Why We’re Still At Least Two Years Away from an Assault Weapons Ban

The election results have riled up the firearms owning world, bringing flashbacks to those dark times when the assault weapons ban was the law of the land. The fear that a Chicago Democrat with no re-elections on the horizon would turn to gun control like a hungry wolf turns to a wounded deer was definitely a factor in Romney’s strong showing, but is that really something that we need to fear happening immediately? I don’t think so, and here’s why . . .

The president wields a lot of power, but legislation comes from the Congress. Specifically, if there were to be another AWB, it would germinate in the House of Representatives, which is the body that deals with finance (since the commerce clause of the Constitution is the hook that they use to legislate everything non-finance related). That’s where the original AWB came from, passed during the 103rd Congress.

Here’s the thing though: the legislation passed during a time when (A) gun owners still had the stink on them that plagued gun rights throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, and (B) both the House and Senate were solidly Democratic. In short, it was the perfect storm.

These days, I don’t think that’s possible. At all. The House retained (and extended) its Republican majority last night, with the states re-electing enough Republicans to maintain solid control in that body. And while Democrats might still have the Senate and the presidency, I don’t see a new AWB getting out of committee in this environment, let alone passing a vote in the House.

In short, for now I don’t think there’s anything to fear from an assault weapons ban proposal. I don’t see how it could possibly be enacted in the current climate. And while the president might not be as pandering as before when he had his own re-election to worry about, he still has the Congressional midterm elections to look forward to. And any movement on his part to do something radically Democratic in nature would push those states where Democrats in Congress are barely holding on to their seats over the edge into Republican control. He doesn’t want that.

The system works. For now, I don’t think that an AWB or anything like that is on the horizon. But check back in two years.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

122 Responses to Why We’re Still At Least Two Years Away from an Assault Weapons Ban

  1. avatarDanny McBee. says:

    Thank you for this. I said this same thing and was pretty much shot down.

    • avatarBiofire says:

      So did I and so was I.

      • avatarDan says:

        AWB will only happen if congressional republicans continue to be asleep at the wheel.

        • avatarJ says:

          Hmmmm, so if Romney was elected and an assault weapons ban appeared on his desk, he wouldn’t sign it? I think he would …. just like he did in Mass.

    • avatarbeckshaven says:

      The premise of this article is flawed. The writer assumes that our system of government will continue to operate as it always has, that congress would have to go along with this in order for it to pass. But, that is no longer the case. Obama has demonstrated many times his willingness to issue executive orders to further his agenda, he stated before that he would not let congress stand in his way etc… If he decides to pull the trigger on this deal he won’t let congress stop him.

  2. avatarCCW Guy says:

    UN Gun treaty.

    • avatarBrad says:

      The Constitution gives the President the power to commit the United States to treaties – but only with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the US Senate, and only if the agreement does not contravene the Constitution. So the UN Treaty, that is still stuck in committee, is not as big of a threat as it seems. Dems don’t have a two thirds majority and we still have the 2A of the Contitution, for now.

    • avatarDan says:

      A treaty cannot override the constitution.

  3. avatarPeter says:

    Ignorance is bliss. That just means more mags and ammo for me to buy while other people are in denial.

  4. avatarRabbi says:

    Ban by executive order perhaps?

    The biggest problem with the reelection of the abomination is the 2 or 3 likely appointments to the Supreme Court. This will kill hopes of any conservative rulings for 3-4 decades

    • avatarJPD says:

      Not possible Rabbi, read up on executive orders.

      • avatarDoug says:

        Obama’s been doing things not possible through executive order for a while now

        • avatarJPD says:

          He has pushed the envelope, like every President has, but has not crossed over his authority. Many have not LIKED what he did, an example was the administrative appointments that Congress was stalling on. But again, he did not “create” law out of thin air.

          Several neutral tracking sites available to see the purpose and results of the 139 he has signed.

  5. avatarChuck says:

    That’s the way it is supposed to work. This regime hasn’t shown a whole lot of respect for the rule of law so far, I doubt they will start anytime soon. If they think they can make an executive order stick, they will do it.

    • avatarJPD says:

      Chuck, again, read up on executive orders. Not possible.

      • avatarChuck says:

        What Doug said. Why would they start caring about the rule of law now?

        • avatarJPD says:

          You keep throwing that around. Be specific with proofs from neutral sites.

          Do you really think that with all the watchdog groups out there, well funded, with a hundred lawyers, are going to allow a president, any president to blatantly break the law??

        • avatarRobert says:

          JPD,

          Just like it is illegal to give blanket amnesty to illegal aliens.

          Thanks
          Robert

        • avatarChuck says:

          What Robert said.

        • avatarChuck says:

          Also, what’s your opinion on fast and furious? How legal was that? How are your watchdog groups doing with that one?

  6. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    The DEMOCOMMIES will most likely control the house in two years and then we’re all screwed.

  7. avatarjwm says:

    I’ve been doing this since 68. There’s always something on the horizon and all you have to do is relax for a moment and it’ll bite you on the ass.

  8. avatarJLR says:

    Perhaps the most notable thing about the last four years is the amount of pro-gun legislation that has been passed. That owes in large part to pro-gun Democrats in the Senate, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who helped guide such legislation through the process.

    Between a Republican controlled House and a substantial number of pro-gun Democrats in the Senate, there’s very little chance of an AWB passing anytime soon.

    • avatarJPD says:

      Thank you JLR, finally a little common sense mixed with knowledge.

    • avatarChris says:

      Well put JLR.

      Honestly, I think that one of our big downfalls as being Pro-2A is sometimes we attack a specific group. There are a lot of Pro-2A Dems and there are also a lot of Anti-2A Repubs. More of us need to realize this. If we push the wrong people, it can create a new hurt on us.

    • avatarSilver says:

      You’re once more assuming the integrity of the proper channels and the checks and balance system.

      What on earth makes you think Obama or leftists in general have any intention of following the rule of law, or not resorting to illegal and extreme measures?

      • avatarChris says:

        Because there is enough of us to call BS on any illegal actions carried out against our rights? I dont like Obama but I dont think hes that stupid. If he is it would be in his best interest to wait until his last year in office when he does something that drastic.

        Then again he did allow Americans to die in Benghazi and despite blatant lies and contradictions, still got reelected. So I could be wrong.

        • avatarMichael B. says:

          He murders innocent Pakistanis without nary a peep and puts Americans in prison to be raped and tortured over drugs that he brags about having done.

          Obama is evil. The state is evil.

        • avatarpat says:

          Yet the libs only care about the THREE terrorists (one of whom was the 20th highjacker who helped kill thousands on 9/11) who were waterboarded (and gave up much valuable imfo in the process). But using drones to kill (which I dont have a problem with) is less bad? Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

  9. Obama won’t try to pass a law. He will just use the BATFE to do his bidding. I see restrictions on imports of guns and ammo. I see more rules coming out of them. I think that is the way they will do anything if they try. That way no elected politicians will be tied to it except Obama and he can’t run again.

  10. avatarlurker says:

    You are mistaken. President Barky will use grid-lock in Congress as an excuse for ruling by Executive Order. Congress would have to take action to overturn that. Plenty in Congress favor an AWB as long as they don’t have to commit political suicide by voting on it. An EO gives them cover. Trying to get Congress off its dead assess in the face of plenty of RINO and commie obstruction would take a miracle.

    Executive Orders become law if unchallenged by the Congress 30 days after they are submitted.

  11. avatargreat unknown says:

    It’s simple. The EPA will declare any weapon capable of using lead bullets as potentially polluting. Before you can use/buy one, you will need to file environmental impact statements, get permission from neighbors, etc. See, it’s really simple.

    • avatarJohn says:

      Make your own lead bullets. Take them from the wheel weights of the car of that liberal a$$h013 that you know, if necessary. 

  12. avatarJoe Grine says:

    You assume, wrongly, that Obama can’t peel off a few RINO republicans to get a filibuster-proof majority. I’m sure that there are a few R’s out there that would gladly throw assault weapons under the bus in order in order to get some buy-off on some of their pet projects. As you will recall, that is exactly what happened with Obamacare, which is a waaaayyy more important issue to most people than the “rights” of a few OFWGs (or YFWGs and YSWGs, for that matter) to play Navy SEAL at a three-gun competition.

    I would say “buy ‘em while you can,” but I strongly suspect that the next AWB will be a “turn ‘em in to the local police or else” type of ban.

    Bottom line: Gun owners are f**ked.

    • avatargabba says:

      name one.

    • avatarAutomatic Slim says:

      A few of the gun owners I know would say, “Turn ‘em in or else? Bring on the ‘or else’.” Anything that even resembles martial law here in Texas will be met with hot lead. Some folks take the “from my cold, dead hands” idea very, very seriously.

      Most of the founding fathers recommended revolution if ever the government should become…well, what it is now. Not to sound paranoid, but a revolution doesn’t seem so far-fetched lately.

    • avatarDean Weingarten says:

      As I recall , not one Republican voted for Obamacare.

    • avatarTSgt B says:

      Well, my response would be “COME AND GET THEM”. I may be “f**ked” in the end, but I’ll get more of them than they’ll get of me. Our Founders would be ashamed at our collective cowardice.

  13. avatarBilbo B. says:

    No your simple.
    The EPA are the ones that have already shot down attempts at this by anti-gun and greenies.

  14. avatarSilver says:

    And I saw a dozen articles three days ago explaining why a Romney victory was a sure thing.

    Never underestimate the power of the evil and the stupidity of the masses.

  15. avatarKnowWhatIamTalkingAbout says:

    I would say stock up on items that “may” be part of an AWB such as ammo, 30 round mags – even 20 rounders, but I would not let it take over your life. I was at a gun store looking around, and the gun store clerk began talking about all the money he had spent on firearms, magazines, and ammo (an M1A, a FAL, lots and lots of magazines), but he stretched his budget so far that he really did not have the money for more ammo to fill up and test all of those mags he bought. It appears that he regretted some of it because now he is hurting financially.

    The point: think and then think some more before you spend lots of money in a panic.

  16. avatarJPD says:

    Let us set the record straight on “Executive Orders”

    “U.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law, since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution. However, these perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings”

    Also of note is that Congress, if they feel an executive order exceeds authority, may revoke the provision of the law it was intended to enforce, or enact legislation to invalidate the order.

    As of today, only two have been revoked by the courts. One by Truman and one by Clinton.

    Congress has been more vigilant over the years.

    As you can see, Executive Orders cannot “create” law. Must be from Congress (delegated legislation) which means a law already on the books. Or, granted directly by the Constitution.

    So, no AWB because he “feels like it”.

    Also, the “it becomes law in 30 days”. Any executive order already has the force of law. There is no magic 30 days. Congress can,and will shoot them down when they feel like.the necessity.

    Also, do not forget the courts. If necessary, outside entities may challenge any executive order in Federal Court.

    Another example of mis-information and fear mongering.

    • avatarLurker says:

      Did you read your own post?!? Nothing you wrote contradicts what I wrote except the 30 days part. You think Congress with Reid controlling the Senate will stop Barky? Really? You think that SCOTUS will? After the Obamacare ruling? Really? Also I have seen this statement repeatedly “Thirty days after being published in the Federal Register, executive orders become law.” Perhaps it’s not true and the President can just keep them secret and they are instantaneously in effect. FDR interned Americans of Japanese ancestry by EO. I am not sure of the history there. I wonder under what law Congress gave him that power?

      • avatarLurker says:

        Oh and that Census data, confidential by law and may not be shared with other Fed Agencies?

        From Wikipedia:
        In 1918, the Census Bureau released individual information regarding several hundred young men to the Justice Department and Selective Service system for the purpose of prosecutions for draft evasion.[9][10] During World War II, the United States Census Bureau assisted the government’s Japanese American internment efforts by providing confidential neighborhood information on Japanese-Americans. The Bureau’s role was denied for decades but was finally proven in 2007.[11][12]

  17. avatarAnotherMatt says:

    All this hysteria is amusing. A lot of you have very rampant imaginations!

  18. avatarChris Dumm says:

    I think Nick is spot-on in his analysis. A vast number of Representatives come from ‘red’ districts where gun control has the smell of bitter almonds. More than a few of these Representatives are actually Democrats, but they’re not stupid enough to push gun control on their constituents because they know they’re never more than 2 years away from paying the ultimate political penalty.

    In short, the House of Representatives is the 2nd Amendments’s ‘firewall.’

  19. avatarJPD says:

    Nick is right. Nothing will come of this. To this day, Obama has not shown any great deal of antipathy for gun rights. If you consider the big forest fires he is faced with,anti-gun issues are the LAST thing he wants to mess with.

    With the need to bring support together for the economy etc,. He will not sacrifice his political clout on a sure thing loss.

  20. avatarken kish says:

    What are the chances he just signs an Executive Order?

  21. avatarsanchanim says:

    One thing we can say, is Obama is great for the gun business! Think of the all the jobs and revenue he is creating. Plus he didn’t have to spend a single cent of tax payers money to do it!!!

    • avatarJPD says:

      You nailed it!! I have been meaning to check if any gun manufacturers are contributing to his election. They have made a mint the last 3 1/2 years due to the hysteria. LOL

      • avatarJimD says:

        Unfortunately you can avoid buying into the hysteria but you can’t avoid buying high-priced ammo at the gun shop!

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      Obama may be the best firearm sales catalyst the US has ever seen.

      • avatarToo Soon? says:

        The only competitors that come to mind would be Hurricane Katrina, 9/11, or some similar disaster.

        Of course, there is plenty of proof Obama IS a disaster.

  22. avatarken kish says:

    What are the chances and legalese of him signing it into law via Executive Order?

  23. avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

    I’m not looking for the legislative threat either. Its the Executive Order and U.N. treaties I have my eye on.

  24. avatarSteve says:

    The repubs are already caving in. Today, Boehner offered HIGHER taxes as part of a deal to “fix” the budget.

    You can kiss gun shows and private sales goodbye right away. Would they sell us out on an AWB?

    What do you think a politician does for a living?

    • avatarJPD says:

      Steve, I agree on the politician sell out thing. But really, with all the current crap with economy, health insurance, wars, China, trade imbalance, etc. He is not THAT stupid.

      Any overt move on gun rights gains him no political points, quite the contrary. His position is precarious already.

      Lost of smoke, no fire.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      All of the experts agreed that there was no way to fix the budget without raising taxes, and that it was insanity to suggest otherwise. Romney’s promises, like Bush’s, were pure political theater. And Bush raised taxes, as did Ron Reagan. And don’t gve me this “our taxes are too high already” when they are at their lowest levels in the last fifty years

      • Thank you Mark!
        Seriously, math is pretty easy. You have a deficit, you can spend less, or bring in more money. Why not do both? Get rid of the debt twice as fast.

        • avatarrosignol says:

          Why risk annoying the voters by raising taxes when the treasury has plenty of paper and ink?

          They’re gonna inflate the debt away. This will also do a tremendous amount of damage to the economy, and screw retirees living on fixed incomes from CDs and bonds, but that just means they are going to be more dependent on government programs like social security, which the Democrats can claim to be protecting from the nasty evil Republicans.

          It’s a neat trap. Damned if I can see how we’ll get out of it.

        • Ok, so the comment threads remove the ‘reply’ thing after a few, so if you would like to respond you can find me on facebook under this name. I’m the only one with all three.

          First of all, it is not apparent that you understand economics. The government can print more money, sure, but they don’t just DO that willy nilly. Printing more currency has consistent and noticeable effects on the GDP. Gross Domestic Product being a common measure of economic power, but a gross oversimplification. For instance, GDP typically measures how often transactions occur, and their magnitude. So if your household had one $20, but you and your family exchanged it 5 times in a year, your GDP would be $100. How often transactions occur is very important to GDP.
          Anyways, you mentioned inflation. Something that is interesting to note about inflation is that it is different in different places (your purchasing power per dollar changes based on your location), and inflation has an inverse relation to unemployment. If you look at the city with the lowest inflation, Detroit, it has the highest unemployment. Inversely, if you look at Hawaii, they have the highest inflation, and the lowest unemployment. On the surface Hawaii appears more prosperous, buzzing with activity and jobs. This is because of their inflation. You see, if individuals have something that is going up in value, they are likely to hold onto it, as it’s value is growing. Inversely, if you have something with a descending value you would try to get rid of it or use it as soon as possible. The same holds true for money. If the value of the dollar goes up, people will hold onto their money, and if the value is descending they are likely to spend it before it is worthless. The reason a low level of inflation is desired is because it boosts the economy, with people spending their dollars instead of holding onto them, and these transactions are what constitute our GDP.
          In short, inflation is not inherently bad. What IS bad is when the change in wages is significantly different from the change in the value of the currency. Specifically in instances where the purchasing power of your salary decreases.

          As for the debt, they will not just “inflate it away” however novel such an idea is. In addition, most of the debt is held by US citizens. More importantly, debt is in many cases valued as much as currency. If you own a treasury bond, say, for $10, you talk about it like it has value, “I have $10 in bonds.” It is not actually money, but the bond itself is valued as much as the $10 you gave to receive it. As a matter of fact you can trade it with others just like currency, but the government can still trade the $10 you gave them, effectively boosting the economy, as the value can be in two places at once, traded along multiple routes, and tallied to the GDP even more. Debt is not inherently bad either.

          For retirement… that’s always a sketchy area. Retirees are in a unique predicament in that they must budget for however long they think they are going to live, so really no fixed income based on investments (which always have the chance to fail) is good. Especially since negligible senescence research is doing well and we will most likely discover biological immortality in the next 100 years.

          So, the reason you should annoy voters with a tax as opposed to printing more money is because the difference in inflation rate between economic prosperity and spiraling doom is fine, and every economist knows this. Where as a tax imposed as a fee for market nonparticipation instead encourages more people to enter the market which moves it further to a perfect economic equilibrium. Even better, the fact that no global tax is levied on the market (only those who do not participate in the market) allows the market to move closer to it’s ideal equilibrium, because it prevents the dead weight loss. But you probably don’t know what that is.

      • Tax rates are not at their lowest levels in 50 years. Many experts and experience have shown that raising tax rates decrease revenue, not increase it, beyond some point. We are likely past that point already.

        I guess you can say that Reagan and Bush raised some taxes and decreased others. Reagan lowered the tax rates significantly, and that is what the “Bush Tax Cuts” are all about. There is no way that increasing tax rates will bring in enough money to overcome the deficits that have been built into the system.

        We are at the highest government percentage of GDP that we have had in 50 years.

        • avatarUncle Lar says:

          It was pointed out to Mr. Obama that an increase in tax rates could very well reduce overall revenues. His reply was that it wasn’t about revenue, it was about fairness. The man is committed to the redistribution of wealth both internal to the United States and, if he succeeds here, to extending that elsewhere in the world.

        • avatarpat says:

          That was a key interview of then candidate Obama and his economic ‘fairness’ over proven revenue beliefs.

        • avatarpat says:

          Correct.

      • avatarpat says:

        Creating jobs and increasing revenue (over a long period of time) and growing out of debt is the answer. Barrys tax the rich scheme is a drop in the ocean.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      as if Boehner had any other intentions besides caving in…anything that f–ks with his game of golf will get rushed and compromised on.

  25. avatarST says:

    We’re not thinking “under the radar enough” about this topic.

    So far we’ve been under the impression that the next ‘AWB’ would arrive in the form of a tougher version of the 1994 bill. IMO, Obama’s too creative to play a card already on the table.

    Rather than risk a logjam going through the legislature,in light of Obamacare he’ll attack our rights using the IRS instead of the ATF. No, “assault weapons” wont be banned and neither will certain magazines, but you will have to pay a “sin tax” on them. See he’s not hurting your rights, as you can own an AR or AK rifle, but you have to pay an annual $500 tax per weapon and $25 per ‘hi-cap’ magazine.Gotta fund anti-violence programs, don’t ya know.

    Cant afford the taxes? Surrender the weapons to Law Enforcement and file Federal Form XXXX with your 1040 to confirm destruction of Assault Weapons. Sale will be outlawed, and since the surrender is voluntary you don’t have that pesky 4th Amendment gumming up the works.

    This way, no one has to go door to door confiscating anything. You’ll turn in the hardware yourself when the choice comes between food on your table and an oppressive tax bill.

    If we want to maintain our rights, we have to think just like THEY do-outside the lines and sometimes outside of the spirit of the law.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      “You’ll turn in the hardware yourself when the choice comes between food on your table and an oppressive tax bill.”

      ummm.thats why you grow your own. adapt and overcome!

  26. avatarCCW Guy says:

    In case you missed it on the reply above this just in:
    http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINDEE8A60J120121107?irpc=932

  27. avatarRalph says:

    Nick, I love you but this post way off base. DiFi already has a gun ban in her committee. There are several ways she can get it passed. One would be to tie a ban to the long-term renewal of the Bush capital gains tax cut. Another would be to make it part of a tax package, by passing an income tax penalty of, oh I don’t know, maybe $1000 per gun per year. Our beloved Supreme Court has already ruled that anything — anything — flies as a tax, including Obamacare, so a special tax on “assault weapons” would likely pass Constitutional muster. There are other ways that the Dems could proceed, and I’m sure that they’re smart enough to figure out all of them. And the Dems have enough leverage to cram it down the throat of the House.

    I don’t expect DiFi, Lautenberg and the rest to show any patience. They’re not waiting two years. A gun ban is as much a part of Democrat orthodoxy as communion is to Catholics. They can’t do without it. We are in the crosshairs, and frankly, we’re toast. All done. Finito. I can’t wait for the brilliant article that TTAG will produce in 2014 about Smith & Wesson’s new best-seller, a single-shot rifle chambered for the .22 short.

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      I agree with Ralph. If the 2.6 Trillion dollar “Affordable Health Care Act” is seen by SCOTUS as a legitimate tax, than so also will a host of other taxes. Ralph outlines a number of 2A threats. I hope he’s wrong, but I’ve got to acknowledge that he could be right. We support the 2A because of facts, freedom, and common sense. The antis have none of those things going for them, but they are irrevocably convinced that they are doing the right thing.

      I say stock up, but don’t go nuts in the process.

      • How is it not a tax? The government takes in money, and provides a service. Is that not what a tax… is? Sure it is different in that you do not need to pay the tax if you get the same service from elsewhere, but that’s only mildly strange.

    • avatarVinny says:

      Feinstein ALWAYS has a gun ban ready to go. It means absolutely nothing.

      And the idea of using a large tax as a de-facto gun ban would be ruled unconstitutional in similar ways that poll taxes were ruled unconstitutional – a backdoor ban on a right disguised as a tax is considered an outright ban by the judiciary, and there’s plenty of precedent to back that up.

      The Affordable Care Act ruling by the Supreme Court is a different situation and does not apply to this as healthcare is not an enumerated right in the Constitution.

  28. avatarThaBigPerm says:

    JPD: Off the top of my head I’ll give you one example: waiving the work requirement of the Welfare Reform Act (or whatever its official name was). The language of the law specifically prohibits the waiving of that provision by EO (because they feared Clinton would sign the bill then waive work requirement at the time). He EO’ed it into la-la land anyway. All the kings watchdogs and all the lawyers’ men couldn’t put the rule of law back together again.

  29. avatarThaBigPerm says:

    JPD: Congress cannot “shoot down” provisions of law all by itself without a veto-proof majority in both houses. So, a perceived (or actual) unlawful (or overreaching) EO could not be “undone” as easily as you casually toss it out there. A bill repealing relevent law would need to pass both houses then be presented to … oops … POTUS for signature, the source of the ire leading to this repeal in the first place.

  30. avatarRoss says:

    The next “BAN” will be exactly that, a ban on the ownership of certain types of firearms, the anti freedom/gun folks won’t make the same mistake twice.

  31. avatarMilsurp Collector says:

    I’d like to be honest in these anxious times and give a big thanks to Mr. Robert Farago and everyone else who helps to make this site so fvcking awesome. TTAG has transformed the way I feel about being a gun owner, and I’m truly honored to be one among the awesome group of freedom loving people here. I used to think “I own a few guns, I’m happy, meh” never knowing just how important gun ownership is to a free society. My eyes have been opened and vigilantly taped to stay open since finding this oasis of knowledge.

    As for future gun bans I think everyone has said what needs to be said. But I’m God damn terrified of what other forms of intrusive “feel good” laws will be passed that aren’t even gun related, almost to the point of not wanting to bring children into this world.

    Call me a tinfoil hat maker, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the soon to be remodeled SCOTUS challenges more than just the 2nd amendment. With phrases like “hate speech”, “it’s a legal tax”, and “probable cause” floating around the future looks bleak at best. Even if I die of old age and Stalin’s Utopia 2.0 doesn’t happen before then, the thought of its existence in this country gives me chills.

    Buckle your seat belts and hold on to your nut-sacks, gentlemen. It’s gonna be a rough four years for gun owners and free society as we know it.

  32. avatarensitu says:

    I think Hitler said it best: Honest,I won’t *** in your *****.

  33. avatarThe Stig says:

    While on the one hand I agree with Nick, and would further add that not only did the Democrats have control of the House and Senate as he pointed out, but it was also during the first year of Clinton’s Presidency and it was something he pledged to get done during the campaign. Usually Presidents in their first year have a “honeymoon” where they are able to achieve things political inertia make more difficult later.

    On the other hand, I am very concerned that the Senate will pass a bill that includes something else seen as vital and popular (say a bill raising the debt ceiling to avoid another gov’t shutdown), but that also includes gun regulation tucked in as well. The question is whether the House will be able to stomach rejecting it. The political pressure could be immense, and they may not feel they can hold firm to their values (or stonewall depending on your view). This is where I see the danger in the next two years.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      IMHO you don’t have much to worry about regarding the House GOP rolling over for anything. They’ve brought the country to the brink of economic ruin over their refusal to compromise on budgetary issues, and their intransigence may sink us yet. I doubt they’ll have any compunction about crapping all over any bill they don’t like.

      • The House had plenty of compromises. It is the President Obama and the Democrat Senate that refuse to compromise. It is the Senate’s refusal to pass a budget(requiered by the Constitution) that has allowed the President to create so much chaos.

  34. avatarAharon says:

    Nick,

    You’ve written a good piece and I hope you are correct. I do believe that the usual dirty politics of Washington can be used to put through some sort of AWB or banning of private sales though it might be a challenge for the Left.

  35. avataral says:

    Conservatives=conspiracy theorists

    Proud liberal, proud gun owner. Proud assault rifle owner.

    • avatar16V says:

      Because “liberals” founded our Great Nation and “conservatives” were the Brit Loyalists. Thanks for paying attention in history class.

      • avatarAharon says:

        History Professors are usually Leftists so it is not surprising they taught you to see things through those prisms.

        • avatar16V says:

          Those “prisms” were the ones I learned from the FF’s letters to my relatives. Try again foxtard.

        • avatarAharon says:

          Foxtard? What makes you think I watch Fox News or that by association I’m a GOP Repub Conservative? I’m not conservative and nor am I liberal. So what that the FF sent letters to your relatives? Are we supposed to be impressed with that to make you some authority here on the FF? Go to bed.

        • avatar16V says:

          When you state nonsense about prisms of history professors “usually being leftists” , it defines you as a foxtard. No one else uses that verbiage.

          Certainly not anyone who has even a BS in history.

          Go to bed? What is this ‘call your name’ on /b/?

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          Funny how the liberals of yesteryear, are more comparable to Libertarians or Conservatives today, while progressives are the outer fringe of liberalism as the epitomy of godless, communists (mikeb, perfect example).

          Todays rabid Democrats arent liberals, their progressives.

          Funnier yet is how today, so many peoples actions and beliefs put them in between the labels of what a conservative, liberal, progressive or libertarian is believed to be.

          See, the Revolution was really started because the British, wanted to over tax, and over control business (rum and such) without representation in their parliment.

          They took and took and taxed and taxed and redistributed those taxes as England was essentially bankrupt after all the years of war with France at that time.

          Sounds familiar, looks familiar, not so much of a stretch to recognize history repeating itself yet today eh!

  36. avatarMichael B. says:

    Yes, all those collectivist founding fathers.

    Oh wait.

    • avatar16V says:

      The FF were not collectivists, and no one with a clue about history says they were. Fer chrissakes, turn off the Faux…

      Once again, please pick up the history books you ignored in junior-high (though you should have learned this earlier). The FF warned about religion, corporations, and everything that is going wrong right now.

      • avatarAharon says:

        Can’t you recognize sarcasm? Today’s liberals are very much collectivists. They are also supporters of big government, the nanny-police state, affirmative ie discrimination programs, excessive taxation, the welfare state, etc. all the things the FF were for, not! Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner so yes maybe the FF were liberals.

        Historically it is interesting that most wars or conflicts the US entered into was during the reign of a progressive liberal president:
        The old Republican Party was the progressive liberal party of the day and Lincoln oversaw the brutal Civil War. Wilson was in power when the US entered WW1. FDR was in power when we entered WW2. Truman was in power when we entered the Korean War/Conflict. Kennedy and then Johnson were in power during the build-up in Vietnam. I guess liberals must like war or something,

        • avatar16V says:

          Aharon, Today’s “liberals” aren’t. Today’s Repubs are just statist neo-con tools- as they have been since pre-Reagan.

          We had sweet FA to do with the start of WWI – save that we didn’t step in earlier. WW2? We avoided it just like WWI because our corporations and political allies were making money off the Nazis and they were killing Jews which our gov had no issue with. The Korean War? That was just a minor continuation of WWII on a sideline country. So was Nam. Another battle of slightly-post WWII writ large and continued on for 3 decades, as a proxy war against the Soviets.

          Real liberals don’t care about playing policeman for the world, they just care about freedom, justice, and taking care of Americans in America.

          Real politik changes all that, but only after you realize the inherent limits (and blowback) of the strategy.

        • avatarMichael B. says:

          “The Korean War? That was just a minor continuation of WWII on a sideline country. So was Nam.”

          That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read in a long time.

      • avatarMilsurp Collector says:

        Today’s Democrats have much more in common with Stalin and Mao in their beliefs than any Republican does with Hitler or Rosenberg. Please enlighten me on the many times we’ve recently heard a Republican call for the systematic execution of illegal immigrants or gays. Oh wait, that doesn’t happen.

    • avatarAharon says:

      :) Those Founder Dudes were so all about socialism, collectivism, big government, nanny-state politics, deifying leaders, affirmative action, banning local militias and supporting a big army, etc. A person could only vote if he was a land-owner, Thomas Jefferson, among others, was a slave owner. Yup them Founders were real liberals.

  37. avatarRKBA says:

    With all due respect, Nick Leghorn, you are what I like to call an ‘Optimist’.

    I hope you are right…. but I do not think you are.

  38. avatarRich says:

    Hey Nick wake up. Have you nocticed he can’t wait for congress to act. Executive order. Stroke of the pen-kinda cool. Its the law. You own one its a felony to transfer or sell it.

  39. avatartim says:

    But what about the UN gun treaty, Im concerned Gov will directly to the manufacturer of the guns and ammo.

  40. avatarPavePusher says:

    Tax my guns? What guns? Do you mean the ones I lost in the river last year? Yeah, don’t have those. Want to look? Only if you have a warrant….

  41. avatarUSMCVeteran says:

    B. O. has gone around the Congress before and they’ve sat on their collective asses and done nothing not to mention that B. O. is the E. O. queen.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.