16 December 2007

Romney falters on gun control...

And really, is anyone surprised? This is a guy who loved the Brady bill and the AWB and only became a life member of the NRA when he started running for President.

His comments today on Meet the Depressed should make every gun owner cringe.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to gun control. Here's the headline: "Romney retreats on gun control. Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics. In his '94" Senate race, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rife Association and other" guns rights "groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons. `That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA,' Romney told the Boston Herald.'" "At another campaign stop" "he told reporters, `I don't line up with the NRA.'" Suddenly Romney decides to run for president and signs up for a lifetime membership in the NRA.


GOV. ROMNEY: You know, it's, it's wonderful, and you'll appreciate this. There is a great effort on the part of, in some cases, my opposition, in some cases, just folks that are interested in writing an interesting article to, to try and find any change at all. And my position on guns is the same position I've had for a long, long time. And, and that position is that I don't line up 100 percent with the NRA. I don't see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue. I.... Let's describe what it is. I signed--I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that's something I would consider signing. There's nothing of that nature that's being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality..... We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street.
Note the Governor's use of the words "extraordinary lethality". Just what does that mean, I wonder? Because really, when you look at it, any firearm can be determined to posses "extraordinary lethality."

It really makes me wonder just who the kingmakers are in this country - I mean, who is responsible for giving us such shitty choices for the most important job in the world? Clearly, any of the Democrats would be FUBAR'd. And sadly, it looks like most of the Republican options would suck as pro gun candidates as well.
Post a Comment