|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 9, 2012, 02:31 PM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,552
|
It is unfortunate to read Ayoob writing that. Seriously, do we really think the government will go after the millions of guns out there when the executive branch was elected by such a thin margin? Who is going to go door-to-door to collect them? No one in their right mind, that's who.
Too many REAL problems out there needing attention first. Should we be vigilant? Of course. |
November 9, 2012, 03:36 PM | #77 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
She's probably up to something, but she's not that stupid.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
November 9, 2012, 04:46 PM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
My take is the Obama administration will use the same tactics to go after firearms as they're using to shut down the coal and natural gas industries, i.e., use the regulatory agencies to put the manufacturers out of business or to make the cost prohibitive to the consumer instead of a more direct approach of bans or confiscation.
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
November 9, 2012, 05:04 PM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,128
|
Ayoob shouldn't have written that. There's a lot of hype in that piece, but I think I know why. The lobbyist groups and high profile individuals in the gun industry know that if the fear stays high they keep gun owners vigilant. If they quit talking about it Joe Public may lose interest and become complacent. I don't agree with the tactic, but I understand it, and the anti-gun establishment makes it easy to do.
One rabid anti-gunner or another cooks up some insane piece of legislation every time Congress is in session, they always have, but they don't gain traction because they cannot get the support needed. They're simply feeding their base. Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, and others that come from heavily anti-gun and extreme liberal districts and states could introduce anything and still get elected. That's what their constituents want, so they do it. Then they can go campaign and say "I introduced legislation to get these evil guns off the streets, but my right wing, bloodthirsty gun nut fellow lawmakers refused to help me enact any reasonable regulations to curb the violence because they're in the NRA's pocket, but I will keep trying as long as you keep sending me back." Etcetera, ad. nauseum.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs |
November 9, 2012, 06:02 PM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 26, 2009
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 428
|
I am not going to read every response up to this point but I will throw in my 2 cents. I will probably get crucified for this but so be it, we all have different opinions on the matter.
I don't see anything happening to guns or ammo the next 4 years. I could be wrong, but they have a lot more to worry about on the table rather than take the time to vote on a ban. I am an independent but generally lean democrat. I own a small arsenal of weapons including "black guns" that would put some small gun dealers to shame. I have what I consider to be a lifetime supply of ammo "just in case". And guess what there are others out there just like me. I think the NRA is an extreme and unreasonable group at times. I think the extreme leftists are unreasonable as well. However I am not against making it slightly more difficult to obtain firearms. Here where I live one can buy a gun off of the classifieds with no ID and no background check. In my opinion that is just crazy. It makes it extremely easy for felons to get guns here. I lived through the Clinton era. I live in a gun friendly state and didn't really notice much difference in obtaining firearms. Yes steel jacketed Chinese ammo was banned from import and the price on "black guns" went artificially up and without reason if you ask me. We all made it through and it just wasn't that bad. In fact the Clinton years were the best financial years of my life but that is for another discussion. Any how, I know I am in the minority on this board but I just wanted to throw that out there and let the new comers to the sport know the end of the world is not here and I don't see much if any restrictions on firearms the next 4 years. |
November 9, 2012, 10:49 PM | #81 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Having seen those rulings withstand scrutiny and challenge (which was faint at best), they pressured Bush to apply the same standard to "assault rifles." At the time, the idea of banning the importation of high-capacity mags had also been bandied around, but was rejected. In truth, there was never an EO. Bush informally directed the ATF to enforce the new interpretation.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe Last edited by Tom Servo; November 10, 2012 at 01:05 AM. |
|
November 10, 2012, 01:02 AM | #82 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
November 10, 2012, 09:25 AM | #83 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 2,169
|
Hopefully, SAF can get a "sporting purposes" case to SCOTUS before Obama can nominate any more judges....
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0...... |
November 10, 2012, 10:14 AM | #84 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
^ I completely agree, but we keep getting told that it does not matter who is president and that nothing, absolutely nothing, bad would ever happen post this November 2012 election. We shall see, but I'm stupid and think some bad things will happen. Hope I'm wrong.
|
November 10, 2012, 11:48 AM | #85 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Vigilance is the key.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
November 10, 2012, 12:33 PM | #86 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 1, 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 284
|
I think part of the cause for my concern is that I have relatives who currently live, or lived in states at one time, that are very hostile towards gun owners. I have witnessed, second hand, how overzealous anti-gun politicians have enacted laws that seem contrary to our Constitution at the state and local level. It seems that the politicians who are most vociferous in their hostility towards firearms, like Senator Charles Schumer of New York, are almost unbeatable in their districts. I hope that I'm wrong, but sometimes it seems that election results, like occurred last Tuesday, embolden politicians like Schumer, to resurrect and lead the fight against firearms owners. We, firearms owners, need to wait and see what happens, but we must be vigilant and ready to act as a group in lobbying efforts with our congressmen and senators through phone calls and letters and spreading the word to those who may not pay attention to current events. Whether you own firearms for hunting, sport, or self-defense. we must stay and work together to protect our rights and freedoms.
Last edited by Rifleman1952; November 10, 2012 at 04:40 PM. |
November 11, 2012, 08:54 AM | #87 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
I agree 100% - that's Mr. Obama's preferred method of control - price (or tax or fine) it into nonexistance. What's sad, is he's getting exactly his way in that regard without even having to lift a finger. |
|
November 11, 2012, 09:32 AM | #88 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,552
|
Quote:
|
|
November 11, 2012, 09:47 AM | #89 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
|
|
November 11, 2012, 10:16 AM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,315
|
If politicians endorsed by our beloved NRA do unto us vis-a-vi Bush and his ban, does this not severely weaken the endorsement? Why wasn't the Clinton ban reversed by Bush? In my view the NRA uses political rhetoric as fact, in a money raising scheme, and is just another business in the growth industry of politics.
|
November 11, 2012, 04:33 PM | #91 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
Quote:
As for using this information for fundraising I wonder what else they would use. In other words if there were no threat to our freedom what conceivable reason would anyone have for supporting them? Yes, maybe gun safety, but really they are an advocacy group and that is why they publicize those efforts.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
|
November 11, 2012, 09:11 PM | #92 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Another example would be Kristen Gilliabrand, who appeared to be our friend until she landed in office. Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
November 11, 2012, 10:04 PM | #93 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
|
Tom: "In truth, there was never an EO. Bush informally directed the ATF to enforce the new interpretation."
I watched Treasury Secretary (? Maybe he was atf. long ago) announce that street sweeper was declared an "explosive device." I was disgusted.
__________________
Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum |
November 11, 2012, 10:22 PM | #94 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
Here is a Fact - No Surprise
"US guns sales soar after Barack Obama's re-election"
Article from the 11-11-2012 Telegraph UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-election.html No surprise and it will stay this way for quite a while. There must be a lot of stupid or smart people out there. I do know that I would rather have a safe full of firearms than paper dollar bills as long as the Fed is printing $$$ out of thin air and buying bonds with money printed out of thin air. As the owner of Survival Blog pointed out for 11-13-2012 blog: "Consider: The used Macintosh II computer that I bought for $875 in 1990 is now worth perhaps $5 in scrap metal value, but the used stainless steel Colt Gold Cup .45 pistol that I bought for $400 in 1990 is now worth around $1,100." |
November 12, 2012, 10:07 AM | #95 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
That is because if firearms tech had progressed as computer tech has done, the Colt would also be worth $5 - unless it was a collectible.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
November 14, 2012, 09:45 AM | #96 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,171
|
Given the current climate of things, how long do you suspect the "panic" is going to last? In 2008 as I understand it, there was quite a "doomsday" attitude about how the world was coming to an end and Obama would be the greatest disaster to have ever of hit America and the law abiding gun owners of this country (Exaggerations of course).
Someone in a thread I had previously created said perhaps a year or so? I know my LGS is making an absolute killing right now in terms of sales. I went down there about a week ago to check out a C75 compact I've been eyeing for the past few months only to find out that they had completely sold out of them within the past few days! Hopefully things stableize soon, it's going to be a major pain or so it seems to get anything firearms related if this keeps up. Last edited by Tom Servo; November 17, 2012 at 08:18 AM. Reason: Slight language issue |
November 17, 2012, 01:29 AM | #97 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
Good grief, I hate politics.
Many others have stated this already, and I want to repeat it. There are way more important things on the plate of our elected officials than gun control at this point. I don't mean to make light of our constitutional RKBA, as it is very important to me, but I am actually more worried about our countries economic future than anything. With this being said, if any of the czars came up with a back door way to make purchasing firearms or ammunition more inconvenient I don't doubt that our president would sign off on it. As others have said, we must remain vigilant. I do think supreme court appointments are an important issue and we shouldn't make light of this. You never can tell how an SCOTUS justice will vote, but Sotomayor has certainly been pretty predictable thus far. The damage is limited in that the legislative branch of government is split between two parties. Checks and balances (or partisan bickering) at it's finest. Really, my biggest concern is whether or not the price of firearms skyrockets or not. In addition, I would really love for ammo and components to not be as scarce as they were in late '08 and most of '09. That would be nice. It's really not that real. There's no need to hoard. Not a bad idea to keep a decent supply on hand, but you don't need a lifetime supply of practice ammo on hand. |
November 19, 2012, 11:26 PM | #98 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2010
Location: Lake Martin, AL
Posts: 3,311
|
Wake Up America! The President does not make laws, change laws nor does the President, Executive Branch, change the Constitution of the USA.
Congress does if it passes the judgement of the Judicial Branch of our Government (the Supreme Court). Stop trying to pump this crap if you are totally ignorant and never made it past the 6th grade in Civics. Maybe, they no longer teach it. There is no reason any of us should fear our rights as Citizens will be affected by a Presidential Election. The fear is brought about by those who want to profit from it. Know your Congress person and don't automactically vote them in based upon their seniority. |
November 20, 2012, 05:05 AM | #99 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,552
|
Thank you, lamarw. All lot of folks around here could stand to learn how how our government works, and what powers the branches of government do/don't have.
|
November 20, 2012, 08:13 AM | #100 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
Quote:
I also read a report a few months ago that said around 75 percent of the people think congress is doing a bad job. It went on to say that around 52 percent of those people would vote for their congress person again. That makes it hard to change much.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
|
|
|