Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

During the second debate tonight a question was asked about banning assault weapons. Both candidates agree that enforcement for the existing laws on the books needs to be better. Background checks need to be better.

Obama further said we need to look at all options do reduce violence including having a discussion about reinstating the assault weapons ban, but was quick to point out that violence in places like Chicago aren't happening because of assault weapons. He also goes on to say there has to be more education and good paying jobs and that will help reduce the violence.

Romney was asked about his tenure in Mass because he did sign an assault weapons ban in that state. He stated that both pro-gun and anti-gun advocates came together to make the legislation work and he seemed proud of that. On one hand assault weapons were banned (and gun license fees quadrupled), but on the other hand gun owners received some rights that they didn't have before (I'm not sure what those were since he didn't say).

Two questions:

1. If a bi-partisan bill came across a President Romney's desk that banned assault weapons but also granted some other undisclosed gun rights, do you think he would sign it?

2. As an average American, would you be willing to give up assault weapons to gain some other rights? What what those be?

Nope under no condition. AWBs violate the very basis of the 2nd Amendment.

And yes I do think Romney would sign it such a bill and I will go one step further and say the NRA would endorse it(Look at "Hughes Amendment").

No, I don't think Romney would sign such a bill, and further, I don't think such a bill would ever make it through another Congress barring a Democrat takeover.

You have to appreciate how left-wing Massachusetts is. If Romney hadn't signed the compromise bill, the Dems would have overridden his veto on a much worse bill. Being a Republican governor of a far-left state is the ultimate in politics as the art of compromise.

No...I would not support it. And I dont think Romney is much of a pro gun advocate.

FiremanBob wrote:No, I don't think Romney would sign such a bill, and further, I don't think such a bill would ever make it through another Congress barring a Democrat takeover.

You have to appreciate how left-wing Massachusetts is. If Romney hadn't signed the compromise bill, the Dems would have overridden his veto on a much worse bill. Being a Republican governor of a far-left state is the ultimate in politics as the art of compromise.

Yeah I don't think a bill would come up as long as Republicans control at least one house of Congress. I think a lot of Democrats learned the hard way last time in how not to get re-elected.

That's an interesting thought about Romney signing the bill as a compromise against something worse. I find it hard to believe because he doesn't frame it as a compromise against something worse, but rather a proud moment of people coming together.

Romney is projecting the "nice guy" who wants a bipartisan presidency. Of course he isn't going to alienate nominal Democrats who are leaning his way by calling out the Democrat party for what they really are.

FiremanBob wrote:You have to appreciate how left-wing Massachusetts is. If Romney hadn't signed the compromise bill, the Dems would have overridden his veto on a much worse bill. Being a Republican governor of a far-left state is the ultimate in politics as the art of compromise.

Interesting point here.

To the OP:

1. Can't tell without determining what the other grants would be. My off the cuff answer is "no",

2. Insert Charlton Heston quote here. I plan on my hands to be warm for a very long time.

I'm going to need a bigger gun safe

SpanishInquisition wrote: 2. Insert Charlton Heston quote here. I plan on my hands to be warm for a very long time.

As John Lennon said, "Happiness is a warm gun."

1. I think if I bill like that actually got to Romney's desk he would be under intense pressure to sign it. You have to remember if it's sitting on his desk that means it's cleared both the House and Senate. He would be under intense pressure to do so by those in his own party and risk alienating any center/conservative Democrats. Otherwise if he were to not sign it, they're going to have egg on their faces, and they're not going to take that very well. Endstate if he didn't he wouldn't have too many friends left to count on in the future.

2. As far as a AWB goes I would be more interested in what the new revised language is going to be(not that it will make it to the President's desk). But, if one could, it's the wording of the bill where things happen; it can be as vague or straightforward as folks want to be. Since it's been awhile since Clinton was in office I wonder if it would have the same language his did or would be something different. I'm sure since the mention last night Bushmaster and Armalite are retooling their operations for maximum output. Demand and price will skyrocket yet again. They are going to tell you they support your "gun rights" but they're also laughing all the way to the bank. From a business perspective, I would venture a guess and say those folks who manufacture weapons facing a ban are not entirely against a ban, they're going to make guns anyway, they're just going to get a ton of business before the fact. And they're quite okay with that. Regardless I'm not okay with sacrificing any right for any other right. The right to personal liberty is defined as a inalienable right for a reason, that means it cannot be taken away. I'm more worried about the continual Patriot Act laws than I am a AWB coming down the chute.

Actually, what I'd like to see is a bill repealing the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. It would be one page long.

FiremanBob wrote:Actually, what I'd like to see is a bill repealing the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. It would be one page long.

Amen! That would be nice.

I don't own an "assault rifle" or even a semi-auto rifle (yet), but no, I wouldn't consider an AWB a valid "trade" for other unspecified rights (are they treated as bonuses now?).

Romney would sign it for the reasons specified above. Also, he is untrustworthy as history amply proves. He may change his mind tomorrow.

However, while I am fairly certain Obama will win I dont forsee anything like a 2008 Democratic takeover happening again. I think they'll lose a few more House seats and keep a bare majority of the Senate, so ideally that will be the bulwark against that bill getting to either POTUS.

I am unwilling to compromise ANY rights. I want them ALL!

Reverenddel wrote:I am unwilling to compromise ANY rights. I want them ALL!

amen, brother.

FiremanBob wrote:No, I don't think Romney would sign such a bill, and further, I don't think such a bill would ever make it through another Congress barring a Democrat takeover.

You have to appreciate how left-wing Massachusetts is. If Romney hadn't signed the compromise bill, the Dems would have overridden his veto on a much worse bill. Being a Republican governor of a far-left state is the ultimate in politics as the art of compromise.

You are correct here. The MA legislature was 87% democrat. We here in MA are also a "may issue" state. The decision to issue or deny a permit to own handguns resides with the chief of police in the town in which you reside. He/she has sole discretion and the decision was not appealable. Among other things, the law Romney signed rectified this. Most folks outside of the state don't know the full details on this and I will shortly be posting a full account of the facts in the matter.

I would support a ban on neon yellow handguns in exhange for throwing out every other Federal firearm statue including the NFA, while dismembering the BATFE. Compromise at its finest!

mk4 wrote:

Reverenddel wrote:I am unwilling to compromise ANY rights. I want them ALL!

amen, brother.

+1

No! to both.