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.
romney is a liberal-fascist.
I sent them an e-mail about some suggestions for the campaign, and got an e-mail back thanking me for “my suggestions”. Which means I think that they at least scanned the e-mail, but that they don’t immediately, if ever, respond with more detail.
I wish campaigns on our side would make greater use of the internet community to disseminate information.
In Reagan's case, as he drew the party in a new direction, his concessions were largely made before the full duplicity of our opponents were realized. I doubt very much that he would be willing to take those same decisions, given the broader map that we can see today.
GHWB got my vote, primarily as the successor to Reagan, and I was willing to give latitude to him as a war time president.
GWB got my vote the first go-around with much happiness, though with my trepidation toward his being his father's son overlooked in the face of his promised Conservatism.
He got my vote the second time around solely because of the war. I was already pretty thin on tolerance, but felt the war was more important. I have never regretted a vote as much as that one, and by the time the immigration bill happened, I was so pissed at him that I would wax apoplectic at the mention of his name. I am against him. I oppose him. I cannot wait for him to go back to Crawford, that I might begin to forget his very existence.
Largely due to Bush II and the last Republican Congress, I am not willing to sacrifice principle for expediency any longer. It is that self same expediency that has lost us the Congress, and seen our "Law and Order" party break the law and preside over the most heinous loss of rights and sovereignty in my lifetime, or at least the attempt to do so. Enough is enough. No more expediency. No more broken glass. I am more than ready to remove the whole lump and cast it from my presence.
Yet, in the midst of my ire, do I find acquiescence and the meat of Conservative political sustenance? No! I am left to chew upon the gristle of a gun grabbing, baby killing Northeastern RINO, and another BOHICA moment.
No more! I will never vote for another RINO ever again. There is no way I will compromise. You may keep your tepid promises, I vote on record. Conservatism is now my only political cause. I have renounced my membership in the Republican Party, and am proudly and solely a Conservative. It is NOT negotiable.
Life is NOT negotiable (and never has been).
Marriage is NOT negotiable (and never has been).
2nd Amendment is NOT negotiable (and never has been)
Immigration is NOT negotiable (and certainly is never going to be).
Strong Defense, Fiscal Responsibility, Small Government, I can go on and on.
No! I will move no more. I am asking only for what Republicans are supposed to stand for. If they can't at least do that, they will have no support from me.
/rant
I hate to say this, but as an issue, the 2nd ammendment takes precidence over many other concerns (ie. abortion, taxes, etc.). We lose this right and America morphs into it's ugly cousin: socialized tyranny. Rampant crime will invite the new tyranny. Unopposed government spending will institute the new socialism.
The anti-federalists seem to have won the argument. Little did they know that 300 million people later we'd ignore their advice and face an election where the majority wouldn't, and our legislators couldn't, give a damn about a piece of paper that they risked their lives signing.
Pathetic.
Hitler had a cool mustache.
There isn't a dimes worth of difference between McInsane and MYTH.
Actually there is, McInsane at least has a record that is justifiably being excoriated by the RNC and their operatives.
MYTH's record on judges, abortion, gun control, tax hikes, socialized medicine,gay marriage, etc are apparently OK with the country club republicans that are running the show.
After all, they don't give a rats ass as long as their paychecks and pensions and perks keep coming.
POWER is the name of their game and CONSERVATIVES be damned.
Very telling interview tonight with Tom Delay on the Levin show.
He endorses no one so far.
Neither does Limbaugh.
Pathetic.
Hitler had a cool mustache.
There isn't a dimes worth of difference between McInsane and MYTH.
Actually there is, McInsane at least has a record that is justifiably being excoriated by the RNC and their operatives.
MYTH's record on judges, abortion, gun control, tax hikes, socialized medicine,gay marriage, etc are apparently OK with the country club republicans that are running the show.
After all, they don't give a rats ass as long as their paychecks and pensions and perks keep coming.
POWER is the name of their game and CONSERVATIVES be damned.
Very telling interview tonight with Tom Delay on the Levin show.
He endorses no one so far.
Neither does Limbaugh.
I see a lot of complaining here that we don’t have a conservative in the race. We did have three - Tancredo, Hunter and Thompson - they’re out. We lost. Blame in on the media, blame it on the message not getting out, blame it on whatever you want. We lost.
That leaves conservatives with variations on three choices.
1) Cast a protest vote for someone you think is a true conservative.
2) Sit this one out.
3) Support the best of the candidates still running.
With the first two options, the bet is that somehow the republican party will learn their lesson and return to conservative principles after 4 years of Clinton/Obama. BTW, many thought that would work after 2006 - it hasn’t. Or maybe a new conservative party will form and become competitive.
You and everyone else are free to vote or not vote as you see fit. I’ve chosen option 3 because I think every single one of the remaining candidates for the republican nomination, flawed as they may be, are far better for the future of this country than any of the democrat candidates.
Romney wasn’t my first choice, or my second, and it was a tough decision between Romney and McCain. But, of the choices available at this time, I felt Romney was the best choice. You apparently don’t agree. Please feel free to share your opinion on a better choice that’s still in the race.
I voted for Fred who is now gone. If Mitt gets in (unlikely, as it’s looking like the Year of The Witch) the best we can hope for is that he’s more afraid of the gun owners than he is of the gun grabbers. A slender thread, but it’s all we have.
Mitt can forget about "sitting" anywhere near the oval office unless he takes a hard lined unequivocal stance regarding the 2nd Amendment NOW. He will NOT get my vote, or millions of others, unless he has genuine "come to Jesus" moment with the 2nd Amendment....NOW.
Mitt said enough for me to vote for him.
He knows it is an individual right.
Even the NRA makes compromises that I don't agree with.
Now, this election is going to come down simply, are the Clintons going to be allowed in the White House again and undermine our military once more.
We need to keep in mind that our military is depending on us to make sure that doesn't happen!
Of course that would seem be in direct conflict with "shall NOT be infringed".
Still better than the DemonRat former Justice Department types, in the brief by "Janet Reno, et al", which maintains that "right of the people", means "power of the states" and "shall not be infringed" is obsolete.
John McCain can’t beat Hillary, he is Hillary without the skirt.
We’d be better off with the very inept Hillary than the intense globalist McCain, candidate from hell.
But which is in conflict with his record, and not so distant past statements.
I for one don't trust "campaign eve" "conversions. If he'd been making such statements even since leaving the Governors office, I'd feel a lot better about them.
My gut says he's saying what he thinks he needs to say to get the nomination. Notice he says he "does not support new legislation", but does not say he would veto any sent to him, as a violation of the "right that people have".
Ron Paul. He is the only candidate who is strongly pro-constitution, pro-liberty, pro-2nd amendment. He is passionate about protecting our rights and freedom, and our sovereignty. He is the ONLY one remaining who is not a globalist, CFR puppet. That's why there is a media black-out on him, and that's why they barely allowed him to speak during the debate last night. And he is the ONLY one who can beat Hillary, because he can bring in independents, the disgruntled Republicans, libertarians, and crossover Democrats. I honestly believe that he is our only hope. If the Clintons get back in, we may not have another opportunity to elect a true constitutionalist and patriot.
But we also know that his statements are more reliable than any of the other candidates except Ron Paul. You can't point to a single instance of Romney backstabing the voters, unlike McCain who has raped the fools that voted for him.
What Federal Gun Control laws have been rolled back recently? Did I miss something?
Keep in mind, that your idea has some serious flaws. For starters, if the Government succeeds in making semi-automatic ("assault") rifles illegal to own, there will be one heck of a lot of those rifles destroyed. There will, of course, be people killed trying to defend their God-given rights, and trying to infringe upon them.
No amount of electoral pandering will fix that. The legislature, at any level, won't bring the dead back to life, restore the firearms to their owners (likely destroyed en masse), or fix lives.
All I see here is another slick attempt to convince people to take another step down the road to totalitarianism.
"It's Okay, you can always turn around, you can go back", is not a puersuasive argument for me at this point.
You see, my grandfather taught me to shoot a rifle when I was a young man. In that area, now, he would have been violating a host of laaws for handing me a rifle, a cartridge, and shooting on the beach where we went to shoot, even though we endangered no one. He was very careful and would not have allowed me to shoot had there been anyone within a mile or visible in that direction (in a boat on the water).
My uncle had bought a rifle that same year, he put the money order in the envelope with the order form, addressed it, and put the 4 cent stamo on it, and a few weeks later, here was his rifle, delivered by the United States' Post Office.
Now, that is the freedom I recall.
When we get that back, you can tell me how easy it is to put the right back.
One bad SCOTUS ruling, a fast frenzy by the anti-gunners, and some well televised blood in the streets, and you will not recognize this country.
You can't repeal the consequences, and if history is any guide, the reaction to the law will be used as the justification for more.
There is no good done at the State level which cannot be undone by people who would not know freedom from dog poop at the Federal level.
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land...kinda cool" may have been the remark of a Democrat, but I can see where Republicans would buy into that (especially lately when the idea of a set stance on issues and a party platform is being tossed out at every turn).As for anti-gun Congressmen, there should be no such thing, except in personal emotion. To vote that way is a violation of their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. Which is why, frankly, none of the Republican front 4, and especially not the Democrats, have any credibility with me as candidates whatsoever.
I have seen this sort of medicine show skunk oil sales nonsense before. As they say in these parts, this ain't my first rodeo.
I'm not buying.
What Federal Gun Control laws have been rolled back recently? Did I miss something?
As you stated, the recent assault weapons it was allowed to die.
Keep in mind, that your idea has some serious flaws. For starters, if the Government succeeds in making semi-automatic ("assault") rifles illegal to own, there will be one heck of a lot of those rifles destroyed. There will, of course, be people killed trying to defend their God-given rights, and trying to infringe upon them. No amount of electoral pandering will fix that. The legislature, at any level, won't bring the dead back to life, restore the firearms to their owners (likely destroyed en masse), or fix lives. All I see here is another slick attempt to convince people to take another step down the road to totalitarianism. "It's Okay, you can always turn around, you can go back", is not a puersuasive argument for me at this point. You see, my grandfather taught me to shoot a rifle when I was a young man. In that area, now, he would have been violating a host of laaws for handing me a rifle, a cartridge, and shooting on the beach where we went to shoot, even though we endangered no one. He was very careful and would not have allowed me to shoot had there been anyone within a mile or visible in that direction (in a boat on the water). My uncle had bought a rifle that same year, he put the money order in the envelope with the order form, addressed it, and put the 4 cent stamo on it, and a few weeks later, here was his rifle, delivered by the United States' Post Office. Now, that is the freedom I recall. When we get that back, you can tell me how easy it is to put the right back. One bad SCOTUS ruling, a fast frenzy by the anti-gunners, and some well televised blood in the streets, and you will not recognize this country. You can't repeal the consequences, and if history is any guide, the reaction to the law will be used as the justification for more. There is no good done at the State level which cannot be undone by people who would not know freedom from dog poop at the Federal level. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land...kinda cool" may have been the remark of a Democrat, but I can see where Republicans would buy into that (especially lately when the idea of a set stance on issues and a party platform is being tossed out at every turn).As for anti-gun Congressmen, there should be no such thing, except in personal emotion. To vote that way is a violation of their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. Which is why, frankly, none of the Republican front 4, and especially not the Democrats, have any credibility with me as candidates whatsoever. I have seen this sort of medicine show skunk oil sales nonsense before. As they say in these parts, this ain't my first rodeo. I'm not buying.
Well, that was alot of doom and gloom!
The pro-gun forces in this nation have the anti-gunners terrifed!
No Democrat would overtly attack guns today and expect to survive an election in the South and West.
The right to own weapons is being discussed as a personal right for the first time in decades.
But for some reason Conservatives have this penchant for predicting the imminent end of the freedom, so lets just forget our responsibilities to vote.
One thing that conservatives could learn from liberals is their eternal optimism and determination.
No matter how often they are defeated, they keep coming because they have faith in their cause.
Would that conservatives had that same kind of faith in theirs, instead of 'I am going to hunker down with my rifle and ammo and wait for the United States to collapse'.
It appears to be you that has no idea who is in the middle class. If $200,000 isn't middle class, then what is it? You have to have $250,000 per year to qualify to buy an average house in coastal regions of California; do you think there is no middle class here? What about Massachusets, Connecticut, Vermont, or the Adirondak region of New York? You have strange ideas.
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.