Let's educate Mitt Romney about Assault Weapons Bans


PDA






JKimball
December 25, 2007, 03:36 AM
I just submitted the following comment to the Romney Campaign via their website at http://www.mittromney.com/CommentForm

Remember that scene from The Karate Kid where Miagi tells Danny that if he tries to walk down the middle of the road he is going to get "squished like grape?" That is what always comes to my mind when I see Mitt talk about his position on guns. His position is unattractive to everybody that really cares about the issue. A president cannot defend the second amendment and simultaneously support an assault weapons ban. I hope you'll research this issue and take a stand on the side of liberty.

After I finished that I came to THR and was immediately interested to see this thread in general discussions:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=325944

It got locked pretty quick, so I hope I'm not out of line following up on it, but I'm assuming this is an appropriate forum to ask people to drop in on the Romney website and help him see the error of his position on assault weapons bans. Even if you're rooting for someone else, you may as well tell him that he is wrong on this issue. Romney is known for being willing to change his position on an issue. Let's see if we can get him to change on "assault weapons bans."

I think he is getting closer, and I was particularly surprised when I saw him make this statement to Tim Russert during Meet the Press:
...if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, thatís something I would consider signing. Thereís nothing of that nature thatís being proposed today in Washington.

Does that mean that he doesn't know about H.R. 1022? Or does it mean that he wouldn't support something like H.R.1022? What sort of weapons does he have in mind when he talks about unusual lethality? Semi-autos? Full-autos? 40 Watt Plasma Rifles? .50 BMG?

Too many questions for one person to address in the 500 characters that they allow on the comment form. So the more of us that hit him on it, and the more states that are represented, the better.

If you don't mind sharing, please copy and paste your comment into this thread.

If you enjoyed reading about "Let's educate Mitt Romney about Assault Weapons Bans" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
kb2iaw
December 25, 2007, 08:28 AM
I think the best message is not to support any candidate that flip flops ...they will only change their mind again after election .

DesertDawg
December 25, 2007, 09:02 AM
I've already e-mailed the Romney campaign web site with questions and information about his "unusual lethality" (or was it "unusually lethal"?) statement. It reminded me of the brain-dead former Attorney General Janet Reno, when she testified that the so-called assault weapons were (quote) "....more deadly than other weapons".

If someones mind is already made up by the popular fallacies and myths about guns, they're not going to take the word of total strangers. I think that it might be better to try to convince the NRA to approach the issue with FACTS. I don't NEED the NRA to send me anymore baseball caps or collector coins! They should use that money for better purposes....and educating a presidential candidate SHOULD be their goal!

DDude
December 25, 2007, 10:27 AM
All the material for any person seeking the office of President can be found in the United States Constitution for the purpose of "education". They simply need to read it over several times to ingrain it's meaning into the grey matter squishing around between their ears. The NRA is nothing more than another special interest group that attempts to buy off our representatives who should be listening to us, the people... instead of groups with agendas and money. When laws are formulated and enacted for the benefit of one particular group (and this includes those in support of the 2A), then the rights and liberties of the individual are in jeopardy as we go from a classless society to that of a classed society, something the Founders did not want.

Romney would rather defer this to his attorneys I suppose. He's a danger to the Constitution and this nation, as are McCain, Thompson, Huckabee and Giuliani.

alsaqr
December 25, 2007, 11:33 AM
It is not the job of the NRA to "educate" any dedicated anti-gun candidate. It is the job of the NRA to oppose anti-gun candidates. Romney is the only presidential candidate who ever signed an "assault weapons" ban into law. Whatever he says now is just hypocrisy and lies.

What a fine choice of anti-gunners we have for the office of POTUS.

JKimball
December 25, 2007, 02:22 PM
Maybe I didn't clarify my intent in the original post. I'm not asking anybody to support Romney. I'm not even saying I support him yet. And I'm not asking people what they think the NRA should do about this. This is something we can do to increase our chances of getting a president who will defend the second amendment.

Obviously he doesn't have much experience with guns, but at least he is open enough to take the stand that he supports the second amendment. There are millions of gun owners who think the same way he does about assault weapons, and if we don't try to educate them, they will just go on thinking the 2nd Amendment is about hunting and personal self defense.

Romney needs to hear a lot of voices telling him that his position doesn't make any sense and that it is costing him votes. He has already been painted as flipping from pro gun control to pro gun. So the flip flopping damage has already been done. The problem is, he isn't pro gun enough to interest the truly pro gun folks.

I'm thinking if he sees that enough people care about this issue he will be willing to spend a little more time researching the intent of the 2nd amendment and establish a more clear and effective position than "unusually lethal guns are bad for the public."

P.S. If you think what I've proposed is a stupid idea, please just keep that to yourself. You don't need to join in on this thread to pooh-pooh it. If you don't want to tell Romney where he is wrong, then don't. But this isn't the discussion sub-forum. This forum is for people who are willing to actually do something to educate others and to preserve our rights. It isn't for whining about why this or that won't work, or complaining about how the NRA should be doing this for us.

Standing Wolf
December 25, 2007, 02:35 PM
It is not the job of the NRA to "educate" any dedicated anti-gun candidate. It is the job of the NRA to oppose anti-gun candidates. Romney is the only presidential candidate who ever signed an "assault weapons" ban into law. Whatever he says now is just hypocrisy and lies.

Romney may be the only presidential candidate who's ever signed a so-called "assault weapon" ban; he's not, however, the only one whose record clearly demonstrates contempt for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I'd sooner vote for a communist than a RINO: at least the communist is honest enough to admit he hates America.

alsaqr
December 25, 2007, 03:45 PM
When Romney ran for governor of MA, he did so on an anti-gun platform. Romney is a long time, dedicated anti-gunner. He is not a candidate for re-education on the issue. Romney told those fine stories about being a "hunter" despite the fact that he has never had a hunting license. Romney is an anti who is trying to camouflage himself on the issues by lying.

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/9380526.html

"As governor of Massachusetts, Romney supervised a commonwealth where state-funded billboards declare, "Have a gun, go to jail." As a result, the murder rate in Boston keeps climbing. The answer of Romney and his gang? Tougher victim disarmament laws, of course. In his 2002 race, Romney lauded those Draconian laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon O'Brien. "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them," he said. "I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.""

Personally, i could care less if Romney slips to the bottom of the pile in the polls.

Blackfork
December 25, 2007, 05:03 PM
Nice guy I'm sure, great hair but no business for leading a democratic constitutional republic. I left a comment. Doesn't take but a second.

goon
December 25, 2007, 05:26 PM
It's a waste of time. He doesn't care. He'd say whatever he had to to get elected. If anything, all we'd be doing is teaching him how to talk around gun control so he could get elected.
Then he'd just turn around and screw us over.

joffe
December 25, 2007, 06:40 PM
Romney is a career politician, he will vote, change his opinion, his friends and the way he acts based on what he has to gain from it in power, favors and money. He can't be 'educated' because he has ten faces and twice as many tongues that he picks from every day based on polls.

camacho
December 25, 2007, 07:52 PM
Romney does not need education, he needs principles. Romney is not stupid and he knows exactly what the issues are, especially the issue of gun control/rights. It is not that this is a brand new issue that came up in the past year or so.


My sincere wish for Romney is to never hear about him again after the primaries are over.

I am not trying to slam what you suggesting, JKimball. Educating principled folks who might be ignorant on certain issues is a worthy cause. Educating flip-floppers and hypocrites is a waste of time. Moreover, there are candidates such as Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul who don't need to be educated and are principled. Why just not vote for them?

Green Lantern
December 25, 2007, 08:10 PM
What a fine choice of anti-gunners we have for the office of POTUS.

Yep, though many of them are trying their hardest to pull the wool over our eyes about it...

Maybe it's just the first race that I've followed so closely before the candidates were announced, but it's downright depressing how almost ALL of the ones in the running have bona-fide antigun credentials...

JKimball
December 25, 2007, 08:35 PM
Guys, don't tell me how ridiculous Romney's position is. TELL HIM or keep out of the thread.

For crying out loud it takes just as much time out of your day to post your comment on his website as it does to post it here. And it is absolutely doing no good here. There is a small chance it might do some good there though.

Like I said before:
P.S. If you think what I've proposed is a stupid idea, please just keep that to yourself. You don't need to join in on this thread to pooh-pooh it. If you don't want to tell Romney where he is wrong, then don't. But this isn't the discussion sub-forum. This forum is for people who are willing to actually do something to educate others and to preserve our rights. It isn't for whining about why this or that won't work, or complaining about how the NRA should be doing this for us.

v35
December 26, 2007, 01:43 AM
Ditto JKimball's comments above. Tell Romney, not us. It's really quite simple. Like this: I am dismayed and a bit confused regarding Romney's apparent position on guns. I fully expect the next President to jealously protect and defend our Constitution, and in particular the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. I will not support a candidate who expresses an interest in renewing the ill-conceived 1994 Assault Weapons Ban or anything that resembles it. I would like Romney's position on this matter made clear so that I may decide where he stands.Piece o' cake.

alsaqr
December 26, 2007, 07:39 AM
"TELL HIM or keep out of the thread."

Told him. Beware that a skunk like Romney does not change its stripes.

Air,Land&Sea
December 26, 2007, 07:47 AM
I did tell him and got a very thorough response a week or two later. He said all the right things, but that doesn't get him off the hook for past actions. He and Giuliani are disqualified, in my opinion, for their past RKBA behaviors.
Warming up to Ron Paul by the second.

kb2iaw
December 26, 2007, 07:50 AM
Romney and bloomburg share the same outhouse .

Green Lantern
December 26, 2007, 09:20 AM
Guys, I really DON'T want to be the wet blanket, but:

Beware that a skunk like Romney does not change its stripes.

I did tell him and got a very thorough response a week or two later. He said all the right things, but that doesn't get him off the hook for past actions.

If I thought we really could change his 2A stance, I'd be all for it.

As it is, I fear that all this may do is make him better able to deceive gun owners into thinking that he's "reformed" and now solidly pro-2nd.

If I only THOUGHT (but of course could not KNOW) that it would do no good, I'd keep my trap shut. But besides that, I also must fear that it might do more HARM than good...

JKimball
December 26, 2007, 11:53 AM
He said all the right things

I'm guessing he didn't say he would veto congressional attempts at an AWB? For those that have received his response, if it leaves something to be desired, I'd suggest letting him know. If he doesn't hear back from people who get his gun response letter, he may well assume it satisfies their concerns.

Those of you saying that a skunk doesn't change his stripes would have to say that Romney isn't a skunk, because if there is one thing he is being hammered for it is for his history of changing and evolving his positions. But even amidst his changes, his governing record shows that he kept his campaign promises.

And what is the point of coming to the activism forum if you don't believe you can be influential in changing the way people believe about gun control?

Green Lantern,

You make an interesting point. I agree he would pick up some votes if he came out and said that he would veto an AWB (at least he'd get mine.) But the point I'm trying to get at is that it is very possible that even with his current position he could beat candidates that already have a good position on 2a (Huckabee and Paul.) I'd much rather see him get elected on a platform that would reject an AWB than his current platform. If he gets elected on his current platform he will feel justified and perhaps even obligated to sign an AWB if it comes to him. I'm thinking he will be more likely to pay attention to our voices now than he would when he is getting ready to sign that AWB that he told the American voters he would sign.

MiddleAgedKen
December 26, 2007, 12:38 PM
He's had plenty of opportunity to promise to veto an AWB. That he hasn't done so tells me everything I need to know about Mr. Unusual Lethality. He'll sign it because it's what he believes.

Nicky Santoro
December 26, 2007, 03:04 PM
Let's educate Mitt Romney about Assault Weapons Bans

Like most political hacks, Romney would fellate Satan for two votes.

JKimball
December 27, 2007, 02:48 AM
Man, I'm starting to think that the "activists" on "The High Road" are harder to motivate than the politicians. :barf:

MiddleAgedKen
December 27, 2007, 09:31 AM
Okay, JKimball, I get that you're frustrated, but the point is that Romney's been amply exposed to the Second Amendment point of view. He addressed the NRA, along with other Republican candidates. Woulda been a capital place to promise to veto an AWB, no?

The only education Slick Mitt requires with regard to an AWB is education as to the price he would pay for signing one. I think that's been made fairly clear as well, but maybe not. Actually, a good question to ask him would be about how he feels about "Maximum Mike" Sullivan. He had plenty of action to see him in action, after all. In fact, I believe I'll do that.

(Edit to add): Ask and ye shall receive (or maybe be careful what you wish for). Here's my comment:

I have two questions for Governor Romney:

Will you promise without hedging to veto a so-called "assault weapons" ban, should Congress send one to your desk during your administration?

Do you think Mike Sullivan is a good choice to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives?

Hint: Both questions have a correct answer, of one word each (not the same word). Governor, you cannot triangulate on gunowner rights and expect the support of law-abiding, patriotic gunowners.

There. He's all edjumacated now.

alsaqr
December 27, 2007, 02:25 PM
"And what is the point of coming to the activism forum if you don't believe you can be influential in changing the way people believe about gun control?"

i have changed the minds of a lot of anti-gunners over the past 50 years. However, i am not going to waste my time and resources trying to deal with a dedicated anti-gun political hack who is trying to run from his putrid anti-gun record by lying.

If Romney is nominated, this Republican will either stay at home or write in the name of Hagop Hagopian. Unless, of course, Richardson is nominated by the Democrats.

JKimball
December 27, 2007, 03:10 PM
MiddleAgedKen,

That was a good question. I wouldn't be surprised if Romney didn't know anything about Sullivan prior to your question.

alsaqr,

Thanks for participating earlier. Again, this thread is not about voting for Romney. It's meant to increase the awareness of the importance of this issue amongst the candidates. Some of them already get it. Romney doesn't. He thinks that people who want "assault weapons" are just a small fringe of the population. And with the reluctance I have seen on this board of all places to clue him in I'm not surprised in the least he feels that way.

Phil DeGraves
December 27, 2007, 03:25 PM
"I think the best message is not to support any candidate that flip flops..."

That means you would support a candidate that has always been FOR gun control? I don't know; if my choice is for someone who has always been for gun control and one who has flip-flopped occasionally (as is likely to be the case in November), I think I'll opt for the flip flop. The Primary is where you vote for who you want. The general election is where you vote against who you don't want.

MiddleAgedKen
December 27, 2007, 03:39 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Romney didn't know anything about Sullivan prior to your question.

Uh...he better have known something. Maximum Mike was the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts during Romney's term as governor.

I'm pretty sure he does know what he needs to know about Sullivan, in fact. I'm also pretty sure he either thinks he's okay or doesn't much care. Mitt Romney is simply not committed to gunowner rights. That's the point I and many others here keep trying to make, and the point that you, with all due respect, seem to want to give Romney the benefit of the doubt on, JKimball.

Frankly, sending Romney that note cost me nothing, and I think it'll be worth exactly that where he is concerned. He's just one of several we have to stop on the Republican side.

For the sake of full disclosure, though, I'll out myself as a Fredhead.

JKimball
December 27, 2007, 04:23 PM
Mitt Romney is simply not committed to gunowner rights. That's the point I and many others here keep trying to make, and the point that you, with all due respect, seem to want to give Romney the benefit of the doubt on, JKimball.


I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think Romney is committed to gunowner rights. That would explain some of the responses I've gotten. The whole reason I started this thread is because I truly believe that Romney is not committed to gunowner rights.

Last I heard he was even with Giuliani, leading in the national polls. So I'm saying if there's a good chance he'll get the nomination, let's start hitting him now. If you would write him a letter when that AWB is sitting on his desk waiting his signature, why not write him a letter now?

Where I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt is that I believe he is willing to listen to and learn from others and change his position on something when he sees the errors of his current position. I understand there is a lot of room for argument there, but why not try to get him to change now, when he has incentive to listen to us?

MiddleAgedKen
December 27, 2007, 04:53 PM
I understand there is a lot of room for argument there, but why not try to get him to change now, when he has incentive to listen to us?

Alas, he doesn't have any incentive to listen to us...yet. If he calculates his main obstacles to the nomination as Hizzoner or Honest Johnny Goodgovernment Quote Constitution McKeating, he's got effective cover because they're no d**ned good on gunowner rights either, taking us out of play until the general election (if then).

If his internal polling starts telling him his squishiness on the Second Amendment is hurting him, or if he falls behind Thompson or Ron Paul or even (perish forbid) Huckabee, then we might see some movement. But would you want to trust him to stick to it even then? I'd rather get behind someone who supports the Second on principle. That basically leaves Thompson and Paul.

Okay, Huckabee too, but Huckabee is a liberal Democrat on those inconvenient foreign and economic policy issues. No thanks. I lived through one Carter administration, and that ought to be enough for anyone's lifetime.

TexasSkyhawk
December 27, 2007, 05:02 PM
I'm all for educating Romney.

I'm all for educating him as a private citizen and no longer in government.

Jeff

camacho
December 27, 2007, 09:59 PM
I'm all for educating him as a private citizen and no longer in government.

I am with you on that!

orionengnr
December 27, 2007, 10:55 PM
How this forum works. READ THIS BEFORE POSTING HERE!

This forum is dedicated to activism to promote the RKBA.
Please use this forum to coordinate and work together. This is the place to organize. Use this forum for campaigns, legal gatherings, letter writing, talking points to push on the media, and things of this nature.

This is not the place to come up with ideas, use L&P for that. This is not the place to debate ideas.

There will be absolutely no arguments or comments about whether a given course of action is a good one. Such arguments always occur in L&P, about every single idea, and then no course of action is taken. This is the place to co-ordinate, not to talk somebody else out of doing anything.

If you cop a defeatist attitude in this forum, weíll boot you. We donít have time for crying. Any extraneous posts not directly related to the activity get deleted.

kludge
December 28, 2007, 09:57 AM
Let's educate Mitt Romney about Assault Weapons Bans

Let's vote for someone else.

v35
December 28, 2007, 08:45 PM
Tell him, not us.

Please don't use this forum to gripe. Use it to post what you wrote to the Romney campaign. What orionengnr and jkimball said. It will take you all of two minutes.

Do it. Now. Anything else is a waste of this forum and insults the OP.

I don't like Romney either. I'm not voting for him. But he's just been endorsed by none other than the National Review, a publication whose editors I thought supported the 2A and other useful parts of our Constitution. The pro - RKBA candidates (yeah, both of em) have a slim to no chance of getting nominated, and Slim left town. Actually, I've given up on Slim ever coming to town.

Don't b*tch. DO something. I'm fed up with having to hold my nose while I vote. No more. This time I'm voting for either Slim or None. Romney ought to know why he'll lose - perhaps to Hillary. THIS is why.

DO something. Venting here, or telling us we're wasting our time, isn't it.

I LIKE IT!
December 29, 2007, 12:37 PM
I just wrote him, gave my respectful opinion why he'll lose
the election. Let's see if he responds.

I asked if he was truely aware of what he was opposing in "Assault Weapons".

Asked if he knew the facts and the culture behind it.

I doubt he knows.

My choices boil down to...includes soft spots. You can see why though.

Huckabee(immigration)
Thompson(???)
Paul(foreign policy)

TEDDY
December 30, 2007, 05:25 PM
can any one give me yr and month romney signed assault rifle bill?I just checked GOAL site and they say NO anti second amend.bills passed,but several pro gun bills got signed.
if you are bashing him and lieing this site will be off my list.I have not made up my mind who for as none are lily white.I like this forum but!!!:fire::(

JKimball
December 30, 2007, 05:48 PM
Teddy,

I just found this with a quick google search:
http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812
- July 08, 2004

Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen’s 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.”

The new law also makes a number of improvements to the current gun licensing system, including:

Extending the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years;

Granting a 90-day grace period for holders of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry who have applied for renewal; and

Creating a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied.

“This is truly a great day for Massachusetts’ sportsmen and women,” said Senator Stephen M. Brewer. “These reforms correct some serious mistakes that were made during the gun debate in 1998, when many of our state’s gun owners were stripped of their long-standing rights to own firearms. I applaud Senate President Travaglini for allowing the Senate to undertake this necessary legislation.”

“I want to congratulate everyone that has worked so hard on this issue,” said Representative George Peterson. “Because of their dedication, we are here today to sign into law this consensus piece of legislation. This change will go a long way toward fixing the flaws created by the 1998 law. Another key piece to this legislation addresses those citizens who have applied for renewals. If the government does not process their renewal in a timely fashion, those citizens won't be put at risk because of the 90 day grace period that is being adopted today.”

“Never before has there been such bi-partisan cooperation in the passage of gun safety legislation of this magnitude in this nation,” said John Rosenthal, co-founder and chair of Stop Handgun Violence. “I applaud the leadership of the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker and entire Legislature for passage of this assault weapons ban renewal. They have shown that Massachusetts can continue to lead the nation in protecting the public and law enforcement from military style assault weapons.”

If you look around the internet and youtube you can find him saying he supports banning assault weapons. There is a lot of unwelcome bashing going on in this thread, but I'm afraid it isn't a lie that he's against our right to own assault weapons.

goon
December 30, 2007, 10:27 PM
Man, I'm starting to think that the "activists" on "The High Road" are harder to motivate than the politicians.

Once again, I think it's pointless to try to educate him. He doesn't care one bit about you, me, or any other gunower. He would tell us whatever we wanted to hear if it helped him get elected, then turn around and cut our throats if it would get him another term. As things are now, anyone with the slightest ability to read people can see that he is trying to tell people what they want to hear. I have seen him stammer or hesitate in many of his interviews as he tried to think up the "right" answer to pacify his audience. I just hope everyone else has seen it too.

The real solution is to sit back and watch him dig his own grave. Then vote for someone who actually might have some principles.

I know you said you weren't interested in responses like this but that is the way I see it.

Having said that, it was pointed out that we should be supporting each other. I agree with at least that much. So eventhough it's pointless to waste my breath trying to help Mitt grow a spine, this is at least a good way to tell him why he won't be getting my vote. Hopefully he'll lose. If that happens, at least he'll understand why.
Here's the comment I left, verbatim:

"Sir,
I just wanted to let you know I probably won't be voting for you because of your stance on gun rights. You seem uneducated on this issue. Although you currently claim to support hunters' rights, I don't think that shows real support for our right to bear arms. I highly doubt that the framers wrote the Second Ammendment with the sole intention of protecting the rights of duck hunters. Please take a few minutes to look over the Bill of Rights. It may change your opinion on this issue. "

Really though, I was just being polite. I have no doubt that when Mitt changes his stance on gun rights again, it won't be motivated by education or a sincere change of heart. It'll be by a burning desire to get the anti-gunners' support back when he runs for election again.

gunsmith
December 31, 2007, 01:26 AM
even though I can't vote for him, I told him why.

TEDDY
January 1, 2008, 01:57 PM
I have not made up my mind to vote for any one.however given the political realities of Mass no one is going to throw out the gun laws in Mass.the anti gunners are to solid ly imbedded.having lived in Mass all my life untill 2000 I have a very good idea of the mind set.what was done was get some favable laws passed by amending the law which was passed in 1998.in 2004 it was amended to actually improve the lost rights of gun owners.BE AWARE that gun owners make up more voters than actually vote BUT wont vote so whose fault is that.
I tried to upload a file all I can do is email which I think I did maybe he can post it.

ilbob
January 1, 2008, 02:50 PM
I think anyone that believes there is a perfect candidate to vote for is living in lala land. Every candidate has a perfect stance on at least one position to at least some people. None are perfect on every issue to anyone.

Most of us are a little more focused on 2A issues, but I would not allow that focus to allow you to forget there are other issues just as important to worry about.

Unless the guy is electable, it is meaningless. Among other things, being electable means being able to raise enough campaign money to run a competitive national campaign. Romney is one of a few guys running who probably can raise that much cash.

DrBoomBoom
January 1, 2008, 03:28 PM
I wrote Mr. Romney after watching him on "Meet the Press." I heard him say he did not always support the NRA and that he thought there should be a ban on "assault weapons," so I wrote telling him these two statements would preclude me from ever voting for him. Here was his response:

'Thank you for contacting me about the important issue of gun ownership and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I appreciate your interest in my campaign for President and would like to extend my sincere gratitude for taking the time to share your views with me.

I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. It’s essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I am proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms.

I firmly believe in the importance of responsible gun ownership and sales. I recognize there are people in this country who want to remove all guns in our society and I think they’re wrong. Washington needs to distinguish between law-abiding gun owners and criminals who use guns. Those who use a firearm during the commission of crime must be punished severely. The key is to provide law enforcement with the resources they need and punish criminals, not burden lawful gun owners.

As Governor of one of the most liberal states in the country, I stood up for the rights of gun owners and sportsmen over burdensome bureaucratic regulation. I advanced legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners in my state and I’ve been proud to have the support of pro-Second Amendment and sportsmen’s groups in my previous runs for public office. I also designated May 7 as “The Right to Bear Arms Day” in Massachusetts to honor “the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property and for all lawful purposes, including the common defense.”

One of the most active fronts in the fight to preserve our Second Amendment rights today is being waged in the courts. As President, I’ll appoint strict constructionist judges who will follow the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. I’ll also fight to repeal the McCain-Feingold law, which sought to impose restrictions on the First Amendment rights of groups like the National Rifle Association, to advocate for issues we care about.

I am running for President because I fervently believe that I have the experience and vision to address the issues facing our country. Throughout my years in both the private and public sectors, I have been successful by pursuing innovation and transformation. If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to visit my website at www.MittRomney.com for updated information on Second Amendment rights and other issues that may be of interest to you. I look forward to hearing from you in the future, and earning your support.

Sincerely,'

joffe
January 1, 2008, 06:46 PM
That's not 'his' response, it's a response sent out by aides and crafted by campaign experts who know what to say to gun owners who write Romney. In all likelihood he probably hasn't even seen these letters personally.

TEDDY
January 1, 2008, 07:38 PM
I tried to post a statement from GOAL on Romnys record in Mass.did not work
you might get it from GOAL.ORG.He did work with GOAL to pass amendments to the states laws.considering the climate in Mass any thing a republican can acheve is a miracle.I also look at fact that the state was in the red and he turned it to black.the legislature is very left.:uhoh::confused::):banghead:

goon
January 2, 2008, 11:48 AM
I think anyone that believes there is a perfect candidate to vote for is living in lala land. Every candidate has a perfect stance on at least one position to at least some people. None are perfect on every issue to anyone.

Most of us are a little more focused on 2A issues, but I would not allow that focus to allow you to forget there are other issues just as important to worry about.

Unless the guy is electable, it is meaningless. Among other things, being electable means being able to raise enough campaign money to run a competitive national campaign. Romney is one of a few guys running who probably can raise that much cash.



I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Romney is not on our side.
Voting for him just because you think he can get elected doesn't make much sense to me - you could make the same case for Hillary.

I agree that there will never be a "perfect" candidate but IMO there are enough good ones that none of us need to vote for Romney.

Deanimator
January 2, 2008, 03:07 PM
Can somebody give me a definitive statement on whether he supports a NEW AWB?

cbsbyte
January 2, 2008, 03:29 PM
I am not a supporter of Romney, nor did I vote for him for Governor of Mass. I just want to point out the incorrect information that is out on the net, that he signed a AWB in Mass. This misinformation has been spread by the media which did not do any research before writing the articles about the law. First we have had a AWB in this state since 1994. It did not have a sunset clause. What happen is that a new bill was passed in the state legislature that cleared up some of the poorly written language in the old AWB law. This was a positive step in this state.

Deanimator
January 2, 2008, 04:15 PM
Most of us are a little more focused on 2A issues, but I would not allow that focus to allow you to forget there are other issues just as important to worry about.

What do those "other issues" matter if the winner of the next election sends armed men to your home to kill you and take your AR15?

Why should I prefer to be killed at the behest of a Republican instead of a Democrat?

MiddleAgedKen
January 2, 2008, 04:27 PM
Deanimator: He said on Meet the Press on Dec. 16 he'd have signed the AWB renewal (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=10124.msg173090) (same as George W. Bush).
The link quotes the transcript of the exchange between Romney and Tim Russert.

No wiggle room left. He's disqualified, period.

JKimball
January 2, 2008, 04:58 PM
This was a positive step in this state.

Just to keep things in perspective:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3830376#post3830376
Personally I have no need for assault type rifles. I never liked the look of them, especially the AR. I have shot them but never enjoyed shooting them as I do with my military surplus bolt actions. The puny .223 round is a joke compared to the sweet shooting 6.5 Swede or 7.5 Swiss. For me AR15s have no soul like my bolt action military rifles. AR15s feel like junk in comparison. Though the FAL, AKs, and M1A1 among others are more substantiation weapons than an AR15, I just don't like shooting them, either because they are too inaccurate or ungainly. There are only a few semi-auto rifles I would buy the top of the list would be a M1 Garand. For home defense a handgun is fine for me.

cbsbyte
January 2, 2008, 05:48 PM
Just to keep things in perspective:


Let me put things in perspective for you. Now that you dug up an old quote that was taken out of context do you believe you are making a point? If you are trying to point out I don't like AWs well you are right, I personaly don't like the look of assault type rifles nor would I own one, but the key point you missed is that does not mean I don't think others should not be able to own them. People like you enjoy twisting peoples words by taking their comments out of context. Which in the end proves nothing. You see not liking AWs does not mean a person favors more gun control. Anyway back to the topic, the signing of the new AWB was better for Mass gun owners since it cleaned up some gun control. That is alot better than what the antis wanted when they first introduced the new bill which was a new AWB that would ban all semi-auto rifles, and large capacity magazines. They lost we won.

JKimball
January 2, 2008, 06:46 PM
cbsbyte,

I wasn't trying to twist your words or take them out of context. I provided a link to the thread it came from and included your entire post. I don't have any problem with what you said in that post or your posts on this thread. My only point is that when you stand up as a credible witness as a resident of Massachusetts to weigh in on the Assault Weapons Ban there, it is reasonable to disclose that you personally have no interest in owning them anyway. In fact I'm glad you posted because it shows that there are lots of gun owners and many of them feel like an assault weapons ban is acceptable as long as some of our other gun rights are preserved. I would guess that Romney's position now is actually pretty much in line with a majority of gun owners. There was a time when I felt that way too. But obviously, many of us here believe his position is entirely inconsistent with the second amendment.

When you say you believe the AWB that Romney signed was a good step for your state, I can accept that many gun owners there feel that way. But an AWB is still an AWB. And there are some gun owners that maintain AWBs are unacceptable.

cbsbyte
January 2, 2008, 07:05 PM
When you say you believe the AWB that Romney signed was a good step for your state, I can accept that many gun owners there feel that way. But an AWB is still an AWB. And there are some gun owners that maintain AWBs are unacceptable.


As posted above we had a AWB in this state since 1994 similar to the Federal AWB. There was no sunset clause. In 2003 a group of anti politicans got together to write a new bill that would further the restrictions of current state AWB. After they brought it to committe to be reviewed it was sidelined by some progun Democrat legislators. After much haggling they finally rewrote it to be a near copy of the current ban but with some wording changes that cleared up some grey areas in the old law. Pluse we got some additional benfits. What you fail to realize is that this is Massachusetts, not Utah. It could have been far worse, if the bill had passed as origninaly worded it would have banned all semi-auto guns in the state. We take what we can get in a state which is controled by politicans who really don't care about the RKBA. We made a small step forward in a anti-gun state, where most gun owners could care less about AWs.

JKimball
January 2, 2008, 08:04 PM
cbsbyte,

I think I understand what you're saying and I really do appreciate your perspective on this topic. Now I'll ask you to demonstrate that you won't just sit back and watch Romney sign another AWB into law, even if you aren't interested in owning them yourself. Send him a letter on the subject and then post it here.

I LIKE IT!
January 2, 2008, 08:24 PM
Romneys Email response, likely a staffer.:rolleyes:

Dear Tony:

Thank you for contacting me to offer your comments and suggestions for my campaign as I run for President of the United States of America.

I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to write me with your thoughts for my campaign. I will certainly keep these sentiments in mind as we move forward through the election cycle.
Again, thank you for your suggestions. I genuinely value your input.

Sincerely,

Mitt Romney

TEDDY
January 3, 2008, 02:57 PM
jkimbal:I was from mass and cbsbyte has got it right. given the culture of mass you peck away at the bad ones till you get it emasculated.romney listened to GOAL and the the progun dems.believe me when I say the rep.gov has a hard row to hoe .I to like the older guns but I do have a AR15 I built.the rest of them dont turn me on.one thing that is amazing in Mass is the amount of gun clubs.probable far more than in Ut:uhoh::confused::fire::banghead::):)

JKimball
January 3, 2008, 05:55 PM
Teddy,

Thanks for your in state perspective. Along with what cbsbyte said, it gives a little more validity to my hope that Romney is willing to listen to gun owners on this issue. That is the whole purpose of this thread, to let him hear our voices. Are you willing to ask him to veto future AWBs that congress may send him?

Remmi
January 3, 2008, 06:06 PM
I'm surprised nobody's bothered to email him the fact and figures that state that more then 70% of gun-related violent crimes are done with small-frame automatic pistols in calibers smaller then .45.

Afterall, it's rather hard to stuff a SKS or AR-15 with Bayonet lug and Pictnanny rail into your pocket when the fuzz cruises by on patrol. Hell, it's hard to do that with most normal sized revolvers and automatic; ever tried to put a 1911 in your pocket? 'Aint easy.

JKimball
January 3, 2008, 06:06 PM
Teddy and cbsbyte have both indicated that as gun owning residents of Massachusetts they were actually pleased with the legislation that Romney passed. Are there any other MA residents that will weigh in on the issue? Was anybody outraged with his assault weapons ban?

JKimball
January 3, 2008, 06:41 PM
Good one, Remmi.

Did you send that to him?

TEDDY
January 6, 2008, 09:38 PM
I did not say I was pleased nor did cbstybe.we stated what the bill did.and stated that given the political climate it was lucky to get that.I wanred to make it clear the bill was passed before romney was in office and it was changed to give gun owners help.and I belive romney stated a fact of life that he wasnot going to change the gun laws.but he did get concesions to favor gun owners.GOA seem to be the dominant leader in falsifing what was done.I just came from a gun show with their version of the law.no concesions no changes.he worked with GOAL. and no I am not resident of Mass I left in 2000.but am member of gun club and life member of GOAL and keep up with news.mass is like calif can't change it.

GVMan
January 6, 2008, 10:40 PM
Let's educate him by voting for Ron Paul!

Autolycus
January 7, 2008, 01:28 AM
Why even deal with Romney, when Ron Paul is running?

mljdeckard
January 7, 2008, 01:54 AM
Here's my policy on picking a candidate. I don't believe a single word they say AFTER they announce their intentions to run. I look at their record PRIOR. This is why I don't understand how people are so easily swayed by sweeping statements candidates make during their campaigns.

Mitt is a good guy. Some guys I am in the guard with worked directly for him during the '02 olympics, and they say he's great. And I really will appreciate that he gets all the petty anti-mormon issues out of the way so that John Huntsman Jr. can run in '12.

I will be rooting for Huckabee in '08.

ilbob
January 7, 2008, 02:02 PM
Why even deal with Romney, when Ron Paul is running?
Did you hear Dr. Paul's lame and uninformed response to Romney regarding the origins of islamic terrorism?

I am kind of a Ron Paul fan for all his other views but the look on his face, and tone in his voice while trying to answer that made me real nervous about him. It is very clear he just does not understand the nature of the threat posed by Islamic radicalism.

He truly seems to beleive in live and let live, something the islamic radicals just don't agree with at all.

JKimball
January 7, 2008, 03:32 PM
I did not say I was pleased nor did cbstybe.we stated what the bill did.and stated that given the political climate it was lucky to get that.
Teddy,

Ok, you weren't pleased with the AWB, but you felt lucky that he signed it. Sorry if you thought I was trying to put words in your mouth. Will you send Romney a comment and tell him why you weren't pleased?

Let's educate him by voting for Ron Paul!
Why even deal with Romney, when Ron Paul is running?


GVman & Tecumseh, "Yay, high fives, we did nothing for RKBA in this thread! Wohoo!" Please read the thread. By all means, educate him by voting for Ron Paul. I'm not asking you to vote for Romney. If you want to put all your eggs in the Ron Paul basket and bet your second amendment rights that he will win the election, then don't bother with anybody else. But if you want to post in this thread, then go tell Romney why Ron Paul is better on this issue and then copy your comment here. Even if we don't vote for Romney, he still might get elected. May as well hit him on this now. If he doesn't hear our voices he will be justified in thinking he is right.

I don't believe a single word they say AFTER they announce their intentions to run.

mljdeckard,
I can appreciate that sentiment when student body presidential candidates are promising soda pop in the drinking fountains. Or perhaps even when U.S. presidential candidates are saying they'll get rid of the income tax and the IRS. But to be fair, Romney has a record of keeping his campaign promises. So we're better off getting him to change his awb position while he is campaigning than when he has it sitting on his desk awaiting his signature. And he has openly admitted that he is willing to listen to educated arguments against his position and make changes when he sees he is in the wrong.

By all means, vote for Huckabee. He is right on when it comes to the second amendment. But why not let Romney hear your voice? Honestly, I am surprised how reluctant so many "activists" in this thread are to let there voices be heard. I'm beginning to see why politicians just don't get it.

ilbob,

This thread is pretty touchy and will be pretty easy to get locked if we get off topic. Please just let us know what kind of comment you left Romney.

ilbob
January 7, 2008, 11:34 PM
ilbob,

This thread is pretty touchy and will be pretty easy to get locked if we get off topic. Please just let us know what kind of comment you left Romney.
Here is what i sent him. Even so, the web site is clearly mostly an attempt to collect names and addresses for future campaign contribution junk mail.
An important issue for me is a candidate that clearly understands that the 2A is not optional. Law abiding citizens should not be restricted from keeping or bearing arms of whatever type they see fit. Your shifting views on this (e.g.- so called assault weapons bans you seem to favor) makes me a lot nervous about you.

Do you not understand that there is very little difference that is not mostly cosmetic in nature between semi-automatic rifles and what you refer to as assault weapons.

JKimball
January 8, 2008, 05:46 PM
It has been a couple weeks since I started this thread, and I haven't had any response to my comment as some of you have, so I left them another question:
Dear Mr. Romney,

I would love to see you in the White House, but not if it means the loss of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to keep and bear arms that are effective for militia use. That means automatic actions and high capacity magazines. Yet these are the very weapons targeted by assault weapons bans which you support. Will you support the 2nd amendment or will you support assault weapons bans?

TEDDY
January 9, 2008, 08:26 PM
I have stated my opinion,I see no other canidate as presidential potential.
none.the polls may be slanted to the area they are in.I wait to the primary.:)

Prince Yamato
January 10, 2008, 05:36 AM
JKimball has a good point.

I've been mulling this over. If Romney gets the Republican nomination, that'll be who I vote for. Cringe, pull the lever, and cast my vote against Hillary. Being a career politician and a Republican (at least in name) he has to play ball with the conservatives. I'm willing to put up with the laws as they are now if that's the best I can get. I too want some commitment from Romney that he won't go after AWs. I'm not saying I want the guy to be president, but if he ends up being president, I want to know that he'll commit to at least preserving our 2A rights.

BTW folks, the Ron Paul crap is getting old. It's not a political thread, it's an activism thread. JKimball's point is to at least get all the Republicans speaking the same language concerning 2A not to get you to switch your more-precious-than-gold Ron Paul magic ticket to your favorite Republican-to-bash de jour. I understand why people like Paul, but I'm sick to death of his name brought up in every damn discussion. Yeah, you like Ron Paul, great. What if he doesn't get the nomination? He may be the best hope ideologically, but politically I don't think that's the case. Back up plans folks, that's what needs to be looked at.

vmikep
January 11, 2008, 12:30 AM
I really cannot understand why so many of you support Ron Paul. Sure he is a fiscal conservative, which I agree with, but so are many of the Republican candidates. Ron Paul is a major whiner to the nth degree!! - - and when he talks, all he does is put America down - - like he hates this Country. If this is your idea of a potentially good leader, then I guess we will disagree.

He wants to walk out on a war we are currently involved in; and even though I may not agree with the Iraq war, I sure don't want to lose the war. To vote for him is to say I want to lose a war - which is a really pathetic philosophy to support. I could go on, but I'll save more for later posts if anybody really feels the need to respond. Mainly, I would like people to specifically answer the question - do you want to lose the Iraq war like Ron Paul? If so, then why?

JKimball
January 11, 2008, 07:21 AM
Hi vmikep,

Welcome to The High Road! Just so you know, one of the rules for this forum is that we don't discuss/argue politics. Not my rule, but I can see the sense in it. That inevitably divides people and as gun owners we should be united in our RKBA activism efforts. I recognize that that rule has been broken numerous times in this thread, but I'm trying to keep the politics out as much as possible so the moderators won't shut it down. We're not here to bash Romney or sing praises of any candidates. The purpose of this thread is to let Romney hear the voices of law abiding gun owners telling him he is wrong on assault weapons bans. If you agree that he is, please leave a comment on his website and post a copy of it here.

Reminder to everybody:

This being the Activism Forum of THR, it is subject to even more strict rules than the site in general. This thread isn't really for discussion. There is a sub-forum for that purpose. This thread is for action. If you want to participate in the thread, please take the action suggested. If you think it is a stupid idea, don't talk about it here. Go start a thread with your better idea so we can all work on it together.

geekWithA.45
January 11, 2008, 09:56 AM
I'm jumping into this thread late, but my experiences of dealing with politicians, both directly and indirectly causes me to be very sceptical of the concept of "educating" politicians.

Way too many of us believe that if we could only somehow "show them" the real meaning of 2A and the value of RKBA, they would somehow magically have a change of heart and come down on the side of the angels.

It simply doesn't work that way.


The sooner we all accept that any politician who arrives in an elected or appointed position with animosity towards RBKA doen't arrive there out of ignorance. He or she arrives there out of malfeasance. They have had the opportunity to hear everything we'd like to tell them, and they have rejected it, usually for opportunistic reasons.

They aren't causes, they are symptoms. They have pandered to our fellow citizens who would gladly throw US under the bus.

It isn't ignorance, it's malfeasance, and malfeasance isn't remedied by education.

Malfeasance recognizes only force, which in this context is electoral.

The people who need to be educated aren't the politicians, it is the craven electorate.

MiddleAgedKen
January 11, 2008, 12:56 PM
The only way for "education" to work in this context is to credibly demonstrate to Governor Romney that his support for the AWB will be the thing that costs him the nomination unless he has a genuine "Road to Damascus" moment. Many of us have delivered our individual messages; I don't know what more we can do.

Tosi
January 11, 2008, 01:35 PM
I'm from MA and currently live here, Romney did get the best out of a bad situation in this instance, and many others hes a decent guy and is far better than anything the democrats could throw at us........however I will NOT be supporting him since I don't trust him not to sign another AWB he has never said he wouldn't and he doesnt have enough convictions about 2A rights to say no. The only three canidates I trust not to sign an AWB and they are Huckabee, Thompson, and Paul. I met Mike Huckabee up In NH and asked him if he would sign another AWB and the answer I got was an emphatic NO. We then went on to discuss 2A rights and various things about firearms including his what he uses as a carry gun, he was happy to spend time talking to me about that issue. I can tell you he is the real deal when it comes to standing up for our 2A rights, between that and his stand on other issues he will be getting my support.

Constantine-p89
January 11, 2008, 01:38 PM
Mike Huckabee for 2008:D

au1776
January 11, 2008, 02:28 PM
Mike Huckabee would be a disaster in the general against Obama. He's incredibly devoid of substance. He is a nice guy, but half his supporters heard "fairtax" and got on board.

McCain would also spell trouble for the GOP, I'm afraid. Terrible public presence. Grateful for what he did on behalf of his country, but he's a mediocre candidate for POTUS, IMO. Maybe his tracking would stay up in the general, but I'm concerned it wouldn't.

With the exception of gun-related issues, Romney is the best blend of conservative ideology and general election viability. The flip-flop accusations are trite and overstated. Every candidate changes their mind. At least Romney is honest about it. I also like the idea of having an extremely intelligent candidate in the general. I'm sick of the left strutting as though they have a monopoly on intellectual capacity. Hard to beat Romney's resume.

I think Giuliani getting the nom would be short-selling the GOP, but he is viable. I also think he has better leadership potential at this point than McCain or Huck.

Thompson needs to drop out or join another campaign. I think he's a cool guy, but he's in way over his head and it's painfully obvious whenever he opens his mouth.

v35
January 11, 2008, 03:20 PM
FWIW I got the same response as post #43.
(http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4043884&postcount=43)
Again, the point of this thread is to educate Romney, not to whine about him or anyone else. Complaints about Mitt or other candidates, thoughtful as they may be, are out of place here.

This is Activism. DO something.

JKimball
January 11, 2008, 08:23 PM
GeekWithA.45,

So you're saying that the time to educate Romney was a few years ago when he was in the electorate and as soon as he became a politician he is suddenly locked in his position, and there is no hope in helping him see the light?

Have you even read this thread?

Romney thinks he supports gun rights. Note that the 3 people in this thread who were in Mass have commented that they felt Romney did the best he could for their rights in Massachusetts. From Romney's perspective, he saw the gun lobby come to him with that awb and decided if it was good enough for them it was good enough for him. Much as he has tried to identify himself as a hunter, I think it is clear to everybody that he doesn't have much experience with guns. But at least he can appreciate the need to protect gun rights.

Romney is like the tens of millions of American gun owners (and possibly the majority) who think that gun rights should be protected, but are simply uncomfortable with the idea of "assault weapons" being available to the public. For crying out loud, we have seen members of the Board of the NRA that have expressed the same sentiment. If you think Zumbo was the only Zumbo, you're dreaming. Zumbo was enlightened pretty quickly because people that understand the issue spoke up loud and clear. That is all I'm saying we should do to Romney. But when we refuse to let him hear our voices because we're voting for somebody else anyway, he is left to assume we agree with him. Well guess what, just because we vote for someone else doesn't mean they are going to win. So if Romney gets elected are you going to let him hear your voice then? Do you think he'll be more inclined to listen to your voice before or after the election? If he wins on an AWB platform he will understandably believe he has the support of the people in that position.

To complete my summary of the thread, you aren't doing anything to help our RKBA cause by coming in here and telling people not to participate in my stupid idea. YOU'RE KILLING ME!! I'm trying to explain to people how this forum works and a moderator comes along and flushes everything I've said down the toilet. Read the rules before you post here!

antsi
January 11, 2008, 11:08 PM
The sooner we all accept that any politician who arrives in an elected or appointed position with animosity towards RBKA doen't arrive there out of ignorance. He or she arrives there out of malfeasance.

Not always malfeasance. Often times it is "path of least resistance."

Especially true of guys with Romney's "managerial" style - his modus is to try to hammer out some kind of middle ground that doesn't generate too much flak from one side and not too much from the other side.

Saying that you support gun rights while also saying you support the AWB is an attempt to do this very same thing.

These kind of tactics can work well in a negotiation - find a solution that, while it's nobody's "perfect solution," is marginally acceptable to everyone involved.

However, like most THR-ers, I consider RKBA to be a fundamental right and therefore essentially non-negotiable.

For the most part I think Romney is probably well aware of this. He knows he is trying to stay seated on top of the fence. He knows there are absolutist gun control nuts out there, and that there are also absolutist RKBA nuts, and he has made a calcuated decision that he will get more votes by straddling the fence than trying to please either of the poles.

The only way to prove him wrong is for us absolutist RKBA nuts to show up and VOTE - especially in the primaries where one often has the choice to support a true RKBA absolutist (or something pretty darn close to it). On the (R) side, that would be Huckabee, Thompson, or Paul. The only (D) who even came close dropped out of the race today (Richardson).

That said, there is one Romney quote that did strike me as actually ignorant (in the literal definition lacking knowledge) - when he described 7.62x39 as being an "unusually lethal" cartridge. It made me wonder what he would consider .375 H&H, or just about any other big game capable cartridge. He might just possibly be educable on this point.

JKimball
January 15, 2008, 07:45 PM
Many thanks to all of you who have let your voices be heard, it was not in vain. I just found Romney's December 30th press release, which clarifies that he opposes new gun legislation banning semi-automatics. That is a very positive step in the right direction. He still isn't as strong on this issue as Paul or Huckabee, but this is a big improvement.

I think I'll write him a note to congratulate him on his new/clarified position.

Here's some links:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Real_Romney_Record
When it comes to protecting the Second Amendment, I do not support any new gun laws including any new ban on semi-automatic firearms. As President, I will follow President Bush's precedent of opposing any laws that go beyond the restrictions in place when I take office. The laws I do and will support include decades-old restrictions on weapons of unusual lethality like grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic firearms and what are legally known as destructive devices and would include similar restrictions on new and exotic weapons of similar or even greater lethality. I am proud of my record of defending life and the Second Amendment."


Also see:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Second_Amendment_12.28

xd9fan
January 15, 2008, 08:58 PM
Again, the point of this thread is to educate Romney, not to whine about him or anyone else. Complaints about Mitt or other candidates, thoughtful as they may be, are out of place here.


Oh I know!!!!!!

Maybe Conservatives should stop voting for, and thinking they can change....moderates/RINO's....maybe in voting for conservatives.....you dont NEED to educate.....

(this party is in serious trouble)

alsaqr
January 16, 2008, 02:25 PM
Educating an anti-gunner like Mitt Romney is like educating a hog about mud wrestling: You get mud and crap all over yourself and the hog loves all the attention.

thealien
January 16, 2008, 02:50 PM
Mass resident here. I have sat with Mitt and the gun owners action league at the state house. I have written countless letters to Mitt, Kerry, Kenedy etc. I still have a permanent assault weapons ban that will never sunset (thanks Mitt).

I will not vote for Mitt, I have tried changing his mind while he was in office. I will not try changing it again before he becomes commander in Chief!! He made his true beliefs known on meet the press.

There are better candidates out there. Give them your support!

hqmhqm
January 16, 2008, 03:48 PM
I am also a MA resident. Our AWB is similar to the federal one which expired. We have a magazine capacity limit of 10 rounds on all magazines, with a grandfather exception for anything made before Sep 1994. No more than one 'evil' feature on the rifle, you know the drill.

What most people outside this state do not know is that we also have extreme restrictions on purchase of handguns, due to some quasi-legal maneuvers by our ex-Attorney General, under the guise of 'consumer safety'. You can only purchase a tiny handful of 'approved' handguns here (and hey, the 10 lb trigger pull is for your own safety, I am not joking).

If Romney were even the littlest bit interested in supporting our rights, he would have done something about the crap that his attorney general put in place, but he didn't.

I'm not saying that the efforts in this thread are wasted, far from it, I just want to make clear the extent of the situation here, and how it was ignored by the governor.

Going forward, I think flooding him with well written and convincing arguments for less gun control is a great idea, but don't expect that what you perceive as a "promise" will actually be kept. What is crystal clear to me though is that he is a candidate whose desire for power overrides all other considerations. That means that we have some leverage in making clear that our votes are tied to this issue. It unfortunately a sad thing that we are in the position of electing a leader who works this way however.

ilbob
January 18, 2008, 02:31 PM
I finally got a reply. FWIW.

Dear robert:

Thank you for contacting me about the important issue of gun ownership and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I appreciate your interest in my campaign for President and would like to extend my sincere gratitude for taking the time to share your views with me.

I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. It’s essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I am proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms.

I firmly believe in the importance of responsible gun ownership and sales. I recognize there are people in this country who want to remove all guns in our society and I think they’re wrong. Washington needs to distinguish between law-abiding gun owners and criminals who use guns. Those who use a firearm during the commission of crime must be punished severely. The key is to provide law enforcement with the resources they need and punish criminals, not burden lawful gun owners.

As Governor of one of the most liberal states in the country, I stood up for the rights of gun owners and sportsmen over burdensome bureaucratic regulation. I advanced legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners in my state and I’ve been proud to have the support of pro-Second Amendment and sportsmen’s groups in my previous runs for public office. I also designated May 7 as “The Right to Bear Arms Day” in Massachusetts to honor “the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property and for all lawful purposes, including the common defense.”

One of the most active fronts in the fight to preserve our Second Amendment rights today is being waged in the courts. As President, I’ll appoint strict constructionist judges who will follow the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. I’ll also fight to repeal the McCain-Feingold law, which sought to impose restrictions on the First Amendment rights of groups like the National Rifle Association, to advocate for issues we care about.

I am running for President because I fervently believe that I have the experience and vision to address the issues facing our country. Throughout my years in both the private and public sectors, I have been successful by pursuing innovation and transformation. If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to visit my website at www.MittRomney.com for updated information on Second Amendment rights and other issues that may be of interest to you. I look forward to hearing from you in the future, and earning your support.
Sincerely,

ilbob
January 18, 2008, 03:19 PM
I sent him a response to his response.

I understand that canned and carefully crafted responses are the norm, but do you have any idea just how patronizing this reponse is to a legimate question of how a candidate views an important issue?

I am currious if it might be possible to get a straight answer to a few questions about the governor's thoughts on the second amendment.

Does he consider it to be an inalienable right of individual Americans, or merely a right of states to form militias as some would say?

Does the 2nd amendment merely restrict the federal government, or is it extended to the states via the 14th amendment? If the right to keep and bear arms is indeed a right of individual Americans, how does the governor plan to deal with the massive infringement by many states on that right? What concrete steps will the governor take to ensure this right is actually respected if elected? In many of our most populous states, this right is either non-existent, or severely restricted.

14th amendent Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Does this right extend to firearms that exhibit cosmetic differences from more traditional designs (for instance - so called assualt weapons)?

Does his support for the right extend to such things as fully automatic weapons (i.e.-machine guns)?

Does the governor support the common sense measure of harmonizing federal rules on gun possession on federal lands? Currently it is possible to become a felon in the middle of a forest just by walking over an unmarked line on the ground between a national park and a national forest.
<added>I got this back. I guess I will resubmit.
Thank you for contacting Romney for President. Please submit your questions, comments, and policy suggestions for Governor Romney via our website, http://www.mittromney.com/CommentForm. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Team Mitt

Had to edit it to under 500 characters.

I am curious if it might be possible to get a straight answer to a few questions about the governor's thoughts on the second amendment.

Does he consider it to be an inalienable right of individual Americans, or merely a right of states to form militias as some would say?

Does this right extend to firearms that exhibit cosmetic differences from more traditional designs (for instance - so called assualt weapons)?

crashm1
January 19, 2008, 01:27 PM
I sent him a e-mail on the 2nd

JKimball
January 19, 2008, 06:53 PM
Romney issued a press release on the 2nd Amendment three days after this thread was started. I'd like to think we had something to do with it, but who knows. In any case it shows some improvement at least on a couple issues.

1. He states that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

2. He states that he does not support new legislation banning semi-automatics.

On the other hand, he is pretty clear that he supports background checks and restrictions on machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers.

He seems to be picking up some momentum in the race, having won Wyoming, Michigan and Nevada and placing second in Iowa and New Hampshire. So I'm glad he has put it in print that at least he isn't after our semi-autos. (Something like H.R. 1022)

Here is the link:

http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Second_Amendment

The Romney Record: Second Amendment
Friday, Dec 28, 2007
"I believe that the Second Amendment protects a truly fundamental individual right.

"I believe that every law-abiding American has the right to own a firearm for hunting, personal protection, skeet, trap or target shooting, or for any other sporting purpose or as part of a collection.
"I do not support any new gun laws including any new ban on semi-automatic firearms. As president, I will follow President Bush's precedent of opposing any laws that go beyond the restrictions in place when I take office. The laws I do and will support include decades-old restrictions on weapons of unusual lethality like grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic firearms and what are legally known as destructive devices and would include similar restrictions on new and exotic weapons of similar or even greater lethality.

"I believe in safe and responsible gun ownership. I also applaud the efforts of Second Amendment supporters – particularly in the aftermath of the terrible crimes at Virginia Tech – to support measures to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System as a screening tool to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those judged mentally incompetent. I will protect the promise of a fair and instant check and oppose any effort to expand the NICS beyond its original purpose. I was pleased, in fact, that recently, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Act with NRA support and over liberal opposition to finance, improve, and streamline the current NICS system.

"I believe that any discussion regarding firearms and crime control must focus on the criminal. Unfortunately, many in Washington believe that restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners will diminish violent crime. They are wrong. Over the years, the idea that it is possible to curtail crime by banning firearms has run up against a mountain of empirical evidence that forces one to conclude that gun control laws fail because they rely on the cooperation of a very unlikely element – the criminal. Any measure that fails to focus on the criminal and infringes on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans will be a non-starter for me.

"My message on the Second Amendment is simple: the rights of law-abiding gun owners will be protected in a Romney administration.

"On the other hand, if you're a criminal, here is your warning: I will ask every law enforcement agency across this great land to enforce the gun laws that are already on the books so that those who use guns illegally will know that they will be caught, prosecuted, convicted and jailed.

"I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a cornerstone of our personal freedoms. Should I be fortunate enough to become President, I will stand up and fight against any attempt to weaken or infringe upon our Second Amendment rights. And I will do this without any apology and without any hesitation."

- Governor Mitt Romney

ROMNEY RECORD: GOVERNOR ROMNEY'S PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT AGENDA

Governor Romney Strongly Supports An Individual's Right To Keep And Bear Arms Under The Second Amendment. Governor Romney believes in safe and responsible gun ownership. He recognizes there are people in this country who want to remove all guns in our society and he thinks they're wrong. Washington needs to distinguish between law abiding gun owners and those who misuse guns.

- Governor Romney Has A Distinguished Record As Governor of Massachusetts In Defending Our Second Amendment Rights. His efforts on behalf of gun owners have been lauded by gun rights and sportsmen's advocates.

Governor Romney Believes The Second Amendment Protects Essential Freedoms And Supports The Constitutional Right Of Law Abiding Citizens To Keep And Bear Arms. "As president, I'll honor the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families and property and for all other lawful purposes, including the common defense." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks To The NRA, Washington, D.C., 9/21/07)

- Governor Romney Believes The Second Amendment Is About More Than Just Self-Defense Or Sport; It's About The Basic Freedom Of Lawful Citizens To Live Their Lives. The Second Amendment was enshrined by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights to protect the rights of our citizens to own firearms. Bumper sticker gun control does not protect the individual but instead takes away protections and penalizes law-abiding citizens. Criminals do not buy guns in stores nor subject themselves to background checks. Law-abiding citizens certainly have a right to protect their homes and their families.

- Governor Romney Believes We Need To Focus On Enforcing Our Current Laws Rather Than Creating More Laws That Burden Lawful Gun Owners.

Like President Bush, Governor Romney Would Have Signed The Assault Weapons Ban Extension At That Time. As Governor Romney stated on CNN and "Meet the Press," had he been President and had the Assault Weapons Ban extension reached his desk, like President Bush, he would have signed it. That bill did not pass Congress. Governor Romney has stated that he would not reinstate that Assault Weapons Ban. In fact, Governor Romney does not support any new gun laws including a ban on semi-automatic firearms. He would consider limitations on weapons of unusual lethality like grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic firearms and what are legally known as destructive weapons. (NBC's "Meet The Press," 12/16/07; CNN's "The Situation Room," 11/26/07; The Des Moines Register, 10/23/07)

Governor Romney Supports Court Decisions That Strengthen The Second Amendment. "Finally, let me say that one of the most active fronts in the fight to preserve our Second Amendment rights today is being waged in the courts. Lawsuits have been filed seeking to take away the individual's right to bear arms. We have to look no further than the Parker case. I hope the Roberts court takes the Parker case and upholds the Bill of Rights to protect gun owners everywhere. I've made it clear that I'll appoint judges who believe in strictly interpreting the Constitution, judges in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. It's simply wrong for judges to legislate from the bench. They should follow the law in the Constitution, not make new law." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks To The NRA, Washington, D.C., 9/21/07)

Governor Romney Supports The Rights Of Pro-Second Amendment Groups To Be Involved In The Political Process. "And I'll ask Congress to repeal the McCain-Feingold law which sought to impose restrictions on the First Amendment rights of groups like the NRA to advocate for issues we care about. Some parts have already been declared unconstitutional. We ought to get rid of the entire bill." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks To The NRA, Washington, D.C., 9/21/07)

Governor Romney Opposes Backdoor Attempts To Ban Guns. "We need tort reform as well. That's the way we fight the backdoor attempt to ban guns by bankrupting manufacturers." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks To The NRA, Washington, D.C., 9/21/07)

Governor Romney Repeatedly Sided With Massachusetts Gun Owners And Sportsmen In Defending Second Amendment Rights:

On The 31st Anniversary Of Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL), Governor Romney Declared May 7, 2005 As "Right To Bear Arms Day" In Massachusetts. (Gun Owners' Action League Official Website, www.goal.org, Accessed 2/19/07)

- The Boston Globe: "Also, in 2005, Romney designated May 7 as 'The Right to Bear Arms Day' in Massachusetts to honor 'the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property and for all lawful purposes, including the common defense.'" (Scott Helman, The Boston Globe, 1/14/07)

In July 2006, Governor Romney Signed Legislation Reversing Burdensome Regulations For The Makers Of Customized Target Pistols. "Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation approving an exemption for the makers of customized target pistols, who due to a provision within state law have found it increasingly difficult to do business in Massachusetts." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Governor Romney Approves Exemption For Target Pistols," Press Release, 7/26/06)

- GOAL Executive Director James Wallace: "Target shooters are an important part of our membership and I know they will be very pleased with this change." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Governor Romney Approves Exemption For Target Pistols," Press Release, 7/26/06)

In November 2005, Governor Romney Signed Legislation Clarifying The Definition Of A Loaded Muzzleloader. "Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation aimed at providing one clear definition of a loaded shotgun or rifle for the state's hunting enthusiasts. ... 'Today, we are simplifying the gun laws in Massachusetts,' Romney said. 'With this legislation, our hunters will know precisely what is expected of them.' ... Hunters now no longer face the lengthy, complex and unnecessary task of cleaning the barrel every time they encounter a public way, nor will they unknowingly violate the law by only removing a gun's priming device." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Resolves Long-Standing Conflict In State's Firearm Law," Press Release, 11/22/05)

- GOAL Executive Director James Wallace: "This new law addresses a conflict that had previously caused great concern in those who use traditional muzzle loading rifles and shotguns. Now they confidently know what is expected of them and can enjoy their heritage without the fear of being prosecuted for violating a poorly written law." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Resolves Long-Standing Conflict In State's Firearm Law," Press Release, 11/22/05)

Governor Romney Signed Into Law A Provision Providing Free Replacement Licenses. (Gun Owners' Action League Official Website, www.goal.org, Accessed 2/19/07)

In 2005, Governor Mitt Romney "Suspended 'Administrative Fees' To The Natural Heritage And Endangered Species Fund Of Massachusetts." (Gun Owners' Action League Official Website, www.goal.org, Accessed 2/19/07)

In July 2004, Governor Romney Signed Major Legislation Supported By Gun Owners That Reformed The State's Onerous Gun Laws. "The bill enjoyed the support of Massachusetts gun owners because it also encompassed several measures they favored – including a lengthening of the terms of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry." (Scott Helman, The Boston Globe, 1/14/07)

- NRA Website: "NRA and GOAL supported this bill because it did not ban any guns, and because it made much-needed reforms." (NRA Official Website, http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1149, Accessed 10/16/07)

- NRA Website: "...NRA members should be very pleased in knowing that their efforts to educate and work with their local representatives and senators resulted in a successful reform action. Thanks to you and the Gun Owners' Action League, lawful gun owners can now take advantage of this first set of real reforms in over five years." (NRA Official Website, http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1149, Accessed 10/16/07)

The Law Governor Romney Signed Made A Number Of Improvements To Help Sportsmen, Including:

- Establishing The Firearm License Review Board To Review Cases Of Those Applying To Have Their Firearm Licenses Restored.

- Extending The Term Of Firearm Licenses From Four Years To Six Years.

- Re-Instating A 90-Day Grace Period For Citizens Trying To Renew Their Firearm License.

alsaqr
January 19, 2008, 07:39 PM
It is a sad day that the Republican party is unable to put forth a viable pro-gun candidate. If the choice is between Hillary and Romney, we gun owners have no choice. The lesser of two evils is still evil. This Republican is no longer voting for the lesser of two evils.

JKimball
January 20, 2008, 06:56 AM
alsaqr,

This thread isn't about voting. It isn't about throwing in the towel either. It is about actually doing something to increase our odds of getting a pro-gun president.

I'm tired of seeing all the people that complain that the GOP doesn't have any viable pro-gun candidates and at the same time refuse to make their voices heard on the matter. If you want candidates to take this seriously, you need to let them hear your voice.

alsaqr
January 20, 2008, 09:43 AM
"If you want candidates to take this seriously, you need to let them hear your voice."

If, God forbid, Romney is nominated; he will hear my voice on election day when i write in the name of Hagop Hagopian.

hqmhqm
January 20, 2008, 10:48 AM
The details of the MA AWB and other legislation during Romney's term are here in this thread from our local shooters forum:

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=29779

You can draw your own conclusions. My take is that what happens at the Federal level will look similar, and you can depend on Romney to do the bare minimum, if that, and only if it in some way is politically advantageous at that moment in time.

JKimball
January 20, 2008, 07:16 PM
hqmhqm,

Thanks for posting that. That is a very interesting thread with some good links and even a summary of the situation by GOAL. It clears up a lot of the confusion about the MA AWB that has been going on in this thread. Looks like Teddy was right and I was wrong. I relied on the media reports and Romney's AWB rhetoric instead of getting the facts.

Here's the points I thought were interesting:

1. The original MA AWB (1998) was permanent before Romney came along.
2. GOAL was allowed unprecedented access to the Governor's office (monthly meetings) and was able to work with Romney to clean up some bad gun legislation.
3. The gun controllers in the legislature got nervous that their ban would expire when the federal ban expired because the state law referred to some of the definitions used in the federal ban. So they amended the state definitions to use the federal definitions as they appeared on a specific date.
4. So the new law didn't restrict any new weapons or extend the AWB, but it did include the legislation that GOAL had worked for.
5. The legislature, the media, and Romney tried to portray themselves as heroes for saving the MA AWB, that in fact would have remained completely legal without the new amendments (according to GOAL's legal counsel.)

Very interesting reading.

AHMiller1776
January 27, 2008, 05:27 AM
Do you REALLY care about your gun rights?

Enough to get involved at the grassroots level?

If you really care, then help Ron Paul win the primary.

If not, don't complain.

Get involved.

Please. We need more boots on the ground.


visit .... http://ronpaul.meetup.com/

for up to date news .. visit .... www.RonPaulforPresident2008.com

BobMcMahan
January 27, 2008, 05:03 PM
Folks,

I agree with JKimball on this. Let's roll!

gunsmith
January 29, 2008, 05:11 AM
if you CAN NOT stay on the topic please start a new one?
It is very RUDE to hijack a thread!

If you can not abide by the FORUM RULES, then please go start your own forum!:banghead:

gunsmith
January 29, 2008, 05:18 AM
P.S. If you think what I've proposed is a stupid idea, please just keep that to yourself. You don't need to join in on this thread to pooh-pooh it. If you don't want to tell Romney where he is wrong, then don't. But this isn't the discussion sub-forum. This forum is for people who are willing to actually do something to educate others and to preserve our rights. It isn't for whining about why this or that won't work, or complaining about how the NRA should be doing this for us.

AHMiller1776
January 29, 2008, 05:41 AM
message received.

gunsmith
January 30, 2008, 08:30 AM
there has been quite a bit of thread drift from many people.
Thank you for your contribution to thr and our Country.

If you enjoyed reading about "Let's educate Mitt Romney about Assault Weapons Bans" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!