The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Marshal Halloway on November 09, 2008, 12:18:45 PM
-
at least according to Irwin Nowick...
I don't know much about Mr. Nowick, but you might find this article interesting.
The article is long and starts out with his comments about the Second Amendment Foundation's and NRA's law suit in United States District Court challenging Washington State’s requirement that non US Citizens needed a license to possess a firearm in that state.
After that, he goes in length analyzing the election results and what we may expect or not expect in terms of gun legislation.
Let me know what you think.
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/11/the_heller_gun_12.html
-
A few observations about the article. Over 6000 words long, longer than the entire editorial page of many newpapers, it is not an easy read. With 12point type and 1/2" margins all around, his article takes 9 letter sized pages. Covering several major topics that, while all loosely connected (the election), would have been better served with separate, and shorter, articles. I almost gave up after the first couple of paragraphs because they had nothing to do with the title. (In fairness, in many papers the editor chooses the title, not the author.) Almost to the bottom of page 6 before he gets to the "titled" AWB.
About the AWB:
Mr Nowick seems extremely knowledgeable in the voting records of the US congress-critters and specifically the possible votes concerning gun control issues. I certainly do not posses the in-depth and detail knowledge that he does.
My only counter, at first blush to this, is a) there seems to be a push to get something passed, as evidence by Sara Brady and b) many politicians play the "compromise" game. They may well "compromise" by voting for the AWB in order to stave off more serious attempts at gun control. (A strategy I don't agree with. My idea of compromise is: Let's repeal the 1968 gun control law and I won't go after the 1934/1938 laws....................yet.) One area of compromise with the "unions" could well be the "Card Check" initiative. I think the "unions" would throw any and everybody under the bus for that one.
From my reading of Sara and others, and reading between the line, the AWB and Gun Show issues are for show. They want them passed badly to show their base some tangible results. BUT the real crux of what they want to further their total ban agenda is to start a 4473 and NICs database of gun owners. Those items will be buried in some bill somewhere in the first 6 months.
Given time this week, I'll try to see if NRA or SAF have a gun rating for the elected pols, and post a summary here.
-
A few observations about the article. Over 6000 words long, longer than the entire editorial page of many newpapers, it is not an easy read. With 12point type and 1/2" margins all around, his article takes 9 letter sized pages. Covering several major topics that, while all loosely connected (the election), would have been better served with separate, and shorter, articles. I almost gave up after the first couple of paragraphs because they had nothing to do with the title. (In fairness, in many papers the editor chooses the title, not the author.) Almost to the bottom of page 6 before he gets to the "titled" AWB.
About the AWB:
Mr Nowick seems extremely knowledgeable in the voting records of the US congress-critters and specifically the possible votes concerning gun control issues. I certainly do not posses the in-depth and detail knowledge that he does.
My only counter, at first blush to this, is a) there seems to be a push to get something passed, as evidence by Sara Brady and b) many politicians play the "compromise" game. They may well "compromise" by voting for the AWB in order to stave off more serious attempts at gun control. (A strategy I don't agree with. My idea of compromise is: Let's repeal the 1968 gun control law and I won't go after the 1934/1938 laws....................yet.) One area of compromise with the "unions" could well be the "Card Check" initiative. I think the "unions" would throw any and everybody under the bus for that one.
From my reading of Sara and others, and reading between the line, the AWB and Gun Show issues are for show. They want them passed badly to show their base some tangible results. BUT the real crux of what they want to further their total ban agenda is to start a 4473 and NICs database of gun owners. Those items will be buried in some bill somewhere in the first 6 months.
Given time this week, I'll try to see if NRA or SAF have a gun rating for the elected pols, and post a summary here.
Alf,
I think you have a very clear read on the possibilities. The AWB WILL be passed and a lot sooner than many think.
-
Alf,
I think you have a very clear read on the possibilities. The AWB WILL be passed and a lot sooner than many think.
Bullseye!!
-
Two Words... Executive Order
-
Two Words... Executive Order
which he does not have the power to do... now he can stop imports form coming in, but thats it.
-
One thing I like about this forum, I get to read things about an issue I either did not know about, or did know about, but had not thought it through. Thanks go to the people who have so far posted on this article.
-
which he does not have the power to do... now he can stop imports form coming in, but thats it.
Your naivete is appalling, Tab, of course he has the power. FDR put hundreds of thousands of US citizens in concentration camps for years. Yes it was overturned, but who cares - he did it and got away with it long enough to eradicate the threat he thought they posed.
Do you really believe b-ho won't do everything he can by EO, Congress, even a willing and compliant on their knees to him Congress just takes too damn long. Besides, you have to have those pesky public votes and everything. So why not just issue all of the EOs you can. You know, in the interest of keeping AKs from the hands of gangbangers in Cleveland. That whole public safety thing.
Know how I know they are thinking this way? Story today that they are looking to overturn many of President Bush's EOs. They know and they will use them. Not to mention orders to BATFE, EPA, Commerce - the whole Federal structure will now be against us. And no one - not one damn person will say boo when he fires all of the US prosecutors across the country and replaces them with more willing and compliant b-ho disciples.
-
Your naivete is appalling, Tab, of course he has the power. FDR put hundreds of thousands of US citizens in concentration camps for years. Yes it was overturned, but who cares - he did it and got away with it long enough to eradicate the threat he thought they posed.
Do you really believe b-ho won't do everything he can by EO, Congress, even a willing and compliant on their knees to him Congress just takes too damn long. Besides, you have to have those pesky public votes and everything. So why not just issue all of the EOs you can. You know, in the interest of keeping AKs from the hands of gangbangers in Cleveland. That whole public safety thing.
Know how I know they are thinking this way? Story today that they are looking to overturn many of President Bush's EOs. They know and they will use them. Not to mention orders to BATFE, EPA, Commerce - the whole Federal structure will now be against us. And no one - not one damn person will say boo when he fires all of the US prosecutors across the country and replaces them with more willing and compliant b-ho disciples.
Get a new tin foil hat... the one you have now is not working for you.
-
which he does not have the power to do... now he can stop imports form coming in, but thats it.
TAB, You don't know what you are talking about.
Obama to use executive orders for immediate impact
*
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer – 25 mins ago
Featured Topics:
WASHINGTON – President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.
John Podesta, Obama's transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush's executive orders on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.
"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."
Podesta also said Obama is working to build a diverse Cabinet. That includes reaching out to Republicans and independents — part of the broad coalition that supported Obama during the race against Republican John McCain. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been mentioned as a possible holdover.
"He's not even a Republican," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said. "Why wouldn't we want to keep him? He's never been a registered Republican."
Obama was elected on a promise of change, but the nature of the job makes it difficult for presidents to do much that has an immediate impact on the lives of average people. Congress plans to take up a second economic aid plan before year's end — an effort Obama supports. But it could be months or longer before taxpayers see the effect.
Obama could use his executive powers to at least signal that Washington is changing.
"Obama's advantage of course is he'll have the House and the Senate working with him, and that makes it easier," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. "But even then, having an immediate impact is very difficult to do because the machinery of government doesn't move that quickly."
Presidents long have used executive orders to impose policy and set priorities. One of Bush's first acts was to reinstate full abortion restrictions on U.S. overseas aid. The restrictions were first ordered by President Reagan and the first President Bush followed suit. President Clinton lifted them soon after he occupied the Oval Office and it wouldn't be surprising if Obama did the same.
Executive orders "have the power of law and they can cover just about anything," Tobias said in a telephone interview.
Bush used his executive power to limit federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, a position championed by opponents of abortion rights who argue that destroying embryos is akin to killing a fetus. Obama has supported the research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's. Many moderate Republicans also support the research, giving it the stamp of bipartisanship.
On drilling, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling. Bush administration officials argue that the drilling will not harm sensitive areas; environmentalists oppose it.
"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. "I think that's a mistake."
Two top House Republicans said there is a willingness to try to work with Obama to get things done. But they said to expect Republicans to serve as a check against the power held by Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.
"It's going to be a cheerful opposition," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. "We're going to carry those timeless principles of limited government, a strong defense, traditional values, to the American people."
Pence, of Indiana, is expected to take over the No. 3 leadership post among House Republicans.
In other transition matters, Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, would not say whether Obama would return to the Senate for votes during the postelection session this month. Obama's presence would be extraordinary, given his position as president-elect, especially if Congress takes up a much-anticipated economic stimulus plan.
"I think that the basic approach has been he's going to be here in Chicago, setting up his economic, not only his economic team, but the policies he wants to outline for the country as soon as he gets sworn in, so we hit the ground running," Emanuel said.
Also, Emanuel would not commit to a Democratic proposal to help the auto industry with some of the $700 billion approved by Congress to for the financial bailout.
Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a letter Saturday to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that the administration should consider expanding the bailout to include car companies.
Podesta appeared on "Fox News Sunday," as did Pence, and CNN's "Late Edition," where Reid also was interviewed. Emanuel spoke on ABC's "This Week" and CBS' "Face the Nation."
-
Executive orders "have the power of law and they can cover just about anything," Tobias said in a telephone interview.
I think that about says it all! :'(
-
There is this really famous document... maybe you have heard of it... US constitution... might want to read it some time..
Mainly artical 2... but Articals 1 and 3 would also be helpful.
-
Talk Radio's Billy Cunningham just talked about B-Ho may use Exec Order power to stop the import of foreign ammo which in turn will cause American ammo to go through the roof...and so it begins
-
Cooptire, I LOVE that avatar ;D ROFL
TAB , Do you live under a rock ? Just wondering, because for the EIGHT years the Bush beating pinheads that you are surrounded by, (among other places, granted ) having been screaming their empty little heads off about the things the current Pres has used EO's to accomplish. Articles 1,2, and 3 not withstanding there wasn't crap they could do about it.
It was the head of Clintoons transition team that made the statement"wave a pen, make a law, pretty cool huh?"
You need one of those cranalanalectomies. Or was it the rarified air of Officer country that caused brain damage ?
Talk Radio's Billy Cunningham just talked about B-Ho may use Exec Order power to stop the import of foreign ammo which in turn will cause American ammo to go through the roof...and so it begins
Tom Gresham gave out the web site change.gov so people could check it out for themselves, during the show a lady called in to say the comments about guns had been removed, if you still want to get to them go to
www.tinyurl.com/5gznwl
Gun references are high lited, (at least the word gun is )
-
I was on change.gov a day or two ago. Poof! His pages and pages of Agenda is down to a couple paragraphs. A public agenda gone secret. Must have directed that practicing his Executive Order power.
-
Why did they pulled it? I had to ask...(sent via the change.gov website contact page)
The many pages of agenda on this website seem to have disappeared? Will The President-elect be posting new agenda explanations soon? I am particularly interested in an expanded explanation of his stance on the Second Amendment and a more exact definition of "common sense" firearms laws? Please reference the below agenda item under the "Urban Policy" page which is now no longer available for viewing on the Change.gov website:
"Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."
Thank you
Scott L. Currie
Lake Worth, FL
-
It is not happening because......
1) As previously said - it will be expanded & made permanent. Then registration/confiscation by EO if not all the above. :(
2) They changed their minds & now like guns. :)
3) Public outcry & gun sales have been so brisk, they decided the public was not in favor of this & decided to go along with public opinion. ::)
4) They know they are wrong & will withdraw from the UN to oppose their 'gun rights' stand. :D
5) yea - right!
-
It is not happening because......
1) As previously said - it will be expanded & made permanent. Then registration/confiscation by EO if not all the above. :(
2) They changed their minds & now like guns. :)
3) Public outcry & gun sales have been so brisk, they decided the public was not in favor of this & decided to go along with public opinion. ::)
4) They know they are wrong & will withdraw from the UN to oppose their 'gun rights' stand. :D
5) yea - right!
What I fear more than anything is that they will cozy up to the U.N., and then the Second Amendment will just be one small piece of the problem.
-
Guys and Gals,
The 1994 Weapons ban still exists in MA. It never went away and guess what? The Governor of MA is a close friend of our future president. I can be done and most likely, will be done...
-
We need to be proactive and we need to be UNITED! MB and Gresham, as well as many other industry luminaries need to get together, as I am sure they are doing. More importantly than that, those of us that are "less equal" than some MUST be informed and united as well. I know this is the choir, but we need to bring in the millions of gun owners out there, into the fold, so to speak. Don't ask me how, I just believe we need to do it.
Erase the bad taste that the NRA gives even some gun owners, I guess.
-
cooptire hits on a key word - "united."
We are a group that can be divided and thus conquered in our current state. Too many of us splinter off because we just shoot, or just hunt, or just have grandpa's old gun, or this organization only represents that group, or that organization is too stubborn and inflexible, or ...
We can not afford to be splintered on the basics, prejudiced on semantics, or suckered in by groups like those lead by an ex-football player that knows what is best for us.
If we are not united we will be conquered!
I posted someplace else where I compared this fight to any other fight we can get exposed to, and we need to be an unattractive target, so the President Elect and his crew will go elsewhere first. On the idea that the best defense is a good offense, we need to be proactive in all areas, and keep them reacting and on their heels.
-
We need to be viewed as "united group of firearms enthusiasts" and NOT as "zealots" or random "gun nuts".
-
We need to be viewed as "united group of firearms enthusiasts" and NOT as "zealots" or random "gun nuts".
I believe that that is what you get by being proactive, organized and on the offensive instead of reactionary.
-
I believe that that is what you get by being proactive, organized and on the offensive instead of reactionary.
key word... the gun culture is generally offensive to every one.
Lets just say you know nothing about guns... When the leader of THE major gun owners groups( nra, every one knows of them) say " from my cold dead hands" what would that make you think of that group?
-
key word... the gun culture is generally offensive to every one.
Lets just say you know nothing about guns... When the leader of THE major gun owners groups( nra, every one knows of them) say " from my cold dead hands" what would that make you think of that group?
DEDICATION.
-
DEDICATION.
replace gun with say, porn or drugs... still feel the same way?
-
"If we do not hang together, we will all hang separately. We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
-
cooptire hits on a key word - "united."
We are a group that can be divided and thus conquered in our current state. Too many of us splinter off because we just shoot, or just hunt, or just have grandpa's old gun, or this organization only represents that group, or that organization is too stubborn and inflexible, or ...
We can not afford to be splintered on the basics, prejudiced on semantics, or suckered in by groups like those lead by an ex-football player that knows what is best for us.
If we are not united we will be conquered!
I posted someplace else where I compared this fight to any other fight we can get exposed to, and we need to be an unattractive target, so the President Elect and his crew will go elsewhere first. On the idea that the best defense is a good offense, we need to be proactive in all areas, and keep them reacting and on their heels.
These are much my thoughts too. I would like to add we should have the attitude of "no one gets thrown overboard." I hear too many gun owners talk about what guns should NOT be allowed to be purchased or owned. As most of you know, I have full-auto weapons and I am continually amazed by the mostly well-intentioned, sometimes smug, comments about how these types of weapons should only be in the hands of the military or police. So if I believe that you should not have a .50 caliber rifle, is that OK too? Or how about those very dangerous- and hear comes that word- and SCARY assault weapons? Of course not!
We need to have a high degree of tolerance in our community. I may believe that you don't "need" this or that weapon but I will never tell you that you do not have the RIGHT to have that weapon.
I guess I am saying we have to have solidarity in this time of trial and keep our personal preferences out of it for the good of the cause.
-
replace gun with say, porn or drugs... still feel the same way?
Well, basically if it is something that is protected by the Constitution, then yes.
-
Well, basically if it is something that is protected by the Constitution, then yes.
Right on! Also, in response to this article by Nowick. I wonder what political ties he has. I think this is just propaganda for the anti-gunners. Lets put some stuff out there to ease fears until we can get an organized strike mounted. I don't know Mr. Nowick or his politics. In any event, I wouldn't believe it for one minute. It's coming. Sooner or later an AWB will be brought up to be passed. Yeah, maybe not the 1994 one. Probably one much worse. Don't fall for it. And don't think or believe that the elite leftwing..won't be supporting one.
-
I will attempt the near impossible: I will pretend to be Obama and give my rationale for NOT moving ahead with an AWB right away; Tab's comments notwithstanding.
1. I want a second term! So I do not want to do anything too radical right away....
2. I have a global financial "crisis" that I must correct. I have to get an economic stimulus package through Congress and I have to be seen as actively managing this economy.
3. I have several international problems to deal with. I have to hurry up and withdraw troops from Iraq so I can send them to Afghanistan. And I must really show my mettle by capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. And if I can't do that, I will escalate the war over there to show I am serious about national security.
4. Since I know that the '94 AWB helped end Democratic Party rule in Congress, I am not about to stick my hand into a hornet's nest this time. I will outmaneuver my opponents on this issue by banning the importation of weapons and ammunition. I will implement changes in the manufacture of domestic ammunition to meet tougher environmental standards. These proposals will drive up the costs of owning and maintaining these weapons. All of these changes can be done without "taking" anyone's guns! I will regulate them to death!
5. If things are going swimmingly in year two or three, but not year 1 or 4, I might go for jugular then. If not I will bide my time till I get to my second term and then I will unleash seven different kinds of hell on their ass!
Now back to me. I don't think he'll go for it right away but I do believe one is coming. Just remember: the longer they take the stronger we can become. In an odd way, let's be thankful these other problems may have their attention for now.
-
key word... the gun culture is generally offensive to every one.
Lets just say you know nothing about guns... When the leader of THE major gun owners groups( nra, every one knows of them) say " from my cold dead hands" what would that make you think of that group?
Let's put this in the perspective intended instead of out of context. Go back one post when I first brought up offense. It is a sports reference comparing offense vs. defense or leading the charge instead of reacting to it. We need to set the agenda for gun issues and move on them instead of reacting to what the other side throws at us.
-
I know the context you ment... I'm just pointing out how most people see the pro gun community( when I say most people, I mean the ones that have no exp with guns. )
-
key word... the gun culture is generally offensive to every one.
Lets just say you know nothing about guns... When the leader of THE major gun owners groups( nra, every one knows of them) say " from my cold dead hands" what would that make you think of that group?
Makes me think I should belong to that group. Oh, wait! I am a life member. And as to replacing 'gun' with 'porn', it would have to be some ungodly HOT chick if they had to pry it from your cold, dead hands.
-
Makes me think I should belong to that group. Oh, wait! I am a life member. And as to replacing 'gun' with 'porn', it would have to be some ungodly HOT chick if they had to pry it from your cold, dead hands.
If we start replacing words what do we say when someone buys a new gun and doesn't give us pictures ... Post the Porn Porn?
-
replace gun with say, porn or drugs... still feel the same way?
TAB, You picked the wrong night to post this stupid sh!t. I had a rotten night at work and you intentional stupidity is the last straw. Short and simple so even a pin head can understand, We have been talking for what a YEAR, 2 years , about "CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS", get that, "Constitutionally guaranteed", in other words CIVIL RIGHTS, just like MLK was bitching for 40 years ago. What it boils down to is if some one tries to take away my civil rights I will kill them, or die trying, maybe both. So be it, if that offends you, that a person actually has balls enough to say "no more", then I pity you ,as the say a MAN only dies once, while a coward dies every day.
Now go inflate your girlfriend and leave politics to those of us with a freaking clue.
PS If the Constitution said I had the God given right to smoke weed or crack my attitude would be the same toward them.
-
TAB, You picked the wrong night to post this stupid sh!t. I had a rotten night at work and you intentional stupidity is the last straw. Short and simple so even a pin head can understand, We have been talking for what a YEAR, 2 years , about "CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS", get that, "Constitutionally guaranteed", in other words CIVIL RIGHTS, just like MLK was bitching for 40 years ago. What it boils down to is if some one tries to take away my civil rights I will kill them, or die trying, maybe both. So be it, if that offends you, that a person actualy has balls enough to say "no more", then I pity you ,as the say a MAN only dies once, while a coward dies every day.
Now go inflate your girlfriend and leave politics to those of us with a freaking clue.
explain to me how having a object and skin color are the same.
-
explain to me how having a object and skin color are the same.
If the object, as it relates here, is a gun, and the skin color is regarding equality among human beings, then they are both protected under the Constitution.
-
explain to me how having a object and skin color are the same.
They're not the same. Self-appointed social activists in the guise of judges decided that skin color was important (after abuses in the South (and North) based on skin color), followed by Congress in 1964 passing the Civil Rights Act. Not a Constitutional Amendment, and Act of Congress. So no, not the same, and certainly not in your smug implication that skin color trumping the 2nd Amendment.
As for b-ho, I just posted this on MB's blog -
"As for b-ho, I'm wondering if b-ho might not leave us all hanging in the wind by doing nothing about guns for a while, citing issues with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, mortgage bailouts, etc. as more important. Trying to lull us into a false sense of complacency.
Then, maybe late next year, he can laughingly point to the near hysterical buying and publicity, like the Rep. from GA who talked about b-ho forming a Nazi-like civilian security service. In the smug, smarmy way only he can, he can then tell us that we were all fools, see, he didn't take our guns away, we have nothing to fear, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, etc.
In the intervening period, he has put into place - quietly - the infrastructure necessary to move against the gun owners, after lulling us into that false sense of security.
I'm just saying . . ."
As an after thought, it would certainly build an even stronger base for "common sense " confiscations. OK, maybe he will have to do something to mollify the hard liner UN-lovers/lefties and ban imports with an EO, but time will tell who is right here.
-
Very disconcerting, to the potential (keyword potential), of the next 4 years. The big AWB won't happen all at once. Nor any other restrictions to firearm purchases, or concealed carry.
BHO and the Dems have (believe it or not) actually "learned" how to push their agenda. Contrary to the old Dem playbook, it has morphed into a bit of the old and new. Kick the Republicans now that they have lost(revenge for the 2000 election thing),...
Oh, and use the blind lemmings momentum to support the Obamessiah's agenda.
From Pathfinder:
Then, maybe late next year, he can laughingly point to the near hysterical buying and publicity, like the Rep. from GA who talked about b-ho forming a Nazi-like civilian security service. In the smug, smarmy way only he can, he can then tell us that we were all fools, see, he didn't take our guns away, we have nothing to fear, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, etc.
In the intervening period, he has put into place - quietly - the infrastructure necessary to move against the gun owners, after lulling us into that false sense of security.
BHO's interview on NPR confirmed his anti-gun history in late Oct. (link on previous post), but he's too smart to do it all at one time.. He has the next potential 8 years to weasel restrictions six ways from Sunday.
Ammo tax, license tax, background checks, NICS checks, new form 4473 form next month, BATFE enforcement, FFL's, gun manufacturers, imported ammo, internet accessories for firearms...etc,... how much info are you willing to provide to buy (6) 30 rd. magazines online?
Its coming, one way or another, and that frankly sucks. Let's see, gun sales sharply up,.....
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
Ronald Reagan (1986)
Obama hasn't read his history..
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington
-
I can think of one reason why Obama will pass the AWB. Ted Nugents comment on stage.
Remember the "Suck on this!" line? That alone would push anyone in power to sign any gun reg bill while thinking, "Hey Ted, Suck on this!"
Anyone in power is still just a person who has some sort of petty streak in them. Give them power and enough backing and see what happens.
As for the "Constitutionally Guaranteed Right" that Heller vs. D.C. gave, remember it was a 5 to 4 verdict. That means it can be challenged again with two new appointees to the SCOTUS.
TAB has a point with the NRA slogan. "From my cold ,dead hands!" is very confrontational. SOme might like it that way, but it puts off a lot people who have a gun or two, but aren't into shooting. Same thing with the "Tree of Liberty" getting thirsty. We want the silent majority behind us, not against us. Comments like these will scare away the average suburbanite and make us sound like "gun nuts".
What is the one thing I see in favor of gun enthusiasts that hasn't been brought up yet? The popularity of the AR platform in recent times. If I remember correctly, part of the Heller vs. D.C. judgement ruled against banning "common" firearms. Common means Popular or big sales numbers to the average Joe, so with so many manufacturers making and selling AR platform rifles, it can be argues that it is a "common" firearm.
Same thinking goes for all the pistols with the high capacity magazines. The high sales numbers help defend its existence.
We also need to show that there is more to firearms than just self defense and hunting. We need to show more of the lighter side of the shooting world.
SASS is a great start, but we need more. We need the Ruger Rimfire Challenge as a way to cheaply get into the shooting sport hobby. We need a version of SASS that uses the AR platform in a fun-light hearted manner ala GI Joe vs. Cobra.
You might say this is "liberalizing the sport shooting arena" and it might be, but while the 2nd Admendment may gaurantee the right to keep and bear arms, it only stays that way as long as it is popular with the majority of people in this country.
The anti-gunners have made it their mission to sell the idea that it is bad to own or like guns. It is up to us to sell the idea that it is good to enjoy our firearms.
That is where the fight is. That is where we need to win. The hearts and minds of mainstream middle suburbia America.
-
If a top notch ad campain can give us a president that we don't want, it could make gun owners look very good.
In this day and age it appears reason is over come by well written ads! ???
How about we (NRA?) hire these folks to make gun owners look like heros. ;D ;D
-
Good point ULMUS
What is the one thing I see in favor of gun enthusiasts that hasn't been brought up yet? The popularity of the AR platform in recent times. If I remember correctly, part of the Heller vs. D.C. judgement ruled against banning "common" firearms. Common means Popular or big sales numbers to the average Joe, so with so many manufacturers making and selling AR platform rifles, it can be argues that it is a "common" firearm.
also think how many people have just invested quite a bit of cash on these firearms and will not like to give them up or lose the right to use them. the more people buy the better off we'll be.