TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/09/05/341 ... gun-legis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She promised California delegates she’d return to Congress to reintroduce “an updated assault weapons bill.”

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.

The Annoyed Man wrote: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?

RSJ wrote:http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/09/05/341 ... gun-legis/

She promised California delegates she’d return to Congress to reintroduce “an updated assault weapons bill.”

I wish she would just retire and move back home to China.

RSJ wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: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.

RSJ wrote:http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/09/05/341 ... gun-legis/

She promised California delegates she’d return to Congress to reintroduce “an updated assault weapons bill.”

There was a wise old saying that went something like " a leopard never changes its spots." I'd be disappointed in Feinstein if she didn't take yet another poke at the windmill with her lance. My disgust is reserved for the people who keep electing her to a position where she can even propose this tripe.

Oldgringo wrote:

RSJ wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: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

RSJ wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

RSJ wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: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.

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.

RSJ wrote: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.

Did you read about his support of an assault weapons ban in 2004, or did you just read the headline? Also, I thought some not so bright stuff 8 years ago. Hope you still don't hold me to those thoughts? I wouldn't you.
Every vote counts, that's why Democrats do it more than once. Don't waste yours!

RSJ wrote: 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.

RSJ wrote: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.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

RSJ wrote: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.

That legislation was going through with or without his support. It looks like he did what he could to minimize the damage. I am a little concerned about some of his statements since then about what is or is not "reasonable" regulations. However, I don't think anything would ever make it to his desk for him to sign and I have no doubt that IF something did make it to the Obamanation's desk, especially in a second term, he would sign it and do it on television and probably in prime time. I also think there is little possibility of anything getting to his desk for him to sign. It's what he would do on his own that worries me or what he would have one of his czars do through regulation that the rest of the elected government has no say over.

C-dub wrote: It's what he would do on his own that worries me or what he would have one of his czars do through regulation that the rest of the elected government has no say over.

By any measure I'm less worried about Romney in this regard than Obama.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

RSJ wrote: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.