Obama and Romney misfire on guns (Romney flip-flops, repeats NRA support lie)

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, 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.

What I am proving is that Romney did NOT say what you falsely claim he said.

I obviously cannot prove that he would NOT accept gays as scout leaders, because I do not have a quote where he says no. But you cannot prove that he WOULD accept gays as scout leaders, because you do not have a quote where he says he would.

"I think all citizens, naturalized or otherwise, should be allowed to participate in our government."

By your illogic, I just said we should violate the constitution and let naturalized citizens be President.

When in fact I do not want that.

Why you think you have the right to put words into other people's mouths, or to define their beliefs for them, I can't say, but you are not a mind-reader, so your attempts to claim that you KNOW what Romney MEANT, by using bad logic, fall flat.

Romney is responsible for his own words, not for your misstatements of them and your misinterpretations. He is also not responsible for opinions he has not expressed but that you insist on pinning to him.

Write to his campaign and ask him whether he would support gay scoutmasters. Post the results. That's called finding the truth.

But it's a lot easier for you to just make it up.

Do you have a math background at all? “Participate” is the larger set which incluces the subset of leaders

Yes, and if Romney said "gays should be scoutmasters", then it would be logical to insist that Romney believes gays should be allowed to participate in scouting.

But leaders is a subset of "participants". For example, boys can participate in scouts, but they can't be scoutmasters. Women can participate in scouts, but at least when I was a scout I thought they couldn't be scoutmasters. Parents can participate and be members of socuting without a background check, but they can't be in leadership.

In short, there are MANY ways to participate without being in leadership. And it also makes perfect sense to allow some people to be participants, but not leaders.

In fact, there are MANY real-life examples where people are allowed to participate, but in some class of people who do not have access to the full range of benefits.

This is so trivially obvious that I find it ludicrous that someone who owns a computer and can type words in english does not understand that "participate" is a superset of "leadership", and that while all leaders are participants, not all participants are leaders.

The owner of Free Republic is a participant. I think that all conservatives should be allowed to participate at FR. By your logic, all participants of Free Republic should be allowed to be the owner.

oh so you support The Huckster? I’m an independent baptist and I don’t know how he was qualified to be a pastor for the Southern Baptists? He has no understanding of scripture and wants to redistribute wealth. I believe the scriptures say “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and for the government to take my money and give it to someone else is not a christian foundation. He also wants to save the planet from Global Warming and make everyone as skinny and flabby as he is? So much for individual responsibility. He’s all for preventive health so that fat people would probably be fined if they tip the scale. The guy is a good talker thus he became a Pastor and then progressed to his natural man and is now just another greasy politician!

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.