PDA

View Full Version : Fear unfounded: Gun Rights issues to actually be worried about


hoffmang
11-09-2008, 10:29 AM
All,

The amount of uninformed paranoia does not reflect well on those of us demanding liberty. Let me list through some things we don't really need to fear and some things we should be worried about.

Don't be afraid:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban: This is a stalking horse. AW bans will be proposed in Congress. They will read horribly. Lots of chicken littles here, at AR15, and THR and others will post the obligatory "we're screwed" post. These laws will be intentionally over-broad in the Pyrrhic hope that they'd go somewhere and they'd have things in them that can be negotiated out to get them passed. Large parts of the Democratic majority are made up of blue dog Dems or Dems from pro-gun districts. If they let something like this pass they'll be out at the next election. Further, a new AW ban may be good for us. If it happens sooner, we can use Heller and US v Staples to go right back to our 5 Justices and make it crystal clear that semiatuomatic rifles that aren't SBR or FA are fully protected under Heller. Remember this. AR15s are being registered in D.C. today.

Worry:

ATF: The ATF is going to get worse. We're going to have administrative rulings we don't like. However, if they go too far they may create better opportunities for us to challenge some of their more out there behavior. One of the very interesting positive side effects of Nordyke is that we're likely to get clarified the derivative 2A right to conduct commerce in arms. That part of Nordyke is going to be very important challenging the ATF on their bookkeeping requirements that consider not writing the county correctly on the form a revocable offense. Also note that we don't need Nordyke to challenge the ATF today under Heller.

Gun Show Loophole: People, this is where the Dems and Obama are going to hurt us. They're going to push to make the rest of the US like California where a NICS is required on all purchases. That will be the push and we may be forced to accept that NICS is required at shows but otherwise private party transfers are legit. The Blue Dogs can support this and keep their jobs so we have to really worry about it. The only good news here is that it will not mean a change in CA and in fact we might be able to make CA better by making this a national requirement at a lower level than CA today. Heller does not help us on this issue.

Lower Court Judges: As the Democrat hegemony lasts, more and more Federal Judges below the Supreme Court are going to be picked by Democrats. This hurts us in the sense that on balance the lower courts will be less friendly over time. However, we still have our 5.

Things to FEAR:

Unexpected Death or Disablement in SCOTUS: If one of our 5 justices (Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) were to die or be disabled while Obama remains president we could have a serious problem. The more sons of Heller we can get through SCOTUS the less a risk this is long term.

An Assassination or Attempt on Obama: If an extremist from either side tries or succeeds in making the analogy to JFK complete all bets are off and even Heller could be overturned.

The Good News:

We're winning - Since November 2004:
1. So called assault weapons can be bought sold and built in California with minor revisions.
2. There is no Federal AW ban.
3. Heller means the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
4. The 2A will be incorporated against the states within the next 6 months.
5. Calguns exists and is a major force in the gun rights movement in California and to a surprising extent in the nation.
6. Redistricting passed in California
7. Winning momentum leads to more wins.

Now what?

From here we need to wait a couple more months for Nordyke. CGF has a couple of positive surprises. Mainly we need to hang together and work amongst the coalition to keep expanding our rights.

In many ways the most important thing we can do is get past the fear in the economy. People who feel wealthy and secure are more willing to extend freedoms to others on balance. We also should be working to help extend the pro-gun majority in Congress by supporting pro-gun dems and working against anti gun politicians in other states. Divided government would be very good for us.

Bottom line. Things are good for the gun rights movement. The patience required to see great things are numbered in months, not years anymore. Time to start thinking about how to mitigate our real risks instead of focusing on the incorrectly perceived risk. A great example of this is the run on lowers. Making sure you have a lower probably makes sense. Panic buying your tenth with money that could be better spent supporting a legal case in CA probably doesn't.

In immortal words, keep your powder dry ladies and gents.

-Gene

Hopi
11-09-2008, 10:36 AM
Thank you Gene.


Just what the Dr. ordered......

DJMAN
11-09-2008, 10:38 AM
Well said.

Thank you

bwiese
11-09-2008, 10:53 AM
Gene beat me to posting a "don't panic" piece roughly akin to above...
serves me right for being lured into running Liz' garage sale.

I'll also add this comforting statement: even if Fed matters get slightly worse in minor details as above, things will actually get better in CA (and are already on that pathway).

BATF regulatory stuff will be a fight under Obama but Heller can help us if they go too far. (Much of the BATF drama in the last couple of years is actually a fight for more funding.)

In the meantime, Scalia, Roberts, Alito & crew should eat right and exercise daily.

sorensen440
11-09-2008, 10:58 AM
well said
I'm just not sure I agree that the bluedog pro-gun dem's wont vote the part line
well have to wait and see

Soldier415
11-09-2008, 11:00 AM
Gene, thank you for posting this. It will help everyine udnerstand what is at stake and where we stand as we begin the next 4 years

Matt C
11-09-2008, 11:05 AM
Right now an actual gun ban is the least of my worries. How about a 50+% income tax? Oh and if you don't pay on time it's a felony (no more guns for you). Oh and how about mandatory community service, 100 hours, or why not 1000. Don't show up? Maybe that's a felony too... Sound far fetched? Visit Change.gov And if the messiah wants a ban, or any other law, you really think the dems are in a position to stand up to him right now? His popularity is about 5 times theirs.

Suvorov
11-09-2008, 11:12 AM
Thanks guys!

I have been living between Houston and the PRK for a couple of months now. Texas is wonderful in the regard that you can buy a Sig 556 at the local Academy. But that said, the people here seem to take their rights for granted. I have yet to encounter any group outside California, other than the NRA, that is as big a force for good as CalGuns. What you/we are doing makes me proud to tell others I come from California, about what CalGuns has accomplished, and that we are fighting on the front lines.

I will continue to do my part as a member of Sunnyvale Rod and Gun Club as well as monthly contributions (albeit small) to Calguns as I look forward to the day that I can take my bullet button of my ARs and know that a victory in California is a victory for America.

Thanks for the focus and the calming words and reassurance that all is not lost!

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 11:21 AM
Right now an actual gun ban is the least of my worries. How about a 50+% income tax? Oh and if you don't pay on time it's a felony (no more guns for you). Oh and how about mandatory community service, 100 hours, or why not 1000. Don't show up? Maybe that's a felony too... Sound far fetched? Visit Change.gov And if the messiah wants a ban, or any other law, you really think the dems are in a position to stand up to him right now? His popularity is about 5 times theirs.

And you spread some more fear.

As I said, the real issues are economic. Let me quote an excellent economist at length:

HIGH deficits and a declining economy will limit the hand of the new president in many matters of economic policy. Health care reform usually proves more expensive than promised, and voters are in no mood for higher gasoline or energy taxes.
...
Rebuilding confidence might seem a small matter, but it is not. The truth is this: America is a wonderful and magnanimous nation when it is a winner, but Americans are not used to losing and Americans are not used to panic.

Often we respond to negative events badly, so we need to be especially careful when we are in a losing or risky position.

Very bad events can cause a panic among the citizenry or its leaders, which translates into subsequent bad decisions. For a classic example of a negative policy dynamic, look at 9/11. The United States lost 3,000 lives and a great deal of wealth and confidence. The government then took actions, most of all the Iraq war, which led to even greater losses.

We are in danger of getting stuck in another negative dynamic, but this time in the realm of economics. We might follow up the financial crisis with some worse responses and policies.
from :http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/business/09cowen.html

BWO: You of all people should have personal experience with the fact that when things get truly ****ty they don't stay there. You need to step outside and take a deep breath. Remember, even W's web site said he'd support a new AWB. You'll note that mandatory national service is off change.gov and now its just promoting national service. I'm not defending him - I'm trying to get you and others to see the reality of what is going on. The economic situation severely hampers Obama's ability to make most of the negative changes he'd like to make. As long as he listens to the economic advisers he brought in we'll be ok. At the margin we'll recover a bit slower but not dramatically so. It's also clear that a McCain administration wasn't likely to be head and shoulders better. And yes, I expect he'll be saying no to Pelosi because his own desire for a second term in office will be a strong check on doing something stupid.

-Gene

EastBayRidge
11-09-2008, 11:31 AM
Gene, any thoughts on the "Obama will try and implement a 500% tax increase on ammo" meme that's been floating around for awhile ? BS ? Legit ? What do the "people in the know" say ? Thx.

Matt C
11-09-2008, 11:31 AM
You of all people should have personal experience with the fact that when things get truly ****ty they don't stay there.

And sometimes they just get ****tier. Ask the Jews in 1939, or the people Stalin, Mao, or Il-sung. America was in no mood for a $750 Billion bailout either, and they communicated those feeling to their elected representatives, by at least a 3 -1 margin. They passed it anyway, because "they know what's best for us".

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 11:36 AM
Gene, any thoughts on the "Obama will try and implement a 500% tax increase on ammo" meme that's been floating around for awhile ? BS ? Legit ? What do the "people in the know" say ? Thx.

That was a voting record issue. Obama did vote for a Ted Kennedy Proposal that did that. It was pointed out by NRA to show that Obama is not neutral on the gun issue as factcheck.org was trying to claim. That doesn't mean that he'd push for that sort of regulation or that Kennedy could get that out of Congress in the first place.

I do think you'll hear some agitating for microstamping, handgun rationing, and the like but that's not likely to get very far at all.

-Gene

Paladin
11-09-2008, 11:36 AM
Excellent opening post, Gene.

What ticks me are all the gun owners who are now in a panic and willing to spend thousands on guns and ammo even though their rights remain vulnerable, yet they weren't willing to join the NRA and/or contribute any money to McCain/Palin who, if they had won and appointed justices to SCOTUS, would have protected all our guns for the next 50+ years! Ugh! ! !

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 11:42 AM
And sometimes they just get ****tier. Ask the Jews in 1939, or the people Stalin, Mao, or Il-sung. America was in no mood for a $750 Billion bailout either, and they communicated those feeling to their elected representatives, by at least a 3 -1 margin. They passed it anyway, because "they know what's best for us".

Do you understand systemic risk to the banking system? Representative democracy is important. Sometimes the popular will is to repress people or not understand an issue. BTW: you've sunk to Godwins law already. Go look at this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=130771) and see Pelosi already admitting they can't implement their agenda because of the economy...

Can we rename this emoticon :willy_nilly: BWO?

BWO, Did you life get ****tier or better when this entire community backstopped you?

-Gene

Matt C
11-09-2008, 11:50 AM
Do you understand systemic risk to the banking system? Representative democracy is important. Sometimes the popular will is to repress people or not understand an issue.


We don't have representative anything, the party system has killed it just as George Washington predicted it would in his farewell speech. (see your other thread for quote).

BWO, Did you life get ****tier or better when this entire community backstopped you?


It literally SAVED my life, and that is the reason I have faith in this community to stand up and make the right decisions, whatever those may be. I am willing to admit that time may prove me wrong, in fact I pray for that more than anything. Maybe I just have PTSD. But I fear I may be all too correct.

Bad Voodoo
11-09-2008, 11:52 AM
Good post, Gene!

I'm not necessarily worried about a ban either, but knowing the liberal propensity to tax everything, have a really bad feeling about excise taxes on any and all things gun-related.

I've always been a handgun guy, so I definitely need to get polished up on my rifle skills anyway. An Obama victory gave me the perfect opportunity to celebrate by purchasing a rifle to use, and a lower for my safe. :D

monkezuncle
11-09-2008, 11:57 AM
Gene, I hate to disagree with you, but I do. Enormously. Here's why... To understand Obama you need to understand the people that are influencing him and are funding him. People like Aylinsky, Soros, etc. People who have a definite agenda that includes "remaking" the American way of life into their image of what it should be. And for the first time in history, we have a Congress of like minded folks. People who really believe things like "universal health care" and "tolerance" are not only possible, but desirable. The problem we face is that such mindsets won't necessarily attack gun rights... they will attack at a more foundational level and loss of rights, including gun rights may well be the natural and logical extensions of those policies. Obama, following George Soros' lead while in Germany, declared himself a "citizen of the world". That has long been the stalking line of those that promote a more active role for the U.N. in domestic politics. Imagine a platform of "change" where we as a country a encouraged to be a more active and considerate member of the world. To homogenize, if you will, with what other countries are already doing since we're all part of this "world wide community". If people buy that, a necessary compromise to achieving that is to adopt gun control polices like England, France and Australia. Anyone else see a problem there?

One thing that we've learned about liberals of the years is that they demand a sense of "fair play" from others but feel no need, when they are in power, to respond in kind. Look at all the attacks on Lieberman for his support of McCain (and his comments about Obama). They are actually, right now, in discussions about how to penalize him. That was just on Fox News. Look at the reaction to Prop 8's passing and Obama's comments that he'll ask Congress to repeal the DOMA legislation to, essentially overrule the will of the people. Those attitudes are what make this such a concerning "change" of leadership.

I'm in no way suggesting people be afraid, but definitely wary with eyes wide open. Obama has a track record of covering up his intentions (remember the no taxes above 250k, opps... 200k... opps 150k and now it's down to 120k) What do you think the actual intentions are there? This is the same guy who already should his elitists disdain for us "bitter" gun owners and Christians.

Speaking about the courts as you did in your post, I genuinely share your hopes but I need to assert that the reason we even have this forum is b/c the courts failed in the first place. There is one member, I think either a calgunner or on THR, who's quote in his sig block goes like this "I really wish they would have written the 2nd amendment to say: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" I think his point is subtle but powerful. The way the 2nd amendment was written, we should have little no laws limiting gun ownership based on a literal reading of that text. Let's also not forget that "our 5th" justice on the Heller case (Kennedy) has a notoriously bad habit of flopping like a fish without warning from Left to Right and back. So, with respect, to have hope in the same courts that already flubbed the ball seems a little Pollyanna-esque to me.

Do we support our governemnt... certainly, yes. Do we react in panic... I hope not. But let's use this election as rallying cry for the future. This is what happens when we sit on our tails or let our country be swayed by rhetoric. And I do believe we're, as a nation and likely as gun owners, going to pay somewhat for that. And to pretend otherwise is simply naive.

monkezuncle
11-09-2008, 12:02 PM
What ticks me are all the gun owners who are now in a panic and willing to spend thousands on guns and ammo even though their rights remain vulnerable, yet they weren't willing to join the NRA and/or contribute any money to McCain/Palin who, if they had won and appointed justices to SCOTUS, would have protected all our guns for the next 50+ years! Ugh! ! !

In addition to my above post, I have to agree wholeheartedly with Paladin's post above. The number of people that are yelling and screaming and worrying and spending all this money on lowers today, but are still not in the NRA is astounding and unacceptable. Spending the 25 bucks year to join the NRA will do a lot more good then buying one more box of ammo.

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 12:05 PM
To understand Obama you need to understand the people that are influencing him and are funding him.

I'm more Machiavellian than you. To understand Obama you need to understand that he wants a second term. There are a whole lot of issues more important to him and the Dem leadership than gun control that would be struck by the courts. They too can count to 5.

I'm not saying we don't need to be wary, I'm saying that the larger risks are in other areas. We got our Roe v. Wade. Heaven help us if we'd listen to the advice of people on our own team that were sure we should have waited on Heller. Think deeply about that and then realize what I'm trying to get at.

-Gene

ilbob
11-09-2008, 12:08 PM
I do not buy the idea that BHO will feel constrained at all, especially on the economic side of things. He is a committed socialist and even if whatever it is he wants to do will make things worse, I doubt he is going to care. He will only get one shot at it, so he is going to do what he wants, and congress will do nothing to even slow him down. As far as BHO is concerned, 30% unemployment is fine, if that is what it takes to remake America into his warped socialist state.

FDR did a lot of things that made a bad situation worse and he ended up with four terms. He had the change and hope nonsense, too. And he fooled enough Americans to get voted into office 4 times.

As for the courts slowing him down any, that worked real well with the grossly unconstitutional things FDR foisted on us, and that was back when a Justice Roberts would have been considered a flaming far left radical.

About the only hope I see is that the nitwits in congress figure out just what Obama really is and realize that what he wants to do to this country will destroy it forever, and they start dragging their feet, while publicly toeing the line.

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 12:20 PM
As far as BHO is concerned, 30% unemployment is fine, if that is what it takes to remake America into his warped socialist state.


This reads like campaign literature and not reasoned discourse. The best thing you can say about Obama is that he was lieing when he said he opposed NAFTA for example. If you want to worry about the Obama administration not getting Treasury out of the investment banking business, I'll hear that. If you really think the dems will allow unemployment over 10%, well I've got a 1 term president and a Republican landslide in Congress in 2010 and 2012 to show you.

-Gene

monkezuncle
11-09-2008, 12:20 PM
I'm more Machiavellian than you. To understand Obama you need to understand that he wants a second term.

-Gene

Lol... now that post I can definitely buy into. I hope they're smart enough to acknowledge that reality and govern accordingly.

Great response my friend! ;)

ilbob
11-09-2008, 12:28 PM
This reads like campaign literature and not reasoned discourse. The best thing you can say about Obama is that he was lieing when he said he opposed NAFTA for example. If you want to worry about the Obama administration not getting Treasury out of the investment banking business, I'll hear that. If you really think the dems will allow unemployment over 10%, well I've got a 1 term president and a Republican landslide in Congress in 2010 and 2012 to show you.

-Gene
Just how does government reduce unemployment? You give them a lot more credit than they are due.

He certainly is not going to let the free market work. And lots of makework like FDR came up with is not going to improve anything.

People stupid enough to vote for him in the first place are stupid enough to vote for him again. He is a classic con artist, and it takes a long time for people to admit they were had. Granted once they get to that point, they are pretty ticked off, but its not going to happen in 2 or 4 years.

Unless the republican party is willing to step up and do what is necessary, they will lose more seats in 2010, when they should be able to recover a few. At this point in time there is no way to know just what the RNC is going to do, but they have been sliding left since 1988 and I do not see that changing short of a revolt at the grass roots level.

You have to give people an actual choice when they go into the voting booth.

outersquare
11-09-2008, 1:51 PM
Do you understand systemic risk to the banking system? Representative democracy is important. Sometimes the popular will is to repress people or not understand an issue. BTW: you've sunk to Godwins law already. Go look at this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=130771) and see Pelosi already admitting they can't implement their agenda because of the economy...

Can we rename this emoticon :willy_nilly: BWO?

BWO, Did you life get ****tier or better when this entire community backstopped you?

-Gene

because of the bailouts the federal government is now taking on private debt and flipping it into US treasuries, adding to our already insane federal debt.

you know government bonds can collapse too right?

berto
11-09-2008, 2:11 PM
Those in power generally wish to stay in power. Our pro-gun dem friends in the house can't afford a new AWB passing even if it passes over their 'no' vote. Going home and telling their angry gun owning constituents that they did all they could and voted no but the AWB passed won't be good enough and it won't save their jobs. A new AWB in exchange for some other legislation costs the pro-gun dems their seats, no matter the result of the other bill (excepting the other bill providing free trucks, boats, and guns to their constituents). It's not going to happen.

Hoop
11-09-2008, 2:23 PM
It's not going to happen.

Wait awhile.

I don't think it's smart to completely discount a new "AWB" until we've at least seen a year or two of Obama's presidency.

Harrison_Bergeron
11-09-2008, 2:48 PM
How can people hold the bailout against Obama? McCain voted for it too, not only that, hours after voting for it he said it should be vetoed, then he said that his desire to veto it was what made him different from GWB. How can you complain about Obama being two faced, telling people what will get them to vote for him, and use the bailout as an example?

On topic...like I said in another thread, they are the most educated on the subject that I know of, so if Hoffmang and Bwiese say there is little to worry about then I will believe that there is little to worry about.

Glock30
11-09-2008, 2:59 PM
You're a man of inspiration Gene.

A guy came into the bank and his last name was Hoffmang, I was going to ask if it was you but figured it was a no go since it was in Tustin.

M. Sage
11-09-2008, 3:05 PM
Just how does government reduce unemployment? You give them a lot more credit than they are due.

They can influence it through interest rates and the tax code.

People stupid enough to vote for him in the first place are stupid enough to vote for him again. He is a classic con artist, and it takes a long time for people to admit they were had. Granted once they get to that point, they are pretty ticked off, but its not going to happen in 2 or 4 years.

Oh, I don't know. Ex-friends always make the most bitter enemies. Hopefully it won't take too long for people to realize they've been had.

Personally, I kind of hope Obama gets to implement his tax "reforms" in this economic climate. The results would be devastating, yes, but he wouldn't get a second term.

Unless the republican party is willing to step up and do what is necessary, they will lose more seats in 2010, when they should be able to recover a few. At this point in time there is no way to know just what the RNC is going to do, but they have been sliding left since 1988 and I do not see that changing short of a revolt at the grass roots level.

You have to give people an actual choice when they go into the voting booth.

Yeah, I agree. Hopefully this election has served notice to them... hopefully...

dfletcher
11-09-2008, 3:06 PM
All,

The amount of uninformed paranoia does not reflect well on those of us demanding liberty. Let me list through some things we don't really need to fear and some things we should be worried about.

Don't be afraid:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban: This is a stalking horse. AW bans will be proposed in Congress. They will read horribly. Lots of chicken littles here, at AR15, and THR and others will post the obligatory "we're screwed" post. These laws will be intentionally over-broad in the Pyrrhic hope that they'd go somewhere and they'd have things in them that can be negotiated out to get them passed. Large parts of the Democratic majority are made up of blue dog Dems or Dems from pro-gun districts. If they let something like this pass they'll be out at the next election. Further, a new AW ban may be good for us. If it happens sooner, we can use Heller and US v Staples to go right back to our 5 Justices and make it crystal clear that semiatuomatic rifles that aren't SBR or FA are fully protected under Heller. Remember this. AR15s are being registered in D.C. today.

Worry:

ATF: The ATF is going to get worse. We're going to have administrative rulings we don't like. However, if they go too far they may create better opportunities for us to challenge some of their more out there behavior. One of the very interesting positive side effects of Nordyke is that we're likely to get clarified the derivative 2A right to conduct commerce in arms. That part of Nordyke is going to be very important challenging the ATF on their bookkeeping requirements that consider not writing the county correctly on the form a revocable offense. Also note that we don't need Nordyke to challenge the ATF today under Heller.

Gun Show Loophole: People, this is where the Dems and Obama are going to hurt us. They're going to push to make the rest of the US like California where a NICS is required on all purchases. That will be the push and we may be forced to accept that NICS is required at shows but otherwise private party transfers are legit. The Blue Dogs can support this and keep their jobs so we have to really worry about it. The only good news here is that it will not mean a change in CA and in fact we might be able to make CA better by making this a national requirement at a lower level than CA today. Heller does not help us on this issue.

Lower Court Judges: As the Democrat hegemony lasts, more and more Federal Judges below the Supreme Court are going to be picked by Democrats. This hurts us in the sense that on balance the lower courts will be less friendly over time. However, we still have our 5.

Things to FEAR:

Unexpected Death or Disablement in SCOTUS: If one of our 5 justices (Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) were to die or be disabled while Obama remains president we could have a serious problem. The more sons of Heller we can get through SCOTUS the less a risk this is long term.

An Assassination or Attempt on Obama: If an extremist from either side tries or succeeds in making the analogy to JFK complete all bets are off and even Heller could be overturned.
The Good News:

We're winning - Since November 2004:
1. So called assault weapons can be bought sold and built in California with minor revisions.
2. There is no Federal AW ban.
3. Heller means the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
4. The 2A will be incorporated against the states within the next 6 months.
5. Calguns exists and is a major force in the gun rights movement in California and to a surprising extent in the nation.
6. Redistricting passed in California
7. Winning momentum leads to more wins.

Now what?

From here we need to wait a couple more months for Nordyke. CGF has a couple of positive surprises. Mainly we need to hang together and work amongst the coalition to keep expanding our rights.

In many ways the most important thing we can do is get past the fear in the economy. People who feel wealthy and secure are more willing to extend freedoms to others on balance. We also should be working to help extend the pro-gun majority in Congress by supporting pro-gun dems and working against anti gun politicians in other states. Divided government would be very good for us.

Bottom line. Things are good for the gun rights movement. The patience required to see great things are numbered in months, not years anymore. Time to start thinking about how to mitigate our real risks instead of focusing on the incorrectly perceived risk. A great example of this is the run on lowers. Making sure you have a lower probably makes sense. Panic buying your tenth with money that could be better spent supporting a legal case in CA probably doesn't.

In immortal words, keep your powder dry ladies and gents.

-Gene

I'd have the same concern (presuming a gun is used) but the basic theory can, I think, apply to an AW ban. Write the ban, but hold on to it until Columbine or the Amish shooting or VT and then intro it under the "best" circumstance. Would be quite a challenge and I'd hope NRA is preparing for such an eventuality.

When we speak of administrative efforts to restrict guns, let's also talk international - how would an Obama administration, with perhaps John Kerry as Secretary of State and Feinstein as UN Ambassador - deal with gun issues? I know our greatest and immediate challenge is domestic, but I'm sure Obama & crew would sign on to whatever is slid under thrie collective nose.

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 3:24 PM
Just how does government reduce unemployment?

I can think of a way that government can reduce unemployment:

1. Not increase it in the first place with additional required health care costs or raising the minimum wage.

2. Keeping the Bush Tax Cut - especially on capital gains and dividend taxes.

The government can decrease unemployment by not getting in the way in the first place or unwinding bad ideas put in. If the Dems go too far in taking the economy closer to European regulation state, that will increase unemployment. No secret ballot union votes anyone? However, those things can be fixed which is how .gov can lower unemployment.

-Gene

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 3:28 PM
I'd have the same concern (presuming a gun is used) but the basic theory can, I think, apply to an AW ban. Write the ban, but hold on to it until Columbine or the Amish shooting or VT and then intro it under the "best" circumstance. Would be quite a challenge and I'd hope NRA is preparing for such an eventuality.


You'll note that after the mass shootings the US has basically shrugged. That dynamic isn't changing as the makeup of the polling on guns hasn't changed. Your average non involved gun owner doesn't worry that there are issues with Heller and just thinks it was rightly decided. As such, they aren't supporting a whole lot more gun control. Plus the headlines are going to continue to have big pro-gun wins in them with lots of unhappy vitriol in them from a media that's trained the public that it isn't to be trusted. Just wait till you read about Nordyke.

-Gene

Meplat
11-09-2008, 4:04 PM
Pipe dreams. From an eara when the antis had no power.:rolleyes:

[/YOUTUBE]

You'll note that after the mass shootings the US has basically shrugged. That dynamic isn't changing as the makeup of the polling on guns hasn't changed. Your average non involved gun owner doesn't worry that there are issues with Heller and just thinks it was rightly decided. As such, they aren't supporting a whole lot more gun control. Plus the headlines are going to continue to have big pro-gun wins in them with lots of unhappy vitriol in them from a media that's trained the public that it isn't to be trusted. Just wait till you read about Nordyke.

-Gene

Telperion
11-09-2008, 4:14 PM
I can think of a way that government can reduce unemployment:

1. Not increase it in the first place with additional required health care costs or raising the minimum wage.

2. Keeping the Bush Tax Cut - especially on capital gains and dividend taxes.

The government can decrease unemployment by not getting in the way in the first place or unwinding bad ideas put in. If the Dems go too far in taking the economy closer to European regulation state, that will increase unemployment. No secret ballot union votes anyone? However, those things can be fixed which is how .gov can lower unemployment.

-Gene
The minimum wage increase already happened, and after Nov. 4 union card check and returning dividend and capital gains taxes to pre-Bush tax cut levels are basically fait accompli. Maybe you were reading somebody else's agenda?

You'll note that after the mass shootings the US has basically shrugged. That dynamic isn't changing as the makeup of the polling on guns hasn't changed. Your average non involved gun owner doesn't worry that there are issues with Heller and just thinks it was rightly decided. As such, they aren't supporting a whole lot more gun control. Plus the headlines are going to continue to have big pro-gun wins in them with lots of unhappy vitriol in them from a media that's trained the public that it isn't to be trusted. Just wait till you read about Nordyke.

-Gene
The other way of looking at this Gene is that because Americans have continued to shrug after these incidents, they will continue to happen. Based on the admittedly small data set of Columbine and VT, the probability of such another event happening is significant in the next 8 years. I would not count on a non-reaction after three separate incidents.

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 4:40 PM
The minimum wage increase already happened, and after Nov. 4 union card check and returning dividend and capital gains taxes to pre-Bush tax cut levels are basically fait accompli. Maybe you were reading somebody else's agenda?


And removing those should unemployment continue to climb would decrease unemployment which was my point about how the government can effect unemployment rates. That can easily be done by a republican administration should the current administration get off the tracks and be voted out - like the last.

The other trend about public mass shootings is that they're starting to be stopped by right to carry permit holders.

-Gene

383green
11-09-2008, 4:44 PM
I'd have the same concern (presuming a gun is used) but the basic theory can, I think, apply to an AW ban. Write the ban, but hold on to it until Columbine or the Amish shooting or VT and then intro it under the "best" circumstance. Would be quite a challenge and I'd hope NRA is preparing for such an eventuality.

Both parties already do that sort of thing. As I recall, the Patriot Act (retch!) didn't pop into existence out of the aether right after 9/11; it was already sitting on a shelf, waiting for a good opportunity.


When we speak of administrative efforts to restrict guns, let's also talk international - how would an Obama administration, with perhaps John Kerry as Secretary of State and Feinstein as UN Ambassador - deal with gun issues? I know our greatest and immediate challenge is domestic, but I'm sure Obama & crew would sign on to whatever is slid under thrie collective nose.


I'm not too worried about a UN-driven gun ban here. Even if the US delegates signed up for such a thing, I don't think it would survive SCOTUS scrutiny. Furthermore, I think that armed, blue-helmeted soldiers from foreign countries on continental US soil would be far enough beyond the line for enough Americans that bullets would start flying at that point. I think that a lot of people would interpret that as a true foreign invasion, and it'd be clear who the enemy is (just like the British during our revolution, who conveniently wore nice bright red coats). I just don't think it'd fly here, even if anybody was stupid enough to try it.

1859sharps
11-09-2008, 5:00 PM
I would like to add my voice to those who say don't panic.

IF you think this is our darkest hour, then you aren't as up on your history as you think.

92 going into Clinton's first term there was similar panic. Heck one could say even worse because people started forming "militias" and "training" to fight Clinton when he came for their guns.

I had far less hope going into Clinton's first term, then I do going into Obama's first term.

Do I believe we have a gun friendly Congress and President. NO. Do we need to be alert to possible gun bills being introduced. YES. But in that sense nothing has changed. we always have to be on the alert for that. Even under Bush. Even under a Republican congress.

I like Gene's comment about buying guns you don't need to with money you probably don't have. If you can afford to panic buy another AR/AK or whatever, then you probably could have afforded to spend a 1/4 of that money on a donation to preserve not just your right to buy that AR/AK right now, but tomorrow as well.

Obama is not really where we need to focus anyway. Congress is, always has been, always will be. It is far, far more important we have a gun friendly congress then a gun friendly President.

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 5:05 PM
Furthermore, I think that armed, blue-helmeted soldiers from foreign countries on continental US soil would be far enough beyond the line for enough Americans that bullets would start flying at that point.

I admit to being torn on this issue. As a UNC alumni I have a special place in my heart for that shade of blue. On the other hand, I really would enjoy what would happen if those blue helmets ever made it to CONUS in a non ceremonial role... :33:

-Gene

monkezuncle
11-09-2008, 5:18 PM
...I really would enjoy what would happen if those blue helmets ever made it to CONUS in a non ceremonial role... :33:

-Gene

Priceless! That needs to make it as the quote in someone's sig block. :D

1859sharps
11-09-2008, 5:28 PM
Blue helmets patrolling the streets would be the quickest way to swing a lot of rank and file military and police to the side of the citizen.

God help those poor Canadians :(

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 5:43 PM
Here is my delimma:

https://store.cstv.com/marketplace/store/Vendor58/160/0904-4926-m.jpg vs. http://www.newint.org/issue375/pics/un-helmet.jpg

Its a problem...

-Gene

Kestryll
11-09-2008, 5:46 PM
And you spread some more fear.

-Gene
I do not see it as spreading fear, I see it as legitimate concerns.
The power to tax is the power to destroy and no, I do NOT trust Obama to not use it specifically for that.

1859sharps
11-09-2008, 5:48 PM
you strike me as intelligent, I am sure you will resolve the dilemma

383green
11-09-2008, 6:06 PM
Here is my delimma: [...] Its a problem...

-Gene

I really don't believe that we'll need to solve that dilemma in our lifetimes (unless UNC revolts, that is ;)). In my opinion, blue helmets on US soil is the only remotely plausible way to end up with a "Red Dawn" situation here. I think that anybody who would have the power to help bring the blue helmets here knows this, and would not consider this beneficial to their cause. I just don't see it happening.

AJAX22
11-09-2008, 6:08 PM
There is a difference between panic and taking reasonable measures to insure you have enough equipment later on.

As you pointed out, we may be forced to close the 'gunshow loophole' and implement some form of a background check/registration system like what CA has for handguns... or possibly just have to fill out 4473 forms for all transactions.

Like it or not, we may be entering the last few years where we can acquire 'paperless' firearms.

I have plenty of guns (both papered and un-papered), ammo, body armor, magazines, spare parts, tools and maintenance equipment stashed all over the state of CA. Because I had to move to NYC several months ago I took steps to insure that I had prepped everything I could because I didn't know what I'd be coming back to.

While the potential administrative rulings from the ATF do offer us an opportunity to challenge their legitimacy in court, there is a CHANCE that things will not go our way.

There is a CHANCE that we will loose the supreme court.. it could happen at any time starting in two months..

There is a CHANCE that some wacko take a shot at someone.

And frankly I (and others) are not prepared to take chances on something as important as having the means to properly defend ourselves, our families and our constitution.

trashman
11-09-2008, 6:08 PM
I do not see it as spreading fear, I see it as legitimate concerns.

You may not see it as spreading fear, but I think a objective observer would probably come quickly to the conclusion that it's invective, or at best some good polemicist writing (which I usually enjoy). But it's not reasoned analysis or debate.

Thing is, the underlying issue here is this:

-Obama is not going to be the source of a new gun control legislation; rather it will be the most left-leaning members of Congress who have taken it up as an issue horse. Those members are already known to us...and perhaps worse, they represent largely urban Eastern constituencies who agree with the view. But in other words, it ain't much of a surprise...

-As I, and Gene, and others have said time and again - the Democratic majority in the Congress is due to Western and Mid-Western pro-gun Democrats. They will not vote for an AWB. And without those votes, its not gonna pass without Republican votes. And do you really think any of the remaining Republicans will be crazy enough to vote for a new gun control legislation?

-If somehow anti-gun legislation makes its way to the President's desk and he signs it before 2010, the Obama administration will implode. He knows this.

-I think the rest of the US is going to have to sign up to government-moderated person-to-person handgun sales like we have here in California. It's going to cost too much political capital to fight, and might result in a reasonable trade -- i.e., no waiting period for folks who already own guns. But I think that will probably not happen until after the first set of mid-term elections...

As a very good friend (who is anti-gun) has said -- "gun control is the least important issue out there right now -- the economy is grinding to a halt, the wars are costing a gazillion dollars a month, and our reputation abroad is in tatters". All of this is good news -- for those of us who think it IS an important issue. We just got to keep our eye on the pieces of legislation that will affect us, and out-work our political opposition.

I'll note that neither renouncing your citizenship, nor setting your hair on fire, are integral to this strategy.

--Neill

M. Sage
11-09-2008, 6:14 PM
I'm not too worried about a UN-driven gun ban here. Even if the US delegates signed up for such a thing, I don't think it would survive SCOTUS scrutiny. Furthermore, I think that armed, blue-helmeted soldiers from foreign countries on continental US soil would be far enough beyond the line for enough Americans that bullets would start flying at that point. I think that a lot of people would interpret that as a true foreign invasion, and it'd be clear who the enemy is (just like the British during our revolution, who conveniently wore nice bright red coats). I just don't think it'd fly here, even if anybody was stupid enough to try it.

No way can he get a UN gun ban. It takes 2/3 of the Senate to approve a treaty.

As far as blue hats, you'd be better off sending in the cub scouts...

Here is my delimma:

https://store.cstv.com/marketplace/store/Vendor58/160/0904-4926-m.jpg vs. http://www.newint.org/issue375/pics/un-helmet.jpg

Its a problem...

-Gene

The fatigues under the helmet would be a dead giveaway.

Not that most UN troops get to carry ammo... you could walk up and bludgeon them to death for the most part.

Matt C
11-09-2008, 6:15 PM
I really don't believe that we'll need to solve that dilemma in our lifetimes (unless UNC revolts, that is ;)). In my opinion, blue helmets on US soil is the only remotely plausible way to end up with a "Red Dawn" situation here. I think that anybody who would have the power to help bring the blue helmets here knows this, and would not consider this beneficial to their cause. I just don't see it happening.

How about this scenario- The economy goes very bad, let just say due to poor leadership. China and Japan call in their massive debts, but we can't pay. The UN then mandates oversight of US production and basically seizes assets here in the US. (Just like a bankruptcy court would, this is not really as far fetched as some might think). The US ambassador agrees, because, well have you seen the guy? I'm sure he will tow the line if Obama "citizen of the world" approves.

People here won't take so well to that, and sabotage or even outright violence will result. From there is a short hop and a skip to a UN mandated gun ban and UN Troops backed by what US troops don't desert.

I can see this happening, it does not really require any great leaps of faith anywhere.

383green
11-09-2008, 6:30 PM
People here won't take so well to that, and sabotage or even outright violence will result. From there is a short hop and a skip to a UN mandated gun ban and UN Troops backed by what US troops don't desert.

In the scenario that you describe, the gun ban comes after the bullets have already started flying, and thus would be as effective at quelling the resistance as contemporary gun restrictions are at stopping violent crime. Once a situation degrades to the point where natives are exchanging gunplay with an occupying force, laws cease to have meaning.

It just occurred to me that a hypothetical UN occupancy would be a slightly less onerous problem than a true "Red Dawn" scenario (that is, invasion by a Soviet Bloc force): The occupying force would conveniently use the same kind of ammunition as the locals, so insurgents wouldn't need to carry around two kinds of rifles in order to make use of scrounged or stolen ammunition. :chris:

EastBayRidge
11-09-2008, 6:31 PM
As the famous saying goes, if I owe the bank $1000, I've got a problem. If I owe the bank $1,000,000, they've got a problem.

And this thread started off so well... good info to :TFH: in a few short hours...

Matt C
11-09-2008, 6:33 PM
In the scenario that you describe, the gun ban comes after the bullets have already started flying, and thus would be as effective at quelling the resistance as contemporary gun restrictions are at stopping violent crime. Once a situation degrades to the point where natives are exchanging gunplay with an occupying force, laws cease to have meaning.

It just occurred to me that a hypothetical UN occupancy would be a slightly less onerous problem than a true "Red Dawn" scenario (that is, invasion by a Soviet Bloc force): The occupying force would conveniently use the same kind of ammunition as the locals, so insurgents wouldn't need to carry around two kinds of rifles in order to make use of scrounged or stolen ammunition. :chris:

Heh, true on both counts. In any case, there are far too many guns in this country to get rid of them, all, and of course once the fighting starts the enemy will be donating to the supply. Plus at least some troops will desert and take arms with them.

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 6:39 PM
China and Japan call in their massive debts, but we can't pay. The UN then mandates oversight of US production and basically seizes assets here in the US. (Just like a bankruptcy court would, this is not really as far fetched as some might think).

Just wow.

1. China and Japan combined own 11.17% of the public debt. When they violate the TBill contract and call an un-callable loan, just where are they going to put the money? Iceland? Please learn something about Macro economics before spouting that. BTW, both China and Japan can sell all their TBills today on the open market and all it will do is drive down the cost and raise the yield. It might actually be good for the economy. Part of our problem is that people don't want to own anything but the TBill driving down its yield.

2. The UN has the sovereignty that we grant it. The UN and what army will tell the full faith and credit of the United States of America to do what exactly?

-Gene

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 6:40 PM
As far as blue hats, you'd be better off sending in the cub scouts...

The fatigues under the helmet would be a dead giveaway.


Do know that I was being utterly facetious about the UN.

-Gene

383green
11-09-2008, 6:40 PM
I'd like to step aside from this conversation for a moment to make two points:

1) I don't greatly fear the anti-gunners, for the simple reason that "our" side has the guns. They can be quite a nuisance, but in the end they can't win... because if they ever got too close to victory, we'd shoot them.

2) I greatly respect the opinions of both Matt and Gene, even though the three of us don't always agree on things.

We now return to our regularly-scheduled heated debate. :D

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 6:44 PM
There is a difference between panic and taking reasonable measures to insure you have enough equipment later on.


And you'll note I said that buying the extra lower here and there isn't a horrible idea. However the level of hysteria has gotten to a point that's basically tars those of us with a brain and common sense with the stereotypes that the other side would like. One note - if you want paperless you can always bend an AK flat and that's not going away.

Do you think the fear mongering on this forum makes Alison more or less happy?

-Gene

383green
11-09-2008, 6:48 PM
Do you think the fear mongering on this forum makes Alison more or less happy?

I would hazard a guess that it distracts her, and makes her even less able to counter our brilliant gambits.

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 6:50 PM
I would hazard a guess that it distracts her, and makes her even less able to counter our brilliant gambits.

Well, its certainly the only bright spot she's had in her politics since 6/25/2008.

-Gene

Matt C
11-09-2008, 6:50 PM
China and Japan combined own 11.17% of the public debt. When they violate the TBill contract and call an un-callable loan, just where are they going to put the money? Iceland? Please learn something about Macro economics before spouting that. BTW, both China and Japan can sell all their TBills today on the open market and all it will do is drive down the cost and raise the yield. It might actually be good for the economy. Part of our problem is that people don't want to own anything but the TBill driving down its yield.

The trade deficit has resulted in a lot more private debt held by China and Japan than public debt. If our side can't pay because the economy has been brought to a halt the government can assume the debt and congress/messiah can set any terms and give any authority to the UN that they want.

Anyway I don't think it's likely, just not impossible by any means.

383green
11-09-2008, 6:53 PM
Well, its certainly the only bright spot she's had in her politics since 6/25/2008.

See, with this bone we're throwing her, she can't accuse us of not caring. :p

Anyway, all of this ranting and raving is just us passing the time while we're sitting on our hands and waiting for Nordyke, or anybody else who might beat him to the finish line. We've shown a history of getting down to business when there's something to be done.

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 7:12 PM
The trade deficit has resulted in a lot more private debt held by China and Japan than public debt.
Uh, lets look at Walmart:
Balance Sheet
Total Cash (mrq): 6.91B
Total Debt (mrq): 44.56B
Total Debt/Equity (mrq): 0.667

Cash Flow Statement
Operating Cash Flow (ttm): 24.14B
Levered Free Cash Flow (ttm): 8.62B

$8B in free cash flow pays for a lot of principal and interest. I'd bet that Walmart has a better income to debt ratio than most Calgunners when they counts their house and cars. The trade deficit is just wrong. Every iPhone sold counts against it because Apple owns the IP and manufactures it in China. Apple captures 90% of the profit on it, but much of the costs are fixed and the profit is less than the total price. So, each iPhone or iPod makes the US trade deficit worse even though the market for those products wouldn't exist without US ingenuity and the US market...

If our side can't pay because the economy has been brought to a halt the government can assume the debt and congress/messiah can set any terms and give any authority to the UN that they want.
If things get bad here, China goes into armed bloody revolution. Our biggest concern is not that Obama is going to cause a problem - its that the Chinese are F'd.

There is an old saying in economics that remains even more true today. When the US gets an economic cold foreign economies die. Witness Iceland.

-Gene

jb7706
11-09-2008, 7:27 PM
On the other hand, I really would enjoy what would happen if those blue helmets ever made it to CONUS in a non ceremonial role... :33:

-Gene

My oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States did not expire with my US Army enlistment. I am released from that promise only when I die, not one day sooner. I am fairly certain that may of my brethren would feel the same.

AJAX22
11-09-2008, 7:32 PM
And you'll note I said that buying the extra lower here and there isn't a horrible idea. However the level of hysteria has gotten to a point that's basically tars those of us with a brain and common sense with the stereotypes that the other side would like. One note - if you want paperless you can always bend an AK flat and that's not going away.

Do you think the fear mongering on this forum makes Alison more or less happy?

-Gene

True... the level of hysteria has gotten out of proportion to the level of threat.... but I attribute that mostly to the odd sensation people are having of going to the store and finding that they CANNOT buy what they want because the items are in short supply. Any time, for any reason if you tell someone that they can't have something, or that you don't know when the next shipment will be coming in, the natural impulse is to stock up.

While this is causing undue levels of hype and stress, I don't necessarily see people waking up and realizing that they have poorly prepared for negative possibilities as a bad thing... It would have been better if they had done so a long time ago, or had done it in stages.... (it is taxing the distribution system to have everyone come to the realization all at once)

But at the end of the day, what we have is more guns in the hands of Americans, and an increased awareness of potentially negative 2A outcomes... which is not entirely a bad thing.

Yes, the media attention is painting us with a bit of a broad brush... but at least we ARE getting media attention, which is translating to people who otherwise would not have gotten firearms getting up off their couch and running out to stock up on evil 'assault weapons'...

there are negative side effects... but I think that they are outweighed by the positive realization of Americans taking an active role in their own armaments.

And as far as homemade 'roll your own' style ak flats and builds... I wouldn't count those as being 100% safe for all time, we've gotten away with a LOT with that sort of stuff because its all been below the radar.

all it would take is for an administrative re-write or re-interpenetration of 922r, or for a few choice atf decisions with regard to the applicability of federal excise tax or administrative rulings which would require approval of all firearms created by individuals independent manufacturing...

I've put a lot of thought into worst case scenarios and looked closely at what the various agencies can and cannot do... and there is a tremendous amount of leeway that they are granted which could be used to our determent.

I did a large amount of research on the subject back in 2004 when I was working for ABC 20/20 as part of a story proposal. The A-holes at the VPC , the Brady campaign and the Joyce foundation know about the 'homemade' loophole and have a backlog of anecdotal b.s. to support why we need further restriction.

I actually spoke with these people about this subject as part of the story research, (the VPC guy is an unbelievably huge a-hole, I still want to slap that clown for the way he talked to me and he thought I was on HIS side... )

The point being... these guys spend all day every day alternating between masturbating their huge egos and dreaming up ways to strip away 2A rights.

If we have to tolerate a bit of excess hysteria in order for people to wake up and stop putting off properly arming themselves... well I'm not entirely convinced that its a bad thing.

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 7:36 PM
I actually spoke with these people about this subject as part of the story research, (the VPC guy is an unbelievably huge a-hole, I still want to slap that clown for the way he talked to me and he thought I was on HIS side... )


So let me tell you a little inside pool about the VPC guy. He's been and remains chronically depressed after Heller. I have it from the person who would know.

Also, it's going to be REALLY hard to close the home manufacture "loophole" after Heller.

Plus, I'm not complaining that we're pumping up profits in the firearms dealers and manufacturers. That will lead to more investment. More investment means more people with money to lose if the current situation goes the wrong way. I always love it when Anti's drive more gun acquisition.

-Gene

AJAX22
11-09-2008, 7:57 PM
Heh... Thats awesome Gene.... I usually don't revel in the pain of others but that guy is a douche, given the opportunity, years from now after he passes on from some lingering torturous ailment I WILL defecate on his grave.

I understand that it would be hard to do away with home-builds post Heller, I understand the implications that that ruling has for us, but it would be a fairly simple matter for them to gradually regulate component parts, or institute serial number regulations or an approval process prior to construction to gain exemption from paying excise tax. They would probably not get away with it in the long term.. but my fear is that those type of changes, while broad reaching in their implication and realization, would look quite innocuous and mild when proposed.

As long as they don't come right out and SAY, 'we're takin away all ya'lls guns' or 'we're takin away all ya'lls right to build your own guns the government doesnt know about'

they could potentially get away with it.

And like I said before, its not an issue I'm prepared to leave up to chance.

It COULD happen, and the odds of its occurrence while still minute and highly unlikely are a thousand times greater today on the 9th of November than they were 3rd of November.


If we were playing Russian roulette with a revolver that had 10K chambers, I'd still be alarmed if you suddenly loaded a few dozen more rounds into it.

Odds are nothing will happen in the near future, but its still a risk.. and more so today than a week ago.

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 8:02 PM
If we were playing Russian roulette with a revolver that had 10K chambers, I'd still be alarmed if you suddenly loaded a few dozen more rounds into it.

Odds are nothing will happen in the near future, but its still a risk.. and more so today than a week ago.

Yes, but this is reasoned discourse - not the fear mongering that has been rampant. I can easily agree with you. Our job got mildly harder with slightly more risks last Tuesday night. That's a different statement than I've been pushing back on.

-Gene

elSquid
11-09-2008, 8:50 PM
From here we need to wait a couple more months for Nordyke. CGF has a couple of positive surprises.

There are national concerns as a result of the recent election, but I can't help but feel giddy over Nordyke. Things will really change - for the better! - in California. We've really been on the defensive for many years, but with incorporation we finally get to attack. It's going to be great. I have a huge smile on my face as I type this. I can't wait to see the NRA press releases the day after the decision.

I've already ponied up cash for CGF and the NRA, and I plan on donating more.

Can you imagine how great it would be if CA gun laws were on par with say, Oregon? Sweet. I apologize, but I can't resist -> :D:D:D:D:D:D

-- Michael

ptoguy2002
11-09-2008, 8:50 PM
Most people panic buying are not as analytical, informed, knowledgeable, etc about the subject. (They aren't calguns members I guess).
They just figure Obama = AWB, which is not an unreasonable assumption for those folks that don't keep track of this stuff, and that is the vast majority of them.

BUT, even the somewhat informed (the pessimistic ones I guess), I can't say that I blame them. Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Ried, and a democratic congress are pretty scary and good motivators for spending that discretionary income (before its shared away :)).
Personally, Im a pessimistic one.


Gene: Does Heller + Nordyke + US v. Staples = legal unneutered ARs in California ?

ETA, but now I'm reading the barfcom march plan, and panic + idiocy + 30 or 40 rednecks marching with guns = not ending well

M. Sage
11-09-2008, 8:53 PM
Do know that I was being utterly facetious about the UN.

-Gene

I know. It's just that mocking the boys in blue helmets is just as much fun as mocking the French. :p

trashman
11-09-2008, 9:24 PM
ETA, but now I'm reading the barfcom march plan, and panic + idiocy + 30 or 40 rednecks marching with guns = not ending well

Even if it "ends well" it would be a huge mistake. This is not the Heller way to do things - not patient, and not end-goal oriented.

--Neill

ptoguy2002
11-09-2008, 9:33 PM
Even if it "ends well" it would be a huge mistake. This is not the Heller way to do things - not patient, and not end-goal oriented.

--Neill

Then get over there and start posting how bad it is.

I hate arfcom.

oaklander
11-09-2008, 9:57 PM
Thanks Gene!

This dovetails into what I observed today. There were $300 lowers at the gun show I worked at, and people were panic-buying ammo. While NRA memberships were WAY up at the booth outside, they could have been even more up.

Again, I implore people - don't spend money on a $300 lower right now. Rather, take that money and spend it where it counts, with the NRA and also with the CGF.

Addax
11-09-2008, 11:47 PM
Great Info Gene, Thank you.

tenpercentfirearms
11-10-2008, 6:35 AM
Don't listen to Gene, the sky is falling! The only way to keep it from falling on your head is to buy, buy, buy, and buy some more. Only 25 guns in your possession will enable you to have at least one when they come door to door to confiscate your weapons (If you have more than 25, keep increasing your number by 25 until you have a million firearms). Obama is going to sign the bill to do it next week.

Huh? Oh, he hasn't taken office yet. :confused: Never mind then. :43:

liketoshoot
11-10-2008, 7:08 AM
Thanks for a light in the dark Gene, I appreciate the clear headed thinking you provide. We need more people that can tell us what not to worry about then those that say hide your guns and your ammo, not that we should not take precautions.

torsf
11-10-2008, 7:47 AM
I've read most of this thread, haven't seen this mentioned yet: executive orders. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't Obama ban imports using them? Saigas, ak kits, wolf ammo, etc.

I wonder how long we would go before 100% US made AK's started showing up, along with domestically produced ammo that has a price similar to wolf.

GM4spd
11-10-2008, 7:58 AM
well said
I'm just not sure I agree that the bluedog pro-gun dem's wont vote the part line
well have to wait and see


That's an important point---there are enough Bluedogs toeing the party
line that the AWB will become permanent (no SUNSET proviso),even if they get voted out next
time around the damage will already be done and this time it will be
forever. Pete

56Chevy
11-10-2008, 8:08 AM
That's an important point---there are enough Bluedogs toeing the party
line that the AWB will become permanent (no SUNSET proviso),even if they get voted out next
time around the damage will already be done and this time it will be
forever. Pete
A lot of us seem to think that the Democrats in the Congress and the Senate feel that they will be held accountable for their actions. That may have been true 15 years ago, but it sure doesn't look like it now.:confused:

motorhead
11-10-2008, 9:24 AM
as always, the voice of reason. chicken littles abound on the gun forums. they have many points to cite, o's 100% anti gun voting record, the nra's bit role in the election, etc.. i think you need to add 1 more to the fear list, a very public school massacre or such that focuses the media attention on guns.
we are so used to gun control here that we don't realize that other places you can sell guns ftf with no paper or restrictions. i don't think those states will take a b/g check and waiting period for ftf sales lying down.

BigBamBoo
11-10-2008, 9:29 AM
.............

motorhead
11-10-2008, 9:39 AM
gene, who do you see as treasury sec.? with the economy in the toilet this will be a key appointment.

bwiese
11-10-2008, 10:22 AM
I've read most of this thread, haven't seen this mentioned yet: executive orders. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't Obama ban imports using them? Saigas, ak kits, wolf ammo, etc.

Yup. The Prez does have signifcant customs/import/immigration sway as chief executive.

However, 'sporting purposes' is gonna go away.



I wonder how long we would go before 100% US made AK's started showing up, along with domestically produced ammo that has a price similar to wolf.

Correct. Where there's a will there's a way. Look how elegantly DSArms has handled FAL matters.

Whiskey_Sauer
11-10-2008, 11:30 AM
Thanks, Gene, for the level-headed insight.

Although I think a renewed AWB is viable, I do not see anything related to guns as a priority for the new administration or Congress. We will remain ever vigilant, however.

sholling
11-10-2008, 11:33 AM
The point that you miss is that there are ways to destroy the 2nd Amendment besides a frontal assault. There are political payoffs to be made to Brady, Moveon, the Koz, and Soros and they will go on the war path if they don't get their way. The Democrats will just slip it through the way they always do... divide us and conquer.

The easiest way is to start the party by ending civilian sales. Not by passing a law banning civilian sales but by simply repealing the law blocking junk lawsuits against firearm and ammunition makers and their distributors and retailers. It's also easy to extend absolute liability to them for misuse of their products. You're rights aren't infringed a bit except that it's suddenly impossible to buy a new gun. This becomes the fault of "irresponsible gun makers" and not the Democrats. At least that's how it will be reported.

He can also extend the current order banning importation of AKs to all semiautomatic arms and military caliber (9mm, 45acp, .223/5.56, 7.62x39, 7.62 NATO, etc) ammunition. He can also ban imports of the "gangbangers' weapon of choice" - Glocks. Divide and conquer.

A tax on ammunition and reloading supplies "to fund emergency rooms". Start it at a "reasonable" .25/rd and the next year take it up to $1/rd. Hunters wont care because they don't shoot 20rds a year. Divide and conquer.

Get those nasty hi-cap mags off the street. Again hunters won't care - just like last time they will sleep through passage. Start with banning sales then come back with a mandatory buyback. Call it an anti-gang move. Divide and conquer.

I'm sure that they will feel that no one needs more than 2 handguns and 2 shotguns, and 2 rifles. Nor is there a "legitimate" reason (in their eyes) to possess more than 250rds of ammo, or the makings there of. They will just call it "anti-gang arsenal" legislation and that's how it will be reported. People with one handgun and a hunting rifle will see this as reasonable and won't complain too much. Divide and conquer.

In fact reloading supplies could easily be banned under the guise of banning explosives. Most people don't reload so they'd just sleep through passage. Divide and conquer.

Obama has publicly promised to ban sales of assault weapons. He probably will block the sales of new ones, and he can just add used ones to the class 3 list, and then double the transfer tax. This will be his most dicey move under Heller. But if we lose the others and win this one in court we will have a false sense of victory. Besides liability suits will effectively ban sales of assault rifles.

Someone pointed out that under new ATF rules stripped receivers transferred after 1/15/2009 are listed as receivers and not completed arms for the purpose of future bans. That means that in the future that the ATF could call assembly of a rifle from a stripped lower illegal "gun manufacturing" and rule the assembled rifle illegal. That's part of what is fueling the current panic buying.

Then as pointed out there are judicial appointments. Add in the "fairness doctrine" to shutdown conservative radio and keep us from organizing and you have lots to worry about. Now is not the time to get warm and fuzzy feelings. Not now with the voters distracted by the economy! Too scared to notice new bans... Now is the time to be vigilant and prepare, and to respond to every threat through letters, and through organizing, and through giving all we can afford to those fighting for our rights. It's also time to stock up.

If they move it will be in 2009 to give us time to cool off before the 2010 congressional elections. And we can count on the mainstream media keeping those moves a secret.

hoffmang
11-10-2008, 12:52 PM
I've read most of this thread, haven't seen this mentioned yet: executive orders. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't Obama ban imports using them? Saigas, ak kits, wolf ammo, etc.

I wonder how long we would go before 100% US made AK's started showing up, along with domestically produced ammo that has a price similar to wolf.

I put this in the "ATF" section of my analysis. There are places here where he could easily overstep and it would be very good for us, but this is an area where he can cause real annoyance. It's why I said it's something to worry about.

-Gene

hoffmang
11-10-2008, 12:53 PM
gene, who do you see as treasury sec.? with the economy in the toilet this will be a key appointment.

Larry Summers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers) looks to be the front runner and he's pretty good actually.

-Gene

DeeL2003
11-10-2008, 1:40 PM
All,

The amount of uninformed paranoia does not reflect well on those of us demanding liberty. Let me list through some things we don't really need to fear and some things we should be worried about.

Don't be afraid:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban: This is a stalking horse. AW bans will be proposed in Congress. They will read horribly. Lots of chicken littles here, at AR15, and THR and others will post the obligatory "we're screwed" post. These laws will be intentionally over-broad in the Pyrrhic hope that they'd go somewhere and they'd have things in them that can be negotiated out to get them passed. Large parts of the Democratic majority are made up of blue dog Dems or Dems from pro-gun districts. If they let something like this pass they'll be out at the next election. Further, a new AW ban may be good for us. If it happens sooner, we can use Heller and US v Staples to go right back to our 5 Justices and make it crystal clear that semiatuomatic rifles that aren't SBR or FA are fully protected under Heller. Remember this. AR15s are being registered in D.C. today.

Worry:

ATF: The ATF is going to get worse. We're going to have administrative rulings we don't like. However, if they go too far they may create better opportunities for us to challenge some of their more out there behavior. One of the very interesting positive side effects of Nordyke is that we're likely to get clarified the derivative 2A right to conduct commerce in arms. That part of Nordyke is going to be very important challenging the ATF on their bookkeeping requirements that consider not writing the county correctly on the form a revocable offense. Also note that we don't need Nordyke to challenge the ATF today under Heller.

Gun Show Loophole: People, this is where the Dems and Obama are going to hurt us. They're going to push to make the rest of the US like California where a NICS is required on all purchases. That will be the push and we may be forced to accept that NICS is required at shows but otherwise private party transfers are legit. The Blue Dogs can support this and keep their jobs so we have to really worry about it. The only good news here is that it will not mean a change in CA and in fact we might be able to make CA better by making this a national requirement at a lower level than CA today. Heller does not help us on this issue.

Lower Court Judges: As the Democrat hegemony lasts, more and more Federal Judges below the Supreme Court are going to be picked by Democrats. This hurts us in the sense that on balance the lower courts will be less friendly over time. However, we still have our 5.

Things to FEAR:

Unexpected Death or Disablement in SCOTUS: If one of our 5 justices (Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) were to die or be disabled while Obama remains president we could have a serious problem. The more sons of Heller we can get through SCOTUS the less a risk this is long term.

An Assassination or Attempt on Obama: If an extremist from either side tries or succeeds in making the analogy to JFK complete all bets are off and even Heller could be overturned.

The Good News:

We're winning - Since November 2004:
1. So called assault weapons can be bought sold and built in California with minor revisions.
2. There is no Federal AW ban.
3. Heller means the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
4. The 2A will be incorporated against the states within the next 6 months.
5. Calguns exists and is a major force in the gun rights movement in California and to a surprising extent in the nation.
6. Redistricting passed in California
7. Winning momentum leads to more wins.

Now what?

From here we need to wait a couple more months for Nordyke. CGF has a couple of positive surprises. Mainly we need to hang together and work amongst the coalition to keep expanding our rights.

In many ways the most important thing we can do is get past the fear in the economy. People who feel wealthy and secure are more willing to extend freedoms to others on balance. We also should be working to help extend the pro-gun majority in Congress by supporting pro-gun dems and working against anti gun politicians in other states. Divided government would be very good for us.

Bottom line. Things are good for the gun rights movement. The patience required to see great things are numbered in months, not years anymore. Time to start thinking about how to mitigate our real risks instead of focusing on the incorrectly perceived risk. A great example of this is the run on lowers. Making sure you have a lower probably makes sense. Panic buying your tenth with money that could be better spent supporting a legal case in CA probably doesn't.

In immortal words, keep your powder dry ladies and gents.

-Gene

+1 Thank you.

After incorporation, can we expect to see the end of the safe handgun list and 10rd cap in a few months thereafter? :D

Sorry, got a little impatient there.:)

Matt C
11-10-2008, 1:56 PM
+1 Thank you.

After incorporation, can we expect to see the end of the safe handgun list and 10rd cap in a few months thereafter? :D

Sorry, got a little impatient there.:)

The only way you will see results that quick is if they change the law rather than fight and risk losing. In the case of those two laws I don't see why they would not just fight it to the end. It's only taxpayer money after all.

Of course if we don't give to the NRA there will be no one to bring these cases in the first place.

GuyW
11-10-2008, 2:47 PM
...(excepting the other bill providing free guns to their constituents). It's not going to happen.

Hey - the Army has a lot of surplus used guns....the gov can provide them free at low cost, and save on storage costs as well....

.

GuyW
11-10-2008, 3:14 PM
I wonder how long we would go before 100% US made AK's started showing up, along with domestically produced ammo that has a price similar to wolf.

Kool - General Motors can start stamping out AK parts, and have a nice little counter-cyclical profit center...

.

hoffmang
11-10-2008, 5:52 PM
After incorporation, can we expect to see the end of the safe handgun list and 10rd cap in a few months thereafter? :D


CCWs, AWs, and subsequent waiting periods are probably first on the list after Nordyke - and that's in no particular order. Safe Handgun list and Magazine capacity limits are after some wins there.

We'll get them but I think I'd rather have a CCW or a bullet button less AR with a 10 rounder than 30 rounders for my MMG AR first.

-Gene

grammaton76
11-10-2008, 6:04 PM
CCWs, AWs, and subsequent waiting periods are probably first on the list after Nordyke - and that's in no particular order. Safe Handgun list and Magazine capacity limits are after some wins there.

We'll get them but I think I'd rather have a CCW or a bullet button less AR with a 10 rounder than 30 rounders for my MMG AR first.

Interesting wording. Are you saying there's some kind of possibility of getting rid of AW fixed-mag issues, but having to use 10rd mags even if you already own 30's?

falawful
11-10-2008, 7:51 PM
Logic and all to the contrary, Obama and Biden are true believers.

I would expect to see some BS from them.

Dont Tread on Me
11-10-2008, 8:33 PM
We'll get them but I think I'd rather have a CCW or a bullet button less AR with a 10 rounder than 30 rounders for my MMG AR first.

You have your priorities straight.

Great thread started with a very insightful post.

sholling
11-10-2008, 9:10 PM
After incorporation, can we expect to see the end of the safe handgun list and 10rd cap in a few months thereafter? :D
From my layman's perspective I see the vast majority of the CA AWB going down in flames well before shall issue comes to California - especially if Feinstein becomes our next governor. Again from my layman's perspective it should be fairly easily under a double assault based on both Heller and a 14th Amendment equal protection challenge. Heller states that an entire class of firearms commonly kept for self defense may not be banned. There must be millions of AR15s and AK47s in private hands which gives you a commonly held class of arms. Second, the legislature left a loophole that allowed LEOs to purchase "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines for private off-duty use. That's unequal protection and fails the 14th Amendment test.

Heller did not grant concealed carry but did leave open the door to a challenge of open carry bans. The only way that the legislature is going to approve CCW is if forced to choose between open carry and concealed carry.

The "safe handgun list" fails the 14th Amendment requirement of equal protection under the law because it grants a LEO exemption for purchase for private off-duty use. Any court with two or more brain cells to rub together is likely to rule that if anything LEOs must be subject to stricter safety standards than the general public.

DedEye
11-11-2008, 5:31 AM
Interesting wording. Are you saying there's some kind of possibility of getting rid of AW fixed-mag issues, but having to use 10rd mags even if you already own 30's?

The way I read his comment, the challenge would come to ARs first, and the existing law regarding mags would stand. It would therefore seem that Gene meant you could use whatever mags you had (for a large percentage of people, that's 10 rounders only) in your AR.

I follow you correctly?

artherd
11-11-2008, 5:44 AM
Pipe dreams. From an eara when the antis had no power.:rolleyes:

[/YOUTUBE]
Eh - try facts, from some men who have helped strip the antis of their power :)

The bottom line here guys - is that we have a teenager dressed in orange peeing on your lawn - while 5 dudes rob your house. And you're pissed about the teenager...

Obama is spewing rhetoric for the most part. Just like Bush did. Just like every politician does. What he actually delivers won't look that much different that you'll notice.

In the meantime, we need to keep the pressure up on ATF, and use the new tool we have in the Heller ruling, both now nationally and especially once we have incorporation under Nordyke in CA.

Think of how hard we could make life for the antis, if every word moaning about BHO was replaced with a $1 donation to CGF?

artherd
11-11-2008, 5:46 AM
Interesting wording. Are you saying there's some kind of possibility of getting rid of AW fixed-mag issues, but having to use 10rd mags even if you already own 30's?

No - he is saying that capacity limits on new mags aren't as big a deal as say - CCW reform and AW elimination.

We're not going backwards any time soon on already-owned high-cap mags.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-11-2008, 6:47 AM
Kool - General Motors can start stamping out AK parts, and have a nice little counter-cyclical profit center...

.


Not a bad idea. Birmingham Small Arms started making motorcycles after WWII (guns to vehicles). I don't see why the reverse (vehicles to guns) couldn't be true as well. Besides, they need to do something to improve the bottom line.

The Raisuli

ilbob
11-11-2008, 6:51 AM
I can think of a way that government can reduce unemployment:

1. Not increase it in the first place with additional required health care costs or raising the minimum wage.

2. Keeping the Bush Tax Cut - especially on capital gains and dividend taxes.

The government can decrease unemployment by not getting in the way in the first place or unwinding bad ideas put in. If the Dems go too far in taking the economy closer to European regulation state, that will increase unemployment. No secret ballot union votes anyone? However, those things can be fixed which is how .gov can lower unemployment.

-Gene

these are not things obama will do. if he does his socialist friends will turn on him.

the real thing is government can only make things worse in the economy. by undoing some bad things they can make it less worse.

hoffmang
11-11-2008, 10:32 AM
The way I read his comment, the challenge would come to ARs first, and the existing law regarding mags would stand. It would therefore seem that Gene meant you could use whatever mags you had (for a large percentage of people, that's 10 rounders only) in your AR.

I follow you correctly?

You are correct. Firearms first, then magazines.

-Gene

hoffmang
11-11-2008, 10:32 AM
the real thing is government can only make things worse in the economy. by undoing some bad things they can make it less worse.

That was my point and we agree on the role of .gov in the economy.

-Gene

creampuff
11-11-2008, 11:17 AM
BHO is going to have to come out with some type of wins or victories out the gate during the first 100 days, to validate his "mandate". He won't spread himself out too thin.
The obvious are:
1. It's the "economy stupid".
2. Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran
3. Health care
4. Energy independence

If we were to attempt all 4 at once during the first 100 days, I would say he is being over ambitous. Item #1, the economy, will bind his arms and legs for the upcoming term. He may be a liberal at heart, but the mess on his hands will probably prevent him from making any attempts to forward his hidden antigun agenda.

The way I see it, with his so called "mandate", he has been handed one double barrel shotgun with 2 shells, to tackle some of those problems listed above. He would be an idiot to waste one shot on antigun reform, like the person being handed the shotgun would be if he fired one shot thinking "hey..duh..i wonder if this really works".

Gator Monroe
11-11-2008, 11:30 AM
2 more Nutjob shootings (At a school or in the workplace or both) with more than 5 dead not including shooter over next 6 months will be catalyst for new Firearm restrictions being included in the agenda list (The public will demand it (With amplification from media ):TFH:

aileron
11-11-2008, 11:36 AM
(The public will demand it (With amplification from media ):TFH:

My personal feelings on that statement is it runs the other way...

The media will demand it and amplify it, and some of the public will agree.

Gator Monroe
11-11-2008, 11:48 AM
I mean the more vocal Liberal/Sheeple public ...:)

Glock22Fan
11-11-2008, 11:57 AM
the mess on his hands will probably prevent him from making any attempts to forward his hidden antigun agenda.

You mean he has a hidden agenda, as well as the overt one?


Good Lord, the overt one is bad enough.

creampuff
11-11-2008, 12:04 PM
You mean he has a hidden agenda, as well as the overt one?


Good Lord, the overt one is bad enough.

True, not sure why I typed "hidden". It is known to anyone who has viewed his voting record, and prior experience. "Hidden" to those who chose not to look, I guess :confused:

dark45
11-11-2008, 12:10 PM
hope for the best prepare for the worst. i am afraid of what it will come down to. but a man with nothing to die for has nothing to live for. how far are we willing to fight? if a out right ban happens what will we do? personality im not sure, though one man can only do so much.

Matt C
11-11-2008, 12:25 PM
one man can only do so much.

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead

QFT

CHS
11-11-2008, 1:27 PM
Gene/Bill, what direction do you think things might be headed regarding magazine capacity restrictions?

Didn't the heller-compliant law in D.C. ban all mags with a capacity of more than 10 rounds? Is this being fought? What about 10+ capacity restrictions at the federal level?

sholling
11-11-2008, 1:35 PM
BHO is going to have to come out with some type of wins or victories out the gate during the first 100 days, to validate his "mandate". He won't spread himself out too thin.
The obvious are:
1. It's the "economy stupid".
2. Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran
3. Health care
4. Energy independence
None of which he can accomplish in 100 days, so he needs to throw his base a bone or two so he can have something to point to as an accomplishment. Thats card-check (the end of secret ballots) for the unions and his long promised assault weapons ban for the loony left and the anti-gun mass media. Then he has two 100 day accomplishments to tout and use to distract from the 4 biggies.

bulgron
11-11-2008, 1:51 PM
Is anyone here worried about Sacramento tightening the California AW come January? I was in a gun store yesterday listening to people worry that California might add more lowers to the banned list, or make bullet buttons illegal, etc. It's possible that this was just more paranoid fear-mongering, but I was wondering if that was on anyone's radar.

ETA: By the way, for the record, I believe that any such move on the part of the legislature will be blunted by lawsuits filed sometime next year against the California AW ban (assuming a Nordyke payday).

383green
11-11-2008, 1:58 PM
Is anyone here worried about Sacramento tightening the California AW come January? I was in a gun store yesterday listening to people worry that California might add more lowers to the banned list, or make bullet buttons illegal, etc. It's possible that this was just more paranoid fear-mongering, but I was wondering if that was on anyone's radar.

The legislature would need to pass a brand new AW ban, and Arnold would need to sign it. The list cannot be extended otherwise. It's just paranoid fear-mongering.

hoffmang
11-11-2008, 2:13 PM
The only thing we should expect from the CA legislature is forced loosening.

There is a magazine capacity ban in DC. There has not been recent talk of a mag capacity ban at the Federal level outside of the assumption it might be part of an AW ban - which I find a non-starter. The DC mag capacity ban may not survive the transition from emergency legislation to actual legislation because it has major ex-post facto issues as it sits today. As such I don't think anyone is bringing a challenge until the final laws are put in place in DC.

BTW: I have it on excellent authority that people are registering and transferring AR-15's into DC. I just love that.

-Gene

Matt C
11-11-2008, 2:16 PM
BTW: I have it on excellent authority that people are registering and transferring AR-15's into DC. I just love that.

-Gene

How? Is there an FFL in DC now?

bwiese
11-11-2008, 2:29 PM
How? Is there an FFL in DC now?

Yup!

CCWFacts
11-11-2008, 2:29 PM
How? Is there an FFL in DC now?

You can buy long guns outside your state. It's only handguns that you must buy in your state of residence.

Matt C
11-11-2008, 2:39 PM
You can buy long guns outside your state. It's only handguns that you must buy in your state of residence.

You can, but you will be violating federal law...

ke6guj
11-11-2008, 2:41 PM
BTW: I have it on excellent authority that people are registering and transferring AR-15's into DC. I just love that.

-Gene
It can't be:confused: . I haven't heard new stories about how the streets are running with blood, at least more blood than normal.

Hopi
11-11-2008, 2:41 PM
You can, but you will be violating federal law...

:confused:

The only federal requirement for long gun purchasing is that the transaction be legal in both the home, and visiting, states...

Matt C
11-11-2008, 3:01 PM
:confused:

The only federal requirement for long gun purchasing is that the transaction be legal in both the home, and visiting, states...

IIRC DC requires the transfer to occur or be approved locally (like CA).

ke6guj
11-11-2008, 3:01 PM
:confused:

The only federal requirement for long gun purchasing is that the transaction be legal in both the home, and visiting, states...
correct, both states must allow for the long gun sale. CA does not, but DC may allow for it.

ilbob
11-11-2008, 3:14 PM
Larry Summers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers) looks to be the front runner and he's pretty good actually.

-Gene


Summers is pretty much a free market guy. I can't imagine a committed radical socialist like Obama hiring him to be a janitor, much less run treasury.

radioburning
11-11-2008, 3:17 PM
Thanks for the illuminating post, Gene. There's a lot of FUD around here, and as the saying goes...cooler heads will prevail.

artherd
11-11-2008, 3:25 PM
I was in a gun store yesterday listening to people worry that California might add more lowers to the banned list, or make bullet buttons illegal, etc. It's possible that this was just more paranoid fear-mongering, but I was wondering if that was on anyone's radar.

I (with others at CGF) scared Alison into writing a letter to the Governor and the Legislature literally begging to be striped of that power. It passed, google AB2728. :cool2:

Summary: CA DOJ no longer has the authority to list new lowers.

Max-the-Silent
11-11-2008, 5:33 PM
I remember the run on guns prior to the GCA, the madness of trying to register everything but the kitchen sink before May 19, 1986, the AW mania before RR, pre-"crime-bill" AW madness, same w/ SB23, and now we have BHO - the one constant is that the dealers stir up the masses and raise prices, and in the end the sky doesn't fall.

Good advice gene, most folks would be much better served by dialing back fear and donating some dough to the CGF or some other effective gun-rights group.

Gator Monroe
11-11-2008, 5:55 PM
Thanks for the illuminating post, Gene. There's a lot of FUD around here, and as the saying goes...cooler heads will prevail.

Fud about Jews in Obamas administration going against the grane and voicing decent against a Divided Jerusalem ...:eek:

1859sharps
11-11-2008, 6:12 PM
I think the thing people are not keeping in mind is Obama isn't the problem. nothing has changed with him being elected to President.

Since 1989 there has been someone in the White house who would be willing to sign an Assault weapons bill. So why all the panic over Obama. sure he is no friend to the 2nd despite what his spin doctors are trying to sell. but as far as the White House and quote "Assault Weapons" go, nothing has changed. We haven't had a friendly White House in 20+ year and it looks like at least another 4 are on the way. But that is nothing new. we have learned, adapted, and I think are in a better position to counter gun control today then in 92 when the last "most anti gun president" was elected.

A pro second amendment congress has keep gun control at bay for the last 14 years not the president. If we stay focused on congress, we have a greater chance of enjoying many more years of no new gun control laws and maybe even see one or two reversed.

please, stop the gloom, doom, and panic. Lets not surrender before there is even an actually proposed bill to fight.

hoffmang
11-11-2008, 6:53 PM
Summers is pretty much a free market guy. I can't imagine a committed radical socialist like Obama hiring him to be a janitor, much less run treasury.

If you can convince The New Republic that they are wrong (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=c85b418b-5237-4f54-891f-8385243162bd), I'm all ears. Here is Reuters on the same subject (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4A974U20081111).

I wouldn't worry about Geithner either.

-Gene

falawful
11-11-2008, 7:41 PM
For the guy who thinks "Obama isn't the problem", who the hell are you kidding??!!

Obama MADE HIS LIVING collecting money for and distributing money to organizations that dedicate themselves to abridging your civil right to be armed. The fiscal center to the gun-ban industry is the Joyce foundation. And then there's Biden......

These people ARE the true believers.

In MY opinion they WILL try to make a move.

Get to know your reps.

At least call Babs Feinstein to annoy the hell out of them.

OldGunTard
11-11-2008, 8:18 PM
I remember the run on guns prior to the GCA, the madness of trying to register everything but the kitchen sink before May 19, 1986, the AW mania before RR, pre-"crime-bill" AW madness, same w/ SB23, and now we have BHO - the one constant is that the dealers stir up the masses and raise prices, and in the end the sky doesn't fall.

There's some serious good in the run on guns in general and on black rifles in particular:

(1) The strength of the run has generated headlines that the BHO team has surely noticed. Maybe it'll affect their calibration of the electorate.
(2) All that spending might help the economy, or at least some retail gun outlets.
(3) With all these extra lowers and rifles bought on impulse now, we can expect some nice offers on the calguns Private Firearms Sales forum a year or so from now. I can wait.

hoffmang
11-11-2008, 9:10 PM
Yeah, the silver lining is that we're helping fatten the checkbooks of FFLs and Manufacturers around the US. Now I just want them to remember that when it comes time to ask them for help attacking unconstitutional laws...

-Gene

jumbopanda
11-11-2008, 10:07 PM
Fud about Jews in Obamas administration going against the grane and voicing decent against a Divided Jerusalem ...:eek:

:confused:

chico.cm
11-11-2008, 11:09 PM
Thanks Gene, for the analysis. I appreciate it.
I live by: "hope for the best, expect the worst."
To that end, I won't be running out to buy a bunch of new toys, but I have been slowly running out of space in the safe through my regular monthly contribution to the firearms industry.
One can never have too many rounds, can they?

dsinope
11-11-2008, 11:30 PM
http://claytoncramer.com/weblog/2008_11_09_archive.html#5796309297489669302

(Abridged to keep under the length limit)



Is Obama Testing The Waters?

A reader is part of the Zogby International polling group--and tells me that he just received this list of questions from Zogby. Note that this was after the election. One possibility is that Obama's staff is trying to figure out which measures they can propose without impairing Obama's popularity. If these are actually measures that Obama is considering, then an awful lot of Americans were indeed profoundly misled about what Obama stands for during the campaign. The 75% excise tax on firearms in particular would devastate the industry, and strongly discourage new firearms purchases.

The other possibility is that Republicans are trying to figure out which issues to use against Obama--but some of these proposals are so extreme and specific that it seems to suggest the first possibility. On the other hand, some of the questions almost read like Republican push polling:

If you knew Barack Obama supported a plan to place a 75% excise tax on the sale of firearms - where a $500 rifle would now cost $875 with tax, would that have made you...

More likely to vote for Obama
Less likely to vote for Obama
No difference
Not sure

If you knew about Barack Obama's support for national legislation that would overturn concealed carry handgun laws in 40 states, would that have made you...
More likely to vote for Obama
Less likely to vote for Obama
No difference
Not sure

If you knew about Barack Obama's support for a tax plan that would raise the top tax rate on individuals to 56% when social security taxes are included, would that have made you...
More likely to vote for Obama
Less likely to vote for Obama
No difference
Not sure


If you knew about Barack Obama's support for a tax plan that would increase the percentage of people who pay no taxes from 32% to 44%, would that have made you...
More likely to vote for Obama
Less likely to vote for Obama
No difference
Not sure


If you knew about Barack Obama's support for a Congressional bill to outlaw workers' rights to a secret ballot in union elections, would that have made you...
More likely to vote for Obama
Less likely to vote for Obama
No difference
Not sure


If you knew that Democrat Congressional Leaders plan to cut defense spending by 25%, would that have made you...
More likely to vote for Obama
Less likely to vote for Obama
No difference
Not sure


Do you agree or disagree that an increase in taxes on wealthy Americans and businesses will further hurt an already shaky economy, or do you think it will make no difference?
Agree
Disagree
No difference
Not sure



Barack Obama said during a campaign stop that redistribution of wealth, taxing wealthier Americans in order to give money back to low-income Americans, was good for everybody. Do you agree or disagree with Obama when it comes to redistribution of wealth?
Agree
Disagree
Not sure


Barack Obama has said that while the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, it also permits common-sense gun control, like gun registration, licensing and local gun bans. Others say the Second Amendment does not permit infringements such as gun registration, licensing etc. Do you agree or disagree that Second Amendment permits infringements such as those described by Obama?
Agree
Disagree
Not sure


Do you agree with Barack Obama's interpretation of the Second Amendment, where gun control is permissible, or do you think the Second Amendment is an absolute individual right that shall not be infringed?
Gun control is permissible
Second Amendment shall not be infringed
Not sure/neither


Did you hear about the book "Audacity of Deceit," or the website, www.barackobamatest.com by author Brad O'Leary during the course of the general election, either on the Internet, talk radio or in print ads?
Yes
No
Not sure


Should Congress pass a law that takes away your right to use a firearm in the defense of your home would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to restore that right?
Support
Oppose
Not sure


Should Congress pass a law to make a gun owner or manufacturer guilty of a criminal offense if their gun is lost or stolen and used in the commission of a crime, would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to protect gun owners and manufacturers against such liability?
Support
Oppose
Not sure


Should Congress pass a law outlawing concealed carry laws in 40 states, would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to allow concealed carry for individuals if approved by state law?
Support
Oppose
Not sure


Should Congress approve or defeat a law that increases the percentage of Americans who pay no taxes from 32% to 44%?
Approve
Defeat
Not sure


Should Congress pass a law outlawing secret ballots in labor union elections, would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to guarantee that right?
Support
Oppose
Not sure


For the next Supreme Court Justice appointee, would you prefer a judge who would uphold a recent Supreme Court ruling that affirms the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, or a judge who will reverse this ruling?
A judge to uphold ruling
A judge to overturn ruling
Not sure


For the next Supreme Court Justice appointee, would you prefer a judge who takes other countries laws into consideration when crafting his or her judicial opinions, or a judge who only considers American laws and precedent when crafting his or her opinions?
A judge who takes other countries' laws into consideration
A judge who only considers American laws and precedent
Not sure


Would you say you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, somewhat unconcerned or not at all concerned that President Obama and a Democratic Congress will make a serious effort to restrict the purchase and use of firearms, or does it make no difference to you?
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Somewhat unconcerned
Not at all concerned
No difference
Not sure


Please tell us if the following positions make you more or less likely to vote for Obama, or does it make no difference to your opinion?
More likely Less Likely No difference Not sure
Obama supported legislation making it Ok to prosecute people who live in cities with gun bans if they use a gun in their own home in self defense.
Obama supported legislation to expose the firearms industry to all lawsuits, even if they eventually bankrupt manufacturers.
Obama supported legislation that would have banned almost all ammunition used for deer hunting.
Obama has stated opposition to Right-to-carry handgun laws.
Obama has supported a ban on all semi-automatic firearms.
Obama supported increasing the federal excise tax on guns and ammunition by 500%.
Obama supported a proposal to prohibit gun sales within five miles of a school or park, a requirement that some say would eliminate almost all gun sales in the U.S.
Obama supported a proposal that would have banned single shot and double barreled shotguns.


For the last 21 years there has been no political censorship on radio. Some people now would like to limit programming on talk radio. Do you believe that Americans should be able to listen to any program they would like, or do you believe government should be allowed to censor radio programs?
All programs should be allowed
Government should be allowed to censor
Not sure/depends


Do you think the government should, or should not be allowed to censor what political opinions are heard on talk radio?
Should be allowed to censor
Should not be allowed to censor
Not sure/depends


"In God We Trust" is displayed over the Speaker's podium in the U.S. Capitol Building. In the model for the new renovations, they have taken out "In God We Trust." Should the "In God We Trust" inscription be kept or taken out?
It should be kept
It should be taken out
Not sure



Statement A - The Constitution gives us the absolute right to bear arms.

Statement B - Times have changed and it is necessary to regulate gun ownership.
Strongly Agree with Statement A
Somewhat Agree with Statement A
Somewhat Agree with Statement B
Strongly Agree with Statement B
Not sure


Do you or does anyone in your household keep a gun for personal protection or hunting at your home, place of business, or at a vacation home or club?
Yes
No
Not sure
Refused

UPDATE: Some readers think this is Republican push polling (where you ask questions designed to create, not measure public opinion). Yes, some of these questions seem to read that way--but Zogby is doing this polling, and I can't imagine them push polling, and certainly not for the Republicans. I'm still mystified by it, but it does look like Obama might be trying to see how far he can push his agenda without damaging his popularity.

N6ATF
11-12-2008, 2:36 AM
An Assassination or Attempt on Obama: If an extremist from either side tries or succeeds in making the analogy to JFK complete all bets are off and even Heller could be overturned.

This is not a fear. For someone to commit this crime, they would have to believe Obama is a good person and therefore worth killing. Fortunately for him, other presidents and other infamous leaders in the past century, you get assassination immunity if you're bad.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-12-2008, 5:54 AM
This is not a fear. For someone to commit this crime, they would have to believe Obama is a good person and therefore worth killing. Fortunately for him, other presidents and other infamous leaders in the past century, you get assassination immunity if you're bad.


Oh, yes, this is a fear. People just LOVE Obama. They didn't vote for him because they think he's the best leader we can get or anything like that. They just LOVE him! Madly. He's the best thing to come down the pike in ages, he is. He's our savior (lower case 's'). Some believe that he's our Savior (upper case 's'). A living Saint. More than just an ordinary man. If the Secret Service lets him get popped we'll have riots that will make the Rodney King thing look like a pushfight in a sandbox.

After which, we'll get laws (for the children!) that will have us all lining up. Either to turn in our guns, or to be arrested for having such inherently evil things in the first place (and how dare we?!).

The Raisuli

spareparts
11-12-2008, 9:12 AM
I haven't read through every page here to see if this has already been asked. Am I mistaken or did Clinton sign his AWB during his first term?

Hopi
11-12-2008, 9:17 AM
I haven't read through every page here to see if this has already been asked. Am I mistaken or did Clinton sign his AWB during his first term?

1994

http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/awb.htm

motorhead
11-12-2008, 9:22 AM
those who choose to panic will, regardless. those who remain calm will make a difference if and when any of this comes to pass.
buy what you can anyway, it's a sellers market right now and prices will not come down in the forseeable future.

Bugei
11-12-2008, 10:26 AM
I'd have the same concern (presuming a gun is used) but the basic theory can, I think, apply to an AW ban. Write the ban, but hold on to it until Columbine or the Amish shooting or VT and then intro it under the "best" circumstance. Would be quite a challenge and I'd hope NRA is preparing for such an eventuality.

When we speak of administrative efforts to restrict guns, let's also talk international - how would an Obama administration, with perhaps John Kerry as Secretary of State and Feinstein as UN Ambassador - deal with gun issues? I know our greatest and immediate challenge is domestic, but I'm sure Obama & crew would sign on to whatever is slid under thrie collective nose.

You know, up until just this moment, I always wondered how it worked out that there was always a massacre just before the vote on anti-gun bills. What, did some Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy use their secret mind-control drugs on some poor lunatic, wind him up and send him out to kill-kill-kill just before the vote?

Now I can see that they just write it, debate it at a low boil, wait for the inevitable lunatic to shoot up a no-defense zone and then go for the vote. <slapping forehead>
--Bugei

N6ATF
11-13-2008, 1:11 AM
Oh, yes, this is a fear. People just LOVE Obama. They didn't vote for him because they think he's the best leader we can get or anything like that. They just LOVE him! Madly. He's the best thing to come down the pike in ages, he is. He's our savior (lower case 's'). Some believe that he's our Savior (upper case 's'). A living Saint. More than just an ordinary man. If the Secret Service lets him get popped we'll have riots that will make the Rodney King thing look like a pushfight in a sandbox.

After which, we'll get laws (for the children!) that will have us all lining up. Either to turn in our guns, or to be arrested for having such inherently evil things in the first place (and how dare we?!).

The Raisuli

Being loved is not an indicator of being good.

I wonder, will the Secret Service detail be black guys? Since every president before was white, they could blend in with their agents. But with a white detail, Obama'd stick out like a sore thumb.

Now quote Chris Rock about the stereotypical black man not wanting to take a bullet for anyone.

GuyW
11-13-2008, 12:42 PM
If the Secret Service lets him get popped we'll have riots that will make the Rodney King thing look like a pushfight in a sandbox.

After which, we'll get laws (for the children!) that will have us all lining up. Either to turn in our guns, or to be arrested for having such inherently evil things in the first place (and how dare we?!).


No gun turn ins - such riots will harden gunowners resolve, and shots fired in self-defense will break the psychological barrier against using arms to resist tyranny...

.

ilbob
11-13-2008, 3:10 PM
I wonder, will the Secret Service detail be black guys? Since every president before was white, they could blend in with their agents. But with a white detail, Obama'd stick out like a sore thumb.
My guess is the positions in the presidential security detail are voluntary. It may turn out that the best candidates are no longer interested in the job, and not because of anyone's ethnicity.

maybe he can get some of his gang banger friends from Chicago to guard him like the former mayor of Detroit.

383green
11-14-2008, 4:22 PM
In all legality and constitution, how can that be? - please elaborate.

The laws passed right after 9/11 weren't constitutional, either, but that didn't stop them.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-14-2008, 4:55 PM
No gun turn ins - such riots will harden gunowners resolve, and shots fired in self-defense will break the psychological barrier against using arms to resist tyranny...

.


The psychological effect will be as you say. But, Obama bin Biden will for sure see such riots as a need for grabbing. The fact that self defense against such will actually prove (as it did after Rodney King) the opposite need will have no effect on our new masters in DC.

The Raisuli

hoffmang
11-14-2008, 5:36 PM
In all legality and constitution, how can that be? - please elaborate.

Bad things can happen in the Supreme Court. Witness the Dred Scott case for example. US v. Cruikshank is pretty darn bad and shows you what politics can do to a SCOTUS.

-Gene

ilbob
11-14-2008, 5:41 PM
The laws passed right after 9/11 weren't constitutional, either, but that didn't stop them.

thats a little unfair. of the laws passed after 9/11 there is little controversy over the content of the vast majority of them, and much controversy over a very few paragraphs. it would not offend me a whole lot if the offending paragraphs were stricken.

you can bet your bottom dollar BHO will not be pushing to strike any of these provisions.

ilbob
11-14-2008, 5:42 PM
Bad things can happen in the Supreme Court. Witness the Dred Scott case for example. US v. Cruikshank is pretty darn bad and shows you what politics can do to a SCOTUS.

-Gene
Dred Scot was morally repugnant but constitutionally correct.

Gator Monroe
11-14-2008, 5:52 PM
They will try to keep us from defending ourselves our property and our families because in most cases we are Racists when we do so ! (Not all cases because "there are white people Rioting also" quote of Mayor of Los Angeles during last Riots)

trinydex
11-14-2008, 6:27 PM
The minimum wage increase already happened, and after Nov. 4 union card check and returning dividend and capital gains taxes to pre-Bush tax cut levels are basically fait accompli. Maybe you were reading somebody else's agenda?


The other way of looking at this Gene is that because Americans have continued to shrug after these incidents, they will continue to happen. Based on the admittedly small data set of Columbine and VT, the probability of such another event happening is significant in the next 8 years. I would not count on a non-reaction after three separate incidents.

you could always hope they happen in the best case scenario too... someone trying it in texas? someone trying it on a campus of ccws? off duty cop even? fbi agent in plain clothes? all these would make cases FOR rkba, not against and that would be in the FACE of a national tragedy. don't get better than that...

trinydex
11-14-2008, 7:07 PM
Being loved is not an indicator of being good.

I wonder, will the Secret Service detail be black guys? Since every president before was white, they could blend in with their agents. But with a white detail, Obama'd stick out like a sore thumb.

Now quote Chris Rock about the stereotypical black man not wanting to take a bullet for anyone.

there are quite a few people in the SS that are african american. in fact there's all different shades of skin color... at least one previous admin had an SS lead that was african american, that woulda been clinton. saw the program on nat geo.

My guess is the positions in the presidential security detail are voluntary. It may turn out that the best candidates are no longer interested in the job, and not because of anyone's ethnicity.

maybe he can get some of his gang banger friends from Chicago to guard him like the former mayor of Detroit.

in the program on nat geo they suggested it was selective. you also usually only get 4 years because it's incredibly draining.

Gryff
11-14-2008, 7:21 PM
I still worry that we are betting too much on the "Blue Dog Democrats" fear of their constituents and not enough on the power of the Democrat leadership AND the fact that Dems control the Executive AND Legislative branches. Kid in a Candy Store Syndrome can make people do really stupid things that they wouldn't normally choose to do when checks and balances are in place.

I so hope I'm wrong...

sholling
11-14-2008, 7:27 PM
Dred Scot was morally repugnant but constitutionally correct.Correct. Where one can find better examples are Social Security, minimum wage, the Endangered Spices Act - all of which violate the 10th Amendment. Pray that nothing bad happens to BO because in such an emotionally charged environment there would be an orgy of gun grabbing and Justice Kennedy would be flip flopped over to the gun grabbing side.

jacques
11-14-2008, 8:00 PM
And you spread some more fear.

As I said, the real issues are economic. Let me quote an excellent economist at length:

from :http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/business/09cowen.html


-Gene

Decisions, decisions, you look through history at times when great decisions were made, and if they had decided the otherway, things would be a disaster.

A lot of close calls have happened. Hopefully these will not be the days of bad decisions.

Solidmch
11-14-2008, 9:03 PM
Hoffmang, I agree with you most part. However when the new administration cannot fix the economy with the "New" New Deal, and liberal ideology, will they shift focus to public saftey as a red herring???

jacques
11-14-2008, 9:23 PM
Hoffmang, I agree with you most part. However when the new administration cannot fix the economy with the "New" New Deal, and liberal ideology, will they shift focus to public saftey as a red herring???

If they don't do something in 2-years, there will be an election that will let the people voice there opinion of the senate, anyway

hoffmang
11-14-2008, 9:23 PM
Hoffmang, I agree with you most part. However when the new administration cannot fix the economy with the "New" New Deal, and liberal ideology, will they shift focus to public saftey as a red herring???

Remember that even Clinton could figure out how to advocate pro growth policies after he started losing house and senate seats. It goes along the lines of "only Nixon could go to China."

-Gene

Solidmch
11-14-2008, 10:03 PM
Remember that even Clinton could figure out how to advocate pro growth policies after he started losing house and senate seats. It goes along the lines of "only Nixon could go to China."

-Gene

We have never seen the "Fanaticism" in any president before, as we see in this one. Usually the turn out in senate elections are low. Imagine a propaganda campainge "against guns" like the one we saw "for" Obama. Iknow he only got half of the popular vote, but the machine has not been turned off, all they have to do is direct it.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
11-14-2008, 11:35 PM
Kool - General Motors can start stamping out AK parts, and have a nice little counter-cyclical profit center...

.

I like how you think. Unfortunately, they could never make enough guns to fill their multi-billion dollar revenue problem.

shawnyteee
11-15-2008, 11:01 PM
Thanks for the news. Always great to tune into CGTV.

bulgron
11-16-2008, 10:11 AM
I like how you think. Unfortunately, they could never make enough guns to fill their multi-billion dollar revenue problem.

Yeah, you're right. They'll have to start making ammo too. :D

jmlivingston
11-16-2008, 11:14 AM
I like how you think. Unfortunately, they could never make enough guns to fill their multi-billion dollar revenue problem.

I don't know about that, with prices rising as fast as they are right now! :(

John

hnoppenberger
11-16-2008, 10:10 PM
Gene, I hate to disagree with you, but I do. Enormously. Here's why... To understand Obama you need to understand the people that are influencing him and are funding him. People like Aylinsky, Soros, etc. People who have a definite agenda that includes "remaking" the American way of life into their image of what it should be. And for the first time in history, we have a Congress of like minded folks. People who really believe things like "universal health care" and "tolerance" are not only possible, but desirable. The problem we face is that such mindsets won't necessarily attack gun rights... they will attack at a more foundational level and loss of rights, including gun rights may well be the natural and logical extensions of those policies. Obama, following George Soros' lead while in Germany, declared himself a "citizen of the world". That has long been the stalking line of those that promote a more active role for the U.N. in domestic politics. Imagine a platform of "change" where we as a country a encouraged to be a more active and considerate member of the world. To homogenize, if you will, with what other countries are already doing since we're all part of this "world wide community". If people buy that, a necessary compromise to achieving that is to adopt gun control polices like England, France and Australia. Anyone else see a problem there?

One thing that we've learned about liberals of the years is that they demand a sense of "fair play" from others but feel no need, when they are in power, to respond in kind. Look at all the attacks on Lieberman for his support of McCain (and his comments about Obama). They are actually, right now, in discussions about how to penalize him. That was just on Fox News. Look at the reaction to Prop 8's passing and Obama's comments that he'll ask Congress to repeal the DOMA legislation to, essentially overrule the will of the people. Those attitudes are what make this such a concerning "change" of leadership.

I'm in no way suggesting people be afraid, but definitely wary with eyes wide open. Obama has a track record of covering up his intentions (remember the no taxes above 250k, opps... 200k... opps 150k and now it's down to 120k) What do you think the actual intentions are there? This is the same guy who already should his elitists disdain for us "bitter" gun owners and Christians.

Speaking about the courts as you did in your post, I genuinely share your hopes but I need to assert that the reason we even have this forum is b/c the courts failed in the first place. There is one member, I think either a calgunner or on THR, who's quote in his sig block goes like this "I really wish they would have written the 2nd amendment to say: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" I think his point is subtle but powerful. The way the 2nd amendment was written, we should have little no laws limiting gun ownership based on a literal reading of that text. Let's also not forget that "our 5th" justice on the Heller case (Kennedy) has a notoriously bad habit of flopping like a fish without warning from Left to Right and back. So, with respect, to have hope in the same courts that already flubbed the ball seems a little Pollyanna-esque to me.

Do we support our governemnt... certainly, yes. Do we react in panic... I hope not. But let's use this election as rallying cry for the future. This is what happens when we sit on our tails or let our country be swayed by rhetoric. And I do believe we're, as a nation and likely as gun owners, going to pay somewhat for that. And to pretend otherwise is simply naive.

QFT

and i am a nra member, and i donated a good sum of money to mccain.

i understand obama as much as can be. the only word that can describe him is wrong. 180* off of american.

yellowfin
11-17-2008, 11:02 AM
I like how you think. Unfortunately, they could never make enough guns to fill their multi-billion dollar revenue problem.It would be a good start, and at very least it's something US customers buy, unlike their cars. What's to lose? It worked out quite well in WW2. Singer, International Harvester, IBM, and dozens more were very, very good at it.

383green
11-17-2008, 2:41 PM
I like how you think. Unfortunately, they could never make enough guns to fill their multi-billion dollar revenue problem.

Well, if they sold each gun for $250 (which seems reasonable for a mass-produced AK), they'd only need to sell four million rifles per billion dollars of revenue desired. Mark me down for two of them. ;)

yellowfin
11-17-2008, 3:40 PM
Any guesses on how many AK's a GM plant could put out if geared to do so? How about AR's or Browning Hi Powers? A quick search just told me International Harvester produced over half a million Garands from '53 to '55.

grywlfbg
11-17-2008, 9:53 PM
Gun Show Loophole: People, this is where the Dems and Obama are going to hurt us. They're going to push to make the rest of the US like California where a NICS is required on all purchases. That will be the push and we may be forced to accept that NICS is required at shows but otherwise private party transfers are legit. The Blue Dogs can support this and keep their jobs so we have to really worry about it. The only good news here is that it will not mean a change in CA and in fact we might be able to make CA better by making this a national requirement at a lower level than CA today. Heller does not help us on this issue.

And being against this issue also loses us a lot of otherwise pro-gun support.

My Dad who lives in Oklahoma is your stereotypical hunter who's largely oblivious to 2A issues. Though he refuses to support the NRA largely because of this gun show loophole thing (he also supports a .50 ban but I'm working on him). In OK you can do PPT's with no paperwork. So at gun shows, dealers just move guns into their personal possession and then PPT them without the need for NICS, waiting periods, etc. You can get all tin foil hat about the "gubmint" knowing who's buying guns but the simple fact of the matter is that this is how criminals get guns. Requiring NICS checks for PPTs would stop a lot of illegal gun trafficking which we all should support.

ilbob
11-18-2008, 6:55 AM
So at gun shows, dealers just move guns into their personal possession and then PPT them without the need for NICS, waiting periods, etc. You can get all tin foil hat about the "gubmint" knowing who's buying guns but the simple fact of the matter is that this is how criminals get guns. Requiring NICS checks for PPTs would stop a lot of illegal gun trafficking which we all should support.
Any dealer that did this would get a major kick in the butt from the BATF.

As for gun shows being a major source of guns for criminals, that is just plain false. According to this DOJ report only 2% of criminals got their guns at a gun show or flea market.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf