the constitution Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says President Barack Obama wants to reshape the Supreme Court to soften gun rights, among other things. (April 13)

Subscribe to the Associated Press:

Download AP Mobile:

Associated Press on Facebook:

Associated Press on Twitter:

Associated Press on Google+:

Duration : 0:1:44

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

25 Responses to “Romney: Obama Doesn’t Protect Gun Owners’ Rights”

  1. Rattapax says:

    Well, that’s …
    Well, that’s ironclad logic…. Look at Harlem for example…there were tons of guns in Harlem but the community did not turn around until the City of New York inundated them with police and social programs. Guns don’t solve crime; police do. I know you don’t want to give in, but it is quite obvious.

  2. boognish593 says:

    where i’m from …
    where i’m from violent crime is very very rare and It’s hard to find a person that doesn’t own at least 6 guns. Btw I’ve never been robbed until i moved to a place with very few gun owners.

  3. gyrate4 says:

    This guy is an …
    This guy is an idiotic mormon, All religion is crazy, but read about the origins of the latter day saints. This is a cult which bred a congregation.

  4. Rattapax says:

    You think a machine …
    You think a machine gun is going to solve police brutality? Listen, everybody know that guns are legal in America, meaning that every home resides a potential gun owner, but people still rob houses. Moreover, the only way crime falls is police presence (not gun presence). There is no historical data that suggest that giving guns to citizens brings down crime. But there is data that shows otherwise for police presence.

  5. Fuunken says:

    lol, you ignored my …
    lol, you ignored my point. What if the people committing the crimes are the police? Like katrina, you had police officers kill and illegally disarm the citizens who then couldn’t protect themselves. Read John lott, more guns, less crime. Cold War is better than actual war. Answer the question now, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

  6. Rattapax says:

    Again, you ignore …
    Again, you ignore my point about stepping up police patrol when levels of crime are high. Bringing up Katrina actually helps my point more because if you remember, Bush took a lot of criticism for not getting help to the citizens. In desperate situations and poverty, violence arises, and it is governments job to remedy the situation. Read Thomas Hobbs: the more police surveillance, the less crime. Handing everybody a gun is nothing more than establishing a cold war between citizens.

  7. Fuunken says:

    Besides the police/ …
    Besides the police/military issue I brought up, semiauto with a detachable magazine includes the majority of handguns as well as plenty of popular shotguns and hunting rifles. Still, it must feel pretty nice to think so highly of yourself to falsely believe you know what is needed for self defense and all. I’m sure those people on the bridge after Katrina would have agreed with you too.

  8. Fuunken says:

    My counterargument …
    My counterargument is still valid, you made horrible assumptions that were in fact stupid, and don’t know guns well enough to have this discussion. Let me ask you this though since you believe police and military are the only ones who should be armed, what happens when your defending yourself against them? Who do you call when the people your supposed to call are the ones assaulting you?

  9. willypdyer says:

    Fewer Guns = Fewer …
    Fewer Guns = Fewer Gun Deaths: Period.

  10. Rattapax says:

    First off, I …
    First off, I didn’t make any stupid assumptions. My initial argument stemmed from police chiefs citing the “easy accesiblity of gun ownership” for the uptick in cop-killings. My point has been consistent throughout the discussion: there is no reason for anyone to own more than a hand gun. Everybody knows what that means, but I’ll break it down for you: a semiautomatic with a magazine fitted for the weapon. You had a counterargument which didn’t last, then you turned to semantics. Case closed.

  11. Fuunken says:

    I at first did go …
    I at first did go along, I assumed you were ignorant and that you meant common rifles readily available, but then you mentioned things that ruined my assumption, forcing me to be technical since you don’t know what your talking about so you understand the difference. I’m not evading anything and really? Losing when you make horrible generalizations and just stupid assumptions? Come back when you know what’s going on.

  12. Rattapax says:

    For the last time: …
    For the last time: it is pretty obvious what I am talking about when I write “hand gun” and “machine gun.” It is clearly not technical terminology, and you went along with the non-technical terminology until you started to lose the argument. You, then proceeded to become technical to evade the more pertinent issue. That is why you are playing semantics.

  13. Fuunken says:

    Again though, when …
    Again though, when 2 things are actually differen,t it isn’t semantics

  14. Fuunken says:

    Why don’t you …
    Why don’t you understand you don’t know enough about guns to know it isn’t semantics? Your lack of understanding about the basic functions is sad and invalidates your opinion because of your blatant ignorance. You know, 9/10(9.99../10 actually) crimes that happen with guns are hand guns. Why not ban them then? They are obviously more dangerous than anything else.

  15. Rattapax says:

    Can’t you see that …
    Can’t you see that you are just playing semantics with me. Point and case, there is not reason for an American citizen to own more than a hand gun.

  16. Fuunken says:

    Sadly, you are a …
    Sadly, you are a little kid. You don’t know much about guns, but here you are wanting to regulate something you understand very little about. Machine guns are NOT sold at regular stores, learn what a machine gun is first. With your stupid rules most hunting and varmint rifles would have to been banned as well. Just because it looks like something doesn’t mean it acts like it. More people would die with your nazi style rules than without. Deal with reality.

  17. willypdyer says:

    We can only hope.
    We can only hope.

  18. peptopro17 says:

    you never know what …
    you never know what a president that eats dog might do next. bans guns possibly.

  19. Rattapax says:

    You sound like a …
    You sound like a little kid trying to be pedantically precise to escape the reality of the point that no one needs more than a hand gun to protect a home. Police officers are dying, and CNN showed today video tape of a break in at a gun store where criminals got away with stealing machine guns that will kill people. The damage would have been mitigated if only hand guns were legal to sell.

  20. Fuunken says:

    lol, if you don’t …
    lol, if you don’t understand that the difference between a machine gun, an assault rifle, and what you can own as a civilian isn’t semantics? Then your ignorance is waaaay beyond what I can try to pull you back from. What loopholes? You obviously don’t know enough about guns to understand it isn’t semantics though, so learn first, and then we’ll talk once you understand. How can you make wild claims about guns when you don’t know very much about them?

  21. Rattapax says:

    You’re an idiot. …
    You’re an idiot. Our entire conversation, you did nothing but run to loopholes and finally semantics. Get real.

  22. Fuunken says:

    Also, what is an …
    Also, what is an assault rifle then? A gun that looks scary? lol

  23. Fuunken says:

    Legally, police and …
    Legally, police and firefighters don’t have to help you. Fact. Fact proven by precedent. In one case, the firefighters did answer the call and just watched the guys house burn down. Your entire argument is faulty, so finding loopholes is redundant. It’s become clear to me you don’t know what a machine is, your ignorance though is still unacceptable since you have access to a computer. Your last sentence is pure opinion, bile at best.

  24. Fuunken says:

    LoL, I’m prior …
    LoL, I’m prior service, it isn’t semantic. So you don’t know what a machine gun is. I do know what your talking about ,but that’s only because to many ignorant people exist that talk about firearms. I don’t understand why anyone who doesn’t really know what they are talking about think they can make an informed decision on it.

  25. Rattapax says:

    Machine gun: …
    Machine gun: automatic weapon or a semiautomatic assault rifle. Those should be illegal. Don’t get semantic on me. You know well what I’m talking about when I use the terms “machine gun” and “hand gun.”

Leave a Reply