Obama's Gonna Take Our Guns!

[O Really]

Well, my "Lost Freedoms" thread was a big yawner, so I'll try again to put some substance to a topic that's generally more rhetoric than reality.

Here's the question: Assume for this discussion that Obama really did want to take away our guns. Describe, in practical and reasonably realistic detail how he could accomplish that.

Here's the rules for anyone who wants to play:
1. This is not an ideological question. I don't care whether you favor gun control or favor mandatory gun ownership. The assignment is to detail a realistic way Obama could take away our guns, no matter what you actually believe.

2. You cannot use as an example anything occurring in any other country unless that country also has the equivalent of the US Second Amendment.

3. You have to use existing US law, unless you also provide a realistic path those laws would be changed.

4. Think it through. Provide detail.

5. No insults. Have fun.

[billy.pilgrim]

I think he’s gonna use his dictater powers to force his executive order on everybody who got guns, then he will take away everbodys guns and for all who oppose he has already built those concentration camps to put them in.

[Leo Lyons]

Well, my "Lost Freedoms" thread was a big yawner, so I'll try again....No insults. Have fun.

Another yawner. Your bait didn't work. Next?


Having fun yet?

[O Really]

Well, my "Lost Freedoms" thread was a big yawner, so I'll try again....No insults. Have fun.

Another yawner. Your bait didn't work. Next?


Having fun yet?

It's not baiting, Jerk. If you've got a plan, spill it. Otherwise butt out. Nobody will miss you.

[billy.pilgrim]

Well, my "Lost Freedoms" thread was a big yawner, so I'll try again....No insults. Have fun.

Another yawner. Your bait didn't work. Next?


Having fun yet?

It's not baiting, Jerk. If you've got a plan, spill it. Otherwise butt out. Nobody will miss you.

his only plan involves getting the black guy out of the WH

as for reasons, it's the same reason he used for school integration

[O Really]

I think he’s gonna use his dictater powers to force his executive order on everybody who got guns, then he will take away everbodys guns and for all who oppose he has already built those concentration camps to put them in.

I think I've seen some of those concentration camps just inside the gate at Area 51. And we all know that an Executive Order doesn't have to be Constitutional. I think you've got it!

[Stinger]

Well, without the Muslim mind meld, I just can't come up with a way.

Did anyone else here ever deal with a wingnut so dumb that they claimed Obama used hypnotic methods in his speech? I dealt with a couple. They even had a crackpot source that they believed like it was the Bible, Vol. II. You can't blame the foolers on that one. It's the foolee's fault.

[O Really]

I have given the topic some thought. I offered the question on the BlueRidge forum, too, especially to the late great Nascar, who was convinced they'd come for his guns. I can't come up with any scenario in which "Obama" could pull it off. Realistically, he couldn't just order the Army go go house to house. Exec orders can be challenged in court. Tell us what Congressman or Senator is going to sponsor a bill confiscating weapons. Tell us who else is going to vote for it. Tell us who has or is likely to sponsor a bill curtailing ownership of weapons. Tell us who will vote for it. Absent a law, what authority does Obama have for domestic action against citizens? My question isn't, as Lying Leo claimed, baiting. The right-wingers really believe Obama is coming for our guns. Gun sales and ammunition sales are single-handedly holding up a large part of the economy. They believe it. But they can't come up with a way it could happen.

BTW, I considered that I might have broken my own "rule" in calling Lying Leo a jerk. Then I decided calling him a jerk is complimentary. Calling him a homophobic asshole would be descriptive. I don't know how to insult him.

[Leo Lyons]

his only plan involves getting the black guy out of the WH

Wouldn't matter to me if we had a blue guy in the WH; as long as he knew what he was doing.

Calling him a homophobic asshole would be descriptive. I don't know how to insult him.

You're confusing me with homerfobe.
I wouldn't lose sleep over it. I've been cursed and insulted by far better talent; in more than one language even.

[Stinger]

his only plan involves getting the black guy out of the WH

Wouldn't matter to me if we had a blue guy in the WH; as long as he knew what he was doing.

Calling him a homophobic asshole would be descriptive. I don't know how to insult him.

You're confusing me with homerfobe.
I wouldn't lose sleep over it. I've been cursed and insulted by far better talent; in more than one language even.

No, you've done your version of homophobic asshole multiple times.

[Reality]

Vred, your true personality is showing. Mocking the way black people talk. How dare you?

O'Really, do you have any believable data to back up all your talk that right wingers, other than extremist, believe that Obama is going to take their guns?

I regularily converse with an extreme leftist but I do not judge all leftist by this individual; everything right is wrong no mater what. Classic example of "do not bother me with facts, my mind's made up".

[Colonel Taylor]

Obama gonna call up all da folks on da free Obamaphones, pay da gas to Obamaranges, and give away free Obamaguns. Den, we gonna do it Chicago Style on pasty white wingnut asses and yeah, we gonna take away their guns.

And you libs don't think Vred is a Racist. She will do anything to bring a stereotype and race into any conversation. Folks like e\her and many of her liberal friends are the reason this country is slipping back when it comes to race.

[O Really]

C'mon, guys - stay on track here. It's a serious question. Is there a realistic, practical, and viable path whereby "Obama" could take away our guns?

As to which right-wingers think he's going to - google "NRA"

[neoplacebo]

I don't see any vehicle to take away the guns unless the Constitution can be amended as was done with Prohibition (when they took away your alcohol) or unless for some reason martial law is declared in the US, and then it could conceivably be done by edict. In either of these scenarios, I feel there would be a rather large segment of the population that would fight the authorities, elect to keep their guns, and die trying to do so.

[Colonel Taylor]

I'm sure he could issue an executive order temp. suspending the sale or use of guns, not sure. But if it were to be done it would be by making things just to expensive. Didn't Moynahan one time introduce a bill to raise taxes on bullets by 500%? Isn't there now a 10-15% tax on ammunition? He could just raise it even higher and make it to expensive to shoot and the same with firearms.

[neoplacebo]

In 1937 they tried to keep people from smoking pot by taxing it at $100 an ounce. Opps; didn't work out.

[O Really]

No, an Executive Order wouldn't work. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) where the Supreme Court handed Truman his ass. Read any Executive Order since then and you'll find references therein to which laws apply.

Yes, there have been bills to raise taxes on ammunition, etc. How many of them made it out of the back corner of a committee trash can? That would be none. But - if the taxes did go up to 500%, it would only diminish the amount of recreational shooting. It wouldn't make anybody turn in their guns. Real life example? Price of cigarettes is what - $5 a pack? Smoking is down for a lot of reasons, but the high cost hasn't stopped a significant number of people from smoking.

[O Really]

Not that anybody has brought it up, but everyone does know that the "United Nations Arms Trade Treaty" would have no - zero - nada - zilch bearing on US Second Amendment rights. References are abundant.

[O Really]

One difference between guns/ammo and pot or cigs - neither pot nor cigs are constitutionally protected. A punitive and restrictive tax would likely be struck down.

Sure - but it would have to get passed first. Presidents can't levy taxes. Is Congress really going to pass an outrageous tax on ammo? As if.

[rstrong]

It's not about going against the Constitution. It's about interpreting the Constitution.

Habeas corpus is written right into the US Constitution. Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." And yet the government under Bush II did exactly that. There was no invasion, no rebellion. Even 9/11 did not involve the use of firearms.

To justify it, in January 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee that in his opinion: "There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away."

Translate that to the Second Amendment. You don't have the right to own guns, you only have the right not to have them taken away. And since owning them isn't a right, they can be taken away.

But it's even simpler than that: Reinterpret the meaning of "well regulated militia."

The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." But the Supreme Court would also tell you that turning the US into a torture state is also a no-no. Again, Attorney General Gonzales supplied a new interpretation to become the law of the land, allowing Bush II, Cheney, Rice and the rest to give orders that would have had them tried as war criminals in previous presidencies or other countries. And the next administration - from the other party - has upheld that interpretation. No-one is being tried.

Another presidency could do the same. They could have their own Gonzales provide their own interpretation, without conflicting with the U.S. Supreme Court's statement. If they can't limit gun ownership to a "well regulated militia", then they can impose their own definition of "proper discipline and training."

So, here's how you would do it:

Redefine "proper discipline and training" to include police training, military training or a government approved training course. (No need to join a militia.)

The government-approved course would be the equivalent of a driving course and a driver's test, with equivalent costs. But it would also include criminal background checks and drug tests.

Now the foot is in the door. After the inevitable incidents and accidents by those who have taken the course, you declare that the obvious solution is to raise the training standards.

Now it includes courses in gun safety, gun theory, a history course on guns and the Second Amendment, and a course on responsible citizenship. The training becomes the equivalent of a semester in full-time college, where you don't have time for a full-time job AND you have to pay money up front to take it. Complete with $300 worth of textbooks required. And if you fail the course, you have to take it again.

At that point , you've denied guns to the poor, the gang members, hillbillies, people with a criminal record and many other undesirables. But you haven't violated the Second Amendment.