If Obama's gun control executive order...

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

All you gun nuts take comfort in knowing that your local gun dealers are making a shit load of money this week in light of this announcement. See? There's always a silver lining.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

can't grow an ar15 in my attic.

can't distill an ak47 in the barn

 

[ogibillm]

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

no, it isn't

 

[Rustic]

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

no, it isn't

Ya, it is.
There's no good reason for firearm registration...
And it's 100% unconstitutional

 

[Flash]

[

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

Also, these stupid Liberals that want background checks forget about the thingy in the Constitution that you are innocent until proven guilty.

A background checks makes you prove you are innocent before being allowed to enjoy a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. How stupid and un American is that?

 

[ogibillm]

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

no, it isn't

Ya, it is.
There's no good reason for firearm registration...
And it's 100% unconstitutional

what are you basing your declaration of unconstitutionality on?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Where does Congress (or the Prez) get the authority to license guns or gun dealers?

The Constitution.

And the president isn't claiming 'authority' to license gun dealers, nor is anyone advocating 'licensing guns.'

Congress has authorized the BATFE to license gun dealers, and the Treasury Department is under the auspices of the Executive branch of government, tasked with enforcing the laws, where the president's EO will provide enforcement guidelines of the laws passed by Congress as authorized to do by the Constitution consistent with the original intent of the Framers.

 

[jon_berzerk]

...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.

first off i believe it is a states issue

other then that i think if one is selling guns as a business

they need an ffl if they are selling traditional firearms

as for profit pretty hard to decide what is profit

i have several firearms that have gone up in value

if a sold any of them i would want market value

 

[jon_berzerk]

...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.

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

they are not allowed to inherit them

they know they are felons and not allowed to have such things

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

can't grow an ar15 in my attic.

can't distill an ak47 in the barn

the ar15s i build in the shop are not required to have a serial number

 

[BluesLegend]

The people have already spoken via their representatives in congress and said no to gun control. Any attempt by Obama to undermine that is breaking his oath of office.

 

[The Rabbi]

The people have already spoken via their representatives in congress and said no to gun control. Any attempt by Obama to undermine that is breaking his oath of office.

His EOs are out. They are howlers. Some of them make current laws easier. Others are unenforceable. Some of them are vague and contradictory.
Typical Obama performance. It is all intent and no result.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The people have already spoken via their representatives in congress and said no to gun control. Any attempt by Obama to undermine that is breaking his oath of office.

when shit like that goes down

the people blame the party for it

democrats in general are going to be hurting over it

 

[ogibillm]

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.

can't grow an ar15 in my attic.

can't distill an ak47 in the barn

the ar15s i build in the shop are not required to have a serial number

they should be. but those made by individuals aren'ta majority of guns

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

can't grow an ar15 in my attic.

can't distill an ak47 in the barn

the ar15s i build in the shop are not required to have a serial number

they should be. but those made by individuals aren'ta majority of guns

--LOL

you do not know what you are talking about

there is not law saying they "should be"

plus why "should " they be

and thousands and thousands of lower billets are sold weekly across this country

all without serial numbers

 

[ogibillm]

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.

can't grow an ar15 in my attic.

can't distill an ak47 in the barn

the ar15s i build in the shop are not required to have a serial number

they should be. but those made by individuals aren'ta majority of guns

--LOL

you do not know what you are talking about

there is not law saying they "should be"

plus why "should " they be

and thousands and thousands of lower billets are sold weekly across this country

all without serial numbers

and my opinion is they should not be. they should have serial numbers and they should be registered. I'm not saying there is a law that requires it.

why would you think i didn't know what i was talking about?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

can't grow an ar15 in my attic.

can't distill an ak47 in the barn

the ar15s i build in the shop are not required to have a serial number

they should be. but those made by individuals aren'ta majority of guns

--LOL

you do not know what you are talking about

there is not law saying they "should be"

plus why "should " they be

and thousands and thousands of lower billets are sold weekly across this country

all without serial numbers

and my opinion is they should not be. they should have serial numbers and they should be registered. I'm not saying there is a law that requires it

registration = confiscation

no deal

 

[ogibillm]

can't grow an ar15 in my attic.

can't distill an ak47 in the barn

the ar15s i build in the shop are not required to have a serial number

they should be. but those made by individuals aren'ta majority of guns

--LOL

you do not know what you are talking about

there is not law saying they "should be"

plus why "should " they be

and thousands and thousands of lower billets are sold weekly across this country

all without serial numbers

and my opinion is they should not be. they should have serial numbers and they should be registered. I'm not saying there is a law that requires it

registration = confiscation

no deal

irrational fear that makes sure more guns end up in the hands of criminals

 

[OldLady]

[

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.

Thanks for explaining, Flash. I've read enough to understand that background checks aren't one of the more effective ways to curb gun violence; I also understand the concern about chiseling away our individual rights. If the filthy ass government isn't allowed to do anything about it, though, how do you propose keeping me safe?

 

[OldLady]

can't grow an ar15 in my attic.

can't distill an ak47 in the barn

the ar15s i build in the shop are not required to have a serial number

they should be. but those made by individuals aren'ta majority of guns

--LOL

you do not know what you are talking about

there is not law saying they "should be"

plus why "should " they be

and thousands and thousands of lower billets are sold weekly across this country

all without serial numbers

and my opinion is they should not be. they should have serial numbers and they should be registered. I'm not saying there is a law that requires it

registration = confiscation

no deal

If there was ever a confiscation of guns from law abiding citizens around here, it would be a Very Ugly Picture. It's not going to happen. Just as no one's firing any shots at the ranchers in the Wildlife Refuge. Remember that LEO's are among the strongest advocates of gun rights. I think some people are using that fear of government interference to stymie attempts for a reasonable solution.