On Wednesday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney [above] told a town hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio that he has guns. “I have guns myself,” the Mittster proclaimed. The last time the Bain of our existence made that claim (2007) it turned out the guns in question belonged to his son Josh. This time, after an ABC story on the claim appeared Wednesday, a Romney campaign spokesman called back the writer to say he has two shotguns. Has or owns? We don’t trust and we want to verify. Mitt’s minions can contact us at [email protected].
“These guns (assault rifles) are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” – Mitt Romney
Mitt was for gun control before he was against it. Or he was against “assault weapons” before he was for them. Something like that.
He’s for or against whatever he thinks will get him the most votes.
mike FTW!
Using the correct definition of ‘assault rifle’ Mitt is, of course, right. We just needed to straighten that definition out. As we all know today, AR’s are America’s favorite varmint-hunting rifle, and in new offerings are chambered for deer and other game as well.
Wouldn’t you expect Romney to have a couple of old Purdey’s and maybe a nice shooting brake to transport them with? A wool coat and a deerstalker cap would complete the patrician hunter look.
Actually, I’d expect Romney’s gun locker to be completely empty.
Is that where he keeps his convictions?
Ralph, have you ever been in a rich Mormon’s basement? I would guess not. It’s very ‘upper’ mormon not to discuss the very well locked-up supplies, but they have obligations. They would never appear on “Prepper” or talk about such planning publically. I note that in their 600,000 sq ft warehouse in Utah they have, among other supplies two year’s worth of fuel, one year’s of frozen meat, and the 48 tractors and 96 trailers needed to haul it around. As for the Purdey, the coat should be a Barbour waxed cotton and the hat a tweed crusher, no?
I think he keeps pictures of guns there. You know “Gun porn.”
Um Mitt, Joe Biden has more than two shotguns.
I will take this moment to say that anyone who voted for anyone but Ron Paul or no one in the primaries is ignorant and/or stupid when it comes to political economy. What is so freaking hard to understand? Land of the dumbed down cowardly slaves.
I’m writing in Ron Paul on election day. The way I see it, Romney will most likely get the nomination, and there is not a whole lot of difference between voting for Obama and voting for Romney. So, I’m not going to go down in history as having supported either one of these idiots.
Me too, or I’m voting 3d party if he decides to run as such.
“I’m not going to go down in history as having supported either one of these idiots.”
I’m still trying to think of the last time I didn’t feel that way.
“I’m still trying to think of the last time I didn’t feel that way.”
What he said.
The selection process is not over. If you don’t believe that Ron Paul can get elected then work like hell or just vote to get the best pro 2, non Obama/Romney elected/nominated. There is too much at stake this time.
Funny, this election is going to be about which party’s base is more apathetic and disaffected. Depressing as Hell, when you think about it.
I was noticing that, if TTAG’s commentators are a representative sample.
Per the link at the bottom of this post
“Governor Romney has a solid record of pursuing gun control measures to control crime and increase safety. He is vocally supportive of the assault weapons ban, supported a waiting period, and supports registration. While Governor he continued Massachusetts’s history of gun control advocacy.
In 2002, Mitt Romney stated in a debate that he supported the tough gun laws in Massachusetts and that he believed they help protect us and keep us safe. He vowed not to chip away at those laws.
While in office, Governor Romney supported the Brady bill and a waiting period because it was necessary to complete a background check. More recently, he has stated that with the advent of instant background checks, a waiting period is no longer required.
He stated that his views did not line up with the NRA. After initiating his Presidential campaign in 2007, Governor Romney joined the NRA with a lifetime membership. He asserted in a taped speech that he supported second amendment rights for all legal purposes, including the common defense.
In 2004, the federal ban on assault weapons expired. Before that happened, Governor Romney signed a bill to permanently ban assault weapons in Massachusetts. That same legislation also extended the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years, granted a 90-day grace period for holders of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry who have applied for renewal, and created a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied. Governor Romney later stated that the legislation was good overall for firearms owners because of these provisions. During the discussion over the ban, Governor Romney stated that assault weapons were not for hunting or self defense, but were instruments of destruction.
Governor Romney has been supportive of the second amendment in the general sense while campaigning for the Presidency in 2012, but continued to support an assault weapons ban in the 2008 elections. Since that time, he has stated that he does not believe that the nation wide assault weapons ban should be re-instituted.
He does not address the issue on his 2012 campaign website.”
“In 2002, Governor Romney participated in a debate while seeking the Governor’s seat in Massachusetts. During that debate, he asserts his support for the strong gun laws in Massachusetts.
‘We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe that they help protect us and provide for our safety.’ ”
Mitt Romney – is no friend to 2a nor do I believe he would be any better than Obama for this country.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/views/The_Second_Amendment
I have stated that Mitt is pro-gun control before on this forum and all his supporters come out of the wood work and defend him.
Mitt is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
all his supporters come out of the wood work and defend him.
Really? Name one. Because all I’ve seen is well-informed people calling him out at every turn.
It was a couple threads back, someone was taking me to task about his Taxachusetts record and defending him. Some other threads.
Being the regular Joe that he is, does Mitt own two shotguns or does he just know two guys who own shotgun manufacturing firms? (Or, more precisely, does he know two hedge fund managers who own shotgun manufacturing firms?)
Or even more precisely, does he know hedge fund managers that acquired two shotgun firms, fired their employees on day one, ran the compmanies into the ground and then sold the wreckage at a loss?
No! His wife owns them…one kept in each Cadillac she drives…
All you guys feel better? Ron Paul’s everyone’s crazy uncle, sort of lovable, but…
Lots of Republican “heroes” had a chance to get in the race and they all declined.
I sure don’t love Romney,but Romney versus Obama, come on. Don’t vote-BHO wins. 3rd party, BHO wins. Short of Satan (or his nephew Putin) being the Republican nominee, I’m for ABO…anybody but obama.
Lots of Republican “heroes” had a chance to get in the race and they all declined.
That tells me that Republican “heroes” can read the tea leaves. Obama is a lead pipe cinch for re-election. I don’t like it, but I can read tea leaves, too.
Probably true, but anything can happen. The real winners will be the recipients of all that campaign ad cash. It’s gonna be a riot.
It depends on the trajectory of the economy is between September to November. If it’s downward, then it’ll be great for the Republicans. If it’s up, then it’ll be great for Obama.
Agree. American politics is not a middle-school-essay contest or a high-school Prom King selection. It’s hardball. I’m a Romney supporter in this exact sense: I looked at the field and chose to back a candidate by the formula “most likely to improve the things I care about, least likely to do things detestable to me.” Romney is, relatively, a politician in favor of the return of many usurped functions back to the states. He’s give his word on gun regulations and I’ll take his word for it. Only if the Republican nominee can generate coattails can we hope for a Congress that will not go on the attack. Think about it. I do not consider Obama a sure thing and I’m definitely not throwing in the towel. Your eloquent voices persuading ten colleagues or neighbors can make a difference. The game is over long before the voting begins.
It would not surprise me if Mitt had a better chance of passing gun control legislation than Obama would. Party unity and all that reasonable gun legislation programs with compromise and appeasement.
I think you’re right. I honestly see Romney as more of a threat to 2A than Obama, although really I expect four more years of status quo either way.
You must be kidding.
I think I can see his train of thought. If I’m right, it’s a sort of “only Nixon could go to China” kind of idea.
No joke about this, Romney(hereafter Obamney) has a proven record of supporting and passing gun control. Obama will likely avoid passing any gun control legislation as that will cast him as a middle of the road candidate. Obamney on the other hand would support new gun control legislation but for the exact same reason, it would show that he is a sensible, middle of the road candidate too. Obamney saying that he supports the 2A means exactly as much as Obama saying he supports the 2A.
Exactly.
I really don’t give a crap. If my experience at gun shows has taught me anything it’s that most people with guns are just as stupid as most people without them. The world is full to the brim with stupid folk and they pervade all demographics.
If you’re smart and you’ve recognized 50% of people as dull, at gun shows or elsewhere, then use your greater intelligence to persuade those dull folks to vote for the candidate your greater attention and inference lead you to back. A dull majority does not imply “throw up your hands.” It implies ‘they are persuadable.’ Or do you want those folks to select your government for you? Why? Or do you not believe in ‘persuasion ten people at a time”? If you don’t you’ve overlooked how churches get filled, brands get established, and juries come to a decision in real life. Persuasion and sales are the soul of America. The Founding Fathers are taught in school as saints and wise men. They were fire-breathing opportunists with a fondness for liberty. That was their great virtue. What is ours?
I’m willing to bet that Romney owns more mansions than guns. Any takers?
How could the facts ever be determined for the payoff? I admit to having more guns than mansions, but I ain’t happy about it.
“Anybody but Obama sounds like an excuse to vote for who your tv told you to and be able to ignore the good sense that points to Ron Paul. Don’t back down from liberty, send a message, fight back or things will never improve. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still actively and approvingly supporting evil. Be a patriot, not a sheep or patsy.
Romney vs Obama is like McDonald’s vs Burger King. Both are very popular, little difference between each other, and ultimately bad for our health. Ron Paul is the only candidate who will defend the Constitution, repeal NDAA and act in the best interest of Americans!
Romney is a politician, therefore, untrustworthy. But, he’s not Obama. I’d vote for an old shoe before I’d vote for the latter.
Although I can not list specifics, it is my feeling that this is 1980 all over again — not that we’re fighting the commies, more that the Executive branch is just so far out of touch. The “big hope” of the republican primary is to wish for a Reagan to appear (which is not the case).
Four years ago I supported Romney over McCain, and was surprised when Mc won. That was 4 years ago and the dynamics were (as they always are) much different than this time around. This time I feel Santorum would be a better choice. Sorry, but I really feel that Paul is just a bit too…. too much on the fringe (the Ross Perot of ’92), though much of what he says rings the right bell.
For sure, this country really needs to get its pocket book in order.
Or we can all put on a pair of ruby slippers and wait for the Myan calendar to roll over on Dec. 22nd.
my opinion only, and we all know what they say about opinions.
I think what really turns my stomach about Mitt is that people tell me to vote for him because he is so “electable”. They don’t tell me any specifics beyond that, just that he is so electable and if I vote for Ron Paul, I will be throwing my vote away.
So I vote for Obama, or I vote for Obama-Lite. I still have voted for policies which make me upchuck.
Mitt would be worse than Obama legislatively, simply because a Republican congress would be willing to “go along to get along” with a Republican president.
Mitt would be much better than Obama when it comes to SCOTUS nominees, since Obama would intentionally pick anti-gun judges while with Mitt we would just get anti-gun folks by dumb luck.
Comments are closed.