I don't think there's any accurate prediction of the future except for one, if we don't quit wringing our hands and get to work there certainly will be a version of an AWB that will get through for signature sooner than we like.
How long do we really think it will take for a BAN ?
- Thread starter jcramin
- Start date
- Status
Golden Hound
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2008
- Messages
- 778
That's a very good, and very depressing, point.
As I've said many times, this war on guns that they'll be waging will be very weaselly and sneaky, conducted through all sorts of legal channels.
As I've said many times, this war on guns that they'll be waging will be very weaselly and sneaky, conducted through all sorts of legal channels.
Hoplophile
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Messages
- 238
In all seriousness, if I wanted to talk to Obama on a personal level, how would I do that?
RX-178
Member
Hoplophile, that's actually something I've thought of at length but never really had the light bulb moment.
Firearms EDUCATION, offered as a public safety service. How could Obama do anything to denounce something like that if it's presented for the purpose of 'preventing gun crime and tragedy by learning safe gun handling', or some spiel like that?
It doesn't even matter how liberal-slanted it could be, it could be VPC and ASHA managed, but once these people are exposed to firearms, their fear of the unknown will be gone, and their prejudices wouldn't be far behind. That's just human nature.
Firearms EDUCATION, offered as a public safety service. How could Obama do anything to denounce something like that if it's presented for the purpose of 'preventing gun crime and tragedy by learning safe gun handling', or some spiel like that?
It doesn't even matter how liberal-slanted it could be, it could be VPC and ASHA managed, but once these people are exposed to firearms, their fear of the unknown will be gone, and their prejudices wouldn't be far behind. That's just human nature.
Hoplophile
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Messages
- 238
Ha, getting the VPC to fund a "Firearms education and safety course" would be completely awesome. Use their own funding against them.
But what do we do when they start insisting we tell lies in classes?
But what do we do when they start insisting we tell lies in classes?
camslam
Member
With all due respect to HSO, do you really think that the leaders of the Democratic party, some of which I listed in my previous post, are going to give a rat's arse about anything THEIR constituents have to say regarding guns? Do you really think they are going to care what the junior Democrats in Congress have to say after hearing from their constituents? Not a chance. They will tell the junior varsity, you better tow the party line or else.
I'm not one for throwing in the towel, but let's be realistic. Gun control has continued to march forward in this country for decades. We get occasional small pushbacks against the overall goal of disarmament, but for the next 4 years, we are screwed.
You can't tell me that Rep. McCarthy isn't going to be pushing this stuff right off the bat, because she does it every year, only this time she'll have STRONG majorities in both Houses of Congress, with a guy in the White House that will gladly sign the bill.
You really think people like Chuckie Schumer, who is really calling the shots in the Senate, not Reid the puppet, are going to tell McCarthy, "Psssstttt, sorry Carolyn, now really isn't the time for a push on gun control."? You think Feinstein, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, or any of the rest of that ilk will do anything to discourage it? No way.
It will take one school shooting, which will happen next year, and then there will be a push with nothing to stop it.
I'm all for activism, but the cards are completely stacked against us. The best thing any of us can do is get busy recruiting new shooters. Introduce someone to shooting and develop strong advocates for the 2nd amendment. I'm not even sure that is where we need to begin, because when I read comments from many here in this forum and other forums that are supposedly pro-gun sites, it tells me we have a hell of a lot of work to do with our own people. Scary indeed.
RX-178
Member
Hoplophile
IT DOESN'T MATTER what we tell them.
We could tell them they're automatic baby killing spray-firing machines of doom, for all that it's worth.
The fact is, these anti-gunners would be EXPOSED to these guns for the first time, they'd be FORCED to handle them SAFELY.
At least some of them are going to go 'hey, this isn't so scary'. And once that happens, we win, they lose.
IT DOESN'T MATTER what we tell them.
We could tell them they're automatic baby killing spray-firing machines of doom, for all that it's worth.
The fact is, these anti-gunners would be EXPOSED to these guns for the first time, they'd be FORCED to handle them SAFELY.
At least some of them are going to go 'hey, this isn't so scary'. And once that happens, we win, they lose.
Smith
Member
While I am concerned about a ban, I am more concerned about a tax. Taxing ammunition/guns to the point that they become unaffordable would be a sneaky/very effective way to effectively ban guns without actually banning them. An "Ammunition Tax" just sounds so much friendlier and less infringing than a "Firearms Ban".
bdgackle
Member
Is the situation THAT bad?
Granted, what exists of Obama's voting record is pretty bad, but what about Congress? Many of those senators and representatives come from western states that are traditionally pretty conservative. Many of them have A ratings from the NRA, for what that is worth. They only get into office and keep their jobs by standing by those principals.
We have a Democratic congress. The real question is whether we truly have an anti-gun congress. Not every Democrat is automatically anti-gun. I would guess the vast majority could care less one way or the other, the anti-gunner types are but one faction that makes up their coalition.
Likewise, many Republicans could care less about RKBA, and some are even anti-gun. They didn't DO a whole lot to hurt us when they were in office, but it's not like they did a heck of a lot for us, either.
We have allies --and enemies -- on both sides of the aisle. The best thing we can do is figure out who they are and stay in touch with them. Let them know that their stance is part of why they are in office. Consider sending them $5, just to get your name on their list of donors. Remember, we still have the secret ballot in this country. You don't have to vote for these guys to convince them that you might. The antis are part of their constituency, but for many of the newer Democrats from the west, so are we.
Also, the joy of being a politician is that the election never ends. Everyone currently in office will have to run again someday. Notice how gun control rhetoric is retreating from the media. They haven't given up completely, but they KNOW that the people are against it. If they are afraid to even SAY they will take away our guns, can you imagine what happens to their careers if they actually DO it? Anyone remember the Republican takeover in the 90's? The party transition in 2000 despite a roaring economy and wildly popular Democratic president? What helped caused that? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Monica.
These people don't care about taking away our guns. People on the national political stage don't have the luxury of caring about anything but power, which they get by assembling coalitions of special interests. They write gun control legislation because it pleases one special interest group that helps give them that power. We are a more numerous, more popular, and better funded group. We just need to convince them that we offer more power than our opponents, and suddenly they will be on our side. Shouldn't be too hard -- they really would benefit from switching over to our side, and their actions show that they are starting to figure that out.
I am NOT advocating complacency. We will never have that luxury. We do, however, need to do a better job of identifying who is on our side. We are nowhere near the point of needing to give up on this.
Granted, what exists of Obama's voting record is pretty bad, but what about Congress? Many of those senators and representatives come from western states that are traditionally pretty conservative. Many of them have A ratings from the NRA, for what that is worth. They only get into office and keep their jobs by standing by those principals.
We have a Democratic congress. The real question is whether we truly have an anti-gun congress. Not every Democrat is automatically anti-gun. I would guess the vast majority could care less one way or the other, the anti-gunner types are but one faction that makes up their coalition.
Likewise, many Republicans could care less about RKBA, and some are even anti-gun. They didn't DO a whole lot to hurt us when they were in office, but it's not like they did a heck of a lot for us, either.
We have allies --and enemies -- on both sides of the aisle. The best thing we can do is figure out who they are and stay in touch with them. Let them know that their stance is part of why they are in office. Consider sending them $5, just to get your name on their list of donors. Remember, we still have the secret ballot in this country. You don't have to vote for these guys to convince them that you might. The antis are part of their constituency, but for many of the newer Democrats from the west, so are we.
Also, the joy of being a politician is that the election never ends. Everyone currently in office will have to run again someday. Notice how gun control rhetoric is retreating from the media. They haven't given up completely, but they KNOW that the people are against it. If they are afraid to even SAY they will take away our guns, can you imagine what happens to their careers if they actually DO it? Anyone remember the Republican takeover in the 90's? The party transition in 2000 despite a roaring economy and wildly popular Democratic president? What helped caused that? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Monica.
These people don't care about taking away our guns. People on the national political stage don't have the luxury of caring about anything but power, which they get by assembling coalitions of special interests. They write gun control legislation because it pleases one special interest group that helps give them that power. We are a more numerous, more popular, and better funded group. We just need to convince them that we offer more power than our opponents, and suddenly they will be on our side. Shouldn't be too hard -- they really would benefit from switching over to our side, and their actions show that they are starting to figure that out.
I am NOT advocating complacency. We will never have that luxury. We do, however, need to do a better job of identifying who is on our side. We are nowhere near the point of needing to give up on this.
biggiesmalls
Member
no no no no no... the problem with you guys who want to sit down and talk with obama is that you don't realize that he doesn't believe that his policies are anti-gun at all! he always talks about how he supports 2nd ammendment rights but doesn't believe that it extends to "assault weapons" blah blah blah. he sees the 2nd ammendment as something that is for hunters. look at his website. for someone who wants to control guns, he doesn't even list "gun control" as an issue. to find his policy on guns you have to click on "other" and then find it "sportsmen".... that is just a level beyond saving. he's a lying sack of cr*p who doesn't understand english. he claims to have taught constitutional law at a college level, yet he cannot read and interpret the simple language of the 2nd ammendment. something is seriously wrong about this guy. the only hope we have is to take back our country in 2012. and yes obama is a rubber stamp for palosi, who's first task for obama is to slap seniors with a capital gains tax on their retirement funds higher than anything in history, by the way...
Golden Hound
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2008
- Messages
- 778
I keep hearing this, over and over. "The assault weapons ban cost the Democrats the control of the houses."
What proof is there to support this theory?
Do you honestly think that enough people in the general population give a damn about guns or "assault weapons" to care about that? And Clinton got re-elected - don't forget that little detail.
I don't really buy this. But then again, when it was happening, I was simply too young to understand.
Does anyone here have any real evidence that the Dems' pursuit of gun control and their AWB really did "cost them"?
ditch_dgr
Member
I just did a google search on "The assault weapons ban cost the Democrats the control of the houses" and came up with a ton of hits on it.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040913-assault-weapon02.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/politics/campaign/14kerryxx.html
Here is a quote from this link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/13/GUNS.TMP
"In a grudging tribute to the enduring power of the National Rifle Association, Clinton acknowledges that when he was pushing for the ban's enactment in 1994, he was warned by Democratic House leaders that forcing Democrats to vote for the measure could cost them their seats. Clinton persisted, believing the measure that banned 19 types of guns by name, along with ammunition clips of more than 10 rounds, was the right thing to do.
The assault-weapons ban passed, but the result was the Democrats' worse loss in congressional elections since 1946. In losing a whopping 54 House seats, a rout in which such powerful figures as Speaker Tom Foley of Washington and Judiciary Committee chairman Jack Brooks of Texas were swept out of office, the Democrats gave up control of the House for the first time since the 1952 election. The rifle association said 19 of the 24 House members it targeted for defeat lost in 1994.
Those who warned him "were right, and I was wrong,'' Clinton wrote. "The price for a safer America would be heavy casualties among its defenders.''
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040913-assault-weapon02.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/politics/campaign/14kerryxx.html
Here is a quote from this link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/13/GUNS.TMP
"In a grudging tribute to the enduring power of the National Rifle Association, Clinton acknowledges that when he was pushing for the ban's enactment in 1994, he was warned by Democratic House leaders that forcing Democrats to vote for the measure could cost them their seats. Clinton persisted, believing the measure that banned 19 types of guns by name, along with ammunition clips of more than 10 rounds, was the right thing to do.
The assault-weapons ban passed, but the result was the Democrats' worse loss in congressional elections since 1946. In losing a whopping 54 House seats, a rout in which such powerful figures as Speaker Tom Foley of Washington and Judiciary Committee chairman Jack Brooks of Texas were swept out of office, the Democrats gave up control of the House for the first time since the 1952 election. The rifle association said 19 of the 24 House members it targeted for defeat lost in 1994.
Those who warned him "were right, and I was wrong,'' Clinton wrote. "The price for a safer America would be heavy casualties among its defenders.''
dhoomonyou
Member
there wont be a ban.
we will be priced, taxed, EPA'd regs OUT OF EXISTENCE.
better get some sharp sticks.
we will be priced, taxed, EPA'd regs OUT OF EXISTENCE.
better get some sharp sticks.
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
Take Note
H.R.1022 is still sitting there, awaiting approval.
*FootNote- This is the AWB introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New
York; whose husband was murdered on that subway incident a few years
back.
Could happen any day, after January 20th, '09~!
H.R.1022 is still sitting there, awaiting approval.
*FootNote- This is the AWB introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New
York; whose husband was murdered on that subway incident a few years
back.
Could happen any day, after January 20th, '09~!
There is already to much on my plate to start worrying about it right now. I will support all local, state and national organizations when it comes to our
2nd ammendment and the right to bear arms.
Otherwise all I can do is hope for a better tommorow. With as many gun owners in the nation today, we must be able to work together in protecting our rights.
Our fears are real, I hope that it does not become our next nightmare!
2nd ammendment and the right to bear arms.
Otherwise all I can do is hope for a better tommorow. With as many gun owners in the nation today, we must be able to work together in protecting our rights.
Our fears are real, I hope that it does not become our next nightmare!
Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
I'll take that bet.
Mannlicher
Member
Today is the time to start lobbying your CongressKritter and Senator.
Today is the time to join the NRA if you are not a member,
AND, today is the time to disabuse yourself that 'sitting down with hussein' will have any result other than offering him amusement.
Guys, its time to get to work, stop whining, and stop thinking that any discourse is possible with our domestic enemies.
Today is the time to join the NRA if you are not a member,
AND, today is the time to disabuse yourself that 'sitting down with hussein' will have any result other than offering him amusement.
Guys, its time to get to work, stop whining, and stop thinking that any discourse is possible with our domestic enemies.
Mannlicher
Member
a new AWB ban will be introduced to Congress in January. It will pass to the Senate in January, and go to hussein to be signed into law in January.
Look for bans on all semi auto pistols, rifles and shotguns. Look for bans in all imports of ammunition. Look for a magazine capacity of no more than EIGHT rounds to be stipulated, and that a "Turn banned items into the Government within 90 days" to be published.
Look for bans on all semi auto pistols, rifles and shotguns. Look for bans in all imports of ammunition. Look for a magazine capacity of no more than EIGHT rounds to be stipulated, and that a "Turn banned items into the Government within 90 days" to be published.
ProficientRifleman
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2006
- Messages
- 579
bdgackle,
Socialists care deeply about taking away your guns. If they can't get their grubby, grabby litle hands on them, they'll administratively control them.
Socialism is THEFT of property, theft of productivity, theft of effort, and theft of person-hood.
Socialists cannot stand armed free men. Armed free men tend to resist socialism. Typically by force of arms.
They deeply desire to disarm you for the purpose of having you disarmed. They do not care what tool or technique they have to use to get to their desired end state. A disarmed populace cannot resist their socialist "progress". (You aren't against progress, are you?)
Yes they DO want your weapons. They deeply desire to take them from you. They only want to put themselves at the least risk while doing so.
Socialists care deeply about taking away your guns. If they can't get their grubby, grabby litle hands on them, they'll administratively control them.
Socialism is THEFT of property, theft of productivity, theft of effort, and theft of person-hood.
Socialists cannot stand armed free men. Armed free men tend to resist socialism. Typically by force of arms.
They deeply desire to disarm you for the purpose of having you disarmed. They do not care what tool or technique they have to use to get to their desired end state. A disarmed populace cannot resist their socialist "progress". (You aren't against progress, are you?)
Yes they DO want your weapons. They deeply desire to take them from you. They only want to put themselves at the least risk while doing so.
Animal Mother
Member
I think we all need to make sure that we write our representatives and join the NRA. At the same time, I don't think we'll need to worry too much, don't you remember that Obama was actively seeking to reassure gun owners that he wouldn't seek to take our guns away? Now all politicians lie, but in the age of the internet, it will be much harder to him to go back on his promises. The gun issue was actively avoided by Obama because he knows that the issue is a vote loser among the public.
There are so many other issues that will need to be dealt with before they get around to this, and by the time that they get around to gun control it will probably be too close to the elections in 2010 to upset the apple cart. Keep in mind that the same forces that won on Tuesday also controlled the House and Senate since 2006, and that Bush has publicly stated that he would also sign an AWB renewal, yet it never happened.
In fact, if you want to see how the diehards in the Democratic party currently feel about the possibility of a AWB renewal, read this:
http://www.democraticunderground.co...mesg&forum=118&topic_id=189343&mesg_id=189343
There are so many other issues that will need to be dealt with before they get around to this, and by the time that they get around to gun control it will probably be too close to the elections in 2010 to upset the apple cart. Keep in mind that the same forces that won on Tuesday also controlled the House and Senate since 2006, and that Bush has publicly stated that he would also sign an AWB renewal, yet it never happened.
In fact, if you want to see how the diehards in the Democratic party currently feel about the possibility of a AWB renewal, read this:
http://www.democraticunderground.co...mesg&forum=118&topic_id=189343&mesg_id=189343
camslam
Member
This is probably how it will happen...
This is one post from the thread referenced. What it alludes to is the apathy of gun owner allowing a ban to happen. Let's get out, introduce new people to the joys and benefits of shooting.
Some of our fellow gun owners that post here on THR need a wake up call to the realities of where we sit and are headed on gun rights.
This is one post from the thread referenced. What it alludes to is the apathy of gun owner allowing a ban to happen. Let's get out, introduce new people to the joys and benefits of shooting.
Some of our fellow gun owners that post here on THR need a wake up call to the realities of where we sit and are headed on gun rights.
CajunBass
Member
Well shoot. Why shouldn't they pass an outright ban? If reading these posts here and most everywhere else are any indication, most of you have surrendered already. A lot of you surrendered even before the election. Give up early and avoid the rush I suppose.
Now is not the time to worrying about when they're going to be doing something. It's time for US to be doing something to worry them.
Join the NRA. A million new members real quick would get some attention.
Write letters. Let your representatives know how you feel, and let them know this is a deal breaker. You will not get my vote ever again if you vote for........... I don't care what party you are, I don't care what kind of tax break, or insurance bill you helped pass, or how many babies you kissed. I will do everything I can to make sure that you get voted out of office next time.
Then get others to write to them. Then write to them again. Not just national officerholders either. If your dogcatcher is an "anti" let them know they will be looking for job if you have anything to say about it. And you do.
Now is not the time to worrying about when they're going to be doing something. It's time for US to be doing something to worry them.
Join the NRA. A million new members real quick would get some attention.
Write letters. Let your representatives know how you feel, and let them know this is a deal breaker. You will not get my vote ever again if you vote for........... I don't care what party you are, I don't care what kind of tax break, or insurance bill you helped pass, or how many babies you kissed. I will do everything I can to make sure that you get voted out of office next time.
Then get others to write to them. Then write to them again. Not just national officerholders either. If your dogcatcher is an "anti" let them know they will be looking for job if you have anything to say about it. And you do.
Last edited:
indoorsoccerfrea
Member
here here cajun!
Gunnerpalace
Member
They might lack common sense but they are not high.
Zundfolge
Member
Guns are low on his list of priorities.
FIRST thing he's going to do is silence his opposition via a new Fairness Doctrine (and probably extend it to the internet ... maybe requiring some sort of license to blog or run a forum).
SECOND thing he's going to do is start dismantling our free market capitalist system.
Disarming us is at least a year or two off ... I'd say more than two because he doesn't want to invigorate conservatives too much or he'll lose his precious house and senate in 2010.
HOWEVER, you can expect no more gains ... so no, there will be no CCW in National Parks ... and probably the ATF getting a little heavier handed with the FFLs under their boot (so you remaining "kitchen table" gun dealers are likely going to lose your FFLs). I won't be renewing my C&R either.
FIRST thing he's going to do is silence his opposition via a new Fairness Doctrine (and probably extend it to the internet ... maybe requiring some sort of license to blog or run a forum).
SECOND thing he's going to do is start dismantling our free market capitalist system.
Disarming us is at least a year or two off ... I'd say more than two because he doesn't want to invigorate conservatives too much or he'll lose his precious house and senate in 2010.
HOWEVER, you can expect no more gains ... so no, there will be no CCW in National Parks ... and probably the ATF getting a little heavier handed with the FFLs under their boot (so you remaining "kitchen table" gun dealers are likely going to lose your FFLs). I won't be renewing my C&R either.
- Status
