Reliable Rumors That Obama Will Ban Assault Rifles with an EO

[AuH20]

From a few highly regarded people within the industry and within the government. Supposedly in days as opposed to months. I wouldn't be surprised to see him sign something on Christmas Eve. Remember that the Federal Reserve Act was rammed through at Christmas.

[LibertyEagle]

It's for the children, you know. Keeping us safe and all. :rolleyes:

By the way, how many thousands of bullets was it that our government recently stockpiled? I would like to hear their "explanation" of why the A-Z agencies, such as the Department of Education, need so very much ammo.

[Kotin]

I dare him to use an executive order to do this. No going back from that.

[AuH20]

I dare him to use an executive order to do this. No going back from that.

Unless he knowingly wants to incite a reaction. Maybe his handlers do? This would signal the beginning of something beyond nasty. This would approach King George III territory.

[LibertyEagle]

Go look at what I just posted in HT. Interesting timing.

[Acala]

I think it is unlikley. Although George Bush senior did it with imports.

[AuH20]

I guess he could classify high cap feeding 'assault rifles' as "destructive devices" and prohibit their possession as a high priority national security objective. Of course, it would be wholly unconstitutional, but that fact has never stopped these monsters.

[twomp]

I dare him to do it too. I don't think he has the stones to do that. Why would he publicly encourage civil disobedience.

[jkr]

so was hemp prohibition by another demoncrat FDR...

[satchelmcqueen]

they will do it. trust me. they want a riot.

[VanBummel]

Are people predicting a ban on sales, or a ban on possession as well?

[nobody's_hero]

so was hemp prohibition by another demoncrat FDR...

Hemp? Hell, he took the gold.

[nobody's_hero]

I'm guessing we'll see a ban on new sales. Gun owners already in possession will be grandfathered in, but ammo will become heavily restricted. Ammo is the only thing they haven't really gone after yet.

[AuH20]

Would the Republican House have the stones to completely defund the ATF if Obama did this??? I say no.

[Matt Collins]

I think he'll have a revolt on his hands if he does that. With the Internet and peer-to-peer information it is much harder to "sneak" stuff through these days unlike the early 1900s. It's not like people won't find out.

[Matt Collins]

Would the Republican House have the stones to completely defund the ATF if Obama did this??? I say no.You'll see some state legislatures nullify these acts.

[VanBummel]

Would the Republican House have the stones to completely defund the ATF if Obama did this??? I say no.

No stones, just tears.

http://images.politico.com/global/blogs/110612_boehner_cries_ap_465.jpg

Talk about a limp Boehner...

[tangent4ronpaul]

Reliable Rumors That a Assault Rifle Will Ban Obama with a HP

Either I'm being dyslexic again or my crystal ball fixed your thread title for you if he tries to pull this stunt.

I'm surprised no one has brought up impeachment in reference to this...

-t

[shane77m]

Reliable Rumors That a Assault Rifle Will Ban Obama with a HP

Either I'm being dyslexic again or my crystal ball fixed your thread title for you if he tries to pull this stunt.

I'm surprised no one has brought up impeachment in reference to this...

-t

I don't think he can be impeached. He should have been for Libya but look how that turned out.

[CaptUSA]

I get the sense that this is a trial balloon to see what kind of uproar happens. I'm not sure who's floating this balloon or for what pruposes, but I'm sure the uproar will be loud enough to let the PTB know that it's not time yet.

[Brett85]

This is what I've been fearing. If President Obama did this, it seems like there's nothing we could do about it. The only good thing about an executive order as opposed to a law passed by Congress is that it could be repealed immediately if we had a President Rand Paul in the White House in 2016.

[TheTexan]

This is what I've been fearing. If President Obama did this, it seems like there's nothing we could do about it.

There's at least one thing we could do about it

[Brett85]

If this happened would there be any way the courts would overturn Obama's executive order?

[tangent4ronpaul]

I get the sense that this is a trial balloon to see what kind of uproar happens. I'm not sure who's floating this balloon or for what pruposes, but I'm sure the uproar will be loud enough to let the PTB know that it's not time yet.

Gun Control: 'Only Modest Change' In Opinion Since Newtown Shootings
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/20/167720040/gun-control-only-modest-change-in-opinion-since-newtown-shootings

The post-Newtown poll showed that:

— 49 percent of respondents agreed with the view that it's more important to control gun ownership than it is to protect the right of Americans to own guns.

— 42 percent said the right of Americans to own guns is more important than gun control.

— While this was the first time since President Obama took office that "significantly more" respondents make gun control a higher priority than the right to own guns, the shift was not dramatic. Following the July mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., "47 percent said it was more important to control gun ownership, while 46 percent said it was more important to protect gun rights."

The new survey comes with a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points on each of those major results.

Pew's findings underscore what we noted on Saturday: that polling in the past has shown that public opinion won't necessarily shift much after mass shootings such as those in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson or on the campus of Virginia Tech University.

The modest change in opinion can be explained in large part, Kohut said, by the depth of most Americans' feelings on the issue. Eighty percent of respondents, he said, told Pew "I fell strongly about this."

"It's not easy to move strong opinions," Kohut added.

Also a factor: Just under half of those polled believe gun ownership does more to "protect people from crime" than it does to "put people's safety at risk," Pew reports. For many Americans, said Kohut, that's just "fundamental."

One exception to that general view: Pew found that 65 percent of those polled believed "allowing citizens to own assault weapons" makes the nation more dangerous, not safer.

======
From another article - something interesting...

The NRA Isn't The Only Opponent Of Gun Control
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167780782/the-nra-isnt-the-only-opponent-of-gun-control

"There are 15 million self-identified liberals that own guns — that's four times the size of the NRA,"

Something to think about next campaign season...

-t

[fletcher]

At first I didn't know what you meant. I thought you might mean an EOTech sight, and I thought that was very specific and strange.

BTW, assault rifles are already highly regulated in the US and extremely expensive. You meant to use the political term 'assault weapon'.

[Anti Federalist]

I dare him to use an executive order to do this. No going back from that.

I fucking triple dog dare him.

Enough talk, I'm done.

Bring it or shut the fuck up.

[Anti Federalist]

This is what I've been fearing. If President Obama did this, it seems like there's nothing we could do about it. The only good thing about an executive order as opposed to a law passed by Congress is that it could be repealed immediately if we had a President Rand Paul in the White House in 2016.

There's plenty that can be done.

Nobody has the stones to do it though.

[shane77m]

There's plenty that can be done.

Nobody has the stones to do it though.

http://www.infowars.com/new-york-gov-mandatory-gun-sale-to-state-and-confiscation-are-options/

If Andrew Cuomo has his way then we should see pretty soon what people will do to keep their guns.

[Acala]

Gun Control: 'Only Modest Change' In Opinion Since Newtown Shootings
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/20/167720040/gun-control-only-modest-change-in-opinion-since-newtown-shootings

The post-Newtown poll showed that:

— 49 percent of respondents agreed with the view that it's more important to control gun ownership than it is to protect the right of Americans to own guns.

— 42 percent said the right of Americans to own guns is more important than gun control.

— While this was the first time since President Obama took office that "significantly more" respondents make gun control a higher priority than the right to own guns, the shift was not dramatic. Following the July mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., "47 percent said it was more important to control gun ownership, while 46 percent said it was more important to protect gun rights."

The new survey comes with a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points on each of those major results.

Pew's findings underscore what we noted on Saturday: that polling in the past has shown that public opinion won't necessarily shift much after mass shootings such as those in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson or on the campus of Virginia Tech University.

The modest change in opinion can be explained in large part, Kohut said, by the depth of most Americans' feelings on the issue. Eighty percent of respondents, he said, told Pew "I fell strongly about this."

"It's not easy to move strong opinions," Kohut added.

Also a factor: Just under half of those polled believe gun ownership does more to "protect people from crime" than it does to "put people's safety at risk," Pew reports. For many Americans, said Kohut, that's just "fundamental."

One exception to that general view: Pew found that 65 percent of those polled believed "allowing citizens to own assault weapons" makes the nation more dangerous, not safer.

======
From another article - something interesting...

The NRA Isn't The Only Opponent Of Gun Control
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167780782/the-nra-isnt-the-only-opponent-of-gun-control

"There are 15 million self-identified liberals that own guns — that's four times the size of the NRA,"

Something to think about next campaign season...

-t

As I suspected. The only real push for gun control is in the media and the same cadre of politicians that introduce gun control every session. And that means that the other politicians know that gun control threatens their seat, and you can be sure they have let Obama know it. And that is why Obama punted to a commission.

[Matt Collins]

I say we should't perpetuate rumors...

[brushfire]

I fucking triple dog dare him.

Enough talk, I'm done.

Bring it or shut the fuck up.

QFT

[Pericles]

I dare him to use an executive order to do this. No going back from that.

It would lead to a great deal of unpleasantness.

[RickyJ]

I dare him to use an executive order to do this. No going back from that.

If he does something like that it is equivalent to committing political suicide. Sure he can never run again, but he can be impeached for violating the Constitution and there would be widespread support for his impeachment.

[LibertyEagle]

Feinstein said in her press conference a few minutes ago that the law would require that existing "assault rifles" be registered. They may not get it done this time, but it is coming. Oh yeah, it is coming.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Feinstein said in her press conference a few minutes ago that the law would require that existing "assault rifles" be registered. They may not get it done this time, but it is coming. Oh yeah, it is coming.

Existing "assault rifles" (machine guns) are already required to be registered.

-t

[TomtheTinker]

I hope he does.

[CaptainAmerica]

Obama will open a can of worms if he intends to use executive order.

[qh4dotcom]

:)

[Brett85]

Obama has issued thousands of executive orders already. I don't know why anyone would be surprised if he issued one more.

[jj-]

If President Obama did this, it seems like there's nothing we could do about it.

Why? What did the Founders do after King George attempted to restrict their rights?

[Czolgosz]

If he EO's a ban on "assault weapons" 99% of gun owners will take a big step back, draw another line in the sand, and repeat their mantra, "If they dare to... blah blah blah."

You don't need a ban on "assault weapons" to be justified in refreshing the tree. It should have been done 100 years ago. And yet, here we are.

[TheTexan]

If he EO's a ban on "assault weapons" 99% of gun owners will take a big step back, draw another line in the sand, and repeat their mantra, "If they dare to... blah blah blah."

This is true. We can't allow incrementalism with regard to the 2nd amendment. Every incremental chip away at the 2nd amendment weakens our ability to defend ourselves. And that's their plan. One step at a time.

No more, the line is here. Now.

[Brett85]

Why? What did the Founders do after King George attempted to restrict their rights?

It doesn't seem like there's enough people that would have the guts to do something like you're suggesting.

[cbrons]

Unless he knowingly wants to incite a reaction. Maybe his handlers do? This would signal the beginning of something beyond nasty. This would approach King George III territory.

Everyone in this thread needs to read an article based on this scenario: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/what-i-saw-at-the-coup/

If you want more from that same author let me know. He writes a lot on the topic of .gov power grabs and probable reactions by the public.

[LibertyEagle]

Existing "assault rifles" (machine guns) are already required to be registered.

-t

Yeah, but we both know that is not what they were talking about.

[Zippyjuan]

Love those famous "reliable un-named" sources. They are often wrong.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Yeah, but we both know that is not what they were talking about.

I don't know about that. Fiend-steine knows exactly what the difference is. Why is she using the wrong term? Perhaps her strategy is to blur the differences and try to characterize all scary looking black rifles as full auto machine guns? After all, who needs a machine gun for hunting or self defense? Yadda, yadda, yadda... followed by "reasonable" legislation to ban anything black and scary looking....

No, I think there is a reason she used that phrase.

-t

[Aldanga]

I say we should't perpetuate rumors...
http://i.imgur.com/KSMH8.gif

[Tod]

I hear the local outfitter's AR shelf space is all but bare, the magazines are sold out, and all but the most expensive match grade ammo is gone.

Additionally, when they got an order of one type of small caliber handgun in, all but the display model was sold within the day.

[Tod]

If he does something like that it is equivalent to committing political suicide. Sure he can never run again, but he can be impeached for violating the Constitution and he there would be widespread support for his impeachment.

I'm skeptical of about that, the way Republicans have been rolling over lately.

[shane77m]

Obama is unimpeachable.

[Czolgosz]

This is true. We can't allow incrementalism with regard to the 2nd amendment. Every incremental chip away at the 2nd amendment weakens our ability to defend ourselves. And that's their plan. One step at a time.

No more, the line is here. Now.


It doesn't seem like there's enough people that would have the guts to do something like you're suggesting.


A few good men could create enough trouble and force the government to respond in the only way it knows how.

If you've ever wanted to recruit more freedom fighters...

[cbrons]

Unless we have some patriots inside the .gov who are brave and organized (and large enough and high enough) to stop the juggernaut we non-zombies will get steamrolled just the same.

[Occam's Banana]

If this happened would there be any way the courts would overturn Obama's executive order?

No. The federal courts are just rubber stamps for this sort of thing. They'd find a way to excuse or "justify" it - somehow. For example, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the courts "watered down" such an EO by reducing or restricting its particulars (in an attempt to appease or neutralize the opposition) while still supporting the basic idea that the POTUS has the right to abrogate the Constitution by means of EOs.

And if this turns out to be more than just a rumor and some sort of EO is actually issued, it will be interesting to see if any state-level "nullification" efforts are made - and if they do, how far they go.

[cbrons]

And if this turns out to be more than just a rumor and some sort of EO is actually issued, it will be interesting to see if any state-level "nullification" efforts are made - and if they do, how far they go.

Your prediction? Which states and how far?

[shane77m]

Your prediction? Which states and how far?

Hopefully Alabama will nullify. We did vote to get out of Obamacare though I feel that vote was purely symbolic. We also voted to get out of any Agenda 21 crap. It is probably mostly a symbolic vote as well though.

[John F Kennedy III]

It's for the children, you know. Keeping us safe and all. :rolleyes:

By the way, how many thousands of bullets was it that our government recently stockpiled? I would like to hear their "explanation" of why the A-Z agencies, such as the Department of Education, need so very much ammo.

This is what you counter the gun grabbers with ^

[Occam's Banana]

Your prediction? Which states and how far?

I'm not really sure. Finding out is what makes it so interesting.

The western "pro-gun" states (Texas, Montana, etc.) seem to be the most likely, and places like New York or California the least likely. Anti-Obama sentiment in the "red" states would certainly be a factor, too.

As to how far, I guess it would depend on the specific restrictions invoked by the EO. The more draconian the EO, the stronger & more vehement the reaction. (Or so I hope, anyway.)

It's almost enough to make me hope that Obama really does try to do something like this - just to find out which states are how ballsy or spineless ...

[cbrons]

I'm not really sure. Finding out is what makes it so interesting.

The western "pro-gun" states (Texas, Montana, etc.) seem to be the most likely, and places like New York or California the least likely. Anti-Obama sentiment in the "red" states would certainly be a factor, too.

As to how far, I guess it would depend on the specific restrictions invoked by the EO. The more draconian the EO, the stronger & more vehement the reaction. (Or so I hope, anyway.)

It's almost enough to make me hope that Obama really does try to do something like this - just to find out which states are how ballsy or spineless ...

Hear hear. The health scare law was our Port Act, any EO banning guns will be the equiv of the Mass Gov Act. The tyrants will push onward with the Coercive/Intolerable Acts

[tangent4ronpaul]

No. The federal courts are just rubber stamps for this sort of thing. They'd find a way to excuse or "justify" it - somehow. For example, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the courts "watered down" such an EO by reducing or restricting its particulars (in an attempt to appease or neutralize the opposition) while still supporting the basic idea that the POTUS has the right to abrogate the Constitution by means of EOs.

I don't know. I think the Federal Courts would intervene, especially after the public outcry.

1) Never let a crisis go to waste
2) If you don't have a crisis handy, create one

Hay hun, do you remember anything about a fiscal cliff? Something about taxes and the gvmt going broke? It was right before they decided they wanted to take our guns. Anyway, remember how that turned out?

Well, no. I kinda remember it, but... and yeah - then there was all the arguing about guns...


And if this turns out to be more than just a rumor and some sort of EO is actually issued, it will be interesting to see if any state-level "nullification" efforts are made - and if they do, how far they go.

Depending on how they do it, I can either see a lot of nullification and even some states succeeding. On the other hand, I can see them maybe getting through:

background ck on every purchaser. No more P2P sales - must go through a FFL.

3 day wait on everything. The background check is a built in slow down. They ran your background and decided if you could buy guns as soon as your data went into the system. The 3 day thing is annoying, but it does serve a good. It cuts down on the murder rate. It's a cooling off period after fighting with whoever is probably close in your life. Yeah, you didn't, but someone else did, so...

psych check on every purchaser. probably massive pushback. basically guaranteed. also the scariest. as criteria can be changed easily and the country disarmed slowly and quietly.

banning "high capacity" magazines - they may get away with it

banning assault weapons = massive pushback!

banning and door to door confiscation of them = civil war!

-t

[ghengis86]

If he bans guns or "assault" weapons (sidebar-WTF is an assault weapon??) with an EO up to and including outright confiscation, you will all give up your guns without firing a single round.

[qh4dotcom]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/548725_576693152347877_981665136_n.jpg

[chudrockz]

If he bans guns or "assault" weapons (sidebar-WTF is an assault weapon??) with an EO up to and including outright confiscation, you will all give up your guns without firing a single round.

You must not know many folks in rural southern Minnesota. Not that I personally own any of those nasty things called "guns"! ;)

[cbrons]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648

I don't know how Fine-Swine's potentially compulsory buy-back program isn't circulating on here?

[Pericles]

If he bans guns or "assault" weapons (sidebar-WTF is an assault weapon??) with an EO up to and including outright confiscation, you will all give up your guns without firing a single round.

Who is willing to bet his life on that?

[madengr]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648

I don't know how Fine-Swine's potentially compulsory buy-back program isn't circulating on here?

Wow! That's some shit!