HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Mitt Romney: I Like it Wh...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 11:38 PM

Mitt Romney: I Like it When Both the Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun Sides Come Together

No, Governor Romney. We don't need any of your stinkin' compromises. Not on a right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The Second Amendment isn't about hunters like you said at tonight's debate.

You claim you won't sign another AWB like you did in Massachusetts. BULLSHIT! You'll sign whatever compromise bill hits your desk. You LOVE it when the pro-gun and anti-gun sides come together, you said so yourself tonight.

I'm sure you'll also sign CCW Reciprocity... but only if universal background checks are there along with it. De facto registration.

Go fuck yourself, Mittens. You are no ally of gun rights.

40 replies, 3633 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mitt Romney: I Like it When Both the Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun Sides Come Together (Original post)
LAGC Oct 2012 OP
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #1
slackmaster Oct 2012 #2
ellisonz Oct 2012 #3
trouble.smith Oct 2012 #4
ellisonz Oct 2012 #5
trouble.smith Oct 2012 #17
GreenStormCloud Oct 2012 #6
ellisonz Oct 2012 #7
gejohnston Oct 2012 #8
ellisonz Oct 2012 #9
gejohnston Oct 2012 #10
ellisonz Oct 2012 #11
gejohnston Oct 2012 #12
ellisonz Oct 2012 #13
gejohnston Oct 2012 #14
GreenStormCloud Oct 2012 #18
safeinOhio Oct 2012 #19
GreenStormCloud Oct 2012 #20
safeinOhio Oct 2012 #28
GreenStormCloud Oct 2012 #33
aikoaiko Oct 2012 #15
safeinOhio Oct 2012 #29
Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #23
ellisonz Oct 2012 #24
gejohnston Oct 2012 #25
Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #26
Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #27
ellisonz Oct 2012 #30
friendly_iconoclast Oct 2012 #31
gejohnston Oct 2012 #32
Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #34
AtheistCrusader May 2013 #38
glacierbay Oct 2012 #35
Jim Levy May 2013 #37
Horatio12 Oct 2012 #16
Francis Marion Oct 2012 #21
Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #22
AtheistCrusader May 2013 #39
Name removed May 2013 #36
linerpe Jul 2013 #40

Response to LAGC (Original post)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 04:19 PM

1. "Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun sides" is a mechanistic and illogical approach to public policy...

Public policy -- agendas, laws and regulations to address concerns -- is most sound when identifying and defining societal problems, and then addressing them in a manner within the capabilities and purview of government. One does NOT first declare possession of firearms as a problem, then paste together questionable "research" to justify that position. This is the approach of the prohibitionist. The latter approach is still taken by many, and is IMO the result of expediency; that is, to settle some political problem folks have contrived and are upset about.

Saying you want this or that banned or stopped does not get you into the game for free with a guarantee that you will at least "win" something: ante-up the societal problem and show your hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 05:09 PM

2. He's living in some kind of fanatasy world

 

http://non-violent.com/

ETA my experience has been that people who are extremely anti-gun are prone to excessive hostility and even violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 07:40 PM

3. The Second Amendment is about militia service. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 10:07 PM

4. the hell it is. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 10:36 PM

5. How very patriotic. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #5)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 06:19 AM

17. whatever you say buddy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 10:47 PM

6. You can quit beating that dead horse.

The collectivist theory died in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 10:50 PM

7. "collectivist" - is that like socialist?

Paul Ryan, is that you?

In almost every fight we are involved in here, on Capitol Hill...it is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict: individualism vs. collectivism...That is why there is no more fight that is more obvious between the differences of these two conflicts than Social Security. Social Security right now is a collectivist system, it’s a welfare transfer system…..

http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/paul-ryan-social-security-collectivist-socialist-system-must-end


Am I doing the PX-90 wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #7)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 10:59 PM

8. not at all the same thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 11:07 PM

9. A blog post?

Do you have 6 of them from right-wing shills?

Your author:

"In 1990 Shestokas was the Republican nominee for the United States Congress."

http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidshestokas

And nothing has changed (from his twitter):

"I am wowed, amazed & excited by the opportunity to moderate a 2012 presidential debate." C. Crowley TOO WOWED TO BE RIGHT ABOUT LIBYA #tcot
Retweeted by David Shestokas

https://twitter.com/shestokas


Why are you trying to attack me with Republican nonsense?

"please try to be do better."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 11:14 PM

10. it was the first result that came up

Competing Theories of the Meaning of the Second Amendment

There have been two principle interpretations of the Second Amendment, both of which find support in the text. One theory is that is protects the rights of individuals to own weapons with limited government restriction on those rights. The other leading theory is the collectivist theory that proposes the Second Amendment means that the possession of arms shall be protected for the collective defense of the community and that regulation of private ownership by government is constitutional.

The Collectivist Theory of the Second Amendment

The language of the Second Amendment mentions specifically a “well regulated militia”. This wording is relied upon by proponents of strict gun control laws as meaning that constitutional rights to gun ownership are limited to militias as they were understood in the late 18th century. A militia consisted of male citizens who could be mustered for the protection from threats to the community. These threats could be from outside forces, bandits or in those days Indians. Many local laws required gun ownership so that citizens would be available to meet communal threats.

Gun control proponents advance this meaning of the Second Amendment indicates that Congress cannot prohibit States from maintaining a militia and that except in the context of a state militia any regulation of gun ownership is constitutional. Today state militias have been superseded by the National Guard. The Miller case seems to support a collectivist theory.

it does accurately describe the two theories about the second amendment, which was my only goal. Can you point to anything that is inaccurate? I'm guessing you can't since your knowledge on the issue is limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 11:16 PM

11. Glad to see you base your arguments on "the first result that came up"

Yes, one argument is clearly correct in it's reading of the complete sentence that is the Second Amendment and the other tries to pick it apart to support an argument that is not supported by the text. Do you want to guess which one is which in this context?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 11:19 PM

12. the point was simply to explain what

the collective rights theory was, not try to convince you of anything. Or was your goal simply to disrupt GSC? Quite frankly, that is what it seemed to be the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #12)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 11:28 PM

13. lol

It's okay the election will be over soon and the Republican/NRA cabal can like it's wounds from another failed Presidential election. How could Obama win when he supports the AWB?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 11:32 PM

14. because Mitt does too

and he signed one. You missed that? A lot of folks in Montana didn't know that, but do now. Mitt won't be getting their vote either or vote for Obama for other reasons. I actually think it hurt Mitt more than Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #13)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 07:42 AM

18. Even an Obama victory won't bring that dead horse back to life.

Both liberal and conservative courts strongly tend to honor previous court decisions. Heller won't be reversed for a looooong time, if at all. Even Obama has said that 2A is an individual right and does not depend upon service in a militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #18)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 08:41 AM

19. Like the court says in it's majority opinions...

it is an individual right subject to local, state and federal restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #19)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 10:34 AM

20. Requiring militia service is NOT one of those restrictions.

Other restrictions are still to be fought over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #20)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 10:56 PM

28. Other than owning a gun in the home,

looks like everything else is on the table according to Scalia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #28)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 11:32 PM

33. Everything else is still to be decided by legislation and litigation. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #3)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 12:29 AM

15. The Second Amendment is about the people keeping and bearing arms.


When the people keep and bear arms, then a militia can formed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #15)


Response to ellisonz (Reply #3)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 12:32 PM

23. That is correct.

 

The Second Amendment is about militia service.

That is correct. The people are to keep and bear military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use during militia service.

This does not mean that that is the only thing those arms can be used for, but it does stipulate a reason, even the primary reason that the founders enumerated the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #23)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 02:20 PM

24. However, this does not usurp the clear intent of the Constitution...

...to provide for the public safety.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #24)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 02:26 PM

25. but the empirical evidence shows

the AWB did nothing for public safety any more than Canada's stricter laws have done anything for theirs since 1977 (prior to 1977 their laws were about as strict if not laxer than ours.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #24)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 03:46 PM

26. However, you cannot infringe on the second amendment to provide for the public safety.

 

However, this does not usurp the clear intent of the Constitution to provide for the public safety.

However, you cannot infringe on the second amendment to provide for the public safety.

The government is limited in the things that it can do to provide that public safety. According to the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not to provide for public safety nor any other reason.

There are many things that the federal government could do to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" that are not allowed by the US Constitution.

Stop and Frisk, for starters. Listening in on all electronic communications without a warrant, for seconds.

The government does not have carte blanche to provide for the public safety, and the right to keep and bear arms is specifically noted as "shall not be infringed".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #24)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 03:49 PM

27. So how do you reconcile keeping militia-useful weapons with public safety?

 

However, this does not usurp the clear intent of the Constitution to provide for the public safety.

So since we agree that the second amendment is about using weapons in a militia, and thus the people need to keep and bear weapons suitable for such use, how do you reconcile that with public safety?

Seems to me if you want the people to be armed with military-grade weapons appropriate for infantry use in a militia you are going to have to give up a little public safety for that freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #27)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 11:06 PM

30. You could keep your assault weapons at the armory...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #30)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 11:10 PM

31. Unacceptable on practical, historical, and political grounds.

Militias keep their battle rifles at home, from long before 1775 Massachusetts up to present-day Switzerland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #30)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 11:17 PM

32. a true assault weapon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon
using the technical term would be, since it is not an individual weapon. What you think of as an "assault weapon"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon is simply an ugly carbine that happens to be semi automatic. Yes, in the proper caliber and five round magazine, they are legal for hunting. If you are talking about an assault rifle, which have been strictly regulated since the 1930s, they could be militia issue and property, until you retire. At that time, the rifle becomes your property, like Switzerland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Personally, if I purchase in item with my money I should not have to let some other person have control of it.

I'm sure you remember Paul Revere's ride (Miss Ludington rode a longer distance, but history seems to ignore great women, especially if they are only 16, but I digress). What was the mission of those British troops? Oh yeah, to destroy stored equipment in central supply depots and armories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_Ludington

I'm not a fan of centralized anything, especially military logistics and communications (or power grids. Solar panels on roofs are better for national security as well as the planet than have several million people dependent on one coal fired or nuke plant.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #30)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 09:35 AM

34. If the government is keeping them this is not the same as The People keeping them.

 

The second amendment does not say that the right of the people to keep arms at the local armory shall not be infringed.

Clearly they are intended to be kept at home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #24)

Thu May 23, 2013, 05:09 PM

38. If you wish to alter or re-tool the second amendment, there is a process to do so

commensurate with the excerpt you have chosen from the preamble of the constitution.

You seem to get hung up on the 'why' or 'whereas', without paying any attention to the 'what it DOES' bits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 09:49 AM

35. If that's what keeps you warm and fuzzy at night

 

more power to you, meanwhile, the SCOTUS has spoken and now it's settled law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #3)

Thu May 23, 2013, 02:38 AM

37. The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you.

 

Now, I COULD, accept your knowledge and expertise on Constitutional Law OR, I could defer to those who have trained their entire careers to interpret the Constitution in a modern context based on the intent of the framers.

What's a guy to do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 11:14 AM

21. Obama and Romney vie for 'Salesman of the Decade'

Look for Romney's mug alongside the President's in your local gun store.

(For people who may not visit gun stores, for the past four years, President Obama's photo may be found mounted on the wall in a place of honor as Top Salesman.)

What a sad mess. The President doesn't get the Bill of Rights. AK-47s- even if you COULD buy them here- exactly match the purpose specified by Amendment II. But people CAN'T buy an AK-47 in the local gun store, despite what anybody may call them. You could call Romney a staunch advocate of gun rights, but that certainly doesn't make him one. It's just not an AK-47 unless it complies with AK-47 design specifications, including, most importantly, full-automatic 'machine gun' capability.

So where are the real AK-47s? Maybe a veteran or two has one stashed in the attic from Vietnam, but that's basically it in the general population. For example, there's a particular photo from the Wounded Knee standoff in which one of the activists had an AK-47; I wonder where that came from. Also, Hollywood is exempt from gun laws that We the Peons have to obey; they enjoy liberal, expansive protections to have machine guns. WTH?! The right of Hollywood to keep and bear arms has not been infringed.

The real agenda? Like segregation, it is the establishment of bad legal precedent to degrade the Bill of Rights: to ban any semi automatic firearm or standard capacity magazine which Government chooses, for any or for no reason.

"Shall not be infringed" really means "Shall infringe the hell out of." Unless you work in the movies. Eh, what about equal protection under the law? Is Hollywood a 'militia'? Some of the animals were more equal than others...

I don't know who will do a poorer job next term, Romney or the President, of preserving our right to keep and bear arms.

But it's our fault for hiring people like them. At the end of four years, expect to have less freedom to keep and bear arms. Buy accordingly now.

If you live in a state where you can buy standard capacity magazines, have at least twelve for each firearm. Get them before your ban comes.

Behind the Orange Curtain,

-FM



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 12:30 PM

22. "I Like it When Both the Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun Sides Come Together" - So I can ban assault rifles.

 

Own it, Mitt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #22)

Thu May 23, 2013, 05:10 PM

39. He can't own it.

Gotta get ready for his next run at the oval office, you see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 05:39 AM

40. The gun has long been a symbol

The gun has long been a symbol of influence and maleness.In popular writing frontier escapade was most notably told by James Fenimore Cooper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread