No worries, buddy. Like I said, it probably needs to be put out again.

I'm not in some fantasy world where I think Romney is gonna go out of his way to push for repeal of existing gun regulation, but I do not believe he is going to push for more regulation, either. State and federal are two different ball games. Romney may have done what he thought was best for his state, but that doesn't mean he thinks the same things are good for the entire nation.

A couple things I was thinking about in relation to this subject:

If Romney didn't sign the bill, he would fall into the "tyrannical" category. From the way I understand it, this bill had popular support from both sides.

People who don't care much for Romney claim he flip-flops and says things to only score political points, or says things for political expediency. Does this apply to the things he said that were at best 2A neutral, or even anti 2A when he was running for/was governor? He ran for governor of a very blue state. Was he trying to score political points from the other side when he said he didn't want "assault weapons" on the streets of MA? Or do we (myself included) arbitrarily pick and choose what we believe is truth and what is political speak based off of our own ideals? We can't have it both ways without facts to prove it.