Defensive Carry banner

GOP calls for broader gun rights, unlimited clips

2K views 20 replies 14 participants last post by  kerberos 
#1 ·
#3 ·
I didn't write it...I just passed it on. No matter what they call it....I like the intent.

It could have been worse if they had used a term like "bullet holder thingies". :rofl:

BTW Heard Clint Eastwood is the surprise speaker at the RNC Convention tonight. I am looking forward to that.:smile:
 
#6 ·
This is a good policy to back in my opinion. It will be a polarizing one though. Few are undecided on this issue as far as I can tell. It may win a few supporters at the poles, but it also may push a few away that would have otherwise voted Republican.....
 
#8 · (Edited)
The 2004 GOP platform said "law-abiding citizens" should have the right "to own firearms in their homes for self-defense." This year's platform supports "the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be."
If the reporter had decided to make the highlighted statement above the headline it might of garnered support from even non-Republicans. But I'm thinking that was not the intent of the article .

EDIT: Even my most liberal of friends believe that they have a right to defend themselves.

Michael
 
#12 ·
The 'official ' stance of the Republicans is ; no new gun laws , no laws on guns that will do nothing to stop crime, and no laws that just punish law-abiding citizens.

I hear a lot of people concerned about Romney's 2A stance. Ryan is strong 2A, and the GOP isn't going to let Romney try to do anything stupid. I don't think he woudl ever even try. The other party however, have a whole different position and view on things. Nothing they propose is going to make any of us 'safer', is going to do anything that will stop murders and violence in the streets. They will try to accomplish it thru regulations and the ATF, because they know they can't get any of it passed if they try thru Congress.

Mass shootings , such as the one in Aurora, was a posted "gun free zone" .... and the perp knew no one would be able to shoot back. Seems they always pick "gun free areas" ............so they may be crazy, but not stupid ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: beararms
#17 ·
...
Mass shootings , such as the one in Aurora, was a posted "gun free zone" ....
I can neither confirm nor deny that. The national media has made more inaccurate statements about CO law than factual. I personally have yet to see a "No firearms" sign on any business in the Denver metro area, let alone anywhere in CO. Not saying that there are not any, I just have not seen any. Those signs do not carry the weight of law.

Other items of inaccuracy - I have yet to find a movie theater in CO that serves alcohol, again, no restrictions in place in CO law for guns in places that serve alcohol.
Guns not allowed in places that charge admission - up to the discretion of the property owner, again not in CO law.

I don't do sports, but I doubt that the stadiums that do have metal detectors are in compliance with CO law.

The shooter wore body armor, so evidently he had some concern that he would be on a two way range.
 
#13 ·
If someone isn't going to vote Republican because of this...they were not going to any way because of the social issues (pro life ect.).
 
#18 ·
I personally think its ridiculous!

And yes I am prepared to be flamed, so flame on. Most of the country has no stomach to change gun laws so why in the world would Republicans give them a reason??? IN MY OPINION, there is no good reason, other than paranoid preppers or SHTF nuts, for more than 30 round magazines, clips or bullet holding thingies.

To my knowledge the US military uses only 30 round magazines? I have never heard reasonable argument for more than 30 rounds unless it’s from a wannabe zombie hunt or some guy that has a house full of tactical pants, pens and flashlights.

The downside to such an issue, regular people that have no dog in this fight will find themselves asking why would law abiding people need this, they likely think 10 or 20 or 25 is plenty. They will perk up and think mass shooters could have 60 or 100 rounds!

They will vote, we will lose, and we will turn millions of people who currently don’t care into anti-gun voters


PS… I have voted for one Democrat in my 50 years life and that that was for a local sheriff.
 
#19 ·
There it is again........Why do we NEED this? Why does this ugly monster continue to show it's head? This is not about our needs, it's about rights. Are you aware that the military uses belt fed weapons as well? Are you aware that the Aurora shooter used a 100 round drum mag? We already have access to high cap mags (in some/most states). The hope is to regain this in all states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kerberos
#20 ·
My point is about the greater good for gun owners. In todays world I feel its far smarter to push for better carry laws than pushing for things that make us look like what many non gun owners fear the most.

The army has tanks too but I don't need one.... As for belt fed, I think we both know I was talking about rifles carried by every soldier, if you didn't get that, I apologize.
 
#21 ·
Points made on the premise of the "greater good" and to allay the "fears" of the sheep will probably not get much support here...

Just sayin'

:hand15:
 
  • Like
Reactions: phreddy
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top