“Actually the law that we signed in Massachusetts was a combination of efforts both on the part of those that were for additional gun rights and those that opposed gun rights, and they came together and made some changes that provided, I think, a better environment for both, and that’s why both sides came to celebrate the signing of the bill.” Mitt Romney, CNBC, July 23rd, 2012.
How can anybody know what to make of this guy? As governor of Massachusetts in 2004 he pandered to gun-grabbers and made his state one of the worst in the nation for gun rights . . .
While signing into law a permanent ban on many kinds of semi-automatic rifles, he proclaimed “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” With Republicans like Romney, who needs Democrats?
But then he became an NRA life member just a year later. And in 2012, as a GOP presidential candidate, he pandered to the same NRA and delivered a speech at their 2012 convention.
And just yesterday on CNBC he pandered to anti-gunners and the NRA at the same time. He claimed that his gun ban was a good idea for MA at the time but he won’t try to do the same thing on the federal level, kinda like health care, right? And then he claimed that the MA gun ban was ‘celebrated’ by the gun-rights community.
Okay, we get it: Mitt Romney is all about insincere ingratiation. He’ll say anything he thinks you want to hear, and if that doesn’t make you happy he’ll change. He can’t help it; it’s just the way he rolls, but what the hell does he think this shameless knob-slobbering will really accomplish?
And which alleged ‘gun rights supporters’ actually took the bribe, drank the Kool-Aid, and celebrated his permanent ‘assault weapon’ ban?
Let the Etch-A-Sketch shaking begin. Or resume, as the case may be.
“And which alleged ‘gun rights supporters’ actually took the bribe, drank the Kool-Aid, and celebrated his permanent ‘assault weapon’ ban?”
Not this one…
Or, did I?
Now I’m confused, What was it you wanted me to say? (Please shake the Etch-A-Sketch a little harder next time.)
I think I used to like Kool-Aid.
You’re not honestly asking a politician to back up what he says with facts or sources are you?
Romney = Obama on every important issue.
Whoever ends up being president rarely ever breaks any status quo and just follows his party’s lead anyway. Nobody has enough guts to actually say how they stand on certain issues and detail how they will change things. Ron Paul was the only one in the debates that would actually answer the questions he was asked by stating his stance, how he would change it, and what he thought the outcome would be. On top of that I agree with a lot of what he says, but what I like most about him is he’s honest and actually gives straight answers and opinions, no BS. Everyone else just rambled on about nothing and avoided taking stances on anything as to try to pander to everyone.
If I’m to concern myself about how my choice will affect gun rights, I think the most important thing is the next appointed supreme court justice. There will likely be another appointed in the next presidential term. What kind of judge do you want appointed and what kind of judge are the candidates likely to appoint in regards to the stance on 2A?
Worked great with Roberts didn’t it? Keep drinking the Kool Aid and telling yourself it will all work out in the end.
I’m writing in Ron Paul myself.
I will be writing in Ron Paul as well.
I can’t bear the though of voting for Mitt, or Obama, but not about to give up my right to vote.
+another Paul write-in.
Note that I am picking Romney for the sake of the economy,and not for the 2nd Amendment.On the subject of gun rights he’s only slightly better than Obama,and I will not be the least bit surprised if after his election he decides to expand his liberal appeal by introducing “decisive” gun control laws.I can hear the 2016 speech sound byte now; “Obama did nothing about gun proliferation,but I’m taking action in MY administration!”.
Way I see it,Id rather have a job and no 30 round magazines than no 30 rounders ,no job,and no currency.
I think a good way to look at it (if gun rights are of your highest concern) is what kind of supreme court justice will they appoint? Justices are a life appointment, president is only 4 or 8 years.
No one will accuse Romney of being a man of laser sharp principles, but sometimes, in a politician, the best you can hope for is that they will at least pursue their own self-interest. If Romney is elected, it will be due to his conservative bent, not for his health care ideas or gun control policies, but in spite of them. Therefore, if the electorate and the Congress demand conservative solutions, that’s likely what we’ll get, if for no other reason than for Romney’s own self-preservation. Whereas with Obama, he is a true believer, and only cares about what the voters think just enough to keep his head above water, and must keep his true intent relatively subverted. In a second term he will go from having little use of voters, the rule of law, and the Constitution, to no use at all.
This.
Plus there’s the whole economy thing. I think Romney understands small government bet. If not, at least his base does, and he won’t want to alienate them.
What amazes me is that these politicians get lots of votes and all too often get into office. It has to be fear and laziness on the part of voters.
It’s all about money and exposure. Who gets the most support from the media? People are lazy and don’t want to find out who the best candidate is, they want to be told who the best candidate is.
No, it is not fear, it is a large collective of ignorant and idiotic people who believe that we live in an idealistic world in which people do not have their own motives and where people put the good of the whole before themselves. You can’t help but look around and question what in the world people are thinking these days.
I think Romney is even more patronizing or condescending than Obama.
One wants to be known and treated as Emperor Romney and the other wants to be Chairman Obama.
Gary Johnson 2012, ’nuff said.
its bs like this that has made me decide that Romney and Obama are the same and I have no stomach to vote for the lesser of two evils so although i will be voting this year it just wont be for prez cause all legitimate candidates this time around are bad options for the same reason.
if you do not vote against obama in this tight race you are in effect voting for him. and you are giving strentgh to the schumers, pelosi’s , feinsteins etc. not voting is not an act of principal if you,re standing by and watching that crowd continue to curtail our rights. as my wife tells me”what difference does it make if you burn your house down on accidrnt or on purpose. the house is still burnt down”
Exactly — its still burnt down with Romney or Obama. If a vote for someone besides Romney is a vote for Obama, so be it. If the Rep party throws some crap in front of me I refuse to eat it.
I’m sorry but that is just a giant gilt trip argument. Romney and Obama are the same side of the coin they both stand for almost identical items when you look at their deeds and not the empty rhetoric they spew. Neither one likes guns or is particularly good with running the economics end of things for their respective government experience and they both hold similar social views and both are equally willing to stick their necks out for what they believe aka they don’t. If my option is vote for bad leader 1 or bad leader 2 why bother if the house is going to burn down it doesn’t matter who burns it down. but by contributing to lower voter turn out you do send the message that you are not happy with either choice rather than picking a bad option. and dont mistake my decision not to vote for a presidential candidate as I’m not voting as my original post stated I plan to vote but im not going to be responsible for electing either of the two worst options.
You can choose between two men… both of whom will burn your house down; or you can refrain from choosing and one will still burn your house down.
Choosing makes you complicit in the act. Refraining insulates you from culpability.
Cast a “vote” of no confidence by withdrawing your consent, because no matter who you vote for, government always wins.
yeah, that works…
“if you do not vote against obama in this tight race you are in effect voting for him”
No, you aren’t. Even the most basic understanding of math shows that isn’t true. One of the main reasons this country is stuck in such a damaging two party system is because of this line of idiotic thinking.
Hang on a minute, before we begin going all two-minute hate on Romney, what EXACTLY was in the bill that he speaks about?
The Permanent Assault Weapons Ban in Massachusetts, signed before the State or Federal AWBs expired. It contained more concrete firearm-owner protections for state residents, but still made permanent the scary rifle and magazine capacity bans.
The Gun Owners Action League is the pre-eminent MA gun rights organization. You should check with them before you come to a conclusion about Romney. Here’s the web page: http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html.
Here’s a couple of quotes: “GOAL had more access to this administration than any other since the days of Governor Ed King in 1979.”
And this: “Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006.”
And this: “During his administration, Governor Romney made five appointments to [the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife] board. All of the individuals appointed to the board were supported by GOAL.”
And finally, if you want to know who supported the so-called 2004 AWB extension, read this: “This is a perfect example of don’t believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL.”
Why did GOAL support the law? Well, Massachusetts had passed it’s own AWB in 1998. It was much stronger than the 1994 federal AWB and had no sunset provision. The 2004 bill that Romney and GOAL supported incorporated all the federal examptions — in other words, it was much weaker that the original MA AWB. Romney also included a provision for a review board so that persons who were declined their rights could have an independent appeal. Many people have, in fact, retained their rights because of this process. I personally know two.
Painting Romney as an anti-gun guy is wrong on every level.
Yeah, but the problem is he keeps up this “it works for Massachusetts” rhetoric. That is my problem.
Ralph,
Sounds like an excellent comment, perhaps deserving of its own post. It seems to me that Romney has consistently met with organized pro 2A groups, while Obama has not.
It’s still a permanent AWB, Ralph, signed by a supposedly gun-friendly politician. No sunset clause, no scheduled review. Permanent until repealed, and good luck with that sh!t in lovely Massachusetts.
There is another ominous fact about this treaty to enslave us. The treaty will be signed on the 27th of this month, a Friday, Congress’s last day of the current session. If she and he sign this treachery, how soon until it has an impact? Congress will not be in session. Can he use something like a recess appointment to enact this treaty, even for a limited period of time? Any heightening of the state of alert of our LEO’s or troops? I think our days are numbered and it’s down to single digits.
Crime will overwhelm the ever reduced number of police units. And we will be left with sticks and stones for defense. There should be a rider in this treaty that also takes away the guns of all politicians personal security. What the Mayans saw was the end of liberty, we are not truly free, and it looks like we are racing towards such a situation.
Also this treaty may be used to destroy the constitution as well as the second amendment. I’m afraid, my dear fellow frogs, the water has come to a boil.
And so you can refrain from voting for him and BHO will appoint at least two more SCOTUS justices and the 2A will be under threat for the next 30 years. Oh and, we’ll have four more years of $1 trillion per annum deficits…and…and…and…
Romney just wants to be president. He will change direction better than any running back ever did just to get to the goal line. He is Mr. Flip/Flop…..gives new meaning to “over easy”. Nevertheless, neither he nor President Obama, will do anything to change or alter 2A. That is good for all of us because after the election I suspect there will be some reductions on the costs of guns and ammo because some of the gun companies……… with the help of the NRA scare tactics….. are trying to frighten us into rushing to buy now. There could be a nice surplus. Personally I am hoping for a post election sale that will rival 12/26! 🙂
Stay safe.
If, as a single issue voter, you are unhappy with Mitt’s past record on guns you can sit out the election. Either way we are not getting Charlton Heston for president. Who is president matters less for gun rights than the actual ability for a law to make it through Congress and be unassailable by the SCOTUS. States are very different environments and while they pee all over the 2A they do represent the local sentiment more accurately.
If you are in MA you are surrounded by anti gun people. And if you are governor you are going to have to work with what they want. It’s not a hard concept to grasp in reality.
Ron Paul didn’t make it this year, probably won’t ever again. So if that’s the ideal 2A candidate then start rethinking what a good and proper president would look like. I’m surprised BHO didn’t go for gun control yet, but of course there is the second term for that.
#1
Each election, over many issues, some people get paranoid. I’m not concerned, as a friend of mine is, that if Obama gets re-elected the ‘world will end’, figuratively speaking. A president can declare martial law and do many anti-liberty things yet I don’t think that will happen. I’m more concerned with more anti-gun judges being appointed to the USSC.
No matter who wins this election were going to loose. I would like the government to stay the F*** out of my life and to stop trying to control every aspect of our lives Damit.
No shock here….
His use of phrases like “for additional gun rights” causes me to distrust this guy. It tells me he thinks of gun rights as something that government creates and grants. Now if he had said “for the return of gun rights”, I might, although doubtful, be more inclined to accept his line of shit.
John Lott has stated Obama told him, “I don’t believe anyone should have a right to own a gun”. So despite what Mitt has done in the past, I think there is a better shot of him not doing something bad in the next four years, unlike Obama.
Romney, now officially a liberal.
When was he ever a conservative?
Romney is a total weather-vane. He will naturally point the direction of his constituents’ voting priorities. He is a walking democracy. A ballot box could serve the same purpose. What we need is a candidate who believes in the US Constitution and votes on principal…someone who has a consistent voting record and is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in. If only the mainstream media would present such a candidate, I would vote for him.
“with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” Gee…I didn’t know guns could hunt. I gotta get one of those…just sit home while the gun goes out deer hunting.
Republicrats and Democans…they’re all the same. The only thing I can say is Romney ain’t Obama…and that’s a good thing in and of itself.
I haven’t decided whether I’m voting for Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or Virgil Goode. Gary Johnsons actually has the weakest statements on gun rights, but he’s still way better than Obamney.
Doesn’t matter, Obama will win. The country’s gone too far to shit and the mindless masses too coddled, entitled, racist, and overall stupid to change it.
Romney is our only hope. The nation can’t take another four years like the last. All those writing in candidates other than Romney are enabling another four years worse than the last.
This election is not about whether Romney is the greatest candidate. It is about Obama being the worst. We have a much better chance of reigning in Romney’s progressive-ism than we do Obama. If the establishment would have backed Ron Paul we would not have had to make such a bad choice.
“Romney is our only hope”?
There’s a depressing thought.
Hell with it is John Rambo an option lol
When you are in a hole you have to stop digging. Romney = America’s cessation of digging. We can crawl out and back fill later, but we have to start somewhere. Put a clothes-pin on your nose if you have to, but if Obama’s wins you won’t begin to believe the depths to which we can sink.
Romney is a phony. At best a Snowflake. Pay him little attention.
Comments are closed.