Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada

[Charles L. Cotton]

What's the end result of what each of the men did? Obama passed National Parks Carry . . .

No, he most certainly did not "Pass National Carry." We rammed it down his throat. The level of intellectual dishonest on this bill is astonishing.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

But I can pretty much guarantee that is he's elected for a second term, there will be some gun related legislation he will happily sign, and we won't like the results.

That's exactly what everyone of our persuasion on gun rights was saying before he started his first term, and I'm still waiting on all that. Sometimes peoples' hatred of the man simply seems to cloud reality to where it's indistinguishable from their personal paranoia and fears.

You either intentionally remain ignorant of all that Obama has done to hurt gun owners, or you are intentionally misleading in your posts. Either way, you have proven yourself a troll since the first day you joined the forum.

Chas.

[Slowplay]

But I can pretty much guarantee that is he's elected for a second term, there will be some gun related legislation he will happily sign, and we won't like the results.

That's exactly what everyone of our persuasion on gun rights was saying before he started his first term, and I'm still waiting on all that. Sometimes peoples' hatred of the man simply seems to cloud reality to where it's indistinguishable from their personal paranoia and fears.

Another low, liberal tactic, attempting to discredit those providing facts. Nothing I've seen posted here demonstrates a "hatred of the man," but yet you chose to go the ad hominem path.

Also - pbwalker, why would Obama in second term need the legislature to continue the bidding for the brady bunch? Hasn't his admin already demonstrated they don't need congress to enact 2A restrictions?

[Slowplay]

What's the end result of what each of the men did? Obama passed National Parks Carry . . .

No, he most certainly did not "Pass National Carry." We rammed it down his throat. The level of intellectual dishonest on this bill is astonishing.

Chas.

The Obama admin also conducted a tepid defense of the Interior department when the Brady campaign sought an injuction to the Bush admin national park carry rules. When the court rejected the Bush rules, the Obama admin did not appeal.

Quite a different approach from how they take swift and firm legal action against those with whom they disagree.

[The Mad Moderate]

Not always about intent, if he had a problem with it I'm sure e would not have signed it with the National Parks amendment attached.

You couldn't be more wrong. He had a huge problem with it and tried to get the National Parks language stripped from the bill. He signed it because he couldn't veto the so-call credit card bill he said was critical to American consumers.

Why do you Obama supporters keep trying to refer to this bill as something Obama wanted?

Chas.

Mr. Cotton, I know what you say about the National Parks thing is true, but do you have an accurate accounting of the firearms legislation that Mitt Romney signed as Governor of Mass.? I keep hearing so many things about it, that I'm not sure which side to believe on it. I figure if anyone had the straight scoop, it would be you (or maybe TAM).

No I don't. As I said, Romney isn't even my 3rd choice, but he's much better than Obama. He also knows he needs the support of gun owners to get reelected for a 2nd term, something he didn't need to be elected or reelected as Gov. of Mass.

Chas.

So he was for it before he was against it? As John Kerry would say...

[lbuehler325]

Not always about intent, if he had a problem with it I'm sure e would not have signed it with the National Parks amendment attached.

You couldn't be more wrong. He had a huge problem with it and tried to get the National Parks language stripped from the bill. He signed it because he couldn't veto the so-call credit card bill he said was critical to American consumers.

Why do you Obama supporters keep trying to refer to this bill as something Obama wanted?

Chas.

Mr. Cotton, I know what you say about the National Parks thing is true, but do you have an accurate accounting of the firearms legislation that Mitt Romney signed as Governor of Mass.? I keep hearing so many things about it, that I'm not sure which side to believe on it. I figure if anyone had the straight scoop, it would be you (or maybe TAM).

No I don't. As I said, Romney isn't even my 3rd choice, but he's much better than Obama. He also knows he needs the support of gun owners to get reelected for a 2nd term, something he didn't need to be elected or reelected as Gov. of Mass.

Chas.

So he was for it before he was against it? As John Kerry would say...

Heartland Patriot, I lived in the Socialist Republic of Taxechusetts for two years while attending grad school, enduring Romney's firearms legislation (he signed and fervently supported the AWB passed under his watch). In it, you cannot physically possess a firearm without a license. Not on your person, not in your vehicle, not in your home, not even driving through the state if you end up stopping for gas on your way through. When you do have a license, they ask you to register each weapon on a Form 10 (although it is debatable for firearms already under your ownership before entering the state). Oh, by the way, the license is issued at the pleasure of local law enforcement, so I, a combat infantryman who served 38 months in combat carrying loaded firearms, was given a restriction that I wasn't allowed to carry a firearm (as were 99% of all applicants in that city) on my License to Carry a Firearm. In Massachusetts, you are not allowed to have those evil magazines which hold more than 10 rounds, those evil flash suppressors, those evil threaded barrels, those evil adjustable stocks, those evil bayonet lugs, those evil spring assisted knives, and the list goes on. In Massachusetts, you cannot posses more than 10,000 rounds of centerfire ammunition, 10,000 rounds of rimfire, and 1000 shotgun shells, period! In Massachusetts, you must transport all weapons under two levels of security (lock on weapon, plus lock on container), and have to have the ammunition locked in its own separate container in a separate part of the vehicle. Oh, that goes for storage in your residence as well!!!! In Massachusetts, ladies (or men for that matter) aren't even allowed to possess pepper or OC spray without that License to Carry a Firearm... which oh, by the way entailed a 6 - 9 month process, plus a 6 month residency requirement), and over $200 on government fees (taxes). If all of this isn't in direct contradiction to the 2nd Amendment, then I don't know what is. I cannot vote for somebody who supported this, much less lobbied for it... which Romney did... quite energetically, because that person clearly doesn't give a rat's patoot about the Constitution he's being asked to uphold.

That should be reason enough for every member of this forum to demand Ron Paul be the Republican nominee, but alas, many of you will support whoever has the (R) behind their name, and the the Main Stream Media tells you is the "best". When faced with that level of indoctrination, I doubt I can reason with them, much less convince them to make the principled and Constitutionally sound choice.

Someone said it quite eloquently when they mention it was the Republican's election to lose, and they seem determined to do so. Heck, even if Romney wins the general election, it would still be a major defeat for freedom, liberty, and the Constitution.

Sad, really, that the Constitution I love, defended, and bled for is so passively dismissed by both our elected officials and the masses.

[speedsix]

" As Governor, Romney signed a law to ban 2A Militia guns. As President, signed a law that finally lets me carry in National Parks. I plan to vote on results, not cheap talk and posturing." Could you explain this, please?

I'll try.

1.

Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts when the Federal ban on various homeland defense rifles expired. He supported a state law to keep them banned. Channeling the spirit of Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage, Romney made this statement at the bill signing ceremony.
"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."

As a candidate for ther Republican nomination, Mitt Romney told Tim Russert on NBC that he supports a ban on the militia weapons protected by the Second Amendment, to "keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street" [sic]




2.

U.S. Citizens used to be prohibited from having a firearm in U.S. National Parks.

Two years ago, Obama signed a bill that removed that restriction. Now the parks are the same as the surrounding state.

David Barna, chief of public affairs for the National Park Service, said the laws are now the same inside and outside of the park gates.

"The law doesn't change when you enter a park," Barna said. "What you see in the parks shouldn't be any different than what you see outside the park."

3.

Talk is cheap. If we can't have a President who talks the talk and walks the walk, I would rather have a President who talks anti-gun and votes pro-gun than one who talks a good game but then votes anti-gun when it matters.

...thanks...(OBUMMER), as President, signed a bill...not Romney...(as to his NPS chief of public affairs' statement...if it carried any weight, we'd be able to carry in the restrooms and other buildings in the parks, too...big government, again, treating us like children...)
...this was not even on a good day to be construed as pro-gun...obummer's whole agenda has been anti-gun...

...I'm sure Romney didn't say this:
"As a candidate for ther Republican nomination, Mitt Romney told Tim Russert on NBC that he supports a ban on the militia weapons protected by the Second Amendment, to "keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street" [sic]"

...that is a spin on what he DID say...only a fool or someone wanting to paint him in a bad light would choose those words...I'll be looking to see if I can find his actual quote...


...here's the actual text of that part of the interview...

RUSSERT: Let me turn to gun control. Here's the headline: "Romney retreats on gun control. Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics. In his '94" Senate race, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rife Association and other" guns rights "groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons. 'That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA,' Romney told the Boston Herald.'" "At another campaign stop" "he told reporters, 'I don't line up with the NRA.'" Suddenly Romney decides to run for president and signs up for a lifetime membership in the NRA.

ROMNEY: You know, it's, it's wonderful, and you'll appreciate this. There is a great effort on the part of, in some cases, my opposition, in some cases, just folks that are interested in writing an interesting article to, to try and find any change at all. And my position on guns is the same position I've had for a long, long time. And, and that position is that I don't line up 100 percent with the NRA. I don't see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue. I...

RUSSERT: You're still for the Brady Bill?

ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I...

RUSSERT: You're for it?

ROMNEY: I assigned--and I--let me, let me describe it.

RUSSERT: But you're still for it.

ROMNEY: Let's describe what it is. I signed--I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that's something I would consider signing. There's nothing of that nature that's being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality...

RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn't act on it, you would support?

EY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I'd love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms...






Read more at the American Presidency Project: Mitt Romney: Interview with Tim Russert on NBC News' "Meet the Press" http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index ... z1v787dIgD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


...for a fuller picture of Romney on 2A, one could look here: http://aboutmittromney.com/gun_rights.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...I wouldn't give obummer 2A credit for signing a bill on a totally different subject that the parks carry item was tagged onto: The national park gun law change was included in an amendment to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009, authored by Senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and signed into law by President Obama on May 22, 2009. I wonder if he even READ the bill...much less "supported" it...

...Messachussetts has been radically restrictive and anti-gun long before Romney...can't blame it on him...

...it greatly disturbs the old grey hairs on the back of my neck to read that someone would rather have 4 more years of obummer rather than ANYONE else...pick the worst politician you can name(other than the incumbent president) and I'd vote for him to unseat obummer....hoping that a massive voter turnout and upset would be a warning blast to the rest of the political arena...letting them know we were still alive out here and they would have to account to us...

[gdanaher]

I've read every word of this thread, and at this point y'all about have me convinced that I need to vote for Obama because it could actually be worse for 2A rights under Romney. It hardly matters anyway because Texas is a very red state, and Romney will get the electoral votes anyway, but I see a lot of ammunition here that Democrats could use to stink up Romney.

[Hoosier Daddy]

I've read every word of this thread, and at this point y'all about have me convinced that I need to vote for Obama because it could actually be worse for 2A rights under Romney. It hardly matters anyway because Texas is a very red state, and Romney will get the electoral votes anyway, but I see a lot of ammunition here that Democrats could use to stink up Romney.

The sad thing is all this could have been avoided by the Republicans nominating a fiscal conservative without a history supporting gun control and socialist medicine. It's enough to make someone wonder if there's a fifth column inside the Republican party making sure they don't nominate a conservative who is a clear alternative to Obama. I haven't decided who I will vote for in November, but it won't be Obama or Romney. It also won't be a Texas vote so the fifth columnists can save their breath.

[terryg]

... if you truly believe that Romney = Obama as far as 2A goes ... and if you can think of no other policy, plank or reason that may separate the two

i urge you ... i beg you ... to consider these three words:

Supreme Court Justices

Because whatever laws the newly elected president will shape and/or sign, whatever executive orders they might pen, whatever backroom deals they may cook up; none of it ... NONE OF IT ... will have the long reaching impact as the Justices that they will appoint. None of it will carry the irreversible weight for decades to come that the makeup of the Supreme Court will carry.

That is the bottom line ... and that is the reason that a vote for Ron Paul equals a vote against our 2A rights.

[gemini]

I've read every word of this thread, and at this point y'all about have me convinced that I need to vote for Obama because it could actually be worse for 2A rights under Romney. It hardly matters anyway because Texas is a very red state, and Romney will get the electoral votes anyway, but I see a lot of ammunition here that Democrats could use to stink up Romney.

The sad thing is all this could have been avoided by the Republicans nominating a fiscal conservative without a history supporting gun control and socialist medicine. It's enough to make someone wonder if there's a fifth column inside the Republican party making sure they don't nominate a conservative who is a clear alternative to Obama. I haven't decided who I will vote for in November, but it won't be Obama or Romney. It also won't be a Texas vote so the fifth columnists can save their breath.

I agree, it is sad..........
I will STILL vote Ron Paul in the primary. I will vote Mitt Robamaney in Nov. I will not vote 3rd party or "protest vote".
Will I be even a bit happy about it? No. Will I feel sick at my stomach? Yes. But, can I bear to stomach 4 more years of
Barack Hussein? No. If Reps control the house, and maybe gain some power in the senate, MAYBE they will be able to advise
Robamaney and guide him with a more conservative influence than they could ever influence Barack Hussein. I'm looking for
a glimmer of hope....... a slight chance that Robamaney won't make matters worse (if that's possible).
The Republican party is caught up in the "good old boy graduation system". Mitt didn't get it last time, so we'll reward him
this time. Instead of looking for new blood, Tea Party Conservative blood, not just lip service smaller government blood,
nothing will change. Nothing will change without term limits, nothing will change until politicians (both parties) decide to
do what's truly best for our country within the constraints of the constitution. Instead we have folks worrying about keeping
their jobs, giving themselves cost of living raises, excluding themselves from Social Security, excluding themselves from
sexual harrassment laws that apply to the peons, golden retirement and health packages etc etc etc. Professional Politicians.
Professional liars, snake oil salesmen and consumers of the public dole. Same old same old year in year out.
The last few weeks I have received numerous letters from the Republican Party asking for donations. Not going to happen.
Until there is a change in the guard.... my pocket book is closed. They don't seem to pay attention to Tea Party members.
They don't get that folks are fed up with the "norm". My lack of donations certainly won't break the bank.... but it is something
I can actually control. Voting for Mitt Robamaney is like taking a big dose of Cod Liver Oil..... hold your nose and swallow.
Come on, we're big boys, take your medicine, like it or not; because the sickness of another 4 years of Barack Hussein
might kill us all (financially anyway).

[smoothoperator]

I seriously doubt that you believe there is no difference between Romney and Obama, and certainly not on Second Amendment issues.

Far from it. As Governor, Romney signed a law to ban 2A Militia guns. As President, Obama signed a law that finally lets me carry in National Parks. I plan to vote on results, not cheap talk and posturing.

Do you really not know about the bill he signed with the National Parks language, or are you posturing? Surely you know the National Parks language was a rider to his vaunted credit card bill and that he tried to get the National Parks language stripped. Failing in that attempt, he signed the bill because he made it a major issue. Touting his signature on a credit card bill and implying that Obama wanted to expand Second Amendment rights is laughable.

Are you saying you're going to vote for Obama?

Chas.

LOL, NO! I'm going to vote for a pro-gun candidate, not someone whose record is merely less anti-gun than Romney.

I know some of the Romneylans will say a pro-gun vote is a vote for Obama but I hope most members of this forum are smart enough not to fall for their Orwellian "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength." nonsense.

[speedsix]

I've read every word of this thread, and at this point y'all about have me convinced that I need to vote for Obama because it could actually be worse for 2A rights under Romney. It hardly matters anyway because Texas is a very red state, and Romney will get the electoral votes anyway, but I see a lot of ammunition here that Democrats could use to stink up Romney.

The sad thing is all this could have been avoided by the Republicans nominating a fiscal conservative without a history supporting gun control and socialist medicine. It's enough to make someone wonder if there's a fifth column inside the Republican party making sure they don't nominate a conservative who is a clear alternative to Obama. I haven't decided who I will vote for in November, but it won't be Obama or Romney. It also won't be a Texas vote so the fifth columnists can save their breath.

...beg to differ...if you DON'T vote for Romney(sorry as he may be), you HAVE voted for obummer...simple fact...a baby step in the right direction is better than continuing in the wrong direction...

[Slowplay]

The folks claiming or implying an Obama 2nd term would better for the 2A than Romney (being elected) are either misinformed or being intellectually dishonest...or they are trolls/trojans trying to persuade forum members to think in a way that will help get their guy, Obama, re-elected. Unfortunately, libs are nothing if not persistent at working to advance their ideology/agenda.

[smoothoperator]

...beg to differ...if you DON'T vote for Romney(sorry as he may be), you HAVE voted for obummer...simple fact...

"War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength." - George Orwell, 1984