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

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
If it were up to me...owning a gun wouldn't be a right...I have no problems with that at all. The Founders were wrong about many things...and I believe this is one that they didn't have the foresight to understand the consequences in the future.

But, that isn't even what I'm advocating...just an honest discussion about honest gun regulation...yes...I think all gun and ammo purchases should be tracked and limited. I don't give a rats ass if someone thinks that takes away one of their "rights"...life will go on...people will live just fine without being able to buy 4 guns and 6,000 rounds of ammo in a month. Will it "stop" gun crime...no...but it will create more oversight and regulation...which is badly needed.

Your life will go on too, and we will keep our rights to buy as much ammo as we want. 4 guns in a month? We should be able to buy 1000 if we want.

It's none of your business, and instead of putting more regulations on it, we need to get rid of some.

Open carry of a sidearm should be legal in every single state.

Your opinion on everything is just terrible, and anti-liberty.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

We have seen all the pro-gun people here on ATS all claiming that anti-gun people are using this for political reasons...but let's face it...IT IS AN ISSUE.

I haven’t verified your quotes but for the sake of argument I will accept it and move on since his words aren’t my point of contention; I'm not compelled to defend Romney.

Yes….if he said the weapons this douche had were illegal it was an uninformed statement.

Yes…if he said so-called “assault weapons” were “instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people" then he’s an idiot.

Again, I haven’t verified those claims.

Now….I’m one of those "gun people" you alluded to and the “anti-gun people” most definitely used this situation to promote their agenda (as usual). You’re completely disingenuous if you say otherwise. The media were all over the anti-gun angle (and ABC was also on the anti-Tea Party angle too) within hours!

Guns are not an issue…people are the issue. What drove this idiot? I don’t know but I do know it wasn’t guns. He had no criminal record at ALL so anything short of abolishing the 2nd amendment wouldn’t have stopped him. Criminals don’t abide by the law!

Blaming the gun for murder is akin to blaming the fork for Obesity. If you ban forks there will still be obese people. If you ban guns there will still be murderers. The most prolific serial killers in history didn’t use guns. Guns are not the weapon of choice among the biggest psychopaths among us. The most prolific serial killer in the world is Pedro Lopez who never used a gun yet killed over 300 people.

Maybe you should direct your outrage upon sick ‘people’ rather than inanimate objects such as guns.

Just sayin’

Originally posted by neo96
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.

edit on 26-7-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

No, you missed the point in quibbling about how many guns equal "many". The issue is that Romney talked about the suspect's guns being illegal, when actually they were legally purchased. So the problem is not summed up by "how many guns did the suspect own, and does that quantity match a definition of 'many'?"

The problem is that the guns and ammo were purchased legally, but Romney was confused and called them "illegal" because his handlers had not yet explained to him that per the NRA lobbyists and gun rights activists, it is perfectly ok to kill people with legally purchased weapons in the US, so he just naturally assumed they were illegally obtained weapons... Poor guy still has a shred of humanity left, even if he is obscenely rich and completely out of touch with the general population. I have to applaud Romney for that statement, good for him!

Ready to be shredded now by the GOTP in 3-2-1... Actually, I am going to bed, so have at it.

reply to post by gwynnhwyfar

The problem is that the guns and ammo were purchased legally, but Romney was confused and called them "illegal" because his handlers had not yet explained to him that per the NRA lobbyists and gun rights activists, it is perfectly ok to kill people with legally purchased weapons in the US, so he just naturally assumed they were illegally obtained weapons...

When you say things like “it is perfectly ok to kill people with legally purchased weapons in the US” you completely kill what was already a lame argument.

Straw man much?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I believe it should be mandatory for all persons 12 years of age an older to go through a hunter's safety course and firearms proficiency classes. At 21, you should be able to open carry on your hip in plain view, so any would be criminal would think twice before pulling any crap. Why are so many people acting like scaredy cats about guns when cars kill more people every year. If you ban "assault" weapons, the criminal elements of society will have a field day knowing no one had the firepower to match them. Would you rather have all the gang bangers armed to the teeth and the citizenry disarmed?

reply to post by gwynnhwyfar

No, you missed the point in quibbling about how many guns equal "many". The issue is that Romney talked about the suspect's guns being illegal, when actually they were legally purchased. So the problem is not summed up by "how many guns did the suspect own, and does that quantity match a definition of 'many'?"

Want to try again?

"This person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them," Romney told NBC News in an interview. "And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't."

First off He was talking about James Holmes the only thing it was illegal for him to have was bombs.

The problem is that the guns and ammo were purchased legally,

No problem there millions of Americans have the same things and do the same things and have never done anything to kill anyone.

but Romney was confused and called them "illegal" because his handlers had not yet explained to him that per the NRA lobbyists and gun rights activists, i

No confusion there for anyone who watched the video and read what he was quoted as saying for those who have really short memories here it is agian:

This person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already.

it is perfectly ok to kill people with legally purchased weapons in the US

Since when? Murder is how many kinds of "illegal" all with different terms and prision sentences.

Poor guy still has a shred of humanity left, even if he is obscenely rich and completely out of touch with the general population. I have to applaud Romney for that statement, good for him!

We can talk about how out of touch people are when it comes to firearm issues or Romney and here is what he said agian for those with short term memories.

Romney told NBC News in an interview. "And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't.

Sounds like he gets it and the anti gun crowd is the only ones who don't get it, and who are "out of touch".

Originally posted by VikingWarlord
Why are so many people acting like scaredy cats about guns when cars kill more people every year.

Cars are built for the purpose of transporting people and goods.

Guns are built for the purpose of firing a high-speed kinetic projectile that penetrates causing injury and death.

Comparing the two, when referring to gun control, is a fallacious argument.

There are currently stricter regulations on who can own and drive a car than there are on who can own and fire a weapon. That needs to change. There's no need to remove the right to bear arms for responsible, law-abiding citizens. There needs to be a comprehensive reform to the way we identify and acknowledge who is capable of responsibly owning a weapon.

reply to post by drwizardphd

There are currently stricter regulations on who can own and drive a car than there are on who can own and fire a weapon. T

That is a lie waiting periods for starters, the only FFL dealers are allowed to sell guns, and then the regulations of what a gun looks like,how many rounds it can hold,how many rounds can fire with the pull of a trigger, and when they can or can't be fired.

Every state of the union has gun laws in addtion to the federal ones for instance Florida has some of the toughest gun regulations on the books simple by firing a gun can get you 10 years pulling a gun on someone and firing it will get a person 20 to life.

reply to post by VikingWarlord

I believe it should be mandatory for all persons 12 years of age an older to go through a hunter's safety course and firearms proficiency classes. At 21, you should be able to open carry on your hip in plain view, so any would be criminal would think twice before pulling any crap. Why are so many people acting like scaredy cats about guns when cars kill more people every year. If you ban "assault" weapons, the criminal elements of society will have a field day knowing no one had the firepower to match them. Would you rather have all the gang bangers armed to the teeth and the citizenry disarmed?

No “LAW” prevents a criminal from doing anything.

A government that seeks to disarm its citizens does so for one purpose….control.

Our founders knew the score…..

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

link

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

George Washington

link

reply to post by drwizardphd
The fact remains that cars do kill more, so does falling off ladders for that manner and we don't ban those. Most people buy firearms to trap shoot, target shoot, or to hunt, so they aren't all specifically designed to kill efficiently. I do agree with you that not everyone should be allowed to own or use a firearm, and some measures do need to be taken to make sure that mentally ill persons cannot buy an arsenal.

reply to post by drwizardphd

Cars are built for the purpose of transporting people and goods.

Guns are built for the purpose of firing a high-speed kinetic projectile that penetrates causing injury and death.

Comparing the two, when referring to gun control, is a fallacious argument.

Your argument is fallacious.

You presume guns are designed to cause “injury and death” to people while not presuming the same of cars; neither is true. Cars and guns both serve a purpose and neither is intentionally designed to murder people. I can just as easily (actually more easily) run you over with a car than shoot you. Cars are more prevalent than guns in EVERY country.

Should we ban cars?

Who the hell is anyone to decide how many guns a person is "allowed" to own hell 2 guns is considered to be an "arsenal".

There are enough gun laws on the books as it is too many in fact that makes the second amendment a bastardization of it's original intent.

There is no person who gets to decide what a person can own or how many it is that simple because laws have never stopped criminal activity they never have.

Besides what i said in my opening post in this thread the interstate commerce clause "gives" the government the "authority" to regulate fireamrs that are sold over state lines.

Any weapon manufactured and sold within a specific state is exempt from federal law.

Originally posted by seabag

You presume guns are designed to cause “injury and death” to people while not presuming the same of cars; neither is true.

You are seriously going to make the argument that guns were not designed and manufactured with the intent to cause injury and death?

Guns were initially designed for, and have been overwhelmingly used throughout their history, as weapons.

I mean, seriously?


I'll pretend you're misinformed and not being purposefully disingenuous

The direct ancestor of the firearm is the fire-lance, a gunpowder-filled tube attached to the end of a spear and used as a flamethrower; shrapnel was sometimes placed in the barrel so that it would fly out together with the flames.[4][5] The earliest depiction of a gunpowder weapon is the illustration of a fire-lance on a mid-10th century silk banner from Dunhuang.[6] The Tê-An Shou Chhêng Lu, an account of the siege of De'an in 1132, records that Song forces used fire-lances against the Jurchens.

The Jurchens were people, fyi.

The oldest surviving gun, made of bronze, has been dated to 1288 because it was discovered at a site in modern-day Acheng District where the Yuan Shi records that battles were fought at that time; Li Ting, a military commander of Jurchen descent, led foot-soldiers armed with guns—including a Korean brigade—in battle to suppress the rebellion of the Christian Mongol prince Nayan.[10]

Once again, the intended targets of the oldest gun ever found were christian humans.

History of the Firearm




If you guys want to argue against gun control, that's fine. But don't skirt the issue here. Guns are weapons that are designed to kill. Just be honest about it if you want anyone to take you seriously.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


As for the illegal weaponry, yes the grenades were illegal.
As for the AR, I do not know if the victims claimed that the shooter was fieing full auto.
If he was, it is possible to get a full auto effect out of many semi auto weapons.
It is called bumpfire, it requires no modification to the weapon just a modification in how you hold it.
Although some can stay fairly accurate using this method, you don't have to be when your environment is so target rich.
This may be what he is thinking.
If so, it might show that he has not read all of the information available to him.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Oh don't get me wrong. I think you nailed him with his previous quotes from Massachusetts. I was just trying to add a moderate view after investigating the source video.

But I can see you have a personal emotional investment in this partisan-wise so I'm outtie.

If you're a moderate, I'm a grandma...

I think the last line of your post can apply to you too. Your are invested in defending that which
your defense covers, however veiled the attempt.

Moderator

Originally posted by seabag
the “anti-gun people” most definitely used this situation to promote their agenda (as usual). You’re completely disingenuous if you say otherwise. The media were all over the anti-gun angle (and ABC was also on the anti-Tea Party angle too) within hours!

Just sayin’

edit on 26-7-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

And the Pro Gun people used this to promote their agenda (as usual)

Hint

Guns are included in the conversation because they served as the instrument of death.
They are so often under scrutiny because their sole purpose is to kill, if a gun was used to sprout
flowers they would not be discussed when 12 people are murdered.

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by seabag

You presume guns are designed to cause “injury and death” to people while not presuming the same of cars; neither is true.

You are seriously going to make the argument that guns were not designed and manufactured with the intent to cause injury and death?

Guns were initially designed for, and have been overwhelmingly used throughout their history, as weapons.

I mean, seriously?

I almost spit my coffee reading that too -

Cars are designed to to kill people?

No wonder America elected G W B

two times,

on purpose.

huffing paint fumes and posting on the internet is an interesting combination,
I hear a distant banjo and wonder if my sister might actually be my mother's
cousin.

1 - I'll get this out of the way first ... Romney is inept and unquallified to be POTUS - IMHO.
2 - He is right, many of the weapons used were illegal .. the apartment bombs were illegal.
3 - He is right, changing the gun laws won't stop nutters from shooting up people.
4 - Even if Romney was talking about the guns and was totally wrong, we've seen Obama pull similar major gaffs. Obama & Romney. Same/Same in the inept/unqualified dept.

Politician voicing an opinion on a subject he knows nothing about? Shocker!

Why are so many people so ignorant yet so opinionated when it comes to firearms?

I get tired of all the "shoulder thing that goes up" and the "we need background checks" (as if NICS doesnt exist or something?) and the "private sellers arent required to call in checks" (when private sellers arent allowed to call in checks) and recently all our soldiers switched to AK's apparently according to the POTUS and now perfectly legal firearms bought a perfectly legal way inclusive of a background check somehow equated to "illegal."

Does he believe background checks predict future behavior? Is that his problem?

Why are they all so stupid and proud to talk about it!?!?!?!

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

It's just sad.

Not even in a political way...just in a human being way.

This isn't even about being politcal, or partisan, or right, or left...it is just about being a decent human being and taking the time to actually learn the facts about a huge tragedy in your own country.

I know he is busy getting ready to go watch his horse perform in the London Olympics...but come on Mitt...show some respect.

This is how I feel as well. If he is elected I feel like we are going to have a slightly more intelligent George W. Bush.