Obama to possibly push gun control soon...


The Dude

Dont Tread On Me
To the dismay of the Brady Campaign and other gun ban groups, President Barack Obama didn't address gun control during his State of the Union address on January 25th. However, Newsweek reports that "in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort," and that the White House confirms, "Obama will address the gun issue in a separate speech, likely early next month." According to Newsweek, Obama believes that gun laws have been "too loose for much longer than just the past few weeks" following the murders in Tucson, Arizona.

Precisely what President Obama might have in mind is uncertain. His post-election transition website advocated reimposing the expired federal "assault weapon" ban, but that ban would clearly be irrelevant in the wake of a shooting that involved a firearm not covered by the old ban.

Proposed Shotgun Import Ban Shows Need To Change Law: On Thursday, Jan. 27, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives released a Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns, which proposes that "military shotguns, or shotguns with common military features that are unsuitable for traditional shotgun sports" be prohibited from importation. This would apply to all shotguns -- not just semi-automatics. As in previous "working group" studies on rifles, the study fails to give proper credit to the widespread use of these guns in newer shooting sports, or to their adaptability to hunting.

just got the email, thought id share..
 

Last edited by a moderator:
I have heard this. O. wants to use the AZ shootings as an excuse to implement more gun control laws. Thing is: the shooter would not have been flagged as a no-go because he was never id'd as a mental risk by police, md's, or family; despite the fact that all of them knew he was very high risk. That is how he was able to purchase his guns and ammo.

Implementing more laws via O's way still would not catch the guy. This is typical leftist/liberal thinking.
 
regardless of if he goes through with it or not, its just a matter of time before capital hill gets another ban of some sort. granted it be on assault weapons, high cap mags or whatever. they always try to focus on individual shootings as a reason for a ban. not the amount of lives saved on a daily basis by weapons as a whole. its hard to tell what they will push for. time will tell...
 
Doesn't matter what they push. For liberal progressives it's all about feelings. Doesn't have to work, they feel good about what they are doing. It's about safety, who can be against that. I feel safer already just thinking about it. Liberal progressives care so much, that's why they keep getting re-elected and we keep loosing our freedoms. :pleasantry:
 
Won't happen

It won't happen. It is highly unlikely that it will get through Congress thanks to the last election. The president cant do anything about it since the office of the president cannot make laws. Not to mention there are a few democrats up for election next year.
 
I think that if anything is done, they will try to pass some hi capacity magazine ban of some sort. They will be able to appease some of the gun control nuts and not tick off too many of us, although they will tick me off, in the hopes of not hurting themselves too much at the ballot box in 2012. Any ban of any sort will still hurt them at the polls. It has happened before, and it will probably happen again.:wacko:
 
O is the number one gun sells person according to the sign I see in most of the gun shops. So why do you think the media whats to say he is planning for a ban? To get most of us to go and by the fire arms we think he is going to ban and that will then be turned into the economy is making a comeback. Look at how many people rush out to buy 30 or 32 round Glock magazines after the shooting in AZ. Most stores are out of them and they are going for $10 more then the asking price before the shooting in AZ. Before rushing to buy what might get baned wait to see if the bill is put forth to ban those firearms then rush out to buy them if you don't already own one.

As for them trying to ban a firearm I have bought and owned before they pass their stupid laws they will have to take it from my cold dead hands before I will let them take it from me. As the US constitution says I have every right to protect my property.
 
O is the number one gun sells person according to the sign I see in most of the gun shops. So why do you think the media whats to say he is planning for a ban? To get most of us to go and by the fire arms we think he is going to ban and that will then be turned into the economy is making a comeback. Look at how many people rush out to buy 30 or 32 round Glock magazines after the shooting in AZ. Most stores are out of them and they are going for $10 more then the asking price before the shooting in AZ. Before rushing to buy what might get baned wait to see if the bill is put forth to ban those firearms then rush out to buy them if you don't already own one.

As for them trying to ban a firearm I have bought and owned before they pass their stupid laws they will have to take it from my cold dead hands before I will let them take it from me. As the US constitution says I have every right to protect my property.

Din't get me wrong, I'm not disputing what your saying at all, I've seen horders in action all my life. I remember the panic Johnny Carson created years ago when he proclaimed on his "Tonight Show" that there was a toilet paper shortage, that next day you couldn't find 'TP' in the stores anywhere, lol! But my question is, (and this is coming from a 69 yr old man with over 60 years of shooting experience), why in the hell would anyone want a 30+ rd magazine for any gun, (unless your in the Military)??? If I have to use that many rounds to defend myself, then I'm in the wrong neighborhood and I'm screwing with the wrong people... :no:
 
Din't get me wrong, I'm not disputing what your saying at all, I've seen horders in action all my life. I remember the panic Johnny Carson created years ago when he proclaimed on his "Tonight Show" that there was a toilet paper shortage, that next day you couldn't find 'TP' in the stores anywhere, lol! But my question is, (and this is coming from a 69 yr old man with over 60 years of shooting experience), why in the hell would anyone want a 30+ rd magazine for any gun, (unless your in the Military)??? If I have to use that many rounds to defend myself, then I'm in the wrong neighborhood and I'm screwing with the wrong people... :no:

Not really the point. I may not need a 30+ mag, but if they get that "inch," how long before they go for the "Mile?"
 
Not really the point. I may not need a 30+ mag, but if they get that "inch," how long before they go for the "Mile?"

I've got to agree with Ed on this. I'd rather concede (compromise) on something which has virtually no practical ramifications to any sport or home defense user and instead pick our battles wisely. If we as a community dig in on absolutely everything, no matter how impractical, I'm of the opinion we stand a much higher chance of losing the things that really matter to us due to an all-out assault by the antis.

The SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will always be a split decision, driven largely by the politics of the nominating president and the confirming majority when new justices are needed. And like it or not, jobs, the economy and defense rather than gun rights are much more apt to be on the majority of voters' minds when they pull that voting booth handle. A move to a more liberal-minded (anti-gun) court could very quickly happen if that party has a better message on the things which resonate with the voting majority in 2012. So let's don't become known as a bunch of obstinate SOBs who can't find any middle ground on anything related to gun rights. Because going down that path could easily result in the latest gains being erased if the SCOTUS swing voters move left.
 
Progressive liberals have been stealing our freedoms and trashing the US Constitution for years. It's either for safety or the children or the poor or the old, you name it. We have set around and let them get away with it by re-electing them time after time. Now here we are deep in dept and less freedom. Freedom is never free and requires personal responsibility.
 
I've got to agree with Ed on this. I'd rather concede (compromise) on something which has virtually no practical ramifications to any sport or home defense user and instead pick our battles wisely. If we as a community dig in on absolutely everything, no matter how impractical, I'm of the opinion we stand a much higher chance of losing the things that really matter to us due to an all-out assault by the antis.

The SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will always be a split decision, driven largely by the politics of the nominating president and the confirming majority when new justices are needed. And like it or not, jobs, the economy and defense rather than gun rights are much more apt to be on the majority of voters' minds when they pull that voting booth handle. A move to a more liberal-minded (anti-gun) court could very quickly happen if that party has a better message on the things which resonate with the voting majority in 2012. So let's don't become known as a bunch of obstinate SOBs who can't find any middle ground on anything related to gun rights. Because going down that path could easily result in the latest gains being erased if the SCOTUS swing voters move left.

We don't actually have to compromise on anything. The Second Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed," for a reason. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
 
We don't actually have to compromise on anything. The Second Amendment says, "Shall not be infringed," for a reason. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.

Well, you'd better hope the make-up of the SCOTUS doesn't move any further left...they are the nine who interpret the "intended" meaning of the Second Amendment passage you quoted. What did we have, a 5 - 4 ruling last June? I take it you'll be out there volunteering your time to knock on doors and providing financial resources to help get conservatives elected in 2012 and the out years. Because all it's going to take is for one conservative justice to retire and be replaced by an anti-gun Associate Justice...and then that toughly won affirmation of an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service will get another look and likely be severely constrained the next time around. You're right, we won't have to compromise, it'll merely be rammed down our throats.

I still say we need to take a more strategic look at this and find anti-antagonistic common ground with the left. Ed Hamberger had it right IMO, why make a big issue over something like 30+ round magazines. Let 'em have the easy ones (under the guise of compromising) that don't significantly affect any law abiding citizen; rather, marshal our resources for the tough fights that have crucial long-term ramifications to our cause.
 
Well, you'd better hope the make-up of the SCOTUS doesn't move any further left...they are the nine who interpret the "intended" meaning of the Second Amendment passage you quoted. What did we have, a 5 - 4 ruling last June? I take it you'll be out there volunteering your time to knock on doors and providing financial resources to help get conservatives elected in 2012 and the out years. Because all it's going to take is for one conservative justice to retire and be replaced by an anti-gun Associate Justice...and then that toughly won affirmation of an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service will get another look and likely be severely constrained the next time around. You're right, we won't have to compromise, it'll merely be rammed down our throats.

I still say we need to take a more strategic look at this and find anti-antagonistic common ground with the left. Ed Hamberger had it right IMO, why make a big issue over something like 30+ round magazines. Let 'em have the easy ones (under the guise of compromising) that don't significantly affect any law abiding citizen; rather, marshal our resources for the tough fights that have crucial long-term ramifications to our cause.

This is most likely the most realistic way of approaching this. Annoying yes, but if giving up 30 ct magazines makes libs feel better so be it. BUT do not take away my freedom to own guns!!!!!!!
 
Ditto if you give up a freedom you lose a freedom, O is an moron, who has sucked the T of America his entire life free education, never promoted or pass a bill as O senator or US, this guy is a loser who has surrounded himself with radicals, traitors, terrorist his entire life, he has never earned a penny of profit in his life or managed a business of any kind. I vote and anyone trying to change the 2nd amendment and remove firearms from me will have to pry them out of my hands. 2nd Amendment protects the rest of them.
 
BUT do not take away my freedom to own guns!!!!!!!

Naw, that wouldn't happen...too oppressive, too overt.

It would be a narrower ruling on a case brought before them...something along the lines of permitting the states and/or local jurisdictions more power to pass additional restrictions for the "protection" of their constituency. And as we've seen before last June's preemptive McDonald v. Chicago ruling put the kibosh on that practice against a Second Amendment backdrop, local antis, when in a political majority, can put some pretty onerous constraints in place.
 
Hopefully, nothing Obama wants will make it past the house for the next two years.

This and he seems to want the house united, he is happy to have the left and right sitting with each other. He may not want to go there, maybe just the high cap issue.
 
I still say we need to take a more strategic look at this and find anti-antagonistic common ground with the left. Ed Hamberger had it right IMO, why make a big issue over something like 30+ round magazines. Let 'em have the easy ones (under the guise of compromising) that don't significantly affect any law abiding citizen; rather, marshal our resources for the tough fights that have crucial long-term ramifications to our cause.

What is the "magic" number of rounds in a magazine? If you compromise on this, then next will you compromise on banning magazine fed weapons of any kind? Felix, you've already surrendered your "man card". You don't get it! If you're law abiding, why should you compromise on your rights?
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top