Actually, I did highlight the “there’s nothing of that nature” part.
I didn’t highlight the other part because there was no dispute about that statement. We both agreed that he said it. Our disagreement on that point is with the definition of “Extraordinary Lethality”.
I take the definition from the man who made the statement. You interpreted his statement based on your own opinion of what he meant. I think that since we are talking about a statement he made, his description of the term is of greater accuracy than your speculation.
The thing that is “present tense” is that THERE’S NOTHING OF THAT NATURE”. Since there is an AWB currently on the table, it’s clear that Romney doesn’t consider that one a bill he would sign, since he said there was NOTHING OF “THAT NATURE”. So he defined “That Nature” to exclude the AWB bills being worked on by democrats today.
You obviously believe he will support some new AWB in the future. I can’t prove he won’t. But I can prove that he has SAID he won’t, and that your attempts to claim he DID say so are inaccurate.