Replies

This is a rehash of previous anti-Romney verbiage. Nothing new here.

For those who are still having hissy fits over this, answer two questions for me: Since when is a military weapon (other than collector’s pieces) needed for home or recreational use? And, a. do you really want 4 more years of Obama?; b. if not, there is only one other realistic choice: Romney. These are the facts. Deal with it.

You are wrong in so many ways. Obama won't take our weapons away. He doesn't have the raw power to do it.

Romney would try to take our firearms away, but he doesn't have the raw power to do it either.

NO LIBERALS. Not Romney. Not Obama.

Talk to the GOP E if you are unhappy with their dirty tricks, badmouthing conservatives, and mid-game rule changes if you have a problem with that.

But you can't scare me into voting for Romney.

/johnny

“Since when is a military weapon (other than collector’s pieces) needed for home or recreational use?”

Let me spell this out for you: No government conceived by man, including and especially ours, should ever have a monopoly on deadly force, because that is the most certain route to autocracy. Any candidate who supports the suppression of the right to bear arms is unworthy to hold the office of dogcatcher’s assistant, whether he be Republican or Democrat.

Since when is a military weapon (other than collector’s pieces) needed for home or recreational use?

Ouch. Please don't go there. The right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct on this forum, as it should be and it pains me to concede that when it comes to this right, Obama actually has a better record of upholding it that Romney does. Reason #2,695 why the vote I intend to cast for Mitt Romney in November will be a painful one.

Though, honestly, I'm not too worried that anyone is going to take my guns away. It is a dead issue and politicians on both sides of the aisle have figured out that it just isn't worth the political capitol that banning guns expends.

since when is a military weapon (other than collector’s pieces) needed for home or recreational use?.

1. Most "recreational weapons" are derived from military weapons. 1911 was an officer's gun. Glock started for Austrian Defense. Mossberg shotguns are used by Marines. The .30-06 Hunting Rifle is a military round.

2. It's not the Bill of Needs, but the Bill of Rights.

3. Governments that do not trust me with "military weapons" are not trustworthy enough to hold power.

In answer to your question a. The guns in question are not military weapons. They are semi automatic firearms. Secondly, you are quite arrogant to even assume to be able to make the suggestion that you know better than I what I need for my home defense. Third, the 2nd Amendment is about more than just self defense. It’s about defense of one’s person, home, and NATION. Lastly, if the Government feels there is a need for a particular small arm type, then we would behoove ourselves to follow suit. If the Government thinks we shouldn’t have a particular type of firearm, then what in the hell are they doing with it themselves? THEY have less need of any particular firearm type than the American citizen.

As for your other comments...

Romney is not a choice. I will not vote for that leftist piece of toilet paper. He’s shown himself to be no better than Obama or any other socialist idiot. I will no longer participate in electing the “lesser” of two evils. If a candidate does not meet my standards, he’s not getting my vote. Romney falls very short of my standards.

I hate to say it but Obama deserves to win if Romney is the GOP’s best option.

Romney is going to lose for several critical reasons. 1. He’s no different than Obama. 2. His whole campaign is basically “I’m not Obama”. 3. He hasn’t energized the base AT ALL. 4. He’s a lying leftist scum bag.

THOSE are the facts. DEAL WITH IT.

Now, stop bothering us and go pander for Romney where he’ll be appreciated... DU.

For those who are still having hissy fits over this, answer two questions for me: Since when is a military weapon (other than collector’s pieces) needed for home or recreational use? And, a. do you really want 4 more years of Obama?; b. if not, there is only one other realistic choice: Romney. These are the facts. Deal with it.

And with one simple post you've outed yourself as someone who has no understanding of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment nor of the amendment itself.

1. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?
2. The 2nd Amendment wasn't for personal protection per se. It's real purpose was for the citizenry to always have the means to control and overthrow, if necessary, an out-of-control government. In essence, to keep the Government fearful of it's owners, the people.