Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Right here.RoyGBiv wrote:Where's the dead horse smilie when you need it...tacticool wrote:I'm glad I can carry in National Parks now. That's something Bush and his daddy didn't do.
Do you seriously not know the history of what happened? You are giving credit to Obama???tacticool wrote:Right here.RoyGBiv wrote:Where's the dead horse smilie when you need it...tacticool wrote:I'm glad I can carry in National Parks now. That's something Bush and his daddy didn't do.
The fact remains. I's legal now and wasn't when "W" was running the show.
That may be embarrassing for the GOP but save your excuses and show me results.
Get over yourself. YOU ARE WRONG. The Bush administration issued a rule through the Dept. of Interior allowing licensed concealed carry in National Parks. These rules were added to the Federal Register and WERE IN EFFECT WHILE "W" WAS STILL PRESIDENT.tacticool wrote:No. I'm saying exactly what I wrote. Please don't try to "interpret" it like some living-document theory.
Please explain what you believe that a potential President Romney (with a potential majority Republican Congress, both House and Senate) would do to curtail or block the exercise of our 2A rights. I know some about what occurred when he was the Governor of Massachusetts, which is known to be a VERY liberal state, even for that region. I understand that he probably isn't the biggest fan of ARs, AKs, and other "non-sporting" weapons the way some of us are. However, I also do not believe him to be IDEOLOGICALLY opposed to the ownership of firearms by the average American citizen; I DO believe that the man currently occupying the White House IS IDEOLOGICALLY opposed to the ownership of firearms by the average American citizen.tacticool wrote:My bad. It was so brief that I forgot that W changed an administrative rule during his last year in office.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13889&p=160086#p160079" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As predicted back then, because he supported changing an administrative rule instead of passing an actual law, it could be changed back easily. Now it's an actual law, so it would have to be repealed by a new law instead of an administrative rule.
I apologize to George W Bush and his supporters.
No apologies to Romney and his supporters.
If that was intended as a reply to my question, it still doesn't answer it. I'll give you a for instance: during the Clinton administration, their dislike of firearms and 2A rights were evident in the "war" they waged on FFLs...the number of FFLs decreased sharply during those years, and that is aside from the AWB of 1994. THAT is the sort of thing I am talking about. So far, during the current administration, thankfully it has been simply rhetoric, aside from the failure of Fast and Furious to become a justification to re-instate the assault weapons ban. I have no doubt in my mind that they WOULD do so if they thought they could get away with it but the public mood has run against that sort of thing. So, my question still stands: what do folks think that a potential President Romney, with a Republican majority House and Senate, will do to curtail or interfere with our firearms rights?gringo pistolero wrote:A leopard doesn't change his spots nor skunks their stripes.
