Posted on 01/25/2008 9:59:59 AM PST by JRochelle
Actually, our individual rights are not exercised without restriction. We all have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government exists to best provide a framework for us to live our lives exercising our rights.
But government by it’s nature impacts those rights. Your right to free speech for example, does not allow you to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, because that action denies other people their rights. Government must interact to keep balance between competing claims of rights.
So it is not a black and white judgment to decide whether any particular restriction on gun ownership is compelled by governments need to protect ALL the rights of the citizens.
Few people here argue that a felon’s right to own a gun is absolute. Few people argue that a person who is certifiably crazy should have an unrestricted right to guns. Few people argue that there should be no restriction whatsoever on where you can take a gun. (I know there will be someone on the opposing side of each of these).
Romney’s support for the 1994 AWB put him on the WRONG side of the line. However, his current position while not perfect is in line with even Huckabee — who also has NOT called for the repeal of any existing gun laws.
IN the end, that’s the stated position of Romney — he won’t repeal any gun laws, he won’t pass any NEW gun laws, he will enforce the gun laws on the books. He will do so with an eye to minimizing the impact on law-abiding citizens, for example by ensuring instant background checks work and fighting any attempt to put delays in gun purchases.
Romney gets points from me from being willing to state without equivocation what his previous position was. Not like McCain lying about his support for tax cuts. Mitt WAS on record for the 1994 bill, and he says so here. But he also says that he would NOT support the 1994 bill today. He can’t change what he supported in the past.
The bill only reaffirmed an existing Massachusetts state ban on assault weapons that was enacted as part of sweeping gun control laws passed in Massachusetts in 1998, five years before Romney took office, and didn't ban any additional guns. … The state ban of assault weapons enacted in 1998 was not due to disappear, nor would it have become invalid with the sunset of the federal ban in September, 2004.
In July 2006, despite a heavily Democratic anti-gun Legislature in Massachusetts, Gov. Romney signed a NRA-backed bill (H. 4552) reversing burdensome regulations for the makers of customized target pistols sold in Massachusetts. The Gun Owners' Action League praised Gov. Romney for his support of H. 4552:
"Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation approving an exemption for the makers of customized target pistols, who due to a provision within state law have found it increasingly difficult to do business in Massachusetts." ..."Target shooters are an important part of our membership and I know they will be very pleased with this change," said James Wallace, Executive Director of the Gun Owners’ Action League. (Office of Gov. Mitt Romney, "Governor Romney Approves Exemption for Target Pistols," Press Release, 7/26/2006)
About the only thing that I like about Huckabee is his advocacy for the FairTax.
I don't know if that's enough for me to support him.
When Fred dropped out so did I.........at least until the dust settles on the rest of the RINO field.
You are making a class warfare argument. Normally conservatives buckle at Hillary and her “middle class” being defined as $75,000, effectively meaning most of the middle class would get taxed and spent to death by her.
Romney says when HE talks about everage americans, he’s talking about everybody making up to $200,000. So he will NOT soak the middle class to help the “poor”.
Liberals might balk at his defense of people all the way from 0 to 200,000 of income, but conservatives and frankly general country club republicans will like that, as will smart independents who know that the democrats are looking to screw everybody over.
Last President to say that was George Herbert Walker Bush, and we all knkow how THAT turned out - with a ban on imported military rifles!
Romney is a lying two-faced scoundrel on so many other issues, why would we expect him to be any different on the Second Amendment?
I'm beginning to think the same thing.
Romney is always using the phrase "like the President". Which is a red flag for me because.....
Even though I voted for Bush twice as governor, once in the presidential primary, and twice for president........I can't support Liberal Republicans, which Bush definitely is, and am inclined to NEVER vote for one again.
I don’t know that. I know that he is a man who has kept his promises. Not only in government, but in his business life. And his personal life, as he kept his promise to his wife, while many other candidates we have did not.
He has PROMISED that he will not sign any new AWB bills, and that he sees no need for any new legislation.
So unless you are a fortune-teller, you can’t know that he wouldn’t keep those promises.
And given that no anti-gun bill has made it through congress, the risk that he might be lying to you, SMALL as the risk is, is even less a problem.
McCain on the other hand has indicated support for some types of new gun control, in response to various “tragedies” that involve guns but for which his “fixes” will make things worse.
Not at all just pointing out Mitt does not know who is and is not in the middle class. Im not saying being in any class gives entitlement.
Hillary and her “middle class” being defined
Ok so your point is Willard not as bad as Hillary... Well neither is Huck, McCain, or (quite honestly) Trudy whats your point?
Romney says when HE talks about everage americans, he’s talking about everybody making up to $200,000.
No it means when he targets economic packages (tax cuts, rebates, deductions, ....) at the middle class he is thinking 150-500K a year..
Liberals might balk at his defense of people all the way from 0 to 200,000 of income, but conservatives and frankly general country club republicans will like that, as will smart independents who know that the democrats are looking to screw everybody over.
Again its not about who deserves/should get/should be punished, its about the fact Willard is out of touch..
One more mistake in the piece.
That I know of (how much more is erroneous but I don’t know?)
Anyway, that’s not a “lifetime” NRA membership: it’s a “Life” membership.
“Life” is the name, not a depiction of a time period.
Yet Hucknuts refuses to explain his statement. I was brash in saying the least constitutional about Hucknuts but he should and, I will accept his recant and explanation, if he would give it.
I suggest you all join, NRA, GOA, JPFA, SAF. Any and/or all. Politicians look at the membership numbers. It scared the hell out of clinton when the NRA’s membership went to 5,000,000+ as he instituted his gun ban.
None. None of our candidates has said they would repeal ANY of the existing laws, not even “pure-as-driven-snow” Huckabee.
If you want gun legislation repealed, none of our candidates is on your side.
He said he wouldn’t sign the bills. Unless you are arguing that he would let them take effect without his signature, sure sounds like a veto threat to me.
At THIS point, it looks like that job falls to you and me as the last lines of defense. At this rate, we'll end up having to gun them down in our own front yards to keep them from getting to our homes.
Somebody had it as a tag line, and I've read it elsewhere, but it is, no less true:
WHEN SECONDS COUNT THE POLICE ARE JUST MINUTES AWAY
See # 72.
That's almost exactly like saying you're a "lifelong Republican but you never voted."
"Just sayin'..."
Mitt would have to sign an oath in his own blood to veto ANY anti-gun bill before I’d even begin to CONSIDER trusting him on 2A issues.
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.