Posted on 01/25/2008 9:59:59 AM PST by JRochelle
During the debate last night, Mitt Romney was asked about his support of Brady and a ban on assault weapons.
MR. ROMNEY: I do support the Second Amendment, and I believe that this is an individual right of citizens and not a right of government. And I hope the Supreme Court reaches that same conclusion.
I also, like the president, would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-guy lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to — to have guns for their own legal purposes. And so we signed that in Massachusetts, and I said I’d — I would would support that at the federal level, just as the president said he would. It did not pass at the federal level.
I do not believe we need new legislation.
I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that, if they’re implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have.
I think it might be helpful to review Dave Kopel’s thoughts on Mr. Romney’s views of the Second Amendment and gun ownership as published in National Review.
Romney’s Record Similarly, this year’s presidential candidate from Massachusetts has a thin record to back up his claims of support for the Second Amendment. On his website, you can find two accomplishments:
First, in 2004 he signed a bill which reformed some aspects of the extremely severe and arbitrary gun-licensing system in Massachusetts. This would be an impressive accomplishment if that were all the bill did. But the bill also made the Massachusetts ban on “assault weapons” permanent. (The previous ban was parasitic on the federal ban, which expired in September 2004.) The bill that Romney signed was a compromise bill, approved by both sides in the Massachusetts gun-control debate and widely supported by both parties in the legislature. The NRA considered the bill to be a net gain, but it’s hardly the unalloyed, pro-rights success that Romney now claims. As governor, Romney declared his support for banning so-called “assault weapons.”
The other accomplishment noted on the website was Romney’s signing of a 2005 bill that improved some technical details for hunting with muzzle-loading guns.
Other than the 2005 proclamation, there is little evidence of executive leadership by Romney on Second Amendment rights; rather, he tended merely to accept reform bills which could pass even the Massachusetts legislature.
But Romney occasionally considered the Democratic-dominated Massachusetts legislature too soft on gun owners. In the summer of 2002, the Massachusetts house overwhelmingly passed a bill to relax the state’s lifetime ban on gun ownership for persons convicted of some misdemeanors. Faced with a bill that had passed the left-leaning House by a huge margin, Governor Romney declared his opposition, while allowing that he would back a much “more narrow proposal” (Boston Globe, July 17, 2002, page B4). (The narrower proposal was eventually included in the 2004 bill which he did sign.)
Running for re-election in 2002, he bragged, “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” At the least, Romney generally didn’t show leadership in making Massachusetts’ terrible gun-laws even worse. For example, his 2002 anti-crime plan included no new gun control (Boston Herald, August 21, 2002).
Conservative? Hmm. Let’s continue.
Romney’s website brags about how he balanced the Massachusetts budget “without raising taxes.” That depends on what the meaning of “taxes” is. Unmentioned on the Romney website is how he dealt with a state budget gap: namely, by quadrupling the fee for a Firearms Identification card (FID) to $100. Without a FID in Massachusetts, you are a felon if you possess a single bullet, even if you don’t own a gun. The FID card is required even to possess defensive pepper spray. Thus, an impoverished woman who wanted to buy a $15 can of pepper spray was forced by Romney to spend $100 for the privilege of defending her own life (North Shore Sunday News, August 8, 2003).
This year, Romney has been portraying himself as a staunch Second Amendment advocate. But when he was interviewed by Glenn and Helen Reynolds, he displayed little understanding of the Second Amendment and had difficulty articulation anything more than platitudes and slogans.
Conservative? Paying $100 to carry pepper spray? Let’s continue.
Unreliable Friends of Convenience Mitt Romney’s attitudes on guns — like his double flip-flop on abortion — appear to have more to do with political expediency than with conviction. While an expedient and cynical “friend” like Mitt Romney would probably be better for gun owners than would a sincere and fierce enemy like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, it is still worth wondering what President Romney would do if his political calculus changed yet again.
George H. W. Bush was another gun-rights friend of convenience, who (like Romney) bought himself a lifetime NRA membership shortly before running for president. And when circumstances made it convenient for Bush to become a gun-control advocate instead of a Second Amendment defender (only a few weeks after he took the oath of office and swore to defend the Constitution), Bush switched sides, and spent the remainder of his administration promoting restrictions on the Second Amendment.
html>www.gunowners.org
Dec 2000
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) flamed out in his presidential bid on the issue of so-called "campaign reform."
The Senator's bill would have expanded the price controls that have already been unconstitutionally imposed on free speech. He targeted so-called soft money expenditures which discuss issues and candidates but do not urge people to vote.
McCain's plan was to protect incumbents, such as himself, by closing off discussions of public officials which are intended to inform the public about their voting records without urging people to vote one way or the other. McCain would have prohibited mentioning an incumbent by name 60 days before an election.
That would translate in a presidential race to prohibiting Gun Owners of America from criticizing John McCain's anti-gun votes (C-- on Gun Owners of America's rating of the Senate) from around Christmas of the year before the general election in November.
But this fall, Mr. Clean chose to drench the airwaves with TV and radio spots in Colorado and Oregon on behalf of voter initiatives to register gun buyers in the name of closing the so-called "gun show loophole." With an endless supply of soft money dollars from the CEO of Monster.com, Andrew McKelvey, McCain the major league hypocrite, told voters of these two states that gun control would be good for them.
The Oregon measure would have registered gun buyers for five years with the State police, as well as the FBI. One of the sheriffs supporting the measure asserted that Americans have no individual right to keep and bear arms.
Let's hope that when John McCain runs for reelection to the Senate, the voters of Arizona do what the voters in the Republican presidential primary did to McCain -- defeat him.
John McCain would then have a legacy based on his attempt to destroy the First and the Second Amendments. That might be good enough to get a statue of him put up in Washington, D.C. where contempt for the Constitution is a badge of esteem.
Mitt does not “Understand”! Or stand under any True plumb line. Has no Cornerstone!His Foundation is that of sand.Just like the three generations of fathers before him.I dare you to Know his beliefs.
GOOGLE is free.
So dont be timid find out!
Median houshold income (US) is 40K are you telling 90=% of households in teh us Make under 200K! Are you telling me that 5X what the middle wage earners make is ‘middle class’?
MA and conn are only slightly higher (53K) so for them its 4X the median income. Romney (and it seems you) are out of touch.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/mormons/hand1.html
Student Handout
Pre-lesson Activity: “Get Up and Stand Out - Social Barometer”
Note to Students: Discuss the following questions, then review the following excerpt from the U.S. Constitution in preparation for a class discussion:
How did it make you feel to commit to a position without explaining yourself?
To what extent were you affected by your classmates’ positions on the barometer?
With respect to the original question, Should a religious test be mandated for political candidates, why are you standing where you are?
Are religious tests constitutional? Why or why not?
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath of Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
U.S. Constitution, Article VI
Well they ARE 22 *L*
Let put things in perspective:
1) 90+% of households in the US make less than 100K a year (200K is not middle class)
2) The Median hosueholds income in the US is about 40k or 20% of 200K (200K is not middle class)
3) The median average income in MA is about 50K or 25% of 200K (200K is not the middle class)
4) The Median home price in Greater Boston is about 425K in the city itseld about 350K. Lets split the difference and say in one of the most expensive home markets in the US the median home price is about 400K. Standard practice for years has been that a mortgage should be no more than 30% of gross income.
On a home in Boston with 10% down your principle of 360K with a 6.5% mortgage is about 2,200$ which would necessitate a gross monthly income of 88K per year. If you made 200K your monthly income of 16K would mean your mortgage could be as high as 5K per month or a home value of about 800K dollars (200K is *not* middle class)
Who has strange ideas, I gave you national numbers and numbers from his home state... All of which point to 200K being well above the middle class (unless of course youre telling me that only 12% of people in MA are in the middle class or better and if that is the case why the hell would we want the governer of that state screwing up the whole nation?
It’s me again. Listen up. Aren’t you embarrassed to be in bed with the liberal media - all of you snuggled under the covers hating and bashing Mitt Romney? You are acting like one of those “useful idiots” that Hillary loves to exploit.
Slight correction: Horiuchui was or is an FBI agent, not BATF. They aren't that competent.
Personally I don't think any of the top four remaining pubbies have any real chance against the Clinton machine. If it's Romney, you'll have a "whispering" campaign against Mormonism and feminist attacks against his pro-life statements. They'll be great Lamestream media "investigative reports" on weird breakaway Mormon cults.
If it's McCain, they'll just push his hot buttons, and he'll blow up on National TV, which will be followed by adds similar to the ones Johnson used against Goldwater, only using the recordings of McCain himself losing it. (Do you really want *his* finger on the nuclear trigger?). Rudy is just Hillary lite, a RINO, so if you want that, just vote for the real deal, Her Thighness. I've supported Paul in the past, but he's gone round the bend in regard to the war on the Jihadists, basically believing, or pretending to believe that they are no threat. He's just so much raw meat for the Clintonoid/MSM coalition. Huckabee is Rudy with a different mix of RINO and a few conservative positions.
While they are all small arms, the most common ones, the military version that is, are called "assault rifles", which are defined as a select fire (either full auto or burst fire) rifles firing an intermediate power cartridge. Examples are M16/M4, AK family, SA-80. Some "Assault Weapons" aren't even rifles, but rather pistols or shotguns. Others are full power semiautomatic rifles, or pistol caliber semiautomatic carbines, some of which are submachine guns in their full auto versions. Some are more or less ordinary pistols
It used to be that we were only told to hold our nose and vote for the lessor of evils in the General Election, now we are advised to do it in the Republican primary? Bleech.
As a member, who just renewed for five more years (a I've been a member, with an inadvertent lapse of a year or so, since the early '80s at least, I disagree. It's what it's always been. Primarily an organization designed to promote the shooting sports. Willing to compromise on our rights to keep and bear military and even self defense weapons, in the hope that Congress will eat their sporting arms last. They did after all support both the National Firearms Act (1934), the first significant federal gun control, but also the Federal Firearms Act (1938), which was the predecessor to all the rest of today's restrictions, requirements for a government license to be "in the business" of buying and selling arms, although at first only if the arms were to be bought or sold across state lines. They supported the '68 Gun Control Act. And didn't oppose passage of the FOPA in the Senate, after the machine gun ban was added at the last minute in the House, in keeping with their "compromise" position, there were a lot of good things in the FOPA.
The bad provision of that law was buried pretty deep, and contained in a very small section of the law. It's not clear that Reagan even knew that provision was in there. The BATF knew of course, they probably put the Congressman up to introducing the provision as a last minute House amendment.
So, does this mean that if subsequent events show that John McCain is not the best man to beat Hillary, then you will shift and vote for whomever that turns out to be?
It isn't up to just Ann. We're all going to have to keep druming away on Romney and get him to see that this is a big deal for us.
I'm voting for Romney now as I see him as the only thing standing between McCain and Hillary and the White House. I'm aware of his flaws, but that's my current decision.
However, I believe it's important for us to keep pressure on him not to flip toward the libs on the Second Amendment.
As wether 200K is middle class or not, I'd say it depends on the region of the country, but in most places it's either upper middle, or lower upper class. If you believe in "class" anyway. I don't, I thought we were all Americans. In most of Texas it would probably be lower upper, but I would observe that as an engineer and my wife a college proffessor, (and a teacher of sewing type stuff on the side), we make about $170, and likely could live better on that than someone making $200K+ in California or much of the Northeast. (We don't only because we have to support two houses, due to employment considerations).
Without a FID in Massachusetts, you are a felon if you possess a single bullet, even if you don’t own a gun.
This sound familiar!
TEMPLE RECOMMEND
No one is admitted into a Mormon temple without a “Temple Recommend.” The recommend is an identification card which verifies that the member is in good standing (i.e. paid a full tithe, is morally clean, doctrinally pure, has kept the “Word of Wisdom,” etc.). In other words, the temple recommend-carrying Mormon has been approved and deemed “worthy” of entering the sacred temple. The only time a non-Mormon (Gentile) can enter a temple is during an open house held shortly before it is dedicated or after a renovation.
http://www.mmmo.org/templeceremonies.htm
THat it was not renewed shows how desperate you are to tout a victory.
The right to own weapons is being discussed as a personal right for the first time in decades.
Yep, before it was taken for granted.
Note in Miller the scotus did not rule the collective right, but tha the weapon involved was not a militia weapon. Of course, a little defense (Miller was dead), might have pointed out that a short barrelled shotgun has numerous applications as a military weapon, thus the premise of the ruling was in error: the court was misinformed.
But for some reason Conservatives have this penchant for predicting the imminent end of the freedom, so lets just forget our responsibilities to vote.
Yes! Because complacency guarantees the end of freedom. If every statute is not studied in its worst light, its greatest potential abuse, then it will eventually be used that way. Best to nip it in the bud.
Keep in mind, too, that we are the ones who have had our core issues nibbled away at by the herd who would mouth nonsense about waiting until next time, about lesser evils, and how you get 80%, so what if you don't get the other 20? No loss of freedom is tolerable to conservatives, it is those who tout compromise who are selling our liberty piecemeal for convenience.
One thing that conservatives could learn from liberals is their eternal optimism and determination.
First, we are about as determined as it gets. We are still here, even though the purveyors of Republican-ism have crapped on us time and time again. We have not given up.
Second, I have a positive attitude. I am positive, that given any advantage, pecuniary or otherwise, my government will continue to amass to itself power at the expense of my liberty. That is human nature, and to get starry-eyed and start doing the happy-feely kumbaya bit might work for the socialists' drones, but they are oblivious to the freedom they are losing in the process.
No matter how often they are defeated, they keep coming because they have faith in their cause.
As do we. Faith in our cause, in God, in the ultimate desire of people to live secure, productive, and happy lives--and to pass those freedoms, that security, and the fruits of our labors on to our progeny.
The biggest difference is in how we desire to attain that goal.
I have a mother and a father, God Bless them, and I learned the concepts of personal responsibility at their knee. I do not need the State to act as a surrogate, not then, and certainly not now, when I am a great-grandfather.
Would that conservatives had that same kind of faith in theirs, instead of 'I am going to hunker down with my rifle and ammo and wait for the United States to collapse'.
Perhaps a few do have that idea in mind, but most of us would rather prevent that collapse. If you or anyone else wants an idea what happens to a modern city in a year of warfare, look at Sarajevo, the jewell of the Balkans, and site of the Winter olympics (I forget the year). No one wants that for America except our enemies. No one wants to live like East Germany in the '60s either.
But, in extremis, the rifle and ammo are there--and will continue to be, regardless.
I accept your correction. I intended to suggest that NRA's endorsement was of little (or less) value, as they have compromised to say the least. Gun Owners of America seems to be far more honest in their positions and portrayals. An endorsement by them would carry more weight with me.
Full disclosure: I am a former member of NRA, having stopped my membership for this precise reason.
“I guess it’s OK to tax the Shiite out of people, just as long as they aren’t middle class?”
Blah balh balh blah blah..
If you want to ask me q question ask it dont make moronic statements ok?
No its not ok totax people who are rich more than anyone else thats not the point.
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.