However, I see that position as no worse than Fred Thompson's support of the Lautenberg gun ban. The Fred Thompson supporters try to dismiss this ban as something that keeps "wife-beaters" from owning guns. However, people who engage in serious domestic violence are already prohibited from owning guns because serious domestic violence is a felony offense. More and more prosecutors are trying to convict people of felonies for any action that has hints of domestic violence. Lautenberg wasn't needed to keep these people from owning guns.
The Lautenberg ban extended the prohibition to people convicted of misdemeanors. A simple push could be enough to deny someone his (or her) Second Amendment rights forever. I'm not saying that anyone should be proud of an argument that leads to any kind of pushing, but I don't believe that these situations should lead to loss of Second Amendment rights. As much as I hate the assault weapons ban, I'd rather have my choices of guns limited than for gun-grabbers to take another step towards extending the classes of people not allowed to own guns.
Again, the point is not that Mr. Romney is good on the issue and Fred Thompson is bad. The point is that I can't see either of them as being everything that I want and don't see either of them as being everything that I don't want. In that situation, I lean towards Mr. Romney because of his executive experience.
Bill