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.
If you look only as social issues, some of the most repressive socialist governments are "conservative".
Yea right now Im torn between McCain (better chance of beating Hillary) and Huck (who is socially the best candidate out there)...
Cant vote for Willard or Trudy...
Huh, doesn’t matter? If the SC rules that the 2A is a collective right you’re darned tootin’ it’s going to matter who’s president.
Does anybody have a link to the transcript from the debate ?
Sorry, Mitt left himself an out when he failed to promise that he’d veto any addition restrictions on gun ownership at the federal level. In addition, if he’s such a champion of the 2A, which federal gun laws does he want repealed?
Ron Paul would never pull crap like this. Just sayin...
That's it in a nutshell. Without the will to make the enemies of human freedom and dignity pay the ultimate price for their attempt to take our liberty away, it won't matter what you own in the way or weapons.
my thinking exactly.
McCain's "gun problem" stems from two issues: his successful campaign to enact the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform package and his failed Congressional efforts to regulate all sales at gun shows (conducted in a high-profile partnership with Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman and backed by a group called Americans for Gun Safety, which, by its very name, is enough to earn the instant enmity of many activist gun owners).
The gun lobby and its rank and file view the campaign finance law as an outrageous infringement on their free speech rights while the effort to regulate gun show sales is viewed as a direct attack on the Second Amendment and liberty itself. When McCain was trumpeting both of these issues, the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun organizations reacted as jilted, and increasingly, bitter lovers.
McCain's Gun Problem
That is a choice. I prefer a candidate whose STATED positions are in tune with my own, over a candidate whose STATED positions are to destroy our country.
If my candidate does nothing but keep his promises, I win and the country wins.
If your candidate does nothing but keep his promises, our country loses. You have to pray that your candidate is lying to you, or is stopped by a democratic congress.
Otherwise Guantanamo is closed and terrorists are in our states, with access to classified information, and full rights to our court system.
Our intelligence gathering is thwarted by a strict policy against effective interrogation techniques, and a too-close strutiny of wiretapping and other monitoring techniques.
Our hard-earned tax dollars are spent on “fixing” Global Warming, mostly by destroying what is left of our manufacturing base and costing jobs.
Our free-speech rights are endangered as McCain not only pushes the executive to more completely enforce M/F (including pushing it against bloggers and web sites like FR), and then pushing for NEW legislation to “fix” the new loopholes.
Our chance at good judges is compromised, as John McCain is part of the “good old boy” Senate network, and is likely to give the leadership of the senate (democrats) an integral role in picking judges. Probably he’ll take a list and let them winnow it down for him. No Alito, no Roberts, is likely to get RAMMED DOWN THE THROATS of the democratic Senate by a guy who started the Gang of 14 to stop the president from “interfering” in the supreme rights of the Senate to filibuster his nominees.
I have to weigh the enormity of the sacrifice to conservative principles, versus the relative chances of getting Mitt Romney elected vs getting John McCain elected. If I was absolutely positive that John McCain would get elected (and wouldn’t have Huckabee as his VP), I MIGHT give up my principles for him, just to not take the chance on Hillary.
But in fact, I’m actually believing Romney is MORE electable than McCain, and worse, am pretty sure McCain can NOT in the end win election. So I’d be fighting a losing cause having given up my principles.
Sorry. I understand your reasoning, and know how important it is to stop Hillary. But when we do stop her, it would be nice if we’d actually have something to show for it.
McCain could end up listening to his good friend Joe Leiberman, and become even MORE liberal as President, when he has no need to pander to his constituents. Old people sometimes get very liberal as they near death and worry more about likeability and legacy than adherance to principle.
So I disagree with your course of action.
He’s for it, he said so, he governed so, the NRA gave him a B rating even BEFORE he was Governor, he worked WITH them as governor, he WILL get the NRA endorsement if he is our nominee.
The Dems changed the hell out of it and it failed. Romney said the same thing and that he would not support any new legislation. This is essentially the status quo position and is not a controversial one..
Huckabee, while governor of Arkansas espoused the same position. I know because I live here. He did however, sign legislation requiring all those who apply for a hunting license to show proof of taking a gun safety course. He raised fees on licensed, and did increase fines for violations which became quite a moneymaker for the State.
Huckabee is not the godsend of the pro-gun movement, and should never be considered better on this than Romney In my humble opinion as a gun owner and fisherman. He also mandated insurance on bass boats over 100HP. He mandated a lot of changes. He is good at that. He likes fees and taxes to do lots of human interest stuff. Clinton did not even do that.
And Romney is on the record saying he supports the appeals court ruling and hopes the Supreme court rules in favor of the 2nd amendment.
And his judicial advisory team includes people from Fred Thompson’s team.
I have no doubt he’d appoint judges that would match his philosophy on this issue.
Yes, because his liberal rat opponent had a RECORD which was good on Guns. Romney had no record, so he got no points for ANY votes FOR guns, since he had never voted.
And he certainly wasn’t talking a rabid pro-gun rhetoric during his run, which may have gotten him a higher mark.
Signing into law an AWB is "support" for RKBA? Are you high?
If you think Mitt Romney is going to take you guns away you’re paranoid. You should be paranoid about Hillary Clinton taking your guns away from you.
Myself I’m more worried about who’s going to keep Islamic terrorist from killing my family. Mitt recognizes that.
Who's counting on you anyway.
He's against it.
Show us the data.
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.