Previous Post
Next Post

The following is an excerpt from CNN’s transcript of the presidential debate from last night.

QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National
Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the
hands of criminals. What has your administration done or planned to
do to limit the availability of assault weapons?

OBAMA: We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and
I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of
hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can
protect themselves.

But there have been too many instances during the course of my
presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody.
Most recently out in Aurora. You know, just a couple of weeks ago,
actually, probably about a month, I saw a mother, who I had met at the
bedside of her son, who had been shot in that theater.

And her son had been shot through the head. And we spent some
time, and we said a prayer and, remarkably, about two months later,
this young man and his mom showed up, and he looked unbelievable, good
as new.

But there were a lot of families who didn’t have that good
fortune and whose sons or daughters or husbands didn’t survive.

So my belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve
already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of
criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job
in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes
to enforcement.

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.

And so what can we do to intervene, to make sure that young
people have opportunity; that our schools are working; that if there’s
violence on the streets, that working with faith groups and law
enforcement, we can catch it before it gets out of control.

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.

CROWLEY: Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons,

ROMNEY: Yeah, I’m not in favor of new pieces of legislation on
– on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We,
of course, don’t want to have automatic weapons, and that’s already
illegal in this country to have automatic weapons. What I believe is
we have to do, as the president mentioned towards the end of his
remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun
laws that we have, and to change the culture of violence that we have.

And you ask how – how are we going to do that? And there are a
number of things. He mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We
were able to drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my
state. And I believe if we do a better job in education, we’ll –
we’ll give people the – the hope and opportunity they deserve and
perhaps less violence from that. But let me mention another thing.
And that is parents. We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids.
Wherever possible the – the benefit of having two parents in the
home, and that’s not always possible. A lot of great single moms,
single dads. But gosh to tell our kids that before they have babies,
they ought to think about getting married to someone, that’s a great

Because if there’s a two parent family, the prospect of living in
poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will
– will be able to achieve increase dramatically. So we can make
changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from
violence and give them opportunity, and bring them in the American
system. The – the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to – to
gun violence in some respects is what – what is known as Fast and
Furious. Which was a program under this administration, and how it
worked exactly I think we don’t know precisely, where thousands of
automatic, and AK-47 type weapons were – were given to people that
ultimately gave them to – to drug lords.

They used those weapons against – against their own citizens and
killed Americans with them. And this was a – this was a program of
the government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can’t
imagine. But it’s one of the great tragedies related to violence in
our society which has occurred during this administration. Which I
think the American people would like to understand fully, it’s been
investigated to a degree, but – but the administration has carried
out executive privilege to prevent all of the information from coming

I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea
was behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to
Mexican drug lords.
OBAMA: Candy?

CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about
these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer

I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in
Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support
that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes
with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?

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.

CROWLEY: Quickly, Mr. President.

OBAMA: The – first of all, I think Governor Romney was for an
assault weapons ban before he was against it. And he said that the
reason he changed his mind was, in part, because he was seeking the
endorsement of the National Rifle Association. So that’s on the

But I think that one area we agree on is the important of parents
and the importance of schools, because I do believe that if our young
people have opportunity, then they are less likely to engage in these
kinds of violent acts. We’re not going to eliminate everybody who is
mentally disturbed and we have got to make sure they don’t get


OBAMA: because I do believe that if our young people have
opportunity, then they’re less likely to engage in these kind of
violent acts.

We’re not going to eliminate everybody who is mentally disturbed,
and we’ve got to make sure they don’t get weapons. But we can make a
difference in terms ensuring that every young person in America,
regardless of where they come from, what they look like, have a chance
to succeed.

And, Candy, we haven’t had a chance to talk about education much,
but I think it is very important to understand that the reforms we’ve
put in place, working with 46 governors around the country, are seeing
schools that are some of the ones that are the toughest for kids
starting to succeed. We’re starting to see gains in math and science.

When it comes to community colleges, we are setting up programs,
including with Nassau Community College, to retrain workers, including
young people who may have dropped out of school but now are getting
another chance, training them for the jobs that exist right now.

And in fact, employers are looking for skilled workers. And so
we’re matching them up. Giving them access to higher education. As I
said, we have made sure that millions of young people are able to get
an education that they weren’t able to get before.


CROWLEY: Mr. President, I have to – I have to move you along
here. You said you wanted to…


CROWLEY: We need to do it here.

OBAMA: But – but it’ll – it’ll – it’ll be…


OBAMA: … just one second.


OBAMA: Because – because this is important. This is part of
the choice in this election.

teachers was important to growing our economy, Governor Romney said
that doesn’t grow our economy.


CROWLEY: The question, Mr. President, was guns here, so I need
to move us along.

OBAMA: I understand.

CROWLEY: You know, the question was guns. So let me – let me
bring in another…

OBAMA: But this will make a difference in terms of whether or
not we can move this economy forward for these young people…

CROWLEY: I understand.

OBAMA: … and reduce our violence.

CROWLEY: OK. Thank you so much.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I choked in the first debate so now I have to overcompensate and badger and interrupt governor romney and our moderator at every chance and change the issue on questions of my unpopular views.

    I think I need to buy a bunch of pmags and AR lowers just in case…..

    • Not a whole lot different than the Biden Ryan debate where Biden had to laugh and interrupt every so often to distract listeners.

      I think I see a pattern… if they can’t keep their mouths shut, distract the listeners so they don’t catch what’s being said.

  2. Hopefully people will start waking the hell up and understanding that Romney is not “our guy”. Romney is a gun grabber. He has a record of being a gun grabber. It is clear from this transcript that he is unrepentant. If the NRA is endorsing this idiot, they are doing us a huge disservice.

    The only good news is that a new AWB has zero chance of getting through Congress, and very little chance of the Senate. The Dems had a House/Senate/WH majority, and still didn’t bother with it.

    • If Obama is re-elected, he will backdoor an AWB through regulatory fiat via the ATF (or whatever they are calling themselves these days). He will bypass Congress. He has already done it with “amnesty” for illegal alien kids who were brought to the USA by their illegal alien parents. To think that he won’t try it with an AWB via the ATF is naive.

      • You seem confused as to the difference between “non-enforcement” (something that is within the executive branch’s purview) and “inventing new seizure laws out of thin air” (not something they can do). You might try reading the Constitution; it doesn’t start and stop at the 2A.

        • I don’t think he’s confusing anything. making new law through Executive order, or regulatory policy are the same thing. keep in mind that the only thing obama hates more than romney is the NRA

        • He didn’t create a new law when he pulled that immigration stunt. He opted not to enforce the laws we have in certain circumstances. I am not defending that particular use of his power, but it is not some sort of super-extra-legal stunt that’s never been seen before.

          Seriously, is civics dead in the US?

        • You make a the case of a reasonable man, but the Federal Government isn’t a reasonable entity.

          See the flip/flop executive order banning oil exploration on public lands as an example. Have an exploration firm with an existing lease pursue their formally lawful activity fire up their equipment and see what happens to it.

          Agencies of the executive branch exercise almost sole power in making policy and executing such under regulatory law. Congress has oversight capabilities and may vote to withhold funds, but the agencies run the show. Research liability shields for federal employees if you believe personal accountability may be a deterrent.

  3. They’re both clowns. Obama was smiling in the background when Fast and Furious was brought up and continued to. What a scumbag.

  4. Its all political theater. Romney will do nothing. Obama will do something opportunistically or worst case back door legislation either via a tax, Obamacare or with the nomination of anti gun SCOTUS.

    What we know is Obama will do something and Romney will do nothing to advance gun rights.

    Given the state of the economy gun legislation will take a back seat. When the Travon Martin case comes to trial, depending on the outcome, somebody will call to ban guns again. If there is another spree killing, we will once again here noise but with $4 gas and low economic activity gun legislation is off the table for the next 4 years at the federal level which means at the state level the fight continues.

    I see a vote for Obama as a vote for Eric Holder, so there is no way I am voting for Obama.

    • And those state disbutes are going to elevate to the supreme court. There are cases in NY, NJ, and MD challenging the constitutionality of their requirement to provide a reasonable justification as to why you need a carry permit, which essentially results in permits for nobody. All of those cases are going to be argued in the supreme court. I agree that legal challenges are where we are going to get our rights expanded, and it’s less likely to occur through legislative action. NY, NJ, MD, MA, IL, and CA are not going to all of a sudden decide to change their laws. They won’t change them until they are forced to.

      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

      • “NY, NJ, MD, MA, IL, and CA are not going to all of a sudden decide to change their laws. They won’t change them until they are forced to.”

        And Washington DC also.

        The SCOTUS told DC and Chicago that their laws were in violation of the 2nd Amendment. So what did those cities do? They made a few minor changes, but their laws are still in violation. Instead of making it illegal, they have made it incredibly difficult to exercise your 2A rights.

        In the 1960s, President Johnson (a Democrat, by the way) ordered the Marines into Mississippi (I think) to force them to desegregate their schools after the SCOTUS had told them they were violating negroes’ civil rights. When will a current President do anything to force a city or state to obey the rulings of the SCOTUS? Don’t they take a vow to “support and defend the Constitution”?

  5. Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on
    Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
    [ Excerpt as follows: ]
    “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    Amendment II “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Not that it matters you understand, but might those among the peasant class of the ignorant, unwashed masses respectfully inquire as to the source of any Constitutionally-permissible authority for those in the Federal government to enact any Federal laws regulating possession of semi-automatic, sport / utility firearms by Citizens of the several States and of these formerly-United States?
    Just asking.

  6. 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.

  7. Both Romney and Ryan have given support for the reciprocity act in interviews. I know not all of you live in gun rights oppressive states like me in NJ where the reciprocity act may be the only way to get conceal carry anytime soon, but the reciprocity act is a way to work around the laws of states neglecting our constitutional rights. It would not only force states to recognize other states’ permits, but also really push the issue and potentially encourage some reform.

  8. Yet again a republican has missed a perfect opportunity (in front of
    a national audience no less) to state the difference between
    “automatic” firearms and fully automatic firearms. Romney had the
    perfect setup for schooling the “unbiased” moderator and calling out
    the media establishment for either reporting on a subject they
    don’t/refuse to understand or purposely misleading the public.
    This question could have been a major blow to the MSM and
    anti gun movement. All we got were non answers.

    At least he did bring up Fast and Furious.

    • I assume it’s because he is no more educated on that subject than anyone on the other side of the debate.

  9. The reason the 1994 Clinton AWB was allowed to expire in 2004 was because the government’s own studies showed that it didn’t work. It did not effect the rate of crime and violence.

  10. “ROMNEY – What I believe is we have to do, as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have, and to change the culture of violence that we have.”

    “ENORMOUS EFFORTS TO ENFORCE THE GUN LAWS”… does this sound like shrinking the size of government to you?! This sounds just as bad as anything Obama has ever said. The NRA endorses this?!

    • Making enormous efforts to enforce existing laws sounds better than a new AWB. And we’re practically ignoring the comment about cheap pistols. Do I have to worry about my Makarov or Sigma suddenly being banned?

      Amongst those of us who cherish our gun freedoms there is only 1 choice this november. Ryan/Romney.

  11. We march inexorably, backwards it seems, into the concept of thought-crime. If the stated goal is to “keep weapons out of the hands of criminals”, how do you propose we identify those in possession of arms who are not criminals until they have acted?

    If a person has already been proven a criminal it is easy to say we should disallow them a gun. But if a person has not demonstrated criminality, the only course left us is to identify them as a potential criminal before hand, the logical course of which leads to the assumption that everyone is a potential criminal and to disarm us all.

    That is the “reasonable” conclusion of gun control advocacy….and I cannot tolerate that.

Comments are closed.