Wait until they learn Mitt’s position on gun control
I’ve always said that everybody likes Mitt the first time around. What’s not to like? A first impression is important, so good for Mitt. The problem is that the longer you are around him, the more you realize,
“Geez, you’re really pandering to me.”
National Review’s Rich Lowry has the details.
Wait until the 2nd amendment crowd gets a hold of Mitt’s views on gun control. These people, for the most part, are absolutists. Let’s say you believe it should be illegal to buy a semi-automatic machine gun that could stop a tank in its tracks at the local Wal-Mart. That position would mean that you are a “gun grabber” and “enemy of the 2nd amendment”.
What are they going to say about the self-described “the true conservative in this race” when they see this,
In favor of the Brady Bill
Regarding the Brady Bill which required waiting periods to buy a handgun, Romney stated, “I don’t think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”
- Boston Herald, 8/1/1994Supports federal assault weapons ban
According to his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney “is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”Signed state assault weapons ban
On July 1, 2002, 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.”
My problem with Mitt isn’t that he’s not conservative enough for me. It’s that I hold most of the same positions he is now running away from. His reasons for doing so are obvious, which makes the pandering that much harder to stomach.
Mass. State Politics, Politics | Kevin | 
December 14, 2006 8:54 pm
Well, he has been pandering on the gay issue– pretty transparently. Has he shown any signs of flip-flopping on guns as well?
DougH,
Last time around Kerry went to Iowa and asked “Where can I get me a huntin’ liscense?”
I can’t see Mitt hauling out these positions early on in the primary season.
We’ll see.
Kevin
My problem with Mitt’s support for the Brady Bill and Assualt Weaponon Ban is that waiting periods have seldom reduced crime. Historically, crime and murder rates have been worse in states with waiting periods and other laws delaying handgun purchases than other states nationally. Despite Californiaâ??s 10 day waiting period and an â??assault weapons ban,â?ť Californiaâ??s violent crime rate and murder rate averaged 45% and 30% higher than the rest of the country in the 1990s. Additionally,in Bradyâ??s first two years, the overall murder rate in states subject to its waiting period declined only 9% vs. 17% in other states. As I write in my book, Anti-gun researcher David McDowell has written that: â??waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides.â?ť
The Brady Act five day waiting period has resulted in fewer arrests of prohibited purchasers compared to NRA-backed instant check systems which is what I have always supported. In Virginia, for example, Virginiaâ??s instant check led to 3,380 arrests from November 1989- August 1998 including 475 wanted persons. The General Accounting Office (GAO) found that in 17 months of the Brady Act only seven individuals were convicted of illegal attempts to buy handguns. As I further document in my book, states that had the Brady Actâ??s waiting period imposed upon them had worse violent crime trends thereafter, compared to other states. And today most violent crime occurs in states that delay firearm sales.
The bottom line is that waiting periods donâ??t get criminals off the streets. Instead the longer the waiting period, the longer the criminal gets to walk the streets. Instant background checks stops are far more effective in determining if the person attempting to purchase the firearm has a criminal record.
Waiting periods, like Brady, needlessly delay law-abiding citizens from buying guns, a dangerous situation when a gun is needed immediately for protection. The debate over waiting periods has only served to distract America from concentrating on policies that lead to the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment for violent criminals. I would have been more impressed if Romney had actually studied the issue and supported effective programs such as Project Exile which focus more on strict enforcement of the existing 20,000 plus federal and state gun laws already on the books instead of inefficient and ineffective laws such as Brady and the Assault Weapons Ban that crimminals don’t abide by in the first place. That is the entire problem with gun control laws in the first place. Crimminals don’t abide by them. He will not be getting my support for president ever.
Gregg
“When a gun is needed immediately for protection?”
You mean, if someone breaks into your house, you might need to book it down to Wal-Mart to buy a weapon, come back, then shoot the trespasser? “Quick I need to buy a gun, it’s an emergency!” (LOL)
If you like shooting people, I recommend stocking the gun in your house already, rather than subjecting yourself to the “run to the gun store and back” waiting period.
But to agree somewhat, I’m not necessarily convinced that waiting periods are the answer to all gun problems either, and an instant-check system– if implemented properly– sounds sensible.
But to the point of Romney– will be interested to see if he flips on these issues the way he did on gay civil rights.
I don’t think the gov’t has any right to know who owns a gun and who doesn’t. Is this extreme? Think of it like this: We have the right, no the duty, to make sure our gov’t does NOT turn into a tyranny. If they know where the guns are, just like in LA during Katrina, they can confiscate them. Then how will we be able to throw that albatrase from our neck? No, I’m against all gun control. The gov’t is controlled by us, don’t forget. I know they do…
My opinion of Mitt is that the bloom is off the rose. His attrativeness to me all along had been that he was such a straight-shooter, squeaky clean and utterly trustworthy. In that regard, I could accept his squishy position as pro-choice even though I didn’t agree with it, because he so convincingly told us he had felt that way ever since campaigning with his mother. Now, I don’t believe a word of his explanation of how he came to re-evaluate his position as a result of his investigation of stem cell research.
He’s just another politician now, listening too closely to his handlers and consultants, forgetting who he really is in order to sell a product.
“a semi-automatic machine gun”
This term doesn’t even make sense. You might consider taking a course in firearms so that you have at least an inkling of the mechanics of the topic.
[...] Pundit Review was mentioned in the Sunday Boston Globe in a story about the next batch of quicksand under Mitt Romney’s campaign, his fluid position on gun control. The Globe linked to the home page, but not the post itself, here it is. Romney Retreats on Gun Control Romney’s past positions on gun control have also drawn some attention in the blogosphere, though not nearly as much as his statements in support of abortion rights and gay rights. (He’s now antiabortion and takes a harder line on gay rights.) “Wait until the 2d amendment crowd gets a hold of Mitt’s views on gun control,” one blogger wrote on punditreview.com . [...]