December 17, 2007
Romney still supports gun bans
Want to know why Mitt Romney can kiss my vote good-bye?
In a word: guns.
Romney was on Meet the Press yesterday, and host Tim Russert elicited some answers sure to enrage conservatives.
MR. RUSSERT: You’re still for the Brady Bill?
GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I…
MR. RUSSERT: You’re for it?
GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned–and I–let me, let me describe it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you’re still for it.
GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…
MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?
GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I’d love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms…
He supports "the right of Americans to bear arms."
Except when he doesn't.
For those of you who do not shoot, who do not own guns, allow me to explain why this talk of "weapons of extraordinary lethality" is complete and utter bunk.
So-called assault weapons, the Boogeymen of the would-be gun banners, are chambered in a smaller caliber than traditional high-powered rifles. The dreaded M-16 and its civilian variants, and the AK-47 and it's later, more modern cousin, the AK-74, use significantly smaller, less powerful rounds than the previous generation of military surplus rifles they replaced.
So, when talk turns to guns of "extraordinary lethality," what the gun banners like Romney are talking about are anything from the previously-mentioned mil-surps to less scary-looking but much more effective hunting weapons like bolt-actions, lever actions, semi-autos and shotguns chambered in the myriad of traditional hunting calibers.
Because, what these dipsticks conveniently overlook -- in spite of their protestations that they'd never interfere with the rights of Sportsmen -- is that any round capable of dropping a pissed-off elk, moose, caribou, buck or bison in its tracks can also kill a man, too.
And a shotgun that can take down a turkey or a deer will also make quick work of a human.
So, when Romney says he'd only ban guns that present that extraordinary risk to police, what he's saying he's is that he's prepared to sign a ban on everything bigger than .22s.
But if he denies it, walks back from this latest manifestation of East Coast, big city, liberal fear and ignorance about firearms, then we're left with yet another Republican candidate who truly doesn't understand the Second Amendment, doesn't know the first thing about guns -- and who's willing to say anything to get elected.
Mark my words: Millions of conservatives will sit this election out if the choice is between a gun-banning Democrat and a gun-banning liberal Republican.
And don't give me that, "What if it's Hillary?" nonsense. If the GOP nominates a candidate who is so similar to the Democrat that I need a decoder ring to tell their positions apart, then what's the bloody point? I'll not cast a ballot for a man who is too dense to understand that the Second Amendment is the guarantee of all liberty, the ultimate check on the power of the State.
I feel like Michael Corleone when he spoke of Fredo's betrayal: Mitt Romney is dead to me.
Posted by Mike Lief at December 17, 2007 11:05 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
Once you step away from a solid Reagan-like leader who is rooted deeply in conservative values, you risk him dragging the moderate wing of the party in disastrous directions. This materialized with President Bush on the fiscally irresponsible prescription drug plan and his open borders philosophy.
If the Republicans are the minority in the Congress, I'd rather have them act like a true opposition party than to see them veer to the left. A stalemate in Washington is better than having a "Governor Arnold" type Republican pushing a socialist agenda.
This being said, a certain amount of pragmatism is necessary. Bush appealed to Second Amendment and religious Republican voters. On the campaign trail, he espoused fiscal conservatism. Without a doubt, he has not turned out to be a fiscal conservative. Bill Clinton was far better in this arena.
Posted by: Bill H at December 19, 2007 07:28 AM
If the Rupublican party is pro- Gun Rights then why is your party electing the Biggest gun Banner thare is! actions speak louder than words.– to the rank and file: don’t go by what they say, look at what they did?, look at what Romney Passed in massachusetts.
I am writing as a person who has experienced the legislation that Romney has signed in to law.
I have experienced first hand his two gun control laws.
I have recieved the letters from the local police dept stating that my firearms identification card (which was good for life) would Expire and now a pistol permit was required to even keep a handgun in the house.
I seen pistol permits go from $25 to $100 for 5 years, and $100 per year for out of state. Pistol permits are issued at the discretion of the local police chief. Diane fienstien gets a full carry permit within days, waiting for her as she flies in, but Mr. average guy or gal waits for monthes for a permit just to keep and transport un-loaded.
I have seen first hand, Romney’s so called gun safety act where only new guns on the govt approval list could be sold. One day I went into a gun store and it looked like a normal one, where there were several showcases of new guns. I went in again after Romneys so-called safe guns act, and there were just a few Smith & Wessons and Walthers for sale, and it was that way for years, list has improved, but we Massachusetts residents still can’t buy most quality guns that are out there.
I have experienced the outlawing of the further sale of hi-capacity mags, and only 10 rounders availiable for new semi-autos — clinton de-ja-vu.
I read the news letters that stated that it was now illegal to shoot at siluette targets at a public range.
The Massachusetts gun laws are now almost the size of a phone book.
Under Romney, govt power, govt intrusion, legislation and mandates on businesses, govt control of education, public debt, and of cource Gun Control has grown, not shrank. Towns are even turning off some street lights because they can’t afford the electrical bills.
To me, it is amazing how Mitt Romney has pulled the wool over so many peoples eyes. It is going to be Clinton, Brady, assault weapons ban, magazine ban, brady II all over again. Don’t take my word for it, Do a little bit of research into Massachusetts gun laws and who passed them.
Bill and Hillery Clinton, George W.Bush, Obama, Romney, Diane Fienstien, and the Chinese Government are a lot more a like than they are different.
as hillery was praising google for leaving china over censorship and govt control of the internet, Obamas cyberspace bill was strikenly similar not only to what china is doing, but also strikenly similar to W’s policeware bill and Bill’s clipper chip bill.
obamas healthcare bill is almost exactly tha same as Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare Law
All the the above listed voted for or promised to renew the Clinton gun ban – even arnold !
We need NEW PARTIES, Both parties have been eroding our civil liberties for some time ( the Republicans are just smarter and more covert about it ) Even the majority of the american people no longer believe in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Land of the free and the home of the brave go hand in hand — In order to be free you have to be brave – brave enough to pick your own children’s schools, brave enough to make your own medical choices, etc – and I don’t mean choosing from a short menu of govt pre-approved choices. All over cape cod there are old houses still in use – proof that people are actually capable of building their own houses without govt approval and permission – a right that we had for thousands of years but has been taken away from us in the last 50 years.
If your party is so pro-freedom than WHY IS THE MOST PRO-FREEDOM CANADATE OF YOUR PARTY DEAD LAST – and the biggest anti-freedom advocate coming in first.
Posted by: david brouillette at May 9, 2012 12:18 AM