Do gun owners owe Romney an apology? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Do gun owners owe Romney an apology?


Chesafreak
10-02-2012, 14:11
What you thought you knew about Romney's 2nd amendment stance.

Google warns that the site may contain malware, so I posted a summary below. I don't fear no stinkin' malware, I use Linux.

thetoastmaster
10-02-2012, 14:18
That page sets off my browser filters. How about a summary?

countrygun
10-02-2012, 14:28
That page sets off my browser filters. How about a summary?

Same here. I did a little checking and I am not going to force my computer to open the site.



ETA: funny, the OP is very active in the "tech talk" section of the Forum. I would have thought he would have noticed that

Chesafreak
10-02-2012, 14:34
Summary:

GOAL is a state-level group defending the gun rights of the citizens of Massachusetts.
So what are the details GOAL uses to back their position? Again, from the report:
Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons
This is a perfect example of don’t believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the “assault weapon” ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:
1. Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served.
For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.
2. Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.
3. Extended the term of the state’s firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.
4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.
In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose [sic] all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.
5. Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.
6. Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.
7. Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.
8. Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driver’s license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3″ x 4″.
9. Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders.
The report goes on to cite other bills which affected gun owners in Massachusetts during Romney’s administration, and explains how Romney’s position matched GOAL’s, or how Romney’s administration worked to remove anti-gun provisions from proposed legislation, etc.
In short, the report confirms what Mitt Romney has repeatedly said on the campaign trail and in town hall meetings – that the bill he signed in 2004 had the full support of the NRA’s state affiliate, GOAL, and that they and other pro-gun lobbyists asked him to sign it.
So where does this leave us? That Romney approved of the 1994 Clinton Gun Ban has not been disputed. But he isn’t the only politician to have once held the mistaken belief that it might work to curb crime. President George W. Bush stated he’d have signed a renewal if the failed bill made it to his desk, and Ohio’s own John Kasich supported the ban as well, and has since admitted he was “wrong.” (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6863) Romney too appears to have learned that such bans don’t work (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8489) to curb crime.
Separate from his support for the gun ban passed by Congress nearly 20 years ago (and allowed to sunset after a decade of failure), a position he no longer takes, it appears that the central “fact” that most gun owners “know” about Mitt Romney – namely that he signed an new assault weapons ban in Massachusetts in 2004 – isn’t a fact at all.
My sense is that knowledge of the GOAL report may allow some pro-gun voters, who may have been hesitant to go “All In,” (http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/12385/all-in/) to feel much better about voting for the only man who stands a chance at defeating Barack Obama.
Mr Romney, for whatever it’s worth, I apologize.

Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2012/10/02/gun-owners-do-you-owe-mitt-romney-an-apology-for-your-doubts-must-read-report/#ixzz28AyBR021

Chesafreak
10-02-2012, 14:35
I forgot about the warning when visiting the site. I use Linux running as a non-admin, so I wasn't worried about malware.

Gundude
10-02-2012, 16:12
Summary:
...
Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members.
...

:rofl:

So Romney thought he was signing an assault weapons ban, but really he wasn't. Even if that were true, which it obviously isn't, as anybody can learn from any non-virus laden site (try the MA legislature site, for one), how does that make Romney any better?

countrygun
10-02-2012, 16:19
[QUOTE=Gundude;19478493 how does that make Romney any better?[/QUOTE]



He is still not an incompetent Marxist like the guy he wants to remove from office

Gundude
10-02-2012, 16:45
He is still not an incompetent Marxist like the guy he wants to remove from officeMaybe so, but absurd posts like the OP don't help him. It makes it look like he's got no real positives, if one needs to present such ridiculous and easily debunked arguments to defend him.

Just like the birthers cast a cloud of absurdity over people who present legitimate gripes against Obama, these idiots who claim Romney didn't actually sign an AWB cast the same cloud of absurdity over people who have legitimate praise for Romney.

Fair or not, some people ruin it for everybody.

countrygun
10-02-2012, 16:49
Maybe so, but absurd posts like the OP don't help him. It makes it look like he's got no real positives, if one needs to present such ridiculous and easily debunked arguments to defend him.

Just like the birthers cast a cloud of absurdity over people who present legitimate gripes against Obama, these idiots who claim Romney didn't actually sign an AWB cast the same cloud of absurdity over people who have legitimate praise for Romney.

Fair or not, some people ruin it for everybody.

I don't see the OP the way you do

The Machinist
10-02-2012, 16:50
No, I sure as hell don't owe that rat bastard liberal an apology. He owes every gun owner an apology for demonizing certain types of firearms.

Gundude
10-02-2012, 16:57
I don't see the OP the way you doForget for one moment that anybody can look up the law to see that the bill he signed was an AWB. It's understandable they'd assume nobody will take the effort to do that.

The main absurdity of that post is that it claims he only made those anti-gun statements because he thought he was signing an AWB, because he was misinformed by "someone". If he thought he was signing an AWB, what difference does it make what the law actually was. It still means Romney intended to ban those guns.

walt cowan
10-02-2012, 17:12
no. anyhow...mitts flips quicker than a cross dresser in the state penn.:rofl:

smokin762
10-02-2012, 17:41
No, gun owners do not owe Romney an apology.

Everyone needs to put politicians under the microscope for whatever reason. Especially when they are running for the job as the leader of our country.

Acujeff
10-02-2012, 17:45
Forget for one moment that anybody can look up the law to see that the bill he signed was an AWB. It's understandable they'd assume nobody will take the effort to do that.

The main absurdity of that post is that it claims he only made those anti-gun statements because he thought he was signing an AWB, because he was misinformed by "someone". If he thought he was signing an AWB, what difference does it make what the law actually was. It still means Romney intended to ban those guns.



Recently discovered report forces the question: Do I owe Mitt Romney an apology?
by Chad D. Baus
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8541
- it appears that the central "fact" that most gun owners "know" about Mitt Romney - namely that he signed a new assault weapons ban in Massachusetts in 2004 - isn't a fact at all. My sense is that knowledge of the GOAL report may allow some pro-gun voters, who may have been hesitant to go "All In," to feel much better about voting for the only man who stands a chance at defeating Barack Obama.
Mr Romney, for whatever it's worth, I apologize.

The liberal media has been misrepresenting Romney’s record since 2004 and that’s why GOAL published his entire record, so that gun owners could get the whole story.

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

The actual truth is, in 2004, Romney signed a bill that amended the 1998 permanent AWB and made it less strict.

Gundude has already highjacked many threads on GT falsely claiming Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004.

The GOAL record also discusses Romney's statements that pandered to the gun control crowd and it is reasonable to ask - Why did he make them? What purpose did it serve?

It was the only way to get the MA legislature (85% strictly anti-2A) to actually politically cooperate with Romney and GOAL's pro-2A agenda.

So did Romney say one thing and do another? To protect the RKBA - absolutely. That's politics in MA. Would he do the same thing as President? If he was facing a majority anti-2A congress -absolutely. Would he reveal his strategy to the gun control crowd? -absolutely not. What if he was facing a pro-2A congress or minority anti-2A congress? - he wouldn't have to use this strategy - he would just be straight out pro-2A.

How do we know all this for certain? By his record. What politicians do is more important, and revealing, than what they need to say to get it done. Romney's record clearly shows he only reduced gun control, removed gun control from bills or signed pro-2A bills.

Bush made the same kind of statements and achieved similar pro-2A success. It's the only pro-2A strategy that works when dealing with a majority of obstructionist anti-2A legislators.

Gunowners in MA would prefer to go at the gun control laws head on - but as a strategy it does not work here. So we have to shmooze the gun control crowd to get anywhere. But it would be foolish to actually tell them we are doing that. Again, that's politics when the Democrats are in the majority. When it comes to the RKBA - Democrats are the problem. The solution is to get rid of them. We can't in MA but we can in the US congress and presidency in 2012. Don't let the Fed gov't become like MA.

It's even more clear when we compare the Romney administration to the next one - Democrat Duval Patrick, who is aggressively anti-2A and now in his 6th year as Gov of MA.

The MA congress is still majority anti-2A and with this Democrat Gov gun owners have constantly been on the defensive. GOAL can't even get a meeting with Patrick - he has refused to meet with us for 6 years. All the pro-2A bills we've presented have been completely shot down by the congress and Gov.. All our efforts go to battling more outrageous anti-2A bills (worse than Calif.). So no pro-2A progress compared to the Romney administration.

So the answer to your question is yes, under Romney we made only pro-2A progress and those that misrepresent his record owe him an apology.

Obama is actually following the same strategy as Romney - saying one thing and doing another. Obama makes pro-2A statements but all his actions are anti-2A. If you analyze Obama's record, positions and platform - it's all anti-2A.

But Gundude asks gun owners to reject Romney and support Obama - maybe that makes him a hypocrite.

walt cowan
10-03-2012, 07:07
garry johnson is the only pro gun choice.

Gundude
10-03-2012, 11:02
Gundude has already highjacked many threads on GT falsely claiming Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004. My claim was backed up by links to the bills themselves. Your AWB was set to become unenforceable, not to expire, in 2004. The bill Romney signed fixed that to make sure it stays enforceable. That is crystal clear from the text of the law. Nothing you or GOAL say can change that.

Your claims don't link to the bills themselves, but to a biased organization which is interested in making itself look like it accomplished more than it has. If you refuse to believe that the text of the law says what it says, you are in the same realm as those who refuse to believe Obama's BC says what it says. That level of obvious denial and delusion only serves to cast a cloud over those who have legitimate criticism or defense of the candidates.

Cutting and pasting the same lies when the text of the laws are there for all to see, and have been repeatedly shown to you, demonstrates that you have no interest in reality, but only propaganda.

countrygun
10-03-2012, 12:11
garry johnson is the only pro gun choice.

We are talking about candidates that are actually in the race.

countrygun
10-03-2012, 12:15
My claim was backed up by links to the bills themselves. Your AWB was set to become unenforceable, not to expire, in 2004. The bill Romney signed fixed that to make sure it stays enforceable. That is crystal clear from the text of the law. Nothing you or GOAL say can change that.

Your claims don't link to the bills themselves, but to a biased organization which is interested in making itself look like it accomplished more than it has. If you refuse to believe that the text of the law says what it says, you are in the same realm as those who refuse to believe Obama's BC says what it says. That level of obvious denial and delusion only serves to cast a cloud over those who have legitimate criticism or defense of the candidates.

Cutting and pasting the same lies when the text of the laws are there for all to see, and have been repeatedly shown to you, demonstrates that you have no interest in reality, but only propaganda.

So, go vote for Obama, who cares?

I don't think you are right about Romney, but even if you are, he is no worse than Obama so that makes the topic a wash at worst. The rest of Obama's record puts Romney as a much better choice, but vote Obama if you feel you want another 4 years of what we've had.

Gundude
10-03-2012, 12:23
We are talking about candidates that are actually in the race.There is no pro-gun candidate this election with a chance of winning. Gun rights at the federal level will need to be protected by congress for at least the next 4 years. Nobody with an ounce of sanity would believe that our next president would veto any gun control legislation that hit his desk.

Why is it so tough for some people to admit that? While I don't support Romney, I can respect legitimate reasons to vote for him. Trying to pass him off as pro-gun reeks of delusion and desperation. Same as trying to pass Obama off as pro-gun (although I see a lot less of that). It's ridiculous.

Gundude
10-03-2012, 12:25
So, go vote for Obama, who cares?

I don't think you are right about Romney, but even if you are, he is no worse than Obama so that makes the topic a wash at worst. The rest of Obama's record puts Romney as a much better choice, but vote Obama if you feel you want another 4 years of what we've had.You don't think I'm right about Romney signing an AWB? How is that possible, when the law is there online for you to read?

countrygun
10-03-2012, 12:34
You don't think I'm right about Romney signing an AWB? How is that possible, when the law is there online for you to read?

then Vote Obama if politics seems that simple to you, no one is stopping you. The race is between the two, pick one

walt cowan
10-03-2012, 13:44
We are talking about candidates that are actually in the race.

he is. it's ok for you think other wise. some folks only know what cnn, fox and rush tell them.:wavey:

countrygun
10-03-2012, 14:10
he is. it's ok for you think other wise. some folks only know what cnn, fox and rush tell them.:wavey:


Heck, by your standards, my barber is in the race if enough people would write him in. It's the country's fault if they don't elect my barber:upeyes:

Acujeff
10-03-2012, 15:33
[QUOTE=Gundude;19480887]My claim was backed up by links to the bills themselves. Your AWB was set to become unenforceable, not to expire, in 2004. The bill Romney signed fixed that to make sure it stays enforceable. That is crystal clear from the text of the law. Nothing you or GOAL say can change that.

Your claims don't link to the bills themselves, but to a biased organization which is interested in making itself look like it accomplished more than it has. If you refuse to believe that the text of the law says what it says, you are in the same realm as those who refuse to believe Obama's BC says what it says. That level of obvious denial and delusion only serves to cast a cloud over those who have legitimate criticism or defense of the candidates.[QUOTE]



Gundude, you are not only a hypocrite but also a liar. Here are some other threads Gundude high jacked with the same nonsense:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19102478#post19102478

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19354819&posted=1#post19354819


You have never proved anything. You have made up false facts and interpretations. Nobody on GT has posted they agree with your 'facts", only that you are getting it wrong.

As for your obtuse proof that Romney is supposedly anti-2A, you argued in previous threads that the MA AWB that Romney amended (and made less strict) in 2004 "depended" on the Fed AWB to exist. Your ridiculous premise being the MA AWB depended on the Fed AWB and should have become unenforceable in 2004 when the Fed AWB expired.

I provided the links and correctly demonstrated in the law that the 1998 MA AWB only "referenced" the Fed AWB and existed independently, and permanently, before Romney was Gov of MA. The fact is, if Romney didn't amend the MA AWB in 2004 the original, and more strict version, would still be in effect today.

Here’s the entire 1998 CHAPTER 180 AN ACT RELATIVE TO GUN CONTROL IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MA

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter180

If you actually read the law it is clear that this ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB and contained no sunset clause. The expiration of the Fed AWB in 2004 did not get rid of MA's own permanent AWB.

Here is the amended law:
CHAPTER 150 AN ACT FURTHER REGULATING CERTAIN WEAPONS
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter150

Romney's record shows that when it was politically expedient to be pro gun control with a veto proof strict gun control Democrat congress, his actions show the opposite. Romney has only reduced gun control, removed anti-2A language from bills, or signed pro-2A bills into effect.

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

It's up to individual gun owners to get the facts and make sure we're not scammed into giving Obama another term.

Ringo S.
10-03-2012, 15:37
We are talking about candidates that are actually in the race.
I wish D.Medvedev could be in the race, he like guns: :cool:
http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2012-10-03T160933Z_624234224_GM1E8A400D101_RTRMADP_3_RUSSIA.JPG

Gundude
10-03-2012, 18:20
Gundude, you are not only a hypocrite but also a liar. Here are some other threads Gundude high jacked with the same nonsense:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19102478#post19102478

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19354819&posted=1#post19354819


You have never proved anything. You have made up false facts and interpretations. Nobody on GT has posted they agree with your 'facts", only that you are getting it wrong.I'll put the text of the bill up against everybody on GT any day of the week. Whether anybody on GT agrees or not means nothing. The law says what it says. Everybody on GT combined can't change that.

Gundude
10-03-2012, 18:22
Here is the amended law:
CHAPTER 150 AN ACT FURTHER REGULATING CERTAIN WEAPONS
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter150What is the purpose of SECTION 1 of that amended law?:SECTION 1. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the figure "(30)", in line 11, the following words:- as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.

Acujeff
10-03-2012, 22:18
Gundude, you are a hypocrite, liar and delusional. Gun owners who were here and involved in these issues in MA know you're totally wrong.

I've posted my analysis and documentation as well as previous threads answering your false allegations. Folks can reference them if they want to follow you down the rabbit hole.

As far as I am concerned you are desperately and purposely trying to scam gun owners to give Obama a 2nd term. It reinforces that covering up Obama's awful record and misrepresenting Romney's record is the only strategy of the Obama campaign, that you cannot defend Obama anti-2A record and that only Obama is the real threat to gun owners.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 09:48
Gundude, you are a hypocrite, liar and delusional. Gun owners who were here and involved in these issues in MA know you're totally wrong.

I've posted my analysis and documentation as well as previous threads answering your false allegations. Folks can reference them if they want to follow you down the rabbit hole.

As far as I am concerned you are desperately and purposely trying to scam gun owners to give Obama a 2nd term. It reinforces that covering up Obama's awful record and misrepresenting Romney's record is the only strategy of the Obama campaign, that you cannot defend Obama anti-2A record and that only Obama is the real threat to gun owners.Since you were there and involved in the issues, can you answer this one question?:

What is the purpose of SECTION 1 of the law Romney signed?SECTION 1. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the figure "(30)", in line 11, the following words:- as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.

Acujeff
10-04-2012, 10:25
Already answered in Post #24 and the previous threads listed. Continually making the same false claims and interpretations to get attention does not warrant any further response.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 10:31
Already answered in Post #24 and the previous threads listed. Continually making the same false claims and interpretations to get attention does not warrant any further response.No you didn't. You presented general, secondhand talking points.

What specifically was the purpose of SECTION 1 of that law Romney signed?SECTION 1. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the figure "(30)", in line 11, the following words:- as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 10:52
Let me help you out:

Before Romney's bill, Section 121 of chapter 140 said this:“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30)...The federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a), of course, is part of the federal AWB Clinton signed. SECTION 1 of Romney's bill changed Section 121 of chapter 140 to this:“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994...The federal AWB was expiring in 2004, and referencing it in general for the definition of "Assault weapon" was going to be legally problematic. Referencing specifically as appearing on September 13, 1994, preserved the definition of "Assault Weapon" thus preserving the MA Assault Weapon Ban. That was the purpose of SECTION 1 of the bill Romney signed.

Is there "anybody on GT", as Acujeff refers to you, who cares to dispute that?

wjv
10-04-2012, 11:09
deleted

FFR Spyder GT
10-04-2012, 11:11
Do gun owners owe Romney an apology?

Before or after he steals our guns?

Gundude
10-04-2012, 17:38
The federal AWB was expiring in 2004, and referencing it in general for the definition of "Assault weapon" was going to be legally problematic. Referencing specifically as appearing on September 13, 1994, preserved the definition of "Assault Weapon" thus preserving the MA Assault Weapon Ban. That was the purpose of SECTION 1 of the bill Romney signed.

Is there "anybody on GT", as Acujeff refers to you, who cares to dispute that?I'll take the resounding silence as a "no". So we know Romney did sign a gun control bill.

The funny thing is, given the political climate in MA, there could be rational justification for that move. Maybe not for the "extreme" pro-gunners, but probably enough for the average gun guy. Kind of like Reagan signing the far worse machine gun ban.

But apparently that wasn't enough for GOAL (and by extension, its mouthpiece acujeff). By taking the ridiculous position that "Romney never signed any gun control", they threw away their opportunity to appeal to people's rational side, and instead made themselves look like fools. Maybe when the text of laws weren't so easily accessible on the Internet an argument like that might've flown, but c'mon, it's 2012. Bring your lies into the Internet age!

Acujeff
10-04-2012, 18:24
No further response is necessary. Your allegations are ridiculous.