• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should America follow Mitt Romney's example, and ban assault weapons?

Did Mitt Romney get it right in Mass?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 3 13.0%

  • No.

    Votes: 20 87.0%
  • Total voters
    23
evan83

evan83

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
71
Reaction score
28
Location
Frankfurt, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Mitt Romney banned assault weapons in Massachusetts. And in 2002, he said he was "no friend to the NRA" and will not "chip away at Massachusett's tough gun laws."
 
We should not follow Romney's example.
 
Actually this is quite false.

Mitt Romney signed a law in Mass. that reaffirmed existing bans. It banned no new weapons at all. The law actually expanded rights to gun owners and was endorsed by the NRA.


evan83 said:
Mitt Romney banned assault weapons in Massachusetts. And in 2002, he said he was "no friend to the NRA" and will not "chip away at Massachusett's tough gun laws."
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
Actually this is quite false.
Click to expand...


Actually it is not false.
Mitt Romney on Gun Control
Romney: Once signed assault-weapons ban into law - First Read

Mitt Romney signed a law in Mass. that reaffirmed existing bans. It banned no new weapons at all.
Click to expand...

What existing ban was that in Massachusetts? What law was there in Massachusetts that banned assault weapons that Romney reaffirmed?

The law actually expanded rights to gun owners and was endorsed by the NRA.
Click to expand...

What Romney did amounts to someone stealing your bread and then pretends to do you a favor by tossing you a few crumbs. The fact the NRA endorsed anything is irrelevant, they are not pro-2nd amendment.
 
It's hilarious how the NRA buffoons supported a GOP candidate who actually has a more anti-gun record than his Democratic opponent, signing an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts and white-washing his past record supporting tough gun control measures. LOL!
 
evan83 said:
It's hilarious how the NRA buffoons supported a GOP candidate who actually has a more anti-gun record than his Democratic opponent, signing an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts and white-washing his past record supporting tough gun control measures. LOL!
Click to expand...


Many NRA baffoons are nothing more than party-tards who think its okay to do something just as long as their party is doing it, but scream bloody murder when another party does the same thing. Obama attempted to **** on the 2nd amendment, Romney actually took a **** on it. A lot of 2nd amendment supporters switched to the GOA because of the NRA's willingness to sell out.
 
evan83 said:
Mitt Romney banned assault weapons in Massachusetts. And in 2002, he said he was "no friend to the NRA" and will not "chip away at Massachusett's tough gun laws."
Click to expand...

You cannot say he is not consistent, just like his friends flip and flop.
 
Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban / iBerkshires.com - The Berkshires online guide to events, news and Berkshire County community information.

You will note a few paragraphs in this extended a law adopted in 1998 by the Mass. Legislature,
and here is a quote from a pro gun advocate:
------------
"This is truly a great day for Massachusetts' sportsmen and women,"� said Senator Stephen M. Brewer. "These reforms correct some serious mistakes that were made during the gun debate in 1998, when many of our state's gun owners were stripped of their long-standing rights to own firearms. I applaud Senate President Travaglini for allowing the Senate to undertake this necessary legislation."
------------

It should be noted too I believe this legislation was passed by like 87% of their legislature and his veto would have easily been overriden. That aside I wouldn't have signed it, but to use it against Romney as a gun grabber is simply false - a falsehood often spread by libertarians who don't like hardly any laws. The left wing gun owners loved it too. I think it was also safe to say the same concession from him would never have come from our current congress either. Our current congress and the Mass. legislature are quite different.


jamesrage said:
Actually it is not false.
Mitt Romney on Gun Control
Romney: Once signed assault-weapons ban into law - First Read



What existing ban was that in Massachusetts? What law was there in Massachusetts that banned assault weapons that Romney reaffirmed?



What Romney did amounts to someone stealing your bread and then pretends to do you a favor by tossing you a few crumbs. The fact the NRA endorsed anything is irrelevant, they are not pro-2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
 
evan83 said:
Mitt Romney banned assault weapons in Massachusetts. And in 2002, he said he was "no friend to the NRA" and will not "chip away at Massachusett's tough gun laws."
Click to expand...

Being that Mass has a high relative violent crime rate, compared to other states in the region, I'd say he got it wrong.

The authors of the report, drawing upon FBI crime counts, note that Massachusetts has the unenviable distinction of leading all states in the Northeast in the rate of violent crime:
Click to expand...
Is Mass. really #1 in violent crime? - James Alan Fox - Crime & Punishment blog - Boston.com
 
CalGun said:
Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban / iBerkshires.com - The Berkshires online guide to events, news and Berkshire County community information.

You will note a few paragraphs in this extended a law adopted in 1998 by the Mass. Legislature,
and here is a quote from a pro gun advocate:
------------
"This is truly a great day for Massachusetts' sportsmen and women,"� said Senator Stephen M. Brewer. "These reforms correct some serious mistakes that were made during the gun debate in 1998, when many of our state's gun owners were stripped of their long-standing rights to own firearms. I applaud Senate President Travaglini for allowing the Senate to undertake this necessary legislation."
Click to expand...

This still does not change the fact that what Romney did amounts to someone stealing your bread and then pretends to do you a favor by tossing you a few crumbs.


It should be noted too I believe this legislation was passed by like 87% of their legislature and his veto would have easily been overriden. That aside I wouldn't have signed it, but to use it against Romney as a gun grabber is simply false - a falsehood often spread by libertarians who don't like hardly any laws. The left wing gun owners loved it too. I think it was also safe to say the same concession from him would never have come from our current congress either. Our current congress and the Mass. legislature are quite different.
Click to expand...

Whether or not his veto would have gotten overridden is irrelevant. If he was actually against it then he should have vetoed it.The fact he didn't veto it only proves he supported the ban.
 
evan83 said:
Mitt Romney banned assault weapons in Massachusetts. And in 2002, he said he was "no friend to the NRA" and will not "chip away at Massachusett's tough gun laws."
Click to expand...

This is pure hackery, and nothing more. It's obvious this thread was started with the purpose of tweaking conservatives, and you know it. Let's follow Obama's example and extend Bush tax cuts.
 
CalGun said:
Actually this is quite false.

Mitt Romney signed a law in Mass. that reaffirmed existing bans. It banned no new weapons at all. The law actually expanded rights to gun owners and was endorsed by the NRA.
Click to expand...

This is why I said no. Because he didn't someone else did.
 
Well I disagree because there is a huge difference between managing an "anti gun" state and a "pro gun" nation. Opposing 87% of the legislature just makes you irrelevant going foreward and getting something
in return for gun owners was a good thing - even if they were nominal and they appeared to me to be nominal at that.


jamesrage said:
This still does not change the fact that what Romney did amounts to someone stealing your bread and then pretends to do you a favor by tossing you a few crumbs.




Whether or not his veto would have gotten overridden is irrelevant. If he was actually against it then he should have vetoed it.The fact he didn't veto it only proves he supported the ban.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
Well I disagree because there is a huge difference between managing an "anti gun" state and a "pro gun" nation. Opposing 87% of the legislature just makes you irrelevant going foreward and getting something
in return for gun owners was a good thing - even if they were nominal and they appeared to me to be nominal at that.
Click to expand...

A anti-2nd amendment politcian doesn't change just be he changes office. The fact is Romney signed the assault weapons ban because he supported it.There is no law that says a governor must sign a bill he doesn't want. Governors all over the country veto bills they don't want regardless if those vetoes can or can't be easily overridden.


 
Yes, all weapons designed for military use should be banned for civilians to own.
 
evan83 said:
Mitt Romney banned assault weapons in Massachusetts. And in 2002, he said he was "no friend to the NRA" and will not "chip away at Massachusett's tough gun laws."
Click to expand...

He didnt ban assault weapons. The govt of Mass. barred the sale of firearms which look scary, and made it easier to own firearms that dont look scary. And no, they got the first part wrong. Banning firearms is unconstitutional. Should the US pass an amendment banning firearms that looks scary? Of course not.
 
evan83 said:
Mitt Romney banned assault weapons in Massachusetts. And in 2002, he said he was "no friend to the NRA" and will not "chip away at Massachusett's tough gun laws."
Click to expand...

I don't think an all-out ban any type of gun is the answer.
 
Catawba said:
Yes, all weapons designed for military use should be banned for civilians to own.
Click to expand...

And especially those heavy weighted flashlights with the long handles. They're really dangerous although they don't seem to go off as often as the actual firearms.
 
And some governors get nothing done in their states. Romney had anti gun legislation in front of him and got minimal gun protections for his citizens by going along with it; its called compromise and some guys about 230 years ago did bunches of it.


jamesrage said:
A anti-2nd amendment politcian doesn't change just be he changes office. The fact is Romney signed the assault weapons ban because he supported it.There is no law that says a governor must sign a bill he doesn't want. Governors all over the country veto bills they don't want regardless if those vetoes can or can't be easily overridden.


Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
And some governors get nothing done in their states. Romney had anti gun legislation in front of him and got minimal gun protections for his citizens by going along with it; its called compromise and some guys about 230 years ago did bunches of it.
Click to expand...

A compromise implies that both sides get something.Taking something from someone and giving them a few crumbs is not a compromise.As a I said before this amounts to Romney stealing the whole loaf of bread and then acting like he is doing you a favor because he tossed you a few crumbs.
 
With 87% of the legislature against him the "taking" was going to occur; he got something for nothing. Hence the reason the NRA supported the action.


jamesrage said:
A compromise implies that both sides get something.Taking something from someone and giving them a few crumbs is not a compromise.As a I said before this amounts to Romney stealing the whole loaf of bread and then acting like he is doing you a favor because he tossed you a few crumbs.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
With 87% of the legislature against him the "taking" was going to occur; he got something for nothing. Hence the reason the NRA supported the action.
Click to expand...

He helped do the taking and tossed a few crumbs.It doesn't matter if the NRA supported the action,the NRA sells out,which is why a lot of 2nd amendment supporters are GOA members instead of NRA members.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom