PDA

View Full Version : Obama supports renewing Assault Weapons Ban--8/6/12


supermanuf
08-07-2012, 6:59 AM
At a press briefing on Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked if President Obama supports renewing the assault weapons ban. Carney responded, “He does. And I’ve said that before from the podium in the last week, that he does support renewing the assault weapons ban.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/06/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-862012

Mesa Tactical
08-07-2012, 7:03 AM
AR-15 manufacturers all over the country are rubbing their hands together in greedy anticipation.

jwkincal
08-07-2012, 7:09 AM
But... He's never done anything to indicate that he's anti-gun! I know because all my Democrat friends have told me so!

In any case, it is totally moot to us in CA. The Fed AWB (assuming they restore the original text) is less restrictive than CA's so we wouldn't be affected. We'd still be unable to go out and buy the rifles they'd be selling in AZ.

You know who'll really bank if it starts to actually move forward... magazine manufacturers.

Interfan
08-07-2012, 7:14 AM
Awesome. My box of $59 stripped lowers are going to be a box of $599 stripped lowers - maybe I can retire on that since my 401K, real estate, and treasury bonds have benefited so much from Barry's leadership. I'm sure if I sell them, I have to pay a massive tax on the capital gains.

I thought he said he was against bans? I guess this is what he means by "under the radar" because no one listens to Jay Carney. I guess he said he was born in Hawaii, too.:kest:

There's a chorus of Obama-nations on this site that get a big ****ing "i told you so" and hopefully a punch in the nuts from someone who actually knows them.

jbl_1967
08-07-2012, 7:15 AM
Good luck getting that one passed. The data is against a ban actually working, and there are too many in Congress that support the Second Amendment. Probably why Obama isn't even bothering to make noise about it despite the media slant against "assault weapons" and misguided public opinion that "assault weapons" are "high powered" and "more dangerous" than other firearms.

We should be more concerned about educating our friends and neighbors about firearms and shedding some light on the myths they are constantly bombarded with.

I read in another post a few weeks ago that we should setup a "Take a Friend to the Range Month" to increase the number of people who both shoot and understand why our current laws are so damned stupid.

Curley Red
08-07-2012, 7:25 AM
But... He's never done anything to indicate that he's anti-gun! I know because all my Democrat friends have told me so!


People can assume all you want, but in the last 3.5 years he has done nothing to hurt our gun rights, they have actually been eased a bit under his presidency. Unlike Bush Sr. who did sign the "assault" weapon ban. People need to stop worrying about the left and be a bit more concerned with the right as well, which has signed a lot of anti-gun bills, especially here in California. So keep running around in a panic and buying all the ammo you can get your hands on like you all did when Obama got elected. And how did that work out for you? Your wallets were lighter and you now have more guns and/or ammo. Just another ploy by the right to scare everyone into buying more ammo and guns in my opinion.

jwkincal
08-07-2012, 7:31 AM
I like ammo :)

lawaia
08-07-2012, 7:32 AM
People can assume all you want, but in the last 3.5 years he has done nothing to hurt our gun rights, they have actually been eased a bit under his presidency. Unlike Bush Sr. who did sign the "assault" weapon ban. People need to stop worrying about the left and be a bit more concerned with the right as well, which has signed a lot of anti-gun bills, especially here in California. So keep running around in a panic and buying all the ammo you can get your hands on like you all did when Obama got elected. And how did that work out for you? Your wallets were lighter and you now have more guns and/or ammo. Just another ploy by the right to scare everyone into buying more ammo and guns in my opinion.

That's one h*ll of a ploy by the right, that they convinced the President's own Press Secretary to say publicly that the President supports a renewed ban.:rolleyes:

RRangel
08-07-2012, 7:34 AM
I watched the press release. The spokesman didn't say anything we haven't heard already. In fact, I would say, that it didn't appear that he enjoyed the topic being brought up. This is the Heller and McDonald age after all.

SilverTauron
08-07-2012, 7:35 AM
We already knew this;Obama said as much back in 2008 and before. As much as he'd like another AWB, the man's not dumb enough to think its got a snowballs chance in hades of passing today.

The *original* AWB was offered in a day and age where more Americans supported gun control, and even then Clinton had to wheel and deal like a madman to get it passed in a Democrat controlled legislature. The reward to the Democrats afterward was losing the legislature.

donw
08-07-2012, 7:35 AM
never say never...

how many times do you recall hearing: "Oh, that will NEVER happen here..." only to wake up the next day and see that it HAS happened.

how many thought that SCOTUS would throw out the "Obamacare" law? it's now law of the land...

as the ole favorite sayings go: "It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings" or "It ain't over 'till the last dog is dead"...

right now, there's a huge wave of anti-gun, especially, "Assault weapons" sentiment growing in legslatures...and who can blame them with all the, sensless, mass killings that are occuring, nearly, daily? what we have to do is convince them that RESPONSIBLE, LAW ABIDING, FIREARMS OWNERS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE AND SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED for what a FEW deranged people do.

tenpercentfirearms
08-07-2012, 7:38 AM
George Bush said the same exact thing. Then George Bush did nothing when Congress wouldn't send it to his desk. Obama will be just like Bush in this aspect.

But it helps sell guns.

hornswaggled
08-07-2012, 7:39 AM
That was the most ineffective law ever, both for stopping violence and for restricting guns.

Sutcliffe
08-07-2012, 7:45 AM
AR-15 manufacturers all over the country are rubbing their hands together in greedy anticipation.


Damn, damn, damn.....

Wiz-of-Awd
08-07-2012, 7:46 AM
I like ammo :)

And I just enjoy having assorted piles of it - here, and there...

A.W.D.

vantec08
08-07-2012, 8:07 AM
People can assume all you want, but in the last 3.5 years he has done nothing to hurt our gun rights, they have actually been eased a bit under his presidency. Unlike Bush Sr. who did sign the "assault" weapon ban. People need to stop worrying about the left and be a bit more concerned with the right as well, which has signed a lot of anti-gun bills, especially here in California. So keep running around in a panic and buying all the ammo you can get your hands on like you all did when Obama got elected. And how did that work out for you? Your wallets were lighter and you now have more guns and/or ammo. Just another ploy by the right to scare everyone into buying more ammo and guns in my opinion.

I am not "assuming" that obammy created a strawbuyer/ship to mexico scheme in which the ATF agents inside mexico, and the mexican authorities, were given no warning of -- with no GPS or other means of tracking, then stonewalled any attempt by Congress to get to the heart of the matter (up to and including refusal to provide documents in which agents identities could be redacted, etc.). That is FACT. Deal with it.

Full Clip
08-07-2012, 8:33 AM
People can assume all you want, but in the last 3.5 years he has done nothing to hurt our gun rights...

Oh, really?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Elena_Kagan_official_SCOTUS_portrait.jpg/220px-Elena_Kagan_official_SCOTUS_portrait.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Sonia_Sotomayor_in_SCOTUS_robe.jpg/220px-Sonia_Sotomayor_in_SCOTUS_robe.jpg

Curley Red
08-07-2012, 8:33 AM
I am not "assuming" that obammy created a strawbuyer/ship to mexico scheme in which the ATF agents inside mexico, and the mexican authorities, were given no warning of -- with no GPS or other means of tracking, then stonewalled any attempt by Congress to get to the heart of the matter (up to and including refusal to provide documents in which agents identities could be redacted, etc.). That is FACT. Deal with it.

No that is not a fact, there is no evidence to show that Obama was involved. Until there is proof you can not claim it to be a fact. Or is there evidence that you have that no one else has seen. If you are going to claim something as fact, show proof.

I'll deal with it when facts are provided, until then it is an assumption.

mag360
08-07-2012, 8:45 AM
Curley is still apologizing for obama. What will it take for you to admit romney will be better for gun rights?

CBruce
08-07-2012, 8:48 AM
At a press briefing on Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked if President Obama supports renewing the assault weapons ban. Carney responded, “He does. And I’ve said that before from the podium in the last week, that he does support renewing the assault weapons ban.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/06/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-862012

Yeah? Big surprise. He supports it. Still haven't seen him push for legislation and not heard a peep out of congress, who would actually have to draft the bill and pass it before it would reach Obama's desk.

And seeing as how he can't get that batch of clowns to do the most boneheaded stupidly obvious things...I'm honestly not terribly worried about this being a real possiblity unless he's re-elected and the American people sweep the Repubs out of congress, giving a super-majority back to the Dems.

And even then, the Democrats will **** it up. I don't know how, but they'll find some way to **** it up.

Curley Red
08-07-2012, 8:55 AM
Oh, really?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Elena_Kagan_official_SCOTUS_portrait.jpg/220px-Elena_Kagan_official_SCOTUS_portrait.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Sonia_Sotomayor_in_SCOTUS_robe.jpg/220px-Sonia_Sotomayor_in_SCOTUS_robe.jpg

What have they done to take away our gun rights? Nothing.

Curley Red
08-07-2012, 9:03 AM
Curley is still apologizing for obama. What will it take for you to admit romney will be better for gun rights?

Not apologizing for anyone. But Obama has not touched our gun rights. He has been the best president in regards to our gun rights in many years. You can't say that about the Bush can you?

You can show no proof or facts that Obama has signed any new laws in regards to guns, except that he gave us concealed carriers the right to carry in the national Parks.

Argue all you want, but you can not beat facts!

IVC
08-07-2012, 9:07 AM
What have they done to take away our gun rights? Nothing.

The bottom one claimed that Heller was a settled law during confirmation, then joined the dissent in McDonald.

The verdict is out on the upper one, as she hasn't yet had been a part to any 2A ruling.

Technically, you get a half-point on "nothing." The other half will most likely be taken away as soon as the first carry case reaches SCOTUS.

IVC
08-07-2012, 9:13 AM
But Obama has not touched our gun rights. He has been the best president in regards to our gun rights in many years.

That's like saying that the Pope is pro-choice because he hasn't touched abortion rights.

It would carry weight only if Obama actually had a realistic chance to do harm and chose not to do it. Otherwise, it's like folding because you hold a pair of twos.

You can't say that about the Bush can you?

When was the last time an argument "he did it too" absolved one of the responsibility? Bush did it. Obama would too. That's the point.

ap3572001
08-07-2012, 9:19 AM
This might be somewhat off topic...... While visiting different parts of the country, I ran into MANY gun owners who's entire gun interest is in a couple of short barrel revolves that they use with their CCW, a tunned 1911 and High Std 22 that they use for fun at the local range and maybe a 30-30 for a deer hunting season. There are a lot of American gun owners who are like that. I would say more than half. Many of them dont even know about AW ban.

lomalinda
08-07-2012, 9:43 AM
Gentlemen:

Putting in place two vehemently anti-gun Supreme Court justices is more than enough to qualify Obama for being an "actively anti-gun" president.

Doing a little bit of damage today versus doing a lot of damage tomorrow. He chose the latter course.

You're too dense or dishonest to acknowledge what he's been up to ought to, but it's a real phenomenon.

javalos
08-07-2012, 9:47 AM
Doesn't matter if BO supports renewing the federal AWB, this coming November I am hoping and pretty confident he will not be re-elected, good bye to that idiot.

njineermike
08-07-2012, 9:54 AM
Not apologizing for anyone. But Obama has not touched our gun rights. He has been the best president in regards to our gun rights in many years. You can't say that about the Bush can you?

You can show no proof or facts that Obama has signed any new laws in regards to guns, except that he gave us concealed carriers the right to carry in the national Parks.

Argue all you want, but you can not beat facts!

Keep in mind both of the justices Obama appointed are vocally anti 2A , and Sotomayor voted against McDonald. That is also a fact.

Curley Red
08-07-2012, 10:09 AM
Keep in mind both of the justices Obama appointed are vocally anti 2A , and Sotomayor voted against McDonald. That is also a fact.

They can yell all they want, but have they passed any anti-gun laws? NO


Roberts was a friend of the right and look what he did. You judge a person by what they have done, not what you might have heard them say.


Once again Obama = 0 anti gun bills. Previous republican presidents can not say that.

otalps
08-07-2012, 10:10 AM
Not apologizing for anyone. But Obama has not touched our gun rights. He has been the best president in regards to our gun rights in many years. You can't say that about the Bush can you?

You can show no proof or facts that Obama has signed any new laws in regards to guns, except that he gave us concealed carriers the right to carry in the national Parks.

Argue all you want, but you can not beat facts!

Bush gave us CCW in National Parks by executive order, obam gave us Traver, Sotomayor and Kagen.

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 10:12 AM
What have they done to take away our gun rights? Nothing.

Satomoyer did state that she felt the states should complete control over banning whatever they want to.

You can put your head back in the sand now.

njineermike
08-07-2012, 10:13 AM
They can yell all they want, but have they passed any anti-gun laws? NO


Roberts was a friend of the right and look what he did. You judge a person by what they have done, not what you might have heard them say.


Once again Obama = 0 anti gun bills. Previous republican presidents can not say that.

The President can't submit bills to Congress. I learned that in 5th grade.

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 10:18 AM
Not apologizing for anyone. But Obama has not touched our gun rights. He has been the best president in regards to our gun rights in many years. You can't say that about the Bush can you?

You can show no proof or facts that Obama has signed any new laws in regards to guns, except that he gave us concealed carriers the right to carry in the national Parks.

Argue all you want, but you can not beat facts!

More like he was forced to give us carry in parks when that was put in as a rider for the credit card bill of rights. He was not campaigning for carry in parks and he was forced into it.

IVC
08-07-2012, 10:19 AM
Roberts was a friend of the right and look what he did.

Put a limit on the commerce clause and called a tax a tax. No problems there.

lawaia
08-07-2012, 10:25 AM
Once again Obama = 0 anti gun bills. Previous republican presidents can not say that.

Don't forget that up until now, he has had political motivation for remaining quiet on the issue. Wait until (if) he is re-elected. Heard of the term "lame duck"? I can see a lot changing in his 2nd term, and not for the better.

PEBKAC
08-07-2012, 11:28 AM
What have they done to take away our gun rights? Nothing.
Yet. ;)

But neither appointed justice will do us any favors and are two guaranteed "no" votes in an 2A related case that can help us (or conversely, "yes" votes in harmful 2A cases).

Fast and Furious, his DoJ, his ATF, buck stops with him. Even if we accept that it wasn't intentionally done to hurt gun rights, it is true it unintentionally did harm them as his administration used the numbers created by that program to justify calls for restrictions (though that all got really quiet after the cat removed itself from the bag).

No matter how you look at it, he has harmed gun rights. Just not through legislation in any truly "immediate" way.

The man isn't that dumb.

I'm not trying to suggest that somehow if he gets elected a second term there will be some great legislative gun rights pogrom but to say he hasn't done any harm with regards to gun rights is simply untrue.

Interfan
08-07-2012, 12:20 PM
People can assume all you want, but in the last 3.5 years he has done nothing to hurt our gun rights, they have actually been eased a bit under his presidency. Unlike Bush Sr. who did sign the "assault" weapon ban. People need to stop worrying about the left and be a bit more concerned with the right as well, which has signed a lot of anti-gun bills, especially here in California. So keep running around in a panic and buying all the ammo you can get your hands on like you all did when Obama got elected. And how did that work out for you? Your wallets were lighter and you now have more guns and/or ammo. Just another ploy by the right to scare everyone into buying more ammo and guns in my opinion.

So "Blame Bush" huh? That is very consistent with Obama's playbook. Do you work for Obama's campaign?

Fate
08-07-2012, 12:20 PM
Put a limit on the commerce clause and called a tax a tax. No problems there.

Bingo!

Ubermcoupe
08-07-2012, 12:32 PM
And there it is...

jwkincal
08-07-2012, 12:33 PM
People can assume all you want, but in the last 3.5 years he has done nothing to hurt our gun rights, they have actually been eased a bit under his presidency. Unlike Bush Sr. who did sign the "assault" weapon ban. People need to stop worrying about the left and be a bit more concerned with the right as well, which has signed a lot of anti-gun bills, especially here in California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day.

Which one did Bush sign???

12voltguy
08-07-2012, 12:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban


Which one did Bush sign???

some don't let the facts get in the way:rolleyes:

m16
08-07-2012, 12:37 PM
Of course he supports it.

The man wants to totally disarm the citizens of this country.

Fast and furious was all about gun control, take a look at some of the anti-gun bills he backed while in IL.

Drivedabizness
08-07-2012, 12:47 PM
I like ammo :)

jw....it's Gimli son of Gloin (not Gloim). Just sayin' :cool2:

Bruceisontarget
08-07-2012, 12:53 PM
Another reason to stick a fork in him... Romney landslide is a com'in.

jwkincal
08-07-2012, 12:58 PM
jw....it's Gimli son of Gloin (not Gloim). Just sayin' :cool2:

What are you TALKING about? That's what it SAYS...

Thanks, bro... can't believe I missed that.

safewaysecurity
08-07-2012, 12:59 PM
Why does everyone forget that Obama prevented the imports thousands of M1s from South Korea?

Rightwinger
08-07-2012, 12:59 PM
The only reason why Prez. Oblowme hasn't done much in weapons ban is because he's wanting to get re-elected. He knows if he started banning guns / rifles he'd have no chance at a second term.. O but if this pinko Commi bastard gets re-elected with no worries of a Third term we better all hide our guns. Believe me, this Non-Amercian Commander in Thief wants ALL your GUNS!!!!

goodlookin1
08-07-2012, 1:30 PM
Put a limit on the commerce clause and called a tax a tax. No problems there.

Wish it was that simple. Yes to the limit on commerce clause, but he allowed you to be taxed for DOING AND BUYING NOTHING. That is a tax on "existing", "being" or simply "living".

I still wonder how much he was paid off to push that crap through....

njineermike
08-07-2012, 1:33 PM
Wish it was that simple. Yes to the limit on commerce clause, but he allowed you to be taxed for DOING AND BUYING NOTHING. That is a tax on "existing", "being" or simply "living".

I still wonder how much he was paid off to push that crap through....

There's already a tax for dying.

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 1:36 PM
Wish it was that simple. Yes to the limit on commerce clause, but he allowed you to be taxed for DOING AND BUYING NOTHING. That is a tax on "existing", "being" or simply "living".

I still wonder how much he was paid off to push that crap through....

He put it back on the people to get it changed by putting a firm limit on the lefts future attempts to pull this kind of crap in the future. A tax can always be removed or changed and it is up to us to vote this liar out of office.

goodlookin1
08-07-2012, 1:50 PM
There's already a tax for dying.

Dont get me started.... :mad:

goodlookin1
08-07-2012, 1:51 PM
He put it back on the people to get it changed by putting a firm limit on the lefts future attempts to pull this kind of crap in the future. A tax can always be removed or changed and it is up to us to vote this liar out of office.

I understand the limit he imposed, but I dont like where that limit is. I am NOT okay with being taxed for non-commerce/inactivity.

njineermike
08-07-2012, 1:54 PM
I understand the llimit he imposed, but I dont like where that limit is. I am NOT okay with being taxed for non-commerce/inactivity.

You already are. They just do it in the form of "deductions". Buy a house, spend money on health care above a certain percentage of your income, buy an electric car, pay for child care, or any of the other ridiculous things the tax code calls for, and you get a deduction. Didn't engage in that commerce? You don't get the deduction, but you do get a tax.

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 1:56 PM
You already are. They just do it in the form of "deductions". Buy a house, spend money on health care above a certain percentage of your income, buy an electric car, pay for child care, or any of the other ridiculous things the tax code calls for, and you get a deduction. Didn't engage in that commerce? You don't get the deduction, but you do get a tax.

Don't forget the being single tax.

njineermike
08-07-2012, 1:58 PM
Don't forget the being single tax.

Yep. That one hurts too. In California I even get the not having kids tax, even though I have one.

XD40SUBBIE
08-07-2012, 2:01 PM
People can assume all you want, but in the last 3.5 years he has done nothing to hurt our gun rights, they have actually been eased a bit under his presidency....

So far. I'm with you, I'm a Democrat. But this interview is starting to tip my scale. i know he doesn't need my vote and I'm sure Romney will not get it. I may have to leave the presidential spot blank this election if he continues flapping his lip like this.

Fellblade
08-07-2012, 2:12 PM
I wouldn't leave it blank, at least write in somebody else.

XD40SUBBIE
08-07-2012, 2:20 PM
I wouldn't leave it blank, at least write in somebody else.

Mickey Mouse?

goodlookin1
08-07-2012, 2:24 PM
You already are. They just do it in the form of "deductions". Buy a house, spend money on health care above a certain percentage of your income, buy an electric car, pay for child care, or any of the other ridiculous things the tax code calls for, and you get a deduction. Didn't engage in that commerce? You don't get the deduction, but you do get a tax.

Yes, and this is a shared or pooled approach to taxes where not everyone pays their fair share. And I dont like it either, besides the fact that I am the recipient of many of those tax breaks. It's absolutely asinine.

I am in favor of a flat tax across the board. Fair share for everyone. No loopholes, no off-shore account dodging, no double/triple taxation, no deductions, no discounted capital gains tax, etc. Whatever revenue or profit you bring in for the year, you're taxed on that and ONLY ONCE. No death tax, no living tax (obamacare), no liberal "rob the rich to entitle the poor" gimmickry.....

We all live in this country and the benefits of being here should be shared (and paid for) by all who make any income. Make $1,000,000? If the rate was 10%, you pay $100,000.....make $10,000? you pay $1000. Doesnt take a professor to figure out what you owe, it's consistent, it's just common sense. But since when does our gov't do things with common sense?

TempleKnight
08-07-2012, 2:28 PM
Curley is still apologizing for obama. What will it take for you to admit romney will be better for gun rights?

Is he still posting? I put him on my ignore list a while ago. Some people are going to be in denial until Obama goes on TV with his "evolved" postition on Gun Control after the election.

Obama has managed work his agenda through his appointees. Rahm Emauel and Eric Holder have been very clear that they don't approve of private gun ownership and O's SCOTUS appointees essentiallly lied to Congress during confirmation hearing. " Heller is settled law". Right.... Until they have enough votes to overturn it.

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 2:28 PM
Yes, and this is a shared or pooled approach to taxes where not everyone pays their fair share. And I dont like it either, besides the fact that I am the recipient of many of those tax breaks. It's absolutely asinine.

I am in favor of a flat tax across the board. Fair share for everyone. No loopholes, no off-shore account dodging, no double/triple taxation, no deductions, no discounted capital gains tax, etc. Whatever revenue or profit you bring in for the year, you're taxed on that and ONLY ONCE. No death tax, no living tax (obamacare), no liberal "rob the rich to entitle the poor" gimmickry.....

We all live in this country and the benefits of being here should be shared (and paid for) by all who make any income. Make $1,000,000? If the rate was 10%, you pay $100,000.....make $10,000? you pay $1000. Doesnt take a professor to figure out what you owe, it's consistent, it's just common sense. But since when does our gov't do things with common sense?

I agree 100%

mag360
08-07-2012, 3:22 PM
That would be a job killer! What about the accountants and irs agents. Not to mention the stupid things like homeownership govt supports. And im a homeowner

wjc
08-07-2012, 3:38 PM
I hope he enjoys being unemployed.

No Soup for YOU!

IVC
08-07-2012, 3:49 PM
Wish it was that simple. Yes to the limit on commerce clause, but he allowed you to be taxed for DOING AND BUYING NOTHING. That is a tax on "existing", "being" or simply "living".

Two words: property tax.

dustoff31
08-07-2012, 7:49 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban


Which one did Bush sign???

They can't help it. "Bush did it" is an involuntary reaction.

kaligaran
08-07-2012, 8:35 PM
BOTH Romney AND Obama are bad for gun rights.

Obama says he supports it. We already knew this. He hasn't acted on it in 4 years (thank god).

Romney not only said he supports the AWB, he also pushed and signed one into law for his own state.

How is that better for 2A?

chicoredneck
08-07-2012, 9:01 PM
Two words: property tax.
Yep, the original life tax. A means to force productivity. The new ACA is basically a property tax as well. Weather directly or indirectly, we all have the "privilege" of producing a little extra for someone else and there is no way around it, no choice.

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 9:27 PM
BOTH Romney AND Obama are bad for gun rights.

Obama says he supports it. We already knew this. He hasn't acted on it in 4 years (thank god).

Romney not only said he supports the AWB, he also pushed and signed one into law for his own state.

How is that better for 2A?

Please stop spreading FUD about Romney pushing for a AWB, you make yourself seem very foolish.

njineermike
08-07-2012, 9:31 PM
BOTH Romney AND Obama are bad for gun rights.

Obama says he supports it. We already knew this. He hasn't acted on it in 4 years (thank god).

Romney not only said he supports the AWB, he also pushed and signed one into law for his own state.

How is that better for 2A?

When will people actually read and stop reposting this completely busted myth?

kaligaran
08-07-2012, 9:46 PM
Please stop spreading FUD about Romney pushing for a AWB, you make yourself seem very foolish.

When will people actually read and stop reposting this completely busted myth?

In 2004 as gov of Mass, he signed the AWB for that state. Here's the state release (http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/full/559817306.jpg?key=574878&Expires=1344405485&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=SKRgDBFbdp9Js3ZZHVAG7GsBosyACx9LTpC6E0Jb dSKfu08B4ErQ5snSrnq1EiXqFrzGFjn-6dwPS8yvD6wY2W~364DeLw~nTCucpsW6JIPcZeX0TD-SktvUzqrthxuvkLRZT4HKtO6d3Hgvg20MAbIAyhA-6eeB6~Fd-WyYNOY_).

Perhaps you shouldn't take my word for it and instead hear it directly from Romney himself. Here's some links for your convinience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiAW-OAp8pI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-UQG7k1uX0&feature=related (skip to 2:45)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiRVAsjESUI&feature=related

I'm not supporting Obama by posting this. But I am EXTREMELY interested in hearing how this is a completely busted myth.

Just becuase he has flip-flopped on what he says he supports, that doesn't change the recorded past.

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 9:53 PM
In 2004 as gov of Mass, he signed the AWB for that state. Here's the state release (http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/full/559817306.jpg?key=574878&Expires=1344405485&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=SKRgDBFbdp9Js3ZZHVAG7GsBosyACx9LTpC6E0Jb dSKfu08B4ErQ5snSrnq1EiXqFrzGFjn-6dwPS8yvD6wY2W~364DeLw~nTCucpsW6JIPcZeX0TD-SktvUzqrthxuvkLRZT4HKtO6d3Hgvg20MAbIAyhA-6eeB6~Fd-WyYNOY_).

Perhaps you shouldn't take my word for it and instead hear it directly from Romney himself. Here's some links for your convinience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiAW-OAp8pI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-UQG7k1uX0&feature=related (skip to 2:45)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiRVAsjESUI&feature=related

I'm not supporting Obama by posting this. But I am EXTREMELY interested in hearing how this is a completely busted myth.

Just becuase he has flip-flopped on what he says he supports, that doesn't change the recorded past.

I don't have the link because I am on my phone but MA already had a AWB that was signed in 98. The NRA backed Romney's clarification of the AWB and considered it a huge win for MA.

kaligaran
08-07-2012, 9:58 PM
I don't have the link because I am on my phone but MA already had a AWB that was signed in 98. The NRA backed Romney's clarification of the AWB and considered it a huge win for MA.

Correct, they did have a ban from 98 and it was scheduled to expire three months after Romney signed the 2004 ban.
The one Romney signed is permanent. It's an AWB that he backed and signed none the less.

This is no myth.

edit: I really urge people to not only read the state's release but also watch those videos of Romney himself speaking about the AWB. Even if it doesn't change anything, at least you will know what he has said reguarding 2A in the past. Go read the laws yourself. I'm not spreading FUD, I'm simply stating what has happened. It's easily verified by looking up the state records and watching him speak.
The NRA action league did have a lot of give and take on the bill he signed. That is true and it was an improvement over the 1998 law however that 1998 law was expiring 3 months later.
It's also true that in 1994 he also supported the 'Brady Bill' along with others.
Again, please don't take any of this as fact from me, look it up and see for yourself. It's pretty scary.

Fish
08-07-2012, 10:26 PM
So far. I'm with you, I'm a Democrat. But this interview is starting to tip my scale. i know he doesn't need my vote and I'm sure Romney will not get it. I may have to leave the presidential spot blank this election if he continues flapping his lip like this.

If you're looking for an alternative to the major parties, might I humbly suggest you consider voting Libertarian?

Contrary to a lot of what's written about us, usually by people who don't get it, Libertarians typically don't consider ourselves either Left or Right. We're simply for maximizing the ability of each person to live their life as they please, subject to practical constraints such as the need to produce as much value as they wish to consume, and for a government whose role is limited to protecting every person's freedom to make these choices for themselves. (There's obviously a lot of complexity about what exactly this includes and how to go about it, but I'm trying to hold my summary to one sentence.)

kaligaran
08-07-2012, 10:33 PM
If you're looking for an alternative to the major parties, might I humbly suggest you consider voting Libertarian?

Contrary to a lot of what's written about us, usually by people who don't get it, Libertarians typically don't consider ourselves either Left or Right. We're simply for maximizing the ability of each person to live their life as they please, subject to practical constraints such as the need to produce as much value as they wish to consume, and for a government whose role is limited to protecting every person's freedom to make these choices for themselves. (There's obviously a lot of complexity about what exactly this includes and how to go about it, but I'm trying to hold my summary to one sentence.)

I second this suggestion.

otalps
08-08-2012, 12:15 AM
BOTH Romney AND Obama are bad for gun rights.

Obama says he supports it. We already knew this. He hasn't acted on it in 4 years (thank god).

Romney not only said he supports the AWB, he also pushed and signed one into law for his own state.

How is that better for 2A?

A guy with a complete anti-gun record, putting anti's on SCOTUS, working for the Joyce Foundation, supported by the Brady Bunch and appoints an anti to head the ATF says he supports the 2A and you believe him?

I mean other than his appointments he's been just dandy on gun rights.:rolleyes:

jbl_1967
08-08-2012, 6:50 AM
You guys really need to look into Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate.

kaligaran
08-08-2012, 9:21 AM
A guy with a complete anti-gun record, putting anti's on SCOTUS, working for the Joyce Foundation, supported by the Brady Bunch and appoints an anti to head the ATF says he supports the 2A and you believe him?

I mean other than his appointments he's been just dandy on gun rights.:rolleyes:

No I never said I believe in him. Don't assume because I'm calling out Romney that I am pro-Obama.
I'm not going to vote for either. I guess my position of disliking both options puts me in a position where I'm not blinded by my dislike of the 'other' side to see both for how they really are.
Romney is a definitly NOT 2A savior. His record and own words speak for itself.

1859sharps
08-08-2012, 9:52 AM
People can assume all you want, but in the last 3.5 years he has done nothing to hurt our gun rights, they have actually been eased a bit under his presidency. Unlike Bush Sr. who did sign the "assault" weapon ban. People need to stop worrying about the left and be a bit more concerned with the right as well, which has signed a lot of anti-gun bills, especially here in California. So keep running around in a panic and buying all the ammo you can get your hands on like you all did when Obama got elected. And how did that work out for you? Your wallets were lighter and you now have more guns and/or ammo. Just another ploy by the right to scare everyone into buying more ammo and guns in my opinion.

Lets do keep in mind that things "got better" not because Obama is President, but because of the make up of congress, two major supreme court rulings in favor of the 2nd, and the "people" not supporting more gun control.

I firmly believe IF Obama could, he would have been pushing at least Clinton era gun control. He hasn't because he doesn't have the votes/support he needs. Not to mention that pushing gun control while the economy is in the tank, is political suicide.

NEVER confuse not having the political capital to push gun control as being "pro" 2nd amendment.

Also, NEVER confuse conservative as being automatically pro gun. we need to keep an eye on conservatives too. Pro Gun Control supporters come from all walks of life. that most do seem to come from the left doesn't mean we shouldn't be watching to the right.

Think of it as crossing the street. first you look left, then you look right, then you look back left... this keeps an eye on them all as MOST don't have a "dog" in the fight so they will be swayed by what gets them reelected.

Uxi
08-08-2012, 10:25 AM
How is there no picture of Holder with those of Kagan and Sotomayor?

Remember, Heller and McDonald don't happen if Dubya lost to either Gore (or Kerry).

njineermike
08-08-2012, 10:27 AM
Lets do keep in mind that things "got better" not because Obama is President, but because of the make up of congress, two major supreme court rulings in favor of the 2nd, and the "people" not supporting more gun control.

I firmly believe IF Obama could, he would have been pushing at least Clinton era gun control. He hasn't because he doesn't have the votes/support he needs. Not to mention that pushing gun control while the economy is in the tank, is political suicide.

NEVER confuse not having the political capital to push gun control as being "pro" 2nd amendment.

Also, NEVER confuse conservative as being automatically pro gun. we need to keep an eye on conservatives too. Pro Gun Control supporters come from all walks of life. that most do seem to come from the left doesn't mean we shouldn't be watching to the right.

Think of it as crossing the street. first you look left, then you look right, then you look back left... this keeps an eye on them all as MOST don't have a "dog" in the fight so they will be swayed by what gets them reelected.

THIS. The "no new legislation" fallacy mises the point. The Democrat majority that could have gotten this in place was bogged down and hamstrung by the whole Obamacare debacle. Once that was hammered down in 2010, there was no way they'd have put in place anything that would have caused even MORE losses in the house and senate, which a gun ban would have done. If the 2010 voting tsumani hadn't happened, you can bet there would probably have been something Obama could sign. And he would do it willingly.

masayako
08-08-2012, 10:29 AM
I used to like Obama, now I will ONLY vote for Republicans. That's the choice they force me into.

FiveSeven
08-08-2012, 10:29 AM
In 2004 as gov of Mass, he signed the AWB for that state. Here's the state release (http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/full/559817306.jpg?key=574878&Expires=1344405485&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=SKRgDBFbdp9Js3ZZHVAG7GsBosyACx9LTpC6E0Jb dSKfu08B4ErQ5snSrnq1EiXqFrzGFjn-6dwPS8yvD6wY2W~364DeLw~nTCucpsW6JIPcZeX0TD-SktvUzqrthxuvkLRZT4HKtO6d3Hgvg20MAbIAyhA-6eeB6~Fd-WyYNOY_).

Perhaps you shouldn't take my word for it and instead hear it directly from Romney himself. Here's some links for your convinience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiAW-OAp8pI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-UQG7k1uX0&feature=related (skip to 2:45)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiRVAsjESUI&feature=related

I'm not supporting Obama by posting this. But I am EXTREMELY interested in hearing how this is a completely busted myth.

Just becuase he has flip-flopped on what he says he supports, that doesn't change the recorded past.

Is it that difficult to understand that people can change their views for the better? I make better choices today then 10 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgcoFi_Og68&playnext=1&list=PL987DBAD771E8F1E3&feature=results_video

Obama= Failed liberal Idiology
Romney= Business mindset/creative thinking.
Yes, Romney is a far better choice.

kaligaran
08-08-2012, 10:48 AM
Is it that difficult to understand that people can change their views for the better? I make better choices today then 10 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgcoFi_Og68&playnext=1&list=PL987DBAD771E8F1E3&feature=results_video

Obama= Failed liberal Idiology
Romney= Business mindset/creative thinking.
Yes, Romney is a far better choice.

Yes it's difficult to believe when you change many of your opinions within a short period of time. It was not a gradual change and he was very adamant about the opposite for decades prior. This isn't the only thing he's completely flipped on either. That lends further to poor credibility and character imo.

I don't trust Obama on 2A because we know he's pro AWB, he's been very straight up about that. We can just hope that he keeps his word and doesn't act on it.
I don't trust Romney on 2A because of his voting record and actual words. He is recorded time and time again in both voting records and on camera with his anti-2A views for the last 2.5 decades of his political career. All of the sudden to change his mind? If that doesn't at least make you raise an eyebrow, then nothing will.

jonzer77
08-08-2012, 10:54 AM
Yes it's difficult to believe when you change many of your opinions within a short period of time. It was not a gradual change and he was very adamant about the opposite for decades prior. This isn't the only thing he's completely flipped on either. That lends further to poor credibility and character imo.

I don't trust Obama on 2A because we know he's pro AWB, he's been very straight up about that. We can just hope that he keeps his word and doesn't act on it.
I don't trust Romney on 2A because of his voting record and actual words. He is recorded time and time again in both voting records and on camera with his anti-2A views for the last 2.5 decades of his political career. All of the sudden to change his mind? If that doesn't at least make you raise an eyebrow, then nothing will.

Was this time and time again while he was in office in MA? I could see someone having a hard time becoming governor if they were pro 2A in MA.

Wherryj
08-08-2012, 11:00 AM
What have they done to take away our gun rights? Nothing.

That is primarily because they are still a minority on the court and they haven't had any real gun cases to hose us with. You wait, those two WILL do everything they can to restrict our second amendment rights. We are one "Scalia" and one 2A rights case away from finding out how.

FiveSeven
08-08-2012, 11:02 AM
Yes it's difficult to believe when you change many of your opinions within a short period of time. It was not a gradual change and he was very adamant about the opposite for decades prior. This isn't the only thing he's completely flipped on either. That lends further to poor credibility and character imo.

I don't trust Obama on 2A because we know he's pro AWB, he's been very straight up about that. We can just hope that he keeps his word and doesn't act on it.
I don't trust Romney on 2A because of his voting record and actual words. He is recorded time and time again in both voting records and on camera with his anti-2A views for the last 2.5 decades of his political career. All of the sudden to change his mind? If that doesn't at least make you raise an eyebrow, then nothing will.

If you are so against Romney...... Who's your better candidate?
Is there someone better then Romney on 2'd Amendment?

It's voters like you that give us Clinton's Obama's.

Wherryj
08-08-2012, 11:09 AM
Wish it was that simple. Yes to the limit on commerce clause, but he allowed you to be taxed for DOING AND BUYING NOTHING. That is a tax on "existing", "being" or simply "living".

I still wonder how much he was paid off to push that crap through....

Therein lies the rub. He may have stopped Congress from doing whatever it wanted by invoking the Commerce Clause, but he turned around and allowed Congress to do whatever it wants by taxing you for NOT doing it.

Six of one, half dozen of the other...what's the difference?

Wherryj
08-08-2012, 11:12 AM
Mickey Mouse?

Goofy would fit in better with our other politicians.

Wherryj
08-08-2012, 11:14 AM
Yes, and this is a shared or pooled approach to taxes where not everyone pays their fair share. And I dont like it either, besides the fact that I am the recipient of many of those tax breaks. It's absolutely asinine.

I am in favor of a flat tax across the board. Fair share for everyone. No loopholes, no off-shore account dodging, no double/triple taxation, no deductions, no discounted capital gains tax, etc. Whatever revenue or profit you bring in for the year, you're taxed on that and ONLY ONCE. No death tax, no living tax (obamacare), no liberal "rob the rich to entitle the poor" gimmickry.....

We all live in this country and the benefits of being here should be shared (and paid for) by all who make any income. Make $1,000,000? If the rate was 10%, you pay $100,000.....make $10,000? you pay $1000. Doesnt take a professor to figure out what you owe, it's consistent, it's just common sense. But since when does our gov't do things with common sense?

Actually, a "fair" tax where "everyone pays their share" would be (amount of money needed from taxes)/(number of people). That wouldn't really work as you can't get money from those that don't have it, but how is it fair for someone making twice as much money to pay twice as much tax? Do they take up twice as many services? Do they actually COST the country twice as much?

kaligaran
08-08-2012, 11:15 AM
If you are so against Romney...... Who's your better candidate?
Is there someone better then Romney on 2'd Amendment?

It's voters like you that give us Clinton's Obama's.

Don't make assumptions about my voting record.

I feel this is a fundamental problem with how many citizens view politics:
Many vote down party lines just becuase there's a (D) or (R) by the name without really paying attention to the voting records and details of the various candadates. This is really what has to stop.
Don't assume that a R means pro-gun or a D means anti-gun. While that may be the majority, it's not always the case. For example, Yee (D) is author of SB249. U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) introduced S. 2188, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012."

My entire point of these posts is to not be blinded by dislike of one side to not see the faults or problems of your own. This goes for both sides regardless of how you vote or how you lean.

dustoff31
08-08-2012, 11:17 AM
Therein lies the rub. He may have stopped Congress from doing whatever it wanted by invoking the Commerce Clause, but he turned around and allowed Congress to do whatever it wants by taxing you for NOT doing it.

Six of one, half dozen of the other...what's the difference?

Equally concerning, or perhaps even more so, was Roberts statement (in substance) that is is not the court's job to strike down laws if there is any possible way that they can be upheld.

Although I do agree with his further statement, again in substance, that elections have consequences.

FiveSeven
08-08-2012, 11:34 AM
I feel this is a fundamental problem with how many citizens view politics:
It's the political system we live, yes and it may not even change in our lifetime.
Many vote down party lines just becuase there's a (D) or (R) by the name without really paying attention to the voting records and details of the various candadates.
I see what.....Feinstein, Boxter, Pelosi, Yee etc have done to this state so far, so yes I see Democrats for what they are.
This is really what has to stop.
Not in your lifetime.
Don't assume that a R means pro-gun or a D means anti-gun. While that may be the majority, it's not always the case. For example, Yee (D) is author of SB249. U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) introduced S. 2188, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012."
I don't assume, I see facts. Never, ever will vote for any Democrat.

My entire point of these posts is to not be blinded by dislike of one side to not see the faults or problems of your own. This goes for both sides regardless of how you vote or how you lean.

When Libertarians or Independents decide to vote D or "other" we get more gun control and it's fact that Democrats are anti-firearm force in our politics.
In reality it's Libertarians, Undecided or Independents who really matter as D will vote D and R will vote R.

TRICKSTER
08-08-2012, 11:44 AM
Correct, they did have a ban from 98 and it was scheduled to expire three months after Romney signed the 2004 ban.
The one Romney signed is permanent. It's an AWB that he backed and signed none the less.

This is no myth.

edit: I really urge people to not only read the state's release but also watch those videos of Romney himself speaking about the AWB. Even if it doesn't change anything, at least you will know what he has said reguarding 2A in the past. Go read the laws yourself. I'm not spreading FUD, I'm simply stating what has happened. It's easily verified by looking up the state records and watching him speak.
The NRA action league did have a lot of give and take on the bill he signed. That is true and it was an improvement over the 1998 law however that 1998 law was expiring 3 months later.
It's also true that in 1994 he also supported the 'Brady Bill' along with others.
Again, please don't take any of this as fact from me, look it up and see for yourself. It's pretty scary.

Sorry, but I have to call you on this B.S.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2004/6/massachusetts-firearms-reform-bill-se.aspx


"Despite the efforts of some (including The Boston Globe) to spin this bill as an extension of or creation of a new "Assault Weapons" ban, the bill makes no net changes to the Commonwealth`s laws regarding those types of firearms."

"Myth: The gun ban was extended.

Fact: Our state`s gun ban was not due to disappear, nor will it become invalid if the federal ban sunsets in September."

Here is the 1998 law that you claim was set to expire. Please point out the expiration date. http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter180

TRICKSTER
08-08-2012, 11:54 AM
I have an idea, lets look at their current positions on the campaign websites.
And before people start harping about Romney supporting gun control and signing a AWB in 2004, remember, according to Gallup, more than 60% of the public supported tighter gun laws at that time as opposed to 43% now. Some people change their minds as they learn more about the subject.

Romney says this.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/gun-rights

"Mitt will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes. But he does not support adding more laws and regulations that do nothing more than burden law-abiding citizens while being ignored by criminals"

Obama says this.
http://www.barackobama.com/?source=action-bar

Well, actually his official campaign site does not even mention gun rights (imagine that) but a search of the site shows his position on his "truth team" section. http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/boltons-claims-on-the-un-and-gun-rights

“I am very mindful of the fact that sportsmen in America may have gone hunting with their fathers, their grandfathers, their mothers, their grandmothers, and that this is part of a tradition and a way of life that has to be preserved. And there’s nothing that I will do as president of the United States that will in any way encroach on the ability of sportsmen to continue that tradition"

Funny how someone that some here trust to defend their gun rights, doesn't even think that the subject is important enough to have a position posted on his official campaign page. Maybe it's because he doesn't want you to know what his plans are. I guess that we will just have to go by what his official spokesman said. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/barack-obama-assault-weapons-ban.php

President Obama supports reinstating the assault weapons ban, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Monday.

So going by their published positions, who do you trust with your rights?

Sunday
08-08-2012, 12:56 PM
If you notice all the presidents and candidates that make it to the final vote are and are supported by one world government types "the U.N. is the one world government".

seattletocali
08-08-2012, 1:24 PM
However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

kaligaran
08-08-2012, 1:47 PM
Sorry, but I have to call you on this B.S.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2004/6/massachusetts-firearms-reform-bill-se.aspx
...
Here is the 1998 law that you claim was set to expire. Please point out the expiration date. http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter180

The 1998 Mass AWB took legal terminology and definitions directly from the federal AWB which was set to expire in September 2004. It was clear at the time that the federal AWB wasn't getting extended. Therefore the Mass AWB would have many undefined areas thus rendering it difficult if not imposible to enforce (disclaimer: I'm no lawyer and if I'm wrong, I hope someone corrects me).

Here's an example:
"Assault weapon", shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30),

So what Romney did was make the state's AWB stand alone (not dependent on federal AWB and sign a permanent AWB into state law.
Where there slight changes to it compared to the 1998 AWB, yes I don't think anyone is disputing that.

So I can tell I have offended the Romney fans on these forums. I mean no offense I was simply pointing out the records. I think everyone should read up on every candidate that they plan on casting a vote for (hey one can hope, right?). I'm all about cross-checking what politicians say because I don't trust ANY of them. :)
Trust me, I'm on the same side as all of you re: 2A.

sakosf
08-08-2012, 2:00 PM
Current composite of polls shows Obama winning the election.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.h tml

I think what we have to hope for is having a pro 2nd Amend majority in Congress & Senate to block any anti gun agenda from Obama.....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html

jonzer77
08-08-2012, 2:03 PM
Current composite of polls shows Obama winning the election.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.h tml

I think what we have to hope for is having a pro 2nd Amend majority in Congress & Senate to block any anti gun agenda from Obama.....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html

Of course he is leading in the polls, who do you think controls the media?

Back in 80' Carter was leading the polls and he lost in a landslide.

Uxi
08-08-2012, 2:06 PM
So I can tell I have offended the Romney fans on these forums. I mean no offense I was simply pointing out the records.

By removing all context. It could either be that he led that and really desired implementation of a Fed AWB or that he made the best of a bad situation. Do you ascribe the same motives to the NRA in the position of the Ma AWB?


Trust me, I'm on the same side as all of you re: 2A.

When it looks like you're carrying Barry's water and failing to distinguish the political realities Romney was facing, you should expect skepticism on that.

TRICKSTER
08-08-2012, 2:09 PM
The 1998 Mass AWB took legal terminology and definitions directly from the federal AWB which was set to expire in September 2004. It was clear at the time that the federal AWB wasn't getting extended. Therefore the Mass AWB would have many undefined areas thus rendering it difficult if not imposible to enforce (disclaimer: I'm no lawyer and if I'm wrong, I hope someone corrects me).

Here's an example:


So what Romney did was make the state's AWB stand alone (not dependent on federal AWB and sign a permanent AWB into state law.
Where there slight changes to it compared to the 1998 AWB, yes I don't think anyone is disputing that.

So I can tell I have offended the Romney fans on these forums. I mean no offense I was simply pointing out the records. I think everyone should read up on every candidate that they plan on casting a vote for (hey one can hope, right?). I'm all about cross-checking what politicians say because I don't trust ANY of them. :)
Trust me, I'm on the same side as all of you re: 2A.

The Mass ban was linked to the Federal definition of assault weapons at the time, it was not locked into the federal sunset clause. Even though the federal bill expired, the definitions don't just go away. (This is according to the National Rifle Associations Institute for Legislative Action not a guess by myself where I have to post a disclaimer)
The bill Romney signed locked in those definitions, something that I only wish we had in CA. If we were going to be stuck with an AW bill, the federal definitions are far better than what we have now.

Curley Red
08-08-2012, 2:42 PM
Of course he is leading in the polls, who do you think controls the media?

So the liberals control all the media? Wow, that is amazing, even rasmussen. :TFH:

kaligaran
08-08-2012, 2:47 PM
By removing all context. It could either be that he led that and really desired implementation of a Fed AWB or that he made the best of a bad situation. Do you ascribe the same motives to the NRA in the position of the Ma AWB?
When it looks like you're carrying Barry's water and failing to distinguish the political realities Romney was facing, you should expect skepticism on that.

That's a great point you make. If he was indeed just making lemons out of lemonaid, simply appealing to the masses of his state and didn't agree with the AWB, then I imagine he wouldn't have supported the federal AWB or the Brady Bill 10 years prior. He's been rather vocal on numerous occassions. I would expect someone that opposed something to either speak up or keep quiet.

The NRA Action League did compromise a lot with the anti's on the bill. Clearly they were making the best of a bad situation with the law as it was initially drafted. They were only trying to minimize it's impact. I credit them for this and not the one signing it.

The Mass ban was linked to the Federal definition of assault weapons at the time, it was not locked into the federal sunset clause. Even though the federal bill expired, the definitions don't just go away. (This is according to the National Rifle Associations Institute for Legislative Action not a guess by myself where I have to post a disclaimer)

Thank you for the info. Please post that link from the NRA Institute. I'll give it a read after work as I am very interested in the details.
With the expiration (or lack there of) of the state's 1998 AWB debate aside, it still doesn't change the rest nor all the various things he's on record saying. :(

Sunday
08-08-2012, 4:19 PM
One world government types are all anti gun as the one world order will not happen with an armed populace. This is not new, John F Kennedy signed the UN treaty "Freedom from war 4473" which will disarm the public, give control all the weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. controlled military leaving just light weapons so the individual nations can control their citizens.

njineermike
08-08-2012, 4:32 PM
That's a great point you make. If he was indeed just making lemons out of lemonaid, simply appealing to the masses of his state and didn't agree with the AWB, then I imagine he wouldn't have supported the federal AWB or the Brady Bill 10 years prior. He's been rather vocal on numerous occassions. I would expect someone that opposed something to either speak up or keep quiet.

The NRA Action League did compromise a lot with the anti's on the bill. Clearly they were making the best of a bad situation with the law as it was initially drafted. They were only trying to minimize it's impact. I credit them for this and not the one signing it.



Thank you for the info. Please post that link from the NRA Institute. I'll give it a read after work as I am very interested in the details.
With the expiration (or lack there of) of the state's 1998 AWB debate aside, it still doesn't change the rest nor all the various things he's on record saying. :(

If we could base our thinking and expectations on what politicians say, the budget would be balanced, there would be plenty of jobs, the borders would be secure, my taxes would be low, my streets would be clean, and the DMV would be efficient.

TRICKSTER
08-08-2012, 5:44 PM
That's a great point you make. If he was indeed just making lemons out of lemonaid, simply appealing to the masses of his state and didn't agree with the AWB, then I imagine he wouldn't have supported the federal AWB or the Brady Bill 10 years prior. He's been rather vocal on numerous occassions. I would expect someone that opposed something to either speak up or keep quiet.

The NRA Action League did compromise a lot with the anti's on the bill. Clearly they were making the best of a bad situation with the law as it was initially drafted. They were only trying to minimize it's impact. I credit them for this and not the one signing it.



Thank you for the info. Please post that link from the NRA Institute. I'll give it a read after work as I am very interested in the details.
With the expiration (or lack there of) of the state's 1998 AWB debate aside, it still doesn't change the rest nor all the various things he's on record saying. :(

The link is right there in my post which you appear to have responded to without reading or doing any research. As far as what he is on record saying, what is he saying now? I guess you didn't bother to read my other post or the link to Romney's campaign page where he explains his position. Again, you appear to have not done any research and instead try to pass off your uninformed opinion ( with a little disclaimer) as fact.

kaligaran
08-08-2012, 6:00 PM
The link is right there in my post which you appear to have responded to without reading or doing any research. As far as what he is on record saying, what is he saying now? I guess you didn't bother to read my other post or the link to Romney's campaign page where he explains his position. Again, you appear to have not done any research and instead try to pass off your uninformed opinion ( with a little disclaimer) as fact.

The only *disclaimer* I made was about the ban having issues being enforced due to the references to an expiring federal law welcoming correction if someone knew more than I did about it. But I suppose that's going to be the sticking point now.

So over all of these posts, I made only 2 claims about him not being a '2A savior' and posted links and videos to support those claims. Those points were:
1. He backed and signed an AWB in his state in 2004.
2. He backed the federal AWB and Brady Bill back in 1994.

So far the dispute you have with what I have said has been about the expiration of the 1998 ban. Are you disputing the main points? I assume by your post that you are.

I have watched and read plenty of things about him recently where he says he's pro 2A now. That's exactly my problem. It's a sudden change since he started trying to setup for his presidential campaign. Everything pre ~2005 from the early 90s on is what I'm concerned about.

I'm not confident he'll be pro-2A. I want to be, but just because he says so now, doesn't help me feel good about what he's saying. It sure doesn't make me feel that he actually believes it.
What's he gonna say in a year or 4 years? That's my main concern.

Uxi
08-08-2012, 6:29 PM
That's a great point you make. If he was indeed just making lemons out of lemonaid, simply appealing to the masses of his state and didn't agree with the AWB, then I imagine he wouldn't have supported the federal AWB or the Brady Bill 10 years prior. He's been rather vocal on numerous occassions. I would expect someone that opposed something to either speak up or keep quiet.

I think he more blows with the wind on it than having any true convictions on the issue. Politics being what they are, he's more likely to appoint originalist justices on our side of the issue, to say nothing of a less overtly hostile AG/DOJ, and in any case isn't actively against us as much as Barry is, who has never repudiated his 2008 plank of reinstating the Federal AWB and making it permanent, which according to his spokeshole just this week remains his policy.

The NRA Action League did compromise a lot with the anti's on the bill. Clearly they were making the best of a bad situation with the law as it was initially drafted. They were only trying to minimize it's impact. I credit them for this and not the one signing it.

Why could he not have similar motivations?

kaligaran
08-08-2012, 6:38 PM
I think he more blows with the wind on it than having any true convictions on the issue. Politics being what they are, he's more likely to appoint originalist justices on our side of the issue, to say nothing of a less overtly hostile AG/DOJ, and in any case isn't actively against us as much as Barry is, who has never repudiated his 2008 plank of reinstating the Federal AWB and making it permanent, which according to his spokeshole just this week remains his policy.

Why could he not have similar motivations?

You hit the nail on the head and I agree completely, he flows with whatever he needs to for votes and if that requires changing positions, then it happens. He scares the $%#@ out of me because I don't know what to expect next. If the winds change to anti-2A, will he just hop over again? I hope not. I also hope you are right about the appointments, I truly do.

The only reasons I don't feel he had the same motivations was based on his comments on the ban that was quoted the state's release from the Mass house and the interviews/town halls/debates/etc, both of which I think are linked in my second post on this thread. There are more I just only linked a couple.