Comments on: New Assault Weapons Ban Coming?

By: Pro Gun Democrat

Pro Gun Democrat — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:00:31 +0000

I don’t really see an assault weapons ban as a high priority for Obama’s presidency – he’s got MUCH bigger fish to fry, like the domestic economy, and healthcare, not to even mention Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Maybe an assault weapons ban for Afghanistan! Obama saw the backlash from his “clinging to guns and religion” comment, and I think he truly is more interested in bringing the country together in these times than finding lines to divide us. When there’s nothing else to do, Democrats think of gun control as a way to SEEM like they are tackling the problem of crime, but most intelligent people realize that social programs and a better economy do a lot more to help with crime than keeping guns out of the hands of legal owners. Lets face it, you know, and even the people in Washington know, 99.9 percent of crimes aren’t committed with legal guns, right? A better plan would be keeping guns out of the hands of children…

By: Cormac

Cormac — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:49:58 +0000

Contact my reps?
I’ve got Joe Courtney, Joe Lieberman and Chris Dodd…how useless could my position be?

By: bob r

bob r — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:11:39 +0000

“I also suspect that this might be the canary for the �3 percenters�.”

No, the canaries are all stone cold dead. It would be more like the spark that ignites the gas that killed the canaries.

The “3 percenters” are calling for the ventilation system to be turned back on because without it there is going to be a _serious_ problem.

By: Annie Oakly

Annie Oakly — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:16:45 +0000

Why so serious? God created man, Sam Colt made ‘em equal . . .

By: John H.

John H. — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:37:45 +0000

emdfl:

Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. If it does, let’s hope that those who decry the 3% are fortitudinous enough to join them.

By: emdfl

emdfl — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:36:20 +0000

I predict that the first move will be an “executive order”(tyranny anyone?) that bans the import of foreign military surplus ammunition and foreign manufactured ammunition in “military” calibers. I also suspect that this might be the canary for the “3 percenters”.

By: Jurassic

Jurassic — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:48:32 +0000

Actually, yes. ARs have become accepted at excellent hunting and target rifles since the ban expired. Their following is many, many times bigger then it was back in 94.

I think the reason they got so much ire from the first ban was because everyone knew it was unconstitutional. Even the guys who didn’t own the guns.

By: Oscar

Oscar — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:48:30 +0000

So, where do the hunters (aka “Fudds”) and sports-only shooters (”sportsmen”) figure into all this?

Based on what I saw before the election, I’m convinced that a substantial number of hunters/sportsmen voted for Obama because they’re sure he will never come after their “sport”. I am equally convinced that this same demographic will throw us under the bus when an AWB comes up for a vote. Obama’s people know this, and will utilize the re-establishment of an AWB to illustrate that gun owners can be divided (and hence conquered).

By: mariner

mariner — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:34:34 +0000

“Unfortunately for the gun-grabbers, things they call ‘assault weapons’ are far more mainstream than I think a lot of people appreciate.”

Umm, no.

Unfortunately for us.

By: BadIdeaGuy

BadIdeaGuy — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:05:18 +0000

I think there are a lot more people (myself included) since the mid-90’s who’ve had a conversion of thought toward pro-2A stances. I know a lot of guys who’ve bought or are thinking about buying “AW’s” who most folks wouldn’t suspect of being a gun nut.

Unfortunately for the gun-grabbers, things they call “assault weapons” are far more mainstream than I think a lot of people appreciate.

By: Sean Braisted

Sean Braisted — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:15:02 +0000

That said, while gun owners do vote, most voters don�t see guns as that big of an issue.

Agreed.

By: Sean Braisted

Sean Braisted — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:10:43 +0000

Clinton lays the blame for the Dems� electoral losses squarely at the feet of the Gore-backed AWB.

You expect Bill Clinton to take the blame for anything?

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:08:06 +0000

Most gun guys didn’t vote for him. And the few that did did so because their unions lied to them. That said, while gun owners do vote, most voters don’t see guns as that big of an issue.

By: Sean Braisted

Sean Braisted — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:04:50 +0000

Thing about gun owners is they vote.

And yet “the most anti-gun Presidential candidate in human history” was elected with more votes than any other Presidential candidate in American history.

Funny how that works. The people who support the AWB by the largest margins, women, are the people who vote the most.

By: Les

Les — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:02:25 +0000

It may poll well, but it was political suicide for the Congressional Dems in ‘94. In his autobiography Clinton lays the blame for the Dems’ electoral losses squarely at the feet of the Gore-backed AWB.

Since 1994 the country seems to have become more pro-gun. The AWB was allowed to sunset, the Protection for Lawful Commerce in Arms passed, many states passed shall-issue concealed carry laws, the Supreme Court affirmed that the second amendment was an individual right, and in the wake of 9/11 and Katrina more Americans became interested in self-defense. It smells like a loser for the Dems.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:59:30 +0000

The majority doesn’t necessarily have the loudest voice in the political process. Thing about gun owners is they vote.

By: Sean Braisted

Sean Braisted — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:52:56 +0000

I�m thinking there are some Democrats who remember 1994 and will opt not to play along. As you've pointed out before, opinion polls indicate that the Assault Weapons Ban was popular with the overwhelming majority of voters, including a majority of gun owners. I don't think its particularly necessary at this point in time, but I hardly think its the political third rail that you assume it is.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:27:41 +0000

Bane. Big yellow warning Barack is going to attack as early as this month.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:57:48 +0000

It�s a bit early for the PSH.

And who is crapping their pants?

By: Jacob

Jacob — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:24:42 +0000

It’s a bit early for the PSH.

By: Jay G.

Jay G. — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:05 +0000

Actually, 1994 was when they lost a lot of seats. Republican Revolution, “Angry White Male”, etc.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:09:42 +0000

well, 1996 was when they lost a lot of seats.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:08:37 +0000

I take it that by 1996 you mean 1994, right? Another thing for Obama to consider is that if he punishes us too soon by proving we were right, he’ll make his “fact-checking” allies look mighty stupid in the process.

By: Rustmeister

Rustmeister — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:44:07 +0000

I like how they say Obama’s got other things to look after, but what about Biden?

Sounds like something he’d be really good at.

By: Exurbankevin

Exurbankevin — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:36:16 +0000

So in order to prove how disorganized the GOP is, the Democrats are going to go after conservatives in the one area where we have a significant edge in both online and offline grass-roots organizations (http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/05/22/the-non-power-of-one/).

Good luck with that.

By: Joe Huffman

Joe Huffman — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:46 +0000

Tell your legislators to bring their (political) body bags to the party.