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.
I find Governor Romney unquestionably weak on the Second Amendment.
As far as I can tell, the only two candidates left who are strong on the Second Amendment are Governor Huckabee and Congressman Paul. I disagree with both of them on substantive issues; however, the Second Amendment is the heart and soul of our Constitution, and the issues where I don't agree with Governor Huckabee and Congressman Paul are not quite so central.
A natural question is how much damage would a Romney presidency do to the Second Amendment? Unfortunately, there are some imponderables that make it difficult to even guess at an answer, with perhaps the most important that of the Heller case.
I want Mitt on record stating that he’d veto ANY anti-gun bill that crosses his desk, AND I want him to provide a complete list of all federal laws that he thinks infringe on the 2A.
He signed a bill that was authored by one pro-gun group, and endorsed by the NRA.
So yes, it was SUPPORT for RKBA. The gun owners groups in Massachusetts praised the bill as the best pro-gun bill in the state history. I didn’t say that, they did.
He also took other actions as Governor which were pro-gun. Of course, nobody talks about them when dismissing his record.
As I said, I don't support the NRA. I support the 2nd Amendment. I'm sorry but I believe lobbying organizations (including the NRA) are in the primary business of making money for them, the issue they "support" comes second to that.
What do you do besides dropping cash on the NRA and call that supporting the 2nd?
I vote 2nd amendment (among other issues), but I'm not a single issue voter. I carry daily open and concealed. I buy from my local gun stores and not big chain merchants. If someone asks I'll give them my honest opinion of guns, laws, and such. I've written my AG, another cities mayors, my congress critters, presidents of colleges I don't attend, even my local police chief on my opinion on issues effecting the 2nd amendment. I've conversed by phone and email to store and mall owner/managers and made my case why their store shouldn't have "no weapons" signs posted (including my local Cabela's and Joe's Sporting Goods). I HIGHLY encourage my Boy Scouts to get their Rifle and/or Shotgun merit badges as two of their electives even though they are not required. I could go on but that's just off the top of my head.
Yes I support and exercise the second amendment and I find it offensive that anyone would say I don't because I'm not a member of the NRA.
Izzat so?
So now you can go out and by an "assault rifle" in Taxachusetts just like I can in Texas?
I didn't think so.
So, what's worse, babe, living in the past, or living in your own little fantasy world?
Nobody has taken guns away. The 1994 ban did not take any guns away, it just stopped you from buying new ones. If you wanted a gun, you just had to buy it before the bill took effect.
That was not my point. My point was that your argument was more in tune with what Hillary would say than what conservatives believe.
1. Supports the 2A as an individual, not government, right.
2. No new guns laws-just enforce the laws on the books.
3. The NRA considered the bill he passed in MA to be a net gain.
Damn him to hell! Looks like a great reason to go third party and let the clintons come back to power!
Well of COURSE he will!
That's pure poliitical expediency - they sure as hell wouldn't endorse Hussein Obama nor Hillary Clinton nor John Edwards!
THAT's no proof that Romney isn't still as anti-gun as the day is long!
But maybe I'm being too harsh on him: after all, he went huntinGGG once...
</sarc>
It wasn’t the GOA (Gun Owners of America), it was a STATE Gun Owners group. I think they were “GOAL” (maybe Gun Owners Action leauge) but I’m not sure of that.
The GOA link doesn’t denounce Romney, it says his various statements raise questions that have to be answered. The statement is undated, but in my opinion his press releases of December of this year answer their questions, as does this debate statement that he supports NO NEW GUN LAWS.
The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/01/19/romney_vs_romney/
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
It's not difficult to understand or comprehend. If you don't, then you don't deserve to claim to be "pro-RKBA" anything...
Well, he actually signed 3 pieces of pro-gun legislation, but not in his own blood.
You have to make up your own mind, and so long as you don’t claim Mitt has SAID he supports an AWB, you are entitled to your opinion of what you think he WILL do, even though I believe your opinion is ill-informed and at odds with the facts in evidence.
The “Gun Guys” claim to be pro-gun too... Doesn’t mean they are anything more than a Brady Campaign front group.
I never read the book, but I heard that the movie was really bad, and the book was much better.
Being a novel, it is expected to be fiction.
Unfortunately, I do not have any access to his campaign. However, if you write an e-mail on his web site with those statements, I’d be interested in what his reply would be.
And further, that second question would be a GREAT question for the next debate. I have no idea how ANY of the candidates would answer that question — except that I’m certain Ron Paul’s answer would be provocative.
Certainly not, but neither are they supposed to be "infringed," and if prohibiting folks from purchasing what can ONLY be termed a "militia weapon" is not an infringement of the Second Amendment, I'd like for you to by God tell me what IS an infringement?
Do you think it requires the jack-booted thugs of the BATF led by Lon Horiuchi showing up at your front door?
Because it's been done...
Huck and Paul are the only two SOLIDLY pro-2A candidates left. There can be no rational argument for Rudy McRomney to be anything other than the pro-gun control RINO's that they are. People can try and spin it how they want, it does not change FACTS.
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.