PDA

View Full Version : An Email Response I Received From Mitt Romney


One78Shovel
10-08-2011, 6:21 PM
For what it's worth-

An email that I, and I'm sure many others, received in response to an email I sent questioning his position on the 2nd Amendment.

-178S

================================================== ===
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 thank you for taking the time to share your views with me.
First, I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. The right to bear arms is essential to our functioning free society. I am proud to count myself as one of the many honest, law-abiding citizens who uses firearms responsibly.
I do not believe in adding any more laws to restrict the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. I resolutely believe in the significance of proper gun ownership and sales. I understand that there are those in this country who wish to remove all guns from our society, but understand I stand firmly against that view. While many in Washington do not, I recognize that there is a difference between law-abiding gun owners and criminals that wish to do harm. Those who choose to use a firearm during the commission of a crime must be punished to the full extent of the law. With that said, we should provide law enforcement with the proper resources to punish and deter criminals, not inconvenience lawful gun owners.
As governor of one of the most liberal states in the country, I was proud to support legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners. I worked hard to advance the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms. I stood against liberal desires to create bureaucracy intended to burden gun owners and sportsmen.
I believe that the support of pro-Second Amendment and sportsmen’s groups in my previous runs for office are a testament to my support of the Second Amendment. As governor, I designated May 7th as “The Right to Bear Arms” Day in Massachusetts to honor law-abiding citizens, like yourself, and their right to “use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property for all lawful purposes, including common defense.” As president, I will fight the battle on all fronts to preserve the Second Amendment.
I am running for president because I believe in America and know that our best days are still ahead. I believe that the principles that made America the leader of the world today—freedom, opportunity, and free enterprise to name just a few—are the very principles that will keep America the leader of the world tomorrow. These last few years have not been the best of times. But while we’ve lost a couple of years, we can still get back on the right track.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I encourage you to visit my website at www.MittRomney.com for updated information on other issues that may be of interest to you. I look forward to hearing from you in the future and earning your support.

Sincerely,

Mitt Romney

Bruce
10-08-2011, 6:29 PM
:puke:

cmaynes
10-08-2011, 6:34 PM
as far as gun rights go- we have had the following which were not changed by Republican administrations- the NFA of 1934. the GCA of 68 and the FOPA of 86.

Right now, under a wingnut Democratic administration, we have the best chance to get the general public behind repealing these laws- bringing a "sane" voice to the table will simply further delay that process. The only candidate who would probably strongly move in our direction may be Rick Perry- but he has a few issues which will probably make him an unlikely choice.

BigDogatPlay
10-08-2011, 7:19 PM
I call that e-mail "pulling a Meg".... and we remember how supportive Ms. Whitman is of Amendment Two.

Mr. Romney's record (http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm) is less than stellar on the subject. And his taking NRA life membership in 2007 was purely a matter of political expediency.

safewaysecurity
10-08-2011, 7:23 PM
He signed into law the assault weapons ban.

Rossi357
10-08-2011, 8:12 PM
This guy is everywhere on every issue. If you don't like what he said today, wait till tomorrow. I would bet that Obama is hoping he gets the nomination.
I like what Ron Paul is saying, but he has a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. If he does get elected, Congress will stop everything he tries to do.

pointedstick
10-08-2011, 8:44 PM
This guy is everywhere on every issue. If you don't like what he said today, wait till tomorrow. I would bet that Obama is hoping he gets the nomination.
I like what Ron Paul is saying, but he has a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. If he does get elected, Congress will stop everything he tries to do.

The current House sure wouldn't! And by the looks of it, the 2012 Senate won't either.

CitaDeL
10-08-2011, 8:50 PM
I do not believe in adding any more laws to restrict the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Translated: I do not believe in subtracting laws restricting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Ubermcoupe
10-08-2011, 8:50 PM
I am not buying his bran. :no:

His generalities about "expanding gun rights" and hailing from another liberal state do nothing for me at this point in time.

jm838
10-08-2011, 8:58 PM
This guy is everywhere on every issue. If you don't like what he said today, wait till tomorrow. I would bet that Obama is hoping he gets the nomination.
I like what Ron Paul is saying, but he has a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. If he does get elected, Congress will stop everything he tries to do.

While I understand that some may question Paul's ability to win votes, I think that many are just assuming he can't win because he isn't traditional enough and will vote against him as a result. When you do this you create a self-fulfilling prophecy. You decide he can't win, so you don't help him, and he doesn't. I'm giving Ron Paul my vote, and if you really like him you may want to reconsider your hesitancy to do the same. If we all do this, he most certainly does stand a chance.

Dreaded Claymore
10-08-2011, 10:22 PM
I call that e-mail "pulling a Meg".... and we remember how supportive Ms. Whitman is of Amendment Two.

Mr. Romney's record (http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm) is less than stellar on the subject. And his taking NRA life membership in 2007 was purely a matter of political expediency.

The second quote on that OnTheIssues page makes my brain hurt. I think he said that he signed a Massachusetts ban on some self-loading rifles, that he would support a bill like it on the federal level, and that he thinks we don't need any more gun laws. Ouch.

While I understand that some may question Paul's ability to win votes, I think that many are just assuming he can't win because he isn't traditional enough and will vote against him as a result. When you do this you create a self-fulfilling prophecy. You decide he can't win, so you don't help him, and he doesn't. I'm giving Ron Paul my vote, and if you really like him you may want to reconsider your hesitancy to do the same. If we all do this, he most certainly does stand a chance.

I, also, will certainly vote for Ron Paul.

gunsandrockets
10-09-2011, 2:13 AM
Meet a victim of Romney's anti-gun law, Clint Cornelius

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2011/09/good_fellow_mov.php

Romney as governor of Massachusetts in 2004, made permanent the Massachusetts ban on self-loading rifles and normal capacity magazines.

gunsandrockets
10-09-2011, 2:39 AM
What Romney said in 2004,


“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.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812

So are we supposed to believe what Romney says to us now? Or do we trust what Romney actually did to us back in 2004 when he wielded real power.

press1280
10-09-2011, 2:42 AM
This guy is everywhere on every issue. If you don't like what he said today, wait till tomorrow. I would bet that Obama is hoping he gets the nomination.
I like what Ron Paul is saying, but he has a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. If he does get elected, Congress will stop everything he tries to do.

Agree-except that Obama doesn't want to face him. Obama wants someone more to the right so he can paint them as a push-granny-over-the-cliff right winger.
Romney,IMO, would just go along with whatever's popular that day. If a bill comes to him repealing the GCA, and it's popular, he'll sign it. I don't think he necessarily cares too much about the issue.

Don29palms
10-09-2011, 6:50 AM
Would you live in Massachusetts? It's another USSK on the east coast and comrade Romney is their leader. He's nothing but a wolf in sheeps clothing.

socal2310
10-09-2011, 7:06 AM
Romney is a populist RINO who wouldn't know a principle if it bit him. Given the state of general public opinion with regard to firearms, he could actually be a good thing for us.

I actually worry about strict constructionists because so many are addicted to stare decisis (Slaughterhouse); because of this, activist decisions will only be overturned by activist jurists.

As Chesterton so eloquently put it:
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

Ryan

ed bernay
10-09-2011, 7:23 AM
when I see a politican use "sportsmen" in his statement about the 2nd amendment, I know he is a weasel. If Romney becomes the Republican nominee, I'll look elsewhere for the person I'll vote for. His record on guns is nothing to be proud of.

a1c
10-09-2011, 7:36 AM
Romney will be the GOP's nominee. He'll pick a running mate with some cred among the evangelical and Tea Party crowd, and will hope for the best.

Ubermcoupe
10-09-2011, 8:17 AM
So are we supposed to believe what Romney says to us now? Or do we trust what Romney actually did to us back in 2004 when he wielded real power.

Asked and answered. :)

Wernher von Browning
10-09-2011, 8:21 AM
when I see a politican use "sportsmen" in his statement about the 2nd amendment, I know he is a weasel.

I can't help it, when I see that usage, I just have to think of this sportsman:

http://www.railbirds.com/gallery/2008/02/20105elmer_fudd2.jpg

"I see some [Elmer Fudds] back there. I'm not going to take your hunting rifle away. I'm not going to take your shotgun away."

ccmc
10-09-2011, 2:01 PM
If Romney becomes the Republican nominee, I'll look elsewhere for the person I'll vote for. His record on guns is nothing to be proud of.

Here's the problem with that. Right now Heller and McDonald were decided by 5-4 votes. Obama has already placed two justices on SCOTUS. Fortunately for RKBA issues they replaced two anti RKBA justices so no net loss. 2013 to 2016 is a long time, and it's possible the next justice to retire will be one of the Heller/McDonald 5. Would you rather have Obama or Romney (or any republican for that matter) be the one to nominate the next SCOTUS justice. If you think it doesn't matter, do you think McCain would have nominated Sotomayor and Kagan? It's quite possible albeit unknowable that had there been a President McCain, that the McDonald decision would have been 6-3 rather than 5-4.

safewaysecurity
10-09-2011, 2:03 PM
I like to post this in Romney threads.

JIeekoQfqVU

berto
10-09-2011, 2:54 PM
Romney's idea of supporting 2A is paying for the photographers when he goes duck hunting with John Kerry.

FishNFool
10-09-2011, 3:05 PM
Maybe he will go shoot clays with DeLeon.

stix213
10-09-2011, 3:09 PM
This is the biggest reason I have trouble supporting the guy:


Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts

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.


He sounds like freaking Boxer. Now if he had just simply signed the semi-auto ban in his state, and said he doesn't support it but he is signing it because the people of his state do, then I could be a little more understanding. That quote though is just damning.

edit: dang just noticed someone else already posted the quote, oops

Bhobbs
10-09-2011, 3:35 PM
as far as gun rights go- we have had the following which were not changed by Republican administrations- the NFA of 1934. the GCA of 68 and the FOPA of 86.

Right now, under a wingnut Democratic administration, we have the best chance to get the general public behind repealing these laws- bringing a "sane" voice to the table will simply further delay that process. The only candidate who would probably strongly move in our direction may be Rick Perry- but he has a few issues which will probably make him an unlikely choice.

Why would you want to repeal FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act)?

The only downside to FOPA is the Hughes Amendment which was illegally added to the Act.

mrrsquared79
10-09-2011, 4:30 PM
While I understand that some may question Paul's ability to win votes, I think that many are just assuming he can't win because he isn't traditional enough and will vote against him as a result. When you do this you create a self-fulfilling prophecy. You decide he can't win, so you don't help him, and he doesn't. I'm giving Ron Paul my vote, and if you really like him you may want to reconsider your hesitancy to do the same. If we all do this, he most certainly does stand a chance.

Where is the like button on here? I guess I will have to settle for this-> :iagree:

wildhawker
10-09-2011, 4:48 PM
Might want to read this little presser: http://www.mittromney.com/press/2011/08/mitt-romney-announces-justice-advisory-committee

-Brandon

cmaynes
10-09-2011, 4:51 PM
Why would you want to repeal FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act)?

The only downside to FOPA is the Hughes Amendment which was illegally added to the Act.

the FOPA was a response to the NFA. Removing the NFA basically erases the value of the FOPA.

safewaysecurity
10-09-2011, 4:56 PM
Might want to read this little presser: http://www.mittromney.com/press/2011/08/mitt-romney-announces-justice-advisory-committee

-Brandon

So Alan Gura is on a panel of lawyers and judges that says they believe Romney will appoint originalist judges? Because the FIRST name I saw was Robert Bork and from what I remember he was not very friendly to the second amendment.

Bork also advocates a modification to the Constitution that would allow Congressional super-majorities to override Supreme Court decisions, similar to the Canadian notwithstanding clause. Though Bork has many liberal critics, some of his arguments have earned criticism from conservatives as well. Although an opponent of gun control,[27] Bork has denounced what he calls the "NRA view" of the Second Amendment, something he describes as the "belief that the constitution guarantees a right to Teflon-coated bullets." Instead, he has argued that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government militia.[28]

YubaRiver
10-09-2011, 4:58 PM
Alan Gura

cmaynes
10-09-2011, 5:00 PM
I have to say I am not too excited about Michael Chertoff being on that list either...

Bhobbs
10-09-2011, 5:05 PM
the FOPA was a response to the NFA. Removing the NFA basically erases the value of the FOPA.

It was actually a response to the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Ubermcoupe
10-09-2011, 5:17 PM
I like to post this in Romney threads.

JIeekoQfqVU

Sounds vaguely familiar, all we need is a wind sail. Good find! :thumbsup:
pbdzMLk9wHQ

Just Dave
10-09-2011, 6:16 PM
Would you live in Massachusetts? It's another USSK on the east coast and comrade Romney is their leader. He's nothing but a wolf in sheeps clothing.

One word: Romneycare

ed bernay
10-09-2011, 6:44 PM
Here's the problem with that. Right now Heller and McDonald were decided by 5-4 votes. Obama has already placed two justices on SCOTUS. Fortunately for RKBA issues they replaced two anti RKBA justices so no net loss. 2013 to 2016 is a long time, and it's possible the next justice to retire will be one of the Heller/McDonald 5. Would you rather have Obama or Romney (or any republican for that matter) be the one to nominate the next SCOTUS justice. If you think it doesn't matter, do you think McCain would have nominated Sotomayor and Kagan? It's quite possible albeit unknowable that had there been a President McCain, that the McDonald decision would have been 6-3 rather than 5-4.

The reason why we get stuck with scum politicians is because they think we have no where to go. You know what, if there is no real difference between Obama and Romney then why do I want Republicans to get blamed when the policies screw up the country. I want politicians to start caring about the constitution. If the Dems want to have a new SCOTUS repeal Heller/McDonald via a new case, then go ahead. The response from the public will be what this country really needs.

Jason P
10-09-2011, 6:44 PM
He makes me want to puke, the "King of the conservative talking points". Seriously creepy disingenuous vibe I get from that one...

One78Shovel
10-09-2011, 7:03 PM
Romney's idea of supporting 2A is paying for the photographers when he goes duck hunting with John Kerry.

Hopefully it's not with Dick Cheney. :D

-178S

J.D.Allen
10-09-2011, 7:29 PM
Meh. Blah blah blah...verbal diarrhea.

gunsandrockets
10-09-2011, 7:30 PM
The smart move with partisan politics

Yes, Romney is pretty awful. Yes, I will do all I can to insure he is NOT the nominee of the Republican Party.

But come November 2012, if Romney is the Republican candidate for President I will hold my nose and vote for Romney. Because control of the U.S. Supreme Court and the fate of the 2nd Amendment is at stake.

Presidents come and go, but the Constitution? The Constitution is damn near forever. How long have we waited to get a good decision out of the U.S. Supreme court regarding RKBA? Since 1939? That's sixty-nine years! And all that progress could be lost depending on if Obama is still president after 2012.

Be smart people. The right time to challenge RINOs and other problem candidates is during the primary season. Get involved! Spend money! Make a difference!

But when the general election rolls around, the smart thing is to vote for the lessor of two evils. That is just the nature of our political system. It's not designed to make quick and big changes; it moves at a glacial pace. But you have to push that glacier to succeed in eventually changing things your liking. If you throw up your hands in frustration the enemy wins.

Obama is smart enough to know that. Look at all he has done for his cause by accepting half a loaf instead of holding out for the whole enchilada. Play the long game and win. If you insist on the short game you lose.

wildhawker
10-09-2011, 8:05 PM
An excellent post. (I'd nit over the possibility of a post-Heller slide, but, all in all, agree with the points made going to pragmatic politics.)

-Brandon

The smart move with partisan politics

Yes, Romney is pretty awful. Yes, I will do all I can to insure he is NOT the nominee of the Republican Party.

But come November 2012, if Romney is the Republican candidate for President I will hold my nose and vote for Romney. Because control of the U.S. Supreme Court and the fate of the 2nd Amendment is at stake.

Presidents come and go, but the Constitution? The Constitution is damn near forever. How long have we waited to get a good decision out of the U.S. Supreme court regarding RKBA? Since 1939? That's sixty-nine years! And all that progress could be lost depending on if Obama is still president after 2012.

Be smart people. The right time to challenge RINOs and other problem candidates is during the primary season. Get involved! Spend money! Make a difference!

But when the general election rolls around, the smart thing is to vote for the lessor of two evils. That is just the nature of our political system. It's not designed to make quick and big changes; it moves at a glacial pace. But you have to push that glacier to succeed in eventually changing things your liking. If you throw up your hands in frustration the enemy wins.

Obama is smart enough to know that. Look at all he has done for his cause by accepting half a loaf instead of holding out for the whole enchilada. Play the long game and win. If you insist on the short game you lose.

gunsandrockets
10-09-2011, 10:38 PM
An excellent post. (I'd nit over the possibility of a post-Heller slide, but, all in all, agree with the points made going to pragmatic politics.)

-Brandon


:cheers2: