17 thoughts on “Guns and Mitt”

  1. I wonder how much that cost the Romney campaign.
    Don’t mind me, I’m still angry about Newt and Mitt, a couple of sniveling cowards who never served in the military, screaming about “killing America’s enemies” and exterminating the Taliban. Never negotiate. I suppose they think WWII was a mistake because we didn’t exterminate the Japanese and the Germans.
    Newt also applauded Andy Jackson..and the Vale of Tears?
    A distinct lack of appreciation of reality is noted.
    I have heard rumors that giving to the PAC supporting Romney is now an LDS religious requirement, or at least that’s the interpretation of one VERY disgruntled Mormon I know.
    Who remains an atheist, but I admire the work of the LDS church.

    1. “I have heard rumors that giving to the PAC supporting Romney is now an LDS religious requirement, or at least that’s the interpretation of one VERY disgruntled Mormon I know.”

      Nope, a disgruntled anything is for the most part not a good source of info.

    2. “Sniveling cowards”? Because they never served? A LOT of people haven’t ever served in the military. Should they all be banned from the presidency?
      I suppose Dick Cheney is also a coward – by those lights.
      And what was RonPaul – who was drafted; but rather than go to the Army and take a chance on combat, enlisted in the Air Force to avoid it? (RP does, btw, think that we shouldn’t have gotten involved in the European War “just to save the Jews”.)

      1. Um, yes. At the time that the US got involved in WWII, the situation of the concentration camps was not known. Even once they were known, the soldiers who liberated them were shocked, because the extent of what was being done wasn’t known to the Allies.

        So, the US involvement was not about “saving the Jews,” any more than the Civil War was about slavery. Both eventually /became/ about that, but neither started that way.

      2. Put bluntly, yes, if you did not serve in the US Military, you are not qualified to command it.
        It is the way I feel about it.
        Who put his tail on the line and took his chances.

  2. “Mitt is on our side.”

    Pro-lifers and pro-choicers both make that claim, based on Romney’s own words.

    Gun banners and now, apparently, gun owners, too.

  3. I’m NOT trying to start a fight here, but I have to ask. How is a man who has said he supports an AWB, and thinks the 2nd means hunting really ‘on our side?’

    I have come to realize he is probably intelligent enough to sidestep the issue were he to be president, but his track record of talking out both sides of his face at the same time (on this and many other issues) is really hard to construe as anything but squishy and untrustworthy.

    1. “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.”
      -Mitt Romney

    2. Indeed. As the article notes, “[d]uring the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.” So, his record is not one of defeating anti-gun legislation, because it never got to his desk.

      By the standards used in that article, Obama is “on our side,” because he hasn’t exactly been signing anti-gun legislation which hasn’t been placed on his desk, and he has signed some pro-gun bills (allowing loaded guns in national parks, and such).

      I mean, I know that Romney did “[change] the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driver’s license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3” x 4”,” and that was really /critical/ to the RKBA, but I’m still not finding his record exactly impressive. Obama did more as an executive in support of RKBA than Romney did.

      1. Flint, so true. That last sentence should make your skin crawl. It turns my stomach. But only because it’s true.

        With Romney’s own record, just on RKBA, and on government healthcare — we need not mention more, do we? — just those two issues alone… He’s a Progressive. He’s a statist. He thinks government knows better how to run your life, spend your money, feed you, entertain you, fund your retirement, tell you who to trade with…

        Why are we even talking about this guy like he could possibly be our guy?

  4. Read it twice, let it sink in, still tastes like the Kool-Aid to me. It’s hard to argue with direct quotes from the man.

  5. George, did you see him on the debate? They asked him about his stance on guns, versus his actual record…and he did one of the lamest, most debased lip sputtering subject changes I’ve ever seen a politician do.

    No politician is a friend to firearm rights. They want absolute power, and they, democrat, republican or libertarian, may lie to our faces about it, but they’re not comfortable with the thought of their constitutions being armed.

  6. The trouble is I have been stabbed in the back so many times by Republicans, it all boils down to “Can he be any worse than the commie?”

    Who watched lying lips move and guns banned by Order of Bush I.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *