HELP me decide on a AWB purchase!!!

[RonaldReagan]

I believe that Obama will reinstitute the AWB when he first gets in office. Why would he not get his controversial legislation out when the whole world still has their love affair with him. With that said, I have about a 600 dollar budget for a new firearm. I currently own a Sig P239, however I've been toying with the idea of getting a glock 26/27. I think both glocks (and their magazines) will be banned.

BUT....I also am eyeing an AK47 for $480 for SHTF scenarios.... So what do u think the better purchase is? What is more likely to appreciate post ban? I'm thinking about the 26 (or going to the .45acp glock) for postban ammo availability, however I do not really NEED another pistol (or a rifle for that matter).
Thanks guys.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Kerbouchard]

Everybody should have an AK. And as far as bans go, the AK and the AR-15 are going to be on the list way before Glock, so an AK is probably a better investment.

Don't forget to stock up on ammo, because I think ammo is going to be on the chopping block before either the AK or the Glock.

[Paco]

Don't forget to stock up on ammo

Don't forget your extra mags too, they will certainly be banned since they hold "more ammo than any reasonable person would need."

[archer51]

Not sure I understand the rational of thinking Glock's will be targeted of a ban. I also think he has much higher priority's than gun bans when he takes office (at least he better have).

[hogdaddy]

[QUOTE archer Not sure I understand the rational of thinking Glock's will be targeted of a ban. I also think he has much higher priority's than gun bans when he takes office (at least he better have)
+1 on priority's

[RonaldReagan]

Not sure I understand the rational of thinking Glock's will be targeted of a ban. I also think he has much higher priority's than gun bans when he takes office (at least he better have).

My rational is simply because they are "high-capacity". Any why would a "normal" person need a "high capacity" weapon?

As for Obama's priorities, its not like Obama will be writing the bill. he'll just sign off on whatever the liberal congress puts on his desk, and I do think this will be sooner, rather than later just b/c in this political climate "he can do whatever he likes...". (youtube obama whatever i like, lol)

[BamaSteve]

I think the attacks on the gun community will be lower than expected, at least in the first two years. I don't see him taking that big of a chance at losing congress in two. I may be wrong, but that is just what I'm thinking. I would fear the last two years of this presidency, and then really fear things if he gets reelected.

[bbqgrill]

I think the attacks on the gun community will be lower than expected, at least in the first two years. I don't see him taking that big of a chance at losing congress in two. I may be wrong, but that is just what I'm thinking. I would fear the last two years of this presidency, and then really fear things if he gets reelected.

I agree, but I think it will be more due to the fact that international issues will be far more pressing.

[RonaldReagan]

I agree, but I think it will be more due to the fact that international issues will be far more pressing.

You guys realize that all he has to do is sign his name, right? Antigun congressmen will do all the drafting.

[BamaSteve]

You guys realize that all he has to do is sign his name, right? Antigun congressmen will do all the drafting.

It's not really about the time it takes to get it, there isn't much to it. It's the ramifications against him for coming out too hard about certain things.

[Guns and more]

It's not really about the time it takes to get it, there isn't much to it. It's the ramifications against him for coming out too hard about certain things.

Really? Here's the spin. "Today I signed legislation that will take dangerous assault weapons off the streets of America. Our children will again be able to go outside and play without fear of being shot down.
I support the right to own firearms, but no one needs a military style weapon capable of firing 30 armor piercing projectiles in mere seconds.
Legitimate sportsmen have nothing to fear, this only affects dangerous assault type weapons." Then behind the scenes, assault weapons are defined as any firearm that has a detachable magazine and can be fired by repeated pulling of the trigger. The press will eat it up. His picture will be on Time's cover again!

[BamaSteve]

Really? Here's the spin. "Today I signed legislation that will take dangerous assault weapons off the streets of America. Our children will again be able to go outside and play without fear of being shot down.
I support the right to own firearms, but no one needs a military style weapon capable of firing 30 armor piercing projectiles in mere seconds.
Legitimate sportsmen have nothing to fear, this only affects dangerous assault type weapons." Then behind the scenes, assault weapons are defined as any firearm that has a detachable magazine and can be fired by repeated pulling of the trigger. The press will eat it up. His picture will be on Time's cover again!

OH, there will never be backlash from the media, I hope you aren't counting on that for anything, no matter what the issue is. I suppose I'm not talking so much about the assault weapons ban, but other laws that he might try to pass. The awb might be a little easier to push, other bills not so much.

[Sticks]

...Today I signed legislation that will take dangerous assault weapons off the streets of America. Our children will again be able to go outside and play without fear of being shot down....

It frightened me that I heard his voice in my head as I read that, and I did my very best to avoid all the political hoopla (thank the gods for DVR).

[Glock30SF]

Saiga 12 Don't forget 10 round mags too.

[BigPoppaW]

There has to be some way to force the libs to answer the question at the heart of the AWB, specifically, did the original ban cause a reduction in gun crime, hell, in crime at all? If the answer is, "no," (and we all know it is) then that should be the end of the argument. Right?