Executive Action

[gmajor]

The small impact this executive action makes is aimed at reducing the number of for-profit dealers who avoid running background checks. The individual or entity has to be shown to be engaged in the business of profit-driven firearm sales. The devil will be in the details of demonstrating this, of course, but I'm not wearing tin-foil and I don't believe private sellers will be impacted unless, well, they're selling enough firearms that they look like a business (we will see how it's spelled out). At that point, I'm A-OK with the background check requirement. Just my 2-cents. I've passed a background check for every gun I've ever purchased.

 

[8nbait]

Laws only affect those willing to abide by them, criminals by definition do not. Punishing law abiding citizens does nothing to stop criminals.

The best argument I hear is "we wouldn't have this problem in our state if our neighbor state had gun laws as tough as ours" This makes no sense because the state with the "loose" gun laws doesn't have a problem, the problem is in the state with the "tough" gun laws.

All I can say to the liberals is don't expect me to defend you with my guns when the time comes, you just fend for yourself and I will save my ammo for people who deserve defending.

 

[Ironman8]

The small impact this executive action makes is aimed at reducing the number of for-profit dealers who avoid running background checks. The individual or entity has to be shown to be engaged in the business of profit-driven firearm sales. The devil will be in the details of demonstrating this, of course, but I'm not wearing tin-foil and I don't believe private sellers will be impacted unless, well, they're selling enough firearms that they look like a business (we will see how it's spelled out). At that point, I'm A-OK with the background check requirement. Just my 2-cents. I've passed a background check for every gun I've ever purchased.

The problem is, they haven't really defined what is or isn't the "business" of firearm sales...which tells me it's up for interpretation. If they're going to make a law, it needs to be defined.

I would hope that it's as easy as showing that you're not making a profit. I know I personally haven't made a profit on anything I've ever sold second-hand, whether that's firearms, accessories, or camping gear. It's usually a 20-30% loss actually...and that wouldn't be good for business

 

[jmez]

If they're going to make a law, it needs to be CLEARLY defined.

Fixed that for you.

 

[gmajor]

The problem is, they haven't really defined what is or isn't the "business" of firearm sales...which tells me it's up for interpretation. If they're going to make a law, it needs to be defined.

I would hope that it's as easy as showing that you're not making a profit. I know I personally haven't made a profit on anything I've ever sold second-hand, whether that's firearms, accessories, or camping gear. It's usually a 20-30% loss actually...and that wouldn't be good for business

Exactly, which is why I said "The devil will be in the details of demonstrating this, of course" and "we will see how it's spelled out". I am operating under the assumption that it won't be an authoritarian plot, but that specific thresholds will be elucidated in short order.

I hear you on those gear-sale financial losses haha!

 

[Ironman8]

Fixed that for you.

Agreed!

 

[Ironman8]

Exactly, which is why I said "The devil will be in the details of demonstrating this, of course" and "we will see how it's spelled out". I am operating under the assumption that it won't be an authoritarian plot, but that specific thresholds will be elucidated in short order.

I hear you on those gear-sale financial losses haha!

My bad, I wasn't really disagreeing with you for the record.

 

[gmajor]

My bad, I wasn't really disagreeing with you for the record.

No worries compadre

 

[bogeyboy555]

The right to own something, and the need to own something are two completely different ideologies. The constitution was written when people were shoving lead balls and black powder down the barrel of a 40 inch musket. Do people really think that applies to this day where there are semi-automatic weapons?

On the other side - Background checks, tightening control measures, executive orders from our elected officials, etc - are all actions that are NOT derived from conclusive data to support either side of the argument. There was a really good write-up about this in the Washington Post in early December. In my opinion, there isn't really a good answer to the gun control law - so thats why we vote. I will say that I personally don't see the need for anyone outside of law enforcement to possess an assault rifle/semi-automatic weapon. And citing that "it's your right" is an ignorant misinterpretation of our constitution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/08/how-to-argue-about-gun-control/

 

[jmez]

Guns are tools, plain and simple. I agree guns are not the cause of these issues, they just make it much easier for some jackass to kill lots of people really fast. Mental health, lack of empathy, etc need to be addressed. The how is the question we need to ask ourselves.

When my kids have an issue, I don't tell them to stand their ground no matter what. I tell them to work it out. Sometimes that means compromise.

They make it easier to a point. If you magically took them away tomorrow those hell bent on inflicting pain and suffering would find a way. Driving a car into a crowded sidewalk on the Vegas Strip for example. Jihadist inflict all sorts of hell with IED's. As long as there are humans on this planet there is going to be evil. Period, you will never eliminate that. They will find a way to inflict their wrath. It is a consequence of walking this planet. Doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye and doesn't mean that it should be accepted but it will always be there.

Gun violence and mass killings are two different issues. If you do some research, mass killings in this country are actually on the decline and have been for many, many years. They are much more publicized nowadays is all. I also think the mass shooting type situations are the ones that are really not easy to control. Those people are inherently evil at their core. Short of recognizing this at a young age and locking them up forever these acts will never be prevented. When you live in a country that supposedly, and I say that loosely, believes in individual freedom and liberty then that is not feasible. It becomes a consequence of the society in which you live.

If you want to address straight gun violence then you are going to have to have an honest discussion about race, the inherent differences between different races and different cultures. That, is never, ever going to happen. Ever.

 

[jmez]

The right to own something, and the need to own something are two completely different ideologies. The constitution was written when people were shoving lead balls and black powder down the barrel of a 40 inch musket. Do people really think that applies to this day where there are semi-automatic weapons?

Then it would also be fair to say that freedom or speech and freedom of expression was written in a time where people were getting their news by word of mouth. A time when if something bad happened in a town, say, 15 miles from where you lived, it could take up to a year or more for anyone to get that news. Often times you would never even get any news. The founding father's surely were not thinking of a society where mass communication was instantly at your fingertips with the stroke of a key. Do these freedom's that we enjoy really apply in the internet age?

 

[Dos Perros]

The right to own something, and the need to own something are two completely different ideologies. The constitution was written when people were shoving lead balls and black powder down the barrel of a 40 inch musket. Do people really think that applies to this day where there are semi-automatic weapons?

On the other side - Background checks, tightening control measures, executive orders from our elected officials, etc - are all actions that are NOT derived from conclusive data to support either side of the argument. There was a really good write-up about this in the Washington Post in early December. In my opinion, there isn't really a good answer to the gun control law - so thats why we vote. I will say that I personally don't see the need for anyone outside of law enforcement to possess an assault rifle/semi-automatic weapon. And citing that "it's your right" is an ignorant misinterpretation of our constitution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/08/how-to-argue-about-gun-control/

Misinterpration? According to whom? There is a good bit of documentation of the historical relevance of insurrection theory with respect to the founding fathers.

 

[Shrek]

Stuffing lead balls down the front of a musket was cutting edge weapon of the time and the instrument used to subjugate the colonies. The whole point is to make the people capable of resisting authority and ensure governments by consent. If fully auto arms , full body armor , BC suits , ect are what is needed to keep the average citizen on par with the state then it should be legal. Governing is now something done to the people not with the people in the United States. Managed choice at the ballot box and electronic voting and counting the votes has mostly erased consensual governing.

 

[tipsntails7]

Driving a vehicle is a privilege. Owning a firearm is a constitutionally protected right. BIG difference.

Should we also be licensed to exercise "free speech?"

Owning one may be but is buying one? Keep and bear? Doesn't mean purchase.

I don't support it and the borrowing of a buddies rifle could turn into a real shit storm if not careful, which is to bad

 

[NEhunter]

Stuffing lead balls down the front of a musket was cutting edge weapon of the time and the instrument used to subjugate the colonies. The whole point is to make the people capable of resisting authority and ensure governments by consent. If fully auto arms , full body armor , BC suits , ect are what is needed to keep the average citizen on par with the state then it should be legal. Governing is now something done to the people not with the people in the United States. Managed choice at the ballot box and electronic voting and counting the votes has mostly erased consensual governing.

Yes sir! Some get it.

 

[tipsntails7]

The right to own something, and the need to own something are two completely different ideologies. The constitution was written when people were shoving lead balls and black powder down the barrel of a 40 inch musket. Do people really think that applies to this day where there are semi-automatic weapons?

On the other side - Background checks, tightening control measures, executive orders from our elected officials, etc - are all actions that are NOT derived from conclusive data to support either side of the argument. There was a really good write-up about this in the Washington Post in early December. In my opinion, there isn't really a good answer to the gun control law - so thats why we vote. I will say that I personally don't see the need for anyone outside of law enforcement to possess an assault rifle/semi-automatic weapon. And citing that "it's your right" is an ignorant misinterpretation of our constitution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/08/how-to-argue-about-gun-control/

So I cannot own any handgun besides a revolver? Or any of the numerous rifles that are semi auto that are not black
it's a slippery slope when you start deciding what people "Need" and what people "want"

 

[5MilesBack]

Fighter Jets? JDAMS? Daisy Cutters? Nukes?

Yes, you're finally getting it. We should have the right to own and possess whatever the military has at its disposal. How else could we expect to overcome a tyrannical government, which is exactly why the 2nd Amendment is in there. So anything and everything that the U.S. and state governments have done to restrict our rights to these weapons, is an infringement........which is strictly addressed by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[5MilesBack]

Mental health, lack of empathy, etc need to be addressed. The how is the question we need to ask ourselves.

There are some 350 million people in this country. If you put mental health people and just those that commit violent crime in the U.S. as only 1% of that population, that's still 3.5 million people. Yet I'm willing to bet that there is even a greater percentage of whacko's in the country which makes it impossible to predict or prevent every one of these people from doing something bad to someone else.

Bad people have been doing bad things since the beginning of time. If anyone thinks we can do anything to prevent this before it happens, they are smoking the ghanja. Bottom line.......there's only one thing we can do. That is arm ourselves everywhere we go, and be ready to use deadly force if need be to shut these actions down immediately when they rear their ugly head. The government could completely ban guns and do a full confiscation and we'd still have violent offenders out there doing bad things to people. Even addressing gun control measures is completely ignoring the problem. We don't need less people with guns, we need more people with guns and training for them on how to use them. Stop the perps in their tracks immediately instead of watching people die and then waiting for the first responders to show up several minutes later so they can take witness statements.

 

[1hoda]

I'll only add these brief comments to the excellent posts by 5MilesBack and jmden.

One must never lose sight of what the ultimate liberal ambition is - control of every aspect of your life. The US Constitution is such a nuisance to a liberal because it limits the bounds of government. This document is so powerful because it affirms what men have wanted since the beginning of civilization - to be free. Make no mistake, this issue is not about guns it's about control.

 

[jmden]

It certainly is far from amusing, in these kinds of conversations, to realize once again how indoctrinated we are by popular culture--even some folks on this site, who you think you'd agree largely with on this kind of issue.

Not saying this is true for all, but if you have gotten your most of your information only from public schools and from what is a largely very liberal media machine, you virtually don't stand a chance of truly critical, independent thought as often a genuine and deep understanding of the opposite point of view has never been researched and contemplated. There's a large segment of our population that fits this description...but don't tell them that!