RobertNashville

I disagree; I think it is a movement...it certainly has political clout but that doesn't make it a political a party; I don't even know how it could be a political party since the whole thing is actually made up of hundreds of individual groups; I don't see any "party" structure to it. I know there are those who want it to be a party but I hope it doesn't go that route as I think doing so would be big mistake. In my observation, its primary mission (or at least its primary benefit) has been getting people involved in the process; in many cases, people who were never before involved in the political process. As far as I know (there may be exceptions), all the "Tea Party" candidates that have run were actually running in a primary to become a D or R nominee.

I've been involved in the Tea Party movement almost since its inception and I've never considered it to be a political party and hope it never becomes one.

At least in the Walking Dead, caliber doesn't seem to matter much...just about anything driven into the brain cavity seems to take care of the problem

I have an FNAR10 (308) with a nice scope on it - for distance/from a rooftop that would be my go to rifle.

The difference between Ron Paul and that unknown from Illinois is that the unknown from Illinois wasn't really all that unknown (he made a big splash in 2004 at the Democrat convention) and he also won his party's nomination four years later. If RP had won the nomination he would certainly have a legitimate shot in November.

We don't need a third party - what's wrong with the two parties we have is pretty much the same thing that is wrong with our society in general; the parties simply reflect that; so would adding another part to the mix. If we don't change the culture we'll never change the party. I think the Tea Party movement has started that process and it's made some progress but it's slow. Then again, we didn't get to this point overnight either.

I love the 10MM; I have a G20 and a couple of 1911s chambered in 10MM. But, it got a bad and I think, very unfair review from and ultimately rejected by the FBI; that's why we got the 40S&W. So...I don't expect it will ever be more than an also-ran in terms of popularity with the masses which is unfortunate.

Going through the "what ifs" is always entertaining and often enlightening; the problem is, none of can really know what would have happened "if". It seems to me that last election cycle a lot of people were putting forth the idea that if we elected a really bad candidate (i.e. Obama) and rejected McCain that by the next election cycle we would get a really good, upstanding Conservative Republican candidate...well, we rejected McCain and got Obama and not only is he a really bad President but a communist who rejects, dismisses and ignores the Constitution at every opportunity yet we've got Mit Romney as the Republican candidate Now, I don't consider Mit to be a RINO or a bad candidate as some here seem to but I sure don't see him as the really good, upstanding Conservative people were saying we would get.

You made me realize that I have used the term "viable" and "winnable" somewhat interchangeability and inappropriately (or at least without defining what I mean by "viable"; that was a mistake on my part. I do understand that Johnson (as well as others) are on the ballot and from that standpoint, are viable but I would never have described him/her as viable. I did not support Romney in the primaries; I supported other candidates; I donated money to their campaigns and did some other legwork. But, none of them won the nomination and I'm not going to donate more money to them or vote for (write in or otherwise) any of them in November because I see no way that they could win. I still like them and I think any of the candidates I initially supported would be a better President than Romney but they didn't win the nomination. I guess that's why I say that I don't see the logic of supporting someone who can't win. I consider myself to be a principled man, or at least I try to be. But I guess I"m a pragmatists first. Does that make me unprincipled or a bad person? I'd like to think not but maybe it does.

It's been a very long time since I read The Republic but I think I understand your reference. Are you saying I'm chained to the blank wall of the cave and only seeing shadows rather than reality and that's why I don't see a logic that is actually there?

Respectfully, I didn't say anyone was stupid or that people have no logic; what I've said (and I say) is that I don't see logic in supporting a candidate(s) that can't win. Inferring anything beyond that is inferring a meaning that isn't there and not intended. If there is logic to supporting a non-viable candidate, it shouldn't be that difficult for someone to explain it but so far, people have either relied on emotion-based arguments or haven't tried at all.

Yuup...that's a VERY easy question. I have said before and I mean it when I say that I admire the passion of RP supporters but come on; RP has tried and been rejected every single time and it wasn't even a close call any of those times. It's fine to continue to like him and wish for him to be president but It's LONG past time to move on and support the viable candidate; especially when we are talking about defeating the Communist in Chief currently defiling the Oval Office.

I don't know when the switch happened but Glock did a commemorative G31 (I own Serial Number 3) and that was at least two-three years ago that that commemorative model came out; I assume the switch to the G31 happened a while before that.

I didn't say anything like that either....I'm asking an honest question to which I'd like an honest answer.

Not directly, not indirectly and not in any other way.

I see passion and conviction here but certainly no logic in continuing to promote a candidate like Ron Paul (or any other fringe candidate) who has lost every single run for President he's made (and lost big this time). I like Jerry Doyle and I understand his point but refusing to support Romney is only going to serve to keep the communist in office and there is nothing logical about that.

VERY well said.

That's fine; but just to be clear, I didn't ask who you (or anyone ) were going to vote for.

The question isn't rhetorical - I'm looking for an answer (not an opinion), if there is one. Show me a better candidate who can truly beat Obama and I'll vote for him - calling the question rhetorical or saying that answering is jumping though hoops seems to me to be just a mechanism to avoid answering.

...

Apparently the bold is needed because people don't seem to be getting the point. In any case, no one has yet replied with an answer to my question. If someone can show me a better candidate with better policies and better stands on issues and has a reasonable and demonstrable chance of defeating the Communist then I'd be happy to at least consider voting for him or her.

I intend to vote for him and I noticed you didn't attempt to answer my question.I can't help but wonder why.

Yuup...if people really dislike Romney that much or think he would be worse President than the Communist they they might as well cut to the chase and just vote for the Communist. As for me, even though I don't believe Romney is a Democrat of 20 years ago I'd still gladly take a Dem of 20 years ago over a communist any day of the week and twice of Sunday.

For all who don't like Romney or don't trust Romney or or believe he is not "conservative enough" (whatever that means), please tell me what candidate is running who... Is "Conservative enough", AND Who you DO trust, AND Who you do like, AND Can actually win the election (and when I win I don't mean win based on wishful thinking or "if only" this or "if only" that; I mean show me how this mystery candidate can win based on a logical argument substantiated by independent evidence. I don't see that candidate running this cycle...maybe I missed him or her so maybe you can show me why I'm wrong for thinking that Mit Romney is our BEST chance at getting rid of the communist we currently have in office or at least explain how having Romney in office isn't about ONE MILLION TIMES BETTER than the communist in office who, by his own words and born out by his actions wants to "fundamentally transform America"?

http://www.handgunlaw.us/ http://www.sled.sc.g...aspx?MenuID=CWP As best I can tell, if your buddy was a resident of and had a permit form one of the states SC honors then the trooper was wrong; if he didn't have a permit from one of the states SC honors then the trooper was right.