Are we crying wolf


PDA






jbkebert
February 26, 2009, 09:25 AM
I am wondering with all of the cries of Obmanation are we becoming overly paranoid. Yes I am as concerned as everybody else about keeping up our RIGHT to bear arms. That being said I can hardly imagine given the state of the economy that the Obama campaign is going to one day take away that right. Please correct me if I am wrong but to me the only things that are taxed as highly as guns and ammo is Gas, Tabacco, and Alcohol. I think the propesed AWB is horrible and I in no way agree with the proposition. Then on the other hand I can't believe that one day all firearms manufactors, ammo companies, optics companies are going to be told to shut down fire all of thier employee's and retool to make hybrid car batteries. There if nothing else is to much tax revenue to be lost.

I am not writing this thread to be called a dumb###. I just want to know your opinions on this matter. Perhaps I am living to sheltered of a life in rural Kansas. Yes crime here is bad: Topeka shamefully had a higher muder rate per-capita than NYC a few years back. I do carry CCW and I to think that guns bans will do nothing to reduce crime rates. I also know that I am not going to be making any friends while asking this. Lets try and keep on subject though.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are we crying wolf" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
twoclones
February 26, 2009, 09:36 AM
Given that one bill had already been introduced to require gun owners to have $1,000,000.00 insurance coverage, for even neglegent use of firearms, I'd say we are not crying wolf. Since no company would offer such insurance, we could not buy it and therefore could not legally own guns.

The wolf is in sheep's clothing...

prelaw09
February 26, 2009, 09:41 AM
I'm a bit of a history buff. Remember the last AWB? this one will make the last one look like a walk in the park. Just look at what the great o did in his state and the bans that were in effect there.

klcmschlesinger
February 26, 2009, 09:42 AM
I don't think anyone is crying wolf. I believe over the next 4 years it will be a battle, a scary battle to not just keep our right to keep our guns but wart off the "tactics" to make it so difficult to keep our guns that people can't or won't be able to afford it.
Everything that comes from this administration needs to be looked at carefully. And no judged for what they advertise, judged for its content.

CoRoMo
February 26, 2009, 09:43 AM
Have you seen today's headline?

NEW: Obama wants assault weapons ban, other controls... (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1)

I recall several Pro-Obama THR members saying things like,

I don't think he'll take our guns, but we'll have to wait and see.
He's got too many larger issues on his plate to enact another AWB, blah blah blah.

He's been POTUS for 37 days now, and here we go.
Thanks a lot guys.:cuss: Pro gunners supporting an anti.:banghead::banghead:

DeathByCactus
February 26, 2009, 09:48 AM
No, not with what I have seen. They are going to flank the second amendment and CHL laws as opposed to taking them on directly, imo. From some of the bills I have seen or heard about so far, he is the enemy in terms of 2A. I say enemy loosely, he is still our president and a citizen of this country. So don't take that in some extremist form please.

In other words, I am expecting to see more laws that would strip us of the second amendment right should we "break new laws or restrictions on laws," among other ways of deception.

I could be paranoid though, I am not as seasoned as some of the people on these forums who have been there and done that.

twoclones
February 26, 2009, 09:48 AM
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

Since Mexico has drug related violence, law abiding citizens in the United States can no longer buy 'assult rifles'... That's a bizzare bit of reasoning.

Zoogster
February 26, 2009, 09:50 AM
No. It is not something new. Obama has a very clear voting record created over many years. You can trace his voting record back to his early days in Chicago and the one thing he has been is consistent. Consistently for as much gun control as possible, from outright bans on handguns, to assault weapon bans and anything else that has been targeted.

I like hearing Obama speak myself, he is a great speaker even if his views are not to my liking, a much better speaker than Bush.
His voting record however was not an accident. His views did not magicly change just because he had to be more popular for election.
He is thoroughly anti, has been for for many documented years. He comes from Chicago, a very anti firearm place, with further roots in Hawaii, also not a bastion of firearm freedoms.
He was on the Joyce Foundation Board of Directors for several years, an organization that funds a large number of our anti-gun groups. He was one of only 12 Board members making the policies and deciding how to fund anti-gun efforts around the nation.
He appointed an extremely anti invidual as the top LEO in the nation, Attorney General Eric Holder. The person already calling for bans, and the person the ATF and the FBI will be answering to.


You better believe new laws/ enforcement policies, increased stings, and a lot of new harassment of FFLs and others is in the near future.
Things are still new, Obama has yet to even appoint the head of the ATF, but with his appointment of Eric Holder as Attorney General it appears it is going to be a very rough future for firearm rights.

The pace is already significantly more rapid than the Clinton administration, and they have learned a lot since then.
The left who vote most solidly for gun control currently have all three branches of federal government. You cannot even defeat the legislation in one branch of government without Democrats standing up for gun rights and against "reasonable compromises to save lives. :barf: " Are you counting on that?


The top LEO in the nation just called for permanent bans. He is surrounded by likeminded people, and his ideas should face minimal resistance from the democrats.
You think he is crying wolf?

everallm
February 26, 2009, 09:52 AM
TwoClones

The Op is asking about Federal issues, your point is a dead bill in IL.

CoRoMo

This is just the usual regurgitation of a sound bite and last I checked the AG can neither resurrect non existent laws/expired bills nor draft, sponsor or vote on bills.

I'm willing to bet this morning the AG is having a little chat with his boss who is reminding him who is the Executive and that he has enough problems with Biden's mouth as it is........

ArmedBear
February 26, 2009, 09:52 AM
He's got too many larger issues on his plate

And that IS the scary part. It's become clear that (as many of us who aren't easily snowed by a smooth-talking guy in a suit expected) he has no clue how to handle them -- or he's just "handling" them by rushing to flow tax dollars to every Democrat interest group he can before too many people notice.

Those who bet real money on the future of the US, however, HAVE noticed. The DJIA has continued its slide downward, with only a few upward blips to be followed by drops soon after. The dollar is down vs. the Euro and Pound again.

There is absolutely NOTHING going on that would justify even considering changing gun laws in this country. This is simply pandering to the anti-gun groups that send money to Democrats. However, Obama-Reid-Pelosi are going gangbusters to do EXACTLY that, in eery area, while they still have political capital to spend.

he is still our president

Nobody is or ever was "our president." We employ him to do a job; we are not his subjects.

RX-178
February 26, 2009, 09:54 AM
I honestly think our last, best chance is going to be the state sovereignty movement.

I don't think there's any question that there will be federal bans in place during the next 4 years.

rbernie
February 26, 2009, 09:56 AM
The official party plank for the current administration, and the current administration's own web site, states categorically that they do value and intend to pursue implementation of additional gun control. They have laid out their agenda for all to see. There is ZERO debate in that.

The question is not, 'Do they want to?'

Of course, they do.

The question is, 'Can they make a go of it?'

Well, that's where we come in. If we're smart, and we actively and consistently work to remind our elected officials that we disagree with the current administration's position on the RKBA, then maybe we have a chance to ensure that the goals of the current admin remain just that - goals, and not accomplishments.

The current admin has a lot of things to worry about. If we make it hard enough of a fight, then maybe they will simply decide NOT to engage in that fight and drain resources away from the other fights that they need to pursue. Holder can rattle his sabre all he wants; the question is whether the administration wants to burn political capital in Congress trying to push an anti-RKBA agenda. Our job is to make them NOT want to pay that price.

I do believe that we, as a community, spend far too much time bellyaching over things and not nearly enough time doing something about it. I sometimes wish that I could implement a virtualized version of the 'cuss jar', only instead of putting a dollar in the jar every time somebody cusses we contribute a dollar to NRA-ILA every time somebody starts another thread of 'OH, NOES - the eviiiiil <insert derogatory nickname for our current president> bastid wants to ban YOUR GUNS!!!!!'.

<sigh>

twoclones
February 26, 2009, 10:05 AM
your point is a dead bill in IL.

No. My point is that the bill, taking an indirect yet potentially effective approach, was introduced. Not that it might pass.

BTW - This morning I have written to my Senator reminding her that I oppose reinstating the assult weapon ban. I urge others to do the same.

jbkebert
February 26, 2009, 10:05 AM
I honestly think our last, best chance is going to be the state sovereignty movement.

I agree completely with this statement. I wish that it was not even an issue. I do believe that states like Kansas, Wyoming, Montana, Texas, Oklahoma and many others have far to much to loose by banning guns, therefore banning hunting. Granted gun owners are becoming more outnumbered by the day. Hunters are even more outnumbered. As long as every state map I see for Kansas still have advertisments for duck hunting and deer hunting I am willing to bet it is vital to our economy for both in state and out of state hunters to come to Kansas. Yes they could find diffrent resources and tourism to replace those dollars in the long term. In the short term I don't think with a suffering state budget they would roll over and let the money go without a fight.

Gardien
February 26, 2009, 10:10 AM
If you want to keep track of the status of this bill...http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

2ndAmFan
February 26, 2009, 10:17 AM
We're not crying wolf. Our rights as Americans are threatened again by people who have no clue what they are talking about, and in this case want to treat a symptom rather than the cause, and do so by denying us our Constitutional rights. I will be emailing my elected officials, who are Republicans and not likely to like what Mr. Holder said anyway.
As one who had a gun pulled on me once when I was unarmed, and by the grace of some training and luck was able to disarm the BG, IMO the idea of penalizing Americans because Mexico is a mess makes about as much sense as outlawing the English language in the US because Mexico is a Spanish-speaking nation. The Mexico thing is only a blind to advance an agenda they planned to pursue anyway.
Mexico is politically corrupt from the top down and we didn't make it that way. If they want our help in cleaning up the mess they must be willing to do the hard work themselves; something they've avoided for decades by citing their Constitution. Why is it we must respect their Constitution when our officials are preparing to stomp all over ours...again!

Just Jim
February 26, 2009, 10:26 AM
The real answer is in the Character of the president. BHO talks a smoothe game but can you believe what he says? His first bill that he signed tells you.

He signed a tax on smokers for 32 billion to finance the health care that includes pregnant illegals and illegal kids. That bill raises 65cents a pack on smokes but because there are not enough smokers 22 million more have to start to fund this bill.

BHO promissed to not raise taxes on the poor and middle class. Obviousely this tax bill only affects the poor and middle class. However since there are not enough smokers all you guys are going to be paying for this, one way or another.

The character issue is the man is a liar. You can't trust a word he says so your guns are not safe nor are you. He is a smoothe salesman but then most good liars are.

We all just have to be high road enough to point out and accept the truth.

jj

BCCL
February 26, 2009, 10:29 AM
In his entire political career, Barack Obama has never voted pro-gun, and has actively sought to infringe on gun rights and self defense rights at every possible opportunity.

Eric Hold his AG is a virulent opponent of gun rights, and most of his appointees are also.

So no, the wolf is here.

TimRB
February 26, 2009, 10:30 AM
"We should all stop posting these messages and write to our lawfully-elected representatives."

This doesn't work everywhere. For example, in California our US Senators are Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. I know from sad experience that if you send a pro-gun letter to Feinstein, she will send back a semi-polite form letter telling you to go ^*&# yourself.

Here, the best approach is to support lobby/litigation groups such as the NRA and state associations. Remember, there are about 80 million gun owners in the country, yet the NRA is one of the top lobbies with only 4 million members. Imagine what we could do if even a *quarter* of the gun owners joined up.

If the legislature is strongly anti-gun, as it is in California, the avenue of change is litigation, not legislation.

Tim

Walkalong
February 26, 2009, 10:32 AM
Are we crying wolf?Heck no. They want all our guns, period.

They will take and/or restrict anything they can pass a bill on. the Q here is what they can pass. We must fight now harder than ever as this is a crucial time in America for gun rights, as well as rights in general.

jbkebert
February 26, 2009, 10:34 AM
We should all stop posting these messages and write to our lawfully-elected representatives.

A post on a website is fun, easy, and generally meaningless.

Great since I seem to do nothing to protect our 2nd amendment.
I am a US Army Veteran.
A life time member of the VFW
NRA shooting instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
NRA member
Member of international hunter ed instructors association
Member of Kansas Hunter education instructor association
Kansas Hunter Education Instructor
A proud gun owner
A hunter.
I take on my own time and own dime 1-2 sometimes three students from hunter ed classes hunting. I take them on everything from dove, pheasant, turkey, deer hunts. Teach them how to set stands pattern shotguns, sight in rifles track deer, scout for stand placment, field dressing, butchering and everything in between. I do this because I care. I want these kids going through our hunter safety classes to carry on this tradition and become gun owners to become hunters.
So my friend do not ever make the mistake that I just sit on my ### and whine about my rights being infringed on. I am not some privlaged youth thinking that the world owes me something.

Just Jim
February 26, 2009, 10:37 AM
The democrats in power have run amok, they will not listen. Those who voted for them brought this on us. You reap what you sow, kiss your guns goodbye.

jj

Walkalong
February 26, 2009, 10:42 AM
So my friend do not ever make the mistake that I just sit on my ### and whine about my rights being infringed on. As so many others here. Good for you. The ones we bring into the fold are the future. the Libs have been winning by teaching their mess to our kids in school. We must educate outside the schools until we can somehow get the schools straightened out again.

Glockman17366
February 26, 2009, 10:43 AM
Here's the White House phone numbers...call 'em!
Comments: 202-456-1111. Switchboard: 202-456-1414

Holder's Office phone number:
202-353-1555

They might ask for your name...if you don't have the balls to tell them your name, don't bother calling. Be polite but make your point!

Copy these phone numbers to every pro-rights sites you know. A few million phone calls may get their attention.

Lone_Gunman
February 26, 2009, 10:47 AM
There were many gun owners, including a few here, who foolishly believed that Obama would leave guns alone, because he had bigger issues to deal with. They bought into his platform of change without looking at the details. These people will be shown to be fools.

leadcounsel
February 26, 2009, 10:48 AM
Has the Orignal Poster been sleeping! HELLOOOOOO!!!!

ConstitutionCowboy
February 26, 2009, 10:49 AM
Turn down the noise and control will rise in the silence. The only thing keeping it possible for us to exercise our right to keep and bear arms is the fear of reprisal. If there were enough honorable people in Congress, on the Court, or in the White House, it would be a moot point. Alas, honorable people are in a minority in Congress, the White House, and it's a toss-up on the Court.

Keep the rhetoric loud and proud wherever you voice your opinions. Otherwise, it'll cost us lives. To wait in silence is to condemn those who would be the victims to death before the fact. We are aware that it can happen and are duty bound morally and in the name of common sense to sound off.

Woody

"The Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood

sd
February 26, 2009, 10:53 AM
The Threat is real. Firearms issues are not in a vacuum isolated from what is going on elsewhere in .gov. Look around you. Read the news. The government control of your daily rights and liberties is increasing. Seal belt and helmet laws, smoking laws, tax issues, gasoline blends that cause shortages. I could go on. The gun issue will be attacked from a tax angle as well as legislating against certain models. You DO NOT have to believe we have "jumped the shark" politically and are headed down hill as I do, but if you can't see the threats to your liberties as they exist now then you're not paying attention. Boiled frog syndrome.

halfded
February 26, 2009, 10:57 AM
Just sent my letter to Sentor Webb, attached is a copy for those that are interested.

I am writing to strongly voice my opinion to vote NO on H.R. 45; Blair Holt's Firearm licensing and record of sale act of 2009. This is a blasphemous disregard of the second amendment and would have our forefathers ashamed. Mexico has drug violence problems, so law abiding U.S. citizens can no longer freely and lawfully own firearms. I don't see the logic there. Mexico is Mexico, it's always been a cess pool, always will be. How about we shut down the border? There's no reason to maintain it, other than to afford illegal immigrants the opportunity to come here, abuse our system to their benefit, and work for half of what I CAN (because I have to pay taxes for all these bailouts and plans, etc.), which is hindering my acquisition of employment. There is no reasonable trade to speak of, so cut ties and let them destroy themselves. Anyone caught crossing the border will be dealt with accordingly. The suspension of American rights due to another nation's unruliness is ludicrous. Let's shut down Ford next because people drink and drive, killing others. If they don't get the guns here, they'll get them somewhere else; and even if these "assault" weapons are banned, does anyone really believe that the CRIMINALS that are already transporting these illegal arms will just suddenly stop? NO! The new laws will do for these people what prohibition did for the bootleggers during prohibition. It will drive up a huge market, making these already rich BAD GUYS more rich, on my dime.

Again, sir, I respectfully and strongly ask that you and your constituents vote against this and any other bills that infringe on OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

Robert Fairall
Law abiding citizen of Virginia

It's a small step, but hopefully one in the right direction.

CoRoMo
February 26, 2009, 11:02 AM
I honestly think our last, best chance is going to be the state sovereignty movement.

I'm pessimistic about the chance of success for this movement.

There were many gun owners, including a few here, who foolishly believed that Obama would leave guns alone, because he had bigger issues to deal with. They bought into his platform of change without looking at the details. These people will be shown to be fools.

You're exactly right. Absolute fools!

We're lucky there wasn't anti-2A legislation hidden inside this pork-ulus bill that just passed without being posted on the internet for five days (a Democrat promise broken) and without house and senate members being allowed to read the dang thing. They hid enough legislation among the spending pork to fill 1,000+ pages. We're very lucky they didn't take a run at it in there while writing this behind close doors without committee input. They didn't even know what all was in there when it went up for a vote! The next pork-ulus bill will have another 9,000 earmarks like this last did, and we could all lose our freedom in the name of "economic stimulus".

I'm willing to bet this morning the AG is having a little chat with his boss who is reminding him who is the Executive and that he has enough problems with Biden's mouth as it is........

I Disagree. The AG's comments were likely checked and okayed by the White House and he was given the pass on those talking points. Same goes with his speech last week when he called us all 'cowards'. The WH knew what was going to be said and chose the words with precision.

You underestimate the enemy.

leadcounsel
February 26, 2009, 11:04 AM
I called the numbers. One was busy, I left a message at Holders office respectfully disagreeing with his comments that Americans are cowards and about the AWB.

Harve Curry
February 26, 2009, 11:04 AM
We cannot allow anything Un-Contstitutional to be passed or even introduced. In all things big and small do not let the anti 2nd Amendment people have an inch. It's about freedom and liberty they are controlling. No compromising. The best defence is a strong offence.

scottgun
February 26, 2009, 11:06 AM
There could be a positive side to a new AWB. The pendulum will swing very fast to other side and Democrats will be voted out. They are power junkies who will self destruct trying to get their fix.

Unfortunately, and new AWB would probably not have a sunset provision.

CoRoMo
February 26, 2009, 11:22 AM
There could be a positive side to a new AWB.

You're nuts! Or you're kidding, right? The next AWB will be permanent and far more destructive than ever.

Rezin
February 26, 2009, 11:26 AM
Just like several members here have stated too, they are using Mexico as a springboard for this legislation...

"Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border. "

Just Jim
February 26, 2009, 11:28 AM
It is easy enough to see that the distraction of a new AWB will keep peoples minds off the trillions in taxes he is putting on the American people as he moves the country toward socialism.

The messiah Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of the democrats so an AWB is just the stepping stone to total confiscation. Stand by for high winds and heavy seas.

jj

scottgun
February 26, 2009, 11:31 AM
You're nuts! Or you're kidding, right? The next AWB will be permanent and far more destructive than ever

The so called "pro-gun democrats" are the ones who are nuts for thinking their guy wouldn't go against their cause.
Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results. This is 1994 all over again. The dems will show their true colors by putting up another AWB, and they will get voted out next election cycle.

Any law that is passed can be over turned. Nothing is truly permanent.

jbkebert
February 26, 2009, 11:41 AM
Here's the White House phone numbers...call 'em!
Comments: 202-456-1111. Switchboard: 202-456-1414

Holder's Office phone number:
202-353-1555

Glockman
I have left messages on all three of these numbers expressing my disapointment in current AWB legislation. Oh and yes I proudly gave them my name.

democrat
February 26, 2009, 11:51 AM
Bear in mind that any gun control legislation has to get around Heller. Previously, gun control legislation has, from a constitutional standpoint, been premised on the notion that the 2nd Amendment does not provide for an individual right. The Heller decision changed that. Although it remains to be seen how the court defines "reasonable restrictions," if the court finds that things like restrictions on magazine capacity or cosmetics are not reasonable, then a only a SCOTUS decision overturning Heller or its progeny or a constitutional amendment would pave the way for such limits on firearms manufacture, transfer, or possession.

ArmedBear
February 26, 2009, 11:55 AM
it remains to be seen how the court defines "reasonable restrictions"

Exactly.

And given recent decisions like Raich and Kelo, I have absolutely no reason to believe that SCOTUS will rule against government power in any case where there is any gray area.

If you believe it would, you haven't been paying any attention to SCOTUS rulings, whatsoever.

rbernie
February 26, 2009, 11:59 AM
This is 1994 all over again. The dems will show their true colors by putting up another AWB, and they will get voted out next election cycle.

Any law that is passed can be over turned. Nothing is truly permanent.But we should all remember that the last AWB was *not* overturned. It was allowed to expire. It's not like one party kicked out the other party and undid the damage done. Both parties have shown themselves to be willing to enact and support AWBs.

We should always presume that the only friends that we have are the ones that fear losing the next election. Party affiliation means little.

earlthegoat2
February 26, 2009, 12:00 PM
Im not too worried about it. Just reup your ante to the NRA and ride out the squall.

democrat
February 26, 2009, 12:05 PM
Easy pardner. Actually I pay quite close attention to the Court. It's my job. Raich and Kelo are inapposite, in my opinion. In any case, you may notice I said "it remains to be seen." The point is that any gun control legislation will be litigated under Heller. Play nice so we can have an intelligent discussion.

ATW525
February 26, 2009, 12:15 PM
This is 1994 all over again. The dems will show their true colors by putting up another AWB, and they will get voted out next election cycle.

Any law that is passed can be over turned. Nothing is truly permanent.

I wouldn't count on it. If the Dems are able to point to a notable improvement in the economy by the next election cycle, they won't be going anywhere. Financial security is simply more important than guns to the majority of the public right now.

I would also expect them to act on an AWB sooner rather than later. The more time they have between the enactment of a ban and reelection, the less fresh the issue will be in the minds of the people at the voting booth.

Gungnir
February 26, 2009, 12:35 PM
I don't know to be totally honest. This might be political, so I the Mods can yell at me if they so desire.

I live in WA which is where I live liberal, there are a lot of liberals who are seriously upset about the Stimulus plan, and financing around it, which will hit them sometime and they know it. The same applies to those same demographic in OR and CA, so the Wonderful Wizard of O currently with "the people" is not batting too high, from what I'm hearing locally.

I mentioned on another thread, that there are a bunch of Civil liberty groups how are hopping on the 2A bandwagon as test cases for their own agenda's. Due to the possibility that privileges and immunities clause in the 14th now has new precedent (Heller) possibly overturning the Slaughterhouse cases and returning it's teeth. What their agenda's are isn't that important to me, I have no moral or ethical interest in any of their causes for or against, my Second Amendment right matters to me, so good for them.

State Sovereignty Bills being read in something like 10 states, if the Federal Government does not let that impact their decision making process, they are bigger fools that even I imagined.

State bills relaxing firearm ownership passing through current state legislatures (TX, WA, and a bunch of others), Orange County CA up in arms about their RKBA and a restriction being attempted by the OC Sheriff.

Yes The Wonderful Wizard of O (don't look behind the curtain) and Holder might have an agenda, they may lie too, hey their politicians, they only lie when their lips are moving. Holder is a questionable lawyer from what I've heard him say, and not a very good statesman either, we also fear that the speech he made was pre-vetted, but don't know.

While Mexico might have issues, I think the big stumbling block for using Mexico as a springboard for a future AWB is that a large number of people will ask "Huh? we're restricting American Liberties to help Mexico? Why don't we just do something at the border?" Plus the actual benefit is negligible, there are enough firearms on the global market to make the firearms crossing the border from the US a drop in the ocean.

BHO's honeymoon period with his electorate is over (or very nearly over), we may be crying wolf.

But then again I have written to my Federal representatives and Senators to let them know my position (for what that's worth). I'm still a member of the NRA and the SAF, and plan to remain so.

James T Thomas
February 26, 2009, 12:44 PM
What is it that you expect?
I am surprised that the left is as bold as they have been -initially.
Remember how they quieted Nancy Pelosi, and now she only puts her foot in it sporatically?
She has been cautioned to tone it down so that the public's attention is not focused on what is being implemented.

Is the water in this melting pot becoming gradually warmer, or am I just so comfortable as not to notice?

And who said that the price for freedom is eternal vigilance?

I'm reminded of the child's song: "Rock a bye baby."
Don't be lulled into sleep!

jimmyraythomason
February 26, 2009, 01:04 PM
But there REALLY IS a wolf..a very BIG one.

jbkebert
February 26, 2009, 01:39 PM
So how do we as sportsman put a stop to this AWB. I don't agree with this at all and I wonder if we indeed became our own worst enemies. I read thread after thread saying things along the lines as Assult rifles, Evil Black Rifles, SHTF guns. I stated this in another thread but it was closed. To every member both current and former I know how hard it is not to refer to a gun as a weapon. It is beat into our minds. It was a very hard habit for me to break. I can't as an instructor use terms like this anymore. When I am standing in front of a audience of 60-70 kids, women, students, their moms and dads. It's hard to say grab your weapon and go hunt rabbits. Every firearm can trace its roots to a military background. The Sharps rifle was once the most advanced militarty rifle of its time. The lever gun the bolt gun no matter had its place in the military before it had its place in shooting sports. The term evil black rifle or whatever makes it very hard to convience those who want to ban them. That they do have a place in shooting sports. If we continue to use terms like this and continue to stockpile ammo and talk about SHTF and zombie bears. What do we think is going to happen. It's like your loud mouth buddy in school. He'd yap and yap and always expect his buddies to bail him out. Then one day you don't he gets his ### handed to him and can't figure out why. I hope this is not the time when our buddy the NRA lets us reap what we have sown. Eventually it will happen and we will have given plenty of firepower to those anti's. I don't see this as my opinion I see it as my belief.

sernv99
February 26, 2009, 01:49 PM
+1 jbk

yeah, it makes it hard for the rest of the population to take anyone here seriously if folks talk about the best gun for SHTF, etc.....maybe those folks live in another part of the country where there is an insurgency going on. Oh, and the threads about distrust of the gov't., "the man", etc. Funny, when it comes to our troops, no one seems to rail against them yet they are part of "the man". I know, if I throw that out there, it will make people's heads explode trying to comprehend that.

Strings
February 26, 2009, 03:06 PM
Honestly, I think Holder's comments were vetted before he spoke.

I also honestly think that there's no intent for an AWB to pass at this time.

Hear me out.

There has been a LOT of "chatter" about 1994 on the net. EVERYBODY has been saying "They won't pass a ban: they remember '94!". Don't think for one minute that this chatter has gone unnoticed.

So they start the show: we have Holder making his lil' statement. A bill WILL be coming shortly (I'd expect 8 months to a year), and I fully expect it to make most on here have appoplexy. Expect EVERYTHING: AWB, ban on CCW, closing the "gun show loophole"... everything you can think of. And it will be defeated. But the trick is, it won't be meant to pass...

It'll be nothing more than smoke and mirrors: a show put on to bolster the "pro gun Dems". And it'll be used to keep the current party in power through '10...

alwayswithmyp11
February 26, 2009, 04:01 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

It's official boys, we cried wolf, and one appeared!!!

CoRoMo
February 26, 2009, 06:30 PM
Any law that is passed can be over turned. Nothing is truly permanent.

Yeah right!
Government has never receded in size, has never given back power that it has acquired, and has never been able to operate on less tax revenue from any one year to the next.

Once it is permenant and the people get used to it, it is here to stay.

Duke of Doubt
February 26, 2009, 06:35 PM
CoRoMo: "Yeah right!Government has never receded in size, has never given back power that it has acquired, and has never been able to operate on less tax revenue from any one year to the next.Once it is permenant and the people get used to it, it is here to stay."

Deregulation of the railroad, interstate trucking, and commercial airline industries would suggest otherwise. Civilian ownership of everything from gold bullion to M1 Garand rifles, both of which used to be restricted, as well. Top federal income tax rates of 35% compared to 99% in 1917 and 97% in 1943, for another. Finally, unlimited speed in MT and 65 in most other states, rather than 55 everywhere from 1979 until 1995.

Redneck with a 40
February 26, 2009, 10:48 PM
Holder may have come out for a new AWB, but Pelosi and Reid, said this :

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/reid-joins-pelosi-in-opposing-weapons-ban-revival-2009-02-26.html

Reid is opposed to it, said it will not be voted on in the future.:D

NC-Mike
February 26, 2009, 10:51 PM
No one cried wolf.

we cried out in righteous anger and indignation and it looks like they got the message.

Never be silent. That is the worst option.

I'll bet President Obama's inbox was VERY busy today. :)



And I'd never thought I'd say this about Pelosi, but she deserves a thank you too. Senator Reid voted against the Clinton ban. We may be in good shape.

AKElroy
February 26, 2009, 11:08 PM
That being said I can hardly imagine given the state of the economy that the Obama campaign is going to one day take away that right. Please correct me if I am wrong but to me the only things that are taxed as highly as guns and ammo is Gas, Tabacco, and Alcohol. I think the propesed AWB is horrible and I in no way agree with the proposition. Then on the other hand I can't believe that one day all firearms manufactors, ammo companies, optics companies are going to be told to shut down fire all of thier employee's and retool to make hybrid car batteries. There if nothing else is to much tax revenue to be lost.

Really? Ideology is never bound by the costs. This is a naive view. The big 3 automakers are near BK, yet the bamster is proposing a Co2 cap that will basically outlaw the internal combustion engine. People are hurting, yet that didn't stop bambam from taking another $2 Trillion from them this month alone. Productivity is crashing, yet we are extending unemployement to pay people to not work. Housing is crumbling, yet we are going to disallow a mortgage deduction for high income owners & explode interest rates by issuing massive amounts of new debt to pay for it. He and his have developed a perfect prescription for economic destruction, and you think he is worried about lost revenue from the shooting sports?

Blue .45
February 26, 2009, 11:15 PM
Reid is opposed to it, said it will not be voted on in the future.

Reid said he would not seat Roland Burris, but guess who the newest Senator from Illinois is?

Redneck with a 40
February 26, 2009, 11:20 PM
Pelosi remembers 1994, she's not going to lose the speakership over this garbage.

hso
February 26, 2009, 11:40 PM
That being said I can hardly imagine given the state of the economy that the Obama campaign is going to one day take away that right.

Lemme see if there's anything recent indicating otherwise.

Attorney General Eric Holder calls for a new gun ban. From ABC News:

“… As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons …”

Yes, that might be it.:rolleyes:

Time to face reality.

cliffy
February 26, 2009, 11:58 PM
Cry Wolf will truly involve savage wolves. Wolf Lovers shall eventually realize that, if way too late. Fearless Hybrid Wolves are multiplying at alarming rates with no relief in current laws. Thus far people are relatively safe, but as deer and elk herds are decimated by wolves, our pets and we will suffice as wolf food. Our state lawmakers must awaken to this impending disaster. cliffy

Eagles6
February 27, 2009, 12:03 AM
It's for real, dude.

crazy-mp
February 27, 2009, 12:06 AM
Pelosi, Reid, Obama and DemocRATS in control, this truly is the perfect storm. Things look dark ahead boys and girls keep your powder dry and your sights true.




Is it a bad thing is you spend half your paycheck on ammo?

NC-Mike
February 27, 2009, 08:00 AM
Is it a bad thing is you spend half your paycheck on ammo?

That's a lot better than putting it on a credit card. :o

deaconkharma
February 27, 2009, 08:40 AM
I keep hearing he is a great speaker. Apparently I must not be inhaling the same stuff. The uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uhuh uh uh uh uh uh uh between every sentence doesn't make him sound very great to me. What I can't understand is that the man says "uh" so many times you forget what his last sentence was. He is utterly one of the worst communicators I have ever heard. To top it, between the "uh's" he says absolutely nothing. so if by saying nothing that has any backing, substance, or information to be gleaned and still be able to talk for 59 minutes about nothing substantial (59 minutes <laugh>arguably that long with all the jumping and clapping by the democrats 60 something times) then yeah ok he's great.:uhoh:

Or, maybe his super powered speaking ability is what I missed when I hear he is a "great speaker". Well true,there is his ability to negatively effect the stock market, with just a mere word, by hundreds of points. Yes it's very superhero like. "Able to crash large economy's with a single word! It's O-boy". Yikes. Anyway, I just thought I'd like to address the speaker thing. I just don't see it, but maybe someone more educated can give me something that makes me tingle as well, when I hear him speak. Sorry I just don't buy it when a reporter with restless leg syndrome, tells me that this man is a great speaker. I don't buy it when the same media that tells me "nothing to see here" during all the scandal that surrounds this guy, then tells me that "he is a great speaker". I am disinclined to buy in.

We have elected a narcissistic chameleon who becomes whatever we want him to be and it is easy, because he speaks in plattitudes with no substance, he can be whatever we want him to be. But as always, the mask drops and we get that glimpse, all too late, of what we have done. "Oh I don't think he'll come after guns, you're all just paranoid" or "he won't dare try the fairness doctrine" etc, folks, that is hopeful delusion. The US voted for change and here it comes, just not how we expected it. You just better make sure of what you vote for in the upcoming elections.

ar10
February 27, 2009, 09:30 AM
I've read a number of articles on the smuggling from the US to Mexico, and a couple of people I shoot with are BATF employees.
I have mixed feelings on the issue. One thing I do know is after a semi-auto assault rifle gets into Mexico from the US it's generally taken to a gunsmith for conversion to automatic. From what I understand these gunsmiths are so good that confiscated guns look like factory issued weapons. All of them are sold from 5 to 10 times they're actual purchase value except some of the high dollar Colts and SW's handguns. These are more of a status gun for the drug lords and get 4 to 5k each.

The real problem is Mexico is so porous they'll find a new route to get guns they want. Mexico also has many more social problems than the US especially poverty. As long as it's a trans shipment point for drugs moving into the US gun will always be available. And as much rhetoric the Mexican government wants to spew out about their US gun problem money from drugs is revenue for Mexico.

Shung
February 27, 2009, 11:15 AM
I keep hearing he is a great speaker. Apparently I must not be inhaling the same stuff

don't worry, seems that the stuff you're talking about isnt available here neither..

Durus
February 27, 2009, 11:46 AM
I think it's very important to keep in mind exactly why they want overthrow the 2nd Amendment.

mstirton
February 27, 2009, 11:48 AM
Yes, I'm afraid the AWB will be worse this time around and it's not why I'm so worried about Obama/Dems. In case you haven't noticed, we are becoming a socialist country faster now than ever before. I'm worried that there may come a day (soon) that we have to use our 2nd ammendment right for the purpose it was created. I just saw that in order for TX (and other fiscally responsible states) to receive our wonderful stimulus money, we have to rewrite our welfare laws to include pretty much anyone who wants free stuff.

Carl N. Brown
February 27, 2009, 12:00 PM
OK, apparently if you are surrounded by large furry animals with glowing eyes and dripping fangs closing in on you, it's paranoid to call wolf.

Last I heard Nancy Pelosi had advised Obama not to push for an AWB at this time. "Not at this time" boys and girls means eventually.

That does mean we have time to mount our defenses.

Knucklehead2
February 27, 2009, 12:16 PM
Lou Dobbs last night said the Mexican government is not releasing the serial numbers of captured firearms. Therefore, we have to take the word of the Mexican government these firearms came from the USA. If the cartels were purchasing grenades and explosives, why would they go through the trouble of sourcing AK clones from US gun shops and then converting them to full auto?

Hoot Gibson
February 27, 2009, 01:22 PM
Are We Crying Wolf?

You gotta be kidding? Hell no, anybody that doesn't understand what's going on after just 5 weeks of this administratioin must be in a coma.

Tom Servo
February 27, 2009, 01:23 PM
Last I heard Nancy Pelosi had advised Obama not to push for an AWB at this time. "Not at this time" boys and girls means eventually.
Well, I'm guessing "eventually" will have to be before the 2010 mid-terms. Notice the (almost) complete Republican opposition to the spending bill. You can bet the 2010 elections are going to be all about FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. It'll be an easy issue for the Republicans, too, since even if the stimulus bill was worth anything, it won't have achieved anything by then.

You can bet the Democrats know that, too. This was their masterpiece, but it can very easily become their albatross. I'm sure Pelosi and the rest are busy making sure they stay on target. And that means pre-emptive damage control.

So, guns will likely be on the back burner for now. If the Republicans can take a few more seats in 2010, it'll be even harder for the Democrats to ramrod any sort of ban.

Do they WANT one? Heck, yes. Do they think they can get one? No. Bear in mind, Holder's comments were brushed off by Pelosi the same afternoon they were made.

I stand by original contention that posting messages on the internet is nonproductive, unless people do as you have done, sir, and act.

Agreed. The internet allows us to be much better networked and informed than we were in 1993 (was rec.guns even around then?). But it runs two ways. I see threads like this everywhere, and I get constant emails every time someone in the administration opens their mouth, but when I ask people what they're actually doing, they go mute.

"Well, I'm in the NRA," isn't activism. "Well, I voted once," isn't doing something. I do wish some of this energy being spent on hysterical blog and forum posts would actually be directed at calling/writing legislators.

In the end, we've still got Heller, and those who'd push for a ban still remember how many of their comrades lost jobs over this in 1994. I don't like the current administration, and I sure don't trust them. But I know political reality, and the current situation isn't fertile ground for a new ban.

slzy
February 27, 2009, 02:13 PM
obama has as good a grasp of fiscal responsibility as blogovecch [or whatever] has on ethics.

disarming the populace,dispensing health care at the administrations' pleasure,and amnesty for illegal aliens sure does'nt sound like wolf.

a kinder,gentler, genocide.

jbech123
February 27, 2009, 04:07 PM
“The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today. ‘As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,’ Holder told reporters. Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.” (Source: ABC News Online) Read the full article HERE or visit http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1.

everallm
February 27, 2009, 04:41 PM
Jbech123,

I would recommend using the search function before posting something like this.

This has been posted 19 times already including post#54 on this very thread, do a search for 6960824.

You also left out the minor issue that less than 24 hours later both the White House and Pelosi publicly disowned the AG's statement .

CoRoMo
February 27, 2009, 05:50 PM
Duke:

I had things like OSHA and welfare in mind. The AWB didn't get resent rather it was allowed to sunset. I hope and pray that the next AWB will either have a sunset or the 'loyal opposition' will resend it like some believe, but I'm pessimistic.

When you had Bill Ruger, of all people, offering up his own ideas on gun control, how can we trust the GOP to reverse something that a lot of them probably don't care too much about anyway.

Some of them surely whisper to each other, "Who needs AR-15s and hi cap magazines anyway?". I think a lot of those blue-blood country-club-types aren't gunnies like us and they just don't understand why we aren't willing to once again, move the line in the sand.

Karl Hungus
February 27, 2009, 06:09 PM
Before Obama took office, I used to think all the guys yelling about how he was going to turn the US into 1960's USSR were delusional. Now - a little more than one short month later I feel differently. At this point I would say anything is possible. Anything.

Officers'Wife
February 27, 2009, 06:35 PM
Above it all, Obama is still a Chicago democrat. He will use keyslotting and bigotry to get what he wants. No matter what the cost to the country the majority will be fooled by it.

rbernie
February 27, 2009, 06:40 PM
Just a reminder to keep this discussion centered around RKBA issues; general poly ticks is still verboten.

Thanks, all. :)

Mr Kablammo
February 27, 2009, 06:41 PM
A steam roller that is moving at you slowly is still a steam roller that is moving at you...

florida1098
February 27, 2009, 07:30 PM
Lets say someone just got off a 12 hour shift, had to walk the dog, make the coffee, get clothes ready for next 12 hour shift, in 10 hours- try to fall asleep, and concentrate on family issues, here in Florida do the best thing possible for our rights, yet keeping a sense of balance, WHAT IS THE NEXT CORRECT STEP TO LETTING MY PALM BEACH OFFICIALS KNOW I AM AGAINST A BAN WHILE I HAVE A FEW FREE MINUTES ON COMPUTER?
Thanks

ShadyScott999
February 27, 2009, 07:42 PM
NO! We are not.

moooose102
February 27, 2009, 09:46 PM
are they going to try? well, duh! of course they are going to try. it is up to us to make such a big stink that they have to stop. post #25 has got it at least partially right. if they do not hear from us, they are going to do anything they think they can get away with. call, or better yet, write every govenment official you can and do your best to CLAMLY explain to them that you oppose all anti-firearm legislation. "we the people" need to be heard from! if we do nothing, it will end up costing us dearly. i really do not want to go to the point of them "prying it from my cold dead hands!" if we can avoid it.

Harve Curry
February 27, 2009, 11:36 PM
To change it more of us pro 2nd Amendment Constitutionalist have to be part of the political machine, the ones that help turn the gears. Younger is better, get involved with say a local Republican chapter and move up. It takes years and dedication. In a nut shell that's what the socialist did within the Democrat party.

cliffy
February 27, 2009, 11:56 PM
American Corporations have caused most of our current misery. American jobs sent to foreign lands, including Communist countries had to eventually affect America. DUH! Chinese employees can barely assemble anything without cross-threading the screws. Why do we accept such incompetence? Cheapness is the only reason. Is our ability to do things right properly compensated by cheap, imported junk? Our schools and colleges teach the proper way to manufacture, yet we manufacture nearly nothing. Maybe we can send all our educated youth to foreign countries to teach them how to do things right! cliffy

razorback2003
February 28, 2009, 12:40 AM
It does not surprise me that BO and his cabinet are pushing to change firearms laws. I planned ahead, thankfully. Considering how fast he rammed his spending bill through Congress and signed it into law, this shouldn't come as a shock.

It is important that we contact CONGRESS and let them know not to let this even come to a floor vote. Join the NRA, if you haven't already. Buy as many magazines as possible, and if you've got the money, buy a good AR-15.

This Chicago trash is going to trash the whole country at a rapid pace.

I find it funny that Holder refuses to enforce federal law against pot dispenseries in California, because CA law allows it, but wants to ram California law on the rest of America with new gun laws. Pot is not a legal right, but firearms are. If BO wants to let people smoke pot, change fed law....but then again he thinks he can do anything without Congress.

ConstitutionCowboy
February 28, 2009, 11:02 AM
American Corporations have caused most of our current misery.

[Commence off-topic rant]This is off topic, but needs to be said: It isn't the corporations as much as it's the climate they've been forced to operate in thanks to liberal, socialist, greenie-weenie advances. Opportunities for success are thwarted here. Successful companies and individuals are bled of their wealth and earning power to support these liberal-instituted socialist programs and greenie-weenie environmental restrictions.

The Kangaroo Rat is thriving while we're about to head for the soup kitchens and bread lines. OPEC nations thrive while we freeze in the winter and roast in the summer all for the lack of using our own abundant resources.

Maybe if the liberals put in enough gun control, they'll be voted out and common sense conservatism shall reign and put liberalism out of its misery - the misery it wishes to spread out across the land. [Close off-topic rant]

Woody

everallm
February 28, 2009, 11:11 AM
OPEC nations thrive while we freeze in the winter and roast in the summer all for the lack of using our own abundant resources.


CC have you been following the news lately.....They're all in the same shi**er as the everyone else.

In point of fact, as almost all of the OPEC Sovereign Investment Funds were all very heavily weighted towards US T-Bills and they're generally one product economies they're in a worse state than many others.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are we crying wolf" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!