waitforufo

The BATF, DOJ, and likely all the other organizations you fail to mention are part of the executive branch. Your king is their boss. Please state the existing law approved by congress the your king's executive order is enforcing. Here is the fact sheet from your king's executive order. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our It includes this: So if you purchase or sell a firearm you are "engaged in the business." It doesn't matter the number of guns you purchase or sell. If you don't have the required license you can go to prison. What law passed by congress says that? Please tell me. By the way, if you have an FFL licence your search and seizure rights. You and your home can be searched without a warrant. Your king is opening a door that you will regret having been opened. You may find Obama to currently be a benevolent king catering to your current desires, but he may not remain so, and he will not always be king. Perhaps a future king will write an executive order defining when life begins, or define a period of gestation when life becomes viable outside the womb, for example. I'm sure when that happens the attorney general appointed by such a king will say something like "If it saves one life, it will be worth it" like Loretta Lynch said about the executive order the king she serves signed. No need to bring up the Supreme Court. That can be taken care of with another executive order. When you tear down the constitution to get your way, there is a price to be paid. You will pay it. Firearms are NEEDED for liberty. Life is not worth living if you are a slave. Ask Patrick Henry.

He is independently defining who is in the gun business and therefore who can be controlled by the BATF.

It's not the number of executive orders that's at issue. It's the content of those orders. Presidents don't write laws, they enforce them. When a president writes a law he attempts to make himself king. The fact that Obama has the lowest number of executive orders, simply makes him the laziest law enforcement executive on your list. Again with the polls. Well in case you didn't know, the only polls that matter in the United States are taken on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November every other year. It's called voting. The members of congress elected during these polls are then supposed to determine which bills are allowed to become law by presidential signature. If there are no bills approved by congress for gun control sitting on the president's desk then there can be no new gun control laws. If the people wanted gun control laws, they would they would make sure they elected the candidates that favored gun control during that poll call voting. So if you are so concerned with facts, its a fact that a president can't create laws without a bill approved by congress. Obama, by creating his own laws without an approved bill, is acting like a king. I know you are his loyal subjects, but get a clue.

Why listen to the incessant blathering of a want to be king? You keep quoting these BS percentages. If they were true, congress would be enacting the gun control legislation you want so dearly. In fact, gun control is a low priority issue. Hence no congressional action. O but wait, who needs congress whey you have a king?

You can't even get that right. Militia means every able bodied independent person. If you don't have an armed populous you can't raise a militia. Well regulated means properly functioning. Like a well regulated clock. Owning guns means you will be familiar with the firearm you bring when the militia is called. Why did I bother. In one ear and out the other. Simply doesn't register with a person with your world view of a government that brings nothing but sun shine, lolly pops, and rainbows all at the expense of other people. You know, a liberal. Thank you, he is doing much better. He should be graduating from the community college in June with a certificate in automotive machining. He did have one relapse that I know about just after his one year sobriety anniversary, but immediately afterwords sought counselling. I still worry, but I have hope. Methamphetamine is a cruel mistress. You know I'm glad I live on the red side of Washington state. The police told me straight up that their job was not to protect the public but to find and arrest those that had already broken the law. The officer said that would likely be too late for me and my family, so I should carry a gun. He issued my concealed carry on the spot and told me to have my wife come in a get one. My son was in rehab lock down. I'm sure your intentions are good, but the road to perdition is paved with good intentions. The problem I have with liberals is that they seem to believe that if their intentions are noble, that the consequences of their actions are irrelevant. Like Hillary saying "what difference does it make?" It is not my intention to insult you by saying this, but instead to wake you up. One day you will wake up and all your freedoms will be gone and you will be powerless to do anything about it.

Children regrettably die or are injured every day for various reasons, such as falls, poisonings, drownings, fire, etc. I appreciate that that my second amendment rights are not unlimited. They are restricted to blades, clubs, and firearms. The constitution is consistent in its use of the term "the people" and "people". It always refers to individuals. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to my references to "due process". Perhaps you should study the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution. I believe it is liberals that are constantly rewriting the constitution by inventing new meanings for words and phrases. "Well regulated" and "militia" are good examples. It is liberals that despise the original meaning interpretation of the constitution in preference to the living document interpretation. Perhaps you should peak out of the small confines of your liberal isolation chamber. I know, it will be scary to see the real world, but have courage. I do encourage you however seek the dictionary you mention above. Webster's has a good copy.

My right to own firearms has no impact on you whatsoever. If I used my firearms in that way I would have been committing felonies. Then you could have me arrested and my rights can then be reduced by due process. Felons are not allowed to own guns. I am a law abiding citizen. As long as I remain law abiding I should be able to enjoy my rights. If you don't like that, too bad. You asked. I don't care if you believe me. Why would I carry a sword when carrying a firearm is legal? Besides, its much easier to deal with two or three criminals at once with a gun than with a sword. We are a country born of your tyrants as well, We decided to cast them off by force of arms. We learned a lesson from this experience. One of those lessons was never listen to the subjects of a crown when they speak of giving up your arms. Something about not believing that some people are born better than others makes us hold our liberties dear.

My son had a methamphetamine problem. I pulled him out of a drug house, just an abandoned shack really, and brought him home to dry him out and find him a rehab. My son told me he had drug debts, so I started carrying a gun. When his dealers found where my son was they, two or three at a time, came calling to collect his drug debts. They also visited my wife at her place of work as well. During that period, there were several times where I and my wife were glad to have guns, We both carried, and brandished them on three separate occasions. By the way I did contact the police and they told me if I paid them they would just come back for more money, so carry a gun and use it as needed. Government exists, so the people need guns. It is simply part of the checks and balances built into our constitution. Why do you find it inconceivable that government can go bad? Have you not studied history? Nothing forces these "other people" to own firearms. The law abiding are morally bound to render assistance to these people in their time of need. Even those who choose to be weak. Even those who somehow believe that being weak is noble. Standing armies only increase the need of the people to keep and bear arms. Why do you find it inconceivable that government can go bad. Have you not studied history? We limit weapons to guns because guns are sufficient. You need to spend a little more time reading the constitutions of the states. They guarantee self defense and/or the right to keep and bear arms as well.

We have the right to keep and bear arms to preserve our lives, the lives of our loved ones, and the lives of our neighbors. John, you and I have gone over this "well ordered militia" many times. It would be silly to go over it again. I simply encourage you to read Heller v. DC. The founders were people of their time. Yet they created a country, conceived in liberty, and based on principals that liberated much of the world. Having experienced the outrages of government, they enshrined in the constitution the power of the people. The second amendment is the hallmark of the power of the people over government. They restricted the power of government by enumerating it's powers, there by limiting it's power. The second amendment includes the phrase "shall not be infringed" to specifically restrict the power of government over the people's right to keep and bear arms. Your argument about muskets is nonsense. At our founding the people not only had muskets, they also had Kentucky long rifles. The most modern and accurate of weapons of their time. I'm sure the founders would always want the people to have the most modern and accurate of weapons because abuse by government is ever present. Just look around the modern world. The police are government. Our constitution does not start out "We the government." Imagine if it were not. An unrestricted government. Doesn't sound like paradise to me. What you are longing for here is the end of the United States of America. The name of our nation is federalist. The constitution goes out of its way to define the powers of the federal government, states, and the people. If you have any doubt, read the tenth amendment.

Shall not be infringed.

Who is the one throwing temper tantrums and calling people names? Aren't these the actions of a petulant child? I simply disagree with you regarding gun control. I think we have too much of it already. Far more than our founders intended. You don't like that so you lash out and try to bully me of the forum. How is that working? You and I both understand perfectly well that political action is unlikely to happen for topics that the people hold in low priority. Showing that you understand that through your own words is has lead to your latest emotional outburst. This canard about nuanced and diverse is simply a tactic to get your way bit by bit. I, and many like me, are not going to give even a little bit of our liberty away. We hold our liberty dear. We understand that once it is lot, you don't get it back. That by the way is a liberal idea. Too bad modern liberals and progressives have forgotten that.

You challenged me to find anything you posted in this topic that was "rabid and extreme". Here you go, and thanks for making the finding so easy. Oh snap, my feelings are so hurt. LOL I'm sure it was hard to read in your own words that gun control "[is] not an intensity issue for most" and that "There are probably 10 or 12 other things they care about more". Is climate change 11? Yet you continue to insist that gun control is an important issue that the majority of people want. Why is it that liberals always find political topics that the people don't want to be "diverse and nuanced" when in reality they are simple and straight forward? Your own words show the people rank it low on their priority list no matter how hard liberals try to convince them that the topic is "diverse and nuanced."

Yeah, Yeah, you are big on the rabid and extreme but you fail to accept the tentative lukewarm support for gun control. Let's look at your own words again. So in your own words 80-90% of people would rank gun control in 11th to 13th place in a list of political or life importance to them. So in other words, they don't care. In your own words "it just doesn't affect the lives of most people." As I continue to point out, the politicians this 80-90% group continues to vote for keeps making firearms ownership less controlled and concealed carry more available. So while you claim "80-90% of the populace support stricter regulations" its more likely that they are simply saying that to make annoying gun control advocates go away. In the mean time their voting shows they are simply shining gun control advocates on. But for you gun control is a hot button issue. So explain to me again who, between the two of us, is "rabid and extreme"? I'm glad to see I'm making converts.

Agreed. No, we should let them fly as well. What gives the government the right to inhibit the free travel of the people or any individual without due process? Well I appreciate their defense of my firearms rights and the rights of the people, but they are wrong about banning Muslims. Isn't democracy great!

And yet more and more states allow their citizens to carry firearms. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/17/growth-chart-of-right-to-carry/ This doesn't happen without votes in state houses and signatures of governors. How are those politicians getting reelected? Shooting sports are gaining in popularity as well. http://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2014/11/17/participation-target-shooting-soaring-across-united-states/ Americans love there firearms. Get over it. Gee, I remember when liberals thought due process was important. Last time I checked the US is supposed to be a country of innocent until proven guilty. The rule is take them to court or don't. Until proven guilty they have all their rights. Find a place where I have suggested banning Muslims. If they are citizens of this country they can buy all the guns they want. I encourage them to do so.

To make you feel safe how many freedoms must be lost? How many people must be denied due process?

Meanwhile in the real world. http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/05/investing/gun-stocks-surge-2015/ http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/031314/americas-gun-love-boosts-firearm-stocks-sales-surge-rgr-swhc-oln-atk-dks.aspx http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2015/04/16/sturm-ruger-co-rgr-firearms/ http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/06/15/3-gun-stocks-to-watch.aspx

1) No my implication was that the other (gun control laws) would have the same impact on the homicide rate as standing on one foot and whistling yankee doodle dandy. You can do lots of things at the same time but we are talking about reducing the homicide rate. Gun control won't do that, hence not a false dichotomy. 2) I think you are splitting hairs by differentiating between gun control and gun control laws. What is the point in having laws that have no effect? Why pass laws only to punish the law abiding? Why make criminals out of people enjoying there natural rights? 3) No its called democracy. Americans love their liberty and are willing to take risks to enjoy them. 4) People want to be able to defend them selves not just in their homes but in their daily lives. The American constitution recognizes both the right to keep and bear arms. 5) But they do have more home invasion and violent crime in the UK. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3613417/An-Englishmans-home-is-his-dungeon.html http://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/7/17/how-the-uk-covers-up-murder-stats/ https://pjmedia.com/blog/u-k-crime-statistics-hit-record-high/ 6) So if you are going to exclude accidents, then you have to look at who is getting shot and why. Criminals getting shot, no problem. Law abiding people getting shot, more armed people needed. Also, criminals don't need guns to murder. Why do you keep ignoring this fact? Personally I would prefer to have a gun in a knife fight. How about you? 7) Children getting shot is tragic. So are children being poisoned. So are children who die in falls. So are children drowning. So are children burned to death in fires. So are children who die in traffic accidents. So are children that get electrocuted. Life is full of risks. The gun lobby is winning. I'm not worried.

I'm sure you meant only 0.8% of violent crime victims use a gun in self defense. These studies are dependent on people reporting their use of a gun in self defense. What fool reports that? If you brandish a gun and scare off your attacker, what is there to report. You're unharmed. Your attacker, on the long shot that he or she is found, can simply say "I was minding my own business, and that person pulled a gun on me." Why put yourself through the hassle. Your gun did the job, so case closed. So 22.4% of households are ready to shoot. If you are a criminal, those odds of getting shot are better than playing Russian roulette. Too bad those 22.4% have to do the heavy lifting for the 77.6%. By the way, I don't think most people who own guns talk to pollsters much, and when they do I doubt they tell the truth.

Hunting. Particularly in rolling wheat fields like this one. When hunting you have to clear you mind and allow your senses to perceive game. Game often times seems to appear out of nowhere. Just like inspiration.

Yeah, and you can stand on one foot and whistle yankee doodle dandy at the same time too but it won't reduce the homicide rate. So homicidal criminals have no issue will killing people, but would never break gun control laws in your mind? If true, you have an interesting way of thinking. Homicidal criminals don't need guns to kill, by the way. They just need to be bigger, or stronger, or have their homicidal criminal buddies with them. Perhaps all they need is a knife or a baseball bat. Do you not understand that either? Americans don't believe it is nonsensical. Firearms just keep getting easier to get. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-sandy-hook-kid-massacre-guns-easier-than-ever-to-get/ Many states also let you carry them around. http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html Yeah, we have guns so they stay away. Fatal accidents happen with or without guns. I don't, but I don't have a problem with dead criminals either.

But to what end or purpose? Why are the people allowed to own guns? Well let's check my Washington State Constitution. How does the federal supreme court define the my right to own firearms? Let's check Heller. So the reason is self defense. Self defense against who? I'm sure homicidal criminals must be right at the top of that list. So restricting the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms does not serve to reduce homicides. It would only embolden criminals. Your goal to restrict firearms would simply reduce the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves. Criminals don't need firearms to kill. They just need to be bigger and stronger or in larger numbers. Since criminals are committing the vast majority of homicides, restricting the firearms rights of the law abiding would only limit the law abiding from defending their lives. Therefore my argument is not a false dichotomy if your goal is reduce homicides. That is particularly true if your goal is to reduce homicides of the law abiding. As I pointed out previously, the vast majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal records.

Temper, Temper. No my logic, as would any sane person's logic, would be "I'm glad I didn't waste my time and money fixing the roof." By the way, this forum intends to appeal to people of all ages, so please watch your course language. A lot of words to explain the definition of a false dichotomy. As I said before, I know what a false dichotomy is, and this isn't one. I own several firearms, and I never found one tapping at my front door trying to get out. Since I don't associate with criminals and have self control, the chances of any of my firearms being used in a homicide are essentially zero. So why should my liberty be restricted? Gun control laws are going after the wrong people.

Your logic is like thinking "I knew I should have fixed the small leak in my roof" when your home is flooded by a river breaching its banks. The homicide rate in the US is not caused by guns, it is caused by criminals. If you want to fix the homicide problem, you need to fix the criminal problem.

No, I'm perfectly aware of what a false dichotomy is. I just don't agree that restricting firearms will reduce the homicide rate in a serious way. Criminals will still kill and be killed. If your are not a criminal your likelihood of being a victim of homicide in the US is tiny. I provided links showing that fact. Look at Japan. Private possession of firearms are almost non existent. Their homicide rate is 3.0, where the US is 3.8. If you are suicidal you will find a way. Look a japan. Their suicide rate is ranked 28.2 where the US is ranked 12.1. This shows that gun control will have a minuscule effect on the homicide or suicide rate in the US. Certainly not enough to limit freedoms in a freedom loving country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate You are simply angry with me because I don't agree with you. I provide you a reference.