Another run on guns & ammo?

[Russianfist]

The administration has VERY limited ability to do anything on gun control no matter HOW hot they were to do so. 99+% of all possible federal gun control stuff, including what you just outlined, requires it go through congress. What makes you think that while in 2009 when the Dems had majorities in both houses and they wouldn't touch gun control, now, when they're looking to the 2014 house races AND in the minority, they will all of a sudden become an arm of Sarah Brady?

Seriously, the paranoia about "Obama iz gunna take R Gunz" has reached far beyond the usual levels of paranoia and conspiracy theory lately. 99% of everything I read on this subject is written by people who either don't understand how regulatory policy and laws get made or who ignore the makeup of congress.

You REALLY think another AWB or anything like it is going to even make it to a VOTE in the house?

Now is when we need to start lobbying the senate on this issue in a BIG way. The demographics on gun owners are vastly more in our favor than in 2009 and politicians know it. It's quite possible to make another anti-gun replacement for Ginsburg and Breyer a non-starter. But that's not going to happen if the NRA etc. keep up with the conspiracy theory insanity of Kenyan, secret-muslim, America-hating manchurian candidate Obama.

Are we not arguing the same point here?
Well,except that 99+% part. Case in point being California crippling gun laws. If the Gov puts the pinch on states federal funding over gun laws we will be boned!

 

[davemata]

But that's not going to happen if the NRA etc. keep up with the conspiracy theory insanity of Kenyan, secret-muslim, America-hating manchurian candidate Obama.

But that's a profitable position to take, you create a bogeyman, then position yourself as the only way to stop it.

 

[Hawaiian]

If it were not for the NRA, we would have a lot less rights than we do today. Does not matter if you agree with all of their platform, they have done a lot for our 2nd Ammendment rights.

And, if you do not already have most of the guns and ammo you need for a SHTF situation, then you have been asleep for the last four years.

 

[omenwolf]

I was by wholesale sports, Keiths, bimart, and notrhwest armory today and guess what no mass hysteria...........plenty of ammo plenty of ar's plenty of everything. I am glad the greater portland area did not buy into the hype.

 

[drew]

I was by wholesale sports, Keiths, bimart, and notrhwest armory today and guess what no mass hysteria...........plenty of ammo plenty of ar's plenty of everything. I am glad the greater portland area did not buy into the hype.

Cool. Hopefully, other areas are similar. I noticed many places online had stock unless their prices were really good.

 

[Grunwald]

I meant the executive order nonsense.

If I owned an FFL I would raise prices about 40-60% for the next week or so and give a song and dance about national shortages and new batfe scrutiny, it would allow me to maximize fear based revenue, while also increasing what fear I could, then I'd gently ease back while concocting a story about how BATFE was backing off for now, but there were rumors of a new ban on black and killy gear coming next year, and AR orders were already starting to back up.

I figure, I could probably run that game for a year or two.

I think Cheaper Than Dirt has that strategy patented

 

[Misterbill]

Are we not arguing the same point here?
Well,except that 99+% part. Case in point being California crippling gun laws. If the Gov puts the pinch on states federal funding over gun laws we will be boned!

Read the post. the office of president has no power to deny funding to the states. It has limited ability to grant waivers to the states on SOME already existing federal mandates.

 

[trainsktg]

Lets see 1968-2012 = 44 years spanning 9 administrations. And we can own

Machineguns
Tanks
Motars
Silencers
SBR
SBS
etc
still
Sure Taxes and rules and paper work and infringement

Your ending statement actually confirms what others are saying. The combinations of the 1934, 1968 and 1986 gun control acts made most of those devices unaffordable to the average person, so that's effectively banning them anyway. 1989 then gave us 922r. 1994 further imposed huge restrictions on guns that merely 'looked bad', although that fortunately sunsetted in most states in 2004.

Even with an 'affordable' device on your list like a $1,000 can, my understanding its now almost a year from when you plunk your money down until you get your stamp and can take it home.

That said, I must agree that the current political climate is greatly against further gun control. Let's have one more lunatic kill a bunch of schoolkids during recess though and that could change very quickly.

Keith

 

[RVTECH]

Maybe the lesson WAS previously learned when all those who DID overpay for G & A - only to try to sell it off a couple years later for what they paid. I remember talking to one of the employees for Wholesale (at the time) and he told me he was experiencing more first time gun owners buying AR's than he had EVER seen - and that was just in the store. Makes you wonder how many were bought elsewhere and were either sold off at a loss or still collecting dust. I suspect all those who wanted whatever they were scared into buying will not make the same mistake twice and those who knew better still do!

 

[davemata]

If it were not for the NRA, we would have a lot less rights than we do today. Does not matter if you agree with all of their platform, they have done a lot for our 2nd Ammendment rights.

I generally agree with this, that they have done more for us in general than they have done against us politically and socially.

 

[davemata]

That said, I must agree that the current political climate is greatly against further gun control. Let's have one more lunatic kill a bunch of schoolkids during recess though and that could change very quickly.

Keith

I'm not feeling that Keith. There was a shooting in Fresno yesterday, and it's been almost completely ignored in the media and from the politicians.

 

[Grunwald]

The administration has VERY limited ability to do anything on gun control no matter HOW hot they were to do so. 99+% of all possible federal gun control stuff, including what you just outlined, requires it go through congress. What makes you think that while in 2009 when the Dems had majorities in both houses and they wouldn't touch gun control, now, when they're looking to the 2014 house races AND in the minority, they will all of a sudden become an arm of Sarah Brady?

Seriously, the paranoia about "Obama iz gunna take R Gunz" has reached far beyond the usual levels of paranoia and conspiracy theory lately. 99% of everything I read on this subject is written by people who either don't understand how regulatory policy and laws get made or who ignore the makeup of congress.

You REALLY think another AWB or anything like it is going to even make it to a VOTE in the house?

Now is when we need to start lobbying the senate on this issue in a BIG way. The demographics on gun owners are vastly more in our favor than in 2009 and politicians know it. It's quite possible to make another anti-gun replacement for Ginsburg and Breyer a non-starter. But that's not going to happen if the NRA etc. keep up with the conspiracy theory insanity of Kenyan, secret-muslim, America-hating manchurian candidate Obama.

Remind us again on what authority did Obama involve the US military in bombing runs against Libya while trying to oust Ghadaffi, and exactly how many fingers did he show to congress when they questioned him on it?

 

[davemata]

Remind us again on what authority did Obama involve the US military in bombing runs against Libya while trying to oust Ghadaffi, and exactly how many fingers did he show to congress when they questioned him on it?

That's SOP for a POTUS for at least my entire lifetime, so from Carter to now.

 

[Misterbill]

Remind us again on what authority did Obama involve the US military in bombing runs against Libya while trying to oust Ghadaffi, and exactly how many fingers did he show to congress when they questioned him on it?

Probably as much Authority as Jimmy Carter had to launch his failed Iranian rescue? Or Reagan did to launch his disastrous Lebanese adventure? Or had for Grenada, or Roosevelt did for the Banana wars?

Commander in Chief is a lot different than "Regulator" In Chief. And even under current law vis-avisw the War Powers Act, Obama had legal (certainly not constitutional) authority. Pretending that we should all of a sudden hold the president accountable to a standard that hasn't been enforced since 1890 and that this is somehow "consistent," is ridiculous.

Stepping over this particular congressional authority will result in a bubblegum-slap by congress, including a lot of pro-gun democrats in the house AND Senate. The whole Idea of what I was responding to is tinfouil nonsense. If it happens, I will come back here and eat my words. But I'm not wrong, you tinfoil hat-wearers are.

 

[Russianfist]

Read the post. the office of president has no power to deny funding to the states. It has limited ability to grant waivers to the states on SOME already existing federal mandates.

I read your post and I think you are totally unglued and oblivious to how power and influance work in the District of Columbia. Before you tell us all to remove our tinfoil hats you may wish to take off your blindfold first.

No the President cannot impose much as far as gun laws go but he and his administration has enough power to presure state governments to bend for tax dollars. Politicians on the state level will sell out their mother for the right price.
We are as corrupt as anyone else so the sooner you get that the better off you will be.

Then again, you can believe what you want and I will believe what I want. Thats what makes this such a great country.

 

[Grunwald]

That's SOP for a POTUS for at least my entire lifetime, so from Carter to now.

Carter had full legal authority to act - US ambassy was taken over and US citizens were held hostage. Carter was reacting to an act of war. Obama was comitting an act of war, without congressional approval - an impeachable offence.

 

[Misterbill]

Carter had full legal authority to act - US ambassy was taken over and US citizens were held hostage. Carter was reacting to an act of war. Obama was comitting an act of war, without congressional approval - an impeachable offence.

Tell me where is that in the constitution? Specifically? Oh, No where. That's what I thought.

 

[Grunwald]

Tell me where is that in the constitution? Specifically? Oh, No where. That's what I thought.

How about you actually wait for a reply to you question, before making stupid remarks as if I could not give you one.
Look up Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.

 

[davemata]

If you're referring to the "declare war" part, it's not relevant. We're not at war with Libya.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

You guys need to get real about mr bill, he's a cognitive dissonance agent and likely paid to do this.. a domestic enemy