Weapons Ban
- Thread starter duke7595
- Start date
He never said any such thing. Why do you people always miss represent everything. The SCOTUS has already ruled, TWICE, that the banning of firearms is unconstitutional. If Romney should win, you will need our firearms for protection, when the economy completely collapses. And the religious reich (other wise known as the christian taliban) takes over our lives. See I can play this making asinine statements game as well.
santanzchild
New member
You obviously watched different debate. The President did say exactly that if I wasn't on my phone I would find and post the clip.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727
S&W645
NRA Life Member
Care to eat those words?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/u...bate-in-hempstead-ny.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 So yes, he did say he wants a new AWB.
cgiven1
DAV-Patriot
Jesus some of you are clueless. The SCOTUS never said that banning all firearms was unconstitutional. Only that a complete ban was unconstitutional. If he can continue to demonize classes of weapons and is able to stack the court with justices that support that idea, we are done. The only thing we will ever be able to keep and bear will be the government approved, prohibitively expensive weapons they allow. Didn't you catch the cheap handgun reference? Sounds like a return to the "Saturday Night Special" bans that were pushed in years past. Next, scoped hunting rifles reclassified as "sniper weapons". You fake gun owners will never convince us otherwise. You can continue to use whatever deliusional arguement you want to justify your selling out yourself and your rights, just don't expect the rest of us to buy into it.
Last edited:
S&W645
NRA Life Member
Go look at the old AWB and see what he wants reintroduced.
The AWB included semi autos if they had certain features. Just because a gun looks like an M16 doesn't mean it is one. But the test under the old ban was features. Like a bayonet lug. Or if it was equipted with a 30 round mag.
i'm all for open gun trade and rights, but dont forget this either. there was some good out of it in the form of longer permits, grace periods, and the board to review denied permits, but the fact of the matter is he still signed the PERMANENT ban and the bolded area below tells you how he really feels (or it's ANOTHER thing he's flip-flopped on).
Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban / iBerkshires.com - The Berkshires online guide to events, news and Berkshire County community information.
Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 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."
Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.
"We are pleased to mark an important victory in the fight against crime," said Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey. "The most important job of state government is ensuring public safety. Governor Romney and I are determined to do whatever it takes to stop the flood of dangerous weapons into our cities and towns and to make Massachusetts safer for law-abiding citizens."
The new law also makes a number of improvements to the current gun licensing system, including:
• Extending the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years;
• Granting a 90-day grace period for holders of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry who have applied for renewal; and
• Creating a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied.
"This is truly a great day for Massachusetts' sportsmen and women," said Senator Stephen M. Brewer. "These reforms correct some serious mistakes that were made during the gun debate in 1998, when many of our state's gun owners were stripped of their long-standing rights to own firearms. I applaud Senate President Travaglini for allowing the Senate to undertake this necessary legislation."
"I want to congratulate everyone that has worked so hard on this issue," said Representative George Peterson. "Because of their dedication, we are here today to sign into law this consensus piece of legislation. This change will go a long way toward fixing the flaws created by the 1998 law. Another key piece to this legislation addresses those citizens who have applied for renewals. If the government does not process their renewal in a timely fashion, those citizens won't be put at risk because of the 90 day grace period that is being adopted today."
"Never before has there been such bi-partisan cooperation in the passage of gun safety legislation of this magnitude in this nation," said John Rosenthal, co-founder and chair of Stop Handgun Violence. "I applaud the leadership of the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker and entire Legislature for passage of this assault weapons ban renewal. They have shown that Massachusetts can continue to lead the nation in protecting the public and law enforcement from military style assault weapons."
J
JSDinTexas
Guest
I don't understand why anyone watches these debates - they are nothing more than dog and pony shows.
I know whom I will vote for - we don't need no stinking debate!
I know whom I will vote for - we don't need no stinking debate!
wrs25936
New member
weapons ban
In the home state of obumer law abiding citizens that have handguns have their hand and everything else tied so that it is almost impossible for them to do anything. If they where not so hogtied with rules and regulations things might be different. We all know the bad guys don't like looking back at a weapon pointed at them.
In the home state of obumer law abiding citizens that have handguns have their hand and everything else tied so that it is almost impossible for them to do anything. If they where not so hogtied with rules and regulations things might be different. We all know the bad guys don't like looking back at a weapon pointed at them.
BC1
,
No, but he did make an attempt at banning them in the past. He supported and stumped Ted Kennedy's bill. In fact he wanted to ban ALL handguns. Show me a man's past and I'll tell you about his future.
How about banning dangerous minorities? Illegals? gangs? C'mon, everyone's thinking it but no one wants to say it. We can't tell the truth anymore.
thoricuncle
New member
Ronald Reagan signed the FOPA of 1986 which banned the ownership of new automatic firearms (that's why full auto thompson submachine guns are now worth $20,000). Granted, this was supported by the NRA. Just as the AWB that Romney signed was supported by the Massachusetts NRA. Reagan also supported the Assault Weapons Ban as well as the Brady Bill after his Presidency.
George W Bush stated he would have signed an extension of the Assault Weapon Ban if it ever came to his desk. We can all thank Tom Delay for stopping that.
**** Cheney stated that he does not believe anyone should own a magazine with more than ten rounds in it.
Is Romney weak on the second amendment? Yes. However, if elected, he will know where his support came from and you can bet his feet will be held to the fire.
George W Bush stated he would have signed an extension of the Assault Weapon Ban if it ever came to his desk. We can all thank Tom Delay for stopping that.
**** Cheney stated that he does not believe anyone should own a magazine with more than ten rounds in it.
Is Romney weak on the second amendment? Yes. However, if elected, he will know where his support came from and you can bet his feet will be held to the fire.
craigguinn
New member
the current potus has a great track record in skirting the constitution and the congress as a whole. by their defenition there is no difference between an automatic and and a semi-automatic when banning assault weapons. in fact i believe the potus stated automatic and semi-automatic in his answer during the debate.
JCliff
New member
Really???!! Of the responses to this thread so far, the only one that sounds like "Taliban" is yours. I know. I've heard 'em.
B2Tall
Stirrer of the Pot
There have been numerous attempts to reinstate the AWB since it expired in '04. It has never even come close to being passed, and that includes times when both the House and Senate were controlled by the Dems. Support for it in the House (as judged by the number of co-sponsors) has steadily declined, and in 2009 if I remember correctly only 9 senators voiced support for it.
I've said it numerous times - your local and state politicians are a far greater threat to your 2A rights than the Fed. There's just no support for it on a national level.
I've said it numerous times - your local and state politicians are a far greater threat to your 2A rights than the Fed. There's just no support for it on a national level.
OK, I watched the debate and no one said that semi-autos would be banned. Lets not spread rumors.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I'm having a hard time following this.
Reagan signed FOPA. Were his feet held to the fire, or was he dissuaded from securing the title of "conservative" gun-grabber by knowing where his support came from? Inexplicably, even among gun-owners and 2nd Amendment "supporters," Reagan is the yardstick by which all other conservatives are measured.
Has Cheney ever paid a cost for his belief in restricting 11+ round mags? He, too, knows where his support comes from, right? His feet are as cool as a cucumber as far as I can tell.
If Tom Delay was such a good friend to the 2nd Amendment, how is it that he was run out of town on a rail years before he even faced charges that he was convicted on fully six years after leaving office? 2nd Amendment "supporters" really are a schizophrenic bunch, aren't they though?
If Romney wins, and were to sign a new AWB, how would the same people who voted for him "hold his feet to the fire," and how good a bet would it really be that they would even consider showing up to do it?
Boy, we really hold our legislators' feets to the fires, don't we though? There's a thread active right now about how Allen West nearly walks on conservative water, and how he shoulda gotten the VP nod, but he voted for NDAA, Patriot Act extensions, HR 347, supports the Fed and opposes auditing them......He's not alone though. They're all the same, sans the flowery and inspiring (but equally as phony) rhetoric West is well-practiced at. None of their feet ever gets held to the fire. As BC1 said above, we can't seem to ever tell the truth anymore, though I doubt he appreciates me co-opting his words to make that point against Romney. Link Removed
Let's say Romney wins and in his first term does sign an AWB into law. Then Hillary runs in 2016. Do you still vote for Romney for a second term? I mean, why not? He already signed an AWB in MA, and almost everyone here is going to vote for him anyway. His feet will never be held to the fire anymore than the rest of our anti-freedom, hostile-to-the-Constitution politicians, period.
Just like the now defunct USSR, the only place The United States of America still exists is on an outdated map.
Blues
S&W645
NRA Life Member
Read the transcript. The original AWB is what Obama wants to reintroduce. That banned semi-autos if they had certain things.
From The text of the Assault Weapons Ban - Democratic Underground
S&W645
NRA Life Member
But it's fun to watch a sitting President have to have the moderator try to bail him out when they both are wrong. :biggrin:
New Threads
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
-
-
Reloading Newbie Here—What’s the Real Cost Advantage?
- Started by michaelstrahan
- Replies: 4
-
Members online
No members online now.