Romney On The 2nd Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am sorry, but who care what his stance on guns is? Anyone who can get re-elected in Massachusets after an initial term is no friend of freedom in this country. And who cares what his religion is? His voting record about the issues in the country is much more important to me...
 
I hate to seem forward but if you examine the record you will agree that I am the only viable candidate for gun owners in the next Presidential election.

Don't vote for any of the other guys. Some of them think the way you do on some issues but not on others. I am your ideal candidate. Whatever you think is what I think too, about everything.

I won't compromise about anything.

If OPEC says it will cut off oil supplies to this country unless I come to the negotiating table, I will let this country go without fuel for heating, cooking, industry, or transportation and never budge not even if everybody starves in the streets.

If the Democrat-controlled congress offers to abolish the Brady Act and the Gun Control Act I will spurn them and hold fast until they offer to give machine guns to everyone. For free!

I have principles. My first official act after I am elected will be to demand a raise in salary.

So vote Hairless for President in 2008. I am also running for every other elective office everywhere in the country in that election. Please write me in. None of the political parties respond to my e-mails.
 
There are a lot of big issues this election and they all need to be addressed, not just guns.
I've got news for you; if you're a gun owner, NO other issue is going to bite you harder than gun control if Giuliani or any of the Democrats besides Richardson gets into the White House.

If you don't think the BATFE coming to your house to get your guns, willing to KILL you if you don't give them up isn't important, just sell them to me for $1.00 a piece. You can join the Million Mom March and the problem will be mine to deal with.
 
So vote Hairless for President in 2008. I am also running for every other elective office everywhere in the country in that election. Please write me in. None of the political parties respond to my e-mails.
If it's a Clinton-Giuliani race, you've got my vote sewn up.
 
Romney has said his position and platform is that "assault weapons " should be banned. There is not way I could ever vote for him. He would force me to vote third party (which I will certainly enthusiastically do if the third party candidate is Ron Paul).

Vote for Romney with this congress and this environment and we will hear nonstop about "assault weapons" and don't be surprised if we get a reinstated ban.

I do not understand what people see in this Romney guy.
 
Plain and simple, Arkansas grew economically faster than the national average under Mike Huckabee. He has also signed the pledge to make no new taxes - and if you can't trust the word of a God fearing man, who can you trust? (Someone on the wrong end of a gun, but thats another thread!)

Amen! I hope everyone who bashes Mike on spending and taxes reads that. The Club for Growth nonsense that gets spread around about him, "coincidently" forgets that part. But hey, what do they care about the average Joe as long as the corporations fill in their coffers. They also support globalization which is the prelude to a totalitarian society run by people not elected by anyone.


As to Romney, his believes in the Second Amendment as much as John Kerry does. The latter can learn quite a bit about flip-flopping from Mitt.
 
Few of you mentioned Hunter. In the You Tube debate, Hunter responded to the question about the 2A, that he carried weapons in the Army, as well as his son who is currently in Iraq. Someone should tell Mr. Hunter that the 2A has nothing to do with the Army.
 
Someone told me that during Primary Races, the pols play to appeal to the extremes in their parties to get nominated (e.g. Republians play to Low Tax, 2A, Pro-Lifers and Dems play to Antis, Pro-Choice, etc) and then during the actual electioneering in the run up to the election, they tend to present themselves as more centrist to appeal to a broader base and win more of the vote.

From a practical standpoint, that makes a lot of sense for anyone wanting to win. From an ethical standpoint, it bites.:fire:

In plain English, they switch tacks once they grab the nomination so anything they present themselves as now will change.

We won't get fooled again.


Or will we?:banghead:

NA26

I guess once we see who is the nominee
 
I'm not sure what comment you're referring to Skarpenz, but Huckabee apologized for his recent comment on Mormonism and also explained how it was taken out of context.

No one is entirely innocent of stuff like that. Romney now targets Huckabee by name in his ads. And look at Clinton vs Obama. Her campaign keeps "accidentally" saying all these negative stuff and then apologizing because it is not the "campaigns view, but the view of the person who said it."

Sort of be like going to to trial and you keep shouting all these crazy stuff and then withdrawing it - sure its not official, but now its in everyones head.
 
Romney -F
Guliani -F

Unlike R. Paul (A+) who wants to lead free people, those two want to rule slaves.
 
Of all running in both parties there was only one that almost got my vote, Fred Thompson but then he had to go and say he is against a woman having control of her own body.

So at this point I don't see any of those running worthy of my vote.

Now before you say what about Governor Richardson of New Mexico since he is a gun owner and the NRA backs him, sure, right on but he is not worthy a vote either.

Now how many of you caught that female Dem running hinting to Richardson about being her VP mate? Nothing more then trying to win votes of us who own and enjoy guns.

Please show me one honest politician, just one!
 
Their is no such animal as the perfect politician/candidate. We have a long way to go, we should not be so quick to jump or dump. It may be once again the best of two evils and if that is the best we have to pick from so be it.
We may not get exactly what we want but we must participate. The issue of guns has received a lot of attention and has given the political beast much to think about. I believe we need to keep the pressure on high for each and every candidate regarding the second amendment, do not accept vaugue answers to vaugue questions.
Personally I would like to ask each candidate when the last time they were at a range or were hunting. Which candidate would have the courage to attend a photo op taget shooting at a range with a bunch of reguklar Joe's.
The biggest reason I love Dick Cheney is the guy hunts and he is not araid to let epople know he dos it. He knows the difference between a shotgun and a rifle, he probably packs. I know I know, he shot the guy when hunting, so who hasn't had some sort of firearms related incident in their life. At least he didn't roll over and cry about it, I bet he still hunts and will continue to own guns and shoot long after he is gone from the beltway.
 
Your point about perfection in a candidate is well taken. We aren't going to get perfect.

While we shouldn't require perfection, I will not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise. Most of the current field I find positively, metaphysically, diabolically evil, with the exceptions of Paul, Huckabee, Hunter, and maybe Thompson and Tancredo.

As for the various Ds, isn't a one of 'em I'd cross the street and urinate upon if (s)he was on fire.
 
While we shouldn't require perfection, I will not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
That's why I utterly reject the "You have to vote for Giuliani to defeat Hillary!" lie.

If it comes down to Clinton or Giuliani, evil is guaranteed to win. That doesn't mean I have to buy into the evil. Just because you can't stop evil from prevailing, that doesn't mean that you have to EMBRACE evil.
 
skarp said:
Ron Paul has a crappy foreign policy, no way around that.

I hear this a lot, but I strongly suspect that those who believe it know little to nothing about what US foreign policy has been for the last sixty or so years. :(
 
Does it matter? He's more than willing to change his position 180 if it fits his agenda. No man willing to do that can be trusted. :barf:
 
Thompson, Huckabee and Paul seem to be the best pro-gun candidates.

Thompson I can't support because he's a former corporate lobbyist and therefore part of the problem, in my eyes.

Huckabee isn't bad but I think his current popularity is just a flash in the pan. People (not me) will have a HUGE problem with him being a pastor and his pro-war against terror stance is sure to sink him in a general election.

Paul may be too radical for some, but he's the only no-BS constitution all the way, like it or not candidate, and the only one I can support with a clear conscience.

That being said, if Huckabee made it, I wouldn't be too disappointed. But I really doubt it.
 
I hear this a lot, but I strongly suspect that those who believe it know little to nothing about what US foreign policy has been for the last sixty or so years
I know how that sort of stuff -- encouraging the enemy to believe he could win in Washington what he couldn't win on the battlefield -- killed almost 60,000 of my generation of American soldiers.

I know our current enemy thrives on that stuff -- to the point of Bin Laden crowing about how we should vote for those who want to quit.
 
Originally posted by BobbQuickDraw: Everyone is lead by their beliefs- his beliefs are those of the Bible. Others may be Jewish beliefs, or Mormon, or something else. Even atheists have beliefs and would run a nation according to those beliefs. I'm not overly religious but someone running the country who believes in "Though shall do no murder" and other basic Christian tenants isn't a bad guy.

The "Though shall do no murder" part is fine but that is a pretty basic tenement in all religions. (As a side not it is "Thou Shalt not Kill".) However my fear is that he will let the first five commandmants run us. That "Thou shalt not have any god but me..." and those ones telling him that Christianity is the only religion allowed.

Sorry but I dont want to live in a Christian theocracy any more than a Jewish or Muslim one. Lets have the seperation of church and state mean something.
 
I just have a problem with Huckabee wanting to give so much away to the criminals from south of the border that are living here now.
 
Originally posted by Mike6161: When Fred Thompson said, "I have a few guns, but I'm not going to tell you what they are or WHERE THEY ARE.” That most likely means he has a CCW and carries
I would vote for him

That most likely means he does not have a CCW or carries. He does not know about guns or care as he simply did not want to tell us. If he does he probably did not want to tell people they are simply sitting in his closet. This could be because he is irresponsible with them or does not want to be percieved as irresponsible with his guns.

I dont trust Fred at all.
 
So, There I Wuz . . .

. . . I'm in yer forumz, readin' yer postz . . .

I believe the opening topic has been addressed.

Lots of other cool things have been addressed, too.

Some of them were even on-topic!

So, I'm happy you guys kept it civil, but we kinda hafta color within the lines.

And so, as much as I'd like to write my own opinions in this thread . . .

. . . it's closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top