Posted on 12/30/2007 2:55:00 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
Romney is not a gun grabbing rino....just posting a comment like that over and over doesn’t make it true.
Just curious: are you backing McCain?
You , just like Romney , are completely uneducated on the gun issue . Go educate yourself before coming on here and trying to B.S. gun owners on what infringments are acceptable .
So enlighten us , and tell us what weapons should be banned and why ? Which guns does Romney want to ban and why ?
Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons banGovernor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.
“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “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.”
Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.
That’s not the complete record and you know it. Again, you’re a “slick deceiver” just like your buddy Mitt.
Like I said before, the ASW is just another political football like abortion and stem cell research. It doesn’t matter what you know or feel if someone is using it to club you to death.
Like signing a PERMANENT BAN on "assault weapons"? That sure doesn't sound like he affirmed any of my rights! Oh, I forgot, this is mitt....we need to redefine the word "affirm".
As I said, it is politics. Don’t sign it and the opposition will tell everyone you want people to be able to buy AK47’s at the local WalMart.
Who gives a sh%t what everyone says? I want a POTUS that's going to protect the Constitution!
Why do you resort to dirty name calling? I posted a ton of information on how Mitt fought hard for our 2nd admendment rights. You chose not to hear it because your agenda is simply to attack Mitt....no other considerations allowed.
As I said, it is a political football. You need to learn a little more about it instead of using it as a club to beat up you political opponents.
Why, for one did the NRA endorse the gun bill in Mass?
Mitt did things to help gun owners and the bill has been praised. He has guts and doesn’t run from issues like a lot of politicians.
Do you even own any guns? From your attitude, I highly doubt it. What guns are you willing to give up?
I don't think they should have! It was a bad move on their part and has caused them to lose many members in MA!
You just don’t seem to get the politics of this issue. Do you think it would be good to have every gun shop selling these kind of weapons? The democrats will then politicize the issue and you are then booted out of office. The fact is, they can be purchased anyway....just underground.
No, I would never purchase one underground as you have suggested! That's illegal.
You tell me which weapons you think we should ban.
According to Jefferson, the 2nd amendment is necessary so that the people can keep their government in check. That means we need access to weapons necessary to overthrow the government.
What we have access to right now won’t do it.
Have weapons become too dangerous to trust the citizens with the firepower to take over their own government? Seems backwards to me, since the military belongs to we, the people, and should be made up of we, the people, and our weapons.
Why should we trust an 18-year-old with an M-1 tank simply because they have had some simple training, but not trust a 20-year-veteran with an M-16, beause it “fires too fast?”
So you tell me, why to so many of our “pro-2nd-amendment” politicians not fight to get us access to the weapons that are banned?
Don’t try to use that elitist stuff here. The 2nd amendment is NOT complicated, the right to bear arms isn’t really complicated. The compromises that have been foisted upon us are complicated and twisted, but that’s a fault of those who ignore our rights.
As to which weapons Romney wants to ban, I don’t get the impression he has any in mind. He speaks of those that are “too deadly”, and it sounds like he simply doesn’t want to sound like some nut who would let people have rocket-propelled grenades.
Not a perfect position to take, but I doubt any of our candidates are going to simply say “no” to the question “should ANY weapons be banned?”
I don’t even own a gun, but I know enough gun owners to know that, at least in our state, they aren’t nearly as concerned with some ill-intentioned but meaningless AWB which they can easily get around, as they are with the government encroaching on their right to actually HAVE their weapons with them when they need them.
For example, in addition to being forbidden to have protection at public colleges, we have fought over whether a shopping mall has the right to prohibit guns in cars in the parking lot — a ban which would, in conjunction with a ban on bringing a weapon into the premise (which as a private business they have the right to do) would render “carry laws” meaningless.
You can’t carry your weapon from one place to another if you have to stop somewhere in the middle where you can’t even park your car with the gun in it.
That’s the law that was endorsed by the NRA, that had support of the gun owners, and for which Romney was praised for keeping the liberal legislature from really making things much worse.
Sometimes holding the opposition to a field goal is a victory.
Most consensus was the the AWB was largely ieffective. It exists more for people like you to use against you political opponents.
Why don’t you post the “complete” position on ANY of the other candidates. For example, for each of our candidates, do they support the “right” of the state government to prohibit lawful gun owners from carrying their guns in public at public colleges?
If you don’t even know what the candidates positions are on that subject, I don’t know how you could complain about someone else not knowing the “complete record”. It seems this is the seminal issue right now, not some silly AWB, but the right to have your gun with you.
After all, we saw at VT what happens when you ban guns, and also at the mall shooting, while in Colorado we saw what happens when people are ALLOWED to carry their guns.
The person who saved all those lives in Colorado didn’t need one of those “banned” assault weapons to save lives, just the right to have her handgun when it mattered.
So I’d support someone who would allow an AWB over someone who would let government ban people from carrying their guns any day of the week.
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.