Can anyone confirm this Rumor? New AWB coming soon. Not what you think.

[spartacus2002]

when the cost of compliance exceeds the cost of noncompliance, TS will HTF.

 

[Bubbles]

Then fight him in the primary...

Believe me, I intend to. However, if he ends up the nominee I'll withhold my vote on election day.

 

[GEM]

The Democrats are probably a lost cause on proactive measures for a long time. However, supporting progun Democrats is a good idea as wedding the RKBA to one party is a losing strategy. It would take grass roots level to talk to Democratic candidates and convince them that their best strategy is to say that we have enough laws already, etc. Getting them to roll back is not likely. But stopping new laws is good if that dude gets in.

On the GOP side, it must be the case made to Bush and the NEXT GOP presidential candidate that this soccer mom sucking crap of supporting things like the AWB will not fly. No wussy side steps, like I support the AWB but know the House doesn't so I can be a weasel on this issue.

The next candidate clearly has to state that no new antigun laws are needed and in fact they need to roll back some and give us good stuff like national reciprocity among shall issue states.

The base of the RKBA needs to be widening for this to happen.

I also note that pressure needs to be put on the media to be honest. While some reports were hysterical. I was surprised that some were really factually on the effects and coverage of the AWB. ABC had one that was really good on their Sunday World News show.

 

[schromf]

Guys,

As much as despise everything they stand for, Fienstien and Brady are relentless dedicated opponents. I have to respect them for that at least. They aren't going away, they are going to be right back in our faces the first chance they get.

DONT underestimate these two, they are "the" enemy to 2nd amendment rights and they are probably working right now to gather support, or find a new author or sponsor to introduce new legislation. I can hear her beating the drums and ralling her troops as I type this.

We need to be particularly careful of back door, or underhanded attacks next. Fienstien is a skilled knowledgable political opponet and she isn't giving up.

We won a battle, the war is still being fought.

 

[Waitone]

They aren't going away, they are going to be right back in our faces the first chance they get.

And that is why I strongly support an offensive strategy. We need to make the Dynamic Duo dread coming to work trying to whip up enthusiasm for the next round of gun control. We need to keep them defending their position instead of taking territory.

The pro-second amendment community should assemble a target list of anti-gun legislation and go to work. If the NRA wants to help, fine. We no longer need be in a compromise mode. Our stance needs to be "Roll-Back."

 

[spartacus2002]

I agree on rolling the asinine gun laws back. Which one should we start with?

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I just heard my local congressman on the radio pushing for a reduction of gun control in Washintong DC. He sez that the crime rate in DC is so high that it's absurd not to let the people protect themselves with a gun if they so choose. Frankly, I didn't know he had it in him.

Perhaps this issue will turn into our next big push. It isn't much, but it's certainly a good start.

 

[RealGun]

and give us good stuff like national reciprocity among shall issue states.

I dread seeing this become a popular idea. Getting the Feds involved in CCW licensing is a BIG deal. You would be asking them to validate that States are not violating the 2nd and 14th Amendments by ignoring or infringing upon the RKBA. Short term, national reciprocity may seem very appealing, but think about what it would mean. It legitimizes State licensing of CCW, entirely unconstitutional from the start. We just got used to it, and NRA recommended it (1920s).

If there must be reciprocity, let the States work it out. I see good progress and think we should settle for that. States can cooperate without changing any legal precedents.

By the same token, I would not see federal legislation in regard to LEO carry as any progress. It makes us second class citizens and puts a federal foot in the door about who can carry and who can't. If a privilege to carry can be granted to LEOs it can be taken away too, as if it was ever any business of the Fed and in any way constitutional, even if only in legal effect by way of unchallenged precedent. That's exactly how we got to where we are today.

As far as I am concerned, any restrictive or selective action by the Fed in regard to guns is unconstitutional, and I would be against any of it, even if a short term convenience by way of less restriction by States. If the 2nd and 14th Amendments aren't worth spit, then I want the Feds to just stay out of it and will resist legislation of any kind. They get little enough accomplished in a Congressional term and should not be wasting time on un-American gun control that violates their oaths of office.

I would be more interested in having the Supreme Court establish that our truth is their truth. That would be the much grander picture. Reciprocity would become moot.

I would also be interested in a Constitutional amendment to remove the incorporation doctrine from the 14th Amendment. That would mean that the Bill of Rights, all of it, applies to all States, period, right now, today, quit messin' around after many lifetimes, and stop waiting for the Supreme Court to make the law of the land effective.

 

[444]

I recently watched a very well done DVD half on gun rights half an advertisment: very well done IMO. One point that he made was that we have been fighting for our rights the same way for the last 50 years. The NRA in particular has been doing the same thing for 50 years. Look where that got us.
HEADS UP !!!!!
It doesn't work.