RobertNashville

I agree that it isn't just one person but let's not forget that even if true Conservatives took working control of both the House and Senate, one man (Obama) can thwart almost anything a good Congress might try to accomplish AND he has the power of Executive Orders which has already used to circumvent the Constitution and existing laws. The President is only one man but it's one man with an incredible amount of power and Obama has shown no qualms about using it whether it's "Fast and Furious" or suing states like Arizona simply for trying to enforce laws that are a mirror image of Federal statutes or whether it's not pursuing Black Panthers who intimidate voters at the polls with violence. Let us also not forget that the next president will likely appoint two or more Supreme Court Justices - I wonder if some who think we can live with another four years of Obama truly understand how devastating it will be to ALL our Constitutional rights if we get two or three or four new justices like Satomoyer or Kagan...how do you think the court would have ruled in the recent Second Amendment cases if more like those two were on court??? I believe Romney is a decent, moral, man with proven leadership qualities and good business sense who has accomplishments both inside and outside of politics. I certainly don't agree with some of the things he has done/stands on issues he has taken in the past but I've never met a candidate that I could say that about. Romney also wasn't my first choice for the nominee but I think at the end of the day, he'll at least try to do what is right for the country. I believe at the end of the day, Obama will do what is best for him and that he could not care less about the United States...I believe he hates what this country is which is why his primary goal, as he stated, is to fundamentally transform America. Obama's mentor was a card carrying Communist and I believe Obama believes in the Marxist/Communist form or government. Comparing the two viable choices this cycle, I won't have any trouble at all voting for Romney; and God help us and the United States should he lose and we have four more years of Obama.

What I can't imagine is voting for someone who cannot win (and cannot even win a nomination). What I can't imagine is why anyone would risk the future of the country by not voting for someone who can replace the Marxist/communist. What I don't want to imaging is continuing with a Marxist/communist in the oval office who has stated plainly that his ultimate goal as President is the fundamental transformation of America.

Of course it's dead. As long as Dirty Harry is in control of the Senate not much is going to change for the better. If this cycle Republicans get at least a simple majority in the Senate then we still have pretty much the same problem with the House unless we get enough real Conservatives in the House that they can push reforms and go around Bhoner as needed. Of course, all the above is pretty much moot as long as the socialist is in the oval office - no bill like this is ever going to get through him no matter who is in control of Congress.

I might be misinformed but I thought there was something either in the Constitution or at least an existing law that says (or once said) that Congress already had to live under the same laws as the great unwashed (i.e. you and me). If that's true it doesn't seem to be working well, for us that is.

My collection has always bee part of my retirement plan. However, I don't have a WC but that is something I plan to correct this weekend as a matter of fact!

Good morning! I came across this discussion through Rangemaster (Memphis) and I though I'd pass it along as I think it's one of the better discussions of Open carry/Concealed carry I've seen in quite a while. I'm not looking for an acrimonious discussion here - how you carry is up to you and I'm not mad at anyone because of the choice they make; I just though this was worth your time to look regardless of your carry method. [media=] [/media]

Unfortunately I don't think we can survive as a country simply by holding onto one body. We could and I hope we do see some improvement in Congress with a few more Tea Party Conservative reps/senators take some seats but if Obama is left in office and if Congress is relatively unchanged in its make-up then we can pretty much kiss what is left of our economy and our liberty goodby.

And yet no matter what the current socialist in chief does, there are still a significant group of self-avowed conservatives/libertarians who hate Romney so much that they think giving the socialist another four years is no big deal. I don't get it and I guess I never will...and I'm not sure I want to.

Why is it so easy for RP faithful to come up with cute pictures and videos but can't seem to generate votes at the polls? I'll answer my own question by citing (well, paraphrasing) 6.8 AR because I think it it has a great deal to do with how RP has been presented/presented himself. His message doesn't resonate with a majority of people not because his message is bad but because he doesn't put his message out there in a way that the average voter can accept and he ends up scaring people; that is where a good handler and/or campaign manager could have been a significant help. "Shut out"? Really? Are RP's supporters ever going to stop singing that tired and untrue song? I'm pretty sure he was invited to the NRA National Convention but he was a no show so who is shutting him out? He's all over the networks with soundbites so who is shutting him out? I believe he was invited to all the debates (but didn't show up for at least one of them) so who is shutting him out? He lost because he lost...he didn't get the votes (see above)...he didn't lose because people did what they were told...he lost because he didn't convince enough people to vote for him. He's had three shots at the apple and he's missed each time by a pretty significant and the only one who is really to blame is the guy RP sees in the mirror in the mornings when he shaves.

Yuup...took the words right out of my mouth!I've heard disturbing stats that even among self-avowed conservatives and libertarians, only about one in three are even registered to vote!

I don't know if Obama is a Muslim...I don't really think he is a Muslim...actually, I don't think he really has any truly serious religious belief at all and yes, I don't care which was my point. What I care about is how someone is likely to govern (or in Obama's case, is governing).

They have dealers in FL (looks like that's where you are)....you can go to the website to locate dealers. http://www.cz-usa.com/products/But yes, you may have trouble finding what you want in stock...that often happens with any higher-end 1911

That has been my experience as well and I find it a bit disheartening that Romney's religion is even an issue for some.Would I prefer a President that believes what I believe and how I believe? Of course I would. But I don't think a person has to have any religion of any kind to be a decent person who will strive to do what is right for the country and provide leadership.

As important as the Second Amendment is to me, I never have and never will vote for or against someone on that or any other "single" issue. I heard Romney speak at the NRA convention in St. Louis and his discussion of his stand on the Second Amendment was encouraging. Even so, I was and am certain that Romney is not a big Second Amendment supporter and I have no doubt that most of the Republican field this cycle would be "better" in terms of preserving and perhaps restoring some of our 2A rights than Romney; unfortunately, non of those others will be the Republican nominee and have no chance of winning the Presidency. Moreover, whatever Romney's shortcomings with regards to the Second Amendment are, I am certain of the following... 1. I am certain that Romney isn't a Marxist/communist who's primary goal as President is to fundamentally transform America into a socialist state and I'm reasonably certain that while he might sign some, he would likely not sign most "gun control" legislation that might cross his desk. 2. I am certain that Obama is a Marxist/communist who's primary goal as President is to fundamentally transform America into a socialist state. I am also certain, based on his record in Illinois as well as his statements, that Obama is not simply not a "friend" of the Second Amendment but may well be the most dangerous President we've ever had to Second Amendment rights...I am certain that if he could find a way to do it (through or in spite of the Constitution) he would sign and would encourage legislation to provide for the confiscation of all privately owned weapons and make the possession of same illegal. I don't think Romney = Obama nor that Obama = Romney...for me, the choice in November is exceptionally clear.

The Federal Reserve is very likely unconstitutional and what the Federal Reserve is doing to our money supply is unconscionable. The IRS is the U.S's Gestapo with unfettered powers to ruin our lives and not just trample on but shred our Constitutional rights. What else is new??? I don't see that ever changing; no matter who is elected...no matter how many decades down the road you want to look...in other words, I think America lost that war a very long time ago and in fact, I'm not sure many Americans even turned out to fight. Sorry...guess I'm just not feeling very hopeful today.

Respectfully (and I don't hate Kimbers so no need for anyone to accuse me of that. ) I would take a serious look at the Sig Sauer and/or the Dan Wesson 1911s. I've owned and do own quite few 1911s, including Kimber and I've found that for the money, it's really difficult to beat the quality and craftsmanship found in Sig's and Dan Wesson's and I think you'll find the prices comparable. Just my $0.02 of course.

You know, you are probably correct about that but doesn't that raise another issue? I don't have Fox sound clips in front of me but I'm pretty sure I've heard Paul say more than one that he's really running for President and running to win and expects be the nominee, etc., etc. So...is he really expecting to be and and running to be the nominee or is he running just to make a point and push his agenda? If he's really running to make a point/push his agenda (which I've heard others say many times in various ways) then isn't him claiming otherwise a bit questionable if not dishonest?

You know, you are probably correct about that but doesn't that raise another issue? I don't have Fox sound clips in front of me but I'm pretty sure I've heard Paul say more than one that he's really running for President and running to win and expects be the nominee, etc., etc. So...is he really expecting to be and and running to be the nominee or is he running just to make a point and push his agenda? If he's really running to make a point/push his agenda (which I've heard others say many times in various ways) then isn't claiming otherwise a bit dishonest or at the very least, a bit questionable?

I can't say I've noticed Fox pushing Romney; then again, I watch very little of Fox or any other TV news outlets these days so I guess I've insulated myself from it. It also means that Fox certainly hasn't formed my opinion of Paul!

I'm not insistent on him quitting before the "actual end"; you and I just have different ideas of when the "end" is; I think it's already happened. As I said, I haven't questioned his patriotism I'm just not convinced that it's his patriotism that is his motivation for running for President. "Savior"? When did I ever call Romney a "savior"??? I don't think any of the candidates deserve that term applied to them; I'm not sure if any candidate has ever deserved it except perhaps for Washington.

I don't know what "MSM" is nor do I understand the phrase "you guy's opinions." I'm not sure what relevance these two videos are to this thread and more to the point I'm not sure what "agenda" is working well. And by the way, he has been saying "I have no plans to do so" which is a hell of a lot different than "NO I WILL NOT RUN as an independent/third-party"...he is clearly hedging and it's reasonable to wonder why...I think it's because he wants to leave that door open which I find disingenuous at best. If he does want to leave that door open he ought to be honest and just say so. If he really won't run other than as the Republican nominee then he ought to be honest enough to say so. The "I have no plans to do so" answer is just a typical politician's answer; something I though Paul wasn't supposed to be.

Saying Paul hasn’t lost the race for the nomination is about as meaningful as saying the sun may not rise tomorrow. The sun may not rise and RP may yet somehow get the Republican nomination; either of those two things happening have about the same probability.There is nothing irrelevant about the question; he has run on a third party ticket in the past and currently, his faithful have made it known that they want him to do exactly that (run as a write-in/independent/third-party) so asking the questions is absolutely reasonable and his refusal to give an answer is telling. Calling himself a Republican and being one are not equal. I would even suggest that it’s his significant and public disagreements with the Republican party that has endeared him to many of his faithful.His actions of registering as a Republican, then running as a Libertarian then again registering as a Republican, which you correctly recite, smells more like expediency to me than it does conviction…it seems he is simply using the Republican party rather than being honest about his actual politics. His policies are clearly libertarian and the only nomination for President he has ever won was the Libertarian nomination. He is a libertarian but he knows he can’t win as one so he’s willing to call himself a Republican. As I said before, that seems a bit dishonest to me or call it dishonorable if that makes it more palatable. None…I thought I already made that clear when I stated that it was my opinion based on experience and observation. It does mean something; but it doesn’t mean he should be President just as it doesn't mean that I should be. Yes I do get upset when someone who has shown little objective evidence of patriotism questions my own and only because I don't agree with his choice for a Presidential candidate . However, since I wasn’t questioning Paul’s patriotism I fail to see what your point is....I question his motives for running for President; I didn't and never have questioned his patriotism and I've not been given a reason to do so.Lot's of people have served in uniform; even done heroic things and some of them have run for President (McCain, Gore and Kerry come to mind)...I never questioned their patriotism but with all three men, I did have reservations about their motives for running for office. Well, I guess we are back to whether the sun will rise in the morning aren’t we. True, the fat lady hasn't sung yet but she is in the wings just behind the curtain. In any case, I doubt if a whole chorus of fat ladies singing will make any difference to those faithful who refuse to accept defeat.I guess we'll see how gracious he'll be after the fat lady takes the stage.

I'm fixated on it because when I've seen him asked the question about running independently/third-party, etc. he's done everything but stand on his head to avoid answering the question and when a politician avoids answering a direct question it's usually because they know (or at least think) that the answer won't be very popular. Moreover, I've long had the suspicion that Ron Paul's designs on the Presidency has a lot less to do with doing what's right for the country and a lot more about doing what makes RP important...I think his own ego is what is driving him to run...I think that's why, even though he is truly a Libertarian in his politics, he's chosen to run for the Republican nomination because, unlike some of his supporters, RP knows he'll never win the Presidency if is isn't the R nominee...frankly, it bothers me and seems just a bit dishonest that he would use the Republican party that way. Now...I know all the above is just my opinion but my opinion is the only thing I can really claim expertise in. that said, I think my opinion is based on observation and experience. Whether it's right or wrong; I don't know. Aside from all that, it's beyond whether Romney can or can't win without the Paul faithful...accepting defeat graciously and doing nothing to impede the Republican candidate and at least giving verbal support to the person who beat you is simply the right thing to do...it's the honest thing to do...anyone who won't do that is someone who I don't think deserves to be President. Again; just my opinion.

Well, I don't use any of my custom 1911s as carry pistols; that's not why I have them but I know from going through two days of pistol training at Tactical Response that my Nighthawk will do just fine for carry if I decided to use it that way. I also have a Sig Scorpion that would be a great carry 1911.It's true that I wouldn't want to be without any of them following a SD shooting but as far as having a high end 1911 taken for a while after a SD shooting, I would suggest that how "painful" that would be would vary from person to person depending on where they land on the economic scale/how many weapons they own...if you are on a tight budget and have only enough to buy one, used Glock it's going to be pretty painful to have the police take it for some unknown period of time.

Thanks...occasionally I get one right here and there.