Debate: Two Candidates for Assault Weapons Ban

bigfutz

Well-Known Fanatic
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
1,596
Location
I-385 South of I-85
Maybe I was hearing voices last night during the Prez debate #2, but I felt like I was listening to two candidates in favor of some version of an assault weapons ban. Rom said machine guns are already "illegal." I wonder how he will react when he finds out they are not? At least he threw the fast-n-furious mud.
 
Register to hide this ad
Look at where these two candidates come from. Illinois and Massachusetts. Neither states are friendly to gun owners. In fact the brady center gives MA a higher approval rating than Illinois. That right there is enough to make me not like Romney. I don't know how big of a role if any each candidate had in the creation of their states gun laws but they didn't do much to change it either. I think the key is maintaining control of the house and gaining the senate. The president is pretty powerless in making laws unless he gets control of congress. Or he wants to issue an executive order which is another issue all together.

In the end I think there will be very little changes to our gun laws no matter who gets elected president. So I'm sticking with Romney for economical reasons.

But until then I have a stock "assault" rifle with 5 high capacity "assault" magazines I will sell at my pre-election price of $3000. GET THEM WHILE YOU CAN!!! ;)
 
It just scared me that it seemed like neither one of them knew what an "assault weapon" is
 
Ok, so I've heard several times about Mitten's assault weapons ban in MA. Now I don't recall much about it, and really don't concern myself with what happens in MA. Still, I'm the curious sort, so I let my google-fu loose.

Just a couple weeks ago, the NRA had a big shindig in VA and put their support behind Romney and have been pushing this "all in" campaign for a while now. Something doesn't seem right? I know the NRA has a history of selling out gun owners and has pretty much thrown in the towel here is SC, but it's still hard to believe that they would support an AWB guy. Or is it?

I found this, and it seems that either his MA AWB isn't named accurately causing it to be mischaracterized, or the NRA is fibbing.

http://www.nrapublications.org/index.ph ... column-29/
 
Joker said:
It just scared me that it seemed like neither one of them knew what an "assault weapon" is


He'll it scared me that neither one really said ....NO , guns don't kill ...People kill. And most important .... The effin second amendment protects the people's right to keep and bear arms and I cannot and will not try to take that away!


At the end of the day if they try to come and get mine I WILL be on the news, and I feel sorry for the person and the family of the person that tries because they may not be going home that night. I am a firm believer that our forefathers would be in the streets shooting by now.
 
Rosea Carpa said:
At the end of the day if they try to come and get mine I WILL be on the news, and I feel sorry for the person and the family of the person that tries because they may not be going home that night. I am a firm believer that our forefathers would be in the streets shooting by now.

This might take this thread way off into left field but what the hay...

A magazine I subscribe to called American Cop recently had an article (seen here, http://www.americancopmagazine.com/will-you-do-it/) asking officers if they were told to take guns from law abiding citizens if they would follow that order. Most of the officers who commented online as well as the printed responses in the magazine say no way. There were a few that said yes but you can tell that they are the ego driven maniacs that give most officers a bad name. Check it out and see what you think.

If you were curious I wouldn't take anything from you I wouldn't be willing to give up myself. I'd hate to be unemployed but I couldn't follow an order I believe to be unjust.
There are reasons I don't travel to California, Illinois and most of the north east.
 
I truly hope that holds true for most if not all and that the officers have the foresight to see the laws coming. I have friends and family that are Summerville, Charleston county,Dorchester county,and D.N.R. I would HATE to have one of them or one of their friends at the business end of ANY of my weapons.

Because unlike one of those guys said, one of those people I know is a firearms instructor and I know for a fact that I put more rounds down range than he does. He shoots as part of his job I shoot and train because I want to.
 
Here's some good info on Mittens and the Mass AWB: http://www.pagunblog.com/2012/10/17/the ... hat-wasnt/
GOAL is the "Grass Roots" of Mass (talk about being "behind enemy lines!"). They supported the AWB bill that Romney signed. The signing statement -- widely publicized -- attached to that bill was very anti-gun, but the substance of the law was about as pro gun as one can get in Mass. The only reason that subjects who reside in Massachusetts can purchase and possess "featureless" ARs or M1As or Mini-14s today is because of the law signed by Gov Romney (http://www.goal.org/masslawpages/awfacts.html). Yeah, the situation there is bad, but it could be much worse.

I'm actually fairly happy that the POTUS came out very clearly in favor of an AWB. It may remind the Fudds and the politically apathetic shooters about the nature of the choices put before them. Gov Romney isn't perfect but at least he may be hiring advisors and appointing officials and nominating judges who are more likely to be friendly to the 2A as opposed to folks who are openly hostile to the 2A.

Both displayed ignorance on the issue at the debate, but Gov Romney's line about full autos is closer to truth -- let's face it, in the post Hughes Amendment and NFA world we live in, full autos might as well be banned for the majority of people based on price alone. I like how POTUS admitted that most of the thugs in his hometown of Chicago don't use so called "assault weapons" but OMG AK-47s!
 
guys i dont get out much. last i heard was that ARs were not called assault weapons anymore. was it a dream?
 
I didn't notice this post at first and created another, but re-posted part of it here. Everyone is focused on what they said about "assault weapons", and while that is bad enough, something even worse caught my attention more.

IMO Obama intimated he would pursue some type of additional handgun control if not outright ban. Read the Obama quote below carefully. He links handguns to "assault weapons" as other sources of violence and each seems to be part of his future plan for a "broader" conversation about reducing violence.

"What I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap handguns."

As stated earlier, Romney isn't perfect, but clearly Obama's goal is to completely gut the 2nd Ammendment. He tipped his hand. I sincerely hope everyone was paying attention.
 
This is not surprising! I mean Obammer has always had a anti gun stance and come his second term we will really get to see what his plans are. Hopefully MTV will stay out of the election and not make Obama the cool choice for all of the MTV kids.
 
Yeah I mean what does the M even stand for anymore? And it only takes 5minutes of Jersey whores to make you say we are fracked! If this is what passes as entertainment for today's kids we are up doo doo creek and the guy with the paddle just said oops.
 
Back
Top