Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What would ‘President Romney’ really mean for gun owners?
Monachus Lex ^ | September 2, 2012 | John Pierce

Posted on 09/02/2012 7:56:38 PM PDT by JohnPierce

“Deadly assault weapons … are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

--IMAGE HERE--

As the Republican National Convention comes to a close, it is time for me to live up to the promise I made when I wrote about Why gun owners should fear a second term for President Obama. That promise was to give the Republican nominee the same skeptical scrutiny that I gave to President Obama. And just as in that previous article, I am limiting my discussion to gun rights issues only.

I think it is only fair to note that, going into this article, I had some preconceived notions. Surely whoever the GOP nominated would be a sympathetic figure from a gun rights perspective wouldn’t they? After all, isn’t the GOP the gun-rights party? Well as it turns out, maybe not if you are a Massachusetts republican.

In her speech at the RNC, Ann Romney alluded to this, noting that “You may not agree with Mitt’s positions on issues or his politics. Massachusetts is only 13% Republican, so it’s not like that’s a shock.”

But wait … Is it really that bad? What exactly has Mitt Romney said or done that could be construed as anti-gun?

Perhaps most widely reported is the claim that he signed an ‘assault weapons‘ ban while Governor of Massachusetts. In 2004 he signed into law S.2367 which has been reported to be a state version of the federal ‘assault weapons’ ban. Now … signing a bill banning a large category of semi-automatic rifles, including the AR-15 which is one of the most popular rifles selling in America today, would definitely be a direct attack on the Second Amendment. But is that actually what Governor Romney did?

Actually no. Prior to S.2367, Massachusetts already had an ‘assault weapons’ ban in place. S.2367, which cleaned up a number of aspects of Massachusetts’ draconian gun laws, simply updated the existing law to include the definition from the federal ban instead of merely incorporating it since the federal ban was slated to sunset. The NRA goes into detail on their site about why the bill was in fact a victory for Massachusetts gun owners.

However, Governor Romney sullied the signing of this bill by making the comment that I opened the article with in which he parroted the words of the anti-gun forces and demonized so-called ’assault weapons.’ He may have not signed a ban, but his words tell us that he probably would have signed such a ban if it were placed before him.

What else has he done? In 2003, he signed a bill to increase firearms license fees from $25 to $100. To be fair, he proposed that the fee be increased only to $75 and the legislature instead took it to $100. But that still means he proposed a 300% increase in the cost to exercise what he has stated he believes to be a constitutional right. And he ultimately signed a bill making the increase 400%. This may seem trivial to many but it is a huge burden on those living in poverty. For many working families, such a fee effectively denies them the right altogether.

Dan Gross, relatively new president of the Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.) had glowing words for Governor Romney when his record for gun control is compared to that of President Obama; “In their time in office, I would say with a pretty strong degree of certainty that Romney did more.”

Yet amazingly, in 2007 when speaking to the NRA via videotape, he made the astonishing claim that “As governor I worked closely with the NRA and The Gun Owners Action League to advance legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners in my state … We made it easier for people to exercise their constitutional rights.”

--VIDEO HERE--

“Really? That’s what you think you did? Really?”

Because in the real world, forcing people to pay $100 to exercise a fundamental right is not making it ‘easier for people to exercise their constitutional rights!‘

In the real world, calling popular sporting firearms “instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people” is not ‘expanding the rights of gun owners!’

Governor Romney has known for some time that he needed to reform his image with gun owners if he ever wanted to have a shot at the presidency. His efforts in that regard have not inspired confidence.

He joined the NRA as a life member in the summer of 2006, stating that “I’m after the NRA’s endorsement … [and I] joined because if I’m going to ask for their endorsement, they’re going to ask for mine.” That sounded a little too mercenary for most NRA members who join not for personal benefit but rather because they want to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

And the stumbles continued. In 2007, in an interview with The Glenn and Helen Show, he claimed “I have a gun of my own” in response to a gun owner’s question only to have to admit days later that this was not in fact true.

In late 2007, in an interview with Tim Russert, he reiterated that were he president, he would sign a reauthorization of the federal ‘assault weapons’ ban if it made it to his desk although he quite seriously assaulted the english language in doing so.

“Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I.”

More recently, in an interview with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow on July 23rd, 2012, he was asked about S.2367. Rather than clarifying the issue, he choose to give a political answer which only alarmed gun owners further (emphasis added):

“Well, actually the law that we signed in Massachusetts was a combination of efforts both on the part of those that were for additional gun rights and those that opposed gun rights, and they came together and made some changes that provided, I think, a better environment for both, and that’s why both sides came to celebrate the signing of the bill. Where there are opportunities for people of reasonable minds to come together and find common ground, that’s the kind of legislation I like. The idea of one party jamming through something over the objection of the other tends to divide the nation, not make us a more safe and prosperous place. So if there’s common ground, why I’m always willing to have that kind of a conversation.”

Given his earlier demonization of ‘assault weapons’ and his continued support for a reauthorization of the federal ‘assault weapons’ ban, this answer leaves gun owners wondering whether a ‘President Romney’ might not support significant future gun control legislation if it were pushed by a bi-partisan group. It certainly does not inspire the kind of confidence one would like in a presidential candidate that is asking us for money and grassroots effort on his behalf.

While the NRA has not endorsed Governor Romney, he has received the official endorsement of outspoken rocker Ted Nugent but not before Romney reportedly pledged over the phone that “there would be no new gun laws or restrictions on Second Amendment rights in his administration.” I must say that a phone pledge is not the kind of reassurance I would like before opening my checkbook and hitting the streets for a candidate.

Perhaps the only thing that could be said with some degree of certainty is that a ‘President Romney’ would almost certainly nominate more pro-gun judges than would President Obama. And that is no small issue. During his first term alone President Obama has appointed two Supreme Court justices, 35 Court of Appeals judges, and 139 district court judges.

And these judges affect our rights in very real ways and will continue to do so for years to come. As I noted in my article about Why gun owners should fear a second term for President Obama, Heller was only decided by a 5-4 majority. Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito were the majority.

McDonald v. Chicago was also only decided by a 5-4 majority with the same 5 conservative justices as the majority. Revealingly, President Obama’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor joined the dissent characterizing the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as “not fundamental”.

And here are some more numbers that should worry gun owners: Justice Scalia is 76 this year. Justice Kennedy is 75. If either of those justices decides to step down or suffers a health problem during the next four years then you can rest assured that any nominee President Obama puts forward will not vote the right way on the next gun rights case, many of which are already working their way up through the courts of appeal.

On the other side of the coin, Justice Ginsburg is 79 this year and Justice Breyer is 73. If either of these justices were to retire from the court, there would be an opportunity to shore up the slim majority that we currently hold in the Supreme Court.

I do believe that a ‘President Romney’ would likely be far better for gun rights than a second-term President Obama for the reasons laid out in my previous article about President Obama. But those reasons are all based on the anti-gun tendencies of President Obama rather than any significant pro-gun tendencies on the part of Governor Romney. I truly dislike rewarding someone for past bad behavior but politics is not an easy game and ‘choosing the lesser of two evils’ is the rule rather than the exception more often than not.

The potential federal judgeship appointments alone should be enough to get gun owners to offer their support to Governor Romney but I don’t think it is enough to truly energize them. After all, we are talking about a man who has the support of both Ted Nugent and Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign.


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: 0campad; acornpaidforpost; assclownpost; banglist; boneheadforobama; clownforobama; cluess; guns; howtolose; idiotpost; liarschoir; mittromney; moronforobama; obama; obamabot; obamapimp; presidentialrace; presidentobama; proagandaforo; proagandistforobama; reelectobama; romney; utterdrivel; wasteofbandwith; zotthismoron
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

1 posted on 09/02/2012 7:56:40 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

If a bear attacks me in woods, I would rather have an assault rifle than a handgun.


2 posted on 09/02/2012 8:04:39 PM PDT by entropy12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

“While the NRA has not endorsed Governor Romney”

No, but they got a little to cozy with Harry Reid for my taste. I will add that I am a long time NRA member.


3 posted on 09/02/2012 8:06:27 PM PDT by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

Looks like we all get to shoot ourselves in the foot this year. But at least we get a choice of which foot......


4 posted on 09/02/2012 8:11:32 PM PDT by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

Romney will do what is best for Romney.

What is best for Romney is to support gun rights.

This was not true in MA.

It is true, now.


5 posted on 09/02/2012 8:15:11 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

Amen to that. There was a recent bear attack on the news (I can’t remember where) and the details were chilling.


6 posted on 09/02/2012 8:17:40 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Yap, simple politics. One can’t get rich swimming against the current.


7 posted on 09/02/2012 8:18:29 PM PDT by entropy12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer

I will give them credit for being savvy on that however. With both houses temporarily in Democrat hands, having the Majority Leader owing you favors is a good thing even if he isn’t your best friend.


8 posted on 09/02/2012 8:19:03 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

When all is said and done I think you pegged it. And in far fewer words than I used. :)


9 posted on 09/02/2012 8:20:06 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Whatever Romney does is better than what Hillary and Obama plan by giving our gun rights to the UN.


10 posted on 09/02/2012 8:23:33 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

I am sorry but after the NRA endorsed Harry Reid, they lost all credibility on the issue of being for Gun Owners. They are now just another political fund raising scam more interested in access to political power then the facts.


11 posted on 09/02/2012 8:31:33 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wrench; JohnPierce

Romney agrees with us 75% of the time, Obama agrees with us 0% so of course you “uber Conservatives” race around here trash talking Romney

Are you people really this politically stupid? Romney or Obama will be the next President. Spending all your time trash talking Romney does one thing, helps Obama

You people are the useful idiots of the Democrat propaganda machine.


12 posted on 09/02/2012 8:34:10 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I wasn’t ‘trash talking’ Romney. But I was pointing out his past failings where gun rights are concerned. You will note that my conclusion was that Romney will be much better for gun rights than allowing Obama a second term. I believe that!

And I am an uber Libertarian, not an uber Conservative. :)


13 posted on 09/02/2012 8:40:35 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

This is the wrong argument, wrong way to look at it. The second amendment guarantees the government will not infringe on our God given right to self defense. I do not have to justify firearms ownership based on need. That is so important I’ll say it again. We do not have to justify exercising our rights based on need. No one hands you an abridged dictionary and says “sure you have first amendment rights, but you have no need of words over three syllables...” I may never need a magazine fed semiautomatic rifle. But i absolutely need the freedom to own one if I choose to, because the moment we don’t have that freedom, we start surrendering more and more freedoms.


14 posted on 09/02/2012 8:41:07 PM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Absolutely.


15 posted on 09/02/2012 8:41:07 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

What would ‘President Romney’ really mean for gun owners?
______________________________________________

Willard the Wind Checker still has his finger in the air...


16 posted on 09/02/2012 8:41:14 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

Consider another term under Obama.

Visualize it fully.

Now, contribute to the Romnutz campaign, ‘cause he’s better than Obama - far better.

Don’t forget to contribute to the real conservatives running for local, state, and federal offices.


17 posted on 09/02/2012 8:46:18 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

I think ‘President Romney’ would mean dozens of federal court judges at all levels who can be counted upon to rule ‘pro-gun’ when the issue arises.

I think ‘President Romney’ would mean we wouldn’t have to spend the next 4 years waiting for the other shoe to drop when President Obama finally turns his gaze upon private gun ownership.

I think ‘President Romney’ means at least 4 years of continued gains.

But I do not mistake that for Romney being a stalwart champion of gun rights. That’s all I was trying to say in the article.


18 posted on 09/02/2012 8:47:34 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

“What would ‘President Romney’ really mean for gun owners?
______________________________________________

Willard the Wind Checker still has his finger in the air...”

He is just demonstrating his well practiced “Positional Versatility”.


19 posted on 09/02/2012 8:48:03 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps

Well said!


20 posted on 09/02/2012 8:49:19 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

“Romney will do what is best for Romney.

What is best for Romney is to support gun rights.

This was not true in MA.

It is true, now.”


There isn’t really any evidence that Mitt Romney supports gun rights. He also claimed to be pro-life, and one could say being pro-life to maintain his support and office “is true, now.” But then, either last Monday or Tuesday, he came out and essentially gave the pro-abortion talking point that the Democrats give. “I’m pro-life,” they all say, “But I won’t ban abortion for the health and life of the mother, or for rape.” Hillary has used the same language claiming she had never met anyone who was “pro-abortion,” and Obama echos with his excuse for voting against the partial birth abortion ban “there was no exemption for the health of the mother.” The health of the mother, as defined by the courts, includes mental and emotional problems. That’s the loophole that essentially negates any pro-life law that it infects.

Now, this is a pretty clear 180 for people who understand the pro-life pro-abortion battle. So if Romney is willing to turncoat on this, what makes you think Mittens isn’t going to say “I’m in favor of the second amendment. I think we all have the right to hunt!” (Which isn’t the point of the 2A.) but then turn around and justify more hurdles and restrictions on the 2A in the name of something moderate sounding and mushy?

There is no evidence that Mittens really has ZERO principles. There IS evidence that his principles are leftwing principles, and that what he has ZERO of is really a hesitance to lie for political purposes, and he has 100% of an obsession with how people view him. IOW, he behaves like a lefty narcissist.


21 posted on 09/02/2012 8:50:37 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

Indeed. And don’t think those state and local elections are less important. Far more decisions that affect our daily lives are made there than by the federal government.


22 posted on 09/02/2012 8:50:54 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

Only one question needs to be asked....is he better than Obama?


23 posted on 09/02/2012 8:53:13 PM PDT by Solson (The Voters stole the election! And the establishment wants it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Solson

And the answer to that is a resounding “Yes!”


24 posted on 09/02/2012 8:53:47 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Romney agrees with us 75% of the time,

Honest agreement based on what he has actually done I put the figure at closer to 15%.

I originally was going to say 5% but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.

25 posted on 09/02/2012 8:54:13 PM PDT by Eaker (Stripping Americans of their freedom and dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

“If a bear attacks me in woods, I would rather have an assault rifle than a handgun.”


When a bear attacks me in the woods, I get in close and work on his body with my fists. I then headbutt the bear, grapple him onto the forest floor, and get him into an arm lock (paw lock) until he either taps out or passes out.


26 posted on 09/02/2012 8:54:20 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

Hahaha RaisingCain...pass the Hukkah please!


27 posted on 09/02/2012 8:56:24 PM PDT by entropy12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

If you go into the woods, you need an assault rifle not because of bears but because of the two legged predators running their marijuana patches and meth labs.

Romney over Obama any freaking day on that issue.


28 posted on 09/02/2012 8:56:24 PM PDT by elcid1970 (Nuke Mecca now. Death to Islam means freedom for all mankind. Deus vult!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

Romney MIGHT have signed it, Obama certain WOULD sign it.

Problem for you Democrats pretending to be “conservative: is a GOP Congress would never pass it a Democrat Congress DID pass it.

But of course it so much easier to spend all your time shooting your allies in the back then ever take on the Progressive Fascists in the Democrat party on anything

Your sort of “conservative” is the useful idiot of the Democrat Party propaganda machine.


29 posted on 09/02/2012 8:58:55 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

And the ABO folks around here gave us mittens. At least 4 more years of uber-big government doing “what is best for us” whether we want it or not.

Socialized medicine is fine if mitens rams it down our throat.

Gun control and HUGE increase in gun ownership costs are fine if mittens does it and not BO

Abortion is find if mittens is the one approving it

Yup, lots of differences


30 posted on 09/02/2012 8:59:36 PM PDT by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

JP, I’m voting Romney ‘cause I want to see that skinny black butt leaving D.C. on a cold assed Winter Day. His big ears flapping and his lips talking crap all the way to Chicago.

I don’t expect Romney to even be close to as Conservative as Bush was.

His team wants to balance the budget in 20FORTY! What a damn joke.


31 posted on 09/02/2012 8:59:53 PM PDT by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970
Romney over Obama any freaking day on that issue.

Not just that issue...almost all issues! If the radical socialist from Chicago gets 4 more years, I will seriously start looking at other countries, probably Australia. I would not want be around to witness the destruction of this great land first hand.
32 posted on 09/02/2012 9:01:16 PM PDT by entropy12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wrench

Romney MIGHT have signed it, Obama certain WOULD sign it.

Problem for you Democrats pretending to be “conservative: is a GOP Congress would never pass it a Democrat Congress DID pass it.

But of course it so much easier to spend all your time shooting your allies in the back then ever take on the Progressive Fascists in the Democrat party on anything

Your sort of “conservative” is the useful idiot of the Democrat Party propaganda machine.


33 posted on 09/02/2012 9:03:22 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I don’t disagree with you about the fact that Obama WOULD have signed it.

As for the rest, I am not sure why you think I am some sort of closet democrat OR why you would think I am pretending to be ‘conservative’. I am neither. I am a proud Libertarian who thinks small government means small government. I will point out again that I concluded Romney was the best choice and I gave reasons why. And I cited to specific sources for every action I noted that Romney took.

I think we are on the same team here.


34 posted on 09/02/2012 9:05:25 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wrench

Looks like we all get to shoot ourselves in the foot this year. But at least we get a choice of which foot......

LOL


35 posted on 09/02/2012 9:05:32 PM PDT by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce
I'm a gun owner holding my nose and voting for Romney. I don't hold any illusions that he's pro-gun. I'm hoping that he's smart enough to stay out of our way and not push the issue. Obama was a board member of the Joyce Foundation and is on record for a total ban as a State Senator in Sickago. He voted to ban all rifle ammunition as a Senator.

Romney signed a "compromise" gun ban. It was bad. I didn't vote for Romney in the primary. I do know this. Romney won't have Eric Holder as his AG. He won't appoint Sotomayer and Kagan. I have a chance with Romney that he'll screw us less. He can't be worse.

At best, no bad things will happen and no bad judges will be picked.

36 posted on 09/02/2012 9:05:52 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (Holding my nose one more time to get rid of Eric Holder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

it so much easier to spend all your time shooting your allies in the back then ever take on the Progressive Fascists in the Democrat party on anything

Damn Right.


37 posted on 09/02/2012 9:08:39 PM PDT by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

” . ..after the NRA endorsed Harry Reid, they lost all credibility . . .”

My impression is that Harry Reid, for all his obvious flaws, supports, or has supported, the NRA position on Second Amendment related legislation. This would be enough for the NRA, which maintains pretty much a single-issue legislative stance, to support Reid’s election despite his being otherwise a disaster..


38 posted on 09/02/2012 9:08:53 PM PDT by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

You just cling to your emotion based partisanship then. Fact is the Democrat HAVE done a whole lot to try and regulate gun ownership and have been defied on it by the GOP.

If you are gun owner stupid enough to vote for Democrats thinking they respect the 2nd Amendment, you get what you deserve.


39 posted on 09/02/2012 9:11:01 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

Darren ... Bingo!


40 posted on 09/02/2012 9:12:05 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

Plenty of worst things can happen. In fact, they’ve already begun. The GOP under a Romney term will do all it can to destroy or marginalize the grass roots Tea Party. Look at what Mittens was willing to do to Sarah Palin even on the eve of the 2008 election. He does NOT respect or even slightly tolerates us. He thinks WE are unreasonable and “frightened” and ‘angry.’ He is an elitist and views us the way elitists do. He only needed us because we control (or we THINK we control) the nomination process for the party... which is a problem he is working on fixing.

Want to hear something creepy? I heard an interview of some old lady, a Paul delegate from Texas on her way to the convention, who was stopped by the TSA because they found bullets in her luggage. Apparently, she was at a hotel, and someone broke into her hotel room, but didn’t take anything. She noticed nothing was missing. She claims that, evidently, whoever broke in must have planted the bullets to delay her getting to the convention.

The Virginia delegates, who were on their way to the convention on a bus to vote against the proposed rule changes, say that the driver of the bus took them on a wild goose chase to purposely make them get there too late to do anything. In the end, they ended up having to walk to the convention.

Speaker Boner, as he was “counting” the yeas and nays for the vote, already had the “the yeas have it” written on his teleprompter before a vote was even given!

Welcome to Mitt Romney’s Republican party.


41 posted on 09/02/2012 9:14:39 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce; TomasUSMC; Elsiejay
Read it and weep. A Democrat Congress and a Democrat President passed it and signed it. A GOP Congress and a GOP President killed it.

You want to campaign for O fine, but do it on the facts, not on a bunch of lies and disinformation

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". There was no legal definition of "assault weapons" in the U.S. prior to the law's enactment. The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the floor for a vote.

42 posted on 09/02/2012 9:17:24 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

What are you talking about? Where did I say I was voting Democrat? I have NEVER voted Democrat. But that does not mean that I cannot demand better behavior from the GOP candidates does it?

Let me quote from the conclusion of the article ...

“I do believe that a ‘President Romney’ would likely be far better for gun rights than a second-term President Obama ... The potential federal judgeship appointments alone should be enough to get gun owners to offer their support to Governor Romney”


43 posted on 09/02/2012 9:17:53 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

Very well, cling to your emotional ignorance but don’t expect any of us to take you seriously.


44 posted on 09/02/2012 9:19:06 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
I will seriously start looking at other countries, probably Australia.

Unlike the United States Australia doesn't let in just anybody. That's why we're over run with illegal aliens with an IQ of 85 and they are not.

You better have a skill that is in very high demand like neurosurgeon or you don't have a chance. If you want to cut and run you better start doing your research now.

45 posted on 09/02/2012 9:19:06 PM PDT by Eaker (Stripping Americans of their freedom and dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Do you even read the replies? No one here is campaigning for Obama. No one is attacking the GOP. I was pointing out the history of questionable gun rights behavior from the nominee.

I will ask again. Is that no longer allowed?


46 posted on 09/02/2012 9:20:33 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
A GOP Congress and a GOP President killed it.

Bush said he would sign it if it reached his desk so Congress stopped it not Bush.

47 posted on 09/02/2012 9:22:51 PM PDT by Eaker (Stripping Americans of their freedom and dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

Check out the gun laws in Australia before you consider an intercontinental move. Just as bad as UK there.

Much better move to South Carolina, the state liberals love to hate more than any other. Do you know what we call someone who owns less than one hundred guns?

“Piker”

;^)


48 posted on 09/02/2012 9:23:27 PM PDT by elcid1970 (Nuke Mecca now. Death to Islam means freedom for all mankind. Deus vult!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

What am I being “emotionally ignorant” about?


49 posted on 09/02/2012 9:24:43 PM PDT by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
The GOP elites under Romney can only do what they are allowed to do. They'll do what they do no matter who wins. The rules change was bad, but doesn't really change much. Primaries and caucuses make the difference.

What we need to do, regardless of who wins, and make sure that we have good people as precinct delegates/captains (whatever it is in your state) and make sure good people are running your county party, district party, and state party, as well as your RNC committeeman and woman. Most importantly, we need to make sure good people win our primary elections and general elections from president down to township trustee.

The bottom line is that we can't just plan for this stuff when there's an election. We need to plan for the party elections after the election back at the time for the filing deadline for precinct delegates. County party committees here are picked in December. District parties and state parties after that.

Know the rules. Know the techniques. Plan ahead. Be organized. Work with allies. Convert swing voters, and make sure the party is in good shape.

50 posted on 09/02/2012 9:27:12 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (Holding my nose one more time to get rid of Eric Holder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson