Romney says he'll veto any gun control
- Thread starter Sarge
- Start date
It would only affect all 10% if it closed down gun shows completely. The way the law was written, that is what would happen, so you're right if you look at it that way.
According to the proponents, it would affect far fewer than 10% of sales directly, since most sales at shows are by gun dealers who are not subject to the private sale "loophole". I don't believe them. It would shut down the shows, as noted on other threads.
Shutting down the shows is not my real problem here, either. It is the precedent of regulating private sales just like dealership sales that I do not want to see, because I believe that precedent would quickly spread from the show to the parking lot, and soon no private sales would be left unregulated. To make the regulations enforceable, we'll need licensing and registration.
I don't trust ANY politician.
McCain - who now says he gets it on Amnesty (FLIP)
My guess is we could sway (calls/emails/letters) Romney on issues we care about more than McCain. Even with 90%+ of the people saying amnesty was wrong, he fell back on the racisim theme.
Am I happy with Romney, no, I wanted Tancredo; but I can vote for him - I can't and won't vote for McCain.
McCain - who now says he gets it on Amnesty (FLIP)
My guess is we could sway (calls/emails/letters) Romney on issues we care about more than McCain. Even with 90%+ of the people saying amnesty was wrong, he fell back on the racisim theme.
Am I happy with Romney, no, I wanted Tancredo; but I can vote for him - I can't and won't vote for McCain.
A radio blurb the other day said Romney is probably right wing on most issues but had to run left to get elected in Mass. However he didn't necessarily have to pass the AWB. Romney is right but ran left, McCain IS REALLY LEFT AND JUST BARELY RUNS RIGHT.
McCain in 2006 had a 65% conservative rating which is when he decided to run for president. His 82.3% rating from the same organization is a lifetime Senate average. 65% overall now is about a failing grade and was earned by a huge drop in conservative voting. That was most likely in gun and immigration issues not to mention taxes.
Imagine what would happen with a whole legion of pornocrats supporting him in the House and Senate.
McCain in 2006 had a 65% conservative rating which is when he decided to run for president. His 82.3% rating from the same organization is a lifetime Senate average. 65% overall now is about a failing grade and was earned by a huge drop in conservative voting. That was most likely in gun and immigration issues not to mention taxes.
Imagine what would happen with a whole legion of pornocrats supporting him in the House and Senate.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Romney was the governor of a state that requires a permit for pepper sprays. Now he sees the light about guns, abortion and gays. Oh, yeah.
Why hasn't he won the nomination if he is so great - as the conservative talk show hosts keep ranting?
That's because a fair number of GOP folks look at him and see a phoney. That will be even more true in the general election.
The GOP economic elite and 'conservative' talk show ranters have decided they hate McCain. They are commiting electoral suicide if he gets the nomination and their tantrums lead to a Democratic victory.
They are in the mind set that they would have a righteous loss and true conservative principles then have a better than Democratic president. Morons, all.
Or - how about this? If McCain gets elected and isn't a true 'conservative' - whom do they attack on the radio. Their own guy? If a true conservative loses, they are golden - they can rant about Hillary and Obama. If a 'true' conservative wins - they can rant about the threat from the left to the 'true' conservative.
If a moderate republican who works with the Dems wins - they're screwed - they would have to attack the GOP (oops!).
I listened to that moron Hannity defend Rumsfeld the other day as Sean is the adminstrations lap dog. So if your goal is to defend a GOP president as your schtick - what do you do with a centrist?
The GOP is dying because they didn't come up with a 'true' conservative. Fred, the Living Mummy failed as Huckleberry from the Middle Ages did also.
Maybe, GOP - the country is more moderate than you think and the ranting about a 'true' conservative has come and gone.
Why hasn't he won the nomination if he is so great - as the conservative talk show hosts keep ranting?
That's because a fair number of GOP folks look at him and see a phoney. That will be even more true in the general election.
The GOP economic elite and 'conservative' talk show ranters have decided they hate McCain. They are commiting electoral suicide if he gets the nomination and their tantrums lead to a Democratic victory.
They are in the mind set that they would have a righteous loss and true conservative principles then have a better than Democratic president. Morons, all.
Or - how about this? If McCain gets elected and isn't a true 'conservative' - whom do they attack on the radio. Their own guy? If a true conservative loses, they are golden - they can rant about Hillary and Obama. If a 'true' conservative wins - they can rant about the threat from the left to the 'true' conservative.
If a moderate republican who works with the Dems wins - they're screwed - they would have to attack the GOP (oops!).
I listened to that moron Hannity defend Rumsfeld the other day as Sean is the adminstrations lap dog. So if your goal is to defend a GOP president as your schtick - what do you do with a centrist?
The GOP is dying because they didn't come up with a 'true' conservative. Fred, the Living Mummy failed as Huckleberry from the Middle Ages did also.
Maybe, GOP - the country is more moderate than you think and the ranting about a 'true' conservative has come and gone.
Last edited:
This sounds great (That Romney would VETO any gun control) ...
But I firmly believe from what I've seen of Romney as well as his past track record and by simply knowing people like him ... That Romney is the type that will say whatever he thinks will help him get elected.
The only one that's proven time and again that he says what he means and means what he says ... who's yes always means yes and no means no .... is Ron Paul.
And I think it's very sad that probably the best candidate I'll ever see in my lifetime is being so horribly marginalized by a media that seemingly controls our countries thoughts.
But I firmly believe from what I've seen of Romney as well as his past track record and by simply knowing people like him ... That Romney is the type that will say whatever he thinks will help him get elected.
The only one that's proven time and again that he says what he means and means what he says ... who's yes always means yes and no means no .... is Ron Paul.
And I think it's very sad that probably the best candidate I'll ever see in my lifetime is being so horribly marginalized by a media that seemingly controls our countries thoughts.
ForksLaPush
New member
Romney is a business man through and through. I think if he decided it would improve his "brand" by changing on an issue, he'd do it, and stick to the deal, because that's the way business is done. McCain portarys himself as a "leader" who knows what is best for the unwashed masses. I believe Romney.
Unregistered
Moderator
Me too. I believe he has signed an AWB in the past, and would be happy to sign one again in the future.
Read my lips! No new gun control!
Sound familiar? George H.W. Bush swore he would not raise taxes. What did he do? He raised taxes.
Bill Clinton promised a middle class tax cut. After he was elected, what did he say? "I've worked harder on this issue than I've ever worked on anything, but I just can't find a way to cut your taxes". Instead, he rose them by a whole bunch, including lifting caps on medicare payroll taxes, increasing the cap on social security payroll taxes, and increasing taxes on SS benefits.
Ya, I believe Romney would sign no more gun control laws if the congress sent them to him.
I also believe that there's a guy who's been living on the moon for eons. He survives by eating green cheese.
Sound familiar? George H.W. Bush swore he would not raise taxes. What did he do? He raised taxes.
Bill Clinton promised a middle class tax cut. After he was elected, what did he say? "I've worked harder on this issue than I've ever worked on anything, but I just can't find a way to cut your taxes". Instead, he rose them by a whole bunch, including lifting caps on medicare payroll taxes, increasing the cap on social security payroll taxes, and increasing taxes on SS benefits.
Ya, I believe Romney would sign no more gun control laws if the congress sent them to him.
I also believe that there's a guy who's been living on the moon for eons. He survives by eating green cheese.rwilson452
New member
I really believe that is what called a campaign promise.
Shooter 973
New member
Romney on gun control........
You guys all want a custom fit in an off the Rack world!!
Just look at the overall picture as a whole and then think who you want for Pres.
No one else is even saying anything about GUNS, especially on the LEFT Hand side of things. McCain is not the shooters friend in a lot of differant ways, immigration, taxes, Free Speech. He's just to far out in LEFT field for me.
Hillary- Obamma = Horse S*** ,,, McCAin = Cow S*** which will stink worse??
You guys all want a custom fit in an off the Rack world!!
Just look at the overall picture as a whole and then think who you want for Pres.No one else is even saying anything about GUNS, especially on the LEFT Hand side of things. McCain is not the shooters friend in a lot of differant ways, immigration, taxes, Free Speech. He's just to far out in LEFT field for me.
Hillary- Obamma = Horse S*** ,,, McCAin = Cow S*** which will stink worse??
Hillary- Obamma = Horse S*** ,,, McCAin = Cow S*** which will stink worse??
I agree that McCain is no friend of gun owners.
I would add to your statement above, however, as it relates to gun owners' rights:
Romney = Dog S***.
I'd also make the change to Hillary = Cat S***, because we think of Cat fights as between females. She does have the teeth of a horse, however.
Bottom line: Freedom loving gun owners ain't got nothing but S*** to vote for when it comes to their god given rights to keep and bear arms.
I agree that McCain is no friend of gun owners.
I would add to your statement above, however, as it relates to gun owners' rights:
Romney = Dog S***.
I'd also make the change to Hillary = Cat S***, because we think of Cat fights as between females. She does have the teeth of a horse, however.
Bottom line: Freedom loving gun owners ain't got nothing but S*** to vote for when it comes to their god given rights to keep and bear arms.
Ummmm ... Ron Paul has said a great deal about GUN CONTROL . And IMO it's all good.
Here's just one of his latest news articles on it and following that is a link to On The Issues with Ron Paul on Gun Control ...
-------------
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
by Ron Paul
The United Nations is holding a conference beginning this week in New York that ironically coincides with our national 4th of July holiday. It’s ironic because those attending the conference want to do away with one of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms – the right to bear arms.
The stated goal of the conference is to eliminate trading in small arms, but the real goal is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately supercedes national laws, including our own 2nd Amendment. Many UN observers believe the conference will set the stage in coming years for an international gun control treaty.
Fortunately, U.S. gun owners have responded with an avalanche of letters to the American delegation to the conference, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals. But we cannot discount the growing power of international law, whether through the UN, the World Trade Organization, or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. Gun rights advocates must understand that the forces behind globalism are hostile toward our Constitution and national sovereignty in general. Our 2nd Amendment means nothing to UN officials.
Domestically, the gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it’s a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last summer’s hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.
So it makes sense that perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad.
For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!
It’s no surprise that UN officials dislike what they view as our gun culture. After all, these are the people who placed a huge anti-gun statue on American soil at UN headquarters in New York. The statue depicts a pistol with the barrel tied into a knot, a not-too-subtle message aimed squarely at the U.S.
They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
The UN claims to serve human freedom and dignity, but gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
June 27, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
------------
Ron Paul , On the Issues about GUN CONTROL
Here's just one of his latest news articles on it and following that is a link to On The Issues with Ron Paul on Gun Control ...
-------------
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
by Ron Paul
The United Nations is holding a conference beginning this week in New York that ironically coincides with our national 4th of July holiday. It’s ironic because those attending the conference want to do away with one of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms – the right to bear arms.
The stated goal of the conference is to eliminate trading in small arms, but the real goal is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately supercedes national laws, including our own 2nd Amendment. Many UN observers believe the conference will set the stage in coming years for an international gun control treaty.
Fortunately, U.S. gun owners have responded with an avalanche of letters to the American delegation to the conference, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals. But we cannot discount the growing power of international law, whether through the UN, the World Trade Organization, or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. Gun rights advocates must understand that the forces behind globalism are hostile toward our Constitution and national sovereignty in general. Our 2nd Amendment means nothing to UN officials.
Domestically, the gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it’s a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last summer’s hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.
So it makes sense that perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad.
For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!
It’s no surprise that UN officials dislike what they view as our gun culture. After all, these are the people who placed a huge anti-gun statue on American soil at UN headquarters in New York. The statue depicts a pistol with the barrel tied into a knot, a not-too-subtle message aimed squarely at the U.S.
They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
The UN claims to serve human freedom and dignity, but gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
June 27, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
------------
Ron Paul , On the Issues about GUN CONTROL
Ron Paul can't win, Romney still has a slight chance but would have a better one if Huckabee drops out tonite which he won't do. Huckabee can't beat McCain but still thinks he can. Looks like it's going to be McCain against Hillary at least that's my opinion. I'd rather see Hillary before Obama, McCain before Hillary.