[Gundude]

Originally Posted by Acujeff

Gundude, you are not only a hypocrite but also a liar. Here are some other threads Gundude high jacked with the same nonsense:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show...8#post19102478

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthre...1#post19354819


You have never proved anything. You have made up false facts and interpretations. Nobody on GT has posted they agree with your 'facts", only that you are getting it wrong.

I'll put the text of the bill up against everybody on GT any day of the week. Whether anybody on GT agrees or not means nothing. The law says what it says. Everybody on GT combined can't change that.

[Gundude]

Originally Posted by Acujeff

Here is the amended law:
CHAPTER 150 AN ACT FURTHER REGULATING CERTAIN WEAPONS
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Se...004/Chapter150

What is the purpose of SECTION 1 of that amended law?:

SECTION 1. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the figure "(30)", in line 11, the following words:- as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.

[Acujeff]

Gundude, you are a hypocrite, liar and delusional. Gun owners who were here and involved in these issues in MA know you're totally wrong.

I've posted my analysis and documentation as well as previous threads answering your false allegations. Folks can reference them if they want to follow you down the rabbit hole.

As far as I am concerned you are desperately and purposely trying to scam gun owners to give Obama a 2nd term. It reinforces that covering up Obama's awful record and misrepresenting Romney's record is the only strategy of the Obama campaign, that you cannot defend Obama anti-2A record and that only Obama is the real threat to gun owners.

[Gundude]

Originally Posted by Acujeff

Gundude, you are a hypocrite, liar and delusional. Gun owners who were here and involved in these issues in MA know you're totally wrong.

I've posted my analysis and documentation as well as previous threads answering your false allegations. Folks can reference them if they want to follow you down the rabbit hole.

As far as I am concerned you are desperately and purposely trying to scam gun owners to give Obama a 2nd term. It reinforces that covering up Obama's awful record and misrepresenting Romney's record is the only strategy of the Obama campaign, that you cannot defend Obama anti-2A record and that only Obama is the real threat to gun owners.

Since you were there and involved in the issues, can you answer this one question?:

What is the purpose of SECTION 1 of the law Romney signed?

SECTION 1. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the figure "(30)", in line 11, the following words:- as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.

[Acujeff]

Already answered in Post #24 and the previous threads listed. Continually making the same false claims and interpretations to get attention does not warrant any further response.

[Gundude]

Originally Posted by Acujeff

Already answered in Post #24 and the previous threads listed. Continually making the same false claims and interpretations to get attention does not warrant any further response.

No you didn't. You presented general, secondhand talking points.

What specifically was the purpose of SECTION 1 of that law Romney signed?

SECTION 1. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the figure "(30)", in line 11, the following words:- as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.

[Gundude]

Let me help you out:

Before Romney's bill, Section 121 of chapter 140 said this:

“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30)...

The federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a), of course, is part of the federal AWB Clinton signed. SECTION 1 of Romney's bill changed Section 121 of chapter 140 to this:

“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994...

The federal AWB was expiring in 2004, and referencing it in general for the definition of "Assault weapon" was going to be legally problematic. Referencing specifically as appearing on September 13, 1994, preserved the definition of "Assault Weapon" thus preserving the MA Assault Weapon Ban. That was the purpose of SECTION 1 of the bill Romney signed.

Is there "anybody on GT", as Acujeff refers to you, who cares to dispute that?

[wjv]

deleted

[FFR Spyder GT]

Do gun owners owe Romney an apology?

Before or after he steals our guns?

[Gundude]

Originally Posted by Gundude

The federal AWB was expiring in 2004, and referencing it in general for the definition of "Assault weapon" was going to be legally problematic. Referencing specifically as appearing on September 13, 1994, preserved the definition of "Assault Weapon" thus preserving the MA Assault Weapon Ban. That was the purpose of SECTION 1 of the bill Romney signed.

Is there "anybody on GT", as Acujeff refers to you, who cares to dispute that?

I'll take the resounding silence as a "no". So we know Romney did sign a gun control bill.

The funny thing is, given the political climate in MA, there could be rational justification for that move. Maybe not for the "extreme" pro-gunners, but probably enough for the average gun guy. Kind of like Reagan signing the far worse machine gun ban.

But apparently that wasn't enough for GOAL (and by extension, its mouthpiece acujeff). By taking the ridiculous position that "Romney never signed any gun control", they threw away their opportunity to appeal to people's rational side, and instead made themselves look like fools. Maybe when the text of laws weren't so easily accessible on the Internet an argument like that might've flown, but c'mon, it's 2012. Bring your lies into the Internet age!

[Acujeff]

No further response is necessary. Your allegations are ridiculous.