Romney wants your evil semi-autos [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Romney wants your evil semi-autos


Wizz
05-16-2012, 12:23
All your semi-autos are belong to me:

09crue
05-16-2012, 12:45
i think were done no matter who gets elected...:dunno:

itstime
05-16-2012, 13:04
i think were done no matter who gets elected...:dunno:

Ditto

Jerry
05-16-2012, 13:58
I didn't like the guy from the get go and couldn't put my finger on exactly why other then Romney Care. I didn't bother to look at anything else he's done because I knew he wasn't who I wanted for the job but was who we were going to get from the ReplubCANTS. It was decided from day one. Anyone who listed to the media and didn't see the handwriting on the wall had to be asleep at the wheel. Soooooooooooooooo what else is new? :puking:

Gunnut 45/454
05-16-2012, 14:25
This is why it's important to elect a very Conservative Congress! Then "No Gun laws" get passed! He can't sign into law what doesn't hit his desk. :supergrin: It's called checks and balances! But I garentee you, you re-elect Obamamoa and give him 4 more years you'll not have any guns when he packs the SCOTUS with Progressives!:steamed:

thejellster05
05-16-2012, 14:29
Yeah, O has really screwed us but this guy's not a better choice. Don't think I could swallow voting for O. But I know Romney's anti gun...


Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Rally Vincent
05-16-2012, 14:32
Man, it's going to be a nasty day in history when they do ban them.

Durden
05-16-2012, 14:50
i think were done no matter who gets elected...:dunno:

This is true and has been for a long time.

The theater that is dividing Americans based on social wedge issues has worked well for the true bosses of the politicians (and the bosses are not those "casting ballots," but casting $$$).

While the Republicans & Democrats keep Americans arguing about many things of little importance and that will be trivial in historical retrospect, they both spend like drunken sailors, enable the Federal Reserve to create debt slaves out those born or not yet born, and cater to every desire of the multinational corporations and NWO-type individuals (who have no allegiance to The United Sates as a sovereign nation) who fund their campaigns, placing the U.S. and her citizens on an inevitable track of bankruptcy, while their masters pillar and loot as much as they can off the back of the dwindling number of taxpayers before the Ponzi implodes.

eracer
05-16-2012, 14:53
This is true and has been for a long time.

The theater that is dividing Americans based on social wedge issues has worked well for the true bosses of the politicians (and the bosses are not those "casting ballots," but casting $$$).

While the Republicans & Democrats keep Americans arguing about many things of little importance and that will be trivial in historical retrospect, they both spend like drunken sailors, enable the Federal Reserve to create debt slaves out those born or not yet born, and cater to every desire of the multinational corporations and NWO-type individuals (who have no allegiance to The United Sates as a sovereign nation) who fund their campaigns, placing the U.S. and her citizens on an inevitable track of bankruptcy, while their masters pillar and loot as much as they can off the back of the dwindling number of taxpayers before the Ponzi implodes.And yet, candidates who propose real solutions are simply swept into the maw of the politico/media machine and cast aside like so many boxes of Honey Nut Cheerios.

Jerry
05-16-2012, 15:16
This is why it's important to elect a very Conservative Congress! Then "No Gun laws" get passed! He can't sign into law what doesn't hit his desk. :supergrin: It's called checks and balances! But I garentee you, you re-elect Obamamoa and give him 4 more years you'll not have any guns when he packs the SCOTUS with Progressives!:steamed:

At least I've got conservative Congressmen for the most part. Vitter and Scallise are pro-gun and have voted the way I've wanted on other issues. The ones I've checked on anyway. But then we have Mary Landrieu... DemoRAT. She votes pro-gun about 65% and for the give mes 100% of the time.

If the Obomination get back in.... :wavey: life as we have know it.

whmaxwell
05-16-2012, 15:43
All your semi-autos are belong to me:

What a dbag... I wish we had someone better that might actually win. Honestly, I think it's another O-term no matter what happens on the Rep side... hate to say it.

DannyR
05-16-2012, 16:27
Romney is a greater threat to gun ownership in the USA. Just look at what he did while Governor.:steamed:

Acujeff
05-16-2012, 17:22
Actually, Romney has never banned guns. He was not yet in office and so did not sign the 1998 MA AWB into law.

If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-gun bills while he was Gov. of MA.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own more restrictive assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB, and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the permanent state law, we did not want to lose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so a new bill was amended to include them and that‘s what Romney signed. If Romney did not sign that bill, the more restrictive AWB would still be in place today.

So the actual truth is, in 2004, Romney signed a bill that amended the permanent AWB and made it less strict. Some folks on GT are misrepresenting his record and claiming that Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004.

Let's look at the rest of Romney's record:
During the Romney Administration he met and worked with Gun Owners’ Action League (the Mass. based pro-2A group) and no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. In addition, he removed any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006, and signed five pro-second amendment bills into law.

Romney earned a B from the NRA, which is higher than Obama (an F) or Hillary (also an F). Romney is certainly more pro-gun than McCain (rated a C+ by the NRA)

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

GW Bush is also often categorized as “not pro-gun enough” but he appointed two pro-RKBA Justices to the Supreme Court giving us the majority to win Heller and McDonald, the AWB was allowed to expire and much pro-RKBA legislation progress was made during his administration.

Romney has taken a firm, pro-gun rights position and has the record to prove it. He is also campaigning on appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices like Alito and Roberts.

If you prefer Obama than you must really like Fast and Furious (the biggest criminal political scandal in American history), registering gun purchases in the four southern border states, appointing two anti-RKBA Supreme Court Justices and appointing 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts. Obama makes pro-gun statements but all his actions are anti-gun.

If Obama is re-elected gun control will no longer be "under the radar" and we will see, in the very least, more regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce. In addition, a Democrat Senate would likely sign on to lots more proposed gun control legislation and anti-gun judges and justices.

Statements do not amount to a position, a record does. Romney's record is much better than Obama's.

Hdoc
05-16-2012, 17:51
Thanks for some sanity on this issue.

PawDog
05-16-2012, 20:09
Actually, Romney has never banned guns. He was not yet in office and so did not sign the 1998 MA AWB into law.

If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-gun bills while he was Gov. of MA.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own more restrictive assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB, and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the permanent state law, we did not want to lose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so a new bill was amended to include them and that‘s what Romney signed. If Romney did not sign that bill, the more restrictive AWB would still be in place today.

So the actual truth is, in 2004, Romney signed a bill that amended the permanent AWB and made it less strict. Some folks on GT are misrepresenting his record and claiming that Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004.

Let's look at the rest of Romney's record:
During the Romney Administration he met and worked with Gun Owners’ Action League (the Mass. based pro-2A group) and no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. In addition, he removed any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006, and signed five pro-second amendment bills into law.

Romney earned a B from the NRA, which is higher than Obama (an F) or Hillary (also an F). Romney is certainly more pro-gun than McCain (rated a C+ by the NRA)

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

GW Bush is also often categorized as “not pro-gun enough” but he appointed two pro-RKBA Justices to the Supreme Court giving us the majority to win Heller and McDonald, the AWB was allowed to expire and much pro-RKBA legislation progress was made during his administration.

Romney has taken a firm, pro-gun rights position and has the record to prove it. He is also campaigning on appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices like Alito and Roberts.

If you prefer Obama than you must really like Fast and Furious (the biggest criminal political scandal in American history), registering gun purchases in the four southern border states, appointing two anti-RKBA Supreme Court Justices and appointing 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts. Obama makes pro-gun statements but all his actions are anti-gun.

If Obama is re-elected gun control will no longer be "under the radar" and we will see, in the very least, more regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce. In addition, a Democrat Senate would likely sign on to lots more proposed gun control legislation and anti-gun judges and justices.

Statements do not amount to a position, a record does. Romney's record is much better than Obama's.

Thanks for adding truth to the thread, and not parroting the liberal and paulatarian prevarication bias some want to believe.

4TS&W
05-16-2012, 20:16
In addition, he has pledged "no new gun laws."

This on a call to Nugent.

This is more than we'll ever get from Obama. I'll vote for him, but I'll be watching him like a hawk watching an unsuspecting prey. Romney is just on thin ice. Obama is blue at the bottom of the pond in July.

3.slow
05-16-2012, 20:40
In addition, he has pledged "no new gun laws."

This on a call to Nugent.

This is more than we'll ever get from Obama. I'll vote for him, but I'll be watching him like a hawk watching an unsuspecting prey. Romney is just on thin ice. Obama is blue at the bottom of the pond in July.

You can't police the president. You can do nothing

jeanderson
05-17-2012, 07:16
This is why it's important to elect a very Conservative Congress!

More accurately, it's most critical for gun owners that a conservative Senate get elected. They are the gatekeepers to who can become a justice on the Supreme Court. It's not so much an issue of what nutty anti-gun laws are passed - it's how the Supreme Court holds these laws up in the light of the Constitution, which is supposed to protect our rights.

If Obama gets re-elected and the Democrats hold on to the Senate, God help us if Scalia, Roberts, Thomas or Alito were to step down!

ricklee4570
05-17-2012, 07:19
People are pulling up things from the distant past, when Romney has been clear that he, to use Obama's words, evolved on that issue. He pledged that he would not be seeking or endorsing nor signing any gun laws if he is President. And to do so would be political suicide. He knows this. Enough said!

HexHead
05-17-2012, 07:54
What about his statement about people not needing to own "those types of guns" when he signed the bill in 2004?

Jerry
05-17-2012, 09:21
What about his statement about people not needing to own "those types of guns" when he signed the bill in 2004?

Remember when Charleston Heston, as president of the NRA, made pretty much the same statement? I didn't like it then either and let the NRA know. Seems to be a distinct lack of understanding as to why the Second Amendment was written. :steamed:

ricklee4570
05-17-2012, 11:06
What about his statement about people not needing to own "those types of guns" when he signed the bill in 2004?

Because he felt different about it in 2004. He has stated this several times. I would rather vote for him than Obama, who still strongly feels handguns have no place in America.

TexasFats
05-17-2012, 11:49
I am not a fan of Mitt Romney, but I will still take him over Obama any day. And, he might actually have learned something since 2004. Maybe--maybe not. In any event, a vote for anybody else is a vote for Obama at the end of the day. And, I certainly don't want that Chicago crook to get another four years. In this case, I'll take the devil I don't know over the devil we have now, if for no other reason than the fact that Obama is certain to appoint the most leftist people he can find to the Supreme Court at every opportunity. At least Romney does not stink of Hugo Chavez politics the way that Obama does.

To my mind, as some others here have noted, the US Senate elections are the critical pieces this year. A strongly pro-gun Senate can put the kabosh on a lot of stuff.

4GLOCKER
05-17-2012, 11:57
Romney will be pro-gun today for his election and I don't see him changing his mind.

The main thing we need him for is appointing a new Supreme Court Justice if needed. Obama sure made a mess of it. One more from Obama and our gun rights could GO AWAY.

Jerry
05-17-2012, 13:30
One more from Obama and our gun rights could GO AWAY.

Only if The People don't have the cinchonas to do what is necessary. But then I have no evidence they do.

I'll hold my nose AGAIN and vote the lesser of the evils... Romney.

BuckyP
05-17-2012, 13:46
Straight out Anti-gun legislation is bad for elections / reelections for either party (worse for the Rs IMO, as that would loose too much of the base). This is why all the work around policies, regulation, legislation, and verbal attacks. Being Obama "can do more once [he's] not running for reelection", expect him to "evolve" on this issue as well.

Actually, Romney has never banned guns. He was not yet in office and so did not sign the 1998 MA AWB into law.

(snip for brevity)

Romney's record is much better than Obama's.

:goodpost:
Excellent post. People need to vet ads / propaganda with fact!

What about his statement about people not needing to own "those types of guns" when he signed the bill in 2004?

Note the brackets inside the quotation marks around "semi auto firearms". This slight grammatical notation means that the ACTUAL word/words were replaced for clarity. Therefore, we don't know what he actual said in the statement.

Romney will be pro-gun today for his election and I don't see him changing his mind.

The main thing we need him for is appointing a new Supreme Court Justice if needed. Obama sure made a mess of it. One more from Obama and our gun rights could GO AWAY.

This. The most important thing about this election is no loosing a seat in the SCOTUS!

4TS&W
05-17-2012, 13:48
You can't police the president. You can do nothing

He needs votes for a second term.

Look at Obama's base. He hasn't delivered for them (yet), and that apathy may be his undoing this time around. :supergrin:

FL Airedale
05-17-2012, 17:23
I think Romney is clearly less anti-gun than Obama. Since the president doesn't have the power to ban guns, it is more important who he appoints to the supreme court.

Obama gave us Sotamayor and Kagan. I don't think Romney could find any candidates worse, for conservatives and freedom lovers, than those two.

Jerry
05-17-2012, 18:45
He needs votes for a second term.

Look at Obama's base. He hasn't delivered for them (yet), and that apathy may be his undoing this time around. :supergrin:

90% of the Obomonations base didn't know what he meant by "change" and are so STUPID and IGNORANT they WILL be voting for him again. That's what is scaring the hell out of me.

PAGunner
05-17-2012, 18:48
Romney is a greater threat to gun ownership in the USA. Just look at what he did while Governor.:steamed:

I look at Romney the same way as I look at Clinton, he's a politician not someone who believes in any given ideology. If he feels the political wind blowing in conservatives favor, he's not touching guns. I think the people nominate for SCOTUS would be WAY better than anyone Obama will nominate on 2a issues.

Think about it, he was governor of MA, so of course he knows it's an anti-2a state, so he went with the flow. IDK what is in his heart, but honestly I don't think it matters much, it's all about politics with him.

Romney with republican (many tea party people) controlled house and senate is way better than Obama with a democrat control of house and senate.

banger
05-18-2012, 14:51
I have actually given this some prior thought...

"PERHAPS" our best option is a "neutered" Obama.

Consider, if the Republicans can hold onto the House and MAYBE gain the Senate, than virtually noting of this sort will get passed.

On the other hand, a freshly elected Mitt Romney will be able to get though much of his agenda, (at least during a "honeymoon period").

As much as I hate to say it....Obama just MIGHT be our best hope.:faint:

Jerry
05-18-2012, 15:54
Has Romney any "real" life experience with firearms? Has he done any sport shooting, hunting or anything that would give him a good vibe about firearms, event if it is only sports related? I find most big city politicians with no personal firearms experience think of the 2nd. as more of a "suggestion" to be worked "around" rather than a "binding rule" that should be "adhered" to. And most want to control The People's right to some degree or another.

jon_in_wv
05-19-2012, 04:22
It seems to me your choice is to vote for a rabid anti-gunner or a guy who is pretty weak on the subject. One will appoint probably appoint 2 people to the Supreme Court who will absolutely vote against your second amendment rights, the other will be obligated to appoint justices who will affirm your rights. I think now is the time to get behind the latter.

banger
05-19-2012, 06:25
It seems to me your choice is to vote for a rabid anti-gunner or a guy who is pretty weak on the subject. One will appoint probably appoint 2 people to the Supreme Court who will absolutely vote against your second amendment rights, the other will be obligated to appoint justices who will affirm your rights. I think now is the time to get behind the latter.

I can see this point...."IF" we knew where Romney stands on any subject.

I can't escape the feeling that to Mr. Romney running for office is simply reciting the correct incantations in proper order.

HOWEVER....What does he believe?

Consider, He stands firmly against "Obama care" yet as governor of Massachusetts, he passed a nearly identical law.

He stands firmly in favor of gun rights...yet while governor, he did NOTHING for lawful gun owners and in fact supported the A.W.B in Massachusetts.

Is is against high taxes and excessive government spending, yet while governor, taxes, spending, and the size of government went up in Massachusetts.

I can't help but thinking that if a pole came out tomorrow that said most Americans support throwing babies off of cliffs, he would be in front of a camera tossing a baby by tomorrow's morning news.

In a nut shell....WHAT DOES HE BELIEVE IN? (other than himself).

BTW, as an aside, you will notice that he is often supported and championed by Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey...

Another Republican politician who is firmly against second amendment rights.

IE:

No concealed carry in N.J.

Permit to purchase a handgun AND a nic's check the time of purchase.

One gun a month.

Assault Weapons ban...

No large capacity magazines.

Hollow point bullets, virtually banned.

A firearms permit is required to even buy a BB gun in N.J. (this is NOT a joke).

Soooo in a nut shell...watch the company Mitt Romney keeps.

WE NEED A TEA PARTY CANIDATE!!!

jon_in_wv
05-19-2012, 20:01
All true. My point only is that he will be obligated by folks on the right to put at least a moderate SCOTUS judge in where Obama has already shown that he can't wait to seed the courts with left wing wackos.

EGH129
05-19-2012, 21:39
That will never happen. Have you any idea how many guns are in the US, I believe 100s of millions and how many diff companies, gunsniths etc. The NRA is bigger and more powerful than any administration, weather 4 or 8 years. I just laugh thinking about any of the potential clowns who might get in in'12. Now remember when Obama was going to ban guns and or ammo. Remember how people were stocking up on ammo in '08. seems kind of funny now. If your like me or any # of I would presume millions of gun owners I just laugh thinking any administrations laws trying to take my or our guns. This is one segment of the population you don't want to bully, get to intrusive, or piss off. Not to sound like "oh wow a tough guy" its just reality.