Gun Control? WIll it happen?

[Oh Shoot]

I see nothing wrong with keeping a thousand or so rounds on hand. You never know what will happen in this world.

I see nothing wrong with 100,000 or so.

- OS

[mikegideon]

I'm glad I took up reloading, and bought ahead a little. Ammo is gonna get scarce again, I'm afraid.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

We have a high chance of a ban on semi automatic rifles or low+ capacity magazines for handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Romney is 100% behind a ban on anything more potent than a revolver or a bolt action rifle. Obama is of course against guns as well. IF CONGRESS PRESENTS IT, YOUR NEXT PRESIDENT WILL SIGN IT. Congress is our only hope right now.

It may be, but if it's a Republican Congress that

sends it to him, it will be one huge regret for

the entire Republican Party, may even topple it.

I have my doubts Romney will ever see such,

though. I really doubt he is that kind of gun

grabber. His history was earned while governor

of MA. The country ain't MA.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikegideon]

It may be, but if it's a Republican Congress that

sends it to him, it will be one huge regret for

the entire Republican Party, may even topple it.

I have my doubts Romney will ever see such,

though. I really doubt he is that kind of gun

grabber. His history was earned while governor

of MA. The country ain't MA.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Truth!

[Jonnin]

Looks like I became interested in firearms a little too late. I just got my permit a few days ago and now I'm already worried about it being taken away by politicians. Politicians that most likely can afford to pay for their security instead of Joe Blow that has to look out for himself.

You are unlikey to see a door to door takeup, that is not impossible but its not likely in the near (10 year or so) future either. There is nothing wrong with being ready for that event (whatever that means to you...) but it is not the concern. The concern is constant erosion of where you can carry with your permit, and what exactly you may be allowed to buy. Or aggravations like ammo tax or hazardous materials/environwhacko attacks on ammo.

Whatever you own today, you will still have it after any law changes; these laws tend to prevent purchase of certain things but not continued ownership of them if you already had it.

[mikegideon]

You are unlikey to see a door to door takeup, that is not impossible but its not likely in the near (10 year or so) future either. There is nothing wrong with being ready for that event (whatever that means to you...) but it is not the concern. The concern is constant erosion of where you can carry with your permit, and what exactly you may be allowed to buy. Or aggravations like ammo tax or hazardous materials/environwhacko attacks on ammo.

Whatever you own today, you will still have it after any law changes; these laws tend to prevent purchase of certain things but not continued ownership of them if you already had it.

It's called grandfathering, and they do it because they can't afford to buy them. Trends matter. The major trends would have to reverse before anything will pass. It ain't 1994.

[Guest TankerHC]

My opinion: If Obama wins re-election, gun control (Or more of it) is coming. For one thing, Obama has two options with the ATT. He can institute it as a soft law, and even though Soft Laws are not binding, he can then do what CLinton (Or Bush, cant recall who), did with the ELIE, make it binding and enforceable through an International Court. Or, he can simply not bring it before the Senate for a vote, which is his legal right, and it will be considered binding as we will be signatories. I am sure if Romney wins, it will come before the Senate. Secondly, Obama has already shown that he has no regard for Constitutional Law in several instances (One as an example is the simple decisions to call Congress out of sessions, when they were in session and make appointments and another is the requirementr for Border States to report sales of multiple long guns). Also, watching the F&F hearings, Holder made it very clear that the Administrations Policy is to do what is neccesary to outlaw ALL semi auto rigles and shotguns. Check with Obama's own party, He himself said this very thing as a State rep, as well as having voted to have Gun Manufacteres liable for deaths by their firearms. He has no issue with issuing Executive Orders. Will it go that far, I dont think so, but there will be further gun Control if he wins. I look to see the AWB put back in place as well as magazines being restricted to 10 rounds or less.

I know a lot of people will say "Well, Romney is anti Gun too" or "Romney put in place a permanent ban". Nothing, on either of those subjects could be further from the truth. Not only did Romney NOT put a ban in place, but not a single piece of legislation came across his desk, during his time as Governer, that was anti-2A. In fact, when Bill Clinton put the AWB in place, the Deomcratic Mass. Senate did as well, but went one better. They put theres in place with more restrictions and no Sunset Clause. When Romney took office it was already a permanent ban. Did he sign off on it, yep, because it was already in place (for years) and he had no choice. Romney spent the next several years working hand in hand with GOAL, the NRA's Mass. Arm, passing numerous pro 2A and pro sportsmen bills into law. In fact, according to the NRA, Romney passed the most important piece of pro 2A legislation since the earlier restrictions on guns took place. This legislation allowed the Governer to start reforming the restrictive laws that the Senate put in place.

Obama wins = Gun Control. Romney wins= No gun control.

I refer you to GOAL's report on Romney. Gun Owners Action League is Massachussets NRA Arm.

http://www.goal.org/...ges/romney.html

Edited July 25, 2012 by TankerHC

[DaveTN]

The SCOTUS has ruled that we have a right to own guns. When, where, and how you carry is controlled by the state. I don’t see the SCOTUS revisiting that anytime soon.

I’m still trying to think of a scenario where troops or cops would be going door to door taking guns? Don’t give the worn out response of “Katrina†because that was an isolated incident and has been addressed by both Federal and State law. The only thing I can come up with would be under Federal Martial Law, but I’m not sure how that could happen and the military have nothing to do but mess with taking peoples guns.

I do expect so see a fight over high capacity magazines.

[mikegideon]

I do expect so see a fight over high capacity magazines.

There has been a fight for years. A fight in congress, one that has a chance of passing... I have serious doubts. Bad science, thoroughly tested in the good ole USA. Just watch as the NRA escorts Ms. Maggart out the door.

[G27]

They don't have to knock, they'll just do like they did in England - outlaw them, allowing a grace period to turn in all firearms, no questions asked, after which possession of a firearm is felony. And it would work, for the most part.

All of those that didn't turn them in could essentially never again use them without fear of prison time, even in self-defense.

But, since we DC v Heller on our side, I don't see it happening.

[mikegideon]

McDonald was the biggie. Gonna need more prisons.

[Jonnin]

wall of good stuff

Yes, Mitt did not put the laws in place. But he has made any number of questionable quotes. Let me share a few gems...

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,†he said during a gubernatorial debate

“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.′

(On support for the brady bill) "That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA (National Rifle Association)," he said. "I don't line up with a lot of special interest groups."

I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal,

There are dozens more of these but they all say the same thing: Mitt's support of the 2nd is casual at best --- he does not support "high cap" mags, he does not support ownership of semi automatic rifles, he does not agree with the NRA in general but wants their endorsement, and he thinks gun control helps to reduce crime. Just the words that come out of his mouth are enough even if we give him a pass for anything he did in MA.

[strickj]

I'm less afraid of O restricting guns then I am of Romney. O and the Ls know better then to touch guns again or they'll loose any glimmer of hope for control for a long damn time to come.

Rs are not as likely to turn on one of their own... and as posted above, Romney is every bit as anti gun (if not more) as O.

Edited July 25, 2012 by strickj

[gregintenn]

I'm less afraid of O restricting guns then I am of Romney. O and the Ls know better then to touch guns again or they'll loose any glimmer of hope for control for a long damn time to come.

Rs are not as likely to turn on one of their own...

I'm still not convinced there would be any difference.

[Guest db99wj]

Here is ole Mitt's official stance on Gun Rights

As the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, the Second Amendment protects one of the American people’s most basic and fundamental individual rights: “the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.†The Second Amendment is essential to the functioning of our free society. Mitt strongly supports the right of all law-abiding Americans to exercise their constitutionally protected right to own firearms and to use them for lawful purposes, including hunting, recreational shooting, self-defense, and the protection of family and property.

Like the majority of Americans, Mitt does not believe that the United States needs additional laws that restrict the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. He believes in the safe and responsible ownership and use of firearms and the right to lawfully manufacture and sell firearms and ammunition. He also recognizes the extraordinary number of jobs and other economic benefits that are produced by hunting, recreational shooting, and the firearms and ammunition industry, not the least of which is to fund wildlife and habitat conservation.

Mitt will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes. But he does not support adding more laws and regulations that do nothing more than burden law-abiding citizens while being ignored by criminals. Mitt will also provide law enforcement with the proper and effective resources they need to deter, apprehend, and punish criminals.

As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt was proud to support legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners. He worked hard to advance the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms, while opposing liberal desires to create bureaucracy intended to burden gun owners and sportsmen. As governor, he also designated May 7th as “The Right to Bear Arms Day†in Massachusetts to honor law-abiding citizens and their right to “use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property for all lawful purposes, including common defense.â€

As president, Mitt will work to expand and enhance access and opportunities for Americans to hunt, shoot, and protect their families, homes and property, and he will fight the battle on all fronts to protect and promote the Second Amendment.

[Lumber_Jack]

McDonald was the biggie. Gonna need more prisons.

I'd say we'd need a fair share of morgues, as well.

Remember we are Americans not Europeans. Most won't go down without a fight.

[Guest Springfield1911guy]

I think that if gun confiscation were to be tried, there would be a mass civil disobedience event. Beyond that anything could or would happen. Sure the sheep among us that believe that it would be a great idea, will turn in there guns. However, there are far to many privately held firearms in this country for them ALL to be found.

Agreed. When it becomes time to hide your guns...it is time to use them. Just ask the Colonists.

[pcrc11]

Gun control is not about controlling guns anymore, it is about pumping your benefactors for as much money as you can, and that goes for both sides. Neither side would want to completely win the war because that would stop the flow of money. You will see small gains in each direction only to be turned around and retook by the other side. You may more than likely see a ban on certain hi-cap magazines and assault weapons but not without a long drawn out fight where many lobbyists and lawyers can make huge amounts of money fighting for their constituents only to be refought down the road so they can then again make more money overturning it. There is no money to be made winning a war only fighting it.

[Jamie Jackson]

Just my :

Contextually we already have gun control. And compared to the days of my youth...pretty severe gun control...

I am 58 and can well remember looking in a Sears & Roebuck catalog prior to 1968 and marveling at all of the incredible guns you could simply order through the mail.

As a kid I frequently walked through my suburban neighborhood with my 16g single shot and a box of shells on my way to the local gravel pit. The neighbors would simply wave, or say “Nice day for some shooting†or something to that effect.

While I wasn't around in the beginning of the 20th century (some may argue differently), the National Firearms Act of 1934 really accelerated our Nation's slide down that slippery slope. It's a sometimes blatant, sometimes insidious, slide and it is moving constantly towards the erosion of, even elimination of, our God Given, Constitutionally Protected Rights.

While we may delude ourselves into thinking we are regaining some of our Rights through "Shall issue" Permits and decisions like Heller, we remain on that downward slide.

Unfortunately we, through apathy, are mostly, if not entirely, to blame. By “weâ€, I mean our populace as a whole, as we continually re-elect the same self serving, malignantly narcissistic career politicians. Shame on us!

My primary regret is that my son and grand children won’t enjoy the same freedoms I had.

If you not had the opportunity to read Unintended Consequences by John Ross, you need to, imho.

The first section “Seeds†is an eye opener. I’m reading it again and it’s uncanny to see how far we’ve actually gone since my first reading in 1996.

[AU_88]

Should be paying attention to what the UN is doing as well...

[vontar]

If they ever tried, 300 year later people will still be digging up caches of Guns and Ammo.

[Caster]

If they ever tried, 300 year later people will still be digging up caches of Guns and Ammo.

Stay outta my yard!

[dlm37015]

Just my :

Contextually we already have gun control. And compared to the days of my youth...pretty severe gun control...

I am 58 and can well remember looking in a Sears & Roebuck catalog prior to 1968 and marveling at all of the incredible guns you could simply order through the mail.

As a kid I frequently walked through my suburban neighborhood with my 16g single shot and a box of shells on my way to the local gravel pit. The neighbors would simply wave, or say “Nice day for some shooting†or something to that effect.

While I wasn't around in the beginning of the 20th century (some may argue differently), the National Firearms Act of 1934 really accelerated our Nation's slide down that slippery slope. It's a sometimes blatant, sometimes insidious, slide and it is moving constantly towards the erosion of, even elimination of, our God Given, Constitutionally Protected Rights.

While we may delude ourselves into thinking we are regaining some of our Rights through "Shall issue" Permits and decisions like Heller, we remain on that downward slide.

Unfortunately we, through apathy, are mostly, if not entirely, to blame. By “weâ€, I mean our populace as a whole, as we continually re-elect the same self serving, malignantly narcissistic career politicians. Shame on us!

My primary regret is that my son and grand children won’t enjoy the same freedoms I had.

If you not had the opportunity to read Unintended Consequences by John Ross, you need to, imho.

The first section “Seeds†is an eye opener. I’m reading it again and it’s uncanny to see how far we’ve actually gone since my first reading in 1996.

very well said

[mikegideon]

OK folks. Here it is. Obama finally comes out...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/25/obama-takes-on-gun-violence-in-new-orleans-speech/?hpt=hp_t2

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said. "That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."

He is only making all of us soldiers who will be defending our own ground against him. Trying to make us all criminals never fixes

anything, except in the eyes of a government wanting more control. He definitely wants that.