How easy would it be?

[David]

Keep in mind I'm not saying they don't want to get rid of all guns; I'm saying they can't do it immediately, right after Obama takes office (assuming that happens). Even your comment about the Supreme Court justices argues my point. It's not like several justices will retire in January.

And no, they cannot do "anything" they want. There is absolutely no precedent or mechanism for an executive order that would completely nullify a provision of the Bill of Rights. It simply can't happen. The only way a total ban could ever happen, absent of a "clear, present, and immediate danger," would be by legislative action. And there's no way the public, the legislature, or the court would stand for the argument that 30,000 people getting killed by guns annually constitutes such a threat. Obama wouldn't even consider positing such an argument. They can argue that the framers of the Constitution didn't have "assault weapons" or handguns in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment, but how can they argue, now that the Supreme Court ruled that the right is an individual right, that total disarming doesn't violate the Second Amendment? It's always been about how far they can go, not about whether they can ban all guns. They would have to repeal the Second Amendment, and you cannot do that by executive order. And it's not like every Democrat would vote for it. The party leadership, and a majority of democrats, are anti gun, but it's far from all of them. Just look at the NRA ratings. You'll see plenty of Democrats in there who are graded "C" or above.

While I agree that there's the will in the Democratic party to ban all guns, I don't think there are the votes, at least in the House. People will take small, incremental laws like magazine, assault weapon, and Saturday Night Special bans, and all sorts of other laws, but a wholesale ban on all firearms would result in huge numbers of legislators being kicked out. Think we've never had a democrat majority before, with a democratic president? Clinton had a democrat majority for his first two years, and we all know he isn't any sort of lover of guns. Jimmy Carter had a Democrat majority during his entire term. JFK did, too. This isn't anything new, and it's definitely not a once in a lifetime event. We will have anti gun legislation and rulemaking if Obama wins. But we will not have a total ban on all guns in January. I'm not saying a total ban could never happen; just that it would take a lot more than the whims of a newly-elected president.

[TC95GT]

Go to the GOA website and look at Obama's voting record. The only thing he didn't vote for was a bill about allowing the government to confiscate weapons during a natural disaster like during Katrina.

I'm not defending him but I think that's pretty relevant to this topic....

Seems rather odd that he would vote this way on this specific issue. He has made his overall position regarding firearms quite clear. This particular vote goes against his obvious anti opinion regarding guns. Appears to me like a vote based on political self interest.

[Victoria]

I don't think it would be easy for any administration early in it's time in office to make a massive sweeping change like you describe, Strad.

What I think will happen, and it will be easy, is step by step implementation of "reasonable restrictions." Nothing will violate the spirit of Heller. Just imagine what those in an Obama administration would envision as "reasonable" ... oh wait, you don't have to. You can just look at California, Mass, or good ol' Chicago. They'll do it nice and slowly, using examples of current places "that work" as justification for the "reasonableness" of things. We'll have the AWB back, maybe with a longer list of banned items, maybe with a smaller magazine capacity limit like 8 instead of 10. Once we get used to that, they'll take another step, like say the "what works in Cheyenne doesn't work in Chicago" and make some sort of laws about storage (look at Calif) for major metropolitan areas. Or registration. Or limits on how many you can own. Or how many you can buy in a given time period. When we complain, they'll point at the "places that work" like California. It's all reasonable.

Then we'll wake up one day, maybe not in 4 years, maybe not in 8, but someday, and we'll be like England.

Like it or not, I think most politicians are smart enough to realize that slapping us with extreme change in a short time frame will garner resistance, whereas if they chisel away slowly enough we'll not pay attention because we're too entranced with reality TV (or whatever) to really care about what's going on in enough numbers or with enough of a voice to stop anything.

Just my 2 cents.

[goalie]

Then we'll wake up one day, maybe not in 4 years, maybe not in 8, but someday, and we'll be like England.

You only wake up if you fall asleep first.

Just saying.

[gunflint]

I keep thinking about a second term Obama and an aging Pelosi and Reid that are no longer concerned with re-election.

[Pat]

I keep thinking about a second term Obama and an aging Pelosi and Reid that are no longer concerned with re-election.

I am more worried about a new federal judiciary and maybe two or three appointments to the Supreme Court...

[hammAR]

Come November 5th............

[Victoria]

Then we'll wake up one day, maybe not in 4 years, maybe not in 8, but someday, and we'll be like England.

You only wake up if you fall asleep first.

Just saying.

Oh I know. There will always be people who don't sleep, metaphorically, but will they be enough people to have any weight when so many others are sleeping through a slow erosion? It's like that poem "first they came..." except it will be people, we all know one or two, who think "first they came for the assault rifles, but I don't have an assault rifle and don't understand people who think we need them, then they came for the high-capacity handguns, but I just need my trusty ol' rifle/shotgun for hunting and they won't come take that, but then they came for the trusty ol' rifle/shotgun and there wasn't any ground left to make a stand on." If we could get everyone to wake up to what is likely to happen, that would be great, but polls are already indicating that is unlikely in this election cycle.

[goalie]

Then we'll wake up one day, maybe not in 4 years, maybe not in 8, but someday, and we'll be like England.

You only wake up if you fall asleep first.

Just saying.

Oh I know. There will always be people who don't sleep, metaphorically, but will they be enough people to have any weight when so many others are sleeping through a slow erosion? It's like that poem "first they came..." except it will be people, we all know one or two, who think "first they came for the assault rifles, but I don't have an assault rifle and don't understand people who think we need them, then they came for the high-capacity handguns, but I just need my trusty ol' rifle/shotgun for hunting and they won't come take that, but then they came for the trusty ol' rifle/shotgun and there wasn't any ground left to make a stand on." If we could get everyone to wake up to what is likely to happen, that would be great, but polls are already indicating that is unlikely in this election cycle.

That is why I thank god Heller won. It makes it pretty damn hard for the government to push reasonable men into voting from the rooftops.