Lethal Weapon: Could Romney’s Gun Position Kill His Campaign?
Grilled by Tim Russert on Meet the Press this past Sunday over his past support for controversial gun control laws, Mitt Romney reiterated his support for a ban on “assault weapons,” a detail most observers in the media duly forgot.
Romney’s answers to Russert’s questions smacked of either ignorance or pandering (my emphasis below).
… I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban as Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…
And moments later:
… We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street. And finally, we should go after people who use guns in the commission of crimes or illegally, but we should not interfere with the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns either for their own personal protection or hunting or any other lawful purpose.
In Mitt’s world, what constitutes extraordinary or unusual lethality?
Such terms cannot objectively apply to the ammunition most commonly chambered in the class of firearms he targets, especially when compared to the most common calibers of hunting rifles he says he does support.
Most big-game hunting rifles that Romney intones he supports fire cartridges that are far more lethal in terms of raw kinetic power and effective range than those in the assault rifle class. Many of the most common hunting calibers-for example, the .30/06 and .270 Winchester-have roughly twice the muzzle energy of the intermediate bullets common to assault weapons. If brute killing force is his standard, then the most common hunting rifles are “unusually lethal.” Somehow, I doubt the sportsmen of Iowa would appreciate that message this primary season.
Or is it perhaps the rate of fire that Romney finds so dangerous?
All fully-automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934, and it has been more than 20 years since a new automatic weapon was allowed on the civilian market. Here in the real world, all semi-automatic firearms, from the mundane .22-caliber plinker to the most exotic black rifle, fire at precisely the same rate of fire of one bullet per trigger pull. I doubt that ATF-mandated reality differs even in Massachusetts.
The simple fact is there is no difference in lethality between the firearms banned by the 1994 Crime Bill Romney still supports, the nearly identical firearms manufactured during the course of the entire ten-year ban, and those firearms manufactured since the ban expired in 2004. The truth of the assault weapons ban is that it didn’t ban assault weapons, but instead banned cosmetic features that made the firearms look more intimidating, and cosmetics never killed anyone who wasn’t a lab animal.
Romney’s stance, while wrong on the facts, is self-contradictory, as well.
He states that “We should not interfere with the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns either for their own personal protection or hunting or any other lawful purpose.”
The very AR-15 type rifles he would ban if elected president are the most common center-fire competition rifles in America. Firearms in this class are also among the most useful for personal protection, and are taught as such in top shooting schools. These firearms are also used to hunt a variety of game animals, small and large, across the country. All of these uses clearly fit the common-sense definition of a lawful purpose.
Perhaps it’s time for Mitt Romney to re-recalibrate his stance on banning firearms because of the way they look and their imaginary “unusual lethality.”
Doing otherwise could prove to be extraordinarily lethal to his campaign.
Bob Owens blogs at Confederate Yankee.
What’s the problem here?
If, as Romney says, he managed to bring pro- and anti-gun lobbies together in support of a bill that doesn’t really curtail 2nd amendment rights – he has just demonstrated to me that he is a master of the sort of triangulation a conservative president needs to do to defang the remaining loony liberals.
Sounds like he’s a very clever politician, who is unlikely to impinge on 2nd Amendment rights.
“…right of law-abiding citizens to own guns either for their own personal protection or hunting or any other lawful purpose.”
Well, once the law is changed, the people will no longer be law abiding. We’ve seen this in England, Canada, and Australia.
The premise is that the government decides, and the little people obey.
What a nice, obedient, Harvard suck up Mitt is.
The 2nd has nothing to do with hunting, or criminals. It is about free people having militia weapons to be used by the people, against the government. Period.
I don’t know if Mitt is stupid, lying, or cowardly, or some combination. Take your pick.
Am I really supposed to believe that Mr. Romney is any different than either Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Kerry. After all, the same voters elected all three to office. What, they’re going to elect Kennedy and Kerry, then elect someone else for governor that is substantially different?
The biggest danger to gun rights is the violence engendered by drug prohibition.
Romney supports drug prohibition.
IF….
Unfortunately, all of the above turns out to be false. The bill in question had no input or support from the “pro-gun lobby”—AKA the state grass roots organizations AKA the state’s gun owners, and severely curtailed the state residents’ 2nd amendment rights.
The national “pro-gun lobby”—AKA the politically active gun owners of the country, who … aren’t, shall we say, well represented by the NRA, so the limited cover that organization has given to Romney won’t do him too much good when it comes to the voting booth—is well aware of his actions, and it’s hard to see how he’ll win a national election without their support.
(On the other hand, if Hillary! gets the nomination, I think we’ll be in unknown waters given how high her negatives are. Will they be high enough to prompt enough people to vote for any Republican candidate, even one as bad on this issue?)
Nonsense. Mr. Romney is simply revealing his ignorance and confusion on firearms and the Second Amendment. Mr. Owens is correct in his analysis.
There is nothing conservative about Romney. He is calculating, flexible and expedient in his beliefs and his governance. We had a triangulator in the Nineties, let’s not go there again.
Gunowners, if you believe the Second Amendment is important, there is only one conservative presidential candidate worth supporting: the “hands down” candidate. Fred.
Mitt and Rudy are facing away and talking and trying to impress the wrong crowd – neither one can be trusted by gunowners. While he claims to have brought together the lying, intractable anti-gun lobby and gun-owners (who among them precisely?) – given the anti’s unswerving position I have to believe it’s absolute astroturf and political pandering.
Grenade launchers have “unusual lethality,” and they’re already banned – the 2nd Amendment is not about Hunting.
No on Mitt.
Thats some good info. The more I dig into Romney, the more uncomfortable I get.
So I did some homework and guess who has a consistent ‘A’ rating from the NRA forever: Ron Paul.
I’m really beginning to lean towards voting for this guy! Lets see how he does with Tim Russert this Sunday.
Yeah, he’s another genius triangulator all right: He’s either lying, ignorant or evil. That ought to cover all the bases for the big government fans.
Mitts just another administrator. He ought to go into private business where he did well and keep doing it. He doesn’t have a clue about leading a constitutional republic.
I’m a life member of the NRA and Romney will be getting my vote! Huck and Rudy are liberal and the rest of the crowd (although there are some good conservatives in it) don’t stand a chance.
Oh shut up, Romney just resists weapons that are obviously “assault weapons” and most of America is behind that, even many NRA member like ME!
Nowhere in quoting Romney did he say he was going to ban AR-15 type weapons. You don’t know what he means by “exraordinary lethality” so you make something up or assume he is talking about AR-15 type weapons. I guess to you those type of weapons must be extraordinary lethal.
> Romney just resists weapons that are obviously “assault weapons”
What makes these weapons interesting?
They’re less lethal than typical hunting guns.
If it’s the appearance, were you surprised when the family car wasn’t actually as fast as a Nascar race car?
Romney, another “elite” that knows best, another poor choice for the Republicans. Great article, well stated Mr. Owens.
I think gun owners are going to take it in the keester in 2008.
Tyler,
Romney said he supported the original assault weapons ban, which banned some AR-15 style weapons, on grounds that are cosmetic in nature.
Ren:
please explain to us what makes a gun “obviously” an assualt weapon.
Im an NRA member and gunblogger and I’m not voting for Mitt and most of the guys in my club will not vote for him either – we already have fake-Republican Arnold.
And we have enough problems in CA starting all over again, now that Musclehead signed both the deceitful and impossible Kennedy-inspired Microstamping Bill and the un-scientific trumped-up Eco-fakery of the Lead Ammo Ban (if it saves just one Condor…).
Both of the bills were purely cosmetic feel-goodery, but the Anti-gun lobby (which includes the Green movement) will take them and push both of these everywhere else – get ready for it coming to your state soon.
Please if we can save one life I am all for banning these weapons. I don’t know how you can defend them
Romney is Hillary without the clevage. S/he is a tax raising, gun grabbing liberal. Neither one will get my vote or my “contribution”.
And to all the handwringers that think “banning” guns based on their cosmetic features, get a life. Or better yet, get a gun and learn how to use it. It’s much easier to carry a gun than to carry a cop.
And many lives will be lost if S/he really tries to “ban” some guns. As in the fascists that break down doors looking for “some” guns.
An assault rifle is defined as rifle that can fire both semi-automatic and fully automatic. There are NO assault rifles for sale at your local sprawl-mart. Also look up how many leagaly owned fully automatic weapons that are used in crimes. Not so much.
The real reason for the second amendment is to keep tyrants from taking over our government. We had just finished the Revolutionary War. How could we have won that war if we didn’t have weapons powerful enough to defeat the government’s army? I hope no tyrant ever attempts to take over the United States, but if it ever does happen, we will have little chance of winning another revolutionary war if we have only the few meager weapons that the gun control people are willing to allow us to have (if any).
Robert Hurley :
Please if we can save one life I am all for banning these weapons. I don’t know how you can defend them
Dec 20, 2007 12:03 PM
Good. Give me your driver’s license and your car keys. Now.
That way, we know you won’t be running over anybody in your car.
Next, we’ll turn off the utilities to your house. No electrical fires, gas poisonings or drowning in three inches of water for the Hurleys this Christmas!
Now that your refrigerator is turned off, gimme all your food. You and your family can come three times a day and we will feed you some nice nutritious gruel. With plastic spoons. This stuff keeps rats alive 10% longer than ordinary Rat Chow!
Unreasonable? What do you mean? Please if we can save one life…
One word answer to the title: YES!
Stick a fork in him. He’s done.
Excuse me, but what the blankety-blank is “unusual lethality”? Are we supposed to believe potential equates actual? In some cases, sometimes, someone just might perhaps, if only the could…with unusual lethality? A crack shot in a gun free day care center with a Ruger 10/22 could make an horrific between the eyes. It would be, unusually lethal. As would an aluminum baseball bat in the same place. It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. I think Romney’s pandering to the ‘blame the tools, not the crooks’ mob. This sophisticated word slipperiness is detestable. Perhaps if a law was enacted making the existence of criminals illegal, then we would see…uh huh. Right!
Could Romney’s Gun Position Kill His Campaign?
It could — and I sincerely hope it does.
Oh Force, this day, make the RINOs go away. RINO Rudy, RINO Mitt, RINO Huckabee, RINO Bloomberg. Who will remain? Part-time RINO McCain, RIA (Republican In Actuality) Fred, RIA Hunter.
How do you restrict the rights of lawful gun owners, hoping to stop armed criminals?
This is like registering VIRGINS to stop prostitution.
Less than 2% of the population is involved in major crimes yet 100% of lawful guns owners must be held accountable for this minority of people.
Insanity.
That photo came from a Boston Globe story back in January 2007 – I thought it was a great example of press cluelessness. They identified the weapons in the picture as shotguns. They’re pellet guns. (Well, technically, shotguns shoot pellets right? Same thing) Here’s blowup of the picture
http://foreignobjectdamage.blogspot.com/2007/01/boston-globe-reporters-confuse-air.html
Romney is triangulating, in addition to displaying ignorance, self-contradiction, etc., as noted above by other comments.
He hopes to pick up the liberals who cannot abide Hillary.
The irony of the armed protection he and other prominent gun ban proponents enjoy while they muse about disarming the rest of us is a spreading disease among the political class.
The political class and wealthy elitist liberals will never wait in the lines created by socialized medicine any more than they will walk mean streets without bodyguards. For some reason THIS contradiction is rarely pointed out.
If police so badly need AR15′s, then how can you tell me a citizen does not? The enemy is the same, and usually criminals pick on citizens before they pick on cops.
Why is my human right to effective self-defense so expendable?
I’m a single-issue voter; my issue is gun control. I’m against it.
Romney seems like a likable enough guy, but because of his CONTINUING support of meaningless gun bans, I could never vote for him. And frankly, I’m surprised that the evangelicals who have forgiven him for his past pro-abortion positions aren’t more attuned to the gon control issue – which clearly indicates Romney’s willingness to SAY ANYTHING to get elected.
Fred Thompson has my vote for RKBA reasons and a host of others. Thompson summed it up once thusly: “The 2nd amendment means exactly what it says.”
Go Fred! http://Fred08.Com http://Fredipedia.US
Will not vote for him. Romney lost my vote with this issue. If it’s between him and Hillery I will not vote.