|
 |
Posted on 04/29/2012 4:52:29 PM PDT by 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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
|
|
If anyone expects Romney to be any different, you are fooling yourself. Evil has taken this country and both parties have lost their souls.
Reason 4,327 that I will not vote for that &%$%^)@#*%.
LLS
Not defending Romney, I'm knocking GWB.
I won’t know if I will vote for him until I’m standing in the booth. It’s a tough call.
Don’t worry, the Marxists have assured Romney that in light of his service, they will eat him last.
I looked up the MA ban Romney signed. If you get caught in MA with a “high capacity magazine” manufactured after some specific date, the fine is $10,000 and ten years felony imprisonment. (remember this if you are going to an IDPA match there!)
Mitt now says he’s pro-gun (and always has been), so I guess we don’t need to worry about him in the White House.
He is, after all, a lifelong hunter and a gun owner.
/johnny
That is a liberal fantasy that just won't work. Do the logistics. How many cops are there? How many firearms are there?
Nope. Not gonna happen. We won't be disarmed.
Last time someone tried it, lots of folks died.
/johnny
Clinton managed it. They will try it again at some point. they will have to.
And yet, tons of idiots tell us this man is the only hope to stop Obama.
then you had better pray extra hard that we take the senate or we’re all effed double plus good and if it turns into a tie and Obama is still President, you can thank yourself for costing us control of the senate and the legislative agenda for the next 2-4 years.
Yes, and it was not always the right people who got shot, like when Dirty Harry does the shooting.
Those who want to “re-create sixty eight” will provide opportunities to “kill a commie for mommy”.
The GOP is as dangerous to liberty as the Rats.
/johnny
You own that mess.
/johnny
bookmark
But the GOP has their man and now we'll hear the endless drumbeat of standing behind this anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro- national/socialized health care, high tax, pro-gay marriage, anti Iraq war “conservative.” Uninspiring, he's the lukewarm answer the media liked better and who paid his dues within a party as well as had the financial resources to simply win by attrition and mass, not through ideas or consistency on issues. Now this old potato will get warmed up a little by a political machine and go against Obama who will crush him in Nov.
The candidates that would have been most dangerous for Obama would have been those that would have rallied the base, had a consistent conservative track record and brought forth new ideas. It seems that those who sit best in reality with the conservative voter are not those that make it through a media and GOP process that selects their “moderate middle of the road” guy.
2012 is over before it even started.
This is a rehash of previous anti-Romney verbiage. Nothing new here.
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.
Yeah, Romney's a liberal. We get it.
And the guy currently in office is the most destructive, America-hating Marxist who has ever sullied the White House.
I have rope. There are unoccupied street lamps nearby. I'm good to go.
/johnny
And that's exactly what we are, when Romney wraps up the nomination (if he does).
/johnny
You got someone else in mind? Please regale us with who this is and what their roadmap to the White House currently looks like.
Romney would try to take our firearms away, but he doesn't have the raw power to do it either.
NO LIBERALS. Not Romney. Not Obama.
Talk to the GOP E if you are unhappy with their dirty tricks, badmouthing conservatives, and mid-game rule changes if you have a problem with that.
But you can't scare me into voting for Romney.
/johnny
I’m writing in, tyvm, so the question becomes: who else do you Romneybots have in mind?
Answer my questions, please.
I understand completely.
LLS
“Since when is a military weapon (other than collector’s pieces) needed for home or recreational use?”
Let me spell this out for you: No government conceived by man, including and especially ours, should ever have a monopoly on deadly force, because that is the most certain route to autocracy. Any candidate who supports the suppression of the right to bear arms is unworthy to hold the office of dogcatcher’s assistant, whether he be Republican or Democrat.
Romney only did what any “severly rational conservative” would do and that’s to say or do whatever it takes to pander to whatever group they’re pandering to at the time and to hell with Conservatives because they owe him support because he says he is severly conservative and of course he is rational about things like the assault weapons ban where us Conservatives are irrational. Do you get it now? Just fall in and do as told.
Ouch. Please don't go there. The right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct on this forum, as it should be and it pains me to concede that when it comes to this right, Obama actually has a better record of upholding it that Romney does. Reason #2,695 why the vote I intend to cast for Mitt Romney in November will be a painful one.
Though, honestly, I'm not too worried that anyone is going to take my guns away. It is a dead issue and politicians on both sides of the aisle have figured out that it just isn't worth the political capitol that banning guns expends.
And I still won't vote for Romney. Ever. He's a gun-grabber wanna-be. And support those that murder unborn babies.
I don't need to justify not voting for a gun-grabbing, pro-abortion, pro-socialized medicine, big government liberal.
You are the one that needs to justify supporting him.
/johnny
the direction we move is determined by congress more than the president. the president has some power but congress ultimately steers the ship left or right. Congress is becoming increasingly conservative despite what some may say. with control of the senate and the house, we’re relatively safe no matter what happens with the presidential election. having said that, I have been more concerned with the outcome of the senate battles than the presidential race for over a year now since I had the foresight to see Mitt Romney coming. A 50/50 senate split seems quite possible and I don’t want Joe Biden being the deciding member of the senate. I’m not voting for Romney, I’m voting for whoever he picks for VP.
1. Most "recreational weapons" are derived from military weapons. 1911 was an officer's gun. Glock started for Austrian Defense. Mossberg shotguns are used by Marines. The .30-06 Hunting Rifle is a military round.
2. It's not the Bill of Needs, but the Bill of Rights.
3. Governments that do not trust me with "military weapons" are not trustworthy enough to hold power.
And I haven't notice a lot of conservatism out of Congress, now that you mention it.
I did notice a lot of go-along-to-get-along that wasn't well reported by the media, and a few big publicity items that don't amount to much, in the way of throwing a bone to the conservative base.
Say what you want. Do what you like. But the GOP has lost me, long ago, and I'll campaign against any liberal that comes up for a vote, whether they have a D or R beside their name.
Get used to it.
/johnny
“It is a dead issue”
Never dead, Drew. Eternal vigilance is the price of safety.
In answer to your question a. The guns in question are not military weapons. They are semi automatic firearms. Secondly, you are quite arrogant to even assume to be able to make the suggestion that you know better than I what I need for my home defense. Third, the 2nd Amendment is about more than just self defense. It’s about defense of one’s person, home, and NATION. Lastly, if the Government feels there is a need for a particular small arm type, then we would behoove ourselves to follow suit. If the Government thinks we shouldn’t have a particular type of firearm, then what in the hell are they doing with it themselves? THEY have less need of any particular firearm type than the American citizen.
As for your other comments...
Romney is not a choice. I will not vote for that leftist piece of toilet paper. He’s shown himself to be no better than Obama or any other socialist idiot. I will no longer participate in electing the “lesser” of two evils. If a candidate does not meet my standards, he’s not getting my vote. Romney falls very short of my standards.
I hate to say it but Obama deserves to win if Romney is the GOP’s best option.
Romney is going to lose for several critical reasons. 1. He’s no different than Obama. 2. His whole campaign is basically “I’m not Obama”. 3. He hasn’t energized the base AT ALL. 4. He’s a lying leftist scum bag.
THOSE are the facts. DEAL WITH IT.
Now, stop bothering us and go pander for Romney where he’ll be appreciated... DU.
Indeed. And vigilance is precisely why it is a dead issue and precisely what keeps it a dead issue.
A) You don't get that ballot choice at the general election.
B) You have no idea who Romney might pick for a VP. So you are saying you are going to blindly vote for whoever someone you won't vote for picks for a running mate? Dude.. That's messed up.
/johnny
1911 was not an officer’s gun, it was a cavalry gun. A lesson of the Civil war was the effectiveness of large caliber pistols when used by cavalry. The .44 cap and ball revolver is as effective as ever it was. The .45 Colt, the .45 Schofield (S&W) and the 1911 were all product improvements on something that worked. Of course that cavalry stuff had to change a lot once machineguns became widely distributed.
Even in 1939, German infantry formations got very weary of being attacked by Polish Cavalry.
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.
My reasons are mine. It is mine. And I am deeply suspicious of anyone who intends to deny my obtaining or keeping it.
I can’t completely disagree with you but I can’t agree with you either. strange times we find find ourselves in.
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
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.
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.
One resident of Massachusetts who can say without any reservations at all that Romney was a disaster - an absolute disaster - on Second Amendment issues.
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.
“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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.