Just how realistic is the said gun ban?

[jdm]

There also was a proposal for a 500% tax on all ammunition. The tax dollars would go "for the children" or somesuch. That seems likely to to pass to me, after all, why would anyone need more than 5 rounds per year for their hunting purposes?

[SCone]

Just consider that Obama has EVERYONE behind the Clinton gun ban picked as part of his staff or cabinet. Add in the fact all the other Dems hate armed people. Then multiply by the IQ of the new Vice-President. No matter how bad your math may be, it still adds up to we're all in a load of trouble.

Bury deep and load heavy....

[03Lightningrocks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtaH8GHAfrI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzG5bHXaJr0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Purplehood]

Just consider that Obama has EVERYONE behind the Clinton gun ban picked as part of his staff or cabinet. Add in the fact all the other Dems hate armed people. Then multiply by the IQ of the new Vice-President. No matter how bad your math may be, it still adds up to we're all in a load of trouble.

Bury deep and load heavy....

You need to pick up a copy of American Rifleman and see how many Democrat's that the NRA endorses. You would be surprised.

[The Annoyed Man]

I think some of you are going to be surprised he's no worse for guns than Bush.

Would that estimate be based on his previous record? Because if it is, then I believe you're being naive. IF he turns out not to be too bad, it won't be because he is sympathetic to gun rights. Rather, it will be because he knows it would help to cement a loss of the presidency in 2012. He is a political calculator concerned more with getting and holding onto power than he is in defending the 2nd Amendment. (If you don't believe that he is a political calculator, notice how his threat to close GITMO went from "my first day in office," to "my first 100 days in office," to "sometime in 2013." The first was uttered during the campaign. The second became the mantra when he began to campaign more toward the center in the last couple of weeks of the campaign. The third became the mantra when he won the campaign and started getting the same daily intelligence briefing that President Bush gets. He really has no principles - like many politicians - and if he thinks that taking your guns, and mine, will strengthen him politically, he will do it, without any compunctions what so ever.)

Be that as it may, although the Democrat caucus happens to be led right now by a couple of crazies (Pelosi & Reid), there are a number of Blue Dog democrats whom the NRA supports because of their staunch pro-gun advocacy, and without their support, Reid and Pelosi can't muster enough votes to override a presidential veto (were Obama to run counter to his record and threaten such a veto). Those Blue Dogs are never going to vote for anything like an AWB. If there are enough of them (and I don't really know how may there are, for sure), their votes combined with a probably unified Republican block might be enough to defeat an AWB. So it looks to me like the only way that an AWB can possibly pass is with a simple majority and an Obama signature. In order to get even that simple majority, Reid and Pelosi will have to make some significant concessions to the Blue Dogs, because if they don't and those Blue Dogs vote to pass the AWB, those districts will go Republican in 2010, or 2012 at worst, the dem party will be hosed, and Reid and Pelosi know it.

But don't think for a minute that Obama wouldn't sign even a modified AWB into law if given half a chance. Remember, he believes in "common sense" gun control, which is Democrat code for "further restrictions on the 2nd Amendment" - a concept in which he has publicly announced that he believes. After all, if he believes that D.C.'s illegalizing semi-automatic pistols as "machine guns" is a "reasonable restriction" (his words, not mine), then he surely believes that the outlawing of the sale of AR15s and pistol magazines over 10 rounds are "reasonable restrictions" that will "keep AK47s out of the hands of gang members. Hey, I don't make these things up. He actually said them, and he has said them since he won the election. Just go back and review his record in the Illinois Senate, in which is gun rights record is abysmal.

[Oldgringo]

I think some of you are going to be surprised he's no worse for guns than Bush.

That would indeed be a pleasant surprise. I hope you are right; however, his past record and the company he keeps makes him suspect in that regard. Don't you agree?

[Liberty]

Our dislike for Obama overshadows how poorly George W. has been in defending or right to keep and bear arms. W. has sated he would sign a renewed Assault Weapons Ban if one were presented to him. His administration also presented arguements for defeating Heller. W. and his ilk are the weak kneed folks that made it impossible for many folks to be able to tell the difference between the left and the right.

[Chemist45]

You all are just a bunch of alarmists.
Obama won't take away your guns. And if he tries, Joe Biden's got your back!
Yes sir! Nobody's going to take away Joe's little Beretta.



The above message was written in New "Sarcasm!"
New "Sarcasm!" is better than regular sarcasm because its New!
Tell all your friends.

[CompVest]

[remington79]

I think if they try a ban there will be problems with the states. Half of the states have rejected REAL ID and have passed laws of non-compliance. I think there would be a decent number of states that would not comply with a ban of any sort.

[anygunanywhere]

I think if they try a ban there will be problems with the states. Half of the states have rejected REAL ID and have passed laws of non-compliance. I think there would be a decent number of states that would not comply with a ban of any sort.

JUst like all of the states stood up against the 55 mph speed limit, right?

Anygunanywhere

[remington79]

Things have changed since the 55 mph. Real ID is something the states are standing against. I'm surprised that Texas hasn't yet.

[anygunanywhere]

Things have changed since the 55 mph. Real ID is something the states are standing against. I'm surprised that Texas hasn't yet.

Federal funding speaks with authority. The states that have objected to the ID have not had the force of $$$$$ used against them yet. It will happen.

Anygunanywhere

[remington79]

I think they are going to stand tall on this one. Especially since it deals with a national id card. I think a ban would be met the same way. There are some things federal money won't be able to buy. We even have states proposing lowering the drinking age to 18 knowing the federal dollars might be taken away.

[anygunanywhere]

I think they are going to stand tall on this one. Especially since it deals with a national id card. I think a ban would be met the same way. There are some things federal money won't be able to buy. We even have states proposing lowering the drinking age to 18 knowing the federal dollars might be taken away.

Once again, color me jaded. I'll believe it when I see it.

Anygunanywhere