In the comments to my post, regular reader Adam says:
I think that TAE's argument was that Obama would not stop the movement and would just let it happen, sign the bill, and be fine with it.
Basically yes, what I am concerned with is that Obama will act as a willing bystander, maybe not signing the legislation, but instead just letting it sit on his desk sans veto, thereby letting it ratify anyway. This would be the politically neutral way for him to allow enhanced gun control without actually endorsing it.
TPI rebuts (also in the comments):
If you're worried about mass gun confiscation, don't--there's no way it will happen.
I don't think most politically informed conservatives are actually concerned with gun confiscation in the near future, 2nd Amendment intepretation lately have been very pro-gun and pro-ownership. But I believe the concern from people in the know is that the Democratic party (possibly, though doubtfully minus the Blue Dogs) is attempting to circumvent the 2nd Amendment by going after ammo instead of guns. Already (within the first 75 days of Obama Administration) the DOD tried to end the decades-long practice of selling spent cases to private ammo manufacturers, which would have put a stranglehold on, or bankrupted, many ammo manufacturers nationwide. Although I am against banning ammo, I can't help but smile at the cleverness of the tact.
However, if the first amendment is the right to free speech and free press, heavy restrictions on, or outright bans of ammunition seems to me like telling journalists to write whatever they want...but pens and laptops are hereby illegal.