Mitt Romney and RKBA

Status
Not open for further replies.

#shooter

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
606
Location
Indiana
I was wondering what THR members think of this guy and his RKBA policy.
Wikipedia states:

"Mitt Romney supports the strict enforcement of gun laws. He 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."

Granted he is in Mass, so is his support of the AWB authentic or is it a "political necessity" considering the state he is in. Mass did get an A- from the Brady Bunch.

Thoughts, comments, opinions, and insight are welcome.
 
He is certainly not our biggest enemy, but he is also not our biggest friend.

He does support AWB, OTOH he did sign some good MA gun law reforms last year.

We could do worse with him as POTUS, but could do a lot better as far as RKBA goes.
 
The Republicans better find some new blood for 2008. If Romney, Giuliani and McCain are all they have to offer they won't be getting my vote.
 
I voted for him

And I really had hopes he would stand up and be counted, even though under impossible odds in this state.

But, sadly, I have come to the conclusion that he is no better than the Democrats who will do and say anything to stay in or regain power.

For example, today he stood next to ted kennedy :barf: and signed into law the nation's first socialized medical insurance bill and crowed about it.

He COULD have used his position to be an advocate for the second amendment, but instead for the past four years, has basically signed off on the AG's assault on the freedom to keep and bear arms by ignoring it all.

He's a smart guy, but his ambition to be president has exposed his lack of principle. He will not be a second amendment friend in the white house either.

Frankly, I'm of the opinion there is nobody electable left in the GOP with any
guts to stand on principle.

We will get what we deserve
 
He is a Republican. Like most he is devious political hack. He is pretty much anti-gun, though he tries to hide this fact. I never voted for him since he is a fraud, who would do anything or saying to get votes. He is a pretty boy multi-millionaire who cares little about workers rights. He cares his clean image he created to fool voters into voting for him. He is very much dispised in this states do to is stances on social issues, and cutting funding to state mandated programs He is trying to pass himself as a conservative so he can fool Republicans, which is easy to do, to get him into the primary. Avoid him like the plague.
 
Frankly, I'm of the opinion there is nobody electable left in the GOP with any
guts to stand on principle.

News, if immigration doesn't go away, Tancredo may very well have a better chance than people give him.
 
CBSBYTE--------Well some of the things you said make he sound good. Cutting State Mandated Programs that is always good. By workers rights I guess you mean no push over for the Unions that also is always good. Being disliked in MA for his stance on social issues can only be good. However, the new cover everyone health care sucks.:banghead:
 
Where you live, and the people you rub elbows with has an impact on your outlook.

It is said that a man who is accustomed to his rights fights to keep them.

What of a man who is not accustomed to his rights, never having had enjoyment of their full measure?

Massachussetts has been in the deep grip of nanny statist redistributionists for too many generations, freedom is but a dim memory there.

What value is the experience of being the governor of such people? Is this experience that makes one fit to be a leader of a free people?

I think not.
 
News Shooter said:
For example, today he stood next to ted kennedy and signed into law the nation's first socialized medical insurance bill and crowed about it.

Not to split hairs overmuch, but the new MA healthcare "reform" isn't socialized medicine. It's bad, but a different sort of bad.

Single payer is inefficient, depresses research, makes medical records govt. property, etc. It's the nanny state giving in to individual irresponsibility and saying, "Here--have some healthcare. But get used to the medical field being just another arm of the state."

MA's plan is the nanny state saying, "You don't have insurance? Hmm... let's see if we can make this a bit cheaper for a few of you. The rest of you, though, are no longer allowed to decide whether or not you want to buy insurance. Do it OR ELSE." It's almost purely coercive.

In essence, it's the state mugging the people on behalf of the insurance industry. MA residents are being told at gun-point (because, in the end, that's what all laws come down to) to make certain purchases. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think this sort of subsidy to a private sector entity is unprecedented. Tax money goes to companies and contractors every day, but I'm unaware of any other policy that forces people to spend their after-tax wages as the state sees fit.

Good times are ahead, friends. Good times. :banghead:

EDIT: And yeah... I'm not voting for Romney. Period. Unless the GOP declares "The American Conservative" its official press organ before the election really gets going, I'll likely be voting for whoever the Constitution Party runs.
 
From MA what do you expect, a MA repub is a right leaning socialist. I would rather stick sharp needles in my eyes than vote for that.
 
His father was a half-baked governor in Michigan when I was young.

Anybody who would sign a socialist medicine bill and so-called "assault weapons" bans deserves to be kicked out of office.

At least Mrs. Snopes Clinton doesn't claim to be a Republican.
 
His support in the South would be un-enthusiastic. New England Yankees don't do well down here.

I would be extremely hesitant to vote for anyone who is from MA, especially if they had been governor

I don't think he'll get much of the religiousright vote being a Mormon either.


He just drips with the sleeze of professional polititian.Much like Hillary,he doesn't care what and where he's elected just so long as he is.I admit to voting for him for reason of I'll take poison ivy over crotch rot if I have to pick between the 2 irritations but I would not want the man as POTUS.
 
American by Blood, not that I think MA's plan for medical insurance is a good one, but I think all states force us to buy auto insurance.
 
TX1911fan said:
American by Blood, not that I think MA's plan for medical insurance is a good one, but I think all states force us to buy auto insurance.

Good point.

If you want to get really technical you could argue that mandating auto insurance only applies to drivers and that not everyone drives, while MA's medical law applies to everyone regardless of any lifestyle choices they make, but your point basically stands.
 
Not all states force auto insurance.

They do force financial responsibility for the consequences of your actions though...there's a subtle difference. Maybe things have changed, but Iowa was voluntary insurance at least back in the 80's.

What the MA law is doing is forcing young people sans kids, who have the least need for health insurance to contribute to the insurance funding pool.

Insurance income is then invested (to the sole benefit of the insurance company), and then only reluctantly paid out on claims, mostly to the elderly.

Honestly run health insurance is a great idea. The problem is that I'm not aware of any companies that run it honestly, and some of them are real pits of poop and snakes.
 
GW did the awb song and dance

yet it is still gone, I knew this would happen.


I don't have the same faith in that romney guy.


with all the illegal immigrant stuff, I may just write in Ted Nugegent
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top