Posted on 10/18/2012 6:58:27 AM PDT by IbJensen
Crowley cuts off Romney’s Fast and Furious remarks at Obama’s behest
In the Oct. 16 presidential debate between President Barack Obama and GOP challenger W. Mitt Romney, when the president dropped the pretense of being neutral on restricting gun rights with a key assist from moderator Candy Crowley, hostess of the CNN program “State of the Nation.”
After his policies were rebuked in the 1994 midterms, President William J. Clinton, blamed more than anything else his support for a national ban on so-called assault weapons. It must have been a calculated move for Obama to suggest he would bring back the ban that had expired.
The questioner asked the president what he had done to fulfill his 2008 promise to keep AK-47’s and so-called assault weapons out of the hands of criminals.
Americans support the Second Amendment, he said. Then, those concerned about gun rights waited for the “but.”
They did not have to wait long.
“But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody,” he said.
“We have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill,” he said.
“We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement,” he said. “What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.”
Obama said it made sense to him that weapons designed for soldiers should not be in the hands of civilians.
Perhaps sensing the a coming retort, the president acknowledged his own city of Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, is rife with gun violence. “Frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”
Message: We are coming after the hand guns, too.
The president and his campaign have been quick to point out that in the last four years, the administration has not proposed new restrictions on gun rights. In the Oct. 16 debate, Obama crossed that line with not only a call for responsible gun ownership, but also with his support for screening Americans for their mental capacity to exercise their guns rights.
Like trying to get off the No-Fly List, Americans who find themselves on the No-Gun List, like veterans, who seek counseling, have no process to appeal or otherwise adjudicate their status–a status bestowed upon them with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen and often without notice.
For his part, Romney got caught up in the law he signed in Massachusetts that banned so-called “assault weapons.” It is a position that Romney took with the cooperation of the National Rifle Association because it loosened other gun restrictions.
The former Bay State governor scored some serious points with he brought up the Fast and Furious scandal, unfortunately, the rogue moderator stepped in again to interrupt Romney and break up his rhetorical momentum.
“The – the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to – to gun violence in some respects is what – what is known as Fast and Furious. Which was a program under this administration, and how it worked exactly I think we don’t know precisely, where thousands of automatic, and AK-47 type weapons were – were given to people that ultimately gave them to – to drug lords,” Romney said.
“They used those weapons against – against their own citizens and killed Americans with them. And this was a – this was a program of the government,” he said. “I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.”
The president used one of his lifelines: “Candy?”
The immoderate moderator interceded: ”Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned.” There could be no discussion of the Justice Department program that sent thousands of military-style long guns to Mexican crime organizations. Because? Because, no reason, because–and that was that.
Crime has increased in every country that banned guns. Even more so because now they know that the people can not defend themselves. I say, keep your guns and get rid of this government, that is a good start.
“... keep your guns and get rid of this government...”
Excellent advice. And, we know who failed to screen this turd.
His version of "comfort" is to have his flunkys mail a note with an auto-scribed autograph to grieving family members and then to jet off to Las Vegas, Hawaii, or Martha's Vineyard.
His version of "comfort" is to have his flunkys mail a note with an auto-scribed autograph to grieving family members and then to jet off to Las Vegas, Hawaii, or Martha's Vineyard.
I don’t think Obama is all that serious about handgun enforcement for those in the shadow culture. I think he and Holder think it only fair that “their people” are armed and ready for redistribution.
So, if he can, Obama would shut down new gun production. But, criminals using guns in crimes would continue to have modest sentences.
If we went to a Singapore solution for true gun crime violence, coupled with a liberal interpretation of self-defense and the Castle Doctrine, the problem would take care of itself.
By “Singapore solution”, I mean Draconian punishment for gangbangers using firearms, or for that matter, unprovoked attacks by mobs or those employing great disparity of force.
would someone please tell me where in the constitution, particularly the second amendment, where it says anything about background checks, criminal record or mental health condition????????
Candy cut off debate (at Obama’s request) on Fast and Furious. F&F is fair game for the foreign policy debate since Mexico was the major victim of F&F, although we know what the ultimate goal was re: taking guns away from Americans. Romney needs to “hit it” in the next debate. BTW, I have a cousin who is a foreign policy expert (worked in the Reagan admin). You could google his name & get lots of info. - well-respected, books, etc. He attended an event with Romney a couple of years ago and said Romney talked, for two hours, without notes on foreign policy. My cousin was extremely impressed and told Romney that he reminded him of Ronald Reagan. Romney should do just fine on foreign policy, if he can keep Schieffer from sabotaging him. Bob S. is a nasty piece of work.
Good comeback.
He cut the screen and snuck in the back.
>>I don’t think Obama is all that serious about handgun >>enforcement for those in the shadow culture. I think he >>and Holder think it only fair that “their people” are >>armed and ready for redistribution.
This is exactly it. In addition, they want those of us being redistributed from to not be able to fight back. We’re supposed to stand there and take it passively.
NOT gonna happen.
“But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody,”
He’s talking about Trayvon again...
Sorry Obummer, the first soldiers of this country, including 7 of my ancestors at Bunker Hill, were civilians using modern weapons of soldiers of that time, you idiot SOB!
That`s what King George III said- Look what happened to him. They tried to disarm all the citizens of Boston, but didn`t succeeed. They tried to take away our ammo too-They tried to seize the ammo dump before Lexington and Concord and look what happened to them.
That`s what King George III said- Look what happened to him. They tried to disarm all the citizens of Boston, but didn`t succeeed. They tried to take away our ammo too-They tried to seize the ammo dump before Lexington and Concord and look what happened to them.
Jeez. Do they have editors at Human Events?
An eight grader could tell that is not a sentence.
Not all rights are of the “inalienable” type. Those are specifed as “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”. From these un/inalienable rights comes the mechanisms to exercise those principles of society and government, namely, to keep and bear arms (obvious to anyone who hold that one’s life is the most important aspect of all), and speech/press (libnerty is at issue here- w/o a voice, one cannot obtain and keep liberty, apply the former comment also,arms), and right to security in one’s person, papers and home. Pursuit of life liberty and happiness is not unlimited- ones pursuit of such (property, money, things etc) are all limited by society and law so as not to intrude/usurp the same from others).
The necessary and proper clasue of the constittuion is the basis for regulating all of the essentail rights- would anyone argue (seriously anyway) the fact taht arms are prohibited in court (except by court officers)?
We need to read, reread and study the DOI, the US COnstitution and BOR/Amendment and as importantly Locke’s “Second treatise on government” and Adam Smiths “Wealth of Nations” (not just about economics) along with a few other founders references for the ideals and intentions of the formation of this nation and our government.
Certainly incompetents and unable persons should not be armed at will, nor allowed to operate vehciles/fly airplanes etc. We owe it to ourselves and others to work in “society” and where we cannot, laws must be employed.
I will be glad to agree that felons once released and off parole/probation etc should be re-enfranchised, or never let go if they are not capable of walking civilly among us.
This said, be it known I exercise al lof my rights as often as I can w/o violating society or law, but life, liberty and pursuit of happiness trump, as they should.
Best;
Try not to sell them to Mexican drug dealers, Barry.
Great; gun and ammo sales will rise even higher!
arms were allowed in courts until about the 1920’s...
so yes, I would argue that I am allowed to carry firearms into a courthouse, or a schoolhouse, or into and onto any federal, state, county or municipal building.
The only exception would be on private property and businesses, properly posted.
I will also argue that the second amendment is not there to allow hunting. It is there so that the citizenry can be fully prepared to throw off a government gone rogue, therefore any weapon the military possesses, private citizens should be able to possess. Without exceptions, and if you could afford it.
did you know, that during the revolutionary war, the fledgling United States leased warships and cannon from private owners?
No restrictions....
bkmk
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.