Make your election prediction

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**JohnHwangDD**

All I know about Amendments is that the 2nd is what guarantees the 1st!

Over here in Cali, we've got to decide whether "Marriage" should be defined as between a man and a woman.

Should be interesting.

**Grignard**

Frazzled wrote:It was the only issue I voted on in this election, and I am sure that the next time some nut job shoots up something federal legislation will come screaming down the pike. After all..."do it for the CHILDREN!!!" will be the new rallying cry.

I seriously doubt that Obama will attempt any sort of drastic moves in that direction, even if it were possible to do so. I believe that much of Obama's success revolves around appealing to "purple" voters. For the same reason I don't expect him to try to champion any great changes to abortion laws.

Does anyone expect Obama to take a State's rights type of position? By that I mean simply allowing the states to legislate such things and avoiding promoting federal involvement?

**Frazzled**

No.

**Mannahnin**

I do. Quite honestly. His vote on SB 2165, re: the DeMar case, was a vote for local control.

And the SCOTUS has now ruled against local bans. Obama will respect that judgement.

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

The NRA claim that their guns are going to be taken away is nothing but a paranoid fantasy.

**Frazzled**

Talk is cheap. Obama's actions are a different thing entirely.

Further, we're assuming he has any desire to control the wackjobs in his party.

**Centurian99**

Frazzled wrote:Talk is cheap. Obama's actions are a different thing entirely.

Further, we're assuming he has any desire to control the wackjobs in his party.

Based on what he's done so far...I'd say that we have evidence that he does. He essentially killed all of the independent Democratic 527s.

**CorporateLogo**

I'm starting to think this cartoon is more accurate than I thought:

**Frazzled**

Centurian99 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Talk is cheap. Obama's actions are a different thing entirely.

Further, we're assuming he has any desire to control the wackjobs in his party.

Based on what he's done so far...I'd say that we have evidence that he does. He essentially killed all of the independent Democratic 527s.

He did? Not from all the ads I saw. Hasn't been able to control Frank, Schumer et al.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I'm going to go with Obama Landslide.

Mainly because I think he stands to motivate a lot of First Time Voters to get to their Polling Station in favour of him, and I suspect the Opinion Polls taken so far may not accurately reflect this (then again, they may do. I don't know. Just my opinion)

**Frazzled**

CorporateLogo wrote:I'm starting to think this cartoon is more accurate than I thought:

Don't you have some new security organization rally to go to?

**Grignard**

Mannahnin wrote:I do. Quite honestly. His vote on SB 2165, re: the DeMar case, was a vote for local control.

And the SCOTUS has now ruled against local bans. Obama will respect that judgement.

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

The NRA claim that their guns are going to be taken away is nothing but a paranoid fantasy.

The problem is that while I agree that ( and I'm saying this as an NRA member) some of the claims about Obama are exagerated or taken out of context, I don't feel that he is particularly "friendly" toward that side of things either. I realize that it is virtually impossible to differentiate truth from falsehood now, but I heard from a news source ( still possibly not true) that he has stated something to the effect that "you shouldn't need 20 shots when hunting"...which implies that there might be a return to the high-cap bans in the future. Need for hunting is not the point. The fact is that is an aspect of the shooting hobby I enjoy, and I don't want to see that restricted. Anyhow, high-caps were widely availible during the last ban ( grandfathered in ), just more expensive to obtain.

**CorporateLogo**

Yep, the one that all the paranoid conservatives are pulling out of their collective rears.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:Talk is cheap. Obama's actions are a different thing entirely.

Further, we're assuming he has any desire to control the wackjobs in his party.

Of course he does. Every elected official wants to control the wack-jobs. How many Federal pushes to ban gay-marriage have there been in the last 8 years?

**Grignard**

CorporateLogo wrote:Yep, the one that all the paranoid conservatives are pulling out of their collective rears.

Can you not attempt to use more neutral tone and language?

**CorporateLogo**

Why bother if others won't?

**Ozymandias**

I think "Landslide" should be changed to "Massacre" just like in Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

I think Obama's gonna win by a slim margin. I'm not happy about it, but at least he's better than a Hillary presidency.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**Frazzled**

Why bother if others won't?

Thar be trolls off the port bow

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

But...isn't Fire the 2nd Best Weapon available to a Troll Hunter? With the Trolls own stupidity being the first?

Does this mean we get to flame Trolls?

(no, I'm not serious!)

**CorporateLogo**

I suppose I should be the one to apologize for getting incensed at the idea that I had to go goose-stepping to a fictional rally .

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

High Caps?

One assume that means High Capacity Magazines etc? As not only a Lefty Liberal, but a British Lefty Liberal, I must say I do agree. Why do you need 20 shots when hunting? Isn't that what the practice range is for?

Not trying to be inflammatory, just hoping for a little..don't want to say explanation (that suggests you are wrong) so I think I'll plump for *clarification* as that would hopefully suggest I'm looking to understand your point.

**Envy89**

i love dakka....

back on the off topic

most of the guns i own would be legal under obama (2 WWII bolt actions, a hunting shotgun, and hunting boltaction 30.06) the one i am worried about is my plinker (moded SKS). If he is elected, then i will buy the ones i want (a 6 shooter that used to belong to my father among some others) before he takes office so in case he dose wants to, they will be grandfathered in.

it would be nice to be able to legaly carry weapons for self defence as studies have show that this dose in fact lower crime rates.... but i am not like the guy in the cartoon (it still made me laugh though)

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Thing is, how does it lower Crime Rates? If it brings down overall muggings, rapes etc, at the cost of making those that do take place more violent, then I don't know what to make of it. One on hand, it's good that they happen less, but the same cannot be said if that those unfortunate enough to fall pray face a more violent happening.

**Frazzled**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:High Caps?

One assume that means High Capacity Magazines etc? As not only a Lefty Liberal, but a British Lefty Liberal, I must say I do agree. Why do you need 20 shots when hunting? Isn't that what the practice range is for?

Not trying to be inflammatory, just hoping for a little..don't want to say explanation (that suggests you are wrong) so I think I'll plump for *clarification* as that would hopefully suggest I'm looking to understand your point.

Because Hunting has almost nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Since you brought it up that was the last time federal legislation was attempted to extended-by Feinstein (D).

**Centurian99**

Frazzled wrote:
Centurian99 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Talk is cheap. Obama's actions are a different thing entirely.

Further, we're assuming he has any desire to control the wackjobs in his party.

Based on what he's done so far...I'd say that we have evidence that he does. He essentially killed all of the independent Democratic 527s.

He did? Not from all the ads I saw. Hasn't been able to control Frank, Schumer et al.

They're part of the DCCC, DSCC, and DNC, so they don't count. Just like I don't count ads by the RNC, NRCC, and NRSC.

What I'm talking about are the independent 527 organizations that raise money and operate on their own - groups like Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth in 2004 or its Democratic counterpart (which was woefully underfunded). A bunch of similar groups were set up by various Democratic activists in preparation for 2008. Once Obama won the nomination, he essentially killed all of the Democratic 527s by cutting off their funding. Unless you're really paying attention to the mechanics of the Game, you never even heard about the Democratic 527s this year...because the Obama campaign strangled them in the cradle.

What we're really looking at in an Obama administration (and the part that really gives me hope) is that for once, we'll have an administration that can tell the special interests to go screw themselves.

**Envy89**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:High Caps?

One assume that means High Capacity Magazines etc? As not only a Lefty Liberal, but a British Lefty Liberal, I must say I do agree. Why do you need 20 shots when hunting? Isn't that what the practice range is for?

Not trying to be inflammatory, just hoping for a little..don't want to say explanation (that suggests you are wrong) so I think I'll plump for *clarification* as that would hopefully suggest I'm looking to understand your point.

there is no use for high caps when hunting, this is true. but they are very nice to have when plinking at the range.... reloading a few 5 round mags every few mins gets to be on the annoying side of things.

but i can see the oppositions side hear as well... they also make it easier for spray and pray violent crime.

but then agian, just making something illegal has never stoped those intent on doing harm form getting said illegal item.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

True, but it does lower the chances of someone doing so in the heat of the moment, thus it can be seen as prevenative.

And if High-Capacity Magazines are freely available, it becomes easier for the criminally inclined to get one. Preventing their sale, whilst not necessarily preventing supply, will I'd imagine make it harder for 'newer' Criminals to obtain.

**Mannahnin**

Frazzled wrote:
Centurian99 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Talk is cheap. Obama's actions are a different thing entirely.

Further, we're assuming he has any desire to control the wackjobs in his party.

Based on what he's done so far...I'd say that we have evidence that he does. He essentially killed all of the independent Democratic 527s.

He did? Not from all the ads I saw. Hasn't been able to control Frank, Schumer et al.

Sorry, you're moving the goalposts again.

You said talk is cheap. By that standard, you need to judge him by his legislative record. Most of the NRA's fears are based on one or two speeches he gave very early in his political career. Not on his actual legislative history.

As for controlling other members of his party, exactly how much control do you expect him to have? Does Bush have control over everything every Republican Senator says? He's been the leader of his party for more than eight years, and he doesn't have that level of control. And as noted, the Rebublicans tend to be more tightly-organized and less factionalized.

**Kilkrazy**

I think even if Obama wants to restrict high-capacity magazines he will have a lot more urgent issues to deal with such as Afghanistan, Iraq, the financial crisis and so on, before he can get down to that wort of social tinkering.

**Frazzled**

And again you're moving the goal posts. The original question:

Does anyone expect Obama to take a State's rights type of position? By that I mean simply allowing the states to legislate such things and avoiding promoting federal involvement?

I posited NO. We have no evidence that he would be a state's right's advocate. Indeed his party is not a state's rights party. He has voted and acted in accord with the tenants of that party to date.

As to the NRA argument. They have a long laundry list of complaints, most based on actual votes (I know I know, Obama actually taking a position and not just voting 'present' was a surprise to me too).

**warpcrafter**

Wow, I guess I better reconsider that whole drunk and naked thing with all these gun nuts and incensed anti-gun nuts out there.