Do you think obama will "try" to take our guns?

[TurboSixPiston]

That was one of my main worries when he was elected. Now, I do not believe he has the courage to do so, it wouldn't just be political suicide, and he damn well knows it.

I wouldn't be surprised if he pushes for heavy restrictions, but an outright ban would be plain dumb, even if it's over an 8 year span.

 

[Street Rat]

No, I don't think he will try. I know he would absolutely love too, it would make this healthcare bill a small victory compared to gun confiscation. I don't think it is as much as a control issue than taxes, more distribution of wealth programs. Guns for the U.S. citizen, even though the 2nd ammendmant says differently, are and will only be for personal protection and sport.

 

[jbarnett]

Its just a matter of time.

 

[bink98xcab]

YES!! he's doin everything in his power to take the power from us!! we are nolonger FREE. this is a communist country now

 

[neginfluence04]

who every he gives the power to come and take them can have them bullet first

 

[Cacinok]

I am not too sure he will try to get rid of guns. It would be political suicide. He is only 1/3 of the checks and balances of the government. With health care he had a good portion of Congress on his side to begin with. The current Supreme Court has already said that gun ownership is a Constitutional right. They have also shown that they are against unnecessary burdens against gun ownership. The problem will be defining "unnecessary burden".

there's already a good argument that he has committed political suicide w/ the health care crap. also, as roon mentioned, his approval ratings suck - he is obviously more concerned w/ passing his agenda (or the agenda of those who paid to get him in office) than he is doing the will of the american people.

i doubt he'll go right after guns, unless there's some sort of wave of violence under which gun control would pass or he'd take guns under martial law. more likely, however, is him raising taxes on ammo, much like he has done on tobacco. or possibly through some other form of obfuscation - watch the left hand while the right steals your guns - he'll slip a minor gun control measure into some other massive (cough cap and trade) bill.

at this point, i wouldn't put anything past him. he's an arrogant bastard and he still has the house and senate until november.

 

[henschman]

Nobody will ever actually come and try to confiscate guns in this country, like they did in the British commonwealth countries... that's not how gun control works in America. There has never been an outright ban and confiscation of any type of firearm. This is probably because too many people would resist with force if it was tried. Like with so many other areas of our lives that the government seeks to control, the approach is much more sneaky, indirect, and gradual, and it is designed to accomplish the same thing as a ban while causing as little resistance as possible.

They may institute another ban on further importation and production for the civilian market of certain types of guns, like they did with the '94 Brady Act. Then, later on down the road, they may start requiring licensing and a fee for those that are still in circulation to further drive up the costs and erect barriers to ownership. Or they may take the opposite approach, by requiring licenses and taxes on certain types of firearms and then later banning them from further importation and production, like they did with full autos. you don't have to ban them if you can just make them prohibitively expensive for the average guy; and as for the folks who can afford to get them, you have them on a nice list.

Lots of gun owners contemplate and prepare for a scenario in which the government sends out squads of jackbooted thugs going door-to-door demanding that people surrender their guns, and lots of gun owners have made their mind up that this is the point at which they will be willing to resist the government with force. Don't waste your time preparing yourself for scenarios like that... this is very unlikely to happen. A slow descent into the "flowery gulag" is how it will go down, if we let it.

I think most gun owners are all talk. So you would be willing to go to war against the government if this or that happened, but you're not willing to do anything to protect your liberty RIGHT NOW, when you have relatively easy and peaceful ways of doing so? Yeah right. If you aren't willing to get off your @$$ and fight the soft war, you certainly don't have what it takes to fight the hard war, if it comes to that. If we actually let it get to the point where the most effective way to secure liberty we have left is to resist with force, it is almost certainly a lost cause.

 

[ttowncrimefighter]

Better not.

I really don't forsee an outright law against ownership. I forsee higher taxes on firearms and a direct attack on ammunition. I can see the Fed jacking up taxes on ammo to the point that it'll cost you an arm and a leg to shoot. I can see an attempt at registration. (Of course we all know what that eventually leads to)

I'm curious about what the Feds will do about these states that are asserting their 10th amendment rights regarding gun laws. I think they will begin to look for ways to make examples of those who try to express their rights while believing that the state will protect them.

 

[Roadking Larry]

I would look for any fed movment against 2A rights to come in the way of fighting the "flow of illiegal guns to Mexico".
I don't expect it but I wouldn't put it passed them to try any legislative stuff.
Most likely anything that comes will come in the form of regulation/taxation with no need for the elected officials to sully their voting records and NRA standing.
I could easily see an end to (legal) private sales being done by way of BATFE regulations.
The big news will come after the Supremes hand down the ruling on McDonald V. Chicago.
With Heller it was ruled that registration is acceptable. What we get out of McDonald may well lay the ground work for universal registration.

 

[aeropb]

no I don't think so.