http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_...un_Control.htm
F***** eithor way
Printable View
http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_...un_Control.htm
F***** eithor way
Flip flops, does not know if he is coming or going. Am not happy about my vote this year, but hey I was not happy about my vote in 2008 either
After reading everything on that link, he seems pretty comfortable banning "assault weapons" and items of "unusual lethality" (I'm not too sure what qualifies as unusually lethal to someone from MA).
He was never a friend to gun owners when Governor. He increased the gun licensing and ownership fees and supported the extension of the assault weapons ban at the state level if/when the national ban lapsed...Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney had been a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban, and had also said he believed "in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms."[92] On July 1, 2004, Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons, saying at the signing ceremony for the new law, "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. 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."[93] The law extended a temporary measure that had been in effect since 1998 and covered weapons such as the AK-47, Uzi, and MAC-10.[93] The same law also modified some other aspects of general firearms licensing regulations.
-- see http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812
His record as governor and as a looter at Bain prevents me from voting Republican for president for the first time in 30 years.
I'm sorry to hear that you're an Obama supporter.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcrookston
[ROFL1] Now that's funny right there!Quote:
Originally Posted by Batteriesnare
I'm sorry your voting for a gun grabber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Batteriesnare
Romney had a lot more anti-gun support in MA. Now he has to deal with the whole country and a large percentage of his base being pro gun. He wont do a damn thing unless he wants to go 1 term...which no president wants.
plus we have the house, hopefully the senate and the biggest issue is the next SCOUTUS.
Plus the big items are healthcare, economy and inflation. Immigration and oil are priorities above gun control and with the last 4word years the massive surge in gun and ammo sales sends quite the message.
As opposed to what, an illegal gun runner who blocks justice? Realistically, there is no third candidate who can win, so I can vote for the lesser of the two evils (Romney) who as mentioned before will have bigger fish to fry, or go with Barry, who will have very little to distract him should he choose to go after the Second Amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by bryjcom
Did you vote for Bush? If so he promised to sign an AWB renewal if it came across his desk. It never did.
Presidents don't write legislation, they just sign it into law. In its current state the legislature is loathe to consider any gun control laws and after November it'll be even less likely.
No, Mittens ain't perfect but he won't sign non-existent gun control bills into law and he certainly won't sign the UN gun control treaty. Obama will sign the UN treaty and he'll use extra constitutional means to institute gun control through back channels (you know, like killing hundreds of Mexicans to make American gun dealers look bad).
Beware any politician in their final term, irrespective of party affiliation.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Any elected official who proposes or acts to cripple one of the countries strongest industries commits political suicide, especially with an economy like this.
Thing is the GOP realizes this fact but will they capitalize on it and the Dems will sacrifice themselves to further an agenda.
I guess what disturbs me most is the fact that any weapon is an assault weapon when used to bring harm on another person. Be it a baseball bat, a crude club, a knife, a sword, a firearm, etc. etc.
I would kind of expect a more pro-gun rights from Mitt with him being a Mormon and all. I speak on that with first-hand knowledge of many things that are all-Mormon. They like their guns, at least all the ones I know do.
So maybe I question whether or not he really is a true Mormon. One way or another, sooner or later, the government is going to try and take them away. Cheaper-Than-Dirt still has those burial tubes on sale, just saying...
Why does this feel like 2004 all over again?
Thank you Z.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
http://hrminion.com/wp-content/uploa...undhog_day.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Caithford
Both Obama & Romney will do whatever is politically expedient. Assuming either one won't mess with 2A if it would further their political lifespan is laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
This is just dead wrong. I do believe that if Romney thought it was politically expedient he'd support gun control legislation (which he did in uberliberal Mass), but its clear that it would be political suicide for him now, plus like I said before PRESIDENTS DON'T WRITE THE EFFING LEGISLATION (and the direction the Congress is going is far far away from gun control).Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
Obama will have no need for political expedience if he's re-elected so he'll run full tilt with ALL his anti-American ideologically driven agendas (of which gun control is just one).
This notion that Obama=Romney=Obama is just bullshit. No, Romney is not a "rock ribbed" conservative, no he's not going to be Reagan reincarnated, but Obama is 110% pure anti-American evil. If he's re-elected America is over.
Honest to God I'd vote for Bill Clinton over Obama and I can't STAND that smug, womanizing, libtard SOB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
Let me see if I understand this correctly:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
I state that 1+1=2 and I'm "dead wrong"
You state that 1+1=2 and it's a whole different story?!
Reread my post until clarity is achieved. Take all the time you need.
No you're the one lacking in the reading comprehension here.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
Romney may support gun control if its politically expedient, however 1) support of gun control is now politically dangerous and has been widely acknowledged as such since Algore lost in 2000 in part because of it and 2) Romney can't write gun control laws, just sign them after they pass the house and senate (which won't pass them now even with dems in control of the senate and certainly won't even vote on them after the repubs take over the senate and get even more control in the house).
HOWEVER, Obama has proved that he will push for gun control regardless of the political damage it does to him and his party AND he'll do it in extra-constitutional ways (Fast & Furious is but one example).
The big difference is that Romney does what will get him elected and re-elected (which for the foreseeable future is to act like a conservative). Obama will do whatever he damn well pleases (and Marxism and the end of America please him greatly).
Therefore your point that both of them will do the politically expedient thing is wrong. Obama is a pure ideologue.
If there was a viable third choice I'd be all over it, but there is no Magical Libertarian Unicorn Messiah that can win the election.
And not just gun control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Obama has made overtures re: The Fairness Act which is an open attack on the first amendment rights of conservatives. He has enacted legislation further limiting the tenth - obamacare. He will attack your fourth amendment rights, it is just the natural progression of "for the common good" and "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and "the ends justify the means" philosophy.
I do grow tired of this 3rd Party BS where they say "this year you're voting for Democrat or 'democrat lite.'" Humbug! Please stop saying stupid things like that, because now that he's backed by the NRA, and the Republican party, I don't think Mittens will be too hard on the right, I think if he doesn't want to piss everyone off he'll walk the line and be a good little republican. Now Obama on the other hand, he just flat out doesn't give a shit.
Ronin, he's a progressive and a chameleon, barely a republican. It IS obama or obama lite.
Really? You're going to go as far as saying he's that much like Obama? Well I guess all hope is lost then... I guess I really can find a buyer for my ocean view property in western Nebraska! [Bang]Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodburbon
Yes, he is. When is the republican constituency going to notice that the republican party is no longer their party, but a corrupted compromise to achieve power?
Some did, they broke away they're called "tea party" and suddenly the republicans were morphing into "we've been tea party all along" to try to keep the sheep in the flock. Until it's attacked and unpopular, called "teabagging" then they distance themselves from the label.
This is just foolishness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodburbon
Problem is when I point this out people think I'm defending Romney ... saying he's all wonderful or something. But that's not it, when I point out that this "obama=romney=obama" bushwah is just that; BS, I'm not talking about Romney.
Obama is not your typical left of center, Democrat idiot ... Obama is an enemy of the United States, the Constitution, Capitalism and Liberty (except for liberty for men to bugger each other and women to kill their unborn children).
Obama is on a mission to destroy the US. Period.
Romney may be a typical self-serving, flip-flopping politician, but he wants America and free market capitalism to continue to exist. Obama doesn't.
THAT is the difference and that is why I'm going to vote against Obama by voting for the only candidate that has a chance to beat him; Mittens.
Then after Romney wins we'll have to keep putting the screws to him to keep him on the straight and narrow, but I believe he can be controlled (unlike Obama that won't even be able to be controlled by the Democrats that don't hate America).
It's distressing to me that people attribute so much power to POTUS; almost as if you want the office to be that of king. The office is just a tool for the much, much larger corrupted system. If we elect some clown that is able to crown himself king and "end America" like you keep regurgitating, is he to blame, or the system and citizenry that allowed it?
I can't believe you guys are still debating so vehemently this illusion of choice we're all handed. It does not matter who you and I "choose" (and I use that term loosely); the result is the same. There is no organization, private or public, in which those in power would ever allow something to happen that would reduce their degree of control, or retard its growth. You and I will never [peacefully] recover freedom that has been usurped by those who write the rules by which we may recover it.
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian; it does not matter. The particular guy (or gal) with the title of POTUS is not the problem, nor the solution. Know your enemy.
Given the use of Executive Orders by the last few presidents to sidestep the legislative process, the office of President has become exponentially more potent...Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelhund
Note that Bush II and Obama have issued more EOs than all previous presidents combined...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...2.80.931981.29
Good info, TF. Very scary stuff. Also indicative of the growth of control I mentioned earlier, and excellent evidence that the party affiliation is moot.
Even if we could elect Jesus Christ to the office of POTUS, our situation would continue to decline and freedoms would continue to erode. The puppet is of no consequence.
I think the bigger problem, even more than the POTUS and candidates, is our current batch of career fucktard legislative branch. If they would get their heads out of their asses and actually do what's right for this country, instead of just for themselves, we could actually get rid of all the useless laws on the books and really put stuff into place to protect Americans and the Constitution.
However, I fear that's not going to happen unless something a la Debt of Honor happens. Fire them all and get real people in there. The idea was that the legislature was meant to be used similar to a jury... a group of regular people taking time out for civic duty for a while, then returning to their lives when the term was completed.
good point. I remember bill clintons second term. all the proposals. Remember the proposal for "arsenal licensing" what was it? Licensing required for over ten guns or over 500 rds of ammunition including primers and rimfire as I remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
I didn't like McCain either but he wouldn't have green-lighted the UN gun control work or appointed Supreme Court justices who take their cue from foreign courts rather than the Constitution. Romney won't either -- I understand why some people don't like him however anything but voting for Romney is a vote for Obama. Those who abstain or vote third-party are even more guilty than the Obamaniacs IMO if he gets a second term.
Um, McCain co-sponsored the NDAA. Makes me sick that I compromised and voted for that bastard in 2008. I don't want to think about what kind of unconstitutional shit he would have signed into law if he had won. He is specifically the reason I will not play the "lesser of the available evils" game again.
In the wake of todays horrible events, Romney will have his hands full, he supports the AWB and there will be another call for one in the coming days/weeks.
He has not convinced me to vote for him yet.
If he supports a new AWB he'll lose ... at this point he needs every single conservative vote he can get and AWB support will cause a not insignificant percentage of conservative to say screw it and stay home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim02
So basically your choices are between someone who MIGHT want to take away your guns and someone who is actively attempting it through deception and subversion of the law. But you're not convinced to give the person a try who MIGHT change his mind and want to take them away?
Believe it or not, the majority of Mormons are extremely interested in maintaining the Constitution as it stands, 2nd Amendment and all. I doubt he would want to be the one disarming all the LDS gun afficionados. Not that they'd do anything, it just kinda goes against their belief system. If anything, I'd say he probably had to toe that kinda tough line while governing a liberal state, but IMHO I doubt he'd try to inflict that kinda policy on Western states like Utah with a history of sport shooters (John Moses Browning, etc).
Just my thoughts there. Barry can't be trusted. I'd give Mitt a chance, though.
Either way, time to stock pile the 30rd mags....
As much as I dislike Romney... he is still better than the current disaster-in-chief....