Posted on 02/04/2008 12:21:45 PM PST by Daffynition
Perhaps no other issue causes politicians to shift to the right as they enter the national arena more so than guns…
And perhaps no other issue so explicitly causes politicians attempting such a leap to shoot themselves in the foot.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was asked about the assault weapons ban on Meet the Press on December 16, 2007.
"I would have supported the original assault weapon ban," Romney said. "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."
Asked Tim Russert: "So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?"
"Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I," said Romney.
In the last few hours, Romney contradicted that in a podcast interview with Glenn Reynolds and Helen Smith of Instapundit fame.
"I know that a lot of the gun rights folks aren’t sure about your position on gun rights," asked Smith. "Would you pledge to veto any new gun control bills that come across your desk as President?"
"Yeah," Romney said. "Yeah, I don’t support any gun control legislation, the effort for a new assault weapons ban, with a ban on semi-automatic weapons, is something I would oppose. There’s no new legislation that I’m aware of or have heard of that I would support. In regards to guns, I think we have enough legislation and should enforce the laws as they exist. I was pleased that when I ran for Governor that I received the endorsement of the NRA and I hope to receive their support now."
In addition to that apparent flip flop, it should be noted that the NRA did NOT endorse Romney when he ran for governor, as his campaign acknowledged when he said it last December.
This is a rank untruth Mr. Romney continues to peddle.
Said Mr. Reynolds: "I'm beginning to question his sincerity."
On the other side of the aisle, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, campaigning in Idaho over the weekend said "there are people who say, `Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state — we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns."
In 1996, however, Obama said in a questionnaire that he "supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns" -- a fairly extreme position.
"Well he has to speak to his own record, which has obviously changed over a relatively short period of time," shot Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.
HOWEVER, it should be pointed out that this appears to be yet another example of Obama not being able to get good help.
You guessed it -- his campaign says this questionnaire was filled out incorrectly by a staffer. (Read more on that HERE.)
We've been following Mr. Obama's "The Buck Stops Over There" blame-his-staff trend since last June and, more recently, in December.
Bang bang.
I’m thinking of counting all the hit pieces that have been posted today. Would probably take a lot more time than I have so perhaps I’ll pass.
Be patient.
Give it 15 minutes or so, and they’ll have the opposite position, depending, of course, on who they’re talking to.
:O
AWB flip.
This is B.S. While I disagree with Romney on the AWB issue, the fact is that he said he would have signed the renewal, as Bush said all the way back in 2000, but would oppose a new AWB. Two different things.
I voted for Bush twice in spite of his AWB position. So it isn’t suddenly a non-starter for Romney to have the same flawed position.
At least he doesn’t want to give amnesty to 20-30 million illegal aliens.
It's not that he's better, just that he's less bad.
Yeah, and Monica's ex-boyfriend's wife and McStain are SOOOOOOO much better. Puhleeze.
Face it, we gun owners are more or less screwed this election cycle. Of course, between the two, I'll take "less" every time. Romney at least is now on record as stating "Yeah, I don’t support any gun control legislation, the effort for a new assault weapons ban, with a ban on semi-automatic weapons, is something I would oppose. There’s no new legislation that I’m aware of or have heard of that I would support. In regards to guns, I think we have enough legislation and should enforce the laws as they exist." Coming from him, that's not much - but it is something. At least he'll face re-election in 4 years, should he get in, and so we should be safe for that long. Oh, and we should all continue to buy lots of guns & ammo in the meantime.
Of course, I'm hoping that the Supremes rule correctly in Heller, that the 2nd is an individual right, and that any restrictions on it must be analyzed under the Strict Scrutiny standard. Then it pretty much won't matter what these 4 Bozos think or do (apologies to Mr. Bozo, of course).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1964714/posts?q=1&;page=1#1
Doesn't mean spit.
Not that banning handguns outright isn't extreme enough.
Too bad he's so far out in other areas.
I don't like the GWB/Romney position on the AWB either, but there's not much practical difference from McCain on the 2nd amendment.
For those who say there's no difference from Obama, in the past he's voted for a complete ban on sale and transfer of all semi-autos, as well as enhanced restrictions on firearm ownership. In a state, Illinois, that already has amongst the most restrictive laws in the nation.
Think fees, big ones.
Of course if the Giuliani/Clinton/Obama/Paul lawsuits against manufacturers and dealers were allowed, within a decade or so there'd probably be nowhere to purchase firearms anyway.
Like those "other areas", he talks the talk. When it come to voting on something like banning Giuliani style lawsuits against manufacturers and dealers, which would drive the non-military/lawenforcement industry offshore and likely make retailers few and far between, he votes no, don't ban those lawsuits, just like Obama.
Does he? I don't believe it. Convince me.
If Obama wants to ban handguns, I think it's better to bring this issue to the people while they still have their battle rifles and carbines before they're faux-banned (grandfathered) by a Romney or McCain.
With a Republican minority, it can function as the noble opposition against a Dem president/Congress with more ambition gun-control aspirations. However, with a moderate/liberal Repub president, the Repubs in Congress will not oppose any McCain/Romney gun-control legislation.
"I was pleased that as I ran for governor, I received the support of the NRA and I hope to receive their support now." - Source AmSpec Blog
OR
"I was pleased that when I ran for Governor that I received the endorsement of the NRA and I hope to receive their support now." - Source ABC Blogs
Actual Audio says SUPPORT not ENDORSEMENT.
ABC misquoted. Romney never said endorsed.
Someone needs to post the picture of Al Gore and his gun.
Ping!! You need to see this.
Not only was his words taken out of context ABC actually CHANGED them. He said “support” not “endorsement”.
Not one of the five people still running for president (McCinsane, Rumneystiltskin, the Huckster, Obambi, and Hildabeast) is a friend of gunowners, and all of them have strong records of being anti-gun (the Huckster less than the others, though; but he is un acceptable for several other reasons, anyway).
Interesting, another liberal media hit job on Romney, to the exclusion of McCain. What is the pattern and the motivation? lol
I'm gonna put a happy face on it and buy a potentially banned gun before any of these folks gets elected.
Actually, I think your information may be wrong. I’d have to check to be sure, but he is known as Dr. NO because he votes no on about anything.
“I see this as utterly Clintonian. When a candidate says, in a political context, that he had the “support” of a group, most normal people take that to mean that organization endorsed him. Especially given that Romney got in trouble over making similar comments on national television, he should have been clear that he just meant phone banking. At best, his answer was misleading. But I’m sure the McCain haters out there will have a different take.”
“`Well, he doesn’t believe in the Second Amendment,’ even though I come from a state — we’ve got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.”
Another politician that does not understand the 2nd amendment. What exactly do they teach in law schools anyways? Apparently not the constitution.
Hey Obama, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. You could ban hunting in your whole state and it would not affect the 2nd Amendment in the least. Now the questionaire about banning the sale and manufacturing of firearms, that has something to do with the 2nd Amendment.
Heller is a God send to this election cycle. It guarantees that all of these bozos are going to have to talk about the 2nd Amendment and whether it is an individual right or not.
Heaven help us if a Dem gets in, more so Obama, probably less so if Clinton. The choices we have among the RINOs don’t inspire either ... we’ll have to rely on the SCOTUS to decide on what is our natural right...these are uncertain times to be sure.
I just emailed the Executive Director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, asking him to put together a history on 2A issues summary on Obama. If he responds, I’ll be sure to post it here.
If you’re a member, you might request the same.
IVI-IPO 2004 US SENATE QUESTIONNAIRE35. Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of
a. handguns?
While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law.
b. assault weapons?
Yes.
c. ammunition for handguns and assault weapons?
I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns.
36. Do you support legislation
a. mandating background checks of purchasers of weapons at gun shows, through the internet and through print advertisements?
Yes.
b. increasing penalties for illegal resale of weapons?
Yes.
And when Obama says reasonable restrictions, remember the context. He's coming from a state with some of the strictest laws in the country, where gunowners are already registered, and where it's a felony to posess even handgun ammunition without being registered. And where handguns are banned in several cities, including Chicago.
That's a good idea. There have been many completely over the top proposals in Illinois (and Chicago, I may be confusing some in memory) from banning centerfire ammunition (penetrates vests) to banning commonly used "crime ammunition", .22, .28, .25. Many don't make it to a vote, but I'm sure some did during his 8 years in the legislature, and the ISRA keeps pretty good track of legislation.
Worth remembering we got Obama partially because of the national GOP's unwillingness to spend money defending what was a Republican Senate seat. Had they been willing to inject funds, we wouldn't have been limited to candidates like Keyes or Mike Ditka. And Obama would have been forced to run a campaign, rather than spending time beginning his national "look at me" tour.
Thanks for that link and info. I needed that to shove in someone’s face.
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.