If Hillary Wins.

[waynesan]

At the very least, we all know she at least has a chance of being the next President of the U.S. Assuming for the moment that she does win, and if the Democrats pick up a few more seats in the House and Senate, what do you think she would really propose for new gun control legislation? What do you think she would get? Do you think there would be enough Democrats that would buck her proposals to stop them?

[Guest GregRN]

I think the real problem is the large percentage of the population that live in the few major metropolitan areas of the country. Just counting Los Angeles and New York City, you have a big chunk of votes. The citizens of these areas don't seem to have their individual rights as a high priority. They seem to worry more about what the government can give away, or what rights the minority groups have.

On the other hand, the Democrats seem to be turning even more liberal every day. The more they turn, I'm guessing the more people they turn away from.

Back to the question, I don't really think an elected Hillary (God help us) would be able to make major changes in one fell swoop. I think it would be over a period of years. Unless she was elected to a second term, I don't think she'd have the backing to push an outright ban through Congress, unless there was a major incident such as the assassination of some major official. I've heard (I wasn't alive then) that it was the emotinal reaction to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy that brought about our Federal Gun Control Act. Even Sarah Brady was created by the emotional reaction to a shooting. Ain't it a shame that the law abiding citizens get punished for the law breaking by the knee jerk reaction of someone with a loud mouth (I mean voice)?

[SkWaShDeM]

All four of the major gun control laws of the last century are directly tied to a major emotional/traumatic event.

1934 - St. Valentines Day Massacre

1968 - Assassination of Robert Kennedy, and to lesser degrees, JFK and Martin Luther King Jr.

1986 - Assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan

1994 - John Brady getting shot and his wife making such a fuss about it

[Marswolf]

All four of the major gun control laws of the last century are directly tied to a major emotional/traumatic event.

Exactly. And the laws passed would not have stopped the shootings if they existed before the events.

The only thing we have going for us is that the Democrats still remember what happened the last time they passed gun banning measures. A number of them did not return to their elected office. But their memory may be about to fade and they may forget the will of the people if there aren't some grassroots efforts to remind them.

[fury2neon]

All four of the major gun control laws of the last century are directly tied to a major emotional/traumatic event.

1934 - St. Valentines Day Massacre

1968 - Assassination of Robert Kennedy, and to lesser degrees, JFK and Martin Luther King Jr.

1986 - Assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan

1994 - John Brady getting shot and his wife making such a fuss about it

Umm... John Brady was shot during the Reagan assassination attempt. Brady was Reagan Press Secretary. So does that mean that the Reagan Assassination is the key point to two of the most resent gun laws?

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Guys....Does anyone REALLY believe that there won't be a MAJOR piece of gun control legislation written up within the 1st 30 days of a Clinton administration if the dems control the House and Senate? The Dems will see a win in 08 as a MANDATE for their policies and drunk on power they will push for all the taxes, gun control and social programs that they can get.

And unfortunately the electorate has such a short attention span that they could give the keys to the castle to Hillary. The fact that she is even CONSIDERED as a candidate with a resume like hers is just appalling. But hey, it is a free country....for now.

[Guest Len]

I have to disagree with Luke on this one. I may be partisan, but I really don't see a Democratic administration, even with larger majorities in the senate (likely) and house (less likely, but possible) doing anything major on guns, especially early on. Why?

1) Lots of other major issues that need addressing. The Dem mandate coming into congress in '06 had nothing to do with gun control. Clinton II would want to deal with health care reform, the deficit, the war, foreign relations, etc, first. Gun control would be back-burner at best.

2) The majority of Americans don't want more gun control. Clintons are poll-driven creatures. Why go against the grain?

3) Its the economy, again. Looks like we're heading toward a down-turn of some significance due to the housing crisis and fuel prices. I'd look for a tax package and some sort of finance reform.

4) The overwhelming majority of new Dems in congress are of the conservative variety, they don't advocate more gun control (in some cases less) and I see no reason why any new Dems coming aboard in 2008 wont feel the same way. Contrary to some posts here, the Democratic party, as represented in the US House of Representatives is much less liberal today than at any time since I have been alive. The Senate is a different matter, but its a slim chance that the Dems will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in '09. They need 10 seats to do this, I don't see more than 6-8 changing hands.

5) Most any legislation that could get through congress and passed into law would very likely have little to no effect on the day-to-day activities of the majority of law-abiding gun owners. I don't see what happened in CA going national, for example. What would get through would be maybe a closing of the gun show "loop hole," an expansion of the NICS database that's on hold in the Senate (a bill NRA supports), and similar smaller things.

6) Its the Supreme Court that holds the key to all this. If they take up the DC case and rule broadly on it, that will either slam the door on much gun control legislation or open it up wide. If I were in Congress, I'd wait to see what the supremes have to say about DC and then go from there.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

I hope you are right....I also hope I win the lottery.....

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Congress currently has the lowest confidence rating in a long time, possibly ever. Will this stop them? Probably not. It seems like though, America has spoken. The worst I could see is something like H.R. 1022 getting passed. The GOP take the seats at the midterms and it gets repealed. Quite a pain if you ask me, but I doubt the American people as a whole will let their rights get permanently trampled. A majority of Americans think we have enough gun control as it is. Sure our biggest cities have influence, but they don't solely run the country. I think both parties screwed up big time, and we're in the repair phase (for the next few terms).

I hate to use a star wars quote, but

''The day we stop believing democracy will work is the day we lose it''... to Hillary and the wanna be socialists.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Relying on the Republicans to win back the House and Senate in 2010 and repeal an HR1022 like law is wishful thinking. After all, they had the chance to repeal the 1994 Crime Law in 1996 and couldn't get that done. Had it not been for the sunset clause in the law it would still be with us. The Republican controlled congress didn't REPEAL IT in 2004 they just didn't vote to extend it. Those are 2 VERY different things.

[SkWaShDeM]

Umm... John Brady was shot during the Reagan assassination attempt. Brady was Reagan Press Secretary. So does that mean that the Reagan Assassination is the key point to two of the most resent gun laws?

The 1993 LA race riots would also probably be considered a player in passing that piece of legislation. But yes, the attempt on Reagan was probably the biggest impetus for both in my opinion.

[waynesan]

OK. Let's take it a little further. Hillary is elected. Two years into her term, the United Nations puts tremendous pressure on member states to crack down on private firearms ownership.

With the liberal press bombarding the evening news night after night with stories on why we need to be an international good neighbor along with headline news stories of every criminal act where guns are used, do you think the American electorate can be moved to the point where the majority of voters, along with the majority of the Congress can be persuaded to go along with severe restrictions being placed on private gun ownership?

The United Nations is the darling of many in the liberal left who seem hellbent

to get its approval on anything we do and whose priority is to cooperate with anything the UN says is good. I'm concerned that if liberal globalists are in control of our government, they will be willing to submit to UN demands for us to give up our American traditions if it means better relations with them.

And its already being reported that Bill Clinton wants to become more involved in Foreign Policy matters in a Hillary Administration --- Sec. of State? Ambassador to the UN? Who knows? It will certainly be different than when John Bolton was there.

[The Rabbi]

FWIW, the man is James Brady, not John Brady.

I am with Len here (surprise surprise). The Dems have many other things on their plates besides gun control, which has been a loser of an issue for them. It is somewhere way down on someone's agenda. Many of the Dems elected this last go around are staunchly pro-gun (Harry Reid has an A rating from the NRA) so it would be a contentious issue.

I would expect to see HillaryCare in some guise proposed within 30 days and much of Congress' time spent on that.

But I will say I am going to stock up on AR receivers and other goodies because the day after Hillary is nominated my shop will be filled with people trying to "beat the ban."

[SkWaShDeM]

James... John... This is what I get for posting on an internet forum when I've been pulling three consecutive all nighters to finish half a dozen term papers. Close enough for government work.

[Guest Big Mike]

Excuse me for saying, but GOD forbid HC gets elected! At one time I owned a mom&pop guhshop and never, ever did a criminal try to buy a gun from me....they just stole them...no background chec, no waiting period, that kind of stuff is only for the guys and gals in the white hats! But I am probably preaching to the choir.

[The Rabbi]

No, see, there's a correlation. More guns=more crime. Therefore fewer guns=less crime. Wouldn't you want fewer guns and less crime? Simple, isn't it?

I am not kidding that people actually think this. It is the whole basis for gun control.

But fortunately the Dems have bigger fish to fry than gun control. I'd be more worried about HillaryCare and the wreck that will make of this economy.

[towerclimber37]

No, see, there's a correlation. More guns=more crime. Therefore fewer guns=less crime. Wouldn't you want fewer guns and less crime? Simple, isn't it?

I am not kidding that people actually think this. It is the whole basis for gun control.

But fortunately the Dems have bigger fish to fry than gun control. I'd be more worried about HillaryCare and the wreck that will make of this economy.

I know exactly what you mean..I wrote an article where I used the letter that Phantom posted.

I've had ONE reply (its on a liberal blog site called newsvine.com) and the premise of the reply was "socialism isn't a bad idea..just look at the wave of socialism taking over all of south America, because its a fair and just system"...yah..he actually used that phrase..its a fair and just system..

I replied "lets talk about that" fair for who? the 16 million Jews and other undesirables that Stalin executed or sent to gulags to die?

or was it just fair for Stalin?

If you kill one, its called murder;if you kill one million, its called a statistic -Joseph Stalin

[Guest Tombstone]

I know that this has been run into the ground time and time again but as far as the less guns = less crime...

Does anyone actually believe that enough guns can be removed from society that the criminals will not have a ready supply for the next fifty years? And if by chance guns were removed then we would have to outlaw knives as well. Then we would have to outlaw recreation baseball and softball because of the chance that someone might use a bat for purposes other than hitting a ball. And could you believe the amount of expense that would be put on the tax payers when it came time to remove our country of all throw able rocks?

Sorry, I just can't understand the logic in that thinking. It must be nice to have armed guards that protect you 24/7 so that you don't have to worry about self defense.

And if the "Queen @%$" does get elected then I am seriously concerned that there will be an idiot out there that pulls a trigger, thus ending her presidency. And as has been stated before, this will only bring more power to those that want more gun control.

Okay, done venting now.

[The Rabbi]

People obviously believe that fewer guns=less crime because they propose and vote for it time and again. When the objections are raised as you did, the answer is more of the same, leading to total confiscation. Of course it is impractical and unrealistic to expect that. Sort of like identifying and deporting 10M people. But I digress.

But, as often mentioned, gun control is less about guns and more about control. Virtually every regulatory scheme is sold as "benefitting the consumer." In fact, it benefits those who are initially regulated, like liquor wholesalers in this state. Take a look what it would take to get a taxi cab company started in Nashville. Should give you some idea.

Why is it that non-sporting weapons are banned from import? The US gun companies welcomed that measure to protect against competition.