So I take it as he supports the 2nd with limits. If he is one of those that says the founding fathers never knew automatic weapons would exist maybe we should take his microphone away. No way the founding fathers would have known you could amplify your voice to be easily heard by hundreds or even thousands at the same time.
I'll be happy to help you understand Romney's "impossibly contradictory answer" :
I've shot automatic weapons before under the supervision of a police department, but I don't think someone should go to purchase an assault weapon for private use.
Romney used the example of an f-16 fighter jet and using machine-guns in the military.
Try watching the clip again and see if you can see what Romney is talking about now that I've explained the analogy to you.
Never really understood properly why Americans think that having guns protects them from government. The tax-man comes knocking, you going to just shoot him?
@DukeofWellington91 no,but if you had a couple of thousand other people with guns standing next to you do you really think the taxman will still be comin knocking.thats its all about forming militia's what are they going to do kill their brothers and sisters I doubt it,it's the west its not africa.
@TheJimbo4123 And when was the last time that happened? Face the facts your politicians and courts have consistently subverted and undermined your constitution for every presidency since Jefferson. You have done nothing. The 2nd amendment has made absolutely no difference, you are no more free, and by some reckoning less free, than many European countries where guns are illegal.
What a joke Romney is. He truly believes that his sons are "serving their country" by helping him get elected to office instead of enlisting in the military to fight all of the military industrial complex created wars he supports so much.
As an interesting side note; Not a single private, legally owned fully automatic weapon has been used in the commission of a crime since the Gun Control Act of 1934 required the registration, background checks, and tax to own one.
Also, there is a backdoor ban on these weapons, as it is illegal to sell any class 3 weapon that was manufactured on or after September 30th 1998 to the public. Any class 3 firearm manufactured after that date can only be sold or transferred to law enforcement or military. Eventually, all of the weapons made before that date will be inoperable, thus banning fully automatic weapons without actually banning them.
Apparently Mitt is unaware that fully automatic weapons ARE legal to own b y the general public. You just have to have a small fortune to be able to own one. It is only a $200.00 tax stamp that is required, but you also have to pass the Federal background check. However, because they are so stringently regulated, and the cost of the weapons themselves is very high.
@dkaw1 what part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand?
Automatic weapons are illegal in Mexico but the drug cartel criminals dont give a damn and the people are defenseless and being murdered.
Gun control is simply a tool by government criminals to disarm the people and make them dependent. You know a generation of brave men fought and died to guarantee these rights and we are just gonna let scum bag politicians piss them away for votes to make losers feel warm and safe.
@labartic Did I give the impression that I am for gun control? If I thought that Romney would make it a point to pass more strick gun laws he would never have my support. Does anyone understand that he governed one of the most liberal states in the nation?
@dkaw1 I guess youre saying because he governed a liberal state that he should be trying to please his liberal voters more than upholding his oath to office to defend the constitution.
He is a politician and just wants to be re-elected. He doesnt give a damn about the constitution. He is also full of shit, supporting the wars but not having his boys sign up to go fight.
There should be a law, if you are a public figure supporting the war, you should sign up until we have won.
@labartic Romney is a man that could spend the rest of his life taking it easy with money that he earned. He doesn't have the ego you or other Romney haters say he has. But don't get me wrong I would never say he makes the perfect politician there are always going to be some things you would do a little different.
@labartic Also we have a volunteer military. It works great that way. Anyone that forces their son to enlist doesn't get my respect. I never considered joining the military in my younger days but that doesn't make me unpatriotic. I do admire and respect those that serve in the armed forces but it doesn't mean you are un-American if you don't .
@dkaw1 Talk is cheap. If he really believed that, then he would not have voted for the assault weapons ban no matter what groups told him to do it. This guy is full of shit.
How about you stop worshiping at the altar of Romney and start praising God, natural rights, and the Constitution. Are you Mormon by chance?
@labartic Show me a better presidential candidate and he/she will have my vote. Yes, I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and am proud to be a Mormon. How about you? Do you claim a faith?
@wdwrightii Ron Paul is a better candidate. Look him up. When Romney was laughing at Pauls predictions for the economy during the debates he totally discredited himself as a good candidate because all of Pauls predictions have come true.
I dont know why your Church has Christ's name in it. You believe in Joseph Smith, not Jesus Christ. I am a Christian, youre not. real Christians dont believe the words of Joseph smith supersede those of Christ.
@labartic You doged the question. There are 1,000's of "Christian" denominations out there. You don't claim one in particular? Why not divulge? We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. As for Ron Paul, if he wins the GOP nomination I will vote for him.
@wdwrightii You belong to a cult? Fucking wacko. I would rather be an atheist than believe in the twisted teaching of the moron church. Oh,and Ron Paul was a better candidate.
who cares if machine guns were readily available to the public? And it's not like they are stopping anyone now. In most states almost anyone can own a machinegun with 200 buvks to the ATF and about 3.5k you can pick up a mac 10 with a silencer. I think we should make full auto's more availble to ensure our government doesn't try to pass bullshit laws!
They are legal. But only under conditions and if you're rich. Check out the real reasons they are regulated so heavily. You will find that it leads you to prohibition and many leftover agents that no longer had laws/regulation to enforce.
I didn't see him flip flop once. He supports a ban on automatic weapons to the PUBLIC. In this video he says he has no problem with them being used for a PRIVATE fundraiser at a gun range. He also says he supports the 2nd amendment which is "the right to bear arms." Automatic guns weren't introduced until mid 20th century, therefore aren't included in the second amendment.
I think you fail to realize the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It was to allow the people to rise up against tyrannical government be it foreign or domestic. When it was written, the government AND the citizens had the exact same arms and there were limited types; therefor there was no reason be be specific. Also, you need to brush up on some things, gatling guns (probably considered automatic..) were around in the 1800's.
The entire purpose of the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry the power to resist and overthrow the government in the event that it becomes tyrannical.
You seem to forget the first sentence of the 2nd Amendment... "Being necessary to the security of a free state..." The 2nd amendment gives the people the right to possess arms powerful enough to resist our own government. Try resisting tyranny in this day and age with a bunch of black powder rifles. Auto's are therefore, necessary.
Automatic weapons are already not "readily available." It's a tedious process and very expensive to get one. Semi autos are not "Assault Weapons." I have a CA legal M1A, that I put into a different stock with a pistol grip/buttstock/flash suppressor. All of which are COSMETIC and have nothing to do with the operation of that firearm. It's 3 Felonies if I took it to CA now or some other scum bucket lib state, just because it looks scary. Also, STOP MAKING SEMI AUTOS OUT TO BE FULL AUTOS!
In the same breath that he states he supports second amendment rights he contradicts himself. Gun rights are not just about recreation, they're about civilians protecting themselves from tyrannical government.
@StandFastinLiberty your an idiot. even if the government allowed you to have a fully automatic m-16, would that really protect you from the power and might of the federal government?
I used to be a big supporter of Romney, but to be honest I'd rather have an assult rifle in my home than Romney in the White House. It's unfortunate that he doesn't share the belief that I have the right to own firearms, but then again, he's from the People's Republic of Massachusettes and it has affected his mind.
you have to pay a tax and pass an extensive background check.
what mitt was saying just goes to show that many anti-gunners are ignorant and need to do some research if they want to be legit,the fact is though that anti-gunners cant back up what they say and they avoid the fact that tens of thousands of lives are SAVED each year by firearms.the late Jeff Cooper coined a tearm for these people.He called them hoplophobes.
Come on. Would people please think. Look in nations that have enacted complete bans on guns have seen gun crime rise by 400%. In Massachusetts where I live and where gun control is the most strict we have seen gun crimes rise 300% compared to other places where the citizens are armed. Those area's have seen a decrease in crime.
Criminals don't want to get shot and thats why crime goes down. The people are responsible enough to own firearms
Sooo..its ok for him to play with these weapons but no one else can?WTF is that!Thats as bad as that fat cow Rossie wanting guns baned but not her ARMED body guard.This guy is just like me.He is a citizen,a public citizen,so what makes his shit not stink so he can play with guns?
Good luck getting it. You can produce LSD if you have the tax stamp.... there are only 3 LSD tax stamps in existance. It is a prohibition, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Not a little infringed, NOT AT ALL.
the tax stamp is easy to get if you pass the background check.i know several people who own full-auto guns.also a friend of mine isa class3 dealer and ive seen him sell everything from the H&K g3a3 to the m2 .50 browning mg.
Yeah, I know, I have a full auto MAC-11 [converted from 380 auto to 9mm] --- that SOB cost me $3600 --- think about that. The gun is older than me, and cost less than $100 to make. There has only been one proven case of a legal full auto weapon being used in a crime, and the crime was committed by a cop.
My point is that we should scrap that clause about not allowing any full autos made after '86.
I agree. The Constitution says we have a right to own "arms," not merely "pistols."
Also, I'm barred from bearing many other types of arms because I live in the People's Democratic Republic of California. Not sure how they can get away with all of that, either.
The only way I MIGHT consider locking my weapon away is for the police, security, body guards of so-called important people, etc. tuck their guns away FIRST. I have absolutely no intent to be the one they pry anything "from my cold dead hands crap", nope, I will remain peaceful and informed and if a man in the name of "law" breaks law to enforce an authority over me then he becomes a lawbreaker, period. In that regard it is then I lock and load and shoot his ass and deal with whatever happens.
Wow I'm glad this guy is out of the running.Did anybody understand his answer? I couldn't. Sounded like he said he supports the 2nd Amendment, but doesn't want us to have certain types of guns.
So which kind are okay? My old Remington model 514 .22 caliber bolt action single shot rifle? Maybe I can be trusted with that, but not my Ruger 10/22. It's semi automatic (sometimes confused by the drive by media with "full auto".
ME TOO!! I agree with everything you said! I'm in the NRA and I think anyone whos not and wants our rights protected should join! All Gun Control does is get people killed inocent people. Like GUN FREE ZONES! at VA.TECH> al it would have taken is a few honest CCW holders and it would hae saved lives! Did the killer pay any attention to the GUN FREE ZONE? NO So do they work? They do if you want to kill inocent unarmed people!
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government." --Thomas Jefferson
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).
This count as what they meant buy "Militia" for you?
You Lose......AGAIN!
Let me know when you want to be schooled on something again. This has been fun watching you try and squirm around the subject. LOL
The fact that we have some (all be it) gun laws proves your the one being schooled. I'm sure Justice Burger is spinning in his grave if he knew of your nonsense.
The restrictive gun laws preventing law abiding citizens from defending themselves are unconstitutional and the writings of the framers of the Constitution bear that out. Try reaqding them. Being deprived of our rights by lawyers and politicians does not constitute nor support of your opinion.
Yes, 200 + years of politicians and lawyers support my opinions vs. you and a group of rightwing nutjobs support your opinion. BTW, open up a history book (and give the NRA's propaganda literature a rest) and you will find out that many of these people that you quote are (gasp!) lawyers and/ or politicians. And considered liberal to boot.
Again read slowly, Marbury vs. Madison decided who gets to interprete the law regarding the Constitution. If you want I can recommend some good history books to you while you give your rightwing lierature a rest. Over 200 years of case law have given their verdicts. Statements even by great men such as Jefferson and Lee don't trump cases decided in courts. We are a country of laws, not off the cuff opinions.
You keep trying to put a label on me. You going to call me a "Neocon" next? Sorry but you couldn't be more wrong on that as you are on this one. "Off the cuff opinions"? Hardly. But you are ready to accept legistlating from the bench of a political appointee? But only of THIS topic I suppose.
Can't say I know the context of when this statement was uttered but I know that he wasn't the sole decider of this issue. He must have been overruled or changed his mind because when it was ratified the 2nd amendment stayed the way it appears today. One man's opinion doesn't decide the interpretation of the Constitution, irregardless of what King George Bush thinks.
Gee guys, it looks to me like the founding fathers intent was that the rights of Law Abiding citizens(aka PEOPLE) to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. What's YOUR read?
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine(1775).
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee Founding Father
"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." - James Madison
I'm assuming every man includes Choi (the VT killer), the Columbine pair,etc. Every man does mean every man has unregulated access to bear arms. Your absolute right does put you in a very poor position.
Again you show your feebleness by not even reading anything. cho, aka the murdering bastard, was able to pass his background check due to the privacy laws pushede through by liberal courts and weak willed politicians. The Columbine murderers broke 20 laws in acquireing the guns they used. The BOR supports Lawful citizens and your attempt is a sad grasp at straws.
Again read slowly and try to understand. The 2nd amendment is pertains to the militia; it doesn't allow all citizens to have or not have guns. Fortunately the courts do have some regulations to prevent these mentioned killers from obtaining guns. Your interpretation is an absolute right, not a provisional right. Yes, the columbine murders broke GUN LAWS so thank you for making my point.
"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so" --Adolph Hitler. Gun Control advocates unite behind your master!
Do you really think WW II hinged on the issue of the German populace being armed or unarmed? I realize that is a cute little quote to bandy about but it really has no consequence to history. The French Army was loaded with guns. How did that turn out? The Polish Army beared arms. How did that work out? The same with the Dutch, Belgian, Russian armies.
What does Hitler have to do with the 2nd amendment again?
Because if the German public had been armed and willing to resist Hitler when he first began to destroy democracy in Germany and seize power he would never been able to build the army and focus it on any other county. Notice how the US crushed Iraq's army but is incapable of crushing the resistance of an armed population. The real problem would have been the overwhelming support for Hitler by the German population. First you need the guns, then you need a vigilant public.
You don't honestly believe Hitler couldn't have built his army with an armed populace? The US can't control Iraq because it is an unpopular occupation with fanatics happy to die for their 72 virgins. Unpopular occupations are messy, armed or unarmed. But again, what does Hitler have to do with the 2nd amendment except the chance for you to spout the NRA's talking point?
I read history books without a political agenda. It would do you a world of good to read something that doesn't reinforce your misperceptions of factual history. Go to a library and check them out.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
Doesn't look like the writings of a man who believes in disarming citizens to me.
Adams, Lee, Paine, Madison and all the other too huh? None of their writings NOR Jefferson's support you. Again I'll ask you; If they intended that only the MILITIA be armed, WHY didn't they disarm the PEOPLE? I'll give you a hand on this. They didn't! Because they wanted the PEOPLE to be ARMED! IF you have a different answer, put it here. Otherwise wipe your nose and shove off.
Conversely, being armed doesn't make you a militia member. And yes, to have a well regulated militia the people must be armed... that's exactly what the 2nd amendment stresses.
There you have it ladies and gentlemen. A well regulated militia, being necessary to a FREE state, The Right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.
In the 1780 and 1790's (when the Constitution was being written), the founding fathers had a full dance card. They could deal with famine, pestilence, disease, raising revenue, stopping insurrections,etc. or deal with the question of 'should little Johnny be able to walk into a mall with an Uzi in 2008'. They chose to tackle the more sensical problems. Oh yes, they were also forming a well regulated militia. Are you really trying or just throwing me these softball questions on purpose?
You're another one who won't answer this question: IF the founding fathers intended that ONLY Militias were permitted to be armed, then why did they not disarm the public?
Because this amendment concerns the arming of the militias, not addressing non-militia unlimited right to bear arms. Again, I bring up all the court cases that ruled against your interpretation. You can pit your enlightenment against the various judges.
You keep beating that drum. jurists with political affiliations that affect their application of the law of the land have little value if any at all. The few cases you regard as proof positive are far from a dog fall for you.
Yes, I'm applying laws with actual court cases instead of some special interest group's ideology. In Marbury vs. Madison(oops, I'm quoting Supreme Court cases again with a Constitution's author to boot), ruled that the courts will decide the legitimacy of laws passed.
The people ARE the militia, as explained in my other post. If you don't have armed citizens, YOU HAVE NO MILITIA!
Hence, in order for the country to maintain a viable militia, (aside from organized military, as explained before) a country must have armed citizens.
You don't have to sign up, as said before, if you're an able-bodied male, between 17 and 45, you're considered part of the militia.
That probably scares the piss out of you, and you'll probably reject that truth, but there it is.
All you armchair constitutional scholars should discover how this amendment has always been adjudicated by the courts. It has always been for a well regulated militia and not a unregulated right to bear arms.
Legislation from the bench by district courts hardly counts for anything.
The Supreme Court will be ruling on a Second Amendment issue for the first time in history. We'll see how things go when real judges actually review it.
Since you don't even understand the concept of what the "militia" is, I'm not even going to waste my time with you. Run along, and leave the thinking to the intelligent folks.
Since you clearly don't understand the nature of a "militia" let me explain. The "Militia" is the body of citizens -- more specifically able-bodied men -- who are able to take up arms and defend their homeland in time of war. The militia is very different from the organized military.
And if you are a male between the ages of 17 and 45, you yourself are, by definition, part of said militia.
Without citizen ownership of arms, we essentially have no militia.
I think that all of us here have accepted the fact that you are unwilling to take up arms in defense of our country and the luives of your family and friends. Now why can't you let the rest of us do what you lack the intestial fortitude to do? We promise that we won't try to save you from any criminalsso long as you clearly identify yourself as a willing victim by flagging your domicile and person while out and about.
Furthermore, while "bear" doesn't mean to own, "keep" DOES! Pick up a dictionary!
The wording is very clear -- The right of people to own and carry (as in concealed carry) arms (as in guns and other weapons) will not be taken from them or hampered... It takes a special kind of idiot to not be able to understand that.
It's not convenient to your position, but there it is; penned by out nation's fathers, on the founding document of this country.
Wow, you really do struggle, don't you? It doesn't say "The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you think it says that, then you need to read it again. The amendment applies to the right of the PEOPLE, not the MILITIA!
If you want to know what the Amendment meant, read some of the words and writings of the men who authored it. Their intent is very clear. If you brush up on your reading comprehension, you could learn a lot from picking up a book.
You're the one who wants to ignore the fact that the right is recognized as being a right of the people, and not a right granted to your "militia".
The First Amendment could also be twisted into something it's not. You could say that the only legitimate reason for the people to assemble, is to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." But only a fool would try to make such an absurd argument.
"Noone's suggesting that automatic weapons be made available to the public." I am! Criminals will have them regardless of their legality and that puts the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage to defend himself. I effectively can turn my Glock semi-auto handgun into a machinegun with a piece of dow rod, and it's legal.
No, no it's most certainly not. The law explicitly outlaws any weapon that will fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger, and will continue firing until the trigger is released, or ammunition is exhausted.
Hell, the BATF has even ruled a shoestring to be a machine gun if you use it to to make your gun fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger.
You're looking at a felony conviction, and up to 10 years in prison if you go converting your guns to full-auto.
he was ''NOT FLUSTERED''..they and he used the word AUT-Omatic(illegal)....its semi-automatic that the ANTI-GUN DEMS are trying to ban and trying to twist. Romneys answer was fine. Anti-gun people are tricky..
"AUT-Omatics" are actually legal to own as long as they are registered. Assuming your state allows them (most do allow), if you can own a handgun then generally you can pass the background check for a machine gun.
It's as simple as some paperwork, fees (taxes), and a short waiting period.
I'm not sure what he's saying in his answer. "They" wouldn't ever have to sign someting allowing F/A guns because automatic weapons ARE legally available to the public. A few states restrict the ownership of full auto weapons, but a majority of states do allow the ownership of FA guns, silencers, etc...
The real issue is the cost of these legal F/A weapons due to supply and demand. Most people can own them and most people can't afford them.
This is exactly correct. The supply is only low because of the government ban, thus the government has artificially raised the price of automatic weapons. Those of us who can't afford the $20k+ M16 just have to bump-fire!
You haven't understood nor try to understand a single thing about the Constitution or teh Bill of Rights since you came into this thread. You've denigrated to useing vulgar language when you can't sidestep around the question any more. You've proved yourself to be nothing but a troll. You lose.
I myself am in favor of gun rights, but you did lose this argument with john135246. He asked a simple question over and over and you couldn't answer it. And then you had to use negative words against him. Why go that low? You said individuals have the right. His argument was why even use the word militia when it is for individual rights? Its valid question you didn't answer it, you brought up negative words. That is why you lost. Then saying someone else lost makes you worse off.
To understand the interpretation of the Constitution, let's see what the courts have decided. US Supreme Court: U.S. vs. Miller (1939); Lewis vs. U.S. (1980) or the op-ed piece by retired chief Warren Burger in the 11/26/1991 Keene Sentinel. Are you more enlightened about this document then these judges?
Besides the 2 USSC cases and Justice Burger's opinion, I have a list of 18 US Court of Appeals cases, 5 US Federal District Court cases and 11 State Court cases that support the militia interpretation of the Second Amendment. I could tell them to you. Do you have an equal number to counter?
liberal jurists have been around for a long time. Do you believe that appointed, not elected, jurists are more apt to rule on the side of the law, or on the side of the party that put them there? The facts of that, far outweigh your so called opinions and cases.
So what you are trying to say is about 200 years of the Constitution is irrelevant because some of the jurists are (were) liberals? Maybe liberals were appointed more often because they represent the will of the people. I don't know about your state but many judges are voted on (I'm guessing all states vote for state judges). Can I assume you don't have the court cases to counter the ones that I offered and only have your opinion to counter with?
The SCOTUS is appointed by the Pres and approved by the Senate and House. NOT the people. Federal Judges are appointed by the Pres. Hard left liberals are far from the will of the people. They might be the will of those who want the government to have complete control of our lives but certainly not the people en mass.
Your entire argument is ludicrous. You don't even consider the whole sentence at all and focus on one word in it and not even how the word is used. It is only one sentence even though you said it was two earlier if you recall. The fact remains, even though you can't seem to grasp the fact, that the BOR was written to identify the "Individual" rights of the "People" of the United States.
Because you can't seem to grasp the fact that the entire Bill of Rights is centered on the rights of individuals, that's why. Haven't you read anything about it? There is not a single thing in it that is for only people who belong to a particular group. There is no membership requirement save that you be an American citizen.
Why use "Militia"? Because it's better grammer than writing out; An armed group of citizens, who recieve no pay for their service, who are not members of the US Military or National Guard, being necessary for the security of a free state, etc
I don't think that Madison and others were too worried about brevity of words. Their intention was to outline the necessity of a militia, not to arm people. Actually this is a provisional right, not necessarily to arm or unarm people on the national level. But this certainly isn't meant to guarantee the right to bear arms.
IF, the meaning of the 2nd is that only State Militias were permitted to be armed, WHY wasn't any attempt to disarm the general public made until the 20th century?
Who has tried to disarm the general public? This makes no sense. There has been some regulation but even the wacko National Rifle Ass. hasn't come up with this scare tactic.
See the statements and speeches of all leaders of the anti gun lobby. See the laws in New York City and any other city or state that denies legal gun ownership. See Handgun Control Inc. See the "Brady" people. Come on! You can't possibly be saying that you have never heard of them.
Open a book. The founders made it clear that arms are an individual right. While the 2nd amendment appears confusing to us, there was no question based on the founders' own statements, they felt an armed citizenry was a necessity. Liberals don't acknowledge this because this part of the constitution is inconvenient for their position.
I can't belive it. You are actually basing your entire argument on "militia" being used in the wording? Have you paid attention to any of the other words in the BOR? There cannot BE a "Militia" if the "People" are unarmed. The National Guard and the US Military are not a Militia. Not by any definition. Just who makes up this "militia" that the author is talking about then?
What a load. I HAVE answered you. Do you not know that the Bill of Rights is about the rights of the individual? You make claims of being "attacked"? LOL YOU claimed the 2nd Ammendment was in TWO sentences. WRONG! YOU said "You proved my point it says people of the militia." WRONG! Since these examples could point to dislexia I asked if you were so afflicted. You call that an attack. That's sad.
Automatic weapons ARE available to the public, Mitt, ya ignorant jerk. Anyone can go to Ye Olde Gun Shoppe, fill out a Form 4, undergo the requisite background check, and get a machine gun. The feds have legislated the prices sky-high, but they ain't made 'em illegal - yet.
Nice attempt at deflection sonny but you have yet to answer anything. The 2nd ammendment, as well as all the others, are about the individuals rights. You know, The PEOPLE. I was being sincere about the dislexia thing because, well, just read some of your posts.
He seemed better than the other suck-ass candidates. I'd heard he tended to have vague, ambiguous positions. Just, until now, I had absolutely no idea how bad it was.
Like i keep saying, let all of these anti gun people have one half of the country, and let the rest of us who are smart enough to know how to use them right fortify the other half and not let them in...It's a fail-safe idea. We keep our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, and they can have their "safety".
If you were to read any of the other writings of the signers of this document you can see clearly their intent. Did they disarm the citizens after the Revolutionary War? No. Did they disarm the citizens after the War of 1812? No. Now Just WHEN and by WHOM did disarming citizens sound like a good thing?
So I take it as he supports the 2nd with limits. If he is one of those that says the founding fathers never knew automatic weapons would exist maybe we should take his microphone away. No way the founding fathers would have known you could amplify your voice to be easily heard by hundreds or even thousands at the same time.
shananagans5 9 months ago
it takes a bit to get western people to dissent,but the audacity of modern governments is getting worse.
TheJimbo4123 11 months ago
I'll be happy to help you understand Romney's "impossibly contradictory answer" :
I've shot automatic weapons before under the supervision of a police department, but I don't think someone should go to purchase an assault weapon for private use.
Romney used the example of an f-16 fighter jet and using machine-guns in the military.
Try watching the clip again and see if you can see what Romney is talking about now that I've explained the analogy to you.
phillip84109 11 months ago
Never really understood properly why Americans think that having guns protects them from government. The tax-man comes knocking, you going to just shoot him?
DukeofWellington91 1 year ago
@DukeofWellington91 no,but if you had a couple of thousand other people with guns standing next to you do you really think the taxman will still be comin knocking.thats its all about forming militia's what are they going to do kill their brothers and sisters I doubt it,it's the west its not africa.
TheJimbo4123 11 months ago
@TheJimbo4123 And when was the last time that happened? Face the facts your politicians and courts have consistently subverted and undermined your constitution for every presidency since Jefferson. You have done nothing. The 2nd amendment has made absolutely no difference, you are no more free, and by some reckoning less free, than many European countries where guns are illegal.
DukeofWellington91 11 months ago
What a joke Romney is. He truly believes that his sons are "serving their country" by helping him get elected to office instead of enlisting in the military to fight all of the military industrial complex created wars he supports so much.
imbroglio1 1 year ago
As an interesting side note; Not a single private, legally owned fully automatic weapon has been used in the commission of a crime since the Gun Control Act of 1934 required the registration, background checks, and tax to own one.
Magman454 1 year ago
Also, there is a backdoor ban on these weapons, as it is illegal to sell any class 3 weapon that was manufactured on or after September 30th 1998 to the public. Any class 3 firearm manufactured after that date can only be sold or transferred to law enforcement or military. Eventually, all of the weapons made before that date will be inoperable, thus banning fully automatic weapons without actually banning them.
Magman454 1 year ago
Apparently Mitt is unaware that fully automatic weapons ARE legal to own b y the general public. You just have to have a small fortune to be able to own one. It is only a $200.00 tax stamp that is required, but you also have to pass the Federal background check. However, because they are so stringently regulated, and the cost of the weapons themselves is very high.
Magman454 1 year ago
The broad asking the question in this video needs to shut up and Romney is a turd.
NRPBrute 1 year ago
The 2nd amendment is NOT NOT NOT about hunting, class 2 weapons should be legal to the public, a Romney is a complete moron. Ron Paul 2012
RyanR3volution 1 year ago
wow what a douche. the ignorance is insane.
slickbtk 1 year ago
balls
utube44333 1 year ago
HEY MITT, FUCK YOU!
0122358 1 year ago
You have to love the Romney haters out there. Can anyone really find something terrible about this man? I think it is hard to do.
dkaw1 1 year ago
@dkaw1 what part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand?
Automatic weapons are illegal in Mexico but the drug cartel criminals dont give a damn and the people are defenseless and being murdered.
Gun control is simply a tool by government criminals to disarm the people and make them dependent. You know a generation of brave men fought and died to guarantee these rights and we are just gonna let scum bag politicians piss them away for votes to make losers feel warm and safe.
labartic 1 year ago
@labartic Did I give the impression that I am for gun control? If I thought that Romney would make it a point to pass more strick gun laws he would never have my support. Does anyone understand that he governed one of the most liberal states in the nation?
dkaw1 1 year ago
@dkaw1 I guess youre saying because he governed a liberal state that he should be trying to please his liberal voters more than upholding his oath to office to defend the constitution.
He is a politician and just wants to be re-elected. He doesnt give a damn about the constitution. He is also full of shit, supporting the wars but not having his boys sign up to go fight.
There should be a law, if you are a public figure supporting the war, you should sign up until we have won.
labartic 1 year ago
@labartic Romney is a man that could spend the rest of his life taking it easy with money that he earned. He doesn't have the ego you or other Romney haters say he has. But don't get me wrong I would never say he makes the perfect politician there are always going to be some things you would do a little different.
dkaw1 1 year ago
@labartic Also we have a volunteer military. It works great that way. Anyone that forces their son to enlist doesn't get my respect. I never considered joining the military in my younger days but that doesn't make me unpatriotic. I do admire and respect those that serve in the armed forces but it doesn't mean you are un-American if you don't .
dkaw1 1 year ago
@labartic In addition Romey believes the Constitution was inspired of God. To say he doesn't give a #*!$ about it is a joke.
dkaw1 1 year ago
@dkaw1 Talk is cheap. If he really believed that, then he would not have voted for the assault weapons ban no matter what groups told him to do it. This guy is full of shit.
How about you stop worshiping at the altar of Romney and start praising God, natural rights, and the Constitution. Are you Mormon by chance?
labartic 1 year ago
@labartic Show me a better presidential candidate and he/she will have my vote. Yes, I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and am proud to be a Mormon. How about you? Do you claim a faith?
wdwrightii 1 year ago
@wdwrightii Ron Paul is a better candidate. Look him up. When Romney was laughing at Pauls predictions for the economy during the debates he totally discredited himself as a good candidate because all of Pauls predictions have come true.
I dont know why your Church has Christ's name in it. You believe in Joseph Smith, not Jesus Christ. I am a Christian, youre not. real Christians dont believe the words of Joseph smith supersede those of Christ.
But I know its hopeless bothering with you
labartic 1 year ago
@labartic You doged the question. There are 1,000's of "Christian" denominations out there. You don't claim one in particular? Why not divulge? We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. As for Ron Paul, if he wins the GOP nomination I will vote for him.
wdwrightii 1 year ago
@wdwrightii You belong to a cult? Fucking wacko. I would rather be an atheist than believe in the twisted teaching of the moron church. Oh,and Ron Paul was a better candidate.
NRPBrute 1 year ago
@NRPBrute Yes I am very proud to be a cult member. I do my best to live a good life.
dkaw1 1 year ago
who cares if machine guns were readily available to the public? And it's not like they are stopping anyone now. In most states almost anyone can own a machinegun with 200 buvks to the ATF and about 3.5k you can pick up a mac 10 with a silencer. I think we should make full auto's more availble to ensure our government doesn't try to pass bullshit laws!
ithouston 1 year ago
Where is he flustered here? Nice try.
gombis666 1 year ago
Automatic firearms should be legal.
smartbomb33 2 years ago 5
They are legal. But only under conditions and if you're rich. Check out the real reasons they are regulated so heavily. You will find that it leads you to prohibition and many leftover agents that no longer had laws/regulation to enforce.
eifersucht2 1 year ago 2
No really, they are not legal, not in the sense that they cannot make the guns anymore. We can thank that SOB Reagan for that.
FromyColdeadHands 1 year ago
I didn't see him flip flop once. He supports a ban on automatic weapons to the PUBLIC. In this video he says he has no problem with them being used for a PRIVATE fundraiser at a gun range. He also says he supports the 2nd amendment which is "the right to bear arms." Automatic guns weren't introduced until mid 20th century, therefore aren't included in the second amendment.
Jimd5353 2 years ago
I think you fail to realize the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It was to allow the people to rise up against tyrannical government be it foreign or domestic. When it was written, the government AND the citizens had the exact same arms and there were limited types; therefor there was no reason be be specific. Also, you need to brush up on some things, gatling guns (probably considered automatic..) were around in the 1800's.
eifersucht2 1 year ago
The entire purpose of the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry the power to resist and overthrow the government in the event that it becomes tyrannical.
You seem to forget the first sentence of the 2nd Amendment... "Being necessary to the security of a free state..." The 2nd amendment gives the people the right to possess arms powerful enough to resist our own government. Try resisting tyranny in this day and age with a bunch of black powder rifles. Auto's are therefore, necessary.
armygunner23 1 year ago
And how the hell do you equate an F-16 to a machinegun? I don't think that he's quite "on target" here.
MrShotgunjim 2 years ago 3
Romney is nothing but a douchebag closet liberal.
MrShotgunjim 2 years ago 3
this guy is a fucking idiot....
danielstwin 2 years ago 3
Automatic weapons are already not "readily available." It's a tedious process and very expensive to get one. Semi autos are not "Assault Weapons." I have a CA legal M1A, that I put into a different stock with a pistol grip/buttstock/flash suppressor. All of which are COSMETIC and have nothing to do with the operation of that firearm. It's 3 Felonies if I took it to CA now or some other scum bucket lib state, just because it looks scary. Also, STOP MAKING SEMI AUTOS OUT TO BE FULL AUTOS!
joej12a 2 years ago 16
I see no flip flopping here. His reasoning hasn't changed. Got, I sure want to buy an HK M556, though.
AdamSonOfJohn 2 years ago
all this time I thought he was cool.. what a loser....
mmmikeey 2 years ago
In the same breath that he states he supports second amendment rights he contradicts himself. Gun rights are not just about recreation, they're about civilians protecting themselves from tyrannical government.
StandFastinLiberty 2 years ago 20
@StandFastinLiberty your an idiot. even if the government allowed you to have a fully automatic m-16, would that really protect you from the power and might of the federal government?
no
utube44333 1 year ago
This guy fuck'n sucks.
thablackmarkit 2 years ago 3
All i heard was, "Blah, Blah, Blah... Im a dirty tramp..."
lynchfan930 2 years ago 3
Wow. This guy flip flops more than a slippery fish.
chemgirlie 3 years ago
did she say assault-o-matic weapons?
sure sounded like it.
romney is another expert at saying a bunch of shit that means nothing.
mattussr 3 years ago
I used to be a big supporter of Romney, but to be honest I'd rather have an assult rifle in my home than Romney in the White House. It's unfortunate that he doesn't share the belief that I have the right to own firearms, but then again, he's from the People's Republic of Massachusettes and it has affected his mind.
NoGuff 3 years ago
Just take out the phrase "no one's suggesting that automatic weapons be made illegal," and it makes sense. I think that was just a slip...
RussellsParadox 3 years ago
Why do liberal Republicans think that the rest of the party will follow their idiotic leadership. Where are the real conservatives in the party?
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
He had to turn it around.
AgentFour 3 years ago
Flipper Rom Nuts.
NsOakland6 3 years ago
automatic weapons ARE availible to the public.
you have to pay a tax and pass an extensive background check.
what mitt was saying just goes to show that many anti-gunners are ignorant and need to do some research if they want to be legit,the fact is though that anti-gunners cant back up what they say and they avoid the fact that tens of thousands of lives are SAVED each year by firearms.the late Jeff Cooper coined a tearm for these people.He called them hoplophobes.
ConfederateWill 3 years ago
Come on. Would people please think. Look in nations that have enacted complete bans on guns have seen gun crime rise by 400%. In Massachusetts where I live and where gun control is the most strict we have seen gun crimes rise 300% compared to other places where the citizens are armed. Those area's have seen a decrease in crime.
Criminals don't want to get shot and thats why crime goes down. The people are responsible enough to own firearms
locsphere 3 years ago 3
schill
Ron Paul for pres.
injunkayldotcom 3 years ago
Romney is a business as usual politician
westernillstud 3 years ago
abbeehh abeehhh WAY TO GO PORKY
th-th-th-thats all folks!
dongsynormus 3 years ago
I take that back. Just saw his support on the heavy gun control in Massachusetts.
RevolverPhantom 3 years ago
Damn it, Romney, why did you pull out?!
RevolverPhantom 3 years ago
Thus; why you are no longer in the running for president.
goooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 2nd amendment!
dhd1 3 years ago
Sooo..its ok for him to play with these weapons but no one else can?WTF is that!Thats as bad as that fat cow Rossie wanting guns baned but not her ARMED body guard.This guy is just like me.He is a citizen,a public citizen,so what makes his shit not stink so he can play with guns?
stricklandjc 3 years ago
I support automatic weapons being sold to the general public, right along side bolt action rifles, muzzle-loading muskets, and grenade launchers.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" Means exactly what, it means!
Weapon01 3 years ago 5
Should government ban nuclear weapons for private citizens?
michigan83guerrilla 3 years ago
(You'll love this.)
Our founding forefathers at the end of the Revolutionary War took home with them as personal possessions, Cannons.
Cannons, even if only black powder fired, were the most powerful explosive ordnance made in the day.
Take a wild guess what the most powerful explosive ordnance made today is.
The short answer to your question is... "No."
Weapon01 3 years ago
So dumbass...what do Class 3 FFL holders shoot? Don't they have a constitutional right to them?
Ever hear of a tax stamp?
Automatic arms are both constitutional, and legal. I can buy one myself! As long as I follow the legal process that goes along with it.
You would know that right? I guess you haven't consulted with your attorneys yet.
txnwinterbride 3 years ago
Good luck getting it. You can produce LSD if you have the tax stamp.... there are only 3 LSD tax stamps in existance. It is a prohibition, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Not a little infringed, NOT AT ALL.
jmangle 3 years ago
the tax stamp is easy to get if you pass the background check.i know several people who own full-auto guns.also a friend of mine isa class3 dealer and ive seen him sell everything from the H&K g3a3 to the m2 .50 browning mg.
ConfederateWill 3 years ago
Yeah, I know, I have a full auto MAC-11 [converted from 380 auto to 9mm] --- that SOB cost me $3600 --- think about that. The gun is older than me, and cost less than $100 to make. There has only been one proven case of a legal full auto weapon being used in a crime, and the crime was committed by a cop.
My point is that we should scrap that clause about not allowing any full autos made after '86.
FreeMilitia 3 years ago
I agree. The Constitution says we have a right to own "arms," not merely "pistols."
Also, I'm barred from bearing many other types of arms because I live in the People's Democratic Republic of California. Not sure how they can get away with all of that, either.
NoGuff 3 years ago 2
i think there was two and the other one was used by a cop
m6dm90 2 years ago
The only way I MIGHT consider locking my weapon away is for the police, security, body guards of so-called important people, etc. tuck their guns away FIRST. I have absolutely no intent to be the one they pry anything "from my cold dead hands crap", nope, I will remain peaceful and informed and if a man in the name of "law" breaks law to enforce an authority over me then he becomes a lawbreaker, period. In that regard it is then I lock and load and shoot his ass and deal with whatever happens.
WolfEagle1961 3 years ago 2
Wow I'm glad this guy is out of the running.Did anybody understand his answer? I couldn't. Sounded like he said he supports the 2nd Amendment, but doesn't want us to have certain types of guns.
So which kind are okay? My old Remington model 514 .22 caliber bolt action single shot rifle? Maybe I can be trusted with that, but not my Ruger 10/22. It's semi automatic (sometimes confused by the drive by media with "full auto".
Join the NRA and vote Freedom First!
hpbt2001 3 years ago 4
ME TOO!! I agree with everything you said! I'm in the NRA and I think anyone whos not and wants our rights protected should join! All Gun Control does is get people killed inocent people. Like GUN FREE ZONES! at VA.TECH> al it would have taken is a few honest CCW holders and it would hae saved lives! Did the killer pay any attention to the GUN FREE ZONE? NO So do they work? They do if you want to kill inocent unarmed people!
gunlver 3 years ago
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government." --Thomas Jefferson
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers
MIT1369 4 years ago 2
Uhhh........civilians can own a firearm.....those people doing the fund raiser are the owners, not joy riders.
kncook50 4 years ago
what a fag
mainemilitia 4 years ago
RON PAUL 2008
detroituntilidie 4 years ago 5
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).
This count as what they meant buy "Militia" for you?
You Lose......AGAIN!
Let me know when you want to be schooled on something again. This has been fun watching you try and squirm around the subject. LOL
owned-N-boned
MIT1369 4 years ago
The fact that we have some (all be it) gun laws proves your the one being schooled. I'm sure Justice Burger is spinning in his grave if he knew of your nonsense.
1blackie1 4 years ago
correction: (all be it weak)and you're.
1blackie1 4 years ago
The restrictive gun laws preventing law abiding citizens from defending themselves are unconstitutional and the writings of the framers of the Constitution bear that out. Try reaqding them. Being deprived of our rights by lawyers and politicians does not constitute nor support of your opinion.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Yes, 200 + years of politicians and lawyers support my opinions vs. you and a group of rightwing nutjobs support your opinion. BTW, open up a history book (and give the NRA's propaganda literature a rest) and you will find out that many of these people that you quote are (gasp!) lawyers and/ or politicians. And considered liberal to boot.
1blackie1 4 years ago
Again read slowly, Marbury vs. Madison decided who gets to interprete the law regarding the Constitution. If you want I can recommend some good history books to you while you give your rightwing lierature a rest. Over 200 years of case law have given their verdicts. Statements even by great men such as Jefferson and Lee don't trump cases decided in courts. We are a country of laws, not off the cuff opinions.
1blackie1 4 years ago
You keep trying to put a label on me. You going to call me a "Neocon" next? Sorry but you couldn't be more wrong on that as you are on this one. "Off the cuff opinions"? Hardly. But you are ready to accept legistlating from the bench of a political appointee? But only of THIS topic I suppose.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Can't say I know the context of when this statement was uttered but I know that he wasn't the sole decider of this issue. He must have been overruled or changed his mind because when it was ratified the 2nd amendment stayed the way it appears today. One man's opinion doesn't decide the interpretation of the Constitution, irregardless of what King George Bush thinks.
1blackie1 4 years ago
I bet you call the President a Nazi too.
"One mans's opinion" is exactly what you get when a jurist makes a decision from the bench. Isn't that something? Hmmmmmm.....
MIT1369 4 years ago
Gee guys, it looks to me like the founding fathers intent was that the rights of Law Abiding citizens(aka PEOPLE) to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. What's YOUR read?
MIT1369 4 years ago
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine(1775).
MIT1369 4 years ago
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee Founding Father
MIT1369 4 years ago
"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." - James Madison
MIT1369 4 years ago
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry
MIT1369 4 years ago
I'm assuming every man includes Choi (the VT killer), the Columbine pair,etc. Every man does mean every man has unregulated access to bear arms. Your absolute right does put you in a very poor position.
1blackie1 4 years ago
Again you show your feebleness by not even reading anything. cho, aka the murdering bastard, was able to pass his background check due to the privacy laws pushede through by liberal courts and weak willed politicians. The Columbine murderers broke 20 laws in acquireing the guns they used. The BOR supports Lawful citizens and your attempt is a sad grasp at straws.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Again read slowly and try to understand. The 2nd amendment is pertains to the militia; it doesn't allow all citizens to have or not have guns. Fortunately the courts do have some regulations to prevent these mentioned killers from obtaining guns. Your interpretation is an absolute right, not a provisional right. Yes, the columbine murders broke GUN LAWS so thank you for making my point.
1blackie1 4 years ago
Thank you for finally accepting the fact that criminals will always be able to arm themselves no matter what laws are passed.
MIT1369 4 years ago
"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
MIT1369 4 years ago
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so" --Adolph Hitler. Gun Control advocates unite behind your master!
MIT1369 4 years ago
Do you really think WW II hinged on the issue of the German populace being armed or unarmed? I realize that is a cute little quote to bandy about but it really has no consequence to history. The French Army was loaded with guns. How did that turn out? The Polish Army beared arms. How did that work out? The same with the Dutch, Belgian, Russian armies.
What does Hitler have to do with the 2nd amendment again?
1blackie1 4 years ago
Because if the German public had been armed and willing to resist Hitler when he first began to destroy democracy in Germany and seize power he would never been able to build the army and focus it on any other county. Notice how the US crushed Iraq's army but is incapable of crushing the resistance of an armed population. The real problem would have been the overwhelming support for Hitler by the German population. First you need the guns, then you need a vigilant public.
airphat36 4 years ago
You don't honestly believe Hitler couldn't have built his army with an armed populace? The US can't control Iraq because it is an unpopular occupation with fanatics happy to die for their 72 virgins. Unpopular occupations are messy, armed or unarmed. But again, what does Hitler have to do with the 2nd amendment except the chance for you to spout the NRA's talking point?
1blackie1 4 years ago
Simply put. Armed people are pretty unlikely to be herded onto rail cars like cattle.
MIT1369 4 years ago 4
Again you refuse to learn anything from history. Why does this surprise me?
MIT1369 4 years ago
I read history books without a political agenda. It would do you a world of good to read something that doesn't reinforce your misperceptions of factual history. Go to a library and check them out.
1blackie1 4 years ago
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
MIT1369 4 years ago
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
MIT1369 4 years ago
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
Doesn't look like the writings of a man who believes in disarming citizens to me.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Appears to me that Jefferson wants the states to decide the gun issue. Now if you want to argue federalism that is another issue.
1blackie1 4 years ago
Adams, Lee, Paine, Madison and all the other too huh? None of their writings NOR Jefferson's support you. Again I'll ask you; If they intended that only the MILITIA be armed, WHY didn't they disarm the PEOPLE? I'll give you a hand on this. They didn't! Because they wanted the PEOPLE to be ARMED! IF you have a different answer, put it here. Otherwise wipe your nose and shove off.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Again a well regulated militia, not an arm or don't arm issue.
1blackie1 4 years ago
The People must be armed for there to BE a militia. No armed PEOPLE, no armed MILITIA. Do try to pull your head out to breath every once and a while.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Conversely, being armed doesn't make you a militia member. And yes, to have a well regulated militia the people must be armed... that's exactly what the 2nd amendment stresses.
1blackie1 4 years ago
There you have it ladies and gentlemen. A well regulated militia, being necessary to a FREE state, The Right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.
MIT1369 4 years ago
In the 1780 and 1790's (when the Constitution was being written), the founding fathers had a full dance card. They could deal with famine, pestilence, disease, raising revenue, stopping insurrections,etc. or deal with the question of 'should little Johnny be able to walk into a mall with an Uzi in 2008'. They chose to tackle the more sensical problems. Oh yes, they were also forming a well regulated militia. Are you really trying or just throwing me these softball questions on purpose?
1blackie1 4 years ago
You're another one who won't answer this question: IF the founding fathers intended that ONLY Militias were permitted to be armed, then why did they not disarm the public?
MIT1369 4 years ago
Because this amendment concerns the arming of the militias, not addressing non-militia unlimited right to bear arms. Again, I bring up all the court cases that ruled against your interpretation. You can pit your enlightenment against the various judges.
1blackie1 4 years ago
You keep beating that drum. jurists with political affiliations that affect their application of the law of the land have little value if any at all. The few cases you regard as proof positive are far from a dog fall for you.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Yes, I'm applying laws with actual court cases instead of some special interest group's ideology. In Marbury vs. Madison(oops, I'm quoting Supreme Court cases again with a Constitution's author to boot), ruled that the courts will decide the legitimacy of laws passed.
1blackie1 4 years ago
It's clear that you have made your your mind, and you're not going to let any amount of fact or objectivity get in the way of your opinion.
Typical Democrat behavior...
Enough with the Marbury v. Madison! You're a hell of a circular thinker.
"The courts have ruled that their decisions are always right, ipso-facto, that ruling must be correct."
Sad... Really, really sad.
Many a district ruling has been blatantly in violation of the constitution, and hence overturned by the Supreme Court.
uraijit 4 years ago
The people ARE the militia, as explained in my other post. If you don't have armed citizens, YOU HAVE NO MILITIA!
Hence, in order for the country to maintain a viable militia, (aside from organized military, as explained before) a country must have armed citizens.
You don't have to sign up, as said before, if you're an able-bodied male, between 17 and 45, you're considered part of the militia.
That probably scares the piss out of you, and you'll probably reject that truth, but there it is.
uraijit 4 years ago
All you armchair constitutional scholars should discover how this amendment has always been adjudicated by the courts. It has always been for a well regulated militia and not a unregulated right to bear arms.
1blackie1 4 years ago
Legislation from the bench by district courts hardly counts for anything.
The Supreme Court will be ruling on a Second Amendment issue for the first time in history. We'll see how things go when real judges actually review it.
Since you don't even understand the concept of what the "militia" is, I'm not even going to waste my time with you. Run along, and leave the thinking to the intelligent folks.
Now, go back to your window licking...
uraijit 4 years ago
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796
MIT1369 4 years ago
Wow, talk about circular thinking...
Since you clearly don't understand the nature of a "militia" let me explain. The "Militia" is the body of citizens -- more specifically able-bodied men -- who are able to take up arms and defend their homeland in time of war. The militia is very different from the organized military.
And if you are a male between the ages of 17 and 45, you yourself are, by definition, part of said militia.
Without citizen ownership of arms, we essentially have no militia.
uraijit 4 years ago
Hate to burst your bubble but I am not, never have been, or ever will be a member of the militia. Are you implying that I have to be armed?
1blackie1 4 years ago
I think that all of us here have accepted the fact that you are unwilling to take up arms in defense of our country and the luives of your family and friends. Now why can't you let the rest of us do what you lack the intestial fortitude to do? We promise that we won't try to save you from any criminalsso long as you clearly identify yourself as a willing victim by flagging your domicile and person while out and about.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Furthermore, while "bear" doesn't mean to own, "keep" DOES! Pick up a dictionary!
The wording is very clear -- The right of people to own and carry (as in concealed carry) arms (as in guns and other weapons) will not be taken from them or hampered... It takes a special kind of idiot to not be able to understand that.
It's not convenient to your position, but there it is; penned by out nation's fathers, on the founding document of this country.
The facts are on my side. You lose... Again.
uraijit 4 years ago
Wow, you really do struggle, don't you? It doesn't say "The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you think it says that, then you need to read it again. The amendment applies to the right of the PEOPLE, not the MILITIA!
If you want to know what the Amendment meant, read some of the words and writings of the men who authored it. Their intent is very clear. If you brush up on your reading comprehension, you could learn a lot from picking up a book.
uraijit 4 years ago
I do know the full amendment (one m, not two).
You're the one who wants to ignore the fact that the right is recognized as being a right of the people, and not a right granted to your "militia".
The First Amendment could also be twisted into something it's not. You could say that the only legitimate reason for the people to assemble, is to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." But only a fool would try to make such an absurd argument.
uraijit 4 years ago
Damn, he flip flopped in the same sentence!
He said "no one's suggesting automatic weapons be made avaliable to the public, no ones suggesting that automatic weapons be made illegal."
Well Mitt, obviously you're not suggesting either as it is your policy to take both sides of every issue.
Yobachi2007 4 years ago
Romney is a moron. Automatic weapons are *already available* to the public if you live in a state that allows them and get an ATF tax stamp.
DVDTracker 4 years ago 2
"Noone's suggesting that automatic weapons be made available to the public." I am! Criminals will have them regardless of their legality and that puts the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage to defend himself. I effectively can turn my Glock semi-auto handgun into a machinegun with a piece of dow rod, and it's legal.
kstompaint 4 years ago
No, no it's most certainly not. The law explicitly outlaws any weapon that will fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger, and will continue firing until the trigger is released, or ammunition is exhausted.
Hell, the BATF has even ruled a shoestring to be a machine gun if you use it to to make your gun fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger.
You're looking at a felony conviction, and up to 10 years in prison if you go converting your guns to full-auto.
uraijit 4 years ago
Yes, it is hard 'keeping on target.' Especially if you are Mitt Romney.
bitherwack 4 years ago 2
he was ''NOT FLUSTERED''..they and he used the word AUT-Omatic(illegal)....its semi-automatic that the ANTI-GUN DEMS are trying to ban and trying to twist. Romneys answer was fine. Anti-gun people are tricky..
roostertrigger 4 years ago
"AUT-Omatics" are actually legal to own as long as they are registered. Assuming your state allows them (most do allow), if you can own a handgun then generally you can pass the background check for a machine gun.
It's as simple as some paperwork, fees (taxes), and a short waiting period.
pnuemagger 4 years ago
What a complete asshole!
idzex 4 years ago
I'm not sure what he's saying in his answer. "They" wouldn't ever have to sign someting allowing F/A guns because automatic weapons ARE legally available to the public. A few states restrict the ownership of full auto weapons, but a majority of states do allow the ownership of FA guns, silencers, etc...
The real issue is the cost of these legal F/A weapons due to supply and demand. Most people can own them and most people can't afford them.
pnuemagger 4 years ago
This is exactly correct. The supply is only low because of the government ban, thus the government has artificially raised the price of automatic weapons. Those of us who can't afford the $20k+ M16 just have to bump-fire!
kstompaint 4 years ago
Romney = RINO.
Ron Paul = Real Republican who supports the 2nd Amendment.
OddballAZ 4 years ago
You haven't understood nor try to understand a single thing about the Constitution or teh Bill of Rights since you came into this thread. You've denigrated to useing vulgar language when you can't sidestep around the question any more. You've proved yourself to be nothing but a troll. You lose.
MIT1369 4 years ago
I myself am in favor of gun rights, but you did lose this argument with john135246. He asked a simple question over and over and you couldn't answer it. And then you had to use negative words against him. Why go that low? You said individuals have the right. His argument was why even use the word militia when it is for individual rights? Its valid question you didn't answer it, you brought up negative words. That is why you lost. Then saying someone else lost makes you worse off.
wdbgc1604 4 years ago
Please, if you're going to use mutiple logons at least make it more difficult to identify.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Numerous court cases (Supreme, Federal and state) have decided on this issue. Look at my previous posts if you need proof.
1blackie1 4 years ago
To understand the interpretation of the Constitution, let's see what the courts have decided. US Supreme Court: U.S. vs. Miller (1939); Lewis vs. U.S. (1980) or the op-ed piece by retired chief Warren Burger in the 11/26/1991 Keene Sentinel. Are you more enlightened about this document then these judges?
1blackie1 4 years ago
Besides the 2 USSC cases and Justice Burger's opinion, I have a list of 18 US Court of Appeals cases, 5 US Federal District Court cases and 11 State Court cases that support the militia interpretation of the Second Amendment. I could tell them to you. Do you have an equal number to counter?
1blackie1 4 years ago
liberal jurists have been around for a long time. Do you believe that appointed, not elected, jurists are more apt to rule on the side of the law, or on the side of the party that put them there? The facts of that, far outweigh your so called opinions and cases.
MIT1369 4 years ago
So what you are trying to say is about 200 years of the Constitution is irrelevant because some of the jurists are (were) liberals? Maybe liberals were appointed more often because they represent the will of the people. I don't know about your state but many judges are voted on (I'm guessing all states vote for state judges). Can I assume you don't have the court cases to counter the ones that I offered and only have your opinion to counter with?
1blackie1 4 years ago
Don't try to put words in my mouth.
The SCOTUS is appointed by the Pres and approved by the Senate and House. NOT the people. Federal Judges are appointed by the Pres. Hard left liberals are far from the will of the people. They might be the will of those who want the government to have complete control of our lives but certainly not the people en mass.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Your entire argument is ludicrous. You don't even consider the whole sentence at all and focus on one word in it and not even how the word is used. It is only one sentence even though you said it was two earlier if you recall. The fact remains, even though you can't seem to grasp the fact, that the BOR was written to identify the "Individual" rights of the "People" of the United States.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Because you can't seem to grasp the fact that the entire Bill of Rights is centered on the rights of individuals, that's why. Haven't you read anything about it? There is not a single thing in it that is for only people who belong to a particular group. There is no membership requirement save that you be an American citizen.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Why use "Militia"? Because it's better grammer than writing out; An armed group of citizens, who recieve no pay for their service, who are not members of the US Military or National Guard, being necessary for the security of a free state, etc
MIT1369 4 years ago
I don't think that Madison and others were too worried about brevity of words. Their intention was to outline the necessity of a militia, not to arm people. Actually this is a provisional right, not necessarily to arm or unarm people on the national level. But this certainly isn't meant to guarantee the right to bear arms.
1blackie1 4 years ago
IF, the meaning of the 2nd is that only State Militias were permitted to be armed, WHY wasn't any attempt to disarm the general public made until the 20th century?
MIT1369 4 years ago
Who has tried to disarm the general public? This makes no sense. There has been some regulation but even the wacko National Rifle Ass. hasn't come up with this scare tactic.
1blackie1 4 years ago
See the statements and speeches of all leaders of the anti gun lobby. See the laws in New York City and any other city or state that denies legal gun ownership. See Handgun Control Inc. See the "Brady" people. Come on! You can't possibly be saying that you have never heard of them.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Open a book. The founders made it clear that arms are an individual right. While the 2nd amendment appears confusing to us, there was no question based on the founders' own statements, they felt an armed citizenry was a necessity. Liberals don't acknowledge this because this part of the constitution is inconvenient for their position.
PeteTheBossRoss 4 years ago 2
I can't belive it. You are actually basing your entire argument on "militia" being used in the wording? Have you paid attention to any of the other words in the BOR? There cannot BE a "Militia" if the "People" are unarmed. The National Guard and the US Military are not a Militia. Not by any definition. Just who makes up this "militia" that the author is talking about then?
MIT1369 4 years ago
What a load. I HAVE answered you. Do you not know that the Bill of Rights is about the rights of the individual? You make claims of being "attacked"? LOL YOU claimed the 2nd Ammendment was in TWO sentences. WRONG! YOU said "You proved my point it says people of the militia." WRONG! Since these examples could point to dislexia I asked if you were so afflicted. You call that an attack. That's sad.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Automatic weapons ARE available to the public, Mitt, ya ignorant jerk. Anyone can go to Ye Olde Gun Shoppe, fill out a Form 4, undergo the requisite background check, and get a machine gun. The feds have legislated the prices sky-high, but they ain't made 'em illegal - yet.
rpiturkmvr 4 years ago 4
Nice attempt at deflection sonny but you have yet to answer anything. The 2nd ammendment, as well as all the others, are about the individuals rights. You know, The PEOPLE. I was being sincere about the dislexia thing because, well, just read some of your posts.
MIT1369 4 years ago
Holy shit, it is impossible to understand what the hell he is talking about. He just lost my vote.
RamenOps 4 years ago 3
You actually thought about voting for this lying pussy?
jizzmonger 4 years ago 2
He seemed better than the other suck-ass candidates. I'd heard he tended to have vague, ambiguous positions. Just, until now, I had absolutely no idea how bad it was.
RamenOps 4 years ago
"the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Nowhere does it say, "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms"
MIT1369 4 years ago
AMEN,
Like i keep saying, let all of these anti gun people have one half of the country, and let the rest of us who are smart enough to know how to use them right fortify the other half and not let them in...It's a fail-safe idea. We keep our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, and they can have their "safety".
xeronicus 4 years ago
How about if we let the anti gun folks have whatever piece of the country they can defend. :-D
MIT1369 4 years ago
aww come on now, we have to be somewhat fair.
It is my FIRM beliefe that if guns are ever banned, there will be a civil war to which NOTHING will have ever compared ANYWHERE.
Whats funny is most of the militia will NOT be defending the anti-foobs, as they are all gun owners, or at least all the ones i know.
xeronicus 4 years ago
Where exactly does it say "people of the militia"? Are you dislexic? That could maybe explain your comprehension problem.
MIT1369 4 years ago
If you were to read any of the other writings of the signers of this document you can see clearly their intent. Did they disarm the citizens after the Revolutionary War? No. Did they disarm the citizens after the War of 1812? No. Now Just WHEN and by WHOM did disarming citizens sound like a good thing?
MIT1369 4 years ago
Since you seem to believe that it's two sentences here it is in its entirety:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It says the right of the "PEOPLE" not the right of the "MILITIA".
MIT1369 4 years ago
Once more, if yours is the right interpretation, why do all court cases get decided opposite of yours? Stubbornness doesn't equal enlightenment.
1blackie1 4 years ago
So answer my question,
IF the founding fathers intended that ONLY Militias were permitted to be armed, then why did they not disarm the public?
MIT1369 4 years ago