1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Mitt Romney and RKBA

Discussion in 'Legal' started by #shooter, Apr 12, 2006.

  1. #shooter

    #shooter Well-Known Member

    I was wondering what THR members think of this guy and his RKBA policy.
    Wikipedia states:

    "Mitt Romney supports the strict enforcement of gun laws. He is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban. Mitt also believes in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms."

    Granted he is in Mass, so is his support of the AWB authentic or is it a "political necessity" considering the state he is in. Mass did get an A- from the Brady Bunch.

    Thoughts, comments, opinions, and insight are welcome.
  2. Chipperman

    Chipperman Well-Known Member

    He is certainly not our biggest enemy, but he is also not our biggest friend.

    He does support AWB, OTOH he did sign some good MA gun law reforms last year.

    We could do worse with him as POTUS, but could do a lot better as far as RKBA goes.
  3. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    The Republicans better find some new blood for 2008. If Romney, Giuliani and McCain are all they have to offer they won't be getting my vote.
  4. News Shooter

    News Shooter Well-Known Member

    I voted for him

    And I really had hopes he would stand up and be counted, even though under impossible odds in this state.

    But, sadly, I have come to the conclusion that he is no better than the democrats who will do and say anything to stay in or regain power.

    For example, today he stood next to ted kennedy :barf: and signed into law the nation's first socialized medical insurance bill and crowed about it.

    He COULD have used his position to be an advocate for the second amendment, but instead for the past four years, has basically signed off on the AG's assault on the freedom to keep and bear arms by ignoring it all.

    He's a smart guy, but his ambition to be president has exposed his lack of principle. He will not be a second amendment friend in the white house either.

    Frankly, I'm of the opinion there is nobody electable left in the GOP with any
    guts to stand on principle.

    We will get what we deserve
  5. cbsbyte

    cbsbyte Well-Known Member

    He is a Republican. Like most he is devious political hack. He is pretty much anti-gun, though he tries to hide this fact. I never voted for him since he is a fraud, who would do anything or saying to get votes. He is a pretty boy multi-millionaire who cares little about workers rights. He cares his clean image he created to fool voters into voting for him. He is very much dispised in this states do to is stances on social issues, and cutting funding to state mandated programs He is trying to pass himself as a conservative so he can fool Republicans, which is easy to do, to get him into the primary. Avoid him like the plague.
  6. SomeKid

    SomeKid Well-Known Member

    News, if immigration doesn't go away, Tancredo may very well have a better chance than people give him.
  7. News Shooter

    News Shooter Well-Known Member


    I think you may be right...this issue may very well be the Titanic for a lot of these clowns...we can only hope
  8. Kim

    Kim Well-Known Member

    CBSBYTE--------Well some of the things you said make he sound good. Cutting State Mandated Programs that is always good. By workers rights I guess you mean no push over for the Unions that also is always good. Being disliked in MA for his stance on social issues can only be good. However, the new cover everyone health care sucks.:banghead:
  9. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Where you live, and the people you rub elbows with has an impact on your outlook.

    It is said that a man who is accustomed to his rights fights to keep them.

    What of a man who is not accustomed to his rights, never having had enjoyment of their full measure?

    Massachussetts has been in the deep grip of nanny statist redistributionists for too many generations, freedom is but a dim memory there.

    What value is the experience of being the governor of such people? Is this experience that makes one fit to be a leader of a free people?

    I think not.
  10. AZRickD

    AZRickD Well-Known Member

  11. American By Blood

    American By Blood Well-Known Member

    Not to split hairs overmuch, but the new MA healthcare "reform" isn't socialized medicine. It's bad, but a different sort of bad.

    Single payer is inefficient, depresses research, makes medical records govt. property, etc. It's the nanny state giving in to individual irresponsibility and saying, "Here--have some healthcare. But get used to the medical field being just another arm of the state."

    MA's plan is the nanny state saying, "You don't have insurance? Hmm... let's see if we can make this a bit cheaper for a few of you. The rest of you, though, are no longer allowed to decide whether or not you want to buy insurance. Do it OR ELSE." It's almost purely coercive.

    In essence, it's the state mugging the people on behalf of the insurance industry. MA residents are being told at gun-point (because, in the end, that's what all laws come down to) to make certain purchases. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think this sort of subsidy to a private sector entity is unprecedented. Tax money goes to companies and contractors every day, but I'm unaware of any other policy that forces people to spend their after-tax wages as the state sees fit.

    Good times are ahead, friends. Good times. :banghead:

    EDIT: And yeah... I'm not voting for Romney. Period. Unless the GOP declares "The American Conservative" its official press organ before the election really gets going, I'll likely be voting for whoever the Constitution Party runs.
  12. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Well-Known Member

    His support in the South would be un-enthusiastic. New England Yankees don't do well down here.

    I would be extremely hesitant to vote for anyone who is from MA, especially if they had been governor.
  13. gezzer

    gezzer Well-Known Member

    From MA what do you expect, a MA repub is a right leaning socialist. I would rather stick sharp needles in my eyes than vote for that.
  14. mountainclmbr

    mountainclmbr Well-Known Member

    No vote from me. A republican from the northeast is about equal to a communist from Ohio. In fairness, reverse-Kelo should be applied to the personal assets of most leftist politicians.
  15. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    His father was a half-baked governor in Michigan when I was young.

    Anybody who would sign a socialist medicine bill and so-called "assault weapons" bans deserves to be kicked out of office.

    At least Mrs. Snopes Clinton doesn't claim to be a Republican.
  16. outofbattery

    outofbattery Well-Known Member

    I don't think he'll get much of the religiousright vote being a Mormon either.

    He just drips with the sleeze of professional polititian.Much like Hillary,he doesn't care what and where he's elected just so long as he is.I admit to voting for him for reason of I'll take poison ivy over crotch rot if I have to pick between the 2 irritations but I would not want the man as POTUS.
  17. TX1911fan

    TX1911fan Well-Known Member

    American by Blood, not that I think MA's plan for medical insurance is a good one, but I think all states force us to buy auto insurance.
  18. American By Blood

    American By Blood Well-Known Member

    Good point.

    If you want to get really technical you could argue that mandating auto insurance only applies to drivers and that not everyone drives, while MA's medical law applies to everyone regardless of any lifestyle choices they make, but your point basically stands.
  19. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Not all states force auto insurance.

    They do force financial responsibility for the consequences of your actions though...there's a subtle difference. Maybe things have changed, but Iowa was voluntary insurance at least back in the 80's.

    What the MA law is doing is forcing young people sans kids, who have the least need for health insurance to contribute to the insurance funding pool.

    Insurance income is then invested (to the sole benefit of the insurance company), and then only reluctantly paid out on claims, mostly to the elderly.

    Honestly run health insurance is a great idea. The problem is that I'm not aware of any companies that run it honestly, and some of them are real pits of poop and snakes.
  20. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Let's not generalize regionally, hm? Is every person from California a Berkeley leftist? :rolleyes:

Share This Page