JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Ok then. Time then to broaden the question. Whomever is elected MAY attempt to implement some changes. Where do we stand? With a limited budget, where "should" I spend $$ to best insulate myself from any potential changes?

I'm looking at a new rifle length AR, or a Glock 34 and Sub2000 . . . too many choices. IF there are changes to be made, what do you think they'll limit FIRST? What are the simple options that are quick to implement?

Stomper, didn't see that other post so thanks for the cross pollination.
 
Now we get to the fun stuff.

Things that are black or made from polymers.

So, as we've seen in CA and MA:
Glocks with full cap mags
50 BMG, and 50 BMG in semi-auto
AR Anything, doubly so if it has a pistol group.
Silencers
FA Shotguns
Various Mare's Leg type guns.
 
We should be more worried about Congress than the Presidency. I have no doubt that both Romney and Obama would sign an assault weapons ban if Congress were to put one on the Presidents desk.

This, so much this.

Can we make a thread about oregon reps/senators? I haven't read much about them, and it makes me feel uninformed.
 
Now we get to the fun stuff.

Things that are black or made from polymers.

So, as we've seen in CA and MA:
Glocks with full cap mags
50 BMG, and 50 BMG in semi-auto
AR Anything, doubly so if it has a pistol group.
Silencers
FA Shotguns
Various Mare's Leg type guns.

NFA items are not good to stock up since they are registered and would be the first candidates for a confiscation ;)
 
Oh, Project Gunwalker that started in 2006?
No, that one was designed to catch the perps on the other side of the border, with tracking devices and Mexican government cooperation/coordination.

I'm talking about Fast and Furious, started in 2009, that had no intent other than to arm drug cartels and cast self loading weapons with high cap mags in a bad light, by calling them assault weapons and killing multitudes of innocent people on both side of the Mexican/American border.
You know, the one perpetrated by obama's DOJ, to justify greater anti-2ndA restrictions.

That doesn't even pass the "nice-try" smell test dave.
 
Do you really believe that the Fast and Furious program was intended "to arm drug cartels?"

Do you really believe the administration's design was to kill "multitudes of innocent people"?

I'm as skeptical of centralized federal power as the next person. But come on.

Let's be vigilant, not crazy.
 
#1 I don't find the Fast and Furious/2nd Amendment conspiracy theory very credible, I think it was more a case of bureaucracy making very poor decisions.

#2 New gun control is most likely to surface at the Congressional level as a feel good measure in response to Colorado theater type outrageous events. Politicians have a need to show that they are making an effort to address perceived problems. Both Obama and Romney will fold under that pressure if they feel public sentiment supports it. The solution is to educate as many citizens as possible, get them to understand that "assault weapons" are rarely used in crime, that mass shootings are the equivalent of a great white shark attack - dramatic, rare, and generally unstoppable without taking measures way outsized of the risk. Stay on top of your Congressmen - let them know you don't support gun control and that you vote - do it in a logical, productive way - angry rants make you look like a kook.

#3 Buying ahead of a possible ban, I would go with:
Black guns AR's AK's etc., they were banned once and have the least public understanding and support for private ownership.
Hi-Cap mags - same reasons as above. It is very hard to defend the "need" for 100rnd drums to the general public.
Ammo - not too worried because of the ammo crossover between hunting, self defense and target shooting. It's hard to separate "assault weapon" ammo from the rest and amount limits would be easy to get around by buying from multiple sources. Ammo tax proposals will rile hunters thus a much larger base of opposition - likely will go nowhere. Regardless I always have several thousand rounds on hand - why not, it won't go bad or lose value in my lifetime.
 
Do you really believe that the Fast and Furious program was intended "to arm drug cartels?"

Do you really believe the administration's design was to kill "multitudes of innocent people"?
#1) Yes I do. They knew that AKs in the hands of ruthless thugs would make their idea of an assault weapon look as bad as possible.
And they needed support for the 90% lie (that 90% of assault weapons in Mexico were sourced from American gun shops) they were telling every chance they got.

#2)I didn't say that. I said they either didn't realize that would happen (ineptitude) or they didn't care (cold-hearted b*stards with an agenda). They needed support for increased scrutiny of gun sales, if not an outright AWB.
As explained here:
Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations - CBS News Investigates - CBS News
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."

I'm as skeptical of centralized federal power as the next person. But come on.

Let's be vigilant, not crazy.
No one is crazy, except maybe the idiots that cooked up this scheme.
If there was no way to track these guns once they crossed the border, then why did they do it?
What possible reason could ANYONE have for selling over 2,000 civilian AKs, ARs and Barrett .50s to known straw purchasers, ushering them through the NICS, and then NOT following them after the sale?
What possible reason would they have for forbidding the field agents from pursuing/observing the gun runners/walkers?

And what possible reason would they have for persecuting/prosecuting the whistleblowers that exposed it?

Why didn't e. holder support the whistleblowers, and pursue the perpetrators within the U.S. Attorney's office and the BATFE?

Furthermore how on earth could ANYONE that claims to be part of law enforcement, and who has risen to the highest LE office in the land, NOT KNOW or reasonably predict, what was going to happen when these guns arrived in Mexico?


To believe anything other than that these people have a rabid anti-gun agenda is naive and foolish in the extreme.
On the heels of this investigation, and obama's claim of executive privilege, anyone that believes they actually care about the lives of Mexican and/or American citizens is quite a stretch in and of itself.

These people don't care, they have and agenda to put FORWARD!
And that agenda includes further infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
 
Fyrediver,

With a limited budget you should come by my house.

I'll sell you lots of stuff. That you need.

I'll even buy beer, and we can see how we can expand that budget of yours.

;)

Just buy what you like and want, that may be on a possible ban list.

And remember, know one actually knows what's going to happen next.

Except for the really excitable folks.
 
I doubt there will be any gun control. The President does not make law, that is the congress function. I doubt even if both houses of congress were someway to end up democratic that gun control would be expanded.
 
I doubt there will be any gun control. The President does not make law, that is the congress function. I doubt even if both houses of congress were someway to end up democratic that gun control would be expanded.

Have you ever heard of this little thing called "executive order"? Happens all the time.
 
I doubt there will be any gun control. The President does not make law, that is the congress function. I doubt even if both houses of congress were someway to end up democratic that gun control would be expanded.

And you conveniently left out the possibility of appointing three anti-gun judges to SCOTUS. The Second Amendment is hanging by only one vote there now. Change one of the votes for the 2nd to a negative and we could lose all the gains of the last 20 years or even more.
 
I doubt there will be any gun control. The President does not make law, that is the congress function. I doubt even if both houses of congress were someway to end up democratic that gun control would be expanded.

sounds like an ostrich with his head in the sand with thoughts like that life must be real blissful around you
 
Have you ever heard of this little thing called "executive order"? Happens all the time.

Executive order is not a carte blanche. It only applies to executive branch (ATF, DOJ, etc), it does not create law, and can be easily overridden by legislative or judicial branches.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top