Video: Mitt Romney talks guns on Meet the Press

posted at 5:54 pm on December 16, 2007 by Bryan

Gov. Romney’s position on guns might be best described by one of Hot Air’s favorite words: Nuance. This clip is from Meet the Press this morning. Says the Spectator:

–On guns, he may have gotten himself in trouble, in an attempt to diffuse the flip-flop label, by standing by his support for the Brady Bill and the 1994 assault weapons ban. He even said he would have signed an extension of the assault weapons ban when it expired in 2004. He also employed the odd phrase “weapons of unusual lethality” to describe the type of guns he would ban.

Michelle has the transcript. Here’s a bit of it.

MR. RUSSERT: You’re still for the Brady Bill?

GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I…

MR. RUSSERT: You’re for it?

GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned–and I–let me, let me describe it.

MR. RUSSERT: But you’re still for it.

GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…

MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?
GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I’d love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms…


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

A lot of the mods that designate a weapon as subject to the ban do in fact make it more dangerous for that reason.

Big S on December 16, 2007 at 8:31 PM

Please provide me with an example of a crime where these “bad features” made a difference.

mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 8:50 PM

The AWB was a typical worthless gesture by a ruling class that specializes in worthless gestures.
If Mitt supports it then it’s an automatic DQ in my book.

Beto Ochoa on December 16, 2007 at 9:02 PM

mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 8:39 PM

Like I said, off you go then. Feed that tree! Ron Paul 08!

Or something..

Reaps on December 16, 2007 at 9:04 PM

When firing my friend’s ban era AR-15 at the indoor gun range (read: well lit), the flash was incredible. I’ll take my post ban AR-15, that I can shoot without sunglasses on, any day. Oh and to the resident anti-gun folks who obviously have no experience with guns; A 30-06 hunting rifle fires a much more powerful round than a .223, and doesn’t have the same intense flash. The AR-15 was never designed to be fired without a flash suppressor, that’s why it’s on there. It isn’t so you can “hide in a treehouse”, it’s so you can fire without being blinded. The only reason they were ever sold without them was because to comply with the AWB they either had to take off the flash suppressor, or get rid of the pistol grip. Guess which is easier to do?

frost on December 16, 2007 at 9:04 PM

Bye-bye, Mitt!

sanantonian on December 16, 2007 at 9:08 PM

He should have just started crying.

amish on December 16, 2007 at 5:59 PM

Wish I had thought of that line!

sanantonian on December 16, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Reaps on December 16, 2007 at 9:04 PM

This is why I said we were moving away form the original topic which was Mitt’s support of the AWB, which did nothing to reduce crime.

mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 9:10 PM

Beto Ochoa on December 16, 2007 at 8:36 PM

Yes, I misspoke. Per the 1934 National Firearms Act
The law controls the ownership of a defined set of devices (machine guns, silencers, etc.) by requiring federal registration and a tax stamp for each device. The tax stamp is acquired by the registration process and requires paperwork, signature of local law enforcement, etc. along with a $200 tax The tax on ‘any other weapons was changed to $5 later. The tax is payable at manufacture and each time the NFA device changes ownership.

GCA ’68 added destructive devices to the list of taxable devices. A DD is any weapon with a rifled barrel larger than .50 caliber. It also includes bombs, explosives of certain types and any ammunition that contains more than 1/4 oz of explosive, grenades, etc.

In 1986, the Firearm Owners Protection Act made illegal the manufacture of new machine guns for the civilian market. Although existing machine guns can continue to be transferred, the supply is now limited and prices have gone predictably skyward.

Gatordoug on December 16, 2007 at 9:12 PM

Well, my apologies, I’m being a bit trollish really, so I’ll stop playing silly buggers and call it a night. There’s just too much stuff to reply on in this one thread alone, and it’s the middle of the day here so I can’t really spend it here I’m afraid. Have fun!

Reaps on December 16, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Anyone hear the argument that a pistol grip makes it easier to “spray bullets while firing from the hip”? I always thought that only a moron would fall for that one. The only real difference between a pistol grip and a non-pistol grip is the angle. How exactly is kinking my wrist at a 90 degree angle easier than holding it at a 30-45 degree angle? Because that’s what happens when you hold a rifle with a pistol grip at waist height…

frost on December 16, 2007 at 9:22 PM

Here is a good clip, but the title incorrectly uses the term assault rifle when it should say assault weapon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfKADcfE90U&mode=related&search=

Once again:

Assault Weapons (semi-auto, 1994 AWB)
Are not
Assault Rifles (full-auto, 1934 NFA)
Are not
Machine guns (full-auto, 1934 NFA)

Bonus!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo&NR=1

Reaps on December 16, 2007 at 9:18 PM

No need to apologize, I just wanted to point out that they are two different issues.

I enjoy the discussion.

mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 9:28 PM

Hell will freeze over
and
Pigs will fly
and
The cows will come home
and
The fat lady will stop singing
and
Lucy Liu will be waiting for me at the office on Monday
and
Pink Lady will sing at my birthday party
and
Michell Yoeh will become my personal bodyguard
and
Shimada Yoko will scrub my back
before I vote for Mitt or Rudy

Herikutsu on December 16, 2007 at 9:37 PM

Excellent explanation Gatordoug.
Full Auto Firearm prices have been level for the last year so now is a good time for the new investor to buy before the next big surge in prices.

Beto Ochoa on December 16, 2007 at 9:38 PM

Mitt just jumped the shark big time here. Any kind of gun ban is really foolish and is just pandering to the gun control crowd. This will finish him…

JimK on December 16, 2007 at 10:01 PM

Mitt vs. Fred

Compare and contrast

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/05/fred_thompson_q.php

mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 10:12 PM

I don’t understand why the gun question is so hard for politicians to answer. All they have to do is smile and quote the Constitution. They don’t have to have an opinion of their own at all. If pressed, they can just look confused about why it’s an issue and state again that it’s in the Constitution, so it’s simply not in question. The president’s job is to execute the laws, and the Constitution is the law of our land. Period.

What’s so hard about that?

aero on December 16, 2007 at 10:52 PM

aero on December 16, 2007 at 10:52 PM

Good point.

mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 11:01 PM

You ought to be aware that fully automatic machine guns, are and have been illegal for decades now.

Gatordoug on December 16, 2007 at 8:23 PM

Government censorship! This is a horrid violation of the second amendment! I demand free access to unregistered machine guns from any source that will make them! That is my right!

The government has gone too far…

BKennedy on December 16, 2007 at 11:04 PM

BKennedy on December 16, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Good point.

mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 11:09 PM

Government censorship! This is a horrid violation of the second amendment! I demand free access to unregistered machine guns from any source that will make them! That is my right!

The government has gone too far…

BKennedy on December 16, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Why talk about this if you’re going to be a snobby patronizing troll?

MadisonConservative on December 16, 2007 at 11:10 PM

I don’t understand why the gun question is so hard for politicians to answer…. the Constitution is the law of our land. Period.

What’s so hard about that?

aero on December 16, 2007 at 10:52 PM

In theory you’re correct. More politicians should answer 2nd amendment questions just like you’ve suggested. Unfortunately there are a number of politicians that don’t actually support the 2nd amendment or who temper their support for political gain and try to play both sides of the field.

FloatingRock on December 16, 2007 at 11:14 PM

Well, it looks like the only truly pro-2A candidate is Ron Paul.

Unfortunately, he’s a total loon on nearly everything else.

We’re screwed. Buy ’em while you can, folks!

BTW, Big S and BKennedy… Your lack of knowledge concerning weapons is VERY apparent. Stop trying to argue something you know absolutely nothing about. Find a friend to take you to the range.

mojojojo on December 16, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Well, it looks like the only truly pro-2A candidate is Ron Paul.

mojojojo on December 16, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Fred Thompson.

MadisonConservative on December 16, 2007 at 11:17 PM

mojojojo on December 16, 2007 at 11:15 PM

I am curious why you feel Fred is not “truly pro-2A”

Note I’m not trying to devolve this into another hate/love Fred tread.

mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Reagan got it right.

“There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism—government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it.” —Ronald Reagan

Speakup on December 16, 2007 at 11:29 PM

Mitt Romney is basically Wink Martindale – a bad game show host. All smile, no substance.

Outlander on December 16, 2007 at 7:57 PM

This is perfect. I’ve been trying to figure out where I’d seen him since he first ran against Teddy. It was Tic Tac Dough!

edgehead on December 16, 2007 at 11:37 PM

Speakup on December 16, 2007 at 11:29 PM

Great quote!

Here’s one which BigS and BKennedy may appreciate: :)

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
-Heinrich Himmler

FloatingRock on December 16, 2007 at 11:40 PM

This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!
– Adolph Hitler [1935] The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany.

FloatingRock on December 16, 2007 at 11:45 PM

FloatingRock on December 16, 2007 at 11:45 PM

“This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems”

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html

Not an attack on you.

mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 11:56 PM

mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 11:56 PM

Aw dang… back to the drawing board.

FloatingRock on December 17, 2007 at 12:04 AM

FloatingRock on December 17, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Don’t worry we still have the truth on our side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMNMihiUW3w

mad saint jack on December 17, 2007 at 12:09 AM

Romney just got entered in my “do not vote for” list because of his position on gun control.

I doubt he’ll get my vote.

georgej on December 17, 2007 at 1:27 AM

It’s time for us to express support for those things we do appreciate in the top candidates, all of whom are good men and light years better than the Democrat alternative, instead of mocking them. The Left will do that for us.

Halley on December 17, 2007 at 1:47 AM

BTW, Big S and BKennedy… Your lack of knowledge concerning weapons is VERY apparent. Stop trying to argue something you know absolutely nothing about. Find a friend to take you to the range.

The problem is that people like Big S and BKennedy don’t have friends, just aquaintences who agree with everything they say.They would never stoop to the level of actually hanging out with people who owned guns,much less a dreaded “assault weapon”. It would make all the other lefties at starbucks angry and get them uninvited from the annual atheist “winter festival” parties or the next Stop War and Racism protest.

quax1 on December 17, 2007 at 3:12 AM

It’s time for us to express support for those things we do appreciate in the top candidates…

Halley on December 17, 2007 at 1:47 AM

I express my support and appreciation for candidates that support the 2nd amendment along with the rest of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which includes Fred, Hunter, Tancredo, (I assume), and although it’s the only thing I agree with him on, Huckabee is one of the strongest 2nd amendment supporters in the race.

I appreciate that although Mitt Romney isn’t a particularly strong 2nd amendment supporter, he’s much better than Rudy or any of the Democrats.

I neither support nor appreciate candidates that don’t support the 2nd amendment and the rest of the founding principles of our nation. My level of support for a given candidate is proportional to their level support of my rights and the rights of all Freedom loving Americans.

FloatingRock on December 17, 2007 at 3:32 AM

Well, you have to admit that there’s one thing the controllers bring to the argument – bone-shattering ignorance.

If you believe that the 2nd was designed to allow the GOVERNMENT to be armed, not civilians, then you have done absolutely ZERO research into the subject. If this is what you were taught in school, your teachers were LYING to you.

EVERY SINGLE document produced by the Founders on the subject that mentions the 2nd confirms the “individual rights” interpretation, which is no huge surprise given its position in the Bill of Rights.

There were simply no significant or historically recorded “gun control advocates” in the US at the time of the founding, and certainly none at all among the Founders.

If YOU want to disarm only the law-abiding, say it your damned self, don’t try to hang it on the necks of the Founders.

Freakin’ ignoramuses.

Oh, and, gee, everyone consider – they have about as much to back up the rest of their opinions on the subject – zero.

Merovign on December 17, 2007 at 3:50 AM

The people debating this issue just might want to get some education about what an “assault weapon” is. Fully-auto weapons are already classified differently and require special licensure to own.

An “assault weapon” is NO more lethal that a run-of-the-mill hunting rifle. So when you say “assault weapon”, you REALLY mean “nearly every rifle”.

From the Madison Conservative above, the only differences addressed in the AWB had NOTHING to do with lethality, except perhaps the high-capacity magazines, which again really isn’t relevant.

It makes me CRAZY to see people talk about a subject about which they clearly have no knowledge.

A voice of reason on December 16, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Exactly! Anyone ignorant of the technical aspects of firearms has no business being involved in the legal aspects of ownership of same.

soundingboard on December 17, 2007 at 4:59 AM

Only the gun combines decent accuracy with good range in an easily concealable firing mechanism that can also house multiple rounds depending on the design.

BKennedy on December 16, 2007 at 7:16 PM

Seems like a most efficient tool!

God Bless its inventor.

soundingboard on December 17, 2007 at 5:12 AM

I prefer “Government Fearing Wussy”; you know, the kind who thinks he needs a semiauto rifle to keep the FBI, ATF, CIA, NSA and the rest of ‘em out of their living rooms. Morons.

Big S on December 16, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Do a little reasearch and you may discover that you’ve just called America’s Founding Fathers morons.
Physician heal thyself.

soundingboard on December 17, 2007 at 5:18 AM

When you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

Mitt obviously likes stupid prizes.

quax1 on December 16, 2007 at 7:22 PM

My dad put a similar twist on an old saying…
‘If you ask a stupid person a question, you get a stupid answer.”

soundingboard on December 17, 2007 at 5:26 AM

I didn’t mean literally undetected. It helps you fire at night, and it helps you “reduce your profile”, as somebody here pointed out. Why do you need to fire many shots at night with a reduced profile? Unless you’re hiding in a treehouse waiting for the Gubmint to come git yer guns, that is…

Big S on December 16, 2007 at 7:49 PM

Well, the question of need shouldn’t even enter the discussion.

But. Maybe your city has been hit by a hurricane.
Power’s out. No lights.
Emergency services are non-existent.
And a crowd of looters is slowly headed you way…
Nah…something like that could never happen.

soundingboard on December 17, 2007 at 5:44 AM

Well, you have to admit that there’s one thing the controllers bring to the argument – bone-shattering ignorance.Merovign on December 17, 2007 at 3:50 AM

Outstanding!

I knew I shoulda read all the comments.

You summed up, in that one eloquent sentence, what I stumbled to say in a handful of comments.

soundingboard on December 17, 2007 at 6:12 AM

Considering the lethality of the weapon alone is silly. The efficacy of a weapon depends not only on the ammunition, power, and intrinsic accuracy of it, but also on the operator and its ease of use under various circumstances. A lot of the mods that designate a weapon as subject to the ban do in fact make it more dangerous for that reason.

Listen up, genius. I’ll type this very slwly so that you can understand it: a pre-ban gun is equally dangerous in every way to a gun manufactured during the ban, which are both as dangerous as a gun manufactured after the ban expired.

The ban accomplished nothing, as it affected only cosmetics.

Your fellow gun-grabbers feel that these features made weapons more lethal. The fact that they don’t is an irrelevancy that you and yours seem far too dim to grasp.

It is every bit as relevant to outlaw pistol grips, or flash hiders, or folding stocks for 2nd Amendment opponents as it would be for 1st Amendment opponents to outlaw signs using helvetica or impact fonts, or outlawing bullhorns that use certain batteries but allowing others with different batteries. Is that an analogy you can grasp?

The ban was utterly foolish, and utterly ineffective.

Bob Owens on December 17, 2007 at 7:22 AM

He lost my vote!

build the wall on December 17, 2007 at 7:54 AM

A lot of this argument also boils down to “Are we all equal under the law?” Or, is there a “ruling class” that has special privileges that the rest of us peasants do not?! The foundation under which all of our rights stand, is that we are all created equal! Each of us,, rich and poor alike! The gun is the great equalizer! The gun allows a poor sick old woman to be as strong as a 25 year old drug crazed linebacker! A politician is not above the law. But, if gun rights are destroyed for the rest of us,, they will still have and keep guns for themselves! All the Hollywood elites, all the politicians will consider themselves greater than the rest of us! They will never deny for themselves what they steal from us!

JellyToast on December 17, 2007 at 8:23 AM

Lil’ S has certainly contributed some significant stupidity to this debate!

Flash hiders indeed. You mean those little cones of sheet metal I can fabricate from tin can and a set of snips?

Any person who argues that that the assault weapons legislation was and is anymore than a step in the total ban advocates incrementalist strategy is either extremely ignorant or a confiscationist themselves.

The assault weapons issue is purely, 100% aethetics. My favorite duck gun (now that’s a “legitimate” firearm- J.F. Kerry) can be transformed by a hacksaw into a highly concealable “assault weapon” capable of putting 63 lethal projectiles in the air in 3 seconds. The point is, and always has been a slow inexorable constriction of what is deemed legitimate or necessary.

And the intention of the 2A is easily devined by simply reading the literally thousands of supporting documents written by the founders- It was without question intended to be a bulwark against tyranny.

Lil’ S, do you just refuse to consider that supporting documentation, or do you lack the ability?

Alamo on December 17, 2007 at 8:57 AM

When he found out how many people are saved by owning guns…he wept.
Hey Mitt, call SLC and ask them what you should say…maybe a prophet can tell you how many people are saved each year by owning a gun.

right2bright on December 17, 2007 at 9:22 AM

The problem is that people like Big S and BKennedy don’t have friends, just aquaintences who agree with everything they say.They would never stoop to the level of actually hanging out with people who owned guns,much less a dreaded “assault weapon”. It would make all the other lefties at starbucks angry and get them uninvited from the annual atheist “winter festival” parties or the next Stop War and Racism protest.

quax1 on December 17, 2007 at 3:12 AM

The problem with people like quax is that they psychologically project their own problems onto others while they have “Big Bertha,” a sawed-off shotgun, and “The Equalizer,” a military surplus grenade launcher at the ready next to their computer stand in case “The Man” comes with “his jive” to take their “precious babies” away.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 9:42 AM

Blah blah…in case “The Man” comes with “his jive” to take their “precious babies” away.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 9:42 AM

Did you even watch the link I quoted above? Put out by the NRA? Or are you a true Kennedy, too tucked away in New England to think anything bad happens in the real world?

MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 10:31 AM

If it helps, because you’re too damned lazy to scroll up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Sorry, I still don’t get why the NR and HotAir are supporting the second-most liberal Republican candidate…

psrch on December 17, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Sorry, I still don’t get why the NR and HotAir are supporting the second-most liberal Republican candidate…

psrch on December 17, 2007 at 10:49 AM

HA hasn’t endorsed anyone and NR explained it as Romney combining all three elements of conservatism (social, economic, foreign policy) into one viable package which admittedly has some problems, but not nearly to the extent of Rudy “South stays home” Guiliani and Mike “God, gays, abortion and nothing else” Huckabee.

FDT would have been alright had he not screwed the pooch on his own campaign. He had his lead, he was crowned the king on his entrance… and then he made blunder after blunder after blunder. Now he has all his serious policy proposals locked away on his website, but by his own admission isn’t in control of his publicity campaign and his only comments recently have been snark and attacks on other candidates. Fred has basically solidified that there is no “there” there through his own blundering. It was his nomination to lose, and he lost it.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 11:23 AM

in case “The Man” comes with “his jive” to take their “precious babies” away.

I speak jive.

quax1 on December 17, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Yep. Easy to make 2nd amendment supporters sound like redneck rube hicks when you can ignore what actually happens in this country. Just keep on ignoring, BKennedy. And while you’re at it, ignore how Chicago is taking over where DC left off in gun control:

http://isra.org/

We-ell dey ain’t gunna get mah guns because I’m jerst a dumb ‘merican who tinks dat dey’re gunna come ’round and take em!

Oh, wait…they’ve made it clear that if this passes, confiscations will start. D’oh, sorry. I meant “The Man” is comin’ with “his jive”…

MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Did you even watch the link I quoted above? Put out by the NRA? Or are you a true Kennedy, too tucked away in New England to think anything bad happens in the real world?

MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 10:31 AM

Just watched it, although I find your characterization that New England is not the “the real world” to be just another hayseed rambling with absolutely no merit. What makes the South more “real,” other than you know, the incest. Oh, I’m sorry, was that a hasty characterization? Yes. I apologize. Perhaps you should avoid them in the future as well. I live in the freaking people’s Republic of Massachusetts, and you think I have no concept of anti-life nearly communist statism? Get real.

That’s more a sad commentary on Nagin and his lackeys than America. Do you see anyone (read: Republican) running for President calling for the removal of Concealed Carry laws? No. Nagin sucked. He continues to suck. He has no understanding of the constitution or reality and his order was rightfully struck down through the help of the NRA. That the bureaucrats are slow to release the weapons isn’t surprising, but again, Nagin still calls the shots because the dopes in NO re-elected him.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 11:56 AM

We-ell dey ain’t gunna get mah guns because I’m jerst a dumb ‘merican who tinks dat dey’re gunna come ’round and take em!

Oh, wait…they’ve made it clear that if this passes, confiscations will start. D’oh, sorry. I meant “The Man” is comin’ with “his jive”…

MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 11:34 AM

I find it funny how 2nd amendment types are all up in arms about what evil government is doing and then when the confiscations actually start they… fold.

Seriously, even the gun nuts don’t stand up to the police and the government when they come to the door. They only practice armed resistance against thugs and robbers, which is all fine and good, but none of them actually have the guts to refuse the police when they actually come around.

The second amendment may be the teeth but even the staunch defenders will never bear them.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 12:00 PM

Just watched it, although I find your characterization that New England is not the “the real world” to be just another hayseed rambling with absolutely no merit. What makes the South more “real,” other than you know, the incest. Oh, I’m sorry, was that a hasty characterization? Yes. I apologize. Perhaps you should avoid them in the future as well. I live in the freaking people’s Republic of Massachusetts, and you think I have no concept of anti-life nearly communist statism? Get real.

You started it off with your “It’s a mai right ta own a gun whut can take out a buffalo from 200 yards” crap, so don’t start acting like you’re being stereotyped unfairly here. Also, I’m not Southern, and the country doesn’t consist solely of the South and New England. Perhaps next time you should consider not setting the tone with liberal-style mockery of the “unwashed masses”.

That’s more a sad commentary on Nagin and his lackeys than America. Do you see anyone (read: Republican) running for President calling for the removal of Concealed Carry laws? No. Nagin sucked. He continues to suck. He has no understanding of the constitution or reality and his order was rightfully struck down through the help of the NRA. That the bureaucrats are slow to release the weapons isn’t surprising, but again, Nagin still calls the shots because the dopes in NO re-elected him.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 11:56 AM

Right, and he has control of one of the states of the union. How long before other Nagins come to power? Don’t tell me Joe over there is far off. Regardless of how much he sucks, he’s in power, and he “took mah guns”. Read more about it. There are trailers full of confiscated weapons that people cannot get back. They are guarded by National Guardsmen, and all requests to get them back are being basically thrown out. This is a constitutional crisis of epic proportions. Therefore, it would be wise not to dismiss the fears of those who are wary of any and all gun control legislation. Ten years ago, it might have been seen as “paranoid”. If you make that argument after seeing what has actually happened, it’s pure ignorance.

MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 12:05 PM

I find it funny how 2nd amendment types are all up in arms about what evil government is doing and then when the confiscations actually start they… fold.

Seriously, even the gun nuts don’t stand up to the police and the government when they come to the door. They only practice armed resistance against thugs and robbers, which is all fine and good, but none of them actually have the guts to refuse the police when they actually come around.

The second amendment may be the teeth but even the staunch defenders will never bear them.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 12:00 PM

That’s because they put you in jail for doing so. Look what happened to that old woman who refused to hand it over. A 300 pound Green Bay Packer took her down and arrested her. When you have a half dozen men armed with automatic rifles pointed at you, trying to draw a weapon is suicide. This wasn’t a matter of “They’re coming, get ready”…this was “Knock knock Hello this is my barrel hand over your guns”.

This is also quite a straw man argument coming from someone who supports gun registration to begin with.

MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Right, and he has control of one of the states of the union. How long before other Nagins come to power?

Nagin has control of a single city in the state of Lousiana. It may be the largest city but it isn’t the capital. That means Nagin is a mayor who made an unconstitutional gambit and was overruled, and hopefully NO will wake up and kick the b*757d out.

His closest parallel is interestingly enough the mayors of DC, Boston, Chicago et al who are all gun control freaks with no power outside their own city. Mumbles Menino (Mayor of Boston) thankfully has no power, and Deval Patrick (the governor) is fortunately too busy trying to bring resort casinos and embryonic stem cells to Massachusetts to worry about gun control yet.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 12:11 PM

I find it funny how 2nd amendment types are all up in arms about what evil government is doing and then when the confiscations actually start they… fold.
BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 12:00 PM

Try applying some comprehension to the video. The police didn’t say “we’re here to take your guns, do you have any?”, they said “do you have any weapons?”, then they took them. The folks answering the police truthfully knew they had the right to have the guns, and didn’t expect the police to steal them. Not to mention that the police approached all of them ready to shoot, so resistance would have been suicide. Choosing life over a pointless death is hardly folding.

Oh, and “2nd amendment types”? What exactly is that supposed to mean? People who believe in the constitution? You realize by making fun of people who support the constitution, you’re pointing out that you, in fact, do not right?

Any other parts of the constitution we should ignore? 1st amendment? 4th amendment? I suppose if the police decided to make an unlawful search of your house, you’d resist instead of “folding” right?

frost on December 17, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Nagin has control of a single city in the state of Lousiana. It may be the largest city but it isn’t the capital. That means Nagin is a mayor who made an unconstitutional gambit and was overruled, and hopefully NO will wake up and kick the b*757d out.

His closest parallel is interestingly enough the mayors of DC, Boston, Chicago et al who are all gun control freaks with no power outside their own city. Mumbles Menino (Mayor of Boston) thankfully has no power, and Deval Patrick (the governor) is fortunately too busy trying to bring resort casinos and embryonic stem cells to Massachusetts to worry about gun control yet.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 12:11 PM

I think that’s somewhat arguable. As people were discussing in relation to Hillary’s focus on where she campaigns, fundamentally, “it’s the city-states, stupid”. She’s focusing on New York. San Francisco. Los Angeles. Chicago. Capitals? Nope. Huge, huge influence? Yes. The Illinois State Rifle Association recognizes the smaller towns and counties passing 2nd amendment resolutions. That’s good and all, but if Chicago extended its reach, they could do whatever they wish. In all honesty, if you don’t think Menino and Patrick are ready to jump on guns as soon as crime shoots up or an incident happens, you’re in for a surprise.

Truth is, in the middle of the conflict we’re in, I’d like to be able to trust my government. I’d like to be able to look at soldiers and guardsmen and policemen with the respect most of them deserve. However, when they point their weapons at Americans citizens, only to destroy them in front of them at gun point, I feel sick to my stomach. You may argue we’re not living up to “Liberty or Death”. That’s mainly because a quarter-millennium ago, there were a lot less spoiled sheep who wouldn’t dare to cross “The Man”. Gestures these days are pointless. Hell, did you see any coverage of the confiscations on Fox News? CNN? Surprisingly, ABC was the only one to cover it with any real depth. We’re in a far different world, and the fight has to adapt.

MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Nagin has control of a single city in the state of Lousiana. It may be the largest city but it isn’t the capital. That means Nagin is a mayor who made an unconstitutional gambit and was overruled, and hopefully NO will wake up and kick the b*757d out.

Nagin gave an unconstitutional order to his corrupt police department. They all followed it. This is not the result of a single person in the wrong position, this is institutional tyranny. Since he’s refusing to comply with the law and the judicial branch by returning the weapons unlawfully stolen, yet hasn’t been arrested for it, I’d say that he’s hardly been “overruled”.

Doesn’t really matter how many people tell him he’s breaking the law. Doesn’t matter that the judicial and legislative branches are not on his side. The fact is that until the LA state government or the FBI does something about it or the police under his control refuse his unlawful orders, the tyranny continues.

frost on December 17, 2007 at 12:39 PM

Listen, I don’t have problems owning guns–for responsible types. I think Romney went on to explain why he supported the assault weapon thing: background checks. He said that in mass, the assault weapon ban came with a bunch of loosened restrictions on gun owners in other ways. So the bill had positive effects.

I don’t like the idea of just anyone getting a gun. Especially since they have emptied out all the mental institutions. I think a good background check is necessary.

I don’t think a registration list is necessary. I don’t even mind a one or two day waiting period; that would help prevent people from going and getting a gun in some heat of passion. Waiting two days isn’t a hardship if you have any knowledge of the law–i.e. go buy your gun 2 days before hunting season or something. Really, you should buy it a few weeks, so you can practice gun safety.

For automatic weapons, I’m not against reasonable restrictions–like you can’t buy it without certification of a higher level to show you can operate such a weapon safely. Show up with your “automatic weapons safety certificate” or military thing that’s equivalent. Those things seem like a reasonable compromise between safety ( Who wants the guy with mental issues or rage to have a huge selection of weapons) and the right to self-defense.

No registrations, but lots of background checks and a minor waiting period to help control against crimes of passion. Seems reasonable to me.

Vanceone on December 17, 2007 at 1:24 PM

I think Romney went on to explain why he supported the assault weapon thing: background checks.

Background checks were required before the ban, and are still required now that it’s expired.

I don’t even mind a one or two day waiting period; that would help prevent people from going and getting a gun in some heat of passion.

It also prevents someone whose life has been threatened from going out and getting a gun for self defense in a reasonable time. I think someone willing to commit murder probably has a much better chance of getting their hands on a gun quickly despite a waiting period than a person who isn’t willing to break the law. Waiting periods are just another piece of useless legislation that showed no evidence of reducing crime.

When discussing gun control, it’s good to keep in mind that criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. Therefore the laws only apply to non-criminals. The only sensible gun legislation is legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but not impact law abiding citizen at all. 99% of proposed gun legislation only hinders law abiding citizens. That doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

frost on December 17, 2007 at 2:18 PM

drat, screwed up the quotes on that last post.

frost on December 17, 2007 at 2:19 PM

The first thing that came to mind when reading this was “ROUS”es (Rodents of Unusual Size).

Michael in MI on December 16, 2007 at 6:43 PM

Like these?

James on December 17, 2007 at 2:24 PM

It also prevents someone whose life has been threatened from going out and getting a gun for self defense in a reasonable time.

Why would anyone give a death threat and then just walk away for 24 hours? You would think that would be enough time to get a police detail or something.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 2:24 PM

Why would anyone give a death threat and then just walk away for 24 hours? You would think that would be enough time to get a police detail or something.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 2:24 PM

Again, more idealism. Average police department will not give an average citizen a full police detail. They’ll do drive-bys and check up periodically, 90% of the time. If they have documented evidence of the threat (which they almost never do) then they’ll give a detail. Which means if a woman’s ex calls and says “You’re dead, b***h!” then she better hope he shows up while a cop is in the neighborhood. Average 4 minute response time with a 911 call means she has to stay alive, unarmed, for four minutes.

Also, the majority of death threats are just that: Threats. They usually don’t follow up with an attack immediately, either because it’s daylight or in public or what have you. The point I will give Romney is that he said waiting periods should be scaled back since they were “supposedly” in relation to the length of time it took technology to verify the background. Now, it should be reasonably instantaneous at any gun store. Therefore, no waiting period is necessary any longer. This would allow threatened law-abiding citizens to obtain defense. There are far more of those cases than of crimes of passion where the perps don’t have ready weapons (which they usually don’t go to the gun store to get anyway).

MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 2:55 PM

MadisonConservative on December 17, 2007 at 2:55 PM

What he said.

And on top of that, who said anything about 24 hours? A threat could be made an hour before being acted upon. That’s plenty of time to run to the gun store and pick up a defensive weapon.

You would think that would be enough time to get a police detail or something.

First of all, for someone who wants laws passed that force people to rely on the police for protection, you sure don’t have a grasp on what they’ll actually do when your life is threatened. Secondly, that “or something” is exactly what I’m referring to. The police won’t and can’t protect people all the time, so the people need to protect themselves.

frost on December 17, 2007 at 3:32 PM

What he said.

And on top of that, who said anything about 24 hours? A threat could be made an hour before being acted upon. That’s plenty of time to run to the gun store and pick up a defensive weapon.

I was more leaning towards “what the hell kind of competent criminal gives you the chance to defend yourself.”

If someone wants to kill you, it’d be pretty stupid for them to announce it beforehand. And really, if you had an hour to live and walked into a gun shop and told the guy someone planned to kill you in an hour and you needed a gun, how many shop owners would sell you one? In such a situation you would probably be nervous and erratic and their first impression would be you were unbalanced and in no shape to operate a firearm. They certainly don’t want the liability.

If it were me, I’d lock the doors, call the cops, and get a baseball bat, assuming I didn’t have a gun at the time. If someone says “meet me at the abandoned dock at seven o’clock,” you don’t go to the freaking dock.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 4:48 PM

If someone wants to kill you, it’d be pretty stupid for them to announce it beforehand.

Ah, so your taking the “criminals are very intelligent and will never act irrational” approach. You’ve never heard of a murderer having threatened someone an hour or so before they murdered them? No wonder you’re for gun control, you have no concept of the real world.

Notice that your argument also implies that a law abiding citizen buying a gun for self defense would act in an alarming way in the gun shop while someone buying one for the purpose of committing murder in the “heat of passion” would behave just fine. Otherwise there would be no need for waiting periods would there?

Here, maybe this will help bring you into reality. Btw, it took me all of two minutes to find and it happened 4 days ago.

Fort Lauderdale police on Thursday investigate the scene where Deborah Ann Hawthorne was murdered, one day after she begged for court protection against her former boyfriend, Ronald Smith. Smith was charged with her murder.

Let’s see, she was threatened by her former boyfriend. At that point she was supposed to get a police detail right? Well, she went to court and begged, and they refused to do anything but give her a piece of paper saying he wasn’t allowed to hurt her. That’s pretty typical. A day later she was murdered. I don’t know if she had a gun or not, but it obviously could have saved her life. A law forcing her to wait another couple of days before she could take it home wouldn’t do much good would it? At least without a stupid waiting period she had the opportunity to purchase a gun and protect herself, even if she chose not to exercise that opportunity.

frost on December 17, 2007 at 6:28 PM

If someone wants to kill you, it’d be pretty stupid for them to announce it beforehand.

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 4:48 PM

I remember an article by Don Kates several years ago, which I used in a paper.

“The offenders are likely to commit their murders during a long career of violent and nonviolent crimes. Murder is usually the end result of a pattern of continuing violence by the murderer against his victim. Alcohol is often a factor in homicides, as well as various narcotics or a combination of the two. Homicide usually occurs between non-strangers and is often the result of an argument or robbery or some other altercation. These studies show that roughly 90% of murderers have prior adult criminal records (the remaining 10% are likely to have psychiatric records), with an average criminal career of six or more years that includes four major felony arrests.”

Kates, Don B. Jr.(2000, Jan.). More On The Character of Murderers. Handguns Magazine, 24+.

This is as close as I can find online.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

“Domestic homicides as well are preceded by a long history of violence. The “crime of passion” homicide is much more the exception rather than the rule.”

“87 percent of the women killed by their intimate male partners had experienced prior battering at the hands of their eventual killers. 28 percent of the victims had obtained at least one restraining order against their male perpetrator at some point prior to the homicide.”

If it were me, I’d lock the doors, call the cops

BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 4:48 PM

The police have no duty to protect you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
This page requires login. To get around it Google the title:

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

Here is another article on the same topic.

http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=1758

Now seeing how the majority of murders have felony convictions it is already illegal for them to buy a gun. No new law will make it double illegal.

mad saint jack on December 17, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Vanceone on December 17, 2007 at 1:24 PM

The original Brady Bill only required a waiting period on handguns.

Only after the system was changed to an instant background check did it include shotguns, rifles, and evil, evil, evil assault weapons.

mad saint jack on December 17, 2007 at 6:48 PM