Romney on Meet the Press: Gun rights/immigration positions under fire
Update: Romney wrongly claims NRA endorsement.
***
Mitt Romney was on NBC’s Meet the Press this morning. While his tears (big Drudge headline and photo) seem to be garnering the biggest headlines, there were more worrisome moments during the interview. Philip Klein at the American Spectator blog writes:
–On guns, he may have gotten himself in trouble, in an attempt to diffuse the flip-flop label, by standing by his support for the Brady Bill and the 1994 assault weapons ban. He even said he would have signed an extension of the assault weapons ban when it expired in 2004. He also employed the odd phrase “weapons of unusual lethality” to describe the type of guns he would ban.
–On immigration, Romney was utterly Clintonian. He said that when in November 2005 he described the Bush/McCain approach to immigration as “reasonable” and “quite different” from amnesty, he wasn’t endorsing the proposal, but just describing it. He hadn’t formulated his own position on immigration at the time. That’s right up there with Hillary Clinton saying in the debate that she didn’t say she supported driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, but she just said that a proposal to do so “makes sense.” Even if we were to get into the Christmas spirit and be extraordinarily generous by granting Romney that an elected official saying pending legislation is “reasonable” doesn’t constitute support for the legislation, it still doesn’t get him off the hook. His description of the proposal was that it was “quite different” from amnesty, and yet during this year he has ceaselessly leveled attacks on McCain by accusing him of supporting “amnesty.” So even being generous to Romney, this constitutes a major change in position, not just from some long ago Senate race in 1994, but from late 2005.
Here are the relevant transcript excerpts. First on guns (Update - Vid here):
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to gun control. Here’s the headline: “Romney retreats on gun control. Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics. In his ‘94″ Senate race, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rife Association and other” guns rights “groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons. `That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,’ Romney told the Boston Herald.’” “At another campaign stop” “he told reporters, `I don’t line up with the NRA.’” Suddenly Romney decides to run for president and signs up for a lifetime membership in the NRA.
GOV. ROMNEY: You know, it’s, it’s wonderful, and you’ll appreciate this. There is a great effort on the part of, in some cases, my opposition, in some cases, just folks that are interested in writing an interesting article to, to try and find any change at all. And my position on guns is the same position I’ve had for a long, long time. And, and that position is that I don’t line up 100 percent with the NRA. I don’t see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue. I…
MR. RUSSERT: You’re still for the Brady Bill?
GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I…
MR. RUSSERT: You’re for it?
GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned–and I–let me, let me describe it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you’re still for it.
GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…
MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?
GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I’d love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms…MR. RUSSERT: How about the Brady Bill?
GOV. ROMNEY: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time.
MR. RUSSERT: But the idea of a waiting period.GOV. ROMNEY: Well, we have, we have a background check. That’s the key thing. I support background checks to, to–for people who are going into a store or whatever and buying a weapon, I want them to have a background check to make sure…
MR. RUSSERT: But you stand by your support of the Brady Bill.
GOV. ROMNEY: …to make sure, to make sure that the, that the crazies don’t buy guns.
The, the current Brady Bill is, is a different measure than the original. The original had a waiting period because it took a long time to check on people’s backgrounds. Today we can check instantly on backgrounds. I don’t want to cause a waiting period that’s not necessary based upon today’s technology. But my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street. And finally, we should go after people who use guns in the commission of crimes or illegally, but we should not interfere with the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns either for their own personal protection or hunting or any other lawful purpose. I support the work of the NRA. I’m a member of the NRA. But do we line up on every issue? No, we don’t.
Second on immigration:
MR. RUSSERT: Immigration, an issue that is very important in this country and to the Republican primary voters. The Boston Globe interviewed you two years ago, and there’s a tape of that conversation where you expressed support for the policies of George Bush and John McCain on immigration. Let’s watch and listen.
(Audiotape)
GOV. ROMNEY: I think an amnesty program is what, which is all the illegal immigrants who are here are now citizens,
Unidentified Man: Mm-hmm.
GOV. ROMNEY: …and a walk up and get your citizenship. What the president has proposed,
Man: Mm-hmm.
GOV. ROMNEY: …and, and what Senator McCain and Cornyn have proposed, are, are quite different than that.
Man: Mm-hmm.
GOV. ROMNEY: They require people signing up for a, a, well, registering and receiving, if you will, a number, a registration number, then working here for six years and paying taxes…
Man: Mm-hmm.
GOV. ROMNEY: …not taking benefits–health, Medicaid, food stamps, and so forth–not taking benefits, and then at the end of that period, registering to become a citizen or applying to become a citizen and paying a fee. And, and those are things that are being, being considered, and I, I think that that’s–that those are reasonable proposals.
(End audiotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Reasonable proposals.
GOV. ROMNEY: Hm.
MR. RUSSERT: The Lowell Sun, your home–one of your hometown, state home papers, said this. “Governor Mitt Romney expressed support for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship.
“`I don’t believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let’s have them registered, know who they are. Those who’ve been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn’t be here; those that are paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.’”
This is George Bush and John McCain.
GOV. ROMNEY: Now let’s, now let’s look at those very carefully, OK, and you’re, you’re a careful reader. In the interview with The Boston Globe, I described all three programs that were out there, described what they were, acknowledged that they were not technically an amnesty program, but I indicated in that same interview that I had not formulated my own proposal and that I was endorsing none of those three programs. I did not support any of them. I called them reasonable. They are reasonable efforts to, to look at the problem. But I said I did not support–and I said specifically in that interview I have not formulated my own policy and have not determined which I would support. And, of course, the Cornyn proposal required all of the immigrants to go home. The McCain proposal required most of them to go home, but let some stay. And the Bush proposal I, frankly, don’t recall in that much detail. But they had very different proposals. My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who had come here illegally and are in this country–the 12 million or so that are here illegally–should be able to stay sign up for permanent residency or citizenship, but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to say here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally. And that, I think, is the great flaw in the final bill that came forward from the Senate.
MR. RUSSERT: But they shouldn’t have to go home?
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, whether they go home–they should go home eventually. There’s a set per–in my view they should be–they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or, or for citizenship. But there’s a set period where upon they should return home. And if they’ve been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, thy would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they’ll be going home.
MR. RUSSERT: The children they had born here are U.S. citizens, so do the children stay here and the parents go home?
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, that’s a choice, of course, the parents would, would make. But my view is that those 12 million who’ve come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here, but they should not be given any advantage in becoming a permanent resident or citizen by virtue of simply coming here illegally. And likewise, if they’ve brought a child to this country or they’ve had a child in this country, that’s, that’s wonderful that they’re growing their families, but that doesn’t mean that they all get to stay here indefinitely. We’re fundamentally a nation of laws. And let me underscore something here that I think’s awfully important, because this immigration debate can sound anti-immigrant to a lot of people. It’s not intended to be that by myself or, I believe, by the vast majority of others that talk about it. We value legal immigration. We welcome people coming here with different cultures and skill and education, but we are a nation of laws. And our freedoms and our liberty are associated with following the law. We have to secure our border, we have to make sure there’s an employment verification system to identify who’s here legally and who’s not. And then for the 12 million who’ve come here, welcome them to get in line with everybody else, but no special pathway.
Freepers react here. Background on Romney’s gun rights conversion here and via Romney’s interview on the Glenn and Helen podcast in January.
Like I said: Worrisome.
And as I’ve said with other candidates:
Caveat emptor, people. Caveat emptor.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Romney tears up
- Pirates! Man Your Women! » Blog Archive » Sorry National Review
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Mitt Romney talks guns on Meet the Press
- Ron Paul for president.... - Page 3 - IH8MUD.com Forum
- Stop The ACLU
- Romney speaking with forked tongue « The Tennessee ConserVOLiance
- Bear Creek Ledger » Romney speaking with forked tongue
- Target Rich Environment » Blog Archive » Romney the Sleeper GFW Wrongly Claims NRA Endorsement
- Brillianter.com
- No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » Romney shoots himself in both feet
- Michelle Malkin » Newsflash: Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King endorses Thompson
- PAXALLES
- Plumb Bob Blog » Romney on Guns and Immigration
- No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » Presidential Pool: A time of choosing
- politicalpartypoop.com » Blog Archive » Romney: The biggest political liar I have ever witnessed.
- The Tennessee ConserVOLiance » Blog Archive » Romney Speaking with Forked Tongue
- race42008.com » Blog Archive » More On Steve King’s Decision To Endorse Fred Thompson
- Michelle Malkin » A hard look at Fred’s troubles on the trail
- Michelle Malkin » The Sunday talk shows open thread
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Quo vadis, conservatives?
February 7, 2008 06:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
124 Comments |
“Weapons of unusual lethality”?
Still not sure who I like for the GOP nomination, but at least now I know who has to be kept away from it, at all costs.
And he wants the conservative mantel? This nonsense makes your hair hurt.
Sounds like Tom Tancredo is the only sure bet on immigration…and he doesn’t have a prayer of winning, (nor does Duncan Hunter).
Maybe another look at Fred’s position on immigration is due?
I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…
Pickle,
Interesting you choose to highlight the exact same phrase. Does that mean my stock bolt action 30-06, that I can use to drop game at 800 yards (if a good shot) will be banned?
A bb-gun can be lethal…
Azygos, an example of that would when The People’s Republik of Kalifornia banned anything .50 cal, despite one never having been used in a crime.
But, yes, by that same thinking your ‘06, my M1A, anything with a heavier caliber or longer range would eventually be in the sights of the gun-grabbers, thus we must never let them have too much power anywhere.
I’m sure your question was just rhetorical, though…
Hmm, I really like Mitt but this is worrisome. I still like him a lot more than Huckabee and Giuliana, but… I guess we’ll see what happens.
It does not matter what range or caliber, if you are dead as a result of being shot, that is lethal to the one who is dead.
Can we please elect a conservative to be President and tell these a**clowns to take a hike.
Don’t listen to their words, look at their past actions… Once a gun banner, always a gun banner. Once an illegal lover, always an illegal lover. Think McCain is any different, no. Time is ripe for a real Conservative Party. These RINOs are the death of the Republican Party.
I am in complete agreement, Azygos. You too, Dandapani.
I was simply pointing out earlier that they will use calibre or range or capacity as a means to an end. People not familiar with firearms do not usually see through that.
At times it does get depressing with all the candidates views on major issues. We just need a winner at this point. Rudy, Mitt, Fred, John, Tom, Duncan would all be infinitely better than a Billary, Barak or a “silky pony” presidency.
Oh Darn!
I definitely don’t trust Romney on gun rights or illegal immigration.
Thank you for playing. Next.
Caveat emptor, agreed.
However, I think Mitt has a valid point about “weapons of unusual lethality”.
Even the most conservative of us (and I think Michelle would agree) that it would not be wise to allow RPG launchers into the hands of civilians, merely to uphold the right to bear arms.
What Mitt actually said was “if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing“. There is nothing shocking to me about this statement. I strongly believe in protecting the men and women who serve to protect us, and if that means that we need to be a bit more selective about what arms we are to bear, so be it.
I think this is what Mitt Romney is talking about, in my honest opinion.
Sometimes I think we conservatives need to be aware that sometimes our views can lead to unintended circumstances, and allow the light of common sense to guide us.
Explosives are not “arms.”
What he was talkining about was the Brady Bill and beyond i.e. scary LOOKING arms.
The hoplophobes will never be happy. You can not reason with them, it only encourages them.
I’m willing to bet that a lot of people commenting on this site did not watch the interview. There were some tough questions, but Romney stepped up to the plate. His positions on a number of issues are nuanced, and it’s easy for pundits to characterize them as “flip-flops” when the pundits themselves never fully comprehended the specifics of Romney’s stances.
Overall, Romney did a great job. Nearly every question was framed to make Romney look like a crazy, racist, Mormon flip-flopper. But anyone who actually listened to Gov Romney’s answers before changing the channel was pleasantly surprised by the strong and well-reasoned responses.
dukebedevilment, I agree. I watched the entire interview, and found him to be well-resoned, honest, and sure-footed even with Tim Russert continually swinging the broadsword at him.
Mitt Romney is trying to take advantage of the illegal immigration situation only for plitical reasons and his “agenda” shows itself. Besides if he really cares for these issues he should learn from Tom TancredoL http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com
That would be Tom Tancredo: http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com
Gun control advocates keep on talking about the so called assault weapons, and semiautomatic weapons. Most peole do not understand the difference between semi-auto, and fully automatic weapons. The anti gunners try to confuse the unknowing into thinking that the assault / military weapon is the problem, when the problem is the criminal with the gun. One of their most recent attempts was to ban all military weapons and calibers from civilian posession. This would have eliminated everything from shot guns to high powered hunting rifles. It is nothing more than bait and swtch
His positions were nuanced?
He looked like Hillary Clinton trying to explain whether or not she was for drivers licenses for illegals.
Tancredo
Ciceroskip is dead-on.
Jones #16 is also right — they are going after scary looking weapons, not the criminal wielding the weapon, which is ALWAYS the common factor in any homicide.
BTW– weapons such as RPGs are already covered. I believe they fall under ATF Class II weapons, which are well regulated.
#17 Why do you say these are “tough questions”? You either support the 2nd Amendment and will stand against anyone trying to water it down or you don’t support it. He shouldn’t use nuances (weasel words) to try to sound like he will take that stand. Politicians are allowed to give yes or no answers. Why couldn’t he have said, when asked about immigration, that existing laws should be enforced and that it is critical to our survival as a nation that our borders be secured and immigration limited. Those are the answers I would have liked to hear when he was asked those “tough questions”.
I never really have trusted Romney and have been very leery of his stance on both illegal immigration and gun control due to his past record. This interview did absolutely nothing to convince me he can be trusted. Thompson, Hunter, and Tancredo are the only conservative running for POTUS. The others are running for the wrong party.
The more I read of Romney, the more disenchanted I become. The problem with him is the problem Republicans are having in general: where are the man’s principles? What does he really stand for? Has he truly demonstrated he has thought these questions through? Has he shown that he will stick with his answers, assuming he has, or is he just trying to keep the base off his case, and then once in power get down and boogy with the libs for some serious compassionate conservatism (i.e. welfare statism just like Europe)? I was leaning ever so slightly towards Romney but now I just don’t know where he is coming from, what he wants, what limits he will respect. Is there any there there? Does anyone know what his philosophy of government is? We’re not voting for dog catcher here.
And while I’m at it, the tear gimmick is a bore. If he thought that deeply about his church & blacks, why didn’t he leave it? Sorry, but I’m skeptical. We’ve already got the waterworks routine from too many politicians — I want to see the grim frown of thought, the dry-eyed determination to back away quickly from the welfare state abyss, a sense that the man is utterly unsentimental about the world situation and has some ability and strength to cope with it.
Sitting 2008 out increasingly makes sense. At least the democrats make it very clear what they believe and what they intend. I can respect that. With the republicans you can never be sure what mess they will blunder into next in their endless “Do-Right” efforts to please the democrats and get the rest of the planet to love us.
Compared to this, even Nixon is starting to look good.
Times are a’changing (for the worse). It looks like I’m voting for the least of the two evils - again.
This is exactly right. None of these people knows/understands the first thing about how guns work. Case in point: the AR-15 and Mini-14 fire the exact same ammo at the exact same rate. Based on appearance they call one an assault rifle and the other one a sporting arm.
If a gun is too big it’s a “hand cannon” and has to be banned. Too small and it’s a “saturday night special” and has to be banned. If it fires a small calibre bullet it’s an assault rifle and has to be banned. Large calibre? Hell, that’s a sniper rifle. Have to ban it.
What it boils down to is they want to ban anything that fires a bullet, period. Attempting to reason with them is a complete waste of time.
Mitt did real well on morals and religion and then right after slamming Huckacrat for being too liberal he proceeds to do a RINO all over illegal migration enforcement and my 2nd amendment rights.
We don’t need no more Bush the betrayor action figures.
We need to line up behind Fred with our boots on and kick him on up to the front of the line.
HMMMM - so, Hunka was wrong about you again Michelle.
Mitt is the wrong man for the job.
Took my CCP class yesterday and learned that Washington, DC, which has the toughest gun laws, leads the US in murders and violent crime. I also learned they are #9 for murders in the world.
I like my gun control better - I hit what I aim at.
if the time were ripe for a “real conservative” a real conservative would be in competition for the nomination.
the reality is that bush (with assist from the pervert set) has set conservatism back 20 years.
it will not recover any time soon.
lispy guiliana, schmuackabee, and cult boy are about the best we can do right now.
Upstate liberals in RINO clothing. Why is it that they always think their smarter than us average folk?
I am surprised at some of the comments here - people just looking for an excuse to slam a good conservative candidate. If you saw the interview it was clear he distinguished between a hunting rifle and a ridiculously unnecessary weapon like an ak-47. Some people are definately reading into this what they want and didn’t see the interview. Mitt will be stronger on immigration then any other candidate who has a chance of winning.
Romney is the refurbished merchandise candidate. It is a tempting purchase considering the reduced price and promotion being thrown at us. It even throws out sweeteners trying to woo us from the newer and never opened. It is priced to sell. But do we want to deal with the possible warranty issues and the thought of it being a lemon. Once we buy it we are stuck with it. The flipside of course is that this refurb candidate may be one helluva deal.
Then there are the candidates that are spoiled and damaged beyond repair.
McCain and his foibles: amnesty, taxes, cfr, judiciary and tempor. Send this one to the recycling bin or junkyard. Big time product recall.
Huckabee and his nanny state proclivities. This one is a hazardous made in China product unsafe for American consumption. This is a 99 cent store clearance item.
In the end I just don’t want to have buyer’s remorse.
America please don’t buy a lemon.
dukebedevilment and One_American - you are so right. Great job Mitt!
That is a really silly statement. So exactly what is necessary? One person’s necessary, is another’s unnecessary.
Some people hunt with arrows, some with a rifle. Which is necessary?
Further - every report I’ve seen, no firearms were used in the biggest murder in USA history (9/11).
BTW - Romney has never demonstrated Conservative. Words have meaning. Conservative has a meaning - Romney’s actions as gov. of MA were not conservative.
So basically, he wants us to have guns that only sometimes kill their targets. Maybe a shotgun that shoots a smiley face scatter pattern of Skittles candy?
Bottom line: citizens shouldn’t be barred from owning weapons that law enforcement has. If they’re going to have M16s (and they do), we should be able to have M16s. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the American people are sufficiently armed that, if it came down to it, we could violently overthrow a corrupt or tyrannical government. It doesn’t sound like Mitt gets that at all — and he should be regarded with extreme distrust because of it.
Not at all. Mitts prior actions have shown he will be inimical to gun owners and the 2nd amendment. We need a cconserative not another RINO, or worse yet a closet liberal like GWB.
#34,
Any other rights I don’t “need?”
Why is an SKS/AK-47 not a hunting weapon?
what true conservative is electable?
Should I read into the fact that Mass. has really, really tough gun laws?
Should I read into the fact that he is a politician wanting to get elected so, he will say what the current crowd wants to hear?
To be fair, all politicians will say what the crowd wants to hear. Mitt scares me though.
Maybe I shouldn’t comment until I find out what Hugh Hewitt says I should think about this, but this strikes me as a really stupid statement. Even most Dems know better than to open their mouths about gun control.
“Cold dead fingers,” Mitt, you closet liberal.
Why can the Republicans not field a Conservative candidate?
What is to distinguish the parties from each other if all the leading Republicans are merely “nuanced” from Democrat positions?
Romney thinks its OK for medical researchers to carve up “surplus” embryos.
He’s OK with Gun control–He supported the assault weapons ban, and would vote for it again.
96FS–The assault weapon ban was, in essence, an unconstitutional ban on firearms determined by their looks.
He imagines that because President Bush supported it–conservatives won’t have a problem with it.
President Bush has crossed conservatives by offering amnesty to illegal immigrants, increasing big government entitlements, dragging his feet on securing the border, allowed border guards to be sent to prison for 10 years for doing their jobs!, pressuring Israel to trade land for “peace”, supporting gun control, supporting grievous injury to our 1st Amendment by signing Mccain Feingold –President Bush is not a conservative!
Romney still supports the President’s “Comprehensive” Immigration program (AMNESTY) Even after it received this year’s biggest power-to-the-people slap-down of spontaneous citizen outrage.
Who in the Republican field is substantively any different?
Where is the candidate that will stand on the great conservative principles that founded this country, and damn the disdain of the liberal media?
One_American (#15) said:
I have worked at the edges of law enforcement and have friends in the field. I do not want to have any non-full-auto weapon banned just because it might be “too lethal”. Who would determine that? Who would have to enforce the ban? Who would try to take said weapons form me if I had them. And what happens if the weapon is all right now, but in a year with a new administration it’s no longer legal?
The Second Amendment is pretty clear that there is to be no infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Further, if I am to be a useful part of the (unorganized) militia, I need to be able to practice with the same sort of weapon that I might use when called up to defend my home, town, state, or country.
And as a side note for mlnicosia (#34) who talked of “distinguish[ing]between a hunting rifle and a ridiculously unnecessary weapon like an ak-47.” Many hunting rifles are actually more powerful than the AK-477 in terms of caliber and the amount of powder in the round. Even the semi-auto version of the AK-47 has its uses for target shooting and home protection, so it shouldn’t be dismissed just because the full auto version is popular with the other militaries and insurgencies.
I’ve always felt that Romney is a politician rather than a statesman. And I’m looking for a statesman.
#39
Unusual leathality?
FYI, Hitler complained about the use of shot guns against the German army in WWII.
What a let down Mitt was today. Just another weasel, talking out of both sides of his mouth. The Clinton’s couldn’t have ducked and weaved any better.
If I didn’t know his name, I’d assume a democrat was being interviewed. BAAARRF.
I hope raise-your-Mitt-for-Gorebal-Warming-Romney now takes a precipitous fall in the polls. But please stay in the race to split support among the other RINO’s.
That’s right, the second amendment says you have the right to bear arms, not explosives. Does that mean that I can keep my gun but I have to give up my bullets? Are you aware that it’s the explosion of the power in the bullet that makes the gun work? If you remove the gun powder, all you have left is an expensive club.
So now we’re back to the argument of how much explosives are allowed and how much can be banned. The second amendment doesn’t tell us where to draw the line; however, I think we need to draw the line somewhere. I want to keep my bullets, but I don’t want my neighbor to get his hands on nuclear armaments of any kind. There are some who would argue that because the word “arms” comes from the word “armaments” even nuclear armaments are protected by the second amendment. After all, if they can take away your suitcase nuke, they’ll take away your hunting rifle next.
To “look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality” does not sound like an unreasonable position to me. We went to war to prevent Sadam from having arms of mass destruction. Are you OK with your neighbor having WMD’s in his basement? Would you stand up for the right of your Muslim neighbor to own fully automatic weapons? You have to draw the line somewhere. And I guarantee you that no matter where you draw the line, you will be attacked for your position by people on both the left and the right.
So where would you draw the line? Let’s see how easy it is to do, and let’s see how many people agree with you.
I could not agree more, What part of shall not infringe do these guys have a problem with?
Every single “gun Regulation” is unconstitutional because it infringes on our God given right.
I own about 6 guns that have been outlawed in the last 10 years in California even though I purchased them legally.
Any CFR candidate running is exactly the same folks. It does not matter if it is McCain, Rudy, Huckabee or Romney.
They are Rockefellar Republicans.
BTW-Retired Law Enforcement
ScottyDog
“a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel”
Percussion capped, muzzle-loading, and a single shot–it still managed to murder a U.S. President–Easily concealable, lightweight, considerable close range lethality; If it caught on with gang-bangers today it could be considered “a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel”–the gun banners work will never be complete.
After seeing all the candidates recently im voting for the one i aint seen Fred 08
Romney sounds most like John Kerry. Why is he being taken seriously?
Haven’t picked my horse yet, but sure have scratched a few Gov. Romney the latest to scratched..I’ve been pulling for Tancredo and or Hunter all the way. Those 2 and possibly Fred are the only true conservatives. Notice I did not say Republicans…due to the fact the Repub party has moved to the left…they are now thanks to GWB the party of feel good liberal “compassionate conservatism”. What a load that is…RINO’s in layman’s terms.
If we don’t grab hold this election it maybe over for good. Remember liberalism is a cancer it grows till death or it is cut out.
Ughh, I just read the text of the immigration question and answer. I’ve never seen someone run their mouth so much, but yet say absolutely nothing. When will these politicians realize that Clintonian parsing of words isn’t winning them any friends?
Jim C
Papa Louie,
Your reading of the second amendment is a little extreme. In law you have what is considered a reasonable reading of the law. In other words; what would a reasonable person understand the law to read. Your neighbor having a suitcase nuke is not a reasonable reading of the law. You’re presenting a strawman argument to make your point for gun control… and it’s not going to work.
Jim C
I once heard Robert Novak talking about Mary Matalin. He said, “I’m more of a conservative than she is and she’s more of a republican than I am.” At the time I was baffled by that remark. But as I spend more and more time paying close attention to the political process and where the candidates stand or avoid standing on the issues, his words become mor meaningful.
Romney’s principles are dictated by what he needs to say to get elected. He was Pro-Abortion before he was against it. He was pro-amnesty before he was against it.
If you want to agree with a Romney position just wait long enough and it will eventually change to one you like.
As for owning weapons, I have an order in for an AK-47. I want to make sure I get it before the election, just in case they outlaw it. Once I have it, they will never get it from me while I’m still breathing.
Who says an Ak-47 can’t be used for hunting. I’ve known several people that have used them for exactly that. I used to hunt coyotes with an AR-15, a “ridiculously unnecessary” “assault weapon.”. You can’t own a fully automatic gun in this country unless you get a Class 3 firearms license, and it’s hard to get and pretty expensive.
Any civilian AK-47 or AR-15 is semi-auto and behaves in exactly the same way as any other semi-auto hunting rifle. The Ruger Mini 14 and AR-15 are a perfect example. They both fire the same ammo and both fire exactly the same way. One is a “hunting rifle” and the other is a “dangerous assault weapon” based strictly on their appearance, nothing else! For you or anybody else to claim that an AK-47 is “ridiculously unnecessary” shows your ignorance about firearms.
I also don’t like Mitt’s BS about the Brady Bill. The Brady Bill did nothing to keep anybody safe, it amounted to nothing more than yelling “fire” in a movie theater to gin up anti-gun sentiment in the pursuit of making more guns illegal. It was a feel-good set of laws that only made perfectly legal guns illegal based on nothing that had to do with actual firearms safety.
If we want to make this country safer from gun crimes then we need to start enforcing the 20,000 or so gun laws already on the books a lot more vigorously than is happening now. Anytime somebody commits a crime with a gun they should be prosecuted and given the stiffest penalty possible. It’s not legal gun owners that are the problem, it’s the criminals that don’t follow the law and the judicial system that doesn’t punish gun crimes harshly enough.
I’m just trying to ride all this out and waiting for ‘12 or ‘16 when Jindal will be fronting the Republican ticket
I’m totally against these plastic quarter-billionaire types. Any meathead that describes a weapon with such extraordinary lethal adjective is just itching to take my guns away. Sorry Mr. Mergers & Acquisitions, you’re offer has been turned down cold!
The depressing thing is that as bad as Romney is, the other “big name” candidates are just as bad or worse.
Thompson is looking like the only decent conservative who has a shot, since Hunter was ignored.
Lets hope there is an America left by then.
How about banning people of unusual lethality?
Tom Tancredo answeres in 3 words: ‘Enforce the law’.
http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com
This is all so very sad . . .
Gov. Romney, let me explain this one last time:
AMNESTY is forgiveness for a past crime; it is NOT permission to keep committing the same crime (staying in our country), nor is it permission to KEEP YOUR ILL-GOTTEN GOODS (residency)!
Now that you understand what amnesty is, don’t confuse amnesty with rewards. All that crapola complexity you just described on what to do with illegal aliens in our country is REWARDS - giving them special benefits because they broke our laws.
This is REWARDS:
Tancredo, Hunter, and Thompson are the only candidates that understand this.
Thompson for President, Hunter for VP, Tancredo for DHS.
We can only hope that McCain REALLY learned his lesson on illegal immigration. He’s the last fallback candidate with a chance.
In the words of a lovely woman, “We’re screwed”.
Arms- Weapons carried by a single soldier.
Ordinance- all of your scary red herring; suitcase nukes, laser guns, flamethrowers, explosives.
Seems the Founders said “arms.”
Whether people will agree with me is beyond the point. The question is if we want to follow the law of the land.
Folks like mlnicosia (#34) miss the point of the 2nd Amendment. Hunting has nothing to do with it. It’s stated purpose is to preserve the militia, which is a military organ. The right MUST cover those ugly weapons of unusual lethality.
The first shots fired in the war for Texas independence were over a small brass cannon. Read about it at U-Texas and Texas A&M.
The first shots in the American revolution were also over cannon–FIELD ARTILLERY! Yes, the Red Coats were looking for cannon at Lexington & Concord. See USAHISTORY.INFO and Worcester Polytechnic.
So, after starting wars over the right to have FIELD ARTILLERY, I doubt the founders wanted hand-carried rifles outlawed.
The first part of your statement is inapplicable to the debate because the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It never did. It does not exist to protect “hunting rifles”…. 90% of which by the way fire rounds much more powerful than any “assault rifle”.
The second part of your statement is an illustration of why people so utterly ignorant of firearms and how they operate should never be allowed to make policy about them. Since actual AK-47s are already illegal under a law from almost 100 years ago I’ll assume you actually mean to refer to the SKS. Can you describe for me please the fundamental difference between the SKS, AR-15, Mini-14? Don’t think too long, because there aren’t any. Yet according to you one of those rifles is a legitimate hunting arm and the other two are “ridiculously unnecessary”.
Show me on (outside of a mental institution) and I’ll respond. Until then this is just one big strawman.
You guys love to paint gun rights proponents as being paranoid, conveniently forgetting that our predictions have the nasty habit of coming true. In recent times New York and California have both had programs where they confiscated weapons that were legally purchased and held by law-abiding taxpayers.
That’s cute. That’s an interesting, even Clintonian bit of wordplay, and you know damn well it’s not what anyone here means.
Fully automatic weapons and “destructive devices” (missiles, mines, grenades etc) were outlawed in the 1920’s and I don’t know anyone seeking a repeal of that. Further bans and things like the Brady Law are just steps on the road to total civilian disarmament, the Brady Campaign doesn’t even try to deny it anymore.
Hey people, figure it out. The MSM is trying to pick the Republican candidate as well. They will either endorse (by interview or article inch) either someone they think the Dems can beat (HUCK), or the one most left-centrist in their opinions(McCain, Gulliani, Romney, et al). Ask why you’ve never seen Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo or any true “conservative” candidates on any MSM outlet - no articles, no interviews, no columns, they do not appear to exist. Gee…..Guess that should tell us something…………….
On December 17th, 2007 at 7:10 am, tgillian said:
We can only hope that McCain REALLY learned his lesson on illegal immigration. He’s the last fallback candidate with a chance.
In the words of a lovely woman, “We’re screwed”.
FYI, check out Tom Tancredo: http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com
Brent - i don’t know if its laughable or sad that you claim an ak-47 can be considered for hunting. It fires 600 rounds per minute - its an assault rifle. I support the right to bear arms but thats ridiculous. I’m with Mitt on this and i think it was a good interview.
What’s laughable is that you miss the point of the Second Amendment - it’s not a hunting rights amendment. The people already have the right of self-defense, and the amendment bans the government from trying to take the existing, God-given right away from the people.
Noone is talking about going hunting with a fully automatic weapon, anyway. It’s obvious you know little to nothing about guns, and have an uninformed, prejudicial opinion about them.
It’s also illegal, has always been illegal and is not addressed by the Brady Law or “assault weapon” ban.
What the assault weapon ban actually covered (and what Brent was referring to)was the SKS. The SKS is not fully automatic and is suitable for small game or varmint hunting.
Which has nothing to do with anything since, as noted several times, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
I’ll say it again, and if you’re arguing in good faith you’ll listen: true assault rifles are already illegal and have been for almost 100 years. The weapons addressed in the “assault weapon ban” are semi-automatic rifles and are functionally no different from any other semi-automatic rifles. There is nothing “unusually lethal” about them.
But because they cosmetically resemble military weapons people who don’t know anything about guns think they’re scary. That makes them an easy target for the Schumers and Clintons of the world trying to ban them.
I am struck by the lame arguments of those who are obviously anti-Romney and will leap gleefully upon any excuse to maintain their position. Here are a couple of basics, which he went to the trouble to emphasize in his replies to Russert’s attempted hatchet job. (Compare Russert’s attitude and tone of voice with the same exhibited during the Hillary!interview on September 23. Romney - belligerent, Hillary! - deferential).
Gun Control: Romney clearly indicated that his principal concern is background checks, that he further believes there is a possibility that some weapons might not belong in everyone’s gun cabinet, and that he supports the second amendment and the right of the people to bear arms. What part of that stance is unreasonable?
Immigration: He believes that rounding up and exporting 12 million illegal aliens is impractical. His first priority is issuance of ID, which can then be used to distinguish illegal from legal when hiring. Then laws governing hiring can be enforced. Finally, that those who apply for an ID, then apply for citizenship, receive no special head-of-the-line privileges, nor is granting of citizenship automatic. He also said that when he said that various proposals put forth were “reasonable”, he had not yet formulated his own preferred policies. Again, what part of that position is unreasonable.
Romney is a pragmatist, a necessary trait for a successful businessman, and what works is always going to shape his views. Many see this as opportunism and would opt for blind, stupid idealism. Grow up.
There won’t be any perfect candidates, and the empty rhetoric heard from those who promote feel-good over real world accomplishment is a clear indicator of who does not belong in the oval office.
Now come on guys, I mean what are you all on? Did you actually expect ANY of the front runners for either party to be Truthful, honest, or Leaders? They are Liars, who don’t care for what duties may be fall them from being in power, but that power its self. Not one of them is a leader or to be trusted in my opinion. In the last few generations, who has ran that didn’t appeal to the fears of the masses, or do anything they promised!?
From all of this I coined a phrase, 08 No matter who wins, you loose America.
The part where he makes it clear he does not, in fact, actually support that right.
Let me draw you a parallel: someone is running as a pro-life candidate. He says in no uncertain terms that he’s pro-life. He does, however, think that 1st trimester abortions are ok.
Well, which is it? Is he a pro-life candidate or does he think abortions are ok? You can’t have it both ways.
If Romney thinks it’s pragmatic to support these gun control laws that’s certainly his right. And if you agree with his stance then by all means vote for him. You cannot, however, then claim to support Second Amendment rights. It’s one or the other.
Mlnicosia,
600 rounds per minute may be the cyclical rate but that is not the same as rate of fire. Using a magazine holding 30 cartridges one would have to change the magazine 20 times in a minute to fire 600 rounds. Which is beside the point anyway because few people opt for a class 3 fire arms license to allow them to have fully automatic firearms. The depth of your ignorance of weapons is astounding.
Mlnicosia,
600 rounds per minute may be the cyclical rate but that is not the same as rate of fire. Using a magazine holding 30 cartridges one would have to change the magazine 20 times in a minute to fire 600 rounds. Which is beside the point anyway because few people opt for a class 3 fire arms license to allow them to have fully automatic firearms. The depth of your ignorance of weapons is astounding.
Hold sec, just seen that 600 rounds a min bull. Okay first off thats a full auto AK, thats not something you find at the mom and pop’s pawn shop, or gun show. 2nd to get a Fully auto gun requires massive amounts of paper work and a tax, in all the basic paper work is around 800 bucks, and you get a back ground check litterally all the way back to your middle school years.
Stop listening blidly, go to a library not Wikipedia, and read books on the matter. I’m in support of classes being madatory for new gun owners on ethics, safety, and Marksmenship, with a bit of a mental evaluation. (Which would cut down on gun deaths, as you could weed out gang bangers)
However I’m not in favor of my SKS or AK being taken as they have 30 round magazines. All because some people wet thier panties over “Massacars”. Gun deaths are very low, and don’t shove that UN garbage up, that counts everything from gangbangers of the age of 17 as children deaths, to police and accedental discharges. If you wan’t real Massacars I suggest looking back at the Records of a few people in the 1920-30;s, such as Bonnie and Clyde.
opps ment massacres
Another Stupid Statement. We could build Hoover Dam in a couple years, we got a man on the moon in a few years…surely we can round up and get rid off 12 million law breakers.
Another idiotic statement. No special treatment? …. well accept get to be here and receive the benefits of being here while the rest of the people going about it legally get not to be here and don’t get the benefits of being here.
Romney is a liberal. His views (and actions - especially as Gov. of MA) parallel those of liberals - therefore he is one.
oops - accept -> except
(sorry -I should have used preview)
As Reagan would say, there you go again. You’re also wrong, again. In order to possess any full-auto weapon the law requires you to have a Class 3 FFL, pay a large fee (I think $1000 per year, per gun) and go through a very thorough background check.
I nearly bought a semi-auto AK-47 a few years ago and it would have been a very good hunting rifle. I knew a couple guys that owned them and they loved to go varmint hunting with their AK’s. Just because you say it wouldn’t doesn’t make it so!
Like I said earlier, I used my AR-15 to hunt coyotes and other varmint so don’t tell me or anybody else it’s not a hunting rifle because of your ignorance. I suggest stop now before you make yourself look even more ignorant than you already have.
Once again you’ve also seemed to ignore the fact that an “assault weapon” is nothing more than a demonization of a perfectly legal gun based on it’s looks. Did you miss that part about how a Ruger Mini 14 and an AR-15 both fire the same ammo and behave exactly the same way yet one is considered a “hunting rifle” and the other an “assault rifle” based solely on their looks? What makes the AR-15 more dangerous than the Mini 14, the black finish? Or is it the “futuristic” looks? Maybe it’s that highly dangerous pistol grip! I can tell you this, I’d much rather get shot with an AK or AR than a .30-06, .308 or any other number of “hunting rifles”.
As someone else said, these RINO’s are going to be the death of the Republican Party. If I were a “conspiracy type” I would actually think that the Progressive/Socialists have convinced these types to run for positions within the Republican Party simply to undermine the Party’s core positions/values. They have a pretty good track record so far ie. Mitt as governor, Huck as governor, McCain plus Kennedy on immigration, the “gang of 4″,GWB on so many things I lost count,the “pork party” in Congress, etc.
After watching all these shenanigans for a few years. I simply could no longer identify the GOP and re-registered as “Non-affiliated”. Unless the GOP nominates a true conservative, I will simply remain on the sidelines and witness the continued self destruction of the once proud Party of Lincoln.
Ron Paul is looking more and more sane.
The second amendment doesn’t mention hunting. It does not limit you to what a lib thinks a “hunting” rifle is. Mark #39 has it right.
Guiliani - NO Totally untrustworthy on illegal immigration, 2nd Amendment, energy policy (stupid git believe in man-made global warming) and privatization
Huckabee - NO Untrustworthy on illegal immigration, 2nd Amendment, energy policy, taxes, cronyism and numerous other things
McCain - NO Brave man who nobly served this nation and his fellow soldiers. Unfortunately he is wrong in campaign finance, wrong on waterboarding, wrong on taxes, wrong on guns, wrong on illegal immigration and the list could just roll on.
Romney - NO This is a brand new no. I hadn’t made up my mind on him until this interview. Two of my top issues are 2nd Amendment and illegal immigration (if you don’t fix the latter, within 10 years you will praying that you still have the former). His answers on those 2 issues, along with a general leeriness I had of him due to flip-flopping positions and northeast residency, moved him from the maybe column firmly into the NO column.
I looked at Fred long before he announced and was impressed. I followed him as a senator and while I didn’t always agree with him by any means, I was impressed on many levels. I drifted a bit but have come back to him as the best candidate. Tancredo or Hunter as a VP and/or cabinet level appt I would be fine with that.
OK, time to inject a bit of sanity here, for EVERYONE.
First and foremost, guns don’t kill people any more than pencils cause spelling errors. If you were examining strictly my operational record, one could say that a Remington M700 (which is a bolt action , i.e. single shot, rifle firing a 7.62×51mm bullet) with a scope is more deadly than a Colt M4A1 (a fully automatic “assault” rifle firing the smaller, faster 5.56×45mm round). It’s all in the application of force, not the tool used.
Contrary to what some have posted, AK-47s, AR-15s, and clones (same weapon, manufactured by a different company through a different name) are perfectly legal in the United States. An SKS is to the AK-47 what a Mini-14 is to an AR-15. Different weapons, that fire the same round in (generally) the same fashion.
There is no such thing as a “permit” that allows people to own full auto rifles. Theoretically, so long as it is legal for you to a handgun, and your state laws do not prevent it, any citizen can own a full auto weapon, a short barreled rifle (rifles with barrels shorter than 16 inches), a short barreled shotgun (shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches), or a suppressor. All these items are covered by the BATFE National Firearms Act of 1932. All that it requires is the performance of a background check, fingerpring card, signature of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for your county, and a $200 tax stamp per NFA item, paid once (not once a year). There are other, perfectly legal ways to get around the CLEO signature and fingerprint requirement, but we won’t get into that here.
Explosives are considered a Class II Destructive Device by the BATFE, and, while perfectly legal to own, are heavily regulated and cost prohibitive.
In addition to the 1932 NFA law, there was an importation and manufacturing ban passed in 1986 that made illegal for civillians to own, and for companies to import, and full automatic weapons recievers made after 1986. This ban has made full auto recievers a hot commodity. One could expect to pay upwards of $10,000 for a full automatic M16 in today’s market. Again, there are loopholes in the law to allow one to get around that, but they involve more work and time than the average man is willing to put into it.
A Federal Firearms License is a permit to sell, not own, firearms. It allows one to access the NICS system to perform background checks and lets the BATFE collect taxes on what you sell (the BATFE is, more than anything else, a tax collection agency). An FFL holder who has a Class II license can legally sell SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, Destructive Devices, and those weapons covered in the AOW (Any Other Weapon, sort of a catch all for whatever isn’t defined) catergory. A dealer with a Class III license can sell fully automatic weapons, plus anything covered in the Class II license.
Sorry for the long winded, and probably boring, explanation, but I read all of the glaring inaccuracies above and needed to make sure the facts were on the table.
As far as the “necessity” of an AK47, or any other weapon for that matter, goes:
Last I checked, it was a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.
Most excellent post!
Well put Archon. Well put sir.
Archon,
Thanks