Former Romney advisor: Let’s break ranks on guns
“I’m a conservative and a Republican, and I believe in the Constitution and all of the amendments. But the reality is, there are restrictions on lots of our freedoms,” DeMoss said. “We cherish the freedom of speech, but it doesn’t give you the right to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”
DeMoss continued: “I have trouble defending a position that says there should be no restrictions on any guns or ammunition, and this slippery slope argument that if you allow the slightest bit of [gun] control, then that’s the start of taking away all our freedoms.
“Somebody’s got to break ranks on one side or the other, it seems to me, and talk in a rational and thoughtful way, which will probably come with great risk to whoever does that,” he said. “I imagine a Republican who speaks on this will probably be opposed in their next election.”
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 »
Just move to Australia or become a full-fledged Rat already, DeMoss.
Steve Eggleston on December 17, 2012 at 8:27 AM
Godd friggin hell. No one is saying there should be “NO” restrictions on guns. But I have yet to hear anyone put forth any sensible restriction that would have stopped Sandy Hook.
But let me be the first to put forth a specific restriction on guns. That it should be a first class felony and punishable by 4 years in jail for a president to be sitting during his term as his government gives thousands of assault weapons to drug cartel members.
Zaggs on December 17, 2012 at 8:29 AM
So he’s a Romney advisor. His advice to Romney worked out well…oh wait.
bgibbs1000 on December 17, 2012 at 8:33 AM
Why the hell not? You broke ranks on everything else, libby!
gryphon202 on December 17, 2012 at 8:33 AM
And everyone wondered why several million conservatives stayed home last November.
Purge the GOP or form a new party.
Rixon on December 17, 2012 at 8:33 AM
Unless there is really a fire.
JellyToast on December 17, 2012 at 8:33 AM
You know, anymore crap like this and I’ll never vote for another Republican again. Tax hikes I can accept since they’re going to go up no matter what thanks to the sh-tty debt ceiling deal Boehner negotiated a year and a half ago. But caving into the Dems on gun control(and that’s following all the amnesty talk from last month) makes it rather difficult to distinguish between the two parties.
Here’s a newsflash for DeMoron. We HAVE the “slightest bit of [gun] control”! The sick freak was denied when he tried to purchase a rifle. He resorted to stealing legally purchased guns from his own mother. So how exactly will any new gun laws, never mind the numerous restrictions already on the books, prevent this kind of tragedy from happening?
Doughboy on December 17, 2012 at 8:34 AM
NO NO NO. You open the door – you can never close it.
gophergirl on December 17, 2012 at 8:36 AM
The problem isn’t guns…it is gun free zones.
(one hit wonder, I know)
Get rid of gun free zones and these episodes will more than likely become even more rare and the body count will be lower.
The evidence is pretty clear that it is the opportunity of location that is most common for these events.
ProfShadow on December 17, 2012 at 8:36 AM
If you have to protest “I’m a conservative and a Republican” before you put forth your policy positions, you are probably not conservative, and you are implicitly stating that being a Republican does not make you such.
gryphon202 on December 17, 2012 at 8:37 AM
I was at a gun show yesterday. It was extremely crowded. On a Sunday early morning.
People were there buying all sorts of firearms.
I’ve a feeling that any action to limit a citizen’s access won’t go over well, no matter what the tragedy.
We’re all thinking that guns are a good thing. Too bad the principal didn’t have one, as per Louie Gohmert ( http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/16/texas-congressman-principal-should-have-been-armed-for-self-defense/ )
ProfShadow on December 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM
We have freedom of speech, but I’m breaking ranks. I say anybody who employs brazen straw man arguments should be jailed immediately and indefinitely.
forest on December 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM
ready to stand corrected, but aren’t there already restrictions on certain guns and ammunition?
OldEnglish on December 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM
Uh, there are thousands and thousands of laws and statutes regulating guns and ownership.
Most gun violence happens in cities and states with very strict gun control laws. Crime tends to decrease in municipalities which have fewer restriction on lawful gun ownership.
gwelf on December 17, 2012 at 8:42 AM
The Romney camp, like the McCain camp, gifts that just keep on giving… Idiots.
Fallon on December 17, 2012 at 8:42 AM
That’s not even an argument because it isn’t a true statement. I know of no one that really thinks any of our already strict gun laws should be relaxed.
Whose position is he talking about?
hawkdriver on December 17, 2012 at 8:43 AM
I think that’s a tad more accurate. Violent crime is always lower in places with higher rates of legal gun ownership. It never fails. The statistical correlation is so strong as to be a settled question.
gryphon202 on December 17, 2012 at 8:45 AM
Machine guns and fully automatic weapons have been illegal since the 30s. Rocket launchers are illegal and the list goes on. This assclown is just another big government goon, part of the goon squad that nominated Romney.
MoreLiberty on December 17, 2012 at 8:46 AM
It’s time for conservatives to withhold their votes from Republicans. Perhaps doing that for a couple of election cycles might help them recover their bearings.
halfastro on December 17, 2012 at 8:46 AM
Mine. I’m fine with laws in my home state, seeing as how we are a shall-issue CCWP state, but I do think they should be relaxed in places like Illinois, Connecticut, and DC where so much violent crime takes place. Whatever it is they’re doing in those places, it’s clearly not working.
gryphon202 on December 17, 2012 at 8:47 AM
I’m tired of liberal, big government republicans.
I love freedom and liberty – not big bully government officials running my life.
LilyBart on December 17, 2012 at 8:47 AM
It’s a BS strawman argument normally offered up by idiots on the left(in particular, their standard bearer in the White House). To hear it from someone who was advising the GOP nominee from the last election is disheartening to say the least.
I’m ok with an honest discussion about gun control, but any conversation we’re going to have has to start with these politicians or pundits offering up an example of a law that could’ve prevented this tragedy. If they can do that, we’ll talk. Otherwise it all sounds to me like an excuse to make it as difficult as possible(if not outright illegal) for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms. Which BTW is the real endgame for the left, let’s not kid ourselves.
Doughboy on December 17, 2012 at 8:52 AM
There is already gun control. The shooter could not obtain a gun legally so obtained one illegally. The only way to have prevented this was to ban all guns. So, yes, this is where it is heading…
Blake on December 17, 2012 at 8:52 AM
The Stupid Party.
Punchenko on December 17, 2012 at 8:54 AM
Absolutely spot on. And I’ll go ya one better. Let any teacher or administrator that holds a concealed carry license to carry on school grounds. Jackwagons that have murder of innocents on their minds will think twice if they know there could be 3 or 4 guns pointed at him if they try their crime. But the academia types would recoil at the very suggestion.
44Magnum on December 17, 2012 at 8:55 AM
A new law like the one Feinstein is proposing would have zero effect on the crime rate. If anything, it would make things worse, because the Dems would have their useless feel-good law, and nothing would be done about trying to deal with the real problem of mentally ill young men and gun-free zones.
I took an online poll yesterday that asked if current laws contributed to the mass shootings we’ve had this year. I said yes, because gun-free zones empower these shooters by disarming their victims.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 8:55 AM
They’re going down that road. This is starting to look like Bush’s 2nd term all over again. It’s amazing to me that they’ve learned nothing over the past 6 years. When they spent a crapload of money we didn’t have, backed a worthless stimulus program(remember the $600 rebate check?), and tried to ram amnesty down our throats without even debating it, they were “rewarded” with 2 consecutive wipeouts in national elections. When they held steadfast and opposed the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda for 2 years, they won in a blowout in the 2010 midterms and now control 60% of the governor’s mansions in this country.
We have two separate gameplans they could follow, and for some reason that defies logic, they’re going with the former.
Doughboy on December 17, 2012 at 8:57 AM
Minor point: They aren’t illegal, just require an expensive permit to own.
Now things like nerve gas, biotoxins, etc., a little trickier, but researchers in field can get them legally.
And of course, anyone with Internet access can get recipes for tons of bad things.
Laws are descriptions of consequences for actions. They never keep those actions from happening. Otherwise no one would ever run a stop light intentionally.
ProfShadow on December 17, 2012 at 9:01 AM
We don’t need gun control, we need crazy control.
We don’t have to go back to the days where inconvenient wives and heirs were indefinitely imprisoned in asylums. But we do need a way to get dangerous and dangerously incompetent people off the streets on a long-term basis for their own and our safety.
72 hours is long enough to keep mum about a mass-murder plot, but it is not long enough to stabilize a patient on psych meds. And if the patient is over 18, as many psychotics are (the issues develop or aggravate somewhere around 18), there is literally no way to ensure the treatment continues.
I’m not overly mad at the families either. Most have done nothing about their dangerous children *because there is nothing within the law that they can do.*
Sekhmet on December 17, 2012 at 9:02 AM
At least he got something right.
lynncgb on December 17, 2012 at 9:08 AM
Spoken like a true big government tyrant. Now who is going to decide what “crazy” is – or what mental problems are? Are you going to blindly follow some government quack? Maybe they can define “mental issue” as someone who questions the government. Be very wary when a government agent can lock your ass up without due process in the name of “safety.”
MoreLiberty on December 17, 2012 at 9:09 AM
Instead of a focus on the guns, I would like to know the medication profiles of each recent mass murders. I think we need to talk about MEDICATION reductions and return more to actual DISCIPLINE that has been long lost. This needs to be done EARLY and we need to weed out the VERY FEW true ‘special needs’ from the more numerous ‘undisciplined brats’ (but ‘undisciplined brats’ don’t generate work for the mental health field, so is an unlikely diagnosis.)
‘Get them balanced on medication’? Really?? Absolutely requiring medication to control mood and behavior day in and day out is the WORST kind of addict. And the most dangerous.
michaelo on December 17, 2012 at 9:12 AM
U mad, bro?
I am talking about a process where we can build in safeguards to prevent the abuses (random assignment of diagnosing psych personnel, providing advocates for the patients in the system, periodic reviews of the decision to incarcerate, et cetera), while saving taxpayers in Florida from having to arrest the same 95 people 2000 more times for failing to control themselves in public and threatening others.
We aren’t flying over the cuckoo’s nest here. There are demonstrably dangerous people out there whom we have no way of stopping before they shoot up movie theaters and kindergartens.
Sekhmet on December 17, 2012 at 9:16 AM
I think of the question of psych meds as more of a “chicken-and-egg” issue. Yes, these medications should be watched more closely, but I doubt most of our shooters ended up on these medications because they were a little blue after the family dog died. We are talking some seriously mis-wired folks, here.
Sekhmet on December 17, 2012 at 9:19 AM
Well the thing not being talked about is the guy in China with the knife that nailed 22 kids. People are afraid of guns and nothing will change that. People see knifes as multipurpose tools so they are “safe” but things like swords, spears, guns and other “weapons” are frightening because they feel they are designed for the sole purpose of killing people. It’s my thought that at the very least a sign saying the the facility had armed guards on duty could have made the guy think twice. Gun free zones are fish in a barrel. Advertising a place as gun free is an invitation to those that want to kill.
On my front door I have a sign the says, “Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.” I’ve had people mention it was disgusting that I posted something like that. I had my daughter’s boy friend come over for the first time and laugh at the “joke” sign we had on the door. He stopped laughing when he was introduced to me and I had to put the pistol I was cleaning aside to shake his hand. Yeah, I admit I was cleaning it at that time because I knew he was coming to meet the parents. What can I say? I’m that kind of jerk I guess.
Frank Enstine on December 17, 2012 at 9:24 AM
>>>> I’m a conservative and a Republican, and I believe in the Constitution and all of the amendments. But …..
The person may believe in all the things he SAYS he believs in.
BUT he does not UNDERSTAND them, what he said after the “BUT” part clearly showed that.
“….. talk in a rational and thoughtful way” ????!!??!!! #$%&*$^
Since when you, sir, demand it from the other side?
Sir Napsalot on December 17, 2012 at 9:24 AM
Indeed. Do we know if he was on anything, and if so what?
changer1701 on December 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM
I’m in MA. A couple of years ago my cousin was having a stressful time at at work and asked his doctor if there was some non-drug stress techniques he could use to get control of stress. His doctor sent him to the local hospital to see somebody that dealt with work related stress. Well the guy was in and he got shoved into the “general” queue. During his interview he was asked if he owned any firearms and he responded yes and that he had a CCW permit. The therapist asked him to wait a moment and left. When she returned she had with her three big guy the commenced to subdue him. He was dragged out in cuffs and remanded for 72 hours physiological review. It was a weekend so it ended up that he was held against his will for 5 days and drugged to the gills to boot. His wife finally found a lawyer that was able to get him out. He was never charged or found mentally unfit but the result was that he has now lost his CCW permit and right to own or have firearms in his house. How did this happen? Nothing more than a fanatic anti-gun hack in a position of power and he later found out he wasn’t the first victim of hers.
Frank Enstine on December 17, 2012 at 9:39 AM
Movies glorify killing, video games glorify killing, medical profession with abortion, glorifies killing…terrorists on military bases, glorified for killing, gangsters glorified for killing, in fact, rappers are awarded honor for “singing” about killing, the fact is…we glorify killing, it becomes accepted…
We glorify and honor government dependency, it becomes accepted…
We glorify and honor unethical actions, they become accepted…
Before taking away guns, lets take away license to trade stocks…take away drivers licenses for repeat offenders…take away alcohol…
right2bright on December 17, 2012 at 9:43 AM
Yeap hate to tell the mittbots this. …..No I don’t told you so Mittbots. Mitt and his “team” were nothing but liberals who do not understand conservatism. While I voted for Mitt Part of me is glad he didn’t win. Because like this we as conservatives would be seeing gun control form a GOP POTUS with most of the republician establishmnet “falling in line” Before you could say “boo” Mitt would have passed Gun control for the children. This is why you do not want to electe a liberal Republician. Because they will do liberal things like medicare part D and good conservatives will feel the pressure to “fall in line” because its a GOP POTUS pushing it.
unseen on December 17, 2012 at 9:52 AM
yeap DUE PROCESS must be followed. How many times did the dem LEADERSHIP say the TEA party were full of crazy people. If mental illness is a problem then expand the court system so that there is a legal pathway to committ people not in thier right minds. Give them their day in court, give then the right to a defense. (this means you will have to expand the public defenders offices also) And let a jury decide.
Not one person. never give that type of power to a faceless nameless panel. Death panels writ large
unseen on December 17, 2012 at 9:57 AM
I’m in MA. A couple of years ago my cousin was having a stressful time at at work and asked his doctor if there was some non-drug
We’ve got a broken MH system and a corrupt congress and President. What ever their fix is most likely will be worse than the problem.
On the one hand.. we’ve emptied our MH hospitals and are putting violent people in the community. HIPPA laws and privacy rights are such that, if a MH case makes comments about wanting to kill, etc., they don’t commit them to the hospital. They just talk to them, increase or change medications and increase therapy and caseworker visits.
Then on the other side.. which is just as dangerous… you’ve got the potential for serious abuses by hack libs.
“Oh.. so you like guns? You work around children? You say you get frustrated standing in long lines? We can’t risk types like you being free.”
In the old Soviet Union, you got a mental disorder for just hating communism. They lobotomy was treatment number one.
Unless the good people of America really make their voices clearly heard on this… they will do more than just re-instating the old assault weapon’s ban. They will go for everything they think they can get away with. Psychological evaluations before owning a gun. Police inspections of your houses if you do. Mandatory storage laws.
And anyone think the weepy Boehner is going to stand against any of this?
Democrats often don’t really care what people think. But many times Republicans do. We should give them credit for that. If enough people contact the GOP in congress and make it clear they do not want further gun bans.. I think the GOP will hear us.
What we need is to ban gun free zones. Expand the Castle Doctrines to include schools, theaters and shopping malls. Allow teachers and other school employees to be armed and provide trainings for them if they want it.
Also… make it harder for someone who defends themselves or others to be sued. In Germany, I think I remember this right… you cannot be sued if you help someone on the highway. We need a law like that here in the event of shootings. If you carry a firearm and are involved in a shooting to defend yourself, your family or someone else… you should not be sued for doing so.
JellyToast on December 17, 2012 at 9:58 AM
I have trouble defending a feel good liberasl postion like “gun free zones” that does nothing but insure the shooter of a defenseless target rich environment
unseen on December 17, 2012 at 9:59 AM
Shame on these people who are using the death of babies to further their agenda.
Spit.
cptacek on December 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Absolutely. It is a slippery slope, but Progressives–Democrats and Republicans–may bypass the slope and go straight for the cliff.
If DeMoss wants to call himself a Republican, then count me out. No more.
conservative pilgrim on December 17, 2012 at 10:08 AM
I just saw on HuffPo that Dem Senator Manchin is now calling for an AW ban.
The only reason he was elected, IIRC, was that he was strong on gun rights. Just shows you can’t trust any Democrat. We can’t let out Repubs go wobbly on this, either though.
I hope Manchin gets tossed out by the voters next time he’s up.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Yelling fire in a theater relative to the First Amendment is like owning a howitzer relative to the Second Amendment.
We do have restrictions on the types of firearms we can own.
ButterflyDragon on December 17, 2012 at 10:10 AM
How is it breaking ranks? There is a very strong statist element in the GOP – in fact most of them are statists. Statists love big government so it stands to reason they’re down with restrictions on gun ownership.
Romney himself shot his mouth off (pun intended) about evil black rifles of assaulty-ness in the 90s saying no civilian should be able to own one.
That morbidly obese RINO Christie is entirely anti-gun and will bray about that and his other statist positions at the drop of a donut.
CorporatePiggy on December 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Thank you gentlemen! It’s nice to see that there are some other conservatives here that respect the 4th and 5th Amendment to the US Constitution.
MoreLiberty on December 17, 2012 at 10:28 AM
I’ve always been amused by how fast talke of a ban on semi-auto assault wepons turns into a talk on banning semi-auto wepons. Every time.
tommyboy on December 17, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »