Romney Will Not Sign An Assault Weapons Ban
 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Nug...8/10/id/448226

Multiple Mitt's answer depends on who asks him and which day of the week it is. Eventually he'll give every answer to every question.

Hasnt given the wrong answer in almost 2 decades.

Do I have to remind you YET AGAIN, what Obama's AG said about the adminstration's position on guns in 2009?

I don't think congress will send a new assault weapons ban to president Romney, and if they did, I don't think he would sign it.

Due to the popularity of guns in this country, gun control is rapidly becoming another "third rail of politics", just like social security.

That doesn't mean there won't be increased restrictions on firearms and ammo.

I think the new tactic of the anti-gunners will be the banning of certain types of ammo, ban internet sales of ammo and guns, and place a huge federal tax on the sale of guns and ammo.

Making firearms expensive and hard to get will serve the same purpose as an outright ban.

..

I don't see any of that happening for the same reasons you cited.

Guns are just too damn popular.

Question:

Has Mitt himself publicly stated that he will not sign an AWB if elected? Is he on record saying this in straight terms?

I don't particularly care what Nugent thinks. A big enough check and I'm sure he'd say anything he was paid to say.

You don't believe Romney is against a gun ban yet, you claim Obama will not ban guns in spite of his assurance he will.

Is this directed at me? If so, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm pretty certain both would sign an AWB if it came to the desk. Just like GWB said he would. And Clinton actually did. etc etc.

I want to know if Romney himself has ever been on record saying he will not sign an AWB if elected President? Simple question. This seems to be missing from all the talk about where he stands on 2A and his AWB history. It wouldnt be difficult and would be beneficial to his campaign to state this in clear terms since it's such a controversial part of his record.

Well, I am sure I don't want him in the White House and his man as Attorney General.

"On February 25, 2009 newly sworn-in Attorney General Eric Holder repeated the Obama administration's desire to reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[18] The mention came in response to a question, about 20 minutes into a joint press conference with DEA Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart, discussing efforts to crack down on Mexican drug cartels. Attorney General Holder said: "[...] there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons." (from wikipedia)

Wasting votes on a third party won't get them out.

janice, he's just mad because romney won't legalize weed, and he just figured out that 2+2= no way in hell ron paul wins.

Stay on topic please. Im sure you can get some legal Adderall to help you stay focused.

Has Romney ever stated he will not sign an AWB as President?

YES! A thousand times, YES!

Same blah, blah. Different blah, blah.

It a'int gonna happen no matter what trolls say.

Now if Obama gets re-elected that's another story. I wouldn't put anything past that socialist/statist sum bish.

I just saw the other thread on this from today. I guess this is the best statement we'll get. Yes that's good Mitt, but you aren't saying that you wouldn't sign the law.

From Romney's website:

Like the majority of Americans, Mitt does not believe that the United States needs additional laws that restrict the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. He believes in the safe and responsible ownership and use of firearms and the right to lawfully manufacture and sell firearms and ammunition.

As president, Mitt will work to expand and enhance access and opportunities for Americans to hunt, shoot, and protect their families, homes and property, and he will fight the battle on all fronts to protect and promote the Second Amendment.

.....he does not support adding more laws and regulations that do nothing more than burden law-abiding citizens while being ignored by criminals.

more at:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/gun-rights

Whereas Obama and the Democrats are campaigning on re-instating the AWB, banning private gun transfers and sales, and regulating ammo purchases.

He's repeatedly said in both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns that he won't sign any new gun control laws.

Explicit example:

I do not believe we need new legislation. I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. We have laws in place that, if they’re implemented & enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have.
Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida , Jan 24, 2008

Putting it in writing…thanks guys!

He's still not saying he won't sign it into law. Claiming to not support new gun control doesn't equate to not signing it. First, an AWB is not a new law. Been there, done that. Second, Obama signs laws he says he doesn't support all the time. NDAA for example. With politicians, what they don't say is at least as important as what they do say.

I want to see him state explicitly that he will not sign an AWB as President. I don't care what he says he supports. That would only be worth something if he had a consistent record in the first place. Go on record with an unequivocal statement about what you would do as President.

You're really being tedious at this point.

It's clear he won't sign it. Troll elsewhere.

Romney's atrocious record requires tediousness. Considering how many times he's flip-flopped on practically every issue imaginable, why are you willing to give him wiggle room now? I want concrete statements on what he would do as President, not statements of "support". Say an AWB is passed by Congress and comes to Romney's desk. Romney could sign it, while saying he doesn't support it, and claim it was because "that's what the people wanted" or claiming he doesn't want his veto overturned or some other cop out. This is why you must be tedious with these politicians.

Obama is the only candidate campaigning on re-instating the AWB and making more gun control. Only Obama supporters are claiming Romney is the threat to our RKBA.

If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-2A bills while he was Gov.. He only reduced gun control or signed pro-2A bills into law. He removed gun control language from bills sent to him by the 85% anti-2A democrat congress. When it come to the RKBA Romney has already been tested and is the opposite of atrocious.

Romney‘s actual entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html
http://www.ammoland.com/2012/10/02/g...#ixzz28AyBR021

Romney is not the same as Obama. In 2008 Romney was rated "B" by the NRA and Obama was rated "F". Since then, Romney has only become more pro-2A and Obama more anti-2A. Romney would be a much better President for gun-owners than Obama.

Romney would be a much better President than Gary Johnson too. As Gov of NM for 8 years, Johnson achieved absolutely no pro-2A progress. Gun owners had to wait till Johnson left office to even get CCW. He publicly presented himself then as a non gun owner and had no desire to own one. Now that he’s running for President, he wants to own a gun. How is he good for gun owners?

Gary Johnson was a Republican for his entire political career from 1994 to late 2011, when he abandoned his Republican primary candidacy. He's only been an official Libertarian this year.

Libertarians are just hypocrites when they come to gun forums to call gun owners sheep for voting Republican when they are voting Johnson for the sake of "their" party. Johnson has no chance of even winning one state! How is that good for gun owners?

If Libertarians were honest about helping the RKBA they would be helping Romney beat Obama rather than calling for splitting the vote and trying to ensure Obama gets a 2nd term.

How is another 4 years of Obama good for gun owners?

Most Libertarians realize that and are voting for Romney.
From Cato: Polls Show Romney Winning the Libertarian Vote
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/poll-...ertarian-vote/

The benefits of President Romney pro-2A platform and record are much more preferable to gun owners, and our kids, than the "let's let Obama send the USA to hell to teach Republicans a lesson" platform of the GT Libertarian strategists.

I don't trust either of them to be quite honest.

Only one candidate actually advocates/calls for gun bans.....
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1447238

An AWB is not politically popular at this time. It did cost Clinton dearly and most democrats are not eager to tackle this in the near future.

This is issue is one of the criticisms that I've levied against Romney. His statements made when signing the AWB as governor were simply wrong and alarming.

With that said, he's a smart enough guy to know that he will lose critical support if he takes that to a national level. Therefore I don't believe that he will lead an effort to reinstate an AWB.

Now contrast that with Obama. Obama has continued to make backdoor efforts to put the squeeze on the right to bear arms. His EPA goon squad is constantly on the attack. We've all seen the UN treaty discussions, which I doubt would be supported by our lawmakers. However he has demonstrated a desire to go after gun owners.

Of the two leading candidates, I think Romney would be the better choice on this issue. Of course, I cannot think of a single issue where Obama would be a better choice though :supergrin: