PDA

View Full Version : Romney flips on 2nd, says he won't sign an AWB2


KenpoProfessor
02-03-2008, 2:36 PM
http://politicscentral.com/2008/02/02/the_glenn_and_helen_show_mitt_1.php

You'll have to listen for a few minutes and the topic of guns and bans comes up. Well, he flipped from his last interview in this one.

At least Ron Paul has not swayed from his original platform.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

hawk1
02-03-2008, 2:50 PM
Was that a flip or a flop? :p

I trust we'll see more of this as things get tighter.

I'm still leaning towards Romney. Not sure if McCain would back us or sell us out.
What to do...:confused:

Josh3239
02-03-2008, 3:12 PM
IMHO Romney would no doubt sell us out quicker than any of the GOP candidate left standing. McCain is no doubt second though.

CCWFacts
02-03-2008, 3:38 PM
He sounded solid on that. Look at the reality of it: he wouldn't able to be governor of MA, or to achieve very much as governor of MA, if he took positions on issues that were far out of the MA mainstream. That meant letting the gun issue go, whatever his beliefs. If MA wants to start having its gun rights, they need to start electing legislators who support that. The governor has to play the hand he's dealt (ie, the legislature). When / if he gets to the Whitehouse, he has a very different hand: the US Congress. And the US Congress is a lot more friendly to gun rights than the MA state leg.

Remember, president and governor are executive positions. They can implement policies that the legislatures pass. They can use their influence to push for certain positions. But it's the leg. that makes the laws.

SchooBaka
02-03-2008, 3:46 PM
The question is, should we beleive Romney?
For those who said he had to compromise as governor, what makes you think he won't compromise as president with a democratic house and sentate?
I think people should stand firm on thier beliefs and principles.
When we compromise, we lose, period.
For years we have allowed the constitution to be compromised, where has that put us today?

Wulf
02-03-2008, 4:05 PM
Romeny's past stance on the 2nd, although wrong, correctly reflected the will of the people that elected him. While I dont respect the position he took, I respect his fidelity to his constituents.

McCain OTOH, while he has held a better opinion on the 2nd than Romney, was not reflecting his constituents very well. He could and should have been much more strong on the 2nd as the Senator from Arizona. The pattern of behavior exhibited by McCain (following his own ideas more than that of the people he represents) is something he's done on a whole range of issues.... immigration, economic, campaign finance, support for Bush, etc. Ignoring his constituents, and his oath to protect and defend, and the limits of his office, and his allegiance to his party, are a quartet of unforgivable sins IMHO.

I would love to have the option to vote for a President that held every one of my ideals as their own. Since that's never going to happen, I prefer to have one that can first and foremost, set aside their own ideals in favor of protecting and defending the Constitution on issues the Constitution speaks to, and secondly, on all other issues, can set aside personal policy preferences and lead in the direction of the will of the people leavened with a little common sense.

stator
02-03-2008, 4:11 PM
Romney has flipped on issue to move more conservative; Mccain has crapped all over the constitution as senator; Ron Paul is dead as a viable candidate; Huckabee is whoring for the VP job.

My party seems to be screwed up right now.

SchooBaka
02-03-2008, 4:23 PM
Romney has flipped on issue to move more conservative; Mccain has crapped all over the constitution as senator; Ron Paul is dead as a viable candidate; Huckabee is whoring for the VP job.

My party seems to be screwed up right now.

Well, if you listen to alot of the so called conservative talk radio pundits right now, it's beginning to look like they are setting up Mccain as the fall guy so that hillary can be easily installed into office.

Josh3239
02-03-2008, 4:27 PM
Romney has flipped on issue to move more conservative; Mccain has crapped all over the constitution as senator; Ron Paul is dead as a viable candidate; Huckabee is whoring for the VP job.

My party seems to be screwed up right now.

The GOP party isn't the only one screwed. The democrats have Obama and Clinton. As far as I am concerned we are all losers. IMHO no matter what, we are gonna get a president weak on illegal immigration and guns and the chances are good that univeral healthcare and amnesty for illegals will happen.

gazzavc
02-03-2008, 4:47 PM
Show me a politician, and i'll show you a bloody liar.........

(My Dad, circa 1975)

hawk1
02-03-2008, 5:06 PM
Well, if you listen to alot of the so called conservative talk radio pundits right now, it's beginning to look like they are setting up Mccain as the fall guy so that hillary can be easily installed into office.

I could belive this if you switched the name of McCain with Huckabee. When the media was hyping Huckabee it looked as if they needed their "religious, right wing, fill in the blank, bad guy to prop up Hillary. I still believe a McCain Hillary race would be won by McCain. Her (and Bills) negatives are too high...

bwiese
02-03-2008, 5:11 PM
He sounded solid on that. Look at the reality of it: he wouldn't able to be governor of MA, or to achieve very much as governor of MA, if he took positions on issues that were far out of the MA mainstream. That meant letting the gun issue go, whatever his beliefs. If MA wants to start having its gun rights, they need to start electing legislators who support that. The governor has to play the hand he's dealt (ie, the legislature). When / if he gets to the Whitehouse, he has a very different hand: the US Congress. And the US Congress is a lot more friendly to gun rights than the MA state leg.

Remember, president and governor are executive positions. They can implement policies that the legislatures pass. They can use their influence to push for certain positions. But it's the leg. that makes the laws.

Great summary.

THE ONLY RKBA THING WE SHOULD WORRY ABOUT THIS ELECTION IS WHAT TYPE OF JUSTICES A PROSPECTIVE PREZ WOULD NOMINATE TO THE SUPREMES. It appears most prez candidates are leaning toward "originalists" (incl. McCain & Romney).

Individual gun attitudes of prospective Repub. presidential candidates are much less important; we can't be complacent, but on a Senate/House thing we generally are in pretty good shape, will stay in about the same pro- vs. anti-gun skew, and the pro-gun skew actually *improved* with 2006 elections.

dfletcher
02-03-2008, 6:09 PM
http://politicscentral.com/2008/02/02/the_glenn_and_helen_show_mitt_1.php

You'll have to listen for a few minutes and the topic of guns and bans comes up. Well, he flipped from his last interview in this one.

At least Ron Paul has not swayed from his original platform.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Here's the problem with his explanation.

He asserts that gun owners and gun control groups came together and the Massachusetts AW ban he signed resulted in a relaxation of some existing gun laws. Not exactly true.

I'm from southern New Hampshire, my family lives in northern MA and the Cape and I visited for a few weeks last year. In theory handgun issue permits were simplified. The two tiered system which allowed anyone to easily get an LTC (license to carry) for target & hunting but had much stricter requirements for concealed carry, has been eliminated and all permits now are for "all lawful purposes". An LTC is required to purchase a handgun. So that "complicated" system - one easy permit for most people, one tougher for others - is gone and replaced by a permit that is more difficult to get for most people. Other restrictions such as magazine capacity and guns carried were added. When I had my concealed carry permit I could have carried anthing I wanted - Detonics with 6 rounds, BHP with 15 rounds or a Model 29. That's no longer the case.

Romney presents this as being a plus for gun owners. I did not speak to a single gun owner in MA who had anything positive to say about him. The standard line I heard was that without GOAL & NRA all MA gun owners would have been SOL.

Romney's positive spin on this goes to integrity. He knows most folks outside MA don't know the specifics of what was done to MA gun owners and he's taking advantage of that, much like the senior Senator from MA and his "I accidentally turned right instead of left" explanation.

Forever-A-Soldier
02-03-2008, 6:12 PM
The question is, should we beleive Romney?
For those who said he had to compromise as governor, what makes you think he won't compromise as president with a democratic house and sentate?
I think people should stand firm on thier beliefs and principles.
When we compromise, we lose, period.
For years we have allowed the constitution to be compromised, where has that put us today?

+1

Romney just doesn't seem to have any firm principles. Some things in life are non-negotiable. The 2A should be one of them.

F.A.S. Out

Wulf
02-03-2008, 6:14 PM
+1

Romney just doesn't seem to have any firm principles. Some things in life are non-negotiable. The 2A should be one of them.

F.A.S. Out

You say that like it helps narrow down the choices.

Blackflag
02-03-2008, 6:32 PM
THE ONLY RKBA THING WE SHOULD WORRY ABOUT THIS ELECTION IS WHAT TYPE OF JUSTICES A PROSPECTIVE PREZ WOULD NOMINATE TO THE SUPREMES.

Why? Whether new federal legislation goes through - like a new AWB - depends on the president. Not the Supreme Court.

Plus, it's too late to affect the outcome of Heller.

As far as Romney goes, I would not believe anything he promises.

dfletcher
02-03-2008, 7:03 PM
That Romney, McCain, Obama and Clinton are speaking positively about the 2nd - and I know some of it is more qualified or dissembling than we'd like, such as Obama's recent Idaho trip - means they understand they need us to get in. Especially Romney and McCain regarding the nomination. The trick is once they get there how do we hold them accountable and persuade them to not do an Arnold?

Can't we pretty much predict if McCain or Romney are elected and don't stand fast, we'll be having a "well, who else are you going to vote for?" four years from now just as we did earlier with Arnold?

trashman
02-03-2008, 7:53 PM
on a Senate/House thing we generally are in pretty good shape, will stay in about the same pro- vs. anti-gun skew, and the pro-gun skew actually *improved* with 2006 elections.

And as I have said before, that is due to more conservative western Democrats (in places like Colorado) making inroads.

All told we (as gun owners) are in better shape if both parties feel like they own the RKBA issues - rather than just one. Centralizing the issue between the parties is key, IMO, to stabilizing our rights in a general, national, sense.

--Neill

bruss01
02-04-2008, 10:47 AM
Romney stated just 2 weeks ago that he SUPPORTED an assault weapon ban.

flip... flop... flip... flop...

Whatever platform he is elected on, it will change to something different the week after inauguration. Every card this guy draws from the deck is the joker... he can play it any way he chooses.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-04-2008, 4:08 PM
Great summary.

THE ONLY RKBA THING WE SHOULD WORRY ABOUT THIS ELECTION IS WHAT TYPE OF JUSTICES A PROSPECTIVE PREZ WOULD NOMINATE TO THE SUPREMES. It appears most prez candidates are leaning toward "originalists" (incl. McCain & Romney).

Individual gun attitudes of prospective Repub. presidential candidates are much less important; we can't be complacent, but on a Senate/House thing we generally are in pretty good shape, will stay in about the same pro- vs. anti-gun skew, and the pro-gun skew actually *improved* with 2006 elections.

So Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, but your position is that it doesn't matter which Republican gets into office, just so long as its a Republican?

I mean, I dont believe anyone has the foresight to tell exactly what type of nominee Romney or McCain would put forward, some variation of conservative could be assumed, but we know for sure that as far as RKBA goes, the Dems would likely nominate someone hostile towards the individual right to bear arms.

I agree and thats why after the nomination, as I've said before, we need to close ranks and vote for the Republican nominee, regardless of where we stand during the primary cycle. Of course, our votes as Republicans, will be cancelled out by the Democrats in the general election, but lets assume for the moment that RKBA was not an issue, it was settled...is there no other issue(s) that drive you politically?

Josh3239
02-04-2008, 4:21 PM
Romney stated just 2 weeks ago that he SUPPORTED an assault weapon ban.

flip... flop... flip... flop...

Whatever platform he is elected on, it will change to something different the week after inauguration. Every card this guy draws from the deck is the joker... he can play it any way he chooses.

I know it doesn't affect those of us behind enemy lines but he also said that he doesn't believe anybody should have the right to own NFA. I will never give my vote to Romney under any circumstance, there are so few issues that Romney hasn't flip flopped and/or lied about. In my mind, he is just your typical snake-in-the-grass politician.

bwiese
02-04-2008, 4:21 PM
Why? Whether new federal legislation goes through - like a new AWB - depends on the president. Not the Supreme Court.

Correct, but that's a limited view.

No new AWB will emerge given current mix/sentiments of House/Senate, which is fairly static. The general progun tilt of both houses of Congres even veered a bit more pro-gun in the 2006 elections! Vigilance is required, but I think we're in pretty good shape.

Carolyn McCarthy's proposed AWB is just a sop to her constituencies and maybe a feel-good for a fundraiser.


Plus, it's too late to affect the outcome of Heller.Heller is just a start - the road, not the destination. It's of somewhat limited importance when considered by itself: what derivatives can spring from it is really why it's valuable.

bwiese
02-04-2008, 4:25 PM
So Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, but your position is that it doesn't matter which Republican gets into office, just so long as its a Republican?

I mean, I dont believe anyone has the foresight to tell exactly what type of nominee Romney or McCain would put forward, some variation of conservative could be assumed, but we know for sure that as far as RKBA goes, the Dems would likely nominate someone hostile towards the individual right to bear arms.

Well, hell, I wanted Fred myself ("Pipe smokers for Fred!").

But the various R frontrunners seem to repeatedly identify with nominating 'originalists' (i.e., "non living document" types) for a variety of reasons (property rights, etc.) aside from RKBA concerns. So I think we actually get that as a nice byproduct from such a nomination without the drama of it being a primary issue.

Remember, Alex Kozinski and Janice Rogers Brown have to be on any R's short list of prospective nominees :)

FreedomIsNotFree
02-04-2008, 4:56 PM
Well, hell, I wanted Fred myself ("Pipe smokers for Fred!").

But the various R frontrunners seem to repeatedly identify with nominating 'originalists' (i.e., "non living document" types) for a variety of reasons (property rights, etc.) aside from RKBA concerns. So I think we actually get that as a nice byproduct from such a nomination without the drama of it being a primary issue.

Remember, Alex Kozinski and Janice Rogers Brown have to be on any R's short list of prospective nominees :)


I imagine I was trying to see how far you would bend on non-RKBA issues. I understand from previous posts that you are not too fond of the Huckabee, creationist, stance. If say, Huckabee gets the nomination, which we know wont actually happen, with SCOTUS nominations in mind, would you still vote for someone who you have distinct and large disagreements with..even though they are still an (R)? Just how far are you willing to bend for RKBA?

bwiese
02-04-2008, 5:29 PM
I imagine I was trying to see how far you would bend on non-RKBA issues. I understand from previous posts that you are not too fond of the Huckabee, creationist, stance. If say, Huckabee gets the nomination, which we know wont actually happen, with SCOTUS nominations in mind, would you still vote for someone who you have distinct and large disagreements with..even though they are still an (R)? Just how far are you willing to bend for RKBA?


I vote RKBA + taxes over anything else.

Someone quoted me in his sigline, "I'd vote for a donkey-sex maniac if he's progun." (Reference was to Larry Craig situation.)

And, yes, Huckster by a mile over the Hilldog or Obama.

While I am non-/anti-religious, those sentiments don't override RKBA matters.

My past political discussions of religion/abortion etc were primarily centered around CA politics and the domination of the R party in CA by Orange County "Thumpers", making many Rs unelectable statewide in CA. Educated homeowners (key demographic that should be OWNED by Rs) in middle/upper income suburban-metro areas just abhor the religous/ "antichoice" stance of typical Calif Rs.