Skip to comments.2004: Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban
Posted on 04/13/2012 4:44:10 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Andrew Kaczynski dug up this Romney press release today from the Web Archive, showing that he signed off on a permanent Assault Weapons ban in 2004:
In a move that will help keep the streets and neighborhoods of Massachusetts safe, Governor Mitt Romney today signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that forever makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on these dangerous guns.
Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts, Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmens 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.
We are pleased to mark an important victory in the fight against crime, said Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey. The most important job of state government is ensuring public safety. Governor Romney and I are determined to do whatever it takes to stop the flood of dangerous weapons into our cities and towns and to make Massachusetts safer for law-abiding citizens.
|And the Un-Masking of Mitt Romney, the left-wing, Progressive Liberal, continues . . .|
|"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton|
I’d love to corner him and ask him to describe an assault rifle.
Assault weapons ARE made for self defense!!
They are useful when heavily outnumbered in riot-type situations. Ask the Koreans who defended their businesses against massive numbers of arsonists rioters in the LA riots of 1992.
I’m sure this has been brought up a billion times on FR, but I’ve never been sure what distinguishes an “assualt weapon” from other weapons. Perhaps as opposed to a “love pat weapon”?
>>They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people
Yes, they are. Thanks for recognizing that fact. Since there are about a million human attacks in US for every bear attack, I’m glad that we have anti-human guns at our disposal in the free states!
>>what distinguishes an assualt weapon from other weapons
The sight of an “assault weapon” makes liberal men start their periods early.
Banana clips make conservative women, hot.
You should have voted for Newt. You know who you are.
Assault weapons are great for preventing tyranny.
Say what you want about Romney. He was a Governor of a Liberal State. Being an elected official does not mean that you impose your will upon the electorate. It means you represent the electorate and protect the vulnerable. It was MA’s will he was enacting to a very large degree. He was solving their problems not the Nation’s.
Men that know the difference between a clip and a magazine make conservative women hot!
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.
So much is wrong with these sentences, but let me snipe a couple of points:
1. Wouldn’t it be easier to use a hunting rifle to hunt down and kill people? I mean, if that’s what they use to kill deer and such, there must be good reason (besides the law). I’m thinking “assualt weapons” usually aren’t the most accurate.
2. What’s with this “hunting down” presumption? Couldn’t man killers just as easily lie in ambush? Let them come to you; it’s less work (though more boring).
3. In the spirit of point two, why presume people are using “assault weapons” offensively? They work the same if you’re the one being assaulted; they’re neutral that way. You can’t assume the one with the AK is going out looking for trouble just because you named them “assualt weapons” instead of “defense weapons.”
4. Even in wars, where men are allowed not only to use “assualt weapons,” but can legally hunt down and kill their enemies, they don’t get many assualt weapon kills. Why? Because it’s hard to kill things with them. Mostly they’re used for suppressing fire. The majority of deaths come from ordnance, which blows stuff up indiscriminately.
Say what YOU want about Romney. He either lacked principle as governor of Massachussetts or he betrayed his principles in order to obtain political expediency. Either way, I won’t be voting for the useless SOB.
“Yes, they are. Thanks for recognizing that fact”
No, you miss the point. The killing people part is right, and there’s nothing wrong with making something with the sole purpose of killing. But what you quoted went further by saying “assualt weapons” have the sole purpose of hunting people down and killing them, which would mean self-defense doesn’t apply. For even in “stand you ground” states you are not allowed to hunt people down in order to kill them.
That would mean there are effectively no legal uses for “assualt weapons,” and as such it would make sense for them to be banned. Except you can use them for self-defense, which is obvious to anyone with common sense or a passing familiarity with various real life instances. But nothing ever stopped politicians from radically distorting real life.
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.