Posted on 06/13/2011 11:52:36 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Here's the problem:
As Governor, Mitt Romney banned guns.
Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.
http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812
I'm thinking that perhaps NRA members, and anyone else who cares about the protection of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, might want to ask Mr. Keene how much money he and/or the organizations he represents have received from Mr. Romney and his closest allies.
Because, the way I see it, such considerations are the only thing that can explain why the head of the nation's largest gun organization would be shilling for someone who banned exactly the sort of weapons that in 1775 the British went to Lexington and Concord to seize.
Scotusblog is not the official court records,Go to the Court Records, not listed.
Your original point was the the NRA did nothing for Heller. I provided what they did for Heller and you won’t admit you’re wrong. I notice not a peep about McDonald which is equally as important as Heller. Who did the heavy lifting for that?
The NRA is not the end all for the 2nd Amendment like some believe.
Unfortunately money and the DC Beltway mentality are showing too much lately in the NRA by electing Keene. Just the way it is...
The Harry Reid situation is about the Clark County Range and nothing more
A slur? that is an observation I have gained from life, it is you that is going personal because of my own hard earned insights into men, you are getting worked up in some personal manner about something and getting very hostile for no obvious reason, at least not obvious to me.
After Heller, McDonald was a slam dunk
I do have a hard time giving any credit to an organization that has been instrumental is giving away my 2nd Amendment Rights:
1934 NFA, NRA sponsored
1968 Gun Control Act, supported by the NRA and NSSF. Essentially protected the SAAMI and NSSF domestic companies at the expense of the US Citizens 2nd Amendment Rights
1986 Gun Owners Act, Threw a big chunk of the 2nd amendment away by creating a prohibited class of weapons, called “machine guns”.
2002 Homeland Security Act - Moving the BATFE into the Justice Department, a huge infringement of the Constitiution by moving a TAX collection/enforcement function into the Judicial Branch as now a Law Enforcement Agency on par with the FBI. NRA??? Cricket Cricket
Commerce 922c ruling: NRA help draft the language so the Commerce Department could have a confict in the language so an Administrative Ruling would result, The result is “no machine gun” barrels can be imported. Thank you NRA again and the SAAMI voting members strangely benefited and the US Citizens access to parts for weapons is reduced significantly....hmmmm
Add to the personally observed and engaged converstations in Washington, DC on several occasions prior the Heller case with NRA Staff and retained Lawyers, going “off” about how “stupid”, “moronic” “doomed for judicial failure” or “ill planned” the Heller case was prior to the Oral Arguements. Yeah, the NRA was really supportive......NOT. Facts are stubborn things
The NRA created the problem ie, 1986 gun owners act, then turns around and benefits from the very act they help write some months later by claiming the Federal Government is infringing upon the 2nd amendment. Typical plan by a wholly political machine. Much like a lawyer, lawyers thrive on the conflict, not on the resolution, the NRA thrives on the conflict, sometimes as a party to creating the conflict, thus keeping the conflict going, I have yet to see the NRA with a plan to litigate or legislate the Rights of the 2nd Amendment. When the NRA starts acting like the ACLU or Planned Parenthood/NARAL about my “Gun Rights” then I will respect the NRA, till then they are a Washington DC, boondogle outfit more interested in being thought of nicely at some Beltway country club on the weekend and ensuring the SAAMI voting member Companies are happy and the unsuspecting American gun owners keep the money flowing to them. The Keene election proves this.
I thank Al Gore every day for inventing the internet.
And dishonest too. You going to answer the questions or not? On second thought don’t bother.
What is dishonest? What has you so angry and nasty?
Are you really so freaked out that a patriotic, conservative American believes that others of the same should try to join the military, it is the manly, patriotic thing to do.
“..Look, the reason that the NRA can move legislation on this issue is because they focus on this one issue..”
Wrong! Read some of Cox’s editorials about freedom of speech issues. There are indirect issues that impact on gun rights and when a politician supports those issues with and indirect negative impact on gun rights, that politician should not be endorsed by NRA. If Chuck Schumer and Anthony Weiner were ardent supporters of gun rights but maintained their views on everything else, are you arguing that it would be okay to endorse them?
While I agree that NRA can impact elections like no other gun group, they do tend to be the RINOs of the gun right’s movement. Hawking Harry Reid at the Nevada range opening (I think it’s now closed) was STUPID! They are probably losing members right now because of that “one issue” stance and will continue to do so unless the Obamanation wins re-election (heaven forbid).
There is little chance of restrictive gun laws getting through Congress prior to 2012 elections. The biggest risk is executive fiats that the Socialist tries to impose, eg the dealer gun sales BS currently under consideration.
You are. You've called me "nasty" "angry" and "freaked out" as a distraction because you refuse to answer the questions of why you think men are inferior to women amd why you think everyone should join the military. I consider this to be dishonest. You made the statements, and you refuse to state WHY you hold these opinions.
You may or may not be patriotic, but you sure don't have a clue about the military. It has been my personal observation that there are about the same proportion of idiots and a..holes* in the military as anywhere else (actually maybe a slightly higher proportion), and military service neither made them smarter nor improved their personalities - look at Juan McCain and Colin Powell as two prime examples
*Look up the term "ring knocker"
I don’t think men are inferior to women and I don’t think that women, with rare exception, should join the military, my rule about men, at least patriotic men, conservative men, is that they should all try to serve in the military, that does not apply to women, women just do not belong there in large numbers, plus, the development of a male and female is different, it helps for men to be trained as warriors and to show their willingness to be a warrior.
You seem to have serious dislike for military service and those that serve, I’m starting to think you either refused to serve your nation, or that it went badly for you.
AIP??? Oh please. If the GOP conservs do not unite Indies, Libertarians, Reagan Dems no one will win. This is just absurd that Romney would ban guns. Or any Pub . He is not my first choice but this conspiracy stuff is nuts. I want a conserv and one who can win, perhaps Perry, perhaps Paws and or Santorum. I want a team who can bury Obama but to nit pick all the GOP people is just great for the socialist Bama and his re-election team. Enough. I want to win and this AIP stuff is just angry nuttiness.
What are you talking about? This is a public statement burnishing the fake credentials of Mitt Romney by the President of the NRA.
Your Opinion.
I work in the industry you just read the NRA propaganda.
Who authored the Hughes Amendment?
Not really as described by Mr. Farago, yes there was an issue on the committe vote,release but the bottom line is the NRA did nothing about it had ample opportunity to stop the entire thing and still has ignored it to this day. Yawn.... I guess being a machine gun is being like a former slave in Ohio around 1859 or having the name of Dred Scott. Get over it, the NRA is damaged goods and will be replaced in the near future by a real 2nd Amendment Organization. Till then enjoy.
It doesn't have to be this way. Military service is a good thing and should be honored. However, I think you're both missing the fact that the modern American military neither has, needs, or even wants large numbers of people in uniform.
If you doubt that, let me add that I spent part of Friday afternoon interviewing the four-star general who heads Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) about current trends in military service. I deal with one and two-star generals on a regular basis, and had an extended interview some time ago with the three-star general who at that time was in charge of Army recruitment.
In other words, when I say I'm getting this “from the horse's mouth,” I might just know what I'm talking about. Nothing I'm saying is anything other than the standard view from the Pentagon for at least a decade, and actually closer to three decades. You don't need to take it from me; this is not some sort of insider view, and you would hear most of what I'm saying coming from the majority of senior officers who have given much thought to alternatives to the current all-volunteer force.
The leaders of the modern Army recognized a full generation ago that the vast majority of Americans don't want to serve in uniform, and a substantial part of those who might want to serve aren't qualified for a wide variety of reasons. Rather than focusing on having a large mass of people wearing the uniform, the Army and Navy followed the model that both the Air Force and Marine Corps had begun using far earlier, namely, trying to recruit a smaller force of people with specialized skill sets that the military needs, and then providing them with high-tech weapons and training so one squad or one company can do the work that in World War I and World War II required hundreds or maybe thousands of people. The current combat operations are not called the “captains’ war” for nothing.
This simply is a reflection in our uniformed personnel of changes in our civilian workforce. How many people do we need on an assembly line today? One person, thanks to technology, can do the work that a generation ago took many more people. That applies to the military just as much as any other field which requires technical expertise and use of sophisticated equipment.
We now have a highly trained and professional force which is capable of doing much more than a draftee Army of people who in too many cases don't want to be there and got out as quickly as they could. Obviously, we still have numerous young men (and yes, some young women) who decide to join the Army for a few years to give them personal discipline, to see the world, to pay for college, or whatever other reason, but who definitely know that in the modern military, there is a very good probability they'll see time in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever some new problem blows up next.
The nice thing is that while many of those people never intended to make the military a career and only intended to volunteer for a few years, once they join, quite a few decide they like it and end up spending 20 years or more in uniform, either active duty or in the National Guard or the Reserves, and not uncommonly then decide to hang up their uniform and start doing similar work for the Department of Defense as a GS civilian or as a contractor. It's a good system — take people who are experienced but have reached an age or a medical condition where they might not be the best for combat operations, and put them in garrison environments as civilians doing work that frees someone else to go to the fight.
Our modern military is not a cross-section of society; maybe some think it should be, but it just isn't. It is heavily composed of people from small towns or rural areas, is disproportionately Southern, and has many people whose fathers or other relatives were in the military before them and modeled military service.
In other words, we have a professional military of people who want to be there and are assuming a burden that most Americans cannot or do not want to perform.
We can debate whether the military should be a cross-section of America, or whether most able-bodied men should serve. The fact is that is not going to happen without massive changes in our society, and the Pentagon doesn't even want that. There are enough generals who remember what it was like to be a young officer or young sergeant during the Vietnam and post-Vietnam eras, or whose fathers were serving during that era, to be very sure they don't want that kind of military ever again.
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.