TexasCHLforum.com

jdhz28 wrote:If they're going to do it, than they best get on with it...I'm not very patient and I am tired of the suspense. Let this thing come to a vote, get overwhelmingly voted against, so the left can back to sit in a corner and sulk.

They're lining up to do it in the middle of the night, without any debate, and without knowing the extent of the proposal. They're openly stating that they need to rush it through Congress while emotions are high in order to get it passed. If it doesn't pass Congress there will be an Executive Order. With all the heated rhetoric --Democrats and their media mouthpieces advocating killing NRA members and torturing Congressional Republicans, the NYT hawking elimination of the Constitution because it interferes with what The One wants to do, the demonization of gun owners, the wall to wall anti-gun media frenzy, the blatant disregard of the law when it comes to liberal "elites" (Dick Gregory), the secrecy regarding legislation that has been in the works for over a year and is about to be introduced, putting Biden in charge of making a new anti-gun proposal with a group entirely composed of left-wing anti-gun criminal lovers, legislation to eliminate term limits so The One doesn't have to leave office, etc --it seems the left is emboldened and intends to go for broke. If there's going to be any sulking by the left it will be a long way down the road, after numerous court battles. And if that happens I fully expect a mysterious death or two among a certain 5 SC members.

Edited to add:

Oh yeah, I forgot to add this: TARP opposition was unprecedented and cut across political lines. 90% of the country was against it and they passed it anyway, and have yet to suffer any consequences. The only time they pay attention to what Americans want is when they don't care if we get it. They spit in our faces whenever we don't want something and THEY do.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:And here is the effect of a couple of turncoat senators: http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012 ... 52297.html

Black Swan.

Joe Manchin is a Democrat already anyway...if he calls himself a Democrat, then you have to count him as lost...secondly, who is the other Senator? I only saw reference to Manchin...

The other senator was Mark Warner, of Virginia

Regarding Manchin:
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/j ... html?hp=r1

Joe Manchin: ‘I’m so proud of the NRA’

By KEVIN ROBILLARD | 12/19/12 1:50 PM EST Updated: 12/19/12 3:20 PM EST
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who suggested earlier in the week that the time had come for some gun control restrictions, said on Wednesday that he’s “not supporting a ban on anything” and he repeatedly defended and praised the NRA.

“I’m not supporting a ban on anything. I’m supporting a conversation on everything,” Manchin said on West Virginia MetroNews.

Manchin has an ‘A’ rating from the NRA, and applauded the group’s decision to hold a press conference Friday where they’ve promised to offer “meaningful contributions.”

“I can’t say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to any of the things,” Manchin added when asked if he would support restrictions on magazine size or an assault weapons band. “Because all I’ve asked for, I want the NRA to tell me why we have any weapon you might want. Is there any grounds or any changes or anything they would like to look at? I don’t know. I can’t even get a conversation to have responsible people at the party, if you will, or the table, to finally come out with a conclusion.”

Sounds like he started getting some NRA blowback.

Oops....Obama messed up: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/oba ... 90721.html

Looks like The One got off script:

"Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s been handed down from generation to generation. Obviously across the country there are regional differences. There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. And the fact is the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible -- they buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sport shooting, collection or protection," said Obama.

The liberal script is that guns are only allowed to us peons for hunting and target shooting.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I think the point of my post here was lost in the madness that has ensued. I'm not going to post anything more on this topic and I am truly sorry I even posted it in the first place.

I am NOT for any sort of new gun laws, period. I hate gun control and think its a load of bunk. I despise the media and the Democrat Socialist Party, and weak-kneed members of the Republican Party, as well. Please, call and/or write your Congressman/woman and Senators and tell them how important this issue is to you. Thank you.

I think you give them too much credit when you call them "weak-kneed." That suggests they are against gun control but too cowardly to stand-up to the political pressure brought by the gun grabbers. I think some of them, perhaps even most of them, are far more nefarious than gutless. Some are weak-kneed because they're indifferent. Some are really pro-gun. But some are merely pretending to be pro-gun to appease their base and stay in power, so they're not as worried about pressure from the gun-grabbers as they are about taking off the mask too soon.

The Annoyed Man wrote:http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-Foreign-D ... ew+bracken

Read it. It is fiction, but this is how it is going to go down. The Sandyhook shooting is very close to the kind of Black Swan event in the novel which precipitates a national ban of semiautomatic rifles, and any "sniper scopes" which make a hunting rifle into a "sniper rifle."

Hey, no one needs a super hipower optical device made to allow shooters to kill from miles away. These are clearly optics of war. You didn't see powerful scopes like that on the muskets the Founders had when the Constitution was written. Nor did they have laser sights, which serve no other purpose than to make a gun more lethal. In fact, all sights serve no other purpose than making it easier to kill people. No mere civilian needs a gun with sights on it. If the threat is so far away you need a sight it's not self-defense anyway, and it's unfair to shoot animals from great distances so there is no legitimate hunting purpose served by having guns with sights. The Founders simply did not envision putting powerful optical devices on muskets to make them more lethal and they did not anticipate the use of weapons so accurate that shooters could repeatedly hit a single target. If they were still around they'd want us to use 200 year old weapons technology so as not to give us mere mundanes an unfair advantage when shooting at defenseless paper targets and animals. Banning assault sights is just simple common sense. And if it just saves the life of a single child it will be worth it, no matter how many women are raped or people are killed by clubs, knives, cars and trucks, rocks, swimming pools, fires, armed criminals, gang beatings, and inaccurate shooting --especially since anyone in the home of someone defending their family is unlikely to be a liberal anyway.

I posted this on another thread but it fits better here.

I don't think there will be a confiscation ---not because they care about gun owner reaction, but because the mechanics of the process, especially the compensation aspect, will likely put the issue into the courts. However, if they go the confiscation route, there are various paths they can follow....from likely to less likely, but still possible:

1. Require everyone to turn in their weapons. Those not turned in will be functionally useless because anyone caught using one or in possession of one will end up in prison for 5 years or so --unless of course, they're an actual criminal, like a gang banger, in which case they'll just get the charges dropped or probation. Forget about getting any kind of market value...what they'd do is give you a tax credit, and the amount you can claim will be stated in an IRS table for each weapon type. I'd guess something like $500 for an AR, probably not more than $750. They will probably also ask for a declaration on the form that you don't have any prohibited weapons so they can nail you for perjury too if you are later caught with one. This obviously won't be effective for actually getting the weapons turned in....so it would just be a "we did something" exercise.

2. If they really want the weapons turned in, before they can proceed with confiscation, they need registration. If they pass any kind of registration then confiscation is definitely coming. They might require gun dealers to turn in all their 4473s. They'd also probably give rewards to those people who report on anyone who has prohibited weapons, so watch out for those liberal friends and family members. If they're serious about getting every gun they can then the registration process will take awhile, and will also require gun owners to register their weapons, all of them, not just "assault" weapons, and anyone subsequently caught with an unregistered weapon will go to prison --again, excepting actual criminals.

3. I highly doubt there will be door to door searches in either scenario. I doubt they will even go door to door with registered or known gun owners. That would send everyone in the country the message that we're in a totalitarian police state, and they want to maintain the pretense of "freedom" for as long as possible. What they may do then is target certain gun owners for shock and awe attacks carried out by the BATF. Any resistance will be met with extermination. These raids will be publicized, anyone they kill will be labeled a "terrorist," and the media will revel in the elimination of these evil and dangerous people. Most other gun owners will be afraid not to turn in prohibited weapons.