Max, before I answer your post let me give you the short version of Michael Steele's bio, so we know we are talking about the same person:
When Steele was elected Lieutenant Governor of Maryland in 2003, he became the first African American elected to state-wide office in that state.He is currently a partner in the international law firm of Dewey & LeBoeuf in Washington, D.C. From 1991-1997, Steele was a corporate securities attorney at the international law firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton in Washington, D.C., specializing in sophisticated financial transactions on behalf of Wall Street underwriters.
He also was a corporate finance counsel for the Mills Corporation and founded his own company, The Steele Group, a business and legal consulting firm.
His writings on law, business and politics have appeared in The Washington Times, Politico.com, Townhall.com, and The Journal of International Security Affairs, among others.
Named a 2005 Aspen Institute-Rodel Fellow in Public Leadership and awarded the 2005 Bethune-DuBois Institute Award for his ongoing work in the development of quality education in Maryland, Steele has served on a variety of boards and commissions, including the Export-Import Bank Advisory Board, the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors, and the Republican National Committee. link
When I read the Q&A supposedly from Steele that you posted, I knew that it wasn't accurate because that is not the way Steele talks. He is an educated and articulate man and it wasn't consistent with his speech pattern. So, I searched for the comments you posted and found that a small website posted these same comments on December 18, 2008 and falsely attributed them to Steele.
You obviously don't know who Steele is and you looked for the most negative comments you could find on the net to back up your bias against Steele, or you are the owner of the blog Arsenal (which originally posted these comments over one month ago), and now you are purposely disseminating them on FR.
Had you checked the link you provided, quoting a Washington Post interview of Oct 16, 2006 as the source, you would've seen the difference, unless you are deliberately misleading people regarding Steele's positions.
Let's look at the difference in the quote:
This is what Steele really said:
Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?
A: 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.
Now, this is what you said he said:
Also, you misquoted the original question - the original question doesn’t say “any gun that they want”
Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons or any gun that they want?He never used “I mean” or “whatever,” and he never said: “but the reality of it is, I think it’s important for a society, a community to draw the lines as we’ve drawn in a number of other constitutional areas, but I don’t think that that means that you go to a total ban for those who want to use guns for skeet shooting and hobbying and hunting and things like that.” You made up that part completely.Michael Steele: Well, I mean you draw the line. I mean, what do you need an assault weapon for? I mean, if going hunting, I think that’s a little overkill or whatever, but the reality of it is, I think it’s important for a society, a community to draw the lines as we’ve drawn in a number of other constitutional areas, but I don’t think that that means that you go to a total ban for those who want to use guns for skeet shooting and hobbying and hunting and things like that.
Perhaps your purpose here is to portray Steele as some kind of ignorant hick to help depict him as against the second amendment. I know there are some unappeasables who would be never be happy with any conservative or Republican as a leader, be they Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, or anyone running for public office.
When Annalex posted: “That is also frighteningly inarticulate. Does he always speak with I-mean-or-whatever-and-things-like-that, or did the reporter drag him out of bed too early that time?” You replied:
I line in L.A. and even Valley “girls” don’t talk in that manner.
This is the kind of comment that brings out negativity and incites discord among us, and the other side uses it to brand us as “the extreme right” “the fringe” etc. I don’t mean to suggest Annalex did so here, because her comments were measured.
Let's stop destroying our own and stay on a positive message. Constructive criticism is always welcome so we can help our leaders find the right direction. But attributing false comments and distorting someone's record is counterproductive to our cause.
Furthermore, all Steele was saying above is:
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.
The laws already exist, and all he is saying is ENFORCE THEM! So let's not confuse enforcing the existing laws with being anti-second amendment.
Thank you, Victoria, for doing do diligence and intelligently diseminating here. We desperately need for FR to be a voice of Conservative reason on the net, not something that people can point to and say: see Conservatives are all far right kooks. Michael Steele has a hard job in front of him to rebuild the GOP, we have a hard job in front of us to help him in doing that heavy lifting.
He never used “I mean” or “whatever,”
Are you sure the comment was not sanitized before it was quoted? "I mean" he did use according to your quote as well.
Annalex did so here, because her comments
I am Alex, Ann is my wife.
Thanks for the ping to this.
The problem is, you highlight the LEAST important, to defenders and protectors of our 2nd Amendment rights, part of his quotes (At the end of the day, it's about how we enforce the law).
THIS is the part that should raise the hackles of ANY TRUE freedom-loving American citizen who exercises his/her 2A rights...
"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".
THAT sounds very much like what virulently anti-gun demonRATs Schumer, Feinstein, and their ilk say, and have said on many occasions.
Again, to Michael, and anyone (you two?) else unclear on what the 2A is all about...
THE 2ND AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING OR SKEET SHOOTING. IT IS ABOUT HAVING THE RIGHT AND THE MEANS (INCLUDING, if put into the context of the time it was written, WEAPONS IN COMMON USE BY THE MILITARY) TO DEFEND ONESELF, OTHERS, AND ONE'S HOMELAND FROM A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.
There is no room for compromise on this all-American issue, INCLUDING, and most especially, when it concerns members of our own party.
After RINO losers put up a RINO loser for the last election, and we LOST, all we need is a RINO leading the next charge.