Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WFTR

“When all is said and done, he’s likely to be just as conservative as Fred Thompson in the way that he governs.”


Here are two current positions that Romney will not renounce. Guns, and gays in the military.

“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.”

” One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”


11 posted on 12/15/2007 2:35:41 PM PST by ansel12 (“Sanctuary Mansion? The savings help me to become leader of the anti-illegal worker war. Romney 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: ansel12
Mitt Romney's support of the assault weapons ban bothers me tremendously. If he hadn't taken that position, he'd surpass Duncan Hunter as my favorite candidate.

However, I see that position as no worse than Fred Thompson's support of the Lautenberg gun ban. The Fred Thompson supporters try to dismiss this ban as something that keeps "wife-beaters" from owning guns. However, people who engage in serious domestic violence are already prohibited from owning guns because serious domestic violence is a felony offense. More and more prosecutors are trying to convict people of felonies for any action that has hints of domestic violence. Lautenberg wasn't needed to keep these people from owning guns.

The Lautenberg ban extended the prohibition to people convicted of misdemeanors. A simple push could be enough to deny someone his (or her) Second Amendment rights forever. I'm not saying that anyone should be proud of an argument that leads to any kind of pushing, but I don't believe that these situations should lead to loss of Second Amendment rights. As much as I hate the assault weapons ban, I'd rather have my choices of guns limited than for gun-grabbers to take another step towards extending the classes of people not allowed to own guns.

Again, the point is not that Mr. Romney is good on the issue and Fred Thompson is bad. The point is that I can't see either of them as being everything that I want and don't see either of them as being everything that I don't want. In that situation, I lean towards Mr. Romney because of his executive experience.

Bill

17 posted on 12/15/2007 3:26:06 PM PST by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson