Romney: The US doesn’t need stricter gun laws

posted at 1:21 pm on July 26, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

I think the liberal-leaning outlets are trying to draw attention to the section of the interview in which Mitt Romney tells Brian Williams that “there are some differences between myself and the NRA,” but I’m honestly not seeing any cause for alarm. I feel like Romney is just leaving himself a bit of wiggle room here, as all politicians are wont to do. Yes, we know he has a not-as-sterling-as-some-might-prefer past on gun control: He’s signed an ‘assault’ weapons ban as governor of Massachusetts and supported the idea of better background checks, but as the gist of the interview amounts to, no, he doesn’t think we need stricter national gun laws and just legislating the heck out of things isn’t always a solution, I’m okay with it. (Not overly pleased with it, perhaps, but okay.)

Mitt Romney rejected the idea that tougher gun laws could have prevented the deadly rampage in Aurora, Colo., saying in an interview Tuesday that a legislative remedy would not thwart people who want to cause harm.

“Just having a law saying someone can’t do a bad thing doesn’t always keep a person from doing a bad thing,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee told NBC’s Brian Williams. …

Mr. Romney talked briefly about the assault weapons ban he signed as governor of Massachusetts, calling the legislation a compromise that was backed by Second Amendment advocates. Now, he said, he doesn’t “happen to believe that America needs new gun laws.”

As Allahpundit already pointed out, President Obama had some slightly stiffer words about gun control policies yesterday afternoon, but for now at least, no new laws are going to happen anytime soon and this is all just rhetoric. However, President Obama’s call for more supposedly “common-sense” gun laws and his remark that “a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily” gave me reason for pause, and I hope you’ll indulge me while I thresh out a sincere question. In the WSJ earlier this week, Holman Jenkins wrote about the possibilities of data mining and how impersonal government algorithms could’ve picked up on the red flags that James Holmes’ behavior provided prior to his deadly rampage.

The Colorado shooter Mr. Holmes dropped out of school via email. He tried to join a shooting range with phone calls and emails going back and forth. He bought weapons and bomb-making equipment. He placed orders at various websites for a large quantity of ammunition. Aside from privacy considerations, is there anything in principle to stop government computers, assuming they have access to the data, from algorithmically detecting the patterns of a mass shooting in the planning stages?

It helps to go back over the controversy at the time. Supporters argued that Total Information Awareness shouldn’t be frightful to Americans—there would be no monitoring of identified individuals unless a warrant was issued. The system wouldn’t be collecting dossiers of personal information or choosing people to spy on, at least initially. It would be raking impersonally through vast streams of data looking for red flags.

The anguishing thing about mass-shooting incidents is that patterns are indeed present. The person usually has a history of causing alarm in people around. The episodes themselves typically begin with a personal setback—a divorce, a firing, an investment failure, getting kicked out of school. And preparations for mass murder certainly leave “signatures” in the “transaction space.”

Er… doesn’t that feel a little too Minority Report for comfort? Yes, we always want to prevent horrors like the one we saw in Colorado last week, but in the United States, people are innocent until they’re proven guilty. There are countless divorces, firings, and investment failures every day in America, but are you going to preemptively deny someone their Second-Amendment rights before they’ve committed a crime? I certainly hope this type of thing isn’t what President Obama is thinking of when he says “common sense” regulation, because it’s anything but. As Jenkins goes on to say, “Psychiatric evaluations of dangerousness, we’re often told, are unhelpful because too many fit the pattern who never engage in violence. Can monitoring masses of transaction data help find the real risks? Or would this also lead (as some experts surmise) to unmanageable numbers of false positives?” It all just sounds very police-state-ish to me — and while I firmly believe that people, not guns, kill people, it’s also true that you just can’t legislate crazy without sacrificing something else. Just something to consider and be vigilant about in the never-ceasing battle to protect our right to bear arms.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

…well that’s a plus for Mitt

KOOLAID2 on July 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM

I think BOR is aligning himself with Dear Leader’s position on AK’s. Could there be an interview upcoming?

d1carter on July 26, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Good for Mitt. Keep making that point – and try pointing out what stricter gun control has done for NY, Chicago, LA, DC and all the others.

dentarthurdent on July 26, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Ban government grants, then they can’t be used to buy guns, ammunition, body armor and chemicals for explosives.

CrazyGene on July 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

You only have to look as far as Chicago to see who benefits from more gun control. The gangs are in control there and in every other city where the citizens are not allowed to be armed, just the way the marxist politicians like it.

texanpride on July 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

The bombings around the world and the ricin attack in the subway in Japan are all the proof we need that gun laws aren’t going to stop violence.

thatsafactjack on July 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

New laws wouldn’t have made a difference. Holmes took the lead from president obama and decided he wasn’t going to follow the laws he didn’t like.

Ronnie on July 26, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Good for mitt

cmsinaz on July 26, 2012 at 1:30 PM

For all that do think the law would stop these types of incidents from occurring. Consider this. Murder is illegal.

Bmore on July 26, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Instead of writing additional gun laws, maybe they should legalize the public expression of religious conscience. That would do a lot more to prevent hate and violence.

RBMN on July 26, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I’m all for common sense gun control — if it’s something like say your friend gets drunk and starts handling his revolver carelessly so you take it away from him until he sobers up. There. Done with no government help. BTW, isn’t a “common sense law” sort of an oxymoron?

apostic on July 26, 2012 at 1:32 PM

I’m okay with it. (Not overly pleased with it, perhaps, but okay.)

If ever there was a signature line about voter support for Romney…

His past is much clearer and more explicit than he is willing to be in his statements today. People aren’t wrong to worry about that.

No one ever becomes more philosophically conservative in office. It’s an iron rule of politics. It has never been broken. Romney saying he doesn’t see a need for tighter gun laws is a vague statement useful for a moment in politics; it’s not a statement of a philosophy on gun ownership. Absent the latter, movement conservatives will continue to distrust Romney.

Elect a more conservative Congress in November.

J.E. Dyer on July 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Yes, we always want to prevent horrors like the one we saw in Colorado last week,

So we tell people with a CCW, YOU CAN’T COME IN HERE!

As for liberals and “common sense” – those are mutually exclusive terms.

GarandFan on July 26, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Anytime you hear one of the more equal Pigs vomit up the word, “common sense,” you know that they are talking about disarming or taxing the People.

It’s along the same line as one of the more equal Pigs vomiting up the term, “for the children.”

Sidebar – re: assault gun

Had our Founding Fathers had access to them, they would’ve used them and protected their private ownership pursuant to the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or protecting the home, or one’s person. It has everything to do with tyranny, in all its forms.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 26, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I know I’ve been repeating this lately, but it’s important to keep in mind. Romney, late 2007, running for president:

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.

MadisonConservative on July 26, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Bmore on July 26, 2012 at 1:30 PM

There you go again injecting facts in a perfectly good emotional argument. :)

chemman on July 26, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Crazy Gene @ 1:27
I wasn’t gonna comment on the government grant to the mass murderer, but only saw it on one site. If this is true WHY isn’t it all over the web?????

angrymike on July 26, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I’m okay with it. (Not overly pleased with it, perhaps, but okay.)

If ever there was a signature line about voter support for Romney…

His past is much clearer and more explicit than he is willing to be in his statements today. People aren’t wrong to worry about that.

No one ever becomes more philosophically conservative in office. It’s an iron rule of politics. It has never been broken. Romney saying he doesn’t see a need for tighter gun laws is a vague statement useful for a moment in politics; it’s not a statement of a philosophy on gun ownership. Absent the latter, movement conservatives will continue to distrust Romney.

Elect a more conservative Congress in November.

J.E. Dyer on July 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM

What a brilliant statement! (except that I’m not ‘OK’ with Mittens Milquetoast…not even close)

America needs conservatives in charge for a change (as Presdient and in Congress)! Volunteers wanted!

Pragmatic on July 26, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I wish we could do more to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, but I wish we could also keep knives and rocks out of their hands as well. It used to be that people who were a danger to themselves and others got removed from society and were treated where they and the population were safe, but the ACLU and other liberal NGOs have convinced the courts to dismantle that system and turned the entire country into an asylum for the mentally ill. Clayton Cramer has done a great deal of research and writing on this subject. We need to fix our broken mental health system before we have the tools we need to work on that aspect of gun violence.

Socratease on July 26, 2012 at 1:39 PM

What is the difference between an Assault Weapon and any other Weapon used for Assault?

Chip on July 26, 2012 at 1:39 PM

If ever there was a signature line about voter support for Romney…

His past is much clearer and more explicit than he is willing to be in his statements today. People aren’t wrong to worry about that.

No one ever becomes more philosophically conservative in office. It’s an iron rule of politics. It has never been broken. Romney saying he doesn’t see a need for tighter gun laws is a vague statement useful for a moment in politics; it’s not a statement of a philosophy on gun ownership. Absent the latter, movement conservatives will continue to distrust Romney.

Elect a more conservative Congress in November.

J.E. Dyer on July 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Excellent analysis, JE.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM

“a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily”

I agree, which is why I hope the secret service keeps all their guns away from Obama.

The Rogue Tomato on July 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Obama’s goal is that when guns are outlawed, only Obama’s civilian security forces, as large as the military, will have guns…and ball bats, truncheons, and concrete blocks (see LA riots) to keep the masses under control.

coldwarrior on July 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM

No one ever becomes more philosophically conservative in office. It’s an iron rule of politics. It has never been broken. Romney saying he doesn’t see a need for tighter gun laws is a vague statement useful for a moment in politics; it’s not a statement of a philosophy on gun ownership. Absent the latter, movement conservatives will continue to distrust Romney.

Elect a more conservative Congress in November.

J.E. Dyer on July 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM

As Governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed one of the most liberal abortion laws in America.

Just sayin’.

rockmom on July 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Concealed weapons save lives
The evidence is clear: Massacres are stopped by legally armed citizens
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161

Friday’s horrible shooting in Colorado occurred in yet another place where guns are banned. And that’s consistent with a trend: With a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.

If one of the hundreds of people at the theater had a concealed handgun, possibly the attack would have ended like the shooting at the mega New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December 2007.
In that assault, the church’s minister had given Jeanne Assam permission to carry her concealed handgun. The gunman killed two people in the parking lot — but when he entered the church, Assam fired 10 shots, severely wounding him.

The ban against nonpolice carrying guns usually rests on the false notion that almost anyone can suddenly go crazy and start misusing their weapon or that any crossfire with a killer would be worse than the crime itself. But in state after state, permit holders are extremely law-abiding. They can lose their permits for any type of firearms-related violation.

Nor have I found a single example on record of a multiple-victim public shooting in which a permit holder accidentally shot a bystander.

Galt2009 on July 26, 2012 at 1:42 PM

No, she doesn’t. There will be none, unless Obama wins, God forbid. Then he’ll sign an EO and it’s over.

———-
This was truly stupid on the part of Romney.

Schadenfreude on July 26, 2012 at 1:42 PM

What is the difference between an Assault Weapon and any other Weapon used for Assault?

Chip on July 26, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Legal definition of an “assault weapon” as laid out in the expired Assault Weapons Ban:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine

So an AR-15 with a pistol grip isn’t an assault weapon, even if it is fully-automatic(the actual definition of an “assault rifle”). Add a telescoping stock, and all of a sudden…you have an “assault weapon”.

Because how could you use a firearm to assault anyone without a grenade launcher and bayonet clip?

MadisonConservative on July 26, 2012 at 1:44 PM

I’m okay with it. (Not overly pleased with it, perhaps, but okay.)

If ever there was a signature line about voter support for Romney…

His past is much clearer and more explicit than he is willing to be in his statements today. People aren’t wrong to worry about that.

No one ever becomes more philosophically conservative in office. It’s an iron rule of politics. It has never been broken. Romney saying he doesn’t see a need for tighter gun laws is a vague statement useful for a moment in politics; it’s not a statement of a philosophy on gun ownership. Absent the latter, movement conservatives will continue to distrust Romney.

Elect a more conservative Congress in November.

J.E. Dyer on July 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM

You said it, J.E.!!

Bitter Clinger on July 26, 2012 at 1:44 PM

MadCon
Any gun control legislation is political suicide, please let Obie try to push something through….. There is no way our elected officials would try to push through anything that would end their cushy job in congress or the senate………

angrymike on July 26, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I have a gun law for you: all “gun free zones” are required to install metal detectors at all entrances.

agmartin on July 26, 2012 at 1:45 PM

, but are you going to preemptively deny someone their Second-Amendment rights before they’ve committed a crime?

That’s what Democrats and gun control advocates have been trying to do with legislation prohibiting people on the no-fly list from purchasing firearms. There have been over 1 million Americans put on the no-fly list since 09.11.01. Most have had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and, like many Americans, I’ve known some of these unfortunate people that were made to go through hell before ever being allowed on a plane again by the Feds.

In the past, people have been added to the list for simply purchasing a one-way ticket. So, you decide to fly to meet someone for a visit, then you both drive home together, presto, you are on the no-fly list and the legislation would deprive you of your Second Amendment rights.

Oh, you thought that you had due process rights, too? You thought that the government actually had to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before you could lose your constitutional rights? Not if these idiots had their way.

And, they do it insidiously. Americans hear “no-fly list” and think terrorists. So, when a Congressman goes to the Brady Centre and says, “No Fly List, No Gun!,” they nod their heads in agreement.

Resist We Much on July 26, 2012 at 1:45 PM

As Governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed one of the most liberal abortion laws in America.

Just sayin’.

rockmom on July 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM

And the 1986 Amnesty.
And the 1986 Machine Gun Ban under the Hughes Amendment – which was more restrictive on gun rights than even the AWB.

*sigh*

MadisonConservative on July 26, 2012 at 1:45 PM

CONGRATS to Mitt for this position (we don’t need any “new gun laws”).

Meanwhile, Obama and the rest of the ruinous Left is going to be making it close to impossible for the average person to obtain a registered and licensed firearm. Just wait, they’ll bury the nation in add-on “regulations” that’ll make legitimate processes near-impossible while claiming they’re “for the 2nd Amendment and don’t support additional gun laws”.

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Didn’t that crazy idiot realize he was breaking the law by taking guns into that theater. I mean that was a gun-free zone. Stupid libs. Think they can legislate everything.

msupertas on July 26, 2012 at 1:45 PM

OT: Okay, totally off-topic.

But what the hell is the deal with the automatic-talkie ads?

I don’t mind the visual side-ads. Occasionally, I pay attention and click through.

But audio ads are the bane of my online experience. I don’t want to listen to any crap until I click on it specifically to listen to it. Generally, when I open a page with audio – ESPECIALLY UNEXPECTED-AUDIO-HIDDEN-IN-SOME-NON-EASILY-LOCATED-ADVERTISEMENT in multi-locations on the page – I just kill the tab/page.

I do NOT want sound when I’m surfing. I especially don’t want sound when I’m reading political blogs.

Let me repeat: NO SOUND!

When I want sound, I click the link and accept/expect that I’ll get sound. My choice.

But not even being able to find the damn ad to click the damn button is the enough-of-enough already. When that starts to happen, I just quit the site, to all intents and purposes.

I don’t often comment at Hot Air. But I visit the site several times daily. I’ve been following HA since before it was HA, and reading AP since his halcyon days at AOSHQ.

———-
If this crap keeps up, I won’t. Buh-bye.

My curmudgeon-inity audio intolerance is getting stretched thin.

POLICE THE DAMN AUDIO ADS. Something. Anything.

And soon!

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I have a gun law for you: all “gun free zones” are required to install metal detectors at all entrances.

agmartin on July 26, 2012 at 1:45 PM

What about the exits?

CurtZHP on July 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

What is the difference between an Assault Weapon and any other Weapon used for Assault?

Chip on July 26, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Well, according to Romney himself:

“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

– Gov Romney on his support of the Assault Weapon Ban in MA

Buckshot Bill on July 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Firefox with AdBlock is your friend.

CurtZHP on July 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM

However, President Obama’s call for more supposedly “common-sense” gun laws and his remark that “a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily” gave me reason for pause, and I hope you’ll indulge me while I thresh out a sincere question.

The same sort of “common-sense” employed in breaking existing gun laws by putting hundreds of assault weapons in the hands of known, violent, criminals near our border, leading to the murders of two of our border agents?

TXUS on July 26, 2012 at 1:48 PM

No one raised any alarms about Holmes, unlike Loughner. You can’t prevent every crime.

rbj on July 26, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Did Williams bow to Gov. Romney or does he have to elected president first?

Cindy Munford on July 26, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Freedom and liberty come with inherent risks. Part of those risks are that some people are going to do crazy and illegal things with their freedom and liberty. I accept that I am always at risk of bad things happening due to our collective freedoms. But I accept that risk as the price of having my own freedom. The only way to reduce the risks inherent with our individual freedom is to give up that freedom.

“Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin, 1775

gravityman on July 26, 2012 at 1:48 PM

So, when these disturbed individuals are recognized and the red flags are there, what happens? If he hasn’t committed a crime, he can’t be involuntarily institutionalized(at least, not easily). Any system set up to do that easily will certainly be abused.

a capella on July 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Take all the guns, nut jobs have more than enough other means.

Take all the guns, nut jobs like Obama will have the means he needs.

Keep it simple like the Constitution does.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on July 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM

You only have to look as far as Chicago to see who benefits from more gun control. The gangs are in control there and in every other city where the citizens are not allowed to be armed, just the way the marxist politicians like it.

texanpride on July 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

It’s time to face the fact that that’s what the Left wants: more crime, less citizen capability against it.

“More gun laws” (AND increased regulations related) only serve to drive people — the good and the bad — to illegitimate sources. And more restrictions on citizen ownership simply encourages crime to proliferate including by way of guns.

The Left appears to want more crime and less citizen capability in defense against it.

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM

What is the difference between an Assault Weapon and any other Weapon used for Assault?

Chip on July 26, 2012 at 1:39 PM

With all the things to debate, can we at least agree that some things have names?

verbaluce on July 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Try this. Abine.

Bmore on July 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM

CurtZHP on July 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM

That said, The Daily Caller has news videos that start and run for a few seconds and they don’t fall into the Ad-block perimeters. I have a fix for that on my PC in Florida, and I can’t remember what it is. And it is annoying.

Cindy Munford on July 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Bmore on July 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Will that work for me?

Cindy Munford on July 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Every once in a blue moon my adbloc plus doesn’t work and I get the audio ads. My solution has been to keep my speakers turned off until I want to have sound. Works for me.

chemman on July 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Firefox with AdBlock is your friend.

CurtZHP on July 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM

TY.

But I’ve detested FF since v1.5 (I was on a bug team for awhile, even). I’m not tempted to retry the POS (see “curmudgeon” lol)

But thanks for the tip. Maybe that will help someone else.

I’m angling for an effing policy change at HA though. Maybe alerting someone that this is too annoying to not address.

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Firefox with AdBlock is your friend.

CurtZHP on July 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM

I will attest to this. While I used Firefox as my primary browser, still had the problems davisbr did, but when got the add-on AdBlock, no more ads period, no pop ups, and no audio unless I want it. Plus, it makes web pages, particularly Hot Air, load about 5-10 times as fast.

TXUS on July 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM

With all the things to debate, can we at least agree that some things have names?

verbaluce on July 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Yes, ‘cuz things that have cosmetic changes are so skeery that we must not only outlaw them, we must incorrectly identify them.

Resist We Much on July 26, 2012 at 1:55 PM

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Don’t hold a grudge, Firefox has new updates about every other week. They’ve come a long way, Baby!

Cindy Munford on July 26, 2012 at 1:55 PM

With all the things to debate, can we at least agree that some things have names?

verbaluce on July 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM

So are all guns “assault weapons”? If not which ones? It’s not a trivial point especially since it’s the line the liberals are publicly willing to draw in the sand – liberals want to ban “assault weapons”, whatever that means, so I’d like to know exactly what that means. If it’s difficult to define – and it is – that just tells me that legislation to ban “assault weapons” is ultimately aimed at redefining it until it includes every gun.

gwelf on July 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

If you’re using IE, just go into Internet Options/Advanced and DESELECT “play sounds in websites”…

You won’t hear a thing afterward from any site, ever.

If you later want to hear a video of your own selection, then go and SELECT that option.

But, I agree as to those “auto play” videos/ads — can’t stand them, either, and reason 2 why I never visit ABC, who has that option ON (play) by default.

If you use FIrefox, however, there are plugins/options for that browser that block all ads or those of your own selection.

However, I’m on a notebook at present with IE and I don’t get any autoplay on this site — while I DO if I visit ABC, so it might be that you can block selective cookies (which I do) that will affect this site’s ads (obviously, one of those I’ve blocked has silenced this site’s ad/s).

In which case, rightclick on the thing that’s bothering you (here, anywhere) and find the Properties and then block the domain responsible in IE under Options/Privacy/sites.

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Try this. Abine.

Bmore on July 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Thanks. I will.

…but I don’t see how tracking is the bloody problem. I don’t care really, if someone wants to track my interests.

I just care about intrusive audio.

Every once in a blue moon my adbloc plus doesn’t work and I get the audio ads. My solution has been to keep my speakers turned off until I want to have sound. Works for me.

chemman on July 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM

TY. Good suggestion. But. I unfortunately need sound left on for real audio alerts on my daytime workstation.

(On my “night-time” laptop I have sound turned off, of course.)

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Yes, ‘cuz things that have cosmetic changes are so skeery that we must not only outlaw them, we must incorrectly identify them.

Resist We Much on July 26, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Death to the Evil Black Rifles! ‘Cause their black and evil and everything.

Buckshot Bill on July 26, 2012 at 1:59 PM

…And, they do it insidiously. Americans hear “no-fly list” and think terrorists. So, when a Congressman goes to the Brady Centre and says, “No Fly List, No Gun!,” they nod their heads in agreement.

Resist We Much on July 26, 2012 at 1:45 PM

In addition, DHS has that memo out there claiming veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are potential terrorists. PTSD among them could be assumed at the outset, too. Both of which might one day be used to deny purchase- or concealed-carry permits.

Meanwhile, crazies who are off the radar can only be stopped by repealing the Second Amendment entirely. Which, the Left hopes, will be the ultimate ‘common sense’ law.

Liam on July 26, 2012 at 1:59 PM

With all the things to debate, can we at least agree that some things have names?

verbaluce on July 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Lightweights are indignant.

Schadenfreude on July 26, 2012 at 1:59 PM

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I have grown to dislike Firefox, too, essentially due to it’s lurking delays in loading sites — really, really annoying how FF drags along when you try to change destinations (page load times are horrible in FF, which I’m told is due to the addons but whatever I try, it still drags much longer than IE).

See what I just wrote at 1:56 above if you’re using IE. So far, IE7 is pretty handy, in my experience.

Read this:

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Well, I’ll give Mitt credit for even sitting down
to this condescending azzwipe….

and that goes for the rest of you cretins..

Bob Schiffer….Georgie Steph….Diane Sawyer…Katie Couric..
..Wolfie Blitzed…Matt Laurer…

..and ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS, WASHIIINGTON!!

ToddPA on July 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Bmore on July 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Will that work for me?

Cindy Munford on July 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Works very well for me. Try it, it’s free, very easy to install. Just click the download button. I have been using it on all my machines and browsers. I have 0 complaints.

Bmore on July 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM

But, I agree as to those “auto play” videos/ads — can’t stand them, either, and reason 2 why I never visit ABC, who has that option ON (play) by default.

If you use Firefox, however, there are plugins/options for that browser that block all ads or those of your own selection.

However, I’m on a notebook at present with IE and I don’t get any autoplay on this site — while I DO if I visit ABC, so it might be that you can block selective cookies (which I do) that will affect this site’s ads (obviously, one of those I’ve blocked has silenced this site’s ad/s).

In which case, rightclick on the thing that’s bothering you (here, anywhere) and find the Properties and then block the domain responsible in IE under Options/Privacy/sites.

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Ah. This I will certainly try. I didn’t know there even was a way to selectively block cookies (sigh: you’d think I would though, after this many years of this).

Huge thanks.

…and ABC is one of those sites I don’t go to, either LOL.

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 2:02 PM

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM

What’s the thing that is auto-playing here for you?

‘Cause I haven’t encountered anything here that is auto-playing and I’m using IE at present.

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Naah, we don’t more laws, we should be talking about fewer.

We just need to disarm liberals, all of them, including the legislators, and the governor, every liberal politician and CEO and celebrity, no liberal has a firearm.

Why should allow an obviously unhinged and obviously dangerous segment of society, arms?We’ve seen time and again its the liberals who come out shooting.

They’ve all demonstrated their disdain and their inability to responsibly handle firearms, and if they’re so awful and they are the source of evil then the left should set the example, no more carry permits for liberals, no more armed body guards or security, no firearms allowed in their homes or in public, in short..no more hypocrisy allowed.

Maybe if liberals feel defenseless they’ll see the morality as good for more that lip service light.

Maybe, if it feels good do it, wasn’t such a good thing after all. Maybe morality beats prison, maybe morality beats hurt, maybe morality beats death and destruction and maybe morality will do what no law ever will, stop the violence.

Speakup on July 26, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Ah. This I will certainly try. I didn’t know there even was a way to selectively block cookies (sigh: you’d think I would though, after this many years of this).

Huge thanks.

…and ABC is one of those sites I don’t go to, either LOL.

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 2:02 PM

You can block SITES (“domains”) in IE…

first you need to identify where the cookie/offense is coming from and then try blocking that domain as I suggested.

IE/InternetOptions/Privacy/Sites

then list the domain/offense/site name and “BLOCK”. (Or, “Allow” when you have sites you frequent and don’t mind whatever about.)

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 2:05 PM

No one raised any alarms about Holmes, unlike Loughner. You can’t prevent every crime.

rbj on July 26, 2012 at 1:48 PM

You might just be able to if the guy planning the crime sends you a notebook detailing how he’s going to do it.

Socratease on July 26, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Mr. Romney talked briefly about the assault weapons ban he signed as governor of Massachusetts, calling the legislation a compromise that was backed by Second Amendment advocates

Then obviously they aren’t actually advocates of the 2nd Amendment, are they??

KMC1 on July 26, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Nor have I found a single example on record of a multiple-victim public shooting in which a permit holder accidentally shot a bystander.
Galt2009 on July 26, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Yesterday some libtard tried claiming that someone with a CCW ALMOST shot the wrong person at the Giffords shooting scene.
Key word here is ALMOST, as the guy with the CCW arrived after the shooting and did not shoot anyone.

dentarthurdent on July 26, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Rush spotted the best lines in the interview.

Williams asks Romney if he really is looking for a “boring white guy” as his Vice Presidential choice and Mitt comes back with:

“But, Brian, I heard you were unavailable.”

Or something to that effect.

PJ Emeritus on July 26, 2012 at 2:07 PM

As to firearms, if it’s not to encourage increased crime the Left surreptiously wants with all it’s demands for “more gun laws,” then it’s an indication of their social-perspectives:

— responsible gun owners/users don’t define a gun as “anti human life” hardware (that is, they appreciate guns for a variety of reasons and though do recognize the lethality of their use if applied as such, they don’t own/use guns for that purpose in near-all terms)…

vs.

— the Left by default defines “guns” as “anti human life” hardware and method; which is why, I do believe, so many of the ruinous sprees using guns are done by Leftwingers.

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Death to the Evil Black Rifles! ‘Cause their black and evil and everything.

Buckshot Bill on July 26, 2012 at 1:59 PM

RACIST!!!!/

dentarthurdent on July 26, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Spoons don’t make people fat, guns don’t kill people, and chicken sandwiches don’t hate.

BohicaTwentyTwo on July 26, 2012 at 2:09 PM

We need to fix our broken mental health system before we have the tools we need to work on that aspect of gun violence.

Socratease on July 26, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Dr. K. said essentially the same thing on O’Reilly the other evening. He pointed out that when he was practicing it was easier to have people who were believed to be a possible danger to others and themselves sent for treatment, before the ACLU and courts intervened that those actions were a violation of someone’s rights.

Having dealt with this in my own family I know from experience how difficult and frustrating it is to have someone reprimanded for a psychiatric evaluation.

Trying to balance between protecting one’s rights, and protecting the public from madmen like Holmes and Laughner, is definitely a slippery slope.

Flora Duh on July 26, 2012 at 2:11 PM

No one raised any alarms about Holmes, unlike Loughner. You can’t prevent every crime.

rbj on July 26, 2012 at 1:48 PM

You might just be able to if the guy planning the crime sends you a notebook detailing how he’s going to do it.

Socratease on July 26, 2012 at 2:06 PM

ONCE AGAIN, preliminary reports by wild media misinformed millions.

Holmes’ notebook (sent to a psychiatrist) ARRIVED ON THE MONDAY MORNING AFTER THE FRIDAY CRIME…the notebook DID NOT “sit in the mailroom” for days as earlier reported, undelivered to the recipient as also wrongly reported.

From what’s now being reported (by recipient and mailroom), the notebook from Holmes arrived AFTER THE CRIME not “days/week before it”).

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 2:12 PM

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Adblock is now available for other browsers also.

Flora Duh on July 26, 2012 at 2:13 PM

25 Jul 2012 6:08 PM
EMBARGOED: NBC/ROMNEY EXTENDED TRANSCRIPT

* * * ALL CONTENT EMBARGOED UNTIL 6:30 P.M. ET * * *

TRANSCRIPT OF BRIAN WILLIAMS’ INTERVIEW WITH GOV. MITT ROMNEY
*************************************************************

LONDON — July 25, 2012 — Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney sat down with NBC’s Brian Williams at the Tower of London today for an exclusive, wide-ranging interview to air on “NBC Nightly News.”

Below is the extended transcript, EMBARGOED until air. Video will be available online at http://www.nbcnightlynews.com after 6:30pm ET.
_________________________________________________________________

BRIAN WILLIAMS:
It seems to me this completes your Olympic experience. You get to run the games and now you actually have a horse in the race. What’s (LAUGH) that gonna be like?

MITT ROMNEY:
Well, it’s– a big– exciting experience for my wife and– and for the person that she’s worked with, the trainer of the horse who’s riding the horse. And– obviously, it’s fun to be part of the Olympics in any way you can be part of them.

BRIAN WILLIAMS:
When is the event, and for those of us who don’t follow the sport, what happens? Are there rounds that– of competition? Is there just one chance? What happens?

MITT ROMNEY:
I have to tell you. This is Ann’s sport. I’m not even sure which day the sport goes on. She will get the chance to see it, I will not– be– watching– the event. I hope– her horse does well. But just the honor of being here and representing our country and– seeing the other Olympians is– is something which I’m sure the people– that are associated with this are looking forward to.

BRIAN WILLIAMS:
And in the short time you’ve been here in London, do they look ready to your experienced eye?

MITT ROMNEY:
You know, it’s hard to know just how well it were turn out– will turn out. There are a few things that were disconcerting, the stories about the– private security firm not having enough people– the sup– supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging. Because in the games, there– there are three parts that makes games successful.

Number one, of course, are the athletes. That’s what overwhelmingly the games are about. Number two are the volunteers. And they’ll have great volunteers here. But number three are the people of the– of the country. Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment? And that’s something which we only find out once the games actually begin.

BRIAN WILLIAMS:
I wanna ask you about the– compelling– news back home, and that’s from Aurora, Colorado, where we were on Friday. And this is about your own record vis-à-vis what happened here. As governor, you signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts. And you said at the time, quote, “These guns are not made for recreation or self defense, they are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” Do you still believe that?

MITT ROMNEY:
Well, I actually signed a piece of legislation, as you described, that banned assault weapons in our state. It was a continuation of prior– legislation. And it was backed both by the Second Amendment advocates like myself, and those that wanted to restrict– gun rights. Because it was a compromise. Both sides got some things improved in the laws as they existed.

And I happen to think that with regards to the Aurora, Colorado disaster, we’re wise to– continue the time of memorial and– and think of the comforting the people affected. And– and political implications, legal implications are something which will be sorted out down the road. But I don’t happen to believe that America needs new gun laws. A lot of what this– young man did was clearly against the law. But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening.
(More…)

http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=11663&NewsAreaId=2

canopfor on July 26, 2012 at 2:18 PM

What is the difference between an Assault Weapon and any other Weapon used for Assault?

Chip on July 26, 2012 at 1:39 PM

With all the things to debate, can we at least agree that some things have names?

verbaluce on July 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM

A .223 rifle with a pistol grip will kill you deader than a 7mm magnum without one? Huh.

Akzed on July 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Socratease on July 26, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Dr. K. said essentially the same thing on O’Reilly the other evening. He pointed out that when he was practicing it was easier to have people who were believed to be a possible danger to others and themselves sent for treatment, before the ACLU and courts intervened that those actions were a violation of someone’s rights.

Having dealt with this in my own family I know from experience how difficult and frustrating it is to have someone reprimanded for a psychiatric evaluation.

Trying to balance between protecting one’s rights, and protecting the public from madmen like Holmes and Laughner, is definitely a slippery slope.

Flora Duh on July 26, 2012 at 2:11 PM

I agree with what Flora Duh wrote there.

In my experience (also, as she expresses), having known two people with schizophrenia rather well in my lifetime — both “high functioning” with professional achievements such as Holmes has (prior to his mental decomposition) — years and years of professional helps to both of them didn’t alleviate or change what their conditions were and one continued to display intentional (“well planned”) activities to harm others.

Intellect and behavior are two different aspects of our minds. ONe can be “insane” in the sense that one is psychotic, suffers a psychosis (or two or more) such as schizophrenia and still be academically and professionally intelligent even moreso than the average person. Intelligence doesn’t prevent or discount or omit psychotic behavior. And, in fact, many a “very intelligent” person has been responsible for awful crime — the “arch criminal” like Kazinsky (who is also schizophrenic).

Schizophrenia also has an age-onset and though it can be controlled (almost always by pharmacology), it can’t (so far) be eradicated. And the “talk therapy” route doesn’t treat it as talk-therapy does with other problems.

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM

A .223 rifle with a pistol grip will kill you deader than a 7mm magnum without one? Huh.

Akzed on July 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Is the rifle black? Then yes it will. MittKerry told me so. :)

Buckshot Bill on July 26, 2012 at 2:22 PM

HOWEVER, I don’t mean to imply that “all” people with schizophrenia are criminals or planning to harm others. Just that a few are and do — Holmes is almost certainly proof of that.

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Is the rifle black? Then yes it will. MittKerry told me so. :) Buckshot Bill on July 26, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Do black rifles kill you deader than white rifles?

Akzed on July 26, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Where can I see this whole interview, not just the pieces?

birdhurd on July 26, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Do black rifles kill you deader than white rifles?

Akzed on July 26, 2012 at 2:25 PM

If I remember correctly, the politically correct order of Killability is black, brown, white, and then pink. A good Pink AR15 won’t hurt a fly. A black BB gun will flatten a city block though. Most people don’t know that, but all liberal politicians do.

Buckshot Bill on July 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Do black rifles dream ballistic sheep?

apostic on July 26, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Buckshot Bill on July 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM

I dunno…

Akzed on July 26, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Holmes was already in violation of so many laws that a gun charge on top of 12 counts of first degree murder and who knows how many counts of attempted murder would be nothing.

crosspatch on July 26, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Akzed on July 26, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Ha! Love the Molon Labe!

Buckshot Bill on July 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM

No one raised any alarms about Holmes, unlike Loughner. You can’t prevent every crime.

rbj on July 26, 2012 at 1:48 PM

In the case of Loughner, the idiot Sheriff Dupnik ignored the warning signs, probably because his mother was a county employee. Stupidity and incompetence in law enforcement is a real problem.

slickwillie2001 on July 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM

If I remember correctly, the politically correct order of Killability is black, brown, white, and then pink. A good Pink AR15 won’t hurt a fly. A black BB gun will flatten a city block though. Most people don’t know that, but all liberal politicians do.

Buckshot Bill on July 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Good news!

MadisonConservative on July 26, 2012 at 2:37 PM

What’s the thing that is auto-playing here for you?

‘Cause I haven’t encountered anything here that is auto-playing and I’m using IE at present.

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Some site called tremorvideo(.com) was the originator. It’s been going on a few days. Same ads; dunno what they were/are about. One day the same thing was in two locations on a page, and on several pages (I will generally open several pages at once to new tabs from the home page, making the whole thing even more annoying, as then I have to track through to find the damn things).

I clicked through to opt out of the site just before I posted my complaint btw.

From sheer desperation and annoyance.

(I hate clicking on opt-outs or anything like that due to security concerns: my suspicion is that opt-out means “ah: real live person to target …let’s inform our cut-outs”.)

Thanks again – to everyone – for your help.

And yeah, I did know about that method for blocking sites (I just never thought to use it – personally – for that, doh …I do it for corporate clients rather often lol).

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM

If I remember correctly, the politically correct order of Killability is black, brown, white, and then pink. A good Pink AR15 won’t hurt a fly. A black BB gun will flatten a city block though. Most people don’t know that, but all liberal politicians do.

Buckshot Bill on July 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM

That sounds awefully racist……

dentarthurdent on July 26, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Yes, ‘cuz things that have cosmetic changes are so skeery that we must not only outlaw them, we must incorrectly identify them.

Resist We Much on July 26, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Right.
There’s no reason at all behind the design of an AK-47 at all.
It’s just meant to look scary.
The debate is whether it should come in lime green and teak.

verbaluce on July 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Well, I don’t have that domain (you referred to) blocked in my browser and I am NOT seeing anything here that is set to “auto play” so I think you just might not have proper settings in place (if you’re using IE, I’m assuming you are) for your browser.

IF you’re Internet Options are set too low, then, and you’re allowing “third party cookies,” then you’ll be seeing just about everything in your browsing.

So UP the IntOptions settings to “High” or next-to that and disallow third-party cookies.

Lourdes on July 26, 2012 at 2:48 PM

If you think these crazed gunman incidences through, it is obvious that warning signs, guns and gun laws are merely side issues. The common denominator in every one of these shootings is murder. Therefore what is really needed is tougher laws on murder. Wait, what?

Exit question: what is crazier, a deranged gunman or the deranged gun grabbers that believe deranged people will obey laws?

ghostwalker1 on July 26, 2012 at 2:49 PM

davisbr on July 26, 2012 at 1:58 PM

It’s all the same.

Schadenfreude on July 26, 2012 at 2:52 PM

It helps to go back over the controversy at the time. Supporters argued that Total Information Awareness shouldn’t be frightful to Americans—there would be no monitoring of identified individuals unless a warrant was issued. The system wouldn’t be collecting dossiers of personal information or choosing people to spy on, at least initially. It would be raking impersonally through vast streams of data looking for red flags.

Or we could just allow more people to carry openly and concealed.
Oh.. and you want to data mine but you don’t want to data mine(profile criminals).

OK.. so how well has the government been doing at using all the information out there so far? How many of these terrorist attacks have we had in the last 10 years that were orchestrated and carried out by Islamic extremists? And how many videos are there out there of TSA people feeling up women in burkas? Not too many. Lots of nuns, lots of old white guys in wheelchairs and so forth. Not to many traditionally Muslim dressed folks getting harassed by TSA. Yet.. they’ve got all this information and what are they doing with it? Oh I know… sending out memos to law enforcement across America that people with pro-life bumper stickers are terrorists. I don’t think they’ve proven they know how to use the information they already have.

So the libs answer to everything is always “Give us more power.” Right. And all they do with it is harass and target conservatives, Christians, property owners and contributors to the GOP.

JellyToast on July 26, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2