Romney on Second Ammendment
- Thread starter XD40Tac
- Start date
The Real Test Will Be After DC vs Heller
When DC vs Heller comes down, we will know where everybody stands. If we get what we want - Individual Right, Applies to the States, Covered By Strict Scrutiny - the question needs to posed something like this:
The Supreme Court has made a decision on the Second Amendment in DC vs Heller. Could you explain what this decision should mean to the average American, and specifically how will this decision affect your administration’s policies in this area?
The question should NOT accept some vague answer, and especially not the bromide of "I support the Second Amendment".
When DC vs Heller comes down, we will know where everybody stands. If we get what we want - Individual Right, Applies to the States, Covered By Strict Scrutiny - the question needs to posed something like this:
The Supreme Court has made a decision on the Second Amendment in DC vs Heller. Could you explain what this decision should mean to the average American, and specifically how will this decision affect your administration’s policies in this area?
The question should NOT accept some vague answer, and especially not the bromide of "I support the Second Amendment".
MyGunsJammed
New member
I dont trust Mitt Romney...on protecting our 2nd amendment rights
First Mass had a AWB since 1994. The media usually gets that part wrong. The AWB Romney signed into law in Mass was created by a committee of pro-gun and anti-gun groups. The reasoning is that in Mass pro-gun groups have to work with the powerful anti-gun lobby to make any head way in the RKBA in this state. Otherwise we will be left out in the cold against overwhelming odds. The antis do realize that some key legislatures are pro-gun, so they know they have to play ball. The concessions they made were on loosening the strict firearm owner licensing in the Commonwealth, and the creation of a Firearm licensing review board so people who where denied a permit by their local chief or had one unfairly revoked now have an outlet to plead their case. The new AWB was a mirror copy of the original Mass AWB passed in 1994 so we lost nothing on that field. But I wish we did not have a AWB in this state but there is nothing we can do about it in the current political climate in Mass.
Now about Romney. Well he did say he would sign a new AWB, so you heard it directly from the horse mouth. I don't believe he is a anti-gun crusader like the Democrat candidates, but he will make political concessions to get his agenda passed. If that means selling out gun owners at opportune times then that is what he will do. He is a political beast he knows how to play the game, his father was a Governor so it runs in the family.
Now about Romney. Well he did say he would sign a new AWB, so you heard it directly from the horse mouth. I don't believe he is a anti-gun crusader like the Democrat candidates, but he will make political concessions to get his agenda passed. If that means selling out gun owners at opportune times then that is what he will do. He is a political beast he knows how to play the game, his father was a Governor so it runs in the family.
From the position of devil's advocate: Americans cannot own machine guns but we still have the second ammendment. We lived through an assault weapons ban the Bush said he would sign if congress renewed, so how does that mean he doesn't support the second ammendment. Do we have the right to keep any and all arms? What type of arms were the founders discussing - they did not have weapons that had such rapid killing capacity. The constitution also charges the government with ensuring domestic tranquility. Just food for thought.
My fear is that this Heller case is going to backfire, which will have more dire consequences for our gun rights than any candidate.
Unregistered
Moderator
To me, being a simple man, "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed". The disorganized militia at the time would not have had artillery then, nor should they have it now, but it would be reasonable to conclude that common small arms (ie, what the average foot soldier carried at the time) should be allowed.
So I think machine guns should be unregulated.
MyGunsJammed
New member
^^ same here, I've always wanted an M60 and an M249 
I own three machineguns.
Yes, we do. The founders meant the exact same small arms the military uses. The purpose was so American citizens would have the firepower to overthrough the government should it ever become overbearing.
When the founders wrote the 1st Amendment, there were no radio stations, TV stations or an internet, yet freedom of the press has expanded from printed material to cover modern, rapid-fire communications. The right to privacy has expanded to cover emails and cell phones. There a lots of things the founders never conceived, but the meaning of their writings is clear.
Machine guns, Grenade launchers, anti tank weapons, hand held anti aircraft weapons are all weapons possessed by infantry units. Are you saying these should be legal? No court ever has nor ever will agree to that.
Then I guess our rights are currently being infringed because I can't go out buy, own and use a machine gun or bazooka.
And for the historical record, the militia did possess cannon that were kept locked up in the amory with the muskets in many cases, i.e., the well regulated militia...
My personal view is that we have the right to keep and bear arms in our homes to a reasonable extent for personal protection and to protect against tyranny.
Then I guess our rights are currently being infringed because I can't go out buy, own and use a machine gun or bazooka.
And for the historical record, the militia did possess cannon that were kept locked up in the amory with the muskets in many cases, i.e., the well regulated militia...
My personal view is that we have the right to keep and bear arms in our homes to a reasonable extent for personal protection and to protect against tyranny.
Where does it say "the exact same small arms the military uses." Why did they limit it to small arms? Are you sure its just small arms? We'll get our asses kicked if we dont have air support. Does the constitution say it is for if the government is overbearing to use your words?
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I am glad to hear him give canned lip service to the 2nd but I do not see him as at all electable.
Can you imagine the ads from groups like moveon.org if he runs?
How long before they start airing ads about whether we want someone running the country that willingly follows a religion that claims blacks are "cursed" and dark skinned native americans are the "evil" descendants of a jewish tribe.
Can you imagine the ads from groups like moveon.org if he runs?
How long before they start airing ads about whether we want someone running the country that willingly follows a religion that claims blacks are "cursed" and dark skinned native americans are the "evil" descendants of a jewish tribe.
George Romney on the 2nd Amendment
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "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."
You call that support?
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "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."
You call that support?
OK, I'll check that out. Was is THR? It doesn't really matter about Romney or any Repub, as King George Bush II has ruined it for all Repub hopefuls with his moronic, unresponsive management style.
Argument aside, Let's just hope that Heller comes down in our favor. I'm very worried.
I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but before the civil war, private citizens owned whatever weapons they could afford. That included a wide variety of weapons. See http://davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm
Deciding a Second Amendment and Texas Constitution challenge to the law, the Texas Supreme Court decision in English v. State declared that the Second Amendment bound the states.Following "civilized warfare" precedent from other states, the court stated
Deciding a Second Amendment and Texas Constitution challenge to the law, the Texas Supreme Court decision in English v. State declared that the Second Amendment bound the states.Following "civilized warfare" precedent from other states, the court stated
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
The term "well regulated" found in the text of the 2nd Amendment was intended to mean "under tight civilian control" and not anything having to do with governmental control over all firearms by virtue having them stored in an armory.
In fact, the notion that all arms suitable for militia use should preferably be stored in a government armory is the anthesis of the intent of the framers of our Constitution.