How are things different than in 2008/2009?

[breakingcontact]

The most previous "panic" that drove up prices was based on fear of the new president and what he could do.

The panic we are in the midst of now is due to the president essentially restating his previous position and some senators reintroducing bills they have been introducing in some form for years.

What is different about our current situation than in 2009? Aren't we in some ways better off due to the US House? I understand the rapidity with which people bought was unprecedented. The gun shops and distributors were wiped out like never before, I get that. I just don't see how any severe legislation is going to be passed or existing laws/rules radically unless the supreme courts makeup changes and upholds capricious executive orders.

(I am in no way minimizing the tragedy that happened, it makes me sick. But so does the disarming of the American people.)

 

[CoRoMo]

Last time we had no large public ideological momentum, just new leaders proposing their beliefs.

This time we have a lot of those same leaders, proposing those same beliefs, but we have a large amount of public agreement with those beliefs.

 

[Silent Bob]

The 24/7 Liberal Propaganda Media Machine was not beating the drum for gun control in 2008 and 2009. Now, their full attention is turned toward it (what's a fiscal cliff?) with no signs of slowing down.

I read an editorial the other day where the writer had a modest proposal of forcing gun owners to buy exorbitant insurance in an effort to limit the number of gun owners.

 

[Filmtex]

Also, in 2008/2009 we weren't dealing with a lame duck president whose actions we REALLY understand. But Feinstein is just lame.

 

[Surculus]

The panic we are in the midst of now is due to the president essentially restating his previous position and some senators reintroducing bills they have been introducing in some form for years.

What is different about our current situation than in 2009?

Obama is in his second term, & has no concerns about getting reelected since there is no option for a 3rd term [aside from him harboring any plans on steam-rolling any resistance to him declaring President-for-life once he's forcibly disarmed right-thinking Americans.]

 

[breakingcontact]

We also have more internet on our end to fuel the panic.

 

[Gryffydd]

For whatever reason, the media has been banging on the gun control drum way, way harder than it has after previous similar events. This has made it look like there's more public support for it than there is. From what I've seen it has prompted the usual types on Facebook and whatnot to follow their lead. Those types being the ones that constantly post liberal propaganda via their social media outlets. In other words, the kooks, but not the general public.

 

[Zoogster]

The biggest difference is the media.


There is several other differences. However by far the biggest difference is a massive media push to convince the public that they support gun control.


The media has higher ups that tell it what types of things are acceptible to focus on as well. I know in prior years they have told them not to run certain stories or have reduced intensity on coverage of certain things due to political concerns.
Based on that I can speculate some:
They didn't seem to want to put much emphasis after Aurora had a shooting at the theatre, probably because it might hurt the elections coming up by making guns a big part of the political scene.
The latest incident though happened after the elections were over.
When a President that can be used is also reelected and on his second and last term, and Congressional elections are done for the time being.



To be quite honest there was a shift in various parts of government after Senator Giffords was shot in 2011 to look at increasing gun control, but there was no public support for it. In fact there was strong public opposition, not merely a lack of support.
A Senator, one of the most powerful people in our government. When someone like that is killed or reduced to what she has been in an attack it hits closer to home for members of our government, and increases feelings of vulnerability.
I think what we are seeing is the efforts and plans since then, which couldn't be acted on until the first tragedy post election.

The shooting of Giffords is about when a lot of the pro-gun legislation started to taper off, after making constant and very dramatic progress for many years.



However I still believe the House can put a stop to any gun restrictions. It is merely a matter of keeping the pressure on representatives.
But even if they pass no new restrictions this time, I think they will be working towards them in the future. As soon as they get a government that can pass restrictions I see them trying again with even more intensity than now, likely after the first tragedy then.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

On the positive notes:

* We have Supreme Court case law in Heller and McDonald on our side. Things like clarifying that the 2A is indeed an individual right and that a ban on a class of firearms is unconstitutional. That, plus the "common use" clause, which I would argue AR-15s are. There's also other positive federal court wins. What was the one in Maryland called, that 2A is not limited to carrying within one's own home only? That, plus the recent Illinois federal court win on CCW.

* Another positive note is Republican control of the House after the 2010 mid-term elections. I'm not saying this is along party lines, but it kind of is, let's be honest.


On the negative note, I can think of a few:

* 2nd Term president can show true colors and agenda now without fear of needing to stay under the radar. He has "more flexibility" now in his words.

* The recession from the housing bubble was just beginning to take hold. But now we're in much more debt ($16+ Trillion) than in 2008 with debt ceiling crises (and one more coming in the next 2 weeks), still a budget deficit that is $1 Trillion, and more unfunded liabilities in excess of $100 Trillion. With lower credit ratings from S&P and Moody's.

* Federal Reserve Quantitative Easing policy has injected so much currency that we are at risk of inflation like we haven't seen in a long time.

* Unemployment and underemployment are worse than they are in 2008. Many have settled for part-time work (thus taking them out of the workforce) or given up (thus taking them out of the workforce) making the raw unemployment number look like it's improving when it's not.

* UN Arms Trade Treaty discussions to resume in March I believe. This would require Senate ratification, but it is still a threat to private small arms ownership. US Ambassador John Bolton said recently that it was disguised as arms reduction between nation-states but it's really an attack toward civilian private small arm ownership.

* With Obama's re-election, he WILL appoint an anti-gun Supreme Court justice if he gets the opportunity. This new justice will NOT be impartial towards the 2nd Amendment, and maybe even other parts of the Constitution and the concept of liberty.

* Obama has tested the waters more with the use of unilateral Executive Orders. He is more brazen now. He does not respect the checks and balances of the 3 branches of government. Though technically Executive Orders cannot really create new laws, there is still a lot of room for abuse.

 

[col_temp]

* Obama has tested the waters more with the use of unilateral Executive Orders. He is more brazen now. He does not respect the checks and balances of the 3 branches of government. Though technically Executive Orders cannot really create new laws, there is still a lot of room for abuse.

Been done before and he has no reason to keep going. Well put together set of comments. As it has been said, we live in interesting times..