Page 6 of 8
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 7:32 pm
by smoothoperator
Charles L. Cotton wrote: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, signed a law that finally lets me carry in National Parks. I plan to vote on results, not cheap talk and posturing.
Beyond the subject of guns, RomneyCare paved the way for ObamaCare. Maybe Mitt would be good to have as a neighbor but I haven't seen anything that inspires my confidence he'll be good to have as President. If the Republicans want to win my vote, they need to nominate someone better than all the other candidates, not merely someone better in some areas than the incumbent. The election is theirs to lose and they seem determined to do exactly that.
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 7:47 pm
by matriculated
smoothoperator wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote: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, signed a law that finally lets me carry in National Parks. I plan to vote on results, not cheap talk and posturing.
Beyond the subject of guns, RomneyCare paved the way for ObamaCare. Maybe Mitt would be good to have as a neighbor but I haven't seen anything that inspires my confidence he'll be good to have as President. If the Republicans want to win my vote, they need to nominate someone better than all the other candidates, not merely someone better in some areas than the incumbent. The election is theirs to lose and they seem determined to do exactly that.
Since I've been forbidden from speaking freely under threat of banishment from these here boards (not Orwellian at all, that threat), I must rely on others to speak for me. In light of that, all I have to say to the post above is
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 7:54 pm
by speedsix
smoothoperator wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote: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, signed a law that finally lets me carry in National Parks. I plan to vote on results, not cheap talk and posturing.
Beyond the subject of guns, RomneyCare paved the way for ObamaCare. Maybe Mitt would be good to have as a neighbor but I haven't seen anything that inspires my confidence he'll be good to have as President. If the Republicans want to win my vote, they need to nominate someone better than all the other candidates, not merely someone better in some areas than the incumbent. The election is theirs to lose and they seem determined to do exactly that.
" 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?
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 8:04 pm
by Slowplay
matriculated wrote:smoothoperator wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote: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, signed a law that finally lets me carry in National Parks. I plan to vote on results, not cheap talk and posturing.
Beyond the subject of guns, RomneyCare paved the way for ObamaCare. Maybe Mitt would be good to have as a neighbor but I haven't seen anything that inspires my confidence he'll be good to have as President. If the Republicans want to win my vote, they need to nominate someone better than all the other candidates, not merely someone better in some areas than the incumbent. The election is theirs to lose and they seem determined to do exactly that.
Since I've been forbidden from speaking freely under threat of banishment from these here boards (not Orwellian at all, that threat), I must rely on others to speak for me. In light of that, all I have to say to the post above is
For you two, I'm providing a link to a website that you both may already have bookmarked... First, please read this and tell me what the Bush admininstration's intent likely was when overturning the carry ban in national parks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/0 ... 48959.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Next, identify the bill signed by Obama that allows you to carry in national parks (here's a clue - it likely made the interest rate on your credit cards higher and your credit limits lower). Then, specify who sponsored the national parks carry amendment to that bill that was eventually signed by Obama. What was Obama's intent in signing the bill with the national parks carry amendment??
If you say his intent was to permit concealed carry in national parks, I have another follow-up question that will prove you are wrong.
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 8:28 pm
by The Mad Moderate
Slowplay wrote:matriculated wrote:smoothoperator wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote: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, signed a law that finally lets me carry in National Parks. I plan to vote on results, not cheap talk and posturing.
Beyond the subject of guns, RomneyCare paved the way for ObamaCare. Maybe Mitt would be good to have as a neighbor but I haven't seen anything that inspires my confidence he'll be good to have as President. If the Republicans want to win my vote, they need to nominate someone better than all the other candidates, not merely someone better in some areas than the incumbent. The election is theirs to lose and they seem determined to do exactly that.
Since I've been forbidden from speaking freely under threat of banishment from these here boards (not Orwellian at all, that threat), I must rely on others to speak for me. In light of that, all I have to say to the post above is
For you two, I'm providing a link to a website that you both may already have bookmarked... First, please read this and tell me what the Bush admininstration's intent likely was when overturning the carry ban in national parks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/0 ... 48959.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Next, identify the bill signed by Obama that allows you to carry in national parks (here's a clue - it likely made the interest rate on your credit cards higher and your credit limits lower). Then, specify who sponsored the national parks carry amendment to that bill that was eventually signed by Obama. What was Obama's intent in signing the bill with the national parks carry amendment??
If you say his intent was to permit concealed carry in national parks, I have another follow-up question that will prove you are wrong.
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. It's pretty clear which candidate at least in actions is more pro 2a
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 8:29 pm
by smoothoperator
speedsix wrote: " 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.
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 8:56 pm
by Slowplay
The Mad Moderate wrote:Slowplay wrote:
If you say his intent was to permit concealed carry in national parks, I have another follow-up question that will prove you are wrong.
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. It's pretty clear which candidate at least in actions is more pro 2a
You are mistaken - please provide an example where a President performs an official act as president without intent. The bill was signed in spite of the amendment - why do you choose to believe otherwise? ...that's a rhetorical question...
Btw, aren't any of you Obama supporters able to identify the bill signed by Obama or the amendment sponsor? Do any of you all even know why the amendment was necessary?
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 9:09 pm
by matriculated
Wikipedia on Willard's gun ownership politics:
Romney has said "I support the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution,"[181] though in past campaigns he has described himself as a proponent of gun control, and he fully supports a ban on assault weapons.[182]
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.[182] 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."[183] 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."[184] 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."[183] Just before declaring his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination for president, Romney joined the National Rifle Association (NRA).[182][182][185] In 2005, Romney declared the 31st anniversary of the Gun Owners' Action League "Right to Bear Arms Day".[186]
Romney made several statements in his 2008 campaign regarding his proficiency with and support for firearms:
"I've hunted a number of times, of various types of small rodents."[187][citation needed]
"Shooting rabbits single shot 22 is pretty hard."[188]
"I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms. In our state . . . there are a series of laws restricting gun ownership in various ways. Over the past four years, I've worked very closely with the Gun Owners' Action League here, which is an affiliate of the NRA, and we've made some changes which I think they feel have been positive steps. And so you are going to see that, I think, hopefully, in other states as well, as they make progress, perhaps further than Massachusetts has."[183]
"So I'm a hunter and believe in Second Amendment rights, but I also believe that assault weapons are not needed in the public population."[189]
Romney later clarified that he did not 'own' a gun and said that one of his sons keeps two guns at the family vacation home in Utah.[185]
The Associated Press reported in April 2007 that Romney never sought a hunting license in any of the four states where he has resided. Romney replied by saying that he mainly hunts small game in Utah, which does not require a license.[190]
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 9:36 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
smoothoperator wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote: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, 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.
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 9:44 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
The Mad Moderate wrote: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-called 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?
If Obama is so pro-gun, why did 1) he order the DOD to crush all .223 and .308 brass; 2) instruct the BLM to take millions of acres of federal land away from hunters and sport shooters; 3) appoint two rabidly anti-Second Amendment "Justices" to the U.S. Supreme Court; 4) block importation of M1 Garands (crawfished on that one); 5) instruct his Secretary of State (Clinton) to support a UN small arms treaty, just to name a few?
Do you truly believe a second-term Obama wouldn't show his true anti-gun colors? How about his whispering to the Russian to let him get through his last election so he'll have "more flexibility" and undermine U.S. security by canceling the anti- missile program? Do you think he's not saying the same thing about gun control also? Does his statement about "Castle doctrine" laws in view of the Trayvon Martin case not give you an idea what he thinks about self-defense laws.
You need to go back to your Loaded Liberal screen name, or whatever it is.
Chas.
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 9:49 pm
by Heartland Patriot
Charles L. Cotton wrote:The Mad Moderate wrote: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).
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 9:49 pm
by matriculated
What's the end result of what each of the men did? Obama passed National Parks Carry and Willard passed an AWB. If I took the names out and asked you which one is the Republican and which is the Democrat, would you know?
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 9:51 pm
by pbwalker
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Why do you Obama supporters keep trying to refer to this bill as something Obama wanted?
Chas.
Let's be honest here...this isn't some piece of legislation draw up by congress, and happily signed by obama. Coburn did his thing and it worked out.
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.
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 9:55 pm
by matriculated
pbwalker wrote: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.
Re: Iowa, Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 10:01 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
Heartland Patriot wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:The Mad Moderate wrote: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.