Mitt Romney: 'Many' Of Aurora Shooting Suspect's Weapons Were Illegal

lol
a hit thread.

the only reason the OP's
IDOL hasn't made a faux pas is cause his handlers are manning the teleprompter 24/7
on this case , instead of the usual somebody's retarded cousin that usually handles it.

and they have probably fitted the POSUS with a pair of concrete penny loafers...

...so he doesn't put his foot in his mouth.

BA_DUMP_BUMP!!!




DISCLAIMER: IMO they [all politicians] are all trash and should be "taken out behind the chemical sheds.."

Couple of misconceptions...and they may appear to be minor but.....

1) An assault rifle is a SELECT FIRE weapon. This means it can be switched from full auto to semi-auto. It also fires an intermediate cartridge which is a relatively small round for a rifle, and generally considered to be underpowered (part of why the Army is looking at replacing the M-16). I would be interested in how many of the casualties in Aurora were from the shotgun, pistol, or rifle rounds. Probably the rifle due to the suspect using a 100 round drum by shear numbers, but I would bet the .40 and the shotgun shells caused far worse wounds.

It is difficult for a civillian to get a true assault rifle. The AR-15 is typically semi-automatic (police can get full auto). No full auto weapon has been produced for civillian purchase in the US since 1986 due to the 86 gun law. Any full auto weapons made prior to that can be owned legally IF they are registered and have paid a $200 tax stamp. It must be paid again if the weapon is transfered (sold) and the buyer must also pass a stringent background test. Since none of them have been manufactured since 86, they typically run upwards of $10,000. Contrary to popular belief, most AR-15s made in the last 10 or so years can't even accept the M-16 parts without some serious machineing, (it's more then one hole...an older AR-15 might be that easy, but not most of the newer ones). But despite that, you are considered by the ATF to be violating the law and in possession of a "machine gun" to even OWN any of the full auto parts, EVEN if they are NOT in the rifle!!!!

Incidently the AR-15 series of rifles and carbines is probably the most popular rifle in America right now. Hundreds of thousands have been purchased in the last several years. 10's of Millions of American's have been trained on it or the M-16 due to being in the Military, National Guard, Police, Police Reserves, ROTC, etc. It is modular and customizable for many situations including sport/target/competion shooting (including the government funded and sponsered Civil MarksmanShip Program), self defense (particularily for those that live in open country,where long range maybe nessecary, MANY ranchers in the SW US carry them in areas where drug dealers come through the border). There are even hunting and "varmint" versions of the rifle.

2) An "Assault Weapon" is a made up term by lawyers and politicians in the Clinton administration in 1994 for their "assault weapon ban" or the 1994 Crime bill. To make a long story short the democrats came up with a bunch of guns they didnt like because they looked or sounded scary by name, with little regard for lethality or anything else. Further more the ban banned guns with certain combinations of features More than two of the following was "illegal": a pistol grip, a folding stock, a detachable magazine, a bayonnet lug, or a "flash suppressor". One item was ok, 2 ok, but not three. Manufactures simply changed names or removed a feature....banning nothing..this is why the law "sunset" in 2004.

Which is why gun bans are difficult. How do you class what is banned. MOST modern civillianweapons are semi auto (pull the trigger each time you wish to shoot). I have seen many semi auto .22's with high capacity magazines. "Assualt rifles" Semi/Civillian shoot a relatively underpowered round (If I had my choice I would rather be hit by a .223 then a .45, .40 .357, or 12 gauge). Most "hunting rifles" fire much more powerful rounds.
You aren't going to get rid of firearms in the US without a constitution amendment and with over 80 MILLION gun owners you aren't likely to find that happening.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

DISCLAIMER: IMO they [all politicians] are all trash and should be "taken out behind the chemical sheds.."

Nope Derepent... You disagreed with the Op on his criticism of Romney there fore you are a Romney supporter...

OH NO, you must be a paid Romney shill...


Agreed though, the choices are all crap, Neither of them are willing to take a stand on this because they will lose the election over it...

And really is that the kind of Man you want running? Someone who will say and do what ever is need to get the office?

And that counts both of them.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
i don't make things up but i should know better than to engage a brick wall
hmmm, where do i get such info ?? from the PD but i guess that isn't good enough for you, right?
[shooter entered with shotgun, then discharged handgun 40 shots, then used rifle until it jammed]

well it's not up to you and it wasn't up to anyone, ever.
this topic isn't about the Founders so why are you going there?
besides, the Founders didn't grant any rights, they recognized and guaranteed them.
unalienable rights existed long before the US or the Constitution.

there is no such thing as a "discussion about honest gun regulation" because IF we are discussing regulating a right, the people have already lost.

kinda hard to track what is manufactured in a garage, isn't it?
well, not that you'd care, but most Americans will certainly fight for said right.

oversight and regulation is EXACTLY what allowed, enabled and encouraged this tragedy and all 26 others since 1999 to occur. if you want the tragedies to cease/lessen, then remove "regulations" that enable it.

these are your words, not mine.

Mitt Romney was asked about changing gun laws

focusing on the weapons that kille 12 people and wonded many more

Romney's unwillingness to even discuss the issue that Holmes was LEGALLY allowed to obtain such firepower in such a short time

we are just saying that it is currently WAY to easy for unstable people to get things things very quickly and with little oversight.

everyone agrees that people with mental disorders shouldn't be allowed to own guns

and what causes someone to have the need to own so many guns

the only changes to gun law being discussed is access to 'assault' rifles & large ammo clips (not ammo orders) given this is the current environment, i asked what's the point in that if the greatest damage was caused by a shotgun and handgun.

your "weapons that killed 12 people and wonded many more" aren't even being discussed under gun control, yet.

why should he be willing to discuss the shooter's access, did he sell them to him did he ?

who says the shooter was "unstable" when he bought them? you ??
what IF he experienced a psychotic episode never before indicated ?
what are you suggesting ... monthly/wkly psyche evals for all gun owners so you won't wonder if they are of 'sound mind' ?
you are not offering anything but complaints, what's you supposed fix ??

i disagree, mental disorders are far too often mis-diagnosed.

in one word ? desire
what causes a person to collect thousands of beenie-babies or any collectible for that matter?
many guns are relics and collected for just that single reason.
why should anyone be restricted from them ?
heck, my shotgun is almost 100yrs old but it still works just as intended. (1921)

reply to post by RealSpoke
that is pure assumption. 70 were hit, why aren't more dead ??

i've heard witness statements that indicate the shooter not only shouted commands but man-handled audience members and some of the dead seemed to be "targeted".
[witness words, not mine]

hmmm, ny times quote eh ??
ok, i'll see if i can find the original from the Aurora PD.

the ammo purchases do not alarm me as i buy online also.
so do half the ppl i shoot with at the range.
my best online connections came from other "officers" at the range.
i really don't follow the interest in the ammo as it can be made at home.

reply to post by benrl

I believe in some gun control.

Then we are on the same page.

When you start talking all or nothing, thats too extreme for the reality we face in America.

Agreed.

Even though my personal opinion is that I would be for very very strict gun laws, I know that is not realistic in America and I am fine with that.

The gun control we have right now are a joke, evident by this latest tragedy, so yes we need to have this discussion.

Republicans think you should be able to buy a Tank... Dems want cut your steak for you just incase you cut yourself.

Thankfully, it's not that bad on either side.

The problem is that Republicans won't admit they are for any type of control, because they believe that makes them look like they are compromising. And Dems don't want to appear anti-2nd amendment so they won't really push the issue.

That is the reason there is no honest gun control debate.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


It's Romney's own words.

Sorry that he is an out of touch douchebag that can't even spare the time to get the facts right that affected the lowly American peasants.

Or worse...he dodged the question fully knowing the truth just so he wouldn't ahve to address a controversial topic. Too bad Aurora victims...Romney just doesn't want to be bothered by this little event.

ok so mitt is no the only one out of touch over this mess so is bill O’Reilly of the O’Reilly report www.mediaite.com... form the link

‘Come On!’ Bill O’Reilly Blasts GOP Congressman During Epic Gun Control Segment

My take is this have all the gun laws bans you want , it will only keep honest / law abiding citizens, law abiding and honest... and from from having them.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I don't like or support Romney, but you are misleading here.
He didn't say the weapons were illegal, he said it was illegal for this guy to have them.
That may or may not be true, but he didn't say the guns were illegal ones. He is right in a sense because the gas canisters are illegal for civilians, so if you consider those a weapon he is right.

Either way it doesn't matter, we don't need this to know Romney is an idiot, and we definitely already know that this guy killing should have no affect on the guns that we can own.

Gun control is impossible and stupid anyway.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by benrl

 

So everything he had he bought legally. Obviously turning them into grenades or IEDs would be illegal, but that is clearly not what Mitt Romney was referring to. He indicated that the suspect illegally bought weapons/firearms, and that is not the case at all.

I think the main point Mitt was making is that legislation won't work as people will simply do it anyway. You proved it. He made illegal weapons. There will always be illegal ways of getting what you want. That man was going to do what he did regardless of laws.

Food for thought. If some people up front had guns of their own and could defend themselves would so many people have been injured?

If we did as Mitt suggested, which was change the thought process that leads to these events rather than ban guns, would that be a better idea? Or do you want to ban weapons and not change the reasons WHY this happens?

Guns are lot harder to buy the the US then the components/chemicals to build bombs,

And yes the US has very strict laws on explosives but its imposable to restrict all the chemicals for all the ways to build bombs without bringing the US to a standstill.

the chemical to build bombs are sold in just about every town without restrictions and legal to buy.
Mixing a explosive is highly illegal and would get you jail time.

And yes the Shooting Suspect' broke many laws before pulling the trigger.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Maybe he doesn't watch MSM news outlets when he is jumping from one town to the next. He may be depending on aides to keep up with that stuff. You would never criticize Obama for such an oversight would you? I seem to remember a lot of people defending Obama's 57 States as his being "tired on the campaign trail". Can Democrats be any more hypocritical? But who needs to know how many States one is planning to be President of?

The premise of this thread is:

Everything the crazy guy bought was legal so because he did something illegal with his weapons we must collectively punish everyone else who does or want to own an AR15. Because, according to you people, all my AR15 is for is public massacres.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Of course legislation wont work. Did everyone forget about Columbine? That happened under the liberals beloved AWB. It was supposed to prevent stuff like that. It didn't. And its stupid to think it will.

The Fallacious Personification of Inanimate Objects Principle or:

The pathetic fallacy is the treatment of inanimate objects as if they had human feelings, thought, or sensations.[1] The word 'pathetic' in this use is related to 'pathos' or 'empathy' (capability of feeling), and is not pejorative. In the discussion of literature, the pathetic fallacy is similar to personification.

Guns are not the problem, people are. Our society is literally decaying before our eyes. Our morals, ethics and principals have become a sliding glass door we open on a whim, when we see something we want that is if we can talk ourselves into it.

I believe in the future, because of public outcry in the aftermath of tragedies such as the recent massacre, TPTB will institute a caste system based on: psychological analysis, genetic disposition towards violence/mental illness, past deeds, etc. (This will be under the guise of ‘pre-crime’) [People will be banned from _______.] We have witnessed creator given rights, slowly but surely morphing into privileges. Certain classes of citizens based on merit will earn privileges that once were rights. I feel buying into this system is the mark of the beast.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Of course legislation wont work. Did everyone forget about Columbine? That happened under the liberals beloved AWB. It was supposed to prevent stuff like that. It didn't. And its stupid to think it will.

Funny you mention Columbine in this context. That wasn't even what I consider to have started as a shooting. Those two little monsters made and had ready 99 Improvised Explosive Devices. A great many, deployed around the grounds with only their own inexperience and inability to follow directions from the net to save so many.

So, I couldn't agree more. Both cases already had heaping helpings of something already banned and restricted so heavily that merely owning a little bit of explosive can be years in a federal prison. Law seem to be falling short of effective here. Why add more, eh?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by benrl

 

Next, yes the Stun grenades, explosives, and body armor used.

All illegal.

Stun grenades??? You mean the tear gas...the tear gas that is LEGAL to buy in Colorado???

And the "explosives"...the ones made with LEGAL components that killed and harmed ZERO people???

And the body armor...which isn't a weapon.

Seems like you are trying really hard to defend Mitt.

Actually from what I see in this thread seems like you are trying really hard to herd gun rights advocates in with a moron pres candidate Mitt Romney in regards to the "guns issue", you have said several times that GUNS killed people in Aurora not BOMBS...yet you fail to realize this is ONLY because of circumstance, not because BOMBS can't kill people...

The materials used to make the bombs etc may have all been legal but that doesn't mean BOMBS themselves are legal to have...the materials to make a pipe-bomb are all legal, but actually constructing and having a pipe-bomb is illegal as f***....so your not influencing me with your trash logic...

Since its quite obvious you are anti-gun you have an agenda here and its NOT talking crap about Mitt Romney being a moron, its about herding people who agree that ill-legalizing guns won't prevent tragedies into the same "moron" category as Mitt Romney...

Guns or bombs, yada yada. Guns are not intended for feeding bunnies, they are actually designed and purposed for killing, be it animals or people. It doesn't matter how many times pro gun folk say things like "the intended purpose of a gun is not to kill, it is to fire a projectile". Nit pick all you like, guns were not invented to just make a loud noise and scare the crows out of the corn. Guns and Bombs are intended to injure, maim, and/or kill, at a distance, which provides the person employing the weapon a measure of safety by distancing him/her from having to engage in hand-to-hand combat. Both have nothing but violent purposes and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

reply to post by gwynnhwyfar

so, when is engaging in hand-to-hand combat obligatory ?
sounds like you promote the opinion that sticks and stones should be enough.

Lot of misinformation in this thread

Mitt Romney: 'Many' Of Aurora Shooting Suspect's Weapons Were Illegal

Many weapons? 4 guns whoahhhhhhhhhhh that is "many".

Secondly "body armor is just so easy to get" except when people look at places for they do have a hard time finding it case in point:

www.uscav.com...

Pay attention:

This item requires identification verification for Individual purchases and the item must be a tool of the trade. Note: To order this item via Agency or Department Purchase Order please contact our Contract Sales Department at 1.800.200.9455. Click here for more details.

And other things that only "terrorists,and psychos want" like this:

www.opticsplanet.com...

Pay attention:

Government Restriction This item may be regulated for sale to Military, Law Enforcement, or other qualified personnel. Our Risk Management Team will be in touch with you regarding required qualifications and documentation. Certain federal, state, and/or local laws and regulations may apply.

People really do need to know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to all things related to firearms between someone selling them out of their trunk, and the interstate commerce clause by what means the feds "regulate" firearms, but they do not just regulate firearms.