The final Presidential candidate debate of 2012 is done. Pundits are giving Obama a slight edge over Romney on this one, for impact and style points and such. That makes it decisive win for Romney in Debate I, pretty much a tie in Debate II, and a win for Obama in Debate III.
Huffpost seems to think they’re both lying SOBs. Sigh…I know the feeling. About four decades ago, I was the young Gun Editor of Jean Lavallee’s New Hampshire Outdoorsman, and interviewed the candidates during the New Hampshire Presidential Primaries. When I interviewed George McGovern, who died this week, it was apparent during the interview that he was going to say what he wanted our readers to hear. He told me then, to my face, that he felt there were enough gun laws on the books, and America just needed to enforce the laws it already had.
Less than a month later, if memory serves, McGovern told Look magazine that he was in favor of mandatory gun registration.
I ain’t the Political Editor of Backwoods Home, just the Firearms Editor. On the firearms side, Romney and the Republican Platform are against another “assault weapons ban” and in favor of national reciprocity, which would allow law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits to carry their guns all over the country. Obama and the Democrat Platform are out of the closet in favor of another “assault weapons ban,” which would profoundly impact ownership of even “ordinary sporting and self-defense firearms.” That, and the realization that the next President will have multiple appointments to the Supreme Court, make it a no-brainer on the gun owners civil rights side of things: “Romney si, Obama no!”
As to Mitt Romney, I may owe the guy an apology: some sources say that Romney’s signing of an assault weapons ban law when he was Governor of Massachusetts actually was a compromise endorsed by the pro-gun folks, a modification of existing law which actually improved things for Massachusetts gun owners.