Romney on Second Ammendment

Lock up military weapons

Seems to me I recall several stories from history where some well off citizens having a cannon in the front yard.

Hmmm... Lock up the military's weapons in the armory, and citizens with a
cannon in the yard (plus private small arms)... that sounds good to me.
 
After the debate, Chris Matthews questioned Rudy about Mitt and Huck's support for the 2nd. He asked Rudy what would happen if everyone in NYC owned guns (like the crooks don't). He said it mockinly about Mitt and Huck implying they were nuts. Rudy desperately said he supported the 2nd, slyly winked at Chris' sneer at the 2nd and mightly tried to talk about terrorism and the economy.

If anyone doubts Rudy is antigun - see that clip.

On other hand, I wouldn't trust Mitt a step and Huck is nuts.

I would like to thank GWB for putting the GOP in the toilet by his incompetence, saying he would sign an AWB thus making it legit for other candidates to say so and the DOJ siding with DC. What a man!
 
I would like to thank GWB for putting the GOP in the toilet by his incompetence, saying he would sign an AWB thus making it legit for other candidates to say so and the DOJ siding with DC. What a man!
Click to expand...

Did you hear that jackass trying to fawn of U2's Bono? They had Bono over at the Pentagon advising them... This country has become a joke...

But hey, its what the "people" (Fools?) voted for.
 
Hope for America: Be a part of it!

OK- there is only one absolute Constitutionalist running. Most of us tend to agree that he won't win. However, he is winning. For the first time last night there was the "Ron Paul Echo". In previous debates, the candidates sneered and giggled when Paul denounced borrowing from China to fund our extravagant foriegn policy. Last night two echoed it (of course they still want to keep troops in Iraq).

I would feel better with a Mormon than anybody else in the so called "electable" catagory. At least the Mormons gave us John Moses Browning. I like the general bunker mentality they have too about saving a year's worth of food and supplies and I liked that when I visited Salt Lake City a few years ago, gun stores were common, and reloading supplies were in many, many stores. I don't even see that type of gun nuttery here in Texas. I have to go to only a very few gun stores locally to get reloading supplies.

So based on outside observations, Mitt won't be as bad as some. Nobody will ever be as good as Jefferson.
 
While getting rid of the Fed would be nice, Andrew Jackson was pitiful in being lawful. Remember when the Supreme Court sided with the Cherokee Indians and said they could not be expelled from the Southern States? Andrew Jackson said:"They have made their ruling, now let them enforce it" and he proceeded to evict them anyway creating the "trail of tears" and brining my Great, Great grandfather to Texas because he married a Cherokee and his sons and wife would be evicted because they were full and half-breed Indians.

Although they fared well with thousands of acres of free land, Andrew Jackson was contemptuous of the law and any restraint on his desires.
 
Hkmp5s said:
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.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

Machine guns most certainly are protected by the 2A, as are any military weapons that can be used without necessarily endangering innocent lives.

Having said that, I don't think full auto weapons are at all necessary to defend freedom. IMO, semi-auto is not only good enough, it's actually better than full-auto except at very close range. And even then, I think that if 5 rounds per second can't solve a problem, then 10 rps are unlikely to solve it, either. Oh, and even bolt actions can be devastating if used from concealment and at sufficient range.

Thus, while I find the 1986 ban highly offensive on principle, I don't see it as a threat to freedom in a general sense. But we MUST keep our semi-auto weapons at all costs. Once those are taken from us, it's all over.

XD40Tac said:
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?
Click to expand...
It's clear from the extra-Constitutional writings of the Founders, as well as from the circumstances in which they wrote these things, that they intended for the entire population to be armed and to essentially serve as the nation's military. They believed that a standing military was dangerous to freedom, since it could be used to suppress the population.

Today, sure enough, we have a standing army and police forces at various levels of government. But that doesn't take away our right to own the weapons needed to fight back against oppression; in fact, it makes that right more important than ever.

We'll get our asses kicked if we dont have air support.
Click to expand...
Not so -- unless we were to fight in the open, which would obviously be suicide. Guerrilla warfare is mainly about using stealth to fight against a much more powerful foe.

To use air power to take out guerrillas on its own soil, a government would have to level its own cities, causing lots of friendly and civilian casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and economic damage. It would be cutting its own throat.

Can you imagine the US government using air power to go after the "D.C. snipers," Mohammed and Malvo? The feds had no idea where they were. Although those two guys were murdering bastards, something can still be learned from them.

Finally, look at the Iraqi insurgency. Those people had no air power, either, and yet they caused a hell of a lot of trouble for the most powerful military on earth. And Iraq is obviously a much smaller country than the US. Taming an insurgency across the US would be simply impossible.
 
Hope for America: Be a part of it!

OK- there is only one absolute Constitutionalist running. Most of us tend to agree that he won't win. However, he is winning. For the first time last night there was the "Ron Paul Echo". In previous debates, the candidates sneered and giggled when Paul denounced borrowing from China to fund our extravagant foriegn policy. Last night two echoed it (of course they still want to keep troops in Iraq).

I would feel better with a Mormon than anybody else in the so called "electable" catagory. At least the Mormons gave us John Moses Browning. I like the general bunker mentality they have too about saving a year's worth of food and supplies and I liked that when I visited Salt Lake City a few years ago, gun stores were common, and reloading supplies were in many, many stores. I don't even see that type of gun nuttery here in Texas. I have to go to only a very few gun stores locally to get reloading supplies.

So based on outside observations, Mitt won't be as bad as some. Nobody will ever be as good as Jefferson.
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt that the Mass-h0le Mitt thinks along the same lines as the folks in Salt Lake City. :rolleyes:

There won't be a Dillon 650 in the White House garage, and an AR15 and 1911 by the nightstand.
 
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.
Click to expand...

UNREGISTERED,

This is precisely how I feel. I couldn't agree with you more. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about plain English. Really don't understand how the ammendment can be said to be vague.
 
I likewise am an absolute constitutionalist. I didn't see any exceptions or asteriks when I last read it. I believe it is written in such pittifully plain terms that you'd have to be a lawyer to not understand the meanings clearly. I bet I could get most 8th graders with a C average to read it and understand most of it except for the archaic terms like Letters of Marquis, Bill of Attainders, Corruption of Blood, and the like, but even those can be looked up on Wikipedia, so within minutes you can read and understand it.

While the 2nd in high on everybody's list here, I also favor the 9th and 10th amendments just as highly. They are the amendments that make most of the Federal Agencies and their actions unconstitutional.

I think if you want a machine gun and can afford to feed it, why not? It doesn't hurt my feelings any if my neighbor buys one anymore than if they want a long bow or for that matter an apache helicopter. The kinds of absolute terms used such as "Congress shall make no law" and "Shall not be infringed" and "reserved to the States or the People Respectively" are pretty hard to misinterpret.

A machine gun like a single shot shotgun is an inanimate object. Yet even in Jefferson's day, they were developing arms and working on producing "rapid fire" weapons. Look up the "Puckle gun". They had cannons and all manner of destructive things but they also trusted the people back then and when one of them committed a crime, they blamed the criminal, not the tool.
 
"Arms" also refered to warships.

At least if we're using American history as a guide.

At least as late as the Civil War, we employed privately-owned, armed merchantmen as commerce raiders. In fact, because they were so useful in the War of 1812, we declined to sign the European treaty banning the issuance of Letters of Marque. I don't know if we've subsequently signed any treaties to that effect, but clearly in the past, private citizens of the United States owned warships. The gunboats used by the Union to such great effect on the Mississippi River were initially the property of their owner... the Navy hadn't paid for them yet. The man who built them commanded one, in fact he died on one, and his sons commanded others.

Given the cost of a modern warship, even as surplus, there are few who could afford them, but it adds an interesting dimension to the debate, no?

--Shannon
 
Having said that, I don't think full auto weapons are at all necessary to defend freedom. IMO, semi-auto is not only good enough, it's actually better than full-auto except at very close range. And even then, I think that if 5 rounds per second can't solve a problem, then 10 rps are unlikely to solve it, either. Oh, and even bolt actions can be devastating if used from concealment and at sufficient range.

Thus, while I find the 1986 ban highly offensive on principle, I don't see it as a threat to freedom in a general sense.
Click to expand...

It's a big threat. You're correct that an AR 15 is pretty much equal to an M 16. But what will the government troops be using to defend our nation or to inflict domestic tyranny in 100 years? OK, how about 1,000 years?

We need parity now, but future generations will need it as well, and that's why there's a VERY DISTURBING aspect of the Heller case which no one (besides me) has even mentioned.

The DC opinion under SCOTUS review speaks of weapons protected by the second amendment which are direct descendants of the weapons used at the time our country was founded.

That was NOT the intent of the 2nd. It was to maintain a civilian populace which could not be conquered by enemies foreign or domestic. What if this country had been founded prior to the invention of gunpowder? Would that mean that when gunpowder came along and the weapons "of the kind in common use at the time" were no longer blades and human powered projectiles, the civilian populace would be restricted to the previous state of technology?

Inventions come along all the time, and we may live to see one as revolutionary (pardon the term) as gunpowder. If we don't live to see it, future Americans WILL at some point. If the military is using lasers or sonic weapons or something we can't yet imagine, then THAT is the kind of weapon the 2A is talking about, even if it is in no way related to weapons commonly in use at the time our nation was founded.
 
If there is ever action taken against our government by the people (which I hope never happens and certainly do not support at present), that improvised explosive devices will be the weapon of choice used against the government.

The insurgents in Iraq are fighting the only way they can against a far superior military force. Going toe to toe with the US Army is going to get you quickly killed.

Small arms would not be the best way to go.
 
Finally, look at the Iraqi insurgency. Those people had no air power, either, and yet they caused a hell of a lot of trouble for the most powerful military on earth. And Iraq is obviously a much smaller country than the US. Taming an insurgency across the US would be simply impossible.
Click to expand...

I hate to say this, but if you look at wars from a historical basis, we have had extradordinarily minimal casaulties. Every person lost or injured is a tragedy and cannot be replaced. As a nation, the US has been blessed with very light casualties in Iraq when looked at casualties during wartime. However, in Iraq the losses have been overplayed by domestic opponents of the war whose real motivation is to portray Bush as a failure at any costs. Sadly, they probably didn't have to go to such extremes to show Bush a failure as that does not seem hard to do.
Killed in American Wars:

Revolutionary War - 25,000 (eight years)
Mexican War - 13,000 (two years)
Civil War - 360,000 Americans and 260,000 southerners (four years)
WWI - 116,000 in less than one year of combat
WWII - 416,000 (about four years)
Korea - 34,000 (three years)
Vietnam - 58,000 (nine years)
Iraq - 4,000 + (2003 - ?)

You tell me if we have been having a "hard time" in Iraq? Compared to what? Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Gettysburg, Vietnam...

Our problem stemmed more from self imposed rules of engagement and an unwillingness to do what was needed to win outright.
 
Said that he believes that the 2nd Ammend. is an individual right and that there are enough laws on the books. I was surprised because he did acknowledge signing an assault weapons ban in Mass.

He was great on the economy and this was somewhat reassuring.
Click to expand...

He also says that he's a lifetime member of the NRA and a proud gunowner. Research when he became a lifetime member and how many guns he actually owns....

Wolf in sheep's clothing...

I don't give a rat's behind on what a president can do for the economy. The saying "It's the economy, stupid" should actually be "It ISN'T the economy, you idiot sheeple"...
 
publius42 said:
You're correct that an AR 15 is pretty much equal to an M 16. But what will the government troops be using to defend our nation or to inflict domestic tyranny in 100 years? OK, how about 1,000 years?
...
Inventions come along all the time, and we may live to see one as revolutionary (pardon the term) as gunpowder. If we don't live to see it, future Americans WILL at some point. If the military is using lasers or sonic weapons or something we can't yet imagine, then THAT is the kind of weapon the 2A is talking about, even if it is in no way related to weapons commonly in use at the time our nation was founded.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with this. In fact, this is something that has concerned me greatly for quite some time now. I've been keeping a close eye on new developments in body armor, surveillance technologies such as ultra-wideband radar (can detect people through walls), and anything else that could eventually give government a decisive advantage in crushing any rebellion. We're essentially paying for our own future enslavement with our own tax dollars, yet few people seem to realize the tremendous danger. You're probably the first person I've met on the Web who has also seen the problem.

It might not happen in our lifetimes, but unless something is done to guarantee that American civilians have access to basically the same technology and weapons that the government can get (at the level of the infantry soldier), the government in this country WILL eventually gain absolute power over the population. And once absolute power is gained, it will eventually be abused.

Unregistered said:
If there is ever action taken against our government by the people (which I hope never happens and certainly do not support at present), that improvised explosive devices will be the weapon of choice used against the government.
Click to expand...
I do agree that IEDs would be an important weapon under such circumstances. A surprising number of Americans know how to make them. People even post videos on YouTube, and there are discussion boards devoted to such things.

The insurgents in Iraq are fighting the only way they can against a far superior military force. Going toe to toe with the US Army is going to get you quickly killed.
Click to expand...
True. If you're up against tanks and air power, your only real option is stealth.

Small arms would not be the best way to go.
Click to expand...
In general, no. But sniping could be a very powerful tactic, especially for someone acting alone. Rapid-fire weapons could be useful for ambushes or as a last-ditch, "take some of them with you" defense against raids. But yeah, I agree that trying to play Rambo would be a very bad idea. Stealth would be key.

XD40Tac said:
I hate to say this, but if you look at wars from a historical basis, we have had extradordinarily minimal casaulties. Every person lost or injured is a tragedy and cannot be replaced. As a nation, the US has been blessed with very light casualties in Iraq when looked at casualties during wartime. However, in Iraq the losses have been overplayed by domestic opponents of the war whose real motivation is to portray Bush as a failure at any costs.
Click to expand...
There have been many fewer deaths in Iraq than in past wars because of better body armor and medical care. But IIRC, the number of soldiers maimed is much higher than the number who have died. I don't have the stats handy, but someone once showed them to me: the ratio of wounded to killed has gone way up.

So yes, fighting the insurgency has not been easy. It has required a large number of troops, stretched the military's resources, and has cost gigantic sums of money. Yet Iraq is a small fraction of the size of the US. This is why I say that there's no way the US government could crush a widespread uprising in the US if that were to happen.

As far as Bush's Iraq policy being portrayed as a failure, it was a genuine failure from the beginning -- even before the first US soldier set foot on Iraqi soil -- simply because it was based on baldfaced lies. But that's another thread.
 
Here is a quote from Mitt Romney. It was a mere three and half years ago (July 2004):

"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."


Romney has banned more guns than either of the Democratic contenders.
 
Turtle:

He also says that he's a lifetime member of the NRA and a proud gunowner. Research when he became a lifetime member and how many guns he actually owns....
Click to expand...

Let's be fair Turtle. :(

Romney never claimed to be a lifetime member of the NRA. He signed up to be a Life Member a category of membership last year. Big difference. Romney acknowledged that he joined at that time but stated that he was joining the NRA to show his position.
 
Romney said he was a Life Member of the NRA. To non-NRA members who don't know how membership works, that means "lifetime" member. Unless Romney is stupid, he knew his statement would be misinterpretted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top