President Obama Secures Second Term: Gun Control Unbound?

 

The NRA and other gun rights groups have been warning that a second term Obama administration will “take the gloves off” on gun control. Relieved of the need to please The People of the Gun, the President will drop his down-low approach to gun control and pursue the gun grabbers’ Big Three on the federal level: close the “gun show loophole” (i.e., ban private sales), reinstate an assault weapons ban and prohibit the sale, purchase and ownership of “high capacity” magazines. We shall see. As the President’s party failed to secure control of the Congress and the Senate (as they did when he was first elected), the Big O won’t be able to ram through new gun control legislation without a fight. But there are plenty of dangers lurking within the dark corners of the Administration’s fetid federalism . . .

Perhaps the most credible threat to gun rights: Executive Order. The process allows the President to end-run Congress to create regulations—dictats really—that can directly affect American gun owners. Regs that directly contravene federal laws. Exhibit A . . .

After pretending to go through the normal channels of regulation creation, President Obama signed an Executive Order creating a long gun registry. Under the Order, some 8500 gun dealers in four states must file a same-day report with the ATF on any sale of two or more larger than .22 caliber rifles to the same buyer in a five-day period.

Originally touted as an “emergency measure” in response to a fictitious “iron river” of guns flowing from American gun stores to Mexican drug cartels—before and while it was revealed that the ATF was sponsoring gun smuggling on behalf of the Sinaloa cartel—the Long Gun Registry became a pilot program then a temporary program. It’s now here for the long haul, renewing automatically.

The Registry is a direct violation of the Firearms Owners Protection Act which specifically prohibits local, state and federal government from maintaining ANY kind of firearms registration system. Equally, it’s a clear example of an Obama administration gun control-related end-run around Congress. So the precedent is set.

Could the President sign an Executive Order banning assault weapons, private gun sales and “high capacity” magazines? He could. Would he? Any such move would probably be preceded by some sort of firearm-related “emergency.” The theory: whereas the President’s hands were tied (politically) after the Gabrielle Giffords and Aurora theater spree killings, the CIC would use the next mass shooting as an “excuse” to take sign an Order.

The other great danger lies within the possibility that the President will appoint one or two Supreme Court Justices who view gun rights like Natalie Dadon views financially challenged OFWGs. The newly constituted Supreme Court will vote down cases attempting to revoke unconstitutional gun control laws. Well, it doesn’t quite work that way.

“It has long been thought, starting from the ‘Miller’ case, that the Second Amendment did not protect such [an individual] right [to keep and bear arms] . . . Now the Heller decision has marked a very fundamental moment in the court’s jurisprudence with respect to the Second Amendment. And as I suggested to Senator Feinstein there is no question going forward that ‘Heller’ is the law, that it is entitled to all the precedent that any decision is entitled to and that is true to the ‘McDonald’ case as well . . .”

That’s Obama-nominated Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s “settled law” testimony to the Senate before her confirmation. Prior to the McDonald decision, both Kagan and Obama’s other nominee (Sonia Sotomayor) pledged to keep to the opinion voiced in the Heller decision. Both voted against the court’s majority opinion striking down Chicago’s gun ban.

You want close? McDonald was a 5 – 4 decision. So, if Obama gets another bite at the Supreme Court cherry, it’s really a question of whether or not the pro-gun Senate won’t get fooled again. In other words, assuming Kagan and Sotomayor lied through their teeth about their support for the individual right to keep and bear arms, the Senate has to make sure there’s not a threepeat.

This they can do—at least in theory. With the Senate’s history of missing the gun rights gunboat with Kagan and Sotomayor, the NRA and other pro-gun groups will have more credibility and urgency on their side. After all, mid-terms. Thankfully, the political process doesn’t end today. The balance of power in Washington shifts, ebbs and flows. And with Americans buying guns and obtaining concealed carry licenses in record numbers, there seems to be a clear move in the direction of gun rights.

Whatever happens, or doesn’t, TTAG will chronicle it all, on a daily basis. For those who supported Obama, congratulations. Help us keep the President “honest” in his stated support of the Second Amendment. For those who opposed the President’s reelection, commiserations. Help us keep the President “honest” in his stated support of the Second Amendment. The battle lines aren’t drawn yet, but they will be. And soon.

 

comments

  1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

    I think La Pierre and company are lying through their teeth with all that fear mongering. Yet, I’m hoping it turns out to be true. That will make for some ironic enjoyment.

    By turn out to be true I mean something more than appointing one or two more Supremes who are sympathetic to gun control. But that much I think we can expect.

    Realistically, I think they could do away with the private sale loophole.

    1. avatar AARONRI says:

      Agreed on the private sales

      1. avatar Michael B. says:

        You can both FOAD. My property, my choice.

        1. avatar Paul says:

          Yup. +1000

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Oh, but your property is not your property according to Progressive philosophy. We are simply caretakers of property that we happen to have acquired until government decides that government’s interests are more important than yours.

        3. avatar Paul W says:

          Yep. I’m with Mike B.

        4. avatar WLCE says:

          +1000

          “ironic enjoyment”?

          you need to re-read the definition of “irony” cupcake.

    2. avatar DerryM says:

      Personally, I am convinced that an attempt to “do away with the private sale loophole” would only ignite a firestorm of Black Market gun sales. There already exists a serious issue with some persons who can legally buy guns turning around and selling them to whoever has their ca$h price without any regard for the “buyer’s” credentials and background. This would get worse, even if there’s a law and certain punishment for the (newly minted) crime. People would use violating this Law as a means of resistance (spite), and others would knowingly engage in business with criminals because of the $$$ involved as they already do anyway.
      There’s really no good answer to this issue,but penalizing those who observe the current laws and are scrupulous about their “private sales” is definitely not he answer.

      1. avatar David W. says:

        I don’t understand how private sales are that big of a deal… In the overwhelming majority of cases its usually one gun guy selling another gun guy a gun. How would banning private sales impact inheritance? How would banning private sales impact gift giving? How would banning private sales stop criminals from buying guns from other criminals?

        You guys need to think the-feel-good-laws through all the way to the end. If you ban private sales, what will happen when a gun guy dies of old age and leaves his family a few guns? Do you only mean private to private sales being banned? What if they are through an FFL with a NICS check? What about Private to FFL sales? Every law has dozens, or hundreds, or even thousands of unseen problems. That is why new laws are bad. We need to sort out the needed and unneeded laws that already exist.

    3. avatar tdiinva says:

      I sort of agree with Mr. Bonomo here. The make up of Congress is unchanged and there will be no gun legislation at least for this session. Since I am betting that Term II will be a repeat of Term I I don’t expect the Democrats to make any gains in Congress in 2014.
      The real danger is the Supreme Court. One would hope the Republican leadership will stop rolling over on Supreme Court appointments and flat out veto any radicals who might be appointed.

      Now just to stir the pot a little I can see Obama exploiting the Militia Clause to disarm the population. You now call out militia and order them to place their weapons in a federal arsenal. Legally they would still be yours but you couldn’t get at them.

      1. avatar Silver says:

        Executive Order anyone?

        Not like the Emperor in Chief has been shy to use those to enact his sick will.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          While Obama has been quick to use executive orders to get around Congress his power is not unlimited. Executive orders have to be grounded in statute or the Constitution. The only executive authority he has to take your guns is as your Commander in Chief when he calls the Militia to service. I won’t be holding my breath for that to happen.

        2. avatar Derek D. says:

          So tdiiinva, please detail for all of us the Constitutional basis for the Long Gun Registry now extant that is in direct violation of the FOPA. Those of us that are fans of a narrow interpretation of the Constitution and wide interpretation of the BoR are excited to hear your learned response.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          That is an ATF regulation and not an executive order. It is currently under review in the Court of Appeals.

    4. avatar Silver says:

      Irony…I don’t think it means what you think it means.

      Here is irony: Responsible men with guns won this country from the British so that 200 years later, worthless scumbags could use their freedom of speech protected by those guns to try and take the responsible men’s guns.

      1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

        “protected by those guns?” Hahahahahahaha. Your egomania and self-aggrandizing twisting of reality is a riot.

        1. avatar speedracer5050 says:

          You know mikeb all of us here have more or less listened and somewhat respected your opinion about gun control but you are apparently still hiding out in Italy and still not growing enough cajones(balls, in case you have forgotten English), to come back here and stand up for your beliefs.
          As such you have no credibility nor any right to say a word about how we live here in the US.
          Since you feel it is necessary to support foreign business’s instead of U.S. business it is even more obvious that you are just “vomiting” crap out since you can’t or won’t come back here and stand up for your beliefs!!

        2. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          “you have no credibility nor any right to say a word” What? Are you crazy. First of all you don’t know anything about me, not really. Secondly, who the hell are you to decide who has credibility and the right to speak?

        3. avatar Robert Farago says:

          First of all I won’t tell you anything about me. Secondly, who the hell are you to decide for yourself whether or not to exercise your Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?

          Fixed it for ya.

        4. avatar speedracer5050 says:

          Who am I? Well let’s see.
          I am an American. Born in America, raised in America, live in America and support America by working for an American owned company.
          I am a Veteran. I have fought and bled for my country. 15 years as an 11Bravo light infantryman. Been all over the world in various duty stations in support of my country.
          Now you know more of who I am. What about you?
          You don’t live in America. You may ir may mot be an American, i really don’t know.You think for some reason that even though you don’t live here you still have the right to tell us in the U.S how we need to live, how our government needs to be, how we need to be treated as American Gun Owners, and on and on and on.
          We all respect your right to free speech inso far as the Constitution allows but as I said before….you do not live here in this country, therefore you have no right to tell us what we need to do or how Our government needs to be.
          You sitting in Italy screaming and crying about us needing more gun control and more regulations in the US is the equivalent of a multiple millionaire calling the cops because he lost a dime. Stupid, irrevelant, and a waste of time.
          Now that being said if you do move back to America, assuming you are an American, I will be the first to stand up for your right to free speech, your right to keep and bear arms, etc etc etc.!!!
          But until that time happens don’t sit and tell us what we need or don’t need, or how stupid, or how biased we are because we exercise our rights to the fullest extent allowed by the constitution and the country which we all support and love.
          Yes there are those in every race, religion and country in the world who are total jack holes and serve no purpose except to suck up oxygen from those that really need it.
          The fairy tale world in which you want to live exists in only two forms… The thoughts in your head and between the covers of various books around the world. It doesn’t work in real life and it never will.
          This is just my honest opinion and really only matters to me but it is mine and as such it is protected by the Constitution of Our Country!!

        5. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          Your objections are duly noted. I’ll carry on, though.

        6. avatar speedracer5050 says:

          I expected nothing less from you!

        7. avatar David W. says:

          Mike, I’ve come to the conclusion that you are a poster boy for the definition of Idiot. You just mocked the American Military. They are protecting us, just like the police are protecting us. I know you believe that all you have to do is reason with criminals and the evil in the world, but you are straight up wrong. It wasn’t reason that pushed back Hitler, it wasn’t reason that stopped Japan from committing suicide by refusing to surrender, it wasn’t reason that allowed South Korea to be free, it wasn’t reason that allowed slaves to be free, it wasn’t reason thousands of other times where force was used to keep people safe.

          The only reason you don’t get mugged everyday is because good men man the walls between right and wrong. You only exist because men with guns kept your parents safe, your grandparents safe, and on back until guns didn’t exist, in which case men with swords and pole axes and spears kept them safe.

          This isn’t the first time in history that governments have tried to take away the citizens ability to easily remove them, multiple kings and popes tried to ban the longbow and the cross bow. It was considered wrong that a peasant, a man with no noble blood, could easily kill a heavily armored man who spent fortunes on his armor. The bans didn’t stick then. The peasants used them, in just one battle they wiped out almost the entire gentry of France, despite being outnumbered anywhere from 3 to 1, to 10 to 1.

          You know nothing. In a previous post of yours you said something along the lines of “no amount of violent crime is equal to one death” which, if we take the meaning of your words to their logical extreme, you would rather have every woman, girl, and child in the world raped and tortured then one person die.

          That’s the difference between you and us. If we could save others by taking a bullet, or using a bullet, we would.

          You would cower and ask others to stand up to defend you. We would defend you if you couldn’t, or wouldn’t defend yourself. Police can’t be everywhere, but citizens can be. So which would you rather have? A 5 minute wait hoping for luck when a madman is shooting at you and your family? Or the 5 seconds it would take for a citizen to draw, aim, and fire? Or, dare I say it, the 5 seconds it would take you to draw, aim, and fire?

        8. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          I think you’re waffling and back peddling. We were talking about civilian-owned guns. Were we not?

        9. avatar WLCE says:

          stop feeding this troll.

    5. avatar Rwolf says:

      Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest American Militias?

      Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias on the Premise members are Militants and Belligerents that pose a threat to National Security?

      Recently the Obama administration stated to Federal Judge Katherine Forest that under (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 the President had authorization to lock up belligerents indefinitely. That they (were justified) to lock belligerents up indefinitely—because cases involving belligerents directly-aligned with militants against the good of America—warrants such punishment.) Pres. Obama could use NDAA provisions to order U.S. Military Forces to round up without evidence, millions of Americans including militias by alleging they are belligerents or a threat to National Security. Many observers believe Obama intends to extend NDAA to imprison U.S. Citizens in Indefinite Detention not involved with or associated with enemy forces.

      Hitler included similar provisions in his fascist (Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933). Almost immediately after the German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens and confiscated their guns without probable cause or evidence; delegated powers to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. After World War II the East German Secret Police (Stasi) used the threat of Indefinite Detention to forcibly recruit thousands of informants.

      The U.S. 2012 NDAA legislation Obama signed 12-31-11 is similar to Hitler’s 1933 fascist laws the SS and Gestapo used to target persons in Germany for arrest, imprisonment and execution without probable cause; and confiscate millions of dollars of property. Hitler used his laws to suspend Parliament and the Supreme Court insuring his laws could not be rescinded.

      During the Obama Administration’s recent request for a (stay) to stop U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest blocking enforcement of vague NDAA provisions, the Obama Administration—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention; or what is against the good of America. Under vague provisions of NDAA, the President could accuse anyone of being (directly aligned with militants by way of any political or other association; activity, statement, writing or communication with an individual or group government deemed (militant) to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention.

      NDAA 2012, like Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees enforces censorship; refers to the Patriot Act e.g. warrant-less searches of private property and forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in NDAA 2012 keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.

      You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act lends itself to Government / police corruption; the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC may use a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.

      Sections of NDAA 2012 are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.

      Under NDAA 2012 it should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.

  2. avatar MD Matt says:

    I expect slow and unremarked progress from departments like the ATF and customs rather than outright pushes for an AWB. Maybe after the 2014 mid term elections, but not before.
    It’s 2015 and 2016 that scare me, not 2013 and 2014, at least where gun rights are concerned.

  3. avatar Slappy says:

    Interesting commentary RF. I’m sitting here this early morning thinking about how I could have spent all of the $$$ I gave to the NRA over the last 18 months…..

    At least we can take some comfort the GOP retains control of the House and the Senate will still be narrowly divided.

    Executive fiat must be met with the highest degree of resistance!!

  4. Hymmmn, hoping, this gun ban, with it’s different stipulations; doesn’t happen? But, if it does, it might slow the “Gun Trade”, to the Mexican Cartels! [ie.], “Fast & Furious”!… lol…

  5. avatar Dracon1201 says:

    I’d like to see him try, we have the NRA for a reason. The ban on private sales wouldn’t hurt me personally, but it would be an infringement, and one thing leads to another.

    1. avatar Derek D. says:

      What reason is that, to get in Alan Gura’s way and try to ruin landmark Supreme Court cases?

  6. avatar Aharon says:

    A nationwide EO re: AWB and private sales is possible though I think unlikely. Then again one of Obangos heroes Theodore Roosevelt broke a sound money campaign promise and suddenly demanded Americans turn in their gold bullion with an EO. Major political moves require some dirty behind the scenes give and take. BO has other issues on his plate such as the fiscal cliff and more ie he needs the cooperation of the GOP dominated House which is generally more sympathetic and supportive of the 2A. Doing an EO would bring some level of a political backlash.

    For those heavily into semi-autos and tactical guns, it can’t hurt to have a couple of more simple older fashioned guns such as a pump shotgun and revolver should the USG ever go NAZI on us confiscating semis. I don’t think that will occur short term, if it ever does, yet it’s always good to have a backup plan. Another consideration is to now buy a couple guns from a private seller if you are able to do so.

    We can expect liberal fascism to continue expanding in this country. We’ve gone from Bush and his blend of Conservative Fascism to Obama’s Liberal Fascism. This is ugly.

    1. avatar Nmate says:

      That’d be Franklin Delano Rossevelt, not Theodore.

      1. avatar Aharon says:

        Thank you!

    2. avatar Derek D. says:

      Can’t hurt? Not a world I want to live in. I will be keeping mine regardless of the law. I will die before I give them up. With conciliatory words like you’ve just typed, no wonder you live in California and I in Arizona.

      1. avatar Aharon says:

        I don’t live in California. However, I’m sure that if a SWAT Team, the ATF, or military showed up at your home for semi-auto confiscation and ready for combat you’d go down fighting before giving up your semi-autos because well I guess you are so amazing.

        1. avatar Derek D. says:

          Dying is better than living in that world. If that was tried in Arizona there would be more anti-fed violence here than seen anywhere since the Civil War. It might even cause an open insurrection.

  7. avatar Del says:

    I missed The NRA’s Fast and Furious attack ads on the current administration. Most Americans don’t even know about it. The NRA sat on the sidelines fearmongering for donations….for payroll. I am personally disgusted. NRA Life Member.

  8. avatar Accur81 says:

    The fight for gun rights continues, and now Obama’s 2nd term goes from theory to reality. I can’t say that I’m happy about that, but those are the facts.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Accur81 how can “We the People” do an “end around” and beat Obummer at his own game? How do we convince the deputies, state troopers, and city police officers to carry out their sworn oath and stop harassing/arresting citizens who have no criminal record and carry firearms only for personal protection?

  9. avatar Mark says:

    I was wrong; the zombie apocalypse is real. Obamastan is here. I believe the next step in the process involves “cold, dead hands”?

    1. avatar WLCE says:

      dont even worry about the “cold dead hands” possibility. Once the dependents stop getting their checks because the government cannot balance its checkbook, then the problem will take care of itself. gun snatching? posh. I havent a worry. Those dumb fools coddling the boots of the state will do all of the work for the sensible people.

  10. avatar pk in AZ says:

    Everyone here forget about “Fast and Furious”???

    How about the 4 dead American’s in Libya???

    Had he lost, that would have been “swept under the rug”…..

    Now he’s going to be held accountable!

    1. avatar Greg in Allston says:

      Sadly, a tarnished silver lining at best. But, those two debacles could yet be Obama’s and Holder’s undoing. Hope springs eternal.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        By whom? The lapdog media who created him, put him in office, and then kept him there?

    2. avatar Mikeinid says:

      Held accountable by who?

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Aside from “We the People”, there is no one to hold Obummer accountable. The House already subpoenaed Attorney General Holder and Obummer squashed that with executive privilege. Short of a military coup or complete civilian uprising, I don’t see the legal or power structure to make anything happen.

      1. avatar pk in AZ says:

        That’s why there’s a LAWSUIT currently pending…..

        And now that’s he’s entrenched for 4 more…..

        NO ESCAPING!!!!

        As I said, had he lost……

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          What good is a lawsuit? Suppose it actually makes it to some court and there is a verdict against Holder or Obummer. They are at the top of the Executive branch which would enforce any judgement. Obviously neither Obummer nor Holder would enforce anything against the other.

          Short of a full blown impeachment proceeding where Congress finds a guilty verdict, nothing is going to happen. And I almost guarantee that Congress doesn’t have the courage to start impeachment proceedings much less issue a guilty verdict.

          And even if by some miracle Congress removed Obummer from office, Biden would simply take over. I don’t see how that makes things any better.

    4. avatar WLCE says:

      hes not going to be held accountable for s–t.

      hell, american citizens, who are supposed to hold their representatives accountable, cannot even be accountable for themselves.

      This is how the archaic statism paradigm works: a politician does something you dont like, you write them a letter or assemble in the street to ask them nicely to behave themselves, they dont/tell you to piss off, rise and repeat.

  11. avatar AaronW says:

    The idea of doing away with private sales bothers me. We can buy and sell most any goods freely with others, but somehow firearms are in a special category? What worries me more than anything is that I fear that a law passed to completely ban private sales won’t be simple language, like, “All firearm transactions must pass through an FFL.” I’m concerned that it will overextend into penalties for being unable to prove the provenance of your gun. I can see endless trouble for people that borrow guns for legitimate reasons, or they did a prior private sale but didn’t keep records, or they bought firearms from a dealer, but misplaced their bills of sale. Close the “private sale loophole?” (at least it wasn’t mis-named as the “gun show loophole”), NO THANKS!!!!!

    1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

      Aren’t you concerned about criminals and lunatics buying guns that way? Is you personal convenience so important?

      1. avatar nonnamous says:

        FLAME DELETED

      2. avatar IndyEric says:

        No. My liberty is though.

        1. avatar Chas says:

          +1000

        2. avatar chris says:

          +1 INdyEric “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it” Thomas Jefferson

      3. avatar freeport56 says:

        Yes, it is. Utopia does not exist never has never will. Control of an individual’s right of self-defense is a natural right, one which we exercise openly and freely. Considering last night’s election, our Right is needed now more than ever!

      4. avatar Joel says:

        Aren’t you concerned with the sale of crossbows and katanas? I mean, sure, you can’t exactly go to a crowded space and start shooting arrows, but you could go around to people’s houses and massacre an entire culdesac without the police even knowing. And don’t even get me started on fertilizer. The horror, the horror!!!!

      5. avatar Jim says:

        I was wondering when mikeb would show up and vomit all over this post.

        1. avatar Chas says:

          Wrong end.

      6. avatar Will says:

        Their sources may change, but they’ll CONTINUE to buy that way regardless. Thus all the private sale “loophole” closure will accomplish is to harass law abiding citizens.

      7. avatar WLCE says:

        I am concerned about criminals and lunatics buying guns. That is why I keep my firearms properly secured and never leave them unattended.

        In a ideal world, laws behave like magical giant hands to apprehend criminals when nobody is around. This isn’t a ideal world.

        yes, personal LIBERTY is important (The Bill of Rights isn’t just a convenience). “Those that give up essential liberty for little or no temporary safety deserve neither” -Ill let you figure out who said this-

        1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          You never leave your guns unattended. Too bad your fellow gun owners are not that scrupulous. What do you suggest we do about them, nothing? Let them enjoy the freedom to either do the right thing like you or not?

        2. avatar WLCE says:

          “You never leave your guns unattended. Too bad your fellow gun owners are not that scrupulous.”

          what a broad brush you paint there mikey!

          “What do you suggest we do about them, nothing?”

          I dont have to do anything but keep my weapons secure simply because stealing a firearm is already a crime. Do you understand that? it is already illegal for me to steal somebody’s firearm.

          “Let them enjoy the freedom to either do the right thing like you or not?””

          If they want their gun/s stolen then that is their own stupid fault. you can bet they will pay for the problem later. Just because I keep my guns in the best damned safe you can afford in the US doesn’t mean I should project my own opinion on other lawful owners.

        3. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          Sorry, but that’s exactly what it does mean. You should learn something from your blog host.

        4. avatar WLCE says:

          “Sorry, but that’s exactly what it does mean. You should learn something from your blog host.”

          there IS something being done about that problem. There is already a laundry list of misdemeanor and felony offenses in regards to stolen firearms.

          But why stick to the facts? its easier to stand on your anti-gun soapbox and spout your usual bullshit instead of addressing the issue rationally and objectively.

          You have no history of responding to posts like a adult anyways, so your behavior at this point does not surprise me.

      8. avatar AaronW says:

        I’d rather nutcases and criminals not obtain firearms, but the “wrong people” sure as heck obtain edged weapons, acids, gasoline and vehicles and do plenty of damage.

        1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          Why do you have to qualify it with the fact that they can always get knives, etc.? We don’t want criminals and nut cases getting guns, we agree on that. Yet, your idea of gun rights militates against it. Wouldn’t increasing the restrictions and controls be the right solution?

        2. avatar WLCE says:

          “Wouldn’t increasing the restrictions and controls be the right solution?”

          show me any evidence of such restrictions and controls working in the first place then ill be glad to discuss the matter.

          as soon as laws in the future manifest into giant magical hands that will immediately stop all crime once it is being committed, then ill be a proponent of more regulation. Until then, call me skeptical of the benefits of more laws.

        3. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          I know it’s hard for you to use common sense, being biased like you are, but try this one on for size. How many people have been killed over the last year in the US by Stinger Missiles, or those shoulder held rocket launchers? You know how cool they are in the movies, right? Don’t you think the more flamboyant bad guys would just love to use them? But the fact is, they don’t. No one or practically no one has been killed with those because they are heavily restricted.

          Now, being a man of your word, I suppose you’re now ready to “be a proponent of more regulation.”

        4. avatar WLCE says:

          “I know it’s hard for you to use common sense, being biased like you are, but try this one on for size. How many people have been killed over the last year in the US by Stinger Missiles, or those shoulder held rocket launchers?”

          can you prop up a bigger strawman??? that thing is giant!

          “You know how cool they are in the movies, right? Don’t you think the more flamboyant bad guys would just love to use them? But the fact is, they don’t. No one or practically no one has been killed with those because they are heavily restricted.”

          And they are also extremely expensive (about 40.000$ for a single block 2 MANPADS), far fewer in number compared to firearms, and are mechanically more complicated; all features that make them far easier to regulate than firearms. Try again.

          “Now, being a man of your word, I suppose you’re now ready to “be a proponent of more regulation.””

          No because that is a piss poor example of how regulations work.

          Firearms are extremely simple mechanically and in theory. they contain a explosion. They launch a projectile at a target. Nothing complicated there. With the tools in my shop right now, i can manufacture a fully functional firearm at my leisure.

          A missile? grenade launcher? other more complicated weapon system? It will require a very sophisticated knowledge base and much research and development. That is why the stinger missile system is a multi-billion dollar R&D project. Ooops.

  12. avatar Totenglocke says:

    FLAME DELETED –

    TTAG’s posting policy: no flaming the website, its authors or fellow commentators.

    Please send any comments about TTAG’s editorial stance or style to guntruth@me.com

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      COMMENT DELETED

      Again, please direct any and all comments about TTAG’s editorial stance or style to guntruth@me.com. This policy is designed to prevent threads from major digressions. If you have a major beef, I’ll create a separate post for full debate and discussion.

  13. avatar Curzen says:

    nah, your wet apocalyptic dreams still won’t come true. y’all will make price gouging manufacturers very happy once again, just like four years ago.

  14. avatar hoppes#9 says:

    FLAME DELETED – Please send all comments about TTAG’s editorial stance or style to guntruth@me.com

    1. avatar Doug says:

      I think FLAME EXTINGUISHED has a better ring to it.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        FLAME EXTINGUISHED does have a better ring to it.

      2. avatar Guywithagun says:

        LOL! That is awesome!

  15. avatar Charles5 says:

    A paper law will not prevent criminals and lunatics from buying guns. will it narrow the market? A little, since law abiding citizens will not be able to sell guns. But, it was never the law abiding citizens that you had to worry about. It is the criminals, and criminals will keep doing what criminals do, breaking the law. There is no gun ban/control law on Earth that will stop gun violence. There is alrady a small market for illegal guns being smuggled into the country. If a majot piece of legislation gets encated that restricts the private use and sale of firearms, that illegal market will explode. And there is nothing our government will be able to do to conrtrol it. It wil be another failed war on drugs fiasco.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “… another failed war on drugs fiasco.”

      Who said the war on drugs is a failure? It all depends on the objective. If the objective was stopping the flow of drugs into this country, then yes it is a miserable failure. On the other hand, if the objective was to create a massive, standing, militarized law enforcement army and expand the scope of government and control over people’s lives, then it was a massive success.

    2. avatar WLCE says:

      “A paper law will not prevent criminals and lunatics from buying guns. ”

      EXACTLY. As I have repeated hundreds of times, a paper law is a not a magical giant hand that will appear when two criminals decide to exchange a illegal product/service for currency and intervene. To put it simply, the law cannot be enforced unless a officer of the law is there witnessing the crime.

  16. avatar Johnny says:

    I don’t think it’ll get through the house but you never know with politicians.

  17. avatar Ross says:

    Yes Obama will go after guns, if you aren’t prepared for it your a fool

  18. avatar speedracer5050 says:

    I am not really a fan of the thought process that would ban private sales between two individuals. As long as both are law abiding I do not see the problem.
    Personally I have bought and sold 4 handguns in the last 18 months to individuals I know an have seen their valid CHCL.
    There is a way to still allow private sales legally and try at the same time to cut down on illegal sales and thugs getting guns. Don’t know how just yet but I think it can be done without infringing on our current gun laws and constitutional rights.
    Just my honest opinion!!

  19. avatar JPD says:

    If we pay close attention to what politicians DO, and not what they SAY, a clearer picture emerges as to their true stand on gun rights.

    A few recent examples:

    H.R. 6257 [110th]: Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 which coincidentally is authored by three Republicans and NO Democrats.

    Below is the list of Democrats that wrote the Attorney General in support of the 2A at that time.

    Mike Ross (D-AR)
    Tim Holden (D-PA)
    Jerry Costello (D-IL)
    Jim Matheson (D-UT)
    Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
    John Dingell (D-MI)
    Marion Berry (D-AR)
    Nick Rahall (D-WV)
    Gene Green (D-TX)
    Chet Edwards (D-TX)
    Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX)
    Gene Taylor (D-MS)
    Bart Stupak (D-MI)
    Collin Peterson (D-MN)
    John Tanner (D-TN)
    Allen Boyd (D-FL)
    Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)
    Eric Massa (D-NY)
    Steve Kagen, MD (D-WI)
    Betsy Markey (D-CO)
    Paul Hodes (D-NH)
    Ron Kind (D-WI)
    Peter Welch (D-VT)
    Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
    Tim Ryan (D-OH)
    Walt Minnick (D-ID)
    John Boccieri (D-OH)
    Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
    Tom Perriello (D-VA)
    Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
    Ben Chandler (D-KY)
    Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
    Debbie Halvorson (D-IL)
    Travis Childers (D-MS)
    Tim Walz (D-MN)
    Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
    Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
    Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
    Rick Boucher (D-VA)
    Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
    John Murtha (D-PA)
    Bart Gordon (D-TN)
    Zach Space (D-OH)
    Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
    Lincoln Davis (D-TN)
    Artur Davis (D-AL)
    Charlie Melancon (D-LA)
    John Barrow (D-GA)
    Christopher Carney (D-PA)
    Dan Boren (D-OK)
    Parker Griffith (D-AL)
    Charlie Wilson (D-OH)
    Heath Shuler (D-NC)
    Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD)
    Jim Marshall (D-GA)
    Jason Altmire (D-PA)
    Larry Kissell (D-NC)
    John Salazar (D-CO)
    Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
    Frank Kratovil (D-MD)
    Glenn Nye (D-VA)
    Bobby Bright (D-AL)
    Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ)
    Joe Baca (D-CA)

    2nd example:

    Ronald Reagan. After leaving office, Reagan joined Carter and Ford to actively, and decisively supported the two worst gun control bills in 30 years. See 1986 and his support of the Brady Bill, 1994.

    Also as Governor of California:
    It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, “prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one’s person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.” The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

    Obama, has in fact signed two bills in the last three years supporting gun rights. Look it up. You will be surprised.

    So, what does that tell us. Stay vigilant!!!! Trust NONE of them. Regardless of party affiliation.

    Watch the voting records. Who sponsors what bill. Also helpful is watching campaign contributions. Thinly disguised bribes that tells us who owns what politician.

    1. avatar Derek D. says:

      One of those, NP carry, was a rider on an omnibus credit bill that he pretty much had to sign. Dirty trick by our side. I am not a fan of bills like that but it was nice to Open Carry at the Grand Canyon. A feather in Obama’s cap for 2A rights? Hardly. See “nomination of Kagan and Sotomayor” for more information.

    2. avatar pat says:

      In the year of our lord two thousand twelve it is the democrat party that desire larger government and more control of firearms. They stay away from certain gun control laws like a vampire at the window of a large breasted maiden who happens to have garlic and a cross on the sill (you can just see the lust in those dirty, evil, bloodshot eyes). We all know what the libs would do it they thought they could get away with it, dont we. Long, creamy neck to bite into and all.

  20. avatar Average_Casey says:

    I hope everyone here who was foolish enough to vote Obama holds their head in shame when he takes away part of our freedom. I heard enough of you say that he couldn’t do it and now we will see. I hope they were right in that he couldn’t do it but somehow I think he will just use executive orders to do so. So when it happens people, I hope you hang your head in shame as you helped screw everyone.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      The really sad fact: it won’t be Obummer’s consideration for the rights of the people that stop him from enacting gun control laws. If anything it will be the House of Representatives that stop him. Anyone who voted for Obummer thinking that he himself would oppose infringements on our rights is out of touch with reality.

    2. avatar Oldcaster says:

      Casey, You are correct and the same thing happened with Clinton. All I was able to say at that time was I told you so, and that isn’t worth much.

      1. avatar Average_Casey says:

        I don’t want to say I told you so because that’s worthless and you sound like a jerk when you do. I just want everyone to remember what happens when you think something won’t happen. If we lose any rights at all I want everyone to remember so that they can vote the right way next time.

  21. avatar freeport56 says:

    LOL, Gun ban that would the best we could hope for. Barry WANTS YOUR GUNS put under a bulldozer and then into a furnace to become manhole covers. Higher taxes, tightening regulations on manufacturing of firearms, and bullets. If your looking to congress and the 2014 elections forget it. With Barry’s re-election last night Congress became an obsolete entity. Executive Orders will be the order of the day. The Washington Bureaucracy has now become our New Masters! Elections have consequences and we will soon be feeling them!

    1. avatar pk in AZ says:

      Well said!

  22. avatar Gregolas says:

    While deeply saddened for, and disappointed by the result, I’m resolved to soldier on in trying to persuade the persuadable one at a time. We still have the vote. The courts are still open. Remembering that Thomas Paine said,”Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered.” I urge all partiots to not give up. “Once more into the breach, dear friends!”(Henry the Vth)

  23. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    JPD, regarding your comments:
    “Obama, has in fact signed two bills in the last three years supporting gun rights. Look it up. You will be surprised.” My impression was that Obama signed a bill that he wanted that had a couple of things he didn’t want but didn’t care enough about to veto.

    “So, what does that tell us. Stay vigilant!!!! Trust NONE of them. Regardless of party affiliation.” I agree wholeheartedly. None of our heros are perfect and politicians rarely aspire to even flawed hero status.

    1. avatar JPD says:

      SoccerChainsaw: Exactly my point!! As an example. The bill on credit card companies included restoring concealed carry in National Parks. Obama, and 105 Democrats in the house. actually supported BOTH parts of the bill. The White House actually showed support for BOTH parts of the bill. They did this without a big hubbub in the press.

      Again, look it up.

      Obama has mouthed a few lame comments that stir people up. Everyone focuses on the “label” Democrat.. Not what they actually DO.

      Heck, the Brady Center gives Obama an F grade because he has not pushed one single gun control measure.

      It is time as pro gun advocates, to do our homework. Forget labels, and propaganda by talking heads.

      Think for ourselves.

      I agree with your comments on “HERO” status. Rarely, if ever, will you find a HERO in upper level politics. Heck. let’s be honest, NEVER!!

      You want hero’s?? Look no further than your local school, fire department, or ER of a hospital. Plus, do not forget our military, not just the ones on the front lines, but everyone in uniform.

      1. avatar pat says:

        There is plenty of damage the dems can do in other arenas. You and I both know what they would do it they had enough polictical capital to pull it off. If they thought it politically expediant, they would take the guns from all of us and give Big Gov unlimited power…..and you know it. Barry is smart and has let us keep our guns (for now) while hollowing out everything else and setting the stage for future outrage.

  24. avatar WLCE says:

    Look guys, it is bad news obama is in office, but lets face it: romney was NOT in any way better (not even slightly; any self-professed patriot that voted for him i hold in equal dissatisfaction).

    When will people understand that this “republican vs democrat”, “liberal vs conservative”, “rich vs poor” is Pavlovian-esque Hegelian Dialectic? it doesnt matter who wins, because it ultimately serves the objectives of the powers to be/status quo (and If you want a pretty picture of what happens when this paradigm is opposed, review the JFK assassination).

    Congratulations America, you chose…poorly (and Im not shocked since you chuckleheads voted Bush Jr into office…twice).

    1. avatar Michael B. says:

      Hooray for conspiracy mongering. /sarc

      1. avatar WLCE says:

        I dont deal with conspiracy theory.

        “JFK and the Unspeakable” by James Douglass.

        I have plenty more in my bibliography if you want them.

    2. avatar JPD says:

      WLCE, I could not agree more!!!! The fact we fall for the monumental con job by most politicians is amazing!!!! Oh yeah, I was one of the chuckleheads. Never too late to open your eyes and grow a brain.

      1. avatar WLCE says:

        Its the greatest con of all times. They constantly talk about Enron and pyramid schemes, well our entire financial system and government is a giant pyramid scheme.

        and the followers of this two-party paradigm actually continue to wear their candidate’s t-shirts, cheering jubilantly, all the while crying tears of happiness; being completely oblivious to the fact that they are cattle being farmed, hopelessly trapped in Hegel’s f–k f–k circle. Seeing millions of these “useful idiots” leaves me little hope for the future and one can only wonder why humanity doesn’t learn from its mistakes.

        dont feel bad. I voted for Bush senior. yeah. now who’s the chucklef–k? 😀

    3. avatar Aharon says:

      WLCE,

      A+! The democrats are liberal fascists and the republicans conservative fascists with few exceptions. Essentially one elitist club with two sports teams for the sheeple to focus on fooling themselves that we really have choices. It seems to me that the elites in political and corporate power use the classic Machiavellian strategy of divide and conquer one’s enemies with the masses of citizens and consumers being the enemy. The elites have created an environment of opposing liberal vs. conservative, Joe-average republican citizen vs. Jane-average democrat citizen. Modern men and women have been turned against each other. Parents and children don’t have the relationships with each other that they had decades ago.

      A rough comparison with the elitist club model can be made with the Federal Reserve. It is one secretive organization with many unknown banks and insurance firms as members competing openly with each other yet the reserves policy’s are designed to benefit its members and not the masses of people.

      1. avatar WLCE says:

        “The elites have created an environment of opposing liberal vs. conservative, Joe-average republican citizen vs. Jane-average democrat citizen.”

        yup. sadly, the adage of “if voting actually made a difference, it would be illegal” is irrefutable and true.

    4. avatar Michael C. says:

      Bush was never supposed to be elected in the first place. He won the electoral votes but not the popular vote. The electoral college quite frankly is not needed any more.

  25. avatar jwm says:

    What this election proves above all else is how divided we are as a country. Even we gun owners cannot agree on a single issue, what’s best for our gun rights. Regardless of whatever else he is barry isn’t the one to bring our nation back together. I fear for the future that my kids and grandkids must face. Loss of gun rights is only a small part of that fear.

    Can you say Balkans, boys and girls?

    1. avatar Aharon says:

      Several leading American statesmen have commented over the centuries (I believe Teddy Roosevelt) was one of them that the greatest threat to America is for our country to fracture politically into a land of multiple squabbling nationalities.

      A House dived against itself cannot stand.

    2. avatar mikeb302000 says:

      You’re comparing the USA to The Balkans? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve read all day. I realize that the proof that your side is in the minority must be very hard to swallow, but The Balkans? Please.

      1. avatar WLCE says:

        “our side in the minority”? you might want to try again with that.

        Even if we are in the minority, that doesn’t discredit out position anyways. America is not a democracy precisely because of the majority paradigms that quickly extinguished historical democracies.

        Ill agree that the US is very divided: ideologically, culturally, etc and, as a unified country, it was formed because of the abundance of cheap hydrocarbon energy. From the idea that cheap, abundant energy has peaked, it shouldnt be surprising if the United States ever did separate in a similar matter as the Balkans. Will it be as volatile as the Balkans? really hard to say. Im sure it was argued back in the day that the Soviet Union wouldnt split up either.

        1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          Keep pitching it, man, you’ve got plenty of support around here. The Balkans, hahahaha.

      2. avatar WLCE says:

        “Keep pitching it, man, you’ve got plenty of support around here. The Balkans, hahahaha.”

        no rebuttal? nothing? man. I expected so much more from the “intelligentsia”

        I doubt youve ever been to the Balkans too.

  26. avatar Tammy says:

    One interesting wrinkle re the Sipreme Court: I read recently that Justice Scalia has gotten Justice Kagan into hunting, and that she was planning a trip to Wyoming where she hoped to bag an antelope. That bodes somewhat well in terms of how she’d feel about too-restrictive gun laws, I hope.

    One thing I do wonder, because I’m not super familiar with the procedural realities involved: Can the Constitutionality of an Executive Order be challenged in court? Can an act of Congress overturn one?

    1. avatar g says:

      Depends on the executive order… for example, if the president were to declare war on Iran (unlikely), it would easily be challenged in court since the Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress.

      1. avatar JPD says:

        Here is a little 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.

      2. avatar Michael B. says:

        President doesn’t have to declare war. He has full executive authority to move troops..anywhere in the world. if moving troops into Iran caused a war, then oh well.

    2. avatar Silver says:

      Hunters are not 2A lovers. Hunters will gladly give up every “assault” weapon and handgun out there so they can keep their bolt actions and further spread the lie that the 2A was meant for “hunting” and “sporting.”

      1. avatar Derek D. says:

        The stench of that Judenrat behavior is so strong in the NRA I will never be a member.

    3. avatar Aharon says:

      It’s a start for her yet there can be a big 2A difference for someone that uses a bolt-action long-gun for hunting and the belief that others have the right to own any handguns and semi-auto rifles.

  27. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    Determine your line in the sand. Be willing to fight if that line is crossed. Also remember that liberty is about more than just guns.

  28. avatar g says:

    To my fellow gunowners: C’mon, you saw this coming. The minute the GOP stopped looking at legitimate candidates that appeal to the center (Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson) and decided to go with the super-rich, “Great Mormon Hope” (who didn’t even win his home state of MASS, btw), the electoral contest was an uphill battle.

    I don’t think our gun rights are in great jeopardy as you think. The Democrats and Republican parties know that 2016 is only… 4 years away.

    1. avatar JPD says:

      Good point. With 56% of the great unwashed in this country supporting gun rights.Plus, the ever growing number of CHL’s out there.

      As gun owners our best insurance is to introduce newbie’s to gun sports, gun safety, and gun ownership.

      With a firearm in every home, with people trained and knowledgeable, our rights will be guaranteed.

      Instead of us wasting our time talking, take a friend or co-worker to the gun range, or skeet shooting.

      I have done this three times in the last year and made converts of all three. 100%, not too bad!!

      1. avatar Patrick says:

        +1 Or, show someone parts/takedown, machining, assembly. It becomes very clear that a such a weapon can relatively easily be fabricated, even if not of the best quality. “gun control” can’t exist unless tools/technology are removed from society completely, or we are put in cages by some “master class”. I wouldn’t recommend that.

    2. avatar mikeb302000 says:

      Quite a few commenters around here thought Obama was going to lose. They said so in the most colorful ways imaginable. Now what are they saying?

      What I’m saying is I told you so. You were wrong. The country has spoken. Conservatism is in the minority. Even smaller and less relevant is gun rights. And the real fanatics like many of you guys are nothing more than a fringe element, in spite of your seeming numbers on the internet gun blogs.

      I’m laughing at all your claims of winning.

      1. avatar WLCE says:

        “Quite a few commenters around here thought obama was going to lose. They said so in the most colorful ways imaginable. Now what are they saying?”

        Actually quite a few, including myself, claimed that obama was going to win. Not that it matters anyways as I have pointed out above: the country is f–ked with either candiate and one was not any better than the other. That is why there are more parties than republican and democrat.

        “What I’m saying is I told you so. You were wrong. The country has spoken. Conservatism is in the minority.”

        Im not sure what you know about the United States, but being wrong because you are in the minority and because “a country” says so is the antithesis of the very principles this country was founded on. Try again cupcake.

        “Even smaller and less relevant is gun rights.”

        …which is protected by the 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights just as free speech, freedom of worship, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, etc, etc, do i need to continue?

        “And the real fanatics like many of you guys are nothing more than a fringe element, in spite of your seeming numbers on the internet gun blogs.”

        Nope, apparently you havent been following recent trends with the economic downturn and natural disasters that have occurred in this country and around the world: events that would encourage more gun sales, which have exploded in the past four years and continue to do so after this election. Your “fringe” is far more mainstream than you can possibly imagine. and that is a good thing.

        “I’m laughing at all your claims of winning”

        Im laughing at your delusion that you have a single inkling about what the f–k is going on in the world. you continually troll on this page, just looking to cause trouble with the overzealous on this blog, though when somebody sensible wants to have a adult conversation, you just s–t on the floor and run away. lets talk turkey.

        1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          I don’t have a single inkling of what is going on in the world, not a single inkling.?

          You sound a bit out of sorts. Maybe it was the election.

        2. avatar WLCE says:

          still no attempt to address my points.

          youre really disappointing. I expected so much more.

  29. avatar Gyufygy says:

    It’s been said before, but I think it needs to be reiterated: take a Democrat shooting. Take a liberal shooting. Paper, steel, tin, whatever. Spread the experience around, regardless of political leanings. Make gun rights an issue that isn’t merely dictated by party. Get subtle, get grassroots, whatever. I think a willingness to take a non-gunnie shooting is going to be a powerful force in the fight for RKBA. Not everyone will bite, but if it saves one child… I mean converts one person, it’s a plus.

    1. avatar JPD says:

      You, my friend, have an excellent solution to the problem.

    2. avatar Silver says:

      If everyone here converted one leftist a day (an impossible feat both in practicality and because, as proven by the latest elections, the leftist mind is immune to reason or intelligence) for the next 2 years, it still wouldn’t make a dent in electoral outcomes. And even if it did, since when did O care about what the people as a whole want?

      1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

        With an attitude like that, you’re going to get exactly zero converts. Besides, if you’re looking for “leftists” head to South America and hook up with some revolutionaries.

        Personally, I’ve gotten six people started in shooting sports in the last year. In the deep-blue heart of the SF Bay Area, no less.

      2. avatar Gyufygy says:

        Oh, I’m sorry, I thought I was talking to the crowd that held personal responsibility as a virtue. Apparently, sitting around, whining about some broad, vaguely defined group and waiting for the NRA, the SAF, and the other gun rights groups to do the hard work is preferable to actually changing people’s minds yourself.

        You don’t like Obama the Leftist’s hope and change? Make your own. Or are you just going to sit back and not do what you can to change things? In case you haven’t noticed, the current strategy of relying on one party to fight for your rights isn’t working. Merely blowing off a massive segment of the population without even trying to change minds isn’t a strategy to rely on. You need back up plans, multiple plans working in parallel. Lobbying and court battles by the NRA and the others is definitely a part of it, but it is going to require changing individual minds to succeed. Otherwise, it’s just letting the gun rights groups do the work when you could be supporting their efforts on an individual level.

        Bloody hell, something is wrong when the new guy who got into guns because someone took him shooting, despite a lifetime of essentially fearing them, is writing this comment.

  30. avatar JPD says:

    I wish to take this opportunity to thank all the contributors to this site. This discourse has helped me understand the issues better, open new lines of research, and re-evaluate my opinions.

    For the most part I have found thoughtful, respectful contributors. The often different views and information helps keep me open minded.

    Also, to Robert and everyone at TTAG, thank you for your hard work on this site. I am very happy I found you guys.

  31. avatar JoshinGA says:

    Realistically, are we going to lose gun rights under Obama? Yes.

    How much are we going to lose?
    Who really knows, we will lose something. Probably private sales, magazine capacity, and “assault rifles”. Slippery slope my friends, slippery slope.

    Well, that doesnt sound too bad…
    Except we will also see price gouging and artificial price inflation out the ying yang. Starting today Im sure. Ammo and guns will both be going up in price, while at the same time becoming much harder to find.

    Expansion of the ATF and other alphabet organizations…
    Bad for citizens rights in general, gun owners in particular.

    Wake up fools. We have elected a radical leftist into the most powerful position in the country. This spells nothing but bad things for the rights of the people. Gun rights along with them. Gun rights probably first to decrease the resistance later.

  32. avatar Not Too Eloquent says:

    Well said, Freeport. Guns are fairly low on the list of my concerns over the bleak appearing future of our country this morning. The people of Obama are now an Obama Nation. I weep for my children.

  33. avatar tdiinva says:

    Just remember if Obama has a choice between socialism or gun control. He will take socialism and let you keep your guns.

  34. avatar ensitu says:

    Heaven knows the proper price to put upon it’s goods. The price of liberty is high. If being bound is not slavery what is?
    Heaven knows how to fix a proper price on something as rare as freedom. WE are now called to pay that price.

  35. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

    I celebrated the election with the purchase of an M1A Loaded! Yay!

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      I bought a modern 45–an XD 4″

  36. avatar shawmutt says:

    I wonder how many Obama haters will apologize for their words in four years with no further gun restrictions. I for one am looking forward to being able to carry in Maryland.

    1. avatar JoshinGA says:

      And how many gun owners who supported obama are going to publicly apologize when they were so very wrong?

      1. avatar Silver says:

        Don’t count on it. Like any good leftist and/or gun-grabber, they are simply unable to acknowledge or take responsibility for any error or wrongdoing, comfortable in their little fantasy worlds. How else can you explain their twisted and outright wrong positions?

      2. avatar B-dawg says:

        As a gun owner, I hope to be VERY, VERY wrong about what Obama is going to do in the next 4 years. If I still have the freedoms then that I have today, I will be the happiest crow-eater ever… mark my words!

    2. avatar Michael B. says:

      If Maryland concealed carry survives the courts and becomes a reality Obama will have had nothing to do with that.

    3. avatar Curzen says:

      Don’t count on it, they’ll just claim that it was all a ploy to lull people into believing no democrat will take yer guns, only to then get the next democrat running for president into position to abolish 2a by executive order!

    4. avatar WLCE says:

      im not apologizing for anything i have said. any fool that signs sections 1021 and 1022 in the NDAA will get nothing but contempt from me. I even slumped him in the same cesspool as Ge Dubya after the whole Patriot Act debacle that continues to give us the big bubba treatment.

      After the signing of 2012 NDAA, a wooden stake was hammered into the America that we knew. the shackles were already applied with the Patriot Act and the rack was constructed after the signing 1913 Federal Reserve Act.

  37. avatar Ralph says:

    I have the same queasy feeling I did during my pre-induction physical, when some strange agent of the government told me to bend over and spread my cheeks.

    Yes, there will be an AWB and ammunition restrictions. I believe that existing guns will be grandfathered, but that’s just a hope. In the cosmic scheme, it doesn’t matter, since after four more years of that jackhole in the White House, we’ll all be too broke to buy guns and ammo.

    We are soooooooo f^cked.

  38. avatar mikeb302000 says:

    “Vomit?” You must have been one of those who predicted Obama would lose that’s why you’re so nasty today.

  39. avatar Michael C. says:

    I am not too worried because he his going to be focused on the economy, jobs, the deficit, energy, and foreign policy. Especially if Israel tries to stop Iran’s nuclear program (which is probably going to happen) so gun control is going to be the last thing on his mind.

  40. avatar sanchanim says:

    My hopes fell by the way side last night. None the less the fight goes on.
    Obama has no reason not to live up to his own words that no one should be allowed to own a firearm. I could care less what has been said, he has no additional terms coming beyond this one.
    At this point we need to be vigilant, as I do think within the next 36 months we will see increasing civil unrest, if unemployment remains high. We will see increased issues with States pulling away from federal policy, and my hunch is crime will increase as well.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email