Do we really think gun control measures are a priority for Obama?

[RaspberrySurprise]

At least it looks as if he is already going to have to back off of one of his campaign promises.  It is being reported that he may not be able to reverse the Bush tax cuts because of the economy and they will probably have to stay in place until they expire in 2010.

But but but I thought he wanted to cut taxes for 90% of America? How can this be?

The people Obama nominates to run the Attorney General's Office, BATFE, FBI, and EPA will have plenty of time to push the anti-gun agenda while everyone else "fixes the economy"...

...unless the GOP senators grow a pair and block nominations like the Democrats did....

I highly doubt they will, sadly.

[Manedwolf]

But but but I thought he wanted to cut taxes for 90% of America? How can this be?

I highly doubt they will, sadly.

Not with current leadership, they will not.



"Wut? We lost the election and lots of seats because Frank blamed the housing crisis they caused on us and we didn't say a thing? Well, I should keep on leading then."

[longeyes]

How long before the GOP asks for a bail-out?

Are we not to reward losers?

[seeker_two]

How long before the GOP asks for a bail-out?

Are we not to reward losers?

Wasn't that McCain's platform?

[thebaldguy]

Don't just worry about Obama and the Democrats; I thought I remember reading that Republicans introduced an AWB earlier this year.

Assault Weapons Ban 2008 bill
H.R. 6257 was introduced by Mark Kirk [R IL-10] on June 12, 2008 and seeks to re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban indefinitely as well as to expand the list of banned weapons. The bill was also referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on 7/28/08. It has four co-sponsors (as of November 5, 2008) supporting it:

Rep Castle, Michael N. - [R DE-1] - 6/12/2008
Rep Ferguson, Mike - [R NJ-7] - 6/12/2008
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana - [R FL-18] - 6/18/2008
Rep Shays, Christopher - [R CT-4] - 6/12/2008

Geez...I actually thought Republicans would NEVER do anything like that. I actually didn't see that one coming until I read about it.

Ok. Now start start freaking out about gun control. I didn't really know that members of both parties are going to take away firearms.

[RevDisk]

Gun control rationally would not be a large concern.  We have plenty of issues, including the ones you meantioned.  Problem is, those issues are difficult.  Really, the President cannot fix the economy.  The best he can accomplish is not make it worse.  At which point, he might look for an 'easy' legislative win.  Something to test the waters and rack up some points with his alleged base.   It could be any one of a number of pet issues.  Environment, gun control, preventing drilling, whatever.  We can only hope his trial run is not our pet issue.   It's highly unlikely he'd try going too far his first attempt.  He might attempt an AWB, high cap ban or ammo tax, but not a complete and comprehensive ban.  If the trial run was successful, he'd try to violate Heller, just to see if he could.

As Chris pointed out, if your rep or Senator is somewhat anti, ask why the heck he/she is supporting a dog'n'pony show instead of fixing the economy.  If your Congresscritter is somewhat pro, meantion potential lost revenue from sales, FAET (the excise tax on guns and ammo), highly paid machinists going out of work and the impact on small businesses.


Best we can hope is that with his extremely long laundry list of Wants, it keeps him busy enough to ignore us.  I'll bet $1 to the first taker that Obama's first testing of the water is not an AWB, but rather the Employee Free Choice Act.  It's a rigged bet of course, Obama co-sponsored the bill and quietly has been pressing for it.  If he gets the bill passed, the unions will support him regardless of any future actions for several years.  Short version, EFCA rigs unionization of a workforce heavily in favor of the unions.  It would replace the current secret ballot election (basically the same system as voting) with card check.  Allows the union to know specifically how you're voting, and would allow for targetted intimidation amoung other things. 

If the EFCA fails, Obama will be more cautious and businesses won't be crippled.  Hopefully it gets the federal dems squabbling as well.  If EFCA passes, within six months, expect unions to explosively grow.  Most likely at dear cost to industry. 

[Nitrogen]

I'd totally be in favor of the EFCA if unions weren't as corrupt as some of the businesses they profess to protect their workers from.  Damn.

[ctdonath]

I still don't understand the concept that is something doesn't matter is isn't important it is called a third rail.
Isn't the third rail where the power comes from?
Out of sight out of mind?

More like: so bad you don't even let yourself think about it.

Yes, the third rail is where the train's power comes from.
You touch it, you die. Simple.
You don't go near it, you don't play games with it, you don't toss rocks at it, you don't even THINK about going within several feet of it.
You drive it out of your mind with such extreme prejudice that you never think about it, and anything that makes you think about it is responded to violently & emotionally.
You ostracize, shun, belittle, insult, berate, and despise anyone who says "hey, how about you touch that third rail? let's talk about it, no really I want to have a conversation about the merits of touching it, it's really not that bad, ya know some good could even come of it..."
You touch it, you die. End of story. No further discussion allowed.

[ctdonath]

As others noted, and worth repeating:

- The bills are already written. It's not a question of what they'll come up with, it's what they've already come up with and have ready to go.
- The minor bills (ex.: .50BMG ban) will be attached to a must-pass bill. Nobody in this Congress is going to stop passage of a must-pass bill due to some gun-control rider.
- The major bills (ex.: AWB II) will be passed as a knee-jerk response to a statistically predictable incident. If When another VT happens, expect O to call for a semi-auto ban outright. The bill is ready, the votes are lined up, they're just waiting for the blood.
- The bills will be passed early. They won't "test the water", they already did that. They won't "ease them in over time", they want to be bold. They'll use the new administration's honeymoon period to ram it all thru. By getting it done early, they distance the event from the subsequent elections and get most voters distracted by the next vote.
- The bills will be flawed. They just can't think the way they need to achieve real lasting success ... but they can get a big enough comprehensive enough convoluted enough monstrosity in place that pro-gun types will tie themselves in knots for decades trying to figure out what to do with it.

They're ready for the final play, and we're trying to guess when the quarter starts.

[grumpyguido]

I think "Be afwaid, be vwery afwaid" just about sums it up.

[RaspberrySurprise]

I'd totally be in favor of the EFCA if unions weren't as corrupt as some of the businesses they profess to protect their workers from.  Damn.

Why? Whats wrong with a secret ballot? I don't see any good coming from having to publicly announce your union position.

Remember folks the gummint is not a one track machine, it is a many tentacled leviathan capable of doing and seeing many things at once. The likelihood of some onerous provision being snuck through on some important bill is quite high.

[Nitrogen]

Why? Whats wrong with a secret ballot? I don't see any good coming from having to publicly announce your union position.

Mostly it has to do with minimizing management intimidation.  Unless you've ever tried to unionize, you have NO IDEA the amount of stuff management is allowed to do to stop a unionization attempt. 

The current process is really not a secret ballot like any of us would recognise it, anyway.

Besides, if you publicly announce your union position, then management has a harder time firing you for it.

[Tallpine]

Considering the other things that Obama has said he wants to do, I think he is going to have to effect gun confiscation first ... 

[RaspberrySurprise]

Besides, if you publicly announce your union position, then management has a harder time firing you for it.

So you get the choice of being intimidated by management goons or union goons. That's just peachy.

[Manedwolf]

Mostly it has to do with minimizing management intimidation.  Unless you've ever tried to unionize, you have NO IDEA the amount of stuff management is allowed to do to stop a unionization attempt. 

The current process is really not a secret ballot like any of us would recognise it, anyway.

Besides, if you publicly announce your union position, then management has a harder time firing you for it.

And if you publicly announce you don't want to join the union, you'll likely be intimidated, have your vehicle damaged, or even be roughed up, especially if the Teamsters are involved.

[Nitrogen]

And if you publicly announce you don't want to join the union, you'll likely be intimidated, have your vehicle damaged, or even be roughed up, especially if the Teamsters are involved.

That's why I said I'd be for it if unions weren't as bad as the businesses they shoud be protecting their workers from...

[RocketMan]

Unless you've ever tried to unionize, you have NO IDEA the amount of stuff management is not allowed to do to stop a unionization attempt. 

FIFY. 
You really have no idea how much stuff management is just plain not allowed to do, under threat of legal sanction, to stop a shop from being unionized.

EFCA will pass and be signed into law, and it will destroy what little is left of American manufacturing.

Sorry for the thread hijack...

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Mostly it has to do with minimizing management intimidation.  Unless you've ever tried to unionize, you have NO IDEA the amount of stuff management is allowed to do to stop a unionization attempt.
  as a former shop steward and organize who went over to the other side i can assure you the unuions are much more ruthless. and care less about the membership

[41magsnub]

Continuing the thread drift into unionization, my limited experience was a briefing as a manager for what to watch for from employees as clues they may be unionizing.  They were very specific as to what I could and could not say or ask.  I was the IT manager so I just couldn't make myself care about it, all of my staff were technically in supervisory positions to get them into the higher pay grades.  I'm sure if the alarm were raised the more senior management would move in with all the dirty tricks.  The call center never had a serious union threat though once some reps showed up, the pay and benefits were too good and the union did not have anything to offer the staff besides extra bureaucracy and slower raises due to the negotiations.

[Nitrogen]

I'm not really disagreeing with you folks, I'm just explaining the rationale.  Unions in this country are very broken and need to be rebooted, formatted, and reinstalled.

I got to watch a unionization attempt from the sidelines about 5 years ago.  It was ugly.  On BOTH sides.

[grey54956]

We're really going to need to take things to the Supreme COurt over and over again. 

While SCOTUS has said that there are some "reasonable restrictions" that can be pursued, like preventing felons and dangerous individuals from RKBA, this is done through due process of law (except for that who Lautenburg thing...).  In any case, we need to argue that outside of this, any infringement, regardless of how small, is still infringment, and is barred by the Constitution. 

If BHO, the Dems, and some Repubs want to amend the Constitution to remove the 2A, they should pursue that, instead.  Then we'll at least know where they truly stand.

[T.O.M.]

And do we think that in a public vote, they could get this to pass.  Sorry I cannot recall off the top of my head, but don't they need the amendment to be ratified by 2/3 of the states?  NOt a 2/3 popular vote, but actually pass in 33 states?  Can you imagine the fights, the ad campaigns, the sleeze that would generate?

[Regolith]

And do we think that in a public vote, they could get this to pass.  Sorry I cannot recall off the top of my head, but don't they need the amendment to be ratified by 2/3 of the states?  NOt a 2/3 popular vote, but actually pass in 33 states?  Can you imagine the fights, the ad campaigns, the sleeze that would generate?

No, it's 3/4 of the states (which means 38 states would have to vote in favor to ratify the amendment), and considering the fact that 39 states have shall-issue concealed carry, my guess is that the likelihood of them getting an anti-2nd amendment through is about nil.

[neviander]

would magically appoint a strong Second Amendment supporter?

I'd say the overall chances of getting a win on something like that are about 0.

A win, no.  A chance at them ruing the possibility of voter backlash?...not too shabby.  I'd say that's the ONLY thing that separates us from the reality of MOLON LABE in the next 4 years.

[Scout26]

No, it's 3/4 of the states (which means 38 states would have to vote in favor to ratify the amendment), and considering the fact that 39 states have shall-issue concealed carry, my guess is that the likelihood of them getting an anti-2nd amendment through is about nil.

Ur Math are Rong.

57 states * 3/4 = 43 states.......