Romney and guns?


PDA






Nico Testosteros
October 13, 2011, 10:24 AM
Has he converted/flip flopped to favor 2A causes or is he still for the assault weapons ban and other silliness?

If you enjoyed reading about "Romney and guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Waldog
October 13, 2011, 10:32 AM
Romney is a closet DEMOCRAT!!! His previous actions as Gov of Mass clearly demonstrates he is as anti Second Amendment as Nancy Pelosi.

Sam1911
October 13, 2011, 10:34 AM
Let's leave off any discussions or accusations of liberal/conservative, or of healthcare, taxes, or any other political topic.

His record on GUN CONTROL is all we will discuss here at THR.

Thank you.

Sav .250
October 13, 2011, 10:44 AM
What is his stance on guns/ownership ?

Spammy_H
October 13, 2011, 11:08 AM
From: http://www.ontheissues.org/Mitt_Romney.htm

Mitt Romney on Gun Control
Click here for 8 full quotes on Gun Control OR other candidates on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.
2008: "Lifelong" devotion to hunting meant "small varmints". (Jan 2010)
GovWatch: 1994: did not “line up with the NRA”. (Feb 2008)
Support the 2nd Amendment AND the assault weapon ban. (Jan 2008)
I support the work of the NRA, but disagree sometimes. (Dec 2007)
Ok to ban lethal weapons that threaten police. (Dec 2007)
Compromise MA gun bills were net gain for gun owner. (Aug 2007)
Supports Second Amendment rights but also assault weapon ban. (May 2007)
Will support assault weapons bill and Brady Bill. (Aug 1994)

IdahoSkies
October 13, 2011, 11:11 AM
To answer check this out:

http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/second-amendment/

1. Says he is Pro-2nd amendment; but
2. Repeatedly says he would have signed the "assault weapons ban" had it come across his desk because it was worked out between the pro-gun/anti-gun groups.
3. Also states that he liberalized MA gun licenses laws by signing a MA "assault weapons" ban, because it included a loosening of licensing restrictions.
4. Consistently says there are some firearms that are to dangerous to own.

Kind of disappointing.

bikerdoc
October 13, 2011, 12:03 PM
Romney has clearly stated his views in words and action.

Loosedhorse
October 13, 2011, 01:29 PM
Not only did he sign the assaut weapons ban in MA, he said this (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnationalgunrights.org%2Fimages%2FRomney-AWban-pr.pdf&rct=j&q=governor%20romney%20signs%20awwault%20weapons%20ban%20pdf&ei=kR-XTpnmOajz0gH36YmxBA&usg=AFQjCNGgGpKGFLQvdI1Omgo6Y2e5Kvut2w):
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “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.”

The "sportsmen's groups" included many who were against the AWB, but were asked to attend and told that Romney would say he was signing the bill reluctantly, etc. He did not.

The_Armed_Therapist
October 13, 2011, 02:50 PM
Romney is NOT NOT NOT a friend to the 2nd amendment. Plain and simple. He may be a mild or moderate friend to guns and/or gun owners, but the amendment is clear... "...shall not be infringed." He favors at least some gun control, which makes him an enemy to the Constitution, which means an enemy to the nation. He's a big government hack and the 2A is no exception.

hso
October 13, 2011, 04:13 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=617431

FMF Doc
October 13, 2011, 04:45 PM
Romney is a politician. You will never really know how he feel about anything becuase that changes with the political climate. I don't really hold it against him, that is the nature of the beast. Maybe his views have/ will change. Afterall, good-'ol Rick Perry was once a Democrat! These days, as much as the 2A means to me, it isn't everything. If the economy is in the tank and we are all broke and unemployed, we won't be able to buy guns, or ammo, or anything else the Constitution says we can. Romney may no be the most pro-gun conidate, but as long as he can convice me he is pro-America (the whole picture) he might get my vote. Just something to think about.

razorback2003
October 13, 2011, 07:17 PM
Doesn't MA have pretty hard gun laws on getting a license just to OWN firearms? Not many states are so strict that you have to get a license to own just a shotgun or rifle.

I don't think I can vote for people who sign those kind of bills into law.

GEM
October 13, 2011, 08:40 PM
I clearly remember him saying that he would sign an AWB as President Bush said that he (Bush) would if it crossed his desk. That was good enough for Romney.

Perry is good on guns if the legislation gets to him. He signed our parking lot bill but deliberately avoided using his abilities to push campus carry. Thus, it failed due to legislative chicanery. He did use his powers to push other crap.

Johannes_Paulsen
October 13, 2011, 09:57 PM
Just curious - assuming that a President Romney is a closet gun-grabber - would he be any more effective than President Obama has been in pushing the Brady agenda?

Ben86
October 13, 2011, 10:18 PM
He's a North Eastern politician. That should pretty much give you a good idea. That stereotype is mostly true.

He makes sure he's not anti-gun enough to make people angry, but subtly he seems to prefer to keep our 2nd A rights limited. With only common sense gun legislation (CSGL) of course. ;)

He's just another McCain, chosen by the media. If only the media didn't decide our candidates.

BambiB
October 30, 2011, 01:17 AM
To see where Romney stands on the issues, just take this short quiz:

http://boycotts4paul.com/MittRomney.pdf

Once you have, you'll have a very good idea where he stands on the Second Amendment.

Thefabulousfink
November 5, 2011, 01:20 AM
Here is my opinion on Mitt Romney, completely free and worth every penny;)

I think Romney is no friend of gun owners and will not strive to protect gun rights, however, I THINK that he won't seek ways to infringe on them. It dosen't seem like gun's are really on his radar except when they are politically expediant. If Congress can keep the laws off his desk, he's not likely to even touch the subject. I can't say the same about a second term Obama.

While Romney is by no means my ideal candidate, I think he unfortunately is the most electable. Every time I watch the rest of the candidates, it's like watching "who doesn't want to be President?" Everyone keeps trying to appeal to and allready galvenized base and ends up alienating the middle of the road voters that they will need to beat Obama.

I don't much like it, but I would rather have a luke-warm republican like Romney than another 4 years of Obama. As gun owners we NEED a good showing in the presidential race because of the trickle-down effect on the House and Senate races. Most people who are undicided will vote for reps from the same part as the Pres candidate that they voted for. If we win the House and Senate then it doesn't matter if we loose the WH.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Cosmoline
November 5, 2011, 02:07 AM
would he be any more effective than President Obama has been in pushing the Brady agenda?

In a word, YES. The dynamics of a GOP Pres weak on firearms and a Democratic hill are very dangerous. Obama considers the issue a third rail and won't openly touch it regardless of who is in control in Congress. He and most of his party are still stinging from the critical border state losses on this issue in prior elections.

But for Romney the issue could be a location for "compromise" in order to get his more important agenda (whatever it might be) through opposition. He may feel he can safely ignore the protests of the RKBA groups because he assumes they have no other place to go.

I would much prefer Obama in office than Romney on that issue. No question about it.

R.W.Dale
November 5, 2011, 02:41 AM
Romney couldn't win last time around there's absolutely no reason for the outcome to be any different this time.

A primary vote for mit is a general election vote for BHO

If he gets the nomination I will be forced to (gasp) vote for the mr Obama for the reasons outlined above. As this is one case where its best to stick with the devil you know.

posted via tapatalk using android.

Dan Bear
November 5, 2011, 03:52 AM
I'm not quite sure what makes you think he's not concerned with re-election. Spending a his entire presidency paying folks off and spending a record setting billion on his second term campaign sure fools me.

Romney is a danger to our second amendment rights. Just look at his history. I'd vote for Cain over Romney any ol' day.

rsilvers
November 5, 2011, 11:45 AM
He is anti black gun, which to me is anti gun.

He boasted on TV when MA passed the state AW bill.

Though one can argue that he did was MA wanted, and would not do the same thing for the country as a whole.

Which raises the question - should a leader do what they think is best, or do what the people want?

Psa1m144
November 5, 2011, 11:59 AM
Mitt Romney is the only GOP candidate that will make me vote 3rd party if he gets the nomination based solely on his stance with the 2nd amendment and gun ownership. I am comfortable "enough" with my gun rights being in the hands of any of the other front-runners.

Johannes_Paulsen
November 5, 2011, 11:41 PM
How does Romney differ from Ronald Reagan, who famously signed the Mulford Act while governor of California, banning open carry of loaded firearms in public? (And, for that matter, supported the Brady Bill when it was proposed in the '90s?) Would you all have opposed Reagan for similar reasons?

jon_in_wv
November 6, 2011, 01:15 AM
While you guys may be right about a weak republican like Romney I fear the ideologues Obama would feed us as supreme court justices much more. What do you think would be more damaging? Four years of Romney? Or a life term for 2 or 3 more liberals on the bench? You guys may be selling our Supreme Court down the river just for a short term solution by saying you would vote for Obama over Romney. I would NEVER, NEVER vote for Obama. ANY republican would be better to me.

exavid
November 6, 2011, 01:37 AM
Yes by all means, vote for whomever the Republicans put up. While I don't think the presidency is as important as getting a Republican majority in the senate while hanging onto the house, there's no telling what a lame duck Obama would do with his "czars" and presidential edicts.

R.W.Dale
November 6, 2011, 02:48 AM
While you guys may be right about a weak republican like Romney I fear the ideologues Obama would feed us as supreme court justices much more. What do you think would be more damaging? Four years of Romney? Or a life term for 2 or 3 more liberals on the bench? You guys may be selling our Supreme Court down the river just for a short term solution by saying you would vote for Obama over Romney. I would NEVER, NEVER vote for Obama. ANY republican would be better to me.

All this assumes the Romney's nominees would actually be less liberal than bho's.

I'm genuinely not so sure of that.

Look at this way. Obama is still an unknown. Romney on the other hand has a RECORD of being a complete liberal antigunner who somehow manages to have an r next to his name.

I'm telling you guys the current Washington stalemate is vastly preferable to a Romney with a rubber stamp Congress and house and a precieved mandate. If comes down to mitt ill gladly pull a lever for Obama. Perhaps the Republican party can then figure out we don't want the same tired retred losers from elections past

posted via tapatalk using android.

lobo9er
November 6, 2011, 07:29 AM
my opinion is that he is a globalist and would be more than happy to sign whatever rebecca peters and the UN would want him too. If it would benefit him polotically.

TexasRifleman
November 6, 2011, 08:30 AM
Please remember this thread is only about Mitt Romney.

jon_in_wv
November 6, 2011, 09:17 AM
R.W. Romney may be a RINO, but he is no Obama. Saying you would vote for Obama because Romney might be as bad as him doesn't make sense anyhow.

Neverwinter
November 6, 2011, 10:42 AM
R.W. Romney may be a RINO, but he is no Obama. Saying you would vote for Obama because Romney might be as bad as him doesn't make sense anyhow.
You're misinterpreting his post. Romney might be WORSE. If you check OnTheIssues, you'll see that Obama supports leaving restrictions to the states. Romney has no such record.

robert garner
November 6, 2011, 10:55 AM
I would NEVER, NEVER vote for Obama. ANY republican would be better to me.
That is what the GOP is counting on, it will insure that we remain on the path chosen for us,while we pretend to have a voice.Obama/Romney same difference.
robert

Konstantin835
November 6, 2011, 02:20 PM
I knew gun ownership was a traditionally conservative value, but wow... Tons of Obama hate. Seriously, as president Obama hasn't done anything about guns, Romney on the other hand signed the Massachusetts AWB as Governor. On firearms alone they are pretty much equal IMO, Romney might even be worse.

hso
November 6, 2011, 05:32 PM
This thread will not be closed, but many of you will continue to have posts deleted and infractions will start to be handed out if the focus doesn't stay on Mitt Romney's 2A position.

Ohio Gun Guy
November 6, 2011, 07:06 PM
Here is State level example what concerns me about Romney on the Federal level.

in Ohio we had gov. Taft. Although a republican, he very often used 2nd Amendment issues as a bargaining chip to get the other things he wanted done. So ironically many more anti 2nd Amendment things cleared in Ohio than would have under a Democrat (To whit: Gov. Strickland). This is why in my opinion, someone who is "Flexible" on the 2nd Amendment and does not hold it as a personal, core value is scary.

Romney (A RINO, IMO) could do more damage than a Democrat if he's willing to use it as a trading chip for other items in their agenda.

Governor Kasich had a very, very close election when the rest of the country was voting for anything with an "R" behind their name. I firmly believe this is due to his past support of the AWB when he was in congress.

Ohio being a "Bell-weather" for the rest of the country, I believe the Republicans should be very careful about nominating anyone not very strong on the 2nd Amendment!

All that said, a 2nd term Obama, would (IMO) e very anti 2A given a Dem house or Senate.

Super Sneaky Steve
November 6, 2011, 07:18 PM
http://youtu.be/Kk1bJOpYUqE

Please see this video which clearly states Mitt's position. It's strait from the horse's mouth.

Byrd666
November 6, 2011, 07:24 PM
Whatever he says, don't believe him. He'll change his mind/waffle the subject in the next statement or question.

zxcvbob
November 6, 2011, 07:53 PM
It's pretty clear that he's not an anti-gun zealot. He doesn't seem to have deep convictions about anything. I'd like to think he had a genuine change-of-heart about abortion, but I don't even trust that.

He'll go with whatever position [on guns, or whatever] is politically expedient at the time, but he won't burn any bridges doing so in case he needs to switch back -- so we could do a lot worse.

dcludwig
November 6, 2011, 08:06 PM
I don't think Romney would appoint extreme leftist Supreme Court justices as Obama did. On the fairly recent Supreme Court decision to overturn DC's gun ban how did Obama's appointees vote? AGAINST overturning the gun ban. Romney is far from perfect on 2A issues, but I think he is certainly smart enough to realize it would be political suicide to support any anti-gun legislation if elected and wanted to be re-elected to office.

I would rather have Cain, no doubt about that, but if Romney is nominated he will get my vote. As someone mentioned in a previous post, SCOTUS appoinments last a lifetime and their decisions ultimately have far greater impact on 2A issues than what a president can or cannot do. Someone mentioned also that Obama is "still an unknown". Really? We DO know who he appointed not only to the SCOTUS, but also leftist Federal judges as well. Would Romney appoint an avid pro-2A judge(s)? Can't guarantee that, but we would be guaranteed a few more ANTI-gun appointees from Obama.

Romney is a politician and yep, he made some bad calls as governor of a liberal state. I don't think he would repeat those on a national level. BTW, I don't "hate" Obama... I just hate about 99% of what he stands for. "Fast and Furious"/Eric Holder/leftist judges, etc. etc.

Again, though I some reservations about Romney, he is a far cry from Obama. Hopefully, he has learned his lesson about how strongly so many voters feel about our Second Amendment rights. It wasn't Romney who showed his hand in a comment about middle Americans "clinging to their guns and bibles". Think that over before you push the button for Barack.

Ohio Gun Guy
November 6, 2011, 08:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Ygw9CQ9po&feature=related

Another one from Mitt himself, discussing his support of the AWB and AWB in Mass.

dcludwig
November 6, 2011, 08:24 PM
Governor Kasich had a very, very close election when the rest of the country was voting for anything with an "R" behind their name. I firmly believe this is due to his past support of the AWB when he was in congress.

Ohio being a "Bell-weather" for the rest of the country, I believe the Republicans should be very careful about nominating anyone not very strong on the 2nd Amendment!

Yep, close election and like Romney, Kasich had some major baggage from his past on some 2A issues. Still, I voted for him over the sitting Democrat Governor, Ted Strickland. Why? Because even though Strickland was considered more "pro-2A", he endorsed anti-gun Obama, anti-gun Senator Sherrod Brown, made horrible appointments to judgeships in Ohio. Moreover, when the right to conceal-carry in restaurants bill passed the Ohio Senate, Strickland couldn't even convince his own party to let that bill even be voted on in the Ohio House. Kasich, on the other hand, SIGNED THE BILL into law. That is why I voted for him - despite his somewhat dubious past.

I think this is a very good comparison when pitting Romney against Obama. Despite his baggage, I think Romney's appointments will be far likely to be pro-2A than any of Obama's past or future appointments. If Kasich was so anti-gun as many accused him of being, why did he sign the restaurant carry bill into law? He learned his lesson. Hopefully Romney has also learned his lesson.

Girodin
November 7, 2011, 01:03 AM
Although I given the state of the country I cannot afford to be a one issue voter, I find it very very troubling that he says he would have signed a renewal of the assault weapons ban if it came to his desk. I also really do not like his vague reference to "weapons of particular lethality." I would like to see him pressed on what constitutes that. Is he talking so called "assault weapons?" Is he talking NFA items? What exactly? The good news is perhaps that the likelihood of that coming out of congress is very very low. There is simply not political will for it right now. There is not support, even from a lot of members of congress on the left. Of course things can always change on that front.

I however, believe Mr. Romney would be much better on gun rights than a second term Obama.

As others have noted SCOTUS nominations alone is an enormous point in favor of Romney vis-a-vis President Obama. The SCOTUS has been the big battle ground for the contours of gun control in this country and will continue to be as there are some very important issues yet to be fleshed out by the court. Remember that Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions. Imagine if they had gone the other way!

lobo9er
November 7, 2011, 06:54 AM
Romney is a politician and yep, he made some bad calls as governor of a liberal state. I don't think he would repeat those on a national level.
why?
I however, believe Mr. Romney would be much better on gun rights than a second term Obama.


why?
why would he rule our nation any different than the states he was the leader of?

jmorris
November 7, 2011, 08:18 AM
Ok to ban lethal weapons that threaten police. (Dec 2007)


That includes almost any item and all firearms.

R.W.Dale
November 7, 2011, 08:24 AM
why?

why?
why would he rule our nation any different than the states he was the leader of?

Because he....he....he's a Republican so he has to be good...right?

Ask yourselves this you any Republican is better guys. Why is Romney the media's chosen one?

posted via tapatalk using android.

hso
November 7, 2011, 09:46 AM
This is why it is foolish to assume that party affiliation is any guarantee of support for the 2A. Plenty of politicians in the west, south-west and south-east from either major party are 2A supporters. Plenty of politicians in the northeast, west coast and major urban areas from either party are not.

Learn what the individual's performance has been and what their published stance is on any issue you are interested in instead of mindlessly following the herd. Many politicians depend upon "brand loyalty" instead of having to deal with an informed electorate.

dcludwig
November 7, 2011, 10:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobo9er
why?

why?
why would he rule our nation any different than the states he was the leader of?

Because he....he....he's a Republican so he has to be good...right?

Ask yourselves this you any Republican is better guys. Why is Romney the media's chosen one?

Ummm... if Romney is the media's "chosen one" why did they gush all over McCain instead of Romney in 2008? Because they saw McCain as the weaker of the candidates to beat Obama. Polls show Romney with the best chance (as of this moment) of beating Obama, so why on earth would the media make him their "chosen one". Doesn't add up (if you remove emotions from the argument)

For the record, (R) in front of your name doesn't say "GOOD". Sometimes it only indicates "lessor of the evils". That certainly was the case when I gritted my teeth and pushed the button for McCain. Our goal should be to do the best we can in our support/donations/involvement to get the best candidate on the ticket. If, in doing so, our FIRST choice is not the one on the ticket, do we then in anger "show them" by voting for a leftist/socialist or a third party (which is essentially the same as voting for Obama) Not I.

dcludwig
November 7, 2011, 10:24 AM
[QUOTE][This is why it is foolish to assume that party affiliation is any guarantee of support for the 2A. Plenty of politicians in the west, south-west and south-east from either major party are 2A supporters. Plenty of politicians in the northeast, west coast and major urban areas from either party are not. /QUOTE]

Very good point Although I am generally an (R) since I am a conservative, I HAVE in recent years voted for the (D) candidate because they were more in line with 2A issues and other issues as well.

dcludwig
November 7, 2011, 10:51 AM
Quote:
Romney is a politician and yep, he made some bad calls as governor of a liberal state. I don't think he would repeat those on a national level.

why?

Because on the state level he had to compromise some postions because he was in an extremely liberal state to get elected (not that I agree with that) but it was the reality that he faced. On a national level, the percentage of liberal voters drops dramatically and as a politician he realizes this. Why tick off a huge voting block? In the elections the lefties are going Obama, so any anti-gun stance won't gain you any their votes anyway. It WILL, OTHO, probably cause you to lose a significant percentage of the 2A voting block

Quote:
I however, believe Mr. Romney would be much better on gun rights than a second term Obama.


why?
why would he rule our nation any different than the states he was the leader of?

Ummm, read my previous posts. SCOTUS appointments weigh heavily into eventual 2A rights/laws. Romney HAS to realize that it is extremely dangerous politically for him to mimic what he did as governor as far as gun rights. Obama has appointed a number of very anti-gun federal judges as well. They WILL make some decisions that effect many, if not all gun owners. Romney may not select the "perfect" justice(s) (George senior certainly made some poor choices) But we KNOW already who Obama appoints: Extreme, anti-gun justices who like to legislate from the bench (a very dangerous proposition for gun owners)

Choices of a president are far different than those of a governor. Fast and furious was a very deliberate attempt by the feds to show gun dealers/owners in a bad light with the purpose of enacting a more restrictive federal gun policy. Fast and Furious is a program that has gone horribly wrong (even to the point American's having lost their lives due to it). Has Obama publically condemned this policy or reprimanded Eric Holder or even held him to task? Nope. I think Romney 1) would not condone such a program and 2) if it did come to his knowlege that it was happening, I would like to think his reaction would be a lot different than Mr. Cling-to-your-guns.

Obviously, it is hopeful speculation on my part about Romney. But it is NOT speculation the damage Obama has already done and I certainly am not going to give him the reigns to do even more. Obama could barely tell the difference between being a radical community organizer and being president. I believe, for said reasons, that Romney knows being president of the United States is NOT being governor of Mass.

JohnD13
November 7, 2011, 11:06 AM
I am not comfortable with candidate Romney's gun control views. I think he has his veiw of the 2nd Ammendment, and I don't think it matches mine, or most folks here. When he says that some guns are too dangerous to own, I don't think he is thinking of RG revolvers or Raven pocket weights like I am. If he is the candidate selected to run against Obama, I won't like doing it, but I'll vote for him.

dcludwig
November 7, 2011, 12:17 PM
I am not comfortable with candidate Romney's gun control views. I think he has his veiw of the 2nd Ammendment, and I don't think it matches mine, or most folks here. When he says that some guns are too dangerous to own, I don't think he is thinking of RG revolvers or Raven pocket weights like I am. If he is the candidate selected to run against Obama, I won't like doing it, but I'll vote for him.

Well said and spot on. Romney is NOT my hero, by any stretch. I didn't feel "good" about voting for Kasich in Ohio, but I knew at the end of the day, he was doing less damage than Strickland was doing (via appointments).

It's still some time away. Perhaps we will have a candidate that is much clearly thinking on issues. One can only hope anyway. At the end of the day, there is no doubt in my mind my choice would be Romney over Obama. Actually, we MAY be pleasantly surprised. I see the POTENTIAL in Romney to do good on with policies. I see none of that in Obama. Spend more of my money and take more control of my life is his goals (and he has done much to accomplish them.

I think Romney desires America to succeed. Sadly, I don't think Barack feels the same - certainly not in all the speeches in which he trashed America. I think Romney can overcome our misgivings. I KNOW Obama can't. Let's hope that if nominated and elected, Romney will prove his naysayers wrong.

Ringo1234
November 7, 2011, 01:32 PM
If it's Romney or any other R candidate, I will vote for him no question. The Heller decision was only 5 to 4 in our favor. Which means a SCOTUS with a few more Democrat appointments means this case could get overturned. 3rd party candidate only helps Obama and the Socialists. IMO

Cosmoline
November 7, 2011, 01:39 PM
Romney HAS to realize that it is extremely dangerous politically for him to mimic what he did as governor as far as gun rights.

Would it be, though? It's actually more dangerous for a Democratic President. The GOP Pres can assume the RKBA crowd have no other place to go. Are we going to vote for the Democrats if Romney turns south on gun rights?

What his state record shows me is that gun issues are very minor for him. He doesn't really care about them, and when push comes to shove he may well opt to "compromise" our rights in order to get his own agenda through a Democratic hill. Now if the GOP controls one or both houses I see little threat, but there's no guarantee of that.

As far as Court appointments, the key there is to get sufficient conservative Senators in place to police the nominations. A Republican president is no guarantee that the appointed justices will be friendly. There's a long list of justices who changed stripes after getting that lifelong tenure. It's the Senate judiciary that weeds these folks out.

danweasel
November 7, 2011, 03:54 PM
Romney is a politician. You will never really know how he feel about anything becuase that changes with the political climate

The dynamics of a GOP Pres weak on firearms and a Democratic hill are very dangerous. Obama considers the issue a third rail and won't openly touch it regardless of who is in control in Congress.

Between these two statements, I don't have to type anything new to make my opinion known.

Nico Testosteros
November 7, 2011, 04:32 PM
The President, and the rest of us Democrats, is NOT a Socialist.

lobo9er
November 7, 2011, 04:57 PM
Romney HAS to realize that it is extremely dangerous politically for him to mimic what he did as governor as far as gun rights.

why?
what he did as gov got him this far, a front runner to become president of the U.S. of A. So his flippy floppy on 2A, or socialized health care hasn't really hurt him any.

Ret.CWO
November 7, 2011, 05:11 PM
If he can't convince me that he is 101 % pro 2nd Amendment he will not get my vote.

Super Sneaky Steve
November 7, 2011, 05:17 PM
If it's between Obama and Romney I'll vote third party or write in a name.

I played the lesser of two evils came with McCain and I felt like a giant whore. Never again.

dcludwig
November 7, 2011, 11:10 PM
Would it be, though? It's actually more dangerous for a Democratic President. The GOP Pres can assume the RKBA crowd have no other place to go. Are we going to vote for the Democrats if Romney turns south on gun rights?

Well, that is a valid point. Saying that, the point is really only valid if you have a Democratic President who actually cares about the RKBA crowd. If he thinks he can buy their votes with government handouts why care about 2A rights? Is there danger Romney could "turn south" on gun rights? Possibly, but what would he gain by doing so? The anti's would never vote for a Republican and by honking off the RKBA folk, Romney will assure that even if they don't go to the dark side, then they may well sit at home on election day. That happened with George H W Bush when he lied about "reading my lips"

As far as Court appointments, the key there is to get sufficient conservative Senators in place to police the nominations. A Republican president is no guarantee that the appointed justices will be friendly. There's a long list of justices who changed stripes after getting that lifelong tenure. It's the Senate judiciary that weeds these folks out.

Yeah, that would be great to have sufficient conservative Senators... but they DID have enough to block Obama's last two anti-gun appointments to the bench and they didn't. Isn't it better to have someone in office who isn't almost a guarantee to appoint anti-gun judges?

Quote:
Romney HAS to realize that it is extremely dangerous politically for him to mimic what he did as governor as far as gun rights.

why?
what he did as gov got him this far, a front runner to become president of the U.S. of A. So his flippy floppy on 2A, or socialized health care hasn't really hurt him any.

Sure it has hurt him. He may be front runner (on some days) but even when he is, it isn't by much of a margin. He knows full well that his STATE government health care plan causes much concern in potential voters. As far as 2A issues, I go back to my above point, whose vote does/would he gain by supporting anti-gun measures?? Those who would applaude him for doing so aren't going to vote for him. Those who are upset about his doing so will sit at home come election day.

If he can't convince me that he is 101 % pro 2nd Amendment he will not get my vote.

Just what would it take to convince you? A hunting trip like Kerry took? And Mr. "Cling to your guns" Obama obvious is 101% pro 2A, right? *sigh*

The President, and the rest of us Democrats, is NOT a Socialist.

I certainly didn't say ALL Democrats are Socialist and I hope you're not implying I did. As far as Obama - well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Believe whatever you want, but though he may not be a PROCLAIMED socialist, he is one in sheeps clothing which is, IMHO, far more dangerous. He has put government into our lives more and more, promotes class warfare by demonizing those who are successful - socialistic actions those. Years ago, I WAS a Democrat, but I left that party because it was taken over by extremists. I do still vote for a Democrat or two if I think they are best for the job, but I hardly think Obama is better for the job than Romney... Romney is hardly a pure-bred conservative but as far as 2A goes, I think he is ambivalent. NOT a good trait, but far, far better than someone who endorses such actions as Fast and Furious. Think of the damage that would have done if it was successful in it's intent. THAT is who is now in office and that is NOT who Romney is.

If it's between Obama and Romney I'll vote third party or write in a name.

I played the lesser of two evils came with McCain and I felt like a giant whore. Never again.

While I understand and have felt much the same (especially after having to choose between Obama and McCain), I would submit that 3rd party vote is essentially a non-vote which will help keep Obama in power. That is exactly what happened with the Perot vote in 92. Clinton didn't even get 50% of the vote and if those who voted for Perot had voted for Bush we never would have seen the AWB signed into law. Just things to consider.

Romney as the lessor of evils over Obama? Well, I won't feel as strongly about that vote as I did about McCain's. That was a horrible choice. If you think about things with your head over your heart, I think there is much to like about Romney - certainly no Ronald Reagan, but neither is he one who wants to spend YOUR money buying votes.

Interesting thread and I for one appreciate those who express themselves in a cordial, thoughtful manner (even if I may not agree with you). I don't consider myself a single issue voter, but the RKBA is near and dear to me. I don't ever expect to see Romney on the range next to me, but neither do I see him enacting any legislation that restricts gun rights (if he is elected.) I do think Obama will have the opportunity to appoint at least one (possibly two) more anti-gun judges for the SCOTUS. If that does happen, the anti's will be out in force to get anti-gun issues to that court. And the 5-4 victories that squeaked through will be lost for years to come. And if voting for Romney keeps that from happening, that is how I will vote.

R.W.Dale
November 8, 2011, 12:23 AM
Sometimes I think the RNC is laughing at us; they nominate their worst candidate instead of their best because it's funny watching us agonize over whether the D or the R is worse this time around.

Republicans take gun owners and pro-lifers votes for granted just like Democrats do blacks and illegal aliens.

And they will continue to as long as we "hold our noses" and vote for the trash they put up for us to choose from.

Romney's stance on RKBA is clear as crystal and eloquently laid out in the linked to video clip above. How anyone pro 2a could support any such canadates stance is completely flabbergasting compared to an Obama who wont touch the issue.

Romney flat out tells us we don't need xxxx weapons. At least Obama has the political sense to skate around this issue. Which brings us back to why Romney is the medias choice. He cannot Garner support from the base and he's too much like Obama to make swing voters care. In other words a natural loser which is the only thing that'll save a floundering Obama administration from one term mediocrity.

posted via tapatalk using android.

BambiB
November 8, 2011, 02:28 AM
Romney is a politician and yep, he made some bad calls as governor of a liberal state. I don't think he would repeat those on a national level.

Unfortunately, the best indicator of future performance is past performance. Romney has been a flip-flopping backstabber. Most likely future role? Flip-flopping backstabber.

It's not just that he changes positions with the political winds. It's more fundamental than that. If you vote for Romney, you will never really know who you voted for! Maybe the Romney you vote for is more pro-Second Amendment than Thomas Jefferson. Then the wind changes and he comes out in favor of banning 10+ round magazines, so-called "assault weapons" or any "dangerous guns". By having a spine made of rubber, he can keep the undiscerning voters HOPING he isn't what they fear most... but he might be.

Examine all of the candidates in the same light.

Perry - tried to force young girls to be inoculated against sexually transmitted diseases, while taking political contributions from the company that made the drug. (No conflict of interest there!) What does it say about his beliefs concerning the power of the state? About his integrity? And did you see that speech he gave up in New Hampshire? Was he drunk, high - or was that the real Perry?

Cain - well, we're just starting to learn about Cain, aren't we? Except, if you have really followed him, you will find half a dozen items where he's flip-flopped or outright lied (unless you believe him when he says, "I never said..." that thing that is in the video of him saying it.) The thing most people don't get is that Cain is a Federal Reserve insider - a former president of the board of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. In case you haven't kept up on the news, the Federal Reserve conjured $16 trillion out of thin air and handed it out to businesses and foreign banks. And Cain is on record as saying anyone who wants to audit the Fed doesn't know how the Fed works and that he sees no reason to audit the Fed. Okay, that's not strictly Second Amendment stuff - but what are you going to do with your Second Amendment rights when this Country's economic system completely collapses due to such manipulation by the monied interests?

We're all Second Amendment savvy here, aren't we? We all know that the GOA is deadly serious about protecting the Second Amendment. They watch the Congress like a hawk. So who do THEY rate A+ on the Second Amendment? Bachman and Paul are at http://gunowners.org/112hrat.htm . Look it up. And while you're checking, read http://gunowners.org/op09292011tm.htm Go ahead. I'll wait.

Got it figured out yet?

dcludwig
November 8, 2011, 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcludwig
Romney is a politician and yep, he made some bad calls as governor of a liberal state. I don't think he would repeat those on a national level.

Unfortunately, the best indicator of future performance is past performance. Romney has been a flip-flopping backstabber. Most likely future role? Flip-flopping backstabber.

It's not just that he changes positions with the political winds. It's more fundamental than that. If you vote for Romney, you will never really know who you voted for! Maybe the Romney you vote for is more pro-Second Amendment than Thomas Jefferson. Then the wind changes and he comes out in favor of banning 10+ round magazines, so-called "assault weapons" or any "dangerous guns". By having a spine made of rubber, he can keep the undiscerning voters HOPING he isn't what they fear most... but he might be.

Examine all of the candidates in the same light.


Just out of curiosity you will be voting for........??

benEzra
November 8, 2011, 08:06 PM
If he thinks he can buy their votes with government handouts why care about 2A rights?
Because he realizes that making new gun bans an issue (as Clinton/Gore/Kerry did in their ill-fated campaigns) causes Dem and independent gun owners to stay home in droves or vote for the other guy, and energizes Republican gun owners to get out the vote like crazy.

There are approximately 80 million gun owners in the United States. More than 80% are nonhunters, and around half of those expressing party affiliation are Dems and indies (including me, FWIW). We gun owners are registered to vote (and vote) at a higher rate than the national average, we are more educated and slightly more affluent than the national average, we care about the issue WAY more than most fence-sitters do, we outnumber the hardcore prohibitionists by probably 100:1. Even the Third Way types now realize that, I think, even though I know they don't like it.

Pud
November 8, 2011, 09:00 PM
While you guys may be right about a weak republican like Romney I fear the ideologues Obama would feed us as supreme court justices much more. What do you think would be more damaging? Four years of Romney? Or a life term for 2 or 3 more liberals on the bench? You guys may be selling our Supreme Court down the river just for a short term solution by saying you would vote for Obama over Romney. I would NEVER, NEVER vote for Obama. ANY republican would be better to me.
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT Jon!
Pud

Neverwinter
November 8, 2011, 09:43 PM
While you guys may be right about a weak republican like Romney I fear the ideologues Obama would feed us as supreme court justices much more. What do you think would be more damaging? Four years of Romney? Or a life term for 2 or 3 more liberals on the bench? You guys may be selling our Supreme Court down the river just for a short term solution by saying you would vote for Obama over Romney. I would NEVER, NEVER vote for Obama. ANY republican would be better to me.Two of the majority in McDonald v Chicago were recently appointed. Do we have any reason to expect the other three to be stepping down soon?

It's a rather odd case of denial which allows people to think that replacing Stevens and Souter with Kagan and Sotomayor caused a significant shift in the Court composition.

sig220mw
November 8, 2011, 09:50 PM
You said it Jon!

lizziedog1
November 9, 2011, 06:15 AM
A few weeks ago I got a phone call from Mr. Romney. It was a conference call. I was asked to puch a number if I wanted to ask him a question.

I did and got a screener who asked me about the nature of my question. I told him it was 2A related.

He said I would be placed in line and ole Mitt would get to me.

The conference call ended beofre I had a chance to ask my question concerning gun rights.

I wonder if that was a coincidence.

Paladin7
November 9, 2011, 09:34 AM
Romney is a NE Rockefeller Republican = RINO which means, I cannot consciously vote for him, unless he was the only choice against Obama. Also, agreed voting third party is a vote for Obama.

Another issue is that, due to his record, I believe he will be hard pressed to campaign effectively against Obama, which is a real good reason for the Statist media and defeatist RINOs like Karl Rove to be pushing him heavily.

Like both Bush 1 and Bush 2, electing him will get us further down the path of Regressionism just slower than Obama and other confirmed Statists. Like Bush 1 and Bush 2, mealy mouthed principle-less RINOs only get us something worse when their terms are over, i.e. Clinton and Obama.

I'm working like hell to get one of the real movement Conservative's elected in this primary.

OregonBuzz
November 9, 2011, 11:15 AM
I think Romney is malleable on almost all issues, but in particular the 2nd Amendment. By that I mean he will say whatever he thinks the current audience wants to hear. It's what he does that is important and he has done some anti 2nd things in MA which is not surprising given the mind set of the electorate there. However, if he is the candidate for the GOP, I'll have to vote for him and pray we can stiffen his spine vis a vis the 2nd.

Stevie-Ray
November 9, 2011, 01:23 PM
If Romney gets the nod, I will hold my nose as I vote for him. I didn't vote Obama last time and even if this country surges to a spectacular recovery in the next 10 or so months, I won't next time. Period.

henschman
November 10, 2011, 12:58 PM
I would like to encourage everyone to think long-term, beyond just the next 4 years. Sure things might be a tad bit better under Romney than Obama, but what does it do to the future of our Party to keep letting RINOs like him win the nomination, and to give them the knowledge that they can count on the votes of even the principled folks, because they have nowhere else to turn? What we have to do is to draw the line and refuse to vote for posers like him, and send the message loud and clear that RINOs are UNELECTABLE in a general election, and should not even be considered as serious contenders in future primaries.

Now I hope this doesn't come to pass, and I am doing everything in my power to keep it from happening, but if it comes down to Romney and Obama in the general election, I hope you will join me in abstaining from the presidential part of the ballot.

Voting for the short-term lesser of two evils will just slowly take us down the same road we've been going down, and will end up leading to the same monstrous evil as if we supported the other party all along. Our only chance to save this country and our party is to flat out refuse to vote for spineless flip-floppers and people with no consistent principles on the role of government, like Mitt Romney.

BBQLS1
November 10, 2011, 02:01 PM
Romney is not pro2A. I doubt he would get my vote.

danweasel
November 10, 2011, 02:17 PM
For me the bottom line is Romney is anti-gun. Pure, simple and proven.

You know how sick I would feel if I voted for him and he repeated his prior position on firearms but on a national level? I suppose you could say he is "flip-flopper" so there is a chance it won't happen but... too risky. I am not opposed to staying home on election day anyways, I am not a "lesser of two evils" type of guy.

MIL-DOT
November 10, 2011, 05:44 PM
[quote] "....if it comes down to Romney and Obama in the general election, I hope you will join me in abstaining from the presidential part of the ballot."

You can stand on your principle if you like, but most of the rest of us choose to deal with the real world:confused:. I've had this same conversation with an alarming number of people on another forum I spend time on. If enough people boycott the next election ( and I fear it won't take very many), then they will quite likely be a party to very substantive infringements of the 2nd amendment during the following 4 years, infringements that will never be rescinded.

R.W.Dale
November 10, 2011, 06:25 PM
[quote] "....if it comes down to Romney and Obama in the general election, I hope you will join me in abstaining from the presidential part of the ballot."

You can stand on your principle if you like, but most of the rest of us choose to deal with the real world:confused:. I've had this same conversation with an alarming number of people on another forum I spend time on. If enough people boycott the next election ( and I fear it won't take very many), then they will quite likely be a party to very substantive infringements of the 2nd amendment during the following 4 years, infringements that will never be rescinded.

Then I suggest working your best to ensure Romney doesn't get the nomination. Because as you can see he's unelectable.

Cause I nor a lot of voters will lie on our backs and whore our principles away over short term fear again. We did that last time NEVER AGAIN

The "real world" is if you elect rhinos you'll get more rhinos

posted via tapatalk using android.

Neverwinter
November 10, 2011, 09:07 PM
"....if it comes down to Romney and Obama in the general election, I hope you will join me in abstaining from the presidential part of the ballot."

You can stand on your principle if you like, but most of the rest of us choose to deal with the real world:confused:. I've had this same conversation with an alarming number of people on another forum I spend time on. If enough people boycott the next election ( and I fear it won't take very many), then they will quite likely be a party to very substantive infringements of the 2nd amendment during the following 4 years, infringements that will never be rescinded.
You think that an anti-gun third-party candidate will win the election? :confused:

MIL-DOT
November 11, 2011, 10:59 AM
[quote]"You think that an anti-gun third-party candidate will win the election?"

No, of course not. I'm talking about folks that either abstain from voting at all, or write-in Ron Paul. Either of these will be wasted statements that will insure a victory by our current Campaigner-In-Chief.
Believe me,I don't like the option (Romney) we're likely to be presented with,either,but I don't think he'll be as bad a president as the one we have now, and I don't think he'll be as actively against the right to keep & bear as Obama will be in his 2nd term.
If he's the Rep nominee, then we all better get on board, or mark my words, two years later you'll be wishing you had.

gathert
November 11, 2011, 11:09 AM
So when are we gong to start voting for Stephen Colbert? :)

None of the Republican candidates right now I feel good about giving my vote to, least of all Romney. But if we look at history, the runner up in the previous election gets the candidacy the next time around. I'm not exactly sure how I'm going to vote yet, but it won't be a Democrat, and most likely not Romney.

eaglesnester
November 11, 2011, 11:26 AM
Make no mistake about it Romney is a phoney Republican. He has an anti-2nd Amendment political background, Romney is a phoney Republican that can be best describ:mad:ed as a wolf in sheep's clothing

KodiakBeer
November 11, 2011, 12:24 PM
Romney is a phoney Republican that can be best described as a wolf in sheep's clothing

The way I see it, we'd do better far with Obama than Romney. Obama will be a lame duck at best, with a Republican majority in congress that will oppose him on any initiative he brings up. A Romney with a Republican majority could have real power, and let's face it he's at least as anti-gun as Obama. I wouldn't want to live in a US that resembled Massachusetts and that includes a whole range of issues, not just gun control.

So, if Romney gets the nomination I'd prefer Obama won. I'd rather have four years of gridlock than four years of Massachusetts style laws hitting the books.

mordechaianiliewicz
November 11, 2011, 02:55 PM
I think the main problem is the fact that Romney has 0 interest in guns.

But, if he listens to gun rights orgs ONLY, I think he'll be okay. I'm just not counting on any rollbacks of legislation.

That being said, I think he would be orders of magnitude better than Barack "I didn't know anything about Operation Fast & Furious" Obama.

sig220mw
November 11, 2011, 03:15 PM
I would prefer some one other than Romney also. But in a practical world if I stand on principle and don't vote for the GOP nominee then I shoot myself in the foot and keep a leftist anti American anti gun president in office. You can rest assured that if he gets re-elected he will feel very safe about turning his attention towards us in his second and last term. On the other hand if a republican wins and he doesn't have a satisfactory pro gun record we will have to make sure we also elect more pro gun people to congress.

We need to do that in either case.

What scares me the most about Obama is his complete disregard for congress. He is going around them now with the EPA and it's ability to regulate at his say so. He won't stop there if he gets 4 more years.

At least the republicans seem to have more respect for the law and the correct political process.

R.W.Dale
November 11, 2011, 03:37 PM
The way I see it, we'd do better far with Obama than Romney. Obama will be a lame duck at best, with a Republican majority in congress that will oppose him on any initiative he brings up. A Romney with a Republican majority could have real power, and let's face it he's at least as anti-gun as Obama. I wouldn't want to live in a US that resembled Massachusetts and that includes a whole range of issues, not just gun control.

So, if Romney gets the nomination I'd prefer Obama won. I'd rather have four years of gridlock than four years of Massachusetts style laws hitting the books.

I don't need to comment any more.

+10000

I'm not voting for Romney because of the same old "chicken little" speal from yellow dog Republicans. The Obama we have today IS preferable to the Romney we may get in the future

posted via tapatalk using android.

weeniewawa
November 11, 2011, 04:22 PM
you don't get to be the Governor of Massachusetts without being anti 2nd

Roverboy
November 11, 2011, 05:10 PM
If the Republicans run Romney I will vote Libertarian! but I vote Libertarian anyway.

Roverboy
November 12, 2011, 09:24 AM
Romney is a Progressive like Obama. He is the Republican counter part of Obama. Nothing would change by his election. It will still be big government, business as usual. Just my thoughts.

hso
November 12, 2011, 10:20 AM
Looks like everyone is of the opinion that Romney is not a 2A supporter and the question now is whether it would be worse to have him as POTUS than President Obama.

That question appears to pivot around the question of whether Romney would trade the 2A as a bargaining point with Congress for legislation he would prefer get passed while President Obama might consider trading neutrality on the 2A to get some support from Congress for legislation he wants (or at least not create a backlash from attacking it).

If Congress has more strong 2A supporters then POTUS essentially only can attack the 2A through Supreme Court appointments. The next Justices to retire will probably be Ginsberg and Bryer. If they retire during the Obama administration we might assume judges who are not 2A supporters could be appointed, but if they were to retire during a Romney administration it has been suggested here that Romney could as easily appoint judges who are not 2A supporters. Would either man find this a bargaining point with Congress? Would Obama appoint justices who might otherwise lean towards his way of thinking on other issues, but be more neutral on the 2A as a way of helping see his philosophy on other issues live on past his administration or would Romney appoint justices who were less supportive of the 2A to get a deal with Congress on other issues.

Not an easy discussion since it is all guessing what goes on privately in each man's head and what they're willing to trade strategically to get what they want in other areas.

majortoo
November 12, 2011, 12:17 PM
It seems that Mr. Obama learned the lesson. If Mr. Gore had been even the least bit supportive of 2nd Amendment issues, he would have been POTUS. Mr. Obama has stayed well clear of the issue, and that position has served him well.

rsilvers
November 12, 2011, 12:23 PM
I took my wife shooting today. First I had her try an AR with a fixed stock. She could not get into a comfortable shooting position. I then had to try one with a SOPMOD adjustable stock. She said it was so much better.

Adjustable stocks let people of different sizes shoot.

I am fuming that Romney/Healey got on TV after the passage of the MA AWB and said how great it was for the state to be rid of guns that are adjustable for smaller people. I can remember seeing it on the news - and I wish a clip of that were on YouTube to post now.

Topkick
November 12, 2011, 02:14 PM
Gentlemen:

A vote for a 3rd party or a write in, or a failure to vote is an automatic (FOR) obama, my 2cs worth. Think before you act.

zxcvbob
November 12, 2011, 02:33 PM
A vote for a 3rd party or a write in, or a failure to vote is an automatic (FOR) obama, my 2cs worth. Think before you act.

Everybody keeps saying that, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. I think the DNC and the RNC got together and started that idea to maintain their duopoly.

A de facto vote for Obama (if it's true) might be better than living with yourself after having actually pulled the lever for a d-----bag that that you knew was a d-----bag and turns out to be just as bad or worse than Obama.

Topkick
November 12, 2011, 04:17 PM
Z-Bob

Well, ya gotta point, BUT, fwiw, there are a few sure things in politics, in this case (1), ya know what ya got (2) ya hafta do a little research (notes kept) and add up the pro's and con's. Thats as close as ya can get, NO guarantees, just do the best ya can. GOOD luck and keep your powder dry.

Topkick

LibShooter
November 12, 2011, 05:09 PM
I suspect Governor Romney's stand on the 2nd Amendment is about the same as The President's: both would favor stricter gun control laws but neither is willing to expend political resources on a doomed attempt to make it happen.

IMHO, on this issue it doesn't matter much who's elected President next year. Obama, Romney, Ron Paul or Sarah Brady... none of them could get any anti- or pro-gun legislation passed. The landmark SCOTUS are decided and won't be overturned.

I feel comfortable making my choice on other issues.

exavid
November 12, 2011, 05:52 PM
Truer words were never spoken Topkick!

wingman
November 12, 2011, 07:16 PM
Romney is a progressive, he will play a conservative in primaries move to center for general election if he wins move left of center and IMO center has moved left for years as is.

Look, the media pretty much selects the candidates,they will always marginalize a true conservative unless the public does it's research and stops listening to media we will always have progressives/socialist in office.

I was naive in thinking this country could withstand any president but we are fragile and breaking apart so I do doubt we can stand four more years of our current administration who seems intent on going around the constitution.

I don't like Romney but if it comes down to him or Obama I will vote Romney sadly again we cannot get a true conservative due to the press so it's the lessor of two evils again.:barf:

exavid
November 12, 2011, 10:02 PM
Sad to say it's been 31 years now since I voted for a President without holding my nose and voting for the best of a bad deal.

alsaqr
November 12, 2011, 10:37 PM
When it comes to my Second Amendment rights i won't vote for the lesser of two evils. In 2008 i held my nose, gagged, retched and voted for McCain: Never again. i'll write in Charlie Manson instead.

BTW: i could care less that the staunch Second Amendment candidate is a conservative John Brown type Protestant preacher or a socialist lesbian Wiccan who has had three abortions.

R.W.Dale
November 12, 2011, 11:14 PM
Once again we come full circle a vote for Romney in the primary is three Obama votes in the general.

No wonder the media loves him

posted via tapatalk using android.

bigj
November 13, 2011, 12:04 AM
<< 3rd party vote waster. I'm supporting Ron Paul in the primary but I'll likely end up voting 3rd party (Libertarian) after the republicans nominate a weak candidate. Obama will win anyway, I'd put money on it.

hso
November 13, 2011, 04:05 AM
It is beginning to look like we're no longer discussing Romney's 2A position (claims he supports, but difficult for most to believe) and have gotten into a different topic of voting for anybody but Romney.

That warrants a separate discussion and its own thread.

If you enjoyed reading about "Romney and guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!