Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you're going hunting? That's overkill. But I don't think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that But what's the point of passing gun laws if we're not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, that's where you need to start. We've got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it's about how we enforce the law. Source: Washington Post interview Oct 16, 2006
Your comment is out of context: In plain English this means, "Screw your gun-control bill, we've got enough gun laws. Don't like what's happening on the street? Arrest the criminals. Quit trying to hassle law-abiding gun owners with your statist crap." Maybe this will help limn where Steele's coming from on 2A. Enforcing existing laws is the right answer to gun crime.
You took Mr. Steeles quote out of context, I fixed it for you and put the rest of it in. He is ANTI-GUN and pro-abort, he is for gay marriage. You cannot reach out to those groups and stand against them on conservative principles at the same time, that's called being two faced or deceptive if you will. If you read and listen to every thing this guy says there is no doubt he is a RINO. I would not vote for this guy if he were running for office and I won't support him as RNC chairman.
The second amendment isn't about hunting it is about self defense, against criminals and against our government if need be. Period.
I did not take Steele out of context. I cited the full quote in our interlocutor's post, and my post is automatically linked to his. There is no question of obfuscation or decontextualization here. Think before you hit "post".
I emphasized the portion of Steele's quote that is in fact a talking point the NRA often brings up when debating the grabbers, to-wit, that the ostensible premise of grabbers' proposed restrictive measures is public safety. But as Steele pointed out and I emphasized by quoting him again, after the other poster had added emphasis to other parts of Steele's quote that did not properly illuminate Steele's position, the real answer to criminality is the enforcement of the hundreds of extant laws that protect the public and sanction crime committed with guns. That was Steele's, and the NRA's, real point -- and a very valid one that can't be emphasized enough in these culture wars.
He is ANTI-GUN and pro-abort, he is for gay marriage.
He is not anti-gun, no way. You completely misread and misinterpreted his statement. That's what I've been telling you.
I don't think he's an abort, either, n/w/s Tim Russert's trying to corner him with a "gotcha" election-killer moment that the 'Ratmedia could then use to beat Steele's candidacy to death (they did anyway, but then they couldn't do that in a state whose citizens are not complete liberal dolts).
Bottom line, I think Michael Steele is pro-life and anti-abortion. He said he didn't advocate overturning Roe vs. Wade at this time (are you going to accuse me of misquoting him again?). He did that to defend against the "gotcha". I wouldn't have done it, but I understand why he did -- it's politely called "campaign rhetoric" when 'Rats do it.
I don't think Steele is anti-marriage, either -- or pro-HRC, pro-GLAAD, pro-gay caucus, or any of that.
You cannot reach out to those groups and stand against them on conservative principles at the same time, that's called being two faced or deceptive if you will.
That's not true at all. You seem to be saying that if I'm not actively attacking them, I'm being a two-faced liar. But Steele reaches out to members of these groups by appealing to their other interests and values that they might share with the GOP platform.
Inviting people on the other side of the divide to cross over and help us out, isn't giving up one's own principles. Asking for practical help from people disposed to disagree with you on other basic issues is not abandonment of principle. Only capitulation to their ideology is abandonment of principle.