2012 Election and Rules for L&CR

Another thing to remember is that even though the new president doesn't have to worry about what he does because he can't be reelected, his fellow party members may not want him to mess things up so bad that they can't ever get another guy into office.
 
We know for a fact that a strong majority of members of the party in (2/3) control are in favor of gun control and it is a badge of honor to say you are for gun control.
Click to expand...
Do we really? Outside of the regular dozen chest-beaters, how many are really in favor of it?

You might be surprised how few really are. And that's not just the folks who are afraid of the implications for their future careers: we've got strong supporters (and some who aren't) on both sides of the aisle.

My concern is that WE may not get a guy into office, ever.
Click to expand...
If you mean someone who's unequivocably on board for the 2A, you'd be right. Politics is the art of compromise and underhanded deals. That's what many, many folks never understand, and they get angry.

One does not get to rise to prominence in politics on virtue alone. In fact, many do so quite in spite of it.
 
There is so much misinformation out there that it boggles the mind. From the U.N. treaty to EO's, people saying Obama will declare martial law and declare himself dictator, and a blue million other excellent plots to a Hollywood blockbuster. While any of them are theoretically possible, it is also theoretically possible that little green men will land a flying saucer in my back yard in the next five minutes, but it isn't terribly likely.

Before you buy into (or spread) the hysteria, do some research.

Many people have lost faith in our system but it is still working pretty well. My concerns for the moment lean more toward economic and foreign policy. That's not to say we shouldn't keep an ever watchful eye on threats to RKBA.

I do foresee a spike in weapons and ammo prices, perhaps as bad as 2008, perhaps not. I was loafing at the LGS today and the owner spoke to one of his distributors (not sure who) around noon and learned that they had filled $4,000,000 worth of orders for AR-15s this morning... that's between 5,000 and 10,000 rifles folks. Assuming they open at 8am, that's a million bucks an hour, just in ARs. Food for thought...
 
Before you buy into (or spread) the hysteria, do some research.
Click to expand...

I'm with Ben on this one. There are some vocal Ds who want more more gun control, but most of them realize their political careers are over if they threaten 2A rights, realistically.

If Obama was going to impose more gun control, it would have happened in his first two years when he had the House on his side.

I think the economy and foreign policy is going to keep everyone plenty busy, and though I think we all have to be vigilant, the anti-gunners are weaker than they've been in a long while.
 
Spemack, I see this question got pushed aside in the ensuing conversation:

"How did President H.W. Bush get buy with enacting the import ban?"

I may be wrong about this, but it seems that Bush exploited something of a loop hole, or gap, in the law and Constitution when he issued an executive order directed at firearms imported from foreign nations.

Clinton, in 1994, issued a similar executive order that banned most firearms and ammunition imports from China.

Neither of those orders, on their face, addressed interstate commerce in any meaningful way, and that's why I think they weren't really pursued to any meaningful degree through the courts.
 
If Obama was going to impose more gun control, it would have happened in his first two years when he had the House on his side.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to say you're wrong with this, but there's no way you can know this is true. Obama had other "headlining" issues in his first 2 years that were more important to him. We know the D platform wants more gun control. Obama himself, as recently as debate 3 (EDIT: I think it was actually debate 2) said he wants more gun control. While I'm in the camp that says it will be very difficult for him to get any gun control legislation passed due to the fact he doesn't have control of the House, it certainly isn't impossible. It could be as simple as an ammo tax rider (or anything, for that matter) attached to some piece of legislation the republicans want passed.

To say that he won't do it because he didn't do it earlier is false security. Just remember what happened when our military leaders believed the Viet Cong wouldn't attack on Tet, because they hadn't done it before. We know what he believes. We know what his party believes (for the most part). If he wants something passed, there's 1001 ways for him to accomplish it.

I do not believe the sky is falling, but we shouldn't let down our guard because he didn't do it when the D's had control of the house.
 
Last edited:
I recieved this from Mas Ayoob today, food for thought,
WELL, THAT DIDN’T TAKE LONG, DID IT?
Posted: 08 Nov 2012 07:08 AM PST
Our newly re-elected President told Sarah Brady and company that he was working “under the radar” for more “gun control.” We reported it here. He told the Russians that he’d have “more flexibility” after he was re-elected. We told you that here.
About 12 hours after he was declared the victor in the Presidential race, it was announced that his administration was calling for NATO to reconsider the onerous international small arms treaty that would have profoundly chilling effects on the rights of American gun owners. My friend Dave Workman, a tireless activist for gun owners’ civil rights, explains it all here: http://www.examiner.com/article/the...-on-global-gun-control-debate?cid=db_articles .
Simultaneously, Dianne Feinstein is apparently introducing a new semi-automatic firearms ban, one which is vastly farther-reaching and more draconian than the one Bill Clinton ramrodded through and forced us to live with for a decade. This one will have no sunset clause. You won’t be able to sell the guns you own which “fit the (ridiculous) profile” of what will be forbidden…which very likely means you won’t be able to bequeath those guns to your children. Check it out here: http://www.examiner.com/article/feinstein-rumored-to-be-pushing-semi-auto-ban-if-obama-reelected
Carolyn McCarthy, a vehement single issue anti-gunner, doesn’t just encourage President Obama to use executive orders to curtail your rights to own firearms: she publicly states that she thinks he’ll actually do it, according to HuffPost, here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...rthy-obama-executive-authority_n_1699641.html
Hey, all you Obama apologists who wrote into this blog over the last few months saying that he didn’t want to interfere with your gun ownership rights…what do you think NOW?
One of our regular blog commentators said recently that he wished I’d get off politics and back to talking about guns. I hear ya, Doc, but the thing of it is…there ain’t much more important “about guns” than the right to acquire, own, and keep them.
Share or Bookmark
Click to expand...
 
The above loses credibility right off the bat to me when they confuse NATO with the UN.

So you have two of the usual gun control suspects, doing what they usually do, and further discussion of a treaty that even if then UN got around to passing it would not be likely to be ratified by the senate.

The Obama administration, she continued, has "a limitation on what they can do, but I'm hoping they'll look on the books and see what they can do. I think that's fair."
Click to expand...

any major reforms to gun laws will have to come through Congress. And McCarthy said that won't happen until lawmakers are ready to stand up to the NRA
Click to expand...

McCarthy's own statements indicate she knows her rhetoric is all bark and no bite.

McCarthy was one of just four lawmakers who held a press conference Tuesday urging action on gun control in response to the Colorado shootings.
Click to expand...

Only 4 people used a critical incident to attempt to garner favor for gun control, on top of which 51 of our senators openly opposed the UN arms trade treaty. None of these numbers have changed significantly since the elections.

As for Feinstein specifically

Feinstein’s rumored bill “would ban pistol grips and "high-capacity" magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of ‘weapons in possession’" Shepherd writes
Click to expand...

Any solid evidence yet? I don't doubt she's working on something, but it's jumping the gun when it's all based on rumor.

"The ATF personnel noted are indeed the players,” the source replied, “but what is noticeably absent is anyone from the executive level, AD or DAD [Assistant Director/Deputy Assistant Director]--the policy implementer/makers. That part is strange and shows that while ATF may have had to go to the meeting, the Bureau and DoJ are not necessarily supportive.
Click to expand...

All the huff and puff then a statement that again indicates it's all bluster. The real players aren't even mentioned in the rumors.

Articles like these do nothing but to stir the pot with shoddy information. Responding to actual threats to the 2A is one thing, but filling peoples minds with speculation, and unverified and unsupported, information causes confusion and is not helpful in supporting our rights.
 
Articles like these do nothing but to stir the pot with shoddy information
Click to expand...
.

My apologies, I didn't realize that Massad Ayoob wrote articles to stir the pot with shoddy information.
I have found his writings to be on point and to be accurate and truthful.
 
Mas Ayoob repeated exactly what members here get hammered for, repeating the exact same thing, but since he is a "scared cow" his reporting of the same information is "really cool."
 
I have a lot of respect for Mas Ayoob. I read that same thing yesterday on his blog. I really think he needs to lay off the politics, though, and stick with what he's good at. Namely, legal issues dealing with defensive shooting, and teaching people to be better defensive shooters. He seems to not fully understand all of the issues at hand. It's unfortunate, because of all the gun writers I read regularly, I figured he'd be the least likely to jump on the "Sky is Falling" bandwagon.
 
My apologies, I didn't realize that Massad Ayoob wrote articles to stir the pot with shoddy information.
I have found his writings to be on point and to be accurate and truthful.
Click to expand...

I cannot and am not commenting on his articles in general but specifically the one you pasted and the articles he used as reference. What is accurate or truthful about speculation and rumor based on unsubstantiated and unsupported information?
 
I cannot and am not commenting on his articles in general but specifically the one you pasted and the articles he used as reference. What is accurate or truthful about speculation and rumor based on unsubstantiated and unsupported information?
Click to expand...

The issue, from where I'm standing, is that article is really out of character for him. He'll touch on the political from time to time, but rarely digs deep. Even he says he's not a political writer so he stays out, so I'm not sure why he wrote that. When he writes what he knows, he's very good. That article is pure, unsubstantiated crap, unfortunately, which isn't something he does very often at all.
 
It is unfortunate to read Ayoob writing that. Seriously, do we really think the government will go after the millions of guns out there when the executive branch was elected by such a thin margin? Who is going to go door-to-door to collect them? No one in their right mind, that's who.

Too many REAL problems out there needing attention first. Should we be vigilant? Of course.
 
Feinstein’s rumored bill “would ban pistol grips and "high-capacity" magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of ‘weapons in possession’" Shepherd writes
Click to expand...

Any such ban would be an ex-post facto law, and also violate the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, and the Due Process clause of the 14th.

She's probably up to something, but she's not that stupid.
 
My take is the Obama administration will use the same tactics to go after firearms as they're using to shut down the coal and natural gas industries, i.e., use the regulatory agencies to put the manufacturers out of business or to make the cost prohibitive to the consumer instead of a more direct approach of bans or confiscation.
 
Ayoob shouldn't have written that. There's a lot of hype in that piece, but I think I know why. The lobbyist groups and high profile individuals in the gun industry know that if the fear stays high they keep gun owners vigilant. If they quit talking about it Joe Public may lose interest and become complacent. I don't agree with the tactic, but I understand it, and the anti-gun establishment makes it easy to do.

One rabid anti-gunner or another cooks up some insane piece of legislation every time Congress is in session, they always have, but they don't gain traction because they cannot get the support needed. They're simply feeding their base. Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, and others that come from heavily anti-gun and extreme liberal districts and states could introduce anything and still get elected. That's what their constituents want, so they do it. Then they can go campaign and say "I introduced legislation to get these evil guns off the streets, but my right wing, bloodthirsty gun nut fellow lawmakers refused to help me enact any reasonable regulations to curb the violence because they're in the NRA's pocket, but I will keep trying as long as you keep sending me back." Etcetera, ad. nauseum.
 
I am not going to read every response up to this point but I will throw in my 2 cents. I will probably get crucified for this but so be it, we all have different opinions on the matter.

I don't see anything happening to guns or ammo the next 4 years. I could be wrong, but they have a lot more to worry about on the table rather than take the time to vote on a ban.

I am an independent but generally lean democrat. I own a small arsenal of weapons including "black guns" that would put some small gun dealers to shame. I have what I consider to be a lifetime supply of ammo "just in case". And guess what there are others out there just like me.

I think the NRA is an extreme and unreasonable group at times. I think the extreme leftists are unreasonable as well. However I am not against making it slightly more difficult to obtain firearms. Here where I live one can buy a gun off of the classifieds with no ID and no background check. In my opinion that is just crazy. It makes it extremely easy for felons to get guns here.

I lived through the Clinton era. I live in a gun friendly state and didn't really notice much difference in obtaining firearms. Yes steel jacketed Chinese ammo was banned from import and the price on "black guns" went artificially up and without reason if you ask me. We all made it through and it just wasn't that bad. In fact the Clinton years were the best financial years of my life but that is for another discussion.

Any how, I know I am in the minority on this board but I just wanted to throw that out there and let the new comers to the sport know the end of the world is not here and I don't see much if any restrictions on firearms the next 4 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top