Can someone please educate me on Obama/Romney
- Thread starter Sgt.Murtaugh
- Start date
- Status
mljdeckard
Member
(I'll keep it short to get it in before the lock,)
Here's the difference,
Romney is in a position where he is being pushed into office by a conservative agenda. He is trying to prove to his base that his views really are fundamentally in line with theirs. This means Christian, pro-gun, fiscal and social conservative. THESE are the interests trying to put him in office. Yes, he signed the MA gun ban and supported the '94 AWB. And yes, he sounds so wooden when he tries to say he is pro-gun, it is painful to listen to. HOWEVER COMMA, he will enter office in a position to continue to draw the support of these interests, and will likely pick federal court nominees (TO INCLUDE SUPREME COURT NOMINEES) who will be pro-gun.
Obama has been holding back an anti-gun agenda to try not to rock the boat for re-election. If he IS re-elected, he will have nothing to lose. Nothing to prevent him from pen-stroking the status of all imported guns he feels like into oblivion without so much as a GLANCE towards congress. He will probably place between 1 and 3 new SC justices, with the likes of Kagan and Sotamayor.
Romney is the cold pizza you come home to. No, he isn't what you wanted. But you know full well you are going to eat it anyway.
Here's the difference,
Romney is in a position where he is being pushed into office by a conservative agenda. He is trying to prove to his base that his views really are fundamentally in line with theirs. This means Christian, pro-gun, fiscal and social conservative. THESE are the interests trying to put him in office. Yes, he signed the MA gun ban and supported the '94 AWB. And yes, he sounds so wooden when he tries to say he is pro-gun, it is painful to listen to. HOWEVER COMMA, he will enter office in a position to continue to draw the support of these interests, and will likely pick federal court nominees (TO INCLUDE SUPREME COURT NOMINEES) who will be pro-gun.
Obama has been holding back an anti-gun agenda to try not to rock the boat for re-election. If he IS re-elected, he will have nothing to lose. Nothing to prevent him from pen-stroking the status of all imported guns he feels like into oblivion without so much as a GLANCE towards congress. He will probably place between 1 and 3 new SC justices, with the likes of Kagan and Sotamayor.
Romney is the cold pizza you come home to. No, he isn't what you wanted. But you know full well you are going to eat it anyway.
mljdeckard
Member
The only factor? Don't be silly.
The DECISIVE factor? You betcher bippie.
The DECISIVE factor? You betcher bippie.
One candidate has voted for gun control and has said he doesn't see the need for more gun control.
One candidate hasn't voted for gun control, but has said he does see the need for more gun control.
Do we trust the actions or the words? Either way, there's something we can't trust about each one as a gun owner.
Nico Testosteros
Member
The President could have promoted gun control when usDemocrats had control of the House and Senate, but he didn't .
My comment was because both candidates have through actions or words expressed an interest in restricting guns. Therefore, neither is a very good candidate for a gun owner based on that, and that we should be looking at their political history in other areas that are important to us (economy, healthcare, etc).
Unless you can show me how Romney's or Obama's history proves one is the better friend for gun owners.
mljdeckard
Member
No, actually he couldn't push gun control when he had both houses, because a group of sixty some-odd Democrat congresspeople sent a letter to the Attorney General telling him; "Don't bother with any new gun laws. We won't vote for them." In addition to this, Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader, who (despite other aspects about him which make me walk around wishing a meteor would fall on him) is a pretty strong supporter of gun rights. He won't bring any new gun bills to the floor. DO NOT BE NAIVE. The ONLY reason Obama hasn't pushed any new gun legislation is that he knew that it would be dead in the water from the beginning, and generate a lot of negative publicity, confirming all of our fears about him. All downside, no win. Why bother?
John Lott actually taught in the same department with Young Barack, and tried to start a conversation with him more than once. All our future president said was; "I don't think people should be allowed to own guns." Whatever else he has said, rationalized, forgotten, glossed over, etc, THIS is what he is about. If he were given the chance, he would tear the Second Amendment out of The Constitution with a dull knife. Don't for ONE SECOND believe that he doesn't want to. That doesn't mean he's stupid enough to try it when he knows he will lose. That also means that he will never miss an opportunity to take a chip out of it when he can. Tweaking BATFE administrative rules. Nominating ghastly judges. Romney is a marshmallow who sways where the wind blows him. At least we can stand him in the correct wind.
John Lott actually taught in the same department with Young Barack, and tried to start a conversation with him more than once. All our future president said was; "I don't think people should be allowed to own guns." Whatever else he has said, rationalized, forgotten, glossed over, etc, THIS is what he is about. If he were given the chance, he would tear the Second Amendment out of The Constitution with a dull knife. Don't for ONE SECOND believe that he doesn't want to. That doesn't mean he's stupid enough to try it when he knows he will lose. That also means that he will never miss an opportunity to take a chip out of it when he can. Tweaking BATFE administrative rules. Nominating ghastly judges. Romney is a marshmallow who sways where the wind blows him. At least we can stand him in the correct wind.
One says he would if given the chance, never has in the past, and under his watch we got Heller vs DC, and a surge in firearm sales.
Other says he would never, but given the chance has signed anti-2A legislation into law, and had sided with anti-2A opponents all the way back to 1994.
My take: actions speak louder then words. Saying you believe in the 2A and then turning around and signing into law anti-2A legislation is deplorable and dishonest.
Other says he would never, but given the chance has signed anti-2A legislation into law, and had sided with anti-2A opponents all the way back to 1994.
My take: actions speak louder then words. Saying you believe in the 2A and then turning around and signing into law anti-2A legislation is deplorable and dishonest.
VA27
Member
Two sayings spring to mind:
"Better the devil you know, than the one you don't."
and
"The lesser of two evils."
These are the choices. There can be only one, so choose wisely.
"Better the devil you know, than the one you don't."
and
"The lesser of two evils."
These are the choices. There can be only one, so choose wisely.
mljdeckard
Member
-v-, no,we got Heller under W, not Obama. Do you want to give him 4 more to replace those justices?
DeadFlies
Member
Agreed.
This notion that Obama hasn't signed any gun-control legislation yet but "would if he could if given the chance" is just a load of road apples. Despite the hysterical screaming of the NRA and other right-wing organizations, Obama the the Democrats under his leadership have done exactly NOTHING about gun control. They have other issues to tackle and gun-control (despite the recent CO shooting) is just not something they are willing to invest in right now. All this "he wants to. he would if he could" is just so much dogma.
But given the chance, Romney HAS taken action against the 2A. Politicians say all kinds of crazy stuff all the time. It's what they actually DO that matters.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
[Mod Talk: Folks, keep it STRICTLY guns & gun-control related. If you have opinions about other planks in the candidates' platforms or their economic, social, or religious philosophies, please by all means post them -- SOMEWHERE ELSE.]
But one must wonder, given the same opportunity, would Romney approve it as well? In other words, the question becomes less about what their personal agenda is, but about if the opportunity is there, what would they do? Obama has said, Romney has done.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
I believe gov control of all things is at the very core of Obamas belief.
Romney, while certainly not pro gun, I believe thinks more in Reagan like terms and wants less gov over all.
If a strong majority sends a bill I don't doubt he (Romney) would sign it but I suspect his AG and court apointments will be far superior to what Obama has chosen, that in itself is enough reason for me.
Romney, while certainly not pro gun, I believe thinks more in Reagan like terms and wants less gov over all.
If a strong majority sends a bill I don't doubt he (Romney) would sign it but I suspect his AG and court apointments will be far superior to what Obama has chosen, that in itself is enough reason for me.
Romney is no saint when it comes to gun control, but if you follow everything obama has said about guns, his voting record on outlandish anti gun bills, and his political and world views in general, it is a no brainer who we need to take our chances with.
MtnCreek
Member
Given a second term, either may sign additional gun regulations into law. The President has stated many times his thoughts on private gun ownership and his views are Far from that of my own. Without the threat of losing office, he would likely feel free to do as he wishes, rather than as he feels he must.
The same could be said for Mr. Romney. At this time, it would be foolish to indorse additional gun regulations. Given the freedom of a second term, that may change. I don’t see him making that mistake in his first term; I’m sure he remembers what happened to President GHW Bush. There was more to his lose than the S&L and the Crazy from TX.
The same could be said for Mr. Romney. At this time, it would be foolish to indorse additional gun regulations. Given the freedom of a second term, that may change. I don’t see him making that mistake in his first term; I’m sure he remembers what happened to President GHW Bush. There was more to his lose than the S&L and the Crazy from TX.
R.W.Dale
Member
I'm getting so sick of reading this false logic.
Once Obama is out of the way Romney will no longer need the gullable gun owner vote. He'll immediatly swerve hard left and begin to court the ex Obama vote...just like he did as governor.
If he can zip up the left for the next election he wont have to worry about Democratic competition and where will you go anyway as a voter? He's sitting in the big "R" chair.
Gun owners supporting Romney makes about as much sense as cows promoting that people eat more beef!
Last edited:
Tommygunn
Member
EDITED. Sorry.........
MtnCreek
Member
Mr. Dale,
January 2013, either President Obama or Mr. Romney will be sworn in as president. Given the choice, who do you feel more comfortable with regarding 2A rights? I’m not trying to load the question for any reason, I’m just curious.
Thanks.
January 2013, either President Obama or Mr. Romney will be sworn in as president. Given the choice, who do you feel more comfortable with regarding 2A rights? I’m not trying to load the question for any reason, I’m just curious.
Thanks.
I'm also struggling with my decision. I don't like EITHER candidate, from a gun-or-other standpoint.
Usually making up my mind is infinitely easier.
For the first time, in any presidential election, I'm truly considering writing my own name in, then voting on the candidates *I* feel I want in the OTHER positions on the ballot.
This is the Achilles heel of a two-party system - we only GET to choose "either/or".
I'll leave the comments about why for a different time and place. But I'm growing very disillusioned with our current form of government and party system simply BECAUSE I can't find anyone I want to vote for.
When the system is so broken that ALL of your choices are bad... ugh.
Usually making up my mind is infinitely easier.
For the first time, in any presidential election, I'm truly considering writing my own name in, then voting on the candidates *I* feel I want in the OTHER positions on the ballot.
This is the Achilles heel of a two-party system - we only GET to choose "either/or".
I'll leave the comments about why for a different time and place. But I'm growing very disillusioned with our current form of government and party system simply BECAUSE I can't find anyone I want to vote for.
When the system is so broken that ALL of your choices are bad... ugh.
- Status
