Warning: Mitt Romney is coming for your guns.

by: kestrel9000

Tue Apr 24, 2012 at 16:23:59 PM EDT

"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."
Mitt Romney, 2002

Oh, sure, he got the endorsement of the NRA. Sure, he bought a life membership. Sure, he got the endorsement of Big Bad Gun Boy Ted Nugent. But, let's look at his record and past statements....on the flip.  

kestrel9000 :: Warning: Mitt Romney is coming for your guns.
During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney had been a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban, and had also said he believed "in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms." On July 1, 2004, Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons, saying at the signing ceremony for the new law, "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. 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." The law extended a temporary measure that had been in effect since 1998 and covered weapons such as the AK-47, Uzi, and MAC-10. The same law also modified some other aspects of general firearms licensing regulations.

So, in other words, in Mitt's world, guns are only for hunting and those that look scary enough should be banned because you're too irresponsible to be trusted with them.

Also, as governor of Massachusetts, Romney substantially increased hunting licensing fees as well as the fees required to obtain a Massacusetts FID, the card that in that state you have to have to possess any firearm at all: the card that registers you with the government as a person that owns a gun.

Get that? As governor of Massachusetts, "severe conservative" Mitt Romney not only allowed the FID card to continue to exist, he made it more expensive to get one.

While in Massachusetts, I refused to comply with that law. Had I done my homework and known that law existed, I probably would never have moved there.

Governor Romney has a solid record of pursuing gun control measures to control crime and increase safety. He is vocally supportive of the assault weapons ban, supported a waiting period, and supports registration. While Governor he continued Massachusetts's history of gun control advocacy.

In 2002, Mitt Romney stated in a debate that he supported the tough gun laws in Massachusetts and that he believed they help protect us and keep us safe. He vowed not to chip away at those laws...Governor Romney has been supportive of the second amendment in the general sense while campaigning for the Presidency in 2012, but continued to support an assault weapons ban in the 2008 elections. Since that time, he has stated that he does not believe that the nation wide assault weapons ban should be re-instituted.

He does not address the issue on his 2012 campaign website.

Doesn't sound to me like someone the NRA or Ted Nugent would be endorsing....unless, of course, he's running against the black liberal with the funny name.

Handy dandy flier to be distributed to your favorite gun rights supporters:


Which candidate for President will be more supportive of your human right to possess the means of self-defense?
Barack Obama
Mitt Romney


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

It should be a reasonable stance for a Republican presidential candidate. (2.00 / 1)
If it harms Romney - and imho it will this time - it says a lot about the pragmatism being exercised on the political right...

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

A reasonable stance vs. a wide stance? eom (2.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
Not sure what you mean, (2.00 / 2)
but "reasonable" being the same as "broad" or "stable" is what the current GOP is missing. There are not many issues that really require an extremely narrow and rigid stance, and you have to pick them carefully. The Tea Party flavor of current American GOPishness lends itself to defending a forest of one-dimensional poles instead of a platform of broad solid planks.

The lefthanded alternate position - that the state owns all rights to all weapons and only in rare exception grants a temporary waiver for a mere citizen to posses one - is equally indefensible. The Sharps Committee lives in that part of ideology, searching your kitchen and person at will to Defend the State.

Ideologies that either put a nuke in every pot or only give us the Little Kids' Scissors are not worth wasting breath to defend.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

[ Parent ]
"Wide stance" (2.00 / 4)
See:  Craig, Larry, former GOP Senator, troller of airport men's rooms.

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done subjunctively.

[ Parent ]
Are you saying that owning (2.00 / 3)
a gun is a human right?

I agree with the right to defend yourself and the President is definitely on the right side of that and I'm sure Romney is too.

I'm confused.

"These are hard times, not end times." - Jon Stewart

Got to Say... (2.00 / 5)
That living in Australia where citizen gun ownership doesn't extend beyond a .283 bolt-action rifle, and then only for rural property owners, is something of a relief.  I'm guessing the locals have as many domestics as anyone else but the intentional homicide rate is about a quarter of the US.

[ Parent ]
I'm conflicted over the (2.00 / 4)
US gun laws.  I know that's there's a Constitutional right to have weapons but there needs to a limit.  The conflict mainly comes from the fact that no one from any political party talks gun control anymore.

"These are hard times, not end times." - Jon Stewart

[ Parent ]
There are limits, and they are generally reasonable. (2.00 / 4)
You can't have an assault rifle or a switchblade in most American cities. I don't know if any of the particular restrictions (or lack) on Sparks and Sharps has as a result a more safe society, but on the whole I'm generally happy with the state of the debate in the States.

It is such an important issue, as I have hopefully enunciated, that I am willing to be pleased where my culture manages it to a reasonable limit of cost in human lives. Like Driving Licences, it is an issue that has no "no cost in human lives" solution, and I perceive a point of diminishing returns beyond a given level of legislation.

If we handed out driver's licences to 6-year-olds we would no doubt lose millions of lives. At 16 we lose thousands of lives, if we waiter until 26 we would measure the death toll in hundreds. There is no "fix it so nobody dies" solution to automobiles, so we end up being "happy" with a compromise that only destroys thousands of lives. Because it is worth it.

Same with pointy-stabby-shooty things. We could cut the body count in half and perhaps to a third with the most radical changes to how we view personal responsibility with Dangerous Objects. But that's it. No amount of draconian social change is going to save those last thousands of lives who will leave behind shattered human suffering. That is the cost we pay for being alive at all, and in this country we choose to pay a little more for the principal that the average person is to be assumed competent and responsible.

Romney was being reasonable and responsible in his role as Governor to support some restrictions on guns that his community felt on average more in favor of. He would be just as right to make the arguments I am making in favor of stopping short before legislation the seizure of every firearm in Massachusetts. Republican voters should not hold that against him, but in this extremist political climate, they will.  

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

[ Parent ]
Very reasonable comment. (2.00 / 4)
Like any other issue, there are extremes on both sides. Some are for total freedom and would like to see ordinary citizens have the right to keep 50-Cal machine guns. Others would like to see strict gun control laws similar to those in Great Britain. I tend to think the laws in GB are rather draconian. I also shudder at the thought of a neighbor having a 50-cal. Somewhere there is a reasonable compromise.

The comments I've made on the Moose over the years have made it pretty plain that I don't support strict gun control laws. However, I would like to see a new assault weapons ban enacted. I would also like to see more restrictions on handguns. I would also like to see efforts made to do something to restrict access to guns for people with suicidal tendencies. There are more gun deaths by suicide than there are for murder.

This is not a recession. It's a robbery.

[ Parent ]
that would be fine (2.00 / 5)
if there was actual debate in this country but there isn't and most of the assault weapons bans are being repealed or like the handgun ban in Chicago overturned by the courts

The NRA basically owns the conversation at the national level.

"These are hard times, not end times." - Jon Stewart

[ Parent ]
Uh-huh.... (2.00 / 2)
and the population of Australia is 22 million while the US population is 311 million.  

[ Parent ]
A reflief? (2.00 / 1)
You don't actually believe you would be likely to be shot with one if your neighbors had them, do you?

Crime statistics are interesting numbers, but the reality is that not being the victim of a violent crime is what keeps the vast majority of people from having to deal with violence. Most people are never going to come into a situation with a weapon being pointed at anyone, much less themselves.

You know I'm not a gun person, you know more about and have fired more than I ever will - so I'm not Clinging - but I have to press you on this one. Do you really believe you have anything to be actually relieved about - that you are actually measurably less likely to be shot - because the people you meet don't have guns?

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

[ Parent ]
Short answer. (2.00 / 5)
Do you really believe you have anything to be actually relieved about - that you are actually measurably less likely to be shot - because the people you meet don't have guns?


Longer answer.

Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.27

Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 23 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.28

Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.


This is not a recession. It's a robbery.

[ Parent ]
to be clear: (2.00 / 1)
You believe that someone you know would like have killed you if more people that you know had guns?

Not that you as a statistical theoretical person might have been statistically more likely to have been shot by some person someone like you might have known. Explicitly that a person the real John Allen knows would have by this point in John Allen's life been more likely to hold a firearm within range of you, John Allen, and intentionally pulled the trigger trying to kill you?

I don't believe that, for myself. I don't think it is at all likely that I, Chris Blask, would have been any more likely to have been shot in my life to date if there had been more firearms around me during my life. Donna would not have been more likely to kill me, nobody I have ever known as a friend or even mild acquaintance would have been more likely to kill me, not even that confrontations I have been in with arguably dangerous people (some of whom have in fact been armed) would have been more likely to end up with me being shot.

As I said earlier, unless you have either had the bad luck to suffer from the statistical fringe where people get shot or hit by falling lumber, you have to make bad life choices to end up being killed by either one.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

[ Parent ]
I've been in a few situations where I was very glad no one was armed. (2.00 / 3)
One of the worst was when I intervened in a domestic dispute where a woman was being beaten. I've lived in some very high crime areas including the worst in the nation, which is where I live now. In the last couple of weeks, a couple was murdered in their home a few blocks from here. A young woman was shot in the head by a total stranger at a liquor store close to the same area. In fact, my ex-dil was at that store the very same day and could very well have been the victim. Do you consider going to a store at 2:30 pm to be a "bad life choice?" Another person was shot during the same time period. This is all happening in a city with a population of only 100,000.

This is not a recession. It's a robbery.

[ Parent ]
I've taken a knife and a baseball bat off a drunk violent man in one of those situations, (2.00 / 1)
not sure a gun would have been worse.

The only person I know who has been shot was working at an all night store, you are right. Not a bad life choice, how was she to know she was about to walk for the last time?

She never should have lived in a country that allowed such loose access to guns, then she would have been OK. It is entirely her fault for making the bad life choice to live in such a callous society where everyone is allowed to run around loose with guns. Only in a country like that would she have suffered that fate so in a way, yes, you are right, it is a bad life choice to live in


John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

[ Parent ]
And the point is...? (0.00 / 1)
I don't remember saying only people in the United States die of gun violence. This was your argument. You are the one that stated people shouldn't worry unless they have bad luck or make bad life choices. Is that what you told her family, that it was her own fault? BTW, I didn't say the girl that got shot in Flint was working at an all night store. Someone getting shot in that case is fairly commonplace. I said she was walking in a store parking lot in the middle of the afternoon. Someone walked up behind her and put a bullet in her head.

I've read all of your comments in this thread and the only thing I get from those comments, other than a sense of a bit of a sense of sneering superiority, is that people are basically good and can be trusted to act responsibly. I tend to agree with that. However, there is a qualifier that should be added to that - most people can be trusted to do the right thing. What do we do about those that can't be trusted?

This is not a recession. It's a robbery.

[ Parent ]
Well (2.00 / 1)
What do we do about those that can't be trusted?

what you don't want to do is penalize those who can because of the ones who can't.  

[ Parent ]
I am deeply personally offended and extremely disappointed. (0.00 / 0)
a sense of a bit of a sense of sneering superiority,

The simple fact that you find yourself capable of reading a tone of sneering superiority into the words of anyone you would bother engaging with speaks unpleasant volumes. That you would inflect my own words in such a way is both troubling to me as a person and troubles me about what it says about yourself.

I have never read a word written by any serious Moose with a tone of sneering superiority or any related intent. If I had it would have likely been the last exchange of information I would have had with that person. The very idea that any one of you would approach any single comment in any of the conversations here - even under extreme exhaustion and duress - with anything like that set of mind is not something that I have ever considered.

A roommate I knew well once seriously accused me of lying intentionally about an issue of utility bills in a knowing effort to benefit myself at his expense. As soon as I verified that the words I had heard in fact reflected the belief of this person, it immediately change my relationship with them forever. I realized that this was a person who believed that another person would actually find reason to dedicate effort to deceiving a friend over something as petty as a household bill. I realized that I really had no way of knowing whether this person viewed everyone else like that - though I imagine it is probable - but that it simply meant that there would never be any reason to give this person information of any form ever again. There would be - and apparently had been all along - no way for me to know what the information that came out of my mouth turned into inside his head, so there was literally no reason for me to ever say anything other than pleasantries.

I would say that has become quite useful in my life since, but honestly it rarely ever comes up. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people that I have gotten to know well enough to have to question whether or not they were capable of competently processing what I say to them.

It never occurs to me that someone would bother to lie to me about anything that matters. On the rare occasions when someone actually appears to be sneering superiorly about anything I (usually) pretend I didn't hear them and move on or (like our beloved DemRum) lecture them on being better than that.

John, I am sorry your mind can work that way. I don't think it serves you well, and I believe you are better than that.  

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

[ Parent ]
I apologize (2.00 / 4)
I don't really know what triggered that insult. Something set me off, but it doesn't seem to be anything in particular you said in this thread. This is probably the only semi-offensive statement in your comments in this thread and it's pretty mild.

Make no mistake, I love each and every one of my liberal friends - Moosey and otherwise - but I do so despite the inevitable drag of the conversation into cynicism. This is a stereotype that the "political left" (whatever that is) own fully and honestly. It isn't the defining characteristic of liberalism, but it's close.

You've made similar comments in the past that didn't bother me all that much. Maybe what triggered my response was the slow accumulation of such comments or maybe it was simply a case of late-nite indigestion.

BTW, your anecdote doesn't really fit this situation. Accusing someone of displaying a sense of superiority is in no way the same as accusing someone of lying for financial gain.

Having said that, there's no excuse for accusing you of "sneering."

Please accept my sincere apology.

This is not a recession. It's a robbery.

[ Parent ]
Goes to show (0.00 / 0)
the most level headed people "lose it" and forget their own standards when it comes to guns. I've seen it time and time and time again. This isn't new.  

[ Parent ]
This wasn't about guns. (2.00 / 2)
Chris and I are in almost total agreement when it comes to gun policy.

This is not a recession. It's a robbery.

[ Parent ]
A gun has far greater range than a knife or a bat. eom (2.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
" and then only for rural property owners," (2.00 / 1)
Of course, I wouldn't trust peasants with rifles anymore than Elizabethans trusted them with swords.

Good call by the Australian gentry. Landowners and Gentlemen only should be armed.



John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

[ Parent ]
Curiously... (2.00 / 1)
The traffic stops are a lot more civil.  Go figure.

[ Parent ]
Yep (2.00 / 2)
I'm saying that a person who can own the means to self defense is a citizen, while one who cannot is a subject.
That's exactly what I'm saying.  

[ Parent ]
Seems like quaint thinking in the era of (2.00 / 4)
neutron bombs, armored vehicles, jet aircraft, etc.

Do you have a right to own Stinger anti-aircraft missiles?

Do you have a right to own nerve gas-shells and your own Howitzer?

Do you have a right to own rocket-propelled grenades?

[ Parent ]
Oh, gawd (2.00 / 1)
not this again. I get tired of typing this one out :)
It says keep and bear arms, not ordnance......

[ Parent ]
This is confusing two different issues. (2.00 / 5)
One is the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The other is the idea that doing so can somehow keep someone safe from government overreach. I believe Rash was trying to point out the absurdity of thinking owning a firearm will somehow do that in today's world where even local police departments have military armaments.  

This is not a recession. It's a robbery.

[ Parent ]
Oh, sure (0.00 / 0)
but I was simply addressing the last three questions in the comment.  

[ Parent ]
John Allen has it exactly right. (2.00 / 3)
How will owning a firearm prevent the government from overreaching, if it really wants to?  The government is the one with the armored cars, the Bradleys, the Abrams tanks, the Warthogs, etc.  Don't you really need Panzerfausts, Panzerschrecks, Stingers, nerve gas, tactical nukes, etc., if you really want to deter government overreach?

Are you OK with a ban on bullets?  They are, after all, ordnance, not arms.

By addressing the three questions literally and ignoring the larger question, you are really ignoring the shaky nature of the whole premise on which most Second Amendment Absolutists bases their position: that I need my guns to keep the government at bay.

If the government really wants you, it will get you, no matter how many fully automatic AR-15s and AK-47s you have.  Just ask David Koresh.

[ Parent ]
Oh, sure (2.00 / 1)
but I find that I'm more in tune with the way RKBA is written into my state constitution.

Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Emphasis mine, and no, I don't think I'm going to hold off a government invasion with a handgun and a rifle.  

[ Parent ]
That seems a little extreme. (2.00 / 3)
We are born with a way to defend ourselves, we have a mind and fists and feet.

Owning a gun doesn't guarantee self defense against your locals criminals or your government.  It seems like a strange argument to make.

"These are hard times, not end times." - Jon Stewart

[ Parent ]
I agree. (2.00 / 4)
I do buy into the whole premise behind the premise. That this history of man is one of subjects, and that part of the fundamental thread of the French Revolution and the founding of America was to take the weapons out of the exclusive hands of Power.

I do not buy into the fervor of the most fervent gun rights supporters, but like DTO's classic leftist ennui I am very glad the position is well defended. It is in fact a slippery slope - because we do not in fact actually have much practical use for weapons in modern life - but sliding too far down it nonetheless risks an implicit level of personal freedom and responsibility.

The personal responsibility of weapons is much more attractive to me in a society to me than is their practical use in defending freedoms. Unless you are incredibly unfortunate or a complete idiot, you are enormously unlikely to either need a weapon to defend yourself or to have one used against you. But a society that makes the leap to explicitly acknowledge that each and every citizen is capable of managing the responsibility implicit in any sort of weapon is fundamentally different than one that does not.

These two opposing viewpoints writ here by our own kestrel and DTO - that the average person is either a capable and responsible individual, or inversely an intrinsically base and ignorant cow - are opposite sides of the most important coin in human sociology.

Make no mistake, I love each and every one of my liberal friends - Moosey and otherwise - but I do so despite the inevitable drag of the conversation into cynicism. This is a stereotype that the "political left" (whatever that is) own fully and honestly. It isn't the defining characteristic of liberalism, but it's close.

I don't care particularly if I can or cannot buy an assault rifle where I live, but I care a lot whether I can buy a weapon at all. Odds are I never will, but I treasure living where I am first assumed to be as competent as anyone with one if I chose.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

[ Parent ]
Here's my problem ... (2.00 / 6)
I treasure living where I am first assumed to be as competent as anyone with one if I chose

When anyone, violent record or not, can walk into a gun show or surf the 'net and end up with a gun we have a problem.  And why in the world should someone be able to buy a weapon without some basic training in how to handle/use that gun? (Which reminds me of a news piece I heard yesterday about the guy in VA who, during his firearms training, shot himself through the hand and his wife in the leg.  I hope he has to take the class a couple of more times.)  When there's a good chance that George Zimmerman could end up with his gun rights intact because of SYG we have a problem.

Unfortunately, we cannot have a real debate in government over gun laws because any mention of slowing down the purchase of a gun or holding someone accountable for misusing a firearm leads to "OMG!  They're trying to take away my Constitutional right!" when in fact sensible gun laws seem ... sensible.

Lastly, when it is easier to buy a gun than it is to vote we have a problem.  

"When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in teh stupid and waving a gun" ~ Esteev on Wonkette

[ Parent ]
that is where the reasonableness flies out the window. (2.00 / 2)
But it lost, at least, over important points.

Like I said initially, it should imho be a reasonable Republican position to allow some restrictions. Just as long as the restrictions are the exception, not the right to bear arms. When it slips into the state only allowing citizens to own weapons on an exception basis it loses that essence that all revolution against power found voice in France in the late 1600s and American in the late 1700s.

We (or at least "I") talked about the genesis of the weapon as a tool in pre-human culture. Weapons were the magic that allowed our predecessors to separate themselves from the destined lives of the other animals. As society arose, individuals with weapons became a risk and society inevitably took them away. This act of submission is the basis for all abuse of power that followed and has roots that go back far into human prehistory.

We may never again need to have own own swords to protect us from those we give power to. But the symbolic swords we keep leaning against the door jamb for the Gentlemen of Power to see when they come calling defends us nevertheless.  

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

[ Parent ]
I think I'm pretty reasonable: (2.00 / 7)
Don't let the violent offender in my neighborhood (or anyone else's) walk in and be able to purchase a gun or any other weapon for that matter (now obviously cooking utensils are another matter so don't anyone think of going there).  And make sure those who do buy them know how to use them.  Oh, and maybe they should be kept securely away from people (kids) who ought not be able to harm themselves or others with them.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.  :)

"When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in teh stupid and waving a gun" ~ Esteev on Wonkette

[ Parent ]
You are incredibly reasoned, that there first be no debate about that. (2.00 / 2)

(now obviously cooking utensils are another matter so don't anyone think of going there).

I most definitively have to go there.

And I start with a friendly "you are better than that" chide, for using a wallpaper phrase like "obviously".

"Clearly we all know that the blue fish red shoes..."

Wallpaper phrase [n]: Phrase used to cover over gaping cracks in an argument in an effort to distract attention away from them

The very final nub of the weapons/guns debate is that very specific crack. Peering into that crack there are all sorts of scenarios that not only fail to be theoretical but in fact are real all around us.

Sharps Committees exist today and precede not only the gun debate but guns at all. The ownership of a length of steel cut and shaped in a certain way was taken away from the average subject in virtually every society in history not long after steel was invented. In the Bronze Age and even into the pre-metallic era the removal of sharp objects from the hands of subjects was already a well-worm road.

This issue is not about tubes using explosive gases to propel lumps of matter at high velocities. Guns are only the most obvious precipitation of the metaphor into object form. Sharp pieces of steel of certain defined shapes and sizes are already subject to similar restrictions here and abroad.

Behind all the chaff of Statistics and Precedent mushroomed into the air of the debate by virtually all participants is a very simple question:

Is the average person competent, or not?

If so, then we should have Democracy and individual freedom and the implicit irrevocable right to assume whatever responsibility we as individuals choose.

If not, then we should not have Democracy and we must have strict controls to ensure any hope of a moderately civil existence.

I fundamentally believe the former, more than I believe the sun rises in the East. For me to change my view and join in with the DTO-ish view - that people just really can't be trusted, at the end of the day - would mean changing literally every single thought I have about the universe. There isn't a single value or goal or purpose or pleasure or perspective that I hold that would not have to be completely thrown away.

Sorry, we can't go there on this one unless we can go all the way. I may never own anything I would view more as a "weapon" than a shovel (I'd rather go into a fight with a shovel than a .22 rifle), but there is no way I could ever talk about this topic without going everywhere.


John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

[ Parent ]
Dude, you took that throwaway waaaay too seriously. (2.00 / 5)
I was talking about butter knives.  But I get your point and that is an issue as you say.

And I'll throw something else out there: how about if you do use a weapon inappropriately there are consequences?  There is a reason that police and prosecutors hate SYG laws as written in Florida.  It is virtually impossible to get a conviction even in cases involving gang violence.  And then we now have the case in GA of the father and son who thought the new owners of the house next door were robbing the place so they greeted them with two AR-15s and held them at gunpoint until the police arrived.  Now the police f'ed up too because instead of perhaps calling the real estate agent or something they took the couple into custody overnight.  But really who goes to confront someone with two semi-automatic rifles?  If I'm wondering what's going on next door (at a vacate house where no one is in danger) I'm not heading over with the son, well-armed.  Of course, they can't figure out why they were charged with three felony counts because they were just exercising their 2nd Amendments rights.  And if they would have shot one of their new neighbors?  I guess it would be "Oops!"

We've become a nation that doesn't seem to mind waving our guns around ... and firing them over any little reason.  And more and more the law is on their side.

"When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in teh stupid and waving a gun" ~ Esteev on Wonkette

[ Parent ]
The analogy is often made here... (2.00 / 5)
...between owning a gun and driving a car: both can be lethal.

I think they're chalk and cheese because the teleological aim of car is to provide transport, and a gun's somewhat different, but even allowing for that..

Everyone accepts you can't drive around without a license, under age, uninsured, without training.

By the logic of that comparison, gun laws are necessary

The p***artist formerly known as 'Brit'

[ Parent ]
In Some Respects... (2.00 / 2)
Not having the local constabulary armed to the teeth and expecting a fire-fight could be considered a civil liberty of sorts.

[ Parent ]
Yes, it's a myth that... (2.00 / 4)
...because Brits have very controlled gun laws, we're somehow supine to the police. Nah. The police aren't armed either, and compared to US cops, they're much less overbearing

Friend of mine living in LA had an intruder last month, and called the police.

When they arrived en masse, with helicopters, kevlar and shot guns, he was much more scared of them than the intruder.

So the RKBA line - those who don't bear arms are mere subjects, a truly stuck in a bizarre and contradictory 18th Century paradigm.  

The p***artist formerly known as 'Brit'

[ Parent ]
I disagree (2.00 / 3)
In fact, beyond the obsessions of Americans, I can find absolutely no correlation between gun ownership and civil rights in any other country.  

The p***artist formerly known as 'Brit'

[ Parent ]
I guess it also goes without saying that that was Mitt circa 2002. (2.00 / 5)
Just like the 2000 John McCain wouldn't recognize the 2008 version of himself the earlier Mitt would slam the door in the more recent Mitt's face.  Until July or August when Mitt flips again.

"When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in teh stupid and waving a gun" ~ Esteev on Wonkette

And THAT (2.00 / 4)
along with the hypocrisy of the National Rifle Association, is the larger point of this diary.

[ Parent ]
Until Mitt flips again (2.00 / 5)
Aficionados of the Etch a Sketch will recall a certain flaw in the toy: If you use it often, some of the lines drawn no longer disappear when you shake the device, instead leaving an indelible trace of where you have been.

This is the problem Mitt Romney is encountering: He is shaking the device, trying to erase impressions left during this year's primary contest. But he just can't shake away the image of Russell Pearce.


[ Parent ]
The President said in a recent interview that Romney can't simply (2.00 / 4)
undo the last several months.  Sounds like the campaign will take full advantage of all that video now available.  And I think that's a big difference between 2008 and 2012: the GE pivot for Romney will be much more drastic now than Pres. Obama's was then.

"When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in teh stupid and waving a gun" ~ Esteev on Wonkette

[ Parent ]
I can't even really recall (2.00 / 3)
much if anything the President changed when he went from primary to general election.  As far as I can remember his positions were basically the same throughout the campaign.

I'm sure there was something, there always is, but it couldn't have been that substantial or it would have stood out and I was definitely paying attention.

"These are hard times, not end times." - Jon Stewart

[ Parent ]
Personally I think that guns should be regulated. (2.00 / 5)
We should have the right to regulate items that have the ability to kill. We do this with most vehicles through laws and requirements for education and proficiency. I don't believe there is any state in the country that you can walk into and rent a car or plane without training and documentation. I don't think there are any states that allow bazooka's or rocket launchers. Automatic weapons would definateley provide more self defence that semi-auto rifles or pistols, and yet those are still illegal for the most part. So maybe regulations depend on the possible rate of death as opposed to simply being able to kill.
  My biggest concern is not guns but the power of the gun lobby to affect policy. Their is an article today about the probability of concealed weapons being abundant at protest at the gop convention. Does that make anyone there safer?
 Too many people with too many guns with not enough training on mechanics or the mental aspects of pointing guns at people.

Great to see you Creamer... (2.00 / 4)
Been a while

And shout out to Kestrel.

Though this is one issue we don't see eye to eye, thanks to provoking a lively and (mainly) civil debate

The p***artist formerly known as 'Brit'

[ Parent ]

Advanced Search

Make a New Account



Forget your username or password?

Blog Roll
Angry Bear
Angry Black Lady
Balloon Juice
Black Kos
Booman Tribune
Charles P. Pierce
Crooks and Liars
Daily Kos
Five Thirty Eight
Huffington Post
Juan Cole
Maddow Blog
P.M. Carpenter
Political Wire
Scholars & Rogues
Stonekettle Station
Talking Points Memo
The Field
Washington Monthly
Moose With Blogs
Canadian Gal
Charles Lemos
Cheryl Kopec
Curtis Walker
Douglas Watts
Hubie Stubert
Intrepid Liberal
John Allen
National Gadfly
Peter Jukes
Senate Guru
Zachary Karabell

Back to Top

Posting Guidelines  |  FAQ  |  Privacy Policy  |  Contact the Moose  |  Contact Congress
Powered by: SoapBlox