The NRA comments on expressed desire for new gun bans

Voting is extremely important this election for many reasons, but not so much for guns or 2A. Both are anti judging by past actions.
Voting for one or the other based solely on their stance on gun control is foolhardy.

Link forwarded.

This is a post I put up in response to the statements from last nights debate in regards to the assault weapon ban coming up.

Now simply think for a minute without the NRA fear they have spread since before Obama took office. It has been great for the ammo and gun makers as well as the NRA coffers, which by the way I'm a life time member and have been 48 years.

First off is both men are for some form of gun control not a secret at all. However little can be done with the congress to bring it about any more than they was able to pass concealed carry license to be valid in all 50 states when Bush was still president. It died because two republicans refused to vote for it which would of passed it and put it on Bush desk for signature. Also keep in mind current ruling by the courts all the way to the SCOTUS which has put a stop to most of the wants of the gun control people. In the last 4 years more states have relaxed their laws giving more people rights they had no right to take in the first place. Gun control won't come from the Feds the danger is your state and local governments.

Now as for assault weapon being a AR-15 or AK-47 is a joke term really. Since it is applied to a semi automatic only unless you have a very expensive and hard to get license to own one fully automatic.

The average hunting rifle is more deadly than either of those guns in both accuracy and killing power and could easily be used to kill people also.

Facts are people that are anti gun for the most part know nothing about them period. That by the way includes both candidates for president.

Both are anti judging by past actions.

Not quite, but lets keep this on subject and not get the thread locked.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

On subject? The topic of this thread is essentially to vote for Romney and encourage others to do so because of Obama's comments regarding guns. How is Romney's history and statements regarding gun control not relevant to such a discussion?

Romney pretty much said that he would be open to further gun control or an AWB if it had bipartisan support. Funny the NRA isn't talking about that.

I'm sure this just got missed by the editor, but I chuckled. . . .

"Suggesting a ban not just on semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 but maybe even handguns, the most popular rifle in America"

Handguns. . . . much better rifles than AR-15s.

ATF annual manufacturing and export report 2010: 69% of all guns manufactured are rifles. Roughly 20% of rifles manufactured are assault rifles.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2010: less than 3% of all homicides were carried out with weapons categorized as a rifle, including "assault rifles".

The most prolific firearm type sold to Americans is also listed as the methodology least likely used in any type of homicide.

Math. It works regardless of your own personal worldview or fantasies. These figures can't be dismissed as biased as they come straight from the gubment. I'm not sure why no one ever pushes these undeniable figures.

An AWB never had anything to do with reducing crime.
Obama acknowledged that with his handgun comment, and now just as in the 1990s the types of firearms included in the first AWB were involved in very little crime. All rifles and shotguns in general together were used in less than 10% of homicides involving firearms in most years, and handguns typically used in over 75% of homicides that involve firearms.

But handguns in the 1990s were mainstream, and 'assault weapons' were rare, and so targeting handguns was a lot more difficult. While demonizing the 'assault weapon' owned by a minority could be successful. They tried with handguns by splitting them into groups with the old 'saturday night special' 'junk handgun' 'inexpensive handgun' etc routine, but it was still harder.

Even Obama is pretty well educated on firearms, more so than he shows in order to be simple and appeal to his audience.
An AWB has nothing to do with reducing typical street crime.
But there is those that do want a ban on citizens having weapons in anyway comparable to what their guards and enforcers have. It has more to do with centralizing power with government than crime issues.
You can't sell that to the public though, so they need the crime/tragedy angle.





However things today are very different than in the 1990s. In the 1990s things like AR-15s were rare.
Today there is millions in the population. In 2009 alone over 400,000 AR-15 variants were sold in America. That is new firearms.
(By comparison all transferable pre 1986 NFA registered machineguns on the registry amount to less than 200,000, with somewhere around 170,000, and with many held by wealthy owners that own several each and some who own whole vaults of many, so the number traded and available for sale at any time being much lower.)
That is just AR-15s, add in AK variants, and many other similar firearms and there is tens of millions.
What this means is that without some aspect of legislation preventing transfers of already held firearms/magazines, anyone that wanted one would be able to purchase one relatively inexpensively even after a 1990s AWB type ban for decades. Especially after panic prices subsided and demand was realistic.
If they did add legislation that prevented transfers of those already legally held (like California has done for registered 'assault weapons') then they would legally become worth very little as the only buyers available would be law enforcement.
As a result any type of AWB would have to be a bit different than the 1990s one.

Math. It works regardless of your own personal worldview or fantasies. These figures can't be dismissed as biased as they come straight from the gubment. I'm not sure why no one ever pushes these undeniable figures.

Click to expand...

Because many who advocate banning these types of guns see no value in their private ownership. They don't see an upside to such weapons in private ownership so no death from their use is acceptable. Using the statistics as an argument is also sort of problematic because the reply will almost certainly be, "well how many deaths do justify banning such weapons"? In addition, its not just about numbers. The horror of mass shootings invoke very strong reactions and empathy with the victims.

I believe this link is appropriate here:

http://firearmsfuture.com/ff/a-defenseless-population.aspx

It does seem a bit odd that nothing official on their website is up about this.

EDIT: Maybe that's the "secret"?

MrClean, I caught that too. Make a meme pic about it!

Voting is extremely important this election for many reasons, but not so much for guns or 2A. Both are anti judging by past actions.
Voting for one or the other based solely on their stance on gun control is foolhardy.

Click to expand...

Nothing could be further from the truth. The next President will get to appoint a minimum of two Supreme Court Justices. Obama's last two appointed were far left, anti-gun judges His next two will be as bad or worse, and change the balance of the court and possible change the meaning of 2A.

Obama has come out publicly for a gun ban. Do you him enacting Executive Orders in his second term to implement defacto gun bans, ammo and gun taxes, etc, where he has nothing to lose, and changing the SCOTUS to do his bidding?

Obama has made plenty of sincere campaign promises off his cuff that did not fly when reality hit. Welfare reform is much more of an issue across the board, and if he didn't do a single thing about welfare reform after promising throughout his '08 campaign that welfare reform was a big issue for him, I'm not going to worry my pretty little head over some rhetoric he spewed to sound smart and satisfy some Anti's ignorant question. I don't see this topic staying open for very long, its getting too speculative.

So you don't think appointing far left, anti gun Supreme Court judges is a big deal that could affect 2A? Really?

No, Pilot, I don't. I don't think "changing the 2A" is anywhere in our near future. I don't think he's going to change the scotus to "do his bidding". He might change the scotus, but not to "do his bidding". Whatever that means. That whole "Obama is taking over the America and handing us over to the U.N., and then handing the U.N. to Islam!!!!" thing....I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories like that.

OK, fair enough. By "do his bidding" I mean uphold executive orders, and laws that are interpreted by a liberally controlled SCOTUS. But, hey of you're OK with that its fine. I'm not, and will vote accordingly.

Romney's "pro" gun stance isn't believable to me either.
and by "pro" I mean "anti".

CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned.

I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?

ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation. And it's referred to as an assault weapon ban, but it had, at the signing of the bill, both the pro-gun and the anti-gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted.

There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that haven't previously been available and so forth, so it was a mutually agreed- upon piece of legislation. That's what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now in Washington is a place that's gridlocked.

CROWLEY: So I could -- if you could get people to agree to it, you would be for it?

ROMNEY: We have --

OBAMA: Candy?

ROMNEY: -- we haven't had the leadership in Washington to work on a bipartisan basis. I was able to do that in my state and bring these two together.

Sounds like he doesn't realize what the 2A is about, and wouldn't protect it against a majority of idiots that would do away with it if it was "bipartisan"

I'd rather vote for someone who has a personal Anti preference who does nothing about it...and O has done nothing about it....but will openly admit his opinion and even plans...so that I can counter,
Than someone speaking double-speak, who has actually successfully worked to limit his constituents' 2A rights.

The whole "against it before he was for it" really.....really turns me off. I would rather have a truthful opponent than an untruthful ally.

Except for now that Romney has the NRA beside him I doubt he'll do anything to jeopardize that whereas we know Obama's backers definately want the AWB pushed through.

A gun owner voting for Obama is like a bull voting for Arby's.

Obama has come out publicly for a gun ban.

Click to expand...

When? Where? This lie keeps getting repeated. Yes, he has advocated legislation for further gun control but nothing he has ever said has been in support of banning guns. In fact, last night, and times before, he has clearly stated that he believes the second amendment provides a right to firearms ownership. Like just about every other politician alive, he does also believe in regulation of firearms.

The NRA had a chance to nail down Willard in their interview of him in the American Rifleman and they totally wussed out. They let him off the hook with the idea that the AWB MA bill expanded gun rights and was a compromise between the pro and anti folks.

They could have asked him if he regretted not support the ownership of EBRs, etc. They didn't.

So now they get all excited by already known positions.

BTW, Obama said that owning guns for protection was OK. That is change from the Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Biden, etc. mantra.

Mayor Mikey Bloomberg was very annoyed with both.

“I think what we did get was a perfect example of obfuscation and very little honesty,” Bloomberg said Wednesday at a press conference, according to Capital New York. “If you think about it, the president, as I remember, said he wants more conversation. Well, we’ve been saying this for quite a while now. We don’t need more talk. We need some leadership. Governor Romney said he brought both sides of the debate together. Well, why isn’t he trying to do that right now?

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82515.html#ixzz29awfJPZ0

Romney clearly said he was against any new laws like AWB. That is clear and in the record.

I like to look at the date that people arguing political points joined the forum. If only recently, perhaps there was a specific objective in mind beyond good fellowship with fellow shooters.

Romney clearly said he was against any new laws like AWB. That is clear and in the record.

I like to look at the date that people arguing political points joined the forum. If only recently, perhaps there was a specific objective in mind beyond good fellowship with fellow shooters.

Click to expand...

Do you believe a single word Romney says? I don't this man has been on ever side of every issue and should really have a debate with all his various sides. I assume if his lips are moving he is lying period and though I won't vote for Obama I won't vote for this clown either.