In regards to the bolded....and I'm hardly an expert (or enthusiast) on gun control...I do know that President Obama's campaign website said that it supported making permanent the (misdefined) "assault rifle" gun ban (known as the Brady Bill) that was expiring.

 

IMO, if I were you, though, I'd abstain from making comments such as this...you do realize that RTS is back, right?

 

Q: You said if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage Congress to extend it.

BUSH: I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban and was told the bill was never going to move. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks. The best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns.

 

Q: Do you support the Brady Bill?

BUSH: Law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect their families. We ought to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun. I also believe that the best way to make sure that we keep our society safe is to hold people accountable for breaking the law. If we catch somebody illegally selling a gun, there needs to be a consequence. The federal government can help.

 

Again not much if any difference just more chicken little our guys not in office stuff.

 

As to the bolded, I could care less who's back we all have are opinions and you know what they say about opinions.

The Brady Bill had to do with hand guns. It is what originally put in place the 5 day waiting period and back ground checks. It was not the assault weapons ban.

 

camel, I really don't know what the point of your post is? It really supports nothing you are trying to say. If you think Obama and Bush had the same stance on gun control you are reaching big time.

The Brady Bill had to do with hand guns. It is what originally put in place the 5 day waiting period and back ground checks. It was not the assault weapons ban..

 

:ohbrother: Now you know why I felt the need to disclaimer my posts with a "I'm no expert on gun control." My mistake, although now I can't edit it.

It's coming right up. Civics class is in 4th grade so obiously you haven't taken that one either. You can send all the slams you want, but to think that your boy and GWB have equal stance on gun issues is laughable. Classic.

 

What slam? what's laughable is all the chicken little drivel and misinformed people about Obama's postion on gun control. There may be suttle differences but if its so laughable I've asked for differences on postions.....

The Brady Bill had to do with hand guns. It is what originally put in place the 5 day waiting period and back ground checks. It was not the assault weapons ban.

 

camel, I really don't know what the point of your post is? It really supports nothing you are trying to say. If you think Obama and Bush had the same stance on gun control you are reaching big time.

 

Differences....

I would agree. However I'm not aware of any legislation being put fourth by his administration or any that has been suggested or there being even an eyelash of a difference between his position and say GWB's. So absent any pending or proposed legislation about gun ownership rights being "taken from us" or being "under attack by his administration", I'd conclude that bringing firearms to events about health care that are already highly charged and meant for political discourse is for nothing more than an intimidation factor. Which IMO shows irresponsible gun ownership.

HR 45 for one.

Ahh, I didn't read your post where you said "different from GWB's."

 

I don't quite remember RTS and his 2nd Amendment-o-philes criticizing Bush's stance on guns (although I also don't remember Obama's loyal fan base supporting Bush's gun stance either).

 

Regardless, even if these gun rights dudes are hypocritical in their lack of response to Bush's statements, does that negate the legitimacy of their protest? Essentially, if I said 2+2=5, would that mean that my statement "3+3=6" is wrong? I understand where you are coming from- pointing out their hypocrisy- but it doesn't mean that President Obama hasn't (at least once) supported "assault rifle" restrictions. (Keep in mind that I'm not arguing the legitimacy or illegitimacy of these restrictions as your formulate a response)

 

I'm not sure why I'm actually commenting on this, because gun rights is far from my forte and one of the less important issues to me, personally.

 

I'm not saying they do not have the right to do what they are doing or that it is any way against the law. Nor have I said the Obama has the most conservative record on gun legislation. What I am saying is to me his postion seems awfully similar to Bush's. There is no gun legislations being voted on or even discussed to my knowledge. So what are they protesting? If Obama was proposing a ban or further restrictions on guns then by all means show up with your guns. In the absence of that I just don't understand the need to show up with weapons at town hall meetings and speeches on health care. It seems to me that it could very well be an act of trying to intimidate proponents of reform. I really don't want to thread jack and get a big debate going about gun control I was just pointing out that no one was saying Bush and his administration were going to take guns away etc when to me their positions are pretty similar. It just strikes me as odd why you would show up with guns to protest no pending legislation about guns....

HR 45 for one.

 

Ok fair enough even though it has no co-sponsers and appears to be unconstitutional as all get out.

 

Backpedalling?

 

Backpedalling?

 

Nope, still not offering differences I see. A bill that has no co-sponsers and hasn't made it out of commitee in the house since it was introduced over 8 months ago, and has no chance of passing. Still does not consititute bringing a firearm to a town hall meeting or a speech about health care reform.

Nope, still not offering differences I see. A bill that has no co-sponsers and hasn't made it out of commitee in the house since it was introduced over 8 months ago, and has no chance of passing. Still does not consititute bringing a firearm to a town hall meeting or a speech about health care reform.

They weren't in close proximity to the president. They were exercising their right to bear arms. And it was stated in the article, they acted peacefully. Who knows, many may actually agree with the president on his view of health care reform. He could have been talking about anything for that matter, they were nowhere near him. Kinda like PETA is gonna be in Philly demonstrating, just not on the sidelines.:thumb:

I have to ask, how do we know it was an assault weapon? Because the article said so? Because the way it looked? I'd be willing to bet it was nothing more than a semi-auto.

 

Regardless of my question, I see no problem with it, legal is legal. Why the objections?

I wonder what would have happened if someone had showed up to a GWB event with a rifle? I wonder.

Nope, still not offering differences I see. A bill that has no co-sponsers and hasn't made it out of commitee in the house since it was introduced over 8 months ago, and has no chance of passing. Still does not consititute bringing a firearm to a town hall meeting or a speech about health care reform.

Why?

 

What's wrong with them making a point? Are you telling me that no group has ever protested issues other than what a presidential speech was about in the past?

I wonder what would have happened if someone had showed up to a GWB event with a rifle? I wonder.

How many times do we have to say that they weren't in close proximity to the pres?

I wonder what would have happened if someone had showed up to a GWB event with a rifle? I wonder.

Same thing that happened at this event. Why would you think otherwise? Legal is legal.