The secretary of state said that Assad was a reformer. That's a phrase which will obviously go down in history as being poorly timed and entirely inaccurate. This is a person who is killing his own people and was at the time...... But a person of this nature that's overseen the killing of his own people is obviously someone who's unfit to lead.
Kudlow and Romney thought they had turned to other issues. What they actually did was provide a tremendous, modern example of the primary reason the 2nd amendment was so important to the Founders.
We MUST be able to protect ourselves from a renegade government. There are too many examples of that in history to list here. That makes naive any statement that "that will never happen here."
Ping to a discussion of gun control
That is the unknown danger Romney represents.
Those of you who think Romney will be an improvement over Obama...what do you have to say for yourselves?
No surprise here. He’s even more insidious than Obama.
“those that were for additional gun rights”
No, Sparky: not additional gun rights. What part of “shall not be infringed” is unclear to you?
We are so screwed.
If you must vote for Romney to kick the Marxist out of the White House, make darn sure you vote for every TEA Party Congressman you can find on your ballot. Conservatives know you can’t trust a MA politician to “do the right thing.’ There will have to be a very strong firewall built by conservatives to try to keep their Second Amendment RTBA.
The TEA Party websites in every state should give you endorsements to the candidates they support.
The best thing for the second amendment is to maintain the status quo. The Republican House can kill any gun control measures that come along but with a republican President that supports gun control and a democratic or even slightly republican senate, we may have trouble preventing a second AWB or worse from passing. The status quo has worked for us so far. If Mitt comes out and makes some strong statements regarding his support for gun owners, I may chabge my mind but as it stands now, there’s very little chance that I will vote for him.
My take on this (in bold) is Romney was speaking generally about legislation, any legislation which is passed with a bi partisan effort. I do not deny he had this particular law in mind as well since it is part of what I believe to be a statement of wider scope then just the gun control law.
:: Where there are opportunities for people of reasonable minds to come together and find common ground ::
Hegelistic thought, such as this, is the underlying philosophy of Communism.
That's our first line of defense against this idiot.
Before Kudlow asked the question about Massachusett’s assault weapon ban, Romney said this:
“Well, I’m a firm believer in the Second Amendment and I also believe that this is—with emotions so high right now, this is really not a time to be talking about the politics associated with what happened in Aurora. This is really a time, I think, for people to reach out to others in their community that need help or a comforting hand. Let’s do that for now and then we can get on to policy down the road. I still believe that the Second Amendment is the right course to preserve and defend and don’t believe that new laws are going to make a difference in this type of tragedy. There are—were, of course, very stringent laws which existed in Aurora, Colorado. Our challenge is not the laws, our challenge is people who, obviously, are distracted from reality and do unthinkable, unimaginable, inexplicable things.”
Remember folks, while Romney is not our FRiend, the media would love nothing more than to divide us and keep Obama in office.
A reminder about who it is we're dealing with:
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1..."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."
Great work. “You’re An Obama Supporter” posters coming in 3..2..1..
I have no delusions on what I’m getting with Romney. I have to choose between that and some cancerous psychotic fascist who if elected again, will probably start a civil war and try and hunt my family down to a mass grave somewhere in an open field.
This isn’t the choice of a lesser of two evils, this is a choice of surviving v. likely not the next 4 years.
1st. Romney won’t be implementing any more gun control than we have now. He simply won’t be compelled to by a non-existent majority on the left. In fact, the reality is we will have the numbers on our side, not just in Republicans but in Democrats who cherish the 2nd Ammendment.
2nd. The context of “Where there are opportunities for people of reasonable minds to come together and find common ground, thats the kind of legislation I like.”
It isn’t that he approves of more gun control but the context of what he said is that he prefers bipartisan legislation.
4th. Romney is an opportunist and a manager. He will look to a majority Congress for direction on issues he will support.
Once again, the GOP rises to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Now we have the governor who instituted strict gun control on “offensive weapons” reaffirming that decision. But that is not the critical part of the message.
Does anyone really expect him to nominate conservative judges to the SCOTUS?
Then what he is saying is that ANY gun control legislation that can actually get passed is "the kind of legislation" Romney likes.
So if congress got together and voted to ban all semi automatic pistols or revolvers with more than 4 rounds, then Romney would have to say "that's the kind of legislation I like."
Every day Romney gives me another reason to vote for Virgil Goode.
There is quite simply no possible way to gloss it over - Romney’s record on 2nd Amendment issues stinks.
End of story.