Posted on 10/16/2012 9:02:23 PM PDT by JohnPierce
“[F]rankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s.”
- President Obama Oct 16, 2012
--IMAGE HERE--
As co-founder and spokesperson for OpenCarry.org, I very much wanted to hear a question about guns put to the candidates. More specifically, like many Americans, I wanted to hear what kind of Supreme Court justices the candidates would nominate where gun rights are concerned.
In fact, we formulated a question that encompassed the core of these concerns and issued a press release urging that the candidates be asked the following:
A divided United States Supreme Court has twice ruled by way of razor thin 5 to 4 votes that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
However the 4 dissenting justices in District of Columbia v. Heller stated that “self-defense . . . is not the [Second] Amendment’s concern.”
If you are elected and have the occasion to nominate a Supreme Court justice, will you choose a nominee who believes that the Second Amendment is concerned with the individual right of self-defense, or one who believes that self-defense is not the Second Amendment’s concern?
However, when a question about guns was finally asked during tonight’s town-hall style debate it was nothing more than yet another attempt to resurrect support for the so-called ‘assault weapons ban’.
This question clearly played to the President’s ideology and he took the opportunity to reiterate his support for the failed Clinton-era policy despite his admission that the violence in our cities is not being caused by sporting firearms. Nonetheless, he assured the crowd that he wants to ban them.
He followed this up with a number of statements that seem to indicate that he doesn’t even understand the difference between fully-automatic weapons and the semi-automatic sporting rifles that would actually be affected by the ban.
But don’t take my word for it. Here are some of his comments:
“[W]eapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets.”
“[W]hat I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.”
Oh yes … If only someone would regulate fully-automatic firearms, silencers, explosives, and war ordinance. You know … like the United States did in 1934 with the passage of the National Firearms Act.
That’s right folks. The “automatic weapons … that were designed for soldiers in war theaters” are already heavily regulated and have been for almost 80 years. And yet the President of the United States is attempting to use them as an election issue in 2012.
So we are left with two possibilities.
One … he is so insulated from mainstream America that he truly believes that anyone can walk into a gun store and emerge with a fully-automatic firearm.
Or two … he is purposefully mis-stating the facts in order to take advantage of undecided voters who are unfamiliar with the country’s firearms laws.
In either case, it is conduct unbecoming of a president and a clear attack on the rights of gun owners.
And in the meantime, Governor Romney continues to imply that he might support gun control if it were brought to him by a bi-partisan group “coming together.”
People may argue for days as to whether Romney or Obama won the debate but I do know who lost … the truth.
Did he say that college grads needed jobs so they wouldn’t need guns? Something like that?
My rebuttal would be "Why not?" Are we not designing the best possible weapons for our soldiers to use in defending themselves? Sure, soldiers embark on offensive operations too. But are not these the very best weapons we can conceive of for someone in a dangerous situation? If you're confronted by several attackers do you want a semi-automatic sidearm (a-la the Colt 1911) or a flintlock? If a gang of thugs bent on harm, riot and destruction approaches your business, person, employees, and customers do you want a muzzle loader or a semi-automatic AR with a 30 round magazine?
The entire notion of some government flunky deciding what we need or don't need is not only ludicrous it flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment. Remember this simple fact:
The 2nd Amendment does not grant anyone the right to bear arms. It guarantees the government will not infringe upon our inalienable right to keep and bear arms. No one needs to demonstrate a need to keep and bear a particular kind of arms any more than they need to demonstrate a need to use certain words protected by the 1st Amendment.
I know he said “I do believe that if our young people have opportunity, then they are less likely to engage in these kinds of violent acts.”
He was trying hard to sound moderate on the issue but it is hard to sound moderate when you are proposing a ban on the most popular sporting firearms in the country.
Apparently, Mr. Romney thinks it is illegal to own an automatic firearm. Not very good on the 2A issue, and did a poor job of explaining Fast & Furious also.
Well said.
I don’t know where they get off ignoring the text...”the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It doesn’t get any more direct or clear than that. “Keep and BEAR,” does not mean locked in a safe in your house.
“did a poor job of explaining Fast & Furious also.”
At least he brought it up.
Romney showed a complete ignorance of guns as well. Fully automatic weapons are illegal in this country? I didn’t know that... when did that happen?
At the part where Obama gets confused it looks like he points to his ear like he lost the audio feed...lol.
Crowley was distracted by trying to find her lost ham sandwich
What struck me about Governor Romney's response was that while he is not expert on firearms, the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court, and Fast and Furious, he can be educated about it. With Paul Ryan as the VP, Romney can be turned, much like President Bush was. That is virtually impossible with President Obama.
A hardcore, pro rights president would be wonderful, but I will settle for a pragmatic president that knows the MSM is his enemy, and is willing to bow to pressure from his base, who are overwhelmingly pro Constitutional rights.
I think this is the proper way to look at this election. The Supreme Court nominees are the real prize and I think Romney will appoint far better candidates than Obama. That alone is worth the price of admission!
Didn’t SCOTUS rule in US vs Miller that military style weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment? The Founding Fathers knew that militia members had to provide their own weapons.
Mitt came off as very lukewarm on the 2nd ammendment.
A few blogs and forums are ripping him right now.
Focus on the down ticket races. I fear that on the 2nd ammendment, there is little difference between Mitt and Obambi.
Romney is weak on firearms. Period. Not through ignorance, but through ideology.
His ignorance shows clearly. He made the gaffe about automatic firearms being banned. No need to assume malice when ignorance suffices. He is simply not that interested in guns.
I believe that he is a quick study, though. He hit a pretty key point on Fast and Furious, that it made no sense.
He might not be “interested” in the Bill of Rights explicit protections for our Rights, but I am.
He might not be “interested” in repealing all of the blatantly unConstitutional crap that has been put in place to restrict and infringe on our RKBA over the last 80 years, but I am.
He might not be that “interested” in actively defending that part of his Oath should he win the Presidency, but I am.
He might not be “interested” in earning my vote... But he should be.
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.