Top Ad



No announcement yet.

whats obamas future plans for the gun situation- is ammunition prices going to skyrocket? 1 gun a day or month? 1 hand gun a mo

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • whats obamas future plans for the gun situation- is ammunition prices going to skyrocket? 1 gun a day or month? 1 hand gun a mo

    whats obamas future plans for the gun situation- is ammunition prices going to skyrocket? 1 gun a day or month? 1 hand gun a month? no gun shops/smiths within 5 miles of a school or park? are these true? are there anymore crazy rules coming in to play soon?

  • #2
    Only Mr. Obama can answer this one...accurately. No doubt lots of people will give you some version of hearsay or internet gossip but only time will tell. Even those who are actually "in the know" on the subject could tell you possibly what his plans are, but the truth will come when we see what version of his plan he can actually get pushed through the House and Senate. I hope he/they/whoever accomplish absolutely nothing. Gun legislation is a slippery slope and once they start it could get nasty.


    • #3
      Join the NRA, I did after doing some extensive research. We can prevent these crazy laws being introduced. And thanks to MLH there is a free years membership registry link on the message boards page, under announcements, then under Free NRA membership. Strength in numbers!


      • #4
        I'm with Wallofsam - join the NRA to help combat the lunacy that pervades Washington right now.


        • #5
          he can't rtake away our guns because it is in the constitution. I just learned in American History that if someone wanted to ban something lets say guns it goes forth at the House of Rep. If it passes there it goes to the supreme court. the cool thing about the supreme court is that it won't pass a law if it violates the constitution. Now Obama can think about taking guns away but the supreme court will over rule every time. But he can take away our ammo because that is not in the constitution.


          • #6
            I'll start out by saying that I didn't vote for Obama (or Mccain) and that I strongly believe in the constitution and in limited government.

            That being said I do not swallow propaganda without first analyzing it. (even if that propaganda supports my beliefs)

            I'm not saying that I know for sure either way. Obama may be a reasonable man who cares for our rights, or he may be a super-leftist that wants to take all of our liberties away.

            However, if you look at what he has done so far, not what other organizations say, the former looks more likely than the later.

            For instance, look at how he handled the Mexican assault rifle situation. If he was really bent on taking all our guns away wouldn't he have used this opportunity to scream and yell about Mexican babies being murdered and call for strict anti-gun legislation? (like Hillary and Holder have done)

            Instead, what did he do? He didn't say a peep about our guns, he just sent more money and personnel to secure the border (something we have all been asking for for years)

            Sounds like a fairly reasonable course of action to me.

            Like any politician, the guy is no saint, and he obviously doesn't share all of my beliefs in limited government. This however does not automatically mean that he is the anti-Christ bent on world domination and the destruction of all personal liberties.

            I am certainly not the guy's biggest fan (I don't think I can imagine a worse way to handle the economic crisis), but I am saying that we should base our opinions of him on what he has done, not what the opposing political groups claim he wants to do.

            I guess you could say that he is just biding his time and gaining our trust. Waiting for the perfect moment to snatch away all our freedoms. However, even the most suspicious of us have to agree that this is not a rational opinion based on facts, it is a wild conspiracy theory.


            • #7
              I don't know . . . Before becoming President, the state he represented was in the top 2 for gun control. When asked if it would be unconstitutional for a state to ban guns he replied "no". He may not be a gun grabber, but he sure isn't going to protect our rights. And all of the Clinton era/Brady bunchers he has already began using tells me to look out. He sure blew a lot of smoke up our skirts talking about how he likes hunters everytime someone asked him a gun question. Last I checked the 2nd ammendment does not say we have the right to hunt, but to keep and mear arms.

              Watch out for this guy


              • #8
                I don't recommend trusting any politicians.

                In fact, I'd say that the constitution that I love so much was mostly intended to protect us from politicians.

                I am just saying that the Anti-Christ, power hungry, freedom hater theories seem to be largely unfounded.

                (see Mexico example above for evidence)

                My personal opinion at the moment is that he is simply a run of the mill mainstream politician. Nothing more, nothing less. Though my opinion will change as new evidence is added.

                Remember, in general, when you hear hoof-beats think horses, not zebras.


                • #9
                  The sick scumbag will probably bann one thing at a time and slowely take away all of our freedoms. That is basically what Hitler did and what all other dictators have done in the past.


                  • #10

                    I really don't want to defend him but I think attitudes like that are destructive overall.

                    what basis do you have for your claims?

                    Equating the sitting president to one of the most twisted, evil men in history is an extraordinary claim and will therefore require some solid proof.

                    which of his actions so far cause you to believe this?

                    Please use specific examples of things he has done or said. Saying things like "he thinks he's the messiah" or "he's a socialist" (the sworn enemies of Hitler by the way) Simply don't suffice when you are making such a wild claim.

                    I think that a big part of the problem with American politics is this idea on both sides that if someone disagrees with you they must be the devil incarnate.


                    • #11
                      Christian - as I am sure you know, one of the most important duties of the President is to nominate Supreme Court justices. These justices may impact our laws for much longer than the president will be in office. Some very important decisions have been made by only a single vote.

                      Justices interpret the laws as they see it. Some of us tend to simplify their general viewpoints by splitting them into two groups. On one side you have conservatives / constitutionalists, that base their opinions on the constitution as it is written. On the other side are the liberals, who base their opinion on the constitution as they think it should apply in modern times, or in a less strict sense.

                      Obama will likely nominate 2 or more justices while in office. I expect him to nominate those that agree with his and party's positions on many topics including gun rights. With the high number of Democrats in the Senate, the chances of those nominees being confirmed are pretty high. And don't forget who nominates the Attorney General.


                      • #12

                        MUCH more valid point than a lot of people would give.

                        I too think that if the Obama administration has a long term impact on us sportsmen it will be by nominating a supreme court justice that takes a militias-only view of the 2nd amendment.

                        (though lets be clear that that would be a risk with ANY democratic president regardless of their Anti-Christ status)

                        The other interesting point on the topic is that Obama said that the DC v. Heller case was a good ruling and that the 2nd amendment applied to individuals. (A rather controversial statement among Brady-campaigners)

                        He then said that just like zoning laws restrict the individual right of land ownership, the government can limit the individual right to gun ownership.

                        (by the way, the fact that we all agree that the mentally insane and felons shouldn't own guns means that we agree with him in principal on this topic, the difference is only a matter of degree)

                        only time will tell...


                        • #13
                          Great answer ken.mcloud and A + 1 for you sir!!!




                          Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

                          If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

                          And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on

                          Right Rail 1


                          Top Active Users


                          There are no top active users.

                          Right Rail 2


                          Latest Topics


                          Right Rail 3


                          Footer Ad