[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by countrygun

Just lay aside the recokulous notion of a their party win in this election and examine what a Romney victory could mean for "conservatives".

Now there are more folks on the left putting the stamp of Conservative on Romney than there are libertarians (or whatever they are this week) saying he isn't.

If Romney wins and manages to make things even a bit better in this Country (hard to do worse) those who have listened to the left migh just get a softer view of what they call "conservatism" something like "Gee Romney isn't so bad this Conservative thing turned some of the problems around".

It sure is a better picture than another 4 of Obama.

Play it smart and position yourself to take some little sliver of the the good if Romney succeeds. If Obama wins and thereis any way, the third party will take the blame. Simply history repeating itself another time.

Very possibly the end of the republican party.

[F350]

Originally Posted by stopatrain

The second amendment won't even matter if Obama gets another 4 years.

Nor the rest of the constitution that he blatantly ignores now....

Beware his own words :"This is my last election; after November I'll have more flexibility".

[IvanVic]

I'd be willing to bet that he does NOT sign an assault weapons ban. Any takers?

[MtnBiker]

Originally Posted by concretefuzzynuts

What is the purpose of your post op? To get people to vote for Obama? To get people to waste their vote for a third party and in act vote for Obama? To bad mouth Romney?

I am asking as a libertarian since 1984, who voted Obama in by voting for Ron Paul in 2008. By voting third party you vote for Obama. The choice is quite clear this go around.

I think you called it out very accurately here.

Here's another thought. I really don't think Romney is interested in pursuing more anti-2nd amendment laws, BUT if he is...

He'll still need to focus first on MANY other issues that are more important. The economy, healthcare, the middle east, the national debt...

Only an idiot would take the Presidency at this point and use all his energy to install pet legislation; like Obamacare for instance.

Given all that, I STILL don't think Romney has any plans to beat down the second amendment. I guess the first indication will be after he is elected; if he keeps Eric Holder as Attorney General.

[concretefuzzynuts]

Originally Posted by MtnBiker

if he keeps Eric Holder as Attorney General.

My thought... not a chance.

MOST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES INVOLVE MAJOR CHANGES AT THE TOP LEVEL AND OUTSPOKEN SUB LEVELS ARE REMOVED.

[seed]

As much as I hate lobbying, it is the lobbyists who lobby the members of the House Representatives and the Senate who make the most difference. Once a politician goes national, he will not like the 2nd Ammendment but will respond to members of his party who pressure him because they are vulnerable to their own constituencies.

This is all obvious and known by everybody here, but sometimes gun owners kid themselves into thinking that any president is happy about having a lot of free-thinking gun-owners who theoretically ultimately pose a threat to his position of power.

[Providence]

NRA endorsed Romney. They wouldn't have done that without assurances.

But... I don't expect anything to be given to us. We will need to hold the Republican's feet to the fire. What will we do if Obama is reelected? Who's feet will we hold to the fire.

[frank4570]

Originally Posted by concretefuzzynuts

By who? Consider the amount of liberal operatives here for these few months. Then consider the teat sucking lazy class who are so wrapped up in Honey Boo Boo and who dances with what stars.

This is the first of many defining votes that will lead to change. Positive change.

I voted for a pro-constitution guy in the republican primary, I'll bet you did too. It was made clear that the republican party has no interest in such people.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by frank4570

Voting for romney is voting to have a president who supports an assault weapons ban, that is my only point..

And that point is wrong. Incorrect.

He may have at one time, but does no longer and has said as much.

So your entire post is a fail. Stop parroting a lie.

[concretefuzzynuts]

edited. This ended up in the wrong thread somehow.

[evlbruce]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

And that point is wrong. Incorrect.

He may have at one time, but does no longer and has said as much.

So your entire post is a fail. Stop parroting a lie.

Find a link; where has Mittens said that signing the MA AWB was a mistake?

Originally Posted by IvanVic

I'd be willing to bet that he does NOT sign an assault weapons ban. Any takers?

I'd take that. Mittens will reverse himself again the moment it becomes politically advantageous for him to do so. Say for instance that the polling on gun control flips.

He's done it before there's no reason to believe that he wouldn't do it again.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by evlbruce

Find a link; where has Mittens said that signing the MA AWB was a mistake?.

Either learn to read or pay attention.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by evlbruce

Find a link; where has Mittens said that signing the MA AWB was a mistake?



.

Find a link and show me that the state legislature didn't have enough votes to override a veto.

Show me a link that proves he didn't cooperate in exchange for having some of the more onerous parts removed.

Show me a sign that you have read any of the posts in theis forum that have addressed this,....wait...don't. I'd rather think you are ignorant than spinning up something you know is false.

[JFrame]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

I'd be willing to bet that he does NOT sign an assault weapons ban. Any takers?

...And that would be predicated on the assumption that an assault weapons bill even reaches President Romney's desk in the first place.

Coupled with the NRA's endorsement of Romney, I find him a safe bet not to mess with the 2A (even excluding the other all-important consideration of the nomination of conservative SCOTUS judges).


.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by JFrame

...And that would be predicated on the assumption that an assault weapons bill even reaches President Romney's desk in the first place.

Coupled with the NRA's endorsement of Romney, I find him a safe bet not to mess with the 2A (even excluding the other all-important consideration of the nomination of conservative SCOTUS judges).


.

Add to it Obama "will have more flexibility after the election"

and Romney would be trying to be set up for a second term.

[stevelyn]

At least Romney would be up front and honest about it rather than back-dooring us like the Kenyan pig has been trying to do.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by onebigelf

As someone who is active in my local REC (Republican Executive Committee), let me tell you that those of you who are voting 3rd party and dropping out of the GOP aren't showing the party jack, and the ONLY difference you will make is to help the candidate furthest from your views.

Let me explain reality.

The party, if all of the Libertarians, Constitution Party, and conservative Independents got involved, would be about 35-40% conservatives, about 25% big government RINOs (the ones we mostly hate that are fine with big, intrusive government as long as they are the ones running it) and about 35-40% "moderate" Republicans. When all the conservatives get their panties in a twist and go off to be independents and Libertarians and "teach the Republican Party a lesson", here is what happens. The party is made of of less conservatives, the moderates split among multiple candidates, and the RINOs can win the primaries with 25% of the vote. As a party, the GOP doesn't say, "Gosh, how can we get the conservatives back." Instead they say, "Gosh, how can we attract moderate Independents and Democrats."

You want to make a difference? The get back in the game and encourage conservative candidates to run, then vote for them in the primary. The party doesn't choose the candidates, the voters do. When conservatives abandon the party or don't vote in the primaries because they have better things to do, the moderates and RINOs pick the candidate. It's that simple.

Or you can keep whining and ensure the election of the candidate MOST diametrically opposed to your views because the candidate closer to your views is "the lesser of two evils".

John

I always do vote for the least gov and most freedom in the Republican primary, then vote for the least gov and most freedom in the general.

[Diesel McBadass]

Third parties may get more votes if they put forth good candidates, most third party candidates suck.

[frank4570]

Originally Posted by stevelyn

At least Romney would be up front and honest about it rather than back-dooring us like the Kenyan pig has been trying to do.

You think romney tells the truth?? Seriously??

[wjv]

That video is 5 years old. . .
I guess in your universe people aren't allow to change their opinions. . .

Looks like your goal is to help Obama win by pushing lies.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

Very possibly the end of the republican party.

Does it matter that much to you if it is called "The Republican Party"?

You won't be happy if it is reworked by constitutionalists, or you will go to a party with a new name, even if you don't know that it is backed by the same people, if it just has a different name?


BTW fr all the folks whinning away about Romney and guns, who would you rather have in the #2 slot, Ryan or Biden?

[GAFinch]

Romney's not a gun enthusiast, but that doesn't mean he hates guns either. Gary Johnson seems to be the exact same way. As for the Democrat candidate, communists tend to hate guns, since disarmed citizens are subjects. Mormons tend to be big on personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, and survival prep. I'll happily vote for him so at least there's a chance that we can avoid an economic disaster at the beginning of the year.

[FFR Spyder GT]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

In the current era, he has committed to Uncle Ted, no less, that he will sign no antigun legislation.

!)

Just like Big George he will not sign "antigun legislation" he will sign EO and BATF regs that ban certain guns.

Big George started the AWB of 1989 BEFORE he moved into the White House and if elected Romney will do the same thing.

Part of the core "Fundamental Beliefs" of the Mormon Cult is to be armed and to unarm your enemy, which, like the Muslims is anyone that isn't part of your Cult.

[Zombie Surgeon]

Originally Posted by frank4570

I just want to make sure this is absolutely clear.

Yes it is pretty clear:

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by FFR Spyder GT

Just like Big George he will not sign "antigun legislation" he will sign EO and BATF regs that ban certain guns.

Big George started the AWB of 1989 BEFORE he moved into the White House and if elected Romney will do the same thing.

Part of the core "Fundamental Beliefs" of the Mormon Cult is to be armed and to unarm your enemy, which, like the Muslims is anyone that isn't part of your Cult.

""On February 25, 2009 newly sworn-in Attorney General Eric Holder repeated the Obama administration's desire to reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[18] The mention came in response to a question, about 20 minutes into a joint press conference with DEA Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart, discussing efforts to crack down on Mexican drug cartels. Attorney General Holder said: "[...] there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons."[19]"

(from Wiki)


Of course you are now trying to jump on the "Morman" topic as it was predicted your ilk would when Obama got spanked in the debate.

Tell your buddies at DU that we are a couple of steps ahead of them.