Obama came out of the closet

[armedandsafe]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/16/ob...t-weapons-ban/

President Barack Obama declared during Tuesday’s presidential debate that his goals as president include the reinstatement of a so-called “assault weapons ban” in the United States.

We HAVE to take the Senate.

Pops

[howlnmad]

YES WE DO

[hogger129]

Yup.

[terryu1]

AGREED!!! Almost as important as the Presidency

[45nut]

Well of course he does. He's a socialist commie and they all get around to disarming The People as a matter of course. It's clearly written in the little red book he is following so closely.

We'll just need to make sure he doesn't have another term to do so.

[45Auto]

Yes, I was listening to the debate last night. Obama said he beleives in the 2nd Amendment, but then he began waffling, given that it will cost him alot of anti-gun votes. I was not happy about that.

Slick Willard Romney did a much much better job of talking around the anti-AK question. But Obama cut him short by mentioning that while Gov. of Mass. Slick Willard signed a ban on assault weapons.

If actions speak loader than words, the 2nd Amendament is in for alot more trouble under Slick Willard Romeny than it will be during another 4 years of Obama.

[targetacqmgt]

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/16/ob...t-weapons-ban/



We HAVE to take the Senate.

Pops

The SOB is worried about a general uprising if he is relected AND he continues to errod the our civil liberties.

[FlashBang]

You need to read all of his words to get the full impact of what he is saying, and not just focus on the assault weapons comment:

“Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”


What he is saying here is that not only does he want an assault weapons ban, but he is also looking at going after handguns. The way he will try to sell this is that he will leave "hunting" rifles alone, and take "assault" rifles and handguns. He will use that as a way to argue that he is not touching anyone's rights to own a "sporting" firearm.

.

[firefighter1635]

Everyone knew this was on the agenda. I was plaining on building my first AR right after X-mas, instead I'll be building two, in the VERY near future. The wife even gave the go ahead after she watched the debate .

[Rocketman1]

Originally Posted by FlashBang

You need to read all of his words to get the full impact of what he is saying, and not just focus on the assault weapons comment:

“Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”


What he is saying here is that not only does he want an assault weapons ban, but he is also looking at going after handguns. The way he will try to sell this is that he will leave "hunting" rifles alone, and take "assault" rifles and handguns. He will use that as a way to argue that he is not touching anyone's rights to own a "sporting" firearm.

.

Heres the rest of it:

"Oama: I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced, but part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence, because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns.

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

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

Keep in mind I'm not an Obama fan, but he has said nothing about going after hand guns.

[GunnyGene]

It's all about definitions. Not that long ago a Kentucky long rifle was considered a "military" weapon. And even more recently, the Springfield and the M-1.

The anti's just don't like bullet launchers, period. Especially ones that look scary. They have no clue about marksmanship and weapons capability. They get their info from video games.

A real scary weapon is a Marine Expert/Distinguished marksman with a scoped bolt action hunting rifle; .270, 7.62, 30-06, .308, etc. w/ custom loads. That makes me pucker up, not the knucklehead with a cheap spray and pray.

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by GunnyGene

It's all about definitions. Not that long ago a Kentucky long rifle was considered a "military" weapon. And even more recently, the Springfield and the M-1.

The anti's just don't like bullet launchers, period. Especially ones that look scary. They have no clue about marksmanship and weapons capability. They get their info from video games.

A real scary weapon is a Marine Expert/Distinguished marksman with a scoped bolt action hunting rifle; .270, 7.62, 30-06, .308, etc. w/ custom loads. That makes me pucker up, not the knucklehead with a cheap spray and pray.

the ol' Remington 700

[targetacqmgt]

Originally Posted by GunnyGene

It's all about definitions. Not that long ago a Kentucky long rifle was considered a "military" weapon. And even more recently, the Springfield and the M-1.

The anti's just don't like bullet launchers, period. Especially ones that look scary. They have no clue about marksmanship and weapons capability. They get their info from video games.

A real scary weapon is a Marine Expert/Distinguished marksman with a scoped bolt action hunting rifle; .270, 7.62, 30-06, .308, etc. w/ custom loads. That makes me pucker up, not the knucklehead with a cheap spray and pray.

What he said-one shot one kill- though I am an HE kind of guy

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by targetacqmgt

The SOB is worried about a general uprising if he is relected AND he continues to errod the our civil liberties.

"a general uprising if [Obama] is re-elected..?." This sort of language reminds me of what happened in the slave states after the election of Abraham Lincoln.

[time2shoot]

Originally Posted by firefighter1635

Everyone knew this was on the agenda. I was plaining on building my first AR right after X-mas, instead I'll be building two, in the VERY near future. The wife even gave the go ahead after she watched the debate .

Wife said the same thing here.

[GunnyGene]

Originally Posted by FlashBang

You need to read all of his words to get the full impact of what he is saying, and not just focus on the assault weapons comment:

“Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”


What he is saying here is that not only does he want an assault weapons ban, but he is also looking at going after handguns. The way he will try to sell this is that he will leave "hunting" rifles alone, and take "assault" rifles and handguns. He will use that as a way to argue that he is not touching anyone's rights to own a "sporting" firearm.

.

And in the news today. Sort of a good news/bad news story? :

Violent crimes unexpectedly jumped 18 percent last year, the first rise in nearly 20 years, and property crimes rose for first time in a decade. But academic experts said the new government data fall short of signaling a reversal of the long decline in crime.

The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reported Wednesday that the increase in the number of violent crimes was the result of an upward swing in simple assaults, which rose 22 percent, from 4 million in 2010 to 5 million last year. The incidence of rape, sexual assault and robbery remained largely unchanged, as did serious violent crime involving weapons or injury.

Property crimes were up 11 percent in 2011, from 15.4 million in 2010 to 17 million, according to the bureau's annual national crime victimization survey. Household burglaries rose 14 percent, from 3.2 million to 3.6 million. The number of thefts jumped by 10 percent, from 11.6 million to 12.8 million.

The statistics bureau said the percentage increases last year were so large primarily because the 2011 crime totals were compared to historically low levels of crime in 2010. Violent crime has fallen by 65 percent since 1993, from 16.8 million to 5.8 million last year.

"2011 may be worse than 2010, but it was also the second-best in recent history," said Northeastern University criminology professor James Alan Fox.

"These simple assaults are so low-level in severity that they are not even included in the FBI counts of serious crime," Fox said. FBI crime data only counts aggravated assaults.

The growth in violent crime experienced by whites, Hispanics, younger people and men accounted for the majority of the increase.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/18...#ixzz29g5OO9aI

[langenc]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Yes, I was listening to the debate last night. Obama said he beleives in the 2nd Amendment, but then he began waffling, given that it will cost him alot of anti-gun votes. I was not happy about that.

Slick Willard Romney did a much much better job of talking around the anti-AK question. But Obama cut him short by mentioning that while Gov. of Mass. Slick Willard signed a ban on assault weapons.

If actions speak loader than words, the 2nd Amendament is in for alot more trouble under Slick Willard Romeny than it will be during another 4 years of Obama.

I dont believe yopur final analysis by any stretch of your imagination.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Yes, I was listening to the debate last night. Obama said he beleives in the 2nd Amendment, but then he began waffling, given that it will cost him alot of anti-gun votes. I was not happy about that.

Slick Willard Romney did a much much better job of talking around the anti-AK question. But Obama cut him short by mentioning that while Gov. of Mass. Slick Willard signed a ban on assault weapons.

If actions speak loader than words, the 2nd Amendament is in for alot more trouble under Slick Willard Romeny than it will be during another 4 years of Obama.

FALSE!

During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.

Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006. A summary of this legislation follows.

This is a perfect example of don’t believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the “assault weapon” ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill 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. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.

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.

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

[oldman45]

Not trying to make any adversaries here, but some need to read the law that Romney signed while governor. It was fully supported by the NRA as well as having the NRA assist in the wording of the law. The gun owners of the State supported it.

Had he not signed it, his veto would have been over ran in the Senate and it would not have been as good in content. He got the law passed to help gun owners.

[ShawnDow]

I don't know about you... but none of my "black guns" are selective fire!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...ssault%20rifle
Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 ft (300–500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.

[al45lc]

The idea that Romney is a greater threat than Obama to our 2nd Amendment rights is absurd.
The idea that ANYONE currently in FRONTLINE politics is a greater threat than Obama is also absurd.
The Obama administration is THE greatest threat to our Constitution in our entire history.
His record is the proof.
Besides, Romney will have most of his time occupied with fixing all that the current idiot broke, He won't have time for piddly nonsense.
To the intelligent Politico, guns are a non-issue at this juncture in our history, most Americans are deeply concerned about their next meal, making ends meet, keeping their homes and so on.
Clinton warned Obama about the gun issue. Clinton may be an a*#hat, but he's smarter than Obama.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by ShawnDow

I don't know about you... but none of my "black guns" are selective fire!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...ssault%20rifle
Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 ft (300–500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.

The semi-auto versions of those weapons are NOT assault weapons.

An AR-15 that fires the 5.56 cartridge BUT ONLY DOES SO IN A SEMI-AUTO manner is NOT a military weapon either.

NOT the same thing.

That is only part of the issue.

[graehaven]

Originally Posted by al45lc

The idea that Romney is a greater threat than Obama to our 2nd Amendment rights is absurd.
The idea that ANYONE currently in FRONTLINE politics is a greater threat than Obama is also absurd.
The Obama administration is THE greatest threat to our Constitution in our entire history.
His record is the proof.
Besides, Romney will have most of his time occupied with fixing all that the current idiot broke, He won't have time for piddly nonsense.
To the intelligent Politico, guns are a non-issue at this juncture in our history, most Americans are deeply concerned about their next meal, making ends meet, keeping their homes and so on.
Clinton warned Obama about the gun issue. Clinton may be an a*#hat, but he's smarter than Obama.

The Patriot Act, the most UNCONSTITUTIONAL piece of legislation in recent history, was NOT promulgated or passed by the "Obama" administration. Let's not forget that the our supposed "friends," the Republicans, have gone quite FAR in selling out the American citizenry.

And they continue to do so.

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by al45lc

The idea that Romney is a greater threat than Obama to our 2nd Amendment rights is absurd.
The idea that ANYONE currently in FRONTLINE politics is a greater threat than Obama is also absurd.
The Obama administration is THE greatest threat to our Constitution in our entire history.
His record is the proof.

+1