Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Permanent Assualt Weapons Ban Signed Into Law By Mitt Romney

  1. #1
    Regular Member neuroblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,240

    Permanent Assualt Weapons Ban Signed Into Law By Mitt Romney

    Well, it seems that the liberalism of Old Teddy Kennedy is alive and well in Massachusetts in the form of Republican Governor Mitt Romney! For anyone that might not have read or heard yet, Governor Mitt Romney has signed in law a Permanent Assualt Weapons Ban in Massachusetts! According to the article, this will "effectively" end the ownership of "assault Weapons" in Massachusetts and "supposedly" make the state safer. *LMBO* Good old Mitt, so concerned about the fact that "criminals" might gain access to these weapons that he's outlawed them to "protect us".

    I think all gun owner's in Massachusetts know good and well what has to be done! Good old Mitt is so worried about the people. we need to return the favor come election time and get him out of Massachusetts government. Let's face it, obviously Mitt doesn't trust the people and so how can we trust him to be an elected leader, futhermore, come the Presidential election 2012, we need to save old Mitt from having to "worry" about Americans at large because to be quite honest, we can't afford Mitt Romney's kind of dangerous concern in America!

    Get Rid of Mitt!!!!


    SOURCE: http://randysright.wordpress.com/201...t-weapons-ban/
    Got SIG? MOLON LABE

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661
    ummm.. ok, except Romney is not currently the Governor of Massachusetts, He has been out of office for some time now, the article you linked to links to a seven year old article.

    Was it a stupid move? yep! Is Romney a RINO? ABSOLUTELY! Will I vote for him in the primary? NOPE!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NW Florida
    Posts
    79

    Proof of the pudding

    As someone pursuing the Presidential nomination his track record is of utmost importance. It means more than whatever he will say now.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    The only way I'd vote for romney is if it was him vs Obama and I would be cussing the whole time because both are bad choices.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Goldsboro, NC
    Posts
    160
    You know what sux most about legistlation like that. It's so much harder to undo crap like that than it is to pass it. Now you have to explain why that law, one that others though was a good idea in the first place, is a bad law and must be abolished.

    Good luck convincing anyone that assault weapons are a good thing.

    P.S. I think they are effective and fun. Work and pleasure.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The NeCro Times

    All the news that's fit to reprint seven years later!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Brion View Post
    You know what sux most about legistlation like that. It's so much harder to undo crap like that than it is to pass it. Now you have to explain why that law, one that others though was a good idea in the first place, is a bad law and must be abolished.

    Good luck convincing anyone that assault weapons are a good thing.

    P.S. I think they are effective and fun. Work and pleasure.
    The trick will be in changing the public view of the term assault weapon as its just a political term and in convincing the public that its an infringement on our rights. But given the state we're talking about good luck with that.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    Posts
    118
    It's pretty simple actually but it involves strong use of ideas rather than cliché gun related phrases. Our biggest obstacle isn't the people of Massachusetts, but instead getting out of the habit of just talking amongst ourselves and instead spending as much time talking to the those outside our circles and actually explaining things in such a way as to undo their prejudices and misinformation.

    Meanwhile what is required of us now is to have courage to stand up and say Mitt is wrong rather than going with the flow and saying he's good. We should be strong in calling him out for that and saying we want NOTHING to do with that kind of slime. To date I haven't seen anyone of significance stand up and do that because he isn't pro gun and not being is totally unacceptable.
    Last edited by BillMCyrus; 04-27-2011 at 09:54 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Start with this

    Quote Originally Posted by BillMCyrus View Post
    It's pretty simple actually but it involves strong use of ideas rather than cliché gun related phrases.
    A useful definition for "assault rifle" is actually pretty easy: Any weapon firing fixed cartridges from which the projectile can achieve a muzzle velocity greater than 500 feet per second, AND which can simultaneously be intentionally fired in full-automatic mode; i.e., it can intentionally fire more than a single fixed cartridge with a single pull or depression of the trigger.

    Anything beyond that is immaterial to a proper definition of "assault rifle" - in short: Describing what it DOES that makes it uniquely useful for some types of warfare, describes WHAT IT IS, to the only extent necessary.

    What it looks like, whether it has a flash-hider or a folding stock or a bayonet, etc., has nothing to do with what a genuine assault weapon actually IS. Only the potential for deliberate full-auto operation is germane to the definition.

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  10. #10
    Regular Member Sc0tt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Asheboro, NC
    Posts
    315
    I belive I saw Mitt Romney on the news 2 days ago talking about how ashamed he was that our president had gone on the largest peacetime spending spree in US history.

    (Peacetime, what are are troops overseas just on a summer bullet exchange program?)


    Mitt Romney is clearly just lost it.
    -----------------
    --SCOTT

    Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum

    "A government that is big enough to give you everything you need is beg enough to take everything you have, the course of history shows that as government incresses - liberty decreases."


    LEGAL NOTICE: I am not a lawyer, no content in the above post should considered legal advice

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    A useful definition for "assault rifle" is actually pretty easy: Any weapon firing fixed cartridges from which the projectile can achieve a muzzle velocity greater than 500 feet per second, AND which can simultaneously be intentionally fired in full-automatic mode; i.e., it can intentionally fire more than a single fixed cartridge with a single pull or depression of the trigger.

    Anything beyond that is immaterial to a proper definition of "assault rifle" - in short: Describing what it DOES that makes it uniquely useful for some types of warfare, describes WHAT IT IS, to the only extent necessary.

    What it looks like, whether it has a flash-hider or a folding stock or a bayonet, etc., has nothing to do with what a genuine assault weapon actually IS. Only the potential for deliberate full-auto operation is germane to the definition.

    ~Whitney
    An easier way would be to simply say a rifle that can purposely fire multiple bullets with a single trigger pull. If people want more info you state that the point of this is often to force an enemy to keep their head down while troops move into position to assault the enemy's position. Oh and I say purposely fire multiple rounds due to the lawsuit where a gun jammed and fired multiple rounds and then was charged with having an illegal weapon. But it doesn't need full auto to be an assault rifle, three round burst works also.

  12. #12
    Regular Member HKcarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    An easier way would be to simply say a rifle that can purposely fire multiple bullets with a single trigger pull. If people want more info you state that the point of this is often to force an enemy to keep their head down while troops move into position to assault the enemy's position. Oh and I say purposely fire multiple rounds due to the lawsuit where a gun jammed and fired multiple rounds and then was charged with having an illegal weapon. But it doesn't need full auto to be an assault rifle, three round burst works also.
    what about non-rifles?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by HKcarrier View Post
    what about non-rifles?
    The person I quoted was specifically talking about assault rifles and not all automatic weapons. Some other definitions would be "machine gun" which is a gun that fires rounds that are larger than handgun size bullets, but not shotgun shells, in a fully auto setting (yes assault rifles are machine guns, but no not all machine guns are assault rifles), "automatic shotgun" which is a shotgun that fires fully auto, and "sub machine gun" which is a gun that can fire multiple rounds per trigger pull, but uses handgun size rounds.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290
    Romney is a dope. I just told some pinko I had in the cab that I'd vote for ANYBODY who the Republicans ran against Obama, and when she asked "How about Romney" I had to think for a sec.

    (BTW: Romney. I'd have to hold my nose, but Romney.)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexcabbie View Post
    Romney is a dope. I just told some pinko I had in the cab that I'd vote for ANYBODY who the Republicans ran against Obama, and when she asked "How about Romney" I had to think for a sec.

    (BTW: Romney. I'd have to hold my nose, but Romney.)
    You're screwed either way with that vote. Obama is incompetent and would be more aggressive with what he wants should he be reelected, while romney is all about big government with little regard to what the constitution actually says. And with romney he would have the republican nomination for the following election if he were president. So it would be like four more years of crap from Obama vs potentially eight from romney.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    You're screwed either way with that vote. Obama is incompetent and would be more aggressive with what he wants should he be reelected, while romney is all about big government with little regard to what the constitution actually says. And with romney he would have the republican nomination for the following election if he were president. So it would be like four more years of crap from Obama vs potentially eight from romney.

    As I have posted in other threads - Repulicans are in a pickle.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #17
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexcabbie View Post
    (BTW: Romney. I'd have to hold my nose, but Romney.)

    You know, if just 50% of the people in the USA who believe this way would vote third party, then Ron Paul (or a Libertarian candidate) would win in a landslide...

    In a representative democracy, WE have the power to put ANYONE we want--not just one of the puppets from the "big two" into the "big seat".

    Voting for RINOs just because they are not Dems is "playing by their rules", and will get us nothing more than another 4 years of the same rotten slice of boloney--just the opposite side.

    To quote the movie "Zombieland", it's time to "Nut up or shut up."
    Last edited by Dreamer; 05-03-2011 at 08:04 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  18. #18
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    You know, if just 50% of the people in the USA who believe this way would vote third party, then Ron Paul (or a Libertarian candidate) would win in a landslide...

    In a representative democracy, WE have the power to put ANYONE we want--not just one of the puppets from the "big two" into the "big seat".

    Voting for RINOs just because they are not Dems is "playing by their rules", and will get us nothing more than another 4 years of the same rotten slice of boloney--just the opposite side.

    To quote the movie "Zombieland", it's time to "Nut up or shut up."
    I wish Ron Paul had a fighting chance. Hopefully the dissatisfaction will reach a point where a 3rd party is viable. Thing about the tough time Ron Paul would have though, he would have Americans from so many viewpoints that are not as clear-cut as 'Conservative', and 'Liberal'.

    If Ron Paul ends up on the ticket (he won't), I would vote for him.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    You know, if just 50% of the people in the USA who believe this way would vote third party, then Ron Paul (or a Libertarian candidate) would win in a landslide...

    In a representative democracy, WE have the power to put ANYONE we want--not just one of the puppets from the "big two" into the "big seat".

    Voting for RINOs just because they are not Dems is "playing by their rules", and will get us nothing more than another 4 years of the same rotten slice of boloney--just the opposite side.

    To quote the movie "Zombieland", it's time to "Nut up or shut up."
    Taking over the republican party should be the objective. It's established and is supposed to stand for the principles we value. We can force the RINOs and globalists out, just like the commies forced out any rational people in the democrap party. IMO the tea party folks are well on their way to make that happen, even dhimnicrats are playing into their sentiments.

    Ron Paul's biggest liability is the 9/11 truthers and his blame America first stance. His isolationist foriegn policy is archaic, though not totally misguided. I'd vote for him in a pinch if he got into the primaries, but we'll see who comes out. I'm a pretty big Herman Cain fan at this point.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Dahwg View Post
    ummm.. ok, except Romney is not currently the Governor of Massachusetts, He has been out of office for some time now, the article you linked to links to a seven year old article.

    Was it a stupid move? yep! Is Romney a RINO? ABSOLUTELY! Will I vote for him in the primary? NOPE!
    Lets not forget this is Taxachuessets we're talking about. Romney sux, but if it's a choice between him and obozo, he'll win in a landslide and he won't have to suk up to the dependency class to to so.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    An easier way would be to simply say a rifle that can purposely fire multiple bullets with a single trigger pull.
    That's already been defined as an "automatic weapon." The term "assault rifle" is a nonsense term invented to scare people into anti-2A submission.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  22. #22
    Regular Member EricDailey X-NRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wake County, NC
    Posts
    209

    "sport utility rifles"

    Here's a fun idea, from a commenter in the source post on Randy'sRight.
    Let's call em "SPORT UTILITY RIFLES". Maybe we can change the debate.


    "...Let’s change the discussion. Please refer to semi-auto, magazine fed long arms as SPORT UTILITY RIFLES. There, much friendlier terminology and perfectly accurate as well." by tired dog
    Get a DVR, a Digital Voice Recorder, carry it 24/7. It's cheap, easy and makes a good witness in Court.

    Triangle Open Carry Meetup
    http://www.meetup.com/r/inbound/0/0/...ry/?a=sharetxt
    This is a link for a "gunz r welcome" sign.
    http://www.gunlaws.com/images/unity.gif
    FORUM RULES (14)
    ....This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    I find this line of reasoning to be unnecessarily inflammatory.

    Quote Originally Posted by EricDailey X-NRA View Post
    Here's a fun idea, from a commenter in the source post on Randy'sRight.
    Let's call em "SPORT UTILITY RIFLES". Maybe we can change the debate.


    "...Let’s change the discussion. Please refer to semi-auto, magazine fed long arms as SPORT UTILITY RIFLES. There, much friendlier terminology and perfectly accurate as well." by tired dog
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    You know, if just 50% of the people in the USA who believe this way would vote third party, then Ron Paul (or a Libertarian candidate) would win in a landslide...

    In a representative democracy, WE have the power to put ANYONE we want--not just one of the puppets from the "big two" into the "big seat".

    Voting for RINOs just because they are not Dems is "playing by their rules", and will get us nothing more than another 4 years of the same rotten slice of boloney--just the opposite side.

    To quote the movie "Zombieland", it's time to "Nut up or shut up."
    +1000000

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I wish Ron Paul had a fighting chance. Hopefully the dissatisfaction will reach a point where a 3rd party is viable. Thing about the tough time Ron Paul would have though, he would have Americans from so many viewpoints that are not as clear-cut as 'Conservative', and 'Liberal'.

    If Ron Paul ends up on the ticket (he won't), I would vote for him.
    He's not likely to be in favor of executing flag-burning American citizens, you know.

    Also, he's one of those people you have so much disdain for, who feel smaller government would solve many problems, and cause hardly any at all. You know.

    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Taking over the republican party should be the objective. It's established and is supposed to stand for the principles we value. We can force the RINOs and globalists out, just like the commies forced out any rational people in the democrap party. IMO the tea party folks are well on their way to make that happen, even dhimnicrats are playing into their sentiments.

    Ron Paul's biggest liability is the 9/11 truthers and his blame America first stance. His isolationist foriegn policy is archaic, though not totally misguided. I'd vote for him in a pinch if he got into the primaries, but we'll see who comes out. I'm a pretty big Herman Cain fan at this point.
    No, I don't think so. Partisanship itself is a core aspect of the problem.

    People like to have decisions made for them. They don't want to think, and to make hard, controversial choices, and then stand up for those choices. Individuals like being able to decide that they think exactly like a large group of other people (preferably their friends and neighbors), and simply side with the general consensus among that group.

    It is precisely this tendency which is being manipulated to further the statist/corporatist agenda through the false paradigm of binary political thought.

    The end result of this is two parties indistinguishable from one another. You might as well take over the democratic party. What's the difference? Why does it matter? The dems have got more power now anyway.

    No, the solution is a robust system of competing political parties, I suspect.
    Last edited by marshaul; 05-08-2011 at 08:16 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I will vote Ron Paul if he runs, have never voted in my life. I talk to many R's and D's who like him but don't because they are afraid the "fake" opposite would win if they "waste" their vote.

    The power is not supposed to be in the presidency it is supposed to be in congress.

    If we actually start following the constitution and recognizing the checks and balances and restrictions put upon the federal government, we might get somewhere. Unfortunately the supreme court has colluded with those in power to a point where it actually might take something drastic to change it.

    But then again the government have used every "drastic" incident to increase it's power.....:
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 05-08-2011 at 09:45 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •