“As a country, we have been through this too many times,” President Obama said (warned?) in yesterday’s address on the Sandy Hook massacre. “Whether it is an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago, these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods and these children are our children. And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” The statement is difficult to parse, but gun rights advocates are worried that the President of the United States is about to sign an Executive Order banning the sale of semi-automatic rifles (a.k.a, assault rifles). Here’s another “clue” [via cnn.com] . . .

The White House said President Barack Obama supports reinstatement of a federal ban on assault weapons — a position he took in the 2008 campaign but failed to press during his first term.

“It does remain a commitment of his,” presidential spokesman Jay Carney told reporters as the nation reeled from a mass shooting in Connecticut that mainly killed school children.

Uh-oh.

The gunblogosphere is abuzz with the prospect that a forthcoming Executive Order will also restrict the sale of “high-capacity” magazines (more than ten rounds) and require a federal background check for all private firearms sales. In other words, everything on the gun control industry’s wish list.

Let’s parse the possibilities. First, consider the phrase “regardless of politics,” an expression that the President also used in this morning’s radio address.

No question: it’s a deeply worrying word choice. Married to the intro—“we’re going to have to come together”—the President’s admonition is both finger-wagging and a middle finger to those who would oppose any new federal gun control measures.

The phrase “regardless of politics” paints any [now promised] move to prevent future Sandy Hook massacres though new federal legislation as a struggle along party lines. Which it is. The Republican and Democratic presidential platforms on gun control made that clear enough, as did the candidates during the debate.

The President’s record on bipartisanship is pretty much non-existent. So it’s entirely likely that “coming together” for gun control means “everyone’s going to have to live with what I decide to do,” rather than “let’s work together to hash this out.”

With that as an ominous background, the question becomes will he do it? Will Obama use an Executive Order to ban assault rifles, limit magazine capacity and mandate background checks on private firearms sales?

Well, we know that Mr. Obama isn’t averse to gun control-related Executive Orders. Specifically, he signed an Executive Order (EO) creating a long gun registry in America’s border states. Not to quote myself, but here’s a quick history:

Originally mooted as an “emergency measure” to deal with U.S. to Mexico gun smuggling, the ATF registry morphed into a “pilot program.” Which will now automatically renew. The registry was created by Executive Order, bypassing Congress and violating federal rules against the creation of ANY federal gun registry. After a trip to court, the long gun registry was unleashed.

An EO restricting the sale of “assault weapons” in reaction to the Sandy Hook massacre is not beyond imagination. And hey, the President sure as hell hinted at something to come. I reckon it all boils down to politics. Optics. Timing.

In the run-up to the drive off the fiscal cliff, an EO establishing a new assault weapons ban (AWB) would divert attention away from financial negotiations. It would also ignite a debate over gun control and, more to the point, Executive Orders. An EO running roughshod over pro-gun pols would make Obama seem like an Imperial president.

Which I believe he is. Yes, but does he want to be seen that way? As a second term president, does he even care if he’s seen that way? And while an EO creating an AWB and/or limitations on magazines and private sales would give the Dems grief during the next election cycle, again, Obama may see that as a case of What Me Worry?

Bottom line: in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre there’s a real possibility of an Executive Order creating an AWB. Its probability depends on a huge range of political factors which are impossible to divine in their entirety. In other words, I don’t have a clue.

I suppose the odds of an AWB EO depend on public opinion in the next few days and weeks. Either that or the White House has already pulled the trigger on an EO and they’re just waiting for the right time to announce it. If so, I’m thinking the Prez will drop the bomb on gun rights during the memorial service for the victims.

As always, watch this space.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

131 COMMENTS

  1. Entirely plausible. If you can’t get what you want legislatively, make an executive order. Bush I did it. So did Clinton. Obama is cut from the same cloth.

    However, he and his party would do well to remember what happened in 1994. And the GOP already holds the majority in the House. Would likely be a political disaster for the Dems in 2014 mid-terms.

    Still, with the self-righteous nanny-state types, it’s always “for the children.” Sigh.

    • We aren’t collectively as gullible as liberals.
      There are quite a number of us that are not happy with candy-ass RINOs trying to please everybody.
      To me the most deluded group is the American gun owner. They refuse to vote en bloc as if their rights matter to them.

      • Reagan happily signed CA’s Mulford Act, which banned OC in the state. So, which Republicans are the real Republicans? I can’t keep track.

      • They refuse to vote en bloc as if their rights matter to them.

        Perhaps gun owners don’t vote as a block because they don’t think as a block. It could be that gun owners are a diverse population that have a variety of opinions on many subjects. It might even be possible that some gun owners might vote in a manner that doesn’t protect their 2A-rights because other issues are even more important to them.

  4. Plastic Piping purchased from Ace? Check
    10 Gallon Ziplock bags from Grocery Store? Check
    Rust Deterrent Gun Lubricant/Oil? Check
    Shovel? Check
    Large Backyard or nearby empty space? Check
    Knows someone with a boat? Check

    Whoops! I’m sorry officer, I recently lost all of my now illegal to possess firearms in an unfortunate “boating accident”

    • If you are planning any boating accidents, do it now before a ban takes place and report it to your insurance company. Any large scale “boating accidents” that happen after a ban will be looked upon with extreme suspicion and probably jail time.

      • They would have to implement a law or EO saying it was now a crime to lose a weapon as well. What would they charge me on? “We think you’re lying, but we can’t prove it so we’re just going to throw you in jail anyways”?

        Yeah, my lawyer would love that, and after going through motions, so would my bank account.

        • Actually, your bank account would be the ultimate loser in that scenario. Many people go broke defending criminal prosecutions.

        • Reasonable Man, be reasonable. Don’t you think that prosecutors and cops are hip to every scam known to man? They don’t even have to be smart, because they’ve seen it before.

          If you bury ’em in your backyard, they’ll find ’em. If you had a boat accident, where’s the insurance claim? If you file the claim, then you can add insurance fraud to the charges. And if you skate, what are you going to do? You’re lighter in the wallet by $50 grand and if you ever retrieve the guns from the remote locations where they’re kept, you’ll go away on a whole new set of charges.

      • yes, they monitor everything….if not the specific website, then using software that looks for certain words and phrases…its for the good of the nation ..lol

    • Unless you live so far from people that nobody will notice you digging a huge hole in your backyard, this may not be such a good idea. Witness statements are often useful for search warrants.

  5. If the 2nd Amendment goes beyond protection when using self defense against “regular” citizens, and is to protect us also from tranny within the government..

    Wouldn’t it be unconstitutional to limit us from arming ourselves with weapons that remotely make it possible for defense from ACTUAL assault weapons and destructive devices? Better yet isn’t it treason for them to even propose the “ban” to begin with?

    • No it’s not. While there may be isolated pockets of resistance, lots of gun owners live comfortable lives they won’t risk over their gun rights.

      • +1 for Jim

        I wish it wasnt true though. I wouldnt want to go to war against my country but the government has to learn somehow.

    • not yet.

      just wait until americans are wheeling carts full of US dollars to buy a loaf of bread or when millions on SSN, unemployment, and medicaid stop receiving their benefits.

      then well have our civil war.

  8. 2nd amendment in today’s vernacular:

    A well equipped citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free country, the right of the people to keep and wear on their person arms, shall not be limited in any way, shape or form.

    If I see people misinterpret “regulated” one more time…

    • “If I see people misinterpret “regulated” one more time…”

      I just had this discussion (for the nth time) a couple days ago, prior to the Connecticut thing. We went back and forth for a while, but I finally got her to come to a, “Well, yeah, but…”

      Now I just have to work on her a little more (/rimshot), because at least she now acknowledges that her opposition is emotional, not legal.

  9. Our founders well knew that laws any laws only work for a moral people…. too bad the group in D.C. has not a clue as to how the world works… the only ANSWER would be that he turn to God and call on his MERCY, and call for the nation to repent(that means to do about face) and be blessed… and yes history also backs that up………

  10. An executive order takes up a lot of political capital however Obama making one against modern sporting rifles and hi-cap magazines would take the heat off Democrats who would of voted for such a measure. I suspect we’ll only see symbolic action from Congress.

  11. How in the world would an executive order banning anything apply to me? It would be like the CEO of IBM ordering GE employees to do something.

    The President does not have that power. There is certainly nothing in statute passed by Congress that would allow such an order.

    • Check out the wikipedia entry on Presidential Executive Orders. He does indeed have that power until/unless overruled by Congress or the court.

      If Harry Truman could round up Japanese Americans during WW2 and stick them on internment camps, you can bet your ass that the Pres can ban guns. Granted, Truman’s EO was eventially overturned, but a lot of people suffered in camps for a good while before that happened

      • He also had a congressional declaration of war to stand on, something congress has sadly abdicated in recent decades.
        But “yes”, I wouldn’t put *anything* past this president.

      • Correction: It was not Harry Truman who issued the EO that required the rounding up of Japanese Americans during WW2, and their incarceration in “relocation camps”. It was that icon of liberal thought, Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt. You know, the FDR who started Social Security and the welfare society? The good liberal Democrat? With a monument on the Washington DC mall?

        Quoted from Wikipedia: “President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate “military areas” as “exclusion zones,” from which “any or all persons may be excluded.” This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in internment camps. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion orders, while noting that the provisions that singled out people of Japanese ancestry were a separate issue outside the scope of the proceedings. The United States Census Bureau assisted the internment efforts by providing confidential neighborhood information on Japanese Americans. The Bureau’s role was denied for decades, but was finally proven in 2007.”

        Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy about our current liberal Democart President, “our lord and savior Barack Hussein Obama”?

  12. For the past half century and more, Congress has been hell-bent on delegating its power to make laws to the executive branch via administrative agencies. The courts have allowed it to happen while making some few rules designed to give an appearance of objectivity to agency rulings.

    Now that we have a president whose seems to admire the style of Hugo Chavez more than anyone else and a deadlocked Congress, we have reaped what we have sown. We now have a very real possibility, that like Caesar, our republic will retain its legislature while at the same time make it impotent.

    We live in dangerous times. I think an assault weapons ban by fiat is a very real danger, but even at that, it is still only a small part of what may be to come.

  14. From where I’m sitting, I see another head of state letting drug culture off the hook. RF has covered the mental health issues involved: many of them are a direct result of kids taking bad shit from their early teens (and before even).
    Result? Psychosis timebomb.
    Law abiding gun owners are about to get shafted over other peoples’ “lifestyle” choices.

    • Except that violent crime in general is lower than it has been in 40 years. These isolated acts have nothing to do with anyone’s “lifestyle choice”. They have everything to do with evil pieces of crap who decide to make others pay for their misery.

  15. Until the “fiscal cliff” is traversed, gun grabbing probably will be back burnered. Once the cliff is climbed or we fall over it, we’ll see an AWB or worse. The votes are there.

    The problem with a lame duck President isn’t that he has no power, it’s that he has no responsibility to the electorate.

    • I concur that any gun-ban grandstanding will have to wait until after the cliff deadline passes. Presidential cliff-jumping combined with an Executive Branch power grab (via AWB EO) could really galvanize the GOP into some semblance of effectiveness, however.

  16. Guns, when it comes right down to it, are about power. Those of you who don’t want power in the hands of the People, and want it only in the hands of government, might find that you don’t like it so much. Maybe we’ll find out. Don’t think tyranny can happen here? You are as a little child.

    As the Reverend Wright so famously said, maybe our chickens are coming home to roost? Our culture of coddling our children and eliminating discipline while praising mediocrity has set our young people up for traumatic revelation when they experience the real world as they reach young adulthood. In many cases, the result is homicidal rage. You might as well blame bombs, guns and box cutters for Al-Qadea.

  17. I believe BHO is only concerned about how he is perceived by his followers and history. I seriously doubt he has any concerns about the Democratic Party or what happens in subsequent elections. I also believe it is closer to probable than possible a EO is headed our way. The scope of the EO is debatable at this point. The EO would be tied up in the courts for years. Long after he leaves office. He will be immortal as the man who tried to end the gun culture in America by his followers. Doesn’t matter if the EO is upheld, successful or not.

    • @surlycmd,
      Your quote below is 100 % spot on…his agenda is about him, its always been about him, nothing more.

      “I believe BHO is only concerned about how he is perceived by his followers and history. I seriously doubt he has any concerns about the Democratic Party or what happens in subsequent elections.”

  18. The danger of an EO is that it takes either an Act of Congess to overturn it or a court ruling. I suspect that ultimately such a wide sweeping EO would not stand the legal test simply because it strays so far into Congress’ power, especially given the precedent ofthe 1994 AWB which Congress had to pass.

    The problem is that court challenges take time and an Act of Congress is not likely given the fact that while the split in Congress is likely sufficient to prevent new gun laws from being enacted, it is also sufficient to prevent an Act of Congress overturning the Presidential EO.

    In some ways, the EO might be the best thing for the gun rights community. It will really piss a lot of people off. Even some folks in favor of gun control may be outraged by such a clear imperialistic step from Obama. It will also likely be overturned – either after the midterm election when Dems get tossed out in response or by the SC eventually. It would solve the “we have to do something” mentality for the gun grabber crowd. Alternatively, if pressure based on the current situation is properly brought to bear on Congress right now, then we may get a real law that we could not later change.

    Frankly, with the large scale impending damage of the fiscal cliff coming up, our elected officials can’t afford to take their eyes off of that ball at this time. Clear that hurdle, then look at a discussion on Gun control.

    • “The danger of an EO is that it takes either an Act of Congess to overturn it or a court ruling…”

      Im still learning how these things work, would past rulings by the SCOTUS already oughtweigh an EO?

      • The problem with previous SCOTUS rulings applying is that it takes an ethical individual to follow what SCOTUS has said. Hence, why Chicago is looking to appeal their recent 7th court decision, or craft a law so restrictive it won’t pass judicial scrutiny. The “city leaders” in Chicago have already come out and said that the Supreme Court was wrong in Macdonald, and the 7th court was wrong in Moore.

        Ultimately, its up to our Executive to enforce the laws enacted by our Legislature, and the rulings by our Judiciary

    • The ‘fiscal cliff’ seems like the ideal distraction to me. If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear congress staged the whole thing.

    • This is such a picture perfect distraction from the finances…..not going CT, but what a dream come true for the elected ones………

  19. Gun banners and mock “conservatives” like Bill O Reilly and Michael Savage nee Weiner are in accord, the 2nd amendment only protects our rights to possess a 6 shot revolver and maybe a shotgun, this “military stuff” should only be in the trained hands of “professionals.”

  20. Hasn’t the SCOTUS already suggested that things like “assault weapons” are protected by the 2A? Like in 1939? Post-Heller, how is an AWB Constitutional?

    • “Because **** you, that’s how.” – FEDGOV

      They do what they want and they’re out of control.

  21. The Tyrant in Chief might sign the EO that will be his undoing. Banning a certain classification of firearms from sale will not stop black market or underground sale of these weapons. Modern day machine tool technology enables anyone with the funds and knowledge to make firearms at home. The bad guys will still get their guns, the clever and crafty will make their guns, and those of modest income will be left out as a ban on the sale of such weapons will make them as precious as Gold.
    The only thing a ban on guns does is force the law of supply and demand on the gun buying population. It also make the politicians feel good, and give some of the retarded police chiefs more face time on MSNBC and CNN. It will hurt the average Schmuck who wants to defend his family from the goons, illegal aliens and Democrats. Notice there has been no reports on the number and type of rounds fired. One needs only to count the shell casings. Reporters have said the killer had 2 handguns and they found an AR-15 in the car he had driven. Well if the AR-15-the black rifle, oh so bad it is ,was in the car it means he did not use it in the school. So he was left with a Glock and a Sig Sauer-common handguns, to do his evil work. The point is that Lanza did not use the scary black mean looking AR-15- the gun all the unknowing call “Assault rifle to murder the innocent. He used handguns, everyday modern handguns–probably black in color too….evil black. You can bet Obama and his Marxists will try to ban all weapons from the hands of law abiding civilians, but they wont go so far as to declare them as contraband and requiring seizure by the Obama Gestapo. That would be a declaration or war against the people, whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

    • “Banning a certain classification of firearms from sale will not stop black market or underground sale of these weapons”

      Why is this utter horse sh*t so often repeated by you pro gun folks? I challenge you – go to England and try to acquire an AR-15. You will not be able to, it is essentially impossible for any normal citizen. So why does this demonstrably false lie keep being perpetuated? Are you really so brainwashed you cannot see the verifiable evidence in front of your face?

      Sure, maybe an organisation with the clout of the IRA could get you something along the lines of an AR-15, but the ability for the crazies like the ones perpetrating the majority of this country’s massacres to get one is ZERO. And so, surprise surprise, that means they don’t have the kind of massacres that happen so frequently over here.

      You can argue that the 2A is important for restraining government tyranny, that is valid, but the lies you keep spewing about a ban having no effect on this kind of massacre just makes you look like a retard, because anybody rational can see exactly how it works in the real world for themselves.

      • So hmmmmmbag, if the cartels make a profit smuggling a ton of coke into the country they’ll pass up the chance to make a profit by smuggling in a ton of AK’s?

        Only a retard, knowing we have an unsecured border into a 3rd world cartel run country would believe otherwise.

        • Who is the market for a ton of black market AKs if they are banned? Saddos like you jonesing for a new AK fix? Hollywood starlets putting together an AK party at their mansions? High school kids looking to experiment with bigger calibres? Also how many do you intend to buy every month? Because the demand for coke is rather high, but for assault rifles, which at most you would only ever want one of, is not so great.

          If there is a mandatory 10 year prison term for anybody caught with one of these AKs then are you going to want one? No, internet bravado aside, you are not. There will not be a sufficient market for the cartels, the idea that there will be a cartel AK pusher on every street corner for citizens to purchase black market arms from is so stupid it hurts. Where do you come up with this dribble?

        • The people wanting to do harm to others, hmmmmmer. A 10 year prison sentence would have deterred Lanza intent on mass murder? There would be a large and profitable market for firearms illegally smuggled into this country.

          You discount it because it doesn’t fit your narrative. Doesn’t make it any less true.

          And for the record hmmmmer, I don’t own and have never owned an assualt rifle. The only one I’ve ever used was put into my hands by the g.

        • So why is it impossible to get your hands on one in the black market in England then JWM – do you have an answer for that? Don’t you think England has criminals? You could commit any crime you liked with an AR15 in England, who could stop you? No citizens with weapons, few police with any, and those will be miles away – an enterprising criminal with a big gun could be unstoppable. And yet you don’t hear about that happening. Talk about the facts not fitting a narrative – this is so obvious I am embarrassed for you, it’s like you’re denying the sky is blue.

          Also the ten year prison term doesn’t deter the person about to commit a massacre and then kill himself, but it sure does deter somebody from being in the business of illegal arms. Don’t even pretend you would keep a weapon that would carry a ten year prison sentence, you can’t stretch your internet tough guy persona that far.

        • Hey hummer how do you know it’s impossible to get your hands on an AR15 in England? Are you some major player in the underground scene over there? Have you personally tried to get one with no success? It’s funny how you conveniently leave out details. We are NOT England. As people have stated already we share a border with a 3rd world country that is run by drug cartels that are already good at getting anything they want across that border. Does England also border a 3rd world country? OH yeah they are essentially a big island over there. Since you are so hell bent on England why don’t we look at the facts.

          From the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime website, US vs UK in terms of violent crime (each number is incidents per 100,000 of population, statistics for 2010, most recent available year):

          Assaults:
          US: 250.9
          UK: 664.4

          Robbery (forcible taking of property, including home invasions):
          US: 115.3
          UK: 137.9

          Burglary (theft of property from a home not involving force):
          US: 695.9
          UK: 946.1

          Theft (theft of non-motor vehicle property outside the home not involving force):
          US: 1,993
          UK: 2,574.5 [!!]

          The stupidity of you people never ceases to amaze. Obviously facts and common sense are not your strong suit, so I suggest you go do something you are good at, like giving strange men hummers.

        • Hmmm, criminals in Brazil and the rest of Latin America (and the world for that matter) would disagree with your assertions. And don’t even try to compare your prisons with the flea infested shitholles we have here.
          And besides, guns may be attractive and are able to kill a considerable number of people with relative easy. But they fall short of the indiscriminate and widespread destructive power of an explosive device or a chemical weapon. Sure guns are the most part the easiest of the three options, but if someone is hellbent on doing this kind of attrocity and has a little bit of brains it will choose for the latter as it happened in the USA and in the rest of the world and will continue to happen. Why most of terrorist preffer to strike with whatever type of bombs rather with guns?

        • Leo you seem to have forgotten to actually post any stats related to GUN CRIME, which is what we’re discussing here – why is that?

          Surely not because the stats prove you completely wrong in your assertion that gun bans have no effect?

        • The facts show that crime went up in numbers after their ban was enacted. Yes, gun crimes went down but does it matter when all other offenses went up? So, what you are saying is crime is acceptable as long as a gun was not used in the crime? Let’s all turn in our guns tomorrow! Rapes, home invasions, robbery, all types of assaults, car jacking’s etc… will all go up but that’s ok because we will have a few less GUN crimes. Talk about utopia!

        • hmmmmer, England, as you well know is surrounded by a pretty effective moat. And England, again as you well know, does not share a pourus border with a 3rd world country awash in gangs and guns.

          And also for the record, I’ve never claimed to be a tough guy. Another piece of projection on your part?

      • “…but the lies you keep spewing about a ban having no effect on this kind of massacre just makes you look like a retard…”

        Hmmm, an AWB would have had no effect on this kind of massacre because HE DIDN’T USE AN ASSAULT WEAPON TO KILL PEOPLE.

      • “Sure, maybe an organisation with the clout of the IRA could get you something along the lines of an AR-15”

        I’m pretty sure that was his point.

        • So how many IRA or other high level organised crime contacts do you think this guy had then?

          To pretend that a ban would not stop most crazy people from getting their hands on those weapons is demonstrably false. Not even debatable, just demonstrably false. And to say otherwise just makes you look very, very stupid.

        • “To pretend that a ban would not stop most crazy people from getting their hands on those weapons is demonstrably false.”

          actually it is not. jamaica is another example. there are also stark differences between the united states and the UK. its more easy to control what goes in a country that is the size of florida versus one like the United States…that has a border with mexico.

      • Take a break “hmmmmm”, you used a big word like “retarded” there. You’re so smart (pats on proverbial head)…

        • You are trying to score a point through pedantry – congratulations, you are so smart. A bushmaster is all but identical to an assault weapon, lacking in only one insignificant respect – it is not fully automatic. If anything a it would be preferable for these crazies to have full autos, they would hit less and run through their ammo quicker.

        • hmmmmmmmm,

          are you simple ?

          sanchanim asked how how an AWB would have stopped or mitigated the shooting.

          a assault weapon WASNT used in the shooting, therefore, using some common sense, a AWB would not have stopped or mitigated the shooting.

          see how easy that is? deductive reasoning?

      • “Why is this utter horse sh*t so often repeated by you pro gun folks? I challenge you – go to England and try to acquire an AR-15.”

        I dont need to go to england. ill just go to northern ireland. oh wait a second. UK police have even recovered a Chinese AR15 copy in England.

        ” You will not be able to, it is essentially impossible for any normal citizen. So why does this demonstrably false lie keep being perpetuated? Are you really so brainwashed you cannot see the verifiable evidence in front of your face?”

        because chuckleheads like you somehow think comparisons between the UK and US are valid. The UK doesn’t have a southern border like the United States. It is also the size of Florida. So no, assault weapons bans wouldnt work in the US like they work in the UK, which has always had a traditional restriction on the private ownership of arms.

        “Sure, maybe an organisation with the clout of the IRA could get you something along the lines of an AR-15, but the ability for the crazies like the ones perpetrating the majority of this country’s massacres to get one is ZERO. And so, surprise surprise, that means they don’t have the kind of massacres that happen so frequently over here.”

        And yet DGUs in the US number in the millions and hundreds of thousands conservatively. The advantages still outweigh the disadvantages. Of course, with a preordained conclusion like what you have, i cannot convince you otherwise.

        “You can argue that the 2A is important for restraining government tyranny, that is valid, but the lies you keep spewing about a ban having no effect on this kind of massacre just makes you look like a retard, because anybody rational can see exactly how it works in the real world for themselves.”

        So how did the 94 assault weapons ban lower firearms related crime in the US? it didnt. Try again.

      • Mexico is the simplest response to your assertion. Mexico bans pretty much all civilian gun ownership and has extraordinarily strict laws on importing guns. Just look at the case of the Marine imprisioned recently for bringing an antique shotgun into the country.

        So how is gun violence in Mexico working out? It is all but disappeared. No wait…it is worse than ever with no way for civilians to protect themselves from violent thugs. And if you think the cartels would hesitate for one second to smuggle guns as well as drugs to organized criminals here in the US then you are even dumber than you sound.

      • I proved your England example false yesterday.

        You may not be able to LEGALLY get a gun in England, but plenty of people are still dying by gunfire in your shining example of a country.

        You are wrong. At some point you should get around to figuring that out and come up with a new argument.

        And really, even if you were right, then petty criminals will will simply do EXACTLY what happened in England, and switch to bombings, clubbings, stabbings, etc.

        You should do a little research. The crime rate went UP in England after they banned guns, not down. What does a criminal have to fear when even the cops have no legal weapon to match their illegal one?

        I would like to visit your utopia though, I’ve always wanted a unicorn.

      • We AINT England. Your scale is of by 1000 or so. We are big, mean, and dont like being dictated to like Eurotrash nations do.

    • I understand that we have about 100 year plus supply of firearms and ammo in private hands right now. So any and all gun control will only put more people out of work … Am i seeing that everything the D.C. gang even thinks is the total wrong answer…. I will also REFERENCE to George Washington’s farewell address : only a moral people will be free ! I can not address all his beliefs but he supported government needed the moral part to work!

  22. I fully expect to see legislation in the form of EO’s hitting by new years if not before. then we will be in court for the next ten years trying to reverse it!

  23. Executive Order Obama will probably do it. He doesn’t have time for the constitution or congress and he really doesn’t give a shit about “the people.”

    It’s going to be a long difficult year for gun owners.

  24. Knowing Obama an AWB isn’t creative enough for his liking.Id rather expect some variety of tax based regulation which would price ‘assault weapons’ out of the reach of working mortals .All Obama need do is add semi auto rifles to the National Fireams Act,jack up the tax stamp fee to $2000 ,and let the layoffs do the rest.He can then associate gun regulation with ‘fiscal responsibility’ while also boasting that he’s not opposed to the 2nd Amendment rights of hunters since bolt guns and shotguns aren’t on the NFA list.

    At least, until the next spree shooter uses a 12 gauge.

    • All he need do is redefine what constitutes a class three weapon and then refuse to issue the stamp to anyone.

      • Skyler, that’s very clever and I’m sure that POTUS’ legal advisors have explored that issue. Without doing a lot of research, I’m not sure it would work or that it wouldn’t.

        The NFA is reasonably clear about what kids of “weapons” are covered. I’m not sure that POTUS could amend the legislation on his own. And if he could, why couldn’t the ATF do so by regulation without an EO?

        BTW, I’m glad you’re not working for them.

  25. The gun-grabbers have failed to enact the degree of gun control that they want through the legislative branch of government. Appointing anti-2A and anti-liberty Supreme Court Justices is one longer-term branch of attack. The power of the president and executive branch (which has been growing since 1776) has really escalated its scope of authority the past twenty years. Obama, like Bush, has proven disdain for the Bill of Rights. I can see the possibility for an Obama EO with far-reaching anti-2A consequences.

    I don’t know if an EO might not go beyond semi-auto rifles. It could. Progressive FDR declared owning physical gold bullion illegal (well people could still own a handful of coins) and whose pig-headed policies dragged out the non-Great Depression with WW2 his economic savior. Progressive Lincoln maneuvered the political landscape and set things up for a terrible war between the states that cost more than 600,000 lives.

    An EO could be declared on semi-auto rifles, and pistols which were the weapons used in yesterday’s shooting. An EO could ban the import of Glocks and Sigs or hit them up with a large tariff. The sale or possession of mags beyond ten rounds might be made illegal. Almost anything is possible.

  26. The last article I read said that they found the “assault rifle” in the back seat of his car. From which I assume that he did not use it in the crime.
    What have you heard about his rifle?

    • How convenient. I saw a picture of a cop carrying an ar. From what I’ve seen they are stating that there were 4, implying 4 were use. This will be twisted into what ever shape the president needs. I wonder how may instructions were given to “the press” as to how to gain the most traction for confiscation.

  27. I have a stripped lower receiver on order that hasn’t shipped yet (painstakingly slow order processing). The background check is already in process, set to finish on Tuesdsay. If an EO were to be signed before the receiver ships, would I be S-O-L?

  28. This is running on Politico
    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/mccarthy-i-will-embarrass-obama-on-gun-controls-152047.html

    In the wake of the deadly Connecticut school shooting, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy said she has warned the White House “the gloves are off” if President Obama fails to act on the issue.

    McCarthy (D-N.Y.), the foremost gun control advocate in Congress, said she spoke with White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew before Election Day and told him she will exert pressure on the White House to push for gun control legislation

    • Too bad Obummer will cave. It would be an amazing time in history if he told her to F off and she did something to have him impeached. We all know hes an accesory to murder *cough Benghazi cough.* Sorry, Im feeling sick today

  29. If Obama tries to use an executive order to take away the rights of the people it is the duty of every citizen of this country to see that he is impeached. The people of America cannot allow treasonous acts to become commonplace. It’s a slippery slope to use executive orders to ban a right and it will not stop there. We need to be ready to contact our representatives and senators if he does this so he may be stopped as soon as possible. I will not allow my rights and freedoms to be stolen from me and my children and you should not be willing to accept it either. If we stand together and take action and inform the public, it will unite the country and defeat the tyranny.

    • “The people of America cannot allow treasonous acts to become commonplace.”

      They already have, they still do, and they will continue to.

    • “The people of America cannot allow treasonous acts to become commonplace”

      obama signed NDAA 2012, which allows the government to indefinitely detain and torture you without access to legal representation or family notification. And the american people did jack shit.

      The patriot act was signed. back then, the american people did jack shit.

      amerika’s future is death, based off of the apathy of its citizens.

  30. Better start giving LE extra chalk cause there are going to be a $h!t load more bodies that will need outlining. Look at mexico. If they think its “gun crazy” now wait till guns are only held by people used to being imprisoned. And the most ironic part is that minorities bear the brunt of gun violence as it is. This may be part or Obamacare. Have half the population armed and the other prohibited from owning them. That should cull the herd. and lower entitlement spending, lower demands on the health system. Just thinking out loud. Class 3 restrictions don’t prevent the illegal possession of same so though confiscation may well be upon us, it will not be for the better for law abiding people.

  31. Apparently, background checks here in Oregon are going at a snails pace. I’ve read a bunch of folks complaining from the Portland gun show about it. Dealers telling people they’ll probably pick up their guns at the shop in a few days.

  32. You’re all being way too optimistic.

    Look around at the bulk of your fellow “Americans” and what they’ll allow to happen to this country, the things they support, the things they say. There’s no hope. Is there even anything left in this country worth defending? Anything not on an unstoppable slope to utter tyranny?

    An EO banning semi-auto rifles and hi-cap mags? Child’s play. Count on legislature soon passing that bans ALL guns and initiates forceful confiscation. Look around at the “people” of this country, look at the sub-human trash all around us, the cowards and selfish scum and morons this culture has produced. Neighbors have become enemies. Look at what people value today. Look at what this government does and has gotten away with, all without the public saying boo, and tell me such legislation can’t happen.

    • I hate to agree with such pessimism, but I do.

      A hundred years ago if the lowest tier of government employees groped your wife and children as a requirement before traveling, there would have been a lot of dead lowest tier government employees and no one would have been convicted.

      I think we are near to being finished with our experiment In democracy.

  33. I doubt he will use a EO first I bet he will use the ugly hag Feinstine to make a congressional ban she said she wants today. Republicans can cut ATF funds to enforce a ban if he does a EO so the old fashion way is more probable. Just remember to help our progun Senators and congressmen to help defeat any attack.

  34. Barry now has the chance to knock the legs out from under the NRA and take a lot of the base away from the gop. All he has to do is admit that gun control is an abject failure that does more damage than good.

    Then he signs an EO that gives constitutional carry rights to all citizens nation wide. Then he encourages all local PD’s to enlist vetted gun carrying community members to act as volunteer patrols at the local schools.

    Would virtually wipe out these mass shootings and take the wind out of the sails of gun rights groups and the gop.

    What do you want to bet he goes with plan B. Keep running the same old failed play.

  35. He could easily tax ammunition. A 200% tax on ammo sales with government and LE exclusions would be met by everyone in Congress a a Godsend these days. A 20-round box of .223 would go up to ~$60.00.

  36. I know this will be deleted in two seconds, but I’m too lazy to type an email to you – you got what you wanted Rob. You spent months campaigning for this guy, likely because you strongly believed he’d do something like this and your ad revenues would go off the charts. So crack open a beer and laugh while the page views pour in and we all get screwed.

    • Who campaigned for Obama? Robert Farago? If that’s true it changes a lot of what I originally thought about this site.

      • Are you insane? RF was so down for Mitt that he actually though he was going to win. He was so convinced that he offered me any wager that I might want that Romney would defeat BHO. I declined because I refuse to bet against my home team.

        RF is the most anti-Obama sane person I know. Throw away the tinfoil hats, people. Not everything is a vast left-wing conspiracy.

        • You clearly didn’t read the dozen or so pro-Obama posts that Rob wrote. Seriously, the site was plastered with his “Oh, Obama hasn’t done or said anything anti-gun, he’d NEVER try to ban any guns!” and “But ROMNEY actually DID sign and AWB, so he’s worse – vote for Obama!”.

          The editorials are still up on the site (for now, Rob might sanitize them later to save face).

        • LOL ralph – you voted for a man who thinks that some dude in the 1800’s translated the true word of god out of a hat?

          Also strange how you always talk about rights, but then vote for a man who is openly anti-gay and anti-woman – that says a lot about you.

  37. Talk about a rock and a hard place. He is going to get his assault weapons ban one way or another. Him doing it by moving semi autos rifles with pistol grips and detachable feed magazines into the NFA has been around for a couple months and not out of the question. Clinton did it with the street sweepers. This may be his best bet. If he goes with the all out ban then he may have to contend with the Supreme Court reversing it and telling us what the constitution really means. All he would have to do is move them to NFA and he would not have to mess with congress and political war. He could defend that they are still available to the surpeme court. He knows the vast majority of Americans would not go through all the hassle, he could say there is a waiting period of several months, he could say a better check was done, he could say they couldn’t just change hands. The sad thing is of all the senerios out there for us, if there was a way to make sure the tax didnt go up and the applications where going to be processed in a decent amount of time it is about the only one that allows us to still have them. I am considering sending in papers now to change them to sbr so they I could claim they are not an assault rifle but a NFA, just coming up with the money to do that!!

  38. I think gun control is a total joke, but this sentence “The President’s record on bipartisanship is pretty much non-existent. ” is even MORE of a joke. The RepubliCONs have blocked EVERYTHING the last two years, but when things are effed up, it’s Obama’s fault. So the bipartisanship is on the R’s court, and as usual they are the party of “HELL NO”.

  39. First, Sandy Hoax was just that, a gun grab psyop where nobody died, there was no video of Lanza walking the halls with his guns on SH’s $300K video system, no blood, no one could say which company was contracted to clean up the blood under FOIA requests, no lawsuits (there were about 17 suits after Columbine), and the school was razed with strict confidentiality requirements about not mentioning anything found in it (or not found!).
    On and on the myth goes & even pro gun sites like this still mention it as if it were true.
    Secondly, I don’t care what any man, cop or king wants; I shall never allow any of them to render me defenseless by disarming me.

Comments are closed.