If Romney were president

[ATLDave]

It occurred to me recently that, if Romney had won the 2012 presidential election, the status of gun control discussion might be pretty different right now - and not in a good way.

There's pretty strong evidence that Romney's actual views on gun control are the standard northeastern megalopolis views: classy, old-fashioned guns are OK, but any guns more modern, or more downscale, are dangerous and prole. (http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm)

In the 2 months after the heartbreaking awfulness of Sandy Hook, a Romney administration might likely have advocated exactly the same AWB-revival and mag-cap-limit being pushed by Obama. The chance to establish "bi-partisan" credibility with the media and the swing voters would probably prove to alluring, especially if his personal views were in alignment.

Now imagine the reception that a call for an AWB gets in Congress if it comes from a Republican administration. Democrats in red states instantly have political cover, so they can support it with less fear than they currently face. Same with GOP-ers in more moderate states and districts worried about a "primary." Even more significantly, GOP Senate and House leadership is put in a bind, where they have to choose between what may be their preferences and the direction of the head of their party. Would Mitch McConnell really stand against a push from a Romney administration? John Boehner?

If you assume - as I am inclined to - that Romney's actual views on guns and gun control were accurately reflected during his time as Governor of MA, then I think one must conclude: If Romney were president, the AWB would be law by now.

Funny how things work, isn't it?

 

[Matno]

That's inaccurate. The only reason Mitt did what he did as governor was because the alternative was to allow the liberal legislature to pass something much worse. And they would have overwhelmingly. I think it's actually quite impressive that he managed to pull it off by "working with them" rather than just saying no. They had more than enough votes to easily override a veto.

Mitt Romney is a family friend, and I know for a fact that he is very strong on the 2nd Amendment. Don't be fooled by those who are guessing at what he thinks.

 

[Samir]

If Gary Johnson was elected last year, any talk of Federal gun control would remain just that - talk.

 

[kwguy]

Matno, very interesting. I kinda wondered about that myself...

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

Obama = Romeny=Obama=Romeny.

No difference at all.

 

[tyler500e]

Calling them "crazy" is the only thing negative that can be said about Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, which has is a weak argument at best.

Romney would hardly be different from Obama. If you look at his record, he panders or "cozies up to" special interest, and frequently changes his position on important issues. There is nothing consistent about him as a politician. Sure he's of the LDS faith like me, but as a politician, he doesn't stand as a stalwart example of integrity.. not too different from Harry Reid IMO.

 

[ATLDave]

Romney would hardly be different from Obama.

That's kind of my view, at least re: the 2nd amendment. The point of my post is that, if you share that assesment of Romeny, the dynamics of Washington means that we're better off with Obama than Romney in terms of congressional opposition to/support for AWB.

 

[kwguy]

This issue transcends party lines. Look at Christie, to some, the 'new darling of the GOP'. He would be horrible for the 2nd Amendment. Granted, the GOP is generally more favorable to the 2A, but it's certainly not a given.

 

[returningfire]

Liberals, go figure, can't stand it when everyone doesn't embrace their ideals.
Last I checked, it was still a somewhat free country. So we can still like and dislike anything or anyone we want, and I can choose my own ideals.
I choose to think that if the election shoe had landed on Romney's foot, things would have been different in the firearms world than they have been.
And Oboma≠ Romney. Granted both are politicians, but that is where all similarities end.

 

[ATLDave]

kwguy, I think there's a lot of truth to that. It seems more regional than party-driven, although recent stuff in CO raises questions about that.

If you think back more than a couple of decades, lots of issues used to be that way. With the increased polarization of the parties, guns are one of the few issues left that still fits that profile to any meaningful extent.

 

[Trung Si]

Granted, the GOP is generally more favorable to the 2A, but it's certainly not a given

You Sir are absolutely CORRECT!

 

[mrvco]

I didn't then and I don't think now that Romney was the right guy. If he were elected, I don't believe that national anti-gun legislation would have been any more or less likely to pass, but he would have been crucified by the media regardless and we would have been in a very weak position for '14 and '16. I'm hoping that we're positioned for an 00'bama backlash equal to or greater than the Bush backlash that got Barry elected... assuming of course that a quality candidate is nominated rather than the predictable establishment shill.

 

[DSling]

I feel that it would have turned out the same way if Romney was elected. What happened was a knee jerk reaction to the events that transpired. There are arguments from both sides regarding the way things should turn out (you know how I feel because I'm here) but like everything else it is a decision that will be made. Hopefully I'm out favor.
Wether out not Romney agreed with it he would have put forth something. He would have been working the angle for a 2nd term.

Justifying my means with their end.

 

[sidheshooter]

One more in the "obamney" camp, here. The OP's ideas are compelling. Hard to say for sure.

 

[hillbilly]

Okay...do you really think that Romney would be using the office of the Presidency to push for gun bans like Obama is?

Do you really think that a VP Ryan would be out going to all sorts of states pushing for gun bans?

Really?

 

[mljdeckard]

Here's the difference. Obama has always been completely anti-gun. He has never once in his entire political career passed up an attempt to cut gun rights or the gun industry. He betrayed his base during his first term in neglecting the cause, because he knew full well it was a loser and would eat up political capital he wanted to use doing other things. (Like AHCA.)

Romney is ambivalent about guns. He did sign a law in MA we don't agree with, but as previously stated, there was a lot more to it than 'he just thought it was a good idea'. He is in the opposite camp, he is trying to convince his base that he ISN'T anti gun. If he were in office right now, he would use mild language to reiterate what he said in the campaign that the existing gun laws aren't being enforced, and new ones won't help, and he is unlikely to sign any new gun legislation. This would drop the sails in congress, because they don't want to waste their time fighting for something he won't sign when they don't have a veto-proof majority.

Romney isn't a great gun friend, but to say they are the same is to be very myopic and simplistic. Obama is an F, Romney is a B-/C+.

 

[12many]

If Romney wwere elected we would not be having this conversation. There are other problems with him though.

Neither party is doing us any favor and IMO, neither represent the middle class or upper middle class. Both parties like it when people fight over whether the Rep. or. Dem is better. Keeps people busy and distracted from the harm and debt that is hurting the country. I dislike pretty much all polititions equaly. Both parties are bad. If you are getting a bunch of benefits from 'your' party, maybe you are part of the problem.

 

[kwguy]

The reason the anti's were (and are) able to push SO hard is because they are emboldened by the fact that the president and vp will push right along with them. They have the FULL, completely biased support of Obama/Biden. They would not have had that with Romney.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

The world of "what if?" can be anything you like. The chief problem with "what if?" is that we have to deal with "What is."

 

[CoRoMo]

Okay...do you really think that Romney would be using the office of the Presidency to push for gun bans like Obama is?

Do you really think that a VP Ryan would be out going to all sorts of states pushing for gun bans?

Really?

Of course not. That's quite ridiculous, as you know.

But furthermore, VP Ryan would never have take a "ski trip" in order to pressure my state's legislature into passing fascist gun control laws. He would never have burped out "Get a shotgun. Get a shotgun.", and effectively advise Americans to violate laws regarding firearms use and safety rules by firing indiscriminately out the back door.

Also, Pres. Romney would never have tweeted a picture of John Lennon's bloody glasses like an opportunist trying to stir up emotion. And First Lady Romney would never have told a story on Good Morning America about some kids that "had some automatic weapons they didn’t need.”, which also means GMA would never have had to edit those words out to cover for their boss in the white house.

 

[ATLDave]

Okay...do you really think that Romney would be using the office of the Presidency to push for gun bans like Obama is?

He wouldn't be "trying," it would already be done by now. Romney would have seen the immediate post-SH polls and gotten right on board. He wouldn't have needed to "push" it, it would have sailed right through congress for the reasons I laid out in my first post.

At least that's how it seems to me. I could be wrong.

 

[denton]

Romney is an exceptionally capable executive with a stellar record of accomplishment. Obama is a dithering, incompetent, control freak.

Romney had a very carefully worked out list of priorities. Whatever his personal views, gun control or lack thereof was simply not on his radar.

Obama, Feinstein, Bloomberg, et. al. had a coordinated blitzkrieg political campaign all mapped out, just waiting for the right event to happen. Sandy Hook was the trigger. That would not have happened with Romney in the White House.

 

[Furncliff]

Romney is a rich puke, without substance or back bone. He flip flopped so much it's impossible to know what he'd do based on what he has said. The only clue one would have is what he has done.

 

[mrvco]

Whatever legislation hits the president's desk has to go through the (R)controlled House... I seriously doubt that a President Romney would have refused to sign legislation that made it through the House.

If Romney would have been mum on gun-control, he would have been slaughtered by the News-Entertainment establishment for not caring enough about "saving the hundreds of thousands of children killed every day by assault weapons bought in private-party transactions loaded with high-cap magazines". I simply don't think he had the idealogical backbone to competently and convincingly defend a pro-2A position, especially after Sandy Hook.

 

[Grassman]

I would much rather have Romey in office, that is a no brainer. I think things would be so different right now.