Romney - No gun control because of Tim McVeigh and OKC bombings - WHAT?!?!?!

First of all note that this thread id NOT ABOUT GUN CONTROL. Let's not turn it into an argument about that. It's about someone wanting to be POTUS Not having a clue!

Romney does it again. Opens his mouth when he has no clue what he is talking about. This time, he states that there should be no new gun control after the recent shootings because when Tim McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma, they didn't make any new laws...

..ooops, except they did, to control the sale of ammonium nitrate.

“The real point has to relate to individuals that are deranged, distressed, and to find them, to help them, and to keep them from carrying out terrible acts,” he added. “Timothy McVeigh. How many people did he kill? With fertilizer?” “With products that can be purchased legally anywhere in the world, he was able to carry out vast mayhem. Somehow thinking that laws against the instruments of violence would make violence go away, I think is misguided.” In fact, a law regulating ammonium nitrate sales was signed by President George W. Bush 12 years after the Oklahoma City Bombing. The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007 required the licensing of ammonium nitrate facilities and registration for buyers.

Romney goofs again - forgets ammonium nitrate law after McVeigh bombing

What are you talking about? Romney is spot on. People can and do commit acts of terrorism by legally purchasing items. Passing a law 12 years after an attack didn't help the people at OKC did it? Those kinds of laws don't prevent terrorism, they are just after the fact measures to make people feel good.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
What are you talking about? Romney is spot on. People can and do commit acts of terrorism by legally purchasing items. Passing a law 12 years after an attack didn't help the people at OKC did it? Those kinds of laws don't prevent terrorism, they are just after the fact measures to make people feel good.

No he isn't spot on. You don't cry we need a law when there already is a law regulating it.

reply to post by jjkenobi


You just aren't getting the point. This thread isn't about arguing if gun control or new laws will have any difference, this thread is just showing that someone who wants to be POTUS, really doesn't have a clue about what's going on...saying nothing was done after the McVeigh bombings is totally wrong...I think this guy just makes it up as he goes along.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
What are you talking about? Romney is spot on. People can and do commit acts of terrorism by legally purchasing items. Passing a law 12 years after an attack didn't help the people at OKC did it? Those kinds of laws don't prevent terrorism, they are just after the fact measures to make people feel good.

Agreed. While I don't personally care much for Romney, his point here is correct.

The lack of attacks using ammonium nitrate after the OKC bombing prior to the restrictions being passed in '07 seems to illustrate that it wasn't much of a clear and present danger in the first place, and the 9/11 attack seems to underline the fact that if somehow you limit one option, another will present itself - even had ammonium nitrate been outlawed in its entirety right after the OKC bombing, those planes still made great missiles to crash into WTC.

Basically, a bomber or 'terrorist' will always find a way. Until you change society or people themselves, bad habits such as violence will always occur, regardless of restrictions - however oppressive.

reply to post by Praetorius


You too are missing the point of this thread.

Originally posted by sensfan
reply to post by jjkenobi

 

You just aren't getting the point. This thread isn't about arguing if gun control or new laws will have any difference, this thread is just showing that someone who wants to be POTUS, really doesn't have a clue about what's going on...saying nothing was done after the McVeigh bombings is totally wrong...I think this guy just makes it up as he goes along.

sensfan, perhaps I'm just not catching it - where exactly did he say nothing was done after the OKC bombing?

It seems to me that the quotes in the article don't do much to support the article's claims?

Originally posted by sensfan
reply to post by Praetorius

 

You too are missing the point of this thread.

No, I understand the point quite clearly - unless it's just too early and I haven't had enough coffee, however...I think the point's wrong?

Please clarify for me, thanks. Appears the quotes are out of context and you're instead missing the point of the quotes (?).

reply to post by sensfan

saying nothing was done after the McVeigh bombings is totally wrong...

Well, you are going to have to show me the point because I can't understand either. Saying that 12 years later something was passed isn't the same as passing something right after the incident IMO.

I never heard him say 'no laws were created after the OKC bombing' or anything like the source alleges.

He said McVeigh was able to create his weapons using legal household items (true at the time) including fertilizer so more laws aren't going to prevent crazy people doing crazy things.

Romney never said there should be no new gun control laws because we didn't institute new laws after the OKC bombing as some form of precedence.

I've no skin in this fight, being not in the US, but isn't he sort of right on this? Nothing was done was it?

Looks like they waited 12 years to pass the law. Or am I reading it wrong?

Well we all know Romney doesn't know what he's talking about, I believe if the turnout at this election is below a certain percentage, let's say 33%, of registered and registerable voters, we throw out both Obama and romney, let bills that make it through the house and senate sit on the presidents desk for a year and try another two different, more acceptable, more knowledgeable candidates to run for a three year term in 2013. And so on if an acceptable candidate doesn't show up and rally the voters appropriately.


I should add, most politicians are really just corporate interest talking heads. Obama and Romney are both included in this group.

We are apparently reading the same article very differently. I opened the thread assuming Romney said something else like his recent comment about the Colorado weapons being illegal when nothing about any of it broke a law to buy. He has made a few goofs....but then, comparing for relative goof records in this race isn't even fair for the other guy so why go there? This case?

“The real point has to relate to individuals that are deranged, distressed, and to find them, to help them, and to keep them from carrying out terrible acts,” he added. “Timothy McVeigh. How many people did he kill? With fertilizer?”

“With products that can be purchased legally anywhere in the world, he was able to carry out vast mayhem. Somehow thinking that laws against the instruments of violence would make violence go away, I think is misguided.”

(Source - OP Link)

Now I can see how the point he made infuriates the other side to the point of blowing steam out the ears. I've caused that very reaction myself in saying almost those same words with slightly different context.

The point is valid though. Laws don't stop killers and you can't outlaw psychopathic behavior. Psychopaths do not care about our laws our what we think of their idea of reality. That's why they are psycho.

So where is he saying what the thread headline suggests? Seems to me....He's being a little too 'Captain Obvious' in what he says here and that gets a bit old. Apparently the point is still entirely missed by those searching for new laws to write and pass though. Laws don't solve anything. We have ROOMS full of books, stuffed with laws now.

Originally posted by sensfan
First of all note that this thread id NOT ABOUT GUN CONTROL. Let's not turn it into an argument about that. It's about someone wanting to be POTUS Not having a clue!

Romney does it again. Opens his mouth when he has no clue what he is talking about. This time, he states that there should be no new gun control after the recent shootings because when Tim McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma, they didn't make any new laws...

..ooops, except they did, to control the sale of ammonium nitrate.

“The real point has to relate to individuals that are deranged, distressed, and to find them, to help them, and to keep them from carrying out terrible acts,” he added. “Timothy McVeigh. How many people did he kill? With fertilizer?” “With products that can be purchased legally anywhere in the world, he was able to carry out vast mayhem. Somehow thinking that laws against the instruments of violence would make violence go away, I think is misguided.” In fact, a law regulating ammonium nitrate sales was signed by President George W. Bush 12 years after the Oklahoma City Bombing. The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007 required the licensing of ammonium nitrate facilities and registration for buyers.

Romney goofs again - forgets ammonium nitrate law after McVeigh bombing

edit on 27-7-2012 by sensfan because: (no reason given)

He is correct, 12 years is not "after". Last I checked people have still comitted bombings, so he is once again correct that laws do not prevent violence. This is actually a case where he is 100% correct, which is rare.