MORE ON ROMNEY AND GUN OWNERS

Hello? Massachusetts? ‘Nuff said.

Don’t trust any of the bastards.

I will not comment again on Mitt but was happy to see that CSPAN did cover the Leadership Forum on Friday (the NRANews site was designed so poorly it chews up my older PC and brings it to its knees). I really really really recommend that folks watch the CSPAN video of the event themselves. In particular compare Mitt vs. Newt. Now Newt don’t have a chance in hell but dang he hit the nail on the head regards gun rights.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/201977

Additional food for thought: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104803094

I definitely see Romney as the lesser of two evils.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you have still voted for evil.

Well Mas – your thoughts? It appears that Romney will be the Republican candidate. How do you see the 2nd faring under his watch if elected?

Hello, is any body awake?
I do notcare one wit about Gun Owners Civil Rights! Civil Rights are granted by COngress and can be retracted by congress. I AM interested in my Constitutional Rights being upheld against all enemies, foreign and especially domestic! Anyone whom has served has taken that oath; does it ever expire?
For a governor from the state that started our path to independance, how could he not be full bore into our rights to keep and bear arms? Yet Romney’s record is not all that good.

Jim: as a principle, the lesser of 2 evils = less evil.

dbp67: I see Romney as reaching out to us — for some time now, not just this year’s NRA gathering — and the alternative reaching out to us not at all. At the very worst, Romney from January 2013 through the next four years would be where Obama has been from January 2009 to now: restrained by “realpolitik” from attacking us, and perhaps more important, restrained by the Republican Party from appointing Supreme Court justices hostile to our rights.

Anyone but the current clueless buzzard.

Sounds like we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

I understand the appeal of the “lesser of two evils” argument, but let’s be honest here- there is one other relevant, Constitution-conscious, pro-gun candidate who should not be ignored: Ron Paul.

Ron Paul doesn’t tap-dance (or do any other kind of dance) when it comes ANY OF to our rights. Ron Paul is consistent- CONSISTENTLY pro-liberty in everything he has done while in office.

Also, do you know what just happened yesterday? Ron Paul picked up 20 delegates- some of which are “enlightened” former Santorum supporters. Romney only got 16.

Ron Paul IS electable! I don’t care what the mainstream media says (and will invariably continue to say) to the contrary.

Let’s NOT paint ourselves into a corner thinking that Romney is “the only other choice.” This upcoming election is FAR too important for that kind of thinking. I will, I MUST, vote for a candidate that- win or lose- I can make peace with my conscience about choosing.

Ron Paul 2012!

*If this comes off as an over-the-top political statement to some of you- well, my conscience can live with that too. Just like my bank account, my battery, and my freedom. =)

Andy,

A vote for Ron Paul is at best a throwaway and at worst a vote that helps the current President. Ron Paul is NOT electable. Why can’t you see this as the pragmatic exercise it is? Like the vast majority of Presidential elections I’ve voted in since 1984, I’ll hold my nose as I vote for Romney and sleep well knowing I’ve done what needs to be done.

I’m not surprised that he spent more time discussing women’s issues. I’m sure he’s more comfortable discussing those than discussing his poor record on the second amendment. Still, I agree with Mas on the likely scenario if he’s elected.

Mas, enjoyed chatting with you Saturday night, as discussed, I think his wife actually did better than Romney did, especially in front of not necessarily a hostile crowd, but definitely a ‘cold’ crowd.

Look, the House was sent packing last time (1994) they messed with gun owners. They aren’t going to do it again.

The real risk is not sweeping legislation that a president would sign. The risk is the pursuit of bans by circumventing congress. There are two ways to do that: pack the supreme court with liberal (activist) judges to reverse Heller, and the other is through the executive branch by miss-use of the EPA, Treasury (e.g., FFL fees), “Consumer Safety” requirements, etc. Barry Sotero, AKA Obama, has demonstrated that he has no problem flaunting the separation of powers and his hatred of gun owners is practically a matter of record. Re-elected, he will certainly pursue both options.

Romney? What if he is not fired up and isn’t completely into the second amendment? What if he is another Bush Sr? I’ll take another Bush Sr on guns over Obama.

You want to tell your grand kids that lead styphenate primers haven’t been sold since 2013, all guns made after 2014 had to be unlocked with a key between shots, and it was a felony to shot a lead bullet in 2014, because the other candidate wasn’t enthusiastic enough?

Senator Ron Paul would be an excellent presidential candidate and I would gladly vote for him – if this was 1912.

However, it’s 100 years later and the world is a much different place. I have no problem with Mr. Paul’s domestic policy and he’s definitely pro-gun with a 100% voting record according to some gun rights organizations. My beef with Mr. Paul is his ideas on foreign policy. He seems to think any country can do anything as long as it doesn’t immediately affect the United States. Mr. Paul has no problem with Iran and other hostile countries developing nuclear weapons. This kind of thinking is extremely dangerous in current times as our nation is not as isolated as it was a hundred years ago when airplanes were primitive and ballistic missiles and atomic bombs were just the dreams of scientists. Back then with two huge oceans separating us from Europe and Asia, we were relatively safe from most of the advanced world which has the weapons that could do us harm.

Times have changed and now with nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons commonplace and ways to deliver these over great distances, we cannot allow any third world country to threaten us with these WMDs. Mr. Paul doesn’t seem to understand this and thinks that if we don’t piss off loud mouthed dictators and hostile countries, they will leave us alone. We can only have peace with a strong leader in the White House and lots of advanced weapons to back him up. World peace is a (crack or marijuana) pipe dream.

Ted Nugent claimed at the convention on Saturday that he spoke with Romney at length and insisted the guy is a true convert who should not be condemned for his evil past.

Sorry, I can’t help but feel that Ron Paul is not in touch with reality, especially with foreign policy. And he can be over the top on a number of other issues and just seems to be a very loose cannon.

If Romney is elected, even at his worst he would still be infinitely better than Obama. That is what we have to base our vote on. The rest of the party will keep him grounded, I believe, as will the NRA and other pro gun groups.

I will throw my support to the Republican party against the liberal-nots any day – especially after the Obama administration lies and deception with their daily added conspiring against our basic rights.

NOBAMA. No MO, either!

I am from MA and I will admit that I voted for Romney for Gov. But after paying close attention to his time as Gov it is clear to me his goal has always been the White House. He was a no-show one term by choice Gov who flip flopped on several key issues, gave us RomneyCare (and subsequently moved to NH), and made a mess of our firearm laws. All of this where freedom for our Nation began. If our current firearm law in MA were in effect 237 years ago, we would still be a British colony! I do not want to see Obama take a second term, and yet from the beginning I have yet to see a solid alternative to the current POTUS. Trust me, I don’t won’t be voting for Obama, but I will more likely be writing in my vote because I know Romney does not understand how important the 2nd Amendment is to the citizens of this country. I think his recent speech at the NRAAM showed just that.

During Romney’s 4 years as governor, he was absent 220 days in his final year. This man is NOT president material. Unfortunately, neither is /was Obama, neither is Biden, (and Joe’s a breath away from the nuke buttons)… None of these empty suits are real presidential material. The bottom line is, we’re in a lot of trouble come the years ahead. A whole lotta trouble.

I guess everyone has their ideal candidate they envision running but at some point settle for who is actually on the ballot.

Rick was very milk toast in his support and only came to his conservative roots in the last few years. Romney is not that far behind in the timeline.

Yes, I would prefer Ron, but, he has ZERO chance at this point and running as a third party candidate would only guarantee Obummer another 4 years.

Near is hardly any stalwart of conservative thinking or 2A support. He is in it only for himself and has changed his song more frequently than Romney.

We have to keep focus on what the goal is and protect the house of representatives.

Vote for the guy who said:

These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.

Or the guy who said:

Gun control makes people demonstrably less safe–as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation’s capital, where the individual’s right to self-defense has been most severely curtailed.

How much worse a candidate can the R’s run and still have people believe that it’s worth their vote.

We must think very little of our liberty and those who paid to deliver it to us, to surrender it so quickly, following this (lesser of two evils) line of thinking.

At the end of the day, this comes down to 2 issues:

1. The Republican Party failed to gel around a candidate with a better history of supporting the 2nd Amendment and gun owner rights. Whose fault is that? Simple: the people who voted in the Republican Primaries and Caucuses.

2. The General Election will come down to 2 men: a man with a history of waffling on the issue of gun rights and a man with a history of downright hostility towards gun rights. Which one would you want to vote for?

Let’s quit talking about write ins and third party candidates. All this does is dilute our votes and let Obama have four more years to ruin this country.

If you want to feel good and accomplish the goal of protecting your freedoms and rights, vote Republican and hold your nose, as Bill and I will, and hope the party will have enough sense to advise and direct Mitt on policy.

Do what is necessary to achieve success – and deal with the fact it isn’t always pretty, satisfying or enjoyable – that is life. If you want to feel good, send a letter to your third party candidate praising them and hope they play a role in the new administration or run again. VOTE THE PARTY IN.

Win the war, accept the loss of a battle. My choice didn’t make it either – too bad, but it is over – move on TOGETHER and win.

Still love y’all but damn, it is hard to understand and extremely frustrating when some insist on holding on to a lost cause when so much is at stake!

To all the Ron Paul foreign policy pooh-poohers- in case you haven’t noticed, we’ve done a really poor job of being (or, pretending to be) the world police lately. Iraq and Afghanistan- both conflicts in which I nonetheless do firmly believe we were justified in engaging- have resulted in unprecedented loss of life (military and civilian), money, political capital, and international opinion (relative to the scale of the actual conflict). Have you looked at the actual expenditures in dollar figures? Do you care about our staggering debt, poor budgeting, and wonder how we got there? Do you know the history of the Roman Empire and how its actions lead to its invariable collapse? As a more recent example, do you know why the USSR disintegrated?

Ron Paul is proposing something different: clean up our country NOW, and stop interfering in others. Quit throwing money into a war-machine furnace, and stop handouts to nations who undermine us via providing support to our enemies (whether they be an actual country, or otherwise), and keep our danged borders secure!

Those actions alone would be an incredible boon to our current economic needs, and that is a critical point….because if everything stays the same with regard to our international dealings, it WON’T MATTER down the road when a foreign threat needs to be squashed, because we can’t take action if we’re PARALYZED by bankruptcy! We are in a Depression RIGHT NOW and are facing a Double-Dip Recession already, what more do you want?!

Jihad-supportive countries possessing nukes is a HYPOTHETICAL future threat; our crippled economic status is REAL and is ongoing!

So, yeah: between a “restore the economy” and a “foreign intervention on any or all possible threats” stance, I choose “restore the economy.”

Bottom line, I would rather live (and die!) as a FREE man in a FREE country, EVEN IN THE FACE OF a threat of nuclear attack. Just like we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

All those upset with Paul’s foreign policy obviously have not actually heard what the man himself says. Just because he doesn’t believe in preemptively bombing Iran and starting ANOTHER war over a nuclear PROGRAM (not even an actual bomb!) that may or may not exist does not mean that he’s in favor of them getting nukes – he just believes that there are other options that DON’T involve alienating Iranian resistance groups (You think sanctions only affect their government? Think again.). What it boils down to is that he requires two things to go to war:

1) A confirmed threat to American lives, and
2) A declaration of war by Congress.

Is that really so much to ask?

I don’t understand the “lesser of two evils” philosophy. That’s why we’re in this mess – we vote almost entirely based on “electability” now. We got John McCain last go round, for Heaven’s sake! Our forefathers would be utterly disgusted with you people who believe in screwing over your principles to get the same guy with a different label in office.

“Always vote your conscience, though you vote alone; for then you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” – John Quincy Adams

To those saying Paul can’t win – Warren Harding went into the convention with six percent of the delegates. After TEN votes, he won the nomination, then scored a landslide victory, and went on to become one of the better 20th century presidents.

I believe Romney would put the brakes on the damage which Obama has caused. But I believe Ron Paul would reverse course, and head us back to the Constitution. I also see a third way to block the power of the federal government; the governors of states need to stand up, and say they will not obey unconstitutional laws. That is what needs to happen.

About Ron Paul’s foreign policy; I cannot believe he would not defend us if we were attacked. I even believe Obama would make a show of defending us if we were attacked! I don’t see any clearly good options for the future. Either we continue to police the world, sending our young volunteers to sacrifice for us so we don’t have to use our big weapons, or, we wait to be attacked, and then use our big weapons. Basically, a repeat of MAD that we had with the old Soviet Union. I guess I am an isolationist because I believe that what happens in other countries is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. I guess that means I am in favor of the ugly scenario where we wait to be attacked, and then respond with overwhelming force, annihilating our enemies. At least then we would be following Just War doctrine, and we would look like a victim. We would truly be responding to violence in self-defense. Like I said, neither scenario looks good, but I am tired of seeing our troops stationed all over the world, keeping the peace. If we had waited for Saddam to attack us before going to Iraq, Saddam would still be there as a buffer to Iran, and we would have saved our blood, time and money. If tyrants rise up all over the world, but we have peace and liberty in the fifty states, that is sad, but acceptable to me.

Well said, Fezzywig and Drake! I’m glad to see that I’m not alone in my stance.

“Always vote your conscience, though you vote alone; for then you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” – John Quincy Adams

It bears repeating- take that to heart, folks. I won’t have to hide the truth when my son asks me what it means to stand for the right principle.

“Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.”

We have about six months to stock up on supplies for the latter – if our Dear Leader continues to occupy the White House and could then unleash his forces of evil to finish destroying our nation, and wreak havoc on the U.S. Constitution and our freedoms.

Those of you who plan to vote for Ron Paul will feel good for awhile, until the Anointed One’s stormtroopers kick in your door in the middle of the night and invite you and your family to stay at one of their nice ‘re-education facilities’ as a reward for helping him get re-elected in 2012, possibly for life.

Elvis, please come out of hiding and save us from Obama!

Okay, we’ll vote for Mitt, and then we’ll feel awful when the Anointed One’s stormtroopers kick in our door – because Mitt cannot win. All Obama has to do is literally say, “You already agree with me!”

Quite frankly, Romney has a history of being HOSTILE towards gun rights as well. He IS Obama!

Hey Tom-

Funny thing is, all conservatives could vote for Ron Paul and send the Anointed One out of the White House next year. Don’t you WANT that outcome? You’ll get a lot more certainty of that with Paul than you will with a Massachusetts liberal who pretends to be no more conservative than a neocon.

Glad to see I’m not the only one sick of towing the line. I couldn’t live with myself after voting for Obama lite (McCain) 4 years ago. I will never be doing that again. I don’t care if the candidate I agree with is a freaking squirrel, if that’s what I have to do that’s what I’m doing. I’m done with this oh hold your nose and elect him crap.

If all we have to vote for is Romney then he is who we will all have to vote for. And trust in G-D.
We certainly can’t vote for and entrust our nation to 0ber-mama for four more years.
But we also have to get the Senate and House as well. We must control both branches to reverse the damage done.
But yes, in the final count it ain’t the politicians we end up with in Washington (and on local town councils), it’s the voters who put them there.

I’ll vote for the guy that’s not Obama and has the best chance at winning.

Take CO’s last election for Governor as an example. We had a Constitutionalist, a Republican, and a Democrat. The votes were something like 35% for Constitutionalist, 20% for the Republican, and 45% for the Democrat. Now we have a Democrat as Governor.

I hope we don’t get something like that for 2012…

A vote for McCain prevented a win from becoming a landslide for Obama. In 1933 the Nazi’s took Germany with only 1/3 of the vote, because the other half-dozen plus parties didn’t see fit to join forces against manifest evil. I’m sure they were all very proud they voted for some other guy who didn’t win.

Civics 101: there are three branches of the government, and although only congress should be able to make a new law, the other two branches do make them to some degree. The Supreme court can strike down laws and let bad laws stand, but more significantly, the executive branch can publish rules and regulations in the cabinet level departments. That could include $250,000 a year FFL fees from Treasury, bans on primers and lead bullets from the EPA, bans on all imports, etc.

Congress isn’t going to vote against guns. It was proved in 1994 that a vote against guns is like pulling the ejection seat lever to most congressmen.

The only move against guns will be from the courts or from the exec branch abusing it’s authority. Obama has already demonstrated that he will gleefully bypass congress and the lapdog media says nothing. There is no evidence that Romney would a) bypass congress in making de facto bans on anything, or b) would want to ensure his loss of the 2016 nomination and the Republican house majority in 2014 by misusing the executive branch to ban guns.

Romney doesn’t have to be great on guns, he only has to not flaunt the constitution to force a de facto ban. Obama, that is exactly what he’d do, after this election he’ll have more ‘flexibility’ to indulge his red diaper baby fantasies.

@Andy: do you seriously think that Ron Paul, who cannot muster more than 12% of his own party’s support, has a chance at attracting enough votes from Democrats (who hate him other than for his ability to divide the GOP) and moderates (who think he’s an extremist)?

Mitt Romney was not a friend of gun owners in the past and may still not be, but Obama bin Barack is a proven enemy of gun rights and other American freedoms he doesn’t like and will continue to do so, probably for the rest of his arrogant life.

I would gladly take Ron Paul over our Dear Leader and as I’ve said previously, would vote for the cockroach under my kitchen sink in preferrence to the Anointed One – if he could win, which is highly unlikely. Whoever wins in November needs the swing voters and they will never pick Ron Paul, who they see as too conservative, over the Marxist currently occupying the White House. Mitt Romney on the other hand is liberal enough to court the fence sitters to cast their vote for him. No one despises liberals more than I, but I’m also practical and the first thing to do is get the dictator wannabe out of office and put in someone who can stop or at least slow down the financial destruction of our nation. After that is done, we can then pick another candidate the next go around who will restore our country to it’s former glory.

@5minutes It defies conventional wisdom, but Ron Paul did better than Romney vs. Obama in the last Rasmussen poll that included him. I have a feeling it has something to do with the fact that he doesn’t demonize “liberals” and offers a genuine, consistent message that’s different from politics as usual.

Odd how everyone is saying we should ignore Romneys past record of anti gun comments and trust he’ll do the right thing in the white house;
but are saying exactly the reverse about O’Bama:
Ignore the fact the only changes on O’Bamas watch are to now allow guns in national parks and in DC (hilariously this is supposed to be ‘all out war on gun ownership’) and condemn him for comments made years ago.
By the way Mr Ayoob the NRA weekend was going to clear the air on O’Bamas record and prove me wrong in saying they would claim any comment ever made by him (or anyone else) is indisputable proof he is bound to attack gun rights in his second term and never mention what he has actually done.
Did that happen? No? God that is spooky! Imagine someone with the facts not on their side ,distorting their opponents record!! I’m going to be burnt as a witch! How could I predict that?
The truth is they are pursuing their political agenda regardless of how much damage to gun owners it does. Future warnings will be dismissed as ‘oh it’s those gun owners again; liars whose predictions don’t come true’. Like Romney is: anyone got any evidecnce of O’Bamas assault on gun rights that Romney talks about.
Romney is the perfect candidate for this blogs contributors. Everything he says about O’Bama is untrue too.
qjs

I think I’ve got it. Ron Paul, good, but no chance. Obamma=BAD, Romney=less bad. Our 2nd Amendment rights are in jeopardy (as always), Can’t trust the “politicians” ever. So, nothing changes!!! We must always be vigilant, put the pressure on your LOCAL politicians, your Congressman, your Senator, make them be the “conservative” you need them to be and then the President can have NO effect on the Rights we so cherish. OH, I almost forgot, pray for the best, prepare for the worst!!!
Keep your powder dry!

The thing about Paul is that he often does just as well OR BETTER than Romney against Obama. He can literally yank a lot of Obama’s former supporters right out from under him by emphasizing civil liberties and a more restrained foreign policy. He does better than *any* other candidate among Independents in swing states, and will most certainly get the Republican vote if he gets the nomination. After all, the line is always “anybody but Obama,” right?

The fact that he actually has a comprehensive plan to reduce the deficit while still reducing taxes isn’t hurting him, either.

Massachusetts is bad enough but if he adds New Jersey to the ticket it will be hell.