Timeline for Obama and Romney on Gun Control

[Kirk Freeman]

Interesting graphic timeline as to both candidates on gun control.

While there are misstatements on the graphic, e.g. Romney making the MA AWB "permanent" (sigh), it should be interesting to INGO.

Shooting Straight: A Surprising Look At How Both Presidential Candidates Have Changed Their Position On Gun Control

 

[HoughMade]

I'll be the first to say that Mitt does not have an untarnished gun-rights record. That's clear. But here's the situation- we have a choice of one of two men. One man has a less than perfect record supporting gun rights. One has a perfect records against gun rights. One serves more of a constituency that cherishes gun rights and wants to keep them happy. One serves a constituency that has a stated goal of eliminating gun rights and wants to keep them happy. One has pledged protection of gun rights. One has articulated the desire to reenact the "assault weapons" ban and wants to limit "cheap guns" (still don't know what that means). One has pledged to appoint Sup. Ct. justices that respect the Constitution. One has appointed and will appoint Justices that will respect only the Constitution they, themselves, create.

Do I wish Mitt were stronger on this issue? Absolutely. Is the choice clear to me? Oh yeah.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

Can we really give Obama all the credit for Sotomayor's appointment? After all, Bush Sr. was the first to appoint her to the federal court system. Obama just brought her up to the bigs.

Good thing we know that Mitt would never make such appointments.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Can we really give Obama all the credit for Sotomayor's appointment?

Yes.

Bush Sr. appointed her to a District judgeship.

Clinton put her on the COA.

Obama appointed her for the Supreme Court.

 

[HoughMade]

Agreed. District Court Judges do not make precedent. Supreme Court Justices certainly do. Beyond that....I was unaware that Bush, Sr. was running for President.

Also, the choice for president is not "who fits my idea of the perfect President". It's of the 2 guys with a chance, who is less likely to cause harm to my rights?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Also, the choice for president is not "who fits my idea of the perfect President".

Dude, this is INGO.

I want my pony and I want it now.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Obama has more to gain politically by encouranging and supporting an AWB or other tougher gun laws if re-elected. While he wouldn't have a 3rd term to worrry about (unless he tries to change that rule) he does have his political favors to pay to the rest of his support base. That base is known to flip flop very quickly if their leadership is not supporting their desires. If he doesn't give them tighter gun laws, he likely loses support for other items he wants to push through.

Romney has more to gain politically by taking a neutral stance if elected. While he risks ticking both the pro gun and the anti gun folks off by not making a decision either way, the fact of doing nothing doesn't give them any additional ammunition (pardon the pun) against him in the future. This is similar to the tactic used by Obama in this term. Acknowledge the issue with words, but do little or nothing about it.


I honestly think that the general feel in D.C. is that anti-gun positions are in the minority. While the majority may not be strong pro-gun, there is enough pro-gun folks that the issue essentially gets kicked out ahead each year.

And, in my mind, we have a lot larger issues to deal with right now than private firearm ownership.

 

[ATM]

...But here's the situation- we have a choice of one of two men...

Nonsense. Stop spreading establishment propaganda.

 

[ATM]

Dude, this is INGO.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

Agreed. District Court Judges do not make precedent. Supreme Court Justices certainly do. Beyond that....I was unaware that Bush, Sr. was running for President.

Also, the choice for president is not "who fits my idea of the perfect President". It's of the 2 guys with a chance, who is less likely to cause harm to my rights?

No one suggested that Bush Sr was running for president. I'm suggesting that the party lines make less difference than we would like to pretend.

Dude, this is INGO.

I want my pony and I want it now.

I will turn FoxNews and MSNBC back on so I can be reminded how strikingly different our only two options for president are. Hopefully they set me on the right path before next Tuesday. I heard a rumor that if I push the wrong buttons, worse things than the bad things will happen. Yikes!

 

[HoughMade]

I suppose third parties can make a difference....like when H. Ross Perot aided Bill Clinton in getting elected....resulting in the assault weapon ban. I stand corrected.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

I suppose third parties can make a difference....like when H. Ross Perot aided Bill Clinton in getting elected....resulting in the assault weapon ban. I stand corrected.

Yes they do, to an extent. Parties sometimes decide they need to adjust platforms to be more inclusive.

As for Perot helping Clinton... You are right again. The economy and "Read my lips" had nothing to do with Bush's loss. And let's also ignore the fact that millions of additional voters took to the voting booth in 1992 as compared to 1988 and then millions of them stayed home in 1996.

There are plenty of Democrats singing the same tired song. Here is one of many examples. I guess the question is who will still be singing it Wednesday morning...

 

[glockednlocked]

Democrats hate guns! Republicans not so much. look at the supremes and who appointed them. common sense.

 

[rambone]

Supported the Clinton Federal Assault Weapons Ban (2007)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgZ6AuHnmk0

Supports tough Massachusetts Gun Control Laws (2002)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk1bJOpYUqE

Supported Federal Ballistics Fingerprinting (2002)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4YOl8P22dI

Signed an Assault Weapon Ban in Massachusetts
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DoweVaNgkE

Supported the Brady Bill (2007)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxtB_hk-HS0

Opposes Automatic Weapons, wants to enforce current unconstitutional laws (2012)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLaklwos90w

 

[88GT]

Romney did NOT sign an AWB in MA. 'Bone, you're slipping. Stretching the truth is one thing, but lies are beneath you.

 

[rambone]

Romney did NOT sign an AWB in MA. 'Bone, you're slipping. Stretching the truth is one thing, but lies are beneath you.

He should really stop doing interviews calling his big achievement an AWB then. That's straight out of his mouth, repeatedly, for the last 8 years. Its almost as if he wants credit for banning assault weapons. Everyone including Mr. Governor calls it an AWB. That makes me a liar?

Was his signing statement endorsed by GOAL too? And his desire to strip weapons of "extraordinary lethality" from American citizens? And his lockstep agreement with everything Clinton signed? If this guy were a Democrat the case would be closed. He's a wolf in NRA clothing.


Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 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."

 

[rambone]

Lookie here. Romney banned citizens from owning tasers and stun guns. They must be weapons of extraordinary lethality.

Acts of 2004, Chapter 170: AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE POSSESSION OF ELECTRONIC WEAPONS

Section 131J. No person shall possess a portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill, except: (1) a federal, state or municipal law enforcement officer

 

[rambone]

 

[Dorky_D]

Hey guys, the truth is either Obama will win or Romney will win. If youare voting third party, yeah I get it, but this is probably the most important election of my lifetime. I am not going to throw my vote away pouting because I do not like either of the 2 candidates. Romney supports more of what I believe in than Obama. Obama clearly has the intent to ban guns. He said so, his web site says so. I understand that Romney has a past on this, but clearly he is much much less of a threat than Obama.
Obama has clearly wants to undermine our constitution and not just 2A issues eaither.

Keep in mind that an AWB is a gun ban. It is the start of a slippery slope.

Some hunters and gun owners do not care about an AWB, but what if an AWB is expanded to any semi-auto. Will that affect you? What if it bans any buckshot? What about any handgun with magazines larger than 10? What about if it includes any rifle with a detachable magazine? What if it looks scary? What if it has a rail on it? What about if? What if? What IF? I realize this is speculation, but don't you think that they will have learned what worked and what did not the first time? Mini 14s were not banned the first time, but what if they will be included this time?

It is a very slippery slope, and I for one will try my best to get BHO out of that office by voting for Romney.

That may cause a stir, and I am OK with that. I do not wish to irritate people, but if you look at it that way, our choice is clear.

 

[88GT]

He should really stop doing interviews calling his big achievement an AWB then. That's straight out of his mouth, repeatedly, for the last 8 years. Its almost as if he wants credit for banning assault weapons. Everyone including Mr. Governor calls it an AWB. That makes me a liar?

Was his signing statement endorsed by GOAL too? And his desire to strip weapons of "extraordinary lethality" from American citizens? And his lockstep agreement with everything Clinton signed? If this guy were a Democrat the case would be closed. He's a wolf in NRA clothing.

You got it wrong. Don't blame Romney for you error.