Feinstein says she'll reintroduce assault weapon legislation

[Rex B]

Not to steer the thread to far astray, I don't have a problem with voting Libertarian as a protest message vote in a race that where a conservative winner is assured. That can include the presidential ballot choice in Texas or Oklahoma. My practice is often to vote Libertarian on contests where a Republican has no Democrat opponent. Just my small way to signalling to the Republicans that my leanings are in that direction.

[RSJ]

Obama did not carry a single county in Oklahoma last election...no other state can say that. You're not missing my vote.

Nor your company in Texas.

Maybe you should become more tolerant of differing views. I am not a moderator, but I believe personal attacks are disfavored on this site. I don't think any less of people voting for Romney. I think he has changed his views and has certainly expressed some Liberal ideals in previous years. I am considering my right to vote for a 3rd-party candidate. Simple as that.

The purpose of this thread was to point out that Feinstein has committed to reinstate her ban if re-elected, not to bash each other.

[anygunanywhere]

Methinks that the sheeple in Kalifornia need to implement a Feinstein ban.

Anygunanywhere

[C-dub]

Methinks that the sheeple in Kalifornia need to implement a Feinstein ban.

Anygunanywhere

No. They need to keep her out there until she expires. If they kick her out she just might come here.

[RPB]

Methinks that the sheeple in Kalifornia need to implement a Feinstein ban.

Anygunanywhere

No. They need to keep her out there until she expires. If they kick her out she just might come here.

Well if she come here, I reserve the right to refuse service to her and not sell her my Inflatable Kayak Pancho
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=51236&p=712243#p712241" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RSJ]

Methinks that the sheeple in Kalifornia need to implement a Feinstein ban.

Anygunanywhere

No. They need to keep her out there until she expires. If they kick her out she just might come here.

Well if she come here, I reserve the right to refuse service to her and not sell her my Inflatable Kayak Pancho
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=51236&p=712243#p712241" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is great!

[glockstero]

Maybe you should become more tolerant of differing views.

uh, back at ya.

[Heartland Patriot]

I'd rather "waste" a protest vote and write in MY ideal candidate than vote for a Massachusetts liberal (my opinion) that supported an assault weapons ban.
Obama did not carry a single county in Oklahoma last election...no other state can say that. You're not missing my vote.

Massachusetts is a VERY liberal state. I hope you can agree with me on that, at least. Their legislature is overwhelmingly Democrat, a large portion of who are VERY liberal Democrats (though that is becoming a redundant statement now). Mitt Romney, as governor of that state, did sign a bill that banned some weapons the press like to call "assault weapons". But, the bill he signed also relaxed a lot of the previously onerous laws that were in place there and made some things easier for firearms owners there. IF he had vetoed that bill, with the pro-gun stuff in it, the Democrat majority legislature could have easily overridden the veto, and maybe even stripped the pro-gun language from the bill, passing the AWB by itself. I read somewhere that it was possible. Mitt Romney took a calculated look and signed it. Do I think he's the kind of guy who would go out and shoot an AR or AK? No, I don't...I think he's more likely the engraved shotgun for pheasant hunting type...but on the other hand, I do NOT believe him to be opposed, on principal, to American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights...and I DO believe the current POTUS, as a quasi-socialist, to be fully opposed to ANY gun ownership and willing to sign ANY and ALL anti-firearms legislation were he given the opportunity to do so.

Quasi socialist? Unless you're using "socialist" in the most precise sense, there's nothing quasi about it, he's an out-an-out radical Marxist.

I meant it as he does socialist "stuff"...but isn't an publicly avowed socialist such as Bernie Sanders. Maybe I used the wrong prefix?

[anygunanywhere]

Methinks that the sheeple in Kalifornia need to implement a Feinstein ban.

Anygunanywhere

No. They need to keep her out there until she expires. If they kick her out she just might come here.

Now why in the wide wide world of sports would she want to move to Texas??

Well, maybe she might want to move to Austin.

Nah, she would be too close to Rick Perry and the other fine pro-2A folks up there.

Anygunanywhere

[RSJ]

Maybe you should become more tolerant of differing views.

uh, back at ya.

How so? Vote Romney! Vote Obama! it is YOUR choice, I respect YOUR right to choose the candidate you wish. Don''t berate me for having a ideological view that is not in line with the Dem's nor the Republicans. In the scope of 2nd Amendment rights I submit that Mitt is not the "best" choice. He barely had a 'B' rating in the early 2000's from the NRA/ILA. 2010 Grade's for Ron Paul show an "A to A-". An issue-voter on pro 2-A views could deduce Paul being the better candidate. I guess I'll just leave this here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meFjza6BpEA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Romney will win Texas.... it is 99.9% assured. I'll vote as I wish. I respect your right to choose (and thank God that we have this right in the US)


Again, I posted an article about Feinstein pledging an assault weapons ban, not what presidential candidate is a "good" or "bad" vote.

[alvins]

well if they reinstate the assult weapons ban i feel sorry for anyone trying to come and get them from gun owners.

[canvasbck]

She's doing it to keep the "faithful" in the camp. Republicans will likely hold onto the House, and they will not do any worse in the senate than they are currently situated.....maybe better, although I'm not familiar with the various senate races. But the point is that the bill will definitely die in the house, and with the blue dog democrats, it may die in the senate too. It won't take long for some of the democrat old-heads to remind their party what happened to its fortunes the last time they pulled this. But you can bet that if it ever got to Obama's desk, he'd sign it in a New York minute.

Elections have consequences. Maybe the threat of an AWB bill will be enough to bring recalcitrant libertarians back into the fold and vote the ONLY vote guaranteed to remove Obama from office.

Ron Paul?

A vote for Ron Paul, or anyone other than the GOP candidate is, in effect; a vote for the current POTUS.

Unless you live in TX... or OK

Let me re-state what TAM and Old Gringo said - - - A vote for anyone besides Romney is the same as a vote for Obama. Ron Paul, the Libertarians, and any other party does not have a snowball's chance in heck of making any difference in the outcome if ouster of the current POTUS is your ultimate goal. Now, if you WANT to keep the same man in the White House but can't bring yourself to man up and admit you voted for him go for it.

Actually, if I live in a state in which the challenger has a 10+ point lead in the polls, the best thing I can do is send a campaign donation to Romney's campaign. My vote will NOT impact the outcome of the election as long as I am living in a state that is considered a "lock", but my $$ could help the candidate swing some votes in a battleground state.

I have already sent in the check, but if Romney is leading by >10 points near election day in Texas (we are not there yet, and that concerns me), then I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate to make my, albeit weak, statement that I would prefer a different candidate. Please, tell me how I would be supporting Obama more than someone who casts his vote for Romney (in a state that Romney would carry anyway) but keeps his $$ in his bank account.

[C-dub]

Methinks that the sheeple in Kalifornia need to implement a Feinstein ban.

Anygunanywhere

No. They need to keep her out there until she expires. If they kick her out she just might come here.

Well if she come here, I reserve the right to refuse service to her and not sell her my Inflatable Kayak Pancho
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=51236&p=712243#p712241" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good stuff.

[AEA]

What we need is a Federal Govt that can read/uphold the Constitution (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED) and repeal ALL existing gun laws ("common sense") that affect LAW ABIDING Citizens with the exception of the ones barring felons and others from purchasing weapons.

[VMI77]

I'd rather "waste" a protest vote and write in MY ideal candidate than vote for a Massachusetts liberal (my opinion) that supported an assault weapons ban.
Obama did not carry a single county in Oklahoma last election...no other state can say that. You're not missing my vote.

Massachusetts is a VERY liberal state. I hope you can agree with me on that, at least. Their legislature is overwhelmingly Democrat, a large portion of who are VERY liberal Democrats (though that is becoming a redundant statement now). Mitt Romney, as governor of that state, did sign a bill that banned some weapons the press like to call "assault weapons". But, the bill he signed also relaxed a lot of the previously onerous laws that were in place there and made some things easier for firearms owners there. IF he had vetoed that bill, with the pro-gun stuff in it, the Democrat majority legislature could have easily overridden the veto, and maybe even stripped the pro-gun language from the bill, passing the AWB by itself. I read somewhere that it was possible. Mitt Romney took a calculated look and signed it. Do I think he's the kind of guy who would go out and shoot an AR or AK? No, I don't...I think he's more likely the engraved shotgun for pheasant hunting type...but on the other hand, I do NOT believe him to be opposed, on principal, to American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights...and I DO believe the current POTUS, as a quasi-socialist, to be fully opposed to ANY gun ownership and willing to sign ANY and ALL anti-firearms legislation were he given the opportunity to do so.

Quasi socialist? Unless you're using "socialist" in the most precise sense, there's nothing quasi about it, he's an out-an-out radical Marxist.

I meant it as he does socialist "stuff"...but isn't an publicly avowed socialist such as Bernie Sanders. Maybe I used the wrong prefix?

He's a stealth Marxist. His associations and mentors indicate that he's a Marxist, but of course, he doesn't admit it publicly, because it's easier to advance the Marxist agenda pretending to be an American.