President Obama Calls for Assault Weapons Ban

 

In tonight’s presidential debate, President Obama answered a question about “keeping AK-47′s out of the hands of criminals” by pledging his support for an assault weapons ban. Although he parried Governor Romney’s opposition to the ban by paraphrasing the old anti-Kerry slam—”Governor Romney was for an assault weapon’s ban before he was against it”—the damage is done. In a single stroke the President completely alienated pro-gun independents. Obama’s support for new gun control move may not decide the election. Then again it might. (*cough* Al Gore *cough*) Meanwhile, AR manufacturers are bracing themselves for a major sales spike. Like tomorrow. Here are some actual quotes from the debate and commentary by our man Leghorn . . .

President Obama started strong, nodding towards an understanding of the second amendment. “I believe in the second amendment. We have a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people that want to protect themselves.” But then he slipped into the old party rhetoric that we’re familiar with. “But there are too many instances where I’ve had to comfort people.”

President Obama’s position was that we need to start by enforcing the laws that are on the books, but he clearly favored enacting a new assault weapons ban. His opinion is that “Weapons that were designed for soldiers, in war theaters, don’t belong on our streets.”

Never mind that the vast majority of firearms were designed for the military to begin with, and “assault weapons” make up less than four percent of guns used in crimes, evil looking guns need to be banned. Specifically “automatic weapons that kill folks.”

President Obama did indicate that he understood that “assault weapons” were not the real problem, noting that in his home city “They’re not using AK-47s [to kill each other], they’re using cheap handguns.” But that’s not stopping him from going full speed ahead with the new AWB.

While Romney might seem to be the better option then, he didn’t seem to have a proper grasp on the current gun laws. At one point he stated that machine guns were illegal in the United States, but as anyone who has fond memories of the Knob Creek machine gun shoot would know full auto is only a $200 tax stamp away. Another in the long list of fact checking that needs to be done against his speeches, it seems.

Who got the better of this one? Do you really need to ask?

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

159 Responses to President Obama Calls for Assault Weapons Ban

  1. avatarFrank Borek says:

    It was expected wasn’t it?

    • avatarRwolf says:

      Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias?

      Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias on the Premise members are Militants and Belligerents that pose a threat to National Security?

      Recently the Obama administration stated to Federal Judge Katherine Forest that under (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 the President had authorization to lock up belligerents indefinitely. That they (were justified) to lock belligerents up indefinitely—because cases involving belligerents directly-aligned with militants against the good of America—warrants such punishment.) Pres. Obama could use NDAA provisions to order U.S. Military Forces to round up without evidence, millions of Americans including militias by alleging they are belligerents or a threat to National Security. Many observers believe Obama intends to extend NDAA to imprison U.S. Citizens in Indefinite Detention not involved with or associated with enemy forces.

      Hitler included similar provisions in his fascist (Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933). Almost immediately after the German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens and confiscated their guns without probable cause or evidence; delegated powers to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. After World War II the East German Secret Police (Stasi) used the threat of Indefinite Detention to forcibly recruit thousands of informants.

      The U.S. 2012 NDAA legislation Obama signed 12-31-11 is similar to Hitler’s 1933 fascist laws the SS and Gestapo used to target persons in Germany for arrest, imprisonment and execution without probable cause; and confiscate millions of dollars of property. Hitler used his laws to suspend Parliament and the Supreme Court insuring his laws could not be rescinded.

      During the Obama Administration’s recent request for a (stay) to stop U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest blocking enforcement of vague NDAA provisions, the Obama Administration—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention; or what is against the good of America. Under vague provisions of NDAA, the President could accuse anyone of being (directly aligned with militants by way of any political or other association; activity, statement, writing or communication with an individual or group government deemed (militant) to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention.

      NDAA 2012, like Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees enforces censorship; refers to the Patriot Act e.g. warrant-less searches of private property and forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in NDAA 2012 keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.

      You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act lends itself to Government / police corruption; the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC may use a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.

      Sections of NDAA 2012 are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.

      Under NDAA 2012 it should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.

  2. avatarIndyEric says:

    Duh.

  3. avatarKelly in GA says:

    Well, you guys got the question. And those of you who said he hasn’t done anything, well, he wants to. What now!

    • avatarCurzen says:

      Hope that Congress stops both Obama’s ambition as well as Romney’s for a bipartisan compromise. They are both gungrabbers.

    • avatarNot Too Eloquent says:

      I hereby publicly eat my previous words. The question of gun control came up in the debate. Wow!

    • avatarElnonio says:

      Exactly, i was one of them. Well, he has now removed all doubt and we can now (self included) apply single-issue voting. Though from my point of view, it’s not really single issue voting: I just use one issue to gauge a candidate’s stance on individual rights.

  4. avatarJoshinGA says:

    Yep. Obama says he wants a new AWB because those guns are scary. Damn the facts saying it did no good. You have no way to spin this, people who said Obama wouldnt take your guns. It came right out of his mouth, live on TV. If Obama is re-elected, we will see a new AWB. Buy those full capacity mags now.

    • avatarrosignol says:

      If Obama is re-elected, we will see a new AWB….

      …die in committee in the House of Representatives and never come up for a vote by the full house.

      The chances of AWB2 getting through a Republican House are zero, and the R’s will hold the House.

      The real issue is the Supreme Court. The ones on our side of the issue are getting pretty freakin’ old, and Obama’s not going to be appointing pro-2nd A justices.

      • avatarMerits says:

        I don’t share your optimism that Obama needs congress to enact new law.

      • avatarmiforest says:

        yeah , whats that term he uses so much now…. Oh yeah, “Executive Order” . just like the new rules for gun shops on the southwest border. He don’t need no stinkin congress.

      • avatarJimmy says:

        He could always sign an executive order, since he seems to be quite fond of doing that. The options and potential are there.

      • avatarCharlie says:

        Nobody thought Obamacare would get by either. It did. Are you really willing to bet the farm that congress remains solidly pro-gun after the election.

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      If he can magically make 2 million illegals legal via executive order, why not make a few million guns illegal that way?

      And who says the GOP will hold the House in 2014?

      And what about USSC nominees?

    • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

      I happen to agree with him. I personally don’t understand the need for a hunting rifle to have a folding stock, or for a handgun to have a 32 round magazine that mounts in front of the handgrip. Both restrictions are fairly easy to circumvent for hunting or for home defense. As far as flash suppressors, I never understood why Obama wanted to ban them, nor why TTAG was so determined to keep them.

      Obama mentioned in his speech why the AWB would only address a certain very limited form of gun violence. As people have pointed out here and elsewhere, a much greater benefit could come from enforcing existing gun laws. Obama not only mentioned that, he made it the core of his answer.

      I was also wondering how TTAG were going to spin Romney’s lies on the subject. Now I know. “Romney just made a mistake.”

      The NRA used its “News” radio outlet to rewrite history to hide Romney’s past support for gun control.

      During Cam & Company on NRA News early this month, Cam Edwards said that Romney’s gun policy while Governor was supported by Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) of Massachusetts. Edwards also claimed that Romney loosened restrictions on assault weapons while governor. These are both basically lies.

      In July 2004, Romney signed legislation into law that made Massachusetts’ assault weapons ban more permanent than the federal ban that expired at the end of 2004. The state issued a press release at the time, in which Romney described assault weapons as “instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

      GOAL fired back with its own press release titled, “Firearm Reform Bill Signed, Romney Takes Opportunity to Betray Gun Owners.” According to the release, “When asked by a reporter if he supported the renewal of the federal ‘assault weapons’ ban and if he had spoken to the senators about it, Governor Romney replied that it was not really his job to lobby on federal legislation, but that he shared Senator Kerry’s and Senator Kennedy’s position on the issue!”

      Now that is a candidate I could get behind. If it weren’t for the fact that his economic plan is a bunch of lies, I might be willing to overlook some of the other disasters-in-planning that make up his campaign platform….

      Nah, not even then.

      • avatarPeter says:

        Typical old fud.

      • avatarDJ says:

        The 2nd amendment says nothing about hunting. It was and is intended to allow the civilian population the ability to overthrow a corrupt government.

        Hunting has zero to do with the inherent right to self defense. Our founders clearly saw that right as one that extended to protecting life, liberty and property from an unjust regime (aka, the British monarchy).

  5. avatarkb says:

    I find it very troubling how, in the same breath, he professed his belief in the second amendment and then went on to say “…get an assault weapons ban re-introduced.”

    And let’s not forget the infamous “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns” remark.

  6. And Romney brought up Fast and Furious! Obama totally ignored that question.

    • avatarBrandon says:

      +1

    • avatarFamibly Do says:

      Yeah he was there with a lady and her son who had been shot or whatever he was trying to say and I kept thinking over and over what about Brian Terry, have you even called his Mom yet?

    • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

      Romney brought it up in answer to a question about gun control. It wasn’t a question, it was an attempt to dodge a question.

      Anyway, so you are saying that guns don’t kill people, except for the ‘fast and furious’ guns? Those are the only guns in the history of guns that you would have actually banned?

      Or are you saying that banning certain guns would save lives?

      Because from my point of view, the easiest way to save lives of Americans would be to stop sending them off to pointless wars in oil-rich Muslim countries. Considering that Romney has pretty much promised new wars in Iran and Syria, I am not sure he is going to win any points in the ‘saving lives’ department.

    • avatarJericho941 says:

      Romney “brought up” Fast & Furious and did nothing with it. What he said was basically, “So I heard the Government did this Fast & Furious thing. What’s up with that? I don’t know HAR HAR HAR.”

  7. avatarMike Taylor says:

    He has a little bit of practice making promises that he has no intention of keeping…

  8. avatarTim says:

    And Romney responds saying that autos are already illegal.

    Hate to tell you folks, but pick either of them and we are screwed either way. Not a good election for those who are pro-2A.

    • avatarChris says:

      Somebody should tell Obama and Romney that automatic (machine gun) weapons are already effectively banned, aren’t used much for crime in the US, and criminals don’t really care about the law anyway.

      For that matter, criminals don’t care about any of the gun laws.

    • avatarirock350 says:

      Romney almost agreed to an Assault Weapons Ban as well. If only he had bipartisan support he would vote for an AWB. Romney is a crap option for 2a.

      • He didn’t say say he would pass it if there was bipartisan support. The clearly supporting Obama moderator as leading him and trying tog et him to say that, but I recall him not falling for it.

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      If you don’t get it now, you probably never will. Romney and Ryan are the better choices for the 2A. One actually hunts, the other will appoint conservative SCOTUS judges. Obama wants an AWB, and will appoint anti-gun liberals, and will lend support to Feinstein / Pelosi / Clinton et. al. Romney isn’t perfect, but he is definitely the lesser of two evils. Neither knows all of the gun laws in all of the states. Neither do I, for that matter, and I suspect that you don’t know them all, either.

  9. avatarsdog says:

    sweet, annnnnnd cue panic buying, count me in. An assault weapons ban is a heavy lift consider everything else that he should be concentrating on.

  10. avatarChris says:

    Obama wants to ban criminals from having assault weapons… don’t we already do that? /sarcasm

    • avatarLegion7 says:

      Actually, we ARE the criminals in a liberals world… therefore, banning sporting/patrol rifles would IN FACT keep us criminals from possessing them.

  11. avatarAaron says:

    But he did say that the majority of violence is being caused by cheap firearms… I don’t know I was once going to vote for Obama, but I feel like really the vote won’t matter because both have or will advocate an AWB. I agree with JoshinGA… start stockpiling.

  12. avatarFrostedIce77 says:

    Oh dear Lord….que the hike in AR accessory prices and an even worse availability of 5.56. Can i buy stock in CTD, midway, and brownells?

    • avatarChris says:

      How many bans do you they can be passed before criminals simply learn how to make their own fully auto AK-47s?

      • avatarFrostedIce77 says:

        Well theyre already doing it illegally since anyone without a class 3 federal license cant own a fully auto, not really making them but illegally importing. That being said why are they so focused on semi-auto “assault style weapons” that are used in less than 1% of all crimes in the US?

        • avatarJimmy says:

          Wrong, if you live in a state that allows class 3 items, you can buy them as long as you fill out the paper work for the tax stamp, pay the fee and go through the background checks and a few other small hoops.

    • Several US gun manufacturers are publicly traded companies.

      • avatarPatch says:

        Of the two publicly traded within the United States, your better bet will probably be Smith & Wesson, what with the M&P line being a bigger deal to them than the SR-556 line is to Ruger.

  13. avatarDaniel says:

    I should’ve started a pool at the local bar with all my liberal friends on this one. I’d be rich.

  14. avatarDerryM says:

    No surprise from either Candidate. Elect Obama get and AWB for sure, maybe worse. Elect Romney and hope his Staff will make sure he knows the current law before he supports, opposes or signs anything related to gun Rights.
    I’ll take Romney even so.

  15. avatarChris Dumm says:

    I noticed that both candidates tried their best to get away from this question as quickly as they could. Obama muddled around, admitted his preference for an AWB, and then moved on to ‘violence interruptor’ bullshit. He clearly didn’t want to spend too much time stepping on the electric third rail of American politics. Romney stated his preference for enforcing existing laws and his opposition to a new AWB, and then went on the attack over Fast & Furious.

    In the eyes of the 2A crowd, Romney aced this question, and Obama blew it.

    Antis will probably see it exactly the other way.

    • avatarCurzen says:

      How exactly is calling for a bipartisan solution akin to Massachusetts “acing it”???

      • avatarKelly in GA says:

        Did you read Ralph’s debunk of the Romney Bill? He had to sign the permanent ban in a lower form of the older 1998 law that loosened restrictions on some parts of gun ownership. Not bad for having an 87% Democrat legislature.

        • avatarCurzen says:

          Did you watch the debate? He states bipartisan gridlock in Washington hinders new laws. He wants to break that gridlock. That means more restrictions on gun ownership. Let me quote from the transcript:

          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.

        • avatarjwm says:

          curzen it sounded more like a dig at barry’s lack of leadership than a rant for new gun laws.

        • avatarCurzen says:

          jwm: if you want to keep telling yourself that…

        • avatarjwm says:

          curzen. Barry, supported by difi etc. bad. Mitt backed by ryan and the gop, not quite as bad. As far as gun owners go this election it’s really that simple.

          abstain from voting or vote for someone like johnson and in a tight race like this you give it to barry. Not a great choice, I admit. But it’s the best we have.

  16. avatarRambeast says:

    ineedmoregear dot com has a sale on pmags. $10.36 a piece. Get ‘em while you can. The horizon is looking pretty dark, and the waves are kicking up. I got AR #2 last week…I might be able to scrape up the cash for another before election day. I wonder if BCGs and other replacement parts will be affected.

  17. avatargoose says:

    I think my Beretta 92 was designed for the military and I enjoy shooting it at the range and sleep better knowing I can protect my home. Romney the lessor of two evils although I would have to destroy the 17 round mags and buy 10s

  18. avatarRoss says:

    Every politician out there knows what the Second Amendment is really all about, and they fear it, and as a result they are always seeking ways to ban the most effective tool We the People have to use against them, should it ever be necessary.

  19. avatarAMG says:

    It is ridiculous to think that there is no difference on the 2A between these two. One is comfortable actually saying he would like to re-implement the AWB! The other stated clearly he is not in favor of any new gun laws. Since Gore lost we have heard the “experts” say gun control has become the 3rd rail and no one would touch it. Well Obama just did and looked fine with it, even eager to please his leftist base. Does that concern only me?

  20. avatarhoppes#9 says:

    Makes me think of the clownish American Rifleman cover that arrived today. None of this is going to happen. Find another reason to vote for Romney if you must – I cannot.

    • avatarAverage_Casey says:

      Feel free to vote for whomever you want but understand that if you don’t vote for Romney, you increase the likelihood that Obama gets re-elected. Thus, you increase the likelihood of an assault weapons ban.

  21. avatarUtah_Rob says:

    Obama’s mention of reintroducing the AWB was half-hearted at best; he spent way more time backing away from the question, talking vaguely about ways to reduce violence.

  22. avatarVermin says:

    Holy crap! The braying jackass who has been militantly antigun throughout his entire public existence is now revealed to be antigun. Shocked, SHOCKED I SAY!

  23. avatarGA_Koenig says:

    I think Romney’s statement of machine guns being illegal is clearly just a simplification of the rhetoric for the purposes of a debate.

    $200 tax stamps and Class III collecting is such a narrow corner case, it isn’t worth muddying up a talking point in a national, televised debate with.

    • avatarJim Barrett says:

      Not to mention the fact that as the cheapest full auto guns run north of $3k, it tends to be a self-limiting problem

  24. avatarSparky says:

    Both Obama and every other informed American know that this will go exactly nowhere.

    But go ahead and buy stock in RGR, SWHC and OLN if you’d like.

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      Keep your head in the sand and be unprepared if you want to. UN Arms Treaties, additional stupid gun laws, ammo taxes, lead bans, etc. are on the horizon. Be oblivious if you want to, but I can see it coming and vote accordingly with my ballot and my dollars.

      Pmag sale, here I come.

  25. avatarRalph says:

    Is this supposed to be a shock? The Democratic Party platform calls for the AWB to be renewed. Can’t you guys read?

  26. avataruncommon_sense says:

    I know this isn’t entirely on topic. Did anyone notice what Obama said after the debate as he shook hands with Mitt Romney and then turned to walk away? As he faced Romney and shook hands it looked like he said “good job”. Then as he turned away and Romney couldn’t see his face it looked like Obama said “a$$hole”. Unfortunately there was no audio so I don’t know for sure. But if you have any ability to read lips at all, it sure looks pretty clear.

  27. avatarJohn says:

    My 1903A3 Springfield “was designed for soldiers” too. Bleak times could be ahead.

  28. avatarmike says:

    One is from IL, the other is from MA….. we’re all screwed gun-wise.

    • avatarPatch says:

      This, +1000.

    • avatarihatetrees says:

      False. We’re more likely to be screwed by an Obama re-election. If that’s not clear, you’re politically blind.
      We elect a president, not a king. Presidents can be somewhat controlled politically by their party. One candidate represents a party that mostly supports gun rights and the other represents a party that doesn’t. So there really is no choice but Romney with his noted imperfections.
      An argument could be made that a re-elected President Obama would be good for galvanizing the pro-gun cause. While such “strategic” voting may make sense for a congress-critter or two, the presidency is too important. The 5-4 SCOTUS majority that decided McDonald may be on the line.

  29. avatarDaveM says:

    About time Barry fessed up

  30. avatarEric_in_NOLA says:

    nothing new under the sun

    ABC can save some money by reusing this 2009 article

    “Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban”
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1#.UH4oiMXR58E

  31. avatarBryan P says:

    Well that was the last bit of motivation I needed to get my voter address change in the mail.

  32. I wouldn’t trust Romney an inch; that man has a history of being willing to say and do anything he thinks will help him win.

    However, the good news is that we don’t have a Congress that’ll send either of them an assault weapons bill to sign. Divided government and gridlock does good things at times.

  33. avatarjwm says:

    At this point I should say I told you so. But the truly shocking thing is the number of people saying that barry isn’t serious or he’s not a threat to your guns. Or there’s no difference between him and mitt.

    Difi has an permanent AWB ready for national implementation and hillary’s ready to go back to the UN. And people are still defending barry. Unfvckingbelievable.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Well we know one author here who defends Obama. I can’t mention the name without having my comment deleted, but if you read previous articles it’s clear.

  34. avatarAharon says:

    “In a single stroke the President completely alienated pro-gun independents”

    I think ‘completely’ is going too far to describe the total response. Some of those independents might be neutral towards or even in agreement with Obama on banning “assault weapons”. Some people just own a revolver or an 8-shot semi-auto pistol. Some indies are shotgun hunters, Independents that are pro-gun may have other political issues that are more important to them than guns and especially “assault weapons”.

    • avatarJoshinGA says:

      I mean, if you really listen to what he says…you can tell he doesnt want anyone to own any guns. A permanent AWB would just be the first step…

      • avatarAharon says:

        Sure, Josh I do agree with you that Obama does not want anyone owning guns, and yes an AWB is just one of many steps to banning all guns. My comment above was in regard to the response by the pro-gun independents demographic.

        • avatarJoshinGA says:

          And my comment was with regards to that, maybe we need to make sure that pro-gun independents know that Obama in no uncertain terms wants a complete ban on guns, and nothing short of it either.

  35. avatarAharon says:

    Tomorrow morning I’m going to buy ammo. Worst case scenario, when the price doubles in four years or less I can make a profit.

  36. avatarHarrold says:

    I expect as much-feinstein and boxer are usually found waving kalashnikov around as well.Mihkail is probably perplexed as to why its always an AK that they drag out for an example.Children are raped and murdered and liberal attorneys say their defendant isnt getting a fair break-the guy had a rough childhood.But that same individual is all to happy to see us all disarmed, and for those of us who wont-well there will be death and prison, and I bet there wont be anyone saying “they were born free” its just what they are used to! Well,go ahead and try it-and we will see whats what…..Fast and Furious, and Furiouser!

    • avatarCurzen says:

      I’m not surprised at all. The AK is always the bad guys rifle in movies etc. It’s also a foreign product so they can’t be called unamerican for wanting it banned.

  37. avatarS.CROCK says:

    Romney may not be the best president we could have, but he is a whole lot better than Obama. Put guns aside Romney believes in most things that our founding fathers did.

    • avatarg says:

      Like MORMONISM?

      Or going to France instead of enlisting to serve in our Armed Forces during the draft?

      Vote for Mr. Romney if you’d like, but I hardly would call Mr. Romney’s beliefs to be identical to our Founding Fathers.

      • avatarTR says:

        g, take it from a Mormon, if you strip away the fanatics and nuts (which exist in any religion, I might add), Mormons are pretty regular people that participate in both parties actively. As far as I know, however, we’re the only denomination that actually affirms as part of our cannonized doctrine that the Constitution was divinely inspired and that it is and should remain the supreme law of the land.

        I’m a gun-loving conservative Mormon and am more than happy to answer any questions or concerns you may have about the doctrines Romney adheres to. His personal agendas or beliefs are another matter, but they seem pretty innocuous overall.

        • avatarae4797e3ab0b says:

          “which exist in any religion, I might add”

          All the more reason for them to just die out already.

      • avatarMr. Obvious says:

        You forgot my favorite part of that story – he dodged the draft AFTER he protested in favor of the draft and the Viet Nam War.

  38. avatarg says:

    “President Obama did indicate that he understood that “assault weapons” were not the real problem, noting that in his home city “They’re not using AK-47s [to kill each other], they’re using cheap handguns.””

    He also mentioned that he understood that the root causes of violence, such as poverty and education, need to be dealt with. And that simply banning “assault weapons” was not a fix all.

    And Mr. Romney went on to cite his record as governor of Mass passing a ban. And taking a cheap shot at single mothers. My mother raised me by herself quite fine, Mr. Romney, and guess what! I’m not a gun-wielding mass murderer.

    But seriously… the woman’s question was bad from the moment the phrase “assault weapon” escaped her lips.

    • avatarjwm says:

      So if barry understands that “assault weapons” are not the problem in crime why’s he pushing an AWB? As for mitt being mormon, what’s that got to do with anything? I don’t hold people’s race or religion against them. I claim no religion, but my wife’s a mormon. And if family values are important to you you can do a lot worse than voting for a mormon.

      As for mitt’s service we put that aside when bill clinton got elected and what service did barry do? Oh yeah, ACORN.

      I’m a veteran and damned proud of it. But I do not require those around me to have served.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        The reason is simle, but for some reason it is never discussed. Yes we have a right to keep and bear arms. But is that any arm? Bombs, chemical weapons, ainti-aircraft missiles, nuclear weapons. There are some who will say yes, but let me suggest that most will say No Way Jose. There is a line, and some weapons are on the far side of that line. The moderates and centrist liberals liuke Obama draw that line at “weapons you don’t need.” And the way they look at things, “assault weapons” are not hunting weapons, and therefore there is “no need” for citizens to have these “military arms.” Shotguns, hunting rilfes, and handguns are OK, but not the rest. Part of this perception is a lack of education of the nature of the weapons in question–for example that most of these arms are in calibers too small for hunting, and are pretty lightweight compared to a 30-06. *(How many times hav we heard of ARs and AKS being described as “high powered rifles”?) Even the Supreme Court in Heller touched ever so lightly on this question, seeming to agree that the government could lawfully outlaw certain types of weapons–which weapons is not stated. And there are a lot of weapons that are prohibited destructive devices that are illegal to possess. Again, the question is where do you draw the line? That a line WILL be drawn is beyond question.

        But Obama did recognize that AWB are irrelevant to the real issue. That issue is violence, not the availability of firearms. Take avway the firearms and you will still have crime and still have violence. And that is the point the gun banners can’t seem to get. Gun bans are just “feel good” legislation that accomplishes nothing.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      I’m sick and tired of the old slander of poverty and lack of education being the root causes of violence. Do you hate the poor? Because it’s a nasty damn thing to say and it’s untrue. Most of the 20th century’s greatest murderers were intelligent men that were NOT poor. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were not beggars in the ****ing streets.

      Oh, and, by the way there are plenty of poor uneducated people in West Virginia but the murder and violence rates there and among cultures that don’t advocate psychopathic behavior in general are much lower than they are in the inner cities.

      The violence problem stems largely from the drug war, lack of opportunities due to bad local and state level political decisions, and homes where children have no moral guidance.

      But to say that poverty and lack of education are the root causes of violence is a ****ing lie. Hell all you have to do is briefly look around the world to see it’s blatantly untrue. Look at all those violent impoverished Asians. Oh wai–

  39. avatarBiofire says:

    I don’t think for a minute Obama will seek additional gun laws. The goal of this debate was to fire up the base. He said what he needed to say.

    • avatarJoshinGA says:

      So, what you’re saying is, even though he stated on live TV that he was in favor of a renewed AWB, you just dont believe him??? Or he didnt mean what he said? Even though he said it, and its in their platform, and Eric Holder out-ed their plans in 2009, and his infamous “no one should own a gun” comment…

      • avatarCurzen says:

        To be honest, these are dishonest politicians. They will say whatever gets them votes. Both of them.

      • avatarBiofire says:

        Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. Its an election year, they say what they need to say to fire up the base. Obama won’t do anything about guns because its a nonstarter in Congress. Just a waste of his time. He had 4 years and did nothing. Welcome to TV.

      • avatarJim Barrett says:

        I disagee. The portion of his base that would be fired up on gun control is already firmly in his pocket for other issues. I think that this was a mistake. Saying he is in favor of an AWB does not really help him that much and he has simply handed the NRA a blank fundraising check. Expect imminent email blasts on the topic.

        Romney on the other hand missed an opportunity to pounce on O’s comment that he supports a scary weapons ban even though he acknowleges that scary weapons are not being used in most crimes. He should have asked the president why he believes that way. After all, lots of non-gun tech was originally developed for the military but later made it into civillian hands. Should we maybe ban civillian access to GPS?

        I suspect that the real reason for the spft shoe approach is that A lot of the middle ground voters are uninformed and scared of black guns and if Romney were to come out too strongly in favor of no restrictions, it might hurt his chances.

        While it may be true that if every gun owner voted against Obama, we could vote him out, fact is that there is a health number of gun owners who still will support him for other reasons. Just look at some of the comments above.

        While I have many reasons not to want a second term of O town, on the issue of guns, the choice is simple. On the pne hand, you have one candidate who has a mixed history of for/against guns, but who has never made anti2a one of his platform issues. On the other hand, you have an avowed proponent of 2A. On the issue of guns, the choice, while not ovrly appealing seems pretty simple to me.

  40. avatarJason14j says:

    I knew that line in the debate would fire up all the teabaggers so I came here to read the discussion. Number one – your right to own a gun IS not, HAS not, and WILL not be in danger. Number two – you will never need a gun to defend yourself from the government….two hundred years ago that was likely but not today. Number three – Obama may want a ban on assault weapons but it wont pass, probably never even be drafted. That was merely a way of soliciting the vote of the undecideds who don’t like guns. Number four – you have the right to bear arms….not every type of weapon conceivable.
    I have a Bushmaster M4A3, Sig P250 . 40 cal, Mosin Nagant, Mossberg 500, Ruger 10/22, and 10,000 + rounds of ammo. I am certainly a gun owner but I am not opposed to legislation that makes sense. I would not oppose a requirement to register assault weapons and require sales to go through a formal process involving a background check etc.

    • avatarJoshinGA says:

      Just because you own guns doesnt make you a friend to true supporters of the 2A…registration is step one towards confiscation.

      “you have the right to bear arms….not every type of weapon conceivable.” Shall not be infringed…

      The government takes strides to remove more and more individual liberties what seems like every day now. The use of a gun to defend the liberties of the American people has not seemed as plausible as it does today since about 200 years ago.

      Obama will issue an executive order to make the AWB happen if it comes to that. And the Dems surely have the bill for the permanent AWB just waiting in the wings for Obamas reelection.

      • avatarJason14j says:

        I’m not sure how registration is one step towards confiscation. The idea that all of a sudden the federal government could suddenly confiscate every registered assault weapon is unrealistic. Every citizen would report theirs stolen and just hide it.

        Shall not be infringed…so conceivably I should be able to possess a nuclear warhead? I get your point, I’m just pointing out the fact that there has to be a limit. I oppose a full on AWB, but would support registration and sales of used AWs to go through a formal process. Class III folks haven’t had their rights taken away, just regulated. Same with silencers.

        Assault weapons are a lot of fun and have a purpose outside the military. And we all should be able to have one just slow down the ease in which they are sold used between individuals. True, they are rarely used in crimes….but they are the weapon of choice when someone wants to kill the most people possible.

        • avatarCurzen says:

          legislation and supreme court opinion holds that the 2nd amendment does not permit citizens to own weapons which kill indiscriminately, like grenades, bombs, nukes etc.

        • Registration is a required step towards identification/confiscation, which is why it has been deemed unconstitutional. Many states find a way around this though. NJ has handgun registration.

          I don’t like the mentality for passing laws, potentially later followed by a constitutional challenge. Laws should be examined for constitutionality before being passed.

    • avatarAharon says:

      Jason,

      You are failing to consider the lessons of history. How do you ‘know’ all those not so believable promises that you made?

      • avatarJason14j says:

        Well anything is possible but heres my opinion.

        “Number one – your right to own a gun IS not, HAS not, and WILL not be in danger.” —Before his election every scare tactic in the book was used to make Barry sound like the antichrist and all of your guns would be taken away. There is no evidence of that. One comment tonight about “opening the discussion” does not equal an assault on your liberties.

        “Number two – you will never need a gun to defend yourself from the government….two hundred years ago that was likely but not today.” – to go from a nation that represents the foundation of democracy in the world to a nation that needs to be overthrown by its people is a pretty drastic move. I’m placing my bet that there are no fundamental changes on that magnitude in my lifetime. I could be wrong though and my few guns aren’t going to make a difference if it comes to that.

        “Number three – Obama may want a ban on assault weapons but it wont pass, probably never even be drafted. That was merely a way of soliciting the vote of the undecideds who don’t like guns.”—- its politics my friend.

        • avatarwho_brought_the_chips says:

          Romney’s no saint but I can’t honestly believe some people here are trying to defend Obama as not anti-gun. He elected two anti-supremes, ran (or allowed) F&F, poured fuel on the fire on the border, and had a long history of anti-gun stance in IL and the senate. So let me get this straight
          -he just said he would support another AWB (which is in the Dems platform) your response is: he’s just saying that and it wouldn’t make it through congress!
          -Well it might if congress changes or he might issue an EO.
          -If he did you support it anyway because an AWB is reasonable and there’s no reason not to have one – but of course you’re a gun owner and love the 2A.
          -You are no friend of mine and I’m not afraid to say that I despise (not hate, that’s not right) you and all who think like you. I don’t know how many times we need to go over the various statistical (it doesn’t work), logical (if you thought it would work you’re stupid) and fundamental (if you support it, you inherently oppose the 2A period.)
          You people disgust me and I’m very disappointed not just that you’re my countrymen, but that you’re allegedly gun owners and yet fail at reasoning so drastically.

          FWIW I’m not entirely sure I will be voting for Romney on moral grounds, but that’s based on entirely different issues.

        • avatarMichael B. says:

          +1, whobroughtthechips

    • avatarMitt "AW are legal...huh?" Romney says:

      Thank goodness someone shed some light on the truth around here. I just read 20 comments from scared hillbillies, all ready to buy ammo. Are you f**king kidding me? All you dipsh*ts sincerely think that you are going have to overthrow the government with assault weapons? An AWB makes sense to every reasonable American. I find it hilarious that a Presidential candidate (GOP at that) doesn’t even know the assault weapons ban expired and are no longer illegal. WOW!

    • avatarChris says:

      Number 1: Have you tried living in San Francisco, Chicago, or New York? These are just three cities that have attempted to ban guns outright.

      Number 2: 200 years ago? Also, 150 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, and even since then. If you don’t know what these time periods roughly correlate to, then I suggest you read up on American history. Rarely is the entirety of government in the US a threat, but often some members of the government or their agents (meaning police and national guard) do take actions that directly threaten the lives, liberties, and rights of US citizens. Government as a whole may not be a threat, but the egos and agendas of individuals who abuse their positions of power can be.

      Number 3: You are quite possibly right, but I question how much of a ban the current Supreme Court would be willing to let stand. Say what you will for social engineering, but weapons bans are in direct conflict with the concept of natural rights and liberties that the Constitution is founded on, the idea being that individuals come together and form a government of common consent giving some portion of their efforts and wealth to further the common good, but not relinquishing entirely their natural rights. Laws must respect the rights we are each born with (or given to us by god if you so believe), or the government becomes oppressive by definition.

      Number 4: Why not every type that can be conceivably stored and handled in a safe manner? I would agree that weapons containing radioactive or highly unstable (or fast-decaying) explosive and/or combustible materials should not be widely available, but as far as the various flavors of firearm goes it needs to be pointed out that there are far more safe gun owners as a percentage of the specific population than there are safe car owners. What you are saying is akin to telling everyone that we can only drive SmartCars because some fool got drunk and slammed his Ferrari into a row of parked cars. And guess what, the fools on the roads take twice as many lives every year as all homicides in the US (including poisonings, stabbings, beatings, etc).

      So there you have it

      • avatarJason14j says:

        Chris,
        I certainly don’t support bans, my comments were on regulation of specific types of weapons. I believe everyone should be able to own any type of conventional weapon– provided they have not demonstrated significant reason not to. I would like to know more about these events in American history you referred to. I am very open minded and maybe there’s important things I wasn’t aware of.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          Unless your a criminal, or insane person who have lost their rights by due process, there is nothing to demonstrate other than being a citizen.

    • avatarBiofire says:

      Ditto.

      • avatarDavid W. says:

        AR15s, most popular rifle in America, millions have been sold. I remember reading something from the FBI statistics from 2009. 400 people were killed by any kind of rifle. THat includes all bolt actions, single shot, lever action, pump action, falling block, and semi-automatic. Now if there are million of “assault weapons” that can only be used to “assault people”, shouldn’t the body count be higher then 400?

    • avatarjwm says:

      J14j, you and most of us here are ignoring the comment barry made about the damage being done by handguns. He doesn’t just want to rid us of “assault weapons”. That’s just the toe in the door. And don’t forget that this president is favorable to the UN arms treaty. And if he gets a second term who do you think will run to replace him next? Hillary? Biden? If you truly are a 2a supporter you will not support the dems until they see the light on guns.

  41. avatarcycl0ps says:

    Good lord, sometimes this site makes me sad to be a gun owner. I love how only one sentence is concentrated on. Ignoring the fact that he also said “follow existing laws” as well as other arguments. Mass. is one of the worst gun owner states out there no matter how much Romney says he “worked with both sides”. Romney has done more harm to 2A rights than Obama ever has. Look at the facts people and for the love of god try not to be so partisan.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Yea, my parents are partisan hacks for the Republicans. They keep insisting that Romney will be better for gun laws than Obama and I keep pointing out all his anti-gun stances from his past.

      The best is when my mom tried to claim Romney would repeal Obamacare. She refuses to accept that Romney supports it when I point out that Obamacare was copied from what Romney did in MA.

    • avatarAharon says:

      “Romney has done more harm to 2A rights than Obama ever has”

      Whether or not MR has done more harm than Obama I am not going to debate. Obama has placed two very anti-gun supremes on the Court. I’m more concerned about evaluating who is the more dangerous candidate in the long-term big-picture threat.

  42. avatarae4797e3ab0b says:

    It’s pretty convenient that every time Obama says something you guys don’t like it becomes a lie but every time he lies about what he MIGHT do in an attempt to appeal to democrats that it suddenly becomes absolute truth.

    • avatarAharon says:

      You are generalizing and are ignorant about the regular visitors that come to this site. Regulars visitors are liberals, conservatives, progressives, democrats, republicans, independents, libertarians, and non-affiliated voters. Some are pro-military and some anti-military. Some are deeply religious and some atheists.

      Right now, people are going back and forth sharing opinions and discussing ideas. It is only natural that at this time such a discussion right after a debate and with an election coming up also include human emotions.

  43. Your GOP savior Romney is a fool. He thinks assault weapons are illegal? I can’t believe it. How could he not know that? And just for the record… I believe an renewed AWB is a great idea.

    • avatarAharon says:

      MR is Not my savior. He is simply the lessor of two evils with the Democrats and Republicans being the two most dangerous and destructive anti-liberty criminal gangs in America. BTW, you are a nobody to us so we couldn’t care less what you believe.

      • avatarGun-wielding Redneck from the Teaparty protests says:

        Amen brother! Big government aint takin my guns! I’ll shoot them if they come near! They tryin to make me care about the environment to! Damn treehuggers. I’ll drive my gas guzzler 4 eva! haha

        • avatarAharon says:

          “Gun-wielding Redneck from the Teaparty protests”

          Let me help you more honestly state your online nic:
          “Liberal Fascist supporting the Obama re-election Campaign is a lousy online propaganda actor”

          There you go.

        • avatarDavid W. says:

          Seriously? Already the anti-gun liberals are straight up IMPERSONATING someone? Don’t believe anyone is anyone they say they are just because they have a blue name and a link to a website.

        • avatarCurzen says:

          David W.: Let me be the first to welcome you to the internet, enjoy your stay.

        • avatarshane says:

          For real. I would no way believe a redneck would go to the trouble of calling himself “Gun-wielding Redneck from the Teaparty protests”
          and then type the way he did there. LOL

        • avatarjwm says:

          Redneck, proof that all the grabbers have is lies.

    • avatarshane says:

      He did say automatic weapons are illegal. Which is true for probably 99.9% of civilians in the U.S.

  44. avatarBrett says:

    Welcome to our Australian political landscape

  45. avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

    If no one else is going to say it then I will. That is one goooood looking black man!

  46. avatarwho_brought_the_chips says:

    I said it up above in response to Jason and I’ll say it again a little differently down here:
    1) everyone here who is giving some squishy reason Obama -isn’t anti-gun – wouldn’t try to enact further restrictions – wouldn’t be able to pass further restrictions – wouldn’t have any long-term harmful effects on the 2A -overall isn’t a threat to the 2A is so completely full of shit. You do not and cannot know those things with any degree of certainty (i.e. you’re pulling that out of your ass.)
    2) everyone here who is defending a AWB as reasonable, common sense, or “no reason not to” doesn’t in any way shape or form understand or respect the constitution.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      Hear, hear. You should post more often.

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      Well said, sir.

    • avatarJarhead1982 says:

      Naw, lets just be blunt.

      Those who support a new Semi-Auto banned because they look evil are hoplophobic, projectionists, who are more frightened of their mythical boogeyman than the actual killers, whose fetishism and sexual fetishism, lead directly into their loveable, violent schizophrenic beliefs that inanimate objects have supernatural powers in their sadomasochist, primal need to tell everyone what they can or can not do by their mental illness demonstrating that the missing evolutionary link between simple primates (chimps) and evolved humans does exist, and who in their wailings and cries of their internalized fears, are determined in a beyond pathetic manner to prove themselves normal by promoting their incessant mythomania!

  47. avatarAngel says:

    Looks like the 1994 AWB just became my new shopping list.

  48. I’m concerned about what type of supreme court justices would be nominated by each of them. All the positive court cases for gun rights the past few years were decided by one vote. At least 1, maybe two justices will likely be appointed in the next 4 years. These are life appointments.

  49. avatarMoonshine says:

    Heehee. SWHC and RGR are both up about 0.5%, and we’re only 15 minutes into the trading day.

  50. avatarVan says:

    Since the AWB expired many companies got into the AR market. I wonder what the economic impact would be if a new AWB came to pass. How many production lines and workers would be idled by a new AWB?

  51. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    AWB HELL! That doesn’t scare me as much as the following from the President:

    “And so what I want is a – is a comprehensive strategy. Part of
    it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in
    amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
    But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into
    these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur.

    What the heck is this about? Sounds like the Department of Pre-Crime is coming to America. Holy Smoley !!!!

    • avatarAharon says:

      “making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur”

      Good observation. In their never ending quest to watch and control it might mean more database connections of people’s health records, credit card buys at gun stores and ranges, Internet searches and sites visited, criminal records, and lastly records of gun ownership. It can also mean requiring mental health screening for gun owners, taking guns away from people who lost their jobs and are going through a divorce (at least take gun away from the men as women are always ok in Obama’s world), etc.

  52. avatarStant says:

    Obama really does want to take your guns.

  53. avatarJD says:

    Hey Barry, Bill did it in the 90s and I had no choice but pay $75 for 10/22 mags or get glock mags from outside the US…now I have a 3d printer and don’t need to go those routes anymore. Oh, and now I’m making an extruder so even the plastic is free.

  54. Hymmmn, being a Hunter,and a Gun Advocate, [since boyhood]; With a “Clean Record”! Wanting to have some of the mentioned , ["Guns", they want to bann]; Wondering “Why”, as a Good Respectable, Law Abiding, “AMERICAN CITIZEN”, That “VOTES”!… Should I be “Not Allowed”, to own these? I’d have a “Locked Safe”, to keep them “Protected”?… [Possibly, my parking ticket, back in 1988, would "Prove Me", as a "Risk"?...]. Looking back in history, pre W.W.II, when “Herr. Adolph Hitler”, banned guns, in the “Father Land”!… [lol]. But, this “IS”, the United States of America!… “Not”, Nazi Germany; that we went to War, to Defeat!… Thinking!… How the American Way, is to “Stand Up”, and Fight, for what’s Right!… Hoping, it doesn’t have to come down to this?… I’m Too “Old” to Fight!… [But, this "Old Man", can Shoot the Ears off, of Anyone, trying to "Harm", My Family, Friends, or Myself!...]. “Long Live”, Our American Way of Life!…. “FEEDOM, to Choose”!

  55. avatarDavid A Gershner says:

    In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

    The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

    In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.

    ..

  56. avatarMackenzie M. says:

    Romney would have CLEARLY been a better prez. By FAR.

    No offense Obama.

  57. avatarKathy says:

    I’m sure my comment will not hold much water, as I am not very good with politics, but I do know that my heart goes out to all the lost lives in Sandy Hook. The only problem with gun laws is that it doesn’t matter what rules you enforce, someone, somewhere can get ahold of a gun. Just because you are doing a background check to make sure that they are not criminals doesn’t mean that someone they know who is a criminal will not be able to take theirs. Also, there is always going to be someone who is an upstanding citizen who will have someone they know who is mentally ill and can gain access to these guns. As a mother I hate to say it, but we need to rely on the Constitutional rights that were set forth so many years ago. There is a reason why we are the greatest country on Earth. I do agree with those who say we need to be more vigilant to those around us and not ignore when someone around us “doesn’t seem right”.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.