses have to do with public safety?

I think you answered that question in your later post. You know what it has to do with public safety, same as I do.

Yes, absolutely nothing.

 

[Fueri]

I oppose it. Not because I have issues with requiring licensing or background checks. If those measures moved through proper legislative channels and cleared the court, fine.

This executive order garbage, however, I do oppose on major legislative issues. That's a mighty slippery slope we're wandering down when the prez can just wave his pen at whatever he decides.

 

[OldLady]

Can anyone explain why, according to polls, 90% or so of Americans, including Republicans, agree with closing the background check loopholes, but Congress who represents us won't agree to it?

 

[PredFan]

He's the one person in government offering more than thoughts and prayers.

Politically, it's a smart bomb for the GOP designed to put Rubio, Christie, and Bush on the record about just how much of the NRA Kool Aid they are ready to consume.

He's not even in the contest this year and he's basically kicked ever GOP presidential candidate in the nuts. Surely there are those who will live and die being the exact opposite of whatever posture he assumes. These are not serious candidates. Those that are serious and realize that compromises are the way to move forward will have to come down on one side or another.

Hopefully you yokels let it help split your party in two.

Look at the moron spin!

Not one single candidate has supported Obama's illegal action. So much for your split.

Wow, look at junior trying to sound tough.

Splitting the GOP from the mainstream has just happened....

Being on the wrong side of an issue is enough. The split comes when independents (90% of All Americans favor more stringent background checks) are constantly reminded in the Fall of the GOP nominee's intransigence on an issue that is front-page news and touches most Americans because they know that tomorrow, it could be them in a situation at the school, synagogue, pilates class or at the gym.

Here is Obama offering more than "thoughts and prayers" and the GOP candidates can't oppose it fast enough....

Classic political mastery by someone whose clearly better than the clown car. Obama knows that nobody will go withing 10 lightyears of pissing off the NRA and the gun nuts so he forces them to take a 10% position....hence the kick in the nuts to every GOP "opponent" who has just drove a nail into their own coffins.

I know this is too sophisticated a view for you to understand. After all it's not a coloring book or sitcom or reality TV or a tractor pull. You'll find out later on when there is thin cross-over support for whomever you guys finally harness with the GOP nomination...

All too easy.

It's an illegal action, you are trying to spin it into a positive.

what are you basing that opinion on?

Really? If you have to ask that, you aren't worth discussing with.

 

[Flash]

[

I think all you folks realize that background checks are intended to keep guns from dangerous hands. It doesn't necessarily work, but closing the loopholes has the same intention. You can argue constitutional law all you like, but the fact is, with rights come responsibilities. I'd like someone to think about the safety of the more than 60% of American households that choose not to own/use guns. Being one of that number, I'd like to see someone do something to keep guns out of the hands of crazies and criminals--so I don't get shot. Republicans/conservatives don't want to do anything but scream about their freedoms and say no to any proposals that would make the public safer. Background checks may be a lame gesture with little effect, but it's more than I hear from those people deflecting the argument toward constitutional rights.

We could have reasonable gun control laws if we had reasonable people running the government but we don't.

What we have are idiots that don't know the meaning of the word reasonable.

For instance, the SAFE Act was passed in New York and was sold as a "reasonable" gun control law. Within a couple of weeks of passage a decorated veteran was arrested for having two unloaded standard capacity AR magazines in his car. How reasonable is that?

A few months later a veteran went to see his doctor about insomnia. Under the SAFE Act the doctor reported that to the government and the thugs came to his house and confiscated his firearms. How reasonable is that?

Recently a man from North Carolina was traveling north to visit relatives in Maine. He went through New York and got pulled over by the police for a minor traffic infraction. The police found a gun in his car and arrested him. The gun was legal to have in his home state and the state he was traveling to. How reasonable is that?

There are many other examples.

Liberals cannot be trusted to define reasonable because they are never reasonable. You may be naive and trust the government with your Constitutional rights but I don't. The government is managed by corrupt power hungry politicians that are elected by special interest groups and don't give a crap about your rights.

Once we give the filthy ass government the ability to veto who gets a firearm then we are giving up the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and that is what the government is not suppose to be able to touch. In other words the Bill of Rights is is not worth the paper it is written on.

The other problem with stupid background checks is that you have to prove to the government that you are innocent before being allowed to enjoy a right protected under the Constitution. What other right has that requirement? What about the basic concept of innocent until proven guilty? Background checks makes you guilty until proven innocent.

You are never going to be safer with background checks because they do nothing to stop crime but you will have your Constitutional rights taken away from you.

 

[Flash]

[

well i would just say that if it's illegal for someone to buy a gun it should be illegal for them to inherit a gun.

the father may know the son best, but that doesn't mean the father has good judgment.

I asked you this question and you didn't give an answer.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? That is always a difficult concept for Liberals to comprehend.

Just because you are afraid of firearms doesn't mean that the Bill of Rights is invalid.

The Bill of Rights states very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary for the security of a free state so who are you to say who get a firearm and who doesn't?

If you were really concerned about safety you would be demanding that the Democrat leadership of Chicago be removed because of the 499 homicides last year.

Go work on that instead of making stupid comment about doing away with the Bill of Rights.

 

[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. 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?

Why should they?

It is the fathers property. The father knows the son far better than any government agency does. The father isn't making a profit, so there is no way he could be in any way construed as a dealer. The son likely had access to the firearms whenever he wanted anyway. And what difference does it make...1 or 32? The number, to my way of thinking, is pretty irrelevant.

Now, your turn...why should a son have to go through a background check to inherit his fathers guns, when he has likely had access to them whenever he wanted while they were still owned by the father?

well i would just say that if it's illegal for someone to buy a gun it should be illegal for them to inherit a gun.

the father may know the son best, but that doesn't mean the father has good judgment.

What public safety interest is served? If the son already has, and has had unfettered access to the fathers firearms for 40 years...what could happen that couldn't already have happened?

This is why I oppose most gun control. Logic has no part in it. Gun controllers want registration...to lead to confiscation.

Why else would you push for something so idiotic and illogical as this?

 

[ogibillm]

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?

Why should they?

It is the fathers property. The father knows the son far better than any government agency does. The father isn't making a profit, so there is no way he could be in any way construed as a dealer. The son likely had access to the firearms whenever he wanted anyway. And what difference does it make...1 or 32? The number, to my way of thinking, is pretty irrelevant.

Now, your turn...why should a son have to go through a background check to inherit his fathers guns, when he has likely had access to them whenever he wanted while they were still owned by the father?

well i would just say that if it's illegal for someone to buy a gun it should be illegal for them to inherit a gun.

the father may know the son best, but that doesn't mean the father has good judgment.

What public safety interest is served? If the son already has, and has had unfettered access to the fathers firearms for 40 years...what could happen that couldn't already have happened?

First, I don't live with or near my father. Surely I'm not the only one like that. Assuming someone inheriting firearms already had access to them is not logical.

But I'll ask, why should someone deemed too dangerous to purchase a firearm be allowed to inherit the gun?

And I do want registration. I want to know what gun was sold to whom so that the gun control measures we put into place are more effective

 

[Missourian]

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?

Why should they?

It is the fathers property. The father knows the son far better than any government agency does. The father isn't making a profit, so there is no way he could be in any way construed as a dealer. The son likely had access to the firearms whenever he wanted anyway. And what difference does it make...1 or 32? The number, to my way of thinking, is pretty irrelevant.

Now, your turn...why should a son have to go through a background check to inherit his fathers guns, when he has likely had access to them whenever he wanted while they were still owned by the father?

well i would just say that if it's illegal for someone to buy a gun it should be illegal for them to inherit a gun.

the father may know the son best, but that doesn't mean the father has good judgment.

What public safety interest is served? If the son already has, and has had unfettered access to the fathers firearms for 40 years...what could happen that couldn't already have happened?

First, I don't live with or near my father. Surely I'm not the only one like that. Assuming someone inheriting firearms already had access to them is not logical.

But I'll ask, why should someone deemed too dangerous to purchase a firearm be allowed to inherit the gun?

And I do want registration. I want to know what gun was sold to whom so that the gun control measures we put into place are more effective

And I live nowhere near my father...but I have unfettered access to his firearms, and he to mine.

This is where it all falls down. If the son is too dangerous to purchase a firearm, it would be a crime for the father to give the firearms to the son...so we've already got that covered.

Finally...there will never be registration in your lifetime...rest assured. So get used to disappointment.

 

[ogibillm]

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

Why should they?

It is the fathers property. The father knows the son far better than any government agency does. The father isn't making a profit, so there is no way he could be in any way construed as a dealer. The son likely had access to the firearms whenever he wanted anyway. And what difference does it make...1 or 32? The number, to my way of thinking, is pretty irrelevant.

Now, your turn...why should a son have to go through a background check to inherit his fathers guns, when he has likely had access to them whenever he wanted while they were still owned by the father?

well i would just say that if it's illegal for someone to buy a gun it should be illegal for them to inherit a gun.

the father may know the son best, but that doesn't mean the father has good judgment.

What public safety interest is served? If the son already has, and has had unfettered access to the fathers firearms for 40 years...what could happen that couldn't already have happened?

First, I don't live with or near my father. Surely I'm not the only one like that. Assuming someone inheriting firearms already had access to them is not logical.

But I'll ask, why should someone deemed too dangerous to purchase a firearm be allowed to inherit the gun?

And I do want registration. I want to know what gun was sold to whom so that the gun control measures we put into place are more effective

And I live nowhere near my father...but I have unfettered access to his firearms, and he to mine.

This is where it all falls down. If the son is too dangerous to purchase a firearm, it would be a crime for the father to give the firearms to the son...so we've already got that covered.

Finally...there will never be registration in your lifetime...rest assured. So get used to disappointment.

the father would be dead, so what would he care?

it is disappointing. the most obvious and possibly most effective step we could take to curb gun violence won't happen over illogical fears of 'confiscation'

 

[Rustic]

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?

Why should they?

It is the fathers property. The father knows the son far better than any government agency does. The father isn't making a profit, so there is no way he could be in any way construed as a dealer. The son likely had access to the firearms whenever he wanted anyway. And what difference does it make...1 or 32? The number, to my way of thinking, is pretty irrelevant.

Now, your turn...why should a son have to go through a background check to inherit his fathers guns, when he has likely had access to them whenever he wanted while they were still owned by the father?

well i would just say that if it's illegal for someone to buy a gun it should be illegal for them to inherit a gun.

the father may know the son best, but that doesn't mean the father has good judgment.

What public safety interest is served? If the son already has, and has had unfettered access to the fathers firearms for 40 years...what could happen that couldn't already have happened?

First, I don't live with or near my father. Surely I'm not the only one like that. Assuming someone inheriting firearms already had access to them is not logical.

But I'll ask, why should someone deemed too dangerous to purchase a firearm be allowed to inherit the gun?

And I do want registration. I want to know what gun was sold to whom so that the gun control measures we put into place are more effective

Firearm registration is absolutely 100% unconstitutional. It will do nothing to solve anything except alienate and take Away peoples rights.

 

[Missourian]

Why should they?

It is the fathers property. The father knows the son far better than any government agency does. The father isn't making a profit, so there is no way he could be in any way construed as a dealer. The son likely had access to the firearms whenever he wanted anyway. And what difference does it make...1 or 32? The number, to my way of thinking, is pretty irrelevant.

Now, your turn...why should a son have to go through a background check to inherit his fathers guns, when he has likely had access to them whenever he wanted while they were still owned by the father?

well i would just say that if it's illegal for someone to buy a gun it should be illegal for them to inherit a gun.

the father may know the son best, but that doesn't mean the father has good judgment.

What public safety interest is served? If the son already has, and has had unfettered access to the fathers firearms for 40 years...what could happen that couldn't already have happened?

First, I don't live with or near my father. Surely I'm not the only one like that. Assuming someone inheriting firearms already had access to them is not logical.

But I'll ask, why should someone deemed too dangerous to purchase a firearm be allowed to inherit the gun?

And I do want registration. I want to know what gun was sold to whom so that the gun control measures we put into place are more effective

And I live nowhere near my father...but I have unfettered access to his firearms, and he to mine.

This is where it all falls down. If the son is too dangerous to purchase a firearm, it would be a crime for the father to give the firearms to the son...so we've already got that covered.

Finally...there will never be registration in your lifetime...rest assured. So get used to disappointment.

the father would be dead, so what would he care?

it is disappointing. the most obvious and possibly most effective step we could take to curb gun violence won't happen over illogical fears of 'confiscation'

Registration won't curb gun violence anymore than prohibition curbed alcoholism and the war on drugs curbed drug abuse.

 

[Rustic]

well i would just say that if it's illegal for someone to buy a gun it should be illegal for them to inherit a gun.

the father may know the son best, but that doesn't mean the father has good judgment.

What public safety interest is served? If the son already has, and has had unfettered access to the fathers firearms for 40 years...what could happen that couldn't already have happened?

First, I don't live with or near my father. Surely I'm not the only one like that. Assuming someone inheriting firearms already had access to them is not logical.

But I'll ask, why should someone deemed too dangerous to purchase a firearm be allowed to inherit the gun?

And I do want registration. I want to know what gun was sold to whom so that the gun control measures we put into place are more effective

And I live nowhere near my father...but I have unfettered access to his firearms, and he to mine.

This is where it all falls down. If the son is too dangerous to purchase a firearm, it would be a crime for the father to give the firearms to the son...so we've already got that covered.

Finally...there will never be registration in your lifetime...rest assured. So get used to disappointment.

the father would be dead, so what would he care?

it is disappointing. the most obvious and possibly most effective step we could take to curb gun violence won't happen over illogical fears of 'confiscation'

Registration won't curb gun violence anymore than prohibition curbed alcoholism and the war on drugs curbed drug abuse.

...and firearm registration is absolutely 100% unconstitutional

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

He can't legally make such a decree via Executive Order

And why can't he? Don't let two Ivy League-educated lawyers get in the way of your thinking.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The sonofabitch doesn't have the authority to circumvent the Bill of Rights or Congress.

He is operating outside the laws. He needs to be treated as a criminal tyrant.

Those like Hillary Clinton that support his agenda need to be held accountable.

Settle down, Sparky. He's not going to take your toys away, he's just going to make it harder for batshit crazy bastards to get one.