Quote of the day—Mitt Romney

We need a president who will stand up for the rights of hunters and sportsmen, and those seeking to protect their homes and their families. President Obama has not. I will. And if we are going to safeguard our Second Amendment, it is time to elect a president who will defend the rights President Obama ignores or minimizes.

And if we are going to safeguard our Second Amendment, it is time to elect a president who will defend the rights President Obama ignores or minimizes.

This president is moving us away from our Founders’ vision. Instead of limited government, he’s leading us toward limited freedom and limited opportunity.

Mitt Romney
April 13, 2012
Romney touts support for gun rights at NRA


Photo credit: AP Photo/Michael Conroy
[Since Romney is a politician and his lips were moving I question how firmly, if at all, he believes what he says and whether he will remain true to these campaign promises. But he is saying some of the words gun owners and freedom lovers want to hear.

I want to hear that he is going to do more than play defense (“defend the rights”). I would prefer that he say something along the lines of what Newt said a short while later to the NRA (H/T to Bitter). We should be expanding the scope of the right to keep and bear arms to the rest of the world via the UN. That means a strong offense, not just defense.

For those of you who question the validity of that last sentence by Romney please see my QOTD-Barack Obama from October 28, 2008 with further info from Kevin.—Joe]


2 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Mitt Romney

  1. Who said this?

    “Deadly assault weapons have no place in [our state]. 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.”

    Was it:

    A) Governor Gray Davis of California?
    B) Senator Charles Schumer of New York?
    C) Congresswoman Shelly Berkley of Nevada?
    D) Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts?

  2. Technically, I already know the answer: Governor Mittens of Massychusetts. But he’s a politician who bends with the wind, so I’m willing to “trust” him to protect our rights, by appointing judges that will do so, and signing into law any pro-rights legislation that reaches his desk.

    Heck, even the above words, at best, can be described as a lukewarm favoratism of gun rights, at best!

    So let me accept your multiple-choice question, and raise it with an essay question, 500 words more or less, with a nice thesis, three paragraphs, and a conclusion. Who do you want to have on your side, when it comes to defending gun rights: A lukewarm supporter we have to watch like a hawk, or someone who would really like to ban guns, but can’t, because too many people are watching, so he has to resort to things “under the radar” (such as Fast and Furious, ahem, cough, cough), and would feel a little less pressure to worry about the radar once he’s re-elected (and has said so to foreign leaders, unintentionally on live mic)? Explain.

    Hint: Yeah, the answer isn’t great, but I’m not sure we’re voting ourselves out of our predictament, either…

Comments are closed.