At this moment I have a DD MK18 on hold at my LGS. The only reason I haven't turned in the paperwork yet is because they were waiting to see if they could get one in black rather than the FDE. How might an Obama win and the push for a new AWB affect my approval process? How did it work during the previous AWB for NFA items that were already approved and in the hands of citizens?
NFA items weren't affected in the last ban.Originally Posted by VolGrad
Whoa, I do not want anyone to lose any rights whatsoever. I personally own exactly 1 rifle and it is an AR which is currently waiting to get its stamp back back on a form 1.
If an AWB where to be on the horizon I would make every effort to secure some some additional lowers or complete builds, but considering I just blew my 'fun' budget for the next year on stamps, cans, & an optic 'so much so I just got out of the doghouse with the wife' the possibility of me being able to do that is slim.
All i was implying is that our firearms collections would have the benefit of providing us with some financial security on top of the physical security they already provide.
'Really just trying to pose a glass half full outlook on what will be truly sad day.' And I in no way meant to offend anyone.
Personal predictions/opinions:
1. The majority of congress will remain acutely aware of how the Dems got their asses handed to them after the '94 AWB, and will not touch the issue, no matter what the President wishes.
2. Even if were to try to reinstate it, the anti-gun crowd doesn't understand the difference between NFA and non-NFA, as opposed to "scary cosmetic features", enough to coherently address that in any proposed legislation.
3. The real threat is more Supreme Court justices along the lines of Kagan and Sotomayor, who apparantly view the Constitution and Bill of Rights as annoying obstacle to overcome enroute to a more progressive society, and regulatory decisions by unelected bureaucrats (e.g. BATFE, etc.)
I'll also add, that while I have no wish to attack anyone personally, even mentioning the idea that "X would be good because it makes my collection more valuable" is flagrantly selfish enough that it makes me want to vomit. If you were thinking that, please take a minute, look in the mirror, and ask yourself if that's really the type of person you want to be. (ETA: wrote this before I saw the previous post. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't sweat it.)
Since I haven't seen this mentioned in this thread, some of Romney's statements were more of finding a compromise. At first he says "I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on -- on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal," and then launches into not having fully automatic weapons and going after the Fast and Furious debacle. But then there is this exchange concerning the Massachusetts assault weapons ban:
CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned.
I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?
ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation. And it's referred to as an assault weapon ban, but it had, at the signing of the bill, both the pro-gun and the anti-gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted.
There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that haven't previously been available and so forth, so it was a mutually agreed- upon piece of legislation. That's what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now in Washington is a place that's gridlocked.
CROWLEY: So I could -- if you could get people to agree to it, you would be for it?
ROMNEY: We have --
OBAMA: Candy?
ROMNEY: -- we haven't had the leadership in Washington to work on a bipartisan basis. I was able to do that in my state and bring these two together.
I hope that everyone understands what the last AWB was about, which is banning many Semi-Autos (Handgun, Rifle, Shotguns) and mag capacity beyond 10 rounds. IMO the mag restrictions and trying to buy new or replacement standard capacity mags will suck the most.
What I can't believe is that Mitt didn't say something like...
"Well, as for AK47's, I think we should make it illegal to use a firearm to commit ANY crime, including mass shootings...oh wait, it already IS illegal. If the thought of the death penalty doesn't make you stop what you are planning, I don't think one more gun law is going to change that. Cars kill more people every year than guns do, but I don't see anyone calling for a ban on them."
That would have been a big can of Shut Up
I don't think this will happen but what if his writers and collaborators actually got this down and fed it to him?
Think for yourself. Question authority.
I woke up this morning and remembered that I have AFHF coming up this weekend and had only 500 or so rounds of 9mm FMJ to my name. As soon as I got dressed, I headed over to Wally World hoping that Barry hadn't boned me in the ammo department by opening his fat mouth about gun control on TV last night...
Thankfully, Secret Ammo Wal-Mart was pretty well stocked. Fortunately for me, most suburban Hoosier gun nuts won't venture very far inside I-465 unless they already have a thousand rounds of ammo. Silly suburbanites! Don't they know that $#!+ don't start getting real until you're at least south of 49th Street?
The question? It was a plant by Michael Bloomberg's MAIG group. (The ONLY anti-gun group anyone needs to be concerned about any more.)
https://twitter.com/scubarton/status/258395395221229568
twitter.com/ddbaxte
Reply With Quote
