If Romney Wins, is it Goodbye GLOCK? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : If Romney Wins, is it Goodbye GLOCK?


DannyR
06-15-2012, 08:23
Will he pass an act banning the sale of new Glock pistols to civilians, an act as passed in Massachusetts?:upeyes:

JFrame
06-15-2012, 08:26
Nah.


.

kirgi08
06-15-2012, 08:28
Coach,he got away with that carp in his state.I don't think it'll fly in the 56 others.'08 :whistling:

JBnTX
06-15-2012, 08:31
NO!

We need to quit trying to connect what happened in Massachusetts with anything Romney may or may not do as president.

Massachusetts is infested with anti-gun liberals. It's not like Romney thought up gun control in Massachusetts and went and passed it all by himself.

The anti-gun people of Massachusetts got what they voted for.

Romney isn't going to ban Glocks.

ColdSteelNail
06-15-2012, 08:41
No one can predict what Romney will do. He changes his positions as often as most people change socks.

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 08:46
That's not what he told Ted anyway.

Anyway, that would require an act of congress.

evlbruce
06-15-2012, 08:53
Mittens' language on guns is extremely lawerly and precise in an effort to be vague and non-committal. I can say that he hasn't retracted his support for a national AWB and doesn't regret signing into law the MA AWB.

SPIN2010
06-15-2012, 08:56
NO!

We need to quit trying to connect what happened in Massachusetts with anything Romney may or may not do as president.

Massachusetts is infested with anti-gun liberals. It's not like Romney thought up gun control in Massachusetts and went and passed it all by himself.

The anti-gun people of Massachusetts got what they voted for.

Romney isn't going to ban Glocks.

Yeah, nobody (especially politicians) ever bring their buddys along for the ride. :upeyes: I am standing by for anything these days.

Jerry
06-15-2012, 09:13
No one can predict what Romney will do. He changes his positions as often as most people change socks.

:rofl: And the Obamination hasn't changed his position on anything? But then he hasn't changed his socialist idea of "SPREADING THE WEALTH" of the working class or his Marxist policies of having the government control banking major industry and our health care (shades of Hitler). Ho yah! Lets put The Obaminatian back in because Romney "might" (although highly doubtful) ban Glocks. :crazy:

JFrame
06-15-2012, 09:15
:rofl: And the Obamination hasn't changed his position on anything? But then he hasn't changed his socialist idea of "SPREADING THE WEALTH" of the working class or his Marxist policies of having the government control banking major industry and our health care (shades of Hitler). Ho yah! Lets put The Obaminatian back in because Romney might Ban Glocks. :crazy:


Well -- remember...Obama's position on gay marriage isn't changing...It's "evolving"... :upeyes:


.

The Machinist
06-15-2012, 09:57
NO!

We need to quit trying to connect what happened in Massachusetts with anything Romney may or may not do as president.
http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1104930_o.gif

JBnTX
06-15-2012, 09:59
http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1104930_o.gif



"There You Go Again!" ~ Ronald Reagan - YouTube

Gundude
06-15-2012, 12:41
NO!

We need to quit trying to connect what happened in Massachusetts with anything Romney may or may not do as president.
:rofl:

So those who connected Obama with what he did in Illinois and at Harvard were completely off base? After all, those places are infested with anti-gun liberals too, right?

Ask yourself what makes a person want to run for office in a place infested with anti-gun liberals... Could it be that that's the only place a person like him could be elected?

Cambo
06-15-2012, 12:54
Will he pass an act banning the sale of new Glock pistols to civilians, an act as passed in Massachusetts?:upeyes:

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't you support Obama last time?

Syclone538
06-15-2012, 12:54
That's not what he told Ted anyway.

Anyway, that would require an act of congress.

Glocks are imported.

countrygun
06-15-2012, 13:05
:rofl: And the Obamination hasn't changed his position on anything? But then he hasn't changed his socialist idea of "SPREADING THE WEALTH" of the working class or his Marxist policies of having the government control banking major industry and our health care (shades of Hitler). Ho yah! Lets put The Obaminatian back in because Romney "might" (although highly doubtful) ban Glocks. :crazy:

Jerry I have noticed something that just seems to be overlooked.

Obama was elected on big promises, most of which he didn't deliver and most of the rest failed. People completely overlooked the whole "checks and balances" system that places neccessarly limits on what a President can do.

Ron Paul fans were wooed by his promises of big changes and reforms, IMO many neccessary and good, but they too overlook the fact that the President doesn't do it in a vaccuum. Those pesky checks and balances again.

Many of us know we are voting for Romney as simply a way of getting Obama out. Now that seems to be a much more realistic and acheivable goal, as opposed to big changes. I actually think that many are opposed to Romney because his promises AREN'T big and unachievable. They think a candidate has to promise things they CAN'T deliver. It seems that we are getting pasted because we admit "our" candidate isn't perfect and won't fix everything. Our expectations are simple and reasonable, we dare to settle for someone we know is less than perfect. That seems to offend those looking for an elected savior.

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 13:06
Glocks are imported.

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l178/tiffani33/Guns/CIMG1920.jpg

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l178/tiffani33/Guns/CIMG1926.jpg


Well, not all of them are.

Syclone538
06-15-2012, 13:13
I've believe the EPA will not let Glock do their finish in the US. Is that AAAA032? Is that a prototype?

edit
Where that one says

Glock, Inc., Smyrna, GA.


Mine says

Made in Austria
Glock, Inc., Smyrna, GA.

janice6
06-15-2012, 13:19
NO! It's goodbye obummer.

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 13:28
I've believe the EPA will not let Glock do their finish in the US. Is that AAAA032? Is that a prototype?

edit
Where that one says

Glock, Inc., Smyrna, GA.


Mine says

Made in Austria
Glock, Inc., Smyrna, GA.


The way I understand it that the frames are made in smyrna, the slides are finished in Austria due to the tennifer coating. They are for shipment to countries that can't receive arms from austria. I could see the USA becoming one of those, and the frames and slides could be made here. A lot of people would accept nickel plated slides made here if they could not be imported.

sbhaven
06-15-2012, 13:31
Where that one says

Glock, Inc., Smyrna, GA.


Mine says

Made in Austria
Glock, Inc., Smyrna, GA.
I have several that are stamped "Made in Austria" and one that is just stamped "Glock, Inc., Smyrna, GA". <shrugs>

As to the Op subject. One needs to understand the politics at the time Romney was Governor in MA. And then compare the proposed legislation to the final legislation that he signed. Was the anti gun legislation he signed better or worse than what was initially proposed? And could have the MA legislature over rode a veto if he issued one?

In the current political environment no way many of the Democrats and RINO's put their name on a gun grabbing bill. Only way the current President or Romney if elected could take a stab at guns is via agency rulings or an EO.

Now if Romney is President and a gun bill some how made its way to his desk, there is no telling how he'd vote. Remember that Obama was touted as being extremely anti gun yet signed credit card legislation that had the national park carry attached to it.

ModGlock17
06-15-2012, 13:38
Look!

If it was so simple to ban, Obama would have done it

especially during his first couple years in the term.

Syclone538
06-15-2012, 13:42
Do you have a pic of the other side? I'd be interested to see what country that gun says on the other side of the slide between the model # and the caliber.

According to wiki...
"Besides Glock several other pistol manufacturers like Smith & Wesson and Springfield Armory, Inc. also use ferritic nitrocarburizing for finishing parts like barrels and slides but they call it Melonite finish. "
so I'm assuming you could get a finish pretty close on a gun made in the US.

Syclone538
06-15-2012, 13:45
Look!

If it was so simple to ban, Obama would have done it

especially during his first couple years in the term.

It is that simple to ban anything imported. ATF can change sporting purposes so that nothing meets it and that is all there is to it. No more imported guns.

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 13:56
Do you have a pic of the other side? I'd be interested to see what country that gun says on the other side of the slide between the model # and the caliber.

According to wiki...
"Besides Glock several other pistol manufacturers like Smith & Wesson and Springfield Armory, Inc. also use ferritic nitrocarburizing for finishing parts like barrels and slides but they call it Melonite finish. "
so I'm assuming you could get a finish pretty close on a gun made in the US.


This is a link to the source of the pics.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=484467

I think the bottom line is glocks would still probably be available if Romney made an unlikely move to block their import.

Gunnut 45/454
06-15-2012, 14:07
DannyR
Another hit and run by the Obama campaign! You can go back to the DU now!:rofl:

meshmdz
06-15-2012, 14:13
NO!

We need to quit trying to connect what happened in Massachusetts with anything Romney may or may not do as president.

Massachusetts is infested with anti-gun liberals. It's not like Romney thought up gun control in Massachusetts and went and passed it all by himself.

The anti-gun people of Massachusetts got what they voted for.

Romney isn't going to ban Glocks.

look at this guy taking up for Willard like he knows him! guy, check it out... Willard Mitt Romney doesnt have the slightest clue as to any struggle you have ever experienced in your life. he wont govern to help you, he will govern to help the elites that he caters to and that give him $. he flip flops more than john kerry and YES HE DID ENACT ANTI-GUN legislation when HE WAS GOVERNOR. so stop acted like a tool from Faux News and taking up for the most unlikeable GOP candidate in the US's history. it blows my mind how idiots in america can vote AGAINST their interests, all bc the guy has an R by his name. Mitt Romney was more ANTI GUN during his time in MA than Obama was when he was a junior senator in IL PLUS HIS FIRST 4 YRS AS PRESIDENT!!!!! but go on and vote for Willard bc you THINK he will help YOU out and let you keep your guns. give me a break. absolutely unbelievable.... poor people voting for republicans is as stupid as a freed slave supporting jim crow laws! MINDLESS!

evlbruce
06-15-2012, 14:16
Look!

If it was so simple to ban, Obama would have done it

especially during his first couple years in the term.

Doubtful.

President 0 would never take the lead on such a decisive and politically bold action. He'd go along if Nancy and Harry where there to run point and pull him.

JFrame
06-15-2012, 14:16
Hmmm...The class warfare rhetoric is starting to deepen here...


.

Gundude
06-15-2012, 14:18
DannyR
Another hit and run by the Obama campaign! You can go back to the DU now!:rofl:It's one thing to believe Romney is the lesser of two evils, it's quite another to stick your head in the sand and think he won't be terrible for this country.

He did what he did and attacking the messenger doesn't change that.

Syclone538
06-15-2012, 14:19
This is a link to the source of the pics.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=484467

I think the bottom line is glocks would still probably be available if Romney made an unlikely move to block their import.

Yeah, that gun does say USA on the slide. I did not know any were made here. And I agree there is about a 0% chance Romney would do a H.W. style import ban, just wanted to point out that he could.

I really think that the only reasons Obama hasn't are that he didn't expect the jump in sales he caused, and he did expect Fast and Furious to work as an excuse for gun control. Might be waiting on the second term, if he's confident he'll get it.

meshmdz
06-15-2012, 14:20
name ONE thing that Obama has done to restrict your gun rights in the first 3.5 years..... YOU CANT! republicans cant stand it. Obama isnt anti-gun but the NRA is to nutless to back a man who is supportive of lawful gun owners and who has a better record than Willard. oh wait, thats before the idiots running the NRA decided "oh ****, willard is our sorry nominee and damn we have to support him so we will retract our bad rating of him as governor and give him a new stamp of approval.." give me a ****ing break.

Syclone538
06-15-2012, 14:33
name ONE thing that Obama has done to restrict your gun rights in the first 3.5 years..... YOU CANT!
...

Off the top of my head, Kegan, Sotomyer, Holder, Fast and Furious.

...
republicans cant stand it.
...

I'm not Republican. Well technically I am, but only so I could vote for Ron Paul in the primary.

...
Obama isnt anti-gun
...

Man you can't be serious.

...
but the NRA is to nutless to back a man who is supportive of lawful gun owners and who has a better record than Willard. oh wait, thats before the idiots running the NRA decided "oh ****, willard is our sorry nominee and damn we have to support him so we will retract our bad rating of him as governor and give him a new stamp of approval.." give me a ****ing break.

I'm not at all a fan of Negotiating Rights Away.

GAFinch
06-15-2012, 14:41
Mittens' language on guns is extremely lawerly and precise in an effort to be vague and non-committal. I can say that he hasn't retracted his support for a national AWB and doesn't regret signing into law the MA AWB.

He's clearly stated that he doesn't support any additional gun control legislation, which would never get passed by the current House to begin with.

aspartz
06-15-2012, 15:01
No one can predict what Romney will do. He changes his positions as often as most people change socks.
There's a Mormon underwear joke in there somewhere...

ARS

countrygun
06-15-2012, 15:26
look at this guy taking up for Willard like he knows him! guy, check it out... Willard Mitt Romney doesnt have the slightest clue as to any struggle you have ever experienced in your life. he wont govern to help you, he will govern to help the elites that he caters to and that give him $. he flip flops more than john kerry and YES HE DID ENACT ANTI-GUN legislation when HE WAS GOVERNOR.

Did he create the legislation, or did he as Governor sign a bill that was passed by the State Legislature,?





so stop acted like a tool from Faux News and taking up for the most unlikeable GOP candidate in the US's history. it blows my mind how idiots in america can vote AGAINST their interests, all bc the guy has an R by his name. Mitt Romney was more ANTI GUN during his time in MA than Obama was when he was a junior senator in IL PLUS HIS FIRST 4 YRS AS PRESIDENT!!!!! but go on and vote for Willard bc you THINK he will help YOU out and let you keep your guns. give me a break. absolutely unbelievable.... poor people voting for republicans is as stupid as a freed slave supporting jim crow laws! MINDLESS!

Do you realize you are off base and just saying it to get a rise, or are you delusional enough to really believe what you are saying?






I know it's hard for you to understand that all these other people have added 1+1 and gotten 2, and when you add it up you get 3, it doesn't mean that THEY are the MINDLESS ones.

sbhaven
06-15-2012, 15:30
Obama isnt anti-gun but the NRA is to nutless to back a man who is supportive of lawful gun owners and who has a better record than Willard.
Actually Obama's past voting history shows he is generally not supportive of our 2A rights...
http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm#Gun_Control
Barack Obama on Gun Control
14 full quotes on Gun Control (http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)
Midwestern "bitter clingers" frustrated over broken promises. (Aug 2009)
Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Wants Congress to ratify the inter-American treaty known as CIFTA (which Clinton signed 12 years earlier) to curb small arms trafficking.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9X2VbhSH9o

The only reason he signed the bill containing National Park Carry was because it was attached as an amendment to the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility bill.

Ruble Noon
06-15-2012, 16:13
Will he pass an act banning the sale of new Glock pistols to civilians, an act as passed in Massachusetts?:upeyes:

Hey now, don't you be hatin' on the gun banning liberal progressive socialized medicine man from Massachusetts that longed to be in Vietnam.

Ruble Noon
06-15-2012, 16:16
He's clearly stated that he doesn't support any additional gun control legislation, which would never get passed by the current House to begin with.

I don't care what he states after saying this.

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

countrygun
06-15-2012, 16:17
Actually Obama's past voting history shows he is generally not supportive of our 2A rights...
http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm#Gun_Control
Barack Obama on Gun Control
14 full quotes on Gun Control (http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)
Midwestern "bitter clingers" frustrated over broken promises. (Aug 2009)
Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Wants Congress to ratify the inter-American treaty known as CIFTA (which Clinton signed 12 years earlier) to curb small arms trafficking.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9X2VbhSH9o

The only reason he signed the bill containing National Park Carry was because it was attached as an amendment to the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility bill.


Don't wake them from their dreams with that nasty reality stuff. They get grumpy.

lethal tupperwa
06-15-2012, 16:19
That's not what he told Ted anyway.

Anyway, that would require an act of congress.

the o does it with executive orders

Jerry
06-15-2012, 16:56
Jerry I have noticed something that just seems to be overlooked.

Obama was elected on big promises, most of which he didn't deliver and most of the rest failed. People completely overlooked the whole "checks and balances" system that places neccessarly limits on what a President can do.


Most of what The Obimination got passes he did with the consent/help of a "majority" demorattic congress. So a couple of years ago I would have agreed with that statement. However I just herd today that he signed into law a bill allowing illegal aliens to become documented workers. I didn't hear of any bill in congress making it's way to his desk so where are the checks and balances?

Ruble Noon
06-15-2012, 17:10
Most of what The Obimination got passes he did with the consent/help of a "majority" demorattic congress. So a couple of years ago I would have agreed with that statement. However I just herd today that he signed into law a bill allowing illegal aliens to become documented workers. I didn't hear of any bill in congress making it's way to his desk so where are the checks and balances?

He had the consent and help of republicans on some of his transgressions against the COTUS.

wjv
06-15-2012, 17:12
>>> If Romney Wins, is it Goodbye GLOCK?

Umm. . . No. . .

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 17:16
Yeah, that gun does say USA on the slide. I did not know any were made here. And I agree there is about a 0% chance Romney would do a H.W. style import ban, just wanted to point out that he could.

I really think that the only reasons Obama hasn't are that he didn't expect the jump in sales he caused, and he did expect Fast and Furious to work as an excuse for gun control. Might be waiting on the second term, if he's confident he'll get it.

My thoughts exactly. Hence the sig line.

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 17:18
the o does it with executive orders

As explained earlier, there are domestic sources for Glocks in Smyrna Ga. Glocks are here to stay, Thread Title Fail.

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 17:19
He had the consent and help of republicans on some of his transgressions against the COTUS.

RINOs. We have more than one LIB flavor of RINO.

HexHead
06-15-2012, 17:29
We need to quit trying to connect what happened in Massachusetts with anything Romney may or may not do as president.



Bull****. Leopards don't change their spots.

Ruble Noon
06-15-2012, 17:34
Bull****. Leopards don't change their spots.

Chameleon.

evlbruce
06-15-2012, 18:03
He's clearly stated that he doesn't support any additional gun control legislation, which would never get passed by the current House to begin with.

No. He tosses out lines like this:
"I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. I believe in safe and responsible gun ownership and that anyone who exercises the right to keep and bear arms must do so lawfully and properly."
Sounds good? The above was spoken a month after this:
Mitt Romney Talks Guns On Meet The Press - YouTube
Clearly bans do no constitute "burden" to lawful gun ownership. Ergo Mittens can be in favor of gun control law and pro gun ownership.

Acujeff
06-15-2012, 18:26
Actually, Romney has never banned guns. He was not yet in office and so did not sign the 1998 MA gun restrictions into law.

If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-gun bills while he was Gov. of MA.

Let's look at Romney's actual record:
During the Romney Administration he met and worked with Gun Owners’ Action League (the Mass. based pro-2A group) and no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. In addition, Romney signed a bill that amended the permanent MA AWB and made it less strict, he removed any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006, and signed five pro-second amendment bills into law.

Romney earned a B from the NRA, which is higher than Obama (an F) or Hillary (also an F). Romney is certainly more pro-gun than McCain (rated a C+ by the NRA)

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

GW Bush is also often categorized as “not pro-gun enough” because he made the same statement about the AWB, but he appointed two pro-RKBA Justices to the Supreme Court giving us the majority to win Heller and McDonald, the AWB was allowed to expire and much pro-RKBA legislation progress was made during his administration.

Romney has taken a firm, pro-gun rights position and has the record to prove it. He is also campaigning on appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices like Alito and Roberts.

If you prefer Obama than you must really like Fast and Furious (the biggest criminal political scandal in American history), registering gun purchases in the four southern border states, appointing two anti-RKBA Supreme Court Justices and appointing 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts. Obama makes pro-gun statements but all his actions are anti-gun.

If Obama is re-elected gun control will no longer be "under the radar" and we will see, in the very least, more regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce. In addition, a Democrat Senate would likely sign on to lots more proposed gun control legislation and anti-gun judges and justices.

Statements do not amount to a position, a record does. Romney's record is much better than Obama's.

countrygun
06-15-2012, 18:30
Actually, Romney has never banned guns. He was not yet in office and so did not sign the 1998 MA gun restrictions into law.

If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-gun bills while he was Gov. of MA.

Let's look at Romney's actual record:
During the Romney Administration he met and worked with Gun Owners’ Action League (the Mass. based pro-2A group) and no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. In addition, Romney signed a bill that amended the permanent MA AWB and made it less strict, he removed any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006, and signed five pro-second amendment bills into law.

Romney earned a B from the NRA, which is higher than Obama (an F) or Hillary (also an F). Romney is certainly more pro-gun than McCain (rated a C+ by the NRA)

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

GW Bush is also often categorized as “not pro-gun enough” because he made the same statement about the AWB, but he appointed two pro-RKBA Justices to the Supreme Court giving us the majority to win Heller and McDonald, the AWB was allowed to expire and much pro-RKBA legislation progress was made during his administration.

Romney has taken a firm, pro-gun rights position and has the record to prove it. He is also campaigning on appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices like Alito and Roberts.

If you prefer Obama than you must really like Fast and Furious (the biggest criminal political scandal in American history), registering gun purchases in the four southern border states, appointing two anti-RKBA Supreme Court Justices and appointing 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts. Obama makes pro-gun statements but all his actions are anti-gun.

If Obama is re-elected gun control will no longer be "under the radar" and we will see, in the very least, more regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce. In addition, a Democrat Senate would likely sign on to lots more proposed gun control legislation and anti-gun judges and justices.

Statements do not amount to a position, a record does. Romney's record is much better than Obama's.


Thank you for applying some truth to this matter. The Obamaoists are going to have a hard time refuting any of that, but watch out for the personal attacks.

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 18:32
Fact is it is pretty simple to see, with Barry's fiat on Illegal Immigration, that gun control won't likely be far behind.

On RKBA, Romney > Barry.

Or at least, if nothing else, I'm willing to take that chance.

Gundude
06-15-2012, 19:15
In addition, Romney signed a bill that amended the permanent MA AWB and made it less strict,As often as you repeat that lie, it doesn't make it true. Romney amended the endangered MA AWB to make it more securely permanent.

The MA AWB was in danger of becoming unenforcable with the expiration of the federal AWB, because it depended on language from the federal ban. Romney signed the bill to remove the dependence on the federal AWB, so that the MA AWB could survive without it.

Romney and GOAL attempted to rewrite history to make it look like they accomplished something pro-gun, but unfortunately for them it wasn't long enough ago for most people (except the hopelessly self-deluded) to buy it.

Ruble Noon
06-15-2012, 19:18
Thank you for applying some truth to this matter. The Obamaoists are going to have a hard time refuting any of that, but watch out for the personal attacks.

Romney on Gun Control - YouTube

bonehead098
06-15-2012, 19:32
Jerry I have noticed something that just seems to be overlooked.

Obama was elected on big promises, most of which he didn't deliver and most of the rest failed. People completely overlooked the whole "checks and balances" system that places neccessarly limits on what a President can do.

Ron Paul fans were wooed by his promises of big changes and reforms, IMO many neccessary and good, but they too overlook the fact that the President doesn't do it in a vaccuum. Those pesky checks and balances again.

Many of us know we are voting for Romney as simply a way of getting Obama out. Now that seems to be a much more realistic and acheivable goal, as opposed to big changes. I actually think that many are opposed to Romney because his promises AREN'T big and unachievable. They think a candidate has to promise things they CAN'T deliver. It seems that we are getting pasted because we admit "our" candidate isn't perfect and won't fix everything. Our expectations are simple and reasonable, we dare to settle for someone we know is less than perfect. That seems to offend those looking for an elected savior.

Good Post!

LASTRESORT20
06-15-2012, 19:37
Will he pass an act banning the sale of new Glock pistols to civilians, an act as passed in Massachusetts?:upeyes:


Berry (and his "Yes we can" Folks) are the ones to worry about....:brickwall:

We better pray `Mr` Romney wins.

cowboy1964
06-15-2012, 20:07
Not the "EPA has banned Tenifer" crap again. That has been debunked 45,564 times people.

Cavalry Doc
06-15-2012, 20:13
Not the "EPA has banned Tenifer" crap again. That has been debunked 45,564 times people.

Gotta link, If that's not correct, I'd love to have the real info. Like others, I am occasionally at the mercy of what I have been told.

ModGlock17
06-15-2012, 20:15
In a larger scheme of things, Glock to a Presidency, for either party, is about as important as a FLY. Banning Glock is analogous to squatting a fly... with a broomstick... to a fly resting on a fresh batch of manure.

There will be "collateral" damage, if you get the picture.

That's why O had not done it. It's not about the mechanics of banning, it's about collateral damage. No president will do that, as in no president did prohibition or removed prohibition. It would take Congress with an Amendment.

PawDog
06-15-2012, 20:19
.....And, as expected and as if on cue, the Paulatarian Obama Fifth Column and the admitted Obama voters joined forces in this thread.

Who else is not shocked or surprised?

countrygun
06-15-2012, 20:23
. No president will do that, as in no president did prohibition or removed prohibition. It would take Congress with an Amendment.

I used to think that about immigration laws too.

Acujeff
06-15-2012, 20:24
As often as you repeat that lie, it doesn't make it true. Romney amended the endangered MA AWB to make it more securely permanent.

The MA AWB was in danger of becoming unenforcable with the expiration of the federal AWB, because it depended on language from the federal ban. Romney signed the bill to remove the dependence on the federal AWB, so that the MA AWB could survive without it.

Romney and GOAL attempted to rewrite history to make it look like they accomplished something pro-gun, but unfortunately for them it wasn't long enough ago for most people (except the hopelessly self-deluded) to buy it.


In 1998, before Romney was Gov, the Massachusetts legislature passed its own more restrictive assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB, and contained no sunset clause. The expiration of the Fed AWB in 2004 did not get rid of MA's own more restrictive permanent AWB.

Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the permanent state law (the MA Legislature was 90% anti-gun Democrats), we did not want to lose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so a new bill was amended to include them and that‘s what Romney signed. If Romney did not sign that bill, the more restrictive AWB would still be in place today.

Some folks on GT are misrepresenting Romney's record and claiming that he signed the MA AWB permanently into effect and that it was set to expire in 2004.

TheExplorer
06-15-2012, 20:31
Can someone please explain the whole Mass. Glock ban rational?

certifiedfunds
06-15-2012, 20:44
Coach,he got away with that carp in his state.I don't think it'll fly in the 56 others.'08 :whistling:

:rofl:well played

ModGlock17
06-15-2012, 20:52
I used to think that about immigration laws too.

Immigration a fly it is not. More like an elephant in the room.

Acujeff
06-15-2012, 21:05
Can someone please explain the whole Mass. Glock ban rational?

That has to do with the elected anti-gun Democrat MA Attorney General's Regulations for "public safety" implemented in the 90's.

http://www.mass.gov/ago/government-resources/ags-regulations/940-cmr-1600.html

Misty02
06-15-2012, 21:06
My thoughts exactly. Hence the sig line.

I like your signature line!

.

TheExplorer
06-15-2012, 21:19
That has to do with the elected anti-gun Democrat MA Attorney General's Regulations for "public safety" implemented in the 90's.

http://www.mass.gov/ago/government-resources/ags-regulations/940-cmr-1600.html


Ahh, I see. A design issue, not a brand issue.

Thank you.

TactiCool
06-15-2012, 22:43
name ONE thing that Obama has done to restrict your gun rights in the first 3.5 years..... YOU CANT! republicans cant stand it. Obama isnt anti-gun but the NRA is to nutless to back a man who is supportive of lawful gun owners and who has a better record than Willard. oh wait, thats before the idiots running the NRA decided "oh ****, willard is our sorry nominee and damn we have to support him so we will retract our bad rating of him as governor and give him a new stamp of approval.." give me a ****ing break.

Google search and basic comprehension FAIL.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/


Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Gundude
06-16-2012, 11:27
In 1998, before Romney was Gov, the Massachusetts legislature passed its own more restrictive assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB, and contained no sunset clause. The expiration of the Fed AWB in 2004 did not get rid of MA's own more restrictive permanent AWB.

Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the permanent state law (the MA Legislature was 90% anti-gun Democrats), we did not want to lose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so a new bill was amended to include them and that‘s what Romney signed. If Romney did not sign that bill, the more restrictive AWB would still be in place today.

Some folks on GT are misrepresenting Romney's record and claiming that he signed the MA AWB permanently into effect and that it was set to expire in 2004.Except that's not at all how it happened. It doesn't even make sense. If it wasn't tied to federal law, how would the expiration of the federal law cause MA to "lose all of the federal exemptions"? An explanation for this has never been offered. If you enumerate the specific exemptions, and how they would've been lost if Romney didn't sign the new ban, you might find more people receptive to your fairy tale.

The reality is that even though the MA ban wasn't written with an expiration date, the expiration of the federal ban could've made it legally unenforceable. MA legislature and Romney stepped in to make sure that couldn't happen. Then Romney boasted about protecting MA from those evil assault weapons.

countrygun
06-16-2012, 11:45
The reality is that even though the MA ban wasn't written with an expiration date, the expiration of the federal ban could've made it legally unenforceable.


As I recall you are incorrect. The MA lawmakers took the wording on the Federal law and wrote it into the State law. At that point whether or not the Federal law "sunsetted" or not it still remained the State law. Much as States set their own regulations on other items not covered by, or have stricter regulations than, Federal law.

Acujeff
06-16-2012, 11:49
Except that's not at all how it happened. It doesn't even make sense. If it wasn't tied to federal law, how would the expiration of the federal law cause MA to "lose all of the federal exemptions"? An explanation for this has never been offered. If you enumerate the specific exemptions, and how they would've been lost if Romney didn't sign the new ban, you might find more people receptive to your fairy tale.

The reality is that even though the MA ban wasn't written with an expiration date, the expiration of the federal ban could've made it legally unenforceable. MA legislature and Romney stepped in to make sure that couldn't happen. Then Romney boasted about protecting MA from those evil assault weapons.


What is known today as the highly restrictive gun control laws in MA were passed in 1998 by the Massachusetts legislature (over 85% anti-gun Democrat). It included MA’s assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M) that was more restrictive than the Fed AWB.

Here’s the entire 1998 CHAPTER 180 AN ACT RELATIVE TO GUN CONTROL IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MA

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter180

Gundude, if you actually read the law it is clear that this ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB and contained no sunset clause. The expiration of the Fed AWB in 2004 did not get rid of, or affect, MA's own permanent AWB.

countrygun
06-16-2012, 11:53
What is known today as the highly restrictive gun control laws in MA were passed in 1998 by the Massachusetts legislature (over 85% anti-gun Democrat). It included MA’s assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M) that was more restrictive than the Fed AWB.

Here’s the entire 1998 CHAPTER 180 AN ACT RELATIVE TO GUN CONTROL IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MA

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter180

Gundude, if you actually read the law it is clear that this ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB and contained no sunset clause. The expiration of the Fed AWB in 2004 did not get rid of, or affect, MA's own permanent AWB.

As I said before, I thought that MA wrote the language of the Fed AWB into their existing laws. Seemed to me that happened within days of the passage of the AWB

Acujeff
06-16-2012, 12:56
The 1998 MA AWB had more restrictions than the 1994 Fed AWB. When the Fed ban expired in 2004, GOAL and Romney used the opportunity to amend the MA AWB by including the federal exemptions and a few other improvements that were not in the state law.

PawDog
06-16-2012, 14:18
The 1998 MA AWB had more restrictions than the 1994 Fed AWB. When the Fed ban expired in 2004, GOAL and Romney used the opportunity to amend the MA AWB by including the federal exemptions and a few other improvements that were not in the state law.

Please stop telling the truth on this issue........:supergrin:

It greatly upsets the Paulatarians and exposes their lies and cultist propaganda for what it truly is. :rofl:

FFR Spyder GT
06-16-2012, 21:22
NO!

We need to quit trying to connect what happened in Massachusetts with anything Romney may or may not do as president.

Massachusetts is infested with anti-gun liberals. It's not like Romney thought up gun control in Massachusetts and went and passed it all by himself.

The anti-gun people of Massachusetts got what they voted for.

Romney isn't going to ban Glocks.


You're kidding, right?

Just remember, it's toke, toke, pass. Stop hoggin' the bong!

countrygun
06-16-2012, 21:34
You're kidding, right?

Just remember, it's toke, toke, pass. Stop hoggin' the bong!

Dude, YOU need to put the bong down go upstairs, see if Mommy has some snacks and get some air.

He is correct right down the line, ask anybody what the anti's are like in MA. I know several folks both from and still there.

that chronic is making you see things that aren't there.

Ruble Noon
06-16-2012, 21:46
Dude, YOU need to put the bong down go upstairs, see if Mommy has some snacks and get some air.

He is correct right down the line, ask anybody what the anti's are like in MA. I know several folks both from and still there.

that chronic is making you see things that aren't there.

I would imagine that he was referencing this part of his post

Originally Posted by JBnTX http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19092036#post19092036)
NO!

We need to quit trying to connect what happened in Massachusetts with anything Romney may or may not do as president.

countrygun
06-16-2012, 22:09
I would imagine that he was referencing this part of his post


Compared to Obie, I'll take Romney, because there are more important things than what a President can do regarding guns, and even if Obama had a collection bigger than mine, the rest of him sux.

and BTW O bama is an anti.

Gundude
06-16-2012, 22:10
The 1998 MA AWB had more restrictions than the 1994 Fed AWB. When the Fed ban expired in 2004, GOAL and Romney used the opportunity to amend the MA AWB by including the federal exemptions and a few other improvements that were not in the state law.Which federal exemptions? Why does that question never get answered? How would the expiration of the federal AWB have hurt MA gunowners? Why did the MA legislature and Romney have to jump to their rescue before the federal ban expired? You have yet to explain that.

Gundude
06-16-2012, 22:15
Please stop telling the truth on this issue........:supergrin:

It greatly upsets the Paulatarians and exposes their lies and cultist propaganda for what it truly is. :rofl:When somebody resorts to defending Mitt Romney on gun rights, they don't have any standing to call anybody else a cultist.

Why is it not good enough for you to call Romney the lesser of two evils? Do you need to delude yourself into thinking he stands with you on gun rights in order to vote for him?

Ruble Noon
06-16-2012, 22:17
Compared to Obie, I'll take Romney, because there are more important things than what a President can do regarding guns, and even if Obama had a collection bigger than mine, the rest of him sux.

and BTW O bama is an anti.

Well gee, thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten all the threads I posted on this board to that effect.

Ruble Noon
06-16-2012, 22:19
When somebody resorts to defending Mitt Romney on gun rights, they don't have any standing to call anybody else a cultist.

Why is it not good enough for you to call Romney the lesser of two evils? Do you need to delude yourself into thinking he stands with you on gun rights in order to vote for him?

They have all taken a hit of Ropeium. It seems to be just as effective as obama's hopeium.

Cavalry Doc
06-17-2012, 06:09
They have all taken a hit of Ropeium. It seems to be just as effective as obama's hopeium.

This is classic projection, to pretend that people planning to vote against Barry, and for Mittens share the same level of love and devotion that people show toward Ron Paul.

Cambo
06-17-2012, 08:38
I am still waiting for DannyR to confirm or deny his support for Obama.

Providence
06-17-2012, 08:59
Well said!Many of us know we are voting for Romney as simply a way of getting Obama out. Now that seems to be a much more realistic and acheivable goal, as opposed to big changes. I actually think that many are opposed to Romney because his promises AREN'T big and unachievable. They think a candidate has to promise things they CAN'T deliver. It seems that we are getting pasted because we admit "our" candidate isn't perfect and won't fix everything. Our expectations are simple and reasonable, we dare to settle for someone we know is less than perfect. That seems to offend those looking for an elected savior.

After removing President Obama from office, we need to concentrate on electing members of Congress who will honor the Constitution.

Gun control is not a concern of mine where Romney is concerned. On the other hand, I am concerned that a second term of an Imperialistic Obama administration will just enact gun control by edict.

Cavalry Doc
06-17-2012, 09:02
Well said!

After removing President Obama from office, we need to concentrate on electing members of Congress who will honor the Constitution.

Gun control is not a concern of mine where Romney is concerned. On the other hand, I am concerned that a second term of an Imperialistic Obama administration will just enact gun control by edict.



For all you Texans, 31July is the Texas Senate run-off, vote for Ted Cruz, and against the blue blood establishment republican dewhurst.

Acujeff
06-17-2012, 16:48
Which federal exemptions? Why does that question never get answered? How would the expiration of the federal AWB have hurt MA gunowners? Why did the MA legislature and Romney have to jump to their rescue before the federal ban expired? You have yet to explain that.


I’ve already posted the link to the strict 1998 gun control laws that included the original, permanent MA AWB:

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter180

I already posted the link to Romney's record that includes the bill he signed in 2004 that attempted to correct some of the abuses of the 1998 laws:

http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

If you didn't bother to read the links, here is what the bill Romney signed in 2004 actually did:

1. Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served.
For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.

2. Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.

3. Extended the term of the state’s firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.

4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws.

Here is the link to the federal code:
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC00922.html

5. Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.

6. Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.

7. Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.

8. Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driver’s license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3” x 4”.

9. Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders

Gundude
06-18-2012, 10:54
What is known today as the highly restrictive gun control laws in MA were passed in 1998 by the Massachusetts legislature (over 85% anti-gun Democrat). It included MA’s assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M) that was more restrictive than the Fed AWB.

Here’s the entire 1998 CHAPTER 180 AN ACT RELATIVE TO GUN CONTROL IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MA

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter180

Gundude, if you actually read the law it is clear that this ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB and contained no sunset clause. The expiration of the Fed AWB in 2004 did not get rid of, or affect, MA's own permanent AWB.Not tied to Fed AWB? What about this? (from your link)SECTION 8.
[...]
"Assault weapon", shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30), and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12
It became MA General Law Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 121.(http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121)

Then, in 2004, SECTION 1 of the law Romney signed says this: SECTION 1. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the figure "(30)", in line 11, the following words:- as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter150So the section above became:“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;Do you see the difference? That was the main reason for writing this law. It made the MA law dependent on federal AWB definitions as written in 1994, not as expired in 2004. They did this to protect the ban. Although they brought the exemptions along with it, the purpose of the bill was to maintain the ban.

Gundude
06-18-2012, 14:38
Please stop telling the truth on this issue........:supergrin:As my post above demonstrates, Acujeff never told the truth on this issue. Attributing the least sinister possible motive to his posts, he simply bought the GOAL fairy tale hook, line, and sinker.

Acujeff
06-18-2012, 14:58
Do you see the difference? That was the main reason for writing this law. It made the MA law dependent on federal AWB definitions as written in 1994, not as expired in 2004. They did this to protect the ban. Although they brought the exemptions along with it, the purpose of the bill was to maintain the ban.

The same anti-gun Democratic, veto proof, legislature that installed the permanent 1998 MA gun laws were still there in 2004. Of course the purpose of the bill for the legislature was to maintain the ban. For GOAL and Romney it was an opportunity to make the MA gun laws less strict and correct some abuses.

Gundude, in spite of the Fed definition of Assault Weapon, it is still clear that the 1998 MA ban did not rely on the federal AWB language to exist and contained no sunset clause. The expiration of the Fed AWB in 2004 did not get rid of, or affect, MA's own permanent AWB.

Most of the other states, like NY, NJ and CA, that installed their own permanent AWBs were also "inspired" by the Fed AWB.

Gundude
06-18-2012, 15:32
The same anti-gun Democratic, veto proof, legislature that installed the permanent 1998 MA gun laws were still there in 2004. Of course the purpose of the bill for the legislature was to maintain the ban.So it was an anti-gun bill. So this statement by you:If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-gun bills while he was Gov. of MA.
is clearly false.
Gundude, in spite of the Fed definition of Assault Weapon, it is still clear that the 1998 MA ban did not rely on the federal AWB language to exist and contained no sunset clause. The expiration of the Fed AWB in 2004 did not get rid of, or affect, MA's own permanent AWB.
The expiration of the Fed AWB did affect MA's own ban, which is why they "fixed" wording as I described above. It relied on the fed language specifically as I highlighted above.

Acujeff
06-18-2012, 16:00
Gundude,

You are presenting your asumptions as facts.

If you want to assert that a bill decreasing gun control is anti-gun you are certainly free to do so but I don't think sane folks are going to agree with you.

There is no mention in the 1998 MA gun laws that the AWB is tied to the expiration of the Fed AWB. The use of the Fed definition of "Assault Weapon" did not void the MA Ban and the 1998 version would still exist today if not amended. If that particular weapon "definition" needed to be spelled out instead of referenced, the legislature would have pushed it through with a veto proof vote and the stricter version and gun law abuses would still be in place today if GOAL and Romney hadn't made the improvements.

Gundude
06-18-2012, 16:24
Gundude,

You are presenting your asumptions as facts. Nope. It's in the letter of the laws I quoted and linked to above.

If you want to assert that a bill decreasing gun control is anti-gun you are certainly free to do so but I don't think sane folks are going to agree with you.It was anti-gun because it protected the assault weapon ban which could have been legally challenged because it referred to definitions which would no longer be in effect. Whatever token gestures GOAL slipped in there so it can make up its fairy tale pale in comparison to the primary effect of the law, which was to protect the MA ban from the expiration of the federal one. It was net anti-gun, in a big way.

There is no mention in the 1998 MA gun laws that the AWB is tied to the expiration of the Fed AWB. The use of the Fed definition of "Assault Weapon" did not void the MA Ban and the 1998 version would still exist today if not amended.And it would've been challenged in court the first time they tried to prosecute somebody under it, because the defendant would say the definition of Assault Weapon doesn't exist in the law it referenced. That's not my non-lawyerly opinion, that's the opinion of the lawmakers who felt the need to change the wording. It would've been an unenforceable law. That would've been by far the better outcome for MA gun owners.

If that particular weapon "definition" needed to be spelled out instead of referenced, the legislature would have pushed it through with a veto proof vote and the stricter version and gun law abuses would still be in place today if GOAL and Romney hadn't made the improvements.Be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that Romney defended the assault weapons ban, both in action and in words.

Romney is anti-gun. There is no way to get around that. GOAL and the NRA should be ashamed of themselves for selling Romney to their membership based on lies.

Acujeff
06-18-2012, 16:52
And it would've been challenged in court the first time they tried to prosecute somebody under it, because the defendant would say the definition of Assault Weapon doesn't exist in the law it referenced. That's not my non-lawyerly opinion, that's the opinion of the lawmakers who felt the need to change the wording. It would've been an unenforceable law. That would've been by far the better outcome for MA gun owners.

Romney is anti-gun. There is no way to get around that. GOAL and the NRA should be ashamed of themselves for selling Romney to their membership based on lies.

Gundude,

If you expect folks to believe your assumptions I'm sure you can show all the legal incidents where the states that enacted their own permanent AWB became unenforceable when the Fed AWB expired in 2004.

The stricter 1998 MA AWB was passed by the legislature by a veto proof majority that was still there in 2004. Do you really think they'd have any difficulty or finding the motivation to spell out the weapon definition?

If Romney was as as anti-gun as you indicate, then he should have, in the very least, done nothing and let things stand. Or he could have tacked on more restrictions and gun control. When it was politically expedient to be pro gun control his actions show the opposite. The facts show he increasingly worked with GOAL and gun-owners during his term and he moved to the pro-gun side.

It is absolute infantile madness to think the MA AWB would have just gone away, that Romney was responsible for more gun control in MA, and encourage gunowners to refuse to support Romney in the election against Obama.

Gundude
06-18-2012, 17:31
Gundude,

If you expect folks to believe your assumptions I'm sure you can show all the legal incidents where the states that enacted their own permanent AWB became unenforceable when the Fed AWB expired in 2004. Again, it's not assumption. The lawmakers specifically changed the words of the MA law in preparation for the upcoming federal expiration. I linked to those exact words. How is that an assumption on my part?

The stricter 1998 MA AWB was passed by the legislature by a veto proof majority that was still there in 2004. Do you really think they'd have any difficulty or finding the motivation to spell out the weapon definition? Sure, they probably woudn't have had any difficulty. What they didn't need was Romney enthusiastically supporting them and gloating about how he's helping keep MA safe from those evil weapons. But they got it.

If Romney was as as anti-gun as you indicate, then he should have, in the very least, done nothing and let things stand. Or he could have tacked on more restrictions and gun control. When it was politically expedient to be pro gun control his actions show the opposite. The facts show he increasingly worked with GOAL and gun-owners during his term and he moved to the pro-gun side. He worked with GOAL, because he's always been two-faced. He is the very definition of two-faced. Including some token pro-gun accomodation in a primarily anti-gun bill, then trying to claim credit from both sides, is right up his alley. But in the end it's just an anti-gun bill that he signed and talked highly about signing it for the anti-gun aspects alone:“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”He didn't talk about the 90-day grace period. He only had to put on that second face when he started running for president.

Cavalry Doc
06-18-2012, 17:59
So, to cut to the chase, maybe mittens has a small amount of cover because there were some benefits to gun owners in the bill, but he cannot get around his quotes.

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/pres_files/Romneyflier.pdf

He's not likely to get around congress to do anything about increasing gun control. Barry has shown us how he intends to govern in his recent immigration move.


A first term liberal is still better than a second term socialist.

Acujeff
06-18-2012, 18:55
If we use Gundude's standards it would appear Ron Paul was also too anti-gun to be President.

Paul voted NO on prohibiting frivolous product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-534 on Oct 20, 2005

Paul voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
Reference: Bill introduced by McCollum, R-FL; Bill HR 2122 ; vote number 1999-244 on Jun 18, 1999

Gundude
06-18-2012, 21:33
If we use Gundude's standards it would appear Ron Paul was also too anti-gun to be President.

Paul voted NO on prohibiting frivolous product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-534 on Oct 20, 2005

Paul voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
Reference: Bill introduced by McCollum, R-FL; Bill HR 2122 ; vote number 1999-244 on Jun 18, 1999You really want to start comparing Ron Paul and Mitt Romney on gun rights?

If not signing any assault weapons bans seems to you to be an unrealistic minimum standard to hold a candidate to, you have no respect at all for the RKBA.

Fed Five Oh
06-18-2012, 22:57
You really want to start comparing Ron Paul and Mitt Romney on gun rights?

If not signing any assault weapons bans seems to you to be an unrealistic minimum standard to hold a candidate to, you have no respect at all for the RKBA.Sure, why don't you compare the two, because it looks like Ron Paul is a ****** bag when it comes to gun rights. Geez, really, he couldn't even vote to prohibit frivolous law suits against gun manufacturers?

Your selective outrage is noted, along with your lack of credibility.

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 05:34
If we use Gundude's standards it would appear Ron Paul was also too anti-gun to be President.

Paul voted NO on prohibiting frivolous product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-534 on Oct 20, 2005

Paul voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
Reference: Bill introduced by McCollum, R-FL; Bill HR 2122 ; vote number 1999-244 on Jun 18, 1999

Gundude came out of the closet in another thread, and is now openly supporting Barry. Just keep that in mind. :wavey:

JFrame
06-19-2012, 06:03
Gundude came out of the closet in another thread, and is now openly supporting Barry. Just keep that in mind. :wavey:


Thanks for the heads up. :)


.

evlbruce
06-19-2012, 07:41
As often as you repeat that lie, it doesn't make it true. Romney amended the endangered MA AWB to make it more securely permanent.

If you read what was being said at the time, preserving the AWB was a goal:
[The 2004 MA AWB] ''recognizes the importance of preserving the assault-weapons ban for the safety of Massachusetts citizens."
- Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, Sponsor

Governor Romney has said on multiple occasion that he signed an AWB into law. Even then GOAL president Jim Wallace acknowledge this at the time.

Actually reading the contemporary news stories ('http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/06/24/state_moves_on_assault_weapons_ban/?page=full') makes the intent of the bill and the motivations of it's backers clear. Mittens and GOAL are in full spin mode.

JFrame
06-19-2012, 07:50
On an interesting side-note, I pulled this link off of today's Drudge Report:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/at-party-bloomberg-tips-hand-on-endorsement/

This quote caught my attention:

But Mr. Bloomberg said he could not support Mr. Romney because he disagreed with him on so many social issues, these two people said. The mayor mentioned two such issues: abortion rights and gun control.

...Anyone that Bloomberg disagrees with on gun control is headed in the right direction for me... :cool:


.

Numismatist
06-19-2012, 07:50
Look!

If it was so simple to ban, Obama would have done it

especially during his first couple years in the term.

Nah, he wants to have a second term...that's when he'll make his effort.

Gundude
06-19-2012, 09:20
Sure, why don't you compare the two, because it looks like Ron Paul is a ****** bag when it comes to gun rights. Geez, really, he couldn't even vote to prohibit frivolous law suits against gun manufacturers?Yes, Ron Paul is consistently against prohibiting stuff. As confusing as the concept of refusing to ban things you don't like may seem to you, it is a fundamental tenet of small government. But tenets of small government don't really interest you, do they?

Gundude
06-19-2012, 09:24
Gundude came out of the closet in another thread, and is now openly supporting Barry. Just keep that in mind. :wavey:I "came out" months ago and said I'm voting against Romney (therefore for Obama).

It doesn't change Romney's record as a gun-grabber one bit.

Gundude
06-19-2012, 09:35
If you read what was being said at the time, preserving the AWB was a goal:
[The 2004 MA AWB] ''recognizes the importance of preserving the assault-weapons ban for the safety of Massachusetts citizens."
- Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, Sponsor

Governor Romney has said on multiple occasion that he signed an AWB into law. Even then GOAL president Jim Wallace acknowledge this at the time.

Actually reading the contemporary news stories ('http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/06/24/state_moves_on_assault_weapons_ban/?page=full') makes the intent of the bill and the motivations of it's backers clear. Mittens and GOAL are in full spin mode.Yeah, they've got to hate the Internet. GOAL tried to categorize all contemporary news stories as incorrect, because some of them actually were, stating that the MA ban had a sunset clause. The article you referenced above, though, has it spot on:Massachusetts lawmakers enacted their own assault-weapons ban in 1998, including it in a sweeping package of gun-control measures. But because the state law relies on the federal definitions of the prohibited weapons, legislators feared that if the federal law expired, the state ban also would dissolve.It is supported by the wording of the law itself and the words of all the parties involved in sponsoring, passing, and signing the law. GOALs efforts to spin it as a pro-gun bill are embarrassing for them. If they categorized it as a necessary evil in order to slip in a couple of pro-gun nuggets, at least that would be somewhat respectable in that environment, but they're actually trying to convince people it was a pro-gun bill altogether, which is laughable.

They hooked people like Acujeff, but if you see his fantasies about Romney in other threads, he's obviously a few steps beyond delusional about the man. I doubt their tactics had the desired effect on rational people. Then again, I find most communication from "gun rights" organizations don't target the rational.

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 09:41
I "came out" months ago and said I'm voting against Romney (therefore for Obama).

It doesn't change Romney's record as a gun-grabber one bit.

I guess it's a good thing we'll have congress there to stop him, considering Barry's propensity for executive fiat, not so much.

Considering the SCOTUS picks, and everything else, I'll take my chances with Romney, but be prepared in case you get your way. I'm just in it for the entertainment value now.

Gundude
06-19-2012, 10:14
I guess it's a good thing we'll have congress there to stop him, considering Barry's propensity for executive fiat, not so much.Really, congress can stop Romney, but not Obama? That can't possibly make sense to you.

SCmasterblaster
06-19-2012, 10:36
If Romney wants to get reelected in 2016, he'll not ask for ANY gun control.

Acujeff
06-19-2012, 10:57
Gundude's minimum standards are clear - if a politician has ever made a pro-gun control statement, or vote, regardless of their record thereafter, they are instantly and forever disqualified to support our RKBA.

Therefore Ron Paul is anti-gun and Obama is very anti-gun. Romney is the least anti-gun and gets our vote. Thanks for clearing that up for us Gundude!

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 11:21
Thoughts from an NRA board member

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/nugent-endorses-romney-prefers-real-perry/

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 11:27
Really, congress can stop Romney, but not Obama? That can't possibly make sense to you.

I should not have to explain every little detail, but if it is necessary...

Who's more likely to abuse executive orders, a first term president, or a second term president? Considering Barry has already started..... Duh.

Mittens being an unknown quantity, is better than the current occupants known propensities.

When faced with a choice of a known bad vs an unknown, I'll take my chances with the unknown.

Yup, just checked, sig line hasn't changed.

JFrame
06-19-2012, 11:37
Thoughts from an NRA board member

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/nugent-endorses-romney-prefers-real-perry/


Prepare for a salvo of comments about what a kook Nugent is, and who cares what a rock singer has to say anyway...

Loved this comment:


"He was in Massachusetts," Nugent said. "He wasn't in America."


.

Gundude
06-19-2012, 11:51
Gundude's minimum standards are clear - if a politician has ever made a pro-gun control statement, or vote, regardless of their record thereafter, they are instantly and forever disqualified to support our RKBA.

Therefore Ron Paul is anti-gun and Obama is very anti-gun. Romney is the least anti-gun and gets our vote. Thanks for clearing that up for us Gundude!If that's the way you want to spin it, fine. I never have and never will vote for Ron Paul, because I don't live in Texas, I'm not a registered Republican, and I was too young to vote in 1988. So I guess I dodged a landmine by never having had the opportunity to vote for him, and I'm sure I never will in the future.

So go ahead and gloat about voting for an anti-gunner. At least you're admitting it to yourself now.

Jerry
06-19-2012, 11:57
When faced with a choice of a known bad vs an unknown, I'll take my chances with the unknown.

Yup, just checked, sig line hasn't changed.

Or as I've always said... I always vote for the lesser of the EVILS.

You know you're going to get screwed so at least vote for the guy holding the jar of Vaseline. :wow:

kirgi08
06-19-2012, 11:58
I don't want Romney re-elected.He's a warder in my mind.I want Jindal/Rubio/West ta step up.

Ya see Gundude,another run of Obama leads ta nothing ta loose.If he wins the nation is sacrosanct.

You may pout like a 4yro,vote away.I pray you have 4000 calories per person per day.We do,your submission ta his platform will sign your family up ta be refugees.Google what the UN states about refugees.

Your ignorance is assigning graves ta your kin.'08. :sad:

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 12:08
Prepare for a salvo of comments about what a kook Nugent is, and who cares what a rock singer has to say anyway...

Loved this comment:




.

It's more about what Mittens pledged to him than about him. I think Ted is a bit kooky myself.

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 12:10
Or as I've always said... I always vote for the lesser of the EVILS.

You know you're going to get screwed so at least vote for the guy holding the jar of Vaseline. :wow:

I really dislike that cliche. Neither is evil.

More like dumb and dumberer. If ya gotta choose one, go with dumb.

JFrame
06-19-2012, 12:12
It's more about what Mittens pledged to him than about him. I think Ted is a bit kooky myself.

I guess my point is that the messenger is more likely to be attacked than the message.

Ted is certainly unorthodox and flamboyant -- and yes, a bit kooky at times -- but I find myself in agreement with him on key issues more often than not.


.

Gundude
06-19-2012, 12:12
I don't want Romney re-elected.He's a warder in my mind.I want Jindal/Rubio/West ta step up.

Ya see Gundude,another run of Obama leads ta nothing ta loose.If he wins the nation is sacrosanct.

You may pout like a 4yro,vote away.I pray you have 4000 calories per person per day.We do,your submission ta his platform will sign your family up ta be refugees.Google what the UN states about refugees.

Your ignorance is assigning graves ta your kin.'08. :sad:We'll be fine, I appreciate your concern.

I do believe you're overestimating the man's power. We'll see I guess.

SCmasterblaster
06-19-2012, 12:18
that G20 owner Ted Nugent support Romney. He got a no new gun control pledge out of Romney.

9jeeps
06-19-2012, 12:30
Obama voters are hell bent on the, "FREE RIDE" Entitlement wagon. Nothing more... Nothing less.

This is perfect for young idealist, low life blood suckers, lazy bums, unemployable/s, and communist. Did I leave out anyone?

Oh yeah, Most actors, nitwit politicians, and democrats.
Plus real smart folks that vote for macho, cute, handsome, and other really deep ideals....

Aww jeez, I just finished reading Bill Cosby's, "I'm tired":supergrin:

Well, I am too. :yawn:

Think I'll go take a pill, drink some sweet tea, have a nap.:wavey:

Acujeff
06-19-2012, 13:23
So go ahead and gloat about voting for an anti-gunner. At least you're admitting it to yourself now.


I'm applying your standards to your own arguments. Obama is the extreme anti-RKBA compared to Romney whose record is much more pro-RKBA. Using your own standards we should logically support Romney.

Gundude, GT'ers know you are a hypocrite trying to get Gunowners to vote against their own interests and liberty.
You are the only one here who believes your infantile and delusional thinking.

Gundude
06-19-2012, 13:31
I'm applying your standards to your own arguments. Obama is the extreme anti-RKBA compared to Romney whose record is much more pro-RKBA. Using your own standards we should logically support Romney.Romney's record is not more pro-RKBA than Obama's. They are both anti. What makes Romney worse on guns is that he's representing the party who's supposed to be the defender of gun rights. It is not acceptable for both parties to be anti-gun. Anti-gunners should run as Democrats, period. They should have no illusions at all of being able to win any election as a Republican.

Acujeff
06-19-2012, 13:50
Romney's record is not more pro-RKBA than Obama's. They are both anti. What makes Romney worse on guns is that he's representing the party who's supposed to be the defender of gun rights. It is not acceptable for both parties to be anti-gun. Anti-gunners should run as Democrats, period. They should have no illusions at all of being able to win any election as a Republican.


Of course Romney is much more pro-RKBA than Obama. You are the only one who delusionally thinks an Obama win is in the best interests of gunowners. As folks have stated, you are entertaining and you certainly convince readers to vote for Romney.

Ruble Noon
06-19-2012, 15:45
Of course Romney is much more pro-RKBA than Obama. You are the only one who delusionally thinks an Obama win is in the best interests of gunowners. As folks have stated, you are entertaining and you certainly convince readers to vote for Romney.

Romney and Obama both suck. Romney has banned guns, Obama wants to. Neither are friendly to gun owners or freedom.

Fed Five Oh
06-19-2012, 16:52
Romney and Obama both suck. Romney has banned guns, Obama wants to. Neither are friendly to gun owners or freedom.We are gonna get one or the other.

Which one would you rather see sworn in?

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 16:55
We are gonna get one or the other.

Which one would you rather see sworn in?

Good question......

Ruble,

You are going to vote however you want to, but right now, it looks like either Mittens or Barry will be the President this time next year. So, if it has to be one of them, which one would you prefer?

Go ahead and vote for Ron or LP, and you can feel better, but really, which one would you prefer?

Ruble Noon
06-19-2012, 17:42
Good question......

Ruble,

You are going to vote however you want to, but right now, it looks like either Mittens or Barry will be the President this time next year. So, if it has to be one of them, which one would you prefer?

Go ahead and vote for Ron or LP, and you can feel better, but really, which one would you prefer?

Neither, I can't stand either one of them. I'm hoping for a brokered convention and someone nominating R. Lee Ermy.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSu3NSMwf8xbCej7xPoJXxRHUngn_ynDeTpgDM9VN0EfkGWrGXc

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 17:59
Neither, I can't stand either one of them. I'm hoping for a brokered convention and someone nominating R. Lee Ermy.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSu3NSMwf8xbCej7xPoJXxRHUngn_ynDeTpgDM9VN0EfkGWrGXc

Now we're talking. I like the guy.


But really, your dislike for Barry and Mittens is exactly equal? You don't dislike what you believe one would do even 0.0000001% more than the other?

I find that hard to believe. OH well, if I remember, I'll ask again after the convention.

RyanSBHF
06-19-2012, 19:26
NO!

We need to quit trying to connect what happened in Massachusetts with anything Romney may or may not do as president.

Massachusetts is infested with anti-gun liberals. It's not like Romney thought up gun control in Massachusetts and went and passed it all by himself.

The anti-gun people of Massachusetts got what they voted for.

Romney isn't going to ban Glocks.



http://www.talknerdytomelover.com/storage/Epic_Facepalm_by_RJTH25255B125255D5B15D.jpg

meshmdz
08-03-2012, 06:56
Yea Obama has done so much as president to take my guns is horrible!!!! What are we ever gonna do!!!! Ahhhhhh!!!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

series1811
08-03-2012, 07:01
Gundude, GT'ers know you are a hypocrite trying to get Gunowners to vote against their own interests and liberty.
You are the only one here who believes your infantile and delusional thinking.

It is kind of funny. It's like one of us going to a prisontalk.com and welfaretalk.com, or foodstamptalk.com, and trying to convince people that they need to vote against Obama.

But, we're not that delusional. :supergrin:

Misty02
08-03-2012, 08:18
Neither, I can't stand either one of them. I'm hoping for a brokered convention and someone nominating R. Lee Ermy.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSu3NSMwf8xbCej7xPoJXxRHUngn_ynDeTpgDM9VN0EfkGWrGXc

I met him last month, he signed my Glock hat and new Glock. Pretty nice and friendly guy. :)

.

Misty02
08-03-2012, 08:21
Now we're talking. I like the guy.


But really, your dislike for Barry and Mittens is exactly equal? You don't dislike what you believe one would do even 0.0000001% more than the other?

I find that hard to believe. OH well, if I remember, I'll ask again after the convention.

I won’t be voting for Mittens as much as I would be voting against Barry. I don’t like either, but dislike one more than the other.

.

kirgi08
08-03-2012, 08:51
:perfect10: