The NRA comments on expressed desire for new gun bans

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

Click to expand...

He did, but he also failed to explain why the change of heart although its obvious why. He also alluded to being open to a new AWB if it had bipartisan support.

What i would like to knew is who are these "pro-gun" people who supported the Massachusetts AWB that he signed.

joecil said:

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 no nothing about them period. That by the way includes both candidates for president.

Click to expand...

Well said!

Romney will be on whatever side of the issues get him the most votes. We can manipulate a man like this. Obama has an agenda and will be free to implement it once he is reelected and no longer has to worry about the voters. All it will take is one more appointment to the Supreme Court and we lose our gun rights forever.

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

Click to expand...

No thats not clearly in the record. Last night in the debate he said the MA AWB that he signed into law was a compromise, and we need more compromises like that. Unless you are deaf, you must have heard it.

silicosys4 said:

I'd rather vote for someone who has a personal Anti preference who does nothing about it...and O has done nothing about it (emphasis added).

Click to expand...

This statement is not true. Obama has been actively involved in trying to get the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty passed. He also supported anti-gun measures before becoming President.

Owen Sparks said:

Romney will be on whatever side of the issues get him the most votes. We can manipulate a man like this. Obama has an agenda and will be free to implement it once he is reelected and no longer has to worry about the voters. All it will take is one more appointment to the Supreme Court and we lose our gun rights forever.

Click to expand...

This! Except you're forgetting one thing

once Obama is out of the way he'll look to consolidate his power by courting the ex Obama voting block?

After all were will we go? To a third party




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complaints about

President Obama has promoted laws to prevent multiple guns sales, at least in the southern states, stating that a great majority of the guns flowing to the Mexican drug cartels come from US gun dealers. Meanwhile his ATF arranged the sale of thousands of guns destined for Mexico without the Mexican government's knowledge. This in the very least creates suspicion.

President Obama has said on more than one occasion, and again last night, that guns designed for military use don't belong on our streets. Of course the ARs and AKs we enjoy are not designed for military use, only replicate them to some degree. It's nonsense in many ways, not the least of which is that they are rarely used for crime on our streets, but this shows potential for such time Obama is no longer concerned about re-election and flies in the face of the very reason for the 2A.

Governor Romney has participated in some state gun control legislation that he claims was bi-partisan, but he has a constituency and party that will strongly hold his feet to the fire on this. Even in his second term he will be severely constrained regardless of any anti-gun tendencies. Now there may be many reasons one would support Obama , but to use this somehow to equate Romney with Obama on the 2A is specious.

If you put it all together, and add the fact that there are rabid anti-gun people in the present administration and congress, a clear picture forms on how any concern we may have about the preservation of our second amendment should influence our vote.

JustinJ said:

He did, but he also failed to explain why the change of heart although its obvious why. He also alluded to being open to a new AWB if it had bipartisan support.

What i would like to knew is who are these "pro-gun" people who supported the Massachusetts AWB that he signed.

Click to expand...

It is increasingly becoming obvious that not one single person on this site has bothered to research exactly what Romney did as Governor of the state of Massachusetts.

During the debate you will note that Romney said: "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."

Romney said it was referred to as an assault weapons ban, not that it WAS an assault weapons ban. Everyone is buying a load of crap and Romney has not helped himself by being ineffective in explaining what happened.

As I understand it, MA enacted an AWB in 1998 and it was separate from the National, federal AWB. It did not have a sunset clause as the national ban did. Mr. Romney became Governor in 2003. Through a couple of events, Romney came to have a close working relationship with GOAL, the Gun Owner's Action League. They would be the pro-second amendment people you were wondering about. They worked with Romney, as well as the Democrats to amend the 1998 ban to INCLUDE the federal list of guns to be excluded from the assault weapons ban, thereby ensuring that all the guns on that extensive list could not be banned in MA! This was all they hoped to do because they knew they did not have the votes to overturn the whole AWB.

To quote the Gun Owner's Action League:

"During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.

Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006".

It is time for those interested in second amendment rights to start doing their freakin' homework and STOP SPREADING FALSE AND UNINFORMED INFORMATION THAT HURTS OUR CAUSE!!!


LOOK HERE FOR THE STORY. http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

It's not a matter of if, its a matter of when.

My only question is will the NRA grow a pair the next time around or will they throw the AR/AK owners under the bus again, oh wait they changed their mind when Freedom Group....wait Remington came out with a camo AR15.

The general public is pro gun right now, but how many more school, movie, stadium, grocery store or mall shootings will happen before the pendulum swings the other way?

It has not been that long ago that the NRA was against the black rifle, machine guns, suppressors (silencers) and short barreled shotguns, for one simple reason they were not "sporting" guns. But then they realized the potential customer...er member base they were missing out on. Times change and people forget I guess.

Anyone arguing that Obama would be better for 2A than Romney, ought to have their heads examined.

Prince Yamato said:

Anyone arguing that Obama would be better for 2A than Romney, ought to have their heads examined.

Click to expand...

At least you know where one stands.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

I remember couple years ago when Bammy was asked about gun control, he replied there was lots going on below the radar. And then we got fast and furious when it appeared on said radar.

Bammy like all dedicated antis, is devious, stealthily, untruthful, and not above any means to achieve their desired goal, and any of their means justifies the end.

As I understand it, MA enacted an AWB in 1998 and it was separate from the National, federal AWB. It did not have a sunset clause as the national ban did. Mr. Romney became Governor in 2003. Through a couple of events, Romney came to have a close working relationship with GOAL, the Gun Owner's Action League. They would be the pro-second amendment people you were wondering about. They worked with Romney, as well as the

Democrats to amend the 1998 ban to INCLUDE the federal list of guns to be excluded from the assault weapons ban, thereby ensuring that all the guns on that extensive list could not be banned in MA! This was all they hoped to do because they knew they did not have the votes to overturn the whole AWB.

Click to expand...

Ironic, given GOAL then released a press release titled: "Firearm Reform Bill Signed, Romney Takes Opportunity to Betray Gun Owners". Apparently, GOAL, just like the NRA, is masquerading as a gun issues only group.

Romeny's press release stated:
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

I can't validate this but as i understand it the Massachusetts bill was also going to sunset before Romney signed legislation made it permanent.

It is time for those interested in second amendment rights to start doing their freakin' homework and STOP SPREADING FALSE AND UNINFORMED INFORMATION THAT HURTS OUR CAUSE!!!

Click to expand...

Take it up with Romney:

Q: "As governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country."

Romney: "Let’s get the record straight. First of all, there’s no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, I’ve been governor in a pretty tough state. You’ve heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values."
[Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina , May 15, 2007]

Or how about Romney on Feb 18, 2007 during an interview with George Sephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: "Now you're a member of the NRA."

ROMNEY: "Yes. And I - and I know the NRA does not support an assault weapon ban, so I don't line up on that particular issue with the NRA, either does President Bush. He likewise says he supported an assault weapon ban." [This Week via Nexis, 2/18/07]

Obama, no matter what he says, would ban every gun you have! Some of you need to pull your head out of it and look at Obama's voting record as a state senator. He hasn't had much to say about his position during his first term because he is licking his chops in anticipation of a lame duck second term. Can any of you spell executive order!!

Obama, no matter what he says, would ban every gun you have! Some of you need to pull your head out of it and look at Obama's voting record as a state senator. He hasn't had much to say about his position during his first term because he is licking his chops in anticipation of a lame duck second term. Can any of you spell executive order!!

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're gona have to defend that nonsense. Please explain how Obama's voting record proves he plans on banning all guns. Then explain why his voting record indicates he wants to ban all guns but Romney's history on gun issues doesn't. I won't hold my breath.

Here is a good synopsis of Obama's anti-gun stance. He is clearly much more restrictive the Romney.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_obama.html

Everyone here is only considering the gun ban issue. Lets not forget that whoever becomes President after this election will also more than likely appoint 2 Federal Judges to the Supreme Court, and that can hold even more importance.

Here is a good synopsis of Obama's anti-gun stance. He is clearly much more restrictive the Romney.

Click to expand...

I don't believe anybody is trying to argue Obama is great on gun issues. One can even argue he is worse on the issue than Romney. But nothing indicates a desire for a total gun ban. Also, many seem hell bent on pretending Romney isn't bad on gun issues or at least are willing to judge him only by his most recent comments.

Least we forget that the only reason the Obomination did not carry out his ban during his first coronation is that his "master plan" - Fast & Furious - went horribly wrong not only with the death of a border agent and hundreds of Mexican Civilians, but also backfired with respect for him being unable to use F&F as an excuse to bring forward a ban during his first term.

Which state in this country forbids carry? And in which state was Obama a member of the legislature?

There ya go.

Which state in this country forbids carry? And in which state was Obama a member of the legislature?

There ya go.

Click to expand...

Ahh, i see. That makes sense. Remind me though, what are the concealed carry laws in Massachusetts, where Romney was governor?

Least we forget that the only reason the Obomination did not carry out his ban during his first coronation is that his "master plan" - Fast & Furious - went horribly wrong not only with the death of a border agent and hundreds of Mexican Civilians, but also backfired with respect for him being unable to use F&F as an excuse to bring forward a ban during his first term.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the death of the civilians and a border agent be the excuse to institute a new AWB? Seriously, can we please keep the discussion elevated above conspiracy theories?

Everyone here is only considering the gun ban issue. Lets not forget that whoever becomes President after this election will also more than likely appoint 2 Federal Judges to the Supreme Court, and that can hold even more importance.

Click to expand...

I came here to post something like this. Elections have consequences. Obama has already appointed two openly anti-gun justices to the Supreme Court. He doesn't have to be the bad guy in any of those decisions - he can simply let it play out in the courts with a few activist judges.

Obama or Romney don't have to be for or against guns since both will toe their party line when it comes to appointing judges. Fact is, Romney would appoint pro-gun judges and Obama would (has!) not.

Regardless of your political views, the NRA is 100% right on this. This election WILL matter regarding gun rights, either directly or indirectly.

It surprises me that a few folks posting in this thread are saying that Obama has never pushed for anti-gun legislation, and presumably won't do so. In a public national debate a couple of days ago Obama did exactly that, mentioning that he would seek to reauthorize the AWB, and he also implied that something needed to be done about handgun violence (though he did not mention whether that included bans, etc).

For those of you who claim that Obama isn't making a push to ban guns, please watch/read a transcript of that debate.

ARRRRGGGH:banghead: At least in a few weeks the arguing and bickering will be over and we will once again be back to supporting the Second Amendment and RKBA topics. Win or loose----whether you are on one side politically or the other----to survive we collectively have to continually act as ambassadors to our shooting sport and educate the general public that it is ALWAYS needed. If my vote was not so critically important today I would abstain from voting this cycle as a protest of sorts against the utter garbage we are forced to endure over the media outlets as a resident of America. But my message to those that do not vote is they had better not utter one single word of dissent about how it turned out.

Too bad we could not tie welfare benefits to firearm ownership/civics participation in this country. Follow the recent immigrants need to be part of the political system instead of complete apathy of the issues from the majority of citizens. It is sad.