TexasCHLforum.com

Bring him on, he's our last chance at saving the U.S..

In the article below: "Romney has been unequivocal in his opposition to any new restrictions on gun owners, saying he believes in "safe and responsible gun ownership." His campaign website says Romney "will fight the battle on all fronts to protect and promote the Second Amendment."".

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpps/news/romne ... c_19108508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is anybody from this forum in St. Louis for the NRA convention?

I know of one guy but forgot to ask him to be an "on the scene" reporter. I'll try emailing him to see if he has anything to say about Romney's speech.

LIVE! (Almost) - From my on-the-scene reporter:

No text yet.

Says Santorum and Rick Perry supposed to speak there too, might have been worth going to hear Perry.

Transcript of Romney's speech:
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/13/tr ... -st-louis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So did Romney claim to be a gun rights supporter and that he would work tireless to support our right to keep and bear arms?

Its understandable that we might need to vote for him in November, but this is still the primary season. This is where we should vote our conscience and not rally around him just because people perceive him as the winner.

As a Texan I cannot in good conscience vote for a northern gun banning liberal who fled to France when his country was at war.

In the primary I will vote for a state and gun rights supporting Texan who actually served his country, Ron Paul.

O.F.Fascist wrote: In the primary I will vote for a state and gun rights supporting Texan who actually served his country, Ron Paul.

If you do that......you may as well just vote for Obama......it's the same thing as far as your vote is concerned.

AEA wrote:

O.F.Fascist wrote: In the primary I will vote for a state and gun rights supporting Texan who actually served his country, Ron Paul.

If you do that......you may as well just vote for Obama......it's the same thing as far as your vote is concerned.

We may not like the "system" but working within it is definitely the lesser of the evils.

What I don't like, and never will like, is using ANY phrase related to hunting while discussing the second amendment. This is fundamentally disturbing because the second amendment has _absolutely nothing_ to do with hunting.

Not even the tiniest bit.

Our founding fathers would be aghast at anybody that would think or suggest it, and this is why Romney, the Republocrat, scares me. On the other hand, King Obama scares me more. *sigh*. I understand about the whole "compromise" thing, but why can't we have a genuine candidate that really groks the 2A? I honestly don't think we've had one since Teddy Roosevelt (and I'm not even sure I can completely back that one up).

OldCannon wrote:.... second amendment has _absolutely nothing_ to do with hunting.

I kinda' agree. Our "founding fathers" went in quest of food, not "sport". Hunting is a sport.

Oldgringo wrote:

OldCannon wrote:.... second amendment has _absolutely nothing_ to do with hunting.

I kinda' agree. Our "founding fathers" went in quest of food, not "sport". Hunting is a sport.

Really? I doubt that the founding fathers would agree that hunting was a sport, not a quest for food.

Founding Father: "Honey, I went hunting, today!"
Founding Mother: "Oh? Who won?"


(I agree, however, that hunting is just one activity protected by the 2nd amendment.)

sjfcontrol wrote: (I agree, however, that hunting is just one activity protected by the 2nd amendment.)

No, in fact, hunting is _not_ protected by the 2A. Not in the least bit. Every right granted to you by the 2A does not give you a right to hunt. Think about it.

In case you think that the 2A is a necessary prerequisite, consider England's heavily regulated "deer stalking" laws. In fact, people that equivocate hunting with the second amendment make Democrats drool, because they are the linchpins to regulating the 2A into nothingness.

OldCannon wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: (I agree, however, that hunting is just one activity protected by the 2nd amendment.)

No, in fact, hunting is _not_ protected by the 2A. Not in the least bit. Every right granted to you by the 2A does not give you a right to hunt. Think about it.

In case you think that the 2A is a necessary prerequisite, consider England's heavily regulated "deer stalking" laws. In fact, people that equivocate hunting with the second amendment make Democrats drool, because they are the linchpins to regulating the 2A into nothingness.

OK -- perhaps poorly worded. Hunting is an activity that may use firearms. That better? Obviously hunting does not require firearms.
Deer Stalking??

sjfcontrol wrote:
OK -- perhaps poorly worded. Hunting is an activity that may use firearms. That better? Obviously hunting does not require firearms.
Deer Stalking??

Yup, "stalking" -- in England, Scotland, "hunting" is considered a sport that involves the use of tracking dogs (deer, fox, etc.). "Stalking" is basically you and a scoped rifle, sneaking up on a deer.

And, yeah, I _do_ understand your point, but we have to exit the mentality that hunting is associated-with/enabled-by the 2A. They're mutually exclusive.

Oldgringo wrote:

AEA wrote:

O.F.Fascist wrote: In the primary I will vote for a state and gun rights supporting Texan who actually served his country, Ron Paul.

If you do that......you may as well just vote for Obama......it's the same thing as far as your vote is concerned.

We may not like the "system" but working within it is definitely the lesser of the evils.

Gee, I didn't know Obama was running in the Republican Party primary?

I will note vote for white Obama in the primary. Perhaps y'all should read more closely.