Romney: Yes on CCW Reciprocity, NO on AWB
 

Just so I'm clear.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ity-no-to-awb/

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploa...Napolitano.JPG

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.

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.


.

My very first choice as well.

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.

:popcorn:

Uh-ooooh. Somebody is butt-hurt...! :okie:

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

:supergrin:

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:

Well said my friend.

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.