What are the feared "Future Restrictions" driving up gun sales?

[gfanikf]

Personally I'd be more scared of another Bush.

Am I mistaken that in terms of things actually banned and still on the books (or a valid EO), that the two Bush's? I'm talking Non-sporting and Norinco (though as much as I'd like a cheap M14, it's hard to complain about Norinco's problems), Non-sporting on the other hand will "by passable" killed off the market for tons of weapons and even more so if do C&R. I mean we would have C&R AK's now!

Even if the President signs a 'treaty', it then needs to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate...

Correct, BUT not Executive Agreements (which this would not fall under), laws to implement it could also be suggested BUT and this is a BIG BUT...treaties can't override the constitution even if ratified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

 

[Seattleimport]

You not paying attention doesn't make it a non-issue simply because you're unaware of key facts.

And you worrying about extremely implausible "what if" scenarios creates an issue that doesn't actually exist.

You accuse me of being unaware. No, I just refuse to acknowledge hype, speculation, and fear-mongering. I recognize that when Obama "talks" about restricting guns, he's simply playing to his base--in the same way that his opponents spin such talk for their own base.

I don't care about talk. I don't care about speculation driven by self-interested entities. I do care about actions. Obama's actions (or rather, non-action) on this one, single issue (gun control) earned him an F by the afore-linked Brady Campaign. They rated Bush higher than that.

Instead of letting myself be influenced by peddlers of improbable conspiracy theories, I look at recorded history: since Obama took office, more people own more guns, and are allowed to carry them more places. His only effect on "gun control" is allowing people to carry guns in national parks.

I'm not going to worry about imaginary (literally imaginary because they don't yet exist) "future restrictions."

If restrictions are seriously proposed and actually submitted as legislation, I'll get involved. But not before. Otherwise, I'd be fighting an enemy that does not exist.

http://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/dar-wei-chen-obama-bogeyman

 

[David E]

And you worrying about extremely implausible "what if" scenarios creates an issue that doesn't actually exist.

Recognizing that Obama is virulently anti-gun is hardly "implausible," it's factually verifiable.

You accuse me of being unaware.

When you spout this kind of blather:

My point is that Obama hasn't demonstrated any interest in pursuing an anti-gun agenda

then, yes.

 

[Neverwinter]

Recognizing that Obama is virulently anti-gun is hardly "implausible," it's factually verifiable.

The aforementioned "facts" are not facts at all. See post 56.

Under that level of scrutiny, there are many "factually verifiable" statements which are completely out of touch with reality. It is also "factually verifiable" that he wants to close down Guantanamo, but no one fears that happening. Much like the National Park CCW, he has signed a law into place going in the other direction(NDAA). Oh, but I'm sure Guantanamo is going to be closing any day soon.

 

[Feanor]

The current president can't get through enough nominees to fill the numerous current vacancies on federal courts today. What in the world makes you think that he could get an extra justice or two added to the Supreme Court, which even FDR (massively popular, with big majorities in both houses of Congress) couldn't do? I wouldn't waste energy worrying about that scenario. Being invaded by aliens who confiscate all weapons is about as likely.

FDR never tried to stack the court, he "threatened" to stack it, to great "new deal" effect! The rest of your response is virtually meaningless, he has nominated two justices to the high court, both are currently lifetime members. He had broad bi-partisan support, if he wins re-election, then it's also quite likely that he regains the house, and maintains the senate. He could nominate justices to the high court monthly, for the rest of his second term.

The current landmark legal issue in front of the high court, was rammed down America's throat without a single vote from the opposition, they used archaic budgetary tricks to do so. FDR didn't have the BB's for such an obvious overreach, if given the opportunity he won't hesitate to stack the court, and he will have success.

 

[Art Eatman]

Okay, too much personal stuff and politics and Lord knows what all. Five pages is plenty.