Romney: Yes on CCW Reciprocity, NO on AWB [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Romney: Yes on CCW Reciprocity, NO on AWB


G29Reload
10-08-2012, 12:02
Just so I'm clear.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/09/daniel-zimmerman/romney-yes-to-concealed-carry-reciprocity-no-to-awb/

Stubudd
10-08-2012, 12:10
Very clear. Clearly you are gullible enough to believe words coming out of mitt romney's mouth. Good for you.

countrygun
10-08-2012, 12:13
Very clear. Clearly you are gullible enough to believe words coming out of mitt romney's mouth. Good for you.

Must be difficult for you, trying to find a messiah in the political world.

Gundude
10-08-2012, 12:21
The NRA’s Chris Cox interviewed GOP hopeful Mitt Romney at dailycaller.com, asking about all things firearm-related. Clearly, the governor knew his audience. That just about says it. When he knows his audience, he knows exactly what to say.

Seems like a lot of people on this forum have forgotten the Romney they had to hold their noses to vote for, and now see in him exactly what he tells them to see in him.

Hopium isn't relegated to one party, is it?

Stubudd
10-08-2012, 12:24
Must be difficult for you, trying to find a messiah in the political world.

Difficult for me is having to read 50 of your posts every time i log in here.

countrygun
10-08-2012, 12:27
Difficult for me is having to read 50 of your posts every time i log in here.


Let me fix that for you,


"Difficult for me is having to read every time i log in here."


I think that clears up the issue.

MAC702
10-08-2012, 12:28
What Romney says he wants to do for us, and what Romney will actually do when presented with a political decision are two very, very, very, very different things.

He may actually WANT to do that for us, and he still won't let that get in the way of his politics.

And you know it.

Now, we can still hope that if he is ever in a position to make a difference in those topics, that there isn't something else in the way. Only then will this help us. But it is something.

Cavalry Doc
10-08-2012, 12:44
Well at least you can be comforted in the fact that Barry has always been consistent in his RKBA positions, and they've always been bad.

I'll take a liberal in his first term, over a socialist in his "more flexible" second/last term.

cowboy1964
10-08-2012, 13:03
Obama vs Romney. Tell us who lies more. Then tell us if it makes any difference. Do you O or R appointing the next swing-vote Supreme Court Justice? Do you want the war on fossil fuels to continue? Do you want to continue to pour money we don't have down the drain for green energy? etc times 1000.

G29Reload
10-08-2012, 13:08
Very clear. Clearly you are gullible enough to believe words coming out of mitt romney's mouth. Good for you.

Gullible would be believing anything you say. In fact the rule is, if you say it, do the opposite generally the best path.

G29Reload
10-08-2012, 13:14
What Romney says he wants to do for us, and what Romney will actually do when presented with a political decision are two very, very, very, very different things.

He may actually WANT to do that for us, and he still won't let that get in the way of his politics.

That last sentence is a bit much to parse. Kind of contradictory in fact.

The reason why the article is salient for the sentient:

1. Its on paper. Its fairly solid and clear. Politicians that are wafflers are usually that way from the get go so they leave themselves wiggle room. The verbiage here is fairly clear. To violate it becomes an epic fail, ask Bush I. You know, the s#$% storm after kicking the No New Taxes pledge. Read my lips and all that. They never let him forget about it and he paid dearly.

2. He stepped up to the plate with the explanations why. REally nailed his feet to the floor. "Defense doesn't end at your doorstep". Bravissimo…that's not a line you get from a political handler, but a sign of actual belief or at least paying attention to what the gunner community has to say.

So, there is plenty of room to believe he actually means it.

F350
10-08-2012, 13:24
One more thing to remember; if we can get GOP control of the senate along with the house then there is likely no way to get anything through the congress. Add in a (relatively) conservative Supreme Court appointment or two and we are relatively secure.

countrygun
10-08-2012, 13:35
One more thing to remember; if we can get GOP control of the senate along with the house then there is likely no way to get anything through the congress. Add in a (relatively) conservative Supreme Court appointment or two and we are relatively secure.


Add to that if the pipe dreamers got their way and miracled a their party PTUS in, without a House or Senate in support, he could accomplish nothing without resorting to "executive Orders" to circumvent the COTUS, which is what Obama does and evryone should want him out of office because of it.

Under the COTUS, which the third party claims to be so concerned about, a third party POTUS, without the support of the legislative branch, would be a eunuch unless he ignored the COTUS like Barry does.

Cavalry Doc
10-08-2012, 13:40
One more thing to remember; if we can get GOP control of the senate along with the house then there is likely no way to get anything through the congress. Add in a (relatively) conservative Supreme Court appointment or two and we are relatively secure.

I've had my eye on this guy for SCOTUS. That would be cool.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/211/07/211-0729112415-Judge_Napolitano.JPG

The Maggy
10-08-2012, 13:44
That last sentence is a bit much to parse. Kind of contradictory in fact.

The reason why the article is salient for the sentient:

1. Its on paper. Its fairly solid and clear. Politicians that are wafflers are usually that way from the get go so they leave themselves wiggle room. The verbiage here is fairly clear. To violate it becomes an epic fail, ask Bush I. You know, the s#$% storm after kicking the No New Taxes pledge. Read my lips and all that. They never let him forget about it and he paid dearly.

2. He stepped up to the plate with the explanations why. REally nailed his feet to the floor. "Defense doesn't end at your doorstep". Bravissimo…that's not a line you get from a political handler, but a sign of actual belief or at least paying attention to what the gunner community has to say.

So, there is plenty of room to believe he actually means it.


I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal

Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts, these guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.


That's some pretty strong wording too. Bravissimo if you will; really nailed his feet to the floor there...

Romney will say whatever it is that he thinks you want to hear.

JFrame
10-08-2012, 13:47
Part of the Democrat Party platform is the imposition of even harsher gun control laws, including reinstatement of the AWB.

The GOP platform voices an inherent respect for the 2A, and advocates further loosening of restrictions for law-abiding citizens.

I prefer the guy representing the latter group.


.

HexHead
10-08-2012, 13:59
I've had my eye on this guy for SCOTUS. That would be cool.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/211/07/211-0729112415-Judge_Napolitano.JPG

My very first choice as well.

Gundude
10-08-2012, 14:05
I've had my eye on this guy for SCOTUS. That would be cool.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/211/07/211-0729112415-Judge_Napolitano.JPGRon Paul's buddy? Who on earth would nominate Ron Paul's buddy to the Supreme Court? Anybody who respects a lunatic like Ron Paul can't be Supreme Court material.

QNman
10-08-2012, 14:10
:popcorn:

Snowman92D
10-08-2012, 14:11
Uh-ooooh. Somebody is butt-hurt...! :okie:

series1811
10-08-2012, 14:19
Very clear. Clearly you are gullible enough to believe words coming out of mitt romney's mouth. Good for you.

Obama's record makes this go around hard for you guys, doesn't it?

:supergrin:

Stubudd
10-08-2012, 14:27
Obama's record makes this go around hard for you guys, doesn't it?

:supergrin:

Say what? Not following you, sorry.

series1811
10-08-2012, 14:32
Say what? Not following you, sorry.

You guys gave up trying to use Obama's record to get anybody to support him, a long time ago, didn't you?

That' okay. We don't blame you. :supergrin:

Cream Soda Kid
10-08-2012, 14:44
Well at least you can be comforted in the fact that Barry has always been consistent in his RKBA positions, and they've always been bad.

I'll take a liberal in his first term, over a socialist in his "more flexible" second/last term.

Well said my friend.

porschedog
10-08-2012, 14:46
Mitt is the ONLY choice we have. If you think he's bad, consider what O'Bama would do to gut the Constitution. Seriously, get over the "I don't trust Mitt because..." comments and wake up. Hold your nose if you must, but Vote for Mitt.

Stubudd
10-08-2012, 14:49
You guys gave up trying to use Obama's record to get anybody to support him, a long time ago, didn't you?

That' okay. We don't blame you. :supergrin:

I'm not trying to use anything to get anybody to support obama.

John Rambo
10-08-2012, 14:52
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Taureau_charolais_au_pr%C3%A9.jpg/220px-Taureau_charolais_au_pr%C3%A9.jpg

John Rambo
10-08-2012, 14:52
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTxvtvhZ_JaYKwnwAkTccoJGpjDFcKS5U3lxTlbYZyXh7TTlilpMXws4YOg

G29Reload
10-08-2012, 15:27
Well said my friend.

This.

All the butt-hurt can do is trot out anachronisms, ancient history as though anything ever said is written in stone and can NEVER change.

I give him credit for not being stuck on stupid.

Ruble Noon
10-08-2012, 15:53
Very clear. Clearly you are gullible enough to believe words coming out of mitt romney's mouth. Good for you.

This. :wavey:

Ruble Noon
10-08-2012, 15:56
Difficult for me is having to read 50 of your posts every time i log in here.

Give the guy a break Stu, he's just trying to make enough money to buy his viagra.

Ruble Noon
10-08-2012, 15:57
One more thing to remember; if we can get GOP control of the senate along with the house then there is likely no way to get anything through the congress. Add in a (relatively) conservative Supreme Court appointment or two and we are relatively secure.

Like Roberts? I'll pass.

MAC702
10-08-2012, 16:06
That last sentence is a bit much to parse. Kind of contradictory in fact....

Really?

He may actually WANT to do that for us, and he still won't let that get in the way of his politics.

Seems succinct to me.

I doubt he'll let a written NRA interview get in his way when he needs to compromise with some "common sense" legislation that helps him in other ways.

countrygun
10-08-2012, 16:11
Like Roberts? I'll pass.


That isn'r news, we know you want Obam to get more nomination because his have a 100% anti-gun record, why mess with success, right?

Ruble Noon
10-08-2012, 16:17
That isn'r news, we know you want Obam to get more nomination because his have a 100% anti-gun record, why mess with success, right?

No, I'd like someone that actually supports our constitution, like Paul or Johnson to make SC nominations.

countrygun
10-08-2012, 16:30
No, I'd like someone that actually supports our constitution, like Paul or Johnson to make SC nominations.


How is your "constitutionalist", within the bounds of the Constitution, going to accomplish anything without having members of his party in Congress to support him?

Mabe by "Executive Order" like Obama?

G29Reload
10-08-2012, 17:46
Like Roberts? I'll pass.

To be fair, no one can predict a turncoat. Every president has had one.

The best you can do is all you can do. You still have some control because most do roll as advertised, but sometimes a stinker ends up in the batch.

Seriously, no one saw that one coming until the final week when the AZ case had people scratching their heads a few days before. Even then no one put two and two together.

G29Reload
10-08-2012, 17:48
No, I'd like someone that actually supports our constitution, like Paul or Johnson to make SC nominations.

He could get screwed by a turncoat too. What would you do then? There are no guarantees with SC judges.

Acujeff
10-08-2012, 19:06
The givens are:

- The Democrat Party and platform is anti-2A
- Obama’s record is anti-2A
- Biden’s record is anti-2A
- Obama would nominate up to 4 more anti-2A Supreme Court judges
- Obama issued orders for the Fast and Furious operation, registering gun purchases in the four southern border states, promote the UN Gun Ban Treaty, and use the ATF to harass legitimate gun dealers. He would issue regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce.
- There will be no genuine investigation of Fast and Furious and it may be years before the civil contempt enforcement will find any resolution in the Federal courts.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8525

- The GOP and platform is pro-2A
- Romney’s record is pro-2A
- Ryan’s record is pro-2A
- Romney and Ryan are campaigning on a pro-2A platform.
- President Romney would appoint up to 4 pro-2A Supreme Court Justices
- President Romney would appoint a new Attorney General, release all the Fast and Furious documents to Congress and we would see a full investigation and prosecution.

In 2008 Romney was rated "B" by the NRA and Obama was rated "F". Since then, Romney has only become more pro-2A and Obama more anti-2A. Romney would be a much better President for gun-owners than Obama.

QNman
10-08-2012, 19:17
<snip>I give him credit for not being stuck on stupid.

Ditto. I'm hoping he doesn't change his mind back. At least unlike his opponent, Romney has apparently had a change of heart. Perhaps losing to Dick Clark's grandpa four years ago gave him the wake-up call he needed.

countrygun
10-08-2012, 19:18
Give the guy a break Stu, he's just trying to make enough money to buy his viagra.

You got the advantage there, you just have to watch the copy of "Brokeback Mountain" you already own.

QNman
10-08-2012, 19:28
Like Roberts? I'll pass.

Yes, like Roberts. The man who joined the majority opinion on Heller. And joined in the minority (but correct) opinion on Boumediene v. Bush. No one is perfect. He got Obamacare wrong. It happens.

I'll take nine Roberts over one more Kagan or Sotomayor.

JFrame
10-08-2012, 21:13
Yes, like Roberts. The man who joined the majority opinion on Heller. And joined in the minority (but correct) opinion on Boumediene v. Bush. No one is perfect. He got Obamacare wrong. It happens.

I'll take nine Roberts over one more Kagan or Sotomayor.


Word.


.

Cavalry Doc
10-09-2012, 04:27
Ron Paul's buddy? Who on earth would nominate Ron Paul's buddy to the Supreme Court? Anybody who respects a lunatic like Ron Paul can't be Supreme Court material.

Not all Ron Paul supporters are stoned ill mannered mouth breathing social misfits. A lot of them just act that way online.



And Ron Paul is not a lunatic. He's just very wrong on a few key issues.

happyguy
10-09-2012, 04:57
Seems like a lot of people on this forum have forgotten the Romney they had to hold their noses to vote for, and now see in him exactly what he tells them to see in him.



Romney isn't my ideal candidate. But he is far and away the best candidate on the ballot with any chance of winning.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

JFrame
10-09-2012, 04:59
Romney isn't my ideal candidate. But he is far and away the best candidate on the ballot with any chance of winning.

Regards,
Happyguy :)


Word, Part Deux... :)


.

kirgi08
10-09-2012, 09:14
I've had my eye on this guy for SCOTUS. That would be cool.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/211/07/211-0729112415-Judge_Napolitano.JPG

I like him also,the brasso would be the fallout in the houses elections and "whom" retards first ect.'08. :cool:

kirgi08
10-09-2012, 09:20
The givens are:

- The Democrat Party and platform is anti-2A
- Obama’s record is anti-2A
- Biden’s record is anti-2A
- Obama would nominate up to 4 more anti-2A Supreme Court judges
- Obama issued orders for the Fast and Furious operation, registering gun purchases in the four southern border states, promote the UN Gun Ban Treaty, and use the ATF to harass legitimate gun dealers. He would issue regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce.
- There will be no genuine investigation of Fast and Furious and it may be years before the civil contempt enforcement will find any resolution in the Federal courts.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8525

- The GOP and platform is pro-2A
- Romney’s record is pro-2A
- Ryan’s record is pro-2A
- Romney and Ryan are campaigning on a pro-2A platform.
- President Romney would appoint up to 4 pro-2A Supreme Court Justices
- President Romney would appoint a new Attorney General, release all the Fast and Furious documents to Congress and we would see a full investigation and prosecution.

In 2008 Romney was rated "B" by the NRA and Obama was rated "F". Since then, Romney has only become more pro-2A and Obama more anti-2A. Romney would be a much better President for gun-owners than Obama.


:goodpost: :agree: