Quote of the day—Mitt Romney

I believe the next president could indeed have the opportunity to shape the Court for decades to come, and that’s a key reason why the tens of millions of Americans who support the NRA should support my candidacy. My view of the Constitution is straightforward: Its words have meaning. The founders adopted a written constitution for a reason. They intended to limit the powers of government. The job of a judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government and, where the Constitution does not speak, to leave the governance of the nation to its elected representatives. I believe in the rule of law, and I will appoint wise, experienced and restrained judges who take seriously their oath to discharge their duties impartially in accordance with our Constitution and our laws—not their personal policy preferences.

Mitt Romney
September 11, 2012
NRA’s Chris Cox Goes One On One With Governor Mitt Romney
[If you can ever really be reassured by something a politician says what Romney says in this interview is about as reassuring to gun owners as you can get.—Joe]

9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Mitt Romney

  1. “The job of a judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government and, where the Constitution does not speak, to leave the governance of the nation to its elected representatives.

    Room for a whole lot of evil in that bolded part. One could infer from such a statement that Mittens thinks the U.S. Constitution only puts restraints on the agents of government and anything else is “fair game” but that is NOT the case: the U.S. Constitution grants specified powers and *explicitly* states nothing more is allowed (see Amendment X).

  2. Anon Coward:

    You talking about the bill that Mittens signed that banned not a single gun available in Massachusettes, but rather protected and made permanent the EXEMPTIONS to the MA AWB that would have automatically expired with the 2004 federal AWB sunset without Mitten’s signature?

    Yeah, SUPER gunbanner there, working in a far-left state, in a pre-Heller/MacDonald legal environment, where a permanent state AWB was already in place that only exempted things that were actively exempted by the federal AWB. Even the hard-corps state gunrights group supported the bill Mittens signed. The press reported it as an extension of the Assault Weapons Ban, but it wasn’t — the MA AWB wasn’t expiring – only it’s exemptions, and this bill was an extension of the expiring AWB EXEMPTIONS.

    Contrast that to Obama’s record. Even AFTER Heller, Obama supported the “collective rights” version, just like every other statist gungrabber. He set in place illegal gun control schemes, agent provocateur gun running schemes to justify a massive new gun registration and AWB, and has appointed two virulently anti-liberty SCOTUS judges, both of whom are drolling for a chance to overturn Heller, MacDonald, and set Constitutional precedent in regards to the Second Amendment on British lines.

  3. “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.”

    “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.”

    “I’m a hunter and believe in Second Amendment rights, but I also believe that assault weapons are not needed in the public population.”

    I’m talking about THAT Mitt Romney.

  4. Anonymous Coward, that’s from the signing statement. But the bill did as described above.

  5. This article is about being enthusiastic about what Mitt Romney *said* not what Mitt Romney *did*.

    I have heard enough to know he is no friend to gun owners. Maybe he was against them before he was for them.

    You people will believe anything.

  6. Anon,

    A politician in Massachusettes has to toe a certain line. Anything more pro-gun than that, in that context, would have simply set up the legislature to come back for a bigger hit on guns — the signing statement and the way the bill was misrepresnted by the antis and the press, gave the antis their “victory” (as with most bills supported by antis, it was more about “looking busy” than “getting stuff done”, so they could shut up and quit fighting for a while), despite the fact it was actually a progun bill, supported by the most solidly pro-gun state advocacy group in Massachusettes.

    Spin it any way you like — it was a Second Amendment “win” (albeit a small one), at a time before SCOTUS decided Heller or MacDonald.

    The reassurance is in predicting what he is likely to do. The same sort of justices who will give Romney the types of decision he wants in other parts of his agenda and core beliefs, are unlikely in the extreme to overturn or water into futility the gains of Heller or MacDonald. Contrast that to the only other viable candidate on the 2012 Presidential ballton – a guy who already put two virulent antis on SCOTUS in his first opportunities.

    His previous actions are a better judge of what he is going to do, leavened with a grain of his realizations of missteps (whether he feels they were merely political missteps, or if he realizes they were bad ideas) from the past he shouldn’t repeat.

  7. That is precisely why I am voting for Romney in my first presidential election, despite my libertarian tendencies. I want a fighting chance at having a free country when I finally graduate and come into the world as an independent worker and member of society.

Comments are closed.