You're right. All that would have happened. And you're right. The administrations responses might have differed some. I'd be more interested in the overall public reaction to those responses if Romney was in office. LOLOriginally Posted by David88vert
It wouldn't have mattered. You seem to believe that people's fearful reactions should mean that we should make changes to the system.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Ya, it be funny see how dem crackers act when dey aint got a black man to blame fer everything. Damn crackers just wanna keep the black man down. Dey cant stand see Obama be president.
Prob has nothing at all to do with the relentless tax increases and sheer disregard for the constitution or american values.
LMAO. More intelligent that you know.
What do you believe would have been different about a Romney administration response to some of those events, you can summarize if you want...
Condemnation of the people committing the acts, rather than calling for a ban on the tools used.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Ok. So you believe Romney, like Obama, would have condemned the people committing the acts. What would Romney have done different?
Anything regarding his possible Presidency is pure speculation, but I would venture that he probably would not have supported Feinstein's bill to the same degree as Obama has. He may have proposed other bills, such as mental health proposals, but we will never know, and there is no benefit to trying to "armchair quarterback" from that view at this point in time.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I initiated the speculation. Quarterback!
You don't think he would have supported Feinsteins bill, or something similar to it?
I simply speculate that he would not have supported Feinstein's bill, as it was written, to the same extent that Obama pushed it daily, and was upset when it failed to gain enough Democrat votes to pass through the Senate.
The reason that it does not matter is because Romney is not the President, and Obama is the President. We have to work with what we have.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
His governance record seems to suggest that he might have.
So if either administration would have supported some iteration of an assault weapons ban, it is foolish to pretend that only Obama is some kind of evil gun grabbing dictator and that there isn't something more to a gun ban that you might be turning a blinder to because you have some kind of idealogical grudge.
My thoughts exactlyThe reason that it does not matter is because Romney is not the President, and Obama is the President. We have to work with what we have.
I am not saying that Romney would have supported additional gun regulations.
His political position does not currently support Feinstein's proposal.
"I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. I believe in safe and responsible gun ownership and that anyone who exercises the right to keep and bear arms must do so lawfully and properly. I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. Law-abiding citizens have a right to protect their homes and their families and as President, I will vigorously defend that right." - Romney, Jan 7, 2008, The Washington Post
"Yeah, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We of course don't want to have automatic weapons, and that's already illegal in this country, to have automatic weapons. What I believe is we have to do is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have and to change the culture of violence we have. And you ask, how are we going to do that? Good schools, to give people the hope and opportunity they deserve, and perhaps less violence from that. But let me mention another thing. And that is parents. We need moms and dads helping raise kids." - Romney, Second Obama-Romney 2012 debate , Oct 16, 2012
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Me and Romney it seems have similar stances on gun control.
"Welcome to the Republican Party." - Sinfix
(quote made up by me)
Obama invited me. Seems like they gave him a blue tie though instead if a red one.
Obama wore a blue tie in the debates. Romney wore the red tie.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
So someone must have thought he was a democrat and gave him a blue tie.
Obama and I have similar stances on gun control as well.
We know that.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
So then if me, Romney, and Obama all have similar stances on gun control, what do you think Im getting at?
What you are getting at is a fallacy contrived in your head. They only have similar stances in your mind. Obama made it very clear that he wants to increase restrictions on the firearms that you can purchase through dealers new, and Romney has not taken that position.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Except that you said he did, and he did, in fact, pass these restrictions. So, unless there's another governor mitt Romney of Mass. that no one knows about but you, I suppose it isn't me who made up things now, is it?
Romney did not support Feinstein's 2013 Assault Weapons Ban. Please show me where he did.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
What did I say?
On the speculatory topic:
"You dont think he would have supported Feinsteins bill or something similar to it?"
Is that what you want me to show you? Something similar to Feinstein's bill that he supported before? Just trying to clarify what you want to see so I can post what you want to see, I don't want you backpedaling and saying "no I didn't say that"
Show where he said that he supports Feinstein's submitted version of the 2013 Assault Weapons Bill. Obama clearly stated that he supported it and stumped for it. Where did Romney state that same support for the bill?
You are the one that tends to backpedal and dance around trying to use technicalities when you misstate something.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Didn't misstate anything. You're drawing a conclusion off of something I didn't say already. Lol. That didnt take long at all. That is what a straw man is if you're taking notes.
I said: DO YOU THINK Romney would have supported Feinsteins bill or something similar to it. I DID NOT SAY Romney indeed supported Feinstein's bill. Romney DID support, and signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts in 2004.
The problem is you have a problem with drawing your own conclusions based on statements or positions that dont exist. I'm not dancing around technicalities, and there is text proof of this. Now, stop the backpedaling. I'm tired of calling you out on it.
Hello, I have not backpedalled any. Nor have you been able to nullify even one point that I have stated. YOU asked me to clarify my what needed to be stated, and I did just that. You are the one who keeps getting wrapped up with tangents about hypothetical situations. The fact is that the Mass. 2004 bill is not the same as Feinstein's bill. This fact obviously has escaped your attention and comprehension.
Romney was in support of the 1994 ban back in 2004, but note that when he sign Mass. ban in 2004, that was with the support of his states pro-gun lobby, as they got other concessions that they wanted.
Since 2008, Romney has stated clearly that he does not support a federal ban on assault weapons.
His statement in Jan 2008:
"I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that if they're implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reason. That's the right that people have."
During the 2008 primary campaign, the Washington Post asked Romney, "Do you think tighter restrictions should be in place for those buying a firearm?"
Romney answered, "No. I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. ... I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. ..."
The only straw man argument is YOUR hypothetical situations, which are detached from reality, but then again, so are you, so we should expect that. Your hypothetical situation is what does not exist. My reality is that Romney did not support the 2013 Feinstein bill, and stated clearly that he was not in support of it.
You need to learn to have the facts on your side before you try to call someone out and utterly and completely fail.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Facepalm
Romney once supported a assault weapons ban similar to that of Feinsteins with bipartisan support. You've agreed to it, and he hasn't changed his position on the issue since then. End of discussion. There is no other reality than that. To think that he is any different than Obama on guns is completely and utterly false.
Can you not read????? I'll bold it for you.
His statement in Jan 2008:
"I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that if they're implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reason. That's the right that people have."
During the 2008 primary campaign, the Washington Post asked Romney, "Do you think tighter restrictions should be in place for those buying a firearm?"
Romney answered, "No. I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. ... I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. ..."
If you still believe that he would have supported Feinstein's 2013 bill, you are delusional, or in denial. It seems that you believe that you know Romney better than he knows himself.
Finally, look at his own website, and his public statement there:
“...will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes. But he does not support adding more laws and regulations that do nothing more than burden law-abiding citizens while being ignored by criminals. Mitt will also provide law enforcement with the proper and effective resources they need to deter, apprehend, and punish criminals.”
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Facepalm.
Ohh I see. You're right. There was another Mitt Romney created in 2004 who signed an assault weapons ban. My mistake.
You are definitely smacking your own face.
Your mistake is not understanding that 2004 came before 2008 (the calendar works like that), and in 2008, he made the above statements. His website had the information listed above in 2012, which also comes well after 2004 (I only mention it because it is obvious that basic math is a serious challenge to you.).
You wanted to create the hypothetical situation of replacing Obama with Romney in 2012, not 2004. His answer in 2012 is clear. It is not the same as Obama's stated position. You have failed to tie them to the same position on Feinstein's 2013 bill, which was the whole basis for your original statement (I figure that I need to remind you, as your memory has been lacking today.).
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
seems to be working better than your understanding of facts.
I understand how you feel. And I understand that this information goes against a closely held viewpoint of yours that points out candidates from two opposing parties don't have similar views. However, the truth remains that he passed a similar bill in his state. This is an indisputable fact. The text of the bill is everywhere. It doesn't matter what he said in 2008 or 2012. The fact that he doesn't want MORE laws doesn't change the fact that he felt the ones he put in place in 2004 were appropriate measures, especially since he said so himself. Period. I'm not gonna argue this point any further unless you can prove he didnt pass the bill. Move on.
Again, you show that you have zero reading comprehension skills. Read this quote again, and pay attention to the word "federal". Mass. is not a federal entity, its a state.
Romney answered, "No. I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. ... I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. ..."
Your statements amounts to saying that Romney cannot change his opinion OR that he was lying in 2008-2012, and he secretly was planning to support Feinstein's 2013 bill. Which is it? He clearly stated that he was not for federal gun restrictions in 2008 and in his recent political campaign.
Oh, and you have no idea what my viewpoint is. I actually know that Romney and Obama have similar viewpoints on many issues - they made it clear in their political statements. While this one bill was not one of them, there were plenty of others.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Thank you for confirming what I said again. It is very possible his viewpoints changed, but what he said doesnt suggest that at all. The fact that he believes there doesn't need to be any new federal laws doesn't change the fact that he believes the ones he put in place himself are appropriate regulations.
He never made any such statement in regards to federal restriction. State regulations are not the same as federal regulations. Why can't you understand that? Feinstein's 2013 AWB bill was not a state regulatory bill.
And I can prove that his stated position changed - he supported the 1994 bill, and specifically addressed it.
In 2008, his position changed, and he specifically stated no new federal regulations.
Why did he change his position? Everyone knows that it was because he was to run for the Republican Presidential nomination.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
His position might have changed, but what he said, and what you quoted, doesn't suggest his position on gun control changed. It simply suggests he didnt want new regulations.
Blank, I think what you fail to acknowledge is that Romney's personal beliefs both in 2004 and now are irrelevant. He was/is probably far more interested in political consequences. In 2004, it was in his political interest to sign that legislation and in 2013 (assuming he were president), it would probably be in his political interest not to support any new gun laws. His personal views on what is right (which we can only guess) are most likely irrelevant to how he would behave in office.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote