Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
That was then. This is now.
Posted by: Dale Franks on Sunday, January 14, 2007

Mitt Romney's views on gun ownership have apparently evolved.

Romney in 2002:
[A]s the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney lauded the state's strong laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon O'Brien. "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them," he said. "I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."
Romney today:
He now touts his work as governor to ease restrictions on gun owners. He proudly describes himself as a member of the NRA — though his campaign won't say when he joined. And Friday, at his campaign's request, top officials of the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation led him around one of the country's biggest gun shows.

Romney says he still backs the ban on assault weapons, but he won't say whether he stands by the Brady Bill. And after the gun show tour, his campaign declined to say whether he would still describe himself as a supporter of tough gun laws.
*sigh*

I suppose it's a good sign that national candidates now have to soften anti-gun stances. It shows that the 2nd Amendment isn't completely dead, yet.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
And possibly it shows that MIT Romney and one from watching the effects of such antigun legislation as he’s been willing to promote.

I can live with someone who’s willing to learn.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
I said it before and I’ll say it again...it’s not being a MORMON that’s going to trip up Romney, it’s ROMNEY’S previous positions that are going to trip up Romney.

He was Governor of a very Blue state, it’s not unlikely that that isn’t going to lead to many "Clarifications" and/or "growth." We’ll see if he gets labelled "Flip-Flopper" or if he gets credit for "honesty" and "Growth."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Ah, Massachusetts and it’s FID’s, how I fondly remember being bullied out of the local police station trying to find out HOW to get one at age 18.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Al Gore lost his "home" state of Tennesse due to this stand on guns.
Tennesse could have provided enough electoral votes to win in 2000.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
On a national level, guns are off the table, they have been since 1994. That doesn’t stop the NRA from using scare tactics in their communications with members.
With Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) taking power as Speaker of the House, and with committee chairmen like arch anti-Second Amendment foe John Conyers (D-Mich.) at the helm of the Judiciary Committee, and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) running the Government Reform Committee, I have no doubt we will be facing serious legislative threats from gun-ban groups pressing the House of Representatives in the weeks and months to come.
The Second Amendment, because judicial rulings can easily fall on either side of the issue, does not protect the right to own guns, I think that has been well established. Public opinion is protecting the right to own guns, and politicians are not going to change public opinion, but they will roll with it.

What we need to worry about are events that change public opinion about guns and make this issue a political winner again.

If Romney is in a fight with someone who has always been pro-gun, this will of course be used against him, regardless of his current positions. He was for gun control before he was against it. The soundbite works better than a reasoned evolution of an opinion.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
does not protect the right to own guns, I think that has been well established
Actually Captin, no you do have an individual right to own a gun...Miller established that, though it did hold for the government’s ability to legislate on the KINDS of firearms you could own, in that case it was sub-machine guns, IIRC. I’m sure Dale or one of the other "gun nuts" will be glad to enlighten both of us. Bottom-Line: the SCOTUS hasn’t really addressed the 2nd in 70-80 years but it did NOT invalidate the idea of an individual right.

You are correct, in that this is also a matter of Public Policy. I take it you believe Gun Control is GOOD public policy, even in the face of findings that demonstarte NO DEMONSTRABLE GOOD FROM GUN CONTROL? You don’t have to buy Lott’s arguments that private and widespread firearm ownership is a POSITIVE GOOD, the Federal Government simply can find no evidence thast Gun Control has ANY effect, good or ill....So I think if you’re suggesting Gun Control is a good thing, you can’t demonstrate it. That seems akin to saying that "Rain Dances" are good for climate modification and we need more of them, even though we can demonstrate no effect for them.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I take it you believe Gun Control is GOOD public policy, even in the face of findings that demonstarte NO DEMONSTRABLE GOOD FROM GUN CONTROL?
I don’t know how you could make this assumption. Look at the comment you are responding you...
What we need to worry about are events that change public opinion about guns and make this issue a political winner again.
I am saying that if public opinion turned toward favoring gun control, there is enough of a legal basis for the courts to approve the Constitutionality of such laws and THAT is something to worry about.

I say "worry about" because I although I disagree with people who think that the 2nd Amendment is a closed argument, I do NOT want to see more gun control and I do not want to see the federal government involved in the issue at all.

I guess you could say that I am anti-gun control, but not religiously adherent to the idea that the 2nd Amendment actually protects gun rights.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
What we need to worry about are events that change public opinion about guns and make this issue a political winner again.
Aaaah, I see...My bad...I think....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It strikes me that Romney is conservative, and liberal, in just about every way which should be anathema to libertarians. The worst kind of each.
 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider