PDA

View Full Version : Romney: Now "Not The Time" for New Gun Laws???


lumwilliam
07-23-2012, 3:17 PM
OK, Romney had one too many weasel words in this USA Today article. When asked about new gun laws in the wake of the Batman shooting, he says "now's not the time" to discuss it?

He also defended his assault weapons ban in Mass. because he says gun owners and anti's both supported it???

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/07/mitt-romney-gun-control-colorado-theater-shooting-/1?csp=34news#.UA3M17Q7WAg

"When there are opportunities for people of reasonable minds to come together to find common ground, that's the kind of legislation I like". I need to hear his definition of reasonable. And were gun owners really in favor of this law in Massachusetts??

jshoebot
07-23-2012, 3:23 PM
OK, Romney had one too many weasel words in this USA Today article. When asked about new gun laws in the wake of the Batman shooting, he says "now's not the time" to discuss it?

He also defended his assault weapons ban in Mass. because he says gun owners and anti's both supported it???

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/07/mitt-romney-gun-control-colorado-theater-shooting-/1?csp=34news#.UA3M17Q7WAg

"When there are opportunities for people of reasonable minds to come together to find common ground, that's the kind of legislation I like". I need to hear his definition of reasonable. And were gun owners really in favor of this law in Massachusetts??

I doubt gunowners supported the ban. Whenever they pass stuff like that, they always find a quisling hunter or clay shooter to tell reporters that nobody needs these evil mass murder devices to hunt ducks, so he's okay with the ban.

Nodda Duma
07-23-2012, 3:37 PM
the MA state gun org (GOAL I think) actually did support the legislation that Romney signed... In no small part because

a) They are politically and lawyerly weak (ie no grassroots analog to Calguns and there's no strategic focus on rolling back gun laws in the courts)

b) apparently it was BY FAR the lesser of two evils. Much like this Presidential Campaign. We'd *really* like another Reagan or Washington, but we're stuck with a choice between Obama and Romney.

PhalSe
07-23-2012, 3:38 PM
What that reporter called a defense of the Mass. AWB did not sound like much of a defense. It's even possible that he was referring to said ban as legislation that was "jammed through over the objection of the other" although I admit I know little about the politics around the passage of that legislation.

Carnivore
07-23-2012, 4:01 PM
I will only say that Romney is no big friend to the 2nd, he is by far less of any threat then a lame duck president looking to do as much damage in his last term as possible. Not to mention that even if Romney was a anti he will pick Conservative judges if any step down from SCOTUS positions. To me it just doesn't matter Obama has got to go.

hornswaggled
07-23-2012, 4:31 PM
Romney's language on gun control is sounding worse every day.

Dantedamean
07-23-2012, 4:31 PM
Romney may have signed a AWB but Obama voted to ban the sale, manufacture, owning, ect. Of handguns. He's far worse. Given the over all scope of his job as president, I doubt Romney will try for any antigun legislation.

Meplat1
07-23-2012, 4:46 PM
Romney is by far the best choice for gun owners on the bases of court appointments alone. Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Capybara
07-23-2012, 4:48 PM
Oh jeez, being an American voter has never been more about the lesser of two evils. I agree, Obama has to go but what a paradox, in order to defeat Obama, we are forced to vote for a person who may also end up screwing us almost as badly.

How did we end up in this place?

NoJoke
07-23-2012, 5:22 PM
How did we end up in this place?

We acquiesce, knuckle under, don't get involved, passive, complacent, just plain weak do-nothings.

You asked....:p

bwiese
07-23-2012, 5:23 PM
Romney is by far the best choice for gun owners on the bases of court appointments alone. Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Bingo.

rspar
07-23-2012, 5:29 PM
Pretty much all of the above.

QQQ
07-23-2012, 5:35 PM
Romney is by far the best choice for gun owners on the bases of court appointments alone. Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Wrong. Recent example: Do you remember who appointed Roberts to the SCOTUS? Remember how Roberts voted on Obamacare? So, um, yeah...

Evo
07-23-2012, 5:35 PM
Romney may have signed a AWB but Obama voted to ban the sale, manufacture, owning, ect. Of handguns. He's far worse. Given the over all scope of his job as president, I doubt Romney will try for any antigun legislation.

Get your facts right! An Obama campaign official filled out a questionnaire in the 90s that asked if the campaign supported a local (Chicago) ban on handguns. The typed answer was yes, but no evidence that Obama himself ever saw the questionnaire exists.

Obama knows how suicidal gun control is in the current political climate. If that climate changes both Romney and Obama will change with it.

otalps
07-23-2012, 6:00 PM
Get your facts right! An Obama campaign official filled out a questionnaire in the 90s that asked if the campaign supported a local (Chicago) ban on handguns. The typed answer was yes, but no evidence that Obama himself ever saw the questionnaire exists.

Obama knows how suicidal gun control is in the current political climate. If that climate changes both Romney and Obama will change with it.

So you're saying obam never voted against handguns? It was merely a staffer answering a question on a form? What was this about getting facts straight?

NiteQwill
07-23-2012, 6:04 PM
Both the choices for "our next president" still suck.

RRangel
07-23-2012, 6:18 PM
Romney may have signed a AWB but Obama voted to ban the sale, manufacture, owning, ect. Of handguns. He's far worse. Given the over all scope of his job as president, I doubt Romney will try for any antigun legislation.

Romney did not sign an "assault weapon" ban. The Massachusetts Gun Control Act(AWB) was signed in 1998 by then Governor Paul Cellucci. The 1998 act did not have a sunset clause just like California. So in 2004 when the federal AWB ended Massachusetts law did not.

Romney signed reform gun amendments approved by the NRA affiliated Gun Owner's Action League of Massachusetts(GOAL). Which is better than no changes at all. The GOAL claim is they didn't have the votes to end the AWB. It's a blue state.

robcoe
07-23-2012, 6:23 PM
Romney did not sign an "assault weapon" ban. The Massachusetts Gun Control Act(AWB) was signed in 1998 by then Governor Paul Cellucci. The 1998 act did not have a sunset clause just like California. So in 2004 when the federal AWB ended Massachusetts law did not.

Romney signed reform gun amendments approved by the NRA affiliated Gun Owner's Action League of Massachusetts(GOAL). Which is better than no changes at all. The GOAL claim is they didn't have the votes to end the AWB. It's a blue state.

And then he said he would sign another Assault Weapons ban if it hit his desk
wgZ6AuHnmk0
There is no way to spin Romney as pro gun.

He might be the lesser of 2 evils, but it's only by a matter of a few degrees.

Connor P Price
07-23-2012, 6:24 PM
Wrong. Recent example: Do you remember who appointed Roberts to the SCOTUS? Remember how Roberts voted on Obamacare? So, um, yeah...

How does that make the post you quoted incorrect?

There are two options, Obama or Romney. If Meplat is wrong as you suggest then the only possibility is that Obama is the better choice with regard to court appointments.

Are you saying Obama would appoint judges and justices more friendly to the 2A than Romney would?

ja308
07-23-2012, 6:26 PM
I am enthusiastic about Romney !
Jim wallace of gun owners action league (goal) supports him and said his door was ALWAYS open.
Romney got a standing ovation at NRA convention.
Romney knows how to create jobs and has a reputation for honesty and fairness.

Most importantly Romney got elected in one of the dumbest states in the nation . Mass voters are nearly unrivaled in stupidity .

When you hear Romney , keep in mind he needs to get a lot a stupid uneducated people to vote for him . In other words the Obama voter .

QQQ
07-23-2012, 6:50 PM
How does that make the post you quoted incorrect?

There are two options, Obama or Romney. If Meplat is wrong as you suggest then the only possibility is that Obama is the better choice with regard to court appointments.

Are you saying Obama would appoint judges and justices more friendly to the 2A than Romney would?

I'm saying that even if Romney was intent on only appointing justices who were pro-gun (of which there is no objective evidence), the appointed individual can and very well might choose to act against the RKBA regardless.

A flip-flopping moderate who signs assault weapons bans and never makes an unequivocal statement against all forms of gun control will not win my vote. Romney will lose this election because of his lack of spine.

ja308
07-23-2012, 6:53 PM
I'm saying that even if Romney was intent on only appointing justices who were pro-gun (of which there is no objective evidence), the appointed individual can and very well might choose to act against the RKBA regardless.

A flip-flopping moderate who signs assault weapons bans and never makes an unequivocal statement against gun bans will not win my vote. Romney will lose this election because he is a moderate.

Like the judges who decided Heller?

Romney will listen to his base -- especially if he hears from enough of us .
Since you are going 3rd party you have made yourself unimportant to who ever wins .

you have read about romney getting a standing ovation from NRA members . You have heard Jim wallace endorse him (GOAL ) you have seen EVERYONE in RKBA state Romney is a good choice .

your principled stance is a mentality that has us in cali so far advanced in RKBA -- George Soros approves your message .

RRangel
07-23-2012, 7:07 PM
And then he said he would sign another Assault Weapons ban if it hit his desk
wgZ6AuHnmk0
There is no way to spin Romney as pro gun.

He might be the lesser of 2 evils, but it's only by a matter of a few degrees.

What did you expect from a governor of a blue state? I can even remember Bush Jr. saying the same right before the sunset of the federal AWB in 2004.

So let me see if I understand your motivation. You're posting because you disagree with me, pointing out that some posters are making blatantly false, or misleading statements? I would be justified in thinking that you're a payed troll.

This is not a debate whether Mitt Romney is the perfect pro gun candidate. It's in fact about who's the better candidate for today's gun owners. It's certainly not Obama.

Connor P Price
07-23-2012, 7:19 PM
I'm saying that even if Romney was intent on only appointing justices who were pro-gun (of which there is no objective evidence), the appointed individual can and very well might choose to act against the RKBA regardless.

A flip-flopping moderate who signs assault weapons bans and never makes an unequivocal statement against all forms of gun control will not win my vote. Romney will lose this election because of his lack of spine.

You are quite right that there is no solid evidence that Romney would be intent on only appointing justices who are pro gun. Neither Romney nor Obama are single issue gun guys, they will in fact appoint justices based almost entirely on other issues.

The important thing is that Romney will appoint generally much more conservative justices than Obama which gives us an exponentially greater chance of having somebody friendly to gun rights than the living constitutionalists that Obama appoints.

I'm not saying he should win your vote because he's an even halfway decent choice, I'm simply saying that from a gun rights point of view he's WAY better than Obama and he's the only one that has a chance.

robcoe
07-23-2012, 7:29 PM
What did you expect from a governor of a blue state? I can even remember Bush Jr. saying the same right before the sunset of the federal AWB in 2004.

So let me see if I understand your motivation. You're posting because you disagree with me, pointing out that some posters are making blatantly false, or misleading statements? I would be justified in thinking that you're a payed troll.

This is not a debate whether Mitt Romney is the perfect pro gun candidate. It's in fact about who's the better candidate for today's gun owners. It's certainly not Obama.

That wasn't from his time as the Govenor of Mass, that was from the run up to the 2008 election(12-16-2007 if you want to be specific).

Personally, I don't think Romney will be noticably better on gun control than Obama would be, he might pay more lip service to it but that will be it.

And the reason I posted it is that while he might not have signed the original Mass AWB, he didn't do jack **** to get it repealed either. And his later statements prove that he is as much a gun grabber as Brady, LCAV, Bloomberg or Obama.

Capybara
07-23-2012, 7:31 PM
We acquiesce, knuckle under, don't get involved, passive, complacent, just plain weak do-nothings.

You asked....:p

I couldn't agree more, but it's just sad that we, the people could change California back into the great state that it once was but for the narcotic of everyone suckling off of the state teat, the stupidity of a nanny state socialist utopia sounds so much more appealing to the electorate than working hard, making tough and smart decisions.

I remember this state as a kid in the 60s and 70s and we had so much unrealized potential.

Bhobbs
07-23-2012, 7:32 PM
I doubt gunowners supported the ban. Whenever they pass stuff like that, they always find a quisling hunter or clay shooter to tell reporters that nobody needs these evil mass murder devices to hunt ducks, so he's okay with the ban.

I'm sure plenty of gun owners supported the ban. I would bet if you ask gun owners whether or not the support a ban on "assault weapons" a large portion would support it.

Ctwo
07-23-2012, 7:37 PM
"When there are opportunities for people of reasonable minds to come together to find common ground, that's the kind of legislation I like". I need to hear his definition of reasonable.


When enough people are in favor, then he likes it too and thinks it reasonable...

It's policy-of-the-day...whichever way the wind blows...etc...

kcbrown
07-23-2012, 8:35 PM
Oh jeez, being an American voter has never been more about the lesser of two evils. I agree, Obama has to go but what a paradox, in order to defeat Obama, we are forced to vote for a person who may also end up screwing us almost as badly.

How did we end up in this place?

Largely through the very mechanism of always voting for the lesser of two "electable" evils, rather than voting for whom you truly believe in regardless of how "electable" you believe them to be.

It has now gotten to the point where not only is that "strategy" self-sustaining, for this election (and almost certainly for the elections to come) it has become necessary.

Mark my words: there will come a time, probably sooner than later, when all "electable" choices are vehemently anti-rights. This is what happens when the voting population places greater importance on "electability" than on the things that really matter.

And "electability" is a matter of perception, which is guided by the mainstream media more than anything else. Voting for someone because they are "electable" is exactly the same thing as following the herd. It is a herd mentality response, nothing more. To vote based primarily on that is to follow the herd, which means following whomever is directing the herd. And that is the mainstream media.


This situation won't change until the mainstream media is no longer relevant and there has been enough time for people to, on their own, stop voting for candidates on the basis of their perceived "electability". The former may happen within our lifetimes. The latter will almost certainly never happen, because people are herd animals by nature.



Both the choices for "our next president" still suck.

And they always will until we stop fighting against evil and start fighting for good.

At this point, however, I think the goose is cooked. Our "choices" will continue to get worse over time until someone hits the Big Reset Button, which will probably wind up failing as well.



Note that I'm not arguing, in the above, that you should vote your "conscience" or whatever. I'm now convinced that we're long past the point where doing so could possibly matter. What I am saying is that the reality of the situation is that we are screwed six ways to Sunday. All we can do is slow the trainwreck. The train has already jumped the tracks. But slowing the trainwreck is better than not slowing it.

lumwilliam
07-23-2012, 8:42 PM
Romney is by far the best choice for gun owners on the bases of court appointments alone. Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

I used to believe that argument. Now I ask myself, would he even appoint someone as conservative as say...John Roberts? My answer is probably not. We could easily end up with a back stabbing, 'moderate' justice, and since he/she was Republican appointed, would sail through confirmation.

I personally prefer an obama presidency with a heavily Republican house and senate, and Obama there to make them pretend like they're conservative. An impotent Obama, blocked at every turn in the other two houses is more favorable is some scenarios.

lumwilliam
07-23-2012, 8:44 PM
When enough people are in favor, then he likes it too and thinks it reasonable...

It's policy-of-the-day...whichever way the wind blows...etc...

That is too dangerous! With Obama in office threatening socialism, my hope is that a Republican House/Senate will be constantly rallied to stand shoulder to shoulder in conservatism against him. With a Romney presidency, 'moderacy' will be the new word of the day and the inmates will have the keys to the asylum.

Kappy
07-23-2012, 8:47 PM
The 2A is not a voting issue so far in 2012. Neither candidate is in favor of the 2A. They will do anything they can to get elected. My hope is that the 2A flies under the radar for this election cycle. I have doubts that it will with the recent crazies popping up and the US's recent history of emotionally-charged legislation and lack of critical thinking.

stix213
07-23-2012, 8:48 PM
Wrong. Recent example: Do you remember who appointed Roberts to the SCOTUS? Remember how Roberts voted on Obamacare? So, um, yeah...

How did Roberts vote in McDonald and Heller again? (This is the 2A forum after all)

Meplat1
07-23-2012, 8:52 PM
Wrong. Recent example: Do you remember who appointed Roberts to the SCOTUS? Remember how Roberts voted on Obamacare? So, um, yeah...

Ya, bummer. However, I am willing to give Roberts a pass on Obamacare on the assumption that there may have been more important precedent at stake that this layman does not understand. I understood Heller & Mc Donald much more thoroughly, and he went the right way on them.

Tell me Q, would you trade a “right” vote on Obamacare for a “wrong” vote on Heller? If he is going to get something wrong I’d rather it not be a 2A case.

OleCuss
07-23-2012, 8:56 PM
Wow! Interesting comments.

Not even a comparison between Romney and Obama. Two extremely different individuals.

I know I will never be happy with a Romney presidency, but anyone who is not a radical anti-liberty type will absolutely hate a second Obama term. It would be an economic, military, foreign policy, and general libertarian disaster of pretty much unprecedented scale.

You don't have to like Romney to vote for him. You just have to know what Obama is about (think Alinsky, Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, etc.).

Vote for Romney like your freedom depends on it.

lumwilliam
07-23-2012, 8:56 PM
How did Roberts vote in McDonald and Heller again? (This is the 2A forum after all)

Yeah, but would Romney appoint someone even as conservative as Roberts? I think Roberts may see a little too 'eye-to-eye' with the NRA for Romney.

OleCuss
07-23-2012, 9:04 PM
Yeah, but would Romney appoint someone even as conservative as Roberts? I think Roberts may see a little too 'eye-to-eye' with the NRA for Romney.

Romney will want a second term and a cooperative congress. In order to do that he will have to appease a relatively Conservative Republican party (or at least its members in the congress). He will have lots of trouble if he doesn't appoint someone who at least appears to be an originalist - and that means someone who is likely to understand the fundamental right to defend oneself.

The odds that we get a SCOTUS we like if Romney is elected is fairly good. If Obama gets a second term he will do everything possible to get us a SCOTUS which hates us and freedom.

ICONIC
07-23-2012, 9:07 PM
Not a fan of either. But calling Obama a gun grabber is without merit. What guns has he grabbed, what anti 2a laws has he passed? In fact, Brady gave him an overall F rating. Either way both of these people have the potential to be bad for the 2A.

No one has any evidence that Romney is better than Obama. Look at Romney's record as Gov. of Mass. As far as I am concern he is paying lip service to the NRA. My only hope is that Romney has stock in the Freedom group so making anti- 2A laws would be a bad financial investment for him.

dantodd
07-23-2012, 9:08 PM
Wrong. Recent example: Do you remember who appointed Roberts to the SCOTUS? Remember how Roberts voted on Obamacare? So, um, yeah...

And that has what to do with gun rights? how did CJ Roberts vote on Heller? On McDonald?

Meplat1
07-23-2012, 9:11 PM
I'm saying that even if Romney was intent on only appointing justices who were pro-gun (of which there is no objective evidence), the appointed individual can and very well might choose to act against the RKBA regardless.

A flip-flopping moderate who signs assault weapons bans and never makes an unequivocal statement against all forms of gun control will not win my vote. Romney will lose this election because of his lack of spine.

This smacks of partisan rationalization. So, you think the wise Latina or Kagen are less likely to screw us than Roberts, or anyone Romney would appoint? Because that is what it is about. The political will is not there to allow the gutless wonders in congress to pass anti legislation; it’s about judges people! If you are trying to say that Obama will appoint better judges than Romney I doubt that many here will buy it.

OleCuss
07-23-2012, 9:11 PM
Not a fan of either. But calling Obama a gun grabber is without merit. What guns has he grabbed, what anti 2a laws has he passed? In fact, Brady gave him an overall F rating. Either way both of these people have the potential to be bad for the 2A.

No one has any evidence that Romney is better than Obama. Look at Romney's record as Gov. of Mass. As far as I am concern he is paying lip service to the NRA. My only hope is that Romney has stock in the Freedom group so making anti- 2A laws would be a bad financial investment for him.

Let's see. . . Obama has been making additional reporting demands of long guns at "border states" for no logical reason other than to cause difficulties. Tough to see how gun sales in Redding are more relevant to border issues than sales in Denver.

He told (IIRC) Sarah Brady that he was working on gun control under the radar.

He appointed Holder.

He appointed Kagan.

We could go on, but you can pretty much bet that if Obama wanted National Reciprocity that it wouldn't be stuck in a Senate committee.

dantodd
07-23-2012, 9:13 PM
Not a fan of either. But calling Obama a gun grabber is without merit. What guns has he grabbed, what anti 2a laws has he passed? In fact, Brady gave him an overall F rating. Either way both of these people have the potential to be bad for the 2A.

There is way too much evidence out there to credibly continue arguing that Pres. Obama isn't a n enemy of the second Amendment.

No one has any evidence that Romney is better than Obama. Look at Romney's record as Gov. of Mass. As far as I am concern he is paying lip service to the NRA. My only hope is that Romney has stock in the Freedom group so making anti- 2A laws would be a bad financial investment for him.

He has stock in a better group. The NRA and the Republican party. At the very least we can put pressure on Romney via the NRA and his party. Do you really think that a President Romney would even consider putting up a justice who is not friendly to the second amendment? Romney nominees will get little D support so he will need R support and NRA opposition will kill any nominee.

stix213
07-23-2012, 9:15 PM
Yeah, but would Romney appoint someone even as conservative as Roberts? I think Roberts may see a little too 'eye-to-eye' with the NRA for Romney.

Well you either believe him or not I guess.

"I will appoint and fight for justices who follow the law and the Constitution, who understand judicial restraint and who won't legislate from the bench." - Gov. Mitt Romney (Gov. Romney, Remarks At The Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit, Washington, DC, 10/19/07)

"I think the justices that President Bush has appointed are exactly spot-on. I think Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are exactly the kind of justices America needs." ("Romney On Judges: Follow Bush's Lead," Red State Blog, www.redstate.com, Accessed 11/4/07)


And from his campaign website:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/courts-constitution

As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. These justices hold dear what the great Chief Justice John Marshall called “the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected”: a written Constitution, with real and determinate meaning. The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles.

ja308
07-23-2012, 9:16 PM
I used to believe that argument. Now I ask myself, would he even appoint someone as conservative as say...John Roberts? My answer is probably not. We could easily end up with a back stabbing, 'moderate' justice, and since he/she was Republican appointed, would sail through confirmation.

I personally prefer an obama presidency with a heavily Republican house and senate, and Obama there to make them pretend like they're conservative. An impotent Obama, blocked at every turn in the other two houses is more favorable is some scenarios.

you like the idea of sotomayer ,kagan and eric holder ? jeeeez what are you thinking?

Meplat1
07-23-2012, 9:27 PM
It really sucks to have to say so KC but you are correct on all counts. It also sucks to admit that the train wreck may be a blessing in disguise that makes us scrap the flawed train and build a better one.



Largely through the very mechanism of always voting for the lesser of two "electable" evils, rather than voting for whom you truly believe in regardless of how "electable" you believe them to be.

It has now gotten to the point where not only is that "strategy" self-sustaining, for this election (and almost certainly for the elections to come) it has become necessary.

Mark my words: there will come a time, probably sooner than later, when all "electable" choices are vehemently anti-rights. This is what happens when the voting population places greater importance on "electability" than on the things that really matter.

And "electability" is a matter of perception, which is guided by the mainstream media more than anything else. Voting for someone because they are "electable" is exactly the same thing as following the herd. It is a herd mentality response, nothing more. To vote based primarily on that is to follow the herd, which means following whomever is directing the herd. And that is the mainstream media.


This situation won't change until the mainstream media is no longer relevant and there has been enough time for people to, on their own, stop voting for candidates on the basis of their perceived "electability". The former may happen within our lifetimes. The latter will almost certainly never happen, because people are herd animals by nature.





And they always will until we stop fighting against evil and start fighting for good.

At this point, however, I think the goose is cooked. Our "choices" will continue to get worse over time until someone hits the Big Reset Button, which will probably wind up failing as well.



Note that I'm not arguing, in the above, that you should vote your "conscience" or whatever. I'm now convinced that we're long past the point where doing so could possibly matter. What I am saying is that the reality of the situation is that we are screwed six ways to Sunday. All we can do is slow the trainwreck. The train has already jumped the tracks. But slowing the trainwreck is better than not slowing it.

Meplat1
07-23-2012, 9:43 PM
I used to believe that argument. Now I ask myself, would he even appoint someone as conservative as say...John Roberts? My answer is probably not. We could easily end up with a back stabbing, 'moderate' justice, and since he/she was Republican appointed, would sail through confirmation.

I personally prefer an obama presidency with a heavily Republican house and senate, and Obama there to make them pretend like they're conservative. An impotent Obama, blocked at every turn in the other two houses is more favorable is some scenarios.

Really!? Have you seen the judges Obummer has appointed already? And when was the last time you saw a Republican senate block a SCOTUS appointment? The Dems do it; they don’t care how many lies they have to tell to “Bork” somebody. The MSM will always make their excuses for them and make it go away. But the Repubs don’t have the balls to block an appointment.

5thgen4runner
07-23-2012, 9:44 PM
Romney is by far the best choice for gun owners on the bases of court appointments alone. Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

well said.

QQQ
07-23-2012, 9:58 PM
I'm not saying he should win your vote because he's an even halfway decent choice, I'm simply saying that from a gun rights point of view he's WAY better than Obama and he's the only one that has a chance.
Romney does not have a chance. The media wants you to think that he does in order to make for more interesting news. But BHO's going to win this one big time.
How did Roberts vote in McDonald and Heller again? (This is the 2A forum after all) And that has what to do with gun rights? how did CJ Roberts vote on Heller? On McDonald?
Let me reiterate: The point is that the president cannot really control all of the important decisions made by a SCOTUS appointee. We shouldn't overstate the importance of that particular aspect of the President's job.
Since you are going 3rd party you have made yourself unimportant to who ever wins .
I will not vote for a third party for the presidential election this year, because nobody should be able to use violent coercive force (which is the basis for government power) against a free man who is hurting nobody.
Throw me in the loony bin, right?

Tell me Q, would you trade a “right” vote on Obamacare for a “wrong” vote on Heller? If he is going to get something wrong I’d rather it not be a 2A case.Fair enough. Ideally, there wouldn't be a trade. But I guess as long as we have a government, we'll have to sacrifice some rights in order to slow the erosion of other rights until we have none at all.

dmax11
07-23-2012, 10:01 PM
I will only say that Romney is no big friend to the 2nd, he is by far less of any threat then a lame duck president looking to do as much damage in his last term as possible. Not to mention that even if Romney was a anti he will pick Conservative judges if any step down from SCOTUS positions. To me it just doesn't matter Obama has got to go.

+1 couldn't agree with you more.

OleCuss
07-23-2012, 10:09 PM
Romney does not have a chance. The media wants you to think that he does in order to make for more interesting news. But BHO's going to win this one big time.
.
.
.

Not going to mess with the others at this time.

But seriously, right now you have to be betting on Romney to win. The polls are (IMHO) skewed against him and it is still effectively dead even.

Romney is raising more money. This means that people are voting in his favor with their pocketbook.

The economy still sucks. This usually means big problems for the incumbent.

Obama has been attacking Romney on one thing after another and none of it seems to be working.

Romney will probably choose Rubio as his VP. It's the most logical pick. It'll probably tip Florida to Romney - which is big. It will also make a difference in how the Hispanic vote sorts out - maybe not a huge difference, but it may be decisive nonetheless.

Just pay attention to all the legislators and such who have found that they have something else they need to do rather than to go to the Democrat convention? That usually means that they view being in even the vicinity of the incumbent to be dangerous for their political health - and that means they don't view Obama as a winner.

Obama is in trouble. He hasn't yet lost by any stretch of the imagination, but at this time he has to come from behind.

dantodd
07-23-2012, 10:20 PM
Let me reiterate: The point is that the president cannot really control all of the important decisions made by a SCOTUS appointee. We shouldn't overstate the importance of that particular aspect of the President's job.

I don't think you can overstate that particular aspect of a president's job. Every law he signs, every appoint,won't he makes, every executive order he writes. They are all subject to future scrutiny and reversal. The justices he appoints are FOR LIFE. The fact that the justices may not always vote in the manner the president who nominated him would like is of little consequence.

Frankly, Pres. Obama and Gov. Romney are nearly indistinguishable on most issues. The greatest difference between the legacy of each is likely to be their SCOTUS appointments.

Meplat1
07-23-2012, 10:33 PM
Romney does not have a chance. The media wants you to think that he does in order to make for more interesting news. But BHO's going to win this one big time.

I will bet you a steak dinner at the resturaunt of your choice that you are wrong on that one. But you will have to come to Fresno to collect.

Let me reiterate: The point is that the president cannot really control all of the important decisions made by a SCOTUS appointee. We shouldn't overstate the importance of that particular aspect of the President's job.

Of course the POTUS does not have squat influence on the SCOTUS appointees post appointment. That is the way it should be. But should we elect a POTUS that will appoint judges he percievs as being big government statists, or classical liberal originalists?
I will not vote for a third party for the presidential election this year, because nobody should be able to use violent coercive force (which is the basis for government power) against a free man who is hurting nobody.

?????? Then why not vote Libertarian? I don’t quite get what you are saying?

Throw me in the loony bin, right?

Not yet.

Fair enough. Ideally, there wouldn't be a trade. But I guess as long as we have a government, we'll have to sacrifice some rights in order to slow the erosion of other rights until we have none at all.

Sadly I must agree with you here.

SilverTauron
07-23-2012, 11:16 PM
From my perch out here in the sticks, I'd say picking between Romney and Obama is like Gotham picking whether they want the Joker or Bane plotting against the city.

ICONIC
07-24-2012, 12:11 AM
From my perch out here in the sticks, I'd say picking between Romney and Obama is like Gotham picking whether they want the Joker or Bane plotting against the city.

+1

Just because Romney became an NRA lifetime member does not mean he values the 2A. It just means he wants votes.

kcbrown
07-24-2012, 12:15 AM
It really sucks to have to say so KC but you are correct on all counts. It also sucks to admit that the train wreck may be a blessing in disguise that makes us scrap the flawed train and build a better one.

Train wrecks are rarely blessings in disguise. To believe that this one is such a thing is to believe in miracles.

The American Revolution was an anomaly. It was the right people at exactly the right time in human history being presented with the right opportunity under exactly the right kind of circumstances.


What we face will be much, much different, and the only thing this round will have in common with the American Revolution is the existence of disgruntled people who are willing to shed their own blood and the blood of others to restore liberty. Everything else will be different, and in a worse way.

And that makes success of the kind the American Revolutionaries achieved nearly impossible:


It will require the revolutionaries, who will comprise at most 10% of the adult "militia eligible" population and who will be armed with small arms only, to win against a military machine that, even if it is somewhat fractured, is still stronger than any the world has ever seen in its entire history (since the only way to get the military to side with us will be for us to somehow overcome the military's adherence to the chain of command as well as its reliance on government sources of information for its intelligence, for a revolutionary effort will be branded as domestic terrorism). Note that it is not necessary for the government to achieve victory, only to keep the revolutionaries from achieving victory. See Iraq for proof of this (hint: we're still there despite their insurgency's best efforts).

It will require everyone with political and military power in the aftermath to be absolutely selfless by nature, for they will be fighting for the liberty of everyone and not really themselves. Failure on this will result in a dictatorship.

It will require those same people to be statesmen in the true sense of the word, and not politicians as we know them now.

It will require that, throughout the entire conflict, foreign powers refrain from taking advantage of the hugely weakened state we will find ourselves in.

It will require that said foreign powers refrain from aiding the government in its attempt to maintain power, even though it will almost certainly be to the advantage of those governments for the U.S. government to remain intact (if only to keep the currency reasonably "stable").


No, there are far too many things that must go right and which are too likely to go wrong for the Big Reset Button to work.


And that's why I believe we are screwed six ways to Sunday no matter what. Liberty is dead with a fatal stab wound through the heart. It is now taking its last gasps of air.


The fight for liberty must be fought even when liberty is already fatally wounded. For that is the duty of a patriot. But I harbor no illusions about the situation or about the chances of winning the fight.

stix213
07-24-2012, 1:34 AM
Train wrecks are rarely blessings in disguise. To believe that this one is such a thing is to believe in miracles.

The American Revolution was an anomaly. It was the right people at exactly the right time in human history being presented with the right opportunity under exactly the right kind of circumstances.


What we face will be much, much different, and the only thing this round will have in common with the American Revolution is the existence of disgruntled people who are willing to shed their own blood and the blood of others to restore liberty. Everything else will be different, and in a worse way.

And that makes success of the kind the American Revolutionaries achieved nearly impossible:


It will require the revolutionaries, who will comprise at most 10% of the adult "militia eligible" population and who will be armed with small arms only, to win against a military machine that, even if it is somewhat fractured, is still stronger than any the world has ever seen in its entire history (since the only way to get the military to side with us will be for us to somehow overcome the military's adherence to the chain of command as well as its reliance on government sources of information for its intelligence, for a revolutionary effort will be branded as domestic terrorism). Note that it is not necessary for the government to achieve victory, only to keep the revolutionaries from achieving victory. See Iraq for proof of this (hint: we're still there despite their insurgency's best efforts).

It will require everyone with political and military power in the aftermath to be absolutely selfless by nature, for they will be fighting for the liberty of everyone and not really themselves. Failure on this will result in a dictatorship.

It will require those same people to be statesmen in the true sense of the word, and not politicians as we know them now.

It will require that, throughout the entire conflict, foreign powers refrain from taking advantage of the hugely weakened state we will find ourselves in.

It will require that said foreign powers refrain from aiding the government in its attempt to maintain power, even though it will almost certainly be to the advantage of those governments for the U.S. government to remain intact (if only to keep the currency reasonably "stable").


No, there are far too many things that must go right and which are too likely to go wrong for the Big Reset Button to work.


And that's why I believe we are screwed six ways to Sunday no matter what. Liberty is dead with a fatal stab wound through the heart. It is now taking its last gasps of air.


The fight for liberty must be fought even when liberty is already fatally wounded. For that is the duty of a patriot. But I harbor no illusions about the situation or about the chances of winning the fight.

I'd like to first say I largely agree with you. The biggest reason being that with all our problems, the people of the USA still just have it too good to go for a general uprising against the government - myself included. Even the "poor" in this country, with their food stamps and EBT cards, are wealthy by the standards of many other countries (most other countries?).

But let me just say to the contrary that I highly doubt the colonists of 1735 had any clue that they were just a few decades from self rule. Many many realities that we accept today as unchanging can and will change in the decades to come.

Even the 13 colonies didn't defeat the British alone without outside intervention. It is highly suspect that the USA would have started out on its own without France entering into open war on our side, and Austria having France's back if Britain brought the fight to them - not to mention Spain entering the war in 1779. In many ways it wasn't even the American Colonists that won the war, it was France who forced Britain to allocate military resources away from the American colonies which was arguably the real deciding factor. We take far too much credit, when we were not much more than a pawn in the game of chess between the major European world powers.

That said, a future where America is significantly weakened economically, where the US Dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency, where America no longer is the center of major worldwide military alliances (which are only decades old today, so not out of the question they may end some decades in the future), where America has mothballed many of its outdated carrier strike groups due to budgetary contraints, and where revolutionaries inside the country could form military alliances with other major world powers could provide a realistic avenue to a successful revolution in this county. For example, China and the United States of Europe conducting airstrikes on behalf of the revolutionaries on the east and west coasts while patrolling coastal no fly zones, a threat from Mexico sending in ground forces from the south tieing up US government troops on the sothern border, a threat of nuclear retaliation keeping the US government from using nuclear weapons itself, and an economic blockade of the US conducted intent on "regime change," is exactly the formula for a successful revolution decades in the future, and is a formula we've already demonstrated on smaller scales in the middle east. It also is not that far off from a parallel to 1776 in modern terms.

Just a disclaimer though, I do not want, nor advocate, doing any of that. I think we still have plenty of opportunity in this country still to make things acceptable if not perfect.

edit: I admit I let my imagination run a bit with that post

scarville
07-24-2012, 2:59 AM
Romney promises to eat the gun owners last.

Demonicspire
07-24-2012, 3:13 AM
Would it be suicidal of me to point out how silly this whole argument has gotten? Obama is not going to doom the world, Romney is not going to save it, the reverse is also true.

I think we all have to admit that our political opinions color the way we receive information. We all have our own conceits, and that's perfectly ok, we just need to account for them.

What I'm hearing here, for the most part is the exact same thing as I was hearing in 2004 about Bush. Bush was going to turn us into a police state. Bush was going to create a new American hegemony in the world. Bush is selling the country to oil interests. And on and on and on.

It all comes from the same place and it's all equally meaningless. Neither side is correct, nor is there a lesser of two evils. At best, candidate choice will only result in a few changes in certain issues. Is Romney going to be more pro-gun rights? Probably. Can Obama really afford the political capital when he still has health care reform to tackle? Probably not.

I just wish everyone was a little less afraid in general, and would stop listening to attack adds, or something they read on a conspiracy forum, or what this pundit said or what that pundit said. Which is all probably a little too much to ask for, it's human nature, and Madison had a point when he said that party conflict was essential to democracy.

On the whole I have to be glad that the debate is so lively, because we'd be in real trouble if only one side got to speak.

ja308
07-24-2012, 3:23 AM
Well the only redeeming feature I see on this thread is that cali is unimportant -- GOP has conceded it --

rather sad reading all these brilliant calgunners who are smarter than the NRA and every other gun rights group who endorse Romney .

Especially amusing are the tired worthless, idiotic statements contradicting decades of wisdom aquired by those of us who have fought for RKBA . Smart gunowners left this state and made good RKBA in other places .

So calgunners when you look at gun laws in neighboring states -- be sure to note they got good laws by voting REPUBLICAN !
George Soros spent 18 million trying to beat BUSH ,he has 10s of millions to ridicule every republican that is electable and your falling for it !

So listen to your dimwited chumps ,tom hartman , alex jones, ed shultz ect . They know Romney is good ! That's why he is being attacked.

George Soros , Bloomberg , Feinsein all of them are laughing at you ! They view you as simplminded easily led beasts who will vote against their own interest's when the right buttons are pushed .

stix213
07-24-2012, 5:34 AM
Well the only redeeming feature I see on this thread is that cali is unimportant -- GOP has conceded it --

rather sad reading all these brilliant calgunners who are smarter than the NRA and every other gun rights group who endorse Romney .

Especially amusing are the tired worthless, idiotic statements contradicting decades of wisdom aquired by those of us who have fought for RKBA . Smart gunowners left this state and made good RKBA in other places .

So calgunners when you look at gun laws in neighboring states -- be sure to note they got good laws by voting REPUBLICAN !
George Soros spent 18 million trying to beat BUSH ,he has 10s of millions to ridicule every republican that is electable and your falling for it !

So listen to your dimwited chumps ,tom hartman , alex jones, ed shultz ect . They know Romney is good ! That's why he is being attacked.

George Soros , Bloomberg , Feinsein all of them are laughing at you ! They view you as simplminded easily led beasts who will vote against their own interest's when the right buttons are pushed .

I tend to vote Republican, but just blindly voting Republican in CA is not the answer really, chiefly because Republicans have failed so hard here it is fantasy to expect a Republican majority anytime soon.

RRangel
07-24-2012, 6:55 PM
I personally prefer an obama presidency with a heavily Republican house and senate, and Obama there to make them pretend like they're conservative. An impotent Obama, blocked at every turn in the other two houses is more favorable is some scenarios.

This has to be the most ridiculous statement I've ever read at calguns. The Obama campaign is in town.

hornswaggled
07-24-2012, 7:01 PM
Romney promises to eat the gun owners last.

He lied

Doheny
07-24-2012, 7:03 PM
From the New Yorker today: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/07/mitt-romney-the-gun-control-candidate.html

yellowfin
07-24-2012, 7:41 PM
What did you expect from a governor of a blue state?I expect someone to have testosterone to them enough to tell the anti gun people to go to hell and not do a single thing they want, and be good enough at everything else that they begrudgingly continue to vote for him because he's obviously the best person for the job. I am so sick of this bending over for the disgustingly and knowingly wrong in this country.

dustoff31
07-24-2012, 7:45 PM
Romney: Now "Not The Time" for New Gun Laws???

Well, he is right. Now is not the time. Nor any other time.

taperxz
07-24-2012, 7:58 PM
Romney is running for the POTUS. Would anyone here want him to say things that would make him lose votes? It is politics.

kcbrown
07-24-2012, 10:48 PM
Romney is running for the POTUS. Would anyone here want him to say things that would make him lose votes? It is politics.

If support for RKBA throughout the country is so strong as some people claim, how could making a very pro-2A stance clear lose Romney any votes?

Either what your statement implies (that exhibiting a strong pro-2A stance would lose Romney votes) is incorrect, or support for RKBA isn't as strong throughout the country as is claimed. Logic leaves no other options on the table, and only one of the mentioned options can be chosen.

stix213
07-25-2012, 12:14 AM
If support for RKBA throughout the country is so strong as some people claim, how could making a very pro-2A stance clear lose Romney any votes?

Either what your statement implies (that exhibiting a strong pro-2A stance would lose Romney votes) is incorrect, or support for RKBA isn't as strong throughout the country as is claimed. Logic leaves no other options on the table, and only one of the mentioned options can be chosen.

He could be going for some of the votes in the relative center who aren't fully on board with the RKBA. He's going to need every vote he can get in this one.

kcbrown
07-25-2012, 1:30 AM
He could be going for some of the votes in the relative center who aren't fully on board with the RKBA. He's going to need every vote he can get in this one.

But if support for RKBA is so strong in this country, then there will be more people who are pro-RKBA but who are considering voting for Obama anyway (else, Romney would have the election sewn up) than there are RKBA fence-sitters, and therefore it would be in his best interest to have a strong pro-2A stance.

So the calculus you're attempting to apply here doesn't work under those assumptions, either. They only work if the country as a whole is weakly pro-2A.

stix213
07-25-2012, 1:34 AM
But if support for RKBA is so strong in this country, then there will be more people who are pro-RKBA but who are considering voting for Obama anyway (else, Romney would have the election sewn up) than there are RKBA fence-sitters, and therefore it would be in his best interest to have a strong pro-2A stance.

So the calculus you're attempting to apply here doesn't work under those assumptions, either. They only work if the country as a whole is weakly pro-2A.

For some reason women vote more often than men, and women as a group are less pro-2A than "the country as a whole." Women are also a demographic Romney is trying to make gains in. That's my best theory.

Meplat1
07-25-2012, 5:28 AM
I’m not forming my opinions of Obama from pundits or attack ads. I read his book. The man viscerally hates colonialists, and he equates America, Europe, and anything white with colonialism. This is one spooky SOB! Everyone should read his own words before they vote this time around. The book is “Dreams From My Father” and you can get it used or as a Kindle book cheep from Amazon.



Would it be suicidal of me to point out how silly this whole argument has gotten? Obama is not going to doom the world, Romney is not going to save it, the reverse is also true.

I think we all have to admit that our political opinions color the way we receive information. We all have our own conceits, and that's perfectly ok, we just need to account for them.

What I'm hearing here, for the most part is the exact same thing as I was hearing in 2004 about Bush. Bush was going to turn us into a police state. Bush was going to create a new American hegemony in the world. Bush is selling the country to oil interests. And on and on and on.

It all comes from the same place and it's all equally meaningless. Neither side is correct, nor is there a lesser of two evils. At best, candidate choice will only result in a few changes in certain issues. Is Romney going to be more pro-gun rights? Probably. Can Obama really afford the political capital when he still has health care reform to tackle? Probably not.

I just wish everyone was a little less afraid in general, and would stop listening to attack adds, or something they read on a conspiracy forum, or what this pundit said or what that pundit said. Which is all probably a little too much to ask for, it's human nature, and Madison had a point when he said that party conflict was essential to democracy.

On the whole I have to be glad that the debate is so lively, because we'd be in real trouble if only one side got to speak.

OleCuss
07-25-2012, 6:42 AM
If support for RKBA throughout the country is so strong as some people claim, how could making a very pro-2A stance clear lose Romney any votes?

Either what your statement implies (that exhibiting a strong pro-2A stance would lose Romney votes) is incorrect, or support for RKBA isn't as strong throughout the country as is claimed. Logic leaves no other options on the table, and only one of the mentioned options can be chosen.

Others have made some interesting points, but it may be worth noting that this campaign is not nationwide.

Admittedly, I don't watch a whole lot of TV, but I don't remember seeing a single Romney or Obama ad here in California.

The campaign is (and will be) waged primarily in the "battleground" states and the rest of us are really pretty peripheral to the election. We might be considered totally irrelevant except that they need our money in order to buy ad time in the battleground states.

So the Obama and Romney messages will be aimed at winning votes in the battleground states and not to overly offend their base.

If they are in trouble with their base, their messages will go to appeasing their base.

But it is important to realize that the only way we here in California are perceived as relevant to the presidential election is through monetary contributions. That's true throughout most of the country.

taperxz
07-25-2012, 6:56 AM
If support for RKBA throughout the country is so strong as some people claim, how could making a very pro-2A stance clear lose Romney any votes?

Either what your statement implies (that exhibiting a strong pro-2A stance would lose Romney votes) is incorrect, or support for RKBA isn't as strong throughout the country as is claimed. Logic leaves no other options on the table, and only one of the mentioned options can be chosen.


I guess you have never heard of the independents on the fence of an issue? There are many who who believe in the 2A. Not everyone wants to understand it;) I'm surprised in you said something like this. There is never one way or the other in politics. Would you really want to set yourself up for an attack by the opposition?

Ctwo
07-25-2012, 11:34 AM
Even some pro 2A folks are in favor of some gun control, especially in this context right now. The statement tries for center ground, and may only offend those at the very extremes. Cooler heads may understand that more rational decisions can be made when everyone has a chance to process the situation and are no longer reacting emotionally.

kcbrown
07-25-2012, 1:30 PM
I guess you have never heard of the independents on the fence of an issue? There are many who who believe in the 2A. Not everyone wants to understand it;) I'm surprised in you said something like this. There is never one way or the other in politics. Would you really want to set yourself up for an attack by the opposition?

Because I was under the impression that the country is strongly pro-2A. Frankly, I'm quite skeptical of that claim. I think the country is weakly pro-2A at best.

I'm just trying to figure out how your statement can possibly square with a claim of a strongly pro-2A country.

As for setting oneself up for an attack by the opposition, if the country is strongly pro-2A, then an attack on your pro-2A position should have the effect of galvanizing your support, no?

And how can the benefits of courting fence-sitters be greater than the drawbacks of weakening your support from the strongly pro-2A side if the country as a whole is strongly pro-2A? As I said, if Romney doesn't have the election sewn up and the country is strongly pro-2A, then that means there are a bunch of pro-2A folks who are thinking about voting for Obama. Isn't it, therefore, in his best interests to court those people instead of going after the fence sitters, since the former must outweigh the latter in number under those conditions?

Ctwo
07-25-2012, 1:41 PM
The pro 2A folks heard, no new gun legislation.
The fence sitters heard what they want to read into it.
The anti 2A folks heard a promise of new gun legislation later on.

Why does it matter where the majority of the country sits when we are discussing a wholly empty statement?

I have not been out of the state for a long time, so my opinion might be off, but I don't see the country as even weakly pro 2A.

ddestruel
07-25-2012, 2:49 PM
Small portion of quote. linked to msm.com for the video of the interview



WILLIAMS: "On things however like Aurora, Colo., do you see why Americans get frustrated at politics. They can see and hear your words from earlier in their career, people are hurting out there. Perhaps they want to start a national conversation about whether an AR-15 belongs in the hands of a citizen, whether a citizen should be able to buy 6-thousand rounds off the internet. You see the argument?"

ROMNEY: "Well this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't. ................" (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/25/12951968-romney-talks-with-nbcs-brian-williams-in-exclusive-interview?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
..


Popcorn is out now

mbt
07-25-2012, 8:12 PM
The problem of Romney is that he is 100% sold out to Israel. In other words, if Romney wins, new war with IRAN and new cold war with Russia & China due to Iran being their major oil source. Deficit sky rockets. Oil prices soar. China stops buying our bonds and we have to print money which sky rockets inflation making everything unaffordable.

And, on top of that Romney LIES like a politician in all his stances. Watch the YT clip of Romney flip flopping on tons of issues and on GC. You will not be safe with this Mormon who loves exporting jobs.

And no, I don't support Obam either. I say vote for a candidate you like, not lesser of 2 evils cuz that just makes them BOTH EVIL and we end up with the same result.

fasteddie5
07-25-2012, 9:07 PM
Romney rejects calls for new gun laws (http://us.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KLf4emvhBQr7EA4DabvZx4;_ylu=X3oDMTU1MmgzOWl pBGEDMTIwNzI1IG5ld3Mgcm9tbmV5IGd1biBsYXdzIHQEY2NvZ GUDcHpidWFsbGNhaDUEY3BvcwMxBGcDaWQtMjQ0NTQyMwRpbnR sA3VzBG1jb2RlA3B6YnVhbGxjYWg1BG1wb3MDMgRwa2d0AzQEc GtndgM3BHBvcwMyBHNlYwN0ZC1ud3MEc2xrA3RpdGxlBHRlc3Q DNzAxBHdvZQMxMjc5NTYxOQ--/SIG=13a4m5hf0/EXP=1343361062/**http%3A//news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-says-country-doesn-t-gun-laws-233842060.html)

I hope he means it.

yellowfin
07-25-2012, 9:13 PM
I'd believe it a lot more if he were more than a fair weather friend.

Meplat1
07-25-2012, 9:18 PM
He means it!

im2ninja4u
07-25-2012, 9:34 PM
He's been jumping back and forth on this so much I don't know what to believe anymore but I never believed a politician anyway.

Anchors
07-25-2012, 10:03 PM
Hey, people change over time. Even politicians.
Whether that is because of research and belief or campaign money is debatable.

A lot of people on this very forum probably started out as antis and some former antis probably own more firearms than all of us that have posted so far put together.

The problem is that Romney has openly stated in this campaign that he supports the expired Fed AWB, said (just like Obama said) that he would have signed a renewal in 2004 if it were presented while he were the president, and that if the government determines a weapon to be of "such great lethality that it poses a risk to law enforcement officers" (paraphrasing), that he would support banning it.
He also said he originally supported the Brady Bill, but noted that it has changed over time. I don't know whether that means he wouldn't support what it has become or not.


The real important thing to take away from this is that Romney used to be anti-gun and then realized that he can't win without gun owners or the NRA.
Regardless of how he REALLY feels, that is a very beautiful thing.

.
.

morfeeis
07-25-2012, 10:10 PM
He means it!
Until he doesn't. That guys word is as useless as 20 pounds of spent steel cased 223 ammo. Just like the "other guy".

Curley Red
07-26-2012, 8:10 AM
Quoted from an article:

NBC News anchor Brian Williams pressed Romney about his tenure as Massachusetts governor, when the presumptive GOP nominee signed a bill that banned some assault weapons like the type Holmes is alleged to have used. At the time, Romney described such guns as "instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

------------------------------------------------

Hopefully he does not believe that any more, but I doubt it.