R’Money makes an unholy pilgrimage to kiss the ass of the NRA at their annual convention in St. Louis.

He’s got some explaining to do.

As governor of Massachusetts, he backed laws that are anathema to the national gun lobby — an assault weapons ban and a waiting period to buy firearms — and once engendered skepticism, if not outright hostility, from some gun owners.

Of course it will be hard to put some light between himself and President Obama who has been no friend to the gun control advocates

Mr. Obama has hardly been an enemy of gun rights. He signed legislation allowing visitors to national parks to carry concealed guns, and his overall record has so disappointed the gun control lobby that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violencegave him an “F” grade in 2010.

Just another example of how it’s become impossible to tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Tagged with:

14 Responses to Mitt Romney Plants his “Severely Conservative” Lips on the NRA’s Fat, White Ass

  1. Memory Man says:

    It’s worth noting that the “Brady” in “the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” is none other than Ronald Reagan’s own Press Secretary James Brady, who was shot by a schizophrenic man in an obviously insane attempt to impress film star Jodie Foster. Brady is a Republican. His organization is Republican. Republicans lie, so whatever they say about President Obama must be rejected out of hand.

    If you want a Democratic politician to crucify, I offer you Richard M. Daley. Daley is the longest-standing Chicago mayor since his father. As Cook County States Attorney Daley lobbied for and used a loophole to obtain a de facto handgun ban in Chicago. Since then handgun violence has skyrocketed, causing Chicago to take New York City’s spot as the murder capitol of the US. Daley’s handgun ban is a textbook case against gun bans.

    This irrational fear of guns, and ignorace of the tragic consequences that gun bans bring has got to stop! (I know, everybody swears “I’m not skeered!” and names an ancient rifle to ‘prove’ it. But nobody has offered any explanation.) You think that banning everything that you fear will result in a Utopia. But time and again the facts show the opposite to be true. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result “this time”.

    I don’t know if the NRA ever served a useful purpose, but right now it’s clearly off its rocker and needs to be put down. That makes anybody who kowtows to the NRA an easy political target. That is unless you’re off your rocker too…

  2. Aaron RODRIGUEZ says:

    Classy, very classy.

  3. Other Side says:

    @MM: Why does toting a gun in public (hidden or not) get you going so? That seems to me far more irrational. Do you yearn for that right moment? Does that trigger finger itch for action?

    We’ve had this discussion before; reasonableness v. unreasonable. Frankly, I don’t care if you have guns. I don’t dislike them. Simply use them for hunting or collecting. Keep them off the street.

    • Memory Man says:

      At Other Side, you’ll have to unload our first paragraph before it can be answered. IJS

      If I read your rather vague second paragraph correctly, you’re assuming that you’re reasonable and I’m not. Because you offer nothing to support this assumption, I’m guessing you’re simply speaking stupidly, from a position of ignorance and self-proclaimed rightness. I think I found your problem.

      I didn’t ask for your opinion about me having guns; that’s not an issue. I didn’t ask about liking them or not; again not an issue. It looks to me like, just as in your first paragraph, you’re trying to do some name-calling, but just don’t have the guts to come out and say what’s really on your mind.

      You don’t have the right to dictate what others can and cannot do, thank God. That’s especially true with Constitutionally protected freedoms.

      My dad was an Army intelligence in the Pacific theater during WWII, and clearly cherished his Carbine. Army officers were issued a standard 1911 Colt pistol, but when ambushes on officers in rear areas increased, so did the officers’ firepower. I don’t know what happened to the Carbine, but when my dad returned home he gave his sidearm to my uncle, who was the only “gun person” in the family. I grew up in an environment without firearms, save for those used by the police.

      The only exception to this was when a small father-son group of friends who did stuff once a month went to a shooting range. Our target shooting trip awakened something in my dad, and we went back on our own a couple of times. We would have continued to do it, but laws changed, and one of the few interests that I had in common with my dad was gone forever. He died before I turned 18 and could once more go to the range.

      When I turned 21, I resumed target shooting until the laws changed once again, and the last shooting range within 100 miles closed down. Since then I haven’t had any involvement with any firearms of any type, not counting those pointed at me (bad!) or brandished near me (less bad, but still…).

      Since I’ve moved to Madison there have been at least four armed robberies of stores where I shop, and at least three running firefights close enough to my home that a stray bullet could have killed me on my couch. The last two happened within minutes of me passing by the crime scene in my car. If I had started a couple of minutes earlier or later (respectively per instance) I would have found myself right in the middle of it!

      I don’t much relish dying at the hand of some idiot with a gun. I also realize that reacting emotionally, extremely, nonsensically and/or without thinking will do absolutely nothing to help, and can most likely will make things worse. That’s what happened in Chicago when they banned handguns. That was a fuckup of epic proportions!

      I don’t know why so many people (such as yourself, I suspect) are so stubborn in holding onto the arrogant notion that they have the power to control things that they so obviously can’t. I understand why the regressive crowd does it; that’s their nature. The question is why do people who claim to be progressive fail in exactly the same way?

      My guess is that the answer has something to do with extremism.

  4. Gareth says:

    I believe that Mitt Romney killed himself a bear when he was only three and was known as the King of the wild frontier.

  5. Ted Rulseh says:

    I saw parts of this talk. It was one of the most disgusting pander jobs I have ever seen, and that says a lot when talking about Mitt Romney, who has set the bar pretty high (or should I say low)? Where do people get this stuff about Obama hating gun rights? To hear the GOP tell it, if Obama is re-elected, he is going to personally break into every home, smash the gun cabinet, clean it out and give all the guns to Muslim extremists to use against Americans.

  6. Other Side says:

    @MM: I did not intend my comment to be a personal assault. Rereading I see I must apologize. Anyway short answer, I’m not so arrogant to presume I can or should control anyone. It is simply my belief carrying guns or any weapon does not contribute to safety or public welfare.

    Thanks for your comment though calling me stupid was unkind. In lieu of my first comment I will forgive.

    • Memory Man says:

      Other Side, I never called you stupid. I was commenting about the cryptic nature of what you wrote, and clearly said that I was guessing. With the new information about you using a cellphone to post, I can understand better why your post appears as it does.

      When it comes to speaking out against the arrogance of those who believe that gun bans are a panacea, I am preaching to anyone and everyone, not you in particular. Please don’t take it personally.

      I do agree with you that the efficacy of normal citizens carrying firearms, ostensibly in the public interest. The chances of saving lives by carrying a pistol are about as slim as the chances of saving lives by carrying up-to-date first aid training. But I can’t rightly dismiss those cases where armed police officers, private investigators, security agents, bodyguards etc. have saved lives.

      Have you given any consideration to how a total weapons ban might work? Do you honestly expect criminals to turn in their guns and sin no more?

      If this wasn’t 2012, which may turn out to be most important election year of my life, and perhaps this century. Right now I have real threats to contend with and far more immediate consequences to forestall. My interest is to make sure that “President Willard M. Romney” never ever happens. After we have a Democratic President and Democratic majority in Congress secured, I’ll be happy to indulge you. Until then my only interest is in winning elections.

  7. John says:

    It was great to see Mr Romney come out on the side of the gun owners for once. We have been under attack by the Obama administration since day one. Our rights as law abiding gun owners are in danger, and sadly it is not a foreign enemy that we need to fear but other Americans who live in fear of guns. I have taught my 8 year old and 10 year old the proper use of guns. They know how to properly handle a weapon. They also know that our guns are locked in our home but if necessary they both know how to open the gun vault, load a weapon and defend themselves in thier own home. It is OUR right as Americans to have that type of freedom and protection.

  8. Other Side says:

    @John: If anything the Obama administration has acted in gunowners’ interests. As far as your rights, I’m in your court. Just keep them at home; you don’t have the right to intimidate, something I’ve already experienced. And it wasn’t some inner city kid.

    Still, thanks for your comment.

  9. Jan Tessier says:

    Facebook post from Elayne Boosler: “In hearing about the Trayvon Martin case, Mitt Romney remarked, “What does ‘stand your ground’ mean?”

  10. Other Side says:

    @MM: Obviously law enforcement officers will and should be armed. Their jobs are too dangerous not to be.

    I’m very pro-2nd Amendment. My belief does not extend to carrying of any kind. Feels to me like a MAD philosophy for the streets. And just as with the BIG popguns the innocents are the pawns.

    Anyway, carry is the law in most states. It is what it is. I would never agree to a complete weapons ban. I simply disagree with carry.

    Though, if all who carried were thoughtful like you I might be convinced to reconsider. Alas.

    Thanks for the discussion. I need to rest my thumb now.

    • Memory Man says:

      It’s good to know that you’re not for leading us into a future that depends on a board with a nail in it to save society.

      You say “obviously law enforcement”, which I agree with somewhat. (Giving every copper an assault rifle and camo fatigues puts them into “standing army” territory, with dubious legality.) The premise that the police will show up in time to save you from being shot to death by those who don’t obey gun laws (or any others for that matter) is hopelessly flawed. But I’d choose that over what I dare not even imagine might go through the minds of average civilians who spend every waking hour of their lives preparing to get into a shoot-out! My personal preference is to call upon Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, which has protected me from more imminent danger than any other single thing.

      But what about security guards and other para-police businesses? Although the guy carrying an old .38 Special and getting paid minimum wage might seem like a bad idea when I phrase it that way, uniformed security guards are often the ones to fill in that gap before the sworn officers arrive. And then there are private security escorts and investigators, who are highly trained and usually chosen from MP or civilian police ranks to begin with. They use concealed carry mainly to not scare people. IMHO it takes enough training and vetting in Wisconsin for these sorts to get their security or PI licenses that I’m not worried about them.

      When it comes to the Second Amendment, I’m convinced that it’s there to give the People a fighting chance if the established system of government breaks down and descends into despotism. I don’t think that necessarily precludes using firearms for other things, from shooting supper to defending your home from invaders, or your person from rattlesnakes on the farm. I also doubt that the National Guard is what was meant by the militia clause.

      Frankly I’m not concerned about the relatively small number of people who legally carry guns in public for no particular reason. I believe that most stop doing it after the novelty wears off and the weight becomes annoying. I’m far more concerned about the growing number of people who carry guns illegally, and would like to see something far better than the fear-based initiatives like Richie Daley’s handgun ban in Chicago. I want illegal guns out of the hands of people with criminal intent, not a bunch of half-baked schemes that throw the baby out with the bath water.

      Thank you for the discussion! My best wishes to your thumb. 😀

Leave a Reply

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