After the dust settled from the presidential debates, and the whirlwind of the presidential race is finally at its peak, President Barack Obama’s plans for the future of America seemed to be much the same in regard to the methods and pace for economic recovery and equality he has pushed the past four years. Well, the same except for one thing: He alluded to supporting the possibility of gun regulation.

Since that time, many a gun enthusiast and even casual folks concerned with protecting their family have popped to life, fearing the elimination of their firearm-owning capabilities. Much like when Obama was about to take office in 2008, gun sales seem to be surging; whether this is caused primarily by Obama’s presidential bids remains uncertain.

Obama does not have a history of limiting guns of the legal variety. Sure, fully-automatic guns are a no-no, but nearly every politician out there backs that. Obama’s administration has received the grade of “F” from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. His policies so far have been to strengthen existing gun laws to protect those of us that respect and enjoy guns. He has expressed the desire to eliminate 19-round magazines for semi-automatics and the like, if you can call that an anti-gun stance. In a 2007 interview on Radio Iowa, he said: “If you need 19 rounds to shoot a deer, you probably shouldn’t be hunting.” I would have to agree.

From what he said in the past, compared to what he has done throughout the years, Obama’s gun stance appears to be one of personal dislike for many a gun, but with no real action against them. And yet, folks are freaking out about the prospect of Obama returning to office because he is “anti-gun.”

Some of Obama’s official stances toward guns, both positive and negative, include cosponsoring a bill limiting gun purchases to one per month, being against conceal-carry for untrained citizens, signing law to allow visitors to wildlife reserves or national parks to carry guns, voting “no” to prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers and not enacting any moves to close the so-called “gun-show loophole.” He has supported the Second Amendment time and again in his speeches but, in 2008, did say states and cities are allowed to determine their own local gun laws.

The assault weapons comment was most likely just to appear sympathetic to some of the far left tinfoil hatters that fear all things firearm; I mean, they have donated millions to getting him back into office, so a little lip-service is Politics 101. Based on the heap of work and plans Obama already has on his plate should he retain control of the White House, making a move to reinstate an assault weapons ban is not likely to be at the top of the heap. And besides, Mitt Romney is just as likely to sign such a ban as Obama, given he instated an assault weapons ban while governor of Massachusetts.

But that isn’t even the issue for many folks that look to the Second Amendment as their primary platform issue. There are many movements painting the president as anti gun; which is of particular comedy given Romney’s same likelihood to be anti-gun given speculation based on past actions.

But, if historical examination is to be the means of deciding the issue — say, Obama as a state legislator in 1999 — anti-gun might be an accurate portrait. Obama had proposed banning gun stores from being located within 5 miles of schools or parks, which would pretty much push gun stores to the outskirts of most towns. His other endorsements and votes over the next few years showed that he is not likely to apply for membership to the NRA. But none of that says he is going to try and take away our guns.

Like many liberals, he does not like guns. A lot of liberals think guns are the cause of violence, rather than focusing on the derangement of the individual and how if someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, there will always be back-alley means to acquire one so long as criminals exist.

I have many friends and a fair bit of family that are liberal through and through — I still do not understand why, but that is a whole other bag. Some of them even vote Democrat Party ticket without much consideration. And many of them own guns and enjoy hunting or shooting for sport. Not a one of them is worried about Obama taking away their guns. In fact, I have yet to meet a Democrat gun enthusiast who has any worry about Obama limiting guns in any way. And there are a lot of Democrat gun enthusiasts I know throughout Iowa; we small-town upbringing folks like our guns.

So why are so many professed Republicans frightened for their guns?

Obama will no more be able to eliminate conceal-carry than Mitt Romney would be able to repeal Obamacare should he take office. It is not an action the president can achieve all by his lonesome, and there are a lot of representatives who would fight any wild restrictions.

Handguns, rifles and the rest of legal firearms are highly unlikely to be touched when it comes to a second term for Obama. He might not personally care for guns, but he has not demonstrated actions to make fears of firearm restriction something to define like or dislike of him.

The election is under way, and the results could go either way come the close if you believe all the media hype from polls. I am already calling it in favor of an Obama win based on my following of this whole presidential fiasco.

But rest assured, our guns are not going anywhere, and our ability to purchase guns is unlikely to suffer any serious limitations. What is likely is the continued enforcement of standing gun precautions to keep firearms out of the hands of those that do not understand and respect their weapons. I feel safe in my future of enjoying guns. I recommend the rest of you out there relax and worry more about what Obama is going to do in regard to his wife’s plans to make us all eat healthily whether we want to or not.