The assault weapons ban, by Hillary Clinton ...

S

sixguncity

Moderator
Just in case any of you missed it last night on ABC in the debate between Obama and Clinton - Clinton stated clearly when asked about gun control "One of my first priorities will be to put back in place the assault weapons ban that has expired - that my husband had put into effect during his administrations"
 
No surprise there. I’m sure B. Hussein Obama has the same idea and a heck of a lot worse. Frankly I don’t feel too comfortable as a gun owner with any of them but at least McCain will get pressure from the party base.
 
Yeah but even if they get into the White House they're still going to have real trouble getting the votes in the House and Senate.
 
Yeah but even if they get into the White House they're still going to have real trouble getting the votes in the House and Senate.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. The RKBA love claimed by many Democrats will falter in the face of the leadership explaining that they won't get plum committee assignments if they don't support that legislation. The leadership of the Democrats is vehemently anti-gun, no matter what some individual reps/Senators may claim for themselves. Then there are the RINOs who will support any gun ban they see.

Really, our only hope if the AWB is pushed by a president is that there are enough lovers of freedom in the Senate to filibuster the bill to death, since I don't expect us to have enough votes to kill it outright.
 
The RKBA love claimed by many Democrats will falter in the face of the leadership explaining that they won't get plum committee assignments if they don't support that legislation.
Click to expand...
Those dems can look back on the 1994 elections and see that if they DO vote for another AWB that they very likely won't have a job next election anyway so any promised committee assignments would be for moot anyway.
 
Clinton credited the AWB for loosing the Dems over 50 seats in the House and costing the Dems control. I don't know if they are going to be willing to charge off that cliff again any time soon.
 
Exactly!

Clinton credited the AWB for loosing the Dems over 50 seats in the House and costing the Dems control. I don't know if they are going to be willing to charge off that cliff again any time soon.
Click to expand...

And, IF Dems win the Presidency (either one, and if they do, odds are they will bring some Congressmen in with them)

They (Congressmen) need to be reminded, politely but forcefully, and repeatedly, every time the AWB is mentioned that the last time they did this, they lost BIG!!! Hillary or Obama can only be President once, twice at the most. The Congressmen and Senators can stay as long and as often as they get reelected, until they retire due to age, IF they can keep getting elected. When Pres Hillbama brings up the AWB, remind Congress that the next election isn't that far off (every 2 years for some part of Congress), and remend them what happened last time. Make sure they understand that if they support any kind of AWB they will be a one term congressman.

this won't sway the ususal suspects, Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, etc, they have too strong a grip on their power base to worry. But others, people "representing" other areas, don't. The antis can't get bill passed all by themselves, they must have the votes of others, and it is those others we can talk to, and they will listen, or they can have the 94 elections all over again.
 
Yes, the 94 AWB cost them Congress. Luckily, though, the ban had a built in sunset provision or else it would still be the law of the land; nobody tried repealing it. Yes, they also needed that sunset in order to get it passed.

However, common sense seems to be far less common in the halls of Congress than flocks of dodo birds riding the backs of white rhinos through the Senate chamber. Many will expect that ban to be "old news" come the next election. They won't make the mistake of passing another one in an election year BEFORE the election. They'll wait until mid November first.

If we have Obama or Hillary as president (I would expect it to be more likely with Obama, but Hillary might give it a whirl), along with a good majority of Congress, they WILL pass a new AWB. Unless those "blue dog" Democrats prove their mettle, that is. They claimed to be pro gun going in, we'll see if they hold their ground in the face of Reid and Pelosi cracking the whip.
 
There is a perfect example of why gun owners get a bad rep....
Click to expand...

That is his name, isn't it? Barack Hussein Obama?

Personally, I see either candidate signing a semi-auto ban, something draconian compared to the last one. And if you think Congress won't pass it, think again.
 
Whoever we get in Nov will vote for a new AWB. As it looks now the Congress will be overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrats, and probably also the White House. I would suggest stocking up on AWs, and parts ASAP. More Gun control is around the corner.
 
it is my observation that politicians in general and Dems in particular seem to completely ignore history when considering whether or not to pass any piece of legislation. Were I of fearful nature I would positively tremble at the thought of what draconian measures would be at best proposed and at worst passed by a Democratic president. Espically Barack Hillary Hussein Rodham Obama-Clinton.
 
That is his name, isn't it? Barack Hussein Obama?
Click to expand...

There is no problem with his name, it is a name... I know of two people (brothers) that work with me that have the last name Hitler. One of them even has the middle name Adolfo, mature adults will not dwell on this or try to use the persons name to try to vilify them.

You, do...which makes you worth less than the person you're obviously trying to use to as a comparison to Barack H. Obama.
 
mature adults will not dwell on this or try to use the persons name to try to vilify them.
Click to expand...

Mature adults may not, but racists and religious extremists certainly would.

There are many reasons to oppose Barack Obama. But his middle name, something he had absolutely no control over, certainly is no more relevant than the color of his skin.

Isn't there a Ku Klux Klan forum around here you could post in?
 
I've said this before and will say it again...playing the crypto Stormfront Hussein game detracts from the serious criticism one can raise about the inexperienced, far left, machine politico that is Senator Obama.

WildfocusonhisrealflawsAlaska ™
 
A number of posters are commenting upon Politicians being unwilling to stand up against strong lobbying. Don't count on it.

A number of politicians like to consider 'higher moral reasons' as part of the reason that they went into Politics, the majority are rather weak livered and a lot will depend on the attitudes of their constituents. There are areas in the US that are quite anti gun.

We found in Australia that if a politician has got the balls to press the gun control issue hard enough and media back him / her the media can diminish our effect at lobbying by denying us the air time and a fair hearing and most politicians will fall into line.

The black rifle issue is a hard one- a person armed with an assault rifle can obviously do more damage than one armed with an arm with a slower rate of fire in a public massacre situation, and this would worry a lot of today's non shooters who may say let them have guns but not assault rifles.

The issue is the second amendment and I am a little uncomfortable today with how a Court may view or read down a provision that basically provides the public with the means to stand up against its own government. I awaiting your Supreme Court's decision with bated breath, although I suspect the case is going to turn on tight issues with the Court being un prepared to adventure to far into commentry on the extent of the second amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top