What Will Happen To Gun Rights If Obama Is Re-Elected?

[Jamie6.5]

When it comes to the 2ndA, gun rights and restriction of them, there is one thing everyone reading this needs to understand.

If the democrats had a record they could run on, they would be doing so. They would be taking the "high road."

But they don't.
So they are attacking Romney.

As a matter of fact, if one pays attention, they are attacking Romney on every issue, instead of championing their successes.

Gun rights are king here, so I'll leave it at that.
But please remember this as you go "forward."

They got nothin'.

If they did, they'd be running on a platform built of it, instead of tearing down the competition, and trying to appeal to the people that are afraid of guns and gun owners.

 

[davemata]

Thanks!

While a marginal step, it was still an AWB, and if he were a principled man who believed in the 2A, he would have stonewalled for a better law.

Additionally, he has said he would sign another one that comes across his desk, and I believe that quote is in that article, and has recently been dropped from the pro-2A lobbyist groups articles within MA.

We have a politician that knows how to pander to his constituency, which is why he's a non-NBC, but still the pick for the GOP. He's not the brightest nor most principled man in the room, he just knows how to make some people think he is. Simple fact is, he is looking for power. Done and done. The difference here is that he signed an AWB and feels it was fine. Obama has never signed one.

As for the exceedingly obtuse and short sighted comment about not living there (MA), for some that is an option, but do you really think it appropriate to say that to people who can't leave there? I tell you it's a bubblegumheel move.

Let's also not be confused here, there is no CHL there (MA), you get a gun license and the local warlord uses discretion (which a principled Romney could have killed) to determine if you can even own a gun, let alone conceal one. Romney has shown he thinks that is fine. I'm not surprised you don't understand the system though if you've never lived within it. If you have though, you wouldn't be singing the same tune.

You get over it and simply admit that you feel the BOR is irrelevant, you basically stated as such here.

The voters of Massachusetts wanted him to sign that bill, so he did.

Simply put, if a group wants it, apparently it's fine to ignore it or tread upon it. Also, why is this right in any way? Why is it ok that anyone signs a document infringing any of our protected rights, because some ignorant group wants it to be done? That's an utterly ridiculous and repugnant idea.

You're a shifty one.

 

[1911er]

Ted Nugent for President

 

[davemata]

That would definitely be a pro-2A platform. Slightly batbubblegum insane, but pro-2A.

 

[Akathepriest]

Let's just think for a second, how can government take guns ? Increase taxes on them ? We already have a ton of guns, taxing them 500% is not going to change anything. Taxing ammo ? We already have a ton of ammo stockpiled "in case Obama gets re-elected". Some folks might be affected in terms of plinking and sporting, but we will always have enough for defense against enemies foreign and domestic Confiscate guns altogether ? Without compensation ? 500 million guns in 100 million hands ? I'm surprised nobody made a post-apocalyptic science fiction movie titled "The day they took the guns"...

I would read that book/movie

 

[davemata]

Some hack writer gave away a free kindle book that involved a guy with a sailboat banging a foreign girl, and the ATF killing people with guns. I couldn't get into it, it was like reading a children's book.

 

[fd15k]

Some hack writer gave away a free kindle book that involved a guy with a sailboat banging a foreign girl, and the ATF killing people with guns. I couldn't get into it, it was like reading a children's book.

There was that sci-fi TV show LEXX in the 90's
Isambard Prince (Nigel Bennett), ruler of the planet Fire/head of the ATF (third and fourth season)/the Angel of Death (final episode)
Lexx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jamie6.5]

While a marginal step, it was still an AWB, and if he were a principled man who believed in the 2A, he would have stonewalled for a better law.<snip>

Can you post even a talking point without the name-calling? Ad hominem attacks anyone?
Obama never signed one, because prior to becoming president, he never held an executive job that offered the opportunity! (IOW, NO executive experience. We're paying for that now)
He did as a legislator, at both the state and federal level advocate support for the abolishing of handgun and the right to own them, as well as most firearms.
That has been the limit of his influence. Thankfully.

Before you go any further down that "stonewall" road, you'd better look up how many times Romney had his veto overridden in MA.
That legislature would have passed it without his signature and despite his objection(s). They did so numerous times over a variety of issues.

Please don't accuse me of disregarding, or ignoring the BoR. I'm all for the Bor. All of it.
Including the 10th Amendment.
You know, the one that says the state of Massachusetts has the right to self governance, beyond what the U.S. Constitution specifically enumerates.

Does MA's Articles of Amendment (their BoR) state that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"
Nope.
It does, in Article XVII. say: "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
And the law that Romney signed made it easier to get a firearms license. One of the provisions GOAL insisted on.

As far as living there goes, if the people of Massachusetts want the law repealed, if they can't or won't leave there, they should elect a legislature that will do just that.
It's been 8 years since Mitt, and they haven't done it yet!
Does that tell you anything?

Like I pointed out earlier.
The dems have clearly and concisely stated they are seeking an AWB. It's in their party platform.
The repubs have said they support gun rights, and are looking to protect and expand them through CHL reciprocity etc.

Argue it if you like. All that proves is you refuse to recognize the clearly stated agendas of BOTH parties.
But don't come in here, or any other gun forum and try to spin your opinion into fact.
It isn't going to pass muster.

You got nothin', it shows, and that's why you're attacking Romney.
Plain and simple.

 

[davemata]

Put briefly Jamie, you're wrong on all points. I appreciate the effort though.

See, what you're doing is ignoring track record and interjecting superstitious belief and fear. I understand that. I do it myself sometimes... I swear my attic is haunted.

The reality is: Had Romney had principles he would have vetoed, regardless of "fear" of being overridden. Additionally, he would have said why, and proven that he has a backbone, however, that' not what happened. Additionally, while GOAL does good work, during '04 it was an org with a corrupted BoD (feel free to look into the issues that basically revamped the org this year.) that's sole mission is to fight 2A infringements in MA. Of course they wanted him to sign that AWB, without it, they'd have ZERO REASON TO EXIST. It was simply survival for them.

Here are the facts:
After 4 years as POTUS we've not had one federal AWB, no added taxes on kit, no purchase maximums, nothing. (Obama)
During 4 years as the Gov of one of the most influential states in the country people were saddled with a new AWB, and a situation where 2A rights continually go down the crapper. (Romney)

So we have two candidates, with completely different track records, one feared because of what might possibly could potentially come to pass, and one loved because his AWB wasn't so AWB as a previous AWB. (If you can't tell, a gun owner supporting someone who signed an AWB is retarded.)

The 10th Amendment is a good one, but it does not give license to a state to crap on the BOR, which is what Mass does. There are a couple court cases going around the mulberry bush that may help that, but I'm not holding my breath for my friends left in that hell hole. You obviously don't understand how lost that place is if you think people could vote their way out of THAT hole. Only way out is the supreme court to knock down unconstitutional laws, but we all see how many 2A cases they accept.

So argue if you like. All that proves is that you refuse to go by fact, and instead prefer mythology and GOPstrodamus. You are putting a lot of faith in mythos.

 

[ArgyleAdams]

...Before you go any further down that "stonewall" road, you'd better look up how many times Romney had his veto overridden in MA.
That legislature would have passed it without his signature and despite his objection(s). They did so numerous times over a variety of issues...

But he did sign it. Are we to assume that he signed it even though he didn't agree with it because it would have been passed anyway? That requires quite the leap of faith and also makes about as much sense as Obama signing the 2012 NDAA "with reservations."

...Please don't accuse me of disregarding, or ignoring the BoR. I'm all for the Bor. All of it.
Including the 10th Amendment.
You know, the one that says the state of Massachusetts has the right to self governance, beyond what the U.S. Constitution specifically enumerates...

I have mixed feelings on this one, but would be inclined to believe that A2 prevents the states from passing their own bans.

A2: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Though there is always some grey area when interpreting the constitution.

...Like I pointed out earlier.
The dems have clearly and concisely stated they are seeking an AWB. It's in their party platform.
The repubs have said they support gun rights, and are looking to protect and expand them through CHL reciprocity etc.

Argue it if you like. All that proves is you refuse to recognize the clearly stated agendas of BOTH parties...

So we're supposed to know what each party is going to do because politicians have said that's what they're going to do?

 

[Jamie6.5]

So argue if you like. All that proves is that you refuse to go by fact, and instead prefer mythology and GOPstrodamus. You are putting a lot of faith in mythos.

The argument you and fd15 and Mr Argyle are having is with the Democrat party platform.
Not me.
At the state level, both men supported gun control, in states that favor it.
At the Federal level, Romney has no legislative or executive record, while obama supported anti-gun issues in the Senate.

In Fast and Furious, a cabinet level division of the fed gov has facilitated the murdering of civilians and law enforcement alike, in their efforts to drum-up support for another AWB.
From Mexico to Chicago people are dead because of an admin with no conscience.
And now the dems have it in their platform.

And you are here to support that, while you argue in favor of a democrat, standing on a political platform that seeks to infringe on our gun rights.

I guess that's a "great strategy" if you haven't got anything else.
But in a gun forum, it's downright foolish.

 

[Father of four]

It's foolish to think that Romney can be trusted.

 

[Father of four]

Heck, name one Representative that you truly trust.

 

[ArgyleAdams]

There are more than 2 political parties, and more than 2 candidates running for president. What makes you think I support Obama any more than Romney? My argument wasn't in favor of a Democrat, it was simply against a Republican whom the NRA backs for some mysterious reason (given his history). I think either candidate will be bad for gun laws (among many other issues). My argument is that neither of the "Big 2" is some proverbial magic bullet.

 

[Father of four]

This sums it up fairly well...

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/le...u-n-treaty-may-stop-reloading.html#post684065

"Its not about the right Vs left. Both the power hungry sides left and right have been pandering to the UN since it started! Bush Sr. fully embrased the NWO and Agenda 21! Keeping the people divided among the left and right plays into there needs just as they want. The two party system is wrong, bad for the people and bad for our country. There is a list a mile long from both sides that affect our liberty and freedom. Not sure how much freedom we really have anynore, whats left is just enough to give people something to argue about and pretend like we have freedome.
Its sad i think that so many on both sides play along with it...
How many will vote for the big O just becuase he is a Dem ( in my opinion as socialist)
How many will vote the big R just because he is a Rep... (though i feel he a track record that completly shows him a Dem)..
As far as guns go.. BOTH are a bad choice! "

 

[rdt]

I admit i havent read all the posts but to my thinking it we will never have an AWB or radical restrictions because there is no money to be made.

Both parties are corporate and the guns/ammo/accessories industry is WAY too big of a gold mine. I think the MASSIVE proliferation of guns, ammo, and accessory manufacturing following the AWB sunset changed the whole perspective on Capitol Hill. In effect, they realized their mistake, but for the wrong reasons: economic not constitutional.

In terms of campaign donations, the scope of its contribution to the economy, and the sheer distribution of the sector itself - bans or serious restrictions are impractical.

Politically. There would have to be a populist political benefit that outweighed the cost to corporate america. Populism and gun-ban dont mesh that well since one is rooted in empowerment and the other is rooted in dis-empowerment. While the center (aka "left") laughs at gun owner paranoia, in my experience only a minority actually support the confiscation of guns. For many of them "The government rounding up guns" reminds them of dictatorship, something they dont support. Also gun ownership has to have increased over the last 7 years. An anti-gun movement alienates too many people so it wont become sufficiently populist to politically benefit enough politicians to get any legislation through.

Furthermore, its not practical economically. I have no idea really but i would guess theres a couple million manufacturing + support jobs in guns nationally. So adjust the GDP, tax revenue, and unemployment figures to reflect that. Political suicide, whether you think politics is citizens voting at the polls or corporate elites anointing figureheads in backrooms.

Finally, its not practical practically! The industry is so distributed there would be no way to close all the operations. Many would go underground, and many more would open up underground. The police manpower to make it happen doesnt exist, even if all the police in the country cooperated, which i doubt they would, especially in rural communities where an ammo or firearms manufacturer is a big part of the town. I doubt the military manpower or will exists either. The cost of a military solution would be ridiculously huge and for what? Where's the payoff in $? Its one thing to dump trillions of dollars into foreign wars & the drug war when that money goes to various corporations. But that kind of money to target corporations!? Yeah right. Besides the fact that a military solution would be martial law/civil war: Protracted, across a whole continent, tons of small arms manufacturers underground on the side of the "rebels," probably unwinnable . . . and again, for what? Oh yeah, liberal populism . . . gimme a break, the US government goes to war on its own people and (more remarkably) its client corporations because a handful of NPR listeners told it to?

I will start to worry alot more when the owners/operators in the industry start calling for us to mobilize. This stuff doesnt happen overnight, the people with the most to lose (in volume of dollars) often get wind of it early on.

 

[Jamie6.5]

My argument is that neither of the "Big 2" is some proverbial magic bullet.

Who said Romney is a magic bullet?
I read this in the democrat's party platform here:
<broken link removed>

we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole

I read this in the Republican's party platform here:
GOP Platform « White House 2012

We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense.
We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms.
This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration.
We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents.
Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities.
We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners.
We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban.
We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border.
We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle.
We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority.

If you'd like to argue, do it with those people that wrote the agendas (party platforms) of the respective parties.

And since this is NWFA, don't forget to vote your gun rights!

 

[fd15k]

Heck, name one Representative that you truly trust.

May I nominate RP ?

 

[Jamie6.5]

I admit i havent read all the posts but to my thinking it we will never have an AWB or radical restrictions because there is no money to be made.

Both parties are corporate.... <snip>

Oh noez!!!!!
The corporate ghoulies are out to get me!

 

[Jamie6.5]

May I nominate RP ?

Can he stop the FORWARD! progress of obama's AWB agenda?

No, I don't believe he can.
If he could, I'd vote for him though!