Do you think our gun rights are in real danger after Nov 6th?

If Obama wins this Nov., I'm not voting for him, but theres enough ignorant people who will. How likely do you think that he will try to implement some sort of guns rights ban. I think they were planning on using fast and furious to scare people into demanding stricter gun laws. I personally think that if he wins we will at minimum see the clinton bans revived. AT MININIUM. I see it happening under soem sort of "goverment consiperacy" that a tragedy happens(people will give up freedoms for the false sense of security) and they inact very strict laws, or he if were on the brink of war with another country threating us. which several are already. with all the tension in the mideast and korea, that martial law could be implemented. Even if its an illegal implemnation. We already seen he declared war without permission for congress.. I think at minimum the clinton gun bans will be brought back. What does everyone else think?

IBTP

yes

yes.

Tag for later

Lol

There isn't an electable person in this nation that would do what is actually necessary to save it.

Yes.

IBTP

I'm sorry, but my INALIENABLE rights come from my creator, not from some tin-pot dictator.
The paper that is such an inconvience to him merely codifies them, not grants them.

Nick

Before November 6th, after November 6th, any day of the week . . .

I think he is just biding his time, because he is not going to do anything too crazy unless the people ask for it or its after election and he can just do what he wants then. This kid getting shot in florida is just what the goverment is looking for. its the scape goat they can use to pour on restrictions and bans.

If they bring back the "clinton" bans, I'd expect to see no possibility of a sunset, as well as making private transactions of high cap magazines illegal along with rifles with evil (whatever that is) features.

Im honestly surprised his administration has not tried anything yet.

I think a more restrictive ban would take place but we don't know what or when.

after the election. I'm sure they were planning on using fast and furious for their plans. It looks like this kid in Florida getting killed is definitely going towards there advantage. Whether it was justified or not it doesn't matter. they already got the peons mad enough that they "the people" are demanding stricter gun laws. not the government. Falling right into the governments plan. Its a lot easier to get what you want when you can use the media to manipulate the peons into thinking it was their idea. Then the people demand, and the government says. we are just giving you want you want. They will go after stand your ground laws, handgun permits, and handguns now. After the election. everything will be under attack, especially the "assault weapons"

yes........

We may see a push for gun control after the election.

However, I doubt the House would pass anything like that.



That could become Obama's next chance at an unconstitutional power grab, if he doesn't try it after the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare becomes public.

We shall see.

BUY WHAT YOU WANT NOW !

My feeling about these objectors to 2nd amendment rights and permit holders are as follows.
1 They have been convicted of a felony and can't buy a weapon legally or get a permit for themself. [If I can't you can't.]
2 They fear the permit holder or anyone with a legal weapon shooting themself or family or friends in the act of committing a crime.
Just my opinion.

When the civil unrest starts again there will be the push for the Gov. to step in and stop it....Hence the new restrictions on ALL LIBERTIES!

Maybe like Marshall Law?

YEP!!!!!

very possible

If Zero gets re-elected, we are fucked for a very long time...





He has already appointed 2. How many more of his picks do you want?? Bad news people!!!

Then the real question is. all these people who say stuff like "they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands" and "they can have it when its empty", will they stand up to that or will they fold. Even though the gun owners of american outnumber, all the LE/Mil personal combind. How many of them will stand there ground. I bet most of the people will talk big game but thats all.

Many of the people that did just that after The 1776 Declaration lost everything!


Status

Money

Homes

Family

Children

And Their Lives!

I Don Not Know How Many Will Stand !

But I Do not How Many Will Just Walk to the Stables ?

If they come for us 1 at a time than I will take a while. Hence their self title "Progressives"

If it happens all at once It may be a lot harder for them.

That's MARTIAL law. Martial, as in military. Pardon my foray into the realm of being a spelling nazi..lol. Carry on. I do agree that Obama and company would LOVE to get guns out of the hands of law abiding conservative minded citizens. The real question is how much support he could drum up for it. Look for dirty tricks galore and unbridled propoganda campaigns in the next year or so.

Oh yes, agreed, I think they will try to milk the florida shooting. I think it was in their original plan to use fear from fast and furious to get the people to want stricter gun control. It just happens they got caught. DC controls the media, the media controls the people.

I'll be your huckleberry... Most will probably fold and give in. I for one, will stand up and fight for my rights & MY/YOUR country. He will unfortunately get re-elected, the voting system is flaud, you people do know this right?

Delete . Sorry .

Too lazy to rewrite but, I did check Micheal Savage's site ,and the election results being run by a Spanish company seems to be true according to a clip from his radio show 04/04/12 ,and information posted about this Spanish digital vote tabulation company on the Drs web site.

Wow, some of these posts are downright scary...

I do not see the Obama administration enacting any major gun control measures. Nothing ban-related anyway. He is already having popularity issues, and with the way America has bought up guns in the last few years (in response to his mere presence in the White House) it would be immensely unpopular. He does not have to be concerned about reelection, that is true, but he's going to be thinking of his "legacy" and his party's future.

What we might see is some legislation about strengthening background checks, maybe some concealed carry laws (perhaps reciprocity), etc. People are more educated about "assault weapons" now, and they have become pretty mainstream in US culture very recently.

Gun violence is not nearly the media hot button it was back in the early 90's. And even as corrupt and bloated as our government is, I think the powers at be will be happy to give people whatever guns they want if it keeps them content and quiet.

The constitutionality of Cook County's (Illinois) Assault Weapon Ban is currently being kicked back and forth between the upper and lower courts.

Is there anyone who does NOT see this as a a legal exercise for another near-future nationwide ban?

This guy.

Mostly I think the goverment will use the media and gun related crimes(even if they have to make them happen, and he will, he already gave guns to mexican gangs and drug dealers, thats just a time bomb). They want the people to have such a distaste for guns that the people will practically beg for it and Obama will be just giving the mobs what they want. It doenst have to be all the Americans, just enough stupid ones to listen to his brainwashing.

I'm certain he will try it, even if he is not re-elected, he'll just decree it by EO and the Justice Dept will enforce it. A new and improved Clinton ban, with none of the sunsets.

And ask yourself this. If he did ban all assault weapons by Exec Order or some legislative gimmicks, who in D.C. would stop him? John Boehner? Mitt Romney?

Well he as already said that congress does not matter, and that the supreme court does not matter. He said he will Exec Order things if he has too. He also recently have him self "dictator power" by saying he can label anyone or group a terrorist, and even if they are American, he can he does not have to give them their rights, such as Due Process for one, not to mention he said its ok to assassinate american terrorist, which will be whomever stands in his way.
socialsim, communism, dictatorship

There would be massive outcry from the people if Obama issued an executive order specifically banning a type of item that a huge portion of America owns. At this point in time would take years of "softening up" the American populace by the media before the government could get away with some kind of sweeping ban. It could (and probably will) happen some decade in the future, but not during this administration.

Don't get me wrong, I do not like Obama or the US government in general. I think it is a bipartisan shit show paid for by corporate interests. Most governments are shit shows, in fact. I also think it is wrong and messed up that anyone can be labelled a terrorist on a whim. But what I read here is sometimes completely ridiculous. Look at what happened during the Arab Spring, against TRULY oppressive governments.

And calling Obama a communist and implying that he wants to make himself dictator is hilarious. Who's going to back him up? A miniscule fraction of a percentage of the 24% that approve of his job as President?

Relevant:

Im not tryin to start an arugement, I'm not saying its a guarantee, or say anything is set in stone but its possible, anything is possible. and besides. its not who would back him up, its who would stand against him. Its sad to say but the majority of people in this country are easliy brainwashed and spineless. and these kids that are graduating and supposed to be coming adults are for the majority spoil brats who are all about ME. (and when they get start becoming polititicians, watchout). The current politicians are bought, each trying to fill there own greedy desires. You dont need many to stand with you when there is no one to stand against you. The people had Nixon impeached over something silly compared to what the current administration has done. Its currently more along the lines of treason. No one has stood against it, and if they did the media ignored them so the rest of the population never heard it.

No doubt in my mind.

I respectfully say you're wrong. I think if the Cook County ban is upheld (see below) by the Illinois Supreme Court, it will be all that Obama needs (any legal precedent) to enact a new nationwide ban. So people that care one way or the other should be watching what's going on in Obama's home town, which is overflowing with Obama minions (mayor Rahm Emanuel) and Obama worshippers and anti-gun activists.

The Illinois State Rifle Association is confident the ban will be overturned. Anti-gun activists are confident they can uphold the ban with a stricter definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon".

Republicans in the House and Senate are not de facto friends of firearms, so don't depend on them to fight for us.

And don't forget that shit spawned in Chicago, New York, and San Francisco traditionally overwhelms the concerns of those in Peoria, Buffalo, et al.


From the Chicago Tribune:

Challenge to county assault weapon ban gets new lease on life
State Supreme Court sends case back to trial judge

April 06, 2012 | By Ray Long and Hal Dardick, Chicago Tribune reporters
SPRINGFIELD — — The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday breathed new life into a challenge to Cook County's ban on assault weapons.

In a unanimous opinion, the state's high court sent the case back to a trial judge for further action, providing gun rights advocates a chance to present arguments that the county's ban violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to bear arms.

A key issue the circuit court will take up is whether assault weapons, as defined by the county, could be considered "dangerous and unusual" enough to be outlawed, as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and grenade launchers are. Justices ruled more information needs to be heard by the trial judge before a decision can be made.

Both county officials and gun rights activists predicted they'd eventually prevail.

County Board President Toni Preckwinkle noted the state Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of some lesser counts brought in the lawsuit, and vowed to "support all efforts to stem gun violence in our community, including the county law."

The ruling comes as legislation is pending at the state Capitol that would allow citizens to carry concealed weapons and as Mayor Rahm Emanuel has countered with his own set of anti-gun initiatives.

The county's assault weapons ban took effect nearly 20 years ago and eventually was amended and renamed in memory of Blair Holt, a 16-year-old Julian High School student who was shot and killed as a bystander when gang violence erupted on a CTA bus in 2007.

U.S. Supreme Court cases that knocked down handgun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C., play key roles in the Cook County case. The nation's high court has determined that handguns represent a class of weapons that law-abiding citizens overwhelmingly choose for lawful self-defense, but one of the questions about the Cook ban is whether that same standard applies to assault weapons.

In an opinion written by Justice Mary Jane Theis, state justices said the Cook case needs to play out more in court before anyone can say conclusively whether assault weapons, as described in the county ban, would or would not be covered by the Second Amendment.

Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, welcomed the ruling. He said the county ban is so broad it would extend to the AR-15 and other weapons "in common use" for hunting and sporting events.

Pearson, whose group is backing the case brought by three county residents, maintained the county ban paints with too broad of a brush on different types of guns based on "the way they look, not what they do."

County Commissioner Larry Suffredin, who wrote the latest version of the ban, said the county's prohibition was reviewed after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban. "We felt we were in a good position," with no changes needed, said Suffredin, D-Evanston.

Suffredin said the ban can be enforced by local police and the county sheriff, but has been used very little while the issue is pending in court.

One caveat is that the ban applies anywhere in the county except for cities and villages with their own assault weapons bans, including Chicago, said Patrick Driscoll, chief civil lawyer for State's Attorney Anita Alvarez.

In predicting the ban will be upheld, Driscoll underscored how the Illinois Supreme Court noted that governments still have the right to ban guns that are "dangerous and unusual weapons ... not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

"It's not a limitless right to bear arms," Driscoll said. The opponents of the ban must prove that assault weapons, as Cook defines them, cannot be outlawed, he said.

Dont foget the clinton bans. Everyone was like how did this happen, we never thought it would, and the UK gun owners im sure woke up and went how in the world did this happen,

These are good points, and I actually agree with what you said in this post. I feel like we differ in our projections past this point, however.

I believe actual odds of him going for some sort dictatorship are extremely low, but some sort of gun bans implemented I believe are high. We could debate tons of different typs of bans and how they could come on. To say there would giant uproar from the people or party uproar that would just ruin the democractic party is crazy. Clinton implemented the gun ban his second year of his first term, and he didnt get booted out of office next election. Also if it hadnt been for all the florida craziness then we would have had another democratic president after clinton. With history proving that they can, they will, and will not suffer for it, not to mention the genuine democractic party hate for firearms, i expect some sort of ban or firearms and/or ammunition.

The most likely outcome is a importation ban. Bye bye FS2000, PS90, FN SCAR's, H&K rifles. Of course FN would probably just make their rifles 100% in the U.S. like originally planned for the SCAR program.

This would be one of the "symbolic" gun bans, that would feed the Brady Campaign. I personally don't think a AWB would pass now, considering all the people who NOW own semi-auto rifles. The stigma of the early 90's has passed. In the last few years AR-15's have replaced Remington 700's at our local ranges.

I only see this happening if the Republicans loose the House and Senate, and then only if they loose a huge percentage. People where so afraid when he was elected in 08, and what happened? Nada. Also remember that there are still Blue Dogs that are strict pro-gun on the Left.

I am liberal leaning and do believe in better background checks, but am completely against the banning of any firearm type. If you are law abiding US citizen, you should be allowed to own any type of firearm.....any type.

Fast and furious happened.

...Yet we didn't even see any major changes to the background check system, much less any bans.

I read the other day that they had indeed passed restrictions on buying multiple rifles in some boarder states. Could be misinformation. Not everything online is the truth I know.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-executive-orders-impose-new-gun-rules/

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-11/us/rifle.sales.reporting_1_gun-dealers-gun-sales-atf?_s=PM:US



They used a failed operation to tighten up regulations on a few states. Imagine if we hadn't found out about the operation. Remember .gov loves you.

I feel like the purchase quantity limits were put in place as a very small appeasing gesture to Mexico, since they have had the shit kicked out of their drug enforcement agencies. They could have done a lot worse and gotten away with it. Purchase limits on single transactions (especially in the quantities they are talking about) are not going to infringe much on average Joe gun owner. Maybe that random guy who wants to buy a crate of Mosin's and doesn't have C&R...

I agree that it's messed up, and no, the .gov does not love me. But once again, I really don't get the impression that the current powers-that-be are actively trying to ban guns. On a side note (and related to all-mighty lobbying) look how much money is going through the NRA vs. their main rival! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Brady Campaign had 2 donations last year (from their president) totalling a 4 figure sum.

Billboards didn't go up in Mexico until after fast and furious broke. Fast and furious was found out. We can what if all day, but its fairly clear that this is either the most incompetent administration ever or that they are willing to get their agenda pushed through by any means. Under the radar or not. I think your right to an extent about this being a peace offering of sorts. This could have become a much worse international incident. I would just like to know what the intentions were for fast and furious to begin with.

I read that a large number of weapons that the cartels use are Mexican military issue. Apparently when their troops desert they take their guns with them. And also a lot of them find it a good living to fight for the drugs lords. But at any rate if we had a secure boarder we wouldn't have to worry about this kind of thing much. Without Americans consuming the drugs from south of the boarder these cartels would be broke and unable to fight these wars.

I would most likely argue that the current administration is incompetent and has operated with an agenda based out of a dislike or hatred for what we consider American values. Fundamental change and all that business.

As long as we have politicians we have a threat to guns.

You are so right.

Now we have Mayor Nanny Bloomberg calling the "stand your ground" law a criminal offense.

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.