Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-02-2012, 14:11   #1
Chesafreak
Senior Member
 
Chesafreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 1,793
Do gun owners owe Romney an apology?

What you thought you knew about Romney's 2nd amendment stance.

Google warns that the site may contain malware, so I posted a summary below. I don't fear no stinkin' malware, I use Linux.

Last edited by Chesafreak; 10-02-2012 at 14:37..
Chesafreak is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 14:18   #2
thetoastmaster
NOT a sheepdog!
 
thetoastmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: One Nation, Under Surveillance
Posts: 5,274
Send a message via ICQ to thetoastmaster Send a message via AIM to thetoastmaster
That page sets off my browser filters. How about a summary?
__________________
This is the law:
There is no possible victory in defense,
The sword is more important than the shield,
And skill is more important than either,
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.

- John Steinbeck

2+2≠4!
thetoastmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 14:28   #3
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by thetoastmaster View Post
That page sets off my browser filters. How about a summary?
Same here. I did a little checking and I am not going to force my computer to open the site.



ETA: funny, the OP is very active in the "tech talk" section of the Forum. I would have thought he would have noticed that

Last edited by countrygun; 10-02-2012 at 14:31..
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 14:34   #4
Chesafreak
Senior Member
 
Chesafreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 1,793
Summary:

Quote:
GOAL is a state-level group defending the gun rights of the citizens of Massachusetts.
So what are the details GOAL uses to back their position? Again, from the report:
Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons
This is a perfect example of don’t believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the “assault weapon” ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:
1. Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served.
For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.
2. Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.
3. Extended the term of the state’s firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.
4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.
In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose [sic] all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.
5. Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.
6. Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.
7. Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.
8. Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driver’s license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3″ x 4″.
9. Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders.
The report goes on to cite other bills which affected gun owners in Massachusetts during Romney’s administration, and explains how Romney’s position matched GOAL’s, or how Romney’s administration worked to remove anti-gun provisions from proposed legislation, etc.
In short, the report confirms what Mitt Romney has repeatedly said on the campaign trail and in town hall meetings – that the bill he signed in 2004 had the full support of the NRA’s state affiliate, GOAL, and that they and other pro-gun lobbyists asked him to sign it.
So where does this leave us? That Romney approved of the 1994 Clinton Gun Ban has not been disputed. But he isn’t the only politician to have once held the mistaken belief that it might work to curb crime. President George W. Bush stated he’d have signed a renewal if the failed bill made it to his desk, and Ohio’s own John Kasich supported the ban as well, and has since admitted he was “wrong.” Romney too appears to have learned that such bans don’t work to curb crime.
Separate from his support for the gun ban passed by Congress nearly 20 years ago (and allowed to sunset after a decade of failure), a position he no longer takes, it appears that the central “fact” that most gun owners “know” about Mitt Romney – namely that he signed an new assault weapons ban in Massachusetts in 2004 – isn’t a fact at all.
My sense is that knowledge of the GOAL report may allow some pro-gun voters, who may have been hesitant to go “All In,” to feel much better about voting for the only man who stands a chance at defeating Barack Obama.
Mr Romney, for whatever it’s worth, I apologize.
Chesafreak is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 14:35   #5
Chesafreak
Senior Member
 
Chesafreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 1,793
I forgot about the warning when visiting the site. I use Linux running as a non-admin, so I wasn't worried about malware.
Chesafreak is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 16:12   #6
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesafreak View Post
Summary:
...
Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members.
...


So Romney thought he was signing an assault weapons ban, but really he wasn't. Even if that were true, which it obviously isn't, as anybody can learn from any non-virus laden site (try the MA legislature site, for one), how does that make Romney any better?
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 16:19   #7
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
[QUOTE=Gundude;19478493 how does that make Romney any better?[/QUOTE]



He is still not an incompetent Marxist like the guy he wants to remove from office
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 16:45   #8
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
He is still not an incompetent Marxist like the guy he wants to remove from office
Maybe so, but absurd posts like the OP don't help him. It makes it look like he's got no real positives, if one needs to present such ridiculous and easily debunked arguments to defend him.

Just like the birthers cast a cloud of absurdity over people who present legitimate gripes against Obama, these idiots who claim Romney didn't actually sign an AWB cast the same cloud of absurdity over people who have legitimate praise for Romney.

Fair or not, some people ruin it for everybody.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 16:49   #9
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Maybe so, but absurd posts like the OP don't help him. It makes it look like he's got no real positives, if one needs to present such ridiculous and easily debunked arguments to defend him.

Just like the birthers cast a cloud of absurdity over people who present legitimate gripes against Obama, these idiots who claim Romney didn't actually sign an AWB cast the same cloud of absurdity over people who have legitimate praise for Romney.

Fair or not, some people ruin it for everybody.
I don't see the OP the way you do
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 16:50   #10
The Machinist
No Compromise
 
The Machinist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Left Coast
Posts: 5,992
No, I sure as hell don't owe that rat bastard liberal an apology. He owes every gun owner an apology for demonizing certain types of firearms.
__________________
Proud to be an infidel!
The Machinist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 16:57   #11
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
I don't see the OP the way you do
Forget for one moment that anybody can look up the law to see that the bill he signed was an AWB. It's understandable they'd assume nobody will take the effort to do that.

The main absurdity of that post is that it claims he only made those anti-gun statements because he thought he was signing an AWB, because he was misinformed by "someone". If he thought he was signing an AWB, what difference does it make what the law actually was. It still means Romney intended to ban those guns.

Last edited by Gundude; 10-02-2012 at 16:58..
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 17:12   #12
walt cowan
Senior Member
 
walt cowan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: absurdistan
Posts: 9,999
no. anyhow...mitts flips quicker than a cross dresser in the state penn.
__________________
the nsa was the first to read this post. eric was the second.
walt cowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 17:41   #13
smokin762
Senior Member
 
smokin762's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 5,243
No, gun owners do not owe Romney an apology.

Everyone needs to put politicians under the microscope for whatever reason. Especially when they are running for the job as the leader of our country.
__________________
NRA Life Member
CCW License Holder
My goal is to survive. Whatever the problem might be.
smokin762 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 17:45   #14
Acujeff
Senior Member
 
Acujeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Forget for one moment that anybody can look up the law to see that the bill he signed was an AWB. It's understandable they'd assume nobody will take the effort to do that.

The main absurdity of that post is that it claims he only made those anti-gun statements because he thought he was signing an AWB, because he was misinformed by "someone". If he thought he was signing an AWB, what difference does it make what the law actually was. It still means Romney intended to ban those guns.


Recently discovered report forces the question: Do I owe Mitt Romney an apology?
by Chad D. Baus
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8541
- it appears that the central "fact" that most gun owners "know" about Mitt Romney - namely that he signed a new assault weapons ban in Massachusetts in 2004 - isn't a fact at all. My sense is that knowledge of the GOAL report may allow some pro-gun voters, who may have been hesitant to go "All In," to feel much better about voting for the only man who stands a chance at defeating Barack Obama.
Mr Romney, for whatever it's worth, I apologize.

The liberal media has been misrepresenting Romney’s record since 2004 and that’s why GOAL published his entire record, so that gun owners could get the whole story.

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

The actual truth is, in 2004, Romney signed a bill that amended the 1998 permanent AWB and made it less strict.

Gundude has already highjacked many threads on GT falsely claiming Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004.

The GOAL record also discusses Romney's statements that pandered to the gun control crowd and it is reasonable to ask - Why did he make them? What purpose did it serve?

It was the only way to get the MA legislature (85% strictly anti-2A) to actually politically cooperate with Romney and GOAL's pro-2A agenda.

So did Romney say one thing and do another? To protect the RKBA - absolutely. That's politics in MA. Would he do the same thing as President? If he was facing a majority anti-2A congress -absolutely. Would he reveal his strategy to the gun control crowd? -absolutely not. What if he was facing a pro-2A congress or minority anti-2A congress? - he wouldn't have to use this strategy - he would just be straight out pro-2A.

How do we know all this for certain? By his record. What politicians do is more important, and revealing, than what they need to say to get it done. Romney's record clearly shows he only reduced gun control, removed gun control from bills or signed pro-2A bills.

Bush made the same kind of statements and achieved similar pro-2A success. It's the only pro-2A strategy that works when dealing with a majority of obstructionist anti-2A legislators.

Gunowners in MA would prefer to go at the gun control laws head on - but as a strategy it does not work here. So we have to shmooze the gun control crowd to get anywhere. But it would be foolish to actually tell them we are doing that. Again, that's politics when the Democrats are in the majority. When it comes to the RKBA - Democrats are the problem. The solution is to get rid of them. We can't in MA but we can in the US congress and presidency in 2012. Don't let the Fed gov't become like MA.

It's even more clear when we compare the Romney administration to the next one - Democrat Duval Patrick, who is aggressively anti-2A and now in his 6th year as Gov of MA.

The MA congress is still majority anti-2A and with this Democrat Gov gun owners have constantly been on the defensive. GOAL can't even get a meeting with Patrick - he has refused to meet with us for 6 years. All the pro-2A bills we've presented have been completely shot down by the congress and Gov.. All our efforts go to battling more outrageous anti-2A bills (worse than Calif.). So no pro-2A progress compared to the Romney administration.

So the answer to your question is yes, under Romney we made only pro-2A progress and those that misrepresent his record owe him an apology.

Obama is actually following the same strategy as Romney - saying one thing and doing another. Obama makes pro-2A statements but all his actions are anti-2A. If you analyze Obama's record, positions and platform - it's all anti-2A.

But Gundude asks gun owners to reject Romney and support Obama - maybe that makes him a hypocrite.
__________________
Read "America's 1st Freedom" NRA's monthly magazine:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


Get free NRA-ILA legislative and RKBA e-mail alerts:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Acujeff; 10-02-2012 at 17:47..
Acujeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 07:07   #15
walt cowan
Senior Member
 
walt cowan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: absurdistan
Posts: 9,999
garry johnson is the only pro gun choice.
__________________
the nsa was the first to read this post. eric was the second.
walt cowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 11:02   #16
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acujeff View Post
Gundude has already highjacked many threads on GT falsely claiming Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004.
My claim was backed up by links to the bills themselves. Your AWB was set to become unenforceable, not to expire, in 2004. The bill Romney signed fixed that to make sure it stays enforceable. That is crystal clear from the text of the law. Nothing you or GOAL say can change that.

Your claims don't link to the bills themselves, but to a biased organization which is interested in making itself look like it accomplished more than it has. If you refuse to believe that the text of the law says what it says, you are in the same realm as those who refuse to believe Obama's BC says what it says. That level of obvious denial and delusion only serves to cast a cloud over those who have legitimate criticism or defense of the candidates.

Cutting and pasting the same lies when the text of the laws are there for all to see, and have been repeatedly shown to you, demonstrates that you have no interest in reality, but only propaganda.

Last edited by Gundude; 10-03-2012 at 11:03..
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 12:11   #17
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by walt cowan View Post
garry johnson is the only pro gun choice.
We are talking about candidates that are actually in the race.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 12:15   #18
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
My claim was backed up by links to the bills themselves. Your AWB was set to become unenforceable, not to expire, in 2004. The bill Romney signed fixed that to make sure it stays enforceable. That is crystal clear from the text of the law. Nothing you or GOAL say can change that.

Your claims don't link to the bills themselves, but to a biased organization which is interested in making itself look like it accomplished more than it has. If you refuse to believe that the text of the law says what it says, you are in the same realm as those who refuse to believe Obama's BC says what it says. That level of obvious denial and delusion only serves to cast a cloud over those who have legitimate criticism or defense of the candidates.

Cutting and pasting the same lies when the text of the laws are there for all to see, and have been repeatedly shown to you, demonstrates that you have no interest in reality, but only propaganda.
So, go vote for Obama, who cares?

I don't think you are right about Romney, but even if you are, he is no worse than Obama so that makes the topic a wash at worst. The rest of Obama's record puts Romney as a much better choice, but vote Obama if you feel you want another 4 years of what we've had.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 12:23   #19
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
We are talking about candidates that are actually in the race.
There is no pro-gun candidate this election with a chance of winning. Gun rights at the federal level will need to be protected by congress for at least the next 4 years. Nobody with an ounce of sanity would believe that our next president would veto any gun control legislation that hit his desk.

Why is it so tough for some people to admit that? While I don't support Romney, I can respect legitimate reasons to vote for him. Trying to pass him off as pro-gun reeks of delusion and desperation. Same as trying to pass Obama off as pro-gun (although I see a lot less of that). It's ridiculous.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 12:25   #20
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
So, go vote for Obama, who cares?

I don't think you are right about Romney, but even if you are, he is no worse than Obama so that makes the topic a wash at worst. The rest of Obama's record puts Romney as a much better choice, but vote Obama if you feel you want another 4 years of what we've had.
You don't think I'm right about Romney signing an AWB? How is that possible, when the law is there online for you to read?
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:31.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,287
342 Members
945 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31