• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gun Owners should be scared of Romney

A

avusbluem5

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
353
Reaction score
92
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Of the two candidates we have to choose from, Romney is more likely than Obama to sign legislation infringing upon our 2nd amendment rights.

WHAT? You ask?

1. Romney has already signed into law a permanent Assault Weapons ban in Mass. In the bill signing Romney said: "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. 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."

2. Romney's "Lifetime" NRA membership was purchased in 2006. Even so, on Meet the Press in 2007, Romney said: {he} still didn't "line up 100 percent with the NRA" and that he still supported bans on "unusually lethal" guns.

3. On gun ownership and hunting: "I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." (Romney's campaign later said he'd been hunting twice, once when he was 15, and once in 2006 at a Republican fundraiser "I'm not a big-game hunter. I've made that very clear. I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will." Going hunting TWICE qualifies him as being a hunter "Pretty much all my life"? Romney is no hunter.

4. In addition to the Assault Weapons ban in Mass, Romney increased licensing fees by 400%.

5. Looking ahead... Obama has been unable to push legislation through either house, and it seems unlikely that will change in a 2nd term. It also seems highly unlikely he would spend any political capital trying to pass gun legislation, as he rarely even talks about gun control. So it is unlikely we'd see any change under an Obama 2nd term. Romney however, who has a real record of passing gun legislation, might find himself in need of a carrot to toss to senate democrats in order to get his Tax Cut passed... Romney could broker a deal by offering gun control legislation in exchange for limited Dem support of his Tax cut legislation. Think about it... Do you think Romney, one who owned a 22 cal single shot rifle as a kid, would hesitate one minute to ban those "Deadly Assault Weapons" in order to pass his Tax cut?

A Romney Presidency is the only chance to pass new Gun legislation in the next 4 years. Not to mention, a Romney victory, almost guarantees a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2016. And we know what the Clinton's think of gun control!
 
jamesrage said:
We have more than two candidates to choose from.
Both of them are just as likely to sign legislation infringing upon our 2nd amendment rights because both have a anti-2nd amendment record.
Click to expand...

No, they are not just as likely to sign legislation, because there is zero chance of gun control legislation reaching Obama's desk to sign.

Romney on the other hand could broker a deal with Dems to buy support for his Tax Cut agenda by offering up a new assault weapons ban.

I never said Obama wouldn't sigh the legislation if he had the chance, simply he will never have the chance, and what little political capital he has, he would not waste chasing gun control.
 
avusbluem5 said:
No, they are not just as likely to sign legislation, because there is zero chance of gun control legislation reaching Obama's desk to sign.

Romney on the other hand could broker a deal with Dems to buy support for his Tax Cut agenda by offering up a new assault weapons ban.

I never said Obama wouldn't sigh the legislation if he had the chance, simply he will never have the chance, and what little political capital he has, he would not waste chasing gun control.
Click to expand...


Wrong, with the current configuration of Congress and the likely one after the election, there is no possible way a bill would make it out of either the House or the Senate with gun control restrictions. You're grossly mistaken if you think otherwise. Even amongst a good portion of Democrats in the Senate, gun control measures are a show stopper.
 
Fishstyx said:
Wrong, with the current configuration of Congress and the likely one after the election, there is no possible way a bill would make it out of either the House or the Senate with gun control restrictions. You're grossly mistaken if you think otherwise. Even amongst a good portion of Democrats in the Senate, gun control measures are a show stopper.
Click to expand...

You underestimate most republican's desire to pass Romney's tax cut. Even if the Dems lose the majority in Senate, they will filibuster the tax cut, making a brokered deal necessary to get Romney's tax cut. Gun control is one of the possible carrots Romney would have. Is it a certainty? No. But, it is far more likely with Romney in the White House than Obama.

Obama Presidency = Zero chance of new gun control.

Romney Presidency = Greater than zero chance, how much greater is debatable, but it's more likely than Obama.

And when we extend outlook beyond 4 years, and the likelihood Hillary will replace Romney in 2016.... That is when I really start getting nervous, as the Republican majority in the House will likely have started to fade.
 
avusbluem5 said:
You underestimate most republican's desire to pass Romney's tax cut. Even if the Dems lose the majority in Senate, they will filibuster the tax cut, making a brokered deal necessary to get Romney's tax cut. Gun control is one of the possible carrots Romney would have. Is it a certainty? No. But, it is far more likely with Romney in the White House than Obama.

Obama Presidency = Zero chance of new gun control.

Romney Presidency = Greater than zero chance, how much greater is debatable, but it's more likely than Obama.

And when we extend outlook beyond 4 years, and the likelihood Hillary will replace Romney in 2016.... That is when I really start getting nervous, as the Republican majority in the House will likely have started to fade.
Click to expand...

Two reasons you're wrong. One, the public overwhelmingly opposes gun control at this time. More so than time in the past 50 years. Two, it would take 60 Senate votes to get this through (you can't hitchhike this onto a reconiliation bill) which is a total impossibilty regardless of the outcome in November.

So there is a zero chance that gun control could happen right now, legislatively anyway. To think otherwise is ignoring reality or at least a lack of understanging of the dynamics.
 
Fishstyx said:
Two reasons you're wrong. One, the public overwhelmingly opposes gun control at this time. More so than time in the past 50 years. Two, it would take 60 Senate votes to get this through (you can't hitchhike this onto a reconiliation bill) which is a total impossibilty regardless of the outcome in November.

So there is a zero chance that gun control could happen right now, legislatively anyway. To think otherwise is ignoring reality or at least a lack of understanging of the dynamics.
Click to expand...

Making stuff up? Latest polls I see show 57% favor a ban on semi-auto assault weapons, like the AK47. Guns

As for the Senate, if Romney brokers a deal with Dems to not filibuster his tax bill with a gun control clause, then a bill can pass with 51 votes... now who doesn't understand the dynamics of the Senate? Romney is the only candidate who could possibly broker such a deal, as Obama can't even get his appointees approved let alone pass meaningful legislation.
 
Polls based on igorance or stupidity mean nothing. The AK 47 is a fully automatic weapon and since almost none were registered with the ATF prior to May 19, 1986, and those were actually converted in the USA, that poll is idiotic. Asking people to ban stuff they have no clue about is patently worthless
 
A few things;

First, we have had an assault weapons ban in place in this country since the mid 80s. You simply can not own a full auto made after the ban, and getting one preban is extremely difficult and expensive.

Second if Romney offered restrictions as a piece of tax reform it would at least have a chance to be checked by Congress. Obama would simply wipe his a$$ with the Constitution again and do it by executive order.

And lastly you are not going to scare people in to voting for Obama again because of what you THINK might happen. Obama voters are much more likely to respond to these kinds of hypothetical threats than Romney voters are. See, Romney voters can still remember before Obama took office while Obama voters are so young or self absorbed they don't remember of care what the results would be to others as long as they get whatever tidbit they have been offered for their support.

What you are suggesting is that conservatives give the Obama administration everything in exchange for MAYBE not taking away our guns. As Conservatives we respond that it is not OK to take our guns, our choices in health care, our private control of industry, our children's financial futures or anything else. He needs to go home to Chicago where he can feel safe in a city where no one is ever shot because guns are banned.
 
Last edited:
tech30528 said:
A few things;

First, we have had an assault weapons ban in place in this country since the mid 80s. You simply can not own a full auto made after the ban, and getting one preban is extremely difficult and expensive.
Click to expand...

Did you miss that Romney banned SEMI-auto assault-style weapons?
 
What's hilarious is that the Democratic nominee for president will be more pro-2nd amendment than his Republican challenger.

How many weapons has Obama banned again?
 
avusbluem5 said:
No, they are not just as likely to sign legislation, because there is zero chance of gun control legislation reaching Obama's desk to sign.
Click to expand...

That is not true. A couple more of these mass shootings during Obama's 2nd term will practically guarantee a anti-2nd amendment bill landing on Obama's desk because Obama will not have to worry about winning another presidency and most liberal dems and republicans are elected by anti-2nd amendment libs, so there is no fear that many of them would loose their office should they vote yes for a anti-2nd amendment bill. Just like Romney, Obama has a anti-2nd amendment record.
 
OMG ROMNEY IS SOO SCARY!!!!

Let's vote for THIS guy right?

Worst_PresidentEverPoster400O.jpg


15% Real Unemployment after 5 trillion spent
 
No. That would be one more reason for me to not live in his state. He may have been able to get away with that there with a large majority on democrats, but nation wide such a decision would have the same effect it did in 1994, and Congress would not back it. They know which side their bread is buttered on. Obama, on the other hand, has no concern for public opinion, constitutional procedure or (if re-elected) anything to lose.

BTW I think that the recent uptick in shootings across the country is the beginning of a revolution. The targets have not been political yet, but what we are seeing is more people who have suffered personal looses with no support of law taking things in to their own hands. I think within the next year of two we will see more of this with the targets becoming more political and financial. It makes sense that government (on either side) would be trying to limit civilian weapon ownership, but it is too late. There are millions out there and tyranny is accelerating. Some of us have ceased to do business with the offenders (I will not hold a mortgage with a bank, have no credit cards and have pulled my business CC processing from BOA), some will likely be more aggressive and unfortunately there will be a lot of innocent (or partly innocent) people caught up in it. But hiding behind laws and corporations will not remain effective any more than terrorists hiding among civilians has been. Eventually the risk outweighs the cost very bad things will happen. Personally I plan to keep my head down and hope for the best.
 
tech30528 said:
Second if Romney offered restrictions as a piece of tax reform it would at least have a chance to be checked by Congress. Obama would simply wipe his a$$ with the Constitution again and do it by executive order.
Click to expand...

I don't pretend to be able to sway "conservatives". My comments are directed to "gun owners". If Obama could or wanted to ban semi auto assault weapons by executive order, you think he would have already done so. No, gun control apparently is not on Obama's "to do" list. Romney, however seems genuinely afraid of gun owners. He definitely believes some guns are "Unusually lethal" and require regulation. These beliefs make me nervous as a gun owner. I am not a "Conservative", nor am I a "Liberal", and other republican planks do not sway me... Abortion? Don't care. Gay marriage? Could care less. Balance budget? Don't see the republican track record being any better than Democrats.

Romney is more likely to sign gun control legislation... because, the republican congress will negotiate with Romney. They will not negotiate with Obama. That is the bottom line.
 
avusbluem5 said:
I don't pretend to be able to sway "conservatives". My comments are directed to "gun owners". If Obama could or wanted to ban semi auto assault weapons by executive order, you think he would have already done so. No, gun control apparently is not on Obama's "to do" list. Romney, however seems genuinely afraid of gun owners. He definitely believes some guns are "Unusually lethal" and require regulation. These beliefs make me nervous as a gun owner. I am not a "Conservative", nor am I a "Liberal", and other republican planks do not sway me... Abortion? Don't care. Gay marriage? Could care less. Balance budget? Don't see the republican track record being any better than Democrats.

Romney is more likely to sign gun control legislation... because, the republican congress will negotiate with Romney. They will not negotiate with Obama. That is the bottom line.
Click to expand...

I would think no such thing. He'd be a fool to do something like this in his first term, it would spell the end for him and his party. Being re-elected however removes any such risk, and doing it by executive order would release his party members, as they throw up their hands and declare they had nothing to do with it.

BTW, if Romney is of the opinion that some guns are "unusually lethal", well, he'd be right. I'm a 22 rifle target shooter. Not the most dangerous weapon out there when compared to an AK, AR or others. But unless we are to believe that Romney would be as lawless as Obama has proven himself to be then we are much better off with one man with an opinion than we are of one man with an opinion and no regard for legislative process. I don't care if Obama declares that we share a hobby, he has PROVEN that he operates on his own, and I don't trust him.
 
evan83 said:
What's hilarious is that the Democratic nominee for president will be more pro-2nd amendment than his Republican challenger.

How many weapons has Obama banned again?
Click to expand...

How many "terrorists" has Romney killed by executive order?
 
AdamT said:
Did you miss that Romney banned SEMI-auto assault-style weapons?
Click to expand...

Actually, the uber-liberal Massachusetts legislature wrote the bill, Romney signed it. So even if Romney were so inclined to promote such a deal, there is no way in hell it get through the legislature now, the new one after November and beyond.
 
Fishstyx said:
Actually, the uber-liberal Massachusetts legislature wrote the bill, Romney signed it. So even if Romney were so inclined to promote such a deal, there is no way in hell it get through the legislature now, the new one after November and beyond.
Click to expand...

Actually Romney CAMPAIGNED on banning assault weapons.

It's funny that Republicans warn everyone off of Obama because he will take our guns away ... and that's somehow feasible ... but the idea that a Republican -- who actually HAS banned guns -- might take our guns away ... is completely unfeasible and not even worth mentioning. :roll:
 
tech30528 said:
How many "terrorists" has Romney killed by executive order?
Click to expand...

I'll take a guess.... ZERO. Don't get me started on his lack of foreign policy experience, or the fact that he hid behind his religion to avoid the draft and Vietnam.

Oh, wait a tick... you think killing terrorists is a bad thing?
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Actually Romney CAMPAIGNED on banning assault weapons.

It's funny that Republicans warn everyone off of Obama because he will take our guns away ... and that's somehow feasible ... but the idea that a Republican -- who actually HAS banned guns -- might take our guns away ... is completely unfeasible and not even worth mentioning. :roll:
Click to expand...


No, I know his position during his time as MA governor and oppose it. Not sure if he still maintain that position or was just pandering to a left leaning state. Either way, I'm fine with it because it will never happen. Romney would not pursue nor sign a bill containing strict gun control measures. One, a HUGE portion of his political national base would immediately turn on him. Two, it would never get to his desk for signature anyway, so the argument is moot.
 
Fishstyx said:
Actually, the uber-liberal Massachusetts legislature wrote the bill, Romney signed it. So even if Romney were so inclined to promote such a deal, there is no way in hell it get through the legislature now, the new one after November and beyond.
Click to expand...

In order to get a Tax Cut passed? I am not so sure... I think the Lower tax republicans outnumber the pro gun republicans.
 
avusbluem5 said:
In order to get a Tax Cut passed? I am not so sure... I think the Lower tax republicans outnumber the pro gun republicans.
Click to expand...

No, it won't happen. Even with the tax cut as a sweetner. You need 60 votes in the Senate. You wouldn't get that when the Democrats had a supermajority over this issue.
 
avusbluem5 said:
Of the two candidates we have to choose from, Romney is more likely than Obama to sign legislation infringing upon our 2nd amendment rights.

WHAT? You ask?

1. Romney has already signed into law a permanent Assault Weapons ban in Mass. In the bill signing Romney said: "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. 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."

2. Romney's "Lifetime" NRA membership was purchased in 2006. Even so, on Meet the Press in 2007, Romney said: {he} still didn't "line up 100 percent with the NRA" and that he still supported bans on "unusually lethal" guns.

3. On gun ownership and hunting: "I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." (Romney's campaign later said he'd been hunting twice, once when he was 15, and once in 2006 at a Republican fundraiser "I'm not a big-game hunter. I've made that very clear. I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will." Going hunting TWICE qualifies him as being a hunter "Pretty much all my life"? Romney is no hunter.

4. In addition to the Assault Weapons ban in Mass, Romney increased licensing fees by 400%.

5. Looking ahead... Obama has been unable to push legislation through either house, and it seems unlikely that will change in a 2nd term. It also seems highly unlikely he would spend any political capital trying to pass gun legislation, as he rarely even talks about gun control. So it is unlikely we'd see any change under an Obama 2nd term. Romney however, who has a real record of passing gun legislation, might find himself in need of a carrot to toss to senate democrats in order to get his Tax Cut passed... Romney could broker a deal by offering gun control legislation in exchange for limited Dem support of his Tax cut legislation. Think about it... Do you think Romney, one who owned a 22 cal single shot rifle as a kid, would hesitate one minute to ban those "Deadly Assault Weapons" in order to pass his Tax cut?

A Romney Presidency is the only chance to pass new Gun legislation in the next 4 years. Not to mention, a Romney victory, almost guarantees a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2016. And we know what the Clinton's think of gun control!
Click to expand...

Total horse hockey-------------and thats not a game played on horses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom