Author Topic: What's the next federal gun restriction now that congress could change  (Read 1250 times)

Seymour Skinner

  • Guest
We have to be planning for the next round of federal gun restrictions now that these barely pro gun republicans in congress (who are actually mostly socialist globalists) could lose part of congress in 06.  The worst president since L.B.J. has killed what little good was left in the republican party, which is reminiscent of Klinton's killing of the dem party by his actions.  The Republican's credibility is gone, so it's just a matter of if voters are mad enough to do something about it.  This party has become the party of big, intrusive, arrogant, corrupt government that reached a head in 1994 and drove the democrat half of the coin out of power.  The republican congress is seen by many now, as just a water carrier for a positively evil administration.  While I would love a divided government again and some gridlock, the prospect of the democrat half of the coin running part of congress again makes my gun safe shudder.

We can either complain or we can prepare.  If the repukes lose part of congress, gun restrictions will start getting not only tacked onto bills, but will be used as bargaining chips with the other house.  Even if they don't lose the senate, that body is already in the anti gun column as we speak.

If the globalists that control both parties run Guliani (under the "republican" half of their coin), he will probably win.  Guliani is a "knowing conspirator" like daddy Bush (as opposed to being a mere script reader like the current occupant), and will be extremely dangerous to the 2nd amendment (not to mention other privacy issues like possible "patriot" acts part IV, V, VI etc).  Guliani (not much worse than "W") would be about as bad as Joe Biden in the white house, so it's congress that represents the possible shift.

For years, I've suspected that the BATF at any time could up and order owners of "open bolt" semi automatics (of which I have two) to register them as machine guns.  They've already been ruled as such, and judges have held that possession after such a ruling (as in the case of drop in auto sears) is irrelevant.  I still believe that this will be the next major administrative move by the powers that be as far as guns are concerned.  Their semi recent brazeness with making "street sweeper" and "USAS" 12 guage owners register their guns as destructive devices "or else" tends to corroborate my suspicions.

So, what restrictions should we be preparing for if the voters punish a "yes man" congress for the actions of a downright scary and tyrannical executive branch?  I think it will take a couple of years for gun restrictions to gain momentum (as bargaining chips) if the dems take part of congress, but if we wait until then to pay attention, there will be a run on some guns.

1st, I don't think near enough gun owners own a 50 BMG.   If one gets conveniently used in a crime, registration is a real possibility as a "compromise" to something worse.  I also don't think near enough gun owners have an AK rifle.  Robinson is somehow still able to import those nice RPK (Ruchnoi Pulemet Kalashnikov) AK receivers, but for how much longer is anybody's guess.

Since I check the anti gunner's websites at least weekly, I've been able to notice a disturbing shift in their confidence level.  They know that bush is obliterating the credibility of the republican party and is on the defensive around the clock.  No one running for re election to congress wants this president anywhere near them (for good reason).  It sucks, but people are starting to look to the democrat half of the coin to save them from runaway (real) inflation, a massive deficit, and a suicidal (actually globalist) foreign policy.  Bush is continuing to lie about his "guest worker" program and saying it's not amnesty, to soften the betrayal of his base but it isn't working because no one's buying it.

Basically, I thought this thread would be a good idea when I noticed that the anti gunners seem to be quietly giddy about the real possibility of getting some help in congress thanks to bush's help.

Standing Wolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,978
What's the next federal gun restriction now that congress could change
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2005, 02:27:37 PM »
Quote
Since I check the anti gunner's websites at least weekly, I've been able to notice a disturbing shift in their confidence level.  They know that bush is obliterating the credibility of the republican party and is on the defensive around the clock.
You're linking too many topics in a simple pair of sentences.

If the anti-Second Amendment bigots sound more confident, it's probably because they're hiring more skillful public relations writers. They've lost two skirmishes in recent memorythe so-called "assault weapons" ban was allowed to sunset, and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act was finally passedand may well have learned the obvious lesson: it's always worthwhile to present a set of messages that look intelligent rather than hysterical. Frankly, I've never understood why the leftist extremists invariably screech and shrill instead of trying to seem reasonable. Little Joe Lieberman tries to seem reasonable sometimes, but realistically speaking, that unprincipled little nitwit could bore rocks to tears.

Bush isn't obliterating the Republican party's credibility all by himself. He and virtually all the Republicans in Congress are doing a very effective job of persuading America their party stands for nothing, does nothing, spends money like a drunken sailor, and lives in terror of the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party. The Republicans are the majority party in name only. They're wimps. They're chit-chatters. They're double-talkers.

My personal believe is that we ought to break up both the Republicrat and Democan parties. Instead of flip sides of the same worthless coin, we ought to do as the automobile industry has done: break into numerous fiercely competitive camps and slug it out hard and fast for votes. I'd like to see a minimum of four or five, preferably six or eight clearly defined, seriously contentious political parties vying for my vote, dollars, and loyalty. We need competition, not more of the same old same old.

If the Republican party is the first to be broken up, so be it. If the Democratic (sic) party is first, so be it. We're never going to have a real multi-party political system as long as we're stuck with the same old bunch of dunces.

Bush is, indeed, on the defensive around the clock, as are nearly all the rest of the Republicans in Congress. They have much to be defensive about; unfortunately, their behavior has been indefensible.

Break 'em up. Kick 'em out. Let's get the show on the road.

By the way, I'm entirely sure if we had multiple political parties, the leftist extremists and their so-called "gun control" schemes wouldn't stand the chance of a snow ball in hell: they actually do constitute an extremely small percentage of Americans of voting age. They're very well funded and have powerful allies in the so-called "news" media; in a free and open market of ideas, however, they'd end up sitting in the far back left corner with the Vegan Party, the National Alliance of Lesbian Vegetarian Jews for Jesus, and the Ku Klux Klan. They're a menace to the nation only because the Democratic (sic) party is susceptible to the machinations of the nut case extreme left. If we ever force them to stand on their own feet, all seventeen of them are going to look awfully lonely.

In closing, let me share a hunch with you, please: if I were a wagering man, I'd bet the cost of a week's groceries at least 80% of the hits at anti-Second Amendment bigotry web sites are from Second Amendment supporters keeping an eye on the leftist extremists.
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

Strings

  • Guest
What's the next federal gun restriction now that congress could change
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2005, 06:26:00 PM »
Personally, I'd expect the first hit of any new gun control to be one of four locations: NFA (a raise in the transfer tax), a new AWB (although I think that's less likely: there hasn't been any blood in the streets, and most of America knows it), CCW (more restrictions from the federal level, possibly even an attempt to outlaw it through federal legislation), and the .50 BMG rifles (there's an obvious way of hitting them, but I'm not mentioning it in open forum)...


 And I have to ask: how would you go about splitting either party? Sure ain't gonna happen through legislation...

Strings

  • Guest
What's the next federal gun restriction now that congress could change
« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2005, 09:57:20 PM »
ok, that makes two...

Strings

  • Guest
What's the next federal gun restriction now that congress could change
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2005, 12:16:33 PM »
Well... it sophistry, but isn't the name of the cartridge itself enough? .50 Browning Machine Gun? Seems like thier kinda logic to me. Could make a great lil' point in their arguements: "this cartridge itself is called 'machine gun', denoting it's lack of any purpose besides killing people"...

 Hmmm... maybe I'm getting too paranoid...

Seymour Skinner

  • Guest
What's the next federal gun restriction now that congress could change
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2005, 05:00:28 AM »
Quote
In fact, most marijuana growers are more sympathetic to the 2nd amendment and the NFA than most trap shooters.
It sucks royally that that is true about most trap shooters.  I believe that the "sporting purpose" nazis in the gun community are our worst liability.  These people (sadly, I know from experience) will DEFEND legions of federal gun control laws, including every INCH of the NFA and the 1968 GCA.  angry

mtnbkr

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15,388
What's the next federal gun restriction now that congress could change
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2005, 05:03:45 AM »
Keep working on them using logic and positive examples.  My dad was one of those "nobody NEEDS an machine gun" types.  He isn't anymore.  I didn't turn him around by getting in his face and telling him how stupid he was.

Chris