What Romney Should Say About Guns In The Debates
BY Herschel Smith
12 years, 1 month ago
There are two more “debates” coming up where there is some non-trivial chance that the issue of guns and recent violence will come up. Here are some potential questions and what Romney should respond.
Governor Romney, given the recent violence that plagues our inner cities and even suburban areas as we see with the recent Colorado shooting, would you be in favor of closing the gun show loophole?
I’ve been to gun shows, and I’ll be the first to tell you several things. The last show I went to I talked to several firearms dealers. People are tight and they’re hanging onto their money. As you know, the economy needs recovery and nothing you’ve seen for four years looks like a recovery. Second, if you do happen to be doing well and have purchased anything at a gun show, you know that the firearms dealers must follow the same protocol as they do at their place of business. That is, there must be a background check and you must fill out federal form 4473.
It is true that you may happen to purchase a gun from an individual, but this isn’t a loophole associated with gun shows. You can do that anyway in most states, a freedom that I intend to preserve as President by leaving that issue to the states. So the notion of a gun show loophole is a figment of the imagination of the gun control lobby, or better, it’s something they made up. It isn’t real. It doesn’t exist. It’s a phantom. And making more laws to control mythical things isn’t the solution to crime. More laws would affect the law abiding citizens, but criminals will still behave in a criminal manner, which is why I would like to focus on criminal behavior and not law abiding citizens.
Governor Romney, what would you do about the botched operation called Fast and Furious as President?
Thank you for asking the question. First of all, we don’t know the depths of the criminality yet because the Department of Justice is intentionally hiding information and being uncooperative. I don’t have any direct proof that I could take to court that shows that the operation was intentional rather than botched, but recent documents uncovered by Wikileaks indicates that at least one Mexican authority believes that there were untoward intentions. This authority said “Federal authorities in the United States have been quietly supporting certain Mexican criminal empires, especially the Sinaloa drug cartel, in a bid to solidify the syndicates’ reign as dominant powerbrokers … If cartel chiefs cooperate with authorities, “governments will allow controlled drug trades.” Another bombshell uncovered in the leaked emails indicated that the U.S. federal government had deliberately allowed cartel hit men to murder people inside the United States if they agreed to offer their services to Washington.”
If I am elected President, I will get to the very bottom of this sordid affair, and I will go from the bottom to the very top of the administration if my investigation takes me there. I will pursue criminality to the fullest extent of the law as it is within my power as the chief executive, and all criminality that we uncover will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Governor Romney, if you are President would you stop this internet and mail order of assault weapons so that we can be safer in our homes and places of work? It’s absurd that you can actually order guns on line.
Thank you for the question. Actually, you can place orders for weapons on line, but they still must be delivered to a federal firearms licensed dealer (FFL) just as if you were purchasing a gun from your local gun store. Before this FFL will transfer the weapon to you, you must pass a background check and fill out federal form 4473, just like you must do in a gun store. So as you see, there isn’t any difference between internet order and simply paying a visit to your local gun store.
As for the issue of assault weapons, I would like to give law-abiding citizens the maximum latitude to purchase whatever weapon they thought best suited their needs, while enforcing the laws on the books to prevent criminals from conducting illegal activity. You see, it isn’t the caliber of the weapon that one is holding that’s the problem. It’s the caliber of the one holding the weapon.
UPDATE #1: Thanks to Bill Quick! Yes, I hope Romney uses this line.
UPDATE #2: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the attention!
|
|
On October 16, 2012 at 2:14 pm, John Reis said:
You might add that assault weapons have never been legal in the US because an assault weapon must be capable of full automatic fire. Machine guns have been pretty much outlawed since the 1930s, so the whole assault weapons ban was deceptive. It only affected semi-automatic versions.
On October 16, 2012 at 2:18 pm, Herschel Smith said:
You mean “assault rifles,” which have selective fire capability.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/20/towards-a-correct-understanding-of-assault-rifles/
I lament the gun control act of 1968, BTW. It is a source of great sadness for all gun owners.
On October 16, 2012 at 2:25 pm, Fred said:
Romney needs to put the pressure on about F&F. This was not the result of a mid-level staff goat-rope. Stratfor email leaks prove that State and CIA were in the loop – that means it was at national level, and Hildabeasts running as fast as she can, as usual. FBI is staying out of it, wisely, as they have seen ATF as untrusted cowboys for years.
On October 16, 2012 at 2:52 pm, Scott said:
It’d be nice to see Romney respond in such a manner, unfortunately guns are the very reason I was so inclined to support the other Republican candidates as I believe he’s the only one who actually signed an AWB.
Still, I’ve heard his arguments, read from the Massachusetts gun organizations why they supported it, and will cling (possibly naively) to the idea that Romney has ‘evolved’ on this issue and knows what a red hot issue it is with so many in the rest of the country.
That, plus he’s a vast improvement over Obama on this same issue – AND he’s picked Ryan as a running mate.
If the Republicans can take control of Congress then any inclinations of a Romney administration push for gun control will likely go nowhere….and I seriously doubt the man is that stupid.
If he wins (and I think that’s a far greater chance at the moment than the MSM is willing to admit), I believe he will go to DC knowing exactly who got him there.
So, an election that results in a very gun friendly Congress, a gun friendly VP pick, and at worst a president disinterested in putting his political capital on the line for the sake of his opponent’s pet political causes – AND an opportunity to pick some SCOTUS justices who will interpret the Constitution with an eye towards original intent – is a huge improvement over what we have now.
I’ll be watching and wondering during the debate when/if this subject comes up.
On October 16, 2012 at 2:56 pm, Daedalus Mugged said:
“You see, it isn’t the caliber of the weapon that one is holding that’s the problem. It’s the caliber of the one holding the weapon.”
Saying that would be a mistake, as it would open the door to additional restrictions on gun purchases. No longer is it a criminal background check, it opens the door to judgements of individual character, as deemed appropriate by your BATFE. I am pretty sure what federal beaureacrats think of as good character is nearly exactly the opposite of what good character actually is.
On October 16, 2012 at 3:01 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Daedalus Mugged,
Oh, I just think you’re not acknowledging that this would be a killer line for the debate. No one – including Romney – is actually going to recommend that we institute some other check for weapons purchases. The point is that the checks in place are already enough. Pursue criminals, because no amount of checking will stop them from crime.
On October 16, 2012 at 3:57 pm, Joe said:
I lament the gun control act of 1968, BTW. It is a source of great sadness for all gun owners.
Actually federal gun control in is constitutional on its face, but unconstitutional in the manner it is maliciously misapplied to the 50 states and citizens of those states. The federal government has no subject matter jurisdiction over firearms so the Congress uses its geographic jurisdiction (where it exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction) to pass laws that only pertains to those areas. These federal territorial laws are then applied by the executive and judiciary (can you say conspiracy) to the 50 states.
More detail on it here: http://www.originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php
On October 16, 2012 at 10:41 pm, Erik said:
I wouldn’t be too hopeful. I think we’re in for a long ride down a steep cliff and it’ll take a lot to get back up. The way politics have become, I don’t think anyone who’s even willing to drag us back up would be given the chance to do so. They are/would be just tossed into some unimportant position somewhere.
On October 17, 2012 at 10:55 am, Cormac said:
I wouldn’t be on him touching gun control during a first term, no matter how badly he wants to.
I’d say it’s about time for people to start talking about the Republican Primary for the 2016 election!
Anybody for Rand Paul/Bobby Jindal? Sounds like a pair of winners to me!