Skip to comments.Romney courts NRA in presidential bid
Posted on 04/13/2012 5:23:00 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. Running for the Senate in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney once assured voters in a state with strong gun-control laws: I dont line up with the NRA. Now the likely Republican presidential nominee, Romney will headline the National Rifle Associations annual convention Friday and assure tens of thousands of gun-rights activists that hes squarely on their side.
Coming just days after rival Rick Santorum dropped out of the nomination race, the NRA convention in St. Louis provides Romney an opportunity to shore up his credentials with an important conservative constituency that badly wants to oust Democratic President Barack Obama.
Romney leads a list of prominent Republicans including Santorum, Newt Gingrich, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker who are scheduled to address more than 65,000 convention registrants during a session billed as a celebration of American values. Although Obama has virtually ignored gun issues during his term, the NRA considers him a foe and plans to mount an aggressive effort against him.
The NRA has spent $20 million to $30 million in past presidential elections, said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. It hopes to exceed that amount this year in an effort that is likely to include mail, phone calls and TV, radio, Internet and newspaper ads, he said.
As the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee, Romney hopes to reap the rewards of the NRAs broad network, which includes more than 4 million dues-paying members.
Governor Romney is a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, said campaign spokesman Ryan Williams, referring to gun rights. Hes always supported the Second Amendment and as president would continue to support the Second Amendment.
Yet Romneys alignment with the NRA also comes at a time when gun laws have been under national scrutiny.
(Excerpt) Read more at nwherald.com ...
|And the Un-Masking of Mitt Romney, the left-wing, Progressive Liberal, continues . . .|
|"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton|
If Harry Reid can get on the cover of the NRA magazine for spending taxpayer dollars to build a shooting range in the desert, then they should accept Romney too.
Hint to romney, after the 10th booty call or so, the girls stop believing you'll call them back tomorrow.
Same with voters.
The NRA is much like the GOP;those who run it have little in common with the members.I see the same thing in the ARRL(amateur radio) and just about any group that gets large enough to have a national headquarters and staff;pretty soon the headquarters staff is in charge and the elected directors meet occasionally to rubber-stamp what the staff has already put in place.
LOL, has Romney ever fired a gun?
As a (now former) Santorum supporter, my one worry is that folks are so bitter against Romney that they would settle for Marxist Obama, just to settle a score.
Our great Country and our very way of life cannot survive an Obama win this year.
just to settle a score.>> sounds like the santorum supporters I know. They tell me they will never vote for Newt. Those people are not conservatives much.
Sorry, I ain't buying it.
Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban
"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."
Of course, he was talking about the exact sort of weapons the British who marched on Lexington and Concord wanted to deprive Americans of.
"A well regulated Militia, being NECESSARY to the security of a free State, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT be infringed."
-- The Second Amendment
The Founders on The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. The Rights of the Colonists (November 20, 1772)
The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them. Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (February 6, 1788)
The Militia is composed of free citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.
... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them... Constitutional Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788 (also attributed to A Federal Farmer, the anti-federalist)
To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies. First Annual Message to Congress; Federal Hall, New York City (January 8, 1790)
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity...will respect the less important and arbitrary ones... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. quoted from Enlightenment philosopher Cesare Beccarias On Crimes and Punishment, 1764; translated by Jefferson and copied into his Commonplace Book of great quotations.
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]. Draft Constitution for Virginia; June 13, 1776 (brackets in Jeffersons original)
Every able bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the militia. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service. Notes on the State of Virginia, written by Jefferson, published in 1781, updated in 1782
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. letter to nephew Peter Carr (August 19, 1785)
What country before, every existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. letter to Colonel William S. Smith, Paris (November 13, 1787)
I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy. letter to Giovanni Fabbroni (June 8, 1788)
the governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms . letter to Destutt de Tracy (January 26, 1811)
On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. letter to William Johnson (June 12, 1823)
The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press. letter to Major John Cartwright (June 5, 1824)
The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them . Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
...in this country, every man is a militia-man.... The American Crisis series, # 9, dated June 9, 1780
...who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.
No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. from debates during the Constitutional convention (later quoted with approval by George Washington), as quoted in Elliots Debates, 1836
That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state...
Have we no means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress? Of what service would the militia be to you when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not provide them.
They tell us, Sir, that we are weak...but when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed?
Three millions of People, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. The War Inevitable; speech to the Virginia assembly, March, 1775
...a well regulated militia, composed of gentlemen and yeomen, is the natural strength and only security of a free government.
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. (in the Virginia ratifying convention)
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense...is a dissolution of the government. A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States of America, 1788, questioning the utility of private arms for the defense of the State but accepting the private right of self defense.
Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion in private self-defense A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States of America (1788)
Here, every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offense.... opening statement as defense counsel for British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre in 1770; from the Legal Papers of John Adams, Butterfield and Zobel; 1965
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Federalist # 46
[A] government resting on a minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.
...the loyalists in the beginning of the late war, who objected to associating, arming and fighting, in defense of our liberties, because these measures were not constitutional. A free people should always be left... with every possible power to promote their own happiness.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. Federalist # 28
Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped... Federalist # 29
Further in Federalist #29, Hamilton discusses militias and standing armies in detail. He argues against a formal standing army recommending ...an excellent body of well trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. If Hamilton expected the militia to be able to stand up to and oppose the regular army, if necessary, with what would they be expected to fight, if not their own arms? That entire exposition, assuming that people would always possess their own weapons with which they could defend the Peoples liberties against any formal military establishment of the State which might turn tyrannical, clearly shows that the idea of disarming the people was so foreign to their thinking, that they didnt even consider it as a real possibility.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
(Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Delegate to the Virginia Constitutional Ratification Convention of 1788, helped Thomas Jefferson draft the Virginia Declaration of Rights which served as the basis for the U.S. Bill of Rights)
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. from debates during the Virginia state ratifying convention (June 14, 1788), quoted in Elliots Debates
I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small
and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. from debates during the Virginia state ratifying convention (June 16, 1788), quoted in Elliots Debates
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state... Virginia Declaration of Rights (drafted by Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, with others)
Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!
The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them. An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (October 17, 1787)
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to the unjust and oppressive. An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (October 17, 1787)
RICHARD HENRY LEE:
(Fought under George Washington, introduced the motion leading to the Declaration of Independence, signer of the Declaration of Independence; an antifederalist, elected as Virginia delegate to the Constitutional convention and refused to serve, believing the convention was an improper body to consider the new Constitution; opposed the Constitution as not sufficiently protective of individual and States rights; U.S. Senator from Virginia and helped secure ratification of U.S. Bill of Rights)
A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms. The Constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include...all men capable of bearing arms. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle. Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer (1788)
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. Letters From The Federal Farmer, # 18 (January 25, 1788)
... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny. Letters from the Federal Farmer, # 53 (1788)
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit. proposed by the Virginia delegation to the Constitutional Convention (defining the phrase well-regulated militia which was used exactly in the final draft of the Second Amendment); and suggested in their state ratification debates, June 1788, to clarify the right.
(Massachusetts delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787; delegate to the Massachusetts Ratification Convention of 1788 [refused to agree to the Constitution]; Vice President during President James Madisons second term, 1813 until his death in 1814)
What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins. debate in the U.S. House of Representatives (August 17, 1789)
(Delegate to the Massachusetts Constitutional Ratification Convention of 1788, and was later elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1789)
The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people. letter to F.R. Minoe (June 12, 1789)
(Pennsylvania anti-federalist, wrote under the pseudonym Centinel)
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.... during debates on ratification of the Constitution in the Pennsylvania assembly
(Prominent Federalist from Pennsylvania, published commentary under the pseudonym An American Citizen)
The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite
unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them. An American Citizen (October 21,1787)
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. The Pennsylvania Gazette (February 20, 1788)
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms. Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution; Federal Gazette, (June 18, 1789). Coxe sent a copy of his essay to James Madison along with a letter of the same date. Madison wrote back as follows, supporting the interpretation of the Second Amendment as an individual right: Accept my acknowledgments for your favor of the 18th. instant. The printed remarks inclosed in it are already I find in the Gazettes here [New York] ... The amendments ... will however be greatly favored by explanatory strictures of a healing tendency, and is therefore already indebted to the co-operation of your pen.
The power of the sword is in the hands of Congress? My friends and countrymen, it is not so; for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The Militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the Militia? They are not ourselves as politicians and lawmakers. They are those who have elected us into our positions and entrusted us with the power of preserving and carrying out their wishes. Congress has no power to disarm the Militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the Federal or State governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. letter to James Madison during adoption of the Bill of Rights in the United States Congress (1789)
Amen to that, Seaplaner. Some here will cut off their nose to spite their face. I’m wondering which bumper sticker for Romney I will go with:
“Romney: Not my first choice, but he’ll do”
“Romney: At least he ain’t Obama”
“Romney: He has enough money already...maybe he won’t take more of mine”
“Romney: Compared to the Anti-Christ, he’s really not that bad”
or my favorite: “Elect a House and Senate that will make Romney do the right thing”
A memory: I was 5 years old wearing my cowboy hat, cowboy boots, a red vest and two 6 shooters - one on each hip. At that time, armed with my loaded cap-guns, I was far more pro-gun than Romney will EVER be.
I am so damn sick of this liar and those that tell me that I need to join with the fools that will vote for him.
The NRA is an extremely politically pragmatic organization and it is working very, very well for them. It irritates me to no end when they endorse and support incumbent Democrats against solid conservatives, but from the NRA's point of view if said incumbent supports their causes they will forgive just about anything else. This strategy has been successful. Where it once was a central Democratic plank, gun control is nearly dead almost everywhere. Rural and even suburban Democrats often won't even think of crossing the NRA, and those Democrats are rewarded with endorsements.
The NRA believes if it supports Willard, Willard will help advance their causes (or at least be better than Hussein). That is why they will endorse and spend millions upon millions of dollars to help get him elected. Regardless of what Mitt's done in the past, that is the calculation the NRA is making for the present.
Agreed. Apparently there are some who must think that Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan and Ron Johnson, and others, are misguided in their endorsements of Romney. I agree with Sarah Palin: anybody but Obama.
The NRA and most conservatives are well aware of your slimy record Mitt. Lying to us again will not win us over.
Go to hell Mitt.
Romney courting the NRA is the equivalent of Michael Dukakis bopping around in an M1Abrams trying to look tough.
Spark of the first American Revolution at Lexington & Concord: a gun-grabbing tyrannical government.
Because Newt won’t win?
thanks, Seaplaner for a rare statement of truth on this forum.
There was a time to point out all Romney’s flaws and get behind ONE candidate.
We never did that. There was constant infighting. The Cain people took over for a while and managed to run Rick Perry out of the race.
The Santorum people and the Newt people fought bitterly.
Romney won. He is now all that stands between us and the loss of our country.
He’s nowhere near perfect but he’s a Savior compared to Obama.
I wish there were as many threads devoted to the awful things Obama has done in just the last month than all these anti-Romney threads.
That time is past.
Why are you here?
I’m here because it’s still FREE Republic and at least for now, we have the right to speak our convictions.
If I am informed by someone in authority that it is against the rules to prefer Romney over Obama, I will refrain from commenting on the matter or take a hiatus.
Until that time, I will continue to point out the dangerous stupidity in re-electing Obama.
LOL. I've been "here" since 04, my FRiend, and my conservative cred is well-established.
I'm fine with a vigorous primary debate; and, I like Newt in many respects (family values and global warming scare-mongering not among them).
That last point is really that there is no perfect candidate, and if I had my druthers, those vying for VEEP (Ryan and Rubio) would be at the top of the ticket.
That said, with the withdrawal of Santorum, I'm now in Romney's camp. I say that with more comfort than I'd expected, but I will campaign for and give money to the man, anything (legal and ethical, that is) in order to defeat Marxist Obama.
One more thing.
I have two adult "kids" currently wearing our Country's uniform. Both of whom are veterans of the Iraq war.
When I read how Mister Obama is weakening our Military and demoralizing our precious Men and Women in uniform, I become especially motivated to help whomever is the GOP candidate (that is, FAIAP, Romney).
Hes nowhere near perfect but hes a Savior compared to Obama.
I wish there were as many threads devoted to the awful things Obama has done in just the last month than all these anti-Romney threads.
Altura, my FRiend, it seems as though we have our work cut out for us.
We need to remind folks to take a few steps back from the internecine squabbling, breath normally, and support the non-Marxist as if our American way of life, our conservative ideals, and our very republic depended on the outcome (they do.)
Once folks figure out the hideous consequences of re-electing Marxist Obama, they will support the GOP candidate (likely Romney).
Just shut up, Mitt. Nobody trusts your blather on this. Feel free to show some leadership on the issue when and if you get elected, but in the meantime don’t insult our intelligence.
Were the NRA to offer its institutional support to Romney, it would be both a disgrace and a black eye for the organization.
In Massachusetts, Romney took a major dump on the Second Amendment and set the rights of firearms owners back many, many years.