[CharlesWayneCT]

Here is the operative part of Romney's answer, the one that governs what he will do as President:

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.

[LiveFree99]

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 In addition, if he’s such a champion of the 2A, which federal gun laws does he want repealed?

[Antoninus]

That statement is as strong a statement of a pro-gun position as ANY candidate.

As we know, Mitt's "statements" are worth precisely nothing.

[rickomatic]

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.

Bravo frickin Sierra!!!!

Saying he "does not support" any new legislation means absolutely NOTHING. It's already been stated that he went along to get along in Mass. His statements in no way make me believe that he won't do it again on the federal level. If you think a democrat congress isn't going to try to reintroduce an AWB you are living in a fairy tale land.

The ONLY way Mitt will get my vote is if he loudly and clearly PROMISES to VETO any new gun control legislation that comes across his desk. Otherwise....it's a no sale, because it's that important.

[SoConPubbie]

Here is the operative part of Romney's answer, the one that governs what he will do as President:

Once again, the Mitt-botts seem to think we need them to parse what Mitt has said in order to understand what Mitt has said.

And in this case, Mitt seems to be both supporting the 2nd amendment and attacking the 2nd amendment on one statement.

This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase flip-flop!

What part of the following do you and Mitt NOT understand:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

[Atlas Sneezed]

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.

---

At least, any candidate still in the race, if you exclude Ron Paul.

Big deal.

[El Gato]

Here is the operative part of Romney's answer, the one that governs what he will do as President:

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".

[wastedyears]

The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting.