Skip to comments.NRA endorses Romney as ‘only hope’ for firearms freedom
Posted on 10/05/2012 12:13:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The National Rifle Association (NRA) endorsed Mitt Romney for president late Thursday.
NRA Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre and NRA Political Victory Fund chairman Chris Cox will formally announce the endorsement at a Romney rally in Virginia later Thursday evening. Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan will also be on hand.
In this election, there is no debate, LaPierre said in a statement. There is only one choice only one hope to save our firearms freedom and our way of life.
The endorsement is not surprising the NRA has a history of supporting conservative candidates, who traditionally support strong gun rights.
Today, we live in an America that is getting harder to recognize every day led by a President who mocks our values, belittles our faith, and is threatened by our freedom, Cox said in a statement.
Gun rights became a campaign issue earlier in the year after a mass shooting at a movie theater in Colorado.
The late-night shooting at a crowded premier for "The Dark Knight Rises" left 12 dead and dozens wounded has rekindled calls by some on the left to push for stricter gun laws.
The semi-automatic rifle, an AR-15, was illegal under federal law until a ban on it was lifted in 2004.
I still believe that the Second Amendment is the right course to preserve and defend and don't believe that new laws are going to make a difference in this type of tragedy, Romney said at the time.
Has Romney ever supported 2nd Amendments rights? Doesn’t he refuse to hunt, and thinks hunting is a bad thing?
I guess it's still better than voting for Satan...
A better hope would have been that John the Baptist guy, Gary Johnson. But he doesn't have one of the Big Two Party duopoly gangs in his corner, so I guess we'll just have to see how this turns out.
Er... No. That is not what that idiotic law did. Sheesh.
The NRA, like many of the rest of us, are faced with two choices. Pick a team.
This is the guy that wrote his own assault weapons ban for his state when the federal one expired...
I am going to begrudgingly voting for him, only because of 1979 redux...
But please, stop turning this liberal socialist into the next conservative champion..
it turns my stomach..
So if Romney restricts gun rights< we can say, “yeah, “Obama didn’t do it.”
And no offense but I don't GAF if he chooses to hunt or not, so long as he supports your right and mine to hunt if we choose to. The worst thing he could do would be to saunter into a sporting goods store and do a reprise on John f'n Kerry (who served in Vietnam, btw) and patronize the f out of everybody and say "Can I get me a huntin' licen' here?"
Like the man said, "choose a side".
Obama would attempt to take away gun rights by decree in his 2nd term. I expect Romney to leave guns alone.
Uh, no it was not. But this is the type of journ-O-lism I expect from the Hill.
That’s pretty naive. Obama will have to fight against a Republican Congress. Romney won’t have to worry about it. Democrats are afraid of the gun issues. Romney won’t be afraid to lower the boom.
I never did get one of those “ALL IN” coins.
And I’m a life member!
I doubt it is naive. Will see though.
And what’s the other choice 30 days from now? You know the correct answer. Obama who does not care one lick about the separation of powers or Romney who should play inside the rule of law.
That may actually be correct. An AR-15, strictly speaking is a Colt product, and with all the features, would have been illegal until the ban was lifted. That doesn't mean that all of those variants sold as "AR-15"'s were illegal, as I'm sure the writer meant, but, hey...he had to get something wrong.
I just don’t understand why you want to give the message to Romney that he has free reign to impose leftism on this country. He already change the rules at the GOP convention to limit conservatives. Now, conservatives are acting like the guy is the greatest thing in the world. He’s not even a moderate. Come January 2013, he will not be fighting the left, he will be eviscerating the right. But then, your inviting him to do it, so I guess it’s fair game.
The NRA endorses a man who permanently banned the exact sort of weapons that the British redcoats went to Lexington and Concord to try to confiscate.
Shameful, but not surprising. The NRA has been supporting democrats for years.
The Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton took effect on September 13, 1994. It did not ban semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 currently in civilian hands, nor did it ban future sales of semi-automatic rifles. It created a new (and I would submit, inaccurate) definition of an assault weapon. Historically, assault weapons were selectable for automatic or machine-gun fire, or at least for a multiple-round burst with one trigger pull. After all, if military personnel were engaged in rapid movement when in danger of coming into sudden contact with the enemy (or when military personnel were specifically assaulting enemy positions), having automatic fire capability was considered desirable in modern warfare.
The AWB created a new, cosmetic definition of an assault weapon as one that had could accept a detachable magazine, and had more than one of the following features: a pistol grip that protruded conspicuously below the receiver, a folding or telescoping stock, a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.
It is interesting to note that under the 1994 AWB (which expired in 1994), all semi-automatic weapons in civilian possession before the AWB initiation that would have later been banned were not considered assault weapons (due to their dates of manufacture and possession). Nor were the millions of semi-automatic weapons manufactured and sold to civilians during the 10 years the ban was in place. Technically, according to Congress inaccurate and cosmetic definition, the only assault weapons during the ban were weapons meeting the AW definition that were manufactured and/or possessed by civilians during those 10 years. That would include precious few weapons, and shows how absurd the AWB was. Weapons possessed before the ban came into effect that met the 1994 AW definition were grandfathered, and weapons with the same general capability (semi-automatic fire and the ability to accept magazines holding from 11 up to 100 rounds) were legal to manufacture and sell to civilians during the 10 years of the ban.
As for the high-capacity magazine ban that was part of the same 1994 Crime Bill (banning civilian possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds that were manufactured after the September 13, 1994 initiation of the law), it merely raised prices for such magazines. There were tens of millions of high-capacity magazines in civilian hands as of September 1994. If someone was specifically intending to commit criminal assault with a firearm, or to put themselves into a situation in which they would be willing to do so, they would not be stopped by a price increase of $20-50 per magazine (depending on type), nor would many such criminally-minded individuals be chastened by the prospect of additional incarceration due to the AWB or hi-capacity magazine ban laws.
Fortunately, these laws sunsetted on September 13, 1994. As a sidebar, I would point out that the streets have not run red with blood due to the expiration of these laws, as the anti-gun forces warned in 2004. In fact, in the 20 years between the height of the crack-exacerbated crime peak of the early 1990s, the American people have taken legal possession of well over 150 million firearms, and violent crime has been nearly cut in half during that time.
Wasn't that, "illegal to transfer"? Weren't all the existing rifles grandfathered in? Kalifornia is so screwed up that I don't even recall exactly what the federal law was.
“Obama will have to fight against a Republican Congress.”
Yeah that’s really held the Kenyan back so far. Did you miss all the czars, executive orders, Holder?
I think you need to keep up with current events. You either don’t pay attention, don’t care or you work for the other team. You make no sense whatsoever and saying it over and over again will never make it true.
Romney: “I have five sons, so I’m used to having people say something to me that isn’t quite true ... and that repeating it again and again will make it so.”
Yeah. And probably only a transfer through an FFL. Private sale should have been cool. Good catch. Journalists seem to believe that all “assault rifles” disappeared during the ban.
I just dont understand why you want to give the message to Romney that he has free reign to impose leftism on this country.
The message that you are sending is let Obama win to impose his Marxism on the country. I don't think you mean that but that is what can be implied.
“Pre-ban” weapons and “pre-ban” “high-capacity” magazines (those manufactured and possessed by civilians before September 13, 1994) were legal for sale and transfer to other civilians. Several states passed their own AWB laws (with no sunset date), most of which mirrored the federal AWB.
So, all the Democrats had to get you to abandon conservatism was elect Obama? They are tricky.
Wow, you are the first Romney pounder to actually mentions this. (albeit after I pressed you several times) Pretty much everyone is going on about how great he is and giving him a blank check.
Since you are suggesting we put a Socialist in charge of the country, and someone who wants to push conservatives into a 3rd party, what exactly do you propose to stop him?
Your posts are just silly.
NRA president, David Keene, wrote in the SEP 2012 edition of the American Hunter: Jim Wallace, Executive Director of the MA Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) and an NRA committee member says without equivocation that during Romney's administration "no anti-second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made it to the governor's desk and the governor managed to sign 5 pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law." That, says Wallace, must be considered an extraordinary achievement given the political realities of MA (during his watch, Democrats controlled 2/3 of both chambers of the state legislature).
Chris Cox, NRA ILA (Institute of Legislative Action) Executive Director, interviewed Mitt Romney for the SEP 2012 edition of American Rilfeman and American Hunter (p. 16-19). Mitt sounded mighty conservative on all matters regarding the 2nd Amendment.
That said, I don't trust WMR at all. His history of flip-flopping on a host of other issues, his support of homosexuality in the Boy Scouts and right for homosexual couples to adopt, his holding the TEA Party at arm's length, and his actions at the 2012 GOP convention where conservatism was excluded show me he is not to be trusted.
Q: But what choice do we have?
A: The devil we don't know. I too will crawl over broken glass to vote for WMR.
Crap, all I know is that Obama is going to lose the Salesmen of the Year Award for Firearms come January 2013.
And good bye you POS.
He joined the NRA in 2005.
Thanks, Theoria, for that info. So, he joined during his term as governor of MA. Almost looks like a late-life conversion.
Here, take a teaspoon of "Don't read it".......There, feel better?
Oh, and stop kicking that dead horse......
So where's their endorsement for Obama?
LaPierre said in a statement. There is only one choice only one hope to save our firearms freedom and our way of life.
There is another, more ugly way, that might become necessary.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
Romney is a democrat.
Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts, Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony...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.
And you are deliberately distorting the facts. Romney is NOT a Democrat no matter how much you wish he was. That was only a snippet of what he said as he signed the law, which was PRO-GUN and actually eased the restrictions. GOAL (Gun Owners Action League) in Mass was lobbying for the bill and is backing Romney solidly on his protecting the 2cnd Amendment.
“During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governors desk.
Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. His administration also worked with Gun Owners Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006.”
Lying for Romney is a cottage industry.
Quislings, that’s what they are.
Ah but he said he’s become more conservative as he got older.
Uh, uh, Jim you may want to move on to another topic... -Hussein Obammy (Debate #1)
Mr. Hoefling, 3rd party candidate:
You can bold and bigger-font that until it takes up the entire page, if you’d like, it doesn’t change the fact that Romney, as Governor of the most liberal state in our nation, not only never harmed gun rights, repeatedly signed legislation that expanded gun rights. And that comes directly from the gun-lobby in Massachusetts and the NRA.
By your taking snippets of quotes to mischaracterize his standing and history of action on gun rights, you are bearing false witness.
Romney Renews His Support For Gun Control, 23 July : "That's the kind of legislation I like"
What he actually said was this
"the law that we signed in Massachusetts was a combination of efforts both on the part of those that were for additional gun rights and those that opposed gun rights,...Where there are opportunities for people of reasonable minds to come together and find common ground, thats the kind of legislation I like.
Your post was basic, blatant lying, and you pose yourself as representing the Christian right?
Quislings, thats what they are.
Again with name-calling and calling others liars while you are blatantly bearing false witness against opponents. Seriously, I'm worried about you. I believe you have truly lost your way and constantly miss the forest for the trees. I think you have honest intentions in your campaign, but you are so consumed in your pursuit of office in the name of "morality" that you are Machiavellian in your tactics. When truth and honor in debate do not supersede your political pursuit, why should anyone have confidence that you would suddenly remember truth and honor AFTER you were sworn in?
Based on the principles you say you espouse on your site, I think you would have been excellent in office... starting locally, working your way up. But I just don't see those principles revealed in your speech to others here :-(
Joe Schwarz was endorsed, so there is precedence for bad endorsements. I'm voting for Mitt as the lesser of two evils, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking he's the next George Washington.