How long do we really think it will take for a BAN ?


PDA






jcramin
November 5, 2008, 11:49 AM
I hope this is ok to ask here, im just curios on others opinions on this.

Honest question and would like honest opinions.

Bill Clinton was sworn in on January 20, 1993

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was passed and signed into law on September 13, 1994

With all the other problems our new prez will have to deal with, Do you think another law will pass like that and how long do you think it will take to pass another law like that ?

If you enjoyed reading about "How long do we really think it will take for a BAN ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jackdanson
November 5, 2008, 12:25 PM
No one knows, anything is speculation. My GUESS is that if there is a school shooting etc., that is when they make their move. They already have it drafted.

BHP FAN
November 5, 2008, 01:00 PM
My guess?somewhere in the new administration's first year,Remember,you heard it here,first.Gird your loins....

1 old 0311
November 5, 2008, 01:09 PM
The anti's have been waiting for this FOREVER. It will be at the top of the plate.:(:(:(

armoredman
November 5, 2008, 01:25 PM
Heller may be a bit of a stumbling block to them, we can hope.

ocharry
November 5, 2008, 01:30 PM
i have to agree guys,,,,it is already drafted and awaiting a signature

and how many times has this guy bucked his party,,,,,,,,0

i think palosi and reed are going to get what ever they want from this guy

and we all know that they know what is best for us peasants,,,,,i am sure the all knowing ones will be speaking to us from the mountain top,,,,just to let us know we have no idea of what is best for ourselves,,,and they know just what we need

ocharry

retiredsgt
November 5, 2008, 02:03 PM
Keep in mind, several of the Justices of the Supreme Court are just about at the point of stepping down. With just two, New, Democratic, Liberal Judges, another case like the recent Heller decision, and we shall see the last of the "Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms".

moooose102
November 5, 2008, 02:38 PM
i am afraid. i really am. this batch of "politicians" are going to screw up this country so bad, it will take many, many terms and at great cost to get things back to where they are now. it may really come down to "YOU CAN HAVE MY GUN WHEN YOU PRY THE GUN OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HAND". i am afraid we all are going to have to search our souls and decide on if our guns are worth our lives. when i was without kids, it was a simple "yes" but now that i have two little ones, and no one else to take care of them, i am going to have to think long and hard about this. nothing, but nothing good is going to come from oblama taking office. i know, from the bottom of my heart, that i will never resect him as president. he has no respect for our troops, our flag, or our country. i have none for him.

Gunsby_Blazen
November 5, 2008, 02:51 PM
Maybe we should try to talk to Obama, he seems like he wants us to all hold hands and be behind him anyway. I am not saying that we can convince him, but we might be able to sway him on some aspects of it. It is worth a shot, but my friend Frank, who actually knows the man very well, says he will lie to face by saying one thing and then going to someone else and saying the opposite. But what I am getting at, if people show that there is enough people behind our will, there could be a chance that it could change his mind. He wants to get in good with the conservatives.
at the very minimum, we need a sunset clause.

that's my thought, i don't know, am i an appeaser?

Ben86
November 5, 2008, 09:38 PM
I've got a feeling it will be soon.

That's why I'm joining the NRA today. With mostly liberals in Congress, the Senate and House the NRA is our back-up gun. We've got a tough fight ahead folks.

MTS Cop
November 5, 2008, 09:50 PM
I too joined the NRA today. I'm also going to get on top of my FOP dues. My, and most of your, way of life is going to be challenged by our new super liberal majority. Time to dig in our heels and never give up.

indoorsoccerfrea
November 5, 2008, 09:52 PM
talking to obama would be awesome, and i think, the most effective way. the only problem is...he is the president elect. how the heck do we get into direct contact with him? we'd have to go through all manner of liberal contacts and i am pretty sure they would conveniently forget to remind him we called...

dscottw88
November 5, 2008, 11:35 PM
Molon Labe.

Sepia
November 5, 2008, 11:43 PM
I have long felt that the country will face a great divide at some point. The ideologies of the two sides are too different to co-exist under one government, and I'm afraid to say that this just may be the tipping point. I for one know what my choice would be should I be faced choosing the nation I love or the Ideologies it was founded upon. I would gladly lay down my life should it be necessary to protect the freedoms given unto us by our forefathers.

And as to the time line, I would imagine it would take between 3 and 4 months at most to get anything done, and if there are still some decent justices in the supreme court, it would get shot down before it could take effect... hopefully.

distra
November 5, 2008, 11:48 PM
Our only hope for not getting it passed in the 1st session after he's sworn in (shutter) is that the economy keeps tanking. The government will be so busy trying to fund the handouts he's promised to the left that they don't get to it. Don't forget the "Binden test" that could keep him busy. :evil:

#shooter
November 5, 2008, 11:52 PM
Ammo restrictions will start first like lead bans, licensing, registration, and serialization. Next is micro stamping and CCW restrictions, followed by magazine, caliber, and AWB restrictions.

devilc
November 6, 2008, 12:05 AM
The Chief Executive has sweeping powers in time of crisis and emergency.
That "test" may allow him to impose martial law - for our safety.
You do want to be safe right?
Just as Bush hosed up all things foreign, Osama will hose up all things domestic.
We're ****ed people.
What are YOU going to do about it?
How will you fight?
Where do you draw your red line?
All this talk, but what concrete actions will you take when they violate OUR Constitution?

Golden Hound
November 6, 2008, 12:10 AM
I would do anything to just be able to sit down with Barack Obama and TALK to him about this stuff. I honestly don't think that he is some kind of evil beast, just that he holds a lot of horribly misguided ideas, most of which are the product of sheer ignorance. I bet I could convince him to see things our way, if I could just have the chance to explain to him how it is.

Hoplophile
November 6, 2008, 12:14 AM
Golden Hound: I am completely with you on that. He seems like a reasonable guy.

Seriously, one of the best things he could do for race relations and class relations in the country is show that he's serious about RKBA.

That, and he seems like an interesting guy to talk to. I wonder if he'd feed us the same political bull**** he does the media or whether he'd have a straight conversation with us.

paintballdude902
November 6, 2008, 12:17 AM
i seriously think that it would be this summer at the earliest there is soo much more that people are concerned with(ie economy the war ect.)

but either way im joing the nra when i get my next check and i think we should all do a pro gun assemby in dc

Golden Hound
November 6, 2008, 12:17 AM
I cannot possibly imagine that the group of Americans who are firmly anti-gun - the real ideological-based antis, the Brady people who are hell-bent on complete elimination of all guns from private hands - are a more important political force as a voting group than the pro-gun side.

Obama should be trying pro-actively to gain our favor. He should be courting the 2nd Amendment vote. What does he have to lose? The Brady people? Are they really more important to him voting-wise than people like US?

He could have it all. If only he would just take his blinders off.

tmajors
November 6, 2008, 12:17 AM
I say within the first 100 working hours after new congress is sworn in.

camslam
November 6, 2008, 12:19 AM
Where are the usual suspects telling us that we are overreacting, crying chicken little, saying the sky is falling, telling us to relax, reminding us of ALL the other things that Barack and the Demos have to deal with first? :uhoh:

There is no way they will do anything to infringe on the 2nd amendment. :rolleyes:

OH WAIT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT:

Schumer
Clinton
Obama
Durbin
Kerry
Kennedy
Lautenburg
Boxer
Feinstein
Mayor Bloomberg
Mayor Fenty
Mayor Nagin
Blagojevich
McCarthy
Biden
Mayor Daley
The Brady Campaign
ASHA


AREN'T WE???

ants
November 6, 2008, 12:19 AM
I doubt there will be a ban any time soon. It's too public, too visible, and will be fought too vigorously. Nor do I expect exhorbitant taxes on ammunition. After all, Obama needs votes for reelection in 4 years. He won't get them by pissing off 60 million American gun owners.

Instead, exceptions will be authorized to the federal law banning tort suits against the gun industry, allowing public municipalities to choke the industry with liability claims. Imports of guns, parts, accessories and ammunition will be restricted and then eliminated to protect domestic producers (Winchesters will disappear!
So will Springfield Armory! And Browning! And most magazines for pistols and rifles!). Then domestic manufacturers will be burdened with mountains of documentation requirements. The EPA will restrict projectiles containing lead and/or copper upon any watershed land that drains (or might drain, or historically drained, or have at any time flooded) into public lakes, rivers and streams from sea to shining sea. Background checks will become much more extensive, stepping past HIPAA protections to peer into our personal medical histories, and thus cost $100 per firearm and take 16 weeks to process. Face to face sales between private individuals will become a felony, allowing FFL transfers only, and the extensive paperwork requirements will force FFL dealers to charge $100 for each transaction. Law enforcement efforts the size of the Normandy D-Day invasion will plague alleged straw-purchase sellers. ORMD provisions for shipping ammunition without HazMat fees will disappear. The postal service will no longer allow shipments of guns between FFL dealers, leaving all shipping to private carriers who add $100 per shipment to handle the newly enacted federal paperwork requirements.

Are you getting the picture?

But technically our individual rights will still be intact, untouched and never challenged before the Supreme Court, written faintly on very thin paper at the National Archives, and the Second Amendment will never actually be repealed because no one dare touch the Bill of Rights. Just like the Third Amendment, a freedom which I'm sure you still enjoy every single day.

Hoplophile
November 6, 2008, 12:22 AM
I guess a problem, Golden Hound, is that there aren't too many who want to try the "Polite, rational, friendly conversation" method.

Plus, think about the amount of pull Obama has with people. If he says "Hey, guys. Guns, they're not so bad. Read a bit about them.", imagine how many people will suddenly be that much more open to the idea.

hso
November 6, 2008, 12:24 AM
I don't think there's any accurate prediction of the future except for one, if we don't quit wringing our hands and get to work there certainly will be a version of an AWB that will get through for signature sooner than we like.

Golden Hound
November 6, 2008, 12:25 AM
That's a very good, and very depressing, point.

As I've said many times, this war on guns that they'll be waging will be very weaselly and sneaky, conducted through all sorts of legal channels.

Hoplophile
November 6, 2008, 12:28 AM
In all seriousness, if I wanted to talk to Obama on a personal level, how would I do that?

RX-178
November 6, 2008, 12:29 AM
Hoplophile, that's actually something I've thought of at length but never really had the light bulb moment.

Firearms EDUCATION, offered as a public safety service. How could Obama do anything to denounce something like that if it's presented for the purpose of 'preventing gun crime and tragedy by learning safe gun handling', or some spiel like that?

It doesn't even matter how liberal-slanted it could be, it could be VPC and ASHA managed, but once these people are exposed to firearms, their fear of the unknown will be gone, and their prejudices wouldn't be far behind. That's just human nature.

Hoplophile
November 6, 2008, 12:31 AM
Ha, getting the VPC to fund a "Firearms education and safety course" would be completely awesome. Use their own funding against them.

But what do we do when they start insisting we tell lies in classes?

camslam
November 6, 2008, 12:40 AM
I don't think there's any accurate prediction of the future except for one, if we don't quit wringing our hands and get to work there certainly will be a version of an AWB that will get through for signature sooner than we like.

With all due respect to HSO, do you really think that the leaders of the Democratic party, some of which I listed in my previous post, are going to give a rat's arse about anything THEIR constituents have to say regarding guns? Do you really think they are going to care what the junior Democrats in Congress have to say after hearing from their constituents? Not a chance. They will tell the junior varsity, you better tow the party line or else.

I'm not one for throwing in the towel, but let's be realistic. Gun control has continued to march forward in this country for decades. We get occasional small pushbacks against the overall goal of disarmament, but for the next 4 years, we are screwed.

You can't tell me that Rep. McCarthy isn't going to be pushing this stuff right off the bat, because she does it every year, only this time she'll have STRONG majorities in both Houses of Congress, with a guy in the White House that will gladly sign the bill.

You really think people like Chuckie Schumer, who is really calling the shots in the Senate, not Reid the puppet, are going to tell McCarthy, "Psssstttt, sorry Carolyn, now really isn't the time for a push on gun control."? You think Feinstein, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, or any of the rest of that ilk will do anything to discourage it? No way.

It will take one school shooting, which will happen next year, and then there will be a push with nothing to stop it.

I'm all for activism, but the cards are completely stacked against us. The best thing any of us can do is get busy recruiting new shooters. Introduce someone to shooting and develop strong advocates for the 2nd amendment. I'm not even sure that is where we need to begin, because when I read comments from many here in this forum and other forums that are supposedly pro-gun sites, it tells me we have a hell of a lot of work to do with our own people. Scary indeed.

RX-178
November 6, 2008, 12:47 AM
Hoplophile

IT DOESN'T MATTER what we tell them.

We could tell them they're automatic baby killing spray-firing machines of doom, for all that it's worth.

The fact is, these anti-gunners would be EXPOSED to these guns for the first time, they'd be FORCED to handle them SAFELY.

At least some of them are going to go 'hey, this isn't so scary'. And once that happens, we win, they lose.

Smith
November 6, 2008, 01:19 AM
While I am concerned about a ban, I am more concerned about a tax. Taxing ammunition/guns to the point that they become unaffordable would be a sneaky/very effective way to effectively ban guns without actually banning them. An "Ammunition Tax" just sounds so much friendlier and less infringing than a "Firearms Ban".

bdgackle
November 6, 2008, 01:25 AM
Granted, what exists of Obama's voting record is pretty bad, but what about Congress? Many of those senators and representatives come from western states that are traditionally pretty conservative. Many of them have A ratings from the NRA, for what that is worth. They only get into office and keep their jobs by standing by those principals.

We have a Democratic congress. The real question is whether we truly have an anti-gun congress. Not every Democrat is automatically anti-gun. I would guess the vast majority could care less one way or the other, the anti-gunner types are but one faction that makes up their coalition.

Likewise, many Republicans could care less about RKBA, and some are even anti-gun. They didn't DO a whole lot to hurt us when they were in office, but it's not like they did a heck of a lot for us, either.

We have allies --and enemies -- on both sides of the aisle. The best thing we can do is figure out who they are and stay in touch with them. Let them know that their stance is part of why they are in office. Consider sending them $5, just to get your name on their list of donors. Remember, we still have the secret ballot in this country. You don't have to vote for these guys to convince them that you might. The antis are part of their constituency, but for many of the newer Democrats from the west, so are we.

Also, the joy of being a politician is that the election never ends. Everyone currently in office will have to run again someday. Notice how gun control rhetoric is retreating from the media. They haven't given up completely, but they KNOW that the people are against it. If they are afraid to even SAY they will take away our guns, can you imagine what happens to their careers if they actually DO it? Anyone remember the Republican takeover in the 90's? The party transition in 2000 despite a roaring economy and wildly popular Democratic president? What helped caused that? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Monica.

These people don't care about taking away our guns. People on the national political stage don't have the luxury of caring about anything but power, which they get by assembling coalitions of special interests. They write gun control legislation because it pleases one special interest group that helps give them that power. We are a more numerous, more popular, and better funded group. We just need to convince them that we offer more power than our opponents, and suddenly they will be on our side. Shouldn't be too hard -- they really would benefit from switching over to our side, and their actions show that they are starting to figure that out.

I am NOT advocating complacency. We will never have that luxury. We do, however, need to do a better job of identifying who is on our side. We are nowhere near the point of needing to give up on this.

biggiesmalls
November 6, 2008, 06:13 AM
no no no no no... the problem with you guys who want to sit down and talk with obama is that you don't realize that he doesn't believe that his policies are anti-gun at all! he always talks about how he supports 2nd ammendment rights but doesn't believe that it extends to "assault weapons" blah blah blah. he sees the 2nd ammendment as something that is for hunters. look at his website. for someone who wants to control guns, he doesn't even list "gun control" as an issue. to find his policy on guns you have to click on "other" and then find it "sportsmen".... that is just a level beyond saving. he's a lying sack of cr*p who doesn't understand english. he claims to have taught constitutional law at a college level, yet he cannot read and interpret the simple language of the 2nd ammendment. something is seriously wrong about this guy. the only hope we have is to take back our country in 2012. and yes obama is a rubber stamp for palosi, who's first task for obama is to slap seniors with a capital gains tax on their retirement funds higher than anything in history, by the way...

Golden Hound
November 6, 2008, 06:21 AM
Anyone remember the Republican takeover in the 90's? The party transition in 2000 despite a roaring economy and wildly popular Democratic president? What helped caused that? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Monica.


I keep hearing this, over and over. "The assault weapons ban cost the Democrats the control of the houses."

What proof is there to support this theory?

Do you honestly think that enough people in the general population give a damn about guns or "assault weapons" to care about that? And Clinton got re-elected - don't forget that little detail.

I don't really buy this. But then again, when it was happening, I was simply too young to understand.

Does anyone here have any real evidence that the Dems' pursuit of gun control and their AWB really did "cost them"?

ditch_dgr
November 6, 2008, 06:41 AM
I just did a google search on "The assault weapons ban cost the Democrats the control of the houses" and came up with a ton of hits on it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040913-assault-weapon02.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/politics/campaign/14kerryxx.html

Here is a quote from this link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/13/GUNS.TMP

"In a grudging tribute to the enduring power of the National Rifle Association, Clinton acknowledges that when he was pushing for the ban's enactment in 1994, he was warned by Democratic House leaders that forcing Democrats to vote for the measure could cost them their seats. Clinton persisted, believing the measure that banned 19 types of guns by name, along with ammunition clips of more than 10 rounds, was the right thing to do.

The assault-weapons ban passed, but the result was the Democrats' worse loss in congressional elections since 1946. In losing a whopping 54 House seats, a rout in which such powerful figures as Speaker Tom Foley of Washington and Judiciary Committee chairman Jack Brooks of Texas were swept out of office, the Democrats gave up control of the House for the first time since the 1952 election. The rifle association said 19 of the 24 House members it targeted for defeat lost in 1994.

Those who warned him "were right, and I was wrong,'' Clinton wrote. "The price for a safer America would be heavy casualties among its defenders.''

dhoomonyou
November 6, 2008, 09:10 AM
there wont be a ban.

we will be priced, taxed, EPA'd regs OUT OF EXISTENCE.

better get some sharp sticks.

Ala Dan
November 6, 2008, 09:22 AM
H.R.1022 is still sitting there, awaiting approval.

*FootNote- This is the AWB introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New
York; whose husband was murdered on that subway incident a few years
back.


Could happen any day, after January 20th, '09~!

doglb
November 6, 2008, 09:31 AM
There is already to much on my plate to start worrying about it right now. I will support all local, state and national organizations when it comes to our
2nd ammendment and the right to bear arms.

Otherwise all I can do is hope for a better tommorow. With as many gun owners in the nation today, we must be able to work together in protecting our rights.

Our fears are real, I hope that it does not become our next nightmare!

Phil DeGraves
November 6, 2008, 09:48 AM
I bet I could convince him to see things our way,

I'll take that bet.

Mannlicher
November 6, 2008, 09:56 AM
Today is the time to start lobbying your CongressKritter and Senator.
Today is the time to join the NRA if you are not a member,

AND, today is the time to disabuse yourself that 'sitting down with hussein' will have any result other than offering him amusement.
Guys, its time to get to work, stop whining, and stop thinking that any discourse is possible with our domestic enemies.

Mannlicher
November 6, 2008, 10:21 AM
a new AWB ban will be introduced to Congress in January. It will pass to the Senate in January, and go to hussein to be signed into law in January.

Look for bans on all semi auto pistols, rifles and shotguns. Look for bans in all imports of ammunition. Look for a magazine capacity of no more than EIGHT rounds to be stipulated, and that a "Turn banned items into the Government within 90 days" to be published.

ProficientRifleman
November 6, 2008, 10:22 AM
bdgackle,
These people don't care about taking away our guns.

Socialists care deeply about taking away your guns. If they can't get their grubby, grabby litle hands on them, they'll administratively control them.

Socialism is THEFT of property, theft of productivity, theft of effort, and theft of person-hood.

Socialists cannot stand armed free men. Armed free men tend to resist socialism. Typically by force of arms.

They deeply desire to disarm you for the purpose of having you disarmed. They do not care what tool or technique they have to use to get to their desired end state. A disarmed populace cannot resist their socialist "progress". (You aren't against progress, are you?)

Yes they DO want your weapons. They deeply desire to take them from you. They only want to put themselves at the least risk while doing so.

Animal Mother
November 6, 2008, 12:06 PM
I think we all need to make sure that we write our representatives and join the NRA. At the same time, I don't think we'll need to worry too much, don't you remember that Obama was actively seeking to reassure gun owners that he wouldn't seek to take our guns away? Now all politicians lie, but in the age of the internet, it will be much harder to him to go back on his promises. The gun issue was actively avoided by Obama because he knows that the issue is a vote loser among the public.

There are so many other issues that will need to be dealt with before they get around to this, and by the time that they get around to gun control it will probably be too close to the elections in 2010 to upset the apple cart. Keep in mind that the same forces that won on Tuesday also controlled the House and Senate since 2006, and that Bush has publicly stated that he would also sign an AWB renewal, yet it never happened.

In fact, if you want to see how the diehards in the Democratic party currently feel about the possibility of a AWB renewal, read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=189343&mesg_id=189343

camslam
November 6, 2008, 12:22 PM
This is one post from the thread referenced. What it alludes to is the apathy of gun owner allowing a ban to happen. Let's get out, introduce new people to the joys and benefits of shooting.

I believe it will happen...
because the party wants it to happen. It is in the platform and he will sign it if it arrives on his desk.

In my opinion the only reason the first AWB caused the damage it did was due to its close proximity to the election. This allowed the rhetoric to be fresh and a target easy to identify. Pass a new AWB in the first 100 days and the electorate as a whole will not care in two years while the 2nd supporters will never forget. There are not enough die hard 2nd ammendment supporters to make a big difference when the dirty deed is so old. Especially if they compromise a little like the old ban and allow for granfathering the current crop and maybe some allowances for cosmetic features. In time they will get what they want using the incremental method.

The incremental assault has worked well in England and Australia and our own country has started down that road with state restictions in California and New York as examples.
I truly believe the party of my youth has left me behind.

Some of our fellow gun owners that post here on THR need a wake up call to the realities of where we sit and are headed on gun rights.

CajunBass
November 6, 2008, 12:25 PM
Well shoot. Why shouldn't they pass an outright ban? If reading these posts here and most everywhere else are any indication, most of you have surrendered already. A lot of you surrendered even before the election. Give up early and avoid the rush I suppose.

Now is not the time to worrying about when they're going to be doing something. It's time for US to be doing something to worry them.

Join the NRA. A million new members real quick would get some attention.

Write letters. Let your representatives know how you feel, and let them know this is a deal breaker. You will not get my vote ever again if you vote for........... I don't care what party you are, I don't care what kind of tax break, or insurance bill you helped pass, or how many babies you kissed. I will do everything I can to make sure that you get voted out of office next time.

Then get others to write to them. Then write to them again. Not just national officerholders either. If your dogcatcher is an "anti" let them know they will be looking for job if you have anything to say about it. And you do.

indoorsoccerfrea
November 6, 2008, 12:26 PM
here here cajun!

Gunnerpalace
November 6, 2008, 12:27 PM
and that a "Turn banned items into the Government within 90 days" to be published

They might lack common sense but they are not high.

Zundfolge
November 6, 2008, 12:31 PM
Guns are low on his list of priorities.

FIRST thing he's going to do is silence his opposition via a new Fairness Doctrine (and probably extend it to the internet ... maybe requiring some sort of license to blog or run a forum).

SECOND thing he's going to do is start dismantling our free market capitalist system.

Disarming us is at least a year or two off ... I'd say more than two because he doesn't want to invigorate conservatives too much or he'll lose his precious house and senate in 2010.


HOWEVER, you can expect no more gains ... so no, there will be no CCW in National Parks ... and probably the ATF getting a little heavier handed with the FFLs under their boot (so you remaining "kitchen table" gun dealers are likely going to lose your FFLs). I won't be renewing my C&R either.

benEzra
November 6, 2008, 01:08 PM
I keep hearing this, over and over. "The assault weapons ban cost the Democrats the control of the houses."

What proof is there to support this theory?

Do you honestly think that enough people in the general population give a damn about guns or "assault weapons" to care about that? ...

I don't really buy this. But then again, when it was happening, I was simply too young to understand.

Does anyone here have any real evidence that the Dems' pursuit of gun control and their AWB really did "cost them"?
Straight from the horse's mouth (from President Clinton's autobiography My Life):

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

And Clinton got re-elected - don't forget that little detail.
A big reason Clinton squeaked out a win in 1996 was that the genuises running Bobdole's campaign decided to carpet-bomb gun owners and endorse pretty much every stitch of Clinton's gun control policy as part of their message. The NRA's 1996 slogan was "Elect a Clinton-Proof Congress," not "Defend Freedom, Elect Dole." There was a reason for that.

Prince Yamato
November 6, 2008, 01:26 PM
I think they will go after private party transfers and call it a day. Their legacy will be preventing "illegal gun sales between unlicensed individuals". Registration is WAY too expensive (see Canada's gun registry). Confiscation is even more expensive and would be nigh impossible. Handguns are off the table because of Heller. I'd bet that AWs would be too, as some AWs are considered handguns.

I'm also pretty sure that Obama doesn't want immediate and large backlash the moment he takes office. There are enough Republicans in congress to filibuster, there are enough pro-gun Democrats to stand up for our rights. There is the NRA, which will fight like hell. Then there are all of us, who are purchasing these weapons by the truckload to make sure that they are considered "common".

Stay vigilant, but don't worry yourselves sick. Keep buying AWs and hi-caps as you are doing. Let's ready our arguments for January. We'll fight this like hell and we'll win.

Pilot
November 6, 2008, 01:30 PM
Well they won't make the same mistake they did in 1993/1994 when the passed that crap right before an election. They will do it soon so there will be at least a year for people to forget. You and I won't forget, but a lot of people will.

HoosierQ
November 6, 2008, 02:50 PM
I'm with Hoplophile. I just don't think gun control is as big an issue, even with liberals, as all of us fear. Second of all, there are two things in our favor, the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States, and Heller.

Let's take a case in point. Ronald Reagan, God bless him, hated abortion like poison. He had a Republican congress and, by and large, we had a pretty conservative electorate in those days. Never heard the man back down on abortion one time. But, was he able to change things? Did he get past Roe v Wade? No to both. And with abortion, there is no constitutional ammendment...just a SCOTUS decision.

With RKBA we have both a SCOTUS decision (a recent and pretty darned specific one) and a Constitutional Ammendment on our side.

Stock up on some ammo because everybody else is going to do so but I really think that, by and large, gun ownership is still going to be a factor of American life for a long time. If I'm wrong I'm wrong but I just don't see it going too badly. I hope I am wrong anyway.

Ironically, this whole campaign has been great for firearms retail and I assume manufacturers. That's kind of funny...but nobody's laughing.

Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

CoRoMo
November 6, 2008, 03:17 PM
They'll wait for the next "incident" to react to. Sort of like the 700B bailout.

Or...

Executive order the Clinton "Crime Bill" back in.

Mr. T
November 6, 2008, 04:43 PM
I would think that he and his anti friends will try it in pieces. We'll see the first segment of his anti agenda within the first two years. The harshest step(attempted seizures) will come about not possibly until his second term. Just my opinion of course. The point is he and his cronies will try it. Any assault on the 2nd amendment should be met with absolute public disobediance. If that doesn't work, well then other steps will have to be taken.

Mr. T
__________________________________________________________
"Do you really think you can shoot down all of those men before they shoot you....no, no, Mr. Josey Wales.... in this country we have something called Justice" --- "Well Mr. Carpet Bagger we have something in this country called the Missouri Boat Ride!":evil:

jcramin
November 12, 2008, 06:47 PM
I think he will take care of the Economy and Iraq and some other things this term so he can make people happy and as soon as he gets in his 2nd term then go after guns big time because then he wont care who he makes mad he will be in another 4 years by then.

mgregg85
November 12, 2008, 06:54 PM
Heller won't hold them back one bit in passing it. It was a positive decision but not a very good one.

I'm thinking we have at least 4 to 6 months to buy up whatever we want before prices get insane.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
November 12, 2008, 07:00 PM
It depends *entirely* upon whether or not there is an MPS during the administration, giving the antis fodder and public sentiment in favor of a ban.

No MPS = no new gun laws
MPS = (likely) new gun laws

It's all about the MPS's, man. Luckily, since the social science data proves unequivocally that shall-issue CCW laws reduce MPSs, there are about 34 states where they are not likely to occur (except in "gun free, victim-rich zones within those states).

metatr0n
November 12, 2008, 07:55 PM
I don't see it happening in 2009, at least. Consider this:

HR1022 (which we should call HR 10/22, since that's all we'll have left if it gets passed! :)) was introduced in February of 2007, and as you can see here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01022: - it hasn't even made it on the subcommittees calendar. So it's basically been idling at the first of 13 steps to law for almost two years! (see: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/basics/?style=legis) ALSO, there's no "filter" on what actually gets to the first step, and there have been some pretty ridiculous pieces of legislation introduced that never see the light of day.

Now, obviously, even our slow and lumbering congress can sometimes run a bill through on a rail, like the Wall St. bailout. But as many others have stated, this issue is the least pressing of many to most Americans.

Clearly, it's in our nature to be paranoid about something as serious as this, but if you took some of the posts on this forum as fact then you'd probably expect Obama to be inaugurated, pray to the east, chop off a baby's head, pull out a quill pen and sign an Executive Order in blood to ban assault weapons on top of the Qur'an :D Remember, he's still a puppet like all those before and after - and the fact that his anti-gun literature was removed from Change.gov is comforting to me. He and his handlers know how much political capital his party had to burn to get to this point and I highly doubt they will throw it away on something that proved to be ineffective in hindsight.

So, in summary, in the remote chance it were to happen, it won't be for a couple of years, at which point I should have my long-backorder'd AR-15 upper :)
And if you really care and want to make sure that it doesn't happen? Join the NRA and write to your state representatives. It doesn't have to be out of our hands!

Tangent: Maybe I live in the wrong part of the country, but the Democrats I know could give a rat's ass about gun control. To me, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the vilification of these supposed "antis" - maybe because I don't know any? Maybe because I was 13 when the original ban was passed and only owned a bb gun?

tulsamal
November 12, 2008, 08:41 PM
Good post Kansas!

My US Representative is a Democrat. Rated A+ by the NRA. I would rather have an A+ Republican but I'm not worried in the least about him supporting any gun control. He isn't going to care whether or not Pelosi tells him to "toe the line." (I fixed that expression. "Tow the line" was too funny! Tow it to where?!)

Gregg

Clipper
November 12, 2008, 09:22 PM
I believe there will be a ban on imported milsurp, as well as military caliber ammo for civilian use. This is easily accomplished with a simple Executive Order. There will be a debilitating tax on ammo and reloading components, and an elimination of any 'off the books' FTF transfers of any kind. I'm sure a bill will be introduced making it illegal to transfer or inherit any one of dozens of 'assault weapons', which will require the destruction of any such weapon (which hill require some kind of registration) upon the death of the owner. Much of this can be accomplished 30 seconds after BHO is sworn in, by E.O...

tmajors
November 12, 2008, 09:57 PM
I say within the first 100 working hours after new congress is sworn in.

I revise my statement. First 50 hours or sooner with the soon to be stolen seats in Alaska, Minnesota, and Georgia giving the Senate their 60 votes.

tpaw
November 12, 2008, 09:57 PM
With all the other problems our new prez will have to deal with, Do you think another law will pass like that and how long do you think it will take to pass another law like that ?

Probably not any longer than Clinton. All he has to do is assign a staff to "Git Err Done".

gym
November 13, 2008, 12:45 AM
Allowing a inexperianced man or woman, of any age, a weapon used for military use, like an AR, is like giving that same person a new car with 500 Hp. Which happens all the time. The outcome is usually predictibale. There are going to be more accidents with that group when compared to the rest. That's why you don't see a lot of old muscle cars around, they didn't wear out, Cuba has cars a lot older than 60's running fine. It's that they got wrapped around poles, because the driver had little or no training. I have carried for 4 decades all the time in 2 states, and love my guns, they aren't a fad after the first 25 years. But other than the experienced gun owner, long distance, competitor, Swat officer, or some other catagory that has a need for these weapons of war, there is no reason for the average joe to have a 2-3 thousand dollar assault rifle in the closet.Especially if he never took a course and just bought it to show off to his friends. It sure isn't for hunting, or for things that go bump in the night. If you think there is going to be a reveloution of sorts, and you are trying to prepare, perhaps a passport would be of more use. I never thought I would be saying that, but it's getting pretty rediculous when every other guy in the 20-60 year old range who can't figure out how to take their pistol apart properlly to clean it is now buying a weapon used to shoot large amounts of people in the shortest most effeciant way. I found myself thinking about getting one, then thought about other stuff I could actually use more that one or two times. If you hunt, there are better calibers, depending on what you hunt. and for target yes you could use a 308 for medium to long distance but there are better calibers for that also. And as an investmant, well you better not plan on them appreciating for a hundred years. I guess I just don't get it anymore, if obamma, who I didn't vote for, nor care for, tries to pass anti assault hi-cap etc he will just alienate more folks, so I guess it feels like a big hype job to sell the millions of AR's sitting out there. If you know of a good deal on one let me know, lol

7.62X25mm
November 13, 2008, 12:52 AM
I thought this site didn't get "political" --

X-Rap
November 13, 2008, 12:59 AM
That right there folks is as good a reason to join a hard core pro 2a group as I have seen.
The uppity superiority almost seaps out of that post. That is big brother incarnate telling us what is good for us and not.
You can see a true friend of the 2a a mile away can't you?

Dougelas
November 13, 2008, 01:40 AM
I'm not sure it will happen TOO soon, it will most likely be a longer process, because then people won't notice as quickly. I actually heard, but haven't established the claim, that they will be adding some chemical to gunpowder that it expires after 6 months. That's a more subtle change that will hopefully not take place. But just in case, stock up on any ammo you may need.

Funny story, actually; in my SCHOOL (I go to a very conservative, pro constitution, Christian school, mind you) we actually talked about what would happen if it came down to the military just taking our guns. Most people I know would be going to my friend's house in the country and staking it out. I know he personally has about 15 guns, including a military grade sniper and AK-47. So both he and I will be defending our right to bear arms.

Also, I will definitely want to buy more of my own guns before January hits us, never know. I'll also be doing a shooting campout before then, hopefully (Boy Scout, here).

5knives
November 13, 2008, 02:56 AM
Chicago Ward Politician!

Says it all, but I guess you have to have experienced "The Windy City" to understand what that means.

"Vote Early and Vote often!" is NOT a joke, it's SOP.

The phrase "You can't fight City Hall" does not mean you should not fight City Hall. it means you CAN'T fight City Hall, not if you want to emerge undamaged.

Personal power increase is his goal, everything he does is to that end.

Pushed for 500% tax on firearms and Ammunition (one of the few things he's ever voted on in fact!)

On record as favoring a ban on and a cancelation of all CCW permits.

He'll ban what he wants to as soon as he sees a benefit to himself.

And his tame Congress, Senate and Courts will support him!

Even here ... a lot of people are going to be very surprised by how much 'Change' they just bought into.

And we aren't going to like the result one little bit!

Archive this thread and resurrect it one year from today!

It won't be very amusing, but it'll sure point out the weakness some of us have in our logical thought processes.

Maybe mine too, it'll be interesting to experience the next year.

Very Interesting!

For a peek into our Firearms future, just look at Australia, Canada and Great Britain.

JMHO, as always, YMMV and obviously some do.

That's okay too, it's just talk!

Regards,
:)

Girodin
November 13, 2008, 03:23 AM
I spoke in person with my democratic congressional representative today on the issue of a new AWB. He opined that it will not happen. He cited a few reasons he doesn't see it as even being on the agenda.

1. The first one did nothing to curb crime in anyway (I know some liberals don't care but it makes it much harder to argue for)

2. Obama is probably pragmatic enough to avoid the pitfalls of Clinton pre 94 and will likely govern more from the center left than the far left.

3. No matter what Obama wants Congress must pass the bill and he is of the opinion that there is simply not the support to get it through congress. He is one of the leading blue dog democrats and stated plainly he would oppose any such bill. Many of the seats picked up are in fact moderate democrats.

4. More serious long term problems that need to be dealt with and are where political capitol will be spent. Namely two wars, a financial crisis, and energy concerns.

I personally have felt that if Obama is being a pragmatic politician he will not pursue an AWB. It will be interesting to see his cabinet appointments etc which may give us a clue into how far to the left he plans to go. Time will tell but I don't see AWB II in the very near future, probably not in a first term if ever.

Kind of Blued
November 13, 2008, 03:57 AM
I'm not one for throwing in the towel, but let's be realistic. Gun control has continued to march forward in this country for decades. We get occasional small pushbacks against the overall goal of disarmament, but for the next 4 years, we are screwed.

My dream of redemption, if AWBII MUST happen, is for it to be challenged, go to the SCOTUS, be declared unconstitutional under Heller, and for Obama to be impeached for signing an unconcstitutional law into effect. As unlikely and time-consuming as it might be, it would be a beautiful thing.

ANYBODY in power would be awfully scared to touch the issue for quite a while after that.

everallm
November 13, 2008, 07:59 AM
Kind_of_Blued

The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Signing a law that is later challenged and reversed on constitutional grounds is not grounds for impeachment. Attempting to enforce it AFTER it has been so ruled would be.

I LIKE IT!
November 13, 2008, 10:11 AM
My opinion is that they'll push it asap and use the troubled economy via the media to hide it from public interest.

If barry signs it all bets are off and America will become more divided then it was the day before.:banghead:

mljdeckard
November 13, 2008, 10:44 AM
2nd term. Quit freaking out.

They know they have a very limited timeframe to work with that they control both houses. They have some very big promises to fulfill. They won't waste time or political capital on an issue that is controversial, would divide the majority, and not have a high likelihood of passing anyway.

Old Fuff
November 13, 2008, 11:01 AM
Bill Clinton was sworn in on January 20, 1993

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was passed and signed into law on September 13, 1994

And in November Bill Clinton woke up the day after the '94 election and discovered that his party didn't control the House or Senate anymore. As a consequence his whole agenda was lost to gridlock. Years later in a book he remembered this, and remarked that taking on the gun issue was one of the worst mistakes they made. :uhoh:

This of course was before the Heller case where the Supreme Court decided that:

1. The American people have a constitutional right to own firearms.

2. That the Washington DC ban on handgun ownership was unconstitutional.

Could a future court change that? Sure. But doing so would take years - much longer then the current president-elect is likely to remain in office.

In late 2007 an internal industry survey showed that that the sale of Traditional Firearms vs. Tactical Firearms were about equal. This came as a tremendous shock to some that had presumed that tactical sales were much less then they really were Ė and this was well before the current panic buying was going on. Most gun owners (and others) have no idea how widespread tactical firearm ownership is.

All Democrats arenít pushing for gun control. Recently a bill was passed in the House that would have prevented the Washington D.C. City Council from passing any more gun laws by removing their authority to do so. The Democrat leadership did everything they could to stop this bill, but it passed anyway Ė Because some 45 southern and western representatives voted with the Republicans to pass it. They knew that supporting the left-wing leadership on this issue (guns) could cost them in the forthcoming election because gun control was not popular in theyíre districts. These Democrats know that voting for any gun ban might guarantee another election like 1994, and regardless of what the president and left-wing party leaders want, they want to keep their seats.

At this time there is no widespread public demand for more gun control legislation. Polltakers donít even list gun control anymore as itís well below the publicís radar. Today economic issues, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and medical care reform are what voters want to see action taken on. Radical Democrats may want gun control laws in the worst way, but given the circumstances Iíve listed above itís not going to be at the head of the list.

So calm down, keep your powder dry, join the NRA and GOA, and get ready for what will be a hard fight. But keep in mind that we are in a better position today then we ever were in the past.

The Old Fuff knows. Heís been at the warfront since before the 1968 GCA was passed.

SSN Vet
November 13, 2008, 11:18 AM
I have long felt that the country will face a great divide at some point. The ideologies of the two sides are too different to co-exist under one government, and I'm afraid to say that this just may be the tipping point.

my thoughts exactly....

Obama should be trying pro-actively to gain our favor. He should be courting the 2nd Amendment vote. What does he have to lose? The Brady people? Are they really more important to him voting-wise than people like US?


I think the entire "government control is the answer to all the worlds problems" mentality is at the core of the liberal Dems soul.

And after 8 years of non-stop blaming Bush for everything from 9/11 to Bird Flue to the melt down of the housing market, the media has bent the minds of the masses....

Don't bother to ask what branch of government has regulatory authority (and responsibility) over the Fed. Reserve, SCC etc... and what party has ruled that branch of Gov't for the last 2 years.

Don't bother to ask under what Democratic president the banking industry was coerced (yes, coerced) into making high risk loans in areas that they historically never touched...all in the name of diversity.

This election was the biggest "dupe" job in the history of the nation.

Unfortunately, we've become a nation of self centered, hedonistic idiots, that will believe anything CNN sayse, so long as they say it 1,000 times over.

Critical thinking is dead in this country. We "need" Obama to tell us how to think.

Clipper
November 13, 2008, 11:52 AM
When I took down my McCain-Palen yard sign, I put it away so next year I can add a 'I told you so' tag to it and put it back out...

mljdeckard
November 13, 2008, 01:32 PM
+1000 Old Fuff. Word for word.

expvideo
November 13, 2008, 01:45 PM
this is all I have to say about a gun ban

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a58/expvideo/IMG00037.jpg

Sharps-shooter
November 13, 2008, 02:47 PM
I'm not betting any money on it yet, but I don't think it will happen. It wasn't a really popular measure at the time, in 1994. I know SO MANY people, many of them liberal in the extreme, who own guns now that didn't have them or want them back then.

In 1994, people felt more secure, both financially and millitarily, than they do now. When times are uncertain, guns start looking better and better to people. When people are lulled into a false sense of security, they may feel like guns are an outdated thing, something we don't need anymore.

It's going to take even the best swindlers-- and we have some of them working for us in washington-- quite some time to lull americans into a false sense of security. And if they throw their hand in too soon, try to propose a ban right now, for instance, then it will be too unpopular. I think they realize this.

Anteater1717
November 13, 2008, 05:42 PM
I guessing tomorrow BUY,BUY,BUY!!! :rolleyes:

browningguy
November 13, 2008, 08:42 PM
Having thought about it a lot, I'm guessing 6-12 months, that's only if there is no new Columbine or something similar. They already have it written, bribe 5-6 republican's and you have a filibuster proof majority.

Anyone that thinks Obama and Pelosi are taking a middle ground approach to government just isn't paying attention to history. Never believe what anyone says, believe what they do.

Limeyfellow
November 13, 2008, 10:07 PM
I doubt it will come anytime soon. There are far more pressing issues on the agenda and not anywhere near the support for a ban like last time. It would be killed in committee long before getting any popular support.

sherman123
November 13, 2008, 10:15 PM
I wouldn't bet on it either but if I had to guess I'd say a year or less especially after those two neo nazis were arrested for the Obama assasination plot. And btw expvideo what does your tatto mean?

22-rimfire
November 13, 2008, 10:16 PM
No more than 100 days.

There are far more pressing issues on the agenda and not anywhere near the support for a ban like last time. It would be killed in committee long before getting any popular support.

Congress always finds time for the unimportant stuff (from their perspective). I won't be killed. It will pass both the House and Senate. O will sign it in a heartbeat. He'll probably have the press their to record the moment.

On the important stuff, he'll be lost.

BHP FAN
November 13, 2008, 10:27 PM
''Anyone that thinks Obama and Pelosi are taking a middle ground approach to government just isn't paying attention to history. Never believe what anyone says, believe what they do...''

+1 on that.I don't think there IS a quick fix for the economy,and the new administration is going to be looking around for a ''feel good'' piece of legislation that will make them look decisive.The next Columbine or Virginia Tech will ''force'' the new administration to''take action'' [now never mind that if students a VT or teachers at Columbine had CCW,they might never have happened] on the ''gun violence issue''.As for when there's no way to predict that.I'd guess the next time some Doctor figures a violent offender is ''cured'',and they kick him loose.Then,ever so relunctly,we'll see a new AWB,and this time [mark my words,and gird your loins] there won't be a grandfather clause.Remember,ya heard it here,first.

MIL-DOT
November 13, 2008, 10:49 PM
(quote) "Remember,ya heard it here,first".

Nope, I've been a "lone voice in the wilderness" on this subject a lot longer that you, sonny !!! :neener:
But seriously, everything you said is, unfortunately, spot on. We in for some trouble.:(

I LIKE IT!
November 13, 2008, 10:50 PM
I wonder just how hard the Republicans will fight another AWB.

We have Heller on our side and the NRA but agian I wonder if that is enough.:scrutiny:

Oh and as to no grandfather clause, that's a two-bladed sword the dims don't have the balls to touch, but if they some how did it would be "the end" for them.

We can reach them just as easily as they can reach us, agian they aren't THAT stupid.

We shall see.

tpaw
November 13, 2008, 11:17 PM
This of course was before the Heller case where the Supreme Court decided that:

1. The American people have a constitutional right to own firearms.

2. That the Washington DC ban on handgun ownership was unconstitutional.

Could a future court change that? Sure. But doing so would take years - much longer then the current president-elect is likely to remain in office.


Some of those old farts are due to retire and probably will when Obama takes the oath. That will open seats for Obama's liberal judges. Hence, we are done.

wyocarp
November 13, 2008, 11:39 PM
After all, Obama needs votes for reelection in 4 years. He won't get them by pissing off 60 million American gun owners.

He got elected with the current gun owners. And I'm figuring that many of those gun owners aren't willing to die for their right.

wyocarp
November 13, 2008, 11:41 PM
We should start fighting this by getting the mods on here to let us talk about politics and how it affects gun rights and ownership.

tpaw
November 14, 2008, 12:09 AM
We should start fighting this by getting the mods on here to let us talk about politics and how it affects gun rights and ownership.

Without "preconditions" !......:rolleyes:

X-Rap
November 14, 2008, 12:51 AM
You hear folks talk about Heller like it was kryptonite or something.
I have said before if we worry warts are wrong then we will look silly, if these Philidelphia Lawyers and all their PC platitudes are wrong then Rome is on fire and nobody will give a :cuss: about saying I told you so.
After reading posts here for the last couple weeks it is clear that there are some who believe that we as a country are not at risk and neither is the RKBA and there are others who recognize the clear danger we face.
I guess I fall with the later and quailify for the tin foil hat.

Ignition Override
November 14, 2008, 02:55 AM
Sure, our present liberties are at risk. There is no doubt.
Not to play the devil's advocate, but will it look good in the eyes of the present and soon-to-be unemployed or people who will default on their homes, if the Senate spends even limited time on this garbage? Politicians always factor in pros and cons.

It cost Clinton and Gore huge numbers of votes. Obama has read about various issues and realizes that many of the citizens are informed and organized.

I'm sort of new at this and am not contradicting what is really possible, stated by you guys/gals, but politically "O" wants/needs people to get back to work (including the millions still to get laid-off...) and wants to be in the White House more than one term. Maybe this is an assumption on my part.
Getting the economic decline to bottom-out, leading to better times, will get him re-elected.
Having millions of gun owners against him imperils his future chances even more if the recession is long and deep, i.e. it could last most of his (only?) term in office. How long will "O's" 'honeymoon last? Just read what foreign leaders expect of him, and quickly...he will be saturated. The less Congress can even think about enacting just part of what we dread, the worse it is, which could be millions more jobs lost, and this is just in the US. Kind of ironic? Good and bad. On THR etc, we only discuss one or two issues, and these won't get people back to work. But maybe I'm wrong.

On a minor note, I refuse to pay ammo prices which have jumped anywhere near 25% in two weeks. Other folks can buy my extra share (cheap?) and stack it deeper.
Our next president did not get so popular overnight, in stark contrast to 7.62x39 'loan shark' type profits (just say 'no'). There were months of 'annunciator (caution) lights', even before the financial systems' domino effect went full speed. This isn't just in the US-it is global, and many are looking to us for a solution. Why else would the Euro lose so much to the dollar so soon? Also, if there is an attack on Iran by the Israeli Air Force in the near future which spikes the price of fuel, people will partly blame "O's" policies.

A diet high in carbines and other sugars make you more flexible, both in doorways and under tree limbs: Minis, MN 44s, SKS.
Let's go out a bit on the better dryer days, enjoy our guns (only 3 rds. max, each time in a high-cap. mag last much longer) and have some fun!

Caeser2001
November 14, 2008, 01:55 PM
I wonder if he'd feed us the same political bull**** he does the media or whether he'd have a straight conversation with us.

he would definitely answer with his political b.s. a quick I support the second amendment and then into is long rambling of crap.

I think the better way and logical way(and true reason anyways) to attack this is to go after the plea bargaining, short prison sentences etc. nationwide 3 strike rule for violent felons, revamp the prison system.

Caeser2001
November 14, 2008, 02:08 PM
I see it happening but not right away, unless another vt or columbine happens, then I could see it almost immediately. And the "media" will turn every elected official who doesn't support the bill into the bad guy, most of the public bought into his "change", anti Bush, blah, blah, tax credit, blah, blah, evil Oil Co's (even though the gov't makes more money on oil than the oil co's do) blah, blah, McSame, blah, I almost forgot HOPE.

on a side note what is this "hope" crap I keep hearing people talk about? :scrutiny: "Obama has inspired me to hope for a better America" I hope to win the lottery when I play but hope still doesn't pay the bills.

Blakenzy
November 14, 2008, 02:43 PM
First term: almost no chance of a new AWB or other significant bill being brought up. As it is, he already has way too much on his plate to deal with, and lumping a controversial and divisive topic on top of all that really doesn't make sense, not if he wants to retain power and score a second term.

As for his Second Term (and you betcha he's sure to win it if the GOP doesn't come up with some super candidate- Palin just ain't gonna to cut it): If a blow to gun ownership is ever going to happen it'll happen here.

So, RKBA is relatively safe for at least a few more years...

KBintheSLC
November 14, 2008, 03:00 PM
Are you getting the picture?

But technically our individual rights will still be intact, untouched and never challenged before the Supreme Court,-Ants...

Maybe we are looking at the wrong rights to defend. We are all so wrapped up in preserving the RKBA that we forgot that we are supposed to be exempt from "taxation without representation". Maybe thats the next thing we will have to sue them for in Supreme Court. If we can tie frivolous taxes to a violation of fundamental rights, we may be able to fend them off on an entirely new front.

If you enjoyed reading about "How long do we really think it will take for a BAN ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!