Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 63

Thread: FYI Romney on guns.

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    FYI Romney on guns.

    http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest188.htm


    By Tim Macy
    October 1, 2011
    NewsWithViews.com

    In the recent Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said America’s voters did not need to “settle” for the moderate candidate. Amen to that.
    And gun owners do NOT want candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths.
    As the Gun Owners of America’s Board of Directors looks at the Republican candidates running to unseat radical anti-gun President Obama, we see several who have strong pro-gun backgrounds. Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman all have solid pro-gun records and deserve a hard look from pro-gunners.At least one frontrunner candidate stands in contrast with a decidedly mixed record on the gun issue. While Mitt Romney likes to “talk the pro-gun talk,” he has not always walked the walk. more at the link above.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    I believe it was Romney who said something along the lines of: 'assault weapons' have no place on our streets- or some crap like that. He's a commie in my book and if his name is on the ticket I'm hand writing in Ron Paul or I may just vote Obama for trolling purposes. Republicans aren't serious about restoring the constitution? TROLL'EM
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  3. #3
    Regular Member Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Seattle,WA, , USA
    Posts
    266

    Thumbs down Romney

    Anyone who signs into law [as Governor] a "Permanent Assault Weapon Ban"
    neither understands the concept of the 2A nor the will of his Party.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Venator:

    Thanks for posting the link to some vitally important information.

    Michelle Bachmann is looking better as each week passes.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Morbidph8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Apache Junction, AZ
    Posts
    98

    I can't stand Romney

    It will be Ron Paul all the way for me.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fisherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    45R
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    I believe it was Romney who said something along the lines of: 'assault weapons' have no place on our streets- or some crap like that. He's a commie in my book and if his name is on the ticket I'm hand writing in Ron Paul or I may just vote Obama for trolling purposes. Republicans aren't serious about restoring the constitution? TROLL'EM
    You're right and another thing is that MA is broke because of his policies. Remember Romneycare? Where do you think that dingaling Obama got the idea for his scheme?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    What do y'all think about creating separate threads on each candidate where we can post their voting history, political stance on issues, facts and rebuttals? I know who I'm voting for, but I would like to learn more about each candidate so my decision is truly informed. If we all contribute, we could create a really comprehensive view of each potential commander in chief.

    (of course I'm probably dreaming as I can just see the threads being derailed by off topic debates and passionate opinions. But maybe...)
    Last edited by PistolPackingMomma; 10-14-2011 at 09:04 PM.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post

    (of course I'm probably dreaming as I can just see the threads being derailed by off topic debates and passionate opinions.
    This.


    Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Oh c'mon now, surely we could all play nice?









    No? Oh. Okay, nevermind

  10. #10
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Romney is the media's pic. That should tell you enough. He isn't my candidate; but I will vote for anyone but King Obama.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    I'll vote for the Devil I Know before I vote for a two-face Question Mark.

    Fortunately, I have Ron Paul to vote for, so screw the Primaries.

    The only wasted vote is the one that settles for less.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    What do y'all think about creating separate threads on each candidate where we can post their voting history, political stance on issues, facts and rebuttals? I know who I'm voting for, but I would like to learn more about each candidate so my decision is truly informed. If we all contribute, we could create a really comprehensive view of each potential commander in chief.

    (of course I'm probably dreaming as I can just see the threads being derailed by off topic debates and passionate opinions. But maybe...)
    I just use this page when I want to retrace what everyone is or is not for:

    http://psudo.us/sho/GOP.html

    1 (total opposition) to 5 (total support)

    Gun Control
    Daniels:1 Paul:1 Romney:3 Cain:1 Gingrich:1 Johnson:1 Huckabee:1 Trump:3 Palin:1 Karger:3 Martin:1 Pawlenty:2 Christie:4 Santorum:1 Roemer:5 Bachmann:1 Huntsman:1 Giuliani:3 Bolton:1

    5 - only on-duty cops
    4 - hunting rights
    3 - limited self-defense
    2 - not assault rifles
    1 - allow everything
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by ixtow View Post

    The only wasted vote is the one that settles for less.
    That's deep, bro... deep....going on my facebook wall right meow.
    Last edited by Schlitz; 10-16-2011 at 03:27 AM.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    That's deep, bro... deep....going on my facebook wall right meow.
    Same here. I had to post that.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by ixtow View Post
    The only wasted vote is the one that settles for less.
    All votes spent on candidates who never would have been elected with or without your vote, ixtow, are wasted votes.

    Grow a brain and cast your vote towards a candidate that stands a chance to win.

    Or, throw yours down the sewer. Your right to do so.
    Last edited by since9; 10-16-2011 at 09:52 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    All votes spent on candidates who never would have been elected with or without your vote, ixtow, are wasted votes.

    Grow a brain and cast your vote towards a candidate that stands a chance to win.

    Or, throw yours down the sewer. Your right to do so.
    This type of thinking is what got us Hitler in our world, read Omnipotent Government' by Ludwig Von Mises.

    The people in Germany had two parties to choose after WWI from Communist (called the left) and Socialist (called the right). They choose what they thought was the lesser of two evils and who would further German interests best.

    And it is insulting to tell me my vote is wasted because it isn't for one of the "mainstream" candidates, especially when this will be my first time voting, and I am voting Ron Paul.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 10-16-2011 at 10:18 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Grow a brain and cast your vote towards a candidate that stands a chance to win.
    This is how we go Obama, and Bubyah...

    I'll vote for my Freedoms, if I don't get them, I have no one to blame but PEOPLE LIKE YOU who voted to remove them.

    Gun control is your fault, you voted for it.

    I'm Voting for Ron Paul. If he can't get elected, it's not my fault. I did my part. If you vote for Statism, that's your fault.

    Do you really think that voting for your own demise will save you from it?

    "Hey man, you can't do this to me! I voted for you!" - Will that be your defense?

    Perhaps you should read that hangman poem again...

    If you stopped doing what your TV tells you and think for yourself, you wouldn't have to pick the lesser of the evils anymore. You could pick soemthing you actually want. What a concept...

    If Obama gets re-elected, I'm fine with that. The quickest way to rebuilding is total destruction. I don't want another half-assed fake republican neo-con. If I dilute the conservative vote badly enough that the frontline (crappy) candidate doesn't make it; GOOD! A society that can't learn from it's mistakes deserves to collapse. I've learned.
    Last edited by ixtow; 10-16-2011 at 04:55 PM.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    This type of thinking is what got us Hitler in our world...
    Oh, for Heaven's sake, SVG - no it did not. Your claims are highly sensationalist at best. Yours too, ixtow.

    Vote for who you want. As for me, I'll not waste my vote on a loosing candidate, nor will I support a party candidate who will loose to the Dems. I really like Paul, but I'd much rather have someone like Cain in office than ANY one from the Dem camp. It's not a matter of settling for less. It's a matter of preventing something very wrong, and of getting the best possible candidate in office.

    Statistically speaking, the two-party system is as broken as are most archaic voting systems, and the system we use is very archaic. Your straight-forward approach achieves the best candidate only if the majority of others agree with you. If not, the slot often winds up being filled with a lesser-quality candidate than it could have been people had thought things through.

    If you're unaware of the Nash Equilibrium or simply can't understand the concept, don't sweat it, but calling me a fool or insinuating I'm un/anti-American because I do understand it and you don't is so very wrong on too many fronts to count.
    Last edited by since9; 10-17-2011 at 05:52 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Eh, I'm on the other side of the fence here. I'm not voting for the "lesser of 2 evils" ever again. I'm voting freedom first.


    FWIW looking at the numbers of donors everyone had from the last campaign fund raising quarter Ron Paul had 5 times the amount of donors Rick perry had. That's over 100,000 donors... He may not have raised nearly as much but all those rich people only get one vote. I still think he is electable.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  20. #20
    Regular Member fozzy71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    This type of thinking is what got us Hitler in our world, .......
    It only took 16 posts.....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
    "I like users who quote smellslikemichigan in their signature lines." - fozzy71

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by fozzy71 View Post
    Wow, that is actually very interesting. I've never heard of it, but it's pretty funny. What was it, from any wikipedia page you're 5 or 6 clicks away from hitler? < Go try that out, mind boggling.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Oh, for Heaven's sake, SVG - no it did not. Your claims are highly sensationalist at best. Yours too, ixtow.

    Vote for who you want. As for me, I'll not waste my vote on a loosing candidate, nor will I support a party candidate who will loose to the Dems. I really like Paul, but I'd much rather have someone like Cain in office than ANY one from the Dem camp. It's not a matter of settling for less. It's a matter of preventing something very wrong, and of getting the best possible candidate in office.

    Statistically speaking, the two-party system is as broken as are most archaic voting systems, and the system we use is very archaic. Your straight-forward approach achieves the best candidate only if the majority of others agree with you. If not, the slot often winds up being filled with a lesser-quality candidate than it could have been people had thought things through.

    If you're unaware of the Nash Equilibrium or simply can't understand the concept, don't sweat it, but calling me a fool or insinuating I'm un/anti-American because I do understand it and you don't is so very wrong on too many fronts to count.
    Yes it did. Read Omnipotent government. Sensational maybe but insinuating that people don't have a brain because you want them to vote for whom you perceive as the lesser of two evils is insulting. If there was no Ron Paul I wouldn't vote period I won't vote for traitors of the constitution. Which both the "approved" Democrat and Republican candidates are.

    Rationalizing that we only have two choices and we have to vote for those two is how evil is put into power it is how our government has continued for over a hundred years incrementally toward tyranny.

    If you think voting for the lesser of two evils makes your vote important I would disagree with you. I would rather you didn't vote. Our votes really don't matter if that is the way we vote? All it does it gives the government the illusion of consent. When in reality the 1/4 of the population or less typically choose your politicians and then we are told we have to abide by the "new" direction that guy wants to "lead" us?

    http://lewrockwell.com/peters-e/peters-e102.html

    First time I hear of Nash Equilibrium but impossible to apply because we don't know the equilibrium strategy of every other player in the game. It's an interesting theory though.


    Quote Originally Posted by fozzy71 View Post
    I am well aware of Godwin's humor. I do not think Since has any attributes like Hitler or Nazism, I do think that the rational that you are dumb if you don't vote for this candidate over an independent or one you believe in is exactly what the German people were convinced of between the rise of Nazism and WWI. If we don't learn from history we are condemned to repeat it. It is one reason why people use Hitler or Nazism, first it is very recent in our history, and second it simply fits how easy history keeps repeating itself.

    Read Omnipotent Government, Nazism wasnt just something Hitler and his crew came up with during the '20's it was something that had been brewing and in design in one form or another in Germany for a long long time. Especially since the writings of Karl Marx (the man who wrote Lincoln congratulating him on his election).
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Oh Ehm Jeee! Teh Nazis!!!

    It also gives us the many bad things that lead up to Nazis... Why wait until it gets that bad?

    Hitler wasn't near as bad as all the fools who followed him.... He did no more than they helped him do.

    He was the electable alternative of contemporary America...........

    Waste your vote? No, not you... Get on the train, dammit!
    Last edited by ixtow; 10-17-2011 at 11:59 PM.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    Eh, I'm on the other side of the fence here. I'm not voting for the "lesser of 2 evils" ever again. I'm voting freedom first.


    FWIW looking at the numbers of donors everyone had from the last campaign fund raising quarter Ron Paul had 5 times the amount of donors Rick perry had. That's over 100,000 donors... He may not have raised nearly as much but all those rich people only get one vote. I still think he is electable.
    This.

    Why would you vote for the lesser of two evils? Thats like saying that since too many people are pissed off at you, you will choose a beating over a hanging simply because you don't think "I'd like to go free" won't go over so well. The problem is, when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are, in effect, saying that you are utilyzing your right to vote, your right to have your voice heard, in order to agree with everything the guy who is the lesser of two evil says. Because last I checked, there is not a way to only vote for some of someone's policies... a vote for them equals a vote for EVERYTHING they stand for. You are better off not voting that voting for someone whom you agree with partially.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Oh, for Heaven's sake, SVG - no it did not. Your claims are highly sensationalist at best. Yours too, ixtow.

    Vote for who you want. As for me, I'll not waste my vote on a loosing candidate, nor will I support a party candidate who will loose to the Dems. I really like Paul, but I'd much rather have someone like Cain in office than ANY one from the Dem camp. It's not a matter of settling for less. It's a matter of preventing something very wrong, and of getting the best possible candidate in office.

    Statistically speaking, the two-party system is as broken as are most archaic voting systems, and the system we use is very archaic. Your straight-forward approach achieves the best candidate only if the majority of others agree with you. If not, the slot often winds up being filled with a lesser-quality candidate than it could have been people had thought things through.

    If you're unaware of the Nash Equilibrium or simply can't understand the concept, don't sweat it, but calling me a fool or insinuating I'm un/anti-American because I do understand it and you don't is so very wrong on too many fronts to count.
    And if enough people were to vote for who they wanted instead of who they thought would win then I'm sure we would have a bunch of "upset" elections. Right now the media practically feeds us who will win.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •