Let's educate Mitt Romney about Assault Weapons Bans

[JKimball]

MiddleAgedKen,

That was a good question. I wouldn't be surprised if Romney didn't know anything about Sullivan prior to your question.

alsaqr,

Thanks for participating earlier. Again, this thread is not about voting for Romney. It's meant to increase the awareness of the importance of this issue amongst the candidates. Some of them already get it. Romney doesn't. He thinks that people who want "assault weapons" are just a small fringe of the population. And with the reluctance I have seen on this board of all places to clue him in I'm not surprised in the least he feels that way.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"I think the best message is not to support any candidate that flip flops..."

That means you would support a candidate that has always been FOR gun control? I don't know; if my choice is for someone who has always been for gun control and one who has flip-flopped occasionally (as is likely to be the case in November), I think I'll opt for the flip flop. The Primary is where you vote for who you want. The general election is where you vote against who you don't want.

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

I wouldn't be surprised if Romney didn't know anything about Sullivan prior to your question.

Uh...he better have known something. Maximum Mike was the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts during Romney's term as governor.

I'm pretty sure he does know what he needs to know about Sullivan, in fact. I'm also pretty sure he either thinks he's okay or doesn't much care. Mitt Romney is simply not committed to gunowner rights. That's the point I and many others here keep trying to make, and the point that you, with all due respect, seem to want to give Romney the benefit of the doubt on, JKimball.

Frankly, sending Romney that note cost me nothing, and I think it'll be worth exactly that where he is concerned. He's just one of several we have to stop on the Republican side.

For the sake of full disclosure, though, I'll out myself as a Fredhead.

 

[JKimball]

Mitt Romney is simply not committed to gunowner rights. That's the point I and many others here keep trying to make, and the point that you, with all due respect, seem to want to give Romney the benefit of the doubt on, JKimball.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think Romney is committed to gunowner rights. That would explain some of the responses I've gotten. The whole reason I started this thread is because I truly believe that Romney is not committed to gunowner rights.

Last I heard he was even with Giuliani, leading in the national polls. So I'm saying if there's a good chance he'll get the nomination, let's start hitting him now. If you would write him a letter when that AWB is sitting on his desk waiting his signature, why not write him a letter now?

Where I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt is that I believe he is willing to listen to and learn from others and change his position on something when he sees the errors of his current position. I understand there is a lot of room for argument there, but why not try to get him to change now, when he has incentive to listen to us?

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

I understand there is a lot of room for argument there, but why not try to get him to change now, when he has incentive to listen to us?

Alas, he doesn't have any incentive to listen to us...yet. If he calculates his main obstacles to the nomination as Hizzoner or Honest Johnny Goodgovernment Quote Constitution McKeating, he's got effective cover because they're no d**ned good on gunowner rights either, taking us out of play until the general election (if then).

If his internal polling starts telling him his squishiness on the Second Amendment is hurting him, or if he falls behind Thompson or Ron Paul or even (perish forbid) Huckabee, then we might see some movement. But would you want to trust him to stick to it even then? I'd rather get behind someone who supports the Second on principle. That basically leaves Thompson and Paul.

Okay, Huckabee too, but Huckabee is a liberal Democrat on those inconvenient foreign and economic policy issues. No thanks. I lived through one Carter administration, and that ought to be enough for anyone's lifetime.

 

[TexasSkyhawk]

I'm all for educating Romney.

I'm all for educating him as a private citizen and no longer in government.

Jeff

 

[camacho]

I'm all for educating him as a private citizen and no longer in government.

I am with you on that!

 

[orionengnr]

just as a reminder...

How this forum works. READ THIS BEFORE POSTING HERE!

This forum is dedicated to activism to promote the RKBA.

Please use this forum to coordinate and work together. This is the place to organize. Use this forum for campaigns, legal gatherings, letter writing, talking points to push on the media, and things of this nature.

This is not the place to come up with ideas, use L&P for that. This is not the place to debate ideas.

There will be absolutely no arguments or comments about whether a given course of action is a good one. Such arguments always occur in L&P, about every single idea, and then no course of action is taken. This is the place to co-ordinate, not to talk somebody else out of doing anything.

If you cop a defeatist attitude in this forum, we’ll boot you. We don’t have time for crying. Any extraneous posts not directly related to the activity get deleted.

 

[kludge]

Let's educate Mitt Romney about Assault Weapons Bans

Let's vote for someone else.

 

[v35]

Tell him, not us.

Please don't use this forum to gripe. Use it to post what you wrote to the Romney campaign. What orionengnr and jkimball said. It will take you all of two minutes.

Do it. Now. Anything else is a waste of this forum and insults the OP.

I don't like Romney either. I'm not voting for him. But he's just been endorsed by none other than the National Review, a publication whose editors I thought supported the 2A and other useful parts of our Constitution. The pro - RKBA candidates (yeah, both of em) have a slim to no chance of getting nominated, and Slim left town. Actually, I've given up on Slim ever coming to town.

Don't b*tch. DO something. I'm fed up with having to hold my nose while I vote. No more. This time I'm voting for either Slim or None. Romney ought to know why he'll lose - perhaps to Hillary. THIS is why.

DO something. Venting here, or telling us we're wasting our time, isn't it.

 

[I LIKE IT!]

I just wrote him, gave my respectful opinion why he'll lose
the election. Let's see if he responds.

I asked if he was truely aware of what he was opposing in "Assault Weapons".

Asked if he knew the facts and the culture behind it.

I doubt he knows.

My choices boil down to...includes soft spots. You can see why though.

Huckabee(immigration)
Thompson(???)
Paul(foreign policy)

 

[TEDDY]

Mitt and assault

can any one give me yr and month romney signed assault rifle bill?I just checked GOAL site and they say NO anti second amend.bills passed,but several pro gun bills got signed.
if you are bashing him and lieing this site will be off my list.I have not made up my mind who for as none are lily white.I like this forum but!!!

 

[JKimball]

Teddy,

I just found this with a quick google search:
http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812

- July 08, 2004

Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 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.”

Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.

“We are pleased to mark an important victory in the fight against crime,” said Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey. “The most important job of state government is ensuring public safety. Governor Romney and I are determined to do whatever it takes to stop the flood of dangerous weapons into our cities and towns and to make Massachusetts safer for law-abiding citizens.”

The new law also makes a number of improvements to the current gun licensing system, including:

Extending the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years;

Granting a 90-day grace period for holders of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry who have applied for renewal; and

Creating a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied.

“This is truly a great day for Massachusetts’ sportsmen and women,” said Senator Stephen M. Brewer. “These reforms correct some serious mistakes that were made during the gun debate in 1998, when many of our state’s gun owners were stripped of their long-standing rights to own firearms. I applaud Senate President Travaglini for allowing the Senate to undertake this necessary legislation.”

“I want to congratulate everyone that has worked so hard on this issue,” said Representative George Peterson. “Because of their dedication, we are here today to sign into law this consensus piece of legislation. This change will go a long way toward fixing the flaws created by the 1998 law. Another key piece to this legislation addresses those citizens who have applied for renewals. If the government does not process their renewal in a timely fashion, those citizens won't be put at risk because of the 90 day grace period that is being adopted today.”

“Never before has there been such bi-partisan cooperation in the passage of gun safety legislation of this magnitude in this nation,” said John Rosenthal, co-founder and chair of Stop Handgun Violence. “I applaud the leadership of the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker and entire Legislature for passage of this assault weapons ban renewal. They have shown that Massachusetts can continue to lead the nation in protecting the public and law enforcement from military style assault weapons.”

If you look around the internet and youtube you can find him saying he supports banning assault weapons. There is a lot of unwelcome bashing going on in this thread, but I'm afraid it isn't a lie that he's against our right to own assault weapons.

 

[goon]

Man, I'm starting to think that the "activists" on "The High Road" are harder to motivate than the politicians.

Once again, I think it's pointless to try to educate him. He doesn't care one bit about you, me, or any other gunower. He would tell us whatever we wanted to hear if it helped him get elected, then turn around and cut our throats if it would get him another term. As things are now, anyone with the slightest ability to read people can see that he is trying to tell people what they want to hear. I have seen him stammer or hesitate in many of his interviews as he tried to think up the "right" answer to pacify his audience. I just hope everyone else has seen it too.

The real solution is to sit back and watch him dig his own grave. Then vote for someone who actually might have some principles.

I know you said you weren't interested in responses like this but that is the way I see it.

Having said that, it was pointed out that we should be supporting each other. I agree with at least that much. So eventhough it's pointless to waste my breath trying to help Mitt grow a spine, this is at least a good way to tell him why he won't be getting my vote. Hopefully he'll lose. If that happens, at least he'll understand why.
Here's the comment I left, verbatim:

"Sir,
I just wanted to let you know I probably won't be voting for you because of your stance on gun rights. You seem uneducated on this issue. Although you currently claim to support hunters' rights, I don't think that shows real support for our right to bear arms. I highly doubt that the framers wrote the Second Ammendment with the sole intention of protecting the rights of duck hunters. Please take a few minutes to look over the Bill of Rights. It may change your opinion on this issue. "

Really though, I was just being polite. I have no doubt that when Mitt changes his stance on gun rights again, it won't be motivated by education or a sincere change of heart. It'll be by a burning desire to get the anti-gunners' support back when he runs for election again.

 

[gunsmith]

I sent a comment

even though I can't vote for him, I told him why.

 

[TEDDY]

Romney

I have not made up my mind to vote for any one.however given the political realities of Mass no one is going to throw out the gun laws in Mass.the anti gunners are to solid ly imbedded.having lived in Mass all my life untill 2000 I have a very good idea of the mind set.what was done was get some favable laws passed by amending the law which was passed in 1998.in 2004 it was amended to actually improve the lost rights of gun owners.BE AWARE that gun owners make up more voters than actually vote BUT wont vote so whose fault is that.
I tried to upload a file all I can do is email which I think I did maybe he can post it.

 

[ilbob]

I think anyone that believes there is a perfect candidate to vote for is living in lala land. Every candidate has a perfect stance on at least one position to at least some people. None are perfect on every issue to anyone.

Most of us are a little more focused on 2A issues, but I would not allow that focus to allow you to forget there are other issues just as important to worry about.

Unless the guy is electable, it is meaningless. Among other things, being electable means being able to raise enough campaign money to run a competitive national campaign. Romney is one of a few guys running who probably can raise that much cash.

 

[DrBoomBoom]

I wrote Mr. Romney after watching him on "Meet the Press." I heard him say he did not always support the NRA and that he thought there should be a ban on "assault weapons," so I wrote telling him these two statements would preclude me from ever voting for him. Here was his response:

'Thank you for contacting me about the important issue of gun ownership and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I appreciate your interest in my campaign for President and would like to extend my sincere gratitude for taking the time to share your views with me.

I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. It’s essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I am proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms.

I firmly believe in the importance of responsible gun ownership and sales. I recognize there are people in this country who want to remove all guns in our society and I think they’re wrong. Washington needs to distinguish between law-abiding gun owners and criminals who use guns. Those who use a firearm during the commission of crime must be punished severely. The key is to provide law enforcement with the resources they need and punish criminals, not burden lawful gun owners.

As Governor of one of the most liberal states in the country, I stood up for the rights of gun owners and sportsmen over burdensome bureaucratic regulation. I advanced legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners in my state and I’ve been proud to have the support of pro-Second Amendment and sportsmen’s groups in my previous runs for public office. I also designated May 7 as “The Right to Bear Arms Day” in Massachusetts to honor “the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property and for all lawful purposes, including the common defense.”

One of the most active fronts in the fight to preserve our Second Amendment rights today is being waged in the courts. As President, I’ll appoint strict constructionist judges who will follow the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. I’ll also fight to repeal the McCain-Feingold law, which sought to impose restrictions on the First Amendment rights of groups like the National Rifle Association, to advocate for issues we care about.

I am running for President because I fervently believe that I have the experience and vision to address the issues facing our country. Throughout my years in both the private and public sectors, I have been successful by pursuing innovation and transformation. If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to visit my website at www.MittRomney.com for updated information on Second Amendment rights and other issues that may be of interest to you. I look forward to hearing from you in the future, and earning your support.

Sincerely,'

 

[joffe]

That's not 'his' response, it's a response sent out by aides and crafted by campaign experts who know what to say to gun owners who write Romney. In all likelihood he probably hasn't even seen these letters personally.

 

[TEDDY]

romney

I tried to post a statement from GOAL on Romnys record in Mass.did not work
you might get it from GOAL.ORG.He did work with GOAL to pass amendments to the states laws.considering the climate in Mass any thing a republican can acheve is a miracle.I also look at fact that the state was in the red and he turned it to black.the legislature is very left.:banghead:

 

[goon]

I think anyone that believes there is a perfect candidate to vote for is living in lala land. Every candidate has a perfect stance on at least one position to at least some people. None are perfect on every issue to anyone.

Most of us are a little more focused on 2A issues, but I would not allow that focus to allow you to forget there are other issues just as important to worry about.

Unless the guy is electable, it is meaningless. Among other things, being electable means being able to raise enough campaign money to run a competitive national campaign. Romney is one of a few guys running who probably can raise that much cash.

I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Romney is not on our side.
Voting for him just because you think he can get elected doesn't make much sense to me - you could make the same case for Hillary.

I agree that there will never be a "perfect" candidate but IMO there are enough good ones that none of us need to vote for Romney.

 

[Deanimator]

Can somebody give me a definitive statement on whether he supports a NEW AWB?

 

[cbsbyte]

I am not a supporter of Romney, nor did I vote for him for Governor of Mass. I just want to point out the incorrect information that is out on the net, that he signed a AWB in Mass. This misinformation has been spread by the media which did not do any research before writing the articles about the law. First we have had a AWB in this state since 1994. It did not have a sunset clause. What happen is that a new bill was passed in the state legislature that cleared up some of the poorly written language in the old AWB law. This was a positive step in this state.

 

[Deanimator]

Most of us are a little more focused on 2A issues, but I would not allow that focus to allow you to forget there are other issues just as important to worry about.

What do those "other issues" matter if the winner of the next election sends armed men to your home to kill you and take your AR15?

Why should I prefer to be killed at the behest of a Republican instead of a Democrat?

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

Deanimator: He said on Meet the Press on Dec. 16 he'd have signed the AWB renewal (same as George W. Bush).
The link quotes the transcript of the exchange between Romney and Tim Russert.

No wiggle room left. He's disqualified, period.