But that majority was only won with the help of states like Virginia and Montana...and that majority can go away just as quickly as it came.
You forgot an option, it can get stronger this time around....didn't think of that one did you?
Really?
That can happen? Wow.
This time around that's not only possible, but likely. The Republicans have, IIRC,
twice as many seats up for grabs in the Senate this cycle. I've not gotten too deep into the races yet (still a long ways off), but skimming through them a little while ago it seemed like the Democrats only had a couple shaky ones, while the Republicans had several. Any way you slice it, odds are good for at least a two seat pickup in the Senate for the Democrats.
So yeah, I
had considered that one sparky. Thanks, though.
The question, however, is how many of that majority (which would still only be 54 to 55 or so) would be willing to vote for something crazy like banning concealed carry nationwide. Like Musketeer pointed out, there are 38 shall-issue states. That means that at
least 26 Senators from shall-issue states will have to vote in favor of banning concealed carry nationwide...presumably going against the wishes of their state's voters. Right now Montana has two Democratic Senators. All it would likely take for that to change just as soon as possible is if either (or both) of them voted against concealed carry.
Of course, "as soon as possible" in that case would be 2012. But the point is that it would take a
lot of votes from Senators from more rural states, more conservative states, and from the
majority of states that have locally adopted shall-issue permits in order to make concealed carry go away. Assuming the Democrats actually manage to take control of both branches (which is likely what we're assuming if we're assuming an Obama win) they're
already all going to have targets on their backs. When you're running everything, that means every screw up is on your party. Do you think the Democratic Senators from gun-friendly states are likely to give their opposition more ammunition? Some, sure. Enough? I don't think so.
Is Obama a threat to firearms rights in general? Of course he is. The question is how much damage he (along with Congress) can do. Banning concealed carry nationwide? It'll take a lot more than "hope" to make that happen.
EDIT: Seriously, look at the OP. That's some serious fearmongering/overreaction right there. If Obama's position was "Free Ponies for Everybody" I'd not exactly be stocking up on Pony Chow. I look at his "ban concealed carry" position about the same way. He's just a little bundle of hope, but there are some things he's just not going to actually make happen.