[HTML1]

Tens of millions of gun owners are preparing to hold their nose and vote for Mitt Romney for president. As with Romneycare, there’s plenty of debate about the former Massachusetts governor’s record on gun rights. Did Romney agree to the Bay State’s assault weapons ban (and the other miserable misegos) to forestall even greater loss of 2A rights (the realpolitik he claims)? Or did the Mittster lack conviction and backbone? In his sit-down with notorious gun control advocate Piers Morgan, Romney gets it right. It could be one of those stopped clock, easy-way-out deals. Or it could be a reflection of his deeply-held belief in small, efficient and effective government We report, you deride.

Recommended For You

72 Responses to Mitt Romney Starts Making Sense?

  1. I like what he said. I agree with most of what he said. I wonder if he does? Because to be honest, Mitt’s got more flip-flops than Waikiki Beach.

    • I ****ing hate Piers Morgan. If he had done to the US military what he did to the UK military he would be strung up by the nearest lamp post and a national holiday declared. Sadly most people over here aren’t aware of what a colossal POS he is.

      Out of Mitt and Piers though it’s a very tough call as to who made me want to vomit first.

      • Jeremy Clarkson posted something along the lines of “I don’t always want to punch people, but when I do, they’re named Piers Morgan” on Facebook.

        Please tell me I’m not the only one that knows who Jeremy Clarkson is….

        • Please tell me I’m not the only one that knows who Jeremy Clarkson is….

          Not much chance of that.

          I don’t think… 😉

        • oooh… ooooh…. oh wait.

          Ya gotta be able to watch BBCA to know I think…. and like cars.

      • What’s not to like about Piers, other than his prissy British demeanor.

        from Wiki:

        “In December 2010, Morgan announced to the Daily Express that he will not be scheduling Madonna to appear on Piers Morgan Tonight. Morgan reportedly told the British newspaper that, while he wanted to get U.S. President Barack Obama and Mel Gibson on his show, he was not bothered about Madonna. Morgan said, “She is so boring. She is too vegan for TV. We have Lady Gaga now so Madonna is banned from my show.” “

        • When I was in The States I saw the interview with Robert Blake. That was pretty good and I’ll bet the second time they aired it the ratings were good.

  2. we need to put romney in the white house, hold the house and come up in the senate. gop wise. this will give us a chance to put favorable people on the supreme court and give the dems pause in pushing gun control. this is my take on the situation. ymmv.

    • An Obama defeat would forever cement the idea that bringing up gun control before an election is a losing issue.

    • Even more important, we need to keep increasing the number of gun owners. Gallup showed that as of last fall 47% of homes in the US have at least one gun, and 46% of men and 23% of women own at least one gun. If we can get say 60% of the adult population owning a gun, gun control will be pretty well beaten.

  3. As a MA FFL, he has my vote. If you do your research on Mitt you will find that below the surface, his administration wasn’t bad on gun laws in MA. Check GOAL.ORG for more info on Mitt, they had a great article a while back on him.

    • I’ve done research on him and he’s pretty bad. If I recall, he signed some REALLY bad gun control laws and then a year or two later repealed some of it so that he could claim that he “helped gun owners”.

  4. Wow how many times do you think he rehearsed that?
    Real stroke of luck too- who’da thunk that question was coming?

  5. Romney’s got more bugs in his software than a product coming out of a certain company in Redmond, WA. Someone put a patch together and sent him out for a new round of consumer testing.

  6. Well said Romney…’cept I do think that those gun show, private party loop holes where people can buy hoards of weapons (without paperwork/id/etc) and transfer them to US criminals or across the border might be worth taking a second look at. Am I wrong?

        • So let me get this right – you make a bunch of fallacious assertions and ask if you are wrong. When you are told you are wrong, you want US to point out where you are wrong rather than YOU getting your facts correct?

          Is that what I am reading? A quick google returned this article, amazingly, TTAG.COM…

          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/bruce-w-krafft/gun-show-loophole-what-gun-show-loophole/

          Now move along please, the adults are trying to discuss Mitt’s upcoming presidency.

        • Tim Tritt…you don’t have to be a damn twit.

          I said it “might be worth taking a second look”…that means “maybe”, and then posed the question to fellow gun owners for opinions/input. You don’t have to be an assh**e.

          For starters, I’ve lived in CA my entire life. I have been exposed to the DOJ/Uncle Sam every time I’ve bought a firearm – from dealer or private party. I literally forgot the way many of you experience gun law. I’m used to doing DOJ paperwork and putting my thumb print down on every purchase. Where I live, we’re only allowed one handgun every 30 days…then there’s the 10 day wait. 10 round mags only. Bullet buttons required on “standard featured” AR’s, AK’s etc. No CCW’s allowed (unless you’re a special case). No tracer ammunition. No full auto’s. No semi-auto 50 BMG’s. No cans allowed….yadda, yadda. Complete BS. That’s the lame environment I’m used to in CA.

          It wasn’t even until about a year ago, did I even realize there were gun shows where you could buy cache’s of weapons from private parties, no background check, no DOJ or uncle sam paperwork, and walk on the spot. Believe it or not, I didn’t even realize that.

          Would I prefer that uncle sam knows about every firearm I own – hell no, I guess not. If however (AND I’M NOT SAYING IT WILL – I NEED TO DO MY HOMEWORK), stopping the “gun show loophole” would SIGNIFICANTLY cut down on the sales of guns to criminals (contributing to loss of life in the US and Mexico), then I’m somewhat torn on the subject.

          I don’t want the DOJ or Uncle Sam knowing everything I own, nor would I want potentially tens to hundreds of thousands killed, just so I can feel more comfortable with my “off the radar” weapons cache.

          But alas, I live in Kalifornia – so I already have the DOJ so far up my ass, it’s hard to sh!t. I’ve already lost most of the rights you guy’s are still fighting to keep.

        • I’ll add that I watched a show where they went to a gun show in TX and bought a cache of weapons, cash, walked on the spot, no checks, no paperwork…so I don’t understand how the link you gave above is in such direct opposition to what these guy’s apparently did. Who’s telling the truth here? I’m simply trying to confirm the facts…

        • No reply button to your long post calling me both a twit and assh**e – in any case, I too live in CA (Sacramento).

          The loophole you are referring to is a non-issue for criminals, frankly, so further discussion is simply feeding the hyperbole beast.

          If you are concerned about criminals getting guns south of the border, I would wager far more came from Fast and Furious (another ongoing TTAG set of columns from RF) and our wonderful BATFE/DOJ.

          Perhaps your “OK, do tell why?” comment came off as flippant – but you are asking us to disprove a negative rather than you backing up your claims to the contrary.

        • Ok, that’s where you’re again missing me…I’m not asking you to disprove ANYTHING. I’m a fellow gun owner asking for the input from other fellow gun owners, so I’m more in the know. Sheesh, Just because I brought up the subject doesn’t mean I’m an ANTI, or that I’m saying it SHOULD be done.

          I don’t understand why so many fellow TTAG gun owners are so darn defensive or angry when I pose questions…sheesh, I’m not a anti. If you saw my safe, you’d agree!

          Lastly, perhaps you should again examine why I called you a twit and said don’t be an assh**e. “Now move along please, the adults are trying to discuss Mitt’s upcoming presidency.” WTH is that? A friggen insult. That’s what.

    • So you’re telling me that I should have to get the government involved if I want to sell a gun to my buddy? That’s the “private party loophole” to which you are referring. Or are you saying I shouldn’t be able to go to a gun show and sell a gun to another visitor? Why?

      • See above Mike….that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that it’s somewhat troubling that OTHER people can for example, go buy caches of weapons and walk away with them on the spot without background checks, no DOJ/Uncle Sam paperwork and go sell them to a Mexican drug cartel.

        • Do you have any proof that goes on at all, MotoJB? There’s a lot of things that people can do or could do but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s being done.

          Even if it is, that is a Mexican problem. Both US and Mexico could end the drug war if they legalized ’em

        • The only “proof” I have are articles I’ve read and programs I’ve seen that quote statistics stating 70-80% of the guns that are used in Mexican cartel violence originate from the US (they come from multiple sources apparently – but as presented, a fair amount potentially coming from “straw” purchases capitalizing on gun show/private party sales loopholes)…the most recent was a program on Mexican cartel violence made by Vanguard. It was pretty damn disturbing. They were presenting that cartels will pay these gun mules (or whatever they are called) $5,000 for any “assault rifle”. Quite a chunk of change for Mexican Americans and Illegal Alien Mexicans in the US (or anyone, for that matter). Vanguard’s “sources” (some mexican guy’s) presented that there are lots of people apparently buying and smuggling a lot of guns into Mexico for this big payday. Again, I’m not saying I know that these media sources are credible (or unbiased), but it made me wonder if our quest for gun liberties is indeed having unforeseen consequences, even outside the US.

          Check out the history/statistics just in Juarez Mexico for example, and they are quite saddening. A once bustling city, established by US multi-national corporations in the never-ending pursuit of more-profitable capitalism…turned drug cartel havens during to the economic downturn…now a land ruled by cartels and bloody drug wars fueled by American drug demand and American guns somehow flowing over the border.

          All I am coming from here, is a sense that I want to preserve my gun rights, while doing what I can (if anything) to prevent more fellow men, women, and children from being slaughtered by gun violence…if one step towards that was closing US loopholes that readily supply cartels with their instruments of war, then I’d be willing to at least TALK about it. That’s all I’m presenting here.

          To your last point…very true. If we just legalized POT, the cartels would be forced to focus on E, Meth, Heroin, etc. Pot however is the main source of their income and therefore the main source of their violence. I’m not sure if I’m for the legalization of pot however…seems like the situation is a double edged sword. Someone’s gonna get cut.

        • First, 70-80% of the guns they choose to trace might come from the US. I’m not even sure I believe that number, but the point is, they aren’t tracing every gun they find, like they used to. Now it’s only a selected sample.

          Second, the US sells guns to the Mexican military. The soldiers defect to the cartels (or play both sides of the street), taking their guns with them. Presto! US supplied guns in the hands of the cartels, including a significant number of the ones listed in my first point.

          Neither one of those two things has anything to do with straw purchases or gun smuggling across the border.

  7. At any point in time he has said and done what got him the most votes. Lets hope that there will be no general swing in public opinion towards more gun control while he’s at the wheel.
    Lets also hope that his words and actions from his time as governor aren’t his actual convictions he might resort to as a lame duck president. His record is definitely too tarnished to just take him by his word at this point.

  8. I’ve always said the only thing worse than a liberal Democrat is a liberal Republican. Which states have the strictest gun laws? New York, California, New Jersey, and of course lets not forget Massachusetts. Governor Romney’s former place of employment. It really is a battle of the lesser of two evils. Fortunately Romney is probably just that. He PROBABLY wont enforce any huge gun laws his first term, political suicide. True he is a life member to the NRA, so is Micheal Moore. In the end, governor Romney is a liberal Republican. By the way sorry about missing Illinois on the list. I know their history on gun laws.

    • He also didn’t become a member of the NRA until after he launched his 2008 presidential campaign.

  9. Romney is flip-floppy, but not as flip-floppy as, say, John Kerry, who was for it before he was against it. Romney’s no gun rights advocate, but neither is he a gun-grabber. GOAL (Gun Owners Action League, the Commonwealth’s top 2A group) says he was very accessible and did a good job of assisting gun owners in MA. So in a head-to-head comparison with Barry, Mitt wins. Okay, that’s damning him with faint praise, but still . . . .

    The main thing remains the economy. Barry is an economic buffoon. Run a country? The guy couldn’t run a bath. Mitt’s a capitalist. End of discussion.

    • +1. I will take a capitalist president who’s softer on gun rights over a socialist who deep down inside wants to raise taxes to 50% to fund all of his programs, which may include sending BATFE (and really big fires) to my door for my weapons.

    • Yes, but as an ardent capitalist and someone holding multiple degrees in Economics, Mitt is a slash-and-burn capitalist. While he doesn’t do anything illegal, he does have a history of coming into a company, “strip mining” it by firing as many people as possible to “cut costs” to improve share prices, then moving on to the next company before the previous one implodes from the cuts he made.

    • Mitt’s a capitalist, sure, but if you worked in one of his companies, you’d be out of a job, AND he’d be laughing all the way to the bank. Pure capitalism has its own problems: human greed.

    • The choice of Romney over Obama is like getting older. It’s bad, but not as bad as the alternative.

  10. In the grand scheme of life what’s important is who President Romney will appoint to the the Supreme Court (and to a lesser extent the Circut Courts). President Romney if far more likely to appoint strict Constitutionalists than President Obama is. That’s why I’m voting for Mitt. The threat to gun rights is in the courts right now, not in the executive or legislative branches.

    • Well said, sir.

      And, as Ralph said, there’s the economy. It’s tough to argue that BHO has done well for the economy, and we could definitely do better with a smaller federal government.

  11. CNN is all over Mitt from his travel to the UK calling him Mitt the Twit etc. of course this is the UK Sun saying this, you know the same one in the middle of that wire tapping thing.
    I am waiting for the debates, this is where we will see one shine and one fail.
    course I am voting for Mitt in any case, I can not stand by and watch our country go down in flames.

  12. There’s a man who:

    1) Wants to be President.

    2) Isn’t so stupid as to ignore those who would put him there.

    While I would prefer someone who has had steadfast resolve on certain issues going back 20 years, Romney is developing something of a track record of paying attention to what we’re saying, and then doing it. While I might not like everything he does, I’m willing to bet I’ll like most of what he does a hell of a lot more than what’s being done now, so I’ll take it.

  13. Why even ask this? Anyone (aside from three or four economic liberals) who reads this site is going to vote Republican, even if they ran a goldfish. Doesn’t matter what Mitt believed then, he has now shifted his views to match his electorate, so he is pro-gun. You can bet that if a large percentage of Republicans suddenly decided guns were bad m’kay, he’d have an “epiphany” and change his mind back.
    Our country is factionalized now. His faction is pro-gun, so get in line and vote for him before the evil Muslim Socialist sends the ATF gestapo into your house at night to seize your guns and feed your kids tofu.
    This is what happens when the NRA picks sides in the culture wars.

    • ” Anyone (aside from three or four economic liberals) who reads this site is going to vote Republican”

      Wrong. And wrong.

    • in the culture war, like any other war, you have to pick a side. i’m content that i picked the right side. win or lose i will know i did what was right. as for the tofu bit, i am a right wing conservative who happens to be a vegaterien. go figure.

  14. The realpolitik argument carries some weight in that his vetoes were quite routinely overridden by the looney Mass Legislature. Romney’s no Charlton Heston, but he’ll do for now.

  15. As I said in my email when I sent a link to this to RF at 0300:

    It scares me to say this, because he seems to go whichever way the wind blows, but I’m cautiously optimistic, more than I have been before.

    I am a big fan of this line, though:

    “I don’t support new guns laws in our country… I think that the effort to continue to look for some law to somehow make violence go away is missing the point.”

  16. That guy says whatever your dumb-ass will believe. He is a liar, a con-artist. Come on “people!”

    You know he lies; yet when he lies the way you want him to you feel all warm inside.

    Do you know the definition of “appease”?

    He speaks like and uses the same excuses California politicians do. We see how that place turned out.

    It may be better if Obama is reelected — make you get your lazy butt off the bench — otherwise you be sitting on it for another 4 years.

  17. As an everyday joe, I just can’t trust that smirking dude, sorry. Not with his sketchy corporate history. Laying off / firing people isn’t going to win points with the every man, especially if it didn’t help the company in the long run.

    • Take it from someone who deal with Private Equity types every day – this guy was a boy scout in that crowd. Feel free to buy into the Obama propaganda, but this guy was not cold-hearted raider. Targets of PE takeovers are generally companies that are in trouble, thus their low share prices and vulnerability to takeover. And so once bought, it’s up to the PE fund to turn the business around – and that often involves some layoffs because if the company’s prior manning model had been working, they would not have been a target in the first place.

  18. First of all, Jeremy Clarkson is one of those three lucky Brits who gets to “test” the coolest cars in the World on the BBC Show “Top Gear”…if only it was cars and guns….

    Second, Mitt Romney’s reply to the biggest Brit-Twit, Piers Morgan, made my previously made decision to vote for him for President of these Untied States feel a whole lot more comfortable immediately.

  19. I do not understand this whole notion of “Tens of millions of gun owners are preparing to hold their nose and vote for Mitt Romney for president”. If you don’t like the guy, don’t vote for him. Vote for Gary Johnson! It annoys me when people say “I agree with that guy, but voting for a third party is throwing your vote away.” If just half the people who say that actually voted for a third party candidate there would be some serious changes to the election results. Image if “tens of millions of gun owners” voted for Gary Johnson! Do not be fooled Obama and Romney are the same person: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38

    • Matt: If just half the people who say that actually voted for a third party candidate there would be some serious changes to the election results.

      You are absolutely right. Instead of the results being:

      Romney 51%
      Obama 48.5%
      Others .5%

      They would be:

      Obama 37.5%
      Romney 28%
      Johnson 12%
      Others 22.5%

      This is a good video, I encourage you to watch the whole thing, but I’ve deep-linked to the important part. I linked it to lowercase matt in a different thread yesterday, so you may have seen in then.

      • I understand that, however I think that if Johnson was able to get up on stage in front of both Obama and Romney and show people there is a choice in this election that things would be different. I believe that there are as many, if not more, Democrats upset with Obama as there are Republicans unhappy with Romney. However these people are misinformed, and think they either vote R or D or Nader.

        I realize my viewpoints are pretty naive and that may points are without flaws , I cannot deny that, but I would like to think that we, as individuals, would have conviction in our vote and vote for someone we truly believe in. Not someone who we think will win. It just really irks me when someone, in any election, complains that they don’t like candidate A or candidate B but they vote for the “lesser of two evils” like there is a gun to their head demanding them to vote R or D. We have a choice! Don’t like candidate A or B? Write some one in, vote third party, or do not vote at all. I hope that makes sense. I am not trying to argue with anyone here, merely trying to create a different narrative.

        Thanks for the video, very interesting way of explaining voting systems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *