If Obama is re-elected then what form of gun control?

[deen_ad]

How about this logic then... Obama got into office ON THE MESSAGE of AWB reinstatement. I.e. he got elected despite him stating out right that he will seek a new Assault Weapons Ban. Once he gets into the office, he abandons that message, and, to put your concept into equation, keeps it up his sleeve until he gets a second term, perhaps end of the second term. That is so that it can be quickly overturned by the next pro-gun Congress and pro-gun president. I love it, this must be it

But, if he gets to select one more anti-gun SCOTUS judge to replace one pro-gun judge that can overrule the pro-gun Congress and pro-gun President.

 

[fd15k]

How long till there is a pro-gun influence though? It could be ten years could be twenty who knows. That is why I would avoid the AWB in the first place. (unless I'm missing the point your trying to make)

How long until pro-gun influence ? I thought it was now, and that's why any major gun control is off the table. It's not only NRA driving this thing - it's driven by better understanding of crime dynamics, liberties and American culture.

If Obama didn't implement serious gun restrictions when he received popular support of such message, why would he do that now when the political climate (for gun control) has changed dramatically, and he would barely have more support (overall) than Romney for his re-election. I agree that AWB is not fun no matter when it comes, but if you play political chess, it makes more sense to implement something like that with 8 years of rule ahead - that way people get used to the feeling of it, and create less drive for the reversal when the next administration is in the White House.

Look at what happened in the past years. A number of high-profile shootings. A number of high-profile court cases. Gun stuff is improving despite a few weak attempts at restrictions by the usual suspects. I really need some good explanation here why should I fear Obama. And as my signature states, I am no Obama supporter, but objectivity and fairness is important no matter what your political orientation is.

 

[deen_ad]

And as my signature states, I am no Obama supporter, but objectivity and fairness is important no matter what your political orientation is.

And remember that the next President may get to pick three new SCOTUS judges. Also remember how the two that he already picked lied during the confirmation hearings about their stand on gun control ("That's a settled matter"). Then they voted for more gun control.

People seem to forget that the President can't do it all, it takes some collusion by judges to uphold or interpret the laws the way he wants.

SCOTUS judges rule for life once appointed so it could be 20-40 years before they are replaced.

 

[Burt Gummer]

Obama/Romney are both puppets and Goldman Sachs candidates. One is no better than the other when it comes to gun control. Regardless of what is said pre-election or what promises are made. They answer to their controllers, not you.

Stay home Nov 12th. What puppet you vote for makes -0- difference. The only honest man that would have guarded 2a rights was run out by the bankster media and fraudulent political one-party system of the good ol' 'free' USA.

 

[Father of four]

Ron Paul seems trustworthy and real. The other two...not even close.

 

[davemata]

Ron Paul seems trustworthy and real. The other two...not even close.

I lived under romney's system. It's bubblegum. There WILL BE AN AWB IN YOUR FUTURE if that guy gets elected. Anyone telling you differently has their head in a hole. This guy already signed one AWB.

 

[Burt Gummer]

I lived under romney's system. It's bubblegum. There WILL BE AN AWB IN YOUR FUTURE if that guy gets elected. Anyone telling you differently has their head in a hole. This guy already signed one AWB.

index.jpg ???

 

[gehrheart]

index.jpg ???

something tells me Romney dont groove...

 

[Jamie6.5]

I lived under romney's system. It's bubblegum. There WILL BE AN AWB IN YOUR FUTURE if that guy gets elected. Anyone telling you differently has their head in a hole. This guy already signed one AWB.

"Romney's system?" Spare me.
Massachusetts has long been one of the most liberal states in the union.
MA voters kept Ted (gun control) Kennedy in the Senate for 50 years.
So you helped elect the legislature (>80% dem) that wrote the MA AWB, and are slamming Romney for it?

You guys that don't understand how bills get written and turned into laws crack me up. Long before Romney signed it, the dems in MA wrote it and passed it through two legislative bodies.
And here you are acting like it's Mitt's fault.

Unlike the dem's national political platform, that seeks to implement another AWB and make it permanent, the GOP's platform states specifically that they refuse to support an AWB, that they DO support nat'l reciprocity etc.
Does anyone think Romney will buck the principle stances of his entire party?

If you do, you need a better grasp of political realities.

 

[davemata]

"Romney's system?" Spare me.
Massachusetts has long been one of the most liberal states in the union.
MA voters kept Ted (gun control) Kennedy in the Senate for 50 years.
So you helped elect the legislature (>80% dem) that wrote the MA AWB, and are slamming Romney for it?

You guys that don't understand how bills get written and turned into laws crack me up. Long before Romney signed it, the dems in MA wrote it and passed it through two legislative bodies.
And here you are acting like it's Mitt's fault.

Unlike the dem's national political platform, that seeks to implement another AWB and make it permanent, the GOP's platform states specifically that they refuse to support an AWB, that they DO support nat'l reciprocity etc.
Does anyone think Romney will buck the principle stances of his entire party?

If you do, you need a better grasp of political realities.

#1. Wrong.
#2. Your preferred candidate has and will sign one that reaches his desk.
#3. You need to throw in with people with principles and stop being part of the problem.
#4. Crave Romney? Move to MA. I'll help you with the process.
#5. Don't be a moonbat and just think for a minute. I know it's hard with religion and politics but just try.

 

[davemata]

index.jpg ???

Damn you. Hahaha!

 

[JGRuby]

"Romney's system?" Spare me.
Massachusetts has long been one of the most liberal states in the union.
MA voters kept Ted (gun control) Kennedy in the Senate for 50 years.
So you helped elect the legislature (>80% dem) that wrote the MA AWB, and are slamming Romney for it?

You guys that don't understand how bills get written and turned into laws crack me up. Long before Romney signed it, the dems in MA wrote it and passed it through two legislative bodies.
And here you are acting like it's Mitt's fault.

Unlike the dem's national political platform, that seeks to implement another AWB and make it permanent, the GOP's platform states specifically that they refuse to support an AWB, that they DO support nat'l reciprocity etc.
Does anyone think Romney will buck the principle stances of his entire party?

If you do, you need a better grasp of political realities.

It is Mitts fault he could have vetoed the law as govenor of MA - he is at fault.
I think Romney could just as easily buck his parties line - he would not be the first.
James Ruby

 

[Jamie6.5]

#1. Wrong.
#2. Your preferred candidate has and will sign one that reaches his desk.
#3. You need to throw in with people with principles and stop being part of the problem.
#4. Crave Romney? Move to MA. I'll help you with the process.
#5. Don't be a moonbat and just think for a minute. I know it's hard with religion and politics but just try.

1) Wrong? How so? Has MA NOT been controlled by liberal dems for decades?
Buy a clue!
2) Nice crystal ball you got there. Do you read palms too?!?
3) Principles? How dare the likes of you, who apparently know nothing about how the legislative process works, accuse me of lacking principles.
Romney didn't write the law, liberal democrats did.
4) Do I crave Romney? NO. Do I believe he has the best chance of beating the totally corrupt, completely inept, disgracefully dishonest chicago thugs running the country now?
Yes I do. So yes, I'm supporting him in Nov. in the nat'l election.
PS. "Craving" Romney would be no reason to move to MA, he's no longer Governor there. Besides the way you lefties keep electing the legislative body there, outweighs any positives Romney brought to the picture.
5) There goes the name calling again.
I know it's hard for some to debate an issue without doing so, but if YOU think for a minute about how laws come to be, you will realize that MA's AWB was far from Romney's fault.


You know, it would be really great if you guys had something to run ON, instead of having to tear down the competition.
But you don't. There is so little positive about this admin's record over the last 4 years, that the result is:
You got nothin'.

People keep asking why/how politics became so negative. They even asked it in the VP debate.
Look in the mirror for your answer.
You know you can't defend this admin's record, all that leaves you is the Romney tear down.

On the other hand, if we conservatives failed to point out this admin's shortcomings with regard to corruption, ineptitude and their downright dishonesty, we'd be remiss in our duty to the rest of the country.

Have all the fun you want bashing what Romney might do as president, since you can't champion anything the current admin has accomplished.

 

[Jamie6.5]

It is Mitts fault he could have vetoed the law as govenor of MA - he is at fault.
I think Romney could just as easily buck his parties line - he would not be the first.
James Ruby

Yeah right.
Mitt vetoed the legislature's bills partially or wholly over 800 times. More than 700 of them were overridden by the MA legislature.
How often were Mitt Romney's Massachusetts vetoes overridden? | masslive.com

Factcheck.org reported, based on an independently-obtained list of veto override votes, that out of more than 800 budget line-item vetoes during Romney's four years as governor, 707 were overridden. A separate Factcheck.org post put the exact number of Romney's vetoes at 844 – and noted that "more than 700" were overridden.

The Boston Globe reported that in 100 instances Democrats did not challenge Romney and his vetoes stood. In cases when the Senate challenged him, Romney was overridden every time. When the House challenged him, Romney was overridden more than 99 percent of time, the Globe reported, based on statistics from the House minority leader's office.

It wouldn't have made any difference JG, and the Mittster knew it.

 

[JGRuby]

You simply wont admit that Romneuy could have pressed harder for gun rights instead of implementimng gun bans. To me this a no brainer. He could have veoted the AWB in MA. He did not have to enact gun control as the govenor. I really dont care how many times he tried - it was his job to push laws and bills. He signed the most anti gun laws in the country.
Now we hope that he will support the 2A simply because of a party line.

James Ruby

 

[OcelotZ3]

Mitt in 2004:

"I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal," he said on Fox News in 2004.

That doesn't sound at all like someone signing something just because he knew he would be overridden by the legislature. He does not want you to have so-called assault weapons, period.

 

[gehrheart]

Want gun rights. The only One pushing that, the only one that is for sure about that, the only one that will not sign gun laws is Johnson. Will he win? No...
Both parties are Guilty of gun control.
Or as us PualBots like to say, the revolution just whipped out its Johnson.

 

[davemata]

Jamie... you really don't believe mitts own statements that he'll sign anther awb if it crosses his desk? If you don't believe the man's words and verifiable actions. Then yeah, you're right, I ain't got nothing to convince yo u. You've already decided to ignore truth.

You should move to ma you'd enjoy it.

 

[Burt Gummer]

Don't vote, it only validates a phony and corrupt system. Voting for pre-selected presidential candidates is how the Oligarchs give you the FALSE believe that you have a say, that you are free; you are not. Voting for one puppet or another will do nothing to protect your 2a 'rights' as the agenda is handed down, or any other issue for that matter. Nothing is more pathetic than a slave that believes he or she is free.

NSFW -

 

[JGRuby]

Voting is a right and duty - it is funny you want to protect your rights yet you choose not to use your rights. I will vote regardless of the outcome - it is a right that I fully support and will use even if the outcome is that I am wrong.

James Ruby