I hope so too, dear Jeff!
If I may return to an earlier point I raised, the ethos of firearms licensing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and how it all changed under Gov. Romney.
Formerly, the granting of firearms licenses was left up to the sole discretion of the local police chief. Now, my family lived in a town whose police chief couldn't think of a single legitimate reason to grant firearms licenses to any private citizen; and who tried to make the renewal of any already-issued license as difficult as possible.
My Father's experience testifies to this. To renew back in that day, Dad had to schedule a personal interview with the police chief, who would then ditch my Dad at the appointed time. The old "runaround game" here.
Dad used to joke, "So I learned to go down there, and bring a stack of books with me, and announce to the Chief's secretary that I was happy as a clam to sit and wait as long as it took for the next convenient time for the Chief to see me: 'I have a lot of catching up to do with my reading, you see. And I don't mind doing it in the Chief's office.'"
Sooner or later, the Chief would appear; and finding no legal reason to deny my Dad's application for renewal, he would grant it.
All this changed during the Romney Administration: Massachusetts is now on a "shall issue" basis — if you can pass the background check, the State "shall issue" a firearms license.
To me, that was a huge step forward in recognition of what the Second Amendment requires. That it happened in the socialist swamp of Massachusetts is a virtual miracle to me....
And it happened under Governor Romney.
My takeaway from all this: Obama wants to disarm private citizens (see the putative "endgame" of Operation Fast and Furious). Romney does not.
Why would anybody claim that there's not a dime's worth of difference between these two men? That both are equally "Left Progressive?"
Left Progressives don't want citizens exercising their RKBA. Period.
Evidently, Romney has no problem with it whatsoever, in principle.
The good Lord has His hand in things. he watches over the destiny of nations and uses all sorts of people to bring about His purposes. In my research I came to this conclusion:
Although Romney did not represent what my ideal for a conservative candidate would be...I honestly believe Mass was better off for him having been there (economically, as you say now with firearms, and even with their healthcare bill) than they would have been had a full boare Democrat been at the helm those years.
And now, his platform and stances on the issues he is currently running on...campaigning on, and has been for the last 6 years...are not that bad on their face and I must conclude that having him in office will, like in Mass, be in this case immeasurably better than the alternative we have in the Kenyan MArxist, Obama.
I hope people will eread thses things, particularly from you, betty, my sister in Christ, and rethink any abjecyt opposition to Romney so that we can get rid of Obama.
God's speed. BZ!
Dear Betty, the 2nd amendment is ANY threat, foreign OR domestic, to include government gone despotic.
from: http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm
Find common ground with pro-gun & anti-gun groups
Q: You signed the nation’s first ban on assault weapons in Massachusetts and steeply increased fees on gun owners by 400%. How can you convince gun owners that you will be an advocate for them?
ROMNEY: We had a piece of legislation that was crafted both by the pro-gun lobby and the anti-gun lobby. The pro-gun lobby said “this legislation allows us to cross roads with weapons when we’re hunting that had not been previously allowed.” And the day when we announced our signing, we had both the pro-gun owners and anti-gun folks all together on the stage because it worked. We worked together. We found common ground. My view is that we have the second amendment right to bear arms and my view is also that we should not add new legislation. I know that there are people that think we need new laws. I disagree with that. I believe we have in place all the laws we need. We should enforce those laws. I do not believe in new laws restricting gun ownership and gun use.
Source: Fox News debate on MLK Day in Myrtle Beach, SC , Jan 16, 2012
2002: I will not chip away at MA’s tough gun laws
In 1994 Romney had supported firearms-control measures opposed by the National Rifle Association: the so-called Brady Bill, which restricted the sale of handguns, and the assault weapons ban. During the 1994 senatorial campaign he had taunted: “That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA.” He reinforced his support for these measures when he ran for governor in 2002, when he promised not to chip away at the Commonwealth’s tough gun laws. Now as a presidential candidate, Romney presented himself disingenuously as a lifetime member of the NRA and a hunter of “varmints,” which prompted the acerbic Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi to write: “Leave it to Mitt Romney to shoot himself in the foot with a gun he doesn’t own.”
Source: An Inside Look, by R.B.Scott, p.144-145 , Nov 22, 2011