What are the feared "Future Restrictions" driving up gun sales?
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
- Status
alsaqr
Member
There are no new cabinet positions: An executive order cannot add cabinet positions: It's a money thing, congress has to do that. The management agency changed from FEMA to the Dep't of Homeland Security.
45_auto
Member
David E said:
You really believe that the Democrats will not attempt something similar to 1994 if they have the power and believe that it will have minimal repercussions to them?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
Do I believe Democrats would pass any anti-gun laws if they thought they could get away with it? Absolutely.
I was responding to GAF, who wants to play a quiz about past events, which isn't what this topic is about.
matrem
Member
Absolutely agree!
Anybody not seeing that, has their head in the sand!
C'mon Guys, it's easier if it can be done at a ballot box, rather than any other feasible alterantive.
Obama wants to sign on to the United Nations anti-small arms proliferation treaty as soon as he gets re- elected. No semi-autos and no pistols will be allowed. Of course, the Senate must approve that, and they probably would unless the GOP has a majority.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
So those fears are based on presumptions about reality which are simply not true, namely that they believe that anti-gun legislation can have minimal repercussions to them?
Orkan
Member
Actually, they believe it will make them safer. They truly believe if there were no guns, their would be no violent crime.
Not to transgress the web sites policies, but a very highly probable scenario, one that thinking men & women are, or should be concerned about, lies in the current administration getting a second term, and taking two different actions that would end, or permanently circumvent the second amendment.
The first very likely action would be the signing of the UN small arms proliferation treaty, IMO an absolute done deal if the current admin gets a new deal.
The other would be what FDR threatened to do, and the current admin will very definitely do if given the opportunity, that would be to "stack" the SCOTUS with the kind of people necessary to eradicate any constitutional road blocks that remain. The high court is not limited to just nine justices through any constitutional mandate, we could have as many justices as a president can get through the process.
bushmaster1313
Member
Comrade: Strict gun laws of glorious, restrained and enlightened New Jersey Legislature eliminate all violent crime in Garden State.
Tomcat47
Member
I will not play.......For the issue itself IS quiet political!.........
And I wish you all well on this thread......
And I wish you all well on this thread......
alsaqr
Member
Bingo!!!
Besides a treaty does not over-ride the US Constitution.
Yes I mean the 94 AWB and I think it is relevant because of who sold us out , who twisted a few arms in the congress to get it into law. As it stands now it would be hard for Obama to get any new anti gun laws passed, but let the right shooting happen to the right people that are pro gun at this time and you might see a change in a few laws.
Anyone care to guess or look up who the person was who twisted the arms of his friends in the congress to help get the 94 AWB passed?
Anyone care to guess or look up who the person was who twisted the arms of his friends in the congress to help get the 94 AWB passed?
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.
Salmoneye
Member
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that...
Even if the President signs a 'treaty', it then needs to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate...
Even if the President signs a 'treaty', it then needs to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate...
Black Butte
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 888
The antis really seem to get wood over standard-capacity magazines.
Black Butte
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 888
This position is unique to the United States. As far as other countries are concerned, acceptance occurs upon approval by a country's leader (in our case, Obama).
Salmoneye
Member
My point being that the President can sign whatever he wants...That does not mean that it has any legal weight till 2/3 of the Senate 'signs on'...
Black Butte
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 888
It's not as simple as that. If the President accepts it, we will be deemed to have accepted it on the international stage. It may, for example, affect the importation of ammunition from signatory countries, thus drying up supply. This is but one example of what could happen irregardless if Congress approves the treaty or not.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Personally, I believe it is worse than the prospect of restrictions on the horizon. I fear confiscations or attempted confiscations.
Regarding restrictions, I believe the level of restrictions we have now are at the saturation point, i.e., at the point most people will no longer tolerate the restrictions that currently exist evidenced by the court challenges removing restrictions, and loosening of restrictions by law in many of the several states. So, I can't foresee the implementation of more restrictions by whomever is in charge. It'll either swing toward confiscations or fewer restrictions. Your mileage may vary.
Woody
No, it didn't.
http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/012611-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf
It was just labelled a study. Nothing has changed there for now. If it did, Saiga 12 prices would be through the roof.
The feared future anti-gun movement is the same as it was in 2008 when Obama won the election. If he gets a second term, he has 4 more years to try to get things pulled over on us.
If you think that confiscations or harsher restrictions will come, how will you act? A lot of us talk a big game, but when it comes down to it, we aren't willing to defy the law.
These laws (and many others in different subjects) are only here because of lobbyists and special interests, there is no reason. I'm not calling out for anarchy, but you should evaluate how strongly you feel about all of this and choose a course of action.
If you think that confiscations or harsher restrictions will come, how will you act? A lot of us talk a big game, but when it comes down to it, we aren't willing to defy the law.
These laws (and many others in different subjects) are only here because of lobbyists and special interests, there is no reason. I'm not calling out for anarchy, but you should evaluate how strongly you feel about all of this and choose a course of action.
- Status
Similar threads
