Salon: Why Worry About Obama and Guns, America?

When Barack Obama first won the White House, gun sales soared because supporters of the Constitution rightfully understood that Barack Obama is a gun-banner at heart. They feared he’d attack their Constitutional rights and begin a long trail of legislation or regulatory efforts to ban guns.

Everyone has been surprised — including Obama’s own supporters — that he has not done anything to advance the anti-gun issue. Even going so far as to line up in favor of some gun issues (such as allowing guns in national parks).

In fact, looking back through recent political history shows that Democrats have practically given up pushing their gun-banning ideas on the electorate. Proof of this is the fact that every state but one (Illinois) now has some sort of shall issue law on the books, Democrats having given up fighting to stop it all.

This leads Salon’s Steve Kornacki to wonder why conservatives, gun owners, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) still peddle the fear that Obama will come after our guns.

Fears of Obama’s gun-banning ways are absurd, says Kornacki.

Certainly, this reflects the pattern that has defined much of the conservative opposition to Obama’s presidency. He’s governed as a middle-of-the-road incrementalist, but the right decided before he took office that Obama was a leftist radical, so that’s how they’ll treat him. He could get reelected and sit on this hands for four more years and Obama will still be a gun confiscator to the 2nd Amendment crowd.

This almost seems logical. But almost isn’t enough.

Recently Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee for the Presidency, warned the NRA that a second Obama term would see him “unrestrained” from attacking our Second Amendment rights.

“In a second term, he would be unrestrained by the demands of reelection,” Romney told a crowd estimated at 6,000 in the cavernous Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis. “As he told the Russian president last month when he thought no one else was listening, after a reelection he’ll have a lot more, quote, ‘flexibility’ to do what he wants. I’m not exactly sure what he meant by that, but looking at his first three years, I have a very good idea.”

Kornacki laughs at the presumption that Romney, a former Governor that was an anti-gun guy himself, would be able to successfully pull off the role of protector of the Second Amendment. I happen to agree with Kornacki on that. Romney is no bastion of our rights.

But Romney is also right that Barack Obama would have no reason at all to put off his zeal for gun-banning should he win a second term. And we know that Obama is, at heart, a hater of our Constitutional rights. He said so and voted so many times as an Illinois State Senator, after all.

As to Romney, he will be far more likely to be influenced by conservatives to continue a Second Amendment-friendly policy and therefore he is the one to vote for over Obama, a man that stands foursquare against our rights quite despite that he never focused on it in his first term.

It is better to roll the dice with a shaky Romney than continue with a sure bet, anti-Second Amendment Obama quite despite what he has or has not done in his first term.

It’s just a matter of odds.

Report - fracking linked to recent Heartland earthquake activity
Did Iceland forgive the majority of its citizens' mortgage debt?
  • jim_m

    Why should we worry about gun confiscation?   After all, it turned out so well in Cuba and Nazi Germany.

    •  Godwin’s Law Violation.

      • jim_m

        No. I didn’t call anyone a Nazi, nor did I compare them to the Nazis.  I pointed out two examples of gun confiscation that lead to tyranny.

  • 914

    If Barry could…He would..

  • Are people forgetting how “Fast and Furious” was supposed to be under the radar, until word leaked? And how the resident trolls here kept insisting there was nothing to the story even then?

  • Guest

    When I see the nominee of our party wearing a hat made of aluminum foil it makes me nervous. Trump pounding the birther drum was embarrassing enough. Now we have Mitt being all crazy face too.

    • Sky__Captain

       This in comparison to the sheer ineptness/incompetence of Obama, who also has a good share of anti-Americanism thrown in also.

      Yes, Barry unrestrained in a second term would be dangerous for America.
      And one is not “crazy” for imagining it, but simply extrapolating form Barry’s own actions in the last 3 1/2 years.

      • Guest

        Candidates do and say lots of stuff to win votes. When you’ve got 3 and half years of experience saying it won’t happen, pretending it will happen to win votes is just fear mongering.

        • retired.military

          I smell a game here.   Maybe I will GoFish

        • jim_m

           Yep.  It’s not like we have years of experience now with obama telling people one thing in private and telling the nation another thing publicly, things like:  “I’m working on gun control under the radar”.

          How many more people will have to die for what obama won’t tell us publicly?

      • It’s not like he’s told a foreign head of state privately (though on a live microphone, D’oh!) that he’ll have more “flexibility” after the election.

    •  I don’t know what party you are referring to but it certainly isn’t “our” party.  Your posts indicate you are not of the same mind as those of us who oppose the liberal agenda and Baraka Obama.

    • Par4Course

      As Reagan said, the perfect is the enemy of the good.  People like you, who demand a perfect candidate, will help re-elect Barry.  I looked over all those whose hats were in the ring and I didn’t see the second-coming of either Jesus or Reagan. Get real, get on board or get out of the way.

  • DrDean

    Let’s be clear:  Ann Romney is vastly more qualified to advise her husband on women’s issues than Barack Obama was qualified to be president… 

    Obama had never had a *real* job in his life and didn’t and still can’t understand any American who is not a card-carrying member of the leftist-progressive elite.

    Real Americans – those of us who make up the body, mind and soul of this nation – have loved-ones, lives, property and freedoms to protect are only wise and prudent to be highly concerned about what this president is really up to.

    • “Ann Romney is vastly more qualified to advise her husband on women’s issues than Barack Obama was [and is] qualified to be president…”


  • GarandFan

     “Democrats having given up fighting to stop it all.”

    Really?  Perhaps Kornacki should subscribe to the National Shooting Sports Foundation newsletter.

    Oh, and Kornacki doesn’t even mention FAST AND FURIOUS.  You know, “working under the radar”.

  • OldmanRick

    This is old hat; however, it seems to be more fact than fiction that an armed society is a more polite society. Or am I the only one to notice that in NYC and Chicago where there are strict laws regarding guns, more people die weekly from lead poisoning than most other cities. 

    • “Or am I the only one to notice that in NYC and Chicago where there are
      strict laws regarding guns, more people die weekly from [high velocity] lead poisoning
      than most other cities.”


  • ackwired

    “Everyone has been surprised — including Obama’s own supporters — that he has not done anything to advance the anti-gun issue”

    I thought it was ridiculous at the time, and I don’t know anyone who was surprised.

    • I think he saw the signs already – if anyone tried to reinstate that idiotic ‘Assault Weapons Ban’, they’d have been laughed at.  Seriously, going by how a rifle LOOKS? Black finish?  Bayonette lug? How many drive-by bayonettings have happened, anyhow?

      The ban passed, to much acclaim… and didn’t do any good.  It expired – to much weeping and predictions of disaster… and they didn’t occur.  Just maybe it’s not the weapon that’s the problem?  The law abiding aren’t the ones to worry about – it’s the criminal, who doesn’t obey laws in the first place.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Smerconish did half an hour (at least) on gun control yesterday. Something is coming down the pipe

    • iwogisdead

      Yeppers. Ripping up the Bill of Rights. Bit by bit by bit. And, the usual suspects show up here to defend it, with the usual silliness.

      • The Bill of Rights has been undermined!  Round up the usual suspects!  [Oh, they’re already here…]  #LouisRenaultMode

        • iwogisdead

          This is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

  • 914

    “Why Worry About Obama and Guns, America?”

    The same reason we worry about jobs…  Barry takes them away…

  • Evidence for Obama’s desire to take away our guns: 1st video of him telling the gun control activists that his administration was working on such things “Under the radar” and then several months later the Feds’ gun running operation to the Mexican drug cartels geting exposed. I am surprised that the documented motivation for operation Fast and Furious has not been mentioned by the commentators here. Just because Salon’s Kornacki chooses to ignore the evidence of Fast and Furious doesn’t mean I have to.

  • TomInCali

    So are we to understand that since the right has been stoking and inciting the fear that Obama is out to ban guns, and even though as president, Obama has never said, nor taken any action, in this direction — and in fact he has taken some gun-friendly stances, to the annoyance of liberals — your conclusion is that we are to believe Romney when he says, without any supporting evidence, that Obama has a super secret plan to make a big move on gun control in his second term?

    You’re like those guys who predict the end of the world, and each time the world doesn’t end they double-down and say “just you wait, next time for sure!”

    • Vagabond661

      right we are just a bunch of bitter clingers.

    • retired.military

      I seem to recall Obama telling Catholics that the birth control provision in Obamacare would not be enforced over religious morals.  That seemed to have gone out the window.
      You cant trust what Obama says much less what he doesnt say.

      • jim_m

         Yep. Just like he said that we’d be able to keep our health plans and that’s turning out to be a lie.  I’m not really willing to test a promise from obama that he will let us keep our guns or that we will be allowed to vote in 2016.

    • jim_m

      Obama has never said, nor taken any action, in this direction

      You are such a tool.

      During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and,
      according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill
      us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

      “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled
      the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but
      under the radar.” it is widely believed that obama supports a forthcoming UN treaty that will ban the sale of small arms.  This treaty is so onerous that even the Canadians oppose it. yet…

      Fifty-eight senators have now called out the president on his plan. Led
      by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), 45 Republicans
      and 13 Democrats have written two strong letters —one from members of
      each party — to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary
      Clinton. All the senators have vowed to oppose any treaty that restricts
      civilian firearm ownership.

      That’s 25% of the dems in the Senate opposed to it. your head out of your ass and see that obama has never been a supporter of not only the 2nd amendment, but any of the Bill of Rights.

    • Amen @TomInCali:disqus !!!!! I think they are all “Faux News” watchers!!!

  • Brucehenry

    Of the two candidates, Romney is the only one who has actually pushed for and signed gun control legislation. If the NRA was actually a bipartisan interest group, it would be supporting Obama over Romney for that reason.

    But that’s not what the NRA is. It’s a dishonest Republican front group, filled in equal measure with wild-eyed crazy people, pathetic rubes, and cynical political hacks.

    As for Romney himself, here’s what he actually believes: He believes he should be president, and that no lie or exaggeration is too outlandish or disgusting or shameless to utter in pursuit of that goal.

    And his lies will be swallowed, digested, and excreted as truth by fellow liars, and believed by paranoids.

    (I shamelessly stole almost all of this comment from a certain “Betty Cracker” on Rumproast.)

    • retired.military

      Your comments about the NRA could have easily been about unions.

      As for your last comment about Romney. That describes Obama to a T.  You forgot to include that at 14 he told someone he would be President.

    • jim_m

       So you deny obama’s promise to the Brady;s that he is working on gun control “under the radar”.  You deny that the purpose of Fast & Furious was to create the appearance of out of control gun sales to provide legitimacy for gun control legislation (in fact dems tried to introduce such legislation just as the gunwalker scandal broke)?

      Your position suggests that you believe obama to be pro second amendment, but nothing could be further from the truth.  obama wants gun confiscation, not just control.  There is a reason that people are buying guns at record pace:  They expect obama to try to out law the sales in the future.  The left is pushing EPA regs to outlaw the sale of ammunition.  give obama 4 more years and he will try to get that done.

      • Well, it’s far more important what someone says – not what they actually do.

        If they tell you loudly that they’re GIVING you money, while on the other hand you find them picking your pocket, you’re supposed to believe what they tell you they’re doing.

        At some point, reality and fantasy collide.  We’re seeing that happen now.

        But Obama doesn’t care – for him, words are what’s important – not reality.  He’ll flat out tell you he’s not for gun control, and then tell someone else he is.  

        In the end, what are you going to believe?  His words, or his actions?  For all I know, he’s lying when he says he’s against gun control, he’s lying when he tells the Brady organization he’s for it, but working under the radar.  

        Basically for me it boils down to whether he says he’s pro-gun or pro-control, he’s lying.

        So my trust in his integrity?  Falling fast toward zero.  Chances that I won’t vote for him, but will vote for anyone who looks like they can win against him?


        There may not be anyone I want to vote FOR – but there’s decidedly someone I do not trust I want to vote against.

  • BluesHarper

    “He believes he should be president, and that no lie or exaggeration is too outlandish or disgusting or shameless to utter in pursuit of that goal. And his lies will be swallowed, digested, and excreted as truth by fellow liars”

    You’re talking about Obama, right?

    • Brucehenry

      Two examples above of the oh-so-logical and effective I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I? school of argument.

      No, geniuses, I’M rubber and YOU’RE glue.

      • retired.military

        Actually Bruce, as I believe you know.  I am not a Romney fan.  in fact, If Obama gets reelected (which is highly unlikely) the one good thing that will happen is this would be the last election we ever have to deal with Romney running again. 

        If you look at Obama.  You have

        Reports of him as a Teen stating he was going to be President.
        Lie after lie after lie about everything under the sun.
        The MSM media repeating the lies, doing no vetting or fact checking at all. 

        I am not voting for Romney in this election.

        I am voting for ABO who just happens to be Romney.

        Also please note that I didnt disagree with your statements abour Romney himself. Nor did Blues Harper but I will not profess to speak for him  They could be true for all I care.  The only good thing about Romney is that the special interest groups on the right at least have some chance of keeping him in check from going too RINO for reelection purposes.   Obama has no such constraint.

        In fact I honestly believe that Romney will be a one term president.

        • Brucehenry

          So, in regard to gun control, am I to understand that you trust Romney, a man who served four years as an executive and DID push for and sign gun control legislation, more than Obama, a man who has served 3 1/2 years and DIDN’T?

          • jim_m

            I trust Romney like Reagan trusted the Soviets:  “Trust, but verify.”

            There is abundant evidence that obama would be a gun confiscator if given half a chance. No one wants to give him that opportunity.

          • Brucehenry

            I think 3 1/2 years as president, two of those with majorities in both houses of Congress, constitutes a little more than “half a chance.”

             I guess you don’t, and that’s your right, but I suggest a certain paranoia in your position.

          • jim_m

             I have been consistent in my belief that obama waits for a second term to do his utmost to remove from the American people the majority of their Constitutional rights.

          • Vagabond661

            Well he will have more “flexibilty” after this election.

          • Brucehenry

            As did Bush in 2005, when he moved to privatize Social Security. How’d that work out for him?

            As noted above by Jim, 25% of Senate Democrats oppose any effort to impose gun control. Gun control, in any Federal form, ain’t gonna happen in an Obama second term. 

            Nooooobody panic.

          • jim_m

             The difference is that Bush didn’t move to abrogate a Constitutional right.

            Given obama’s desire to do things without Congressional input I would not be surprised to see the EPA or some other agency do something “under the radar” like trying to ban lead from bullets.

          • There were folks trying to get that –

            The Supreme Court’s recent McDonald and Heller decisions have thus far thwarted the gun grabbers’ best efforts by upholding the individual’s right to own firearms. Late Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency added another victory to the list as it shot down an attempt to undermine the Second Amendment through the regulation of bullets. On Aug. 3, the American Bird Conservancy and groups like Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to ban traditional lead ammunition as a “health risk.”

            Obviously, the argument was not that recipients of a 45-caliber slug might suffer from lead poisoning. Instead, these activists asserted that bullets weighing less than half an ounce might hit the ground and somehow poison the planet. It just isn’t true. The Clinton administration’s EPA looked into the issue and found no cause for concern. The claim that “lead based ammunition is hazardous is in error,” EPA senior science adviser William Marcus wrote in a Dec. 25, 1999, letter. Lead on the soil surface “does not break down,” he explained. It “does not pose an environmental or human hazard. … In water lead acts much the same as in soil.”

            The EPA could try again, but it’s going to be pretty hard to overturn their original ruling without some overwhelming evidence to refute it.
            Of course, Obama could just get some czar to do it.  They’re not accountable anyway, and eminently disposable.

          • jim_m

             Read this article by John Lott:

            obama has a long term plan to take away our rights.

          • In re “czars”: Biodegradable as well…

          • I like that.  Very true – once they’re ‘inconvenient’.

          • If Congress weren’t a bunch of fucktards whose only objective was to “get the black man out of office”, then I guess he wouldn’t HAVE to accomplish things without their input!

          • 914

            Just like ObamaCare should not have happened in the first..

            25% against is a pretty scary number. 75% are for some form.

            Obama aint gonna get a second term Thank God.

          • jim_m

             Exactly. The dems are overwhelmingly in favor of restricting constitutional rights and selling our sovereignty.

          • retired.military

            Except of Obama does it without the House and Senate.  He has shown that he is willing to bypass those if he wants to get his agenda done.

          • Vagabond661

            “under the radar” provides a lot of “flexibility”. but hey it’s just a tiny iceberg and this is a huge ship.

          • How’d it work?  Thanks to a compliant media that wouldn’t tell what was going on or allow a rational dialog on what the President was proposing, and Democrats who were quite loud in proclaiming there wasn’t ANY problem at all with Social Security – the idea was strangled in the cradle.

            One thing I think you’re missing re Obama and a second term…

            You seem convinced that Obama actually cares about what happens in the long run. I don’t believe he does.  His ‘second term’ would be unfettered by any concerns about whether he’s leaving a workable country behind at the end of his tenure.

            At the end of the day, that’s what’s important.  Not ‘his legacy’, not his ideas, not his cluster-sucking syncophants, but a country that’s unarguably better off for his guidance.

            We sure as hell don’t have that now, and with his current attitudes and policies, I don’t see it happening. 

          • C’mon, Brucehenry….. you know that radical S.O.B. has been saving all of his “DESTROY AMERICA” plans for AFTER re-election!!! {sarcasm}
            And yes, you nuts who believe this garbage….. I am a bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, immigrant-loving, Caucasian-Christian hating, Obama 2012 loving LIBERAL!!!! AND PROUD OF IT!!!!!
            OBAMA 2012!!!!! WOOHOO!!!!!!

          • And yes…. I am Caucasian!!

          • You forgot some important buzzwords, like “Transgendered” “Lesbian” and “Pacifist”, though “other abled” came through loud and clear.

          • retired.military


            I dont trust either of them as far as I can throw an elephant.

            The difference between the 2 is as follows:

            1.  Obama doesnt care about what the right wing wants.  Romney has to for reelection and to carry out anything he wants on his agenda.  Want to see a backlash of a republican President ignoring the right –  Bush Miers.

            2.  Obama has a proven record of doing things underhanded and without regard to the law.  Fast and furious comes to mind readily and there are lots of other examples out there.   These things are in accordance with the philosophy of his base and his agenda.  Romney trying gun control would be political suicide in his first term (same for Obama). 

            3.  Obama would not have to stand for reelection.  Romney does.

  • retired.military

    Out of curiousity I did some googling and couldnt find the exact wording of the legislation you referred to.

    I did however find several pro gun things that Romney did as governor

    as well as

    Which states

    This is a myth that was propagated by the Boston Globe and some main-stream media outlets.
    It has been gladly received and blogged about by opposition to the governor’s candidacy.
    Below, both the NRA and the oldest, largest and premier pro-second amendment/gun rights group in the state of Massachusetts bust the myth:

    I realize that this is a pro romney site and as such treat it with a bit of salt but at the same time I would love to see the wording of the law which Romney was for  since i need a dump truck of salt for the Boston Globe.

    And even if every word you say is true (I am not saying it isnt or that you are lying as if you believe what you are saying then you are telling the truth as you know it even if facts are incorrect).  I still would trust ROmney more than Obama on any litany of proconservative issues simply because Obama has earned my distinctive ABO vote.

    Also this site

    Lists all legislation regarding Romney during his term as governor.

    • jim_m

       Really?  The media lying about a GOP candidate’s record in order to make the leftist candidate look less like an extremist trying to take Constitutional rights away?  What a surprise.

    • Brucehenry

      “During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney had been a supporter of the federal assault waepons ban, and had also said he believed in ‘the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms.’ On July 1, 2004, Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons, saying at the signing statement for the new law, ‘Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. 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.’ The law extended a temporary measure that had been in effect since 1998 and covered weapons such as the AK-47, Uzi, and MAC-10. The same law also modified some aspects of general firearms licensing regulations.” — Wikipedia.

      Again — you have one guy who spent 4 years as an executive and who actually signed a gun control law, and another who has served 3 1/2 years and hasn’t, but you’re SURE the first guy is your guy. 


      • Whole lot of people who should have known better signed onto that idiotic ‘Assault Weapons ban’.  As I’ve posted before, a lot of their criteria were strictly cosmetic. 

        But the political climate at the time DEMANDED ‘something’ be done.

        It was.  It had no effect on crime.  Then it expired – and crime didn’t increase.

        My question is – should we ever allow anyone in the political arena to learn from their mistakes, and change their opinions?   Or are we going to lock them into the attitudes and opinions they had 5, 10, 20 or 30 years back?

      • retired.military


        AK47s, Uzis and Mac-10s are automatic weapons (generally).  Unless you are specifically trained in their (automatic weapon) use and or have a purpose for having them (ie collecting) then I really dont have a problem with them not being available to the general public.

        Also Wikipedia does not list legal languange and is not a “definitive source” though I have used it myself and find it  to correct most of the time.  

        I would still like to see the verbage of the law actually passed. 

        As for Obama.  Kagan and Sotomayer are 2 of the most antigun justices ever to serve on any court much less the Supreme court.  I will match those against any law that Romney ever signed as far as showing antigun intent.

        Plus you still have my points above which you continue to ignore regarding the election and the right wing keeping Romney in check..

        Also Bruce, where as Obama hasnt signed legislation I point you to

        (you used wikipedia so i can as well)

        Shortly after the November 4, 2008 election,, the website of the office of then President-Elect Barack Obama, listed a detailed agenda for the forthcoming administration. This includes “making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.”[17] This statement was originally published on Barack Obama’s campaign website,[18] When President Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the agenda statement was moved to the administration’s website,, with its wording intact.[19][20]

        On February 25, 2009, the newly sworn-in Attorney General, Eric Holder, repeated the Obama Administration’s desire to reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[21] The mention came in response to a question, about 20 minutes into a joint press conference with DEA Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart, discussing efforts to crack down on Mexican drug cartels. Attorney General Holder said: “[…] there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.”[22]

        However on April 16, 2009, President Obama stated that he will not push for the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban in the United States even though he still believes that it “made sense”. Obama has proposed instead to ratify an inter-American treaty known as CIFTA (Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials) to curb international small arms trafficking. The treaty makes the unauthorized manufacture and export of firearms illegal and calls for nations in this hemisphere to establish a process for information-sharing among different countries’ law enforcement divisions to stop the smuggling of arms, to adopt strict licensing requirements, and to make firearms easier to trace.[23]

        So it isnt like Obama hasnt come out with Antigun statements during his presidency.

        Also that same legisliation that Romney signed pushed several PROGUN agenda items.

        œWe are pleased to mark an important victory in the fight against crime,” said Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey. “The most important job of state government is ensuring public safety. Governor Romney and I are determined to do whatever it takes to stop the flood of dangerous weapons into our cities and towns and to make Massachusetts safer for law-abiding citizens.”

        The new law also makes a number of improvements to the current gun licensing system, including:

        Extending the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years;

        Granting a 90-day grace period for holders of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry who have applied for renewal; and

        Creating a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied.

        “This is truly a great day for Massachusetts’ sportsmen and women,” said Senator Stephen M. Brewer. “These reforms correct some serious mistakes that were made during the gun debate in 1998, when many of our state’s gun owners were stripped of their long-standing rights to own firearms. I applaud Senate President Travaglini for allowing the Senate to undertake this necessary legislation.”

        “I want to congratulate everyone that has worked so hard on this issue,” said Representative George Peterson. “Because of their dedication, we are here today to sign into law this consensus piece of legislation. This change will go a long way toward fixing the flaws created by the 1998 law. Another key piece to this legislation addresses those citizens who have applied for renewals. If the government does not process their renewal in a timely fashion, those citizens won’t be put at risk because of the 90 day grace period that is being adopted today.”

        “Never before has there been such bi-partisan cooperation in the passage of gun safety legislation of this magnitude in this nation,” said John Rosenthal, co-founder and chair of Stop Handgun Violence. “I applaud the leadership of the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker and entire Legislature for passage of this assault weapons ban renewal. They have shown that Massachusetts can continue to lead the nation in protecting the public and law enforcement from military style assault weapons.”

        • Brucehenry

          So a lame duck president is MORE powerful than a first-termer? Who knew?

          Anyway, I don’t know why I joined in on this thread. It’s like an Article of Faith with y’all. Nobody ever gets anywhere questioning anyone else’s unreasoning faith.

          • Bruce – quick question for you…

            Imagine you’re the President.  Imagine you’ve gotten elected to a second term – and you didn’t give a shit what ANYONE, whether your most ardent supporters or most rabid detractors, thought about what you were doing.  Not even your wife – you were going to do what you damn well pleased.  

            Imagine you felt yourself free to completely ignore all the assumed boundaries of past presidents, and all precedents on behavior, to do whatever you wanted without regard for legality, without any concern for for your ‘legacy’ (cause the sorry assholes you rule don’t appreciate your brilliance), and without any thought of what the country would be like when you’re done.  Broke?  Who cares?  Just keep the perqs coming, because you’re the President. 

            What wouldn’t you do?

          • retired.military


            A lame duck doesnt have to worry about getting reelected.  Want to imagine what a 2nd Obama term would be like than watch Obama in Dec and the first few weeks of Jan after he loses this election.

            did I say more powerful?  Not really.    I did say that I trusted both of them about as far as I could an elephant.  I just think Romney has more restrictions. 

  • Terry Springman

    First of all, it’s tiresome to go through all the nonsense of those who don’t have a clue of what is going on! The big subject here is the proposed banning of obsolete M1 Garand’s and M1 Carbine’s by the knot-head currently dwelling in the White House! These are long obsolete! I was in the Nevada National Guard back in the 60’s The guard at that time could not afford M14’s which was the modern military rifle at that time. Instead we had beatup and worn out M1’s and M1 Carbine’s. Some of them would not work at all so we had to swap out weapons among us to qualify on the firing range. Again the moron in the White House does not have a clue about anything!

    • Commander_Chico

      M1s and M1 carbines have not been banned, there’s a lot that’s been banned for import from South Korea.

      Your story about M1s in the 1960s being broken – maybe that’s why they’re banned – they might not be suitable for purpose or even dangerous.  

      Some M1 that’s been through WWII and the Korean War, maybe repaired with questionable parts, do you really want it?

      • Vagabond661

        Some guns are collectable.

  • Commander_Chico

    I thought there might be some news about gun control in this post.  

    I was wrong, it was all about Warner’s “feelings.”

    • Poor chicka, being forced to come here and read posts by people he loathes.  If only he had the freedom to just walk away…

  • herddog505

    I think that the lefties are decieving themselves if they think that Americans are in the mood for banning guns.  I offer the following (highly anecdotal) evidence:

    I was at the new range in the city where I live in No. Carolina this weekend.  Not only was it full (had to wait for nearly an hour to get a lane for forty-five minutes), but it was full of NEW shooters getting instruction.  This included a couple of groups of women.  It warmed my heart…