Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban

[rambone]

He didn't really mean it guys. He was just pandering to his socialist base.

It was all a re-election ploy.

Deep down it was all the Democrats' fault.

He had to compromise on guns in order to get his Universal Health Care bill passed.

When he's in D.C. he'll stand tall on his principles and stop eroding our liberty.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I agree with Full-Auto...the choice is already made, much like it was in 08 when Obama was appointed (notice I didn't say elected).

It is all a show folks. Look at how many grass roots candidates have won House positions recently, and then suddenly seem to have dissapeared.

We are no longer a Representative Republic of the people by the people. We are a Totalitarian regime that is marching us farther and farther away from the Constitution, inch by inch, day by day.

Its like boiling a live frog. If you drop it in boiling water, it can and will hop out. But if you put it in room temperature water and slowly add heat, you eventually boil it to death without it knowing what happened.

 

[.45 Dave]

Mark Steyn said (I'm paraphrasing) Either we need the right guy who will do the right thing, or the wrong guy who is forced to do the right thing.

If Romney gets in there in we all need to keep constant pressure on him, through writing our Congressmen and Senators, and through organizations like the NRA to "do the right thing" which in this instance is to leave gun rights alone. I'm afraid that's the best we can hope for in this election and it is preferable to having Obama completely free from worry of re-election doing as he pleases. just my .02

 

[BumpShadow]

I bet there's a deal in place to keep any GOP member that could beat Obama out of this race. What the Government really wants is an Obama that isn't worried about re-election to run wild. Athough to be fair, Obama hasn't touched gun rights. Gunwalker was started under Bush.

 

[mrjarrell]

For all his faults, I'd still rather see Romney than Ayatollah Santorum get the nod. At least with Romney it would be a more benevolent mormon theocracy.

 

[indyjohn]

Ayatollah Santorum

Wow... You don't like him, huh?....

 

[level.eleven]

For all his faults, I'd still rather see Romney than Ayatollah Santorum get the nod. At least with Romney it would be a more benevolent mormon theocracy.

The leading faces of conservatism.

 

[Guardsman89]

Thus Obama wins again

If Obama wins again we might as well shred the Constitution, at least the 1st and 2nd amendments!

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

For all his faults, I'd still rather see Romney than Ayatollah Santorum get the nod. At least with Romney it would be a more benevolent mormon theocracy.

Really? Was it a Catholic Theocracy under Kennedy?

Has he shown ONE SINGLE SIGN of doing that? Look at his record in Massachusetts... Accuse him flip-flopping? FAIR POINT! Accuse him of being a spineless centrist. FAIR POINT! But please show me ONCE where he's inflicted his beliefs in any governmental position. I just don't see it.

Santorum could be fairly accused of that. But Romney usually gets criticized for being spineless! NOT for inflicting his morals or beliefs on others.... yeesh.

As I've said a bunch of times - I'm not a Romney fan. And I'm dang sure not a Santorum fan. But when we lower the debate to the level above, we do ourselves less than justice. There are lots of things to disagree with Romney, Santorum, heck just about any candidate on. I happen to disagree the least with Ron Paul. In my mind the Romney portion of the statement above is without basis.

 

[strahd71]

the two party system is one choice better than communism...... well in theory

jake

 

[Lucas156]

Vote Romney....possibility of assault weapons ban approval
Vote Obama....guarantee of assault weapons ban approval

I'll take my chances but Im not saying I like the options.

 

[sepe]

There is only one candidate that Id vote for and that is Ron Paul but most people just think he a nutty old man, but I think hes probably the most realistic of the bunch. Sadly looks like he isnt getting anywhere

Ron Paul is a nutty old man. He dreams up these crazy things and keeps warning about them, fast forward a few years or a decade and he is right. He has to be a lunatic because he has been preaching the same ideas for what...30 years? I'd say a man that consistent is a man that can not be trusted.

Thus Obama wins again

Hate to say it but statistical modeling showed a win in his favor for quite some time. Unless more people are paying attention that it seems, it'll happen.

 

[dross]

This is another instance of wanting politics to be something it's not.

It's likely had Romney vetoed this bill, he wouldn't be running for President right now, because he wouldn't have been reelected for governor.

Yes, I agree that it's still an unprincipled choice to vote for something so unconstitutional. He shouldn't have done it. It's one of the many reasons I couldn't be a politician. I'm too ideological, so I wouldn't last long enough to make anything happen.

What you're also saying, whether you realize it or not, is that you can't vote for anyone who comes from a left wing state. Because in order for a conservative to rise from there, he will have to have made compromises that will render him unsuitable to get your vote.

Also, since the President must be elected by the entire country, the only guy you can vote for is unelectable. Yes, this year there is Ron Paul. I know you guys have convinced yourself that he coulda would shoulda win, if only the system wasn't rigged and he wasn't cheated, and people like me didn't adopt a self defeating strategy, blah, blah, blah.

Bottom line is, Paul isn't going to get the nomination, he isn't going to be President, and he never was going to be. Because there are people out there, lots of them, they live in New York, and Boston, and Chicago, and Los Angeles, and Atlanta, and even Austin Texas, and Denver, and in much of Indianapolis who will NEVER vote for anyone who has Ron Paul's views, or even the views of a Romney, who many of them consider to be right wing. Yes, they think that all the guys you guys say are not conservative are right wing nut jobs. Check it out in the general election if you don't believe me.

Your counterparts on the left are as upset as you. They're the ones who are saying that Obama isn't really liberal, look at his record. They're the ones who killed Al Gore's chances because they wanted Ralph Nader.

You will never in your life in a country this large, no matter who runs, ever be able to vote for a guy you really support in your heart. It can't happen because your beliefs are in the minority and they likely always will be.

Tear this system down, set up one you think is ironclad for freedom, and the same thing will happen.

Our founders compromised on the issue of slavery in order to have a Republic at all. These choices between freedom and practicality have been being made since the very beginning.

Our Constitution is one huge compromise between freedom and politics. And look what it led to 70 years later. Rebellion and a country torn apart for over 100 years after. Yet without that compromise between freedom and slavery - undiluted slavery mind you, not tax slavery, but the whips and dogs kind of slavery - there would have been no Constitution for the politicians today to stain with their own compromises.

I wish a Ron Paul could get elected, I really do. Unfortunately, my fellow citizens don't want that, and they get to vote, too.

So Romney SHOULD have vetoed that bill, and lost his election. And then you'd have never heard of him in the first place, and it would be some other guy who compromised that would be the subject of this thread. And the end result would be the same as it always has been and always will be. Most people don't agree with your principles. Job one is to convince them. Until that happens, we'll never get anyone even close to a Ron Paul.

 

[rambone]

It's likely had Romney vetoed this bill, he wouldn't be running for President right now, because he wouldn't have been reelected for governor.

Romney was a one-hit wonder. He did not run for re-election.

He did everything the way Ted Kennedy would have done it and left with a 30% approval rating.

Ordinarily that wouldn't be a ticket to the White House, but he has very powerful friends in the banking community who are hungry for more bailouts.

Why Didn’t Mitt Romney Run for Reelection as Governor? | RedState

 

[Lucas156]

dross makes some strong points and has several times on these types of threads; points that I strongly disagreed with at first. Unfortunately, he is right. I can see voting for any republican candidate that they put up just to beat out Obama because I don't want Obama to get any more supreme court seats. We don't have much of an option people other than to speak out and try to get others to see things the way we do. Its not a defeatist attitude its a realist attitude.