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.
Actually, our individual rights are not exercised without restriction. We all have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government exists to best provide a framework for us to live our lives exercising our rights.
But government by it’s nature impacts those rights. Your right to free speech for example, does not allow you to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, because that action denies other people their rights. Government must interact to keep balance between competing claims of rights.
So it is not a black and white judgment to decide whether any particular restriction on gun ownership is compelled by governments need to protect ALL the rights of the citizens.
Few people here argue that a felon’s right to own a gun is absolute. Few people argue that a person who is certifiably crazy should have an unrestricted right to guns. Few people argue that there should be no restriction whatsoever on where you can take a gun. (I know there will be someone on the opposing side of each of these).
Romney’s support for the 1994 AWB put him on the WRONG side of the line. However, his current position while not perfect is in line with even Huckabee — who also has NOT called for the repeal of any existing gun laws.
IN the end, that’s the stated position of Romney — he won’t repeal any gun laws, he won’t pass any NEW gun laws, he will enforce the gun laws on the books. He will do so with an eye to minimizing the impact on law-abiding citizens, for example by ensuring instant background checks work and fighting any attempt to put delays in gun purchases.
Romney gets points from me from being willing to state without equivocation what his previous position was. Not like McCain lying about his support for tax cuts. Mitt WAS on record for the 1994 bill, and he says so here. But he also says that he would NOT support the 1994 bill today. He can’t change what he supported in the past.
I'm beginning to think the same thing.
Romney is always using the phrase "like the President". Which is a red flag for me because.....
Even though I voted for Bush twice as governor, once in the presidential primary, and twice for president........I can't support Liberal Republicans, which Bush definitely is, and am inclined to NEVER vote for one again.