Posted on 04/25/2011 8:08:04 PM PDT by RC one
Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.
Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts, Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. 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.
Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.
We 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...
I hope not. But the GOP is going to try and push him on us.
That’s what I was thinking when I picked it up at the local gun show. It set me back $1,000 (he was asking $1,200) but it was love at first feel. It feels like you could drop it in the mud, run over it with a Merkava, pick it back up, and start shooting again-just solid and rugged as a slab of steel. My girlfriend loves it too. She was a complete novice but took to it quickly and instinctively. After a couple mags, she was consistently pinging a 4 inch dia. steel plate at 25 yards. If the SHTF, it will be hers. I consider myself to be extremely proficient with an M16/AR15 after 8 years in the infantry. I love the M16/AR15 platform and own several actually but the Uzi is a superior weapon (out to 200 rads at least). The M16 isn’t as durable.
Lawyers have this inordinate belief in the sanctity of the law as witnessed by the statement “This will make it harder for criminals to obtain these weapons.”
Excuse me, since when have criminals, aka outlaws, paid any attention to any law?
Proof of this statement can be found in the current court systems, nation wide, where criminals are cycled through the system as fast as possible. How big a “rap sheet” do these criminals have? how many commit worse crimes shortly after they have been released on parole?
If criminals respected the law these two questions would be the subject of late night comedy skits instead of facts identifying a crippled to broken “criminal justice” system.
What the BLOODY hell are we going to do if the pubbies put this ass hat up against BO in the next election?
Not knowing much about guns but I never thought a MAC-10 was a rifle. So these people get those guns out of state where law abiding people in the state can’t buy them or I guess own them.
“Need a definitive definition of what’s an assault weapon. “
Anything that looks “scary” and has big “clips” for the “shells”.
</s>
Third party protest vote, or stay home. If that means a second term for Obama, then SO BE IT.
In the 170 year history of the Romneys in America, no Romney male has ever served our nation in uniform.
While Mitt's father was running to be commander in chief of our armed forces during the Vietnam War, Mitt was getting deferments from Salt Lake City and living in France.
While Mitt was running to be our commander in chief for two wars, his sons stayed away from the enlistment offices.
When asked about his 5 strapping military age sons, Romney replied “one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected,”
ROMNEY IN 1994 "I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam..."
Boston Herald, 5/2/94
THE NEW ROMNEY IN 2007 "I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam." Boston Globe, 6/24/07
I was asking myself the same thing a few minutes before I decided to post that old article on his assault weapon ban. Our best course of action is to attack him here and now before he gets any traction. We can not let him develop any momentum. We need to reveal him as the Democrat that he is. No self respecting Republican can support a man that passed a law like this and who dodged the draft and who defended Roe V Wade and who created the model upon which Obamacare is based. I don’t care what letter he puts at the end of his name, he is a Democrat.
don’t let it come to that. Attack him now before he can get traction and build up momentum. get on him.
I don't generally believe in political litmus tests, except for issues like the right to keep and bear arms. I simply could never vote for Mitt Romney based on his open betrayal of the Second Amendment. If this is the best the GOP establishment has to offer, then let Obama have his second term.
I've had enough of the establishment candidates from BOTH parties.
If Romney wins the GOP nomination, then it just won't matter who wins the general election.
If Romney is the GOP nominee, then third party/TEA party/independent will be the only way to go, and let the chips fall where they may, and let the gutless establishment gnashing of teeth begin.
Romney's authoritarian socialist stench is simply too much for this conservative libertarian to hold his nose for...
Make no mistake, fellow patriots: the GOP establishment appears to be hell-bent on fomenting Mitt Romney, or someone indistinguishable from him, upon Republican voters.
Romney is the only potential Republican candidate that I simply can not vote for. I would rather fight Obama for 4 more years than put up with Mitt Romney.
Vote third party/independent, and quite possibly see Obama reelected.
But at least we will still have our sacred honor.
Replacing Obama with Romney would make no positive difference to conservatives; indeed, it would probably make it easier to entice more Republicans into socialism, just as was done under recent GOP administrations...
there goes any chance he ever had of being president
First: "assault weapons" used to be categorized as fully automatic - machine guns...which have needed a major permit to own for decades. The term has been distorted.
Secondly: like most in California, people confuse machine guns with their similar looking semi-auto (one squeeze; one shot) weapons. CA has outlawed many semi-automatics just because they have the configuration of a fully auto, but allow other semi's.
Thirdly, and most important: a simple .38 revolver or a 9mm can and IS used to "hunt down and kill people". It happens almost every day in the inner-cities. Mostly, the gangsters use 9mm, but .38 revolvers are still easier and cheaper to obtain. The pansy gun idiots don't realized how easy it is to eject the mandatory (CA) 10 round magazine and insert another for a 9mm. The way 9's were built, with the slide going back once the mag is empty, tells anyone holding it's time to re-load (unlike the stupid movies where they just pull the trigger and click after click and realize it's empty).
It takes a couple/few seconds to re-load a 9. Sheesh, even a novice could do it, once they see the slide back. So the bad guy obeys the law (as if) and only bring 10 round mags? Okay. Guess they won't bring more mags in the pocket. Right?
Fourth: a Garand M-1 with a clip can fire multiple rounds is also a hunter/killer that could be use to ... you get the point.
Fifth: THE most deadliest weapon is a simple shotgun, depending on the gauge and circumstances. Oops, probably shouldn't have let BATFE know that. 12 gauge and OO shot will be next on their list.
The "assault weapons" debate is built on what the unknowing paranoid believe to be machine guns. They know NO difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic. Why is this never the point of debate? Hell, even a bolt-action can be used with little practice to "hunt down and kill people". This can gotten beyond ignorant.
Romney is the consumate urb, he should be confined to some city and ignored beyond the city limits. He isn't much different from Bloomberg, maybe a little less mouthy.
I don't think those people even belong to the same species I do, I don't want them running my life.
They can stay where they are and community organize until Hell freezes over but they need to leave Free Americans out of their schemes.
Mitt Romney knows the difference between a machine gun and a semi-auto rifle. He sure went after the second amendment like he never heard of it though.
With candidates like Romney, small wonder the Republican Party has a record of pulling defeat out of the mouth of victory.
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.