If the next GOP president is pro-gun, what actions should he or her take?

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
I have expressed my opinion that Bush was a failure as a proactive gun president. He talked the talk but took little actions. Some of his folk, Ashcroft talked the talk for the 2nd but his successor Alberto was for the AWB.

So if a true pro-gun President got in - I would expect them to take some actions or push for some legislation, regulation changes, etc that would reward his or her supporters.

What would they be (please stay in something doable - a total removal of all gun laws probably couldn't happen)? Some suggestions, off the top of my head.

1. Do the parks thing from the other thread about senators.
2. Push for a removal of the post office ban
3. FREE NORINCO, FREE the G28 - basically get rid of the silly import bans against different thingees. No more points
4. Push for CCW reciprocity between states
5. NFA - modern full-auto OK - the fee can stay if needed for politcal purposes.
6. Pass legislation based on the 2nd, similar to the Civil Rights bill, that no state can ban citizens from having firearms ready to use in their homes (pistols or shotguns). Let the states decide CCW rules but with reciprocity for permits as mentioned above. No state can pass an AWB or mag limit ban either as it violates the 2nd.
7. Allow direct mail order purchases of firearms from other states with appropriate documentation sent to the dealer and they can do a NICS check or check your approved CCW permit. No need for the FFL inbetween.
8. Ditch the AOW crap - does it have any practical use? NO.

Any other ideas?
 
I hope I am wrong, but I'm afraid the next pro-gun (relative phrase) GOP president will be sometime around 2032. So I imagine their priorities will be:

1. Try to implement exceptions in zero tolerance gun/knife/sharp stick ban begun during Hillary presidency and strengthened in following democratic presidencies.
2. Attempt to get UN to remove UN "peacekeeping" forces from Texas, Montana, and several other states where they were moved in to stop pro-2nd amendment unrest in 2013 during Hillary's second term after Army refused to intervene.
3. Get NRA members released from "re-education" centers where they were all moved to in 2013 during the great gun revolt that was put down by aforementioned UN troops.
4. Find a legible copy of the constitution, that has not been ripped or burned out of every book, to find out how this country was supposed to be run and when the term "president for life" was inaugarated (though this will really just be for curiousity sake).
5. And of course this president will president of the "united peoples of North America," so s/he will have to take into account the previously canadian and mexican provinces.

The above is just tongue in cheeck, BTW.
 
So if a true pro-gun President got in - I would expect them to take some actions or push for some legislation, regulation changes, etc that would reward his or her supporters.
Click to expand...

And this would be?
1. Ron Paul? I like the guy and will probably vote for him, but he doesn't have a chance.
2. Bill Richardson? Even less chance than Paul.
3. Fred Thompson? Yawn. No charisma, no momentum. Maybe he can change that.
4. Duncan Hunter? No momentum, good candidate, can't compete with the mainstream leaders and doesn't have "Huntistas" like Paul has "Paulistas."

It's too late for another candidate to enter, and every other candidate is certainly not going to look into repealing any bad 2A laws.

But I'll play...:rolleyes:

I'd say cutting the ATF's funding by 50% would be a good start. 90% would be a better start. Or, just make them the AT instead. When's the last time you heard of a big rum-running ring, moonshine still or untaxed tobacco sale getting busted by them?
 
he or her

Geez - what school did I go to? I should run for president with my command of the language. :D :eek:

I wasn't a Paul fan but I did see him punch out Huckabee on the Fox Morning Show and cause Steve Doodoo (the blonde idiot, IIRC) have a melt down.

He asked Paul about the flap over Huckabee's explicit use of Christianity in his ads (which a good number of folks think is really getting out of the box).

Steve expected Paul to say: Why that's quite OK - three cheers for faith - or something that is in accord with the official FOX theological view of America.

So Paul says: Sinclair Lewis said that if fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in a flag and carrying at cross.

Steve seizes - brain melts - says - UUUHHH, I don't think Huckabee was promoting fascism and Paul was off the air for a commercial.

But anyway, didn't mean to divert my own thread.

BTW, I have a plan for UN peace keeping forces. First, I doubt they would arrive. If you told the First Luxembourg Brigade and 2nd Bangladesh division that they had to disarm Texas - the cloud of dust in those countries as they head for hills would be astounding. UN Forces don't have a good combat record.

Second, we fill planes with green cards, drivers licenses, taxi cab operator licenses and permits to open restaurants. We drop them over the invading forces.

Thus, in a few years, we will have more cabs, better take out and a new wave of valedictorians in the schools as their kids might actually study as compared to ours.
 
The second amendment rights movement should demand rollback. Smart people in the movement should sit down and look at all the 22,000 reputed laws and develop a strategy of rollback. Bad, ineffective, and unconstitutional laws should be identified. Then when congress feels the need to help improve gun control, gun rights organizations such as the NRA or GOA can go to a list and begin the process of unwinding gun laws. Every time the topic of legislation comes up the advocates are hit consistently in the face with a list of laws to be repealed.

I think it well past time for us to go on the offensive. For far too long we've thought "live and let live" to be a viable ethic. It ain't. All it has done is let the bad guys maintain their offensive. You will never win playing defense. Seems to me that is all we know how to play . . . . . at the federal level.
 
Last edited:
I don't think a pro-gun president would do much.

Chances are, his efforts would be limited to not signing anti-gun bills.

A pro-gun stance is still potentially politically dangerous, especially in this age of crime and terrorism.
 
Since so much of the pro RKBA movement's strength is at the state level,
we should be wary of any great initiatives at the Federal level. I think the
most effective thing a pro RKBA president could do is use the "bully pulpit"
to promote the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment i.e., recognizing it as an individual right
not a geographic one, pressuring anti-gun cities such as NYC, Chicago, Washinton D.C. to change their evil ways-holding up Federal funding, perhaps investigating their governments for violating the
civil rights of gun owners.
 
One thing a pro-gun President could do, (And I take the failure to do it as a measure of how pro-gun Bush ain't.) is scrap the anti-gun executive orders that have accumulated from previous Presidencies. Such as, for instance, the abusive definition of "sporting" for import purposes. Needs absolutely no cooperation from Congress or the Judiciary to do that.
 
Assuming that Garand Illusion is wrong, the following comes to mind.

1. Obviously, resist enactment of the usual cast of characters, legislation that impacts only on the law abiding, re firearms.

2. Having said that, repeal of the following.

A. Rrepeal of 1986 Machine Gun Ban
B. Repeal of Brady Law
c. Repeal of National Firearms Act of 1934.
D. Get rid of this Sporting Purposes Test balony, and the ridiculous import bans.
E. Repeal GCA'68
F. On a "positive" note, push the following legislation. Make the use of any firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, armed robbery, assault, that sort of thing, a capitol offense.

Enough for now, I think.
 
As much as I would want the president to be active in what I want to happen, I think at the federal level there should be only a few things to happen.

1. Any state that abolishes a law or simplifies laws to further comply with the 2nd amendment, the federal laws in place should not apply. In other words, if a state allows a law abiding citizen without a class III license to own a Tommy Gun fully automatic, then it should be legal no matter what law states otherwise on a federal level.

2. Advocate/protect states that want to adopt the "castle doctrine" including the right to protect property; not just what's inside of your home. This may be a hypocritical view that I want the federal govt. involved, but all I want is some type of federal support. What that is, I don't have an answer. But, that's what I'd want.

Those two simple sounding, yet complicated task to actually go through would be a good start out the gate...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top