Does a D. in Nov = More restrictions on Freedom?

[Raoul Duke]

I overheard a conversation this weekend. Two men, one explaining the purchases he intended to make prior to the inauguration he feared of the democratic candidate he loathed. The second individual, clearly convinced his friend was quite paranoid, thought it simply dealer hype to sell more black guns.

Later I found myself considering the question. Assuming for the sake of discussion, that either of the democratic candidates is elected in Nov. How long would it be before they would/could begin mucking around with our already tenuous RKBA?

Neither candidate could do “anything” on day one; so we have at least until 2009. For no particular reason, I think that re-instating the AWB (a product of the Democratic 90’s) is likely to be the first (hopefully only) attempt at legislation. This might take a while, even if she/he got started right away. I’ll be curious to hear what you-all think. I’m not panicking; I believe that it will be at least a 12-18 months before anything serious could/might change. On the other hand, I will probably give consideration to purchasing the AR I’ve always wanted, sooner rather than later.

Thoughts…

 

[drgrant]

Later I found myself considering the question. Assuming for the sake of discussion, that either of the democratic candidates is elected in Nov. How long would it be before they would/could begin mucking around with our already tenuous RTKBA?

First term, I doubt anything will happen, or they'll even attempt
anything.

Second term is going to be dangerous, if house/senate seats flip in the wrong direction, etc.

Right now gun control is pretty much a back burner issue federally, at least
on the legislative side of the coin. It's getting to the point where most
legislamers don't want to touch it with a very long pole, which is a good
thing, for the most part. Of course, this can all change.

IMO it doesn't matter who wins, one should always be hoarding as much
gun stuff as they can afford. All of the candidates still in the running are
bad juju as far as rights go.

-Mike

 

[pipmaster1971]

It depends on who gets the Dem nod. Clinton, no - probably not. She's a smart operator and knows only too well that any RKBA restrictions would damage her chances in 2012. Obama on the other hand is more of a worry (young and naive enough to try something).

 

[PaulD]

For historical perspective, the AWB was done in Clinton's first term.

 

[GrendelKhan]

It's not just who wins, it's the context of some particular future moment, and where people's collective heads are at, and that's impossible to predict. Best to plan for worst case, and hope it's not. Don't underestimate how stupid The People can be when motivated by fear, even if that fear is absurd. Another school shooting or murdered famous person, would go a long way to passing a lot of bad legislation, and no one will listen to reason.

The sooner we win the hearts and minds of the other side, the better for everyone. I know there's a lot of disdain for liberals on this site, but we need to convince as many as possible to become 2nd amendment supporters. We need to get more people on our side, and also educated, so that they don't waver when something bad happens.

And I wouldn't necessarily trust the Republicans to protect your freedoms, without getting The People on board, either. Maybe I'm just paranoid, or maybe there's more to the attacks on our liberties than just some liberal bed-wetters.

 

[sdavid]

Yes, same if it is a Republican.

 

[Big Daddy 45acp]

Also, we have to factor in the Heller case. A Jackass plus a negative Supreme decision, and we are all done.

 

[clinotus]

Are we really putting the horse before the cart with this discussion for the sake of argument? News trends in the mainstream indicate that cities are doing their best to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, which really translates to lessening the rights of those who abide by the law. Contrary to that we as enthusiasts are well versed in any topical news story that indicates a nod in our favor -from a small town in Idaho that issues licenses without fail, to the 82 year old granny that thwarts a home invasion with her trusty 642.

So who is really winning here? Are we, with the understanding that small news for us is automatically major news and likely not really relevant news to anyone other than the occasional constitutional scholar? Or the main stream media that tells everyone every day that guns are bad and evil?

So I'm questioning instead have we already won the battle and simply now hope to lessen our loss in the war?

*-

Not a single one of the current candidates really does support gun rights and the second amendment is simply a few lines that everyone glosses over while looking for another amendment to legislatively oppress. The best hope as it stands will be the outcome of the DC v. Heller decision as it would, if it goes in our favor, provide current and feasible foundations for future interpretations of the laws on the federal level allowing local statewide challenges. But thats as the expression goes :

 

[massnee]

If something is going to happen it likely will be associated with some large scale event (columbine...). However, the good news it that public opinion seems to be changing (as in Virginia Tech). Now, when shootings occur there is public consideration to relaxing laws that restrict firearms.

There may be hope...hopefully...

 

[WILDCATT]

legislature

Its the senate and house WE need to control.
handloading tools are the answer and casting tools.powder and primers.if you put it away and dont blab about how much you have no one will look your way.If you knukle under to the rules you will lose.the people control their lives and they can control the polititions.If a police chief gets out of control the police budget can be held up.

 

[Admin]

Democrats are Democrats. They know what's better for you. Some are pro-gun, most are anti. In the end, they love big $$$ programs and want to take care of the masses. This means higher taxes, more intruding laws preventing you from hurting yourself and enjoying yourself, and taking your gun rights away.

 

[LoginName]

Its the senate and house WE need to control.

BINGO!... someone gets it.

While I have a deep distrust for all the candidates, (in varying degrees regarding the 3 potential Oval Office nominees), none of them can sign what isn't put on their desk, and I believe all are savvy enough not to make gun control a platform issue or introduce/pressure Congress to enact gun control legislation.

Throw in a Dem controlled Senate and House and Dem president... and the odds change a bit.

I could foresee a new AWB (perhaps more restrictive than the 94 ban, but not at the same level as McCarthy would have it), closing the gun show "loophole", mandated trigger locks and tougher requirements on background checks and record keeping. Beyond that (even in the worst case scenario), I don't see much that the gun grabbers can hope to gain in the first term.

Also consider that there's really only a few squeakey wheel old school gun control dinosaurs that really have a hard-on for this issue... the Kennedys, McCarthys, Levins, Schumers, Feinsteins, etc.


Whichever candidate or party holds the reins for the next 4 years, they are going to have their hands full with other issues that are priority concerns for most Americans (regardless of party affiliation), ... the economy, Iraq, fuel prices.

Personally... I don't think the sky is going to cave in on us for awhile.

We might hear some pissing and moaning and maybe a bone or two thrown to the gun-grabbers, but we're a longs ways from outright bans, micro-stamping, registration, licensing, etc.

With regard to the Heller case... assuming a favorable decision, the next battle will be to have the ruling apply (incorporated), to all the states.

That will take a few years. By that time, any number of pro-RKBA justices could retire. My concern is that our next President and Congress could nominate/appoint anti-RKBA justices to fill those slots.

If that were to happen... well, there goes our last and final hope for gun owners in MA. [sad2]

 

[KMaurer]

It's obvious that the first individual mentioned in the original post wasn't at all paranoid. He might have been play acting to get a rise out of the second individual. If he were really paranoid (1) he wouldn't be flapping his lips for the whole world to hear, and (2) would be making his purchases in such a way that there'd be absolutely no paper trail.

My handicapping: D - 90% odds of significant loss of freedoms; R(INO) - 75%.

Ken

 

[45 acp]

Don't under estimate the liberal mine set for he/she knows best what's good for you. Just apply for a CCW in Bostin or Cambridge and you will see how much the liberals need to protect you from yourself.
IMO the "Heller" case is pivital for all present and future gun ownership.A favorable decision MAY help break the back of some of these draconian laws we live under in MA. or aleast give GOAL and the NRA the ammo to help prevent further infrigement on our rights.

 

[Secesh]

My original thought based on the threads subject line was that either would be for taking away our rights, just different areas. As said by most everyone a Democratic administration would at the least want the AWB reinstated. But for some reason I don't see them intruding on our privacy the way this administration has done, to the point of possibly getting rid of some policies. A Republican administration I fear would at a minimum continue the current policies if not expand them further. McCain seems to have the same 'Be afraid and don't worry unless you're doing something wrong' mentality of this administration.

In conclusion: Rights, just different ones, lost either way.

 

[TheIglu]

Gun control will be another big issue, just after the government "steps in" on housing (people buying houses they can't afford), oil prices (people using too much oil for the global market to keep it unreasonably cheap like it has been) or the economy (what can the government do? they can't even come close to balancing their own budget).

Slippery slope. Once parental figure big-gov gets it's hands on your mortgage, takes control of the oil companies and drilling and then starts giving out checks, I don't see a chance in hell at the public wanting that kind of hand-holding to stop.

BOTH sides are just as bad in this situation. At least the liberals aren't lying about what they are. Conservative? Yeah, right.

 

[Edzo]

DC v Heller is going to be the determining factor in the amount of gun control legislation, should a Democrat become president.

If Heller doesn't change the current landscape significantly, then a return of the AWB seems unlikely. The politicians that come from states where gun-control is popular already have their own AWBs at a state level. For them, they'd gain nothing by a national ban, and hurt Democratic politicians in pro-gun states. The majority of Democrats are probably willing to settle for state-by-state gun control measures.

If DC v. Heller shakes things up, but without being so iron-clad as to make any future challenges pointless, then it's anybody's guess as to what happens. The pro-gun justices on the Supreme Court are all relatively young, so there's some safety there.

It really comes down to how savvy the Democrats are. Their recent gains are partly due to relaxing the party's stance on issues like the 2nd amendment. If they're smart enough to realize that, then they shouldn't be quick to throw it all away.

 

[clinotus]

... If they're smart enough to realize that, then they shouldn't be quick to throw it all away.

I dont normally rag on the Democrats, but really only they can screw up a sure thing. Just look at the current election/primary debauchery. I would be cautious applying common sense idealism to a political group that favors the common good instead.

 

[calsdad]

It does not appear at the moment there is huge public support for more gun control. The 1 year anniversary of the Virginia Tech thing just passed and the liberal press seemed to do their best to try and play it up - but I didn't detect any huge outpouring of support for more firearms regulations.

Personally - I think we have the Bush administration to thank for this. But not in the ways you might think at first. Like the original poster said: not all "liberals" are anti 2nd amendment. The right to self defense used to be thought of as a liberal idea. Along with freedom of speech and the other things spelled out in the Constitution. After 8 years of George Bush I am starting to see more and more self professed liberals come around to the idea that maybe the right to own firearms isn't such a bad thing after all. Justified or not - they see Bush and his cohorts as being one step shy of fascism and all the laws that have been passed as a gateway to tyranny. True or not - I don't care. When you see liberals down at the gun shop buying AR's, pistols, FAL's and the like - I say thank God for small favors.

So the next time around when the govt. tries to take away gun rights - there will be at least some percentage of "liberals" who will get it.

In the meantime - I think one of the best ways to ensure that there isn't another AWB, is to assume that one is coming. And do what drgrant said - buy as much as you can. Every time you buy another gun and increase the population of firearms - you are voting. Sooner or later their will be so many firearms out there that ban or no ban the govt. won't be able to do a damn thing about it one way or another. I remember reading something a ways back that said the number of firearms in the US increased from around 150 million in the early 90's - to something like 250 million in the 2005 or so timeframe. That's 100 million firearms added - in 15 years. If you compare this to the estimated previous amount 150 million, what that is - is a buying frenzy. If things keep going at that pace by the year 2020 or so - there will be 1 firearm for every citizen in this country.

The key is to make sure that those firearms aren't held by just a few people in the population - there must be a large base of the population that owns firearms. This makes confiscation that much harder. Sooner or later the problem becomes impossible for the govt. to solve. Look at the illegal immigration problem: they have thrown up their hands and basically conceded defeat. They refuse to deport the millions of illegals already here - with the claim that the numbers are too big. We need to get them to see the same logic vis a vis firearms.

 

[Pilgrim]

Does a D. in Nov = More restrictions on Freedom?

Yes.


Always has before, and they haven't gotten any better in recent years have they?

 

[drgrant]

DC v Heller is going to be the determining factor in the amount of gun control legislation, should a Democrat become president.

Actually, poltiics is a bigger limiting factor than anything else.

I think it all might be an issue of mootness because I think Gun Control is rapidly becoming a political land mine of an issue. (at least in national politics- obviously anti gun states will still be foaming at the mouth over it for quite some time). The socialist authoritarians will only touch it if they feel like they can get away with doing so. The last time they pulled the AWB trick it cost them dearly- hell, IIRC it even cost some republicans dearly as well. I think the dems won't swing another AWB unless they can flip a lot of seats to full on moonbats- because that is basically the only way they will be able to do it without taking serious damage in the subsequent election cycle. (Hint- Look at all the prominent anti gunners in congress- nearly all of them are from uncontested moonbat districts. McCarthy, Kennedy, Kerry, Swinestine, etc, spew their vile crap, because their
constituents generally will still keep them in office after doing so. )

I'm not downplaying the problems caused by a dumbocrat/socialist president, though. They could still get away with things through executive orders and the like that could damage gun owners, among other things, depending on how badly that they want to abuse EO powers, among other things. They won't be able to get congress on board, especially the house, though, WRT gun control unless they can flip a LOT of seats to rabid
antis. The mediocre antis don't want to spend their brownie points on gun control anymore, it's too costly for them politically.

DC v Heller might also draw some more lines in the sand, how that pans out remains to be seen, though. It may end up punching the dems in the gut federally or just reduce the scope of what they can regulate/get away with in terms of laws. Hopefully the former happens and the gun control insanity machine inside the legislative branch of the government will be put on hiatus for awhile. (crossing fingers.... )


-Mike

 

[CaveDog]

I think the dirty little secret is that the democrats themselves are now divided over guns. It's speculation on my part but I think 9/11 shook up a lot of people's comfortable sense of security and since then it seems gun ownership has been on the increase even among democrats. Even many of them seem to have decided having a gun available can provide a touch of certainty in an increasingly uncertain world. Though I don't have any studies to cite offhand the impression I have from reading in general is that the reason gun control has lost popularity is that there are just more gun owners in general and the ranks continue to grow.

It was a surprise to me when I went to look in on the anti gunners at the democratic underground gun forum once only to find conversations going on I'd expect to see on more conservative gun boards. The cadre of anti-gunners over there are under fire from thier own democratic compatriots as much as they are the pro-gun rights movement.

One recent post over there actually said..

This should be a bumper sticker "Democrats don't want your guns. We've already got our own."

The moonbats seem to be getting more marginalized even in thier own party on the gun issue which is why I don't expect much successful legislation on the issue regardless of who's elected.

 

[calsdad]

I think the dirty little secret is that the democrats themselves are now divided over guns. It's speculation on my part but I think 9/11 shook up a lot of people's comfortable sense of security and since then it seems gun ownership has been on the increase even among democrats. Even many of them seem to have decided having a gun available can provide a touch of certainty in an increasingly uncertain world. Though I don't have any studies to cite offhand the impression I have from reading in general is that the reason gun control has lost popularity is that there are just more gun owners in general and the ranks continue to grow.

It was a surprise to me when I went to look in on the anti gunners at the democratic underground gun forum once only to find conversations going on I'd expect to see on more conservative gun boards. The cadre of anti-gunners over there are under fire from thier own democratic compatriots as much as they are the pro-gun rights movement.

One recent post over there actually said..



The moonbats seem to be getting more marginalized even in thier own party on the gun issue which is why I don't expect much successful legislation on the issue regardless of who's elected.

I have also seen signs that what you mention is happening. The big question on this though is how it applies to "assault weapons" - since it could be that the liberals that are acquiring guns are going for pistols and shotguns as self defense weapons - and will still be amenable to an assault weapons ban - since they will just end up being another fudd-like bunch of gun owners. I do see some encouraging signs there also - here and there I pick up comments about how the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, and those comments don't always come from right wing conservatives.