TownHall.com blogger Mary Katharine Ham got a chance to chat with Mitt Romney on Friday from the campaign trail in Iowa.
MKH: Now, you supported an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts. This tragedy is being used to push the renewal of the federal assault weapons ban. What would your stance be if that comes up again?
MR: Well, you know, the weapon used here was not an assault weapon, so I’m not sure what the relevance is. And, that’s what we have to recognize. The people who want to remove Second Amendment rights will look for everything they can. You know, if there’s a weapon that puts our police at risk, like machine guns, of course, then that’s something I would, of course, consider. But, look, we’ve gotta fundamentally recognize the need to protect the right to bear arms and the fact that there are people who are trying to remove that right inch by inch, and we’re gonna have to defend against that.
Oh, please. Mr. Romney you’ve got to do better than this. He immediately tries to justify that there are exceptions to the Second Amendment depending upon the weapon one chooses. Any weapon can be an assault weapon. Even a wet noodle.
He tries to support the Second Amendment by saying that there are people who want to remove our rights but then begins talking about which guns can’t be included in that right. He attempts to justify that exemption by claiming some weapons could be harmful to policemen.
“We got to fundamentally recognize the need to protect the right to bear arms…….” What does that mean? What is wrong with saying, “We got to protect the Second Amendment……”? No, this isn’t simple semantics I’m afraid. I think this is a politician who believes that “fundamentally” we have a right to bear the arms he thinks are necessary – no more and no less.
He’s for gun control straight and simple.
Read Mary Katharine Ham’s entire interview with Mr. Romney.
Tom Remington
