Romney on Second Ammendment

I stand corrected.
However, being a member by way of Johnnie-come-lately doesn't earn my respect nor confidence in his true stand on the 2A.

Actions don't speak for very much in my viewpoint. It's the principle behind the actions...
 
Steel Core:

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.
Click to expand...

Sorry. There are not hundreds of thousands of maimed US military personnel from Iraq. Here are the figures to include WIA for the "modern" wars. The combined KIA and WIA for Iraq does not even equal KIA for Korea. We just don't have the stomach for this any more. Could you imagine if we had casualties like Korea or WWII coming in now how the country would react? We would have surrendered in 2006.

WWII - 405,000 Dead, 670,000 WIA
Korea - 34,000 dead, 103,000 WIA
Vietnam - 58,000 dead, 153,000 WIA
Iraq - 4,000 dead, 28,000 WIA
 
He's not stupid, but he does seem to have a need to say whatever is expedient which is only surpassed by the grand master, Bill Clinton.

People with that kind of need to please and urge for power are kind of sick. Though I completely support his right to do it, spending so much of his own money on his campaign is also kind of pathetic and sick. It makes me wonder what else is going on with this guy.
 
Thank God that our country relies more on the people than the leaders. The current lack of leadership reminds me of a quote from a Col. McLean from the Union army during the civil war, "My trust is in God, but at the same time I always keep my powder dry." For the record, he was killed soonafter at Manassas.
 
Well, I gots a nice little sniper gun thingie and an AK, but now you guys have me wanting to find a place to get an M240G and a few cases of ammo! A Mah Deuce could be great too...
 
Sorry. There are not hundreds of thousands of maimed US military personnel from Iraq. Here are the figures to include WIA for the "modern" wars. The combined KIA and WIA for Iraq does not even equal KIA for Korea. We just don't have the stomach for this any more. Could you imagine if we had casualties like Korea or WWII coming in now how the country would react? We would have surrendered in 2006.

WWII - 405,000 Dead, 670,000 WIA
Korea - 34,000 dead, 103,000 WIA
Vietnam - 58,000 dead, 153,000 WIA
Iraq - 4,000 dead, 28,000 WIA
Click to expand...
But these numbers prove what I said: the ratio of wounded to killed has gone way up. And many more soldiers have been wounded than killed. (I neither said, nor meant to imply, that the total number of wounded or dead was higher than in past wars.)

You're right that the total number of casualties has gone down in comparison to past wars. But that's because Iraq is a relatively low-intensity conflict -- though that's undoubtedly little consolation to those who wonder every day if they're going to be hit by an IED or sniper.

Have Americans "lost their stomach"? I don't think so. If our nation's security depended on the outcome in Iraq, then no one, least of all me, would be advocating a pull-out. The point is that Iraq is pointless, and that's why Americans want it to end. It was based on lies, and just about everyone realizes that now.

The principle is simple: If a war is justified (i.e., necessary), then ANY number of casualties is acceptable. If a war is unjustified, then NO casualties should be considered acceptable -- such a war simply should not happen.
 
SteelCore is correct.

Fatality numbers are low because medical advancements have caused battlefield survival rates to rise sharply. That means you end up with a lot more guys missing limbs, eyes, and such but still alive.

He is also right in saying this is not an actual active war. Fighting is not high intensity or constant. We are not actually fighting an enemy army.

This is an occupation where we are battle rebellions and oppotunists.
 
Romney in 2004:

Romney today signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that forever makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on these dangerous guns.

"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."
Click to expand...
 
Wow, this has really gone everywhere. Yes, I think Americans have lost their stomach and more importantly have lost the attention span to be led through more than one inferential step in justifying governmental action - which explains not just discontent with the middle east, but weapons bans -the public wants a quick-fix band-aid and cannot think far enough realize that gun laws have no impact on crime...

And yes, right to bear arms means all arms one can bear, and "shall not be infringed" invokes traditionally contractual language creating an explicit prohibition on weakening that right...

Oh wait, Romney. I would put guns up there with those few things that you feel in your soul. It's not an issue that you read a whitepaper on and say "Yeah, that is a great idea!" It's like many highly contentious debate issues - your position needn't be rational, because it is at the core of your moral, political and personal feelings, and can't necessarily be qualified or summed. Romney did not support 2A. Now he does. Same with Rudy. McCain is questionable. That reeks of election year vacillation, and respecting our right to bear arms simply is not a trick you can teach old dogs.
 
This guy sounds like a pretty big threat to the constitution. To make things even better, he's a big business guy. I'm no genius, but why should we let businesses make OUR choices for us?
 
Just ask yourself if Romney would be more respectful of the Second Amendment than either Clinton or Obama? It's likely that Romney or McCain will face one of those two Democrats in November, IMO.
 
Allenomics has asked the most important question:

Will Romney be more respectful to the 2nd Amendment than Hillary or Obama.

Before you answer, here is a quote from Romney in July 2004 (only 3 years ago)"

Romney today signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that forever makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on these dangerous guns.

"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."
Click to expand...

Read his quote and ask yourself again, how respectful will Romney be of the 2nd Amendment?
 
I think that the vast majority of people who do not and who have never owned a gun would find Romney's quote reasonable. IMO, that's the reality we are dealing with. It's likely that the Democratic nominee would attempt to impose more restrictive gun rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top