Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Political Issues (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=57)
-   -   Romney: Yes on CCW Reciprocity, NO on AWB (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1446776)

G29Reload 10-08-2012 12:02

Romney: Yes on CCW Reciprocity, NO on AWB
 
Just so I'm clear.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ity-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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stubudd (Post 19497109)
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

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrygun (Post 19497115)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stubudd (Post 19497147)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stubudd (Post 19497109)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC702 (Post 19497159)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by F350 (Post 19497305)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by F350 (Post 19497305)
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/Uploa...Napolitano.JPG

The Maggy 10-08-2012 13:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by G29Reload (Post 19497277)
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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitt Romney
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitt Romney
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc (Post 19497355)
I've had my eye on this guy for SCOTUS. That would be cool.

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

My very first choice as well.

Gundude 10-08-2012 14:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc (Post 19497355)
I've had my eye on this guy for SCOTUS. That would be cool.

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

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.

QNman 10-08-2012 14:10

:popcorn:

Snowman92D 10-08-2012 14:11

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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:21.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.