Romney still supports background checks and assault weapons ban
Note that I heard Romney state he supported the assault weapon ban during the first Republican debate. Even though I am LDS I would not support someone who does not understand the constitution. The Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! Scott.
Romney still supports background checks and assault weapons ban12/17/2007 - This Sunday on Meet The Press (MTP), Governor Mitt Romney restated his support for the Brady Registration Act and a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
MTP host Tim Russert -- certainly no friend of gun owners -- pressed Romney on his flip-flopping on the issue of gun rights, questioning Romney's election year pandering to gun owners and his consistent record of supporting and signing gun control measures in Massachusetts.
Romney's reply was typical of a politician trying to avoid a difficult record. Romney tried the same old stick, claiming support to the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners and hunters. However, you and I both know that actions speak louder than words.
As Massachusetts' governor, Romney signed an assault weapons ban, supported the Brady Registration Act, 5 day waiting periods and firearm registration cards.
Romney claimed to Russert that he was opposed to waiting periods. However, in 2002 Romney was a supporter of waiting periods to purchase firearms. Romney continued in the interview to restate his support for the Brady Registration Act and a ban on all so-called "assault weapons."
GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban... I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban as Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus... 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...
Romney went on to directly state that he would renew the 1994 Feinstein "Assault Weapons" Ban.
GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill [the assault weapons ban] if it came to his desk, and so would have I.
Romney continued his anti-gun rant, to say that he supports limited access to firearms.
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, we have, we have a background check. That's the key thing. I support background checks to, to--for people who are going into a store or whatever and buying a weapon, I want them to have a background check to make sure...But my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street.
The bottom line is quite simple: Governor Romney wants voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and across the country to believe that he supports our right to keep and bear arms. The truth is that Romney supports significant increases in gun control, and is unapologetic about signing the Massachusetts assault weapons ban.
You can read the full transcript of the interview here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/4/
You can watch video of Romney on Meet the Press here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=5pcDA9sZES0
Donate
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
National Association for Gun Rights
P.O. Box 7002
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
Website: www.NationalGunRights.org
Email: contact@nationalgunrights.org
Phone: (888) 874-3006 Toll-Free
Fax: (202) 351-0578
As a law enforcement officer I support an assault weapons ban. The right of the people to bear arms isn't infringed if we're not allowed to purchase armor piercing bullets whose only purpose is to kill cops. Do you really need an AK-47 to feel that you're fulfilling your constitutional right as an American?
ReplyDeleteJust my $.02
Yes I do and "assault" weapon is what ever the party in power feels like they don't want us to have. It is getting to the point where we are going to have to start another revolution because they have spent the country broke and do not listen to us after they get elected. Both parties are as no better than the other now and are more or less socialist who ignore the constitution. The tree of liberty is sorely in needed of watering.
ReplyDeleteIf we can't buy what ever we want then our rights are being infringed. If you want to stop crime then get the criminals off the street and quit taking our rights away.