RobertNashville

Jeff Cooper would probably say this guy "gave up" long before the event happened...that that the choice to fight and to stay in the fight needs to be made a long time before that "moment" in time when the s**t is happening. The way this seemed to have happened, it would be a tough to avoid it...perhaps, had the victim been at least in condition yellow he might have spotted the potential trouble before it was on top of him and been able to avoid or prepare (and leaving an establishment at 12:30 AM I'd probably already be near "orange" simply because it's a parking lot late at night). For me personally, even when I'm carrying on my body I always have another weapon secured on the seat beside specifically so that I can easily access a weapon in a situation like this (as getting it out of the holster while I'm sitting down and likely with a seat belt on can be a problem).

There aren't many things that would be more stupid than legalizing drugs although in Mexico's instance, the drug thugs were pretty much in control and it was effectively "legal" anyway I suppose. Mexico and quite a few other countries in Central and Sough America need some democratic revolution similar to our own from England...I don't expect it to happen but that's what they need.

I hope you are wrong...no...I pray you are wrong. I think and I hope that there are some Wasningtons and Jeffersons and Madisons out there but I fear we don't have enough time left for them to be of help.

I am certain that there are truly people who are exactly what I think you are describing...they are open minded and wanted to support someone they could believe in and are disillusioned with the two candidates because they don't see a significant difference between the two. I've been disillusioned and disappointed too; Romney not only wasn't my first choice for the nomination; he didn't even make it to third. Nevertheless I'll be contributing to his campaign and voting for him in November. However, after these many, many threads on this same general theme, my impression is that most of the "Romney isn't good enough" threads are being started by folks are not just people disillusioned with the two candidates bur are, actually, hardcore Paul supporters who are pissed off that Paul didn't win the nomination and won't be President. As a result, threads like this are posted every few days which are really just a way to vent at all the "sheeple" who aren't smart enough to have supported Paul. They are not open minded and one of the significant differences between where I am not and where there are now is that had Paul won the nomination I would have supported his campaign and would have been just as happy to have voted for him in November as I am not willing to vote for Romney...I don't believe the reverse is true at all. Now, I could be absolutely, 100% wrong in my interpretation of what/who is behind these threads and if I am; well then I am. Whether I'm right or wrong, it does seem pretty clear that there really is nothing to gain by my participating in these threads any longer. It just seems to piss people off so I'm going to do my best to just bow out.

Hypocrite much? Before we go on, perhaps we should quote the entire post you take such offense to... I'm sure that linking to the Huffington Post as if it was a legitimate source for facts was just a joke. My "response" to your link was not exactly a response and wasn't even directed to you; it was was directed to 6.8 AR as a reply to his comment and was offered as a joke; it was a joke at your expense but a joke nevertheless. I thought it was clear that it was a joke but since I apparently offended you then I apologize. I've definitely been personally criticized and even personally attacked for opinions I've expressed...however, I really don't recall being personally criticized for posting a link. I suspect hat if I went back and looked I could find an example or two where that has happened but I don't see much point in looking...I mean; what if I found 100 examples where I've been "personally criticized" for a link I had posted...what would that prove???Not long ago I received a negative iTrader rating from someone I had never traded with because of something I said about the Martin/Zimmerman case...does that make any difference? It seems odd to me that you would feel so "personally criticized" by me when I wasn't replying to you in the first place....it also seems odd that you would wait almost a whole day to bring it up...even more odd that you would reference a post in a different thread to make your point. I wonder; do you feel as "personally criticized" by 6.8 AR?

I believe (and for good reasons) that Obama is the most dangerous enemy to all (not just 2A) our liberty and freedom that this country faces right now; leaving him in office for another team is simply not acceptable. I believe for a number of reasons that Romney will be a good President - whether some folks think Romney is "different enough" or "good enough" is immaterial to me because it's either Romney or it's Obama; I find that to be a very easy choice.

I have more and have presented more than opinion in this and many other almost identical threads but it has routinely been dismissed or ignored leaving me with no reason to think that this or any of these threads seek actual discussion or that they care at all about "facts" at all (even "facts" from unassailable sources as Youtube and Google). Rather, the way these threads usually go is that a video (often from a biased or at least a questionable source) is posted not to engender discussion but as a subtle (and sometimes overt) attempt to promote Ron Paul and proselytize the wayward and lost souls who haven't been won over to Paul. This is all somewhat moot anyway because ultimately, I suspect that most of the Paul supporters, when they walk into the voting booth this November, are going to vote for Romney because they see how truly dangerous Obama is and they won't vote for Paul and risk an Obama reelection. Of course, there are those who will vote for Paul no matter what but I don't believe there are enough who will do that to make a difference one way or the other.

As I said earlier, I have specific and I believe legitimate reasons for why I have decided to and will be voting for Romney and why, flaws and all, I see Romney as thousands of percent a better choice than Obama (or, for that matter, than Ron Paul or any other third-party/write-in type candidate). My reasons are based on examining Romney's record/what is publicly known about him compared to experience with and observation of Obama including his record as President and his past (his family, his associations, his teachers, etc). In this and in other threads I've offered some of my reasons which are almost always summarily dismissed making it apparent that taking the time and making the effort to state and explain those reasons is a wast. When there is an absence of desire for legitimate discussion; flaming and name calling and questions about the motivations of people, from both sides, tend happen and there are dozens of threads like this one where that is exactly what has happened.

Yes, I've called some, not all, Paul supporters "Paulbots" because there are many Paul supporters who act as if they've been programmed to support him no matter what facts or issues or reality is presented to them...they act robotic. Have I said other things that people took as insulting? I'm sure I have but that does not mean it was intentional. Have I used the +1/-1 functions? Yes I have. Have I used them when I probably shouldn't have? I"m sure I have. Have people done the same to me? I"m sure they have. However, I at least try to use them to express not agreement or disagreement with a post but whether or not the post is useful and/or at least seems like a attempt was made to add something to the discussion...many posts don't do that or even attempt to do that. As to strickj...I never called him a racist...or even hinted in that direction and I know nothing about him other than his posts here. I said and I say that he has used what is commonly called the "race card" in suggesting/insinuating/outright stating that ThePunisher was a racist...that ThePunisher was basing his opinion of Obama based on Obama's race. If you think that is calling strickj a "racist" you are wrong; the two things are very different from each other.

That is completely true. Unfortunately, there are more than a few gun owners out there; some who even classify themselves as "enthusiasts", who either don't understand or don't want to understand or simply don't care. For example, some may not care about "posted properties" because they don't carry...all they care about is that they can shoot in their chosen competition or do their hunting. They may not care about "high capacity magazine" registrations because they don't use firearms that use such a magazine. They may not care about tracking/reporting the firearms some buy and/or they don't care about assault weapon bans so long as they can still own the heirloom firearm passe down from their great-great grandaddy they are happy. Case in point, how many gun owners either had (or still have) no problem with "background checks" inspite of the simply truth that the system has done nothing in accomplishing its stated purpose?

There are a fair number of gun owners who only care about gun issues that directly affect them.

Frankly, I'm a lot more concerned about what has happened to common sense and the ability for rational thought since both seem to have almost disappeared.

Posting exaggerations of what has been said or simply making things up out of whole cloth is a significant indicator that you have no legitimate desire to have a rational, intelligent discussion of the differences between Romney and Obama and having no true desire for real discussion is precisely why these threads degenerate into what this one has degenerated into. I have specific and I believe legitimate reasons for why I have decided to and will be voting for Romney and why, flaws and all, I see Romney as thousands of percent a better (different) choice than Obama. My reasons are based on experience with and observation of Obama, his record so far as President and educating myself about his past (his family, his associations, his teachers, etc) but you and many others have made it pretty clear that taking the time and making the effort to explain those reasons would be a wast of that time and effort. Ultimately, whether you do or don't agree with my conclusions about Romney and Obama is immaterial. However, insulting those, like me, who have decided to support Romney by ascribing to us dribble such as you posted above should at least be frowned upon...it also begs the question of what it is you hope to accomplish by insulting people.

Well, I think it means that after his inauguration, Romney's plans are to issue an executive order that will allow states to opt out Obamacare. Then I think his plans are to work to repeal Obamacare and replace it with legislation that addresses the problems we have with how health care insurance is currently obtained/delivered in the U.S. Taking into account Romney's capitalists underpinnings (as opposed to Obama's Marxists/socialist underpinnings), I suspect Romney will seek to address the problems we have with health care insurance in a way that allows the free market to work rather than turning our health care system into a socialist, single payer system. He might well revive some of the proposals Republicans offered in 2008/2009 that Pelosi/Reid completely ignored when they rushed through Obamacare (the bill they had to pass before before they could know what's in it).

Perhaps not in the five years prior but you played the race card at least twice in this thread, including the post I'm quoting here. You have, multiple times accused ThePunisher of being motivated by race and that IS playing the race card...it's the perfect definition of playing the race card. ThePunisher has NOT referenced race as a motivation even once in this thread.

Oh wow...NOW I get it. Obama's known lies, pandering and votes that go much further than just a ban on certain kinds of weapons in Illinois is somehow superior/better to what you call Romney's lies, pandering and his signing an assault weapons ban which makes Obama a better President than Romney can be. I appreciate you clearing that up.

I post just a small sampling of Obama's lies (all of which have happened during his administration), and you don't deny that he is a liar, yet you post links to articles quoting Obama as saying he won't push for new gun controls measures "this election year" as if the promises of a liar are supposed to mean something. Actually, I can easily believe that Obama won't push for new gun control measures this year...my concern is with regards to the next four should this country be unfortunate enough that he wins a second term. Would you care to cite and substantiate the lies Romney has told? I don't believe that anyone who has participated in this or any of the plethora of other "Romney is no good" threads is dismissing what you call the "blatant anti-gun past" of Mit Romney nor has said Romney is some huge fan of Second Amendment rights...I am sure he believes in some degree of "gun control" that I and many here find objectionable and I even believe that Romney might well sign some gun control legislation should it cross his desk. On the other hand, I'm positive that Obama will sign anything that further restricts gun rights that crosses his desk; up to and including an outright ban/confiscation - I do not believe Romney would ever go that far. I believe that Obama would confiscate/outlaw all firearms if he could because I believe that he, as a Marxists/communists/socialist, has a disdain for power residing in the "people" rather than the government and arms, in the hands of the people, represents tremendous power that Obama sees a need to quash or at least control. Even if I believed that Romney was as much of an enemy of the Second Amendment as I believe Obama is, that wouldn't stop me from voting for Romney because I am not a "single issue voter"...I would still vote for Romney for the simple reason that no Marxist/communist/socialists should ever be sitting in the oval office and the one sitting there now needs to be sent back to the Chicago cesspool he came from.

Already did, at least I "reported" the post....I don't know who gets the "reports"

LOL Liberal rag or conservative rag or any other rag...the truly questionable source here is not as much what "news organization" is involved, it's that the story being reported is based on the word or a liar; the same liar told all these whoppers... 1. The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime. (that's a real good one although somewhat true, it won't increase it by one dime...a $Trillion dollars a year maybe, but not one dime) 2. If you like the health care plan you have you can keep it TownHall 3. “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.†U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2009. 4. ObamaCare Fee is not a new tax (I really love this one...this of course was said before Obama's attorney's went an argued to SCOTUS that is was a tax). Obama denies healthcare is a new tax on all Americans . 5. We have run out of places in the US to drill for oil. Obama’s oval office speech in June 2010 6. Now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you can be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen. Arizona Immigration Law 7. Doctors choose amputation because they get better compensation. Greedy Doctors taking out tonsils for more money. Claims never documented 8. The Health Care Package will pay for itself Time 9. We shouldn’t Mandate the purchase of health care (another great one; the cornerstone to Obamacare IS the mandate) Democratic Debate Lies 10. Obama says he’ll save average family $8,000 in gas Video Proof 11. I am immediately instituting PayGo “Pay as you go†Said during a speech immediately after the Trillion Dollar “Shovel Ready†bill. He did say at least one thing that I absolutely believe which is that he want's to fundamentally transform America ( [media=] [/media] )

I'm sure that linking to the Huffington Post as if it was a legitimate source for facts was just a joke.

Just asking a question? That looks a lot like a personal attack to me, in the form of an accusation...an accusation that ThePunisher is basing his position on Obama, at least in part, on Obama's race. It especially looks like an accusation since ThePunisher never mentioned Obama's race.

That is not what I said - what I said was that you were playing the race card; making a personal attack on ThePunisher by "suggesting" (maybe you'll find that word less objectionable) that his objections to Obama are, at least in part, based on race.

After dozens (or many many dozens) of these threads, where, exactly, did you expect it to go other than where it's wound up? I haven't seen anything truly "new" presented in any of these threads since last fall so why do you think that posting a video that goes over the same material is going to change anything?

I'll let ThePunisher, if he fells he needs to do so, defend his comments. More to the point, it sort of sounds as if you are suggesting that it's okay for you to insinuate someone is a racist because ThePunisher, in your opinion, either did it first or is one himself.

Really; we are down to playing the race card now?