To get back to the OP, here is an article about a list of executive orders the Administration may be considering (as well as some proposed statutory changes).
There’s no list of EOs in the article. The WH “may be considering” many options. Whatever WH action is attempted will still subject to possible Congressional and judicial response.
Hog hunting? True, I do know a crazy guy who hunted hogs with a fire-hardened spear, but that is just asking for trouble if you ask me.
Rob
I MUST say that I don’t understand this usage of “Vis a vis”
Having been treed by a hog once while bow hunting, I’m with you about the spear!
Here’s the thing. I was taught “One shot, one kill”. You don’t fire unless you are certain. You take your time and do it right; even if that means you go home empty handed. Having to administer a kill shot is something to be regretted, never a standard. Bolt action rifles are more than sufficient for this purpose, and today’s models are lighter, more accurate, and better constructed than ever before. They come in plenty of bores, many again, more than sufficient for hog and other large game. A sidearm is a good back up against a charge, and I’ve no problem at all with people owning one.
The semi-auto function is mostly an innovation that allows a greater amount of speed, and little else. A development that has been a boon to humans fighting other humans in warfare. Hunting is not war, plinking is not war, and the zombies are not at our doors. Our country is not under imminent threat from infantry invasion. A true military coup would absolutely crush a civilian resistance even armed with automatic weaponry. So there is no immediate need being fulfilled by that technology. The same technology that allows an untrained, ill-intentioned shooter to be so devastating to civilian targets in such a rapid manner. Some consider the action to be smoother, true, but that shouldn’t be a major concern for a hunter adhering to the principles I expressed earlier. Semi-autos are fun for plinking, and allow one to go a lot longer between those pesky re-loads; but none of that is more valuable to me than the life of an innocent human. Lives can and will be taken by bolt action, shotgun and revolver as well, but mayhem on such a mass scale takes longer with those weapons. They take a great deal of practice to wield extremely rapidly, even with the aid of speed loaders. Usually such skilled people have developed a sense of respect and care around firearms. They are responsible, not the sort to grab and go, or reach for a firearm during an argument.
Based on that, you should be working on banning pumps and lever actions too. You seem to be a hunting type so I don’t understand why you make claims like this:
When you know that they are exaggerations at best.
I too was taught “one shot, one kill”. But if being chased, I would want firepower on my side. (Of course, I squirrel hunt in hog country armed with a single-shot 12 guage.
On the last bit, I am not so sure. Look at the Syrians. I don’t harbor fantasies of taking the country back from Teh Evil Obama, nor do I think that anyone is plotting to invade, nor do I believe that the Minutemen defeated the British by themselves. However, I do think a heavily armed civilian population would need to be part of the calculus of anyone plotting to do something like that.
Rob
Sorry to keep quoting this, but I thought of another point to make.
(emphasis mine)
By that logic, all guns should be banned (not to mention alcohol and car keys), unless your ability to fire single shots is more valuable to you than the life of an innocent human. There are those who feel that should be the case, but you don’t seem to be one of them. Is that fair to say?
Rob
No. In fact, I can’t think of any other usage for it in English.
Perhaps. I just do the math differently I suppose. I support the second, and agree that people should have the right to arm themselves. You’ll note that I haven’t advocated banning guns, or taking them away. What I would support is restriction on classes of weapons. People who have them should be citizens who have demonstrated responsibility through both simple measures like registration and passing classes and long term measures like carrying a ccw for a few years without incident. I’d be fine for conditional waivers for those living in areas like Alaska, or extremely rural ranches, etc. I’d support a one year term of amnesty, buy backs, or free compliance/ training classes to current owners. Those people are the ones who secure their weapons carefully, and are not the ones who create the problems. If such measure reduce the number of “go to” arms out there to those who DO, then that is a net bonus to society. Weapons may be a right, but they are hardly a natural one and we should be doing our parts to ensure that those we entrust with the tools of massive destruction are the people who have demonstrated the highest levels of trust and competence; not the other way around. It takes significant practice and training to become proficient with a firearm to the point where defense of the self and others is a safe and reliable option. The people I want armed with more dangerous weaponry are the people who can be relied upon to be careful, judicious, skillful, and restrained in utilizing them. I don’t believe in the slippery slope, and I don’t believe that sensible restriction and barriers to access is trampling the second either. The constitution should be a living document, and given the ambiguity of the language, we should feel free to interpret it in the light of modern realities of technology, population, and day to day necessities.
Weapons may not be a natural right, but the right to defend yourself is. I agree that one should be vetted (in a way that is designed to avoid giving guns to criminals, not to avoid giving guns to anyone) before being allowed to purchase guns and ammo. I note that CHL holders commit crimes at lower rates than the general population. I disagree that there should be classes of such weapons and I don’t see that your argument backs you up.
So you would support some sort of federal licensing program, but one that would allow any license holder to purchase whatever they like? I could get behind that providing the program was comprehensive, and includes training, testing, registration and background checks.
Didn’t I say that upthread? 
lol I don’t recall.
You don’t think they’d be smart enough to just start shipping them in with their drugs?
And it would be much rarer still if the gun were linked to the criminal’s name and address, rather than stolen. “Registration will help us solve crimes” is a fantasy. Just ask Canada, which recently repealed their long-gun registry because it was useless in solving crimes.
I guess the original question is now settled.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these are challenged in court, and possibly thrown out. Now we know what Obama thinks he has power to do via EO. It’s not guaranteed that the judges will agree with him.
Which ones, in particular, do you think are illegal?