Timeline for Obama and Romney on Gun Control

[Principal Skinr]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Romney's base is pro 2A. I don't care where he's been on it in the past, if it is his base, he won't go back on it. That would be like Obama reversing himself on Obamacare. Won't happen.

If you don't believe it, go ahead and vote for Obama or do something else that has basically the same effect. Besides, I can't find any politician with a spotless record, if they have a record. They don't go against the base on an issue like this. If they do, it is career suicide.

As for changing positions, remember, Reagan was once a Democrat.

 

[Bennettjh]

Would it be a safe bet to buy some lowers in case an AWB comes

 

[jon5212]

My vote is for neither of these 2 clowns. They both are in their own ways. This is what is wrecking our country, the whole paradigm of vote for the lesser of the 2 evils.

Exactly what will make our great country sink when we keep doing this.

 

[hoosiersasquatch]

While unfortunate, currently third parties only aid one of the two major parties in a presidential election Ross Perot pulled votes from Bush and help elect Clinton. That is a fact.

I think the difference between Republicans and Democrats has dramatically lessened, but with that being stated, the fact is either Romney or Obama will be your next president, if you don't favor one of them, then it is, again while unfortunate, a lesser of two evils.

 

[hoosier978]

My vote is for neither of these 2 clowns. They both are in their own ways. This is what is wrecking our country, the whole paradigm of vote for the lesser of the 2 evils.

Exactly what will make our great country sink when we keep doing this.

Exactly. Neither will probably make things worse, but they won't be fighting to make the 2nd amendment any more prominent.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

While unfortunate, currently third parties only aid one of the two major parties in a presidential election Ross Perot pulled votes from Bush and help elect Clinton. That is a [STRIKE]fact[/STRIKE] frequently repeated myth.

Fixed it for you.

Here is the info you might be ignoring:

If what you said was true, what the hell happened in 1996?

..................................1992...........................1996
Clinton....................44,909,806...................47,401,185
Republican...............39,104,550...................39,197,469
Perot......................19,743,821.....................8,085,294
Voter Turnout..............58.1%........................51.7%

Perot loses almost 12 million of his voters... Clinton gains 2.5 MILLION and Republicans gain a whopping 95 thousand?!?!!?!?!?!?!

If Perot siphoned votes from the Republicans, then Clinton must have converted a healthy chunk of them to Democrats and yard work convinced the rest to stay home on election day. "Read my lips: no new taxes" was not the doing of Ross Perot.

And what the above is missing is data from 1988. Voter turn out was 50.2%

Add crazy Ross Perot to the mix, voter turnout increases by 7.9% (13 million additional voters). Crazier Ross Perot in 1996 gets 11.7 million fewer voters and voter turnout DROPS back down to 51.7% (8.3 million fewer voters). People showed up for Ross Perot.

And let's not forget that Bush's hurdles were the economy and his "Read my lips" statements biting him on the ass...

 

[88GT]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Romney's base is pro 2A. I don't care where he's been on it in the past, if it is his base, he won't go back on it. That would be like Obama reversing himself on Obamacare. Won't happen.

If you don't believe it, go ahead and vote for Obama or do something else that has basically the same effect. Besides, I can't find any politician with a spotless record, if they have a record. They don't go against the base on an issue like this. If they do, it is career suicide.

As for changing positions, remember, Reagan was once a Democrat.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't think Romney even gives a rat's ass about firearms legislation. If he were czar and had unlimited power to restrict firearms ownership rights with impunity, I don't think he'd blink an eye to do it. His focus in on other things.

 

[Principal Skinr]

Exactly. Neither will probably make things worse, but they won't be fighting to make the 2nd amendment any more prominent.

Wow. You think Obama wouldn't make things worse for the 2A or anything else, for that matter, if he could? You'd better thank your lucky stars for a Republican House. Obama passed Obamacare before there was a Republican House. If they controlled it then, there would be no Obamacare today.

Keep kidding yourselves about the lesser of two evils theory while our country gets 4 more years of destruction from this guy.

You would have probably said that when Clinton was in office, and before the Republicans let the sun set on his assault weapons ban. Who do you think was in office when that ban expired? If Dems controlled things, it would have been renewed. You can count on that.

For every 1 new job in the last 4 years, there's been 75 additional people added to food stamps. Don't tell me there's no difference here. Obama looks at that as 75 additional votes from people who don't want food stamps cut or taken away. That IS their strategy. Look at Greece.

I'm sorry, I don't see Romney as evil, or even a lesser evil. I see him as our only REALISTIC hope against a tyrant wannabe. Gary Johnson couldn't be elected dog catcher, no matter how hard we wish for him.

 

[Principal Skinr]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't think Romney even gives a rat's ass about firearms legislation. If he were czar and had unlimited power to restrict firearms ownership rights with impunity, I don't think he'd blink an eye to do it. His focus in on other things.

I don't believe that at all. Not at all.