Skip to comments.Romney Renews His Support For Gun Control, 23 July: "That's the kind of legislation I like"
Posted on 07/27/2012 6:19:33 AM PDT by xzins
Is it possible that Mitt is an inexperienced and undisciplined candidate, or should we begin viewing his comments as trial balloons?
The latest possible trial balloon came this past Monday in an interview with Larry Kudlow. In that discussion, Romney relates the situation in Aurora, Colorado to his time in Massachusetts when he was able to ban weapons such as the AR15, one of America's favorite sporting rifles.
Romney...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. (http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=11599&NewsAreaId=2)
Romney has given us other trial balloons in recent months.
First, he consistently affirms RomneyCare, the massive government intrusion into healthcare that was the blueprint for Obama's massive government intrusion into healthcare. Sadly, Romney's health care plan included many items absolutely unacceptable to social conservatives. His continuing support for his program has many conservatives legitimately wondering if he intends merely to "fix" ObamaCare. Perhaps he thinks it would be better if just a little more in his own image.
Next, and only this past April, was Mitt Romney's support for gay couples. Compounding that problem was his assertion that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. There are compounding problems with that, too. Mitt Romney has long had a special relationship with the gay-agenda wing of both parties. He has in the past given those advocates special assurances that he is the man they want in office. Just this past week, when Obama permitted military uniforms to be worn in a gay pride parade, there was no protest from Mitt Romney that this author can find. (Since pro-life chaplains can't march in pro-life parades in uniform, one wonders at the double standard.) To cap this off, during the debates, Romney indicated he was just fine with permitting open homosexuality in our military.
Now we have the governor who instituted strict gun control on "offensive weapons" reaffirming that decision. But that is not the critical part of the message.
Mitt Romney actually said on Monday -- this past Monday -- that when he can get legislators to agree on gun control, then "that's the kind of legislation I like."!
I can't help but dissect "that's the kind of legislation I like." What does that mean? Does it mean he's all in favor of signing gun control legislation if he can get legislators to originate it? That way, of course, he wouldn't be the only one taking the heat.
Does that mean that he doesn't really have a core value opposing gun control, that he'll sign on if he's not the only one with his neck on the line?
Trial Balloon or undisciplined comment?
You be the judge. But, you also better be careful, and make sure Romney never has a large enough group of RINOs to team with democrats to bring him gun control legislation.
After all, "That's the kind of legislation I like."
Here is his contact page for comments:
Anybody but Obama
Virgil Goode is not Obama
Therefore, he qualifies, it would seem.
Furthermore, he is a lifelong pro-life, pro-God, pro-gun, conservative, something that Romney is not.
I hold no ill will for those conservatives who have concluded that ABO is the way they have to go. I did that in the past, but not this time because of Romney’s pro-abortion, pro-homosexualism, pro big government health care, and pro-gun control history.
I strongly encourage you to contact his organization about his anti-2d amendment comments. Sometimes I think he’s trying to play to both sides, maybe sending subtle messages that he can deny, but that cause liberals to decide to support him. Who knows what goes on in his evaluating?
In any case, I appreciate your honesty and willingness to hold his feet to the fire.
If Romney gets worse or if you’re in a blue state, where there’s a snowball’s chance of his winning (California, for example) let me encourage you to vote for Virgil Goode, a lifelong conservative.
That would strengthen an alternative conservative party and would perhaps get the attention of the GOP-E.
> Here is his contact page for comments:
Thanks - message sent:
Dear Mr Romney,
It was with some concern that I heard you quoted as saying the following:
...the [Assault Weapons] 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. (http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=11599&NewsAreaId=2)
I was tentatively planning on voting for you in November, but I cannot and will not vote for any candidate who supports increasing the number of gun control laws in effect in any form. I strongly urge you to clarify your position immediately.
[Slings and Arrows]
I take it you have not looked at his record...
To the point and clear, Slings. I appreciate your integrity.
Romney should have to work for your vote; he shouldn’t have the impression that it’s his because you have no place else to go, and that he can, therefore, ignore you and move to the left.
Excellent letter, FRiend!
I would encourage everyone to write their own letters, and if you live in a swing state make sure to indicate so in the state box. A letter from Florida will carry much more weight than one from California or Texas.
'Even Bush' implies that he is somehow a standard for Conservatism. Bush was no Conservative. And neither was his daddy.
Then what he is saying is that ANY gun control legislation that can actually get passed is "the kind of legislation" Romney likes.
So if congress got together and voted to ban all semi automatic pistols or revolvers with more than 4 rounds, then Romney would have to say "that's the kind of legislation I like."
Every day Romney gives me another reason to vote for Virgil Goode.
Why do you say that? Honestly, would you surrender your firearms to someone who came to your door in an official capacity with the belief they had the authority to demand them from you or would you resist?
If you would in fact surrender them, then you do deserve to live on your knees in submission.
Just who do you think would re-arm America if we do surrender our weapons to the government officials?
Any official who orders that the civilians of these United States must surrender their firearms is in fact an enemy of the US Constitution and deserves whatever hostilities can be brought forth against him or her.
P-Marlowe: Then what he is saying is that ANY gun control legislation that can actually get passed is "the kind of legislation" Romney likes.
Your conclusion is solid, P-M. He's basically saying, "If it gets to my desk, then I'll sign it."
You’ve skipped over quite a few steps to get from my concern that our government no longer represents us to your assumption that I would ever willingly give up my arms.
I agree with Jag. B4, You’ve taken his post, which was about how Mitt Romney is a miserable choice on this gun issue, which is AN ENDORSEMENT OF GUN OWNERSHIP, and turned it 180 degrees on its head, A WILLINGNESS TO ACQUIESCE ON GUN OWNERSHIP.
Perhaps you misunderstood him and read something in a way it wasn’t intended.
The proper response to any officious bureaucratic busybody who shows up at your door demanding your firearm is that you will keep your firearm, but if they don't leave your property immediately you will gladly surrender the ammunition you have in the firearm.
Thank you. If I get a response I will certainly post it.
In re-reading the thread I believe you are correct. I apologize for my error in assuming that perhaps you might acquiesce to an illegal demand.
There is quite simply no possible way to gloss it over - Romney’s record on 2nd Amendment issues stinks.
End of story.
His words should cause Romney supporters to shut down his servers with angry responses.
"Lets get the record straight. First of all, theres no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban.
Look, Ive been governor in a pretty tough state. Youve heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America.
I have conservative values.
~ Mitt Romney
Donate to Free Republic!
click the pic
I made the
toughest MOST EXPEDIENT decisions and did what was right for America MY OWN POLITICAL CAREER. I have conservative CHICAGO values. ~ Mitt Romney
Thanks, P-Marlowe. :)
And Reagan himself signed in to law the Hughes Amendment.
Good-bye you troubled, lying supporter of that lying, left-wing Progressive Liberal Mitt Romney!
FreeRepublic is much better without the trash you were so fond of spewing.
“***Why not vote Republican? Ill be writing in Sarah.”
Republican and conservative are not synonymous terms. If anything, the gop honors conservatism in the breach. If even then. The third parties are actually running some solid conservatives. Better to vote for them instead of wasting my vote on a kinder, gentler anti-gun socialist
Sarah decided not to run: she’s not on the ballot. It’s her decision and I respect it. I don’t see the point in voting for someone who has said they don’t want the job.
Both Romney and Obama are wrong on the most important issues. The election of either will produce one and trhe same outcome. The most important peaceful means we have to express our dissent is with our vote. In this case in faith that for the sake of a few our nation can be salvaged I can not in clear conscience vote for either man. As of right now the only clear choice I see too vote for is Virgil Goode. Let the opposition political party begin.
I'm totally with you, CVA!
I appreciate it. And I understand your position were that to have been the case. I’m having a FB “conversation” with a former cop friend (former cop, not former friend) who is adamant that “reasonable limits” (no 100-round “clips” (argh), no automatic weapons) be placed on our gun ownership rights. The guy booked Constitutional Law our first year - I asked him “where does it say ‘shall not be unreasonably abridged’?” No answer yet.
Some items such as the 30 or 100-round clips (argh) suppressors, helmets, body armor and automatic weapons are items I view as serious combat defensive items. I want everyone to be allowed to buy and practice using them but I would prefer they not be allowed as open carry in mixed company.
Mixed company being children, women and impressionable age teenagers. Parents can teach their kids how and when to use them, women meaning wives, moms and grandmoms are all capable of determining if they wish to be in the vicinity of such items.
What was he zotted for? Being a supporter of Romney over Soetoro? RIDICULOUS! That’s why I stopped posting. I’m not afraid to admit it, I have every intention of voting for Romney. Am I thrilled with him? Hell NO! But anybody is better than the Marxist Kenyan homo usurper. So now Freepers get zotted for defending Romney over Soetoro?
I’ll be back after the elections.... maybe.. or maybe not. I have no interest in any forum that wants to help the Kenyan get re-elected. Sorry, that’s how I feel.
Why are you asking me? You are well aware that I have no say in those decisions. Are you sure that you want to be on the ping list?
I believe it was for personalizing his disagreements with Romney non-supporters.
I’m not real sure, though, because I didn’t see the offending posts. However, I’d say it was a personalized attack that began with something like, “You love Obama since you’re not supporting Romney.”
It is an unfair attack in itself, but sometimes it gets overblown into a full scale attack. And the logic isn’t accurate in any case.
If I love beef and don’t want pork or chicken, then my voting for neither, but insisting on beef doesn’t mean I support chicken because I haven’t sided with pork.