el Gato Gordo - SASS #15162 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 This post is informational and not intended to stir debate. Granted, no one would describe President Barack Obama as pro-gun. There is no telling what he may propose if re-elected, since he would have little to lose. There is no telling whom he might appoint to the Supreme Court, just when we are starting to get the Second Amendment defined. The scary part is, his honorable opponent's record on this issue is no better: "Romney has said "I support the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution,"[216] though in past campaigns he has described himself as a proponent of gun control, and he fully supports a ban on assault weapons.[217] For Romney's 1994 US Senate campaign, he supported the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on particular semi-automatic rifles.[217] In a 2002 debate during Romney's campaign for governor of Massachusetts, Romney said: "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."[218] As governor, Romney signed a 2004 measure instituting a permanent Massachusetts ban on military style assault weapons, to take the place of a Federal ban, which was then about to expire. The bill made Massachusetts the first state to enact its own such ban on specific semi-automatic weapons and some shotguns with specific accessories, and Romney supported the law with the comment: "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."[219] As Governor, Romney extended the term of firearm licenses from four to six years, reinstated a 90-day grace period for citizens renewing their gun licenses, and signed a law providing free replacement licenses.[citation needed] When he supported the Brady Bill in 1994, Romney said, "That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA. I don't line up with the NRA."[218]" Amigos, I think no matter who ends up in the Oval Orifice, we Gun Owners are screwed. Buena suerte, eGG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder SASS #13056 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Nope, as so often, we have to choose between a loser and a Really Big loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curley Fryes Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 May I nominate a SASS member for President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Two Fingers Slim Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 The one in office now is wiping out this country every day and turning it into a third world country, with the other guy we may stand a better chance of keeping what we got and turning things around, just my two cents worth.... TFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Smokepole #29248L Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 All I know is that Romney is not a Chicago Democrat..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nasty Newt # 7365 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I think the president has done enough damage in the courts in general, including the Supreme Court. He has to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlicLee SASS #16638 Life Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Not one place you made reference to did Mitt make any of those comments you highlighted. I read each and every one. He seems to have quite a record as pro gun not by his mouth but his actions, I went back to 2002 never found anti gun, pro AWB. Have a good night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conejo Kid #51342 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 No TOUGH decision here. Moderate Republican vs Ultra liberal Democrat I would prefer a Conservative Republican -- but then again, a conservative republican couldn't beat "O". Conejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Not one place you made reference to did Mitt make any of those comments you highlighted. I read each and every one. He seems to have quite a record as pro gun not by his mouth but his actions, I went back to 2002 never found anti gun, pro AWB. Have a good night. I was just getting ready to say the same thing!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John William McCandles #963 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Romney would be the lesser of the two evils, with O being to great of a risk especially with nothing to loose in a second term. We need to also concentrate on getting a gun friendly majority in the senate and keeping what we have in the house. Without a majority in both O can't really do much except by proclamation and decree. JW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder SASS #13056 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 It appears the source used in the original post is not reliable, which is all too common now days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slate mike sass#29204 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 When I look at the Republican party and the way they have deadlocked any progress in so many issues that need change, I find that I cannot support Romney. The party argument that increasing taxes on the rich while giving the middle class a break will mean less jobs created is patently false. Demand creates jobs. The rich spend what they want when they want to. Companies do not hire just to create jobs. They hire when the demand for more product is there. And it's the middle class that creates demand when they have some money in their pockets. I cannot anymore just look at the "gun" issue to determine my vote.(OK,jumping off the soapbox. Next?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacknife Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 When I look at the Republican party and the way they have deadlocked any progress in so many issues that need change, I find that I cannot support Romney. I don't believe I'da tole dat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowCatcher Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 When I look at the Republican party and the way they have deadlocked any progress in so many issues that need change, I find that I cannot support Romney. The party argument that increasing taxes on the rich while giving the middle class a break will mean less jobs created is patently false. Demand creates jobs. The rich spend what they want when they want to. Companies do not hire just to create jobs. They hire when the demand for more product is there. And it's the middle class that creates demand when they have some money in their pockets. I cannot anymore just look at the "gun" issue to determine my vote.(OK,jumping off the soapbox. Next?) I'm not sure where you learned anything about business or economics, and from what I read of your "logic" I really don't care. If you think the current looser in chief is what we want more of - well, there is nothing in the world I can say to dissuade you. Anything - even a carrot - would be better for our country than this Marxist clown in a three piece. You just go on believing what you will, but frankly - I'll be spending a lot of time and money to defeat the incumbent. YMMV . . good luck with that . . . Shadow Catcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Mushman Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 When I look at the Republican party and the way they have deadlocked any progress in so many issues that need change, I find that I cannot support Romney. The party argument that increasing taxes on the rich while giving the middle class a break will mean less jobs created is patently false. Demand creates jobs. The rich spend what they want when they want to. Companies do not hire just to create jobs. They hire when the demand for more product is there. And it's the middle class that creates demand when they have some money in their pockets. I cannot anymore just look at the "gun" issue to determine my vote.(OK,jumping off the soapbox. Next?) You are certainly right that the gun issue should not be the only way to determine one's vote (but it is one of the top 3 for me). I've held my nose in many elections, voting for what I thought was best for the city, county, state, country. No one candidate ever holds all our views, and we have to place priorities. Most of the "deadlock" has prevented some far worse policies taking us further down a dangerous path. It takes two to deadlock and not one budget has come out of the Senate for 3 years - while several have out of the House. I do hope you do a lot more research in economics and economic history - any more is political - not going there. I support your right to make any decision and vote as you choose, and we can still shoot (maybe, depending on who wins) and enjoy SASS together. Harvey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Kiowa Jones #6765 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 When I look at the Republican party and the way they have deadlocked any progress in so many issues that need change, I find that I cannot support Romney. The party argument that increasing taxes on the rich while giving the middle class a break will mean less jobs created is patently false. Demand creates jobs. The rich spend what they want when they want to. Companies do not hire just to create jobs. They hire when the demand for more product is there. And it's the middle class that creates demand when they have some money in their pockets. I cannot anymore just look at the "gun" issue to determine my vote.(OK,jumping off the soapbox. Next?) Demand certainly drives the economies. But, it takes Rich folks investing their money to fill the demands. These investments are where jobs come from. You ever got a job from a poor man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Every tax increase historically results in a recession. Tax reductions result in periods of prosperity. When Kennedy took office the GDP was growing at a rate of +2.4%. He cut taxes on the upper income earners, and the economy jumped to +4.1% growth. Under Reagan it went up to +7.2%. Under Obama it's been -2.6%. That's minus, negative, in the red. As a percentage of GDP, BHO has run us up to 99.6%. Greece, Italy, and Spain have all collapsed with similar spending. You really want more of that Slate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder SASS #13056 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Mike, it sounds like you been drinking from the wrong fountain. Read up on some of what the better economists are saying. They are generally more reliable than nearly all the media (which is about 95% democrats) and even more balanced than either party. Generally not as easy reading as the general cool aid of nearly all the media, but educational and worth the effort. Just one example: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conejo Kid #51342 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 When I look at the Republican party and the way they have deadlocked any progress in so many issues that need change, I find that I cannot support Romney. The party argument that increasing taxes on the rich while giving the middle class a break will mean less jobs created is patently false. Demand creates jobs. The rich spend what they want when they want to. Companies do not hire just to create jobs. They hire when the demand for more product is there. And it's the middle class that creates demand when they have some money in their pockets. I cannot anymore just look at the "gun" issue to determine my vote.(OK,jumping off the soapbox. Next?) WOW -- where do I begin. Let me just boil this down. Obama -- before being President, he never even ran a lemonade stand -- and his advisors are all elites and socialists or marxists. No question why his policies don't work. Romney -- everything he touched has been successful his whole life -- and he is a great guy. He SAVED the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics, worked for 3 years 15/7 AND DIDN'T TAKE ANY COMPENSATION FOR DOING IT!!!!! (P.S. Romney also took no compensation for his 4 years as Governor of Massachusetts -- but somehow the media paints him as greedy -- what a bunch of dishonest hippocrites). I know facts confuse liberals, but the contrast is SOOO striking it is beyond me why Romney isn't ahead by 80%. I guess Simon and Garfunkel said it best, "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" (Ref: The Boxer). Conejo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 The party argument that increasing taxes on the rich while giving the middle class a break will mean less jobs created is patently false. THAT statement is patently false!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Morningwood Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Found this on Yahoo comments and thought it was hilarious. Hi. I'm Mitt Romney, President and CEO of America, Inc. In these tough economic times, tough decisions are required to keep nervous investors happy. So to allay the fears of our foreign, er, patriotic investors, I have decided by Chief Executive Order to sell off to China those poorly producing states now in the grip of this historic drought. Of course those living in these soon to be defunct states will have to try and find gainful occupancy in the remaining states. I realize that with a little time, retooling and investment, these drought ridden states could once again be made productive (and profitable), but it is unfair for our investors to risk having a less-than-opulent lifestyle while those changes take affect. We will be left with a leaner, meaner nation and economy and will soon be able to purchase natural resources extracted by China from these unpopulated lands, free from regulatory oversight. Not an Obama fan, but not one of these crazy people who run around clouding real issues with squeals about false birth certificates, being a "secret Muslim", etc. Just do not think he was ready for the job in 2008. I do not think Romney has a clue what the average American needs from a President or that his economic ideas are bestest for the mostest, to paraphrase a famous wag from the Civil War. Flame away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Coffinmaker Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 And since Politics has no place on this forum (As repeatedly claimed by the moderators) hows about taking the political nonsense elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Adams 3674 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 And since Politics has no place on this forum (As repeatedly claimed by the moderators) hows about taking the political nonsense elsewhere. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Since this is definitely a political post let me add one more thing before it gets pulled. 1. If you are so deluded that you believe that obamalongadingdong is doing a good job and deserves 4 more years than at least consider the damage he has done to this country, Do we as citizens deserve 4 more years of uncertainty. As another thread supposed that the weakness in clean matches was attributable to obama so is weak employment numbers and economic growth. 2. while the republicans in the house have tied up bills. Remember that neither party seems to be able to lead this country out of recession alone. The dumbocraps clearly don't know how to it either. Look at the horrible results in the economy. 3. gun rights and the 2nd ammendment are very important. Since the loss of the 2nd ammendment rights would never come back once stolen or sold down the river. We must act to preserve our rights and not let them go. obama has surrounded himself with types that are anti 2nd amendment. His original cos was the idiot that wrote the assault gun ban. what other proof of anti gun behaviour do you need. The UN ATT treaty is another proof. PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES! 4. The economy will tend to stabilize when the destabilizers are gone. That means the problems in Europe and the uncertainty about obama. Do not vote according to the economy and the concepts of what mitt did once upon a time. For if you did you most certainly have already voted for a muslim. And based upon speculation and info that obama is allied with US hater george soros, do you want a US hater in the white house for 4 more years. Bad voting habits affect all US citizens not just the bad voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacknife Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 And since Politics has no place on this forum (As repeatedly claimed by the moderators) hows about taking the political nonsense elsewhere. If ya ain't interested in it, just pass it on by. See, that wasn't hard to do was it. Never figgered out why some people always have to gripe about what others think, just cause they don't like it. Live and let live, lessen it is hurting you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangler Jones, SASS # 64178 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Romney would be the lesser of the two evils, with O being to great of a risk especially with nothing to loose in a second term. We need to also concentrate on getting a gun friendly majority in the senate and keeping what we have in the house. Without a majority in both O can't really do much except by proclamation and decree. JW There is much he has already done via decree and regulation. Without the threat of again having to face an angry electorate, I suspect he would behave even more autocratically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conejo Kid #51342 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conejo Kid #51342 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Found this on Yahoo comments and thought it was hilarious. Hi. I'm Mitt Romney, President and CEO of America, Inc. In these tough economic times, tough decisions are required to keep nervous investors happy. So to allay the fears of our foreign, er, patriotic investors, I have decided by Chief Executive Order to sell off to China those poorly producing states now in the grip of this historic drought. Of course those living in these soon to be defunct states will have to try and find gainful occupancy in the remaining states. I realize that with a little time, retooling and investment, these drought ridden states could once again be made productive (and profitable), but it is unfair for our investors to risk having a less-than-opulent lifestyle while those changes take affect. We will be left with a leaner, meaner nation and economy and will soon be able to purchase natural resources extracted by China from these unpopulated lands, free from regulatory oversight. Not an Obama fan, but not one of these crazy people who run around clouding real issues with squeals about false birth certificates, being a "secret Muslim", etc. Just do not think he was ready for the job in 2008. I do not think Romney has a clue what the average American needs from a President or that his economic ideas are bestest for the mostest, to paraphrase a famous wag from the Civil War. Flame away. Really sad that so many people have this impression of Mitt. My daughter just happens to live next door to one of the five Romney boys. Great family, great kids. I can tell you that with all Mitt's kids, grandkids and extended family, he does indeed have a good understanding of what the AVERAGE American needs. The top things are: Jobs, the opportunity to be sucessful, Jobs, Family, Jobs, Faith in God, Jobs, Belief in Constitution as a Divine Document, Oh -- and did I mention Jobs? Conejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 When I look at the Republican party and the way they have deadlocked any progress in so many issues that need change, I find that I cannot support Romney. So what's your alternative, the CURRENT occupant of The White House? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korupt Karl Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 I am not deciding strictly on 2nd ammendment compliance, but I have seen both our current Pres and Hillary try everything for their hidden agenda....most recently with the UN Treaty. Typically a president on his last term has nothing to lose and will try and will do anything he can get away with. A armed nation is one to fear. We need to stay that way. Just my too scents KK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shoer 27979 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 And since Politics has no place on this forum (As repeatedly claimed by the moderators) hows about taking the political nonsense elsewhere. Didn't know you became forum moderator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Duncan Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 The South needs to rise up again...SOON! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Branch Louie Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Since SASS is ALL about guns, and since this forum is about gun related issues, and since the current POTUS has a LOOOONNGGG anti-gun history, it's a no-brainer. Romney probably wouldn't be my first choice, but how many of us knew when we voted for Reagan how good he would turn out to be? I would hazard a guess many thought he was the lesser of the two evils. Just my 2 cents before this gets pulled.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tennessee Stud, SASS# 43634 Life Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 What the hell? You boys and girls out there... you best get your minds right. Are you really gonna depend on politicians to dictate how you live? From Obomeny? You gonna depend on thems? (shhheessshhh)... suckers if you do. Gosh... I have never let some silly-a$$ policy keep me from protecting myself or my family. NEVER!... comprehende'? Worse case... what are they gonna do... arrest 22,000,000 folks... put 'em in jail? Really? We all live by the feud. Living by the "feud" means: do all that you say you are gonna do... and don't encroach on other's private property. That is it. Nothing more. Screw 'em... I never have paid attention to rules, regulations and laws... when I KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT. But before too long in the future... the Feds are gonna take private property in the name of "taxes"... going far beyond what "imminent domain" is about. Get ready. ts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe LaFives #5481 Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 I'm floored that anyone that has studied History or Economics would even consider Obama as a viable candidate. If one studies the Constitution, one notices that the Executive Branch is more in control in Foreign Policy and the Congress in Domestic Policy. Historically this has been the norm as well. Yet Obama has granted himself unprecedented power. The health law and the 2009 stimulus package were unique examples of Obama working with Congress. "The more persistent pattern is disregard for the powers o the legislative branch in favor of administrative decidsion making without and often in spite of congressional action". In short Obama proposes, Congress refuses and he does it anyway. Here are the examples: Congress refused to pass the Dream Act. Obama passed it himself with an executive order that directs officers to ignore the law and no longer deport certain illegals. Obama disagrees with Federal Law which criminalizes medical marijuana. So he instructs his Justice Dept not to prosecute transgressors. He disapproves of the Defense of Marriage Act , so he has the JD stop defending it in court He dislikes the No Child left behind act and so his ED dept issues waivers that are inconsistent with the statute. His EPA is now instituting the cap and trade idea as a broad reading of the Clean Air act instead of getting Congress to pass it. He stacked the National Labor Relations Board so the would push through a quickie election law to eliminate secret ballots in union elections. Congress wouldn't pass "net neutrality" so Obama had the FCC do it unilaterally In January Obama proclaimed the Senate in recess and appointed members to the NLRB making a mockery of that Chambers "advice and consent" clause. In June He expanded the the definition of executive privilege to deny the House of Rep, documents into Fast and Furious. Don't like Arizona's plans to check immigration status. Sue them Don't like States plans to clean up their elections, Invoke the Voting Rights Act Don't like States authority over Fracking - ignore it. His rational has always been - Hey I tried working with Congress but it didn't work out so we did it anyway. I'm not a fan of Congress BUT the checks and Balances that are in the Constitution are there for a reason. This President has created a huge power grab and we MUST kick him out of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.