See, now you are discussing your interpretation of his statements. I disagree with you of course. But you aren’t saying that he SAID those things, you are saying that you think he MEANT those things, and are giving reasons why you think so.
In MY opinion, Romney was actually concerned with not sounding like he was denying his previous positions, while showing they were not his positions anymore. But Russert wasn’t asking about his previous positions, and kept pushing for “do you still”. So Romney’s answers were not quite in sync with Russert’s question. That’s why Romney was stilted, because of the interruptions.
While I could believe Romney wouldn’t understand how the 1934 and 1986 law would already cover some new weapon that was like the ones covered (I certainly don’t know how well it is written to cover new weapons), I don’t think he was using “extraordinary lethality” to mean assault rifles.
Why not? because there is a current law proposed which would ban them. And Romney SPECIFICALLY said that what he would support was NOT currently being proposed. Therefore, the guns banned by the proposed AWB can’t be the ones he would ban.
It is clear that Romney wants to appeal to gun owners, and has no interest in appealing to people who want to ban guns. He has published a position that sounds like a solid pro-gun position.