No banning possession of guns with certain cosmetic features or magazines over a certain capacity that have been built after a certain date is asinine. Then again so is much of Massachusetts gun laws. Just read the Story of Elanor.
Stupid Romney. Way to show that both you and Obama are just as beholden to Baron Bloomberg's madness. Weerd, who has lived under Romney's rule spells it out:
We all know that Romney and Obama are anti-gun big-government Nanny-Staters. Obama DOES have the distinction of sitting on the Joyce Foundation board of directors…of course Romney has actually banned guns in the past. I really don’t care who “Wins” the competition of who’s better or worse on guns, because America loses.
Sure his statements are ATTEMPTING to spin things on a pro-gun manner, but like the President, Romney has no interest in the 2nd Amendment or guns for any reason….so he comes off sounding like the idiot he is AND can’t help but toot his horn about how awesome his gun ban was for Massachusetts, gun owners, and the 2nd Amendment. Yeah, He’s the pro 2A “Assault Weapons” banner.
This' really shaping up to be a great election eh?
Here's my advice. Your vote at the ballot box for the president is futile. Sure vote for the wookie, I'm gonna, but either way we'll spend the next four years ruled by an anti-gun, preeening, statist. Or hell even for for the new Lizard, if you just want to kick out the old lizard.
Sure the "new" one might be less of an imature, bumbling, jackass, incompetent, but competence here is dangerous too. I guess some upside is that the media will do everything it can to bring Romney down. And punishing Obama for his incompetence does have a nice ring to it. And I guess the downticket races have import too. Especially on giving legislative pressure.
But really vote with your time. Encourage people who have an interest to make the jump and buy that gun, and get that carry permit, and so on.
Take people to the range. Be an ambassador for the people of the gun.
Increase the number of people that are armed, that are informed, and that carry. The more people that own these Evil Black Rifles, that CCW, the more they’ll know that our political masters are lying goobers and are coming after them.
Sure were's on the knife's edge with SCOTUS and it's not getting better, but if things now were the way they were 20 years ago SCOTUS would have had a much easier time.
Unlike the 90's self defense has replaced hunting as the socially acceptable reason for gun ownership. That's huge. People are not buying guns to hunt ducks. They don't care about blather for "I support hunters and sportsmen but I'm against these guns designed to kill as is every other right thinking gun owner."
That idea has evaporated to a fringe of the gun owners movement and is almost always the antis doing a false flag of the "I'm a gun owner but-"
For one thing it makes the politicians that gear up in organge to go duck hunting look even more out of touch and exposes their disdain and lack of understanding for Gun Rights.
For the other thing it's now much easier to articulate the why of guns. We now openly say: "Carry your damn guns" and "Yeah it is for killing. Sometimes goblins need that."
Not quite as good as "Fuck you that's why!" or "To keep the politicians nervous" but it's some real headway.
It's the difference between the lie of: "I'm not going after your pa-pa's deer gun."
Versus"I'm not going after your me-maw's glock."
Like this example of JayG's where an 89 year old woman defends herself from two burglars.
Of note, mind you, is that she didn't even fire the weapon - the mere sight of it was enough to send the two goblins running. This is an elderly woman against two younger males - what chance would she have had without the firearm?"
Yes good thing she was about to go out hunting and had her duck pistol with her.
These are exactly the stories the gungrabbers doesn't want you to know about. They would rather pretend that these stories - and the countless thousands like them - simply don't exist. Admitting that people can and do use firearms to protect themselves from predators means that there is a legitimate use for guns, and the antis (and media, but I repeat myself) certainly can't have that.
Admitting these stories exist means that they would have to admit that they want to make it easier for thugs to prey on little old ladies who have only committed the crime of being not as physically fit as their attackers.
And to be fair here's a "defense" of Romney's jumping on the bandwagon.
See Romney pinkie swears that he doesn't want "new" gun laws. But I'm sure he wouldn't mind if some just happened to cross his desk.
Then again, I doubt he'd bother with something like Fast and Furious to try to get his way, and he seems less likely to just go full imperial and deem gun control into place.
Though, really, I link for the scarier stuff at the end about lefties swooning over the idea of data-mining to determine who is a "danger" and having the police respond.
"Er… doesn’t that feel a little too Minority Report for comfort? Yes, we always want to prevent horrors like the one we saw in Colorado last week, but in the United States, people are innocent until they’re proven guilty. There are countless divorces, firings, and investment failures every day in America, but are you going to preemptively deny someone their Second-Amendment rights before they’ve committed a crime?"
To ask the question, answers it.
These guys don't care about limits on government power. The have just as much contempt for the First amendment as the Second. As this example of Dem mayors banning companies owned by people that have political views they don't like. proves
Even if the government may deny permits to people based on various reasons, it may not deny permits to people based on their exercise of his First Amendment rights. It doesn’t matter if the applicant expresses speech that doesn’t share the government officials’ values, or even the values of the majority of local citizens. It doesn’t matter if the applicant’s speech is seen as “disrespect[ful]” of certain groups. The First Amendment generally protects people’s rights to express such views without worrying that the government will deny them business permits as a result. That’s basic First Amendment law — but Alderman Moreno, Mayor Menino, and, apparently, Mayor Emanuel (if his statement is quoted in context), seem to either not know or not care about the law.
To be fair some opponents of same sex marriage Mayor Emanuel will grandly welcome into the city in the hopes of taking their counsel on how to make the streets safer. People like noted anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.
Moral consistency? What's that?