Romney

[jshuberg]

He says my machine gun is illegal. Now I'm sad....

[yuppiejr]

Yea, not only was the whole gun conversation factually dubious but could have been much more effective in defending the rights of gun owners and pointing out the president's own Achilles heel on Fast and Furious... should have nailed Obama to the wall with F&F rather than throwing out the line and letting it go.

[Maximus]

Some key things the anti's need to look up - what the term "assault rifle" means (select fire or burst!). The difference between semi-automatic and automatic. The semi is not put there just for show. Finally guns that LOOK like guns made for the military are NOT the same thing. A Ferrari with a golf cart motor is under no circumstances a Ferrari.

[Thunder71]

Crosman Assault Rifle - How many kids out shooting sparrows will end up face in the ground over this bad boy?

Holds 350 'rounds'.

[goett047]

Some key things the anti's need to look up - what the term "assault rifle" means (select fire or burst!). The difference between semi-automatic and automatic. The semi is not put there just for show. Finally guns that LOOK like guns made for the military are NOT the same thing. A Ferrari with a golf cart motor is under no circumstances a Ferrari.

It is if it's made by Ferrari...

[AFTERMATH]

350 rounds! That's almost as much as the 'real' assault rifles!

[jshuberg]

My point was that machine guns are not illegal, they are regulated under the NFA. I doubt very many "fact checkers" are going to call him out on that one though. The question of what "arms" are protected by the 2nd Amendment was addressed by the Supreme Court.

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”... Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.”...Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.”

By this interpretation, all firearms are protected against infringement by the 2nd Amendment. This protection is not limited to firearms suitable for self defense, sporting purposes, etc. In fact, the NFA of 1934 regulated machine guns and other types of weapons via the tax code, as it was understood at the time that any attempt to ban machine guns would be struck down as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Assault weapon bans, the post 1986 machine gun ban, and some states denial of lawful citizens to carry a firearm in public, etc. are all violations of the 2nd Amendment. When Romney stated incorrectly that machine guns are illegal, he indicated that he has no grasp on firearms issues. While I would hope that he would stand by his statement that he wouldn't add additional firearms laws, I doubt very much he would be a champion of firearms rights, and work toward repealing existing legislation that infringes on the rights of the people.

[texasprowler]

Machine guns used to be legal, UNTIL the Heller case. Scalia's opinion appears to set precedent when he specifically excludes machine guns and short barrelled shotguns as being not in common use.

[Heffay]

Machine guns used to be legal, UNTIL the Heller case. Scalia's opinion appears to set precedent when he specifically excludes machine guns and short barrelled shotguns as being not in common use.

I freaking HATE those justices that interpret the Constitution!!

[jshuberg]

Sorry, but no. They discussed a previous ruling in US v Miller and stated:

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes

But they also stated:

It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment. JUSTICE STEVENS claims, post, at 42, that the opinion reached its conclusion “[a]fter reviewing many of the same sources that are discussed at greater length by the Court today.” Not many, which was not entirely the Court’s fault. The respondent made no appearance in the case, neither filing a brief nor appearing at oral argument; the Court heard from no one but the Government (reason enough, one would think, not to make that case the beginning and the end of this Court’s consideration of the Second Amendment). See Frye, The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller
...
The final section of the brief recognized that “some courts have said that the right to bear arms includes the right of the individual to have them for the protection of his person and property,” and launched an alternative argument that “weapons which are commonly used by criminals,” such as sawed-off shotguns, are not protected.

So, they appear to leave the door open to the extent to which the Miller ruling should apply, and also recognized that the weapons that Miller found were not protected by the 2nd Amendment were those commonly used by criminals, as opposed to those that were commonly used for lawful purposes.

There are several hundred thousand machine guns lawfully owned and registered by private individuals in the US, myself included. On my form 4 registration where it asks for the reason for my owning the weapon I stated "All lawful purposes", and this was approved by BATFE. There may have been a time in history where machine guns were more commonly used by criminals than law abiding citizens, but this is no longer the case. It is quite common (at least as common as current BATFE restrictions allow) for private citizens to own machine guns for lawful purposes. Even if the Miller restrictions were to withstand subsequent challenges, machine guns no longer meet the criteria for weapons not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Machine guns are now more commonly used for lawful purposes by law abiding citizens than used in crimes by criminals, and so pass the Miller test of what is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Machine guns are not banned by the Heller ruling. This is evidenced by the fact that private individuals are still able to purchase machine guns, and no one has come to my door demanding I surrender mine. If anything, it casts doubt on the applicability of the Miller ruling that had limited certain weapons from being protected by the 2nd Amendment, and more clearly defines those that Miller claims are not protected as those commonly used by criminals, and not those commonly used for lawful purposes.

They also specifically pointed out that at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the term "arms" referred to all firearms, without limitation. The Heller ruling was a fantastic ruling in almost every way.

The post-1986 machine gun ban is an unconstitutional infringement on the right of the people to bear arms. It would be nice to have a President that recognizes this.

[texasprowler]

Dang- yer good. Thanks for the education.



I think pink pony is watching me- that's just creepy!

[stottingmuley]

Jshuberg, can I be an inconspicuous bystander when you verbally slap an anti for questioning your right or motives to possess any of your firearms. We could set it up for peoples entertainment. Its no different than going to a movie.... except it will actually be entertaining.

[TommyMN]

Wait, there's people that think Romney actually cares about guns or gun ownership in a positive way?

[Heffay]

Wait, there's people that think Romney actually cares about guns or gun ownership in a positive way?

He's for whatever the polls say he's for.

[grousemaster]

Wait, there's people that think Romney actually cares about guns or gun ownership in a positive way?

He's for whatever the polls say he's for.

and Heffay's against anyone in the GOP