Mitt Romney view on guns

I saw this link/picture on Facebook today. Anyone know if these are actual quotes from Mitt? I would not say Mitt is a strong supporter of Lawful gun ownership, but these quotes if true are very troublesome. The other guy is worse, but hoping Mitt has matured in his view of the 2nd amendment.


http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...52205452.28751.145209655538915&type=1&theater

Mitt personally signed into law, permanent legislation that bans semi-automatic firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

He openly supports the Brady Bill, and has stated the following about semi-automatic firearms:

“They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

What more do you need to know?
 
I saw this link/picture on Facebook today. Anyone know if these are actual quotes from Mitt? I would not say Mitt is a strong supporter of Lawful gun ownership, but these quotes if true are very troublesome. The other guy is worse, but hoping Mitt has matured in his view of the 2nd amendment.


http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...52205452.28751.145209655538915&type=1&theater

The other guy is worse? Can you show me some anti 2A laws that Obama has signed? They are both the same. If anything Romney did the most damage with the AWB bullshit.
 
I know he has a ton of excuses, but I can never forgive him for signing the AWB here in MA. there are reasons I favor him over Obama, but guns are not one of them. I actually feel a national AWB is more likely if mitt wins :(
 
Actually, Romney has never banned guns. He was not yet in office and so did not sign the permanent 1998 MA AWB into law.

If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-gun bills while he was Gov. of MA 2002-2006.

What is known today as the highly restrictive gun control laws in MA were passed in 1998 by the Massachusetts legislature. It included MA’s assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M) that was more restrictive than the 1994 Fed AWB.

Here’s the entire 1998 CHAPTER 180 AN ACT RELATIVE TO GUN CONTROL IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MA

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter180

If you actually read the law it is clear that this ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB and contained no sunset clause. The expiration of the Fed AWB in 2004 did not get rid of, or affect, MA's own permanent AWB.

MA Gun owners wanted to get rid of the ban in 2004, but did not have the votes in the state Legislature (over 85% anti-gun Democrat). When the Fed ban expired in 2004, Gun Owners’ Action League (the MA based pro-2A group) and Romney used the opportunity to amend the MA AWB by including the federal exemptions and a few other improvements that were not in the state law.

CHAPTER 150 AN ACT FURTHER REGULATING CERTAIN WEAPONS
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter150

If Romney did not sign that bill, the more restrictive AWB would still be in place today.

So the actual truth is, in 2004, Romney signed a bill that amended the permanent AWB and made it less strict. Some folks are misrepresenting his record and claiming that Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004.

Let's look at the rest of Romney's record:
During the Romney Administration he made some early pro-gun control statements but met and worked with Gun Owners’ Action League (the Mass. based pro-2A group) and no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. In addition, he removed any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006, and signed five pro-second amendment bills into law.

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

If you think Romney is the same as Obama than you must really like Obama's Fast and Furious and the subsequent cover-up (the biggest criminal political scandal in American history), registering gun purchases in the four southern border states, promoting the UN Gun Ban Treaty, appointing two anti-RKBA Supreme Court Justices and appointing 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts.

If this is "avoiding gun control in order to get re-elected" than imagine what he'll do if he gets a second term. In the very least, more regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce. In addition, a Democrat Senate would likely sign on to the UN Gun Ban Treaty, lots more proposed gun control legislation and anti-gun judges and up to four more anti-gun Supreme Court justices.

Romney earned a B from the NRA and Obama an F. Romney's record and position on the RKBA is much better than Obama.
 
Last edited:
Why do all these progressives come from, or have thrived in MA? With all you Patriots here and the ones I know, and there are MANY. It's incongrous. They're either Kennedy's, Rumprangers, confiscators or at least have strong lib ties.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Romney has never banned guns. He was not yet in office and so did not sign the permanent 1998 MA AWB into law.

If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-gun bills while he was Gov. of MA 2002-2006.


http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm

Q: Are you still for the Brady Bill?

A: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time. I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban as 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 I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality.



So, was Mitt telling lies again ?
 
Gun wise I would expect we're equally screwed whoever is in office the next 4 years. Hell, maybe were better off with Obama. He's no fool, he may not want to tank his party by signing some piece of anti-gun legislation, even if he personally has nothing to lose. We all know Romney would do it in a second.

Mike
 
Apparently we are supposed to be more concerned with a statement from Romney than what Obama has done.

When it was politically expedient for Obama to be pro-gun his actions show only the opposite. He has only become more anti-gun over time and if re-elected we'll see a lot more.

When it was politically expedient for Romney to be pro-gun control his actions show the opposite. His record shows he has either reduced gun control or passed pro-gun bills while Gov of MA.

http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/gun-rights

Statements don't make a position - a record does.

Romney's record shows he has become only more pro-gun over time. If we especially work to get Republican majorities in the House and Senate we can expect him to dismantle Obama's anti-gun actions in the UN and on the Southern border, make sure Fast and Furious is successfully investigated, more pro-gun legislation passed, and up to four more pro-gun Supreme Court Justices.
 
Apparently we are supposed to be more concerned with a statement from Romney than what Obama has done.

When it was politically expedient for Obama to be pro-gun his actions show only the opposite. He has only become more anti-gun over time and if re-elected we'll see a lot more.

When it was politically expedient for Romney to be pro-gun control his actions show the opposite. His record shows he has either reduced gun control or passed pro-gun bills while Gov of MA.

http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/gun-rights

Statements don't make a position - a record does.

Romney's record shows he has become only more pro-gun over time. If we especially work to get Republican majorities in the House and Senate we can expect him to dismantle Obama's anti-gun actions in the UN and on the Southern border, make sure Fast and Furious is successfully investigated, more pro-gun legislation passed, and up to four more pro-gun Supreme Court Justices.

So now we're supposed to vote based on hoping politicians won't do what they say they'd do? Or rather, they just lie so often we need to vote the one opposite our ideals because, since they're lying they imply they are aligned with us?

There's more than two sides to every issue, so the two party system needs to take a hike.
 
Ugh, NTSA

Romney will say whatever he needs to say to get elected. He has no permanent stance on any issue.

Thing #1 or Thing #2 ... It doesn't matter. They're both going to destroy your house.
 
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...un-laws-wont-make-all-bad-things-go-away?lite

More video and text at link:

Romney on NBC: Changing gun laws won't 'make all bad things go away'

LONDON-- Mitt Romney said Wednesday that more restrictive gun laws would likely not have prevented last week's deadly mass shooting at a Colorado Cineplex, and argued that it would take Americans changing their hearts, not their legislation, to prevent similar future attacks.

"Political implications, legal implications are something which will be sorted out down the road," Romney told NBC's Brian Williams during an exclusive interview here in London. "But I don't happen to believe that America needs new gun laws. A lot of what this young man did was clearly against the law. But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening."
 
The other guy is worse? Can you show me some anti 2A laws that Obama has signed? They are both the same. If anything Romney did the most damage with the AWB bullshit.

How about the UN arms treaty he is about to sign?

If Romney wins, he will have to face the voters in 2016. Obama doesn't have to care about another election again if he wins.
 
Back
Top Bottom