Gun Control? WIll it happen?

[frankmako]

look for them to control the ammo. guns are not good without ammo.

[TMF]

If only they made it illegal to shoot 70 unarmed people in a movie theater this could have all been prevented.

[Jonnin]

"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said. "That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."

He is only making all of us soldiers who will be defending our own ground against him. Trying to make us all criminals never fixes

anything, except in the eyes of a government wanting more control. He definitely wants that.

I agree, the ak and even a .22 derringer do not belong in the hands of criminals. The statement is not the issue. The issue is he will use that statement to do something stupid to non criminals.

[Guest nysos]

"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said. "That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said Monday that he also saw no need for new laws and reiterated those comments on Wednesday, saying a change in legislation won't stop those who truly want to do harm.

"I don't know that I'm going be able to find a way to prevent people who want to provide harm from being able to purchase things that can carry out that harm. What I want to do is find the people that represent a danger to America and find them and keep them from having the capacity to use or buy things that can harm or hurt other people," Romney said in an interview with NBC News.

Further proof that Obama has his head so far up his own ass, that he has no grasp on whether it is even raining outside. I wasn't a fan of Romney as his campaign started, regardless I am voting for him. As time goes on though I am starting to get more and more comfortable with the notion. Maybe it is because he is having to campaign more as representing the GOP now, vs just being ol Mitt Romney when he started.

Edited July 26, 2012 by nysos

[mikegideon]

Obama, typical liberal, can't even mention the right weapon. Of course, he knows enough about guns to have an opinion. I hope this cost him some votes. Maybe it will make up of the Paulbots.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm less afraid of O restricting guns then I am of Romney. O and the Ls know better then to touch guns again or they'll loose any glimmer of hope for control for a long damn time to come.

Rs are not as likely to turn on one of their own... and as posted above, Romney is every bit as anti gun (if not more) as O.

Obama is the conductor of the orchestra. He hasn't shown much that cares what the rest of the L's(as you put them)

are saying. He expects them to follow. He gets his marching orders from Soros and maybe another commie or two.

And, as far as Romney goes, That bit about him being so anti gun as you say, was debunked, unless you want to hold

on to urban legend and wiki. db99wj posted the official stance by Romney. I guess you could blow that one off, too. I

guess that's all I have to work with.

Jonnin posted a quote"“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,†he said during a

gubernatorial debate" which may be concerning, but you have to remember what a governor has to do while in office,

support the laws of his state, or get them changed. I won't speculate how Romney could get one of the most liberal

states in the union to change one of those laws, could you?

As far as R's not likely to turn on one of their own, consider what John McCain did to Michelle Bachmann the other

day. He turned on her like a rattlesnake when she told the truth about Ms. Clinton's Secretary being closely affiliated with

ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. I'd say anything could happen.

[mikegideon]

Looks like Obammy is going for it. Running his mouth about "assault" weapons, and talking about adding laws that already exist. He's gonna get clobbered by fallout.

[Guest ThePunisher]

He's gonna get clobbered by fallout.

We'll see in November. A lot of sheeple still asleep at the wheel. Not sure they will ever awaken.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Just my :

Contextually we already have gun control. And compared to the days of my youth...pretty severe gun control...

I am 58 and can well remember looking in a Sears & Roebuck catalog prior to 1968 and marveling at all of the incredible guns you could simply order through the mail.

As a kid I frequently walked through my suburban neighborhood with my 16g single shot and a box of shells on my way to the local gravel pit. The neighbors would simply wave, or say “Nice day for some shooting†or something to that effect.

While I wasn't around in the beginning of the 20th century (some may argue differently), the National Firearms Act of 1934 really accelerated our Nation's slide down that slippery slope. It's a sometimes blatant, sometimes insidious, slide and it is moving constantly towards the erosion of, even elimination of, our God Given, Constitutionally Protected Rights.

While we may delude ourselves into thinking we are regaining some of our Rights through "Shall issue" Permits and decisions like Heller, we remain on that downward slide.

Unfortunately we, through apathy, are mostly, if not entirely, to blame. By “weâ€, I mean our populace as a whole, as we continually re-elect the same self serving, malignantly narcissistic career politicians. Shame on us!

My primary regret is that my son and grand children won’t enjoy the same freedoms I had.

If you not had the opportunity to read Unintended Consequences by John Ross, you need to, imho.

The first section “Seeds†is an eye opener. I’m reading it again and it’s uncanny to see how far we’ve actually gone since my first reading in 1996.

That's one of the books I will read, soon.

It may be a long rough row to hoe, but your kids will end up fine. Even if we end up having to fight over this stuff.

We do a lot of the wrong things, but it will end up either in total tyranny, which never succeeds, or we will finally

fully embrace capitalism and nullify most of the garbage our government has as laws.

There will be a rough period between now and then. Hang in there.

[Glenn]

We'll see in November. A lot of sheeple are brain dead. Not sure they will ever awaken.

Fixed that for you.

Glenn

[Jonnin]

Obama is the conductor of the orchestra. He hasn't shown much that cares what the rest of the L's(as you put them)

are saying. He expects them to follow. He gets his marching orders from Soros and maybe another commie or two.

And, as far as Romney goes, That bit about him being so anti gun as you say, was debunked, unless you want to hold

on to urban legend and wiki. db99wj posted the official stance by Romney. I guess you could blow that one off, too. I

guess that's all I have to work with.

Jonnin posted a quote"“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,†he said during a

gubernatorial debate" which may be concerning, but you have to remember what a governor has to do while in office,

support the laws of his state, or get them changed. I won't speculate how Romney could get one of the most liberal

states in the union to change one of those laws, could you?

As far as R's not likely to turn on one of their own, consider what John McCain did to Michelle Bachmann the other

day. He turned on her like a rattlesnake when she told the truth about Ms. Clinton's Secretary being closely affiliated with

ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. I'd say anything could happen.

Well, that is an interesting thought.

He could have said:

we have tough gun laws, and that seems to be what the people in this state want, even though I do not agree with them I will not touch them.

Or

We have some really tough gun laws but criminals still seem to be getting guns. I would like to see the laws relaxed so normal citizens can fight back.

Or

We have some tough gun laws. They are all illegal according to the constitution; people have the right to own weapons and I will work to restore the freedoms that made this country great!

Instead of those, he said:

we have tough gun laws, and I support them because guns are made for hunting down and killing people.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You're right, jonnin. I agree. It is concerning, but he did say it concerning assault weapons, and I don't agree

with him any more than you do. I think his flip flop on this is troubling, but I also think he may have realized

he made a mistake in saying it. I never said he was the perfect politician, you know that. I am a whole lot

more concerned with his opponent and doubt Paul would do any more than Romney on the issue.

The last possibility you posed would either ignite the conservative win, or alienate the most. I like it the best

of your proposals, though.

[Jonnin]

If my AR-15 is an assault rifle, his varmint hunting 243 or whatever he used is a sniper rifle and his shotgun is a gang weapon (think 1930).

[Guest ThePunisher]

Fixed that for you.

Glenn

Thanks

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If my AR-15 is an assault rifle, his varmint hunting 243 or whatever he used is a sniper rifle and his shotgun is a gang weapon (think 1930).

Rhetoric from politicians. You know that. The dialogue

has to be changed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[strickj]

Obama is the conductor of the orchestra. He hasn't shown much that cares what the rest of the L's(as you put them)

are saying. He expects them to follow. He gets his marching orders from Soros and maybe another commie or two.

And, as far as Romney goes, That bit about him being so anti gun as you say, was debunked, unless you want to hold

on to urban legend and wiki. db99wj posted the official stance by Romney. I guess you could blow that one off, too. I

guess that's all I have to work with.

Jonnin posted a quote"“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,†he said during a

gubernatorial debate" which may be concerning, but you have to remember what a governor has to do while in office,

support the laws of his state, or get them changed. I won't speculate how Romney could get one of the most liberal

states in the union to change one of those laws, could you?

As far as R's not likely to turn on one of their own, consider what John McCain did to Michelle Bachmann the other

day. He turned on her like a rattlesnake when she told the truth about Ms. Clinton's Secretary being closely affiliated with

ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. I'd say anything could happen.

I'm not going off of a myth and I could care less what any politician says during an election. I'm going off of his record and his past speeches.

He signed the AWB in Massachusetts, for Christ's sake. That alone should prove that he's either anti-gun or a pandering, flip flopping pussy that will say and do anything to get elected. If he was really so "gun loving", then he would have vetoed it.

http://www.issues200...Gun_Control.htm

The phrase "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me " comes to mind here.

He's pandering to Brady and NRA as we speak.

Edited July 27, 2012 by strickj

[Guest TankerHC]

Well, heres another IMHO, yes we can, and will, on all Forums, FB, or whatever, continue to debate the possibilities. But really, all we can do is wait and see. I say that because neither of them, unless they lose their mind and forget 1994, will be bringing further Gun control to the table until after the election. Obama, if he wins, has nothing to lose by putting whatever he wants in place, by hook or crook, wont matter. Romney OTOH, if he wants to be around after 2016, wont bring it up either, until after his first term is over. I think we can be sure we will know where Romney stands depending who he puts on the SCOTUS.

[Jamie Jackson]

Thank you dlm.

That's one of the books I will read, soon.

It may be a long rough row to hoe, but your kids will end up fine. Even if we end up having to fight over this stuff.

We do a lot of the wrong things, but it will end up either in total tyranny, which never succeeds, or we will finally

fully embrace capitalism and nullify most of the garbage our government has as laws.

There will be a rough period between now and then. Hang in there.

Thank you. And no doubt that change is in fact the only constant, and I certainly hope that it will be towards Constitutional Conservatism.

I have no faith in politicians and they have earned that. I have Hope in our citizenry and I pray my cynicism is for naught. Time will tell.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not going off of a myth and I could care less what any politician says during an election. I'm going off of his record and his past speeches.

He signed the AWB in Massachusetts, for Christ's sake. That alone should prove that he's either anti-gun or a pandering, flip flopping pussy that will say and do anything to get elected. If he was really so "gun loving", then he would have vetoed it.

http://www.issues200...Gun_Control.htm

The phrase "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me " comes to mind here.

He's pandering to Brady and NRA as we speak.

That's all well and good. And when we can get enough

people together and agree on a better candidate who

has never flip flopped on more than one issue we

may get somewhere. That's just my opinion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited July 27, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[gregintenn]

I'm not going off of a myth and I could care less what any politician says during an election. I'm going off of his record and his past speeches.

He signed the AWB in Massachusetts, for Christ's sake. That alone should prove that he's either anti-gun or a pandering, flip flopping pussy that will say and do anything to get elected. If he was really so "gun loving", then he would have vetoed it.

http://www.issues200...Gun_Control.htm

The phrase "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me " comes to mind here.

He's pandering to Brady and NRA as we speak.

That's what I've been screaming!!!!!

I know you folks here are smarter than to believe what crap Romney spews.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's what I've been screaming!!!!!

I know you folks here are smarter than to believe what crap Romney spews.

And your alternative is? Paul? Or Johnson? We've talked about that for how long?

Not many people really like the choices, including me, but is that your option?

[Wingshooter]

Well, heres another IMHO, yes we can, and will, on all Forums, FB, or whatever, continue to debate the possibilities. But really, all we can do is wait and see. I say that because neither of them, unless they lose their mind and forget 1994, will be bringing further Gun control to the table until after the election. Obama, if he wins, has nothing to lose by putting whatever he wants in place, by hook or crook, wont matter. Romney OTOH, if he wants to be around after 2016, wont bring it up either, until after his first term is over. I think we can be sure we will know where Romney stands depending who he puts on the SCOTUS.

I think a second term for Obama is very dangerous for this country. As you said, he has nothing to lose and will try to "fundamentally change" this Country as much as he can. Obama will not hold back because he will have no concern about poll numbers or being re-elected. Romney on the other hand will have far more to lose by attacking gun rights during his first term. I agree Romney may flip-flop to get elected, but I do not fear a Romney first term nearly as much as I fear an Obama second term. Romney is far from the person I want to be voting for in November, but I will vote for him because I think he is the lesser of two evils.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Batman