Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by Wizz, May 16, 2012.
All your semi-autos are belong to me:
i think were done no matter who gets elected...
I didn't like the guy from the get go and couldn't put my finger on exactly why other then Romney Care. I didn't bother to look at anything else he's done because I knew he wasn't who I wanted for the job but was who we were going to get from the ReplubCANTS. It was decided from day one. Anyone who listed to the media and didn't see the handwriting on the wall had to be asleep at the wheel. Soooooooooooooooo what else is new?
This is why it's important to elect a very Conservative Congress! Then "No Gun laws" get passed! He can't sign into law what doesn't hit his desk. It's called checks and balances! But I garentee you, you re-elect Obamamoa and give him 4 more years you'll not have any guns when he packs the SCOTUS with Progressives!
Yeah, O has really screwed us but this guy's not a better choice. Don't think I could swallow voting for O. But I know Romney's anti gun...
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Man, it's going to be a nasty day in history when they do ban them.
This is true and has been for a long time.
The theater that is dividing Americans based on social wedge issues has worked well for the true bosses of the politicians (and the bosses are not those "casting ballots," but casting $$$).
While the Republicans & Democrats keep Americans arguing about many things of little importance and that will be trivial in historical retrospect, they both spend like drunken sailors, enable the Federal Reserve to create debt slaves out those born or not yet born, and cater to every desire of the multinational corporations and NWO-type individuals (who have no allegiance to The United Sates as a sovereign nation) who fund their campaigns, placing the U.S. and her citizens on an inevitable track of bankruptcy, while their masters pillar and loot as much as they can off the back of the dwindling number of taxpayers before the Ponzi implodes.
And yet, candidates who propose real solutions are simply swept into the maw of the politico/media machine and cast aside like so many boxes of Honey Nut Cheerios.
At least I've got conservative Congressmen for the most part. Vitter and Scallise are pro-gun and have voted the way I've wanted on other issues. The ones I've checked on anyway. But then we have Mary Landrieu... DemoRAT. She votes pro-gun about 65% and for the give mes 100% of the time.
If the Obomination get back in.... life as we have know it.
What a dbag... I wish we had someone better that might actually win. Honestly, I think it's another O-term no matter what happens on the Rep side... hate to say it.
Romney is a greater threat to gun ownership in the USA. Just look at what he did while Governor.
Actually, Romney has never banned guns. He was not yet in office and so did not sign the 1998 MA AWB into law.
If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-gun bills while he was Gov. of MA.
In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own more restrictive assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB, and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the permanent state law, we did not want to lose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so a new bill was amended to include them and that‘s what Romney signed. If Romney did not sign that bill, the more restrictive AWB would still be in place today.
So the actual truth is, in 2004, Romney signed a bill that amended the permanent AWB and made it less strict. Some folks on GT are misrepresenting his record and claiming that Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004.
Let's look at the rest of Romney's record:
During the Romney Administration he met and worked with Gun Owners’ Action League (the Mass. based pro-2A group) and no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. In addition, he removed any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006, and signed five pro-second amendment bills into law.
Romney earned a B from the NRA, which is higher than Obama (an F) or Hillary (also an F). Romney is certainly more pro-gun than McCain (rated a C+ by the NRA)
Romney‘s entire record:
GW Bush is also often categorized as “not pro-gun enough” but he appointed two pro-RKBA Justices to the Supreme Court giving us the majority to win Heller and McDonald, the AWB was allowed to expire and much pro-RKBA legislation progress was made during his administration.
Romney has taken a firm, pro-gun rights position and has the record to prove it. He is also campaigning on appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices like Alito and Roberts.
If you prefer Obama than you must really like Fast and Furious (the biggest criminal political scandal in American history), registering gun purchases in the four southern border states, appointing two anti-RKBA Supreme Court Justices and appointing 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts. Obama makes pro-gun statements but all his actions are anti-gun.
If Obama is re-elected gun control will no longer be "under the radar" and we will see, in the very least, more regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce. In addition, a Democrat Senate would likely sign on to lots more proposed gun control legislation and anti-gun judges and justices.
Statements do not amount to a position, a record does. Romney's record is much better than Obama's.
Thanks for some sanity on this issue.
Thanks for adding truth to the thread, and not parroting the liberal and paulatarian prevarication bias some want to believe.
In addition, he has pledged "no new gun laws."
This on a call to Nugent.
This is more than we'll ever get from Obama. I'll vote for him, but I'll be watching him like a hawk watching an unsuspecting prey. Romney is just on thin ice. Obama is blue at the bottom of the pond in July.
You can't police the president. You can do nothing
More accurately, it's most critical for gun owners that a conservative Senate get elected. They are the gatekeepers to who can become a justice on the Supreme Court. It's not so much an issue of what nutty anti-gun laws are passed - it's how the Supreme Court holds these laws up in the light of the Constitution, which is supposed to protect our rights.
If Obama gets re-elected and the Democrats hold on to the Senate, God help us if Scalia, Roberts, Thomas or Alito were to step down!
People are pulling up things from the distant past, when Romney has been clear that he, to use Obama's words, evolved on that issue. He pledged that he would not be seeking or endorsing nor signing any gun laws if he is President. And to do so would be political suicide. He knows this. Enough said!
What about his statement about people not needing to own "those types of guns" when he signed the bill in 2004?