Don't Be Fooled!

[TEX]

Gun owners – who really are our friends and allies other than us. We know without question that the Democrats want everyone disarmed, but what about the Republicans? With the exception of a few (very few) the Republicans want us disarmed also, yet most folks think the Republicans are on our side. Not so. They only thing that keeps them from being openly anti-gun are the NRA and its member’s votes. If they didn’t think gun owners could affect their elections it would already be illegal for us to own any firearms.

As an exercise, I sometimes ask gun owners about past Presidents and other elected officials as to whether or not they were friends of the 2nd Amendment. They get it wrong all the time. Some facts to consider;

George Bush Senior – Republican and Texan (friend or foe?) Banned the import of so called assault weapons in 1989 and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for sporting purposes.

Ronald Reagan – Republican (friend or foe?) When Governor of California in 1967, signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms in public or in a vehicle. Twenty-four years later he was still pushing gun control. He said in 1991 "I support the Brady Bill and I urge Congress to enact it without further delay.”

Rudolph Giuliani – Republican (friend or foe?) – His administration filed suit against twenty-six gun manufactures in 2000. Supported the New York police commissioner Howard Safir in promoting a nationwide plan for gun licensing.

George Pataki – Republican (friend or foe?) – As Governor of New York, signed into law in 2000 the “nation’s strictest gun controls” according to the New York Times.

Richard Nixon – Republican (friend or foe?) – When asked by journalist William Safire in 1969 what he thought about gun control he said “Free from gun owner retaliation at the polls, I favor making handguns illegal and requiring licensing for hunting rifles.”

George W. Bush – Republican and Texan (friend or foe?) – Said on more than one occasion that if a new assault weapons ban made it to his desk, he would sign it into law. The only reason he signed off on the CHL laws in Texas when he was Governor was to get votes for his already planned presidential run.

John F. Kennedy (a Democrat) was more pro-gun than many Republicans are today.

BTW - Most of the above info is from a book by Richard Poe titled “The Seven Myths of Gun Control”, which is a great book if you want one place to go to help support your arguments against gun control. I am a little biased, but I think it should be required reading in the 9th and 12th grades in public school.

Now that Obama has been elected, gun prohibitionists are salivating at thoughts of the cornucopia of restrictive gun laws they plan to get passed. For all intends and purposes the Democrats now control the government (Senate, the House and the Whitehouse). Do not be surprised if they make a run at amending the constitution to rid us of that inconvenient and bothersome evil 2nd Amendment or so severely alter it that we will be lucky to legally own pellet rifles or muzzle loaders. I hope and pray that I am wrong, but I think life for gun owners and proponents of the 2nd Amendment is about to suck – big time. If they do pass a new AWB, it will probably make the old one look reasonable by comparison.

I live in Texas and many of the gun shops in my area are having trouble keeping certain guns and high capacity magazines in stock. The election of Obama has scared the crap out of not only gun owners, but potential gun owners – and rightfully so. I have in the past week been asked by three co-workers what kind of gun they should get. After asking a few questions about their experience and commitment to gain skills, I usually give then a recommendation – then I add that it won’t matter because within four years or less it will be illegal for you to own a gun. That always gets a special look from them, even the one that voted for Obama.

I attended a gun show about two weeks ago and the number of tables there I had not seen since the 80s, and they were stacked high with goodies. There were so many people there you practically had to wait in line to get up to a table to look at the wares. There were lines of people waiting to sign ATF forms and get their new firearms. I suspect we gun owners may come under more of a siege than EVER before. I haven’t looked that hard yet (because I already have plenty), but I suspect that high capacity magazines are already easing up in price. I hope you folks didn’t throw away all those 10-round magazines you were forced to own a while back.

Anyway, I guess I have depressed myself enough by writing this. Now, where did I put that bottle of Crown. Keep the faith brothers. I think we are in for a rough ride.

But, then again if Obama is going to pay our mortgages and gas, maybe he would be willing to pay for our ammo. Nah! – What the hell am I thinking.

[Purplehood]

Now that Obama has been elected, gun prohibitionists are salivating (and _______________) at thoughts of the cornucopia of restrictive gun laws they plan to get passed. For all intends and purposes the Democrats now control the government (Senate, the House and the Whitehouse). Do not be surprised if they make a run at amending the constitution to rid us of that inconvenient and bothersome evil 2nd Amendment or so severely alter it that we will be lucky to legally own pellet rifles or muzzle loaders. I hope and pray that I am wrong, but I think life for gun owners and proponents of the 2nd Amendment is about to suck – big time. If they do pass a new AWB, it will probably make the old one look reasonable by comparison.

I find it difficult to consider this a reasoned argument with statements like that...

[FlynJay]

As gun owners, we really need to stop thinking of this as an "us against them" battle. The antis started with that attitude because it is the emotional way of looking at the problem and thus garners them support with a large number of people who are uneducated on the subject.

We really are fighting the same battle: reducing crime. Antis think removing the gun will reduce crime - we know this is not true by looking at other societies that have gone down that road unsuccessfully. But when we argue with them we look soft on crime, not good.

We should promote responsible gun ownership and the increase in penalties for weapon related crimes. "Punish the criminal not the victim" should be our motto.

[Purplehood]

I have seen it a million times elsewhere on this board and others...but I wholeheartedly agree.

ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS, don't make more~!

[KBCraig]

I have seen it a million times elsewhere on this board and others...but I wholeheartedly agree.

ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS, don't make more~!

If you really took a good look at the existing laws, you might change your mind.

Back to the original post: It's highly unlikely there will be an attempt to amend the Constitution. The Democrats don't even have 60 votes for cloture in the Senate, much less the 67 needed to send an amendment to the states (where it would face an even tougher standard of 75%).

Instead, I expect the new administration to completely ignore the Constitution and the legislative process, and enact sweeping changes by executive fiat. For precedent, they need look no further than George W. Bush and his prolific use of executive orders and "signing statements".

Lloyd Bentsen effectively outlawed a 12 gauge shotgun (the Amsel Striker 12 "Streetsweeper"), which was no more dangerous than any other 12 gauge shotgun firing the same ammunition, by declaring it to be a "Destructive Device", the same classification as an artillery howitzer, 4.2" mortar, or 20mm automatic cannon.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, gives broad authority for "The Secretary" (of the Treasury, but now the Attorney General since ATF has moved to DoJ/Homeland Security) to declare firearms to be "without sporting purpose". (George H.W. Bush strongly supported the "sporting purpose" restriction, if you're inclined to only blame Democrats.)

Anyhoo, it will be pointless at this point to try to play legal "gotcha" with an administration that won't care care what the law or Constitution says; they only care what they can get away with, not unlike the past three administrations. The next administration will do what it wants, until forced to do otherwise by the courts (assuming they obey the courts). The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow; it took 35 years to overturn the DC handgun ban.

I expect the same if it's conclusively proven that Obama is constitutionally unqualified for the office of President: neither the courts, nor the Electoral College, nor the House, will deny him the office. That's what happens when you start ignoring the Constitutional limits of office.

[pdubyoo]

I agree that our 2A rights are in jeopardy...but I don't think it will happen as quick as some fear. One of the ways that the far left has been so successful in getting out their talking points to the uninformed public is that they have been preaching the same message for decades. There are generations that have grown-up hearing the same message that "guns kill people" and that "we need gun control to stop crime". We know that isn't the case, but we have to be smart in how our message gets out.

First, as we learned from this last election, anytime you are on the defensive, you are in a losing position. We have to be pro-active in getting the message out, that legal gun owners are not the problem...it's the criminals that obtain guns illegally. There are plenty of statistics to support this fact. The NRA is on the front lines of gun-owner defense, and they do a great job. But our elected servants need to be supporting our positions as well. If they don't, vote them out and let future candidates know that they will not get our votes unless they support our position. Yes, this is a lengthy process, but look, the left has been doing it this way for many years with great success. I doubt we will be able to counter this quickly.

When we, as responsible gun owners are discussing this issue with "others", we need to be careful to be non-emotional about it. Cool heads, wisdom and facts are key, in my opinion. It's interesting to me that most people that I know that don't own a gun are scared of them. Why? They have never been educated about gun ownership and how responsible most (not all) gun owners are. When I give them some of the statistics about CHL's vs. general population, they're suprised. Also, when there's crime close to their neighborhood, they then start thinking about getting a gun to defend their home.

That's a lot of rambling, but I believe that we need to be calm ,but diligent in talking with proponents of gun control. They need to understand that making guns illegal will not stop crime. Criminals will simply use other weapons...or get guns illegally.

That's my $.02

[anygunanywhere]

We really are fighting the same battle: reducing crime. Antis think removing the gun will reduce crime - we know this is not true by looking at other societies that have gone down that road unsuccessfully. But when we argue with them we look soft on crime, not good.

Flyin,

I am going to have to not just disagree with you but respectfully tell you that you are wrong on this one.

There is a distinct difference between someone who just does not own guns and does not care to do so. They very well may be tough on crime.

Being tough or soft on crime has absolutely nothing to do with being anti or pro gun.

The antis want to eliminate the second amendment and control your very existence. If they succeed in their agenda then you will be a criminal for owning guns.

Our opposition to the antis does not make us soft on crime. Our insistence in owning guns is our comittment that the constitution is the law of the land. The antis are truly criminals in that they subvert the very document that gave us freedom and enumerates the rights given us by our creator. They are domestic enemies spoken of in the constitution, not us.

If we fail to continue to insist that our RKBA is a right above any and all laws we will lose the battle miserably.

All gun control laws infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.

All criminal acts are illegal irrespective of the use of firearms in the commission of the offense. Murder is murder whether done with a club, knife, or gun.

Anygunanywhere

[anygunanywhere]

When we, as responsible gun owners are discussing this issue with "others", we need to be careful to be non-emotional about it. Cool heads, wisdom and facts are key, in my opinion.

We have fought and fought the attempts to keep our RKBA using facts for decades.

You are right to some degree about emotion. The antis use emotion. SOme of us do become emotional when our freedom is trampled on.

Maintain a cool head, know the facts, but by all means DEMAND THAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE NOT INFRINGED ANY LONGER WITH ALL OF THE INTESITY OF YOUR BEING. YOUR VERY EXISTENCE, YOUR FREEDOM AND YOUR LIFE WILL DEPEND ON IT.

It will happen sooner than you think. The pending administration will press the issue exponentially.

Anygunanywhere

[j_dock2]

Short on time but I must say - we're going to HAVE to stop putting a rational argument up against an emotional argument.

We already win the rational side of this. We need to get better at adding an emotion-based argument because that seems to be the most effective method in this sorry sad-sack society.

I don't like it but that's how it's going to work.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Great into Tex! But you may want to edit your post to meet the 10 year old daughter rule before a moderator does it for you Trust me, they will (I've slipped up a few times)

I just did.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Tex:
About the only thing I agree with in your post is that without the NRA, we'd be having this discussion as purely an academic exercise; none of us would own guns. However, to the extent you argue that overall we are not better of with Republicans, I respectfully disagree.

On the grand scale, Republicans support the Second Amendment much better than Democrats. That's precisely why some Texas Democrats created a new organization "Democrats for the Second Amendment" or some such name. They want to encourage their fellow Democrats to reject the liberal wing of the party's call for more gun control. I applaud their efforts!

Look at the list of "A+" rated Senators and Congressmen on the national level and you'll see that the majority are Republicans. Here in Texas, we are blessed with many very good Democrats. However, even in Texas, every "D" and "F" rated member of the U.S. House, as well as Texas Senators and Texas House Members are Democrats and all but two of those with "C" ratings are Democrats. These are facts based upon voting records and questionnaires.

I am not arguing that gun owners should blindly support Republicans and reject Democrats. A lot of allegedly "blue dog" Democrats have been elected in the last two elections, but only time will tell if they will vote their commitments to gun owners when they face extreme pressure from the liberal leadership of the Democrat Party. I hope they do, not only because I don't want us to lose ground, but because I would love to see guns become a non-issue because both parties are afraid to support gun control. I would prefer that Republicans and Democrats support the Second Amendment because they truly feel that way, but if they only support it out of fear of being defeated at the polls, then that's good enough.

Chas.

[couzin]

Instead, I expect the new administration to completely ignore the Constitution and the legislative process, and enact sweeping changes by executive fiat. For precedent, they need look no further than George W. Bush and his prolific use of executive orders and "signing statements".

We won't be subject to an Executive Order. Presidential Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies (State Governors can also make Executive Orders that affect a State's agencies). While EOs can actually change the direction of a current Law or Statute that an agency follows - they are not supposed to do so unless Congress revisits the actual Law and modifies it in accordance with introduced legislation - however, most agencies just accept the EO and do what they can to comply (many are just flat ignored). Congress can also over-ride the EO and make it null. In addition to Congressional powers, EOs can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the EO exceeds the original contitutional power given to the President (or Governor). Harry Truman had his EO which seized the steel mills during a labor issue overturned because neither the Constitution or any Law nor Statute authorized the President to seize private property.

However - even though we will not see an EO that impacts 2A directly - we might see legislation that brings back the AWB, and has as a component of that bill the increase in Federal taxes on firearms and ammunition along with other 'goodies'. Just think, a box of #9 shells for $7.50 but added taxes of $22.00. Yep - that would keep me off the range. SS and retirement pay doesn't go that far.

[anygunanywhere]

Instead, I expect the new administration to completely ignore the Constitution and the legislative process, and enact sweeping changes by executive fiat. For precedent, they need look no further than George W. Bush and his prolific use of executive orders and "signing statements".

We won't be subject to an Executive Order. Presidential Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies (State Governors can also make Executive Orders that affect a State's agencies). While EOs can actually change the direction of a current Law or Statute that an agency follows - they are not supposed to do so unless Congress revisits the actual Law and modifies it in accordance with introduced legislation - however, most agencies just accept the EO and do what they can to comply (many are just flat ignored). Congress can also over-ride the EO and make it null. In addition to Congressional powers, EOs can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the EO exceeds the original contitutional power given to the President (or Governor). Harry Truman had his EO which seized the steel mills during a labor issue overturned because neither the Constitution or any Law nor Statute authorized the President to seize private property.

However - even though we will not see an EO that impacts 2A directly - we might see legislation that brings back the AWB, and has as a component of that bill the increase in Federal taxes on firearms and ammunition along with other 'goodies'. Just think, a box of #9 shells for $7.50 but added taxes of $22.00. Yep - that would keep me off the range. SS and retirement pay doesn't go that far.

Yes, you are subject to executive orders when congress enacts legislation that includes language authorizing the president to amplify the scope of said legislation.

You do read all of the legislation passed by congress, don't you?

Anygunanywhere

[couzin]

While EOs can actually change the direction of a current Law or Statute that an agency follows - they are not supposed to do so unless Congress revisits the actual Law and modifies it in accordance with introduced legislation.

Yes, you are subject to executive orders when congress enacts legislation that includes language authorizing the president to amplify the scope of said legislation.

You do read all of the legislation passed by congress, don't you?

Anygunanywhere

Yep - I do - but you didn't read all of my text (emphasis mine above). BTW - here are the running totals of EOs by President:

GW Bush 268, so far
Clinton 363
G. Bush 165
Reagan 380
Carter 319
Ford 168
Nixon 345
Johnson 323
Kennedy 213
Eisenhower 481
Truman 893
FD Roosevelt 3,466