I guess they can’t just endorse the VP
NRA endorses Romney/Ryan. Romney is about as pro-gun as Barack Obama, despite buying his life membership just prior to the last election he lost.
9 Responses to “I guess they can’t just endorse the VP”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 8th, 2012 at 7:01 am
An NRA endorsement is better than nothing but not much. I’d rather have the privilege of exercising my right to vote for someone who owned a beat up AR
October 8th, 2012 at 8:37 am
I read a Romney interview by Chris Cox in the NRA’s American Rifleman a month or so ago. It seemed decent.
October 8th, 2012 at 9:26 am
I agree. Romney sails with the political winds, though I think he tries to steer a slightly left of center course. Ryan is more a true conservative, with possible Originalist leanings, while Biden is dead-set on a new Soviet Union in America. I’m looking forward to the VP debate.
October 8th, 2012 at 9:33 am
I commented on Sebastian’s blog, “Shall Not Be Questioned”, that Romney signed the AWB in Massachusetts, and he responded that no, Romney didn’t. It was already in place, and he didn’t see fit to challenge it. I think Romney would rather have nothing to do with the 2A. I’m not sure where Ryan stands on it, but Biden is clearly seeking the complete end to the 2A, and taking all civilian guns.
October 8th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
I don’t believe that’s an accurate representation of what happened.
There was an AWB in MA before Romney took office.
But he DID sign the law that made it permanent:
http://www.iberkshires.com/story/14812/Romney-signs-off-on-permanent-assault-weapons-ban.html
So again, our choice this year is between a guy who bans guns and Barack Obama.
October 8th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Both are untrue. What actually happened is here:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html
The bill was not about making the ban permanent. Massachusetts’ ban never had any expiration. What it was about is bringing in the list of exempted guns from the federal ban, which was about to expire, into Massachusetts law so that that exceptions were preserved. The bill also eased a few other things. It was supported by GOAL.
And then the signing statement happened, apparently because he was mis-advised by one of his handlers about the bill and about the signing statement, and so you got the now infamous signing statement about:
“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.”
And the media, who never bothered to read the bill either, ran with it. GOAL was thrown under the bus because their members read the media’s account, which was entirely inaccurate, and assumed they were supporting an anti-gun bill.
So there’s plenty of reason to be unhappy that Romney didn’t care enough about the gun issue to try to understand it in the early days of his governorship, which lead to the signing statement. But the bill was not a bill to make the MA ban permanent — it was already permanent. The bill added nothing to the ban, and preserved the guns that were exempted from it by name (like the Mini-14, for example).
Mitt most definitely blows with the wind, and I don’t blame anyone for not liking him on guns. But I think it’s important we not spread the media fallacies about the bill he signed. His signing statement alone is plenty of grounds for being wary.
October 9th, 2012 at 9:29 am
So, the guns exempted in the Federal list were exempted in the Massachusetts law, Sebastian? That would be a good, if small, thing, right?
October 9th, 2012 at 11:16 am
“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.”
Did that apply to the police in Massachusetts…or only to their EMLOYERS?
I suppose that no distinction was made between full-auto and semi-auto weapons, the latter of which are precisely excellent self-defense weapons, especially when one person is attacked by multiple assailants or home invaders.
The best thing I can say for Romney is that he doesn’t seem to have core-beliefs re: the RKBA, but it seems that there is more evidence Obama is a more dedicated believer in disarming citizens.
Any politiican who wants to in any way INFRINGE on the RKBA is UNFIT for office.
October 9th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Whatever.
Even the NRA knows a neo-Marxist when it sees, hears and smells one.
After exercising Executive Privilege (hence, owning it lock, stock & barrel) to save his and his minions asses for their Fast & Furious conspiracy and crimes, I don’t think it should be too hard for any entity or inherent rights-coveting individual to surmise just where Obama stands on the RKBA.
Alpha Bravo Oscar…