And his vocal support of the 1994 AWB? He couldn't have forced the legislature to over turn his veto, but instead capitulated? And this is supposed to make us feel better about him as a POTUS candidate? That he'll roll over for expediencies sake?
Why? Why not just get behind a candidate that has no such baggage? Like Hunter or Gingrich. Why waste the effort on a RINO?
As to the AWB -- The assault weapons ban even won the backing of Massachusetts gun owners in part because it included provisions that would extend the term of a firearm identification card and license to carry from four to six years and create a Firearm License Review Board to provide an appeals process for people whose firearm license applications have been denied.
Again, it was a compromise with the heavily liberal, gun-grabbing state legislature.
Jim DeMint, who has an A rating from the GOA, has endorsed Romney so he must feel differently than you.
This is a good time to remind everyone what Ronald Reagan said about that:
When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.
~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life .
Just one of the many important lessons Reagan left behind.