NSSF Endorses Romney. Kinda

[HTML1]

Despite gun grabbers’ characterization of the National Rifle Association (NRA) as the leader of the nattering nabobs of the nefarious “gun lobby,” The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is the firearms industry’s official lobbying group. While the NRA is happy to tell the world that it wants Obama to cry Momma , the NSSF walks quietly and avoid the big schtick. In a break with their non-partisan goals (profit!), the NSSF has produced this little ditty urging all Americans to vote. For Romney. Although not by name. Notice the blue and red graphics on the button? Cute. I guess the NSSF decided that while stealth makes wealth, right makes might. Or it will do if Romney gets the nod. And if he doesn’t, who’s gonna remember this “attack” ad anyway? In fact, it flew under our radar for over a month. Good point though.

comments

  1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

    Gary Muthafuckin’ Johnson 2012!!!

    1. avatar jwm says:

      so you support obama. you just don’t want to come out and say it.

      1. avatar Joe Questionable says:

        You know … it’s people like you.

        I could mention how Romney made the AWB permanent in MA when he was governor, or how RomneyCare became ObamaCare, or how he has claimed every possible stance on issues like abortion, or that he is in favor of open borders and the TSA at the same time … how if you ignore the book cover, he pretty much reads like Obama. But you may not even care about that.

        I could point out the simple math involved here: Libertarian Party has ballot access in all 50 states; roughly half (on average) of eligible citizens are registered to vote; roughly half of those registered (on average) actually show up to vote; electoral college points can be won with a 34%/33%/33% popular in favor of a third party; so: 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.34 = 0.085. It would only take 8.5% of all citizens in just a few key electoral states to get somebody besides a red/blue puppet in office!

        1. avatar jwm says:

          and when you don’t get that 8.5 % you will possibly have given the election to barry. which means you’ve left control to schumer, feinstein, pelosi etc. the figureheads are not nearly as important as the minions. 1 news outlet was just explaining how the votes johnson siphons away from romney could loose the swing states and give the election to barry. i’m a realist, i gave up tilting at windmills many years ago.

      2. avatar BlinkyPete says:

        FLAME DELETED In your mind if I don’t blindly support whatever empty suit the Republican Party puts behind a podium I might as well be supporting the other guy… well I am truly sorry that you lack the mental capacity to wrap your brain around this simply fact: Romney is Obama. They are the same damn person. If you think for a second Romney actually means what he says, that he isn’t a flip flopper or that he’s simply come to all the right conclusions just in time for this election cycle you’re beyond idiocy. Both of these guys stand for basically the same thing, including things that Obama lies about and Romney admits to like the war on drugs.

        I don’t care if it means a win for Obama – the outcome will be the same. Every year it’s the same message – THIS is the most important election of our lives, and if we don’t choose the lesser of two evils, well, durka durka rabble rabble, and every single time people like you get scared and fooled out of sacrificing a single vote. I haven’t voted for a major party candidate since 2000, and I’m proud of that fact. This time around, with a real, recognizable, viable candidate we have an opportunity to make a real dent and send a real message to both parties.

        I don’t expect you to absorb any of this jwm, but I hope others do.

        1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          I’m sorry for flaming… that was immature on my part.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          you and i are not going to agree on this b.p. but historically there is a major difference in the 2 parties when it comes to guns. that’s why i come to this site, iy’s about the guns. most of the reams of gun laws we have on the books come from the dems. i know that the gop drops the ball once in a while, but they are for us much more than the dems. i don’t like barry but i dislike the party he gives power to a lot less. i’m not in love with romney either, hell my wife is a mormon and she’s not in love with romney either. i don’t see an independent winning so i’m protecting my guns and staying with the gop.

  2. avatar Sanchanim says:

    Hey at least they are doing something.
    Now Ryan is someone who has a consistent voting record on 2A. There is no doubt there. If he gets in the white house one has a glimmer of hope at least that things will get better. Of course we need to get the senate to go the other way as well.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Paul Ryan looks to be legit. I like that he had an actual budget plan that works, although I know already there is at least one blogger here who enthusiastically disagrees with me. If you’re voting for 2nd Amendment rights, or the economy, the choice is pretty simple. It rhymes with “omney.”

      1. avatar Harry Callahan says:

        Paul Ryan is anything but legit, ESPECIALLY on the economy. Romney/Ryan are for trickle down economics, which we know didn’t work a few years ago. Not to mention, the whole REVERSE progressive tax is just not going to work out for the average voter. If you’re not filthy rich, you shouldn’t vote against your interests.

      2. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

        Romney signed the assault weapons ban. Obama signed the bill that allowed guns in National Parks. Maybe this is a commercial for Obama.

        Also, if Romney gets elected, pray that you don’t have any daughters, because they are going to have less rights than the girl who washes the laundry for the Taliban.

        Finally, Triple R (Who is the third R in that sticker? Reagan? Ayn Rand?) are going to cut taxes on billionaires, and balance it out by cutting Medicare and Social Security.

        That sounds like a plan that works for you? I’ve got news, big boy. Bush came to office with a five trillion dollar surplus, and turned it into a ten trillion dollar deficit. Ryan voted for every single one of those deficits, and now he is shocked, shocked, to learn that there is a deficit.

        He says they are going to balance it out by eliminating loopholes, but he won’t say which ones. He also says he will cut other government programs, but can’t say which ones. (Because if they told you, then it wouldn’t be imaginary any more.)

        Everyone who has ever looked at his budget tells him it won’t work. You can’t balance the budget by “assuming” the economy will grow at 8%. You can’t eliminate a trillion-dollar deficit by eliminating six $200 million loopholes. That is like trying to drain the bathtub with six eyedroppers, while the water is running. I don’t care if you have a hundred eye-droppers, you still need to understand basic math. You can’t borrow your way out of a deficit.

        It’s voodoo and lies. And if you vote for it, and end up eating dog-food when you retire, (so you can pay for the mega-yachts of the bankers who just got their taxes cut again), then enjoy your dogfood.

        But whatever you do, don’t think that your voucher will get you to see a doctor. It will get you a doscount of 40% on your million-dollar car accident, but the other $600,000 is up to you.

    2. avatar Leon says:

      Paul Ryan will suck up to the rich and ignore the poor.
      What Ryan doesn’t understand is that he will always Just be the help to the really well to do. They made him, they own him……and he doesn’t even know.

  3. avatar Greg Camp says:

    It’s the reverberating ping that makes it work.

  4. avatar jwm says:

    we need the oval office, the senate and the congress. and if we get that we need to make sure that we deluge the dems with emails and letters telling them exactly why we gave them pink slips. hopefully they’ll catch on and leave our guns alone. until i see schumer, feinstein, pelosi etc. stand op in the senate and propose constitutional carry nation wide i will not support the dems.

  5. avatar napoleon says:

    Since NSSF is an industry lobbying group, they are not pro 2A, they are pro big american gun manufacturer profits. Co

    More industry regulation makes things harder on the small (non-member) manufacturers and garage builders/reloaders.

    Cooperating with voluntary civilian restrictions may lead to lucrative government contracts.

    GCA1968 was a boon to domestic manufacturers as it reduced foreign competition.

    922(r) was a boon to domestic manufacturers as it reduced foreign competition.

    Militarizing LEO = profit for ‘big gun’

  6. avatar LongPurple says:

    “Notice the blue and red graphics on the button? Cute.”

    ‘ Scuse me! I see Red, White, and Blue on that button. Seems more like “American” than ” Dem/Repub” unity was the idea to be projected.

  7. avatar Aharon says:

    “Notice the blue and red graphics on the button?”

    No, I don’t. The graphics that I see are #GUNVOTE (black type over a white background).

  8. avatar Leon says:

    Simply stated 2A is a push in this election. What isn’t is someone trying to force their religious ideals down my throught. Akins proves what the right wing agenda is.
    I do not want someone telling me about my beliefs or telling women what to do with their own bodies. I am voting for President Obama. As a bicoastal blackman, that would fight to the end for 2A. There are way bigger issues.
    We have won ours. God bless America , from sea to tea. We need to get behind the man who will speak his mind , try his style but pays his taxes and came up through the ranks.

    1. avatar Aharon says:

      Who is this man that you speak of that we should get behind? Obama? He is barely qualified to be a university guidance counselor. I don’t like him telling America what our beliefs should be from supporting political correctness to femi-nazism to open borders and amnesty. His political ideology is a new form of religion and I don’t want or need him (or anyone) to try shoving their religious ideals down my throat. Obama is aligned with the beliefs of the man-hating radical feminists and his policies reflect that position. Obama is a liberal fascist just as Romney is another kind of fascist.

      1. avatar HellNo says:

        “He is barely qualified to be a university guidance counselor.”

        He was a lecturer at the University of Chicago law school before he was president. UChicago Law is ranked #3 in the nation, just after Yale and Harvard. It’s hard enough to get into the top ten as a student, but he was a LECTURER there. So your statement is highly idiotic.

        Oh and he was also in charge of the Harvard Law School newspaper. FLAME DELETED

        1. avatar Aharon says:

          FLAME DELETED Do you find people capable simply because of their title, job/position, or piece of paper called a diploma that they are in possession of? How does his job as lecturer at the UofC and all else you mentioned give him the qualifications to telling us what our political beliefs should be? How does anything you wrote invalidate anything I previously wrote?

          FLAME DELETED

        2. avatar HellNo says:

          Do you seriously think obtaining a position as a lecturer at UCHICAGO LAW is a piece of cake? Do you seriously think getting into Harvard Law School is a walk in the park? Why don’t you try doing it, if it’s so easy, genius?

          I find people capable because of their background and WORK EXPERIENCE (just like most employers do), and yes their curriculum vitae is included in that , because academic triumphs are hard fought, in a highly competitive arena. You would DEFINITELY know this if you were/are actually a part of the world of higher education and university research. Your trivializing of these institutions, institutions with solid ethos grounded in years of empiricism and integrity and peer review, show how little you even understand them.

          Top finance companies like JP Morgan and UBS hire grads straight out of Cornell, Columbia, and UChicago over other grads. A degree is not conferred to someone who doesn’t work hard (bleeding, sweating, and chronically pulling all nighters). Get real.

      2. avatar CoyoteJim says:

        Obama is aligned with the beliefs of the man-hating radical feminists and his policies reflect that position.

        Man-hating radical feminists? You lost me on that one.

        1. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

          Republican translation: Radical feminists are the ones who believe that they shouldn’t be forced to have a rapist’s baby.

        2. avatar Aharon says:

          Low Budget Dave,

          I assume your comment was directed at me. I’m not a Republican and I don’t have an issue with keeping abortion safe and legal. The ethical issue of abortion is another matter I won’t get into. You seem to stereotype people as in those of us opposed to Obama are for Romney and the GOP. I’m an independent voter and not a pawn of the Party System.

        3. avatar Aharon says:

          Good question Jim,

          Unfortunately, the main stream media, universities, and other cultural institutions are repeatedly spewing the feminist propaganda onto society. I don’t have the time to respond here in a manner that I’d like to. Please go visit some of the Men’s Movement sites to get an idea of what I’m referring to.

          sites:
          Angry Harrry
          ManWomanMyth (check out the introductory videos on the subject)
          A Voice for Men

        4. avatar CoyoteJim says:

          Oh yeah, I’m familiar with the Men’s Movement or whatever they’re called. We have a local one nearby, and it’s shady as hell. Lots of wife beaters banding together to get back their kids in custody fights. Not my cup of tea.

  9. avatar Don says:

    I am a little tired of the snide implications on TTAG that gun rights groups are so cynical as to be ignored. Of course they fundraise ’til the cows some home and stir up a frenzy to that end – but at the end of the day they are ruthlessly effective protectors of our 2A rights. They play the cynical game masterfully and I love them for it b/c they get the job done. It is fine to be blah over Mitt Romney but no one with half a brain, who understands the Lightworker’s mentality and the ragingly leftist milieu which he has marinated in every day of his life, can deny that he is intent on attacking the 2A with everything he’s got. If you are a one issue 2A voter there simply is no choice. If you are so confident that the 2A fight has been won via Heller and McDonald, I guess you don’t live in Chicago, New York, New Jersey or California. The fight isn’t won in any of these places – it has barely even started.

    I won’t even get into the fact that I run a small business and I wouldn’t have hired Barack Obama as an intern with his resume as of November 2008. He is the Mother of All Affirmative Action Hires and the nation is feeling the weight of its mistake. If we do it again, we deserve every last bit of misery we get.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      You would not have hired someone with a Columbia undergraduate degree and a Harvard Law School graduate degree with the high honor of Law Review Editor? I guess for your little business he was too overqualified.

      1. avatar Don says:

        I too went Ivy League and I can spot an AA that was let into the system a mile away. The system is rife with diversity candidates (not just race, but clueless internationals too) who cannot write a clear sentence or think logically to save their lives. And no, I would not have hired a Law Review editor who had never written a law review article the same as I would not hire an architect who has never had their drafts actually built into something that stands.

        1. avatar Aharon says:

          “He is the Mother of All Affirmative Action Hires”

          That is a very good summary of BO. BTW, I’m not a supporter or impressed with the qualifications, character, or accomplishments of anyone who has been president or vice-president the past 50 years. America has one political party of elites and the clowns that get elected or appointed from it range from liberal fascists to conservative fascists.

        2. avatar USP9 says:

          Wow, this affirmative action accusation is really uninformed. If he had such numerous accolades from several DIFFERENT institutions (Columbia, Harvard, UChicago), do you really think they were not based on merit? That’s an absolutely absurd line of reasoning. He worked hard for his education and where he is today. To pull the affirmative action argument is actually kind of racist, now that I think about it.

        3. avatar LolWut says:

          “who cannot write a clear sentence or think logically to save their lives”

          Okay, so produce some evidence for your rampant speculation. The Law Review is a piece of literature run by LAW SCHOOL students. You claim that you went to an Ivy League school, but you commit the fallacy of a false analogy.

          The stereotype you make (affirmative action type) goes to show the type of “logic” you employ. The irony of your claims is bitingly rich.

    2. avatar Sheeshkabob says:

      FLAME DELETED

    3. avatar UChicagoMaroon says:

      It’s remarkably hilarious of you to assume that Obama, considering where he is today, would have wanted to even work at your little store to begin with.

      Also, whoever throws around a bunch of categorical labels like AA-selected student* or “leftist milieu” (how dreadfully cliché!) probably did not pick up much from his Ivy League education, if he ever actually attended an Ivy League. Were you chronically hung over in class?

      *”I can spot them from a mile!” really? your post reads like it were from the Onion.

      I’m all for fighting for 2A, but guys like you really make the cause look bad, especially when it comes to convincing the other side that our arguments are valid.

      With this many logical appeals is so few words, I certainly don’t want YOU making the case.

    4. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

      Don:

      I think the GOP is running a campaign based on lies and hatred, and it seems to be working. The claim that Obama will take your guns away is an obvious lie, but it is designed to stir up hatred.

      The claim that job losses were worse under Obama than Bush is an obvious lie. The claim that the Ryan budget plan will balance the budget is an obvious lie. The claim that they won’t eliminate Medicare and Social Security is an obvious lie.

      To give you one example: Romney claimed that Obama cut Medicare because of the $700 billion in savings built into Obamacare. Ryan’s budget “assumes” a $500 billion savings from eliminating Obamacare, but than assumes they can keep the $700 billion in savings as well.

      That is like saving $700 by splitting rent with someone for a month, and then saving another $500 by kicking them out for running up the water bill. You can get one or the other, but not both.

      Maybe you think none of this applies to you. Maybe you are a millionaire. But even if you are a millionaire, Rommunism is going to hurt you. By eliminating millions of middle-class jobs, your customer base is going to dry up. You can’t save a sinking ship by throwing more money at the ship owners.

      To borrow your phrase, anyone who votes for this plan without reading it deserves all the misery they get.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        and aren’t you in favor of gun control,lbd. there’s a reason for you wanting to keep the democrats strong in this election.

        1. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

          I bait people a little on the issue of gun control, because I think people make some really poor arguments. In actual practice, I own several guns, and don’t think gun control would help much, except in a few extreme cases.

          The issue that usually gets me up in arms, so to speak, is health care. America spends more per person on health care than any other country on Earth, and we get the worst care in the industrialized world.

          Then some candidate comes along and promises to eliminate my health care, and all the sheeple in my neighborhood are like “yaaay!”.

          Well, I know these people, I know what they do for a living, and I know for a fact that their health care will be cut even worse than mine. But because somebody wraps in up in a speech about how “poor people and illegal immigrants” are taking advantage of the system, all the sudden, everyone is willing the throw the Medicare out with the bathwater.

          This one guy is a cop, and he voted for the most anti-union legislation I have ever seen in our state. Then he seems surprised when the state cut his pension. His wife is a teacher, and she voted the same way. When they cut her pension, she actually said to me: “I don’t think we can survive much longer under Democrats.”

          She actually has no idea that Republicans have a super-majority in both houses of the state legislature that cut her pension.

          Moreover, all thet money they saved turned into another round of tax cuts for billionaires, who didn’t even have to ask for it. It helps our economy about as much as you might expect.

      2. avatar Aharon says:

        Low Budget Dave wrote: “I think the GOP is running a campaign based on lies and hatred, and it seems to be working.”

        Do you believe the Democrats are running a campaign on truth and love or at least gentle politeness, and that it doesn’t seem to be working?

        1. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

          I don’t know that the Democrats, on average, are being any nicer than the GOP in this election. But in all honesty, they shouldn’t be. When someone calls you a liar, you have to fight back. If it happens that they are the ones spreading lies, you have to call them out. Anything short of that is losing.

  10. avatar Mark N. says:

    I think that anyone worried about the next Supreme Court appointment seriously underestimates the power of stare decisis. As a matter of policy, the court is extremely reluctant to overturn its prior decisions, no matter how wrongly it may now think them decided. On top of that, all nine justices agreed that the 2A is an individual right, although they disagreed as to the nature of the purposes for which that right was guaranteed. In short, it is extremely unlikely that either Heller of McDonald will be overturned at any point within the lifetimes of any of us here today, and if the past is a guide, never. The premise of the ad, that only “one vote” separated the bench in Heller, is promoting an untenable premise.
    Further, none of the “right” wing of the court look to be going anywhere, although a couple of members on the “left” are getting on in age, like Souter and Ginsburg.
    Yes, there are big battles yet to be fought, like carry outside the home, and the potential for restrictions on carrying outside the home. But I think that the current court, having recognized the right, and even the minority having recognized that right in conjunction with service in the militia and for defense against tyranny, must necessarily accept the existence of the right outside the home as a logical necessity.
    In short, the current election cycle will have no impact on the current 2A cases now pending in a variety of circuit courts or in, ultimately, the Supreme Court.

  11. avatar Don says:

    McDonald was a 5-4 decision and the status quo ante was certain juristications had restrictions that were effective prohibitions negating Heller. Heller means NOTHING to me in New York state without McDonald and not much even then. I still have to show “good and substantial reason” to exercise my rights in NY and I can be arrested if an authority determines I am not traveling to or from a target practice facility as my pistol permit is only valid for target shooting purposes. And I only have a “target” license because that is effectively the only license you can get if you are not ex-military or LEO in my county. Judges here deny permits to people who have only recently taken up target shooting, for not showing “sustained and sufficient” interest in the sport of target shooting. Battle won my ass.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Juristications? That’s a new one on me. You mean jurisdictions? Yes, Heller initially applied only to federal jurisdictions, and it took McDonald to apply it to the states. Both cases involved possession of firearms in the home only, but contain a lot of dicta about the scope of the right to bear arms, and especially the conclusion that the right to keep is different from the right to bear. The battle as to the scope of the right to bear, and the necessity of some states for “good cause” are being actively litigated as we blog. Some of these cases will reach the court before there is any change in its personnel, unless the court decides to let the issue simmer so more. Did I say the battle was won? Don’t think so. What I said is that the foundations established by these two cases will not change, no matter the make-up of the court.

  12. avatar IdahoFarmer says:

    I am an independent, and Obama has my vote. Sorry, but Romney is more sly than a fox and Ryan keeps shedding his own political stance just to fit Romney’s. Nothing seems more dishonest and vague than the Romney/Ryan ticket. AND they’re out for my damn money. I doubt they would even fight for 2A if elected. They’ll say anything to get into office, but when push comes to shove, they’re only in it to fill their own pockets (what with their absurd tax cuts). GOP profiteering at its finest.

    1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

      “Nothing seems more dishonest and vague than the Romney/Ryan ticket.”
      ——
      Except maybe Obama’s promise of a “new era of transparency in government.”

      “They’ll say anything to get into office…”
      ——
      And Obama will say anything to stay in office. I fail to see any meaningful difference between the two tickets being offered to us.

      1. avatar Aharon says:

        Obama promised Hope and Change.

        We got Despair and Chains.

        1. avatar AhaUrFunny says:

          And Paul “I’ll tax the shit out of the poor while giving the rich a disproportionate tax break” Ryan is going to make things better? Please.

      2. avatar IdahoFarmer says:

        Except maybe Obama’s promise of a “new era of transparency in government.”

        Oh, don’t you mean the GOP’s stonewalling and obstructing of congress?

        I fail to see any meaningful difference between the two tickets being offered to us.

        It all boils down to the lesser of two evils, and the one who will fight for your interest. If your interest includes paying higher taxes while the rich get tax breaks, a drastic gutting out of the education system for your future/present children, then be my guest and vote for Romney.

        1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          “Oh, don’t you mean the GOP’s stonewalling and obstructing of congress?”
          ——
          What do you expect when the other party’s spokeswoman has the gall to state, and I quote, “You have to pass this bill so we can find out what’s in it”?

          And perhaps you misunderstood me. Neither candidate will adequately represent me.

  13. avatar jimf says:

    There are rules re campaign ads and how campaign money is spent that prevents the ad from naming Romney by name. I have seen several tv ads from other organizations which do the same.

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    If Romney signed an “assault weapons ban,” why is it that I have several and why are they readily available in every gun store in MA? In fact, why are “assault weapons” the most popular firearms in MA?

    If you think that MA has an assault weapons ban, you are illiterate or willfully ignorant. What MA has is a high-capacity magazine limitation. We’re restricted to ten-rounders, except for mags that were in the Commonwealth prior to the “ban.”

    What Romney signed was a bill that rolled back the MA ban and was supported by every pro-gun organization in MA, even the most radical.

    I’m not a big fan of Romney, but c’mon.

    1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

      http://www.iberkshires.com/story/14812/Romney-signs-off-on-permanent-assault-weapons-ban.html

      From the article:
      “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.”

      You were saying?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        I’m saying that the newspapers are FOS. You can score “assault weapons” by the boatload in MA. Come shopping with me and you’ll see. You can buy an Uzi, Mac-10, AK, AR, whatever you want. Semiautomatic only, not full auto, but the machinegun restriction has been on MA’s books forever.

        I can provide you with links to the gun shops if you’d like.

        Believe your own eyes, not some crap in a Berkshire rag.

        1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          I do believe my own eyes. Text of the objectionable part of Section 121 follows:

          ““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) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.”

          By this text, AK’s, AR’s, Uzi’s and MAC-10’s, -11’s and -12’s are verboten. Standard disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. I am an engineer by trade, and am reasonably able to comprehend the English language. If I am in error and this is NOT the current text of Section 121 (as signed by then-Gov. Mitt Romney), please do enlighten me.

  15. avatar Tucson69 says:

    Most of the posts here are surprisingly enlightened however let me shoot a few barbs at my right wing Romneynites. Despite running an abjectly horrible campaign and picking a social darwinite as a running mate the election was relatively close. All the talk about how “he will take your guns” is just red meat and a side show/circus act to distract you from the miserable state of affairs that both parties and particularly the republicans are inflicting on the poor and middle class. To refer to Obama as marxist/socialist is just absurd. His entire presidency has been as an errand boy for corporate/military interests. How anyone but a fool could support the republican party now reduced to a braying, sulking mess is beyond me. Our 2 party duopoly is undemocratic and unhealthy. 3rd and 4th party candidates need to be given the same exposure as the big two and ballot access in all 50 states. On the bright side cheer up republican sports fans you can always run Rick Santorum/Sarah Palin in 2016. Two of your shining stars with cunning and swift intellect to boot !!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email