Posted on 01/25/2008 9:59:59 AM PST by JRochelle
During the debate last night, Mitt Romney was asked about his support of Brady and a ban on assault weapons.
MR. ROMNEY: I do support the Second Amendment, and I believe that this is an individual right of citizens and not a right of government. And I hope the Supreme Court reaches that same conclusion.
I also, like the president, would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-guy lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to — to have guns for their own legal purposes. And so we signed that in Massachusetts, and I said I’d — I would would support that at the federal level, just as the president said he would. It did not pass at the federal level.
I do not believe we need new legislation.
I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that, if they’re implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have.
I think it might be helpful to review Dave Kopel’s thoughts on Mr. Romney’s views of the Second Amendment and gun ownership as published in National Review.
Romney’s Record Similarly, this year’s presidential candidate from Massachusetts has a thin record to back up his claims of support for the Second Amendment. On his website, you can find two accomplishments:
First, in 2004 he signed a bill which reformed some aspects of the extremely severe and arbitrary gun-licensing system in Massachusetts. This would be an impressive accomplishment if that were all the bill did. But the bill also made the Massachusetts ban on “assault weapons” permanent. (The previous ban was parasitic on the federal ban, which expired in September 2004.) The bill that Romney signed was a compromise bill, approved by both sides in the Massachusetts gun-control debate and widely supported by both parties in the legislature. The NRA considered the bill to be a net gain, but it’s hardly the unalloyed, pro-rights success that Romney now claims. As governor, Romney declared his support for banning so-called “assault weapons.”
The other accomplishment noted on the website was Romney’s signing of a 2005 bill that improved some technical details for hunting with muzzle-loading guns.
Other than the 2005 proclamation, there is little evidence of executive leadership by Romney on Second Amendment rights; rather, he tended merely to accept reform bills which could pass even the Massachusetts legislature.
But Romney occasionally considered the Democratic-dominated Massachusetts legislature too soft on gun owners. In the summer of 2002, the Massachusetts house overwhelmingly passed a bill to relax the state’s lifetime ban on gun ownership for persons convicted of some misdemeanors. Faced with a bill that had passed the left-leaning House by a huge margin, Governor Romney declared his opposition, while allowing that he would back a much “more narrow proposal” (Boston Globe, July 17, 2002, page B4). (The narrower proposal was eventually included in the 2004 bill which he did sign.)
Running for re-election in 2002, he bragged, “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” At the least, Romney generally didn’t show leadership in making Massachusetts’ terrible gun-laws even worse. For example, his 2002 anti-crime plan included no new gun control (Boston Herald, August 21, 2002).
Conservative? Hmm. Let’s continue.
Romney’s website brags about how he balanced the Massachusetts budget “without raising taxes.” That depends on what the meaning of “taxes” is. Unmentioned on the Romney website is how he dealt with a state budget gap: namely, by quadrupling the fee for a Firearms Identification card (FID) to $100. Without a FID in Massachusetts, you are a felon if you possess a single bullet, even if you don’t own a gun. The FID card is required even to possess defensive pepper spray. Thus, an impoverished woman who wanted to buy a $15 can of pepper spray was forced by Romney to spend $100 for the privilege of defending her own life (North Shore Sunday News, August 8, 2003).
This year, Romney has been portraying himself as a staunch Second Amendment advocate. But when he was interviewed by Glenn and Helen Reynolds, he displayed little understanding of the Second Amendment and had difficulty articulation anything more than platitudes and slogans.
Conservative? Paying $100 to carry pepper spray? Let’s continue.
Unreliable Friends of Convenience Mitt Romney’s attitudes on guns — like his double flip-flop on abortion — appear to have more to do with political expediency than with conviction. While an expedient and cynical “friend” like Mitt Romney would probably be better for gun owners than would a sincere and fierce enemy like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, it is still worth wondering what President Romney would do if his political calculus changed yet again.
George H. W. Bush was another gun-rights friend of convenience, who (like Romney) bought himself a lifetime NRA membership shortly before running for president. And when circumstances made it convenient for Bush to become a gun-control advocate instead of a Second Amendment defender (only a few weeks after he took the oath of office and swore to defend the Constitution), Bush switched sides, and spent the remainder of his administration promoting restrictions on the Second Amendment.
So instead of standing for his beliefs, he politicized and compromised away the very rights he swore to uphold?
How will it be any different at the fed level ???
I think either man can beat Hillary, if the GOP grassroots grows up and recoginizes that we are either going to have a GOP president from one of these guys or we are going to have Hillary.
That is the stark reality we are facing and we need to start dealing with it.
Why did the NRA support Romney, and donate money to his campaign?
Bleah. No thanks. The Pubbies can keep their RINOs. How the hell do they figger He's going to play in the South and the West as a Pro-Choice, Anti-2A candidate?
Sheesh!
Start investing in beer and toilet paper...
I am voting for McCain.
You see he is an *ss, but he is not a lying *ss.
Like Romney.
If you don’t like my posts, ignore them!
Or buggar off!
Yes. McCain is a lying, two-faced, RINO, POS. And yes, you can “buggar off”.
I doubt the grassroots will ever grow up, as you best put it. Some people enjoy all the whining, or at least that’s what it seems.
In that case, we're no worse off than since at least 1/20/89. No better, either, but certainly no worse.
We're going to have to do what we've done for the last 20 years (or more, since that stuff happened for many decades before Reagan), which is to hold our Congress' feet to the fire and their necks to the rope (political rope, not the real thing Mr. Secret Service or FBI Man). IOW, exercise our obligations as citizens to protect ourselves at the least harmful and costly level. This means being active citizens, period.
Perhaps this won't even be an issue anymore, depending on how the Supreme Court rules this Spring. Time will tell.
I'm no Romney cheerleader, and articles like this are why. However, I find him to be the least objectionable of all the candidates remaining in the Republican side...ALL of whom are better than ALL the Dem candidates. I don't like it, but that's our predicament right now. Barring a brokered convention that nominates Fred Thompson or someone like him (and I'm not holding my breath waiting for that), that is reality on Planet Earth.
The NRA is not what it once was. I will trust the GOA.
Is anyone else bothered by what that sentence implies?
And, more importantly, how it looks in light of Romney's feigned indignance last week when a reporter had the temerity to claim Romney had lobbyists running his campaign.
ping
Thanks.
I’ve said my piece. It’s just a prediction, and if things go well, we’ll see if it’s true in a few months.
Straight-up budget deficit that he inhereted. For what it’s worth, the tax cuts he delivered later probably more than made up for it for anyone who had to pay the fee. It’s $100 for six years rather than $25 for 4.
The same part that 99.99% of the people in the country, including all of our elected officials, don’t understand, according to you — all those who are not looking to repeal every gun law ever passed that restrict access to weapons.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand your point. I’m not a Mormon and I would rather spend an evening that way, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.