• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Permanent Assualt Weapons Ban Signed Into Law By Mitt Romney

neuroblades

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
1,240
Location
, Kentucky, USA
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/2011/04/26/romney-signs-off-on-permanent-assault-weapons-ban/
 

Dahwg

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
661
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
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!
 

Gray Rider

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
80
Location
, ,
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

Brion

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
160
Location
Goldsboro, NC
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

BillMCyrus

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
118
Location
Lancaster County, PA
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:

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Start with this

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
 

Sc0tt

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
315
Location
Asheboro, NC
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
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?
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
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.)
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
(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:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
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.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
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.
 
Top