He’s the first speaker up today. Very little of his speech so far has been about gun rights. Not too surprising, given that it’s not his strongest issue. His message is more about freedom and smaller government.
UPDATE: Looks like Romney managed to mention Fast and Furious, and make a nod to getting rid of Holder. He also promises he will protect our Second Amendment rights.
UPDATE: One of his better speeches, actually, I have to say.
26 thoughts on “Mitt Romney”
I’m betting that Romney’s Secret Service detail ensured that the crowd was unarmed, which speaks volumes for the attitude that many on government have towards what the euphemistically call ‘rights’.
I’m 100% sure Romney has no control over that. The ban on carrying there is pursuant to Missouri state law. (ban on any building with child care facility, any building with a license to sell beer or wine, any building or facility that can hold 5k or more people).
But you can go ahead and vote for Obama if you want.
Except these bans are very weird: being in one of those places while otherwise legally carrying concealed allows the people in charge to ask you to leave. If you don’t and they call the police in, on the first offense you get a $100 citation slap on the wrist. Here’s the law in question; (16) above the part I quote below is the 5K capacity item:
Missouri has the weirdest regime of strict and loose concealed carry and self-defense law I’ve ever heard of. A Missouri CCW license is quite expensive, $100 and then $50 every 3 years, plus an 8 hour course and until this or last year had a compromise age 23 minimum … but any US locality’s CCW license will suffice instead (and in general discussion with my county’s deputy who handles them, he very strongly implied the age restriction only applied to getting the Missouri license, not to legally carrying with another locality’s).
The above silliness, plus a separate absolute ban on carrying on buses without permission. Castle Doctrine that’s been judicially nullified, but you’re allowed to use lethal force while someone’s breaching your home’s external defenses; once they’re in, it reverts to the default standard. No license required to carry concealed in your vehicle (this one sort of makes sense, it was to stop people from quickly making their gun(s) visible after they were stopped, which made police understandably nervous). Status of Duty to Retreat outside of your home totally unclear so you have to assume it. And I’m sure there’s more I can’t think of now.
18 USC 1752 (see below) allows the USSS to cordone off an area around a protectee and make it a weapons free zone while restricting access. It is a matter of USSS policy to restrict weapons w/in a certain area of a protectee. It doesn’t mean that the agents are anti-gun or even have a choice in the matter.
(a)It shall be unlawful for any person or group of personsâ€”
(1)willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;
(2)willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;
(3)willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
(4)willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2); or
(5)willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2).
(b)Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be punishable byâ€”
(1)a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, ifâ€”
(A)the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
(B)the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
(2)a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
(c)Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.
(d)None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.
(e)As used in this section, the term â€œother person protected by the Secret Serviceâ€ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title when such person has not declined such protection.
You want to hold him up like a boogeyman to scare people into voting for Romney, just say so. Or you can demand, like an actual thinking citizen, that Romney runs on his record, his vision, and his promises.
At least his Secret Service detail (probably) won’t get run out of St Louis for vague scandals involving luxury hotels and hookers…
“He also promises he will protect our Second Amendment rights.” Oh well, he made a campaign promise, so it must be true.
I can’t believe this buffoon is going to be the nominee. Didn’t the GOP learn anything from the McCain debacle?
The number one issue for voters is the economy. On the economy, Romney is polling +10 over BHO. BHO is showing a Rasmussen -17 today and Gallup is showing his approval under 50%.
Paul was right when he called social issues losers. Romney is right to stick to the Economy and attack BHO on his record. All McCain had was that he was a career gov’t man and spent 6 years in a POW prison. They are not the same, a lot has changed in 4 years.
Yes. Get someone who looks better, and doesn’t come across as mean. Sadly, that matters a lot to the voters in the middle.
Given that 30% of voters are not registered with either of the major parties, you’re not competing for your a base. You’re competing for those 30% who are the swing voters. BHO sold hope and change, and the 30% bought it. This time around the polling is showing the 30% leaving him by a 66/33 split with that 66% saying it’s the economy that matter most. Mitt is right for sticking to the economy as the issue. You really think BHO is going to run on his record?
I read coverage of Mitt’s speech elsewhere that said he didn’t mention anything at all about repealing any current gun laws and that all he basically said on that subject is he wouldn’t try to make any new gun laws. Gee, thanks, Mitt.
Speaking of the most pro-gun candidate in the race Ron Paul, here’s a pic of his numerous HUGE rallies you won’t hear about: http://i.imgur.com/8y8xl.jpg
And here’s a video of his numerous HUGE rallies you won’t hear about: “Ron Paul Massive Rallies 2012” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgsg7a-Ok8Q
He’s running for President, repeal would come fomr Congress.
Bad news Wes. Ron Paul is never going to the be the nominee. And if he runs as some third party he won’t get 10% of popular vote, and no electoral votes.
No one expected or expects for Romney to come out publically with some massive gun rights agenda. First, that’s not his thing, second, it won’t gain him any votes from the undecideds and might cost him some.
If he signs what a pro-gun Congress gives him to sign and appoints who a pro-gun Senate lets him know will be “acceptable” and has his future AG and DHS Chief start reining in and rolling back the various exec. agency power grabs, that’s all we really need.
Heck, I don’t think the Pres should be that involved domestically in the first place, on gun rights he should listen to the popular will as expressed through Congress (guided by the NRA) and the Courts (as “suggested” by the SAF).
oh noes!!!! he’s using a teleprompter!! thought that was against the rules for any GOP’er?
I’m betting that Romney can at least remember his own kids’ ages without one.
I more what Romney’s position would be AFTER the election, were he to win.
For those who think M.R. is not conservative enough, and thought the same about G.W.B., let me remind you and extrapolate a bit on what Matt says above:
GWB appointed a couple of decent SCOTUS judges, John Ashcroft as AG (wrote the letter proclaiming the 2nd Amendment as protecting an individual right) and John Bolton as delegate to the UN (told them to back off any thought of infringing Americans’ RKBA). He also didn’t push towards any renewal of the AWB. Yeah, he had said he’d sign such a bill IF PRESENTED to him, but he made no movement towards actually getting such a bill through Congress.
Yawn. This sounds like every election I can remember in the last 60 years — including most of the comments here. It’s as if one TV show was made in 1950, and they’ve been rerunning it ever since. Except now you can watch it on 250 channels.
Ummm, right; going by the ones I know more than a little about:
1960: Don’t think so, Nixon and JFK had few difference in positions, especially on foreign policy.
1964: Goldwater will start a nuclear war that will kill your children (the “Daisy” commercial).
1968: Vietnam, plus George Wallace’s naked appeal to race (actually, I suppose we have that in reverse today).
1972: McGovern will gut the military and put everyone on welfare (I remember 2 very good commercials about each).
1976: “I am not a crook” (well, Jimmy wasn’t, as such, just malevolent and incompetent).
1980: I will set the economy right using these specific policies, and while I’m at it I will destroy the Evil Empire (the Soviet Union; mission accomplished December 1991).
1984: Steady as she goes, “It’s morning in America”.
1988: “I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.” That quote in white on a totally black background was the cover of the November 1988 American Rifleman.
1992 and 1996: Sort of pass, although the mask over G. H. W. Bush’s gun grabbing nature was gone and Dole, who as Minority Leader was responsible for allowing the Brady Bill to pass, was long past his “Sell By” date.
2000: I will require anyone wanting to buy a handgun to get a special photo ID.
That’ll do for now, although I suppose for 2008: “Everyone has a Constitutional right to hunt, fish (sic) and self-defense” (yes, Obama really said this in so many words, I’ve watched the video).
I’m surprised you liked his speech, maybe that’s just compared to his previous ones.
Here’s my take on it. Obama has a history of gun control support in the past, but recently has actually moved in your direction by signing pro-gun legislation.
Romney has a history of gun control support in the past, and now TALKS a good game to the NRA telling them what they want to hear.
Take your pick. I honestly don’t see why Romney would be preferred over Obama from the gun rights perspective.
Anyone got a link to a video of his speech? In this day and age, you would expect it to be up on youtube 30 seconds after he stepped off the stage.
“1964: Goldwater will start a nuclear war that will kill your children (the â€œDaisyâ€ commercial).”
My favorite line from that era was, “They said if I voted for Goldwater, I’d find myself fighting in Vietnam. Well, I voted for Goldwater, and sure enough, here I am fighting in Vietnam.”
(Personally I was too young to vote in 1964, but aware enough to see that the principle still holds.)
Comments are closed.