Possible new gun ban

[LANTIRN]

I have been giving some thought to the upcoming election and given both candidates views and background when it comes to guns I see another Brady Bill as being very likely; Obama will have nothing to loose (not that he gives a shit now anyways), and Romney was a very anti-gun governor. There is no gurantee they will follow previous guidlines for what is to be banned, but considering all the States with Brady-style laws used Brady as the format (10 round mags, no flash hiders, etc), it seems likely they will try a similar bill again. We already know the current Congress doesn't give a shit about the Constitution so passing a ban would probably be easy. I bring this up because it may be a good time to put some high capacity mags back; I have plenty now but will be buying more and leaving them unused just in case. Just a thought I figured I would pass along. Maybe I will be wrong.

[Sean88gt]

I wouldn't put it past them, but there is also a very open dissent for the federal government right now and pulling shenanigans like this will bring heat that they don't want and can't handle.

[Chas_svo]

Note to self, buy more bullets.

[Broncojohnny]

They wouldn't dare, the NRA is a political powerhouse right now.

[Sleeper]

I think we are fine. Not scared yet.

[John -- '02 HAWK]

This is just right wing fear mongering to garner more votes for the Republican candidate and to pad the pockets of the profiteers.

Nether Candidate will stir the hornets nest of gun rights.

[LANTIRN]

This is just right wing fear mongering to garner more votes for the Republican candidate and to pad the pockets of the profiteers.

Nether Candidate will stir the hornets nest of gun rights.

You make no sense; my statement was in no way pro-republican. How can my statement be right wing fear mongering when I clearly am biased against BOTH parties?

[John -- '02 HAWK]

You make no sense; my statement was in no way pro-republican. How can my statement be right wing fear mongering when I clearly am biased against BOTH parties?

This type of fear mongering is generated from the republican party as part of the party platform to gather votes and resources. It doesnt matter who the nominee the Republican party will try to claim the democrats are going to try take gun rights no matter if its truthful or not. So even though you may be against both parties you are still reiterating the republican line by stating "Obama has nothing to loose" by instituting gun policies. When in reality he has everything to loose. Obama is smart enough to know that going anti-gun will only cause him to loose votes. He showed this when he was first elected and told the democratic higher ups to lay off the anti-gun rhetoric when he was trying to push his other reforms during the first year of his presidency.

As for Romney he is fighting to keep republican votes. He knows that he has to serve the will of the party and the party line is pro-gun. So he wont do anything that stirs the the ire of the party.

Your argument about congress runs into the issues that Romney runs into. That about half are republicans and they are going to follow the party lines because they want to stay in office. Those congress members can also see the success that cal guns has had against California's brady laws and the success the gun lobbies have had in DC and Chicago an how that the general population and the courts are favoring pro gun rights.

The other thing that you havent considered on any new weapons bills is the fact in the last 15 years the voting base has gathered instant communication and that it has power to quickly motivate and stop oppressive legislation, an excellent example of which is the halting of SOPA and PIPA.

[Moose242]

I bring this up because it may be a good time to put some high capacity mags back; I have plenty now but will be buying more and leaving them unused just in case.

thats just crazy

[SOLOW55]

Damn speculators driving the price of guns and ammo .

[LANTIRN]

This type of fear mongering is generated from the republican party as part of the party platform to gather votes and resources. It doesnt matter who the nominee the Republican party will try to claim the democrats are going to try take gun rights no matter if its truthful or not. So even though you may be against both parties you are still reiterating the republican line by stating "Obama has nothing to loose" by instituting gun policies. When in reality he has everything to loose. Obama is smart enough to know that going anti-gun will only cause him to loose votes. He showed this when he was first elected and told the democratic higher ups to lay off the anti-gun rhetoric when he was trying to push his other reforms during the first year of his presidency.

As for Romney he is fighting to keep republican votes. He knows that he has to serve the will of the party and the party line is pro-gun. So he wont do anything that stirs the the ire of the party.

Your argument about congress runs into the issues that Romney runs into. That about half are republicans and they are going to follow the party lines because they want to stay in office. Those congress members can also see the success that cal guns has had against California's brady laws and the success the gun lobbies have had in DC and Chicago an how that the general population and the courts are favoring pro gun rights.

The other thing that you havent considered on any new weapons bills is the fact in the last 15 years the voting base has gathered instant communication and that it has power to quickly motivate and stop oppressive legislation, an excellent example of which is the halting of SOPA and PIPA.

You do realize I am talking about AFTER they are in office; of course they aren't going to go anti-gun while on the campaign trail. And since when does any politician care that much about re-election when they are casting votes on a bill? Patriot Act and NDAA immediately come to mind; they usually don't say shit about their unpopular votes until they are up for re election. They simply hope you won't remember what a douche they have been and if you do, they dance around any question you have about their record. Besides, most of the populace is so blind to what is going on they want "everyone out of Washington except my incumbent", so most of the incumbents get reelected and they all know this. Both parties, both Republican AND Democrat, have a history full of voting on bills that are unconstitutional and unpopular and they both have an excellent reelection record for incumbents. That should tell you all you need to know right there.

I hope you are right, but history tells me you are probably wrong. Neither party gives a shit except for when their term in office is up.

[Mr_Fiux]

Dont do it yet man, I panicked also when the Arizona senator? Got shot, I saw the brady ambulance chasing bitch going into action, and I bought 20 mags, Now I have 17 unopened aluminum mags. Dont get scurred yet

[EW]

Thread title is misleading.
Still, buy early, buy often.

[LANTIRN]

Dont do it yet man, I panicked also when the Arizona senator? Got shot, I saw the brady ambulance chasing bitch going into action, and I bought 20 mags, Now I have 17 unopened aluminum mags. Dont get scurred yet

Mags store for a long time; it's not like it is really wasting money. Hell I have 3 or 4 pmags that are unopened I bought about 3 years ago and it doesn't bother me. May annoy my wife a little, but it doesn't bother me at all.

[Mr_Fiux]

Mags store for a long time; it's not like it is really wasting money. Hell I have 3 or 4 pmags that are unopened I bought about 3 years ago and it doesn't bother me. May annoy my wife a little, but it doesn't bother me at all.

yeah but it bothers me, that they are cheaper now than when i bought them half a year ago.