TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Mad Moderate wrote:Not always about intent, if he had a problem with it I'm sure e would not have signed it with the National Parks amendment attached.

You couldn't be more wrong. He had a huge problem with it and tried to get the National Parks language stripped from the bill. He signed it because he couldn't veto the so-call credit card bill he said was critical to American consumers.

Why do you Obama supporters keep trying to refer to this bill as something Obama wanted?

Chas.

Mr. Cotton, I know what you say about the National Parks thing is true, but do you have an accurate accounting of the firearms legislation that Mitt Romney signed as Governor of Mass.? I keep hearing so many things about it, that I'm not sure which side to believe on it. I figure if anyone had the straight scoop, it would be you (or maybe TAM).

No I don't. As I said, Romney isn't even my 3rd choice, but he's much better than Obama. He also knows he needs the support of gun owners to get reelected for a 2nd term, something he didn't need to be elected or reelected as Gov. of Mass.

Chas.

Slowplay wrote:

matriculated wrote:

smoothoperator wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I seriously doubt that you believe there is no difference between Romney and Obama, and certainly not on Second Amendment issues.

Far from it. As Governor, Romney signed a law to ban 2A Militia guns. As President, signed a law that finally lets me carry in National Parks. I plan to vote on results, not cheap talk and posturing.

Beyond the subject of guns, RomneyCare paved the way for ObamaCare. Maybe Mitt would be good to have as a neighbor but I haven't seen anything that inspires my confidence he'll be good to have as President. If the Republicans want to win my vote, they need to nominate someone better than all the other candidates, not merely someone better in some areas than the incumbent. The election is theirs to lose and they seem determined to do exactly that.

Since I've been forbidden from speaking freely under threat of banishment from these here boards (not Orwellian at all, that threat), I must rely on others to speak for me. In light of that, all I have to say to the post above is

For you two, I'm providing a link to a website that you both may already have bookmarked... First, please read this and tell me what the Bush admininstration's intent likely was when overturning the carry ban in national parks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/0 ... 48959.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Next, identify the bill signed by Obama that allows you to carry in national parks (here's a clue - it likely made the interest rate on your credit cards higher and your credit limits lower). Then, specify who sponsored the national parks carry amendment to that bill that was eventually signed by Obama. What was Obama's intent in signing the bill with the national parks carry amendment??

If you say his intent was to permit concealed carry in national parks, I have another follow-up question that will prove you are wrong.

anygunanywhere wrote:

pbwalker wrote:
How does "love of God" impede on your freedom?

I see nothing wrong with the Libertarians number one priority being freedom. Freedom for you to practice your religion, freedom for me to not. But when laws are drafted / written based on someones religious beliefs, I have a huge problem with that.

Morality is great. Forced / Governed morality is not.

Morality comes from God as does all truth.

Anygunanywhere

pbwalker wrote:
Morality is great. Forced / Governed morality is not.