Posted on 01/25/2008 9:59:59 AM PST by JRochelle
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Anyone who would consider taking guns off the law-abiding American citizens could care less about protecting the country...
hardly the makings of a Commander-in-Chief
Nothing new or surprising here. Romney is a weasel on EVERY issue.
Vote for Mitt?
NEVER.
I’m a life long 2nd Amendment supporter and I’m not a member of the NRA. Neither is my father, his brothers, or any other of my family.
Just sayin.
You can count on Hillary appointing liberals, irrespect of the gun issue. You can reasonably expect any of the GOP candidates to appoint conservatives, with the possible exception of McCain, irrespective of the gun issue. Of course, the S.Ct. may well weigh in on guns, but we won’t have any say on what they do, so I’m not sure if I would call it an issue.
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. ... found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and ***allow*** (empahsis mine)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. ...
... 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. “
-——From the article above
Totally self contradictory within a few sentences - If he acknowledges that bearing arms is an individual right, then he can’t possibly think it is ok for the government to “allow” some people to exercise that right under some licensed circumstances.
IMO Romney should NOT be trusted with public office under any circumstances.
Like I said, I wouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney if you held a gun to my head.
Cripes, at this point I’m even giving Sam Brownback “another look”....
Any chance Willard had of winning the national went out the window when he said 200K when less than 10% of Americans make that much. You can bet in the general that will haunt him..
Since you enjoy ancient history so much, don't forget that Reagan signed the Mulford Act, supported both the Brady Bill and the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Yet, he is revered, appropriately, by gun owners around the country. No one is perfect and to demand perfection, or to ignore their entire record, is unrealistic, unreasonable and unfair.
If Hillary or Obama get elected and pursue a program of civilian disarmament, then let it come. When will we be better able to fight? When we're disarmed gradually by a traitorous Republican or suddenly by unashamed enemies of freedom?
The issue will not be guns, but the will to resist, forcefully if necessary. What circumstances will engender/encourage that will or crush it? Bill was great at firing up the Militia movement. Let's see if Hillary is better.
Im starting to come to the same conclusion. I have another week to see how fla shakes things up..
Just dealing with the 2nd amendment. The author is wrong about the Mass Gun law. It WAS related to the federal law, but NOT in a way that made it expire with the Federal law.
Instead, the Ma. Law was a permanent law, but whose definition of AWB was RESTRICTED by the federal law.
Once the federal law expired, it was expected that either the definition of AWB would stay the same for the Ma. law, or worse, that with no federal law, many more guns would be considered to be part of the Ma. Law.
This is not some after-the-fact excuse. IN fact, this was the argument made by the gun-rights groups in pushing to fix the bill.
Of course, the anti-gun group was also nervous, thinking that there was always a slim possibility that a court would rule that with no more federal law, the “list” of banned guns would be zero. But they weren’t TOO nervous, because the liberal legislature was ready, willing, and able to append a new, large list of guns to the bill.
But the Gun Owners groups pre-empted that, by deciding to accept a list of weapons that was SMALLER than the federal list, thus providing the appearance of compromise while making the law much less onerous. And they got a bunch of other stuff they wanted put in the bill (as the author notes).
Thus, when it came time to sign the bill, the gun-rights groups were ecstatic, calling the bill the greatest pro-gun bill in the state’s history. In fact, the only thing they were upset about was that the signing ceremony claimed the bill was a win for the anti-gun crowd.
They were SO UPSET that their bill was being called anti-gun by the liberals that they castigated Mitt Romney for letting it happen. Yep, they attacked Mitt NOT for the bill, but for letting opponents claim it was an anti-gun bill.
Now here we are 3 years later, and opponents are again falsely claiming the bill was anti-gun. Only now the opponents aren’t lying liberals, but misguided pro-gun 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.
That statement is as strong a statement of a pro-gun position as ANY candidate.
You can of course think he is lying, but you can't say he SUPPORTS AWB or has PLANS to ban guns, because he SAYS otherwise.
“Huck is also the least constitutional as he stated he believes in the living breathing document.”
He was talking about how it can be amended not that it should interpreted through the lens of moder times... Even Fred Thompson said ‘I understand what he meant but he should say it differently’
How do you support them, other than by saying so? I mean there are other organizations but the NRA wields the most power.
Then don’t vote at all and quit b#tchin’ about him.
You do know that as President Mitt would sign every piece of excrement anti-gun bill that made it to his desk, don’t you?
The Huckster, like any populist nanny-stater, will sign national gun control legislation if it reaches his desk. At least Romney is up front about it. All of these candidates will.
The Huskster, Flip-flop Mitt, McKeating and Julieannie. Lord help us. The Huckster scares me most.
The republican party is simply liberal-lite and running full tilt to re-achieve it’s 70’s minority status.
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.