We are in the midst of a gun sales surge within a gun sales surge. While there are plenty of reasons for the dramatic uptick, there’s no denying that the prospect of four more years of an Obama presidency gives millions of gun owners the heebie-jeebies. The thinking: a lame-duck Obama would do what he wanted to do all along re: firearms. Namely, champion gun control. Never mind legislative impotence. As the ATF’s court-delayed long gun registration scheme proves, the Prez could grab (i.e. restrict and regulate) guns by executive fiat. But is that actually true? Aside from the aforementioned illegal registry, the CIC has done nothing to roadblock this country’s move towards greater gun rights. If the President was going to crusade against guns, I reckon he would have done it in Phoenix [above]. Would a reinvigorated Obama dare touch what’s become the third rail in American politics? How realistic is the latest wave of gun-buying paranoia/wariness/common sense?
I think doing something via legislation might be a bit of a challenge, BUT, there are plenty of opportunities to restrict gun-ownership through regulation (EPA, DHS, BATFE, HHS, etc…).
One could make the case for regulation via EPA (Environmental issues) with powder, lead, etc..
Homeland Security – Terrorism and Security
More restriction via the ATF and their goons.
Health and Human services with Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), once the full impact is felt, they can certainly start restricting gun-ownership based on cost of coverage for gunshot related traumas, safety and health concerns.
None of those would require much legislation, but rather be done through regulation.
Its actually kinda creepy that so much of our lives are regulated and not legislated now.
I’m on the fence on this one.
On one hand, he wouldn’t have a re-election to worry about being “moderate” for so he’d feel free to push for something he, himself, wanted.
On the other hand, he’s well aware that pushing for more gun-control will be a hellish fight that likely won’t result in any real gains anyway. Wasting time on gun-control will take time away from other things that he might hold to a higher priority i.e. health care, redistribution of wealth, social justice, equal outcome yadda yadda…
Also, in the same vein as above, he wouldn’t need to appease his own base with things they care about but that he holds at a lower priority like gun-control, environmental regs, squashing our military so on and so forth.
So to answer the question; Maybe. Either way, I won’t be voting for Obama.
Would a Re-Elected Obama Move Against Guns?
Short answer: Yes, I believe he would.
At a minimum, I think he would do it to grand stand. He is more interested in popularity. Zimmerman as an example.
Obama demonstrated his beliefs as Senator of Illinois. Obama, as Senator, cosponsored an Illinois Bill in 2000 to limit handgun purchases to one per month.
It was mentioned in the article that no move has been done against gun rights. I disagree. Moves against Gun Rights has been done in very small moves. Look at who he put in charge of the ATF. He moved to blocked the import of American guns from Korea (M1 Garands).
The Removal of Guns won’t happen overnight. It will be a slow gradual process. Putting people in place in key positions seems to be Obama’s strategy versus open banning. It is a good strategy. Lots of examples are available.
Even now, California limits their guns to 10 round magazines. Even in Texas, you want a Mares Leg with full stock (short barreled lever action gun) – not only do you need ATF permission, you have to get permission from your local law enforcement to sign off. Don’t worry about changing the laws, get the people you want in key positions first – just like playing chess.
If it does happen, It would happen in small steps. It is a long term strategy.
B.O. would absolutely do everything he can to deny gun owning Americans their Constutional right to firearms, and given his record he’ll bypass Con-gress and do it by dictitorial edict, er I mean Executive Orders. Nothing scares me more than a lame duck president who doesn’t have to worry about getting re-elected, especially a president as immature, narcissistic, and ideologically driven as B.O.. Remember the meeting he had with Sarah Brady a year or so ago when he told her that he had some under-the-radar plans for gun control?
I don’t believe he’d try anything overtly. However, I do hope there are 5 justices eating their wheaties and doing everything their doctors ask of them. We don’t need another Obama appointee.
The real question is why wouldn’t he do so upon re-election.
Obama is nothing if not a calculating marketing expert, and by being quiet publicly about gun control to this point he enhances his credibility among the liberal and the pliable when he does decide to speak up on the matter. The speech will read something like this:
Obama over the previous 4 years has ***magnanimously put aside his differences**** to see how concealed carry and expanded availability of firearms has worked, and how SCOTUS rulings like Heller play out in the real world “despite his disagreements”.Sadly the Zimmerman, Virginia Tech 2011, and the Giffords incident prove tragically that the pro-carry side is wrong and that stronger gun laws are the way to go. Obama will say that we have “had our chance” during his first term, and that now its time to do something for the kids and our future.
First, starting 30 days later AWB version 3.0 will take effect……then the NFA act will be expanded to include weapon types X, Y, and Z….and CCW users will need to register in a nationwide database to possess a valid permit. That last one will be called the “Martin Law”, which he will implore the Senate and House to put aside their differences and pass right away.
Ive heard that speech before in Illinois 8 years ago. Don’t make the same mistake those voters did in November 2012.
I’m sure it will echo something of that nature. The only reason he hasn’t moved against the 2A is re-election. He was working on getting re-elected from day one.
We all saw is quick move to issue an EO for the decommissioning of Guantanamo Bay, but quickly realized no one wanted to house terror suspects in their state no matter how liberal they were. That was his litmus test and everything since has been to quell and appease voters for a re-election campaign.
A second run in office would allow him to operate with zero regard to public opinion and even less for the rule of law. That’s exactly why he is so dangerous.
Preach it, coffee-drinker!
I imagine that personal protection could be an expanded role of government, taxes on guns and ammo, greater government intervention into background checks, and I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if the ginormous health – care bill discriminated against gun ownership as well as raise taxes. The health care bill adds a 3.9% federeal sales tax to real – estate transactions effective Jan 1, 2013 amongst other numerous malfunctions.
I would go so far to say the “healthcare bill” had less to do with healthcare and more to do with government power grabs. Congress isn’t helping much either when you look at their recent attempts to pass SOPA/PIPA and whatever atrocity it is called now.
The Republicans are no better. How about the recent bill the house passed and Obama signed into law (HR 347)? It effectively makes it a federal felony to protest at USSS catered events. Kiss your legal ability to speak up good bye. It’s one big power grab and tax payers are being left in the cold.
I’m just hoping that whoever ends up running against him keeps harping on Obama’s implicit involvement in the gun walking scandal and it’s motives. How was he willing to come out publicly for a full investigation of a shooting that is being argued as legal self defense, all the while ignoring the murders of border patrol agents and hundreds of mexicans using guns that his administration provided to the killers?
Those should be big issues and wake up the mainstream media and the public. Maybe then we wouldn’t have to worry about a re-elected Osama. Unfortunately I don’t think anyone running for office has the balls to do it.
I think the question is poorly worded and would be better phrased as follows: How Would a Re-Elected Obama Move Against Guns?
And I think that Obama will move against guns by side-stepping Congress and the Courts as much as possible, likely by hyper-enforcement and “creative prosecution” undertaken by his chief apparatchik, Commissar Eric Holder.
After all, if the government disarms the people, then they need have no fear of revolt.
I predict that four years from now, you’ll see a post claiming that the next Democratic candidate is planning on taking all our guns, and that it was all a secret plot starting with eight years of President Obama doing absolutely nothing about gun control to lull us into a sense of safety.
Let’s not forget that the Republican conservative demi-god Ronald Regan did more damage to gun ownership than Obama has ever done. He signed the Mulford Act in California, and supported the Brady Bill. His protege, the first President Bush, banned the import of “assault weapons”.
All politicians are crooks and liars. None of them are to be trusted. We must always remain vigilant about keeping our rights protected. Don’t think that you are any better off with a (R) in office.
George W. was pretty damn friendly to firearm ownership. I don’t see any D’s that will follow in those footsteps.
‘All politicians are crooks and liars. None of them are to be trusted’.
The heaviest slave chains are those worn by sheeple who believe they are free. Domestically in America, when guns are used against people it is almost always against non-government actors, organizations, and actions. Therefore, government can continue its policies and actions to bringing forth the police-nanny corporatist state. While the federal and urban governments appear increasingly anti-gun, under the surface they can work around gun ownership in America and even use it too to their advantage. Political maneuvering and posturing is something most people don’t relate well to since the average person doesn’t think or behave like a politician and a political tactical advisor.
I suspect (can be totally wrong) that Team Obama will try to regulate and rollback access somewhat to the more tactical ‘assault weapons’ guns to include .50 caliber sniper rifles, large capacity magazines, etc. There might also be moves to require use of gun safes, locks, etc. Groups long-opposed to guns such as liberals, progressives, women, and Democrats are now increasingly buying or becoming interested in gun ownership so I do not expect an all out assault on gun rights by Obama. Introducing too much gun regulation and Democrat leaders know there would be hell to pay come the next Congressional election cycle.
I think if he does anything, he’ll whittle rather than carve.
“whittle rather than carve”
— You summarized that one perfectly.
If BO was to go all out spending his reserves of political capital on attacking the RKBA then he would more quickly move towards limited himself to lame duck status. Congressional members with an eye to the future will want to distance themselves from. BO could declare a national emergency and assume dictatorial powers outlawing guns or most of them however I do not see that occurring.
He won’t care in a second term. His whole first term has been nothing but a re-election campaign. Unfortunately with the Republican line up, we well probably have to find out.
If he would have wanted to do anything, he’d have done it by now. He’s been a lame duck since entering office.
First, I don’t think people are buying guns because they fear they will be outlawed or that ammunition will be rationed. I don’t think the decision to buy guns is political for the majority, maybe it is for the minority. What is driving the ‘get armed’ movement is the economy heading for the edge of a cliff and policemen getting laid off or cut back and thought of what might happen when they finally stop paying out unemployment benefits.
Gerald Celente says, “When people have nothing to lose, they lose it.”
Personally I am buying guns because I don’t want someone who is losing it, to do it NEAR or ON me.
Harsh inflation is now a policy to pursue, not just some economic factor. As prices for everything rise, in particular food, people will have to do with less and less. What will people be willing to do to feed their children, or worse support drug habits, or not get evicted into the streets?
Not only have I bought two handguns in the last few months, but I also have my concealed permit and I am studying and reading up on everything I can to make sure I proceed safely, within the parameters of the law, and with the determination to defend myself and my family in any circumstance, any time, and any place.
I’m not worried about Obama. I am worried about the lack of police protection in Detroit, Flint, and a dozen other understaffed, violence oriented, gang filled, city streets strewn across the U.S.
Obama is a creature of the lobbyists and no one lobbies harder than the NRA….
I’m sure this is an over-simplification, but I think that any President willing to pay the political price could effectively shut down trade in new or imported firearms and ammunition by simply ordering ATF and a few other agencies to stonewall rather than approving required paperwork.
To answer the question posed:”Would a Re-Elected Obama Move Against Guns?”
YES, in fact I don’t believe the 2A will survive a second term (as we know it now).
People must not have been listening the last time Holder testified in front of Congress. He said quote: ” it has always been the administrations goal to bring back the assault weapons ban. ” -endquote. The gloves will come off if he wins again. He will have nothing to fear. I agree with Michael Bane who said we all need to rally behind whoever is the nominee because they, whoever they are, will be better than our current Pres. There’s some logic there…
Fast and Furious ring a bell, Mr. Farago? He already has and will continue to do so.
The thing is that while Obama will have no further elections to face, Democrats will have many more elections to face, starting with any local and state elections in 2013, and continuing on with Congressional elections in 2014. A strong push for gun control by Obama could be seriously harmful to Democratic prospects in those races. Ask Bill Clinton. Passing the AWB cost him Congress and made his terms much more difficult. Even if he isn’t going to face another election, I don’t think Obama wants to face his last two years in office against a Republican Congress.
Tim Tritt’s initial post only scratches the surface of POTUS’ power to affect gun ownership without going to Congress for authority. And if the Dems hold the Senate and win back the House, then Obama will go to Congress and he’ll get what he wants.
However, the Obamacare case now in front of the Supreme Court could be a real game-changer. Ever since the Lopez decision, a couple of Justices have been chomping at the bit to try to rein in federal power. This case might be the right platform for that, and if it is, it’s also the beginning of the end of the Imperial Presidency. We will see.
Nailed it, Ralph: The Imperial Presidency and its coattails in the Commerce Clause abuses, police jurisdiction abuses, invention of creative new laws to break the Double Jeopardy provision, all are a monster invented out of whole cloth in the 1930’s. We could but need not go back to the Founding Fathers on this one. The entire 19th century was witness to the rejection of an imperial federal executive.
In the early to mid-thirties, we had a depression that made the current recession seem like good times, a growing fascist movement in Europe that made war all but inevitable, an expansionist Japan that was scaring the hell out of Asia, an aggressive Soviet Union and a growing Communist movement in the US. When “democratic” institutions are threatened, they get less democratic in order to survive. Just the opposite of dictatorships, which must become more democratic in order to survive.
The Founders conceived a system where Congress was to be the first among equals. It’s time to go back to being that Republic.
Very insightful and interesting comment.
Totally agree on Obamacare being a nightmare. You’ll also note that some of the bill’s prime sponsors have subsequently “opted out” of that program. Check out Nancy Pelosi’s district in California if you’re looking for proof. If a sponsor opts out of something, I sure as hell don’t want it for myself.
It’s rather politically expedient that the plan’s would take effect in his second term, while costing nearly a trillion dollars prior to benefits taking place. I’ve yet to see an argument as to why the massive health care document is an improvement upon tort reform and national health care competition.
Also note provisions to government-chosen scholarships, increased real estates taxes, etc. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover a shared “gun violence” tax or other anti – 2A legislation.
To me, the real issue isn’t Obamacare as such. By the time the law takes effect, I’ll be on Medicare anyway. What really matters is the reach of the Commerce Clause. That’s the monster that needs to be defanged, because it’s consuming everything.
EXECUTIVE ORDER XXXXX
The importation of any firearm, firearm part, firearm accessory , or firearm sighting device as well as ammunition, propellants, or ammunition components, is hereby prohibited.
By order of the POTUS
Sigh. Again, as guns move into the mainstream, they’ll be as decoupled from politics as cars. Most of the comments I’ve read in this thread sound like NRA pamphlets from 2008.
I’ll personally bet Mr. Farago, or one of the other TTAG editors, a dollar per day of Obama’s second term (if re-elected) that no significant gun control will be enacted.
Ah, but this is “2008 NRA pamphlet” is about what the President wants to do, not what he is actually able of doing. Historically, large high-tax government aficionados have not coincided well with freedom – loving 2A advocates. Hence the commentary therein. If you think a vote for the incumbent supports the 2nd Amendment, you’re welcome to do so. I for one, do not agree.
no significant gun control will be enacted
“Enacted” implies laws passed by Congress. They are unlikely, but possible. I would rate Executive Orders and regulations by ATF and others not just likely but a given. Obama can’t run for a third term but he certainly wouldn’t want to inplicate Congress and get his party into hot water. EOs and regulations shield Congress from criticism.
Any agency that enforces an EO as unpopular as new, un-legislated gun control would be budget-neutered by Congress. It happens all the time.
If reelected, I don’t see President Obama creating a meaningful stir about gun control. I think he cares too much about his place in history and, frankly, too little about spending precious political capital on gun control, to do anything precipitous that would cause a backlash of monumental proportions–and possibly serve to define his presidency. He seems way too cautious for that. As for SCOTUS replacements, I would say that any single choice can provide both welcome and unwelcome surprises regarding how they vote on certain issues. Also, the 2nd Amendment has remained intact through lots of different courts, even very liberal ones.
Now maybe a crazy gut feel based on some observations. Indulge me, if you please.
Based on the way I’ve seen the President react joyfully when he shot a toy cannon in a science fair, the way he threatens boys away from his daughters through the use of predator drones (and the way he has had them used to great effect killing presumed terrorists), the way his face lighted up when he described the SEAL snipers “addressing” the Somali pirates as well as his pride in the way SEAL team 6 dispatched OBL, I think the President may be channeling his inner child cowboy, perhaps groomed in the great plains state of Kansas at his grandmother’s knee and his WW2 veteran grandfather’s side. (That’s where my inner cowboy and love of firearms was nurtured, not too far from Dodge City, albeit a few years earlier than the President lived in KS.)
Is my gut feel possible, or is it just indigestion? I don’t know. But what I do think is possible is that if I could get the man to spend one hour of range time with me, we might just have another gunny on our hands. Just maybe.
All i know is that if you rail against obama for conspiring to take your guns away in his second term you have to vote against him for fear of being wrong.
Uh, no. We have to vote against him because he’s one crappy President.
Which one are you leaning towards, Ralph? Please tell us which of those GOP clowns you’d prefer in the White House.
It’s not Obama that you need to fear, it’s who he might appoint. If you can’t get it passed in congress that legislate in from the courts.
Bullseye, Stant!! The beauty of our current system of government to the liberals is that the unelected branch, the judiciary, can pretty much do whatever the hell it wants to our constutional rights. 0bama can sit there, read all the stuff off his teleprompter about “Oh, no , we’re not taking anyone’s guns away” while his appointees on the courts can do all the dirty work for him.
Four more years of 0bama stacking the courts with left wingers will mean the death of our freedoms.
Yeah, you can own a firearm, but it has to be kept locked and disassembled. Want to buy a gun?? Well, you can only buy one at a time, and you have to pay $500 for a permit, take an 8 hour safety class , undergo a background check and a psychological evaluation. And the gun can only have a 10 round clip and oh yea, nothing above 380 caliber.
“nothing above 380 caliber.”
Well, to be fair, any round thats 380 inches in diameter (give or take) would destroy anything you shoot just about, so you really don’t need anything above a 380 caliber……
Totenglocke -“Well, to be fair, any round thats 380 inches in diameter (give or take) would destroy anything you shoot just about, so you really don’t need anything above a 380 caliber……”
380″- No shit, so much for double taps
Gotta go now, spent way too much time out of the bunker
undergo a background check and a psychological evaluation
And a proctological exam.
and yet souter, a bush appointee, voted against the heller decision.
He has done nothing in terms of gun control and I doubt he will do anything in his second term.
His VP is already talking of gun control. It won’t be him, but his appointees this round.
Stant is right. I predict the greatest assault on your so-called rights that you’ve ever seen. It’ll be worse than your worst nightmares, no that’s not possible because you fantasy lovers have good imaginations. But, what you’ll see is all the legislation our side has been waiting for.
Plus, he’ll probably have a chance to replace a couple of those Supremes who have been bought by the special interests.
Enjoy the good times, boys. They’re almost over.
Obama would like to regulate guns more and he may push for something like the CA or MA gun laws. Obama could be in a position to appoint more Justices to the SCOTUS, which might be very bad.
On the other hand, the GOP still does have the House and might regain control of the Senate. This would make life much more difficult for the Dems.
As long as the GOP and the Dems sit around and fight each other, we may be OK.
If Romney wins and wants to pass MA gun laws with the GOP in charge of Senate and House; we will then be screwed.
I am going to go out on a limb and predict that CA and MA gun laws will someday be the law of the land. ( Vomiting on the keyboard ). I really hope not.
Well the way things are going with the primaries, it looks like our options for the next four years are:
1) Obama gets elected, bans as many firearms as possible (possibly tries to ban them entirely), continues to rack up the Federal debt, and passes some more unconsitutional laws stripping us of yet more freedoms.
2) Romney gets elected, bans as many firearms as possible (possibly tries to ban them entirely), passes protectionist policies that jack prices for all goods thus making everyone worse off, and probably passing unconsitutional laws to take away more of our freedoms.
3) Santorum gets elected, passes protectionist polices that jack prices for all goods thus making everyone worse off, and attempts to make as many passages from the Bible into Federal law as possible.
Either way, we’re screwed, though with Santorum at least we might still have our guns.
I think Rick belongs in a santorium. That’s a special sanitarium for right wing religious kooks.
That’s a big 10-4, these neo-con, ultra religious types terrify me. I have no problem with religion but I hate when they try to legislate it. It’s freedom of religion, not freedom to be whatever kind of Christian you want.
how about freedom from religion?
One of the biggest prizes this election cycle will be appointing Supreme Court justices and federal judges. You can bit Obama’s picks would be worse than just about anyone’s. Not that natural, unalienable rights depend on judges, but judges surely can do fine damage to them.
I predict it will be between Romney and Obama. I think Obama will get re-elected.
Trust me, none of the above appeal to me, so do not think I like any of them.
Like the Rolling Stones once crooned, you can’t always get what you want . . . . You know the rest.
I kinda prefer The Who, I said it after the last election and this one won’t be any different…
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Nonsense. You had a Federal Judge murdered, along with several others, and a sitting Congresswoman left with lifetime disabilities from a head wound from the same assassin. – AND THERE WAS NO LEGISLATED ANTI-GUN RESPONSE. No effort, no discussion, no interest on the part of the Democratic Party or the White House.
This is a non-issue, the usual NRA-hysteria that organization gins up every election cycle.
Next subject, please.
Or you could see what he has done in IL politics. He supported every anti-2A effort in that state during his tenure. Unfortunately I guess we get to see what he will do in his second term since the other side offers such great options.
Next subject, please.
Challenge accepted. How do you feel about UFOs?
Alas, I fear the distances and c have taken that off the table. Damn shame, too.
Sarah Brady claims bho said he is working on gun control under the radar. But then again one must consider the source -the Brady Bunch. And if Sarah is truthful about this one must consider bho’s track record for promises. Of course very high gun sales might put some kind of crimp in supply for — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y
The day after the November election these are certainties:
EPA- bans all firearm and air gun ammunition containing lead.
they already floated a trial balloon on this but backed down under pressure
BML- discharge for firearm or airgun on any federal land is illegal.
Ditto on the trial balloon.
CPSC – airguns are the new lawn darts, completely forbidden.
CPSC – all firearms must have a 10lb trigger, chamber loaded indicator,
And all firearms must have integral triggerlocks.
He couldn’t move after the laughner shooting because like a smart politician he knew that the heat of the moment was temporary but the anger among gunnies would be inflamed during the re-election.
remember he’s an ivy league lawyer, he will have lots of other things figured out by then that don’t require legislative compliance.
…The day after the November election these are certainties…
Fascinating claim chowder. Please keep us up to date as to these remarkable prophesies – and see if you can get some info on upcoming powerball numbers too.
I have them , but I’m not telling you…
I have them , but I’m not telling you…
Of course he would and the rest of them. They tried it these last four years, but they were caught. Luckily for everyone.
They conspired to take away the right to arms by giving guns to Mexican gangs. They would have past infringements if they didn’t get caught. So four more years would give them enough time to think up another idea.
The States should not follow any unlawful bill as the federal government has no jurisdiction. They have no power to remove any right unless there was a rebellion.
By the way, if you give guns to a foreign force (cartel) from another country, although not a military force, that will be used in America against Americans, is that treason?
is that treason?
A fact that nobody seems to mention is that we saw this exact same sales surge in 2008-2009 because of irrational fears that Obama would “grab” everyone’s guns and ammunition.
It didn’t happen.
Now, he’s up for re-election, and once again, everyone seems to be wigging out because he’s going to “grab” their guns for sure this time! Look, regardless of your views about whether or not he’s done a good job as President, you have to admit: your gun safe, and the goodies within, are just as safe under Obama as they were under Bush, or Reagan, or any other conservative you care to name. Despite all the fear I’ve seen, nobody has come knocking (or banging, or shooting) at my front door asking for my carry weapon, or my AR-15, or even my old Smith .38 revolver! And it doesn’t seem likely that Obama (or any President) would simply look at the 2nd Amendment, laugh, and start rounding up gun owners for interrogation.
Buy all the guns you want, but for Pete’s sake, let’s cut the hysteria, ok?
post heller, things are even better than they were under bush.
and brady will forever be linked with reagan.
It’s quite likely that Obama would approve of any gun control legislation that lands on his desk after this election is over. The republicans will probably go with Romney this time around so the more important question to ask is how long will it take Romney to push through a new, permanent “assault weapons” ban like the one he signed off on in MA. As it stands Romney has done more to further gun control than Obama has.
It could even be argued that Romney is more likely to increase gun control in order to appear more moderate and thus appeal to some on the fence voters. Whereas Obama might not have pushed gun control(so far) for the exact same reason. Assuming he does win a second term he won’t have to worry so much about his approval rating.
So either way we are screwed, BOHICA America, vote for Ron Paul and hope the next four years go fast.
Separation of powers was one of the best ideas our framers ever came up with to stupid-proof our country. If you want to be sure you lose, sit back and play like you’re above it all. If you want to win, vote for every constitutional republican (small “r”) you can. Elections matter. That’s how we got into our current mess.
Romney is not going to be elected, the best we can hope for is that the GOP has the house and senate and stop any more stacking the courts. This next election is for the two houses, the presidential election will be Obama for sure. The anger, the class warfare, the Occupy movement are all meant to split the country and to for the mindless to vote for Obama. They will come out to vote for sure. What the rest of us need to do is make sure we do not loose the house and do win the Senate. That will be the real victory. Then Obama will have to play nice.
I predict that a brilliant blue-white light will shine down from the Heavens onto Ron Paul. He will be transformed into a human-angel hybrid with wings. In each of his hands he will hold a golden six shooter. Angel Ron will guide America from the darkness into the light. All good American citizens will own guns especially Ruger wheel guns. Anti-gunners and other trouble makers will be banished to Chicago, NYC, San Francisco, and Boston. Fire and Brimstone will reign down upon those cities. An era of peace and prosperity will unfold unlike any before for all the good people of the Earth.
Haha, that reminds me of one of my favorite bits in 1776:
Adams: It doesn’t matter. I won’t be in the history books anyway, only you. Franklin did this and Franklin did that and Franklin did some other damn thing. Franklin smote the ground and out sprang George Washington, fully grown and on his horse. Franklin then electrified him with his miraculous lightning rod and the three of them – Franklin, Washington, and the horse – conducted the entire revolution by themselves.
Franklin: I like it.
I don’t trust Obama on gun control or anything else-even if I wasn’t concerned with gun rights,I’d never vote for this President who spends so much time apologizing for this country-it almost seems he’s ashamed of being American.
Romney is a hold your nose alternative.I definitely don’t trust him on gun control-he proved himself in the wrong way in MA.
OTOH no other Republican can win.
The Senate is more important than even the Presidency so we can be spared any more left wing turds like Kagan or Sotomayor being appointed to SCOTUS.
You assume Obama would nominate anyone other than left wingers to the court. We are not getting a Scalia or Roberts out of him, he doesn’t even know anyone that fits that bill.
Obama’s MO is to use the EO, I’m sure there is one already typed out just waiting to be signed (win or no win) as soon as the election is over
We must ban together and start protesting the government’s violations of OUR freedoms and rights. First, should be the UN-patriot act. Instead of complaining about what the government is doing or not doing in this forum. Finally, I don’t think the putz, Romney will be anymore gun-friendly than our esteemed President.
The one to fear is Romney. His tough anti gun stand goes back decades, passing Massachuset’s strict assult weapons ban in 2004, in 1994 he fought the NRA for a 5 day waiting period on gun purchases, coming out against the NRA (who suck anyway) in 2002 with his continued support for the Brady Bill, quadrupled..yes QUADRUPLED the Mass state gun license fee & in 2008 said he’d pass a national assault weapons ban if he were elected as well as this in 2007 ” I also support an assault weapon ban.”
Romney may SAY he’s all pro-gun rights now, but if he gets into the Whitehosue can we REALLY trust him? I sure don’t.
Well, he finally went off teleprompter on the subject. The answer is “yes”- he plans to re-enact the “assault weapon ban”.