Confederate Yankee on Romney and Guns: There’s That Word Again
At Pajamas Media’s place, Bob Owens catches another unforced error by Unfit Mitt in Sunday’s Meet the Press interview (transcript is at BizzyBlog host, linked for fair use and discussion purposes; bold is mine; statements by Romney are in italics):
Grilled by Tim Russert on Meet the Press this past Sunday over his past support for controversial gun control laws, Mitt Romney reiterated his support for a ban on “assault weapons,†a detail most observers in the media duly forgot.
Romney’s answers to Russert’s questions smacked of either ignorance or pandering ….
I signed—I would have supported the original assault weapon ban.
….. But, but I would, I would look at (banning) weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…
….. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street.
In Mitt’s world, what constitutes extraordinary or unusual lethality?
Such terms cannot objectively apply to the ammunition most commonly chambered in the class of firearms he targets, especially when compared to the most common calibers of hunting rifles he says he does support.
Most big-game hunting rifles that Romney intones he supports fire cartridges that are far more lethal in terms of raw kinetic power and effective range than those in the assault rifle class. Many of the most common hunting calibers—for example, the .30/06 and .270 Winchester—have roughly twice the muzzle energy of the intermediate bullets common to assault weapons. If brute killing force is his standard, then the most common hunting rifles are “unusually lethal.†Somehow, I doubt the sportsmen of Iowa would appreciate that message this primary season.
That would make Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney objectively not up to speed, and not up to snuff, on Second Amendment rights. Add another unacceptable issue position to the pile.
________________________________________
UPDATE: See Comment 5, which states the situation more strongly, and more precisely, than the above. I know the commenter well enough to be confident that he knows what he’s talking about. What he says demonstrates that Romney’s gun-rights/2nd Amendment position is another reason, in a still-growing list of reasons, why Mitt is Objectively Unfit.
He probably doesn’t have a clue about how silly his answer was………. (unusual lethality) ALL GUNS ARE LETHAL.
It’s not the gun that creats the problems…..it’s the uneperienced,unlawful,careless,brain dead……
ANy one can use words like he has to escape the hard questions.
A true sportsman…….!
DW
Comment by Dale — December 20, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
Romney’s answer indicates he really doesn’t understand the second amendment and basic rights that were presumed inviolate by the framers of the Constitution. What Romney fails to understand is that the framers considered gun ownership, property, religion and free speech the most basic of rights whether they were listed individually or not (9th amendment). He seems to have bought the argument that the only reason someone can own a gun is for hunting or maybe self defense and that he or some other group can determine what manner of gun we are entitled to have. The point of the 2nd amendment is not to entitle us to guns, that right is unspoken and taken as a prerecquisit to fulfilling it, the point is to enshrine the authority of individual states and role of the citizen soldier to form the militia in defense of the Republic. Once you realize the real purpose of the second amendment, you realize restricting the weaponry the citizens are “allowed” is restricting the firepower of the militia to defend the Republic.
And just because the States failed in their responsibility to maintain a well ordered militia because of a National Guard or Federal Standing Army does not invalidate or render arcane our rights of gun ownership which are already presumed and covered under the 9th amendment as all the rest of the right not listed.
Comment by dscott — December 20, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
Romney clearly doesn’t comprehend the Second Amendment.
Comment by Alo Konsen — December 20, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
#2, great points.
I wonder what caused the states to abandon their militias? They were surely in place up to and including the Civil War. Did the Feds force the South to abandon them during Reconstruction, with the Northern states soon after following suit?
Comment by TBlumer — December 20, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Romney supporting an “Assault Weapons” ban makes him unfit to be President, or dog catcher. The term refers to basic rifles of small caliber that have certain features.
The rifles typically fire small, .22 caliber, or underpowered .30 caliber rounds (7.62×39). They have certain ergonomic features, such as adjustable buttstocks, and vertical grips. Additionally, they may or may not have a small piece of metal on the end of the barrel that prevents unburned powder from forming a fireball as it is expelled from the barrel.
Mitt Romney is a Traitor to Republican values of freedom. A ban would hurt Republican values, Constitutionalism, and would hurt Ohio’s economy. The National Rifle Matches are held every year in Ohio. Thousands upon thousands show up at the Ohio National Guard’s Camp Perry on the shores of Lake Erie. For weeks, various matches are held to determine the National Champions. The rifles used in these competitions would be banned if Mitt Romney got his way. That would end the tourism and dollars spent.
Besides, we have a basic assault on freedom. Mitt Romney is no conservative, and barely qualifies as a Republican.
Our Firearms Rights are sacred. Don’t screw with them.
Comment by CR — December 21, 2007 @ 9:19 am
#4, good question, since Gen. Lee’s surrender at Appomatox, all the vanquished Southern troops kept their fire arms, since they were personal property, i.e. not supplied by the Confederacy. So you can’t necessarily point to the Civil War as a watershed moment in gun ownership or banning of ownership. I think we need some expert opinion on that one. I do know that virtually all the officers of the Southern regiments were “elected” by the rank and file militia as their leader. That’s right, the soldiers chose their own officers to lead them! This was unheard of in the North at least to my knowledge.
IMO, at the end of the Civil War, no one (individuals) had anymore belly for playing soldier, they wanted to get on with life, the State secession issue being settled, thus the State political leadership no longer wanted the cost of having a military to command given the terrible state of the economy at the end of that war. Given the attitudes that lead to even considering secession as an option up to that point, it begs the question of how permanent of a union the individual States considered it to be? Did they upon ratifying Constitution and then going into effect on March 4, 1789 to form the Union, consider it their legal right to pull out if things didn’t work out to their satisfaction?
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttime.html
Comment by dscott — December 21, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
Pile on to #5: “A ban… would hurt Ohio’s economy.”
- The occasional Ames Surplus run
- The membership at the local range
- And for Xmas, we’re probably getting another gun safe or cabinet
#4 and #6. The Civil War tangent
- Hmmm, I hadn’t realized that was when many militias were disbanded. Thanks
- For what it’s worth, this book may be helpful. I learned a lot reading it last year: “Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Conventioin of 1767″, by Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier.
There’s a lot about the voting blocks at the constitutional convention: big (high population) states vs little states, northern vs southern, steadying population vs growing population. The constitution represented voting based on the present, and ideology, but also expectations for the near future. The foundation for the Civil War was laid in some of the brokering at the Convention for states’ rights vs federal, for impacts to slave ownership.
I’m trying to plow through this one, off and on. Suppose to be one of the better books about the Civil War: “Battle Cry of Freedom” by James McPherson.
Last minute book suggestions for your Christmas List :-)
Comment by Cornfed — December 21, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
#7, we’re theorizing about the Civil War, but aren’t sure. Nice pile on.
Comment by TBlumer — December 22, 2007 @ 12:52 am