Yes that is correct, there will be no more. But you are in luck, I just happen to have one I can sell you at the bargain price of $6000.00.
Gouger! Profiteer! I'd let two of mine go for a far more reasonable price of $5500 each...
Yes that is correct, there will be no more. But you are in luck, I just happen to have one I can sell you at the bargain price of $6000.00.
Gouger! Profiteer! I'd let two of mine go for a far more reasonable price of $5500 each...
I don't think Obama will use the power of the Executive Order to enact new gun laws, I surely believe it is within his power to do so.
Given the number of backorders on EVERYTHING, I would say 110% is a conservative figure.
But the panic buying going on ought to tip off the grabbers that a ban will not be met with favor in the US.
Let's go back in time to 1989. Read these two articles, and tell me how Obama would be prevented from banning the importation of ammo, parts kits and magazines. IF an administration can ban by fiat the importation of one thing, they can ban the importation of another.
U.S. BANS IMPORTS OF ASSAULT RIFLES IN SHIFT BY BUSH - NYTimes.com
Import Ban on Assault Rifles Becomes Permanent - NYTimes.com
Well, let's read the article you posted. He didn't ban import by fiat, he used an existing law.
"The ban was taken under a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that permits the importation of foreign-made weapons for civilian sale only when they are ''generally recognized as particularly suitable for, or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.''
It neither created a new law nor banned the possession of anything, simply the import of items as already authorized by Congress decades before.
He used an existing law to make illegal something that wasn't illegal under that law before, did he not? Now, how would Obama be prevented from continuing on in that same frame of thought to ban the importation of parts kits, magazines and ammunition? Or anything else he wants that's not made in America?
Obama passed nothing favorable concerning guns, individual States did that.That is hardly fair, nor is it accurate.
The President cannot just "bypass" congress or the senate. In fact, of the checks and balances, the President has the most stringent, with only "state of emergency" and "acts of war" being in his purview. As for those being abused, well, you can thank Bush (Sr. and Jr.) for expanding those loopholes so that Obama could exploit them.
The irony of the President trying to use the "act of war" clause to limit gun rights is almost funny, in that it brings a tear to my eye.
Personally, I think it is just political blowhardery - everyone wants to look progressive and not at fault. Hell, even the NRA had a rather moderate response considering their normal tone, for which I was thankful; at times, they come off as hard-nosed dicks during some of these tragedies.
So, lots of talk, maybe a token measure to keep those who are afraid of everything from having aneurysm, then the hysteria can subside (hopefully) and prices on the guns we love can return to normal.
As for Obamacare, hopefully one of the benefits it *might* have is getting people who need attention or treatment before someone else does something as moronic or tragic as the shooting in CT.
Because if that happens too many more times, there *will* be a ban of some type on guns passed through the senate and congress and the President, regardless of which party he is, will have to sign it. Even the NRA will have to become more moderate to avoid that sort of backlash, and that is where I think the true erosion of our gun rights will happen.
Heck, there have been more gun favorable bills passed by Obama than Bush Jr. so that CC is allowable in a couple states it wasn't before.
Here's hoping a new year brings us cooler heads and some perspective so everyone can get back to living.
Happy Holidays!