facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Obama calls for ban on assault weapons, Romney opposes during tonight's debate



Published: Tue, October 16, 2012 @ 10:58 p.m.

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (AP)

President Barack Obama is calling for reintroducing legislation to ban assault weapons.

In discussing the issue at the presidential debate Tuesday night, Obama said weapons that were designed for soldiers at war don’t belong on the street.

After the mass shooting in Colorado last summer, Obama aides said that the president supports the ban that expired in 2004. But Obama had not called for reinstating it until the debate.

Republican candidate Mitt Romney repeated his opposition to banning assault weapons. He had supported a ban as governor of Massachusetts.

Romney says he’s not in favor of new pieces of legislation on guns.


Comments

1VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 2 years ago

Unlike Obama's stuborness, Romney finally has seen the light. If you really want to become President, you must be prepared to compromise in order to move our country forward.

Suggest removal:

2IslandMike(757 comments)posted 2 years ago

@gdog,

They don't call him the Mitt-Flopper for nothing. OBAMA kicked his butt in the debate.

SMACK!!

Suggest removal:

3uselesseater(229 comments)posted 2 years ago

Obama wasn't a decisive winner.

Take for instance Romney's pointing to Oblama's own pension being invested in those evil Chinese companies and other less than savory financial structures.

Obama pulled a Joe Biden. Instead of acknowledging reality, being busted profiting from the crap he's mouthing off about, he makes a funny about his pension not being as big as Romney's.

Maybe if Obama spent less time doing drugs, visiting bath houses, picking up buddies playing hoops and studying socialism and communism and instead was working hard in the private sector, then he'd too have a bigger nest egg for retirement.

Both candidates did a lousy job in directly answering the question. I heard the same old claims of poverty being the origin point. Disarm the impoverished. Take the assault weapons away from the ghetto.

Obama:
"t I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets."

Huh? Really. A gun is a gun is a gun. Just some shoot more than once a second. Some are automatic. Whoopie. Just as lethal.

Obama:
"what can we do to intervene, to make sure that young
people have opportunity; that our schools are working; that if there's violence on the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can catch it before it gets out of control."

Schools in the US aren't working. It's time to dismantle the Department of Education. 5000 employees living off the golden nipple. A whopping US$71 billion (est. 2011) budget. That is massively increased from US$32 billion (2009). Explain that massive slush fund increase.

Schools are failure in the United States and especially in the inner cities where we spend typically far more money fostering low standards.

These failing districts nearly perfectly overlap the high infestations of violent crimes.

These same areas are also where we find the high concentrations of poverty and abundance of broken single mother homes; many intentionally designed that way.

Law enforcement and clergy to the rescue? Please. Look at our own town, Youngstown. We hear the clergy here and their yelling "Stop the Violence", but the problem folks are listening, they aren't god fearing people.

Romney stomped a mud hole in Obama over Fast and Furious and shipping big guns to Mexican drug cartels.

It is time we bring Eric Holder, the Attorney General, in an charge him for this deadly deception plan. Fast and Furious was the Obama administrations move to stomp on the 2nd Amendment and gun rights. Americans died from these guns. Mexican's died. Law enforcers died from these guns.

Suggest removal:

4danikytn(248 comments)posted 2 years ago

Why WOULD'T you ban assault rifles? Please explain to me what place these machines hold in our society? How many deaths have been attributed to them? This seems like a non-issue to me, of course they should be banned.

Suggest removal:

5Ytownnative(1047 comments)posted 2 years ago

Have you looked at the definition of "assault weapons"? a .22 caliber varmit rifle is an assault rifle. Aso it is the right to bear arms not the right to bear certain types of arms and only if we approve them.

Suggest removal:

6Jive_Turkey(32 comments)posted 2 years ago

I watched the debate and Romney never said he opposed the ban on assault weapons. He agreed that they should be banned and he supported our constitutional rights and traditions shared among sportsman nationwide. This is straight up fictional information; The Vindicator should be ashamed of this poor reporting.

Here is something interesting: How about the fact that Romney brought up operation Fast and Furious, which let our government release assault weapons to the public, namely high ranking gang members and drug lords which were used to kill civilians and innocent people, and Obama had to response. Didn't even acknowledge it!

Some of you sheep have the wool pulled so far over your eyes it makes me wonder what our society is coming to.

Suggest removal:

7uselesseater(229 comments)posted 2 years ago

More people die in this country from self inflicted trip and fall injuries, but we aren't padding homes and outlaws hard bathtubs.

.22 caliber weapons are likely the most commonly used caliber gun in commission of crime due to wide availability and low cost. Assault weapons are way down on list surely.

Here's what Romney said when asked about assault weapon ban:
"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."

Suggest removal:

8WilliamSwinger(341 comments)posted 2 years ago

"O-blame-ya said weapons that were designed for soldiers at war don’t belong on the street."

Agreed.

Please identify and name those weapons. M-16/(AR-15)? AK-47?

NEITHER of these firearms are "on the street" in the form they carry in military use. Military weapons of this type are "fully automatic" and may fire multiple rounds on a single pull of the trigger. The legal/civilian forms of these firearms are not fully automatic and fire only one round upon a trigger pull. The civilian forms are very difficult or impossible to modify to the fully automatic form and illegal to convert nonetheless. Often the civilian forms of the firearms are reproductions made to look and function similarly but are not constructed in the same fashion, from the same materials and lack the same function. It's like a "kit car" Lamborghini made from a Fiero.

Just because a firearm LOOKS like a military weapon doesn't mean that it is. There are no "assault weapons" owned by civilians. This is a language trick foisted on the stupid by people with an agenda. The people with the agenda are the same ones our founding fathers guaranteed us the Right to Bear to defend ourselves against.

Please inform yourselves before you fall for this "anti-gun" culture and senselessness.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport