"I'm not willing to help the left whittle more of my 2nd amendment rights away by putting someone who" ignores the Constitution "in charge of the agencies responsible for implementing laws written by Congress."
Since you won't answer my question, I'll take a stab at yours...
First, a liberal President will continue to erode RKBA through various means. It might be more illiterate judges that can't read "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and instead rule that it is a "collective right."
Second, a liberal President will have to pander to his base, a la the Brady Center and PETA. AWB, is nothing like what they could dream up.
Third, the agencies implementing law (ATF in this case) can effectively strangle buyers and licensed dealers with red tape (especially if they have packed courts to fall back on). A simple rule change here, a different interpretation there, and you get an entire legal industry ground to a halt. The President is in charge of these agencies.
The gun banners tried Congress, and they had success for a while. The NRA has been the most effective organization at turning that tide but there is still a ways to go - those bills should never even make it to the President's desk.
Now they are working at the judicial level and having mixed results. Maybe you should ask the President's opinion on protecting the firearms industry from frivilous lawsuits because with or without AWB, it will be tough to buy a firearm from a bankrupt company.
Remaining are the implementing agencies. The CDC has historically been infested with gun banners. Only recently have they ever so reluctantly begun to see the light of day. There are other agencies out there that can make life a headache outside the light of the press that you either don't know about or don't want to acknowledge.
Is that better? Now please tell me how many steps backwards you are willing to take since you might not get your way on on battle in a larger war?