Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

Warning: Mitt Romney is coming for your guns.

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

Mitt Romney, 2002

Oh, sure, he got the endorsement of the NRA. Sure, he bought a life membership. Sure, he got the endorsement of Big Bad Gun Boy Ted Nugent. But, let’s look at his record and past statements….on the flip.  

During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney had been a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban, and had also said he believed “in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms.” On July 1, 2004, Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons, saying at the signing ceremony for the new law, “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. 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.” The law extended a temporary measure that had been in effect since 1998 and covered weapons such as the AK-47, Uzi, and MAC-10. The same law also modified some other aspects of general firearms licensing regulations.

So, in other words, in Mitt’s world, guns are only for hunting and those that look scary enough should be banned because you’re too irresponsible to be trusted with them.

Also, as governor of Massachusetts, Romney substantially increased hunting licensing fees as well as the fees required to obtain a Massacusetts FID, the card that in that state you have to have to possess any firearm at all: the card that registers you with the government as a person that owns a gun.

Get that? As governor of Massachusetts, “severe conservative” Mitt Romney not only allowed the FID card to continue to exist, he made it more expensive to get one.

While in Massachusetts, I refused to comply with that law. Had I done my homework and known that law existed, I probably would never have moved there.

Governor Romney has a solid record of pursuing gun control measures to control crime and increase safety. He is vocally supportive of the assault weapons ban, supported a waiting period, and supports registration. While Governor he continued Massachusetts’s history of gun control advocacy.

In 2002, Mitt Romney stated in a debate that he supported the tough gun laws in Massachusetts and that he believed they help protect us and keep us safe. He vowed not to chip away at those laws…Governor Romney has been supportive of the second amendment in the general sense while campaigning for the Presidency in 2012, but continued to support an assault weapons ban in the 2008 elections. Since that time, he has stated that he does not believe that the nation wide assault weapons ban should be re-instituted.

He does not address the issue on his 2012 campaign website.

Doesn’t sound to me like someone the NRA or Ted Nugent would be endorsing….unless, of course, he’s running against the black liberal with the funny name.

Handy dandy flier to be distributed to your favorite gun rights supporters:


[poll id=”




  1. IL JimP

    a gun is a human right?

    I agree with the right to defend yourself and the President is definitely on the right side of that and I’m sure Romney is too.

    I’m confused.

  2. HappyinVT

    Just like the 2000 John McCain wouldn’t recognize the 2008 version of himself the earlier Mitt would slam the door in the more recent Mitt’s face.  Until July or August when Mitt flips again.

  3. creamer

    We should have the right to regulate items that have the ability to kill. We do this with most vehicles through laws and requirements for education and proficiency. I don’t believe there is any state in the country that you can walk into and rent a car or plane without training and documentation. I don’t think there are any states that allow bazooka’s or rocket launchers. Automatic weapons would definateley provide more self defence that semi-auto rifles or pistols, and yet those are still illegal for the most part. So maybe regulations depend on the possible rate of death as opposed to simply being able to kill.

      My biggest concern is not guns but the power of the gun lobby to affect policy. Their is an article today about the probability of concealed weapons being abundant at protest at the gop convention. Does that make anyone there safer?

     Too many people with too many guns with not enough training on mechanics or the mental aspects of pointing guns at people.

Comments are closed.