Video: Romney addresses abortion comments from 1994 Kennedy debate; Update: CNN video added

posted at 11:00 am on January 11, 2007 by Allahpundit

Triply shrewd: not only did he react quickly to the abortion clip, and not only did he do so in a parallel format, but he shot video of himself doing it and posted it on YouTube.

The man knows his new media.

What does he have to lose with the abortion comments, anyway? Giuliani’s infamously socially liberal and McCain, despite his voting record on the issue, is suspect:

“Yes, he’s a social conservative, but his heart isn’t in this stuff,” one former aide told me, referring to McCain’s instinctual unwillingness to impose on others his personal views about issues such as religion, sexuality, and abortion. “But he has to pretend [that it is], and he’s not a good enough actor to pull it off. He just can’t fake it well enough.”

Even if Romney’s lying now, he’s still the most authentic social con in the race.

I recommend the Instacast as an intro to his politics if you have thirty minutes to spare, which you probably do since we’re staring down the barrel of a doozy of a slow news day here.

Update: YouTube/podcast synergy with presidential campaign implications? Catnip to CNN ‘Net liaison and blogosphere fave Abbi Tatton.

I still think the accent’s fake, though.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Agreed. Very impressive. Romney wants this nomination, which is a positive. We’ll see, I guess.

spmat on January 11, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Slow news day?

Only one answer for that.

Tabloid – Oprah sued.

Slublog on January 11, 2007 at 11:13 AM

If nothing else, Romney looks presidential. That sounds silly, but considering the other contenders look like social hour at the Shriners convention, he has a leg up on them.

I really like Tancredo, but he’s too far behind in the name recognition race.

natesnake on January 11, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Allah,

Romney’s my choice right now. Looks like the Dems just choose Denver for the 08 convention. Fist it was the snow storms and now this. We’re so screwed here.

Jiggity on January 11, 2007 at 11:23 AM

Also, people laughed at me when I raised the Mormon question. Since then, I’ve heard NPR discuss that question at lease 6 times.

Let me repeat again, I love Mormons. They are typically uber nice/moral people. But until the atheists and vangelicals raise them to a level above “cult” status, he’ll have a tough row to hoe (by both sides) going into the Primaries.

natesnake on January 11, 2007 at 11:26 AM

Thanks Allah, you just helped me get banned from DU. I signed up months ago but never even went to the site, lord knows I have better things to do. But after the Somalia post, I simply started asking some questions of the guys and bam, they boot me off. I asked if they were afraid of free speech and the free exchange of ideas and got my answer with a bansihment. This is why they are the Noveau Arrested Development, they can’t and won’t accept any challenge to their world-view..they are doomed to remain the lap-dogs they have become.

Romney, yes he has some problems to overcome, but it looks right now as if he’s the only one close to the conservative message. Until, hopefully, Newt jumps in. I hope the strong showing he’s making in the blogger polls will help him make the decision to get in the race…

ritethinker on January 11, 2007 at 11:33 AM

What? We take over an Iranian consulate office in Iraq, take 5 Iranians into custody, and you say it’s a slow news day?

flipflop on January 11, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Smooooooooth.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 11, 2007 at 11:43 AM

ritethinker on January 11, 2007 at 11:33 AM

The trick is to start off with your posting with a “Bush is a facist” or “warmonger” type statement. I lasted about 3 weeks on DU, start off with some crazy statement about Bush and they will listen to anything. I even got some to agree that global warming was not caused by humans, and that blacks are being kept on the “plantation” by liberals who do not care to educate them. As long as you denegrate the administration they will listen to most anything. Truly the most stupid people I have ever dealt with.
I got banned when I called Kos a facist. I lasted for about an hour because I related him to Bush the facist, but they finally caught on.

right2bright on January 11, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Only Tancredo can stop the NAU juggernaut! Romney? Pah!

lorien1973 on January 11, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Concerning DU, they are pretty much everything that they claim to hate. I’ve been banned 6 times in the last 4 years for saying anything positive about Bush and anything negative about Democrats no matter how small.

As for Romney, I really don’t know enough about him or his politics. I have a natural suspicion of North Eastern Republicans anyway.

All I want is a conservative who can effectively communicate his ideas and lead a conservative movement. He doesn’t have to be another Ronald Reagan, but it wouldn’t hurt.

.

GT on January 11, 2007 at 12:01 PM

All I want is a conservative who can effectively communicate his ideas and lead a conservative movement. He doesn’t have to be another Ronald Reagan, but it wouldn’t hurt.

The next president will inevitably move left after the election- even Reagan did. We need to at least start off much further right than McCain, Giuliani, and Romney. Stop the Trotskyite neocon RINOs in the primaries or suffer another abandonment by the GOP base.

Valiant on January 11, 2007 at 12:12 PM

Y’all just wait ’til September!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on January 11, 2007 at 12:16 PM

What does he have to lose with the abortion comments, anyway? Giuliani’s infamously socially liberal and McCain, despite his voting record on the issue, is suspect:

The Democrat Media and perhaps a couple of Libertarian blogs have declared these three the candidates from which they want Republicans to choose from but I just don’t see actual Republicans having much use for this troika.

Perchant on January 11, 2007 at 12:23 PM

But until the atheists and vangelicals raise them to a level above “cult” status, he’ll have a tough row to hoe (by both sides) going into the Primaries.

Vangelicals? Is that like a cult of Vangelis?

Seriously, though, I think the social cons are going to have a bigger problem with the flip-flop on abortion etc. than the Mormon thing. Too many folks have Mormon friends for that to be a big deal. Remember that the man finished second in Memphis in that straw poll a year ago. Social cons care about their pet issues, not which brand of Christianity you subscribe to. The social cons are too divided in their own definitions of “true Christianity” to make an issue of it in a political context.

spmat on January 11, 2007 at 12:29 PM

right2bright on January 11, 2007 at 11:49 AM

I am impressed.

Esthier on January 11, 2007 at 12:30 PM

Romney will not receive my vote.

He supported the Assault Weapon Ban and supports the Brady Act and firearm licensing.

Regarding abortion; His recent flip flop on abortion is too recent for anyone to judge. It may be sincere, however, we have all seen this campaign tactic before. After the election, many seem to have an epiphany and flip again.

His only redeeming quality to me is that he supports the abolishment of the Dept of Education.

AZ_Redneck on January 11, 2007 at 12:41 PM

From Romney’s website:

Immigration has been an important part of our nation’s success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America.

He might have just lost me. When is Newt getting in? He’s actually leading in the straw polls so far.

Gregor on January 11, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Romney at the helm for the establishment of mandatory health carein Mass? Penalties for those that don’t participate?

jeffNWV on January 11, 2007 at 1:02 PM

>raise them to a level above “cult” status

Maybe I haven’t been in enough backward parts of the country, but are there really that many wild-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth, unedjumucated goofballs who still buy into the “Mormonism is a cult!” “Mormons aren’t Christians!” meme? (Especially among conservatives. I would think that people that are gullible enough to fall for ridiculously irrational ideas like that would all be voting Democrat/Socialist.)

I agree with what spmat wrote above. I think too many people have Mormon friends, know of prominent Mormons who definitely don’t fit the popular “cultist” image (Steve Young, anyone?), or who just plain don’t buy into the rantings of religious bigots who are so “Christian” that they have to spend all their time attacking others.

I think Romney’s actual stand on the issues will be the real focus.

Doghouse on January 11, 2007 at 1:14 PM

“We can’t have as a nation 40 million people — or, in my state, half a million — saying, ‘I don’t have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay,’ ” says Romney

Interesting. None of them seem to have a problem with the 30 million illegals saying exactly that.

Gregor on January 11, 2007 at 1:15 PM

He might have just lost me. When is Newt getting in? He’s actually leading in the straw polls so far.

Gregor on January 11, 2007 at 12:49 PM

You’re against legal immigration?

Honestly, I think he has a point there. Our immigration system favors the uneducated masses of those who don’t even hope to acheive more. I see no problem with changing immigration laws so that the reverse may occur instead. I mean maybe it could help us get out of this slump where we’re last in everything involving science.

Esthier on January 11, 2007 at 1:40 PM

You’re against legal immigration?

Esthier on January 11, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Absolutely not. I am however, against INCREASING immigration numbers. It’s already too high as THIS VIDEO clearly demonstrates.

Anyone honestly concerned with the future of this country should watch this entire video.

What I don’t like about this statement, is that it sounds an awful lot like Juan Hernandez when he explains that the illegal alien problem is easily solved by simply changing the laws to make them legal. Poof! No more illegals!

Gregor on January 11, 2007 at 1:47 PM

I see no problem with changing immigration laws so that the reverse may occur instead.

Esthier on January 11, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Funny thing about that. The current laws already support what he claims he wants. Simply ENFORCING the laws would solve that problem. His comments have a stench of dishonesty to them.

Gregor on January 11, 2007 at 1:52 PM

I would like to see a Romney/Gingrich ticket in 2008. I find Romney to be a very well spoken and articulate and Gingrich has a lot of ideas that I’ve read in his weekly newsletter that I find myself agreeing with.

rhuppertz on January 11, 2007 at 1:54 PM

He supported the Assault Weapon Ban and supports the Brady Act and firearm licensing.

AZ_Redneck on January 11, 2007 at 12:41 PM

Yes, this is clearly the most important issue facing us today; you’re right to own assault weapons. Don’t get me wrong, I support the right to bear arms, but when the 2nd admendment was drafted we lived in an agrarian society and the most advanced weapon was the musket. I don’t think the founding fathers had you’re right to fire 2,000 rounds a minute in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

Mitt is very smooth and savvy, I’ll give him that. Can you imagine Romney and Obama trying to out-smooth and out-cool each other in a general election? That would be fun to watch.

JaHerer22 on January 11, 2007 at 2:18 PM

What I don’t like about this statement, is that it sounds an awful lot like Juan Hernandez when he explains that the illegal alien problem is easily solved by simply changing the laws to make them legal. Poof! No more illegals!

Gregor on January 11, 2007 at 1:47 PM

I agree with you about Juan’s comment, but I guess I just didn’t read it that way in Romney’s comment. I mean Romney is against people illegally crossing the border (at least from that statement) and indicated that he would not want to reward that action in any way.

Honestly, I read it to mean that he wanted the rate legal immigration to surpasss illegal immigration. But either way it seems he was addressing the issues of our current laws right before the bolded statement.

I don’t want to be a Romney appologist (not until I know more about him anyway), but I just don’t see how those comments can be viewed as negatively as you seem to view them.

Esthier on January 11, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Wow, horrible spelling and grammer in that last post. I’m embarrassed.

JaHerer22 on January 11, 2007 at 2:24 PM

I don’t think the founding fathers had you’re right to fire 2,000 rounds a minute in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

I can’t say that they would be banning their use though. The Founding Fathers did afterall envision “arms” as a means for citizens to protect themselves from the government. And, as you said, muskets were the most advanced weapon at the time, meaning that local farmers were equipped with the same weapons the military used.

I’d like to think that I’ll never live in a time period when ordinary citizens have to protect themselves either against their own government or against an invading force, but it’s not impossible to imagine something like that happening, or at least it wasn’t for the men who wrote our constitution.

Esthier on January 11, 2007 at 2:32 PM

I don’t want to be a Romney appologist (not until I know more about him anyway), but I just don’t see how those comments can be viewed as negatively as you seem to view them.

Esthier on January 11, 2007 at 2:20 PM

I don’t disagree with you. I’m in the same boat you are. I don’t know enough about him. Until I read that comment, he was my pick, but only because I have a feeling Newt would be unable to win a general election. I prefer Newt though, because he stands bluntly on pretty much every conservative issue and he doesn’t attempt to play word games.

I’m sick of candidates who play word games and can’t bluntly answer a question. I want a candidate that can come right out and say that American citizens should come first in this country and that our tax dollars should not be spent assisting those who are not supposed to be here. I want a candidate who will come right out and say that they will SHUT DOWN any business caught knowingly hiring illegals. I want a candidate who will stand up and bluntly say that America needs to teach our kids morals and hold parents, schools, and teachers responsible when they fail to do their jobs. And I want a candidate who will not hesitate to slam his fist against a table and demand that liberal hypocrisy not be tolerated, such as elementary schools being allowed to teach our kids evolution as fact, or schools which teach Islam but forbid any mention of Jesus or Creationism. Or schools which teach our children that homosexuality is normal.

I’m sick of the cowards and frauds who currently represent the GOP.

Gregor on January 11, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Romney has pretty much jumped to the head of the pack IMO.

- He’s got the “look” (sorry…but you’re kidding yourselves if you don’t think it’s an important factor)

- Well spoken and appears very natural on-camera

- Seemingly committed to current issues by not making lame excuses for past opinions & beliefs

- No apparent skeletons in his closet

Not my *ideal* candidate…but he comes the closest so far.

The Ugly American on January 11, 2007 at 2:58 PM

I’m sick of the cowards and frauds who currently represent the GOP.

Gregor on January 11, 2007 at 2:37 PM

I’ll second that one.

Personally, with Romney, I want him to be my candidate, but I’m still aprehensive.

Esthier on January 11, 2007 at 3:55 PM

Wow, horrible spelling and grammer in that last post. I’m embarrassed.

You should be more embarrassed about your ignorance of the details of the assault weapons ban, JaHerer. It didn’t ban fully automatic weapons. Ugh, I feel like it’s 1994 all over again.

Hack Ptui on January 11, 2007 at 3:58 PM

CHUCK HAGEL FOR PRESIDENT!!!

*cue sound of crickets chirping*

natesnake on January 11, 2007 at 3:59 PM

I’m not overwhelmed with joy regarding any of these candidates. I don’t want another Washington retread. I don’t want another politically connected idiot with a silver spoon shoved up his ass.

I want a man of the people. Likeable, honest, and stately. I want someone completely unconnected with current politics.

I want Tom Selleck to run for President.

natesnake on January 11, 2007 at 4:03 PM

JaHerer22, please read the assault-weapons ban. It is not what it has been advertised to be, that is the problem. It bans weapons that “look dangerous”, which is typical of most liberal advocacy policy which amounts to symbolism rather than substance. The founding fathers certainly didn’t construct the second amendment to include only muskets and hunting knives. The second amendment only recognizes the right of the citizen to defend his life and property through means of private ownership of arms. And who did the FF’s have in mind when they designed this amendment? They sought to protect the citizenry from it’s own government. We can have reasonable gun laws, but the majority of these laws serve only to handcuff the law-abiding while providing the politicians with useless legislation to hang their re-election hats upon. Di-Fi, senator from Cali is prime exmaple of this. She went to bat to pass the AWB, giving passionate speech after speech on the floor of the senate..relaying the story of how her husband was shot with the use of fire-arms in the 80′s. There was only one problem with this, her husband wasn’t shot with any of the weapons contained in this ban. If I’m not mistaken, he was shot with your garden-variety saturday night special. She was called on this by a GOP senator. If we want to keep military style weapons in the military, let’s have that debate honestly. But when you’re dealing with libs, the truth is the last thing they seek…

I don’t hunt, but if I did I don’t believe I’d need an AR-15 to get the job done. But, we supposedly live in a free country so an honest debate amongst the citizens representatives is necessary if we want to prevent certain weapons from ending up in private ownership…..

ritethinker on January 11, 2007 at 4:34 PM

JaHerer22 on January 11, 2007 at 2:18 PM

The purpose and intent behind the 2nd Amendment is not for sporting purposes or hunting game. The purpose and intent rests largely behind two issues:

One reason was recognized as the so called First Law of Nature.

The First Law of Nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.

- Thomas Hobbs, “Leviathan”, (Outlines the Laws of Nature), 1651

The recognition of this law of nature predates the Colonists, was widely known during their time, and also referred to as the duty of self-preservation. In The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin assert that self-preservation is not only a right, but a duty. Meaning the act of self-preservation cannot be forfeited. To emphasize, the report also states:

In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave…

Which leads us to the other purpose and intent of the 2nd Amendment:

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable self-evident; that all men are created equal,& independent; that from that equal creation they derive in they are endowed by their creator with equal rights some of which are certain inalienable rights; that among which these are the preservation of life,& liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it’s foundation on such principles & organising it’s powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness….

- Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Samuel Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, Declaration of Independence, First Draft & Reported Draft, June 28, 1776.

Succinctly,

>… that whenever any form of government shall becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it …

To fulfill my duty, preserve my rights and even those persons I disagree with, and to ensure the success of a free state, citizens of this country shall not have their right to bear arms infringed.

The Assult Weapons Ban and the Brady Act are infringements upon the 2nd Amendment. In Federalist #28, Alexander Hamilton identified measures of this nature as projects of usurpation. Further he wrote:

The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

History shows that infringements upon citizen armament only lead further abuse and usurpation. In 1934 the government taxed automatic weapons and outlawed others. In 1968 they took them away. In 1994 they banned our scary semi-automatics. But the military and civilian authorities retained them.

JaHerer22, when the 2nd Amendment goes, how long do you think will your remaining rights will survive?

Thats why, to me, it is an important issue in every election with every candidate for office, and I believe it should be with every other citizen that values freedom and liberty.

AZ_Redneck on January 11, 2007 at 4:38 PM

Right2Bright, thanks for the tip. It was silly of me to expect reasonable dialogue and the exchange of free ideas. An idea was posited in a DU post that asked how many more radical terrorists did we create out of moderate muslims because of the Somalia attack. So I simply asked how many criminals did we create across America last night when we arrested the number of criminals that we did? His response? “So in your mind all brown people are criminals”. That was quick even for libs, one post and they play the race card…

ritethinker on January 11, 2007 at 4:42 PM

The cycle is complete. First it was bloggers posting videos of news casts, now it’s news casters creating videos of posts.

- The Cat

MirCat on January 11, 2007 at 8:52 PM

I think ill be happy to turn into a Romney apologist at this point. I’m amazed that many seem to want to stick a label of “Romney” on many events simly because they happened in MA. I mentioned this before i’ll say it again….the state legistlature is 3/4 (D) meaning overriding vetoes will happen every 5 minutes if Romney didnt choose to negotiate in some way shape or form.

For example the MA universal health system…. The legislature wanted, and surely would have passed, a government run health care system basically for anyone at all who didnt have a private insurer. And surely over time employers would drop or lower thier coverage so increasing numbers of people would participate in it.

When the machinations for this were moving Romney instead came out with a plan mandating coverage for all that is employer based with a system of incentives and penalties to get everyone in the state qualified to sign up.

Note that anyone can already walk into a hospitial and get treatment. This is a political issue of who is paying for it. Dems awnser was gov’t. Romney’s response was a incentive/penalty plan to get employers to cover more.

That he got his plan through congress was a clear concervative victory and a political wonder.

His term as governer was defined by such moves

Resolute on January 11, 2007 at 8:53 PM

Wow. That was smoooooth.
I like Romney. He was able to take the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympics, which was being destroyed by scandal, and turn it into a fairly successful event. Also, I’m a Mormon, too. So his faith is just an added benefit in my book. However, I currently live in southern Illinois, what they call the beginning of the South, and there are a lot of Evangelicals who would rather elect Ted Kennedy, than a Mormon, so I fear that Romney’s candidacy for President will be short lived. He may be able to succeed as V.P. It will be interesting to see.

Troy Rasmussen on January 11, 2007 at 10:18 PM

Romney looks to be another clone… nothing new to see move along… Tancredo is my man, all the way to the White House..

retired on January 12, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Maybe I haven’t been in enough backward parts of the country, but are there really that many wild-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth, unedjumucated goofballs who still buy into the “Mormonism is a cult!” “Mormons aren’t Christians!” meme?

I guess KC is a ‘backward’ part of the country. Just east of here is Independence, Misery, HQ of the denomination formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They changed their name to Community of Christ to distance themselves from the LDS, whose theology doesn’t follow the Nicene Creed, which traditionally has been the common denominator of ‘Christians’.

Now maybe it’s possible that a backward, unedjumacated guy like me has an advantage, since my parents met when they were attending what is now called Manhattan Christian College, and my sister in law is Academic Dean at South Texas Bible Institute.

I don’t consider Romney’s adherence to heresy to be a reason to disqualify him from office any more than Joe Lieberman’s reluctance to embrace the One True Faith. I don’t think either of them is going to try to force his religion on me, or suppress mine, so we’re cool.

The Monster on January 12, 2007 at 12:44 AM

AZ_Redneck on January 11, 2007 at 4:38 PM

I appreciate your thoughtful and reasonable response and frankly wish there was more honest debate like that than partsian namecalling and mockery around here, but what can you do. I can’t say you’ve I agree completely, but I understand where you are coming from and it seems honorable.

I think this is a very complicated issue and I’m not sure quite what my position is. I respect the right to bear arms and understand your argument, but at the same time it seems gun violence is out of control is this country. I know guns don’t kill people, only other people can do that, but I can’t help but think that if access to guns was limited, gun violence would decrease. Clearly this is a tradeoff you are not willing to make, and I respect that, even if I disagree.

What are your feelings on trigger locks and background checks? I don’t see how or why the second admendment should apply to convicted criminals or children so I think they are a good idea. Do you oppose laws that do not limit the types of guns citizens can possess, but seek to ensure gun owners do not have violent criminal records and that guns are not accidently used by children?

JaHerer22 on January 12, 2007 at 12:21 PM

I really like Tancredo, but he’s too far behind in the name recognition race.

In January of 1992 only residents of Arkansas and Tennessee knew the name Bill Clinton. There’s lots and lots of time for recognition factor to rise.

On Romney, I have several objections to his candidacy. Not are total showstoppers, but they do add up.

- Any position that supports infringement of the 2nd amendment is wrong period.

- His reversal on abortion is good news if true, but is recent enough that it hasn’t been tested with votes. As governor of MA, it wouldn’t likely be, so hard to judge.

- The quote posted above about good immigrants meeting a block wall while bad immigrants wander right in is accurate, but increasing legal immigration needs to be THE LAST step of any change proposal on immigration policy.

- His mormon faith isn’t in his favor with me, but if a man performs his office based on the laws under which he swears to govern, that isn’t an issue. I’d vote for a practicing Jew if his allegiance to the Constitution and service to the citizens were in order.

He knows how to work his image, no doubt.

JaHerer22,

I know guns don’t kill people, only other people can do that, but I can’t help but think that if access to guns was limited, gun violence would decrease. Clearly this is a tradeoff you are not willing to make, and I respect that, even if I disagree.

I can help you with that. If LEGAL access to guns is limited, it in no way reduces or provides a disincentive for ILLEGAL gun possession, since lawbreakers don’t respect laws, so no, gun violence would not decrease (Thus the cliche: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them).

What are your feelings on trigger locks and background checks? I don’t see how or why the second admendment should apply to convicted criminals or children so I think they are a good idea.

…the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Trigger locks are a choice, not a law. An adult gunowner with children in the house should train them as early as possible. Parents are responsible the the actions of their minor child, a concept that has gone MIA in the last several decades.

While states have laws that refuse gun ownership to convicted felons, background checks will have to exist. It’s a separate but parallel debate whether those state laws are constitutional in denying a convict a federally guaranteed right. The default position under the rule of law ought to be that when a person has served their sentence for a crime, they should be restored to full citizenship including all rights. Of course, the default position ought to be that those convicted of serious violent crimes should spend most or all of their lives serving that sentence, and that just doesn’t happen much.

Freelancer on January 12, 2007 at 3:14 PM