2004: Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban

TheRightScoop.com ^ | February 4th, 2012

[SoConPubbie]

Andrew Kaczynski dug up this Romney press release today from the Web Archive, showing that he signed off on a permanent Assault Weapons ban in 2004:

In a move that will help keep the streets and neighborhoods of Massachusetts safe, Governor Mitt Romney today signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that forever makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on these dangerous guns.

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.

“We are pleased to mark an important victory in the fight against crime,” said Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey. “The most important job of state government is ensuring public safety. Governor Romney and I are determined to do whatever it takes to stop the flood of dangerous weapons into our cities and towns and to make Massachusetts safer for law-abiding citizens.”

[donmeaker]

I will also suggest that the Constitution envisions private ownership of crew served weapons, as shown by the Letters of Marque and Reprisal clause. What is a privateer ship but a crew served weapon, privately owned, and authorized to be used in the service of the nation by a private party?

So machine guns, artillery, and even fighter aircraft are to be available for private ownership per the constitution.

[SoConPubbie]

For those who are still having hissy fits over this, answer two questions for me: Since when is a military weapon (other than collector’s pieces) needed for home or recreational use? And, a. do you really want 4 more years of Obama?; b. if not, there is only one other realistic choice: Romney. These are the facts. Deal with it.

And with one simple post you've outed yourself as someone who has no understanding of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment nor of the amendment itself.

1. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?
2. The 2nd Amendment wasn't for personal protection per se. It's real purpose was for the citizenry to always have the means to control and overthrow, if necessary, an out-of-control government. In essence, to keep the Government fearful of it's owners, the people.

[ctdonath2]

After much thought and training, this is what I got for serious home defense:

My reasons are mine. It is mine. And I am deeply suspicious of anyone who intends to deny my obtaining or keeping it.

[RC one]

I can’t completely disagree with you but I can’t agree with you either. strange times we find find ourselves in.

[JRandomFreeper]

No hate here. You don't have to agree with me. Lots of folks don't. And I don't agree with you. That's the way that is.

I do appreciate that you aren't abusive about it and can discuss things.

Things have been over the top here with personal attacks.

ABL Anyone But Liberals.

/johnny

[Vermont Lt]

On a nice calm evening in Springfield, there are several gunshots recorded. They have those audio systems that can triangulate gunshots.

The streets are not safe.

Thanks Mitt.

[Vermont Lt]

On a nice calm evening in Springfield, there are several gunshots recorded. They have those audio systems that can triangulate gunshots.

The streets are not safe.

Thanks Mitt.

[Jack Hammer]

One resident of Massachusetts who can say without any reservations at all that Romney was a disaster - an absolute disaster - on Second Amendment issues.

[Howindependent]

I too am from MA, and I agree that Romney was far from the best governor. He is not the best candidate for president either. But, he’d still be a lot better than Obama. This so-called gun issue is nonsense, dispute the I must have a howitzer in my living room crowd. (I am a strong gun owners proponent.)

Choosing to vote or not is one’s choice. Just be careful of what you wish for. Not voting means a win for Obama. People need to get off the emotional gun issue and think of the other consequences of 4 more years of Obama - including stricter gun laws.

[GenXteacher]

“This so-called gun issue is nonsense, dispute the I must have a howitzer in my living room crowd.”

“People need to get off the emotional gun issue”

Actually, the gun issue is a great conservative litmus test- it shows who really believes in limited government. A northeastern gungrabbing liberal RINO like Romney flunks lunch on this one.