Skip to comments.2004: Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban
Posted on 04/29/2012 4:52:29 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
Yeah, Romney's a liberal. We get it.
And the guy currently in office is the most destructive, America-hating Marxist who has ever sullied the White House.
I have rope. There are unoccupied street lamps nearby. I'm good to go.
And that's exactly what we are, when Romney wraps up the nomination (if he does).
You got someone else in mind? Please regale us with who this is and what their roadmap to the White House currently looks like.
Romney would try to take our firearms away, but he doesn't have the raw power to do it either.
NO LIBERALS. Not Romney. Not Obama.
Talk to the GOP E if you are unhappy with their dirty tricks, badmouthing conservatives, and mid-game rule changes if you have a problem with that.
But you can't scare me into voting for Romney.
I’m writing in, tyvm, so the question becomes: who else do you Romneybots have in mind?
Answer my questions, please.
I understand completely.
“Since when is a military weapon (other than collectors pieces) needed for home or recreational use?”
Let me spell this out for you: No government conceived by man, including and especially ours, should ever have a monopoly on deadly force, because that is the most certain route to autocracy. Any candidate who supports the suppression of the right to bear arms is unworthy to hold the office of dogcatcher’s assistant, whether he be Republican or Democrat.
Romney only did what any “severly rational conservative” would do and that’s to say or do whatever it takes to pander to whatever group they’re pandering to at the time and to hell with Conservatives because they owe him support because he says he is severly conservative and of course he is rational about things like the assault weapons ban where us Conservatives are irrational. Do you get it now? Just fall in and do as told.
Ouch. Please don't go there. The right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct on this forum, as it should be and it pains me to concede that when it comes to this right, Obama actually has a better record of upholding it that Romney does. Reason #2,695 why the vote I intend to cast for Mitt Romney in November will be a painful one.
Though, honestly, I'm not too worried that anyone is going to take my guns away. It is a dead issue and politicians on both sides of the aisle have figured out that it just isn't worth the political capitol that banning guns expends.
And I still won't vote for Romney. Ever. He's a gun-grabber wanna-be. And support those that murder unborn babies.
I don't need to justify not voting for a gun-grabbing, pro-abortion, pro-socialized medicine, big government liberal.
You are the one that needs to justify supporting him.
the direction we move is determined by congress more than the president. the president has some power but congress ultimately steers the ship left or right. Congress is becoming increasingly conservative despite what some may say. with control of the senate and the house, we’re relatively safe no matter what happens with the presidential election. having said that, I have been more concerned with the outcome of the senate battles than the presidential race for over a year now since I had the foresight to see Mitt Romney coming. A 50/50 senate split seems quite possible and I don’t want Joe Biden being the deciding member of the senate. I’m not voting for Romney, I’m voting for whoever he picks for VP.
1. Most "recreational weapons" are derived from military weapons. 1911 was an officer's gun. Glock started for Austrian Defense. Mossberg shotguns are used by Marines. The .30-06 Hunting Rifle is a military round.
2. It's not the Bill of Needs, but the Bill of Rights.
3. Governments that do not trust me with "military weapons" are not trustworthy enough to hold power.
And I haven't notice a lot of conservatism out of Congress, now that you mention it.
I did notice a lot of go-along-to-get-along that wasn't well reported by the media, and a few big publicity items that don't amount to much, in the way of throwing a bone to the conservative base.
Say what you want. Do what you like. But the GOP has lost me, long ago, and I'll campaign against any liberal that comes up for a vote, whether they have a D or R beside their name.
Get used to it.
“It is a dead issue”
Never dead, Drew. Eternal vigilance is the price of safety.
In answer to your question a. The guns in question are not military weapons. They are semi automatic firearms. Secondly, you are quite arrogant to even assume to be able to make the suggestion that you know better than I what I need for my home defense. Third, the 2nd Amendment is about more than just self defense. It’s about defense of one’s person, home, and NATION. Lastly, if the Government feels there is a need for a particular small arm type, then we would behoove ourselves to follow suit. If the Government thinks we shouldn’t have a particular type of firearm, then what in the hell are they doing with it themselves? THEY have less need of any particular firearm type than the American citizen.
As for your other comments...
Romney is not a choice. I will not vote for that leftist piece of toilet paper. He’s shown himself to be no better than Obama or any other socialist idiot. I will no longer participate in electing the “lesser” of two evils. If a candidate does not meet my standards, he’s not getting my vote. Romney falls very short of my standards.
I hate to say it but Obama deserves to win if Romney is the GOP’s best option.
Romney is going to lose for several critical reasons. 1. He’s no different than Obama. 2. His whole campaign is basically “I’m not Obama”. 3. He hasn’t energized the base AT ALL. 4. He’s a lying leftist scum bag.
THOSE are the facts. DEAL WITH IT.
Now, stop bothering us and go pander for Romney where he’ll be appreciated... DU.
Indeed. And vigilance is precisely why it is a dead issue and precisely what keeps it a dead issue.
A) You don't get that ballot choice at the general election.
B) You have no idea who Romney might pick for a VP. So you are saying you are going to blindly vote for whoever someone you won't vote for picks for a running mate? Dude.. That's messed up.
1911 was not an officer’s gun, it was a cavalry gun. A lesson of the Civil war was the effectiveness of large caliber pistols when used by cavalry. The .44 cap and ball revolver is as effective as ever it was. The .45 Colt, the .45 Schofield (S&W) and the 1911 were all product improvements on something that worked. Of course that cavalry stuff had to change a lot once machineguns became widely distributed.
Even in 1939, German infantry formations got very weary of being attacked by Polish Cavalry.