Foghorn’s Predictions on Coming Gun Control Legislation

There are a bunch of proposals floating around right now about increased (or even decreased) gun control, and with the post-Sandy Hook shooting emotional response just about over there’s an even more concerted push to get “something” done before the window closes again. Sure, Piers Morgan and the like are trying to keep the story alive and keep driving towards a shredding of the second amendment, but there’s only so much the political climate (and Americans’ attention span) can support. So while the rest of the crew is in transit to LAS, I thought I’d do some handicapping of the possibilities . . .

Just a quick note here. While I’m a fully trained risk analyst and used to do stuff like this for a living for DHS, none of this is particularly scientific. What you’re getting is my “gut feeling” rather than any hard and fast math. Mainly because hard and fast math is pretty much useless for this kind of thing. I’m going to try to rank them in order of risk of passage, based on likelihood of introduction and probability of enactment.

Increased Scrutiny with NICS Checks

There’s no doubt that one of the things Biden is going to propose on Tuesday is an executive order to “toughen” background checks. Whether that involves increased or mandatory inclusion of certain medical records is up for debate, but this is one of the things that can actually be accomplished legally with an EO. The Brady bill requires certain things to be checked during a NICS check, but not every state plays along and feeds them all the data they request. An EO might work its way toward fixing that without actually violating the Constitution.

Probability of Introduction: 95%

Probability of Enactment: 95%

“High Capacity” Magazine Ban

While an actual AWB might be out of the picture, there’s no doubt that politicians are looking for bits and pieces that they can vote for without enacting the whole bloody mess. One of the ideas that has taken hold is a “high capacity” magazine ban, probably stopping the manufacture of magazines over 10 rounds and restricting sales of existing mags. In order for it to pass I think it needs a grandfather clause (to get the “Gun Culture 1.0″ politicians on board) and possibly a sunset provision, but that much is anyone’s guess.

Probability of Introduction: 90%

Probability of Enactment: 60%

Stopping Mail Order Ammo

Interstate commerce is what Congress is supposed to regulate, and the biggest commercial part of firearms is the ammunition, not the guns themselves. Stopping interstate sales directly to citizens is possible, but only through an act of Congress. I think one of the things working against this is that it was already tried and failed miserably.

Probability of Introduction: 70%

Probability of Enactment: 40%

Stopping Private Sales

Like I said, interstate commerce is the hook that Congress uses to pass their laws. All other non-constitutional duties are reserved to the states. I can see how they would craft the language, but the precedent of one or two states that have already given the middle finger to Federal control of things that start and stay within state lines puts a huge damper on this one.

Probability of Introduction: 50%

Probability of Enactment: 20%

Firearms Registry

It’s absolutely illegal under FOPA, but that doesn’t mean Congress doesn’t have the ability to change their mind. This is something I see the NRA and pro-2A politicians going to the mat over, especially armed with Canada’s recent scrapping of their own failed registry.

Probability of Introduction: 40%

Probability of Enactment: 10%

Neutered Assault Weapons Ban

I’ll get to DiFi’s impossible dream in a minute, but what is slightly more possible is a wholesale reinstatement of the old AWB. Its already been done, so politicians see some cover in that fact. Plus, a sunset provision would help to ease some Congresscritters off the fence. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still political suicide for the Dems in the midterm elections and all but guarantees a Republican president next time, but it’s a possibility. Not a good one, though.

Probability of Introduction: 35%

Probability of Enactment: 10%

Feinstein’s “Nuclear Option” AWB

Uh, yeah. Even some Democrats are calling it insane. The reason for the proposed legislation was to move the Overton Window (no, I don’t watch Glen Beck, the phrase pre-dates his book) further to their side. By pinning the top of the conversation so high, it allows for the possibility of something more substantial than anyone originally wanted to happen instead. But there’s no way in hell it actually makes it to the President’s desk.

Probability of Introduction: 100%

Probability of Enactment: 0%

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!

107 Responses to Foghorn’s Predictions on Coming Gun Control Legislation

  1. avatarDavid W. says:

    Well. Hopefully *most* states will pass something along the lines of if any federal agents try to enforce any of these things they will be in trouble by state law…

    I just hope that no matter what they pass, its not bad enough for a civil war. Anyone who thinks a war is going to be a good thing is just not thinking it through, millions will die then Canada will invade and China will become THE super power and Europe will crash and our entire human race will be set back by about 80 years as power, water, and food stop getting to where it needs to be.

    Write your reps, you don’t want the Canucks invading anymore then I do. Mounties riding Polar bears…. We wouldn’t stand a chance…

    • avatarKris says:

      Nailed it. Canucks are filled with bottled up rage. I want no part of that.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      “Write your reps, you don’t want the Canucks invading anymore then I do. Mounties riding Polar bears…. We wouldn’t stand a chance…”

      Should we actually tell them that last part of your statement? :-)

      • avatarDavid W. says:

        Probably, if you want to. I mean any good red blooded American is dreadfully fearful of invasion by Polar bear riding Canucks… We know they have the polar bears… They have been kidnapping the cubs and raising them as attack bears since the beginning of the whole “Global warming” thing…

        But alas, you can never be 100% sure that your rep is a good red blooded American… So you may want to skip the whole polar bear fact.

    • avatarSivartius says:

      We were invaded by Canada once. It wasn’t very pleasant. Maybe they’ll be back for the 200 year anniversary.

  2. avatarDracon1201 says:

    Maybe if we send the congresscritters the link to the wiki 30rd mags we can show them just how futile that mag ban is.

  3. avatarAharon says:

    Good post. I enjoyed reading and reflecting upon it.

  4. avatarMike S says:

    I would ease the likelihood of a capacity restriction downward just a bit (40-50%) but otherwise I think you have it pretty much nailed. Personally I think we will see what changes Obama can make without Congress…..and that’s about it.
    From the changes in language coming out of Biden’s “working group”, it appears they expected the other side to blink, but they haven’t. Expectations are being adjusted downward.

    • I hope you’re right. There have been several pro-gun pols that have shown a willingness and desire to restrict magazine capacity, and that scares me. It could be enough to turn the house in the a it’s favor on that issue.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      The number one “hardware” topic on the table is magazine capacity limits, and you can bet your last dollar that they’re going to push hard to get that one through since the AWB is a non-starter.

      The only question is whether the pro-2A members of the House will have the intestinal fortitude to call this what it is, an incremental step towards disarmament and the abrogation of 2A rights for all Americans, and stop it in its tracks. I hope the odds are as low as 60% for passage, because if they find the right lever to use on the GOP representatives (budget/cliff negotiations) then we could very well lose on this one.

      • avatarMike S says:

        I definitely agree that standard-cap mags are where the fight will be- I just don’t see the advantage in giving on them. Would there be any reason to believe that a “compromise” would usher in some new era of bi-partisanship? After the last four years? I don’t see it, and neither do they. Obama has a fight on his hands.

        • avatarpat says:

          I dont see an upside for dems. A high cap ban will galvanize the GOP and the dems will be hurt badly in 14′ midterms. For what? Anybody with an R besides their name who votes for the ‘worthless’ thing will be thrown out of office.
          All for a cheap (now ridiculously expensive) metal box with spring inside.

  5. avatarLance says:

    Very very good debate Nick you got good facts to back you. I agree a NICS upgrade and more head achs not bans for gun owners may be Obama’s idea when congress is in some ways outside of Democrats in Kalifornia and NY saying this is too extreme. But who knows Dems have no intelligence. But I do think to a BIG gun ban is unlikely to pass.

  6. avatarSammy says:

    I say we put Foggy in charge of the whole gun review process, and any new legislation with his word being FINAL. I just want someone in charge that is as unbiased as ‘Ol Tail Gunner Joe

  7. avatarHasdrubal says:

    Sounds reasonable, except I don’t think a mag capacity bill would pass the House right now. Republicans have control of only one chamber, they just took a beating over the fiscal cliff deal, and probably are looking for something to take a stand on that won’t shut the government down. I hope they live up to my expectations.

    • avatarjwm says:

      Agreed, I think the gop is risking a large part of it’s dwindling support by not pushing hard for gun owners. I switched from gop to independent after this last electtion. The gop and the nra had better fight hard this time with no one sided “compromise” or they’ve both lost any support they’ll ever get from me in the future.

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        I am no longer of the opinion that Republican politicians “fight” for their constituents. I am of the opinion they are interested in filling their Super PAC coffers. Seriously, what percentage of the American population cares about black rifles and 30 round magazines? I don’t see Boehner making a stand here, not with his recent budget issue rolling by Obama.

  8. avatarTaurus609 says:

    My problems with background checks for private sales are, there should be no gun information in the check, just that person B is “allowed” to purchase a firearm from person A. A set amount a FFL can charge for private sales (no gouging) since they would not be required to keep any firearms records, just that a transaction transpired between the two. If FFLs didn’t want to participate, then the private seller should have access to the NCIC check system and IF congress does pass this, then they need to fund it to handle the increase in background checks!

    • avatarHasdrubal says:

      Any fee for two people who come into a store to do a transfer should be given as a tax credit to the store, not charged to the customer.

      Remove suppressors from the nfa list, the savings in ATF employees should cover the cost.

    • avatarNot Anon in Ct For Long says:

      My thought would be a 1-800 number that anyone can call. You can even call from a payphone. You call, give the intended buyer’s name, address and SSN, and you get a yes or no answer. You don’t tell them how many guns were bought, or even if the sale was completed. The caller gets a unique ID code at the end of the call, which he writes onto the bill of sale. If the buyer or a subsequent buyer uses the gun in a crime, the seller has a copy of a bill of sale which includes the unique code, proving that on the day he sold the gun(s), the person in question was clear to buy.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Anything that has one private citizen handling another private citizen’s SSN to complete a transaction is a non-starter. There are better ways to do this.

        Set up a NICS 2.0 website where a prospective buyer can submit a request for a purchase authorization, complete with all of his private info. When the buyer gets the purchase auth back, which is good for a certain number of days, he presents it to the seller.

        The seller then goes to the NICS 2.0 site and uses the purchase auth code to validate the buyer and provide any necessary details of the transaction (e.g. long gun vs handgun). Upon confirming with NICS the seller receives a transaction trace ID along with a PDF form he can save and/or print out to record the transaction.

        • avatarNot Anon in Ct For Long says:

          That would work. Subject to possible hacking, but then isn’t everything.

          One could even go to the library to ensure anonymity.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          My Dad don’t use the Internet. You are playing right into the grabbers hands, looking for “solutions”.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          It’s not assuming defeat to game out how to mitigate the damage when you lose a battle. Ever noticed that the folks who get their well-thought-out proposals on the table first, once it’s inevitable that a given course of action will be followed, have the best shot at having their proposals adopted?

          Not everything is a live-free-or-die battle, thank goodness. Some of us like to have ideas ready for what to do, win or lose on any particular issue.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          What part of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Biden, Rahm, etc’s last 4 years suggest that this isn’t going to be an all out brawl? I put my money on Boehner caving on any legislative issue and lots of Imperial decrees.

        • avatarTaurus609 says:

          When I buy a gun from a FFL, and they do the background check, I never give my SSN anymore, it’s not needed!

        • avatarNot Anon in Ct For Long says:

          @Taurus Under Alpha’s proposal you’d only be giving it to the Feds as a means of identification, not to the other party, which I like better.

        • avatarTaurus609 says:

          Sorry AG, forgot to mention, great idea, in fact that’s the way we purchased a firearm from a dealer not that many years ago. We would go to our local Sheriff apply for the permit and when approved go get our gun/s.

  9. avatarGreg says:

    I’m not opposed to stronger ncis however the rest is balls.

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      stronger how?
      by putting a questionnaire that asks “is your character and reputation such that you would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to society?”

      not sure about other states, but in PA, if you get 302′d, which is when a cop comes to your house, you are not under arrest, but you say “i’m thinking of hurting myself or someone else”, then you cannot own a firearm if they send you to the looney bin for a night.

      what more do they want? a doctor’s note?

      • avatarNot Anon in Ct For Long says:

        Stronger as in making sure that the info that is supposed to be reported to NICS is actually reported. Apparently even the DEA doesn’t share info with NICS in a timely manner. An actual appropriate use of an executive order would be an order to all federal agencies to cooperate fully.

        I guess I’m not a purist, but I don’t want felon, druggies and whack-jobs getting guns. Every time one of them does, it makes us all look bad. So cleanup NICS first.

  10. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    Volcanic activity or a large meteor did not cause the extinction of dinosaurs. They evolved into a highly “advanced” society and regulated themselves out of existance.

  11. avatarjkp says:

    The ‘neutered’ AWB option would only ‘guarantee’ a GOP win in 2016 if the GOP actually nominates someone who isn’t an obvious right-wing ideologue of the Todd Akin mold, a warmed over Rockefeller Republican of the Romney mold, or an amusing gadfly of the Gingrich mold. There are others who don’t quite fit this pattern (Jindal, Rubio, Rand Paul,) who might get in.

    Also: regarding firearms registry, yes it is currently banned under FOPA. But FOPA is just an Act of Congress, not a Constitutional provision. So all it takes is an Act of Congress to undo it.

  12. avatarDirk Diggler says:

    Bottom line: this stuff only hits law abiding citizens. At the end of the day, we know criminals don’t care. Let’s call it for what it is and raise the cost of doing business for criminals. Gun possession charges are too lenient and often allow criminals to plea them away. Let’s make possession of a weapon in the commission of a crime a greater penalty than the crime itself. Robbery or rape with a gun? 20 yr min with NO PLEA DEAL and no early release. at some point, only and unless criminals think that the penalty is worse than any other alternative, they will continue to act in their own economic self-interest.

    • avatarJohn Davies says:

      So how would you fund this wonderful idea? Higher taxes?

      It’s well and good to say “lock them all up”, but the taxpayer cost is enormous, and we just don’t have the room in our prisons and jails.

      The alternative is public beheadings, lopping off of hands and such, but I am sure most people will object to that system….. regardless of how effective it might be.

      John Davies
      Spokane WA USA

  13. avatarTRUTHY says:

    Probability of all the gun grabbers being ignorant=100%
    Probability of the MSM never asking any real questions=100%
    Probability of us (gun owners) giving up our rights=0%

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      I’m sorry, but I missed the part where more than just a handful of our precious Republican lawmakers have unequivocally supported our side in this fight. I suspect they are waiting to see what slice of the pork pie they are going to get. Obamacare had 60% opposition and still passed. What does an AWB have for support, maybe 2 – 3 % of Americans really give a $hit. Having a Repub House just means our little Imperial President and his minions have to get a little more devious.

  14. avatarIn Memphis says:

    I wont be able to pay off the AR I have on layaway until this coming Friday. When everything is introduced on Tuesday, will I have anything to worry about between then and Friday or will it take time after introduction?

    As close to factual answers vs tinfoil hat speculation are appreciated.

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      do you think congress would actually get something done in 3 days!? if they had something to vote on that was going to be enacted, they would make the start date sometime in the future, say jan31 or feb31 or something.

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        I honestly have no clue. Im basing off of how quickly things in Illinois were introduced and shot down.

        My US Law 101 is a little rusty

        • avatarBen in UT says:

          Sir,

          The Senate is not currently in session. As such, you can be assured that no bills (including Sen. Feinstein’s new AWB) will be introduced until after Inauguration Day.

          I seriously doubt the Obama Administration is going to try and use executive orders regarding anything more than stricter background checks, so in my opinion, you should be fine.

          Best,

          Ben

    • avatarJoe says:

      Get the background check done now, you should then be able to sign off on that form when you pick up the gun if it is within 30 days (I’m 99% sure that is right, I’ve done it before in NV but that was within a 1 week timeframe, but the guy told me it was good for 30 days)

  15. avatarstateisevil says:

    I think a mag ban is about 20%

  16. avatarSoutherner says:

    If the record check system is to change – then BIDS (Blind Identification Database System) would neuter the unlawful Firearms Registration/Confiscation List the current NICS system makes possible.

    http://www.gunlaws.com/BIDS%20v.%20NICS.htm

  17. avatarJoe says:

    here’s a question, how many jobs will be lost aorund the country by any new firearms law? Can the Dems afford that stain on their already tarnished record?

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      But Obama promised MORE jobs!

      Maybe lost was in the fine print somewhere?

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      AWB is dead in the water, so none, really.

      In fact, the guys making magazines, especially if they have the foresight to ramp up production of 10-rounders (cough*Magpul*cough) would do great selling new ban-compliant mags.

  18. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Personally I think the prospects of getting anything even slightly significant are next to zero. Here’s why.

    The gun grabbers are always looking for any opportunity to push for their agenda, so naturally they came out of the woodwork. But there is a larger agenda here. The Democrats are desperate to change the subject from the debt ceiling battle. They’ve increased federal spending by a trillion dollars a year (since BO became the Prez), doubled the national debt (since Polisi became speaker in 2007), they’ve raised our taxes and now it’s time to have a serious debate over fiscal responsibility. A debate the Democrats will lose, badly. If the talking heads spend the next 2 months talking about the bloated federal bureaucracy there will be no way to pin the blame for the upcoming government shutdown on the Republicans.

    They’ve already burned up the “war on women” card. They’re going to run with “reasonable gun control” as long as possible. But public interest in civilian disarmament is waning by the day and Boehner has ruled out any discussion on the subject until the budget mess is taken care of. BO will probably try something by executive order but it will be widely ignored and in 2 years the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional.

  19. avatarstateisevil says:

    BTW, gunowners need to go on the offensive. Background checks are stupid and a violation of peoples’ rights. If you can’t be trusted with a gun you can’t be trusted to be free to walk around in society. Background checks is the camel’s nose.

  20. avatarBrian says:

    Now we just have to worry about what our states will do. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that NY won’t make things any more difficult.

  21. avatarJon R. says:

    So whats the probability of introduction and of enactment when the next mass shooting occurs in a “gun free zone.” Every shooting from this day forward will bring up the memory of sandy hook, and the grabbers are going to try and take advantage. The war for gun rights and gun control is only heating up, and is going to take a strong consistent resistance to their attempts to undermine our rights. We are the only ones with something to lose in this fight, and they will never stop at their attempts to disarm all law abiding citizens. Even if this battle is won, this war is far from over.

  22. avatarJoke & Dagger says:

    Talk about a bunch of group think. You all are vastly underestimating the gun control strategy whirling diligently away 24 hours per day in the basements of multiple Washington DC government buildings. This administration takes no prisoners. What else do they have left on their agenda? Immigration and gay marriage. And gun control.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Agree, but I think they want to do one hard push on this issue (to appease their base) then move on to winning issues like immigration and marriage equality as quickly as possible. Oh, and that little problem we have with the Federal budget…

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        Dems have no interest in any sort of budget control. How one could possibly think otherwise has been dumb, deaf or blind over the past 4 years. Not that the Repubs are any better.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Unfortunately, the budget insanity is perfectly complementary. The Democrats put the priority on social programs; the Republicans do the same for defense spending. And we get the bill for all of the above.

          I’d love to see social-program spending flatten out and seriously trim back the defense budget, but hey, what do I know?

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          We could easily cut the Federal budget in half. Will never happen.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          Sorry Alpha, call it “marriage equality” all you want. I’ll call it gay marriage. Something’s not right here…

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Would you rather the Democrats focus their political capital on marriage equality, or civilian disarmament? :)

          One of those choices increases liberty for a minority segment of the population, the other reduces liberty for a different, larger segment…

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          You’re correct, Alpha, the Pentagon Budget is the worlds largest Welfare Tit, with military spending greater than all the other militaries of the world combined (or damn close, depending on how the figgers are figgered.)

        • avatarSivartius says:

          Well, being a student of History, I’m pretty leery of Military cuts. That bit us pretty hard in the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I, and especially World War II.

          On the other hand, I could get behind the idea of cutting or eliminating the funding of most of these National Security Organizations. Funnel most of that money into a huge expansion of the Civilian Marksmanship Program. You could subsidise every american’s first handgun purchase and first rifle/shotgun purchase. Then subsidise training programs.

          Have widespread contribution/subscription campaigns for units/ships/whatever. The money to be used by the unit itself for modernization/new equipment/etc. You could have military versions of the kids fundraisers “do so many X and I will pay $Y per X.” Ground combat units could run exercises against other ground combat units, and/or some of the better trained and equipped militia groups. Engineer Corps units could go against civilian contractors or construction companies in building public works. (Who can build a better bridge the fastest.) Ships and air wings could do something similar, running against their peers in speed, distance, obstacles avoided, rounds on target, etc.

          All contributions would be voluntary, money would be spent on units in the field, not in the Pentagon, they would receive valuable training that pays for itself, when they run against militias they would get non-lethal experience combatting groups with similar capabilities to the unconventional enemies they face, and the militias would get training in how to defend this country against enemies foreign and domestic, and best of all, more people would be exposed to the military, and it would encourage the basis of citizenship; the feeling that you personally have a stake in this country. And when the media reports that, say, the 101st Airborne has been deployed to Elbonia, it wouldn’t be “some random military group”, but “Sergent Baker and his friends who we helped last year.”

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          being a student of History, I’m pretty leery of Military cuts

          Being a student of the Constitution, and knowing how much the founding fathers hated a Standing Army, I’m pretty leary of defying the Constitution and not starving any raised Army of funding after a 2 year time limit.

          Yep, better read it.

  23. avatarMark says:

    I don’t think much is actually going to pass congress either, but think a high capacity mag ban is pretty close to 50/50 right now no matter how stupid.

    Don’t for a second though think this is the last time they will try for harder restrictions. Remember the final goal by these politicians and the ignorant masses who voted for them is less civilian guns, less civilian access to guns, more monitoring of guns, and more monitoring of people. What will pass in the next 4 months? Honestly probably not much. But 4 years? Could be a lot more.

  24. avatarthe last Marine out says:

    the bad part is the congress people NEVER read the whole bill, gun control can be added as part of another bill. Everyone needs to not forget how we get BURNED.

    • avatarBen in UT says:

      With all due respect, your first statement is inaccurate. Members of Congress typically employ staff of upwards of 25 people, specifically to handle the primary job of Congress — making law.

      Rest assured that even Obamacare was read through by politicians (or at least by staffers and interns and subsequently summarized to the representative) before a vote was held.

      Respectfully,

      Ben

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        Nancy Pelosi: “we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”.

        Also, politicians hire staffs to negotiate their part of the pie in every bill. Read it? Don’t make me laugh.

  25. avatarRalph says:

    At this point, I don’t think that everyone in the Senate Democratic Party leadership, epecially Harry Reid, actually wants to pass a tough AWB. I think some of the leaders would prefer it if the bill failed because of Republican opposition, so the Dems could use it against the Republicans in the next election cycle after the next mass shooting. As long as we insist on not putting crazy people where they belong, there will be more mass shootings and everyone knows it. Once the Republicans are thoroughly marginalized, the votes of the 2A Democrats won’t matter and POTUS can get down to some serious gungrabbing.

    However, if Reid wants a floor vote, then the possibility of a comprehensive and very nasty AWB passing the Senate is 100%, based on party-line voting with blue dog Dems voting against and me-too Republicans voting for. The numbers don’t lie. The Democrats have the numbers and even if people like Manchin sack up and vote no, Casey and other weak sisters like him in both parties will vote yes.

    Possibility of comprehensive and very nasty AWB passing the House — low if Boehner lets it get to the floor, zero if he doesn’t. The true believers and wingnuts like Carolyn McCarthy will want a floor vote. I’m not sure that the Dem leadership does. If it doesn’t go to the floor, Democrats in 2A districts won’t have to vote for it and lose their jobs — while Republicans will be blamed for the next mass shooting.

    The whole “blame the NRA meme” hasn’t worked for the gungrabbers any more than “blame George Bush” worked for the Great Pretender in the White House. Next up — “blame the Republicans.”

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Nailed it. 100% agree.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      Ralph, you know dang well this fight hasn’t even started. The NRA will be scapegoated mercilessly in the coming months. Sweet Jesus, the NRA’s seats at the White House aren’t even cold yet.

  26. avatarRobin says:

    In what way are Executive Orders (EO) binding on non-Executive Branch personnel? Even as an Army officer I had concerns about EOs. The President does not have constitutional authority to issue orders to anyone except the Executive Branch of government. State and local governments, as well as private citizens, have to right to tell the President to take a hike. Do you think Congress or the Supreme Court will allow the President to dictate their actions? I think not. Even the most partisan member of Congress knows that what goes around, comes around.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      The same many thousands of 2A guys on the Internet keep telling each other everything is going to be okay. You all are starting to believe each other. A nasty, dirty, no rules brawl is coming, as sure as the sun rises tomorrow morning. We are still in the pre-fight weigh-in posturing stage.

      • avatarRobin says:

        I don’t think everything is going to be OK, but my point is that eventually someone will say “put up or shut up”. I think Montana already has legislation in the works. I’ve already made my decision. I’m old, I own weapons, and I’m pretty good with them. I’ve had a great life and God as redeemed me. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…..” The Constitution was written by men so I don’t think God will have a problem if I go down the hard way. Jesus said to turn the other cheek but He never said you have to allow someone to kill you. In fact, if I don’t fight back I will be assisting in someone committing a sin. I’m not going to help someone commit a sin. My eternal soul is too important.

        • avatarpat says:

          Robin: We are still a long way off from the state going door to door to remove our liberty (firearms), and thus rendering the Republic null and void by removing the teeth (2nd amendment) that keeps ‘Big Gov’ in check. If they did, they know asymetrical (gorilla) warfare tactics would surely commence.
          We must peacefully fight to make sure it never comes to that.

  27. avatarensitu says:

    One must strart from the premise that the ultimate goal is the total subjugation of the American People and that turning citizens into outlaws is but one method expoused by S. Alynsky

  28. avatarSCS says:

    The one I like least is screwing with the on-line sale of ammo. We don’t have a lot of places around here to purchase decent bulk ammo. No ammo, no shooting. That sucks. Reloading here I come.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      If we can get bans on online ammo sales struck down statewide in CA before they go into effect, you’d better believe they’ll face a serious headwind at the national level. I’m not at all worried about this one, and I’ll tell you why: none of the (many) progressive-cause mailing lists I’m on has said a peep about that being a priority.

      Mag cap limits, on the other hand…

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        Who says the gun grabbers are publicly sharing their strategies for the upcoming brawl? They are on offense. They get to act. We have to react.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Are you willing to concede, at least, that you can get good intel on what the opposition has planned by the talking points they’re feeding to their base to build support?

          I’m not asserting that it’s 100% reliable, but over the last 10 years I’ve found it to be a very strong advance indicator of what the agenda will be when there’s a conflict brewing.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          Good point, but they haven’t even started yet. Talking points will come.

  29. avatartjlarson2k says:

    I suppose the silver lining from all this mess is now we get to see how the current President, VP, LEOs, Military, Gun owners, and anti-gun people all interpret the simple phrase:

    Shall not be infringed.

    I think the message is pretty clear. It’s quite apparent and alarmingly obvious that there is a literacy problem in America.

    A problem that needs to be remedied before moving forward on any gun “control” legislation.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      A “literacy” problem. Did the first and second Obama election landslide wins not make that apparent? What percentage of the American population gives a $hit about black rifles and 30 round magazines? Minuscule.

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        What percentage of even the pro-gun population gives a $hit about emancipating the nation from the Standing Army and restoring defense responsibilities to a Swiss-model citizen-soldier Militia? Minuscule.

        “The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a MILITIA, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords.” ~Representative Jackson, first U.S. Congress, when it met and turned to defense measures in 1791

        P.S. How do you like Obama being “CIC” of a Standing Army that spends more money that all the other militaries of the world combined?

        • avatarpat says:

          For better or worse, America shall always have an organized and substantial military (for reasons too vast and odvious to get into). We (the United States) are the greatest nation on earth because we are exceptional and consequential (size, influence, etc..).
          While most nations should have a sense of pride (and Switzerland, and its people, are very nice), its just not comparable (They really didnt help kick Nazi butt in WW2, for instance…not that they could have done much anyway).

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Enjoy pissing on the 2A as much as Diane Feinstein, pat?

          “A well regulated Militia…”

          “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty….”

          ~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

          Anti-2A people like you are just in cahoots with the Leftists.

        • avatarpat says:

          Just a millionaire livin in the real world, my friend. Lets consentrate on how things are and can be made better, not on things that are not and will never be.
          A major nation in the modern (real) world demands a modern career (standing) military. It does not matter what you or I think because America aint Switzerland (Apples/pie compared to Cheeze/swiss).

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      If you want to discuss a literacy problem, it appears few, including those who claim to be pro-2A, have never understood what the 2A was meant to prevent.

      “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty….” ~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

      The NRA, militarist, rightwingnuts, and Republicans have demonstrated contempt for the first part of the 2A; it’s not surprising that the remainder is disdained by others.

      • avatarpat says:

        The main goal of the 2nd amendment is to back up the other amendments by checking potential corrupt, expanding government/state power through the force of arms (asymetrical/gorilla warfare). Thats sort of the simplified version of how we should view it in todays world. The semiautomatic firearm/removable magazine interface is the main way to express asymetrical warfare, which is why we must fight so hard right now for our rights/freedom.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          The main goal of the 2A is to prevent a Standing Army.

          You, a damned Statist like DiFi herself, love the Standing Army that gives the State so much power.

          “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.” ~Noah Webster

          “…no such engine of oppression as a standing army.” ~Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814

          A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.” ~James Madison

          “This [citizen-militia] appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for A standing army…” ~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, Number 29

        • avatarpat says:

          What you are talking about is what nobody is (or will EVER be) talking about, and is therefore irrelevant.
          The 21st century world demands a career (standing) or professional military. You or I may discuss the issue, but the present reality will never change (which makes the debate silly to have, on its face).
          I am sure we both can agree that citizens should still have guns, be it for my fear of a corrupt standing army that you think should never be, or your fear of a corrupt police state (I am sure you think we should still have cops around).

  30. avatarIvy Mike says:

    The British are more “civilized;” with “civilization” being City-State[1] society, “civilized” is the equivalent to the libertarians’ favorite pejorative term “Statist,” (even though they confusedly refer to themselves as “civilized,” which is equivalent to “Statist.”)

    The 2A mirrors the egalitarian (i.e., non-hierarchical) power-sharing[2] that egalitarian Non-State[3] bands and tribes of the human animal have enjoyed for 2 million years, and was rediscovered by the European invaders in North America, who appreciated the Native Americans’ Egalitarianism, that is, Nobody Lording-It-Over Others. Or as Thomas Jefferson put it, “all men are created equal.”

    In other words, the 2A is primitive. No wonder it’s generally city-slickers and the over-domesticated[4] “poodles” (I prefer that term instead of “sheeple” see [5]) who are as scared of naturally wild humans as they would be of a naturally wild wolf.

    ____________
    [1] Larry E. Sullivan (2009), The SAGE glossary of the social and behavioral sciences, Editions SAGE, p. 73

    [2] Christopher Boehm (1999) Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University Press.

    [3] Elman R. Service (1975), Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton.
    Online excerpt here:
    NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES
    http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf

    [4] Peter J. Wilson (1991) “The Domestication of the Human Species.” Yale University Press.

    [5] “The closest approximation to human morality we can find in nature is that of the gray wolf, Canis lupus.”

    Wolfgang M. Schleidt & Michael D. Shalter (2003) Co-evolution of Humans and Canids, An Alternative View of Dog Domestication: Homo Homini Lupus? Evolution and Cognition. Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 57-72

    • avatarschizuki says:

      Allllllllll-righty, then.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Please do not feed the trolls.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          You’re like an arrogant schoolmarm, flitting around shutting people down, and NEA-strength stupid. I’m supporting the 2A, but then you don’t support the 2A completely yourself, so you would call me names. People like you generally don’t like free speech any better than they can comprehend the complete 2A.

          And you’re just intimidated by science, which could help the 2A cause. If you had your brain gear squared away. But you’re as squared away as a soup sandwich.

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        Refer to the 2A as the “Egalitarian Clause” or “Egalitarian Power-Sharing Clause” next time you meet your libruhl brother-in-law, and have some knowledge of the evolutionary biology and anthropology behind the word; you’ll checkmate him, using his own professed values of egalitarianism. (Doesn’t he want to share political power? Doesn’t political power come out of that something Chairman Mao identified?)

        Or continue to be baffled by science, if you want to lose debates with him. But why does he still intimidate you?

  31. avatarschizuki says:

    The good news about the mag ban is that I’ve got six brand-new foliage green PMAGs and no AR. So my dilemma will be, do I keep the mags and buy an AR someday, or buy a Mini-14 and trade the mags one-for-three for the Mini-14 ten rounders that Magpul will no doubt begin producing?

    Actually, that’s not really good news.

  32. avatarthe last Marine out says:

    There is lots of BIG money and POWER behind the push for gun control, America has kicked the can down the road. But at some point this house of cards is coming down, like it or not… Gun bans must be passed now or they will not have the needed control for the NEW WORLD ORDER. This means pulling out the plugs (all of them). We have some who will do anything.. the Vote fear will not matter is this issue. All this trillions of dollars can NOT be paid no matter what… So yes the fall of America is in the planning…So do not think this is only about guns… (yes first stage) or a big false flag event .. such as WW3. why are we in such a mad military buildup in the middle east if we are not getting ready for WW3 … THINKING CAPS ON……….. time… and no i don’t like any of this , just want to live in freedom and left along… same as we all do.. but look at the rest of the world it is not at rest!

  33. avatararmedandsafe says:

    I suspect there will be a push to put “normal capacity” magazines on the “any other” list, requiring registration and tax via the BATFEces.

  34. avatarST says:

    The most damaging development against our rights isn’t the Federal Government, whose options are limited with public attention shifting away from the Newtown tragedy.

    The real problem we face are that legal weapon owners in IL, CA, NJ, NJ, CT , and other collectivist zones are royally f**ked. There won’t be a need for a Federal ban on anything when 20 states in the Union will all but turn themselves into mini-Britians. NY State is on the pathway to becoming a domestic version of Europe as I type this , and CT & CA’s legislatures and governors are in hot pursuit of Cuomo’s trail. Keeping DC at bay will be a monumental victory on a national level- but it’s cold comfort for CA and NY gun owners who must shortly choose between being criminals ,surrendering arms, or leaving their homes for good.

  35. avatarKirk says:

    You missed a likely one: a tax on firearms, mags and ammo to fund mental healthcare initiatives: http://guardamerican.com/index.php/blog/35-politics/436-gun-control-rep-mike-thompson-townhall-debrief

  36. avatarDaniel says:

    Good post. What about Obama signing an executive order making all new semi-automatic rifles a Class 3 firearm?

Leave a Reply

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