Posted on 12/30/2007 2:55:00 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
Your statement suggests that without his signature, there would be no gun ban in Ma. In fact, without his hard work, there would be a much worse gun ban.
He can’t ignore the legislature, we aren’t a dictatorship.
He signed a bill passed by a legislature that was ready to do much worse. His action made the bill better, earned him the praise of the gun groups who actually had to DEAL with the Ma. legislature, but perversely gave him trouble in his presidential race.
If he had instead let the legislature work without him, vetoed whatever they sent, and let the final bill take effect without his signature, he’d have a “pure” record, but the gun owners of Ma. would be much worse off.
When given a choice between doing something good for gun owners, or giving himself an easier path to the Presidency, he chose to take the hard road and do something for gun rights.
Thank you. I’m sorry I got so snippy. I think of the web as something that just “is”, and forget that it changes constantly.
Nonsense and spin . Your attempt at legitmizing gun control is failing ....
I’m glad we tripped you and Romney up , yet again ....
By your “reasoning”, we have no good gun control people in congress, since we have a law banning machine guns, and Ronald Reagan was a communist sympathiser since while he was President laws were passed helping communists and hurting freedom fighters.
It’s hardly a matter of “legitimizing” anything. This isn’t some theoretical discussion in a classroom, this is real life, where the opposition has votes, the executive isn’t the king, and laws are passed that we disagree with.
Apology accepted. When I put the page together I went with what was on the candidates sites.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.