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

Skip to comments.

NRA endorses Romney as ‘only hope’ for firearms freedom
The Hill ^ | October 4, 2012 | Jonathan Easley

Posted on 10/05/2012 12:13:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
Comments?
1 posted on 10/05/2012 12:13:55 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...


2 posted on 10/05/2012 12:18:23 PM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Has Romney ever supported 2nd Amendments rights? Doesn’t he refuse to hunt, and thinks hunting is a bad thing?


3 posted on 10/05/2012 12:20:50 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
That's like saying Anton Szandor LaVey was the last best hope for Catholicism.

I guess it's still better than voting for Satan...

A better hope would have been that John the Baptist guy, Gary Johnson. But he doesn't have one of the Big Two Party duopoly gangs in his corner, so I guess we'll just have to see how this turns out.

4 posted on 10/05/2012 12:24:03 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The semi-automatic rifle, an AR-15, was illegal under federal law until a ban on it was lifted in 2004.

Er... No. That is not what that idiotic law did. Sheesh.

5 posted on 10/05/2012 12:25:27 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

The NRA, like many of the rest of us, are faced with two choices. Pick a team.


6 posted on 10/05/2012 12:27:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

This is the guy that wrote his own assault weapons ban for his state when the federal one expired...

I am going to begrudgingly voting for him, only because of 1979 redux...

But please, stop turning this liberal socialist into the next conservative champion..

it turns my stomach..


7 posted on 10/05/2012 12:38:39 PM PDT by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

So if Romney restricts gun rights< we can say, “yeah, “Obama didn’t do it.”


8 posted on 10/05/2012 12:42:07 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Yes, more than 0 has and he certainly will more than 0 will.

And no offense but I don't GAF if he chooses to hunt or not, so long as he supports your right and mine to hunt if we choose to. The worst thing he could do would be to saunter into a sporting goods store and do a reprise on John f'n Kerry (who served in Vietnam, btw) and patronize the f out of everybody and say "Can I get me a huntin' licen' here?"

Like the man said, "choose a side".

9 posted on 10/05/2012 12:56:06 PM PDT by OKSooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Thank you.


10 posted on 10/05/2012 12:57:44 PM PDT by OKSooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Obama would attempt to take away gun rights by decree in his 2nd term. I expect Romney to leave guns alone.


11 posted on 10/05/2012 1:04:37 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The semi-automatic rifle, an AR-15, was illegal under federal law until a ban on it was lifted in 2004.

Uh, no it was not. But this is the type of journ-O-lism I expect from the Hill.

12 posted on 10/05/2012 1:08:26 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

That’s pretty naive. Obama will have to fight against a Republican Congress. Romney won’t have to worry about it. Democrats are afraid of the gun issues. Romney won’t be afraid to lower the boom.


13 posted on 10/05/2012 1:09:42 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

I never did get one of those “ALL IN” coins.

And I’m a life member!


14 posted on 10/05/2012 1:10:54 PM PDT by hattend (Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I doubt it is naive. Will see though.


15 posted on 10/05/2012 1:11:58 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

And what’s the other choice 30 days from now? You know the correct answer. Obama who does not care one lick about the separation of powers or Romney who should play inside the rule of law.


16 posted on 10/05/2012 1:16:26 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
The semi-automatic rifle, an AR-15, was illegal under federal law until a ban on it was lifted in 2004.

That may actually be correct. An AR-15, strictly speaking is a Colt product, and with all the features, would have been illegal until the ban was lifted. That doesn't mean that all of those variants sold as "AR-15"'s were illegal, as I'm sure the writer meant, but, hey...he had to get something wrong.

17 posted on 10/05/2012 1:22:26 PM PDT by gundog (Help us, Nairobi-Wan Kenobi...you're our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I just don’t understand why you want to give the message to Romney that he has free reign to impose leftism on this country. He already change the rules at the GOP convention to limit conservatives. Now, conservatives are acting like the guy is the greatest thing in the world. He’s not even a moderate. Come January 2013, he will not be fighting the left, he will be eviscerating the right. But then, your inviting him to do it, so I guess it’s fair game.


18 posted on 10/05/2012 1:24:16 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The NRA endorses a man who permanently banned the exact sort of weapons that the British redcoats went to Lexington and Concord to try to confiscate.

Shameful, but not surprising. The NRA has been supporting democrats for years.


19 posted on 10/05/2012 1:37:51 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Congratulations on your big 'win.' Obviously, Romney is a much more capable socialist than Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
There is till confusion about the AWB, even among firearms-friendly people, so I thought I would post something to clear things up.

The “Assault Weapons Ban” (AWB) passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton took effect on September 13, 1994. It did not ban semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 currently in civilian hands, nor did it ban future sales of semi-automatic rifles. It created a new (and I would submit, inaccurate) definition of an “assault weapon”. Historically, “assault weapons” were selectable for automatic or “machine-gun” fire, or at least for a multiple-round burst with one trigger pull. After all, if military personnel were engaged in rapid movement when in danger of coming into sudden contact with the enemy (or when military personnel were specifically “assaulting” enemy positions), having automatic fire capability was considered desirable in modern warfare.

The AWB created a new, cosmetic definition of an “assault weapon” as one that had could accept a detachable magazine, and had more than one of the following features: a pistol grip that protruded conspicuously below the receiver, a folding or telescoping stock, a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.

It is interesting to note that under the 1994 AWB (which expired in 1994), all semi-automatic weapons in civilian possession before the AWB initiation that would have later been banned were not considered “assault weapons” (due to their dates of manufacture and possession). Nor were the millions of semi-automatic weapons manufactured and sold to civilians during the 10 years the ban was in place. Technically, according to Congress’ inaccurate and cosmetic definition, the only “assault weapons” during the ban were weapons meeting the AW definition that were manufactured and/or possessed by civilians during those 10 years. That would include precious few weapons, and shows how absurd the AWB was. Weapons possessed before the ban came into effect that met the 1994 AW definition were grandfathered, and weapons with the same general capability (semi-automatic fire and the ability to accept magazines holding from 11 up to 100 rounds) were legal to manufacture and sell to civilians during the 10 years of the ban.

As for the high-capacity magazine ban that was part of the same 1994 Crime Bill (banning civilian possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds that were manufactured after the September 13, 1994 initiation of the law), it merely raised prices for such magazines. There were tens of millions of “high-capacity” magazines in civilian hands as of September 1994. If someone was specifically intending to commit criminal assault with a firearm, or to put themselves into a situation in which they would be willing to do so, they would not be stopped by a price increase of $20-50 per magazine (depending on type), nor would many such criminally-minded individuals be chastened by the prospect of additional incarceration due to the AWB or hi-capacity magazine ban laws.

Fortunately, these laws sunsetted on September 13, 1994. As a sidebar, I would point out that the streets have not run “red with blood” due to the expiration of these laws, as the anti-gun forces warned in 2004. In fact, in the 20 years between the height of the crack-exacerbated crime peak of the early 1990s, the American people have taken legal possession of well over 150 million firearms, and violent crime has been nearly cut in half during that time.

20 posted on 10/05/2012 1:38:17 PM PDT by BushMeister ("We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around." --Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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