search
top

Something You Don’t See Everyday

A Democratic Congressman asks his constituents to seriously question the authenticity of Second Amendment support of a Republican candidate he’s not even running against. The Congressman? Leonard Boswell. The candidate? Mitt Romney.

Speculate as to the motivation behind this piece to your heart’s desire.

19 Responses to “Something You Don’t See Everyday”

  1. Chas says:

    Romney’s position on gun control consists of that silly grin he always wears. That’s all you get. But he’s not a depraved aristocrat. Noooooo! Not Romney. Not good ol’ Mitch. Nope. Not for a second. Not him.
    Send his sorry ass back to Marxachusetts with his tail between his legs and let him forget that he ever asked the American people to elect him president.
    Still, we will need whatever shabby shape the Repubs put up for president, since there are Supreme Court nominations at stake, and we don’t need any more gun haters like Sotoyomamamayor or Kagan. The real prize is control of Congress; the presidency is merely a dramatic distraction most of the time.

  2. Andy B. says:

    Regardless of their motivations, anytime someone reminds us to question the bona fides of a candidate claiming to be pro-gun, we should listen. More often than not we’ve sold our souls to anyone who would utter “enforce existing laws,” as long as they were Republicans.

    That goes for candidates endorsed by most of our “pro-gun” organizations, too. Check into their backgrounds and you’ll often be left questioning exactly what they ever did (not “said”) to deserve endorsement by an RKBA organization, and suspecting there are other motives.

  3. thefirtstndsecond says:

    Mitt sucks! No doubt about it! Hell Massachusetts sucks! Anti NRA billboards, and gun sayings, people.. the state sucks and I have no idea why the manufacturers are still there.

    • Harold says:

      A capable work force; look at Kimber which started out West and then moved to Yonkers, New York (an old manufacturing city bordering on The Bronx); as I remember reading this was because they couldn’t recruit skilled workers.

      The Connecticut River valley has a very long history of gun making; it’s only recently as these things go that many of the sates in question have become viciously anti-gun.

      FNH, though, seems to be doing well in South Carolina, but that’s probably in part that with really modern machinery it takes fewer, even more highly trained workers to e.g. make all the US military’s machine gun barrels and all the Marine’s M16s. Also pre-64 type Winchester Model 70s, but with hammer forged barrels now. Etc. etc.

      • Believe it or not, Winchester, Remington, and Ruger have been using cold hammer forged barrels since the late 1960s-early ’70s. Winchester was one of the first to use to the CHF process to form the barrel’s throat and chamber. If you look in old gunzines, you can find Winchester ads boasting of the use of CHF barrels in the Model 70 and even the Model 94.

        • Harold says:

          Interesting … but by definition, if Winchester started using CHF in the late ’60s to make Model 70s, they weren’t pre-(19)64 Model 70s ^_^.

          FNH is making them the semi-old fashioned way: CNC machined receivers plus the entire barrel is hammer forged.

          I’ll admit I’m fond of the company, they were the first to make my family’s favorite shotgun, John Browning’s Auto-5 (my grandfather bought one with FNH markings in the ’30s), and they really like selling guns to the American public. E.g. they blew off the usual suspects’ whining about their 5.7mm guns; that sales of the PS-90 far exceeded their expectations and quite surprised them no doubt helped ^_^.

          Me, I’m looking forward to buying some sort of SCAR 17s in the future, after it gets more established and hopefully after they start offering slightly longer barrels. If you like the Scout concept (my arms sort of demand it after too many years of typing) it’s a particularly interesting rifle since it appears to make weight (in the same way the Steyr Scout does, aluminum receiver and plastic furniture); all it lacks is a sling attachment somewhere in the middle.

  4. Zermoid says:

    Support Ron Paul!
    He’s the only one running that I believe won’t just screw us and laugh all the way to the bank.

    I’m not completely thrilled with all his positions, but with the financial mess and the erosion of our liberties we are facing, he is our best hope of not becoming the new USSR. I sincerely believe that if Obummer is re-elected we had better start burying our guns and ammo before they come to collect them by force.

  5. Dannytheman says:

    This is a concerted effort by the Demoncrats to bring out Mitts flip flopping. It was his weakness going in and will be his weakness when he wins the Elephant trophy.
    Ron Paul will not win, and we would have 4 more years of Obama! Vote for anyone, other than Obama, but watch Mitt closely.
    If we can strengthen the conservative base in the House, and regain control of the Senate, and the people stay engaged? Anything is possible. (Last time we had all 3 the elephants spent like drunken sailors.

  6. Dannytheman says:

    Also, IMHO, a Demoncrat in Iowa is equal to a Republican in NJ, Mass, or NY!

  7. Weer'd Beard says:

    All I’m going to note is that Republican Paul Helmke has left the building, and the anti-rights twitter-feeds and blogs are filled with passing remarks on far-left social issues.

    Back in the 90s Gun Rights were supported by the far-right Republicans, and from Center to Left were the gun control supporters.

    Appears that now Right to Center support the 2nd Amendment now, and Gun control’s last stand is in the “Progressive Left”.

  8. MicroBalrog says:

    Right to center support the 2nd Amendment now?

    No. Don’t look at their lips, look at their voting records.

    People who are not working to make gun laws better do not support the 2nd amendment.

    • Harold says:

      It’s important to note as e.g. Neal Knox did that we have very few real friends in politics. E.g. in the Congress I’d only count two:

      Ron Paul: he’s an ideological libertarian, only they and the paleoconservatives reflexively support the RKBA. For an example of the latter, Pat Buchanan in a probably off the cuff remark said “I don’t think the government should have anything to say about a gun that you don’t need a trailer hitch to move.” I presume his son Rand will follow in this area, but that remains to be seen.

      And Senator Tom Coburn, who’s generally interested in gun issues like the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the M4. You’ll find him front and center in most of the pro-gun stuff that’s come out of the Senate as of late (e.g. CCW in National Parks; heck, given that he’s a doctor I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry Reid consulted him about the pro-gun stuff Reid slipped into Obamacare).

      Otherwise, it’s our job to create an environment where being a gun grabber is highly toxic to your political career. Note that matter how much we distrust him and how excellent a gun salesman he is, Obama himself still seems to have no stomach for gun grabbing, although his appointments plus his general hands off treatment of them is another story (e.g. Fast and Furious).

  9. Andy B. says:

    “I don’t think the government should have anything to say about a gun that you don’t need a trailer hitch to move.”

    Yes, I always knew PJB was anti-gun, as all authoritarians ultimately must me. There is nary a word in the constitution about trailers or hitches.

    • Harold says:

      Assuming you’re not saying this in jest, I do think “keep and bear arms” requires some interpretation. Besides the usual NBC/WMD extremes, I’m not adverse to the government controlling (towed :-) artillery that can reach out and touch me from more than 10 miles away.

      To directly address your point there’s nary a word in the constitution about the severely mentally ill (e.g. who don’t know right from wrong), or unrepentant violent felons, but there are few who disagree with some sorts of measures to discourage these groups from keeping and bearing arms.

      Of course, in the colonial days it was a lot simpler, I’ve read (from Clayton Cramer??; certainly about the later point) that a felony conviction was tantamount automatically earning a death sentence and the community took care of their mentally ill. It’s not at all clear that “progress” has improved things here.

  10. Assuming you’re not saying this in jest, I do think “keep and bear arms” requires some interpretation. Besides the usual NBC/WMD extremes, I’m not adverse to the government controlling (towed :-) artillery that can reach out and touch me from more than 10 miles away.

    Couldn’t disagree more, and I’ll purposely use the extreme example of a nuclear device.

    Given that nukes are more expensive than your average weapon, there are only a few individuals who would be able to purchase them, should it be legal for them to do. I’ll pick a name: Bill Gates.

    But nukes are not legal for the public to own; however, is there anyone who believes that if Bill Gates really wanted a nuke he couldn’t get one? What good would the NFA be then?

  11. Andy B. says:

    I just thought it worth pointing out that immediately after our Founding, a private individual could have owned the greatest war machine constructed by man until that time — a fully fitted warship — and it would have been completely legal. And obviously, constitutionally protected.

    • Harold says:

      I’d like to point out two distinctions here:

      A warship is perhaps the ultimate crew serviced weapon (that’s what forced the final retirement of the Iowa class battleships, they required way too many men to run). The point is that one man can’t do squat with a warship without the cooperation of a lot of other men (plus there’s the basing issue).

      Compare to the “Bill Gates and his personal nuke” concept: while it may take many men to procure, unless the government were to enforce PAL protection (something we considered so critical that we leaked the technology to the Soviets) it could requires only one person to set off. Analogous would be a cannon of the period: while technically crew serviced, one man could fire off a round. Although not very far and not very many before angry neighbors descended upon him.

      And that gets to the second distinction, which at least at the extremes is I believe a qualitative one: depth and breath of action. Modern artillery has long ranges (very long with base bleed projectiles, like 25 miles for the pioneering CG-45 155 mm howitzer), modern rockets very long ranges (our MRLS goes up to 26 miles with normal ammo). Then there’s the neighborhood or greater reach of chemical and non-re-infectious biological weapons and the worldwide reach of infections biological weapons (e.g. smallpox). And finally the ability of a small yield nuke (by today’s standards) to trash a city with a single airburst (which one person in a light aircraft could implement).

      In the middle range I’m willing to argue and think about this issue; in the extreme range I think the meaning of the word “arms” as I presume was intended by the Founders is stretched beyond the breaking point.

  12. Andy B. says:

    “. . .in the extreme range I think the meaning of the word “arms” as I presume was intended by the Founders is stretched beyond the breaking point.”

    Exactly what the gun controllers say about “assault rifles,” high-CAP magazines, “long range sniper rifles,” etc.

    If a constitutional principle was ever valid, it is impervious to invalidation by technology. Advancing technology only provides what agents of the state always seek; an excuse for saying things are different today, and fundamental principles of liberty no longer apply.

    • Harold says:

      If you are incapable of seeing a difference in quality between arms such as the ones you describe (all easy extrapolations from what the Founders knew and could foresee, and I would extend this to e.g. the artillery and rockets I previously described) and a device that can destroy an entire city in second then we have no basis for discussion.

top