Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Romney says Obama will erode the rights of gun owners in speech to NRA

2

Replies

  • mkk41mkk41 Banned Posts: 1,932 Senior Member
    Romney really doesn't have a lot of room to talk about gun rights. He was an early backer of The Brady Bunch , in favor of the AWB and Hi-Cap mag ban and extending and strengthing it. He voted in favor of making it permanant in MA. He seems to flip-flop with the polls.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    OK, that was one long, confusing sentence.
    Whats your point? Whats your question? I have no underlying issues. The guy supported things I don't. Its that simple. The guy supports things all of us here do not/should not support. But yet, its still OK because he is all we have.

    And why are folks failing to see the issue with a person who supported gun bans, speaking at the single most powerful gun rights organization in the USA? To be cliche, thats like the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

    That is a fair question and I guess I don't have any question when all is said and done.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,669 Senior Member
    I couldn't give 2 large loads what Romney said or did 10 years ago. He is better than the bucket of fresh, slithering excrement that occupies the WH currently. Remember...when you get rid of Ovomit, you get rid of Holder, Janet Napolitano and all the stinking commie scum that comes with him, and the opportunity to put more conservatives on the SC. With all the so called liberty-loving people on this forum, I can't understand WHY this issue is even being kicked around, other than to just be contrary. OK...rant over.
    :uhm:
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,669 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    The point of this thread was that Romney was saying Obama would erode the rights of gun owners to the NRA. You know, the people who are lobbying FOR gun rights... The point is...he was FOR an assault weapons ban, and tougher restrictions on gun ownership. Does no one find that odd but me? That would be like PETA asking Ted Nugent to be the key note speaker at a PETA fund raiser.
    I understand that, and I agree with some of the sentiments. My point is why would ANY freedom loving individual not vote for whomever the Republican candidate is, when the alternative is SOOOOO bad, that to do otherwise would be unconscionable, for the reasons I stated in the first part of my other post.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    It just amazes me that otherwise clear thinking individuals can be swayed by the media.
    Now Reagan was a "douche". Interesting.
    Obamas election sparked a panic.
    Don't y'all see that we are being manipulated?
    Nothing changes. In the meantime we're being raped by big oil and the insurance industry.
    Thank God for the Second Amendment.
  • mkk41mkk41 Banned Posts: 1,932 Senior Member
    I understand that, and I agree with some of the sentiments. My point is why would ANY freedom loving individual not vote for whomever the Republican candidate is,

    The alternative is MORE! More government , more unemployment , more welfare , more public assistance , more amnesty for illegal aliens , more , more , more!
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,713 Senior Member
    [QUOTE=Make_My_Day;101484My point is why would ANY freedom loving individual not vote for whomever the Republican candidate is, when the alternative is SOOOOO bad, that to do otherwise would be unconscionable, for the reasons I stated in the first part of my other post.[/QUOTE]

    Because the Republican sucks.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Anyone that votes for bans on firearms is a douche.

    Lots of folks did stuff to limit our firearms rights from laws to manufacturers like Ruger under Bill Ruger to impose a a voluntary 10 round magazine ban. Others were forced or sucked up to Clinton (Colt firearms) for contracts or other reasons.

    Sometimes there are strange bedfellows, indeed.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Not dodging. You asked "I wonder what some of the people here would say if they knew all there is to know about Ronald Reagan."
    I said "I'd say he was a douche for the bans he had a part in."

    NOW you ask"I guess then, that you would have found it difficult or impossible to vote for Reagan, even knowing the results?"
    The answer to that is, yes.

    Thank you for an honest answer. Let me present my position from another angle.

    Suppose you're at the voting booth, and there are two buttons. There are no candidate names. One button is marked "A". Under that choice it says "Push this button and the nation will go down the road to destruction, for sure". The second button is marked "B". Under this choice it says "Push this button and the nation will have a chance to avoid "A". No guarantees, but there is a reasonable chance".

    That's the way I see it. The old KISS approach, Keep It Simple Stupid. The choice is clear to me. And it's a simple one. No other issues matter at this point.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,914 Senior Member
    Are you going to keep letting them tell you what to think?

    Is it completely impossible for you to post something without insulting people?....You made your point with the first paragraph...keep it civil
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    I understand that, and I agree with some of the sentiments. My point is why would ANY freedom loving individual not vote for whomever the Republican candidate is, when the alternative is SOOOOO bad, that to do otherwise would be unconscionable, for the reasons I stated in the first part of my other post.

    I cannot see how you can equate "freedom loving individuals" with Romney's record or the Republican party as a whole. Everytime you cast a vote for some pathetic RINO you tell the GOP, "Hey this is what we want. PLease sir, may I have some more?"

    Maybe, just maybe, if the GOP loses enough elections, they will get a clue. That won't happen if people like you will vote for whatever is offered.

    Remember: Padded chains are still chains.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    I cannot see how you can equate "freedom loving individuals" with Romney's record or the Republican party as a whole. Everytime you cast a vote for some pathetic RINO you tell the GOP, "Hey this is what we want. PLease sir, may I have some more?"

    Maybe, just maybe, if the GOP loses enough elections, they will get a clue. That won't happen if people like you will vote for whatever is offered.

    Remember: Padded chains are still chains.

    Oh CaliFFL, thou almost persuadest me to not vote for Romeny - BUT THOU HAST FAILED!!! :nono: If I have to wear padded chains to release myself from the slave chains of Obama let me wear them!!!!! :jester::jester:
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,706 Senior Member
    Well, if old Ron could win; he would be winning all the primaries by a land slide and he is not.
    Shut up-----KAREN; OK Cynthia
  • ghostsniper1ghostsniper1 Banned Posts: 2,645 Senior Member
    I think that the difference here is that in Reagans presidency, he was truly trying to do good with the bans he was implementing but at the same time he was ignorant of the facts of violence and responsible gun ownership. I think that the people today are no longer ignorant of the same thing, just stinkin stupid and trying to appeal to the ageing hippie liberal douches.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Not so, don't agree with you at all on your analysis, but don't have the energy to engage, so I will just vote for Romeny and leave it at that.
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 11,143 Senior Member
    My point is why would ANY freedom loving individual not vote for whomever the Republican candidate is, .

    Patriot Act. 1986 Machine Gun Ban. GW Bush said he would reauthorize the AW Ban. Reagan passed gun control in CA. All these were things republicans did when in office- And this is just off the top of my head. No research or looking stuff up.

    Best thing we can do is make sure nothing gets passed. Gridlock in DC= best case scenario. Wrench in the works- stop the machine and stop the bleeding of our freedoms.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • tv_racin_fantv_racin_fan Senior Member Posts: 660 Senior Member
    I understand that, and I agree with some of the sentiments. My point is why would ANY freedom loving individual not vote for whomever the Republican candidate is, when the alternative is SOOOOO bad, that to do otherwise would be unconscionable, for the reasons I stated in the first part of my other post.

    How about because that republican is not a freedom loving individual. He does not agree that you or I should have the right to keep and bear whatever sort of firearm we choose like any freedom loving american would.

    I do not believe the alternative is all that much worse than the supposed freedom loving american you seem to be rooting for is.

    You might recall that a supposed freedom loving american gave us the patriot act. THAT surely is not something a FREEDOM LOVING american would do.

    You can call anyone anything you like. You can claim I am throwing my vote away or effectively voting for President Obama because I will not vote for that non freedom loving american if you so desire. You can vote for that non freedom loving american if you so choose BUT do not pretend to be a freedom loving american in so doing because you are voting against your own interests. Unless of course you are against the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member

    You can claim I am throwing my vote away or effectively voting for President Obama because I will not vote for that non freedom loving american if you so desire. You can vote for that non freedom loving american if you so choose BUT do not pretend to be a freedom loving american in so doing because you are voting against your own interests. Unless of course you are against the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

    Bull, just plain hooie!!!! You are throwing away your vote plain and simple and since the only way to remove Obama is to vote him out, you are truly throwing away the only power you have and in essence sucumbing to as you bow down before President Obama who is absolutely not about freedom in any since, and you call us un American who vote for Romeny. Don't tell me I am not a freedom loving American, because at least I know enough about the right and exercise of freedom to vote and willing to make the best of what I have to choose from. People like you really are amazing as you talk freedom out one side of your mouth and then condemn others for voting. What little dictators, intimidating bullies you are as though you know best and the only one that we should vote for is the one you approve and if not we are not american. You go ahead and cut your nose off to spite yourself and prove how un-american you are by not voting. I actually would have more respect for you if you at least voted for Obama than to refuse the right men have died for so you could exercise it. Just amazing, indeed amazing, no wonder we are in trouble in this country.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    "Here lies the body of Solomon Gray
    Who died defending his right of way
    He was right, dead right, as he sped along
    But now he's as dead as if he were wrong!"

    Standing on some sort of vaguely-defined "principle" while the world falls apart around us might be a feel-good ploy for an ideologue, but the possibility of giving obummer another four years in the process is unthinkable!
    Jerry
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Just amazing, indeed amazing, no wonder we are in trouble in this country.

    We the gun loving,gun owning hard working tax paying citizens of the United States will not survive another 4yrs. with the likes of Obummy.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Standing on some sort of vaguely-defined "principle" while the world falls apart around us might be a feel-good ploy for an ideologue, but the possibility of giving obummer another four years in the process is unthinkable!
    Jerry

    Ya got that right Teach!!!!!!!!!!!
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Patriot Act. 1986 Machine Gun Ban. GW Bush said he would reauthorize the AW Ban. Reagan passed gun control in CA. All these were things republicans did when in office- And this is just off the top of my head. No research or looking stuff up.

    Best thing we can do is make sure nothing gets passed. Gridlock in DC= best case scenario. Wrench in the works- stop the machine and stop the bleeding of our freedoms.

    Ya got that right Bullsi1911,, I do remember all that too, as most of us here do!!!!!!!!!!! It seems like to me that back in the day most anti-gun and anti-constitution politicians were solely democrats. IIRC somewhere about the decade of the 1970's we started seeing a lot more republican candidates elected officials, go anti-gun and anti-constitution. It has been written in history that Republic style of Government never last more than 200yrs or so. This country of ours is about 235yrs old more or less. Could we be seeing the eroding of our way of life as we knew it? I think so. If the political tides don't turn and turn soon, then all I got to say is, God help this Great Nation.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Member Posts: 203 Member
    Teach wrote: »
    "Here lies the body of Solomon Gray
    Who died defending his right of way
    He was right, dead right, as he sped along
    But now he's as dead as if he were wrong!"

    Standing on some sort of vaguely-defined "principle" while the world falls apart around us might be a feel-good ploy for an ideologue, but the possibility of giving obummer another four years in the process is unthinkable!
    Jerry

    John McCain....
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Nothing much yet, he is waiting until he has nothing to lose (after his reelection) for his "True Colors" to come out. He uses his political appointees (Atty General) and agency heads to thwart 2A rights whenever he can. Don't thunk for a minute he wouldn't love to disarm the American people.

    :that::agree:

    Go ahead and let Obama win and your second amendment rights will be :banned:
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 11,143 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »

    Standing on some sort of vaguely-defined "principle"

    Teach, the second amendment, the bill of rights, and the Constitution are not some vaguely defined "principle".
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    I cannot see how you can equate "freedom loving individuals" with Romney's record or the Republican party as a whole. Everytime you cast a vote for some pathetic RINO you tell the GOP, "Hey this is what we want. PLease sir, may I have some more?"

    Maybe, just maybe, if the GOP loses enough elections, they will get a clue. That won't happen if people like you will vote for whatever is offered.

    Remember: Padded chains are still chains.

    And you think Obama will allow you to keep those rights? Remember the platform Romney is running on. It is pro gun ownership. Obama has not to tie himself to anything at this point, but let him get in the saddle again and you will see.

    Also, as I have said time and again, there was no way Romney was going to get elected in Massachusetts doing his Ronald Reagan impersonation. He had to pan pan to the libs. It's a way of life up there. But I believe though he's politically motivated and maybe a little too much so, that he is at heart a conservative. he is a good businessman and liberal and business don't mix, that is if you want to be successful.

    And bye the time we lose all these elections to teach us this great lesson, I doubt very much you will have legal ownership of guns. In fact, I don't think you will recognize the Constitution.

    Romney was NOT my first choice here. I love Ron Paul, Rick Perry was very strong on the second amendment, Newt Gingrich with all his faults is infinitely smarter and The other guys weren't bad either. I could very well live with Rick Santorum as president. But it didn't happen. But I am voting for Romney because a vote for ANYONE else is a wasted vote and Obama is totally unacceptible.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    At his core I do not believe Romney is in favor of private gun ownership. Romney's core constituency is the true Elite. Not the small business owner/doctor/lawyer 1% that the OWS guys are screaming about but the cream of the crop elite, the .001%. Private gun ownership is a threat to the security of these folks and they don't care about the 2A because they can hire their own private security forces that are above the law (at least civilian firearms laws). History has shown again and again that the wealth distribution can only become so top heavy before the peasants revolt and start chopping off heads. We're not there yet, but we get closer and closer with each passing day and the policies so far of Obama (93% of the benefits of the economic recovery have gone to the top 1%) and Romney will only continue to accelerate us along the path.

    I think I am going to vomit, I don't have enough words or time to express how full of baloney your comments truly are. Really????? I am so tired of your class war fair, it is overused and consequently of little import; lacking originality or freshness, in other words TRITE!!!!!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,669 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    Because the Republican sucks.
    Not as much as who is in there now.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement