[cysoto]

In his four years as governor of the State of Massachusetts, did Mitt Romney sign any legislation in favor of relaxing the strict gun control laws of that state?

[RCP]

Some argue that was the case, of course there's the quote in my sig line during his term as Governor that should make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

[cysoto]

To this point, I have only heard of his support to the Assault Weapons Ban signed on 2004 but, as a Conservative candidate, I was hoping to also find instances of support to the Second Amendment. So far, I am not finding anything...

[Flintlocker]

In 2004 he signed in to law an assault weapon ban stating: '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."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846204/posts

[Captain Ron]

Just why we should vote for this empty suit. We did that last time around, I'm tired of voting for lesser of the two evils.

[ricklee4570]

After a long talk with Ted Nugent, Ted is endorsing Romney. The NRA is also endorsing him as he pledged "No new gun laws" if he is elected President. If he were to go against his word, he knows he would be a one term President (if he is elected). He also vowed to nominate pro second amendment justices to the Supreme Court.

I think that is way better than the alternative, Obama, who has hinted that if re-elected he would work with handgun control incrporated to enact some (his words) sensible gun laws that will make the citizens safer.

[ricklee4570]

Originally Posted by Captain Ron

Just why we should vote for this empty suit. We did that last time around, I'm tired of voting for lesser of the two evils.

You either vote for the lesser of two evils or you allow the "more evil" to remain in office.

In this case, Romney is a LOT lesser.

[JFrame]

Originally Posted by ricklee4570

After a long talk with Ted Nugent, Ted is endorsing Romney. The NRA is also endorsing him as he pledged "No new gun laws" if he is elected President. If he were to go against his word, he knows he would be a one term President (if he is elected). He also vowed to nominate pro second amendment justices to the Supreme Court.

I think that is way better than the alternative, Obama, who has hinted that if re-elected he would work with handgun control incrporated to enact some (his words) sensible gun laws that will make the citizens safer.

Yeah -- we've already seen what Obama and his "Justice" department are willing to do "under the radar."


.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Flintlocker

In 2004 he signed in to law an assault weapon ban stating: '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."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846204/posts

Good - that means he's still a better choice for gun owners than Barack Obama in a second term.

[jeanderson]

Originally Posted by Captain Ron

Just why we should vote for this empty suit. We did that last time around, I'm tired of voting for lesser of the two evils.

If you don't vote for the "empty suit", you're voting for the Marxist who will take your gun. This is not just another election - it's perhaps the last.

Look, I'm not crazy about Mitt either. But the alternative? Seriously?

[IvanVic]

Originally Posted by jeanderson

If you don't vote for the "empty suit", you're voting for the Marxist who will take your gun. This is not just another election - it's perhaps the last.

I think this type of trumped-up hysteria is nothing more than someone trying to justify their vote that is based on nothing more than a letter in front of Romney's name, rather than a vote based on actual policy decisions.

If you have to convince yourself that Obama is going to declare himself King and outlaw elections, after he takes your guns (of course), you'd look a lot better just admitting that you are voting for a moderate Republican candidate who is not very pro-gun.

[ricklee4570]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

I think this type of trumped-up hysteria is nothing more than someone trying to justify their vote that is based on nothing more than a letter in front of Romney's name, rather than a vote based on actual policy decisions.

If you have to convince yourself that Obama is going to declare himself King and outlaw elections, after he takes your guns (of course), you'd look a lot better just admitting that you are voting for a moderate Republican candidate who is not very pro-gun.

Sounds like you are ok with 4 more years of Obama. Those who are not as happy with the current admisnistration have a choice to remove him. He can only be removed with a vote for Romney.

[GAFinch]

Originally Posted by cysoto

To this point, I have only heard of his support to the Assault Weapons Ban signed on 2004 but, as a Conservative candidate, I was hoping to also find instances of support to the Second Amendment. So far, I am not finding anything...

When Mass. legislators wanted to renew their AWB after the federal one went away, Romney agreed to sign it so he could ensure that numerous pro-gun provisions were included. If he hadn't signed it, the next governor would have, without the pro-gun provisions.

[cowboy1964]

Not voting for Romney IS a vote for Obama. It's that simple.

[IvanVic]

Originally Posted by ricklee4570

Sounds like you are ok with 4 more years of Obama.

Absolutely not - but I am not voting for Romney because I think Obama is going to declare himself king, outlaw elections and take my guns. I'm voting for Romney because I believe he will handle the economy better, not spend as much, and not expand the federal government as much as Obama would. There's a big difference there.

I think some hard-right conservatives are not comfortable with Romney, so they have to create these fictitious scenarios in order to justify their vote. I saw a tea party patriots sticker on a GS330 a few days ago. Next to it was a Romney sticker - this is precisely what I'm talking about.

[Kablam]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

I think this type of trumped-up hysteria is nothing more than someone trying to justify their vote that is based on nothing more than a letter in front of Romney's name, rather than a vote based on actual policy decisions.

If you have to convince yourself that Obama is going to declare himself King and outlaw elections, after he takes your guns (of course), you'd look a lot better just admitting that you are voting for a moderate Republican candidate who is not very pro-gun.

I don't think anybody said "outlaw" elections. 4 more years of growing the percentage of voters reliant on the government will make elections irrelevant (permanent entitlement majority). I'm sure you understand why democracies do not work as a form of government. As soon as the majority is getting what they want, there is no choice for the rest and tyranny is the result. I believe that's the sentiment expressed, and it is not "trumped up hysteria." We're witnessing that movement in real time here.

On the issue of gun control, a "moderate republican candidate who is not very pro-gun" beats a radical progressive wannabe ruler who is overtly and admittedly anti-gun.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Bren

Good - that means he's still a better choice for gun owners than Barack Obama in a second term.

That is a good, succinct summary.

[cysoto]

Originally Posted by GAFinch

When Mass. legislators wanted to renew their AWB after the federal one went away, Romney agreed to sign it so he could ensure that numerous pro-gun provisions were included.

That's exactly what I am hoping to find! What were these pro-gun provisions that were included?

[jeanderson]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

I think this type of trumped-up hysteria is nothing more than someone trying to justify their vote that is based on nothing more than a letter in front of Romney's name, rather than a vote based on actual policy decisions.

If you have to convince yourself that Obama is going to declare himself King and outlaw elections, after he takes your guns (of course), you'd look a lot better just admitting that you are voting for a moderate Republican candidate who is not very pro-gun.

First, I consider myself a conservative with libertarian leanings. A small "r" republican, if you will. That means that I end up voting mostly, not exclusively, for Republican candidates.

Second, you can call me a crazy right-wing conspiracy theorist, but yes, I do believe Obama will try to do everything to become "king". He unilaterally declares illegals legal. He issues an executive order that gives him power to take over all communication in case of emergency, with no definition of what an emergency is. His life story is made up. He lies routinely with no one in the media calling him out - because the media has either been bought or threatened, not sure which.

Do I really like Romney? Not really. But I'm voting for him because compared to the alternative, he's a thousand times better.

Yeah, it sucks having to vote for the lesser of two evils. But when one of them is Barack Hussein Obama, it's easy.

[Chronos]

Originally Posted by cowboy1964

Not voting for Romney IS a vote for Obama. It's that simple.

You know it's bad when the best case people can possibly make for Romney happens to be a bald-faced lie.

[JFrame]

Originally Posted by cysoto

That's exactly what I am hoping to find! What were these pro-gun provisions that were included?

You might want to do a search on the GTPI postings by a member named Acujeff. He lists his location as Boston, MA, and he has frequently discussed Romney's actions vis-a-vis gun control.

Here are a few threads I pulled up at random on which he has contributed:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show...1408042&page=2

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1393272

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1408474


.

.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Chronos

You know it's bad when the best case people can possibly make for Romney happens to be a bald-faced lie.

The only person who can defeat Obama is Romney. A vote for anyone other than Romney is a wasted vote that does nothing to get Obama out of office, hence is a decision to keep Obama in office.

The time to vote "conscience" was in the primary. That is the time to vote for the person that can influence the Party's platform to include some of the things you think are important, then you push that platform and the chosen candidate in the General Election.

[amazon]

Perhaps you will find this helpful information. And as stated previsouly - the Democrat controlled, veto proof legislature was going to pass an AWB. Romney could not stop it. At least we still have AR's here.

snip..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:

http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

[Acujeff]

A few folks on GT have been opining that Romney is anti-RKBA because he made a statement in 2004 supporting the AWB.

GW Bush was also often categorized as “anti-gun” for making essentially the same statement - but he appointed two pro-RKBA Justices to the Supreme Court giving us the majority to win Heller and McDonald, the AWB was allowed to expire and much pro-RKBA legislation progress was made during his administration.

Of course, Obama supporters don’t want gunowners to see this Romney statement:

“The Second Amendment protects the individual right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly support this essential freedom and I applaud the recent federal appeals court decision in Washington, D.C., which concluded that the Second Amendment protects an individualized right to keep and bear arms. As President, I will support that interpretation and protect the right of every law abiding American to keep and use firearms. With respect to gun control laws, I believe we need to distinguish between law abiding gun owners and criminals who use guns. Those who use a firearm during the commission of a 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.” (Romney 2008)

However, statements do not amount to a position, a record does.

I'm going to present Romney's record backed up with links to complete, long and complicated MA laws. But for just a complete summary you can go to the 2 links at the end of my post.

If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-gun bills while he was Gov. of MA 2002-2006.

What is known today as the highly restrictive gun control laws in MA were passed in 1998 by the Massachusetts legislature (over 85% anti-gun Democrat). It included MA’s assault weapons ban that was more restrictive than the 1994 Fed AWB.

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

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Se...998/Chapter180

It is clear that this AW 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, or affect, MA's own permanent AWB.

MA Gun owners wanted to get rid of the ban in 2004, but did not have the votes in the state Legislature (consisting of 171 anti-gun democrats and only 29 republicans). When the Fed ban expired in 2004, Gun Owners’ Action League (the MA based pro-2A group) and Romney used the opportunity to amend the MA AWB by including the federal exemptions and a few other improvements that were not in the state law.

CHAPTER 150 AN ACT FURTHER REGULATING CERTAIN WEAPONS
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Se...004/Chapter150

If Romney did not sign that bill, the more restrictive AWB would still be in place today. If Romney was as pro-gun control as some on GT would like you to believe, then he should have, in the very least, done nothing and let things stand. Or he could have tacked on more restrictions and gun control. When it was politically expedient to be pro-gun control his actions show he was pro-gun.

So the actual truth is, in 2004, Romney signed a bill that amended the permanent AWB and made it less strict. Some folks on GT are misrepresenting his record and claiming that Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004.

Let's look at the rest of Romney's record:
During the Romney Administration he met and worked with Gun Owners’ Action League (the Mass. based pro-2A group) and no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. In addition, he removed any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006, and signed five pro-second amendment bills into law.

Review Romney's actual record and decide for yourself:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

Here’s Romney’s position on Gun Rights:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/gun-rights

Romney earned a B from the NRA and Obama an F. There is no "evil" to accept in Romney. Romney deserves our support and vote because his record is much better than Obama's and, as President, he will be much better for the RKBA.

[Harbour]

Originally Posted by countrygun

The only person who can defeat Obama is Romney. A vote for anyone other than Romney is a wasted vote that does nothing to get Obama out of office, hence is a decision to keep Obama in office.

While this is debatable, it is not what you said before, which was......

"Not voting for Romney IS a vote for Obama."

That was, and still is a LIE.