Romney's stance on guns is the same as the Great Conservative himself Ronald Reagan. The NRA endorsed the Mass. bill he signed also. Sure some FReepers feel that we should each have our own tanks but believing the same position as Reagan is not liberal.
"You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known...But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay." Ronald Reagan
"Listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of assault weapons.” Letter from Ronlad Reagan
“As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary. I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed.” -- Letter to former Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI), from Ronald Reagan
Gun banner == Liberal, no escape.
Freedom and individual rights are the target of all gun banners. If they can’t trust you with guns then what can they trust you with? Your own health care? Your own money? Owning property? Choosing what car to drive? It’s all about responsibilities, individual rights and freedoms — Removing your responsibilities is the same as removing your rights, including the right to fail.
The NRA does all sorts of odd things for reasons that have a lot to do with getting the best they can from a bad Liberal situation. Does not mean we should give in to that temptation.
Being a governor of the most liberal state in the union is enough for me to say no thanks. Romney-care fits right in with removing your responsibilities. I think Romney is a fine person, did a lot of good things, Staples, the Olympics and some good in Massachusetts. But not for me. If he is the nominee, I won’t vote for him. Better to throw rocks at the real deal socialist than to try and defend the indefensible.
In Reagan’s time there was a Democrat congress, no hope. Reagan did what he could with that handicap. Democrats made simple, raise taxes, fund socialism and ban guns so you can’t do anything about it. Of course Liberals in law enforcement, police chiefs, sheriffs, state police just parrot what the Liberals in office want them to say, does not mean I should listen to them. So a bunch of Reagan’s throw away quotes mean nothing to me.
Gun ownership, it’s rooted in trust of the people — Rights, freedom and responsibilities, all inseparable. Without individual responsibilities there can be no rights, and no freedoms.
In Reagan’s time, who would have thought there would come a day, when 40+ states would allow citizens to carry concealed, given the era’s entrenched Liberal hysteria over guns. The notion that the average citizen cannot be trusted is a concept we should all reject. The need for more civics education is a concept we should all endorse. What it takes to be a citizen and what are the responsibilities that come with citizenship should be taught in every school. Sadly that is not the case, those citizenship teaching have been replaced by trite “paper or plastic” Liberal nonsense.
BTW: I don’t think tanks should be kept at home — But then who is to decide who gets to keep what? I limit my view of the Second Amendment to weapons the U.S. Army foot soldier would carry. It’s all up to the individual to be responsible for their actions, and held accountable for those actions, regardless what they drive.
Idealistic, probably so, but what’s wrong with ideals?