Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JRochelle
In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.

snip

Also, in 2005, Romney designated May 7 as "The Right to Bear Arms Day" in Massachusetts to honor "the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property and for all lawful purposes, including the common defense."

11 years later he changes his position. It isn't the first time a politician has moderated their position.

Personally, I'd give him a pass on this issues as of now, but time will tell

21 posted on 01/14/2007 2:17:00 PM PST by Popman ("What I was doing wasn't living, it was dying. I really think God had better plans for me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Popman
One more rancid tidbit from the article:

"These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense," he (Romney) was quoted as saying. "They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

Hmm, sounds like the U.S. Army should be interested in these instruments of destruction, because they apparently autonomously hunt down and kill people.

On a political note, I had been expecting this move from Romney. He is a man who believes in nothing except the pursuit of personal political power. Let him try to spin his past anti-gun positions whichever way he can, but once his signing of the Mass. "Assault Weapons" ban in 2004 is widely publicized in New Hampshire, his chances with the gun people will be completely destroyed.

31 posted on 01/14/2007 2:46:45 PM PST by LiveFree99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Popman
11 years later he changes his position. It isn't the first time a politician has moderated their position.

Personally, I'd give him a pass on this issues as of now, but time will tell

If a politician repudiates a former position, making it abundantly clear that he recognizes he made a mistake, and explains the reasons why his new position is right and the former position was wrong, then I will trust the politician to actually hold the new position.

I am unaware of Mitt Romney having done anything even remotely resembling that.

39 posted on 01/14/2007 3:39:45 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Popman

Some Freepers won't like this but........

I don't care if he is/has changed positions. He's a pol just like most others. He didn't win in '94 so his statements are mute. He did win in 2002 and he kept his promises. I believe he will keep whatever promises he makes in the campaign and that is what counts. Whether the positions he takes are his true core or not is unknown but that is a fact of politics. Romney can win because he is engaging, quick-witted, attractive and forceful when need be....he kill Hillary/Obama etc. in a debate. Romney will/has a quick response team that will counter immediately any bs. He is a candidate that is able to use the media coverage to his advantage which is imperative because of the blatants "assists" the LMSM gives any Dem nominee.

He has a stellar private sector record.

So am I using superficial criteria? Sure. Can he win? Absolutely.


65 posted on 01/14/2007 7:21:06 PM PST by torchthemummy (Romney 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson