Whoever gets the oval office will have their hands full in the first year - getting us out of Iraq cleanly and without that country collapsing; an economy that's tanking; a weak U.S. dollar; rising inflation; higher unemployment; the left calling for universal healthcare; the first wave of baby boomers retiring to draw SSI benefits... there will be more important issues facing Congress than another AWB. The trick is to loudly apply pressure to Congress and the WH to resolve those issues such that AWB-2 isn't even on anyone's top-5 list.
Assault Ban - How long would it take?
- Thread starter sksfan777
- Start date
ShortTimer
Inactive
As a LEO, I feel a lot less safe being in a world where everyone is at the mercy of criminals. The folks who want gun control are usually the same ones that make a LEO's job a hassle of paperwork and regulations that have nothing to do with law and have everything to do with some toadying sycophant higher up covering their butt while they hang us out to dry.
DHS is a weird animal. On the one hand, everybody's paranoid of it. On the other hand, I've seen that mis-attributed Lincoln quote about stringing up congressmen/senators who commit treason in time of war tagged onto official emails.
Consider the culture that goes along with a lot of the folks asked to enforce laws. A great many of them are very firm supporters of the Constitution and the US, not necessarily the schmoozer in whatever office.
There are plenty of enforcers who are heavily against it. Dunno if that would have any impact on the legal side, but it'd be nice to think so.
I believe Senator Feinstein's comment on "60 Minutes" (Feb. 5, 1995); to still be operative:
Arguably, in the next election cycle, the votes could be there. There's more than one way to skin a cat...says the savvy public relations consultant.
Other posters have mentioned some of the legislative ploys that effectively will amount to a ban. Expect them all, sugar coated in some socially-redeeming pretext, to convince the uninformed:
* Normal capacity mag ban, with no grandfather clause, for obvious safety improvements.
* Prohibitive ammo tax will fund emergency rooms.
* Lead ban will prevent environmental destruction.
* Ammo tagging/firing pin microstamping will revolutionize crime tracing.
* Gun owner licensing, combined with comprehensive (improved) mental health screening will be the only way to keep guns out of the hands of "undesirables". Guess what improvements will mean? Strident posts on internet forums?--> "NO GUNS FOR YOU"
* Comprehensive import ban will harmonize with UN, NAU policies.
* Permit/licensing fees will be self-funding, so as not to burden the non-gun owners. Administrative cost estimates will be platinum-plated.
* "Armor piercing" ammo ban, will prevent cop-killings. All legal ammo will have to prove it doesn't defeat police vests, prior to sale. Reloaders will be licensed, to insure compliance.
* California drop-test will be expanded and go nation-wide, to insure no unsafe guns.
* Ample (and mind-numbingly complex) exemptions "for sporting purposes", will give courts an escape clause on constitutional violations; "because of the overriding safety concern". Chief Justice Roberts issues an opinion citing "stare decisis"; and the DWI checkpoint decision as precedent...everyone swoons, including most legal experts on internet gun forums.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I could go on, but you get the point. In the wake of a high-profile shooting incident, load up an omnibus crime bill will all of these provisions and more, and discard even half through the process of legislative compromise**, and we end up with nothing more than single shot pellet guns, done up all nice and legal.
:barf:
BOHICA
**ETA: NRA, and "pro-gun legislators", take credit, and get political cover for killing a couple of provisions, in "a hard-fought battle to preserve your rights", according to later ad campaigns.
Arguably, in the next election cycle, the votes could be there. There's more than one way to skin a cat...says the savvy public relations consultant.
Other posters have mentioned some of the legislative ploys that effectively will amount to a ban. Expect them all, sugar coated in some socially-redeeming pretext, to convince the uninformed:
* Normal capacity mag ban, with no grandfather clause, for obvious safety improvements.
* Prohibitive ammo tax will fund emergency rooms.
* Lead ban will prevent environmental destruction.
* Ammo tagging/firing pin microstamping will revolutionize crime tracing.
* Gun owner licensing, combined with comprehensive (improved) mental health screening will be the only way to keep guns out of the hands of "undesirables". Guess what improvements will mean? Strident posts on internet forums?--> "NO GUNS FOR YOU"
* Comprehensive import ban will harmonize with UN, NAU policies.
* Permit/licensing fees will be self-funding, so as not to burden the non-gun owners. Administrative cost estimates will be platinum-plated.
* "Armor piercing" ammo ban, will prevent cop-killings. All legal ammo will have to prove it doesn't defeat police vests, prior to sale. Reloaders will be licensed, to insure compliance.
* California drop-test will be expanded and go nation-wide, to insure no unsafe guns.
* Ample (and mind-numbingly complex) exemptions "for sporting purposes", will give courts an escape clause on constitutional violations; "because of the overriding safety concern". Chief Justice Roberts issues an opinion citing "stare decisis"; and the DWI checkpoint decision as precedent...everyone swoons, including most legal experts on internet gun forums.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I could go on, but you get the point. In the wake of a high-profile shooting incident, load up an omnibus crime bill will all of these provisions and more, and discard even half through the process of legislative compromise**, and we end up with nothing more than single shot pellet guns, done up all nice and legal.
:barf:BOHICA
**ETA: NRA, and "pro-gun legislators", take credit, and get political cover for killing a couple of provisions, in "a hard-fought battle to preserve your rights", according to later ad campaigns.
Last edited:
Master Blaster
New member
Obama or Hildery gets elected, sworn in on Jan 9, 2009.
AWB bill outlawing all semi autos and all centerfire rifle ammo already proposed gets passed february 2009, gives us one year.
Jan 1, 2010 we all become felons if we havent turned in our semi autos or registered them, under our $400 per year arsenal license we are required to have to possess more than three guns (limit 10), and or 2000 rounds of ammo including reloading components and .22lr.
AWB bill outlawing all semi autos and all centerfire rifle ammo already proposed gets passed february 2009, gives us one year.
Jan 1, 2010 we all become felons if we havent turned in our semi autos or registered them, under our $400 per year arsenal license we are required to have to possess more than three guns (limit 10), and or 2000 rounds of ammo including reloading components and .22lr.
Unregistered
Moderator
Hillary, Obama, and Romney won't consider a ban on any guns in their first term.. Do you actually believe anything is more important than the maintenance of power to them? They know they won't be re-elected if they ban guns their first term.
I suspect Hillary is the least likely of the three to ban anything. She has personal first hand experience what happens to Democrats when they vote for gun bans... she saw the Democrat majority in the House evaporate as a result of the ban. Bill Clinton has stated on the record that the AWB is responsible for the Dems being voted out of office. I don't think Hillary is likely to fall into that trap. Now, in her second term, watch out. Thats when things get dangerous.
I suspect Hillary is the least likely of the three to ban anything. She has personal first hand experience what happens to Democrats when they vote for gun bans... she saw the Democrat majority in the House evaporate as a result of the ban. Bill Clinton has stated on the record that the AWB is responsible for the Dems being voted out of office. I don't think Hillary is likely to fall into that trap. Now, in her second term, watch out. Thats when things get dangerous.
Congressional elections key?
All of the leading pres. candidates have indicated a willingness to sign, or past support for an assault weapons ban. Without the pres. lifting a finger (overtly), congress could pass a new ban. Safe to say, any of the likely pres. frontrunners would not veto, if elected. Agreed?
So, what's the outlook for 2008 congressional elections?
Senate: Currently 49 demos, 49 repubs, 2 ind/demos. 35 seats up for election.
House of reps: Currently 232 demos., 198 repubs. All 435 seats up for reelection.
Not to say that gun politics lines up exactly on party lines, but in the event of a demo presidential victory, and possible increase in congressional demo majorities in 2008; a giant wave of demo euphoria followed by hubris could overwhelm caution, and the 94 experience. I can hear the speeches now..."unprecedented mandate"; "historic opportunity for change."
Under those circumstances, would it be more likely to grasp at the third rail of gun control? Plausible.
All of the leading pres. candidates have indicated a willingness to sign, or past support for an assault weapons ban. Without the pres. lifting a finger (overtly), congress could pass a new ban. Safe to say, any of the likely pres. frontrunners would not veto, if elected. Agreed?
So, what's the outlook for 2008 congressional elections?
Senate: Currently 49 demos, 49 repubs, 2 ind/demos. 35 seats up for election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2008
House of reps: Currently 232 demos., 198 repubs. All 435 seats up for reelection.
Not to say that gun politics lines up exactly on party lines, but in the event of a demo presidential victory, and possible increase in congressional demo majorities in 2008; a giant wave of demo euphoria followed by hubris could overwhelm caution, and the 94 experience. I can hear the speeches now..."unprecedented mandate"; "historic opportunity for change."
Under those circumstances, would it be more likely to grasp at the third rail of gun control? Plausible.
Freedom_1st
Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
Hillary, Obama, and Romney won't consider a ban on any guns in their first term.. Do you actually believe anything is more important than the maintenance of power to them? They know they won't be re-elected if they ban guns their first term.
I suspect Hillary is the least likely of the three to ban anything. She has personal first hand experience what happens to Democrats when they vote for gun bans... she saw the Democrat majority in the House evaporate as a result of the ban. Bill Clinton has stated on the record that the AWB is responsible for the Dems being voted out of office. I don't think Hillary is likely to fall into that trap. Now, in her second term, watch out. Thats when things get dangerous.
__________________
You make a pretty compelling argument.
I sure hope Paul runs as 3rd party candidate.
I suspect Hillary is the least likely of the three to ban anything. She has personal first hand experience what happens to Democrats when they vote for gun bans... she saw the Democrat majority in the House evaporate as a result of the ban. Bill Clinton has stated on the record that the AWB is responsible for the Dems being voted out of office. I don't think Hillary is likely to fall into that trap. Now, in her second term, watch out. Thats when things get dangerous.
__________________
You make a pretty compelling argument.
I sure hope Paul runs as 3rd party candidate.
If a dem gets in the white house, and they expand the dem majorities in both houses of congress, watch for the media to immediately run a biased poll on how the vast majority of Americans want assault weapons banned. The dems will then claim their mandate(s) and why an assault weapons ban is one big reason for them increasing their majorities and winning the white house. This will take congress by storm. Enough weak kneed repubs will go along because they will believe this story about why they are being pushed further into a minority status. Congress will pass the bill, and Hillary or Barack will have a rose garden ceremony for the signing. It can happen. Don't kid yourself. The sad thing is, it could happen with either McCain or Romney in the White House as well.
Unregistered
Moderator
No that is not true.
If you don't know that what you said is untrue, then you aren't following the issue well.
armedtotheteeth
New member
Im stockin up, and burying it under my house, < i ran out of room in the gun room, bedroom, garage, and I dont think the attic will hold any more weight.Wifey will not let me keep anything that goes boom in the kids room so i had to dig. 