Mitt Romney and the 2nd Amendment

[Guest ThePunisher]

I'm gonna havta go ahead and agree with ya on this one! Couldn't have said it better.

What I keep hoping for is a viable 3rd Party Candidate.

That's the same as wishing for 4 more years of the commie. Yep, just like kissing your country goodbye.

[Mike.357]

Fwiw Obama has nothing to do with property taxes.

At least dislike him for legitimate reasons

[mikegideon]

Did anybody else catch Romney's speech to the NRA yesterday? He eliminated most of my worries.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Did anybody else catch Romney's speech to the NRA yesterday? He eliminated most of my worries.

Very impressive speech. He eliminated my worries also.

[Seabeejason]

Fwiw Obama has nothing to do with property taxes.

At least dislike him for legitimate reasons

No, he doesn't. The high property taxes in Illinois were not Obama's doing. But they are the doing of the uncontrolled spending of the state government, which is primarily liberal. They spend more and so they tax more, so they can spend more. It's a nasty little cycle. Sound familiar?

I am sick of being taxed to death. At least I do get some relieve by living in Tennessee. Having no income or personal property tax really helps. I just got a bill from the state of Missouri saying I owe them $500.00 for personal property tax because I lived there for 6 months in 2011. It is not right that residents of some states get taxed on their property every year. It is honestly a travesty. What is sad is that Missouri is supposed to be a red state. That just goes to show that even folks in the GOP like to levy taxes on their constituents. But Missouri is still not near as bad as their neighbor. Raising taxes is fine, but when you do it without making spending cuts it is counter productive. The current Democrats are all about raising taxes to help "reduce the deficit", but they want to keep all these ballooning social programs and continue enabling welfare junkies to live off the system instead of having the motivation to get out there and work.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Seabeejason

[mikegideon]

Very impressive speech.

I thought it was pretty good. He did a great job laying the groundwork for his position on 2A. This doesn't scare me...

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/221435-romney-blasts-obama-on-the-economy-at-national-rifle-association-convention

[Mike.357]

I saw some of Romney's speech this morning on Fox. Maybe they edited it, dunno. But when he mentioned his support for gun rights he specifically mentioned sportsman, people defending their homes, but neglected to mention people who carry a firearm for personal defense off of their property.

Maybe I interpreted what I heard wrong. But seems that he left a door open.

[Seabeejason]

I saw some of Romney's speech this morning on Fox. Maybe they edited it, dunno. But when he mentioned his support for gun rights he specifically mentioned sportsman, people defending their homes, but neglected to mention people who carry a firearm for personal defense off of their property.

Maybe I interpreted what I heard wrong. But seems that he left a door open.

Good catch. I will definitely have to check into that one. Sometimes these politicians can be pretty sly.

[mikegideon]

I saw some of Romney's speech this morning on Fox. Maybe they edited it, dunno. But when he mentioned his support for gun rights he specifically mentioned sportsman, people defending their homes, but neglected to mention people who carry a firearm for personal defense off of their property.

Maybe I interpreted what I heard wrong. But seems that he left a door open.

This is one where you are best off hearing the whole speech. I don't get the feeling that he'll devote any resources to sticking his pecker into issues that should be controlled by the states anyway.

Edited April 14, 2012 by mikegideon

[Mike.357]

It just struck me as odd that he mentioned specifically every type gun rights but totally left out carrying

[mikegideon]

Doesn't scare me. Those really ARE state laws. I'm hoping he ignores a LOT of stuff, and drills down on the real issues for a change.

Edited April 14, 2012 by mikegideon

[Guest profgunner]

It just struck me as odd that he mentioned specifically every type gun rights but totally left out carrying

Romney might have avoided saying anything specific due to the Florida situation. He might just not want to give his opponents (Obama, Sharpton and old Porpoise Head Jesse) the opportunity to grandstand. I am convinced that he is a political chameleon, but agree with mikegideon that he'll probably keep his nose out of state level issues. I also agree about the importance of the supremes. If Obama gets reelected (and, in spite of the economy, I have to say I think there is a VERY good chance that he will), he will no doubt appoint justices with anti-gun leanings. So, despite my rants, I guess in the end I'll just hold my nose and vote for Romney. I really don't want to wake up Nov. 7th to find out we are stuck with Obama for four more years! Edited April 14, 2012 by profgunner

[mikegideon]

I'm not going to hold my nose. I had to hire somebody in the last several months. I developed a field of candidates and picked the guy out of the available field. Was he perfect? No. Was he a great hire? Absolutely.

I'm going to look at this election the same way. Is he the best guy within the field of candidates? I have no doubt. Will he be a great hire? It's possible, maybe even likely. Am I thrilled that he's not going to waste a lot of time on social engineering (homos, abortion) like a bunch of friggin' liberals. Yes, I am.

I'm gonna vote for the guy, and won't think twice about it.

[Guest ThePunisher]

I believe the time is now for becoming unified behind Romney to accomplish the most important goal since WW2, and that is to defeat Obama and his commie cronies, and send them a message that America went to sleep in 2008. The American people made one bad a.. mistake in falling for his Hope and Change BS, but America is not ready, and will not ever be ready to surrender our liberties and freedoms to a bunch of Marxisit commies.

We've had plenty of time trying to pick the best candidate to defeat Obama, and the process has worked out whether or not your candidate won the nomination. Romney was not my first choice, but now that he is presumptive choice for the republican nomination, I will give him my full support to defeat Obama in November.

I will repeat that nothing is more important than defeating Obama this November. Let's get unified behind Romney to pull off this important goal.

[Just2Honor]

+1 ThePunisher. Now that the field is virtually set, I'm all in for Romney. Remember, ABO (anybody but Obama) is the goal.

[kieefer]

My first thought was that he's catering to the crowd, telling his audience what they want to hear.

My second thought is, o-well, ABO.

[StPatrick]

Romney might have avoided saying anything specific due to the Florida situation.

This was my thought as well. Between St. Trayvon of Sanford, and the fact that handgun carry is far more controversial than shooting for sport or home defense to the mushy independents that are required for victory, the omission was strategically necessary. Mittens needs to spend the next 8 1/2 months focused on one question - THE question, when trying to beat an incumbent president: "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" Getting into the weeds on any controversial issue gives the other side, along with their fellow travelers in the media, an opportunity to distract low information voters from that question with the latest controversy. For reference, see the big nothingburger about contraception we had last month. It was all "oh noes! the rethuglikkkans are going to steal yer rubbers!" based on testimony by a professional activist too dumb to figure out she could get the pill for $9 / month at Target, no insurance required. Either that, or she was lying for political gain. I report, you decide on that one. Either way, Rush Limbaugh called her a bad name, so it was a full-on "war on women" and fundraising tool for the leftists at that point, real or not.

The signal to noise ratio in this campaign will be a huge issue - the more noise the left can generate to drown out the "4 years ago" question, the more likely they hold the White House. Pretend controversies will be generated, so the best Mittens' campaign can do is try not to tee up any easy ones.

[Garufa]

Romney doesn't give a #### about the 2nd. What politician does?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The only problem left with Romney is, if he tries to reach over too much, like McCain did, and not attack Obama

on the core problems, he will sink himself. Liberal Republicans tend to do that. Romney needs to be the real attack

dog and stay consistent. He can overcome Romney care. It's the economy that he needs to stay on top of, and

can the political correctness. This is politics, not a time to feel good.

A true conservative could win today hands down.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Romney doesn't give a #### about the 2nd. What politician does?

What difference does that make? He'll support it better than our current usurper-in-chief. Besides, that will be

Congress' job to keep that from being an issue.

[Garufa]

A true conservative could win today hands down.

I think we are past that.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

We might be past a bunch of things. Finding a true conservative wasn't successful this time.

[Oh Shoot]

.....A true conservative could win today hands down.

I don't think you get the US electorate nowadays.

There will not be a more conservative man elected than Romney in the foreseeable future. Maybe ever, until there's chaos enough for significant hunger and death to occur inside our own borders.

- OS

[kieefer]

I don't think you get the US electorate nowadays.

There will not be a more conservative man elected than Romney in the foreseeable future. Maybe ever, until there's chaos enough for significant hunger and death to occur inside our own borders.

- OS

That sounds like an BHO second term...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, I could have used better wording. I didn't want to invoke the "Reagan" word prematurely. We need

someone like that, with those communication skills and the right attitude like Reagan had. He made his

competition look puny. Always seemed to have the right words. That's what I meant, but I wasn't trying to

resurrect the impossible, just someone close. Marco Rubio is about the only one that appears to have

those skills and he ain't running.

I agree with you, Mac. Probably won't happen.