TexasCHLforum.com

lbuehler325 wrote: How sad is it that this is the guy you all (well, many of you) expect to protect our 2nd Amendment rights?

And just how many pro 2A justices will the current POTUS appoint?

Heartland Patriot wrote:That governor of theirs is crazier than I thought he was. TAM, do you think we could get a letter campaign together, and target Illinois gun manufacturers (and Governor Perry, so he could get things working down here) to get 'em to move to Texas? Seems like we'd be getting some GREAT help from the Governor of Illinois!

While they are at it with Springfield, they should consider getting Ruger out of NYC, S&W and Walther (America) out of Massachusetts, and Colt out of Connecticut. The list goes on.

G26ster wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote: How sad is it that this is the guy you all (well, many of you) expect to protect our 2nd Amendment rights?

And just how many pro 2A justices will the current POTUS appoint?

An equal number as Mittens (if elected... and he won't be elected) would appoint: ZERO. Mitt Romney is no friend of the Second Amendment... or the free market... or balanced budgets... or individual liberty guaranteed in the Bill of Rights... or Constitutionally declared war... or Habeus Corpus... or ...

lbuehler325 wrote:

G26ster wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote: How sad is it that this is the guy you all (well, many of you) expect to protect our 2nd Amendment rights?

And just how many pro 2A justices will the current POTUS appoint?

An equal number as Mittens (if elected... and he won't be elected) would appoint: ZERO. Mitt Romney is no friend of the Second Amendment... or the free market... or balanced budgets... or individual liberty guaranteed in the Bill of Rights... or Constitutionally declared war... or Habeus Corpus... or ...

But he's not as bad as Obama, and those are our choices this election. As I've said here I can't even remember how many times, if you don't like choosing between the lesser of two evils, contact your elected representative and push for a ranked voting system.

lbuehler325 wrote:

G26ster wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote: How sad is it that this is the guy you all (well, many of you) expect to protect our 2nd Amendment rights?

And just how many pro 2A justices will the current POTUS appoint?

An equal number as Mittens (if elected... and he won't be elected) would appoint: ZERO. Mitt Romney is no friend of the Second Amendment... or the free market... or balanced budgets... or individual liberty guaranteed in the Bill of Rights... or Constitutionally declared war... or Habeus Corpus... or ...

Of course, you are playing the negatives game here...is Mitt Romney a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian like YOUR (obvious) guy, Ron Paul (tell me I got that wrong)? Of course not...but he's not a leftist, steeped in cultural Marxism the way the Community-Organizer-in-Chief is, either...he is what he is...a business-minded Republican who will need a strong Republican House and Senate to work with to get this nation moving again...but he WILL work with them if they are there...unlike the Occupier currently in the office. So, don't go playing like the two men are the same, not by ANY stretch of the imagination. THEY AREN'T.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:

G26ster wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote: How sad is it that this is the guy you all (well, many of you) expect to protect our 2nd Amendment rights?

And just how many pro 2A justices will the current POTUS appoint?

An equal number as Mittens (if elected... and he won't be elected) would appoint: ZERO. Mitt Romney is no friend of the Second Amendment... or the free market... or balanced budgets... or individual liberty guaranteed in the Bill of Rights... or Constitutionally declared war... or Habeus Corpus... or ...

Of course, you are playing the negatives game here...is Mitt Romney a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian like YOUR (obvious) guy, Ron Paul (tell me I got that wrong)? Of course not...but he's not a leftist, steeped in cultural Marxism the way the Community-Organizer-in-Chief is, either...he is what he is...a business-minded Republican who will need a strong Republican House and Senate to work with to get this nation moving again...but he WILL work with them if they are there...unlike the Occupier currently in the office. So, don't go playing like the two men are the same, not by ANY stretch of the imagination. THEY AREN'T.

You are absolutely right... in that my preferred candidate is Ron Paul, and I strongly reside in the libertarian philosophy region of the political map. Ron Paul was my first choice. Gary Johnson was my second. Rick Perry was a distant third (only for his support of the 2A and 10A). The rest of the group were/are unacceptable to me. I am a single issue voter, and that issue is the Constitution. Go ahead and support the lesser of two evils, and you will only get more mediocre (evil) candidates in elections to come.

I was accentuating the negatives. Can you give me any positives for dear Mitt (and he's not Obama doesn't count)?

P.S. A businessman who believes in corporate welfare and Keynesian philosophy is not a believer or supporter of the free market. A lot of successful businesses are extremely dependent on government (hence an entire industry of corporate lobbyists); this does not imply capitalism.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:

G26ster wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote: So, don't go playing like the two men are the same, not by ANY stretch of the imagination. THEY AREN'T.

They aren't the same. They are two distinctly different people with surprisingly similar positions.

Indefinite detention. Check.
TARP. Check.
NDAA. Check.
Targeting US Citizens for assassination. Check.
Pro Choice. Check.
Pro-National Debt. Check.
Pro-Corporate bailouts. Check.
Anti Second Amendment. Obama has had a lot of anti-2A rhetoric and little progress. Romney has had mixed rhetoric, but was very successful in imposing the his 2004 anti-2A gun control law at the MA state level.
Pro-Foreign Aid to to unfriendly nations. Check.
Pro-Tying Israel's hands with their own foreign and internal security policy. Check.
Pro-Expanded Central Government. Check.

But, this is off topic. So, here's the quick skinny. If Illinois were to pass a ban, it would likely stand, based on precedent already set in IL, as well as similar laws in CA, NJ, MA, MD, and CT. Sad but true.

lbuehler325 wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:

G26ster wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote: So, don't go playing like the two men are the same, not by ANY stretch of the imagination. THEY AREN'T.

They aren't the same. They are two distinctly different people with surprisingly similar positions.

Indefinite detention. Check.
TARP. Check.
NDAA. Check.
Targeting US Citizens for assassination. Check.
Pro Choice. Check.
Pro-National Debt. Check.
Pro-Corporate bailouts. Check.
Anti Second Amendment. Obama has had a lot of anti-2A rhetoric and little progress. Romney has had mixed rhetoric, but was very successful in imposing the his 2004 anti-2A gun control law at the MA state level.
Pro-Foreign Aid to to unfriendly nations. Check.
Pro-Tying Israel's hands with their own foreign and internal security policy. Check.
Pro-Expanded Central Government. Check.

The chances of Ron Paul winning the Presidency reside somewhere between slim and none...and much, much closer to the none side, it is simply the way things are. It seems you love the guy, many Paulistas do. However, YOUR list that I quoted above is nothing more than rhetoric. Its like a "Dirty Harry" Reid list...throw out the accusations without support and say that the accused has to defend themselves against it...to highlight why it seems that way, I'll say this: I read an analysis on the gun laws bill that Mitt Romney signed while Governor of Massachusetts. The bill was going through WITH OR WITHOUT him, it was only a matter of the exact language contained within the bill that became law that would be the difference...they had enough votes in the overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled legislature to over-ride any veto. What he did, by signing it, was to get CONCESSIONS from the hard-core leftists running that state, concessions that EASED the restrictions that would have been MUCH worse had it been vetoed and then passed with an over-ride. I don't claim to be an expert on the gun laws in Mass...maybe you are, if so, I'll defer to you if you know their code that well and can quote it. But it seems you are coming on here with an attitude of all-or-none political scorched earth...well, YOU play that game, fine. I'd rather see President Romney in office, things start getting better and be able to breath a little easier for a change. I'll take four or eight years of any Republican in office, backed by a solid majority Republican House and Senate, doing their best to keep things running and hopefully paring back some of the excess...I'll take that any day over the chaos that a systemic collapse would cause and that I feel will happen EVENTUALLY if this current administration is given the chance to keep going like they have been. I'm guessing you'll have some snappy comeback to this, that's fine. I'm not changing your mind and you aren't changing mine.

A Romney/Ryan win = NObama, 2012. And that IS what I care about.

The chances of Ron Paul winning the Presidency reside somewhere between slim and none...and much, much closer to the none side, it is simply the way things are. It seems you love the guy, many Paulistas do. However, YOUR list that I quoted above is nothing more than rhetoric. Its like a "Dirty Harry" Reid list...throw out the accusations without support and say that the accused has to defend themselves against it...to highlight why it seems that way, I'll say this: I read an analysis on the gun laws bill that Mitt Romney signed while Governor of Massachusetts. The bill was going through WITH OR WITHOUT him, it was only a matter of the exact language contained within the bill that became law that would be the difference...they had enough votes in the overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled legislature to over-ride any veto. What he did, by signing it, was to get CONCESSIONS from the hard-core leftists running that state, concessions that EASED the restrictions that would have been MUCH worse had it been vetoed and then passed with an over-ride. I don't claim to be an expert on the gun laws in Mass...maybe you are, if so, I'll defer to you if you know their code that well and can quote it. But it seems you are coming on here with an attitude of all-or-none political scorched earth...well, YOU play that game, fine. I'd rather see President Romney in office, things start getting better and be able to breath a little easier for a change. I'll take four or eight years of any Republican in office, backed by a solid majority Republican House and Senate, doing their best to keep things running and hopefully paring back some of the excess...I'll take that any day over the chaos that a systemic collapse would cause and that I feel will happen EVENTUALLY if this current administration is given the chance to keep going like they have been. I'm guessing you'll have some snappy comeback to this, that's fine. I'm not changing your mind and you aren't changing mine.

A Romney/Ryan win = NObama, 2012. And that IS what I care about.[/quote]

I am not an expert on MA gun restrictions, but I did live under them from 2008 - 2010 as I was attending graduate school. A couple of things I experienced living in the People's Democratic Republic of Massachusetts:
-You have to register all weapons with the state... not just purchases, ALL weapons.
-You cannot bring your weapons into the state if you move there until you have a Mass License To Carry; a process which takes over $400 and 9 months (on average) to complete.
-All Clinton Ban rules remain in effect (10 rd magazine limit, evil features ban) on all new purchases.
-You cannot legally possess more than 10,000 rds of centerfire ammunition (or components for those who reload), 10,000 rds of rimfire, and 1000 shotgun shells... period.
-You may not purchase more than one firearm per calendar month.
-The License To Carry is required to possess any firearm, not just to allow you to carry one; and that whole carry part is heavily restricted by local law enforcement (so, essentially, I had a LTC with a restriction saying I was not allowed to carry).
-Firearms were to be kept under lock in the home, and separate from the ammunition (also under lock).
-If an intruder were to break in, and my wife were to justifiably shoot an intruder, but did not have her own LTC, she would be guilty of a felony possession charge (unless I, as an LTC holder was specifically supervising her use of the weapon). Of course, this is all under the assumption she could access the separately locked up (or disassembled) weapon and ammunition in time to save her life.
-I had a duty to retreat, even on my own property.
-Oh, that LTC I needed, yeah... I needed that to possess OC (pepper) spray too.
-MA has a list of approved weapons, and Kel Tek, Knights Armament, and HK aren't on their list... any of their stuff, as well as many other common models, including the Springfield XD (with a palm swell, and trigger safety... because the MA Sec State had deemed it not safe.
All of this was part of the 2004 Public Safety law Romney not only signed, but advocated.

As far as that concession is concerned. He increased the term that the License to Carry is valid: from 3 to 5 yrs. Oh, but the cost increased from $25 to $100 for the license. I'll leave you with this quote from his statewide Gun Ban campaign.
“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.”

On his 2002, gubernatorial campaign website, Romney declared his support for "the strict enforcement of gun laws" as well as "the federal assault weapons ban." The website covered all bases, noting that "Mitt also believes in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms." But the campaign left the impression that Romney appreciated Massachusetts' famously tight gun laws. "I won't chip away at them," he said. "I believe they protect us and provide for our safety." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 22258.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

"I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal," Romney told Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes during an August 2004 taping of their Fox News show. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 22258.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

I don't care what he says now as he courts us gun owners. I care about what he's done. His record... and it aint impressive.

Is Romney not a complete socialist like Obama? Maybe not (and I stress "maybe"). But if you care about your gun rights, I cannot fathom how you could possibly be excited about Romney.

Just sayin'...

This thread needs to get back onto the OP's specific subject or it will be locked.

Discussions of presidential candidates belong elsewhere.

I do agree that some of those companies should vote with their feet and move to a 'free' state. Though given how long Springfield Armory has been in operation, I'd wager all the execs have substantial roots in that local community. So pulling up stakes won't be easy by any stretch. But at least a few governors should give it a shot. Never know if one of them might make the move.

And a "Texas Edition" M1A would be awesome. Make it fire .338 Lapua because, well, everythings bigger in Texas.

lbuehler325 wrote: A businessman who believes in corporate welfare and Keynesian philosophy is not a believer or supporter of the free market. A lot of successful businesses are extremely dependent on government (hence an entire industry of corporate lobbyists); this does not imply capitalism.

Be careful not to assume that just because a business person plays within the rules they are handed, that this makes them a believer in corporate welfare.

I have no qualms about taking every advantage of every stupid rule that my government lays out, because my competitors are certainly going to play that way. But that does not mean that I wouldn't prefer for all those stupid rules to go away and that I be left to compete on the field of business with nothing more than a level playing field. My tax rates are your tax rates. My deductions are your deductions. Sarbanes Oxley? Unfair advantage to the big guy that can afford the cost of it.

And please don't say that my business should take the moral high ground. To take such a path would be suicidal for my business and detrimental to the employees that depend on me to put food in the cupboard.

I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of the voters. We (as a whole) are either willfully blind or too stupid to see the results of our collective short-sightedness and "I want it fixed NOW" attitude.