[/size][align=left]Erich Pratt[/align][/size][align=left]As he travels through the south "[/align][align=left]contemplating a run for the presidency[/align][align=left]" Mitt Romney sounds like the modern-[/align][align=left]day incarnation of John Wayne.[/align][align=left]He tells shooters how he used to hunt[/align][align=left]rabbits as a boy. He visits with attendees[/align][align=left]at gun shows, impressing them[/align][align=left]with his knowledge of the Bill of[/align][align=left]Rights. He quotes the "right to keep[/align][align=left]and bear arms" language from memory[/align][align=left]and assures gun owners he"s on their[/align][align=left]side.[/align][align=left]But wait, isn"t this the same Mitt[/align][align=left]Romney " the former governor of[/align][align=left]Massachusetts " who boasted that his[/align][align=left]view on firearms was "not going to[/align][align=left]make me the hero" of the gun lobby?[/align][align=left]In fact, it is one and the same man.[/align][align=left]So what happened to the candidate who[/align][align=left]promised that he would not lift a finger[/align][align=left]to "chip away" at the gun laws in Massachusetts[/align][align=left]" a state that has some of the[/align][align=left]most draconian gun restrictions in the[/align][align=left]union?[/align][align=left]When Romney ran for Senate in[/align][align=left]1994, he told the Boston Herald that he[/align][align=left]supported the Brady gun control law[/align][align=left]and a ban on scores of semi-automatic[/align][align=left]firearms. Both laws were heavily supported[/align][align=left]by Democrats and, according to[/align][align=left]President Bill Clinton, were the reason[/align][align=left]that his party lost control of the Congress[/align][align=left]in 1994.[/align][align=left]Ten years later, the federal ban on[/align][align=left]semi-automatic firearms was stripped[/align][align=left]from the law books. The banned guns[/align][align=left]became legal once again, and despite[/align][align=left]the Chicken Little cries from gun control[/align][align=left]advocates around the country, crime[/align][align=left]rates did not soar.[/align][align=left]This should not be surprising. After[/align][align=left]the semi-auto ban expired in 2004, the[/align][align=left]Congressional Research Service admitted[/align][align=left]there was no evidence to support the[/align][align=left]notion that the ban had actually reduced[/align][align=left]crime, especially since " and here"s a[/align][align=left]great admission " the "banned[/align][align=left]weapons and magazines were never[/align][align=left]used in more than a modest fraction of[/align][align=left]all gun murders" before the ban was[/align][align=left]implemented.[/align][align=left]Likewise, the Brady gun control law[/align][align=left]has done nothing to curb crime, as was[/align][align=left]reported in one of the nation"s leading[/align][align=left]anti-gun medical publications, the Journal[/align][align=left]of the American Medical Association.[/align][align=left]The journal definitively stated in[/align][align=left]2000 that the Brady law has failed to[/align][align=left]reduce "homicide rates and overall suicide[/align][align=left]rates" in states after they were[/align][align=left]required to impose waiting periods and[/align][align=left]background checks.[/align][align=left]But despite the failure of these gun[/align][align=left]laws, Romney did not back off his support[/align][align=left]for gun control during his run for[/align][align=left]governor in 2002.[/align][align=left]"We do have tough gun laws in[/align][align=left]Massachusetts; I support them," he said[/align][align=left]during a gubernatorial debate with[/align][align=left]Democratic candidate Shannon[/align][align=left]O"Brien. "I won"t chip away at them; I[/align][align=left]believe they protect us and provide for[/align][align=left]our safety."[/align][align=left]Perhaps Mr. Romney knows something[/align][align=left]that the criminologists don"t know[/align][align=left]" the criminologists who have actually[/align][align=left]studied these issues and have reported[/align][align=left]that gun control has failed to make people[/align][align=left]safer.[/align][align=left]What we do know is that even in[/align][align=left]Massachusetts, Romney has tried to[/align][align=left]appease both sides of the aisle. As governor,[/align][align=left]Romney supported legislation to[/align][align=left]ease restrictions on gun licensing in the[/align][align=left]state, but he only did so at the expense[/align][align=left]of gun rights, as he signed a draconian[/align][align=left]ban on common, household firearms[/align][align=left]that are owned by millions of Americans[/align][align=left]across the nation.[/align][align=left]This is kind of like the thief who[/align][align=left]sticks a gun in your ribs and demands[/align][align=left]$100, but then gives you $25 back to[/align][align=left]"soften" the blow.[/align][align=left]Seeing that Mr. Romney likes to frequent[/align][align=left]both sides of the legislative aisle,[/align][align=left]Americans are going to want to know[/align][align=left]where he really stands on issues that are[/align][align=left]important to them. And when they go[/align][align=left]to polls next year, voters are going to be[/align][align=left]asking, "Will the real Mitt Romney[/align]please stand up?"
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
So what's the point ? There is no ELECTABLE pro-gun candidate from either side, running for the office of President of the United States. Looks like we're gonna have to look to the LEGISLATIVE branch for LEGISLATION to preserve the 2nd amendment....so maybe voting for pro-gun candidates in the next Congressional elections might be the way to go ? IN either case, I think the next president can end up appointing as many as 3 Supreme Court Justices. Do you want a Socialist (democrat) to do it, or a Republican (albeit a rather left-leaning one...) ?
It means that Huck and Paul have a snowball's chance in Hell.
__________________
Hntngirl's mother-in-law and Personal Advisor
Davidmil's Seal of Approval: Non-Moderator Class
Master of the Shovel
Official Advisor to Sunset
Location: Obama made me join the NRA for 5 years !
Posts: 2,181
RE: GOA article on Mitt Romney
but what does that MEAN ? That I shouldn't vote for them because they "can't" win ? That no one should run because obviosuly against the "favorite" there is no snowball's chance, right ?
Ross Perot changed everything when he rocked the frickin foundations of our political system. I wish another would arise like him [&o]
Ross Perot changed everything when he rocked the frickin foundations of our political system. I wish another would arise like him
Why? So we can have another 8 years with a clinton in office?
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
but what does that MEAN ? That I shouldn't vote for them because they "can't" win ? That no one should run because obviosuly against the "favorite" there is no snowball's chance, right ?
Ross Perot changed everything when he rocked the frickin foundations of our political system. I wish another would arise like him [&o]
It MEANS that once things shake out and it's apparent who's electable and who's NOT, then the party is SUPPOSED to become UNIFIED and support the front runner. When that idiot Huckabee refuses to drop out when he's only getting 13% of the vote, and when that other dessicated crapbag Paul won't drop out after garnering single-digit results they are actively working to STOP the party from unifying behind one candidate. What it MEANS is that they, both as more conservative then either of the 2 front-runners, are TAKING VOTES THAT WOULD MATTER from, it is mostly held, Mitt Romney, the more conservative of the 2 front-runners. At this point, it should be a 2-man race for the nomination and without Huck and Paul, McCain would only get the 30-something % of his hardline supporters and no more; Romney would then take a clear majority and win the nomination. These two, do their party a disservice by staying in the race, they embarrass themselves (if there is such a thing as being able to embarrass a politician), and they do a disservice to registered republicans who, it seems, are too stupid to see what's going on here.
I agree with bergall. Hold your nose and vote for (hopefully) Romney come fall. It is truly sad that we don't have a real conservative as a strong candidate.I also agreewith Ann Coulter, that if Hillary or Barack win, they will screw things up so badly, a true conservative WILL WIN next time around.
GOA article on Mitt Romney
