It’s not 1994. But yes, you could still be a supporter of gun rights and support the brady bill. The brady bill was a bad bill, and a largely useless law that didn’t accomplish it’s goal. It put speedbumps into the purchase of guns.
But I do support background checks to ensure that people who we all agree should NOT be allowed to purchase weapons (felons, known terrorists, insane people) do not actually purchase weapons.
I do not see any of our candidates suggesting that we should get rid of the instant background checks.
The AWB was a bad bill, and didn’t accomplish it’s purpose, but people who were generally for guns could support it in a misguided notion that some weapons were too dangerous to have in the public’s hands.
That would be a bad reading of the 2nd amendment, but some people who generally support you also oppose you once in a while. Politics is the art of compromise and partial victories. The National Right to Life organization endorsed Fred Thompson as a “pro-life” candidate. But he supported abortion for rape and incest, which to a real pro-life person makes no sense at all (why would the personhood of the pre-born be effected by the method of conception?)
By the standards used against Romney on his 1994 support for the 1994 AWB and the 1994 Brady bill (he would NOT support re-passing the 1994 AWB as president, and supports Brady’s background checks but not the waiting period), we should have all called Fred Thompson pro-abortion.
Let's get the record straight. First of all, there's no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, I've been governor in a pretty tough state. You've heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values. Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007
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 in 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. Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 16, 2007