Posted on 12/31/2007 8:52:38 PM PST by Spiff
If that frightens you, I would suggest that just to calm your nerves, you should go buy whatever weapon you wanted that was banned by the AWB now, while it’s legal.
After all, AWB did not prohibited OWNING the guns, just BUYING them. Unlike the ban on civilians owning any new machine guns, which is a ban on ownership itself, not just purchase.
When Romney ran for governor, he never once said he was endorsed by the NRA. And in fact, he was not endorsed by the NRA.
When the issue came up recently, the campaign pointed out that Romney was not endorsed by the NRA in his run for Governor, which is why Romney used the word “support”, not “endorse”. The NRA did provide support to his campaign.
Just like Fred Thompson just sent me another nice e-mail saying I’ve supported him, and thanking me. I haven’t endorsed him, but we all know that “endorse” is a different word than “support”.
Maybe you are confused because the NRA endorsed his work on the AWB bill. They are two different things, and sometimes people get them mixed up.
Yes, I try to be precise but in the course of making brief statements I might not cover every exception.
Ban is the right term to use for the current law on machine guns. civilians are banned from owning any machine gun manufactured since 1986 — that’s a straight ban on machine guns.
And for all other machine guns, ordinary civilians are effectively banned from owning them. If you want to own one, you have to apply for permission. You have to provide evidence that you NEED the weapon for a specific purpose. The application can be rejected for any reason, so you only get the gun if ATF is feeling generous.
Except if you live in one of the states that bans ALL ownership, regardless of the ATF’s permission. In THOSE states, all ownership of machine guns are banned.
In contrast, the AWB NEVER banned any weapons. It banned the sale of those weapons, but now the ownership by those who already had them. And yet we all say it’s an assault weapons ban, and nobody gets hung up on the nuances unless we are having a technical discussion of the bill.
Again you conveniently ignore,"shall not be infringed" this typical of liberals.
I think California has banned ownership of so called assault weapons.
My role play was a very simple method, showing how Mitt manipulates his position to satisfy his liberal political agenda. Once he has opened the gate, or lifted the tent, the liberal battle plan is put into affect. Incrementally shred the Constitution, which has already begun. The next POTUS must appoint Conservative judges who believe and have records which support that the Constitution is written in Stone and is not a living document.
Romney does not have that kind of a record.
Per the interview
Maybe it was the pressure of the moment. Being under the Tim Russert spotlight can get to anyone. Under Russert's grilling about guns on this morning's "Meet the Press," former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney claimed an endorsement he'd never won.
In answer to questions about whether he would sign an assault weapons ban, Romney said: "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."
Later in the interview, he added the following:
"I just talked about, about guns. I told you what my position was, and what I, what I did as governor; the fact that I received the endorsement of the NRA."
Straight from slick master himself!
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/16/romney_claims_nra_endorsement.html
The first quote says “support”, and involves his run for governor. He did have their support, but not their endorsement.
The second quote says “what I did AS governor, the fact that I receieved the endorsement of the NRA”. What he did AS governor was work with the NRA on the AWB bill, which was what Russert had asked about. The NRA endorsed his work on the AWB, he worked with them to make the bill better.
Both statements are true. Some people got confused and thought that his 2nd statement was referencing his first statement, so his campaign issued a statement clearing up that misconception.
You win the spin award of the year and it is only day one. LOL
I don’t deserve it, I already explained this last year, so it’s not new work.
Beautiful pic of the Brown Bess....wish I had one in my collection! As I said anyone who doesn’t understand the Second AMendment is our last defense to self government doesn’t understand what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Amendment. All any candidate needs to do to understand this is read the Federalist Papers...go read the quotes and writings of Fisher Ames who wrote the orginal SA! You can sure tell Romney hasn’t read it or he doesn’t believe the words written as to why the individual right to keep and bear arms was so important to the men who fought the British Empire for our freedom.
I would challenge you to name one weapon which the Founders intended to permit Congress to ban. The march of military technology does not automatically modify the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It means today what it meant to the Founders.
Also, the federal AWB created a class of "grandfathered" rifles which had certain characteristics. Just like the ban on machine gun manufacture, it became illegal to manufacture a "new" assault weapon by attaching any two of the infamous "assault weapon" features.
Finally, despite the expiration of the federal ban, the anti-gunners have succeeded in enacting "bans" in both Kalifornia and Massachusetts. In Kalifornia, if you owned an affected weapon prior to a particular date you could continue to "own" it but you were required to register it with the state within 90 days. I put "own" in quotation marks because one's heirs cannot inherit the weapon in Kalifornia. By law, I believe that the executor of the estate of an "assault weapon" owner must give up the weapon.
I don’t know how one would prove that the founders would approve of a ban on any particular type of weapon, nor am I inclined to support any ban on weapons, at least “personal” weapons.
By “personal” weapons, I mean weapons that would be used by an individual against an individual. I don’t think I want the average citizen to be able to purchase an anti-aircraft weapon, an RPG, or a mortar, for example — but I’m not saying I could prove that banning those things would not go against the founder’s wishes.
The reason I used the word “virtually” is because I am certain that there are a small group who would completely lift all bans on the purchase of weapons. But I doubt there would be enough of them to fill a stadium.
Who is going to sign off on allowing the average person to buy a suitcase nuclear device, after all? Do we want Bill Gates to own his own Abrams tank, or Warren Buffet to have a fleet of stealth fighters?
I do realise that without access to more lethal weapons, the 2nd amendment’s promise of a citizenry that can overcome the government is without effect. In the days of the revolution, there were no tanks, no powered equipment, no airplanes, and in the end the only real advantage an army had over a group of individuals was they might have some cannons (and of course ships if you were near a large body of water).
A ragtag group of citizens could not hope to defeat a warship, but the warship had limited ability to cause damage once you moved inland, and the enemy then had to march after you, with only what they could carry, which means you were up against similar weapons to what you were carrying.
Nowadays, the military can destroy you without you ever getting to see who it is that killed you. No weapon you could possess would protect you, or give you the ability to rise up and overthrow the government (reminds me of a star trek NG episode whe the Cheliack conglomerate was taking over a planet).
We can still do so, but we need help from the state militias, which DO have possession of some tanks, airplanes, and other more serious weaponry.
Anyway, the question isn’t whether there are a few people who would lift all bans, but whether any of our candidates are promising to do ANYTHING about ANY current gun laws. I looked at the web sites, and I don’t see ANY candidate promising to repeal a single national gun law.
Instead, I see support for gun-free zones, even from stalwarts like Fred Thompson. I see most of our candidates saying that the key to our security is aggressive Law Enforcement, and strict enforcement of current gun laws — when you and I know that the key to security is an armed citizenry, that LEO only shows up after people are dead and the situation is secure.
I realise they are being politically expedient, and so I give them all a pass. As I said, I simply do not think it is rational to single out Mitt Romney as unacceptable when his position is only about 1% different from Fred Thompson, when looking at all the different issues surrounding gun ownership and gun carry.
One question: Have any of our candidates given a specific promise to pass a federal law making it illegal for states like California and Mass. to ban weapons? I can’t find it on any web sites, maybe Ron Paul would.
I think that you are very wrong.
The military was not involved in the initial squabbles which brought about the American Revolution. It was tax collectors. If you wish to attack the government, you don't take on the military, you take on the Department of Motor Vehicles. You shut down City Hall. Even public schools would have to cease if the people in great numbers decided to abolish their present form of government.
If the government can't collect or spend taxes, then it ceases to exist.
They don't need to do that. The Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment already do. What the candidates need to do is nominate Justices who recognize that.
All the wishing in the world won't change the Second Amendment into something that anticipated that some arms might not be suitable for keeping and bearing by the people. If you want ANYTHING in the Constitution to have meaning, then you must permit EVERYTHING in it to have meaning.
Don't tell me that you believe that the First Amendment does not protect freedom of speech over radio, television, telephones or the internet. And don't tell me that the Constitution automatically changes to regulate such media simply because people today decide that our Founders would have.
Many of our Founders would agree that slavery is an abomination. But the Thirteenth Amendment was still required to eliminate the situation that was clearly incorporated into the Constitution.
George Washington thought that it would be a bad idea for any man to be President for more than two terms. That precedent lasted for a century and a half. Today it is the law of the land ONLY because the Constitution has been amended to enforce that limitation. It didn't become law just because it was generally recognized as sound policy.
It doesn't matter what I think, but what our candidates think. While they all talk about appointing strict constructionist judges, they don't specify how those judges would be expected to act on 2nd amendment issues of gun regulation.
For example, Fred Thompson is good on guns, but he also voted for some forms of gun control during his Senate term, and has said that he thinks states do have the right to regulate guns, for example to establish gun-free zones at public colleges (he opposes those zones, he supports the state's "right" to impose them).
Mitt opposes the DC gun ban, but seems to support the right of Massachusetts to pass some forms of gun control.
Of course, at the time of the founders, the 2nd amendment was only binding on the federal government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.