Sunday, January 15, 2012

Mitt Romney & Guns

I strongly urge you to read this post from Bitter on the Shall Not Be Questioned blog (previously Snowflakes in Hell). Bitter and I have had our differences over the years, but she has been steadily on the front lines of the RKBA battle...and in this powerful piece of writing she tells the whole truth from the perspective of someone who was there. I strongly urge you to read the whole thing, then pass it on to your friends:
If Mitt ends up winning the race because GOP voters choose him in the nation’s primaries, gun owners need to know the truth about Mitt Romney’s record on guns as Governor of Massachusetts. I have said before many, many times that as a gun owner in Massachusetts during his term, I was extremely active in the efforts to fight more gun control. Guess who was on our side for that battle? Mitt. 
As the state’s most active gun rights group notes in their write-up on Romney’s record, gun owners were able to make more reforms to the state’s oppressive gun laws under Mitt than they had in more than 20 years.


Dave S. said...

A very necessary post, Michael. Thanks.

If the disastrous possibility of Obama choosing the next one or two Supreme Court justices is just a little too abstract for the "I'll teach them Republicans a lesson" crowd, maybe this will make some sort of impression. I doubt it, but one can hope.

nj_larry said...

Can we say that there are differing opinions of the Mittster?

From GOA...

But how about this right from the horse's mouth. This only 4 years ago. Can we count on him flip flopping again? Or like the old joke, "who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" LOL!

Fiftycal said...

The only thing GOA is "protecting" is it's own POCKETBOOK! Pratt is ONLY in the game for HIMSELF! And he expects his little piece of fluff to fill his checkbook with MONEY! NOTHING from GOA should be believed without 3 RELIABLE sources backing it up.

nj_larry said...

Ok Fiftycal, so what about Mitt himself? Is that some sort of CGI from Lucasfilms?

DamDoc said...

Thanks Michael.. sometimes i think some postings here are what Rush calls "seminar callers"... weird politics when we have so much to lose! Alot of extremely short sighted folks out there... maybe they just like the hand to hand combat that will result if their view of obstanance prevails.. hopefully its only a couple votes we will lose!

Steve said...

Great information. I didn't know any of it.
I just hope that the Ron Paul crybabies who are threatening to sit out the election grow up a little before it's too late.

Charlie Foxtrot said...

I'm not fond of Mitt Romney's "Centrist" policies. We've already suffered through a Cali Gov who called himself a Republican.

However, I'd vote for Romney's dog long before I voted for Obama. And I WILL vote.

I do not believe the Republic can withstand a second, unrestrained half of the Obama Presidency.

DamDoc said...

btw.. just watched DVRed shooting gallery hour versions at aac and half the 3 gun (damn dvr ony caught half!).. A1... You have kicked it up several notches, and I greatly enjoyed the new format and lengthened show.. Cudos!

George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
justbill said...

A significant voter turnout for Ron Paul equals an Obama second term. Period. As noted above by Dave, it's likely the next President will appoint at least one if not two Supreme Court Justices. And who knows how many lower court judges. Want to see how quickly the recent gains we now enjoy as gun owners evaporate? Vote Ron Paul and find out.

Nick Brower said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick Brower said...

justbill, you do realize that Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama won't appear on the same ballot right?

A vote for Ron Paul or any other candidate in the primary is just that, in the primary and not the general election.

Seriously... that's the kind of misinformation that is dangerously inaccurate. Have a good day!

Rob Drummond said...

Great post Michael.

I held my nose and voted for McCain last time. If it's Mitt I don't have to hold my nose to vote for him. Last time we could only guess what "hope & change" was ultimately going to bring but now we know. Now there is more at stake than our gun rights much more.

If the Supreme Lord & Dictator gets in for another four he will be unretrainted. We can look forward to more debt, more mediocrity, & a fundemental shift from the most free, economically & industriallly powerful nation in the world to a country more like Sweden or maybe Russia?

I have owned, run, & started a number of businesses over my life & I have also come up with some inovative inventions over the years too. Fortunately for me they were for the most part sucessful. I have been able to take pride in what I have done, benefit financially from the hard work & create a nice life for my family & as well as the people who work for me.

The system we have works & works well; if you work hard & take the risks you can be sucessful & reap the benefits you have sowed. Our system works because people were indepentant & took pride to be self made men & women. I think that is dissapearing now & even more so if BHO gets in again, hard work will not matter nor will taking risks in career choices or business. He will create a dependant society, dependant on government, dependant on hand outs, a creadle to grave population.

I never thought this a possibility in the US but it's slapping us in the face right now. I know what I would do if someone slapped me in the about you?
Rob Drummond
Hilsboro, NH

Anonymous said...

The strategy that we all need to enlist here is to fortify our control in the House of Representatives, take the Senate back and get behind who ever the Republican nominee for the Executive branch is and get that person into office!

With control of Congress, the president will be "encouraged" to follow conservative doctrine.

Choosing a strategy to vote for a candidate that isn't the Republican nominee IS throwing your vote away. Many a poker hand has been won on a pair of "3s". You don't necessarily fold just because you don't have a straight-Royal flush!

Life Member

Anonymous said...

I think we all want the same thing here but I believe we need to update our ( for lack of a better word ) slogan and drive our point in a way as to gather more backers for our real goal.All of the people I know that are involved in firearms in any way want a President and Representatives That will uphold and protect our entire U S Constitution not just one article or right.
Take the NRA for example ,over 3 million strong but looked upon as a bunch of gun nuts.What would happen if the NRA put its money where their mouth is and filed an amicus brief with the anti-health care states as being unconstitutional ?
Call me stupid if you like but , I picture the NRA's reputation change for the better overnight and a huge increase in membership if they stood up for the entire Constitution and made it known through out the country.
Mind you I am not saying the NRA should change its mission ,just take the blinders off once in a while and get rid of our deranged mentality reputation.It just doesn't make sense to back a Candidate that is super firearms friendly but wants to get rid of the first amendment.
All I am trying to say is "United we stand and divided we fall" pertains to us too.

Matthew said...

anon @ 10:45,

The second the NRA goes on record on any law not directly or meaningfully indirectly related to gun rights we (I'm a memeber) lose much of our political influence.

Yes there are detractors who call us "single-issue gun nuts" but that is the source of our power. The fact that we can show that NRA is just that, a single-issue org., in a bi/non-partisan fashion prevents our opponents from being valid in their charge that the NRA is just a "right-wing" mouthpiece. We can easily can show that as a lie right now, if we picked a side on Obamacare, that defense goes away.

You want to fight Obamacare? Go ahead, but that would in fact destroy the NRA's mission and standing. Leave that off-message nonsense to Pratt.

DamDoc said...

much better posts today and great points.. especially on the nra... the one thing i would say is, for example, NRA backing dems that voted for kagen and sodemeyer (sp?).. that is the kind of stuff that drives me BAT SHIT about the NRA at times (i am life member too)...

Dave S. said...

Matthew has it exactly right. The NRA is a gun rights organization, period. Once it gets mission creep, it's over.

I think (hope) gun owners are intelligent enough to take a Dem and a Repub with identical NRA grades and cast their vote based on other important issues.

There are plenty of right-wing and libertarian political organizations to handle the non-gun stuff. The NRA is, was, and always must be a single-issue organization.

argoman said...

Obama has been the cause of the surge in gun sales in the past three years. also there have been more pro-gun laws passed in the last three years than there were in Bush's eight years. Does this make Obamma a pro-gun president? No! brware of how things are twisted around.

nj_larry said...

Well here is Mitt from just HOURS ago at the GOP debate. Gun question finally after 16 debates came up for Mitt. Sounds like "humina, humina humina" to me...But this is the guy you want for President !!! Good luck. See what you have to say in 2016.

fast forward to 11:30

continued here

Matthew said...


I doubt any pro-gun people particularly "want" Romney. What we're saying is that if he is the Republican nominee then we need to vote for him as he, however flip-floppy, always flips to where his bread is buttered.

That's exactly what his "humina, humina, humina" tells us.

In the case of a pro-gun House and Senate that means he will take their advice on good Supreme Court nominees (the one thing we know a lame-duck Obama will screw us on given any chance) and won't veto the pro-gun legislation (reforms to '68 GCA and Lautenberg, reeling in ATF and nationwide reciprocity, for instance) that they will almost certainly pass.

The political wind is all on our side, all we need from him is to blow with it. At that he is very dependable.

Matthew said...

Amazingly, even Ron Paul can't simply eliminate extant legislation. Not that he would support such an "IMperial President" type act in the first place.

The proper response is to elect legislators who will overturn it.

Anonymous said...

The national defense authorization act is for the fiscal year of 2012. If the Senate decides to renew the bill in 2013 or make it indefinite the president may veto that bill, or any bill for that matter.

Matthew said...


The Senate passed the bill 97-3, the House 283-136. Those are veto-proof majorities.

Even RonPaul would be helpless against them.

The key, again, is to get people you support into both chambers of Congress.

Being more-or-less a libertarian I simply cannot comprehend why there's so much fixation on the Presidency when it is wins at the state level and in Congress that will allow us to -really- make changes to the .gov.

Cincinnatus said...

I have a problem with this post because everything I have seen is that Mitt is FOR gun control. Back in a FOX debate in 2007 he stated he supported the assault weapons ban. I emailed his campaign and they gave me the following response:

'As a member of the National Rifle Association I firmly believe in the importance of responsible gun ownership and sales. I do not believe that we need any more federal gun control laws. This being said, however, I recognize that some types of extreme weapons, those which were not meant for hunting, sport, or self-defense, have no business being on the streets.'

Any candidate that makes this type of statement is not someone will fight for my gun rights. All I want to say is don’t believe one article – do your own research. Frankly I don’t have a lot of faith in the current slate of candidates. Come November we will have to choose between a socialist and a communist for president which doesn’t bode well for gun rights.

justbill said...

Nick Brower,

I hope you realize the disciples of St. Paul plan to a) write-in during the general election if their savior fails to get the nomination, b) stay home on election day and pout, or c) fool the old man into thinking he's a viable third party candidate & get him to run as same.

In every one of those scenarios, President Barack HUSSEIN Obama wins re-election. To believe anything less is "dangerously inaccurate."

Anonymous said...

Mitt's top campaign contributor is Goldman Sach's(open should tell you who this man will work for. That makes his other policies a wash.

nj_larry said...

To all the Republican primary voters of South Carolina: Thank you. A thank you from the bottom of my heart. You may have saved the party and this nation in the long run.

Anonymous said...

take a look at this electoral college map from Bush vs. Kerry.

I suspect that Obama will easily win the same states that Kerry did. So that will get Obama to 239 electoral college votes. He only needs 270 to win.

We are fuct!


mikee said...

It ain't about the Republican candidate this year. It is about the current occupant of the White House.

Vote for anyone other than Obama.

Unknown said...

salomon shoes
christian louboutin shoes
louboutin shoes
superdry uk
longchamp outlet
coach factory outlet
christian louboutin
ugg outlet
coach outlet