“I believe in the Second Amendment,” President  Obama said last night in his second debate, and then revealed his true colors.  (I thank the sincere lady who asked the question.) Obama said,”… enforce laws we’ve already got, keep guns out of hands of criminals…I share your belief that weapons designed for war theater do not belong on the streets.”   He admitted he wants to reintroduce the “assault weapons ban,” and admitted that in Chicago the bad guys are using cheap handguns instead of AK47s.  He wants a “Comprehensive strategy” to get “automatic weapons that kill in amazing numbers” out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Here at the blog, we’ve gone around with some gun owners who insisted that because the President had not aggressively gone after them in his first term, he wouldn’t in the second.  I warned you that he WOULD as soon as he was re-elected. Shouldn’t be a surprise: we warned you here that it’s right there in the Democratic party platform.

It’s good to see him out of the closet now. Expect his “assault weapons ban” to cover any shotgun which “can be retrofitted” with an extended magazine…which means about every pump gun since the late 19th Century, and almost every autoloading shotgun, like your great grandpa’s Browning Automatic Five.  Expect it to ban pistols and rifles which “can be” used with high capacity magazines…which is just about all of them, from that same great grandpa’s World War I .45 to the Remington 740 series, one of America’s most popular deer rifles for sixty or more years.  And so on.  If possession of existing specimens is grandfathered but no new ones can be transferred, that means you can’t sell the ones you have or will them to your kids.

Romney says he’s not in favor of new legislation, noting automatic weapons are “already illegal.” Though the Republican apparently doesn’t realize that in most states law-abiding citizens can own Class III weapons, that’s nowhere near the Democrat’s level of ignorance in not being able to tell automatic (machine guns) from semiautomatic.  Romney brought up Fast and Furious at last, pointing out that Obama used executive privilege. Obama managed to dance away from that one: clever style, but a bit disingenuous. Why was Romney no longer in favor of banning assault weapons? He claimed pro and anti came together for the bill.  “It was a mutually agreed upon piece of legislation,” he said. (Sniff. Sniff. Yes, I believe I catch a whiff of disingenuousness here too.)

Discuss it with your gun-owning friends.  The President has just said that if re-elected, he’ll bring us back down a well-trod and stupid path that interferes with gun owners’ civil rights.


  1. Funny thing Mas. On Monday my 10 year old son, my dad, and I headed to the range. It was the first time my son shot through a couple mags in my AR15 unassisted. He loved it. Dad is old school about Barbie guns, but enjoyed the event.

    Anyway, we were watching the debate last night when the assault weapons ban came up. While AKs were in the spotlight, I told my son that he shot an assault rifle yesterday. He was stunned. First that guns like my AR were what all the excitement was about, and second, “that’s stupid.”

    So I have to agree with a ten year old. The assault weapons ban is stupid.

    But regarding the debate on guns, I don’t trust either of the suits.

  2. Never forget that Joe Biden helped to write the original “assault weapons” ban in the 90’s. Bets on what he’ll do this time, what with the Current Occupant saying to cheering crowds that he’s love to do things without Congress?

    When that legislative farce passed in 1994, many of my non firearms-owning co workers said “Good! Now machine guns are illegal!” and I had to break it to them that they had been illegal for decades and that the ban was passed based on lies.

    Buy more ammo, but only with cash.

  3. I’m surprised you are giving Romney a pass for his comments. Single parents are the cause of gun violence? Saying he’d ok gun ban legislation as long as it was a bipartisan effort? Sounds a lot worse to me than anything Obama said.

  4. Really. Was there ever any doubt.

    The prez is not disingenuous. He’s a liar.

    A big-government socialist who holds government uber-alles policies and believes that the only people who should be armed are his people.

    He doesn’t even believe that the Marine guards at endangered embassies should be armed, or at least have bullets.

  5. Let’s also not forget that this president has shown that he’s willing to enact anything through executive order that he can’t get enacted through congress.

    If Obama can’t get an “assault weapon” ban passed through the regular channels, there’s no reason to believe that he won’t enact a ban through the back door, like he did with reporting of multiple long gun sales.

  6. Here at the blog, we’ve gone around with some gun owners who insisted that because the President had not aggressively gone after them in his first term, he wouldn’t in the second. I warned you that he WOULD as soon as he was re-elected. Shouldn’t be a surprise: we warned you here that it’s right there in the Democratic party platform.

    Look, I don’t have a crystal ball, and I don’t claim to know anything more about Obama’s mind than the next guy, but I think this is just political talking out of both sides of his mouth, trying to appease both sides of the gun-rights issue. The idea that he’s suddenly going to pick up this issue that he has barely even touched in the last four years just seems so outlandish to me. And I’ll put $5 (which, if I recall correctly, is the prize for beating him at the LFI-1 qualification shoot) where my mouth is, if Mas would like to take the bet. $5 says that in his next term, BO will not sign a renewal of the AWB.

    I didn’t beat him in the qualification shoot. Here’s my second bite at the apple 😉

  7. Romney’s answer was FAR from ideal, but Obama’s was a complete disaster. In one breath he supports the 2nd amendment. In the next, he doesn’t want weapons designed for war. So he doesn’t have even the slightest clue what the second amendment is for. Not only that, but there’s an actual record to look at. Obama has nominated two justices to SCOTUS who went against the second amendment when given the chance. We would have to assume the court’s balance of power would tip decisively in that direction were Obama reelected.

    When Romney said automatic weapons are already illegal and should stay that way, his heart was in the right place, but clearly he’s not a gun guy. It was an instance of what George Will calls Romney’s speaking conservative as a second language.

    For those of us who are firm in our beliefs, general elections are frustrating things to watch, as the candidates inevitably compete to pander to uninformed moderates. But think about how this plays. With that nonsense about two sides coming together for a state-level AWB in Mass, Romney gets to soften his image a bit for the non-gun-owners who may be ready for a change in direction on economic issues, yet gun owners have no doubt who their choice is. So his less than ideal answer from our point of view may be absolutely optimal as election strategy.

  8. If Obama re-elected the counrty gun rights are gon go way of how California treats gun owers there now. It gone suck bad as that sounds. It sound like Obama want cheap gone ban to trouble is the goverment has no idea what cheap gun is could ban your right buy used gun or gun not aprove on list of guns like state of California. If Obama re-elected are gun rights are gone be one road to California. If Obama is re-lelected get pick out next three supreme court justices.

  9. That’s not even the worst part, Mas. If Obama remains in office, he’ll likely get 2 supreme court pics, which could overturn all the progress the 2nd amendment has made in the past several years. Even without congress he can use executive privilege to halt any and all firearms and ammunition imports he likes, and freeze approvals of suppressors, SBRs and SBSs. I don’t expect an anti-gun congress to be voted in this session, thank goodness, so actually getting the AWB re-instated would be bound to be some work, (what with all the non-partisan studies proving that it had exactly zero impact in reducing violent crime) but he can do so much else to hurt us otherwise.

    Also: Why won’t a politician solidly define exactly what an “Assault weapon” is? Because it’s whatever they don’t like at the time. If you define it you can’t add to it later. Believe me, they want to be able to add to it.

  10. Obama gets 4 more years to try to destroy this country? He supports the Second Amendment?

    Obama said 4 years ago that if things were not better in 4 years, he would not run again. They are not! If you think they are, you are not very bright.

    I am tired of his excuses! Give Obama 4 morte years to finish wrecking this country? I don’t think so!

  11. Oh No! I guess the NRA will now have to degrade our Dear Leader’s pro-gun rating from A+ to just an A for this statement during the 2nd debate.

  12. If Obama were elected, it would not merely be more of the same that we suffered over the last nearly four years. Keep foremost in your mind that he would be able to select Supreme Court judges that would remain in power for as long as they live. And you know that he would select the most radical left wing candidates possible. THAT is the greatest threat to our rights and way of life.

  13. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama wins, that he would bypass the Congress (out of necessity) and ban various guns via a UN treaty – that is the silent weapon he has…

  14. Romney’s answer was the same as the President’s, just in slightly different clothing. Romney agreed he would sign an “AWB” if it came to him with bipartisan support. The man is no different, policy-wise, than Obama.

    A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama.

  15. Mas,
    A gentle clarification from one of those “who insisted that because the President had not aggressively gone after them in his first term, he wouldn’t in the second.”

    Obama is anti-gun, I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. What’s being said isn’t that he wouldn’t vote for a new AWB if it crossed his desk but that politically it’s unlikely the bill would ever make it that far. Let me ask you and other readers a not-so-hypothetical-question.
    • Democrats want to reinstate the AWB per their party platform.
    • Republicans want to push for national carry per their platform.

    Do you honestly believe that either of these events is likely, beyond the hype that comes with a presidential election? I fear one and desire the other, but I don’t have any confidence that meaningful progress will be made on either.

    What I and others object too is the blatant fear mongering that’s been used to try and bludgeon us into voting for a single candidate based on one issue. As has been said, Biden is proud of his role in crafting the first AWB, but if you listen to Mit in the last debate, he seemed damned proud of his role in crafting Massachusetts AWB—with bipartisan support no less. In a recent interview Ryan said that we have “Good strong gun laws.” I’m sorry, I simply have no faith that either of these choices is truly going to work for second amendment rights or that they are paying anything other than lip service to their party base.
    According to the internets, I’m supposed to take everything the President says as proof that he’s about to embark on an anti-gun crusade of epic proportions. Then I’m not supposed to believe everything Mit says, because he has to do what he has to do to appeal to moderates to get elected. I was listening to that debate on Tuesday. Both candidates tried to distinguish themselves from each other. But both spoke favorably about an AWB. Mit actually signed one and doesn’t regret it. I’m very sorry, but these are two candidates that represent a distinction without a difference as far as 2a is concerned. They are both political opportunists who will do whatever benefits them, and that includes signing an AWB or the right to carry in national parks…check their record, you’ll see what I mean.
    Cordially yours,
    The loyal opposition

  16. I have felt all along that we could not trust Obama with our gun rights even though he promised otherwise and now with a slip of the tongue the real Obama comes out. More of the worthless assault rifle ban resurrecting. Lets hope the Romney/Ryan ticket is the clear winner on election night because we do not need another assault rifle ban at a time of talk of civil unrest, world wars, terrorists in our country trying to kill us… It is every American’s right to have the weapon of choice to defend your homestead, your family.. and lets not forget the “BIG PAIN” of the 10 round magazine capacity was in the many weapons we gun people like to own for recreational shooting and personal defense. Please people get out and vote! We do not need that worthless law again!!!!!!!

  17. With GREAT sadness, I do believe that one day they (the Liberals & Socialists) will push things in the US into more of the direction of CANADA…

    No Concealed Carry / No ‘Black Guns’ / a thorough ‘Restricted’ class (meaning pretty much everything except long-guns) / No training on tactical allowed… etc…

    I feel like one day they WILL take our guns away, no matter how hard or long the fight. They just never seem to ever stop or slow-down their pushing, even after years of proof showing that when the guns leave the hands of the good-guys – they explode within the hands of the bad-guys.

    What on Earth is the answer. The founders of this Republic KNEW that the “Over-Lords” would try again-in time… and they are patient, 300 years? 400 years??? What do we do?

  18. Remember Rosa Parks? Anything the black 1/8 of Americans could do successfully, the white 3/4 can do a lot more successfully.
    Remember Prohibition’s collapse? Remember the collapse of CB radio licensing? Also due to mass civil disobedience – mainly by white middle-class America.

  19. To protect all of the other amendments and rights of a free people – not primarily for self defense.

    To protect them from whom?

    First and foremost a tyrannical government.

    It was believed by the founding fathers that a government would fear and respect an armed people willing to fight for their God given rights. The first thing every government that wants full control of its people has done is take away their ability to fight. Our government has effectly done this by banning the types of weapons you are allowed to possess. Because of the inequality between the governmental force and the civil force the populace can no longer challenge a tyrannical government.

    The only weapon we have left is our vote. To change the direction this country is headed we have to change the people at the helm. People of this mindset have come together in the tea party. We cannot let that ember of hope die. We need more common sense people to steer this ship away from going over the waterfall.

    Our gun rights are slowly being stripped from us and once they are gone there is nothing stopping our voting right from going next. A democratic governor has all ready called for that very thing. Let’s suspend the elections and give President Obama the time and power he needs to fix this country in the way he sees fit.

    People don’t believe it can happen just as everyone didn’t believe the United States could be brought to her knees on September 10th. A quick study of history should change your mind.

    Support and defend the Constitution of the United States. You primary weapon is your vote. Use it wisely.

  20. Opps. I missed the first line of my comment in my cut and paste. It was:

    Why was the second amendment written?

  21. @ MD Mat

    I expressed my own belief that an assault weapons bill is unlikely to get through the current or next congress. However if you read my post, there is PLENTY that Obama can do via executive order, UN treaties and other actions once he is no longer concerned with being re-elected.

    This is the same guy who signed off on a plan to discredit gun dealers by explicitly allowing thousands of guns into the hands of known murders in Mexico. (and I will continue to believe this until he stops refusing to release documents that may or may not prove otherwise) I wouldn’t put anything past him at this point.

  22. Well, I don’t know. Obama was responding to a question that he probably would rather not have faced, because I just don’t think it’s one of his priorities. He has constituents, too, and has to throw them just as much red meat as Romney has to throw to HIS constituents.

  23. Off topic here Mas, I was just reading an article by Cody S. Alderson on a USCCA email and he said Harold Fish passed away on 8sep12. I didn’t know if you had heard. A shame.

  24. At Sian,
    I tend to agree with you in principal. The president can’t use the UN to bypass congress; anything he signs is purely symbolic till the senate ratifies the agreement. (Which is not to say that if this election goes badly for conservatives that it couldn’t happen; just that he can’t do it alone.)
    As for F&F, I feel the same there as I do about the Libyan attack on our embassy. Whether or not the president was directly involved in the screw up is immaterial at this point. In both cases he has moved to muddy the waters and avoid holding responsible public servants accountable. I don’t really care now whether he knew at the time. By working to cover both debacles up, he has made himself an accessory after the fact.

    My frustration lies more in the fact that people keep telling me who I should vote for because candidate x is a terrible gun grabber and candidate y as a champion of the second amendment. I don’t see it, and as both parties continue to misrepresent their views and goals, I become increasingly annoyed at the entire process. It isn’t necessary to make our president any more of a threat than he actually is, there’s plenty there to dislike. By the same token, making Romney out to be better than he is, is just as offensive to me. As with most such subjects, your mileage may vary.

  25. The US signed a “Treaty Ratifacation Agreement” in Vienna, Austira, back in 1980, which states we are by “default signatories” to any US approved UN Treaty. All this takes is our UN AMB and the Prez signature to put the Small Arms Treaty in effect. I just bought a Ithaca Tactical 12 GA, 20″ (8rd mag)and am stocking up on Flechette ammo by the 100’s.

    Molon Labe

  26. Did Romney sign or extend an assault weapons ban while governor of Massachusetts?

    Did the gun ban legislation signed in 2004 pass with support from both sides of the issue?

    I’ve been trying to find answers to these questions and came across a recent article which brings facts from the debate:


    Most of the information comes from a press release from the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL), the official state firearms association in Massachusetts:


    The fact is, when Romney entered office, Massachusetts already had a permanent assault weapons ban in place. It didn’t need renewal and the political climate was such that removal of the AWB was out of the question. The problem was that, with the sunset of the federal ban, the definition of “assault weapon” became ambiguous in the state ban, and in MA, ambiguous is never decided in favor of gun owners.

    Several anti-gun legislators came along and announced the need to make the ban permanent (it already was permanent; this was fear-mongering to advance their agenda). They used the sunset of the federal ban as an excuse to expand the state ban. GOAL worked with Romney to gut the proposed bill and to make permanent EXEMPTIONS to the ban along with other concessions.

    In all, goal says:

    “GOAL had more access to this administration than any other since the days of Governor Ed King in 1979.”


    “During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.

    “Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law.”

    It is obvious to me that Romney isn’t particularly knowledgeable about guns and gun issues. But he’s not anti-gun, and he’s on record as both supporting national CCW reciprocity and opposing an assault weapons ban. Obama has the opposite stance, and he has a record of restricting gun rights whenever he has the chance and political cover to do so.

    This election cycle, our best choice is clearly Romney.

  27. http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/pdf/ha/cprccc/cprccc_e.pdf

    The above link is to a 1980 report on a UN Convention restricting “conventional” weapons. I admit, most of the reading is very DRY, but if you read closely, you will notice the dangerous language and tone (not to mention psychology) of the UN apparatus. The author makes reference to member States objecting on the basis of “Sovereignty”. What, are you kidding me?? Can they be any more blatantly open about their “One World Government” plan? The time has long come and gone for the US to get out of the UN and tell them to “pack their trash” (as my old D.I. used to say), and move to some other country that is willing to tolerate their B.S. and pay their bills. BTW, just for kicks, check out the UN.org web-site for more eye opening disclosures.

  28. I read the tag line of Mas’ post, “The Prez is out of the closet.” Then I read the rest of the post, and if anything, I was a little disappointed. Ah well.

  29. Look at his court appoints and explain to me how he has not gone after guns in his first term? Some people just can’t handle it, when confronting thier own denial.

  30. While I dont doubt the president would love to institute an AWB, I think his statements are the same as Bush’s when he claimed he would sign an AWB that congress sent to his desk…rhetoric. Bush knew and Obama knows he isnt going to get an AWB through congress. Congress doesnt seem likely to get a whole lot more liberal this election and has proven remarkably resistant to anti-gun hysteria throughout the mass shootings during Obama’s presidency (aside from the usual suspects that no one listens to anyway).

    I am not saying that we should be complacent, and letting Obama nominate two more justices could be a disaster for liberty in general, but the AWB things is window dressing.

    The biggest thing is now we need to make sure he is voted out. Our politicians need that stimulus-response. Make an anti-gun comment, you get tossed out on your ear.

  31. You guys need to climb down off the ledge…Obama has done nothing but make the gun industry rich. This whole NRA fabricated “he’s gonna take our guns away” crap is BS. You bought it hook line and sinker…you’re paying your NRA dues out of fear, paying 2 to 3 times what ammo should really cost and 30 % more for weapons across the board. All because you thought/think he MIGHT do something with the AWB! You’ve been had and the gun industry/lobby is running all the way to the bank.

  32. I agree with samue23. Mas you are an the son of Arab immigrants. You should know better. These same posters would have lynched you just as quick as other mud people.

  33. MAS, your an amazing person , loved your videos, especially your JUDICIOUS USE OF FORCE. But i have a serious question. one that many dodge or look away. Do we as free citizens practice civil disobedience in the AWB if passed? I expect it to pass, if it does , what do you think will happen , who will enforce it,?