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.
That’s just the fact. If you owned a gun that was listed in the AWB bill BEFORE the bill took effect, you could keep it. The ban was on the PURCHASE of the gun, not the OWNERSHIP of the gun.
I’ve never owned a gun, but I almost bought an AK-47 from a friend of mine right before the ban, just in case I decided I needed one later.
Let me know how that goes for you.
Gun grabber bump for later
He worked with the gun groups that would be effected by the compromise, came to an agreement everybody thought would be best, and implemented it.
Yes, in the real world where we all live, you sometimes don’t get everything that you want, and compromising is better than not.
It’s not about “rights he swore to uphold”. At this time, no court has found AWBs to be unconstitutional anyway, even if they should be.
Some people want to tilt at windmills.
ANYONE can drink the Kool-aid and many on this forum do.
No, I think instead I’ll just keep pointing out that every word out of your mouth is a blatant lie and that you support the only candidate running who supports amending the 1st amendment to the constitution and wants judge Wapner to handle Osama’s trial.
You’re welcome.
How can we protect the 1st amendment when your guy is blasting the 2nd?
OK. So John McCain gets a C+ for his record on 2nd AMDT. Jewelyannie is worse, Dems are worse than him. So who is your pick; Ron Paul?
Yeah, FReepers got a real conservative to vote for finally, one with the record to back it up.
But noooo...Oooga Booga! Cavemen half a world away is scaring them, so let's just vote for the RINO who'll protect us from these evil creatures. Never mind the fact that Paul still supports a strong military and will still leave behind a contigency of troops to specifically go after bin Laden.
It's absolutely sickening.
What Kool-aid?
Uh, without wanting to defend the AWB (I despise the very concept of gun control - check out my FR homepage, past posts and links if you don't believe that), what Charles said is accurate. The AWB banned the acquisition of certain named models, of firearms, or firearms with a combination of certain named features (no matter the name) manufactured after a certain date in 1994. Ditto for magazines of greater than 10 rounds in capacity. You could get anything manufactured beforehand (remember the huge advertisements for PRE-BANS), if you were willing to pony up between 2 and 10 times the original price of the items (which was, IMHO, the point of the whole exercise).
Please, let's deal with facts as facts. I didn't like the fact of the AWB and I don't like the fact that gun-banning SOBs are in Congress, running for President, in the bureaucracy, in the media, the churches and synogogues, etc., but those are FACTS. Work to change future facts, don't bad-mouth someone who accurately represents facts as they were/are.
That being said, I'm no Romney fan. I MAY still end up voting for him, on the theory that he's not as bad as the rest of those wuckfits running for President.
And if you think Mitt Romney is going to take your guns away, your bigger concern is probably the government putting floride in your water and brain washing you.
So he’s wrong about the price of Romney’s extortion. Myth is still wrong about the Second Amendment.
If you hate the Second, you hate them all.
Myth hates them all.
FReepers don't care about Paul's 2nd Amendment stand that'll put everyone else's to shame. They don't care about withdrawing from the UN and abolishing entire federal departments and agencies. As long as we continue fighting a war that should have been over and done with months ago is all that matters.
Two points. First, by then, the damage is done. Frankly, it would be best prevented in the first place.
Once they take your rights, You do not get them back. At least not since 1934. (Remember, the AWB was a rare exception--the only gun control with a sunset clause).
Second:
I would love to have the faith in the SCOTUS some here have, but who would have thought emminent domain meant for the government to sieze your property so someone else could tear down your perfectly good house to put in an upscale mall and condos because the public would benefit from the higher tax base? (Kelo).
So, until the decision is handed down and carved in stone, I'm not going to put all my eggs in the Court's basket, either. Firearms I can purchase here with no permit to buy run the gamut. Because I hold a Concealed Carry Permit in my state, there is no hassle and I leave with my firearm the same day. Any firearm I can afford, anyway (Still saving up my pennies for Class III).
So, by the standards of 'us hicks', Mass. gun laws are draconian. A compromise like that here would have resulted in a recall campaign.
Agreed. I'm a very disappointed Fred Thompson/Ronald Reagan Republican but, then again, I've been that way since very early in 1989 when Bush 41 stabbed gun owners in the back with his EO banning imports, the elitist, opportunistic SOB. But SOMEONE is going to be President, and without a clear difference between any of the Republicans on guns, I'll side with the person who seems to make the most sense on other issues. Heck, even if you believe Huckabee on guns, he's so Carter-like and such a nanny-stater and has so little knowledge about foreign affairs that I simply cannot vote for him. As far as I'm concerned, he doomed Fred's campaign by stealing away a lot of otherwise conservative people that make religious/social issues their most important factor in voting.
And they are ALL better than the Democraps, even McStain or Julie-Annie.
I saw the entire debate last night and I am satisfied with my decision!
Two points. First, by then, the damage is done. Frankly, it would be best prevented in the first place.
Ofcourse, we should elect members of Congress who are strongly pro-gun.
But we can roll back gun control laws as well as we have recently done.
Frankly, more heat has to be put on the NRA to stop compromising over these issues.
Once they take your rights, You do not get them back. At least not since 1934. (Remember, the AWB was a rare exception--the only gun control with a sunset clause).
Yes, but the states have been doing very well in passing pro gun legislation.
We have most states with a right to carry law.
Second: I would love to have the faith in the SCOTUS some here have, but who would have thought emminent domain meant for the government to sieze your property so someone else could tear down your perfectly good house to put in an upscale mall and condos because the public would benefit from the higher tax base? (Kelo). So, until the decision is handed down and carved in stone, I'm not going to put all my eggs in the Court's basket, either. Firearms I can purchase here with no permit to buy run the gamut. Because I hold a Concealed Carry Permit in my state, there is no hassle and I leave with my firearm the same day. Any firearm I can afford, anyway (Still saving up my pennies for Class III). So, by the standards of 'us hicks', Mass. gun laws are draconian. A compromise like that here would have resulted in a recall campaign.
I agree, that law would never fly in pro-gun states, but if the people of that state want it that way it is up to them.
As long as the gun laws aren't made federal, and left up to the individual states, I see no problem with dealing with them as such.
Now, hopefully, the SCOTUS might actually rule in our favor and overturn all of the anti-gun laws in those states as being unconstitutional, which is what happened in DC.
But the point is that any GOP President is better on this issue then any Democrat and as gun owners we cannot afford to let the Democrats regain control of the White House and we need to regain the Congress.
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.