Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #2 - Columbia, SC 05/15/07

“When he starts proposing laws to take away all the other hundreds of various types of guns, then I’ll start to worry, but it ain’t going to happen.”

The new assault weapons ban that is now being pushed through Congress would ban most every common firearm except a few single shots and bolt action rifles.

I doubt Romney would know enough about it to veto it if it came to his desk.

2,481 posted on 05/15/2007 9:21:03 PM PDT by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super Walmart for news .)

Thank you Antoninus. Re Hunter, I thought it was just me.

2,482 posted on 05/15/2007 9:21:05 PM PDT by HonestConservative (If Conservatism is dead, why are the candidates claiming to be one.Hunter/Thompson08)

2,483 posted on 05/15/2007 9:21:07 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)

That is a standard Hannity tactic. I like Sean, but I hate when he interrupts the people he is interviewing.

Agree. Regardless of what Paul's views are, that was an offensive interview.

That's typical Hannity. He can't debate so he cuts off his opponent and yells at them like some lefty college student.

2,484 posted on 05/15/2007 9:21:10 PM PDT by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option.)

I can't watch Hannity anymore. He is a empty-minded shill, IMO.

Me either. Three seconds per day, everyday is about all I can stand of Yawn Vanity lately. May his ratings plummet to nothing.

2,485 posted on 05/15/2007 9:21:19 PM PDT by Antoninus (P!ss off an environmentalist wacko . . . have more kids.)

To: patriciaruth

>>>>>When it comes to defending the country, an assault weapon is a lot more useful that a safe sporting rifle locked in a childproof safe.

Your boy, old Rooty Toot, supports more gun control and an assault weapons ban. A slight oversight on your part I guess. LOL

2,486 posted on 05/15/2007 9:21:56 PM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)

Sean espouses on his show all the time that he’s Libertarian in the majority of his beliefs.

Uh Colmes is the professed Libertarian actually. Hannity is pretty much like Rush. Anyway the party wind blows so goes he.

2,487 posted on 05/15/2007 9:22:27 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Kool Aid! The popular American favorite drink now Made In Mexico. Pro-Open Borders? Drink Up!)

To: HonestConservative

I agree on who should drop out now.

The media is terrified of Hunter cause next to Thompson...e’s the only one of the Republicans that calls a spade a spade so to speak.

They realize that if he becomes the nominee...(assuming for some rason that Fred Doesn’t run) and they have to cover him and use his soundbites...the people will vote for him in droves.

Therefore...they have to convince us he has no chance or just ignore him completely.

Sanjay Paul Simon Cowell’s favorite to win American Presidential Idol.

2,488 posted on 05/15/2007 9:22:35 PM PDT by txradioguy (In Memory Of My Friend 1SG Tim Millsap A Co. 70th Engineer Bn. K.I.A. 25 Apr. 2005)

Yes, I find it disturbing that Romney took ownership of the anti-assault gun position, seeing that the bill that he signed did not in fact ban any new guns or extend any ban. Here is the NRA take on that bill from an earlier thread:

-—On June 24, 2004 at approximately 11:20 AM , the Senate took the last legislative vote on S.2367 and sent it to Governor Romney`s desk for his consideration. Representing the greatest set of firearm law reforms since the passage of the Commonwealth`s worst in the nation gun laws, S.2367 is a breath of fresh air for law abiding gun owners. Governor Romney is expected to sign the bill into law later this week.

While not perfect by any means, this bill represents a step forward for gun owners in Massachusetts. The bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 36 - 1 in favor and the House passed it with no amendments or debate on a “voice” vote. This represented by far the broadest support a reform bill has ever seen in the Massachusetts State House. Only one legislator in the entire building voiced opposition to the bill.

S.2367 does the following:

* Instructs the Executive Director of the Criminal History Systems Board to make the Firearms Identification Card and the License To Carry a Firearm the same size as a driver`s license;

* Changes the term of a Firearms Identification Card and a License to Carry to six years;

* Creates a grace period of 90 days, if the Firearms Identification Card or License to Carry holder applies for renewal before the expiration date, and if the application for renewal is not denied;

* Creates a Firearms Licensing Review Board. Applicants disqualified by a misdemeanor record, from obtaining a License To Carry or Firearms Identification Card, may file a petition for review of eligibility with the board, five years after conviction, adjudication, commitment, probation or parole;

* and in the case where an officer is confiscating the guns of a person with an expired license, requires the officer to provide a written inventory and receipt for all guns.

(emphasis added)

Despite the efforts of some (including The Boston Globe) to spin this bill as an extension of or creation of a new “Assault Weapons” ban, the bill makes no net changes to the Commonwealth`s laws regarding those types of firearms. The three sections referencing them merely dealt with re-affirming the definitions of what an “Assault Weapon” could be.

Here are just some of the points that the media (including The Boston Globe) got wrong.

Myth: Some headlines claimed that the legislature voted to expand the ban on the sale of the same 19 guns that the federal government has banned.

Fact: The guns are already banned in Massachusetts . The legislature only voted to clarify the definition of so-called “assault weapons,” but made no changes to the number of guns included.

Myth: The gun ban was extended.

Fact: Our state`s gun ban was not due to disappear, nor will it become invalid if the federal ban sunsets in September.

Myth: The legislature somehow “won over” gun-rights supporters by including reforms.

Fact: NRA and Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) had made it very clear to the legislature that we would not give up any ground. NRA and GOAL supported this bill because it did not ban any guns, and because it made much-needed reforms.

Myth: Those legislators that wanted to expand the semi-auto gun ban claimed that they “spearheaded” S.2367.

Fact: Credit should be given to Senator Stephen Brewer (D- Barre) and Senator Richard T. Moore (D - Uxbridge) for the reform language.

Myth: The Massachusetts House approved a new version of the ban that would decouple the state definitions from the federal ones.

Fact: The bill merely takes the existing state references to federal law, and fixes the language to a point in time in 1994. Because that is the federal language is currently in effect, the net effect on Massachusetts gun owners is zero. No new gun bans are banned. Keep in mind that the state language in effect before this bill was NEVER set to expire.

With that in mind, NRA members should be very pleased in knowing that their efforts to educate and work with their local representatives and senators resulted in a successful reform action.

Thanks to you and the Gun Owners` Action League, lawful gun owners can now take advantage of this first set of real reforms in over five years.-—

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1832674/posts

2,489 posted on 05/15/2007 9:22:40 PM PDT by claudiustg (I curse you, Rudy of the Giuliani!)

How would Rudy’s open-borders policy protect us from Islam?

2,490 posted on 05/15/2007 9:22:55 PM PDT by 50mm (algore uses 20 times as much energy as me)

Two words: Ross Perot.

The situation is different today. George H. W. Bush wasn't a bad president. He made a few compromises that he shouldn't have made, but he mostly did a good job as president. He deserved our support but simply ran a pathetic campaign. He didn't deserve to lose, and the GOP didn't deserve to lose for nominating him. The lesson from that loss should have been to run a better campaign.

Rudy Giuliani is a different situation. He doesn't deserve the support of conservatives, and if the GOP nominates him, it deserves a loss. The lesson would be not to nominate a bad candidate.

2,491 posted on 05/15/2007 9:23:03 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)

To be fair, Rudy Giuliani is not a liberal; he's a moderate. Liberals are all calling themselves Progressives now. They still can't embrace the C word.

And Rudy, for all his faults, is not a C or an S.

2,492 posted on 05/15/2007 9:23:05 PM PDT by patriciaruth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562436/posts)

To: James W. Fannin

i understand the need to avoid the religious icons pressed by the RINOs, as well. this means listening with a discernment, looking into their past, does their fruit back their words, are they choosing their words/ verbage TOO carefully...

McCain is a RINO setup, and I am cautious that Romney could also be in the same line-up. Fred Thompson has slipped verbally on the pro-life issue. The trouble will be the party leadership pushing one that the grassroots may not be backing... Don't be surprised by someone thrown in at the last minute, into the mix, to throw things off!!

2,493 posted on 05/15/2007 9:23:15 PM PDT by MountainFlower (There but by the grace of God go I.)

Please don’t lump Rush in with Hannity. Rush is articulate and has well thought out positions usually. Hannity just spouts off some touchy feely “morality” based one liner and then brow beats anyone who disagrees.

2,494 posted on 05/15/2007 9:23:46 PM PDT by HoundsTooth_BP

He's got Romney Derangement Syndrome and he's got it bad.

Nah. That would be those who continue to support him no matter how large the mountain of evidence for Romney's leftist record, and continued deceptions, grows.

2,495 posted on 05/15/2007 9:24:06 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (It wasn't a debate. It was a mass interview....)

Gun laws will be up to the state . They wont change if Rudy wins or any other republican for that matter .

2,496 posted on 05/15/2007 9:24:31 PM PDT by sonic109

To: patriciamary

Y’OK

Then for those candidates I’ll say again...

FRed Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo....

The rest are not going to win and are not POTUS material...

2,497 posted on 05/15/2007 9:24:37 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana

To: HoundsTooth_BP

"Ron Paul’s point is that we should consider the ramifications of what we do instead of blustering about like a bull in a china shop."

Ron Paul is not a bad guy. I'd just much rather have a President who puts the emphasis on making the terrorist-spawning countries consider the ramifications of what THEY do, instead of spewing random death like a suicide bomber on an Israeli bus.

The invocation of something the US did 50 years ago, and that wasn't all that bad anyway, is a trope from the nutter left-o-sphere, it's a form of ritualized self-denunciation of America. The world is not a rationally, perfectly predictable place, that's just an ideological fantasy. Reasonable people do the best they can at the time, including prediction of the consequences. To try to pin the blame for present situations on a few narrowly selected events long ago (cherry-picked to support a particular ideological position) is not supporting reason, it's just sophistry.

Ron Paul could as easily claim that Iran is run today by religious extremists because Charles Martel beat the Moors at Poiters (Tours), and if he hadn't, Islam would have developed differently, as would Europe, and today Iran would be a democratic paradise, la dee da. Whatever. Retrospective second-guessing of hypothetical alternative universes is delusional and useless, no matter how it's dressed up.

2,498 posted on 05/15/2007 9:24:41 PM PDT by omnivore

To: EternalVigilance

What part of the following do you not understand?

Here are just some of the points that the media (including The Boston Globe) got wrong.

Myth: Some headlines claimed that the legislature voted to expand the ban on the sale of the same 19 guns that the federal government has banned.

Fact: The guns are already banned in Massachusetts . The legislature only voted to clarify the definition of so-called “assault weapons,” but made no changes to the number of guns included.

Myth: The gun ban was extended.

Fact: Our state`s gun ban was not due to disappear, nor will it become invalid if the federal ban sunsets in September.

Myth: The legislature somehow “won over” gun-rights supporters by including reforms.

Myth: Those legislators that wanted to expand the semi-auto gun ban claimed that they “spearheaded” S.2367.

Fact: Credit should be given to Senator Stephen Brewer (D- Barre) and Senator Richard T. Moore (D - Uxbridge) for the reform language.

Myth: The Massachusetts House approved a new version of the ban that would decouple the state definitions from the federal ones.

2,499 posted on 05/15/2007 9:25:14 PM PDT by claudiustg (I curse you, Rudy of the Giuliani!)

I believe you have me confused with patriciamary.

Rudy is not my boy.

Although baldness does run in the family....

2,500 posted on 05/15/2007 9:25:14 PM PDT by patriciaruth (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562436/posts)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794