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…
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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
He should have just started crying.
amish on December 16, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Getting an assault riffle should not be banned but it should be a much higher standards to approve the ownership of one. In particular to criminal and mental background checks.
Criminals will always get guns. They are law breakers hence the ignoring of gun laws.
Egfrow on December 16, 2007 at 6:00 PM
So I wouldn’t be able to own a gun that fires ninjas?
Number 2 on December 16, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Yep. A bullet from an AK-47 or AR-15 becomes much more lethal if it has:
- A barrel shroud
- A bayonet clip
- A pistol grip
- A flash suppressor
- A folding stock
Thank you, Governor Romney, for keeping us safe from those extra-lethal folding stocks. Their menace must stop.
MadisonConservative on December 16, 2007 at 6:03 PM
The assault weapons ban is a pretty big deal. Defining one is based a lot of what it looks like. Methinks Mitt stepped in the goo here. It is a major issue with most gun owners and the NRA. Bad move for Mitt. That will cost him, big time.
a capella on December 16, 2007 at 6:08 PM
I don’t like guns. I am uncomfortable around them — even though all the men in my family have owned them and hunted with them. I believe every American should have the right to own a gun, with the usual criminal/mental background caveats.
But, aren’t there some types of guns/weapons that there should be some constraints on? I think that is what Romney is saying.
centralcal on December 16, 2007 at 6:10 PM
“Assault Weapon”=an aesthetic
aesthetics=unconstitutional.
unconstitutional=none of your damn business.
I thought Mitt did real well on the religion and the importance of morals; he lost me big time on limp wristed immigration enforcement and when he used my second amendment rights for a trampoline.
Speakup on December 16, 2007 at 6:11 PM
No. No. Nooo. And…how about no?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The commas may make you hesitate. So I bolded the significant part.
MadisonConservative on December 16, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Noodly! (Mitt, not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, sbuh)
aero on December 16, 2007 at 6:16 PM
MadisonConservative on December 16, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Right on… Its feel good law, with an end goal of removing the ability of citizens to protect themselves from the monsters in the world… Government.
m1a1usmc on December 16, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Lets see, Mitt Romney, Gueliani, and I believe if memory serves, John Mc cain also supported gun control. I definetly remember John Mc cain saying he had no guns in a recent debate. Cheer up people, there are several other Republicans to choose from. I look at it this way. If a candidate doesn’t support the 2nd amendment, what other parts of the constitution does he or she not support.
2theright on December 16, 2007 at 6:17 PM
It doesn’t say what kind of arms. While you may think that means all “arms” up to and including thermonuclear devices, others (myself included) think that it does not.
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 6:20 PM
I was under the impression that an “assault rifle” was a fully automatic weapon.
infidel on December 16, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Just wanted to add any “assualt” rifle may be used in self-defense.
infidel on December 16, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Fact is guns are lethal. They are the only weapon that can kill a man from a distance that can also be concealed in a pocket. Some guns are more lethal that others. They either have a ridiculously fast rate of fire or they send enough projectiles out at once to nearly ensure death. Criminals will try and get the most dangerous guns anyway, but there’s nothing like a “legitimate dealer” to serve as a front.
All guns should be registered and tracked and states should have concealed-carry permits. This is a reasonable compromise between allowing citizens to defend themselves and letting lethal weapons flow into society untracked.
But don’t take nobody’s guns no ways folks. It’s a mai right ta own a gun whut can take out a buffalo from 200 yards. Don’t impinge on my rights no ways.
BKennedy on December 16, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Supreme Court said it was any weapon that could be used to form a malitia, any weapon used by the average soldier… sawed off shotguns were then ruled illegal, but there are shotbarreled shotguns that are classified as pistols (class 3)… just fill out ATF Form 4, pay the tax, and enjoy your new useless shotgun…
m1a1usmc on December 16, 2007 at 6:32 PM
m1a1usmc on December 16, 2007 at 6:32 PM
The definition of a weapon being “used by the average soldier” is subject to change, as technology and availability change. Once you accept that a line can be drawn, the only question remaining is where to draw it. Why not at “assault weapons”?
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 6:34 PM
The Founders disagree with you about registration. Of course many brutal dictators do agree with your position. That is very telling.
Gatordoug on December 16, 2007 at 6:34 PM
extraordinary lethality? So umm. . . does that mean you would be ‘extraordinarily dead’ if shot by one?
If the government of Pakistan can buy F16′s, then I think the good ole US of A can allow its citizenry to exercise the 2nd amendment with any type of firearm that it can find.
If the government has weapons it doesn’t want to sell to people, that’s a different story. But if the weapons are available, the government has ZERO right under the constitution to keep me from having one.
Knives are ‘extraordinarily lethal’ if one is used to kill me. . . gonna ban knives? It’s not the weapon, it’s the person.
ThackerAgency on December 16, 2007 at 6:35 PM
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
The 1994 assault weapons ban changed ABSOLUTLY NOTHING regarding the lethality of weapons. Guns made during the ban shoot the exact same ammunition, and accept the same magazines as guns made before the ban.
All the ban did was make a $400 rifle into an $800 rifle. I also remember seeing an ad which had magazines for sale to the police for $10, and the same magazine for sale to the public for $70.
Anyone who says the 1994 AWB reduced crime is either a complete moron, or a fraud and a liar.
I see many people here already know this (I type slow) but I need to add:
Assault Weapons (semi-auto, 1994 AWB)
Are not
Assault Rifles (full-auto, 1934 NFA)
Are not
Machine guns (full-auto, 1934 NFA)
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Bingo. The brutal dictators just love having a nice list to work from, to make the cleansing of guns from the populace more efficient. I liked Fred Thompson’s answer to the “do you own guns” question: “Yes I do, but I’m not saying what kind or where they are.” That’s a paraphrase, but essentially what he said, it’s none of your (or the government’s) business.
iurockhead on December 16, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Show me a weapon for current sale that shouldn’t be owned by an idividual… I can legally own a M203 Gernade Laucher, I just can own the ammuntion… I can legally buy a .50 cal Barrett, I just can afford the $4,000 price tag…
m1a1usmc on December 16, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Before guns – knives, blow darts, bow and arrow, crossbow, and throwing stars
After guns – see above and add I.E.D.’s etc.
Unfortunately, people kill people and will use whatever is at their disposal to make lethal devices.
infidel on December 16, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Not really. The characteristics listed for “assault rifles”, such as flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, etc. are not merely cosmetic, but allow the weapon to be used under different conditions that it would be useful in otherwise. The two I mentioned help the user to fire rapidly under low light conditions, hence the designation assault rifle.
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 6:42 PM
The first thing that came to mind when reading this was “ROUS”es (Rodents of Unusual Size).
Something tells me that some of our Presidential candidates do not think the 2nd Amendment means what we think it means.
Michael in MI on December 16, 2007 at 6:43 PM
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 6:36 PM
The sunsetting of that law also made the weapons produced during the ban cheaper now… no compensator, no lug, take $200 off…
m1a1usmc on December 16, 2007 at 6:44 PM
extraordinary lethality
I took my daughters deer hunting today. They each shot a deer, one from 230 yards, the other from 250 yards (their daddy was very proud). Both deer died virtually instantly, just a few reflexive steps, and down. Now that is extrordinary lethality. A 9mm pistol with a 15-round capacity couldn’t do that in a million years, but they were banned in the AWD. The Ruger model 77 bolt action rifle my daughters used was not. Feel-good legislation, indeed.
iurockhead on December 16, 2007 at 6:46 PM
m1a1usmc on December 16, 2007 at 6:41 PM
The question doesn’t really have to do with the sale of weapons. In fact, the 2nd amendment makes no provision for the manufacture, sale, or distribution of any weapon. What we’re talking about is “keeping” and “bearing” arms. The real issue is whether the government has a right to restrict the ownership and use of any kinds of weapon that becomes available by any means. Once you accept that it can, we’re really just fighting over where to draw the line.
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Excellent analysis.
Mitt is a ROUS. Republican Of Unusual Sect.
…I don’t care who ya are. That’s funny.
Mojave Mark on December 16, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Honestly,, I just hate everyone of these candidates! I will vote for whoever the Republican is,, but, every stinking time I start to lean towards any of them they open their mouths and keep talking and convince me of my mistake!! Our guns are not the problem! Our property or where we choose to live is not the problem! Our businesses and SUV’s and lawnmowers are not the problem!! Our Christian faith, our churches and our Bibles are not the problem!! GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM! IT IS THE PROBLEM WITH OUR HEALTH CARE! IT IS THE PROBLEM WITH OUR SCHOOLS! IT IS THE PROBLEM WITH OUR BORDERS! IT IS THE PROBLEM WITH OUR ECONOMY! IT IS THE PROBLEM WITH JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT PLAGUES THIS NATION! IT WAS A MAN WORKING IN THE GOVERNMENT ACTING AS PRESIDENT THAT GAVE US IRAN! IT WAS A MAN WORKING IN THE GOVERNMENT ACTING AS PRESIDENT THAT GAVE US A MORE DANGEROUS CHINA AND A MORE DANGEROUS N KOREA! You want to stop crime?? STOP LETTING DANGEROUS CRIMINALS OUT ON THE STREETS! STOP PUSHING THE MENTALLY ILL OUT OF THE HOSPITALS AND INTO THE COMMUNITIES! There should be no such thing as a “repeat offender!” No one should ever have a rap sheet 11 pages long!! Our freedoms and our liberties are never and will never be the problem!! A thousand years from now they will be just as sacred as they ever were!
JellyToast on December 16, 2007 at 6:48 PM
More Claptrap from a northeast liberal. “Weapons of unusual lethality” that “endanger law enforcement” is another way of saying “weapons in the hands of the unorganized militia”.
The purpose of firearms and other weapons in the hands of the citizenry is to blow agents of the government to hell and gone, if necessary. Any other interpretation is wishful thinking, and any interpretation by a politician that doesn’t recognize this fact is downright scary.
HerrMorgenholz on December 16, 2007 at 6:49 PM
HerrMorgenholz on December 16, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Actually, according to the Constitution, the reason why our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is that it is conducive to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. It has nothing to do with fighting out own government.
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 6:51 PM
m1a1usmc on December 16, 2007 at 6:32 PM
M1a1usmc, my understanding is that the Supreme Court did not rule that a shotgun was useless to the Militia. They ruled that it would need to meet that standard (which is not hard). As the shotgun in question was lost and not in evidence no finding could be made (also the defendant was dead and no defense attorney was present). The appeal was simply denied.
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Those of you who believe registering guns will do ANYTHING other than give THE GOVERNMENT an address list in the event of martial law, should please to go back and review the history of Germany in the 1930′s. Their gun registries were a huge part of moving from freedom to tyranny. Dictators love unarmed citizens.
oldleprechaun on December 16, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Negative. Fully automatic weapons (i.e. those that fire once the trigger is depressed and do not stop firing until the trigger is then released) have been heavily regulated since 1934 and require special licensing, excise taxes and transfer taxes. Fully automatic weapons are also very expensive, like price of a new Honda expensive.
“Assault” weapons are often styled after military weapons, and may use the same ammunition, but are not fully automatic. They only discharge one round each time the trigger is depressed, just like nearly every other rifle you’ll find, as voice of reason pointed out. They just look extra scary to your average GFW.
Insomniac on December 16, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 6:46 PM
If I had a spare $60,000 I would buy a M2 .50 cal, just to say I have it, and maybe to fire when ever I have $10,000 worth of ammunition on hand. We currently have the right to own that weapon.
If you think that those weapons should not be available for private ownership, I disagree.
m1a1usmc on December 16, 2007 at 6:55 PM
What a Mitt-wit this pansy New England Mormon is. Porter Rockwell would not be amused.
Bob Owens on December 16, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Tell that to the people that wrote the Second Amendment.
HerrMorgenholz on December 16, 2007 at 6:59 PM
No joke. A friend of mine had a beautiful Colt AR-15 HBAR that he bought pre-ban for about 800 bucks. He turned around and sold it after the ban for about $1200 or so, if memory serves.
Insomniac on December 16, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Romney Claims NRA Endorsement He Didn’t Receive
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Congressman Ron Paul believes that the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. It is an individual right that is guaranteed. He believes it is about the citizenry having the ability to restrain tyrannical governments and would be dictators.
He believes the Second Amendment is about self-defense from criminal attack and from governments that break away from the chains of the Constitution.
Congressman Ron Paul opposed the reauthorization of the Clinton-Feinstein semi-auto gun ban.
He opposes gun and gun owner registration.
Congressman Ron Paul opposes government permission systems that force law-abiding citizens “prove” their innocence before buying or owning firearms.
He opposes gun purchase rationing schemes, aka so-called “one-gun-a-month” laws.
Congressman Ron Paul opposes legislation to impose so-called gun lock requirements that make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a firearm in your home for self-defense.
JUST SAYING!!!!
muyoso on December 16, 2007 at 7:01 PM
So you’re saying that they’re only made to look “cool” so a bunch of wannabe military morons can feel like big men? I don’t buy it. The mods are there for a reason, and change the applicability of the weapon.
I think such weapons need to be heavily regulated, and understand that they are in most cases. You may be able to get one, but you can;t just load it onto the back of your truck and drive it around town (that’s the “bearing” part).
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 7:01 PM
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 6:52 PM
US v. Miller… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
m1a1usmc on December 16, 2007 at 7:03 PM
The Founders were fighting against the world’s greatest Navy at the time and could use all the gunman they can get. Now firing a gun somewhere is liable to get someone killed. Are you honestly saying that anyone anywhere should be able to make and sell guns to whomever they please without legal restraint? That’s idiotic.
BKennedy on December 16, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Nice straw man, but anyone with average reading comprehension skills can tell you that’s not what I said. I said they look extra scary to your average GFW (Gun Fearing Wussy – credit to Kim du Toit). The specific firing action is as I described it – one round discharged per trigger pull. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
That’s fine, since I’m not selling it. Doesn’t change the facts, though.
Insomniac on December 16, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 7:01 PM
ATF Form 4… registration with the Federal Government… no other weapon you purchase is registered with the Feds, only class 3… Here in SC the government doesn’t knows what weapons I purchase, only the FFL who sells the weapon to me.
m1a1usmc on December 16, 2007 at 7:06 PM
The purpose of firearms is to protect your family from all forces forign and domestic. They are designed for defense, not vigilante justice. One man with a gun and unhealthy fear of the government (as opposed to a healthy fear) hardly represents a well-regulated militia.
Civilians must have access to guns that serve the purpose of protecting their family. That does not mean we should have machine guns on a rack at the local Walmart.
BKennedy on December 16, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Um, no? Nearly all of the weapons covered on the AWB are long guns. They can’t be put in pockets any more than a crossbow can.
A .22 round, a .32 round, a .357 round, a .38 round, a .40 round, a .44 round, a .45 round, a .50 round, the magnums of all of them, and 9MM and 10MM rounds all will kill you if one of them is put through your head, and very likely your heart. That applies as well to shotgun shells and rifle cartridges of all sizes and shapes. What are you smoking? A gun is lethal the moment one if its projectiles can kill you. There is no “more lethal”. If one can kill you, it’s lethal.
Right. Go empty a Tec-9 or Mac-11 or one of the other “more lethal plastic teflon-coated cop-killer-bullet-spraying” weapons at a target from a distance, then do the same with a Glock or Beretta 9MM pistol. You tell me which is easier to put a round through someone’s head with.
Holy god. Why, why, why? All that would do is provide the government with a database that they can use if they ever decide to take guns from the citizens, which, of course, the naysayers will scoff at, particularly those in New Orleans.
Oh, wait…
…how many times? EVERY GUN IS LETHAL. A .22 revolver is lethal. A Browning .50BMG is lethal. You’d probably think the rifle was more lethal, but which is easier to conceal and get up close with? “More lethal” is a farce, used by gun-grabbers who are trying to implement social policy to cater to the fears of sheeple.
You bigot.
MadisonConservative on December 16, 2007 at 7:09 PM
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
Man you sound like Sarah Brady! I am talking about your idea of registration. I figured someone should let you know where the Founders stood.
Clearly you just wanted to show how hyperbolic, and emotionalistic you could be.
Gatordoug on December 16, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Insomniac on December 16, 2007 at 6:55 PM
An Assault rifle is a full-auto (or 3 shot burst) weapon designed for fast moving urban combat.
They are full-auto, light weight, and use medium power ammunition as they were not made for long range shooting.
Assault weapons are not Assault rifles again:
Assault Weapons (semi-auto, 1994 AWB)
Are not
Assault Rifles (full-auto, 1934 NFA)
Are not
Machine guns (full-auto, 1934 NFA)
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 7:12 PM
In all fairness, I think most people here have no problem with most of Ron Paul’s positions on domestic policy. They’re very comforting. However, his positions on foreign policy are 100x more discomforting.
MadisonConservative on December 16, 2007 at 7:14 PM
I don’t care if you buy it, or not. As someone who has worked in the field of selling firearms and who has fired more kinds than I can recall, I can tell you Insomniac is 100% correct. Bayonet lugs, folding stocks, flash hiders, and pistol grips do not affect the intrinsic or practical accuracy, nor rate of fire of a firearm, one bit.
Bob Owens on December 16, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Knives are not reliable killing weapons at a range, blow darts require a potent poison difficult to obtain, a bow and quiver of arrows most certainly cannot fit in a pocket, throwing stars require hitting vital parts but are more effective than knives, and IED’s require chemical compunds that are difficult to mix and then detonate safely.
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
US v. Miller… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
m1a1usmc on December 16, 2007 at 7:03 PM
“In the absence of any evidence”
This is my point
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 7:16 PM
There is no well-regulated militia. All major armed groups are government-run. Also, what makes machine guns (I’d love you to explain that term, by the way, since it includes some pistols as well as many other weapons) somehow exclusive as weapons that cannot be used for self-defense? Are you only allowed to defend against rapists one bullet per trigger pull?
And, if you’ll recall, the criminals will get the “machine guns” regardless of the laws. Why should law-abiding citizens be at a disadvantage?
MadisonConservative on December 16, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Bob Owens on December 16, 2007 at 7:14 PM
You’re being silly. They do not affect the intrinsic rate of fire or accuracy of the firearm, but they change the way it may be used. If the mods did not change the weapon and make it easier to use, nobody would bother to include them.
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 7:18 PM
When funds allow, I intend to purchase an AR-15. Not because I want to hunt with one. Because what would you do if we woke up one day and our Government and Constitution were no longer in place or effect. One would likely wish we had meaningful means to resist re-education. Just ask the anti-communists in China. Does our Government care what happens to us if they gone?
Buck Turgidson on December 16, 2007 at 7:19 PM
When funds allow, I intend to purchase an AR-15. Not because I want to hunt with one. Because what would you do if we woke up one day and our Government and Constitution were no longer in place or effect. One would likely wish we had meaningful means to resist re-education. Just ask the anti-communists in China. Does our Government care what happens to us if they’re gone?
Buck Turgidson on December 16, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Thank you for the clarification. My intent was to address the weapons covered by the AWB and distinguish them from full auto weapons, but apparently I wasn’t as precise as I should have been. There is a lot of deliberate conflation of these terms so people think the assault weapons ban has something to do with fully automatic weapons which, as you know, it didn’t.
Insomniac on December 16, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Here’s my point, If I ever need one, I want the best firepower I could get. Who is the government to tell me that if my life is in danger by a gang of thugs, I can’t have an automatic weapon?
All the government would do is show up afterward to write a report and say, ‘yep, this guy was killed’.
Assault weapons might come in handy for defense. If I need a gun, I want a good one.
ThackerAgency on December 16, 2007 at 7:22 PM
And as far as “more lethal” I am primarily talking about the probability of killing a person if fired under a variety of circumstances. All guns can kill you, but something like a shotgun has a greater probability of killing you via its spread shots than a pistol firing one bullet at a time.
Don’t tell me one of you would, were you to get into a gun duel to the death, not choose one particular kind of gun over another. If you would be selective in your gun choice, please don’t tell me that guns don’t have a sliding scale on lethality.
BKennedy on December 16, 2007 at 7:22 PM
An assault rifle is:
A shoulder fired rifle that uses and intermediate cartridge and is cabaple of select fire (ie: semi and full auto).
None of the cosmetic items make a rifle an assault rifle, only the ability of select fire. A bayonet without a rifle is a knife, on a rifle it is a spear, so the assault weapons ban was partially a ban on spears. Feel dumb yet?
Flash supressors aid the firer by negating the muzzle flash that can hinder proper aiming, and cuts his visual signature down to those that might be firing back. Feel dumb yet?
Folding stocks when in a folded position only make a rifle LESS acurate, a proper seating of a rifle against the shoulder is needed to realize the full accuracy of any rifle. Feel dumb yet?
When you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
Mitt obviously likes stupid prizes.
quax1 on December 16, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Oh Lordy Lordy who am I going to vote for?
The NYT article above (GOP Primary, No One to Root For) quotes Lamar Alexander “Our party generally has grown stale in its message”
No Lamar, the GOP has gone off-message. When the top of a party hates a candidate the dog won’t fly.
What a problem for the top RHINO’s: how to make one of their guys look conservative long enough to get elected
The GOP biggies like Huck or he would have been cut off at the knees before the debates
Like in Australia? The safest gun to own is one that is not trackable by our uncertain, untrustworthy government of liars. It is one that does not have a trigger lock to foil you when you need to fire. It is even an assault weapon which is not designed to kill more people because it spews more bullets faster, but designed to wound as many people as possible to slow down a mass attack because a wounded soldier is a greater burden than a dead soldier.
I am not defeated. Reagan proved the fight can be won
entagor on December 16, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Absolute rot. The is no, read ZERO, ZILCHA ZIP NADA change in the way a pre-ban AR-15, ban-era AR15, and post-ban AR15 is employed. None at all.
Well I take that back.
It’s hard to stab someone with a bayonet on a ban-era gun. Beyond that, there is not a bit of practical difference as far as shooting these weapons were concerned.
None.
Bob Owens on December 16, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Actually, no. I think a modification that allows a firearm operator to shoot at others undetected actually makes the weapon more dangerous and is a reasonable feature to regulate on a weapon.
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Again, wrong. A shotgun blast to the thigh or even the side would not necessarily be lethal. A single shot from a 1911 .45 to the head would be lethal. There is only lethal (you die) or non-lethal (you don’t die). There is nothing past whether you die or not from the wound.
You’re absolutely right. If I had a choice between a MAC-10 and a HK USP .40 pistol, I’d choose the pistol. One is easily aimed and accurate, the other is not. Should we ban the one that is more easily aimed and accurate? Go ahead and tell me it’s “more lethal”. The more I hear that, the more I shake my head.
MadisonConservative on December 16, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Bob Owens on December 16, 2007 at 7:24 PM
So what good is a flash supressor, or any of the other mods? If they don’t increase the “lethality” of the weapon, are they just there to make you feel tough, Rambo? If that’s the case, why complain about their regulation. You’re not making sense.
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Insomniac on December 16, 2007 at 7:21 PM
There is a lot of deliberate conflation of these terms so people think the assault weapons ban has something to do with fully automatic weapons which, as you know, it didn’t.
This is why the gun-banners are always yelling about AK-47s and Uzis on the streets. it is fraud.
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Thinking of the big picture here with all the candidates…
I have seen plenty of reasons for not liking all the candidates based on their policy positions. Either social policy or economic policy or foreign policy. However, other than being accused of being “lazy” and running and uninspiring campaign, are there any policy issues on which people majorly disagree with Fred Thompson? I can’t remember anyone here at HotAir really posting any major disappointments with Fred Thompson other than with his campaign. On policy, he seems to please every faction of the “conservative coalition”.
Why are we all fighting about which candidate we should all settle for, but none of us all like (Rudy, Mitt, McCain, Huckabee, Paul), instead of pushing one which we all seem to like (Fred Thompson)?
It seems we are all arguing over which faction of the ‘conservative coalition’ should sacrifice their princinples and hold their nose and vote for a candidate in which they do not believe, instead of all supporting a good conservative candidate like Fred Thompson.
Or are there actually some policy issues or trust issues with Fred Thompson which really turn people off to him that I simply have not seen addressed here?
This is a sincere question. I honestly do not recall anyone criticizing Fred other than being lazy or running a ‘bad’ campaign. If someone has though, please let me know.
As I said, it seems to me that Fred Thompson’s campaign appeals to every part of the ‘conservative coalition’ (fiscal, social, war effort and even religion).
Michael in MI on December 16, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Completely agree, and I’m still holding out for him. Honestly, I don’t think a single other republican candidate that could make it will earn a vote from me. Tancredo, Hunter, yeah…but they won’t make it.
MadisonConservative on December 16, 2007 at 7:35 PM
BKennedy on December 16, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Guns made during the ban shoot the exact same ammunition, and accept the same magazines as guns made before the ban.
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 7:36 PM
The Brady Bill was a ridiculous piece of legislation.
aengus on December 16, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Government should be regulated, controlled and tracked, not guns. I’m not going to get into this too far since no one is going to have their mind changed here. My Daughter in law is from Burma, she is a U.S. citizen but her family lives in Rangoon. She tells me, frequently, that she wishes the U.S. would go into Burma and remove the military dictators. I usually respond with “Why don’t the Burmese people rise up and throw the military dictators out?” Invariably her reply is “They don’t have any guns, the government has them all.” That from someone who has lived in a place where guns are registered , controlled and prohibited to it’s citizens.
Oldnuke on December 16, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Then you are full of retarded.
You use the word “undetected” when the term I used was “lessens”, no device can eliminate the muzzle flash completely. You are playing word games like all the other gun-banners do. If you fire a weapon, there will be a muzzle flash.
quax1 on December 16, 2007 at 7:41 PM
A flash hider reduces the flash for the shooter of the weapon, so you do not blind yourself at night. It does not make you undetected.
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 7:44 PM
I see the Governemt Fearing Wussies have found this thread. Oh well. I’ll leave you guys to your craziness.
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 7:46 PM
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
Most of this legislation is designed to do nothing other then pacify the anti-gun left and the soccer moms. My .22 LR Marlin semi-auto can fire off rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger yet thankfully it’s not yet considered an assault rifle.
My problem is with this candidate. He will take any position he thinks is nessesary to win an election. Yea, he looks Presidential (whatever that means), yea, he seems to be on the right track (today), but he has NO CORE VALUES! If he’s elected we can expect nothing more than a continuation of the Bush’s 41 & 43 domestic policy (plenty of “cooperation” with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, while throwing conservatives under the bus the way he’s been known to do). We can do better!
edgehead on December 16, 2007 at 7:51 PM
I’d rather get hit by a 7.62x39mm out of an AK-47 than a .30-06 Springfield out of a hunting rifle.
steveegg on December 16, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Amen, bro!
edgehead on December 16, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Watch and learn, sheep.
MadisonConservative on December 16, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Mitt Romney’s appearance on MTP was, in total, poor. He gave way too long-winded answers to the mormon questions, which resulted in Russert keeping the topic locked on his religion for (literally) the first 14 minutes of the interview! Then Russert moves on and hammers him on his abortion flipflop, and Romney is unable to answer that question satisfactorily. (He basically responds by saying that he was pro choice as a matter of public policy but pro life as a matter of personal belief, but when he was asked to sign a bill about stem cells in Massachusetts, he consulted with “theologians” and then concluded that he was actually pro-life.)
Anyway, Russert then moves from issue to issue, and Romney just tries to awkwardly dodge his record on virtually every issue. I personally support Giuliani and I wince when I watch Giuliani try to dodge on immigration (“why no, we never ran a sanctuary city here in NY *wink wink*”) — but Romney pulls this on virtually every issue.
One of my colleagues at work pegged him best:
Mitt Romney is basically Wink Martindale – a bad game show host. All smile, no substance.
Outlander on December 16, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Well.. there are too many great posts to quote from from both sides of the issue here.
I have the strongest belief as our forefathers did that the citizens should be “competitive” militartily with it’s govenment. I do not own the same firepower that my government has..
and I guess thats OK since I have no beef with them and they have no beef with me.
However.. if gun ownership and all the details therein (what caliber/how many rounds in a mag/auto/semi-auto/bursts/stock size/ barrel length/..etc) are legislated away to where I can only own a one-shot .22 then we are toothless.
Do I carry because I’m paranoid of my government? NO
I carry because I feel the need to protect my family or yours and my all of fellow citizens in the event that:
1) Some pent up whacko has a bad day at the Walma$t
2) Some unsocialized teenager wants to make a youtube video.
3) Some person/s with religious or political motives wants to take away my and my fellow American’s freedom and/or lifestyle.
I am not a lawmaker and wouldn’t want that responsiblity. (well maybe on this issue) but disarming the GOOD without any real ability to disarm the bad is as liberal, polianic, and anti-consistitutional as handing out 2 year sentences for pedofiles.
These topics about basic rights really shouldn’t even be discussed – they are so obvious.
amend2 on December 16, 2007 at 7:58 PM
I’ve only read through about half this thread but I’d just like to add my voice to virtually everybody else here other than BigS and BKennedy, our resident 2nd amendment opponents.
FloatingRock on December 16, 2007 at 8:03 PM
There are many topics within the gun control debate, and this discourse has sprawled away from the topic of how the 1994 AWB reduced crime.
So I say again:
The 1994 assault weapons ban changed ABSOLUTLY NOTHING regarding the lethality of weapons. Guns made during the ban shoot the exact same ammunition, and accept the same magazines as guns made before the ban.
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 8:04 PM
My take on Romney is, either he tricked the voters in MA, or he wants to trick everyone else.
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 8:13 PM
..Holy crap.
Go have yourself an armed insurrection, then.
Reaps on December 16, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Anyone know what his lawyers have told him to say about this?
Griz on December 16, 2007 at 8:15 PM
I watched the Katrina gun confiscation video! Just like in Nazi Germany! When I watched how those “brave men” took that old woman down to the floor it was just sickening! Thanks for posting it!
JellyToast on December 16, 2007 at 8:21 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
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 8:04 PM
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.
Big S on December 16, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Gatordoug 8:23pm
Sorry to correct you. If you can leagally own a firearm in your state you can possess any and all weapons with a class III NFA registration.(with a few wussie states excluded)
Google: class three weapons rules
You will get all the answers.
Beto Ochoa on December 16, 2007 at 8:36 PM
“A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. …God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Thomas Jefferson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Wow. If ever there was strong justification to fight gun registration, that was it. If those uniformed thugs had the list of who owned what, the only difference would have been the lack of asking if you had weapons. Thanks for the link, MC
iurockhead on December 16, 2007 at 8:42 PM
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 8:39 PM
The highlighted link above is not correct. Cut and paste the whole line.
mad saint jack on December 16, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Mitt looked good last summer then I heard him mention (in passing) to Hannity that he supported the 2nd Amendment but would enforce the AWB……..Mitt, ol’ buddy, you can’t have it both ways.
Dr Bob on December 16, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »