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.

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?

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.

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

- The Cat

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.

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…..

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.

*cue sound of crickets chirping*

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.

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.

- 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!