Throughout the day, ABC News' political team contributes to The Note with the very latest news and analysis from the nation's capital.
June 09, 2011 2:14 PM
ABC News' Sarah Kunin (@Sarah_Kunin) Reports:
In an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday, former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman said that he would not veto an assault weapons ban.
Unfortunately for Huntsman, this statement is not true. The former governor “would absolutely” veto a weapons ban, and he immediately issued a statement to affirm it.
"Hugh, I clearly misunderstood your question regarding the assault weapons ban,” Huntsman wrote in an email to Hewitt. “I would absolutely veto the ban. I have always stood firmly for 2nd Amendment rights, and my record in Utah reflects it. With a name like 'Huntsman' it really goes without saying.”
Hewitt posted a transcript of interview to his website, which included the quick exchange that led to the blunder.
“Governor, let’s close with four quick issue sets to get you located on the political map,” said Hewitt in yesterday’s interview. “Do you support a right to life amendment?”
“I do support a right to life amendment,” replied Huntsman.
“Would you veto an assault weapons ban?” asked Hewitt.
“I would not veto an assault weapons ban,” said Huntsman
As he comes closer to announcing a presidential run, everything Huntsman says will be examined under a microscope. Of course, the same rule applies to everything he does not say; particularly that unlike fellow Republicans vying for the nomination, Huntsman has avoided direct criticism of President Obama.
“He’s not one to tear anyone down by name, whether that person is Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Gov. Mitt Romney or President Barack Obama,” Huntsman’s communications director, Matt David, told Politico. “I think he’ll make it clear where he disagrees when it comes to policy and where he wants to take this country, but for him this is a campaign based on substance and not names.”
Huntsman has distanced himself from President Obama since returning from his post as Ambassador to China, a position awarded to him by the president himself.
President Obama, on the other hand, has made every effort to highlight his working relationship with Huntsman, once joking to a crowd, “I'm sure he will be very successful in whatever endeavors he chooses in the future. And I'm sure that him having worked so well with me will be a great asset in any Republican primary."
last week, a six year old girl, in my daughters class, was shot and killed by her 2 year old brother. Congratulations to you gun lovers for another Successful year with your buddies in the NRA.
People don't kill people, People with guns kill people.
I am sure this will send you guys into a comment frenzy, but I had to tell my daughter her friend was dead, as the police collected 53 guns from the dad. Nothing you can say will make that OK. Rest in peace Emily. You deserved better from our society.
People don't kill people, People with guns kill people.
I am sure this will send you guys into a comment frenzy, but I had to tell my daughter her friend was dead, as the police collected 53 guns from the dad. Nothing you can say will make that OK. Rest in peace Emily. You deserved better from our society.
POSTED BY: HERBISSIMO | JUN 9, 2011 3:34:55 PM
HERBISSIMO
Why do people like you think the government has to be the nanny to dictate personal responsibility?
Your friend was carless. Flat out. That doesn't mean that I am, nor should that mean that my guns be taken away.
Your friend was carless. Flat out. That doesn't mean that I am, nor should that mean that my guns be taken away.
I'll tell you another story. I was taught to handle a gun and shoot at the age of 8. It was very common to take a gun to school for show-n-tell. Nobody freaked, nobody died and nobody got shot.
The more we give our responsibilities away to others, the more hopless we become.
POSTED BY: JUICE | JUN 9, 2011 3:49:44 PM
Laws are not for responsible people. They are for people who have to have a higher authority require them to be responsible or else. I was taught to use guns safely too. I support the second amendment. I, however, do not understand why the NRA is against EVERY law that promotes safety and sanity, claiming a "slippery slope" defense in attacking every attempt to reign in the idiots of the gun world. There are good technologies out there that the NRA is against implimenting. Why?
POSTED BY: HERBISSIMO | JUN 9, 2011 4:00:07 PM
would the two year old have killed his sister without a gun?
POSTED BY: HERBISSIMO | JUN 9, 2011 5:44:20 PM
Herbissimo asks "would the two year old have killed his sister without a gun?"
I say, possibly. Kids get into household chemicals, kitchen knives and other potentially deadly items around the house all the time.
The solution isn't to ban said items or mandate changes to their designs by legislative, judicial or executive fiat. The solution is for adults to be responsible and safely use and store said items.
This can be accomplished by educating people instead of teaching them to irrationally fear potentially dangerous items.
POSTED BY: DUSTONEGT | JUN 9, 2011 7:19:47 PM
Juice,
Because the gun control side claims every single idea they think up is "just common sense", and they constantly keep coming up with more and more ways to step on the 2nd Amendment.
Sorry, you don't get to ban "assault weapons", which are really semi-automatic rifles. The Supreme Court says you can't ban guns in common use for lawful purposes. Semi-automatic guns are very much in common use (just look at the sales of them) and they are used for lawful purposes like hunting and target shooting.
Not-to-mention that lots of people have large collections of "assault weapons". They didn't spend their hard earned money on them just to turn them in to be melted down. Sorry, not going to happen. If the anti-gun people said "turn'em in", the people that own them would say "f you, come get'em".
It's sad that there is a % of gun deaths per year in the United States, but that is collateral damage that is worth having the right to own firearms. If a few people have to die so the rest of us can go to the gun range and shoot targets with are cool-looking AR-15s and AK-47 Clones, then so be it.
We own Congress and we own the Supreme Court. We win. You lose.
POSTED BY: MANBEARPIG | JUN 9, 2011 8:41:21 PM
Can't we ban the sale of bullets, instead? People with knives, blunt objects, and loaded guns kill people. You may the right to bear arms but it doesn't say anything about ammunition.
POSTED BY: CAMERON BARRETT | JUN 10, 2011 12:32:01 AM
Cameron,
No, you can not ban the sale of bullets. The right to bear arms means bearing functional firearms; they don't function without ammo. I know comedians like Chris Rock are fun for anti-gun people to take literally, but just like Bible-thumpers, your literal crap is wrong. Try banning ammo, just try it, and see how far you get. Your bill won't even make it out of committee in congress; let alone pass strict scrutiny under the Supreme Court.
We pro-Constitution people have won the war. We own congress and we own the SCOTUS. We already have two SCOTUS decisions (Heller and McDonald) which are as set in stone as Roe v Wade. Please, for the love of God, put up more fights so that we can get the current SCOTUS to give us more victories that you will never be able to undo (as the SCOTUS is the highest court in the land and does not simply undo it's decisions based on who is in the majority).
In the mean time, I'm gonna go to the local gun range with my cool-looking "assault weapons" and play Rambo against some paper targets, because I can, because it's my right, and because there's not a darned thing any anti can do about it.
POSTED BY: MANBEARPIG | JUN 10, 2011 1:49:03 AM
manbearpig wrote, "...as the SCOTUS is the highest court in the land and does not simply undo it's decisions based on who is in the majority".
Yet when they ruled FOR Citizens United last year, they ignored 2 previous SC rulings as well as a hundred years of lower case law.....
POSTED BY: SEARAMBLER | JUN 10, 2011 2:09:26 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment