FYI Romney on guns.

Venator · Oct 14, 2011

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

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]By Tim Macy
[/FONT]October 1, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]In the recent Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said America’s voters did not need to “settle” for the moderate candidate. Amen to that.
[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]And gun owners do NOT want candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths.
[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.[/FONT]

RetiredOC · Oct 14, 2011

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

Contrarian · Oct 14, 2011

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.

MilProGuy · Oct 14, 2011

Venator:

Thanks for posting the link to some vitally important information.

Michelle Bachmann is looking better as each week passes.

Morbidph8 · Oct 14, 2011

I can't stand Romney

It will be Ron Paul all the way for me.

Fisherman · Oct 14, 2011

Schlitz said:
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?

PistolPackingMomma · Oct 14, 2011

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...)

RetiredOC · Oct 14, 2011

PistolPackingMomma said:
(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

PistolPackingMomma · Oct 14, 2011

Oh c'mon now, surely we could all play nice?

No? Oh. Okay, nevermind

Redbaron007 · Oct 15, 2011

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. :cuss:

ixtow · Oct 16, 2011

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.

Verd · Oct 16, 2011

PistolPackingMomma said:
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

RetiredOC · Oct 16, 2011

ixtow said:
The only wasted vote is the one that settles for less.

That's deep, bro... deep....going on my facebook wall right meow.

Verd · Oct 16, 2011

Schlitz said:
That's deep, bro... deep....going on my facebook wall right meow.

Same here. I had to post that.

since9 · Oct 16, 2011

ixtow said:
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.

sudden valley gunner · Oct 16, 2011

since9 said:
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.

ixtow · Oct 16, 2011

since9 said:
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.

since9 · Oct 17, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
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.

RetiredOC · Oct 17, 2011

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.

fozzy71 · Oct 17, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
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

FYI Romney on guns.

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member