Posted on 09/07/2012 1:54:04 PM PDT by marktwain
This year’s election is going to define the future of our freedom, perhaps more than any other in our history.
For gun owners, there are a number of areas crucial to the survival of our Second Amendment rights. That’s why I took the time to visit with Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, to find out precisely where he stands on the issues of concern to gun owners.
Chris W. Cox: First, let me start with the most basic question of all. In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the 2010 case McDonald v. City of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court—by a 5-4 majority—held that the Second Amendment guarantees the fundamental, individual right of all law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. Do you agree that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to own and use firearms for all lawful purposes?
Gov. Mitt Romney: Absolutely, and I was pleased when the Court finally rendered a clear and concise decision on this critical issue. The Second Amendment is essential to our free society. I strongly support the right of all law-abiding Americans to exercise their constitutionally protected right to own firearms and to use them for lawful purposes, including self-defense; the protection of family and property; hunting and recreational shooting.
Cox: Obviously, America’s 100 million gun owners are very concerned that their Second Amendment rights hang in the balance at the U.S. Supreme Court by just one vote. President Obama’s two nominees to the Court so far—Justices Sotomayor and Kagan—have a history of anti-gun opinions and activism. And some have predicted that if Barack Obama is re-elected, he may have the opportunity to nominate several more justices to the Court. As president, if you had the opportunity, what type of individuals would you nominate to the Supreme Court? And which of the justices currently serving on the Court would you consider to be the best models of your judicial philosophy?
Gov. Romney: Chris, I believe the next president could indeed have the opportunity to shape the Court for decades to come, and that’s a key reason why the tens of millions of Americans who support the NRA should support my candidacy. My view of the Constitution is straightforward: Its words have meaning. The founders adopted a written constitution for a reason. They intended to limit the powers of government. The job of a judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government and, where the Constitution does not speak, to leave the governance of the nation to its elected representatives. I believe in the rule of law, and I will appoint wise, experienced and restrained judges who take seriously their oath to discharge their duties impartially in accordance with our Constitution and our laws—not their personal policy preferences.
Cox: Let’s do a quick rundown of where you stand on some gun laws our opponents have been pushing for many years. Do you support additional federal regulation of gun shows?
Gov. Romney: I do not support further federal regulation of gun shows. There are tens of thousands of gun shows in local communities every year. Gun shows are not only an opportunity for millions of law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights, but also their First Amendment right to assemble and speak. Anti-gun organizations have perpetrated this myth that somehow laws don’t apply at gun shows and that’s nonsense. All sales from federal firearm licensees are regulated no matter where they take place, and private sales are regulated at gun shows just as they are anywhere else.
Cox: Gun owner licensing?
Gov. Romney: That’s another solution in search of a problem. I do support the current National Instant Check System, because it simply verifies that a gun buyer is not disqualified under cur- rent law. Adding an arbitrary, costly and bureaucratic licensing scheme on top of that would be wasteful and wrong.
Cox: Federal gun registration?
Gov. Romney: Like the majority of Americans, I do not believe that the United States needs more laws that restrict Second Amendment rights. I also recognize the extraordinary number of jobs and other economic benefits that are produced by hunting, recreational shooting, and the firearms and ammunition industry, not the least of which is to fund wildlife and habitat conservation. But I do not support adding more laws and regulations that would burden law-abiding citizens and would be ignored by criminals.
Cox: The United Nations has been conducting serious negotiations on a treaty that would likely impose significant regulation of private gun ownership in the United States. The Bush administration strongly opposed this effort as an infringement on American sovereignty. How would a Romney administration approach this issue?
Gov. Romney: I am troubled by this. In foreign policy, I am guided by one overwhelming conviction: This century must be an American Century. In an American Century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. In an American Century, America leads the free world. God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America must lead the world, or someone else will. Without American leadership, without the clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place. Let me make this very clear. As president of the United States, I will devote myself to those ideas, and I will never, ever apologize for America. So by the same token, I will never support or enforce any treaty that attempts to restrict our fundamental rights, or tries to “harmonize” our constitutional rights with all of the less-free nations in the world.
Cox: Would you support legislation to provide national reciprocity for Right-to-Carry permit holders so that they can protect themselves when they’re traveling outside their home states?
Gov. Romney: Absolutely. Fundamental rights don’t disappear when we cross state borders, and self-defense is a fundamental right.
Cox: Would you support the reimposition of a federal ban on semi-automatic firearms incorrectly called “assault weapons?”
Gov. Romney: No. I do not support any additional laws to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
Cox: As governor, you signed a major bill reforming Massachusetts’ gun registration and licensing laws. Some in the media and elsewhere claim this bill was a reauthorization of the semi-auto ban in Massachusetts. What’s your response?
Gov. Romney: As governor of Massachusetts, I was proud to support legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners. I worked hard to advance the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms, while opposing liberal desires to create bureaucracy intended to burden gun owners and sportsmen. As governor, I also designated May 7 as “The Right to Bear Arms Day” in Massachusetts to honor law-abiding citizens and their right to “use firearms in defense of their families, persons and property for all lawful purposes, including common defense.”
The bill you mention was supported by your state NRA affiliate because it expanded the rights of Massachusetts gun owners. The NRA said at the time that it included “the greatest set of firearm law reforms since the passage of the Commonwealth’s worst-in-the- nation gun laws … a breath of fresh air for law-abiding gun owners.” While not perfect legislation, I agreed with that description of the bill, and that’s why I signed it into law.
Cox: America has a proud hunting tradition. One of the biggest problems facing hunters is finding land where they can hunt. The NRA has worked for a number of years to open as much federal land to hunting as possible. What would you do as president to address this issue?
Gov. Romney: I will work with the Congress to pass legislation to make clear that public lands should be open for hunting unless there’s a legitimate reason otherwise. I also plan to address the regulatory aspect of this issue by nominating people to key positions who support our proud hunting heritage, and understand that hunters are the original conservationists.
Cox: Over the past few years, drug cartel violence along the Southwest border has created significant problems for law enforcement, and has been used by anti-gun politicians in both the U.S. and Mexico as an excuse to call for more American gun laws. How would you deal with the violence in Mexico and its impact in the U.S.?
Gov. Romney: Our border with Mexico remains an ongoing problem, posing serious questions for America’s future. Will drug cartels dominate Mexico’s border region, with greater and greater violence spilling over into our country? And will drug smugglers and terrorists increasingly make their way to our side of the border? These are only some of the very real dangers that America faces, if we continue the policies of the past three years. But it doesn’t have to be this way. We are a democracy. We decide. Your members decide. America’s 100 million gun owners decide. I will offer a very different vision of America’s role in the world and of America’s destiny than what we’ve seen during the past three and a half years.
Cox: One part of the current administration’s policies to deal with Mexican crime was the “Fast & Furious” program. This has turned into a serious scandal. As president, how would you respond if this occurred during your administration? And how would you prevent this kind of disaster in the future?
Gov. Romney: I don’t want to wait until after the election. This problem needs to be addressed right now. I support the language in the current Justice Department appropriations bill to absolutely prohibit this kind of operation. And unlike Barack Obama, I would not support repealing that language in the future.
Cox: Attorney General Holder has steadfastly refused to cooperate with the congressional investigation into “Fast & Furious.” Do you believe Holder should resign or be fired due to his actions?
Gov. Romney: If there is the remotest possibility that our nation’s top prosecu- tors have suppressed evidence that they supported this outrageous operation, then someone has to be held account- able. And I believe that’s where this is headed, so yes, I believe it’s time for Eric Holder to go.
Cox: The NRA has always said that passing more gun control laws will not reduce violent crime. We think the solution to this issue is prosecuting criminals who illegally misuse firearms. But in the Obama administration, prosecutions of criminals who misuse firearms are at the lowest point in the last 10 years. What do you believe is the most effective method for reducing crime?
Gov. Romney: My position is simple: I will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes. I will also provide law enforcement with the proper and effective resources they need to deter, apprehend and punish criminals.
Cox: One of the key areas where presi- dents can affect the Second Amendment rights of Americans is in the people they appoint to key positions. As president, will you appoint people who agree with your position that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right, particularly to the office of attorney general and other Cabinet level appointments, as well as positions that directly impact gun owners such as the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?
Gov. Romney: That’s a basic starting point, yes. If elected president, yes, I will nominate people who agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right and are prepared to implement them throughout government, from the Cabinet level on down.
Cox: Aside from the specific issues, is there anything you’d like to tell our members about the stakes in this election for gun owners and hunters?
Gov. Romney: I do. I believe we are an exceptional country with a unique destiny and role in the world. We are exceptional because we are a nation founded on a precious idea that was born in the American Revolution. We are a people who threw off the yoke of tyranny and established a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We are a people who, in the language of our Declaration of Independence, hold certain truths to be self-evident; namely, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That sets us apart from the rest of the world, and we don’t need to apologize for it. We should be proud of it. I hope to serve as your president to continue in that proud tradition. We need a president who will stand up for the rights of those who simply want to protect themselves, their families and their homes and who want to continue America’s rich hunting heritage. President Obama has not, but I will. The choice is clear. I hope your members will support me, and I respectfully ask for their votes on Election Day.
Cox: Governor Romney, thank you for your time and for your support of gun owners’ rights. Good luck in November.
© 2012 National Rifle Association of America. Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Additional Information: The Romney Record - A Look at Governor Mitt Romney's Record as Governor of Massachusetts as it Relates to the Gun Owners and Sportsmen of Our State - Prepared by: Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) - February 2007
You are free to post content on your home page and you choose to do so. I am just as free and choose not to do so. You are free to post such content and everyone else here is free to editorialize on your content. I did.
You are free to vote for abortion-loving, rump ranger "marriage" promoting, gun grabbing, medicine socializing Mittler and I am free to reject such an abominable choice along with his Demonrat opponent.
You are evidently making the obvious mistake of imagining that I give a tinker's damn or the east end of a rodent heading west for your opinions. Nor do I care what or whom you are "concerned" about.
If I should ever feel any "need" to know your idiosyncratic and non-authoritative personal opinions or views as to the meaning of Scripture (or as to what hypothetically St. Paul might tell you), as opposed to the authority of the Teaching Magisterium of the Church to which I belong, I'll be sure to let you be the first to know. Health tip: Don't hold your breath waiting.
When you intend to vote for the ideological and moral train wreck that is Mittler for no better reason than that Obozo is a plane crash, you ought not be surprised NOT to be respected for what you hallucinate is "conservatism" or "morality" by those with the principle to reject BOTH of this year's major party candidates. NOT voting for Mittler OR Obozo is more conservative and more moral than voting FOR either of them.
You are but a keyboard personality on FR and neither a personal friend nor even an acquaintance. Anyone can judge your intended and proclaimed actions. Concededly, judging your heart and soul may well be a different matter (and is God's own province alone since it involves subjective factors that MAY be known to you and to Him but not to your fellow keyboard personalities. Of course, that which is objectively wrong is STILL objectively wrong and however you may subjectively rationalize your wrong intended actions, subjective rationalizations need carry no weight with objective observers. We need not in our relations with others, even on the internet, assume the qualities of potted plants.
Again, no One died and left you in charge of putting your own spin on Scripture unless you are known as Benedict XVI in your day job. I act in the world as God gives me time to do so. I am not a pacifist. I am unlikely to see my role as beating my sword into a plowshare. Your concept of "witness" seems to suggest posing rather than acting. In the world in which we live, there is much in the way of evil. We are not called to condone it (much less out of fear that we might offend). It is traditionally believed that, of the Twelve, Judas committed suicide, John died a natural death in old age and the rest (including Jude Thaddeus who replaced Judas among the Twelve) were martyred.
I make no claims generally as to possessing in my own right "superior Christian knowledge, understanding, virtues, or faith." In your contradictions of others, you also judge. However, we are all sinners. The last two who reached adulthood who were not sinners were Jesus Christ and his mother Mary. It is not a stretch to conclude that all others are sinners, including thee and me.
Your concept of "witness" seems very akin to posing for public consumption. To avoid giving scandal is one thing. To vote for Mittler or Obozo lest we cause "unbelievers to shun Christ" is quite another. We are not called to be Kumbaya mushrooms. See Matthew: 10:34, Luke: 22:36; Luke: 12:49-53 and Luke 14: 25-33. [Cited merely to state a position and Scriptural roots of same and not to invite lengthy Chapter and Verse swap meets of the Catholic vs. Reformed nature, much less re-fighting the Thirty Years' War].
I reasonably suspect that you have disagreements with some of the above because of disagreements between Roman Catholic and Reformed Church theology. That is to be expected. Christianity has not been unified for a substantial number of centuries, Nonetheless, varying though we may on specifics, and in whatever tradition we may worship Him, we are, at least, all of His flock.
There was a humorist Joe Queenan who parodied the song "If I Had a Hammer" substituting as lyrics: "If I had a hammer, I'd smash their guitars..."
There was and is only one Jesus Christ and we shall not see His like until He returns as promised.
Magnificent!
If that's the case, why did you write not just a chapter as a response, but read my homepage, first comment on it, and then continue with your ignoramous commentary? Methinks you're lying and lost it, both at once. lol.
As far as I'm concerned, I haven't read anything beyond this point of your little book. You've already displayed you're dishonest, beyond ridiculous, and incapable of logical reasoning abilities.
Now, take your best shot. I will ignore it.
Your posts here generally and understandably refuse to raise a positive case for your political idol since there is no such argument to make.
Much of what you post is the ravings of a banshee doused in holy water raging because I and others refuse to substitute your judgment for the common sense God gave me and them. I owe you nothing as to compliance with your surrender monkey syndrome or as to respecting you or paying further attention to you.
Your every insult is a tribute. Thank you! Goodbye!
Absolutely do with people, such as yourself, who have such inflated opinions of themselves and make comments to others, such as "ou are evidently making the obvious mistake of imagining that I give a tinker's damn or the east end of a rodent heading west for your opinions. Nor do I care what or whom you are "concerned" about," and then have the audacity to think I care to read about your opinions or beliefs.
Hint: I choose to not have time but to selectively read anything you post.
Say what you want about Romney, but those Navy Seals would be alive, the Ambassador wouldn't have been raped and murdered, and the embassies wouldn't have been besieged on his watch.
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.