PDA

View Full Version : Mitt Romney Supports Assault Weapon Ban



5stringJeff
01-26-2008, 10:45 AM
I can't believe I hadn't heard about this. I absolutely will not vote for Mitt Romney, based on this plank of his platform. Frankly, no gun owners should vote for Mitt Romney.

From a transcript from April of last year:
-------------
MR. WALLACE: Governor Romney, in 1994 you said you were a stronger advocate of gay rights than Ted Kennedy. As recently as five years ago you still supported a woman's right to choose. And as governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country. Are you a clear and consistent conservative?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, let's get the record straight. First of all, there's no question that I support Second Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/politics/16repubs-text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Pale Rider
01-26-2008, 11:00 AM
I can't believe I hadn't heard about this. I absolutely will not vote for Mitt Romney, based on this plank of his platform. Frankly, no gun owners should vote for Mitt Romney.

From a transcript from April of last year:
-------------
MR. WALLACE: Governor Romney, in 1994 you said you were a stronger advocate of gay rights than Ted Kennedy. As recently as five years ago you still supported a woman's right to choose. And as governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country. Are you a clear and consistent conservative?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, let's get the record straight. First of all, there's no question that I support Second Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/politics/16repubs-text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

He was asked about this at the recent CNN debate in Florida, but I don't recall exactly what his response was. I believe he may have back peddled on that some. I'll have to look into it further, because this will dampen my support for him too.

avatar4321
01-26-2008, 11:03 AM
He was asked about this at the recent CNN debate in Florida, but I don't recall exactly what his response was. I believe he may have back peddled on that some. I'll have to look into it further, because this will dampen my support for him too.

he said he supported it in Massachusetts because it was a compromise between the pro gun lobby and the anti gun lobby in which more citizens were allowed access to weapons in which to exercise their rights in exchange for the assault weapons ban. He also said he wouldn't support any legislation proposed on the federal level.

yeah it's not exactly a thrilling answer. But he is still by far better than everyone else.

Pale Rider
01-26-2008, 12:05 PM
he said he supported it in Massachusetts because it was a compromise between the pro gun lobby and the anti gun lobby in which more citizens were allowed access to weapons in which to exercise their rights in exchange for the assault weapons ban. He also said he wouldn't support any legislation proposed on the federal level.

yeah it's not exactly a thrilling answer. But he is still by far better than everyone else.

Good summary avatar... that's pretty much it. Here's the word for word...


GOV. HUCKABEE: Mitt, I'd like to ask you a question that came up during your interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," and it has to with the Second Amendment. You have indicated that you support Second Amendment, but on that interview, you indicated that you also supported a ban on so-called -- and I use the term "so-called" -- assault weapons and supported Brady.

For many of us who are strong adherents of the Second Amendment, that's not quite consistent, to say you're for Brady and so-called assault gun ban, but supported the Second Amendment, because we see that -- that's really a denial of the Second Amendment. I'd appreciate some clarification on do you support Brady, do you support the assault weapon ban, and your position on exactly what restrictions government should put on Second Amendment rights.

MR. ROMNEY: I do support the Second Amendment, and I believe that this is an individual right of citizens and not a right of government. And I hope the Supreme Court reaches that same conclusion.

I also, like the president, would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-gun lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to -- to have guns for their own legal purposes. And so we signed that in Massachusetts, and I said I'd -- I would would support that at the federal level, just as the president said he would. It did not pass at the federal level.

I do not believe we need new legislation.

I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that, if they're implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That's the right that people have.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/us/politics/24text-debate.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=print

-Cp
01-26-2008, 12:08 PM
he said he supported it in Massachusetts because it was a compromise between the pro gun lobby and the anti gun lobby in which more citizens were allowed access to weapons in which to exercise their rights in exchange for the assault weapons ban. He also said he wouldn't support any legislation proposed on the federal level.

yeah it's not exactly a thrilling answer. But he is still by far better than everyone else.

I agree and am too a gun owner.... but I dont' vote for a candidate or not vote for them based on a single issue...

So he's still tops right now in my book...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oJ6-ySOUnrY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oJ6-ySOUnrY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

5stringJeff
01-26-2008, 12:09 PM
So which is it? Does he support the asault weapons ban or not?

"I also, like the president, would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-gun lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to -- to have guns for their own legal purposes. And so we signed that in Massachusetts, and I said I'd -- I would would support that at the federal level, just as the president said he would. It did not pass at the federal level.

I do not believe we need new legislation.

I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature,"

-Cp
01-26-2008, 12:17 PM
Here's more:

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5pcDA9sZES0&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5pcDA9sZES0&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

Pale Rider
01-26-2008, 12:20 PM
This could turn into a pretty big snag for Mitt.

-Cp
01-26-2008, 12:29 PM
This could turn into a pretty big snag for Mitt.

I don't think so - the other candidates have far heavier baggage to sort out than this one issue for Mitt IMO....

nevadamedic
01-26-2008, 03:11 PM
I can't believe I hadn't heard about this. I absolutely will not vote for Mitt Romney, based on this plank of his platform. Frankly, no gun owners should vote for Mitt Romney.

From a transcript from April of last year:
-------------
MR. WALLACE: Governor Romney, in 1994 you said you were a stronger advocate of gay rights than Ted Kennedy. As recently as five years ago you still supported a woman's right to choose. And as governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country. Are you a clear and consistent conservative?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, let's get the record straight. First of all, there's no question that I support Second Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/politics/16repubs-text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

So he pulled a Giuliani then. Multiple Choice Mitt strikes again.

Trigg
01-26-2008, 04:23 PM
What exactly is so wrong with supporting an assault weapons ban???????????????

Sitarro
01-26-2008, 04:36 PM
I don't think so - the other candidates have far heavier baggage to sort out than this one issue for Mitt IMO....

I have to agree with you Cp. Romney is the only guy in the running with a chance for the Presidency against the Hill or Barry. He will be picking Supreme Court nominees which is much more important than how he felt about assault weapons in 1994 as Governor. :cool:

Sitarro
01-26-2008, 04:40 PM
What exactly is so wrong with supporting an assault weapons ban???????????????

I guess there is the thought of a slippery slope that would some how end up in a ban on guns in general. I say a death penalty for anyone committing a crime with an automatic weapon, seems simple enough.

-Cp
01-26-2008, 04:42 PM
What exactly is so wrong with supporting an assault weapons ban???????????????

Because our 2nd amendment rights grant us the liberty to lawfully own them, that's why it's wrong to go against the constitution in the form of a state or federal ban...

-Cp
01-26-2008, 04:43 PM
I guess there is the thought of a slippery slope that would some how end up in a ban on guns in general. I say a death penalty for anyone committing a crime with an automatic weapon, seems simple enough.

Actually, automatic weapons are already illegal..

The assault weapons in reference are all sold to the public in their semi-automatic format..

Trigg
01-26-2008, 04:48 PM
Because our 2nd amendment rights grant us the liberty to lawfully own them, that's why it's wrong to go against the constitution in the form of a state or federal ban...


The 2nd amendment gives us the right to bare arms, it doesn't specify we have the right to an automatic assault rifle that shoots off ??????? rounds per second.

A granade launcher is also a small arms ordinence, should we be allowed to have those????

I say they have the right to draw a line somewhere.

I know I'll be disagreed with and just to head you off.

1. I grew up around guns
2. We have rifles in the house
3. I'm a darn good shot
4. I have gone hunting, didn't get anything, but I was there.

Sitarro
01-26-2008, 04:55 PM
Actually, automatic weapons are already illegal..

The assault weapons in reference are all sold to the public in their semi-automatic format..

I guess I don't know what they are defining as an assault weapon. Does an AR-15 fall into that category?

Pale Rider
01-26-2008, 05:19 PM
What exactly is so wrong with supporting an assault weapons ban???????????????

Because the only thing that separates an "assault weapon" from a regular, semi automatic, hunting rifle is it's "APPEARANCE." Sure most assault weapons have the option of larger capacity clips, but so what? You COULD do the same thing with a hunting rifle. So when you start baning fire arms depending solely on their appearance, you're taking a big chunk out of people's second amendment rights for a bogus damn reason.

Pale Rider
01-26-2008, 05:22 PM
Actually, automatic weapons are already illegal..

The assault weapons in reference are all sold to the public in their semi-automatic format..

Actually I could very much legally own a fully automatic weapon. All it takes is about $300 for a license.

pegwinn
01-26-2008, 06:11 PM
What exactly is so wrong with supporting an assault weapons ban???????????????

It is counter to the 2nd Amendment. "Shall not be...." is directive not suggestive.


I guess there is the thought of a slippery slope that would some how end up in a ban on guns in general. I say a death penalty for anyone committing a crime with an automatic weapon, seems simple enough.

The 2nd Amendment specifies "arms" which in the 1780's meant more than firearms. We are wrong to limit our interpretations to firearms only. I like your idea. I would expand on it by adding a minimum of doubletime for any crime committed while in the possession of any weapon (arms).


The 2nd amendment gives us the right to bare arms, it doesn't specify we have the right to an automatic assault rifle that shoots off ??????? rounds per second. It doesn't have to specify. It is a literal issue. And, starting with the Constitution, laws and regs rarely specify what you can do, but always specify what you can't.

A granade launcher is also a small arms ordinence, should we be allowed to have those???? Yes.

I say they have the right to draw a line somewhere. The line is for you to draw for yourself, not for me.

I know I'll be disagreed with and just to head you off.

1. I grew up around guns
2. We have rifles in the house
3. I'm a darn good shot
4. I have gone hunting, didn't get anything, but I was there.

Another interesting quote from the original source was the question:


MR. GOLER: Governor Thompson, Brian from Fort Wayne asks this question via the internet, a question about controlling government spending. Some of your critics say you lack fiscal discipline. Tell me three federal programs you consider wasteful and would eliminate."

Gov Thompson does his thing, then Mr G says:


MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, can you do better than that, sir?

To which we get:


REP. PAUL: I'd start with the departments -- the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security. We've started with -- we've just -- the Republicans put in the Department of Homeland -- it's a monstrous type of bureaucracy. It was supposed to be streamlining our security and it's unmanageable. I mean, just think of the efficiency of FEMA in its efforts to take care of the floods and the hurricanes.
So yes, there's a lot of things that we can cut, but we can't cut anything until we change our philosophy about what government should do. If you think that we can continue to police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars overseas, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars running a welfare state, an entitlement system that has accumulated $60 trillion worth of obligations, and think that we can run the economy this way; we spend so much money now that we have to borrow nearly $3 billion a day from foreigners to take care of our consumption, and we can't afford that.
We can't afford it in the government, we can't afford it as a nation.
So tax reform should come, but spending cuts have to come by changing our attitude what government ought to be doing for us.


So far he gets my vote. Even if it has to be a write in.

theHawk
01-26-2008, 09:45 PM
Just like alot of other issues, Mitt will flip-flop when its politically convenient. Alan Keyes was right, Romney is a political opportunist.

82Marine89
01-26-2008, 09:55 PM
What exactly is so wrong with supporting an assault weapons ban???????????????

How is my AR-15 deadlier than my 30.06?

5stringJeff
01-27-2008, 12:15 PM
How is my AR-15 deadlier than my 30.06?

Because it looks EVIL!!!

http://arbyte.us/blog_archive/2005/11/drevil_million_dollars.jpg

5stringJeff
01-27-2008, 12:16 PM
Here's more:

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5pcDA9sZES0&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5pcDA9sZES0&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

So he says that he would sign an assault weapons ban if it landed on his desk. Ludicrous.

-Cp
01-27-2008, 12:19 PM
So he says that he would sign an assault weapons ban if it landed on his desk. Ludicrous.

You know what's more Ludicrous than voting for a candidate who signed an assasult weapons bill?

Voting for one who at one time said 9/11 was an inside job! Really....

pegwinn
01-27-2008, 12:43 PM
You know what's more Ludicrous than voting for a candidate who signed an assasult weapons bill?

Voting for one who at one time said 9/11 was an inside job! Really....

Who did dat? Source please?

5stringJeff
01-27-2008, 12:48 PM
You know what's more Ludicrous than voting for a candidate who signed an assasult weapons bill?

Voting for one who at one time said 9/11 was an inside job! Really....


Who did dat? Source please?

Actually, Ron Paul did not say that 9/11 was an inside job. He faulted the federal government for "bad policy." Please see below:

---------------
Reason: What did you mean when you told the Scholars that "the [9/11] investigation is an investigation in which there were government cover-ups"?

Paul: I do think there were cover-ups, and I think it was mainly to cover up who was blamed, who's inept. See, they had the information. The FBI had an agent who was very much aware of the terrorists getting flight lessons but obviously not training to be pilots. He reported it 70 times or whatever and it was totally ignored. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence. It wasn't a lack of money or a lack of intelligence, it was a lack of the ability to put the intelligence together. Even the administration had been forewarned that something was coming, the CIA had been forewarned. So it was a cover up of who to blame. I see it more that way.

Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.

Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you'd be open to a new 9/11 investigation?

Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated. The people who believe in a one world government are well motivated, but they disagree with me.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html

-Cp
01-27-2008, 12:51 PM
Actually, Ron Paul did not say that 9/11 was an inside job. He faulted the federal government for "bad policy." Please see below:

---------------
Reason: What did you mean when you told the Scholars that "the [9/11] investigation is an investigation in which there were government cover-ups"?

Paul: I do think there were cover-ups, and I think it was mainly to cover up who was blamed, who's inept. See, they had the information. The FBI had an agent who was very much aware of the terrorists getting flight lessons but obviously not training to be pilots. He reported it 70 times or whatever and it was totally ignored. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence. It wasn't a lack of money or a lack of intelligence, it was a lack of the ability to put the intelligence together. Even the administration had been forewarned that something was coming, the CIA had been forewarned. So it was a cover up of who to blame. I see it more that way.

Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.

Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you'd be open to a new 9/11 investigation?

Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated. The people who believe in a one world government are well motivated, but they disagree with me.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html


Still Ludicrous... rather than blame the individuals who carried out 9/11, he's still - thru proxy - blaming the USA for it...

Ron Paul said this: ""Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years,"....

5stringJeff
01-27-2008, 12:57 PM
Still Ludicrous... rather than blame the individuals who carried out 9/11, he's still - thru proxy - blaming the USA for it...

I think what he's saying is that, while the government had the information necessary to arrest the 9/11 hijackers beforehand, it didn't do so because the various bureaus couldn't/wouldn't communicate well enough with each other. The creation of DHS was supposed to fix that very problem, so apparently, Congress and the President agreed with Ron Paul in that respect.

I would submit that Ron Paul's position is less ludicrous than blaming cosmetic features of a weapon for making it "more deadly," as Mitt Romney has done.

-Cp
01-27-2008, 12:59 PM
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/

-Cp
01-27-2008, 01:00 PM
I think what he's saying is that, while the government had the information necessary to arrest the 9/11 hijackers beforehand, it didn't do so because the various bureaus couldn't/wouldn't communicate well enough with each other. The creation of DHS was supposed to fix that very problem, so apparently, Congress and the President agreed with Ron Paul in that respect.

I would submit that Ron Paul's position is less ludicrous than blaming cosmetic features of a weapon for making it "more deadly," as Mitt Romney has done.

Have you seen the bill Mitt signed? Is that what it says? I'd love to see it..

5stringJeff
01-27-2008, 01:01 PM
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/

You'll note that my post, dated 5/22/07, was a response to media articles such as your post, dated 5/19/07.

pegwinn
01-27-2008, 01:48 PM
Actually, Ron Paul did not say that 9/11 was an inside job. He faulted the federal government for "bad policy." Please see below:

I knew that. I just wanted to see who the latest of the ill informed was.


Still Ludicrous... rather than blame the individuals who carried out 9/11, he's still - thru proxy - blaming the USA for it...

Ron Paul said this: ""Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years,"....

Thru proxy my ass. He is blaming a US interventionalistic policy that goes back decades. I have no problem with the war in Iraq. And I don't agree with everything said by RP.

But if you are intellectually honest, you will admit that right or wrong the USA has a consistent policy of involving itself.

Talking about actual foriegn policy decisions that may contribute to our problems in the world isn't blaming America. It's called honest discussion.

Honest folks don't fear that.

-Cp
01-30-2008, 10:59 AM
fyi.. info on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that Clinton put into law..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

JackDaniels
01-30-2008, 12:01 PM
You know what's more Ludicrous than voting for a candidate who signed an assasult weapons bill?

Voting for one who at one time said 9/11 was an inside job! Really....

Considering that Ron Paul NEVER said 9/11 was an inside job, you are wrong again. I suggest you know what you are talking about before you open your mouth and look like a fool.

JackDaniels
01-30-2008, 12:03 PM
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/

If you think that RP is a truther because of that statement, you have SERIOUS reading comprehension deficiencies.

JackDaniels
01-30-2008, 12:05 PM
I knew that. I just wanted to see who the latest of the ill informed was.



Thru proxy my ass. He is blaming a US interventionalistic policy that goes back decades. I have no problem with the war in Iraq. And I don't agree with everything said by RP.

But if you are intellectually honest, you will admit that right or wrong the USA has a consistent policy of involving itself.

Talking about actual foriegn policy decisions that may contribute to our problems in the world isn't blaming America. It's called honest discussion.

Honest folks don't fear that.

You're making the assumption that many who participate in political discourse are "honest".

I do not believe that to be so.