How? Senate approves SCOTUS appts. Got anything else?
You saw Obama's executive orders on guns: TOOTHLESS.

Agreed. Damage can come from either candidate. One side has promised to do all that she can to bring the fight against the current rights that we enjoy under the 2A.
The other side is our wild card. That is all.

It's silly to talk about the limited ability of the POTUS. As limited as it is, real damage can be done.

I agree.



You're still saying she (or any other president) has the ability to do lasting damage, and you haven't answered "how"...

Obamacare. Rammed up our asses whether we liked it or not - determined Presidents can fuck things up just fine.

" If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan - with minor adjustments to coverage, deductibles, and fucking astronomical rate increases. "

This is the first day that I have joined this chat here; I wasn't asked "how." And now that I am being asked, I first cock my head sideways a little bit and look at you with a bit o' confusion.
"Really?" Ok, I'll answer a silly question as straightforwardly as I can, now that I have indicated how obtuse that question makes you seem to me. No offense intended... It just seems like you will ignore the simple and effective explanations to help you keep your narrative plugging along.

How can an anti-2A POTUS do deep and lasting damage to 2A?
A few ways... The one that anyone in a prominent position can do is by bloviating on the evils of guns... Obama did this at every opportunity when taking advantage of a large enough shooting by saying clearly that each shooting justified and even necessitated passing more gun laws. Many people are followers, sadly, and they adopt the titular or symbolic head of their chosen political party lock stock and barrel.
People who are not familiar with firearms in real life are susceptible to "feel good" solutions that do not do a damned thing to make the place any safer, for example, I-594.

Another way has already been discussed ad nauseum. The POTUS makes nominations, to the SCOTUS. You can bet that every nomination that she would put forward would be anti-2A (at least by my definition.)
There are enough anti-2A Republicans that she may not even need a majority in the house and senate to slither more slices off the tattered remnants of the 2A. Some wiggly worms that do nominally support 2A causes may trade a vote here or there for something that is deemed more important at that moment...
More bills passed, some seemingly for other purposes (1491-ish) and a 5-4 majority in SCOTUS and good night 2A as we know it.

I fully expect that if the blatant criminal is elected a week and a day from now that we'll see some serious bloodshed in the first 4 years of that Criminal Enterprise dipping the muzzle into the feedbag.
How serious, I cannot guess... But there will be a LOT more people labeled as "Nutters" by the MSM and Mr Kf7 ( et al ) at trials and funerals...
(No, I'm not equating our Kf7 to MSM... Just pointing out how I believe that good men will be labeled as "Nutters".)

I think we have a differing view of what constitutes good men, but that is a discussion to have elsewhere. Some are content to apply that label to anyone wrapped in a flag and mouthing certain words. I am not.

I know what you mean, and even agree with you to a point.
It seems to me that you go straight to describing as a "nutter" anyone who believes that their situation has gone beyond the "sit down and talk about it" stage.

As an example, the revolutionaries back in the 1770's were VERY "nutter" (I like the word... hahah)

They took up arms against an oppressive government. Not just any old government, but the strongest one in the world at the time I think.

I don't know the current batch of nutters... Only what I have heard about and read about. For the most part, they seem like people who risked a great deal to raise awareness of and combat some injustice. They put their lives on the line to protest what they see as growing tyranny.

Every person has good things and bad things about their character... and even good and bad days. Sometimes a person's character leads them into a one-way street on which there is no path to turn around for awhile too.

Again- I see what you mean, and agree to a point. I dislike judging fellow men based on media reports.

Comparisons to the Founders are often inaccurate and forget that those men were some of the elite of their day and the Revolution involved complex international politics. Cliven Bundys these men were not.

Plenty of talking heads on the news. Everyone has an opinion.



You know the senate approves the nominees right? If you don't believe they can hold their breath, look at what they are doing right now.
Obama's nominee is still on the bench.

I knew before posting what your reply would be...
You're too predictable sir.
You should mix it up a little bit now and then just to make sure everyone is awake.

Yes, there is some discussion about making the SCOTUS an 8 person court if The Crime Family nabs another 4-8 years of pillaging. That by itself is serious damage to the USA and to the 2A.

So... are you saying that refusing to approve an anti-2A nominee seems like a "workable plan" by your way of thinking? Because that is what it LOOKS like you are saying...
"You know the senate approves the nominees right? If you don't believe they can hold their breath, look at what they are doing right now.
Obama's nominee is still on the bench."

Sounds like you're saying that of the two options, keeping SCOTUS at 8 seats is the pro-2A option.

Oh, I believe that Obama has had a BIG negative impact on our 2A rights! It's not just about getting legislation through Congress, at which he has failed, but also:

- Speaking publicly at every opportunity about the evils of guns. Obama is a generally popular president and people listen to him; when he gets behind the mike and tells the country that we need to ban these weapons of war, etc. then there are millions of people who listen to him and believe him.

- Supporting and aiding in the passing of state legislation. Look at the laws that were passed in Connecticut and New York after Sandy Hook; the passage of those awful laws was made easier by Obama's wailing and carrying on at the podium.

- Executive orders and the actions of his administration that have made firearm ownership incrementally more difficult. Look at 41F which made it more difficult to get NFA items, the ban on 7N6 5.45x39 ammo, and the almost-ban on M855 5.56 ammo. Yes, those things did not come directly from Obama's hand, but they would not have happened with a gun-friendly president in the White House.

So yes, I believe that the president can have a huge influence on gun rights even if he/she does not control Congress.

Oh . . . and Obama also put Sotomayor and Kagan on the Supreme Court.

You think he's been harmless to the 2A? NO WAY IN HELL.

You mean like the time when he unilaterally postponed certain implementation dates regarding the ACA that were written into a law passed by congress?

Yeah man, the POTUS is a pretty powerless mofo. Unilaterally altering bills congress passed and he signed into law and shit.

41F was already in progress, he just tried to take credit for it.

The ammo bans were already in progress too, IIRC.

I'm still not convinced 41F is bad, unless you have the coin to buy NFA items on a regular basis, then it becomes irritating. For Joe Average, it may make the process easier, especially when dealing with the maze of predatory gun trust peddlers who profit off ignorance.

For better or worse, 7n6 probably does meet the qualification of armor piercing as exists in current law, bound to happen sooner or later. M855 ban attempt was fucking stupid, as it had already been exempted but that got soundly stomped as it should.

None of which can even hold a candle to Papa Bush and his EO's banning various imports.

I think in the grand scheme of things Obama was fairly benign in what actually got done. We can thank Congress being too unwilling after Sandy Hook to pass an AWB, and that required true bipartisanship (which is to say, everyone remembered what happened in 1993...)

To me, in my lifetime the greatest anti gun presidents were Bush I and Clinton, and Clinton's greatest fuckery came with the consent of Congress.