Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NavVet

Bush has been good for gun owners, so your assertion that being willing to sign the AWB makes you “not a friend” is provably false.

Romney will not enact any new bans, but he won’t life the existing bans.

Since this issue is important to you, you must know the specific positions of the candidates. I’ve been trying to get some answers, maybe you could help me. What are the positions of the major candidates on these three issues?

1) overturning the ban on machine guns?

2) overturning “gun free school zones”


51 posted on 12/31/2007 10:53:56 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT
What are the positions of the major candidates on these three issues?

1) overturning the ban on machine guns?

2) overturning “gun free school zones”

There's only two issues there, but anyway the point isn't who is working to overturn anything. Someone that ABSOLUTELY ISN'T going to sign any new bans is FAR greater then someone who would consider signing new bans.

Oh and FYI, machine guns aren't banned. They are only very expensive.

54 posted on 12/31/2007 11:19:34 PM PST by Domandred (Eagles soar, but unfortunately weasels never get sucked into jet engines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

To: CharlesWayneCT
CharlesWayneCT asks which candidates will work for
1) overturning the ban on machine guns?
2) overturning “gun free school zones”

I believe that Bush agreed to sign a renewal of the AWB in order to appease the ignorant and that he worked behind the scenes to insure that no AWB renewal reached his desk. In selecting Roberts and Alito I believe that Bush HAS worked toward lifting the infringements on all arms.

From what I have been able to learn, Hunter and Thompson would nominate Supreme Court Justices who understand that the Founders intended NO LIMITATIONS on ARMS whatsoever.

Romney, even if you believe his most recent statements, would be perfectly happy to nominate people who would outlaw weapons of "unusual lethality". It's a recent invention of Romney to suggest that such a category only includes weapons controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Romney's stated position is now acceptable to me only because the alternative would be worse. But Romney's credibility is insufficient to earn my vote. I haven't a clue what Romney actually believes the Second Amendment protects. I only know that he is saying what he believes is needed to be nominated.

I'm thankful that I never voted for Arnold in Kalifornia, especially now that he has signed several bills which infringe my right to keep and bear arms. There is no way that I would put my self in the position of regretting a Romney vote.

55 posted on 12/31/2007 11:21:01 PM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson