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.
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.