G&A Perspective: Gun Ownership Under President Romney

Nomadac

I just received this email G&A Perspective: Gun Ownership Under President Romney.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/06/14/mitt-romney-gun-ownership/

I recommend reading to confirm the best choice for President in November, if you are interested in keeping your firearms and the recent SCOTUS rulings on the 2nd Amendment, since the next President will probably appoint 1-2 new Justices. JMO

Airedale

Romney wouldn't know a rodent from a bull moose, neither would Obama, but at least Obama doesn't say that he does..
Romney's pandering to the gun lobby, like Al Gore tried to do when he went into a Wisconsin or Michigan gun shop and said "I want to get me a hunting license". He'd never been hunting in his life.
What phoneys, but they're not stupid. They know that if they can capture the vote of hunters and firearm enthusiasts they'll add millions of votes.
I hate being manipulated.
Jim

NN

The article put me to sleep; maybe because I got the message a long time ago.

Nomadac

Airedale wrote: »

Romney wouldn't know a rodent from a bull moose, neither would Obama, but at least Obama doesn't say that he does..
Romney's pandering to the gun lobby, like Al Gore tried to do when he went into a Wisconsin or Michigan gun shop and said "I want to get me a hunting license". He'd never been hunting in his life.
What phoneys, but they're not stupid. They know that if they can capture the vote of hunters and firearm enthusiasts they'll add millions of votes.
I hate being manipulated.
Jim

So are you willing to let Obama get re-elected? If so you apparently believe Romney would be as dangerous to gun ownership that Obama will be if re-elected. Are this willing to gamble on this?

breamfisher

Let's see, 18 total paragraphs.
2 introductory.
6 rationalizing Romney's prior actions.
7 talking about Pres. Obama, recapping what's happened under Obama, and pontificating on what might happen.
1 forecasting what could happen if Romney wins.
1 talking about the public's perceptions of gun laws.
1 giving an idea of what Romney should focus on.

Not a great article. They never develop the idea that is central to the title: Romney is the better choice.

bisley

It's all about the judges.

Obama has put two commies on the Supreme Court and who knows how many throughout the federal system. And he refuses to even consider firing an Attorney General who ignores court orders on lifting the drilling bans and then covers up for BATF thugs who sell guns to drug dealers and then tries to blame lax gun laws for the whole thing.

Romney ain't much, but he can probably be swayed in the right direction. With Obama, there is no chance - he's a radical leftist and neither knows nor cares about anything else.

breamfisher

cpj wrote: »

While I agree that O must go, you do need to ask.....who has so far passed more gun control regulation? Obama or Romney?

Read the article. It 'splains it...

Eli

Challenge accepted. I shall miss your point completely.

HA!!!! Now, what do I win? :tooth:

bisley

cpj wrote: »

All the time MISSING MY POINT.....

I wonder who it will be????

Ooooh! Let me, let me!!! It's my TURN!!

Actually, I get your point. It's just that I think equating the harm that Obama has done and wants to do more of, to the actions of any past President, or to what I think anybody who has a chance to be President will be, is simply comparing apples and oranges. It ain't even close.

Roll back the clock 20 years, and there is no question about it - Romney would qualify as one of those so-called "social liberal, fiscal conservative" types that all poll-watching politicians would claim to be, in front of a liberal audience. But fast-forward to right now, and the situation has deteriorated so much that a good argument can be made that he is the most conservative/libertarian politician that actually has a chance to be elected. True, he only has a chance because his opponent is a complete and abject failure in the eyes of any realistic voter. But hell, you have to stop the bleeding before you can sew up the wound and begin rehab.

The citizenry has to start throwing out all of the jerks, at every level of government, and keep doing it for twenty years to pull this country back to some semblance of what it was at it's greatest. Whining about both choices being jerks and voting 'neutral' as a protest is just a childish tantrum that does nothing to help the problem. We can't just sit back and wait for 'the revolution,' when there are still things to be done, within the system, that might prevent it.

Diver43

In my mind a second term president is always more dangerous that a first termer. Why? Because there is no re-election, it does not matter who he/she pisses off, they can do what they wish during their second term.

elderlee1

Of course there is no choice but to vote for Romney if we want to get rid of Obama. That's the problem with the two-party shell game. Romney could not be any worse than Obama and he may be better, but I see little grounds for believing that Romney would remain grateful to the NRA or fail to fold if some highly publicized incident involving firearms led to the usual suspects in the media and the congress whipping up hysteria and clamoring for some new piece of anti-gun regulation. George Herbert Walker Bush courted the NRA's support and he was not in office two months before he instituted a ban on the importing of "assault rifles" after a nut case opened fire on a day care center in northern California with an AK-47 (the incident that served as the trigger or excuse for touching off the whole hysterical push to outlaw semi-autos, large cap magazines, etc. across the country). In the mid-nineties, after Wayne LaPierre accurately described as "jack-booted thugs" the BATFE goons who had trampled on the rights of gun owners in several outrageous cases, Bush I resigned his NRA Membership. Romney cannot be counted on to have any more spine or principles than Bush I, who, unlike Romney, does know one end of a gun from the other and served heroically in combat (as a Navy fighter pilot in World War II).

blueslide88

There's more riding on this election than the safeguarding of the Second Amendment. A lot more, and its being ignored here. Romney is not the strongest pro-gun candidate, for sure, BUT (caps for emphasis), he is most certainly NOT a socialist, a marxist, or one seemingly bent on destroying our nation and its traditions, NOT a progressive who cares less about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, NOT a champion of the redistribution of wealth, NOT a big government spender who is risking even more potential economic chaos by relentlessly increasing the national debt.
Romney's a capitalist who believes in free markets, lower taxes, balancing budgets, and the amazing power of capitalism which encourages each and every citizen to strive for a better life. As governor, MA had a 4 point something unemployment rate. He is running with a pledge to repeal Obamacare (SCOTUS's decision is coming soon, which might doom that law, we'll have to see). When the MA assault weapon issue came up, he brought both sides together, and muted pro-gun opposition by liberalizing certain restricting gun laws.
What I'm saying is that we have to get the country going economically, and Obama CANNOT accomplish that as a socialist big spending borrower (Europe's crashing because of its socialist ways). Obama is expanding the powers of the presidency by thumbing his nose at Congress and the Constitution. Obama DOES NOT UNDERSTAND BASIC ECONOMICS 1. All Obama knows is to spend and tax, spend and tax, until the sytem collapses.
Romney's a Republican, not a liberal Democrat. A moderate Republican on gun rights, in a party that has classically been pro-gun. Just look at what the Repubs have accomplished in FL for gun owners, with a balanced budget and NO income taxes. The Repubs in Congress won't allow Romney anything that smells anti-gun.
There is no tortured choice in this election. There is Romney, period, and with emphasis. A no-brainer, it sure seems to me.
Finally, there are the SCOTUS vacancies which will likely arise. Enough said there. We don't know who Romney may appoint, but we DO know that Obama will continue to pack the court with anti-gun, anti-constitutional ding bats. Let's stop the whining.

Chevelle

Diver43 wrote: »

In my mind a second term president is always more dangerous that a first termer. Why? Because there is no re-election, it does not matter who he/she pisses off, they can do what they wish during their second term.

AMEN!

elderlee1

You are not alone in holding this fantastic view that Obama is some kind of Marxian socialist, a view based on Obama's past left-wing associations as well as on a misunderstanding of how this country is ruled and who actually rules it. A significant section of the ruling class is behind Obama, and the ruling class does not back Marxists or socialists. His job from the standpoint of the rulers is to appear as a tribune for the poor while he helps the banks and insurance companies screw the American worker. Republican or Democrat, the president works for the same people, and those people are the masters of finance capital who own and control the overwhelming share of the country's wealth. I don't really care if people believe this nonsense about Obama being a socialist if it helps get him defeated in November, but my interest in this and all elections is our Second Amendment rights. Neither party is going to be able to return the prosperity of yesteryear when there were good jobs for anyone who wanted to work, when most workers owned their own homes and could count on a comfortable retirement. The current recession is not just a passing phase. It is a symptom of the worldwide crisis of the entire social and economic system, and it's going to be getting worse in the years to come.

blueslide88

elderlee1 wrote: »

You are not alone in holding this fantastic view that Obama is some kind of Marxian socialist, a view based on Obama's past left-wing associations as well............. Republican or Democrat, the president works for the same people, and those people are the masters of finance capital who own and control the overwhelming share of the country's wealth. I don't really care if people believe this nonsense about Obama being a socialist if it helps get him defeated in November, but my interest in this and all elections is our Second Amendment rights.

I more than sense a contradiction in what you say. If the "masters of finance capital" tell both Republican and Democratic presidents what to do (the president works for the same people), then how would a presidential election have any effect on our Second Amendment rights?

bisley

elderlee1 wrote: »

I don't really care if people believe this nonsense about Obama being a socialist if it helps get him defeated in November, but my interest in this and all elections is our Second Amendment rights.

There are all different flavors of socialism, so let's not get hung up on the details of their definitions.

The bottom line is that he believes in cradle-to-grave big government control of every aspect of our lives, and he 'rules' by executive fiat, ignoring the other two co-equal branches of government whenever it suits him. He has taken over one of the largest auto makers in the world, and put the management of it into the hands of the union bosses who helped bankrupt it.

Call it whatever you want, but it is corrupt to the core, and totally unacceptable to anyone who believes in the Constitution.

Teach

Good grief- - - -another "useful idiot" comes on board!
Jerry

Make_My_Day

Teach wrote: »

Good grief- - - -another "useful idiot" comes on board!
Jerry

We seem to have been overrun with these turds lately.