After this video Romney has my vote... atleast for now

[WalkingWolf]

I have always said that a individual vote belongs to each individual person. But putting that aside, and everybody refused to vote, or their is a tie the House of Representatives then vote FOR YOU. So the outcome is one of the same two and the public had absolutely no say in the matter.

I encourage people to vote for the candidate of their choice, and that would include write ins. But really there are enough Obama and Romney voters to overcome any write in or third party candidate. So it is going to be Romney or Obama in spite of holding one's vote.

 

[smellslikemichigan]

that's because people buy into the 2 party system lie

 

[TheQ]

Maybe we'll get "lucky" if Ram-me is elected and get another SCOTUS "conservative" like Scalia -- aka "gun control is constitutional".

 

[WalkingWolf]

that's because people buy into the 2 party system lie

It is still their choice.

 

[TheQ]

Granted, we have a Republic (supposedly) and not a Democracy, but:

The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

--Winston Churchill


Here's an idea: just let me be the dictator. You all will love it and things will be sooooo efficient!

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

It is still their choice.

No one is arguing that it isn't. What some of us are saying is that there is more than just the two most popular choices presented. If people really want their vote to be their own, then they need to vote for who they believe represents them best, not whomever they have been convinced to vote for.

Vote for whomever you like, I won't tell you to do otherwise. I will ask you if you've considered all the reasons and facts of your choice.

 

[stainless1911]

All I ask, is that you all look at the fact that Obama is going to be hard to beat, and that there are enough voters planning on voting against him to win, but history shows people splitting their votes on candidates who are clearly unelectable will put Obama in office for another term.

As far as Mitt getting the 2016 election too, come-on, that's a long way off, there is no way to rationally and confidently make that assertion.

 

[TheQ]

And incumbent is harder to defeat in the primary. That is perfectly rational.

If the party wanted my vote, they should have chose a better candidate.

 

[Super Trucker]

that's because people buy into the 2 party system lie

:banghead:

When has a 3rd party done ANYTHING in a presidential race?

 

[TheQ]

:banghead:

When has a 3rd party done ANYTHING in a presidential race?

When have the two parties produced a president (or even a candidate) you were happy with?

 

[WalkingWolf]

When have the two parties produced a president (or even a candidate) you were happy with?

Do you think if there were thirty candidates that there would be one that everybody is happy with, let alone three?

 

[detroit_fan]

Oh no, the sky is falling!!!

Sorry, not falling for that. This country is so far gone that there is no difference in the two parties anymore. I'm not going to support the charade and neither should you.

I don't care what you believe or support. If you don't think that obama flipping the SCOTUS to a liberal majority will be a huge problem for gun rights than that's your problem. I am not willing to risk it. McDonald and Heller were decided by 1 vote, and there are tons of 2A cases working their way through the courts right now. If you want a liberal majoiry making the decision on those cases then vote for someone other than Romney. I will not throw away my vote this year, control of the SCOTUS is too important.

I normally vote libertarian, but obama has already appointed tons of anti-gun judges in the lower courts these last 4 years, give him another 4 and you will lose you 2A rights via judicial activism.

ETA- this is what Justice Breyer said in his dissent- "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, 'fundamental.'

Does that sound like the type of person you want deciding your 2A cases? Because that is exactly the type of person obama will appoint if elected. Breyer was appointed by Clinton, who was elected because people decided to split the vote between Perot and Bush Sr., just as you are suggesting this time. It has happened before, and it will happen again if 2A supporters divide themselves this election.

 

[CoonDog]

I don't care what you believe or support.

A man does not respond when a man does not care. FWIW, I'm glad that you do care to discuss your own liberty.

If you don't think that obama flipping the SCOTUS to a liberal majority will be a huge problem for gun rights than that's your problem.

Obama appointing SCOTUS judges IS a huge problem for much more than just gun rights but it doesn't change the fact that the current makeup is already a problem for liberty.

Example 1: Roberts flipping on the Obamacare decision.

Example 2: Scalia supporting gun-control regulations: http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.
"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

I can't imagine Romney appointing someone more conservative or liberty-minded than either Roberts or Scalia, can you?

It's the incrementalism that's killing us and both sides of the isle guilty.

 

[detroit_fan]

A man does not respond when a man does not care. FWIW, I'm glad that you do care to discuss your own liberty.


Obama appointing SCOTUS judges IS a huge problem for much more than just gun rights but it doesn't change the fact that the current makeup is already a problem for liberty.

Example 1: Roberts flipping on the Obamacare decision.

Example 2: Scalia supporting gun-control regulations: http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729



I can't imagine Romney appointing someone more conservative or liberty-minded than either Roberts or Scalia, can you?

It's the incrementalism that's killing us and both sides of the isle guilty.

Ok, so your answer to the problem is? Whether we like it or not, a republican or democrat is going to win this election. Do I wish that the American public would be open to voting for third party candidate, absolutely, but it just isn't the case this this year. The fact is either Obama or Romney is going to win this election. Obama has already shown he is a huge threat to 2A rights, and we know he will appoint an anti judge, that is not debatable imo. Romney did some bad things in the past, but at least he is saying the right things now. Do I trust him 100%, no way, but with obama's position already made clear I would rather take a chance on someone like Romney than stay with what we have now.

We have to live in a world of reality. While a lot of us would love the see the 2 major parties end their dominance the fact is most of the American public just does not care. We can protest by voting for "someone else", but in reality we have accomplished nothing. What did we prove? I would much rather vote to get rid of obama, then try to make a point this year. that's just my opinion, obviously i would never try to tell someone how to vote. i just wanted to bring up the SCOTUS issue for those who had not considered it

 

[KYGlockster]

2012 is about 1 thing in my opinion, and that is control of the SCOTUS. If obama is reelected he will most likely be able to flip the SCOTUS to a liberal majority, and then we will see Heller and McDnald overturned.

I don't like Mitt, but I will vote for him because there is no way I want to risk a liberal majority SCOTUS.

I hope the rest of you at least consider that before you vote.

I couldn't have said it better. This election is about the SCOTUS and nothing more to me. This is something I have been thinking about very seriously here recently, and I have decided to put my vote behind Mitt because if we get an extreme left SCOTUS, firearms protections at the Federal level are dead. The government will then use the da*n Commerce Clause to shove every type of gun control garbage down our throats. We MUST keep a conservative SCOTUS! Look at the two justices Obummer has placed on the bench, and I believe that is all that is needed to get the point across. These two justices believe the Second Amendment should be abolished altogether!

 

[Haman J.T.]

:banghead:

When has a 3rd party done ANYTHING in a presidential race?

NEVER!ZERO!ZILCH! 4 more years of Obama IS NOT worth a third party vote or a No vote!We KNOW Obama doesn't care what the People say!I can't believe what I'm hearing!

 

[Haman J.T.]

A man does not respond when a man does not care. FWIW, I'm glad that you do care to discuss your own liberty.


Obama appointing SCOTUS judges IS a huge problem for much more than just gun rights but it doesn't change the fact that the current makeup is already a problem for liberty.

Example 1: Roberts flipping on the Obamacare decision.

Example 2: Scalia supporting gun-control regulations: http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729



I can't imagine Romney appointing someone more conservative or liberty-minded than either Roberts or Scalia, can you?

It's the incrementalism that's killing us and both sides of the isle guilty.

Regulations aren't the same as gun bans.Scallia knows that.His syllabus speaks of an individual Right to own handguns for self defense.

 

[Haman J.T.]

Ok, so your answer to the problem is? Whether we like it or not, a republican or democrat is going to win this election. Do I wish that the American public would be open to voting for third party candidate, absolutely, but it just isn't the case this this year. The fact is either Obama or Romney is going to win this election. Obama has already shown he is a huge threat to 2A rights, and we know he will appoint an anti judge, that is not debatable imo. Romney did some bad things in the past, but at least he is saying the right things now. Do I trust him 100%, no way, but with obama's position already made clear I would rather take a chance on someone like Romney than stay with what we have now.

We have to live in a world of reality. While a lot of us would love the see the 2 major parties end their dominance the fact is most of the American public just does not care. We can protest by voting for "someone else", but in reality we have accomplished nothing. What did we prove? I would much rather vote to get rid of obama, then try to make a point this year. that's just my opinion, obviously i would never try to tell someone how to vote. i just wanted to bring up the SCOTUS issue for those who had not considered it

FACT! And a faster march to Socialism!

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Sooo, I have a sincere question for you Mitt Romney voters...if he wins, are you trusting him to keep his (latest) word, or are you just hoping he will?

Honest question.

 

[TheQ]

Regulations aren't the same as gun bans.Scallia knows that.His syllabus speaks of an individual Right to own handguns for self defense.

You're right, Jeff. Scalia thinks the government has the power to "regulate" magazines over X size and to "regulate" your possession by making a national gun registration database. Since you back him, I guess you agree?