BREAKING: VP Biden’s Gun Control Proposals to Obama Next Tuesday

“After consulting with a series of stakeholders in the ongoing debate over gun control, Vice President Joe Biden will present his recommendations for reducing gun-related violence in America to President Obama on Tuesday,” cbs.com reports. “The vice president, speaking to reporters before [emphasis added] a meeting on gun violence with sportsmen and women, outlined a series of the recommendations he said are emerging in the course of his conversations with various stakeholders in the conversation — among which include universal background checks, restrictions on high-capacity magazines, and federal abilities to effectively research gun violence.” It gets worse. Far worse. From the horse’s mouth . . .

If you look at every one of the tragic events that have attracted so much attention, it’s hard to be able to pinpoint what you would have done to assure it wouldn’t have happened. But there’s also things we know, we know, that there’s certain actions we take that have diminished the extent of the gun violence that otherwise would be occurring in the United States. There’s an emerging set of recommendations, not coming from me, but coming from the groups we’ve met with, and I’m gonna focus on the ones that relate primarily to gun ownership, what types of weapons can be owned.

So even though nothing we’re proposing could have prevented the slaughter at Sandy Hook, we’re going to exploit the death of 20 white suburban children to push a civilian disarmament agenda in the name of public safety, generally.

This is gonna get ugly. Er. Uglier.

 

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

153 Responses to BREAKING: VP Biden’s Gun Control Proposals to Obama Next Tuesday

  1. avataramagi says:

    Step One: Confiscate all semi-automatic weapons
    Step Two:
    Step Three: Profit.

  2. avatarJon says:

    According to a paywalled Wall Street Journal article, the recommendations will include universal background checks (including private sales), and magazine capacity restrictions.

    • avatarJon says:

      Never mind, original post already includes relevant info. DOH!

    • avataramagi says:

      Magazine Capacity restrictions are going to be a tough sell federally. It won’t get past Congress, that’s for sure. And I’d like to see an “Executive Order” legislate law.

      There will be some sitting Democratic Senators who will pay for it with their careers.

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        Amagi, I am generally optimistic but if anything does get passed I feel it will be the mag cap restriction. Dont take this as me agreeing with it but some might see it as the lesser of all evils if there is any pressure that at least something must be done.

        • avatarJon says:

          I just wrote to Speaker Boehner about my opposition to new magazine capacity restrictions. He was in Congress when the original AWB passed, so he should remember how that turned out. Don’t forget to write to the Speaker in addition to your legislators.

        • avatarrosignol says:

          Be sure to point out that it wasn’t “And the wrath of the voters descended upon the Democrats”, it was “And the wrath of the voters descended on those who failed to support the 2nd Amendment”.

          There are plenty of Republicans who would be happy to pass a ban if it led to more Republicans in Congress. It might… but they need to understand it won’t be them.

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        Amagi: Denial isn’t a river in Egypt. You are living in fantasyland. Where are all your precious Republican House members coming out in advance against magazine restrictions, “assault” weapon bans and private ownership sale background checks? Nowhere is where. They will vote for this stuff if it benefits them financially. A couple of million in their twice removed Super-PAC from Wal-Mart, deal is done. All the Progressives need is a few Republicans in liberal states. You learned nothing from the past 4 years.

    • avatarS.CROCK says:

      you have until tuesday to be free and own/buy a modern sporting rifle.

      • avatarpat says:

        Would an Executive order automatically (gulp…or semiautomatically) stop the sales of and/or existing orders of said rifles and so called ‘high capacity’ magazines?

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          If you haven’t taken possession (I.e. completed the FFL transfer, or received notice that your magazines have shipped) then it’s not yours and you’re hosed if that item is now banned for sale to you.

          Back orders mean sweet fsck-all when it comes to legally owning something, even if you’ve paid in full.

  3. avatarIn Memphis says:

    What the hell is meant by stakeholders!? To me that instantly implies its about money.

    • avatarLSUTigersFan says:

      Wal-Mart

      • avatarrosignol says:

        ….who the D’s have been trying to unionize, obstruct, and regulate for years (if not decades) now.

        I doubt Wal-Mart’s management has forgotten any of this, but it never hurts to remind them. Be polite when you call.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          That’s actually a really good point. Of course, the reverse could apply as well… “Play ball with us on the gun thing, and we’ll cut back on the union agitation for a bit.”

        • avatarrosignol says:

          (479) 273-4000

          That’s corporate HQ. Tell them you want to express an opinion, they’ll transfer you. You’ll spend a little time on hold (~3 mins when I called), then you will talk to a live person, who’s job (as near as I can tell) is to thank you for the feedback and summarize the call for management.

          Props to SaysUncle.com, who found the contact info.

          http://www.saysuncle.com/2013/01/09/call-your-reps-err-wal-mart/

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          Guys, this is what this Administration does: bribe their likely foes on an issue ahead of time. Remember Obamacare, when they bribed the AMA, tha AARP and the pharmacuetical companies. C’mon, same playbook.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          J&D, with respect, you just described every US Presidential administration in modern history. This is how representative democracy works when corporations are people and elections are funded by the highest bidder.

          Related: did you hear about the guy here in CA who is challenging corporate personhood by traveling solo in the carpool lanes with his corporation’s papers in the passenger seat?

    • We’re all stakeholders, unfortunately that doesn’t mean they care about our opinion or the facts that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of bans and how magazine capacity limits make no impact on crime.

    • avatarMichael says:

      “Stakeholders” is a commonly-used term in the corporate world. Not to be confused with “stockholders”, it means anyone relevant to the topic at hand. When I did research for a group on the country’s port security, the “stakeholders” were anyone who could stand to gain (not just monetarily) from increased security.

      • avatarBeninMA says:

        You’re right. Of course, a news article would never refer to “stakeholders” in reference to any other freedom guaranteed by the bill of rights. It just underlines the fact that the media doesn’t treat the second amendment like a fundamental right, but just another special interest.

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        Michael and Chewbacca… so basically it comes down to, “a majority of gun owners agree that we need common sense gun control?”

        SkyMan, it does give a false sense of power.

    • avatarSkyMan77 says:

      I’m thinking it’s ambiguous on purpose…. Designed to bolster his power within the base and an attempt to instill fear within his opposition… Very juvenile really…

  4. avatarBlindKyle says:

    I respect(ed) Biden and I was really hoping for an intelligent solution instead of beating the same old mag cap and scary black rifle drum. Silly me.

  5. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    Like I commented yesterday: the administration has a choice between a decent chance of passing a bill on magazine capacity limits, or certain defeat for AWB 2.0. This is the signal that they’re going for the mag capacity limits.

    Everything else is window dressing because it would accompany any package of restrictions they try to push through, regardless.

    Also: note that the decision was basically made and the strategy set before any meeting with NRA/ISSF/etc.

    • avatarLSUTigersFan says:

      Actually, I think the EO push is because they realize they do not have the votes needed in Congress. Remember, Feinstein was supposed to introduce her bill on January 3rd. Now, it is to come out on the 22nd. That makes me think she is trying to get votes she realized she did not have to push it through. All the other bills introduced were piecemeal versions of what we suspect ber bill proposes. This way, she can see what will sell and what will not. We may all loathe her, but that hag has been doing this long enough to know how to play the game.

      • avatarLance says:

        I agree with both of you. Obama wants to look good for the news so he tries to lie and get a smaller ban threw. I still think we can kill this. Hay another article shows NRA had over 100,000 new member last month alone.

      • avatarGabriel says:

        No, the delay in the Senate is due to Reid pushing the date for new bills to January 22nd.

      • avatarAruges says:

        The delay of Fienstein’s bill was to not step on the toes of the WH. It’s still coming and will probably incorporate anything the WH want’s that isn’t already in it. Keep in mind Reid’s push to weaken the ability of Senators to filibuster. He’s keeping the Senate from ending 1st day business until the end of the month hoping to get 50 D Senators to sign on to a “nuclear option” to change Senate rules. They claim they have them, but we’ll see. If they do change them, then Di Fi gets whatever she wants.

      • avatarrosignol says:

        I agree. As mentioned previously, Biden wouldn’t be talking about an EO if they were getting anywhere with Congress. An EO would be a face-saver, something that made it look like Obama did something…. but what he can actually do with an EO (that wouldn’t be challenged and struck down in court) is pretty limited.

      • I’d like to hear some analysis from someone who knows what they’re talking about the legal extents in which EO’s could be used in the area of gun control.

      • avataramagi says:

        Wouldn’t Reid be an obstruction in the Senate? he isn’t exactly “Anti-gun”, not because he has a deep respect for our natural rights as human beings…but because the votes are there.

        Maybe I’m wrong. I never saw any outrageous anti-gun votes from Reid. Maybe he wouldn’t go as far as to obstruct Senate legislation on it.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          For the Love of God, Amagi, wake up!, and I’m saying this nicely. Harry Reid is one of the Progressives, one of the worst of the bunch, and will do whatever the fvck Obama and Biden tell him to! If he is voted out of office (highly unlikely), he will retire with multiple millions in his secret super PACs.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Wait, what? I didn’t say anything about EO use, and I don’t think that’s going to happen. This will be a package of legislation that goes through the usual sausage-grinder process.

      Unless you were referring to the threat of exec orders as saber-rattling, which I think is what they were actually doing…

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Never mind. Missed the speculation by the CBS reporters on EO action towards the end of the linked article.

        • avatarOutlaw says:

          Say goodbye to imported ammo, parts, and components. All can legally be done via Executive Order.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Outlaw, I’ve tried to maintain a consistent “stop the EO tinfoil-hattery” position — but yes, you have struck upon the one 100% sound and factual instance of the use of EOs to affect gun ownership.

          The current administration, in fact, used executive action (possibly an EO, can’t recall) to block the repatriation of stockpiled rifles from South Korea which were intended for distribution via the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      Alpha, big assumption that all restrictions will come via conventional votes in Congress. This is the false flag. Look for all the under the radar stuff. C’mon, this is the same administration that hatched Fast & Furious.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        That’s why I sent in a donation to NRA-ILA — so they can maintain the legislative staff to screen bills for stuff like that.

        Could be worse — if all of this had happened a month earlier, we might be screaming our heads off about Harry Reid passing a bill by unanimous consent in an empty chamber during the recess. I don’t actually believe he could get away with doing that, but the mental image is fitting.

  6. avatarrangered says:

    The report has probably already been written. The NRA was asked to attend only for cosmetic reasons. Nothing that any gun group could say would have swayed them. But just like Obama is desperate to have one Republican vote for any of his programs so that he can trumpet the Bi-Partisan nature of the law, he can now say that he gave the NRA and other “Stakeholders” a chance to make their points but their arguments failed. Its like gambling with someone over the phone and they get to flip the coin…You are amazed that you never win, right? Let’s see, multi trillion dollar deficits, loss of Constitutional Rights, yeah Mr. President, I want to go for another round, I am really feeling lucky this time. What? I lost again? Damn.

  7. avatarThomas Paine says:

    “it’s hard to be able to pinpoint what you would have done to assure it wouldn’t have happened.”

    SHOOT BACK. duh.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Hey now, son – you take that newfangled common sense and you put it in the trash where it belongs. I’m not gonna have any of that in my White House!

  8. avatarJames R says:

    Just who exactly did they met with? Also where are mental health officials and number of others. I’d like to know what facts they’ve learned about guns. Have they at least tried getting into the gun culture to understand. But then again it’s too much to hope for. All they care about is civilian disarmament and turning this country into a police state.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      So far, they’ve only met with representatives from gun control groups. And maybe Wal-mart. I don’t think they’ve met with any industry reps. The meeting with NRA reps was scheduled for today, but if I’m reading it right, this announcement was made prior to that meeting.

    • avatarDrVino says:

      Being in the field myself, I can tell you the “mental health professionals” group is a very varied herd of cats.
      First you have Psychiatrists – who are supposed to understand the anatomy and physiology of the the brain. Then you have Psychologists – who are like alchemists: they talk and wave their hands over the machine pretending to know how it works. As you can tell from my last sentence, I am not going to discuss them. I will focus on psychiatrists. They are humans from all sorts of backgrounds and with all sorts of worldviews and leanings. So when you have a finite data set, they can be divided into two rough sets: one group that looks at the info (abut the brain, physiology, pharmacology, social factors) and believes that there are some clear patterns, ways to organize and predict things and the other group, which says it’s all muddy and unclear and confusing and there is very little certainty one can have about anything. The latter group makes me wonder why they went into the field in the first place, if one agrees that the purpose of the specialty is to help people. Also, I’m inclined to believe that this group was present in the meetings. How convenient….

      • avatarRalph says:

        If you want to talk about a group that’s batsh!t crazy, psychiatrists top the list.

        • avatarDrVino says:

          Well, there is something to be said for physicians entering a field that somehow resonates with their personal experiences: the kid who had lots of ear problems becomes an otolaryngologist, the guy with Ulcerative Colitis becomes a gastroenterologist…. How someone gets into functional imaging or radiology, I don’t know….

        • avatarjwm says:

          DrVino, what’s your take on the motivation for a person becoming a Proctologist?

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          I can attest to the Psychiatrists being the nuttiest functional people out there, though Psychologists aren’t far behind. The Psychiatrists just have higher SAT scores. The craziest people are non-functional in everyday life, who are the ones who don’t need guns, knives, cars or gasoline and fertilizer.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          JWM, based on my limited interactions with psychology professors at university, my theory is that people go into proctology to make good money helping psychologists extract their heads from their rectums. Seems like there’s enough repeat business to keep the proctologists in business…

      • avatarGyufygy says:

        Psychiatrists try to directly manipulate the brain with medication and other treatments. Psychologists try to change the brain indirectly, the same way the brain changes everyday based upon experience.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          And talented mental-health therapists work to combine and balance the two approaches, but from what I’ve seen, they are the exception rather than the rule in the field.

      • avatarMike in NC says:

        While it’s an old joke, I think there is some truth to it: Psychologists get into the field of study because they are looking for a good four-year therapy program.

        • avatarGyufygy says:

          Being a psych major in college, I’d love to dispute that.

          I’d also be lying my ass off. :p

        • avatarDrVino says:

          Mike, I double majored in college. I used Psychology as a GPA booster and a way to get into emotionally vulnerable girls’ undies….

  9. avatarLance says:

    The anti-gunners where going to move fast they did. We need to unit and tell all NO on banning guns. Write your Reps and Senators like I always say and make your voice heard on saying NO!

  10. avatarLeo338 says:

    I wonder what exactly he is implying in this part?

    “I’m gonna focus on the ones that relate primarily to gun ownership, what types of weapons can be owned.”

    Is this an attempt at an EO AWB?

    • avatarrosignol says:

      Would be challenged and struck down in court.

      • avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

        Why is everyone who asserts this so certain of that it will be the case?

        • avatarrosignol says:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order#History_and_use

          Until 1952, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

          That’s part of it.

    • avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

      Believe me, I know! I’ve been trying to get a response on that post to no avail.

      Normalcy Bias at it’s finest!

      • avatarLeo338 says:

        Normalcy Bias at it’s finest!

        HA! Especially when you see those same people still commenting these days as if these past post didn’t exist.

        • avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

          Surpirsed it hasn’t been “Memory Holed” by now.

          Post? What Post?

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Sorry to interrupt the party, but you know that RF also ran a post admitting that he had called it wrong?

  11. avatarSchizuki says:

    Actually, Biden was looking over Obama’s shoulder at Dianne Feinstein and said, “C U Next Tuesday.”

  12. avatarDon says:

    I see it as a bigger problem if the recommendations are coming not from him but from the groups he’s been conferring with. The groups he’s conferring with are the anti-gun extremists who would prefer a completely disarmed populace.

    I tried to get on the panel and my emails to the whitehouse were ignored. LOL.

    -D

  13. avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

    “After consulting with a series of stakeholders in the ongoing debate over gun control”…. I’m sorry, I don’t remember any of us being consulted about sh1t.

    • avatarRalph says:

      We were consulted on the first Tuesday in November, and we as a nation wrote the b@stards a blank check.

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        Isn’t that the truth. Elections have consequences. How many of our fellow TTAG Armed Intelligensia voted for these clowns? Lots on here were defending Obama prior to the election. I can’t even begin to explain how pissed I am at these naive gun enthusiasts voting for avowed Progressives.

  14. avatarDavid says:

    “I’m gonna focus on the ones that relate primarily to gun ownership, what types of weapons can be owned.”

    So any other suggestions that had a good chance of all of us, or at least like 90%, agreeing upon you blew off so you could PO tens to hundreds of millions of Americans” Great. Yeah that guy is not picking a fight.

  15. avatarDavid says:

    Amagi,

    Your underpants gnome reference may be missed on every one else but not me :)

  16. avatarLeo338 says:

    My only consultation in all of this is Biden, Difi and Reid are all old and I am still pretty young. Chances are I will get to see the day these jackasses kick the bucket. That will be a day to celebrate. Unfortunately they will all probably live to see 100 and still be in politics harassing us.

  17. avatarPatriot says:

    Here is something fun to do, go to luckgunner.com, pick a common cartridge, and watch in real time as the inventory stock depletes. I sat and watched .308 completely disappear in less than 5 minutes, I sh!t you not. Buy what you can NOW.

  18. avatarRockThisTown says:

    “For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” H. L. Mencken

    Bet the farm Biden’s recommendations will be clear, simple and wrong . . . just like him.

  19. avatarPowers says:

    God I really don’t understand why the real issues of mental health, enforcing existing laws and allowing the people to defend themselves is such a horrible concept to the anti-gun crowd. Do they really think an AWB II will stop ANYTHING? The reason our corrections facilities are so overcrowded is because laws do not stop anyone who wants to go through with their intent. Laws only succeed in handing out sentences to individuals who the law did not matter to. Laws do not stop law abiding individuals from doing anything. They simply mark a concept to render punishment or consequences, even benchmarks for civil society. It is not a barrier. Not to the violent offenders, or mentally ill. To most people, laws are a list of things they weren’t going to do anyways. I am not talking about speeding tickets and car registrations, but things like murder, rape, mass murders, etc..
    I am not a lawyer, so the actual book definition of laws and their exact judicial use is probably not correct. But that was not my intent. Common sense was the point I am trying to make, and how the anti-gun crowd seems to want the peoples rights infringed. With no beneficial outcome. NONE. Surely, AWB or not, there will be some moron who does something terrible again. Hopefully when that person strikes, another person will be armed and be able to take appropriate action to stop the threat.

    I am just ranting..sorry.

    • avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

      The feds are pressuring Gov Moonbeam in CA to release more inmates from prisons to improve conditions.

      First: since when is Jail supposed to have four-star accommodations?
      Second: first disarm the public, then release violent offenders into their midst and then…….?

    • avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

      Also, you and I differ from the libtards on the purpose of law:
      We see it as defining consequences/punishment for specific violations.
      They see it as a “deterrent”.

      On second hand, they don’t see it as either. When a law calls for a fine, they see it as a revenue stream….

    • avatarRalph says:

      Do they really think an AWB II will stop ANYTHING?

      Yes. They think it will stop us from buying the guns we want to buy. They don’t give a rat’s hat about what criminals might do. In fact, they’re trying hard to make us criminals.

  20. avatarSeth says:

    I don’t have a problem if the “universal” background check is offered as a compromise, as long as a AWB/mag limit is taken off the table. What do you think?

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      Explain to me how your idea of a universal background check works.

      I ask because, to me, that’s simply not possible without also having universal registration. You can say “all transfers have to go through an FFL and have a NICS check run,” but without an attendant rule like “possession of a gun without proof of a passed NICS is a felony” your first rule has no teeth. So, how does it work, in your mind? How do you ensure compliance with the first part?

      • avatarDrVino says:

        Well… a background does not have to reveal WHAT KIND OR TYPE of firearm one is buying.

        All it has to do is give a binary response: “cleared” or “not cleared”. That is all the DOJ and the seller need to know.

        Of course, an appeals process that maintains privacy would be appropriate….

      • avatarSeth says:

        Honestly I don’t know. I definitely don’t mean registration, proof of ownership or anything more than what’s in place now, but only that every purchase requires a NICS check. Private buyers/sellers would meet at an FFL to fill out the background check, and when it clears the weapon exchanges hands. Inconvenient and will cost you a bit more, but I’d be willing to give that up to keep my AR and 30 rd mags.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          But again, how do you verify it? Conversely, how do you know if you’re not breaking the law? I have a friend who I might see every 3-4 months. He wants to borrow one of my guns. I’ve known him for 20+ years, so I know it’ll be in good hands. Under the current system, I can give it to him, to borrow or for keeps, at my discretion, just like any other piece of tangible personal property. Under your universal background check system, do I have to give it to him through an FFL? I only see him a couple times a year, so at what point does a loan become a transfer of ownership? What if someone wanted to prosecute us for an “illegal sale?” How would I prove it’s only a long-term loan?

          I suppose California has laws like this now, where all transfers are supposed to go through an FFL. So with that in mind, maybe someone from there can answer my question. How would you handle a situation like that, legally?

        • avatarjwm says:

          Matt, the way I understand California law we can loan our guns to others for up to 30 days, longer and we have to go thru the ffl transfer.

          I can give a shotgun or rifle to a family member without going thru a background check. Handguns have to be registered. When I gift a handgun to a family member we have 30 days to do a simple change of ownership form thru sacremento.

          When I have given a handgun to a non family member we’ve had to take the gun to an ffl and let them hold it while the nics check and 10 day waiting period were satisfied.

          And of course any info I give you is subject to change. It’s my understanding that we have to start registering new long guns starting in 2014.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          Sorry Seth, while I’m not dismissing your suggestion as a bad idea, the reality is when you give the Progressives an inch in compromise, they still want the entire mile. Reminds me of my ex-wife: she doesn’t want half of my assets, not even all of my assets, she want all of my assets and then all of my future assets and then wants me to take out loans to provide even more assets. Then she want me dead at the same time. Same thing.

    • avatarOutlaw says:

      I think you should stop acting like a coward and stand up for your rights. I’d rather fight and lose than let them kick me in the balls in exchange for them not punching me in the face right yet.

  21. avatarMark says:

    “Progressives” and liberals can’t tell the difference between a law-abiding firearms owner and a homicidal maniac criminal, so they make plans to further violate The Bill of Rights and change “the rules” so that law-abiding firearms owners become designated as criminals after having carefully follows the “old rules” and homicidal maniac criminals continue to do that they have always done with even less opposition. What could possibly go wrong?

  22. avatarRalph says:

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/11/foghorn/why-were-still-at-least-two-years-away-from-an-assault-weapons-ban/

    You can see the division among TTAG staff in this post-election post. Joe Grine and I took a very hard line. Nick, Chris and RF were more hopeful. The Rabbi posited the idea of gun control by EO and was hooted down. Naturally, a bunch of concern tr0lls showed up top tell us what a great guy Obama is and that we should take off our tinfoil hats. Regular commenters were mixed in their views.

    As it turns out, we were all wrong except (maybe) the Rabbi. The hopes of Nick, Chris and RF have been dashed, and the situation is even worse than Joe Grine and I posited back then. Brothers and sisters, we need to prepare for an old fashiioned, Chicago-style ward heeler pigf^ck.

    It would be a miracle if only ARs and standard mags get banned. If it’s 1994 all over again, we should consider ourselves lucky.

    • avatarLeo338 says:

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

      Two years, hell it barely took 2 months!

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      You really think they’re going to go for AWB 2.0 (AR ban) at the federal level?

      Because I don’t. I think they’re going for mag cap limits at the federal level and counting on the blue states to enact AWB 2.0.

      • avatarLeo338 says:

        I honestly don’t know what to think. At this point anything is possible with these guys in power. If they think they can get away with an AWB they will try it. I believe we are in for a mag limit for sure, but as you said they may hold back on an AWB for now. They may rely on the states or see what they can do with Difi’s bill.

      • avatarRalph says:

        AlphaGeek, it will be the most draconian gun law in the history of the US. Obama didn’t need Joe Biden and his so-called committee to do anything less than that.

        • avatarOutlaw says:

          Alpha Geek has a history of trying to convince us all that the piss raining down on us is actually Obamanade, a tasty refreshing drink that’s “Not so bad, guys. Really!”

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          All kidding aside Ralph, in my gut opinion, yours is the most accurate representation of the gun grabbers intentions that I have read. One sentence. Bam. The rest of you naysayers need to deal with it.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Outlaw, just because I’ve represented a perspective not 100% in line with your orthodoxy, doesn’t mean I have tried to sell anyone on President Obama being your best friend.

          I think you’ll find that I have been consistent in my views (until recently) that he has been averse to any significant action involving 2A issues because there was no political upside for him or his party as a whole. Not sure why you feel the need to call me out on this, as I have also publicly admitted that I had read it wrong when Obama announced support for anti-2A legislation.

          TL;DR version: I’d appreciate it if you stopped being a jerk towards me and folks who held similar views, as we’re all on the same side.

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      If there is a silver lining, and I don’t see much of one, is that all this talk is happening in 2013. If Sandy Hook had occurred in 2008, there would be tens of thousands fewer lawful AR owners. Lets also not forget the creation, expansion, and proliferation of TTAG and other intelligent pro-freedom groups.

      • avatarRalph says:

        Accur81, you should consider a career in mediation after you’re finished policing. You have a way of finding a ray of sunshine in the middle of a total eclipse.

        • avatarAccur81 says:

          Thanks!

          My first choice as of this point would be to finish enough Masters degree classes so that I could teach Criminology and / or Sociology at the collegiate level. There are two many anti-freedom academics, and i believe I vould counter many of those sentiments.

          I appreciate also the many writings that you have undertaken in support of the 2nd. TTAG isn’t going to fall asleep or be silenced anytime soon.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      I remember sticking to the idea that obama is not going to do jack shit and underestimated the enthusiasm for him and other statists like him to never let a good crisis go to waste. After Sandy Hook, my hopes for a pain in the ass like obama to leave me alone were completely dashed.

      “Brothers and sisters, we need to prepare for an old fashiioned, Chicago-style ward heeler pigf^ck.”

      I dont give in to fear mongering and pessimism, still trying to cling to rationalism and objectivity, but ill say that you are 100% right ralph. This is going to get butt ugly.

  23. avatarMOG says:

    I would not bet on the court throwing anything out. I would hope they took the 2nd amendment seriously, but, as has been said already, the government might very well claim it has jurisdiction on what arms/ammo we have a right to own. I will not compare this to any other country, this is not any other country.

  24. avatarjwm says:

    Uncle Joe can recommend all he wants. There’s still a process that has to be followed before any of this becomes law. If the NRA caves on any of this, accepts any “compromise” where we get nothing in return, the NRA gets not one penny more from me and anyone I can influence.

    • avatarmatt says:

      I wonder how many people said that in ’94?

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      JWM, the NRA is a very minor nuisance to the gun grabbers. You can’t really believe that our Imperial President gives a $hit about the NRA? The NRA will not stop a thing, except helping to file lawsuits after the fact.

      • avatarjwm says:

        Have to disagree with you J&D. I recently joined SAF and while they’re a good group they appear to be tackling court cases AFTER bad laws are written.

        The NRA is in the business of trying to stop the bad laws before they get written.

        And honestly, at this stage of the game who do we have that’s better? If we all go lone wolf we just get plowed under.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          +1000. If you only have one dog in the fight, you’d better be keeping him fed and healthy.

          This is why I swallowed all previous distaste for the NRA and their public image and started supporting them via membership and contributions.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          I agree. The SAF does awesome work, but they’re almost entirely after the fact. The NRA is the only organization that has any real clout in the halls of Congress, before the bills get passed. The NRA is the only one capable of bringing the politicians to heel if they don’t support our side, because they have an unmatched ability to mobilize their member base.

          Unfortunately, that also puts them in the perfect position to sell us out if it’s politically expedient to do so.

  25. avatarBill says:

    I threw-up in my mouth a little after reading this article. I’m so sick of this sh!t

  26. avatarRob Drummond says:

    Well I am not giving up my guns nor am I telling them what I have…………arrest me!
    Rob Drummond
    Hillsboro, NH

  27. avatarOutlaw says:

    Noncompliance.

  28. avatarKirk says:

    I attended Rep. Mike Thompson (on task force) Town Hall meeting in Vallejo, Calif. last night. My report: http://guardamerican.com/index.php/blog/35-politics/436-gun-control-rep-mike-thompson-townhall-debrief

  29. avatarDerek says:

    “…and I’m gonna focus on the ones that relate primarily to gun ownership, what types of weapons can be owned.”

    Precisely how did Uncle Joe arrive at the conclusion that those would be the most effective of the solutions? Because he said so?

  30. avatarBob E says:

    It’s all part of a bigger plan to lower the US debt. 1)Collect all the guns 2) sell them in Mexico 3) pay off debt to china. Lol

    • avatarRalph says:

      Why bother? Just mint that trillion dollar platinum coin and give it to the Chinese.

      • avatarmatt says:

        That would be the worst idea ever. Given their history on IP rights, as soon as they got their hands on it, they would start knocking them off.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      why would they want to lower the debt? leveraging more debt is how the “solvency” of the dollar is maintained.

      about that debt ceiling….

  31. avatarO.E says:

    These are the same kind of people who approve skateboard park planning permission in my state.

    They will give the mob what it desires, and then when Junior comes racing home with a wound they will have that blank gaze appear upon their face for a milisecond before pushing bigger Government responses onto the board room table.

  32. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    My hope is that no one on our side considers taking anything from gun owners to be reasonable. They can add, such as mental health screening etc. Blacks had a helluva fight for their civil rights & we will too. My local shopping center just took their no weapons signs down, Randy PS, local sheriff Clarke is a black guy & if you think y’all are pissed at o & b you haven’t heard him talk, Randy

  33. avatarOK S. says:

    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/10/assault-rifle-saves-teenagers-from-home-invasion-burglars/

    “Assault Rifle” Saves Teenagers From Home Invasion Burglars

    By: John Hayward
    1/10/2013 09:44 AM

    No sooner do I finish explaining to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo why people might need 10 bullets for something other than blowing away deer, than the headlines burst with an example, courtesy of The Right Scoop and Poor Richard’s News. Not only was a “high capacity magazine” involved, but the story involves a teenage boy in Texas defending his even younger sister from a couple of thugs with one of those dreaded AR-15 “assault rifles”:

    I wonder if that cop will help round up gun owners?

  34. avatarSmaj says:

    The progressives/statists/whatever want our guns. Stop all this deluded thinking that negotiating or compromising with them is helpful to our 2nd Amendment rights. Like thugs everywhere they will take compromise as weakness. We need to hold the line and SOME politician with moral courage (yeah,, right) needs to tell Dear Leader that any kind of anti-gun executive order is a very bad idea filled with unknown dire consequences.

  35. avatarqajaqon says:

    Unconstitutional laws are not laws………..

    Noncompliance from this free American

    Scott Sloan
    Washington State

    Nous Defions(we defy)
    De Oppresso Libre(free the oppressed)

  36. avatarKirk says:

    If y’all want to know some history on mental healthcare in America, this gives you a sense: http://guardamerican.com/index.php/blog/35-politics/424-california-rep-ban-bullets-no-word-on-crazy-people

    As I noted elsewhere, a tax on guns and ammo is virtually assured to fund mental health initiatives.

Leave a Reply

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