Mitt is attributed with this quote when he signed a bill that, if I have this right, more clearly defined how a muzzle loader is legally considered to be loaded, but made the Massachusetts assault weapons ban permanent: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romney-has-complex-history-on-guns If he really said that, he doesn't know much about how firearms function, nor the intent of the Second Amendment. The purpose of my AR is not "hunting down and killing people." It is for target practice, varminting and home defense. There are other semi-auto rifles that are functionally the same and just as "deadly" - mine just looks scarier and has a better handgrip. Our forefathers had no intention of limiting ownership to muskets. Many of them owned rifles, which would be the Revolutionary War era equivalent of the AR-15's full-auto cousins - the M16, M4, SCAR, AK etc. Some of them owned cannons. But then you go to this page that supports Romney, but seems to have more facts, and you'd have to wonder if the above quote is correct at all: http://www.aboutmittromney.com/gun_myths_part2.htm So what's his deal, really? The guy who brought Romneycare to Massachusetts, but thinks Obamacare is bad; made the Ma AWB permanent but tells the NRA convention that he supports ownership of semi-automatic rifles? I know the simple answer is "He's a politician" but that doesn't really help, does it? What do you folks think and what facts do you have?