Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Romney Was for the 'Assault Weapon' Ban Before He Was Against It
LJ at Race 4 2008 catches Mitt Romney reversing his position on the federal "assault weapon" ban in the space of less than two months. In a December 16 interview with Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press, Romney said that if elected president he would sign a bill reviving the ban, which expired in 2004. In an interview with Glenn Reynolds and Helen Smith over the weekend, Romney said he saw no need for new gun control legislation and would veto any that crossed his desk.
Romney told Russert that he wanted to "keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street" and suggested that the "assault weapon" ban, a version of which he signed as governor of Massachusetts, was part of that effort. Evidently he does not realize that such laws ban firearms based not on their "lethality" but on their scary, militaristic appearance. Functionally identical guns fell on different sides of the line drawn by the federal ban because of irrelevant details such as the composition of the stock or the presence of a bayonet mount. Many firearms not covered by the law (e.g., ordinary shotguns) were more lethal than the intermediate-caliber guns it proscribed. As with the ban on "partial birth" abortions, the ban on "assault weapons" set a potentially powerful precedent precisely because the distinctions it drew were so arbitrary.
Not that Romney has given the issue much, if any, thought. When he wanted to look like a gun control moderate, he supported assault weapon bans. Now that he wants to look like a diehard defender of the right to keep and bear arms, he opposes them. He used to emphasize his differences with the NRA, and now he claims an NRA endorsement he never actually received.
|2.4.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Functionally identical guns fell on different sides of the
line drawn by the federal ban because of irrelevant details such as
the composition of the stock
Highlighted for mediageek.
Episiarch|2.4.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Jacob you fail to understand that Romney cannot harm, or through omission of action, allow humans to come to harm. He's only lying to protect us.
|2.4.08 @ 12:43PM|#
Episiarch | January 31, 2008, 3:55pm | #
Metal stocks? WTF are you talking about joe?
I'm talking about the fact that spent an entire thread accusing me
of talking about my ass, for bringing up the '94 AWB's regulation
about wooden vs. metal stocks as an example of pointless gun
regulation.
|2.4.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Episiarch,
Well, now, I might vote for R. Daneel Olivaw, though I suspect he
isn't a libertarian.
|2.4.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Listen up, ONLY a vote for MITT ROMNEY in Republican primaries is a vote AGAINST MCCAIN, a loser that is being aggressively imposed on us by the establishment and the "mainstream" media. By casting your vote on ANY OTHER candidate you will be helping MCCAIN to win the Republican nomination.
|2.4.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Romney told Russert that he wanted to "keep weapons of
unusual lethality from being on the street"
Will we be seeing legislation banning frying pans larger than eight
inches in diameter, once he takes office?
Episiarch|2.4.08 @ 12:49PM|#
joe, this is a
metal stock. The assault weapons ban dealt with composite/synthetic
scary looking stocks. Possibly ones like on the grease gun too, but
you'll never see metal stocks in normal use.
That is what I was saying. Anyone who has any experience with guns
would know that 99.9% of the time you are dealing with either
wooden or synthetic (read: plastic) stocks, and not metal.
So you are still talking out of your ass.
|2.4.08 @ 12:50PM|#
I predict Mitt will outperform expectations.
Which would be really sweet, because I'd love to see him blow his
kids' inheritance before McCain squishes him.
|2.4.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Of course, he could always cry. Hillary did yet again,
anyway.
Obviously that report is disinformation. Hillary is a modern
liberated woman who would never, ever use tears to get what she
wants (the presidency). I'm fairly certain the whole story was
either debunked or properly ignored over at Pandagon and
Feministing.
You misogynist sexist bastard, Cesar.
|2.4.08 @ 12:58PM|#
I still don't get why conservatives think McCain isn't one of
them.
He disagrees with them on what--two issues?--and thats enough for
them to stay home in November?
|2.4.08 @ 1:00PM|#
I'm fairly certain the whole story was either debunked or properly ignored over at Pandagon and Feministing.
Oddly enough, in a race with a black guy, a woman, and a southern
white guy, both blogs endorsed the southern white guy. Now they're
endorsing the black guy.
But not the woman!
Must be sexism.
|2.4.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Here is the entirety of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban section of
the Crime Bill:
SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION
OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer,
or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of
any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under
Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the
firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms
were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
`(B) any firearm that--
`(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide
action;
`(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
`(iii) is an antique firearm;
`(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable
magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
`(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds
of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
The fact that a firearm is not listed in Appendix A shall not be
construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No
firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from Appendix A
so long as this subsection is in effect.
`(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United
States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or
a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a
transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by
such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off
duty);
`(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site
physical protection system and security organization required by
Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such
licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of
licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear
materials;
`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service
with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from
receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred
to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or
`(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic
assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for
the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the
Secretary.'.
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms
in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs
(all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the
Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate
a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of
the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender,
flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the
firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is
unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
(c) PENALTIES-
(1) VIOLATION OF SECTION 922(v)- Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title
is amended by striking `or (q) of section 922' and inserting `(r),
or (v) of section 922'.
(2) USE OR POSSESSION DURING CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR DRUG TRAFFICKING
CRIME- Section 924(c)(1) of such title is amended in the first
sentence by inserting `, or semiautomatic assault weapon,' after
`short-barreled shotgun,'.
(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS-
Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the
following: `The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon
manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall
clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured.'.
Nothing about "synthetic vs. wooden vs. metal stocks," but whole
lotta banned weapons that were manufactured with metal
stocks.
So, no Episiarch, you are talking out of your ass.
Episiarch|2.4.08 @ 1:02PM|#
But not the woman!
Hillary has no dick for them to suck if they ever get invited to
the Oval Office. Besides, they need their daddy fantasies just like
anybody else.
Afeared|2.4.08 @ 1:02PM|#
President McCain. It will happen.
Dear god. I think I'll get bombed tomorrow night while watching
Hollywood musicals on DVD.
|2.4.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Romney has no convictions other than his desire to be president.
He'll say anything that he thinks will help further that goal. He's
been off my list of "who I would vote for if hell froze over", for
a while now.
I can guarantee that whoever teams red and blue nominate, I won't
be a happy camper.
Episiarch|2.4.08 @ 1:05PM|#
It's funny because joe has admitted knowing nothing about guns
yet he feels perfectly comfortable telling some of us, who do know
a lot about guns, that we in fact don't know.
Please list the models named in the ban that have metal stocks,
joe.
|2.4.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Afeared,
Just so you know, I correctly predicted the game last night,
too--the score differential and the reasons why the Giants would
win. Therefore, fear my political prognostications, as well.
|2.4.08 @ 1:06PM|#
I'd vote for Obama if Virginia is a close state vs. McCain. If its Hillary vs. McCain, I vote LP no matter what. Obama most likely won't be the nominee so it will probably be the latter option.
|2.4.08 @ 1:07PM|#
I might vote for R. Daneel Olivaw, though I suspect he isn't
a libertarian.
He'd be the worst kind of tyrant: a competent one.
-jcr
GILMORE|2.4.08 @ 1:09PM|#
isnt the whole point of the AWB is that it's so fucking
arbitrary that it bans some things like Ruger 22s that have
'folding stock', but not the same model that dont? Basically, if it
'looks scary' they want to ban it.
What the fuck are you two really disagreeing about? Metal/Polymer?
Who cares... arent you both agreeing about the larger issue?
|2.4.08 @ 1:09PM|#
a threaded barrel capable of accepting...
Oh, so if I want to attach a silencer, flash suppressor, etc, I
should use a bayonet-style mount?
-jcr
|2.4.08 @ 1:11PM|#
If my memory hasn't been ruined by my syphilitic lesions, you thought that wooden stocks were banned, joe. You were utterly incorrect. But I like how you're pretending that you know dick about guns.
GILMORE|2.4.08 @ 1:11PM|#
before I get called gun-ignirint myself, I was referring to a Ruger Mini-14, which if i recall was banned because of it's cool, 'A-Team' stocks, but other models are still sold
piss drinker|2.4.08 @ 1:12PM|#
What's with the huge ad on the homepage? Has throwing Dr. Paul under the bus resulted in more than a few subscription cancellations?
Bagger|2.4.08 @ 1:13PM|#
GILMORE...shhhh. Don't ruin it. I just made a batch of popcorn and a beer run.
|2.4.08 @ 1:13PM|#
It's funny because joe has admitted knowing nothing about
guns yet he feels perfectly comfortable telling some of us, who do
know a lot about guns, that we in fact don't know.
Actually, no, I feel comfortable telling you what you do not know
about the, which you demonstrably do not know.
You spent a thread chatising me for asserting that the law made
distinctions between guns with metal stocks vs. guns with wooden
stocks, and now you've been proven wrong.
Perhaps it would be worth considering that having a hobby which
involved making things go BANG!!!! really loud doesn't make you an
expect on the law.
Perhaps it would also be worth considering that I know what the
fuck I'm talking about when I write a comment, and when you think
you see me misstating a fact, it would probably be a good idea to
ask for a clarificaiton instead of trumpeting how ignorant I
am.
Because this just keeps happening to you, doesn't it?
|2.4.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Just so you know, I correctly predicted the game last night,
too--the score differential and the reasons why the Giants would
win. Therefore, fear my political prognostications, as
well.
I did a quick scan thru yesterdays prediction post, and I couldn't
find you prior to game start. I'd like to give you all the homage
that is your due. Linky link, please.
;-)
|2.4.08 @ 1:17PM|#
GILMORE,
Yes, we are agreeing about the larger issue. But because of
Episiarch's personal vindictiveness against me, he couldn't stop
himself from shouting "A-HA!" and trying to make me look bad.
And, as usual, it didn't work out very well.
Warty,
Clearly, they're deeper than you think, because I did not claim
that wooden stocks were banned, but certain guns that had metal
stocks.
|2.4.08 @ 1:17PM|#
`(v) a grenade launcher;
Call me crazy, but a man has the right to defend his
property...
Episiarch|2.4.08 @ 1:19PM|#
You spent a thread chatising me for asserting that the law
made distinctions between guns with metal stocks vs. guns with
wooden stocks
joe, listen to me as hard as you fucking can: I was chastising you
for thinking that people use metal stocks. People use wooden or
synthetic (PLASTIC) stocks.
Holy shit, you are thick.
|2.4.08 @ 1:21PM|#
What's with the huge ad on the homepage? Has throwing Dr. Paul under the bus resulted in more than a few subscription cancellations?
Clearly this is a case of disaster capitalism.
|2.4.08 @ 1:24PM|#
Let's go to the tape:
joe | January 31, 2008, 3:04pm | #
Steve,
I don't care much about gun control, one way or the other. Doesn't
increase crime, doesn't reduce crime, and except for really
out-of-bounds laws like D.C.'s, they don't impose a burden on
anyone that's worth worrying about. That's how I see it. But then,
I'm not most people.
joe | January 31, 2008, 3:08pm | #
Wah wah wah, I have buy a rifle with a metal stock instead of a
wooden one. Wah wah wah, I can only use a 10 round magazine. How
can I possibly shoot deer or defend my home if my gun has a metal
stock and a 10 round magazine, instead of a wooden sock and a 20
round magazine?
Maybe you LIKE wooden stocks better, but really, I'm supposed to
get worked up about that?
I didn't actually make any statements about what was banned and
what was not. I picked two characteristics out of the air.
No misstatement of anything. No thickness. No misunderstanding. I
made a hypotethetical point, and Episiarch did what he always does:
Shout A-HA!!!, and not bother to go back and make sure he's got a
leg to stand on.
|2.4.08 @ 1:27PM|#
J sub D,
Doesn't matter, I can't prove it. Except at the office. Best they
don't get involved with anything dealing with my Hit & Run
postings.
I generally go with the superior defense, when there's a serious
differential. Statistically, the Pats were still a major defensive
power, but that's a result of their offensive potency this year. A
once great defense has aged, though I'm sure Belichick will get it
back on line soon enough. Not that the current iteration is bad,
but it is no longer dominant. The Giants front is excellent, and
they blitz very well. Tough to beat that, no matter how great your
offense is.
Episiarch|2.4.08 @ 1:28PM|#
What's with the huge ad on the homepage? Has throwing Dr.
Paul under the bus resulted in more than a few subscription
cancellations?
No, it resulted in way more page hits as disgruntled Paul
supporters argued, lurked, or claimed they would cancel their
subscriptions. Way more page hits = more ads.
|2.4.08 @ 1:28PM|#
joe | February 4, 2008, 1:17pm | #
Warty,
Clearly, they're deeper than you think, because I did not claim
that wooden stocks were banned, but certain guns that had metal
stocks.
joe | January 31, 2008, 3:08pm | #
Wah wah wah, I have buy a rifle with a metal stock instead of a
wooden one.
joe | January 31, 2008, 3:29pm | #
And once again, a law banning wooden stocks wouldn't be remotely
comparable to one banning 4-cylinder cars, in that wooden and metal
stocks are almost exactly the same thing.
?
|2.4.08 @ 1:30PM|#
These threads are pretty funny if you handle them the way I do
-- skip over all of joe's posts, unread, and then enjoy watching
others argue furiously with this unperson you've banned.
Apparently this works even better if you have certain Firefox
addons installed so the posts don't even show up at all.
Episiarch|2.4.08 @ 1:31PM|#
joe, listen to me as hard as you fucking can: you know Jack and
shit about guns, and Jack left town.
Holy shit, you are thick.
|2.4.08 @ 1:32PM|#
What's the fun of not reading joe? This place would be as boring as an amen corner can get if not for him flinging his poo.
|2.4.08 @ 1:34PM|#
Highlighted for mediageek.
Joe, while the mechanical function of the weapons didn't vary, the
ability to use them as the owner sees fit did.
I can give specifics if you like, but I doubt you're open-minded
enough to give a damn.
Nash|2.4.08 @ 1:35PM|#
As far as I can tell, gun activists are screwed this year. The only 2nd amendment candidates still running are Huckabee and Paul. Since they aren't gonna win the issue is gonna be pushed to the back this year in the general election. The democrats are treating gun control as a big loser since it tanked Gore and Kerry and as a result they've backed off, but since the Repub candidates are gonna be lousy on 2nd amendment rights that might embolden the gun control lobby going forward.
|2.4.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Funny, prolefeed didn't used to skip over my posts.
He used to try to argue with me.
Not any more, I guess. I wonder why?
Episiarch, it would probably be wiser if you just skipped directly
to the personal insults, because the efforts to argue with me just
make you look like dimwit.
|2.4.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Nash-
If Hillary gets the nomination--which she will--she will come out
swinging against the Second Amendment. Just watch.
|2.4.08 @ 1:38PM|#
The only stocks I've ever seen that are metal are the
collapsable "wire" stocks that you would see on weapons such as the
Veitcong Type 50. My M1 Garand has a metal butt plate, but the
actual stock is walnut.
Anyway, this does distract from the larger issue, that Romney is a
flip-flopping robot.
|2.4.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Nash, that's about how I read it.
I'll vote for whatever cracked goofball the LP runs before I'll
vote for Romney. He's got zero credibility on the gun issue.
Episiarch|2.4.08 @ 1:40PM|#
We have now entered into the joe Zone, where pointing out how stupid joe's comments on guns are makes you a dimwit. Next up, pointing out that joe knows nothing about brain surgery makes you a retard.
|2.4.08 @ 1:45PM|#
Doesn't matter, I can't prove it.
Pro Libertate - You've always struck me as a genlteman. I believe
you. Good on ya, mate!
|2.4.08 @ 1:45PM|#
Call me crazy, but a man has the right to defend his
property...
What is point of having these magnificent crenellated ramparts, if
one cannot launch grenades at the P&Z/ design review
functionaries from them?
|2.4.08 @ 1:46PM|#
The trick, Episiarch, is that when you "point out" that I am
wrong, I actually have to say something wrong.
Just noting that joe, the liberal you hate, said it, isn't good
enough.
|2.4.08 @ 1:49PM|#
`(v) a grenade launcher;
Many old-style military surplus rifles have flash hiders that are
designed to accept a rifle-fired grenade.
In other words, the law wasn't prohibiting grenade
launching platforms like the M203, so much as muzzle devices
like this.
Nevermind the fact that the likelyhood that you'll find rifle
grenades compatible with an obsolete surplus gun is practically
zero.
|2.4.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Can we all just agree that when joe arbitrarily picked two kinds
of stocks he wasn't really referring to the law, and that he was
doing it to make a point.
And maybe his point would have been more understandable had he
actually dealt with what was written in the law, instead of making
up something out of thin air for the sake of theoretical
example?
k thks bye
|2.4.08 @ 1:57PM|#
On the other gun thread, nobody disputed my call to grant full
gun rights, including CCW, to felons who've completed their
sentence. So I repeat it here.
No, I'm not joking. Not one bit.
|2.4.08 @ 2:00PM|#
On the other gun thread, nobody disputed my call to grant full gun rights, including CCW, to felons who've completed their sentence. So I repeat it here.
I agree. Especially for nonviolent drug felons.
Can we all just agree that when joe arbitrarily picked two kinds of stocks he wasn't really referring to the law, and that he was doing it to make a point.
I realized that after spending way too much time thinking about it.
But he would never have picked his example if he knew what he was
talking about.
|2.4.08 @ 2:01PM|#
What's the fun of not reading joe? This place would be as
boring as an amen corner can get if not for him flinging his
poo.
Dunno, I've been spending time posting over at rebirthofreason.com
lately, and I find it's way more fun talking with people who
actually believe somewhat in freedom and try very hard to be
courteous to others.
Course, nothing wrong with enjoying poo-flinging-fests with
statists if that's what you're into. I consider it an interesting
variant of BDSM.
|2.4.08 @ 2:06PM|#
On the other gun thread, nobody disputed my call to grant full gun rights, including CCW, to felons who've completed their sentence. So I repeat it here.
In a theoretical sense, I have no problem with it, presuming our
society no longer released violent felons.
But I'm far more concerned with fighting gun rights battles that
can actually be won.
|2.4.08 @ 2:07PM|#
As with the ban on "partial birth" abortions, the ban on
"assault weapons" set a potentially powerful precedent precisely
because the distinctions it drew were so arbitrary.
I saw what you did there! Here Jacob attempts to suture together
the fabled GUNS + ABORTION HYRBRID FRANKENSTEINIAN
ULTRAMEGA-THREAD, which theoretically could garner as many as 1,000
comments before the West Coasters here go home for the day.
But so far no one is indulging their fetal attraction by taking the
bait. Let's hope this never happens. We can all do our part by not
calling attention to it. Shh!
Lurker12|2.4.08 @ 2:08PM|#
I've been spending time posting over at
rebirthofreason.com lately
That site looks an awful lot like the Sense of Life Objectivist
site. Is it a split-off from there? I used to go to the Sense of
Life site, but it got to be too claustrophobic.
|2.4.08 @ 2:09PM|#
On the other gun thread, nobody disputed my call to grant
full gun rights, including CCW, to felons who've completed their
sentence. So I repeat it here.
No, I'm not joking. Not one bit.
J sub D -- Which kinds of felons? All of them, including ones with
a long history of violent crimes prominently featuring guns?
I think that the latter felons -- a tiny subset of felons -- should
be granted parole contingent upon certain gun rights being
suspended.
The vast majority of felons who didn't commit crimes prominently
featuring firearms, OTOH, should have their full Second Amendment
rights restored.
Got a peaceful, nonviolent brother-in-law who got a felony record
because he got drunk and did something stupid involving a fire
hose. No reason he should be prohibited from having a firearm.
|2.4.08 @ 2:09PM|#
J sub D,
Thanks, I appreciate it. It's not like I'm right all the time--I
also predicted that the Patriots would lose earlier in the
playoffs. Oops. And my beloved Buccaneers were to beat the Super
Bowl champions as well. Double oops. I wish I'd picked an actual
score, because 17-14 is my old default when picking a three point
differential (when the teams have adequate defenses, anyway).
Dangit.
Despite the loss, I was impressed with Brady. That's one of the
best performances I've seen from a QB playing from his back. Favre
and many other great QBs have fallen to pieces under similar
pressure. I saw some very enjoyable nervous breakdowns back when
the Bucs employed hunter-killers on the D-line. Miss those
days.
|2.4.08 @ 2:13PM|#
I've been spending time posting over at
rebirthofreason.com lately
That site looks an awful lot like the Sense of Life Objectivist
site. Is it a split-off from there? I used to go to the Sense of
Life site, but it got to be too claustrophobic.
Don't really know the history of the site. Ayn-Randian referred me
there in a thread a few weeks ago, and I've been enjoying it ever
since. Some subtle differences between libertarians and
Objectivists that make for interesting (and yes, CIVIL)
discussions.
|2.4.08 @ 2:14PM|#
...the most significant being that everybody thinks the same
way, which keeps things civil.
Sissy.
|2.4.08 @ 2:19PM|#
I resist the suggestion that joe (and our other non-libertarians) are all that prevent Hit & Run from being an echo chamber. If we libertarians are so much in agreement, how come we're the most fractured block in American politics? Nah, we've got divisive down. Not that joe et al. aren't welcome to provide us with their incorrect views of the world ☺
|2.4.08 @ 2:25PM|#
J sub D -- Which kinds of felons? All of them, including
ones with a long history of violent crimes prominently featuring
guns?
All the ones who have served their entire sentence. I'm a liberal
that way. People can be rehabilitated. They can learn from their
mistakes. If a man or woman is too dangerous to legally possess a
firearm, what is he doing out of prison, off parole and out of the
criminal justice system?
We judged him safe for parole, then he successfully navigated that
system and is judged a free man. If the bill of rights is to apply
to all free men they must apply to the (hopefully) rehabilitated
felon. He is after all, a free man.
A "long history of violent crime" should be incarcerated until
death. Hell, bury him on prison grounds so he doesn't sully a
cemetary. I've no sympathy to those who've blown their second
chance, but I would give most felons that chance.
Bleeding heart liberal, that's me. ;-)
|2.4.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Nah, we've got divisive down.
Hell yes! I'd like to think that everbody defers from the orthodoxy
on some issue. Heretics ensure the keepers of the flame remain on
their toes.
Lurker12|2.4.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Somebody (not me) posted this over at Volokh Conspiracy in
today's thread about McCain and judicial appointments. Thought it
was pretty good:
Paul - like it or not - is not a contender.
Huckabee has very narrow appeal.
McCain - the darling of the liberal media, when they consider
Republicans at all - is a Democrat in all but name (and seriously
considered becoming one less than a decade ago) and has some very
serious issues with ethics, mature behavior, and age.
Romney is an accomplished executive; the only candidate in either
party who can claim this, aside from Huckabee. He even has a decent
track record serving as the Republican chief executive in a state
that is completely dominated by Democrats - a useful attribute for
the next Republican president. His entire carreer is utterly devoid
of corruption or any other scandal. His Mormon background
guarantees a solid stance on issues important to social
conservatives.
The polls mean nothing at this point: If the Republicans get
solidly behind Romney, the corruption of Clinton and the leftism of
Obama make them solid targets for a Romney campaign. McCain, on the
other hand, starts without the support of the Republican base. --
This conservative stands with Ann Coulter on this. -- No Republican
can win without the conservative base.
|2.4.08 @ 2:35PM|#
And how, exactly, does Romney appeal to the Republican
base?
Let alone the bedrock part of that base who consider the 2nd
Amendment a near and dear issue?
LarryA|2.4.08 @ 2:54PM|#
The only stocks I've ever seen that are metal are the
collapsable "wire" stocks that you would see on weapons such as the
Veitcong Type 50. My M1 Garand has a metal butt plate, but the
actual stock is walnut.
Actually, many typical collapsing stocks for AR-15 type rifles are
metal. And the stock for the E-2 version of the M-14 is a wooden
pistol grip stock. Regardless, the details of the AR ban are too
arbitrary to argue about.
There was one unintended consequence of the law. It also banned new
magazines holding more than ten rounds. Such magazines are smaller,
therefore will fit in a smaller magazine well, which in handguns
enables a smaller grip. Handgun manufacturers got busy and designed
a whole bunch of smaller major caliber semiautos. The concurrent
spread of concealed handgun license states meshed perfectly. So we
saw the anti-gun forces that set up the situation wailing about the
"pocket rockets" that resulted from it.
I think that the latter felons -- a tiny subset of felons --
should be granted parole contingent upon certain gun rights being
suspended.
J sub D said "felons who have completed their
sentences." That usually includes completing probation.
My standard would be to grant RKBA rights to nonviolent felons
after they complete their full sentence, including
probation/parole. I'd make first-time violent felons wait ten
additional years. Or some such.
The amusing part of the process is watching anti-gun liberals try
to justify restoring to such individuals the right to vote and hold
office, but not to keep and bear arms.
And how, exactly, does Romney appeal to the Republican base?
Let alone the bedrock part of that base who consider the 2nd
Amendment a near and dear issue?
He also has a problem among those Evangelical Christians who
consider him Mormon, therefore not a "real Christian." Although I
doubt they'll vote Democrat against him.
|2.4.08 @ 2:55PM|#
But I'm far more concerned with fighting gun rights battles
that can actually be won.
Yeah, it will never fly. Like opiate legalization. It is still
marally consistent. For me, anyway.
dodsworth|2.4.08 @ 2:57PM|#
The polls mean nothing at this point:
Lurker12:
Bingo! You are hoist by your own petard. That's why everyone should
vote their conscience, hence I'm voting for Paul. Romney is toast
and McCain, according to all the polls, will win easily. That is
the reality. Don't waste your vote on voting for someone if you
truly don't think he or she is the best candidate.
|2.4.08 @ 2:58PM|#
And how, exactly, does Romney appeal to the Republican
base?
He's not Clinton or Obama.
If by some odd chance he does get the nomination expect everyone*
to line up behind him like the Des did with Kerry in 2004. Just
win, baby!
* Some social cons won't, though, because he's a Mormon.
|2.4.08 @ 3:01PM|#
Whats ironic is they have such a better shot of winning with the psuedo "maverick" McCain.
|2.4.08 @ 4:07PM|#
J sub D -- Agree with the policy in your 2:25 post, though I
would oppose the federal government imposing this upon the states
or cities. If they want to punish people after their sentence is
served, well, that's their Tenth Amendment right, albeit an
exercise of that right I disagree with.
Shoots, it is an echo chamber without the statist poo-flingers!
;)
|2.4.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Shoots, it is an echo chamber without the statist poo-flingers! ;)
prolefeed,
No it isn't.
Yes. It is. Asshat!
LarryA|2.4.08 @ 5:10PM|#
J sub D -- Agree with the policy in your 2:25 post, though I
would oppose the federal government imposing this upon the states
or cities.
They already are. Federal rules on loss of gun rights are stricter
than the vast majority of states.
|2.4.08 @ 5:19PM|#
They already are. Federal rules on loss of gun rights are
stricter than the vast majority of states.
IIRC, On of Bubba's last minute pardons was for a couple of guys
who commited the federal offense of tampering with auto odometers.
They had already served their sentence. The pardon allowed the good
ol' boys to take up hunting legally again. There was considerable
sleaze in the pardon thing (Marc Rich, FALN, et al) but that one
was hard to argue with.
|2.4.08 @ 6:18PM|#
Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot
droppings!
May a herd of wildebeest copulate on your lawn. With your wife!
|2.4.08 @ 6:31PM|#
He also has a problem among those Evangelical Christians who consider him Mormon, therefore not a "real Christian." Although I doubt they'll vote Democrat against him.
True, but they could very well stay home, thereby depriving the GOP
of the votes they need to win.
|2.4.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert!!!
GILMORE|2.4.08 @ 6:49PM|#
Ahhh, fuck assault rifles anyway. Im more of a delusional sniper
type, not a "Heat" style, M733-toting bank-robber in body
armor
Lurker12 | February 4, 2008, 3:06pm | #
Bingo! You are hoist by your own petard.
Damn those petards!
LOL. I hear people use this expression all the time, only "hoist
*in* your own..."
If i recall correctly, it's Hamlet, and the expression was a
reference to a "midieval bomber blown up by his own IED-style
conconction" Which was apparently not an uncommon occurrance in the
16th century.
Petarded indeed. Thats a great neologism.
Geotpf|2.4.08 @ 7:29PM|#
"Pro Libertate | February 4, 2008, 12:58pm | #
President McCain. It will happen. Hope he doesn't do anything too
crazy."
Does bombing Iran for no particular reason, therefore starting
World War III, causing millions to die, count as "too crazy"?
|2.4.08 @ 7:53PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Your mother was a pro, and not a very attractive one at that. You
churlish, boil-brained, canker-blossom.
|2.4.08 @ 9:35PM|#
To you, J sub D, the Renaissance was just something that
happened to other people, wasn't it?
Geotpf,
You lack ambition. Have McCain bomb Vietnam next time.
|2.4.08 @ 10:04PM|#
The title puts a Kerry-ism into Mitt's mouth...just ain't the same when the guy doesn't utter the words...
|2.5.08 @ 1:02PM|#
If i recall correctly, it's Hamlet, and the expression was a reference to a "midieval bomber blown up by his own IED-style conconction" Which was apparently not an uncommon occurrance in the 16th century.
Petard was also used as slang for flatulence.
....------========*
The More You Know™
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245