Is Mitt Romney anti-gun?

Mitt comes across as a powerful candidate, exceptional leader, and a very good man. I deeply appreciate his stance on reducing government spending, the importance of traditional families, limiting abortion, and dealing with illegal immigrants and terrorists. But if he genuinely opposes ownership of militia type firearms by law-abiding citizens, I'd rather not support him no matter how correct he is on other issues.

Politicians who don't trust law-abiding citizens with weapons cannot be trusted themselves. When citizens arm themselves, it is not a politician's job to try and limit the activity. It is his obligation to stay out of the way, and perhaps ask himself, "what is our goverment doing that might cause citizens to want to take up arms?" (Waco and Ruby Ridge come to mind, along with Congress' ineptness at securing our southern border.)

July 1st, 2002 Mitt Romney signed a permanent ban on Assault Weapons. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "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 above was reported by the AP, among other quasi-reliable sources. One can only hope Romney merely made the statement out of fear that his approval rating in Massachusetts would plummet if he failed to endorse the foul legislation. I'm still looking for more info on this. It doesn't look too good either way.

Mitt: if you actually studied the facts, you would know that these "instruments of destruction" are less powerful and less accurate than the average deer rifle, and are used in only one percent of all crimes committed with guns. In fact, they prevented a lot of looting and crime during disasters like the L.A. riots and Katrina. These so called "assault rifles," although they do not fire full auto, resemble military weapons in appearance and that is the main reason gun banners target them. Yet it is most often the appearance of these weapons, and rarely if ever thier bullets, that is needed to make them effective as defensive tools. The gun-hating socialist nannies simply cannot stomach the idea of citizens actually being able to protect themselves and their property, because they want us to depend on government for everything.

Mitt, back in 1775 when the British went on a little expedition to disarm local farmers, we ran them back to Boston, and out of the state within a year. Massachussetts' current residents just don't seem to appreciate this lesson, but those of us in most other states do. If you're elected President, and support a national assault weapons ban, rest assured you will not serve a second term. Remember what happened to the House in 1994. We are many, we are armed . . . and we vote.