Here Comes the Executive Order on Background Checks

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not following. There is no such proposal cited.

I think he's referring to McGrease's post up thread.

 

[actaeon277]

I agree with Kirk - this is far more pomp than circumstance.

I do see a FFL 01 in my future, however.

But, some of the problem we have with it, is that it's in addition to the thousands of other restrictions.

 

[dwh79]

I read it as saying as few as one or two transactions and the sale of two guns could say you need a FFL so it seems to be very open to interpretation on what will constitute a need for a FFL. It is so vague and no protection is in it to keep the ATF from going after any private sale if they want. You may or may not win in court but it will cost you legal fees so you have to decide is that cost worth it to you.

 

[bwframe]

All congress has to do is not fund it, correct?

In theory, but we have learned that congress doesn't have the balls to say no to Barry.

This'll be a good test for "our man" Paul Ryan. Might actually be a good thing to see where we stand with him.

I do see a FFL 01 in my future, however.

Doesn't your FFL mean you are signing off on government property searches?


...

 

[cobber]

I agree with Kirk - this is far more pomp than circumstance.

I do see a FFL 01 in my future, however.

I dunno. ATF paying visits. And then zoning rears its ugly head. Sounds like a royal PITA.

 

[churchmouse]

But, some of the problem we have with it, is that it's in addition to the thousands of other restrictions.

A snall nail but another nail all the same. Erode the edges, weaken the structure and soon enough it will fall through.

 

[Ricnzak]

Obama Executive Order on Guns

This article makes mention of prohibiting certain ssn numbers from buying a gun. Any insight to what this is about?

Just looked at that again. It is certain social security recipients. Mental health???

 

[KG1]

Obama Executive Order on Guns

This article makes mention of prohibiting certain ssn numbers from buying a gun. Any insight to what this is about?

Just looked at that again. It is certain social security recipients. Mental health???

This link that was in the article leads to another article that explains it.

Social Security Admits Plan to Add Recipients to Gun Background Check System - Washington Free Beacon

 

[KG1]

The question was asked before what kind of criteria might put you into the infamous "in the business" category. Here's some of the things they came up with from the article explained by one of my least favorite individuals. Valerie Jarrett.

Obama Executive Order on Guns

“ATF will make clear that whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ depends on the facts and circumstances,” Jarrett said. “On factors such as: whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card statements. Whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”

They also stated that they did'nt wanna put a number on sales because that would limit their ability to prosecute. So then they said it could be as few as one or two.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I remember when the seat belt law came into effect, we were told they couldn't ticket you for that alone.
This is a wedge.

 

[cbhausen]

I save the boxes my guns come in. They can go to hell.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I save the boxes my guns come in. They can go to hell.

As far as I am concerned, they can go to hell whether I save any boxes or not!

 

[Caleb]

Jesus am I the only one who's not gotten a free cheeseburger?

I've been waiting since 2008, still no bacon cheese burger...

 

[KG1]

As far as I am concerned, they can go to hell whether I save any boxes or not!

This.

 

[BogWalker]

I sell boxes, but right now I'm having a sale. Buy a box for $399, get a gun free!

 

[IndyDave1776]

I sell boxes, but right now I'm having a sale. Buy a box for $399, get a gun free!

 

[KG1]

I sell boxes, but right now I'm having a sale. Buy a box for $399, get a gun free!

You have to get a background check for that box.

 

[GIJEW]

Lots of us are what I refer to as litmus test voters. A candidate has to be solid in one particular area before we will even start looking at the other positions he/she takes. Certainly for me the RKBA is the first litmus test they have to get past. But even then for me, a guy like Bernie (before running for POTUS), would be unacceptable. Even though, he was apparently pro-gun previously. His additional positions would kill it for me. I couldn't support a gun loving communist, socialist, fascist, etc. Apparently some people's litmus test is to have some sort of legal preferences for homosexuals and that is it. Now that is a single issue voter. As long as you are solidly for that one category, nothing else he says or does will dissuade you.

I kind fell of out of a nest of lefties and became a 1 issue voter because the 2A has correctly been called the "canary in the coal mine". The founding generation endured all kinds of tyrannical behavior and responded with legal appeals or boycotts. They only took up arms over being disarmed because after that they would have been helpless to either protect themselves OR cause any political change the crown disapproved of. Common knowledge here.
I can see having concentric circles of concern, prioritizing political/social issues and comprising on some to find some concensus but only to a point. The Bill of Rights is a list of out-of-bounds-markers on gov't authority, not a list of priviledges they might--or might not--condescend to grant us, and the 2A is there to protect the others. If we're going to remain a republic instead of a socialist democracy where the state tells us what to do in the name of some "common good" defined by them, the 2A has to remain not just a "red line" but a "3rd rail" that the pols will fear touching.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I kind fell of out of a nest of lefties and became a 1 issue voter because the 2A has correctly been called the "canary in the coal mine". The founding generation endured all kinds of tyrannical behavior and responded with legal appeals or boycotts. They only took up arms over being disarmed because after that they would have been helpless to either protect themselves OR cause any political change the crown disapproved of. Common knowledge here.
I can see having concentric circles of concern, prioritizing political/social issues and comprising on some to find some concensus but only to a point. The Bill of Rights is a list of out-of-bounds-markers on gov't authority, not a list of priviledges they might--or might not--condescend to grant us, and the 2A is there to protect the others. If we're going to remain a republic instead of a socialist democracy where the state tells us what to do in the name of some "common good" defined by them, the 2A has to remain not just a "red line" but a "3rd rail" that the pols will fear touching.

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

.

 

[GIJEW]

You have asked a big question that takes in a lot of territory, but addressing the cultural issues...

1. Abortion is probably at the top of the list. It turns entirely on one's beliefs, but the left's beliefs on the critical point are just as religious as the right's, specifically the question of whether an unborn child is or is not a separate and distinct human life. For those of us who believe it is (and the other side's belief that it is not are not any more 'objective' than mine other than in their own imaginations), agreeing to tolerate murder of the most innocent for the sole offense of being inconvenient to the irresponsible is absolutely unacceptable and not subject to compromise.

2. Many aspects of the cultural fight are not about being treated equally so much as dealing with the push for legislatively mandated affirmation. Case in point, those pushing for gay marriage completely lost my sympathy at one critical point. The compromise solution of a civil union was not good enough for them, and nothing not involving the word 'marriage' was acceptable. This told me a couple of things. First, we are back to 'compromise' being defined as the left settling for less than everything on the bucket list right now while giving up nothing. Second, as evidenced by the mischief done with the words 'infringe', 'regulate', and 'reasonable', it has been proven that allowing government to redefine language is a dangerous thing in general, and marriage has never before in world history been applied to a homosexual relationship. Third, if equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities are NOT enough, that brings us back to having an agenda legislatively and/or judicially shoved down the throats of the unwilling. The law should not be a tool of propaganda and thought control which is the only thing left after equal rights. Fourth, if being equal isn't enough, one can only suppose that being more than equal is the actual goal in ways exceeding legislatively mandated affirmation of something that many of us will never affirm as right and proper.

3. I would include environmentalism as a cultural issue in addition to being a practical one. I do not support trashing the place, but then again, I do not support being legislated into the stone age. The unfortunate truth is that as of the present the environmental issue is being driven culturally rather than by fact. If one considers historical weather/climate conditions and the natural phenomena which heavily impact them, it seems pretty clear that in terms of 'global warming' or 'climate change' as is now fashionable in the absence of warming to be found, the issue is political control and money. Unfortunately, there are far too many people being led around by their noses in fear of destroying the planet out from under themselves, and they consider it blasphemous to question the manipulators who are doing so. Sorry, but I am not willing to have my life dictated by someone else's irrational fears.

4. You should also consider that gun rights ARE A HUGE PART OF THE CULTURE WAR. Asking someone why he won't jettison the cultural issue just doesn't make sense. The entire issue turns on truncating a constitutional right in deference to the irrational fears of a certain voting bloc which, in turn, is fostered by politicians who clearly understand the Second Amendment and the reason it was included in the Constitution--which does not bode well for some of their aspirations if they can't get rid of it. Let me remind you that if an enumerated constitutional right can be either eliminated or ignored as legislation contrary to that right is passed, any contrived right that you think you are gaining is NOT in fact a right, but a conditional privilege granted at the pleasure of the government. Don't ever forget that.

5. Last but not least, these people of whom you speak who otherwise would support gun rights. You might, but how many do you really thing there are, and if they would, how reliable do you think they would be. I certainly wouldn't count on you for much even if the GOP took a hard left turn on every issue other than guns. One of the critical elements at hand here is that in order to be a constructive participant at this level, a person must understand the difference between matters of principle and matters contingent on specific circumstances, he must have a working understanding of the Constitution, the nature of the republic ESPECIALLY THE CRITICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A REPUBLIC AND A DEMOCRACY, federalism, and an understanding of the nature of those who willfully subvert the Constitution for their own gain, be it financial, political, or both. You have demonstrated that you signally fail to grasp any of the above. I would prefer to help you to understand these concepts than excoriate you for not understanding them, but you have shown no inclination toward caring to understand them. You, sir, are a natural-born subject and slave.

*Please note that nowhere did I say that blindly pulling the R lever is a blanket solution for any of these issues.

Seems I "...must spread some reputation around..."