Home Gun Control Box Fresh NRA Anti-Obama Ad Gun Control Box Fresh NRA Anti-Obama Ad By Robert Farago - October 18, 2012 41 Facebook Twitter Pinterest WhatsApp Email ◀Previous Post Next Post▶ ABM? Not a word about Romney’s support for the Second Amendment . . . ◀Previous Post Next Post▶ RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR BREAKING: Longtime Gun Control Crusader California Senator Diane Feinstein Dead at 90 California Doubles the Tax on Guns and Ammo (At Least Until It’s Challenged in Court) Congress Needs to Act Now to Restore Funding to Schools With Hunting Safety Programs 41 COMMENTS “ABM? Not a word about Romney’s support for the Second Amendment . . .” One problem at a time, Mr Farago. We must first get out of the burning building before complaining about the Fire Department’s response time. Reply This ad speaks the truth. Reply Yep, it’s a no brainer. It’s amazing to me the number of people that claim to be pro 2a that actually want an AWB, and to turn back the clock on shall issue. Barry said it plainly that “cheap pistols” were doing more damage than “assault rifles”. Now, if he’s re-elected we’ll see how difi, the clintons and bloomie define “cheap pistols”. Maybe they’ll get a UN committee to help with the definition. Reply It shouldn’t amaze you. The idea of an unabridged 2nd Amendment has never caught on like the 1st. I don’t think you can have overkill with too much speech, but I’d wager it seems like scary overkill to have “battlefield weapons” (lol collapsible stocks etc.) available to the public, even if assault weapons are the lowest risk threats. Reply That’s because everyone accepted the 2nd Amendment for what it was while all the other legal battles were occurring regarding other rights. Then when they decided to attack the 2nd Amendment, we were “behind the times” because the government had actually obeyed the law for 150 years or so, thus there was no “legal precedent” about what laws the government couldn’t pass. Reply Great point, sir. Again the political hacks and ofwgs at the NRA give Romney a pass on his gun comments when he was justifying his own AWB. Romney stated, “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 a — 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 hadn’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 — that’s gridlocked. We haven’t had — we haven’t — we haven’t — we haven’t had the leadership in Washington to work on a bipartisan basis.” Perhaps some folks are willing to give him a pass because he is supposed to be a Republican. To me that sounds an awful lot like gun control “in moderation”. They also blatantly ignore Obama’s comment, “…part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence, because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns.” It’s hilarious how we get the meaning we want to get out of these debates. The NRA wants more donations from the firearm industry, so of course they’ll focus on what increases gun sales. Reply Are you denying that Obama is anti gun? Reply I don’t think that’s what he meant. He meant he sees the NRA scaring up dollars and deliberately leaving part of the President’s words out of their ad. The problem with the NRA making everything to be an emergency, for lack of a better word, is that when a move is actually made, we’ve stopped paying attention to the alarm. Reply When it comes to gun rights, every incremental step towards civil disarmament is an emergency. Complacency is why Britian is looking to ban gun articles from their newsstands. Maybe they aren’t giving Romney a pass as much as back-handed support for Gary Johnson – Hey I can dream can’t I? Reply There are no Bill of Rights Amendments that don’t have qualifications and exceptions. Reply “Shall not be infringed”. How do you spin that into qualifications and exceptions? Reply Easily. It has already been decided that limiting access or ownership of certain weapons does not abridge or infringe upon the right to keep and bear other arms, some arms, typical arms. You cannot own dynamite without a proper permit. You cannot have grenades and pipe bombs. You cannot have fully automatic weapons without a tax stam and a proctoscope. You cannot have bombs, artillery shells, armor piercing rounds. You can’t have a knife linger than 3″ in LA or NYC. Yet none of these things infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, according to applicable court decisions, only the manner in which you can exercise that right. Just as the First Amendment right of free speech and right to practice one’s religion can be limited, even made criminal (such as incitement to riot, bigamy and human or animal sacrifice). So what does “shall not be infringed” really mean? It is not a guarantee of an unrestricted right to keep and bear any and all weapons however and whenever one chooses. Even Justice Scalia would agree with that asseessment, and he wrote the Heller opinion. So get over it. You’ve already lost that argument. Reply Nicely done. Great explanation of a complex topic. First of all I’m not discussing explosives or Wmd or any of the extreme things tha people like to use as examples of why a little “reasonable” gun control is okay. That’s a Mikeyb or Hmmmmm argument and they’re nothing but grabbers. Yes there are restrictions on all the amendments. Do you need a permit to practice your religion? How about showing ID and leaving a thumb print before you exercise your right to free speech. In your rush to be “reasonable” you give up rights and get nothing in return. Which is fine, if you don’t want to own or carry a gun, don’t. But don’t give away my rights in the process. So what does “shall not be infringed” really mean? It is not a guarantee of an unrestricted right to keep and bear any and all weapons however and whenever one chooses. Uhh yeah, it is. That the government has predictably (from the FF’s intentions) strayed from the original defined meaning of the 2A is not a valid argument that it is somehow not what any decent historical scholar will tell you it was designed to mean. Let alone provide a counter to. And yet regular TTAG “pro gun” commenters will still vote for Obama. I sure as hell won’t, but many others will. It seems there is a theme here – many of these TTAG articles keep painting Obama as anti – gun, well, because OBAMA IS ANTI GUN. Reply Yep, I’m beginning to think some of the “pro gun” people won’t be happy til the whole country looks like California, or worse Chicago or NYC. I don’t own an “Assault weapon” and probably never will. I also can’t get a permit to carry concealed and forget about open carry. So I’ll be comfortable with the new Obama Administration. And think of how many times I’m going to be able to say, I told you so. Reply Yes, Obama is against SOME guns–so called “assault weapons.” Why I do not know, And he did not say he would introduce a AWB, only that he would support it if it were introduced (which is of course what DiFi plans on doing). He simply does not understand, as a lot of nopngunners do not understand, why anyone would “need” a semiautomatic rifle with a 30 round capacity. Although I don’t agree with that position, I can understand it. But Obama knows full well that an AWB is not the answer to gun deaths in this country–ARs are not the problems, and rarely used for mass murders.He conedes the point. But he also concedes that handguns, shotguns and rifles cannot simply be banned either. So there has to be another answer. An answer no one has found. It’s not the eath penalty–that only deters murders after the fact. Not social welfare programs–that breeds a “you owe me” society that does not work and does not contribute. Better schools? Maybe, but not if half the kids are stoned out of their gourds in class, and hangin’ with their gangbanger friends after. So what is the Republican solution? Raise taxes on the poor by eliminating the motgage deduction? Cut federal spending on education? Cut the minimum wage to put more young people below the poverty line? Cut social security and medicare, leaving millions of our elderly unable to afford medical care? What does Romney offer other than a record of “going with the flow” and doing as he’s told? I am more than a one issue voter. And I also recognize that a President can propose all the bills he wants, but it takes bipartisan support for any of them to pass both houses of Congress. There is no great groundswell of support for “strnger” gun laws, and no will in Congress to address the issue. There is nothing Obama can do that will change any of that. Gun rights are not an issue that defines this election cycle because nothing is going to happen in Congress. And don’t give me any crap about executive orders. All presidents have used them–it is the manner in which the executive directs the branches of the administration to carry out the laws passed by Copngress and signed into law. It is not a source for new law, and such orders cannot be used to circumvent existing laws. The President cannot issue, for example, an order shutting down all gun shops in th country and halting all manufacture of civilian arms. He can’t do it. He can’t order a gun confiscation because there is no statute authorizing him to do it. To believe otherwise is to be seduced by the fearmongering of the NRA, an organization that in its recent iteration seems more interested in promoting the Republican party and ideology that guns and gun rights. Reply “It’s not the [d]eath penalty–that only deters murders after the fact.” I have yet to see evidence that it works as an effective deterrent of any sort. If anything, there is the fact that a substantial number of violent criminals have expressed preference for the death penalty vs facing a life sentence without possibility of parole. It is not a source for new law, and such orders cannot be used to circumvent existing laws. The President cannot issue, for example, an order shutting down all gun shops in the country and halting all manufacture of civilian arms. He can’t do it. He can’t order a gun confiscation because there is no statute authorizing him to do it. It would appear that you have never actually read any of the last few decades of “executive orders”. Because most establish “new law” regardless of any Constitutional or Congressional mandate to the contrary. Easily findable on that new and novel “google” thing… If he acknowledges that an AWB ban would not stop the violence then why is he willing to sign one? An empty, futile gesture that will harm only the law abiding. And in that same statement he singled out “cheap pistols”. Who gets to decide what’re cheap pistols. Difi, Bloomie?Don’t tell me what he may or may not do when he’s said in plain english what he intends. As for the NRA, I’m letting my membership expire. Thanks to this site I’ve found SAF and I think my money is better spent there. And yes this country faces great challenges. About which neither party has done much to relieve. So I concentrate on my gun rights for the time being. It may suprise you to find out how liberal I am. I support gay marriege rights. Legalise drugs, at least pot. A woman’s body is her property. But unfortunately, so long as the dems keep pounding at my rights I cannot and will not support them. jwm, I’m going to be kind of a pain in the ass on this one, because I think listening to what people actually say is important. You wrote: If he acknowledges that an AWB ban would not stop the violence then why is he willing to sign one? It is not my understanding that President Obama has stated that he would be willing to sign AWB 2.0. Please cite an exact quote supporting your contention that he has publicly stated this. Obama: we need a new AWB, but the problem is really “cheap handguns”. So, ‘I’ll happily apply the wrong solution to the problem’ in which case I am stupid. Or, ‘I’ll address the real problem, which I’ve identified, in which case I’m lying.’ Lovely stuff. And stop all this bitching about Romney’s gun record. This is about probabilities. The probability of more gun control under Romney is vastly less than the probability under Obama 2.0. It ain’t zero with Romney but it’s vastly less than with Lightworker 2.0. Play the odds if you are a sole RKBA voter. alphageek, what he said was he wanted to get another AWB bill introduced. Silly me, I translated that to me he’d sign the bill. This and his remark about cheap pistols is part of the debate post on this site. I never learned how to cut and paste those references into my comments. This whole computer gig is still fairly new to me. I found this site by accident a few months back and it;s the only site I’ve ever posted on. jwm, sorry if it seemed like I was picking on your computer skills. That wasn’t the intent, and the commenting system doesn’t do anything to make it easy for non-geeks to use any of the fancy formatting options. I was simply challenging you to show your sources. If you’re relying on his statements in the debate, here’s the relevant section: But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns. President Obama did not call for Congress to pass a bill. There’s very specific language Presidents use when they want Congress to act on an issue. The carefully worded language he used in the debate calls for an AWB bill to be brought up for debate, either in committee or on the floor, in at least one chamber of Congress. That’s it. In my opinion, he fully understands that AWB 2.0 will not make it out of committee, and in fact is counting on that. It enables him to say reassuring things to big-city voters about assault weapons (yes, perpetuating that idiocy, sigh) while not actually pushing for any substantive action on AWB 2.0. You seem to have some missing letters on your keyboard and a few extra. Hence ‘nopngunners’, “eath’ ‘conedes’ ‘strnger’ ‘copngress’. If you would bother to read what you’ve written, assuming you know how to spell of course, my comments wouldn’t be necessary. I voted for Obama, and will do so again based on a value system that considers more than just the 2A question. I also take into consideration my belief that politicians will not press for laws when it’s not in their interests to do so. The Democratic Party is still very mindful of the beating they took from the GOP in the 1996 House & Senate races, and despite what many here say, they’re not dumb. Federal AWB 2.0 may make it into committee and possibly even come up for debate on the floor, but there’s no way in hell it’s making it to the President’s desk. The Democrats, as a party, do not want a repeat of 1996. Reply Alpha I respect that decision although I think it is irretrievably moronic, but that’s what makes a democracy. Just so you know, I sit on a corporate board. We have $25 million dollars of cash that we’d like to spend part of on a new refurbishment center for servicing old units of the mechanical gear we manufacture. It’d create some jobs and generate add’l tax receipts. If Obama wins, we’re sitting on our hands and keeping that cash in the bank. Not out of spite. We just won’t make a dumb decision. If Romney wins, we’ll break ground in February ’13. So let’s all exercise our right to vote. I too vote on more than just the 2A. But I will be voting both with my vote and with the cash in my company’s bank account. Reply This isn’t the forum for substantial discussion of your point, but I’ll share (perhaps unsurprisingly) that I am also in a leadership position at a corporation. You are not the first I’ve heard make statements like that, and in each case I’ve tried but failed to understand the reasoning. I’ve worked in Silicon Valley my entire career. I understand more than most people the time value of money, having both founded startups and worked at going concerns where competition is fierce, timing is critical and money is scarce. Perhaps you’re in an industry which only thrives when Republican presidents are in power and actively roll back environmental protections, in which case I would, quite honestly, be unsympathetic to your concerns. Unfair of me to speculate, I suppose. I have found that timing of a venture, actions by Congress, and the macroeconomic environment have FAR more to do with success/failure than anything a President can affect. Hell, the Chinese can make or break manufacturing (and by extension, refurbishment) ventures far more easily than any legislature or regulator in the US. Ask the thin-film solar guys how they feel about the Chinese gov’t subsidizing below-cost sales of solar panels, thereby destroying their price-vs-time models and, in some cases, their businesses. That said, I’m intrigued as to what kind of business venture would be make-or-break based on who gets elected POTUS. If you’d care to contact me privately for further discussion, I’m SiliconValleyAlphaGeek at gmail. The main reason myself a democrat not to vote for BO is fast & furious the reason is, if BO is willing to run guns illegally to show cause for a “AWB” and then aiding in the coverup and helping the criminals behind it (including himself) get away with complicity to murder. I feel that what else does BO have instore for us legal gun owners if he willing to let people be killed to forward his warped, twisted and perverse political agenda’s. The only hope for justice for Brain Terry is a new president in the whitehouse this election. Thats my number one goal, we can discuss other secondary issues later but no matter what BO has to go! Reply I am not so certain that Obama was complicit in that scandal. I think there is a lot of corrupt activity going on in the law enforcement community, such as drug dealing, gun smuggling, money laundering, illegal taps, plantin of evidence, and on an on, and most of this corruption does not run to the very top of the organization. Look at Serpico, the Rampart scandal, the thousands of stories of cops gone bad. Did these schemes run all the way to the top? No. they went high, but not that far, most are confined to local precincts and districts. Much of this crime is rationalized by arguing that there is no way to get inside these criminal organizations to break them up unless you “get a little dirty.” But these bureaucracies manage to keep their dirty little secrets from the highest levels of government, like the British tabloid tapping scandal affecting the Murdoch Empire. All government is in the business of murder. Reply Mark, I think it was Napolean that said, ” there’s no such thing as bad soldiers, only bad Colonels.” If these rogue cops and agencies are getting away with so much it must be because the people at the top, if they’re not actively involved, are turning a blind eye and allowing these abuses to continue. The man at the top is responsible for the excesses of his minions. Reply I agree that the buck stops with POTUS. He is responsible for the conduct and welfare of all those under his command. I disagree with your assertion that POTUS maintains omniscient awareness of every activity within his chain of command. Hell, I’m reasonably certain my kids have gotten away with things I’m not aware of to this day, and my oldest is only 14. When you’re POTUS, you live in a filter bubble which (barely) makes it possible for a human being to survive 4-8 years on the job without cracking. Nothing is proven about F&F to my satisfaction at this point. Far too much of the “information” circulating consists of rumor and leaked, unsubstantiated single-witness testimony. It is within the realm of possibility that Obama is guilty only of being protective and loyal to his subordinates past the point where he could have thrown them to the wolves after learning of their misdeeds. In other words, the behavior of POTUS is, in some ways, indistinguishable from the previous 8 years of Bush/Cheney. That doesn’t make it OK. But it does raise questions of hypocrisy regarding those who are railing the loudest about the unproven allegations in F&F, yet stood silent when GWB and Cheney were responsible for the abduction and torture of people around the world. Valid points A.G. But the buck does stop there. I was never a big fan of bush cheny. But 4 years into the current admin and gitmo is still open and drones are still causing collateral damage at will. We can go back and forth all night trading good and valid points. But the bottom line for me is I cannot support the dems until they support me. PHOOEY with the NRA. Just another politically-correct, go-with-the-flow group. Reply Wait a minute. Just watched the NRA ad again, and I smell the distinct odor of BS. As of this writing, there is no AWB 2.0. No bill has been brought to committee, nor has any bill been debated on the floor of either chamber of Congress — and President Obama has not expressed his support for the passage into law of this imaginary bill. So how the hell can the NRA make assertions regarding guns that would be banned by a bill, which I remind you, currently only exists in their fevered imagination? In my neighborhood, we call that “lying”. Reply Are you daft man? I think a lot of people here disagree with (but don’t care enough to comment) on your various reasons for voting for Obama come November. That aside and with respect to guns in particular he said “Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.” That means guess what BetaGeek? If it’s not support/endorsement for an AWB and further restrictions on guns in general your walking blind. Coupled with his 2 supreme nominations, voting record in IL, various comments and friendships made over the years… and the list goes on. At the very least just be honest with yourself and admit he’s anti-gun and will do what he can to support that. If you still want to vote for him fine, but don’t be so blind to who your supporting. With all due respect I’m not terribly surprised your from California as per your comments above. Voting like that is the difference between your state and mine, and pray tell me what is so horribly unjust in the flyover states that needs healthy doses liberal legislation? Nevermind this isn’t the right forum for it. Reply Here’s your legal definition of “cheap pistols” : a sidearm that 1) is composed of over x% polymer and 2) costs less than $800. Reply Hmmm, guess the NRA doesn’t remember ROMNEY extending the AWB in Massachusetts??? Reply LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply Please enter your comment! Please enter your name here You have entered an incorrect email address! Please enter your email address here Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.