Gun Owners of America Not Happy With Romney

I’m a member of GOA. Decided that the NRA long-ago stopped representing my best interests in favor of serving their own political and corporate interests, so I took my money elsewhere. As a member of GOA, I get email alerts at least a couple of times a week about specific legislation or candidates that threaten 2nd Amendment rights, which always have a link to their “Political Action” page that automates writing your Representatives and Senators. I don’t remember ever getting an alert that didn’t have such a link…..before today.

The following is an email I just got from GOA. No action required or requested. It’s just informational. Take it with however many grains of salt you wish. I take it with a couple of shovels-full myself.

Mitt Romney and Gun Control

Thursday, 29 September 2011 13:12
Written by Tim Macy

In the recent Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said America’s voters did not need to “settle” for the moderate candidate.  Amen to that.

And gun owners do NOT want candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths.

As the Gun Owners of America’s Board of Directors looks at the Republican candidates running to unseat radical anti-gun President Obama, we see several who have strong pro-gun backgrounds.  Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman all have solid pro-gun records and deserve a hard look from pro-gunners.

At least one frontrunner candidate stands in contrast with a decidedly mixed record on the gun issue.  While Mitt Romney likes to “talk the pro-gun talk,” he has not always walked the walk.

“The Second Amendment protects the individual right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly support this essential freedom,” Romney assures gun owners these days.

But this is the same Mitt Romney who, as governor, promised not to do anything to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ extremely restrictive gun laws.

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate.  “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms.  “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns.  The Boston Globe quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”

Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

And that makes it all the more troubling that Romney refuses to answer GOA’s simple candidate questionnaire.  In our more than 36 years of experience, a candidate is usually hiding anti-gun views if he or she refuses to come clean in writing with specific commitments to the Second Amendment.

Today, Romney may be a favorite “Republican Establishment” candidate of the national press corps.  But that is exactly what gun owners DON’T need in a new President. We need someone who will stand by true constitutional principles and protect the Second Amendment.

I could not agree any more strongly. Romney is the Second Coming of McCain, and if Republicans choose this RINO after McCain being the main reason we have Obama now, then all pretense of a distinction between the left and right wing of the establishment bird will be completely blown out of the water.

I, personally, am not thrilled with any of the choices currently presented on the Republican slate, but none carry so much non-conservative baggage as Romney in my estimation. Doesn’t matter what letter follows the name of any candidate or elected official, the establishment arm of both parties has nothing less than the destruction of the American fabric that has made this country great for over two centuries. Don’t be a part of it. Keep Romney, or any candidate that you perceive as a RINO or less than committed to preserving what is left, and restoring what’s already been stolen, from our constitutional, federalist, republican birthright, on the roles of the unemployed next November.

CC

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    That Romney would be extremely weak on the 2nd amendment was a given considering he’s from Massachusetts.

    That the NRA stopped actually representing gun owners is obvious to a lot of people, but there aren’t a lot of alternatives for gun rights lobbying organizations. The best thing that could happen is Wayne LaPierre gets booted from his position of authority and somebody less bombastic take over. He’s been there way too long, and I have to assume that NRA mailing being written at the 6th grade level is his doing.

    Thumb up 1

  2. Hal_10000

    McCain is not the main reason we have Obama now. Bush is the main reason we have Obama now. McCain is perfect illustration of how selective the word RINO is. His record was conservative on almost everything — low taxes, low spending, big on the wars. His RINOdom was confined to global warming and McCain-Feingold. Oh, and working with Democrats, which is the worst sin you can commit in the GOP.

    Romney crosses me as a politician who will do whatever will get him elected. I have little idea what he’ll actually do with power, but I suspect he’ll be good on the economy, which is the really pressing need right now. He would have managed the auto maker bankruptcy far better than Obama did.

    There’s actually worse — far worse — on the gun front. http://tinyurl.com/5u6f3ko Obama is just a fucking hypocrite on pot.

    Thumb up 0

  3. richtaylor365

    It is my opinion, reminding everyone what they say about opinions in general, that as it stands today, with the current crop of GOP contenders, that Romney is the only guy that has any chance at all of defeating Obama next year and I expect that he will get the nomination.

    Regarding his 2nd Amendment bonafides, he is Charlton Heston compared to Obama. You would no doubt consider me wobbly on the 2nd Amendment (although I don’t think I am, I am a gun owner and proud of it) but some things in that email did not blow up my skirt. For instance his neglect in filling out that GOA questionnaire, that sounds much like a pledge and we have talked about pledges before here, I think they are stupid. Much hay was made about some of the candidates not signing that “marriage” pledge, I wouldn’t have signed it either, yet their refusal was somehow translated into an antipathy for the cause, nonsense.

    I would assume (don’t know for sure) that the GOA (and you) think that any restrictions at all placed on firearms and ammo is a 2nd Amendment breach, I think that reasonable people can support the 2nd Amendment and still be in favor of things like:

    An age limit for gun purchase
    A waiting period for handgun purchases
    Convicted felons not be allowed to purchase handguns
    Certain weapons and ammo being illegal to buy and sell
    Passing a gun safety class being a prerequisite for obtaining any concealed weapons permit

    I guess it is a matter of semantics (and I could be wrong) but I don’t see “regulating” the same as “infringing”. The devil in the details for me is the “regulating” part, some of which makes sense to me and some of which does not.

    Thumb up 1

  4. CzarChasm *

    McCain is not the main reason we have Obama now. Bush is the main reason we have Obama now.

    I’ll buy that to a degree, but I believe Bush’s departure from traditional conservatism is the same rationale that conservatives used to oppose McCain. Bush had No Child Left Behind and the drug entitlement. Hardly traditional conservative programs. By ’08, most conservatives, myself included, who thought the Patriot Act was a necessary and prudent response to 9/11, had caught onto the reality that we had allowed exactly what Franklin warned us against, the idiocy of believing that we can trade liberty for security and still come out as Americans in the end. Since ’08, the clues that demonstrated that reality have become daily occurrences, and apparently the conditioning the right and left wing of the establishment bird have imposed upon us has made us compliant to it. Yippee for bipartisanship! If we had run a true conservative instead of McCain, I think we could’ve defeated Obama.

    His RINOdom was confined to global warming and McCain-Feingold.

    You do realize that McCain/Feingold has since been ruled unconstitutional, don’t you? Or at least the biggest part of it, I don’t remember if the whole law was overturned, but can you think of anything more RINO than authoring unconstitutional limits on political speech? I can’t. And I understand that you’re a global warmer Hal, but no matter what you believe in that regard, conservatism that relies on the Constitution to inform us on the limits of government has yet to be shown where in that document McCain or any other .fedgov official has the authority to tell us what kinds of light bulbs we are allowed to buy and use, or more importantly, where in that document the authority for the EPA to autonomously dictate that CO2 is a pollutant resides. I’m sure you can come up with some umm…..RINO-like rationale for those kinds of things, but conservatives aren’t likely to be convinced. We know how to read, and we’ve spent years searching for such words, or even just amorphous concepts, within the text of the Constitution, and it just ain’t there. People who call themselves conservatives but then make every end-run around the Constitution that they can get away with, like Bush and McCain, are indeed RINOs. Nothing selective about it at all.

    There’s actually worse — far worse — on the gun front. http://tinyurl.com/5u6f3ko Obama is just a fucking hypocrite on pot.

    Wow. It sounds like you’re saying it’s a choice between Romney and Obama. As cynical as I am about the whole slate, even I am not that beat down by the well-entrenched establishment candidates we have to choose from. I think all but one of ‘em can beat Obama, but the problem is that Republicans think of the primaries as the general. In other words, it seems like if Republicans don’t see a candidate beating one of the other candidates, they can’t see them beating Obama, which is ridiculous, because only Republicans vote in the Republican primaries (I know, some states allow cross-voting, but I’m talking in generalities here), and even if they didn’t vote for the party nominee in the primaries, they’ll almost always vote for him/her in the general.

    Anyway, I don’t see how comparing Romney’s 2nd Amendment positions to Obama’s is responsive to the post at all. This is about the Republican primary process.

    CC

    Thumb up 1

  5. West Virginia Rebel

    I’m all for the 2nd Amendment, but groups like these do more to hurt their cause by doing stuff like this-if they think Romney, or any of the other Republican wannabes, is bad, what’s their alternative? An unelectable one-issue wonder fringe type? And, yes, some of these groups can be obstinate, and come off as extreme. Owning a gun carries with it a great deal of responsibility, and should be treated as such, so I also don’t have a problem with any of richtaylor365’s suggestions.

    There’s a lot to dislike about Romney. There’s even more to dislike about the prospect of four more years of Obama. At this point, I’m willing to take my chances with the guy in the magic underwear.

    Thumb up 0

  6. Tripper

    You could make a pretty solid argument that without McCain around last time, Romney would have been the nominee, and we’d be somewhere in the middle of his first term now, or he’d have been the one to lose to Obama. While he might be the 2nd coming of McCain, it’s likely that he was almost the first coming of him. That’s not really the point though I guess.

    If GOA were comparing Obama’s presidency vs Romney’s Governorship, who would have scored higher?
    It looks to me like both would score low, but Obama might be out in front with the better rating.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Hal_10000

    For all my criticisms of Romneycare, Massachusetts is in better shape than the rest of the nation. Uemployment is 7.6, with all their taxes and mismanagement.

    Thumb up 0

  8. Mississippi Yankee

    I have never figured out why people ASSume Romney is from Massachusetts. He was born in Detroit Michigan he was raise in the well to do community of Bloomfield hills.
    His father George Romney was the governor of Michigan.

    Mitt Romney moved to Massachusetts for a job (governor) and then immediately moved back out west when he lost said job. GOT IT!

    Having been born a bred in Massachusetts misinformation such as yours offends me. (I am allowed to be offended upon occasion as at one time I was a liberal)

    /some of this rant was tongue in cheek/

    Thumb up 0

  9. Mississippi Yankee

    Romney is the only guy that has any chance at all of defeating Obama next year and I expect that he will get the nomination.

    So to recap:
    You support the guy who lost to John McCain in the last election right?

    An age limit for gun purchase – Vote = purchase
    A waiting period for handgun purchases – WHY?
    Convicted felons not be allowed to purchase handguns – Yes NEVER
    Certain weapons and ammo being illegal to buy and sell – Which guns and which ammo, please specify
    Passing a gun safety class being a prerequisite for obtaining any concealed weapons permit – YES

    Thumb up 0

  10. HARLEY

    I second that response MY, but as to the convicted felon part, i would like to see that changed to convicted VIOLENT felons.
    Rommey is not a friend of gun owners, neither was Bush Sr. or Jr….
    Perrry im lukewarm on, but however it shapes up, both will be a damm site better than this joke we have now. Maybe, Maybe we will see some kind of action of the F&F.

    Thumb up 1

  11. richtaylor365

    So to recap:
    You support the guy who lost to John McCain in the last election right?

    You are absolutely terrible at recapping, where in that sentence do I say anything about “supporting” Romney?

    Thumb up 0

  12. CzarChasm *

    Yeah, I’m all for the 1st Amendment too….as long as there are reasonable controls on, oh, let’s say, political speech.

    I used to be in favor of the 4th Amendment too, but they’ve already reasonably controlled that right out of existence.

    What do y’all think would be a reasonable control on the 5th? Should it be that the government be authorized to tell you when it’s allowed for you to not incriminate yourself, or should it be that invoking the 5th will henceforth be an incriminating statement in and of itself?

    The 10th Amendment was toast decades ago, so nevermind.

    Oh well, at least someone will be thrilled with y’all’s underwhelming support for the 2nd Amendment. Sarah Brady.

    CC

    Thumb up 1

  13. richtaylor365

    Yeah, I’m all for the 1st Amendment too….as long as there are reasonable controls on, oh, let’s say, political speech.

    Great, because reasonable people have already determined that there should exist exceptions to the 1st amendment, stuff like that yelling “fire” in a theater thingee, other exceptions include Incitement to Imminent Lawless Actions, Threats, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Fighting Words, Discriminatory Harassment, Obscenity, and Defamation (and others as well) or are all those lawyers that argued for these exceptions and all those judges that ruled to the affirmative, they all don’t really care about the Constitution as much as you do?

    As far as all that other stuff, they are safe, not to worry. We still have Fourth, Fifth (as evidenced by those cute Solyndra execs. that invoked it just this week) , and Tenth Amendment protections in place.

    Thumb up 0

  14. InaneGoldfish

    Convicted felons not be allowed to purchase handguns – Yes NEVER

    Why? I don’y exactly have an issue with the lifetime weapons/ammo ban for violent felons. But a lot of low level felonies that are non-violent do not warrant a lifetime ban on guns (while on probation /parole ok I get that, but after termination I dont see it.)

    Thumb up 2

  15. CzarChasm *

    Great, because reasonable people have already determined that there should exist exceptions to the 1st amendment, stuff like that yelling “fire” in a theater thingee, other exceptions include Incitement to Imminent Lawless Actions, Threats, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Fighting Words, Discriminatory Harassment, Obscenity, and Defamation (and others as well) or are all those lawyers that argued for these exceptions and all those judges that ruled to the affirmative, they all don’t really care about the Constitution as much as you do?

    Rich rich rich…..Did you not notice that I suggested a specific issue to which “reasonable” people should be forced to acquiesce? That would be “political speech” rich. Your little snit didn’t answer that question at all. And I’m not going to answer yours because the very fact that I left those already-adjudicated-as-reasonable restrictions on speech out of my question already did.

    As far as all that other stuff, they are safe, not to worry. We still have Fourth, Fifth (as evidenced by those cute Solyndra execs. that invoked it just this week) , and Tenth Amendment protections in place.

    Wow. Anyone paying attention in this country today, who thinks the 4th and 10th Amendments especially, are not threatened or repealed already by fiat, is willfully ignorant. So either you’re not paying attention, or you’re ignorant without meaning to be, or your ignorance is willful. Which is it rich? Because I can provide pages and pages of examples that completely contradict your assertions above.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  16. Mississippi Yankee

    RomneyCare isn’t the reason for Massachusetts’ 7.6% unemployment. In fact “white flight” and an amnesty friendly atmosphere (not reporting) contribute to what just a few years ago would have been considered high unemployment.

    RomneyCare itself has had HUGE over-cost since day one.
    Granted from a states rights view it is probably constitutional but a huge failure none the less. Montana will just be the next petri dish and that’s ultimately a good thing I guess.

    Thumb up 0

  17. HARLEY

    IT appears that the White House, knew a hell of a lot more about the Various “gun walking” programs that was run by the ATF/FBI., in fact it seem that the WH was running the op all a long.
    So Where is the special prosecuter? Where is MSNBC, CNN ABC, CBS, New York Times, et all.?
    at the minimum this is supplying terrorists with weapons, gunrunning, and violation of various firearms laws.

    Thumb up 0

  18. hist_ed

    Politicians never learn. When a scandal happens they try to run and cover up, extending the scandals duration many times and multiplying the damage. The smart thing for Obama to do is open up the records, hang Holder out to dry and try to move on. He won’t, so this will continue to fester on into an election year.

    If Bill Clinton had just said “Yep, you caught me, she blew me” then there would have been a little ranting and raving, but there would have been no Ken Starr, no impeachment trial and it would have been over in a few weeks or months instead of consuming his second term.

    Thumb up 0