Assault Ban - How long would it take?
- Thread starter sksfan777
- Start date
Unregistered
Moderator
She will not even consider a ban until after 2012. Neither will Romney or Obama. After 2012, any of those three are likely to support a new ban. I don't think any of the other candidates would be in favor of an assault weapons ban.
Assuming the Supremes leave the status quo as it is in the Heller case, if the Dems wanted to do it, they could have it passed within weeks of the new president taking office. They have an AWB bill already in Congress, and it (or something worse) gets introduced every day. The only issue would be how to coop or coerce the "pro gun" Dems and Reps into supporting the ban . . . or more accurately, not opposing it strongly.
It all depends on how much political capital they want to expend. If they go for broke, we could be facing a new ban this time next year.
It all depends on how much political capital they want to expend. If they go for broke, we could be facing a new ban this time next year.
Unregistered
Moderator
There is no way Hillary, Obama, or Romney will compromise a second term over an assault weapons ban.
I'd say with a democrats running the house, senate and white house it would be a matter of weeks. They won't lose many independent voters for it in FL or OH or anywhere it matters to them for doing it and their base would be estatic.
A republican won't risk alienating his base.
A republican won't risk alienating his base.
The question dealt with the speed in which the Dems could do it, not necessarily whether they would try. But if you want to convince everyone the Dems aren't a threat, go ahead.
This reminds me of 2004, when members were saying Kerry was no threat to the 2nd Amendment, notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary.
I disagree. A lot will depend upon the makeup of Congress after the election, but assuming a new AWB is pased by the house & senate I don't think any of those three would hesitate too much to sign a new AWB early in their first term. In 1994, the biggest mistake the dems made was getting it signed by clinton about two months before the elections. The average voter has a short political attention span, but two months is close enough to have a major impact on the election. If they did it early in their term they know they'd have about three years to recover before the next election cycle.
I don't want to wait and see how long!! I'd bet with Obama in the White house, anti gun groups would be quick to get going!
It's very important the a republican win the GOP that can take on Hillary with some real substance.
I fear Obama the most after hearing about his proposed CCW ban " only retired police and military should carry guns in public" and his proposed semi auto and .50 cal ( even muzzeloaders! ) ban.
Huckabee or Paul are best as far as 2nd amendment.
It's very important the a republican win the GOP that can take on Hillary with some real substance.
I fear Obama the most after hearing about his proposed CCW ban " only retired police and military should carry guns in public" and his proposed semi auto and .50 cal ( even muzzeloaders! ) ban.
Huckabee or Paul are best as far as 2nd amendment.
Hillary and Obama? They won't ban anything. They'll just make ammunition so expensive as to create a defacto ban.
Remember, Hillbama are all about "sensible gun safety laws." You know, the ones that will protect police officers. And California condors. And innocent victims of crime.
So no need to ban anything at all; they'll just push to enact "sensible gun safety laws." You know, like the kind of laws that prohibit lead rounds (bad for condors, children, and the environment), and that require microstamping on cases and bullets (to help prosecute criminals, and to make ammo cost a heck of a lot more). Perhaps a special tax on gunpowder, and lots of paperwork to track where every flake of that gunpowder ends up, from the beginning of the manufaturing process, through the time that the consumer finally purchases it. Requiring a consumer to present identification and to sign for every round of ammo purchased sounds like a sensible gun safety law, yes?
Oh no, the Democrats won't try to ban anything; they'll just work to make ammo so expensive and difficult to buy (lots of paperwork), as well as impossible to import, so that you won't be able to shoot anymore. Oh yeah, Hillary and Obama, you don't have to worry about them at all.....
Remember, Hillbama are all about "sensible gun safety laws." You know, the ones that will protect police officers. And California condors. And innocent victims of crime.
So no need to ban anything at all; they'll just push to enact "sensible gun safety laws." You know, like the kind of laws that prohibit lead rounds (bad for condors, children, and the environment), and that require microstamping on cases and bullets (to help prosecute criminals, and to make ammo cost a heck of a lot more). Perhaps a special tax on gunpowder, and lots of paperwork to track where every flake of that gunpowder ends up, from the beginning of the manufaturing process, through the time that the consumer finally purchases it. Requiring a consumer to present identification and to sign for every round of ammo purchased sounds like a sensible gun safety law, yes?
Oh no, the Democrats won't try to ban anything; they'll just work to make ammo so expensive and difficult to buy (lots of paperwork), as well as impossible to import, so that you won't be able to shoot anymore. Oh yeah, Hillary and Obama, you don't have to worry about them at all.....
The Tourist
Moderator
The lefties seem to like to cash in on the tragedy du jour. There seems to be very little traction in alientating legitmate hunters.
However, let a deranged mental patient or a townie shoot up a trailor park, and the dems will be all over with sound bytes implying "we told you so."
The pressure will be twice as bad if the rifle used resembles a Kalashnikov.
However, let a deranged mental patient or a townie shoot up a trailor park, and the dems will be all over with sound bytes implying "we told you so."
The pressure will be twice as bad if the rifle used resembles a Kalashnikov.
Unregistered
Moderator
The democrats are a threat, but they (like the Republicans) will value power over idealism. Therefore, I do not believe they will push for a AWB during their first term.
Something that bothers me about "protect the police officers" statement is what they might be told to do once the wrong people are in office. Every instance of tyranny, oppression, and mass murder by governments has been carried out by the police. I always find it interesting that the loudmouth "civil rights" icons of leftist affiliations have a selective short memory and peculiar silence on the role the police had in the days of MLK and the like. The Gestapo, the SS, and the KGB happened to be police. Don't think that they can be turned against the people here? Read about Stanley Milgrim.
jakeswensonmt
New member
Agreed about Democrats (and Republicans) motives, but I think the Democrats response will be the opposite of what you're anticipating. I think they will push for the AWB to lock-in the anti-voters. In 2012 election campaign ads they'll be crowing "we're the ones who passed AWB-2!" Pro-2nd-voters won't be voting for these jokers anyways, so they won't worry about losing their votes.
However IMO a Republican RINO (and I think they're mostly RINO except RP) would go for AWB-2 in their second term.
Didn't Romney say, as President, he'd sign an assault weapons ban if it came to his desk? I thought I heard that he did say that, recently. McCain did not support or vote for the AWB94 and he voted against renewing it, IIRC. I'm not saying McCain is great on gun owners rights, as he totally whiffed on closing the Gun Show loophole. His bill would have been a disaster for gun shows. However, I think he is better than Romney. The Huckster and RP are much better than both Romney and McCain, but they are lagging way behind in these primaries. There may not be a GOOD pro gun rights candidate in this next Presidential election. Certainly, McCain or Romney would be better than Hill or Bar.
Well, a different perspective: If McCain is elected, many of us will be issued government assault rifles when we're drafted for the war in Iran.
Those who aren't drafted will eventually be issued assault rifles to defend against the invading Chinese ( we had to weaken our homeland strength and security to boost the military effort for WWIII ).
So, McCain is all for assault rifles.
Those who aren't drafted will eventually be issued assault rifles to defend against the invading Chinese ( we had to weaken our homeland strength and security to boost the military effort for WWIII ).
So, McCain is all for assault rifles.
Garand Illusion
New member
Reading all the above ... an AWB gets put in every year. If we get a lot more anti-gun democrats in congress next year and a president who won't veto it (the latter is almost a given, unfortunately, given the top candidates) we could have an AWB taking place a year from now.
If I see it coming and there is no confiscation (unlikely) I will be taking out loans to get a few toys before they become illegal.
If I see it coming and there is no confiscation (unlikely) I will be taking out loans to get a few toys before they become illegal.
Surefire_U2
New member
There are some blue dog Democrats in the house that could end up taking the pro-gun side. However, there are also RINOs that could take the anti side.
My hope is that despite the Democrats owning the house, senate, and possibly presidendency, the more moderate to conservative blue dog democrats will vote their conscience rather than by their party.
My hope is that despite the Democrats owning the house, senate, and possibly presidendency, the more moderate to conservative blue dog democrats will vote their conscience rather than by their party.
toybox99615
New member
THE real threat is already here
Homeland Security Director Mike Chertoff is the biggest threat of all. If you look carefully at a number of things he has proposed under the guise of HS you will see the potential for gun control. Chertoff wants everyone in America to be tied to the government issued ID cards he is promoting.
And remember HS, Chertoff and all the rest of this crap is all part of the Republican appointments of BUSH. You can theorize what the Dems might do but the Republicans have already allowed this much to pass without a blink.
Homeland Security Director Mike Chertoff is the biggest threat of all. If you look carefully at a number of things he has proposed under the guise of HS you will see the potential for gun control. Chertoff wants everyone in America to be tied to the government issued ID cards he is promoting.
And remember HS, Chertoff and all the rest of this crap is all part of the Republican appointments of BUSH. You can theorize what the Dems might do but the Republicans have already allowed this much to pass without a blink.