|
 |
Posted on 04/23/2012 7:34:18 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Verona, PA - While Mitt Romney tries to tell heartland voters that he's one of them; his record speaks of a northeast liberal governor who tried to trample on Second Amendment rights. As Governor, Mitt Romney Targeted Gun Owners For Higher Taxes
In 2003, Then-Gov. Romney Increased Payments From Gun Owners To The State, Calling It A Fee Instead Of A Tax. "If you own a gun or a boat, kill termites or teach horseback riding for a living or just want to learn to drive, you may have to pay more for a state permit." (John J. Monahan, "Romney Asks For Fee Hikes," Telegram & Gazette, 2/28/03)
"Romney Proposes Raising [The State Firearm Registration Fee] From $25 To $75 On The 200,000 State Residents Who Hold Firearm Identification Cards."(Joanna Weiss, "Romney Proposals On Fees Draw Fire," The Boston Globe, 2/28/03) Romney Denied The Additional Funds Gun Owners Paid To The State Was A Tax, Since Only "A Subset Of The Population" - I.E. Gun Owners - Had To Pay. Romney: "I'm not going to try and be the dictionary here, in terms of defining the difference between a fee and a tax. For me, generally, a fee is something which applies to a subset of the population. ... A tax is something which is far more broadly applied." (Ken Maguire, "Governor Says Proposed New, Higher Fees Are Not Taxes," The Associated Press, 2/27/03)
Bay State Gun Owners Recognized Romney's Fee As A Tax Increase
When Romney Raised Sportsmen's License Fees, The Massachusetts Conservation Alliance Stated "We Consider It A Tax On Hunters." "Environmentalists and hunters said they are not only concerned about the potential loss of federal aid, but the fact that budget-makers would take fees assessed to hunters and spend the money as they wish. 'We consider it a tax on hunters,' said James Wallace, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Conservation Alliance, a newly formed group of sportsmen and wildlife preservationists." (Erik Arvidson, "Feds Warn State On Improper Use Of Fees," Lowell Sun, 10/3/03)
A Gun Owners Action League Spokesman Called The Fee Increase "A Tax On Your Rights." "Some constituent groups are already questioning whether Romney's specific fees are fair. James Wallace, spokesman for the Gun Owners Action League, said his organization considers the statefirearm registration fee - which Romney proposes raising from $25 to $75 - to be a tax on the 200,000 state residents who hold firearm identification cards. 'It's not a service,' Wallace said. 'It's a tax on your rights. We're not getting anything.'" (Joanna Weiss, "Romney Proposals On Fees Draw Fire," The Boston Globe, 2/28/03)
The Gun Owners Action League's Jim Wallace: "It's Not A Fee. It's A Tax On An Individual's Right To Bear Arms In Massachusetts."(Ken Maguire, "Governor Says Proposed New, Higher Fees Are Not Taxes," The Associated Press, 2/27/03) Gun Owners Action League Executive Director Michael Yacino: "In General, The Government Has Failed To Meet Its Obligations And Now It's Passing The Buck. ... It Just Shows They Don't Have Any Answers."(Casey Ross, "Fee Hikes More Than Nickels And Dimes," The Patriot Ledger, 7/9/03)
After Gun License Fees Skyrocketed Under Romney, One Massachusetts Gun Owner Said Voting For Him Was "The Biggest Mistake Of My Life" - "I've Been Kicking (Myself) For Voting For That Jerk." "Donn A. Boulanger voted for W. Mitt Romney because he liked the Republican candidate's stance against raising taxes. But, as he stared down the barrel of a $75 increase in the fee for his gun license yesterday, Boulanger called the vote 'the biggest mistake of my life.' He said, 'I bought his deal, but in the last six months, I've been kicking (myself) for voting for that jerk. He's trying to solve the state's
Read more at the American Presidency Project: Rick Santorum: Press Release - Massachusetts Gun Owner: "Voting for Romney Was the Biggest Mistake of My Life" http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=100151#ixzz1ssGLIqI6
|
|
The old MR haters on FR are fading out fast.
/johnny
Sure not gonna vote for a liberal tho.
An inaccurate observation to put it charitably. But Mittbots have always had a problem with truth. Heck, with Clinton, it was just the word "is". With Mittens it's every word in his lexicon.
Not only has Mittens aided and abetted the attacks on all Conservatives and Conservatism in general, but he was behind the attacks and continues to this day funding and undermining Conservatism.
Newt might not be perfect, but he's not hostile to Conservatism. Romney is. If you support Romney you are not a Conservative. It is axiomatic.
The bottom line is America collapses regardless of who gets elected unless the candidate is willing to cut close to 50% of government as it currently stands.
I believe Romney has about as much chance of doing that as he does of being able to kick Barrack through the uprights from 45 yards.
Newt, probably not, but a lot better odds than either of the current “front runners” from the parties. Paul, better than 50%, but then you couldn’t ever convince the people that have him tagged for foreign policy issies that foreign policy is irrelevant if you’re broke and your country is burning down from the inside.
We are literally on the razors edge of it being to late to take the medicine to cure our ills, and if we DO take it, we’re still going to be miserably sick for a while, but we’d better damn well take it soon.
Wow Jim. thanks for doing the research on Mittens disgusting record. I can use these as talking points for my Rino “friends”.
IBTZ
Dear Massachusetts Gun Owner:
That's all water under the bridge now. Sure you guys in Massachusetts could have just let whoever the Dim was running against Romney win, and then maybe we in the rest of the country wouldn't have to think about him as the alternative to Obama. But like I say, that's water under the bridge.
Whatever you think is bad about Romney is ten, or maybe a hundred, times worse with Obama. Watch the Breitbart CPAC Video. Pay close attention to the end.
It would be nice to have Ronald Reagan running, but we are rarely presented with nice choices and especially so in national elections. Our only choice now is Obama or Not Obama.
Love,
ML/NJ
I guess things would have been better if the Democrat nominee “ultra liberal “ Shannon O’Brien was elected?
Yes, it would.
ML/NJ
I doubt that - but it is likely that Romney may just get himself elected by the anybody-but-Obama factor. What do you think the chances are that FR will ever support the guy? I mean *really* embrace him, right down to the "Day in the life of.." threads?
What a pity that we're presented with another Jimmy Carter as the incumbent - his ineptitude in full bloom - and the best we can offer up to counter that is a slightly less unpleasant liberal.
Pointing out the obvious is not a left wing tactic.
“Our only choice now is Obama or Not Obama. “
I suspect that binary decision-making process (always a poor methodology) is what drives the pro-Willardo vote.
In this instance, raw fear.
I have legitimate fears of both - just different fears. I have come to see that trading one evil for another will not solve the problems we have. I’m not willing to set aside my convictions to do so, knowing a Willard presidency would result in a thoroughly RINOfied Republican party, with a loss of all influence.
Opposition to a sworn enemy may lead to the opposite.
Therefore, I reject the false formulation I quote above. “Not Obama” isn’t running. By disempowering one evil, you are giving a hand up to the other evil. They are not directly comparable evils.
Hence my tag line. Good luck.
You will soon figure it out.
ML/NJ
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.