NRA official Wayne LaPierre: Obama wants to outlaw guns in 2nd term. Washington Times

DangerClose said:

Officially, Mitt Romney has done more to limit gun rights than Obama has at this time.

Either way, I guess I better make sure to vote for the guy who Gun Owners of America give their highest rating to: Ron Paul.

Click to expand...

And if RP doesn't get the nod; who then will you vote for?

Redbaron007 said:

And if RP doesn't get the nod; who then will you vote for?

Click to expand...

Gary Johnson.

Just because he hasn't explicitly stated it doesn't mean it's not on his agenda. I hope my fellow gun enthusiasts, 2A supporters, and constitution lovers on this site don't buy into the bs this president spouts or alludes to. This guy is the absolute worse person we've had sitting in the White House since Carter or FDR.

Redbaron007 said:

And if RP doesn't get the nod; who then will you vote for?

Click to expand...

I don't understand your question. RP not getting the nod sounds completely illogical since he's obviously the best one for the job.

marshaul said:

Gary Johnson.

Click to expand...

Quite possibly. Even if it wasn't Johnson running, if enough people vote for third parties, those parties get more funding and media coverage and debate slots in the future.

I'm trying not to make this into a big presidential race thread, but I'll say this:

Patriot Act, NDAA, TARP, TSA, gun control, gun banning, increased taxes, raised the debt ceiling, etc...

...the non-Paul, non-Johnson candidates have all supported at least two or more of those things.

I mean, I want Obama out of there, but I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for anyone who supports NDAA.

You know what the Oath Keepers call NDAA? "Treason."

How does that joke go...
"I've decided to vote for the big-government, Patriot Act, NDAA candidate."
"Great! Now you just need to decide which party."

Aknazer said:

He doesn't want to destroy the 2A, he just wants "sensible gun control."

And personally I view this more as the boogeyman tactics as PPM stated. Not because he wouldn't do it if he could, but because I don't see how he could without the support of Congress; and there flat out isn't the support in Congress for it. I can see him trying to circumvent Congress but I don't think it would be hugely successful and could most likely be easily undone by the next POTUS (not that it wouldn't be painful for us until the damage was undone).

Click to expand...

Well, that's really the point isn't it. The firm belief that the damage will be undone, as if it never happened, if any damage is done.

We are not able to work a problem that does not exist, if it does exist, then we have to catch up. Is it not better to be proactive vs. reactive?

He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious. - Sun Tzu

Click to expand...

DangerClose said:

I don't understand your question. RP not getting the nod sounds completely illogical since he's obviously the best one for the job.

Click to expand...

I see what you did there!




I guess my question should be, how many conservatives will vote to allow the current administration to stay in power?

I would sure hate to see a politicians definitions of "sensible gun control"!

President Obama is for Government control in every area. Given his track record on expanding dependency, asking for Mandates and apologizing for America, I have no Confidence in the safety of our gun rights if he remains in office. Whether its on his agenda or not, Control is the order of the day.

It is likely that there will be two openings to be filled on the SCOTUS during the next presidential term.

2 more Obama appointments confirned = future application of Keller/McDonald faces a certain head-wind.

I like to think I tend to pay attention, but I don't remember this administration putting the assault weapons ban high on their agenda. Nice of Holder to remind everyone, though.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/08/holder-tells-congress-the-obama-administration-wants-to-ban-guns/

This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we’ve seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico.

Click to expand...

rushcreek2 said:

It is likely that there will be two openings to be filled on the SCOTUS during the next presidential term.

2 more Obama appointments confirned = future application of Keller/McDonald faces a certain head-wind.

Click to expand...

All the more reason we need a libertarian or similar in office NOW.

The "right" of the SCOTUS has, while being decent on gun rights, consistently been shredding every other protection offered by the constitution, and encouraged commerce clause expansion into the realm infinite possibility.

While the "left" are equally enemies of the second, I cannot place one part of the Bill of Rights ahead of the others.

And if that is the mistake made by the left in their neglect of the second amendment, it is equally the mistake made by the statist right wing of the court in their rejection of the intended (and necessary) purpose and scope of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.

I almost have no doubt in my mind he will try and place some sort of ban or restriction on firearms if he is elected to a second term. He can't do so in his first term, he needs the votes...

oxhunter said:

I almost have no doubt in my mind he will try and place some sort of ban or restriction on firearms if he is elected to a second term. He can't do so in his first term, he needs the votes...

Click to expand...

Yup.