• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What type of gun control will an anti-gun president try to pass?

Could a federal law prohibiting Right-To-Carry actually pass?

  • A. Not a chance

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • B. Possibly

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • C. Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

I_Hate_Illinois

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
237
Location
Joliet, Illinois, USA
imported post

Ok, I am by nature a paranoid person and to be honest, I'm quite afraid of what will happen to our gun rights if Clinton, Obama, or Edwards is elected president. I read somewhere that Clinton is against Right-To-Carry. Do you think she would try to pass a federal law prohibiting it? Or, for that matter, would Edwards or Obama try it? If so, do you think it would pass? What schemes do you think that an anti-gunner would try if elected president? Would the Supreme Court allow it?
 

massltca

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
407
Location
Maryville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

I hear that, I'm paranoid as well because my gun rights are the discretion of the local police chief. I think that a democratic candiate might try to introduce legislation banning right to carry, but I hope that there are enough congressmen that are against it. I don't think the Supreme Court is much of an obstacle given their unwillingness to take a second amendment case for so long or to define what the second amendment actually means. The outcome of the current case before them may change my mind. In short I think a democrat or any of the republicans, except Ron Paul, running would be disastereous for freedom. Hiliary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani are basically the same dispite running for different parties.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
Ok, I am by nature a paranoid person and to be honest, I'm quite afraid of what will happen to our gun rights if Clinton, Obama, or Edwards is elected president.
How many guns do you have buried in your back yard?:shock:

The Federal ban would be on Federal Property. It would make it hard to carry. There would be ammo restrictions for transport, and high capacity bans or registration.
 

I_Hate_Illinois

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
237
Location
Joliet, Illinois, USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
Ok, I am by nature a paranoid person and to be honest, I'm quite afraid of what will happen to our gun rights if Clinton, Obama, or Edwards is elected president.
How many guns do you have buried in your back yard?:shock:

The Federal ban would be on Federal Property. It would make it hard to carry. There would be ammo restrictions for transport, and high capacity bans or registration.
I have no guns buried in my backyard. What I'm asking is if you think the federal government would stick their nose where it doesnt belong and try to pass a federal law so that the states' Right-To-Carry laws would be null and void.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
Thundar wrote:
I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
Ok, I am by nature a paranoid person and to be honest, I'm quite afraid of what will happen to our gun rights if Clinton, Obama, or Edwards is elected president.
How many guns do you have buried in your back yard?:shock:

The Federal ban would be on Federal Property. It would make it hard to carry. There would be ammo restrictions for transport, and high capacity bans or registration.
I have no guns buried in my backyard. What I'm asking is if you think the federal government would stick their nose where it doesn't belong and try to pass a federal law so that the states' Right-To-Carry laws would be null and void.
The buried guns question was my attempt at humor.

You have good reason to be afraid, very afraid.

The gun grabbers will use any excuse to make gun ownership and gun carry difficult or impossible. I predict that they will start their carry ban with all federal property.
 

I_Hate_Illinois

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
237
Location
Joliet, Illinois, USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
Thundar wrote:
I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
Ok, I am by nature a paranoid person and to be honest, I'm quite afraid of what will happen to our gun rights if Clinton, Obama, or Edwards is elected president.
How many guns do you have buried in your back yard?:shock:

The Federal ban would be on Federal Property. It would make it hard to carry. There would be ammo restrictions for transport, and high capacity bans or registration.
I have no guns buried in my backyard. What I'm asking is if you think the federal government would stick their nose where it doesn't belong and try to pass a federal law so that the states' Right-To-Carry laws would be null and void.
The buried guns question was my attempt at humor.

You have good reason to be afraid, very afraid.

The gun grabbers will use any excuse to make gun ownership and gun carry difficult or impossible. I predict that they will start their carry ban with all federal property.
Maybe I should some guns in my backyard in a lead lined case:) Honestly, however, I doubt that any president would be stupid enough to try to pass such a ban, that the Congress wouldn't let it happen, and if the worst happened, and they did, the Supreme Court would declare it null and void. I very firmly believe that next year, we will see the SCOTUS rule that the Second Amendment is an individual right and that not only will DC's handgun ban get tossed, so will Chicago's. If you get the chance, read the opinion of the judge on the appeals court when they upheld the lower court's ruling. The wording is magnificent. The anti's don't have a snowman's chance in hell.
 

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

IHI, someone else you need to be worried about taking your rights is Romney...Giuliani too. This isn't just a Democrat thing anymore.

I think the feds would focus on banning modern semi-automactic rifles before they tried to ban right to carry. I wouldn't put anything passed the feds though.
 

massltca

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
407
Location
Maryville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

I hope and pray that your are right. Nothing would please me more than for the Supreme Court to finally return gun rights to DC and define the second amendment.
 

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

massltca wrote:
I hope and pray that your are right. Nothing would please me more than for the Supreme Court to finally return gun rights to DC and define the second amendment.
Yeah...while it won't happen in this case, in a future case, I'd love to see the Supremes say that all states must allow their citizens to carry (i.e., "Bear") arms...meaning Illinois, California and others that disallow it would be forced to respect their citizens' rights.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

ama-gi wrote:
IHI, someone else you need to be worried about taking your rights is Romney...Giuliani too. This isn't just a Democrat thing anymore.

I think the feds would focus on banning modern semi-automactic rifles before they tried to ban right to carry. I wouldn't put anything passed the feds though.

Agreed.....I believe we would have another AWB, worse than the last one. This is why I'm looking into buying an AK now before this possibly comes to pass within the next couple years. HR 1022 scares me, and that is moving through the system NOW.......the tactics used by those who will take away the 2A are subtle and work by taking away our rights, little by little, so we won't notice until it is too late.

Today, it's our rifles, tomorrow, our right to own arms, period. Don't say it won't happen; look at England, Australia, etc.......
 

taurus9mm

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
6
Location
, ,
imported post

ill carry with or without government approval....try to take it from me. Theres been too many shootings of random people lately by some crazy person with a good aim and an unarmed target rich environment. And guess what, all of the situations were resolved by blasting the gunman. So the government can try to tame a wolf but we will never become sheep.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Well, if Congress would vote along party lines for a ban on all firearms carrying, it would be possible. And seeing how selective SCOTUS is about examining issues, it would be quite some time, if ever, until such a law would be declared unconstitutional.

taurus9mm, I'd be careful about the things you post on the Internet regarding crimes you might intend to commit...
 

bobcat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
167
Location
Great Lakes, , USA
imported post

What would an anti-gun, anti-constitutional prez do?

Simple: Anything they can get away with. That's the history. Only an explosive electorate has slowed them down to date. After all, BushII said he would sign the AWB if Congress simply renewed it...
 

I_Hate_Illinois

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
237
Location
Joliet, Illinois, USA
imported post

bobcat wrote:
What would an anti-gun, anti-constitutional prez do?

Simple: Anything they can get away with. That's the history. Only an explosive electorate has slowed them down to date. After all, BushII said he would sign the AWB if Congress simply renewed it...
And now, the Bush Justice Department has stabbed us all in the back. Thanks, George.
 

No NAU

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
107
Location
Bend, Oregon, USA
imported post

Unless Ron Paul is elected I fear that we will see a gun ban in a flanking maneuver. Something along the lines of cooperation with the UN whereby bullets form an "environmental hazard" because of the lead and therefore will need to be taxed to some incredible degree. They won't repeal the second amendment, just make it almost impossible to afford to shoot. Or microstamping or a federal firearms owner tax (complete with defacto registration to track tax payers), or BATF becoming more draconian and closing more shops etc.

I can see something along those lines. Leave the second amendment in place but gut it some other way.
 

riegnman

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
73
Location
Hiltons, Virginia, USA
imported post

bobcat wrote:
What would an anti-gun, anti-constitutional prez do?

Simple: Anything they can get away with. That's the history. Only an explosive electorate has slowed them down to date. After all, BushII said he would sign the AWB if Congress simply renewed it...
Agreed. However, I would take this a step farther and ask:

What would any prez do?

"Simple: Anything they can get away with.That's the history." The place to watch is where the money is coming from. Watch who the major supporters of all the candidates are. That's usually the way that the president is going to sway.
 
Top