Romney on guns...


PDA






NelsErik
January 18, 2012, 09:29 AM
It looks like we might be in real trouble when it comes to Romney...

The Book On Mitt Romney: Here Is John McCain's Entire Opposition Research*File (http://www.buzzfe.com/andrewkaczynski/the-book-on-mitt-romney-here-is-john-mccains-ent)

His second amendment views start on page 31.

If you enjoyed reading about "Romney on guns..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Quick Shot xMLx
January 18, 2012, 09:37 AM
He signed a permanent AWB in Massachusetts. 100% an enemy of the 2A there is no amount of flip-flopping that's going to change that. He's a "lifetime" hunter that has been hunting twice and thinks the 2A is for hunting:scrutiny:

The Bushmaster
January 18, 2012, 09:38 AM
According to Windows, this is a bad feed. Stay away from it. Do not down load the link.

NelsErik
January 18, 2012, 09:42 AM
I'm on an apple and have no problems...

Loosedhorse
January 18, 2012, 09:47 AM
Ladies and gentlemen--let me introduce the next Republican nominee for POTUS.

:banghead:

NelsErik
January 18, 2012, 11:10 AM
In case you can't download the file. Romney really scares me when it comes to understanding the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

mgregg85
January 18, 2012, 11:28 AM
From everything I've seen Romney is the worst republican candidate as far as RKBA(and on every other issue).

If anything he is actually worse than Obama, Obama wants to reinstate the AWB but he can't seem to get it done. Romney managed to get it done in MA and its permanent there.

AirForceShooter
January 18, 2012, 11:31 AM
ANYONE that gets elected isn't going anywhere near the gun issue.

AFS

rajb123
January 18, 2012, 11:32 AM
I was working on business in Mass last year. I went into a sporting goods store at lunch to buy powder, bullets, primers, and brass.

Apparently, you need to live in Mass and have a special license to buy ammo and ammo components.......consequenctly, no sale was made to me.....

Yikes, that is riduculous.....

Mitt said in the debate on Monday that the bill he signed into law in Mass, was negoitiated and the NRA fully supported it....... Really?

C.F. Plinker
January 18, 2012, 12:12 PM
What were the provisions of any firearms laws that Romney signed into law while he was governor of Mass? What laws had been passed prior to his term in office?

wtxj
January 18, 2012, 12:19 PM
What airforceshooter said, for the first 4 years, after that in the last 4 the gloves will be off whoever is the President. Then the true feelings will be out and about.

mljdeckard
January 18, 2012, 01:11 PM
I agree he is the worst republican candidate for rkba. His responses to gun questions have always sounded forced and rehearsed. (Including Juan Williams' question in the last debate as to how many times he has been hunting since 2007.) I don't think he's 100% an enemy of rkba. Carolyn McCarthy is a 100% enemy. Don't use hyperbole to make things sound worse than they are.

Having said that, I really don't think he is a direct threat for any new gun legislation. He won't stack the courts against us or fill BATFE with the worst people possible like the current administration will. I will absolutely back him rather than allow four more years of Obama Court Nomination Roulette. He made some bad decisions, but he did them many years ago, when it was still perceived that you could snub the gun lobby and ignore the consequences. No one believes that anymore. He may well be a 'born again gun person', but as long as there is a reasonable likelihood he stays that way, I won't try to stop him.

Gentlemen, the perfect candidate doesn't exist.

SN13
January 18, 2012, 02:10 PM
The perfect candidate does not exist..... Try voting for the most perfect in the primaries at least, instead of voting for Romney as the "One who can beat obama" candidate.

Vote Someone who would actually prefer liberty over perceived safety... vote Ron Paul.

bob barker
January 18, 2012, 02:19 PM
RBKA? Right below the knee amputation?

rajb123
January 18, 2012, 02:36 PM
After reading the background, I would have to conclude that Mitt will say anything to anybody if it helps him get elected..... he is a dangerous liberal gun grabber in my book...

mljdeckard
January 18, 2012, 04:14 PM
If this is true, he will also say or do anything to get RE-elected. Which means toeing the NRA line. I don't think he's a dangerous liberal gun grabber. I think he's an ambivalent inconsistent gun neglecter. He's a 'C', not an 'F'. Again, Carolyn McCarthy is an 'F'. (I give Obama a 'D'. He has 'F' aspirations, but he held off on pursuing them.)

Look at it this way. Even if Ron Paul is every bit as noble as you think he is, it's not like he can come into office and just penstroke everything he wants to. He has a limited amount of executive authority and political capital, just like Obama does. He can re-staff BATFE, veto new gun laws, and pick good court nominations. There is probably little discernible difference between what Romney will be forced to do, and what Ron Paul is actually ABLE to do in the same situation as far as RKBA is concerned. It is absolutely ABSURD to do anything to risk letting Obama get re-elected because you want the 90% candidate instead of the 80% one. And I think if Ron Paul was so absolutely principled as people seem to think he is, he wouldn't have run as a republican for congress, he would have stayed libertarian. So why did he switch? Because he understands perfectly well that you have ZERO influence if you don't win.

HarcyPervin
January 18, 2012, 04:34 PM
RBKA? Right below the knee amputation?

Right to Keep and Bear Arms.... or bare arms if anyone else found the cutoff shirt at Scheels.

Lunie
January 18, 2012, 04:36 PM
Putting faith in a generic Republican to be pro-2A is absolutely ridiculous. Faith in anything coming from Romney being Pro-2A is even more ridiculous.

Maybe the RKBA community needs a kick in the pants if they feel a candidate like Romney is acceptable. 4 years of Obama didn't do it. Maybe it'll take another 4???

NelsErik
January 18, 2012, 04:44 PM
Interesting post mljdeckard... to bad it is factually incorrect...

Ron Paul was Republican before he was a Libertarian... If you listen to his resignation speech from the Republican Party he stated all the problems that he saw in the Republican Party and that he could not continue due to his principles. He later stated that his presidential campaign wasn't about being a Libertarian or a Republican or even about becoming the POTUS. It was about getting his message out, not winning... (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/17/us/now-for-a-real-underdog-ron-paul-libertarian-for-president.html). Almost immediately after the election he switched back and continued his medical practice...

The point of my post was not promote anyone though, it was to help people understand what the various candidates actually believe and to show an actual documented history of Romney's various positions on the 2nd Amendment and gun control. There are other candidates who have a much, much better record when it comes to the RBKA.

mljdeckard
January 18, 2012, 05:03 PM
I said Romney was the worst. I just think it's completely unfair to characterize him as the worst possible option, when he is far better than the current administration.

So.....Ron Paul is apparently just as flexible according to the circumstances as.....EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN. He is not the Messiah. He's a politician just like any other. He is a republican now because he couldn't keep his congress seat if he switched back libertarian. He is as republican as he needs to be to keep his seat.

Lunie
January 18, 2012, 05:20 PM
http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/400957_222303164522158_194983953920746_492073_59462193_n.jpg

There is a great divide between what Romney sometimes says, and what he has done. Permanent AWB? No. Thank. You.

mljdeckard
January 18, 2012, 05:23 PM
But he's not Lautenberg or McCarthy. Bad? Ok. Worst? Far from it.

Lunie
January 18, 2012, 05:28 PM
Does bad have to be worst???

Bad=Bad.

You don't have to be a math expert to understand that equation.

rajb123
January 18, 2012, 05:33 PM
What kind of person would lie about owning a firearm or hunting?

Yuk, even president Obama would not do that; right?

Romney does not seem to have ANY real convictions - only current positions which seem to be conceived for one purpose, - to garner votes.

Frankly, he scares me because I cannot trust him.

Lunie
January 18, 2012, 05:45 PM
I don't understand Romney's appeal. I really don't. He wasn't good enough to beat McCain, who wasn't good enough to beat Obama the first time.

What in the heck makes anyone think he is good enough now? There seems to be very little real enthusiasm for him as a candidate. The (R) voting block seems sleepy. Obama is still popular in spite of the many complaints.

Voting for Romney is a lose-lose situation. Either way, get a President who is passive at best on 2A issues, and at worst is supportive of gun control.

mljdeckard
January 18, 2012, 06:19 PM
I think ALL politicians are varying degrees of bad. That doesn't mean that I will give up on the process. If you wait for a perfect candidate, you better pack a lunch. You need to think about this seriously. Who do you want replacing the next couple of Supreme Court justices? We got lucky this term, the only ones who were replaced were the ones whose votes we didn't want anyway. You don't know what will happen in the NEXT four years.

The thing that makes him more electable than he was in 2008 is that everyone who wanted to give the current president the benefit of the doubt has now seen what he would do. The race barrier has been shattered, his main puppet masters have fled, there is no more mystery. In this election, there is an endless list of well-documented actions to use against the current administration in the debates. Before it was; "We'll give him a chance and see what happens." Now it's happened, and he will have to defend it. Personally, I would like to see him defend it against Newt, but I doubt that will happen.

LemmyCaution
January 18, 2012, 06:29 PM
This Romney quote sums up his position on civil liberties:

"Our greatest civil liberty is the right to be kept alive."

He means 'kept alive' by the power of the State. He doesn't vaguely care about the Bill of Rights. He's an out and out statist, and differs in no way from Obama on the subject of civil liberties.

mljdeckard
January 18, 2012, 06:42 PM
So....you think that it would be better for Obama to replace the next round of Supreme Court nominees than Romney? You think that Obama will bend to the political climate, but Romney is immune from such pressure?

mljdeckard
January 18, 2012, 06:53 PM
Again, I don't see how you think that the restraint that keeps Obama from signing new gun laws would not also restrain Romney, or anyone else. The pressure from the resurgent right will not steer him toward new gun laws. And again, you didn't answer if you think Obama's SC picks would be better or worse than Romney's.

They are ALL politicians.

mljdeckard
January 18, 2012, 07:04 PM
That's your choice. HERE, we discuss gun rights. You are basically saying you don't care if BHO's second-term SC nominations are anti-gun as long as their other principles are in line with yours.

Here is where I am different. Gun rights is not the sole issue I use to make political choices. But you better betcher bippie it will be the tie-breaker. A couple more nominations like Sotamayor, and we won't want any critical gun cases that are in the works to hit the Supreme Court at all. The single biggest influence the president has on gun rights is his federal court nominations. The lower court nominations BHO is making now will be the ones in line to replace the next SC vacancies. If BHO makes the next couple of nominations, you will be clenching your butt cheeks for the next 20 years every time a gun law gets challenged.

Lunie
January 18, 2012, 07:10 PM
If Romney gets to make ANY nominations, I will be clenching my butt-cheeks over ALL of my Constitutional rights. 2A first and foremost.

I trust him half as far as I can throw Massachusetts.

Sky
January 18, 2012, 07:10 PM
I guess I am to old for my opinion to really count; have to many quaint ideas floating around in my head. I do not mind a man 'who' with more knowledge changes his mind for that just means he is now knowledgeable. But someone who looks you in the eye and lies just to look good for the moment is not real high on my list of leaders. You tube is full of brother Mitt and his flip flops depending on who he is talking to. I personally do not trust him to nominate Supreme Court Justices and just because the camera likes him and he has been hunting before does not make him a friend or a needed leader of our nation; like I said my opinion probably does not count. I know this by watching all the bias reporting and hype I perceive that has already gone on in this election cycle. If what I have seen is fair and balanced then I need a new scale!

NelsErik
January 18, 2012, 07:13 PM
First, let me preface this post by saying that I am probably both stupid and crazy. Now that I have done that, I will say that a second term for Obama will do more for Liberty and Constitutional Values in this country than him losing. If he wins he will force more extreme draconian, socialist, and Marxist rule over this country. When he does this he will awaken The Beast! Hopefully then we can have a Rand Paul/Marco Rubio ticket in 2016... but not another civil war, which we will probably have instead. If Romney wins we will just have more of the status quo and I doubt anything will change except Hillary will be 69 or 70 before she can run again. The Supreme Court was never meant to rule over the land, its purpose has been bastardized.

We need a candidate with a strong convictions regarding the 2nd Amendment. It is not the time to compromise.... I believe that the Judgement of Solomon applies here...

mljdeckard
January 18, 2012, 07:21 PM
That is a whole lot of 'ifs' down the road. That assumes that his second term will cause more outrage than the first. (I don't know if that is possible.) It assumes that old names like Paul and Rubio will still be fashionable. It assumes that most of America actually cares enough to fight about something. (You almost sound like you WANT that to happen.) I didn't want to leave THIS term to cause conservative outrage, but that is what happened. If it's good to allow more and more outrage over the status quo to build, then why not eight more years? Or twenty? there comes a point where the status quo erases the memory of why we were worried in the first place. I want to fix things NOW.

Lunie, why do you think that Romney's nominations would be worse for gun rights than Obama's? (That you just dislike Romney is not a reason.) His nominations will be in line with the party, subject to senate confirmations, just like any other candidate's.

mljdeckard
January 18, 2012, 07:27 PM
I really think you guys hate him so bad that you are inventing problems with him.

And the "Brother Mitt" comment isn't very high road.

Lunie
January 18, 2012, 07:30 PM
That is a whole lot of 'ifs' down the road. That assumes that his second term will cause more outrage than the first. (I don't know if that is possible.) It assumes that old names like Paul and Rubio will still be fashionable. It assumes that most of America actually cares enough to fight about something. (You almost sound like you WANT that to happen.) I didn't want to leave THIS term to cause conservative outrage, but that is what happened. If it's good to allow more and more outrage over the status quo to build, then why not eight more years? Or twenty? there comes a point where the status quo erases the memory of why we were worried in the first place. I want to fix things NOW.

Lunie, why do you think that Romney's nominations would be worse for gun rights than Obama's? (That you just dislike Romney is not a reason.) His nominations will be in line with the party, subject to senate confirmations, just like any other candidate's.
#1, I don't trust generic Republicans with my Constitutional Rights.

Romney's choices for nominees are not likely to be "Civil Liberty" friendly. And if (R)'s control the Senate, his nominees will face little opposition.

Why do you think he would choose Constitutionalist justices???

mljdeckard
January 18, 2012, 07:37 PM
I don't see how you equate Tea Party/republican influence with nominations that don't favor civil rights. Again, GUN rights is the tie-breaker for me. It's the one that the current administration is on-record as saying he would get rid of completely if he could. And the Tea Party/republican side absolutely has a better track record when it comes to picking pro-gun judges. You say, you don't think they are pro-civil liberties, but what you really mean is, they are more conservative than you are. That is not the same thing. I doubt you had a problem with the Clinton or Obama administrations expanding surveillance more than the Bush administration ever did.

See, you also are willing to throw your Second Amendment rights under the bus if they don't match up with a more liberal agenda, which you regard as more important.

mljdeckard
January 18, 2012, 08:03 PM
Look, all I'm saying is he isn't my first pick either, but to say he is as bad as or worse than Obama for gun rights is completely absurd. Romney has to fill in the gaps when asked about gun rights, Obama doesn't. It's no secret at all where he stands.

Lunie
January 18, 2012, 08:05 PM
I put a high value on Constitutional rights. 2A first and foremost. I am not a social conservative, nor am I pretending to be. If you want to throw me into a "party", I'd probably be a Libertarian.

I am in favor of reducing the size and power of the Federal (and State) Government. I am strongly in favor of reducing infringements on OUR Constitutionally enshrined rights. Romney is not the answer to any of my positions.

Republicans have thrown the 2A under the bus FAR too many times in the past. Not to mention being just as willing to disregard protections on free speech, protections from unreasonable search/seizure, ......... ad nauseum. They aren't deserving of some unfounded loyalty.

Call me a "Liberal" if you like. If that's the price of valuing LIBERTY, then I will pay it.

But don't lie to me and try to say that Romney is suddenly a champion of rights.

mljdeckard
January 18, 2012, 08:15 PM
Never said that. I only said he is better than the current administration. BY FAR.

Dr_B
January 18, 2012, 08:36 PM
ANYONE that gets elected isn't going anywhere near the gun issue.

That might be the case, but there is no guarantee they will stay away from the second amendment. I think its highly likely Obama will push for gun control if he gets elected for a second term. There will be no 3rd election for him to lose based on unpopular gun control legislation. He is also not a regular Democrat, he is an anti-colonialist at heart, and I wouldn't put it past him to throw his own party's long-term popularity under the bus.

hso
January 18, 2012, 08:40 PM
Activism isn't for broad discussions, but for presenting courses of action in support of RKBA. Activism DIscussion is for this type of thread.

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