[Gallium]

Originally Posted by douggmc

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Not true at all. The best predictor in politics of future behavior is party affiliation and pecking order.

[JFrame]

Originally Posted by Gallium

Not true at all. The best predictor in politics of future behavior is party affiliation and pecking order.

Quite insightful...


.

[okie]

Originally Posted by Scott3670

But unless I'm mistaken he hasn't even come close to pushing this issue, and outside of the direct question probablywouldn't even consider it.

o is waiting for second term, then ALL hell will break loose

[Bilbo Bagins]

Originally Posted by Flying-Dutchman

The NRA endorsed Romney.

Gun control is very low on the American people’s list of issues.

It would be political suicide to push gun control so even Obama, rated the most Liberal Senator (Biden was rated 2nd) did not touch guns.

Remember who demands gun bans whenever there is a mass shooting. It is only and always the Democrats and we remember.

And now Obama let is slip. Obama wants an AWB and Obama will have more flexibility in a second term.

And remember, Obama likes to bypass Congress and use Executive Orders; expect an AWB Executive Order under Obama.

Not only did Obama mention he wants a new AWB, he want to make handguns more expensive. Here is a direct quote I grabbed from another thread.

Originally Posted by concretefuzzynuts

Obama quote from the debate:

“My belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.

“But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”

I guess my guns are more important to me than a promise made to Jeremy.

So expect gun and ammo to be taxed so that that the average joe cannot afford to shoot anymore.

Romney did some stupid things in the past, but he is commited to keep the Status quo with the current gun laws. Also, unlike Obama, he will listen to the GOP voters and the NRA. You got to vote for Romney if you want things to stay they way they are with gun laws.

[JFrame]

I guess we need to stop talking about Obama simply in the context of an AWB, and just refer to a gun ban in general.


.

[Maxx702]

Originally Posted by Bilbo Bagins

Romney did some stupid things in the past, but he is commited to keep the Status quo with the current gun laws. Also, unlike Obama, he will listen to the GOP voters and the NRA. You got to vote for Romney if you want things to stay they way they are with gun laws.

I find it amazing (in a disappointing sort of way) that some people here fail to recognize the dangers of allowing the clearly anti-gun President to serve a second term.

The empty suit community organizer serves at the pleasure of the Democrat Party. Some here have been lulled to sleep by Obama's sympathetic media, others are taking a stand against why they see as a wishy washy RINO.

There is nothing pro 2A or even moderate about Obama.
We probably would have seen an AWB in Congress had the Dems not dedicated their efforts on Obamacare in 2009 and lost their super-majority in Congress as a result.

Like it or not, It's Romney or Obama. The distinction should be clear.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by JFrame

Quite insightful...


.

I should have also qualified that with saying I was referring more to CONGRESS than the office of POTUS, but it does apply to who is in POTUS as well to some degree.

[Fear Night]

It doesn't matter which candidate takes office, if an AWB was presented to their desk, I'm confident they would sign it. All it would take is a few more shootings to get us to the point of Congress trying to implement feel-good laws, whether AWB or otherwise.

I'd be more concerned with some type of UN agreement to disarm the population implemented by Obama than a new AWB.

[mgs]

Originally Posted by countrygun

http://www.infowars.com/obamas-gun-c...g-sales-worry/
* 1994 to 2001 – Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.
* 1996 – Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
* 1999 – Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.
* 2003 – Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.
* 2004 – Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.

Now that's some past behavior!

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by Travclem

You never know with our current court. Johnny boy might crawfish and drill us in the ass on guns just like he did on Obummercare.

But you're still forgetting the point that, whether you like the method or not, the healthcare reform WAS passed through both the Senate and the House, at the time with Democratic majorities. Now the Republicans have the House (and don't seem likely to lose it) while the Dems have the Senate. If your belief and faith in the Republicans is so strong, then you have to realize this would never clear COMMITTEE, let alone come to a floor vote and pass in the House. And if it doesn't pass there, it doesn't MATTER what the President wants.

And for those saying "Executive Orders!!!", when the fight was so hot for the healthcare reform, why didn't he save himself the trouble and just do it as an EO?? The answer is because that's simply not the way it works. EOs are not the "word of God coming down the mountain", regardless of who's writing them.

Originally Posted by countrygun

Words mean things.

And I have yet to see anyone else address the ONE word that I think tells the REAL story of the President's answer:

Reintroduced

Politicians parse their words carefully, and some more than others. Do you think this one doesn't know EXACTLY what he was saying? He didn't say passed. He didn't say enacted. He didn't say in place. He said Reintroduced. So it gets read in the Senate well, sent to some committee, and dies a natural death. The President KEPT his campaign/debate promise, and then no one cares again.

So, yes, "Words mean things."

[kirgi08]

[Glotin]

Originally Posted by WarCry

But you're still forgetting the point that, whether you like the method or not, the healthcare reform WAS passed through both the Senate and the House, at the time with Democratic majorities. Now the Republicans have the House (and don't seem likely to lose it) while the Dems have the Senate. If your belief and faith in the Republicans is so strong, then you have to realize this would never clear COMMITTEE, let alone come to a floor vote and pass in the House. And if it doesn't pass there, it doesn't MATTER what the President wants.

And for those saying "Executive Orders!!!", when the fight was so hot for the healthcare reform, why didn't he save himself the trouble and just do it as an EO?? The answer is because that's simply not the way it works. EOs are not the "word of God coming down the mountain", regardless of who's writing them.





And I have yet to see anyone else address the ONE word that I think tells the REAL story of the President's answer:

Reintroduced

Politicians parse their words carefully, and some more than others. Do you think this one doesn't know EXACTLY what he was saying? He didn't say passed. He didn't say enacted. He didn't say in place. He said Reintroduced. So it gets read in the Senate well, sent to some committee, and dies a natural death. The President KEPT his campaign/debate promise, and then no one cares again.

So, yes, "Words mean things."

You are completely ignoring the Supreme Court. We are ONE justice away from the Supreme Court ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right of the militia, not an individual right. That was the dissent in Heller.

Neither Congress nor the President has to do a damn thing. Obama just has to appoint another liberal justice and we no longer have (according to the gov't) an individual right to own or carry guns.

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by Glotin

You are completely ignoring the Supreme Court. We are ONE justice away from the Supreme Court ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right of the militia, not an individual right. That was the dissent in Heller.

Neither Congress nor the President has to do a damn thing. Obama just has to appoint another liberal justice and we no longer have (according to the gov't) an individual right to own or carry guns.

Based on what? SCOTUS isn't going to re-write the law, there has to be some legal challenge to it. Could it happen? Sure, but precedent play. Stare decisis has historically been a major factor in whether the courts even TAKE a case, let alone judging the outcome.

But let's suppose your assumption is right. Whoever is nominated STILL has to go through a Senate confirmation. Are you saying you lack the confidence in the Republicans in the Senate from blocking any extreme appointments?

This level of "doom and gloom" is only benefiting two groups - manufacturers and sellers. And while I think it's great for them, these fears are not grounded in how the system actually works.

[wjv]

Originally Posted by Rabbi

I bet tonight is seen as a draw (so far)

Looks like the PEOPLE think that Obama LOST. . .
MSNBC's Undecided Voter Panel Swayed by Romney
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ey_654728.html

Luntz Focus Group Of Mostly Former Obama Voters Switch To Romney
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...to_romney.html

[Glotin]

Originally Posted by WarCry

But let's suppose your assumption is right. Whoever is nominated STILL has to go through a Senate confirmation. Are you saying you lack the confidence in the Republicans in the Senate from blocking any extreme appointments?

Why on earth would I have any confidence that a Republican minority in the Senate would block any "extreme" appointments?

They didn't block Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagan...

Any Obama appointment is going to be "extreme".

[G36's Rule]

[kirgi08]

[GAFinch]

Originally Posted by GRIMLET

And if there would be no grandfather clause, you may lose your investment.
Watch the run on the so called assault weapons in the gun stores.
Its about to get more desperate than 4 years ago now that it may be on the horizon. But will his dream of outlawing weapons include a no possession/no transfer rule?

There's also been the talk of the EPA banning lead ammo and the talk of "strengthening" background checks, both of which could be done via executive order/executive fiat.

[GreenDrake]

fun stuff, an old high school friend and Facebook friend mentioned something about how debates mean nothing and don't sway voters. I was not being offensive but mentioned that I thought Obama's mention of wanting another AWB would be impacting negatively on the fence sitters or independents, citing how Gore lost the Presidency when gun control was brought into the fray. Hoooo doggie, did I get jumped "did Fox news tell you that?" "you are being an a$%^%l"

I remained calm and cited my sources, as I was continually attacked and verbally assaulted by the lefties. I took personal pleasure in watching them come unraveled after all I said was that it was my opinion that there probably already was an impact and that Obama even mentioning an AWB was going to be jumped on quickly. So much for the party of equality and tolerance.

[Travclem]

Originally Posted by Glotin

Why on earth would I have any confidence that a Republican minority in the Senate would block any "extreme" appointments?

They didn't block Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagan...

Any Obama appointment is going to be "extreme".

This is my point, and Ginsburg is creepin up on 100.

[F350]

Originally Posted by Rabbi

Obama won the Libya round....he really turned it on. Much of the rest has been back and forth.

He only survived because the "impartial moderator" jumped to save his @ other wise Romney had him on the ropes on that one.

And on energy, loved when Obummer kept asking "needs to lay off the Candy" to move on to a new topic.

[GMB]

Why was that misleading debate question even allowed?

There are not a bunch of AK-47s "on the streets".

Uninformed soccer moms will take this and interpret it to mean that there is currently a glut of full-auto AKs being sold out of hot dog stands on each street corner.

Obama himself said that criminals and gangbangers don't even utilize AKs in their crimes, and admitted that his home city of Chicago (despite having among the worst records on gun rights and some of the most restrictive laws anywhere) has crimes committed by youths with handguns instead of quote-unquote "assault weapons".

I hope beyond hope that your average voter doesn't think AWB-redux has any chance of preventing mass shootings or street crime.

[Fox]

Originally Posted by Scott3670

But unless I'm mistaken he hasn't even come close to pushing this issue, and outside of the direct question probablywouldn't even consider it.

Obama is a real charmer. You would trade your gun rights to get another term for Obama.

[Fox]

Originally Posted by WarCry

Based on what? SCOTUS isn't going to re-write the law, there has to be some legal challenge to it. Could it happen? Sure, but precedent play. Stare decisis has historically been a major factor in whether the courts even TAKE a case, let alone judging the outcome.

But let's suppose your assumption is right. Whoever is nominated STILL has to go through a Senate confirmation. Are you saying you lack the confidence in the Republicans in the Senate from blocking any extreme appointments?

This level of "doom and gloom" is only benefiting two groups - manufacturers and sellers. And while I think it's great for them, these fears are not grounded in how the system actually works.

Sotomayor and Kagan lied to Congress in their confirmation hearings when asked about their opinion on the 2nd Amendment RTKBA.

Once appointed, they went on to join the dissenting liberal activist judges in stating that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.

I see that you are from Illinois and likely a union type that would gladly trade in his guns to get Obama four more years of power.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by G36's Rule