Will Mitt Debate Barry on Gun Control?

The media is in a tizzy. I’m not sure either of them want the subject to come up. Mitt isn’t going to want to revisit his ridiculous and incorrect signing statement to the Massachusetts bill he signed that was never an assault weapons ban, and Barry certainly doesn’t want to have to answer questions about gun control. I think it will tend to play in our favor, however, if the issue comes up. So why are the Bradys getting behind it?

7 thoughts on “Will Mitt Debate Barry on Gun Control?”

  1. Simple, the BC does not have anything else. Ever.

    You say, “Let’s talk about the debt ceiling.
    BC says, “Gun control!”

    You say, “Immigration reform.”
    BC says, “Gun control!”

    You say, “Potato.”
    BC says, “Gun control!”

    1. The sad part is that they don’t even have anything more to say than “gun control” because having a serious discussion about any kind of specific policy isn’t possible for them anymore. By hiring a marketing guy to lead the organization, it seems that the ability to actually hold a serious discussion has been reduced to platitudes that they don’t know how to expand upon.

  2. Mitt could always come out and say:

    “Back when guns were the providence of state prerogative, I did what the people of Mass wanted – I supported laws to restrict guns. But today we know two things we did not know then: laws that stop responsible and lawful people from keeping and bearing arms do not stop crime; and we also now know via the Supreme Court that this is a fundamental right.

    It does not matter what a politician – a state lawmaker, a Congressman, a Governor or even a President – thinks about the wisdom of the right. It is a right, and as such, it must be protected as strongly as those other rights we cherish. The minute we let government start picking and choosing the rights we protect, we put at risk the ones we cherish.”

    If Mitt said that, it would go a long way toward making gunnies feel good. We have more than a few people in our community who “came ’round” over time. Hearing Mitt explain this is more than electioneering is valuable. It also explains to the people why he did it. It renders his past positions obsolete.

    He can use the Supreme Court as cover. Not many topics in this election let’s him do that. It let’s him change his position and stay true to his claimed colors: one who respects the Constitution. He gets to say that his first take was proven wrong, and that responsible leaders learn and adapt.

    It also puts Obama in a tough place. Romney loses nothing.

    But who the hell am I kidding?

      1. I hope you’ll forgive my vanity, given that you reminded me of several Old Stories about “educated” politicians. I collected several of the best, some time ago:


        The first one I thought of, was the one about the candidate who answered our and the LWV’s candidate questionnaires in polar opposite ways, about guns, and then tried to tell us it was because we had “educated” him during the intervening period.

    1. Obama could easily say the second paragraph himself. He hasn’t pushed for new gun laws.

Comments are closed.