[HTML1]
Mitt Romney? Are you friggin’ kidding me? While the conservative pundits tsk tsk over Romneycare, let’s not forget that this is the same EXPLETIVE DELETED who signed an “assault weapons” ban in Massachusetts. A politician who did nothing whatsoever to ease draconian ownership and storage and transportation restrictions on firearms—including but not limited to a high cap mag ban and the infamous “Massachusetts trigger” (which reduces accuracy by 845%). Michele “Tea Party” Bachman’s “issues” page doesn’t even mention gun control or the Second Amendment. The best way to ID a “real” conservative: check their trigger discipline. And then ask them for a straight yes/no on constitutional carry. Done.
I’m a constitutionalist, and Ron Paul, for all his flaws (elements of social conservatism, et al), is by far the best candidate.
From the perspective of a single-issue Second Amendment voter, he’s great as well:
“The only 2008 presidential candidate to earn Gun Owners of America’s A+ rating, Paul has been a lead sponsor of legislation in Congress attempting to maintain individual Second Amendment rights.[158] He has also fought for the right of pilots to be armed.
In the first chapter of his book, Freedom Under Siege, Paul argued that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow self-defense. When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own machine guns, Paul responded, “Whether it’s an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant.”[159] Paul believes that a weapons ban at the federal or state level does not work either. “Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer.”[160] Rather, he sees school shootings, plane hijackings, and other such events as a result of prohibitions on self-defense.”
I’m sick and tired of being told that I have to support GOP candidates who are fundamentally hostile to the Second Amendment. That having been said, Ron Paul’s simply unelectable in the general election. The field is pretty bad for gunnies.
Scenarion:
1) Mitt Romney is nominated and wins the presidency.
2) Constitutionalists/true republicans/freedom-loving people everywhere prepare to commit suicide.
3) Romney collapses in tears at his victory ceremony, vowing to adhere to staunch constitutionalism.
4) A libertarian president is born.
Greatest midfuck of all time. Lol.
Ron Paul is a mixed bag – he makes a lot of sense on some things, but on others (his opinion on the fate of Bin Laden and his opposition to using the military in other parts of the world) is just incredibly naive.
I don’t know where Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann stand on the 2nd, but I want to find out. Sadly, Mitch Daniels and Paul Ryan have both said they won’t run. Increasingly, it looks like we’re left with a field of RINOs. I hate that.
Romney is a disaster, not just because of his position on guns and healthcare, but the guy can’t make up his mind on ANY issue. He flips more than Bill Clinton!
Gingrich is a policy wonk with foot-in-mouth disease. Tim Pawlenty allowed Sharia law in his state when he was Governor.
I gotta say, as far as guns go, Sarah’s lookin’ better and better…
I actually support Paul’s strictly non-interventionist military policy – maintain a highly sophisticated, modular, and powerful military with an edge, but use it solely for national defense. Sounds great to me.
Additionally, Ron Paul is far from unelectable – that fallacy has been perpetuated since 2009. His chances aren’t great, of course, and nobody’s arguing with that assertion, but he’s definitely got a chance. Palin’s a quasi-neoconservative compromiser.
Let’s face it. Candidates are chosen on elect ability not their real positions. It’s all marketing. For example, our current POTUS was elected by the emotional reaction by the electorate to two words, that the campaign never really defined, Hope and Change. (JMHO)
We have to hold whoever emerges as the top candidates, feet to the collective fire. We must demand real answers to the hard questions from our candidates. Me must engage with the process, and resist the temptation to allow frustration to dissuade us.
I agree with Brad K0zak, Romney has preformed more flips than an entire troop of pre-pubescent Chinese acrobats……. (again, JMHO)
On an unrelated note, what about the United States military’s new handgun replacement competition? I haven’t seen anything on that since it was announced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Handgun_System
Robert – you guys should write an entry about that, with suggestions/discussion on suggestions. That would be awesome.
Back to the topic, Mitch Daniels looked too slippery – a professional politician, and we’ve had enough of those.
“Mit” Romney?!! He’s a game show host.
I’d sooner vote for “Wink” Martindale or “Monty” Hall.
Our next President will be the current President, and that’s that. What the real libertarians and conservatives need to do is concentrate on holding the House (they will) and taking the Senate (they might). An emasculated, lame duck Obama will not be able to do much harm, which I think is the best we can hope for. And frankly, I trust Obama more than that quisling named Romney. Well, okay, that’s damning Obama with faint praise, but you get my point.
I believe you are correct Ralph. It’s almost like it’s planned for O to win another go-around. Might as well let McCain run again for all the good any of the current potential GOP candidates will do.
Romney is Obama-light anyway. Nothing to be gained and a lot of unknown potential damage from this fake Republican.
And he just looks like a sleaze bag. Same as Obama. Oozes condescension from every pore.
“Oozes condescension from every pore.”
+1
I’m still trying to figure out how fine a line there is between crazy and ignorant and Bachmann is my test subject.
If she walked into my living room right now, stuck my own gun in my face and told to vote for her or else, I’d kiss my wife and kids goodbye.