Why I won't be voting for Mitt Romney.

Status
Not open for further replies.

bestseller92

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
1,038
Location
Oklahoma
According to his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney "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."[101] July 1st, 2002 Mitt Romney signed a permanent ban on Assault Weapons. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony 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."
 
Well you don't know the full story. We already had a permanent ban in this state since 1994. This ban was just a renewal of the original one without any added wording. This was a loss for the antis because they wanted to rewrite the original 1994 ban and add most semi-auto rifles and shotguns to the AWB. They failed to do this. Though you are correct that Romney is not very pro gun, but for Mass he is the best we could get in that respect. Anyway, I don't see him going anywhere in the Republican Primary.
 
Given statements like that, I'd expect him to have a tough go in the New Hampshire primary, which is right next door, and to get eaten alive in South Carolina.

Then again, so far his main opposition looks to be Rudi "NYC gun laws are just fine" Guiliani and John "Gun Show Loophole" McCain.

Scary to think that McCain might be the best available option.

If he ended up as the GOP candidate, I think the party would have to greatly strengthen their gun rights plank, to the point of calling for the active repeal of something, to get support from the NRA and GOA.
 
This is a bit dated, however it does show from where Giuliani thinks. He cannot be encouraged to run in 2008. He must answer some hard questions without beating around the bush. I think he is not what we as gun owners are looking for in a President. This is a speech he gave.

Vick

http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/97a/ccc.html

Citizens Crime Comission
Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani
1095 Avenue of the Americas
March 6, 1997, 8:15 a.m.

Check against delivery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. Good morning. It is a pleasure to join all of you here today for the Citizens Crime Commission's breakfast.
A couple of weeks ago, all New Yorkers and people throughout the world were appalled by the senseless and horrifying act of violence that occurred at the Empire State Building.

The Empire State Building is such an important landmark... such an important symbol of America that, like so many other places in New York City, when a tragedy happens there, it receives a great deal of attention in the media.

However, with this latest incident, we saw something rather remarkable happen, because perceptions about New York City have finally changed.

Thanks to our historic reductions in serious crime, we have been able to get the message out that New York City is just about the safest large city in America.

People throughout the world no longer see New York City as a national symbol of the plague of crime and violence. Now people see New York as a safe, decent place, and as a leader in fighting crime.

Because of this transformation of perception, when this latest tragedy occurred, instead of having to defend New York City, we were able to focus national attention on the real problem, which is gun control.

And even as we grieve for those who lost their lives, and our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, we may be able to find some sort of meaning in this tragedy by using it as a catalyst to revive national gun control efforts.
The man who committed this despicable act of hatred and violence came to the United States on December 24th. First, he arrived in New York and then traveled to Melbourne, Florida, where he checked into a cheap hotel.

Using the hotel address, he was able to obtain a photo ID card, and that was all he needed to buy a gun, a .380 Beretta, capable of firing 14 rounds in 4 or 5 seconds.

Because in Florida, although they have relatively strict regulations to obtain a gun license, gun licenses are only necessary for carrying concealed weapons. A license is not required to buy a gun. To buy a gun all that is required is a photo ID.

And that is when buying from a retailer. In private transactions at gun shows, or purchasing a gun from a private individual, there is nothing required whatsoever.

Ironically, if Mr. Hassan Kamal had wanted to buy a car, or even drive a car legally, he would not have been able to, because in Florida obtaining a drivers license is much more difficult than buying a gun.

In fact, getting a drivers license is more difficult than buying a gun in most places. A drivers license requires several forms of official identification proving residency.

It requires a written test and a road test, and a thorough background investigation is done to determine if the applicant has a history of driving recklessly, or unlawfully.

And these drivers license requirements are fairly uniform from state to state, which demonstrates that from region to region, a vast majority of Americans accept that driving an automobile is potentially very dangerous and requires sensible regulations.

However, guns kill many more people than automobiles do, even though there are many more cars than guns, and cars are used much more often than guns.

In New York City, in 1996 there were 414 fatalities caused by traffic accidents, but there were 987 fatalities involving firearms.

I think one of the reasons that the procedures for obtaining a drivers license and buying and operating a car have become uniform and sensible is that insurance is required for automobiles.

And the insurance industry has standardized what is necessary to get insurance. Cars must be registered and trackable.

Cars are required to undergo periodic safety inspections in many states. Driving records are computerized and traceable, and drivers licenses must be periodically renewed.

Perhaps, we should require insurance for handguns. If liability insurance were required to purchase and own a handgun, you better believe that the insurance industry would promulgate a pretty rigorous licensing and purchasing process to control the risk.
As a private citizen, as a prosecutor, as a Mayoral candidate and as Mayor, I have advocated for more regulated and more uniform gun licensing regulations, similar to those for a drivers license.

But as it stands now, although some localities like New York City have relatively stringent rules for purchasing a gun, many other states require next to nothing, and without a uniform policy, we all lose.

In fact, a recently released study indicates that of 2,225 guns confiscated in New York City, more than 92 percent of the guns were originally purchased out of state--and more than 60 percent of them came from 5 states, Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia.

When looking at the FBI total index crimes list, which shows number of crimes on a per capita basis for cities with population more than 100,000, it is not a coincidence that 4 (t.b.v.) of the top 10 are in Florida, and 6 (t.b.v.) are in the South, where gun control laws are very lax.

New York City on the contrary, where the requirements for purchasing a gun are more rigorous, ranks 144th on that list.

Yesterday, President Clinton outlined his proposals for more stringent, federal gun licensing requirements.

His proposals include:


prohibiting non-citizens from buying guns;

requiring proof of residency, including photo id. and something like a utility bill in the buyers name... similar to what is required for a drivers license;

making cop killer, or Teflon coated, armor piercing bullets illegal;

and requiring child safety locks on the weapons of all Federal Officials to prevent these guns from ever winding up in the hands of children.

I applaud the President's proposals, and I will support them any way I can.
I only hope that he is right, and that Congress is finally ready to recognize that the vast majority of Americans want more gun control. It makes sense. It is time. And we can no longer let special interests dominate this vitally important issue.

We in New York and other places are working very hard to control crime and especially to reduce criminal incidents involving guns.

Here in New York, we have seen more than a 50 percent decrease in shootings since 1993, but to complete the job we've started, we need the help of other states, and of the Federal Government to promulgate more rigorous gun purchasing requirements nation wide.

Then we won't have 90 percent of our city's guns being brought in from other localities to commit heinous crimes like the tragedy on the Empire State Building.

I know many people argue that keeping and bearing arms is federally guaranteed right as stated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

But even in the Second Amendment, it refers to firearms in the context of a well regulated militia, and well regulated is what we're trying to accomplish.

Just as unimpeded interstate travel is Constitutionally guaranteed, but we reserve the right to regulate driving automobiles, so too must we sensibly regulate gun purchases to preserve the safety of all Americans.

Thank you.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Go to Blue Room | Giuliani Archives | Mayor's Office | NYC.gov Home Page
Contact Us | FAQs | Privacy Statement | Site Map
 
guns kill many more people than automobiles do

Sayyyy, isn't this an outright lie? From the stats I remember, some 40,000 people die in traffic accidents each year...and that's about 10,000 higher than the fraudulent number of 30,000 the gun-haters throw around every time they promote the "common sense gun law" du jour. Good grief, but it's disheartening to think of all the people who think this New York leftist is the GOP's great hope for '08. :barf:
 
If he ended up as the GOP candidate, I think the party would have to greatly strengthen their gun rights plank, to the point of calling for the active repeal of something, to get support from the NRA and GOA. - Langenator

The GOP no longer has a gun rights plank. The word "gun" is not in the platform. The last platform committee meeting, led by Bill Frist, dealt mostly with religious issues.
 
Like smoking, the rates of life and health insurance should reflect the dangers of owning a gun. And if the stuff that the pro-gun advocates say is true, then there should be little or no difference in the rates of death and injury for gun owners, and in fact it should be less than for non-gun owners. So you should get a discount for owning a gun, just like you do for a burglar alarm.

My homeowners insurance company already wants to know if ammunition is stored in my home.
 
So where is the 800 lb. Gorilla, the NRA when the Republicans write out or decide on a no gun plank?

How can a Conservative party not have the Second Amendment addressed in its platform?

Vick
 
So where is the 800 lb. Gorilla, the NRA when the Republicans write out or decide on a no gun plank?

Two comments. First, the former platform (2000) didn't have much to say about guns either. Secondly, which party favors gun ownership in any way is already obvious. Like the man said, "who are they going to vote for...the Democrats?"

I think the mission in the last platform was to strongly portray the party as the party that serves the church vote, the "family values" voters.

The platform doesn't really mean much anyway. It isn't promulgated and isn't even published until after the election. At least the committee proceedings are televised. Beyond that, no one seems to pay any attention to or acts as if accountable to what commitments the platform implies.

Today I heard for the first time or finally took notice that gun ownership is being referred to as a "family value". I rather like that but don't appreciate the confusion with religion as a political priority.
 
Like the man said, "who are they going to vote for...the Democrats?
Well, lets hope the Republican party fired that guy. I think they found out the hard way that gun owners WILL vote for Democrats if the Republican party continues along its present course.

As if any of us would actually know, I think he was then OVERestimating gun owners.
 
I won't vote for Mitt in the primary unless a couple of the better choices ended up not running. However, if he got the nomination I would vote for Mitt over any of Dems that are showing interest right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top