Candidates on guns

Wrapping up from the debate last night, as a gun owner, here are some of my thoughts. Neither of these men is a friend to gun owners. Let's go over what is being said, what the candidates themselves said, and what is truth. 

Transcript of the debate.

What is being said - Romney camp. 
Romney is anti-gun. However, Republicans who are ready for "anybodybutObama" are touting him as having "evolved" in his views on guns. Some even believe the propaganda being spread that Romney actually did stuff in favor of gun owners in Massachusetts. Sadly, none of these arguments holds water. The NRA falls into this sad crowd with this release.

Let's look at some facts. Romney signed an "assault weapons" ban (AWB) in Massachusetts. This ban limits freedoms. The incremental limiting of freedoms is the way tyrants take all freedoms away. This is what is not acceptable.

There are some who say the 2004 AWB in Massachusetts had provisions that favored gun owners (particularly with state fees and accessibility to ownership licensing), and while some of these are true, the real intent was to limit twofold:
A) Limit the types of guns that people could own directly by forbidding AR15, AK47, and Uzi makes, among others.
B) Limit who could even own firearms by asinine taxes, fees, and licenses to purchase or own firearms.

Here is a statement by Gun Owner's Action League, showing what all is limited. Here is a statement by the same group, applauding Romney's actions. Appalling.


What is being said - Obama camp.
Liberals are excited that Obama came out last night and said that he wants another AWB for the nation. Democrats are frightened. The first AWB was political suicide for so many of them, and the ones in power now dare not tread here.


What Romney said in the debate:

Yeah, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on — on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We, of course, don't want to have automatic weapons, and that's already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons. What I believe is we have to do, as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have, and to change the culture of violence that we have.

First is automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are illegal to manufacture for civilian use. There is a provision that fully automatic guns manufactured prior to 1986 are "grandfathered" in, but those are highly regulated. What Romney said is true, from a certain point of view.

Again, from the former governor, and the moderator:

CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned.
I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?
ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation. And it's referred to as an assault weapon ban, but it had, at the signing of the bill, both the pro-gun and the anti-gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted.
There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that haven't previously been available and so forth, so it was a mutually agreed- upon piece of legislation. That's what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now in Washington is a place that's gridlocked.
CROWLEY: So I could — if you could get people to agree to it, you would be for it?
ROMNEY: We have —
OBAMA: Candy?
ROMNEY: — we haven't had the leadership in Washington to work on a bipartisan basis. I was able to do that in my state and bring these two together.

This is quite damning. Romney admits that he would support assault weapons banning legislation if both parties were for it. Now the fact is that no Republicans and only a few Democrats would risk such a move, but the point is, Romney would sign an AWB into law!!!


What Obama said in the debate:

But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns.

So the President admits openly he would support an AWB, and in the next breath, he admits that the vast majority of so-called "gun violence" does not take place with so-called "assault weapons." Why ban them, then, Mr. President???

Also frightening is the fact that the President feels some people (police / military) should have access to certain types of objects while other people (regular civilians) should not. This, my friends, is the very heart of discrimination. 


Summary:
They both want to ban your guns. The only difference is the way they want to do it. Obama doesn't care how he does it, and Romney wants the legislature to trample your rights. I do not care for either option.

.