Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

This election will make or break the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Fox, Sep 15, 2012.

  1. Slug71


    Mar 7, 2010
    Oregon - U.S.A
    Fine. But Romney is just as anti 2A. Its pointless going back and forth about this when both candidates ARE the same. Just on opposite sides of the field. The quicker we acknowledge this the sooner WE can work to prevent it.
  2. MySiK26

    MySiK26 ******

    Not true. Do some research. Here is a pretty Liberal website, if you ask me. the differences are quite clear. They admit to giving people a free ride. I don't care for socialism much. Looks like it will be, which is the lesser of two evils? :faint:
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012

  3. Java Junky

    Java Junky

    Jul 3, 2012
    Both are "the same" only in that they do not perfectly match all of our "druthers". Nobody ever has. Nobody ever will.
    But one of the two contestants has shown himself to be at odds with our Constitution and I suspect that all the pictures of him with his feet up on some historical piece of White House furniture aren't just bad photo-op timing.
    "The same"??????
    For the record: we're talking about Romney and Obama, yes?
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012
  4. Acujeff


    Jan 1, 2000
    Boston, MA
    Actually, Romney has never banned guns. He was not yet in office and so did not sign the 1998 restrictive gun control, which included MA's permanent AWB, into law.

    If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-2A bills while he was Gov. of MA 2002-2006. Romney only reduced gun control (including amending the AWB and making it less strict) or signed pro-2A bills into law.

    As the liberal media and Obama supporters are revising history, the NRA magazines published a link to Romney‘s entire record:

    Romney is not the "lesser of evils" or "the same as Obama". In 2008 Romney was rated "B" by the NRA and Obama was rated "F". Since then, Romney has only become more pro-2A and Obama more anti-2A. Romney would be a much better President for gun-owners than Obama.

    Romney‘s positions:
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012
  5. Java Junky

    Java Junky

    Jul 3, 2012
    And Slug, not to offend, but how is not casting that miniscule say in the proceedings (our vote) standing to anything but hakuna matata?
    Aaay! Your vote is your vote. 'No denying that.
    But as insignificant as it is, I couldn't sleep nights if I didn't do what little I could to keep America the U.S.A. and not the U.S.S.A.
  6. fnfalman

    fnfalman Chicks Dig It

    Oct 23, 2000
    California & New Mexico, US
    I'm sorry, but I guess I must not have been awake the last four years. Did Obama ban guns that I didn't know about?
  7. Harper


    Aug 10, 2010
    Let's hear what Romney has to say..."I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal. … In my state I just signed a piece of legislation extending the ban on certain assault weapons in our state."
    Sounds like the piece of legislation he claims to have signed is pretty anti-2A but maybe you think banning 'assault' rifles isn't anti-2A.

    "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,"
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012
  8. frank4570


    Jun 25, 2004
    Oh sure. Registration, house to house searches, a new AWB, and he made sure we can never, ever, carry concealed in national parks.
  9. concretefuzzynuts

    concretefuzzynuts Brew Crew

    Dec 27, 2011
  10. Detectorist


    Jul 16, 2008
    Dude, that's too much logic for the folks on here.
  11. Acujeff


    Jan 1, 2000
    Boston, MA
    Don't worry, FF, no one here thinks you are conscious when it come to facts.

    Here's President Obama's record that you like so much so far:
    Fast and Furious and the subsequent cover-up (the biggest criminal political scandal in American history), registering gun purchases in the four southern border states, using the ATF to harrass gun shops out of business, promoting the UN Gun Ban Treaty, appointing two anti-RKBA Supreme Court Justices and appointing 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts.

    If this is "no gun control" than imagine what he'll do if he gets a second term. In the very least, more regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce, lots more proposed gun control legislation and anti-gun judges and up to four more anti-gun Supreme Court justices. Obama and the Democrats are already campaigning on re-instating the AWB, banning private gun transfers and sales, and regulating ammo purchases.

    Here’s the rest of Obama’s record:

    It's up to individual gun-owners to to get the facts and make sure we're not scammed into giving Obama another term.
  12. Let me try your logic. Obama really wants to ban guns. He is elected. He is guaranteed 4 years as the president. He does nothing to ban guns while he in office and has the ability to do something. He instead spends the 4 years trying to get himself elected for another 4 years so he could do what he really wants to do and could have done in the first 4. Does that make sense to you?
  13. frank4570


    Jun 25, 2004
    Could we please just have 1 election that doesn't make or break the 2nd amendment?
  14. Do you really think you have any credibility after making that statement? (the underlined part)
  15. Quigley

    Quigley Elite Member

    Mar 17, 2010
    The truth is that neither of them are good for the 2A. It sucks but it is the reality of the situation. The last time a president actually did something good for the 2A was when GW didn't resign the AWB. Both Obama and Romney have a very anti gun record and when we are talking about presidential candidates all we have to go off of is their track record. This will be the first time I've voted third party but the GOP has left me no other choice

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
  16. Acujeff


    Jan 1, 2000
    Boston, MA
    Operation Fast and Furious, and the subsequent cover-up, is the deadliest and most sinister scandal in American history. A scandal so big, it’s worse than Iran-Contra and makes Watergate look like a high school prank gone wrong.

    In the early days of the Obama Administration, President Obama claimed that almost all the criminal guns in the hands of violent Mexican drug cartels came from the US. His goal was to stop the illegal trafficking of guns from the United States into Mexico. He claimed legitimate gun dealers in the United States were responsible for sending guns illegally to Mexico. All of his claims were lies.

    In order to push his lies and policies built around them, with a goal of implementing harsher gun control laws and reinstating the assault weapons ban, President Obama packed his administration full of anti-Second Amendment zealots. Then the Obama administration did exactly what Democrats had been falsely accusing American gun sellers of doing: They put thousands of untrackable American guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

    It has already caused the reported deaths of two US Agents (Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and I.C.E. Agent Jaime Zapata) and 300 Mexican citizens. As most of the guns are still out there, it is expected there will be more deaths as they become known. It has also directly lead to Obama issuing orders to register gun purchases in the four southern border states, promote the UN Gun Ban Treaty, and use the ATF to harass legitimate gun dealers. Obama and the Democrats are campaigning on re-instating the AWB, banning private gun transfers and sales, and regulating ammo purchases.

    Since Obama has issued Executive Privilege to protect Holder the story is coming out. Like Nixon did 40 years ago, Obama is hoping to suppress the story so he can get re-elected. But just like Nixon, by issuing Executive Privilege (which only applies to the President himself) he is indicating he is hiding his own involvement in Fast and Furious.

    If the majority of American people knew Fast and Furious like they know Solyndra or the GSA scandal, they would be outraged. Despite very few exceptions, the media has been complicit in the cover-up of Obama’s bloodiest scandal by ignoring and refusing to report about it in order to protect the President. This scandal, one that has left hundreds of bodies in its wake, would be deadly to the administration. This is the scandal that will bring President Obama down in November, so long as the American people know its details.

    If Obama wins a 2nd term, the Attorney General office, or the DOJ, is not going to investigate F&F, Holder, or Obama or prosecute the House contempt vote. It may be years before the civil contempt enforcement will find any resolution in the Federal courts.

    Romney officially made Fast and Furious a general election issue, directly pointing to the scandal as an example of how the Obama Administration used in its first term to “provide cover for potential efforts to restrict Second Amendment rights."

    Especially if we get Republican majorities in the House and Senate we can expect Romney appoint a new Attorney General, get all the Fast and Furious records and make sure it is successfully investigated and prosecuted, dismantle Obama's anti-gun actions in the UN and on the Southern border, and stop the abuses of the ATF.

    In order to do that we have to let Obama go and vote for Romney.

    Fast and Furious is not a D.C. law firm
    By: Ann Coulter 7/11/2012

    By Dave Kopel Aug 2012
  17. Louisville Glocker

    Louisville Glocker Urban Redneck

    Dec 17, 2010
    Louisville, KY
    After he is elected for his second term (and it is very likely he will be, primarily due to the Republican's complete inability to provide a well-qualified candidate), Obama will proceed to do virtually nothing to alter existing gun laws. So don't go out and panic-buy. There is no need.

    But as an earlier poster pointed out, he will be appointing another Supreme Court Justice or two. Those appointments will have far reaching affects on our country. I personally feel that his Supreme Court appointments will be his primary legacy, far more so than his health care reforms or whatever else he comes up with in his second term.

    But, that said, we are the US, and there is no way our guns will be taken from us. Simply too many out there, and too many people who would literally fight any effort to do so. So don't worry!
  18. concretefuzzynuts

    concretefuzzynuts Brew Crew

    Dec 27, 2011
    Worry? I'll tell you about worry. I have two grand sons. A 5 year old and a 1 year old. I think less about my future and more about theirs. The gun rights are important to me, but what this country will look like for them is the top of my list.

    I want them to grow up under the same freedoms I had. To have the same opportunities we have had. Not this politically correct, metrosexual, stupefied bull crap that is being forced on us.

    I worry plenty.
  19. Jade Falcon

    Jade Falcon WTF EREN?!

    Aug 2, 2004
    Vancouver, WA.
    Hey, up yours. I'll vote for whomever I damn well please, and I don't give a damn if anyone here likes it or not. I will say that my vote is always based on the 2A, and any suggestion that I support that Antigun president of ours is highly offensive to me.

    If my vote goes towards Bob Barr, that's a score for gun rights, and a point against both candidates for being *********s.
  20. njl


    Sep 28, 2000
    It's got to get past congress first...and as long as there's a healthy Republican majority in The House, passage is unlikely.