Do gun owners owe Romney an apology?

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Chesafreak, Oct 2, 2012.


  1. What you thought you knew about Romney's 2nd amendment stance.

    Google warns that the site may contain malware, so I posted a summary below. I don't fear no stinkin' malware, I use Linux.
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
    #1 Chesafreak, Oct 2, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    G21 Owners : Will You Switch To G41 ? General Glocking Jul 23, 2015
    Cat Owners The Okie Corral Jul 16, 2015
    Uh oh...Homosexual Activists Are Now Going After Gun Owners Political Issues Jul 16, 2015
    BMW owners, I'd like to pick your brain. Looking at buying used. The Okie Corral Jul 11, 2015
    Correlation Freedom, Gun Ownership, Legalization, Gun Rights, Happiness/Well-Being, and Taxes The Okie Corral Jul 11, 2015

  3. thetoastmaster

    thetoastmaster NOT a sheepdog!

    2,294
    0
    That page sets off my browser filters. How about a summary?
     

  4. Same here. I did a little checking and I am not going to force my computer to open the site.



    ETA: funny, the OP is very active in the "tech talk" section of the Forum. I would have thought he would have noticed that
     
    #3 countrygun, Oct 2, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  5. Summary:

     
  6. I forgot about the warning when visiting the site. I use Linux running as a non-admin, so I wasn't worried about malware.
     
  7. :rofl:

    So Romney thought he was signing an assault weapons ban, but really he wasn't. Even if that were true, which it obviously isn't, as anybody can learn from any non-virus laden site (try the MA legislature site, for one), how does that make Romney any better?
     
  8.  
  9. Maybe so, but absurd posts like the OP don't help him. It makes it look like he's got no real positives, if one needs to present such ridiculous and easily debunked arguments to defend him.

    Just like the birthers cast a cloud of absurdity over people who present legitimate gripes against Obama, these idiots who claim Romney didn't actually sign an AWB cast the same cloud of absurdity over people who have legitimate praise for Romney.

    Fair or not, some people ruin it for everybody.
     
  10. I don't see the OP the way you do
     
  11. The Machinist

    The Machinist No Compromise

    6,145
    6
    No, I sure as hell don't owe that rat bastard liberal an apology. He owes every gun owner an apology for demonizing certain types of firearms.
     
  12. Forget for one moment that anybody can look up the law to see that the bill he signed was an AWB. It's understandable they'd assume nobody will take the effort to do that.

    The main absurdity of that post is that it claims he only made those anti-gun statements because he thought he was signing an AWB, because he was misinformed by "someone". If he thought he was signing an AWB, what difference does it make what the law actually was. It still means Romney intended to ban those guns.
     
    #11 Gundude, Oct 2, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  13. no. anyhow...mitts flips quicker than a cross dresser in the state penn.:rofl:
     
  14. No, gun owners do not owe Romney an apology.

    Everyone needs to put politicians under the microscope for whatever reason. Especially when they are running for the job as the leader of our country.
     


  15. Recently discovered report forces the question: Do I owe Mitt Romney an apology?
    by Chad D. Baus
    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8541
    - it appears that the central "fact" that most gun owners "know" about Mitt Romney - namely that he signed a new assault weapons ban in Massachusetts in 2004 - isn't a fact at all. My sense is that knowledge of the GOAL report may allow some pro-gun voters, who may have been hesitant to go "All In," to feel much better about voting for the only man who stands a chance at defeating Barack Obama.
    Mr Romney, for whatever it's worth, I apologize.

    The liberal media has been misrepresenting Romney’s record since 2004 and that’s why GOAL published his entire record, so that gun owners could get the whole story.

    Romney‘s entire record:
    http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

    The actual truth is, in 2004, Romney signed a bill that amended the 1998 permanent AWB and made it less strict.

    Gundude has already highjacked many threads on GT falsely claiming Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004.

    The GOAL record also discusses Romney's statements that pandered to the gun control crowd and it is reasonable to ask - Why did he make them? What purpose did it serve?

    It was the only way to get the MA legislature (85% strictly anti-2A) to actually politically cooperate with Romney and GOAL's pro-2A agenda.

    So did Romney say one thing and do another? To protect the RKBA - absolutely. That's politics in MA. Would he do the same thing as President? If he was facing a majority anti-2A congress -absolutely. Would he reveal his strategy to the gun control crowd? -absolutely not. What if he was facing a pro-2A congress or minority anti-2A congress? - he wouldn't have to use this strategy - he would just be straight out pro-2A.

    How do we know all this for certain? By his record. What politicians do is more important, and revealing, than what they need to say to get it done. Romney's record clearly shows he only reduced gun control, removed gun control from bills or signed pro-2A bills.

    Bush made the same kind of statements and achieved similar pro-2A success. It's the only pro-2A strategy that works when dealing with a majority of obstructionist anti-2A legislators.

    Gunowners in MA would prefer to go at the gun control laws head on - but as a strategy it does not work here. So we have to shmooze the gun control crowd to get anywhere. But it would be foolish to actually tell them we are doing that. Again, that's politics when the Democrats are in the majority. When it comes to the RKBA - Democrats are the problem. The solution is to get rid of them. We can't in MA but we can in the US congress and presidency in 2012. Don't let the Fed gov't become like MA.

    It's even more clear when we compare the Romney administration to the next one - Democrat Duval Patrick, who is aggressively anti-2A and now in his 6th year as Gov of MA.

    The MA congress is still majority anti-2A and with this Democrat Gov gun owners have constantly been on the defensive. GOAL can't even get a meeting with Patrick - he has refused to meet with us for 6 years. All the pro-2A bills we've presented have been completely shot down by the congress and Gov.. All our efforts go to battling more outrageous anti-2A bills (worse than Calif.). So no pro-2A progress compared to the Romney administration.

    So the answer to your question is yes, under Romney we made only pro-2A progress and those that misrepresent his record owe him an apology.

    Obama is actually following the same strategy as Romney - saying one thing and doing another. Obama makes pro-2A statements but all his actions are anti-2A. If you analyze Obama's record, positions and platform - it's all anti-2A.

    But Gundude asks gun owners to reject Romney and support Obama - maybe that makes him a hypocrite.
     
    #14 Acujeff, Oct 2, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  16. garry johnson is the only pro gun choice.
     
  17. My claim was backed up by links to the bills themselves. Your AWB was set to become unenforceable, not to expire, in 2004. The bill Romney signed fixed that to make sure it stays enforceable. That is crystal clear from the text of the law. Nothing you or GOAL say can change that.

    Your claims don't link to the bills themselves, but to a biased organization which is interested in making itself look like it accomplished more than it has. If you refuse to believe that the text of the law says what it says, you are in the same realm as those who refuse to believe Obama's BC says what it says. That level of obvious denial and delusion only serves to cast a cloud over those who have legitimate criticism or defense of the candidates.

    Cutting and pasting the same lies when the text of the laws are there for all to see, and have been repeatedly shown to you, demonstrates that you have no interest in reality, but only propaganda.
     
    #16 Gundude, Oct 3, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2012
  18. We are talking about candidates that are actually in the race.
     
  19. So, go vote for Obama, who cares?

    I don't think you are right about Romney, but even if you are, he is no worse than Obama so that makes the topic a wash at worst. The rest of Obama's record puts Romney as a much better choice, but vote Obama if you feel you want another 4 years of what we've had.
     
  20. There is no pro-gun candidate this election with a chance of winning. Gun rights at the federal level will need to be protected by congress for at least the next 4 years. Nobody with an ounce of sanity would believe that our next president would veto any gun control legislation that hit his desk.

    Why is it so tough for some people to admit that? While I don't support Romney, I can respect legitimate reasons to vote for him. Trying to pass him off as pro-gun reeks of delusion and desperation. Same as trying to pass Obama off as pro-gun (although I see a lot less of that). It's ridiculous.
     
  21. You don't think I'm right about Romney signing an AWB? How is that possible, when the law is there online for you to read?
     

Share This Page

Duty Gear at CopsPlus