Romney on guns...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think ALL politicians are varying degrees of bad. That doesn't mean that I will give up on the process. If you wait for a perfect candidate, you better pack a lunch. You need to think about this seriously. Who do you want replacing the next couple of Supreme Court justices? We got lucky this term, the only ones who were replaced were the ones whose votes we didn't want anyway. You don't know what will happen in the NEXT four years.

The thing that makes him more electable than he was in 2008 is that everyone who wanted to give the current president the benefit of the doubt has now seen what he would do. The race barrier has been shattered, his main puppet masters have fled, there is no more mystery. In this election, there is an endless list of well-documented actions to use against the current administration in the debates. Before it was; "We'll give him a chance and see what happens." Now it's happened, and he will have to defend it. Personally, I would like to see him defend it against Newt, but I doubt that will happen.
 
This Romney quote sums up his position on civil liberties:

"Our greatest civil liberty is the right to be kept alive."

He means 'kept alive' by the power of the State. He doesn't vaguely care about the Bill of Rights. He's an out and out statist, and differs in no way from Obama on the subject of civil liberties.
 
If Romney becomes the Republic nominee, then I will vote for Obama because Romney does not offer the only advantage over Obama, which would have been firearms. Obama has signed gun-favorable bills into law, and with the current climate, he couldn't get through an AWB, or a 50 cal ban, or a mag cap ban, or a f2f ban in even if he tried. He used up all his momentum on health care and DADT.
 
^ Romney is a Republican and I disagree heartily with Republican policies. If Romney gets in, then he will have a lot of momentum behind him from the resurgent Right. Also, Romney is more of a smooth operator and is willing to do whatever is necessary to win. He definitely tried to play both sides. Would you rather have a powerful opponent of the second amendment be a polarizing figure with principles, or a manipulative operator without restraint.
 
Again, I don't see how you think that the restraint that keeps Obama from signing new gun laws would not also restrain Romney, or anyone else. The pressure from the resurgent right will not steer him toward new gun laws. And again, you didn't answer if you think Obama's SC picks would be better or worse than Romney's.

They are ALL politicians.
 
Obama's picks for the USSC would be more in line with other issues I have, such as money in campaigns and workers' rights. I have nothing to gain personally from Romney either directly or in what beliefs I champion.
 
That's your choice. HERE, we discuss gun rights. You are basically saying you don't care if BHO's second-term SC nominations are anti-gun as long as their other principles are in line with yours.

Here is where I am different. Gun rights is not the sole issue I use to make political choices. But you better betcher bippie it will be the tie-breaker. A couple more nominations like Sotamayor, and we won't want any critical gun cases that are in the works to hit the Supreme Court at all. The single biggest influence the president has on gun rights is his federal court nominations. The lower court nominations BHO is making now will be the ones in line to replace the next SC vacancies. If BHO makes the next couple of nominations, you will be clenching your butt cheeks for the next 20 years every time a gun law gets challenged.
 
If Romney gets to make ANY nominations, I will be clenching my butt-cheeks over ALL of my Constitutional rights. 2A first and foremost.

I trust him half as far as I can throw Massachusetts.
 
I guess I am to old for my opinion to really count; have to many quaint ideas floating around in my head. I do not mind a man 'who' with more knowledge changes his mind for that just means he is now knowledgeable. But someone who looks you in the eye and lies just to look good for the moment is not real high on my list of leaders. You tube is full of brother Mitt and his flip flops depending on who he is talking to. I personally do not trust him to nominate Supreme Court Justices and just because the camera likes him and he has been hunting before does not make him a friend or a needed leader of our nation; like I said my opinion probably does not count. I know this by watching all the bias reporting and hype I perceive that has already gone on in this election cycle. If what I have seen is fair and balanced then I need a new scale!
 
First, let me preface this post by saying that I am probably both stupid and crazy. Now that I have done that, I will say that a second term for Obama will do more for Liberty and Constitutional Values in this country than him losing. If he wins he will force more extreme draconian, socialist, and Marxist rule over this country. When he does this he will awaken The Beast! Hopefully then we can have a Rand Paul/Marco Rubio ticket in 2016... but not another civil war, which we will probably have instead. If Romney wins we will just have more of the status quo and I doubt anything will change except Hillary will be 69 or 70 before she can run again. The Supreme Court was never meant to rule over the land, its purpose has been bastardized.

We need a candidate with a strong convictions regarding the 2nd Amendment. It is not the time to compromise.... I believe that the Judgement of Solomon applies here...
 
That is a whole lot of 'ifs' down the road. That assumes that his second term will cause more outrage than the first. (I don't know if that is possible.) It assumes that old names like Paul and Rubio will still be fashionable. It assumes that most of America actually cares enough to fight about something. (You almost sound like you WANT that to happen.) I didn't want to leave THIS term to cause conservative outrage, but that is what happened. If it's good to allow more and more outrage over the status quo to build, then why not eight more years? Or twenty? there comes a point where the status quo erases the memory of why we were worried in the first place. I want to fix things NOW.

Lunie, why do you think that Romney's nominations would be worse for gun rights than Obama's? (That you just dislike Romney is not a reason.) His nominations will be in line with the party, subject to senate confirmations, just like any other candidate's.
 
mljdeckard said:
That is a whole lot of 'ifs' down the road. That assumes that his second term will cause more outrage than the first. (I don't know if that is possible.) It assumes that old names like Paul and Rubio will still be fashionable. It assumes that most of America actually cares enough to fight about something. (You almost sound like you WANT that to happen.) I didn't want to leave THIS term to cause conservative outrage, but that is what happened. If it's good to allow more and more outrage over the status quo to build, then why not eight more years? Or twenty? there comes a point where the status quo erases the memory of why we were worried in the first place. I want to fix things NOW.

Lunie, why do you think that Romney's nominations would be worse for gun rights than Obama's? (That you just dislike Romney is not a reason.) His nominations will be in line with the party, subject to senate confirmations, just like any other candidate's.
Click to expand...
#1, I don't trust generic Republicans with my Constitutional Rights.

Romney's choices for nominees are not likely to be "Civil Liberty" friendly. And if (R)'s control the Senate, his nominees will face little opposition.

Why do you think he would choose Constitutionalist justices???
 
I don't see how you equate Tea Party/republican influence with nominations that don't favor civil rights. Again, GUN rights is the tie-breaker for me. It's the one that the current administration is on-record as saying he would get rid of completely if he could. And the Tea Party/republican side absolutely has a better track record when it comes to picking pro-gun judges. You say, you don't think they are pro-civil liberties, but what you really mean is, they are more conservative than you are. That is not the same thing. I doubt you had a problem with the Clinton or Obama administrations expanding surveillance more than the Bush administration ever did.

See, you also are willing to throw your Second Amendment rights under the bus if they don't match up with a more liberal agenda, which you regard as more important.
 
Look, all I'm saying is he isn't my first pick either, but to say he is as bad as or worse than Obama for gun rights is completely absurd. Romney has to fill in the gaps when asked about gun rights, Obama doesn't. It's no secret at all where he stands.
 
I put a high value on Constitutional rights. 2A first and foremost. I am not a social conservative, nor am I pretending to be. If you want to throw me into a "party", I'd probably be a Libertarian.

I am in favor of reducing the size and power of the Federal (and State) Government. I am strongly in favor of reducing infringements on OUR Constitutionally enshrined rights. Romney is not the answer to any of my positions.

Republicans have thrown the 2A under the bus FAR too many times in the past. Not to mention being just as willing to disregard protections on free speech, protections from unreasonable search/seizure, ......... ad nauseum. They aren't deserving of some unfounded loyalty.

Call me a "Liberal" if you like. If that's the price of valuing LIBERTY, then I will pay it.

But don't lie to me and try to say that Romney is suddenly a champion of rights.
 
ANYONE that gets elected isn't going anywhere near the gun issue.
Click to expand...

That might be the case, but there is no guarantee they will stay away from the second amendment. I think its highly likely Obama will push for gun control if he gets elected for a second term. There will be no 3rd election for him to lose based on unpopular gun control legislation. He is also not a regular Democrat, he is an anti-colonialist at heart, and I wouldn't put it past him to throw his own party's long-term popularity under the bus.
 
Activism isn't for broad discussions, but for presenting courses of action in support of RKBA. Activism DIscussion is for this type of thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

jaytex1969
  • Locked
My final word to Credo
Replies
1
Views
743
IllHunter
I
J
  • Locked
Let's educate Mitt Romney about Assault Weapons Bans
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
9K
gunsmith
G
P
  • Locked
Romney team defends timing of NRA membership
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Patriot-Brewer
P
M
  • Locked
How Quickly They Forget - Anti-Gun GOP Candidates
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
T
  • Locked
Romney Aims Again to Explain Hunting
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Titan6
T
Back
Top