Romney’s Son Gets Grilled on 2nd Amendment

Mitt Romney’s son apparently got asked a tough question last week:

“Your dad recently joined the NRA, didn’t he?” Mac McWilliams asked during the Sangamon County Republican organization’s breakfast.Romney’s son said yes, his father had joined the NRA earlier this year.

“Well then, has his position changed on banning assault weapons?  Because I found that as governor of Massachusetts, he signed a ban into law in 2004,” McWilliams said.

Now, to be clear, the 2004 law Romney signed wasn’t exactly a new ban on assault weapons, it was preserving some definitions in the federal ban that kept certain rifles exempted (Bitter knows more about the specifics than I do).  But you’d expect Romney would have his staffers and son prepared to deal with questions like this.   Nope:

When asked about the ban, Romney’s Illinois campaign chairman State Sen. Dan Rutherford intervened and reminded the audience of his own support of the Second Amendment.

“I wasn’t sure what Rutherford’s views had to do with Romney’s position, but I knew that question time was over,” McWilliams said.

Doesn’t sound like he got his answer.  Romney is a rank political opportunist, and you’d think he’d at least have his folks drilled on how to spin his record to appease gun owners.  Mitt Romney is presenting himself, at least to me, as the Republican version of John Kerry.  Or maybe John Edwards.  Kerry really is a lifelong hunter, unlike Mitt.

3 thoughts on “Romney’s Son Gets Grilled on 2nd Amendment”

  1. That is ridiculous. A candidate’s son or daughter isn’t expected to know every in and out of every bit of legislation of interest to every voter. Romney held the 2A ground in Massachusetts with a 85% legislature. It was not a new ban it was an extension of the old one BUT with loosening of some of the restrictions. It was a compromise that benefited gun owners. The NRA approved of it. So, in reality, the 2A got stronger in Massachusetts under Romney, not weaker — and all while fighting a 85% liberal legislature — no small feat. Nice ant-Romney spin.

  2. Yes, I know the bill actually benefited gun owners, but after he signed it, he said:

    “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

    So explain to me again how I’m spinning that? It seems to me that he’s quite good himself at the spin without any help from me! There’s more where that came from too. And I do think if Romney is going to put his son out there to speak for him, then his son very well ought to know what to say on an issue that Romney has a problem with the base on.

  3. It would appear you are quite familiar with the situation, Brynne. How’s this for connected:

    His staff reviewed his speech for the press conference the day he did the public bill signing. It was focused on the good the bill did for gun owners and made no mention of the AWB or even the fast one pulled on the anti’s that preserved nearly 700 guns. Somewhere along the way, Romney decided to change his speech. Healey’s folks invited Rosenthal up to the stage and to speak at the press conference, with all making reference to how semi-auto rifles are only used to kill people. I only somewhat hold him accountable for letting Healey take over the conference with anti-gunners, but he’s 100% responsible for his switch from praising lawful gun owners to condemning them.

Comments are closed.